Fallaci: "This is what I write about Europe..

[Republic_Of_Public]

Pakistan, Indonesia and Syria do not have elected Sharia governments.

I suppose the stonings, beheadings and other halal delicacies are just bolt-on accessories, as millions of Muslims want across the world? Undiluted political Islam is a retardant.



PREVIOUSLY ON THAT LINE OF ENQUIRY:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/europ...s-new-christmas-export-29.html#post1059192052

http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/87827-terror-uks-new-christmas-export-37.html#post1059195623
http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/87827-terror-uks-new-christmas-export-38.html#post1059196312

http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/87827-terror-uks-new-christmas-export-31.html#post1059192683
http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/87827-terror-uks-new-christmas-export-36.html#post1059195200

My hope would be that any new democracies would make sure that they have some kind of written constitution whereby they can have periodic elections

You mean orthodox Islamic tradition, Democracy and modern human rights are in some way incompatible?!

...and why do you think the US allowed Islamic law in the democracy of Iraq?

Hopeless cases?


HIR | Islamist Sharia in Iraq: it is US-sponsored

Sharia advancing in Iraq -- for non-Muslims, too - Jihad Watch

The moment a teenage girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy | Mail Online

Iraq: Kurdish girl stoned to death, mob films it on cameraphones - Boing Boing

Iraqi gays executed (CNN), etc.

 

[German guy]

Either Islam's behind the times (by 1,000 years or so) or you're forced to take it all only spiritually in line with human decency.

Sometimes, it seems to me that islamophobes are more concerned about what's written in Quran or Hadith, than even most Muslims.

Sure, religiousness may be more common and stronger among Muslims, than among Christians today. But this doesn't mean religion is in fact the dominating aspect in the life of every person considering himself a Muslim.

The most vocal islamophobes would probably be surprised how few religion actually means to the Muslims I talked to.

That bites at a question Muslims themselves sometimes ask - does Islam need a reform, as Christianity had all through the millennia?

You could make the case that this is already happening.

Youssef Courbage and Emmanuel Todd, French sociologists, make this case, for example: Amazon.com: A Convergence of Civilizations: The Transformation of Muslim Societies Around the World (9780231150026): Youssef Courbage, Emmanuel Todd, George Holoch Jr.: Books

Very informative book, you should have a look, once the English translation is out. They explain that secularism and modern lifestyle are already transforming the Muslim world hard -- and extremist islamism is nothing more than a reactionary, last rearguard action of a dying pre-modern mindset that will soon be vanished.

Maybe, in the end, existence will shape consciousness after all, at least in this case -- and with modern lifestyle spreading, globalization and growing wealth, radical old-style Islam will vanish too?

Indeed, it's more vital than with any other book. As needs to be repeated, the Koran is the only valid, current holy book where the prophet himself advocated vile evils in the name of God through his own mouth.

When I read the Old Testament of the Bible, many of its commandments didn't strike me as any less evil than Quran.

Can you name any names?

Fallaci, who is debated in the OP, would be a fine example.

But I think it applies to many people who are overly concerned with radical Islam posing an existential threat, who vastly exaggerate this threat and engage in apocalypticism. A classic would be "teh Muzlimzs are breeding us out!!!1"-paranoia, the suggestion Muslims are plotting to establish califates in Western Europe (when they are not even 5% of the population? Really?), or conspiracy theories which suggest European leaders are plotting to sell out Europe to Islam (I think there is an American author pushing that BS).

I mean, come on, of course there is a problem with backwards Muslim nuts. But I really don't see it's any more fundamental or existential, than, say, the problem we have with other kinds of political extremist fringe nuts.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

he most vocal islamophobes would probably be surprised how few religion actually means to the Muslims I talked to.

Oh good, then we can ban halal slaughter, close the sharia courts and the meddlesome MCB for example. Even modest totems of Islamic supremacism drive the wedges in by even that logic.

...extremist islamism is nothing more than a reactionary, last rearguard action of a dying pre-modern mindset that will soon be vanished.

Great! We can do away with the Koran! We could have something a bit decent and harmless to replace it as the operating manual of the Religion of Peace and touchy-feely empathy. I suggest Watership Down.

Fallaci, who is debated in the OP, would be a fine example.

Ah yes, the mindset that because she's 'wrong', insightfully attacked Islamism and its driving force ideology and spoke in a forthright way enough to attack anybody's blimp mentality, she needs her meds!

 

[alexa]

I suppose the stonings, beheadings and other halal delicacies are just bolt-on accessories, as millions of Muslims want across the world? Undiluted political Islam is a retardant.



