A quick question.

celtenal

I wonder is,no matter how innocous,any criticism of islam allowed on this forum?
I ask because my previous post resulted in a two week ban and was locked within a couple of hours of being posted. However while I was banned and was forced to lurk I witnessed other posts midly criticising islam and its founder being removed within an hour after being posted.
I mean seriously are muslims really so insecure that a few lines of criticism on an internet forum can shake their religious beliefs to there very core and must be immediately deleted?
Just curious?

Tom Dunne

This really is a question for the Help Desk as it relates to an issue of moderation. However, I feel it is within my remit to leave it here as an open discussion as it concerns the very ethos of the forum itself.

First of all, I would like to address your previous thread on this very forum, titled "Lets face the facts about the vile cult of death islam". From the outset, a very provocative title. You could insert Judaism or Christianity there, post in on another forum, and it would still be considered provocative. Any moderator in any forum would react the same (for the record: I did not close it, nor did I ban you. An Admin saw your post to be sufficiently inflammatory to band you).

I'm not going to pick apart your initial post, but I do want to ask you how much you actually know about Islam, apart from what you see on Sky News or read in The Daily Star?

Have you ever been to an Muslim country?

Have you ever had a conversation with a Muslim?

Have you ever been to a mosque?

Have you ever read any books about Islam?

I want this to be an honest and frank discussion, so I ask you to stay away from hysterical, inflammatory, ill-informed remarks and stick to the point and answer my questions above.

celtenal

OK,Tom,thanks for reply and I appreciate that it was not you that banned me or indeed locked my previous post. BTW the answer to all of your questions is Yes and my feelings about Islam have not changed since any of the points I previously raised.
Of course I can not repeat them because I'd only be banned. This will probably make for a very one sided conversation as ... well you know.Kind of makes the whole thing a bit pointless I'm afraid. Wouldn't you agree?

Tom Dunne

celtenal wrote: »

OK,Tom,thanks for reply and I appreciate that it was not you that banned me or indeed locked my previous post. BTW the answer to all of your questions is Yes and my feelings about Islam have not changed since any of the points I previously raised.

Ok, so when you were in the mosque, did you speak to anyone there about Islam? If so, how did they make you feel? Were you welcomed? Or shunned as an infidel?

When you visited the Muslim country, were you welcomed or ushered out of the country? Did you mix with the locals? Did you speak with them about their culture, their country, their views, thoughts and feelings? Did you engage in cultural activities? Are you basing your views on just one singular visit to a Muslim country, or have you visited more than one Muslim country? If you visited more than one, why do you still have issues with their belief system?

In the books that you read about Islam, did any of the acts carried out in the name of Islam, draw any parallels to similar activities carried out in the name of Christianity? Do you accept that a book such as the Koran or the Bible, written over a number of centuries by many different people coming from a predominantly oral culture, may contain some factual inaccuracies?

celtenal wrote: »

Of course I can not repeat them because I'd only be banned. This will probably make for a very one sided conversation as ... well you know.Kind of makes the whole thing a bit pointless I'm afraid. Wouldn't you agree?

No, you won't get banned if you repeat them. However, if you (or any other poster for that matter) engage in hysterical, ill-informed and inflammatory comments, intended only to provoke a reaction, then you will be banned.

celtenal

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Ok, so when you were in the mosque, did you speak to anyone there about Islam? If so, how did they make you feel? Were you welcomed? Or shunned as an infidel?

When you visited the Muslim country, were you welcomed or ushered out of the country? Did you mix with the locals? Did you speak with them about their culture, their country, their views, thoughts and feelings? Did you engage in cultural activities? Are you basing your views on just one singular visit to a Muslim country, or have you visited more than one Muslim country? If you visited more than one, why do you still have issues with their belief system?

In the books that you read about Islam, did any of the acts carried out in the name of Islam, draw any parallels to similar activities carried out in the name of Christianity? Do you accept that a book such as the Koran or the Bible, written over a number of centuries by many different people coming from a predominantly oral culture, may contain some factual inaccuracies?



No, you won't get banned if you repeat them. However, if you (or any other poster for that matter) engage in hysterical, ill-informed and inflammatory comments, intended only to provoke a reaction, then you will be banned.

A lot of questions Tom but here goes. Firstly although this may sound pedantic I don't consider any countries to be Islamic but I know what you mean so I was actually welcomed in a country where the majority of people practice Islam and no I was not usherred out.Yes I mixed with the locals but kept my feelings about islam private. (I'm not stupid and I am well aware of how they would have reacted if they knew my true feelings) ohh and as regards the mosque it was just a brief visit out of curiosity and I didn't speak to anyone.I am not basing my views on a visit to an country that practices islam and don't know why on Earth you would assume that I was. I am basing my views on how muslims behave in many different countries where they continually prove how they are incapable of living peacefully alongside any other belief system and for that matter how they are incapable of even living peacefully with each other as Sunni and Shia prove daily.

I find it unhelpful to try and deflect criticism of islam by pointing out deficiencies in other religions.Do you ever wonder why you never hear Jews,Christians,Hindus,Jains,Buddhists,Pagans,Atheists etc etc etc even Scientologists continually claiming that their religion is peaceful? No? well I suppose there is no need to really as everybody knows and accepts that those religions really are peaceful you see.

I regard both Quran and the Bible as ridiculous books full of violent nonsense. Luckily Christians unlike Muslims for the most part also recognise this and talk about "parables" etc.as they know its not meant to be taken literally and IMO thankfully don't really take it too seriously nowadays. I also find it ridiculous that muslims continue to deceive themselves that there was only ever one quran when recent excavations at the Sanaa Mosque in Yemen have unearthed many differnt versions of quran which once existed and somehow escaped Uthmans inferno.Of course muslims have covered up this fact and to put it mildly are now living in cloud cuckoo land.

Tom Dunne

celtenal wrote: »

A lot of questions Tom but here goes. Firstly although this may sound pedantic I don't consider any countries to be Islamic but I know what you mean so I was actually welcomed in a country where the majority of people practice Islam and no I was not usherred out.Yes I mixed with the locals but kept my feelings about islam private. (I'm not stupid and I am well aware of how they would have reacted if they knew my true feelings) ohh and as regards the mosque it was just a brief visit out of curiosity and I didn't speak to anyone.I am not basing my views on a visit to an country that practices islam and don't know why on Earth you would assume that I was.

I'm not questioning you to ascertain what you base your assumptions on, I am questioning you to get an idea just how much exposure you have had to Muslim culture. I'm establishing context here.

celtenal wrote: »

I am basing my views on how muslims behave in many different countries where they continually prove how they are incapable of living peacefully alongside any other belief system

Just curious how you get your information on how Muslims behave? I get my information on how Muslims behave by living and working among them.

celtenal wrote: »

and for that matter how they are incapable of even living peacefully with each other as Sunni and Shia prove daily.

Again, just curious how much you know about Sunni and Shia living together? Are you basing your views on Iraq? If so, what about the Kurds in Iraq?

celtenal wrote: »

I find it unhelpful to try and deflect criticism of islam by pointing out deficiencies in other religions.

Unhelpful to your point of view? Are you aware of any conflict in Northern Ireland to do with religious views?

celtenal wrote: »

Do you ever wonder why you never hear Jews,Christians,Hindus,Jains,Buddhists,Pagans,Atheists etc etc etc even Scientologists continually claiming that their religion is peaceful? No? well I suppose there is no need to really as everybody knows and accepts that those religions really are peaceful you see.

