Islam and Islamists

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:fpig: :hankey: :burn: :cdc: :twatson: :bjarte: :rimshot: :popcorn: :D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek: :clap: :dance: :doh: :drool: :hand: :liar: :naughty: :pray: :shhh: :shifty: :snooty: :think: :violin: :whistle: :nin:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Islam and Islamists

Re: Islam and Islamists

#278

by Steersman » Wed Mar 07, 2018 8:09 pm

A few bits of surprising news on the Islamic Front, so to speak, that might be worth keeping for posterity.

First up, CNN may have finally seen the writing on the wall and is apparently showing some honest journalism:
Tapper: Some Dems Want Positive ‘Association’ With Farrakhan, Don’t Want to Face Public Scrutiny

CNN's "The Lead" host Jake Tapper called out some on the left for wanting to glean any positive impacts of a relationship with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan but not being willing to face any backlash.

Tapper began the segment on Monday by playing a clip of Farrakhan's recet anti-semitic, homophobic speech in Chicago.

"Jews were responsible for all of this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out, turning men into women and women into men," Farrakhan said.

The CNN host noted that "despite the anti-semitism and homophobia inherent in that clip," several leaders of Women's March and members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) have refused to denounce Farrakhan, despite having previously voiced their support for him. ...
And, also from CNN:
Threatened with 'acid, rape, abuse': Protesting Iran's compulsory hijab law
By Hannah Ritchie, CNN

Editor's Note: CNN is committed to covering gender inequality wherever it occurs in the world. This story is part of As Equals, a year-long series.

A young woman stands on top of a utility box, holding a white headscarf aloft in front of a crowd of one-eyed monsters, her medusa-like hair cascading over her shoulders.

The scene comes from an animated video created by Samin, a 32-year-old motion graphics animator from Tehran, with the help of her boyfriend, an illustrator. Together the couple have been protesting Iran's compulsory hijab rule with their art. ....
Wonders will never cease. And, equally surprising but quite gratifying and encouraging to see, an article by ex-Muslim Yasmine Mohammed, an articulate and impassioned witness at Canada's "islamophobia" hearings [#M103], on the front page, no less, of the National Post:
On Women's Day, drop the doublethink on hijabs (especially you, cosmetic companies)

It’s laughable to think a woman whose identity is redacted by a black shroud could spray on some perfume and become unforgettable

March 8 is International Women’s Day, the day we should be talking about women fighting for their rights around the world. From Iran to India, there are some big fights underway. ....

And the fight closest to my heart is that of women in Iran protesting laws that make wearing the hijab mandatory. ....

Like the many millions of women in Iran, I was forced to wear a hijab. This was in Canada and it was my family that forced me, not the government. Rather than threats of arrest or “re-education” for being seen in public without a veil, my family threatened me with violence. My mother threatened to kill me when she saw me without my hijab. Mine is not a unique experience. In Ontario, Aqsa Parvez’s family succeeded in killing her for not wearing the hijab. All around the world women are socially ostracized, fined, imprisoned, raped and murdered because they fight against wearing the hijab. ....
And last but not least, Anjuli Pandavar, after breaking cover to take me to task for my article on transgenderism, has a similar post at The Post Millenial on the hijab - though I have to admit being a bit confused about the intent of the title; maybe it was created by PM? In any case:
The Fight against the Hijab: the right fight for the wrong reasons
By Anjuli Pandavar - March 4, 2018

A fitting metaphor for the blackout of women that is Islamic dress has been the media blackout of the mass casting off of such dress in Iran. Till recently, the jilbab, hijab, niqab, burka, chador, abaya, etc., have been cast in the West as matters of women’s choice, as if ‘choice’ is a concept in Islam.

What started out as an error has since sunken to the ignominy of non-Muslim Western women adopting the hijab (that’s the fashionable, Nike-promoted headscarf, not the face-obliterating mask, the shape-killing abaya or the blue plasticine burqa) “to help Muslim women feel at home”.

There seems no end to the absurd agenda-setting entitlements of Western feminists. ....

Certainly, a great deal of oppression attends to enforcing the wearing of such items, from petite officials, many female, publicly berating grown women for a single offending strand of hair, on the one hand, to the brutal public flogging of women by any male, on the other. The casting off of these symbols of female non-existence is long overdue, but it is also a casting off an entire social order, value system and way of being. ....
Amen to that (my emphasis); maybe not the beginning of the end, but certainly seems an end to a necessary beginning, so to speak.

The times, they are a-changin'.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#277

by Steersman » Tue Feb 13, 2018 5:50 pm

Something else hot off the press, an article at The Post Millennial:
Islam, Sharia, and Secular Democracy

Our “illustrious” Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, was interviewed by the CBC not long after the 2015 election where he boldly asserted that “Canadians are quick to point out that … Islam is not incompatible with a secular democracy”, and all that despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary.

While he may be commended for a high-minded approach to the issue of Syrian refugees, it seems more likely that he was, in his apparent agreement with that view, simply being soft-headed, clueless, or criminally negligent about Islam. And as that point seems to be the proverbial elephant in the living room – and of some bearing on at least his recent implications that hysterical “Islamophobia” is running amok amongst all Canadians, we might ask ourselves whether that claim of “compatibility” holds any water at all. ....

A moot question of course whether the world’s religions, including secularism and atheism, are able to put their parochial dogma on the back burner, subject themselves to the same “sceptical scrutiny” they subject others to, and find the common ground that seems crucial to any social progress.

Unfortunately, the prognosis doesn’t seem particularly encouraging given the evidence from “the Second World Parliament of Religions held in Chicago [in 1993]” at which the Dalai Lama, in light of the fractious behaviour of many attendees, concluded “Nonsense!” in response to his own question: “If we have conflicts in the name of religion, can we help resolve other problems?”

Indeed; the question of the hour. And one with a profound bearing on many others, particularly on whether fundamentalist forms of Islam are “compatible with secular democracy”; on whether it can play nice with other religions on the block; on whether it’s true that as Muslim reformer Shireen Qudosi phrased it in speaking of Islam’s desperate need of reformation, “either Islam needs to evolve or it needs to die”.
Indeed; a man after me own heart, so to speak.

But I think it's moot whether it's just "fundamentalist forms of Islam", or whether it's all forms of Islam. Somewhat apropos of, a recent post over at Quillette suggesting that the distinction between Islam & Islamism isn't particularly tenable. Although the whole article looks rather suspect, like it's islamopologism writ large, like it's straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel whole, like it refuses to face the fact that Islam & Islamism are virtually identical.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#276

by Steersman » Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:01 am

Hot off the press, somewhat apropos of Canada's #M103 hearings on "islamophobia", but more generally, the perfidy and psychosis of Islam, and it's incompatibility with the foundational premises of Western civilization:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTnyEojs93s

Of particular note, a reference to Anjuli Pandavar's UDHR/CDHRI post at about 11:11 and again at about 16:01.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#275

by Steersman » Tue Sep 12, 2017 1:28 pm

free thoughtpolice wrote:[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB3cB2Raswc&t=0s[/youtube]
:-) BTW, you have to remove the "&t=0s" at the tail end - that is a time marker which the youtube brackets apparently don't support; comme ça:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB3cB2Raswc&t=0s

The dangers of cleaning and skateboarding with Islam: https://twitter.com/zlando/status/907685000757223424

Yea. #BanIslam - deport the effen lot. Somewhat apropos of which:
Germany: The Rise of Islam

by Giulio Meotti

Turkey controls 900 mosques in Germany and feels free to say that a "liberal mosque" in Germany is "incompatible" with Islam. ....

Re: Islam and Islamists

#274

by free thoughtpolice » Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:51 am

Re: Islam and Islamists

#273

by Steersman » Thu Sep 07, 2017 8:38 pm

More news on the ongoing - never ending - perfidy of Islam, and of the many Muslims who claim allegiance to that demented ideology. And on the cluelessness of many Western "intellectuals" who clearly have their heads in the sand - or other places where the sun don't shine - on those points. Firstly a post by Jerry Coyne that had been discussed recently in the main thread:
Coyne wrote:Examples of government-funded Islamic whitewashing in public schools

Several days ago I wrote about a government-funded project, “Access Islam,” designed to be used in American public schools. Supported by the US Department of Education, as well as by the Smithsonian Institution and the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) the project is objectionable because it not only singles out Islam (there are no comparable projects for other faiths), making it unconstiutional, but is also patronizingly designed to whitewash any doctrine of Islam that could be seen as oppressive or injurious. ....

Don’t believe me? Here, found by reader Matt, is a quiz from the “Access Islam” course materials. It’s from the segment called “Roles of Woman”—the same sanitized and duplicitous segment (original lesson here) that I wrote about yesterday. ....
"sanitized and duplicitous" is being charitable to a fault. Apropos of which, something along the same line from north of the border: https://twitter.com/SteersMann/status/9 ... 1776811008
https://twitter.com/CandiceMalcolm/stat ... 3741942784

And, secondly, my comment, as Tillerman, over on the FTB site "Aged Reasoner" - which I can empathize with - on the topic of Islam, Pishlam - which I can't. A portion of my comment:
Tillerman wrote:With all due respect, I really don’t think you know much about Islam. You may wish to read Ibn Warraq’s Why I’m Not a Muslim, for starters, which might go some distance to rectifying that. You might also note the review of it by the late Anthony Flew [1], particularly this passage:
Why I am not a Muslim gives readers abundant excellent reasons for not becoming or remaining Muslims and also makes a compelling case for the conclusion that Islam is flatly incompatible with the establishment and maintenance of the equal individual rights and liberties of a liberal, democratic, secular state.
And you may also wish to take a look at a post [2] by Anjuli Pandavar – she lately of the FTB site Autonomous individual until she was summarily and shamefully “dismissed” therefrom for actually exhibiting commendable levels of free thought – on the topic of the differences between Western conceptions of human rights and those of Muslim countries. A notable excerpt: ....
Some here may wish to weigh-in on the topic, even if only to defend Pandavar from the shameful treatment she received from the band of thugs at the egregiously misnamed "free thought blog" site. Not to mention thumbing their noses at PZ ... ;-)

Re: Islam and Islamists

#272

by Steersman » Sat Aug 19, 2017 12:33 pm

Apropos of another ("yes, another - quite your kvetching ...") wayward "truck of peace" and their equally demented drivers, Jerry Coyne has an interesting post up on the topic - In light of Barcelona, what, if anything, do we do about immigration? - which quotes extensively a post at Areo by one Ar Devine. Some relevant quotes from the former:
Coyne wrote:I don’t think there’s any number of Islamist terrorist attacks that will make people stop and think about the issue of immigration, which allows the entry of some people likely (or sworn) to commit such attacks. ...
Here Devine expresses the dilemma that many of us face, as our progressive liberalism conflicts with the knowledge that a regressive religion has an extremist wing that kills innocent people and is “hostile to liberal ideas”:
Devine wrote:The Jeremy Corbyns, Ken Livingstones, Cenk Uygurs, and Sally Kohns of this world and many of their supporters will grasp at anything but admit the truth that the Islamic faith has a problem with both violent and nonviolent extremism. When you want to talk about Islamic extremism they will bring up the fact that all religions have their extremists. This is undoubtedly true, but there is a qualitative difference between an extreme Mormon and his strange underwear collection and a Wahhabi hate preacher who believes Western women are whores who should be driven over and maimed beneath the axles of a speeding van.
....
Devine doesn’t offer a solution but does make two observations: that European politicians are largely ignoring the problem, and at their peril; and that there’s a general failure among liberals to discuss frankly the terrorism that’s plaguing Europe:
Devine wrote:And because some European politicians have provided little to no screening and have not efficiently regulated the numbers migrating from the Islamic world, with each terror attack bigotry and hatred towards the genuine moderate Muslims will grow — which I utterly condemn. I worry that not dealing with this issue honestly will not bode well for sentiments against liberal and secular Muslims. So, well done to Angela Merkel and the EU for all of this.
....
Yet I have no solution, and I invite readers to tell me what they’d do were they in charge of immigration to Europe or the U.S. Would you screen people? If so, how?
Too bad Jerry is so pigheaded as I would weigh-in, if I weren't banned there, and argue for closing the borders to Muslims, banning the "religion", and point to Greece (1923) and India (1947) as variations on the theme worth considering. And, as part and parcel of that, I would also point to those arguing, with no little justification, that "moderate" Muslims are, at least to a not inconsiderable degree, culpable for the barbarisms and depredations of their co-religionists:
https://twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi/statu ... 7809604608

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DE45IibUwAEpuzZ.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DE45IibUwAEpuzZ.jpg

And some related news, a new book out by Tommy Robinson with a foreword by Nigel Farage:
No Go Zones: How Sharia Law Is Coming to a Neighborhood Near You

And, finally, a link to an archive of Anjuli Pandavar's posts at the sadly if not egregiously misnamed "Freethought Blogs", many of which have some cogent if not prescient observations on Islam and terrorism. Seems the archive includes all of her posts up to about July 10; anybody with later ones is encouraged to post links here for posterity.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#271

by Steersman » Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:14 pm

Miscellaneous notes, news, and observations from the Net:

Tag: ironic juxtaposition, take 273:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHCi4pUUIAIgkKr.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHCi4pUUIAIgkKr.jpg
Though one might argue that it's possible the woman isn't really Muslim or that she's secular.

Reuters: Saudi top prosecutor summons Twitter users for harming public order
RIYADH (Reuters) - A group of Twitter users will be indicted in Saudi Arabia on charges of harming public order for threatening the "safety and moderate ideology of society" through extremism, according to a statement on state news agency SPA. ....

Saudi Arabia has stepped up efforts to muffle political dissent in recent years, using tough new cybercrime laws to sentence offenders to prison terms for online posts deemed insulting to rulers or threatening to public order.

