nuff said really---

Bad link, scandium. And stop calling us hysterics. you are not competent to judge if we are, or not. So far all you have shown us about your understanding of Islam is the many fantasies you have on your mind, the kind of follies already Goethe and Lessing have fallen for, violating hard solid facts about Islam's theology and history whom you are not aware of, and in active ignoration of. Wanting to raise an educated opinion on that basis qualifies you to be a fool only - no matter how clever you see yourself.

And give us a working link, not your pathetic answer to Brad of how clever the Economist is. Let us judge that ourselves. I already can imagine what it is about, but to put it into your own words: "I give you a chance to prove me wrong first."

Come on, prove us wrong. On the basis of solid facts about Islam'S self-understanding and self-description. Should be easy for you, since you claim to be cometent to judge what is the right and what is the wrong way to approach it, and what is too radical a solution, and what is an unbiased one.

The link is working fine for me.

Skybird's point of the link's article being irrelevant to fact that you have yet to counter anything anyone here has claimed about Islam, solely based on Islam's own scriptures, interpretations and history is working fine for me.

What the heck! Here's another link, again with some astounding from-the-source quotes but mostly not from Muslims:

“Let Them Eat Kebab” — The New Marie Antoinettes.

So long, Europe. But, of course, Canada is safe. :yep:

I said a few days ago, that to put an end to these endless circular discussions - for now at least- that I'm content to, purely for the sake of arguement, or as a moratorium on it, accept all of your claims as to the dangers of Islam provided you can suggest any realistic method of meeting the alleged threat it poses.

Note that I'm not interested in how politically correct the solution is, only as to whether one exists, and whether you're willing to offer it.

Yet still you insist on arguing for the sake of arguement rather than putting forward something constructive.

I already present my suggestion here, back on June 14, almost a month ago. See thread The Future of Europe, page 2.

There, too, you tried the usual jabs at the Bible and did not respond to the specific points brought up about Islam.

Your suggestion consisted of this: "ban Islam"; not a terribly useful suggestion without mentioning how you intend this to be accomplished. Here are the details that need to be resolved to "ban Islam":

1. Is this ban intended only in Western countries or worldwide?
2. What form would this ban take? Banning public Worship? Banning sales of the Koran? Banning the private practice of Islam? Banning any articles or forms of dress associated with the religion?
3. How would you identify those who practice Islam from those who do not?
4. What form of punishment would you use against the violators who do not forsake their religion but merely take it underground?

Those are just a few questions off the top of my mind.

Scandium, you're making no sense.

Do you agree with that article from The Economist?

If so, you have to agree with Skybird when he points part of the solution being debate and discussion, as in the Economist.

Then why do you attempt to discard and disregard Jihad Watch? You are for freedom of speech unless you don't like what you hear, you are for free discussion untill you judge it to be hysteria. I don't see how labeling anyone as an Islamophobe contributes to free discussion either, as it's an attempt to dequalify the others.

I don't think you care at all for what I throw at you, but you might remember, somewhere else, I pointed only one solution, which is not a magic bullet to solve everything in one day, but it was: discussion! With or without Muslims. Without any fear of the Islamophobe-tagging patrol because personal offense should stand below Islam.

So, carry on in your ambiguity, you desire all good to Muslims, but limit the range or scope of the discussion, I wonder, if I were a Muslim what would be my label? Traitor?

I am not a political or military strategist but what the heck!

1. Each country must decide. Of course, the less unity in such a decision will be to Islam's advatange. Let Islamic countries remain Islamic but crush them if they try to export Islam to countries in which it has been banned. BTW, the forbiddence by infidels of Muslims to practice their faith in an infidel country or denying them to proselytize amongst infidels is grounds for Jihad. That's just a heads-up.

2. The ban would be against any individuals and institutions affiliated with authentic Islam. Lots of problems defining the scope of this ban. Dress alone is irrelevant. The most anti-violent Muslim may easily be the most modest.

