I learn the interesting news that David Aaronovitch tweeted to Joan Smith and Jenny Jones that I am:
“an angry and dangerous man who could as easily be on the far right as the far left”.
I had no idea I was on the far left, though I suppose it is a matter of perspective, and from where Mr Aaronovitch stands I, and a great many others, look awfully far away to the left. I don’t believe you should bomb people for their own good, I don’t believe the people of Palestine should be crushed, I don’t believe the profit motive should dominate the NHS, I think utilities and railways were better in public ownership, I think education should be free. I guess that makes me Joseph Stalin.
But actually I am very flattered. Apparently I am not just angry – since the invasion of Iraq and the banker bailouts everybody should be angry – but “dangerous”. If I can be a danger to the interests represented by a Rupert Murdoch employee like Aaronovitch, I must have done something right in my life. I fear he sadly overrates me; but it does make me feel a little bit warmer, and hold my head that little bit higher.
“Which part of which question do believe has remained unanswered?”
FFS, Passerby, stop dodging:
Here is what Jon asked you:
* In referring to “The alienation of the small pockets of dissent in the shitty piece of land” you are making the sweeping generalisation that all Israelis/Jews are as bad as each other. I suspect this is an unresolvable point of our disagreement – I think B’Tselem and thousands of tiny other human rights groups are great, and deserve moral/financial support. In theory, would you pick one and give them a few quid/euros/dollars a month?
* Theoretically, if your undiplomatic approach could be shown to reduce the chances of Palestinian peace and security, would you change it?
It’s up there in black and white.
“@Jon
Jon, I have some problems with this.
Organised religion is an organised belief in something in the absence of objective evidence. That’s why all religions demand that you must have faith because faith, by definition, is a belief in something in the absence of evidence. If you have evidence, you don’t need faith, after all. Religions, by definition, impose rules of thought and rules of behaviour on their believers. However, they also seek to impose those rules on non believers since such non believers and the independent thoughts they hold are a direct threat to religion. Religion is oppressive, by its very nature.
In lieu of the above, religions and other ideologies (which are not that far removed from religions in terms of their demands that the individual give up the capacity for independent thought and succumb to an ideological group think) are the means by which elites seek to place a policemen in every citizen’s head. It’s a lot cheaper, than putting a policeman on every street corner, though the buggers will do that as well if they deem it necessary as history shows.
In the secular West, it took several centuries and an ocean of blood and sacrifice to put religion in its box. We can say that we have more or less tamed it in the Secular West, bar a few loonies round the edges. However, in other parts of the world, religion is still fully tied up in the affairs of state, right up to the highest corridors of power. Not just in Islamic countries either. We saw what the likes of Milosovitch did with his country’s version of Christianity in justifying the ethnic cleansing that went on. And we all know that the fundamental Christian rights stranglehold on the US is gorwing stronger each year.
However, we also cannot shy away from the fact that a large portion of the world of Islam is several centuries behind the West in terms of having disengaged church from state. Consequently, we also cannot shy away from the fact that many Muslims do in fact treat the words in the Koran as literal instructions on how to live (and how to impose conditions of life on others). Some of these instructions are utterly incompatible with living in a secular society and there is no way of getting round this other than to dance around those unfortunate and inconvenient aspects of the Koran.
On those occasions where a sufficiently dainty dance has not been done, all hell has broken loose. The Scandinavian cartoons, Salman Rushdie and many other instances. We secular, liberal, libertarians cannot ignore this. We can’t sweep it under the carpet and pretend this is not a problem. It is a problem. In fact, I would go so far as to say it has reawakened our own slumbering religious monsters. Militant Christianity is now on the rise here in the UK. This, I would argue, is a direct result of what they have perceived to be the Muslims “getting away with it”, however, unrealistic that perception may be.
For all of its faults, and they are myriad, this is secular society, a liberal society, one that is based on equal rights for everyone and where everyone has (or should have) the right to say what they want and live how they want within the proviso that it is not a direct incitement to hurt others or limit the freedoms of others.
