UKC

UKC - half racialist?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Donald82 16 Jul 2016

"self-sequestering minorities from a violent primitive aggressive permanently expansionist intolerant medieval dessert death cult founded by a child-rapist, mass-murderer, bandit chief, thief and general rapist"

So, someone on another thread described Muslims as above. The post has, last I looked, as many likes as dislikes (18 all). Now, it may be that I'm blinded by PC-ness or something. But I'm astounded by this. I've Muslim friends and colleagues who are lovely, tolerant people, and this just seems totally unacceptable to me.

What do people think? Just genuinely interested to hear from people that think this is okay, and why.
Post edited at 00:26
13
 aln 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

>dessert death cult

I've eaten Death by Chocolate, it can be a heavy but satisfying end to a meal. But I haven't started a sect around it.

 Big Ger 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

> "self-sequestering minorities from a violent primitive aggressive permanently expansionist intolerant medieval dessert death cult founded by a child-rapist, mass-murderer, bandit chief, thief and general rapist"

> So, someone on another thread described Muslims as above. The post has, last I looked, as many likes as dislikes (18 all). Now, it may be that I'm blinded by PC-ness or something. But I'm astounded by this. I've Muslim friends and colleagues who are lovely, tolerant people, and this just seems totally unacceptable to me.

> What do people think? Just genuinely interested to hear from people that think this is okay, and why.

Well for a start, do you know what ""self-sequestering minorities" indicates?



 Timmd 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

I wouldn't say it's technically racist, but it definitely fits the definition of prejudice. It's case closed as far as prejudice is concerned.

5
Donald82 16 Jul 2016
In reply to aln:

Haha!

(Other chap's typo, not mine)
2
Donald82 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

Er.. I know what it means.
1
 wintertree 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

Repeat after me: "Religion does not equal race."
1
Donald82 16 Jul 2016
In reply to wintertree:

Sure - Religion does not equal race. Religion does not equal race.Religion does not equal race.Religion does not equal race.Religion does not equal race.Religion does not equal race.Religion does not equal race.Religion does not equal race.Religion does not equal race.

But language evolves and it means what people tend to mean it to mean. Generally, these days, prejudice against Muslims would come under the term racist. I'll change the title though
6
Donald82 16 Jul 2016
In reply to wintertree:

Not sure how to change the title?
1
 wintertree 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

> Not sure how to change the title?

"Generalising Islamaphobes"?

Religonist never became a word...
 Trevers 16 Jul 2016
In reply to wintertree:

Hate speech and hate crimes don't have to be about skin colour though
2
 THE.WALRUS 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

You may well have Muslim friends who are 'lovely and tolerant' but events from around the world show that this is not always the case.

Indeed, the countless atrocities carried out in France, and many other places
in recent times appear to show that some sections of Muslim society are little more than an aggressive, murderous, intolerant death cult who regularly display levels of barbarity not seen since medieval times...and whose stated intention is to expands the borders of the Muslim world, by force, into Europe and Asia and impose Sharia law on its subjects.


14
 Big Ger 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Timmd:

Against who?
 Big Ger 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

> Er.. I know what it means.

Then doesn't that dispatch any claim of "this is racism" to the dustbin?
 elliott92 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

I have friends and family (my uncle) who are muslim. Any religion can be interpreted or twisted to justify bloodshed. People like to lay blame. With the state of the world at the moment it is easy to generalise.

That being said I do believe Islam needs some reform and the Muslims as a wider community needs to do more.
1
Donald82 16 Jul 2016
In reply to wintertree:

> "Generalising Islamaphobes"?

> Religonist never became a word...

I like that, but my problem is how to actually change it. I think it's stuck.
Donald82 16 Jul 2016
In reply to elliott92:

I'd agree with that.
1
Donald82 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

Why?
1
Donald82 16 Jul 2016
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

"some sections"....
 Coel Hellier 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Timmd:

> ... it definitely fits the definition of prejudice.

Or perhaps postjudice?
 Coel Hellier 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

> Just genuinely interested to hear from people that think this is okay, and why.

I think it's ok because Islam is the most oppressive and reprehensible ideology in the world today. For the good of the world we should not stint on criticism of Islam. Last century the most harmful ideologies were things like communism and Nazism; in the 17th century it was Christianity; this century it is Islam.

That is a condemnation of the ideology, but is not a condemnation of people or saying that all Muslims are bad. I'm quite sure that a large fraction of communists and of the eight million Nazi-party members and of 17th century Christians were decent people. But they held to a very harmful ideology. We should not shy away from saying such things owing to the totally misplaced and inappropriate accusation of racism (hint: it is about an ideology, not in any way about genetic and racial characteristics; if you want to accuse Simon4 of being culturist then ok, go ahead).
3
 ian caton 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

I live in West Yorks which is ethnically diverse, but I had a kind of "road to Damascus" moment on my one trip to the the states, Atlanta in the south. People there were not separated out by race on the street. Here we are.

I used to think it was a symptom of a deeply racist society. But I have softened, maybe half as you say.
1
 Big Ger 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

> Why?

Well if you know what; "self-sequestering minorities" means you shouldn't have to ask that.

What do you think is meant by; "self-sequestering minorities"?
2
 marsbar 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

I'm not astounded, nor did I bother to argue this time because the poster in question has put this kind of thing over and over again. I just ignore him now. I suspect I'm not the only one.
1
 spotter1 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

if those are his opinions , he can express them here or wherever he wants whether racist or not. thats free speech.
you seem not to get that in the name of PC, or self righteousness.
personally, i also dislike his post.
 marsbar 16 Jul 2016
In reply to elliott92:

What exactly do you think the Muslim community should be doing more of?

This is an interesting viewpoint. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-alnatour/why-muslims-should-never-have-t...

This is nice http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-a-mosque-invited-a-church-to-use-it...

And this makes me laugh http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-22689552
2
Rigid Raider 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

Racism is blind ignorance and intolerance. The writer of that paragraph clearly isn't ignorant judging from the string of big words so to me it looks like an opinion on a religion and nothing to do wth blind racial hatred. I'm a bit unsure about the self-sequestering bit as well.
2
 Coel Hellier 16 Jul 2016
In reply to marsbar:

> What exactly do you think the Muslim community should be doing more of?

Reforming Islam in all of the ways that some Islamic reformers are calling for.
 marsbar 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

What, like the lap dance guy?
2
Donald82 16 Jul 2016
In reply to spotter1:

> if those are his opinions , he can express them here or wherever he wants whether racist or not. thats free speech.

> you seem not to get that in the name of PC, or self righteousness.

Not at all. I think it's an unacceptable thing to say, but I entirely accept his right to say it.

Our speech isn't quite as free as you think though. There are some opinions it is illegal to express (I think the law probably goes a bit far on this front currently).

2
Donald82 16 Jul 2016
In reply to marsbar:

I mean astounded by how many likes it got. Well astounded is a bit of an exaggeration. Quite surprised though. I know there's quite a few on hear who are very anti political correctness (not too keen myself), but I didn't think they'd think this kind of thing's okay.
2
Donald82 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Rigid Raider:

> Racism is blind ignorance and intolerance. The writer of that paragraph clearly isn't ignorant judging from the string of big words so to me it looks like an opinion on a religion and nothing to do wth blind racial hatred. I'm a bit unsure about the self-sequestering bit as well.

You can be both clever and ignorant. Or even stupid, ignorant and know big words.

By self-sequestering he means not integrating with the rest of society.
1
Donald82 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> What do you think is meant by; "self-sequestering minorities"?

A minority that doesn't integrate with wider society.

I still don't understand why this makes his post not racist (or islamophobic, if you prefer)?
 Bootrock 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

Why is it racist to dislike a religion?

Religion is just Mankind's attempt to answer the big unanswerable questions in life. I don't have to submit to any religion. Nor do I have to like any of them.
But considering faith is the blind belief based on spiritual conviction rather than proof, is it acceptable to look at religion with nothing but contempt?

Is it acceptable to like a Muslim, but dislike Islam?

Is it acceptable to dislike Christianity?

Do we need religion to have morals?

Is it acceptable to tread on other religions to give preferential treatment to a religion?

Is it acceptable to criticise every religion?
Why criticism of Religion seen as "racist", a religion can be made up of many races.

Is religion a mental health issue?

Its all just manipulation of the masses. Manipulation of people who haven't got a grasp of reality and need the warmth of a security blanket to make them feel all warm and fuzzy.

Religion has no place in modern society. It certainly shouldn't be part of the state.


And of course the problem with discussing anything to do with this topic is that a lot of the liberals kick off and instead of an interesting debate on religion, people just get labelled racist and slurs get thrown about. And nothing gets achieved.

How do you keep the people quiet? Make them censor themselves, make them scared to ask questions.





 marsbar 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

Sadly quite a few people think it's ok to be nasty to Muslims. Probably less on here than in real life. I can see why, I wouldn't want to live in Saudi or Pakistan myself, but to treat everyone badly because of the behaviour and attitudes of some isn't right.
2
 marsbar 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

I agree, but then some people use your arguments to be racist and then say they aren't.
1
 Bootrock 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

Well, why is it racist? It's his interpretation of the Religion?

After all, we keep getting told it's all about interpretation?



 Trevers 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> I think it's ok because Islam is the most oppressive and reprehensible ideology in the world today. For the good of the world we should not stint on criticism of Islam. Last century the most harmful ideologies were things like communism and Nazism; in the 17th century it was Christianity; this century it is Islam.

> That is a condemnation of the ideology, but is not a condemnation of people or saying that all Muslims are bad. I'm quite sure that a large fraction of communists and of the eight million Nazi-party members and of 17th century Christians were decent people. But they held to a very harmful ideology. We should not shy away from saying such things owing to the totally misplaced and inappropriate accusation of racism (hint: it is about an ideology, not in any way about genetic and racial characteristics; if you want to accuse Simon4 of being culturist then ok, go ahead).

I think you need to be really careful in comparing Islam to fascism (yes I know you're not making a direct comparison, but still).

I DO agree that extreme ideologies like fascism and authoritarian communism are akin to religion, but the difference is that subjugation is their sole purpose.

Intolerance and violence are central themes of fascism, they're more or less inseparable from the ideology. People living under a fascist regime are living under an oppressive regime, and may have little choice but to subscribe to it for their own safety.

The same CANNOT be said about Islam. Yes, you can cherry pick passages from it's holy text that show it to be intolerant and sexist and violence, but you can do the same with the Bible.

