Please leave the racist comments in another thread.
If you couldn't be bothered watching the video please don't leave vapid comments.

https://youtu.be/SEt1vc4aVKk

What has Islam given the modern world?

Another measurement of a country’s contribution to science is demonstrated by the number patents issued. “The 57 Islamic countries produce negligibly few patents,” Hoodbhoy writes. “According to official statistics, Pakistan has produced only eight patents in the past 43 years.” There are 1800 universities in the 57 Muslim countries of the world; none of them were ranked in the top 500 in a study undertaken by Shanghai Jiao Tong University

https://bobblincoe.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/measuring-scientific-progress-in-the-muslim-world%E2%80%94dr-pervez-hoodbhoy-does-the-math/

Does your video include the camel urine cure, Gordy? FD loves that one.

But don*t worry, you’re not racist.

Some of your best friends are camels, no?

Karnal wrote on Apr 15^th, 2016 at 9:00pm:

Does your video include the camel urine cure, Gordy? FD loves that one. But don*t worry, you’re not racist. Some of your best friends are camels, no?

Glib comments aside, comments on the video please?
Any comments on the patents?

GordyL wrote on Apr 15^th, 2016 at 8:46pm:

What has Islam given the modern world? Another measurement of a country’s contribution to science is demonstrated by the number patents issued. “The 57 Islamic countries produce negligibly few patents,” Hoodbhoy writes. “According to official statistics, Pakistan has produced only eight patents in the past 43 years.” There are 1800 universities in the 57 Muslim countries of the world; none of them were ranked in the top 500 in a study undertaken by Shanghai Jiao Tong University https://bobblincoe.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/measuring-scientific-progress-in-the-muslim-world%E2%80%94dr-pervez-hoodbhoy-does-the-math/

Not only that their own religion was plagiarized from all the Pagan religious practices of the time, Judaism and Christianity.

The only thing the author did was change the main characters in the stories, remove Christs deity and input all the debauchery and violence he wanted to commit through an invented character called mohammed.

Even the rewards in heaven are forbidden carnal practices. Clearly written by a man not a god.

GordyL wrote on Apr 15^th, 2016 at 9:12pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 15th, 2016 at 9:00pm: Does your video include the camel urine cure, Gordy? FD loves that one. But don*t worry, you’re not racist. Some of your best friends are camels, no? Glib comments aside, comments on the video please? Any comments on the patents?

Only that they’re the ships of the desert, Gordy. What could possibly be racist about that?

Karnal wrote on Apr 15^th, 2016 at 9:00pm:

Does your video include the camel urine cure, Gordy? FD loves that one. But don*t worry, you’re not racist. Some of your best friends are camels, no?

So now posting a short video by a Muslim scientist who identifies problems with the closed-mindedness of Islamic civilisation is to be sneered at?


Here is an article that identifies just your kind of reflex opposition to any Muslim who may be even mildly critical of the very obvious shortcomings of Islamic cultures:

A familiar pattern: Liberal writer with Muslim background criticizes Islam. Western intellectuals recoil. It's a problem, and it's happening again... more »

Frank wrote on Apr 16^th, 2016 at 6:39pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 15th, 2016 at 9:00pm: Does your video include the camel urine cure, Gordy? FD loves that one. But don*t worry, you’re not racist. Some of your best friends are camels, no? So now posting a short video by a Muslim scientist who identifies problems with the closed-mindedness of Islamic civilisation is to be sneered at?

Oh, no! How could you ever suggest such a thing?

Gordy has a keen interest in the scientific method, Frank. He sees all the tinted races as equally inferior. It's not the container, you see, it's the -

I forget. I'm not very scientifically-minded, you see. I just believe what Gordy says.

So what Pervez (a Muslim scientist) is saying is totally bunkum and you dismiss it out of hand because Gordy posted the clip?


Is that how it works?

Karnal wrote on Apr 16^th, 2016 at 6:58pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 6:39pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 15th, 2016 at 9:00pm: Does your video include the camel urine cure, Gordy? FD loves that one. But don*t worry, you’re not racist. Some of your best friends are camels, no? So now posting a short video by a Muslim scientist who identifies problems with the closed-mindedness of Islamic civilisation is to be sneered at? Oh, no! How could you ever suggest such a thing? Gordy has a keen interest in the scientific method, Frank. He sees all the tinted races as equally inferior. It's not the container, you see, it's the - I forget. I'm not very scientifically-minded, you see. I just believe what Gordy says.

That's ok its actually the IQ of muslims having a below average cognitive ability.

Frank wrote on Apr 16^th, 2016 at 7:15pm:

So what Pervez (a Muslim scientist) is saying is totally bunkum and you dismiss it out of hand because Gordy posted the clip? Is that how it works?

Alas, Frank, I'm afraid it has come to that, yes. That's now how it works.

Wake me up if Gordy posts something at all relevant, please.

Frank wrote on Apr 16^th, 2016 at 7:15pm:

So what Pervez (a Muslim scientist) is saying is totally bunkum and you dismiss it out of hand because Gordy posted the clip? Is that how it works?

Remember you are dealing with an IQ of < 81 when conversing with the muslim demographic. Things have to be dumbed down. FACT.

Karnal wrote on Apr 16^th, 2016 at 8:01pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 7:15pm: So what Pervez (a Muslim scientist) is saying is totally bunkum and you dismiss it out of hand because Gordy posted the clip? Is that how it works? Alas, Frank, I'm afraid it has come to that, yes. That's now how it works. Wake me up if Gordy posts something at all relevant, please.

Wakey wakey eggs'n'bakey

the total number of books translated into Arabic during the 1,000 years since the age of Caliph Al-Ma’moun [a ninth-century Arab ruler who was a patron of cultural interaction between Arab, Persian, and Greek scholars—WPR] to this day is less than those translated in Spain in one year.

GordyL wrote on Apr 16^th, 2016 at 8:17pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 8:01pm: Frank wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 7:15pm: So what Pervez (a Muslim scientist) is saying is totally bunkum and you dismiss it out of hand because Gordy posted the clip? Is that how it works? Alas, Frank, I'm afraid it has come to that, yes. That's now how it works. Wake me up if Gordy posts something at all relevant, please. Wakey wakey eggs'n'bakey the total number of books translated into Arabic during the 1,000 years since the age of Caliph Al-Ma’moun [a ninth-century Arab ruler who was a patron of cultural interaction between Arab, Persian, and Greek scholars—WPR] to this day is less than those translated in Spain in one year.

Interesting, Gordy. Very specific. What's your source?

Karnal wrote on Apr 16^th, 2016 at 8:53pm:

GordyL wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 8:17pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 8:01pm: Frank wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 7:15pm: So what Pervez (a Muslim scientist) is saying is totally bunkum and you dismiss it out of hand because Gordy posted the clip? Is that how it works? Alas, Frank, I'm afraid it has come to that, yes. That's now how it works. Wake me up if Gordy posts something at all relevant, please. Wakey wakey eggs'n'bakey the total number of books translated into Arabic during the 1,000 years since the age of Caliph Al-Ma’moun [a ninth-century Arab ruler who was a patron of cultural interaction between Arab, Persian, and Greek scholars—WPR] to this day is less than those translated in Spain in one year. Interesting, Gordy. Very specific. What's your source?

http://worldpress.org/Mideast/663.cfm

GordyL wrote on Apr 16^th, 2016 at 9:00pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 8:53pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 8:17pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 8:01pm: Frank wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 7:15pm: So what Pervez (a Muslim scientist) is saying is totally bunkum and you dismiss it out of hand because Gordy posted the clip? Is that how it works? Alas, Frank, I'm afraid it has come to that, yes. That's now how it works. Wake me up if Gordy posts something at all relevant, please. Wakey wakey eggs'n'bakey the total number of books translated into Arabic during the 1,000 years since the age of Caliph Al-Ma’moun [a ninth-century Arab ruler who was a patron of cultural interaction between Arab, Persian, and Greek scholars—WPR] to this day is less than those translated in Spain in one year. Interesting, Gordy. Very specific. What's your source? http://worldpress.org/Mideast/663.cfm

No, I mean what site did you initially read it on?

