Activist Atheist divided regarding criticism of Islam

[David Mo]

By The Way = BTW

Damned Internet slang!
Thank you.

 

[David Mo]

But you do not know what i am saying, as i never did this:
"blaming all the Muslims for their belief in the Koran as a source of terrorism and you have consequently claimed for some measures against them as a whole (control of all Mosques, for example)"

And i cannot say, which words these are, as it is you who reads the above from my texts; i cannot identify which sentences, words and phrases make you think, that i did the above; but whichever they are, you understand them differently than i understand them.

Do you have not defended Geert Wilders and other anti-Islam politicians?
Do you have not said that the Koran is a relevant source of terrorism?
Do you have not defended "monitoring" and "taking an eye" on every mosque?
Do you have not supported the idea of a kind of obligatory certificate of good behaviour to become an Imam?

Sincerly, I think that you are trying to pass the buck.

NOTE: I read in the news that crimes against Muslims have increased 20% since Trump's presidence. Does it have anything to do with his aggressive discourse against immigrants from Islamic countries?

 

[Carn]

Sincerly, I think that you are trying to pass the buck.

No, its still a problem of words:

Do you have not defended Geert Wilders and other anti-Islam politicians?

"blaming all the Muslims for their belief in the Koran as a source of terrorism and you have consequently claimed for some measures against them as a whole (control of all Mosques, for example)"

That is what i denied.

I did not deny defending Wilders to some extent; but you asking for confirmation seems to arise from not noticing that i did not deny the charge.

I have defended him against certain accusations.

Do you have not said that the Koran is a relevant source of terrorism?

I have said so, but this does not equal to "blaming all the Muslims for their belief in the Koran as a source of terrorism" especially as "Koran is a relevant source of terrorism" literally lacks the "blaming all the Muslims" part.

Do you have not defended "monitoring" and "taking an eye" on every mosque?

Again, i have done so, but "monitoring" and "taking an eye" does not equal "measures against them as a whole" and/or "control of all Mosques".

Do you have not supported the idea of a kind of obligatory certificate of good behaviour to become an Imam?

No, i just cited some Arab Muslim claiming that this would be necessary for preventing islamistic terrorism as an indication that the base assumption underlying religious freedom - that all religions are equally compatible with secular politics - might not be true for some religions.

NOTE: I read in the news that crimes against Muslims have increased 20% since Trump's presidence. Does it have anything to do with his aggressive discourse against immigrants from Islamic countries?

That is possible, but far from certain.

 

[David Mo]

No, its still a problem of words:


"blaming all the Muslims for their belief in the Koran as a source of terrorism and you have consequently claimed for some measures against them as a whole (control of all Mosques, for example)"

That is what i denied.

I did not deny defending Wilders to some extent; but you asking for confirmation seems to arise from not noticing that i did not deny the charge.

I have defended him against certain accusations.

I have said so, but this does not equal to "blaming all the Muslims for their belief in the Koran as a source of terrorism" especially as "Koran is a relevant source of terrorism" literally lacks the "blaming all the Muslims" part.

Again, i have done so, but "monitoring" and "taking an eye" does not equal "measures against them as a whole" and/or "control of all Mosques".

No, i just cited some Arab Muslim claiming that this would be necessary for preventing islamistic terrorism as an indication that the base assumption underlying religious freedom - that all religions are equally compatible with secular politics - might not be true for some religions.

That is possible, but far from certain.

It is difficult to discuss with you because you are constantly changing your position and confusing words.
You alternatively say that the Koran is a relevant source of terrorism but we are not in war against Islam.
You think that it is possible to insult the Koran but not to offend people that believe in the Koran.
You put here some politicians as victims of the false attacks of “leftists” and NGOs but afterward you claim that you are not defended them.
You propose to monitor the mosques in order to control their activities but you say that this is not to control all the mosques.
You attack freedom of cult and religious beliefs but you say you are not attacking the principles of democracy.

In Spain we say that you throw the stone and hide the hands (Tira la piedra y esconde la mano). You ring the bell and run like hell.

It is impossible to speak seriously if you don’t take responsibility for your own words. What are you exactly proposing to do with the Koran, Muslims, Islam and mosques? Can you summarize your position?

 

[Carn]

Sorry, the confusion about words is on your side.

