Are freedom and Islam incompatible?

CokaColumbo

Hi guys. A friend of mine was talking to me about a book written by Mark Steyn called The End of the World As We Know It and he claims that only 3 of the 46 majority Muslim countries in the world are free. How can the number be so small? Is it something to do with Islamic culture and your holy scriptures or are dictators holding ordinary Muslims "hostage" as it were? He also said that men and women are not seen as equals in Islam. Lastly, he said that lying to advance the Muslim faith is sanctioned by Islamic law.

I don't know any Muslims and it can be easy to misrepresent or generalise ethnic groups. Is he right or is he talking out of his back-side about these things?

CokaColumbo

<<ethnic groups or religions>>

Hobbes

Well the book is written by a Pro-Bush Islamophobe who believes that Europe will be overrun by Muslim immigrants, and a frequent guest on right wing radio shows like Rush and Hannity. Not to mention won an award from Rupert Murdoch/Fox News.

I can see how he would be unbiased. /s

CokaColumbo

Hobbes, I would prefer if this thread didn't immediately descend into petty ad-hominem stuff; your role as a moderator should preclude such conduct.

wes

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Hobbes, I would prefer if this thread didn't immediately descend into petty ad-hominem stuff; your role as a moderator should preclude such conduct.

I fail to see any such "petty ad-hominem stuff". Steyn made a bunch of claims based on figures that have no basis in reality. So what Hobbes called him is actually a statement of fact. Steyn stuff isn't even new, the same crap was said about Jews, Africans, and Irish people, at various point in history in various countries.

Steyns nonsensical claims were pretty well thrashed by Johann Hari in his review of his book:

Apocalypse now?

Also, more general claims made by others have also been debunked for the nonsense that they are:

Debunking a YouTube hit

Also, btw within my life time, a huge chunk of Europe was run by communist dictatorships, and before that Europeans not getting along with one another was the cause of 2 World Wars. While there are a great deal of problems in Muslim majority states at presents, there hardly the only ones at present, and in the past much of Europe wasn't much better.

hivizman

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Hi guys. A friend of mine was talking to me about a book written by Mark Steyn called The End of the World As We Know It and he claims that only 3 of the 46 majority Muslim countries in the world are free. How can the number be so small? Is it something to do with Islamic culture and your holy scriptures or are dictators holding ordinary Muslims "hostage" as it were? He also said that men and women are not seen as equals in Islam. Lastly, he said that lying to advance the Muslim faith is sanctioned by Islamic law.

I don't know any Muslims and it can be easy to misrepresent or generalise ethnic groups. Is he right or is he talking out of his back-side about these things?

These are three very big claims, and each of them should probably be dealt with in its own thread. However, here are just a few late-night comments.

(1) The number of "free" Muslim-majority countries clearly depends on how one defines "free". Very few such countries correspond to the model of Western democracy. But is this necessarily because the majority of the population in these countries are Muslim? It's important to remember that most of the Muslim majority countries were until the 20th century (often quite late in the century) colonies of European powers. How many former colonies that are not Muslim majority would meet the definition of being "free"? Dictatorships and authoritarian governments are by no means unusual in South America, sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, in areas where Muslims are scarce. This doesn't excuse Islam, but it puts Islam in a more meaningful context.

(2) Many Muslims would claim that Islam promotes equality, or at least "equity", between the genders (see for example Gender Equity in Islam by Jamal Badawi, a well-known Muslim academic and commentator). However, this is a heavily contested issue, which has been debated on this forum before (for example, Islam and Women in 2008).

(3) The statement about lying to advance the Muslim faith may be a reference to taqiyya. In general, Muslims are encouraged to differentiate themselves from non-Muslims and not to hide their religious beliefs. However, taqiyya is a (mainly Shia) doctrine that permits Muslims to dissimulate about their beliefs when they would otherwise be persecuted. From this perspective, taqiyya would be like Roman Catholic priests in England during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I going around in lay clothes rather than in priestly garb in order to reduce the risk of capture, torture and execution.

Although taqiyya is reserved for exceptional situations, those extremist Muslims who consider that Islam is at war with "the West" regard deception as a standard ruse de guerre, in the same way that non-Muslim countries use deception in war. Since the vast majority of Muslims reject the view that Islam is at war with the West, they would also reject the idea of lying to advance the religion. Indeed, they would very likely quote from the famous verse Surah al-Baqarah 2:256 (in Yusuf Ali's translation): "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error".

