Japanese Netizens Photoshop ISIS Terrorist, Chinese Reactions

ISIS video shows two Japanese hostages, Kenji Goto and Haruna Yukawa.

Islamic extremist group ISIS has released a new video threatening to kill two Japanese hostages. News of this has been amply reported in the Chinese media but despite the expectations of some given China’s reputation for anti-Japanese nationalism, it has yet to become a trending topic on the Chinese internet.

News articles on the homepages of China’s major mainstream online portals (ex. Tencent News) have few Chinese netizen comments, with the only contextually notable blip about the news story possibly being the following Sina Weibo microblog post that briefly trended into the social network’s top 10 daily rankings. The post itself remarks on Japanese netizens reacting to the hostage situation by photoshopping “Jihadi John“, the terrorist appearing in the ISIS video, .

From Sina Weibo:

@小野妹子学吐槽: Yesterday, after two Japanese people were abducted by the extremist group “ISIS”, the internet in the island country wasn’t full of seriousness but instead of many netizens happily engaging in a Photoshop contest, quickly photoshopping the terrorist [to absurdity]… They sure are [irreverent, daring, careless, reckless] [拜拜]

"Original news image"

isis-japanese-hostages-kenji-goto-haruna-yukawa-ransom-netizen-photoshops-02

isis-japanese-hostages-kenji-goto-haruna-yukawa-ransom-netizen-photoshops-03

isis-japanese-hostages-kenji-goto-haruna-yukawa-ransom-netizen-photoshops-04

isis-japanese-hostages-kenji-goto-haruna-yukawa-ransom-netizen-photoshops-05

isis-japanese-hostages-kenji-goto-haruna-yukawa-ransom-netizen-photoshops-06

isis-japanese-hostages-kenji-goto-haruna-yukawa-ransom-netizen-photoshops-07

isis-japanese-hostages-kenji-goto-haruna-yukawa-ransom-netizen-photoshops-08

isis-japanese-hostages-kenji-goto-haruna-yukawa-ransom-netizen-photoshops-09

Comments from Sina Weibo:

桂抡镁:

I think the one on the right actually supported the extremist group, had gone over to support them, only to end up being abducted.

终究觉得睡觉好:

So I want to ask, does Japan not have any saints?

葡萄也能砸牛顿:

We wouldn’t Photoshop, we’d tell the hostage to stay strong, to not cry… We must let the world see our shining rays of niubi humanity…

只是一碗凉皮:

@逆悲: The left one is a freelance journalist: Goto Kenji. The right one is someone who joined the Free Syrian Army and was captured after battle: Yukawa Haruna. Yukawa Haruna has previously posted on the internet that he is organizing civil war in China’s Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, etc… [copying another post]

一切重新开始0729:

Nippon netizens sure are irreverent, whereas a bunch of Chinese saints have their hearts in pieces. [拜拜]

林大顺AB:

However Kim Jong-un saw through it all long ago.

莫桐-:

Makes the terrorists very awkward.

呆萌小肉綱:

They’d be cursed to death here in China.

緿号—–二月初七MUA_MUA:

The reason why the Japanese masses are so calm and indifferent is mainly because they have Ultraman, Naruto, Soul Reapers, Conan, [呵呵]

岚影拖延一时爽随后火葬场:

Too irreverent… I must say they’d be flamed to death here in the Heavenly Kingdom. Were there really no Nipponese [Japanese} flaming/criticizing [these photoshoppers]?

Enjoy our translations and coverage of Chinese internet trends and phenomena? Help support chinaSMACK by becoming a patron. Thank you.
READ  Caught: Is This Man A Shill For CCTV's Spring Festival Gala?
Help us maintain a vibrant and dynamic discussion section that is accessible and enjoyable to the majority of our readers. Please review our Comment Policy »
  • This is very bizarre.

    • Sharrma

      yes it is

    • ClausRasmussen

      Japs

      • mr.wiener

        Jihadis.

        • Amused

          Jap-hadis?

  • Free Man

    I am pretty sure a lot of chinese people also made fun of the japenese guys caught by this IS. Just not online or it’s not popular enough. Same level of intelligence. OK, Japan’s a different country for them. But I am also pretty sure some chinese students would do similar stuff, if some chinese ppl got caught.

    • James

      I am pretty sure Free Man also made fun of the japenese guys caught by this IS. Just not online or it’s not popular enough. Same level of intelligence. OK, Japan’s a different country for them. But I am also pretty sure Free Man would do similar stuff, if Free Man got caught.

    • Anomaly

      No, you’re wrong. ISIS had already caught 1 Chinese worker, and asked for money, but the Chinese government ignored ISIS, instigated Iraq government to abducte kidnappers’ families, and solved the problem easily. Chinese netizens will only pray for the hostage, but not tease him as what japanese did.

  • Surfeit

    Maybe I’m missing the obvious here, and if I am please let me know, but I’ve personally witnessed at least a dozen requests for coverage of something dismissed with, ‘but it’s not a trending topic.’

    Users have requested topics concerning human rights, politics, and other sensitive information being ignored by Chinese media/neitz en masse, only to be told it goes against the purpose of CS.

    Any clarity into this would be appreciated, because right now it seems like you’re being jivesuckers.

    • Alex Dương

      You and others seem to want to know what netizens think about various “sensitive” topics. But if you agree that the “media” and “netizens” themselves are ignoring these topics, how can chinaSMACK possibly figure out what netizens are thinking when the netizens themselves are basically not commenting on them?

      • Surfeit

        Answering a question with a question. Nice! Also, not on point. I’ve never made such a request. Merely commenting on the factuality of the situation. Come at it again, Alex. I know you don’t like to admit you’re wrong, so I expect a different point of view with more assumptions and/or contradictions based on something I haven’t actually said. (Again.)

        • Alex Dương

          Well, if you prefer more directness, of course I will oblige: it doesn’t make any sense to expect chinaSMACK to translate what netizens are saying when they aren’t saying anything.

          • Surfeit

            OK. You throw that out there on an article admitting it has, “…few Chinese netizen comments, with the only contextually notable blip about the news story possibly being the following Sina Weibo microblog post that briefly trended into the social network’s top 10 daily rankings.”

            “basically not commenting” to “they aren’t saying anything.” I like that one. That’s really great.

            I’m gona have to leave this little tiff hanging here, because you’re not really clarifying my inquiry at all.

          • Alex Dương

            Let’s reread what you said just a few minutes ago:

            Users have requested topics concerning human rights, politics, and other sensitive information being ignored by Chinese media/neitz en masse, only to be told it goes against the purpose of CS.

            So “users” – which may or may not include you – would like to know what netizens think about “sensitive information being ignored by Chinese media/[netizens] en masse.” Obviously, you do not see the problem here: chinaSMACK can’t exactly find out what netizens are saying on topics that they are ignoring.

            Now, you respond by saying that they are commenting; there just aren’t that many comments. OK. Well, the purpose of chinaSMACK, which you should know since you’ve commented here for quite some time, is to cover what’s popular and trending. Now, speaking on behalf of “users,” you think that this answer is not satisfactory. Well, why do you find it unsatisfactory?

          • Surfeit

            Dress it up, reword it, portray it anyway you want. I never asked CS to cover a topic, and I certainly didn’t claim to speak on behalf of anybody else.

            I’m trying to understand why there is a change in policy here. If that isn’t clear to you in my initial post, well then such is life. I’m asking an honest question, you’re contradicting the information I see before me.

            KAI: “I suppose I might translate it anyway, even if it isn’t a huge topic on the Chinese internet.”

            YOU: “the purpose of chinaSMACK, which you should know since you’ve commented here for quite some time, is to cover what’s popular and trending.”

            Go on then, do it again…

          • Alex Dương

            I’m trying to understand why there is a change in policy here. If that isn’t clear to you in my initial post, well then such is life.

            That is not at all evident from your initial post:

            I’ve personally witnessed at least a dozen requests for coverage of something dismissed with, ‘but it’s not a trending topic.’

            Users have requested topics concerning human rights, politics, and other sensitive information being ignored by Chinese media/neitz en masse, only to be told it goes against the purpose of CS.

            At no point did you say that you were confused about a “change in policy.” And I am not talking about how you literally did not use those words; you did not even express that sentiment. But yes, you are right that in life, some people do not make themselves clear. That is why sometimes when they ask questions, they receive questions in response.

          • Surfeit

            Ahhhhhh! Sheeeet! I see!

            You are right. That isn’t clear. I was falling straight from the back of “the only contextually notable blip about the news story possibly being…”, and assuming CS mods, users, and readers alike would follow the train of thought I haphazardly described as “the obvious here”. I guess it isn’t obvious to everyone, although I hope and expect it will be to some.

            My apologies for that, and other misunderstandings from behind the keyboard.

            If you understand now, can you clarify/address/inform? Because my point still stands, I think.

          • Alex Dương

            Assuming we can have a normal discussion from here on, if the point is about whether chinaSMACK should cover topics that aren’t trending, ask Fauna, Kai, Joe, etc.

          • Surfeit

            Why specifically them?

            EDIT: That still isn’t the point.

          • Alex Dương

            They are the ones who translate what’s trending, but it looks like we won’t be having a normal discussion, so I’ll leave it at this: contact them to express whatever your “point” is.

          • Surfeit

            I apologised, Alex.

            You’re such a dick sometimes. It seriously makes me wonder why they made you a mod.

          • Alex Dương

            Simon, if you want me to treat you respectfully, you should reciprocate. Otherwise, if you treat me with snark, please don’t be surprised if you get it back.

          • Surfeit

            Honestly, I wasn’t being snarky.
            An example of which should be seen in,”My apologies for that, and other misunderstandings from behind the keyboard.”

            From what you have just said, I’m going to assume my words don’t translate as humble or sincere through this digital platform.

            This doesn’t make you any less of a dick; You should have more dignity than to intimate I want your respect. Not as a mod, but as a human being.

          • Alex Dương

            Simon, please, give me a break. I was not rude to you in my first reply:

            You and others seem to want to know what netizens think about various “sensitive” topics. But if you agree that the “media” and “netizens” themselves are ignoring these topics, how can chinaSMACK possibly figure out what netizens are thinking when the netizens themselves are
            basically not commenting on them?

            Your reply to that was full of snark:

            Answering a question with a question. Nice! Also, not on point. I’ve never made such a request. Merely commenting on the factuality of the situation. Come at it again, Alex. I know you don’t like to admit you’re wrong, so I expect a different point of view with more assumptions and/or contradictions based on something I haven’t actually said. (Again.)

            Now, in fairness, you apologized for that. I recognized that; I was not rude to you in my follow-up:

            Assuming we can have a normal discussion from here on, if the point is about whether chinaSMACK should cover topics that aren’t trending, ask Fauna, Kai, Joe, etc.

            You then reply with the same tone in your first reply to me: that isn’t the point; not saying what, exactly, the point is; etc.

            I treat you in the way that you treat me, Simon. If you snark at me, don’t expect respect. If you treat me respectfully, I won’t snark at you. To me, that is dignity. Giving you better treatment than you reciprocate is most certainly not dignified.

          • Surfeit

            I was being frank, not snarky.

            Like I expressed already, sentiments don’t travel well through this medium. Which would probably explain why you seem to cause more friction on here than anything else. I mean, you literally have a reputation for being a guy who doesn’t accept his mistakes, and uses wordsmith tactics to berate the opinions of others.

            Even now you persist in assuming I want your respect, despite the fact I raised how untrue and unbecoming I find it to be.

            Once again, I’m out. I know you’ll be back with something. It’s your trademark: The final say.

            Blockquote, misquote, tote-scrote.

          • Alex Dương

            It isn’t that I think you want my respect; it’s that I think you expect me to treat you with respect even though you do not treat me with respect. You talk about “dignity,” but to me, there is no dignity in treating you with respect when you do not reciprocate.

            I do not have a problem with you being “frank.” I do have a problem with you doing that while expecting that I will treat you differently than you treat me.

    • Kai

      Okay, this is more or less my fault. First, some context:

      http://www.chinasmack.com/2015/stories/13-year-old-girl-commits-suicide-attempting-to-help-father.html#comment-1805769935

      This is probably the second time I’ve catered to an explicit request by a commenter. I had hoped doing so would be appreciated, in a “thanks for bending the rules to satisfy my personal curiosity” sort of way, in a “fan service” sort of way, but I fully understand your indignation.

      cS’s general goal is definitely to cover stuff that is trending, and we do have a general notion of what qualifies and what doesn’t, even if individual contributors have varying personal standards. This is why I very explicitly pointed out why I personally think this topic is iffy, both in direct reply to BiggJ and in my preface above.

      Now, I can argue that the fact it did trend into the top 10 makes this a valid topic for cS to cover in pursuit of its primary editorial mission, or point out that we’ve posted plenty of stuff that doesn’t meet my personal preferences for “trending” in the past, thus making me posting this neither unique nor the worst example. Both are among the factors I considered in my rationalization to go ahead and translate this.

      Another rationalization is that I think this is a topical story that has enough netizen discussion that reveals interesting things.

      For example, one prevailing sentiment in the comments for this is that the photoshopping is irreverent and would be roundly condemned in China. In a way, they’re right, but how sure are they that it isn’t being condemned by Japanese netizens as well? That a phenomenon can be popular without being mainstream and reflecting the dispositions of the average Japanese netizen?

      Another example: The vocal backlash some Chinese netizens have against “saints”. If you’ve been paying attention to the translated comments cS have posted in the past few years, you should already recognize the rising use of “saints” as a pejorative targeting certain types of comments and commenters. To answer one Chinese netizen’s question, there are “saints” in Japan too, but clearly the netizens who are making these photoshops are different from the “saints”.

      What we have here is yet another glimpse into the dynamics of how one group of netizens beholds another, but also itself. If you think further, it’s all rather Inception-y too.

      But, my musings about what interesting things people can derive from this translation aside, I want to address the issue of why cS seemingly sometimes caters to reader requests and sometimes doesn’t.

      if I recall correctly, a lot of past commenter requests involved stories that were so censored on the Chinese internet that there was no mainstream media mentions or discussions allowed. For example: Occupy HK (until the notable exception of that British guy’s Weibo post).

      Others involved pet-topics that the reader cares about but for which there really is no notably trending Chinese internet content and discussion for because there simply wasn’t enough mainstream Chinese netizen attention to it. For example: Free Tibet or fringe political activism or criticism.

      This topic doesn’t “trend” to the standards I personally aspire for, but I can’t really say it didn’t “trend” either. I explicitly said how it did and didn’t, in my eyes, trusting that my being transparent would help people appreciate what can be gleamed from this translation better.

      Ultimately, our About and FAQ pages should give a good enough idea of what we aim for, our limitations, and our intrinsic inability to perfectly execute our desired vision. If we went strictly by metrics, we’d probably be reporting celebrity gossip everyday. We probably should’ve translated netizen reactions to Jay Chou’s wedding, but alas, we sometimes can’t be bothered to be that strict and pure about “trending”.

      Finally, to be fair, cS actually has tons of coverage concerning human rights, politics, and topics that the government and its censors have inconsistently but potentially considered “sensitive”. What you usually can’t expect to see is stuff that has been so censored and scrubbed that we have nothing meaningful to translate. Just because non-Chinese media may have big stories uncovering or criticizing Chinese human rights or politics, that doesn’t mean those stories appear or appear in the same way with the same tone in Chinese media with the same aghast or judgemental public reactions.

      Specifically, if there’s a trending story with significant netizen discussion on the Chinese internet that you feel falls under what we should cover, don’t be afraid to send us a tip (links to sources) in hopes that a contributor will cover it. We may do it, as we have in the past, or we might not. Sometimes it’s because we don’t think it’s actually big enough. Sometimes, we just didn’t have anyone who had the time or energy to do it. We’re not going to lie and say every last thing we’ve translated is unassailable for one reason or another, but we do hope readers understand that we try and, for the most part, deliver pretty well.

      • Surfeit

        Kai!

        Thanks for the lengthy and detailed response.

        Taking into consideration what you have posted here, I still find it odd that this is the subject matter to break the mould. (In my eyes)

        Having said that, I totally understand the concepts and restrictions you have described, and hold empathy to the circumstances of your roles as authors to the site.

        Ultimately, I hope this didn’t come across as too brass, but I do hope you will consider giving other topics the time it took you to delve into this matter. If, and when, you can!

        I guess your choice seems hand chosen, because it is. I certainly didn’t see or imagine the kindhearted gesture you described, so shame on me for my bleak assumptions.

        Gratitude notwithstanding,

        Surfeit.

        • Kai

          Cheers.

          I think it might be unfair to say there is a “mold” actually. I think people for the most part take for granted the instances where we catered to reader requests/suggestions and only remember when we didn’t.

          It may be because we often explain why we won’t cover something requested but don’t explicitly announce it when we do. I know the last time I specifically catered to a request, I ended up making a comment saying something like “don’t ever let it be said that I never did anything for you guys”.

          A lot of requests stem from someone reading something in non-Chinese media, being piqued by it, and wanting to know what Chinese netizens think about it (sometimes in a confrontational I-want-my-expectations-to-be-validated sort of way). If we’re lucky, they include a link to the non-Chinese media story so we know better what they’re talking about. This however means we still need to look on the Chinese internet to see if there are any Chinese versions of the story and how much attention it is getting. The ideal situation is when someone actually gives us a link directly to something on the Chinese internet where we can clearly see it has tons of attention and comments, but that’s unreasonable to expect since most readers read us precisely because they can’t navigate the Chinese internet themselves in the first place.

          Anyway, just trying to give some context and factors to consider before concluding we’re wholly arbitrary or inconsistent in why and when we might cater to a reader request/suggestion or not. It is also not without some irony that some of the most popular content on cS were not exactly huge stories on the Chinese internet with Chinese netizens, and of course vice versa.

          • Surfeit

            OK, I understand. I was expecting black and white, and it seems you’re describing the grey. It’s not something I expected but it’s exactly the insight I needed to clear the grievance I held.

            Thanks for taking the time to clarify, and I hope my enquiries didn’t shine through with the same sentiment Alex took from them. I am probably one of those taking these things for granted for exactly the reasons you mentioned. I don’t think CS is inconsistent, I just thought this particular article was out of place/somewhat ominous.

            I think the matter can be put to bed now.

    • Xia

      If you really want that kind of site, you’re free to make one yourself. Just don’t expect it to be popular for Chinese netizens or accessible on the Chinese Internet for all too long. There are already tons of sites that aim to confront China with all the things Western politics take offense at, and none of them lives up to whatever purpose they were created for.

    • Chuck

      Covering sensitive topics is a good way to get blocked, considering the majority of translators live in China and with China cracking down on vpns, that could potentially kill ChinaSmack.

  • Probotector

    The people who did this are dicks; it ain’t funny, and it’s disrespectful to the victims. Now I’m not going to get all like “the Japanese haven’t learned anything about the value of human life since WWII”, or be like the idiot commenter above who said “We [Chinese] wouldn’t Photoshop…”, or any such garbage. This behaviour transcends national identity.

    • Kai

      To be fair to that Chinese commenter, he was being sarcastic. I thought it was obvious from the words he used (“shining rays of niubi humanity”) so I didn’t make an explicit note about it.

      • Surfeit

        Yah, it was fairly obvious. Although personally only from a double take/re-read.

        EDIT: Woes of cultural/linguistic differences?

    • YourSupremeCommander

      And the Charlie idiots are not dicks? Oh, I see, its cool to mock Muslims and all, but shit, hell will break loose if we ever dare to mock the Japs.

      • Matt

        This is mocking actual people who are actually going to die. No one is advocating mocking Muslims who are awaiting decapitation by ISIS.

        • Alex Dương

          Matt, I hope you don’t take this as being overly picky or otherwise aggressive, but from previous discussions, I believe that you have made it clear that you’re OK with people criticizing their “own” group. So shouldn’t it be OK for Japanese to make fun of “themselves”?

          • Matt

            They’re not making fun of themselves. They’re making fun of two people who are going to be beheaded.

          • Alex Dương

            But then by that same token, you shouldn’t have defended a Chinese Singaporean’s bigoted comments against mainland Chinese because Singapore != China.

          • Probotector

            Not sure that’s relevant to the topic at hand. How does Singapore = China?!

          • Alex Dương

            You missed the ! in front of the =.

          • Matt

            I don’t consider making fun of murder victims to be anything even remotely comparable in nature to lampooning a group of hundreds of millions of anonymous people.

          • Alex Dương

            They don’t have to be remotely comparable. Certainly, crude humor in very poor taste and bigotry are not apples-to-apples, I agree. But even so, I don’t see why the former is so much worse than the latter.

          • Matt

            You don’t see how mocking actual, specific people who are literally going to be murdered within a matter of days is worse than making a careless off-handed remark about a generalized group of hundreds of millions of anonymous citizens who are just going about their everyday lives?

          • Alex Dương

            If I take part of your reasoning, I don’t. In both cases, we have people of a given group making fun of other people within the “same” group. It’s not done out of malice, and I should only care if this were done by non-Japanese people because then, maybe malice comes into play.

          • Probotector

            How is this people making fun of the same group? How do you know this photoshopping wasn’t done out of malice?

          • Alex Dương

            It’s Japanese making fun of Japanese. Matt has said that he has no issues with people of a given group making fun of their “own” group, because such actions are rarely, if ever, done with malicious intent. Thus, it confuses me that he has an issue with this.

          • Probotector

            How is “Japanese Netizens Photoshop ISIS Terrorist…” Japanese making fun of Japanese?

          • Alex Dương

            ? You agree that the photoshopping was done by Japanese netizens, yes? And that they are photoshopping an image that has an ISIS terrorist along with two Japanese hostages, yes? And that these photoshops all make light of the situation, yes?

          • Probotector

            Gotcha. Sorry, I thought it referred to all ISIS hostages in general.

          • Alex Dương

            No problem. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.

          • Matt

            When I talk about people of a given group making fun of their “own” group, I’m talking about making fun of their own
            group as a whole, not singling out specific murder victims who just happen to incidentally belong to that group.

            It’s the difference between me saying that my fellow Americans are fat (or whatever) and making jokes about your mom having cancer (assuming she’s American).

          • Alex Dương

            I am in absolute agreement that the photoshop humor is crude and in very poor taste. I certainly don’t find it funny that the very unfortunate situation of those two is being spoofed.

            But if you defended a Chinese Singaporean being bigoted against mainland Chinese because “in group,” or as I recall vaguely from your discussion of your experiences, you backed off after you found out a harshly anti-Israel person was also Jewish, then I don’t think it really matters that those cases involved broad, sweeping claims of “groups as a whole” while this involves two specific people. It’s OK to be a bigot with respect to a people but individual persons are off limits?

          • Matt

            I don’t care if someone is bigoted toward a group that they’re a part of. This has nothing to do with bigotry; the issue here is making light of violence.

          • Alex Dương

            But they’re making light of violence against a group they’re a part of, so it should be OK.

          • Matt

            You’re mixing up two completely different variables.

            One variable is critiquing one’s own nationality.

            The other variable is making jokes about murder victims. Their nationality is irrelevant at this point.

          • Alex Dương

            What underlines your acceptance of “one variable”? The critiques come from someone else of the same nationality (actually not true in Yes!’s case but whatever).

            Now, if there is the same underlining variable for “the other variable,” I would think that you would feel the same way as “one variable,” especially since nationality is highly relevant for “one variable.”

          • Matt

            I make the distinction based on the likeliness that the variable will manifest in substantially harming innocent people. Trivializing murder victims desensitizes society to violence and dehumanizes its victims (they become mere “props” of jokes); this in turn increases the chance that segments of society will become apathetic and indifferent to violence (as opposed to being disgusted and disturbed by it), and therefore they may be instrumental in its perpetuation (a “life is cheap” mentality).

            On the other hand, I see no danger of “Yes!” making the comments he did here on chinasmack. Even with the fullest extent of hypothetical extrapolation, I don’t see any likely outcome of someone using his comments to justify being instrumental in violence perpetrated against PRC citizens.

            Let’s please retire this discussion because I’m really not interested in continuing it any further. This is like the third or fourth time you’ve inquired me to answer on behalf of my original defense of Yes!’s original comment, which by now may have occurred as long as a year ago. And honestly, I don’t really have the time. This comment alone took me about 24 minutes to write, and I’ve got about a thousand other things to do. (Sorry if I’m being rude; blame it on the sleep deprivation.)

          • Alex Dương

            I don’t think the white supremacists whose “arguments” you routinely demolish will actually leave their keyboards and commit violence either. But as I said, without hesitation you will destroy their talking points. So I don’t think you’re consistent here, but nonetheless, I agree to disagree on this.

          • Mihel

            Sometimes I wonder if you do this on purpose, pretending not to understand.

          • Alex Dương

            I’ve told Matt that I agree to disagree on this. Basically, I don’t see how it makes sense to say that bigotry is OK as long as

            1. it’s within group (i.e. Chinese being bigoted against other Chinese), and

            2. it’s expressed toward the group as a whole

            but crude, dark humor done in very poor taste is unacceptable if it’s targeted at specific individuals, even if it was done “within group.”

            Yes, bigotry and tasteless humor aren’t the same, but if bigotry gets a pass because of certain reasons, and those reasons are relevant to the tasteless humor, I don’t see why one is OK and the other is not.

          • Vere

            This is Just Bad Logic, it is a category error. The two moral positions aren’t related. They exist on different levels. I’ve been thinking of how to explain this but i just can’t understand how you think these two are related.

          • Alex Dương

            Yes, they are different, but if one (bigotry) is OK given some conditions, then if some of the same conditions are present in the other case (crude, tasteless humor), why is the other not OK?

          • Vere

            Because one of the differing conditions may be the condition that validates the defense of bigotry. Do not get me wrong I think that The bigotry is wrong as well. However, by conflating the issues you make your own position harder to defend because all Matt has to do is show they are different enough. I think the issues are more easily argued against separately or on a different level of analysis.

          • Alex Dương

            Point taken. But the condition that validates the defense of bigotry – according to Matt – is that it comes from a person within the “same” group. In Matt’s opinion, such bigoted comments are unlikely to stem from malice, thus they are not problematic for him.

            So in this case, we have Japanese netizens making light of a tragic situation involving two Japanese hostages. I am in absolute agreement that it’s in very poor taste and crude. But since it came from Japanese netizens, if I follow Matt’s reasoning, malice is probably not at play here.

            Hence we have crappy humor coming from an “in-group.” Well, if “in-group” bigotry gets a pass, why not “in-group” crude, tasteless humor?

          • Vere

            Because the conflation as occurs at Large people group = individuals within that people group.

            Actually in your second paragraph you have the beginnings of a better argument which would be that if Matt thinks it okay to be Bigoted without malice (although somewhat of an oxymoron) but it is not okay to be tasteless without malice then he is being somewhat inconsistent. Granted the argument is very similar it just avoids the conflation problem as it addresses a different level of his argumentation.

          • Alex Dương

            Sorry for not making myself clear earlier. Yes, my issue is that if Matt thinks bigotry can get a pass under certain conditions (i.e. comes from “within” the “same” group, so “no malice”), then why doesn’t he give tasteless crude humor a pass if it was also done without malice?

            Matt disagrees, and that’s perfectly fine.

          • Mighty曹

            In this case, Japanese are making fun of the situation, not just toward their fellow countrymen. And I think that’s what Matt was saying.

          • A Realist

            Alex finds comfort in leading conversations nowhere with nongermane questions leading ever further from the original topic until he has so diverted the conversation he can facesavingly exit it having wasted other peoples time and patience. Don’t even get him started on his revisionist takes on Chinese history.

          • Alex Dương

            If bigotry can get a pass under certain conditions, I don’t see why crude, tasteless humor shouldn’t also get a pass under virtually the same conditions. As for my “takes on Chinese history,” what’s revisionist? Pick one, and I’ll be happy to get started.

          • Mighty曹

            Hahaha… that’s funny and somewhat accurate. But in his defense, it’s mainly due to an initial misunderstanding that becomes a run-away freight train that, in the end, does come to a stop without causing much damage.
            One notable example that comes to mind is that ‘China belongs to China/Passport’ debate.

          • David

            There are groups and there are groups. I believe in this case, to fall within the parameters of Matt’s groups where it is OK to make fun of the people, the ones who are photoshopping would also have to be in the group that is about to die, not simply be Japanese. For instance, I have been in groups of veterans who have made remarks in very bad taste about death or killing, because having been in war, we had all been exposed to that. But we would not find it funny if an outsider said something (just as I could not make a joke about a wounded veteran, as I was never wounded, while other guys in hospitals do it to each other all the time). Anyway that is how I see Matt’s comment, maybe it is way off the mark.

          • Alex Dương

            I believe I understand your point. I was never in the military, so the closest I can think of is racial / ethnic humor. It is not necessarily the case IMO that you have to be part of the “same” group to successfully pull it off, but you do have to be very familiar at minimum with the group’s traditions, cultures, etc.

            So I agree that in certain topics, possibly those of a more sensitive nature, it does matter who’s making the comment / joke. I just think that in this case, Matt isn’t being consistent because if he is willing to be so specific in this instance (only these two hostages can make fun of [literally] themselves), he should not have defended a Chinese Singaporean’s bigotry against mainland Chinese; Singapore isn’t China.

          • Guest

            I find it offensive you even suggest Singapore!= China. The nationality let alone mentality of both citizens could not be anymore different.. They certainly DO NOT belong in the same “group”. The latter shits on the streets.

          • Zack Snyder

            I think you are ignorant for thinking Singapore!= China. The nationality, let alone mentality of the people from the 2 nations could not be anymore different. They certainly DO NOT belong in the same “group”. The latter poops on the streets.

          • Alex Dương

            To be clear, you are aware that the ! preceding the = means “not equal”?

          • Zack Snyder

            Ah that proved your sanity and to be fair my ignorance.

          • Alex Dương

            No problem. I was too lazy to write =|=.

          • Surfeit

            You guys place different values on the variables of the situations. It’s not going to get past this point.

          • Germandude

            I disagree. They are mocking the terrorists by showing them that their cruelty is not going to break their spirit. With that I mean the nation of Japan not the two poor souls.

        • Bing

          we have a logical winner here.

