Saturday, October 28, 2006

Still away, but plan to be posting soon

I'm currently in Brighton in England. I might get some photos later as it's really quite a good looking place in the right light. I've been in London all week and I shall be there again next week. Next week I will make time to blog.

I've had some interesting conversations last week including meeting a Christian in a bar. We had a quick chat about his belief in god and he seemed a little taken aback that I wouldn't take his belief seriously. We rushed back and forth across many of the classic arguments for and against (they are almost always the same argument anyway) and it got me thinking that I should probably write some of these arguments up and put them on the blog. So that's what I'll do, starting next week.

Until then :)

If you enjoyed this article please feel free to digg it down below.

Friday, October 20, 2006

More depth on Insulting Islam

My brother read my blog. He told me subsequently that I should start a new blog for everything I write that is serious to distance it from what I have on this blog that is quite frankly unequivocally insulting. He thinks that by confusing the two styles I am significantly undermining my objective of actually promoting awareness and concern of an essentially valid and serious issue. I have little doubt that absolutely every sane and reasonable person will think that he is absolutely right. I certainly understand his concern and I am even tempted to agree with him myself. But I don’t.

I have no desire, and in fact believe I would have no capability, to become a politician. I do see a similarity between politics and blogging when it comes to serious matters and I think I can learn a great deal from politicians that will help me in what it is I am trying to do. After all, politicians are often embroiled in controversy. They are supported by some, attacked by others and they must play a constant game of maintaining boundaries between different issues, their personal life and feelings, and the passions of the mob. Indeed, there must be much I can learn.

But should I emulate?

I am not a politician and I am not at the whim of their self imposed constraints. They pretend to be what they are not and we, the mob, simultaneously demand it and yet enthusiastically attack them when they turn out to be real people after all. It doesn’t actually matter if I offend someone. I am not looking for their vote. Neither is it in my interests to sanitise my comments to pander to the morality of those that may discover them. Why should I pretend that I am satisfied to say that I disapprove of Islam, or any other religion or opinion, when I am perfectly free to use the word "fuck"? Perhaps to maintain a level of mature debate?

But by whose definition of maturity are these constraints derived? What validity is there in imposing essentially irrelevant constraint? Does such constraint make a valid assertion more valid or an invalid assertion less valid? I fail to see a connection in the facts of the matter and instead I suggest that the connection is purely a prejudice in the mind of the reader who expects politics whenever anything serious is discussed. Politics, and politicians, are an expression of the unrealistic and irrational desire to create a reality of discussion and opinion that clearly doesn’t actually exist. Why else do we take such interest in exposing the contradiction between our political expectations and the actual lives of our politicians?

I believe that Islam, Christianity and in fact all religions, ideologies and ideas are not only open to insult and ridicule but in fact require it. The line that is drawn between acceptable criticism and unacceptable insult is so arbitrary as to be utterly meaningless. It is also a line that historically has been drawn by those with the most interest in protecting their otherwise vulnerable ideas.

There is a name for this line when it comes to religion. It is called blasphemy. Those that have, according to the opinion of others, crossed that line have traditionally paid an extremely high price. Often, they have and continue to pay with their lives.

"Behead those that insult Islam"

This is the statement of intent of an individual who has a very strong idea about where the line is drawn. It is a statement from someone that demands that absolutely everybody agree with him and that if they don’t then they should be murdered. By itself such a statement requires a new word to describe it. It is not just bigotry. It is bigotry with a genocidal lust. It is an insult beyond comparison to those that simply disagree. Why should I let this hypocrite draw my line for me? Why should I even acknowledge his line and try to tiptoe around it the best I can? I am not a politician after all. I have no interest in attempting to appear perfect and I am certainly not seeking this man’s vote.

But isn’t it just invalid to fling an insult when I could have voiced my disagreement with less offensive words? Of course not. The offence is not in the word I choose but in the opinion I express. The offence is not the language – it is the opposition. It is the fact that I oppose this mans world view. I oppose his beliefs. And if he wants to cut my head off for disagreeing with him then I see no reason to censor my opposition by restricting it to words my mother would be pleased for me to use. Fuck him. Is it not clear from those two words that I will not submit to politicking with this mans madness regardless of his threats?

Fuck is an extremely useful word within the English language. It has so many uses and meanings that it’s quite possibly the most versatile word that we have so far coined. And in each of those uses there is an intensity of expression. It is as though we can condense an entire diatribe into one singular word.

Fuck Islam.

Is there anybody that doesn’t know what I mean when I say that? Do I mean it also to simultaneously convey all of my reasoning? Certainly not. But it certainly does convey my opposition and its strength. It clearly states that I am opposed and it does it in a way that cannot be side stepped, re-politicked or down played. It is a very committed statement; both forcefully clear and economically concise. And further more, it demonstrates what fanatical (scripturally literalist) Muslims need to know. The attempt to clamp freedom of speech will be resisted. The requirement that all others agree and adopt the same beliefs will be denied. There are those that have absolutely no respect, none at all, for how seriously you take the myths of your sky faerie and who object to being required to pretend they respect it at all.

I am one of those people. I do not respect religious faith at all. I will not pretend to respect faith any more than I would pretend to respect the intentions of someone who wants to rape my daughter (or anybodies daughter for that matter).

If it is labelled as hate speech then so be it. I call it free speech and the day when it is accepted as such can only come faster if more people stop pretending to be the fantasy ideal of a politician and start speaking openly and frankly about what they consider important. In other words, I think it benefits all of us if extreme line drawers get used to having their lines extremely crossed.

So I will not separate serious from insulting. The difference is entirely arbitrary and solely in the mind of the reader. I am not writing to please or offend. I am writing what I think and what I feel.

Fuck Islam. Fuck Christianity. Fuck Judaism, Fuck Hinduism - the list goes on and on.

Fuck Communism. Fuck racism. Fuck sexism – on and on and on.

The rest of this blog will cover some of the reasons why I choose one of the English languages most versatile words as a summary for everything I have learned. But "fuck" will stay and if you don’t like it or can’t accept that serious issues can be expressed with what is so irrationally categorized "foul language", then I hope I make myself clear when I invite you to fuck off.

Or should I translate that into language that means the same but conforms to your prejudice against certain words?

If you enjoyed this article please feel free to digg it down below.

Thursday, October 19, 2006

Musical Interlude

This one is dedicated to BDE :)



Hat tip: Marc at USS Neverdock

If you enjoyed this article please feel free to digg it down below.

Friday, October 13, 2006

Answering Terrorism News

I have recently been involved in discussion with some members of a blog called Terrorism News. These bloggers were not content to discuss the topic, which was the persecution of Muslims in the UK, beyond a very limited scope which basically amounted to agreeing with their dubious primary assumption that criticism of Muslim attitudes to integration is certainly persecution. They were so unwilling to discuss that they rapidly decided to take censorship actions and delete comments I had made on the grounds that it was hate speech.

This post is an answer to Terrorism News and specifically one of their posters Jez. The reason I am posting it as an article as opposed to simply in comments is that I consider this is a common and worthwhile example of the double standard that is presented by those that market themselves as educated, informed, supporters of liberalism and freedom. I leave you to decide the rights and wrongs of both sides. I will post the entire comments thread, uncensored, that resulted from their article "Incitement to hatred" beneath my response.



My Answer to Jez of Terrorism News

I have not read all of your blog and so I am not aware of every past post that has been made there or the complete scope of your opinions. I am aware from the limited exposure I have had that you have reached the conclusion that the west is responsible for Muslim terrorism which is a conclusion disputed by the Jihadis themselves. It is an assumption that is firmly trounced by an in-depth investigation of the facts but sadly you will never know this as an in-depth investigation of the facts is considered as hate speech by you and your colleagues. This is of course highly hypocritical. Let’s look at your rules

(3) ALL hate speech will be deleted regardless of who it is aimed at. If you think all Christians, Jews, Muslims, Arabs, Americans etc are all evil, twisted or whatever is in your mind then you are perfectly entitled to your view. But your view is not welcome here and your message will be deleted.


This was the justification given for deleting my comments in which I at no time made a generalisation about all Muslims but did insist, as can be supported by an investigation, that Islam does contain commands for war until all infidels are either killed or subjugated. That is a fact. So for discussing fact, which I am more than willing to do in great depth with detailed investigation of Quranic verse, ahadith and history, I was deleted under the guise of your hate speech rule.

The very first comment on the same comment thread reads:

too bad that they don't turn their eyes on fanatical christianity. that seems to be a problem for us here in the states. everywhere you turn- there are fundamentalist christians trying to ram abstinence, pro life, intelligent design and public prayers down we secularist's throats. the muslims in our country aren't doing that. it is the christians here trying to force a theocracy upon the masses. - Posted by betmo


Not one reference to supporting evidence for this generalisation against Christians was given. Not one request for evidence was made. It was not deleted as hate speech.