In a separate statement, Public Prosecutor Sheikh Saud bin Abdullah al-Muajab said he respected freedom of opinion but asserted his office's power to pursue cases against those who promote hatred or sectarianism, or mislead public opinion. ....
Bit of a joke to call Wahhabism a "moderate ideology", although "promoting hatred" should be a charge leveled against both Islam itself and the Quran and should justify banning both.

Express:
Muslim migrants want ban on jokes about Islam - survey

THE majority of Muslim migrants in Austria want jokes about Islam to be banned, according to a new university survey. ...
In the immortal words of some obscure blogger, "fuck 'em, fuck 'em into the ground".

Re: Islam and Islamists

#270

by Steersman » Thu Jul 27, 2017 12:41 pm

Comments copied from the TrumpDump thread and responded to here as being more relevant to this one:
Kirbmarc wrote:
Steersman wrote:
d4m10n wrote:Bit off-topic but it made me think of Steersman [emoji1063]
Yea, Team Canada! ;-)
I'll probably copy your post and my more or less direct response to your link over to the Islam & Islamist thread later, if I get some time. However, as a bit of "meta", I kind of wonder where you're coming from. Your comment seems a little sardonic, a little "nudge-nudge, wink-wink", as if you think I'm going off the deep end with my concern about and response to Islam & Muslim immigration.

I wonder, have you read any of the stories and links in that I&I thread? How about the discussions in the main thread on the topic, particularly the recent comments by Kirbmarc on Islamic encroachments, particularly by way of Saudi promotion of the barbarisms of Islam within Western Muslim schools? You think all of that, including Trump's "Defense of Western Civilization" is just so much Chicken Little squawking about the sky falling? Or you think there's some justification for those concerns and responses? Inquiring minds and all that ...
You don't go off the deep end by saying that there are concerns about those things. You go off the deep end by supporting deportations and Qu'ran pissing tests.
Somewhat analogously, "deep" is kind of subjective, and depends crucially on how "tall" you are, or what your frame of reference is. And, somewhat parenthetically, since you're a big fan of Godel, Escher, Bach, I'd strongly recommend a book by one of Hofstadter's colleagues and graduate students, Melanie Mitchell, titled Complexity: A Guided Tour. Apart from a fascinating exposition on self-organization and cellular automata, it discusses at length the Copy-Cat program that they both wrote, and which illustrates the nature of analogy making. Highly recommended.

In any case and as mentioned, while this might be a bit too "postmodern-ish" for you, "deep end" kind of depends rather fundamentally on your frame and points of reference. And mine are the "deportations" of Muslims in Greece (1923) and India (1947) which were largely predicated on the "brute" fact that Muslims generally don't play well with others, that Muslims and most if not all other cultures are like oil and water, that, as Anthony Flew argued, "Islam is flatly incompatible with the establishment and maintenance of the equal individual rights and liberties of a liberal, democratic, secular state".

Really just pissing about, fiddling while Rome burns, to ignore, to whitewash away, that rather brute fact - virtual suicide as Douglas Murray and Mark Steyn have been arguing for some time. I really do wonder how long you, and presumably Damion and too many other "islamopologists", think we should continue on allowing "The Truck of Peace" to mash kids against guardrails before considering that the current modus operandus, that "conventional wisdom", "ain't worth shit".

And while it is commendable that "moderate" Muslims are making some efforts to walk-back the more "problematic" and literal aspects of their "religion", I don't see that they're being terribly successful, and that it is anything more than a drop in the bucket, like trying to bail out the Titanic with a teacup. For examples:


"Death threats every day" for woman behind new liberal mosque

It shouldn't be seen as rocket science to realize, it shouldn't take a Wernher von Braun to see, that if the water - if the religious nutcases - is coming in faster than you're bailing it out - "converting" them to Reason - then the Ship of State is going to fucking sink - and sooner rather than later.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#269

by Steersman » Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:38 pm

Reposting something from the main thread:
Kirbmarc wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote:From the Long War Journal. There has been discussion here about Saudi Arabia's involvement in spreading salafi-jihadism and the trouble they have been causing. Even Kirbmarc has mentioned it.
Editor’s Note: Below is Dr. David Andrew Weinberg’s testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Terrorism, Non-Proliferation, and Trade Subcommittee on July 19, 2017.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/ ... iculum.php
MEGAREPLY incoming.
For example, I exposed in a 2014 monograph that the State Department appeared to have allocated half a million dollars in taxpayer funds to commission a two-part study on Saudi textbooks that was intended for public release but was instead withheld to avoid embarrassing the Saudis or the U.S. administration. ....
Translation: Protecting the fee-fees of the Saudis (or better yet, the interests of the Saudi lobby) trumps US national and international security, not to mention the commitment of the US to, at least in theory, "defend Democracy"
I will then endeavor to present everything we know about incitement in the latest edition of Saudi Arabia’s official textbooks. Examples of such incitement include: (1) directives to kill people in response to their non-violent personal life choices, (2) messages that are undoubtedly anti-Semitic or anti-Christian, (3) lessons that are intolerant toward adherents of non-monotheistic religions as well as implicitly toward Shiite and Sufi Muslims, and (4) several other passages encouraging violence.
Some "allies". Truly they are "moderate muslims".
But most importantly, addressing incitement in Saudi Arabia, including in textbooks, is a serious national security issue. Saudi society has been a top source of foreign terrorist fighters – and, at times, terrorist leaders – in places like Iraq and Syria. Saudi Arabia was the original home of Osama bin Laden, and fifteen of the nineteen hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi nationals. While Saudi authorities have reportedly convicted hundreds of defendants on terror finance charges, they still grapple with the enormous challenge of radicalized private individuals seeking to fund terrorist groups.
Saudi authorities have convicted the terrorists who have targeted Saudi Arabia. It's like when mobsters with connections to the police get their rivals arrested. Al Capone did it in Chicago. It's a way to get the troublemakers out of your turf. Saudi authorities are more than happy to more or less openly finance terrorists or Salafi militias elsewhere (for example in Syria) and to look the other way when their "charities" finance terrorism or more in general Salafi groups abroad.

The US need to stop trusting Saudi authorities to have American interests in mind. You can't take their claims that they're "reforming" or "fighting terrorism" at face value, either. They're just propaganda to keep the US on their side.
The kingdom’s books have emerged in well over a dozen countries over the years, including Algeria, Austria, Burkina Faso, China, Comoros, Djibouti, France, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, Tanzania, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and previously the United States. The valedictorian of a school in Virginia that had used the textbooks was convicted in 2005 of plotting with al-Qaeda to assassinate President George W. Bush.
It's not just the books, it's also the Salafi imams who use those books to teach those things, and who are often either educated in Saudi Arabia or financed by Saudi charities.
Until 2015, Saudi textbooks were even the curriculum of choice in territory held by the Islamic State, according to the New York Times. Much like those books recommended, the Islamic State executed numerous individuals on suspicion of homosexuality, insulting Allah or the Prophet Muhammad, adultery, or purported sorcery.
The Saudis financed ISIS, and the Saudis also execute people for homosexuality, blasphemy, adultery and "sorcery". This isn't a secret. It is in the news all the time.

There's no difference between the law in the Islamic State and the law in Saudi Arabia. It may be painful for the US to publicly acknowledge it, but the Saudis are just an Islamic State with more money and connections. The US look incredibly hypocritical and stupid when they criticize others for violating human rights while their "allies" in the Middle East are among the worst violators of human rights on Earth.
Saudi textbooks are the most pivotal ones from a national security perspective, due to what author Robert Lacey explains is an accident of history regarding how the kingdom was established. The Saudi kingdom, founded in 1932, brought together disparate elements from three different regions: (1) the austere religious traditions of central Saudi Arabia, (2) the oil wealth of Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province, and (3) the mantle of religious legitimacy from controlling the two holiest sites in Islam, in Saudi Arabia’s west. This fusion allowed Saudi rulers to lavishly and persuasively promote their brand of Islam, first within the kingdom and then beyond.

When Stuart Levey was the U.S. Treasury Department’s under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, he wrote that fighting indoctrination such as intolerant textbooks is “even more important” than cutting off terrorist finance. He explained that unless we stop the indoctrination of future generations, America “will forever be faced with the challenge of disrupting the next group of terrorist facilitators and supporters.”
And yet you still sell weapons to the Saudis, praise them as "moderates", allow them to send Salafi imams and finance charities everywhere...

The Saudis aren't your allies. America. They're exploiting you. They're conning you.
Tom Farr, a former director of the State Department’s International Religious Freedom, was even more explicit. In 2008, he argued that the U.S. government’s lack of urgency and failure to hold Riyadh to its own deadlines for fixing the textbooks and other promised religious freedom reforms meant that “the primary ‘lesson’ of 9/11 [was] shunted to the side.” Indeed, without urgently addressing the religious incitement that provides fertile intellectual ground for such violent extremism, we may unfortunately be fated to keep repeating the past.
It's even worse than that. You have financed and approved militias created by the Saudis and instructed by the Saudis to get rid of the powers you didn't like (Gaddafi in Libya, Assad in Syria). You have called this "expanding democracy" but in reality you only created rump states where Salafi militias lay waste to everyone in sight. You have destabilized the entire Middle East. You have allowed the Saudis (and the Qataris, and the UAE, and the Kuwaitis, and the Omanis, etc.) to infiltrate muslim communities in the west and radicalize them, by targeting modernizers and liberals and promoting instead the idea of a global caliphate.

You have powerful Saudi lobbies and shills in the US who discredit all critics of islam, all modernizers, all reformers as "islamophobic", all while the Regressive Left licks their boots. You have right wing think tanks who praise Saudi Arabia with frankly servile tones. You have Donnie Trump selling weapons worth billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia. You have betrayed your ideals of Freedom and Democracy in order not to alienate a "key ally" in the Middle East (and in order not to lose those juicy, juicy petrodollars).
Saudi Arabia today is not the worst country in the Gulf when it comes to state-backed incitement. That title goes to the government of Iran, which regularly calls for the annihilation of Israel and viciously dehumanizes its enemies. Qatar’s record is also as bad or worse than Saudi Arabia’s when it comes to the extremist messages that are propagated by its state-backed media and by state-backed preachers. But because Saudi Arabia is so much bigger than Qatar, the impact of what it teaches to school children at home is felt around the world.
Saudi Arabia is FAR WORSE than Iran, not only, as it is argued here, because of their global reach, but because of their goals. Iran is locked into a regional fight with Israel and with the Saudis. The Salafis in the "west" plan to gradually take over "western" institutions and create their own small Islamic States in the "ethnic neighborhoods".

Iran is terrible under many, many parameters, and I wouldn't trust them in the slightest, but let's face it, you're not saying that Iran is worse because of its message, but because it explicitly targets your ally Israel.
Accessing Saudi Arabia’s government-published textbooks has been a recurring challenge not just for American researchers, but also for U.S. government officials. When the State Department undertook a 2006 in-house study of several textbooks at the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh, it “borrowed” books from school children because the host government did not answer repeated requests for the books. When the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy (ICRD) was conducting a review of Saudi textbooks on behalf of the U.S. government, it said religious studies textbooks for grades three and six “were regrettably unobtainable.” On several occasions, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom was promised textbooks by Saudi officials, wrote letters to follow up, and received no reply. Other times, the websites recommended by Riyadh to U.S. officials for accessing the books were out of service or incomplete.
They're not co-operating with you. Again, they're not your allies.
The times, they are a-changin', if slowly. At least Trump seems to be backing away from "regime-change" in Syria:
In Syria, the U.S. Reverses Course, although the US still seems committed to that in Iran and elsewhere.
Kirbmarc wrote:
A 2016-2017 high school textbook on Islamic jurisprudence teaches that the punishment for adultery is being stoned to death. It adds that the penalty for premarital sex is one hundred lashes and a year of exile.

That same book defines anal sex as a “crime” and says that the majority of jurists have determined that the penalty for it is “like the penalty for adultery,” meaning death. The book dehumanizes anybody who engages in such an act, teaching that it “creates depravity and lowliness in the soul of whoever commits it, since it extinguishes life.” The book adds that societies in which anal sex spreads are swiftly punished by God, incurring disasters, plagues, iniquity, and corruption.

Additionally, the book teaches that adultery, premarital, and anal sex each bring shame upon one’s family and tribe. This is a key element of the belief system that can lead to tragic honor killings in some communities.

This introductory book on religious law also mandates the death penalty for what is calls “apostasy,” meaning abandoning or renouncing Islam. The book teaches that anybody who does not “return to his religion” after three days must be killed and will then spend an “eternity in fire.” The lesson teaches that there are three main kinds of apostasy: (1) “mocking Allah or his prophet or his religion” and praying to an entity other than Allah, (2) drawing closer to an entity other than Allah in ritual acts, or (3) belief in something known to be forbidden in Islam, such as permitting the consumption of alcohol.

Lastly, the 2016-2017 Saudi curriculum teaches that the death penalty should be applied for certain perceived acts of sorcery, according to an introductory high school book on monotheism. For those involved in what it calls devil magic, the penalty given is execution by the state. For acts of magical sleight of hand, the instructed penalty is a rebuke that it says can also go up to the level of execution.

It is also worth noting that this is the only one of the four directives listed here that specifies that the killing of such people must be carried out by an authority appointed by the ruler. In all other instances, that assessment is left up to interpretation by the reader, which could leave open the possibility of vigilante violence by non-state groups.
What exactly is the difference between Saudi Arabia and the Islamic State?
Pretty close to diddly-squat:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DD8xcypV0AAopPh.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DD8xcypV0AAopPh.jpg
Kirbmarc wrote:
The language in 2016-2017 Saudi textbooks that calls for killing people who engage in adultery, anal sex, apostasy, or certain supposed acts of sorcery are not the only passages that encourage violence against those who act in a manner inconsistent with the state’s vision of Islam.

