Did you see me claim otherwise? Maybe i am a neighbor possibly even? Where exactly is my bigotry? Care to see where in the original post i failed to be critical of the west as well for example? Did i maybe say in this thread anything that is not true?

You were going on about countries like Iran and Pakistan . And you then blamed the Muslim world, whatever that is, for its leaders not doing enough to prevent violence ,


That's a Sean hannity talking point which btw he uses quite a bit , I've seen this " why aren't Muslim leaders doing enough " it's a disasterious way to view things considering their are 1.7 billion Muslims and they don't all think the same

Here is a very famous Fatwa that people have come to know. How can a decent Muslim conceivably tolerate such unethical exhibition of intolerance that invites violence and ultimately leads to so many deaths. Where is the outrage!?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sat...es_controversy

"One of the first well-known fatwas was proclaimed in 1989 by the Iranian Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, against Salman Rushdie over his novel The Satanic Verses. The reason was an allegedly blasphemous statement taken from an early biography of the Prophet Muhammad, regarding the incorporation of pagan goddesses into Islam’s strongly monotheistic structure. Khomeini died shortly after issuing the fatwa. In 1998 Iran stated it is no longer pursuing Rushdie’s death; however, that decree was again reversed in early 2005 by the present theocrat, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

In 1991, Rushdie's Japanese translator, Hitoshi Igarashi, was stabbed to death in Tokyo, and his Italian translator was beaten and stabbed in Milan. In 1993, Rushdie's Norwegian publisher William Nygaard was shot and severely injured in an attack outside his house in Oslo. Thirty-seven guests died when their hotel in Sivas, Turkey was torched by locals protesting against Aziz Nesin, Rushdie's Turkish translator."


My suggestion to all Muslims or Christians or any other religions of "Peace" members worldwide is to look deep down into their own culture and ask themselves if maybe science and a more open minded noble version of their cultural heritage (authors, poets, architects, artists etc) has served them a lot better through time than their own clerics. Maybe its time to graduate to something more decent, less hypocritical, less inviting of violence and more capable of uniting all people under the responsibility to face their common problems...Or maybe their clerics should finally prove more strongly that indeed are doing God's work on earth and not "Devil's".

No I didn't, you've added the 'under no circumstance' bit yourself and since you're now paraphrasing somewhat generously toward your own position to make it look better I have to respond

I said ' if you were a Muslim'. If you were a Muslim, you might not consider the Fatwa unreasonable. If you're not a Muslim, you still might not find it unreasonable if you can see that within the boundaries imposed by ISlam, it's actually quite reasonable.

No, it makes the point that your view is subjective and ultimately meaningless. You think it's unreasonable, so what. By any definition of the word you want to use I can easily show that it's not unreasonable to other people. Do you think that you can how that it's unreasonable? Perhaps you should have used a different word.

This:
Does not translate to this:




The end.

So should I take your lack of response as a silent "Yeah, I didn't actually read your post before rushing to tap out a snarky rant"?

Sure it does. You're being unreasonable now.

The end. Again.

"always" -- you can't say that with credibility unless you've made a systematic survey comparing western English reports to the media in Islamic countries. You can't make comparisons unless you actually examine both objects. You claim a hard science outlook, so this should be elementary.

The definition of "impact" you are using is whether it was a big deal in the west, but you haven't demonstrated our media tracks theirs at all.

The level of misrepresentation of Islam in western literature and news is the subject of a great deal of examination. Just assuming you get a fair representation of Islam from western media is lol. Stop digging yourself deeper.

What about the fatwa in the same list forbidding nuclear weapons, which has a bit more scope than one against a single person? The lack of the west issuing a fatwa-like prohibition against nukes suggests we are the ones tolerating violence, if we are going to use fatwas in Wikipedia as the measure of civilization.

Well for one, assuming you do not have to find out from Muslims what they believe, that you can just get it from CNN. Denying people their voice, rejecting their participation in discussion, that's pretty bigoted. (Here I'm referring to your insistence you do not have to examine media in Islamic countries to know what they think.)

Let me get this straight Bill Haywood. You have a problem with what i said again for why exactly? Where did i insult Muslims or their cultural heritage (you know the real every day people or their families, the students, the scientists, the artists, the farmers, the public in general that are working hard to make a living or to educate themselves etc)? Where does how close one follows local news in the country of origin of these Fatwas have anything to do with what i said? Why does it even matter for what i said. I wasnt examining some fine structure details of the culture. I was focusing on the big news that make headlines worldwide when they happen. The way i see it all i did is condemn violence on both sides and suggested that its the ethical responsibility of clerics to suppress violence as much as possible not to suggest it, unless its for defense of homeland from grave invading danger i suppose.

You have problem with what i said and called me a bigot (shame on you by the way i didnt issue a personal attack at you and you did, consider a shoe thrown likely at you by someone other than me ie some neutral observer out there laughing at the hypocrisy exhibited in attacking someone else that was critical of both sides). You apparently do not have a problem with what i essentially targeted ie the fact that a great deal of Fatwas exist that do little to fix the problems and instead inspire violence and intolerance. There are dozens of Fatwas from the Ayatollah Khomeini one to even very recent ones calling for the death (and offering money as well for the killing) of particular individuals that exercised their free speech. You have absolutely no problem with that and your problem is with me instead. Why?

