Hopefully not. But you'll likely trespass again and I'll be watching.

Well you're not taking up my challenge and you seem to be content with my err, 'concession' that my original post was merely anecdotal. I suppose there's nowhere else to go with this, eh?

Or I could just take a look at Matty's Tower of Pisa and blow on it!
I choose door number one.
You shouldn't go with door number 1 because it makes you look silly.

Me silly? You're the one with Itallian national monuments comming down around your ears! Laugh your way out of that one.

It was never meant to be a thesis, it's not scientific, it's an anecdote, it's pretty light stuff

Thankyou.
Let's all remember that.

Rick,
Canterbury

You shouldn't go with door number 1 because it makes you look silly. My post was an anecdote that I thought illustrated the problem with so called moderate Islam. It was never meant to be a thesis, it's not scientific, it's an anecdote, it's pretty light stuff. Your treating it as some kind of study that has holes is foolish.

If you want to argue with my point just get the basic conclusion: Muslims tend to say they don't endorse violence but that's simply not good enough as they can't seem to bring themselves to fully condemn it and prove me wrong. I'm not determined to be against every single living Muslim. I thought Reeds link was great, that's my standard for a moderate Muslim. Prove that a lot of Muslims meet that standard, because right now it looks like a fringe movement to me.

If you want to convince people that what they have experienced is not representative of the group in general you could provide some evidence to the contrary.

Or I could just take a look at Matty's Tower of Pisa and blow on it!
I choose door number one.

Aren't I the most realistic person anybody has ever met ever?
Yes, you look just like the real thing.

It's that $5 microphone that turns the trick.

Rick,
Michigan

ha Matty ...somehow I do not think I will be giving you a run for your money as a comedian

I laughed at the joke and even repeated it to a couple of friends later in the day. Should have given you props. Sincere Apologies.

"Mr Moderate, the difference between your World and ours is that in your Country a Woman is stoned for committing adultery, whereas here the Woman gets stoned first then commits adultery...something you chaps will never understand"

BOOM BOOM!

I go to all the trouble of cracking an hilarious joke..and...29 posts later, no one laughs

*sigh*

(This must be the biggest flop since Alexander Downer had me pissing my pants over his 'things that batter' one liner)

"Matty himself will have to defend this position"

Leaps in logic are my forte.

Rick -
If so, or if not, it doesn't change the fact that Matty is making a giant leap of logic. Even if he is right, he is not justified in telling us the nature of Islam from this one dipstick.

True. (Matty himself will have to defend this position)

If you want to convince people that what they have experienced is not representative of the group in general you could provide some evidence to the contrary.

Do you suppose this group has done more homework, met more Muslim leaders, than he by which they base their observations?

Sure, they look genuine to me. Being Muslim they would meet and hear many other Muslims - including Muslim leaders.

Aren't I the most realistic person anybody has ever met ever?

Yes, you look just like the real thing.

Hmmm... they *seem* to have made the same observation that Matty and I have made, and they claim it applies to "most other Muslim leaders".

Matty's extrapolation may not be false.
Do you suppose this group has done more homework, met more Muslim leaders, than he by which they base their observations?

If so, or if not, it doesn't change the fact that Matty is making a giant leap of logic. Even if he is right, he is not justified in telling us the nature of Islam from this one dipstick.

they appear to be the type of Muslims that you are defending (which is good) but IMO they are more realistic about the situation than you are.

How's that?
Aren't I the most realistic person anybody has ever met ever?

Great link!

"We believe in the re-interpretation of Islam for the 21st century where terrorism is not justified under any circumstances.

We believe in the separation of religion and state.

We believe that democracy is the best form of government.

We believe in the promotion of secularism in all forms of political activity.

We believe that equality for women is an inalienable right.

We believe that religion is a personal relationship between the individual and his or her God and is not to be forced on anyone."

