Islam: Is it inherently Evil?

[moXJO]

Erdogan is a dictator and happy to talk like one, the attack in NZ will expose Australians else where in the world.

Turkey has an election on, I think.

 

[Darc Knight]

"Australians with anti Muslim views would be sent home in coffins"?
Not speaking for Muslims is he? What an idiot.

"Mr Morrison said it was the job of tolerant societies like Australia not to escalate the war of words."

I think all Aus Political leaders have displayed diplomacy.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Might spend this one at the local memorial.

 

[IFocus]

It exposes the double standard. We must play by Marquis of Queensbury, with one hand tied behind our back, while the rest of the world are running around with machetes and iron bars.

Suicidal.

Yeah....Nah, we are 1st world they will forever be 3rd world the conservative right are always trying to drag us back.......to 3rd world

 

[wayneL]

I'm not gonna even dignify that ifocus.

Anyway, just one of several incidents in the last few days that hasn't seemed to stoke the perpetually outraged.

I wonder why?

 

[DB008]

NZ has buckled to Islam.

​

 

[SirRumpole]

NZ has buckled to Islam.

View attachment 93212
​

View attachment 93211​

Yes I found Adern's response in terms of the headscarf uneccesarilly tokenistic and shallow.

If a Muslim nutcase murdered people on a beach would all the Muslim women walk around in bikinis ?

We are who we are and we should celebrate diversity.

 

[basilio]

It seems that many other observers both Western and in the Muslim world thought Jacinda Ardern offered an exemplary model of empathy and leadership in responding to the massacre of 50 plus men women and children in a Christchurch mosque.

World's tallest building lit up with image of Jacinda Ardern

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/wo...-image-of-jacinda-ardern-20190323-p516ua.html

 

[basilio]

Ardern has received credit from commentators around the world for her handling of the tragedy.

Two glowing editorials by The New York Times were headlined "America deserves a leader as good as Jacinda Ardern", and "Jacinda Ardern leads by following no-one".

The New Yorker ran a piece titled "Jacinda Ardern has rewritten the script for how a nation grieves after a terrorist attack", crediting her empathy and action to ban military-style semi-automatics and insistence on not naming the killer.

 

[basilio]

Jacinda Arden will be on The Project on Monday with an interview with Waleed Aly
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/na...-ardern-meets-waleed-aly-20190323-p516u0.html

 

[DB008]

Jacinda Arden will be on The Project on Monday with an interview with Waleed Aly
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/na...-ardern-meets-waleed-aly-20190323-p516u0.html

No doubt Waleed will be pushing his agenda as usual.

 

[basilio]

No doubt Waleed will be pushing his agenda as usual.

Perhaps she should have talked with Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones ? Just to understand what the real problems are with treating people like human beings.

 

[DB008]

Jacinda Arden will be on The Project on Monday with an interview with Waleed Aly
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/na...-ardern-meets-waleed-aly-20190323-p516u0.html

Ok. Will Waleed Aly get onto this topic then...

Christchurch mosque shootings: 'Manifesto' deemed objectionable​

A publication reportedly written by the man accused of the Christchurch shootings has been officially classified as objectionable by the Chief Censor.​

The document was examined under the Films, Videos & Publications Classification Act and was deemed objectionable for a number of reasons.​

Chief Censor David Shanks said others have referred to the publication as a "manifesto", but he considers it a "crude booklet" which promotes murder and terrorism.

Mr Shanks said this publication crosses the line to make it objectionable under New Zealand law.

"There is an important distinction to be made between 'hate speech', which may be rejected by many right-thinking people but which is legal to express, and this type of publication, which is deliberately constructed to inspire further murder and terrorism," he said.

According to the Department of Internal Affairs, "knowingly" possessing or sharing objectionable material carries up to a 14 year jail term.


1) The Quran fits into the same category and should be banned
2) Censorship is a slippery slope


Here are some comments about this....

I read the majority of the manifesto. This is exactly the reaction the shooter wanted. This is literally terrorism winning.
How can anyone advocate for locking a person in a cage for 14 years for the non-violent act of reading a document?​

I had no interest before but now I want to read it...
Streisand's effect at it's finest.​

Because it allows them to setup a precedent for any 'future attacks' or 'call to violence' or 'protests' maybe next what you say online can put you in jail...they want to control and these tragedies give them the power to do it since everyone is all emotional. Rights are getting eroded.



You can buy Mein Kampf, but if you share this meme-filled manifesto you're off to prison.​

Kiwi here.
Not a good move.
The government should not decide what we can and can't read​

Fellow Kiwi here.
Couldn't agree more. This is absolutely stupid. I don't think anyone is going to read that and be converted or whatever it is that they think it will do. You can read extreme manifestos from all sorts of political backgrounds, why draw the line at a shitty half-satire manifesto? I don't get it.​

The literal worst of ideas.
Banning a piece of paper. Maybe have a book burning while you're at it.
Countries like NZ always pride themselves on things like "we will not be afraid" "we won't let this divide us" and stuff like that. Meanwhile they are so afraid of some random alt-right ramblings that they will put people in prison for owning it. Way to not let yourself live in fear NZ.​

 

[basilio]

There is an important distinction to be made between 'hate speech', which may be rejected by many right-thinking people but which is legal to express, and this type of publication, which is deliberately constructed to inspire further murder and terrorism," he said.

