Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
This Guy Is Incredible
Options
Comments
-
Conservative-leaning - so what? If it was left-leaning I'm sure it would then be 100% accurate and fair right? Also, seeing as the Guardian chose not to question the validity of the poll, when you'd expect they would, shows you it is reputable. Anyways, your opinion - my opinion, a discussion on that poll will drag on and on. You can't keep moving the goalposts, you wanted a source for it, i gave you the source.
On another note, Muslim followers care a lot more about what their Iman believes than what a Catholic hears when the Pope speaks. Also, the reaction of both religions when provoked are completely different, you can see this surely? 100 people died over the Danish cartoon controversy, yet nobody died when South Park repeatedly poked fun at Jesus in their show. Even the episode where they planned to feature Muhammed was censored by Comedy Central, for fear of offending more Muslims.
Why are you trying to appease radical Islam's right to be continuously offended and deprive us of our rights? You think you could have an open discussion on Islam like this in any of the flag-burning states?0 -
speedboatchase wrote: »Conservative-leaning - so what?
Well, considering Policy Exchange reports are questionable at least.
Here is BBC News Night on another Policy Exchange "report":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7140000/newsid_7142200/7142296.stm
So considering that Policy Exchange aren't above fabricating evidence, you have to wonder how accurate the poll is.
Personally, I would find anything from Policy Exchange highly questionable.speedboatchase wrote: »Even the episode where they planned to feature Muhammed was censored by Comedy Central, for fear of offending more Muslims.
Muhammed has appear on South Park before and it wasn't censored. No one died that time. You can see it repeated on Paramount Comedy from time to time, uncensored btw.
Here a synopsis of the episode:
http://www.tv.com/south-park/the-super-best-friends/episode/56202/summary.html
Its a pretty funny one as well.
**EDIT**
The Muhammed from South Park actually appears in the opening credits for Season 5 or 6 as well. This also is not censored, you can see this on the repeats on Paramount Comedy.0 -
Actually, it was the name of the organisation (Policy Exchange) that I was attempting to draw attention to. They have a bit of a track-record of fabricating results, as wes has already alluded to.speedboatchase wrote: »Conservative-leaning - so what? If it was left-leaning I'm sure it would then be 100% accurate and fair right?
Does it? Maybe they just published it with a bit of background information so people could make up their own minds.speedboatchase wrote: »Also, seeing as the Guardian chose not to question the validity of the poll, when you'd expect they would, shows you it is reputable.
:rolleyes: More generalisations. Got anything to back that up?speedboatchase wrote: »On another note, Muslim followers care a lot more about what their Iman believes than what a Catholic hears when the Pope speaks.
:rolleyes:speedboatchase wrote: »Why are you trying to appease radical Islam's right to be continuously offended and deprive us of our rights?
Please indicate precisely where I have done anything of the sort.
I am not defending extremists, I am defending the average Muslim (or individual from a Muslim background) who gets lumped in with extremists when people make ridiculously general (and inaccurate) statements such as this:The fact remains that muslims have a lack of respect towards western women.0 -
"I am defending the average Muslim (or individual from a Muslim background) who gets lumped in with extremists when people make ridiculously general (and inaccurate) statements "
3rd Time around
"Sheik Hilali said: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?"
Their head made these comments, not me. No conspiracy here. Care to address them ? by the way, I know he's a fool. Address his credentials. If you want to bring in the Pope, point me in the direction of groups of christians who have carried on in this manner (with his blessing). Otherwise, admit that the pope is not influencing people to the same extent.
Same old routine from you djpbarry
1) someone posts an opinion
2) You dismiss patronisingly, insinuating bias & asking for sources
3) sources are provided. you dismiss these, guardian, australian newspapers whatever, no sources meet your standard. Everyone is racist etc etc etc
4) you attempt to put words into the mouth of the poster
5) repeat above ad infinitum.
ps notice you haven't responded to Sand above, whose post is one of the best i've read in a while.0 -
3) sources are provided. you dismiss these, guardian, australian newspapers whatever, no sources meet your standard. Everyone is racist etc etc etc
So the fact that Policy Exchange, have fabricated evidence for there "reports" in the past, doesn't make them a dodgy source? Why should they be trusted? I haven't seen them make any changes to make sure such a thing doesn't happen again.