Any version of Islam that relies on the Koran as a literal set of instructions for living, is simply incompatible with those values. We should not, indeed we must not, be afraid to say that out loud.
The only thing that liberals should be intolerant of, jon, is intolerance.
@Steve Cook: ^ Yeah that! ^
Very well put!
Steve Cook
Evidently you are an authority on Quran. Also it is apparent that the secular way of life is under threat through Islam? Could you elaborate on these issues?
The mentioned Scandinavian Cartoons were a blatant attempt in provoking a backlash, that was anticipated and sought for aside, what is you views about the ensuing Holocaust Cartoons getting published to the dismay and hue and cry of the secular world?
The tone of “liberalism” articulated is very much reminiscent of the yesteryear “white-man’s burden” in civilising the savages and teaching them the
Christianliberal values.Finally given that the establishment is selling the same lines of the arguments against Islam, and Muslims, then are we to assume that we are living in the Utopia of liberal values in which those recalcitrant reactionaries are joining the Christianity rediscovered fever, because they are “emboldened” by watching the Muslims?
Evidently the bums rush for divine protection has nothing to do with the current crisis of; trust, confidence, economy, politics, and a string of dooms day scenarios that are loaded on the media on a constant loop basis.
Finally are to adduce that “Secular Liberals” can be as intolerant as they wish an feel, however the religion adherents have to be checked and put in their place because they have no idea, and believe in some deity of sorts, ie let their God look after them?
,
,
Nextus
for my part, those poisonous posts are quite a valuable insight into how some think. I think it’s good for people to see how such prejudicial mindsets work – and I don’t think such embittered diatribes will win any converts.
The poisonous posts you are referring to, can you define the prejudice that you find, and point out where in those poisonous posts instance of the said prejudices occur?
Steve, excellent points.
I agree with most of what you say – organised religion is definitely a mechanism for political and social control. For the most part I consider this to be a subconscious drive in the ordinary hierarchies of “the church” of whatever religion and denomination, which itself comes from a psychological need to immerse oneself, and others, in authoritarian structures of control and rigidity. I should think there are a few psychopaths at the top of various religious who are consciously aware of this political control, and they cooperate with it anyway.
I have personal experience of the fundamentalist approach to religion – I was brought up in a over-zealously applied C of E environment (household, school, summer camps) – so I mean it kindly when I say I don’t need telling about the indoctrinating power of religion.
When I said “Anti-Islam perspectives tend to be expressed in highlighting the violent parts of its holy books rather than its peaceful parts”, it wasn’t my intention to suggest that we should exaggerate its peacefulness. Rather, I was referring to the right-wing tendency to fall into line with Establishment views and claim Islam is more violent than is fair to suggest – perhaps in order to sell a new war in the Middle East. I think liberals need to agree that this is happening.
So, I concur with the view that we need to criticise both religion and religious extremism. Nevertheless I recommend some cautiousness around Islam at present, because of the current Islamophobic media environment. It isn’t liberal to say the same things as racists, nor is it humanitarian to drum up such anti-Islamic feeling that one appears to be propagandising for the latest Establishment war. (For the avoidance of doubt, I don’t think you are in favour of those things).
On religion in general, if unrestrained and popular criticism would reduce the incidence of religious following, I would happily join you. But as I’ve outlined above, I am worried that if it gets too sustained, the victim mentality of the religionists actually strengthens their resolve (see the recent complaints in the UK of “aggressive secularism”). This is why the “stamping out” of religion is generally a bad idea, even if I like the suggestion in theory!
Your reply reminded me that I met some Islamic sharia fundamentalists on their Birmingham roadshow a few years ago, and it inspired me to write an article for Indymedia. Might be of interest!
@Fedup: It’s true that the Quran promotes tolerance of non-believers. For example, “there shall be no coercion in matters of faith,” (Quran 2:256). It also commands Muslims to respect the beliefs of Jews and Christians.
