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.

17 comments:

Jez said...

I must point out, that I am not responsible for the rules on Terrorism News, as it is not my blog. YOu could know that, though. I do not necessarily agree with all the rules, but I accept them as they are the rules of the owner of the blog (H). As he has said to you time and time again, if you wish to discuss those rules, please e-mail him.

Mojoey said...

Choosedoubt - how can your position possibly be considered hate speach? If anything you come off as a voice of moderation.

Keep fighting the good fight.

Roya said...

Great replies CD. If only they listoned.

BDW, how did you change your blog? I'm on beta but don't know my way around it.

Anonymous said...

Serious debate and interesting perspectives Choosedoubt please continue your tireless cause.

Correct me if I am wrong but the original point from Choosedoubt was effectively related to freedom of speech, or lack of it? I agree it is totally crazy where a blog site decides to remove or sensor a post where there is clearly no evindence of hate speak, in contrast Choosedoubt's debate mearly emphasises the narrow minded opinions of some that are not willing to debate and will only report one-sided opinions. Wake up guys this is not freedom of speech.

In fact when I look at this entire site, clearly the general theme to the majority of the posts is freedom of speech and debating the taboo subjects, obviously this is a good thing and should continue to be supported.

Debate is healthy, but both sides should always be reported, whether good or bad or right or wrong.

Here is my own view which will no doubt be hated by all Islamic followers worldwide. Has anyone noticed when you look at the word I S L A M the following springs to mind:

Intolerable Stupidity Lends Aggressive Molestation

Just a thought which is not so far from the truth..... freedom of speech should never be oppressed.

Anonymous said...

As always, ChooseDoubt holds itself out as the great voice of reason whereas in reality it is just another small minded bigot.

Sorry chump but you exposed yourself long ago as the infantile, nitwit xenophobe that you are.

BDE

Vile Blasphemer said...

Well, anonymous, that was exactingly harsh.

Anonymous said...

I just call it like I see it.

CD holds itself out as a bastion of liberal thought and eschews all religion yet it seems to attack Islam exclusively.

It has another agenda.

BDE

chooseDoubt said...

To everyone that thinks I'm making valid points then thanks for your approval and your comments. I know that most of you are doing the same and our numbers are growing.


BDE - Welcome. I don't attack Islam exclusively but I do think Islam is uniquely negative at this particular time. Islam will receive the bulk of my attention because Islam deserves it. If I had been blogging 200 years ago then I'm sure my focus would be elsewhere but I am blogging today. I look forward to your reknowned insanity regularly adding to my credability here. Thanks for visiting.

Anonymous said...

CD;

The credibility of someone who does not even know how to spell credibility is usually pretty low.


ROTFLMAO!

Keep telling yourself whatever you need to in order to justify your irrational hatered of all things Muslim.

To rational and sane human beings like myself you appear as nothing more than an insignificant, small minded bigot.

What renowned (you really need to go back and take a remedial spelling class) insanity were you referring to?

BTW People who are sure of their moral convictions don't need approval from others. Why do you? Is it perhaps that you know deep down that you are just a tiny minded little bigot and are seeking validation from others of the same ilk in order to justify your position?

BDE

chooseDoubt said...

BDE,

I assume you would consider all dyslexics to be simply stupid then. I’ll not wuri abowt mi spelin tu much if mai mesij is kleer.

I do not have an irrational hatred of all things Muslim. I do not have a hatred of all things Muslim at all. I have a rational distaste for all things Muslim, Christian, Jewish, etc, etc, because if there is anything of which to approve within any of these faiths then it is irrational to proclaim that an irrational faith enjoys a monopoly over or ownership of any credible concept that by chance it may include. A credible concept stands more credible without the irrationality of embedding it within an unsupported and obscene supernatural faith and its dogma.

“To rational and sane human beings like myself you appear as nothing more than an insignificant, small minded bigot.”

I think we covered this one before over at Steve’s blog. But here we go again. I discount that you are either rational or sane because you have previously described suicide bombings against Jewish children as legitimate. You can call me small minded, bigoted or in fact anything else you like. It’s entirely up to you. If you decide to actually make an argument on topic at some point you are also free to do so.

“BTW People who are sure of their moral convictions don't need approval from others. Why do you?”

