Richard Wiig

32%

It caim from an article I read at Pamela Geller's website. I didn't check its validity.

Update:

17% was the official vote count. The 30% to 35% figure was an estimate of what it may actually have been, due to voting corruption.

I don't need to interview any muslims to know that there are nice muslims, Mr Lynam. I know there are nice muslims, from experience, and I know that not everything about Islam is bad. None of that interests me though, because it isn't the benign parts of Islam that are a concern. But anyway, seeing as it matters to you - for some strange reason - I have met muslims, and I do know muslims. I have travelled in Indonesia where I met many friendly muslims. I befriended a muslim woman there who'd had her bag stolen on a bus we were both travelling on. I stayed in her parents home and she took me all around the place introducing me to her friends. I spent nearly a week with her. But none of that matters. There is a jihad going on, and that's what matters. It seems to me that for many people, what they see as bigotry is of greater concern to them than such things as jihadists blowing people up at the baggage claim areas of international airports.

I don't know a hell of a lot about Tunisia, William, but from what I have read there is a hell of alot of support there for Islam. The Islamist party, when it was given some liberty a few years back, received 32% of the vote, so Ben Ali banned it. It will be back now, and a force to be reckoned with. I hope the movement for freedom that you say is there is greater.

Richard,

If you want to see "objective" comments on Islam, I suggest you look up my writing here on OL on the Nazi connection. You will find lots of links to learn lots of stuff.

Or, if you are not in the mood to search, go to the site Tell The Children The Truth for a mountain of documentation from the real world, not just syllogisms.

That is, if you are truly interested in "objective analysis."

Michael

I know about the Nazi links. Pamella Geller has extensively documented them. That site seems to be saying that Jihad against non-muslims only started with the Nazi links. Is that the case? If so, that site is clearly wrong.

But look at the following contradiction. It's pretty blatant.

The spite is only in your head. The hatred of Islam is definitely there, and I don't hide it one iota.

The spite is ONLY in my head according to this poster.

What I mean't was, I didn't post out of spite.

He just said so.

I said I hate Islam. Nothing wrong with that. How can you love a creed that leads to the massacre of little kids at Beslan, or blowing people into pieces in international airports? I don't see how any rational person can love a creed that leads to that.

That means it is not in his. Now look at the second sentence. He says it's definitely in his head, too. And proudly so.

Absolutely. I hate Islam. So what? That doesn't mean that all my actions are motivated out of spite. I'm not consumed by hatred. I hate socialism and fascism too, but I'm not motivated by spite when it comes to them anymore than I am over Islam. That construction is only in your head.

You can contradict yourself "without shame" when you judge first then identify. The judgment is your standard of correctness, not identification. The hatred is your epistemological anchor, not genus and differentia.

Well, what I've judged here is the taking of a piece of graffiti as a sign that the writing is on the wall for tyranny and that freedom will break out in its place. Essentially all I've said is that I'm very skeptical about that and that more information is needed than a mere slogan on a wall, yet you turn that into bigotry. Do you have proof that the writer means the same thing by "freedom" that you mean? If the writer does, then is the writer part of a popular movement that is pushing for this freedom? What kind of strength is it in compared to the forces that are working against freedom?

but he also styles himself an expert on what Islam really is, and disregards any item that shows a multiplicity of views among Muslims

No I do not. And I'm the one who's supposed to be prejudiced here. I don't see much of an objective analysis from either you or Michael.

In regards to Islam, what motivates me is a concern for the future. If it's not taken seriously, that is, if it's underestimated, then we lose. Freedom loses. Millions of lives are lost. You can speculate all you like as to why I care about that, but know one thing... it ain't bigotry.

<i>If secular parties emerge triumphant, simply a pause on the journey to Islamic doom.</i>

I'd be very pleased to see secular parties emerge triumphant. You don't have one iota of an inkling as to what motivates me, William Scherk.

Yep. Sit back and watch the rise of the Islamists in Tunisia...

My crystal ball is on the blink.

I might sit back and watch the growth of freedom instead.

I think we'll just have to sit back and watch--spite and hatred or no spite and hatred.

Michael

The spite is only in your head. The hatred of Islam is definitely there, and I don't hide it one iota. I feel no shame for it. You put a lot of stock in graffiti on a wall and in the goodness of Islam.

