Write a Message
Showing 21 to 30 of 167
Nope, you need to grow a pair and evaluate Islam for what it eally is: a totalitarian ideology supported by bigots and brainwashed Arabs. You keep suggesting that there are absolutely loads of secular, liberal Muslims that reject many of the teachings contained in the Qu'ran on principle. Evidence please otherwise your point is null and void.
You need to stop conflating the Quran, interpretations of the Quran, countries and their laws, some Muslims, and all Muslims.
Regardless of how much you think they are the same, want them to be the same or think they should be the same, the reality is that they are not.
What do you mean by "exiled"? An indigenous Brit can be exiled, a Muslim who identifies more with Pakistan or the Ummah than the UK is repatriated, or deported at a push, but certainly not exiled because that term suggests they had a legitimate reason to be here in the first place.
If a religious text has contents that are at odds with the laws of this country, should self-identified followers of this religion be exiled?
If that religion is Islam then yes because Muslims are instructed to take the Qu'ran literally and the Islam world is rife with human rights injustice. In some Islamic countries like Somalia women still get stoned to death, please give me an example of that sort of thing going on in Israel
What utter garbage. In the UK parliament is soverign, MPs are free to change laws as and when they if the motion is able to get enough votes.
Not all elements of the law are subject to a democratic vote.
It's impossible to assess the moral compass of every single Muslim but we can say with confidence that the Islamic world is a lot less covilised in the West and we know that Muslims are instructed to take anti-semitism, misogyny and capital punishment seriously because God endorsed such teachings. It's pretty simple really when you look at the facts.
So what do the incompatibilities within the Quran have to do with any given Muslim, given that you have acknowledged that there is not a perfect correspondence between the two? It is a book; any social consequences are the product of people. Are you suggesting that all the people are incompatible (i.e., criminal)?
We're not talking about jews though. You're just trying to deflect attention away from all the facts and evidence that I keep putting in front of you. Islam is intolerant and bigoted and therfore most Muslims are intolerant and bigoted, as Judaism has absolutely no bearing on how Islam operates I don't consider it to be part of the discussion.
I didn't reject anything. I'm asking whether or not Jews should be allowed to reside in this country given that the Torah advocates "stone age stuff". It's a direct copy of your argument against Muslims that tests the application of your position.
They don't because the law prevents them, but if they became an ethnic majority our liberal secular democracy would eventually morph into an Islamic theocracy and then they would be free to live just as Muhammad did in the 7th century with the full backing of the law.
But they don't, which is why the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the UK are law-abiding citizens; therefore, there is no problem.
Right-wingers mean what they say. We've been taught the hard way to be incredibly careful with our language to prevent hyper-sensitive lefties screaming about racism etc.
When you say 'Islam', do you mean 'Muslims'?
I'm not allowed to give evidence remember because the evidence I present is "anecdotal" as it doesn't represent the words of deeds of all 1.6bn Muslims.
Present evidence that all Muslims go "bat**** mental" following any criticism/insult of their religious texts or sacred figures.
Remember the Basic Grammar 101 lesson before you try to suggest "I wasn't talking about all Muslims".
That's what you say, isn't it?
Islam is incompatible with the West because it advocates wifebeating and teaches people that amputation is a reasonable punishment for shoplifting etc. The good Muslims will believe in this stuff and as it's reasonable to assume that all Muslims want to follow their religion properly it's reason enough to barr them entry to the West, unless you think having a bunch of wifebeating psychos around will liven up the place?
I never commented on the peacefulness of Islam; I am stating that not all Muslims are incompatible (i.e., criminal) members of society.
"Like the Torah advocates stoning as a form of punishment?"
I'm trying to talk to about the illiberal nature of ISLAM and you keep coming back at me with nonsense about other religions. It's like you've been conditioned to automatically reject anything that is the least bit critical of the religion of peace.
Muslims are supposed to take the Qu'ran literally and the Qu'ran contains a lot of 7th century teachings that aren't appropriate in 21st century Europe, fundamentally this is why a lot of tension between Islam and the West exists: our values are totally different. I don't see why this is so hard to accept when it's been written down in black and white in the Qu'ran. It's like talking to a brick wall!
Islam breeds intolerance. There are many illiberal teachings contained within the Qu'ran and the Qu'ran is the word of Allah as revealed by the prophet Muhammad: the Qu'ran is a sacred Islamic text. If you criticise it you therefore run the risk of insulting Muhammad, Allah and everything that Muslims deem holy, and we know how Muslims react when they feel their religion is being insulted. They go bat**** mental.
What constitutes a bigot? Are you a bigot because you acknowledge the fact that there is not a perfect correspondence between the teachings of the Quran and the behaviour of any given self-identified Muslim, but continue to hold an unfounded prejudice against all Muslims?