Karnal wrote on Apr 16^th, 2016 at 9:07pm:

GordyL wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 9:00pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 8:53pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 8:17pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 8:01pm: Frank wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 7:15pm: So what Pervez (a Muslim scientist) is saying is totally bunkum and you dismiss it out of hand because Gordy posted the clip? Is that how it works? Alas, Frank, I'm afraid it has come to that, yes. That's now how it works. Wake me up if Gordy posts something at all relevant, please. Wakey wakey eggs'n'bakey the total number of books translated into Arabic during the 1,000 years since the age of Caliph Al-Ma’moun [a ninth-century Arab ruler who was a patron of cultural interaction between Arab, Persian, and Greek scholars—WPR] to this day is less than those translated in Spain in one year. Interesting, Gordy. Very specific. What's your source? http://worldpress.org/Mideast/663.cfm No, I mean what site did you initially read it on?

I heard it mentioned in a podcast, someone who does actual research so not a crackpot jihadwatch kind then Google that for easy cut and patse.
When I have time I'll find the original source myself.
Bump?

Karnal wrote on Apr 16^th, 2016 at 8:01pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 7:15pm: So what Pervez (a Muslim scientist) is saying is totally bunkum and you dismiss it out of hand because Gordy posted the clip? Is that how it works? Alas, Frank, I'm afraid it has come to that, yes. That's now how it works. Wake me up if Gordy posts something at all relevant, please.

So a Muslim being critical of Islam is irrelevant?

Why? Just because someone you disagrees with you points it out to you?

And you don't see just how wrong you are?

GordyL wrote on Apr 16^th, 2016 at 9:13pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 9:07pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 9:00pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 8:53pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 8:17pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 8:01pm: Frank wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 7:15pm: So what Pervez (a Muslim scientist) is saying is totally bunkum and you dismiss it out of hand because Gordy posted the clip? Is that how it works? Alas, Frank, I'm afraid it has come to that, yes. That's now how it works. Wake me up if Gordy posts something at all relevant, please. Wakey wakey eggs'n'bakey the total number of books translated into Arabic during the 1,000 years since the age of Caliph Al-Ma’moun [a ninth-century Arab ruler who was a patron of cultural interaction between Arab, Persian, and Greek scholars—WPR] to this day is less than those translated in Spain in one year. Interesting, Gordy. Very specific. What's your source? http://worldpress.org/Mideast/663.cfm No, I mean what site did you initially read it on? I heard it mentioned in a podcast, someone who does actual research so not a crackpot jihadwatch kind then Google that for easy cut and patse. When I have time I'll find the original source myself.

Bump

GordyL wrote on Apr 16^th, 2016 at 9:13pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 9:07pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 9:00pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 8:53pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 8:17pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 8:01pm: Frank wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 7:15pm: So what Pervez (a Muslim scientist) is saying is totally bunkum and you dismiss it out of hand because Gordy posted the clip? Is that how it works? Alas, Frank, I'm afraid it has come to that, yes. That's now how it works. Wake me up if Gordy posts something at all relevant, please. Wakey wakey eggs'n'bakey the total number of books translated into Arabic during the 1,000 years since the age of Caliph Al-Ma’moun [a ninth-century Arab ruler who was a patron of cultural interaction between Arab, Persian, and Greek scholars—WPR] to this day is less than those translated in Spain in one year. Interesting, Gordy. Very specific. What's your source? http://worldpress.org/Mideast/663.cfm No, I mean what site did you initially read it on? I heard it mentioned in a podcast, someone who does actual research so not a crackpot jihadwatch kind then Google that for easy cut and patse. When I have time I'll find the original source myself. Bump?

Sorry, Gordy, did you just say Jihadwatch?

Now why would you say that?

Karnal wrote on Apr 17^th, 2016 at 7:31pm:

GordyL wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 9:13pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 9:07pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 9:00pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 8:53pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 8:17pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 8:01pm: Frank wrote on Apr 16th, 2016 at 7:15pm: So what Pervez (a Muslim scientist) is saying is totally bunkum and you dismiss it out of hand because Gordy posted the clip? Is that how it works? Alas, Frank, I'm afraid it has come to that, yes. That's now how it works. Wake me up if Gordy posts something at all relevant, please. Wakey wakey eggs'n'bakey the total number of books translated into Arabic during the 1,000 years since the age of Caliph Al-Ma’moun [a ninth-century Arab ruler who was a patron of cultural interaction between Arab, Persian, and Greek scholars—WPR] to this day is less than those translated in Spain in one year. Interesting, Gordy. Very specific. What's your source? http://worldpress.org/Mideast/663.cfm No, I mean what site did you initially read it on? I heard it mentioned in a podcast, someone who does actual research so not a crackpot jihadwatch kind then Google that for easy cut and patse. When I have time I'll find the original source myself. Bump? Sorry, Gordy, did you just say Jihadwatch? Now why would you say that?

I said NOT from a crackpot site like JW.
Why do you always deflect when faced with actual data?

Oh, Gordy...

I guess Jihadwatch isn’t racist, so that’s something.

Islam.is not a race, eh?

Karnal wrote on Apr 17^th, 2016 at 7:47pm:

Oh, Gordy... I guess Jihadwatch isn’t racist, so that’s something. Islam.is not a race, eh?

Can you comment about the lack of books translated into Arabic?

GordyL wrote on Apr 17^th, 2016 at 7:56pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 17th, 2016 at 7:47pm: Oh, Gordy... I guess Jihadwatch isn’t racist, so that’s something. Islam.is not a race, eh? Can you comment about the lack of books translated into Arabic?

Sorry, Gordy, I don’t know anything about that.

I haven’t been on Jihadwatch, you see.

Karnal wrote on Apr 17^th, 2016 at 8:02pm:

GordyL wrote on Apr 17th, 2016 at 7:56pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 17th, 2016 at 7:47pm: Oh, Gordy... I guess Jihadwatch isn’t racist, so that’s something. Islam.is not a race, eh? Can you comment about the lack of books translated into Arabic? Sorry, Gordy, I don’t know anything about that. I haven’t been on Jihadwatch, you see.

No from the site I shared which shows how few books are translated into Arabic. I don't visit JW either.

Here it is again.
http://worldpress.org/Mideast/663.cfm

Karnal wrote on Apr 17^th, 2016 at 8:02pm:

GordyL wrote on Apr 17th, 2016 at 7:56pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 17th, 2016 at 7:47pm: Oh, Gordy... I guess Jihadwatch isn’t racist, so that’s something. Islam.is not a race, eh? Can you comment about the lack of books translated into Arabic? Sorry, Gordy, I don’t know anything about that. I haven’t been on Jihadwatch, you see.

The funny thing is that you know just how dishonest you are. And yet to persist being dishonest.

You relish your dishonesty.

Frank wrote on Apr 17^th, 2016 at 10:26pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 17th, 2016 at 8:02pm: GordyL wrote on Apr 17th, 2016 at 7:56pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 17th, 2016 at 7:47pm: Oh, Gordy... I guess Jihadwatch isn’t racist, so that’s something. Islam.is not a race, eh? Can you comment about the lack of books translated into Arabic? Sorry, Gordy, I don’t know anything about that. I haven’t been on Jihadwatch, you see. The funny thing is that you know just how dishonest you are. And yet to persist being dishonest. You relish your dishonesty.

The thing I don't understand is the only way to solve a problem is to acknowledge one exists in the first place.

Maybe if some of the humanists would translate  10000 books into Arabic and drive around the middle east in a mobile library

Karnal wrote on Apr 17^th, 2016 at 8:02pm:

GordyL wrote on Apr 17th, 2016 at 7:56pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 17th, 2016 at 7:47pm: Oh, Gordy... I guess Jihadwatch isn’t racist, so that’s something. Islam.is not a race, eh? Can you comment about the lack of books translated into Arabic? Sorry, Gordy, I don’t know anything about that. I haven’t been on Jihadwatch, you see.

Not Jihad watch. United Nations.

UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME
ARAB FUND FOR ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
ARAB HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2003
Building a Knowledge Society


Most Arab countries have not learned from the lessons of the past and the field of translation remains chaotic. In terms of quantity, and notwithstanding the increase in the number of translated books from 175 per year during 1970-1975 to 330, the number of books
translated in the Arab world is one fifth of the number translated in Greece. The aggregate
total of translated books from the AlMa’moon era to the present day amounts to 10,000 books - equivalent to what Spain translates in a single year (Shawki Galal, in Arabic, 1999, 87)3
.
This disparity was revealed in the first half of the 1980s when the average number of books translated per 1 million people in the Arab world during the 5-year period was 4.4 (less than one book for every million Arabs), while in Hungary it was 519, and in Spain 920. (Figure 2.9.)


http://www.arab-hdr.org/publications/other/ahdr/ahdr2003e.pdf
Page 67

Sharia explained in painstaking detail. From the most authoritative source.

http://atheistmuslim.altervista.org/sharia.pdf

Frank wrote on Apr 25^th, 2016 at 2:58pm:

Sharia explained in painstaking detail. From the most authoritative source. http://atheistmuslim.altervista.org/sharia.pdf

o1.2 The following are not subject to retaliation:


(2) a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim;
(3) a Jewish or Christian subject of the Islamic state for killing an apostate from Islam (O: because a subject of the state is under its protection, while killing an apostate from Islam is without consequences);
(4) a father or mother (or their fathers of mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring;

Quote:

(4) a father or mother (or their fathers of mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring;

Where is that one from?