A 2016-2017 Saudi textbook on monotheism for the twelfth grade teaches that there are four kinds of infidels. The first three of them include envoys who have diplomatic immunity, peoples who have a non-aggression pact with the Muslim world, and dhimmis, a term for non-Muslims forced to pay a special tax that is commonly associated with second-class status. According to this book, the remainder of infidels, who comprise the fourth class, are defined as “combatants,” whom it says Allah has commanded must be fought until they submit to Islam or agree to become dhimmis.
This stuff is in the Qu'ran. Saudi Arabia is a muslim theocracy. 2+2=4.

Islam isn't a "religion of peace". It's a religion of submission through force.
I recently was told by a credible source that Saudi officials now privately claim to have completed the wholesale removal of religious incitement from their curriculum for the upcoming (2017-2018) school year. Such claims would have to be viewed with great skepticism due to the kingdom’s past track record.
....

THEY ARE LYING TO YOU AND YOU KEEP BELIEVING THEM.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#268

by Steersman » Sun Jul 23, 2017 12:00 pm

Bit of house-cleaning to post or repost a few relevant stories and links:

A new SyeTen courtesy of Bhurzum; rather amusing that SyeTen bases his satire on Marilyn Monroe's "Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend":

[youtube]
[/youtube]


And a story of an ex-Muslim woman courtesy of rayshul:
rayshul wrote:http://ijr.com/the-declaration/2017/07/ ... eft-islam/

This chick is attractive, black, and anti-Islam...

I really hope stories about her get picked up by the usual suspects...
Indeed - a real joke for Linda Sarsour and her ilk to be calling Islam a "feminist religion".

Plus a recent if somewhat lengthy interview by Sam Harris of Douglas Murray:
[youtube]
[/youtube]


Haven't listened to all of it - sure would be nice if Harris made transcripts - but in the first 20-odd minutes of it that I did listen to, it's interesting that, if I'm not mistaken, Harris acknowledged Murray's "genuflection" to Christianity as a bit of a bulwark against encroaching Islam while not really giving much credence to it - which may be a bit of a mistake.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#267

by Steersman » Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:42 pm

Bit of a repost of something from the main thread on "an interesting and cogent set of observations from a Pakistani-British woman on the topic" of Islam and immigration:
Mass Islamic immigration

You know mass immigration is an important issue because you aren’t allowed to talk about it, you get called names if you do talk about it, and those in favour of it will never back down no matter what facts you give them or how rational your arguments. ...

As the daughter of an immigrant who arrived in the UK from Pakistan in the 60s, many might assume I would be for open borders – yet I am all for closing our borders temporarily. My father arrived in the UK to work, not to claim benefits. He started off as a bus conductor, working his way up to driving the buses and eventually he had his own businesses, five of them. ....

Germany opened its borders and welcomed refugees, and it had no plan on how to deal with those that arrived. The vast majority of these ‘refugees’ are young, able men, escaping poverty and looking to make a better life in a country where they will be housed and given benefits. It is not racist nor is it bigoted to demand that these economic migrants be returned to their country of origin. These migrants make it difficult to help the genuine refugees, the ones fleeing war and terrors that we could not even begin to imagine. ....

We know integration by Muslims into many parts of the UK has failed and that ghettos have been created, where the community leaders rule their kingdoms and elected councillors have to listen to what they say, or else. Racist. Bigot. The usual words used to get their own ways, allowing Sharia law to prosper and flourish, unchallenged. If we heard only feel good stories about the large percentage of Muslim women who use Sharia Councils then it might be tempting to say it’s cultural and that it harms no-one and so why put an end to them. However we know for a fact that the Sharia Councils operating in the UK do not believe in gender equality and that women are penalised purely for being women. ....

We have already seen what mass Islamic immigration has brought to Europe: it has brought absolute carnage because Muslims have proved themselves unwilling to give up Sharia. The great European experiment has failed. This is the hand Europe has been dealt and the hand it must play. There is only one thing left to do: it is now time for Europe to give up Islamic immigration. If it doesn’t, there will be no Europe.
Indeed - more or less what Douglas Murray has been arguing thither and yon including in a recent book of his. As Anne Marie Waters rather cogently and succinctly puts it:
[/quote]

But the author of that post, "dreaming of sunshine", also has another interesting one on Islam itself which includes no shortage of cogent and damning observations:
Islam – submission to the will of Allah

... I was forced into a marriage with a much older man when I was eighteen years old. Three years of misery was more than enough and I walked out on my so called ‘marriage.’ For that my family and the Pakistani community disowned me. ....

The only thing, and still to this day that I struggle to do without fear is eating the meat from a pig. I do occasionally have a bacon roll and when I do, I have to fight the inner voice telling me I will be sent to the fires of hell, the inner voice telling me how dirty and disgusting the pig is, even though the taste of bacon is heaven. I eat no other meat from the pig, just the bacon. Silly I know, when I do more ‘haram’ things than eat bacon. ....

Islam is the number one talked about topic nowadays. Muslims argue with other Muslims for not being the ‘true’ Muslim, non-Muslims argue with Muslims over whether Islam is the religion of peace. Muslims are killing each other yet we still argue over how peaceful the religion is. I remember asking my father what sect of Muslims we belonged to and his reply was ‘We are Muslims.’ He believed we were just all one, which I suppose is a better approach than what is going on in the world today. Sunnis killing Shi’ites, Shi’ites killing Sunnis and ISIS killing anyone – all for the pure sake of killing, it seems. Saudi Arabia killing the innocents in Yemen, the Taliban killing in Pakistan. It never ends. Every day, it seems, brings more misery, and that is even before we start talking about Muslims killing non-Muslims. ....

But when you have hate preachers, preaching at the mosque you attend, about the infidels, the kaffirs, and the “corrupt West” in which you are living and making a life or claiming benefits, then you can see where the hate and resentment can start to grow. These radical hate preachers brainwashing the minds of young Muslims attending their prayer classes, still continue to live in the “corrupt society” they preach is the worst of the worst. They brainwash the minds of the young to not have any fun, everything is deemed haram, for females especially. Covered from head to toe these women are allowed only to see through a slit in the niqab they have been forced to wear. ....

Islam does not mean peace; it means submission to the will of Allah and it is supposed to be a way of living your life. If only it would evolve with the times, as other religions have done, and not be stuck 1400 years ago.

Muslims boast about Islam being the first to give women rights yet are silent at the treatment of women in Muslim majority countries today, and are trying to silence women in Western society from speaking out against the atrocities carried out in the name of Islam. Many of those who view Islam as the religion of hate and war only need to point out the endless and senseless fighting that is occurring amongst Muslims in Middle Eastern countries, and those that argue back that Islam is a religion of peace need to stop with the denial and silence. Denial and silence is what causes extremism to flourish in communities. Denial and silence is what causes evil in places like Rotherham. Silencers and deniers will resort to any diversionary tactics they can: when you talk about the serious issues that are occurring in Pakistani communities, especially the raping of young underage white girls, you are accused of somehow implying all non-Muslim men are perfect and commit no crimes. It doesn’t take long for someone to shut down discussion of thousands of rapes in Rotherham and other English towns with the words “Jimmy Savile.” ....

.... If Muslim women in the West won’t loudly speak up now, and in large numbers, the question of whether Islam is at all compatible with the West is an entirely legitimate one to ask.
Indeed - well said; may her "tribe" increase.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#266

by Steersman » Sun Jul 09, 2017 12:38 am

Apropos of Islam and Islamists, quite a good interview with Pakistani-Canadian "atheist-muslim" Ali Rizvi over at Vox. I think Rizvi makes some very good points - not least about differences in the nature of belief between Islam and Christianity - but I also think he's being a bit too soft on the Muslim community in not obliging them to address the rather odious aspects of their "religion":
An atheist Muslim on what the left and right get wrong about Islam

"The left is wrong on Islam. The right is wrong on Muslims." — author Ali Rizvi

Rizvi’s book is partly a plea for secularism and partly a defense of Islam as a culture. It’s also an internal challenge to Islam as a body of doctrines. Rizvi speaks directly to agnostics, atheists, and humanists living in the Muslim world, enjoining them to embrace secular culture without abandoning their Muslim identity. ....

Ali Rizvi: They [the left and the right] were both conflating “Islam” the ideology and “Muslim” the identity. Islam is a religion; it’s a set of beliefs, a bunch of ideas in a book. It's not human. Muslims are real, living, breathing people, and to me, there's a big difference between criticizing ideas and demonizing human beings. ....

That's what this book is about. It’s about making that distinction between Islamic ideology and Muslim identity, and explores how we can have an honest conversation about ideas and beliefs without descending into bigotry against those who might challenge or hold them. ....

The hard truth is there is a lot of violence endorsed in the Quran, and there are other terrible things, as there are in the Old Testament. But there are more people in the world — even if it’s a minority of Muslims — who take their scripture seriously. It’s dishonest to say that violent Muslim groups like ISIS are being un-Islamic. ....

One thing Christians and Jews don’t always understand, because it’s hard to relate to, is that most Muslims do revere their holy text very differently from them. It’s not just divinely inspired or written by men of God. It is written by God himself, every letter, every punctuation mark. It’s literal, and it’s infallible. You can’t even touch the book unless you’ve performed an ablution ritual. It’s very serious. ....

Re: Islam and Islamists

#265

by Kirbmarc » Fri Jul 07, 2017 12:40 pm

free thoughtpolice wrote:Muslims aren't racist:
http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.p ... al-Habashi
Bollocks. If Bilal ibn Rabah is enough to absolve islam of its African slave trade, then black Quakers abolitionists are enough to absolve the US of its slave trade and racism.

Beyond the muslim propganda, the truth:
Throughout Islamic history, slaves served in various social and economic roles, from powerful Emirs to harshly treated workers. Early on in Muslim history they were used in plantation labor similar to that in the Americas, but this was abandoned after harsh treatment led to destructive slave revolts,[13] the most notable being the Zanj Rebellion.[14] Slaves were widely employed in irrigation, mining, pastoralism, but the most common use was as soldiers, guards and domestic workers.[13] Some rulers relied on military and administrative slaves to such a degree that the slaves were sometimes in the position to seize power. Among black slaves, there were roughly two females to every one male.[13]
The Arab slave trade was most active in West Asia, North Africa, and Southeast Africa. In the early 20th century (post World War I), slavery was gradually outlawed and suppressed in Muslim lands, largely due to pressure exerted by Western nations such as Britain and France.[5] Among the last states to abolish slavery were Saudi Arabia and Yemen, which abolished slavery in 1962 under pressure from Britain; Oman in 1970, and Mauritania in 1905, 1981, and again in August 2007.[16] However, slavery claiming the sanction of Islam is documented presently in the predominantly Islamic countries of Chad, Mauritania, Niger, Mali, and Sudan.[17][18]
ù

Now in Lybia too. Not to mention the "servants" in Saudi Arabia.

So they'd better just shut the hell up and accept that islam is, and was, very racist indeed, just like Christianity, if not more.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#264

by free thoughtpolice » Fri Jul 07, 2017 12:29 pm

Re: Islam and Islamists

#263

by Kirbmarc » Thu Jul 06, 2017 11:33 pm

Sarsour is also a cunt on a personal level, going after ex-muslim critics of islam like a muslim version of Ann Coulter blaming "libr'uls" and atheists. Again, not someone that the left should praise and ally themselves with, but not a direct threat to the US (at least, not according to this speech).

Re: Islam and Islamists

#262

by Kirbmarc » Thu Jul 06, 2017 11:30 pm

free thoughtpolice wrote:[youtube]
[/youtube]
To me the word "jihad" isn't even the worst part. She's using the term to mean "struggle", but also to trigger people she perceives as "islamophobic". She very likely used it deliberately to then say "durr, durr, "augh! ignorant!", "look at the racist idiots who think I meant a violent struggle, I'm SO OPPRESSED!".

She's not a terrorist or a terrorist supporters (that I know of). She's more likely to be a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer than side with ISIS or even the various anti-ISIS Salafi militias.

No, to me the worst part of her speech was when said that muslims have no need to assimilate. That's a message that is hurtful, because it's going to be used (whether Linda understood it or not) to push conservative muslim narratives and further ostracize (at best) more liberalized and modernized muslims, along with ex-muslims.

Sarsour is the muslim equivalent of those socially conservative Catholic who side with the Democrats to promote Latino identity politics. She's far from being liberal or modern but she's not a terrorist.

Still, stupid of her to use the word in this political context. Yes, she's going to collect plenty of victim points when she's going to clarify that she only meant "political struggle", but that's a petty, small-minded gambit, which benefits her, not the acceptance of muslims within the US.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#261

by free thoughtpolice » Thu Jul 06, 2017 6:19 pm

[youtube]
[/youtube]

Re: Islam and Islamists

#260

by Steersman » Thu Jul 06, 2017 2:50 pm

Kirbmarc wrote:
Steersman wrote:Hot off the press, something for posterity - reposting a comment by Andrew in the main thread:
AndrewV69 wrote:Also this seems to be making the rounds:

[.tweet][/tweet]

Every time I start to suspect that Trump will be a one term president ... something happens.
Indeed. But while one might cut her a bit of slack on the connotations of jihad, although the more popular and common ones are odious enough, invoking Allah (piss be on his name and that of his psychotic Prophet) and insisting that Muslims don't need to "assimilate" in any way, shape or form is not likely to win many friends in the wider community.
<snip>

This video might be a huge mistake on her part. She seems to believe in her own brilliance as a speaker and debater but she's actually not as smart as she thinks she is. She kind of reminds me of Anita Sarkeesian to a degree. Same smugness before the "ignorant plebs", same tendency to say things to make them look bad in the long run.
Yea. Some recent pushback:

Though of course many have been complaining about the double standards of far too many on the Left, in particular, for ages - for example this fairly recent video of Sarah Haider:

[youtube]
[/youtube]


But most "unfortunate" that society isn't yet, apparently, ready to actually discuss the question of whether Islam is "flatly incompatible with democracy and human rights". Though Sarsour, Yassmin Abdel-Magied, and company are to be commended for providing ample evidence to justify that contention, if not advancing the day of reckoning.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#259

by Kirbmarc » Thu Jul 06, 2017 2:24 pm

Steersman wrote:Hot off the press, something for posterity - reposting a comment by Andrew in the main thread:
AndrewV69 wrote:Also this seems to be making the rounds:
Every time I start to suspect that Trump will be a one term president ... something happens.
Indeed. But while one might cut her a bit of slack on the connotations of jihad, although the more popular and common ones are odious enough, invoking Allah (piss be on his name and that of his psychotic Prophet) and insisting that Muslims don't need to "assimilate" in any way, shape or form is not likely to win many friends in the wider community.
Linda is first and foremost an opportunist who wishes to push conservative muslim values and Honor Brigade idiocy as part of the Po-Mo narrative of Oppression of Muslims. So far the US left has welcomed her with open arms, even though she's all about islam as an essential part of politics and of every social movement and Muslim Pride tied to "modesty" and muslims as being isolated in their own muslim bubble (so just watered down Salafism in practice).

