I never said you did condone it, did I?

I for one oppose any idea of a two layered legal system, it goes beyond scrutiny and is open to abuse.

To what extent are you tainted by your associates' actions yourself?

No, and I didn't say you said I condoned it.

I said you said I excused it.

Which is what you did say.

But I haven't excused it - I said it was awful.


Any legal system is open to abuse - but no legal system is beyond scrutiny.

But - before you say I said something I never said again - I didn't say we should accept shariah.

I just said accepting some of shariah need not mean accepting the whole, and most muslims wanting shariah in the UK want a limited form of it - mostly in regards to thinks like property and the like.

I state this for your edification because you claim to find it mysterious - not because I want to see it done. I'd actually rather not see it apart from the parts we've integrated already - like what makes halal meat or usury-free bank accounts (which I think might have their benefits).

I dunno - maybe their property laws are good ones. I haven't a clue really.

I don't think all imams preach against integration. I didn't find muslims at school, work or the community in Nottingham particularly set against mingling with non muslims. I can think of a few who were less friendly than others, but they weren't alone in that and it need not have been because they were muslims.

That depends. If there were a Nazi in this day and age, he/she would be tainted by the actions of his/her associates (among other things). And rightfully so.

Please do not misunderstand me: I am not insinutating that Muslims are along the same lines as Nazis. My point, however, is that it is sometimes reasonable to think it's possible or likely X person will do Y act, based on past occurances. In other words, I don't think it's irrational or discriminatory to fear going to an Islam country which has had these types of occurances recently. Do you?

:mad: I will fight any law by un-authorized people; citizen or not.

As a moderator how do you suggest these debates go - it's OK for attackers of a creed to proclaim "their people" are much better behaved - but's it's not OK to compare their people in a critical or even neutral manner?

Is that how you feel?

See, I don't think Oscar Schindler, say, sould be tainted by his Nazi party membership.

By and large I think the Nazis were the dupes of this sort of generalist thinking - here's a greedy Jew - so all Jews are greedy. Here's an expansionist communist - so all communists are out to take us over. Etc...Depends on what the past occurences are.

But even so, I don't think such things happen to have occured in a vaccuum.

And, for the record, I haven't suggested that fear or criticism of Islam is always unwarranted, and have questioned aspects of it myself, so I'm not even sure why I'm subject to this line of inquiry.

I wasn't even the first to compare Islam with Christendom and/or Jewery, as Alan did. Or the west in general, as others have.

But I suppose my refusal to roll over and join in with the blanket condemnation of Islam in removal from context means I have to stand in line with jihadiis - yeah?


Is that how you feel?

Any law?

Even if it was a better law?

If a hypothetical unauthorized person suggested a law you felt was improvement on the curent law you'd fight it would you?

Where did I defend the act, or say that one wrong excuses another?

Did I not call it awful from the get go, and have to tediously repeat how awful i thought it was because you're not able to get the simple fact that I think it's awful into your mind?

My point - if there is one - is actually to demonstrate that one abuse doesn't excuse another.

And that people behind one abuse - such as British taxpayers for example - maybe shouldn't bang on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and onand on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about how horrid muslims are without doing something about their own bloodshedding habits.

:Glasses:
Any-one can suggest a law. As long as is not accepted by 2e Kamer, 1e Kamer & Signed by our Royal Head of State it doesn't count for me. I am loyal to Dutch & International Law; not to religious zealots, christians or muslims undermining our Established Society.

I think Muslims are under the impression its just them that we point to as failing in the control of their fundamentalist dogmatic minorities. In Europe it has been fought over for centuries.

From what I've already said, did I really convey that that is how I feel? I hope not.

Actually, I wouldn't have asked if I knew.

So the answer's no then?

Your question was loaded. Take the bullet out, and then retype the question you would like me to answer.

Thanks,

Z

So, in your veiw, as a mod, should we only talk about muslims in critical terms here and pat westerners on the back for being more civilised, or only criticise christians to the Xth degree, or just talk about stoning and beheading as awful, but not things we sponsor, are we just to talk about awful things with an islamic flavour, or what?

You honestly can't see how this is a loaded question? You're presupposing that I have advocated any of this, or hinted at advocating any of this, in my past posts. But I have not. It is like asking me, "Are you still beating your wife?".

Again, take the bullet out, please. Kthanks.

And, of course, many non-Islam countries have their atrocities, but bringing them up, in this case, is a Red Herring. We should not divert things. No, we should address this situation for what it is, and then address another situation for what it is.

What did you mean by that if not that we shouldn't be discussing anything other than the sins of Islam?

It means we should not mask the atrocities of one country or culture, by providing evidence of other atrocities from other countries or cultures. .

As they say, two wrongs doesn't make a right. I never ever said that we should only discuss what happens in the Islam world. Why you think this, I do not know.

Why you think I was masking anything I do not know.

Here - go through this thread and see how many times I have called an act committed by a muslim or an islamic gestalt awful.

It must be dozens of times by now.

But because I haven't blanketedly condemned Islam in and of itself aside from other things I feel are relevent I've been called excuser, red herring this, masking that.

All of which is a load of bloody nonsense.I think that because when I said there were atrocities raised by other groups you called it a red herring.

usually that sort of language implies a desire to see the subject dropped. IME.