You're definitely right that we should not stint on criticism of Islam. However we can't just attack the religion directly without stopping to ask whether the unrest and violence in predominantly Islamic regions are inherently due to the nature of Islam, or whether there are other underlying reasons for the cracks on the surface.
2
 Coel Hellier 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

Hi Donald,

> I think it's an unacceptable thing to say, but I entirely accept his right to say it.

You do realise that that's contradictory?
 pec 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:
> "self-sequestering minorities . . . . .. etc
> . . . . . . .. . I've Muslim friends and colleagues who are lovely, tolerant people, and this just seems totally unacceptable to me. >

> What do people think? Just genuinely interested to hear from people that think this is okay, and why. >

I don't think its any worse than branding all members of a political party as c*nts just because you don't agree with their policies even though millions of ordinary decent people do.
Sorry, I'll let it lie soon but I couldn't resist
Post edited at 10:27
Donald82 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Islam like most/all religions, is a broad Mosque with many interpretations rather than a single ideology. He is talking about Muslims generally as following an ideology of self sequestering , death cultists and suggesting they're in support of child rape.

Your examples are quite telling actually. It would be fine to attack a specific Christian or Communist ideology and, perhaps, it's followers. But it's not fine to say all Christians follow such an ideology. That is an attack on all Christians, and obviously an unfair one. The same is true for Muslims.

Racism may indeed be the wrong term. What ever term you want use the text above is based on crass generalisations, prejudice and is offensive in the extreme. I don't think this accusation is misplaced at all - this is not a frank discussion of the pros and cons of Islam it is, as above, crass, prejudice generalisation.

2
 Coel Hellier 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Trevers:

> I think you need to be really careful in comparing Islam to fascism [...] Intolerance and violence are central themes of fascism, ...

I am indeed saying that Islam, as it is practised in many Musim-dominated countries, is fascist. It does indeed use intolerance and violence to impose itself on the populace.

> People living under a fascist regime are living under an oppressive regime, and may have little choice but to subscribe to it for their own safety.

Exactly. And you try declaring yourself an apostate in Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. You try publicly criticising Islam. As just one example, Raif Badawi wrote blog posts asking for reform of Islam, and was sentenced to 1000 lashes and ten years in jail. Apostasy and blasphemy are criminal offences in a score of Islamic nations, with punishments including the death penalty. By your own standards, that is fascist.

Islamic rules such as wearing a headscarf or women not going out unless accompanied by male relatives are enforced by "morality police" in many such countries. Islam really is not optional for many tens of millions of people. How is that not fascist?
 Bootrock 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Trevers:

> The same CANNOT be said about Islam. Yes, you can cherry pick passages from it's holy text that show it to be intolerant and sexist and violence, but you can do the same with the Bible.

But the difference is, he Bible was written as a series of books, the Old Testament (violence, eye for an eye etc) was overwritten by the New Testament (Forgiveness).

The Quran was dictated to and scribed by a man (let's face it, not a nice dude) and while nice and fluffy at the beginning, ends with a lot of hatred and violence, with a statement that says any contradictory statements are settled by the Latter Passage taking priority. It's not really about "cherry picking".

You can't really compare the two fictional stories.

One admits it's inspired by the word of God, and is a collection of stories and passages written by many men.

The other proclaims to be the very word of the Big cheese himself. And as such is believed to have no mistakes.


Donald82 16 Jul 2016
In reply to pec:

I think I said the MPs were mostly c*nts. And, I maintain that I think that because of things they've done and things that make it pretty clear to me it wasn't with ill intent.

So we have:

Calling a few hundred people who you think have done something bad c*nts..

versus

Calling all Muslims self sequestering death cultists..

Doesn't seem quite the same to me!



5
 Coel Hellier 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

> He is talking about Muslims generally as following an ideology of self sequestering , death cultists and suggesting they're in support of child rape.

Simon4 generally words his rants quite carefully. He does not suggest that all Muslims support child rape (which, of course, would be very far from the case), he said that their cult was founded by a child rapist (which is attested to by Islamic sources).

On your more general point, yes, Islam, like most religions, has lots of different flavours. But it also has enough common characteristics to be able to talk about it as a whole. Commentary about any group, whether Christians or Muslims or Labour voters or UKIP voters or whatever will always be a generalisation that will not apply to everyone. That's understood. Without allowing for such implicit qualifications we'd be unable to discuss any of these groups.
Donald82 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Hi Donald,

> You do realise that that's contradictory?

Hey Coel

You will realise it isn't when you think about it for a bit
 Trevers 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> I am indeed saying that Islam, as it is practised in many Musim-dominated countries, is fascist. It does indeed use intolerance and violence to impose itself on the populace.

> Exactly. And you try declaring yourself an apostate in Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. You try publicly criticising Islam. As just one example, Raif Badawi wrote blog posts asking for reform of Islam, and was sentenced to 1000 lashes and ten years in jail. Apostasy and blasphemy are criminal offences in a score of Islamic nations, with punishments including the death penalty. By your own standards, that is fascist.

> Islamic rules such as wearing a headscarf or women not going out unless accompanied by male relatives are enforced by "morality police" in many such countries. Islam really is not optional for many tens of millions of people. How is that not fascist?

I'm not disagreeing with any of this, but these are interpretations of Islam used by states that would otherwise find some other means to oppress their people. This thread seems to be about the implication that the religion itself is inherently brutal and intolerant, which I'd disagree with.

Part of the tragedy is that because it's a religious ideology turned political and not the other way around, it's seen as something we can't criticise.
 TobyA 16 Jul 2016
In reply to THE.WALRUS:

> Indeed, the countless atrocities carried out in France,

France has big problems but the number of terrorist (define as you wish) attacks is very far from countless. There are some things we choose not to try and count - unintended civilians deaths caused by UK military operations stretching from Libya to Afghanistan over the last 15 years for example - but to claim IS or AQ inspired crimes in France are countless is just simply wrong.

> in recent times appear to show that some sections of Muslim society

Can you explain what you mean by "Muslim society"?

> whose stated intention is to expands the borders of the Muslim world, by force, into Europe and Asia...

You might be surprised to discover - as you don't seem to know much about these things - that the countries with four biggest populations of Muslims (three of them being Muslim majority to huge extent), about 3/4 of a billion people, are in South and South East Asia. If you are worrying about the "Muslim world" expanding it borders into Asia, I'm afraid you started reading those Islamophobic blogs about 1000 years too late!
3
Donald82 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Simon4 generally words his rants quite carefully. He does not suggest that all Muslims support child rape (which, of course, would be very far from the case), he said that their cult was founded by a child rapist (which is attested to by Islamic sources)

> On your more general point, yes, Islam, like most religions, has lots of different flavours. But it also has enough common characteristics to be able to talk about it as a whole. Commentary about any group, whether Christians or Muslims or Labour voters or UKIP voters or whatever will always be a generalisation that will not apply to everyone. That's understood. Without allowing for such implicit qualifications we'd be unable to discuss any of these groups.

Sure, you need to generalise sometimes. The way he has generalised is, I think, pretty offensive. The way he has (carefully) worded it leaves the suggestion that Muslims, generally, are at least tacitly support of or not against child rape. Death cult suggests they are all keen to blow themselves up or die fighting.

I am, believe it or not, all for free and frank discussion. This isn't that, and I think you probably know it.


1
 bouldery bits 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

> "self-sequestering minorities from a violent primitive aggressive permanently expansionist intolerant medieval dessert death cult founded by a child-rapist, mass-murderer, bandit chief, thief and general rapist"

Apart from the dessert bit that also covers the following:

The Tory party
Deadpoint magazine
Ladbrokes
The Big Issue
Jim'll fix it
Whetherspoons
The Inuit
The BBC? Maybe?
Definitely countryfile
Topshop
Coldplay



1
 Coel Hellier 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Trevers:

> I'm not disagreeing with any of this, but these are interpretations of Islam used by states that would otherwise find some other means to oppress their people.

How do you know that? How do you know those states aren't like that precisely because of the dominance of Islam? Take, for example, blasphemy laws in Pakistan. The government is somewhat more secular than the populace, and would like to repeal or moderate the blasphemy laws; but the people won't allow it.

The governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer, spoke against the blasphemy laws (note, he didn't say anything blasphemous, he just spoke against such laws); he was then gunned down by his body guard. The killer, Mumtaz Qadri, was executed, but thousands of people rallied in support of him.

So what is your evidence that it is the government, as opposed to the religion, that is the root of the oppression?

> This thread seems to be about the implication that the religion itself is inherently brutal and intolerant, which I'd disagree with.

On what grounds? If you look at the teachings of the religion that are very totalitarian and oppressive. The whole concept of separation of religion and state and the whole concept of individual liberties are not accepted. Everyone is held to have a duty to submit to Islam (which is what "Islam" actually means).

Are you trying to exonerate Islam just because it is a religion and thus -- the supposition might be -- because it is a religion it can't be bad?
 bouldery bits 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

And the sun is shining! Go climbing you ding bats.

I'm stuck at work so go climb for me please
Donald82 16 Jul 2016
In reply to bouldery bits:

What, Teresa May too? That's a scary though!
Donald82 16 Jul 2016
In reply to bouldery bits:

Also, working - sort of
1
 marsbar 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

There are various different accounts of Aisha's age at marriage and the age at which she left her parents to be with him. Whilst in modern times child brides are not acceptable in most societies, it was more normal then. Calling someone a child rapist for having a child bride hundreds of years ago when it was not unusual does seem inflammatory to me.

> ..., he said that their cult was founded by a child rapist (which is attested to by Islamic sources).

1
 Coel Hellier 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

> The way he has (carefully) worded it leaves the suggestion that Muslims, generally, are at least tacitly support of or not against child rape.

Islamic doctrine generally holds that: (1) Mohammed is the very model of an ideal human to be held in high esteem (sufficiently so that, for example, it is sacrilege to even depict him); and (2) Mohammed had sex with his bride, Aisha, when she was nine years old.

Is it wrong to point out the incongruence of those two teachings? If the Islamic wants to declare that Mohammed's actions were morally wrong and that Mohammed was a flawed human being, then ok, let them do so. As it stands, mainstream Islam does indeed "tacitly support", by refusing to condemn, child rape.

> Death cult suggests they are all keen to blow themselves up or die fighting.

Which is what many in Gaza and similar places say about themselves! There is a rampant cult of martyrdom, fully promoted by the Islamic authorities.
1
 Coel Hellier 16 Jul 2016
In reply to marsbar:

> Calling someone a child rapist for having a child bride hundreds of years ago when it was not unusual does seem inflammatory to me.