I would certainly think that there own actions have made them less than thrust worthy. Whats wrong with pointing that out?Their head made these comments, not me. No conspiracy here. Care to address them ? by the way, I know he's a fool. Address his credentials. If you want to bring in the Pope, point me in the direction of groups of christians who have carried on in this manner (with his blessing). Otherwise, admit that the pope is not influencing people to the same extent.
So the Sheik an unelected "community leader" (probably appointed by a small group of other such "community leaders") represents the Australian Muslim community? They didn't vote for him. He was appointed. Read the articles and you will see that the Sheik seems to represent a small portion of the Lebanese Muslim community in Australia, rather than the entirety of the Muslim community.
Also, you are making a big assumption that Australian Muslims agree with him. There were in fact quite a few who didn't. Unsurprisingly quite a few of them were Women as well.
Also, didn't the comments happen after the rape gang were arrested and tried? How could something he said after influence them? Did they attend his mosque and listen to his sermons? Did they follow him at all?0 -
Advertisement
-
"So the Sheik an unelected "community leader" (probably appointed by a small group of other such "community leaders") represents the Australian Muslim community? "
He is/was a religious leader, I think you'll find that most religious leaders are not elected through a democratic process.
If the pope made some outrageous remark about all muslims girls, could I just say that he was a community leader, who since he was elected by a small group of cardinals, does not really represent catholics ?
Doublespeak.0 -
If the pope made some outrageous remark about all muslims girls, could I just say that he was a community leader, who since he was elected by a small group of cardinals, does not really represent catholics ?
Yes, you could. A small unelected elite are hardly representative of 1 billion catholics.
Of course your not comparing like with like in this instance. There is no supreme Islamic authority comparable to the Pope for the vast majority of Muslims.
The Sheik does not represent any kind of authority for Muslims. He is not the equivalent of a Pope, or even a priest. You are confusing 2 very different systems. If you read the links I showed you. You would see that the Sheik isn't representative and got into his position due to politics and circumstance. There are many different groups in the Australian Muslim community who aren't happy with the Sheik. The links I provided show this
You are trying to make the Sheik something he isn't. I have provided proof that he isn't what you think he is.
So the "double speak" as you put it, is yours alone.0 -
He referred indirectly to the Lebanese-Australian community in making reference to said crime. I pointed out that 60% of Lebanese-Australians are an in fact Christian and so the term "Muslim rape gang" is probably not terribly accurate.bob2000 never referred to the Lebanese-Australian community. He referred to "muslim rape gangs" preying on Australian women [amongst others], and the "lethargic reaction to these crimes by the muslim society".
I'm not sure that the Muslim community's reaction to these comments was lethargic; if you are referring to Hilaly's comments, they were widely condemned by Muslims:
http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003286.htmlOmran's latest comments come on the heels of the Australian Mufti's suggestion that women who do not wear headscarfs are like meat left out for cats to eat, and that they "invite" rape. The Mufti, Sheikh Taj al-Din Al-Hilaly, had been widely condemned by Muslims and politicians alike for his comments.
I had forgotten about the comments, but the point is that it was implied that Hilaly's comments were the universal Muslim response to Skaf's crime, which they were not, not least because they were made 4 years after the sentencing and 6 years after the crime took place.You challenged him on this as you had forgotten or never heard of the international outrage over the immans comments...
I think the term "racist" or "racist rapists" would be adequate in both instances. If the gang were Hindu, would they have been dubbed a "Hindu rape gang"? Probably not, but they may have been labelled according to their ethnicity.For the record, I find the term "muslim rape gangs" a little OTT, but given the case it seems to fit at least as well as "white racists" would in describing the criminals involved in a racial hate attack.
Are they? There were widespread calls for Hilaly's deportation after he made his comments (I'm not sure if anything came of it).They are religious bigots and fanatics, but are given a free ride on the basis of their minority status.
Remember Anjem Choudary's visits to Dublin:
I'm not sure that could be construed as a "free ride".Defence Minister Willie O'Dea warned that if Mr Choudary repeated his inflammatory comments here and returned to Britain, his extradition should be sought, if necessary, to face criminal charges.
Interpreted by a minority of nut-jobs in those countries, yes, albeit a large minority in some cases.I do not accept that in any way Islam is any more repressive than Christianity is, but the culture in which it is rooted [ The middle east, SA, and further east] is repressive and thats reflected in how Islam is interpreted in those countries.
It should also be remembered that many countries in the Islamic world (and other developing nations) find themselves in their current state due (in some part) to the meddling of the West, e.g. Iran - the Islamic revolution arguably might never have happened had it not been for US interference. Same goes for Afghanistan.