Noble stuff, indeed. More of the same please. However, the diatribes from certain contributors claiming to represent Islam on this very website have preached a vitriolic hate-agenda quite incompatible with the guidance in the Quran. There are some examples above, with many others in previous threads (remember the debate about compulsory subjugation of non-Muslims to Sharia law? The forcible introduction of a global Caliphate?) By all means, keep explaining your own views – I find it edifying – but be aware that if others were to construe the polemics as representative of Islam, they would likely to condemn it as intolerant. Do you really want to reinforce damaging stereotypes and stoke ethnic conflict? I’d hope not, but some of the comments above (re the so-called “ziofuckwits”) seem to do exactly that. Which I find alarming. But if people really think that way, I’d rather hear about it than be ignorant of it.
1. I want to qualify what I said in response to Passerby earlier. I think ‘fuckwits’ is too tame and childish a term for the people currently in power in Israel, who are putting Gaza to ‘slow genocide’ (UN observer comment) i don not think the repetition of violent swearing, however, would displease them. My over-riding objection to the seeming demonisation of all Israelis and Jewish people stands. It is false and, born out of tragedy, tragic.
2. Steve Cook, do you mind if I pick at your post a bit? Not personal, just concerned.
You say: “On those occasions where a sufficiently dainty dance has not been done, all hell has broken loose. The Scandinavian cartoons, Salman Rushdie and many other instances”
In what sense did ‘all hell break loose’ in these cases? Were up to a million people killed? Were 4 million people displaced? Was the rest of the country left shattered, and with the legacy of depleted uranium? Well, no. That was the good guys in the secular UK, among others.
“We secular, liberal, libertarians cannot ignore this”.
Who are you, or I, or anyone to say that the Imam next door is, because of his religion, more worthy of comment than the secular vivisectionist or arms dealer living next to him?
“It is a problem. In fact, I would go so far as to say it has reawakened our own slumbering religious monsters”.
Not war, or greed, or general media hysteria, but around 2.7 percent of the UK population have done this?
“Militant Christianity is now on the rise here in the UK. This, I would argue, is a direct result of what they have perceived to be the Muslims “getting away with it”, however, unrealistic that perception may be.”
But this seems to be propagating that ‘unrealistic perception’?
“Any version of Islam that relies on the Koran as a literal set of instructions for living, is simply incompatible with those values”.
I have studied the Koran, a bit, and then, of course, you have the hadithas. Scholars, including feminist Muslim scholars, will argue that it all depends on the interpretation. It is a dialogue which has been going on for centuries.
Sadly I think that extremism coming from newly war-torn countries, where the ‘secular’ West is the enemy, and where reversal to harsh rules provides some stability in the carnage is understandable, if not welcome to anyone but the power-mongers, and should not, in this dialogue, be ignored. I also think Jon is right, and any attempts to dismiss the complexities result in a hardening of positions. But there are gay Muslim groups in the UK. There are Muslim girls in mini-skirts and people who have left Islam and devoted practitioners who work in schools and garages and all sorts. Surely in our ‘secular tolerant liberal state’ we should know this. Again, it is not ‘us’ and ‘them’.
Finally, though it’s nice to claim atheism as somehow ‘better’ than religion, it does often seem to be a religion in itself. Atheists have no evidence that there is no higher form of being than humans, after all; just a very convinced feeling that there is not?
Sorry if this is all too much to deal with, but I blame these thought-provoking comments…
Passerby: “This then leads to an undue expectation that the solution for the mass murder politics is in further making people aware of the ongoing struggle, and actively encouraging others to join in pushing for reforms. This line of thought is good enough for a peaceful transition of modalities of governance. However when one side is engaged in a continual expansion of its occupation, that further strips any right of resistance from any of the populace of the areas under the occupation; ferocious and deadly response dishing out collective penalties, for any act of resistance.”
then what? get a bigger gun? no no no! a) there is no bigger gun b) if there were a bigger gun, you should morally, since you are arguing morally, not use it c) the majority of Israelis are in favour of talks with Hamas which fits your criteria for ‘a peaceful transition’. Get together and tear down the walls.
