Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

LGBT and Islam

145791017

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 23,333 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Blueshoe wrote: »
    That was a bit of a non answer. A bit of a hissy fit thrown in for padding.


    How can I answer a question with any sort of qualifications when I have no experience upon which to base that answer? There was no hissy fit, it was simply pointing out the useless premise of the question.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,347 ✭✭✭jackboy


    MrFresh wrote: »
    The negative reaction to depictions of Mohammed is not about offence, it's about it being prohibited. There is no such prohibition on depictions of the pope so why would there be a similar reaction?

    You cannot believe that rationale.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,333 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    Even better still make an Islamic version of Father Ted and show it in Saudi Arabia, Eygpt, Iran, Pakistan, Bahrain, Indonesia or any other Islam invested hellhole and see how far you would get it would never get to pass and in the highly unlikely it somehow got on air it would almost certainly end in beheadings. I'm sure the silent majority of sane minded people would probably relate and find it funny but not the government and certainly not the Islamic fundamentalists.


    So you admit you don’t know that it’s been done, yet somehow you know it would end in beheadings... somehow :rolleyes:

    People need to understand that Islam is not a religion it's an ideology and a way of life similar to fascism or communism. It may be portrayed as a religion but if you look into it more Sharia law doesn't just govern religious it governs forgein policy, economic policy etc. and seeks to rule under an Islamic Caliphate ie. a country governed under entirely under Sharia law.


    Ehh, the same is true of Catholicism and Canon Law.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,964 ✭✭✭Blueshoe


    How can I answer a question with any sort of qualifications when I have no experience upon which to base that answer? There was no hissy fit, it was simply pointing out the useless premise of the question.

    You have politician traits.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,039 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    So you admit you don’t know that it’s been done, yet somehow you know it would end in beheadings... somehow :rolleyes:





    Ehh, the same is true of Catholicism and Canon Law.

    It has been done at the mildest level and people have died for it, legally backed.

    That you pretend it wouldn't is mad.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,065 ✭✭✭jmreire


    How can I answer a question with any sort of qualifications when I have no experience upon which to base that answer? There was no hissy fit, it was simply pointing out the useless premise of the question.

    My post was not a question, Jack. It was a statement in reply to you :

    "" People take the piss out of Mohammad all the time. Nobody died. It’s fine. There are more people who claim they can’t take the piss out of Mohammed than there were ever people who died for taking the piss out of Mohammed. It’s a claim that just doesn’t stand up to any sort of examination.""

    You can make jokes and cartoons about any subject under the Sun without fear of reprisal Jack, but not Mohammad or Islam, And people are being killed all round the world for the crime of "Insulting Islam "just because you personally have not heard of it, does not mean that it is not happening. Do a little bit of research on the subject, and you will see what I mean.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,420 ✭✭✭MrFresh


    jackboy wrote: »
    You cannot believe that rationale.


    Can you point out its flaw? If something is prohibited by one religion but not by another then you could hardly expect members of the latter to be upset by the prohibition being breached. I'm not going to be upset if I find out there is pork in my meal but a Jewish person likely will be. That doesn't make me more reasonable than him, he just believes in something different.




  • What? You can hardly expect the lads NOT to kill people because their religion doesn't allow someone drawing their buddy?




  • MrFresh wrote:
    Can you point out its flaw?

    I'm not going to be upset if I find out there is pork in my meal but a Jewish person likely will be. That doesn't make me more reasonable than him, he just believes in something different.

    So would that justify him killing someone?

    Mental gymnastics


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,065 ✭✭✭jmreire


    MrFresh wrote: »
    Can you point out its flaw? If something is prohibited by one religion but not by another then you could hardly expect members of the latter to be upset by the prohibition being breached. I'm not going to be upset if I find out there is pork in my meal but a Jewish person likely will be. That doesn't make me more reasonable than him, he just believes in something different.

    yes that's very true MrFresh, and in most cases it work's very well for the majority of people, but lets assume for arguments sake a slightly different scenario, The Jew ( strict Hasidic ) feels that you have mortally insulted him, by the very act of eating pork in his presence, and he takes out his sword ( insert weapon of choice here ) and cuts your head off??? And that's where the problem begins...when you must not do certain things because some one else is offended by them, to the point he feels justified in killing you.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭Sweetemotion


    It's simply turkeys voting for Christmas.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,039 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    Lots of rationale for killing Jews, women, gays in Islam, do you consider that acceptable as well Mr Fresh.