PREVIOUSLY ON THAT LINE OF ENQUIRY:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/europ...s-new-christmas-export-29.html#post1059192052

http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/87827-terror-uks-new-christmas-export-37.html#post1059195623
http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/87827-terror-uks-new-christmas-export-38.html#post1059196312

http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/87827-terror-uks-new-christmas-export-31.html#post1059192683
http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/87827-terror-uks-new-christmas-export-36.html#post1059195200







You mean orthodox Islamic tradition, Democracy and modern human rights are in some way incompatible?!


View attachment 67113377




Hopeless cases?


HIR | Islamist Sharia in Iraq: it is US-sponsored

Sharia advancing in Iraq -- for non-Muslims, too - Jihad Watch

The moment a teenage girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy | Mail Online

Iraq: Kurdish girl stoned to death, mob films it on cameraphones - Boing Boing

Iraqi gays executed (CNN), etc.

You claimed that sharia Law was elected deomcratically in these three countries. This is not the case.

In general I understand the army runs Pakistan and the army is more a concern for democracy than Islamists. You are obviously confusing this with the Swat Valley

NewAgeIslam.com: Radical Islamism & Jihad; Is Swat Becoming A Replica Of East Pakistan?

Syria is not an Islamic state

The Constitution of Syria was adopted 13 March 1971.[60] It vests the Baath Party with leadership functions in the state and society. The president is approved by referendum for a 7-year term in principle. However, in practice people must elect the leader of the Baath Party as president. The president also serves as Secretary General of the Baath Party and leader of the National Progressive Front. The National Progressive Front is a coalition of 10 political parties authorized by the government.[60]

The constitution requires the president to be a Muslim,[60] but does not make Islam the state religion. The constitution gives the president the right to appoint ministers, to declare war and state of emergency, to issue laws (which, except in the case of emergency, require ratification by the People's Council), to declare amnesty, to amend the constitution, and to appoint civil servants and military personnel.[8][60] The president of Syria is President Bashar Al-Assad since the year 2000.

Like Pakistan and for different reasons it has been ruled a great deal of the time by the military. There last election was just to keep the same government in power and received around 97% of the vote. Given the state of human rights there it is obviously questionable whether that was a fair election. However we cannot discuss Syria here.

Indonesia is not a democratically elected Sharia state.

Aceh is the only Indonesian province allowed to apply Sharia, or Islamic, law.

BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Aceh wary over new Sharia police

And as far as Iraq is concerned again it is off limits, though the US might be the people to ask.

(Now I am not feeling well. I am off to bed.}

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Elected governments who practice Sharia Law include Indonesia, etc.

If you've got Sharia, you're a Sharia-compliant government. Else you wouldn't have it.


Syria: honour crime law

Indonesia's Aceh passes stoning law - Asia-Pacific - Al Jazeera English

American Thinker Blog: Pakistani Muslims threaten violence unless Christian mother is executed

Sentenced to hang: Pakistan Christian in blasphemy trial - Scotsman.com News , etc.

There are words to describe rulers like that, though I fear they would get me threadbanned. However, howls of 'wacism' I'd be prepared to risk as those don't harm me at all.

 

[Gardener]

Sometimes, it seems to me that islamophobes are more concerned about what's written in Quran or Hadith, than even most Muslims.

Sure, religiousness may be more common and stronger among Muslims, than among Christians today. But this doesn't mean religion is in fact the dominating aspect in the life of every person considering himself a Muslim.

The most vocal islamophobes would probably be surprised how few religion actually means to the Muslims I talked to.



You could make the case that this is already happening.

Youssef Courbage and Emmanuel Todd, French sociologists, make this case, for example: Amazon.com: A Convergence of Civilizations: The Transformation of Muslim Societies Around the World (9780231150026): Youssef Courbage, Emmanuel Todd, George Holoch Jr.: Books

Very informative book, you should have a look, once the English translation is out. They explain that secularism and modern lifestyle are already transforming the Muslim world hard -- and extremist islamism is nothing more than a reactionary, last rearguard action of a dying pre-modern mindset that will soon be vanished.

Maybe, in the end, existence will shape consciousness after all, at least in this case -- and with modern lifestyle spreading, globalization and growing wealth, radical old-style Islam will vanish too?



When I read the Old Testament of the Bible, many of its commandments didn't strike me as any less evil than Quran.



Fallaci, who is debated in the OP, would be a fine example.

But I think it applies to many people who are overly concerned with radical Islam posing an existential threat, who vastly exaggerate this threat and engage in apocalypticism. A classic would be "teh Muzlimzs are breeding us out!!!1"-paranoia, the suggestion Muslims are plotting to establish califates in Western Europe (when they are not even 5% of the population? Really?), or conspiracy theories which suggest European leaders are plotting to sell out Europe to Islam (I think there is an American author pushing that BS).

