Muslim Activist Beheads Wife!

Originally posted by dystoniac
I agree with you; however, a lunatic few is really a 'lunatic few tens-of-millions'.

Again, I am not willing to just accept this statement on your say-so. Provide some evidence, please.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Again, I am not willing to just accept this statement on your say-so. Provide some evidence, please.

Ok, maybe not tens-of-millions but a substntial nuber nevertheless:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2008/07/muslim-extremis.html

Today' YouGov poll of Muslim students in Britain makes for mostly grim reading. The Centre for Social Cohesion, which commissioned the poll, has published its full report Islam on Campus on its web site. The Executive Summary notes:

32% of Muslim students in Britain believe that killing in the name of Islam can be justified.
40% support sharia law for Muslims in Britain and 33% support a global Caliphate based on sharia law.
40% believe it is unacceptable for Muslim men and women to mix freely.
57% said that British Muslim servicemen should be allowed to opt out of taking part in military operations in Muslim countries.
But more positively:

68% believe Islam and Western democracy are compatible
89% support equal treatment for men and women.
Only 15% said they understood Islam as a religion and Islamism as a political project to be one and the same.
The first thing to be noted about this poll is how consistent it is with years of polling of British Muslims of all ages. Last year's Policy Exchange poll of British Muslims found 7% admired Al Qaeda and 59% back sharia law. Two years ago a Populus poll found 16% of British Muslims backed suicide attacks on military targets and 7% backed suicide attacks on civilians. 2% said they would be proud if a family member joined Al Qaeda and 16% would be "indifferent". 13% said the 7/7 bombers are "martyrs". In a 2004 poll for Channel Four News, 45% agreed that the 11 September 2001 attacks were part of a conspiracy by America and Israel. 31% of young Muslims polled said the 7/7 bombings were justified because of Britain's support for the war on terror.

Consistently, polls show a majority of British Muslims rejecting violence and Islamism. But just as importantly, substantial minorities - amounting to hundreds of thousands - are consistently supportive. In any discussion of cohesion and integration, no mainstream politician in Britain fails to point out the first of these facts. But the second and less comforting of these statements goes largely unacknowledged. Most common is the claim that only a tiny minority of British Muslims back extremism. This is a hopeful claim made with the best of intentions, but it is a claim now undermined by years of polling.

It is obvious why politicians, especially Conservative politicians, are wise to avoid any rhetoric that would explicitly declare unacceptable and deeply problematic the views of a third or more of British Muslims. But in making policy, the empirical evidence matters most. A situation in which substantial minorities back extremism and violence may demand a very different response from a situation in which only a tiny minority do.

The Centre for Social Cohesion's report, for example, does make clear how much more moderate, on the whole, are the views of Muslim students who do not become involved in university Islamic societies. In part, this may be because Muslims who already hold the most extreme views become involved in these societies at university. But it also suggests one way to tackle extremism may be a much closer monitoring of these organisations. A clear-headed acceptance of the available polling data by politicians is the first step towards combating extremism.

Posted by Peter Cuthbertson at 20:38 | Permalink
Comments

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I dunno Whitey my friend, these incidents themselves named by Swiss Gambit seem isolated and unconnected in themselves, the one mentioned by the Doc may also be such, the difference being that Islam gives a pretext for violence, whether its domestic as in the case of a disobedient wife, or national as in the case of Jihad!

You made the claim before that "Islam gives a pretext for violence" but when I asked you for evidence all you came up with was further examples of violence by Muslims. I counter that with SwissGambits examples and you simply repeat your claim that "Islam gives a pretext for violence". Either back it up, or admit that you are jumping to conclusions. And remember to explain how any of your evidence is different from Christianity.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh wise and illustrious one, tis a privilege to have known you in this lifetime! atheism yes is well founded on clear principles, and undoubtedly contains virtue of a human nature, it being a product of the mind, but what i was drawing attention to was that in reporting it in common culture its relevance is diminished, for if this man had been of an ...[text shortened]... y of reporting, but as it is my lang leggedy beastie, you guys have a get out of jail free card!

In fact, the point is that CNN reports: “…On Monday, Benz told CNN that Hassan went directly to the police station after his wife's death Thursday and confessed to killing her. However, Benz on Tuesday denied that he'd said Hassan confessed.”

