Angry Muslims

Post Reply New Topic

I'll answer the rest of your little diatribe tomorrow but the main point is this - we're not attacking people, we're criticising an ideology that IMO, badly needs it. We're criticising the people that subscribe (or sympathise with) violent interpretations of that ideology. I wouldn't make the Quran illegal any more than I would the Bible but I want religion - all religion - to leave the political stage (with the sole exception of political parties standing on a religious ticket).

If we hadn't questioned, reformed and secularised Christianity in Britain and Europe over the centuries, if beliefs hadn't been challenged, if benighted, religious gangsters and criminals hadn't gradually had their power faced down and neutered, if people didn't make their voices heard, we would still be hanging women for witchcraft, executing children for stealing or people for having anal sex, burning people at the stake, and all manner of other primitive, inhumane, barbaric nasties. Such nasties that still continue in much of the Arab and Islamic world (and also in a considerable part of "Christian" Africa too.)

Islam must be challenged if it is to be brought into some kind of civilisation? Or would you agree that lashing women for the "crime" of being raped by her sibling shouldn't be challenged? Or the persecution and often execution, rapes and beatings of Jews (the very last synagogue closed just the other day in Egypt, by the way - the country is now basically Judenfrei!), Christians, homosexuals and Muslim religious minorities? This shouldn't be questioned because it's "imperialism" (what about Muslims in their countries? Are they western "imperialists" for daring to posit an alternative view)? Or that women aren't allowed to drive, by law? Or that very young children can be forcibly married off to be raped by some disgusting old man because it says that it's OK in the Quran? Or that you can be stoned to death for wanting to get laid outside of marriage? Or that, in several Islamic countries, people are routinely executed (by vigilante or by the officlal state) for "insulting" Islam or even questioning the stone-age barbarianism of it as practiced in their country as a Muslim? Or that, in the Islamic world, most men routinely beat their wives? You can look on YouTube for endless videos by Islamic "scholars" giving handy instructions on how this should be done. Many people in Muslim countries themselves despise this kind of sadistic "justice" but can't say so for obvious reasons. Free speech doesn't exist for anything other than the prevailing Islamist orthodoxy. Just you try to be an average Saudi woman who wants to wear a skirt, try a bacon sandwich, have a few glasses of wine, go out without being accompanied with a male family member like they're children (I bet the incest rates in places like Saudi are through the roof) without incurring the brutal ire of the beards and the muttaween, those vile pillars of "probity" and "defenders" of religious values. What arrogant, brainwashed, self-entitled thugs they really are.

I'm immensely glad that I don't have to live under that kind of bloodthirsty, horrible, repressive, barbaric society. I wish the same rights and freedoms for people in the Islamic world, too. The religious bullies of Islam have to be faced down by their people. We need to do our bit and face down the whining, complaining, perpetually-offended representatives of Islamic triumphalism, taqqiya and hate in Britain and, hopefully, with the quiet support, people will eventually be empowered to defeat the ones in Muslim, Christian, and any other countries where their violent intolerance sucks the life out of humanity.

Last edited by Tequila on 23 Sep 2012, 9:40 pm, edited 3 times in total.

First off; you need to calm down. I think you took my post a little too defensively than you needed to. Secondly; I see a lot of false information on WP being passed around. Autistic people are not immune to false information. Not I, not you, not a single person in this world.

According to this respected scholar, the Quran does say "turn the other cheek". According to Wikipedia, Muhammad also had a few things regarding peace and being respectful towards others. Ramadan, the Islamic holiday, is to not only to "purify the body", but to also to "-sympathise with the suffering of others, and desirous of alleviating it; and it makes us remember the blessings of life which we normally take for granted." These are the things I had in mind when I made that comment. Plus things told to me by Muslim friends.

In the Battle of the Trench, Muhammad was on the defense. Hence the trench. Here's a cute reenactment by students.

I don't know what the age of Aisha has to do with anything. It certainly has nothing to do with what you bolded in my post. I did a little googling anyways and it appears that her age is disputed between scholars. Some say she was around 6 or 9 when she got married with Muhammad and then was 10 when they first had sex. Others say the passage meant that she was a virgin and was actually much older. Either is a possibility given the culture back then which did not have the stigma we have with pedophilia.

