|
Awareness -> RE: Penn Jillette on Islam (5/9/2017 11:12:20 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:
ORIGINAL: respectmen
Most muslims are dead silent about the terrorists and/or the ones that are trying to enforce sharia law.
People with an anti-Muslim agenda (looking right at you RM, BoscoX) persist in making this and similar claims loudly, repeatedly and without any basis in fact. On the contrary, Islamic doctrine explicitly requires Muslims to proselytize and Islam is fundamentally an imperialist religion which conquers through the use of force and the threat of violence. This is explicitly detailed in Islamic doctrine. Your lack of familiarity is no excuse for your poor reasoning.
quote:
Recently this claim was tested in the courts as part of a libel action brought by the Grand Mufti of Australia against Murdoch's News Corp, one of the prime drivers of Islamophobia in the media. No, it wasn't tested in the courts. First off, the action brought by the Grand Mufti was for defamation. It had nothing to do with "Islamophobia" (which is fundamentally a nonsense term used by those who lack reason.)
quote:
So the claim was analysed forensically as part of the proceedings. No, it fucking wasn't. Now you're just making up lies and using the word "forensically" to try and give your ludicrous claim a patina of respectability.
quote:
The Guardian reports:
"Sydney’s Daily Telegraph newspaper published two stories highly critical of the response of the grand mufti, Dr Ibrahim Abu Mohamed, to the co-ordinated terrorist attacks that killed 130 people in November 2015.
One depicted him as three “unwise” monkeys, covering his ears, eyes and mouth, next to the words “Sees no problems, hears no concerns, speaks no English”. The second article was headlined: “Even Hamas condemn the Paris attacks so why won’t Australia’s Grand Mufti Ibrahim Abu Mohammed?”.
Mohamed, Australia’s most senior Sunni scholar, sued News Corp for defamation early last year, and verdicts were entered by agreement with News Corp in his favour in the NSW supreme court on Friday. The terms of the settlement were confidential. Mohamed had alleged the articles wrongly implied he had failed to condemn the terrorist attacks and shifted blame away from the perpetrators.[/color] Part of the problem here is that the articles are absolutely correct. The Grand Poobah attributed terrorism to outside pressures, rather than Islam's doctrine of savage inhuman brutality as it is preached in the majority of mosques. This is the usual subtle - for them - Islamic blackmail tactic which effectively states "Give us stuff or our people will blow you up." Personally, I favour Israel's response, which is to kick the shit out of Muslims whenever they try this crap.
quote:
He had issued a statement days before the defamatory articles, which mourned the loss of innocent lives in Paris and expressed his deepest condolences to families and friends of the victims. Irrelevant. That is not a condemnation of the attack. Which is precisely the claim of the article.
quote:
The statement canvassed “causative factors” of terrorism, including racism, Islamophobia, curtailing freedoms, foreign policies and military intervention. He's an apologist for terrorist activity and a fucking disgrace. He should be expelled from the country.
quote:
Mohamed had earlier posted a Facebook statement about the Paris attacks and a bombing in Beirut, which said: “There are no words to truly describe the devastation of these acts but we will continue in solidarity and pray for peace.” Yes, the usual "Oh, this is so terrible", but he says nothing about the Islamic nutcases responsible for these attacks.
quote:
He had previously condemned all forms of terrorism, including on Facebook, in interviews with the ABC and in other formal statements. That's a cop-out. He condemns terrorism as a vague idea, rather than specifically criticising those Islamic groups which consistently engage in it. He supposedly has stature within the Islamic community of Australia, yet refuses to use this stature to condemn the religious justification used by Islamic terrorists. He's a liar and a coward.
quote:
His statement of claim alleged he had been brought into hatred, ridicule and contempt, and was gravely injured in his character and reputation. He's managed to do all that to himself. Remember, this IS the guy who claimed that non-Muslims want their women "exposed as a piece of sweet pastry devoured by the eyes of men" (Yes, he's basically calling Western women whores... there's quite a lot of this in the Islamic community) and back in the 90's he wrote that "the West does not bring to us any good, all they bring are their diseases".
Oh, and of course he supports the Islamic position on homosexuality. IE: Not very progressive. I wonder if he approves of the "throwing off the roof" style of Islamic justice for that particular 'crime' or if he just thinks they should be put to death humanely. You should try asking him.
quote:
News Corp had previously defended the claim, arguing that the imputations of the articles were substantially true. It also argued that some of the defamatory imputations were an expression of honest opinion."[/color]
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/05/australias-grand-mufti-wins-defamation-case-over-news-corp-articles
News Corp were unable to substantiate their false claims, and admitted that their claims had no foundation in fact. They were forced to abandon their first line of defence - that the claims were "substantially true" - and accept that their claims were false. For a more detailed analysis of the statements and claims see here Basically, they settled rather than fight it out.
quote:
So RM & BoscoX the claims you are advancing has been tested in a court and found to be false. No. A single man sued for defamation. That is all. Not only would the outcome be irrelevant outside of this particular context, but there was no finding by the court, because the parties settled. Your claim that a court somehow contradicted Boxco's statements is ludicrous. Two parties settled in court. That's all. Period. It has no implications outside of this action and nothing has been tested in court.
quote:
I doubt if this will stop you peddling this falsehood in future but at least we both know that you have been exposed to the truth of the matter right here and now, and if you repeat this claim in the future we will both know that you are knowingly and deliberately peddling malicious lies.
Like Peon, you are an incredibly poor thinker and... frankly.. not all that bright. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence should be able to understand the implications of this case, but you're making unsubstantiated claims based upon wishes and prejudice, not on anything remotely dwelling in the realm of fact or evidence.
No wonder you're obsessed with gender studies. That's a complete fiction too.
|
|
|
|