    Actually don't bother answering, I'm too tired to entertain prevarication.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,039 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    So would that justify him killing someone?

    Mental gymnastics

    Let's not get Mr Fresh started on Jews.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,347 ✭✭✭jackboy


    MrFresh wrote: »
    Can you point out its flaw? If something is prohibited by one religion but not by another then you could hardly expect members of the latter to be upset by the prohibition being breached. I'm not going to be upset if I find out there is pork in my meal but a Jewish person likely will be. That doesn't make me more reasonable than him, he just believes in something different.

    There is a big difference between ‘being upset’ and ultra violence.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,333 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    jmreire wrote: »
    My post was not a question, Jack. It was a statement in reply to you :

    You can make jokes and cartoons about any subject under the Sun without fear of reprisal Jack, but not Mohammad or Islam, And people are being killed all round the world for the crime of "Insulting Islam "just because you personally have not heard of it, does not mean that it is not happening. Do a little bit of research on the subject, and you will see what I mean.


    I’ve done my research on the subject and that’s why I never denied that it happened. I said something along the lines of more people have claimed they can’t make jokes about Mohammed than people who have actually died for making jokes about Mohammed.

    Remember Salman Rushdie? He makes jokes about his own fatwa -


    Rushdie has reported that he still receives a "sort of Valentine's card" from Iran each year on 14 February letting him know the country has not forgotten the vow to kill him and has jokingly referred it as "my unfunny Valentine" in a reference to the song "My Funny Valentine". He said, "It's reached the point where it's a piece of rhetoric rather than a real threat." Despite the threats on Rushdie personally, he said that his family has never been threatened, and that his mother, who lived in Pakistan during the later years of her life, even received outpourings of support. Rushdie himself has been prevented from entering Pakistan, however.

    ...

    Rushdie came from a liberal Muslim family although he now identifies as an atheist. In a 2006 interview with PBS, Rushdie called himself a "hardline atheist".

    In 1989, in an interview following the fatwa, Rushdie said that he was in a sense a lapsed Muslim, though "shaped by Muslim culture more than any other", and a student of Islam. In another interview the same year, he said, "My point of view is that of a secular human being. I do not believe in supernatural entities, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Hindu."

    In 1990, in the "hope that it would reduce the threat of Muslims acting on the fatwa to kill him," he issued a statement claiming he had renewed his Muslim faith, had repudiated the attacks on Islam made by characters in his novel and was committed to working for better understanding of the religion across the world. However, Rushdie later said that he was only "pretending".



    You think there aren’t many Muslims like Rushdie who wouldn’t get a kick out of satire at Mohammed or Islam’s expense? They’d positively relish in it, because in spite of Western portrayals of Muslims as backwards suicide bombers primed to go off at the slightest provocation, they’re generally not all that different from their Western progressive counterparts who are primed to go off at the slightest provocation :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,065 ✭✭✭jmreire


    I don't think anyone is bashing the Catholic church for being catholic. They've a lot of influence and should have absolutely no say in how the country is run.
    I think that would be the same towards Muslims are any other religion. Catholics get more press because there's more of them and they've more influence I would have thought.

    The difference is Matt, in Muslim Country's, they are run completely according to Islamic / Sharia Law, and all decisions are made strictly in accordance with Islamic Law and the Koran. There are no secular or as we would call them, democratic choices in those Country's, look at Iran as an example.
    In Ireland from the foundation of the state, and up to recent times, the Catholic Church wielded massive influence. That no longer applies here anymore. We are truly a secular state now. And at the present time, anyone and everyone who want's to can indulge in a bit of Catholic Bashing, with out fear of retaliation.
    Muslims do not have the option of openly criticizing their religious leaders. So in that sense, we have moved on as a Nation.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,333 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    jmreire wrote: »
    The difference is Matt, in Muslim Country's, they are run completely according to Islamic / Sharia Law, and all decisions are made strictly in accordance with Islamic Law and the Koran. There are no secular or as we would call them, democratic choices in those Country's, look at Iran as an example.
    In Ireland from the foundation of the state, and up to recent times, the Catholic Church wielded massive influence. That no longer applies here anymore. We are truly a secular state now. And at the present time, anyone and everyone who want's to can indulge in a bit of Catholic Bashing, with out fear of retaliation.
    Muslims do not have the option of openly criticizing their religious leaders. So in that sense, we have moved on as a Nation.


