BS: Islamic radicalism . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 14 - 01:21 PM

Back to the schoolyard Mike - doesn't it always happen when you run out of excuses.
Yah boo sucks to you too
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 May 14 - 01:00 PM

Aaahhh -- poor old Jim. You can't help being sorry for him. Thinks he's so prettily priggishly pure of ❤ ; but that old antisemitic strain will keep bursting out -- all those old certainties of Wasp superiority to keep the lesser lots like the Yids in their appointed places. He doesn't mean it to; but it will just keep bursting out.

& the cream of the joke is ~~ he really is too thick to know what I'm on about.

I expect he'll say it's becoz I'm [his favourite word of abuse] EDUCATED, dontcha know? & coz I accuse them of coming over here to take our jobs. [I never have, but the libellous little louse forgets that bit!]


Aaaaahhhhh!

Poor old Jim!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 30 May 14 - 10:37 AM

Boo Bad. Yeah, it''d be a first to be guests at the Israeli Embassy for your country and complain about the Zionist aim to rid "The Holy Land" of Arabs....

zzzzz

On an internet site in Afghanistan, a doddering old fool called Abdul, or AtheAM as he signs himself points out how Christian forces, first from The West 130 years ago, then Russia and more recently The West again spread terror around the country in the name of their Christianist aims, killing women and children, dropping bombs and getting their equivalents of mullahs to bless the rockets, whilst their soldiers praise their Lord.

Europe, America, Australasia, they all worship the same type of God etc etc etc...

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 14 - 10:04 AM

"WHY do you denounce all my animadversions against the evident effects of the teachings of Islam
I have always placed all religious extremism down tho churches and fanatics.
I deplore the attitude of you and yours in being selective in your attacks on one group and ignoring - even to the extent of attempting to divert the discussion away from the root causes.
Those attacking Muslims for their beliefs and way of life are no different than those who attacked Jews for their beliefs and way of life.
"your cries of "racism" might make some sense" - stems from your pupil - who you have persistently and actively supported and excused, accusing one racial group of being perverts implanted by their culture - Islamism is not a race - "All male Pakistani" is - you described my criticism as being a misunderstanding on my part - making yourself part of his racism.
"who lost I know not how many cousins to the Nazis?!"
Which makes your position even more indefensible.
There is nothing more depressing than a member of one persecuted group persecuting and defending the persecution of others.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 30 May 14 - 09:28 AM

Prague, May 27 (ČTK) — Islamic ideology rather than individual groups of religious fundamentalists is behind violent actions similar to the gun attack at the Jewish Museum in Brussels that killed four people, Czech President Miloš Zeman said Monday at the Israeli Embassy in Prague.

Two Israeli tourists and a member of the museum staff were killed by an unknown shooter Saturday, and another staff member died of his injuries Sunday.

Zeman's speech sharply condemning "the hideous attack" was posted on his official website today. Zeman took part in the celebration of the 66 years of independence of Israel.

"I will not be calmed down by statements that it is only small marginal groups. I believe, on the contrary, that this xenophobia and this racism or anti-Semitism stem from the very nature of the ideology on which these fanatical groups rely," Zeman said.

He said one of the sacred texts of Islam calls for the killing of Jews.

Zeman said he would also sharply criticize fanatics who planned to kill the Arabs.

"However, I have heard of no movement calling for the massive murder of Arabs, but I know about an anti-civilization movement that calls for the massive murdering of Jews," he said.

Prague Post

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 May 14 - 09:21 AM

"any sort of extra-marital intercourse" ···

even having been raped can get you stoned to death for adultery, publicly, buried up to neck in a football stadium. See my entry above about the 13 yr-old- Somalian girl: 29 May, 0717 am.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 May 14 - 09:16 AM

In case anyone should plead that, in worst-case scenario, these are just leftovers of now fading traditions, don't forget that the Sultan of Brunei has just, within the last month, enacted BRAND NEW laws mandating stoning to death for adultery: which doesn't, in Islam, it appears, necessarily mean adultery in fact, but any sort of extra-marital intercourse; or even just miscegenation -- back to the ongoing Sudan thing again, where the condemned woman was legally married, but to someone the judge decided was of another faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 May 14 - 08:51 AM