        • Guest

          charlie hebdo made fun of the people dying in protests in egypt

      • Probotector

        Yes the terrorists are dicks, but that’s not the issue in this case. You’re doing exactly what I said we shouldn’t do; make this about being Japanese. The guys who did the photoshopping did it because they’re immature twats, not because they’re Japanese. Who’s mocking Islam?

        • YourSupremeCommander

          I was NOT referring to the terrorists. Re-read again.

          • Probotector

            Right, my mistake, but they’re not/weren’t mocking Muslims. In fact, the prevailing opinion, esp on the internet is to defend Islam at all costs and to attack Japan. Thanks for removing your upvote btw.

          • YourSupremeCommander

            Sure, because by up voting you, I effectively made myself stupid.

          • Probotector

            Well at least we can agree you are stupid.

          • Surfeit

            SHAZAAAAM!

          • Mighty曹

            ZING!

      • Surfeit

        Hebdo didn’t mock Muslims. Likewise, these picture don’t mock Japanese people.

      • MidniteOwl

        One was about religion. If you have to kill someone in the name of religion, that’s a fucked up region to begin with. Christianity is too to a lesser degree these days.

        The other was some asshole otaku who have nothing better to do in the basement while jerking off. No one was killed.

      • Mihel

        CH “idiots” were not mocking muslims but the retards that used Islam as a magical free-pass to do whatever the shit they wanted.

        • Edward Kay

          How is creating cartoons depicting the prophet of anothers faith not mocking them?

          • A Realist

            Who cares if it is. When your prophet is a murdering pedophile I dont think he is entitled to unquestioning reverence from the non-sheep of the world.

          • Sharrma

            The prophet Mohammed(peace and blessings upon him) was not a murdering pedophile and I’m not sheep..baaah
            and its quite insulting that you say so, it really is.

          • biggj

            According to historical facts…he pretty much was a murdering pedophile.

          • Sharrma

            I think you need to do more reading, and as we talked about in another thread add in the historical context.

          • biggj

            So he never had sex with a 9 year old girl or killed anyone? The 9 year old girl…that may not be true…ill be willing to maybe think that is not real…but he fucking killed people. And muslims take child brides all the time in all kinds of countries…. So really it not far fetch to think he did.

          • Sharrma

            so do Christians in all kinds of countries, whats your point ?

          • Zappa Frank

            actually not. besides for sure no one of the Christian that did this is considered to be an example or THE example.

            You seem do not understand that western countries are NOT Christian countries, but laics.

          • Sharrma

            ok your mixing things up again, lets go back 1500 years first. at that time it was common to marry younger women/ girls all over the world, including Europe. In europe kings even up to the middle ages were doing it.

            1396, Richard II of England was joined in marriage to young Isabel of France, who was 7 years old

            Now lets get present, you say muslims do it now some may , but so do Christians, don’t link 1500 years to now.

            Child marriages among the Roma people in Europe are still prevalent. Roma is an unprivileged minority group in Romania, Spain, Italy, France etc. and are orthodox Christians.

            Recently in Spain a 10-year-old daughter of a woman in her 30s gave birth to a baby. The father is 13. Shocking!

            .

          • Zappa Frank

            you are mixing things. In old Europe was acceptable to marry younger girls, but not anywhere close to 6 years old and less than never have sex with them a 9. And anyway those things are considered regrettable now by anyone.
            Rom are not Europeans, are from India and their religion change according to the place where they are, even muslims.
            Again, do you find acceptable the child rape done by Muhammed?

            2nd, did you understand that Europe is laic?

          • Alex Dương

            Romani have a South Asian origin, yes, but they’ve been in Europe for hundreds and hundreds of years. You might as well say that Ashkenazi Jews aren’t European either since they have a Middle Eastern origin.

          • Zappa Frank

            the difference is that Ashkenazi mixed up in the society while Romani have never, you can come in Europe anytime to see the difference between them… even the physical difference is remarkable while is not for Ashkenazi (anyway Ashkenazi have been in Europe for 2000 years if I’m right, a bit more than 400-500)

          • Alex Dương

            I suppose this might be a cultural difference between Americans and Europeans. As we discussed before, by definition, Italian Americans have European origins. But these days, the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of early 20th Century Italian immigrants don’t speak Italian, don’t eat any type of authentic Italian food, and pronounce their names in “the American way” rather than any Italian way. They can be American in less than 100 years, but people who have been in Europe for 400 – 500 years are still South Asian?

          • Zappa Frank

            partially true, but there are some difference. The Italian that goes in America live in a city, talk with people, maybe inter marry, learn the language, go to school, work… in one word become part of the society. I don’t want to deny that Romani are affected by racism, but also would like to point out that they don’t speak almost any language of the place, they don’t go to school, they don’t work, they live in their camps outside of the town and when you see them around usually is because their are begging or worse… sincerely in this way is hard to be accepted.

          • Alex Dương

            Fair enough. If I get a chance to visit Europe, I suppose I’ll find out :)

          • gregblandino

            Why do you think Romani have had such an easier time to assimilate in the United States where they are culturally idistinguishable from other whites?

          • Zappa Frank

            because are by far less than in Europe. And I guess probably had more chance. As said I don’t deny that Romani are subject to racism, simply most Europeans don’t consider them as the rest of us.

          • Sharrma

            the Prophet Mohammed (peace and blessings upon him him) did not rape A’ishah.
            OR hindi or Christian you dont know.
            as posted Richard II did at 7
            it was common back then. Roma are Europeans they have been there a very long time.

          • Zappa Frank

            than to have a sex with a 9 years old is not a rape? for sure your lack of values marks you as someone that should not live in Europe.
            Richard 2 did at 7 what? any documents? and if ever? I can say Richard II was a rapist and pedo. Like Mohammed.

            you can believe what you want about roma, what people in Europe believe is different. anyway since you believe even in Islam and that rape child is good I would not take your beliefs too seriously

          • Boris

            You yourself are here due to ‘child rape’.

            The way of the world 1000 years ago is not of today. If you cannot comprehend that, then you are an idiot.

            I am sure you are not. Maybe your emotions are clouding the subject. But 1000 years is a long time.

          • Zappa Frank

            Again, religion is absolute, if the behavior of Muhammed is not absolute than how can be what he teach absolute? do you want me to do the example of jesus again? I’m sure you’ve read it already

          • Boris

            Jesus attacked an out of season fig or fruit (forgot which) tree because it had no fruit.

            Also, Christians believe Jesus to be son of God or part of God or God himself.

            Muslims believe Muhammed to be a man. A prophet and messenger (and dearly loved), yes, but still a man. Before one of the battles, the Muslim army initially made camp near a water hole/well/oasis and one man asked him “Are you making this decision as a man or a prophet?” he answered as a man. So the guy suggested a better strategic location.

          • Zappa Frank

            that’s the first reasonable answer that I’ve received so far about this matter. But in this way doesn’t become arbitrary to decide what has been done as man or as prophet? I’m sure many have already studied the Quram in details and have come out with all possible answers and interpretations. Still, if Muhammed was a man, can we criticize the man?

          • Boris

            There is a difference between criticisms and vitriolic attacks on a person. For example, calling someone a paedo without context of the time in history and the norms of the world at the time seems to fall more into the latter than the former. If he was indeed a paedo, surely, in a time when men could marry multiple times, he would have had more than one child bride.

            And you do know what a paedophile is right? I don’t mean it how we use it as an insult, but the actual meaning of it.

          • Vere

            Jesus cursed the Fig tree as a represention of Israel, he was using it to teach. If you do not bear fruit(spiritual) you will be cursed and cast out. It wasn’t because he was taking a hissy fit because he was hungry or something.

          • Sharrma

            The prophet Mohammed(peace and blessings upon him) is not absolute, Allah Almighty is

          • Zappa Frank

            than we can criticize him?

          • Sharrma

            for what creating people with skin colour and eyes different to yours?

          • Zappa Frank

            what is the relation with my question?
            I’m asking if since he was human and not absolute can we criticize he and what he did and even make fun of him? he is human and not absolute so why not?

          • Boris

            Non-Muslims have been doing this for ages. It isn’t something new.

            What will happen when you curse at a big group of people is that some will react.

            If I go up to every person I meet and curse them, there will be some who react violently.. It is inevitable. It is human nature.

          • Zappa Frank

            it is something that is against Europeans values, since we do the same with Christians but no one since centuries has done violence like muslims do now.

          • Boris

            Again, your history needs to be checked. It hasn’t been centuries. Terrorism in Europe has been around recently too. I believe France suffered something like an attack 30 years ago. And that isn’t even taking into account UK’s IRA problem or Spain’s ETA issue.

          • Zappa Frank

            where those terrorist related to religion? what is the point of taking examples of terrorist that don’t have anything to do with the present issue? besides they were still Europeans right? an internal problem and we solved it..

          • Boris

            Some were. Europe’s issue with terrorism hasn’t stopped and isn’t limited to just Islam or religion. Far right groups also pose a danger. We’ve seen what happened in Sweden and there have been plenty of other arrests, for example in England of a guy who planned to attack mosques and another of an ex BNP member found with bomb or bomb making materials. It’s just not reported as much.

            Also, the press do have an agenda. Take the case of the ‘Asian rape/paedo gangs’ headlines in British press about two groups of men who abused teenaged girls (all who are white). But another gang of all white men who abused kids as young as 5 isn’t called by the ethnicity or religion and doesn’t mention anything about the culture they come from.

          • Zappa Frank

            first, i don’t see what gangs and criminals have to do with our topic.
            second the one you call terrorism are actually some criminals, not supported by any country or association. I agree that there is a danger posed by far right groups, sure, but those are usually criminals and anyway let me say that they don’t kill who make fun of them, that says a lot about the difference in power. In the end, i don’t understand how to find other groups should make lighter the position of extremist muslims that kill people..

          • Boris

            So someone or two planning to bomb mosques up and down the country isn’t considered a terrorist if it is a loner or a small group? But if they are Muslims and change the mosques to nightclubs it would be? Even if those Muslims have no links to any group?

          • Zappa Frank

            i was meaning the rapists you mentioned as criminals.

          • Boris

            I mentioned them to show how one group is portrayed while the other is ‘excused’.

            The Asian group had people question their ‘religion, culture and values’ and were front page news. The white group didn’t have these levied at them and were not front page news.

          • Zappa Frank

            I can agree that many times there is a race issue, when something is done by another (but I would say an immigrant, because the same goes for the super whites eastern Europeans) on the media is put in evidence.

          • Boris

            Frank, it was nice discussing with you. I’m going to stop here because I may not have much time to respond in the future. Personal issues coming up. All the best to you.

          • gregblandino

            How is self proclaimed “modern day templar” Ander Breivik killing high schoolers in order to stop Islamisation and multiculturalism not an example of religious terrorism?

          • Zappa Frank

            breivik was a crazy and lone mad, he didn’t have any organization behind like it happen for muslims terrorists. besides he ended up killing the same kind of people the muslims killed, laics people.

          • Boris

            Some groups are aimed at, others are not.

          • Zappa Frank

            which? because I’ve read a lot of magazines with a strong satyr against Christians, the workshop was in my hometown, town center, well famous, but never ever anyone dared even to think to touch them (legal issue is another thing)

          • Boris

            CH fired a guy in 2009 when they thought his cartoons were anti-semetic. Yet this is the same magazine that printed racist cartoons and depictions of black people.

            Why is one group protected and the other not?

          • Zappa Frank

            well is true that there is not the same amount of protection for all categories, if you touch someone like you mentioned than you can have several problems. This is for sure a problem that should be consider, minorities are not all equally treated.

          • JayJay

            Charlie Hebdo did more Christian mockery than Islamic ones. Does this mean some groups just can’t take joke? and some can? or maybe some are more violent than others?

          • Kai

            Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought the original objection here was that people should be careful not to damn the whole group for the actions of some (subjectively) associated with that group.

            It’s funny how that has gotten totally lost for subjective convenience.

          • JayJay

            Yes and no, I suppose it has become that same old question again albeit slightly off topic: what is OK to joke about and what isn’t. I think I may ask Frankie Boyle on his twitter feed on this… lol

          • Kai

            Sorry, I was referring to what I thought Sharma’s original objection was against the generalizing of Islam as terrorism. See her first two comments:

            terrorists do what they out of hatred and for power. Not for Allah.

            This is not true. Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion. The actions of extremists just does not represent Islam.

            I understand “what is OK to joke about and what isn’t” is another valid issue itself.

            The point I’m trying to make is the quasi-rheotorical questions you asked end up reinforcing this problem of framing the discussion in generalizations of “groups”, when that was the core objection Sharma introduced and from which this whole discussion has seemingly sprung from.

          • JayJay

            I guess you are right and it is rhetorical in a sense. But I agree the argument is self-defeating. There are crazy people with or without religion, or whether Christian or Muslims or Atheists.

            I think however this argument may have been over looked slightly. The role of religion and the religious community, especially Conservative Muslims should be at least, be partially blamed here (so are western foreign policies and the media but to a lesser extent in my opinion). The gun men were very much influence by particular Imams with radical conservative view (but not necessarily violent) that leads to their radicalisation. It fuelled their hatred and as a result, this happened.

            I have no research to back me up here, but it just shows this kind of radicalisation happens more in Muslims communities than any other religions, particularly in the west. In that sense, I agree, we should not generalise and sort people into groups. Crazy people are crazy people, they just happen to be Muslims this time around (no sarcasm intended).

          • Kai

            Right, to be very clear, I do think the “Muslim community” will necessarily have to reflect on the makeup of their community as a contributing influence on individuals’ actions. We are all necessarily shaped by our peers, by those around us, by our community, and by our society in general.

            It would be just as wrong to completely divorce these people’s actions from their influences as it is to completely lay the blame of their actions on some generalized notion of a religion.

            Like any sensitive and contentious issue, precision in our speech would go a very long way towards communicating our exact thoughts and having them understood as we intend them to be.

          • JayJay

            We may see it this way. But problem is many Muslims think it is ‘fair game’. ‘You insult the Prophet, you get what’s coming to you’. It is this attitude and religious indoctrination that is the route of the cause, imo

          • Kai

            Right, and that still boils down to an argument defending the use of imprecise speech that one now knows to be contributing to unnecesary contention.

            It’s the difference between:

            “Islam teaches people to kill anyone who insults the Prophet”

            vs.

            “Some ‘Muslim’ people have killed over insults to their Prophet. Do you believe this is what Islam teaches and must teach? Or can Islam be distanced/divorced from this?”

            The former tends to get people arguing over unfair generalizations. The latter, I think, actually helps everyone better understand the problem and constructively INCLUDE (instead of alienate) the very Muslims that are not incompatible with the values we are trying to “protect”.

          • Boris

            They also fired a guy in 2009 because they thought his picture was anti-semetic while they have posted other such racist images about black being monkeys.

            Why is the latter a problem but the former fine for CH?

          • Mihel

            CH is not above the human sin of incoherence and hypocrisy.

          • JayJay

            Again, mockery of religious ideas are different to racism or antisemitism. You are mixing the two. There is a very thin line, but there’s a line.

            Questioning authorities and absurdity are fundamental rights of citizens of a secular society.

            Why is it OK for muslims to think kafirs will burn in hell even when they’re good people? If you believe that, then allow me to at least make jokes about the ideology.

          • Boris

            I am not confusing the two. I referred to CH particularly to show even they had ‘limits’.They decided one group should not be the aim of their ‘satire’ but were willing to draw black people as monkeys as part of their ‘satire’.

            Can you explain the satire of drawing or referencing black people as monkeys?

            And what is ‘satire’ about drawing the death of one group of people (100 killed in Egypt by the Military back authorises) by those of being killed in 9/11, 7/7 or the killings of CH themselves? The latter would see you imprisoned in France for ‘supporting terrorism’.

            Why was the former be allowed and such on the CH attack France went out and arrested over 70 people? If they say it is satire, would they be let go? Would they not be upholding the French Values of freedom of speech?

            “Why is it OK for muslims to think kafirs will burn in hell even when they’re good people?” – If you don’t believe in Islam, it doesn’t really matter does it? Just like Christians believe kafirs (people not of their faith) will go to hell. Just like atheists believe we become nothing but worm food. Why should it bother you or me? As long as people are civil does that matter? IMO it doesn’t – we don’t know what happens after death for sure. It is an unknown (unless you are 100% sure in your belief, whatever that may be). If you are civil to others, what happens then doesn’t really matter. You may think otherwise.

          • JayJay

            Emmm, so it OK for you to think non-believers will burn in hell not OK for non-believers to make fun of the fact that your religion indoctrinate as such. There are many ridiculous things in Islam and people can’t make fun of it or criticise it?

            Of course it does matter to non-believers and not just that believers think us good people will suffer in hell, but also FGM, abortion, women rights. These are all ridiculous things we should be able to criticise. So I just can’t see the logic? Maybe you are moaning that journalists and people are being selective against Islam? But surely there are more satires on Christianity than Islam.

            I thought the cartoon depicting France’s black Justice minister Christiane Taubira as a monkey was actually lampooning the blatant racism of a far right wing paper’s front cover and thus exposing the thinly veiled racism of that publication not CH. So what is your point??

            Not sure what you on about Egypt and 9/11.

          • Boris

            The belief of someone who is ‘good’ will go to hell for not believing in God doesn’t on its own change the way someone acts towards another.

            The logic behind ‘I don’t believe in God or Gods but hey, if they exist, they will be cool with me doing things they said not to do and you know know and not believing in them. I am a good person so he/she/it/them will be cool with me doing all that while you who do believe in him and do as God/Gods asked you to do will also be going to heaven or Valhalla or wherever” is idiotic. It’s like going into a test and not doing the test and then expect to get top marks.

            But making fun of this part of any religion doesn’t bother me. It bothers you and you want to make fun of it, so go ahead.

            On the subject of ‘Good people’ – who is ‘good’?
            Who gets to define what is ‘good’?
            You?
            Me?
            Society?
            Governments?
            Who decides what is good?

            What does “FGM, abortion, women rights” have to do with a believers of one group thinking you will go to hell because you think you are ‘good’? FGM is a cultural practise, or are you trying to say this is part of Islam or Christianity or other African/Arabian religions? Abortion and women’s right – y

            Maybe you are thinking from only one side of things and that’s why you cannot see the ‘logic’ and have a problem with something you don’t believe in yet others do. You don’t believe in God. So why does it matter if others believe you not believing in God will mean you will not be besides/next to or in his ’embrace’ when you die? It’s like me worrying about if a sanitation worker is doing his job properly in Shanghai when I don’t have anything to do with Shanghai.

            “Maybe you are moaning that journalists and people are being selective against Islam?” – No, I am not ‘moaning’ about that. Great way to miss a point. I am saying A) Either you have freedom of speech/expression or B) you don’t. Once you put in Ifs and Buts it becomes hypocritical as now you will have topics you cannot talk about without fear of losing your freedom.

            And drawing a black person as a monkey has been typically depicting black people as not human. CH crossed the line. Or maybe you decide where that line is and do not think they did. Who draws the line?

            And you don’t know about my other point so I will not bother to go over them again.

          • JayJay

            Boris

            I am going to let you have the last words as I am a little tired of this argument/conversation (as I usually get paid to argument and this is clearly taking too much of my time).

            All in all, I think you and I may be on the same page about Free Speech, that is regardless of the blurry line sometimes people cross and get into trouble for (to think some of my favourite comedians like to push that boundary). But we have different views on what is acceptable and what is not. Take the CH monkey cartoon, I believe my view of its interpretation is just as valid as yours and in cases of conflict, there is the justice system that decides may be what is OK or not OK (you may have an opinion on Western justice system too). In fact the guy did sue CH for ‘parodying’ . I think the right of free speech should be protected at all costs. I know it is not perfect, but it has allowed us to have this wonderful conversation with the the fear of getting a 1000 lashes (as the Saudi blogger did).

            On religion, I am personally for people’s ‘free choice’ of having the religion (note the quote free choice as many people are born into the religion and apostasy under Sharia… which I am not going into it). So I understand people’s frustration when discussing such topics with me. Take FGM for example, there is no denying that people have used Islam as an excuse to perform these and there are verses in Hadith that supports it. I am not saying religion is the single cause of it, but one of many causes and a significant one at that. I may be going on more that I should. But in short, I support your right to believe in what you believe, but equally don’t be offended if there is valid criticisms.

          • Mihel

            Can you explain the satire of drawing or referencing black people as monkeys?

            Referencing humans as animals is quite common satire as in western culture many animals are associated with anthropomorphic traits (foxes being clever and cunning, dogs being loyal and stupid, serpents hiding malicious intentions behind seemingly nice words, lions being proud and aggressive etc…)

            Again mocking french minister Taubira does not equal mocking all of black people. You could chose to see this as mocking her race, I see this as mocking her intelligence or course of action during her mandate.

          • gregblandino

            Black people as monkeys is too common and has too much history and background for someone drawing it to not realize they’re making a racist attack using a common stereotype, at least in the West. Just like a cartoon with fried chicken and watermelon would clearly not just be referencing Taubira’s supposed love of fried chicken and watermelon.

            However, the cartoon in questions is clearly satririzing a previous comment by a right wing National Front politician. It has the National Front logo and the phrase “rassemblement bleu raciste” is sarcastically calling on all National Front supporters to reveal their true racist colors. Taking the cartoon out of context to criticize Charlie Hebdo is wrong, unless you want to argue that drawing a black government minister as a monkey is wrong regardless of intent.

          • A Realist

            So maybe we shouldnt challenge Holocaust deniers, nazis, or other bizarre theologies that bring misery to humanity
            ? We just have to accept them unquestioningly since we dont want to hurt your/their feelings? What rubbish logic you have.

          • Boris

            Challenge them sure. But if people have these views, in some countries speaking said view will land you in prison. That isn’t freedom of speech/expression. Either you allow freedom of speech as a whole or you don’t. If you whiff-waff about, it makes you look hypocritical.

            Also, my point in it in the post you replied to was that, simply, that violent reaction will happen if you curse at people. Try an experiment. I’ll keep it simple. You go up to random people on the street and curse them. If no one reacts violently, then you live in a great society.

          • Sharrma

            criticize Allah Almighty and the prophet mohammed (peace and blessings upon upon him) all you want, make cheap snide comments all you want.excuse blasphemy all you want , it means nothing to you now.

          • Zappa Frank

            yes true, it means nothing to me. we agree on that.. still you did not reply to the question

          • Sharrma

            i did

          • Zappa Frank

            not really, i ask again, since Muhammed was human and not absolute can we criticize him? yes or no? and why?

          • Kai

            There’s a problem here. Why do you think it meant anything to him at all before?

            Your values make you adverse to criticizing Allah/Muhammed, making cheap snide comments, and blasphemy. Those are your values. They may not be his. So what?

            As a non-religious person, he probably cares nothing for criticizing any figure in any religion so long as he believes they represent something undesirable to him.

            As an ordinary person, he’s probably inconsistent in when he’ll object to “cheap snide comments” but hey may likely defend a person’s freedom to make them because he values “freedom of speech”. This doesn’t mean he doesn’t understand that there can be consequences for what you say, be he believes in having a government that limits the consequences that person can face without the state getting involved and using its monopoly on force to punish the person reacting to that speech. That’s a value of his.

            Is that value of his impossibly incompatible with your values?

          • Jaling

            I dont think that is what she meant. think she meant that he may not care now, but he will on his judgement day.

          • biggj

            Richard the second was not a prophet of god. Unlike this Muhammad was. Or wait…..was Muhammad just like the rest of the crazy megalomaniac people out there….why would you defend this? How could you?

          • Sharrma

            i’m not defending anything, i’m saying it was the norm back then.

          • biggj

            So normal=right?

          • Sharrma

            mary married joseph when she was 12, birthed at 14, so normal then

          • biggj

            And that is fucked up to…you think i’m defending christianity?? Just because it’s normal, does not make it right.

          • wnsk

            And what is “right”?

            Nothing more than the conventions of the time.

          • Zappa Frank

            that silly, the father for Christians was god, and there were 5 years differences with what muhammed did.

          • Sharrma

            now your either straw manning, or trolling

          • Zappa Frank

            simply pointing out the your comparison doesn’t make sense.

          • JayJay

            no!! and God was a pedo in that sense!! hahaha

            see how Satire works?

          • Sharrma

            No i dont, only thing i see from your post is that you say god was a pedophile.

          • JayJay

            It’s funny, because it is true! and undeniable ‘fact’ (if there is a God)

          • Sharrma

            are you saying god raped mary , or that christian men rape young girls and this is the normal thing?

          • JayJay

            now you are putting words in my mouth.

            I have not said rape, I said God is a pedo. Because mary was under age by morden standards. I suppose it is statutory rape which is a american legal term. But I don’t get why u think that i said Christian men rape girls. What is ur train of thoughts that give u this conclusion?

            For that, i must say I do not generalise or stereotype (where I have by accident, Kai has pointed out for me, and I agreed with him). But I’d like to know what do you think of kafirs? Will they burn in hell for enterty enven if they are good people?

          • Boris

            Who says what is right and what is left? Road signs.

          • Zappa Frank

            so Muhammad was wrong… and if his behavior cannot be absolute and good for all times and space how can be his religion?

          • biggj

            Dude, religious nuts are not reasonable or rational.

          • Boris

            Nuts of any kind are not rational or reasonable.
            They are tasty in Snickers though.

          • Boris

            You don’t know about Islam and this comment proves it.

            The actions of the Prophet are split into three things.
            Ones that were of the time.
            Ones that were his own personal traits (e.g. favourite food).
            And the third being that of the Religion.

            Your ignorance is showing.

          • Zappa Frank

            ahahaha… so is not true that had sex with a 9 years old girls…answer.
            anyway that’s not even the point. the point is, is it islam compatible with European values, evidences show that is not.

          • Boris

            Either you read something someone else wrote or you missed completely what I wrote.

            What are European values?

          • Zappa Frank

            laicism for first, definitely. freedom of speech, democracy, equal rights and so on..

          • Boris

            Separation of religion and state is the only one Europe has managed to hold on to. The others… well didn’t France arrest a racist comedian for his message on Facebook? Plenty of European governments support dictators in other parts of the country and overthrow or avert their eyes to democratically elected governments? Women still lag behind on equal rights and pay….

            “Do as we say, not as we do” – Reminds me of this saying in English.

          • JayJay

            You are embracing it. Saying something without the fear of being shot!!

          • Boris

            But can I say things without fear of being arrested?

            With the recent news of arrests for people posting things online in Europe, that doesn’t seem to be the case.

          • JayJay

            Dude, satire and hate speech are different things. There is a very thin line, but there is a line.

          • Boris

            My post (“With the recent news of arrests for people posting things online in Europe, that doesn’t seem to be the case.”) doesn’t just reference racism. A man was arrested in the UK for posting a joke about blowing up an airport on twitter last winter (I think it was then). No racism there. His comment, which was a joke, got him arrested.

          • JayJay

            I thought I said there is a line. It may be blurry at time, but if you can’t see it, then it’s your problem.

          • Boris

            Who decides where the line is?

          • Kai

            Not quite, evidence shows that your definition of Islam shows that it is not while showing that other definitions of Islam shows that can be.

            The consistent problem in this discussion is that people are arguing over Islam with their own definitions when they should be arguing over specific beliefs, values, or phenomena. An entire religion is being damned in the same way an entire “race” can be damned.

            The laziness of but insistence on generalizing is hampering any real progress in understanding each other and finding a mutually acceptable reconciliation.

            Both sides think they are only referring to specific Muslims or specific Europeans/Westerners yet both sides react to each other thinking the other is referring to Muslims or Europeans as a whole, not extending the same benefit of the doubt they extend to themselves.

          • Mihel

            Both sides think they are only referring to specific Muslims or specific Europeans/Westerners yet both sides react to each other thinking the other is referring to Muslims or Europeans as a whole, not extending the same benefit of the doubt they extend to themselves.

            Amen.

          • Zappa Frank

            no, it’s not a generalization, because if muslims are real muslims and follow the rules than they HAVE TO wear certain things and push certain values that , again not a generalization, ARE IN CONTRAST with western values. Now, we can agree if are muslims that do not follow their rules, like 90% of Christians (even Christians that 100% follow the rules would be likely against most western values, but they are a tiny minority and the problem doesn’t exsit, in Europe at least, think about how in US somewhere is taught the creationism)

          • Kai

            If you think about it, what you’ve said just reinforced my point.

            You recognize that there is variability in belief and practice within a religion, whether it be Islam or Christianity. You recognize further that such variability results in variable compatibility with what you consider to be “Western” values. Therefore, the moment you insist on a specific definition of what makes a Muslim a “real” Muslim, you are generalizing and possibly damning the whole.

          • Zappa Frank

            Because a Muslim that doesn’t follow the sharia is simply not a real Muslim, this is something even sharrma could tell you

          • Kai

            You’ve fallen into the same trap Matt has: who are you to define how “real” they are? How sure are you that you have the authoratitive definition of “Islam” and “Muslim”? At one point in time, the Catholic church condemned Protestants as not “real” Christians. Sure, it makes perfect sense from their perspective, but do you not see the arrogance in presuming you can define another person’s religion and then judge their adherence to it?

            Imagine someone coming up to you and accusing you of not being a “real” Italian because they think being an Italian includes some value or belief that you don’t have? What if they questioned your masculinity because what they think is “real” masculinity is different from what you think? Should that really change how you feel about your Italianness or masculinity? Who the fuck are they to tell you how Italian or manly you are, right?

            The same can be extended to religion or ideology or whatever. If someone accused me of not being a “real” American because of one reason or another, am I suddenly and simply not a “real” American?

            You also recognize that there are radical extremist Muslims who also accuse moderate Muslims of not being “real” Muslims, right? So you have a person who identifies as being Muslim but on one side, they have other Muslims telling them they aren’t real unless they’re more extremist and now they have YOU on the other side telling them they aren’t “real” either unless they are more extremist.

            Do you really want to push them towards extremism?

            Me?

            “What? You don’t think Islam is about terrorism? Aw right, your Islam is awesome! Let’s be friends!”

            How stupid would I have to be to say to them: “What? You don’t think Islam is about terrorism? What kind of Muslim are you? Of course it is about terrorism! You’re a fake Muslim!”

            I’m pretty sure you intend none of this but I am trying to illustrate to you how you may inadvertently be alienating the very “Muslims” that would NOT be a threat to you, your culture, or your values. In your effort to tell “Muslims” what being “Muslim” means, you end up pushing them away and exacerbating your own incompatbility with them.

