Despite making the same distiction, that I do, between the Islamists and majority of Muslims, it seems that the PC brigade is loudly denouncing Martin Amis.
In an interview with Jon Snow on Channel Four News, Amis declared: ‘I feel morally superior to Islamists, by some distance. I feel an intellectual distance to Islam.
‘There are great problems with Islam. The Koran recommends the beating of women.
‘The anti-Semites, the psychotic misogynists and the homophobes are the Islamists.’
Days earlier, Amis shocked festivalgoers in Cheltenham with claims that Muslim states are less ‘civilised’ than Western society.
‘Some societies are just more evolved than others,’ he said. ‘I am not saying these people are genetically incapable of not being terrorists.
‘These societies are arming themselves with weapons like the AK47 and blowing people up on buses and Tubes.’
When one member of his audience suggested not all Muslims were terrorists he retorted: ‘No one else is doing it.
‘Here in the West we have the most evolved society in the world and we are not blowing people up.
‘I am just saying some societies are more evolved than others. Young men in those kinds of societies are growing up full of loathing and hatred. Something has to be done about it.’
He added: ‘I do not mean British Muslims - they are part of our society. I mean Muslim states.’They used to be more evolved than us, but now we are more evolved than them.
‘There is no inoffensive way to put this - by evolved, I mean more civilised. We have more respect for civil society.’
What is with the PC zealots that drives them to denounce anyone who would suggest that our western civilisation may in fact be superior. I suppose that this is the evil of the no values at all model of multiculturalism where every culture is presented as having the same virtue. I don’t know any way that such an argument can actually be sustained when we have societes on the planet that treat their women and children in ways that we would find criminal in our own.
Perhaps the minions of the left, who power the PC brigade, can do the mental gymnastics required by a mixture of denial and a total integrity bypass.
Cheers Comrades
Filed under: England, Ethical questions, Islam, Leftism, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Racism, The War On Terror, human rights, international politics | Tagged: PC police, Muslims, Cue Hap
I think Amis is just blatantly wrong, or misleading, on many points Iain rather than offensive. He’s clearly confused:
So? If it does it’s got company as the Bible also looks lightly on domestic violence at times. This would mean they’re both shockers wouldn’t it?
So what is this? Does he mean they are all terrorists because his answer doesn’t reject this position at all.
I could actually go on but time’s short at the moment. Maybe later.
I tend to think MM that what he is trying to suggest in your second quote that though not all Muslims are terrorists that most terrorists are in fact Muslim.
“What is with the PC zealots that drives them to denounce anyone who would suggest that our western civilisation may in fact be superior.”
>
(sigh) Perhaps its because someone who thinks that a society that carpet bombs cities and that can invent the term ‘collateral damage’ needs a good denouncing?
Oh really? I suppose then that “As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly);”[6:34]
has an equivalent in the bible?
Be honest SM would you rather live in a western culture or under the rule of a third world dictatorship?
Our civilisation is by no means perfect but there is no doubt that it is better than all of the alternatives by many orders of magnitude.
I just love it when you start talking theology.
Why yes Elijah there are similar passages in the fabled Old Testament, one is the lovely part which advises that when you beat your women you may use a stick no thicker than your thumb. But the OT is chock full of mysoginist drivel as is the Koran. I’m surprised that someone who is so keen to point out the exceptional evil of one book hasn’t sufficiently studied the other.
Of course I may be confusing my bible passages and ancient laws with the thumb one (stupid brain), but here’s one straight from the book:
“Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.”
This kind of thing is commonplace.
MM
It’s time to get real here, any Christian or Jew who follows the sort of instruction you cite in the Old testament would immediately find that the civil law is very much at odds with these passages.
The same is not actually the case when it comes to countries under Islamic rule. At one extreme we have the likes of the Talliban or the Islamic republic of Iran where women have been most harshly treated for “offences” like being a rape victim or being “immodest”. To a varying degree all Islamic countries still follow the instructions to treat women, unbelievers, homosexuals and free thinkers very badly by our standards yet you continue to suggest that because there are similar instructions in the bible and the Koran when it comes to the treatment of women that this in some way lets the current evils done in the name of Islam be ignored or at least greatly down played.