CokaColumbo

wes wrote: »

I fail to see any such "petty ad-hominem stuff". Steyn made a bunch of claims based on figures that have no basis in reality. So what Hobbes called him is actually a statement of fact. Steyn stuff isn't even new, the same crap was said about Jews, Africans, and Irish people, at various point in history in various countries.

Steyns nonsensical claims were pretty well thrashed by Johann Hari in his review of his book:

Apocalypse now?

Also, more general claims made by others have also been debunked for the nonsense that they are:

Debunking a YouTube hit

Also, btw within my life time, a huge chunk of Europe was run by communist dictatorships, and before that Europeans not getting along with one another was the cause of 2 World Wars. While there are a great deal of problems in Muslim majority states at presents, there hardly the only ones at present, and in the past much of Europe wasn't much better.

"Ad hominem" means that you attack the person without replying to his/her assertions. There is no other term which can be used to describe that specific post.

I have watched a couple of long interviews with Steyn and read both of those posts. Neither link debunks Steyn and in fact, NewStatesMan resorts to basically implying that the man is a far-right racist. The main thing which is disputed though is how long it will take for Europe to become highly Islamic in its demography.

hivizman wrote: »

These are three very big claims, and each of them should probably be dealt with in its own thread. However, here are just a few late-night comments.

(1) The number of "free" Muslim-majority countries clearly depends on how one defines "free". Very few such countries correspond to the model of Western democracy. But is this necessarily because the majority of the population in these countries are Muslim? It's important to remember that most of the Muslim majority countries were until the 20th century (often quite late in the century) colonies of European powers. How many former colonies that are not Muslim majority would meet the definition of being "free"? Dictatorships and authoritarian governments are by no means unusual in South America, sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, in areas where Muslims are scarce. This doesn't excuse Islam, but it puts Islam in a more meaningful context.

(2) Many Muslims would claim that Islam promotes equality, or at least "equity", between the genders (see for example Gender Equity in Islam by Jamal Badawi, a well-known Muslim academic and commentator). However, this is a heavily contested issue, which has been debated on this forum before (for example, Islam and Women in 2008).

(3) The statement about lying to advance the Muslim faith may be a reference to taqiyya. In general, Muslims are encouraged to differentiate themselves from non-Muslims and not to hide their religious beliefs. However, taqiyya is a (mainly Shia) doctrine that permits Muslims to dissimulate about their beliefs when they would otherwise be persecuted. From this perspective, taqiyya would be like Roman Catholic priests in England during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I going around in lay clothes rather than in priestly garb in order to reduce the risk of capture, torture and execution.

Although taqiyya is reserved for exceptional situations, those extremist Muslims who consider that Islam is at war with "the West" regard deception as a standard ruse de guerre, in the same way that non-Muslim countries use deception in war. Since the vast majority of Muslims reject the view that Islam is at war with the West, they would also reject the idea of lying to advance the religion. Indeed, they would very likely quote from the famous verse Surah al-Baqarah 2:256 (in Yusuf Ali's translation): "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error".

Thank you for your detailed reply.
It's according to Freedom House statistics that the assertion that 43/46 Muslim majority states are unfree is made; and its definition of 'freedom' is defined here. It's an interesting point you make about the Islamic countries having a history of colonialism as it does, like you say, at least provide some context. But I am not convinced. The fact that Muslim states have legal principals and civic institutions based on the same Islamic codes and are almost all unfree suggests something deeper, i.e. that Sharia doesn't exactly prioritise an individualistic, liberal and democratic society (is that in dispute?).

I will not perpetuate the discussion on the state of women in Islam as you have gracefully pointed me in the direction of the relevant thread and I thank you for illuminating, somewhat, the subject of "taqiyya" (I was only aware of the word phonetically.)