This video might be a huge mistake on her part. She seems to believe in her own brilliance as a speaker and debater but she's actually not as smart as she thinks she is. She kind of reminds me of Anita Sarkeesian to a degree. Same smugness before the "ignorant plebs", same tendency to say things to make them look bad in the long run.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#258

by Steersman » Thu Jul 06, 2017 2:14 pm

Hot off the press, something for posterity - reposting a comment by Andrew in the main thread:
AndrewV69 wrote:Also this seems to be making the rounds:
Every time I start to suspect that Trump will be a one term president ... something happens.
Indeed. But while one might cut her a bit of slack on the connotations of jihad, although the more popular and common ones are odious enough, invoking Allah (piss be on his name and that of his psychotic Prophet) and insisting that Muslims don't need to "assimilate" in any way, shape or form is not likely to win many friends in the wider community.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#257

by Kirbmarc » Sun Apr 30, 2017 1:53 pm

Steersman wrote:Another great post by Rita Panahi in the Herald Sun on some more odious aspects of Islam (most of which qualify as such), and on the fact that Saudi Arabia (AKA #SaudiBarbaria, #SaudiaArabiaIsISIS) has been voted to sit on the UN's Women's Commission:
Panahi wrote:Saudi Arabia is a rancid stain on humanity and has no business sitting on the United Nations Human Rights Council.

It’s preposterous that a country that beheads people with the same gusto as Islamic State for “crimes” such as atheism, apostasy, blasphemy, idolatry, sodomy and sorcery, as well as condemning millions of women to a miserable existence as subservient slaves, is lecturing the world on human rights.

Now, in a move that marks the UN as beyond parody, the Saudis have been elected to a body charged with advancing the rights of women. It’s akin to selecting a known paedophile to run the police’s child safety unit.

Indeed, it’s hard to think of an analogy that is as farcical as the despot kingdom being elected to the UN Women’s Commission which is “exclusively dedicated to the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women”.

It may be 2017 in the civilised world but the Saudis continue to conduct their affairs with a backward brutality that’s reminiscent of the Dark Ages. ....
Indeed. Of some related interest, it seems that both the U.S. and Canada are among the 54 UN States responsible for selecting other members to sit on that Commission, and, presumably, responsible for that travesty of reason, logic, and humanity.
The petrodollar lobby is a harsh mistress. The yanks and the canucks have governments where the petrodollar lobbyists have a considerable amount of power. Also Saudi Arabia buys American and Canadian weapons. It's a vicious circle of more and more economical and political ties since the rancid, stale alliance between the House of Saud and the Seven Sisters.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#256

by Kirbmarc » Sun Apr 30, 2017 1:53 pm

Steersman wrote:Another great post by Rita Panahi in the Herald Sun on some more odious aspects of Islam (most of which qualify as such), and on the fact that Saudi Arabia (AKA #SaudiBarbaria, #SaudiaArabiaIsISIS) has been voted to sit on the UN's Women's Commission:
Panahi wrote:Saudi Arabia is a rancid stain on humanity and has no business sitting on the United Nations Human Rights Council.

It’s preposterous that a country that beheads people with the same gusto as Islamic State for “crimes” such as atheism, apostasy, blasphemy, idolatry, sodomy and sorcery, as well as condemning millions of women to a miserable existence as subservient slaves, is lecturing the world on human rights.

Now, in a move that marks the UN as beyond parody, the Saudis have been elected to a body charged with advancing the rights of women. It’s akin to selecting a known paedophile to run the police’s child safety unit.

Indeed, it’s hard to think of an analogy that is as farcical as the despot kingdom being elected to the UN Women’s Commission which is “exclusively dedicated to the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women”.

It may be 2017 in the civilised world but the Saudis continue to conduct their affairs with a backward brutality that’s reminiscent of the Dark Ages. ....
Indeed. Of some related interest, it seems that both the U.S. and Canada are among the 54 UN States responsible for selecting other members to sit on that Commission, and, presumably, responsible for that travesty of reason, logic, and humanity.
The petrodollar lobby is a harsh mistress. The yanks and the canucks have governments where the petrodollar lobbyists have a considerable amount of power. Also Saudi Arabia buys American and Canadian weapons. It's a vicious circle of more and more economical and political ties since the rancid, stale alliance between the House of Saud and the Seven Sisters.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#255

by Steersman » Sun Apr 30, 2017 1:15 pm

Another great post by Rita Panahi in the Herald Sun on some more odious aspects of Islam (most of which qualify as such), and on the fact that Saudi Arabia (AKA #SaudiBarbaria, #SaudiaArabiaIsISIS) has been voted to sit on the UN's Women's Commission:
Panahi wrote:Saudi Arabia is a rancid stain on humanity and has no business sitting on the United Nations Human Rights Council.

It’s preposterous that a country that beheads people with the same gusto as Islamic State for “crimes” such as atheism, apostasy, blasphemy, idolatry, sodomy and sorcery, as well as condemning millions of women to a miserable existence as subservient slaves, is lecturing the world on human rights.

Now, in a move that marks the UN as beyond parody, the Saudis have been elected to a body charged with advancing the rights of women. It’s akin to selecting a known paedophile to run the police’s child safety unit.

Indeed, it’s hard to think of an analogy that is as farcical as the despot kingdom being elected to the UN Women’s Commission which is “exclusively dedicated to the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women”.

It may be 2017 in the civilised world but the Saudis continue to conduct their affairs with a backward brutality that’s reminiscent of the Dark Ages. ....
Indeed. Of some related interest, it seems that both the U.S. and Canada are among the 54 UN States responsible for selecting other members to sit on that Commission, and, presumably, responsible for that travesty of reason, logic, and humanity.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#254

by Steersman » Sun Mar 05, 2017 1:27 am

Another chapter in the long litany of the barbarisms of Islam, or at least a synopsis of such; a recent post over at The Gates of Vienna:
Rainer Wendt: “We Have Already Impressively Proven That We Can’t Do It”
Posted on March 3, 2017 by Baron Bodissey

Rainer Wendt, the head of the German Police union, is an outspoken fellow who never hesitates to call a spade a spade. The video below is an excerpt from a recent speech by Mr. Wendt in which he tells the plain truth about the failure of Germany to “integrate” its immigrants. ....
Link to the VidMe video included in the article.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#253

by Steersman » Tue Jan 10, 2017 9:56 pm

Apropos of nothing much in particular - though conspiracy theorists of all stripes may wish to try linking it to #PizzaGate:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#252

by Steersman » Tue Oct 25, 2016 10:47 pm

Again in the interests of collecting comments and discussions from the main thread, and posting them here again for ease of access, a response [Post #56571] by me to a comment from Billie from Ockham:
Billie from Ockham wrote:
MarcusAu wrote:Religious people should have to go through a vetting process before joining any atheist group. Perhaps a couple of years as a Unitarian Universalist to really prove their lack of faith.
That's fine, but I want them to have to piss on Steersman before they're allowed to go back to religion. And it needs to be on video.
Not a particularly good analogy [referring to my frequent suggestion that Muslims can either piss on the Quran or they can piss off]. For one thing, I haven't written a hate-and-psychosis-filled, misogynistic, and racist screed and then insisted that people accept, on pain of death and dismemberment, my claim that it was revealed to me by the Grand-High-Poobah of the Universe, by "God Himself".

And for another, I'm hardly a lone voice crying in the wilderness when it comes to pointing out the perfidy and odiousness of Islam, and that it is "flatly incompatible with the establishment and maintenance of the equal individual rights and liberties of a liberal, democratic, secular state". For example, you might take look at a recent review of Huntington's Clash of Civilizations over at Quillette; a salient quote:
Consider this. What was the main argument of The Clash of Civilisations? No, not a simplistic Crusade like grand clash between Islamic and Non Islamic civilisations. In Huntington’s own words —
It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation-states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.
If one distills the entire book, then it boils down to this, Huntington divided the World into eight distinct civilisational traits, and said that the chances of conflict is highest in areas which are civilisational faultlines. For example, the Western civilisation and the Eastern orthodox civilisation faultline lies in and around Central and Eastern Europe. Islamic civilisation and Western civilizations cross around the North African coastline and the Middle East.
I had assumed that the book was primarily about the clash between the West and Islam, but I don't see that a more general viewpoint detracts much from that specific case, particularly as he identified it as a particularly problematic one. Though I think the "cultural" designation is somewhat superficial or unnecessary as many if not most of the ideological and economic aspects of Islam and seem "flatly incompatible" with those of the West. And as cases in point, you may wish to take a look at a New Atlantis article - Why the Arabic World Turned Away from Science - and a recent retweet from Anne Marie Waters (who I think had been associated with Namazie's One Law For All in the UK):

Yea, well, Muslims can piss off with their Sharia - do not pass Go, do not collect $200:

And that's hardly the tip of the iceberg, of those who are finally able to read the writing on the wall when it comes to Islam. For instance, I've just purchased, though haven't had a chance to read it yet, The Flight Of The Intellectuals: The Controversy Over Islamism And The Press by Paul Berman. And Ibn Warraq said the same thing 20-odd years ago in his Why I'm Not a Muslim:
Trahison des Clercs

This book is first and foremost an assertion of my right to criticize everything and anything in Islam even to blaspheme, to make errors, to satirize, and mock. Muslims and non-Muslims have the right to critically examine the sources, the history, and dogma of Islam. Muslims avail themselves of the right to criticize in their frequent denunciations of Western culture, in terms that would have been deemed racist, neocolonialist, or imperialist had a European directed them against Islam. Without criticism, Islam will remain unassailed in its dogmatic, fanatical, medieval fortress; ossified in its totalitarian, intolerant, paranoid past. It will continue to stifle thought, human rights, individuality, originality, and truth.

Western scholars and Islamicists have totally failed in their duties as intellectuals. They have betrayed their calling by abandoning their critical faculties when it comes to Islam. Some, as I shall show, have even abandoned any attempt to achieve objectivity, to aim at objective truth. [pgs 14-15]
The fucking barbarians are at the gates, and well established as fifth-columns inside them, aided and abetted by various leftists; time to read the Riot Act - or deport the fucking lot.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#251

by Kirbmarc » Thu Oct 13, 2016 9:11 am

Steersman wrote:A tweet from Ali Rizvi commenting on a new Jesus and Mo cartoon:

Pertains to the rent-a-mob the usual suspects have sicced on a British gymnast for "mocking Islam" (the horror!); y'all might check out Anjuli Pandavar's comments thereon which links to a Brendan O'Neill post in The Spectator on the same issue; a salient quote or two from the former:
Pandavar wrote:.... What needs to be tackled is Islam’s claimed entitlement to get people in the twenty-first century to act according to its seventh-century values, and the uncritical Western presumption that affirms that entitlement. It is a presumption spawned of the delusion that Islam can be judged and measured as if it operates within the paradigm of human rights and freedom of choice. It does not [1] (and this is leaving aside the folly of identity politics). The precepts of the religion, and the behaviour of Muslims expressing those precepts, will rile against a cartoon on one day, kill a perceived wayward daughter the next, burn down an embassy the day after that, and fly a passenger jet into a building the day thereafter. When we “protect” Islam and Muslims from “offence”, we are protecting nothing less than their insistence to behave in the twenty-first century as if we live in the seventh, retribution included. ....
I agree 100%. Islam supremacists use political correctness and their dhimmi PC-loving western allies as a tool. They use the weird notion that religious beliefs are entitled to "respect" to silence critics, shame them, attack their jobs and reputations and target them simply for making fun of their absurd beliefs.

Fuck "respect" for religious beliefs. We MUST criticize, mock, ridicule any belief, including religious ones. We must be free to say that Islam is the collection of the thoughts of a pedophile warlord who today would be considered amongst the likes of Hitler or Genghis Khan. We must draw Mohammed as a bomb, as a piece of shit, as a dog, as a cow-pig or as a moron, without having to kowtow to political correctness. And we must react firmly against the bullies who want to intimidate us. We should have reprinted the Charlie Hebdo cartoons on the front page of every newspaper. We shouldn't be afraid of the thugs who want to react to mockery with violence: instead we should protect those who mock islam, like it happened in Garland.

If someone wants to kill or injure some people over a cartoon on Islam they must be stopped. If someone incites muslims to burn embassies or in general to react violently they should get the boot. If an immigrants shows up with a "Death to Democracy" sign they also should get the boot. And if someone mocks islam they should be protected and even praised, not punished.