WTF!!!! I’m arguing facts Iain and suggesting nothing! I actually agree with pretty much %100 of what you’ve written above.
You still have the tendency to read far too much into what I write.
McStupid, you again demonstrate your single grain knowledge of Abrahamic religions. First of all you don’t acknoweledge the differing principles of the holy texts. Now in your piss poor rebuttal you forget that the Law is an inspired book. Human mistakes are normal in it. Not like the Koran which is “free from any flaw”[39:28].
So then about your out of context passage? Well you must remember that the Law was written around 1200 BCE in the Middle East. I emphasise again 1200 BCE IN THE MIDDLE EAST. I don’t think you’ve done your history but the Law is actually the most liberal of all legal religious codes at this period in time.
So powerful were the prescriptions in the book it actually curbed the power of the King later down the track. Ahab was completely immobilised when dealing with dissent because he was bound by the law. Jezebel, on the other hand, it was par for course to behave like your heroes Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.
With all that in mind we can clearly see that the law was actually formulated to protect women. Women at that time almost had no rights. Men lorded their strength over them quite normally. Being caught unattached, young and without men meant being simply taken possession of. Old women were ignored or thrown out. Women hardly walked alone, even in the cities and towns. Yet a virginal woman was important.
Why? Parentage, pure and simple. Possessions in this world were eked out at an alarmingly low rate. You did not want to pass on your possessions to bastard children with no loyalty to you.
But all this had changed, hasn’t it? The Judaic tradition is flexible. You can trace it through the Diaspora and exile. Because the original texts are flawed and for a specific context, when that context changes so must the laws governing. In fact find even an Orthodox Jew enforcing some of the old laws which are disputable in the modern liberal world.
But of course, your ignorant arse doesn’t know all this, right?
Elijah well done but WTF was all that actually for????? I’m pointing out the existence of similar passages within the Bible which has absolutely NOTHING to do with your above rant. I take the fact that you’ve chosen to (once again)arrogantly detail your knowledge of theology to mean that, when I showed you the passage, you were taken off guard. You asked, ‘I suppose then that “As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly);”[6:34]
has an equivalent in the bible?’ And I showed you that it did. You needent have bothered with the rest mate.
Furthermore:
We’ve been through this. The Koran is free from flaw but the human’s who interpret it arn’t. This is how it’s been historically viewed.
A woman who disobeys her husband is EXACTLY THE SAME as one who isn’t a virgin when she gets married. My god, your links are getting more tenuous by the day. The rest does matter, you moron. Don’t run like a girl. It’s obvious it’s an explanation of why it isn’t equivalent. And English is my second language.
Not disputing that. The dispute is what interpretation is more accurate. It’s obvious you haven’t read the damn thing. That’s why my arguments are always ahead of yours.
and MY links are tenuous.
Clearly.
Elijah, just reading it won’t make you an expert on it you should know that. Such texts are so complex that literal interpretations are rendered ridiculous.
Oh really!? And I’m sure almost break your neck each night in bold attempts at felating yourself.
Trying and failing for a witty comment does constitute arguments.
Hello Mr Moral Relativist. This isn’t an insult coming from you.
That is a bare minimum. I’m saying you haven’t even met the bare minimum. I’m familiar with the theology and background. And it is far from complex. It’s a simple direct book with very little that is unclear.
You just haven’t met Mr Parsimony also known as Dr Occam’s Razor.
Addenum to first point: In an asylum.
The only point that really matters is that in 2007, Christians aren’t using a literal interpretation of parts of their holy book to murder and rape schoolchildren, hang homosexuals and stone women to death.
Muslims are.
Christianity has evolved, Islam hasn’t.
This makes no sense. Try again.
Who’s a moral relativist? I’ve done nothing of the sort.
…no you are.