Nextus
Seldom any Muslim references the white supremacists’ contentions, and extrapolates thereafter that all White people are thus evil. Further not many Muslims bestow the same kind of ambassadorial role onto every white man. Therefore no Muslim actively seeks to find the white counterparts of these “sharia seeking, and caliphate establishing Muslims” and then conclude that all white men are unhinged crazed and rabid threats to any civilisation.
Although due to the fact that any foreign sounding word to the ear of any self respecting Englander, the sounds thereof are the tongue of the very devil getting whispered into their delicate and chaste ears and ought to be shunned and drowned. Hence the notion of the deviances of “Sharia”. This concept transliterated means “traditional jurisprudence” ie the local and commonly agreed upon constructs of jurisprudence that finds its roots in the religions practised within that locale, to be resourced to by joint agreements of the plaintiff and defendant.
Enough of that, missing from your comment is the answer to the earlier question I put to you.
Steve Cook @ 806.
This. Fantastic post
I really do need to put some things on ther record just in case any professional haters jump to misconstrue it, either by design or by accident.
I really do mean this sincerely and not with any hint of sarcasm when I say people should be absolutely free to belieive in any old shit they want to. They can beleive in sky fairys, little green men that live in the sole of their shoe; any damned thing they please.
However, it is when such people insist that they have a special, divine dispensation to be offended such that others must modify their behaviour or words in order to spare them such offence. Or, in extremis, where they assume the right to force others to behave or to speak or even to think according to their beliefs.
Such people are the enemies of free minds.
However, lest anybody should misconstrue the above, I would include (by no means exhaustively) in such a list of enemies of free minds;
Fundamentalist, Randian free marketeers (especially these, I have my own biases, after all)
Fundamentalist Marxists
Fundamentalist religions of ALL kinds. Actually scratch the fundamentalist bit, just ALL RELIGIONS of ALL kinds. They are all fundamentalists at heart anyway. The only ones that aren’t have simply been tamed….for the moment
Any other damned top-down-imposed ideology that seeks to place restrictions on what people can think and can say.
I hope that make my position clear.
Fedup: “Therefore no Muslim actively seeks to find the white counterparts of these “sharia seeking, and caliphate establishing Muslims” and then conclude that all white men are unhinged crazed and rabid threats to any civilisation.”
– Pardon me, but isn’t that exactly what those tirades against “ziofuckwits”, “zionazis”, etc. were aiming to do? At times all Israelis are tarred with the same brush, whether moderate or not – all on the basis of a stereotype. (Passerby’s justified that stereotyping with the riposte that “the tautologies of ‘not all Russians were communists’, and ‘not all Germans were Nazi’, do not apply” because all members of the illegitimate state are equally guilty.) But when the stereotypes are challenged, the target shifts. Sometimes the enemy is described as “congenital lunatics”, other times Jewish supremacists, other times anti-Islamists, political Zionists, or even just people who hold a different opinions, using whichever label-of-convenience circumvents a particular refutation. Whether that’s your personal position or not, I don’t know. I’m getting confused by the apparent tag-teaming.
– Anyway your assertion that “no Muslim” would make such an error is a sweeping generalisation that seems to be empirically false. Perhaps you mean “no true Muslim”, according to your own definition? Let me tell you about what “no true Scotsman” would do …
– And just to remind you, I was actually arguing that people should oppose the stereotyping of Muslims as intolerant.
“Enough of that, missing from your comment is the answer to the earlier question I put to you.”
– I thought I’d made it clear that I’m under no compulsion to do specific requests. In any case, my point was general. But if you need prompting, try paraphrasing Passerby’s views on ordinary citizens of Israel. (I’d need to do meticulous research to find out what the precise views expressed under the tag ‘Fedup’ were, but it’s not your personal views I was criticising.)
Incidentally, your riposte to Steve Cook systematically mischaracterised his views: (e.g. Steve: “For all of its faults, and they are myriad, this is a secular society”. Fedup: “are we to assume that we are living in the Utopia of liberal values?”) It’s interesting to know how much you revile straw men, but I’d be even more interested in your opinions of the views that were really expressed. I expressed wholehearted agreement with Steve’s post, but I thought Technicolour’s competent rejoinder put it in a very different light. The advancing debates on this website can be very educational.