The second comment on the thread reads:

Finally!

Ethnocentric behavior abounds everywhere, as we all flex our hatred toward our neighbors.

It is only a disguise, lest others see the problems we have in our own homes, our own towns, countrysides, nations.

How can we expect anything less than hatred for Muslims? After all, our native cultures here in the US are, for the greater share, in jail, strung out on drugs, or beating each other to a pulp. Our Jews are buying up banks and turning people out of their homes. Our Germans are shaving their heads and carving on themselves. Our Irish are getting drunk and throwing up on our shoes. Our Italians are cheating on their taxes and selling their daughters to the pope.

Muslims are our next Billie Goat. Let's rush across the bridge, then, claim the Muslims are much bigger and therefore, a better meal.

Feed the Troll, I say!

ann

It's a plan that might work. - Posted by annklein


Not one reference to supporting evidence for these generalisations against Native Americans, Jews, Germans, Irish, or Italians was given. Not one request for evidence was made. It was not deleted as hate speech.

My comments, which are included in the copy of the thread below this reply, were labelled as hate speech. I provided references. I was labelled as a bigot (one intolerant of opinions different to their own).

I was then deleted.



Uncensored copy of the original discussion thread

too bad that they don't turn their eyes on fanatical christianity. that seems to be a problem for us here in the states. everywhere you turn- there are fundamentalist christians trying to ram abstinence, pro life, intelligent design and public prayers down we secularist's throats. the muslims in our country aren't doing that. it is the christians here trying to force a theocracy upon the masses.
betmo | Homepage | 10.09.06 - 9:23 pm | #

The west, especially the USA is dangerous. Nationalistic saber rattling and out right terrorism is not just a muslim problem.

Onanite
Onanite | Homepage | 10.09.06 - 9:55 pm | #

Finally!

Ethnocentric behavior abounds everywhere, as we all flex our hatred toward our neighbors.

It is only a disguise, lest others see the problems we have in our own homes, our own towns, countrysides, nations.

How can we expect anything less than hatred for Muslims? After all, our native cultures here in the US are, for the greater share, in jail, strung out on drugs, or beating each other to a pulp. Our Jews are buying up banks and turning people out of their homes. Our Germans are shaving their heads and carving on themselves. Our Irish are getting drunk and throwing up on our shoes. Our Italians are cheating on their taxes and selling their daughters to the pope.

Muslims are our next Billie Goat. Let's rush across the bridge, then, claim the Muslims are much bigger and therefore, a better meal.

Feed the Troll, I say!

ann

It's a plan that might work.
annklein | Homepage | 10.11.06 - 5:57 am | #

"War on multiculturalism"? How come this is so one sided? Isn't it a war on multiculturalism that bibles aren't allowed in Saudi? How about when police raid a UK house because the owner has some pig ornaments in her window? Is that multiculturalism?

I think you fail to understand that war was declared 1400 years ago and that it never actually stopped. No, not all Muslims are violent Jihadi psychopaths but it's ridiclous to presume that they all are not. The ominous climate you speak of was created 1400 years ago and since then it has waxed and wained. There are plenty of historical records of this and they all start from the Qur'an which does describe Jihad as the duty of all Muslims and as a permanent war against infidels until all are killed or subjugated. The terrorists are not extremists, they are fundamentalists.

One cannot be racist against a religion, only against a race. By your reasoning if I disagree for example with the historically common and still occuring practice in China and India of female infanticide then I am racist against the Chinese and the Indians when in actual fact I am ideologically opposed to the murder of innocents.

How about the cartoon riots? Where Muslims the victims then? How about when the Pope used that quote and a nun gets gunned down in a childrens hospital? Who's the victim there?

It is possible to be against racism and still object to an ideology. If you don't see that as possible then I'd suggest you do a little more research about exactly what it is that those of us indulging in "aggressive racist discourse" are talking about and try to justify the facts we discuss with your own views. Or is it mutliculturalism to keep silent when women are stoned to death for the crime of being raped, or apostates are killed, or young girls killed for offending familiy honour, or husbands have the legal right to beat their wives whilst the wife isn't even allowed to go outside her house without a male member of the family?

I support gender equality, gay equality, race equality and individual freedom. I find it hard to see how that makes me a racist because are those reasons why I am opposed to Islam and why I think that multiculturalism should not be used as a blinker to blind us from our moral obligations to an individual for fear of their own, their families or somebody else's faith.

"Europe cannot afford to recreate the horrors of its not so distant past. It is time for those who believe in a tolerant Britain to come together in a broad coalition reflective of society's diversity. The political mercenaries and voices of hatred and bigotry cannot be allowed to dictate Britain's fate."

And what should these people do when they come together? Should they just ignore the violation of what they claim to be their core beliefs by ignoring all wrongs that are commited by Muslims?

Incidentally, if you undertake some honest research you will see that the western media have actually shown
chooseDoubt | Homepage | 10.11.06 - 4:13 pm | #

Continued ...

ncidentally, if you undertake some honest research you will see that the western media have actually shown considerable bias in favour of Muslims instead of painting them as objects of fear. Check out the following link as a starting point:

Biased BBC

Both carry years of stories about media bias, especially in relationship to reporting Muslim terrorism. You amy also find this interesting.

And as a final note, if you still think that those that are justifiably concerned by the militant Islams's latest revival are the racists then please also feel free to check out this and be sure to follow the link and read the Hamas covenant.

I haven't read the rest of your blog so I will reserve judgement, but inthis article I believe you are completely missing the point. You talk about the ominous climate and leap to the unfounded assumption that Muslims are being exploited and are that their anger is our fault. What percentage of the problems they face are self imposed through refusal to integrate and refusal to adapt to the laws of their host countries?
chooseDoubt | Homepage | 10.11.06 - 4:15 pm | #

"One cannot be racist against a religion, only against a race. "

If you wish to be pedantic, I would point out that racism in fact doesn't exist, since according to science all human belong to the same 'race'.

As for the xenophobic idea, that the war began 1400 years ago, well...that's simply ignoring 1400 years of history, including the very recent european colonial history.

As I wrote elsewhere, the muslims of Europe are not the muslims of the muslim world. Furhermore, the muslim world is vast and its inhabitants as well. Finally, the leaders of the muslim world do not represent the citizens of their countries any more than pour leaders do. The war in Irak was not the will of British or American citizens. Most muslim nations are defined by the west as dictatorships. In that case, how can we identify muslim citizens with the actions of their leaders?
Jez | Homepage | 10.11.06 - 6:23 pm | #

chooseDoubt

How come this is so one sided? Isn't it a war on multiculturalism that bibles aren't allowed in Saudi?

Sheez talk about warping facts. How do you assume the half a million catholics, the thousands of Jews, Christians and atheists manage to survive. The Saudi Government has stated publicly to the U.N. Committee on Human Rights in Geneva, that its policy is to protect the right of non-Muslims to worship. They may not be fully compliant with the above statement but the perspective you hold certainly has xenophobic undertones.

Show me a non christian US president (or British PM) explain to me the difference in the death threats made by extremist Muslims in regard to the cartoons and the death threats made by Bill Oreilly against the Iranians or the reaction of extremist Christians in the UK and India against Jerry springer the opera or the davinci code. Tens of thousands of Jews live and worship peacefully in Iran without any prejudice ( as they did in Iraq) but palestinians are not allowed to live peacefully inside their 1967 UN defined borders or to vote for whomever they wish without the world punishing them for their freedom ? The judgment is fine if such judgment is universal but it 'appears' that it is not

By your reasoning if I disagree for example with the historically common and still occuring practice in China and India of female infanticide then I am racist against the Chinese and the Indians when in actual fact I am ideologically opposed to the murder of innocents

Not at all .. I too disagree with such practises. The question I would ask is in what degree do you hold everyone to the same standards ? I can only assume that you are equally ideologically apposed to the murder of tens of thousands of innocents by US and British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. If the word 'collateral' damage suddenly enters you mind then I would feel your hypocrisy had been exposed. The murder of innocent Palestinians and Lebanese by Israel would also clearly be something that you are ideologically apposed too .

How about the cartoon riots? Where Muslims the victims then?

absolutely .. freedom of speech is not freedom for sacrilege.. Should I be allowed to draw swastikas all over the nearest synagogue.. is that freedom ? .. what about catholic paedophiles ... what about US imperialism .. what about western state sponsored terrorism. are your ideological concerns fair and balanced or does the judgement stick only work one way ?

then I'd suggest you do a little more research

Why is it that people that hold beliefs such as yours always seem so narcissistic .. Does it come with the ideology or something .. I request that you refrain from making asinine assumptions as to mine (or anyone's ) knowledge and stick to attempting to make your case.