Agreed, but who exactly is defending Islamic extremism, apart from the extremists themselves?...we should be helping this process along by listening to and encouraging the majority of muslims, rather than pandering to the extremist bigots who hold us in contempt and who we should never wish to see in any position of influence.
:rolleyes:Their head made these comments, not me.
If Archbishop Diarmuid Martin says that married women should not work, does that mean every Catholic in Dublin supports his views (I'm not implying that he has, just using him as an example)? I don't think so.
Bertie Ahern seems to think it's perfectly acceptable for the US military to use Shannon Airport; do you think the majority of the electorate agree with him? I doubt it.
Maybe. You could certainly say that he doesn't represent all Christians.If the pope made some outrageous remark about all muslims girls, could I just say that he was a community leader, who since he was elected by a small group of cardinals, does not really represent catholics ?0 -
djpbarry- you have been absolutely OWNED on this thread. I have been reading it and laughing at how easily you have been picked apart time and time again0
-
He referred indirectly to the Lebanese-Australian community in making reference to said crime.
Im struggling to resist the urge to demonstrate your silly strawman efforts by saying something like "Oh, so you automatically associate the Lebanese-Australian community with crime, what a terrible person you are". I wont, because more than likely you wont understand the point and will take it seriously.
You came in dudely do-right and you start claiming people said stuff they hadnt because it was easier to get self-righteous about the invented claims rather than the actual real points made. Just stop.if you are referring to Hilaly's comments, they were widely condemned by Muslims:
No doubt. Muslims are not a monolithic block. They do not have a hive mind. I dont think [ I hope...] even the majority of muslims would agree with the Muftis comments.
But this is the inescapable reality, which makes a lot of your "Oh this guy is just some lone ranger whacko hahahaha, he has no influence or weight with muslims" - this guy is not some lone nut. He is/was the Grand Mufti of Australia, the head of their religious teaching, a respected and influential voice. He was offered the continuation of his post even after his comments so his support was still substansial. He certainly must be representitive of views within the religious muslim community, given he has political support to attain his position and religious leaders DO have influence.Interpreted by a minority of nut-jobs in those countries, yes, albeit a large minority in some cases.
I wouldnt say a minority tbh. There is a wide variance of Islam and Islamic culture, from the secular, to "village" Islam [ where pre-existing saints/festivals/rituals where incorporated into Islamic practise like Christianity did in Europe] and the hardline joyless Saudi school of Islam which is waging a cultural war to wipe out any form of Islam other than their own. However, one thing they share in common is that they are far more....anti-liberal than would be the case in Europe or North America.
Even weird facts like Iran being a center of sex change operations isnt a sign of hope - its a curious workaround the bigots there have come to. Homosexuality is a crime punishable by death there, but if homosexuals are given sex change operations then they are technically women and thus free to have sex with men - well, not free, but you know what I mean.
Downside it that homosexual men are forced to undergo sex change ops they dont want [ homosexual != transexual afterall] or face being hung. And if theyre football fans they can forget seeing a game again, because women are second class citizens in Iran and most/all of the middle east.
There are similar stories, like 15 year old rape victims being hung from construction cranes and so on, but the common theme is this - as the guy in the youtube video all cultures are not equal. Western culture isnt perfect, but the ultra-conservitive culture underpinning most of the Islamic world is worse.
A Saudi can practise his faith in Ireland without any issue, and preach to potential converts should he so wish with practically zero state interest. An Irishman attempting to practise his faith in Saudi Arabia would be taking his life into his hands - and Christ alone help him should he actually attempt to preach. Terrifying and incredible as it may sound given the conditioning, the West actually is a decent place to be different from the norm.Agreed, but who exactly is defending Islamic extremism, apart from the extremists themselves?
Heh, thats a whole can of worms there. Lets just say "fellow travellers", including all those who have been conditioned to despise the west and its liberal/individualistic values, like those who say stupid things like "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" like its profound - washed up ex communists for example.
As I said already, we are conditioned to find fault with ourselves before ever daring to assume that perhaps these guys are just wrong, and not somehow wronged by us. See my sig for an example of these people from the last time western civillisation was faced with a totalarian threat, the arguments they used then and how similar they sound to the arguments we hear now.If Archbishop Diarmuid Martin says that married women should not work, does that mean every Catholic in Dublin supports his views (I'm not implying that he has, just using him as an example)? I don't think so.