You alternatively say that the Koran is a relevant source of terrorism but we are not in war against Islam.

Yes, as the claim "the Koran is a relevant source of terrorism" is not identical to the claim "we are in war against Islam".

That are two different statements and both could be wrong, both could be true or anyone could be true with the other being false (and of course all possible fuzzy logic values in between).

For you the first claim seems absolutely identical to the second or at least the seond is an absolute 100% consequence of the first; which is a problem on your side.

You think that it is possible to insult the Koran but not to offend people that believe in the Koran.

As i have both witnessed and taken part in offending the Bible without anyone considering this to be offending Christians - even the Christians taking part in the discussion - i do not think it is possible; i know from evidence that it is possible.

You put here some politicians as victims of the false attacks of “leftists” and NGOs but afterward you claim that you are not defended them.

The post you quoted contained verbatim my words:
"I have defended him [Geert Wilders]against certain accusations."

So how you can in quoting that post claim: "afterward you claim that you are not defended them" is completely an issue on your side.

You propose to monitor the mosques in order to control their activities but you say that this is not to control all the mosques.

That is because you are unable to distinguish the terms "monitoring" and "control their activites"; again issue on your side.

You attack freedom of cult and religious beliefs but you say you are not attacking the principles of democracy.

That is because i did not attack freedom of cult and religions, which you just think because you are unable to distinguish between "monitoring" and "control their activites"; again issue on your side.

It is impossible to speak seriously if you don’t take responsibility for your own words.

I do take responsibility for my words; but not for what you think my words mean.

What are you exactly proposing to do with the Koran, Muslims, Islam and mosques? Can you summarize your position?

I cannot summarize my position in such way, that you actually understand my position instead of reading something into my words, that i did not say.

But to summarize nontheless:

1. Relevant personell in security forces and politics must understand Islamic theology. And that is not by listening to some apologetes but via own study; at minimum the staff of any interior secretary should have one non-muslim person fluent in Arabic and being well versed in Islamic theology, for example so well versed, that he/she is able to explain the terms "Hadiths" and "abrogation" at once when woken in the middle of the night after too few hours of sleep, and equally well-versed how the Islamic fundamentalists and/or terrorists derive therefrom their positions

2. Based on that knowledge monitoring what is preached in the Islamic communities to identify developments and/or actions of persons, which are based on the knowledge likely to be precursors for seditious and/or terroristic activites.

3. Use any avaible law to act as harsh as allowed by the law against what is identified under 2.; this for example would mean to charge people encouraging others to koin ISIS not with some lousy "terrorist association" laws, but with the crime with the harshest punishment that fits: treason.

4. Based upon knowledge from 1 to 3 identify moderate voices within Islam and try to ensure for example by directed funding that at least locally in your country Islam develops in a suitable direction

5. Counter politically the expected whining to avoid confusion for your cops and courts.

6. Make sure that immigrants are aware about 1 to 4, so that those having an issue with that approach are encouraged to look for other immigration destinations.

7. In case some muslims riot because someone offended Mohammed, Koran or some other issue in a completely legal way, give that person or use some state funding to repeat ad nauseatum until at least the rioting within your own country stops (as it is perfectly legal to fund things which are offensive to Christians, it is also perfectly fine to fund what is offensive to Muslims); throw out any non-citizens taking part in such riots if the laws allow as soon as possible; inform any country which seems to have intentionally failed to protect your embassy and/or which whines about your security forces doing so, that they should avoid repetition of such failure/whining, as otherwise you might conclude that they are acitively abetting attacks against your embassies and that such a unoffical declaration of war will be answered in appropiate manner.

8. Declare before the UN that until all members recognize the state of Israel, your country will keep any funding from UN (as a united nations organization wherein several members officially do not recognize another member is a total joke not deserving any funding; funds for certain laudable humanitarian sub-organizations of UN can be transferred directly) and your countries representatives will before any vote whatsoever call the Israeli UN ambadassor and vote in any way asked for by him/her and use speech time to deliver any statement suggessted (of course if the Israeli ambadassor declines to give any input, then its also fine and one acts the normal way).

Note that i think that Germany in a very low profile way effectively acts to some extent according to items 1 to 4; at least i am rather certain that somewhere in german security forces there are people who at least would get together some mumbling if asked about "abrogation"; and they already monitor mosques to get clues about problematic preaching/teachings.

