This is demsci's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following demsci's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Very good reply, Morty62. And I would like to add; We can respect you when you honestly point out why you prefer your so-called divine laws to manmade laws. I respect you when you follow Muhammad orders to be first and foremost loyal to Islam and your co-religionist around the world. But tell that the whole world and take the consequences! Instead you only deny or ignore legitimate protests and you don't inform the ignorant multiculturalist-political correct Westerners of your anti-Democratic; laws, principles, loyalties. And that lying, or perhaps being brainwashed and unthinking and unlearning from experience and news and websites like this, THAT is despicable. My questions to Sarah are: of course you prefer good Muslims to bad Kuffars. But can you prefer good Kuffars to bad Muslims? And can you be loyal to Democratic laws, interests and authorities over and above Islamic ones when the two are shown to be in conflict? And it is better to be loyal to Islam and against Democratic laws and principles and be honest about it and take the consequences than it is to think that but lie about it, or than it is to be ignorant about the controverses between them, yet being too lazy to find out about them.
If you think about it, it is the strangest thing. Obama commemorating Muslim victims, killed by Muslim perpetrators, who killed many more infidels, which was their intention. And it was not an ordinary crime, but done for the sake of Islam, against infidel America. Probably because it was so mighty and standing in the way of Islamic expansion. Obama wants to paint Islam as just another religion, "mysterious, neutral to the form of the state, entirely private" and he wants to defend the full practicing of it. But he also is supposed to be a Democrat and defending the constitution. And apparently he is blind, deaf and dumb to the overwhelming evidence that Islam has clear tyrannical tenets. And if Muslims were sincere, they should study their religion deeply and openly admit these undemocratic antidemocratic tyrannical tenets of Islam, instead of ignoring-denying them. Citizens, media, politicians and the government should ask all Muslims in Democratic Nations to choose, to clarify how they interpret Islam in the light of the democratic system, its laws, the interest of its nations. To adhere to Islam as it is now is not good, not neutral, but demonstrated millionfold to be detrimental to its opposing governing system, democracy. And those Islamic attendants at that Iftar-meal cannot just be considered loyal Americans, loyal Democrats above all else. That would mean they ignored big parts of their religions tenets, and also be in opposition to millions upon millions of their co-religionists. That's why they can't just sit there and say nothing about their doctrine and loyalties. If they do, they cannot be trusted. Or considered knowledgeable enough about their religion. And inferior in that knowledge to many counterjihadists and their readers. No, Muslims in Democratic Nations must in future make choices and secede from all default Muslims, initiating and joining some Islamic Democratic movement, with clear negotiable democracy-compatible doctrine and well formulated and kept conditions on membership of this Islamic Democratic movement. And in the end default Muslims must be marginalized or encouraged to live in a nation they can be truly and totally loyal too, while still being highly knowledgeable of their religion. Because default Muslims should be considered ignorant, confused or downright loyal to clear enemies.
Christie here shows he thinks only national. But Muslims think global and we should do so also. Christie says that we should judge Sohail Mohamed only on his character and track record, and the oaths he took, sounds good, but .... Islam is described by experts as anti-democratic in its texts, according to many of its own experts and followers. Or at least ridiculously often interpreted as such, making followers of that ideology very untrustworthy in what they assert about it to the contrary. In Islam is the doctrine that Muslims are supposed to be first and foremost loyal to the global Ummah and not to the country they live in or its laws when they contradict the interests and laws of the Ummah. This judge belongs to this organisation, Islam, which has no reasonable conditions of membership, so he has many idiots, oppressors, violent persons in it with him, whom the Muslims cannot kick out. His organisation prefers 33 anti-Democratic laws and absolute loyalty to them and the belief that all of the Quran is valid for all people and all time. I hope ever more citizens, media and politicians evolve towards holding a person accountable for consciously staying in such an organisation, without attempting to restart it with a new name, clear doctrine and reasonable conditions upon membership and join that organisation instead.
Nihad Awad fails to see the benefit and bright side of freedom of speech. To begin with: There is a clear boundary on it and that is DIRECTLY inciting to violence. But freedom of speech does allow insults and expressed emotions of anger, contempt. So perceived INDIRECT inciting to violence is not recognized and forbidden. But this mechanism allows mankind and individuals to notice and understand where they go wrong and might do better. It allows mankind to progress, to prophit from all it's experience, like nothing else does. It forces people to think about their own behavior and thoughtpatterns, often precisely because of insults, which cause emotions of anger, disgust, indignation in persons. And in countries with freedom of speech and elections Muslims are bound to watch their words and behavior, because otherwise the people around them, like their women, daughters, can see the critics of Islam are right in their criticism-exposures-protests and accountable-holdings. So; another beneficial effect of freedom of speech, preventing much oppression and violence. After thinking very hard how to refute all allegations against Islam and misbehaving co-religionists, many Muslims now speak much more intelligent and reasonably and nuanced than, say, 5 years ago. Many Muslims now understand that what they accuse Americans, Israeli's, Kafirs of, they also must accuse fellow-Muslims of, when they do it, often much worse, to avoid double standards. Yes, some people may respond violently in this democratic practice of freedom of speech, but I daresay that this practice prevents much more violence. This is because stupid and evil behavior of humans, and Muslims also, and because of violent, supremacist Islamic inspiration in their behavior also, exists abundantly (it is shown here and on many other places). And the reaction to violent, oppressing, exploiting behavior can be: Miserably submitting to it or violently reacting to it. But only with freedom of speech there is a third possibility; that of understanding each others needs and settling matters after negotiations. But Nihad Awad, he clearly A. denies all truth or reasonability in angry non-violent allegations against Islam and misbehaving Muslims, so he too is in denial. And B. wants to limit the reactions to misbehaving Muslims (inspired by Islam)to miserably submitting to it or fighting against it in desperation. Which is what Anders Breivik resorted to. Because he did not trust freedom of speech to resolve the misbehavior and threat of Muslims-inspired-by-Islam.