          • Zappa Frank

            Actually is not a trap, is true, try to look about how many of the Muslims states enforce the sharia…than where does those immigrants come from? ..ask to sharrma if a Muslim that doesn’t follow the sharia is a real Muslim.. This is like the example that another user told me about that there are Muslims girls thT go to the beach with bikini, good, I have no problem with them, but for sure is difficult to say that they are good Muslims.

          • Kai

            Your response suggests to me that you haven’t really understood my point. Since I’m not sure how I can reiterate it to you any more than I have, I’m going to give up.

          • Zappa Frank

            I think I have understood. You believe that I’m defining Muslims in a certain way, while there are many ways…. The problem is that this is not likely, because the Islam is quite precise about it. Of course there are people that maybe define themselves Muslims while they are absolutely not, like Nation of Islam for example, but in truth to be a good Muslim you have to follow the sharia, is the “divine law”, there is no interpretation about it. Besides, we are talking about immigrants that come to Europe, not generic people that goes defining themselves as Muslims, those immigrants come to places where the sharia is applied.

          • Kai

            You’re still in that trap.

          • Zappa Frank

            Kai what can I say? We are not talking about generic Muslims, but specific kinds. I’ve said there would be no prolb,e with secularized Muslims, actually owe that are coming in Europe are not.

          • Kai

            I don’t think you quite understand the trap you’re in.

            Anyway, why are you so pessimistic of secularizing the Muslims that are immigrating into Europe? Do you feel the same pessimism about secularizing their children? Their grandchildren?

            I don’t think it is realistic to expect recent immigrants to integrate so quickly into their host country, but history has consistently shown that integration increases with time and especially over generations.

            Now, I just made the point that past performance is no indicator of future results, and this point can be turned on what I’ve just proposed. The question is, if you’re prepared to use past performance as an indicator for the future in one thing, what stops you from using it for this thing?

          • Zappa Frank

            Yes I feel pessimistic since the people that went to fight in siria were their children and grandchildren of the immigrants same for the killers of Charlie, the Jewish shop and so on… The secularization of mulsim immigrants in Europe is something yet to be seen, therefore I would not say there are past performances to consider about this.
            The integration increase, true, but as long as two cultures are compatible even in their difference, the Muslim culture I sincerelly doubt to be compatible (unless of a secularization that again in Europe is not evident at all).

          • Kai

            Do you think you might be overweighting the radicalization of these second/third-generation European Muslims (the children and grandchildren of Muslim immigrants to Europe, who were born and grew up in Europe)? For each that has gone to Syria or joined extremist/terrorist groups, how many haven’t? I’m worried about a misleading vivdness fallacy.

            Now, if we concede that it is the minority (even extreme minority) that are actually radicalizing and joining extremist/terrorist activities, we still have the issue of why that minority is doing what they are doing, right? That’s still worth worrying about, right? I agree, so the question obviously is: why do you think these this minority has resisted “Westernization” or “secularization” when others “of their kind” haven’t? What are their grievances? Do they feel disenfranchised? Marginalized?

            Or are you, like many Chinese in China when it comes to Uighurs and Tibetans, simply content to conclude they must be crazy and are just natural troublemakers?

            How likely is it that a social problem is the fault of only one side?

            If I may be so bold, Europeans believe in certain “universal” values, right? What are they? And then how do you reconcile your fears and desired solutions with these universal values you want to claim to have?

            When I think about the secularization of Muslim immigrants, I think about the Chinese “civilizing” of rural peasants migrating into cities. There are a lot of meaningful parallels. There is contempt and resentment on both sides of both dynamics. The process seems slow-going. There are desires and efforts to control inflows but also to educate and “civilize”. But the one parallel that doesn’t exist is that one side is “Muslim”. So perhaps that suggests the crux of this problem isn’t necessarily Islam itself, but issues of managing immigration, of competition for resources?

          • Vere

            Stop with the Rape allegations they prove nothing… David in the Bible had an affair with a married woman then had her husband killed and he was a prophet.. in religions prophets aren’t sinless, they do bad stuff, it doesn’t affect the veracity of the prophecy.

          • biggj

            But he was a prophet, and he knew God had promised with an oath that one of David’s own descendants would sit on his throne. Since he was a prophet, he knew that God had sworn an oath to him to seat one of his descendants on his throne.
            He was just another crazy guy.

            Jim Jones was a prophet too.

            What the difference between Jim Jones and Mohamed or anyone else?

          • gregblandino

            Jim Jones probably had better drugs.

          • Saisyet

            Do you really have to say “peace and blessings upon him” EVERY SINGLE TIME you type Muhammad’s name? It seems a bit obsessive compulsive and silly.

          • Sharrma

            yes have too

          • biggj

            Stupid is as stupid does.

          • biggj

            Yeah and these are fucked up people. Now your precious Muhammad did this. And since Muhammad is this holy prophet. Why would he do such a thing? Or did “Allah” tell him it was ok?

          • JayJay

            In Spain, the child will probably be taken into care and people punished. But under Sharia law, what is the punishment for Zina??

          • biggj

            My point is they are all dirty pedophiles using a religion to do sick things.

          • biggj

            So let me ask you, do you condone this type of thing, the child marriage thing?

          • Zappa Frank

            call it with the right name, the ‘child rape’ thing

          • Sharrma

            in this the 21st century no, do you ?

          • biggj

            Of course not. But why did Muhammad? Would a holy prophet of god do this??

          • Sharrma

            as said it was normal back then all over the world.

          • Zappa Frank

            than what Muhammed did was relative to the time, not absolute (that is a huge contradiction for a religion, Christians would never say what Jesus did was good ‘for that period’ but now is wrong). than we can say also Islam is a religion that at that time was good, but now is outdated.

          • Sharrma

            no Islam evolves

          • biggj

            Bullshit.

          • gregblandino

            Don’t you feel a bit presumptious telling someone what they believe? If what she believes doesn’t fit with what you think a Muslim believes, doesn’t that mean what you think a Muslim believes is wrong, and not that she’s somehow misunderstood the religion she grew up with her entire life?

          • Zappa Frank

            actually we are pointing out the values of her religion are in opposition with western values and therefore to ask for ‘muslims’ laws and anything like that means cannot live in Europe. the problem is that she cannot find answers

          • gregblandino

            You don’t think “my culture is better than yours, get out and get rid of your culture” conflicts with western values?

          • Zappa Frank

            i simply would like that our culture don’t change becoming Islamic, unlucky the islamization is serious threat

          • biggj

            You can belief what you want to belief. I’m just pointing out things that don’t add up. How would a prophet of god be a pedophile? Seems odd to me. I’m not trying to convert her or anything. Just pointing out things. If you never question anything and take everything told to you without even bothering to ask why….what does that leave you?

          • gregblandino

            She seems like she’s questioned enough of it to come up with something that let’s her both be muslim and also not into child rape and terrorism. Why are you arguing to convince her the true meaning of Islam is murder and pedophilia?

          • Sharrma

            because that’s what they want to believe Islam is about and it doesn’t matter how much you show them otherwise they ignore it.
            Their agenda is really something different, today its Islam, tomorrow its the Roma, the day after its the Jews,then the Gypsies, the Irish,the Huguenots, the Buddhists they’re just working down a list.
            Europe has a very long and dirty history of ethic cleansing, genocide religious oppression and persecution and protectionism.
            the excuse now is called secularism, convert to secularism or die.

          • David

            Except the ones giving the ultimatums and killing people are radical Islamist. Nobody has been shot in France for wearing a head covering.

          • gregblandino

            2003 we gave Iraq a deadline to give up nonexistent WMD’s. I think we might have killed a person or two there. At least we are safe from yellow cake uranium and mobile chemical weapons labs.

          • David

            You are comparing a war between countries to blowing up civilians in a cafe or bus or newspaper office. I hope you are simply being trollish and that your actual thinking is more critical than that.

          • gregblandino

            Both are unjustifiable agression. The Iraq War was based on a lie and killed thousands of innocents.

          • David

            Even if you believe both are unjustified aggression (I will not argue with you about your opinion), thy are not the same.

          • gregblandino

            Well, from a realpolitik point of view then: One was a strategic mistake that gave Iran a strategic victory for free and deposed a staunch opponent of religious based extremism. Turkey, a valuable strategic ally in both the middle east and in the caucasus, has been alienated. For 60 years Turkey put their ass on the line against the Russkies for us and we rewarded them with a Kurdish rump state in their backyard. In the process we threw Western Iraq into anarchy providing the opportunity for Salafist Takfiri crazies the chance to create a strategic “rear” area that let them project themselves forcefully into the Syrian civll war.

            Long story short, the Iraq War was a colossal clusterfuck that should have resulted in a major leadership shakeup at the top of our defense establishment, but apparently after sacking MacArthur we’ve lost the balls to actually punish incompetence at high levels unless the General in question balls his biographer, then we jump into action. If not questioning this trend is “patriotic” then I’ll pass.

            The CH attacks, if I had to guess, had the overarching strategic objective of alienating the resident Muslim population of Europe in order to provide more manpower and recruits by provoking a backlash in Europe. In this case, while the bastards who planned this are evil fucks, at least they operate with a clear strategic vision and implementable plan on how to conduct their operations, which is more than we ever had in Iraq.

          • Millions….and counting

          • biggj

            Arguably you could say the same about islam or christianity..

            “The Iraq War was based on a lie and killed thousands of innocents.”

            “The ______religion was based on a lie and killed thousands of innocents.”

            Well you would ave to change 1000’s to 1,000,000’s in the religion one.

          • Mihel

            Irish and Buddhists are “hip” people! ;(

          • biggj

            “because that’s what they want to believe Islam is about and it doesn’t matter how much you show them otherwise they ignore it.”

            And that is exactly what you do with what people who disagree with you.

          • Matt

            “Europe has a very long and dirty history of ethic cleansing, genocide religious oppression and persecution and protectionism.”

            As opposed to the Muslim world…

          • Kai

            I don’t think that’s quite fair just as it isn’t quite fair that they may be pigeonholing you into their desired definition of Islam/Muslim.

            There are extremists on both sides who harbor and even express wholly bigoted views. Both should be condemned and marginalized. The moderates, which I think you guys perceive yourselves to be, ought to acknwoledge each others’ apprehensions, fears, and even insecurities.

            Zappa Frank for example feels there are Islamic values that are incompatible with what he believes to be Western or at least European values. You have two variables to change here in response: Islamic values and Western/European values. What arguments do you have to convince him (or those reading the discussion) that the two are not incompatible?

            In the process, you should acknwoledge that there are some on the “Muslim” side who also think the values are incompatible, but that doesn’t mean all “Muslims” cannot exist compatibly with Western values, that there can’t be compromise or an evolution of values into compatibility or at least peaceful coexistence.

            Accusing Zappa and @BiggJ of “working down a list” of targets to persecute with “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” is ultimately no different from them accusing you and Islam of various unsavory things as well. Sure, historically and to some extent, both sides are or have been guilty of these things, but the point isn’t to show how the extremists aren’t compatible but to show how the non-extremists CAN be compatible.

            Let’s say Europe’s “religion” now is indeed “secularism”. How do you define it? Can it be defined in a way that is compatible with your definition of Islam? If you cannot, then you’d just be proving Zappa right, that “there is no compatibility“.

          • JayJay

            again, secularism purports neutrality in religious matters. It means all faiths and the non-faith are welcome.

            also again, stop with the history lessons. Europe had a history of ethnic cleansing, and it no longer is the case. Why not look at the Islamic states and their ethnic cleansing now??

          • Jaling

            what happened in Yugoslavia in the 1990’s then ?

          • JayJay

            Ethic cleansing and sectarian violence which is a result of the the fall of communism in the former Yugoslovia and historical conflicts, also partly due to the religious beliefs of different ethnic groups. What is ur point? The former Yugoslavia is a communist dictatorship. are you comparing this to western secular democracy? U probably find communism more in common with Islamic states.

          • Jaling

            A secular European (western) communist state collapsed the result was extreme ethic cleansing carried out by the democrat state of Serbia, in the neighboring states of Croatia,Bosnia and the adjacent country of Kosovo.

          • JayJay

            Still don’t see your point. Shit happens in wars. The Yugoslav Wars were mainly due to historical, ethnic and religious reasons, which is very complicated. None were fully democratic including the breakaway states until much later. These were sectarian violence and they weren’t in “the west”. How is this relevant to intolerence of other religons and civil rights abuse in Islamic States?

          • Zappa Frank

            or else you simply can remain at home and do not come here.. simple.
            change Europe with islam in your statement and it works as well..

          • biggj

            That not my argument…I’m using that as an example to show it’s not cut and dry. Religion is full of all kinds of things that don’t add up. Why cant you show Muhammad’s face in public and all these other crazy things? I’m just letting her know how crazy it sounds to me, and im sure she is free to tell me how crazy I sound or how Islam or Christianity is good or bad. At least we get both sides of the spectrum.

          • gregblandino

            Yea true true. Mutual respect is crucial. I don’t know how old you are, but if you remember the old Rambo 3 or 4, the good guys in that movie are basically the predecessors of the Taliban. Back then it was the Russkies, now the enemy of the decade is apparently Muslims in the Middle East. Color me cynical as to the “free thinking” nature of all the people who spontaneously realized Islam is bad and crazy and evil at exactly the same time we wanted to intervene in the Middle East.

          • Sharrma

            keep trying but they will not budge, they know my belief better than I, they read it on the news.

          • Zappa Frank

            we know our culture better than you, enough to see that there is no compatibility.

          • Sharrma

            wow, you really hate us dont you

          • Zappa Frank

            i would like to live a good life like most, and I’m pretty sure that a good life imply to stay away from islam.

          • gregblandino

            There’s a verse in Matthew’s that goes “Don’t throw your pearls before swine. They’ll trample them then turn and attack you.” There is literally an internetful of useful articles and information about Islam. Coming on Chinasmack and preaching tolerance and understanding is quite possibly the definition of throwing your pearls before swine.

          • Sharrma

            I have to admit that I’m a little surprised by the amount of racism, bigotry and christian white supremacy on here.

          • gregblandino

            Hahaha have you met white expats in China? This is about par for course I guess. We are missing the one guy who believes in libertarianism to tell us that the “hand of the free market” is the way to go.

          • Vere

            Please don’t conflate christian and White supremacy together. It’s quite Insulting to us Christians who think rascism is incredibly wrong..

          • Sharrma

            but anti- Islam is ok, thats what your saying

          • Vere

            if it based on hatred ignorance and misrepresentation of course not. If however someone rejects Islam on the basis of an accurate understanding then they should be listened to.

            You were just inaccurately broad brushing Christianity just as much as the others were broad brushing Islam

            You are just nicer about it.

            And if you wish to be “anti-Christian” that’s okay as long as we can both be accurate in our arguments.

          • Sharrma

            haha snidey

          • Mihel

            Anti-any religion is ok.
            Openly criticising, disliking, rejecting and not wanting to associate with any religion, though it won’t make you Mr. Nicey McNice, doesn’t break the law.

          • JayJay

            anti-Islam or anti- any religion is not OK as it opposes Western values of freedom of religion and religious neutrality of a secular state. But you must understand people should be able to criticise ‘bad ideas’ of religion and Islam is one with many.

          • Kai

            No, that’s not what he’s saying. Do you have any basis in what he has said to make that conclusion? It would appear you’re strawmanning people after being angry that others have strawmanned you.

          • Matt

            “I think your culture sucks..big time.”
            ––Sharrma, 3 hours ago

            “I have to admit that I’m a little surprised by the amount of racism, bigotry and […] supremacy on here.”
            ––Sharrma, 7 hours ago

          • Sharrma

            anything else to add but de-contextualized quotes

          • Matt

            I’ve made several other comments to you. Feel free to respond to them. I can see how you’d prefer to just let them get buried and lost in the discussion, though.

          • Kai

            As much as she has become hypocritical, that’s actually unfairly taking her out of context and thus not cool of you either. Her comment was:

            if you are truely a representative of you [sic, responding to Zappa Frank] culture, I think your culture sucks..big time.

            Like @disqus_yEkiRIRXgF:disqus, I believe we should be accurate in our arguments. There are better examples of her hypocrisy than this.

          • gregblandino

            Frank Zappa tells her that she is “incompatible” with his culture and should leave and renounce everything she holds dear, and you cherry pick these two sentences? You win pedant of the thread award.

          • Zappa Frank

            Actually you should admit that till now no comment s in favor of Christians has been done, nor about races…but is understandable that you want to put the discussion on this since your poor performance

          • Kai

            Aw shucks, we’re not all swine. :D

            I’m of the belief that throwing pearls before swine is still a net benefit to the world, but I understand the axiom is more about the subjective value of time and effort.

          • Sharrma

            you sound like MacArthur,sacrificing nothing but hundreds of thousands of others peoples lives.

          • Kai

            Huh?

          • Mihel

            sacrificing nothing but hundreds of thousands of others peoples lives

            I’ve always suspected Kai was the type of person that sacrifices human lives in his free time…

          • Kai

            It’s the only way I can maintain my eternal youth and supple skin.

          • gregblandino

            Well maybe a little more proactive moderation? Not that the internet is known for it’s widespread empathy and mutual understanding, and granted you guys are an intellectual oasis compared to the shanghaiist, but theres a lot of room for improvement. You mentioned the Google metrics had your viewer profile to split 50-50 male female, but the commenters are like 95% male. You don’t see the connection between the general dickishness of the commentariat here and that?

          • Kai

            There’s always subjective room for improvement. From our perspective, we’re already doing better at weeding out obvious trolling. From our perspective, we’re trying to find a good balance between allowing people to confront and discuss real opinions and maintaining a level of civility that isn’t overwhelming toxic. But again, this is all necessarily subjective.

            I trust you already recognize you can’t see the “proactive” moderation you don’t see because you’re not a moderator (ex. you don’t see the dickish anonymous guest comments we don’t approve and thus never become public). So try to give us some benefit of the doubt.

            To reiterate, we’re trying (and I think we’ve made improvements) to weed out the obvious dickishness but we may allow dickishness that isn’t dickishness by itself (as in the person may have a point but may not have expressed themselves in the most civil manner) and rely on the community giving them the appropriate feedback and censure to discourage continued incivility. Like most societies, we’re have hard moderation but we also want to give the community the chance to influence and police itself. We believe in there being hard and soft mechanisms. We can be totalitarian and authoritarian, but that doesn’t mean we want to or believe it is the best long-term overall solution.

          • gregblandino

            Keep up the good work then.

          • Boris

            Like the Native Americans were not compatible with European culture. Like the aborigines were not compatible with European culture. Yes, your culture only knows about superimposing itself on others. If they do not fit in, they are sidelined or wiped out.

          • Zappa Frank

            while uygurs and Tibetans are perfectly compatible with Chinese right? besides maybe you missed that actually they came in Europe.

            Funny because doesn’t seem to me that other countries are so happy to receive so many immigrants are Europe does. Than before criticizing why don’t try to receive at least half of the immigrants we have?

          • Boris

            I got what you mean now.

            Europeans want you to join their culture if you come to their lands but impose their culture when they go to your land. Got it.

          • Zappa Frank

            that was war… isn’t the same way islam imposed itself?
            for sure nowadays no one defend what was done by westerner in other countries, but that is not an excuse that don’t allow European to say ‘my home my rules’

          • Boris

            War? You need to read up on your history if you think it was just because of war.

            Second part, if you live in Europe and not from Europe, of course you should adapt. But it means the host has to be welcoming. The hosts aren’t. They want the others to stick to themselves and be away from where they live.

          • Zappa Frank

            isn’t the same if i go in a Islamic country and pretend to live western style?

          • Boris

            Well, that is what Europeans do. They generally stick with other people of the same or similar grouping. Sure in some places they put on a headscarf (and in other places no needs – a bit like in Britain you could wear a Niqab but in France you’ll get arrested, different countries have different laws and customs even if the majority populace are Muslims).

          • Zappa Frank

            actually there are no Europeans that go to Arabia and stay in bikini.. because else would be arrested, same in Iran and most Islamic countries. nor European usually massive immigrate to Islamic countries. Because you know, the numbers make the difference, if muslims in Europe would be just few thousands ok, but with millions is a different issue.

          • Boris

            There are a lot more Muslims countries in the world than Saudi Arabia and Iran.

            Is it normal for black people to be attacked in Europe? Because if we take some countries in Europe for the whole, then if you are black you go to watch your back.

          • Zappa Frank

            actually there is no country in Europe where is legal to attack a black guy people that do that are criminals… while there are Islamic countries where is legal to arrest people for not following one the many Islamic rules.

          • Boris

            I didn’t say it is legal.

            But it is legal in some European countries to be told how to dress for not following the country’s custom and failing to do so can result in a fine or imprisonment.

          • Zappa Frank

            is illegal in france to wear naqib or burqua because makes impossible to identify people and to wear those kind of clothes is again our values.. is it legal to go around in bikini in Islamic countries?
            what about the blacks of before? there is a certain racism in some countries, still nothing like random attacks (maybe in Russia)..but what’s your point?

          • Boris

            So France limits freedoms.

            Well, in some countries people do wear bikinis. Do you count Malaysia and Indonesia as ‘Islamic countries”? People wear them in resorts in the Maldives.

          • Zappa Frank

            and in fact i would be happy if the immigrant that come would be from those places, however an Islamic girl that wear bikini is going against her religion and to call her Islamic would be false. The people that come to Europe are mostly north Africans and middle east people, that are not so open..

          • Boris

            Depends on the part of Europe. The UK have issues with immigrants from all over the world.

            Also, there are Muslim women who do wear bikinis. Sure they are going against their religion and may not practise their faith, but you ask them what they believe and they will respond as Muslims. Just as those who drink and are Muslim, and so on. Christians aren’t meant to have sex before they marry but plenty do, and for most it is the norm, even though it goes against their religion.

          • Zappa Frank

            they are muslims in the same way most are Christians, and for me they would be perfect immigrants, but for sure they are not good muslims/Christians.
            you point an interesting issue, the thing is that in Europe religion is not followed anymore, maybe 20% at best of people can be defined really Christians.

          • gregblandino
          • Zappa Frank

            no google in china sorry

          • gregblandino

            Um basically russian chicks in bikinis in Egypt. Egypt is a popular vacation destination for provincial Russians to get schwasted and hang out in bikinis. Also try Bali for lots of Aussies drunk and in bikinis in a muslim country. If your looking for an Arabian example, Dubai, Qatar and Oman have private beaches for westerners where women wear bikinis. You can even wear a bikini at Saudi Arabian private beaches. Special zones of “Laicite Law!”

          • Zappa Frank

            I’ve been there too, is Sharm el Sheik or few other places, basically are confined places for tourist i would not call them to be places that demonstrate how Islamic countries are open…. also because again are for ‘tourists’

          • gregblandino

            How many areas does Europe have where they implement “Sharia Law” for the comfort and convenience of Islamic visitors?

          • Zappa Frank

            actually until the muslims were visitors there was no problem, the problem come because they are not visitors, but immigrants.

          • gregblandino

            In Saudi Arabia and the other Arabian Gulf countries, those expats have now been there for generation. They basically run the oil industry for the Arabs. The “Laicite Law” zones have been around the entire time. It’s an essential part of what Osama Bin Laden was so pissed about.

          • Zappa Frank

            actually was pissed by the americans military bases.. but again is completely different from what happen in Europe and we are talking about thousands vs millions. What is the problem of the islam in Europe? simple, Europeans are extremely afraid that one day they will live in an Islamic country… and is not just an empty thing, look at the birth rate + immigration of Islamic people vs birthrate of locals.. so, again, if would be opposite what any muslim countries would do seeing millions of girls in bikini wandering around the streets?

          • gregblandino

            Yes, the military bases were part of the opposition to all “corrupting Western influences” in the Arabian peninsula, but the foreigners flouncing about where seen as a problem too.
            I mean, you seem to have an empathy deficit. We have troops based in their country. Guns, tanks, airplanes, etc. They have….people who come to clean the streets and take out the trash and open up kebab shops. If you’re worried about getting outbred, why don’t you European rightists go find a nice wife, get off the internet, and bang out some babies. Nothing is more ironic than reading a childless freak like Anders Brevik bemoaning the falling “European” birth rate. The immigrants and their high birthrates is what keeps your economy going. It’s typical that a German central bank crashes Europe’s economy and the Muslim and Arab underclass gets the shaft.

          • Zappa Frank

            actually the birth rate is strictly connected with wealth, as more as a country is wealth as more likely his birthrate will drop. For sure there is a need of immigrants if the governments cannot find an alternative plane (and there are, but not likely to work), but there are many different kind of immigrants, not just muslims, and for sure i guess would be better to have immigrants that are more likely to blend in our culture. If cultures are compatible than there is enrichment but if cultures are not compatible there is a fight,… it doesn’t seem that at present islam to be compatible.

          • gregblandino

            So where in the world is a good place for say, Italy to find immigrants who have a compatible culture? If the terroni can’t even assimilate in Florenzia, where are you going to find these magical Italians in waiting?

          • Zappa Frank

            actually in Firenze there are a lot of Asians, not that they have been good assimilated, but at least i’ll not have to be scared that my eventual daughter will have to wear the hijab because the majority of people are muslims and want to enforce the sharia

          • gregblandino

            So Asians as long as not too many of them come. Keep repping western values bro, you’re making us look great. I expect in 30-40 years we’ll begin to see stories about how the Asians “just won’t assimilate” and the looming “Asianification” of Europe. A quick saying. If you run into an asshole one day in the morning on the subway, you ran into an asshole on the subway. If everywhere you go you run into assholes, you’re the asshole.

          • Zappa Frank

            at least I’m at home and i can be an asshole as much as you want. If you want to come you have to get used to it.
            About Asian of course they won’t assimilate, the trick is to have not many of the same kind else you will end up being colonized. I know for people that come in Europe don’t see the problem, but for the people that live in Europe there is a quite big problem.
            I don’t even know where are you from….. so, please tell me.

          • gregblandino

            USA. We’re pretty racist and shit, but at least we don’t lie about it.

          • Zappa Frank

            where did i deny that there is racism in Europe?

          • gregblandino

            Do you think if there was no racism in Europe, would Muslims still not be assimilated?

          • A Realist

            France has lots of Vietnamese immigrants also, why dont they ever blow anything up? Frank is right, its an issue with Islam and less about race. Islam is incompatible with any foreign culture (West, East, you name it). You haven’t offered up anything here but relativistic rhetoric that doesn’t even make sense (Russian tourists in Bali=millions of Islamic immigrants in Europe? You’re on crack man).

          • Zappa Frank

            exactly.

          • gregblandino

            Maybe try the no racism bit first? You know, give it a chance. Especially since your economy depends on a constant supply of immigrants to keep the population age balance in check.

          • Zappa Frank

            the problem is that we can try no racism, but in while we are invaded. I want to point out that the “islamization” is not a far danger… is something that is going to happen in the next 50-60 years at this rate… than when there will be more muslims than westerns what will happen? they will likely ask to enforce sharia and since we are a democracy and they are the biggest group? do we really have to wait for that?

          • gregblandino

            Aren’t there more Roma and other people from the Dalmatian coast in italy? I’ve not been back for a while, but I remember there being way more Romanians and Croats than Muslims. But it’s been almost a decade.

          • Zappa Frank

            true, and that is another problem. but the thing is that even if they become majority (not likely as for muslim according to the statistics) they are not going to enforce the sharia in our laws

          • gregblandino

            I just looked it up, there the population of Italy is only 2% Muslim. Do you think a fear of Sharia law is realistic?

          • Zappa Frank

            in France is a serious problem.
            in Italy actually are 2.5%, and increase of 10% every year, if we consider that the rest of Italian population doesn’t increase or on the opposite decrease the mulsims will be majority in the 2050

          • gregblandino

            Why would it increase 10% every year? How many kids would each Muslim woman want to have and how many immigrants would have to come? Doesn’t seem possible…

          • Zappa Frank

            actually are the statistic, it increases of 13% every year from 2001 to 2011, why should it change? even if we suppose that for a miracle it decreases to 5% still the Islamic republic will come in 2090

          • gregblandino

            So the islamic population will double 25 times in 35 years? That’s…unlikely. 25 times in 85 years is also pretty questionable.

          • Zappa Frank

            actually that is what statistic says and what happened till now. Try go there and you will see what is the meaning of massive immigration and why people are not so happy about it.

          • Kai

            Past performance is no indicator of future results.

          • Zappa Frank

            But we take past performances for a model of future.

          • Kai

            Yes, people do that, but people need to consider the many possible problems of doing so.

            For example, China’s economy has grown at X percentage over the past X years. What are some of the many things we should consider BEYOND past performance in order to intelligently discuss future growth?

            Projections of future immigration, birth, and population displacement rates should be given the same consideration.

            I’m trying to temper your “Muslim extremists are gonna take over my country and oppress me” alarmism. Don’t get me wrong, I very much UNDERSTAND the anxiety locals have about outsiders moving into “their” land (such as urban Chinese and waidiren), but there is such a thing as becoming so shrill you’re on the verge of categorical fear-mongering.

          • Zappa Frank

            No, there is a huge difference, first in China no where foreigners are close to 2.5% nor increase every year 10% and besides are always just with a one year visa except a tiny fraction…. as said even if we supposed the 10% to become half 5% still it makes a few decades of difference

          • Kai

            I wasn’t comparing the population of foreigners in China. My China analogy was to illustrate how problematic it is to predict the future based on past trends.

          • Zappa Frank

            Why? Sorry I don’t get it, there was a trend of foreigners in China and later is changed? Sincerely I don’t think the comparison fit too much, are completely different kinds of “immigration”

          • Kai

            It’s a bad sign that you still think I was comparing Muslims in Italy to foreigners in China. I said nothing about “a trend of foreigners in China”. Re-read my previous comment.

            I said:

            For example, China’s economy has grown at X percentage over the past X years. What are some of the many things we should consider BEYOND past performance in order to intelligently discuss future growth?

            I am not equating China’s economy with Italy’s Muslim population. I’m trying to point out to you that if you can realize why it is unwise to believe China’s GDP growth rates will remain the same in the future, you should also be able to realize why you can’t presume Muslim population growth rates in Italy will remain the same as they have in the past. There are so many things that will confound growth rates and thus any projection of those growth rates as remaining steady far into the future.