Muslims need to accept our freedom to mock, criticize and satirize islam, Mohammed the pedo and their backwards beliefs. Those who don't accept this freedom and wish to shut us up either through violence or through authoritarian laws don't belong in a liberal democratic society.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#250

by Steersman » Wed Oct 12, 2016 12:48 pm

A tweet from Ali Rizvi commenting on a new Jesus and Mo cartoon:

Pertains to the rent-a-mob the usual suspects have sicced on a British gymnast for "mocking Islam" (the horror!); y'all might check out Anjuli Pandavar's comments thereon which links to a Brendan O'Neill post in The Spectator on the same issue; a salient quote or two from the former:
Pandavar wrote:.... What needs to be tackled is Islam’s claimed entitlement to get people in the twenty-first century to act according to its seventh-century values, and the uncritical Western presumption that affirms that entitlement. It is a presumption spawned of the delusion that Islam can be judged and measured as if it operates within the paradigm of human rights and freedom of choice. It does not [1] (and this is leaving aside the folly of identity politics). The precepts of the religion, and the behaviour of Muslims expressing those precepts, will rile against a cartoon on one day, kill a perceived wayward daughter the next, burn down an embassy the day after that, and fly a passenger jet into a building the day thereafter. When we “protect” Islam and Muslims from “offence”, we are protecting nothing less than their insistence to behave in the twenty-first century as if we live in the seventh, retribution included. ....

Re: Islam and Islamists

#249

by Steersman » Tue Oct 11, 2016 5:47 pm

Some more items to add to the bill of particulars in the indictment of Islam - not that there isn't already a surfeit of them; in no particular order:

First a tweet referencing and summarizing an article by Douglas Murray on the issue of mocking Islam - and the necessity to do so:

The tweet being in response to:

The article by Murray and a salient quote or two:
Murray wrote:If there is one question that most concerns the public around the question of radical Islam it is "What is the connection between the extremists and the moderates?" Leading politicians across the Western world have not been much help in answering this question, insisting as they do, that radical Islam has nothing to do with Islam and that the extremists are as far away from the moderates as it is possible to be. Yet the public senses that this is not the case.

Despite the amazing lack of public debate about the actual contours of the discussion, the public knows that something is not right about the analysis provided by Liberal politicians and others. Indeed, the public notices not only that there is some connection between the two (something Democrats in the U.S., among others, deny) but that the connection may be closer than anyone would like. ....

All insist that their faith "should not be mocked." And for those who say they are moderates, and are presented as such by the press, it seems to be exceptionally useful that they do not have to be much more explicit than this. Fortunately for them, there are other people willing to do the killing in countries such as Pakistan and occasionally in the West. The rest of us -- whether gymnasts on a night out or anyone else -- are simply expected to have learnt this by now. But in this not-so-subtle intimidation do we not see precisely that thing which most worries the public? That despite what our politicians say, the allegedly vast chasm that separates the extremists from the "moderates" seems at times to be almost paper-thin.
Indeed.

Secondly, a golden oldie from MEMRI TV:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvvvomANbRo

From the description:
Published on Aug 26, 2012
Ibrahim Al-Buleihi, a Saudi Shura council member, says in an interview on the 23th of july 2012 that the arabs in general are unaware of their backwardness in comparison to the West. "We can't do without the West", says the cleric. Are the Arabs finally waking up?
Not likely there'll be much "waking up" as long as Saudi students' minds remain "poached in religious studies" - in Irshard Manji's memorable phrase.

And, thirdly and more recently, a post from Anne Marie Waters on the We Need to Talk About Islam website:
Waters wrote:I spoke recently at the Dangerous Words conference in Stockholm, an event to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the passing of free speech protection laws in Sweden. One of the other speakers at the conference was Hamed Abdel-Samed, who gave a fantastic speech that revealed just how brave he is. .... But there are two points in particular at which Hamed and I part ways, and this is simply because of the gulf that exists between our perspectives. During his speech, Hamed emphasised the need to distinguish between ideology and people, as well as urging adherence to the concept of human rights.

On the latter point, I’m about to say something controversial, but from where I’m sitting, human rights are the problem, not the solution.

I mentioned a gulf in perspective and it’s time we were honest about this. An ex-Muslim will approach the issue of Islam very differently to a native European (yes, I did say “native”). For the majority of non-Muslim Europeans specifically, Islam is new – it’s not ours. We see what it does in countries around the world, and what it is already doing in ours, and many of us don’t want any more of it. This will mean either stopping or severely restricting migration from Muslim majority countries, that is the reality. We shouldn’t constantly need reminding, but it seems that we do, that an individual Muslim is a human being who should be treated on their own merit, but an individual Muslim is not a concern. Millions of Muslims is a concern, because millions of Muslims means Islam. That is the harsh truth. Human rights however dictate that simply by virtue of being human, everyone has the de facto right to come live in Europe – regardless of what they bring with them. ....
I disagreed with her last point in a tweet wherein I pointed out that even the UN Convention on Refugees stipulates that that right is not at all an absolute:
The cornerstone of the 1951 Convention is the principle of non-refoulement contained in Article 33. According to this principle, a refugee should not be returned to a country where he or she faces serious threats to his or her life or freedom. This protection may not be claimed by refugees who are reasonably regarded as a danger to the security of the country, or having been convicted of a particularly serious crime, are considered a danger to the community.
Doesn't take much effort, or knowledge of current events, to argue pesuasively that Muslims, in general, are largely a significant "danger to the security" of any country they immigrate to.

But she goes on to say, addressing the second aspect:
Waters wrote:On the second point, while I appreciate the sentiment in theory, it doesn’t work in reality. The separation of ideology from people isn’t practicable; it again presents people as innocents, and ideologies alone as harmful. But that doesn’t make any sense. Ideas do not exist independently of people. It is people who give birth to ideas and it is people who put them in to practice. While an idea may be repulsive – such as burying a person up to their chest and throwing stones at their head until they die – the idea itself will cause no harm unless there are people willing to throw the stones. The Koran may contain verses urging the killing of non-believers, but if I put a Koran on a shelf and leave it there, it will cause no damage. It is only when people pick up the book and implement its commands that the problems begin.

Therefore, in order to keep these ideas, and their implementation, out of European societies, we cannot allow mass permanent immigration from Muslim majority countries.

..... People who come to live within a country’s borders should be required to respect the prevailing culture and its people, but especially its laws. If you attack the native people in the streets, you will be expelled – permanently. This is how a nation-state governs for its people, and is answerable to them. ....
"Amen" to that; nice to see that the issue and the question is acquiring some credibility.

And, fourthly, a tweet about a WikiLeaks item on "Multikultistan: A house of horrors for ordinary Germans":

Those with their fingers on the pulse of Germany society may wish to weigh-in to support or refute that argument.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#248

by Steersman » Fri Oct 07, 2016 1:31 pm

Relative to my earlier post in the main thread (Post #54575) on the intersection of Islam and chess, Asra Nomani has weighed in on the issue with a Storify summarizing it and comments thereon, and wherein yours truly gets an honourable mention:
Iran Will Ban A Chess Queen. Her Crime: Her Hair
She fights back to #DefendWomensRights

byAsra Nomani 32 minutes ago12 Views ....



En passant, so to speak, the petition now stands at 10,428.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#247

by Steersman » Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:18 am

Again in the interests of collecting posts and information on "Islam and Islamists" in a single thread, a recent comment of mine ([Post #52375])in the main thread on a Twitter poll by a Australian Muslim woman:

Of some interest relative to Islam, particularly in Australia, a recent and ongoing Twitter poll by one Mariam Veiszadeh who's apparently somewhat of a "moderate", and a shaker and a mover in the Australian Muslim community:

As the above doesn't show the percentage for each choice the following is her then current update:

My response thereto:

Of some related interest, currently, there's some 10,900 votes cast with 57% in favour of a ban on Muslim immigration while an earlier screenshot showed some 5400 votes with only 34% in favour of the ban.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#246

by Steersman » Tue Sep 20, 2016 11:39 am

In the interests of collecting discussions on, and examples of, the perfidy that is, largely, Islam in this thread, a recent comment by yours truly - even if a somewhat "trollish" one - in the Poll: is Steersman right? thread that Kirbmarc created recently:
Steersman wrote:And you might also note that Kirbmarc has been suggesting some sensible if maybe somewhat impractical carrot-and-stick policies that seem hardly little short of an outright ban on Islam. For instance (Post #50798):
Kirbmarc wrote:There's a difference between "some incentives and a gentle coercion" and simply banning a religion and expelling everyone who practice it. As I have written many times some tighter rules on immigration (including a stop of immigration of people from certain countries), a list of imams and the expulsion of those who preach violent or subversive ideas (which basically include all Salafi preachers), no special privileges for muslims (no publicly funded prayers, no segregation by gender, absolutely NO religiously inspired arbitration tribunals, etc.) and no restriction on criticism and mockery of islam (neither through blasphemy laws nor through laws against "offense") are a start.

A more secular education, the promoting of secular muslim women's groups- muslim LGBT groups - ex Muslim groups, closing/defunding religious schools if their curricula are found to be preaching violent or subversive ideas, stricter rules for integration and naturalization are other features of the plan. Helping modernization and secularization should be the key focus of all political parties, from left to right, and of many governmental efforts.

Of course it's not just carrots, and you need some sticks, the first of which is immediate expulsion/incarceration for crimes (starting from street harassment and up) that are inspired by religion. The nutcase who stabbed a man in Australia had been signaled by many as a problem, since he yelled and harassed people in the street with a Koran. He should have been expelled/jailed at the first sign of trouble.
But I'll concede that that is at least a reasonable step in the right direction. Been thinking that "we" should create some sort of organization to lobby various goverments around the world, but mostly in the West, to implement some or all of those policies - with outright banning and deportation being the "nuclear option" should those others fail to do the trick. We could maybe start a GoFundMe to pay for setting up various satellites - headquarters, say, in Zurich with opening chapters in Vancouver, Toronto, and California. All we need is a catchy organization name - maybe International CRUSADERs Inc. (ICI): Christian Right (and friends) United (against) Salafists-Sunnis-Shias (and) Associated Demented Extremists and Radicals?
And, relative to the question of "the expulsion of those who preach violent or subversive ideas", seems the Danes, including some in high places, are finally beginning to see the writing on the wall:
PM calls for extremist preachers to be criminalised and BANNED from Denmark

DENMARK has called for all radical preachers who spout extremist views to be criminalised and banned from the country.

By Lizzie Stromme
PUBLISHED: 20:07, Wed, Mar 30, 2016 | UPDATED: 20:25, Wed, Mar 30, 2016

Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen added that fanatic Imams should be put on a blacklist so they can be refused entry to Denmark.

The announcement came after a meeting with Danish Church Minister Bertel Haarder and other parliamentary party leaders.

Mr Rasmussen said: “We would like, just like Great Britain, to establish a dynamic list of people that we can effectively prevent from coming to Denmark to preach their messages of hatred.”
RELATED ARTICLES
'Beat children and stone women' Denmark demands closure of mosque
Denmark demands radical preachers are deported from the country
He also highlighted the need to halt Islamic extremists who would seek to undermine Danish values.

Mr Rasmussen added: “We want to see if we, with respect for the Constitution's provisions, including section 67 on religious freedom, can criminalise speech that undermines Danish legislation.” ....
Neither Rome nor the Ummah were built in a day, and they certainly won't be torn down in one either. But we may at least be seeing the end of the beginning - so to speak. As Diderot put it:
Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.
"Amen" to that. Although one might argue that the existence of such persons suggests a flaw if not a fatal one in the species itself that might be somewhat more intractable.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#245

by jimhabegger » Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:18 am

jimhabegger wrote:I'm curious to know if anyone here is skeptical about anything I've said in this post in the Islam and Islamists thread.
KiwiInOz wrote:Let's see:

1) the Quran is the word of God. Highly unlikely given that the god of the Quran most likely doesn't exist (and is in good company with the other non existent deities).

2) some people believe that the Quran is the word of God. Highly likely, but god knows why. It is a work of fiction.

3) the Bahai are far more Muslim than those milksop Christians. True.

4) people that believe that the Quran is the word of God can exist in western society without issue. Hmm. It depends on whether they believe that god requires them to kill the infidel, given that the Quran is the ineffable word of God irrespective of century.

On balance - sceptical 1, believer 0.
That's very helpful. Thank you!

Re: Islam and Islamists

#244

by Kirbmarc » Sat Sep 10, 2016 11:43 pm

jimhabegger wrote:This is for anyone who honestly, sincerely thinks that it would be impossible to have communities of people in Europe and North America who view the Quran as the word of God, without disrupting the society around them any more than Christian communities do. I'm saying that there already are hundreds of communities like that all over Europe and North America, namely Baha'i communities.

Some people say that Baha'is are Muslims, and some say that they aren't, but no matter if they are or they aren't, they do view the Quran as the word of God, even more than Christians view the Bible as the word of God. Many Christians, possibly most, would say that only parts of the Bible are the actual words of God Himself, but few if any Baha'is would deny that God Himself is the author of the entire Quran. That means that there are hundreds of communities of people all over Europe and North America who view the Quran as the word of God, and which are less disruptive to the society around them than Christian communities.
Jim, I have no problem with people deciding voluntarily to belong to religious/ideological communities in liberal democracies. The problems come when:

a) the community struggles to impose their private beliefs on the rest of the population

b) the community doesn't obey to the secular laws of the liberal democracy of the country they live in

c) the community penalizes those who leave it through illegal means or through bullying, intimidation, financial blackmail, etc

d) the community struggles to subvert liberal democracy by setting up their own private justice system, private police, private institutions which don't follow the rules of the liberal democracy they live in

e) the community struggles to punish its critics, either through illegal means or by trying to pass laws that punish criticism, mockery or satire of the community (blasphemy laws, laws against "offense", etc.)

f) the community aids and abets people who commit criminal acts, either in the country they live in or abroad

g) the community covers up crimes committed by the members of the community and/or financial issues of public interests (tax evasion, etc.)

h) the community teaches or promotes violent, criminal or subversive messages ("Death to Democracy" etc.)

