Muslim leader advocates execution of Gays

[betsy]

Are you now willing to take back your earlier comments saying that being a whacko teaching hate is "an Imam thing"?

Why should I retract? It STILL IS, an Imam-Thing!

The Islamic Council says, it IS an Imam-thing!

"This hate is taught to STUDENTS BECOMING IMAMS for the Muslim community in America, WHO TEACH IT TO THOUSANDS OF MUSLIM YOUTH in mosques and schools. "

http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/CMS/T...19129242002.htm

Read that! STUDENTS who will BECOME IMAMS are being brainwashed to preach hate! How many become Imams in a year? In every country?

These new Imams (the students) will then teach others! Do the math!

That's why the Islamic Council is DESPERATE to stop this practice of Imams teaching the students who will become future Imams!

So, I and the Islamic Council...who also represent thousands of moderate Muslims...are saying "hey look, we've got major problems with Imams teaching hatred in mosques! They're making radicals and terrorists out of muslim youth."

Didn't you see what the extremists are doing to the members of the Islamic Council? Didn't you read that last link I gave you.....which you requested, btw?

The artucle titled:

"National Muslim Organizations Incite Modern Day Lynch Mob" on post #39.

Have you ever watched a horror movie? The Islamic Council runs to you screaming...."gc1765! gc1765! Help! there is a monster under my bed! It's going to hurt me! Here's the proof <holding up a bomb strap or whatever>...."

Then you just say..."Oh c'mon. Monsters? It can't be. You must be having a nightmare! Go back to bed."

You are practically dismissing their claim and desperation to clean their community of radicalism.

You are in way....falling into the trap of helping the radicals....by discrediting what the Moderates are saying to be the root of the problem.

[myata]

Yes. There were highly abundant and vocal demonstrations, some verging on riots, against that process. Or are you conveniently forgetting about that?

Right. There's also any number of articles, rallies and religious cermons with, for, and by muslims against terrorism and violence, as a simple search of Web and media archives can confirm. But you're looking for something more, if I understand correctly? Some uttermost absolute mainstream condemntation. Just trying to understand what it looks like. An example would help.

[gc1765]

Why should I retract? It STILL IS, an Imam-Thing!

The Islamic Council say, it IS an Imam-thing!

Just when I thought you were starting to avoid stereotyping...

In your previous post, you mentioned that moderate Muslims/Imams should not be blamed for the actions of others:

a) Do you believe all Imams/Mulsims are teaching hate?

if your answer to part a) is no, do you believe that the Imams/Muslims who are not teaching hate deserve to be lumped in with, and criticized for, the actions of the Imams/Muslims who are teaching hate?

No to both

Now you are reverting back to stereotyping by saying that it "is an Imam-thing".

Have you ever watched a horror movie? The Islamic Council runs to you screaming...."gc1765! gc1765! Help! there is a monster under my bed! It's going to hurt me! Here's the proof <holding up a bomb strap or whatever>...."

Then you just say..."Oh c'mon. Monsters? It can't be. You must be having a nightmare! Go back to bed."

You are practically dismissing their claim and desperation to clean their community of radicalism.

You are in way....falling into the trap of helping the radicals....by discrediting what the Moderates are saying to be the root of the problem.

Once again, I have never said that it's not a problem, I have acknowledged this problem several times. At first, I thought this was an innocent mistake on your part. But seeing as how I've said this several times now, I can only assume that you are intentionally making this strawman argument.

The only thing I am trying to argue against here is your use of stereotypes, that is labelling the teaching of hate as "an Imam thing" when you yourself have admitted that not all Imams are teaching hate.

[betsy]

Why should I retract? It STILL IS, an Imam-Thing!

The Islamic Council say, it IS an Imam-thing!

Just when I thought you were starting to avoid stereotyping...

In your previous post, you mentioned that moderate Muslims/Imams should not be blamed for the actions of others:

a) Do you believe all Imams/Mulsims are teaching hate?

if your answer to part a) is no, do you believe that the Imams/Muslims who are not teaching hate deserve to be lumped in with, and criticized for, the actions of the Imams/Muslims who are teaching hate?