It is undeniable that European birth rates are in negative decline, not as bad as Russia or Japan but still irreversibly bad in some cases. The fertility leaders of the world are Muslim dominated states and they are sending their surplus youth to Europe, amongst other places, to the point where Muhammad already has become the most popular baby boys name in the UK, Malmo, Belgium, and Amsterdam. Steyn argues that even if Muslim birth rates decline significantly over time, two or three generations are all it will take for his projection to come about.

irishconvert

CokaColumbo wrote: »

It is undeniable that European birth rates are in negative decline, not as bad as Russia or Japan but still irreversibly bad in some cases. The fertility leaders of the world are Muslim dominated states and they are sending their surplus youth to Europe, amongst other places, to the point where Muhammad already has become the most popular baby boys name in the UK, Malmo, Belgium, and Amsterdam. Steyn argues that even if Muslim birth rates decline significantly over time, two or three generations are all it will take for his projection to come about.

This is all scare mongering. I live in the UK and it's sad to say that much of the Muslim youth are losing their Islamic values and morals. They don't pray, go to mosque, many drink alcohol, etc. So even if there are lots of Muslims moving to Europe, they are certainly no threat to the European way of life. Anyone who is seriously worried about Europe becoming some kind of Islamic state is living in cloud cookoo land.

CokaColumbo wrote: »

It's according to Freedom House statistics that the assertion that 43/46 Muslim majority states are unfree is made; and its definition of 'freedom' is defined here..

How many of those 43 states have puppet leaders installed or supported by the USA?

Zombrex

irishconvert wrote: »

How many of those 43 states have puppet leaders installed or supported by the USA?

Or more specifically how many of those countries are in unstable regions of the world where people spend a lot of time fighting over oil and other resources and thus are inherently unstable.

Islam as a political system tends to become popular in areas that suffer large amounts of political corruption. It is a stabilizing factor for a lot of people, and springs up when the general population feel betrayed or let down by the current government.

One cannot divorce this from the figures presented by the OP, as Mr Steyn seems to do.

It would be very naive to think that there is something inherent in Islam that produces unfree countries. A far more reasonable conclusion is that Islam springs up in countries that are already unfree as a stablizing factor to restore some sort of working system.

Christianity did the same thing throughout most of the history of Europe, providing a familiar authority in regions experiencing destablizing factors such as war or disease.

wes

CokaColumbo wrote: »

"Ad hominem" means that you attack the person without replying to his/her assertions. There is no other term which can be used to describe that specific post.

Except that what was being said is completely true about the person in question. Also, the fact of the matter, is that if someone is biggoted agianst a particular group, then that should be mention when that person make claims against the group there biggoted against, as that would easily colour any claims made against such a group, by such an individual.

CokaColumbo wrote: »

I have watched a couple of long interviews with Steyn and read both of those posts. Neither link debunks Steyn and in fact, NewStatesMan resorts to basically implying that the man is a far-right racist. The main thing which is disputed though is how long it will take for Europe to become highly Islamic in its demography.

He is a far right racist, as he is making the exact same claims made about Jews, Africans and Irish people, that other racists/bigots made in the past. He is saying nother new.

The simple fact is that Steyn has never actually made any kind of case, and has no expertise in demographics either. So even before the nonsense is debunked, the case hasn't exactly been made to begin with. Sure, I can make up a pile of bull **** in an area I have no expertise in as well, and apparently people will actually believe me.

He has no expertise in the area, and his numbers are essentially made up. He is spouting nothing but fiction, and his nonsensical crap has been debunked.

Also, his entire case is disputed. Its nonsense plain and simple. Anyone with a knowledge of demographics knows that even the best predictions, made by people who actually know what there doing can be wrong.

Steyns predictions are no different than a person with a crystal ball making predictions, so I am going to go out on a limb here and say he will be wrong. Wrong like the racists/bigots who said the same of Jews, Africans, and Irish people and other groups before.

hivizman

There was a discussion How many Muslims are there in Ireland? a couple of years ago. Reference was made to the Irish census data for 2002 and 2006. In 2002, there were 19,147 Muslims recorded on the census, while in 2006 there were 32,539. This represents an annualised growth rate of about 14%. By contrast, the growth rate in the non-Muslim population was about 1.9% per annum over the period.

If these growth rates are projected into the future, then the Muslim population of Ireland would overtake the non-Muslim population by about 2050, so well within a couple of generations. However, is there any reason to believe that the growth rate of 14% per annum will continue over the next 40 years? Much of the growth in Ireland's Muslim population in the period 2002-2006 came from immigration. Birth rates were higher in the Muslim population, but this is what would be expected given the age profile - in the 2006 census, the Muslim population distribution was significantly younger than the non-Muslim distribution, so more likely to have children. Out of the 32,500 Muslims in Ireland, about 5,000 (15%) were in the 0-4 year age cohort (compared to about 7% in the total population), but the next three age cohorts (5-9, 10-14, 15-19) had significantly fewer Muslims as a proportion of the total Muslim population than the comparative non-Muslim age cohorts. This may imply a "baby boom" among Irish Muslims in 20 years' time, but until then there are relatively few Muslim children coming through into adulthood.