That would be fair enough, *except* that the person concerned is then held up as the very model of humanity, and his teachings and example are taken as a moral code that all Muslims should live by.

 marsbar 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Your logic has got flawed somewhere. None of the Muslim men I know think it's ok to have sex with a child. And as I said, there are various interpretations of her age, I've seen 12, 15 and 17 mentioned, and puberty.
2
 TobyA 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> How do you know that? How do you know those states aren't like that precisely because of the dominance of Islam? Take, for example, blasphemy laws in Pakistan. The government is somewhat more secular than the populace, and would like to repeal or moderate the blasphemy laws; but the people won't allow it.

Coel, I'm sure you know that Pakistani political history and the interweaving of Islamist thinking going back to (and before I'm sure) ala Mawdudi is considerably more complicated than a (slightly distorted anyway) snapshot of now. The Islamisation of significant sections of the Pakistani society goes back to the government policies of Zia al Haq and his military regime through the 70s and 80s and can't be divorced from that geopolitical moment either. "It's the religion innit?" is as facile an explanation as saying "it's a religion, so it can't be bad".
3
Donald82 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:


> Is it wrong to point out the incongruence of those two teachings?

No. Any yet it's still offensive to describe all Muslims as members of a death cult lead by a child rapist. Despite the two teachings I expect most Muslims think it's wrong. People hold conflicting views all the time. They might try and reconcile them with 'different times' or 'god works in mysterious ways' type arguments.

> Which is what many in Gaza and similar places say about themselves! There is a rampant cult of martyrdom, fully promoted by the Islamic authorities.

"many in Gaza" in quite a specific situation... versus "all Muslims". Which is exactly the point.
 Trevers 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> So what is your evidence that it is the government, as opposed to the religion, that is the root of the oppression?

I have none. I'm not going to try to provide any because I have no deep historical understanding of these varied regions, so it would be disingenuous of me to try and point to some historical event or other.

I'll simply point out this: In a society that is prosperous, healthy, well-fed and has equality, identity, freedom and security, people will not turn to fascism or authoritarian communism. They may well turn to religion, including Islam, and it will probably be a tolerant and moderate form of that religion. Whether their turning to religion at all in a scientifically advanced society says anything about their mental state is probably a discussion that needs to be had, calmly and sensitively. For the record, in my view a perfect society would have no need for religion, but it's here to stay so we'd best accept that fact and try to understand it.

Aspects of religions need to come in for criticism, and that includes Islam more than most, and especially in this day and age. But using language (and I know it's not yours) like "intolerant medieval dessert death cult founded by a child-rapist, mass-murderer, bandit chief, thief and general rapist" is neither insightful, nor productive. It neither furthers our understanding nor builds bridges - quite the opposite, it's the language of those who neither want to understand nor to build a more inclusive society but rather to exacerbate division.

EDIT - And the other danger of such language is that we end up conflating those who want to make genuine and reasoned criticisms of religion (such as yourself) with those who simply want to rant and hate and divide.
Post edited at 11:35
1
 TobyA 16 Jul 2016
In reply to marsbar:

> Calling someone a child rapist for having a child bride hundreds of years ago when it was not unusual does seem inflammatory to me.

It's a very standard meme from over the last decade or so on Islamophobic blogs and other media. When I used to research the so called "counter-Jihad" movement it was there but perhaps less commonly heard than now. In the UK the EDL (Tommy Robinson) has often used the charge because obviously it fitted nicely with the claim that the CSE scandals in Rotherham and elsewhere were linked by the perpetrators' religion to Jihadi terrorism and would further demonise Muslims who had nowt to do with either child abuse or extremism.
I never tried tracing the charge back further - it would be interesting to know if pre-9/11 it was used to attack Muslims. If you look at traditional far-right/fascist sources pre-9/11 there was sometimes a grudging sort of respect for Islamic extremist groups for actually fighting for what they believed in. Historical slurs against religions of course have a long history with antisemitism and anti-Catholic ideas, but both in the US and western Europe pre-9/11 the far right weren't so interested in Muslims.

2
 Mr Lopez 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Come on man, if you are going to be stating facts do at least educate yourself a little on the subject. As a scientist i'd have thought facts and knowledge would rank higher in your priorities than making false statements without corroborating.

> Islamic doctrine generally holds that: (1) Mohammed is the very model of an ideal human to be held in high esteem (sufficiently so that, for example, it is sacrilege to even depict him);

Mohammed is not the ideal human, and he's openly criricised in a number of texts, including the Quran. He is however considered the best of the prophets and a number of his virtues are put as exemplary of what muslims should be like.

Depictions of him are not "sacrilege" because he is "an ideal human to be held in high esteem". The reason depictions of prophets in some branches of Islam are not allowed is quite the opposite actually. It is because according to those only god should be worshipped and not the prophets, and depicting and idolising the prophets would go against that. A bit like trying to stop the Christian worshipping of Jesus.

> (2) Mohammed had sex with his bride, Aisha, when she was nine years old.

Was she?

"A great misconception prevails as to the age at which Aisha was taken in marriage by the Prophet. Ibn Sa£d has stated in the Tabaqat that when Abu Bakr [father of Aisha] was approached on behalf of the Holy Prophet, he replied that the girl had already been betrothed to Jubair, and that he would have to settle the matter first with him. This shows that Aisha must have been approaching majority at the time. Again, the Isaba, speaking of the Prophet's daughter Fatima, says that she was born five years before the Call and was about five years older than Aisha. This shows that Aisha must have been about ten years at the time of her betrothal to the Prophet, and not six years as she is generally supposed to be. This is further borne out by the fact that Aisha herself is reported to have stated that when the chapter [of the Holy Quran] entitled The Moon, the fifty-fourth chapter, was revealed, she was a girl playing about and remembered certain verses then revealed. Now the fifty-fourth chapter was undoubtedly revealed before the sixth year of the Call. All these considerations point to but one conclusion, viz., that Aisha could not have been less than ten years of age at the time of her nikah, which was virtually only a betrothal. And there is one report in the Tabaqat that Aisha was nine years of age at the time of nikah. Again it is a fact admitted on all hands that the nikah of Aisha took place in the tenth year of the Call in the month of Shawwal, while there is also preponderance of evidence as to the consummation of her marriage taking place in the second year of Hijra in the same month, which shows that full five years had elapsed between the nikah and the consummation. Hence there is not the least doubt that Aisha was at least nine or ten years of age at the time of betrothal, and fourteen or fifteen years at the time of marriage"

http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm
Post edited at 11:57
1
 Coel Hellier 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> It is because according to those only god should be worshipped and not the prophets, and depicting and idolising the prophets would go against that.

That was perhaps the original reason, but it has changed over time. When gunmen attacked Charlie Hebdo they said "we have avenged our prophet" -- they were upset that cartoons had defamed and insulted someone they regard with the highest esteem -- they did not go around saying: "thanks for the cartoons, they help us see Mohammed as a fallible human with flaws, and so help us not worship him".

As for the age of Aisha, the relevant point is that mainstream Islam teaches (since I'm discussing here the Islamic religion and teaching). There is a fair argument that her youth was exaggerated in order to emphasize her virginity before being betrothed to Mohammed. But, again, if we're discussing Islamic ideology, and today's Islamic moral codes and what they're based on, then the relevant thing is what Islamic teaching says, and most mainstream sources go for a young age.
1
In reply to Donald82:

I think there's a problem with general statements about 'Islam' or 'Muslims'. It's like not differentiating between near-agnostic Anglicans and the Westboro Baptist Church.

The problem with Islam compared with Christianity is that the 'Westboro Baptist Church' intolerant, literalist end of the religion is not a tiny sect but has hundreds of millions of adherents, taken over whole countries and has the backing of governments like Saudi Arabia who are spending serious money to help it spread throughout the world.


 marsbar 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Most mainstream sources? Or the popular sources?
1
 marsbar 16 Jul 2016
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I totally take your point about the numbers worldwide being greater, but most British Muslims are more Anglican than Westboro. Hate speech against these people is counter productive.
 MG 16 Jul 2016
In reply to marsbar:

How would they be different?
1
 Coel Hellier 16 Jul 2016
In reply to marsbar:

> Most mainstream sources? Or the popular sources?

Mainstream Islamic teaching says 9 or 10. E.g, from wiki:

``The majority of traditional hadith sources state that Aisha was married to Muhammad at the age of six or seven, but she stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine, or ten according to Ibn Hisham,[11] when the marriage was consummated with Muhammad, then 53, in Medina.[12][13][14] This timeline has been challenged by a number of scholars in modern times.''

[And, again, I'm referring to Islamic doctrine here, not historical fact of the matter, about which not enough is known to say much -- afterall, this stuff was only written down a couple of hundred years later.]
 marsbar 16 Jul 2016
In reply to MG:
How would would what be different?

Sources of Aisha's age or British Muslims?
Post edited at 12:26
 MG 16 Jul 2016
In reply to marsbar:

Sources. Surely mainstream is popular, or it would be fringe or similar.
 Offwidth 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Mr Lopez:
http://www.islamophobiatoday.com/2012/09/20/the-truth-about-muhammad-and-aisha/

In the end we just don't know what happened but the rules in the Koran on marriage are clear, so those making these accusations on UKC are in my view at best foolish but more likely pushing towards incitement of a religious group that sadly contains some violently intolerent people (witness the death of the shopkeeper in Glasgow). Hence, I'd rather they keep their postings elsewhere for the sake of the site. Having witnessed the fuss around proposed Isreali boycotts, calls to law happen quicker than one might think and its no fun to deal with such threats even if you think you were right and defending free speech to say it.

Some legal advice is here:

https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/cases_of_inciting_racial_an...

Sometimes things go beyond this. In the case of complaints about employees, some institutions have taken offence over and above the law (an employee bringing the institution into disrepute or breaching internal rules). I've just seen a colleague resign for being disciplined for political blog posts complaining about managerial neoliberalism that didn't even name her institution. Hence I would not be surprised if someone was displined or even dismissed for being identifably of an organisation and publicly making such accusations.
Post edited at 12:42
3
 MG 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

Which bit are you thinking of. Note from your link the text below. Also, are universities now censoring political opinion?

In one case the Judge explained the meaning of "threatening" as follows: "What it doesn't mean, is it is not abusive or upsetting. It doesn't prohibit public discussion, criticism, antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or their followers. That is free speech is not stopped. The word threatening should have its ordinary meaning. You should ask what would be the impact of the material on a reasonable member of the public. An objective test - would a reasonable member of the public consider them threatening?"
1
 marsbar 16 Jul 2016
In reply to MG:

I'm not sure traditional is the same as mainstream, or if modern is fringe? All I know is that the age is disputed but certain people take the youngest possible age given as fact because it suits their agenda.