Do you ever hear about the Muslims such as the ones I work with? You know, the ones that get up in the morning, shower, have breakfast with their families, go to work, come home, do the homework with the kids, go to bed and do it all over again? No. You don't. Because in our 24-hour news cycle society, people like that don't make news.

celtenal wrote: »

I regard both Quran and the Bible as ridiculous books full of violent nonsense. Luckily Christians unlike Muslims for the most part also recognise this and talk about "parables" etc.as they know its not meant to be taken literally and IMO thankfully don't really take it too seriously nowadays. I also find it ridiculous that muslims continue to deceive themselves that there was only ever one quran when recent excavations at the Sanaa Mosque in Yemen have unearthed many differnt versions of quran which once existed and somehow escaped Uthmans inferno.Of course muslims have covered up this fact and to put it mildly are now living in cloud cuckoo land.

Again, if you had spent any length of time in a Muslim society, you would see that the vast majority of them are very under-developed, only recently (in the last 50-60 years) emerging from their colonial past. They have not had the time to develop their societal structures as the West has over the past thousand years. A lot of them still cower under dictatorships, theocracies and disfunctional pseudo-democracies. Not exactly environments that foster free thought and open dialogue. Even today, I see it where I live that questioning authority is much frowned upon. Questioning the tenets of your belief system is not something that is encouraged in such societies. Much like it was in Christian societies up until recent times.

celtenal

Tom Dunne wrote: »

I'm not questioning you to ascertain what you base your assumptions on, I am questioning you to get an idea just how much exposure you have had to Muslim culture. I'm establishing context here.



Just curious how you get your information on how Muslims behave? I get my information on how Muslims behave by living and working among them.

Good for you Tom.I keep abreast of current affairs and tend to notice things like muslims killing people in shopping centres,muslims bombing marathons,muslims beheading "infidels",muslims flying planes into buildings,muslims rioting and killing over silly movies and cartoons,muslims killing school children in Beslan,muslims bombing tube stations,muslims flying planes into buildings etc etc etc.I hope that helps explain where I get my information Tom.



Again, just curious how much you know about Sunni and Shia living together? Are you basing your views on Iraq? If so, what about the Kurds in Iraq?

Not only am I basing my views on what is happening in Iraq but also Iran and Syria.


Unhelpful to your point of view? Are you aware of any conflict in Northern Ireland to do with religious views?

Yes I am aware of what happened in Northern Ireland. However I find the root cause of that conflict to be political not religious. Still if you want to play the religious card could you tell me about a similar conflict? I can of course give examples not only about muslims killing muslims but also muslims killing Jews in Israel.Hindus in India,Buddhists in Thailand,Zorotastrians in Iran and Christians in ohh take your pick from Egypt,Pakistan,Nigeria,Sudan,The Phillipines,Indonesia etc etc etc



Do you ever hear about the Muslims such as the ones I work with? You know, the ones that get up in the morning, shower, have breakfast with their families, go to work, come home, do the homework with the kids, go to bed and do it all over again? No. You don't. Because in our 24-hour news cycle society, people like that don't make news.


Of course I am aware that there are many good muslims. In fact the majority of muslims are good people in spite of and certainly not because of islam. Islam is causing enormous ammounts of human suffering and muslims especially female muslims are certainly among it's victims

Again, if you had spent any length of time in a Muslim society, you would see that the vast majority of them are very under-developed, only recently (in the last 50-60 years) emerging from their colonial past. They have not had the time to develop their societal structures as the West has over the past thousand years. A lot of them still cower under dictatorships, theocracies and disfunctional pseudo-democracies. Not exactly environments that foster free thought and open dialogue. Even today, I see it where I live that questioning authority is much frowned upon. Questioning the tenets of your belief system is not something that is encouraged in such societies. Much like it was in Christian societies up until recent times.

I agree with you on this point.Mind you one obsevation I have made is that minorities such as Coptic Christians in Egypt or Christians in Syria are certainly better of under "dictatorships, theocracies and disfunctional pseudo-democracies" than they are when they are removed and the country is run by the likes of the muslim brotherhood. In fact even in Iraq minorities faired better under Saddam Hussein than they could ever hope to under a muslim leadership implementing that disgusting backward babaric Sharia. Can I say that or should I pretend that stoning women to death,sometimes for the crime of being a rape victim,is somehow not backward nor babaric so as to avoid a ban?

Tom Dunne

celtenal wrote: »

that disgusting backward babaric Sharia.

Can I ask how many Shia you actually know? Or have at least spoken to? Gross generalisations like that are very damaging to your argument. If a Catholic gets murdered in Northern Ireland, do you tar all Protestants as murderous lowlifes?

celtenal wrote: »

Can I say that or should I pretend that stoning women to death,sometimes for the crime of being a rape victim,is somehow not backward nor babaric so as to avoid a ban?

I am sure any self-respecting Muslim with any hint of morality would utterly and unequivocally condemn such a barbaric and abhorrent act.

feargale

I number a few Muslims among my friends/close acquaintances.
Recently " lucky frank lives " posted, in a prison thread which he himself opened, an apology for something he had posted about Muslims, the precise wording of which I cannot now recall.I posted a reply as follows : " Not saying your remarks were right or wrong, but it's very mild compared to some remarks I've read about Christians and Christianity on boards. I cannot recall a single ban for same" , or words to that effect. When I looked in 10-20 minutes later my post had vanished. What do you think of that?
I don't spend alot of time on threads devoted to various religions, but it seems to me that there is far greater tolerance by moderators and administrators of posts most scathing of Catholicism/Christianity than of the mildest of criticism of Islam or Atheism. Whether this is due to greater fear of repercussions from some objects of criticism than of others, or due to bias of Moderators/Administrators, I cannot say. But I find it mildly disturbing. Discuss, comment, criticise please.
I also note that celtenal opened this thread to complain about his inability to express himself freely, and is now forced to debate the very issues that he has complained about being prevented from debating in an open thread,

Tom Dunne

feargale wrote: »

I number a few Muslims among my friends/close acquaintances.
Recently " lucky frank lives " posted, in a prison thread which he himself opened, an apology for something he had posted about Muslims, the precise wording of which I cannot now recall.I posted a reply as follows : " Not saying your remarks were right or wrong, but it's very mild compared to some remarks I've read about Christians and Christianity on boards. I cannot recall a single ban for same" , or words to that effect. When I looked in 10-20 minutes later my post had vanished. What do you think of that?

I don't think anything of that because it is vague, unquantified and borderline heresay. If you provide links to the post in question, along with context, I could make an informed comment.

feargale wrote: »

I don't spend alot of time on threads devoted to various religions, but it seems to me that there is far greater tolerance by moderators and administrators of posts most scathing of Catholicism/Christianity than of the mildest of criticism of Islam or Atheism.

So on the one hand, you don't frequent religious forums, yet on the other hand you claim there is far greater tolerance on the other forums of criticism of the religion? What are you basing your statement on, perception?

I agree, this forum has an issue with perception. It is perceived as hostile to criticism, I aim to change that. That is why I agreed to take the role of moderator. As I have explained before, I feel I have a pretty unique perspective on Islam having being born and bred in Ireland as a (lapsed) Catholic, yet living in a Muslim country for the past number of years.

I know there are also issue of perception with the religion itself. I know the likes of Sky News or the daily tabloid rags relish nothing more than bashing the current bogeyman in the form of Islam. Nothing like a few radical nutjobs to perpetuate the stereotype and give fodder to the ill-informed masses who accept western media unquestioningly.

feargale wrote: »

Whether this is due to greater fear of repercussions from some objects of criticism than of others, or due to bias of Moderators/Administrators, I cannot say. But I find it mildly disturbing. Discuss, comment, criticise please.