_H_ | 10.11.06 - 7:57 pm | #

cont...

Or is it multiculturalism to keep silent when women are stoned to death for the crime of being raped,

hmmm now I can not remember the last British Muslim to be stoned to death .. do remind me ? Or should I equally bizarrely include Abu Graab as an example of US attempts at Middle eastern multiculturalism.

Do you really concern yourself with the method of murder and not the act ? why is the barbaric use of the death penalty in the US any better then any other form of murder. Why is justice something that only applies to us. Surely you would disapprove of the murder of 'accused' terrorists' unless they have been tried in a court of law. Or is our word expected to be good enough for murder but their word is open to doubt ?

I support gender equality, gay equality, race equality and individual freedom.

But not freedom of religion it seems. you have every right to choose your prejudice and I have every right to dislike such a narrow minded ideology. I would advise you to read our comment rules very carefully. You have every right to think what you like .. you have every right to throw together one billion people who have many differences in beliefs and culture in to one group called 'Muslims' I would see such thinking as Neanderthal but that of course is my right.

if you undertake some honest research you will see that the western media have actually shown considerable bias in favour of Muslims

Please spare me the pathetic links , The BBC is considered biased by both political parties in the uk but ironically they both think that the BBC is biased against them. In my opinion that means they are doing a fantastic job. Using the words 'honest research' and 'biased BBC' in the same sentence makes me wonder if I should take anything you say seriously.All news platforms are biased but let us look at the extremes to find the correct place. Fox news is Biased , Al-jazeerra is biased . The BBC sits fairly between the two. When fox news is taken off the air for racist extreme right wing propaganda then I might take a second look at the BBC . Until then I would recommend we look at reducing the scope of extremists within the media and that would clearly not start with the BBC.

What percentage of the problems they face are self imposed through refusal to integrate and refusal to adapt to the laws of their host countries?

about the same as the host countries who refuse to adapt and adjust to the fact that they are multicultural societies , I am not a nationalist , I will fight against nationalism and the dangers of taking the hatred shown by right wing nationalists such as Hitler against Jews and applying such pseudo logic to Muslims. Compliance with national laws should not be confused with becoming just like us . The Muslims that I know , work , pay taxes , comply with the law , vote ,gain education just the same as everyone else.


_H_ | 10.11.06 - 7:58 pm | #

cont...

If they are part of society and they contribute to society then the question should be what can we do to understand them.

Society goes through many changes as it evolves. Women now rightly have the vote , Black people are correctly no longer segregated from society and they didn't need to change their skin colour or their feminist makeup to take part.

I am White / British /English / European but more importantly I am a resident of this planet and I am more interested in how I can accommodate others than I am in forcing others to adjust to me. The United Kingdom has constantly evolved from the times of boadicea. The influx of migrants in to this country has made us one of the most diverse and multicultural places on earth. I commend that process and hope that we continue to show tolerance and understanding and remain cautious of every stereotypical barrier that is put in our way.. whether that be by defending the rights of women/gays / blacks ' Christians / atheists or this current trend of discrimination which is targeted at Muslims.
_H_ | 10.11.06 - 7:58 pm | #

I’ll answer the rest when I have more time, but for now…

"Sheez talk about warping facts. How do you assume the half a million catholics, the thousands of Jews, Christians and atheists manage to survive. The Saudi Government has stated publicly to the U.N. Committee on Human Rights in Geneva, that its policy is to protect the right of non-Muslims to worship. They may not be fully compliant with the above statement but the perspective you hold certainly has xenophobic undertones."

I don’t want to come off mean here but you don’t seem particularly well informed about the facts that you have claimed I warped. It remains illegal, despite a statement by the Government, to possess a bible. The statement was not reflected by any change in law. Citizenship is Muslim only – by law. Even the Shi’a Muslims are powerfully discriminated against, including restrictions on their building of Mosques – that’s right, religious freedom is also constrained for non Sunni-Muslims. Non-Muslims remain victim to raids on their homes by the Mutawwa’in because even thought the Saudi Government have made statements about religious freedom these statements have never been translated into changes in the law.

I highly recommend the report from the US Department of State on Religious Freedom in Saudi Arabia published in September 2006. Maybe you‘ll be paranoid and think that you can’t trust the source, but I guarantee you that you will be able to confirm virtually everything in there and discover more in various independent humanitarian reports.

Here’s the URL for the report:

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/i.../2006/ 71431.htm


I’ll come back to this and answer all your other questions. But this is going to take some time that I don’t have right now.
Anonymous | Homepage | 10.11.06 - 11:28 pm | #

Jez,

I believe you are confusing race with species.

As for the war beginning 1400 years ago it is not a xenophobic idea even if it is a xenophobic fact. And it is a fact. Muhammad’s own words define war as a permanent duty within Islam until Islam dominates the world and kills or subjugates all non-Muslims. Muslims of course believe those to be Gods words – not Muhammad’s. Islam divides the world into Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. The first is the house of Islam (Muslims) and the second is the house of war (non-Muslims). The Qur’an commands that the whole world be under Islamic rule.

But if the evidence of the Qur’an itself on Muslim matters is not consider to come from a trustworthy source by you then we have the ahadith. Yet since some people for a very strange reason, usually just after they have learned about the principle of abrogation or because they are just entirely ignorant of the religion, choose not to allow the foundational texts of the religion of Islam as evidence we can still turn to the history. Look at the local cultures around the birth of Islam that were converted by the sword during and shortly after Muhammad’s life. Take a look at Persia, Spain. Take a look at the treatment of the Jews and other non-Muslims. Read the facts. Then trace those lines forward to today and tell me at exactly what point during that time did Islam change and become peaceful so that this idea of 1400 year old war can be disproved?

You will of course come back and say about how many military conflicts the west has been involved in all that time and our own colonial past but the point is not what we have done it is what we have ceased to do. We have ceased to do some pretty important things. We have ceased to have dictatorships, regardless of how corrupt you may think current leaders are. We have developed human rights, even if sometimes they are infringed. We are close to true equality of the genders. We have freedom of speech and freedom of thought. We have equality in some of Europe now for homosexuals. We have freedom of religion. We even have welfare states that pay for people form other countries to move to ours and live in ours because we have developed wide spread societal sympathy. Is there a single majority Muslim nation on the planet with anything like that? The answer is no. It’s not even maybe. It’s just pure no!

So unless you agree with the oppression of 800 million women, thought police, gay death squads, execution of rape victims, execution of apostates, beating wives, stoning, limb amputations as punishment, honour killings, child bride trafficking, and the brutal torture of animals due to the requirement for halal meat products then I find it hard to understand why you don’t spend more time reading about the facts and less time arguing against them. Don’t argue with me, it’s a waste of your time. Pick up some history books. Hit blogs you disagree with and follow up the background in encyclopaedias and NGO reports, and
Anonymous | Homepage | 10.11.06 - 11:56 pm | #

continued ...

Hit blogs you disagree with and follow up the background in encyclopaedias and NGO reports, and government reports and whatever other information source you can find. Read the Qur’an, read ahadith. Definitely read the Hamas covenant and as much as you can find from Ayatollahs and Islamic leaders. Then come back and tell me why a 1400 year war is a xenophobic idea and not simply a historical fact traceable directly to the Qur’an and Muhammad.Hit blogs you disagree with and follow up the background in encyclopaedias and NGO reports, and government reports and whatever other information source you can find. Read the Qur’an, read ahadith. Definitely read the Hamas covenant and as much as you can find from Ayatollahs and Islamic leaders. Then come back and tell me why a 1400 year war is a xenophobic idea and not simply a historical fact traceable directly to the Qur’an and Muhammad.
chooseDoubt | Homepage | 10.11.06 - 11:57 pm | #

Choosedoubt

I don’t want to come off mean here but you don’t seem particularly well informed about the facts

I can assure you that you are simply coming across as a bigot. It is illegal for anyone to be found in a public place in the United Kingdom without having any money on them. The crime is vagrancy and the sentence is severe.... your point ? in the context of Muslims who live in the UK is ?

People of many different religions live in Saudi Arabia and have done so for centuries. This article is not about Saudi Arabia. It is about the persecution of British Muslims. I will give you a chance to find your way back on topic and apply yourself to the comment rules. If you persist in your xenophobic rant then I will simply delete your hard work.

Discrimination is a huge and worthy debate. It exists in all countries and within all faiths. Once the United states or the UK has delivered an atheist(or even non christian) leader then I could consider the idea of judging others as being less or more tolerant then ourselves.

I don't see Muslims launching cruise missiles in to populated areas . I don't see Muslim clerics molesting young children... We could debate for weeks on the morality of western society in comparison to a Muslim society. But you fail to notice that your obsession and your narcissism is preventing you from remaining on the topic of this article.

