>> ^Farhad2000:
The Islamic hordes will roll over the Western world making your women castrate themselves, make you attend Mosques and bend down to the will of Allah. Then they will eat your babies too. Maybe push your grandmother down a flight of stairs.
Am sorry I can't take this bullshit seriously anymore.


Yeah there's probably nothing to worry about... Islam is the 2nd religion in Europe and some of the most influential Muslim clerics in the world clearly state they'd like to see Islam conquer the continent. A third of BRITISH Muslim students support killing in the name of their faith and Sharia law in the UK is supported by almost half of UK Muslims.

Thanks for letting us now this isn't something we have to even consider as worrisome Farhad.

I live in the Islamic state of Kuwait, the second largest religious denomination here is Christians. In fact in most countries in the Middle East it is always the second largest religious block.

Some things good, others not as good:

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

Muslims have no problem with Jews, they have a problem with Zionists, which is a totally different thing and relates to the continuous oppression of Palestinian people. There are many Jews who live in peace in that most feared state of Iran, something that dispels the common held misconception that Iran wants to 'wipe' Israel away. The differences are political not religious.

It would take a whole book to discuss either side of this argument; for this particular sift, the focus was on Muslims in the United States. Even from the above wiki link I see that once again, there is more religious freedom and tolerance in the US than elsewhere.

Islamic ways are not backward and are totally compatible with Democracy, which thrives in Kuwait, Turkey, Indonesia and other nations (I exclude most Middle East nations since they are monarchies, like that closest ally to the US called Saudi Arabia from where most of 9/11 hijackers hail).

To clarify: living as Muslim is possible most anywhere, but Sharia law as interpreted appears incompatible with Western republics.

The reasoning that Muslims are burning up Europe is a fallacious lie, that problem has to do with how Europeans are dealing with immigrants rather then a specific religious block...

In the age of Poisonous Correctness, it's very difficult for power-seekers to villify any group except the largest or most successful. The evidence leans more to the argument of Muslim non-assmilation than resistance on the part of the majority, who have the option of curtailing immigration.

To terrorists the Islamic religion is but a political tool of mobilization, whose teachings they mangle into their own belief of killing westerners, its a desecration for nowhere in the Koran is it allowed to kill civilians, commit terrorist acts or wage a guerrilla war. The highest ruling in the Koran is to seek peace over confrontation and war.

A hopeful argument, but if a few dozen terrorists killed thousands in the name of Christ, the worldwide condemnation from Christian majorities would be swift and loud. There is no equivalent singular voice from the world's one billion + Muslims.

"The Taliban ambassador to Pakistan offered to 'detain bin Laden and try him under Islamic law'"

You need to get the whole story before posting such misinformation. You are plainly trying to make it sound like the Taliban was willing to work with the Americans against Osama.

They're original offer was conditional on presenting evidence, and even if such evidence was considered persuasive they would not hand him over directly, but instead to Pakistan. The best and final offer they were willing to make was to have him tried under Sharia law. Sorry, but if you think that's a reasonable and measured response you need to study the history of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda more before voicing such a strong opinion.

You might want to start by reading up on Ahmad Shah Massoud. He was a prominent leader in Afghanistan who had been warning about the strong ties between the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and in April of 2001 he was warning of a pending major attack. If you are ill-informed enough to say "so what", then read his obituary. He was killed on Sept. 9, 2001.

When the US provides evidence then you will have a right to make those claims. Till then STFU.

On September 21, 2001, the Taliban responded that if the United States could bring evidence that bin Laden was guilty they would hand him over, stating there was no evidence in their possession linking him to the September 11 attacks.[90]

On September 22, 2001, the United Arab Emirates and later Saudi Arabia withdrew their recognition of the Taliban as the legal government of Afghanistan, leaving neighboring Pakistan as the only remaining country with diplomatic ties. On October 4, 2001, it is believed that the Taliban covertly offered to turn bin Laden over to Pakistan for trial in an international tribunal that operated according to Islamic Sharia law.[109][110] Pakistan, recently recast as an ally of the west, is believed to have rejected the offer (even though they still recognized the Taliban).