It could be that those people holding the sign mean freedom, or it could be that they mean something else entirely. I'll believe it when I see it.

Agreed.

From long personal experience I'm pretty cynical about the Middle East and Africa, where one man's 'freedom' equals another man's repression.

Tony

Yep. Sit back and watch the rise of the Islamists in Tunisia. It's a predominantly muslim country that's just had the checks on Islam taken away, much like Iraq, and Iraq is hardly moving towards freedom.

It could be that those people holding the sign mean freedom, or it could be that they mean something else entirely. I'll believe it when I see it.

William and Michael:

My concern in the three (3) countries that you both mention, is that al-Qa'ida, or the Iranians, will be the ones that are behind these uprisings.

Adam

Maybe so but why would the graffiti say Freedom?

Pippi

Because someone wrote it. On its own you really can't read much into it.

Women with “seditious” eyes must cover up

By StaffPublished Sunday, November 14, 2010

Women in Saudi Arabia, one of the most conservative Muslim nations, must veil their faces in public but some of them uncover their eyes. (SUPPLIED)

Women unveiling their eyes in public in Saudi Arabia will be forced to fully cover up their faces if their eyes are found to be seditious, according to the Gulf Kingdom’s most feared Islamic law-enforcement group.

The Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice was reacting to last week’s fight between one its members and a Saudi husband, who was maddened by the man’s orders to his wife to cover up her face, the Saudi Arabic language daily Alwatan reported on Sunday.

Police are still investigating the incident, in which the husband was stabbed in the back during the fight in the southern province of Hael.

“The Commission members have orders to tell any women in public to cover up her face if they find that her eyes are seditious,” the paper said, quoting Sheikh Mutlaq Al Nabit, a Commission spokesman in Hael.

Women in Saudi Arabia, one of the most conservative Muslim nations, must veil their faces in public but some of them uncover their eyes.

Nabit did not explain how the Commission members determine that a woman’s eyes are seditious.

http://www.emirates247.com/news/region/women-with-seditious-eyes-must-cover-up-2010-11-14-1.317325

Robert,

There was no failure to read your comment, which is why I said our comments are not that far apart. They are both skeptical, it's just that you are less crude in saying it than I am. It has nothing to do with SOLO.

There are more than enough mountains out there, whichever way you turn, that no time need be lost getting upset by comment about wet pants.

Whatever way you want to put it, Brant. Mountains out of molehills.

Goading people and bullying them with name-calling

I haven't goaded or bullied anyone. I unfortunately said "wet your pants", as opposed to "wet ones pants". I meant it in the general sense.

Richard:

Why don't you just apologize.

Adam

Post Script: Out of curiosity, do you work with industrial drilling equipment?

Apologise for what? I haven't goaded or attacked or insulted Robert. I don't work with industrial drilling equipment.

It's certainly nothing to wet your pants over.

Infidel,

Your remark is better suited to SOLOPassion, where, if I recall correctly, you have posted under your real name.

Meanwhile, I'm permanently banned from SOLOP. Over there you will find no new comments from me to which you might be inclined to take exception.

Robert Campbell

I didn't take exception to your comment. In fact, your comment isn't that far removed from mine.

Goading people and bullying them with name-calling

I haven't goaded or bullied anyone. I unfortunately said "wet your pants", as opposed to "wet ones pants". I meant it in the general sense.

It's certainly nothing to wet your pants over.

Infidel,

I seriously doubt Robert Campbell was wetting his pants and it's offensive to him to suggest he was (although I doubt he took it seriously) .

But we know that's not where you were at, don't we?

I wasn't suggesting that Mr Campbell was. I'm merely saying that evidence of a conscience in a religious wacko (one must be a religious wacko to be head of the moral police) doesn't change Islam. There's no bigotry in that observation; it's simply an observation.

LM,

It's impressive that a top officer in the mutawwain is saying these things.

It's nothing that hasn't been said before throughout the history of Islam. It's certainly nothing to wet your pants over.

I hail from New Zealand, Adam. The Infidel name is only significant in that I am proud to be an Infidel.

Beware: Dangers of bluetooth in Saudi...

Sentenced to 70 lashes for turning on bluetooth near a women's shopping centre

http://www.emirates247.com/news/region/beware-dangers-of-bluetooth-in-saudi-2010-12-01-1.323699