    We’re not y’know, but that aside, the “Catholic bashing” (Jesus even that “bashing” phrase is stupid, can we not just say criticism?) just got old, and stale. People just didn’t give a damn any more, and frankly I’m not sure that many ever did. People tended to portray themselves as devout when it suited their purposes as opposed to any genuine adherence to their religious beliefs, so while I agree with you in some sense that yes, we have moved on as a nation, I’m just not sure there was ever that much to move on from in the first place as far as some people’s portrayal of Irish society is concerned.

    Nowadays we appear to have a different set of sacred cows, or cultural values that some people appear to be attempting to put beyond criticism. I still wouldn’t say they can’t be criticised, and I personally wouldn’t have any fear of criticising ideas I find fault with, but some people will still claim that they can’t say anything “for fear of” something or other. It’s as though they feel they should be able to criticise something and for there to be no consequences for doing so. I’d think that sort of person was a coward, that they didn’t have the conviction of their beliefs enough to think they were worth dying for, but that’s just me. Nobody died, but apparently a barrage of criticism on social media is the same thing now :rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    I’ve done my research on the subject and that’s why I never denied that it happened. I said something along the lines of more people have claimed they can’t make jokes about Mohammed than people who have actually died for making jokes about Mohammed.

    Remember Salman Rushdie? He makes jokes about his own fatwa -


    Rushdie has reported that he still receives a "sort of Valentine's card" from Iran each year on 14 February letting him know the country has not forgotten the vow to kill him and has jokingly referred it as "my unfunny Valentine" in a reference to the song "My Funny Valentine". He said, "It's reached the point where it's a piece of rhetoric rather than a real threat." Despite the threats on Rushdie personally, he said that his family has never been threatened, and that his mother, who lived in Pakistan during the later years of her life, even received outpourings of support. Rushdie himself has been prevented from entering Pakistan, however.

    ...

    Rushdie came from a liberal Muslim family although he now identifies as an atheist. In a 2006 interview with PBS, Rushdie called himself a "hardline atheist".

    In 1989, in an interview following the fatwa, Rushdie said that he was in a sense a lapsed Muslim, though "shaped by Muslim culture more than any other", and a student of Islam. In another interview the same year, he said, "My point of view is that of a secular human being. I do not believe in supernatural entities, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Hindu."

    In 1990, in the "hope that it would reduce the threat of Muslims acting on the fatwa to kill him," he issued a statement claiming he had renewed his Muslim faith, had repudiated the attacks on Islam made by characters in his novel and was committed to working for better understanding of the religion across the world. However, Rushdie later said that he was only "pretending".



    You think there aren’t many Muslims like Rushdie who wouldn’t get a kick out of satire at Mohammed or Islam’s expense? They’d positively relish in it, because in spite of Western portrayals of Muslims as backwards suicide bombers primed to go off at the slightest provocation, they’re generally not all that different from their Western progressive counterparts who are primed to go off at the slightest provocation :D

    I think your forgetting that Salman Rusdie is living under constant threats from Islamic fundamentalists due to to his views. The fact that the likes of Geert Wilders and Salman Rusdie need 24/7 armed protection shows how progressive Islam is.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,065 ✭✭✭jmreire


    I’ve done my research on the subject and that’s why I never denied that it happened. I said something along the lines of more people have claimed they can’t make jokes about Mohammed than people who have actually died for making jokes about Mohammed.

    Remember Salman Rushdie? He makes jokes about his own fatwa -


    Rushdie has reported that he still receives a "sort of Valentine's card" from Iran each year on 14 February letting him know the country has not forgotten the vow to kill him and has jokingly referred it as "my unfunny Valentine" in a reference to the song "My Funny Valentine". He said, "It's reached the point where it's a piece of rhetoric rather than a real threat." Despite the threats on Rushdie personally, he said that his family has never been threatened, and that his mother, who lived in Pakistan during the later years of her life, even received outpourings of support. Rushdie himself has been prevented from entering Pakistan, however.

    ...

    Rushdie came from a liberal Muslim family although he now identifies as an atheist. In a 2006 interview with PBS, Rushdie called himself a "hardline atheist".

    In 1989, in an interview following the fatwa, Rushdie said that he was in a sense a lapsed Muslim, though "shaped by Muslim culture more than any other", and a student of Islam. In another interview the same year, he said, "My point of view is that of a secular human being. I do not believe in supernatural entities, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Hindu."

