What do ex-Muslims and disidents have to say about Islam.

I had no idea until now that there was a run on helmets and toy light sabres at costume shops in the UK. Thanks.

Since this is the Pit - I can call you a moron or a dick head

  • take your choice

Probably recognize that it is a problem

Reduce tolerance.

Call me whatever you like, it will do nothing to lessen the blithering idiocy of your previous post.

Fuckwit. See, now we’ve really raised the tone of this discussion, haven’t we?

Okay, and that reduction takes the form of…?

I take somewhat of a middle ground on this question. On the one hand, it is clear that a large number of Muslims are decent, honest folks who just want to go their own way, live their own lives, and not bother other people.

On the other hand, a disturbingly large number, somewhere around half, of Muslims think that suicide bombing is a justifiable act. And there is a very disquieting trend around the world where Muslims want to impose sharia law on their country. I see that as a totally unacceptable intrusion of religion into politics … but they see it as a religious duty imposed by the Koran.

What I object to is the idea that “all religions are the same”. They are not. Some preach love, some preach withdrawal from the world, some preach hatred. To pretend that Buddhism = Christianity = Zoroastrianism = Islam = Sufism = Sikhism = Hinduism is naive.

To take one example, Christ preached love and forgiveness, and urged his followers to do the same. Muhammad killed and enslaved his neighbors, and urged his followers to do the same. We need to approach that difference in a spirit of appreciative inquiry, we need to deal with that difference with tolerance and compassion … but to believe it doesn’t exist is PC hogwash.

Me, I think all religions are pernicious, dangerous nonsense, and that the problem is not religious intolerance, it’s the tolerance of religion … when I look at the number of people killed throughout history because of religion, it turns my stomach … but of course, YMMV.

w.

Since you’ve adressed the Quebec election, Valteron, I need to present another view of the results.

Accommodation of cultural/religious minorities is a very important issue that every Western society has to face, and I’m glad that we started doing it. On the other hand, I think we would have benefited from more seriousness in this debate. I know I don’t criticise Quebec very often here – that’s because several other people are willing to do it, and they’re being almost as nuanced in their criticism as you are about Islam, so it’s more worth my while defending us – but here I must admit being somewhat disappointed. As I said, the debate is a very important one to have, and I don’t want us to go to a purely “multicultural” model, as expressed here:

When you decide to live here, you certainly have to “integrate” (I don’t like the expression “assimilate”, it really implies the loss of all your culture). Of course people of different cultures will enrich us, but there are some values that are not negotiable. When you live here, you have to accept to live according to them. But on the other hand, if we want to be a country that takes pride in its tolerance and that will be good at integrating immigrants, we have to accept the fact that people will come here with different customs from ours, and that if these customs don’t threaten us, there really isn’t any basis in trying to ban them.

For example:

I think I know what you’re trying to say here. I’ve heard this argument extremely often, but it’s still fundamentally flawed. “If we were in their country, we wouldn’t be allowed to do such and such action, so why should they be allowed to do some other action when they’re here?” In this case, “women in Iran must wear a headscarf, they can’t dress the way they want, so why should we allow Muslim women living here to wear it?” Of course, this is completely flawed reasoning, for two reasons:
[ul]
[li]why should we, a liberal democratic country, treat people like they would be treated in a theocracy; and[/li][li]this reasoning implies that we still consider Muslim women to be, basically, other. They are not like us, their loyalties lie elsewhere. After all, we shouldn’t allow them to wear a headscarf since we wouldn’t be allowed to dress the way we want in their country. Despite the fact that their country is here now, so what Iran does is irrelevant.[/li][/ul]
If that’s not what you had in mind, I’m sorry, but it doesn’t change the fact that I’ve heard this more than once. “Why should they be allowed to do this, we couldn’t do this other thing in their country.” It’s basically telling people from other cultures that we won’t let them integrate, they’ll always be people from there and we’ll consider them as such. It’s counter-productive.