 

[David Mo]

Sorry, the confusion about words is on your side.

But to summarize nontheless:

1. Relevant personell in security forces and politics must understand Islamic theology. And that is not by listening to some apologetes but via own study; at minimum the staff of any interior secretary should have one non-muslim person fluent in Arabic and being well versed in Islamic theology, for example so well versed, that he/she is able to explain the terms "Hadiths" and "abrogation" at once when woken in the middle of the night after too few hours of sleep, and equally well-versed how the Islamic fundamentalists and/or terrorists derive therefrom their positions

2. Based on that knowledge monitoring what is preached in the Islamic communities to identify developments and/or actions of persons, which are based on the knowledge likely to be precursors for seditious and/or terroristic activites.

3. Use any avaible law to act as harsh as allowed by the law against what is identified under 2.; this for example would mean to charge people encouraging others to koin ISIS not with some lousy "terrorist association" laws, but with the crime with the harshest punishment that fits: treason.

4. Based upon knowledge from 1 to 3 identify moderate voices within Islam and try to ensure for example by directed funding that at least locally in your country Islam develops in a suitable direction

5. Counter politically the expected whining to avoid confusion for your cops and courts.

6. Make sure that immigrants are aware about 1 to 4, so that those having an issue with that approach are encouraged to look for other immigration destinations.

7. In case some muslims riot because someone offended Mohammed, Koran or some other issue in a completely legal way, give that person or use some state funding to repeat ad nauseatum until at least the rioting within your own country stops (as it is perfectly legal to fund things which are offensive to Christians, it is also perfectly fine to fund what is offensive to Muslims); throw out any non-citizens taking part in such riots if the laws allow as soon as possible; inform any country which seems to have intentionally failed to protect your embassy and/or which whines about your security forces doing so, that they should avoid repetition of such failure/whining, as otherwise you might conclude that they are acitively abetting attacks against your embassies and that such a unoffical declaration of war will be answered in appropiate manner.

8. Declare before the UN that until all members recognize the state of Israel, your country will keep any funding from UN (as a united nations organization wherein several members officially do not recognize another member is a total joke not deserving any funding; funds for certain laudable humanitarian sub-organizations of UN can be transferred directly) and your countries representatives will before any vote whatsoever call the Israeli UN ambadassor and vote in any way asked for by him/her and use speech time to deliver any statement suggessted (of course if the Israeli ambadassor declines to give any input, then its also fine and one acts the normal way).

Note that i think that Germany in a very low profile way effectively acts to some extent according to items 1 to 4; at least i am rather certain that somewhere in german security forces there are people who at least would get together some mumbling if asked about "abrogation"; and they already monitor mosques to get clues about problematic preaching/teachings.

I don't know why you are afraid of the word control. It perfectly defines what you suggest.

In addition:
#2 would produce a bureaucratic and arbitrary-discriminative use of public funds. In addition, I am against of any public subsidy to any religion, Muslim or not. I am sure that there are better ways to help the democratic Muslims. For example, don't support dictatorships and corrupt regimes that attack them.
#3 supposes some knowledge about law in every country that you don't have. Neither I. Making tougher laws is an impotent way to stop someone that wants to kill himself in the name of God. Western legislation is becoming harder and harder without manifest outcomes -except some flagrant vulnerations of democratic principles, as Guantanamo.
#7 would be an unnecessary and counterproductive act of provocation. It probably would produced the contrary effect that you search. Defense of freedom of expression in Western countries has other resources.
#8: Many Muslims and others don't agree with the actual status of Israel and are not terrorists. You put everybody in the same bag. Are we in a war against terrorism or in favour of Zionism?


The rest of your proposals are vague (what the hell means "monitoring" that Western police is not doing now?) yet and continue without putting the other relevant question: What Western countries are done to provoque terrorism? Maybe a change of perspective is needed.

 

[Carn]

I don't know why you are afraid of the word control. It perfectly defines what you suggest.

No, it doesn't.

Control is for example what the Directorate for religious affairs in Turkey does.

In addition:
#2 would produce a bureaucratic and arbitrary-discriminative use of public funds. In addition, I am against of any public subsidy to any religion, Muslim or not. I am sure that there are better ways to help the democratic Muslims. For example, don't support dictatorships and corrupt regimes that attack them.