& Jim, by some sort of mental sleight or legerdemain which I can't even begin to follow, says that my saying so somehow makes me the equivalent of the Sturmabteilung in 1930s Berlin. Ain't he the charmer, just, to say such things to me, who lost I know not how many cousins to the Nazis?!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 May 14 - 08:44 AM

In interests of accuracy, and before anyone can make a point of my inaccuracy against me: that young woman in Sudan has been sentenced to be flogged & hanged, not stoned ~~ when her newly born child is two years old: now there's humanity for you! But let me make the point which I might not have sufficiently stressed, that in all the three instances I cited of which she is one (& I could as you know have found many more, from Malysia, Yemen, N Nigeria), the perpetrators of these enormities, the murder in Woolwich, the stoning in Lahore, the sentence in Sudan, have explicitly called the teachings of their faith in defence and justification of their actions &/or judgments.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 May 14 - 08:27 AM

OK Jim. One more try.

If it's only religion you don't love, then WHY do you denounce all my animadversions against the evident effects of the teachings of Islam, as urged by its own adherents, and, in particular, many of their ministers of the faith, as 'racist'? You can't have it both ways. When young murderers defend themselves in the public courts, on the plea that their crime was "an act of war" -- the Holy War enjoined on them by their Prophet -- then how can you accuse me of 'racism' when I reject this explicitly religion-based defence, and denounce the effects of the teachings of the works they claim to be citing in their defence? The fact that your neighbour, that nice Mr Patel, might not agree with their plea is neither here or there [& I repeat that you don't know what he may have to say on the subject when speaking to his co-religionists -- he's not going to tell you, is he?]. And from such animadversions of mine, you make your great slide [which you excuse yourself with "Whoops! Just being rhetorical"] of saying that in doing so I have somehow implicitly complained of someone or other "coming over here to take our jobs". I won't let you forget that libellous attack, any more than you can bring yourself to forget what some others have said on certain matters. For shame, Jim!

Get your head together, Jim. Either they are a race, in which case your cries of "racism" might make some sense; or they are just a religion, which you therefore deny supporting, in which case I am perfectly entitled to express views as to the observable adverse effects of this religion's teachings on many of its adherents, and those with whom they may come into contact: whether as legal authorities flogging & stoning young Sudanese women of whose marriages they might disapprove, or yobbos hacking soldiers to death in the streets of London, or Pakistani mobs killing brides uninhibited by the surrounding police officers.

Can't have it both ways, Jim. Sorry. They are not a race, as you demonstrate you well know by your pathetic opening of your last post to me. And as they are not, I am perfectly entitled to express adverse opinions as to the deleterious effects of their teachings as a religion.

Got it? If not, then I think you had better go & reinsure with Confused.com.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 30 May 14 - 08:24 AM

Islamaphobia is alive and kicking without dead contributors.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 14 - 08:17 AM

"Islamophobia; a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons."

"DEFINING "ISLAMOPHOBIA"
The term "Islamophobia" was first introduced as a concept in a 1991 Runnymede Trust Report and defined as "unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and therefore fear or dislike of all or most Muslims." The term was coined in the context of Muslims in the UK in particular and Europe in general, and formulated based on the more common "xenophobia" framework.
The report pointed to prevailing attitudes that incorporate the following beliefs:

Islam is monolithic and cannot adapt to new realities
Islam does not share common values with other major faiths
Islam as a religion is inferior to the West. It is archaic, barbaric, and irrational.
Islam is a religion of violence and supports terrorism.
Islam is a violent political ideology.
For the purposes of anchoring the current research and documentation project, we provide the following working definition:

Islamophobia is a contrived fear or prejudice fomented by the existing Eurocentric and Orientalist global power structure. It is directed at a perceived or real Muslim threat through the maintenance and extension of existing disparities in economic, political, social and cultural relations, while rationalizing the necessity to deploy violence as a tool to achieve "civilizational rehab" of the target communities (Muslim or otherwise). Islamophobia reintroduces and reaffirms a global racial structure through which resource distribution disparities are maintained and extended."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 30 May 14 - 07:16 AM

"Islamophobia; a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons."

         Christopher Hitchens

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 30 May 14 - 05:45 AM

Isn't it funny when my posts get deleted except the post I put afterwards with a spelling correction...