4:24; It appears to describe rules regarding captives of war/slaves and who you may or may not have sexual relations with. These rules appear to be important as it is considered very, very bad to have sex outside of marriage. This specific line essentially says, "Do not touch what does not belong to you". If you're not married to the woman and if you do not own the woman then you're not allowed to have sex with them. I have noticed that some consider the line mistranslated and believe that it really says 'oath'. So to them it's, "Do not touch those that have not given their oath to you."

2:106; "We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?" Means that nothing been changed in the Quran and that no future editing is required. Islam is pretty adamant about this as they view that the Christian bible was corrupted by Satan via Paul and the Romans. From my knowledge of Paul from the Christian bible, he was pretty much a hateful bigot.

9:5; you had me stumped on this one! This is Dr. Maher Hathout's take on it. It makes sense considering at the time, the idea of one deity wasn't wide spread. The monotheists and polytheists were constantly going at each others throats. This documentary was on the History Channel (when it was still good) and it covers the history pretty well, in my opinion.

Please, do not act like you're a scholar on the Quran. You're not. I'm not. I'm just some guy who does some googling before he posts and trusts scholars have done their job. For every verse you bring up, I can find someone who says differently. I can think of no religious text that's cut & dry, black & white. Hence how the extremists can twist and turn the wording to fit their needs.

First thing - don't trust most "scholars". They have a vested interest in defending their particular version/variant of Islam.

Tequila - you're conusing me for that person in your head you keep having argumentative monologues at.

I am for international Socialism. Maybe even Communism. I am against subjugating or oppressing anyone. I am not for that vague 'end of history' idea, that a liberal democracy built around 'market forces' is the be-all and end-all, that this is what all countries should (in some arguments, inevitably do) move towards.

If you think I'm all for a theocratic state, you'd be wrong. But, as I said, we essentially have one right now, only lives are sacrificed to Capital, rather than God or Allah. Look at mainstream rolling news, how they treat Capitalism, particularly its financial strain. Every half hour, if not every fiteen minutes, we are shown a load of numbers and names, like some mystical invocation, and the priests or theologians are brought in to interpret. We are told of 'the market' as though it were a particularly volatile spirit who must be appeased at all costs - 'the market is down - oh woe!', 'the market is up - hallelujah!'. Violence perpetrated in its name is seen as normal, necessary and even desirable. To be unemployed is a sin.

I just don't think it is helpful to go around screeching at Muslims how terrible their beliefs are (whilst we're invading, occupying and bombing Islamic countries. what's more). I think all it does is play into the hands of extremists. And, as I said, why are they extremist? Why isn't everyone? Why indeed do many protest? It isn't as satisfying as shouting at them, but what needs to be done is to play a long, quiet game, of solidarity with those who are oppressed and trying to fight back, and to withdraw support from dictators - extremism is far more about politics than religion.

Islam is being challenged from within, as you yourself have said. And that is where it needs to be challenged from. I think what happens in Saudi Arabia is terrible. But such things are better dealt with politically. Let the believers and scholars argue over what this or that line in their holy book really means. What 'we' can do is politics, to try and change the circumstances people find themselves in - that is often enough to get a start.

Imagine you don't know what Democracy is supposed to be. Then look at what has been done in its name, just in Iraq. What would you think of democracy then, of 'western values'?

I grew up near and then in Birmingham. I have a quiet fondness for the city. A lot of that is from my familiarity with it, but also there are things about it I find satisfying in themselves. But I certainly don't think it's the Best Place Ever, or it's populace the Best People Ever. but if someone - nevermind a lot of people - start attacking it, I will be far more defensive of it than my day-to-day quiet fondness would suggest.

Think about what you hold dear, and how you feel when people attack it. You have a Union flag-ed UK as an avatar. Are you quite happy, like some smug Buddhist-lite type, to sit back and let me list all the terrible things done in the name of the flag and country? On another thread, you didn't appreciate me even talking about the link in my mind between the Union flag and dogshit. If I shouted at you long enough about all the evils done in the name of our flag and country and Capitalism, you'd listen and then go 'yeah, you're right' and join in with a round of The Internationale?

Take an honest look at our civilisation. Look at what was our civilisation a hundred years ago, two hundred years, etc - I was listening to a Peter Tatchell interview the other day, and he said how the change in general attitude in the UK to his campaigning on gay rights just in the past 10-15 years has been remarkable.