Either you misread again or that is directed against item 4.

#3 supposes some knowledge about law in every country that you don't have. Neither I. Making tougher laws is an impotent way to stop someone that wants to kill himself in the name of God. Western legislation is becoming harder and harder without manifest outcomes -except some flagrant vulnerations of democratic principles, as Guantanamo.

No item requires any knowledge about any law of any other country; just knowledge of ones own laws and knowledge of islamic "laws"; furthermore, none of the changes of western laws in the last 15 years were done based on knowledge of islamic theology; furthermore, i did not suggest any change of law, but only application of the harshest available. Again issue of understanding on your side.

#8: Many Muslims and others don't agree with the actual status of Israel and are not terrorists. You put everybody in the same bag. Are we in a war against terrorism or in favour of Zionism?

Those who disagree with Israel existing as a state (and that is the only thing one can communicate by not accepting Israel as UN member) are at best sometimes allies in the "war against terrorism" but in the end neutrals; pretty unfortunate, that this means there aren't many reliable allies, but clarity will help in my eyes.

The rest of your proposals are vague (what the hell means "monitoring" that Western police is not doing now?) yet and continue without putting the other relevant question:

Relevant at first is that you found nothing therein contrary to human rights.

What Western countries are done to provoque terrorism?

They have done absolutely nothing in regard to Islamic countries that they did not do to non-islamic countries; hence, Islam is a decisive factor in this and any approach that ignores Islamic theology is bound to fail by violating Sunzi's well known advice about war.

And as the main provocations done are the existance of the state of Israel as a state and not respecting Mohammed or what he taught, which both is non negotiable, not much can be done to stop what is perceived as "provocation" by the other side; what can be done, of course should be done, but it isn't much.

 

[David Mo]

Control is for example what the Directorate for religious affairs in Turkey does.

Control is “the restriction of an activity, tendency, or phenomenon” by those that have “the power to influence or direct people's behaviour or the course of events”. This is exactly what you propose under the name of “monitoring”.

No item requires any knowledge about any law of any other country; just knowledge of ones own laws and knowledge of islamic "laws"; furthermore, none of the changes of western laws in the last 15 years were done based on knowledge of islamic theology; furthermore, i did not suggest any change of law, but only application of the harshest available.

I don’t understand how you can say that “none of the changes of western laws in the last 15 years were done based on knowledge of islamic theology” if you have not “any knowledge about any law of any other country”.

You now say that you didn't suggest any change of laws. What you have said doesn't give this impression, but I am glad to know it.

Those who disagree with Israel existing as a state (and that is the only thing one can communicate by not accepting Israel as UN member) are at best sometimes allies in the "war against terrorism" but in the end neutrals; pretty unfortunate, that this means there aren't many reliable allies, but clarity will help in my eyes.

Anti-Zionism is not terrorism. There are many different reasons to refuse Israel as a Zionist state. Some of them are terrorist other not —even some Jews are not Zionist. Some states that accept the existence of the State of Israel are implicated in supporting terrorism and other that don’t accept the existence of Israel never supported terrorism. You cannot condemn an ideology because its goals are coincident with terrorists in some respect. We judge acts, not goals.

And as the main provocations done are the existance of the state of Israel as a state and not respecting Mohammed or what he taught, which both is non negotiable, not much can be done to stop what is perceived as "provocation" by the other side; what can be done, of course should be done, but it isn't much.

I don’t think that these are the “main provocations” for Boko Haram, Daesh or Al Qaeda —not at all “the existence of the state of Israel as a state” . The establishment of Islam as unique law in their countries and the fight against infidels’ “occupation” are usually alleged. However, this programs are not even the only reasons of terrorists to kill people in Western countries, but their ideological excuse. Things are a little more complicated than you suppose.

 

[Carn]

Control is “the restriction of an activity, tendency, or phenomenon” by those that have “the power to influence or direct people's behaviour or the course of events”. This is exactly what you propose under the name of “monitoring”.

Fine that you try to also consider dictionary definition of words.

You said:
"You propose to monitor the mosques in order to control their activities"

so that i want to control mosques.

Which is a reading error on your side; i want mosques to be monitored, so that control of or better combatting Islamism is easier.

I reject your claim what i want to control.