I don't think we will ever know for certain what age she was, but it isn't true that people are using it nowadays as an example of it being ok to have sex with a child.
1
 Offwidth 16 Jul 2016
In reply to MG:
Yes Universities are sometimes self censoring and are always subject to legal process that can stifle free debate but I was thinking much wider. I agree completely with the judicial quote but I suspect some posts here are pushing the envelope partly because some don't even know it exists.

In the end, even with clearly legal posts, does anyone gain if some smart arse free thinkers with such daft and offensive to islam unprovable allegations throw the site into unwanted trouble.
Post edited at 12:53
1
 marsbar 16 Jul 2016
In reply to TobyA:

Ah yes the EDL. Classic example of those who live in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones.

http://www.edlnews.co.uk/category/far-right-child-abusers/
1
 off-duty 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

> Yes Universities are sometimes self censoring and are always subject to legal process that can stifle free debate but I was thinking much wider. I agree completely with the judicial quote but I suspect some posts here are pushing the envelope partly because some don't even know it exists.

> In the end, even with clearly legal posts, does anyone gain if some smart arse free thinkers with such daft and offensive to islam unprovable allegations throw the site into unwanted trouble.

Can't see anything in Simon4 post that is illegal as MG highlighted.
Debate and discussion of religion is to be encouraged I would have thought, however robust.

As can be seen by a variety of links whose opinions differ to Simon4 that have been posted as a direct response, and help to inform opinion.

Whether your job would be keen to be associated with your opinions or posts us another thing entirely, hence perhaps pseudonyms....
 spotter1 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> Why is it racist to dislike a religion?

its not

> Religion is just Mankind's attempt to answer the big unanswerable questions in life. I don't have to submit to any religion. Nor do I have to like any of them.

thats just part of religion, there is also social and moral legislagtion, and all kind of things that have nothing to do with metaphysics.

> But considering faith is the blind belief based on spiritual conviction rather than proof, is it acceptable to look at religion with nothing but contempt?

it is acceptable to look at religion like that, its not acceptable to persecure religious people because you dont like religion.

> Is it acceptable to like a Muslim, but dislike Islam?

of course.

> Is it acceptable to dislike Christianity?

of course.

> Do we need religion to have morals?

no, but it is a big part of how religions evolved.

> Is it acceptable to tread on other religions to give preferential treatment to a religion?

> Is it acceptable to criticise every religion?

> Why criticism of Religion seen as "racist", a religion can be made up of many races.

> Is religion a mental health issue?

got a bit tired answering, but no its not a mental health issue.

> Its all just manipulation of the masses. Manipulation of people who haven't got a grasp of reality and need the warmth of a security blanket to make them feel all warm and fuzzy.

> Religion has no place in modern society. It certainly shouldn't be part of the state.

no it should not be a part of any progressive state, as for 'place in modern society' you are going off again..

1
 Timmd 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:
> Against who?

Assuming the world's 2.1 billions Muslims aren't all the same, there's no evidence around that they are, the ones who aren't intolerant & self isolating and who aren't fussed whether their neighbours are Muslim or not, and who just want to live in peace.
Post edited at 13:41
1
In reply to Donald82:

Damnit, where's Christopher Hitchens when you need him?
 pec 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Trevers:
If I may slightly alter your reply above to address your defence of Donald on another recent thread, (my alteration is in inverted comas), we have :-

> . . . . But using language like "all Tories are c*nts" is neither insightful, nor productive. It neither furthers our understanding nor builds bridges - quite the opposite, it's the language of those who neither want to understand nor to build a more inclusive society but rather to exacerbate division.

> EDIT - And the other danger of such language is that we end up conflating those who want to make genuine and reasoned criticisms of "politics" with those who simply want to rant and hate and divide. >

Do you now see why I object to your use of such language on these forums? Its not because I want to passionately defend the Tories, its for the reasons you so eloquently describe above.

Sorry about the thread hijack, I really will let it lie soon!



Donald82 16 Jul 2016
In reply to pec:

> Do you now see why I object to your use of such language on these forums? Its not because I want to passionately defend the Tories, its for the reasons you so eloquently describe above.

It's different. Relatively small and specific group of people in a position of power who I think have done bad stuff on purpose VERSUS all two billion muslims.

1
 Trevers 16 Jul 2016
In reply to pec:

> If I may slightly alter your reply above to address your defence of Donald on another recent thread, (my alteration is in inverted comas), we have :-

> Do you now see why I object to your use of such language on these forums? Its not because I want to passionately defend the Tories, its for the reasons you so eloquently describe above.

> Sorry about the thread hijack, I really will let it lie soon!

I did myself rather flippantly refer to Boris Johnson as a c*nt on another thread, and I do genuinely believe he's a nasty human who deserves the label - but in general I agree with you.
2
 Coel Hellier 16 Jul 2016
In reply to marsbar:

> but it isn't true that people are using it nowadays as an example of it being ok to have sex with a child.

Well, the Pakistan government recently proposed raising the age at which a girl can get married from 16 to 18. The Council of Islamic Ideology called that "Un-Islamic" and "blasphemous", at which point the government withdrew the proposed law.

This again shows that it is *not* an issue of oppressive governments using religion as a tool.

The same Council of Islamic Ideology had in 2013 advised "making DNA inadmissible evidence in rape cases, instead calling for the revival of an Islamic law that makes it mandatory for a survivor to provide four witnesses to back their claims" (effectively making it impossible to convict for rape).

I readily and gladly accept that most Muslims are much better than their religion, but their religion really is oppressive, totalitarian, warped and immoral.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/asia/2016/01/15/Pakistani-clerics-bloc...
 Mr Lopez 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

From that link

"Marvi Memon, a member of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz), had moved to amend existing child marriage legislation in the lower house but was forced to withdraw her bid after it was rejected by a parliamentary committee on religious affairs,"

Muslims proposed a law to raise the legal marriage age, and Muslims lobbied against it. Same religion, different 'political' views. The response from yet more Muslim civil groups was

"Maulvi Sherani must immediately be removed from his post as CII chairperson and an educated, enlightened, progressive, moderate and real Islamic scholar - who lives in the 21st century, and who does not hate women and girls - must be appointed to replace him"

Now, some people will say that the real muslims that follow the real Islam are the baddies, because that suits their narrative to revile and demonise a whole religion and its followers . I guess they'll have to explain to the grand majority of muslims in the World they are no real muslims unless they are extreme fanatics...

P.s. Sorry if it looks like i'm hounding you, but every time i click in the thread there's some statement that just jumps out, and unlike other posters like Simon i believe you have the capacity to make reasoned assesements
Post edited at 21:22
2
 Mr Lopez 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

That said, the f*ckwits at the CII sound like real c*nts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-36413037
1
 Coel Hellier 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> Muslims proposed a law to raise the legal marriage age, and Muslims lobbied against it. Same religion, different 'political' views.

Well yes, Pakistan is 97% Muslim, so yes all the factions were Muslim. And yes, the government is generally more secular and moderate Muslims than the populace (Same religion, but different degrees of extremeness within the religion).

That indeed was my point, in reply to the common excuse that states merely use religion to oppress, while the religion itself is not at fault.
1
 Mr Lopez 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Islam follower number 1 says marriage age should be increased. Islam follower number 2 says marriage age should not be increased. Islam follower government for whatever reasons decides to do what Islam follower 2 sugests, and that is proof that Islam is at fault?
2
Donald82 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Coel

> I readily and gladly accept that most Muslims are much better than their religion, but their religion really is oppressive, totalitarian, warped...

It just depends how it's interpreted. Like other religions. As you said earlier Christianity has had its nasry interpretations.

You're making the same mistake as extremists in all religions. To think the religion is the literal interpretation of which ever book. In that sense you're just as stupid as they are.
6
 Coel Hellier 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> ... and that is proof that Islam is at fault?

Moderate Islam follower says marriage age should be increased. More extreme Islam follower says that is un-Islamic and blasphemous. Yes, Islam is at fault, because it gives rise to those non-moderate versions. And note that it is the non-moderate version that currently dominates in Pakistan.
 Coel Hellier 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

> You're making the same mistake as extremists in all religions. To think the religion is the literal interpretation of which ever book.

No, not at all. I take an "Islam is as Islam does" line. Come on, you can manage a better critique than that.
 Bobling 16 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

Sorry not read the whole thread.

It's not nice, I suspect we all have Muslim friends who are lovely tolerant people, nevertheless we have been hearing accounts over the last 48 hours of someone driving a fu*king truck over children in their f*cking prams while shouting "Allahu Akbar". There is an awful lot of anger about - you can see it in Simon's post and I suspect that's why it is getting likes.

I've read the risk manager blurb and agree with it wholeheartedly 'something must be done' and more violence is not the answer, cohesion and solidarity between like minded people of all creeds and colours is but just the mention of Islam right now makes me want to punch someone. We are complex beings.
 Big Ger 17 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:
> A minority that doesn't integrate with wider society.

> I still don't understand why this makes his post not racist (or islamophobic, if you prefer)?

Referring to "a minority" mean that the wider grouping is not included.

If it had referred to all Muslims/blacks/Asians etc you may have a point.

The quote was quite carefully worded, your response is proved wrong

Hence no racism is involved.
Post edited at 00:08
 Big Ger 17 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

This is, yet again, another prime example of how some people call "racist' whenever something not entirely complimentary is said about a non-white group.



Not only is this a false declaration, it does the fight against genuine racism no end of harm.
Donald82 17 Jul 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> No, not at all. I take an "Islam is as Islam does" line. Come on, you can manage a better critique than that

I think it's an accurate critique. In the post I replied to you said Muslims are as Muslims do but Islam is warped.
Donald82 17 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

As I said before,... Okay, islamophobic if you prefer.
Donald82 17 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> Referring to "a minority" mean that the wider grouping is not included.

> If it had referred to all Muslims/blacks/Asians etc you may have a point.

> The quote was quite carefully worded, your response is proved wrong

> Hence no racism is involved.

Missed this and replied to the next one. The minority the quote refers to is Muslims, generally. It calls muslims self sequestering, among other things.
2
Donald82 17 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> Not only is this a false declaration, it does the fight against genuine racism no end of harm.

Yes, by allowing debates to descend into pedantry about whether it's racism or 'just' islamophobia. Seriously though you can't think it's okat to call all Muslims death cult paedo followers? Really?
3
 Big Ger 17 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

> Missed this and replied to the next one. The minority the quote refers to is Muslims, generally. It calls muslims self sequestering, among other things.