Look at what is done in its name now. Look at how it functions, who it oppresses and exploits, who it vilifies. The bad stuff isn't 'a few rotten apples' - it's the logical, expected outcome of the ideology. When you talk of 'civilisation', what do you mean? What are 'our' values?

Of note:

https://twitter.com/MalePrivilege

http://www.everydaysexism.com/

I apologize for the excessively vitriolic nature of my previous post. In retrospect, it was clearly uncalled for.

But I stand by my central claim: That Muhammad was a bad guy. See below.



I mentioned 4:24 because its of remarkable efficiency. It manages to condone slavery *and* the rape of female slaves in one single verse...



I wonder if you understand the significance of this Quranic verse. 2:106 is the principal verse of Naskh - or abrogation - the discipline by which some Quranic verses are modified or cancelled out altogether. See below.



But it says what is says, despite the historical context. Also see below.



Well, I'm just some guy who reads 16 books - many being the work of devout Muslims academics - (and I ordered a 17th a week ago or so) on the subject before he posts and distrusts all scholars (both critics and proponents of Islam) because of the controversial content...

From this point of view I identify 3 fundamental problems with your reasoning:

1. The historical argument
Frequently, criticism against the words and deeds of Muhammad and his contemporaries is explained away by referring to the general conditions of the time. It was OK to take a 6-7 year old girl as a wife in a political deal with her father (Abu Bakr), because that was common at the time. It was OK to execute the men of an enemy tribe who surrendered unconditionally and distributing the women and children of the tribe to one's own followers as slaves (Battle of the Trench), because that was common at the time. And so forth. You yourself used that argument with reference to the age of Aisha and (9:5).

But Islam preaches that this is OK today. That is the entire point of collecting hadith - to find guidance on how to act as a Muslim today. If the words and deeds of Muhammad had been archived in the oblivion of history I could care less about what he did. But Islam is - in its entirety - built on the foundation that Muhammad is infallible, and that his views and deeds should be imitated. This is the *standard* view in Islam. Some subdivisions of Islam (Sufi, Ahmadiyya) may diverge from this view, but it is at the core of both mainstream Sunni Islam (Hanafi, Shafi, Maliki, Hanbali and - of course - Salafi) and mainstream Shia Islam (although the latter uses hadith from the Imams).

2. The argument from interpretation
You make the claim that "for every verse you bring up, I can find someone who says differently". I don't doubt this, but here it gets tricky. First there is the problem of Taqiyya (religious dissimulation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya. When asking about the opinions of Muslims, outright misrepresentation of one's beliefs is actually encouraged in Islam. One might add that this only applies when a Muslim is at risk of attack because of his/her beliefs (often the case with Shia Muslims in Sunni-dominated countries), but when the definition of attack can be expanded to include a silly cartoon made by an old man half way around the globe...

The most famous example of this is The Muslim Brotherhood - true masters of Taqiyya.

They recently got caught doing so in Egypt.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09 ... 81294.html

Second, there is the problem of Naskh, as mentioned above. It is in fact quite easy to find Quranic verses which support you description of Muhammad as a fundamentally good guy.

Just examine this verse (2:256): "There is no compulsion in religion". With this in mind, Anyone with access to TV or the internet could easily point out that Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, The Taleban and other fine upstanding institutions of religious tolerance are clearly "un-Islamic" because they do not respect the Quran.

Such arguments are in fact made, for instance by former president of the United States, George W. Bush, shortly after 911: "The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself." Of course, in this particular case it was probably a wise move in order to prevent a violent reaction towards Muslims in the US.

... one problem, though. 2:256 is abrogated (and in this case - completely annulled) by 9:5, the famous "Sword Verse". There is extensive support of this in the Sunni hadith (for instance, Al-Bukhari (6/149, no. 2017) on the death penalty for apostasy, or Abu Dawood (4/529, no. 4362) on why the US ambassador in Libya had to die such a gruesome death.

In other words, the interpretation of Islamic scripture is not up for grabs, and simply finding statements which conflict with the orthodox Islamic view may be insufficient: These statements might be intentionally false, or they might be outdated. And the problem of Naskh is that it abrogates earlier Meccan verses (when Muhammad was not in power and thus had to be more tolerant) and replaces them with violent Medinan verses from when he was in charge.