Nonsense. I’ve found it neccessary to have a copy of the Koran in my house for references at times but no, I haven’t read the thing from front to back. Nor would I bother to read the Bible from front to back. But I’m not the one professing to have a knowledge of these books that surpasses even the believers. That’s you remember, the amature theologist.
Even I know that this is bullshit Elijah, and I know that YOU know it too. It’s necessary to understand many things when reading such texts, historical context etc… So to read the book and hail that it allows the killing of infidels without placing the passages in historical context is just plain stupid. So is ignoring centuries of classical Islamic thought. You’re essentually claiming the extremist interpretation as the correct one and in doing so you’re helping murderous fuckwits by legitamising their distortions.
KG:
What are you doing here KG? This is a debate and you hate that shit! BTW: “rape schoolchildren” when did that happen?
On the whole you are correct in that Christians are no longer using their book to kill, but neither are the broad mass of Muslims. This has always puzzled me about your position KG for if there are no “moderates” then why aren’t they all trying to kill us?
Moron. “In an asylum.” Speak da Engwish!!!
Then I assume you’re not familiar with the entire material?
Which is why you’re ignorant on Christianity.
I’m ever in awe how all leftists are psychic too. Must be this is why policies they advocate always work and produce the results they pretend they will.
Therefore my initial thesis stands, because I have done all of that. You’re simply hiding behind this to fallaciously support your eisegesis, by introducing unsupported subjectivity into your interpretation.
Those passages I read are placed in historical context. In fact in this particular topic one of thee temporal concepts which you are unfamiliar with that applies to the Koran called “abrogation” applies. Look it up.
So by using universal reason and trying to determine interpretations that are parsimonious, therefore covering all the evidence available while eliminating axioms, is me “ignoring centuries of classical Islamic thought”. Don’t bother about the fact that I’ve actually reviewed this thought. No, as long as your ignorant thesis is supported. It’s quite clear from this discussion I’m more familiar with it than you are.
So a backhanded ad hominem is the best you can do? Suddenly what I say is tinged by me being an “amateur theologian“? (Ignorant fool)
Oh I suppose there is religious sanction for that?
And I suppose by that logic the munition workers in both world wars were doing nothing to support killing the enemy with artillery shells and bullets?
No of course not.
MM
I am sure that the raping of school children to which KG refers is a reference to the atrocity at Beslan where the terrorists took great delight in raping and humiliating their hostages.
“What are you doing here KG? This is a debate and you hate that shit! BTW: “rape schoolchildren” when did that happen?”
No, I don’t “hate that shit” I just hate braindead lefties.
Forgotten Beslan already, have you? How convenient. Still, I guess a hundred or so schoolchildren wouldn’t even make the radar of collectivists who regard the 100+million killed by their heroes as a trivial consideration…
“This has always puzzled me about your position KG for if there are no “moderates” then why aren’t they all trying to kill us?”
Indirectly, they are, by supporting the activists among them with money, shelter and silence.
Mao, remember? The civilian population is the sea in which the revolutionary fish swims.
Elijah, do you ever read any texts other than those that confirm your prejudices? Try it.
What a bullshit analogy. In fact it’s the worst analogy I’ve ever come across. Muslims aren’t worldwide all infiltarting our societies peddling violence and support for murder. You’re dangerously close to mimicing Hitler’s attacks on the Jews here.
KG:
No KG, you hate dissenting opinion.
No, I just wasn’t aware of the ‘rape’ of children there, it was horrible enough without it. Why would it be convenient? Explain.
And they ALL do this do they KG? Evidence please. On “silence”, do you speak your offense everytime a righty kills or bashes a migrant?
Oh bullshit Elijah. You’ve “done all that” have you? You’ve scrolled through all the relevant material, applied historical context, classical interpretations. You’ve done all the relevant research to come to the conclusion that you have have you? You’ve in no way been led by a pre-existing belief or state of mind, the opinions of others or the polemics of comentators? Yours is the position of a scholar of theology who’s deduced from years of research that Islam promotes the killing of innocents and world domination? Well in that case, you win. How could I possibly argue against YOU. Those poor ancient souls who spent their lives studying such things to come to the wrong conclusion needn’t have bothered. Because we’ve been waiting for mesiah Elijah to give us the truth about the Koran.