Nope, it calls "a minority" of the Muslim faith "self sequestering".

sequester

1. to remove or withdraw into solitude or retirement; seclude.
2. to remove or separate; banish; exile.
3. to keep apart from others; segregate or isolate

The quote was quite explicit. Your desperate attempts to create racism where none exists, is quite distasteful.

 Mr Lopez 17 Jul 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Moderate Islam follower says marriage age should be increased. More extreme Islam follower says that is un-Islamic and blasphemous. Yes, Islam is at fault, because it gives rise to those non-moderate versions.

So the problem is not Islam or religion but extremism in any form.

That extremism is rife at all levels, from population level all the way up to government/country level, and more often than not without a shred of religion in sight. Or do you also blame, for example, right wing politics for the far-right extremists?

Do you go knocking on Theresa May's door to demand she explains herself on behalf of the Conservative Party every time some Combat 18 wannabe beat up or kill an Asian kid? Are socialist politics at fault for extreme communism, so that if i'm a Labour supporter i am by default part of the problem with North Korea?
Is your ethnicity responsible for ethnic crimes and genocides done in the name of ethnic cleansing? Hey, you are white. Breivik was white and he was killing "for the white people", so you by being white are responsoble for what he did?

So if the answer to all the above is no, then why would Islam or any religion for that matter, and the people that follow it, be at fault because some assholes decide to form and believe an extreme version of it not dissimilar in form, actions and outcomes to those from the extreme right, extreme left, racist groups, and violent xenophobic ethnic factions?

5
 Big Ger 17 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:
> Yes, by allowing debates to descend into pedantry about whether it's racism or 'just' islamophobia.

I've not mentioned "Islamophobia," that's another of your attempts to create division.

> Seriously though you can't think it's okat to call all Muslims death cult paedo followers?

Nobody has done that (apart from you that is.)
Post edited at 00:28
In reply to Mr Lopez:
Coel seems to be saying that the extremists, if that's how you characterise them, are setting the agenda for the default morality in Pakistan, a country with a population of over 150 million; and exercising harmful control over many peoples lives even in secular democracies such as the UK.

I don't know if he's correct; but so far he's doing a better job of arguing his case than those who disagree with him, as he doesn't seem to be turning to straw men to make his case
Post edited at 00:40
2
Donald82 17 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:
Full quote starts "if you invite", clearly it doesn't mean just if you invite the self sequestering ones but the other ones are okay. It means minority in the sense of minorities here: Muslims, Jews, poles etc. Even if it did mean just the self sequestering ones, it's still calling all Muslims members of a paedo following death cult.

It would indeed be strange to say lets have the death cult paedo followers round for tea, except those self sequestering ones.

Your defending this by hapless attempts at pedantry is both distasteful and amusing in equal measure.

Edit: actually it's more amusing.
Post edited at 00:40
4
 Big Ger 17 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

> Full quote starts "if you invite", clearly it doesn't mean just if you invite the self sequestering ones but the other ones are okay.

It means what it says. Your attempts to pervert it and create racism are getting disgusting

The quote is actually; "If you allow large, self-sequestering minorities"


> Even if it did mean just the self sequestering ones, it's still calling all Muslims members of a paedo following death cult.

ROTFLMFFAO!! You don't see the irony in your lie there do you?


> It would indeed be strange to say lets have the death cult paedo followers round for tea, except those self sequestering ones.

Which is why no one has said that.

> Your defending this by hapless attempts at pedantry is both distasteful and amusing in equal measure.

Your attempts to create racism show you up as a racist.




 Big Ger 17 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:
BTW Donald82, did you read this link, as posted in another thread;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/15/please-stop-staying-the-nice-att...

are you going to call racism on it?
Post edited at 05:10
 TobyA 17 Jul 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Yes, Islam is at fault, because it gives rise to those non-moderate versions.

Who is this Islam you speak of?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_and_agency

or even better if you have the time/inclination:

http://www.ir.rochelleterman.com/sites/default/files/wendt%201987.pdf

> And note that it is the non-moderate version that currently dominates in Pakistan.

There is nothing particularly moderate about any power centre in Pakistan. If you are worrying about the Islam of sections of the populace allowing for the marriage of underage girls, whilst the government is only "moderately Muslim", what part of 'the government's belief structures' makes them think that censorship, arrest without trial and the murder of those who speak out against them is OK? Is this something that all secular people support? Was this 'extreme secularism' what we saw leading to two hundred plus deaths in Turkey yesterday? Are YOU willing to denounce your fellow extreme secularists or do you passively agree with military coups in the near east and the killing of journalists in south Asia?

And of course I don't expect you to answer any of the above questions because they are ridiculous, but I suspect it might be a bit like how many British Muslims regularly feel.

Apropos to some comments above - not Coel - I was reading through some anti-Islam Facebook pages last night and it is amazing how quickly racism became part of the anti-Islam tirades - black Muslims being called monkeys and the like. From what I reading this was mainly British people and North Americans commenting. Yes, of course not all people who don't like Islam are racists, but of the ones posting on public Facebook pages many seem to be.

1
 TobyA 17 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

Have you really got nowt better to do with your time? I doubt anyone who read this post of Simon4 has any doubt that he is talking about all Muslims, particularly has he posted nearly word for word the same thing many times over the years.
1
 Coel Hellier 17 Jul 2016
In reply to TobyA:

> Was this 'extreme secularism' what we saw leading to two hundred plus deaths in Turkey yesterday? Are YOU willing to denounce your fellow extreme secularists or do you passively agree with military coups in the near east and the killing of journalists in south Asia?

At this point I know relatively little about the coup plotters in Turkey or their attitudes.

> And of course I don't expect you to answer any of the above questions because they are ridiculous, but I suspect it might be a bit like how many British Muslims regularly feel.

It is not ridiculous to criticise Islam as a whole. Yes, there are substantial differences within it and the Ahmadi version, for example, seems a lot more moderate (unfortunately it's fairly small). But mainstream Islam as imposed on or adopted by over a billion people has sufficient doctrines in common to talk about it as a whole, and overall it is not a moderate or benign doctrine.

No-one would try to disallow criticism of "Tory economic policy" by pointing to a minority of Tory voters who thought differently.

Another example, since I've mentioned the Ahmadis, you are presumably aware that in order to obtain a passport in Pakistan you need to sign a declaration that the Ahmadis are heretics and so not Muslims? That is not moderate, it is fascist. The version of Islam that dominates in Pakistan is not moderate, it is totalitarian and fascist.
 Mr Lopez 17 Jul 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> Coel seems to be saying that the extremists, if that's how you characterise them, are setting the agenda for the default morality in Pakistan, a country with a population of over 150 million; and exercising harmful control over many peoples lives even in secular democracies such as the UK.

Yes, that's rght. But where we disagree is that he seems to put the cause of that extremism to be religion itself, whereas my point is that extremism is something somewhat ingrained in humans and religion in this case, but other options being used in other cases, is just a sort of vessel for that extremism to manifest and a means to oppress.

Look just across the border for example. India has a pretty extreme racial/ethnic system based not on religion, but on a caste system pretty much cemented in place by the British Empire and its minions. The horrific way women, specially lower caste ones, are treated and regularly attacked with the apparent blessing of society and government could make Pakistani women feel like they are spoiled like princesses, yet that extremism what has in common isn't a fairy god or a holy book, but simply one of the more depicable traits in human nature which inexorably ends up finding its ways to float to the surface like shit. The urge to control, to oppress, to feel superior by making others inferior. A grown up version of being school bullies while bending any excuses you can get your hands on to legitimise your acts.
1
 Jon Stewart 17 Jul 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> It is not ridiculous to criticise Islam as a whole. Yes, there are substantial differences within it and the Ahmadi version, for example, seems a lot more moderate (unfortunately it's fairly small). But mainstream Islam as imposed on or adopted by over a billion people has sufficient doctrines in common to talk about it as a whole, and overall it is not a moderate or benign doctrine.

I don't think it's ridiculous to criticise Islam as a whole, but I think it's unhelpful and unproductive. Islam's simply far too big, and since people are very touchy about the things they think are holy, criticising the whole religion - people's personal identity - it causes alienation and division. Is that a reason not to criticise Islam? Well if anyone can show the advantages of this approach (i.e. convince me that with enough criticism from outsiders Islam - the whole thing, whatever that means - will change and the violent and oppressive elements will disappear or start being nice) over being more specific about radical Islamism, then I'm all ears.

> No-one would try to disallow criticism of "Tory economic policy" by pointing to a minority of Tory voters who thought differently.

This is a completely rubbish analogy, since it refers to specific set of policies that are set out in contemporary reference documents written to be as unambiguous as possible (although I'm sure there are sentences in there that intentionally ambiguous). Islam on the other hand is rather broader. The documents that set out what Islam is are written in 1000-year old gobbledegook, what is intelligible is totally contradictory, and like all religions, you can take what you like from it and bin the rest. Hence why some Muslims think that Koran tells them to chop the heads off British soldiers on the High Street, while others think it's all about peace and women's rights. I'm constantly being told by non-Muslims that Islam is prescriptive, and yet all the Muslims I meet at work every day never seem to want to chop my head off, so something must be at least reasonably flexible.

Asking people to give up their religion because it's a load of crap is a non-starter. It's very hard to see that talking about child-rape as if it's somehow a part of the ideology is motivated by a desire to improve the world (by encouraging a modernisation of the interpretation of Islam), it looks more to be motivated by hatred. Why else would you take that approach?

I don't go for the black-and-white fallacy that to find S4s repetitive remarks revolting is to "not criticise Islam because it's a religion and therefore good". There is a whole lot to criticise about many elements of Islam. Some approaches are reasonable, and others are hateful.
Post edited at 12:11
1
Donald82 17 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

BG, lets leave aside whether it means the minority of muslims who are self sequestering, or that muslims are a self sequestering minority. (Note it says minority "from" not minority "of" or minority "of people from").

It still says the minority is "from a violent primitive aggressive permanently expansionist intolerant medieval dessert death cult founded by a child-rapist, mass-murderer, bandit chief, thief and general rapist".

What, if not Islam as a whole, is that quote referring to?
1
Donald82 17 Jul 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> Well, why is it racist? It's his interpretation of the Religion?

> After all, we keep getting told it's all about interpretation?

Okay, Islamaphobic or whatever term you prefer. It's bad because it demonises all muslims as followers of a violent death cult led by a paedo. It's a generalisation about the whole religion which has many interpretations. He tars all interpretations with the very worse interpretation.
2
Donald82 17 Jul 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Maajid Nawaz on Ahmadis.