A religion that stands for peace would not only avoid any such Fatwas but if any of them appeared by some extremists or even very big name religious leaders, the other religious leaders should have what it takes to join forces and condemn the invitation for assassinations of individuals as completely incompatible with the message of a religious movement that should be offering love and respect for the fellow human beings and their potential and also allow a healthy room for forgiveness and tolerance while still remaining respectful of their own cultural heritage. You do not protect that heritage with violence but instead with examples that inspire and uplift people and force them to be responsible, kind, noble, self confident and creative.

What was the last time by the way that a Christian leader of some prestige and following issued a death order to private citizens (eg authors, artists) that exercised free speech. I didnt catch any century lately some Patriarch or Cardinal or The Pope or maybe some Tibetan spiritual leader or other religious leaders worldwide issuing execution challenges. That is only an Islamic tradition apparently.

And you think that against those dozens of assassination inviting Fatwas or the countless extremist clerics that embrace and help organize terrorist strikes out there, the proper counter balance is some random totally generic in nature and scope Fatwas against nuclear weapons or terrorists mostly issued by very low or mid level scholar clerics (nothing like some major Ayatollah caliber figure etc) very often residing in the west anyway.

Are you for real my friend calling me a bigot? I mean where are the mods hiding tolerating such insulting behavior actually on multiple occasions. Issue another personal attack at me failing to debate properly and i will completely ignore your posts indefinitely.

Do you or do you not find it unacceptable that there are dozens of Fatwas inviting assassinations and nobody does anything to counter them and shun those issuing them? What kind of Religion of Peace is that which tolerates such behavior by some of its clerics? What are the others that are supposed to be loving clerics doing about it?

The fact is that Islam is often behaving similarly to how Christianity was behaving maybe the period of inquisitions or in middle ages burning heretics and scientists and starting crusades etc.

Apparently it takes a few centuries for each religion of peace to manage to listen to its own message properly! How many centuries do we still need? What do you think?

My optimistic guess is that due to modern technology, global cultural uniting trends and organized often secular by practical necessity education of the young people, within 50-100 years Muslim youth worldwide will find it intolerable to exhibit/embrace such levels of hypocrisy and the Imams will quickly lose their control of the masses exactly as they deserve with such choices and messages unless they adapted for the better...I salute every author that fights for human rights in Islamic/Muslim countries and embraces the education of women, democratic principles of organization and the empowerment of the youth and free speech through the tools of science and analytical critical thinking. Those are the real heroes in that side of the world as i see it.

I have no doubt there are also some decent clerics here and there. Maybe even the majority of them. And yes you will then need the local news to spot them because the major networks are chasing only the big hot/polarizing news stories typically ignoring the daily smaller scale but greater value substance events. But exactly where are these good ones to join forces in a significant united large scale front and shun automatically all extremists (as if in some movement) and all those inviting assassinations. If some serious religious leader in the West issued such an assassination order the outrage would be monumental by most parties of similar faith and most definitely by those that are not religious to begin with.

You are asking extremely loaded questions and giving pretense they are open-ended unloaded questions. Your motivations I don't know, but typically when people do this it is an attempt at rhetorically pressuring people into specific replies., ala "But what if Buddhists monks were evil?" -> "Aha, I knew you didn't like Buddhist monks!"

The answer to your line of questioning was given in the first reply: There was nothing in my post about the unreasonableness of UAE's Islamic ministry that could not be expressed by a Muslim. This is really the only answer you need, but since it is not the response you tailored your questions to get - you weren't satisfied.

Here is a tip in your life: Don't ask loaded questions to get narrow answers. Ask open questions to get rich answers. Being an intellectual is not about trying to trap people into conforming to how you view them or the world.

Masque, unless you explain how to learn if Muslims denounce violence without doing a survey of Muslim sources, we're going in circles.

there's bad folks all over the world and again of the 1. 7b Shia /Sunni/alawite/Sufi/etc Muslims , these folks don't think alike

For example during a holocaust denial conference back in Iran in 05', in which btw, David duke was in attendance, duke was a former klansman who served in the Louisiana House of Representatives during the 90s. Just keep this in mind going forward


Anyway groups of Iranians protested the conference and burned pictures of irans previous president. Unlike the last guy who denies the holocaust , the current president of Iran , rouhani wishes Iranian Jews happy holidays and sends money to one of Irans Jewish hospitals(rated as the best hospital in Tehran where Jews and Muslims work together)

Both Iranians Jews and Muslims visit the revered Tomb of Daniel in Iran. Iranian Jews ( in their words) are proud to be Iranian Jews

Sent from an iPad forgive any typos

I think you're reading way too much into this. I was simply pointing out that it might not be unreasonable to a Muslim. Maybe I didn't understand the point of your first post, or maybe I'm right that a different word would have been less confusing, but please don't accuse me of 'pretense', aside from the fact that there is none, I think you're giving me too much credit. It's far more likely that my question did have an 'unjustified assumption' (which is what I understand would make it a 'loaded' question) and I still can't see what it is.

