Hali says: Everyone knows that people first came to America only for one reason: Religious Freedom.
Igor says: How true. Your profound remarks on American history incline me to suspect that you have attained the degree of expertise that can only be called (if at all) the ... uh ... "Islamic Perspective of History", a privilege reserved to only a few select connoisseurs of Deep Time. .As you so accurately point out, the first Europeans to come to America were absolute sticklers for religious freedom: the Spaniards. Their version of the ACLU was called the Spanish Inquisition.
Hali says: Try reading about the history of the Islam and Quran,
Igor says: That’s your worst idea yet. I already tried that and it didn't work. I attended a minor program in Islamic studies when at university and have spent inordinate amounts of time studying Islamic matters.
One of the problems with your approach is that since Mohammed was a prolific mass murderer, torturer and general hell-raiser, and was about as sensitive to others' feelings as a heavy-duty bulldozer, the more detailed the information available about Mohammed, his life and times and about Islam in general, the more people will tend to hate Islam. That’s certainly the case with me. Before I started doing Islamic studies, my feelings toward Islam were relatively benign.
The only way to teach people about Islam without promptly inciting their bloodlust is by either systematically concealing Islam’s atrocities, or justifying them and thus egging their pupils on to egregiously anti-social behavior.
Hali says: Can't Muslims have Sharia Law. .how is it exactly affecting you?
Igor says. That is such an incredibly stupid remark that I think you must be pulling my leg. Sharia law’s principal function is to discriminate, humiliate, vituperate, castrate, mutilate, and eventually annihilate all non-Muslims.
Just by indulging in my harmless habit of daily smoking a single joint of marihuana wrapped in a page of the Holy Qur'an I am running the risk of undergoing severe chastisement at the hands of the indignant faithful.
Reason numbah two is that sharia gives all Mohammedans a free pass to conquer foreign countries, as the abominable Hamas is doing in Palestine. Hamas expressly relinquished in 2005 all Palestinian territorial rights to their traditional homeland. But that does not stop them from lusting to annihilate Israel, because they have a in-group in reserve: Muslims at large. Hamas claims all Palestine not for the Palestinians, but for every single Mohammedan on this planet!
At this point Islam ceases to be merely a bad joke and becomes a permanent threat of violence, exploitation and genocide.
Hali says: So why now start picking on good Muslims because of what the radical muslims have done?
Igor says: The distinction between good and bad Muslims sounds like a very cogent concept, but in practice it offers little guidance for practical decision-making on a day-to-day basis. Firstly, by looking at a Muslim you can-t tell right away if he belongs to the good kind or to the bad kind of Muslim.
There are additional factors that tend to muddy the picture and make such distinctions arduous and unreliable. Western ethics are of an individualistic sort, with every biped taking care of his own soul and shepherding it to salvation. But migrations are more collective than individual phenomena. You may admire the meekness and sagacity of an immigrant from Uzbekistan, say. But you have no guarantee that his children will turn out the same way. As a matter of fact it is a well known fact that first-generation Asian immigrants to Britain tended on the whole to be frugal, hard/working, modest and law abiding. But these are not racial or cultural characteristics of an ethnic population. They are the result of factors that were operational in Asia but in Britain cease to apply with the same force. Western ideas of equality are contagious.
If the grandson of a humble coolie goes to Eton, or to a three-alarm madrassah in Lahore, those humble coolie attitudes will vanish overnight.
An ethnic group has its own dynamic whereby the good ones may influence the bad once or vice versa, depending on any number of coincidental factors. I have often noted in Mohammedan societies that violent religious minorities exert a power out of all proportion to their numbers, thanks to their willingness to shed blood and break the law.
No matter how submissive a Muslim may be in private, he is on many occasions forced to accommodate to his ethno-religious traditional standards, This will inevitably tend to make him more aggressive in situations when he's under a lot of peer pressure..
Since Islam is such a remarkably bloodthirsty cult, all Muslims are conditioned from birth to accept violence as something inevitable, routine, unremarkable and even enjoyable.
Muslims as a whole are extremely well equipped with annoying, not to say alarming habits. They have at their fingertips a vast assortment of anti-social drives and vices. If it's not one thing it's another: When they aren’t mutilating budding adolescent genitalia they’re honor-killing, gossiping about other people’s sex lives, importuning Jewish passers-by, blowing things up, throwing stones, plotting mayhem, becoming welfare parasites, proclaiming ferocious over-the-top credos that allocate crucial importance to lethal violence, stoning adulterers, cursing the Pope, aggressively hogging the public thoroughfare in order to exhibit their comical religious mumbo-jumbo, and any number of additional coarse shenanigans.
Hali says: the media has put into our minds [prejudices] against certain religions, especially Islam
Igor says: I find the US media, despite its glaring defects, like the country on the whole adopts an admirably relaxed and tolerant attitude toward outsiders. Do you really claim that hostility, if any, displayed toward Moslems is primarily an artifact stirred up by the media? I find such a statement ludicrous. Besides, in the US, hostile acts against Moslems occur much more seldom then those aimed at Jews, who are much better integrated culturally