I’m also surprised (and disappointed) in how the debate over reasonable accommodations spread to private matters, that shouldn’t matter at all to any of this. Witness this sugar shack that received threats after allowing a group of Muslims to use their dance floor to pray. A private business is under no obligation to accommodate the religious needs of its customers (except for some exceptions, I believe, but I couldn’t name one right now), but if it chooses to, why would anyone feel the need to complain by threatening them? If there’s something the free market is good for, it’s to allow you to express which business practices you agree with and which you disagree with by choosing who you do business with. You’ll probably tell me that of course death threats are unacceptable, but when people are rightly concerned about the increasing threat posed by Muslim culture in our society, people will lash out against attempts to accommodate it and they can’t be blamed. I say it’s the role of our opinion leaders (media, politicians, etc.) to cool the debate, and it could have been done better.

Now that’s a short summary of the ADQ’s platform and of the reasons why it was so successful, let me tell you. Of course, you don’t mention that the ADQ didn’t only cater to people sick of reasonable accommodations, but also to the so-called lucides (i.e. neoliberals), to the vieux bleus and even to a certain créditiste mindset in some regions, and to the autonomists who want more autonomy for Quebec inside Canada without going as far as independence. You’ll also have to explain why they were swept out of Montreal Island, where I’m quite certain you’ll find most Muslims in Quebec, while they won seats in places where people have never seen any immigrant. Does increased distance from the threat make you more aware of it?

If someone said it was a victory for bigotry, they’d be wrong. (I’ve mostly heard about the election being a protest against the so-called “old parties”, and the result of a disconnect between the left-wing values of the Montreal elite and the moderate conservative values of a large part of the suburban and rural middle class.) But there’s no question that some bigots voted for the ADQ because they felt that the adéquistes would put these people in their place. Did you vote for the ADQ Valteron, and if so why?

Let me point out though that unlike some other people, Valteron doesn’t only condemn Islam among the world religions. I’ve seen many debates between him and tomndebb over Catholicism, usually with Valteron complaining that tomndebb is unfairly using his mighty mod stick against him. I have no doubt that Valteron doesn’t believe that Muslims or Catholics are fundamentally bad people, just that they belong to a fundamentally evil ideology that they will have to eventually drop, and become, I assume, atheists. In this sense I don’t think he’s necessarily an anti-Islam bigot, but rather a poster not unlike our other anti-religious debaters like Der Trihs or Kalhoun. I disagree with them, I believe that religion is not a fundamentally bad thing and that it can be made in a way that it’s a positive thing for the world. I also believe that even if you completely got rid of religion, people would still find just as many reasons to fight and to kill each other. But of course, this is a debate that we won’t ever solve here.

Ya think?

Anousheh Ansari :eek:

If you were sincere rather than sarcastic in your first comment, above, I would consider I had accomplished something with you, Bryan. Namely, I would have woken you up out of your knee-jerk politically correct naiveté that Islam is just another religion.

You would have realized that it is also a dangeous, authoritarian, theocratic philosophy of world domination that is getting more and more conservative and fundamentalist in almost all Muslims countries. This movement is increasingly sucessful from Indonesia to the Missle East to Africa, and is filling its followers with the belief that the west is a corrupt civilization whose democratic values are nothing but sinful abandon. Equality of the sexes and women in charge of men is seen as an affront to Allah. Gay rights is seen as filthy abomination being made “normal”. For Islamic fundamentalism, freedom of the Press, freedom of religion and separation of church and state are nothing but licence for blasphemy and unbelief.

So IF you were sincere, Bryan, we could go on to discuss other suggestions. There is no one simple solution. The west must defend itself on a whole range of issues. The law in France banning ALL religious displays in public schools is a good idea. So was Tony Blair’s declaration that a woman could not be a teacher relating to British schoolchildren if her face is covered with a veil.

As you can see from the posting, Bryan, we are still very far from even getting consensus that the west NEEDS to defend itself. One step at a time.