Thanks for the patronising tip, it helped me practice my self control (only to a point though cos I'm still being a bit snarky now) but lol@ 'Being an intellectual', by the standards that I use, I'm not even close to being an intellectual. There are plenty of bright posters here but I'd only class two or three of them as intellectual.

And I was pointing that it might be reasonable to a Muslim. To which you replied:
Let me translate this conversation for you:

Me: What is happening in UAE is not reasonable.
You: Did you say that because you are not a Muslim?
Me: A Muslim could say that.
You: But what if this Muslim did not question no what happened in UAE? Then he would not find it unreasonable.

Which is pointless. You are asking me if I am finding something unreasonable because I'm not member of a group that finds it reasonable.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing so we're agreed on that much.

Originally you said:
I assumed that you were saying that in fact it might be considered an 'unreasonable' act, and by the definition I'm using, that calling something unreasonable is to say that it's not guided by, or based on good sense, I don't think it means anything for you to use 'reasonable' or 'unreasonable' on this issue. It's just your opinion from your particular perspective. There's a perfectly good argument for this Fatwa having been issued as the result of the use of 'good sense' and it's more than just 'valid', it's shared by hundreds of millions of people who really believe in the justifications for it.

Since you also said:

Maybe you are saying the same thing that I am.

You are once again trying to force me to answer that the reason for my view is group membership, by tangenting the question with presumptions that make other answers impossible.

Please stop.

For the record, I disagree with you. Perhaps if you stop loading your questioning you will find out why.

Nope, I'm suggesting that it's erroneous for you to say this:

I think it is reasonable, and not just because a valid argument can be constructed for it, or because a significant number of Muslims would most likely agree with me, but because I'm working from the generally accepted definition of the word reasonable, that something is based on sound reasoning.

I don't like the idea of a Fatwa, but I can't deny that this one is 'reasonable'. Can you show that it's not?

You are aware that this:

Mountains are owls
Mount Everest is a mountain
therefore Mount Everest is an owl

is a valid logic argument?

Try reading what you quoted again, with that in mind.

Are you sure you can distinguish between these two concepts? Because...

You can believe it's not sound by rejecting the premises. But you seem to think you're not able to reject the premises.

I think he means, as I do, that fatwa's may be unreasonable as a general concept, but the content of this particular fatwa is not (particularly) unreasonable.

This is no different than claiming that causing harm is bad in general, but specific instances of causing harm (e.g. the pain resulting from having a life-saving medicine injected) is not bad.

Whereas tame_deuces is apparently arguing that, because fatwas as a concept unreasonably violate democratic principles (or w/e, not a direct quote), it's impossible for the specific content of a fatwa to be reasonable.

As a side-note, I haven't kept up with the latest news on this, but I do remember articles such as these from last year:

Mars mission poses greater risk to human life than NASA would allow

Doubts cast on Mars mission as radiation levels may prove too high, warns study

Both from reputable UK broadsheets. And again, I'd stress that one can probably make good arguments that fatwas are unreasonable in general (I don't know anything about this, but td has always struck me as well-informed on jurisprudence w/r/t Islam), or one could make good arguments that the content of some particular fatwa is unreasonable or harmful. But the OP of this thread does neither.

[QUOTE=tame_deuces;42360715]And I was pointing that it might be reasonable to a Muslim. To which you replied:


Let me translate this conversation for you:

Me: What is happening in UAE is not reasonable.
You: Did you say that because you are not a Muslim?
Me: A Muslim could say that.
You: But what if this Muslim did not question no what happened in UAE? Then he would not find it unreasonable.

Which is pointless. You are asking me if I am finding something unreasonable because I'm not member of a group that finds


Tame , Israeli treatment of Palestinians can be brutal, same can be said for some foreign workers in the UAE. Unfortunately the world is full of issues.

Tame the issues in the UAE are comparable to the issues in Israel. Of course at the same time the UAE and Israel are two of the more reasonable countries in the Mid East.

One can see issues all around the world but when one starts to blame it on religion they offend folks, some folks are offended very much by certain anti religious views.

[QUOTE=Mightyboosh;42360908]Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing so we're agreed on that much.

Originally you said:


I assumed that you were saying that in fact it might be considered an 'unreasonable' act, and by the definition I'm using, that calling something unreasonable is to say that it's not guided by, or based on good sense, I don't think it means anything for you to use 'reasonable' or 'unreasonable' on this issue. It's just your opinion from your particular perspective. There's a perfectly good argument for this Fatwa having been issued as the result of the use of 'good sense' and it's more than just 'valid', it's shared by hundreds of millions of people who really believe in the justifications for it.

Since you also said:



Maybe you are saying the same thing that I am.



Boosh Are you an Evangelical atheist ?

Toothpaste?