I mean, come on, of course there is a problem with backwards Muslim nuts. But I really don't see it's any more fundamental or existential, than, say, the problem we have with other kinds of political extremist fringe nuts.

The important matter isn't what is written in the books, but the degree to which people follow what is written. If the desire to defend results in minimizing the number who do follow and the degree to which they follow, then the resulting rhetoric should be filed away as apologia, that being the flip side of this coin you toss with some degree of frequency in regards to "Islamophobia".

In Britain, nearly 70% of Muslims want people jailed if they criticize Islam. 40 % there want Sharia law to rule. You mentioned the 21% of German Muslims who find their beliefs incompatable with your consititution. You also mention the "fringe extremists" as being no more of a problem than others but you did not acknowledge anything demonstrable in regards to the propensity towards holding various beliefs among other groups. Do 70% of Christians want people jailed if they diss Jesus? Do 40% of Jews want halakhah to prevail across the land? Do 21% of Hindus say their beliefs are incompatable with those of the country in which they live, and more importantly, are they demanding concessions to such beliefs?

You talk about paranoia and delusional thinking, but extreme denial is just as delusional as paranoia. Denial is just a different reaction to the threat that IS present via the fact that issues in regards to Muslims assimilating into western cultures are becoming more pressing due to the increasing radicalization of such Muslims along with their extreme growth in population.

If a person has to deny facts in order to appeal to political correctness, they are just as much part of the problem as those who do overreact. The Muslim population in western Europe is growing by leaps and bounds, native western Europeans have so sharply curtailed their procreation that they are now at less than replacement levels, and the clash of cultural values is becoming more acute. People can pretend something doesn't exist all they want, but if they do, I would say that it sure isn't too much of a stretch to use the word delusional on them as well.

 

[German guy]

Gardener, thank you for your reply.

You are right, denying the existing problem is not good. I hope I have made clear I do not deny the problem of political islamism. I've explicitly stated that I do believe it is a problem, just like neo-Nazism or violent leftism are problems.

But I insist it must be possible to debate the problems connected with Islam, without resorting to broad generalizations, stereotyping and hateful rants. The true statement that it must be allowed and possible to debate problems connected with immigration, integration and Islam, must not serve as an excuse to fuel a culture war, to vent hatred, xenophobia and broad generalizations against an ethnic minority, or even apocalyptic conspiracy theories on par with the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion".

Because, make no mistake, the line between justified and respectful debate about existing problems with Islam, which serves enlightened ambition, and hateful propaganda and xenophobia, the very same old story of hatred against people who are different, strange and unknown, is very thin -- the latter is not more than the same old story, the same old petty hatred of the alien we know very well in various forms, be that anti-Semitism, racism against blacks or immigrants, yadda yadda. The new trend is that the old chauvinists, racists and fascists play the victim card, blame some ominous "political correctness" (which actually is just a widely agreed set of basic decency everybody with an intact moral compass should subscribe to) and hide in the cloak of enlightened pathos.

I'm the first to agree that Muslim hate preachers, their political, semi-political or even terrorist organizations must be prosecuted, not any less than similarly dangerous organizations on the side of neo-Nazis or revolutionary leftists must be prosecuted. Education and supporting measures for integration play a key role to dry out the biotope in which sympathy for radical islamism florishes, just like education and prospects must dry out the biotope among young people where neo-Nazist ideas grow.

But what's the point in constantly blaming all Muslims in general for the deeds and attitudes of the radicals among them? What's the point of this culture war? My main problem with this kind of hatred is that it is absolutely unconstructive 98% of the time -- this "Islam criticism" is usually limited to venting hatred, spreading fear, evoking hatred. Actual propositions how to deal with the problems that exist regarding Muslims in the West, constructive propositions, are tiny exceptions.

But what options are left, when you are constantly told all Muslims are evil, they do this and that, they want to take us over -- when there is no constructive approach, but only hatred and fear, you can do the calculation youself: Once you've established Muslims are evil, deserve to be hated and we have all reason to be afraid of them, then the only possible, logical conclusion is nothing short of ethnic cleansing or genocide. That is always the inevitable conclusion when Islam is villified, but no constructive idea offered whatsoever.

THAT is the problem I have with this style of debate.

 

[Grant]

The important matter isn't what is written in the books, but the degree to which people follow what is written. If the desire to defend results in minimizing the number who do follow and the degree to which they follow, then the resulting rhetoric should be filed away as apologia, that being the flip side of this coin you toss with some degree of frequency in regards to "Islamophobia".