    In 1990, in the "hope that it would reduce the threat of Muslims acting on the fatwa to kill him," he issued a statement claiming he had renewed his Muslim faith, had repudiated the attacks on Islam made by characters in his novel and was committed to working for better understanding of the religion across the world. However, Rushdie later said that he was only "pretending".



    You think there aren’t many Muslims like Rushdie who wouldn’t get a kick out of satire at Mohammed or Islam’s expense? They’d positively relish in it, because in spite of Western portrayals of Muslims as backwards suicide bombers primed to go off at the slightest provocation, they’re generally not all that different from their Western progressive counterparts who are primed to go off at the slightest provocation :D
    After Ayatollah Khomeini issued the fatwa on Salman, he was put under 24/7 armed guard. He lived under the shadow of this protection for many years, and it was during this time he mentioned as a joke the card reminding him of the Fatwa calling for his death. But for sure, inwardly he was not laughing at it... and rightly so. The fatwa was issued in Iran, but had world wide validity.... meaning that each and every Muslim in the world was obligated to kill him if they could. This eventually led to him publicly stating that he was again embracing Islam, and was again a practicing Muslim, after denying it for years. He did this out of fear,,,,,grinding him down, year after year. Not funny. He is now in America, and while I don't know for sure, I would imagine that he has personal protection there too. Sorry to disagree with you, but the perceived Muslim suicide bombers that you mention, primed to go off at the slightest provocation, are running on a much shorter fuse than their western counter parts.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,333 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    I think your forgetting that Salman Rusdie is living under constant threats from Islamic fundamentalists due to to his views. The fact that the likes of Geert Wilders and Salman Rusdie need 24/7 armed protection shows how progressive Islam is.


    I’m not forgetting it at all, but if Salman Rushdie doesn’t take it seriously, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it either. I’ll worry about things that have at least a reasonable chance of occurring, as opposed to thinking the sky is falling. By that rationale, I wouldn’t ever want to visit the US either where I’m far more likely to be shot than I am in a bar in Baghdad.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,039 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    I’m not forgetting it at all, but if Salman Rushdie doesn’t take it seriously, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it either. I’ll worry about things that have at least a reasonable chance of occurring, as opposed to thinking the sky is falling. By that rationale, I wouldn’t ever want to visit the US either where I’m far more likely to be shot than I am in a bar in Baghdad.

    Salman Rushdie does not take it seriously because his 24 hour armed guard do that for him.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,333 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Danzy wrote: »
    Salman Rushdie does not take it seriously because his 24 hour armed guard do that for him.


    He didn’t have any armed guards when he wrote the satanic verses and was critical of Islam lonnnnng before he ever came to prominence in the West. Nowadays there are people playing the victim because they imagine they would be shot for their opinions. They imagine their opinions are that important that anyone would take a blind bit of notice :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,039 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    He didn’t have any armed guards when he wrote the satanic verses and was critical of Islam lonnnnng before he ever came to prominence in the West. Nowadays there are people playing the victim because they imagine they would be shot for their opinions. They imagine their opinions are that important that anyone would take a blind bit of notice :rolleyes:

    Do you even know who Salman Rushdie is?


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,065 ✭✭✭jmreire


    I’m not forgetting it at all, but if Salman Rushdie doesn’t take it seriously, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it either. I’ll worry about things that have at least a reasonable chance of occurring, as opposed to thinking the sky is falling. By that rationale, I wouldn’t ever want to visit the US either where I’m far more likely to be shot than I am in a bar in Baghdad.

    But he IS taking it seriously, Jack. And I don't blame him either. He took it so serious that he recanted, and became a practicing Muslim again. That was his public statement, and it was done to try and get the fatwa lifted. He might make a joke out of bravado, but inwardly, he knew full well what the fatwa meant, and he was afraid. The kind of pressure he was and still is under is immense. Have you ever been in a situation, even for a short while, where your every move has to be planned? Where you will go? When you will go? Who you will go with? Continuously watching what is happening around you? Never having a set routine, in case you might be tracked? Might sound a bit melodramatic, but that's what Rushdie had to put up with for years, and all the time, an armed guy beside him. Not surprising that it got to him.Treating it as a joke??? Like I said, maybe out of bravado, but he was not laughing, I can assure you. Question now is, will he live to a ripe old age, and die in his bed, surrounded by Family and friend's, or will the fatwa finish him? If you were a betting man, what would you bet on?


