Pakistani activist murdered after praising London for electing first Muslim mayor Sadiq Khan

[oberliner]

Source: Independent (UK)

A Pakistani activist has been murdered by gunmen hours after hailing Londoners for electing Sadiq Khan as the new mayor of the city.

Khurram Zaki, a former journalist and activist, was shot and killed by gunmen riding motorcycles in the southern port city of Karachi, according to Pakistani police officer Muqaddas Haider.

The 40-year-old edited the blog Let Us Build Pakistan (LUBP) which claimed to “spread liberal religious views and condemned extremism in all forms”.

Mr Haider told Associated Press four gunmen on two motorcycles attacked activist Mr Zaki late Saturday at a roadside restaurant, where he was dining with a friend. The friend was wounded, as was a bystander. Police said Sunday it is not immediately clear who was behind the attack.

Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/gunmen-kill-pakistani-activist-hours-after-he-praised-london-for-electing-first-muslim-mayor-a7018926.html

[MariaThinks]

1. horrible. i was about to post a link to a similar article in the Times of India

Prominent Pakistani anti-militant activist shot dead in Karachi

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/Prominent-Pakistani-anti-militant-activist-shot-dead-in-Karachi/articleshow/52175130.cms

[oberliner]

2. Progressives should be leading the fight against Islamic Extremism

And doing everything possible to support those who are working at great personal risk to bring liberal reforms into the faith. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be happening.

[MariaThinks]

3. ironically and tragically, islam clearly kills the progressives and liberals when they get into the

majority.


like leading sheep to the slaughter.

[Redwoods Red]

5. There is a line between critique of religous extremism and bigotry.

Which side of the line are you on?

[MariaThinks]

6. i'm not a bigot. i've studied world religions. Does anyone want to answer the following questions?

No one has every bothered to answer these questions, but they are quick to call me or anyone else all sorts of names when we are outraged by Islamic terrorism.

1. can a muslim convert freely to another religion and not be sentenced to death or be ostrasized?
2. how does islam view other religions?
3. Do they support the parts of sharia law that demand appendages be cut off for thieves?
4. Do they believe that someone who slaughters innocent people will go to heaven?
5. can a muslim marry a nonmuslim without forcing the other to convert?
6. will a muslim show respect for other religions by wishing others a Merry Christmas or happy Diwali?

[MariaThinks]

9. still no answer to actual questions. I could bet that there won't be because the written truth is

not pretty

if I ask a Christian to give me the ten commandments, I bet I would get them in seconds

[rug]

17. This is the answer to all of the those questions:

Some do, some don't.

If you do not acknowledge this, you are - at least - broadbrushing more than a million human beings.

[MariaThinks]

38. independent surveys of muslims in counties that allows surveys to be conducted

e.g. Saudi Arabia, iran, etc do not

show that more than half of the respondents believe in the harsh view to at least 2 of those questions. That is very concerning - when that many people can support the chopping off of arms for deaths, stoning to death of people who are accused of adultery, throwing gay people off buildings.

[rug]

44. Do post them.

Then we can all do the math.

[MariaThinks]

45. here's a link

[rug]

47. Do you have the link to the Pew survey itself?

I need to crunch some numbers.

[leftynyc]

59. It's right here

and took all of 5 seconds to find.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

[rug]

60. No reason to not include it then in the original claim.

Except the full survey does not support the claim.

To the contrary, it describes a varied Islam with stark differences based on regions alone.

[leftynyc]

89. You don't find the crazy high

percentage that approve of sharia law disturbing? How about the insanely high percentage that think death is an appropriate punishment for leaving Islam? Yeah - some differences regionally but all still ridiculously high.

[MariaThinks]

62. its so difficult to type in 'pew research muslims' into google. what a find.

[rug]

82. Yes, you should do it before making claims.

[MariaThinks]

46. support for sharia laws

[rug]

48. You do realize Sharia law is not simply beheadings, don't you?

[snooper2]

51. Could you talk to us about the good parts of Sharia law?

[rug]

54. I don't know what "us" you're trying to blend into but I'll give you something to read.

It's at a high school level. If the text interferes with your biases, here's the last paragraph:

Since 1980, some countries with fundamentalist Islamic regimes like Iran have attempted to reverse the trend of westernization and return to the classic Sharia. But most Muslim legal scholars today believe that the Sharia can be adapted to modern conditions without abandoning the spirit of Islamic law or its religious foundations. Even in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, the Sharia is creatively adapted to new circumstances.

http://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-to-terrorism/the-origins-of-islamic-law.html

[MariaThinks]

65. you're the one with bias. 'scholars believe' may be enough for you to be content

watching thousands die each year because of sharia law or radical Islamic attacks, but a lot of moderate people and people with intelligence are not quite that dispassionate and uncaring.

funny - you can read into words, but can't type simple messages into a search engine.

[rug]

67. My bias is against bigots. Any bigot.

Particularly those who are quick to denounce hundreds of millions of people without first determining who is doing what to who - and why.

[MariaThinks]

72. look in the mirror. you apparently accept beheadings in sharia law

[rug]

74. Is this how you discuss issues?

Hint: disagreement with you does not equal advocacy for decapitation.

[MariaThinks]

76. Okay - here's a question

right now there are gay people being killed under sharia law. Do you have any thought for them? What should be done?