And importantly, it is also false to assume that there is a lot of disagreement *within* Islam on the interpretation of Islamic scripture. The 4 main Sunni schools and the Salafi all agree on both the predominance of the Quran and the 6 major hadith collections: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Kutub_al-Sittah. This is not surprising. Since Islam is a legal system (Sharia) as well as a religion, its message needs to be precise and without inconsistencies. Without Naskh for instance, figuring out whether it is permitted to drink alcohol or not would be impossible from reading the Quran.

The Shia have their own Hadith based on the 14 infallibles (Muhammad, his daughter Fatima, and the 12 Imams... I won't go in to detail with this tradition, as I haven't completed my reading of the Shia hadith, but even a cursory examination suggest that these do not suddenly turn Islam into a tolerant religion.

Then we are left with those outside mainstream - Sufi Islam, which is much less concerned with politics (currently under attack in Mali), Ahmadiyya - who reject Naskh - currently under attack in ... well, everywhere?... and other smaller variants of Islam that I have no knowledge of. The problem with these schools of Islam is that they have little or no influence on Islam as a whole.

3. The Duck test.
This is the part that made me go vitriolic in the first place.

According to Islamic scripture (Quran and hadith), Islam is an extremely intolerant religion

According to the majority views of Muslims living in Islamic countries (Pew Research carried out some enlightening studies on this), Islam is an extremely intolerant religion

According to the governments of almost all Islamic majority countries (See the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Decl ... s_in_Islam), Islam is an extremely intolerant religion

I do not claim to to posses a bladed instrument designed for facial hygiene as sharp as that held by Occam, but perhaps there is a pattern...

4. Summary
Be aware that I am not claiming that Muslims are bad people. But until many more Muslims face the fact that all the horrors which are being carried out in the name of Islam are in fact core tenets of the religion itself - and that in order to distance themselves from these acts they need to distance themselves from Muhammad - then I see little hope for peace, turning the other cheek, taking care of those less fortunate than you and being respectful towards everyone in Islam.



Here we are in total agreement. But curiously, most (The Vatican is apparently a country) Christian majority countries in the world do not exclude women from teaching and leadership positions, nor from exercising their freedom of speech, despite being instructed to do so by Paul of Tarsus. I guess this explains the difference between (current) Christianity and Islam... One religion manages to keeps it's Rick Santorums in check (although cutting it close at times)... the other religion does not...

Can we vote for or against that or is it just imposed on us? Would it be genuinely democratic? What about peaceful opposition to communism? Would we have gulags specially for the purpose?

If people genuinely want communism or socialism in a country, and choose it in a genuinely free and fair vote, I would respect their wishes. I believe in democracy, so if that makes them happy, good for them. Communism sounds like an excellent idea until you realise how many times it's been implemented and failed (the communists always call it something else, though). What it generally ends up meaning is that you get a highly stratified society (like North Korea) where the people at the top live like kings and most of the population is in abject poverty. Have you ever looked at photos of North Korea? It's fascinating and illuminating at the same time. You can go on tours (they're really, really restrictive about what you can do or say) and it looks like a different planet. If you ever get a few hours, it's worth hunting down these photos.

I've been on far-left forums where they deny that various atrocities in these regimes even happen because it doesn't fit in with their worldview.

I am against subjugating or oppressing anyone. I am not for that vague 'end of history' idea,



I'm not particularly keen on some aspects of liberal democracy (the UK system as currently operated isn't very democratic, I don't think), and I can see how parts of it aren't particularly good in that it can be used - like any system - to oppress minorities. All you can do, though, is to set up safeguards for them so that minorities aren't genuinely mistreated by the state and that all citizens are protected.

Some non-democracies have been very, very successful. Look at Hong Kong under British rule from the early 1970s onwards. A system where there was little actual democracy, but in practice Hong Kongers were a damn sight freer and better off than in China. So I don't think that democracy is an end in itself, but it can produce good results. The main thing is making sure that everyone has a fair crack of the whip. (On another note: I feel that the way the British Government treated HKers in the run up to the Handover was despicable. I would have offered them full British citizenship, like the Portuguese did with Macau.) People we have a common and historical kinship with don't really worry me about coming to the UK, especially if they were under our rule.

Not quite a foreigner-hating Daily Mail xenophobe, eh?