Perhaps deleting posts about Islamaphobia being abhorrent is par for the course considering the moderators live in Dumbfuckistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 14 - 04:49 AM

I love no religion Mike, and your attempt to claim I do is beneath even you (unless you can actually produce evidence of having suppoorted any particular religion or superstition!
Your attitude to Muslims is basically no different to that of many Germans aimed at Jews in the 1930s, and some British people are now giving support to a political party which is attempting to turn that attitude into a reality by manipulating xenophobia such as yours.   
That worries me deeply - obviously not you.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 May 14 - 04:03 AM

You should know by now, Jim, that trying to provoke me to argue with you on such topics is a no-no. We both know where the other stands, & so far as I am concerned you are impermeable to reason on the matter and can persist in your mulish Islamist-loving ostrichicity without response from me. I am not Keith, who can never resist rising to your mindless maunderings. There is not going to be any equivalent Jim'n'Mike Show, so stop trying to get one going.

That is my last word to you on this topic.

Best regards

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 14 - 03:15 AM

And the hate goes on.....
"What has Peter Robinson saying that he agrees with some other N Irishman got to do with anything I have said? How is it the biz of UK government anyhow?"
Are you joking Mike?
What does a hate statement aimed at a large section of the population of Northern by a political leader have to do with the UK?
Have you really become such a supporter of Islamophobic hatred?
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

The "some other N Irishman"
A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF MUSLIMS
Jim Carroll

You really have joined the 'Dark Side' haven't you - you'll be waving papers saying "peace in our time" next.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 May 14 - 04:00 PM

"Likes" what? Not "lies" what? Can finds no use of either word in any of your recent posts...

Gnomicer & gnomicer...!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 29 May 14 - 03:03 PM

Likes, not lies.

Possibly Freudian considering who I aimed it at.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 29 May 14 - 03:01 PM

If you've got it Michael, get some antibiotics. I'd hate it to spread.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: akenaton
Date: 29 May 14 - 02:19 PM

My how they squirm!

Still no reply to your question M.

One would think they would be grateful for your forensic demolition of their idiotic agenda?

Easy!   Easy!   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 May 14 - 01:56 PM

Thank you. Get it now.

LoL.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 29 May 14 - 01:54 PM

Mike, I was being facetious, simply preempting Musk et alia's propensity for whataboutery.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 May 14 - 01:39 PM

I give up too, Musket -- any attempt to make heads or tails as to what the hell you are on about. What is your 'A material'? What has Peter Robinson saying that he agrees with some other N Irishman got to do with anything I have said? How is it the biz of UK government anyhow? Who has suggested that your neighbour Mr Patel is called on to do anything whatever?

I think you must have finally flipped.

Bobad -- don't understand your question in the last post you addressed to me: "What about the Bible?" I mean, what about "what about" it? Kindly elucidate.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 29 May 14 - 10:13 AM

I think you missed the point Greggiepoo - but then what's new?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 May 14 - 10:00 AM

I think you posted the wrong article, Boo - didja read it first?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 29 May 14 - 08:59 AM

These are normal Muslims not radical extremists:

It's Not the ''Radical Shaykh'' it's Islam - Fahad Qureshi

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 29 May 14 - 08:33 AM

I don't know... You give a gnomic response to something where you can happily confuse gnomic itself with gnomish and it goes straight over a grey head.

Good job I don't use my A material eh?

No, don't copy your questions again. They were dismal enough the first time around. What is The UK government doing about Peter Robinson inciting religious hatred? Isn't the government in control of him? Etc etc...

The only time religion and culture are confused in the minds of some here is when they think of the culture growing behind the gas cooker in the church hall kitchen. Buggering priests aren't anything to do with Christianity but a court in A third world country is something Mr Patel up the road must denounce or be seen to be implicated.