Even the Shi’a Muslims are powerfully discriminated....

I have worked in Saudi and right across the middle east.. please cease making foolish remarks by assuming that you alone have access to facts. You are living right on the borderline of courtesy ,decency and respect. Ironic considering that these are things you are desperate to attack others for but somehow you fail to notice the ignorance of such aspects within your own comments.

I am aware of the political landscape of the middle east. We can all pick and choose which points to highlight... How about the Jews in the Iranian parliament ? How about the Kurds who lived happily in Baghdad during the time of Saddam ?

Why I wonder are you selecting Saudi Arabia as a model and not for example Israel.

Israel has no constitution, No Bill of Rights, No guarantees of free speech, No freedom of assembly and questionable due process in law. It is legally defined as a 'Jewish nation' with special privileges for 'Jews'. Anyone who wishes to argue that the Israel should be a nation with equal rights for all, and not a 'Jewish nation' are not allowed to hold office, or even run for election. It is impossible to acquire land or property in most areas unless you are Jewish, They torture ,use subversion and allow the detainment of suspects without trial. It also developed nuclear weapons behind the back of the world and refuses to even sign the NPT... So why not Israel ?

_H_ | 10.12.06 - 1:21 am | #

Cont..

Why not the United states ? they have an appalling human rights record, have broken the UN charter , the Geneva conventions and the Kellogg-Briand Pact. They torture, they invade sovereign nations and they have the largest known budget for terrorist activities (the CIA) on the planet.

What makes you so high and mighty ? Apart from your misplaced ego that is.

As for your source , your correct , I would not trust anything that came out of the US Department of State... Sorry , just a sign of the times. The US government has ceased to represent a source that can be trusted. I never used too feel that way.

Don’t argue with me, it’s a waste of your time.

That much is clear though I am sure we would disagree on the reason. I tend to ignore off topic, xenophobic and narcissistic comments (I have simply read so many , usually from right wing Americans... ) and you have somehow decided that you do not have to apply to the site rules like every other reader and can instead dribble away about your opinions on Saudi Arabia.

This will be a single polite warning.

(1)Cease advising others on what ever your brain assumes others should do/read/learn unless you wish to (a) look foolish and (b) have your comments removed. You have not met Jez or myself and have no idea what we have read, where we have been and what experience that we have. At this moment in time I am simply viewing you as an arrogant , ill informed example of many that come here wishing to debate their particular brand of obsessive compulsive disorder... yours appears to be straight out of the Michelle Malkin text books and that certainly is not a compliment.

(2) Read the comment rules and apply them. If you can swiftly find your way to the topic of why the The political mercenaries and voices of hatred and bigotry cannot be allowed to dictate Britain's fate. then you have a reasonable chance of not being either ignored or deleted.

(3)Finally . please see my above questions as rhetorical (I have no interest in your off topic rambles , that's what your own site is for) I am interested in your ability to show respect and courtesy to the site rules. If any of us ever post on the subject of Saudi Arabian politics and/or human rights then I am sure that you thoughts will be most welcome.

I look forward to you finding your way back to the subject at hand.

We are not unfamiliar with the rhetorical ramblings of those that would rather change the subject than deal with the topics we post. You have already taken the liberty of turning an article about the treatment of British Muslims into a rather weak sermon about your views on Saudi Arabia and hence Muslims in general. Now of course if you are a Muslim scholar then do let us know , until then check the archives for complete debates regarding pathetic attacks on the Quran and most other major religious texts.

I have zero tolerance of such ignorance.
_H_ | 10.12.06 - 1:22 am | #

PS Muhammad’s own words define war as a permanent duty.... within Islam until Islam dominates the world and kills or subjugates all non-Muslims

"There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in GOD has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. GOD is Hearer, Omniscient.". [2:256]

If they seek peace, then seek you peace. And trust in God for He is the One that heareth and knoweth all things. [8:61]

Hold to forgiveness, command what is right; but turn away from the ignorant." [7:199]

"And the servants of Allah . . . are those who walked on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say 'Peace'" [25:63]

I am no Muslim and I can easily find examples that show how Muhammad spoke of peace and understanding of other faiths.... I have also read many quotes from the quran that when taken out of context attempt to present a religion of hate.. We can do that with any religous text and I will not permit such attacks against Muslims or any other religion. As a fully signed up atheist I care little for debates on 'faith' but I care a great deal that people show respect for the worlds different religions.

Debating selective parts from the quran is pointless ,ignorant and lacking in respect for the worlds one billion Muslims. I have no doubt that your above ramblings can clearly be defined as hate speech and it currently remains out of the (misplaced) hope that your will retract your attack against a billion people and show some respect to them.

I doubt that you will and there is a fair chance that my fellow moderator will judge your comments as being hate speech and will simply remove them.

If he does not .. be assured that you are wasting your time here.. you will not find any tolerance for your views and I would suggest that you do not type in anything that you do not expect to lose....




_H_ | 10.12.06 - 2:07 am | #

I don't think I am confusing the two

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?c...124344&set_id=1

Indeed, race exists in the mind and therefore so does racism. Since race, and therefore racism are conceptions rather than scientific facts, it is possible to be racist against a muslim, given, that in most people's minds muslim=foreigner.

Thanks H for pointing out the topic of this thread, ie. discrimination in Britain (and Europe).
European colonisation of arab and muslim lands ended less than half a century ago. European colonial powers were states which continue to exist today and continue to reap the benefits of colonisation, cheiefly cheap labour among immigrants from the ex-colonies.
Islam is not a nation, not a state. Islam doesn't have one spiritual leader, as catholicism does. What Muhammad may or may not have said or done does not define muslims today throughout the world. It certainly does not define the majority of muslims living in Europe. People of all religions pick and choose what interests them in their religion, and mostly live according to the traditions of their countries. One example: elements of the Hajj, or pilgrimage to Mecca find their origins in pre-Islamic Arabia.
You may not be consciously aware of the xenophobic undertones of your message, which is why I have not called you a racist. Your message, however, comes accross as xenophobic, since it shows an attempt to generalise and to paint all muslims with the same brush.
The problem is, this seems to be the new xenophobia in Europe. In France, many left-wing, secular, humanist intellectuals turn to xenophobia, because Islam is portrayed by the leading classes as the threat to western civilisation, forgetting their more accurate struggle against all religions, in particular dogma and fundamentalism.
Jez | Homepage | 10.12.06 - 9:52 am | #

_H_,

Since it appears likely that you will terminate this discussion by deleting my comments I have decided to publish my reply here.

If you decide to respond to that posting please rest assured that none of your comments will ever be deleted. I do not make it a requirement that vistors post only comments that agree with my own.
Anonymous | Homepage | 10.12.06 - 12:05 pm | #

Jez,

One cannot be racist against an ideology regardless of whether or not race has any taxonomic validity since racism refers to discrimination on the grounds of race and race itself, regardless of taxonomic validity, is based on a selective set of physical attributes such as skin colour and also largely derived from custom towards these supposed attributes.

“European colonisation of arab and muslim lands ended less than half a century ago.”

And when did Islamic colonisation end?

“What Muhammad may or may not have said or done does not define muslims today throughout the world.”

Please make that statement to a Muslim and you might as well join in with their laughter so that they are laughing with you instead of just at you.

“It certainly does not define the majority of muslims living in Europe. People of all religions pick and choose what interests them in their religion, and mostly live according to the traditions of their countries.”

There are variations and a great deal of conflict due to those variations. The whole point about Islam however is that one must not pick and choose. It is an all or nothing religion encompassing every aspect of life, government, law and faith.

“You may not be consciously aware of the xenophobic undertones of your message, which is why I have not called you a racist. Your message, however, comes accross as xenophobic, since it shows an attempt to generalise and to paint all muslims with the same brush.”
chooseDoubt | Homepage | 10.12.06 - 1:09 pm | #

continued ...

Perhaps that is because the facts are ugly, but they are the facts – independently verifiable from many thousands of sources including straight from the mouths and documents of Islamic scholars, Islamic leaders and a great many Muslims who equally oppose the fundamentalist resurgence. The old adage about shooting the messenger comes to mind. Having spent a large proportion of my life living in countries across three continents then it’s been hard to be xenophobic since I am usually the foreigner and I have certainly never in my life been racist. There is nothing xenophobic in open analysis and criticism of any ideology, regardless of its origin or whether I share any ethnic connection to that origin or not. I am certain that you would not object to me criticizing fundamentalist Christianity despite the fact that I am not now nor have I ever been a Jew.

“The problem is, this seems to be the new xenophobia in Europe. In France, many left-wing, secular, humanist intellectuals turn to xenophobia, because Islam is portrayed by the leading classes as the threat to western civilisation, forgetting their more accurate struggle against all religions, in particular dogma and fundamentalism.”