There is absolutely no fear of repercussion and I would hope to eliminate moderator bias. Any bias I may have, I hope to eliminate by my experiences working and living with Muslims and the knowledge I have gained either through reading books about the religion or visiting a number of different Muslim countries.

feargale wrote: »

I also note that celtenal opened this thread to complain about his inability to express himself freely, and is now forced to debate the very issues that he has complained about being prevented from debating in an open thread,

By pointing out the ill-informed nature of his posts and the gross generalisations, I am hoping to give context and illustrate why the ban was put in place.

Let me go on record as saying I am open to reasonable and informed debate. Calling the prophet Mohammed a paedophile and stating that a religion supports people flying planes into buildings is not informed debate. It is media-fed, hysteria-induced, gross-generalisation and has no place on any forum on this site.

celtenal

Tom you have asked me once again how many Sunni Muslims I know personally. Why is this relevant Tom? I don't know any Neo Nazis personally yet I have an opinion on Nazism for example.The same can be said for a lot of other religions like Jainism or Hinduism which although I find fault with I still hold in much higher regard than Islam

Now as Feargale has rightly pointed out it is very difficult for me to debate when I must basically censor myself.Is it my fault if the truth offends muslims? Why is it wrong to say that Islam inspired muslims to fly planes into buildings when it quite clearly did? Also please tell me your definition of the word paedophile and then tell me how it differs from the actions of Islams war-lord founder muhammad? I think it is fair enough to call a man who led 27 battles of war and was involved in 54 battles with his companions a war-lord is it not Tom? I'm eargerly awaiting your response on why I can not call a man who when he was in his mid 50's married a 6 year old child and violated her when she was aged 9 a paedophile.

Also tom you posted "Can I ask how many Shia you actually know? Or have at least spoken to? Gross generalisations like that are very damaging to your argument. If a Catholic gets murdered in Northern Ireland, do you tar all Protestants as murderous lowlifes?" Please look again at my previous post in total as I seem to have mixed up the multi quote thing. I was in fact referring to islamic Sharia (law) as being backward and babaric but quite understand you mistaking it for Shia if you thought I was referring to homosexuals being hung in Iran by shia. Was that it?

Also you keep criticising the press Tom.IMO the press treats islam with kid gloves. Mabye you think the press should not report things like muslims flying planes into buildings,bombing marathons,rioting and killing over silly movies and cartoons,bombing tube stations,killing school children in Beslan,murdering people shopping in malls,burning Christian churches,beheading infidels etc etc etc. Can't say i agree with you on that one Tom.

celtenal

feargale wrote: »

I number a few Muslims among my friends/close acquaintances.
Recently " lucky frank lives " posted, in a prison thread which he himself opened, an apology for something he had posted about Muslims, the precise wording of which I cannot now recall.I posted a reply as follows : " Not saying your remarks were right or wrong, but it's very mild compared to some remarks I've read about Christians and Christianity on boards. I cannot recall a single ban for same" , or words to that effect. When I looked in 10-20 minutes later my post had vanished. What do you think of that?
I don't spend alot of time on threads devoted to various religions, but it seems to me that there is far greater tolerance by moderators and administrators of posts most scathing of Catholicism/Christianity than of the mildest of criticism of Islam or Atheism. Whether this is due to greater fear of repercussions from some objects of criticism than of others, or due to bias of Moderators/Administrators, I cannot say. But I find it mildly disturbing. Discuss, comment, criticise please.
I also note that celtenal opened this thread to complain about his inability to express himself freely, and is now forced to debate the very issues that he has complained about being prevented from debating in an open thread,

It sure is difficult. It does appear that the religion of special needs must be protected above all others.I find it amusing when people say things like "they do not wish to offend" muslims and make out that this is because of respect whereas the reality is we have all witnessed how followers of the religion of special needs respond to any criticism of their faith or their extremely questionable founder muhammad.Muslims must learn that respect is not a right and must be earned and set upon attempting to earn respect instead of violently demanding it.I could say more but you know...wouldn't want to offend now would I?:rolleyes:

Tom Dunne

celtenal wrote: »

Tom you have asked me once again how many Sunni Muslims I know personally. Why is this relevant Tom? I don't know any Neo Nazis personally yet I have an opinion on Nazism for example

Yes, but how more likely is it that you have met and spoke with a Sunni Muslim than you having met and spoke with a Neo Nazi from the 1930s?

And how much historical information, verified by both experiences and academic rigour, has been written about Neo Nazis? In other words, how much of the knowledge and information you have on Neo Nazis is based on verifiable facts?

So, let's apply the same logic to your opinions on Muslims. How much of it is verifiable? What are the sources of this information? Are you basing your knowledge on the likes of Sky News? What exactly are you basing your opinions on?

celtenal wrote: »

Now as Feargale has rightly pointed out it is very difficult for me to debate when I must basically censor myself.

It is my job to ensure that participants can engage in reasoned debate within the agreed norms of the site. So there is no need to censor yourself when your posts fall within these norms.

celtenal wrote: »

Is it my fault if the truth offends muslims?

No not at all. I am sure any religious person would take offense at statements of fact, where the facts are based on verifiable information rather than heresay and misinformation. I'm sure the statement that Catholic priests sexually abuse children will offend Catholics. Doesn't make it any less true.

celtenal wrote: »

Why is it wrong to say that Islam inspired muslims to fly planes into buildings when it quite clearly did?

So, you say it quite clearly did. Prove it. If it is clear and unequivocal, then there is no problem proving it.

celtenal wrote: »

Also please tell me your definition of the word paedophile and then tell me how it differs from the actions of Islams war-lord founder muhammad? I think it is fair enough to call a man who led 27 battles of war and was involved in 54 battles with his companions a war-lord is it not Tom? I'm eargerly awaiting your response on why I can not call a man who when he was in his mid 50's married a 6 year old child and violated her when she was aged 9 a paedophile.

I'm going to digress here slightly, so bear with me.

As you may be aware, early European civilisation and Arab civilisation were predominantly oral cultures. Prior to the invention (or more correctly, the development) of writing, history, facts and knowledge were passed down from generation to generation orally through poems and stories and the like.

When somebody did come to write down the tenets of Islam/Christianity/Judaism, do you think the people (and it was more than one person) who wrote them had a clear and unambiguous version of the story? Chinese whispers anyone? I am sure you can accept that as knowledge got passed down from generation to generation, it got distorted.

Do you think that these people, writing down the holy book of whatever faith, who were clearly devout and totally biased in the adoration of the subject of the book, embellished the story in any way?

Back to my point.

Do you accept, unquestioningly, the contents of a book written in such a manner? Do you, as an intelligent person, accept that there may be inaccuracies? I do.

Just because it says in such a book that a child was 6 years of age (or 9, or whatever), doesn't make it true.