Therefore for the time being we know not if the woman was killed by Hassan, and this is a very good reason to make us deny that “Islam is a scourge” as Dr. Scribbles insists -nobody gets a jail free card😵

Originally posted by dystoniac
Ok, maybe not tens-of-millions but a substntial nuber nevertheless:

I'd also be interested in the following stats:
The percentage of Christians who supported the Iraq war.
The percentage of Christians who support the torture of suspected terrorists.
The percentage of Christians who would support a Christian government.
The percentage of Christians who support violence against communists.
The percentage of Christians who believe that killing in the name of Christianity can be justified.
and so on.

I would also like to know how these statistics, and the ones you quote vary from culture to culture so that we can identify to what extent a tendency towards violence is culturally related.

Originally posted by DeepThought
You are justifying the linking of a crime with a religion on the grounds that in this case the perpetrator was a member of that religion, some verses in the Koran, and the words of extremists. If the standards you are setting for Islam are applied to Christianity then you can reach just the same conclusion. Christian doctrine consists of considerably m ...[text shortened]... n just what is in the Gospels. I disagree that Christianity differs from Islam in this respect.

perhaps then you can show, with reference, where in the teachings of Christianity there is any pretext for violence, for if there is none, then you must admit, publicly, that thew two doctrines are entirely different on this basis.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You made the claim before that "Islam gives a pretext for violence" but when I asked you for evidence all you came up with was further examples of violence by Muslims. I counter that with SwissGambits examples and you simply repeat your claim that "Islam gives a pretext for violence". Either back it up, or admit that you are jumping to conclusions. And remember to explain how any of your evidence is different from Christianity.

all you need to do is google it, there are zillions of verses in the Koran that you can find, i am not doing it for you. if you do not accept it, then so be it, but i myself, have established after researching and in discussion with Muslims in my own country, that there are, in certain circumstances, a pretext for violence, i hold, entirely, that none can be found with in the teachings of Christianity, refute if you will.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
all you need to do is google it, there are zillions of verses in the Koran that you can find, i am not doing it for you. if you do not accept it, then so be it, but i myself, have established after researching and in discussion with Muslims in my own country, that there are, in certain circumstances, a pretext for violence, i hold, entirely, that none can be found with in the teachings of Christianity, refute if you will.

A am sure that you are fully aware that the Bible contains plenty of examples of 'pretext for violence'. So I can only assume that the Bible is not 'the teachings of Christianity' that you refer to.
So is it possible that the Quran is similarly not the teachings of Islam? And are we talking about 'pretext for violence' anyway, or are we talking about murdering ones wife? There is a significant difference. Most countries constitutions contain pretexts for violence in circumstances, but I doubt that you would call them a 'scourge' nor would you consider them justification for murdering your wife.

Originally posted by twhitehead
A am sure that you are fully aware that the Bible contains plenty of examples of 'pretext for violence'. So I can only assume that the Bible is not 'the teachings of Christianity' that you refer to.
So is it possible that the Quran is similarly not the teachings of Islam? And are we talking about 'pretext for violence' anyway, or are we talking about mur ...[text shortened]... call them a 'scourge' nor would you consider them justification for murdering your wife.

No this is not the case, i am sorry, for the passages of the Bible that have a pretext for violence, i.e. the Mosaic Law, have been superseded by a new covenant 'agreement', which has its basis in the teachings of Christ and the exercise of the human conscience. therefore you may draw the same conclusions if you wish, but unless you understand this point, they will be quite erroneous, for i have in the past, asked you yourself to provide some reference for the pretext of violence within the teachings of the Christ, which forms the basis of Christianity and you were unable to do so. this is not surprising, for none exists. sorry Whitey, you make some good points here, but i am not very well and did not sleep last night, you must please excuse my rather scant attempt to address your post - regards robbie.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes i agree, however a religious conviction [...] should permeate the adherents entire life and its tenets percolate deep into the initiates mind and heart and be a very real and spiritually tangible motivational force, otherwise it has proven false to its own power [...] thus when under stressful conditions it should 'kick in', and lead the person f ...[text shortened]... ustice, for if it does not, then one is entitled to ask questions with regard to its validity.

Be that your definition of religion, and it's settled then. There never was,
and probably never will be any form of religion. I guess those who say that
the world would be a better place without religion, really haven't noticed the
complete lack of religion. If they knew what a religion is, they may on
the contrary speak highly for it.

I'm afraid to tell you this, but your argument just went the way of a Swedish
fighter jet:

YouTube

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No this is not the case, i am sorry, for the passages of the Bible that have a pretext for violence, i.e. the Mosaic Law, have been superseded by a new covenant 'agreement', which has its basis in the teachings of Christ and the exercise of the human conscience. therefore you may draw the same conclusions if you wish, but unless you understand this ...[text shortened]... t night, you must please excuse my rather scant attempt to address your post - regards robbie.