            So sure, maybe if growth rates remain at 10% for the next 35 years or something, Muslims will have overtaken Italy. But how intelligent is it really to presume growth rates will remain at 10% for the next 35 years simply because they were 10% over the past 10 years?

            If my company had a 10% yearly growth in number of employees over the past 10 years, should I presume I will have a 10% year growth in number of employees for the next 35 years?

          • Zappa Frank

            Actually I don’t see a clear reason why it should drop, but if you read my post I’ve also said it can even drop to 5% the difference would be minimum it just a matter of time

          • Kai

            Laws of supply and demand? Saturation? Diminishing returns? Competition for resources? Depletion of resources? High growth due to starting from a low baseline?

          • Zappa Frank

            supply and demand of immigrants? They mostly come illegally…maybe I don’t understand but I don’t see how those voices can be applied to immigrants. The last vocie ok, but as said it is not the 10% in itself, is the trend of growing that is not going to change, just a matter of time

          • Kai

            What? Voices? I’m not following.

            If they come illegally, you have to crack down on illegal immigration more. What is stopping you from cracking down on illegal immigration?

          • Zappa Frank

            The logistic problems and humanitarian issue. Do you know how do they arrive in Europe? On vessels that are about to drown in the sea. Than they have to be resecured, people in vessels are in desperate conditions. Sincerelly is a good question anyway, because in the end seem that for a reason or another no government, despite the clear will of the people, has been able to manage and crackdown the illegal immigration

          • Kai

            Logistics problems are a function of how motivated you are to address them. If Europeans think the problem is big, then they have to devote more resources and intelligence to solving this logistics problems. You can’t blame Muslims for this.

            Humanitarian issues simply means you are conflicted on your values. You can’t blame Muslims for this either. Figure out which value is more important to you. Is it more important to preserve your culture from the sinister Muslim immigrant threat or is it more important to be humanitarian? As I said before, you often can’t have things both ways.

            You should check out the game, This War of Mine!

          • gregblandino

            Durr, I’m an idiot and bad at math. At 2.5%, the population would have to double four times in 35 years. But that’s still exponential growth…

          • Zappa Frank

            I said increase 10% a year, it increase not based on the present total, but 10% more of the total of the previous year. yes, the growth is exponential according to the models of immigration. More people come and all of them have babies, and so on.. that’s a model, but again, we can argue about that 10%, but even in case we reduce to 5% (that again, till now that 10% has never been reduced in reality) still we post pone the result of just few decades.

          • biggj

            Well man, Usually in “western” countries the minority have a lot of power. No one wants to go against them because than we are racist or whatever the hell else. Everybody is so PC nowadays no one wants to hurt anyones feelings. I dont know how europe goes. But in canada it’s like that. But I assume policy makers act the same though. I could be wrong.

          • Kai

            That’s not fair, some (maybe even a lot of us) do. You guys are also kinda starting to go after generalized identities instead of arguing points.

          • gregblandino

            It’s pretty accepted that the USA suffers from systemic racism. Perhaps my “meet an asshole” analogy was unclear. I’ve been trying to point out that there is a trend. First the southern Italians can’t integrate in the North, then after the 68 protests and hot autumn of 69-70 workers from Northern Africa/Middle East are brought in to replace the Southern Italians and they can’t integrate either. Now the Asians are here and aren’t integrating but thank God there is not that many of them. It’s been hundreds of years and the Roma can’t integrate, yet they come to the US and are “white” within a generation. Maybe the problem doesn’t lay with the Immigrants. I wasn’t trying to personally call Frank an asshole. It’d be hard not to like a fellow Zappa fan.

          • Kai

            Right, I was saying some (maybe even a lot of us) do “lie about it”. I wasn’t denying that the US suffers from systemic racism, I was disagreeing somewhat facetiously to just make the point that I think there are plenty of Americans who fail to adequately recognize the racism in the US, often by downplaying it in silly arguments trying to prove which country or what people are better instead of just doing the right thing and acknwoledging/condemning the bad as bad.

            No, your “meet an asshole” analogy is very clear and one I subscribe to. I love it (and its variants like everywhere smelling like dog shit so you should check under your feet) because it’s often very true.

          • Jaling

            not only for tourists

          • Zappa Frank

            Yes also tourist village staff?…again, do they remain in Egypt for life? no.

          • A Realist

            You are aware that Bali is majority hindu buddhist right? Just like most of Indonesia was before the arrival of Islam. Perhaps you should study the oppression of non-Islamic peoples living in Islamic majority states, ie Coptic Christians, Hindus and Christians in Indonesia. School girls getting beheaded simply because of their faith. I have Indo-Christian friends and they say they suffer a lot living in a Islamic majority country. Not to mention the ethnic Chinese in Indo.

          • gregblandino

            Indonesia is around 90% Muslim though. The conversation was about whether “bikinis are allowed in ‘Muslim’ countries.” Institutionalized discriminiation is wrong anywhere, and for any reason. I was under the impression that the anti Chinese sentiment was due to politics and economics, but that’s mostly from watching The Act of Killing. I’ll admit that my understanding of Indonesia is limited, and that foreigners being allowed to wear a bikini means just that. However, the guy I was talking to was arguing that Islamic dress is rightfully banned in several European countries, and that Islamic countries would never allow westerners to wear their dress, specifically a bikini, in their countries. I stand by my argument that those countries I listed allow bikini’s in special “Laicite Law” zones, unlike Europe where the mere mention of accomodating any aspect of Islamic canon law anywhere is met with howls of outrage.

          • A REealist

            Do you also admit that those same bikini wearing Euros go home after vacation for the most part and dont stick around building churches, requiring public services, and creating religious/racial enclaves that locals feel like they cant even enter safely?

            What a contrived overdone sad attempt at an analogy.

          • wang

            If you are really in china, you would know that you need a vpn to access chinasmack. As you’re on chinasmack you must have a vpn, or not be in China, either way you can google.

          • biggj

            You need a vpn to us cs in china now? I was there a little over a year ago and never needed one…it was weird, sometimes it would work and sometimes it would not. but most of the time i never need one. But im sure they may have changed it by now.

          • Kai

            The best I can tell is that it varies with location and telecom.

          • Zappa Frank

            No, china smack doesn’t need Vpn

          • jaling

            “actually there are no Europeans that go to Arabia and stay in bikini.. because else would be arrested, same in Iran and most Islamic countries”
            Western tourists in Dubai, Malaysia,Indonesia,Turkey and Bangladesh.

          • Zappa Frank

            Do they become immigrants and live there? I guess no and then is irrelevant

          • Jaling

            “there are no Europeans that go to Arabia and stay in bikini.. because else would be arrested, same in Iran and most Islamic countries”

            Western, non Muslim tourists in Dubai,Bangladesh,Malaysia,Indonesia,Turkey and Bahrain.

          • Sharrma

            your response is silly you say that if go and live in a religious country “whatever that means” its horrible, repressive and unacceptable.

            But on the other hand hand if they come to your country its…
            ‘my home my rules’

            what is living and integration western style, this ?

            http://metro.co.uk/2014/11/30/british-muslims-suffer-worst-job-discrimination-in-the-uk-says-new-report-4968360/

            http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/moroccan-man-in-france-killed-at-home-in-front-of-wife-by-intruder-shouting-about-islam-9985072.html

          • Zappa Frank

            I see you have no response. again, try to reply this time… not like the question of muhammed.. if I go to an Islamic country can I live according to western customs? no, simple. than why the opposite should be ok? still waiting an aswer. beside, your way of living is in antithesis with our customs, why come here? why try to destroy our culture?

          • Kai

            You guys are already strawmanning each other. Do you think Sharma is trying to destroy your culture? Some Muslim immigrants? All Muslim immigrants? Some Muslims? All Muslims? Islam as a religion?

            Perhaps you could have a more productive conversation with Sharma if you didn’t project onto her personal liability for all the things you think makes Muslims or Islam an antithesis to your customs and culture.

            What you’re doing is no different from how some Chinese people blame the entire West and Western values or ideology as being a threat to China and Chinese culture.

          • Yes!

            I can see how you’re trying to be even-handed here. Let me share coupla things that are happening over in this part of the world:

            Recently in Singapore where 15% of the population are Muslims, a school principal (Muslim) banned school children from bringing food that contain pork ham and other non-halal food to eat in the canteen. Schools in Singapore are secular, and the common space is shared by all religions. He decided that this common space must only cater to Islamic rules. This happening in a place like Singapore were Muslims are supposedly moderate, where Muslims are well-treated by the system and the people, and given plenty of space to practice their faith.

            I read somewhere of a survey done coupla years back by an elite scholarly Muslim organisation – either Egyptian or Jordanian – that declared Singapore “more Islamic” than many other so-called Muslim countries, ranking above even Malaysia and Indonesia. My point being? No matter what you do, apparently it’s never good enough for them. They want it all – lock, stock and barrel.

            In press interviews, the good Islamic preachers may publicly disagree with the methods (“we condemn the killings, Islam is a peaceful religion”, etc), but they won’t say they disagree with the objective! (Not sure if Sharma herself has declared her position on this?)

            I hope I’m adding some perspective to this discussion.

          • Kai

            I understand your point and your aggravation. My point is to highlight our failure to make clear that we are aggravated with only those who arguably are guilty of “it’s never good enough for them”, and failure to avoid emotional appeals like “They want it all – lock, stock, and barrel”.

            That’s a disservice to all of the Muslims who arguably think things are good enough and don’t “want it all”. A common consequence is that we’re alienating the very Muslims we want on our side because we’re too lazy to make it clear to them that we’re not targeting “their” Islam and “them” but only a specific sort of “Islam” that is held by “others”.

            The only benefit to not adequately articulating the nuances and limits of our speech is our own selfish laziness. There’s also no harm in clarifying what we mean and even apologizing for whatever role we’ve played in failing to communicate our thoughts accurately. Our end goal should be mutual understanding and coexistence, not finger-pointing and blame-gaming.

          • Zappa Frank

            I don’t say that they come with the precise intention of destroying out culture, never less when they will be a majority this is what will likely happen

          • Kai

            You said “why come here? why try to destroy our culture?”

            Does “try” not suggest “intention”? If I don’t think they “intend” to destroy my culture, would I characterize them as “trying”?

            I understand you are clarifying yourself NOW, but you should ideally acknwoledge and perhaps even apologize for misspeaking earlier. You’d be surprised how forgiving people can be as long as they feel you are honest with them.

            This is a perfect example of why one of the main points I have made in this discussion is that people are being sloppy with their words and that’s creating needless obstacles in this discussion.

          • Zappa Frank

            I said try because to ask Muslims to have their rules is an intention try to destroy or culture. But I said this to sharrma. Thing is, they come without the intention, but once here positions like hers come out and that is an intention

          • Kai

            So far all you’ve shown is that Sharma believed that Muslims should be allowed to have “some of their culture” while in Europe. This is an ambiguous statement.

            Sure, it COULD mean Sharma wants Sharia law for Muslims in Europe, but did you ask if that’s what Sharma meant? It seems to me you merely presumed that’s what Sharma meant, and then argued and attacked Sharma based on that presumption of yours.

            As such, my point that you guys are strawmanning each other is legitimate.

            I think there is still a huge leap in logic from them wanting to have “some of their culture” and you accusing them of “trying to destroy our culture”. You did not determine what Sharma wanted but instead jumped to conclude Sharma represented the Muslims you are afraid of, the ones you believe have evil plans of destroying your culture, and the ones you overweight over the many more Muslims in Europe who don’t harbor such nefarious designs.

          • Zappa Frank

            Again, Muslims can have their cultures according to the laws? If that is the case why ask? They can already. But if they have to ask it means that actually would be forbidden and in contrast with present laws…
            To have some of their culture is now, to destroy our culture is later, when they will become majority, is a simple consequence. As said there is not “a plan” is only the consequence to let them come in Europe and live by their costumes.

          • Kai

            What is the percentage of Muslims who are asking? I feel you are arguing as if the majority of Muslims are asking when I don’t think that is the case.

            Next, you are engaging in “if you give them an inch, they’ll take a mile” alarmism. It’s like some white people in the past who thought giving blacks some civil rights will result in blacks destroying America. Or how some Americans thinking some compromise with China is going to result in China taking over the world.

            I don’t see why you can’t give an inch and limit it to an inch. I don’t see why you can’t decide which inch to give. Are you so insecure about the appeal of your own culture that you think allowing others to have some of theirs is going to mean the destruction of yours? Especially when you can decide which aspects of their culture you’ll allow and how many of their “people” you will admit to your country?

            How is this different from the Chinese urbanites who are alarmist about waidiren? Or the Chinese nationalists who fear the influx of Westerners and Western culture into China?

          • Zappa Frank

            Now I can decide, but if they become a majority? Who will decide then? Do you think that in a majority Muslim Europe will be allowed the blasphemy ? Unlikely.
            Second, why do we have to permit them to follow some habits that are against our laws? Even a small thing, but why? The law have to be the same for everyone.

            Again the difference with China is that actually there is no any long term immigration in China, foreigners in China are not 2.5%, do not increase of 10% each year but most important don’t aks for special laws to follow their habits.

          • Kai

            1. Why do you feel you can’t prevent them (or more accurately, only those that are antagonistic to “European” values and actually want to replace them with certain “Islamic” ones) from becoming a majority?

            2. Who said you had to permit them to follow some habits that are against your laws? Which habits? Which laws?

            3. Yikes, this third paragraph of yours tells me again you did not understand my analogy or the point it made. I give up.

          • Zappa Frank

            That is the point we can prevent, if we restrict Muslim immigration, we don’t have to let them follow habits that are against our laws… But again, this is exactly what sharrma was complaining about

          • Kai

            “She” was complaining about restricting Muslim immigration? Can you give me a link to such a comment by “her”?

            I’m going to take a break from cS now so we’ll continue this conversation later. Have a good Saturday.

          • Zappa Frank

            Sorry I’m with my wife’s iPad and not sure how to do the quote… But read here

            What do mean by ” Our principles”, by that I take it you mean your own principles.If they are citizens of Britain, then their principles are as much British as yours.
            The Arch Bishop of Canterbury & the Lord Chief Justice disagree with you as well.
            Lord Phillips has stated said that;
            ‘in cases where its principles did not come into conflict with the laws of England & Wales they could be followed without legal interference”
            further he proposed that;
            “It was not very radical to advocate embracing Sharia Law in the context of family disputes, for example, and our system already goes a long way towards accommodating the Archbishop’s suggestion. It is possible in this country for those who are entering into a contractual agreement to agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law.”
            He was responding to the Archbishop Dr Williams statements that;
            “as a matter of fact certain provisions of sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law” -and that “the application of sharia in certain circumstances – if we want to achieve this cohesion and take seriously peoples’ religion – seems unavoidable?”
            The Archbishop opened his lecture by noting importantly that the very term sharia is not only misunderstood, but is the focus of much fear and anxiety deriving from its ‘primitivist’ application in some contexts.
            As such he said that “sharia is a method of law rather than a single complete and final system ready to be applied wholesale to every situation, and noted that there was room, even within Islamic states which apply sharia, for some level of ‘dual identity’, where the state is not in fact religiously homogenous.”
            He concludes his lecture with the comment:
            “if we are to think intelligently about the relations between Islam and British law, we need a fair amount of ‘deconstruction’ of crude oppositions and mythologies, whether of the nature of sharia or the nature of the Enlightenment”
            http://rowanwilliams.archbisho
            http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/me
            ReplyView Comment

            You still think she wasn’t talking about sharia?

          • Kai

            What part of Sharia? I previously made clear that Sharia encompasses many things. What “she” quoted is an Archbishop who also recognizes this and feels there are aspects of Sharia that are compatible or potentially permissible within English law. You are thinking of the most controversial parts of Sharia law and presuming “she” and this Archibishop are referring to them. You are again presuming (strawmanning) without being clear of what the other person is saying.

          • Zappa Frank

            Sorry Kai, I cannot go on talking with you, to much effort and I’m on the way to the hospital. I just say we start with something that seem reasonable but already implies laws not the same for everyone….how will we end up? What will be the limit.

          • Kai

            I hope you’re going to the hospital for nothing serious.

            We already live in a world where laws are not the same for everyone, and we accept them as reasonable or even “just” and “intelligent”. Without specifics of what is being asked, it would be hypocritical to immediately dismiss them with the argument that we don’t want laws that aren’t the same for everyone and slippery-slope alarmism.

          • Zappa Frank

            Is just an annoying influence and a huge throat’s pain that doesn’t allow to sleep since Thursday…. It is terrible, I can’t even rest because of the pain. At present the medication seems not having effect.

            Look I think that you are pretty right about the Muslims, maybe I’ve been too allarmistic, there is presently a huge debate rether Islam can have space in our society or not, so far is still not recognized by the government I remember.
            Now the problem like for immigration, is that indeed there are some problems (happened more than one time of parents that kill too westernized children, speech to support terrorists in mosques, attempt to perform terrorists acts, recruitment of terrorists, and so on), but are usually pushed by right wings without criticism and to support a even less libertarian Christianism…What makes me wonder is if ever those Muslims will group with those Christians to fight the libertarians and laics…. Sincerelly sharrma gave me that impression in citing archbishops and believing uk is not a secularized country, also because those Christians are the same that complain when “Charlie” papers are about them ( freedom of speech is not absolute like someone before seems to think, but is according to the laws) Now this is only my impression, but on the other side I remember that during the war some interviewed Muslims in Italy claimed that wester countries instead of fighting Islam should fight together with Christians against the secularization of the society. Still as you can easily point out I have just suspects to support and nothing serious….we use to say to think bad about something is a sin, but usually you get it.
            Hmmm I think this is not what we were talking about…sorry I’m making a lot of confusion..

          • Kai

            I’m tempted to make a politically-incorrect joke about “huge throat pain” but I’m going to resist. Though by saying this, I’ve sorta already done it. Oops. Leaving this typed means I’m not really resisting either. Forgive me y’all, but I do hope you feel better soon.

            I personally find it extremely improbably that extremist Muslims and extremist Christians will band together against the secular mainstream. I believe it is more for the extremists on either side to try to radicalize the moderates against the other. This is already a fairly popular argument about what Islamic extremists and terrrorists are actually trying to do: scare non-Muslims into further marginalizing moderate Muslims so moderate Muslims radicalize in response.

            If you can take a step back and realize that you may have been unfairly alarmist, that you have more fears and suspicions than you have real cause to be so fearful and suspicious, then I’ve done what I set out to do. This is a very contentious and often emotional issue, so my goal was just to get you to think deeper and more critically about the threat you feel.

            There are indeed extremist Muslims who want to destroy our culture and impose their laws in our countries, but we shouldn’t let them blind us to the many more Muslims in our countries who don’t have such desires. We need to be accurate in our appraisal of the “threat” and careful to avoid recklessly alienating our would-be allies by flailing about in alarmist panic or prejudiced fear-mongering. After all, that is exactly what many extremist Muslims are doing to mobilize “their people” against “us”.

          • Don’t Believe the Hype

            Could you be more specific? Other than an official language I don’t see how any groups are forced either away from or into the dominant cultures in the west.

          • Mihel

            Of the top of my head: they are forced not to cover their faces in public; in some places males and females are forced to be together in close proximity because segregation by sex is not common outside of public toilets; in places where halal/proper food is not available I guess they’d be forced to either bring their own or not eat at all; they are forced not to marry until a certain age.

          • Boris

            I am generalising a lot as Europe isn’t one homogeneous country or culture. Partly in line with what Frank is doing with Islamic/Muslim countries which span half the globe.

            My personal opinion is that governments do need to make a path for integration. Other than lip service you don’t really see a path to integrate people. This leaves you having to wait a few generations before there is integration. It could be done quicker if immigrants don’t have to just rely on their own community.

          • Mihel

            But it means [Europe] has to be welcoming. The hosts aren’t. They want the others to stick to themselves and be away from where they live.

            Dafuq?
            Though I’m not speaking for *all* of Europe, I’m pretty sure muslims/immigrants can (provided they have the money) buy a house and live where they want, go to the schools they want, open all kind of religiously appropriate halal/kosher food shops, not having to hide to go to the mosque, if they wish enter any church any time it’s open without giving any explanation to anybody (catholic churches at least, don’t know about protestants), open cultural centres, they are free to convert other people to Islam, they are free to publish papers/books criticising other religions, go in the streets and protest etc…
            I’m sure other non-muslim countries in Asia and the Americas/Australia also offer the same things.

            Idk has there to be a red carpet upon their arrival to make them feel welcomed?

          • Boris

            I am doing what Frank is doing. Europe is not one country and even values and culture differ from nation to nation, though there are similarities. Same with Muslim countries that stretch from the West Coast of Africa to South East Asia.

            Also, for each example you have given, I can give an example of things in Europe that go against them.

            Let’s take the Halal/Kosher meat thing. There are some groups wanting to get them banned under the guise of animal cruelty. There was outrage by people when they found out that the meat served at popular music and sports venue used Halal meat. Yet the same people have not qualms at eating at Indian restaurants where the majority serve Halal meat.

            Then there are the marches in Germany. Funnily enough, I read that the places with the least amount of immigrations are the ones with the biggest marches against it. Anyway, reading about those doesn’t make Europe seem much welcoming. And then 4th and 5th generation of Turks in Germany are thinking of leaving (people who other than their names and look are German and don’t speak Turkish) then there may be an issue to think about.

            Governments need to do more than just pay lip service to people. If you want people to integrate, develop a path. Otherwise you’ll have to wait a few generations and that (IMO) is the issue we are seeing right about now. I heard it plenty of times from 2nd and 3rd generation. E.g. a Turk I know, in England he is Turkish, in Turkey he is English. He isn’t one or the other but he is both. If you can’t make people born and raised in your own country feel as they are a part of it, you will have issues.

          • Mihel

            The counter examples you have given, are actions of limited group of people (hypocritical and hateful they may be, I imagine they are twirling their imaginary mustaches plotting evil deeds), the original examples I wrote in my poor grammar is what is granted to them by law.
            Now is Europe doing the absolute best it could to facilitate integration? Hell no. Not even close.
            Are the immigrants provided abundant though imperfect tools to cater to their specific religious demands? Yes, I believe.

            You speak of 4th or 5th generation immigrants who are entirely assimilated (I don’t believe they are a big percentage of the total) who don’t feel welcomed, I’m not speaking about them; I speak of people who enter illegally, by the tens of thousands each year, mostly from Africa and Middle East, for whom the thought of becoming European never even crossed their mind, that contribute to nothing and upon arrival everything is owed to them. They are trying to fit the left foot in the right shoe and they don’t feel welcomed.

            A similar though not identical situation is the typical western/white guy going in China with his broken mandarin expecting the new country to cater to all his western needs, when China, not being a western, country fails to meet his unrealistic expectations, he then bitches and moans about how chinese people do not like him. Sure, some chinese may be dicks and really decided not to like him ‘a priori’, but they are not morally obligated to like him, and if he feels unwelcomed much of it is the consequence of his own behaviour over time.
            In both cases, the host countries grant ample (though not perfect) rights by law, but the people residing in those countries are under no moral obligation to automatically like you. Rights are given, sympathies are earned.

          • Boris

            “I’m not speaking about them; I speak of people who enter illegally, by the tens of thousands each year, mostly from Africa and Middle East, for whom the thought of becoming European never even crossed their mind, that contribute to nothing and upon arrival everything is owed to them. They are trying to fit the left foot in the right shoe and they don’t feel welcomed.” – Illegal immigration is another issue. These guys are coming for a multitude of reason and don’t have as much rights as it is made out in the press (though this is dependant on which country in Europe you are talking about).

            I don’t have time to respond fully, but if do, I’ll try to do so.

          • Kai

            You guys are both right to the extent that you guys are right.

          • Kai

            Is anyone really saying Europeans can’t say “my home my rules” though? I think what some people are saying is that some of the rules some Europeans want to make are incompatible with some of the values some Europeans espouse as being the values of Europe.

            In a way, this is no different from some people claiming some Muslims’ defenses of Islam are incompatible with some of the values/beliefs some Muslims espouse as being the values/beliefs of Islam.

            Are you following me here? How do we reconcile this?

          • Zappa Frank

            people like Sharrma said that in Europe we should allow them to follow the sharia. People that wants those rules are not Europeans, are immigrants, so I don’t see where are the Europeans that want law not in according to Europeans values.

          • Kai

            First, has Sharma said she wants Europe to allow Muslims in Europe to follow Sharia? Please link me to her comment because she’s made so many and I may have missed it. I only remember that her first few comments were to distance acts of terrorism from what she feels Islam is more about.

            Second, I was referring to Europeans who want new rules against Muslims, rules that are arguably in contradiction to “European values” as espoused by other Europeans or even themselves at other times.

          • Zappa Frank

            I cannot find the comment now, I promise I’ll look for it if she doesn’t cancel it

          • Kai

            Thanks. I’m just worried you’ve unfairly conflated Sharma with the Muslims who are guilty of what you accuse, and in doing so, you ended up being unfair to all Muslims who are not guilty.

            Also, even if Sharma deletes “her” comments, they will remain but merely show up as “Guest”. You should still be able to find it also based on your own replies to “her”. I just want us to be sure we are accurate in our accusations of other people.

          • Zappa Frank

            Here is pretty clear the meaning:
            The 2.7 million Muslims that are UK citizens have as much right to have some of their culture incorporated, do they not.
            It would not effect you anyway as your not Muslim anyway.

          • Kai

            The direct link to that comment is: http://www.chinasmack.com/2015/stories/paris-charlie-hebdo-shooting-chinese-netizen-reactions.html#comment-1810423708

            For future reference, you can get the direct link to a comment by right-clicking on the timestamp or clicking on the “Share” and then the “link” icon under the comment.

            It’s a big leap to equate “some of their culture” with “Sharia law”. Unless there is another comment by Sharma that explicitly advocates that Europe allow Muslims in Europe to follow Sharia, you’ll have to admit that you attacked a straw man.

          • Zappa Frank

            I don’t think, what else do you think is ” some of their culture just for Muslims”? I see no other explanation since she imply that if europe should allow them to follow those cultural things is because actually is against the laws, else she would have no reason to claim. Besides I think you are illusions yourself if you believe that Muslims would decide to not follow sharia, that is an really important part of being Muslims, is not possibile to be a Muslim if you don’t follow it.

          • Kai

            However certain you think you know what that must mean, you should still confirm and not just presume. You must be certain of the other person’s position or else you risk arguing against a straw man you’ve conjured inside your own head on the basis of your own fears and prejudices.

            I know plenty of Muslims who don’t follow Sharia. Don’t misunderstand, I’m not denying that there are a lot of Muslims in this world who DO follow Sharia, but I AM pushing back against your insinuation that I am deceiving myself. I’m NOT deceiving myself, I am fairly recognizing the ample existence of Muslims who do and who don’t. I don’t see the profit in insulting others as deceiving themselves for believing there are many Muslims who don’t follow Sharia when proof of their existence is not only well documented and objectively recognized but also personally experienced.

            Also, to be super clear, I understand that Sharia covers a lot of things. I am referring only to the more controversial aspects of Sharia law, and recognizing that there are many self-identifying Muslims who follow Sharia selectively to not at all. I don’t think it is wise to presume Muslims invariably and necessarily follow Sharia completely.

          • Zappa Frank

            Well, I think is pretty obvious her Meaning, in honesty do you think it could be interpreted in any other way?
            Again there may be Muslims that don’t follow sharia! For sure they are not good Muslims, like a christian that do not go to curch, have sex before marriage, divorce and so on…sure they can call themselves Christians, but I doubt they can be defined good Christians.
            However the point is who come in Europe? Muslims immigrants. Do they follow sharia? Yes to certain extent. I would like you to come in Europe and maybe in Marseille to have a clear idea of what we are talking about, because your example of your friends that are Muslims but in the end do not follow sharia and are guys like others don’t aplly, we are talking about families where girls are covered with just face out, not even normal clothes but a large vest to mask the body… Now we suppose they are majority, you think they will not try to enforce the sharia in the country laws? We suppose you have a daugheter that have to look for a job in that country, do you think that to the Muslim boss will be indifferent to chose her with a miniskirt because is summer and hot or another girl dressed according to the Islamic code? That would be definitely the end of the europe

          • Kai

            In all honesty, yes. I don’t see why “some culture” has to necessarily include the controversial parts of Sharia that I also agree are against our secular “Western” values. I still think you should’ve made certain what Sharma was advocating before making presumptions about what “she” was advocating.

            I don’t see why Europeans cannot intelligently manage Muslim immigration and the possible proliferation of Muslim values and practices witin its borders in violation of existing European laws. You’re afraid of them becoming a democratic majority? Then don’t let them become one. Restrict immigration, especially if you are so convinced they will not integrate or “Westernize”. Learn to accept that a consequence of this is that, yes, Europe may not be seen as “open” as it wants to think of itself as.

            Hey, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

            Welcome to the real world. Either you have faith in your culture being appealing enough that it absorbs those that who are exposed to it, or you exclude outsiders out of fear that they will taint your culture.

            You can’t have it both ways. There is risk and reward.

          • Zappa Frank

            Sincerely, to ask that some cultural elements have to be garanted to Muslims is because evidently are not garanted now… And why? Because are against the laws, else why someone should request that some cultural elements have to be garanted? If is not against the law there wouldn’t be any necessity right? And what are the cultural elements that are actually against the law? A part form sharia do something else come in to your mind? Sincerely I think is pretty clear

          • Kai

            Did you answer my questions? I don’t think you did…

          • Zappa Frank

            I think I did. We can manage Muslims, but to do so for sure we cannot allow things like the ones sharrma asked. Then no special concession against current laws for Muslims and strict control on Muslims immigration.

          • Kai

            One of the reasons I’ve said you’ve stramanned “Sharma” is because of you saying things similar to “like the ones sharma asked” without actually presenting anything concrete about what “she” asked. You’re even on the record of simply insisting you know what “she” must have “meant” without bothering to check. This is classic strawmanning and it is a terrible obstacle to constructive discussion. You presumed the worst about “her” position instead of actually determining “her” position.