In Britain, nearly 70% of Muslims want people jailed if they criticize Islam. 40 % there want Sharia law to rule. You mentioned the 21% of German Muslims who find their beliefs incompatable with your consititution. You also mention the "fringe extremists" as being no more of a problem than others but you did not acknowledge anything demonstrable in regards to the propensity towards holding various beliefs among other groups. Do 70% of Christians want people jailed if they diss Jesus? Do 40% of Jews want halakhah to prevail across the land? Do 21% of Hindus say their beliefs are incompatable with those of the country in which they live, and more importantly, are they demanding concessions to such beliefs?

You talk about paranoia and delusional thinking, but extreme denial is just as delusional as paranoia. Denial is just a different reaction to the threat that IS present via the fact that issues in regards to Muslims assimilating into western cultures are becoming more pressing due to the increasing radicalization of such Muslims along with their extreme growth in population.

If a person has to deny facts in order to appeal to political correctness, they are just as much part of the problem as those who do overreact. The Muslim population in western Europe is growing by leaps and bounds, native western Europeans have so sharply curtailed their procreation that they are now at less than replacement levels, and the clash of cultural values is becoming more acute. People can pretend something doesn't exist all they want, but if they do, I would say that it sure isn't too much of a stretch to use the word delusional on them as well.

I was reading the other day, and wish I could recall the source, that the Jews who were most in denial about the Nazi's intentions were the first to board the trains for the concentration camps. Those who read the situation with a more realistic eye got their families to safety early.

At that time the argument was that not all Germans are Nazis, that it was only a few who were creating the problems, that some of their best friends were German, and so on.

It seems people will see only what they want to see and deny the rest, no matter how much risk those denials might bring.

 

[Gardener]

Gardener, thank you for your reply.

You are right, denying the existing problem is not good. I hope I have made clear I do not deny the problem of political islamism. I've explicitly stated that I do believe it is a problem, just like neo-Nazism or violent leftism are problems.

But I insist it must be possible to debate the problems connected with Islam, without resorting to broad generalizations, stereotyping and hateful rants. The true statement that it must be allowed and possible to debate problems connected with immigration, integration and Islam, must not serve as an excuse to fuel a culture war, to vent hatred, xenophobia and broad generalizations against an ethnic minority, or even apocalyptic conspiracy theories on par with the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion".

Because, make no mistake, the line between justified and respectful debate about existing problems with Islam, which serves enlightened ambition, and hateful propaganda and xenophobia, the very same old story of hatred against people who are different, strange and unknown, is very thin -- the latter is not more than the same old story, the same old petty hatred of the alien we know very well in various forms, be that anti-Semitism, racism against blacks or immigrants, yadda yadda. The new trend is that the old chauvinists, racists and fascists play the victim card, blame some ominous "political correctness" (which actually is just a widely agreed set of basic decency everybody with an intact moral compass should subscribe to) and hide in the cloak of enlightened pathos.

I'm the first to agree that Muslim hate preachers, their political, semi-political or even terrorist organizations must be prosecuted, not any less than similarly dangerous organizations on the side of neo-Nazis or revolutionary leftists must be prosecuted. Education and supporting measures for integration play a key role to dry out the biotope in which sympathy for radical islamism florishes, just like education and prospects must dry out the biotope among young people where neo-Nazist ideas grow.

But what's the point in constantly blaming all Muslims in general for the deeds and attitudes of the radicals among them? What's the point of this culture war? My main problem with this kind of hatred is that it is absolutely unconstructive 98% of the time -- this "Islam criticism" is usually limited to venting hatred, spreading fear, evoking hatred. Actual propositions how to deal with the problems that exist regarding Muslims in the West, constructive propositions, are tiny exceptions.

But what options are left, when you are constantly told all Muslims are evil, they do this and that, they want to take us over -- when there is no constructive approach, but only hatred and fear, you can do the calculation youself: Once you've established Muslims are evil, deserve to be hated and we have all reason to be afraid of them, then the only possible, logical conclusion is nothing short of ethnic cleansing or genocide. That is always the inevitable conclusion when Islam is villified, but no constructive idea offered whatsoever.

THAT is the problem I have with this style of debate.

I think you have been clear, German Guy, but I also think many others haven't, and the way they deny any fact that is presented to them by way of the degree to which Mulsims ARE radicalided, or the preponderance of various beliefs indicates that they are simply beyond reason. Just as some people might blame ALL Muslims, these people cannot bring themselves to criticise ANYTHING about Islam short of mass murders carried out in its name, and even then, such criticisms are extremely tepid and offered with rationalizations that such mass murder is only a product of what the west does.