The issue I have with this is that you have not demonstrated that Islam is not a threat to western civilization whilst many have demonstrated a reason to at least investigate whether or not it is, including Islamic scholars. I am extremely open to changing my opinion but such a modification must be based on evidence and not wishful thinking. I have spent four years investigating this topic and my opinion has formed as a result of that investigation. This investigation has included reading the Qur’an and ahadith, studying history from multiple sources, studying current trends, events and politics and direct face to face conversation with Muslims ranging from those that have directly spoken of wanting to cut my head off to those that didn’t even have a clue that the Qur’an said such things. These conversations have taken place everywhere from London to Kashmir. This by no means makes me an authority on any of the issues but it has given me a great deal of reason to desire evidence that Islam is not a rising threat against global individual liberty and security because there is a great deal of evidence that it is.

If you care about such topics as women’s rights, gay rights, religious freedom, democracy and a vast array of brutality neatly packaged within the application of Sharia law then you might want to question your assumption that Islam is not a threat to other values that you hold dear. I have found nothing in four years of looking that suggests that Islam is ready to reform. The spread of Islam without reform does mean the end of certain key human rights that I have no doubt you and I both support.
chooseDoubt | Homepage | 10.12.06 - 1:10 pm | #

Since it appears likely that you will terminate this discussion by deleting my comments

I wont delete it but you are correct I am terminating it.

I do not make it a requirement that vis[i]tors post only comments that agree with my own ....

Evidence is available that shows hundreds of comments from people who hold different views to ourselves on this site. If you wish to believe that the reason I have no interest in your comments is due to it being different than mine then so be it. Evidence is in abundance that shows you to be incorrect. You may wish to wonder why others who strongly disagree with us are allowed through and you are being closed out.... I will give you a clue ....Read again your comment that said.....

Muhammad’s own words define war as a permanent duty within Islam until Islam dominates the world and kills or subjugates all non-Muslims.

Pure and simply bigotry(clearly and disrespectfully breaking rule 3 of our comment rules). Hate speech is never allowed on this site. I really do not care whether you have spent 4 Min's or 4 years developing such hatred. I will not allow it on this site. I do not doubt that a current member of the Klu Klux Klan would equally attempt to argue that his point was accurate and valid.He would also be happy to present his twisted 'evidence' in attempt to prove himself correct. That does not mean that we would allow such a person here. If you really believe the stuff you type then I wish you sympathy. The very tiny minority of extremist Muslims are a danger I agree. Call them Islamofascists if you wish. But they are not even in the same league of danger that is posed to us all by the Neofascists or Neocon extremists who have the worlds most powerful military and have already slaughtered far more innocents than any terrorist could dream about.

The site rules will be respected. If you can learn and apply the comment rules then you are welcome. That means stay on topic and no attacks against any entire faith . That is our rule . It applies to all faiths and the people of all nations. It takes very little intelligence to show how many people such as yourself and the extremists can misinterpret the Quran. It is easy to present examples of how the ignorant can attempt to change the reality of a few extremists in to a question of the entire faith of one billion peaceful people. Just take a look at yourself for starters.

_H_ | 10.12.06 - 4:11 pm | #

cont...

With respect your opinion really is of little importance to me. You are an extremist and peace and security will be found by open dialogue with the moderates. The very tiny percent that mainly 'seems' to stem from right wing American thinking, are not open to changing their minds. They will make asinine claims that we are pro terrorist or anti Jewish or even that we are Muslims. Such Naivety is as pathetic as it is slanderous.

You have every right hold whatever 'opinions' you so wish. I am sure you would find a happy home at sites like LGF. If you wish to comment here then you apply the rules like everyone else. That includes the fact that we do not discuss site policy in comment threads. If you(or anyone) wishes to discuss site policy then you are welcome to email the site.
_H_ | 10.12.06 - 4:12 pm | #

Hm. Looks like I need to drop the hammer down on this thread.

Choosedoubt, if you have anything to say that has not already been said, do so. If you would like to disrupt the site be repeating the same old crap over and over, do not be surprised when I apply comment policy number 6.

Thus far I have avoided having to do anything more than skim your stereotypical rehashing of anti-Muslim sentiment. If I see more, then I will be forced to read through your dribble. If I am forced to read through your dribble, I will get cranky. If I get cranky, I become increasingly more likely to apply the comment rules. So, if you don't like wasting your time by typing into the air, I suggest you take a hard look at what you are going to post before you do and make sure it doesn't violate policy.
DJEB | Homepage | 10.12.06 - 4:43 pm | #

_H_,

The definition of what I say as hatred is purely due to your distaste of a significantly differing opinion and that fact that I am not shy of telling you up front that you are makning massive assumption. The classification has absolutely nothing to do with the facts. Don't label it hate speech and think you've achieved something because you haven't. You can't just classify it as hate speech without rationalising that explanation and supporting it with facts. I'm perfectly willing to do that for any assertion I have made. It's called debate.

I am perfectly willing to learn from you and adjust my opinion but for that to happen you must provide reason - not just kneejerk classifications and brush-offs to assertions you have not adequately disputed. So I'm asking you to dispute me. Have an open debate with considered answers and at considerable depth and detail. Does this sound reasonable to you?
chooseDoubt | Homepage | 10.13.06 - 1:37 am | #

DJEB,

Delete me if you want to , it's your choice. But I don't respond to people telling me that my comments should be censored instead of disputed. If you guys aren't comfortable with debate then just admit that. But don't start pretending it's because I'm rehashing "dribble" as you call it because I have already and can easily continue to provide valid references to support absolutely everything I say. So come on, you seem to think we have some conflict going on here when I consider it to be a conversation. And yet I am the one that has been labelled as the bigot. Look up the word and then delete away.
chooseDoubt | Homepage | 10.13.06 - 1:42 am | #

Deleted ,

We do not discuss the site rules in comment threads. You are welcome to email the site to discuss any concerns you have with our policy. The definition of hate speech is not yours to make and is clearly defined within our rules. The offer to comply with our site rules was not in any way optional.

If you wish to debate 'me' specifically then I suggest that you email the site.

This thread is not any kind of invitation to debate Islamic theology. It is an article about the persecution 'of' Muslims in the UK and Europe. I have already told you to check the archives where you will find many articles that may well fit your predefined idea of 'on topic'

If you continue to attempt to debate site policy in comment threads then I will simply ban you. If you have concerns then email the site. If you wish to comment here then conform to the site rules.

Any attack against any entire faith will be regarded as hate speech. If you wish to discuss anything with any of the site members that does not comply with our site rules then I suggest you email it.

(9) The discretion of the editors will be applied as they see fit. If you believe your comment was deleted in error or you wish to question these rules then please email the site.

You may well convince us to change site policy, it has happened before. But I doubt you will.

Deleted | 10.13.06 - 1:37 am | #

Fascinating.

Your assumption that Muslims are persecuted is not proven. You cannot call criticism of anyone persecution without first demonstrating that the criticism is invalid, disproportionate and unjust. Islamic culture and practice, including the historical basis for such practice is of course relevant to that discussion. Yet you say:

Any attack against any entire faith will be regarded as hate speech.

And that is probably why you view any criticism of a religion as persecution which has brought us full circle to the original assumption that you refuse to open to debate. Essentially, you refuse debate on the topic of the original post because you expect the original posts assumptions to be accepted without question. And then you call me the bigot.

Interesting little world of circular reasoning you live in. Without scratching the surface of a topic you have reached an imutable conclusion and censor any debate that might contradict your assumption. It is quite obvious that you have not scratched the surface when it comes to your knowledge of Islam also.

I shall post this thread to my blog as a small protest to your lack of openness to debate or, as some would call it, bigotry.
chooseDoubt | Homepage | 10.13.06 - 9:03 am | #


Update: 10:59 2006-10-16

I have edited this post to replace links that were missing from the copy-paste of the comments thread and some formatting as without the links some parts did not make sense. No other changes have been made, not even spelling corrections.

If you enjoyed this article please feel free to digg it down below.

Thursday, October 12, 2006

The joy of science

Check out this Bad Astronomy posting on some of the latest Cassini images of Saturn. I personally find this sort of image, and in fact all astronomical discovery and understanding, to be a great puzzle for any religion. I mean, if you really think things through what possible relevance can stupid rituals and ridiculous holy lands have when there is an entire universe of beauty to explore? How confident can one be in an ultimate answer that included absolutely none of what science has since enabled us to become aware?

And just in case you didn't think science is cool enough, take a look at the video below of the computer assisted whiteboard that certainly would have helped me to pay attention in classes.

Hat Tip: Sean over at Cosmic Variance

If you enjoyed this article please feel free to digg it down below.