I appreciate you taking the time to clarify and engage.
“@Technicolour
Finally, though it’s nice to claim atheism as somehow ‘better’ than religion, it does often seem to be a religion in itself. Atheists have no evidence that there is no higher form of being than humans, after all; just a very convinced feeling that there is not?…”
Hi T. I promise to respond to the whole of your post tomorrow. However, I’d like to respond to this last point, however, before going to bed.
I think you are confusing anti-theist with atheist. I am not anti theist. I just don’t give a shit about such a belief. Furthermore, I don’t need evidence that there is not a higher force. I’m not the one making the outlandish claim that there is. As an atheist I am, in fact, claiming nothing at all.
Atheism, is simply a special case of rationalism. It rejects that which has no measurable foundation in reality. From an atheist perspective, a belief in a higher being called Allah, or Abraham or whoever that created the universe and is intricately implicated in its machinations without a single shred of evidence to support such a belief is no more or less credible than a belief in a higher being called His Great Noodlyness (otherwise known as The Spaghetti Monster). Believers in Allah or Abraham, of course, will find the above offensive. I find their both their beliefs and their offence ridiculous in equal measure.
“I don’t need evidence that there is not a higher force. I’m not the one making the outlandish claim that there is. As an atheist I am, in fact, claiming nothing at all.”
I was thinking about your take on “faith”, how i might differ, then this “claiming nothing at all” idea is shakey..
I think this was a shallow account of faith: belief in the absence of objective evidence. To me faith is absence of questioning. It is automatic acceptance and observance, with no inclusion or need to exclude, any uncertainties.
Im actually terribly faithless! But not by preference.
Believe is established while doubts seem to be in order, and almost always revised sometime later. Belief is always a bet that you are ‘right’ to believe. Faith is established while doubts are of no concern, no desire to change. There is no chance faith was an error, faith is a firm decision. It claims something with nothing at all.
In a Leap of Faith you do not put any interest into the gap, you just try your best to jump it.
Faith is maybe called now, “being in the zone”
Of course faith can be instilled to persuade wrong things. So too can doubt. What cant be misused?
Scientifically recognisable reasoning is surely not all of valid reasoning. Are there not Arts? iirc Philosophy has no end, and Science is incomplete although ever wishfully correct in some regards.
We may get along ‘claiming nothing at all’ about somethings, but need we, best we? I don’t know. I would like to have faith that i am real, sometimes i doubt anything is.
I think its a problem criticising religion, being too criticial of it, rejecting too much of its long records of expressions, of aspirations.
It’s all very well banging on against the Koran and those people that follow it, meanwhile in the real world, we have a man running for POTUS who believes that God lives on a planet called Kolob.
And what about the biggest bunch a religionist going, the Jews? Where’s your critic of them, their evil books and their evil ways? There would be no ‘radical Islam’ without them because they foment it and use it for their own ends. The Muslim Brotherhood is their baby, Just as Hamas was once their baby (and maybe still is). The Muslim Brotherhood were executed in the 60s and replaced with Israeli cuckoos, to serve Israel.
You can’t see beyond the surface, therefore you blindly support their fallacies, and perpetuate the status quo of acceptable hatred against Muslims, and therefore Arabs.
@Mcvities Digestive
I am unsure if this post was directed at me. But, if it is, you are mistaken. I find all religeous fundamentalists and the mental, twisted, internal logic they employ to justify the opression their fellow humans utterly disgusting in fully equal measure I can assure you.
Whether someone is a Jew, an Arab, a Europeans, a Yank, is irrelvant to me. It’s the shit that is in someone’s head and the extent to which that shit is designed and is used to oppress others is the only thing of concern to me.
ThatCrab, are you sad that you don’t have a religious faith?
Someone said that describing atheism as a religion is akin to describing ‘not collecting stamps’ as a hobby.
“@Vronsky
Someone said that describing atheism as a religion is akin to describing ‘not collecting stamps’ as a hobby….”
Exactly.