So I put it to you that gross generalisations and negative stereotypes about Islam (or any religion for that matter) are quite easy to form when information interpreted as facts are selectively picked, without consideration of context and that these facts may not be accurate.

celtenal

feargale wrote: »

I number a few Muslims among my friends/close acquaintances.
Recently " lucky frank lives " posted, in a prison thread which he himself opened, an apology for something he had posted about Muslims, the precise wording of which I cannot now recall.I posted a reply as follows : " Not saying your remarks were right or wrong, but it's very mild compared to some remarks I've read about Christians and Christianity on boards. I cannot recall a single ban for same" , or words to that effect. When I looked in 10-20 minutes later my post had vanished. What do you think of that?
I don't spend alot of time on threads devoted to various religions, but it seems to me that there is far greater tolerance by moderators and administrators of posts most scathing of Catholicism/Christianity than of the mildest of criticism of Islam or Atheism. Whether this is due to greater fear of repercussions from some objects of criticism than of others, or due to bias of Moderators/Administrators, I cannot say. But I find it mildly disturbing. Discuss, comment, criticise please.
I also note that celtenal opened this thread to complain about his inability to express himself freely, and is now forced to debate the very issues that he has complained about being prevented from debating in an open thread,

Tom, Bukhari which are considered to be among the most reliable Hadiths in islam contain numerous refernces includind Aisha herself that she was aged 6 when she married muhammad and was aged 9 when she was "taken to his house".
Also I added this to my previous post when I noticed that you had mistaken me when I wrote Sharia as being Shia -
Please look again at my previous post in total as I seem to have mixed up the multi quote thing. I was in fact referring to islamic Sharia (law) as being backward and babaric but quite understand you mistaking it for Shia if you thought I was referring to homosexuals being hung in Iran by shia. Was that it?

Also you keep criticising the press Tom.IMO the press treats islam with kid gloves. Mabye you think the press should not report things like muslims flying planes into buildings,bombing marathons,rioting and killing over silly movies and cartoons,bombing tube stations,killing school children in Beslan,murdering people shopping in malls,burning Christian churches,beheading infidels etc etc etc. Can't say i agree with you on that one Tom.
Also did you see a previous post where I maintained that the problems you mentioned in Northern Ireland were for the most part as a result of political not religious reasons?
As regards 9/11 if you plan to claim that Israel did it or use some other conspiracy theory nonsense then I'm not going to engage in that debate.

Tom Dunne

celtenal wrote: »

Tom, Bukhari which are considered to be among the most reliable Hadiths in islam contain numerous refernces includind Aisha herself that she was aged 6 when she married muhammad and was aged 9 when she was "taken to his house".

So again, you are unquestioningly accepting something from 1300 years ago at face value, something I find utterly incomprehensible.

Could you write down an accurate portrayal of something form 100 years ago that you heard about second or third hand?

celtenal wrote: »

Also I added this to my previous post when I noticed that you had mistaken me when I wrote Sharia as being Shia -
Please look again at my previous post in total as I seem to have mixed up the multi quote thing. I was in fact referring to islamic Sharia (law) as being backward and babaric but quite understand you mistaking it for Shia if you thought I was referring to homosexuals being hung in Iran by shia. Was that it?

Yes, I read it as Shia, not Sharia. My apologies.

celtenal wrote: »

Also you keep criticising the press Tom.IMO the press treats islam with kid gloves. Mabye you think the press should not report things like muslims flying planes into buildings,bombing marathons,rioting and killing over silly movies and cartoons,bombing tube stations,killing school children in Beslan,murdering people shopping in malls,burning Christian churches,beheading infidels etc etc etc. Can't say i agree with you on that one Tom.

I agree the press treat Islam and Muslims with kid gloves. I read something a while back about the percentage of religious jokes told by comedians. Not an overly scientific study, but it showed that jokes about Christianity, Judaism and other religions were generally quite common, yet jokes about Islam were virtually non-existent. So yes, there is a fear about offending Muslims, I agree.

However the issue with the press that I have is again the unquestioning acceptance by the populace of what the media says. I firmly believe that the likes of Sky News, Fox News even our very own Irish Independent, perpetuate stereotypes to the detriment of critical thinking and objective analysis.

celtenal wrote: »

Also did you see a previous post where I maintained that the problems you mentioned in Northern Ireland were for the most part as a result of political not religious reasons?

While I don't deny that there were initially political reasons, are you saying that tit-for-tat killings in the North were not religiously motivated?

That is just one example of killings in the name or religion. I am sure throughout history there are multiple examples from multiple religions.

celtenal wrote: »

As regards 9/11 if you plan to claim that Israel did it or use some other conspiracy theory nonsense then I'm not going to engage in that debate.

No, I fully accept 19 Muslim men flew planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and that field. No conspiracy theories, quite the opposite. I would hope at this stage that you appreciate I am a man who relies on factual information not conjecture.

However, you stated:

Why is it wrong to say that Islam inspired muslims to fly planes into buildings when it quite clearly did

and I asked:

So, you say it quite clearly did. Prove it. If it is clear and unequivocal, then there is no problem proving it.

I would be interested in your thoughts on how you can prove one thing quite clearly inspired another event or action.

celtenal

"Could you write down an accurate portrayal of something form 100 years ago that you heard about second or third hand?"

By that rational we should dismiss all of recorded history.But you know something it is not even important what age Aisha was when she married Muhammad. What is important is that the majority of muslims who are knowledgeable about their own Hadiths believe that Aisha was aged 6 when she was married to muhammad. This is in turn causing an enormous ammount of suffering to put it mildly for children in muslim countries.


"Yes, I read it as Shia, not Sharia. My apologies."
No problem,glad that's been cleared up.



"I agree the press treat Islam and Muslims with kid gloves. I read something a while back about the percentage of religious jokes told by comedians. Not an overly scientific study, but it showed that jokes about Christianity, Judaism and other religions were generally quite common, yet jokes about Islam were virtually non-existent. So yes, there is a fear about offending Muslims, I agree.

However the issue with the press that I have is again the unquestioning acceptance by the populace of what the media says. I firmly believe that the likes of Sky News, Fox News even our very own Irish Independent, perpetuate stereotypes to the detriment of critical thinking and objective analysis."

Well I guess Salmon Rushdie and the publishers of those Danish cartoons are only to aware of how muslims react to any criticism of their beliefs.As would of course be the US Libyan Ambassadors or Theo Van Gough for example if they were still alive.




"While I don't deny that there were initially political reasons, are you saying that tit-for-tat killings in the North were not religiously motivated?

That is just one example of killings in the name or religion. I am sure throughout history there are multiple examples from multiple religions."

No need to look throughout history Tom. Just have a look today and you will find muslims killing Jews in Israel,Hindus in India,Buddhists in Thailand,Zorotastrians in Iran,Christians in Egypt,Pakistan,Indonesia,Nigeria,SudanThe Phillipines,Syria,Indonesia etc etc and of course muslims killing each other in Syria and Iraq for being the wrong type of muslim.You will of course have recognised the common denominator here I'm sure.



"No, I fully accept 19 Muslim men flew planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and that field. No conspiracy theories, quite the opposite. I would hope at this stage that you appreciate I am a man who relies on factual information not conjecture.

However, you stated:



and I asked:



I would be interested in your thoughts on how you can prove one thing quite clearly inspired another event or action.[/QUOTE]"

Well I don't think it is to far of a stretch of the imagination here to link those actions with the hate speech in the islam war manual otherwise known as the Quran such as -
Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush
and my own personal favourite Quran (8:39) - 8:39/2193 which quite clearly sees the quran calling for the death of all non muslims -
And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.
Fitnah I believe has many meanings anything from scaring a muslim, rejecting muhammad as a prophet ,insanity to the seductive beauty of a woman.
You could Google (islam q&a fitnah) if you like.

Tom Dunne

celtenal wrote: »

By that rational we should dismiss all of recorded history.