[rug]

77. Of course I do. Along with the the many others who are being attacked, and not just by religion.

In the long run, the solution is ideological. I support the work of these people:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218228406

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218228454

I do not support some twisted neocon military incursion in Muslim countries. Do you?

[MariaThinks]

79. i don't condone military actions. But what is a muslim country?

are there Christian countries then? Buddhist countries too?

[rug]

80. Then what do you propose to do about it.

Of course there are majority Muslim countries, just as there are majority Christian, Buddhist and Hindu countries.

[MariaThinks]

81. the penalities for human rights abuses should be the same whether we are

dealing with a dictator like kim jong un or a country implementing sharia law and thereby killing homosexuals and other civilians.

[rug]

83. How do you propose to deal with them?

[MariaThinks]

63. but you realize it includes beheadings and stoning.

[rug]

64. Sure it does. But it;s not a monolith in theory or practice.

A position you clearly do not accept.

[MariaThinks]

66. you are right, i cannot accept beheadings and stonings

clearly you can.

and there is the truth in the argument and why hundreds of thousands of muslim youth are quick to get radicalized. They are not told that killing is wrong. That stoning gays and adulterers is evil.

[rug]

71. Oh get off your high horse.

Anybody who calls you on your broadbrushed misinformation therefore favors, if not lusts for, beheadings, amirite?

Pay attention to what site you're on. This is not reddit. Facts, all facts, matter.

[MariaThinks]

73. look in the mirror. anyone who critisizes the barbaric practices in islam is labelled a bigot by you

you asked for links. you got them.

you did nothing with the information but make up excuses for barbaric practices. Right now people are being killed under sharia law for being gay or being accused or adultery. Why don't you spend a little bit of energy caring about those people.

[rug]

75. No, anyone who lumps a billion people together, stupidly, isI label a bigot.

Want to borrow a mirror?

And your links (which were not supplied by you) do not establish what you so fervidly want them to.

[Bad Dog]

101. You're wasting your time mate.

Bigots don't respond to reason and they're not smart enough to realise when they've lost the argument.

[rug]

103. She's lost the plot.

[Bad Dog]

104. Agreed

[Violet_Crumble]

123. Have you seen this one from The Onion?

It's an oldie but a goodie and reminds me of this thread's self-proclaimed truthspeaker and expert on Muslims

Man Already Knows Everything He Needs To Know About Muslims

SALINA, KS—Local man Scott Gentries told reporters Wednesday that his deliberately limited grasp of Islamic history and culture was still more than sufficient to shape his views of the entire Muslim world.

Gentries, 48, said he had absolutely no interest in exposing himself to further knowledge of Islamic civilization or putting his sweeping opinions into a broader context of any kind, and confirmed he was "perfectly happy" to make a handful of emotionally charged words the basis of his mistrust toward all members of the world's second-largest religion.

"I learned all that really matters about the Muslim faith on 9/11," Gentries said in reference to the terrorist attacks on the United States undertaken by 19 of Islam's approximately 1.6 billion practitioners. "What more do I need to know to stigmatize Muslims everywhere as inherently violent radicals?"

"And now they want to build a mosque at Ground Zero," continued Gentries, eliminating any distinction between the 9/11 hijackers and Muslims in general. "No, I won't examine the accuracy of that statement, but yes, I will allow myself to be outraged by it and use it as evidence of these people's universal callousness toward Americans who lost loved ones when the Twin Towers fell."

"Even though I am not one of those people," he added.

When told that the proposed "Ground Zero mosque" is actually a community center two blocks north of the site that would include, in addition to a public prayer space, a 500-seat auditorium, a restaurant, and athletic facilities, Gentries shook his head and said, "I know all I'm going to let myself know."

Gentries explained that it "didn't take long" to find out as much about the tenets of Islam as he needed to. He said he knew Muslims stoned their women for committing adultery, trained for terrorist attacks at fundamentalist madrassas, and believed in jihad, which Gentries described as the thing they used to justify killing infidels.

"All Muslims are at war with America, and I will resist any attempt to challenge that assertion with potentially illuminating facts," said Gentries, who threatened to leave the room if presented with the number of Muslims who live peacefully in the United States, serve in the country's armed forces, or were victims themselves of the 9/11 attacks. "Period."

"If you don't believe me, wait until they put your wife in a burka," Gentries continued in reference to the face-and-body-covering worn by a small minority of Muslim women and banned in the universities of Turkey, Tunisia, and Syria. "Or worse, a rape camp. That's right: For reasons I am content being totally unable to articulate, I am choosing to associate Muslims with rape camps."

http://www.theonion.com/article/man-already-knows-everything-he-needs-to-know-abou-17990

[Bad Dog]

125. I must admit I don't read the Onion.

But your article is spot on.

[TipTok]

23. I'll bet not...

I suspect you'd be lucky to get 5...

Even though 3 say pretty much the same thing.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSN1223894020071012

[sulphurdunn]

28. To answer your questions regarding Muslims.

1. It depends on the sect and upon the individual.

2. Depends on the sect and individual.

3. Depends on the sect and the individual.

4. Depends on the sect and the individual.

5. Depends on the sect and the individual.

6. Depends on the sect and the individual.

The same answers apply to Christians and Jews. The difference is that Christians and Jews may profess all the animus they wish toward others but are not permitted to legally act upon any of it because they live under secular governments and not Christian or Jewish theocracies. By the way, most devout Jews and Muslims could recited the Ten Commandments for you in seconds.

