How is that guy different from the other guys who bash Jews? It is awakening to see the low level you guys stooped down to. Is it panic that drives you Rearden?
Out of everything said in that clip, which part in particular do you object to? Which specific part do you believe is unfair or untrue?
By the way, you are one of the few Israelis that I could dialogue with for the simple fact that you know my exact makeup and i know yours, something I cannot say about the American zionist bigots who filth our land and who are derailing any chance of peaceful co-existence between the two peoples. The same zionist that we both know that not only influence and dictate the US's foreign policy but also the Israeli internal policy. Now, to the point at hand, which are the parts I object to in his argument. 1- He intentionally blended Islamic countries with countries that are Muslims. The only Islamic countries are Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Iran. The rest are not Islamic countries but hold a Muslim majority (HUUUUUUUUGE DIFFIRENCE). Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Libya and others are some of the countries that qualify. These countries made it very clear that human rights don't apply to them for the simple fact that they are draconian dictatorship regimes that serve the interest of the regime and its fat cats, not because of them being Muslims. Husni Moubarak is a valid example! At the time when he acted as the guardian against Muslim fundamentalism, he made it very clear that human rights do not apply to his state. Also, Bin Ali, who outlawed the Hijab and Polygamy, he too did not think that Human rights applied to his state. The dishonesty of that man stems from the fact that rather than admitting to the truth that these regimes, which happened to hold a Muslim majority are all, with the exception of Syria, are supported, financially, logistically and policy wise by the US. 2- He also explained that human right conflict with Sharia. I do not know if this guy is shallow or if he intentionally did it! Al Enqaz party of Tunisia, which happened to be a Muslim party, is extremely progressive and believe in democracy and the concept of one man equals one vote, strongly backs women rights and minority rights. Brotherhood Muslims also supports democracy and one man one vote and women rights and minority rights (Though I hate them with a passion due to the fact that they are closely allied with dictatorship regimes throughout the Arab world), Hizbullah couldâve easily swept Lebanon in few hours but decided to back the democratic process and allied itself with the Christian and Druz Nationalists such as the Maradah party, Free Patriotic Party, The Progressive socialist Party (Druz) and others. The guy willingly decided to use a wide brush to give the impression that the whole Middle East is under a one flavour of Sharia law and under the control of such law, which is, as we both know, is bullshit. Now, once again, the only two countries that apply the Sharia laws are Saudi Arabia and, in the near future, Sudan. Even Sharia law, as you know, is widely open for interpretation and the political movement that applies it! Some of them use the strict interpretation and some are extremely progressive in theirs. The ones that use backwarded interpretations are, ironically speaking, US allies, while the Supreme Mufti of Syria made it Halal to drink in moderation, accept Reba, allowed civil marriages and condemned Hijab. 3- He went on to explain that in a sane world, these countries would've not been to look in the direction of human rights council, he is right! So long as they abuse human rights, they shouldn't. But they shouldn't be allowed because they are dictatorship regimes not because they happened to hold a Muslim majority. Having me saying that, they US should not even be allowed to contemplate such council after what the US did, and still does to the Native American population and their foreign policy of backing dictatorship regimes, overthrowing democratically elected governments and substituting them with dictatorship regimes and death squads. If I am going to be as narrow minded as he is, I would've used the same wide brush to claim that the US is a a country that hold a Christian majority and Israel hold a Jewish majority and therefore, it is Christian and Jewish and therefore, human rights conflicts with these two religions. Now you might counter this argument with the logic that US and Israel are democracies and that the civil institutions trumps the religious ones, my answer to that would be: a- The Arab world did not have the chance to elect a representative government; and b- These two democracies produced Mike Huckabee in the US and Shas party and NRP in Israel. 4- Now I am not going to argue with him about Saudi Arabia and Iran because he is right in every aspect but, in my opinion, The US should be banned for carrying the primitive death penalty. Now, do a poll here in this forum to ask who supports the death penalty in the US and why, the vast majority of people in here would support it and would support it for religious reasons. Are we going to apply the same rule to the US the "Christian" state? How come he did not object to the US membership? 