As in past Global Attitudes surveys, publics in predominantly Muslim countries believe that democracy can work in their countries. Large and growing majorities in Morocco (83%), Lebanon (83%), Jordan (80%) and Indonesia (77%) — as well as pluralities in Turkey (48%) and Pakistan (43%) — say democracy can work well and is not just for the West.


Pew forum - say that they are wrong and you are a fool

This co-existence existed all over including Andalusia in Spain to give a beautiful example - FROM HISTORY -

The jizya was a military waiver paid by only men fit for the army if they wished to not fight in the army - Muslims have even paid jizya

Muslims were also "taxed" you nutter - it's called Zakat and it can work out as even more than jizya.

Taxation is not oppression you fool! Infact Non-Muslims could live tax free in a Muslim community if they fought to defend the pluralist society.

But you don't want to see if that's true - so just keep on bablin

MILLIONS of Muslims are pro democracy

So you are wrong about that - admit that and I will entertain a conversation with you

(March 17, 2013 at 8:12 am)Dawud Wrote: MILLIONS of Muslims are pro democracy

Really a couple of million out of 1.5 billion? WOW.

(March 16, 2013 at 2:46 pm)apophenia Wrote:

(March 16, 2013 at 2:38 pm)EGross Wrote: The fate of women in Islamic controlled countries...

That's all fine and dandy, except this discussion isn't about what happens in other countries, but what we should do about Muslim citizens and Muslim immigrants in our countries.


So essentially, your whole post — its entire content — was devoted to fanning the flames of racism.

Very admirable.

Do you really think that only happens in Islamic countries? I have seen this in my trips to Austria, England and the USA. The idea that putting a woman in a sack is exalting Islam is not just in Islamic countries, but as I noted in the connecting post, they do not accept pluralism, and enforce their demands on society.

And while it is a national requirement in Islamic countries, it is a religious requirement in the non-Islamic ones. They demand changes in laws to support their needs. In my country, "honor killings" are not uncommon. In the USA, a muslim woman demanded that the law changes so she can get a driver's license with just here eyes showing.

In other words, there is a demand for the patalogical demands of a bizarre faith, where a fatwa can mean the death of an individual who disagrees with them, to become socially accepted.

Finally, this is an athiest site - and thus all religions, by definition are for the slaves and slavers. So my use of this photo is to show the slaves, while ther non-existant god made up by a phony "prophet" and all of their leadership, can be both slave and slaver.

---

(March 17, 2013 at 9:00 am)Aractus Wrote:

(March 17, 2013 at 8:12 am)Dawud Wrote: MILLIONS of Muslims are pro democracy

Really a couple of million out of 1.5 billion? WOW.

I believe that if you polled them and asked if they were pro-democracy that was devoid of any of their religious requirements (as voiced recently in Egypt where the Muslim brotherhood is aghast that the international community would demand that husbands could not beat their wives) that you would find that number much less. They would prefer a theocratic state, that supported Islam and a democratic process where women are worth 50% of a male vote.

(March 17, 2013 at 9:43 am)The Germans are coming Wrote: Let me explain pluralism to your weak mind:

Pluralism is not just various different peoples with various different beliefs and opinions living together in a sociaty.

Pluralism is various different peoples with various different beliefs and opinions living together in a sociaty in which all of them have equal rights!

I think you're extending the definition in the direction you want it to go, but only because it serves your specific interests.

By that definition, the United States is not a pluralistic society, and the bulk of its people are anti-pluralistic, as the question of equal rights for women has been put to the vote several times and defeated each time.


However, I will say a couple things before I bow out of this discussion. Certainly, I acknowledge that I am ignorant about the world, political philosophy, and history, so I grant that I may be amiss in relevant concerns. However, to me, this argument is twofold. First, what is pluralism, and more generally, what is the nature of politics in a world which is de facto pluralistic if not de jure pluralistic. Clausewitz said that war is the conduct of politics through non-political means. If we abandon the means of political discourse, the remaining tool in our arsenal is war. This is what resulted in the death of nearly 3,000 people on September 11, 2001. One side or the other abandoned proper social and political discourse to resolve their differences and resorted to the politics of war. The question of integrating Muslims is not just an immigration question, it's a global one. What are you suggesting for the pluralism of our world society? That we deport all Muslims to another planet? Or perhaps we should simply make the middle east a plain of glass, because they threaten our worldview. I say no. I realize it's not as efficient as bombing them or deporting them, but you as a German should know intimately that the efficiency of disposing with a problem population is not in and of itself a virtue.

My second question has to be, how are you going to implement an immigration policy aimed at reducing the inflow of anti-pluralistic Muslims into your country? What are you going to use as a litmus test for whom to admit and whom to reject? "Are you a Muslim?" "Assuredly not! Insha'Allah!" Are you going to deny immigration from certain countries on the basis of the politics of the majority there? In addition to seeming to run quickly to racial profiling, many times an immigrant from those nations is immigrating to escape from that. Your attitude to that is what? Sucks to be them? Indeed, since Muslim regimes are some of the most oppressive, you may very well see a strong correlation between Muslim hegemony and immigration because of that reason. And what about those who are refugees, say in Darfur, who are fleeing not because of Muslim oppression, but because of other oppression? Do we turn our backs on the people of Darfur because they come from a predominately Muslim nation? Or do we differentiate between the countries composed "mostly of good Muslims" and "mostly of bad Muslims" ? Exactly whom are you targeting here, Germans, and how do we identify them?

