wow wee hot air and venom abounds, you are arguing against a straw man and you don't even know it. You are so quick to see me as some kind of undercover war monger and racist you have gone off to war with only your knob in your hands. Oh dear
Better plain hot air than the fetid flatus of your offerings, dearie.
I haven't even tangentially accused you of being a warmonger or a racist, so please stop hypotheising scenarios that place you as a victim, it's nauseating.
I didn't say that "you" said that most Islamic countries are dictatorships. I said that they where.
You're not as good at comprehending English as you like to think, are you?
You, in reply to my point about secular law in many nation-states with a majority Muslim population, did indeed say that most of them were dictatorships, it started with the words "quite right", a fairly easy to decipher indicator of agreement with something you
perceived that I said.
You conflated "secular law" with "dictatorship".
Well done. Your conflation didn't even hold water.
But you are right and I will amend my comment most Arabic countries live under a dictatorship. Iran lives under a highly repressive theocracy which is not very popular at the moment and with luck will implode or be overthrown but that will not happen by the vote alone without bloodshed. Iranian theocracy is a dictatorship of the clerics and no mistake, I have Iranian friends and believe me it is not a good country to live in if you are secular, liberal and value personal freedom.
Iran functions under a quasi-democratic system that is influenced by theocrats.
Do try to get it right.
It might suprise you that I have lived in the worlds most liberal Islamic state. Malaysia, it is a wonderful place and very liberal but Islamic law runs concurently and much of the time supercedes secular law in Malaysia.
It does so illegally, though.
Apostates can lose their children and be ubducted for "re-education" and musem exhibitions have been closed by Sharia courts. It is on the whole a relaxed place but it is constantly being troubled by the draconian rulings of the Sharia courts. Please understand my criticism of Islam does not come from ignorance, racism or any desire to see an American hegemony over the Islamic world.
I too have grown up with Muslims from many different parts of the world and most of my Muslim friends agree with me on much of what I say but they are invariably secular.
It is the devout Muslims I know who are homophobic, misogynistic and have symapthy for the totalitarian Islamic movements of the world. I found even these fundamentalist Muslims a plesure to sit with a chew khat but I still reserve the right to condemn the parts of their religion that go against universal human rights.
I know many devout Muslims, of all three major sects, who don't manifest any of those prejudices. The Muslims I know that are homophobes, misogynistic etc, are invariably poorly-schooled in Islam, and subject to "tribal" interpretations that have nothing to do with Koranic lore
You all seem to have a problem with this.
Not at all. What I have a problem with is politically-motivated sweeping generalisations that tar vast swathes of people with the same brush for no better reason than that it suits their politics to do so.
I will ask you please to read the Euston Manifesto and understand that is where I am coming from. I'm not some bigot with a desire to bash Islam but as someone who knows the Koran, has grown up in London with Muslims and lived in a Muslim country. I have seen how repressinve Islam can be and I condemn it excess and opressive application. I have no problem with Islam as a private faith but if it refuses to stay private it should be opposed.
I read it the day it was published, I've read it twice since, I still disagree with many of the assumptions it makes.
If you read the Euston Manifesto you will see it talks about not making excuses for totalitarian ideologies or condemning certain "disfavoured governments" for lesser (though all too real) violations of human rights which are closer to home, or are the responsibility of certain disfavoured governments, more deplorable than other violations that are flagrantly worse.
Those who formulated the manifesto had an agenda, did they not?
Your Pontius Pilate would have felt at home with them, I think.
This is what I'm talking about I pick on Islam because it is more violent than Christianity at this time in history plus Islam is strong in Europe and it has a more imediate affect on me than American Christianity. The fact that American Christians are bad doesn't get Islamic nutters off the hook. And once again it's that reletavism again. Christianity doesn't have a death cult building in it's midst Islam does.
You may see things in terms of relativism. perhaps if you took your blinkers off you'd notice that the argument isn't about relativism, but about the fact that belief of any sort should be used as an excuse (or worse, a reason) for violence at all.
I will leave it there. I will read the other threads that you so arrogantly assumed I would not read and you read the Euston Manifesto. Deal?
Like you arrogantly assumed that I hadn't read the Euston Manifesto, you mean?