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,065 ✭✭✭jmreire


    He didn’t have any armed guards when he wrote the satanic verses and was critical of Islam lonnnnng before he ever came to prominence in the West. Nowadays there are people playing the victim because they imagine they would be shot for their opinions. They imagine their opinions are that important that anyone would take a blind bit of notice :rolleyes:

    Well, Jack...just google "Iran Protests" and see how many people are playing the victims. and getting injured,jailed and killed for it.
    Just as a matter of interest, do you know which verse of the Satanic Verses earned him his Fatwa??? And why was it considered such desecration the Rushdie was sentenced to death for writing it?
    Was very interesting, as a matter of fact.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,333 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Danzy wrote: »
    Do you even know who Salman Rushdie is?


    Yes, of course I do, I can remember him being interviewed on the Late Late about it and all. He was quite public about the whole ordeal.

    jmreire wrote: »
    But he IS taking it seriously, Jack. And I don't blame him either. He took it so serious that he recanted, and became a practicing Muslim again. That was his public statement, and it was done to try and get the fatwa lifted. He might make a joke out of bravado, but inwardly, he knew full well what the fatwa meant, and he was afraid. The kind of pressure he was and still is under is immense. Have you ever been in a situation, even for a short while, where your every move has to be planned? Where you will go? When you will go? Who you will go with? Continuously watching what is happening around you? Never having a set routine, in case you might be tracked? Might sound a bit melodramatic, but that's what Rushdie had to put up with for years, and all the time, an armed guy beside him. Not surprising that it got to him.Treating it as a joke??? Like I said, maybe out of bravado, but he was not laughing, I can assure you.


    I’ve been married, yes :pac:

    But seriously though, while I take your point, my point is that he’s still alive, and not only has he survived being critical of Islam, but he is celebrated in the West for it. There are many thousands more Muslims who are critical of Islam in just the same way as there are many thousands of Catholics who are critical of Catholicism in spite of the possibility of being ostracised or indeed being threatened with death for their opinions.

    Nowadays people receive death threats for all sorts of reasons, it just depends upon how seriously one is willing to take them and if they have the courage of their convictions to stand behind their opinions in spite of people making threats on their life. It’s still unlikely they are going to make good on those threats. To say that death threats are any more likely in Islamic societies than they are in the West, ignores the fact that in either society there are always a minority of utter fcukwits who will make good on their threats every once in a while. It doesn’t mean anyone should ever live in fear of their lives as though the West is about to be taken over by Islam any time soon. The threat just isn’t credible. Relax.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,039 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    Yes, of course I do, I can remember him being interviewed on the Late Late about it and all. He was quite public about the whole ordeal.





    I’ve been married, yes :pac:

    But seriously though, while I take your point, my point is that he’s still alive, and not only has he survived being critical of Islam, but he is celebrated in the West for it. There are many thousands more Muslims who are critical of Islam in just the same way as there are many thousands of Catholics who are critical of Catholicism in spite of the possibility of being ostracised or indeed being threatened with death for their opinions.

    Nowadays people receive death threats for all sorts of reasons, it just depends upon how seriously one is willing to take them and if they have the courage of their convictions to stand behind their opinions in spite of people making threats on their life. It’s still unlikely they are going to make good on those threats. To say that death threats are any more likely in Islamic societies than they are in the West, ignores the fact that in either society there are always a minority of utter fcukwits who will make good on their threats every once in a while. It doesn’t mean anyone should ever live in fear of their lives as though the West is about to be taken over by Islam any time soon. The threat just isn’t credible. Relax.

    ****ing hell, we have David Dukes lawyer here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,065 ✭✭✭jmreire


    Yes, of course I do, I can remember him being interviewed on the Late Late about it and all. He was quite public about the whole ordeal.





    I’ve been married, yes :pac:

    But seriously though, while I take your point, my point is that he’s still alive, and not only has he survived being critical of Islam, but he is celebrated in the West for it. There are many thousands more Muslims who are critical of Islam in just the same way as there are many thousands of Catholics who are critical of Catholicism in spite of the possibility of being ostracised or indeed being threatened with death for their opinions.

    Nowadays people receive death threats for all sorts of reasons, it just depends upon how seriously one is willing to take them and if they have the courage of their convictions to stand behind their opinions in spite of people making threats on their life. It’s still unlikely they are going to make good on those threats. To say that death threats are any more likely in Islamic societies than they are in the West, ignores the fact that in either society there are always a minority of utter fcukwits who will make good on their threats every once in a while. It doesn’t mean anyone should ever live in fear of their lives as though the West is about to be taken over by Islam any time soon. The threat just isn’t credible. Relax.