I give up.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 29 May 14 - 08:19 AM

Yeah but what about the Bible, Mike?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 May 14 - 08:16 AM

And here is a translation of a relevant Shura ~~

Quran 4:34:
Men have charge of women because Allah has preferred the one above the other and because they spend their wealth on them. Right-acting women are obedient, safeguarding their husbands' interests in their absence as Allah has guarded them. If there are women whose disobedience you fear, you may admonish them, refuse to sleep with them, and then beat them. But if they obey you, do not look for a way to punish them. Allah is All-High, Most Great.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 29 May 14 - 08:11 AM

The correct etiquette for beating your wife in Islam:

Islam: how to Beat Your Wife

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 May 14 - 07:55 AM

I said "gnomic", not "gnomish". If you don't know what is meant by a 'gnomic' utterance, here you are:-

gnomic
adjective
expressed in or of the nature of short, pithy maxims or aphorisms.
"that most gnomic form, the aphorism"
difficult to understand because enigmatic or ambiguous.
"I had to have the gnomic response interpreted for me"

I meant the second bit: what you had posted was so enigmatic as to be entirely opaque to my comprehension.

It's no good trying to exclude the religious element. See the NY Daily News bit I cited, where Koranic authority was explicitly claimed. So what if some Christians sometimes mis-cite Holy Writ? Whataboutery is never an argument. & you are still evading my challenge to point to any instance of such being the occasion of anything approaching the outcomes which which we are concerned here. You don't really want me to copy my questions yet again, do you?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 29 May 14 - 07:41 AM

I agree with every bit of what you put Michael till you dragged a religion into it.

You are as misguided as Boo Bad above, where he rattles on about the Q'ran but somehow fails to point out the bible and it's similar proclamations.

Just because most people in the west don't take the bible as meaning anything serious and in less developed countries they retain the superstition that only a few do here, doesn't mean you can differentiate.

I recall in UK courts, you can invoke a superstition in order to persuade the court you are not telling porkies. Are you sure courts and religion are only joined at the hip in foreign climes? Do you think the governments of some countries control their areas in the same way Westminster controls Belfast? Do you hold Cameron to account for the appalling religious comments of Robinson the other day?

I wish governments did control their countries. Then economic sanctions might do something, but I'm not quite as naive as you are.

Something about gnomish in one of your earlier posts. According to scripture, gnomes can only be associated co messiah emeritus, and I am a full fat, caffeine saturated co messiah. Do get your facts right when talking about religion eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 May 14 - 07:37 AM

.. and have you come across this current story, copied from a New York paper?--

Noor Hussain, a 75-yr-old Pakistani immigrant, beat his wife to death in their Brooklyn apartment for making him the wrong dinner. His trial started Wednesday, where he was charged with second degree murder.
He had asked his wife, 66-yr-old Nazar Hussain, to make him goat for dinner. She made the mistake of making him lentil beans instead. He was outraged and they got into an argument. Court papers indicate that Nazar disrespected Noor and cursed at him. He then grabbed a wooden stick and beat her to death as she lay in bed.
Hussain's attorney Julie Clark was quick to admit he beat his wife in her opening statement, but argued he is ONLY guilty of manslaughter because he didn't mean to kill her. "He comes from a culture where he thinks this is appropriate conduct, where he can hit his wife," she said. "He culturally believed he had the right to hit his wife and discipline his wife."
The 'religion of peace' does condone wife beating. In one section, the Koran specifically tells men they are above women and women who disobey need to be beaten.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 May 14 - 07:17 AM

Just a couple of sentences from this morning's Times; following on from the bits I quoted from yesterday's --

In Somalia, a 13-year-old girl claimed she had been raped by three men. She found herself accused of adultery, was buried up to her neck inside a stadium and stoned to death in front of 1,000 people.

It's no use just getting all hysterical, Musket, and saying the people who did it were 'animals' ... 'ignorant peasants' doing what you denounce as 'fucking awful and abhorrent'... 'us[ing] religion to enforce their odious will on society'.

It was not 'ignorant peasants' enforcing anything; it was the judicial authorities of a sovereign state with which we maintain diplomatic relations administering the law which obtains within that jurisdiction. So will you still try to maintain this is not relevant to the subject of this thread, because we are talking about 'Islamic radicalism', which is somehow not germane to the laws to which it leads?

Oh, come on...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 28 May 14 - 06:51 PM

Egyptian TV Host Kicks Guest Out of Studio for Expressing Controversial Ideas on Religion

YouTube

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 28 May 14 - 06:40 PM

"Nothing to do with Islam but the report said it was within the culture the family had been brought up in."