Reliance of the Traveller and Tools for the Worshipper.
A CLASSIC MANUAL OF ISLAMIC SACRED LAW BY AHMAD IBN NAQIB AL-MISRI (Died 1368 AD)
Edited and Translated by Sheik Nuh Ha Mim Keller

'Umdat as-Salik wa 'Uddat an-Nasik (Reliance of the Traveller and Tools of the Worshipper, also commonly known by its shorter title Reliance of the Traveller) is a classical manual of fiqh for the Shafi'i school of Islamic jurisprudence. The author of the main text is 14th-century scholar Shihabuddin Abu al-'Abbas Ahmad ibn an-Naqib al-Misri (AH 702-769 / AD 1302–1367). Al-Misri who based his work on the previous Shafi'i works of Imam Nawawi and Imam Abu Ishaq as-Shirazi. Ibn Naqib follows the order of Shirazi's al-Muhadhdhab (The Rarefaction) and the conclusions of Nawawi's Minhaj at-Talibin (The Seeker's Road). This work consists of the soundest positions of the Shafi'i school.

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2016 at 6:25pm:

Quote: (4) a father or mother (or their fathers of mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring; Where is that one from?

Where do Yadda, Barron, Matty, Moses/Frank get all their info from?

Guess.

Karnal wrote on Apr 28^th, 2016 at 8:50pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 25th, 2016 at 6:25pm: Quote: (4) a father or mother (or their fathers of mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring; Where is that one from? Where do Yadda, Barron, Matty, Moses/Frank get all their info from? Guess.

Impeccable Islamic sources.

That's the beauty of it. Islamic fundamentalists are not hiding their Islamic fundamentalism.

We just believe them, unlike you (pretend not to).

But you know as well as anyone else just how toxic and terrible Islamic ideology is. You just want to shelter Muslims from being implicated in Islamic ideology.

And how many Muslims have you discussed Islamic texts with, Frank?

Karnal wrote on Apr 28^th, 2016 at 9:58pm:

And how many Muslims have you discussed Islamic texts with, Frank?

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


This is the 'millions are starving in Africa- oh yeah? name one" argument.

There is more than enough evidence from people who have asked Muslims.

Frank wrote on Apr 28^th, 2016 at 8:57pm:

Impeccable Islamic sources. That's the beauty of it. Islamic fundamentalists are not hiding their Islamic fundamentalism. We just believe them, unlike you (pretend not to). But you know as well as anyone else just how toxic and terrible Islamic ideology is. You just want to shelter Muslims from being implicated in Islamic ideology.

It is the inability to admit ones faults or that one is insanely wrong.

Ashley wrote on Apr 29^th, 2016 at 7:24pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 28th, 2016 at 8:57pm: Impeccable Islamic sources. That's the beauty of it. Islamic fundamentalists are not hiding their Islamic fundamentalism. We just believe them, unlike you (pretend not to). But you know as well as anyone else just how toxic and terrible Islamic ideology is. You just want to shelter Muslims from being implicated in Islamic ideology. It is the inability to admit ones faults or that one is insanely wrong.

FD?

miam miam Granville.

Frank wrote on Apr 29^th, 2016 at 6:37pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 28th, 2016 at 9:58pm: And how many Muslims have you discussed Islamic texts with, Frank? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D This is the 'millions are starving in Africa- oh yeah? name one" argument.

Ever spoken to G?

freediver wrote on Apr 29^th, 2016 at 7:12pm:

There is more than enough evidence from people who have asked Muslims.

Yes FD - just like you. Like the evidence of falah confirming that Islam permits spousal rape - by saying the exact opposite. Or the evidence of me saying gays should be killed for flaunting their sexuality mardi gras style - when I said gays shouldn't be killed.

Yes, but Frank didn’t mean you or Falah, G. He was referring to other Muslims.

You know, the ones who post on Jihadwatch.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 29^th, 2016 at 8:07pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 29th, 2016 at 7:12pm: There is more than enough evidence from people who have asked Muslims. Yes FD - just like you. Like the evidence of falah confirming that Islam permits spousal rape - by saying the exact opposite. Or the evidence of me saying gays should be killed for flaunting their sexuality mardi gras style - when I said gays shouldn't be killed.

You must be an apostate or a backsliding Muslim.

Where do you see yourself on the orthodox-backsliding-apostate Muslim continuum, 0 being a homosexual jew-sympathising rent-boy apostate and 100 being a fully bearded/burqad, observant, sharia is the only way maniac?




Same question to you Karnal.

Frank wrote on Apr 29^th, 2016 at 9:41pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 29th, 2016 at 8:07pm: freediver wrote on Apr 29th, 2016 at 7:12pm: There is more than enough evidence from people who have asked Muslims. Yes FD - just like you. Like the evidence of falah confirming that Islam permits spousal rape - by saying the exact opposite. Or the evidence of me saying gays should be killed for flaunting their sexuality mardi gras style - when I said gays shouldn't be killed. You must be an apostate or a backsliding Muslim. Where do you see yourself on the orthodox-backsliding-apostate Muslim continuum, 0 being a homosexual jew-sympathising rent-boy apostate and 100 being a fully bearded/burqad, observant, sharia is the only way maniac? Same question to you Karnal.

Gandalf is mainstream (just like all Muslims). He chooses to believe that his fellow Muslims do not really mean what they say when people ask them about Shariah law.

He is also a reformer who wants to bring Islam back to it's roots and into the modern world, and puts much effort into correcting the misinterpretations of Islam held by non-Muslims.

freediver wrote on Apr 29^th, 2016 at 10:01pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 29th, 2016 at 9:41pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 29th, 2016 at 8:07pm: freediver wrote on Apr 29th, 2016 at 7:12pm: There is more than enough evidence from people who have asked Muslims. Yes FD - just like you. Like the evidence of falah confirming that Islam permits spousal rape - by saying the exact opposite. Or the evidence of me saying gays should be killed for flaunting their sexuality mardi gras style - when I said gays shouldn't be killed. You must be an apostate or a backsliding Muslim. Where do you see yourself on the orthodox-backsliding-apostate Muslim continuum, 0 being a homosexual jew-sympathising rent-boy apostate and 100 being a fully bearded/burqad, observant, sharia is the only way maniac? Same question to you Karnal. Gandalf is mainstream (just like all Muslims). He chooses to believe that his fellow Muslims do not really mean what they say when people ask them about Shariah law. He is also a reformer who wants to bring Islam back to it's roots and into the modern world, and puts much effort into correcting the misinterpretations of Islam held by non-Muslims.

I think 'mainstream' Muslims are the worst, most devious. They are the ones who know they are lying as they speak to you.  When they say they are 'mainstream'' you know straight away that they are trying to hoodwink you.

I have never ever heard Muslims debating each other and identifying each other as 'mainstream'. They know there is no 'mainsteam'. It's a bromide for the useful idiots outside Islam.

You call out Muslims for any atrocity and they will immediately tell you that 'they do not represent Islam, Islam has no central authority, it's all up to each community', etc, etc.

It's all bollocks. Mainstream is like the 'vast majority' who would not report terrorists to the authorities.

I would make Muslim apostasy a migration requirement to the West. A public renouncing of Islam. There is no improvement, only degradation, that Islamic ideology brings to any Western country.i

So which ones have you spoken to?