I would actually more or less agree with that, but I don't think it's about capitalism - more people's obsessive greed. The great thing about a genuinely capitalistic system is that you can work for what you want. Greedy people are just that - greedy. If they think that having a big car and a trophy wife with big tits and a house in Spain and all that makes them happy - excellent for them, they earned it. Some of us are just happy with less though, or can't work.



I think the demonisation of the unemployed and those on benefits by the government and those in the tabloid press is unhelpful to put it mildly. I'd understand it if most people really were ugly and lazy, but I know that it's just not true. The mathematical numbers alone show that there simply aren't anywhere near enough jobs for people to fill. OK, you might have a small hardcore of genuinely unemployable people, but most people aren't like that and in many cases are slogging the guts out to do their best.

The constant attacking of normal, everyday people by this government is shocking. Some of the schemes they have thought up should shame a free, first world country. How we treat these people should shame us all. I've long ago stopped reading the likes of the Daily Mail, for instance. It's just depressing nonsense.

See what I mean? My political views are a bit more nuanced than you might expect.



I don't support the continued presence of Afghanistan and Iraq or most military action outside our own territory. An army should be used for a country's defence, nothing more. I'm tending towards conservative isolationism, if you hadn't guessed.

Leave them to their grotty hellholes and simply stand well back. But whilst we're at it, limit economic immigration from these parts of the world too (and the EU as well - IMO, a free trade deal with the EU would be a good way to go).

We should be encouraging greater human rights and generally assisting those groups and organisations that genuinely want to promote human rights in the Islamic world. But quietly. We should act as an example for them to follow, by not trampling on our own free speech, excusing bigots and hateful people in our own midst, not assisting them with their entitlement and religious bigotry, and dealing with incitements or acts of violence from any quarter - from bigoted no-marks desecrating mosques and physically attacking non-whites to Muslim rape gangs using Islam as an excuse to behave they way they do. None of it is acceptable, and all of it should be opposed. That said, I support the idea of free speech for everyone as long as it doesn't actually incite violence against people or property - that should go for ALL UK citizens. If the likes of Éirígí want to burn a Union Jack and chop the Queen's head off, let them. Let them stand there with a little band of followers.

That's the thing - opinions are like a***holes: everyone has one and most people don't want to see yours.



But you support the right of people to exercise free speech, don't you?

And it is satisfying telling people that they live in the dark ages. It doesn't solve anything, but it makes people feel better. It's harmless and no-one gets hurt. Anyone who does get hurt is never hurt by atheists or secularists, but the madmen. It's on their heads, and I doubt history will judge them well.

I'm quite happy for people to believe in any damn thing they please. Islam included. Just keep it the feck away from me and mine.



It's the mixture of religion and politics that's the real issue. When people have nothing they tend to go head first into it. Look what's happening in Greece. When the bottom falls out there's hell to pay.



True, but we don't need to pander to the bigots in the West (by stifling our own free speech - Charlie Hebdo and all) and we shouldn't be making excessive allowances for religion. This seems to be more of a problem in the public sector with their obsessive desire not to offend any minority group. That doesn't mean that we should be hateful towards Muslims simply for being Muslims, I'm not in any way suggesting that but there should be an expectation that they fit in with the rest of society (a fair amount already do and do as much as they can, and happily too - some even pretty much leave Islam behind) and that bad behaviour isn't let off lightly. So no demanding that the rules be changed to suit them, please. I'm not suggesting that all Muslims think like this, or that they all want special treatment - many don't, and in fact this pandering to the "community leaders" in their midst (and the multicultural obsessives) hurts them probably most of all, as people assume that Muslims are responsible for the change in food in the cafeteria when really it might just be one person with a chip on their shoulder something they as a person may well not have asked for and want absolutely nothing to do with but were considered to be the ones pushing for it. It's really a damn sight more complicated than meets the eye. In that sense, genuinely liberal Muslims get it from both sides - from the EDL mob who think that every Muslim is a zealot sent to kill them all, from the patronising public sector diversity fascists secondly (who probably never went near real Muslims to ask their opinions, but listen to the self-appointed "community leaders" instead), and thirdly from the bigoted hardliners in their own community (who many absolutely despise). It must be a nightmare.



Probably not in Saudi, though, or they risk getting their heads copped off. They have a nasty habit of doing that to people who speak out there.