And on what authority do you make this statement? Do you not know that there is no central authority for the interpretation of the Quran, the Hadiths and the Sahaba? Islam contains many schools of thought and there's no one single or simple source of interpretation on disputed points. Do you know what every Imam is preaching to his congregates on this issue? If the Imam prescribes honour killing to his followers does that still make it "nothing to do with Islam"? In many Muslim communities culture is intertwined with Islam - where do you draw the dividing line? Many progressive Muslims would disagree with your simplistic statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 May 14 - 05:31 PM

Just watched the news about the woman stoned by her family. Nothing to do with Islam but the report said it was within the culture the family had been brought up in. The murder was obviously wrong. Obviously going to be used by politicians the world over to show how Pakistanis (and therefore Muslims) are evil.

Stereotyping is what is happening. Sadly we can do nothing about that apart from ignore it.

And less stereotyping of us Gnomes please, M.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 May 14 - 04:40 PM

I'm no genius either, Musket. So I have not the ghost of an idea what that gnomic utterance of yours was meant to mean. But please don't trouble to explain. I am sure I shouldn't find it very interesting even if it were elucidated.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 28 May 14 - 03:11 PM

I'm no genius so I take the training on the chin when taught to not link reason with irrational state.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 28 May 14 - 02:41 PM

"As a first step we will have to unlock our language and learn, once more, how to call a spade a spade. The worldwide cancer of terrorism by some Muslims is inspired by the teachings of Islam. To deny this fact is intellectual dishonesty. As long as you, and the rest of the non-Muslim world, permit Muslims to tippy toe around the doctrine of "armed jihad", you won't be able to take the second step, that is, confronting this death cult ideology on its merits, while resisting the temptation to be xenophobic and thus wrongly develop a hatred towards all Muslims."

Tarek Fatah: How to Fight Islamic Terrorism

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 May 14 - 01:46 PM

I am not, btw, surprised at the attitude you found among so many murderers in the course of your interesting work. But your tone implies that you didn't feel such claims were any justification for their actions. Do you not feel the same to be extrapolated amongst the entire, radically based, judicial systems we are talking of? If you don't, then what was your point?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 May 14 - 01:38 PM

"But this thread is about Islamic radicalism, not national law"
.,,.

'Yes yes yes' right back 2U! -- Why "But"? The two concepts are interdependent, not [as 'but' implies] incompatible, within the terms of reference of this colloquy. It is the radicalism which incites, & is held to justify, the [IMO misplaced] laws, surely? So 'national law' is part of, & an outcome of, the "radicalism" which, as you rightly say, is what this thread is about, rather than tangential or non-germane, as your 'but' implies.

So answer my questions, please, & stop trying to justify avoidance of doing so by recourse to factitious would-be diversional irrelevancies.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 28 May 14 - 01:17 PM

Yes yes yes. But this thread is about Islamic radicalism, not national law. That the national law allows old ignorant peasants to use religion to enforce their odious will on society is fucking awful and abhorrent.

But it certainly isn't Islam gone bad. Media commentators are as happy as the perpetrators in purposely confusing culture and faith. The Pakistani prevalence of women as chattel certainly isn't Islamic in origin. It is shared by the many other faiths in that UK defined country borders.

I used to be involved in forensic mental health both as an inspector and lay assessor. I also inspected prisons. You may or may not be surprised how many murderers feel God told them to do it.

When you see me make the link from that in the same way you make the link with Islam, you can call me a bloody do gooder or whatever. Religion is the art of controlling a community. Always was always will be. But to make a link to those who share a faith is something that seems to be done to Muslims but not Christians.

For all my disdain of religion and everything to go with it, I don't think of Muslim friends as relatives of terrorists any more than thinking my Catholic friends covering for child abusers.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 May 14 - 12:48 PM

"American Christians who murder doctors and nurses involved in termination of pregnancy", Ian, do not do so by judicial process in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction within which they do it. Stop being so stupid as to pretend you can't see the distinction, you fatuous ostrich, you!

My comment as to what I knew boobies like you would say points to the opposite of misgivings; ie that I know I am right whatever foolish people like you might feel PC-ly obliged to rejoin. You really are doing yourself little credit by being unable to muster any better argument.

In particular, you have dodged my explicit questions, to which a direct answer would be welcome, as distinct from irrelevancies about the Islamic denizens of our own population, who are entirely marginal to my interrogatives..