    Yes Jack, he is still alive, but largely due to the fact that he has 24/7 armed protection, and he lives a very sheltered life. Sure there are Muslims not happy with their Lives, but openly voicing their opinions or openly protesting against their Leaders has led to many being injured, jailed or even killed. Muslim's just don't have the freedom to openly criticize their Leaders. Catholics can and do criticize the Church. The proof of that can be seen in the changes that have occurred. Yet, I have never heard of the Church making any death threat's ( or issuing of fatwa's if you prefer ) against its detractors. Despite the regular bashing the Church and Catholics in general are getting at this point in time, there is no retaliation. I cannot see Islam and Muslims accepting similar criticism quietly.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,333 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    jmreire wrote: »
    Yes Jack, he is still alive, but largely due to the fact that he has 24/7 armed protection, and he lives a very sheltered life. Sure there are Muslims not happy with their Lives, but openly voicing their opinions or openly protesting against their Leaders has led to many being injured, jailed or even killed. Muslim's just don't have the freedom to openly criticize their Leaders. Catholics can and do criticize the Church. The proof of that can be seen in the changes that have occurred. Yet, I have never heard of the Church making any death threat's ( or issuing of fatwa's if you prefer ) against its detractors. Despite the regular bashing the Church and Catholics in general are getting at this point in time, there is no retaliation. I cannot see Islam and Muslims accepting similar criticism quietly.


    That has more to do with the price of celebrity fame than anything it has to do with his criticism of Islam to be fair. I can’t think of that many celebrities that don’t have 24/7 protection living sheltered lives either tbh.

    Muslims can and do openly criticise their leaders and yes, some have been put to death, I’m not denying that at all, and many Christians have been put to death for speaking out against their leaders, because Christians are just as likely as Muslims to get a bit trigger happy in defending their beliefs -

    Christian terrorism

    As many as 10,000 Christians die for their beliefs every year according to conservative estimates -

    Christian martyrs


    So while it’s true in Ireland that Catholics generally aren’t persecuted nor do they tend to be arming themselves to defend their beliefs (I’m ignoring the political situation in the north), it’s also true to say that people in Ireland who are critical of Islam aren’t being persecuted, nor are Muslims in Ireland arming themselves to defend their beliefs. It appears that contrary to some people’s beliefs, Muslims and Islam in Irish society at least, get about as het up about criticism of their religion as their Christian counterparts.

    The issue appears to be one of culture, as opposed to a specific religion.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 21 Hardcharger


    DrPhilG wrote: »
    I've been scolded out of the Pride month thread for derailing it (apologies) so I'll ask here.

    First off, this is a legitimate question, I'm not looking to bash/condemn anyone in the LGBTQ community, and I'm not looking to condemn Muslims or Islam.

    I'm just genuinely curious about why there has been an increase, often at LGBTQ marches etc, of support shown by that community, towards the Muslim community.

    lgbt_brum_web.jpg

    I'm not saying that supporting one another and speaking out against bigotry and homoohobia together is a bad thing. I'm just surprised that the LGBTQ community support Islam, but condemn Christianity.

    I can totally understand them condemning both, as both religions teach that homosexuality is wrong/sinful. I just don't get why one is supported and the other is not.

    Again, this is a genuine question that I'm curious about so please don't drag it down to a mud slinging match.

    Obviously because Islam is feared and Christianity is not.

    By virtue signalling they think they can save themselves.

    When the Jews were herded into the ghettos the Nazis recieved help from Jewish leaders and Jewish police who ran and policed the ghettos on their behalf. The bodies burned in the camps were shoved into the ovens by Jews desperate to live who accepted this duty rather than to be killed immediately. Ultimately the Jewish leaders Jewish police and Jewish camp workers were also killed.

    The Nazis did not spare collaborators.

    Similarly radical Islamists want to kill all gays.
    In countries where radical Islam is in power gays are routinely killed.

    In less than century or more based on demographics and the spread of Islam compared to other faiths the majority faith in the West will be Islam. Leading the charge is radical political Islam taking their marching orders from Whabbist Saudi Arabia.

    When this happens the gays if they are stupid enough to continue to be openly gay in such a society who march against Islamophobia will be all killed.


Advertisement