This is what I would have liked to hear at my school. And this web site shows that there are fortunately some real moderate voices out there. I'm not saying every Muslim is a terrorist or an apologist for terrorism. My problem is that from what I've seen the majority of Muslims do (as these guys put it) think the end justifies the means and I don't think it does us any good to not hold Muslim leaders accountable when they half heartedly defend violence.

Rick -
At this time you *seem* to have an *attitude* of doubt toward Mattys interpretation of his encounter with a moderate Muslim.

I found this site www.freemuslims.org, they appear to be the type of Muslims that you are defending (which is good) but IMO they are more realistic about the situation than you are.

About FMC[Free Muslims Coalition]...it is the only mainstream American-Muslim organization willing to attack extremism and terrorism unambiguously. Unfortunately most other Muslim leaders believe that in terrorist organizations, the end justifies the means.

Hmmm... they *seem* to have made the same observation that Matty and I have made, and they claim it applies to "most other Muslim leaders".

The attitude the speaker seemed to give though (from Matt's portrayal, I wasn't there obviously) was that although he didn't condone the violence, it was the newspaper's fault

Without giving Uncle Fluffy the benefit of the doubt, even through the most prejudiced eyes, that's the most we can say. That he *seemed* to have that *attitude* at the time.

Well, that doesn't amount to much.

I do like that you post on these threads though.

I saw my name at the top.

It is easy to get swept up in anti-Islam. It's good that people are challenged to check their facts

Thanks Lance.

M,-
"Cartoon mockery is a very raw nerve for them."

You're kidding right?

If it's escaped your notice, Mitch, I can make evidence avaliable to you that this is no jest. I think it's pretty bloody obvious but if it's not then maybe the old Muslim in Canterbury does have something to teach some of us.

Here is the nature of Islam, what the Jihadist at Matty's school was fighting for, and what Rick is appeasing. BE WARNED, this is heart wrenchingly disgusting. It will make you sick, but it is real and it is the nature of Islam:

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/media/stoning.htm#video

I will start to view the Moslem faith with something slightly less than disgust, when someone from that 'world' can make Islam's first Life of Brian/Abdullah film without two thirds, (or even one single member), of the Creed rushing around like chooks without heads trying to suicide bomb, because of it, innocent people who are simply going about their business enjoying life.

This, of course, will never happen because they haven't even got the sophistication to handle a simple cartoon for 'Christ's' sake: with no ability to laugh at themselves, they will never have the ability to objectively view the hell they've created for themselves.

Here he is again advocating the death penalty for apostates, comparing it to the capital punishment sentence for treason.

Oh and here he is saying every Muslim should be a terrorist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxk5AAA5FbI

In defense of Matt's position though here is a clip featuring an Islamic Scholar that recently visited NZ to talk about 'moderate' Islam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIcS-eZ71yg

"Cartoon mockery is a very raw nerve for them."

You're kidding right?

"What's to doubt? You had a scattered conversational moment with some high-school-circuit, sloppy-Englished, fluff-brain, and now you're telling the ladies and gentleman you've got the nature of Islam pegged."

This is absolute fucking rubbish, Giles.

Matty, he's not worth arguing with.

Okay, thanks Rick. I think it's only fair that he is allowed to point out how hurtful it is. And I'm sure there are peaceful, secular Muslims that are hurt by it as well as the violent reactionaries. And the people on the planet who want to specifically avoid causing offense can take that on board. I don't like offense purely for the sake of causing offense, it's mean-spirited and childish.

The attitude the speaker seemed to give though (from Matt's portrayal, I wasn't there obviously) was that although he didn't condone the violence, it was the newspaper's fault that there was violence because they offended someone.

The 'coming to your house' analogy doesn't pan out either. Unless he were comparing a 'pictures of Mohammed' campaign where the images were slipped under the doors of Muslims.

I do like that you post on these threads though. It is easy to get swept up in anti-Islam. It's good that people are challenged to check their facts and conclusions, and serves as a reminder that there are secular peaceful Muslims getting persecuted for practicing even the most benign parts of their religion.