No, we most certainly shouldn't. How verifiable is ancient recorded history? Do we have evidence of recorded battles for example from archeological digs? Yes we do. I would be interested in hearing a historian's opinion on how much of history from that timeframe is accepted, unquestioningly as fact.

celtenal wrote: »

But you know something it is not even important what age Aisha was when she married Muhammad. What is important is that the majority of muslims who are knowledgeable about their own Hadiths believe that Aisha was aged 6 when she was married to muhammad.

Belief and fact are two diametrically opposed concepts.

celtenal wrote: »

This is in turn causing an enormous ammount of suffering to put it mildly for children in muslim countries.

The number of Muslim children that I see on a daily basis would beg to differ.

celtenal wrote: »

Well I guess Salmon Rushdie and the publishers of those Danish cartoons are only to aware of how muslims react to any criticism of their beliefs.As would of course be the US Libyan Ambassadors or Theo Van Gough for example if they were still alive.

Fringe elements. Again, I am sure most self-respecting Muslim would condemn these acts.

celtenal wrote: »

Well I don't think it is to far of a stretch of the imagination here to link those actions with the hate speech in the islam war manual otherwise known as the Quran such as -
Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush
and my own personal favourite Quran (8:39) - 8:39/2193 which quite clearly sees the quran calling for the death of all non muslims -
And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.
Fitnah I believe has many meanings anything from scaring a muslim, rejecting muhammad as a prophet ,insanity to the seductive beauty of a woman.
You could Google (islam q&a fitnah) if you like.

Oh dear, are we really resorting to this level? For every quote you pull about the Koran, I can pull up the same from the Bible.

Spending 30 seconds on Google turns up these little gems from the Bible:

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

So I think it is fair to say that anyone can selectively pick quotes from any holybook to support their claim that <insert religion of choice> is anti-nonbelievers.

celtenal

"No, we most certainly shouldn't. How verifiable is ancient recorded history? Do we have evidence of recorded battles for example from archeological digs? Yes we do. I would be interested in hearing a historian's opinion on how much of history from that timeframe is accepted, unquestioningly as fact."

Fair point,so would I.


"Belief and fact are two diametrically opposed concepts."

Absolutely, but it is a belief system that is causing human suffering on a massive scale worldwide. Do you really think that claims that muhammad spoke to an angel named Gabriel in a cave,that he split the moon in two and went to see a moon dude called Allah on a flying donkey called Buraq are facts?
Fact is Islam teaches people to be satisfied with not knowing how the world really works because all the answers are supposedly in there. It's mass delusion.Muslims move to The West and benefit from our progress but then hold up their religion up as the ultimate truth.If that were so then why don't they live in countries that are dictated by the Quran since it has all the answers and is the "truth" and then there won't be any problems from infidels?
Fact is Islam is a monster devouring the lives of innocent human beings, both adherents and those who oppose its lunacy.I've tried to word this as diplomatically as possible because of the fear of being banned and I hope I haven't stepped over any bounder here.

"The number of Muslim children that I see on a daily basis would beg to differ."

That's great Tom and I believe you. However should we just turn a blind eye to other muslim children you don't happen to see on a daily basis who are regularly being raped to death because you don't see them?
Should we just turn a blind eye to the multitude of problems caused when children of different sexes are not allowed to mix freely together because of a ridiculous belief system founded by an evil warlord who incidentally certainly "got his" what with his 11 or 13 wifes (depending on source) including of course the child plus his slaves and his prostitutes.
Should we just turn a blind eye to these female children being forced to dress like tents in the desert and then being told that they are inferior to men and that their word is only worth half that of a mans in an Islamic court of law when they mature?

"Fringe elements. Again, I am sure most self-respecting Muslim would condemn these acts."

To coin a phrase "Their silence is deafening" which it most certainly is not whenever any criticism of their belief system or founder muhammad is concerned. Fancy a Danish Cartoons Pastry washed down with a nice Danish Cartoons Lager Tom?

"Oh dear, are we really resorting to this level? For every quote you pull about the Koran, I can pull up the same from the Bible."


Of course you can Tom. The Bible is also a ridiculous hate filled book of rubbish responsible for countless attrocities throughout history. The fact is though Tom Christians for the most part have left their babarity behind and no longer feel the need to kill in their gods name.However we are not discussing Christians or The Bible here Tom are we so lets try to stay on topic.Don't you think it is a really pathetic excuse to justify attrocious behaviour by claiming "ohh look others do it to"? Come on!

"Spending 30 seconds on Google turns up these little gems from the Bible."

Ahh yes I agree with you on that one Tom. Don't you just love the internet? The place where religions come to and deserve to die!
BTW Tom I really do appreciate you allowing me to express my opinion and would like to express my gratitude for that. Thank You

Tom Dunne

celtenal wrote: »

Absolutely, but it is a belief system that is causing human suffering on a massive scale worldwide. Do you really think that claims that muhammad spoke to an angel named Gabriel in a cave,that he split the moon in two and went to see a moon dude called Allah on a flying donkey called Buraq are facts?

I don't believe a belief system is causing human suffering, I believe the human condition is causing human suffering. Look much closer to home. Can you honestly say the Catholic church has been a positive force in Ireland? Just look at any of our cultural icons - Joyce, Beckett, Yeats, for example, all protestant. Free from the shackles of Catholicism to pursue their art. I see a lot of parallels between Ireland and some Muslim countries - post-colonial, impoverished, religion-dominated. We were just lucky that we (a) gout our independence much earlier than pretty much all Muslim countries and (b) were in Europe, resulting in more immediate access to development and the like to drag us out of our agrarian past into the 20th century.

celtenal wrote: »

Fact is Islam teaches people to be satisfied with not knowing how the world really works because all the answers are supposedly in there. It's mass delusion.Muslims move to The West and benefit from our progress but then hold up their religion up as the ultimate truth.If that were so then why don't they live in countries that are dictated by the Quran since it has all the answers and is the "truth" and then there won't be any problems from infidels?

When a country is destitute, living in poverty, with little or no education, what does it revert to? What does a society have, other than religion. Blind faith.

celtenal wrote: »

Fact is Islam is a monster devouring the lives of innocent human beings, both adherents and those who oppose its lunacy.I've tried to word this as diplomatically as possible because of the fear of being banned and I hope I haven't stepped over any bounder here.

I really struggle to accept how you can state that Islam is devouring the lives of innocent human beings. Are you saying that believers cannot see what their belief system is doing to them? If so, take any impoverished country and replace Islam with <religion of choice>. I don't accept Islam is the cause of their suffering, I believe the cultural, societal and historical factors are causing their suffering. They just happen to be Muslim.

celtenal wrote: »

That's great Tom and I believe you. However should we just turn a blind eye to other muslim children you don't happen to see on a daily basis who are regularly being raped to death because you don't see them?

Again, I struggle to accept broad generalisations such as this. Are you aware of similar situations in say, for example, India? A massive population, extreme poverty in a lot of regions, similar third world conditions? What about further east in other countries with other religions? What about South America and Latin America?

My point being, we are overly sensitive to Islamic countries, purely because of the strategic importance of the Middle East and Middle East oil. Throw in to that mix, the volatile nature of two strands of the religion (Sunni and Shia), along with Israel and America's frustratingly blinkered and unwavering support and you are back to the 24-hour news cycle that reports what it thinks people are interested in.

Does the west really care if similar atrocities are being carried out in India, Borneo, Thailand, Laos, China? Not really.