If a community (religious or otherwise) doesn't do the things I've written above I have no trouble with it. It's basically just a private club for likeminded people.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#243

by jimhabegger » Sat Sep 10, 2016 10:55 pm

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
jimhabegger wrote:I'm curious to know if anyone here is skeptical about anything I've said in this post in the Islam and Islamists thread.
Why yes. Very much yes.
Thanks for telling me!

Are you skeptical about all of it? If not, which parts?

Re: Islam and Islamists

#242

by jimhabegger » Sat Sep 10, 2016 10:20 pm

This is for anyone who honestly, sincerely thinks that it would be impossible to have communities of people in Europe and North America who view the Quran as the word of God, without disrupting the society around them any more than Christian communities do. I'm saying that there already are hundreds of communities like that all over Europe and North America, namely Baha'i communities.

Some people say that Baha'is are Muslims, and some say that they aren't, but no matter if they are or they aren't, they do view the Quran as the word of God, even more than Christians view the Bible as the word of God. Many Christians, possibly most, would say that only parts of the Bible are the actual words of God Himself, but few if any Baha'is would deny that God Himself is the author of the entire Quran. That means that there are hundreds of communities of people all over Europe and North America who view the Quran as the word of God, and which are less disruptive to the society around them than Christian communities.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#241

by jimhabegger » Sat Sep 10, 2016 6:48 pm

Steersman wrote:... you've moved the goal posts from Muslim communities to Baha'i ones ...
If you're saying that Baha'is are not Muslims, I agree with you, but have you changed your mind about that? Are you saying now that Baha'is *are* Muslims?

Re: Islam and Islamists

#240

by Steersman » Sat Sep 10, 2016 6:13 pm

jimhabegger wrote:
Steersman wrote:
jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, which of these are you denying?
1. Are you denying that there are hundreds of Baha'i communities all over Europe and North America?
2. Are you denying that Baha'is believe in the Quran as the word of God?
3. Are you denying that Baha'i communities are less disruptive to the surrounding society than Christian communities?
Apart from the fact that you've moved the goal posts from Muslim communities to Baha'i ones, you're the one makiing the claim that they're "less disruptive" than Christian ones. So you're the one obliged to provide evidence to justify it - put up or shut up.
I'm not interested in trying to convince anyone.
Good, although it kind of looks otherwise. And I doubt you've convinced anyone here of anything - except maybe that you're a dishonest godbot - goes with the territory, I guess.
jimhabegger wrote:I just want to know if you're denying it.
If and when you get around to putting up some credible evidence - I won't be holding my breath - then I'll maybe give some thought to trying to refute it.
jimhabegger wrote:Incidentally, some people posting here, not me, but some people, have said or insinuated that Baha'is are Muslims. Are you disagreeing with them about that?
Well, you did say something to the effect that your BabaYabaHabaDoola insists that the Quran is the "words of God Himself". So that kind of looks like it's tantamount to being Muslim - expect the difference is largely academic.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#239

by jimhabegger » Sat Sep 10, 2016 5:35 pm

Steersman wrote:
jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, which of these are you denying?
1. Are you denying that there are hundreds of Baha'i communities all over Europe and North America?
2. Are you denying that Baha'is believe in the Quran as the word of God?
3. Are you denying that Baha'i communities are less disruptive to the surrounding society than Christian communities?
Apart from the fact that you've moved the goal posts from Muslim communities to Baha'i ones, you're the one makiing the claim that they're "less disruptive" than Christian ones. So you're the one obliged to provide evidence to justify it - put up or shut up.
I'm not interested in trying to convince anyone. I just want to know if you're denying it. Are you denying it? Are you saying that Baha'i communities in Europe and North America are *not* less disruptive to the surrounding society than Christian communities are?

If you're denying that Baha'i communities are less disruptive than Christian communities, is it because you haven't seen any examples of Christian communities being disruptive, or because you have seen examples of Baha'i communities being as disruptive as Christian ones?

Incidentally, some people posting here, not me, but some people, have said or insinuated that Baha'is are Muslims. Are you disagreeing with them about that?

Re: Islam and Islamists

#238

by Steersman » Sat Sep 10, 2016 5:11 pm

jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, which of these are you denying?
1. Are you denying that there are hundreds of Baha'i communities all over Europe and North America?
2. Are you denying that Baha'is believe in the Quran as the word of God?
3. Are you denying that Baha'i communities are less disruptive to the surrounding society than Christian communities?
Apart from the fact that you've moved the goal posts from Muslim communities to Baha'i ones, you're the one makiing the claim that they're "less disruptive" than Christian ones. So you're the one obliged to provide evidence to justify it - put up or shut up.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#237

by jimhabegger » Sat Sep 10, 2016 4:58 pm

Steersman, which of these are you denying?
1. Are you denying that there are hundreds of Baha'i communities all over Europe and North America?
2. Are you denying that Baha'is believe in the Quran as the word of God?
3. Are you denying that Baha'i communities are less disruptive to the surrounding society than Christian communities?

Re: Islam and Islamists

#236

by Steersman » Sat Sep 10, 2016 3:30 pm

jimhabegger wrote: <snip>

I'll go further and say that there already *are* hundreds of communities of people all over Europe and North America who believe in the Quran as the word of God, and which are less disruptive to the surrounding society, than many Christian communities are. Would you deny that?
Say it all you want. But that doesn't make it true. And the evidence kind of suggests that you're talking through your hat - surprise, surprise. But do put your "extraordinary evidence" for your "extraordinary claims" on the table so we can all assess it.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#235

by jimhabegger » Sat Sep 10, 2016 2:54 pm

jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, I think that it's possible for communities of people who believe in the Quran as the word of God to grow and spread all over Europe and North America, without disrupting the surrounding society any more than Christian communities do. In fact I think they could possibly be even less disruptive than Christian communities. Do you disagree with that?
Steersman wrote:Nope. Absolutely not.
jimhabegger wrote:Sorry, that confuses me a little ... I'm saying that it would be possible for communities of people who believe in the Quran as the word of God to be less disruptive to societies in Europe and North America, than Christian communities are. Are you agreeing with that, or disagreeing with it?
Steersman wrote:Disagree. As the rest of my post emphasized.
Okay, thanks for clearing that up.

I'll go further and say that there already *are* hundreds of communities of people all over Europe and North America who believe in the Quran as the word of God, and which are less disruptive to the surrounding society, than many Christian communities are. Would you deny that?

Re: Islam and Islamists

#234

by Steersman » Sat Sep 10, 2016 2:36 pm

jimhabegger wrote:
Steersman wrote:
jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, I think that it's possible for communities of people who believe in the Quran as the word of God to grow and spread all over Europe and North America, without disrupting the surrounding society any more than Christian communities do. In fact I think they could possibly be even less disruptive than Christian communities. Do you disagree with that?
Nope. Absolutely not.

(snip)
Sorry, that confuses me a little. Are you saying, nope, you absolutely do not disagree with what I said? In other words, you agree with what I said? From the rest of your post, it looks like you might be disagreeing with what I said.
Well, that was rather ambiguous or a muddle on my part - mea culpa and all that. I guess I must have been thinking you had said "Do you agree with that?"
jimhabegger wrote:I'm saying that it would be possible for communities of people who believe in the Quran as the word of God to be less disruptive to societies in Europe and North America, than Christian communities are. Are you agreeing with that, or disagreeing with it?
Disagree. As the rest of my post emphasized.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#233

by jimhabegger » Sat Sep 10, 2016 2:13 pm

Steersman wrote:
jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, I think that it's possible for communities of people who believe in the Quran as the word of God to grow and spread all over Europe and North America, without disrupting the surrounding society any more than Christian communities do. In fact I think they could possibly be even less disruptive than Christian communities. Do you disagree with that?
Nope. Absolutely not.

(snip)
Sorry, that confuses me a little. Are you saying, nope, you absolutely do not disagree with what I said? In other words, you agree with what I said? From the rest of your post, it looks like you might be disagreeing with what I said.

I'm saying that it would be possible for communities of people who believe in the Quran as the word of God to be less disruptive to societies in Europe and North America, than Christian communities are. Are you agreeing with that, or disagreeing with it?

Re: Islam and Islamists

#232

by Steersman » Sat Sep 10, 2016 11:52 am

jimhabegger wrote:Steersman, I think that it's possible for communities of people who believe in the Quran as the word of God to grow and spread all over Europe and North America, without disrupting the surrounding society any more than Christian communities do. In fact I think they could possibly be even less disruptive than Christian communities. Do you disagree with that?
Nope. Absolutely not.

Get back to me when you can point to all Western Muslim communities explicitly and categorically and publicly repudiating Sharia, halal, child-marriage, and madrasas - for starters. Bonus points for pictures of y'all pissing on the Quran.

As a guide for the perplexed, if not the terminally delusional who are probably beyond hope, y'all may wish to take a close look at a recent post from Anjuli Pandavar over at FTB titled Islamopologia on steroids wherein she rakes Shadi Hamid over the coals. A particularly cogent and relevant quote:
Pandavar wrote:In a recent post, I discuss an interview with Professor Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari. I was particularly struck by his explaining how a young child’s mind is prepared for later receptivity to terrorism through the inculcation on its young brain of hatred for non-Muslims. I drew a connection to the madrassas, where the Qur’an is drilled into children, a central purpose of that book being to instil in Muslims an unshakeable hatred of non-Muslims. ....
More bonus points for giving serious thought to Huxley's views on those "of a single book":
Huxley wrote:The truth is that the pretension to infallibility, by whomsoever made, has done endless mischief; with impartial malignity it has proved a curse, alike to those who have made it and those who have accepted it; and its most baneful shape is book infallibility. For sacerdotal corporations and schools of philosophy are able, under due compulsion of opinion, to retreat from positions that have become untenable; while the dead hand of a book sets and stiffens, amidst texts and formulæ, until it becomes a mere petrifaction, fit only for that function of stumbling block, which it so admirably performs. Wherever bibliolatry has prevailed, bigotry and cruelty have accompanied it. It lies at the root of the deep-seated, sometimes disguised, but never absent, antagonism of all the varieties of ecclesiasticism to the freedom of thought and to the [x] spirit of scientific investigation. For those who look upon ignorance as one of the chief sources of evil; and hold veracity, not merely in act, but in thought, to be the one condition of true progress, whether moral or intellectual, it is clear that the biblical idol must go the way of all other idols. Of infallibility, in all shapes, lay or clerical, it is needful to iterate with more than Catonic pertinacity, Delenda est.
Indeed.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#231

by jimhabegger » Sat Sep 10, 2016 7:06 am

Steersman, I think that it's possible for communities of people who believe in the Quran as the word of God to grow and spread all over Europe and North America, without disrupting the surrounding society any more than Christian communities do. In fact I think they could possibly be even less disruptive than Christian communities. Do you disagree with that?

Re: Islam and Islamists

#230

by Kirbmarc » Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:09 pm

Thanks for the article, Steers.
What is needed in Islam is less self-pride and more self-criticism. Today, self-criticism in Islam is valued only insofar as it is made as an appeal to be more pious and less spiritually corrupt. And yet most criticism in the Muslim world is directed outward, at the West. This prejudice — what Fouad Ajami has called (referring to the Arab world) “a political tradition of belligerent self-pity” — is undoubtedly one of Islam’s biggest obstacles. It makes information that contradicts orthodox belief irrelevant, and it closes off debate about the nature and history of Islam
Absolutely correct. Islam definitely and desperately needs more self-criticism and more internal debate on its nature and history. And this is definitely not coming from the Muslim revivalists, the Regressive Left, which by justifying any flaw of Islam in the name of "fighting against racism" and "protecting different cultures", is helping to stifle any timid attempt to promote more self-criticism and debate due to the exposure to modernity.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#229

by Steersman » Fri Sep 02, 2016 8:21 pm

And something that showed up in my twitter feed recently, even it's from a 2011 issue of The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology and Society:
Why the Islamic World Turned Away From Science
Hillel Ofek

Contemporary Islam is not known for its engagement in the modern scientific project. ....
Has to qualify as the understatement of the century. But it continues:
Ofek wrote:But it is heir to a legendary “Golden Age” of Arabic science frequently invoked by commentators hoping to make Muslims and Westerners more respectful and understanding of each other. President Obama, for instance, in his June 4, 2009 speech in Cairo, praised Muslims for their historical scientific and intellectual contributions to civilization:
It was Islam that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed
.
Such tributes to the Arab world’s era of scientific achievement are generally made in service of a broader political point, as they usually precede discussion of the region’s contemporary problems. They serve as an implicit exhortation: the great age of Arab science demonstrates that there is no categorical or congenital barrier to tolerance, cosmopolitanism, and advancement in the Islamic Middle East. ....
He continues:
Ofek wrote:To anyone familiar with this Golden Age, roughly spanning the eighth through the thirteenth centuries a.d., the disparity between the intellectual achievements of the Middle East then and now — particularly relative to the rest of the world — is staggering indeed. ....

Today, however, the spirit of science in the Muslim world is as dry as the desert. Pakistani physicist Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy laid out the grim statistics in a 2007 Physics Today article: Muslim countries have nine scientists, engineers, and technicians per thousand people, compared with a world average of forty-one. ....

There are roughly 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, but only two scientists from Muslim countries have won Nobel Prizes in science (one for physics in 1979, the other for chemistry in 1999). Forty-six Muslim countries combined contribute just 1 percent of the world’s scientific literature; Spain and India each contribute more of the world’s scientific literature than those countries taken together. In fact, although Spain is hardly an intellectual superpower, it translates more books in a single year than the entire Arab world has in the past thousand years. ....
The item about Spain includes a link to the Arab Human Development (?) Report 2002 from the UN that elaborates on that point and a number of related ones:
The figures for translated books are also discouraging. The Arab world translates about 330 books annually, one fifth of the number that Greece translates. The cumulative total of translated books since the Caliph Maa’moun’s time (the ninth century) is about 100,000, almost the average that Spain translates in one year (Galal, S., 1999) ... [pg 78]

GDP in all Arab countries combined stood at $531.2 billion in 1999—less than that of a single European country, Spain, ($595.5 billion). .... [pg 85]
Somewhat amusingly, if you have a taste for gallows-humour or of the "playfully grotesque style" of Gahan Wilson, Irshad Manji, in her The Trouble With Islam Today - highly recommended, argued that that was due, in part, to the fact that the brains of Saudi students remain "poached in religious studies". "Poached", absolutely fried.