I think the problem in perception here, is that too many people see the friction involving Muslims living in the west as involving people rather than ideas and values. I see it as an issue of values, with the liberal values of western civilization being compromized by the extreme conservatism of the Muslim immigrants. In order to support these liberal values, it should be our duty to defend them, but far too many people have been hoodwinked into thinking it is the abrogation of these values that indicates liberalism rather than standing up for them. People have even lost the ability to identify these values properly, as the problems with Muslim immigrants have to do with their extremely patriarchal structure, their adherence to unbending cultural mores and their framework of valuing tradition over social justice.

Seems to me that until more peole in Europe can find a way to discuss the integration of Muslims without falling into the trap of acting either as Islamophobes or apologists, the problems will only increase. The apologists are fueling the rise in fundamentalism by running interference for it, and the Islamophobes are reacting to the real increase in radicalization by tossing the baby with the bathwater via supporting true racists. Lost in all this discussion is the fact that the very people who are being hurt the most are Muslims, themselves, who are being faced with increasing pressure to abandon western ways in favor of Islamist.

 

[German guy]

I was reading the other day, and wish I could recall the source, that the Jews who were most in denial about the Nazi's intentions were the first to board the trains for the concentration camps. Those who read the situation with a more realistic eye got their families to safety early.

At that time the argument was that not all Germans are Nazis, that it was only a few who were creating the problems, that some of their best friends were German, and so on.

It seems people will see only what they want to see and deny the rest, no matter how much risk those denials might bring.

So you actually compare Europeans today to Jews in Nazi Germany, and the Muslim minority in Europe to a full-fledged totalitarian Nazi state?

Although Muslims in Europe make not even 5% of the population and are a disadvantaged minority?

And you want anybody to take you seriously in the slightest?

*shakes head*

Talk about clinically relevant delusions.

 

[German guy]

I agree with much what you say, Gardener. Just one thing:

I think the problem in perception here, is that too many people see the friction involving Muslims living in the west as involving people rather than ideas and values. I see it as an issue of values, with the liberal values of western civilization being compromized by the extreme conservatism of the Muslim immigrants. In order to support these liberal values, it should be our duty to defend them, but far too many people have been hoodwinked into thinking it is the abrogation of these values that indicates liberalism rather than standing up for them.

Excuse me, but I think this is nothing more than a legend, or far-right hysteria: I don't see anybody, not even the islamism apologists you describe, giving up any values. I have yet to meet even a single one apologist who will not agree that forced marriage must always be illegal, that honor killings are a horrible kind of murder and must be prosecuted and condemned as such, that we need a free political system and freedom of speech and equality of women -- not a single one. Even those who defend the rights of Muslims strongest, or defend them against real or perceived xenophobia, will never be ready for any compromises in these regards.

This alleged "appeasement mentality", or the alleged lack of democratic values on the side of Islam-apologists, is nothing more than a unsubstantial right-wing talking point, in my opinion. About the same kind of meme like the accusation that anybody who opposes bombing some foreign country into the ground, supports "appeasement" and "makes the country weak". That's the shrill kind of faulty reasoning I'd expect from Ann Coulter, but I don't think it can be backed up with hard facts.

Terrorism in the name of religion is still illegal in Europe and prosecuted accordingly, and nobody suggests this should change, not even "Islam-apologists".
Murder, including "honor killings", are still illegal in Europe, and nobody suggests this should change, certainly not "Islam-apologists".
Women are legally equal to men, and nobody suggests this should change.
Forced marriage is illegal in Europe, and nobody suggests this should change.
Most people in Europe believe in a free political system and freedom of speech, and nobody except a few radicals, islamist or otherwise, want to change that -- definitely not "Islam-apologists".

So in which way are people defending Muslims against broad generalizations giving up Western values?

I think this claim is not more than an empty talking point.

 

[Grant]

So you actually compare Europeans today to Jews in Nazi Germany, and the Muslim minority in Europe to a full-fledged totalitarian Nazi state?

Although Muslims in Europe make not even 5% of the population and are a disadvantaged minority?

And you want anybody to take you seriously in the slightest?

*shakes head*

Talk about clinically relevant delusions.

Of for crying out loud!!

The point was that people can be in denial of danger, as any rational person can see. Not that the Muslims are building concentration camps in the North of Scotland in order to mass murder the English. Of course at one time Nazis were just 5% of the population also, but that was not the point either.

Oddly enough, I wondered if anyone could possibly misjudge such a straightforward example of denial but wrongly assumed that people were smart enough to get the real point of the post.