My point being, Islam and Muslim countries are not unique. We only hear about them more because they are more headline grabbing. That is not to understate the atrocities being carried out in the name of religion. But I can guarantee you that if you go searching you will find equally abdominal atrocities being carried out in the name of other religions.

celtenal wrote: »

Should we just turn a blind eye to the multitude of problems caused when children of different sexes are not allowed to mix freely together because of a ridiculous belief system

A question for you - when did it become illegal to pay men and women differently for the same job in Ireland (serious question).

Another one - when did women get the vote? Before or after men?

And finally - are you aware of any clubs in Ireland that do not permit women to become members?

celtenal wrote: »

Should we just turn a blind eye to these female children being forced to dress like tents in the desert and then being told that they are inferior to men and that their word is only worth half that of a mans in an Islamic court of law when they mature?

It is interesting that you refer to the desert. Which desert? In Saudi Arabia? You do know that there are 1 billion+ Muslims in the world and that only around 100 million or so live in or around a desert? One tenth. So the other 90% do not live near a desert. Again, this is a significant problem with gross generalisations - Muslims are a very heterogeneous group.

celtenal wrote: »

To coin a phrase "Their silence is deafening" which it most certainly is not whenever any criticism of their belief system or founder muhammad is concerned. Fancy a Danish Cartoons Pastry washed down with a nice Danish Cartoons Lager Tom?

I refer the honourable gentleman back to my earlier posts on questioning authority and speaking out in Muslim societies. Dictatorships, pseudo-democracies, theocracies, all societal structures that are not conducive to speaking out.

I am not saying it is right. I am merely offering my reasoning as to why it is so.

celtenal wrote: »

Don't you think it is a really pathetic excuse to justify attrocious behaviour by claiming "ohh look others do it to"? Come on!

No. To re-iterate my point above - Islam is no different to any other religions. Atrocities are carried out in the name of other gods. We just hear more, and are aware more, of atrocities carried out in the name of Islam. I am not saying these atrocities are less bad, I am saying we are more aware of them.

celtenal wrote: »

BTW Tom I really do appreciate you allowing me to express my opinion and would like to express my gratitude for that. Thank You

As I have said on many occasions - rational, reasoned debate is welcome. Ill-informed hysteria and gross-generalisations, fueled by ignorance and fear will be treated with the contempt it deserves.

celtenal

Tom Dunne wrote: »

I don't believe a belief system is causing human suffering, I believe the human condition is causing human suffering. Look much closer to home. Can you honestly say the Catholic church has been a positive force in Ireland?
Absolutely not.


I really struggle to accept how you can state that Islam is devouring the lives of innocent human beings. Are you saying that believers cannot see what their belief system is doing to them?

A lot of them obviously do not.They go around pretending to love their tyrant in the sky allah praying to him 5 times every day when the reality is they are just terrified of his dreadful vengece and spending eternity enduring the worst immaginable torment courtesy of their merciful hu ackbar moon dude.Of course those few muslims who do posess the ability to think critically and can see Islam as the force of evil it really is are silenced because of the disgusting babaric Sharia (Law) and it's extreme punisment for "crimes" such as blasphemy and apostasy. Death! If the UN possessed even a shread of dignity it would declare Sharia (Law) as a crime against humanity.


But I can guarantee you that if you go searching you will find equally abdominal atrocities being carried out in the name of other religions.

Really Tom? I must see how many Buddhists,Hindus,Jains,Confuscuits,Sikhs,Jews,Christians.Zorotastrians etc etc have attacked and killed people shopping in Malls for example recently. I must also check out how many of these religions promote ideas such as Jihad,have a holy book which instructs them that they must either convert,subjugate or kill "unbelievers" and have military wings equivalent to the Mujahideen.But then to call Islam a religion would be wrong as it is more of a hate filled anti semetic Nazi like ideogy whose goal is World domination complete with yes of course religious wing but also political wing,banking wing,legal wing (sharia) and of course military wing.(Jihad,Mujahadeen) Yes I know muslims will try to maintain that Jihad can also refer to some sort of "personal struggle" but I am using it in the context of "holy war" for allah!As I presume are those muslims who we regularly witness in European cities holding up placards declaring that "Islam will dominate the World","Freedom go to hell" Behead those who insult Islam" islam etc.
No other religion has effectively divided the worls into two such as Islam has -
1) Dar El Islam (House of Islam)
2) Dar El Harb (House of War)
Just call me Harbie,which I suppose will be my next username if this is the post that eventually sees me banned although I hope not as I am still trying to debate within the terms stated.

"A question for you - when did it become illegal to pay men and women differently for the same job in Ireland (serious question).

Another one - when did women get the vote? Before or after men?

And finally - are you aware of any clubs in Ireland that do not permit women to become members?"

Are you seriously attempting to draw a parallel between women in Ireland to women who are forced to live under islams brutal Sharia?




I refer the honourable gentleman back to my earlier posts on questioning authority and speaking out in Muslim societies. Dictatorships, pseudo-democracies, theocracies, all societal structures that are not conducive to speaking out.

Of course,but you can not deny that islam is used as the stick to control these people.


No. To re-iterate my point above - Islam is no different to any other religions. Atrocities are carried out in the name of other gods. We just hear more, and are aware more, of atrocities carried out in the name of Islam. I am not saying these atrocities are less bad, I am saying we are more aware of them.

Please give examples of other religions killing practicioners of other faiths for purely religious and not political reasons.I can see Buddhists,Jains,Sikhs,Shintos,Zorotastrians,Christians,Jews,Confuscuits all living peacefully together across the Globe.However once muslims are introduced to the mix then bloodshed is always the outcome.

As I have said on many occasions - rational, reasoned debate is welcome. Ill-informed hysteria and gross-generalisations, fueled by ignorance and fear will be treated with the contempt it deserves.

Thanks again,and I hope I am still complying by these rules. Believe me there is a lot more that I would like to say but fear it would result in a ban.
Actually I think I will leave this as my final post on this topic and move on to enjoy other less controversial sections on the boards.Thanks for alllowing me to express my views Tom. If you do decide to respond I will of course read your reply but will leave it at that.Good luck to you Tom and to any muslim who may be reading this although it may appear otherwise I do not hate you.In fact I hope one day you learn to THINK CRITICALLY and then perhaps find the strength and courage required to leave islam.Of course should this happen I also hope other muslims do not kill you for the "crime" of apostasy under babaric Sharia (Law) and of course other family members do not kill you to preserve their "honour" if you are female!
Peace!
PS Arrgh please read all of above (in shading) as I messed up the multi-quote again but finally Tom mabye you should consider that it is not the press or media that gives Islam a bad name but is in fact the behaviour of muslims that gives muslims and islam a bad name? That's all I'm otta here!

feargale

Tom Dunne wrote: »

I don't think anything of that because it is vague, unquantified and borderline heresay. If you provide links to the post in question, along with context, I could make an informed comment.

The only part that is vague relates to my inability to quote the original poster. Maybe a mod can do what I can't i.e. locate without alot of trouble from the information given the post to which I refer. I'm not making a point about the merits or otherwise of that post. My point, which renders the latter irrelevant, is that in making a comment which was essentially a plea for a level playing field, I was silenced.

Tom Dunne wrote: »

So on the one hand, you don't frequent religious forums, yet on the other hand you claim there is far greater tolerance on the other forums of criticism of the religion? What are you basing your statement on, perception?

I have visited religious threads, haven't counted the number of visits or length of time therein. I said " it seems to me.....", so yes, I'm sure you can say perception. Your following comments would appear to agree that there is a perception problem, and your avowed intention to remedy that is to be welcomed.