And this proves my point entirely. One muslim with a nasty interpretation of islam, kills another with a nice, open interpretation of islam who liked and was well liked by people of all creeds Terrible, terrible thing.

Jon has you bang to rights on your analogy with Tory policy by the way.
1
Donald82 17 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> BTW Donald82, did you read this link, as posted in another thread;


> are you going to call racism on it?

"So please stop denying the nature of jihadism. Please stop ignoring the narratives which drive these attacks. Instead of aiding extremists who insist Islam today is perfect, perhaps you should aid us beleaguered reformist Muslims who are attempting to address this crisis within Islam against all the odds."

This paragraph nicely illustrates there are different interpretation of islam. Which is my point. Calling all Islam a death cult clearly isn't the way to help the reformists is it?
2
 marsbar 17 Jul 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

In an unusual step on UKC I'm going to say that I completely agree with that, despite my earlier views on him.


> Maajid Nawaz on Ahmadis.


1
 Big Ger 17 Jul 2016
In reply to TobyA:
> Have you really got nowt better to do with your time? I doubt anyone who read this post of Simon4 has any doubt that he is talking about all Muslims, particularly has he posted nearly word for word the same thing many times over the years.

Nobody has doubted he mean a small sub-section of the billions of the worlds Muslims, is that what you meant?

Don't you have anything better to do with your time than to misinterpret things in the hope of causing division?
Post edited at 22:09
3
 Timmd 17 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:
In my experience, Simon4 has always been negative in a gerneralised way of both Muslims and Islam whenever he's posted about them, I don't know how long he's been a user of these forums, but I have since around the year 2000 and I've not come across a post of his which has been anything but entirely negative.
Post edited at 22:18
 Big Ger 17 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:
> BG, lets leave aside whether it means the minority of muslims who are self sequestering, or that muslims are a self sequestering minority. (Note it says minority "from" not minority "of" or minority "of people from")

So you concede it was not addressed at all Muslims. Good now we're getting somewhere..

> It still says the minority is "from a violent primitive aggressive permanently expansionist intolerant medieval dessert death cult founded by a child-rapist, mass-murderer, bandit chief, thief and general rapist".

> What, if not Islam as a whole, is that quote referring to?

You just highlighted it yourself?

Or are you so "Islamophobic" you think that all Islamic beliefs are the same?

Do you believe there is no difference between Sunni, Shia, Ibadi, Kal'm, Ash'ari, Maturidi, Murji'ah, Qadariyyah, Mu'tazili, Jahmiyyah, eniyyah, Ahmadiyya, Galen, Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimun, Jamaat-e-Islami, Liberal Muslims, Mahdavia, Non-denominational Islam, Tolu-e-Islam, Quranism, Salafism, Wahhabism, Ahl al-Hadith, Salafi movement, Wahhabism, etc?


Are you the sort of person who believes there's no difference between say Fred Phelps and the Pope for instance?

Are the nuances of religion lost on you in your desperate attempts to create division by crying "racism"?
Post edited at 22:20
4
 Timmd 17 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:
I don't know how you can fairly accuse him of wanting to create division just from his misuse of the word racialist?
Post edited at 23:07
Donald82 17 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

No. I don't think you've understood what I've written. On the plus side it's starting to sound like our disagreement is only about the meaning of the quote rather. Maybe we'll get some where if you explain what you think it means.

Do you think it means a minority of Muslims are from "primitive... ...death cult" (and by implication other muslims aren't)?
Donald82 17 Jul 2016
In reply to Timmd:

> I don't know how you can fairly accuse him of wanting to create division just from his seeming misuse of the word racialist?

To note racialist used light heartedly in honour of Ali G. He's not just saying I missed used that word though. I think he thinks the quote is saying a minority of muslims are from a primitive death cult. Rather than Islam is a primitive death cult. Or he's pretending he thinks that to get out of having been sticking up for some very bigoted bullshit.

 TobyA 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> Do you believe there is no difference between Sunni, Shia, Ibadi, Kal'm, Ash'ari, Maturidi, Murji'ah, Qadariyyah, Mu'tazili, Jahmiyyah, eniyyah, Ahmadiyya, Galen, Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimun, Jamaat-e-Islami, Liberal Muslims, Mahdavia, Non-denominational Islam, Tolu-e-Islam, Quranism, Salafism, Wahhabism, Ahl al-Hadith, Salafi movement, Wahhabism, etc?

I could give a basic explanation for about half of them but I'd love it if you would explain them all to us. Cheers.

And yes, I'm pretty certain Simon4 means all Muslims.
 Big Ger 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:
> Do you think it means a minority of Muslims are from "primitive... ...death cult" (and by implication other muslims aren't)?

Yes. Don't you?
Post edited at 00:24
 Big Ger 18 Jul 2016
In reply to TobyA:

> I could give a basic explanation for about half of them but I'd love it if you would explain them all to us. Cheers.

I couldn't, and wouldn't presume to.

> And yes, I'm pretty certain Simon4 means all Muslims.

I'm pretty sure "self-sequestering minorities" is a fair indication he doesn't.

1
 Big Ger 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Timmd:

> I don't know how you can fairly accuse him of wanting to create division just from his misuse of the word racialist?

Put this way my friend, what other cause could he have to use it?

The whole of the OP is about; "Look, someone has posted something not entirely complimentary about Muslims, and I've got Muslim mates who have not bombed anyone so the quote cannot be true, so let's all condemn people who think different to me."

It's all about feigning moral superiority to anyone who doesn't agree with his political stances.
2
 Timmd 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:
He didn't actually post what you've written in quotes, though.

He posted that there's examples of Muslims out there who don't fit this description.... "self-sequestering minorities from a violent primitive aggressive permanently expansionist intolerant medieval dessert death cult founded by a child-rapist, mass-murderer, bandit chief, thief and general rapist", before saying that he knows Muslims who are lovely and tolerant.

If you're of a certain mindset, I guess you could decide it's about feigning moral superiority over anybody who doesn't agree with his political stance.

Or if one has a different one, it could just be about saying that reality doesn't fit that wholly negative description - which one could argue is an important point to make when things like attacks on the graves of Muslims (and similarly negative things) have increased since 9/11 in the UK.

I'm guessing the importance of this is something you'd agree on, which leaves me a bit puzzled about why you think it's about him trying to be morally better than people who don't share his politics - what's political about saying that not all Muslims are awful (to put it into fewer words) and that he happens to know some lovely and tolerant ones?

It strikes me the general point he's making is that things aren't black and that in any group there's a mixture of people. How the f*ck is that divisive, or saying his politics are superiour?

I don't mean to be blunt, but what's divisive or morally superiour about saying he knows some lovely and tolerant Muslims and that the negative generalisations which some have are unfair on these people (when they are unfair)?

I've also known some lovely Muslims, does that mean I'm wanting to be morally superiour too if I say as much?

If I should not post about what I've experienced to not seem like I'm wanting to be, that'd be one of the oddest things I've heard. I don't give a shit if anybody thinks I'm trying to seem better than others, I'll say I've known them to try and stick up for them, and they (or you) can like it or lump it really.

Post edited at 01:46
 Big Ger 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Timmd:
Well do you think Simon4 or I do not know any lovely Muslims? I'm sure we all do.

So then, what is the point of his post if not to try to claim moral superiority over Simon4 and anyone who agrees with him that some Muslims are not good people?

Did you not read the title of the thread? "UKC - half racialist?"

I notice he hasn't responded to my enquiry if he finds Maajid Nawaz a racist.
Post edited at 02:22
Donald82 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> Yes. Don't you?

No. Genuinely it does not say or mean that.
1
 GrahamD 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

> "self-sequestering minorities from a violent primitive aggressive permanently expansionist intolerant medieval dessert death cult founded by a child-rapist, mass-murderer, bandit chief, thief and general rapist"

A lot of the same things could be levelled at the founders of the author's own religion (or quite a few others for that matter).
1
Donald82 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

I've not read the article, but I understand he is a moderate Muslim fighting against intolerant muslims, which is kind of my point.

I think this is really about your reading and understanding skills. No offence - but that quote does not mean what you think it means. It very clearly describes Islam, generally, as a death cult.
1
Donald82 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger

> The whole of the OP is about; "Look, someone has posted something not entirely complimentary about Muslims, and I've got Muslim mates who have not bombed anyone so the quote cannot be true, so let's all condemn people who think different to me."

Not at all, the quote clearly calla Islam, generally, a death cult

Donald82 18 Jul 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

Yup!
1
 doz generale 18 Jul 2016
In reply to THE.WALRUS:


> in recent times appear to show that some sections of Muslim society are little more than an aggressive, murderous, intolerant death cult who regularly display levels of barbarity not seen since medieval times...


What proportion of Muslims are like this in your opinion? Is it not true that at some point you get this type of thing from people of all religions?

1
 Big Ger 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:
> I've not read the article, but I understand he is a moderate Muslim fighting against intolerant muslims, which is kind of my point.

So you don't think that "self-sequestering minorities from a violent primitive aggressive permanently expansionist intolerant medieval dessert death cult founded by a child-rapist, mass-murderer, bandit chief, thief and general rapist"

Indicates that Simon4 may have been inditing "intolerant Muslims", maybe he meant tolerant ones eh?

> I think this is really about your reading and understanding skills. No offence - but that quote does not mean what you think it means. It very clearly describes Islam, generally, as a death cult.

My reading skills are fine thank you. The whole problem here is not anyone's "reading skills", but your inability to see that you hold a knee jerk reactivity to any perceived slur against anyone not white, and your totally lack of processing skills.

Simon4 clearly states he is against "self-sequestering minorities".

sequester

verb
1. to remove or withdraw into solitude or retirement; seclude.
2. to remove or separate; banish; exile.
3. to keep apart from others; segregate or isolate

So to "self-sequester" can mean nothing more or less than"those who choose to isolate themselves from the main or parent group."

Please show me how this is not true?
Post edited at 08:44
 Big Ger 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:
> Not at all, the quote clearly calla Islam, generally, a death cult

Isn't Christianity a"death cult"? Don't Christians worship someone killed on a cross?

"In Cults and the Family the authors cite Shapiro, who defines a "destructive cultism" as a sociopathic syndrome, whose distinctive qualities include: "behavioral and personality changes, loss of personal identity, cessation of scholastic activities, estrangement from family, disinterest in society and pronounced mental control and enslavement by cult leaders"
Post edited at 08:42
 lummox 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:
Simon4 likes to run in to the UKC playroom, do a little poo and then run back out sniggering.