Fact Dodgers 'R 'Us

I've stumbled across a blog called Terrorism News that seems to be promoting the idea that terrorism is all the fault of the west and the Jews. I have taken particular interest in a discussion about the persecution of Muslims in the UK. I've already been warned simply for disagreeing with them so I thought some of my readers and fellow bloggers may enjoy entering the discussion and setting them straight.

So far they have come up with such gems as how non-Muslims can live with religious freedom in Saudi Arabia, how Jews are so well represented in Iran, and how Kurds lived so happily under Saddam. These fact dodgers deserve a little attention.

I suspect my comments will be deleted very shortly as they don't seem to like being challenged.



Update: Since they are threatening to delete my comments as "hate speech" I have decided to post my latest reply to the blogger known as _H_ here.


“I can assure you that you are simply coming across as a bigot. It is illegal for anyone to be found in a public place in the United Kingdom without having any money on them. The crime is vagrancy and the sentence is severe.... your point ? in the context of Muslims who live in the UK is ?”


You can call me a bigot if you wish. It does not alter the facts. If Saudi is not relevant to UK Muslims would you please explain how vagrancy is relevant? Or is this one rule for you and one for those that disagree with you? It doesn’t matter.

“People of many different religions live in Saudi Arabia and have done so for centuries. This article is not about Saudi Arabia. It is about the persecution of British Muslims. I will give you a chance to find your way back on topic and apply yourself to the comment rules. If you persist in your xenophobic rant then I will simply delete your hard work.”


People of many different religions are severely persecuted in Saudi Arabia, as in fact they are in absolutely every Muslim majority country and such persecution is defined in law within each and every one of those countries. You’re post makes one very large and unproven assumption and that is that Muslims in the UK are persecuted. Your justification for this assumption is the criticism levelled at Muslims in the UK. I am answering this by pointing out that criticism is valid as it is a fact that Islam is intolerant of other religions as it has been since Muhammad first attained some degree of power within his own life time. This is demonstrable within the historical records as it is within the Qur’an and ahadith.

“I don't see Muslims launching cruise missiles in to populated areas. I don't see Muslim clerics molesting young children... We could debate for weeks on the morality of western society in comparison to a Muslim society. But you fail to notice that your obsession and your narcissism is preventing you from remaining on the topic of this article.”


I don’t see them launching cruise missile either, but I have seen them launching Katyusha missiles into populated areas, packed with explosives and ball barings. Over 4000 of these missiles were launched during the recent war and even Amnesty International condemned Hizbullah for this behaviour and their actions of using forced human shields. But of course you will simply come back with how this was justified because of the evils of Israel. Good luck with that one when you decide to use it.

“I have worked in Saudi and right across the middle east.. please cease making foolish remarks by assuming that you alone have access to facts. You are living right on the borderline of courtesy ,decency and respect. Ironic considering that these are things you are desperate to attack others for but somehow you fail to notice the ignorance of such aspects within your own comments.”


I don’t assume I alone have access to the facts. You also have access to them, such as the link I previously posted. The difference is simply that I have made use of that access prior to forming an opinion. You having worked in Saudi does not change their law and neither does it discredit the thousands of reports by victims, international human rights organisations, religious organisations, independent witnesses and foreign governments regarding wide spread persecution of non-Muslims and the persecution against the Shi’a minority. My ignorance is irrelevant. Dispute my assertions with reference. If you can dispute the report I linked you to then I will be happy to come back to you with further evidence, but I very much doubt you have read it yet. It is not compatible with your opinion.

“I am aware of the political landscape of the middle east. We can all pick and choose which points to highlight... How about the Jews in the Iranian parliament ? How about the Kurds who lived happily in Baghdad during the time of Saddam ?”


I think you mean “Jew (singular) in the Iranian parliament”. You will find that information in the report I referred you to previously and you will also find it along with other interesting facts here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews#Current_status_in_Iran

With regards to the Kurds I have decided to invite Roya, a Kurdish blogger, to respond to you. She is extremely well informed on the subject.

“Why I wonder are you selecting Saudi Arabia as a model and not for example Israel.”


To demonstrate that Muslims are not innocent victims of persecution as you like to paint them as, but rather their entire history and present circumstance demonstrates a hard-line intolerance towards other faiths and cultures - a valid point for criticism. In the UK this is revealed by the Islamic assault on free speech and the demands to be treated differently under law. My argument is that Muslims are in fact guilty of incitement to hatred and not as you assume solely the victims of it. The foundation for this hatred is found throughout the Qur’an, which we shall come to in a moment, and is manifested in observable reality of Muslim treatment of and relationship with other faiths across the entire globe.

“Israel has no constitution, No Bill of Rights, No guarantees of free speech, No freedom of assembly and questionable due process in law. It is legally defined as a 'Jewish nation' with special privileges for 'Jews'. Anyone who wishes to argue that the Israel should be a nation with equal rights for all, and not a 'Jewish nation' are not allowed to hold office, or even run for election. It is impossible to acquire land or property in most areas unless you are Jewish, They torture ,use subversion and allow the detainment of suspects without trial. It also developed nuclear weapons behind the back of the world and refuses to even sign the NPT... So why not Israel ?”


I will be pleased to discuss Israel with you whenever you chose. But now it is you who is certainly straying off topic and I have already answered this question above. We can also discuss the USA if you wish, feel free to start a thread for both of the above.

“What makes you so high and mighty ? Apart from your misplaced ego that is.”


Ego is not relevant to the facts. I do not consider myself to be high and mighty but I am quite well read on this and many other relevant subjects including having studied Islamic history, the Qur’an, and ahadith. It is not ego that I suspect that I am far better informed than are you. It is experience and the numerous clues you provide in your statements that you really don’t know a great deal of what you are talking about.

“As for your source , your correct , I would not trust anything that came out of the US Department of State... Sorry , just a sign of the times. The US government has ceased to represent a source that can be trusted. I never used too feel that way.”


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_religious_freedom_in_Saudi_Arabia#Status_of_religious_freedom

http://wwwc.house.gov/international_relations/109/mal111505.pdf - Human rights Watch report that explicitly states the following:

“Saudi Arabia
This year's State Department report accurately describes the situation in Saudi Arabia. It says: "Freedom of religion does not exist." Only the officially sanctioned version of Islam is permitted. The public practice of other religions is forbidden.
Though the Saudi government claims that people in the country are free to practice non-sanctioned religions privately in their homes, it often does not respect this right in practice. The Saudi religious police have continued to arrest and deport Christians for conducting private religious services. Saudi religious police continue to raid private homes where they suspect such services are taking place. They also continue to brutally enforce the country's overall policy of religious persecution, harassing, detaining, and beating people who they believe are straying from the officially sanctioned path.
Ironically, in terms of numbers, most victims of religious persecution in Saudi Arabia are Muslims. The Shi'a and Isma'ili Muslim communities suffer officially sanctioned political and economic discrimination. Even in Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province, where Shi'a Muslims constitute a majority of the population, virtually no Shi'as are allowed to serve in positions of authority in government, judicial or educational institutions.”


http://www.answers.com/topic/status-of-religious-freedom-in-saudi-arabia

Knock yourself out. If you don’t like these let me know and I’ll post you hundreds more links that all confirm every word I have previously said.

“That much is clear though I am sure we would disagree on the reason. I tend to ignore off topic, xenophobic and narcissistic comments (I have simply read so many , usually from right wing Americans... ) and you have somehow decided that you do not have to apply to the site rules like every other reader and can instead dribble away about your opinions on Saudi Arabia.”


There are two reasons why I said “don’t argue with me, it’s a waste of your time”. The first is that I believe that instead of defending your opinion it would be more beneficial to you to research it first and save me the effort of having to correct you on everything and send you links which I have little confidence you will even read. The second is that if you research instead of argue I consider it likely that you will be faced by so many mutually corroboratory facts that you will be unlikely to maintain your current opinion and thus feel little desire to waste your time arguing it.

“This will be a single polite warning.”


If you don’t want to debate those that do not agree with you then delete my comments. Otherwise, the fact that you have a blog and are posting articles that invite comment I shall take as an invitation to debate your assertions. I will do so with reference and fact. If that is objectionable to you then it is a far greater statement regarding your arrogance than my own.

I consider that in discussing the persecution of Muslims in the UK, your unproven assumption, it is perfectly valid to use as evidence the relationship, both historical and current, between Islam and other faiths. This is relevant because I am first challenging your assumption of Muslim persecution in the UK and attempting to point out to you that Islam is historically intolerant of all other faiths and demands supremacy and unique rights. I therefore argue that what you call persecution is in fact valid criticism of Muslim demand for unique treatment both socially and under law and Muslim refusal to demonstrate tolerance of others beliefs. And before you say it, no I do not suggest that this includes all Muslims or that no case of persecution has occurred. However the conflict is an integral part of the religion and that is entirely relevant to your original article.

