Terror attacks in Paris.

[jeremyp]

Well, just say, they behaved monstrously, then.

You are totally wrong to say the above: the difference between them and the majority of Muslims is that they have totally mis-represented what the Qu'Ran is saying.

You mean the same Quran that says "death to infidels"?

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

What the Quran says bears as much relation to the attitude of most Muslims as what the Bible says does to Christians. After all, I bet you suffer witches to live and you probably don't stone adulterers even though the Bible says you must.

[Leonard James]

You mean the same Quran that says "death to infidels"?

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

Good grief! What spine-chilling ignorance these "Holy Books" display. Even worse is the fact that some people still believe them!

[ProfessorDavey]

The difference is in the generaluzation, he is talking about the community as awhile, not specific individuals as you were doing this, this changes the meaning.
To illustrate Sadiq Khan might also say 'The Labour party should stop with the backstabbing or else it will be history' . This is different from someone saying, 's my individual who expresses any reservations about Jeremy Corbyn is a vicious traitor'

Nope your analogy is completely off beam.

Sadiq was talking about individuals, not an organisation. He didn't talk about Islam, he talked about 'fellow Muslims' - in other words individuals.

So the correct analogy in terms of Labour wouldn't be:

'The Labour party should stop with the backstabbing ...' - as you claim, but:

'My fellow Labour party members should stop with the backstabbing ...' - in other words.

So stop trying to twist something to accord with your argument, when it doesn't work. Sadiq Khan's comments were clearly aimed at individuals within the Muslim community, not merely the community itself - which of course would be largely nonsense anyhow as a community is merely a collection of individuals drawn together by some attribute.

[Nearly Sane]

I am comparing your comments which state that any Muslim  who expresses shock at someone becoming radicalised as being in denial with Khan's that's why your change to the analogy doesn't work in getting it closer to your position. At no point does he imply that shock at an individual being radicalised if you knew them is necessarily being in denial.


I am really struggling to understand why you don't see the difference here.

[Nearly Sane]

BTW I am perfectly happy with the change to the words of the analogy for Khan's bit. It doesn't make any difference to the gap between what he said and what you said.

[ProfessorDavey]

I am comparing your comments which state that any Muslim  who expresses shock at someone becoming radicalised as being in denial with Khan's that's why your change to the analogy doesn't work in getting it closer to your position. At no point does he imply that shock at an individual being radicalised if you knew them is necessarily being in denial.


I am really struggling to understand why you don't see the difference here.

Once again you are making things up.

I never said that any Muslim expressing shock at someone being radicalised was in denial.

My comment was much more specific than that - it was about comments where an individual expressed a refusal to believe that someone could have been radicalised, when clearly they had been. I think considering this to be denial is perfectly appropriate and never did I infer this applied to every individual who is shocked at attacks, let alone all muslims.

So I suggest you actually start reading what I wrote, not what you'd have liked me to have written to justify your little rant.

And I'd apply the same in other circumstances. If there was a case of serious bullying in a school and the Head Teacher is quoted as saying that he or she 'can't believe that there is bullying in my school' - I think it would be perfectly apt to suggest this person is in denial and I imagine you'd agree with me. Clearly that is different to the Head Teacher saying they are shocked at the bullying, which clearly wouldn't be a case of denial as there is a clear acceptance that it is or has happened.

And in that context I think my comment and that of Sadiq Khan are pretty well identical in their meaning.

[ProfessorDavey]

BTW I am perfectly happy with the change to the words of the analogy for Khan's bit. It doesn't make any difference to the gap between what he said and what you said.

Actually if there is a difference between him and me it is that he was somewhat more generalising - effectively aiming the 'head in the sand' comment to all his fellow Muslims, including himself as he talked of burying our heads in the sands.

My comments related only to those who refused to believe that individuals in their community could have become radicalised.

[ProfessorDavey]

I thought the point is that it's not happening in plain sight at all.   I don't understand the idea of denial - what does that mean?  Denial means that you are aware of it.   

The point about plain sight is about the inability of people sometimes to see what is going on right in front of them. And that may sometimes be because they don't recognise the signs or, in other cases, because they don't want to accept that something bad might be happening.

Clearly in many cases the radicalisation was going on right in the heart of the communities, and related to new people that the person was interacting with, in person or over social media. I think as well in many of the cases there were changes in behaviour that might have been identified as risk factors by those people nearest to the person being radicalised. And again to try to broaden it a little - this doesn't just link to radicalisation, but other problems, such as kids becoming part of gang cultures, getting involved in drugs etc. Often the signs are plain to see - in plain sight, so to speak, but those closest are either unable to see them or unwilling to admit to the potential problem.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Forum,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/isis-world-powers-plan-united-nations-security-council-resolution-to-declare-war-against-group-in-a6741181.html

Good news/bad news or just news, my problem ( yes mine ) I don't know enough about the situation ( who does ).