I would expect the rates of increase through immigration and through birth in Ireland's Muslim population to both decline significantly. If the annual growth rate of the Muslim population in Ireland were to fall to 6% per annum, still three times the growth rate of the non-Muslim population, then the Muslim population would remain in the minority until 2130, by which time the population of Ireland would have grown to 90 million.

Ireland may be a special case in comparison with European countries such as the UK, France and Germany, where arguably the growth rate of the non-Muslim population is rather lower than 2% (perhaps 0.5-1%?). On the other hand, Ireland's proportion of Muslims is lower than the 3-6% quoted for some European countries.

And, as Irishconvert correctly observes, assuming that all Muslims are likely to behave in the same way is problematic - in the UK, many Muslim families have been in the country for three or even four generations, and there is increasing secularisation.

CokaColumbo

I think it's difficult to dismiss the assertion that Europe is becoming Islamic. Steyn is correct when he says that if you have 90% of the European population with a birth rate of 1.3% or 1.4% and a 10% Muslim population with a birth rate of 3.5%, which is thought to be the average, both of those groups will have the same number of grandchildren; that's two generations. In fact, cities like Rotterdam, Marseilles, and Brussels already have a Muslim population of approximately 40%. Considering this, as well as the fact that Islamic immigration continues in strength and that the immigrants are largely young people, there is no question that, at the very least, significant sections of Europe will become heavily Islamised over the course of the 21st century.

Secondly, I must disagree that young European Muslims are secularising, the opposite being true for sections. In Britain, for example, these three widely reported and reputable polls demonstrate the degree to which young Muslims in Britain do not see eye to eye with non-Muslims or British civic institutions.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/2461830/Killing-for-religion-is-justified-say-third-of-Muslim-students.html
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=39942
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article682599.ece

Lastly, I must ask which type of Muslim dictates the agenda of Muslim communities? Is it the moderates or extremists? From my perspective, it seems like the moderates, as a collective, never assert themselves and the radicals seem to have more influence than the moderates. Where were the 99% of moderates when vast mobs of lunatics were burning and killing across Europe in the wake of the Muhammad cartoon incident?

irishconvert

This discussion is rapidly going off topic and is looking more and more like it belongs in another forum. Please get back on topic or I will be moving or locking it. This forum is for discussion of Islam, the religion.

wes

CokaColumbo wrote: »

I think it's difficult to dismiss the assertion that Europe is becoming Islamic.

No it isn't. Its just common sense to dismiss people with crystals ball claiming they can see the future.

What Steyn says is nothing new, he is just saying it about a different group. Previous predictions from the likes of Steyn have been shown to be wrong.

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Steyn is correct when he says that if you have 90% of the European population with a birth rate of 1.3% or 1.4% and a 10% Muslim population with a birth rate of 3.5%, which is thought to be the average, both of those groups will have the same number of grandchildren; that's two generations.

Any links for these figures? I am talking about from reliable government sources, and not Steyn btw. As it stands you are pulling numbers out of the air.

Also, can you point out how Steyn with no expertise in the area at all, some know more than people who do have expertise in the area? Should I also listen to the crazy man outside my office who insists the end of the world is nigh anytime now?

CokaColumbo wrote: »

In fact, cities like Rotterdam, Marseilles, and Brussels already have a Muslim population of approximately 40%.

Again, a link to back this up?!?

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Considering this, as well as the fact that Islamic immigration continues in strength and that the immigrants are largely young people, there is no question that, at the very least, significant sections of Europe will become heavily Islamised over the course of the 21st century.

Despite the fact the immigration is being curbed by many European countries already? Also, you seem to assume the only people who are immigrating ever are Muslims some how.

You reasoning is at best questionable, you are pulling figures out of thin air, without ever backing them up.

Hobbes

CokaColumbo wrote: »

"Ad hominem" means that you attack the person without replying to his/her assertions. There is no other term which can be used to describe that specific post.