[MariaThinks]

37. they do not apply to Christians and Jews. that mistruth is no longer effective.

I have asked for what is written in the religion. it's easy to see the truth and denying it is enabling the terrorists.

But I thank you for answering my questions.

[sulphurdunn]

49. The truth is alway easier

to see when it is unflattering to others. Denying it when it is inconvenient for you empowers all kinds of evil.

[Scootaloo]

128. You clearly are, actually

You got a succinct and true answer to your questions - "some do, some don't" - and rather than accept the reality that you're looking at one point seven billion individual human beings, with all the diversity of thought and belief and life experience and philosophy that comes with that many people, you change your parameters in order to persist that all Muslims fall into your clearly negative frame. You clearly will not accept anything other than "Muslims're bad mmmkay" and when not provided that, you try to force the idea yourself.

That's bigotry, plain and simple, and yes, you are being bigoted. At least be aware of it, even if you have no plans to address it.

[sulphurdunn]

7. Violent religious fanatacism, supremacism and intolerance

are major components of all three Abrahamic religions, especially for those elements that believe God speaks to them directly through their holy book(s), and through their religious leaders to tell them it's necessary to kill apostates and unbelievers to usher in some form of God's kingdom on earth.

[MariaThinks]

12. i've asked about one specific religion and their beliefs. Is it possible to get straight answers?

I don't think muslims describe themselves as equal partners in 3 Abrahamic religions.

[leftynyc]

19. But only one

has those laws on the books of various countrires. You can't get arrested anywhere by Christians or Jews for not honoring your parents or not keeping the sabbath. That's the difference.

[sulphurdunn]

25. Fortunately,

for Christians and Jews, secularists still hold the upper hand in the democracies where most of them live. If fundamentalist Christians and Jews were ever able to turn them into theocracies, I doubt things would be much different than in such Muslim governments.

[leftynyc]

26. But they're not

So how about we concentrate on what's ACTUALLY happening rather than deflecting to things you think you MAY happen but never will. Seems like a much better use of time and energy.

[sulphurdunn]

29. Well, if we concentrate on what's actually happening

with the development of religious extremism, cause for alarm is prudent. Strong non-Muslim theocratic movements have emerged in the United States, Israel, India and some African countries. Religion is not intrinsically rational or democratic. It always poses a potential threat to free societies and keeping it in its place is never a waste of time or energy.

[leftynyc]

30. But trying to pretend

that laws NOT on the books in these supposed non-theocratic movements is the same as having countries that ACTUALLY have these kinds of law on the books is, in my opinion, nothing but dishonest deflection that merely tries to get people to look away at what's ACTUALLY happening. And funny how it never happens with any other religion than Islam. When some theocratic Christian nutbag opens their mouths or does something heinous, you don't see anyone bringing Islam into the picture. That only happens when Islam is the culprit and people make false comparisons.

[sulphurdunn]

32. Comparisons are neither true nor false.

They are merely comparisons. Stating that it is in the best interests of society to mistrust all organized religions of any kind because the major ones have had histories of mass violence towards others when they govern is not deflecting anything. The fact that one is worse in that regard than the others at the present time does not create a false analogy when the others are compared to it.

[leftynyc]

33. FALSE comparisons

are dishonest. And all you and anyone else who jumps into a thread about some Islamic monster and change the subject to Chrisianity or Judaism hundreds of years ago is trying to do is deflect. And you're doing the same with this post. Islam is having a problem NOW. Not hundreds of years ago. NOW. But that makes many liberals feel too icky. Bill Maher was right. There is a problem with far too many Muslims NOW.

[GummyBearz]

34. I like you

Sometimes I don't like you. But in threads like these, I like you

[sulphurdunn]

35. But for the colonial aspirations

and continuing militarism of both Christian and Jewish culture, the problems of Islam would be far less severe. That is not a comparison from history. That is contemporary fact.

[leftynyc]

40. Well

That could be the most pathetic attempt I've seen to drag Christianity and Judaism into the conversation about a Pakistani activist being murdered by ISLAMIC religious freaks. Congrats. It's like 40 year olds still blaming mommy and daddy for their problems.

[sulphurdunn]

50. A hateful generalization

hurled at a whole racial, ethnic or religious group of people is called bigotry. Mockery is an art best left to the witty.

[leftynyc]

53. Nope

This story is about an liberal activist killed by an Islamic freak for said activism. You saw fit to complain about Christianity and Judaism even though neither had anything to do with this story. Far too many DUers try this deflection bullshit rather than facing the problem right in front of their faces. I'm tired of the bullshit and now you want to try and insult me by calling me not witty because THAT'S what's important here - could this get any more pathetic? Why don't you give it a try.

[sulphurdunn]

57. Nope, the goddamn story

began, as you say, about a terrorist killing and almost immediately degenerated into the usual tirade about the evils of all things Muslim. I came to their defense because that kind of ignorant bullshit really pisses me off. At the rate things are going, it can't be long before Islam and terrorism become a hyphenated word. So, spare me too, Okay? And, if your skin is too thin to deflect an insult, don't be insulting. That's simple enough. Don't ya think?