And I see chemical warfare raising its ugly head again.

More news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-34877717

Walk a mile in a Muslims shoes, not an easy task.

Belgium, Glasgow, France, have Daesh ( sorry Prof and Jeremyp, call it my confirmation bias ) done what they set out to do.

Gonnagle.

[Spud]

You mean the same Quran that says "death to infidels"?

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

What the Quran says bears as much relation to the attitude of most Muslims as what the Bible says does to Christians. After all, I bet you suffer witches to live and you probably don't stone adulterers even though the Bible says you must.

The Bible does not say that you must stone adulterers, but that at one time you had to, when we were under the old covenant. That's the difference between Christianity and Islam. You seem to be saying that Islam itself is the problem, based on the verses quoted in your link. If so then I agree.
http://tinyurl.com/pfsabne

[floo]

The Bible does not say that you must stone adulterers, but that at one time you had to, when we were under the old covenant. That's the difference between Christianity and Islam. You seem to be saying that Islam itself is the problem, based on the verses quoted in your link. If so then I agree.
http://tinyurl.com/pfsabne

Christianity has featured in a lot of nastiness over the centuries, and some Biblical literalist nutters are still responsible for unpleasant abuse.

Those who try to excuse the OT for its nastiness, saying it has been superseded by the NT, seem to forget it is the same deity featured in each. Besides which the NT is far from perfect. Jesus might have said and done good things but he also said and did things which were far from sensible, imo. The NT hosts that daft book of Revelation which gives free rein to Biblical extremists to interpret in mindbogglingly crazy ways!

[Spud]

Floo, the fact that adultery (and for that matter all sin) deserves death has not changed.

[floo]

Floo, the fact that adultery (and for that matter all sin) deserves death has not changed.

You are joking, of course!

[Shaker]

Floo, the fact that adultery (and for that matter all sin) deserves death has not changed.

Unsurprisingly you seem to be in an abusive relationship with the concept of 'fact.'

[Spud]

To clarify, i meant in God's eyes. As taught in genesis 3.

[Shaker]

Thanks for clarifying that God as presented in your book is no authority on moral matters and that no decent human being would have anything to do with it.

[wigginhall]

The Bible does not say that you must stone adulterers, but that at one time you had to, when we were under the old covenant. That's the difference between Christianity and Islam. You seem to be saying that Islam itself is the problem, based on the verses quoted in your link. If so then I agree.
http://tinyurl.com/pfsabne

And that would be an inflammatory and bigoted statement, which adds to the mess.  So thanks for that.   Le Pen would be proud of you.

[jeremyp]

The Bible does not say that you must stone adulterers, but that at one time you had to, when we were under the old covenant.

There's nothing in the Bible that abolishes that law.

That's the difference between Christianity and Islam.

No it isn't. Most Muslims ignore the silly violent bits in their book and most Christians ignore the silly violent bits in their book.

You seem to be saying that Islam itself is the problem, based on the verses quoted in your link. If so then I agree.
http://tinyurl.com/pfsabne

No I was specifically refuting the claim that the terrorists were the ones misrepresenting their holy book. It's the vast majority of Muslims, and that is a good thing.

[Spud]

Jeremy, that the koran contains those verses without any instructions to ignore them is where the danger lies.

[Spud]

Plus jeremy, did you read my link? The old testament says there will be a new covenant, and the new testament, eg hebrews, says that the old is done away with.

[BashfulAnthony]

You mean the same Quran that says "death to infidels"?

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

What the Quran says bears as much relation to the attitude of most Muslims as what the Bible says does to Christians. After all, I bet you suffer witches to live and you probably don't stone adulterers even though the Bible says you must.

That's rather what I was suggesting, that most Muslims take the nasty exhortations with a pinch of salt; whereas the murderous Daesh and the like, take the such passages as their guide, implicitly. 

[floo]

To clarify, i meant in God's eyes. As taught in genesis 3.

You don't know that for a FACT, anymore than you KNOW any deity exists! If that were true, it doesn't say anything good about the deity!

[jeremyp]

Plus jeremy, did you read my link? The old testament says there will be a new covenant, and the new testament, eg hebrews, says that the old is done away with.

And Jesus specifically said that the law would not be altered.

You cherry pick your holy book and so do Muslims. That's not a bad thing.

[jeremyp]

That's rather what I was suggesting, that most Muslims take the nasty exhortations with a pinch of salt; whereas the murderous Daesh and the like, take the such passages as their guide, implicitly.

For once, I agree with you.

[Spud]

And Jesus specifically said that the law would not be altered.

You cherry pick your holy book and so do Muslims. That's not a bad thing.

Indeed Jesus did not alter the law about executing an adulteress (John 8 ). But he did make it impossible for anyone but himself to carry it out, by allowing anyone who was without sin to do so.