You are quoting someone who is a publicly declared Islamophobe and his material is anti-Islam. It isn't an attack, it is a statement of fact. As such anything he says will have an agenda.

But lets talk about your original assertions.

only 3 of the 46 majority Muslim countries in the world are free.

Define what you mean as "Free". Here is a list of Majority Muslim countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_majority_countries

Certainly more then 3 democracies, more then 3 states that are Secular/none in relation to religion+the state.

So until you can define what "Free" is then we can work from that.

He also said that men and women are not seen as equals in Islam.

This has been discussed in depth on the forum. A casual search should find material. The short end of it, it depends on the country you are in.

Lastly, he said that lying to advance the Muslim faith is sanctioned by Islamic law.

Sounds very questionable. In what way?

Is he right or is he talking out of his back-side about these things?

As you are getting third hand information then it is certainly out the backside.

... Other stuff. You have gone from asking a question about a book to link off into assertions to back up the OP. Did you want to ask questions? Or promote an agenda? If it is the latter this is not the forum for you.

FR.Ted Crilly

Is freedom and any religon incompatible

give it time were not long crawling out of our caves ourselfs 50 years back and Ireland was a backward place and still sruggling with basic law and rights so to answere your question NO

craggles

irishconvert wrote: »

This discussion is rapidly going off topic and is looking more and more like it belongs in another forum. Please get back on topic or I will be moving or locking it. This forum is for discussion of Islam, the religion.

If you move this to after hours it will descend into farce. I don't think that means you should lock the thread if you fear that difficult questions may arise and I feel it is the duty of this subforum to help answer any questions people may have about the religion so long as they are not nasty or offensive.

Apparently the word Islam has its roots in "aslama" with essentially means to surrender submit. How relevent and instrumental is that to modern Islam though? It could be argued that the compatibility of freedom and Islam, and indeed any other religion, is dependent on whether a person feels they could ever move away from it if they so wished. This definitely depends on circumstances and varies massively from place to place.

Hobbes

Apparently the word Islam has its roots in "aslama" with essentially means to surrender submit....

If you have a point in relation to the OP please make it, otherwise start a new thread if it is a new question.

irishconvert

craggles wrote: »

If you move this to after hours it will descend into farce. I don't think that means you should lock the thread if you fear that difficult questions may arise and I feel it is the duty of this subforum to help answer any questions people may have about the religion so long as they are not nasty or offensive.

Bottom line, if you want to discuss the possibility of Muslims outnumbering non-Muslims in Europe, take it elsewhere. If you want to respond to the OP then discuss it in this thread. If you have any more comments PM me, do not discuss in the thread (as per charter).

craggles

That's not what I want to discuss. If I was perceived as going off topic by posing other questions that was not my intention, I felt they were relevant enough not to be considered a derail.

CokaColumbo

Wicknight wrote: »

One cannot divorce this from the figures presented by the OP, as Mr Steyn seems to do.

It would be very naive to think that there is something inherent in Islam that produces unfree countries. A far more reasonable conclusion is that Islam springs up in countries that are already unfree as a stablizing factor to restore some sort of working system.

Perhaps there is something inherent to Islam which produces unfree conditions. Islamic law explicitly states that the punishment for theft is the amputation of the hand; the punishment for adultery is clearly stoning. From what I have been reading, the haddith and the historical Islamic tradition are unanimous in relation to the treatment of women as inferior people. Muslims cannot condemn the more sinister and abominable aspects of Islam without being declared an apostate by influential clerics and risk being killed. This is a widely held view of apostates across the world. Even in Indonesia, one of the least intolerant Muslim states, political leaders and leading newspaper editorials say horrific things about Jews and Christian girls are still beheaded on their way to school.

The Islamic world has become increasingly radicalised over the last 30/40 years and significantly more people live under sharia now than in 1970. Look at Europe; Jews are fleeing Malmo in Sweden and there is an epidemic of gay bashing in supposedly tolerant Amsterdam. 1/10 of South Thailand's Buddhist population had to flee their homes because of Islamic violence in 2005).

wes wrote: »

He is a far right racist, as he is making the exact same claims made about Jews, Africans and Irish people, that other racists/bigots made in the past. He is saying nother new.
The simple fact is that Steyn has never actually made any kind of case, and has no expertise in demographics either. So even before the nonsense is debunked, the case hasn't exactly been made to begin with. Sure, I can make up a pile of bull **** in an area I have no expertise in as well, and apparently people will actually believe me.
He has no expertise in the area, and his numbers are essentially made up. He is spouting nothing but fiction, and his nonsensical crap has been debunked...