I've no idea if he's an utter bawbag in real life or just a sad troll but it does get tiresome after the first five or six years.
Post edited at 09:02
1
 Big Ger 18 Jul 2016
In reply to lummox:

> Simon4 likes to run in to the UKC playroom, do a little poo and then run back out sniggering.

> I've no idea if he's an utter bawbag in real life or just a sad troll but it does get tiresome after the first five or six years.

There we go, a definitive "sad troll" response, plays the man not the ball.

The irony of you showing yourself up to be every bit as bad as you claim he is, will undoubtedly be lost on you.
4
 lummox 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

You seem to have a lot of time on your hands so how about you trawl back through his posts and find an example of him returning to a thread after leaving one of his little stink bombs.

I won't hold my breath.
1
 Big Ger 18 Jul 2016
In reply to lummox:
What a strange thing to say. If he choses to have one comment in any topic he cares enough to post in, and leaves it at that, who are we to say that is wrong?

PS. http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=635739&v
Post edited at 09:16
2
Donald82 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:
Lets try again. Focusing on the term "self sequestering minority" first, and then we can discuss the death cult bit.

1. I think this means minority from a western perspective, ie Jews, Muslims, Poles etc. In which case it would mean Muslims, generally, are (when they emigrate) self sequestering.

2. You think it means only those muslims who self sequester.

Agreed so far?
Post edited at 09:31
1
Donald82 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> Isn't Christianity a"death cult"? Don't Christians worship someone killed on a cross?

I would describe neither Islam or Christianity as a death cult.

2
 Big Ger 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

> Lets try again. Focusing on the term "self sequestering minority" first, and then we can discuss the death cult bit.

> 1. I think this means minority from a western perspective, ie Jews, Muslims, Poles etc. In which case it would mean Muslims, generally, are (when they emigrate) self sequestering.


> 2. You think it means only those muslims who self sequester.

> Agreed so far?

Yes.

 krikoman 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:
It might not be racist to paint ALL of one people / religion / colour / country / city / town as something or other, but it's at the very least small minded and bigoted.

As for Simon, mention Israel and you'll be called an anti-Semite quicker the you can say shalom. He likes you to be very specific if you mean the Israeli government.


If you'd like to watch this and then tell me it's not about racism, but it's only about eyes, how can eye colour be racist?

vimeo.com/153858146
Post edited at 09:48
1
 Dauphin 18 Jul 2016
In reply to krikoman:

Are you allowed to be a Muslim hater if you are Jewish? I've got to say all the Jewish people I've met who've gone on anti Muslim rant, its sounded too rascist rather than anti theist, but the best I've been able to muster is a eye roll and change the conversation. Self sequestering sounds like quite a few communities in North London.

D
 Phil Anderson 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> There we go, a definitive "sad troll" response, plays the man not the ball.

And the very next sentence...

> The irony of you showing yourself up to be every bit as bad as you claim he is, will undoubtedly be lost on you.

Classic!
1
 marsbar 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Dauphin:

I was thinking that yesterday about the discussion on the route to the Castle.
Donald82 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> Yes.

okay. so lets now assume for the sake of argument, that you're right and it's 2.

It then says that these self-seqestering muslims are members of a death cult.

Still with me?
1
 Big Ger 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

Yes.
 Big Ger 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Phil Anderson:

Context is everything.
1
Donald82 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

Good. Now what is this death cult of which they are members?
 spotter1 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Dauphin:

> Are you allowed to be a Muslim hater if you are Jewish? I've got to say all the Jewish people I've met who've gone on anti Muslim rant, its sounded too rascist rather than anti theist, but the best I've been able to muster is a eye roll and change the conversation. Self sequestering sounds like quite a few communities in North London.

> D

what does 'allowed' mean ?
be whatever the f*ck you want to be.
 Big Ger 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:
Haven't the foggiest, what is it?

One can only presume it's something that the self-sequestered belong to.

Here's the whole sentence by the way;

> If you allow large, self-sequestering minorities from a violent primitive aggressive permanently expansionist intolerant medieval dessert death cult founded by a child-rapist, mass-murderer, bandit chief, thief and general rapist, the number of incidents of mass violence by the members of this death cult will grow perpetually, as will the feeble and cowardly attempts to appease the unappeasable.

Your selective editing is somewhat disingenuous.


Post edited at 11:29
 spotter1 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

> Good. Now what is this death cult of which they are members?

its a twisted cultural transfer from medieval times. a way of expressing discontent by extreme violence. a bunch of loosely associated people on social media, some with experience in armed uprising in chechnya and other places.
death cult would mean a group of such people with little value placed on human life or rights. they usually have VERY little personal relation to religion, such as the nice or paris attackers.
the same could potentially happen with christians or other religions.
saying that Islam has some specific thing that promotes it comes out of ignorance more than anything else.
 Dave Garnett 18 Jul 2016
In reply to bouldery bits:

> Apart from the dessert bit that also covers the following:

> The Tory party

> Deadpoint magazine

> Ladbrokes

> The Big Issue

> Jim'll fix it

> Whetherspoons

> The Inuit

> The BBC? Maybe?

> Definitely countryfile

> Topshop

> Coldplay


Even though it's now a long way back on a thread not short of controversial assertions and sweeping generalisations this stands out as one of least intelligible and possibly the most actionable.
1
 Coel Hellier 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Well if anyone can show the advantages of this approach (i.e. convince me that with enough criticism from outsiders Islam - the whole thing, whatever that means - will change and the violent and oppressive elements will disappear or start being nice) over being more specific about radical Islamism, then I'm all ears.

I certainly don't think that such criticism will quickly solve the problem, of course not, but then nothing will quickly solve the problem. I do think that criticism of mainstream Islam will be a part of the long-term solution. And Muslims are not the only audience. For example, persuading the government to stop handing over state schools to be run by Islamic groups (and other religious groups) would be good.
 Coel Hellier 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

> And this proves my point entirely. One muslim with a nasty interpretation of islam, kills another with a nice, open interpretation of islam who liked and was well liked by people of all creeds Terrible, terrible thing.

The problem is that the Ahmadis are only about 10 million or so (about 1% of Muslims worldwide) whereas the versions of Islam that regard the Ahmadis as heretical dominate. So pointing to Ahmadis as an example of moderate and benign Islam just seems to highlight the overall problem.

> Jon has you bang to rights on your analogy with Tory policy by the way.

I beg to differ. A lot of different conservatives have ranges of opinion as to appropriate economic policy, and anyway it gets adapted and made up on the hoof, as economic policy always does.
Donald82 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:
> Haven't the foggiest, what is it?

Okay, lets try a different way. Who does "child-rapist, mass-murderer, bandit chief, thief and general rapist", refer to?
Post edited at 13:00
1
Donald82 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> The problem is that the Ahmadis are only about 10 million or so (about 1% of Muslims worldwide) whereas the versions of Islam that regard the Ahmadis as heretical dominate. So pointing to Ahmadis as an example of moderate and benign Islam just seems to highlight the overall problem.

There are plenty of muslims who treat islam in a moderate and benign way. Not just Ahmadis

> I beg to differ. A lot of different conservatives have ranges of opinion as to appropriate economic policy, and anyway it gets adapted and made up on the hoof, as economic policy always does.

Okay so you meant views on economic policy (you just said economic policy, which read like what they actually implement). It would be wrong to tar all those economic views with the same brush. Which is what S4 does to Islam.
1
 krikoman 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

> Okay, lets try a different way. Who does "child-rapist, mass-murderer, bandit chief, thief and general rapist", refer to?

Pol Pot?
 Coel Hellier 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

> There are plenty of muslims who treat islam in a moderate and benign way. Not just Ahmadis

Yes, in the sense that many people are better and more moderate than their religion. Which is different from the ideology itself being moderate.

In the same way, many Catholics ignore Catholic teaching on birth control, and regard it as silly, but that does not excuse Catholic teaching on birth control.
Donald82 18 Jul 2016
In reply to krikoman:

Nope. Too modern. 19 questions left.
1
Donald82 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

I meant interpret. Not treat.

My view is that Islam is how it is interpreted. If it's interpreted in a moderate, benign way then it's fine. If it's interpreted in ran oppressive, violent way then that's not fine. To call all islam a death cult is not fine.

Your view seems to be that Islam is bad, but some Muslims stool manage to be good.

Lets agree to disagree.

Either way - it seems very obvious to me that there are many, many Muslims who interpret Islam in such a way that it is ridiculous and offensive to call them members of a " violent primitive aggressive permanently expansionist intolerant medieval dessert death cult".
1
In reply to Donald82:

Fred West? Imagine a religion being born worshiping him....urgh!
 doz generale 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

> "self-sequestering minorities from a violent primitive aggressive permanently expansionist intolerant medieval dessert death cult founded by a child-rapist, mass-murderer, bandit chief, thief and general rapist"

This is the sort of thing you would expect from someone who has some kind of personality disorder or learning disability. Or perhaps this is the manifestation their own personal struggle with something.
3
Donald82 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I don't think he ever rose to chief bandit.
1
Donald82 18 Jul 2016
In reply to doz generale:

Yup, it's a bit deranged
1
 Jon Stewart 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

> ...it is ridiculous and offensive to call them members of a " violent primitive aggressive permanently expansionist intolerant medieval dessert death cult".

No, no, that's not an expression of hatred, it's "criticism", the kind of thing we need more of to address the problems of radical Islamism around the world. Of course it is.
 Coel Hellier 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> No, no, that's not an expression of hatred, it's "criticism", the kind of thing we need more of to address the problems of radical Islamism around the world.

It's not so much criticism it's open disrespect and disparagement of Islam, and that is indeed the kind of thing we need to counter the too-common tendency to automatically respect anything that is religious.
 Jon Stewart 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:
If you think that more of that will improve matters, you're barking mad.

I quite like a bit of open disrespect in the context of comedy or satire, but I have no time for thoughtless public expressions of hatred. It serves no purpose other than to insult people.
Post edited at 21:31
1
Donald82 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> It's not so much criticism it's open disrespect and disparagement of Islam, and that is indeed the kind of thing we need to counter the too-common tendency to automatically respect anything that is religious.

You're a fool.

Not so much a criticism as a disparagement, the kind of thing we need to counter muppets that confuse plain offense and satire


In reply to doz generale:

> This is the sort of thing you would expect from someone who has some kind of personality disorder or learning disability.

No, it really isn't.