[leftynyc]

58. I think it's adorable

you think an insult from you needs deflecting. I honestly couldn't possibly care less. There was no tirade against all things Muslim so you can stop lying about that - you immediately went into deflection mode which, again, is entirely your problem.

[sulphurdunn]

86. There are, as of this post, 89 comments

on this thread and maybe one or two of them can be claimed to focus directly on the assassination in Pakistan. Deflection my ass. It has been exactly a tirade against all things Muslim and you have been one of those leading the charge. Before calling me a liar you need to read up on psychological projection and pay attention to what you actually write.

[leftynyc]

88. Nothing but crap

You went after ALL Abrahamic religions in POST #7 - THAT'S POST #7 - don't bullshit and try and claim YOU didn't start the deflection early on no matter how many posts there are now. Everyone can read for themselves

[muriel_volestrangler]

90. Look at reply #3 again - further up this sub-thread

"Islam clearly kills the progressives and liberals when they get into the majority"

See? a broad-brush accusation of the whole religion. The same poster followed up with questions that they implied had one answer for the whole religion. That's when this thread stopped being about the incident in Pakistan, and became about some people's claims about all of Islam.

[leftynyc]

91. Therer is a ton of truth

in that post. When they get the majority, everything gets fucked up. There is not one sharia led country that isn't a disaster for women, gays, minorities - why can't you just admit the truth in that? Ignoring it - and even worse, deflecting from it to make a gross comparison that is in no way valid currently - just makes you look like you don't care about anything other than political correctness. There are ZERO Christian countries (or Jewish for that matter) where blasphemy or leaving the religion can get you killed BY LAW. That's ONLY true in Islamic countries. That you find it hard to admit what's right in front of your face is entirely your problem.

[muriel_volestrangler]

92. Oh, so you think Islam is a monolithic bloc that kills liberals, then?

So stop complaining that other people are not talking about the murder in Pakistan, when it's you who wants to talk about an entire religion.

[leftynyc]

96. Spare me the drama

and don't put words in my mouth. Muslims in the US are in no way similar to those like this murderous scum in Pakistan. We also would never have laws on the books like those in sharia law countries. Do I condemn all the countries that let a holy book write their laws? You bet your ass I do. They're all a disaster for women, gays, minorities, atheists (really anyone other than Muslims). Find me a Christian or Jewish country that will KILL YOU for blasphemy or leaving the religion and I'll enthusiastically condemn them just as loudly. It's certainly not my fault no such countries exist.

[muriel_volestrangler]

97. You said there was a 'lot of truth' in #3

Here it is, in whole: "ironically and tragically, islam clearly kills the progressives and liberals when they get into the majority. like leading sheep to the slaughter."

So, no, I wasn't putting words in your mouth. There's nothing there about exceptions for Muslims in the US. The subject of the OP isn't laws in Muslim countries; it's about an individual who murdered a liberal Muslim. You were agreeing with the expansion of the thread to "Islam is evil when it's a majority".

And as for 'spare me the drama' - your post is full of drama. But you've taken your drama way beyond the murder by a Muslim extremist.

[leftynyc]

98. What part of

"when they're in the majority" are you having trouble with understanding? How does that, in any way condemn, ALL Muslims? Are they in the majority in any country with liberal, progressive laws?

[muriel_volestrangler]

99. You're moving your goalposts

A moment ago, you were saying Islam kills liberals when it's in the majority. Yes, that condemns all Muslims, because you're saying that it's part of the religion to kill liberals when it become a majority. You weren't complaining about the standard of their laws; you were saying they "kill liberals".

[leftynyc]

100. Not at all

YOU accused ME of tagging all Muslims. YOU accused POSTER #3 of the same thing. All because you can't read a simple sentence that in no way tags ALL Muslims - only those countries where they're in the majority. I'm waiting for you to prove me wrong on those obviously uncomfortable (to some) truths.

[Violet_Crumble]

94. Not only a broad-brush, but they seem to be ignoring Indonesia...

It's not only the most populous Muslim country in the world where Muslims are by far a massive percentage of the population, but it's a democracy. I guess those approximately 202 million Muslims aren't *real* Muslims, or maybe they're just biding their time before they start killing all the progressives and liberals.

And, yes, That post was the exact point the thread stopped being about that horrific murder in Pakistan and turned into yet another *evil Muslims* spiel from that person...

[leftynyc]

102. By all means

Let's look at Indonesia:

Aceh

Aceh is the only part of Indonesia to apply Sharia in full. Islamic courts in Aceh had long handled cases of marriage, divorce and inheritance. After special autonomy legislation was passed in 2001, the reach of courts extend to criminal justice.[166] Under a 2009 law, married people convicted of adultery can be sentenced to death by stoning, while unmarried people can be sentenced to
100 lashes. Offences such as being alone with an unrelated member of the opposite gender, gambling and breaking Islamic dress rules can be punished with a public caning.[167] In 2014, the provincial government of Aceh extended sharia's reach, enacting and enforcing sharia to apply it to non-Muslims as well.[168][169]