On October 7, 2001, before the onset of military operations, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan offered to "detain bin Laden and try him under Islamic law" if the United States made a formal request and presented the Taliban with evidence.[111] This counter offer was immediately rejected by the U.S. as insufficient.

Bin Laden for his part, maintained America's attack on the Taliban after 9/11 was motivated only by its hatred for Islam.

Oh, isn't this precious:
"...the Islamic States succeeded in forcing through an amendment to a resolution on Freedom of Expression...report on the “abuse” of this most cherished freedom by anyone who, for example, dares speak out against Sharia laws that require women to be stoned to death for adultery or young men to be hanged for being gay, or against the marriage of girls as young as nine, as in Iran."

Yeah, it's real, and yeah, it's one step closer to the dark ages.

Source: http://www.iheu.org/node/3123

Breath, read my comment again. Relax.

I'll be the first to admit that Islam has issues especially in places like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and fundamentalist elements within Pakistan. But we are talking about a fringe here that has come to represent the wider religion of Islam.

The problem is largely stemming from Saudi Arabia and lawless regional areas of Pakistan, which both construct and fund maddrassas preaching a ultra conservative, anti western Islamic subsect called Wahhabist Islam. This is all ties back to funding from Saudi Arabia, though for some odd reason no Western power ever criticizes its funding and application (OIL) this subset of Islam which created 11 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 and continues to send soldiers into areas where 'Jihad' thrives be it Chechnya, Afghanistan or Iraq. The Saudi Royal family controls the masses through its oppressive religion that allows them to stay in power indefinitely, western powers are too afraid to question the de facto standard fearing economic effects with regards to oil. See how Washington took no stance on the recent abusive verdict of a Saudi woman who was gang raped and then punished herself for being with unrelated man at the time of the attack.

Islam is a religion with at war with itself, but it doesn't preach segregation or enslavement of women, thought control or violence but it is a religious movement that has been corrupted through political aspirations of those seeking power. The Islamic Caliphate at its height ruled from Spain to Iran, it mingled with other faiths and peoples, and did not impose its religion on those areas it claimed. Unfortunately moderate voices in Islam are hardly heard or ignored by the sensationalist media and figures like Pat Condell.

There is no separation between those that follow the faith according to the teachings and do so with respect to other gender and minorities such as Sunni Hanafism, Sufi Islam and Ismaeli movement. Indonesia, Turkey, Uzbekistan are just some of the Islamic states I can think of, they are not operating on that level you mention. Not to mention the large and growing Islamic communities in Canada and the USA.

Take for example those extremist elements in the UK preaching Sharia law acceptance and other restrictive practices, they are trying to create a social divide between those who are faithful and those they deem outside of Islam. By actually paying attention to them and reporting on it you are creating a self feeding cycle, because they can claim oppression, and build further divides between elements of society. But at the end of the day they are all immigrants living in a foreign land bound by the laws and regulations of that land, all coming there to lead a better life then the one they lead in their own nations. I believe they are hypocritical cunts personally that use the religion for their own ends.

The UK government is at fault here as well, they are being overly politically correct to a religious movement that should be treated as religion not some atomic bomb. Muslims follow the faith at their choice they shouldn't be treated any more special then Christians or Jews, bar preventing religious conflicts if targeted (this applies to all).

A recent Economist article looked at how Islam and immigration is being used by European politicians hoping to gain votes by inciting differences, especially when it comes to certain issues (eg Mosques being built). The benefits are easy to deduce, they benefit those extremists who can claim their religion is being attacked, and they benefit those hoping to garner votes and political power based on xenophobia and misunderstanding (see previous Swiss elections). In Germany, Netherlands and France the influx of immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East only aggravates the problem, cohesion into European society is hard for immigrants, and there aren't many institutions that deal with it. But I don't see Islam putting shackles on European society thats a bit silly and sensationalized.

I think the problem is a little more complex then just saying lets get rid of Islam tomorrow, forcing people down a certain path of action is just as bad as imposition of thought control. I think a dialog should be made, I think there needs to be understanding on both sides, between those who don't know the faith and those who follow it. I personally think Islam needs to comeback to tolerance and major reforms should take place. In the short term understanding will allow intermingling and eventual passive shifts in thought through being exposed to a free society, and higher education. Religion becomes a choice and or leads to atheism. However attacking the faith and citing it as being foolish or stupid or a bad idea is only going to create further divides.