Read what is there, not what you think is there.

 

[alexa]

Elected governments who practice Sharia Law include Indonesia, etc.

If you've got Sharia, you're a Sharia-compliant government. Else you wouldn't have it.


Syria: honour crime law

Indonesia's Aceh passes stoning law - Asia-Pacific - Al Jazeera English

American Thinker Blog: Pakistani Muslims threaten violence unless Christian mother is executed

Sentenced to hang: Pakistan Christian in blasphemy trial - Scotsman.com News , etc.

There are words to describe rulers like that, though I fear they would get me threadbanned. However, howls of 'wacism' I'd be prepared to risk as those don't harm me at all.

RoP I do not accept your links as evidence that the people of Syria, Indonesia and Pakistan voted for harsh Sharia law such as you illustrate in your links This is particularly so as when you started putting these out I had a look at them and discovered that one of your links, to a beating of a woman in Bangladesh which you presented to show the beating, if you had read it you would have found that the story was about the people who had done this being arrested as it was against the law of Bangladesh. Your simplistic concepts are not reality.

If you ever watch the news you will know that the people were well upset when Pakistan decided it was not able to defeat the Taliban in the Swat valley and they had Sharia Law imposed on them. As always you look for an easy outlet to prove your simplistic view.

The Blasphemy laws are not Sharia. They have nothing to do with Islam.

NewAgeIslam.com: The War Withing Islam; No injunction in Islam to punish a 'blasphemer ': Maulana Wahiduddin Khan

Syria changed it's constitution in 2000 to allow Asaad's son to be elected unopposed.

It has only one party, the Ba'ah party.

The Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party (also spelled Ba'th or Baath which means "resurrection" or "renaissance" (reddyah); Arabic: حزب البعث العربي الاشتراكي‎) is a secularist political party, mixing Arab nationalist and Arab socialist interests, opposed to what it sees as "Western imperialism" and calling for the "renaissance" or "resurrection" of the Arab World and its unity in one united state.[1] Its motto — "Unity, Liberty, Socialism" (wahda, hurriya, ishtirakiya) — refers to Arab unity, freedom from non-Arab control and interference. Its ideology of Arab socialism is notably separate in origins and practice from Marxism.

Ba'ath Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note it is a seculist Political party. Now as for democracy

Throughout the six decades since independence, the people of Syria experienced only a dozen years of real political freedom.

Syria: a monopoly on democracy - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition

so although Syria did for a while have the opportunity for more political parties, it now has only one. Hardly a democracy.

Please provide evidence to prove that Pakistan, Syria and Indonesia had free democratic elections where the people voted for harsh Sharia Law

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

There is a war within Islam. And the moderates are losing big time. Hanbali Muslims are ascendant virtually everywhere in the Islamic world.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

RoP I do not accept your links as evidence that the people of Syria, Indonesia and Pakistan voted for harsh Sharia law such as you illustrate in your links

I merely spoke of brutal yet elected Sharia governments. I went on to clarify by saying any government with Sharia is Sharia-compliant. So the governments of Pakistan or Indonesia can be correctly described as instituting statute legislation of a Sharia nature.

Whether these were voted for seems irrelevant in nations where democracy is still a suspicious foreign import and religious culture is the huge dominating force.


And if, say, the people of Pakistan were so 'upset', they cheered up at the news of that Christian woman being sentenced to death. And as for the beating of that woman, Muslims in Bangla Desh are merely one pace forward from the already Islamising region.

Sharia Justice | Bangladesh Jihad Watch

Expansion of Sharia Banking in Bangladesh :: Hudson New York

Bangladesh: Docu-Movie on 'Sharia' Law | Women Living Under Muslim Laws

Bangladeshi Woman Dies After Caning Under Islamic (Sharia) Law - Atlas Shrugs (again)

IslamicAwakening.Com: ‘Islamists Striving for Sharia in Bangladesh’




Though it is a balancing act, what with the area being undeniably a victim of Muslim aggression: The West, Islam and Sharia: Bangladesh Government Blacklists Hizb Ut Towhid



However, your use of bald dhimmi-consumption lies from favourite Muslims (as-per the Guardian article jammed with them) undermines your gravitas in claiming to undermine any distortions of my own:

No injunction in Islam to punish a 'blasphemer ': Maulana Wahiduddin Khan

A Muslim convicted of blasphemy is sentenced to death in Muhammadan countries

Apostasy & Blasphemy in Islam by Syed Mumtaz Ali

“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter”; [ Surah Al-Maidah 5:33].