Rest of Indonesia

In other parts of Indonesia, religious courts have jurisdiction over civil cases between Muslim spouses on matters concerning marriage, divorce, reconciliation, and alimony. The competence of religious courts is not exclusive, and parties can apply to District Courts for adjudication on basis of Roman Dutch law or local adat.[170][dated info] Suharto’s New Order expanded the reach of Islamic law, first with the 1974 Marriage Act, which assigned jurisdiction over the marriage and divorce of Muslims to the Islamic courts (Indonesian: peradilan agama), and with the 1989 Religious Judicature Act, which elevated Islamic courts by making them a parallel legal system, equal to state courts and gave them jurisdiction over inheritance (wasiyyah), gifts (hibah) and religious endowments.[171] Muslim litigants could originally choose whether to have inheritance questions decided by the Islamic courts or by the civil courts, but a 2006 amendment eliminated this possibility; the same amendment gave Islamic courts new jurisdiction over property disputes, including financial and economic matters.[171] Muslims seeking a divorce must also file their claim in Islamic courts.[171] The Compilation of Islamic Law 1991 (Indonesian: Kompilasi Hukum Islam) regulates marriage, inheritance, and charitable trusts (wakaf).[171] Islamic law falls outside the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.[171] Since 2006, a number of districts have issued local ordinances based on sharia.[172]


I wonder how well women fare under those sharia laws governing marriage, divorce, inheritance. Gee, I wonder.

Edited to add link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_sharia_law_by_country

[Violet_Crumble]

109. That doesn't support the claim made in post #3

The claim was: "ironically and tragically, islam clearly kills the progressives and liberals when they get into the majority. like leading sheep to the slaughter."

That's clearly not the case with Indonesia. Pointing to one of its 34 provinces as supporting that statement is like someone pointing to the two US states where discrimination against LGBT is legal and making out it's a widespread thing in the US. Aceh has had a very troubled past, with a violent insurgency that seemed to be cut short after the 2004 tsunami devastated Aceh and left around 200,000 people dead. How much that had to do with the rise of exremism in what is a semi-autonomous province, I'm not sure, but Aceh is no more indicative of Indonesia as a whole than West Papua is. That one's listed as a province, but Indonesia's been carrying out a very violent and brutal occupation of it for many years and Indonesian settlers move there and uproot the indigenous population.

As for religious courts having responsibility for civil matters, Indonesia at least allows appeals to the Indonesian judicial system, which probably isn't as great as it sounds as the judicial system's corrupt but not for any religious reason. Other democracies also give religious courts responsibility for civil matters such as marriage, divorce and family matters, with Israel having both Muslim and Jewish religious courts, a result of Ben Gurion having come to an agreement with religious grous to get their support for the creation of Israel. Personally, I think the idea of any sort of religious court having any control over people is bad, but in cases like Indonesia and Israel they're not some sort of theocracy, but democracies with a flawed civil court system....

[leftynyc]

112. I also think no religion should have

anything to do with the laws. You can compare Indonesia to Israel all you like, Israel does not have a blasphemy law and does not have a law against converting a person from one religion to another. Perhaps those are small items to you but not to me.

And the reason I separated out Aceh from the rest of Indonesia is because they are so much different - complaining that I did it for any other reason is dishonest bullshit.

[muriel_volestrangler]

113. Also, it's nothing to do with "killing progressives and liberals", the claim you supported

So you are wrong. Yet again. Yes, you separated Aceh out - but the rest of Indonesia is majority Muslim too, and you're admitting they do not "kill liberals and progressives", despite being in the majority. You fail. Again.

[leftynyc]

114. Are the places that isis

has taken over progressive paradises or do we hear about liberals getting harassed and killed ALL THE TIME? Second off, that wasn't my post so I have no idea why you're whining to me about it. If you wish to consider Indonesia a liberal paradise, that's your choice - I think it's insane when blasphemy and converting someone is against the law but whatever. Anywhere Muslims are in the majority, you can be sure it's NOT a liberal or progressive country by ANY stretch of the imagination. The people who lose are women and minorities. That you can't accept that is not my problem.

[muriel_volestrangler]

115. If you're going to equate ISIS with 'Islam' - the subject of #3 -

they you don't belong in polite political discussion. You said there is a 'ton of truth' in #3. Since it's just one assertion, that means you really agree with it.

No, Indonesia isn't a "liberal paradise'", but no-one ever said it was. You, however, said there is a "ton of truth" that Islam kills the progressives and liberals when Islam is a majority - as in Indonesia. But Indonesia doesn't kill the progressives and liberals. So the basis of this sub-thread - a broadbrush lie about Islam, which you support - is wrong. And you were complaining that other people were talking about whole religions in this sub-thread, when you support the first post in the sub-thread that did try to talk about a whole religion.

[leftynyc]

116. Yes - I maintain there is a TON of truth

there. Majority Muslim countries are NOT in any way liberal, progressive or anything else supposed liberals are supposed to stand for. That's just the reality you refuse to accept. Again, not my problem.

[muriel_volestrangler]

117. You don't seem to understand what the word 'kill' means

which is ironic, given the OP subject is a murder. If you think that not being liberal means that you kill liberals, you have no concept of reality.

[leftynyc]

118. So THAT'S your problem with that post?

It was hyperbolic? That's some pretty thin cheese there. I'm sure all the liberals in Muslim led countries are shouting their positions from the rooftops and we're just not hearing about it, right?