Well yes actually I do have a problem with that realization...seeing as their pain was trivial.

Sure, the pain of others is trivial to YOU. But to Muhamadean kooks it's literally a matter of life and death.

That's what I reckon you guest's point was. And I don't believe you have a problem with that nor disagree. Especially not when there's such good sport to be had in exploiting the fact at the faithful's expense!

the reason I gave the anecdote was because I think it does basically capture everything about the 'moderate Muslim' line of argument.

Yeah, well I don't. They're not all dithering broken-English apologists. You need to expand your sample space, boy.

No, Lance.

I'm only saying that the man with the fluffy face at St. Andrews last year has a point. Ridicule is religion's kryptonite. Hurts lots.

He was trying to express this, the gravity of the insult, least we think his pals in The Neverlands are slighted by nothings. It's not nothing to them. Lesson worth learning. Why this vexes our graduate I'm eager to learn.

"Only that we realise that their pain was not trivial...Surely you've no issue with that realisation?"

Well yes actually I do have a problem with that realization...seeing as their pain was trivial. People's beliefs are made fun of all the time.If you can't deal with it get the hell out of the west. Thank you.

"What's to doubt? You had a scattered conversational moment with some high-school-circuit, sloppy-Englished, fluff-brain, and now you're telling the ladies and gentleman you've got the nature of Islam pegged."

Pretty much. That's it in a nutshell Rick. I don't think that shows that I have an enviable intellect it just shows how easy it is to get the nature of Islam pegged. I'm not saying that this experience is all I needed to go sour on Islam but this was the starting point and the reason I gave the anecdote was because I think it does basically capture everything about the 'moderate Muslim' line of argument. Nothing this 'high-school-circuit, sloppy-Englished, fluff-brain' had to say was any less insightful than any other apologist I've seen on T.V.

'We in no way condone this violence but that cartoon was totally offensive and you gotta understand why these people got violent I mean wouldn't you? I'm tempted to go out and kill someone right now!'

What kind of a break? Only that we realise that their pain was not trivial. Cartoon mockery is a very raw nerve for them.
Well, rightly so. Point well made. Surely you've no issue with that realisation?

I'm not sure if I understand that Rick, are you saying we should consider how offended they (they being those who reacted violently) were as a mitigating circumstance? That we shouldn't view the violent reactions so harshly, because they were upset?

I do understand I just don't empathise. That's what annoyed me. He was telling us violence wasn't the way but we should give those who commit violence a break

What kind of a break? Only that we realise that their pain was not trivial. Cartoon mockery is a very raw nerve for them.
Well, rightly so. Point well made. Surely you've no issue with that realisation?

I tried several times to get him to say we should be legally allowed to publish pictures of Mohammad and he dodged the question

clear enough for me to be fully confident that he was challenging our legal right to abuse his religion. Don't want to give me the benefit of the doubt?

What's to doubt? You had a scattered conversational moment with some high-school-circuit, sloppy-Englished, fluff-brain, and now you're telling the ladies and gentleman you've got the nature of Islam pegged.

"Why are you beside yourself?

Seeing where they're coming from is essential, especially if one doesn't like where they're going with it.

Sounds like everyone agreed that the initiation of force wasn't an acceptable response. So why does anyone's understanding the nature of the insult, a trivial insight, vex you so?"

We're talking about different kinds of understanding here Rick. Technically we all understand why the Muslims burning cars in Denmark where doing what they were doing. They saw a cartoon which deeply offended them and they decided an appropriate response was to terrorize the newspaper. Thats the kind of response their blood thirsty religion condones, you see? There you are, I do understand I just don't empathies. That's what annoyed me. He was telling us violence wasn't the way but we should give those who commit violence a break. It pisses me off that it's considered intolerant to hold people fully accountable for their actions, there always has to be a 'but' when religion is involved. When it comes to violence there is no 'but' you're either for it or against it. End of story,

"About sums it up does it?
Brings your insight and education of Islam to a conclusion does it?
Under arrest, as we speak, for 'heavy implication,' that guy, is he?