I think you are too eager to dismiss Steyn. I think he would draw a distinction between the Irish, Jews etc. and Muslims today by stating that there is a minority hard-core yet worryingly mainstream section of Islam today which seeks to replace current European values of individualism, democracy etc. with what he would describe as a fascistic strand of Islam which does not respect the rights of gays, women or Jews and seeks to establish religiously inspired civic institutions that contradict Western values on a fundamental level.

CokaColumbo

Hobbes wrote: »

You are quoting someone who is a publicly declared Islamophobe and his material is anti-Islam. It isn't an attack, it is a statement of fact. As such anything he says will have an agenda.

Of course he has an agenda. Everybody has an agenda, whether it is a multicultural one, a libertarian one, an atheist one, a socialist one, an Islamic one etc. What matters is if his assertions hold any water and by simply saying that the guy's views aren't worth debate because he is right-wing and has appeared on Fox News is wrong. And what does Islamophobe mean?

Hobbes wrote: »

Define what you mean as "Free". Here is a list of Majority Muslim countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_majority_countries
Certainly more then 3 democracies, more then 3 states that are Secular/none in relation to religion+the state.
So until you can define what "Free" is then we can work from that.

In one of my previous posts I linked the definition of freedom according to FreedomHouse, the authoritative and universally respected organisation which asserts that only three free Islamic states exist in the world.

Hobbes

CokaColumbo wrote: »

In one of my previous posts I linked the definition of freedom according to FreedomHouse, the authoritative and universally respected organisation which asserts that only three free Islamic states exist in the world.

Really? I looked at that link and no where does it say only three free Islamic countries. I think you are getting mixed up with your friends book.

Incidentally it appears they use the UDHR as their baseline, which you will find is non-binding and you would be hard pressed to find a country that follows it 100%.

irishconvert

CokaColumbo wrote: »

From what I have been reading, the haddith and the historical Islamic tradition are unanimous in relation to the treatment of women as inferior people.

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Even in Indonesia, one of the least intolerant Muslim states, political leaders and leading newspaper editorials say horrific things about Jews and Christian girls are still beheaded on their way to school.

Ok, if you are going to make claims like this then back it up with links.

wes

CokaColumbo wrote: »

I think you are too eager to dismiss Steyn.

I would similarly dismiss anyone making claims, with no expertise in the area they are making the claims about. I see no reason to give equal time to someone who has no proven knowledge in a area, as I would some who knows what there talking about. Steyn doesn't know what he is talking about. He has no expertise in demographics, and to expect me to take him seriously is absurd to put it simply. I dismiss what he says, as that the sensible thing to do in this regard. If we are to take Steyn seriously, then we should also take the flat earth soceity seriously then. You have constantly ignored the simple fact that man has no expertise in the area, and on that basis alone I can dismiss his nonsense.

CokaColumbo wrote: »

I think he would draw a distinction between the Irish, Jews etc. and Muslims today by stating that there is a minority hard-core yet worryingly mainstream section of Islam today which seeks to replace current European values of individualism, democracy etc. with what he would describe as a fascistic strand of Islam which does not respect the rights of gays, women or Jews and seeks to establish religiously inspired civic institutions that contradict Western values on a fundamental level.

What you think he would say is irrelevant. The man has made himself very clear via his own writings. I would say that his own supremacist views are similarly against modern Western values, and would make more sense amongst race based nationalists circa the 18th or 19th century. Seems a bit rich for one extremist to complain about others imho.

Mark Hamill

irishconvert wrote: »

Ok, if you are going to make claims like this then back it up with links.

With respect to the beheadings, I assume CokaColumbo is talking about this incident from 2005.

irishconvert

Mark Hamill wrote: »

With respect to the beheadings, I assume CokaColumbo is talking about this incident from 2005.

If that is what he is referring to then he is being very misleading. The people who comitted this act were murderers and sentenced to 20 years in prison. It is not as if it is a common occurance in Indonesia. CokaColumbo can you please clarify?