I welcome criticism of Islamic Sharia law and other issues but definitely not from Pat Condell who doesn't know the first thing about the Islamic faith, half of his stuff sounds like racist rant against different people invading the British Isles.

I roll my eyes at organized religion, I appreciate the fact that I have the choice to tolerate it.

The Internet has always been a battle ground of philosophies, it hasn't been until recently that the the debates of the average internet population has boiled over to the mainstream. I don't think Dawkins would be as big as he is without the Internet. Atheism was never a topic that made the mainstream, but last year it was all over.

Scientology is a big church that has done lots of bad things and this recent online movement is interesting to watch and we all love revolutions. It's easy to forget that all religions and non-religion groups have their fundamentalists and corrupt officials.

What secular people have to do is keep an eye on these Fundy officials and ensure Fundy ideas (ex: sharia law, creationism) don't change the equal systems we inherited.

There is much I agree with Ayaan and much I don't.

Her statment about finding justification for Bin Laden's attacks in the Qu'ran, Islamic military law, does not for example justify the killing of innocents, stealth attacks, or attacks on other faiths. Before you assume that the existence of military law within the religion means its somehow primed for conflict understand that the Prophet was a statesman and a military leader as well as a holy man, forming the relgion during turbelent times of inter-tribal conflict.

Her view of Islam is deeply rooted in the Wahhabism traditions of Saudi Arabia where she has spent most of her formative years, which spread to Somalia. PBS Frontline's House of Saud can provide background for how that came into being and what effect it has had for the development of extremism.

Its a strict interpertation of Islam that is firmly based in Sharia law and does not reflect the rest of the Islamic society across the world, as such her views have been misused by neo-conservatives to justify the clash of civilisation between democratic society and Islam as a whole. Her own stance is at occasions nearly insulting to other members of her faith.

It is just impossible to expect a religion to reform itself overnight, her stance to me at times reads like an expectation that Islam should be thrust into the 21st century schools of thought. That is impossible to do, it would more prudent to allow change to occur within the religion through reform that seeks to return to ethical and pluralistic intentions of the scripture.

There is much also to say about Saudi Arabia that stipulates submission to relgion because within that context it means submission to the rule of the Saudi royal family and their continual grip over oil resources, its not so much a issue of religion then but an issue of keeping power and control.

But I understand that her views may have be skewed more because of the horrible repression she has faced. Anyways upvote.

There is a lot of confusion about whether or not Ahmadinejad said that Israel should be wiped of the map. Many say it is a mistranslation. There's a big wiki article on the whole issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

Also I'd like to point out that Ahmadinejad is not really a dictator, he was elected by 62% of the voters, with a turnout of 60% of eligible voters. Better than Bush I'd say.

Not saying I'm supporting the guy. Just look at the state of human rights in his country. But a bad state of human rights is true for many countries and that shouldn't disqualify them of having a respectful dialogue with the leaders of said country. Just look at the human rights in Saudi Arabia, they have Sharia law, and are pretty much in bed with Bush.

First of all: Condell doesnt attack everyone who has an islamic background, he attacks the lunatics who wants sharia law imposed in england, who wants to spread islam to include all the world (in accordance with the Quran, of course) To understand anything of what he's talking about, take a look at this report from Belgium, where Belgian law and civil right has been tarnished by militant islam in certain parts of the country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-inob20I_Y0
Europe is under threat by this nonsense

Also, the opponent of the woman in the video you linked to, you may look at him as some fringe lunatic extremist within the islamic world, but I will argue that this is not the case, yes as I said of course there are moderate forces within Islam, and I applaud the efforts of those guys, but believe me, they are certainly not speaking the loudest here in Europe, and they are not setting the agenda. Time and again, we get these imams on TV saying the tried old "religion of peace" nonsense, and then they walk out of the TV-studio and into the mosque where the pious are again told about the immorality and filth of western culture and the worthlessness of the infidels.