Frank wrote on Apr 29^th, 2016 at 10:26pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 29th, 2016 at 10:01pm: Frank wrote on Apr 29th, 2016 at 9:41pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 29th, 2016 at 8:07pm: freediver wrote on Apr 29th, 2016 at 7:12pm: There is more than enough evidence from people who have asked Muslims. Yes FD - just like you. Like the evidence of falah confirming that Islam permits spousal rape - by saying the exact opposite. Or the evidence of me saying gays should be killed for flaunting their sexuality mardi gras style - when I said gays shouldn't be killed. You must be an apostate or a backsliding Muslim. Where do you see yourself on the orthodox-backsliding-apostate Muslim continuum, 0 being a homosexual jew-sympathising rent-boy apostate and 100 being a fully bearded/burqad, observant, sharia is the only way maniac? Same question to you Karnal. Gandalf is mainstream (just like all Muslims). He chooses to believe that his fellow Muslims do not really mean what they say when people ask them about Shariah law. He is also a reformer who wants to bring Islam back to it's roots and into the modern world, and puts much effort into correcting the misinterpretations of Islam held by non-Muslims. I think 'mainstream' Muslims are the worst, most devious. They are the ones who know they are lying as they speak to you.  When they say they are 'mainstream'' you know straight away that they are trying to hoodwink you. I have never ever heard Muslims debating each other and identifying each other as 'mainstream'. They know there is no 'mainsteam'. It's a bromide for the useful idiots outside Islam. You call out Muslims for any atrocity and they will immediately tell you that 'they do not represent Islam, Islam has no central authority, it's all up to each community', etc, etc. It's all bollocks. Mainstream is like the 'vast majority' who would not report terrorists to the authorities. I would make Muslim apostasy a migration requirement to the West. A public renouncing of Islam. There is no improvement, only degradation, that Islamic ideology brings to any Western country.

Well said.

Karnal wrote on Apr 29^th, 2016 at 10:35pm:

So which ones have you spoken to?

Ahmed, Mahmood, Mahmud, Mohammed, Mohamed, Ali, Rashid, Rasheed, another Mohammed, another Abdulah, a Yasin, two Omars and a Hamza or two.

Frank wrote on Apr 29^th, 2016 at 10:26pm:

There is no improvement, only degradation, that Islamic ideology brings to any Western country.

What have you brought to our country, Frank?

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 29^th, 2016 at 11:33pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 29th, 2016 at 10:26pm: There is no improvement, only degradation, that Islamic ideology brings to any Western country. What have you brought to our country, Frank?

Love, nothing but love.

Karnal wrote on Apr 29^th, 2016 at 11:37pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 29th, 2016 at 11:33pm: Frank wrote on Apr 29th, 2016 at 10:26pm: There is no improvement, only degradation, that Islamic ideology brings to any Western country. What have you brought to our country, Frank? Love, nothing but love.

Ah.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 29^th, 2016 at 11:33pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 29th, 2016 at 10:26pm: There is no improvement, only degradation, that Islamic ideology brings to any Western country. What have you brought to our country, Frank?

Civilisation.


Better than sharia, no?

Frank wrote on Apr 29^th, 2016 at 11:40pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 29th, 2016 at 11:33pm: Frank wrote on Apr 29th, 2016 at 10:26pm: There is no improvement, only degradation, that Islamic ideology brings to any Western country. What have you brought to our country, Frank? Civilisation.

How did you do that, Frank?

The reason I ask is, I've read many of you posts and I've not seen anything civilised about them.

Frank wrote on Apr 29^th, 2016 at 10:40pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 29th, 2016 at 10:35pm: So which ones have you spoken to? Ahmed, Mahmood, Mahmud, Mohammed, Mohamed, Ali, Rashid, Rasheed, another Mohammed, another Abdulah, a Yasin, two Omars and a Hamza or two.

You better be clear that Mohammed and Mohamed were many multiples ;D

Ashley wrote on Apr 29^th, 2016 at 11:48pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 29th, 2016 at 10:40pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 29th, 2016 at 10:35pm: So which ones have you spoken to? Ahmed, Mahmood, Mahmud, Mohammed, Mohamed, Ali, Rashid, Rasheed, another Mohammed, another Abdulah, a Yasin, two Omars and a Hamza or two. You better be clear that Mohammed and Mohamed were many multiples ;D

No, they’re real people Frank has discussed Islamic texts with. That’s what he’s saying here.

Get with the program, Matty/Mattywisk/Valkie.

Karnal wrote on Apr 29^th, 2016 at 11:59pm:

Ashley wrote on Apr 29th, 2016 at 11:48pm: Frank wrote on Apr 29th, 2016 at 10:40pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 29th, 2016 at 10:35pm: So which ones have you spoken to? Ahmed, Mahmood, Mahmud, Mohammed, Mohamed, Ali, Rashid, Rasheed, another Mohammed, another Abdulah, a Yasin, two Omars and a Hamza or two. You better be clear that Mohammed and Mohamed were many multiples ;D No, they’re real people Frank has discussed Islamic texts with. That’s what he’s saying here. Get with the program, Matty/Mattywisk/Valkie.

Clearly you are one paranoid individual but dear I know they are real people just many of them with that name like I said.

Get with the program paranoid one.

freediver wrote on Apr 29^th, 2016 at 10:01pm:

He chooses to believe that his fellow Muslims do not really mean what they say when people ask them about Shariah law.

This is not true. I've explained it to you before, but yet you still repeat it.

Much like the one about gandalf thinking that all criticism of Islam is racism - a complete invention on FD's part.

Here are some of the excuses Gnadalf offered for why surveys of Muslims opinions do not actually reflect Muslims opinions.

Malaysian Muslims only indicated support for these barbaric laws because they were presented in an abstract sense. They would have a different view if they were actually voting on the issue.

Although the majority of Malaysian Muslims support the punishments, it would never become law because they are not motivated to achieve that.

There is no serious debate on the issue in Malaysia.

The laws have never come to pass because Malaysian Muslims do not actually support them (although just over 50% of Malaysian Muslims support these laws according to the survey, they make up less than 1/3 of the total population).

If they truly supported these laws, they would have achieved them by now.

If there ever was a serious attempt to introduce these laws, the public debate would expose Muslims to the true barbarity of them and they would change their mind.

Non-Muslim Malaysians support the "right" of Muslims to apply these laws to "themselves" (even in the context of executing apostates). One cannot assume that they oppose them without evidence. This argument was made to support the case that it is lack of motivation or lack of actual support among the 1/3 of the population who support the laws (according to the survey) that is the real reason that Malaysia does not have these laws.

An explanation is needed for why Malaysia has not already passed these laws (other than the fact that Malaysia is a democracy in which 2/3 of the population oppose the laws).

Malaysia only has a "handful" of rehabilitation camps for apostates, and the laws are easy to get around.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1389655854/8#8

http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Faith_Ratchet#Malaysia

Wow FD, thats a pretty long-winded way to deflect from the fact that I never said that "Muslims do not really mean what they say"

It’s also the most out of touch analysis of Malaysian politics today, which is focussed almost solely on high end corruption and, as always, economic development.

...interspersed with efforts to reintroduce the death penalty for blasphemy. How do you think that would be going without the constitution they inherited from the British?

Gandalf, how else would you describe your spineless apologetics for Malaysian Islamic fundamentalism? Just a bit of a misunderstanding? A nasty trick by the ever-conservative Pew society?

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2016 at 12:37pm:

...interspersed with efforts to reintroduce the death penalty for blasphemy. How do you think that would be going without the constitution they inherited from the British?

Are you referring to Malaysia, FD, or the colony of Malaya?

I’m curious.

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2016 at 12:37pm:

Gandalf, how else would you describe your spineless apologetics for Malaysian Islamic fundamentalism? Just a bit of a misunderstanding? A nasty trick by the ever-conservative Pew society?

This is FD yet again demanding I repeat an entire 20+ page discussion, rather than understand what I actually said the first time.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 30^th, 2016 at 1:52pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 30th, 2016 at 12:37pm: Gandalf, how else would you describe your spineless apologetics for Malaysian Islamic fundamentalism? Just a bit of a misunderstanding? A nasty trick by the ever-conservative Pew society? This is FD yet again demanding I repeat an entire 20+ page discussion, rather than understand what I actually said the first time.

Yes, G, but shurely you support these Malayan.calls for beheading apostates. That’s what FD’s getting at here.

Remember, you have to say yes because you’re a Moslem.

True

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 30^th, 2016 at 1:52pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 30th, 2016 at 12:37pm: Gandalf, how else would you describe your spineless apologetics for Malaysian Islamic fundamentalism? Just a bit of a misunderstanding? A nasty trick by the ever-conservative Pew society? This is FD yet again demanding I repeat an entire 20+ page discussion, rather than understand what I actually said the first time.

It was only 20 pages because of your efforts at evasion. I'll make it very simple for you to deny your apologist stance on this:

Do all those Malaysian Muslims who say they support the death penalty for apostasy really mean what they say?