This is worth exploring. Muslims, for example, are sure of their moral convictions. Indeed, they are so sure that it is a central aspect of their religion that absolutely everybody on the planet must either agree with them, die or be subjugated by them. They are sure and yet they need the approval of everyone – in fact, they demand it. The need is so strong that whenever there is some criticism levelled against their conviction they resort to global riots and murder sprees.

I on the other hand do not need the approval of others. I am in the small minority of members of our species who do not subscribe to a belief in the supernatural. It makes absolutely no difference to my thinking that the vast majority disagree with me. It would make no difference if absolutely everybody disagreed with me. My conviction is due to reason. My conviction requires nothing because it is a product of the evidence. As such it is the evidence that requires my conviction. I do however appreciate the approval of others because I appreciate that others are similarly aware of the convictions required by the evidence. Would you instead suggest that I consider it a positive sign that everybody disagrees with me?

I wonder what are your reasons to post your comments here. Do you require me to agree with you? Do you require others to disagree with me? You are seeking approval by the act of communicating. Perhaps you would have more success if you attempted to communicate an alternative point of view. Perhaps not.

Anonymous said...

Good to see you are censoring my comments.

I knew I could goad you into it.

What a sad joke you are. Too scared to let others see the truth.

BDE

Surinder M said...

Hello,

The one that goes by the name of BDE has a serious chip on his shoulder? Why don't you make a valid point based upon facts rather than bitter twisted one liner comments to try and get the last word? You sound like a child who has thrown your toys out of the pram, your cause seems to be picking out spelling mistakes rather than debating the underlying discussion? At least try and explain your logic and point of view in a balanced and rational manner to all the things you seem to object with others people’s posts. If not, based upon your recent posts your comments seem to be somewhat pointless if this is the totality of your input?

Well I was actually posting here to comment about the video post named Musical Interlude, but before I do I think this is a good example of the negativity of Islam that Choosedoubt refers. Although done in comedy and somewhat offensive to Mulsin's the point is clear and this is unfortunately based upon fact and reality. So BDE, why don't you comment on the specific points this video raises, I would be interested to see your views on these issues to balance the debate for my research?

As for myself, I live in England but I am Muslin with 3 children and I am ashamed at some aspects of my religion, the point needs to be made we don’t all support all aspects of our faith. I truly believe some aspects are wrong and the video demonstrates this by highlighting some of the shameful aspects, I am currently undertaking research to write and article on this controversial subject. This site has some rich content and debate.

Choosedoubt - I plan to reference certain articles on your site as background to my paper, I hope you do not object. This is not used for profit in anyway.

Thanks

Surinder M

chooseDoubt said...

Surinder,

That was very well put and please feel free to reference anything you choose.

Anonymous said...

Surinder,

You are correct. I have a chip on my shoulder. CD attacked me in another blog and has repeatedly behaved like a bigot. Therefore I denegrate and attack it. CD spreads a message of hatred and intolerance under the guise of being a rational atheist. I am an actual rational atheist and I find CD offensive in that he smears the name of true rational atheists such as myself.

If you come to this blog looking for insightful debate you are in the wrong place. This blog is designed as a big circle jerk for small minded bigots like Choosedoubt. There is only selective evaluation of the facts here in order for xenophobic hatemongers to justify their positions. Why bother trying to debate in a rational fashion when one is clearly dealing with irrational creatures?

Why are you referencing another post instead of this one. Keep your comments post specific. I am not going to bother watching another anti-Muslim hate video.


CD - where is my other post rebutting your bullshit? Oh that is right, you are too much the intellectual coward to allow others to see it.

LOL!
BDE

chooseDoubt said...

BDE,

Correct. I did attack you in another blog. I called you a “fucking loon” in response to you describing the murder of innocent children as “legitimate resistance”. I have since changed my ways. Regardless of how incensed I am I will not insult you (this does not include feigning respect for your opinions). But I will disagree with you if I have reason to.

I do not spread a message of hatred and intolerance. I oppose the message of hatred and intolerance that is the reality of a very significant chunk of the scripture and practice of Islam. I am intolerant of it and I make absolutely no excuse or apology for that intolerance.