Islam and blasphemy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hate cycle: Pakistan should punish Mumtaz Qadri; blasphemy law should stay: Pervez Musharraf

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

RoP I do not accept your links as evidence that the people of Syria, Indonesia and Pakistan voted for harsh Sharia law such as you illustrate in your links

I merely spoke of brutal yet elected Sharia governments. I went on to clarify by saying any government with Sharia is Sharia-compliant. So the governments of Pakistan or Indonesia can be correctly described as instituting statute legislation of a Sharia nature.

Whether these were voted for seems irrelevant in nations where democracy is still a suspicious foreign import and religious culture is the huge dominating force.


And if, say, the people of Pakistan were so 'upset', they cheered up at the news of that Christian woman being sentenced to death. And as for the beating of that woman, Muslims in Bangla Desh are merely one pace forward from the already Islamising region.

Sharia Justice | Bangladesh Jihad Watch

Expansion of Sharia Banking in Bangladesh :: Hudson New York

Bangladesh: Docu-Movie on 'Sharia' Law | Women Living Under Muslim Laws

Bangladeshi Woman Dies After Caning Under Islamic (Sharia) Law - Atlas Shrugs (again)

IslamicAwakening.Com: ‘Islamists Striving for Sharia in Bangladesh’




Though it is a balancing act, what with the area being undeniably a victim of Muslim aggression: The West, Islam and Sharia: Bangladesh Government Blacklists Hizb Ut Towhid



However, your use of bald dhimmi-consumption lies from favourite Muslims (as-per the Guardian article jammed with them) undermines your gravitas in claiming to undermine any distortions of my own:

No injunction in Islam to punish a 'blasphemer ': Maulana Wahiduddin Khan

A Muslim convicted of blasphemy is sentenced to death in Muhammadan countries

Apostasy & Blasphemy in Islam by Syed Mumtaz Ali

“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter”; [ Surah Al-Maidah 5:33].

Islam and blasphemy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hate cycle: Pakistan should punish Mumtaz Qadri; blasphemy law should stay: Pervez Musharraf

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

YESTERDAY'S PAPERS SELLING YESTERDAY'S NEWS:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/87827-terror-uks-new-christmas-export-42.html#post1059197116

Alexa's Guardian article revisited.



A bit more on Islamic blasphemy law:

http://www.studying-islam.org/forum/topic.aspx?topicid=1046&lang=&forumid=1

Knowing Islam: Blasphemy Law; It is very much a true Islamic law having basis in Koran and Example of Mohammad.

CNN whitewashes Islam's death penalty for blasphemy - Jihad Watch

Abu Bakr Al- Faarisee – a companion of Imam Ash-Shafi'ee - stated that :

"There is the consensus of the Muslims upon killing who curses the Prophet, Peace and Blessings be upon him, just as the ruling for whoever curses other than him is whipping.

Muhammad Ibn Suhnoon said that:

The scholars are in consensus that the one who curses the Messenger is a Kafir; and whoever doubts his Kufr is a Kafir.

The bottom line: That the Muslim one who curses [The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him] is to be killed without disagreement, and it is the opinion of the methodology of the four Imams as well as other than them; even if he is a Jizya-paying non-Muslim, he is killed as well – according to Malik and the people of Madina; and it is the way of Ahmad and the scholars of Hadith. Ahmad specified it many times.

As I say, disgusting lies to promote otherwise, especially to the likes of the wider Liberal-Left who soak up all the fluffy propaganda to make Islam look good without question.

But Muhammad himself ordained that Muslims praise skilled liars to get their way: Quran 3:54 And they schemed/deceived and Allah schemed/deceived, and Allah is the best of the schemers/deceivers.



Muslims Muslims, what hast thou dunst?!

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

And talking of 'Muslims' and death threats......

Arizona shooting: Spike in death threats against Sarah Palin | Mail Online

Leftists have also been known to call for Palin's death after that Congresswoman was shot, convinced the Tea Party was behind it.


Toxic rhetoric: Twitter users want Sarah Palin dead, media yawns - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com

Left wing extremist issues death threats against Sarah Palin, Tea Party members and Eric Cantor on Twitter : Fire Andrea Mitchell!

Conspiracy theories and seething death threats? Little bit of a Stockholm Syndrome thing they have with Islam then....!

__________________________________

But let's close on a silver lining to the Islamo-cloud:

7/7 inquest: Bus driver saved 50 passengers moments before bomb exploded | Mail Online

 

[Grant]

"The great" Oriana wasn't that great if her warnings to Europe are unknown to Europeans.

It's not a shock to discover that there are Europeans who have never heard of Oriana Fallaci. In Britain there are a significant number who don't know that Winston Churchill was a real person. Ignorance has become the new symbol of egalitarianism.