I don’t understand how you can say that “none of the changes of western laws in the last 15 years were done based on knowledge of islamic theology” if you have not “any knowledge about any law of any other country”.

Again, that is on your side, I just claimed that to enact my above suggestions no knowledge of foreign laws is necessary.

What you quoted is my evaluation of the laws of the last 15 something years i am aware about.

You understand the difference between:
a) need to know foreign laws to do something politically in one's own countries; and
b) evaluation of some foreign laws?

You now say that you didn't suggest any change of laws. What you have said doesn't give this impression, but I am glad to know it.

"give the impression" is entirely on your side. " but with the crime with the harshest punishment that fits: treason" in its wording clearly is a suggestion to use an existing law and in no way implies or suggest new laws; if you nonetheless get that impression, that is problem on your side.

Anti-Zionism is not terrorism.

All "Anti-Zionists" (meaning people who want the existance of the state of Israel to end; "" cause i think that not all anti-zionists are against some form of continued existance of Israel, but i am trying to use your wording) are abetters, helpers and/or allies of islamism, some intentionally, some without being aware about this; the latter should be treated as nice as possible.

I don’t think that these are the “main provocations” for Boko Haram, Daesh or Al Qaeda —not at all “the existence of the state of Israel as a state” . The establishment of Islam as unique law in their countries and the fight against infidels’ “occupation” are usually alleged. However, this programs are not even the only reasons of terrorists to kill people in Western countries, but their ideological excuse. Things are a little more complicated than you suppose.

You cannot comprehend what i suppose due to too much understanding issue on your side; e.g. i wrote "main" and you treat that as if i had written "only"; cannot help you there.

But good laugh to try to suggest that for an organization having a name that directly implies that ideas not compatible with Mohammed's teaching are a problem sees as a main cause of action the lack of respect for Mohammed's teaching. What would islamists have to do to convince you that one of their main issues is people rejecting and actively undermining what islamists think Mohammed's teachings are? Write in human blood on the largest buildings in the world, that they are fighting to make Sharia supreme? Or would you then still consider this just an alleged cause while actually they are just unhappy because the British and French did draw lines 100 years ago in a stupid way?

What i suppose is a little more complicated than what you think i suppose.

I guess the process, i write something, you misunderstand it, i try to correct, you misunderstand the correction, does not need that much repitition.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Anyone who doesn't support the continued oppression and murder of children in the West Bank and Gaza deliberately keps in legal limbo by Israel is a supporter of Islamism? I guess anyone opposing the Settlers of the West Bank is pretty much a terrorist themselves too.

 

[David Mo]

Anyone who doesn't support the continued oppression and murder of children in the West Bank and Gaza deliberately keps in legal limbo by Israel is a supporter of Islamism? I guess anyone opposing the Settlers of the West Bank is pretty much a terrorist themselves too.

"Anyone supporting the Settlers of the West Bank is pretty much a terrorist themselves", I suppose that you want to say.

Well, in the huge sense of "terrorism" of Carn, everyone that doesn't agree with USA politics in Middle Asia is a terrorist also. This is a typical resource of many anti-terrorist laws: if you want something that terrorists want you are a terrorist. But we can turn the argument around and say that everyone that wants the same that ilegal criminals -West Bank settlers- is a criminal. Settlers want the State of Israel? Then anyone who wants the State of Israel is a criminal.

It is not my intention to criticise the neocolonial politics of the state of Israel here. I was only putting an example of Carn's sophisms.

 

[Carn]

Anyone who doesn't support the continued oppression and murder of children in the West Bank and Gaza deliberately keps in legal limbo by Israel is a supporter of Islamism? I guess anyone opposing the Settlers of the West Bank is pretty much a terrorist themselves too.

"Anyone supporting the Settlers of the West Bank is pretty much a terrorist themselves", I suppose that you want to say.

Well, in the huge sense of "terrorism" of Carn, everyone that doesn't agree with USA politics in Middle Asia is a terrorist also. This is a typical resource of many anti-terrorist laws: if you want something that terrorists want you are a terrorist. But we can turn the argument around and say that everyone that wants the same that ilegal criminals -West Bank settlers- is a criminal. Settlers want the State of Israel? Then anyone who wants the State of Israel is a criminal.

It is not my intention to criticise the neocolonial politics of the state of Israel here. I was only putting an example of Carn's sophisms.