LOL, Islam has the deathpenalty for apostasy. A person already a Muslim when born one. Islam has only superficial conditions upon membership. And it has Quran-Hadith-Sira as holy texts, which are constantly understood by Islam's greatest experts as being supremacist-violent-oppressive to women and religious minorities. And practiced as such by millions of Muslims. And when others say that Islam is meant different that only shows Islam's criminal ambiguity/ vulnerability to misunderstanding. And to THIS Muslims are supposed and shown to be more loyal than to any nation or organisation. But all reasonable human beings should resent it when they are in an organisation with a name, Islam, as members, called Muslims, that also harbours and is used by all sorts of criminals, oppressors, idiots, since there is no clear doctrine and no reasonable condition upon membership. That is what you are part of or what you are defending here. And thus you are working against the interests of all victims of Muslims-inspired-by-Islam. Link that.
I don't think Islam will rule anyway. Muslims should realize time is running out on Islam, due to ever faster developing computers and robots, approaching singularity, when these are as intelligent as humans. And ongoing education and mass communication.
We must evolve as to have a majority of citizens, media and politicians in democratic nations, one after the other, who look at Islam in relation to the full democratic system in a global context, not just in a national context. Who look towards the distinction of Muslims and Divers Democratic Citizens (DDC) worldwide. Then demand from the Muslims worldwide reciprocity. To me it seems very unfair, that the Muslims in the world in effect prophit from the huge unbalance of Muslim-rights&opportunities in Democratic Nations and those of DDC in Islamic countries. They prophit because Islam, the religion they cherish above all else, prophits. And if Muslims and Muslim-defenders protest that the Muslims in Democratic Nations are not united with and distinct from the Muslims in Islamic countries, we could argue that there is ample evidence for all Muslims being united in their Ummah in relation to all DDC. And that it is up to the Muslims in Democratic Nations to endeavour to show in oath and in protesting-behavior that they are worldwide Democracy-loyalists first and Muslims then only, in all important aspects. That means that on aggregate they must protest more against fellow-Muslims who oppress the rights of DDC worldwide than against DDC-countries and leaders. Or else Muslims in Democratic Nations should finally declare to all citizens, so also to all Muslim-defenders, that yes, they are united with the Ummah, and yes, the Ummah is in important respects anti-democratic and in league with Democracy's enemies. Then take the consequences of that stance. And that is why the pressure is on Muslims, especially those in Democratic Nations, today, it seems to me.
Of course I meant that the Christians already en masse wholesale accepted the Democratic legal and governing system.
Yes, we know that you don't like prejudices that spill over to entire populations. But do you believe in the free choice and accountability of one's beliefs? As opposed to the accident of birth which one's race is? Because that would mean that you would have to investigate what Islam teaches and how that really effects the political aims and behavior of Muslims and then their responsibility in choosing it. And ignorance would be no excuse, for them or you. The comparison of Islam with Christianity is obsolete, the real comparison, considering all the evidence, is that between the essences of the Democratic legal and governing system and the Islamic legal and governing system. Which Christians in vast majority already allowed and accepted wholesale, as opposed to Muslims. Do you defend Islam, because you greatly desire to defend Muslims? To be as fair and loving or sympathetic and supportive as you can to them? Because by that token, you could also focus on defending the Democratic governing system, with all it's essences, including autonomy of the individual and freedom of speech. Because you probably care for all humans, not just Muslims, and especially for our grandchildren and those of the Muslims too, especially the women. And you could because of that consider the clear anti-democratic tendencies in Islam and Muslims and their responsibility to reform it or apostasize from it, or to own up to it's real nature, or it's confused nature.
As Islam now stands unreformed, and is understood by very knowledgeable Critical Islam Experts and many of their readers it is anti-Democratic. So if Pro-Islam-people like Ed Mast, who is using double standards towards Israel and Islamic Nations and terrorists, concerning war-crimes, of which the latter are far more guilty than Israel, lose, then the Democratic system wins!