5- He went on explaining the UNHRC should not allow Saudi Arabia to become a member due to the fact that it has criminal clerics that come up with insane decrees. Awesome! The US should not be allowed either for having people like Pat Robertson who made it very clear that what happened in New Orleans was due to allowing homosexuality and Pastors and reverends who think of killing an abortion doctor as "justifiable homicide" 6- Now to the best part! He said "If the Saudi couldn't dig money straight out of the ground, they'd still be living in the stone age, as with the entire Arab world, which it produced absolutely nothing for humanity for centuries, thanks to the suffocating religion that fosters insularity and ignorance, not to mention a chronic and crippling sexual repression". Wow!!!!!!!! As with the entire Arab world? At this point, I concluded that the guy is vindictive for the following reason: a- The Middle East, as in any other "Non Muslim" states run by dictatorships (many examples to mention and I am sure you know what I mean), did not produce anything due to these regimes who suppress creativity and independent thinking. Malaysia, Indonesia and Turkey are examples where "Muslim people progressed due to the fact that they are not run by dictators. The Son of a Bitch hid the fact that these Arab countries regressed not because of Islam and Muslims but because of dictatorship regimes that sat on the people's chest from time immortal, the same dictatorship regimes that were supported by one colonising empire after the other. When Biden was asked if Hosny Moubarak is democratic, he answered yes because he supports Israel. This is how the US regards us as people. b- These same countries, under Islam, in a short period of time, produced such scientific wealth that is considered the bases of everything from Math to Chemistry to Medicine and Astronomy, so how does he explain such progress during one Islamic period when European used to come to the Islamic world to study in its universities and now! Where was the turning point? Any honest man will be able to answer that. Any morally corrupt man with a hidden agenda will neglect to mention such fact and will focus on Islam as the cause. 6- He intentionally and cleverly transitioned us from Arab "primitiveness" and tied it up with Pakistan! Pakistan, which happened to be America's strongest ally in the war against Terror. It and Saudi Arabia (Second biggest ally to the US) happened to suppress decent and opposition. Both of these countries sent their clerics to condemn The revolution of Egypt and Tunisia as Infidels and agents to Iran, United States and Israel . Saudi Arabia, The Muslim State, and with the Green light from the US, aided the Christian Falangeh with American weaponry during the Lebanese civil war. Great Muslims for you. I guess he did not know that! He also did not know, or didn't care to know that the US viewed Pakistan as partner in exporting "Freedom Fighter Mujahedeen" to fight against the progressive government of Najeeb al Haq of Afghanistan. 7- The racism oozed out of him when he indicated that treating women like dogs WITHOUT mentioning who these countries are! Is Egypt one of them Rearden? Is Lebanon one of them? Are the Palestinian one of them Rearden? Are the Tunisian one of them Rearden? How about the Moroccan Rearden? Let us try the Syrian Rearden? How about the Kuwaitis or the Emirati? How about them Rearden? You know the truth; do these countries treat women like dogs? If not then why didn't he mention specific countries? The only logical answer I could come up with is that it is irrelevant to him in his racist rant.
One other point Rearden, what would our main man say about Egypt and how civil that revolution was? What would he say about How the Christians protected the Muslim worshipers and how Muslims protected Christian worshipers from Hosnay Mubarak's thugs? What would he say about the Joint mass and Muslim prayer last Sunday? What would he say that now there is an investigation and possible indictment of Mr. Al Adley, the ex regime's interior minister, as the one responsible for the Two Saints Church bombing in an attempt to cause religious strife? What would our man say about Muslims in the thousands protecting Christian churches during the uprising for fear that the regime might send his thugs to commit a crime in an attempt to divide the masses? What would our main man say about how civil the Tunisian uprising was and how after they got rid of Ali, the masses went to the street in a cleaning campaign? How would our main man explain how the mass demonstrations in Egypt and Tunisia did not spell one drop of blood while all the killing happened at the hand of the Egyptian and Tunisian secret police and death squads? What would our racist fuck say about that?
Hello Sameeh55, Do you know how I could get more information on this specific turning point ? I don't even have an idea of where when and what to start to look at. Maybe you could if you have the time give me some trail to follow or would be much appreciated your understanding on this. thx. And btw there is a little error... you should have 8 points... Furthermore Dogs deserve as every Being the highest respect from those who chose to have one.
Sammy, it looks like you do have a few valid points after all. I can refute some of what you've said, but not all of it.