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2016 at 2:13pm:

Do all those Malaysian Muslims who say they support the death penalty for apostasy really mean what they say?

Yes. And of course you would have known that if you were paying attention to the original discussion.

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2016 at 2:13pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 30th, 2016 at 1:52pm: freediver wrote on Apr 30th, 2016 at 12:37pm: Gandalf, how else would you describe your spineless apologetics for Malaysian Islamic fundamentalism? Just a bit of a misunderstanding? A nasty trick by the ever-conservative Pew society? This is FD yet again demanding I repeat an entire 20+ page discussion, rather than understand what I actually said the first time. It was only 20 pages because of your efforts at evasion. I'll make it very simple for you to deny your apologist stance on this: Do all those Malaysian Muslims who say they support the death penalty for apostasy really mean what they say?

Did somebody say evasion?

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 30^th, 2016 at 2:25pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 30th, 2016 at 2:13pm: Do all those Malaysian Muslims who say they support the death penalty for apostasy really mean what they say? Yes. And of course you would have known that if you were paying attention to the original discussion.

Would they change their mind if actually given a genuine chance to achieve this?

Karnal wrote on Apr 30^th, 2016 at 2:32pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 30th, 2016 at 2:13pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 30th, 2016 at 1:52pm: freediver wrote on Apr 30th, 2016 at 12:37pm: Gandalf, how else would you describe your spineless apologetics for Malaysian Islamic fundamentalism? Just a bit of a misunderstanding? A nasty trick by the ever-conservative Pew society? This is FD yet again demanding I repeat an entire 20+ page discussion, rather than understand what I actually said the first time. It was only 20 pages because of your efforts at evasion. I'll make it very simple for you to deny your apologist stance on this: Do all those Malaysian Muslims who say they support the death penalty for apostasy really mean what they say? Did somebody say evasion?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 30^th, 2016 at 2:25pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 30th, 2016 at 2:13pm: Do all those Malaysian Muslims who say they support the death penalty for apostasy really mean what they say? Yes. And of course you would have known that if you were paying attention to the original discussion.

Gandalf, where do you see yourself on the orthodox-backsliding-apostate Muslim continuum, 0 being a raging homosexual jew-sympathising rent-boy apostate and 100 being a fully bearded/burqad, observant, sharia is the only way orthodox?

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2016 at 3:05pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 30th, 2016 at 2:25pm: freediver wrote on Apr 30th, 2016 at 2:13pm: Do all those Malaysian Muslims who say they support the death penalty for apostasy really mean what they say? Yes. And of course you would have known that if you were paying attention to the original discussion. Would they change their mind if actually given a genuine chance to achieve this?

In my opinion, answering 'yes' or 'no' on a hypothetical, inconsequential survey is vastly different to actually voting to implement the law - so its very likely they would change their mind.

And yet in both instances they would "mean what they say" - thats the bit you don't seem to get.

"answering 'yes' or 'no' on a hypothetical, inconsequential survey is vastly different to actually voting to implement the law - so its very likely they would change their mind."

That's Gold  ;D ;D ;D

Why on earth would they change their mind they have no reason to lie in the first place ;D.

changing your mind and lying are not the same thing matty.

Frank wrote on Apr 29^th, 2016 at 10:26pm:

I think 'mainstream' Muslims are the worst, most devious. They are the ones who know they are lying as they speak to you.  When they say they are 'mainstream'' you know straight away that they are trying to hoodwink you. I have never ever heard Muslims debating each other and identifying each other as 'mainstream'. They know there is no 'mainsteam'. It's a bromide for the useful idiots outside Islam.

Martin Luther would be proud... Although his gripe was with Jews.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 30^th, 2016 at 8:35pm:

changing your mind and lying are not the same thing matty.

Wow - name calling, that must have struck a nerve. ::)

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 30^th, 2016 at 6:49pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 30th, 2016 at 3:05pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 30th, 2016 at 2:25pm: freediver wrote on Apr 30th, 2016 at 2:13pm: Do all those Malaysian Muslims who say they support the death penalty for apostasy really mean what they say? Yes. And of course you would have known that if you were paying attention to the original discussion. Would they change their mind if actually given a genuine chance to achieve this? In my opinion, answering 'yes' or 'no' on a hypothetical, inconsequential survey is vastly different to actually voting to implement the law - so its very likely they would change their mind. And yet in both instances they would "mean what they say" - thats the bit you don't seem to get.

So when Muslims say they mean what they say, what they really mean is that they will change their mind when push comes to shove?

How do you explain how close they came to actually getting the death penalty for apostasy? The majority of Muslims want it. They elect a political party that passes it into law, but somehow it is all a big misunderstanding? Perhaps they didn't think about what death actually means?

See Frank, this is how Gandalf says that Muslims do not mean what they say without actually saying it. if it is hypothetical, you will get a different answer to if it is real, which makes it hurt a whole lot less when they hack your head off.

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2016 at 8:51pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 30th, 2016 at 6:49pm: freediver wrote on Apr 30th, 2016 at 3:05pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 30th, 2016 at 2:25pm: freediver wrote on Apr 30th, 2016 at 2:13pm: Do all those Malaysian Muslims who say they support the death penalty for apostasy really mean what they say? Yes. And of course you would have known that if you were paying attention to the original discussion. Would they change their mind if actually given a genuine chance to achieve this? In my opinion, answering 'yes' or 'no' on a hypothetical, inconsequential survey is vastly different to actually voting to implement the law - so its very likely they would change their mind. And yet in both instances they would "mean what they say" - thats the bit you don't seem to get. So when Muslims say they mean what they say, what they really mean is that they will change their mind when push comes to shove?

Good point, FD. What do you think the 2007 FD would say about changing one's mind?

I think he would forgive his previous error of judgement. FD is oft-forgiving, most merciful.

What do you think?

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2016 at 10:06pm:

I think he would forgive his previous error of judgement. FD is oft-forgiving, most merciful. What do you think?

I think the current FD would spend his entire time here cross-examining the 2007 FD for being a shifty, evasive, yeah-but-no-but spineless apologist.

Of course, what you're really saying here is that FD would change his mind if push came to shove.

Would you put that in the same basket as not really knowing what "the death penalty for apostasy" really means?

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2016 at 10:45pm:

Would you put that in the same basket as not really knowing what "the death penalty for apostasy" really means?

I don't even know what this question means.

Will you answer my question?

When Gandalf talks about these Muslims changing their mind, it is a reference to them supporting the death penalty for apostasy, then when faced with the possibility of getting what they want, changing their mind because they realise it is the death penalty for apostasy.

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2016 at 8:51pm:

So when Muslims say they mean what they say, what they really mean is that they will change their mind when push comes to shove?

What I said is self-explanatory and makes perfect common sense.

Currently a majority of Australians support the death penalty for deadly terrorist acts. I can guarantee you if ever there was a referendum or whatever other popular vote to make it law - Australians will end up overwhelmingly rejecting it.

You realise we only got rid of the death penalty fairly recently in our history, and plenty of western countries still have it?

We don't typically have referendums on changes to our law, so this would probably come under "or whatever". So tell me, when that Malaysian state passed a law for the death penalty for apostasy, is there any evidence of a mass changing of minds among the Muslim voters?

Karnal wrote on Apr 30^th, 2016 at 9:52pm:

Good point, FD. What do you think the 2007 FD would say about changing one's mind?

People get mugged by reality.  Only a fool like you would maintain his views of Islam from 2007 to be still valid in 2016.


Your views of the world have not changed since the 60s. But that doesn't mean that you are right and nobody should change his views since the 60s or 90s or 2007.

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2016 at 10:41am:

So tell me, when that Malaysian state passed a law for the death penalty for apostasy, is there any evidence of a mass changing of minds among the Muslim voters?

The "law", which to date is non-implementable, was introduced over 20 years ago, and to be honest I doubt there's even much awareness at all about its existence - seeing it was passed behind closed doors with virtually no consultation. Besides which, and as I mentioned last time, the federal government's opposition to the hudud laws are well publicised, and as such there is a general understanding amongst the public that such laws are in no danger of actually being implemented yet. The reality is, the vast majority of muslim Malaysians vote for parties that are staunchly and openly against hudud.

The only reason they do not have this law at the moment is because it was knocked down on federal constitutional grounds. The bulk of the people in the state supported it, and the elected state government enacted it.

Are you honestly suggesting that a federal court case to challenge a state law for the death penalty for apostasy somehow went unnoticed?