            Let’s be specific:

            1. What are “Muslims” asking for?

            2. Those who are asking for these things, what percentage of the Muslim population do they represent?

            3. What percentage of those asking are engaging in actual political activism to bring about such change?

            Ideally you can provide reasonable citations and data for these things so we can more intelligently and accurate ascertain the threat you feel you are facing.

          • Sharrma

            why did the mayflower sail from away from Europe ?

          • JayJay

            actually the puritans were not driven away because they were persecuted, it is rather the opposite, they despised the openness of the society at the time and left mainly because of it. They were appalled by the religious liberalism in England and preferred their own way of worship. So the moral is, if you do not like western culture and the type of liberalism that is today, you may do the same and no one is stopping you, save for perhaps they are stopping people going to Syria and joining ISIS. But the point is, ‘conservative Muslims’ which I guess you come under this category, and any conservative religious people do not actually get the idea of a secular society. It should be accepted that anything and everything is and should be subject to constructive criticisms, that includes the prophet and the Koran. Take the example of the Pope’s comment. If his mother is a paedophile, should I get smacked, if I criticise/mock her?

            Then let’s face the fact, whatever you think that everything is true in your good book (the Koran) and your prophet is holier than none other, does not mean this is the case. There are verses and practices in your religion that are just not acceptable. I will not give specific examples here. Then it is this blind faith in believing this type of doctrines without critical thinking that have led to people being radicalised.

            And please do not give examples of how Christians and other faiths are treated better than Islam or other people are treated differently. You are only different if you see yourself different. The West has its flaws, but it is far accommodating and tolerant than most of the Islamic states, who will fucking kill people for saying the wrong thing or believe in the wrong religion.

            The route of the cause is Conservatives Muslims, like Conservative Christians, take their faith, a little too seriously, and has paved the route for radicalisation and they are not admitting it. But rather take advantage of free speech and democracy to publicize victimisation.

            As long as you have blind faith in believing in your prophet and your Allah without critical thinking to tell what is acceptable and what isn’t, then you will never ever truly integrate into the West and at worst the end result is happened in France which is a fucking tragedy.

          • A Realist

            I love how you are never able to directly respond to any point, deflection is your defense which speaks to the weakness of your position.

          • biggj

            Do we actually agree on something? well. what do you know. lol

          • A Realist

            I’m probably a different realist from the one that posts here occasionally, he is “Realist”, I’m “A Realist” :P

          • biggj

            I knew something had to be wrong with this situation lol

          • Zappa Frank

            and what mayflower have to do with muslims?

          • Vere

            I don’t think it’s useful to broad brush the entirety of Islam

          • Zappa Frank

            not the entire, simply who think to can live in a western country following the sharia

          • Kai

            Right, but surely you haven’t missed the fact that multiple people feel you are unfairly generalizing. Now that you’ve noticed that what you are thinking is not being adequately communicated to the people reading you, you should be more precise and clear in exactly what you’re saying.

            Moreover, what exactly did Sharma say to make you think she advocates Muslims being allowed to live in “Western” countries under Sharia law?

          • Zappa Frank

            She said that we should allow to Muslim in wester countries to follow sharia. This is unacceptable

          • Kai

            Can you link to Sharma’s specific comment and words?

            Here are all of “Sharma’s comments:

            https://disqus.com/by/sharrma/comments/

            I don’t recall Sharma saying that but I openly admit that I didn’t closely read or follow all of Sharma’s comments early on. I’m willing to be proven wrong.

          • bujiebuke

            I’ve been casually reading Sharma’s posts and I think you guys might have been caught in a troll hole.

          • Kai

            Kinda and kinda not. See my comment here.

            I believe “Sharma” had a valid position, objection, and arguments. Read all of “her” comments. There is no way to dismiss everything said as “trolling”. Unfortunately, while “Sharma’s” penchant for selective reading and other various forms of intellectual dishonesty didn’t help, the big thing is that “Sharma” repeatedly violated our comment policy.

            Sadly, therefore, “Sharma” ultimately made a fool of all of us, all of us who didn’t realize who “she” was and actually tried to defend her insofar as her positions were defensible. Now we have deal with the fallout of people using “her” dishonest comment policy violating behavior to categorically dismiss any valid points or arguments “she” may have made.

            By way of analogy, I currently feel like I defended someone’ arguments criticizing government corruption only to eventually discover that person to be a kitten rapist, and now I have to worry about people trying to dismiss those criticisms of government corruption by pointing out the person who made them is a kitten rapist. You follow me?

            Such a freaking travesty this all was.

          • Alex Dương

            @bujiebuke:disqus Poe’s law, man.

          • Kai

            I don’t follow. Whose extremism or parody of extremism are you referring to?

          • Alex Dương

            Is “Sharma” serious (i.e. “she” actually believes what “she” wrote, or was “she” just faking it)?

          • steve

            Personally I think she meant all that she said. She has been indoctrinated since birth to view the world through a very specific lenses. She tried very hard and at first impressively so but in the end when pushed she reverted to doctrine – as would anyone.

          • Xue

            she was bullied, flamed and straw-maned, by some Islamophobic zealots.She attempted to argue at first with well thought posts, reason, logic, links but in the end reverted to their tactics. She got banned, they didn’t.

          • Alex Dương
          • Xue

            that sounds like a convenient excuse.

          • Alex Dương

            Believe it or not, ban circumventions are surprisingly common here.

          • xue

            I think she was, but as she’s banned now, you can’t ask her.

          • steve

            No doubt about it.

          • Kai

            I don’t think it was parody and for the most part, I don’t think the views or arguments expressed were wholly or necessarily extremist either. What did you feel was extremist?

          • Alex Dương

            I don’t think the views were extremist, but I do think they were fundamentalist. That didn’t raise any flags, so basically, it never occurred to me that “she” might be somebody else.

          • bujiebuke

            “kitten rapist”

            Oh Kai, I can’t stop chuckling as I write.

            Do you think the people who would use this “fallout” as a weapon in future discussions would be the same people who would rationally weigh your arguments/points against their own? First, It’s irrational to say “Kai defended Sharma before so we can’t trust him now…”. Second, you’ve already distanced yourself from her and made your point clear.

            So I understand your disappointment but at the same time it doesn’t seem to be on par to “raping kittens”. I dunno, maybe I just really like kittens.

          • Kai

            I like kittens too…you know, in that way.

            Mwuahahahaha…

            Nah, I don’t think rational people would fail to separate valid points and arguments from the people making them. I’m more or less lamenting the depths some people plumb for motivations I find difficult to empathize with.

            Mmmm…

            kittens…

          • Sharrma

            you know !! so it must be right.

            tell you a secret frank,if you are truely a representative of you culture, I think your culture sucks..big time. Allah the almighty does better than you in integration.

            “This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them. Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by God! I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims’ houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God’s covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate. No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray. Their churches are declared to be protected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants. No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).”

            even then 1500 years ago Islam embraced you, 1500 later you cannot except

          • Matt

            008.012

            YUSUFALI: Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): “I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.”

            PICKTHAL: When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger.

            SHAKIR: When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

            http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/008-qmt.php#008.012

          • gregblandino

            You don’t think these verses are specific to the political-military situation of Muhammad in Medina, and are instead a generalized commandment to decapitate all unbelievers? It must have been tough to have 1,400 years of nonstop unbelievers living under Muslim rule when the unbelievers are both headless and fingerless. That must explain why there are no religious minorities in any Muslim countries, because robot Muslims blindly followed every verse taken out of context and decapitated and defingered the entire non Muslim population. You should publish this groundbreaking discovery.

          • Matt

            I didn’t claim it to be a generalized commandment to decapitate all unbelievers. I posted it specifically to rebut Sharrma’s comment, which was that “Allah the almighty does better than you in integration” and concluded “even then 1500 years ago Islam embraced you”. The verse I posted explicitly rebuts that.

            Considering the entire world used to be non-Muslim, the fact that Muslims constitute more than 90% of the population in most of the countries they control (including countries completely outside the Middle East, like Indonesia and Bangladesh), renders worthless your petty argument in defense of Islam’s supposedly cosmopolitan nature.

          • A Realist

            Well said, anyone familiar with the history of Islam can easily see its imperialistic expansion by the sword. Islam also trafficked slaves in numbers equal to or greater than the west from Africa.

          • gregblandino

            I know right, it’s like Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria and Greece all became 90% Muslim when they got conquered by a Muslim power for hundreds of years. If only the Turks had studied the fair and evenhanded way Christians dealt with Muslims in Spain, the entire Muslim religion wouldn’t have to face your entirely appropriate, well sourced and withering criticism! Especially a woman from Maylasia/Singapore, which is 60% Muslim (I’m sure they’ll get around to the genocide sooner or later, right now they’re busy being maids in Hong Kong.) Keep educating those damn foreigners about their own culture and religion Matt! If only they understood their own primitive superstition and tribal customs as well as you did. Your doing God’s word, that’s for sure.

          • Matt

            Check your snarky attitude at the door. It’s obnoxious as hell.

            The Ottoman Empire is not synonymous with Islam. It was first and foremost an empire, not a religious organization. It’s the difference between the British Empire (whose principals were Christian but were generally uninterested in converting local populations to Christianity) and the Spanish Empire (which made forced conversion of locals to Christianity a central tenet of its agenda).

            FYI, Malaysia and Singapore used to be 0% Muslim. And there is PLENTY of state-sponsored discrimination against non-Muslims in Malaysia. Just ask any non-Muslim Chinese Malaysian. And Singapore (where Sharrma is from) is majority non-Muslim, so your attempt to use it as some sort of argument falls particularly flat. With respect to genocide, maybe you should consider Malaysia’s neighbor to its immediate south, or would that be too inconvenient for your knee-jerk apologist agenda?

          • gregblandino

            Maylasia got converted by Muslim traders. I imagine muslims in Europe, especially right now, would have plenty to say about state sponsored discrimination. I’m sure the natives of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States would differ about the relative benignity of the English Empire versus the Spanish, but the question remains: Why are you trying to convince a moderate Muslim her religion supports genocide, murder and pedophilia? Is she supposed to be like “My God, you’re right, I do need to strike the neck of the unbelievers. Find me a child to marry, ASAP.” Moderate Muslims are going to be the ones that ends this shit. Probably by becoming the sort of luke warm, goes to Mosque once a week lukewarm Muslims that don’t stone people to death for anything. I don’t think polemics by outsiders will help that process.
            We can get into a historical Christian versus. Muslim genocide off if you’d like, I’d argue that the Christian West beats the Muslim world handily. Since we’re American, the USA also used to be 0% Christian. But hey, whaddayaknow, seems to be a decent amount of Christians around now.

          • A Realist

            Perhaps it is she, not he, that needs to reflect on the value of a religion founded by murder and rape, and if that is something you want to invest your life in. Your solution is just sitting in the closet rocking back and forth denying the reality of Islamic history while being fully willing to point fingers at all the stains on western history. This basically means you have a double standard and are quite possibly racist since you hold one group of people accountable but not another.

          • gregblandino

            Dammit, my racism! It shows no matter how I try to hide it. Anyways, I’m off to the closet for some more rocking, perhaps a little whimpering. Maybe in the closet I’ll be able to think of how telling 1.5 billion people they should just get rid of this whole facet of their culture cause I don’t like it makes me not racist. Just be more like us, brown people! Whew, I think that might of done it.

          • A Realist

            Well I’ll take that as a concession that you are in fact a double standard having hypocrite :)

            I guess using Gregbabino logic racist Americans can keep being racist because we dont want to confront that facet of their culture and all, and because critical analysis never served any useful purpose.

          • Matt

            If there’s anything I hate more than religious fundamentalists, it’s a “lukewarm” religious hypocrites who claim to follow a religion while not actually doing so. I was having this “discussion” with Sharrma (more like a one-way monologue since she tellingly hasn’t responded to any of my comments) because if she’s misrepresenting her religion, then she should be called out on it.

            If her religion DOES support genocide, murder, and pedophilia, then I think anyone who claims it doesn’t should be called out on their fib. I don’t care that she’s “moderate”, as this isn’t about her; this is about facts and what is and isn’t true.

            Save your predictable “Christianity is worse!!” argument for someone who’s actually arguing that Christianity is better. You may as well argue that Scientology is worse––what the hell does that have to do with our discussion? Absolutely nothing. It’s just the typical knee-jerk reaction of liberal apologists like yourself.

          • gregblandino

            Are you religious? Why do you care if people are lukewarm or lapsed or non practicing of their religion? I’m atheist, but I don’t go around yelling “WHEN YOU DIE YOU ARE NOTHING” to people on the subway. If anything, loose, decentralized, barely practiced, religion is the best kind. People still get the “Um, yea, treat people like you want to treat people” or “Murder: Don’t do that!” without being insufferable to be around.

          • Matt

            Why do you care if people are lukewarm or lapsed or non practicing of their religion?

            Because I consider it hypocrisy. Religion is by definition supposed to be the most important aspect of one’s existence. It’s supposed to be absolute and not “lukewarm” or “lapsed”.

            If anything, loose, decentralized, barely practiced, religion is the best kind.

            That is not religion, and I wish religious hypocrites who live that kind of irreligious lifestyle while proclaiming to be religious would cease the facade.

          • gregblandino

            I guess. But if you’re not religious, and they can sleep at night and look themselves in the eye while they shave in the morning, then is it really worth getting worked up over? Do you find Catholics on forums and berate them until they admit transubstantiation is ridiculous? If so, that sounds kind of fun. I’d be willing to start the transubstantiation trolling rolling if you are. Why are Catholics advocating magical cannibalism? The world wonders.

          • Matt

            I don’t seek anyone out. But I do respond to comments I happen to encounter that are patently untrue. I don’t go to Muslim forums and start arguments. But while I was browsing comments here on chinasmack, I happened to see Sharrma’s comments decided to respond to them. I do the same when someone makes a patently untrue statement about China or any other topic.

          • Sharrma

            ” I was having this “discussion” with Sharrma (more like a one-way monologue since she tellingly hasn’t responded to any of my comments)”
            The reason I haven’t responded is that I see nothing worth responding to.

            You just cherry pick and totally decontextualize verses from the quran and hadith to create strawman arguments.

          • Matt

            Ah, but you did respond. And your response was to justify the pedophilia (“everybody else was doing it!”) and the murder (“everybody else was doing it!”). Even gregblandino, who was defending you, didn’t think you would actually defend the pedophilia. He assumed you would just renounce the hadith. His progressive heart will be crushed when he finds out your response was to actually defend a 50-year-old man having sex with a 9-year-old girl.

          • Sharrma

            I think I need to rewrite the end of my last post.

            You simply just cherry pick and totally decontextualize verses from the Quran, hadith and anyone that posts against in creating strawman arguments.

          • Matt

            I did not cherry pick anything. I did not create any strawman argument. I gave you an opportunity to respond to those texts, and your response was to defend them by essentially invoking “peer pressure”, as if there is no higher moral standard for the most revered man in Islam, as well as to blatantly try to change the definitions of words (“it’s not pedophilia if everyone’s doing it”). I see you’re the type of person who will just make false accusations in lieu of substantive arguments, so if you’re too intellectually dishonest to answer my last chain of questions (and I suspect you will be because they were worded in such a manner that you won’t be able to just weasel your way out of answering them honestly and straightforwardly without any circumlocution or changing of topic), I’ll retire this discussion.

          • Sharrma

            you make me laugh, defeated , but still trying to save face.

          • Zappa Frank

            Actually this apply to you…

          • Kai

            As much as gregblandino has been snarky (something that wasn’t there at first and developed over increasing frustration like many other commenters here), wouldn’t there be profit in acknwoledging an obvious difference in motive here between you two?

            He clearly (to me) seems to think it is more important to NOT alienate the moderate Muslims as a way to marginalize the radical fundamentalism that has led to terrorism. HIs end goal is integration to avoid unnecessary conflict.

            Your goal is to argue the factuality or accuracy of what you’re saying. In other words, you’re arguing about who is “right”.

            As I’ve already mentioned in previous comments, this is confounded by subjective interpretation, and adherence to any religion (or ideology frankly) is a very personal thing. What you’re doing now is no different from telling a person he can’t self-identify as Republican because one of his beliefs does not fit into your belief of what a Republican must believe in.

            I understand this is a common phenomenon and I’m not trying to categorically dismiss our judgments of labels and how they’re used. For example, gregblandino can question your accusation of him being a “liberal apologist”. But, you have to see the logical pitfalls in this line of debate, right?

            As much as I resent Sharma for unreasonably being a dick to me (and others), I recognize that her first comments were to condemn terrorism as not being what she believes Islam should be about. I think that’s a good thing insofar as it can help reconcile “Islam” with “Western values” or “Western society”. I think people like her would be instrumental in marginalizing radical extremist elements and the end result is a more “secular” society where we can coexist peacefully.

            Like gregblandino, it does look to me that people who are trying to prove their beliefs about Islam to her, arguing about how they are right and she is wrong, are ultimately missing the big picture of consequently alienating her. Initially, she tried to explain, clarify, and defend her Islam, but now she’s just flaming people back engaging in tit-for-tat counteraccusations of malice and bigotry.

            She could’ve been an ally in the fight against extremism and terrorism. She was a moderate, in the middle, but now she’s been pushed to an end.

            Is arguing the validity of our interpretation of Islam worth this?

            I understand the motivation for arguing over definitions. We want Sharma to see things our way, exactly our way, and thus forsake Islam entirely to join us. We want her to agree with us that Islam is fundamentally “wrong”. We want people to coexist with us on our terms. She is either “with us or against us”.

            But I worry that’s incredibly arrogant and ultimately not a constructive way to solve the more important problem of extremism and terrorism. Please consider this.

          • A Realist

            Greg does seem to be quite the apologist, or atleast when it comes to Islam because he certainly holds the west to a different standard.

            Of course people like Greg practice moral relativism. When Islam does it its within the context of such and such cultural sphere thus we are not able to judge it while we must practice self-flagellation with regards to our own history. I say all history should be held accountable whether its that of my ancestors or yours or whomevers.

            Greg basically practices a form of racism where only European related historical wrongs can be addressed and criticized where as others are dismissed or relativised next to a larger and worse European comparison.

            Perhaps Greg and Sharma can address the Islamic slave trade after Aisha:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade

          • A Realist

            And this is why we dont want your cult in the West (in fact all non-muslim countries reject Islam from India to China and Burma, all have felt the bloody hand of Islamic violence). Yours is a religion of violence and invasion, it has been from the start. Learn the history of Islam before lecturing anyone.

          • Mihel

            tell you a secret frank […] I think your culture sucks..big time.

            I’m glad someone still thinks that’s a secret. I though it was a world renowned fact.

          • Zappa Frank

            actrually Allah never integrated anyone that was not a tiny minority. so big fail for him. on the other side he cannot integrate anyone since according to his religion people should become muslims. Sorry that you post a passage that has never been followed in the history, keep on dreaming, in the end if you belive in Allah you can believe in anything

          • Sharrma

            it does and it has, you just dont to believe it.

          • Zappa Frank

            sorry, but no one would ever say Jesus did good for that time but now is bad… would means the crumble of the Christian religion. Saying that what Muhammed did would be bad at this time means that we can doubt also about the other things he did… A religion have to be absolute, cannot be relative.

          • Teacher in China

            I don’t know….I sure don’t see many Christians practicing “turning the other cheek”, and I think most of them would say that that idea is outdated.

          • Zappa Frank

            that is because, lucky enough, most Christians are false believers

          • Teacher in China

            Ok, so “no one would ever say Jesus did good for that time but is now bad” has now become only “false believers”… Every religion has its hypocritical followers who follow what makes them feel comfortable and conveniently leave out what they disagree with. Singling out Islam and Muslims is ridiculous.

          • Zappa Frank

            no, because there is an obvious difference in percentage. Christians countries are mostly composed of ‘false’ believers, while Islamic countries are mostly of believers that follow the religion a lot more strictly. Just try to figure out a western country that can be compared with Iran, Arabia, and so on.. But even in the so called ‘moderated’ Islamic countries we are still at a higher level than in basically all strong Christian countries.

          • Teacher in China

            First, I think you run into problems when you try to talk about “Christian countries” because I don’t think such a thing really exists; most Western countries may identify themselves as Christian, but in reality the populace is made up of many different religions as well as those who don’t identify with any religion. If you instead try talking about Christians as a group of people, I’m still not sure that you could say they are mostly composed of “false believers”; sure, there aren’t many that take every word of the Bible to be absolutely ok, nor are there many who believe every story to be literally true (although I did meet someone like that once – she claimed Eden was an actual place that really existed and believed the whole snake/apple story and all that actually happened), but I don’t think that would make them “false believers”. Most Christians follow the main tenets of their religion just as strictly as Muslims do.

            Last, I challenge the idea that most Islamic countries are comprised of people who follow the relegion a lot more strictly. I’m not sure how you can possibly prove such a thing is true.

          • Zappa Frank

            No, most Christians follow what is convenient for the moment, just consider divorce, abortion, gay marriages, pre wedding sex and so on…..all against the Christians values, still most Christians find them acceptable

          • Teacher in China

            Which is exactly my point. Every religion has its hypocritical followers that pick and choose what to follow and what to discard. All this bs raging against what Mohammed did and didn’t do is pointless; if Christians and whoever else are allowed to disregard whatever part of their religions make them uncomfortable, then so are Muslims, and it’s hypocritical of people to single them out for it.

          • Xia

            Christians say that about the OT. “It was good for Israelites to butcher all their neighbors, coz God said it was good, blah blah.”

            Christians say that it was good for Jesus to hand himself to the Roman authorities without resistance and let himself be executed, but if the same thing were to happen today, do you think Christians would allow themselves to be persecuted without fighting back?

          • Zappa Frank

            actually yes, the if you follow strictly the Christian religion you should do the same even now.

          • gregblandino

            Jesus turned over the moneychanger’s tables. Do Christian’s go about vandalizing credit card company’s lobbies today? I’d support that.

          • Zappa Frank

            Yes, believer still condemn those companies (that are not in the temple anymore, that was the reason why Jesus did what he did), and still think what jesus did was correct… Again, muslim still think that have sex with a 9 years old girl is correct? is the same with what Jesus did? not even close

          • gregblandino

            You find a muslim saying “In 2015, sex with 9 year olds is OK.” It’s not Ok. Shariah says it’s not Ok. It’s like the Bible tells the story of “And then the Israelites killed the people of Jericho” but modern Christians don’t go about hunting down cannanites. It’s a historical abberation. I’m sure 1,400 years from now, we’ll have some habits we think are ok that people then will think are insane and barbaric.

          • Zappa Frank

            Christians follow more than the bible what came after the gospel, that is a new path… actually no one will ever admit was correct to go and kill people, even if was in the bible, but on the other side there are many people that among muslim will confirm that what Muhammed did was correct, like Sharrma here. But the point is this, while in christian religion for a cultural reason (that doesn’t not necessary have to do with being Christians) the extremism is limited, the belivers are almost all not strict, in islam like we can see in a user like Sharrma, they are extremely strict, and they are not a tiny minority… and this is something that is undeniably against the possible integration in a normal society.

          • gregblandino

            She’s from Singapore. It’s not Saudi Arabia. She just wears a head covering out of modesty. If that’s incompatible with your culture, would you make nuns take off their head covering? Headcovering are not even a Muslim thing really, we have a group of people were I come from called Pennsylvania Dutch whose womenfolk cover their head.

          • Zappa Frank

            is not the covering head that makes her extremist. is the ideas she showed here… now try to think to live in a country with a majority of people like her.. would be good for you? not for me, and for sure would not be Europe anymore.

          • biggj

            There are child brides all over the place happening as we speak. Not all muslims but there are a lot of these things going on.And I’m sure they are having sex with them…it’s insane. But it’s very common in Pakistan and Afghanistan so on. And white people do it too. And they get away with it because of religion.

          • gregblandino

            True, it’s a world wide phenomenon. But it’s also not until recently that the standard for when people could marry wasn’t just “after puberty.” And singling out Muhammad and calling him a pedophile is ridiculous because the concept didn’t even exist back then. You can think “Hey, crazy times back then” and still hold the same though “Don’t marry children” at the same time. It’s not like the interpretation of the religion hasn’t evolved or can’t evolve.

          • gregblandino

            And I agree. Fuck credit card companies. And the moneychangers. If Christian went about doing stuff like that, I could support it.

          • Yes!

            Wrong, it was not normal even back then. Back then, it was “normal” in many cultures where young “adults” married and have children by the time they’re 17. But 9 years old was not normal, not even in those ancient days.

          • A Realist

            Best quote describing Mhud: “He is deceiving. For do prophets come with sword andchariot?, …[Y]ou will discover nothing true from the said prophet except human bloodshed”.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad

          • gregblandino

            Depends on Sunni or Shi’ia hadith. A’iha’s rape is not in the Quran, but appears in Sunni hadith. Because of the role A’isha plays in the ensuing civil war between her father Abu Bakr and Muhammad’s son in law Ali, there’s pretty good evidence that the Hadith referring to Mohammad conssumating his marriage with Aisha was written after the fact to support Abu Bakr’s coup against Ali.

            The entire Shi’ia quarter of Islam reject the hadith’s concerning Muhammad “raping” A’isha (not to make him look good, but to deny Abu Bakr’s claim to the Caliphate over Ali), as would Sunni Quranists (who reject all Hadith).

          • Sharrma

            interesting I’m Sunni shafi’i’ I don’t believe rape its not in hadith that ive seen.
            Hadith is foggy sometimes, can you send me some links as to what you have as to the lesser scholers ?

          • Zappa Frank

            so you spent your life believing in something you didn’t even know that deeply. impressive.

          • Sharrma

            tell me right know , you have minute to reply, who stood at right side of jesus on the temple of the mount.

          • Zappa Frank

            no one…

          • A Realist

            You just conceded his point that you dont actually know that much about islamic history. Why don’t you start learning some of the history of Islam here:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade

            Oh and let me formulate your diversionary retort: “Yes but Christian Americans made big slave trade… blah blah diversion blah”. Yes we know and its in our history books and we acknowledge it.

          • gregblandino

            Certainly. Sunni view of A’isha and Muhammad’s marriage http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/062-sbt.php#007.062.064
            Though by rape, we are referring to “statutory rape,” a concept that was unknown at the time. It’d be like throwing out Greek philosophy because Athenians practiced pederasty, but prepared to listen to a legion of commenters start saying that it’s “different.” Muhammad never used a cell phone either, but you don’t see Muslims going around sending telegrams, now do you?

          • biggj

            It’s not different.

          • Sharrma

            haha

          • A realist

            I love “Greg Logic”; rape of 9 year old is ok because its “a different” time, but lets talk about how bad America and the West is. You realize you are simply practicing racism right?

          • gregblandino

            You’ve got me! Racism! Damnit all, I thought I’d hiddent it so well. If only I blindly condemned 1.5 billion people based on one verse I saw on the internet, I could be non racist! Here….let me try…. Hey! Dark foreign people! Knock it off with the Islam! Whew. I think you cured me, Mr. Realist. I am now officially not racist.

          • biggj

            Still married her…but my point is…. To me Muhammad is just like any crazy world leader. Claims they are messengers of god, speak with god and so on. Look at the Kim family in north korea, The egyptian pharaohs and so on. These people are all the same.

          • gregblandino

            Married her to get the Abu Bakr Qurayshites on his side. Makes him look more like Henry Kissinger and less like Jerry Sandusky. And if I had to pick a religion, Kissingerism (TM) might be the one I could ascribe to.

          • Sharrma

            Jesus,The Popes ? the disciples ?the Kings and emperors of the holy roman empire ?

          • biggj

            Yes all of them.

          • Sharrma

            Bush,Chaney,Blair,Merkal,Hollonde,Obama, all have said they pray and spoken with god, are they nuts too ?

          • biggj

            It’s when god speaks back and tell them to do things…something is wrong. People get committed to metal institutes for that.

            And all these people only do it for their own or political gains.

          • Mihel

            Well some of them definitely are nuts whether or not they talk with god.
            What does god reply I wonder?

          • Sharrma

            you better ask them, not me, but it appears their God is the called Halliburton. and his disciples, Greed, hatred, prejudice and propaganda.

          • Matt

            So 8 hours ago you were using them to defend the idea of “speaking with god”, and now you’re calling them evil. Do you realize you basically just affirmed biggj’s point?

          • JayJay

            they just want votes and we mock them just the same.

            see how Satire works?

          • Xia

            According to historical facts…all your ancestors were pedophiles. Just read about at what age girls were married and having kids during the Middle Ages.

          • Matt

            The difference is he doesn’t worship his Middle Age ancestors as deities.

          • Xia

            No religion are the same as when they were founded, nor should they be, if they don’t want to be outdated.

            Just look at Christianity: Once a Jewish doomsday sect, then the most powerful ally of Roman emperors and European kings and the largest tax collector in Europe, now running a wide network of hospitals and charities. They came a long way. But all those changes are a result of Western socio-economic development.

            The same principle applies to Islam as well, but looking at the socio-economic development in the Middle East, the scars of colonialization and post-colonial wars for influence and natural resources all had a too heavy toll on them. Islamic extremism is not the first cause of violence in the Middle East, but a result of what happens, when invasions and civil wars spiral out of control into chaos and destruction.

          • Matt

            A religion should be theologically consistent with its central text. The passage of time should not render a supposedly divine text “outdated”.

          • Alex Dương

            Which religions fit these criteria?

          • Matt

            It’s not a matter of which “religions” fit these criteria, but which religious adherents fit these criteria. I believe that “Islam” that differs materially from the Quran isn’t Islam, and “Christianity” that differs materially from the Bible isn’t Christianity.

            According to Christianity, Jesus is supposedly God. If Jesus were recorded in the Bible as having done something considered morally unacceptable by today’s standards (let’s say…murdering non-Christians and having sex with a child), I don’t think that any Christian who says, “Well…that was then…God didn’t know any better…” would be a real Christian, considering a central tenet of Christianity (and indeed any Abrahamic faith) is that God is omniscient. So either opposition to murdering infidels and having sex with children is wrong…or God is wrong.

          • Alex Dương

            Do you agree, then, that there are very few Christians and Muslims in this world?