Given that this thread is mostly about criticising offensive postings about a group of people, there is an irony in making an offensive comparison with another group of people as part of the argument.
Donald82 18 Jul 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
say for example, there was guy in the street walking up to Seikhs and calling them Turban c*nts. And then someone said, "naw mate, that's not on, you're a c*nt." would that be ironic?
Post edited at 22:38
1
In reply to Donald82:

you'll need to explain- even with the edit, not sure what your trying to say there...
 Big Ger 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

> Okay, lets try a different way. Who does "child-rapist, mass-murderer, bandit chief, thief and general rapist", refer to?

They are various interpretations on the attributes of Mohammed which may be gleaned from varying interpretations of the Koran.
 Big Ger 18 Jul 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> If you think that more of that will improve matters, you're barking mad.

It seems to have worked with Christianity, which is waning to the point of irrelevance, due to sarcasm, skepticism, and scientific discovery.

Of course we cannot ally those thing to Islam, or Donald will call us "racists".

1
 TobyA 19 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> It seems to have worked with Christianity, which is waning to the point of irrelevance, due to sarcasm, skepticism, and scientific discovery.

That would be a good point if it wasn't completely untrue. Christianity and evangelical Protestantism in particular is growing, and some researchers think growing faster than any other religion.
1
 Big Ger 19 Jul 2016
In reply to TobyA:

> That would be a good point if it wasn't completely untrue. Christianity and evangelical Protestantism in particular is growing, and some researchers think growing faster than any other religion.

Really? In the UK? Or are we talking about "missionary" and "evangelical" Christianity which prays on the poor, weak, old and sick in the third world?

> A landmark in national life has just been passed. For the first time in recorded history, those declaring themselves to have no religion have exceeded the number of Christians in Britain. Some 44 per cent of us regard ourselves as Christian, 8 per cent follow another religion and 48 per cent follow none. The decline of Christianity is perhaps the biggest single change in Britain over the past century. For some time, it has been a stretch to describe Britain as a Christian country. We can more accurately be described now as a secular nation with fading Christian institutions.
Donald82 19 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

> They are various interpretations on the attributes of Mohammed which may be gleaned from varying interpretations of the Koran.

So it refers to Mohammed?
Donald82 19 Jul 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> you'll need to explain- even with the edit, not sure what your trying to say there...

it asks the question: if someone goes about abusing people, and other people them a c*nt for doing so, is that ironic?
1
 Big Ger 19 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

No, it refers to various interpretations on the attributes of Mohammed which may be gleaned from varying interpretations of the Koran.

Bolded that for you.
 Big Ger 19 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:
> it asks the question: if someone goes about abusing people, and other people them a c*nt for doing so, is that ironic?

Depends on the context.
Post edited at 07:25
Donald82 19 Jul 2016
In reply to TobyA:

> That would be a good point if it wasn't completely untrue. Christianity and evangelical Protestantism in particular is growing, and some researchers think growing faster than any other religion.

It's quite funny how people are complaining about religion being all primitive and bigging up science (and oddly sarcasm?), and then you point out some facts that are bit inconvenient for them and you get a dislike.
1
 Big Ger 19 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

> It's quite funny how people are complaining about religion being all primitive and bigging up science (and oddly sarcasm?), and then you point out some facts that are bit inconvenient for them and you get a dislike.


Toby pointed out no "facts" he made an unsubstantiated claim, which I retorted too with fact.

Try again.
Donald82 19 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

It refers to a person, and attributes various attributes to him based on interpretation. Which person does it refer to?
1
Donald82 19 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

I think he means worldwide.

Your fact doesn't really substantiate your claim that Christianity is fading to an irrelevance.
1
 krikoman 19 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

> Okay, lets try a different way. Who does "child-rapist, mass-murderer, bandit chief, thief and general rapist", refer to?

Idi Amin?
1
 Big Ger 19 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

> It refers to a person, and attributes various attributes to him based on interpretation. Which person does it refer to?

Not a person specifically, just, and I'll write it again;

They are various interpretations on the attributes of Mohammed which may be gleaned from varying interpretations of the Koran.

Unless you are saying that those descriptors are an accurate representation of the person? Let's not forget, the earliest Muslim sources of information for the life of Muhammad is the Qur'an, which gives very little information and whose historicity has been questioned.
 Big Ger 19 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

> I think he means worldwide.

You "think", big deal

> Your fact doesn't really substantiate your claim that Christianity is fading to an irrelevance.

My facts are far more relevant and accurate than any facts you've brought to the debate, seeing as you have brought...none.....

1
Donald82 19 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

I'm not saying anything about the descriptors, I'm asking who they are attributed to. As you just said, they're attributed to Mohammad. So the leader described in the sentence is Mohammad.

Agreed?
1
 TobyA 19 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

Not in the UK but then we're not a major part of the world population. But in some cities church attendance is going up mainly due to immigration.
 wintertree 19 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

> It's quite funny how people are complaining about religion being all primitive and bigging up science (and oddly sarcasm?), and then you point out some facts that are bit inconvenient for them and you get a dislike.

Not really.

Both the posters are entirely ambiguous about the scope of their claims - UK or global? Absolute or relative numbers? After all a religion can decline in relative popularity and yet grow in numbers for all off time if the population keeps growing.

I won't press dislike on either post but I dislike both for their wooly, imprecise mud throwing.
 Big Ger 19 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:
> I'm not saying anything about the descriptors, I'm asking who they are attributed to. As you just said, they're attributed to Mohammad. So the leader described in the sentence is Mohammad.

It refers to various interpretations on the attributes of of the possibly/probably mythological person Mohammed which may be gleaned from varying interpretations of the Koran

Not forgetting of course that the original quote referred to "self-sequestering minorities from" who may follow such a person.

So how again does this make "UKC - half racialist?"*

*a really stupid word to use what you meant to say is "UKC- half racist?"


Racialism is the belief that the human species is naturally divided into distinct biological categories called "races".

Post edited at 23:42
 Big Ger 19 Jul 2016
In reply to TobyA:
> Not in the UK but then we're not a major part of the world population. But in some cities church attendance is going up mainly due to immigration.

Evidence for this?


> UK Church membership has declined from 10.6 million in 1930 to 5.5 Million in 2010, or as a percentage of the population; from about 30% to 11.2%. By 2013, this had declined further to 5.4 million (10.3%). If current trends continue, membership will fall to 8.4% of the population by 2025.

http://faithsurvey.co.uk/
Post edited at 23:38
Donald82 19 Jul 2016
In reply to Big

Okay. So it's an interpretation of mohammad?
1
 Big Ger 20 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:

You're just being stupid for the sake of it now, aren't you?

Fifth and last time of posting;

It refers to various interpretations on the attributes of of the possibly/probably mythological person Mohammed which may be gleaned from varying interpretations of the Koran

Not forgetting of course that the original quote referred to "self-sequestering minorities from" who may follow such a person.

So how again does this make "UKC - half racialist?"
Donald82 20 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

It refers to Mohammad. The characteristics attributed to him, whatever they're based on, are the writer's interpretation. I can't see any other way to explain this bit. I kind of think your being deliberately obtuse on this point, because you've worked out it is calling Islam, generally, a death cult. Which at least gives you some credit. You've not been deliberately defending this the whole time.

On the other hand, if you were being reasonable you might have said something along the lines of - "I think you've misunderstood the meaning of the quote, but if it did mean that of course it's offensive"

Anyway, this has become the worse argument on the internet. I'll leave you to it.
1
 98%monkey 20 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:
I find 2 things I dislike in your post:

1) The term racialist - I think you mean racist

2) The fact that you are being sucked in to the facade that anything other than the experiences that shape you from childhood have anything to do with the person you are later in life. Good and bad people exist everywhere in many heights, weights, colours and smells - attempting to apply a label is ridiculous.

You are perpetuating this ridiculousness.

How about I begin a discussion about a small island that is not self sufficient, over-populated and is being over-run by power blind, money greedy imbeciles.

Perhaps then you can see the origin of your observation. Better to spot the way such comments spread and dis-interpret them to fit your agenda...
Post edited at 15:43
Donald82 20 Jul 2016
In reply to 98%monkey:

Racialist was a light hearted reference to Ali G. As above, many times Islamophobic would be more accurate. This seems a reasonable term to apply to a post that calls all Muslims members of a primitive death cult.

I kind of agree with your point 2., except I'd add genes - it;s nature and nurture, people react differently to similar experiences. I'm not really sure of the relevance to my post though. I'd agree that your life experiences from childhood have a big affect on your prejudices (we all have them), but I don't see why we shouldn't have words (labels) to describe said prejudices.




1
 Big Ger 20 Jul 2016
In reply to Donald82:
> It refers to Mohammad. The characteristics attributed to him, whatever they're based on, are the writer's interpretation. I can't see any other way to explain this bit. I kind of think your being deliberately obtuse on this point, because you've worked out it is calling Islam, generally, a death cult. Which at least gives you some credit. You've not been deliberately defending this the whole time.

Oh dear, you're inability to see beyond black and white thinking is rather startling.

> On the other hand, if you were being reasonable you might have said something along the lines of - "I think you've misunderstood the meaning of the quote, but if it did mean that of course it's offensive"

Or I could say, "You claimed the quote indicated that half the membership of UKC is "racialist/racist", but so far you've not shown a scintilla of evidence or argument to prove that point.

Instead you've tried the sad old trick of trying to get others to make points, by repeatedly questioning them, but not making any definitive statements which you can be called on.

It's been seen through. You're OP point remains totally unproved."


> Anyway, this has become the worse argument on the internet. I'll leave you to it.

You've been seen through like a pane of glass mate, I'd give up if I were you too.
Post edited at 22:27
 Pete Pozman 22 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36835966

I hope you're proud of yourself Big.
2
 Big Ger 23 Jul 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> I hope you're proud of yourself Big.

Now in the name of all that's sane, how the hell do you link me in with this?

I'll refrain from saying what I think of you for making that comment.
Post edited at 00:22
 winhill 23 Jul 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:


> I hope you're proud of yourself Big.

Well done, incredibly, you've managed to dumb down the Stupid Thread.

Absolutely vile and ignorant stuff, you're a f*cking disgrace, f*ck off with it.
 Pete Pozman 23 Jul 2016
In reply to Big Ger:

Perhaps a bit strong from me so I apologise. My suggestion is that you get yourself on the wrong side of the argument
not that you condone racial hatred.
See you on the crag.
1
 Big Ger 23 Jul 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

Thanks for that, it was in rather bad taste, as well as totally untrue.
 Pete Pozman 23 Jul 2016
In reply to winhill:

> Well done, incredibly, you've managed to dumb down the Stupid Thread.

> Absolutely vile and ignorant stuff, you're a f*cking disgrace, f*ck off with it.

Right back to yer dude.
1

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...