For most of the history of climate change debate, both of our major federal parties opposed carbon pricing, despite the huge support for it. Would you consider that any kind of guarantee that it won't happen, or is it a vagary of representative government that can change overnight?

What we see in Malaysia is a society walking a cliff edge, while their fellow Muslims point to the fact that they have not yet fallen off as proof that the cliff does not exist.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2016 at 10:45am:

Are you honestly suggesting that a federal court case to challenge a state law for the death penalty for apostasy somehow went unnoticed?

No FD - and thats the very point I was making.

OK. So during this highly publicised event, when the state had the law for the death penalty for apostasy, and it was being challenged in the federal court, was there any evidence of a mass changing of minds among the Muslims? Or were they all wandering round saying move along people, nothing to see here, we are in safe hands and this law we want to have and that just got passed by state parliament could never become reality?

I'm not even sure which federal court challenge you are referring to or whether there even was one.

The hudud laws can't be implemented because it is overruled by federal law, which states that sharia courts can only issue fines and imprisonment up to 3 years. This is what I was referring to - and it is a fact that is well understood in Malay society. Get back to me when Malays actually start hacking people's arms and heads off and we'll see how strong the support for it is then.

Americans were also gung ho about invading Iraq before they actually invaded - but support for the invasion went into freefall after they saw what an unprovoked invasion and destruction of a sovereign nation actually looked like in reality. By your logic, these people must have said one thing and meant the other.

Quote:

The hudud laws can't be implemented because it is overruled by federal law

How did this over-ruling come about Gandalf? Did the state legislature pass it into law and then say hang on, we overlooked the constitution, let's just pretend that never happened?


Quote:

Americans were also gung ho about invading Iraq before they actually invaded - but support for the invasion went into freefall after they saw what an unprovoked invasion and destruction of a sovereign nation actually looked like in reality. By your logic, these people must have said one thing and meant the other.

The outcome of the death penalty for apostasy is a bit easier to predict than the outcome of going to war Gandalf. How much did opinion change?

Are you conceding that the only thing standing between the Muslims of that state and the death penalty for apostasy is the federal constitution?

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2016 at 1:33pm:

Quote: The hudud laws can't be implemented because it is overruled by federal law How did this over-ruling come about Gandalf? Did the state legislature pass it into law and then say hang on, we overlooked the constitution, let's just pretend that never happened?

How many times have you already been given this answer? I'm curious.

Have you forgotten?

None that I recall Karnal.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2016 at 3:28pm:

None that I recall Karnal.

Strange. You remember this discussion right up until the bit about the law being overturned by a higher court for being unconstitutional, eh?

We have been discussing it being overturned on constitutional grounds for some time now Karnal. Gandalf seems to think this happened without a court case:


Quote:

I'm not even sure which federal court challenge you are referring to or whether there even was one.

... no doubt behind closed doors, in secret, so as to not give Malaysian Muslims a chance to realise that the death penalty for apostasy might involve the death penalty for apostasy.

I do not recall this argument from him before. Do you?

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2016 at 5:34pm:

We have been discussing it being overturned on constitutional grounds for some time now Karnal. Gandalf seems to think this happened without a court case: Quote: I'm not even sure which federal court challenge you are referring to or whether there even was one. ... no doubt behind closed doors, in secret, so as to not give Malaysian Muslims a chance to realise that the death penalty for apostasy might involve the death penalty for apostasy. I do not recall this argument from him before. Do you?

Sorry, are you saying you know the answer? Why did you ask G?

And why are you using it as an example of how evil Malaysia is if its constitution prohibits the death sentence for apostasy?

I do hope you're not pretending the Malaysian constitution was written by Mother again. That was slippery, to say the least.

The majority of Malaysian Muslims support the death penalty for apostasy. Malaysia has managed to keep them at bay so far, despite Gandalf's excuses and deflections, and one state actually passing it in to law.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2016 at 6:01pm:

The majority of Malaysian Muslims support the death penalty for apostasy. Malaysia has managed to keep them at bay so far, despite Gandalf's excuses and deflections, and one state actually passing it in to law.

I believe the figure was around 60%, but Malaysia is not an exclusively Muslim country.

What this means is that a majority of Malaysian citizens oppose such a law, and this is the point of a constitution which binds the three major ethnic groups of Malaysia.

Right. It is ultimately the non-Muslims preventing Malaysia's rapid slide into Islamic political disaster. Not, as Gandalf suggests, Muslims not really wanting what they say they want.

Some Musos in Malaysia tell the Chinese it is 'their' country..... and the Chinese should get out... amazing.. simply amazing...

Karnal wrote on May 2^nd, 2016 at 6:46pm:

freediver wrote on May 2nd, 2016 at 6:01pm: The majority of Malaysian Muslims support the death penalty for apostasy. Malaysia has managed to keep them at bay so far, despite Gandalf's excuses and deflections, and one state actually passing it in to law. I believe the figure was around 60%, but Malaysia is not an exclusively Muslim country. What this means is that a majority of Malaysian citizens oppose such a law, and this is the point of a constitution which binds the three major ethnic groups of Malaysia.

With the Chinese,  Malaysia would be as retarded as every other Muztard country. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbQv-YSA_rI

No wonder they end up with a less than 81 IQ.

GordyL wrote on May 2^nd, 2016 at 10:43pm:

Karnal wrote on May 2nd, 2016 at 6:46pm: freediver wrote on May 2nd, 2016 at 6:01pm: The majority of Malaysian Muslims support the death penalty for apostasy. Malaysia has managed to keep them at bay so far, despite Gandalf's excuses and deflections, and one state actually passing it in to law. I believe the figure was around 60%, but Malaysia is not an exclusively Muslim country. What this means is that a majority of Malaysian citizens oppose such a law, and this is the point of a constitution which binds the three major ethnic groups of Malaysia. With the Chinese,  Malaysia would be as retarded as every other Muztard country.

And those Malays won’t rest until every last Curry and Chinky Chionk.are converted by the sword.

Moslem == a follower of Islam.

Moslem actually = Follower of Myth, fact.

Karnal wrote on May 3^rd, 2016 at 12:22am:

GordyL wrote on May 2nd, 2016 at 10:43pm: Karnal wrote on May 2nd, 2016 at 6:46pm: freediver wrote on May 2nd, 2016 at 6:01pm: The majority of Malaysian Muslims support the death penalty for apostasy. Malaysia has managed to keep them at bay so far, despite Gandalf's excuses and deflections, and one state actually passing it in to law. I believe the figure was around 60%, but Malaysia is not an exclusively Muslim country. What this means is that a majority of Malaysian citizens oppose such a law, and this is the point of a constitution which binds the three major ethnic groups of Malaysia. With the Chinese,  Malaysia would be as retarded as every other Muztard country.  And those Malays won’t rest until every last Curry and Chinky Chionk.are converted by the sword. Moslem == a follower of Islam.

Funny as usual, Karnal.

Maybe you should  go and work in the joint and see what it's like.

The Muslim Malay are Koranicly retarded obstacles that need to be tiptoed around to get to the Chinese so you can actually get some work done.
 

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2016 at 6:01pm:

The majority of Malaysian Muslims support the death penalty for apostasy. Malaysia has managed to keep them at bay so far, despite Gandalf's excuses and deflections, and one state actually passing it in to law.

Karnal wrote on May 3^rd, 2016 at 12:22am:

And those Malays won’t rest until every last Curry and Chinky Chionk.are converted by the sword. Moslem == a follower of Islam.

Karnal,

Refusing to acknowledge the truth, about what ISLAM is, cannot change the truth, about what ISLAM is,
.........nor, will such an attitude change the truth, about the religious bigotry and the religious violence towards disbelievers, which ISLAM promotes.




Do some Googling;

"Malaysia's Prime Minister: LGBTs, liberalism, and pluralism are enemies of Islam"

"Last Malaysian Hindu temple in central Kuala Lumpur condemned, given five days to vacate"

"Malaysian temple condemned, temple staff and devotees given 15 minutes to leave"

"Malaysian government views LGBT community as a 'spreading problem' to be stopped"

"Malaysian deputy prime minister: Islam not compatible with freedom, liberal thought"

"Yet another Malaysian non-Muslim house of worship demolished"

"Malaysian state holding seminar on "threat of Christianity" "

"A message from Malaysia's king: "Muslims need to emulate Prophet Muhammad" "




MORE......

Checkout news reports from secular, liberal, democratic, Indonesia, the 'crucial US ally'.....

http://www.jihadwatch.org/category/indonesia




And checkout news reports from secular, liberal, democratic, Malaysia, 'the partner of the West'.....

http://www.jihadwatch.org/category/Malaysia




THE TRUTH;

Moslems are not tolerant people.