3. This is the biggest problem. No simple answer. And they're as cunning as the devil. My apologies for directing you to Jihad Watch but I'll bet your morning paper didn't mention much of that or tossed it onto the page after the funnies and obituaries. They're employing natural camouflage techniques, too. Oops. Another JW article. Actually, they're both not JW articles. They're essentially links to mainstream media articles. We'll, I suppose they're all Islamophobes, too.

4. Parachute drop into the Arabian desert or a more practical form of deportation.

Generally speaking yes, I found the article to appear unbiased, well written, and thought provoking. They also appeared to go to pains to back up any assertions or speculation with some form of evidence.

Skybird isn't seeking debate or discussion, that implies the question is still open to him to debate and discuss. Skybird seems to me to be solely interested in pushing his own agenda, and any discussion for him serves only to attempt to discredit the other's arguement or outright dismiss it as "ignorance".

Because, like Skybird, they have no interest in debating the issue. Their minds are made up, everyone who disagrees with anything they say is wrong, and that sums it uip. Further, they are notorious for distorting things to fit this agenda.

Freedom of speech (or in this case it may be more precise to say freedom of the press) means they are free to print their opinions; freedom of speech does not mean that I am obligated to subscribe to their opinions or withold any criticism.

A phobia is an irrational fear; thus Islamopobia is an irrational fear of Islam. I use the term because it best fits the anti-Islam rhetoric that is so common here among some.

I desire only that they be treated, as far as their religion goes, the same as we would treat anyone else of any other religion and not use that as a basis for caricature, intolerance, or hatred. Those who plan or commit acts inspired by hatred or otherwise criminal I fully support punishing them to the maximum extent of the law possible - no matter what their religion.

I suppose my failing, and why I don't "get it", is that I was brought up to believe that you judge a man by his actions, and not by his religion, race, income, or nationality. Thus I judge my Muslim neighbour on his actions the way I do my other neighbours, and not on the basis that he is a Muslim.

Avon: I'll have to reply to this point by point later, but I have to say you have put some thought into it and it at least provides a good framework for further discussion. :up:

You have evaded the issue and discarded Skybird as you discard the Jihad Watch.

Clearly this can only be achieved by discussion, his next paragraph "the rest would come by itself" clearly means political policy as a consequence of public opinion.

If you asked me, it is you who is avoiding the debate, whenever anything is posted about Islam, the first thing you do is search for a comparison with Christianity or religion in general that would transfer the problem elsewhere while at the same time obscuring the problem in Islam, if they're all equal, nobody can spot any particular problems at all, the issue here is not that you attempt to transfer what is from Islam to somewhere else, which doesn't work because of the different historical developments of different religions, but that when doing so you cast a shadow on Islam to pretend it is impossible to spot any problems with Islam at all.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean everybody must agree with everybody without criticism, do not evade the question I raise to you, my point was that no matter what Skybird says it must be regarded as Islamophobia, even if the same is said at the Economist article, because Skybird has his mind made up, and apparently, so does the Economist and all the anti-Islam rhetoricals.

Please point a source you would agree with, mabe you are unaware, maybe every single Canadian socialist is an Islam-allied multi-culturalist, but in Europe there is a new breed of socialists rising against Islam, a truly progressive attitude, because for them it is not sufficient to be anti-fascist, it is necessary to be anti-totalitarian, just like their comrades of yesterday slowly rose against Stalinism. Then if you ditched Canada for Europe you would perhaps feel more comfortable hearing EXACTLY THE SAME words Skybird says comming from the mouth of a progressive socialist. The mere existance of these socialists means there are facts and the truth out there which should pass through any ideological glasses. "Quelle Éducation face au radicalisme religieux" is written by one of them, that's why I suggested it twice. Today any critic of Islam is ostracized as an anti-Islam rethorical Islamophobe, tomorrow the situation will be the reverse, as happened with Stalinism.