No to both

Now you are reverting back to stereotyping by saying that it "is an Imam-thing".

Have you ever watched a horror movie? The Islamic Council runs to you screaming...."gc1765! gc1765! Help! there is a monster under my bed! It's going to hurt me! Here's the proof <holding up a bomb strap or whatever>...."

Then you just say..."Oh c'mon. Monsters? It can't be. You must be having a nightmare! Go back to bed."

You are practically dismissing their claim and desperation to clean their community of radicalism.

You are in way....falling into the trap of helping the radicals....by discrediting what the Moderates are saying to be the root of the problem.

Once again, I have never said that it's not a problem, I have acknowledged this problem several times. At first, I thought this was an innocent mistake on your part. But seeing as how I've said this several times now, I can only assume that you are intentionally making this strawman argument.

The only thing I am trying to argue against here is your use of stereotypes, that is labelling the teaching of hate as "an Imam thing" when you yourself have admitted that not all Imams are teaching hate.

Everything is clearly explained. If you refuse to accept it...c'est la vie!

Thank you for asking....but I'll have to decline. Right now, I'm in no mood to dance the Leftie Merry-Go-Round polka....nor the Leftie Twist.

Maybe later.

[Black Dog]

In Canada, Christians can (and have) been charged under hate crimes legislsation for quoting religious teachings regarding homosexuality. The case of the Saskatchewan man who was successfully prosecuted for hate speech for buying a newspaper ad that quoted the Bible on the subject is the well known example.

I'm very curious as to whether the law would be as eager to go after Muslims on the subject as it has been to go after Christians.

I guess we'll have to wait and see. I certainly don't doubt that the same folks who would hold Xtians to account for their hate would do the same for Mulsims or any other cult.

And Black Dog, why do you feel that this is about right-wingers vs Brown People?

Because 98 per cent of the content on this forum of late has been precisely that.

This is a dichotomy that's going to get increasingly confused over the next few years, as many of the most conservative people in this country are, in fact, brown people. Surely I'm not the only one who recalls how upset the Liberals got over the gay marriage issue when Stephen Harper was attempting to reach out to Sikhs on "family values", or when the Golden Temple in Amritsar gave the Liberals the smack-down over the issue. The old line of thought that equated right-wing with white and Christian and Liberal with all the colors of the rainbow and all the faiths of the earth is going to go the way of the passenger pigeon.

I don't dispute that, but here, on this board, the conservative faction is overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly Christian and overwhelmingly male.

I find it sad that those on the left who responded to this thread for the most part(except for Liam) chose not to be critical of the Muslim cleric in question, but instead took the opportunity to be critical of Christians, which were not in this particular story whatsoever. The guy advocates the murder of gays and it doesn't matter unless he's a Christian. Pathetic.

You should re-read some of the responses.

[DarkAngel_]

if evolution is so, then gays may change over a mass amount of time in a way that may be geneticly astrange, but i do not beleive things are that black and white, is not a gay called a hethen? name 1 religon that would not hang or shun such a sexuality, but those of neutrality may 'endure' as they say, is that not calling them the black sheep as well?

[bradco]

Outside of the more rogue non signatory nations such as Israel, North Korea, Iran and the US...

While generally I have a high regard for your posts, lumping Israel and the US with NK and Iran is a tad over the top, don't you think?

Not in this case. I can go through with you all the international humanitarian treaties that these four states are all consistantly non-signatories of. Of importance I will point to Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. Pretty much everyone has signed on except these four and a few others. In this sense these states are "rogue" as they willingly deviate from, refuse to be controlled by and answer to the accepted norms in international relations. In the way they conduct their international relations and their attitudes towards norms and laws they can all be lumped together quite nicely. Unfortunatly it isnt over the top.... thats the problem and US and Israeli citizens should question their governments why their views of international treaties are so similar to states such as Iran and North Korea.

[betsy]

Deleted.