[muriel_volestrangler]

119. My problem with it is that it's a lie

There's no sign MariaThinks didn't mean it literally, and since I've been mentioning the 'kill' bit repeatedly, and you've stood by the post, there's been no sign you don't agree with the literal meaning, until now.

Since the OP is literally about killing a liberal, then a reply that is about killing liberals looks like it's a straightforward statement of belief.

[leftynyc]

121. You were saying?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141447406

It's not like we have to look hard for these stories - they're everywhere. If you wish to ignore the problem because someone was hyperbolic, that's your problem.

[Violet_Crumble]

122. They were saying that post #3 was a lie...

It was no more hyperbole than any other bigot trotting out broadbrush bullshit aimed at whatever group they hate and fear. The claim in post #3 that you agreed with and said was the truth was that liberals and progressives are killed in countries where Muslims are in the majority. That claim was clearly wrong, as has been more than a few things trotted out by that person in their quest to portray the vast majority of Muslims as maniacal wannabe murderers who are just itching to throw gay folk off the top of the tallest buildings.

[leftynyc]

124. No - I never used the word lie

I said it was hyperbolic which many, many people use to prove an obvious point. I guess that ANOTHER liberal was killed doesn't faze you at all.

And I guess it depends on what you consider vast majority. Here's how many Muslim countries view gays:

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/

Here's a list of countries where being gay is ILLEGAL (not a comprehensive list)


Afghanistan
Bangladesh
Gaza (Occupied Palestinian Territory)
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Kuwait
Lebanon
Malaysia
Maldives
Myanmar
State-Sponsored Homophobia - May 2015 5
Oman
Pakistan
Qatar
Saudi-Arabia
Sri Lanka
Syria
United Arab Emirates
Yemen

I wonder what it is they all have in common.

[Violet_Crumble]

126. I never said you used the word lie...

And cut the crap of 'I guess another liberal was killed doesn't faze you at all'. Of course it fazes me. Pointing out that post #3 was incorrect bullshit doesn't make whoever points it out someone who's not bothered by the murder of other people.

Yet again yr trying to change the goalposts from what was said in that post that claimed liberals are killed in countries where there's a Muslim majority. The post you agreed with and insisted was the truth has been repeated to you several times in this subthread and each time you've ignored it in favour of acting as though it said something else entirely.

[leftynyc]

127. No - what's happening here

is that because someone else used hyperbolic language, you seem to choose to ignore the problems or pretend there not as disgusting as they obviously are.

[TipTok]

22. That has that hint of...

'All ideas deserve tolerance and respect'... When of course anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that some ideas are bad...

Some are idiotic...

Some are so terrible that they should be resisted and fought and hopefully stamped out of existence as some parts of the world grow up.

[Coventina]

4. The poor dears couldn't help themselves. US foreign policy made them do it!!!

RIP, Khurram Zaki.

[MariaThinks]

10. murdering barbarians

[Jopin Klobe]

8. If anybody gives a damn ...

... this is what religion in politics creates ...

... and, the stench is getting stronger in this country ...

[MariaThinks]

11. its what a religion that thinks killing is a way to martyrdom and

when they believe no other religion is worthy of existence creates.

can people actually try to understand what islam teaches as opposed to 'all religions are equal' that we'd like to believe

[romanic]

13. The "religions are equal" excuse is clear deflection.

Its obvious that the Abrahamic religions have it's share of fundamentalists and oppressive moral views.

But Islam is clearly the one religion with the MOST problems and the one religion that is treated as law in several countries that breed corruption, oppression, and terrorism. I refuse to stay quiet and tolerant whenever I hear about another innocent person being butchered because he or she dared to call out some of the hateful bullshit these jihadis pull on innocent men, women, children, elderly, gays/lesbians, etc.

[MariaThinks]

14. i completely agree with you. anyone who cares about people and lives cannot keep

pretending that islam is creating an environment where many followers feel the obligation to kill innocent people to get their way.

and ironically, many of the people on our side - progressives and liberals - are the ones that have already been executed in Islamic majority societies.

is there any moderate Islamic voice in the world that has either not been silenced or does not have death threats?

[Akicita]

16. You are right on target, Maria.

[smirkymonkey]

18. +1000

[leftynyc]

20. +1000

[Akicita]

15. hear, hear

[leftynyc]

21. A very clear delfection

that only makes those supposed liberals that express them look like cowards. How can there by any chance of change if so many on our side are simply afraid to be called names if they speak out about what's right in front of their faces?

[MariaThinks]

39. they will be the ones executed by the radicals

[sulphurdunn]

31. You don't need religion

to have corrupt, oppressive and terrorist government. However, if you think that years of foreign invasion, mass murder, dislocation, civil war and the collapse of entire nations doesn't breed religious fanaticism and terrorism you live a self-righteous fantasy.

[TipTok]

24. They aren't all equal...

Just varying degrees of bad...

It's the old rape vs murder argument.

[6chars]

27. Bangladesh and Pakistan seem to be thinning their herds lately

Lots of intellectuals, liberals, humanists, rights activists getting killed by Islamist gunmen. When the only voices left are radical Islamists, and we do not hear any other voices, will we have to respect the voice of the remaining people who have not been put down, i.e., the Islamists? We surely respect them enough to take seriously the voice of countries ruled by these people when they are voting on human rights at the UN. Don't want to be a moral absolutist, after all.