          • Matt

            I haven’t read the Bible or the Quran in their entirety, so I couldn’t say. All I can say is that anyone who explicitly violates a central tenet of the text (such as believing in the moral/intellectual fallibility of a supposedly divinely-inspired entity) isn’t a true believer (assuming the Divine is supposed to be absolutely moral and omniscient, which I believe is the case).

          • Alex Dương

            I’m not an expert in Christianity or Islam. I’ve read The New Testament and an English translation of the Quran, but that was many years ago. Still, I don’t think it is problematic for Christians or Muslims to think / believe that prophets could be morally or intellectually fallible. The prophets were, after all, human and flawed.

            The reason I asked you that question is that I’m under the impression that it’s basically impossible to follow the Bible or the Quran to the letter without, at minimum, some contradictions. I would wager that very, very, very few Christians these days are serious about following Leviticus 20:13 insofar as it prescribes the death penalty for homosexuality. Some Christians say that Christians aren’t bound by the laws of the Old Testament. As a non-Christian, I’d respond by saying that Jesus himself said “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”

            As for Islam, I think you’ve already gone over with others that there are verses in the Quran that prescribe tolerance and those that don’t.

          • Matt

            In my opinion, you’ve basically just disproved both religions.

            I simply don’t see how a divinely-inspired text can have contradictions. As far as I can tell, there are only four possibilities explaining these contradictions: (1) the original text in its original language was mistranslated; (2) non-canonical chapters/verses have been placed into the canonical text; (3) God/Allah is fallible and makes mistakes…and maybe has Alzheimer’s; or (4) these religions aren’t divinely inspired after all.

            At least one of the above four statements has to be true.

          • Alex Dương

            I personally go with (4), but I’m not anti-religion, per se. If religion makes people feel like they live with more meaning, want to improve themselves and be kind to others, and so forth, then great. If it makes people feel like they have a reason to kill other people, eh, not so great.

          • Kai

            5) What man says is divinely-inspired may not be, or may just be the flawed approximation of whatever divine inspiration man has received.

            Basically the catch-all argument religions have against accusations of their god’s falliability is that something was lost or perverted when passed through falliable man. Religions like to make a big deal about their texts being the sacred “word of God” but when push comes to shove, they don’t have a foolproof way of rebutting the possibility of falliability in the medium.

          • fabulous

            …Which is an interesting point. If Jesus had said, “I am not come to destroy the law, but to keep it going; forever”, then your point would make absolute sense.
            However, as it actually says that He came to “fulfill” the requirements of the law, and the last thing he said (First time around) was, “It is finished”, Christians are able to say that they are not bound by the law of the Old Testament.

          • Alex Dương

            Well, Jesus didn’t say he was going to keep it going, forever. But in the very next verse, he did say “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Seems like “till heaven and earth pass” is close to “forever.”

            I’m not a Christian; I have no proverbial dog in this fight. As far as I’m concerned, your conclusion that Christians aren’t bound by the laws of the Old Testament is perfectly valid.

          • Kai

            Muhammed was a man who was divinely-inspired but not divine like Jesus. Does Islam believe Muhammed was sinless? Christianity believes Jesus was and the whole idea of him being tempted to sin was to reinforce his sinlessness, wasn’t it? Earlier divinely-inspired prophets in Christianity were not sinless and had plenty of moral and intellectual falliability.

          • Kai

            I think it would be relevant here to point out that even God can change in Christianity. God changing is in fact the very premise of Christianity, that Jesus represented God’s change from the Old Testament of the Jews.

            The problem with the premise of your argument here is that it doesn’t account for the variability of interpretation of either the Quran or the Bible as a function of religious tenets and adherrence.

            Subjectively, of course you can measure and judge other’s “Muslimness” or “Christianness” by how well they adhere to your interpretation of those religions and their central texts. This just doesn’t really change whether or not other people see themselves as “Muslim” or “Christian”.

          • fabulous

            I think it would be relevant here to point out that, God changing the way that people can get to Him, is in fact the very premise of Christianity. Jesus represents, not a change of God, nor a change of his expectations, but a fulfillment of expectations. That is the change from the Old Testament of the Jews.

          • Kai

            I want to agree and apologize for my previous presentation of “God can change” failing to be clear on this, but I think God limiting his chosen people to Jews and then expanding to all gentiles with Christ could be argued by many as God “changing”.

            I understand there are Christian responses to address such a view (as you allude to here) but I’ll leave it to you to share them because I’m more interested in just making a point in response to Matt.

          • Kai

            That would pretty much nullify most religions and forbid anyone from claiming to subscribe to whatever religion they claim to subscribe to.

            The problem here is that people are trying to impose their definition of a religion of a specific name on others and judging them by it.

          • gregblandino

            Religions change with time. Interpretations of the holy text as well as what constitutes a holy text fluctuate as well. For much of Christianity, canon law was also considered a subsegment of divinely inspired texts. Your definition of religion applies to exactly zero religions practiced in the real world.

          • Matt

            This isn’t a matter of whether or not it’s acceptable to eat lobster. It’s a matter whether or not the foundational character of an entire religion did something that today is considered unconditionally and irredeemably immoral.

            Interpretations of the holy text change, but the text itself does not change (especially in Islam), so if the text itself violates the moral standards of the present, then either the moral standards of the present are wrong, or the text itself is wrong.

          • gregblandino

            So an apocryphal story appears in a later Hadith that just so happens to serve as justification for Abu Bakr in his play against Ali, and the entire Religion is doomed to child fuckery for the ages. Since the Muslims on the board seem to disagree with you, why are you trying to convince them their religious interpretation is wrong, and instead they should support murder and paedophilia?

          • Matt

            Now wait just a minute here. I posted what I thought to be impartial text, by websites I don’t believe to be biased against Islam. If you’re telling me something I posted is untrue or apocryphal, then by all means, tell me so explicitly and specifically. But don’t skip that step and just accuse me of intentionally lying about Islam, because I’m not.

            The only Muslim on this board I’ve talked with is Sharrma, and she hasn’t responded to a single one of my comments that include quotes of theological text. Not one. So don’t mischaracterize the situation.

          • gregblandino

            It’s a hadith. Says so right there on your link. They are by definition, an apocryphal text. It’s A’isha’s hadith, and she wrote it after being accused of infidelity and supporting her father, Abu Bakr, in a coup against Ali. The rationale for the coup is “Muhammad loves me the most because I’m the only wife he slept with who was a virgin.” It doen not appear in the Quran. Shi’ites don’t accept it, saying all of the subsequent hadith compiled by A’isha are self serving ex post facto propaganda. Since you quoted wikipedia, why don’t you hyperlink jump around till you get a basic understanding of Islam, cause right now it’s hard to tell whether your being malicious or ignorant.

          • A Realist

            Oh so you’re calling Aisha a liar??? Get the stones boys we got ourselves a blasphemer! You must be anti-Islamic to call one of Muhammad’s many wives a liar. Islamophobe!

            Great how you are the self appointed decider on what is true and false about Islamic history. Maybe you yourself are a prophet?

          • Matt

            Now, wait just a minute. If Sunnis accept it as true, then it is by definition not apocryphal in the context of Sunni Islam. If Sunni Muslims believe in the authenticity of the hadiths, including the one I quoted, then it is NOT wrong, let alone malicious, to quote it when discussing theology with a Sunni Muslim. If Sharrma wishes to tell me that she’s a Shi’ite and therefore doesn’t accept the hadiths as true, then by all means, she is welcome to, but she hasn’t done so.

            Stop assuming the worst of me and being unnecessarily defensive/aggressive. I’m simply trying to clarify facts. I now know that Shi’ites don’t accept the hadiths and will therefore never cite them in discussing theology with any Shi’ite. I will, however, continue citing them in discussions with Sunni Muslims, unless you can give me a better reason not to.

          • gregblandino

            Someone else mentioned this earlier, so I’ll paraphrase it. Muhammad is a prophet, but also a Man. They don’t dig themselves into the sort of logical hole that Nicene Christians do by insiting that their Prophet is sinless.

            So they break their texts into religious commandments and narrative: Do not murder. Do not commit adultery, etc. Then there are narrative pieces. Muhammad retreats to Medina and returns to Mecca and breaks the idols. If you read the Quran as a whole, it’s pretty obvious which ones are “do this” and which ones are “this happened.” In most mainstrea Islamic canon law, commonly known in the West by it’s more Orientalizing name “Shariah,” pre-menarche child marriage is verboten. Islamic canon law, like Christian canon law, differs significantly between different traditions and denominations, of which Sunni has many.

            Finally, from my personal historical point of view. Muhammad A) probably didn’t start having sex with A’isha at 9, it’s just too “convenient” for her in the contemporary succession dedate, and for all the supposed “receiving of the prophet’s favor” she gets in her Hadith, she doesn’t ever once get pregnant by Muhammad. His other wives did. She is, however, a fascinating figure in History that destroys alot of preconceived gender roles in Arab society, sort of like an Arab Ci Xi.

          • Matt

            So it is in accordance with Islamic theology that Muhammad was a sinner? Very well, then. From now on, in these sorts of discussions, I’ll ask Muslims if they think Muhammad was a sinner. If you’re right, then they should all answer yes. But if they don’t, your argument is invalid (or they’re wrong about their own religion, which is basically exactly what I’ve been arguing with Sharrma).

          • gregblandino

            Well, go meet your multitude of Muslim friends you have religious conversation with man.

          • Matt

            I don’t have religious conversations in real life. That’s what the Internet is for. I also have enough sense to realize that debating religion with friends is a good way to lose friends. I’m not on the Internet to make friends.

          • gregblandino

            You don’t think having a muslim….acquaintance or whatever might give you a more nuanced view of how Islam is actually practiced in the real world by real people?
            And at least we agree on this point, fuck internet friends. That shit’s just weird.

          • Matt

            I know how Islam is actually practiced in the real world by real people. What I’m arguing is that it violates Islamic theology, and to not recognize this is to indulge in a convenient lie that allows one to publicly wear the badge of religion (along with the “holier than thou” attitude) while hiding in the closet all the dirty laundry fundamental to that religion.

          • gregblandino

            I don’t know, most Muslims i’ve met have been super Westernized. If they seem to be cool with whatever they’re doing, why bother? In the states, at least around where I’m from (Western PA 412 what what), the holier than thou attitude seems to be a distinctly white middle class Christian vibe, but I’m sure it differs in other countries. What is the pay off i eliminating religous hypocrisy? Just…winning arguments?

          • Matt

            First off, if your primary interaction with Muslims is Muslims who happen to live in Pennsylvania, then you’re really sheltered from the majority of the Muslim world. It’s like saying, “Most Vietnamese I’ve met here in PA really hate the communist flag and government of Vietnam, so I can only assume that most Vietnamese share this opinion”. The average Vietnamese-American is NOT representative of the average Vietnamese, and the average Muslim American is likewise NOT representative of the average Muslim.

            Make no mistake; many (if not most) Muslims do have that “holier than thou” attitude about kuffars, and especially about atheists and polytheists.

            But more importantly, this isn’t about generalizing anyone or hating on anyone. It’s about clarifying what’s true and what’s not. I openly admit that I have a problem with lies and people who disseminate them. If someone says something that’s a lie, I think that lie should be refuted.

          • gregblandino

            Meh, it’s a shitty attitude man. You come of as a bit dickish I guess. Note that Sharma wanted nothing to do with you. Your sort of just arguing with yourself (and me I guess.) I’ve met Muslims here in China, and they seem to be even more relaxed about the whole thing. I guess the point is, there is no “average” Muslim because it’s a personal relationship that someone has with their own beliefs. So painting the entire religion as “crazed terrorists” is counterproductive and wrong.

          • Matt

            You’re missing the point. It’s not personal. I’m arguing facts. I don’t care whether the person I’m arguing with is Muslim, atheist, Christian, or even an Islamophobe. The point is that the truth shouldn’t need justification to be expressed.

            Once again, you’ve succumbed to a knee-jerk reaction by putting words in my mouth and accusing me of having painted the entire religion as “crazed terrorists”. I literally never did that. If you disagree, then go ahead and look for an instance of me having done so. Spend all the time you want, but you won’t find anything because I never did any such thing. This is just another talking point you’re used to mindlessly using against anyone who in any way questions Islam.

            Sharrma wanted nothing to do with me because she couldn’t rebut my points. She had plenty to say in her long argument with Zappa Frank (who was no less “dickish” than me), but once I typed two comments quoting Quranic scripture and a hadith, she suddenly stopped commenting. Well gee, isn’t that convenient.

          • gregblandino

            Because you took the quotes and hadith out of context? It’d be like me taking a random battle from the Old Testament, picking the part where God tells the believers “Win this one for the Gipper” and being like “God wants us to kill the menfolk and enslave the women and children.” You think I’m going to get lots of dialogue with a Christian with that opening? What part of that is like “productive and open discussion ahead.” I imagine she won’t be coming back, because God forbid Chinasmack become anything else but majority white males talking shit.

          • Matt

            No, I did not take them out of context. Again, you’re not even paying attention to what I’m saying, and are putting words in my mouth. She specifically said Muhammad was not a murderer and pedophile, and I specifically quoted scripture and hadiths suggesting he was. I didn’t claim Allah instructed Muslims to kill kuffars and have sex with children; I just quoted scripture and hadiths that said Muhammad did those things.

            I don’t know what this has to do with white males. I’m not one, so spare your predictable knee-jerk response for someone else who is (as if someone’s race should have any bearing on what they’re allowed to say or how they’re judged…how liberal of you).

          • gregblandino

            What’s predictable and knee-jerk is the flood and Islamophobic comments that polemicize a religion held by 1.5 billion people. In the past decade, its become almost mandatory. No one is restricting your right to let ther world know how little regard you have for Islam, in fact the comments thread is full of anti Islamic rhetoric. If anything, sharma got shouted out of this forum by a chorus of group think.
            It’s interesting to me that this rhetoric only came to the cultural fore as the West decided to invade various countries in the Islamic world, and the violence has been completely decontextualized as a peaceful, civilized west being irrationally struck by religious fanatics.

          • Matt

            Good God, you really are predictable. Why do you think arguing facts––not making ignorant generalizations about people, but arguing indisputable facts––is phobic?

            You obviously have an agenda to fight what you perceive to be an Islamophobic agenda. The only problem is that you’re willing to do it even at the expense of truth and impartiality. So someone will make a blatant lie about Muhammad, in accordance with Sunni Islamic theology, and when someone else calls that out for the lie that it is, you attack him for it on account of your agenda.

            Why don’t you get over your knee-jerk agenda and just embrace the truth, whatever side of the political spectrum it may incidentally fall on? Instead of judging my comments on their own merits, you’re generalizing them as part of some vast, concerted Islamophobic conspiracy. Do you not see the irony in generalizing all comments you deem as Islamophobic to be the same? You’re no different from someone who thinks that all Muslims are terrorists; you just think all critics of Islam are Islamophobes. My opinion of Scientology is no better than my opinion of Islam; does that make me a Scientolophobe? Has it ever occurred to you that critiquing something doesn’t necessarily mean hating it?

          • gregblandino

            You’re not the holder of truth and impartiality. I think Quranists who criticize contemporary Islam are not Islamophobes. I think you are, because you distort Islamic texts out of context to fit your agenda. When you didn’t even know what a hadith was at the beginning of the conversation, it was obvious that you hadn’t really looked at the whole picture, and just conveniently relied on your prejudice and the current zeitgeist of Islam bashing to base your comments on.
            I bet dollars to doughnuts, when we decide to eventually stop intervening in Muslim countries, the level of anti Islamic rhetoric goes way down or even disappears. When the next enemy du jour we will seeif people are still writing anti Muslim polemic.

          • Matt

            I’ve distorted nothing. I quoted Islamic texts. You can post as much additional Islamic text as you’d like in order to provide “context”, but it will not rebut the points I made by citing those texts.

            Stop acting as if hadiths have no credibility in Sunni Islam. Any Sunni Muslim who wishes to say he or she doesn’t accept the hadiths as true is free to do so, but it’s not your position to make that declaration that on behalf of them.

            Instead of referring to the substance of my comments, you’re just attacking me personally and playing Mr. Psychiatrist by professing to read my mind and know my intentions. If you had a good argument, you wouldn’t need to invoke all these external judgements and resort to accusations about my supposed moral character and motives. Either what I’m saying is true or it isn’t, so stop trying to distract away from this basic fact. If you can’t rebut my argument, then don’t bother posting.

          • gregblandino

            So go support the Quranists then. Or a shi’ia. Instead you insist that he’s a Murderer and pedophile, which would be offensive to them. I’ve given you historical argument about why that characterization is wrong. Your still like “my quote that i got from Wikipedia is all I need.”

          • Matt

            I’m not sure why you think I should “support” a Quranist or a Shi’i. The issue isn’t “who to support”. The issue is whether or not Sharrma’s statement was true. And it wasn’t.

            I don’t insist that Muhammad was a murderer and a pedophile, so much as that I insist he was a murderer and a pedophile according to Islam. I have no idea whether or not he even existed. My point is that, if one accepts Islamic texts to be true, then according to those texts, he was a murderer and a pedophile.

            It’s like a Christian claiming Jesus didn’t walk on water. I have no idea whether or not he even existed, but according to Christianity, he did walk on water.

            I see you’ve become desperate enough to resort to the “quote from Wikipedia” line. How conveniently you ignore that (1) I quoted a hadith and the Quran; it doesn’t matter a damn where they’re from, so long as they’re accurate, and (2) the Quranic verse I posted wasn’t even from Wikipedia; it was from the University of Southern California’s official website and endorsed by the Omar Ibn Al Khattab Foundation.

          • gregblandino

            Did you click on it from the Wikipedia link, there bud? Have you tried opening a book on the subject? People accept different hadith’s as valid or invalid depedning on their own beliefs or denominiation within Islam.

          • Matt

            People accept different hadith’s as valid or invalid depedning on their own beliefs or denominiation within Islam.

            No shit. And said I only hold that hadith relevant for those who profess to believe it. Just as I only hold the Quran relevant for those who profess to believe it. DUH.

          • gregblandino

            Well then go find someone who professes to believe it there bud. You’re 0 for 2 outside of the “let’s rage about Islam” brigade. I think the Hadith is obvious Abu Bakr Qurayshr propaganda. Sharma or whatever said she didn’t believe that hadith about him being a pedophile either. So go find your mythical muslim that’s willing to accept it, and be done with it man.

          • Matt

            Good grief. I quoted the Quran, and you’ve never even attempted to rebut that because you obviously can’t. So what’s this “0 for 2” nonsense?

            I think the Hadith is obvious Abu Bakr Qurayshr propaganda.

            Good for you. But what you think is irrelevant in this matter. I also happen to think that the Quran is obvious Muhammad propaganda, but that doesn’t mean Muslims don’t believe it.

            Sharrma never told me she didn’t believe that hadith. Did she say that elsewhere, or are you just making this up?

            It amuses me that you’re such a desperate apologist that you think only a “mythical Muslim” would believe the Quran, and possibly a hadith. Yeah, I’m sure finding a Muslim who believes in the Quran will be REAL hard, man.

          • gregblandino

            She said she didn’t believe he was a pedophile. I allready addressed the Quran verse being from a specific time and place and not a generalized command. I didn’t feel like repeating myself, though now this discussion seems to be going nowhere.

          • Matt

            Of course she did. That’s what prompted my first comment in the first place. But she never refuted the hadith I quoted.

            You must either be dim-witted or maliciously lying, because I already pointed out that I NEVER claimed that verse was a generalized command. My only purpose was to demonstrate that Allah endorsed killing kuffars, and that verse demonstrates precisely what I intended to prove. I was responding to her comment claiming Allah was more “tolerant” of non-Muslims than Zappa Frank is of Muslims (I don’t recall Zappa Frank encouraging anyone to strike off Muslims’ heads and strike off ever one of their fingertips).

            Don’t lecture me on repeating yourself when you keep putting words in my mouth. Are you going to again accuse me of claiming that Quranic verse was a generalized command 40 minutes from now? Maybe you should write it down so that you don’t forget and we don’t have to go over this a third time.

          • gregblandino

            How is “Allah endorsed killing Kuffars” not a generalized command? When you strip it off its context and the other generalized commands against murder and what not, you give a false impression.

          • Matt

            It’s not a generalized command because he was “talking” to a specific group of people, not all Muslims in the present day. But more importantly, I didn’t even make that statement in my original comment, so don’t think you can cling to this line as an example of me being dishonest; I used that line with you, and you know perfectly well the context of our discussion.

            What is an indisputable fact is that, according to the Quran, Allah, at one point in time, instructed a specific group of his followers to strike off the heads and smite off every finger of the unbelievers.

            http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/008-qmt.php#008.012

            You can’t weasel your way around this truth.

          • gregblandino

            Ok. Quote: “Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): ‘I am with you:
            give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers:
            smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.'” End quote.
            If i ever run into rampaging Islamic angels, I’ll keep in mind to keep my fingers and head out of smiting range. I admit that Allah has commanded angels to strike fingertips and heads. The rest of the chapter seems to be a pretty decent standard for Just War, especially considering it was the 6th century. But I guess because it’s not the UCMJ, it’s wrong, because morality never changes, ever, forever, amen.

          • Matt

            I haven’t the faintest clue what your intended purpose of this comment could possibly be. It’s as if you don’t even recall the original purpose of me quoting the verse I did, even though I swear I’ve already clarified it to you at least two or three times.

            I admit that Allah has commanded angels to strike fingertips and heads.

            Yes…and the key phrase is “of the Unbelievers”. That was my whole point.

            Your comparison of it to the UCMJ is once again irrelevant, because I never even passed judgement on the chapter in the first place. I never claimed it’s immoral. My only point was to prove that which I quoted. It is you who keeps reading judgement and condemnation into everything I say.

            “because morality never changes, ever, forever, amen.”

            What a pristine example of putting words in my mouth. I’m starting to wonder if you’re actually too unintelligent to realize what you’re doing. I had assumed you were just being an asshole and knowingly putting words in my mouth, but maybe you legitimately aren’t even aware you’re doing it.

          • gregblandino

            It’s a command to angels. Are you an angel? Have you met any angels? I admit that Allah commanded angels to strike unbelievers. You’ve won you’re little pedant pissing contest. Islam endorses angelic violence against unbelievers. Do you think this verse is characteristic of the Quran as a whole? How many angel related deaths have the infidels suffered since this verse?

          • Matt

            Do you think this verse is characteristic of the Quran as a whole?

            No, I don’t. So maybe you should stop putting words in my mouth, for fuck’s sakes.

            You’ve basically admitted I was right, but you couldn’t admit that without trying to insult me in the process, because you just can’t deal with the fact that every single accusation you’ve levied against me has been demonstrably false. I’m not the generalizing, simple-minded, Islamopbohic bigot you thought I was, and that pisses you off because it means you basically just wasted several hours of your life. It’s like you picked a fight with a PETA supporter only to realize 3 hours later that he was never a PETA supporter in the first place, and you had just jumped the gun and gone hog-wild on him because he mentioned he likes vegetables.

          • gregblandino

            Fuck vegetables you animal lover! But seriously man. It’s a verse about angels. Your a pedant, the original tenets of Islamic just war cancel out imaginary angelic warfare, and I’ll take angelic warfare over Frank Zappa’s insidious ethno nationalism any day of the week and twice on Sunday. So just to clarify, your point is that Allah instructs his angelic followers to strike unbelievers? No more, no less. Then we, my friend, have come to an agreement.

          • Matt

            My point is that this statement:

            “Allah the almighty does better than you in integration. even then 1500 years ago Islam embraced you, 1500 later you cannot except”

            …is false. No more, no less. Stop being a pedant by wasting so much of my goddamned time arguing this point.

            And this is hardly the only example of Allah not being accepting of kuffars. But I’m not going to waste my time digging up every intolerant verse in the Quran. Knock yourself out:

            http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html

            Have fun rationalizing every single one of those 537 examples. I’m sure there’s a progressive, humanistic explanation for all of them. lol.

          • Kai

            I empathize with the accusation of him coming across as the holder of truth and impartiality, but I don’t think he has an agenda. You’re conflating him with some other commenters. I’ll vouch for @Matt as seeing something that doesn’t jive with what he knows and being predisposed to giving voice to that. He’s not above defending his position and arguments, and he’s not above being proven wrong. I think he’s made that clear in his comments to you so far as well.

            Accusing him of just wanting to argue over who is “right” is closer to the truth than him being a representative of the “current zeitgeist of Islam bashing”. I don’t doubt he is critical of what he understands about Islam, but that’s a far cry from simply being a basher. Others are way more deserving of that pejorative. I’ve tried to convince him that he’s misunderstanding you, but I think you are increasingly mischaracterizing him as well.

          • Probotector

            The truth is not defence to someone like this. Lies and truth, facts and fiction are interchangeable to this sort of individual, as long as their rhetoric supports a single agenda.

          • Kai

            While I thought it was clear that Greg is referring to many of the other comments that are arguably “phobic”, I don’t begrudge you for challenging him possibly including you among them.

            I don’t think he has an “agenda” if those he has disagreed with don’t also have an “agenda”. That insinuates dishonesty when I think he has simply has responded to other rhetoric with rhetoric of his own. It is impossible to deny the prevalence of arguably anti-Islamic rhetoric here. He’s fighting it, yes, but I don’t think it is for any motive more dishonest than your motive for fighting against what you feel is Sharma misrepresenting Islam.

            I think we really need to review how this discussion unfolded, reminding ourselves of the possible contexts people were operating under, and what might have instigated their responses.

            1. http://www.chinasmack.com/2015/pictures/japanese-netizens-photoshop-isis-terrorist-chinese-reactions.html#comment-1810357676

            A Realist characterizes Muhammed as a murdering pedophile and insinuates Muslims as being sheep.

            2. http://www.chinasmack.com/2015/pictures/japanese-netizens-photoshop-isis-terrorist-chinese-reactions.html#comment-1810443001

            Sharma denies the characterization and even has the good humor to baaah when denying being a sheep.

            3. http://www.chinasmack.com/2015/pictures/japanese-netizens-photoshop-isis-terrorist-chinese-reactions.html#comment-1810961409

            You respond to her quoting Wikipedia substantiating why people would consider him to have committed murder and to be a pedophile (at least by modern norms). You challenge Sharma to evaluate her understanding of the word “pedophilia” and concede that Muhammed was.

            I believe she ignored you from here? Like you, I think she felt realized she was caught in a difficult position and decided to slink off rather than have the maturity and honesty to confront the issue and then find a reconciliation for her desired position.

            Now, I don’t think gregblandino responded to this comment of yours but his subsequent comments make clear he read it and it has been a basis for his perception of your position and motivations, so it is important to note it as context.

            4. http://www.chinasmack.com/2015/pictures/japanese-netizens-photoshop-isis-terrorist-chinese-reactions.html#comment-1811243595

            This is where he responds to you.

            Zappa had said he knows his culture better than she does, “enough to see” that there is no compatibility between his culture and her/Muslims. Some of us might know Zappa well enough to know he’s referring to the Muslims he thinks want to take over Europe and supplant their secular laws and values with Sharia law. It shouldn’t be hard to see however that it’s still an inflammatory “us vs them” remark.

            Sharma responds by citing what she thinks demonstrates that Islam embraces non-Muslim minorities while Zappa represents Europeans who are prejudiced against Muslims and are for religious persecution. As I previously mentioned, people are strawmanning each other, not giving each other the benefit of the doubt, but also not taking pains to carefully communicate exactly what they feel they are actually saying.

            You respond by citing three translations of a verse that contradicts Sharma’s citation illustrating Islam’s “integration”. To be fair, your verses don’t necessarily disprove her, but they do confound the absoluteness of her argument.

            Greg responds by confounding your confoundment. He does so by introducing the context that those versions “are specific to the political-military situation of Muhammad in Medina”. He introduced context that may help us better understand what those verses are saying and whether or not they are descriptive of religious history or prescriptive as a religious tenet.

            I agree he was snarky thus escalated the discussion between you two. I feel however that this is where #3 proves explanatory (along with other subsequent comments). He felt you were trying to “disabuse moderate Muslims of any pretensions of being moderate”. For what end, he muses, to “win an argument”?

            As I’ve said also again, it should be clear by now that he’s not against the truth, but he intepreted your pursuit and argument over the truth as having little profit, ultimately just alienating what he considered to be a moderate Muslim who would be an asset in marginalizing the radical extremism that he himself is explicitly on the record as being against.

            Therefore…

            You should be allowed to argue with what Sharma posted without being accused of being an Islamaphobe, but greg should be allowed to argue with what you posted without being accused of being an apologist, liberal or not.

            I think it isn’t terribly hard to see how people have reacted emotionally and indignantly in this discussion, with cycles of people being less than careful with their words or less than clear with their motivations and perspectives.

            Since I find myself in strong agreement with many of the arguments and what I believe to be the fairly principled motivations behind such arguments that you and greg have made, I’m sad that you two have become so antagonistic to each other. Hopefully my perspective as a third-party might help you guys better understand each other.

          • gregblandino

            And at least Zappa Frank I can figure out. He’s an Italian nationalist, probably of the northern variety. And at the end of the day, his pride of culture and pride of home is something I can relate too, but disagree with. Why you feel the need to disabuse moderate Muslims of any pretensions of being moderate is still beyond me.

          • Matt

            I already told you why: Because I value truth. Is that not good enough for you? I’ve had tons of arguments on chinasmack and its sister sites, and 99.9% of them had absolutely nothing to do with Muslims or Islam. Excuse me for giving a shit about truth. You’re literally defending Sharrma lying. How you cannot be ashamed of yourself for doing such a thing is beyond me.

          • gregblandino

            Because she doesn’t believe he’s a murder of pedophile? Here’s some decadent liberal propaganda! http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/17/muhammad-aisha-truth

          • Matt

            Not once in that entire article was anything I said rebutted. The fact that marrying and having sex with children was “normal” at the time is utterly irrelevant. The idea that Aisha supposedly consented to the marriage and wasn’t considered a victim is utterly irrelevant. All that is relevant is her age, and not once did the article argue that she demonstrably wasn’t a child.

          • gregblandino

            Except for the part where they didn’t know her age at the time and it wasn’t written 300 years afterwards by another author….you know the apocryphal part. Do you reject Greek philosophy because they were pederasts?