Exactly how is this "send them back to where they came from" policy going to work? Are we going to deport people for being fanatical Muslims? Simply Muslim? For speaking out in favor of Sharia law? What exactly is the list of thought crimes going to include? If they break laws, send them to jail, or worse. But I get the impression you want to attack a much larger group of people, and we don't need additional laws to punish actual law breakers, and if we do, that's a separate matter. And it raises the very real question of why we would want to punish Muslim lawbreakers differently from non-Muslim lawbreakers. And I'm gonna add another Godwin for this one, but it's hardly surprising that this comes from the citizen of a country that has made it a crime to disagree with the majority view of the history of the holocaust and speak one's mind about it. Maybe when Germany becomes truly pluralistic you might have some grounds to bitch.

Anyway, I'm done with this conversation, for personal reasons. I'll leave you to your debate.

---

ETA: I want to throw this in just because it's from what I'm currently reading. Foucault in the book Discipline and Punsih makes the point that punishment over the past 500 years has transformed from punishing the act of wrong doing, to punishing the actor of the wrong doing. Punishment has ceased to be about metering out punishment because one has committed a specific act so much as it is meted out because the act identifies you as a specific type of actor. Thus the obsession with matters of intent, mental competence, and so on. We no longer seek to punish because someone has done wrong but rather punish people for being doers of wrong; we punish people for having the inclination to do wrong, as much, if not more so, than for having done wrong. The emphasis has shifted from the ethics of the act to the ethics of the actor. This is quite relevant here because, without ascribing this position to anyone, this conversation seems to trend in the direction of making being a Muslim — or simply holding political or religious beliefs or views the majority finds threatening — and simply being a person who is that "type" of actor itself a crime. And if anyone holds that view, I'd say they've abandoned pluralism.

You say the Muslims lie then you say they don't

They lie if they undermine your argument and tell the truth if they don't

Good-night

No wonder Hamas and Hezbollah are supported - look at Israel!

In violation if international law - condemned by the UN and invading and occupying a territory that is not theirs

But you would say these white skinned men are just civilising these poor barbarians.

Well it's your circle jerk bull that makes you think it's some kind of 2 sided thing or an invasion of Palestine into Israel.

Millions of Muslims undermine your argument but you throw it out of the water cos your just some sad bigoted loner.

I'm off to deal with academics who wouldn't stomach this bull for a second.

Your use of figures and pre-assumption of the significance of these figures is honestly pitiful.

I'll waste my time no-longer

---

The Muslim world isn't attacking the West with some super Organised dangerous threat -

It's tanks and bombs and ARMIES that have raped and trampled their way through the Middle East backed up by fan boy self congratulating racists like yourself who swallow the penis of "we're civilizing the barbarians" gladly in your blind faith of superiority. Though really the forces behind these atrocities couldn't give a rats ass for the people they are so 'saintly' in 'saving'

You make me sick circle jerkers - I'm gonna have to go and deal with some real atheists - who are able to trust evidence and not bigotry

I'm going to

(March 17, 2013 at 5:26 pm)Dawud Wrote: You say the Muslims lie then you say they don't

Where?

Quote:They lie if they undermine your argument and tell the truth if they don't

Where do I say that?

Quote:No wonder Hamas and Hezbollah are supported - look at Israel!

I am not suprised that you as a muslim, are aslo a antisemite.

Quote:In violation if international law - condemned by the UN and invading and occupying a territory that is not theirs

I hope you choke to death on a bunch of foreskins, just like every other antisemite.

Quote:But you would say these white skinned men are just civilising these poor barbarians.

Can you show where I or anyone else is saying that!

Quote:Well it's your circle jerk bull that makes you think it's some kind of 2 sided thing or an invasion of Palestine into Israel.

Nothing crcle jerk about it, one only has to look at palestinian propaganda and official political possitions.

Quote:Millions of Muslims undermine your argument but you throw it out of the water cos your just some sad bigoted loner.

Sow me those "millions"

Quote:I'm off to deal with academics who wouldn't stomach this bull for a second.

Which you dream up.

Quote:Your use of figures and pre-assumption of the significance of these figures is honestly pitiful.

Where?

Quote:I'll waste my time no-longer

It is our time, which is wasted by someone like you.

Someone like you who ignores facts and an opponents argument for the sake of having his delusions not disturbed.

Quote:The Muslim world isn't attacking the West with some super Organised dangerous threat -

Where am I saying that?

Quote:It's tanks and bombs and ARMIES that have raped and trampled their way through the Middle East backed up by fan boy self congratulating racists like yourself who swallow the penis of "we're civilizing the barbarians" gladly in your blind faith of superiority.

Where do I speak out support for invasions of the middle east?

Can you prove that these amies "raped and trampled" themselves through the middle east?

where to I express blind faith in my supiriority?

Quote: Though really the forces behind these atrocities couldn't give a rats ass for the people they are so 'saintly' in 'saving'

Delusions again?

Quote:You make me sick circle jerkers - I'm gonna have to go and deal with some real atheists - who are able to trust evidence and not bigotry

I have posted various statistics which you ignored.

Whilest you put words in my mouth which I never said.

You are a dishonest and delusional moron, and should you put words in my mouth again I will report this dishonesty of yours.

(March 17, 2013 at 7:04 pm)apophenia Wrote:

Oh that's ok apophenia, they ended up here in Oz.