A brave young woman named Kadra exposed one of these frauds that supported and aided female circumcision in the Norwegian-Somalian immigrants, some time later, she in all modesty suggested that perhaps one should try and re-think the view on women as portrayed in the Quran, shortly after, she was attacked by eight men and beaten up on the street as they screamed she had insulted their "prophet"
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1734869.ece

Islam, like all religion, is poison. its victims are all of mankind, but first and foremost the women and children needlessly suffering under oppression and indoctrination, when the men thinks this disease makes them the allies of God.

The terrorists attacked on 9/11 for the following reasons.


1. US-backed coups in Iran and many other countries, and other uncouth CIA meddling.
2. US troops in Saudi Arabia, as if ready to make another coup d'etat.
3. US support of Israel
4. Frequent U.S. bombing of Iraq during peacetime.
5. Religious insanity (especially the delusion that there exists an afterlife in which suicide bombers are rewarded, and that sharia law is very opposed to the social liberalism present in all civilized countries.

To Johnald128:

Um. Yeah, I believe that's exactly what he wants! So lets remove religion from the world so that we can take away at least that one huge label that serves to do a damn fine job of separating us into even more tribes than are already apparent. Would we find other reasons to kill each other? Sure we would, whether it be skin color, geography, economics, resources, whatever.

But even so, don't you think it would be worth it to remove inflexible dogma that only serves to make us fight and bicker over ancient stories and mythology just to lessen the number of reasons? It's even more ridiculous when you realize that the major monotheistic religions are really all based on the same God, and even worse that there's so much infighting within each of the religions on how their God should be properly worshiped. Sunni fighting Shia, Catholics fighting Protestants. Enough already!

Remove God(s) from the table and then we can actually get down to the business of getting past our other differences and then maybe we can all coexist.

In the meantime, we should be standing firm to protect people who are horribly victimized because of those ancient dogmas. And right now those people tend to be in radical Islamic areas. Female genital mutilation and circumcision, victims of rape who get murdered afterwards for the crime of having been forced into sex, death for homosexuality, etc. If these Sharia laws are apparently being tolerated in Europe then that is understandably frightening to Condell and many others, I'd imagine. If cultural sensitivity leads us to forgive people for their brutality, then we should rethink whether we should be culturally sensitive.

I genuinely hope this guy is wrong and over the top. I certainly disagree that even a sizable minority of Muslims were "dancing in the street" over September 11. Most Muslims arent fanatics but they are not doing enough to condemn the extremists. A cartoon of the prophet gets angry protest the world over but where is the outrage at the hijacking of Islam by extremists?

What scares me is that a clear majority (according to recent reputable surveys)of young British Muslims want Sharia law in Britain. No, No, No, Never Ever and once again NO! I'm Sorry but even the thought makes me mad as hell.

Fletch posted the following videos
http://www.videosift.com/video/Sleeper-Cell-The-True-Islam
http://www.videosift.com/video/Londonstan-Sharia-Law-Islam-holy-war-in-Great-Britain
http://www.videosift.com/video/Blaming-the-jews-Hate-in-Islam
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Trouble-with-Islam-Pat-Condell
http://www.videosift.com/video/Truth-about-Islam-from-an-ex-muslim-lady

Reacting in such a manner instead of talking it civilly is a bit immature, especially since a thread was here regarding the issue. And VS Muslim PR club? Hah.

Let videos float in the queue. What do you achieve from this dissemination of information?

Is it representative of the entire religion? Clearly not. The largest population of Muslim doesn't actually reside in the Middle East.

Is it the same as Christian bashing? Well are there American tanks rolling around Christians lands or Islamic lands? What do you think misunderstanding and fear breed?

Are you giving credence to a small minority and thus giving them power? Absolutely. This is clearly seen in current politics, just yesterday Iran and it's leader were being built up as some kind of war mongering nuclear armed dictator. No one of course talks about the massive sea and air power the US and UK field in the Persian gulf, capable of crippling nay destroying the entire nation of Iran in seconds back to the stone age. The misrepresentation of power politics in the Middle East is perverse.

What are the solutions offered? None.

So what is the basic conclusion. Let the war escalate, destroy every terrorist cell and Islamic nation for that matter. Where do the paths lead. Think about that. Understanding and diplomacy or more strong arm politics and war mongering.

I cannot fathom how I can have lived in the Middle east for as long as i have and strangely never been exposed to any of the garbage i have seen online. Clearly I am blind.