          • Matt

            Do Sunni Muslims accept it as true? Yes or no? If yes, then your “apocryphal” talking point is BS. The question is whether or not Sunni Muslims believe their own prophet consummated his marriage when his wife was a child. Whether or not she was exactly 9 doesn’t even matter. If she was young enough to look 9, then she was a child. I wonder how graciously you would accept these ridiculous arguments if they were being offered as legal defense by a pedophile in 2015.

            I don’t “accept” Greek philosophy in the first place, so your bizarre attempt at citing it as an analogy falls flat on its face.

          • gregblandino

            Obviously in 2015 it’s ridiculous. But it’s ridiculous to take 21st century morals and apply them to the 6th century. It’d be hypocritical (and we all hate hypocrites) to castigate one historical figure for not living up to modern sexual mores and not other historical figues. It’s apocryphal in the sense that its not true. I think the Guardian article argued quite clearly the differing view of how Muslim scholars view the controversy. Islam is not a monolith where you can point to one interpretation and be like “That’s it! That’s the one!”

          • Matt

            I’m not calling Muhammad immoral. I’ve never once judged his supposed morality. The question is whether or not he had sex with a child. That’s it. Whether or not it was “acceptable” at the time is completely and utterly irrelevant. It’s like saying that since racism was socially acceptable at the time, white people who committed lynchings weren’t really racist.

            The Guardian article argued that some Muslim scholars believe Aisha might have been as old as 19. Sorry, but that’s not a compelling argument. You may as well say that some Japanese scholars believe the Nanking Massacre might have never happened.

            I’ve never said that Islam is a monolith. But it is monolithic with respect to the supremacy of the Quran (so you can’t shrug that off like you’ve tried with the hadith), and my citation of the hadith is relevant to any Sunni Muslim who accepts it as true.

          • gregblandino

            Now who is making ridiculous analogies. People who lynched blacks were racist. They were avowedly racist. It was the centerpiece of their ideology. People in 6th century arabia where not pedophilic. They just had a 6th century view of womanhood coming post Menarche. The centerpiece of Islam is not “sex with children.” So again, slowly: Lynching: Bad then, bad now. (Why else would it be extrajudicial?) Age of consent/child marriage: Changes with time/perspective. Now it’s of course despicable and wrong.

          • Matt

            paedophilia; noun: sexual feelings directed toward children.

            One would think having sex with someone means having sexual feelings directed toward them.

            The centerpiece of Islam is not “sex with children.”

            I never said it is. So again, slowly: Stop putting words in my mouth.

          • gregblandino

            Then how would you interpret your bizarre “lynching wasn’t racism if Muhammad’s not a pedophile” analogy? One act is the apotheosis of a racial terrorism that was at the time extrajudicial and deplored, and one is a cultural artifact. The concept of what was a child and what was a woman was determined by the menarche at this time and place, so he would be directing his sexual feeling to what in his mind and culture and time would be a woman, and so not a pedophile. This isn’t some sort of muslim only concept, it was prevalent in the entire region that this time.

          • Matt

            Just because pedophilia is common in a society doesn’t mean it’s no longer pedophilia. By your logic, if all the West were Islamophobic, then it wouldn’t really be Islamophobic at all, since it would be “just a cultural artifact”.

            I never said it’s “some sort of Muslim-only concept”. For like the fourth or fifth goddamned time: STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. I’m beginning to suspect you’re doing this willfully and on purpose. Would you like me to start putting words in your mouth and accuse you of saying things you’ve never said?

          • gregblandino

            You’ve certainly all ready done it with 1.5 billion people, so why don’t you just go ahead. Why not just randomly take individual words I’ve typed and accuse me of cannibalism or something. I know your really really stuck in your current Weltschaung, but try to realize that your values and your viewpoint are specific to the time and place that you exist in. Your pedantry will probably prevent that, but meh, go for a try.

          • Matt

            No, I haven’t. Go scour every single comment I’ve ever made in my entire life and see if you can find any evidence of me having ever done so. You won’t be able to because I haven’t. You’re the one putting words in my mouth; that’s already bad enough, so at least have the decency to not accuse me of doing what you’ve repeatedly been doing.

            My “values” don’t have a darn thing to do with this. Maybe you should realize that your “viewpoint” is blinding you from the blatantly obvious. The Quran indicted Allah of commanding his followers in that passage to kill kuffars. This is an indisputable fact. You CANNOT rebut this. The hadith stated Aisha to be a child. This is an indisputable fact. You CANNOT rebut this.

            Seriously, you’ve NEVER rebutted my original points. Not once. So where are you getting all this arrogance from? Do you think merely slandering me over and over again is a substitute for an actual argument? Are you rationalizing that since you’ve typed a lot of text, you’ve made a significant effort and therefore by virtue of that, you’re automatically right?

          • Kai

            I think the argument greg is trying to make is that:

            1) Maybe Muhammed isn’t a pedophile according to the definition of the word because there is contention about her age.

            He has to admit that some Muslims (even many) accept Aisha’s age as literally 9. However, there’s nothing wrong or nonsensical in him considering such contentions plausible or even persuasive. He has clearly demonstrated that he is considering the possible confounding factors and contexts that make her age at consummation questionable, which is a far more sophisticated level of critical thinking than simply accepting a verse as automatically true and authoratative.

            What if Aisha DID misrepresent her age for ulterior motives and reasons? Sure, that makes fools of everyone who took her word at face value, but this may indeed be a reason why at least some Muslims do not knee-jerk conclude that Muhammed is a necessarily a pedophile because while puberty can come at 9, even that was considered pretty young back then for sex.

            Greg isn’t arguing that Muhammed isn’t a pedophile if Aisha was 9 according to our definition of the word. He’s arguing that there is plausible contention that she was 9 and this influences to what degree he can be accused of being a pedophile relative to the norms of the time.

            Sure, just because racism was acceptable at that point in time doesn’t mean we can’t call those people “racists” today, but we also intuitively understand what is reflected in the phrase “a man of his time”.

            So you have two angles here actually.

            One is that Aisha wasn’t necessarily that young. This does not equate to greg failing to recognize that many Muslims believe she was literally 9.

            Greg also isn’t arguing that the mere existence of some Muslim scholars arguing that Aisha wasn’t literally so young is compelling. He’s representing that he considers the arguments by those scholars to be plausible or even compelling. These are two very different things. He wouldn’t be denying the Nanjing Massacre on the mere existence of some people believing it didn’t, he’d only be denying it if he found those people’s arguments to be more convincing than the arguments of others. What are the arguments of the others in the case of Aisha? Citation and acceptance of what she said? Other objective evidence of her age at time of consummation? There’s a definitely “he said, she said” problem here. Recognizing this is not a failure to recognize that yes, many Muslims do believe she was literally 9, and so long as she was, that fits the definition of pedophilia today.

            The other angle is that however young Aisha was, we do have to recognize that accusing Muhammad of being a pedophile carries a stigma that wasn’t present in his time and easily risks being an emotional fallacy argument when used today.

            Now think about this very carefully: You have Sharma who openly condemned terrorism as not being Islam and one of the responses to her was to attack her prophet as a “murdering pedophile”. However much we dislike her for how she has subsequently carried herself, we have to recognize how this influenced the tone and direction of discussion.

          • Kai

            Holy toledo, man, when did him accusing you of alienating what he thinks to be a moderate Muslim become him defending her lying? When did him pointing out that your quotes were decontextualized become him defending her lying?

            You’re putting words in his mouth right after accusing him of doing it to you. Please tell me you can see this. Even more ironic is your previous comment lamenting hypocrisy in general.

            He also already acknowledged your response that you value truth. It should be apparent to you by now that he thinks “winning” this argument about Islam isn’t worth alienating what he considers to be a moderate Muslim.

            Your disagreement with him is that he thinks your pursuit of truth is misguided and not constructive for a larger problem. Can you recognize his perspective as understandable or even laudable? He’s not saying she can’t be accused of lying (IIRC), he’s just saying he’d rather Muslims not interpret Muhammed as somehow justifying murder and pedophilia because that makes for nicer Muslims.

            [Edit: I think this comment of his was extremely instructive in understanding his position and perceptions.]

            I get that some people might want to argue that the “truth” is that Muhammed does justify murder and pedophilia as a means towards convincing Muslims to forsake him and thus Islam, but I don’t know how effective that is. It seems arrogant and self-serving to me.

            I’m going to avoid saying that’s your motivation because I genuinely think you just saw something that doesn’t jive with what you know and wanted to correct it and defend that correction. But I do want to throw that out because it may explain some of the aggressive hositlity with which some people are going after Muslims and their religion in these threads.

          • Kai

            Dude, Matt…

            This is just another talking point you’re used to mindlessly using against anyone who in any way questions Islam.

            You just put words in his mouth as well, right after accusing him of it. Read his comments. He doesn’t have an issue with “anyone who in any way” questions Islam. You can accuse him of misinterpreting or misunderstanding your intent in this discussion but you can’t review his comments and ignore the fact that he’s also engaging in arguing facts. When others have trotted out stereotypical oversimplifications or half-truths about Islam, he has sought to provide more information and knowledge on the issue, contextualizing and allowing people to become more sophisticated in their understanding of certain issues with Islam.

            You should not casually dismiss this as being an apologist or you would be guilty of the same thing in other discussions where you have done the very same things and for which I have enthusiastically agreed and supported you.

            I think the antagonism you feel towards greg might be tempered if you reviewed his comments and reconsidered his possible reasons for his disagreement with you.

          • A Realist

            Maybe you (and they) just have problems accepting reality; Muhhamed married and raped a child girl of age 9. Muhammed killed his enemies to spread his faith, he captured and held slaves and allowed his men to do the same including raping women. His decedents carried on this tradition from north Africa to Iberia and Constantinople.

            Do you often find your grasp of reality is not very strong? People are pointing out facts and you cant seem to accept them. Any faith whose founder is a child rapist, slaver, and murder should be open to critical questions or maybe you hold the West to one standard and everyone else to another, which is basically just racism.

          • Mihel

            Painfully true.
            Thanks god we do not take inspiration from fourteenth century marriage customs…

          • biggj

            Yeah they were. And they were wrong and anyone who defends those actions are crazy.

          • Xia

            Actually, it was normal back then. The reason being people had an average life expectancy of 30 years. Not much time left for family planning or raising the batches of children they produced (in case those children survived their birth).

          • Kai

            Is anyone really defending those actions relative to modern values though? I think people are just properly contextualizing the actions.

          • biggj

            Why do people think im defending my own people? Everyone who does this is fucked up, no matter who does it…It’s just has a special irony when it’s a prophet doing it. Now let me be clear….not just Mohammed..but any religious prophet..whatever that religion maybe be. Messengers of god…..yeah right.

          • Mihel

            Why do people think im defending my own people?

            I’m always baffled when people assume that criticising others = defending your own. Or that by defending your own you are implicitly criticising others.
            It’s not an inverse function that when a variable goes up the other goes down and vice versa.

          • Matt

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Badr

            “Traditional sources dictate Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad, with the marriage not being consummated until she had reached puberty at the age of nine or ten years old.”

            He literally committed murder, so I’m not sure how you can say he wasn’t a murderer. His own cousin (Ali) beheaded non-Muslims just like the ISIS militants this article is about.

            And if you want to insist that having sex with a 9-year-old girl doesn’t make you a pedophile, well, I’m sure there are a lot of men in the world who wish legal courts would have the same opinion. Please tell me, do you think an adult man having sex with a 9-year-old girl is acceptable? Yes or no?

          • A Gawd Dang Mongolian

            Yes a long time ago people sucked.

            Can we get back to how people today suck?

          • Sharrma

            I don’t know how many times i have to say this, context, context,context.

            1500 years ago it was common considered normal, accepted as OK to marry that young all across the world, it isn’t now. The lovemaking was between husband and wife and was consensual, no rape was involved.

            So 1500 years ago it wasn’t considered pedophilia.
            Do i think its acceptable of course not I live in the 21 century.
            Unfortunately 1500 years forming, establishing and defending a religion often involved violence and warfare.And again it was acceptable then, not now.
            I along with the vast majority of Muslims believe that to take a life is wrong and that the actions of these terrorists is wrong,and in my opinion un- Islamic.

            It is equally as wrong to paint a whole religion as bad just because of the actions of small minority of misguided, and evil men.

          • Matt

            Just because pedophilia was normal 1500 years ago doesn’t mean it wasn’t pedophilia. It was still pedophilia; it was just socially accepted pedophilia.

            A little girl could no more consent to sex 1500 years ago than she could today. It was accepted because men of the time didn’t give girls any other choice. Do you really think any 9-year-old girl would want to have sex with a 50-year-old man? Of course she didn’t protest; she didn’t have any power to. If she did, she may very well have been killed. It was not consensual; it was rape, just as it’s rape if a 50-year-old man pressures a 9-year-old girl into having sex with him in 2015. Just because she doesn’t resist doesn’t mean she wanted it. And just because she was legally his wife doesn’t mean she wasn’t being raped. Marital rape is still rape: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape

            I don’t see how killing in the name of Islam 1500 years ago was any more moral than killing in the name of Islam today. Innocent people were killed for being non-Muslims. Just because it was 1500 years ago doesn’t mean their lives didn’t matter. Murder is murder. Their pain and suffering was just as great as the pain and suffering of anyone being murdered today.

          • Sharrma

            imposing 21st century laws and values to events and practices of 1500 years ago is simply ridiculous.
            Again you are straw manning .

          • Matt

            Having sex with children is pedophilia. It doesn’t matter what year it is or how many people approve of it. This isn’t a matter of “laws” or “values”. It’s a matter of definition. Having sexual feelings for children is by definition pedophilia.

            I don’t want this to become another needlessly long, drawn-out argument, so instead I’ll ask you this chain of questions: Do you consider having sex with children to be sinful? If so, are you acknowledging Muhammad sinned? If not, are you saying that morality changes over time, even though Allah/God is supposed to be eternally omniscient?

          • Kai

            Your argument seems to be Muhammed is sinful because he fits the definition of pedophilia, and his sin in this regard should temper the reverence given to him, thereby being a damning criticism of Islam overall.

            We have a lot of transitive property fallacies here.

            So, let’s get this straight:

            Yes, pedophilia is by definition sexual feelings for children. We consider Aisha to have been a child. To the extent Muhammed had sexual feelings for Aisha, we therefore rightfully consider him to have been a pedophile. To the extent we feel pedophiia is morally wrong and thus a “sin”, we therefore rightfully do not hold Muhammad in very high regard at least for this. To the extent we want to believe divinely-inspired prophets should only be revered for their lack of sin and falliability, we can rightfully be disdainful of Muhammed.

            Here’s the problem:

            We consider Aisha to have been a child. What if Muhammed didn’t? What if by the norms of his time, she was no longer considered a child? What if, as greg has already brought up, he considered her a woman and therefore did not consider himself to have had sexual feelings for a “child” and thus did not consider himself a “pedophile” by the definition we have today? What if, as a result, he therefore does not consider himself to have done anything morally wrong and thus sinful? What if Muslims understand this and thus reasonably do not readily accept the damning of Muhammed as a pedophile with the modern stigma attached?

            Our modern society still holds intent and premeditation as important for judging the severity of any crime or moral wrong. If Muhammed consciously viewed Aisha as a “child” then hell yeah, he totally fits our definition of being a pedophile. But if he didn’t?

            We can still think of him as a pedophile but we can’t say he knew himself to be a pedophile because as far as he and the society of his time was concerned, Aisha was a sexually mature woman, not a child. He would not see himself fitting the definition. He would not see himself as having sinned. He would probably even consider having sex with “children” to be sinful, but we’d disagree with what constitutes a “child”.

            The definition in contention here isn’t so much “pedophilia” as it is “child”. So perhaps the morality against having sexual feelings for “children” has not changed over time, but our defintiion for what a “child” is has.

            You follow?

          • Teacher in China

            I really feel like like this point has been explained ad nauseum in this thread already. It really seems like Matt is either unable or unwilling to understand it. I think all parties involved should just stop wasting their time and agree to disagree.

          • biggj

            Yeah but come on…almost 700 comments. I thought it they did this story it would be around 800-1000 comments…come on we can reach 1000 if just dig deep and start hating more. :) lol

          • Kai

            I’m so far interpreting his non-response to my many replies to him as something in this vein. Or he may not have had the time yet.

          • Teacher in China

            Yeah I get that. But it’s really frustrating watching people argue in circles.

          • biggj

            It’s kind of like this.

          • Kai

            Heh, that’s sorta the reason why I interjected into his discussion with gregblandino, cuz I thought they were arguing in circles and maybe a third-party perspective will help them get through to each other.

          • Sharrma

            “Having sex with children is pedophilia. It doesn’t matter what year it is or how many people approve of it. This isn’t a matter of “laws” or “values”. It’s a matter of definition. Having sexual feelings for children is by definition pedophilia.

            So lets correct your straw manning step by step.

            Pedophilia or pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children
            (a) Pedophilia was not even a concept or word in language pre-1866
            (b) and not a crime in any secular society until the 19th century. .Womanhood or the age of majority was defined differently at that time (world wide)it was considered that the age of 7 and did not change until the 1900’s. ( c), shocking I agree

            Alisha’s( a mother of Islam) age at the time of marriage is contested even within hashish between 9 to 19 (d)

            The writings of Aisha and her narrators is dubious to say the least, contested my many, disputed by many more and
            rejected by very many.

            The prophet Mohammed(peace and blessings upon him) had 12 wives Aisha (mothers of Islam) was the only one under the age of 16 at marriage (disputed)

            Khadija bint Khuwaylid her age at marriage 40

            Sawda bint Zamʿa her age at marriage 27

            Aisha bint Abu Bakr her age at marriage 9 -19 (disputed)

            Hafsa bint Umar 25

            Zaynab bintKhuzayma 31

            Hind bint AbiUmayya 29

            Rayhana bint Zayd23

            Juwayriyya bint al-Harith 20

            Safiyya bintHuyeiy Ibn Akhtab 18

            Ramla bint AbiSufyan 29

            Maria al-Qibtiyya unknown

            Maymuna bintal-Harith 30

            So very clearly the prophet Mohammed (peace and blessings upon him) does not fall into any category of pedophilia.

            He did not commit statutory rape (it did not exist), nor rape as Aisha consented.

            “I don’t want this to become another needlessly long, drawn-out argument, so instead I’ll ask you this chain of questions: Do you consider having sex with children to be sinful? If so, are you acknowledging Muhammad
            sinned? If not, are you saying that morality changes over time, even though Allah/God is supposed to be eternally omniscient?”

            Well for someone complaining about monologue this is strange post.

            So I answered your questions with the caveat that we talking about 2015 and not the world 1500 years ago

            A) Yes I do believe its sinful and wrong

            B) No I don’t

            C) No, perception changes laws change, morality yes.as we struggle to accept and reach Allah.and put behind things like having a i-pod 7 is our salvation.

            D) Allah almighty is omniscient,you can’t blame the mess ups of man on him, blame yourself.

            So where does this leave you ?
            In a secular and intellectual mire, I see your only option is posting a public apology that that all your previous posts on Islam, were based on nothing more but your personal hated of Islam and Muslims and that your Anti-Islamic beliefs, have no basis in fact, logic or reason.

            So I ask you again to stop Straw manning, its unnecessary, nonconstructive childish and a banable offense by the Cs TOS

            References:

            a) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

            b) https://books.google.com/books?id=6T_9R7p1i6YC&pg=PT117&lpg=PT117&dq=when+was+the+word+pedophilia+introduced&source=bl&ots=p6pNlpemk2&sig=oYybrMGiHQ6VOtUjejcWMTLMG_E&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1jXCVM-pGovz8gW26YDwBw&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false

            )c http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child

            d) http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/17/muhammad-aisha-truth

          • gregblandino

            Well put.

          • Sharrma

            Apparently , I’m wrong..straw manning, flaming and posing hate posts is OK if a moderator shares your belief, then its Ok and protection, if they don’t its instant ban.

          • Kai

            You just strawmanned again.

            What moderator has said strawmanning, flaming, and posting “hate” posts is “okay”? What moderator has protected those arguably guilty of such behavior simply because of sharing beliefs with those people?

            Likewise, who has gotten an “instant ban” for such behavior simply because a moderator doesn’t share that person’s belief?

            If you can’t answer these questions, you are lying through your teeth, slandering others, and yes, strawmanning.

            As the most active moderator in this discussion, I have BOTH defended and criticized BOTH “sides”, including you and those disagreeing with you. You have in return multiple times strawmanned me and made false allegations.

            This behavior of yours is “unnecessary, unconstructive, and childish”.

            Knock it off.

            EDIT:

            Fucking christ, I should’ve guessed. You know what are bannable offenses? Impersonation, sockpuppetry, and circumvention of our moderation. You just had to sabotage your own valid points and arguments by engaging in dishonest behavior violating our comment policy. What a fucking shame.

          • Teacher in China

            Ahhhhh…..so you’re saying this was all a ruse by a recently banned fella? That is a shame because she started out pretty well, and it was fascinating to think we could have had a real practicing Muslim female engaging in the debate… oh well. Fool me once and all that…

          • biggj

            Speaking of muslim woman….I don’t how they could support that religion anyway, It’s super oppressive.towards woman. A man sure maybe you could go with it…but a woman just gets fucked all the way around in islam. If I was a woman i would have to be legendarily brainwashed to go along with it….or be controlled with violence and fear. :)

          • Teacher in China

            The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the only true religion! All others are pretenders! Muhammed was a faecromancer! Jesus was a masochist with a persecution complex!

          • biggj

            HA, You just reminded me of a story I read awhile ago. This is guy is nuts. No different than wearing a hijab or whatever. Still funny as shit. This guy is a “Pastafarian” hahahah

            http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/pastafarian-fights-to-wear-spaghetti-strainer-for-id-photo-1.1960281

          • Teacher in China

            You just made my day. I love it!

          • Kai

            Le sigh, right?

          • tomoe723

            Why is Matt’s posts not being flagged at the very least? I’m no Muslim, but those posts are inappropriate and only filled with hate and insults like all other Islamaphobes out there. Sure he has expressed his POV but to repeatedly insist it despite the solid responses and clarification from Sharma is already with malice and bad intentions. Why don’t he just condemn all Muslims for that matter and be done with it!?

          • biggj

            Was Sharrma flagged or something?

          • tomoe723

            Why would she be flagged?

          • biggj

            Thats what im saying, I think she should not be. I just misunderstood your comment, I was thinking sharrma got flagged or whatever and Matt did not.

            But if that is what he believes…than have at it. It Sharrma believes such and such than have at it. People maybe not agree but it’s their opinions.

          • Kai

            If people think his posts violate our comment policy, they’re free–even encouraged–to “flag” them. Whether or not we will “moderate” them depends on whether or not we agree them to be violations of our comment policy.

            I don’t agree with your characterization of his posts. Sure, there are insults, but we don’t (yet) moderate comments for insults alone. We also don’t moderate for “hate” alone as we make clear in our comment policy, but even then, I don’t think he “hates” Islam specifically. He’s critical and what defines his comments is not “hate” but a desire to argue and defend his position. There’s nothing wrong with that. He has to engage in some sort of dishonest behavior to violate our comment policy.

            I think you strawmanned Matt and lazily concluded he must be an Islamaphobe in order to just dismiss the many specific points, criticisms, and arguments he’s making. You don’t have to agree or accept them, but simply dismissing them by labeling him seomthing is itself intellectually lazy if not dishonest. All you are doing is trying to attack his person ad hominem instead of addressing his arguments.

          • biggj

            EDIT:

            Fucking christ, I should’ve guessed. You know what are bannable offenses? Impersonation, sockpuppetry, and circumvention of our moderation. You just had to sabotage your own valid points and arguments by engaging in dishonest behavior violating our comment policy. What a fucking shame.

            Who said this?

          • Kai

            I did? It’s in my comment?

          • biggj

            Yeah its at the bottom of the comment i replied to.

          • Kai

            I’m confused. Didn’t you reply to my comment quoting something I wrote in that comment and then ask who said it?

          • biggj

            Yeah it sounds like a quote from someone else. I was just curious who said it.So I seen this::

            “EDIT:

            Fucking christ, I should’ve guessed. You know what are bannable offenses? Impersonation, sockpuppetry, and circumvention of our moderation. You just had to sabotage your own valid points and arguments by engaging in dishonest behavior violating our comment policy. What a fucking shame.”

            And I was just wondering who said it.

          • Kai

            Oh, I think I understand you now. I guess it just never occured to me that you’d think “bannable offenses… circumvention of our moderation” was a famous quote from somewhere, but maybe you were referring to other bits and bobs of the paragraph. I suppose “sabotaging” yourself and “what a fucking shame” might sound like a quote of someone, but no, I wasn’t quoting anyone, just using fairly common turn of phrases.

          • Mihel

            Sharrma’s banned for making sockpuppet accounts? Which ones? (I thought accounts’ IPs were only visible to Disqus staff.)
            As much as I didn’t agree with most of her points it was interesting to have someone’s who’s an actual muslim living in a muslim country.

          • Kai

            Are you certain Sharma is a she, an actual Muslim, and living in a Muslim country?

          • Mihel

            …nope.
            Though I’m not sure at all she’s a she or that she lives in a muslim country, I think anyone who insists on defending islam/mohamed is most likely muslim.

          • gregblandino

            I keep my beliefs to myself, or at least I don’t tell people on the internet. Dipshits will just use it as an opportunity to attack what you hold dear for shits and giggles.

          • biggj

            Well some people come off as dicks when discussing religion…even myself. I just question religion. Where religious people never question it….and in most cases told not to…They just take it and believe it like some brainwashed sheep. It’s fine if someone wants to be religious if they question what they believe and come up with something that makes sense and without contradiction to them. To me personally, religion does not do that for me. It’s like believing in a Harry potter book or something. To me it seems like a tool used by leaders to control people.

            Everytime you you argue with Sharrma she just bring up shit that another religion does to make her statement justifiable…when both are equally crazy. But i have been been hard on her….I should try to be more understanding. Thing is I do try to understand but without proof of something it’s all just hearsay and stories. If I told you there were aliens on the moon, you would call me crazy and ask me for proof. Religion should be treated the same way. But question religion and all hell breaks loose. This is just how I fell about. I hate to leave with some internet meme’s…but what the hell, it’s fun. :)

          • Kai

            You were doing alright (but not unassailably) right up until you decided to strawman him and accuse him of violating the “Cs TOS”.

            Last I recalled, “strawmanning” is not a bannable offense. If it is, you’ve been repeatedly guilty of it too (including here) and should be banned as well.

          • Matt

            Pedophilia or pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children

            According to this definition, a man in 2015 who primarily has sex with adult women (let’s say, his wife…or eleven wives) and occasionally has sex with children is not a pedophile. The definition you gave is consistent with the ICD-10 (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems), which essentially implies that if a man doesn’t specifically prefer sex with children, then, even if he has sex with children, he is not a pedophile. I cannot argue with this, as this is apparently the official definition of the ICD-10.

            However…

            The notion that a man who has sex with children in 2015 isn’t a pedophile just because he doesn’t particularly prefer sex with children should strike anyone in the developed world as absurd, if not outright disturbing.

            The definition of the DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) provides a more inclusive definition, insofar as it does not require preference for children as a requisite for pedophilia. In other words, even if a man has sex with eleven adult women and shows no “preference” for children, he will still be considered a pedophile so long as he satisfies the following requirements:

            the presence of sexually arousing fantasies, behaviors or urges that involve some kind of sexual activity with a prepubescent child [check ☑] (with the diagnostic criteria for the disorder extending the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13 [check ☑]) for six months or more [check ☑], or that the subject has acted on these urges [check ☑] or suffers from distress as a result of having these feelings. The criteria also indicate that the subject should be 16 or older [check ☑] and that the child or children they fantasize about are at least five years younger than them [check ☑].

            (a) Pedophilia was not even a concept or word in language pre-1866

            Just because the word didn’t exist doesn’t mean the phenomenon didn’t exist. 


            (b) and not a crime in any secular society until the 19th century.

            Criminal liability isn’t a requisite of pedophilia. Whether or not it was legal has no bearing on it. This is like saying homosexuality is only homosexuality if it’s illegal. Homosexuality is homosexuality regardless of its legal status, and ditto for pedophilia.

            Alisha’s( a mother of Islam) age at the time of marriage is contested even within hashish between 9 to 19 (d)
            The writings of Aisha and her narrators is dubious to say the least, contested my many, disputed by many more and
rejected by very many.

            I don’t know if you realize this or not, but this is a completely separate argument from the one you’ve hitherto been making. Considering I don’t consider Islamic texts to be a proper historical account of Muhammad, I’m only evaluating this with respect to the account of Muhammad according to Islam. Of course, Islam is not monolithic, and therefore I only hold each Muslim “accountable” for the interpretation of Muhammad in accordance with the text(s) s/he professes to believe. If you do not accept the hadith as true, then I will not hold you accountable for them. Period. This is identical in nature to how I would not hold anyone accountable for the contents of the Quran if s/he doesn’t profess to believe it (obviously).

            The prophet Mohammed(peace and blessings upon him) had 12 wives Aisha (mothers of Islam) was the only one under the age of 16 at marriage (disputed)
            Khadija bint Khuwaylid her age at marriage 40
            Sawda bint Zamʿa her age at marriage 27
            Aisha bint Abu Bakr her age at marriage 9 -19 (disputed)
            Hafsa bint Umar 25
            Zaynab bintKhuzayma 31
            Hind bint AbiUmayya 29
            Rayhana bint Zayd23
            Juwayriyya bint al-Harith 20
            Safiyya bintHuyeiy Ibn Akhtab 18
            Ramla bint AbiSufyan 29
            Maria al-Qibtiyya unknown
            Maymuna bintal-Harith 30

            As we covered, according to the DSM-5, and in accordance with the sensibilities of anyone in the developed world, having sex with adult women does not let a 50-year-old man “off the hook” for having sex with a child. I’m sure many of the sex tourists preying on underage children in Thailand and Cambodia have wives back home, but that doesn’t make them not pedophiles.

            He did not commit statutory rape (it did not exist)

            This is a flimsy argument. Of course, if there is no age of consent, then there is no potential for statutory rape. But even you must acknowledge this is a weak argument appealing to technical pedantry/literalism in lieu of the more honest concept of substance over form.

            nor rape as Aisha consented.