Some time ago I came across a woman being attacked one night. I was intolerant of her attacker. I make no apology or excuse for my intolerance at that time either. To me the two situations are morally equivalent. Tolerance is in my mind a null concept. If you disagree with something oppose it to the degree that it warrants opposition. Far more important are the grounds upon which one should decide whether their disagreement is ethically valid and thus a justification for opposition. My grounds here are very simple. If the belief of another is absolutely unsupported by evidence, thus itself lacking any valid justification, and results in the mistreatment of another or a high risk of mistreatment without being offset by a highly probably and ethically valid gain then I oppose it and I deny that persons right to hold that belief or act upon it. Tolerance is the scapegoat of those that ignore responsibility and it is practiced least of all by those with the least basis for their extreme beliefs. The inevitability of that is of course that they will dominate.

Rationality must be intolerant of irrationality if it is to prosper. Rationality is absolutely the best shot we have at living ethically and with respect for each other. Tolerance is neither beneficial nor ethically valid. If an action is ethical, it harms no other, then there is no need to tolerate it – it can simply be accepted even without any desire to practice the same oneself. If an action is unethical, it harms others without the justification of an overall gain, tolerating it is the act of the morally bankrupt coward. I view it as ethically valid to harm others to prevent greater future harm; such as it is ethical to kill a person who you know intends to murder many others, for example a terrorist.

Now, on to the business of the non-appearance of your other post - rebutting my bullshit. I’ve never seen it. Try posting it again. I do not censor comments and you are absolutely free to say anything you wish. You may notice that when you post a comment it is un-moderated. Your comment will appear in the comments as soon as you have posted it. Say what you like, but if a comment doesn’t appear then you are either the victim of a technical difficulty or your own error. It has nothing to do with me. Repost it.

I invite disagreement. I even learn from it.

Anonymous said...

CD,

I think your characterization of me defending the murder of innocent children as legit resistance may be a bit off. I remember the general discussion but not the particulars.

Let my explain my position, Israeli settlers who occupy internationally recognized Palestinian lands are legit targets for resistance. They are land thieves and nothing more. If their children are killed by Palestinians, it is because they were placed in harm's way by their parents. This is the same logic Israeli apologists use to justify IDF and IAF attacks on Arab civilians both in Gaza and recently in Lebanaon.

However, the Palestinian claim of resistance is even greater than the Israeli one as the acts are occurring against foreign occupying forces within internationally recognized Palestinian borders. Couple this with the fact that most settlers are ultra-right fundamentalist militants who regularly attack Palestinians and their property and once begins to understand that resistance by any means available is their prerogative.



BDE

chooseDoubt said...

BDE,

I disagree both on the supposed ambiguity of the statement, that Israel deliberately targets civilians, and that suicide bombing children on buses and in pizza parlours is the fault of Israeli parents and the prerogative of Palestinians. I also disagree that this can be simplified to being a case of "resistance".

Many thousands more Palestinians have been massacred by Muslim nations than by Israel. This is not resistance or a response to injustices. It is entirely religious by foundation and cannot be justified or legitimized by simply blaming the Jews and declaring open season on their children.

Read the Hamas covenant. Injustices can be resolved by peaceful negotiation. The Hamas covenant, its basis being Islamic ideology, states that negotiation is unacceptable and that violent jihad is the only acceptable option. Civilians are deliberately targetted. Palestinian children are indoctrinated not to correct and injustice but simply to kill Jews.

Don't get me wrong here. I have no sympathy for the religious ideologies of the Jews either. I sympathise and respect their desire for a secure nation subsequent to their incredibley harrowing history but that doesn't necessarily mean that I agree that the best option is to fufill that desire, especially in a region of nothing but enemies. That is history anyway. Their borders were internationally acceptedand they overstepped them as a consequence of war. Offically they held the lands as bond against their neighbours behaviour. Expanding settlements was a bad idea. But since absolutely none of their neighbours want anything but death for them then I don't see a great deal of motivation for them to attempt to please their neighbours anyway.

There are other commentors here that are far better informed on the specifics of history of the Israeli -Palestine conflict than I. I am sure that they will either correct my errors or be open to discuss that in more detail with you. I'll be interested to read all comments.

I very much doubt that anybody will provide a comment or an historical reference that forces me to agree that suicide bombing civilian targets is legitimate and a result of legitiamte grievance rather than religious madness.