Tom Dunne wrote: »

I agree, this forum has an issue with perception. It is perceived as hostile to criticism, I aim to change that. That is why I agreed to take the role of moderator. As I have explained before, I feel I have a pretty unique perspective on Islam having being born and bred in Ireland as a (lapsed) Catholic, yet living in a Muslim country for the past number of years. .

feargale

Tom Dunne wrote: »

I would hope to eliminate moderator bias. Any bias I may have, I hope to eliminate by my experiences working and living with Muslims and the knowledge I have gained either through reading books about the religion or visiting a number of different Muslim countries.

That's very fair, and no doubt you can be trusted to be mindful that bias can work in both directions.

Tom Dunne wrote: »

By pointing out the ill-informed nature of his posts and the gross generalisations, I am hoping to give context and illustrate why the ban was put in place.
Let me go on record as saying I am open to reasonable and informed debate. Calling the prophet Mohammed a paedophile and stating that a religion supports people flying planes into buildings is not informed debate. It is media-fed, hysteria-induced, gross-generalisation and has no place on any forum on this site.

While I find the debate here interesting, and can see two sides, my main objective here was to argue that all viewpoints on threads should be accorded equal tolerance, subject to genuine concerns re libel laws, prejudicial pre-trial comment, public order etc.,

feargale

Tom Dunne wrote: »

I don't think anything of that because it is vague, unquantified and borderline heresay. If you provide links to the post in question, along with context, I could make an informed comment.

The only part that is vague relates to my inability to quote the original poster. Maybe a mod can do what I can't i.e. locate without alot of trouble from the information given the post to which I refer. I'm not making a point about the merits or otherwise of that post. My point, which renders the latter irrelevant, is that in making a comment which was essentially a plea for a level playing field, I was silenced.

Tom Dunne wrote: »

So on the one hand, you don't frequent religious forums, yet on the other hand you claim there is far greater tolerance on the other forums of criticism of the religion? What are you basing your statement on, perception?

I have visited religious threads, haven't counted the number of visits or length of time therein. I said " it seems to me.....", so yes, I'm sure you say perception. Your following comments would appear to agree that there is a perception problem, and your avowed intention to remedy that is to be welcomed.

Tom Dunne wrote: »

I
I agree, this forum has an issue with perception. It is perceived as hostile to criticism, I aim to change that. That is why I agreed to take the role of moderator. As I have explained before, I feel I have a pretty unique perspective on Islam having being born and bred in Ireland as a (lapsed) Catholic, yet living in a Muslim country for the past number of years. .

Palmach

Tom Dunne wrote: »

I don't accept Islam is the cause of their suffering, I believe the cultural, societal and historical factors are causing their suffering. They just happen to be Muslim.

Ah here Tom but you have gone native. If you look at Islamic countries their system of governance and their way of life are dictated by Islam in a way that is not the case with other religions.

Does the west really care if similar atrocities are being carried out in India, Borneo, Thailand, Laos, China? Not really.

Yes we are but they are not being carried out in the name of religion.

But I can guarantee you that if you go searching you will find equally abdominal atrocities being carried out in the name of other religions.

Sorry mate but int he modern era you do not get the volume and viciousness of atrocity carried out by other religions. Can you find me a Chrsitian or Jewish 911? A Christian Beslan or Bali?

A question for you - when did it become illegal to pay men and women differently for the same job in Ireland (serious question).

Another one - when did women get the vote? Before or after men?

And finally - are you aware of any clubs in Ireland that do not permit women to become members?

Relevance to thread = 0

Islam is no different to any other religions. Atrocities are carried out in the name of other gods. We just hear more, and are aware more, of atrocities carried out in the name of Islam. I am not saying these atrocities are less bad, I am saying we are more aware of them.

Please quote examples.

As I have said on many occasions - rational, reasoned debate is welcome. Ill-informed hysteria and gross-generalisations, fueled by ignorance and fear will be treated with the contempt it deserves.

And that is right and proper but Tom it is the odd time that people allow legitimate discussion of Islam. You are to be commended for this thread. Most Islamic groups simply shut down debate.

feargale

"Palmach wrote:

Sorry mate but int he modern era you do not get the volume and viciousness of atrocity carried out by other religions. Can you find me a Chrsitian or Jewish 911? A Christian Beslan or Bali?

Port Said 1956

Palmach

feargale wrote: »

Port Said 1956

Nonsense. An utterly poor effort at intellectual sleight of hand.

feargale

Palmach wrote: »

Nonsense. An utterly poor effort at intellectual sleight of hand.

Explain, please.

feargale

And while you're at it, Palmach, you might explain the following nonsense: 1. Bulgaria 1878.
2. Azerbaijan 1918.
3. Morocco 1924.
4. Libya 1930-31.
5. Deir Yassin 1948.
6. Srebrenica 1995.

Palmach

feargale wrote: »

Explain, please.

If you need it explained it'll probably take me too long and I might not success. b

Palmach

feargale wrote: »

And while you're at it, Palmach, you might explain the following nonsense: 1. Bulgaria 1878.
2. Azerbaijan 1918.
3. Morocco 1924.
4. Libya 1930-31.
5. Deir Yassin 1948.
6. Srebrenica 1995.

Do you have a point to make? If so please make it.

confusedquark

I know this thread's been inactive for a couple of weeks now, but I've only just read through it and thought I'd weigh in.

Palmach wrote: »

Yes we are but they are not being carried out in the name of religion...
Sorry mate but int he modern era you do not get the volume and viciousness of atrocity carried out by other religions. Can you find me a Chrsitian or Jewish 911? A Christian Beslan or Bali?

There's a big difference between atrocities carried out in the name of religion and atrocities carried out because of a religion. Al Qaeda didn't commit 9/11 because one day they read the Quran and suddenly realised they had a religious obligation to kill as many non-Muslims as they could find. It's part of a much larger political conflict between the west and parts of the Muslim world.

Prior to 9/11, Al Qaeda had released many statements specifically targeting the U.S. for their interference in the Muslim world, e.g. in 1998, "for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples."

The same goes for the London bombings, Madrid etc. etc. Most of these have been committed as revenge attacks to atrocities committed against Muslims around the world. It suits Al Qaeda and other extremist groups down to the ground that they can use Islam to convince more and more people to join their cause. But to suggest that Islam and the Quran is the only source for this extremist, and that the ongoing conflicts around the world have nothing to do with it, is a bit short-sighted. Most Islamic scholars do condemn all these extremist atrocities and the killing of innocent people, so how can you attribute them to Islam?

Palmach wrote: »

And that is right and proper but Tom it is the odd time that people allow legitimate discussion of Islam. You are to be commended for this thread. Most Islamic groups simply shut down debate.

I can only speak for me, and I don't mind having a civilised discussion about Islam. People are completely entitled to their opinions, but it really doesn't take much to be constructive with them. You can still be civil and get along with people even if you don't agree with them - one of my best friends is a hardcore atheist.

By the way, here's another atrocity being committed by the Muslims of this world, and this one is directly linked to Islam. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/faith/article3820522.ece

SoulandForm

Look I have a lot of respect for Islam and Muslims- they have valid arguments against Christianity (my Faith) which are sometimes very hard to answer. I would never say that a Muslim is a lost soul the same way that I would say a Wiccan is. I also accept that historically Islam has been a lot more tolerant than Christianity. Muslims and Christians have a lot more in common than either side would like to admit. However it does seem that criticism of Christianity is often more acceptable than criticism of Islam.