So if I can make mistakes in interpreting the Bible do you not think that you might make similar mistakes in interpreting the Quran? Surely if a simple google search failed for me with regards to the Bible it should also fail for you with regards to the Quran? How do I know that you didn't simply take the verses you refer to out of context? You wont even give me a single one.

Originally posted by dystoniac
Ok, maybe not tens-of-millions but a substntial nuber nevertheless:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2008/07/muslim-extremis.html

Today' YouGov poll of Muslim students in Britain makes for mostly grim reading. The Centre for Social Cohesion, which commissioned the poll, has published its full report Islam on Campus on its web site. The Exe ...[text shortened]... ards combating extremism.

Posted by Peter Cuthbertson at 20:38 | Permalink
Comments

This is not the best choice of source [blatant conservative/right biased]. Also, some of the questions are vague. For example, specifically what kind of killing in the name of Islam may be justified?

The bias shows in that it paints conscientious objectors to military service as a negative poll finding. Imagine people not wanting to bomb the country of their ancestors! Shocking!

Here's the direct link to the Times article.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article682599.ece

Pay close attention to this bit:

But the poll also revealed a stark gulf between this group and the majority of British Muslims, who want the Government to take tougher measures against extremists within their community.

More than half (56 per cent) believe that the Government has failed to combat extremism, a higher proportion than the 49 per cent of the general population who agree.

[my emphasis]

Originally posted by twhitehead
I'd also be interested in the following stats:
The percentage of Christians who supported the Iraq war.
The percentage of Christians who support the torture of suspected terrorists.
The percentage of Christians who would support a Christian government.
The percentage of Christians who support violence against communists.
The percentage of Christians ...[text shortened]... lture so that we can identify to what extent a tendency towards violence is culturally related.

just ask how many americans would vote for a muslim or atheist president and your point will be made.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
all you need to do is google it, there are zillions of verses in the Koran that you can find, i am not doing it for you. if you do not accept it, then so be it, but i myself, have established after researching and in discussion with Muslims in my own country, that there are, in certain circumstances, a pretext for violence, i hold, entirely, that none can be found with in the teachings of Christianity, refute if you will.

Yes, the Koran is replete with references to war, while the New Testament steers clear of the topic.

So what guidance does the New Testament contain for Christians faced with the problem of evil in the form of people bent on killing them? Surely the Christian is enjoined to accept harm rather than fight? This problem vexed Augustine, who developed his theory of just war, subsequently elaborated by Aquinas, Grotius, etc.

Remarkably, just war theory entails, to all intents and purposes, the same ethical considerations as the orthodox concept of jihad.

What's interesting to me is the different paths reached by theorists of jihad and just war.

You can read a good article about it here:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~nmwoods/jihad.htm

We shouldn't forget, though, that "the classical Islamic conception of jihad in the sense of warfare comes not from the Qur’an directly, where the term jihad is used to refer to the believer’s inner struggle for righteousness, but from the jurists of the early Abbasid period (the late eighth and early ninth centuries a.d.), who developed it in the context of a general effort to clarify the nature of the Islamic community, the proper leadership of that community, and the community’s relations with the non–Islamic world."
http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft0206/opinion/johnson.html

The article quoted also compares jihad and just war, showing how the jihad of Bin Laden differs significantly from the classical concept.

"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors."(2:190)

Originally posted by twhitehead
Apparently.

[b]did he behead his wife?
Quite possibly.

is this not a reprehensible act?
Yes.

should one not call into question the validity of a religious stance which allows such?
Yes one should, but as yet we only have your word for it that that is the case. The article does not say that. DoctorScribbles does not say that. ...[text shortened]... hero because of it![/b]
But you seem quite willing to over look lying if it is in your favor.[/b]

"Muslim man beheads wife therefore Islam is a scourge. "

DoctorScribbles never said that. Thats just you pretending not to know what he means.

"Islam is a scourge" is his trademark comment for ALL the disgusting things that Islam has been guilty of in the last few years, and you know that. Its the stoning of adulterers, the killing of apostates, the murder of those opposing Islam, the violent demonstrations for petty rubbish issues, the terror treats, the wife-beating, the intolerance, the ..... etc etc, the list is endless. All religions might be guilty of one or two of these atrocities but its only in Islam you find them all. And only in Islam would you find support for their atrocities either in the Koran or in the Hadiths.

You are pretentious if you claim to think that DS means Islam is a scourge simply because of this one beheading.