[MariaThinks]

41. islamists destory the moderate voices that come ouand scare anyone who is even thinking about coming

out moderately.

then they go to countries countries with free speech to start a movement of conversion through lies, mistruths, and intimidation.

there muslim clerics living in England, collecting welfare, and preaching for overthrow of the government. how disgusting is that?

[6chars]

56. I kind of wish the west would support the liberal voices

These heroic people trying to help their own countries in a way that ultimately will help reduce tensions with the west too. They deserve better than to be shot and hacked to death, and have it written off as "oh, well I guess that is just the voice of the people." This systematic execution is horrendous. The President, other western leaders, the UN, they could all speak up about it - hugely. Unfortunately that would be "Islamophobic."

[MariaThinks]

61. i agree with you

but people are catching on. Even a few years ago, I believed that all religions were equal and I would question anyone saying anything about islam like 'I'm not sure it's the religion of peace'.

[Akicita]

36. I don't understand how some of the same liberals and progressives who are outraged by this killing

were also outraged by a planned gay pride march through a Muslim neighborhood in Sweden. They called the march racist and xenophobic because it would have highlighted Muslim's attitude towards gays. Why the dichotomy?

[MariaThinks]

42. that's a good question. Fear, stupidity?

I don't know.

they are so willing to give up freedom to appease the violent muslim jihadists. Anyone who kills strangers to make a point is wrong. There is no justification. Yet, many would say, well I understand why, don't agree, but they were provoked. Sickening and cowardly.

And then they'll threaten or hide posts they don't agree with - that's where they get their sense of courage. 'Hide the post of the people who are actually reacting to the deaths caused by radicalized muslims'.

[Akicita]

43. Even though homosexuality may be illegal in the countries they are fleeing, shouldn't refugees be

required to respect the laws and rights of the people in the country they are fleeing to as a condition of their being granted asylum? That's just common sense to me. Sweden is a liberal democratic country. Why would progressives there relegate gays to the back of the bus?

[MariaThinks]

68. there is an incredible amount of ignorance at play

[muriel_volestrangler]

52. You should find one and ask them

rather than posting in a thread that hasn't mentioned Sweden. Make sure the same person has put forward both of the positions you're talking about.

[Akicita]

55. You're right. I read about the Swedish progressives being outraged about the gay pride march and I

just made a bold assumption that at least some of those progressives, because they are progressive, would be outraged by the murder of this activist in Pakistan as well. In retrospect, I suppose it is entirely possible that none of those Swedish progressives were outraged at the murder of the Pakistani activist. But I doubt it.

Unfortunately, I don't know any Swedish progressives, or Swedes for that matter. But I will stay on the lookout and if I come across one I will report back to you what they had to say.

[MariaThinks]

70. very elloquently put. The caring response was not outrage at the killing but rather outrage at you

mentioning it.

incredible.

[Violet_Crumble]

95. Is this the march in Sweden yr referring to?

It's the only one I could find when I googled it, and if it's the same one, the opposition to it from left-wingers and major LGBT organisations was because the organiser is not only an extremist anti-Muslim bigot, but also is a revolting homophobe. I'm guessing you must be talking about another march, as with this one the reasons for the opposition from the Left is very obvious and understandable...

The march, "Pride Järva", was organised by controversial journalist Jan Sjunnesson, 57, who writes for right-of-centre websites and publications but vehemently denies being either a racist or homophobe.

<snip>

However, Sweden's mainstream gay pride organisers condemned the march through Tensta, an area of Stockholm which is home to many of the city's Muslim community.

In a statement Sweden's LGBT Federation and Pride organisers said: "Jan Sjunnesson has during a long time made himself known as a person who's spreading hatred towards Muslims on social media who's not supporting LGBT-rights.

"The magazine Expo published, in February, a compilation in which they, among other things, showed how Sjunnesson, with positive comments, had shared an American film where Muslims were described as paedophiles and homosexuals and a 'satanistic threat against society' who should be deported."

Tensta resident and politician Mohammed Noor, while criticising the march, said he doubted it would be met with hostility.

"Pride has been taking place in Sweden since 1991, and we have never had any clashes," said Noor. "In the end, as a Muslim, I don't think it's our place to judge anyone that walks on this earth, leave the judging to God."

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/sweden-gay-march-through-mainly-muslim-area-stockholm-called-provocative-by-anti-racist-1513240

[MariaThinks]

69. who are you to tell someone else what they can and can't post?

[muriel_volestrangler]

84. That poster seems to agree that there's not much chance of their post here

having any effect. So I'm someone who has suggested a better way for them to get an answer. Not what they can or can't do.

[Akicita]

85. Weak.

[Skittles]

87. we're supposed to respect religious garbage

or something like that

[Denzil_DC]

93. A few words from the new mayor:

Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has slammed Donald Trump after the US billionaire said he could be an “exception” to his ban on Muslims entering the United States.

... Khan has hit back, declaring “this isn’t just about me - it’s about my friends, my family and everyone who comes from a background similar to mine, anywhere in the world”.

...

Now Khan has responded, declaring: “Donald Trump’s ignorant view of Islam could make both our countries less safe - it risks alienating mainstream Muslims around the world and plays into the hands of the extremists.

“Donald Trump and those around him think that western liberal values are incompatible with mainstream Islam - London has proved him wrong.”