The moslem is not permitted by his religion, to be tolerant of people who are not moslems.

That fact, is an article of faith, for every moslem.    e.g. Koran 60:4




.




ISLAM's hatred of disbelievers is all 'holy' stuff.

It must be,
......EVERY WORD [below] COMES FROM ALLAH's HOLY KORAN.



"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98


"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11


"O ye who believe! Take not my enemies and yours as friends (or protectors),- offering them (your) love,..."
Koran 60.1


"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29


"There is for you an excellent example (to follow) in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: "We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah: we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever,- unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone"....."
Koran 60:4


"....take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends....
......he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them."
Koran 5.51


"Fighting [against disbelievers] is prescribed for you, and [if] ye dislike it.....Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Koran 2.216


"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)."
Koran 9.123

Karnal wrote on May 3^rd, 2016 at 12:22am:

And those Malays won’t rest until every last Curry and Chinky Chionk.are converted by the sword. Moslem == a follower of Islam.

Karnal = = 'a snake in the grass'.



Snake in the grass | Define Snake in the grass at Dictionary.com
www.dictionary.com/browse/snake-in-the-grass
Snake in the grass definition, a treacherous person, especially one who feigns friendship. See more.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2016 at 1:33pm:

Quote: The hudud laws can't be implemented because it is overruled by federal law How did this over-ruling come about Gandalf? Did the state legislature pass it into law and then say hang on, we overlooked the constitution, let's just pretend that never happened?

You'll have to ask them FD. But federal common law jurisdiction over criminal law was never a secret.


Quote:

The outcome of the death penalty for apostasy is a bit easier to predict than the outcome of going to war Gandalf. How much did opinion change?

It couldn't have been that hard to predict what happens when you invade and overthrow a third-world despot with no reconstruction plan whatsoever. Even I predicted the clusterfaark that Iraq would become, as did a great many other people - including most experts.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 3^rd, 2016 at 10:21am:

[quote author=freediver link=1460714356/93#93 date=1462160002] It couldn't have been that hard to predict what happens when you invade and overthrow a third-world despot with no reconstruction plan whatsoever. Even I predicted the clusterfaark that Iraq would become, as did a great many other people - including most experts.

Yes, but we gave them a go. Just think, if it wasn't for Islam, they could have become the next South Korea.

Many a true word is spoken in sarcastic jest.

South Korea Japan and West Germany all rose to the top due to post war occupation.

muzzies will never be anything other than what they are (the bottom of the ladder).

They in their inbred utter stupidity, think the way to the top is through islam.

Devoid of intellectual acuity they cannot see that islam is the sole problem.

Of course they are between a rock and a hard place, islam is their curse, yet they are trapped by their own lack of intelligence, islam cannot be changed, so the perversion responsible for their condition remains as the sacred word of the satanic allah.

Nothing can be done as change and logical thinking would be the death knell for islam.

However there is a great light at the end of the tunnel, several prominent geneticists believe that muslims will inbreed themselves into extinction within two more generations.

No immune system, no cognitive abilities, shocking physical deformities, they are simply going to die out.

moses wrote on May 3^rd, 2016 at 1:08pm:

Many a true word is spoken in sarcastic jest. South Korea Japan and West Germany all rose to the top due to post war occupation.

No, Moses, with the exception of South Korea, they just returned to their pre-war industrial status, but without the tanks and bombs.

Gott ist gut, nein?

Quote:

You'll have to ask them FD. But federal common law jurisdiction over criminal law was never a secret.

But the whole passing of the death penalty for apostasy into law thing happened behind closed doors, absolving the locals of any need to think about what it meant, until the Pew society sprung a completely abstract survey on them by surprise?

I see a question mark, but I have no idea what you are asking.

When you said that the death penalty for apostasy is only an abstract concept to Malaysians, I responded with an example of how close it came to reality, to which you responded that it all happened behind closed doors. Since then you have been pretending that you don't speak English.

Its never been close to reality in Malaysia. You seem to be having difficulty with that basic fact.

So no-one noticed when one of the states actually passed it into law? It all happened behind closed doors and was quietly put aside so as not to upset the constitution?

This is some tale you are spinning here Gandalf. Care to flesh it out a bit?

How much "closer to reality" is it possible to get without actually becoming reality?

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 12:36pm:

So no-one noticed when one of the states actually passed it into law? It all happened behind closed doors and was quietly put aside so as not to upset the constitution? This is some tale you are spinning here Gandalf. Care to flesh it out a bit?

Yes, G, you flesh it out. FD wants to have this discussion again.

30 pages wasn't nearly enough.

The law was passed under a federal constitution that stipulates that neither sharia or state law can issue such punishments. Unless there's been a "near miss" in terms of the constitution being changed that I'm unaware of, we are left with no other conclusion other than hudud laws have never been in danger of ever being implemented in Malaysia.

Why did they implement a law they knew had zero chance of ever being implemented? You'll have to ask them that, but I'm guessing it was a symbolic act, to be seen as "good muslims" by mere act of doing something purely symbolic.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 12:58pm:

The law was passed under a federal constitution that stipulates that neither sharia or state law can issue such punishments. Unless there's been a "near miss" in terms of the constitution being changed that I'm unaware of, we are left with no other conclusion other than hudud laws have never been in danger of ever being implemented in Malaysia. Why did they implement a law they knew had zero chance of ever being implemented? You'll have to ask them that, but I'm guessing it was a symbolic act, to be seen as "good muslims" by mere act of doing something purely symbolic.

Ah yes, the same way the ACT decided to pass a law on legalizing gay marriage that was overturned by the Commonwealth.

We ban them they kill them, eh?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 12:58pm:

The law was passed under a federal constitution that stipulates that neither sharia or state law can issue such punishments. Unless there's been a "near miss" in terms of the constitution being changed that I'm unaware of, we are left with no other conclusion other than hudud laws have never been in danger of ever being implemented in Malaysia. Why did they implement a law they knew had zero chance of ever being implemented? You'll have to ask them that, but I'm guessing it was a symbolic act, to be seen as "good muslims" by mere act of doing something purely symbolic.

If it was a purely symbolic act, why do it "behind closed doors" as you suggest?

If the only thing holding back a democratic process is a constitution, don't you think that is very dangerous ground to be on Gandalf? To me it says the danger is great.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 6:46pm:

If it was a purely symbolic act, why do it "behind closed doors" as you suggest?

I never implied what you're now implying I implied.

'behind closed doors' isn't code for 'sinister conspiracy'. It just means it wasn't brought before the people.


freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 6:46pm:

If the only thing holding back a democratic process is a constitution, don't you think that is very dangerous ground to be on Gandalf?

Possibly, but you're getting off topic. Such observations about technical intricacies of the political process says nothing about whether or not ordinary Malaysians actually had any sense of this "danger" - or whether or not it made them feel any closer to the laws being implemented.

Quote:

I never implied what you're now implying I implied. 'behind closed doors' isn't code for 'sinister conspiracy'. It just means it wasn't brought before the people.

You mean it wasn't a referendum? You were using it as an excuse for your insistance that this remains a 'purely abstract' question for Malaysian Muslims.


Quote:

Possibly, but you're getting off topic. Such observations about technical intricacies of the political process says nothing about whether or not ordinary Malaysians actually had any sense of this "danger" - or whether or not it made them feel any closer to the laws being implemented.

And was your "behind closed doors" spin not an attempt to pretend they are unaware of the danger? If you were an apostate in Malaysia, how safe would you feel?

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 7:34pm:

Quote: I never implied what you're now implying I implied. 'behind closed doors' isn't code for 'sinister conspiracy'. It just means it wasn't brought before the people. You mean it wasn't a referendum? You were using it as an excuse for your insistance that this remains a 'purely abstract' question for Malaysian Muslims. [quote]Possibly, but you're getting off topic. Such observations about technical intricacies of the political process says nothing about whether or not ordinary Malaysians actually had any sense of this "danger" - or whether or not it made them feel any closer to the laws being implemented.

And was your "behind closed doors" spin not an attempt to pretend they are unaware of the danger? If you were an apostate in Malaysia, how safe would you feel?[/quote]

Safe from what, FD?

Please explain.

As always, you're attempting to create endless irrelevant tangents in order to spin an extra 20 pages into the discussion. The actual point has been long since lost.

Its the only way you know.