If you believe that Islam is a peaceful religion why don't you stand outside a mosque (in somewhere like Bradford) whilst criticising the barbaric practices the Qu'ran promotes? Go and see for yourself how these "self-identified Muslims" react to a bit of legitimiate criticism instead of listening to "bigots" like me. Be sure to report back with your results.
Why are you always taking things to the extreme? I am not saying that "all Muslims" believe this or that "all English people" believe that but
in general there are certain things we can say about each community based upon the evidence available.
What are the essential elements of Muslims and English people that would allow that conclusion and why are you treating them as mutually exclusive? Being a Muslim does not necessarily make someone illiberal and being English does not necessarily make someone liberal; furthermore, they are obviously not mutually exclusive.
In the Qu'ran for example it openly advocates amputation as a form of punishment. Surah 5:38 says:
This is the word of Allah remember so by definition in order to be a 'good' Muslim you must heed this teaching. Not all Muslims will advocate amputation of course but the good Muslims will and this is one reason why we should try and contain Islam within North Africa and the Middle East. I don't want any of that stone age stuff in Europe thank you very much and anyone who believes this sort of thing will enrich Britain or end racism needs their head checking.
Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are a man or woman, as punishment for what they have done.
I find it quaint that you're concerned about the human rights of Muslims when I doubt they would give a damn about your rights if the English became a minority in their own country.
Read my discussion with Hopple and my reply to Aoide in that thread. I would argue your suggestion that all Muslims are illiberal and incompatible and should be deported is equally illiberal. Somebody's identity alone is enough to cause you to despise them, it seems, insofar as you believe the state should act to remove them from the country.
There are moral/political/ideological clashes everywhere. For example, between those who want to deport an entire identity group indiscriminately, and those who believe members of that identity group should be treated as individuals and judged according to their individual actions.
If we allowed a group of Nazis into the country under the guise of 'multiculturalism' would you defend their right to act in a bigoted manner and jeopardise the internal security of this country in the long term, or would you send them packing so they could go and live with other Nazis in a fascist country where they would feel at home?
Politically it's incredibly difficult to turn the clock back of course, but if we have entire communities that want to want to live an Arabic lifestyle by following the prophet's example I suggest they return to their spiritual homeland in the Middle East rather than live out their Islamic fantasies over here.
Ok, but you give the impression that such an attack would represent an aberration when it's far more common than liberals like to admit. If the attack was an isolated incident it would be fair to say the problem rests with the individual and isn't indicative of the community as a whole, but when an uniquivocal pattern emerges as it has with Islam it seems prudent to join the dots to help us understand where the violence is coming from.
No, I would use this attack as an example of an individual who has exercised violence in the name of Islam. This would invalidate the statement that "no Muslim exercises violence in the name of Islam", but doesn't validate the statement that "all Muslims exercise violence in the name of Islam".
If a member of the BNP attacked an immigrant it would make front page news and there's no way on this earth that bleedin' heart leftists would defend the BNP the same vigour as they do Muslims (i.e most BNP members are peaceful, law abiding citizens etc etc). They would want the book thrown at them. So why do they rush to the defence of Muslims? You say it's about facts and logic but how can that be true when the left go incandescent with rage at the BBC for letting Nick Griffin on QT but when an Islamist lops a soldier's head off in broad daylight we don't hear a peep out of them, and to top it off Cameron comes out telling us how peaceful Islam is!
I don't see how anyone with half a brain can support this rubbish.
Why do you insist on using this word "all"? I have never claimed that 'all' Muslims do this or 'all' Muslims do that, you're deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying to make your own position look more reasonable. It's an underhand tactic that's so obvious to spot.
There are approximately 2.7 million Muslims in the UK...
But there difference is that we havn't imported millions of bigoted leftists to help 'enrich' our culture.
Aren't you the type of person to harp on about 'lefties' clamping down on any speech that isn't 'PC'? How hypocritical of you.
Should they be punished for their opinions?
I don't want them punished because that doesn't address the underlying problem: a clash of civilisations. I want an amicable divorce so both peoples can freely live according to their own values. again
Exactly, a Muslim attacks someone because he believes it's Allah will and you use this attack as an example of the peaceful nature of all other Muslims. I think this is called Pavlovian conditioning.
That would be assault, which is a criminal offence. And yes, it would be an anecdote. What do the other ~2.7 million Muslims have to do with this event and why should I impute this individual's behaviour to them?
Try to keep up? Sorry this debate isn't about you and your 4 bullets points, it's about the illiberal nature of Islam which is evidenced by every single Islamic country in existence. Try to keep up, dear.
Try to keep up, dear. I'm asking whether or not all self-identified Jews hold illiberal values and are threats to this country because the Torah is illiberal, in the same way that you are declaring all self-identified Muslims hold illiberal values and are threats to this country because the Quran is illiberal.
Not a single Jew has committed an act of religiously motivated violence and not a single Muslim supports human rights. Okay.
Join Date 09-09-2010
Total Posts 8,016