SoulandForm

confusedquark wrote: »

Prior to 9/11, Al Qaeda had released many statements specifically targeting the U.S. for their interference in the Muslim world, e.g. in 1998, "for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples."

The same goes for the London bombings, Madrid etc. etc. Most of these have been committed as revenge attacks to atrocities committed against Muslims around the world. It suits Al Qaeda and other extremist groups down to the ground that they can use Islam to convince more and more people to join their cause. But to suggest that Islam and the Quran is the only source for this extremist, and that the ongoing conflicts around the world have nothing to do with it, is a bit short-sighted. Most Islamic scholars do condemn all these extremist atrocities and the killing of innocent people, so how can you attribute them to Islam?



I can only speak for me, and I don't mind having a civilised discussion about Islam. People are completely entitled to their opinions, but it really doesn't take much to be constructive with them. You can still be civil and get along with people even if you don't agree with them - one of my best friends is a hardcore atheist.

By the way, here's another atrocity being committed by the Muslims of this world, and this one is directly linked to Islam. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/faith/article3820522.ece

Sorry.

Im a Protestant from Ulster- the same type of justification for such actions was trotted out by supposed "Protestants" during the troubles. Their actions had nothing to do with my Faith. The Koran is against targeting civilians- most Muslims consider the Wahabis heretics; their grandfather Ibn Taymiyyah was so rejected by the majority of Muslims that he was jailed.

MrPudding

confusedquark wrote: »

By the way, here's another atrocity being committed by the Muslims of this world, and this one is directly linked to Islam. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/faith/article3820522.ece

Is charitable giving not effectively compulsory for muslims? I think it is less meaningful if it is required...

MrP

unseenfootage

SoulandForm wrote: »

Look I have a lot of respect for Islam and Muslims- they have valid arguments against Christianity (my Faith) which are sometimes very hard to answer. I would never say that a Muslim is a lost soul the same way that I would say a Wiccan is. I also accept that historically Islam has been a lot more tolerant than Christianity. Muslims and Christians have a lot more in common than either side would like to admit. However it does seem that criticism of Christianity is often more acceptable than criticism of Islam.

That's probably because Christians tolerate attacks and insults against their faith, whereas Muslims, although willing to debate on good terms do not tolerate vileness.

SoulandForm

unseenfootage wrote: »

That's probably because Christians tolerate attacks and insults against their faith, whereas Muslims, although willing to debate on good terms do not tolerate vileness.

Jesus is a Prophet in Islam though- someone that I work with mocks my faith by saying that Jesus was a homosexual on and on and on; I complained and was told to laugh it off. Of course neo-con liberals hate Islam as it actually is but they hate Christianity more.

unseenfootage

SoulandForm wrote: »

Jesus is a Prophet in Islam though- someone that I work with mocks my faith by saying that Jesus was a homosexual on and on and on; I complained and was told to laugh it off. Of course neo-con liberals hate Islam as it actually is but they hate Christianity more.

But you should not have to. What if you had to say to your colleague that he is a son of a pedophile?

There would be an uproar.

People should realize that religious figures such as prophets are sometimes dearer to their followers than their own parents.

Why do you say that they hate Christianity more?

SoulandForm

unseenfootage wrote: »

But you should not have to. What if you had to say to your colleague that he is a son of a pedophile?

There would be an uproar.

People should realize that religious figures such as prophets are sometimes dearer to their followers than their own parents.

Why do you say that they hate Christianity more?

Because Christianity is the historic religion of the west and to hate Islam is seen as politically incorrect and/or racially motivated. I dont blame Muslims at all for this; outside of two all the Muslims I have talked/known/befriended have been respectful and even supportive of Christian civil liberties (for instance the right to wear a Cross to work).

Mark Hamill

SoulandForm wrote: »

neo-con liberals

What is a neo-con liberal?

Mark Hamill

unseenfootage wrote: »

But you should not have to. What if you had to say to your colleague that he is a son of a pedophile?

There would be an uproar.

People should realize that religious figures such as prophets are sometimes dearer to their followers than their own parents.

Calling someone a son of a paedophile is a personal insult, insulting a (long dead) religious leader is not.
Also, calling someone a homosexual (even as an insult) is not in any way the same as calling someone a paedophile.

confusedquark

MrPudding wrote: »

Is charitable giving not effectively compulsory for muslims? I think it is less meaningful if it is required...

MrP

That's purely a matter of perspective. If we live in a world where the poor die everyday because of starvation and disease, and the inherent good nature of the rest of us isn't sufficient to balance it out (which unfortunately it never has and probably never will be), it's more practical and meaningful to the poor for charity to be made compulsory for those who can afford it.

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Calling someone a son of a paedophile is a personal insult, insulting a (long dead) religious leader is not.
Also, calling someone a homosexual (even as an insult) is not in any way the same as calling someone a paedophile.

People hold religious leaders very dearly, and it is a personal thing if one strongly identifies with them as a role model and follows their teachings, because you're insulting a person's beliefs as well then. And just because people are long dead, it doesn't make it ok to insult them - it's probably worse to do so than if they were alive.

MrPudding

confusedquark wrote: »

That's purely a matter of perspective. If we live in a world where the poor die everyday because of starvation and disease, and the inherent good nature of the rest of us isn't sufficient to balance it out (which unfortunately it never has and probably never will be), it's more practical and meaningful to the poor for charity to be made compulsory for those who can afford it.

Which is fine, but the point remains that the impact you were looking for when you posted the story about Muslims giving more to charity than others is greatly reduced when one considers that it is effectively compulsory.

Personally, I think a person that gives 0.5% of their salary with no compulsion other than thinking it is the right thing to do, has done more than a person that gives 5% because they have to.

MrP

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

That's purely a matter of perspective. If we live in a world where the poor die everyday because of starvation and disease, and the inherent good nature of the rest of us isn't sufficient to balance it out (which unfortunately it never has and probably never will be), it's more practical and meaningful to the poor for charity to be made compulsory for those who can afford it.

Compulsory "charity" is taxation.

SoulandForm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What is a neo-con liberal?

Tony Blair would be a good example; despite his claims to faith New Labour was viciously anti-Christian. Ironic when you consider that Methodism was one of the driving forces behind the formation and rise of the Old Labour Party which he destroyed.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

People hold religious leaders very dearly,

People hold sports personalities very dearly, they above criticism too?

I don't support throwing empty insults around, they add nothing to debate, but no figure or belief is above criticism. And if the followers of religious believers really believed that heathens and blasphemers are going to hell for their non-belief and disrespect, then base insults shouldn't matter either.

SoulandForm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Compulsory "charity" is taxation.

The UK is not Saudi Arabia- some Muslims there drink and have sex outside marriage, there is nothing forcing them to give to charity in England.

Mark Hamill

SoulandForm wrote: »

Tony Blair would be a good example; despite his claims to faith New Labour was viciously anti-Christian.

Christianity is not the only faith in existence. Christianity isn't even one faith by itself.

Mark Hamill

SoulandForm wrote: »

The UK is not Saudi Arabia- some Muslims there drink and have sex outside marriage, there is nothing forcing them to give to charity in England.

They are religiously obligated to give charity. That's how they are forced.

SoulandForm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

They are religiously obligated to give charity. That's how they are forced.

No one in the UK is forcing them to be Muslims- they are Muslims there through choice. The obligations are purely voluntary.

SoulandForm

unseenfootage wrote: »

That's probably because Christians tolerate attacks and insults against their faith, whereas Muslims, although willing to debate on good terms do not tolerate vileness.

Maybe you are right.