I think there's just a little bit more to it and you're making a big deal out of a short and fumbling exchange."

I don't think people get arrested for condemning free speech, that would be silly. Over and over again during his stupid 'If I came over to your house...' analogy he said, 'should I be able to do that?' in a challenging tone. He challenged me with the analogy after I brought up the specific point of free speech. I tried several times to get him to say we should be legally allowed to publish pictures of Mohammad and he dodged the question, each time coming back at me with something he could say that might offend me and asking me if I would be fine with that. As if that was going to change my mind on free speech.

The exchange was long enough and clear enough for me to be fully confident that he was challenging our legal right to abuse his religion. Don't want to give me the benefit of the doubt? Fine.

...he does see where the car burning maniacs rioting in Denmark are coming from. I am beside myself.

Why are you beside yourself?
Seeing where they're comming from is essential, especially if one doesn't like where they're going with it.

Sounds like everyone agreed that the initiation of force wasn't an acceptable response. So why does anyone's understanding the nature of the insult, a trivial insight, vex you so?

He heavily implied he didn’t think we should have the legal right to publish cartoons like the ones published in Denmark.

And that ladies and gentleman is the nature of Islam.

About sums it up does it?
Brings your insight and education of Islam to a conclusion does it?
Under arrest, as we speak, for 'heavy implication,' that guy, is he?

I think there's just a little bit more to it and you're making a big deal out of a short and fumbling exchange.

Denial, England: Have we learned nothing? by Melanie Phillips.

When I published my book Londonistan last year, I believed Britain was deeply in denial over the threat of radical Islamism. Today — six years after 9/11; two years after the 7/7 London suicide bombings; one year after the discovery of the al Qaeda transatlantic-airline plot; two months after the car-bomb attacks on a London nightclub and Glasgow airport — even with an apparently neverending procession of trials of British Islamist terrorists and with MI5 stating that it is monitoring no fewer than 200 U.K. Islamist terror groupings, 2,000 individual terrorists, and 30 known active major terrorist plots, Britain is still failing to acknowledge the true nature and scale of what it is facing and what needs to be done to counter it. ...

I was speaking of 'Moderate' Muslims yesterday and rhetorically asked 'What exactly are they moderating?' They're moderating Islam itself, whether knowingly or unknowingly. Fact is, most Western Muslims are morally superior to their religion by virtue of being edified by non-Muslim values and wisely ignoring Islam. It's the Muslims Idealists we're at war with.

I fully concede that he was in fact a jihadist.

And thank you, Now I'm a little bit smarter than I was yesterday.

Jihad means "struggle", it doesn't mean go out and terrorise. Terrorising is a tactic of Jihad, and while to kill and be killed in the cause of Allah - to become a martyr - is the most virtous act of Jihad that can be achieved, it isn't the only act. Jihad is the struggle to integrate the Infidel world into the Islamic world, and the guy on that stage was taking part in that struggle. That makes him a Jihadist.

It's an ongoing formula of half hearted denunciation: Say you don't condone it and then become an apologist for it.

I have noticed when moderate muslims are interviewed the answers are as follows
"Terrorism is wrong... but while america/israel..."
"We don't condone hostage taking/killing... but while the palestinian situation remains..."

Normally I might say that description is a tad severe but for the sake of being politically incorrect I'll take it, a Jihadist he was.

You had a Jihadist on your school podium, doing his Jihad duty of integrating the infidel world into the Islamic world.

it sounds like quite a bore for you, having to sit through an apologetic rant justifying a lot of soothsaying and witchcraft.

I would have said "Mr Moderate, the difference between your World and ours is that in your Country a Woman is stoned for committing adultery, whereas here the Woman gets stoned first then commits adultery...something you chaps will never understand"