Bagistan, if anyone said that Sweden is "overrun by muslims " they would indeed be lying or seriously misinformed. To “overrun” means to cover generally. It would imply that Muslims had gained control over most of Sweden’s territory. Of course, nobody is saying this. Nobody sane at any rate.

Muslims are only 3% of the Swedish population at present, although the high Muslim birth rate and immigration continues to increase their numbers faster than the general Swedish population.

(As you may know, Sweden has a very low birth rate of 10.01 per 1000 population.) See this site for statistics. While I doubt if you have statistics on the birth rate of the Muslim population of Sweden, I am sure a sociological study of the Muslim community in places like Malmo would show it to be much higher than 10.01 per 1,000. Muslims in Europe often come from places like Turkey (18.65/1000), Algeria (23.14/1000) Bangladesh (25.44/1000) Egypt (25.38/1000) Indonesia (22.6/1000) Jordan (26.24/1000) and Lebanon (20.6/1000).

I have been unable to find specific statistics on the birth rates of Muslims minorities in western countries. If anyone can find that information I would be grateful.

But in the absence of statistics, it is doubtful whether tightly-knit Muslim communities in the west suddenly “westernize” their views of women and chldbearing an drop their birthrates down to that of Sweden or France as soon as they arrive in Europe.

France has one of the highest proposrtions for a western Democracy, with 10%.

Many of the posters on this board who are calling me a bigot and an alarmist are from the United States and Britain.It is interesting to note that Britain and the US have Muslim populations of 2.8% and 1.5%. Even so, British hospitals are having problems with Muslim visitors who refuse to use disinfecting hand lotions when they enter hospitals because they contain alcohol, and at least one airport in the US has problems with Muslim cab drivers who will not pick up passengers carrying wine from a duty-free store.

As long as we are talking about specifics, how about an ordinance or some ort of form that ALL taxi drivers must sign to get a cab licence that makes it clear that they while they have the right to refuse very drunk passengrs or say, sonone who is carrying a bomb, for example, they have no right to impose their religion on passengers. If three women at the airport want to take a cab and it is not one of those taxis that does not allow ANYONE in the front seat for security reasons, then you cannot refuse to let one of the women sit in front with you. If you cannot accept those rules, don’t drive a cab.

Many posters on this board keep demanding that I name specific measures as if they expect me to come up with some Hitleresque “final solution”.

There will be many different measures based on many different realities. But ultimately, they will be based on the west’s ability to overcome PC appeasement bullshit and a willingness for the west to stand up for itself.

(Bolding mine)

I don’t know if that’s a typo, but if it’s the case, what a typo! :smack: :stuck_out_tongue:

Of course, we could also interpret the fact that Muslims in many countries are currently radicalizing as a sign that Islam isn’t a fundamentally radical and violent religion, but rather one inside of which sociopolitical (non theological) winds are currently blowing in favour of a more fundamental interpretation of the text. But I doubt you will consider this possibility, which I believe would actually be more useful.

I’m sure you’ll find that Orthodox Jews have just as many restrictions imposed on them by their religion, but of course you don’t hear about the Jew threat anymore, and for good reason. As for the taxis, well, if the taxi driver is an independent entrepreneur, it’s a little hard to force them to accept customers they don’t want. Do you want to be the one telling businesses who they should be doing business with? (Of course, if the taxi driver is an employee, it’s a matter between him and his boss.)

English translation: “What forest? I don’t see any forest. All I see are a bunch of trees. You’re irrational.”

It is no bullshit that Stalin and Mao killed more than a hundred million people. Apparently you are entirely capable of simply denying any fact if it makes trouble for your moronic ideology of universal tolerance.

If your position is so much the correct one, what would it matter to you if someone were a bit sarcastic? Seems to me logic would win out.

You have used the term “knee-jerk political correctness” several times in this and the GD thread. Saying it does not make it so. There have been a number of reasoned objections to your somewhat extremist position. I’m sure you would very much like to characterise all such objections as “knee-jerk” and “politically correct” as it allows you to avoid debating your position on logical grounds, but no dice. If you want to be taken at all seriously, I suggest you stop using those terms where they do not apply.