 

[julietsm]

In response to RoPs last post:

Pakistan governor's suspected assassin hailed as hero - Washington Times

Let us not forget how the Pakistani hailed the murder of the official who was murdered for speaking out against the anti-blasphemy laws.

 

[mbig]

In response to RoPs last post:

Pakistan governor's suspected assassin hailed as hero - Washington TimesThanks for yet more proof of the busting of the Euro-liberal position:

Let us not forget how the Pakistani hailed the murder of the official who was murdered for speaking out against the anti-blasphemy laws.

Thanks for yet more evidence.

"....More than 500 clerics and scholars from the group Jamat Ahle Sunnat said no one should pray or express regret for the killing of the governor. The group representing Pakistan's majority Barelvi sect, which follows a brand of Islam considered moderate, also issued a Veiled Threat to other opponents of the blasphemy laws.

"The supporter is as equally guilty as one who committed blasphemy," the group Warned in a statement, adding that politicians, the media and others should learn "a lesson from the Exemplary death."

Jamat leader Maulana Shah Turabul Haq Qadri paid "glorious tribute to the murderer … for his courage, bravery and religious honor and integrity."..."


Yes, the "Majority","considered moderates" support Blasphemy laws and condones Murder in their name. And issued "veiled threats" of the same.

 

[alexa]

I merely spoke of brutal yet elected Sharia governments. I went on to clarify by saying any government with Sharia is Sharia-compliant. So the governments of Pakistan or Indonesia can be correctly described as instituting statute legislation of a Sharia nature.

Whether these were voted for seems irrelevant in nations where democracy is still a suspicious foreign import and religious culture is the huge dominating force.


And if, say, the people of Pakistan were so 'upset', they cheered up at the news of that Christian woman being sentenced to death. And as for the beating of that woman, Muslims in Bangla Desh are merely one pace forward from the already Islamising region.

Of course it is important. If you begin by implying that these sort of practises were brought in knowingly by free democratic elections, then if this is not the case you were wrong and wilfully or by ignorance making a false claim.

If as is the case these 'titillations' you have a wad of were not brought in by free democratic elections, then it is necessary to look a little deeper at what is going on in each individual case but certainly not to claim they were brought in by free democratic elections.

You know you have no case so you have sunk to insults. This conversation is hence over.

With regard to the Blasphemy laws they are not Islamic but were brought in by the British. They are used against minorities people do not like as they are almost impossible to prove wrong. This is the first time a death sentence has been given.

If you genuinely have any interested in 'truth' which I noticed you did mention in an earlier thread, then instead of blaming the Blasphemy laws on Islam and brutal Sharia Law on Free Democratic elections you will start to look at the situation a bit more thoroughly. Next you will be saying that the destruction of Sufi Shrines and Temples across Pakistan was by democratic vote.

If you ever decide you want to look at these issues seriously I may meet you in the Asia section.

You know you have lost this argument. You are just not man enough to admit it and so you have stooped to insults. Because of all that as I said this conversation is now closed.

 

[Grant]

There is a war within Islam. And the moderates are losing big time. Hanbali Muslims are ascendant virtually everywhere in the Islamic world.

That's because the 'moderates' do not murder anyone who disagrees with them. No one wants to sacrifice themselves in order to become a martyr for moderation.

 

[Grant]

And talking of 'Muslims' and death threats......

Arizona shooting: Spike in death threats against Sarah Palin | Mail Online

Leftists have also been known to call for Palin's death after that Congresswoman was shot, convinced the Tea Party was behind it.


Toxic rhetoric: Twitter users want Sarah Palin dead, media yawns - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com

Left wing extremist issues death threats against Sarah Palin, Tea Party members and Eric Cantor on Twitter : Fire Andrea Mitchell!

Conspiracy theories and seething death threats? Little bit of a Stockholm Syndrome thing they have with Islam then....!

__________________________________

But let's close on a silver lining to the Islamo-cloud:

7/7 inquest: Bus driver saved 50 passengers moments before bomb exploded | Mail Online

7/7 inquest: Bus driver saved 50 passengers moments before bomb exploded | Mail Online

I notice that some commentators consider it to be in bad taste to mention religion in relation to those attacks.

Everyone wants to avoid the common denominator it seems.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

In response to RoPs last post:

Pakistan governor's suspected assassin hailed as hero - Washington Times

Let us not forget how the Pakistani hailed the murder of the official who was murdered for speaking out against the anti-blasphemy laws.

I wanted to thank you for this but there was no button.

So thanks. Nice to read your input.