I'm not the one going to accuse you of "not getting it". But re-read your last paragraph please.

Some posts ago the Avon Lady and Skybird have demonstrated that the most dangerous Muslims, the terrorists, even according to the Al-Qaeda manual, will behave in such a perfectly normal secular manner that you would never know your neighbor is about to blow a Bus tomorrow filled not only with white-man, but a complete random segment of the population, Muslims included.

By the time you judge his terrorist action, it will be too late, you will never see it comming. The less dangerous Muslim, the one who will vote in a referendum for Sharia, might also not allow you to see it coming, but then what good is judging their honor-murdering when there's no longer any legal criminal punishment for such a thing?

Ignorance is bliss. This is blatantly false. Try searching JW for words like "debate." Robert Spencer begs for moderate Muslims to prove him wrong. So far, they have not succeeded and have either left the debate with points unanswered or with undefinitive answers that do not negate Islamist's positions.

You have a very wrong perception of the people behind JW.

I really have no problem with what the Archbishop said...actually it was very Christian of him, much easier for me to swallow than the old testament retribution most "Evangelicals" espouse here in the States.

Now I am just waiting for the first Imam or Ulema to pronounce that the terrorists have it all wrong, that the Koran states that peace and mercy are the greatest goods and they should be giving their western brothers hugs and kisses to each cheek....or at least a dual strategy of slaughter and hugs....Waiting...Still waiting...(wonder if I will be waiting long?).

Odd that you say this, given that I've been debating this for months now and have responded, I believe, to everyone who's remarked on one of my posts. Of course, as is evident from this comment and Skybird's and AL's repeated assertions that I "dodge certain questions" and what not, I have to point out that it is usually 3 or 4 posts at a time in these threads to respond to, many of them lengthy, and its simple fact that I have other things to do in my life than respond to every single point in every single post. But I do address many, and I do engage in debate.


A blatant misunderstanding and/or mischaracterization of what I do. What I do, sometimes, is compare/contrast Christianity and Islam to prove that the specifice attack on Islam is not something that is unique to Islam, so why single it out?

There is no "must", I characterize it as Islamophobia because I believe it fits. And this is my opinion, not an absolute truth. If it were an absolute truth we wouldn't be having these discussions.

Nice strawman.

Left-wing progressive movements are fundamentally opposed to any form of theocratic totalitariasm, whether they are Islamic, Christian, or whatever else. Incidentally Canada is very progressive, very secular, and very multi-cultural. These are harmonious policies.

Another strawman. I tend to ignore the moderate and justified criticisms of Islam because all too often the thread soon crosses the line from moderate and justified to radical and hysterical and I'll not allign myself with that.


There is truth in this, and there are hundreds of millions more who will not. There are also non-Muslims who will appear perfectly ordinary until they one day snap and go on their killing spree.

I don't live my life in fear of what the odd lunatic may do, whether motivated by religious exploitation or by putting up with abuse every day at his ****ty job. And statistics indicate there is no reason to live in fear of this. That's not to say that both phenomena aren't social problems that need to be addressed, but you're not going to find the solution for either in the Koran or any other religious book.

Here in Canada Sharia cannot be imposed by a referendum, and that is precisely the kind of fear mongering and hysteria that I keep talking about.

A couple questions:

a. I assume by "export" you mean exported by an Islamic state? And by "crush", do you then mean the state exporting it should be anhilated? Seeking clarification by the way, I'm not out to put words in your mouth.

How do you determine, in pragmatic terms, those who are authentic, and what then do you do with them? Also, how do you keep tabs on those who are not but may become authentic?

This goes back to what I wrote above, and the question is not how they conceal their religion, but how - with this in mind - you identify them.

For the purposes of this discussion, I don't see deportation as a problem for recent immigrants who are not citizens. However, does this mean you are willing to strip those who are citizens of their host country of their citizenship? And if its their only form of citizenship (ie: 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation immigrans), where do you deport them. And do you also deport their spouses and children?