Very good Vronsky. Must remember that one.
Steve; thanks! look forward to the rest of your post. In the meantime re atheism. I am not religious, but I suppose I do have a few faiths – the sun will come up in the morning among them (I know this is actually the world revolving, but still). I think you’ve isolated an important point – that it doesn’t matter what people call their God, which is presumably why Muslims urge tolerance towards the Jewish & Christian people ‘of the book’.
But people have all sorts of weird beliefs without evidence – Lib Dem voters, people who buy ‘I simply can’t believe it’s not butter’ – and I’ve been made to eat the latter (and seduced into briefly dallying with the former’. But I’ve rarely met a Muslim person who wanted to impose their rules on me.
I should, perhaps, make some kind of distinction here, between being a Muslim, culturally speaking, and being a religious follower of Islam. They are, of course different things. The problem, though, is that for many Muslims they are not seen as being different and therein lies the probpem. For many muslims, a critique of the religion of Islam represents a critique of them as muslims. We also have this problem with fundamentalist Christians, of course. But, those more fundamentalist apsects of Christianity have been largely tamed at some considerable cost to many brave people over the centuries and we are in their debt. At least here in Western Europe. Islam has yet to go through that process in many parts of the world.
Sure enough, in Western europe, Islamic dictats on how others should behave are considerably toned down. However, you only need to go to those countries where such secular pressure to conform to a more liberal form are not in place to see what kind of restrictions are placed on people. Not least women. I guess my central argument is that we do not get to hold onto our liberal, secular way of life passively. We must be prepared to stand up and be counted in terms of defending it from wherever and whoever poses a threat to it, without fear or favour.
If that offends people who hold these opressive faiths, then that’s just tough, whoever they are.
Steve Cook
To get out of a hole the best way forward is to stop digging the hole!
make some kind of distinction here, between being a Muslim, culturally speaking, and being a religious follower of Islam
As per your earlier contentions you have decided “Islam” bad, now you are trying to sugar coat that contention with “cultural legacy” differentials.
Blissfully unaware that chauvinism virus, has blocked your logic sensors; you cannot discern apart from being a an authoritative source on Koran, you are now setting yourself up as the chair for anthropology of this thread too!
As for
in Western europe, Islamic dictats on how others should behave are considerably toned down. However, you only need to go to those countries where such secular pressure to conform to
Read it aloud and see how ridiculously it sounds as the man on the Telly talks!
Not content with oppressing the Muslims in the West, you are now intent on oppressing the Muslims in their own lands too?
And your attitude is if anyone does not like so tough!
Jon,
I see your secretary has responded to my question:“Which part of which question do believe has remained unanswered?”
nuid
31 Aug, 2012 – 6:39 pm
FFS, Passerby, stop dodging:
Here is what Jon asked you: ……..
Are these the views of an obnoxious member of the tag team that is in place to bully the unsavoury characters such as I, whom refuse to genuflect before the prevalent sacred cows and would prefer to Shishkebab these instead?
On the other hand, am I to assume the answer is yours?
The ‘tag team’ only exists in your head, Passerby.
Steve, don’t you think your earlier post was in danger of over-dramatising, if not demonising, the impact of 2.7 percent of the population? And that being ‘secular and liberal’ is no guarantee of morality, tolerance or good behaviour – see Afghanistan/Iraq?
The ‘tag team’ only exists in your head, Passerby.
Recalling; If the cap fits principle.
Interesting isn’t it?
Soon as the “tag team” is mentioned, the tag team rushes to refute its existence. This is done based on “trust us we are not in a tag team”, and belting and bracing that with; “you are a nutter to think there is a tag team, it is all in your head!”
@Passerby, you assume I am wealthy enough to pay a secretary, or important enough to be assigned one! Sadly not in both cases.
I don’t see my questions as traps worthy of avoiding, so please do engage directly with them. You should have no sacred cows of your own – including admitting that there are good Jewish people.
If @nuid or anyone else encourages you to answer those questions, I expect it is because they would be interested in your answers too. I haven’t asked them to remind you.
Over to you.