Anyway, some further observations on why Islam went off the rails and into the weeds - where it's been for about the last 800 years or so:
Ofek wrote:Why the Golden Age Faded
As the Middle Ages progressed, Arabic civilization began to run out of steam. After the twelfth century, Europe had more significant scientific scholars than the Arabic world, as Harvard historian George Sarton noted in his Introduction to the History of Science (1927-48). ....

There was a modest rebirth of science in the Arabic world in the nineteenth century due largely to Napoleon’s 1798 expedition to Egypt, but it was soon followed by decline. .... The civilization that had produced cities, libraries, and observatories and opened itself to the world had now regressed and become closed, resentful, violent, and hostile to discourse and innovation.

What happened? To repeat an important point, scientific decline is hardly peculiar to Arabic-Islamic civilization. .... As Sayyid Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, an influential figure in contemporary pan-Islamism, said in the late nineteenth century, “It is permissible ... to ask oneself why Arab civilization, after having thrown such a live light on the world, suddenly became extinguished; why this torch has not been relit since; and why the Arab world still remains buried in profound darkness.” ....
Complex issue, and quite detailed analysis. Some of its more salient and cogent conclusions:
Ofek wrote:A Gold Standard?
In trying to explain the Islamic world’s intellectual laggardness, it is tempting to point to the obvious factors: authoritarianism, bad education, and underfunding (Muslim states spend significantly less than developed states on research and development as a percentage of GDP). But these reasons are all broad and somewhat crude, and raise more questions than answers. At a deeper level, Islam lags because it failed to offer a way to institutionalize free inquiry. ....

The decline of Islam and the rise of Christianity was a development that was and remains deeply humiliating for Muslims. Since Islam tended to ascribe its political power to its theological superiority over other faiths, its fading as a worldly power raised profound questions about where a wrong turn was made. ....

But there are reasons why exhortation to emulate Muslim ancestors may also be misguided. One is that medieval Islam does not offer a decent political standard. When compared to modern Western standards, the Golden Age of Arabic science was decidedly not a Golden Age of equality. While Islam was comparatively tolerant at the time of members of other religions, the kind of tolerance we think of today was never a virtue for early Muslims (or early Christians, for that matter). ....

There is a more fundamental reason, however, why it may not make much sense to urge the Muslim world to restore those parts of its past that valued rational and open inquiry: namely, a return to the Mu’tazilites may not be enough. Even the most rationalist schools in Islam did not categorically argue for the primacy of reason. As Ali A. Allawi argues in The Crisis of Islamic Civilization (2009), “None of the free-thinking schools in classical Islam — such as the Mu’tazila — could ever entertain the idea of breaking the God-Man relationship and the validity of revelation, in spite of their espousal of a rationalist philosophy.” ....

But more importantly, merely popularizing previous rationalist schools would not go very far in persuading Muslims to reflect on the theological-political problem of Islam. ....

There is a final reason why it makes little sense to exhort Muslims to their own past: while there are many things that the Islamic world lacks, pride in heritage is not one of them. What is needed in Islam is less self-pride and more self-criticism. Today, self-criticism in Islam is valued only insofar as it is made as an appeal to be more pious and less spiritually corrupt. And yet most criticism in the Muslim world is directed outward, at the West. This prejudice — what Fouad Ajami has called (referring to the Arab world) “a political tradition of belligerent self-pity” — is undoubtedly one of Islam’s biggest obstacles. It makes information that contradicts orthodox belief irrelevant, and it closes off debate about the nature and history of Islam. ....
"the theological-political problem of Islam" and its "belligerent self-pity", indeed. As I tweeted, quoting Huxley, the crux of the matter seems to be the insistence that the Quran is "the words of God himself", and that it is infallible in every way:

Reminds me of nothing so much as the monkey in an absolute rage with its hand in a glass jar grasping onto a banana that it can't get out as long as it is holding onto the banana.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#228

by Steersman » Fri Sep 02, 2016 6:59 pm

Copying a post or two from the main thread for ease of access, and to collect them under a relevant heading. And for posterity. This one is Post #48670 - with a correction or clarification of sorts:
d4m10n wrote:
Steersman wrote:You don't think that that apparently well-documented claim of Obama about Muhammad (piss be upon his name) doesn't betray a rather problematic level of sympathy for a particularly barbaric and odious form of totalitarianism?
Blatant quote mining.

Full context: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of ... l-assembly
How so? Your source clearly quotes him as saying:
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied. (Applause.) ...
As another tweet I saw put it, How can you slander a guy that fucks goats and rapes barely pubescent girls who are little more than 9 years of age? Obviously some hyperbole there - maybe he himself didn't fuck goats, and such practices as child marriages may have been acceptable in that era; maybe not fair to judge the past by the standards of the present. But the protection against a charge of slander is the truth - and I expect you'd be hard pressed to refute every any imaginable crime Muhammad (piss be upon his name) could have been charged with:



Hard to see how it would ever be possible to slander Islam or its barbaric, psychotic, pedophile Prophet.

In addition, in a country that supposedly makes a principle of the separation of church and state, it seems rather incongruous and decidedly problematic for its leader to be apparently supporting anti-blasphemy laws.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#227

by Steersman » Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:15 pm

Kirbmarc wrote:
Steersman wrote:I doubt I would argue there are no Muslims who "respect the laws and principles of a liberal democracy" - rather difficult to prove a categorical claim. But it seems there are more than a few - like Flew and Warraq and even, apparently, Hirsi Ali - who argue that Islam is intrinsically antithetical to those laws and principles.
"Islam" is too much of a big, diverse thing to have "intrinsic" properties. You're confusing Muslim supremacist ideas (chiefly Salafism) with Islam as a Whole.
As I argued in the Jim-the-godbot thread, lot of evidence to justify the argument that the "essence", the intrinsic property, of Islam is the belief that "the [Quran] is the literal word of God", a belief shared, probably, by some 90% or more or all nominal or so-called Muslims. To reprise my argument there (Post #453):
Kirbmarc wrote:
Steersman wrote:
jimhabegger wrote:Kirbmarc, I think that in discussions about outrageous things that people do in the name of Islam, generalities about Islam and Muslims, favorable or unfavorable, are irrelevant, create needless distractions, and help perpetuate animosities and hostilities, without doing anything to help solve the problems. Do you agree with that?
Horse shit. The "outrageous thing that people do in the name of Islam" is the crux of the matter. And, nothwithstanding Kirbmarc's prognostications on the matter, they constitute the essence of Islam.
If we were arguing a couple of decades ago you would have said that condemnation of homosexuality was the essence of Christianity, of Christians and of nations with a Christian majority. This is no longer so true today.

Religions can be tamed. It takes a lot of work, but it can happen. I don't believe in "essences". I think that literalism and coherent religious prescriptions are horrible when they become a matter of politics, and pretty bad when they lead to social issues, but literalism is only one part of religions.
You don't think that, for example, the "essence" of gun powder is "sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate"?

But maybe you're too close to the trees to see the forest. Or I was too hasty in eliding the logical step, as you sort of suggested in a later comment, from those "outrageous things" - speaking of which, been following the news lately? - to what more than a few ex-Muslims and others have more or less characterized as the essence of Islam, i.e, its literalism. Consider this first from a Guardian review of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Heretic:
Having previously argued that Islam was beyond reform, in Heretic she says she wants to strike a more conciliatory note. She sets out to find common ground with the majority of Muslims who view their religion as peaceful and spiritual. While this may be a noble aim, one doubts that a meeting of minds is about to occur anytime soon. For one thing, Hirsi Ali calls for a wholesale Islamic reformation. It makes no sense, she says, to maintain, as so many politicians and religious leaders do, that the terrorism seen in Pakistan, Kenya, Nigeria, Syria, Iraq and elsewhere has no religious justification in Islamic texts. “We delude ourselves,” she writes, “that our deadliest foes are somehow not actuated by the ideology they openly affirm.”

She quotes chapter and verse of violent exhortations in the Qur’an, and argues that as long as Muslims hold to the notion that the book is the literal word of God then extremists will be able to lay confident claim to theological rationale for their acts. Put simply, her position is that “religious doctrines matter and are in need of reform”.

And then there's this from the Facebook page of Simi Rahman:
I went deep into the Midwest, wore a hijab for a year and lived there for 8 years. In that time, I attended ISNA gatherings, met w educated, professional people like myself who were also asking the same questions. They were looking to their faith for answers. And sure, there were efforts made to modernize Islam, but they were only superficial. We couldn't do it. We couldn't do it because there is a logical dilemma at the core of Islam. And that is, that the Quran is the last word of God, that it is perfect and unchangeable. And to even suggest such a thing is blasphemy and apostasy.
And then there is Anthony Flew's review of Ibn Warraq's Why I'm Not a Muslim - a book that both you and "jimhabegger", among others, should read, although I doubt Jim has the intellectual integrity to do so. In any case, Flew:
On this understanding a fully believing Christian does not have to be fundamentalist. Instead it is both necessary and sufficient to accept the Apostles' and/or The Nicene Creed. In Islam, however, the situation is altogether different. For, whereas only a very small proportion of all the propositions contained in the Old and New Testaments are presented as statements made directly by God in any of the three persons of the Trinity, The Koran consists entirely and exclusively of what are alleged to be revelations from Allah (God). Therefore, with regard to The Koran, all Muslims must be as such fundamentalists; and anyone denying anything asserted in The Koran ceases, ipso facto, to be properly accounted a Muslim. Those whom the media call fundamentalists would therefore better be described as revivalists.
A case in point being Jim, and others of his ilk, who desperately hangs onto his belief that the Quran is the "words of God Himself" which basically precludes him from ever admitting that it is rife with horseshit, with barbarisms and ignorance and savagery. Rots of ruck trying to have a rational conversation with him, although you're to be commended for trying; it at least shows his dogmatism, his "bona fides" as a paradigmatic godbot.
Kirbmarc wrote:Plenty of people actually don't know much about the religions they claim to profess. They follow the words of the people who tell them how to interpret their holy books. It's those people who have the real power in religion. Clerics have a huge amount of social, and potentially political, power. Those who finance them and train them are those who determine the social and political messages of religion.
Don't see how that lets them off the hook. As Rizvi argues, "moderates" still "revere" a "holy book" [ha! what a fucking joke - piss on it and on the Prophet] that "endorses misogyny, murder, [and] homophobia". Which I and many others see as making them culpable - to some degree - for the depredations of the "extremists". I doubt you've read the Quillette post - The Josiah Effect: How Moderate Religion Fuels Fundamentalism - on the topic, despite my repeated quotes of it, but it provides credible justification for the argument.
Kirbmarc wrote:That's why they're the real source of most issues within Islam, and why we should focus on curbing their messages instead of making people think that they represent "the real Islam".
That's whitewashing Islam, and ignoring the "logical dilemma" at the core of it, in the "essence" of it - i.e., that the "violent exhortations in the Quran" simply can't be repudiated by "moderate" Muslims because the Quran is seen as "perfect and unchangeable", as entirely the words of gawd. Something, as Flew notes, that is rather different from Christianity - even if some Christians are more like most if not all Muslims in that regard.

[End Post #453]
Kirbmarc wrote:
Steersman wrote:And I ran across this statement in The Atlantic by Erdogan who seems to underline the point:
Erdogan once declared that democracy was “a vehicle, not a goal,” implying that one could disembark at any point.
So it seems hard not to conclude that that that is largely the case; more likely to be true than not.
You're preaching to the choir there. Erdogan is a Muslim supremacist, or better yet uses Muslim supremacy as a tool to reshape Turkey into his personal absolute Kingdom. But Erdogan isn't the Pope of Islam.
Maybe not the Pope but hard to deny that he's, more or less, one of the leading contenders for the position of Caliph ("Make Turkey Great Again!") Particularly in light of the fact, as quoted in Warraq's Why I'm Not a Muslim, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia was equally dismissive of democracy, at least there but probably, by extension, elsewhere within Muslim "culture":
Warraq wrote:
Islam has never favoured democratic tendencies. Hurgronje

The Democratic system that is predominant in the world is not a suitable system for the peoples of our region. . . . The system of free elections is not suitable to our country. King Fahd of Saudi Arabia
At least King Fahd has had the honesty to admit the incompatibility of Islam and democracy. [pg 172]
Maybe the West should be giving more weight to those claims, and be responding accordingly?
Kirbmarc wrote:
Steersman wrote:Seems a moot point how many "human rights" a person has who is motivated by a foreign ideology, and who is actively denying the "laws and principles" of a host country, and whether that constitutes a state of war, implicit or explicit. And whether such things as the Geneva Convention might be more appropriate.

If you're talking about Salafism then you definitely have a point. They're a foreign-financed ideology actively against every principle of a liberal democracy and actually of any multi-ethnic and multi-confessional reality. Salafists actively preach hate and subversion. Talking generically about "Islam", however, is counterproductive.
Well, thanks for conceding that much anyway. But I'm curious, particularly given your apparently categorical rejection of any limitations on the rights to free speech, just what it is that you think those mosques are guilty of that justifies those sensible actions by the French government.
Kirbmarc wrote:
Steersman wrote:Somewhat apropos of which, and your earlier suggestion about leaning on those Western mosques which are promoting a Salafi/Saudi Islam, you might not have seen this other Atlantic post:
France's Disappearing Mosques

Twenty of France’s 2,500 mosques and prayer halls have been shut down since December for allegedly preaching a radical interpretation of Islam.