At any rate, its an interesting discussion so far and - as I said before, within this discussion accept it as a premise that I agree with your feelings on Islam, and thus I will not be making any comments in it about JW or Islamophobia.

What about the cause, motivation or justification?

You have just strawmanned yourself.

Completely evaded the question. There are places where Sharia can be imposed by referendum, but why not the parliament itself changing the law? That's how it starts, first come demands for public jobs, presence in public councils and from there the demands start growing in ambition. It took only 15 years for Islam to become a powerfull force comming out of masked insignificance. There were radical Imams 15 years ago, there were extremists 15 years ago, but nobody listened to them, so nobody cared for them including non-Muslims, it would be hysteria and fear mongering to see them as a threat, even if they were the expression of totalitarism. Muslims didn't ostracized them, so nobody else did it either, and here we are.

Just because you don't see the threat around your neighborhood it doesn't mean Islamists won't or aren't working to bring you one in the future.

EDIT: Forgot the link for those with short memory: http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatc...ves/008074.php From Jihad Watch with love.

Anyone remembering Sire Uri from Battlestar Galactica? He lived quite a comfortable life in the middle of that mess they were in.

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/9634/uri2vd.jpg

"We need to understand our assistance to their enemies must have been a provocation for them. It is about time now that we send a signal of peace to the Cylons - it is time that we lay down our weapons and disarm the fleet."

-----

Sorry, but it is impossible for me to take scandium serious any longer. after all these long posts of his - he still does not deliver. Only bubblegum that alraedy has been used.

He reminds me of too many psychologists and pedagogics I happened to must have meet with. They too all all too often got drunk of their own intellect, and turned abstract theories into intellectual dogmas without ever making them object to reliability- or validity-tests. That way, they replaced reality with their own mental constructions. And since they are the creators of these artificial constructions, they conclude they understand relaity better than anyone else.

From the Times today:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...261812,00.html
From the Brussel Journal today:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1166

Saudi textbooks preach intolerance, hate

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13804825/

• Jews and Christians are "enemies" of Muslims. Every religion other than Islam is "false."
• "The hour of Judgment will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them."

"It's taught that Christians and Jews are the enemy of the Muslim," says Shea. "And that the Muslim must wage jihad in order to spread the faith in battle against the infidel."

That also needs to be considered.

Because Sharia law is not compatible with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or our Criminal Code. Modifications to these would involve much more than an act of parliment, and even in parliment it would require a majority vote which it would never get and if it did, would be overturned by the Supreme Court.

Odd that you bring this up, and I was actually in Ontario in 1991/92 when this happened. Here, in more detail was what transpired: the courts at that time were so backed up that it was often taking years for people in Ontario to be tried. As one of our fundamental rights is to a speedy trial, the courts ruled that anyone who hadn't been brought to trial within two years (I believe it was) had had their rights violated and the state had to let them go. Their was public outrage because thousands of people were, in effect, given amnesty and let go, many of them on charges for very serious crimes.

Anyway the provincial government decided, for expedience and to clear the mountain of cases that were pending in the courts, to allow religious leaders (not just Muslims, but religious leaders of any faith) to perform the role of court arbitors in civil cases - but only within a limited range of civil disputes and with many conditions applying, such as that both parties had to agree to this form of arbitration, the result had to be in compliance with our Criminal Code which religious law was not above or a substitute for, and any party not satisfied with the outcome was free to appeal to a civil court.

This was a 14 year experiment that ended when the Premier of that province decided that, being a secular society governed by secular laws, it was time to end this experiment with one law, our secular laws, hence forth being the only law of Ontario.

Its worth pointing out to that even given the very narrow range and power of "Sharia law" in arbitrating civil disputes it was an extremely contentious issue that led to much outrage, protests, and studies. The matter is now considered resolved, and this issue has been put to bed. There will be no more Sharia law in Canada, anywhere, in any form.