As regards your claim that the main argument in oppostion to your views is that Islam is “just another religion”, well, that’s just more bullshit. In fact, the majority of posters have clearly acknowledged Islam’s tendency to mix the religious and political spheres. Arguing solely against positions only you have proposed is not a particularly convincing way to get your point across, I’m just sayin’.

The first sentence of the quote above is, quite simply, a blatant lie. Nearly everyone who has bothered to respond to your blather has made a point of acknowledging the threat from radical Islam. As you already know, where most people object is in the complete lack of any content in your posts, other than “Muslim bad”. When, if ever, are you going to show us the goods?

As for the second part, so this is what it comes down to: apparently everyone has to express unconditional agreement with every silly idea you have before you produce any actual content. Well, fuck that noise.

It is? Here in the US, we have half a century of civil rights laws and lawsuits that say otherwise. I thought the idea that a business could refuse to serve customers on racial, ethnic or religious grounds went out with Jim Crow.

Please examine this statement of yours with the rest of your posts in this thread and the other thread from which it spawned.

And, yet, you’re quite afraid of that quite small minority, as evidenced from the corpus of your posts on this subject.

Why is it doubtful? Because you want it to be?

And that is significant…why?

One would think the hospital staff could figure out the simple solution of disinfectant soap that does not have alcohol in it. At any rate, AFAIK it’s the drinking of alcohol that’s prohibited in Islam, not the use of adulterated alcohol that’s designed for cleaning.

All Muslim cab drivers there? Anyway, have you never heard “We reserve the right to refuse service?” If the taxi is a public employee, then he can’t deny service to someone going about their lawful business. If the driver’s part of a private enterprise, it’s on him or his employer to decide how they wish to operate within the law.

Wow. I read the news on that issue and I guess I just completely missed the part where the drivers were requiring their passengers to convert. Oh, speaking of “impose their religion on others,” would you care to explain why you’re not frothing at the mouth against Georgia in the United States? After all, one can’t buy beer there on Sundays.

It seems to me that you almost had an inkling there of where you’re headed. I don’t expect you to admit you wish for a “Hitleresque ‘final solution,’” but I do think that’s what you wish and I base that appraisal on the corpus of your posts on this issue.

p.s. Members of my faith were chased out of the United States at one time. I view comments such as yours in light of that simple fact. You’re espousing prejudice, and extreme prejudice at that. It’s quite sad that you’re ignorant of the US history and that you can’t see what you’re advocating here.

Dearborn ,Mich. is 40% Arab. Know whats happening. Some degree of Americanization. There was a time when honor killings were not uncommon. Now it is clear the American laws prevail. Sometimes we get silly arguments. Last year a muslim woman wanted to wear a veil for her drivers license picture. Since it is identification she was refused. Dearborn is a safe community We are not living in fear of getting blown up…

It is the pit - here lowering the tone is an achievement

Can’t you get your encephelated head around it ?
We have problems.

I’m stunned to hear a blanket defense of the right of private businesses to refuse to serve customers. I thought that went out when Strom Thurmond lost the filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Actually, what Valteron was talking about was taxis refusing service to customers carrying alcohol. I have no idea if that is or not legal in the UK. But if it is legal, I don’t really see on which grounds to make it illegal. (It can be considered to be “religious grounds”, since the taxi drivers do it because of a religious objection to alcohol, but since carrying alcohol isn’t a requirement for any religion I know, it doesn’t quite fit either.)

On edit: anybody else notice that “alcohol” is an Arabic loanword? :smiley:

Hijack

None of the online dictionaries has “Encephalate” or “encephalated”. It doesn’t seem to be a word. If it were, the roots suggest it means something like “stuck in a head”, so you seem to be saying “Can’t get your head that is stuck in your head around it?” This makes no sense. Possibly you wanted to say something like having his head stuck in the other end. A valiant try, but it falls short. Unless I’m missing something.
End of hijack.