French authorities shut down 20 mosques and prayer halls they found to be preaching radical Islamic ideology since December, French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said Monday. ....

“There is no place ... in France for those who call for and incite hatred in prayer halls or in mosques … About 20 mosques have been closed, and there will be others,” Cazeneuve said. ....
Bloody good show - about time. But considering that one might reasonably argue that "calling for and inciting hatred in prayer halls or in mosques" is intrinsic to Islam and to the Quran - piss on it and on the Prophet - then one might also reasonably argue that all of them should be closed.
I'm glad you're not in power. Well done to the French government, though, and probably a long overdue move.
See my previous comment. And if you concede it was "a long overdue move" - which I agree wholeheartedly with - and that the "essence" of Islam is that it "calls for and incites hatred", an essence shared by some 90% or more of all nominal or so-called Muslims, then it's hard to see why you wouldn't also agree to close all mosques.
Kirbmarc wrote:
Steersman wrote:Really haven't seen many reformist type Muslims - even Nawaz - making any effort whatsoever to promote the idea of compatibility between democracy and Islam. Don't see that it is much in the way of a "violation of the civil rights of Muslims" to respond accordingly - as the French are doing.
Get a "nuance" chip, Mr. Robot.
Think the one I have is working just fine - maybe you're too quick to whitewash away the essential element that is common to virtually all nominal or so-called Muslims. As I've argued many times, I think that "reformers" like Nawaz are to be, generally, commended. But he is still unable, despite my repeated challenges to him - several of which he's acknowledged, to deny that the Quran is the literal word of gawd. Which, as I noted above with my reference to the Quillette article on how moderate religion fuels fundamentalism, still makes him, and his ilk like Jim-the-godbot, culpable, to some degree, for the depredations and barbarisms of the "extremists".

Re: Islam and Islamists

#226

by Kirbmarc » Thu Aug 04, 2016 11:28 am

Steersman wrote:I doubt I would argue there are no Muslims who "respect the laws and principles of a liberal democracy" - rather difficult to prove a categorical claim. But it seems there are more than a few - like Flew and Warraq and even, apparently, Hirsi Ali - who argue that Islam is intrinsically antithetical to those laws and principles.
"Islam" is too much of a big, diverse thing to have "intrinsic" properties. You're confusing Muslim supremacist ideas (chiefly Salafism) with Islam as a Whole-
And I ran across this statement in The Atlantic by Erdogan who seems to underline the point:
Erdogan once declared that democracy was “a vehicle, not a goal,” implying that one could disembark at any point.
So it seems hard not to conclude that that that is largely the case; more likely to be true than not.
You're preaching to the choir there. Erdogan is a Muslim supremacist, or better yet uses Muslim supremacy as a tool to reshape Turkey into his personal absolute Kingdom. But Erdogan isn't the Pope of Islam.
Seems a moot point how many "human rights" a person has who is motivated by a foreign ideology, and who is actively denying the "laws and principles" of a host country, and whether that constitutes a state of war, implicit or explicit. And whether such things as the Geneva Convention might be more appropriate.


If you're talking about Salafism then you definetely have a point. They're a foreign-financed ideology actively against every principle of a liberal democracy and actually of any multi-ethnic and multi-confessional reality. Salafists actively preach hate and subversion. Talking generically about "Islam", however, is counterproductive.
Somewhat apropos of which, and your earlier suggestion about leaning on those Western mosques which are promoting a Salafi/Saudi Islam, you might not have seen this other Atlantic post:
France's Disappearing Mosques

Twenty of France’s 2,500 mosques and prayer halls have been shut down since December for allegedly preaching a radical interpretation of Islam.

French authorities shut down 20 mosques and prayer halls they found to be preaching radical Islamic ideology since December, French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said Monday.

“Fight against the #radicalization: since December 2015, twenty Muslim places of worship have been closed,” the Interior Ministry tweeted.

Of the country’s 2,500 mosques and prayer halls, approximately 120 of them have been suspected by French authorities of preaching radical Salafism, a fundamentalist interpretation of Sunni Islam, according to France 24.

“There is no place ... in France for those who call for and incite hatred in prayer halls or in mosques … About 20 mosques have been closed, and there will be others,” Cazeneuve said. ....
Bloody good show - about time. But considering that one might reasonably argue that "calling for and inciting hatred in prayer halls or in mosques" is intrinsic to Islam and to the Quran - piss on it and on the Prophet - then one might also reasonably argue that all of them should be closed.
I'm glad you're not in power. Well done to the French government, though, and probably a long overdue move.
Really haven't seen many reformist type Muslims - even Nawaz - making any effort whatsoever to promote the idea of compatibility between democracy and Islam. Don't see that it is much in the way of a "violation of the civil rights of Muslims" to respond accordingly - as the French are doing.
Get a "nuance" chip, Mr. Robot.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#225

by Steersman » Thu Aug 04, 2016 12:10 am

Kirbmarc wrote:
jimhabegger wrote:Saying that there are no moderate Muslims.
<snip>

So whether "There are no moderate Muslims" is propaganda or not depends on context. If you're saying it to mean "All Muslims are violent terrorist" or "It's impossible to be a Muslim and respect the laws and principles of a liberal democracy",then yes, that's propaganda. If you're saying it to mean "Islam doesn't need "moderation", it needs change" then it's not propaganda.
I doubt I would argue there are no Muslims who "respect the laws and principles of a liberal democracy" - rather difficult to prove a categorical claim. But it seems there are more than a few - like Flew and Warraq and even, apparently, Hirsi Ali - who argue that Islam is intrinsically antithetical to those laws and principles. And I ran across this statement in The Atlantic by Erdogan who seems to underline the point:
Erdogan once declared that democracy was “a vehicle, not a goal,” implying that one could disembark at any point.
So it seems hard not to conclude that that that is largely the case; more likely to be true than not.
Kirbmarc wrote:The really important thing is what people believe, not what they might say once (just like your emotional outburst). I don't think that anyone here (except Steersman) believes that violating the human rights of Muslims is a good idea. People here don't like Islam, but don't want to see Muslims killed, harassed (really harassed, not simply confronted with satire of their religion and religious leaders), robbed, unjustly sentenced to prison, or punished for their beliefs (again, with the exception of Steersman). They want to see Muslims obey secular laws and respect the principles of liberal democracy (freedom of speech, freedom of lifestyle choice) though, and don't like the idea of catering to the beliefs of those who don't respect those principles.
Seems a moot point how many "human rights" a person has who is motivated by a foreign ideology, and who is actively denying the "laws and principles" of a host country, and whether that constitutes a state of war, implicit or explicit. And whether such things as the Geneva Convention might be more appropriate. Somewhat apropos of which, and your earlier suggestion about leaning on those Western mosques which are promoting a Salafi/Saudi Islam, you might not have seen this other Atlantic post:
France's Disappearing Mosques

Twenty of France’s 2,500 mosques and prayer halls have been shut down since December for allegedly preaching a radical interpretation of Islam.

French authorities shut down 20 mosques and prayer halls they found to be preaching radical Islamic ideology since December, French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said Monday.

“Fight against the #radicalization: since December 2015, twenty Muslim places of worship have been closed,” the Interior Ministry tweeted.

Of the country’s 2,500 mosques and prayer halls, approximately 120 of them have been suspected by French authorities of preaching radical Salafism, a fundamentalist interpretation of Sunni Islam, according to France 24.

“There is no place ... in France for those who call for and incite hatred in prayer halls or in mosques … About 20 mosques have been closed, and there will be others,” Cazeneuve said. ....
Bloody good show - about time. But considering that one might reasonably argue that "calling for and inciting hatred in prayer halls or in mosques" is intrinsic to Islam and to the Quran - piss on it and on the Prophet - then one might also reasonably argue that all of them should be closed.

Really haven't seen many reformist type Muslims - even Nawaz - making any effort whatsoever to promote the idea of compatibility between democracy and Islam. Don't see that it is much in the way of a "violation of the civil rights of Muslims" to respond accordingly - as the French are doing.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#224

by jimhabegger » Mon Jul 18, 2016 9:57 am

Malky wrote:Kirbmarc while I agree with pretty much all you say it will be very difficult not to be seen to be "antislamic" while following your suggestions. Just targetting salafist Imams and Community Leaders will allow them to cry foul and bring the community behind them - probably on the basis it will be them next.
Kirbmarc wrote:True, but those reactions could be at least partly tamed by supporting liberal Muslims, Ahmadis, Sufis, Ismailis and in general imams who have a more progressive outlook. Sometimes this would be as simple as checking the background of someone who is invited to an official dinner, or as a representative of a community, and choosing people who have an extensive background of being open to progress instead of picking the loudest and richest people in a community.

I think that many Western leaders simply don't know enough about Islam to tell apart the progressive Muslims from people who are financed by the Saudis. It's especially naive to promote people who say that they're "moderate" just because they're against ISIS. We need to know more about the people who live among us, to pay attention to what they say and do, to check their backgrounds before we give them an official recognition. In the end many times it's a matter of being informed and not simply inviting the most well-known and best dressed imams.
I like all that.
Malky wrote:I can't see this being implemented without some milk being spilt but I think it needs to be done and salafism/wahabism being effectively either expellex or debatured in the West. At the least we should insist on our values being upheld and sharia councils etc being made ineffective from a legal view for any rulings that do not conform to Western values.
Kirbmarc wrote:Ontario prohibited religious arbitration in 2006: now all private arbitration in Ontario must follow the secular laws of Ontario, with no exceptions for "religious reasons". In the UK Maryam Namazie and other people are pushing for something along the same lines (the One Law For All movement).
I agree with that, but is it really true that the rules for private arbitration are not being fully applied to Muslims? If so, then it doesn't require any special measures to correct that. All that is needed is more consistent application of the rules.
Progressives should be the ones leading these movements, instead of bleating about how criticism of Islam is "racism"
I agree with that, also.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#223

by Steersman » Thu Jul 07, 2016 8:01 pm

jimhabegger wrote:Damion, I will say one thing now, that I think is better than using Muslim opinion polls for any purpose whatsoever: facing up to not knowing what any Muslims think and want, other than, possibly, the ones we know personally.

If you have any friendly interest in how I think we might be able to do better than that, let me know.
But heaven forfend that we actually consider the statements and actions of those many who - as indicated above - manifest outfight barbarism and savagery:













And, for the pièce de résistance:

Re: Islam and Islamists

#222

by jimhabegger » Thu Jul 07, 2016 7:28 pm

Damion, I will say one thing now, that I think is better than using Muslim opinion polls for any purpose whatsoever: facing up to not knowing what any Muslims think and want, other than, possibly, the ones we know personally.

If you have any friendly interest in how I think we might be able to do better than that, let me know.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#221

by Steersman » Thu Jul 07, 2016 7:27 pm

jimhabegger wrote:
d4m10n wrote:"Is there a better method for measuring the effects of Islam than asking a random sample of Muslims (reared in Muslim cultures) what they believe about how the world should work?
Seriously, Jim. Point me to a better method, and you will have my sincerest thanks.
I wasn't discussing how to measure the effects of Islam, and I haven't thought much about that. I would need to know more about what exactly you're trying to measure, and why, but I wouldn't want to go to all that trouble, if you don't have any friendly interest in what I think about it. Please be honest. Do you have any friendly interest in what I think about that?

If you do, then please tell me some more about what you're trying to measure and why. One thing I need to know in particular is, by "effects of Islam," do you mean "effects of believing in the Quran as the word of God?" If not, what do you mean by "the effects of Islam," and why do you think you need to know?
Maybe "we" "need to know" so we can make sound policy? Just a thought that seems too much for you to wrap your pointed head around.

Seems to me what we're "trying to measure" is the effects of Islam - Damion's post, which I doubt you read (head up your arse and all) - being a case in point. And since you seem to be a remarkably slow learner, or one whose dogma has clearly rotted his brain, here are a few other ones; while "one swallow doth not a spring make", when the sky is covered with them then most rational people - when tends to exclude most Muslims and their fellow travelers - are going to concede that it has likely arrived:








And, to round out this litany of the barbarism and savagery that is Islam, even if it's only the tip of an iceberg, something from Winston Churchill:
Churchill wrote:How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

Re: Islam and Islamists

#220

by jimhabegger » Thu Jul 07, 2016 6:21 pm

d4m10n wrote:"Is there a better method for measuring the effects of Islam than asking a random sample of Muslims (reared in Muslim cultures) what they believe about how the world should work?
Seriously, Jim. Point me to a better method, and you will have my sincerest thanks.
I wasn't discussing how to measure the effects of Islam, and I haven't thought much about that. I would need to know more about what exactly you're trying to measure, and why, but I wouldn't want to go to all that trouble, if you don't have any friendly interest in what I think about it. Please be honest. Do you have any friendly interest in what I think about that?

If you do, then please tell me some more about what you're trying to measure and why. One thing I need to know in particular is, by "effects of Islam," do you mean "effects of believing in the Quran as the word of God?" If not, what do you mean by "the effects of Islam," and why do you think you need to know?

Re: Islam and Islamists

#219

by jimhabegger » Sun Jul 03, 2016 2:41 pm

Kirbmarc, what I mean by "propaganda" is ideas being spread far and wide for the purpose of influencing people to think and act in ways that will advance the self-serving interests of the people aiming to spread those ideas. What I mean by "anti-Muslim" is that the propaganda I'm talking about is designed to arouse and intensify antagonism towards Muslims in general, and/or to appeal to anti-Muslim prejudices, for the purpose of advancing some people's self-serving political and economic interests.

I don't mean that anyone here has any of those purposes in mind. I'm not sure that anyone does. Most of the people who help spread any kind of propaganda have no awareness of its original purpose.

Top