...

Khan, who on Monday held his first photocall with Jeremy Corbyn since his election, is the son of Pakistani immigrants and the first Muslim mayor of any European Union capital city.

He has repeatedly warned during the mayoral campaign that Trump’s ban would prevent him from personally travelling to the US.

Khan had also accused David Cameron and the Tories of “something straight out of the Donald Trump playbook” in their efforts to link him to Islamist extremists during the mayoral campaign.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/donald-trump-sadiq-khan-exception-to-muslim-ban_uk_57317762e4b0e6da49a6b9a8

[oberliner]

105. There ought to be a way to strengthen liberal followers of Islam

Or at least to support those who call for reform within the faith.

[Denzil_DC]

106. Yes.

One way is to resist making them invisible by tarring all Muslims with the same brush. Looking up this thread, Khan would be condemned by some just for being a Muslim.

[oberliner]

107. Agreed

A larger conversation needs to be had, in my opinion, with respect to Islam. Some people are afraid to even engage in that conversation for one reason or another. Others, as you said, just jump in and paint all Muslims with the same brush. A more nuanced discussion where people are willing to speak openly and honestly could go a long way.

[Denzil_DC]

108. Well, one can discuss Islam, and/or one can discuss Muslims.

Neither are monolithic.

Discussing it as non-Muslims does more to explore and rehearse our own preconceptions and misconceptions than actually address any of the problems. We're never in dialogue with practicing Muslims. There are a few identified Muslims who are DU members (there's even a very quiet group), but understandably, they don't tend to appear on threads here. Presumably they're not hardliners or they wouldn't have joined a forum like this. They're hardly being made to feel welcome or encouraged to pipe up, other than the very occasional apostate.

And these are not just Muslim problems. We in the West support regimes like Saudi Arabia whose conduct would be a pretext for sanctions and even war if we weren't so intermeshed with them. We serially destabilize entire countries and regions, then wring our hands when a bad (sometimes biddable to our purposes for a time) regime is replaced by a worse one. We're standing by, only mildly inconvenienced so far in comparison, as climate change drives terminal unrest and mass migration. Try pointing that out and you're labelled an Islamic apologist. It's ridiculous.

Too much of the non-Muslim West's conduct does exactly what Khan describes in the quote above.

I'm now waiting for one of our more vociferous anti-Islam/Muslim DU posse to demand whether Khan has condemned the murder! Their rhetoric is very similar to the UK Conservatives' and some of the media's slurs on Khan during the mayoral election campaign. It's shameful. I expected better on a supposed "underground" board.

[oberliner]

110. Republicans aren't monolithic either

We don't really spend too much time seeking to understand why Republicans believe the things that they believe, or what circumstances guided them to some of the more anti-progressive viewpoints that many Republicans hold.

And there are no Republicans (presumably) posting on this board, yet we feel comfortable speaking critically here of Republicans and Republicanism, in spite of the fact that there are millions of Republicans who are perfectly nice people (and we aren't really giving Republicans an opportunity to defend themselves on this board).

This is not intended to suggest that Muslims are like Republicans, merely that the philosophy of Islam ought to be subject to the same sort of scrutiny as the philosophy of Republicanism (or conservatism) without one being labelled an Islamophobe for doing so.

Philosophies ought to be subject to criticism, even if those philosophies are religions. The fact that this is considered off-limits for fear of causing offense is dangerous. We ought to be able to say the same things about Islam or Judaism or Christianity that we feel free to say about Scientology or Mormonism or even Republicanism.

[Denzil_DC]

111. I really fail to see how criticism (often blanket) of Islam

and Muslims is in any way "considered off-limits". Any thread about an atrocity, even a Muslim-on-Muslim one, is an open invitation to let it all hang out. And quite a few do.

If you don't consider some of the views trotted out here daily to be examples of Islamophobia, I don't think there's enough common ground between us for it to be worthwhile continuing this exchange. Referring to all that as a discussion of the "philosophy of Islam" is unduly flattering to the "discussion" itself and a number of those most intent on conducting it on a daily basis.

Please don't muddy the water by comparing it to discussions of Republicanism. You concede yourself it's hardly a valid comparison. Republican can change party allegiances, at whatever cost. Muslims can abandon their faith, at whatever cost, but to some they'll always be Muslims, maybe failed ones. Is that abandonment to be the acid test to allow them to participate in DU's precious discussions without being othered?

You must know as well as I do that the last above is a rhetorical question. There's as much chance of a high-flown discussion of the philosophy of Islam, let alone its reality on Muslims' everyday lives, with honest-to-goodness Muslims here as there is of pigs taking to the wing.

[oberliner]

120. Fair enough

Off-limits is not the term I should've used. I guess I meant that sometimes people respond to criticism of Islam by accusing the criticizer of being Islamophobic when that is not necessarily the case.

I think the comparison to discussions of Republicanism is a valid one insomuch as religion is a philosophy and ought not to receive special immunity to criticism.

Progressives, in my view, ought to encourage people to embrace philosophies that are not, for example, misogynistic. The foundational texts of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are rife with misogyny. Thus, I do feel it is important for progressives to encourage believers of those philosophies to reconsider their beliefs, especially since they are based on myths and fairy tales.

I think secularism is a value that ought to be espoused proudly and with as much zeal as any religion.