“I have zero tolerance of such ignorance.”


Demonstrate my ignorance.


PS.

Qur’an 2:256 is an abrogated verse. It has been abrogated by amongst others:

8:39
And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.

9:5
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.


9:29
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.


9:73O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed.


9:123
O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.

25:52
Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Qur'an).


47:4
Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.


You will also find numerous references in hadith regarding compulsion and historically you may wish to research Muhammad’s own actions when it came to conversion by the sword.

“I am no Muslim and I can easily find examples that show how Muhammad spoke of peace and understanding of other faiths.... I have also read many quotes from the quran that when taken out of context attempt to present a religion of hate.. We can do that with any religous text and I will not permit such attacks against Muslims or any other religion. As a fully signed up atheist I care little for debates on 'faith' but I care a great deal that people show respect for the worlds different religions.”


Yes he did speak of peace, but he changed his tune. A central concept of Islam is the principle of abrogation. The Qur’an is not written in a chronological order. In Islam that which Muhammad “revealed” later chronologically is said to abrogate earlier verse when there is overlap of subject matter. Even direct contradictions are taken to be clarifications. You will find that the vast majority regarding peace was either abrogated by later non-peaceful verses or within context is speaking solely with regards to Dar al-Islam and so is not applicable to relationships with non-Muslims. Feel free to do some research on that and ask some Imams. Again, I would be more than willing to debate this topic with you and the rest of your contributors.

“Debating selective parts from the quran is pointless ,ignorant and lacking in respect for the worlds one billion Muslims. I have no doubt that your above ramblings can clearly be defined as hate speech and it currently remains out of the (misplaced) hope that your will retract your attack against a billion people and show some respect to them.
I doubt that you will and there is a fair chance that my fellow moderator will judge your comments as being hate speech and will simply remove them.
If he does not .. be assured that you are wasting your time here.. you will not find any tolerance for your views and I would suggest that you do not type in anything that you do not expect to lose....”


So you are not a great fan of open debate then? If someone disagrees with you then it is regarded as hate speech. Before you delete my comments would you mind explaining to me exactly how anything I have said is hateful? I put it to you that you will delete my comments not because they are hateful, because they are not, but because you are insufficiently prepared for the discussion. My comments are simply statements regarding referencable facts, directly supported by evidence from Human Rights Watch, UN reports, governmental reports , Amnesty International and many other sources of evidence that report the same facts. But I guess you classify anything as hate speech that doesn’t support your existing opinion.

If you enjoyed this article please feel free to digg it down below.

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Proving prayer is superstition



This is a nice little video showing why prayer is as stupid as any other superstition. Enjoy :)

Oh, and I just had to add the one below also because it's seriously funny.

If you enjoyed this article please feel free to digg it down below.

Sam Harris: I want this book



I've never read any of Sam Harris' books but I am eagerly waiting for the delivery of The End of Faith that should turn up in the next day or two. Also arriving will be Richard Dawkins new book The God Delusion. So I'll have a few nights of interesting, educational reading and hopefully get that great feeling that everybody gets when they read something that lets them know that they are not alone and that there is hope after all. And whilst I am reading those two I'll be waiting for Letter to a Christian nation to arrive, because I'm going to order it right now.

:)

If you enjoyed this article please feel free to digg it down below.

Michelle Malkin: YouTube Goes Dhimmi



I'm late in covering this, but it's a must see. What happens if YouTube, essentially TV for the people and by the people, starts banning content despite no law having been infringed? If they ban content on religious grounds then what stops them banning on political grounds? How can YouTube be TV for the people and by the people if it starts banning content that infringes no law?

If YouTube bans legal content based on user complaints or internal policy bias then it's no longer for and by the people. It becomes for and by some of the people and discriminatory against those that support free speech. Why? Because those that support free speech won't expect legal content they disagree with to be banned but those that don't support free speech, but only their own singular opinion (in other words, the bigots) will complain about everything they object to thus resulting in a ban. Freedom of speech is therefore attacked, weakened and eventually killed. And victory handed to the extremists and bigots that cannot tolerate being challenged with alternate views.

Well done YouTube - you've joined the list of appeasers sacrificing freedom of speech to those that oppose freedom.

If you enjoyed this article please feel free to digg it down below.

Why am I writing this blog?

Religion is a very delicate subject and it is extremely easy to cause offence. I'm not concerned by this. I’m certain that many visitors to this blog are wondering what gives me the right to criticise their faith and try to explain to them that I think they should share similar attitudes to my own? Well, that is precisely the reason why I am writing this site. I believe we have equal rights and if we have equal rights then I have the same rights as you do to promote my "beliefs".

I grew up with a religious mother. She didn't really force it on me but I was sent to a Sunday school for a time and I was supposed to show a lot more respect than I did. I had religious education forced upon me at school which was nothing more than an unveiled attempt to force Christianity onto me. As a child I have sat through countless hours of Christian hymns in school assemblies and school chapel and I have been reprimanded for not singing and for asking questions. I have been reprimanded by school teachers for refusing to pray.

Since I became old enough to vote I have marvelled at the fact that it appears a prerequisite of leadership in most western democracies to be a practicing and faithful Christian. I have learned the history of my own cultures and others and seen just how much of it has been shaped by religious faith and what has happened traditionally to people, such as myself, that are prepared to question that faith or the conclusions that have become protected by organisations representing a faith.

Now I am older and I have my own children and I have watched as their teachers and society at large attempts to push mysticism and superstition onto them. I find it unacceptable and counterproductive to human progress.

So I ask you, if you have the right to believe what you believe and to try to promote it, even by forcing it onto children, why throughout my life in a secular nation did I not have the right to resist? What made your rights so much more important than mine that I have to suffer you attempting to convince me and my children of something I have always sincerely known to be ridiculous superstition and yet I have to respect your beliefs despite a mountain of historical references that reveal just how dangerous and unfounded those beliefs are? Yet increasingly under law I am discouraged from speaking out in favour of my beliefs in case I harm your sensibilities.

It’s absolute rubbish. Nobody in my history has ever worried one jot about harming my sensibilities in trying to convert me in my childhood and my children during theirs to enter into the restrictive non-critical thinking of a time warped Bronze Age cult.

So now you know why I write this blog. Writing this blog allows me and my children to be treated equally. Many others will feel the same way.

But that is not the only reason why I write this blog. I write for many more reasons that I shall explain here. And these reasons are entirely altruistic. None of my motivation for this blog is to offend or upset you or to attack you. If I do offend, upset or attack you and your faith then I do it for a reason. I do it to show you that I and many others are both fearless of and disgusted by your faith and its inevitable consequences. I honestly want to set you free from what I am convinced is an extremely harmful delusion both for you and for society as a whole. I sincerely believe that doing that will make all of our lives better than they are today or have historically been at any time in our history. So let’s run through the reasons.

First let’s look at an idea. Let’s imagine that I tell you that kangaroos created the world 50 years ago. Furthermore, the great, divine and wise kangaroos carry all wisdom in their pouches and from their position of great wisdom and as the creators of all things they have told their prophet of their wishes for how we should live. I have seen the light of the kangaroos and have converted and as a Kangaroolian I now try to spread their message.

The first rule of the great Kangaroos is that we should no longer wear trousers, ever. To wear trousers and cover up our legs would be an insult to the powerful legs of the great Kangaroos, from which all strength and power comes, so we must bare our legs to show how humble our own legs are in comparison to the perfection and power of the great Kangaroos.

The second rule of the great kangaroos is that we are not hairy enough. The Great Kangaroos created us with bald skin to show how we were born impure and must aspire to the same purity and hairiness of our Skippy Lords. In order to be closer to the greatness of the Kangaroos and cleanse ourselves of sin we must cover our bodies daily in honey and flax so that we should imitate their divine hairiness so that we might be saved.

The third rule is … well, hold on a minute. Is any of this starting to seem a bit silly to you? Do you not think that there might be more to life, the universe and everything than what some guy assures you some kangaroos told him one day?

Yes, I think that too. But in the kangaroos favour they have so far said absolutely nothing about wanting us to kill anybody and unlike god, I and many of the readers have actually seen a kangaroo. I can actually, physically demonstrate that kangaroos exist. I don’t have to take anybodies word for it.

So why should I not believe in the kangaroos. They are god, the creator, according to them so their word, as handed to me by the helpful prophet of the kangaroos, is gods word right? Of course not – it’s just his word. And there is absolutely no evidence what so ever that demonstrates a reason to believe this prophet at all. To believe him and to believe in the kangaroos as my creators and rulers would be obscenely stupid and would seriously distort my view of the world and the universe in which I live. But still, I have actually seen, touched, photographed, and even eaten kangaroo.