He is an idiot He does not know that his kids and his grandkids all will convert to Islam one day. watch the documentary and learn. The whole world will be muslim and you guys just watching not fighting with this enemy. And the enemy keeps growing stronger and bigger. <iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6-3X5hIFXYU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I can sympathize with what the Englishman is saying. We see the worst elements of Islam and rightly get pissed off. I don't think anyone one of us can argue that there aren't some terrible things done in the name of Islam. But I know a lot of Muslims, and I can tell you that they are good, loving people. I believe this is the nature of man. Christianity has it's F'ed up things too. I don't think it's effective to bash Islam as this guy has done. This just adds fuel to the fire of that violent element within Islam. It's not productive. I think the way to go is to have some faith in the nature of man. Let us in the west try to dialogue with the Muslim world and come at them with respect, assuming that they are peaceful people. Exchange ideas and with time, and find common ground, but also challenge them on those aspects that we may not agree with. It's called tact, and respect, and I believe we can defuse this tension. Muslims, Jews, Christians are all so similar. Find the common ground and mutual respect and, I guess above all, dialogue with each other.
Sameeh, you are overlooking a few facts. Firstly, it is not necessary to have full shariah law for a state to be a muslim state. It is merely necessary for the constitution to say that the koran is the legal authority for the countries laws. If you look at the constitutions of most muslim-majority states, they have articles (usually right near the beginning) that specifically make islam and the koran the foundation of their law. Just like the US starts with the right to free expression, and the right to bear arms, and the separation of church and state, non-secular Islamic states start with the fact that the koran is the basis of the law - i.e. they are states governed by that particular established religion. That makes them muslim states - whether they are dictatorships, theocracies, or democracies. Muslim states (many of these still have limited shariah courts, by the way): Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Malaysia, Several states in Nigeria, Syria, Qatar, UAE, Malaysia, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, Mauritania, Kuwait (add any I missed) We see this not just in the explicitly islamic constitutions of those countries, but in the real-world application of that law. Two good tests are punishment for apostasy, and the right of muslim women to marry non-mulims. Most of the countries I listed above outlaw apostasy as a capital offence - in other words, you will be literally executed if you wish to change your religion, or to abandon religion entirely. You get the death penalty if you were born into a muslim family, then actually read the koran, and then conclude there is no god and it's all BS. Egypt does not punish it directly but does so, de facto, via laws against 'insulting Islam'. Malaysia merely flogs apostates, rather than killing them. This is not a theoretical unapplied law, like the commandment of residents of some English towns to do archery practise once a month. People have actually been executed for it. Death for apostasy is not a human right violation that is the result of dictators. It has been the accepted orthodox position of islam for 1400 years. Democratic islamic states also have this law on the books. Any islamic state that has this law is simply following the accepted tenets of islam. I do not know the position of Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood, or any other allegedly 'progressive' islamic movements on the death penalty or punishment for apostasy, however my working assumption is that they are for it. Even if they were against it, the facts are that if they oppose it, then they are going directly against the hadiths and accepted interpretations the koran, as decided by a consensus of islamic scholars from islamic countries throughout the entire history of the religion. Regarding marriage, almost all muslim states that I listed above are clear - muslim women are committing a criminal offence by marrying outside the religion. They go to jail if they do it. Virtually all the non-secular muslim states criminalise apostasy and marriage outside islam for muslim women. The vast majority have the death penalty for anyone who is an apostate. Many also criminalise homosexuals, bisexuals, transgender people, sex outside marriage, and free political commentary and artistic expression that criticises islam. Muslim women are denied fundamental rights in these countries - they are not allowed to marry someone outside the religion. In some of those countries there is also gender inequality in the right to take multiple spouses. The facts are very simple. Islam mandates death or severe punishment for apostasy. This is inherently inconsistent with human rights and civilised society. Islam prohibits freedom to choose a husband for its women. That is also incompatible with basic human rights for women. There is no getting around that fact, because virtually every muslim scholar agrees on these two issues, and they have been core tenets of Islam for 1 1/2 millenia. If any political movement in the muslim countries removes these restrictions and punishments, then that will be great. But that will only be possible by REJECTING core tenets of islam as commanded in the koran and hadiths. It is only by becoming to some extent anti-islamic that reform can occur. And that is why non-racist non-muslims, who have actually lived in muslim societies, and interacted and had relationships with muslims, still ardently oppose islam on moral grounds. It is because certain core tenets of the religion are fundamentally barbaric, uncivilised, and totally inconsistent with liberty and human rights. No amount of finger-waving by apologists like yourself alters those facts. Until some kind of credible liberal islam emerges, islam will continue to be incompatible with human rights and modern civilised secular society, just as the catholic church was incompatible with it until it changed its position and entered the modern age. If and when it reforms, opposition from thinking people will die out to the extent that it stops barbarically treating dissenters like the worst kind of criminals, instead of free and decent people simply exercising their rights to follow their own path in life.