I think that is the basis on which the booklet is banned. Given that the murderer decided to kill as many Muslims as he could as an example to others and then produces a "Why and How to manual" I agree with the Censor.

 

[bellenuit]

I think that is the basis on which the booklet is banned. Given that the murderer decided to kill as many Muslims as he could as an example to others and then produces a "Why and How to manual" I agree with the Censor.

Not having read the manifesto and having no interest in doing so, I would still guess that the parts urging violence are just a small part of it. Most, again I would guess, would probably relate to his conspiratorial obsession to Muslim immigration.

On the basis that the Quran is certainly more violent and specifically advocates violence against others (whether that is rejected by many Muslims or not), would you advocate it being censored too?

 

[basilio]

Not having read the manifesto and having no interest in doing so, I would still guess that the parts urging violence are just a small part of it. Most, again I would guess, would probably relate to his conspiratorial obsession to Muslim immigration.

On the basis that the Quran is certainly more violent and specifically advocates violence against others (whether that is rejected by many Muslims or not), would you advocate it being censored too?

??? You havn't read the "Manifesto" (neither have I) . It was specifically written to encourage people to rise and kills Muslims because they are "replacing the White race".

The Quran is the holy book of Muslims. I havn't read that either and I suspect neither have you in total Bellenuit. I guess you have read or been directed to some passages that might or might not be in the Quran and are violent. I'm sure if I wanted to I could find some similar passages in The Bible.

However I don't believe either The Bible or The Quran were written to justify mass murder ; but I'm sure they can be interpreted that one if one wants to.

 

[bellenuit]

??? You havn't read the "Manifesto" (neither have I) . It was specifically written to encourage people to rise and kills Muslims because they are "replacing the White race".

The Quran is the holy book of Muslims. I havn't read that either and I suspect neither have you in total Bellenuit. I guess you have read or been directed to some passages that might or might not be in the Quran and are violent. I'm sure if I wanted to I could find some similar passages in The Bible.

However I don't believe either The Bible or The Quran were written to justify mass murder ; but I'm sure they can be interpreted that one if one wants to.

There are passages in the Quran that are not just violent in their description of violent acts, but specifically urge Muslims to kill others. Apostates for example and homosexuals for instance. This is not denied by Muslims, but most, at least those in the West, do not act on it. Should the Quron be banned on that basis.

 

[basilio]

There are passages in the Quran that are not just violent in their description of violent acts, but specifically urge Muslims to kill others. Apostates for example and homosexuals for instance. This is not denied by Muslims, but most, at least those in the West, do not act on it. Should the Quron be banned on that basis.

Nup. Unless you want ban The Bible because you can find similar references there. Slavery, child sacrifice.
In my mind the issue is not The Quron as such. You alluded to that it in your response. The issue is societies that use The Quron to allow killing of homosexuals etc.

 

[bellenuit]

Nup. Unless you want ban The Bible because you can find similar references there. Slavery, child sacrifice.
In my mind the issue is not The Quron as such. You alluded to that it in your response. The issue is societies that use The Quron to allow killing of homosexuals etc.

But that is the point I am making. The Quran (and/or Hadith) advocates death to apostates. It is law in many Islamic States. The Manifesto that has been banned and, rightly so according to you and most likely according to me if I view it the same as the censor, is deliberately constructed to inspire further murder and terrorism.

We don't say the Manifesto shouldn't be banned because most people who read it will pay no heed to it. It may inspire a few. The same goes for the Quran. It is likely to inspire some to kill apostates and blasphemers and that applies here in Australia too (it is already implement in most Islamic States).

I would also ban the Bible or at least a version that includes exhortations to violence. Those Islamic leaders that acknowledge that the Quran has exhortations to do good and exhortations to do bad should remove the bad exhortations. I'm not talking about historical stories that describes atrocities that may be in both the Bible or Quran, but actual exhortations to do violence or kill injure fellow humans. An exhortation to violence is an exhortation to violence no matter where it is read or spoken.

This is Sydney. These people are not confining their Quran inspired hatred to just overseas:

The Pew research results that were published a few weeks ago show the relatively high percentage of Muslims in Islamic States that subscribe to the worst aspects of Islam. People with that mindset don't just change their attitude because they move here.

Here are some images from the West (the first is from the UK). Don't tell me that they will not be inspired by evil exhortations in the Quran:

 

[bellenuit]

The Quran (and/or Hadith) advocates death to apostates. It is law in many Islamic States.

Asia Bibi is the Pakistani Christian who was sentenced to death for blasphemy (bringing water to Muslims - I think the fact that she touched the container). Her lawyer can't even condemn the law that wanted her put to death.