The "scholars" and the like can often be the biggest part of the problem, given the power they can wield. They aren't going to want to give up their power without a fight, not in Britain or anywhere else.



A lot more people have been killed since the invasion than when Saddam was around. It seems like a terrible choice to make, though. Thousands of deaths and a totalitarian system of fear or more deaths and another totalitarian system of fear swarmed by jihadists?



I tend to avoid Birmingham. I disliked Derby when I went too, although some parts of Derbyshire are wonderful.



Irish republicans do that on a regular basis. I'm sort of used to it. We're imperialists and oppressors (really, nearly the opposite is true), the Brits are evil, we should be thrown out, the people of Northern Ireland shouldn't have a say, and so on.

If Wales voted to leave the UK, I would wish them well.

It doesn't mean that I can change some of the admittedly awful things carried out under its name even if I wanted to. The British Empire largely gave birth to the modern world as we see it today - with all things good and bad. Would it be better if large, painful parts of history never existed and we all reverted to living in caves?

The Pakistanis can burn Union Jacks and proclaim that they hate America and the West for all I care. Let 'em do it. It bristles a bit when we invite such people over to live, we give them a comfortable life, and they still do it though. The concept of being ungrateful probably doesn't apply to such beardies.

The difference is that I'm not threatening to behead people who burn a Union Jack, and you're not threatening to kill people who burn a red flag. Leave them to their own benightedness. It's the same reason I wouldn't burn a Bible, or a Quran for that matter. It's just not very intelligent, is it? And anyway, it's a waste of a book. You could have spent the money on better things.

The odd thing is that I might even be sympathetic to elements of Irish nationalism if people there actually wanted it. But many don't. Hardline, unwavering Unionism has attracted me in the past, but the problem with that ideology is its inherent hypocrisy. The rhetoric sounds excellent on paper, but when you put it into any kind of real life scenario you just end up looking like a loon. Extremes are never good. They do with their hands what they deny with their mouths.



How has it changed? I don't think it has changed all that much, to be honest. Most people simply don't care either way, I think. It's a big issue amongst the left (apart from when Islamists promote homophobia) but not really with most of us. Indeed, there are gay people out there who oppose the idea of gay adoption and gay marriage. That doesn't necessarily make them self-haters, like it would be if they called for homosexuality to be made illegal again or for gays to be executed.



You'll understand that a lot of people on the right aren't necessarily happy with the current set-up either, to put it mildly.

They should learn to lighten up like the moderate Muslims here in the states.

Last edited by AspieOtaku on 25 Sep 2012, 2:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

And where there is racism from Muslims, one should sit quietly in one's leftist loft, next to the shrine consisting of Das Kapital, the Communist Manifesto while taking bong hits and coming up with excuses for them that not only take away from their personal responsibility and accountability but is also racist.

You see, when a person "speaks out" against racism directed towards Muslims, one says "You should know better", when one makes excuses for racism coming from Muslims one says "They don't know any better".

The treatment of Muslims as a monolith is the consequence of the number 1.5 billion Muslims being used time and time again whenever Islam is offended. Much like the Catholic Church likes to cite "1 billion catholics" despite the fact that quite a substantial amount of them are lapsed catholics. However, as long as "1.5 billion muslims" keeps being used to dissuade people from drawing cartoons and making films, I shall be quite content to use the monolith structure, just as I use the monolith structure of 1 billion catholics supporting child rape.

The former, when combined with the fact that the behavior, laws and norms that are claimed by scholars, terrorists, bombers and otherwise intolerant Muslims are the correct ones per Islamic doctrine. See Viper's post for specific examples.

"The Left" is really a collection of cowardly and inconsistent intellectual wannabes, that like to think of themselves as the defenders of the "little guy" but who really are just confused.

I could be a leftist, if leftists were consistent, IE racism is always wrong. I could be a leftist if leftists always defended freedom of speech, but apparently Neo-Nazi's and racists are not allowed the luxury. I could be a leftist, if tolerance was always a virtue, and not just something for things you already like. I could be a leftist, if they viewed violence as always being wrong, but apparently its fine when you murder rich people or white people.

Of course, there is always the old statement "If you tolerate intolerance then you are not really a liberal" which funnily enough is a statement which is circular. In effect, if you tolerate intolerance of intolerance you are being intolerant.