So, can we agree that a belief in something without evidence can distort your ability to understand the reality of the life you live? I think we must be able to agree that because if we don’t then what possible objection can you have to someone starting the cult of the kangaroo, the Kangaroolians? None at all, and as demonstrated the kangaroo cult technically has even more validity than the majority of faiths because the majority of faiths are missing their kangaroos. No one ever sees them. No one ever photographs them. They absolutely never turn up for the general public to see.

Perhaps they all hopped off.

But seriously, a severely distorted view of reality is a very poor foundation upon which to base your philosophy and your decision making. It means you are promoting decision making and moral judgement based entirely on the absence of knowledge, understanding and evidence and based entirely on a similar absence of these key human abilities in the Bronze Age peasant or politician that originally decided to write down a story of some guy he’d heard about who’d had an interesting conversation with something far less evident in our universe than a kangaroo.

Whatever you say about religion giving comfort, I don’t buy it and I think it’s bad for you. Expecting a politician to have faith before he can lead a country is like expecting a school bus driver to drink three bottles of whiskey before he takes your children to school. Faith, by its very definition, is the absence of critical thought.

So that was my first altruistic reason for writing this site. Are you ready for the second?

Here it is. It is my observation that the reality of the universe, that which we already understand and can demonstrate with evidence, is infinitely more beautiful and elegant than the ideas and concepts of any religious text. So by buying into a faith that prevents you from seeing this beauty you are actually seriously retarding your ability to appreciate the universe that you believe god has given to you. You’ve been given the most amazing present and you haven’t even taken the wrapping paper off.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that absolutely anyone on this planet that undertakes a serious effort to understand the universe around them and the myriad relationships and patterns and intricate causes and effects and dependencies that science and mathematics have already revealed to us would be stupefied by the excellent beauty of it all. Let’s take one tiny little example of this that may help to open your mind. It doesn’t matter how you think you got here for the moment, let’s just concentrate on where here is.

I want you to actually do this. You’ll need a grain of sand or salt and an orange and a very large open space. Here’s what you do.

First place the orange on the floor and stand with one foot either side of the orange. Look down on it. Looks pretty small from all the way up there doesn’t it? Now, I want you to take about 14 paces forward in a straight line away from the orange - approximately 11.5m away from the orange. Stop here and put the grain of sand down between your feet.

Now take a few steps to the side and turn around and look back at the orange and at the grain of sand. Can you even see the grain of sand? Maybe not, but maybe just about. Anyway, you remember where you put it, so just take some time to consider all the empty space between the orange and your grain of sand. Compared to their scale, that’s a lot of floor with nothing on it right? But now I want you to think not only of the empty floor, the surface upon which you placed your orange and your grain of sand, but instead to think of a disc with the orange in the centre and the grain of sand sitting somewhere on the edge. Visualise as clearly as you can the 23m diameter disc with your little orange in the middle and your tiny grain of sand somewhere around the edge. Imagine walking up to the disc and trying to find the grain of sand. Imagine trying to find the grain of sand if the circumference of the disc wasn't marked on the floor and all that you knew was that you had to walk about 14 paces out from the orange but in which direction you did not know. How long would it take you to find the grain of sand?

Are you starting to get an idea of how little of the floor is actually occupied by your orange and your grain of sand?

Let's try something else. How about instead of the disc you now expand the image in your mind, whilst still looking at your real grain of sand and your real orange, to include all three dimensions. Can you imagine this huge ball, half of it towering above you and half of it spreading deep down beneath the floor? It’s a pretty big sphere of emptiness isn’t it? Eight adult African elephants could stand one on top of the other inside and still have room for 40 more in the remaining space around them. It’s a big ball. It’s a lot of emptiness compared to the tiny volume occupied by the orange and the grain of sand. In fact, if you want to know the numbers, your orange occupies 838.6cm3, your sand occupies 0.0042cm3 and your giant imaginary sphere of nothingness encompasses a staggering 50,965,010,421.64cm3.

That means that the orange and the grain of sand actually fill 0.0000016% of the space available in that sphere! You could fit your orange and your grain of sand into the sphere another 60 million times over and still have room for you and a few friends who like sandy citrus fruit to stand around.

Now assuming you haven’t managed to find an unusually gigantic orange and that your grain of sand is a normal one, then it might surprise you to know that what you have just built and imagined is a scale model of the earth orbiting the sun. Of course in the real model there are two more tiny grains of sand that would have to fit somewhere within your huge imagined sphere enveloping the orange at the distance of your earth sand grain, but I think there’s plenty of room.

So what does this tell you? Well, maybe already it tells you something you didn’t know about where you live. But there’s much more. Ask yourself, where is the next nearest star to my orange sun?

On the same scale, the next nearest star, Alpha Proxima, is actually 3,200 kilometres away and absolutely everything in between is more or less empty. That’s only 200Km short of the distance between Mecca and the Vatican. Suddenly they don’t seem so far apart after all do they? How many oranges could you fit in a sphere 3,200Km in radius, 6,400Km in diameter? You think that's a lot? Well, ask yourself how many grains of sand? I'll give you a clue - if you ground the entire moon to sand you'd still need more than five more moons to get that much sand.

What’s more is that this model you’ve built with a grain of sand and an orange is just a tiny fragment of our own galaxy. There are approximately 100 billion stars just in our galaxy alone, our local area of space. Incidentally only around 6000 of those are visible with the naked eye and Alpha Proxima isn’t one of them - it’s just too dim. There are hundreds of billions of galaxies, separated by distances so huge that on the scale of our sand and orange we could not fit our model into our solar system and almost all of this huge enormity or space is full of absolutely nothing at all. And furthermore we have existed for a slice of time so fine from the history of this amazing universe that it’s almost as though we haven’t existed at all. And there are hundreds of billions of other galaxies. Starting to get the picture?

Every single idea or invention, every joke, every poem, every philosophy, every painting, every person, every name and every animal, word, thought or idea you have ever encountered has all come from that tiny grain of sand in that tiny slice of time in a universe of space and time so vast that you will never be able to fit it inside your imagination.

When you understand that, and please be aware that you are going to need some time for that to sink in, maybe you would rather hold on to each other than kill each other because you'll understand how isolated and alone we really are.

Tell me there is anything as awe inspiring as that within any religious text and I’ll publicly agree with you if you show me the reference. Yet you will find this amazing truth along with real evidence to demonstrate it inside every introductory astronomical text on sale today.

And the real universe that you are free to perceive free of the blinkers of faith is full of such wonders, whether they are found in the relationships between people or the relationships between you and the stars. Faith, by its very nature, is a limitation to thought and thought, by its very nature, is the only ability you have to understand what is right before your eyes. This alone is more than enough reason to challenge faith.

But I’m not exhausted yet on reasons why I believe I am performing a worthwhile and altruistic action by challenging faith.

I also sincerely believe that the abandonment of faith is an extremely important prerequisite to living in peace together. I shall explain.

Faith, unlike reason, is the belief of a supposition regardless of the evidence. Reason on the other hand allows the adoption of working assumptions, but must immediately abandon such assumptions the instant that evidence is found that is contradictory to the assumption at hand. This is extremely important because it means that reason has an extremely important ability that faith can never have. Reason provides adaptability and it does it because reason accepts as its foundation that there is always doubt.

Without doubt you have no means of questioning the validity of anything you do or believe or a method by which you can attempt to integrate new facts into your model of the world and how it works. If you can’t question then you cannot accept new information, new evidence and wisdom, and neither you nor your beliefs can adapt. History has countless examples of how faith based resistance to new facts has ultimately been expressed in bloodshed.

This is where religion has always failed and this is where religion will always fail. Faith precludes doubt and the absence of doubt precludes adaptation to and acceptance of seemingly contradictory facts. If you don’t believe that, why do you think it is true that the most liberal, dogma free societies are also the most technologically and economically advanced and progressive? Freedom of thought results in more thought and the foundation for that is the ability to doubt.

It’s also worth pointing out that since the world around us does change, such as historically high populations, new technologies and new information, the absence of adaptability to its environment is an obvious sign of imminent extinction for any thing that cannot change.

Abandoning Bronze Age superstitious faith is without doubt the best way for us to learn to adapt and live in peace with each other and our changing world.

I could add more reasons and over time I probably shall. But I think this is enough for now. I think if you read this then you can understand, whether you agree with me or not, that I am writing this blog because I believe I am saying something of value that can have a direct and positive effect on the life, happiness and security of everybody.

I am writing this blog for you, for me, and for all of our children. I’m writing this blog to encourage others to question instead of believe.

If you enjoyed this article please feel free to digg it down below.