What is the point Gandalf? That the Pew survey was a trick because Malaysian Muslims only think of the death penalty for apostasy in abstract terms, despite the recent brush with reality, which was somehow kept behind closed doors and you no longer want to talk about it?

The point? It was to correct your bs allegation that I said muslims say one thing but mean another. That "point" has well and trully been made. The rest has been you demanding i repeat verbatim a 20+ page thread from 2 years ago.

I think this is the first time you have ever argued that they kept the whole thing secret so as not to affect the outcome of the Pew survey by making Muslims realise what the death penalty means.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 10:26pm:

I think this is the first time you have ever argued that they kept the whole thing secret so as not to affect the outcome of the Pew survey by making Muslims realise what the death penalty means.

I think you’ve got it.

Now if you can put that in an 8000 word essay, you’ll be right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCtjXpLyvxA

;D ;D ;D

Muslims in the end invented one thing, time travel. The Quran is the Flux capacitor that has the ability to transport people back in time in the Golden Delorean (Islam) and if you jump in the passengers seat you aren't going back to 1985 you're going back to 625. ;D

A great watch .  ;D

polite_gandalf wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 12:58pm:

The law was passed under a federal constitution that stipulates that neither sharia or state law can issue such punishments. Unless there's been a "near miss" in terms of the constitution being changed that I'm unaware of, we are left with no other conclusion other than hudud laws have never been in danger of ever being implemented in Malaysia. Why did they implement a law they knew had zero chance of ever being implemented? You'll have to ask them that, but I'm guessing it was a symbolic act, to be seen as "good muslims" by mere act of doing something purely symbolic.

never.  You dont say.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 10:26pm:

I think this is the first time you have ever argued that they kept the whole thing secret so as not to affect the outcome of the Pew survey by making Muslims realise what the death penalty means.

uhuh.

Feel free to comprehend what i actually wrote FD - now and 2 years ago. Though thats clearly an ambitious task for you.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 5^th, 2016 at 1:48pm:

freediver wrote on May 4th, 2016 at 10:26pm: I think this is the first time you have ever argued that they kept the whole thing secret so as not to affect the outcome of the Pew survey by making Muslims realise what the death penalty means. uhuh. Feel free to comprehend what i actually wrote FD - now and 2 years ago. Though thats clearly an ambitious task for you.

Can you tell him again?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 5^th, 2016 at 1:48pm:

freediver wrote on May 4th, 2016 at 10:26pm: I think this is the first time you have ever argued that they kept the whole thing secret so as not to affect the outcome of the Pew survey by making Muslims realise what the death penalty means. uhuh. Feel free to comprehend what i actually wrote FD - now and 2 years ago. Though thats clearly an ambitious task for you.

What you "actually wrote" was that it happened behind closed doors. I have been trying ever since to get you to elaborate on what you mean by this. Is this meant to contribute to your spin of the Pew survey that the question did not seem real to the participants?

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2016 at 6:32pm:

What you "actually wrote" was that it happened behind closed doors.

Correct - as opposed to your latest bizarre spin about Kelantan legislators being influenced by a PEW survey or something.

See how easy it is to just stick to what I say?

Let's try this again. What was the point of your reference to it happening behind closed doors? Is this meant to contribute to your spin of the Pew survey that the question did not seem real to the participants?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 5^th, 2016 at 1:48pm:

freediver wrote on May 4th, 2016 at 10:26pm: I think this is the first time you have ever argued that they kept the whole thing secret so as not to affect the outcome of the Pew survey by making Muslims realise what the death penalty means. uhuh. Feel free to comprehend what i actually wrote FD - now and 2 years ago. Though thats clearly an ambitious task for you.

This is a drop that encompasses the ocean: a Muslim says something and then for YEARS there is an argument about what exactly he meant.

It doesn't happen with anyone else (except perhaps Bill Clinton who will ask you, year in year out,  what the meaning of 'is' is. )

It's only Muslims and Bill Clinton who will forever dispute the meaning of what they have actually said.

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2016 at 6:58pm:

Let's try this again.

Looks like another 20 pages, G. Pity Abu isn’t here.

You’ll have to do.

Frank wrote on May 5^th, 2016 at 7:21pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 5th, 2016 at 1:48pm: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2016 at 10:26pm: I think this is the first time you have ever argued that they kept the whole thing secret so as not to affect the outcome of the Pew survey by making Muslims realise what the death penalty means. uhuh. Feel free to comprehend what i actually wrote FD - now and 2 years ago. Though thats clearly an ambitious task for you. This is a drop that encompasses the ocean: a Muslim says something and then for YEARS there is an argument about what exactly he meant.

Ah.

Karnal wrote on May 5^th, 2016 at 9:13pm:

Frank wrote on May 5th, 2016 at 7:21pm: polite_gandalf wrote on May 5th, 2016 at 1:48pm: freediver wrote on May 4th, 2016 at 10:26pm: I think this is the first time you have ever argued that they kept the whole thing secret so as not to affect the outcome of the Pew survey by making Muslims realise what the death penalty means. uhuh. Feel free to comprehend what i actually wrote FD - now and 2 years ago. Though thats clearly an ambitious task for you. This is a drop that encompasses the ocean: a Muslim says something and then for YEARS there is an argument about what exactly he meant. Ah.

Ah indeed.

It would never take this long with anyone else to clarify what they mean.

Muslims, hedging their bets with every utterance they make, can debate their original meaning for years.
And so they do -  see Gandalf's efforts on these boards.

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2016 at 6:58pm:

Let's try this again. What was the point of your reference to it happening behind closed doors?

That individual pieces of legislation passed by elected representatives ("behind closed doors" if you like) are not good indications of the will of the people compared to if the legislation had been passed directly by some popular vote. Winning an election on a clear platform against political corruption and waste, and then passing unrelated hudud laws after the fact, isn't good evidence that "the people" actually support those hudud laws. Just like Howard's entry into Iraq doesn't mean Australia supported the war just because we elected him before - and even after - that invasion. Elections are never single issue referendums - you should know that, you've said it enough times.

Who the hell would want to (Invade Iraq) my goodness what a warped perspective. The place is an Islamic dump.

Indonesia in the news (largest Muslim country)


Indonesia police confiscate sex toy mistaken for 'angel'
http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/28EA/production/_89547401_032748103-1.jpg
Indonesian police have confiscated a sex toy from a remote village after its inhabitants and some on social media mistook it for an "angel".
The doll was found in March floating in the sea by a fisherman in the Banggai islands in Sulawesi province.
His family took care of the doll, and pictures soon spread online along with claims it was an angel.
Police investigated amid fears the rumours would cause unrest, and found it was in fact an inflatable sex doll.

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/1360E/production/_89547397_032748100-1.jpg

Indonesian news portal Detik said photos of the doll dressed demurely and wearing a hijab spread on social media shortly after its discovery.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36189614

Even sex toys must wear hijabs outside the bedroom!!!!



;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Ashley wrote on May 6^th, 2016 at 10:23am:

Who the hell would want to (Invade Iraq) my goodness what a warped perspective. The place is an Islamic dump.

An excellent question, Matty. What superpower would want to capture the country with, at the time, the world’s biggest surplus of oil?

Wouldn’t you think they’d rather liberate the world’s strggling masses, yearning to breathe free?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 6^th, 2016 at 9:40am:

freediver wrote on May 5th, 2016 at 6:58pm: Let's try this again. What was the point of your reference to it happening behind closed doors? That individual pieces of legislation passed by elected representatives ("behind closed doors" if you like) are not good indications of the will of the people compared to if the legislation had been passed directly by some popular vote. Winning an election on a clear platform against political corruption and waste, and then passing unrelated hudud laws after the fact, isn't good evidence that "the people" actually support those hudud laws. Just like Howard's entry into Iraq doesn't mean Australia supported the war just because we elected him before - and even after - that invasion. Elections are never single issue referendums - you should know that, you've said it enough times.

You spent most of the debate arguing the exact opposite - that the laws in Malaysia prove that the stated views of Muslims in the Pew survey reflect an abstraction, not reality.

Would you say that the Pew survey results do reflect the will of Malaysian Muslims?

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2016 at 9:19am:

You spent most of the debate arguing the exact opposite - that the laws in Malaysia prove that the stated views of Muslims in the Pew survey reflect an abstraction, not reality

Feel free at any time to quote what I actually said.

Would you say that the Pew survey results do reflect the will of Malaysian Muslims?

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2016 at 10:12am:

Would you say that the Pew survey results do reflect the will of Malaysian Muslims?

Gandalf?

bump