Of course, this would require liberals to deal with issues that would lead them to a stance which strangely enough would align the liberal left with people they deem misogynists, racists, "rednecks" and quite a host of other labels. Of course, this is assuming that the majority of leftists aren't simply personalizations of the UN, I.E lofty ideals and nice words with little substance.

Sounds like basic religious extremism to me.

This is really quite true - it's racist because it implies that they are poor, oppressed people who don't know any better, not like us Westerners. If they live in the UK or in European countries, they have no excuse. Most of these types of nutcases were actually born here, to boot. It's the sort of racism you'd expect from a British Empire administrator, not a modern member of the left.



Don't ask them about the disgusting racism in Arab countries against Jews (they deny that unquestionably vile anti-Semitic cartoons that wouldn't be out of place in a Nazi German newspaper; calling them simply "anti-Zionist" instead, even when they are clearly about Jews and Jews alone and are little to do with the State of Israel - the very last synagogue in Egypt has just closed a few days ago by the way, the rest of the Jewish population of Egypt having been completely ethnically cleansed or have left the country over a long period of time) and their disgusting racism towards immigrant guest workers for a start - which can include assaults, rape, withholding of passports and money and all kinds of other indignities. In Saudi Arabia, it can be considered quite acceptable on the quiet for a middle-class man to rape his maid.



No, but some of the same sentiments that neo-Nazis express (like the genocidal hatred of Jews) are considered acceptable when expressed by other groups. Even when quoted chapter and verse from the feckin' Hamas Charter, they go weirdly silent.



Exactly - I used to vote for a centre-left social liberal pro-European party here in the UK. Many people are becoming a very different type of liberal - a muscular kind of liberal - due to being disillusioned with the shameless dhimmitude of the liberal-left. I've exchange messages on another forum with a member (and former campaigner) for the Liberal Democrats, who has become bitterly resentful of multiculturalism due to painful personal experience. This chap used to be a big champion of it, too - he was your typical Lib Dem type.

I don't like the word "dhimmitude" because of the poisoning of the word itself done by some of the people who use it. The liberal left has fundamental problems with consistency of its policies, which is why people tend to move towards the right as they get older and thus start to see the massive holes in it.

The concept of "multiculturalism" is in and of itself problematic in the way Europe has implemented it. It should entail "You follow existing social norms and laws, but may keep and practice your own cultural identify so long as it does not conflict with existing social norms and laws" not "Follow the norms and laws you like, and do things the way you would in the country you just left because it sucked".

The way I see it, if you want Sharia law, go to f*****g Pakistan, want women to be oppressed, go to Saudi Arabia, the reason the civilized West is where everyone wants to go is because we told a certain type of person "shut the hell up" during the Enlightenment age.

Thomas Paine, Spinoza, Voltaire, and a host of other influential writers lead our western cleanup of our questionable religion, now its time for Muslim writers and intellectuals to do the same for theirs.

Fair enough - I couldn't think of a better phrase to use. "Supineness" perhaps?

I take your point on its usage, by the way.



Or perhaps they become genuinely liberal, rather than just the craven faux-liberalism of the left.



This seems to be - more or less - how it's practiced in America. I really don't have any problem with that at all. In fact, it's actually the sort of multiculturalism I would welcome.



I really do find it hilarious when certain immigrant communities moan and whinge about the racism directed towards them by racist BNP voting a***holes, then go round in packs aggressively warning off perfectly decent non-Muslim men wanting to form a romantic relationship with a female family member to stay the hell away from "their" women if they know what's good for their 'elf.



Exactly. Funnily enough, they always seem to arrive but never seem to think about going back. I suspect it's the same with Sharia too - you get a lot of young Muslims calling for Sharia in Britain, but I bet they would be horrified if it was actually implemented. It would be far too late by then though.



Spot on.

Last edited by Tequila on 24 Sep 2012, 7:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

TM - I have mad love for you and all, but I'm not really up for arguing with both yourself and the imaginary leftist who you were arguing with right now. I mean, bong hits? Good grief.

When I first heard about the more severe parts of Sharia, it struck me how much it had in common with a Richard Littlejohn column.

You prefer joints?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIEvHCyb4Ms[/youtube]

I know that Littledick's a tool, but even I probably wouldn't invoke Sharia on myself to spare reading his nonsense.