Just be carefull about that neck mate.
Yes.
Why?
Sure they aren’t. I suppose they get money an materiel out of thin air. Is obvious you don’t read any intel reports or strategic analyses. That is exactly what they are doing. 49.9% of Muslims, accoding to Al-Jazera support OBL’s quest. If that ain’t moral support then I don’t know what is.
Not all. But the best I can manage for the time being. I don’t see how trawling through every last piece of scrap of evidence when there is plenty of redundancy around. Plus I use logic. As I have said before.
One can use two methods of reasoning. Directly pointing to evidence, which I have. And deduction. I’ve also used that.
As far as can be helped yes. With any topic I try to do this and deduct and induct my way to the truth. That’s why I’m not a lefty.
Now that’s just ad hominem.
Time is no indicator of soundness of method.
The first point of recovery is to admit you have a problem.
There are “poor ancient souls” who agree with me. I do believe that the Pope copped flak quoting one.
Just a man. Just a man.
Finally, McColl if you haven’t got anything better than attacking me rather my argument then continue to lose our exchanges.
Nothing in your above comments gives any indication that ALL Muslims behave in the fashion of citizenry during national conflicts. It takes only a few to send money, or a scam here or there so your point regarding broad material support is an unsubstantiated illusion. Furthermore, let’s say a poll gives 49.9% support to OBL’s quest (though this would be very unreliable), what does this even mean? What was the question? Do they support terrorism or just resistence? And 49.9% means that millions of Muslims think otherwise, but lump them all together if it’s easier Elijah.
No, because you’re clearly someone free of strong polemics and opinions.
And very many who don’t.
Nice. I was hoping you’d see that one. I was deliberately taking the piss.
That support isn’t material. It’s moral. The material support comes from a subset of Islamic charities.
The question was part of a questionnaires. I told you the source, Al Jazeera. The question was simple and direct. “Do you support Osama Bin Laden”? Out of 41260 respondents 20601 responded yes.
But of course you ignore that nearly half support him. Ignore the implications of this fact. Bury your head in the sand say there are more who don’t. Lovely bit of reasoning there.
And before you accuse me of a hasty generalisation, I suggest you point to where I did it.
That is totally irrelevant. It’s quite obvious the methods and ideology Osama Bin Laden pushes what supporting him means.
And using logic we deduce why they are actually wrong.
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
I guess you’ve never heard of a “representative sample of the population”. Take a Statistics class ignoramus.
Why are you so stupid McColl? Why? If you entered the Stupid Olympics your mere announcement that you intended to participate would be more than enough reason for the other contestants to simply stay at home and forfeit, for not even with their combined best efforts, no matter how retarded, singularly idiotic and hundredth-witted they were could they ever possibly get within a lightyear of your colossally thick-witted illogicalness.
Never once, not once did I ever even haltingly imply that by this poll I’m “suggesting that this proves [my] conclusion on the inherant evil of Islam?”
My conclusion is proved on the textual analysis of the books that carry authority on this.
My point is in what ways are they moderate? Moderate requires a point of reference. I was just wondering how long it would take you to actually pick up that the analogy was weak.
Which of course shines on their own screwed up morality. I hardly doubt it’s ignorance. The media there is saturated with stories on him. I’m sure every Muslim has heard about 9/11.
It may be arrogant. But that doesn’t change the truth of the statement. You’ve got no argument that can change this without introducing assumptions that can quickly be shown to be erroneous.
Nice reply Elijah. It’s in fact so completely idiotic and abusive that you’ve lost me. You throw in a weak analogy (in fact you admit this) for no apparent reason and instead of answering me you abuse.
Nice one.
Hahaha. Again with the girly man ego. If you bothered to read it then you’ll see that abuse is mixed in my argument. Sine qua non with my argument style…
I’ll reply to this with the same maturity that you often display….
No…you’ve got a girly man ego.
Hahahaha.