You both have a serious lack of reading comprehension, if you think those two posts are somehow accurately reflecting what i wrote.

No wonder you cannot comprehend many of the arguments against Islamic theology.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

You both have a serious lack of reading comprehension, if you think those two posts are somehow accurately reflecting what i wrote.

No wonder you cannot comprehend many of the arguments against Islamic theology.

You write:

All "Anti-Zionists" (meaning people who want the existance of the state of Israel to end; "" cause i think that not all anti-zionists are against some form of continued existance of Israel, but i am trying to use your wording) are abetters, helpers and/or allies of islamism, some intentionally, some without being aware about this; the latter should be treated as nice as possible.

Certainly, resolving the conflicts would mean an end to Israel as it exists - it would have to cede territory, remove the settlers from the West Bank, and massively change much of its guiding ideology and foreign policy.

I, of course, also do not think the British Mandate for Palestine should ever have been created. It was outrageous - it was quite clear at the time that there was overwhelming support for a 'pan-Arabic' "greater Syria", Saudi Arabia notwithstanding.

 

[Carn]

Certainly, resolving the conflicts would mean an end to Israel as it exists - it would have to cede territory, remove the settlers from the West Bank, and massively change much of its guiding ideology and foreign policy.

Anyone in favor of what you prescribe as solution would have absolutely no reason not to recognize Israel today; because recognizing a state does not require or imply any consent to their politics or guiding ideology.

Therefore, anyone unwilling to recognize Israel has plans in mind rather different from yours.

I, of course, also do not think the British Mandate for Palestine should ever have been created. It was outrageous - it was quite clear at the time that there was overwhelming support for a 'pan-Arabic' "greater Syria", Saudi Arabia notwithstanding.

Spin a globe, put blindly your finger to it until you hit a land mass (which would require spinning about 3-4 times on average) and you likely will point to a region seriously affected by outrageous political decisions or actions in the last 150 years.

 

[David Mo]

You both have a serious lack of reading comprehension, if you think those two posts are somehow accurately reflecting what i wrote.
No wonder you cannot comprehend many of the arguments against Islamic theology.

We are not discussing theology. We are discussing political practices.
We understand you perfectly. But you refuse to accept the logical consequences of your statements.

Therefore, anyone unwilling to recognize Israel has plans in mind rather different from yours.

False. What is in question in the case of Israel is the Jewish nature of the state. Many people refuse to accept Israel as an ethnic or religious Jewish state. Others think that a state established by force and ethnic cleansing is not acceptable and they don't accept terrorism -state terrorism included.

You make pure reductionism. You qualify from your pro-Zionist prejudices in a typical totalitarian way.

 

[Roofgardener]

Sorry for arriving at the party a little late
In regards to the opening post; I don't think it is just atheists who tend to avoid criticism of Islamic Political Theology. In terms of the UK, successive governments have created an environment in which criticism of Islam is frowned upon. (initially to try and quell discontent about immigration, and more recently because they are afraid of muslim riots at the slightest hint of disapproval). Look what happened to Theo van Gogh


Along with atheists, another curious anomaly is the silence of the feminist movement about Islam, along with that of Christian and Jewish clergy, and the gay/lesbian etc movement.

Which is curious because in a muslim-dominated society, all four would be heavily repressed. (except for Jews and Gays, who would be simply killed. and THEN repressed).

We may not be at war with Islam, but from a theological stance, Islam is most certainly at war with us. One of the weapons that the Islamic Supremacists use is words, and thence the creation of the neologism "Islamophobia", as a means of suppressing investigation, criticism or debate. As Mohammed said... "War is deceit".

The Koran is indeed a source of inspiration for terrorism. (or - more accurately - the combination of the Koran, the Hadiths,and the Sunnah). In point of fact, it is a manual for world domination, physically and spiritually. As the Caliph Recep Erdogan pointed out, "There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.". A moderate muslim is simply a muslim who does not follow the Sunnah. But that is a personal choice that can change at any time. The underlying scriptures and religious guidance remains the same.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Along with atheists, another curious anomaly is the silence of the feminist movement about Islam, along with that of Christian and Jewish clergy, and the gay/lesbian etc movement.

Which is curious because in a muslim-dominated society, all four would be heavily repressed. (except for Jews and Gays, who would be simply killed. and THEN repressed).