To remind you, here they are again:-
I ask yet again if anyone can point to any other contemporary faith which induces so perverse a concept of "honour" in any of its adherents, or whose followers, in so many jurisdictions where they have gained power, use its tenets to justify such excesses of governmental forensic "justice".

Telling me that Muslims who live here may not agree with such procedures is no sort of answer to the questions whatsoever. It is the extrapolations, and claims of divine authority [see the article linked by Bobad in his last post] from the citable teachings of the faith which induce such responses, which are of concern. Even if they are not accurately invoked [see point above about their being Hadithic if not perhaps directly Koranic], it is obviously regarded by the authorities where such abuses obtain as more than their jobs or safety are worth to attempt to intervene. Do you really think the "American Christians" you cite operate in conditions of such confidence & certitude?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 28 May 14 - 10:42 AM

"No passage in the Koran discusses honor killings, but Muslim clerics justify them and secular Muslims either do not punish them or pass laws to mitigate punishment for them. With this, Muslims make honor killings a part of Islam."

Supna Zaidi: Does Islam Justify Honor Killings?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 28 May 14 - 10:19 AM

Ho hum anyone?

How about Northern Ireland's first minister Robinson who has defended a Christianist pastor who calls Islam evil. He said it is the duty of the pastor to denounce false prophets.

It isn't as abhorrent as the animals who killed their own daughter but it was aimed at causing civil unrest and hatred of others, which eventually leads to the same thing. Fear of people through linking them to the behaviour of others. The Pakistani cultural issues of ownership of women is not tolerated by millions of Muslims. A friend asked why so many people who compare him to thirld world superstition, when asked, admitted that love honour and obey were in their Christian marriage vows.

If you must link culture to faith, then show me where in the bible it says I lay on the sofa farting watching Match of the Day.

Pointing out animals who have cultural ideas from the stone ages has nothing to do with Muslims living here any bit as much as being a vicar in Surrey paints you with the same pot as American Christians who murder doctors and nurses involved in termination of pregnancy.

You know, pointing out that others may comment in such a way to your post does no more than show your own misgivings about your comments. Hope for you yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 May 14 - 07:26 AM

Extracts from this morning's The Times, pp31 & 32

1. Pregnant bride stoned by her family
Pakistan
A 25 year old Pakistani woman who was three months pregnant was stoned to death by her family outside the High Court in Lahore for marrying the man she loved ... She was cornered and attacked with bricks by a mob of men that included her father, two brothers and a former fiancé. The couple had gone to the high court to record a statement in front of a judge that Ms Parveen had married by choice and had not been kidnapped, as had been alleged by her father ... The police have arrested only Ms Parveen's father, who is believed to have admitted to the killing. He described it as a matter of honour. The other men ... fled and have not been caught ... Honour killings are common in Pakistan, though it is unusual for the attack to happen in a public place ... Few cases of honour killings ever make it to court, and prosecutions are rare ... Police in rural areas often turn a blind eye to such incidents, dismissing them as family matters.

2. Death sentence woman has baby
A Sudanese woman sentenced to death for marrying a Christian has given birth to a girl in prison. A judge has allowed Mariam Yahia Ibrahim Ishag, 27, to nurse her baby for two years before the sentence is carried out.

Yes, yes, I know -- Ho-hum, heard it all before! But (and call me a racist or a bigot or whatever pejorative epithet may occur to you to deflect the effect of my question, if it gives you any satisfaction) I ask yet again if anyone can point to any other contemporary faith which induces so perverse a concept of "honour" in any of its adherents, or whose followers, in so many jurisdictions where they have gained power, use its tenets to justify such excesses of governmental forensic "justice".

Anyone?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 14 - 03:05 PM

He uses what he considers moral authority by pointing put he can't be x y z because Christians don't do x y z.

Completely untrue.
I have NEVER made any such statement.

(I did say that I belong to a Church that abhors and confronts racism, but that is not what you accuse me of.)

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 26 May 14 - 02:34 PM

Brendan. Fully agree but we are talking Keith here and he has form. He uses what he considers moral authority by pointing put he can't be x y z because Christians don't do x y z. He drags dubious quotes from internet searches and once he decides the authors are eminent, then woe betide you if you disagree. That makes you a liar.

Not nice sometimes. Not nice at all.