Very well put, Getzel! These people from the bus company could have taken their clue from South Park-writers; It's OK to hurt and deeply ridicule Israeli's or Christians, because they abide by civilized rules and they involve no violent risk. But something hurtful or to distressing Muslims, oh, well, NOW it gets to be: "an unacceptable risk of harm, disruption and interference with the transportation system and other breaches of the public safety, peace and order." Why can't they or other observers admit this plain sign of unbalance? Bully's, and that is what Muslims amount to, (only a part of them, but the rest just hugely under-reacts to this small part), should if anything be harsher responded to than non-bullying citizens. So, just for exposure and punishment of violent threats the AFDI-ads should be allowed. And to avoid complaints of censorship, both ads should be allowed, but at the same price.
Perhaps we should primarily focus on what the message was, what was said and meant. Rather than focusing on the messenger so much. That should be done also when Muslims say something, in order to try to be fair and well, Democratic. And what this man said was great! He compared killing Imams and Priests in Austria and Turkey. He showed that the Turks ask Austrian citizens to have an attitude, that in reverse would be punishable by law in Turkey. He exposed the huge lack of reciprocity that should be self-evident even to Turks and Muslims themselves. As it is so much in favor of the Turks and Muslims now. And NOW is the operative word, as far as I am concerned. As long as a viable Democratic system remains in place in Austria, I trust the Austrians as much as any other Democratic citizens and more than those who still favor Theocratic laws more than Democratic ones.
Well said Whitaker411, that should be the way in Holland where I live and Europe as well. Islam-wise people now know the Islamic most important guiding texts from A to Z, and the interpretations of the most influential theologians and leaders of Islam of these texts. And they, being from the 7th-10th century, are contradicted/ opposed to the 18th-20th century set of Democratic laws and values in many ways. In future I hope mainstream politicians and media will evolve to see it as self-evident that there are 2 opposing systems of laws and state-organising, the old Islamic, Theocratic one, and the newer fully democratic one. And that persons should be held accountable for which of the 2 they really support. And whether they are loyal to a worldwide Islamic Ummah or a worldwide Democratic Ummah. This should be a choice that should be known from every citizen of a democratic nation. And then the corollary seems to be or should self-evident; Let people live in the countries that match their preference; Islamic-theocratic or Democratic. Isn't it only fair to ensure that democratic nations have citizens that are basically loyal or at least neutral to their legal and governing system and not to it's greatest competitor-system? And clinging to a belief system like Islam that leaves all options open, because of its huge lack of clarity and it's huge multi-interpretation-vulnerability, can in future no longer be seen as neutral but still hostile or risky, I think.
"Bullshit. Since when does the domestic policy of any country dictate what we do in our country?" Only this part of Islam & Democracy, and only since there are now # 50 million Muslims in the EU, that has # 500 million inhabitants and a few million in America, numbers and percentages that are growing. What you said applies to a lot but not to this controversy. The Muslims, consciously or unconsciously take a lot of unjust advantage from your view with looking at your own country only. Here the Muslims are in the West and they and their faith get absolute equal chances. People like you, fairminded as you are, wouldn't dream of letting them get anything less. But the Muslims in power in the 56 Islamic countries are in great majority not as fairminded as you. And they give Islam enormous advantages, with oppression, violence, wholesale propaganda and censorship. The other religions and atheism of course suffer from that or are given scant chance there! So, why can't you see what I see so clearly; Islam, or Muslims, consciously or unconsciously., play false! Their faith benefits from unjust practices in their countries and fairminded practices in the countries of the other faiths. And faith is often what they cherish most, so that makes them profit too. And by the same token the followers of other faiths suffer from this situation. Why can't you see how the death penalty for apostasy from Islam contrasts with absolute freedom of changing religion in Democracy? Or free distribution of qurans here and the shredding or burning of bibles, when confiscated, over there? Do you have 2 sets of standards for Muslims and non-Muslims, just because you only look at your own country? This situation eventually has to be rectified somehow, we must call for fair worldwide reciprocity somehow, albeit with only fair means, not their foul means.
Toggle Commented Sep 28, 2010 on 60 Minutes on the Ground Zero Mosque at Atlas Shrugs
Hatred against Islam and Muslims? Well, Islam is only a religion, and all religions and ideologies may be scrutinized, criticized, exposed. And against Muslims? Well, the question is if they can be held accountable for their choices or not. One's religion is supposed to be one's choice. So when Islam is interpreted and practiced by Muslims, their actions can be scrutinized, criticized, exposed too. And there can be protest against it. In Democracy with free speech we are free to do that in the media, TV, Internet and then Muslims and you are there free to praise and support Islam and Muslims in compensation. Now; Muslims and people like you are just trying to shut down the debate, the dialoque. You are on the road to censorship. We now see a great controversy between Muslims and Democracy-loyalist people, who have very legitimate concerns and plenty of information and good logical arguments. And we think that this controversy can eventually be solved peacefully by dialoque and shutting down that dialoque may well lead to violence, even war. I quess you only want this dialoque when there is enough respect from Democracy-loyalists for Muslims. But you don't take into account that Islam in the Quran and Muslims in their behavior in Islamic countries and even in Democratic countries can be very disrespectful to infidels also. And if respect according to you is not shown enough, and respect can't be forced, then you prefer to shut the whole dialoque down, because of your fear of bigotry and feelings of hurting and hatred???!
demsci is now following The Typepad Team
Aug 21, 2010