The Koran is indeed a source of inspiration for terrorism. (or - more accurately - the combination of the Koran, the Hadiths,and the Sunnah). In point of fact, it is a manual for world domination, physically and spiritually. As the Caliph Recep Erdogan pointed out, "There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.". A moderate muslim is simply a muslim who does not follow the Sunnah. But that is a personal choice that can change at any time. The underlying scriptures and religious guidance remains the same.

Wow, this is outrageous. Jews would "simply be killed"? And this is inherent to Islam? Historically Jews have been LESS oppressed in Muslim society than in Christian. Modern Islamic antisemitism is by and large an European import tied to the establishment of Israel and opposition to it.

The Ottoman Empire decriminalized homosexuality in 1858. How much of the Christian world had done that then? You seem to think that the only true Islam is the most radical variety you can find.

Honestly, wow. Your last paragraph reads like a Nazi ranting about World Jewry.

 

[Pixel42]

I've seen plenty of feminist criticism of Islam. Maybe you're looking in the wrong places, Roofgardner.

 

[Carn]

We are not discussing theology. We are discussing political practices.
We understand you perfectly.

No. Just visible from you thinking that "We are not..." is somehow a relevant point in regard to my claim "No wonder you cannot ...".

But you refuse to accept the logical consequences of your statements.

Accepting logical consequences from what you erreneously think are my statements would be rather stupid.

False. What is in question in the case of Israel is the Jewish nature of the state. Many people refuse to accept Israel as an ethnic or religious Jewish state. Others think that a state established by force and ethnic cleansing is not acceptable and they don't accept terrorism -state terrorism included.

Nonsense.

Recognizing South Africa prior 1990 kept nobody from calling out South Afriace to abandon apartheid.

The same way one could recognize Israel and call for an end of actual or perceived religious apartheid.

Not regonizing it, means one wants it destroyed.

You make pure reductionism. You qualify from your pro-Zionist prejudices in a typical totalitarian way.

Ah, me arguing for the existance of the state of Israel is pro-Zionism.

Which with most people of average reading comprehension will clarify, why i think the stance regarding Israel is a good indicator who is suitable as potential ally and who isn't.

But as you are a human rights activitst yourself or at least have a lot to do with such people:

What is the plan?

I mean, ok, Israel sheds being a Jewish state; the about 250000+ "settlers" on the wrong side of the 1967 line are forced out of their homes at gun point or preferably cannon point; a few thousand of the more radical sort are killed in the resulting skirmishes, which subdues the rest sufficiently to accept being dislocated; Palestinians happily take over the buildings to use them for building better lives.

That far i understood the plan; but is that all? Or are there any other steps?

And besides as you brag about being able to identify human rights violations, might there be some human righst violations in the above plan? And if so, could they be avoided somehow?

 

[Carn]

In regards to the opening post; I don't think it is just atheists who tend to avoid criticism of Islamic Political Theology.

But with atheists it suprises me most.

Because for atheists it seems not that out of bounds to claim that religion is nothing but a form of mental illness/disease.

But if religion is just mental illness/disease, then for me a very straightforward thought is that the differing religions could present different mental illnesses/dieseases.

Just like for dlusional disorders, there are several sub-classifications:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder

and of different degree of severity:
"Delusions can be "bizarre" or "non-bizarre" in content;[2] non-bizarre delusions are fixed false beliefs that involve situations that could potentially occur in real life, such as being followed or poisoned.[3] Apart from their delusions, people with delusional disorder may continue to socialize and function in a normal manner and their behavior does not necessarily generally seem odd.[4] However, the preoccupation with delusional ideas can be disruptive to their overall lives.[4]"

Yet for some atheists it seems to be anathema to consider one religion to be more "severe" than another.

Which is from my POV as if some psychatrist would adamantly claim that there is no difference in severity between a patient having delusions about a pink unicorn telling him to keep his garden in good shape and a patient having delusions about some demon telling him he should spread murder and strive as part of a larger plan to bring forth a nuclear apocalypse; such a psychatrists would be a candidate for delusion diagnosis himself.

Yet, some atheists see no problem there.

With other otherwise loud critics the issue seems different, as they have no such simple analogous step "religion" ~ "mental illness" -> "maybe there are different sub types of differing severity out there?"