No, Passerby, Nuid & I have been commenting on this site for years and therefore I know and respect her contributions. I object to you, or anyone, insulting them.
@Technicolour
I think being secular and liberal is a good place to start. However, those who drive us all to war are neither secular not liberal. In many ways, they twist those concepts back on us and cause us to ties ourselves up in knots. I have to admit and concede that. The Assange case being an example in point.
As for whether 2.7% of the population can have an impact. I would reply by saying that the laws that were brought in recently that effectively provide religious people with a special dispensation to be protected from offence is due to a rise of religious militantism in some parts of the Christian church as well as in other faiths such as Islam. Islam’s high-profile religious based disturbances, though, that have occurred as a result of such “offence” have basically raised the temperature across the board in all of the main religions. To that extent, it has had an influence far wider than 2.7% would imply. I don’t think Islam should be singled out for special disapproval. I merely suggest it should be shown no special dispensation at all in comparison with other religions. That includes not turning a blind eye to certain oppressions of women that are, i would arguyes, inherent in some of its teachings. Again, I repeat, there are variations of interpretation of Islam as there are variations of interpretations of Christianity. Of course, I am bound to say that such interpretations are no such thing. From my perspective, there is nothing to interpret since they are all fairy stories. Let me simply say, that there are variations in those fairy stories with some more virulent and less tolerant than others.
Let me put the following question to any Muslim on this board. This question is put with sincerity and is not in any way designed to be deliberately rude. But is designed to push the boundaries of faith.
What does the Quran say about apostates?
What does Mohammed say in the Quran about non believers who refuse to submit to Islam?
As a Muslim, do you agree or disagree with those words of the Quran?
Jon
You do have a sense of humour, though your diplomatic answer reduces the laughter to a polite smile.
I don’t see my questions as traps worthy of avoiding, so please do engage directly with them. You should have no sacred cows of your own – including admitting that there are good Jewish people.
But I have answered your questions already Jon, to which you have replied;
I am not suggesting you are attacking ordinary people,
You see the, the trap has backfired, the crux of it all is, as I have already mentioned, the very language of dissent has been hijacked, evidently “Jewish” is above the normal, ordinary, and is high on top with the extra terrestrial, deity, and other sacred concepts.
Therefore whence we start separating the “Jewish” from the rest of us mortals, then we also start treating them differently. Hence the almost unbelievable farce that has come to constitute as debate around the mass murder fest that has been carried on for the last seventy years in that shitty strip of land.
What the fuck has Jewish got to do with anything? Why should it be the basis for separation from the rest of the humanity? How come you are insistent on “there are good Jewish people”, and not “good people”?
You see that is the trouble which has been plaguing the lives of the Millions of innocent Arabs as well as other inhabitants of the Mid East, we don’t apply the same measures and standards to the “Jewish”, and we expect those “sand niggers” to do as we have, hence the almost imbecilic rhetoric about peace.
The Arabs are not the ones with the guns, helicopter gunships, jets, tanks, nuclear bombs, thermonuclear bombs, submarines, cruise missiles, short, medium, long range delivery systems for the said nuclear and thermonuclear ie Hydrogen bombs. There only exists one belligerent, who needs to stop threatening the whole of the Mid east with war and destruction; the ziofuckwits.
OOOOPS my bad there are good murderers and rapists, and serial killers too you know!
Lets face it Jon you and I have been engaging in a pitiful fandango of the holy trinity kind, that used to be known as the inquisition, with the fan club tagging along to watch the finale :
I do believe in the holy trinity!
I do believe in our Lord Jesus Christ!
I do believe in our Queen the liberator, life giver, and royal holiness!
I do believe the Jews are the chosen people!
I do believe Tony Blair never knowingly mislead the people and the Parliament!
Is that better Jon?
Or do you agree the very language of dissent has been hijacked?
Steve Cook
You really worked hard to find those “wise” bits and now are awaiting the answers from the Muslims too?
Why don’t you just spit on them and be over and done with it?
You seem to wish to win at any cost, regardless of the divisive and half arsed propositions you have forwarded.