Youre either deliberately misleading people, or you dont understand the Islamic faith as much as you assume. There is no Islamic "church", nothing like the Pope at all in the Islamic faith. The closest approximation is the Iranian clergy, and that is quite recent and completely revolutionary in Islamic terms.
An Imman is not a priest as Catholics would think of it - he is simply someone who is recognised as being extremely learned in Islamic theology and law [ usually through a lot of study], someone whose view is worth listening to. Islam is actually very anarchic in structure - closest thing to it in Christianity might be the protestant churches. An imman has zero influence unless people listen to him, if people listen to him then hes influential. The fact that somebody becomes the Grand Mufti means he is influential, that people do listen to him and like what he has to say.
Diarmuid Martin was appointed Archbishop by the Pope, with little or no input from the Catholic population of Ireland [ if indeed there are any Catholics left in Ireland] - no Islamic Pope appointed Hilaly, the idea of a Pope is anthema to Islam. Thats why assuming hes a lone nut, or the equivalent of a Catholic archbishop is wrong - he is influential, people do listen to him, he is respected or else he would never have achieved the position of Grand Mufti.
So yes, his comments do matter - and even if these rapists never sat in his mosque or took on their crime as some religious duty, his teachings, the teachings of his subordinates will impact their lives and the lives of those around them. I dont believe in God but Im still impacted by Catholic culture - even in how I swear/curse. Religious leaders DO have influence, human beings are genetically wired to accept authority for better or for worse. Pretending they dont isnt a convincing argument.
AGAIN - Ill repeat, I do not believe the majority of Australian muslims, would have agreed with Hilalys views [ Though I dont know for sure ] BUT, he is influential, his views would have weight and would impact on the Australian muslim community. There certainly was at least a few Australian muslims who agreed completely that "uncovered" women had it coming - they carried out the rapes afterall. Where did they get that sort of ambivalent attitude to rape?0 -
Advertisement
-
Very well said Sand. I always find that your posts are intelligent, insightful, and unbiased most importantly.0
-
Tea drinker wrote: »In Saudi Western companies and politicians court the backward regime in place.
Of course they do. So do non-Western companies. They have to if they want to do business there.speedboatchase wrote: »I was in the airport a few weeks ago showing my passport and the woman across from me was wearing a full burqa, with only her eyes showing as she showed her identification. Of course, nothing else happened. It's just as "culturally insensitive" to ask someone to remove a religious garment that obscures the face as it would be to ask me the same if I were wearing a motorcylce helmet as I stood in the queue. Which is to say, it isnt.
That is ridiculous that she wasn't asked to remove her veil when asked for ID. In cases like that the woman should be brought to a private room to lift her veil there to compare her face with the one on her passport.0 -
The "real point" made was that "Muslim rape gangs" are prowling the world, preying on Western girls. The case of Bilal Skaf & co. was used to illustrate this "point". Based on the fact that 60% of Lebanese-Australians are non-Muslim, I argued that the term "Muslim rape gang" was likely not terribly accurate in this case.You came in dudely do-right and you start claiming people said stuff they hadnt because it was easier to get self-righteous about the invented claims rather than the actual real points made.
I never said that. I said that just because Hilaly is in a position of authority within the Australian Muslim community, it (obviously) does not mean he speaks for the entire Muslim population. His comments were presented as the "Muslim response" to Skaf's crimes, something they quite clearly were not.But this is the inescapable reality, which makes a lot of your "Oh this guy is just some lone ranger whacko hahahaha, he has no influence or weight with muslims"
It should also be pointed out that Hilaly has little influence outside NSW; Victorian Imams (mainly representing the Turkish-Australian community) refuse to recognise him as mufti.
With regard to Iran, I am aware of the issues you have outlined. But the point is, do the majority of Iranians support such actions? Here is a survey carried out by worldpublicopinion.org in Iran. Although it does not mention homosexuality, it does touch on other issues such as militant Islam.
I'm not misleading anyone - it was a perfectly reasonable comparison. Are you saying that Diarmuid Martin has NO influence, just because he was appointed by the Vatican? Why is that you assume that Hilaly has any more influence than Martin does? Neither of them were elected.Youre either deliberately misleading people, or you dont understand the Islamic faith as much as you assume.
I also gave the example of elected politicians - do you agree with everything that is said be every politician you ever voted for?
I am not denying that Hilaly has his supporters and he obviously has a level of influence - I never said otherwise. All I am arguing is that these particular comments are highly unlikely to have been widely supported among the Muslim community in Australia.0
Advertisement