            Again, this is a hollow argument, as Aisha had no choice but to consent. In fact, according to universal legal definition, a child can, by definition, not consent. Even if a child seems to “want” to have sex with an adult man in 2015, we still don’t accept that as consent. In fact, this is the foundational principal of criminalizing pedophilia in the first place. If we accepted children as being capable of giving consent, then pedophilia wouldn’t even be illegal in the first place. The reason it is illegal is because we assume that no child can consent. This is true in 2015, and it was even more true 1500 years ago when a child could have literally been killed by her own family/society for rebelling and refusing to wed.

          • Zappa Frank

            So what Mohamed did was wrong? Muhammad was a sinner for present day standards?
            Again, if he was a man why cannot be criticized?

          • Yes!

            You said “and I’m not sheep..baaah…”

            You remind me of my childhood nursery rhyme “Baaa Baaaa Black Sheep..”

          • Edward Kay

            I’m agnostic and I do not go round offending others for what they believe in.

          • Mihel

            The same way cartoons depicting Jesus, God and the Pope were not meant to mock christians but those specific christians who used and still use holy figures/religion as a shield from critique.

            Mocking Israel doesn’t mean mocking all of jews.
            Mocking Mao doesn’t mean mocking all of chinese.
            Mocking femen/feminazis doesn’t mean mocking all of women.
            Etc…

            The mocking of a religious/political/important figure of one group doesn’t extend to all the people of that same group.

          • Edward Kay

            Depicting them in a profane manner is different from just making a light joke. There are so many other things to draw for a laugh then court unnecessary trouble.

          • Saisyet

            You can depict historical figures without mocking them. Just because Islam prohibits Muslims from depicting the prophet doesn’t mean they can impose that restriction on non-Muslims.

      • Zappa Frank

        actually those papers mock Christians as well, if Muslims cannot deal with this means they cannot stay in Europe and should back to their countries.

        • tomoe723

          Yeah, Hebdo was literally mocking Islam. That’s why the extremist terrorists attacked them. In fact, in one of the interviews of the pope, he responded, free speech has limits. If you insulted his mother, he’ll punch you in the face. But he says the attacks were not justified though.

          • Zappa Frank

            actually the pope made a stupid speech. papers like Hebdo make fun of Christians continuously in Italy and despite what the pope say is perfectly legit, to do not understand this means do not understand what is behind the freedom of speech.

          • Sharrma

            John Stuart mill said that freedom of speech brings with it certain responsibilities.If you ignore those you might end up regretting you opened your mouth.

          • Alex Dương

            Yes, words (and actions) may have consequences. You may be sued, lose friends, fail to close deals, and so forth. You may also die, but I hope nobody is defending that as acceptable.

          • Sharrma

            of course not.

          • biggj

            Sounds like something from the ISIS playbook.

          • Sharrma

            i wouldn’t know about that, it comes from John Stuarts mill’s “on liberty and Utilitarianism”

          • Zappa Frank

            You have to realize that we live in a different society than the one of John Stuart Mill..

          • xue

            same society different time

          • Zappa Frank

            Different time means different society, London is not the same of dickens

          • Zappa Frank

            LOL is this a threat, it perfectly shows your incompatibility with western culture

          • Sharrma

            my apologies, i was under the impression that he was English and that his philosophy was of great importance in things like the French civil war and American war of independence. Things like the declaration of Independence, constitution and bill of rights.
            I could be wrong maybe he influenced Mao more.

          • Zappa Frank

            the problem is that you are trying to twist it in order to make more acceptable something in Europe should never be accepted, and hopefully will never be accepted.

          • Sharrma

            beginning to sound like that Norwegian terrorist , who killed what was over 90 people in 1 day, in the name of keeping Europe Christian and Anglosaxon pure.

          • Zappa Frank

            you see, again you did not understand anything, I’m agnostic and want to keep Europe laic. Actually the people he killed were more likely close to me than to you. Norwegian that want to keep Europe aglosaxon pure.. hahaha,

          • tomoe723

            As much as I don’t condone the terrorist attack, that French paper should’ve considered heavily how muslims in general react to these kinds of things. In certain parts of SEA, you and your entire family gets beheaded for these kinds of stuff. It’s so easy to hide behind the banner of “freedom of speech”, but humans have feelings too. Freedom of speech is not an excuse to trample/belittle other people’s emotions. I’d view Hebdo as a bully if that’s the case.

          • biggj

            Yeah but to get so mad as to kill cops and cartoonist over some shitty little french magazine that hardly anyone reads is pretty crazy.

          • tomoe723

            Call it crazy or whatever you like, people have done crazier shit for sillier emotions. But it still doesn’t excuse Hebdo for mocking other people’s religion. They did it for fun, not for some underlying social cause. The ignorance of such people only serve to produce anarchy, and so they literally got what they were asking for. They thought their “freedom of speech” will protect them from harsh reality, I guess not.

          • Zappa Frank

            your ignorance only serve to prove what is the problem in understanding other cultures.. if you cannot understand what is the meaning of freedom of speech and why is so important that they can do what they do even if not all of us agree means you cannot judge us. please look at yourself in the mirror next time when you will inevitably come out with your motto “you cannot understand Asian culture”

          • tomoe723

            Yeah keep repeating your silly banter. Freedom of speech does not mean absolute freedom. Every freedom comes with responsibility. If you don’t exercise that responsibility, then you don’t speak of freedom, you speak of your abuse of it.

            Maybe you should reflect more on what true freedom really means, because what you’re just saying is “I can do whatever I want and I don’t care who/whatever other people think about it, whether they get offended/hurt or not…” That’s not freedom, that’s selfishness.

          • Zappa Frank

            ok good not only you are not able to understand other cultures but apparently not even to read since I’ve never written anything like that.. so silly

            one question, is it valid also for Japanese? because is plenty of people offended by your speeches.
            sorry, i forgot, the double standard…

          • David

            You think true freedom means bowing down to the demands of a fascist religion? Strange interpretation.

          • Don’t Believe the Hype

            you need to understand, it doesn’t matter who is offended, freedom= freedom, not freedom= except when someone doesn’t like what you say. Your personal philosophy on what constitutes freedom of speech could easily be skewed as an excuse for state censorship.

          • Probotector

            “our personal philosophy on what constitutes freedom of speech could easily be skewed as an excuse for state censorship.”

            And it often is.

          • David

            It is obvious that you do not understand why they did it, therefore I will explain. They did it to stand up to totalitarianism and religious terrorism. They do not think they should be told in their country what and how they should run their magazine. By deliberately printing things that Islamic fascists forbid them from printing they are standing up. also their first cover after the massacre shows that they continue to stand up for their freedom of speech which is very important in western cultures. They did not do it for laughs, they knew it was dangerous and they did it anyway. That is how you stand up to fanatics who are trying to take away our freedoms you don’t just roll over and let them win.

          • Kai

            That’s idealizing their motivations. Arguably, they also did it because it does get laughs and resonate with certain audiences in order to sell more copies. This isn’t to say their reasons were wholly profit-driven, but idealizing their motivations as being wholly noble or principled is also inaccurate and an obstacle to constructive discussion.

          • David

            Fair enough, I should have said “Why I THINK they did it”. It has been many years since I have lived in Japan and I am far from an expert on the mind of the everyday citizen there now. However, I do not think it is an obstacle, because most of the comments here could start with “IMO” and that should be taken as a given.

          • vincent_t

            oh wow that is aweful. But wait, which part of the SEA you would have your family killed entirely?

            Btw, I love people like you, you know, the type of people that never heard of my favorite statement :””Better to remain silent and let people think you are a fool than to speak and remove all doubt””

          • tomoe723

            You should educate yourself more on different cultures and religions. You’re the type who goes on “carefree adventures” thinking your silly ignorant actions will not ruffle feathers and disturb the environment. Walk into a lion’s den and you expect to sit down and poke fun at their whiskers and noses and you’ll walk away unscathe?

            Btw, your subtle mockery doesn’t really work at all. I advise you don’t take careless vacations in some parts of Indonesia, Brunei, or the Philippines if you don’t know what you’re going into.

          • vincent_t

            I guess I did educate myself enough on respecting cultures and religions, but fail to educate myself to respect fool on internet.

            Anyway thank you for your advice. I was born and raised in Malaysia, traveled to Indonesia and Brunei couple of times, not many but surely way more than you, and never once heard any family been beheaded. I will try to ask around when I visit Indonesia next month. And I admit I am amused by how you show empathy to the Paris terrorist, but at the same time making fake story that spread Islamophobia.

          • tomoe723

            Don’t get me wrong, I’m not promoting Islamaphobia. Some of my very good friends are Muslims. Maybe you haven’t traveled too far or too much as you claim to have, but yes people do get beheaded. It’s an ugly thing, it’s uncommon, but it’s an accepted reality. If your offense merits beheading, they will come to your place and summarily behead you. Also, it’s not Islamaphobia, it’s just the law of certain regions. Not generally, but in some certain places. I should know, because my friend’s father works as a lawyer for conflict resolution in those areas. It’s a dangerous job, but he has gained enough respect and honor that he can go about minimizing such violent resolutions without fear for his own life.

          • Boris

            You can name these places. That will resolve everything.

          • Zappa Frank

            ..everytime she is ‘I have a friend that.. is musilm/is gangster/ is alien/is saint/is the pope… and so on

          • tomoe723

            So what, if you don’t want to believe me, just go there for yourself. I dare you to visit those places and act all mighty and proud with that “I can do what I want” attitude mocking the cultures and practices around you. We’ll see how long you can keep your head on your neck. Haha.

          • Zappa Frank

            no you are not credible…. and don’t make laugh in the end, you seem even more stupid

          • tomoe723

            I’m not trying to make you laugh or make myself credible to you. I’m not stating opinions here, I’m just stating what I’ve learned from other people. Obviously, we’re both on opposite sides of the fence.

            But since you’re so bent on arguing against me, I dare you to visit those places. Haha.

          • Zappa Frank

            good because you cannot, but keep on laughing really makes you silly, not that otherwise you may seem smart. you just state some fantasies like you usually do, you have a fervid imagination and even a low comprehension of what people says…. why should i go there to do whatever i want and shout to people? did i write i likle to do this? since you comprehension of what i wrote is so low i guess even what people told you may be completely different from what you understood.

          • tomoe723

            I don’t know what your problem is with me… is it something I’ve responded to you in the past that you took personally? Please enlighten me, I really don’t bother to recall my posts in forums unless somebody brings it up.

          • Zappa Frank

            no problem with you. it’s you that have a problem with logic

          • tomoe723

            I am sorry but I’m inclined not to provide names for specific places, lest I get misunderstood for promoting Islamaphobia. All I can say is, if you plan to visit remote areas or islands in these countries where Islam is the dominant religion of the region, just inform yourself first of basic grievances and their punishments. And best of all, to reserve yourself before acting out on your freedom of expression. As long as you show humility, respect and decency, you will be treated accordingly.

          • Zappa Frank

            you are the example I told before of the people that claim ‘you cannot understand our culture’ but understand even less of the others. Like you showed we on CS you explained your ideas about how old people are treated in western countries.
            For OUR culture is perfectly fine to make fun of the others and express our ideas, apparently for you is not. We make fun also of Christians, daily, just in case you wanted to come out with the racism .
            Funny to see that Japanese don’t consider much the emotion of the others when there is something about the 2ww.

          • tomoe723

            Haha, your analogy is very far off. You bring up the example of old people being put in nursing homes. Seriously? Lol.

            FYI, I wasn’t making fun of it. I was replying to the previous comment who made fun of the “burden of responsibility” of Asian children to take care of their parents. In response, I criticized how the lack of such “responsibility” has made your elders forgotten and abandoned in said nursing homes. If it’s perfectly fine to do so, why do you mock Asian’s tradition of taking care of their parents. You should look at yourself in the mirror before you make any further claims.

          • Zappa Frank

            Again, even replying here you show only your ignorance about the treatment of elders in western countries. Still keep with your ”western people cannot undestand” and pretend on the other side to understand our culture, but apparently not. Freedom of speech is like the treatment for eldery, something that you don’t understand

          • Sharrma

            they like to put them in nursing homes to horribly rot to death, so they can continue uninterrupted with the daily Starbucks, gym, soccer mum life style and their careers, they are good children, with strong western ans christian values.

            https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-2684474%2FCarer-June-Downer-abused-residents-Bradford-nursing-home-jailed-eight-months.html&ei=1c3AVN2eCYOumAWhk4HYDA&usg=AFQjCNFxI6VuHd-lMm6zz-Z_HlmblKgy0w&bvm=bv.83829542,d.dGY

            https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk-england-lancashire-25676842&ei=1c3AVN2eCYOumAWhk4HYDA&usg=AFQjCNEN1X7ysB15Ve5M3x5ncqLL8rFd7A&bvm=bv.83829542,d.dGY

            https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEgQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fuk-news%2F2014%2Fjan%2F10%2Fhillcroft-nursing-home-carers-jailed-abusing-residents&ei=1c3AVN2eCYOumAWhk4HYDA&usg=AFQjCNHeIy2xl-BvucO4NcJQ-T_WnVvWhA&bvm=bv.83829542,d.dGY

            https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFkQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fhome-news%2Fshocking-footage-shows-elderly-residents-being-taunted-and-abused-at-essex-care-home-9303888.html&ei=1c3AVN2eCYOumAWhk4HYDA&usg=AFQjCNF2tsvmkUh00gIImviTrXcI8gZ2zg&bvm=bv.83829542,d.dGY

            https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC8QFjAAOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.standard.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fcrime%2Fshocking-video-footage-shows-abuse-by-former-nurse-of-92yearold-dementia-sufferer-at-london-nursing-home-9598970.html&ei=yM7AVMPgIuW2mAWkrICQAQ&usg=AFQjCNHs7YtEonAaQ-XHtq6gSpYFhu9q3w&bvm=bv.83829542,d.dGY

          • Kai

            Ugh, now you’re just resorting to the same thing you’ve criticized and resented them for.

          • Sharrma

            seems to be the only thing they understand, news bit education, sometimes you just have it take down to their level.

          • Kai

            No, you don’t have to. It’s always a choice. Hopefully you can see there are also people who are trying to be fair and reasonable both reading and weighing in on the discussion. Giving up whatever moral high ground you have is going to alienate you from those who might’ve been sympathetic to whatever point and assets to whatever cause you might have. You have to decide whether respect or pettiness is more important to you.

          • Sharrma

            have not seen you weight in, mr fence sitter

            do you actually have a worthwhile contribution ?

          • Kai

            Follow me and you can see all my comments in your feed. Or you can just keep loading comments and find:

            http://www.chinasmack.com/2015/pictures/japanese-netizens-photoshop-isis-terrorist-chinese-reactions.html#comment-1810989692

            http://www.chinasmack.com/2015/pictures/japanese-netizens-photoshop-isis-terrorist-chinese-reactions.html#comment-1811013752

            http://www.chinasmack.com/2015/pictures/japanese-netizens-photoshop-isis-terrorist-chinese-reactions.html#comment-1811023863

            http://www.chinasmack.com/2015/pictures/japanese-netizens-photoshop-isis-terrorist-chinese-reactions.html#comment-1811031926

            http://www.chinasmack.com/2015/pictures/japanese-netizens-photoshop-isis-terrorist-chinese-reactions.html#comment-1811056366

            http://www.chinasmack.com/2015/pictures/japanese-netizens-photoshop-isis-terrorist-chinese-reactions.html#comment-1811082403

            http://www.chinasmack.com/2015/pictures/japanese-netizens-photoshop-isis-terrorist-chinese-reactions.html#comment-1811086137

            http://www.chinasmack.com/2015/pictures/japanese-netizens-photoshop-isis-terrorist-chinese-reactions.html#comment-1811104129

            http://www.chinasmack.com/2015/pictures/japanese-netizens-photoshop-isis-terrorist-chinese-reactions.html#comment-1811109079

            http://www.chinasmack.com/2015/pictures/japanese-netizens-photoshop-isis-terrorist-chinese-reactions.html#comment-1811113763

            http://www.chinasmack.com/2015/pictures/japanese-netizens-photoshop-isis-terrorist-chinese-reactions.html#comment-1811127544

            http://www.chinasmack.com/2015/pictures/japanese-netizens-photoshop-isis-terrorist-chinese-reactions.html#comment-1811166375

            http://www.chinasmack.com/2015/pictures/japanese-netizens-photoshop-isis-terrorist-chinese-reactions.html#comment-1811229222

            http://www.chinasmack.com/2015/pictures/japanese-netizens-photoshop-isis-terrorist-chinese-reactions.html#comment-1811287731

            This is excluding the one you presumably read but replied in a way I do not understand.

          • vincent_t

            wonder if you would say the same thing when some white chauvinist run into a muslim community or mosque in Paris and start shooting muslim randomly. Yeap, he thinks he just have it take down to their level.

          • Zappa Frank

            I expect next time for a criticizing muhammed and allah you will come with a bomb.. since is the only way we understand.. ah yes. islam religion of peace.

          • Steve

            Your true colours at last – hate speech from the pacifist.

          • steve

            Don’t read it then and move on – another great feature of free speech you can ignore it and not attack others. Free speech is connected to freedom of thought, think about it.

          • ClausRasmussen

            If people can’t cope with Charlie Hebdo they should STOP READING it

            How hard can it be?

          • tomoe723

            So that speech which underlies basic natural human response is stupid? You must be stone cold hearted not to illicit any response whenever somebody talks shit about your mother or family.

            And don’t talk to me about political correctness or advocate of non-violence. A punch in the face is a good enough message for the consequences of your so-called “freedom of speech”.

          • Zappa Frank

            ok clear enough that you cannot handle the freedom of speech and you are a violent…. or at least would like to be. move on.

          • tomoe723

            I understand this freedom of speech, but not what you are advocating.

            People who hide behind your version of this so-called freedom are just cowards, because that’s all they can ever do. Talk loud and insulting but can’t do anything real. Then when it becomes too noisy, somebody comes along and tries to shut them up, they suddenly cry their freedom has been “violated”. Yeah right. It’s like dogs who bark the loudest are actually the most scared.

            They should also learn to exercise their freedom to shut up already. Or else somebody not so forgiving will exercise it for them.

          • Zappa Frank

            no, again you don’t understand what you are talking about, but for you is pretty common, your argumentations about the elders treatments in western countries were a clear example of your overtalking. now here you go even so far to say that people talk should be stopped with violence, what can i say? you are the antithesis of our values..

          • tomoe723

            Overtalking? You should tell that to yourself, since you criticized first. You mock Asian children for being “forced” to take care of their parents… That’s overtalking already. I’m merely throwing back at you what you threw first. It seems like you are the anti thesis of your own values.

          • Zappa Frank

            I didn’t mock anyone, but again your sensitive nature made you think so. and to talk back you simply collect one bullshit after another.
            Let me ask you again, in japan is possible to talk visit war criminals shrine? to say comfort women never happened? Human experiments never happened? yes because people do it continuously … freedom of speech or do they deserve to be killed?
            you have no idea about what is freedom of speech, and note that if someone feel offended is not that in western countries we simply say ‘fuck you’, there is the justice that decide whether is legit or not what have been done.. according to the laws. You don’t like it? don’t come.

          • Don’t Believe the Hype

            Are you guest upvoting your own comments?

          • Zappa Frank

            how many punched should Japanese receive from Chinese and Koreans then when they deny what happened in 2ww?

          • Mihel

            Of course the pope has everything to gain by limiting free speech.

        • Mihel

          Note how nobody criticised him for using the term “Japs”.

    • YourSupremeCommander

      “This behaviour transcends national identity.”
      Blindly across the board accusations, you seem to be very good at this.

      • Probotector

        What are you talking about? You’re seriously saying that it’s in a Japanese person’s nature to be cruel and mocking to murder victims?

        • YourSupremeCommander

          You seriously have a reading comprehension deficit.

          • Probotector

            No, like many on the internet, you’re making vague allusions to things and expecting people to know what the hell you’re rambling about. Some of the netizen comments are implying that to mock the victims and disrespect the dead is a Japanese thing. I’m saying it’s not. How does this make me “very good at blindly across the board accusations”? If anything, that’s what you’re doing if you believe they did this just because they’re Japanese.

    • Germandude

      In fact the one with “we are the world” is a real good one and shoukd be send to the terrorists. To ridicule them. Let’s be realistic here. The guys went to a region where they knew it’s dangerous and that they are not welcome in. And sure as helk their lives will be ending soon. Only thing left is to show the murderers that it won’t break resistance towards their sick beliefs.

      • Boris

        One of the guys apparently is ‘merc’ so, should we feel sorry for him?

        • Sharrma

          yes we should , his life will end, his children will be fatherless, his mother will loose her son, his fathers name will no more.
          if he is murdered/ killed he will be judged by god, if innocent , he will be ok, if not horror.

    • Bing

      nice U.S. style political correctness.
      for a long time, most eastern countries were standing outside the shit pole created by western pan-Christianity and middle eastern pan-islam. WE ARE NOT LOOKING FOR TROUBLES so you guys don’t get us involved in this shit pole.
      sadly, even you don’t want to get drown in shit pole, shit pole is still looking for you.
      if you have chance to directly talk with those “japanese netizens”, most might probably think those two retarded. seriously, after reading those two’s bios, i won’t be surprised why Japanese did so.

    • fury

      Dude, i dont think in the east asian culture we will show apathy to these guys. It is their own matters they should commit suicide by making so much trouble to other people. You know, japan korea,china when someone really make bad things he or she should commit suicide.

    • JSS00

      You’re right, I’m Japanese, and there’s really something wrong with the Japanese people sometimes. Many people in Japan think that “it’s their own fault” that they went and got abducted.

    • 白色纯棉小裤裤

      be like the idiot commenter above who said “We [Chinese] wouldn’t Photoshop…”, or any such garbage. This behaviour transcends national identity.

      I have never seen Chinese making fun of human tragedies happened to Chinese people. Can you give me an example?

      • Probotector

        That wasn’t what I said.

    • IllumiNUTTY

      Disagree completely. This helps neutralize the Islamist propaganda by turning it into an internet meme. It’s the media outlets who give this wall to wall coverage to boost their ratings without regard to the fact that they are giving ISIS better advertising than money can buy who are the irreverent ones.

  • Matt

    I realize this is “just the Internet being the Internet”, but personally, I find this trivialization of their situation to be symptomatic of a disturbing trend. Their fate will be extremely grisly, and it’s dehumanizing to just appropriate their situation as merely another routine Internet meme, as if that’s all human life amounts to these days. I realize that the point is to “mock the terrorists and strip them of their gravitas”, but let’s face it, this is not going to affect ISIS one bit; all it will do is further feed the attitude of human depravity that’s plagued so many vast swaths of the Internet, where anonymous losers compete with each other to be as detached and unfeeling as possible.

    I realize the targets are meant to be the terrorists, not the victims, but I still think it’s regressive for civilization to be treating incidents like this with such levity.

    Disclosure: I haven’t slept in about 24 hours, so my apologies if this is poorly written. I’m just thinking out loud here.

    • Probotector

      The internet is like alcohol, in the sense that it removes hateful people’s inhibitions because they think there’s no consequences to spewing their vitriol and rhetoric.

      • A Gawd Dang Mongolian

        Or that they’ve seen this shit enough times they’ve become desensitized. Honestly when I first saw some shooting in America pop up, I’d read the article. Nowadays I barely give such titles a glance before moving on.

        • Probotector

          Yeah, but you’re not mocking the victims.

      • Surfeit

        In that case, I’m drunk on life.

        • Probotector

          Do you say hateful things on the internet?

          • Surfeit

            I think I say hateful all over the place. I don’t see consequences until it’s too late. Be that online or offline.

            No shame either. Fuck it.

  • Amused

    I hope no one calls a fatwa on the guy who PSed a beer into the Jihadi jerkwad’s hand.

    • Probotector

      We can only hope.

    • Mighty曹

      He could’ve made it worse by adding pork jerky in the other hand.

  • bossel

    Terrorists want to be taken seriously. Making fun of them is actually showing them that they can kiss your arse. May be not of good taste & the vicims or their families would have preferred a “Please don’t kill them. We do whatever you want.”, but IMO it’s much better than to give in to some idiotic terrorists’ demands.
    The only real issue I see is the identifiable presence of the victims in some of the pics. I doubt that they or their families agreed to this.

  • Amused

    This is some difficult shit to comment on. Commenting on people commenting on an eminent murder… And it just seems to be delving into the hoary old morass of Chinese/Japanese relations.

    So with that in mind I’d like to jump completely off topic and ask if anyone else thinks these Japanese PS “technicians” could better serve the cause of all mankind by turning their skills to PSing actual genitals over the pixel parts of Japanese actors in nekkid people movies.

    Now I know from extensive and exhausting research that Japanese people are born with a terrible affliction for both males and females know as “pixel cock” and pixel cunt”, which is a horribly tragic thing as you can well imagine.

    So I propose that with a little work on PS, no one would ever have to know of this disease’s existence, and Japan could probably save itself at least 2-4x(rough estimate here) as much face as they have in brushing stuff their grandpappy did in WW2 under the rug.
    It’s just a thought, but I think I could be on to something.

    • Surfeit

      It grinds me personally because sometimes my imagination goes into overdrive and, *SPLOOSH!*. Other times it’s a crying disappointment. (The tears, and the menial, endless, fapping.)

      Good shout, but not sure I can join the team, maaaan.

    • bujiebuke

      It’s only when they film those “movies” in Japan and sell them there that they’re required to pixelate. Otherwise you can find non-pixelated versions online. Or so I’ve heard, I don’t personally know…

      • Amused

        Are you sure they aren’t a quasi-alien race and as such, just born “that way”?
        Because its really the only explanation I can find that would make Scientology make sense.

        • Alex Dương

          Careful, you don’t want to anger Xenu.

          • Amused

            Yes, she’s one hell of a warrior princess…

        • bujiebuke

          “that would make Scientology make sense.”

          In that case I agree. All hail Cthulhu

          • mr.wiener

            Help me Yog Sothoth.

          • bujiebuke

            I feel like I should actually read those books now…

  • Mighty曹

    Utterly tasteless and insensitive. We all know this will end tragically. When that time comes will they still find it funny? I can’t imagine how the victims’ family feel seeing this absurdity.

    • chucky3176

      Tasteless and insensitive yes, but the Japanese aren’t totally innocent either, and are getting their own medicine. Read the reactions of Japanese at jcrush after what happened in France.

      • Matt

        I’m pretty sure he was principally condemning the Japanese photoshopping, not the Chinese comments. At ease, chucky3176.

      • Mighty曹

        Your extreme anti-Japanism zeal has blinded you from seeing the true intent of my comment. I was being critical the Japanese PS’ing of the tragic situation. Not the Chinese comments.

  • FYIADragoon

    Extremely tasteless, but they should be free to post what they want. And I did chuckle a bit at the dark humor.

  • biggj

    BREAKING NEWS!!!!!

    The 3 officials have kidnapped 3 ISIS fighters. They say they will behead the isis fighters in 72 hours if their demands are not met. They are asking for 3 2015 Audi S8s…..Black of course, they also want 3 LV purses for their mistresses and 3 Roger Dubuis Excalibur Quatuor time pieces. The clock is ticking…we will see if ISIS gives in to the official demands.

    • Alex Dương

      Chinese netizen complaints about corrupt officials in 3…2…1…

    • Teacher in China

      Don’t forget the puffy jackets!

    • Mighty曹

      Hahahaha… this brings back some good old times! Don’t get me started again. Btw, your PS skill has improved!

  • Luke the Duke

    If you guys don’t like free speech then go back to Ethiopua.

    • Amused

      Is that a place?

      • Mihel

        Right next to Erutrea and Somalua.

        • Amused

          Ah, in Africua..

  • KoreaTypeKing

    Not funny. If this happen to China, Japan, Korea, or even North Korea. Terrorist killing innocent person… not funny…..

  • monster

    let me test my new internet.

  • Mihel

    I don’t think this is specifically a cultural thing. It’s not very common after all.

  • Yes!

    First, this whole thing is tragic. Feel for them, and their families. Hope by some stroke of Divine Intervention, they manage to escape and live to tell their story.

    That said, let’s detach and consider this:

    Read somewhere that the Syrian contact of one/both of them told them not to go into ISIS country. But they did anyway. So, knowing that the snake pit is full of man-killing snakes they jumped in anyway.

    Now, their problem becomes their country’s problem.

    To pay $200 million to get them out, save 2 lives. The money puts more guns and bombs into ISIS hands that could conceivably kill another 100-200 maybe 300 folks.

    It then becomes an international problem.

    To bail them out will encourage ISIS to actively look out for more of such deals. More “brave” (and utterly suicidal) people will continue to walk into ISIS country hoping to get a journalistic scoop or a once-in-a-lifetime-selfie-with-Mr ISIS, believing that their governments are gonna keep paying the huge ransoms to save them.

    I don’t know, man. To me, it’s just plain stupid of these idiots to do what they did. And nobody should have to fork out $50m or $100m to save their asses so that ISIS can have more resources to kill another 100, 200, 300 people. 2 lives for 300? Bad investment. I fully agree with USA position on this: no negotiations with terrorists. And if you wanna go in there for whatever reason (other than being part of a military force to fight them), you do so at your own risk.

    I feel sorry for these two. But weren’t they asking for it? Not being insensitive, I end this short post with a popular Chinese saying: 不见棺材不流泪.

    • Perseus Wong

      Send a sniper and give these two a quick and painless death. It the most merciful thing we can do. They brought it upon themselves. The last thing we want is to give ISIS a check to redeem two selfish, inconsiderate idiots.

    • Mihel

      I agree with you except for the part where you said they were asking for it. One of them may be a wannabe mercenary, call it karma – probably he did ask for it, but the other one was just a reporter.
      To make an analogy, were the assaulted and arrested journalists in Ferguson also asking for it?

      • Alex Dương

        I feel similarly. I mean, yes, the journalist’s local handler advised him not to enter ISIS-controlled territory, but still, his job is to report the news, and he was just doing his (non-combat, civilian) job.

        The mercenary went there to fight. His job is to fight, and if he gets captured by the enemy, well…

      • Yes!

        I don’t disagree with your point at all. I can fully understand that the guy’s a reporter and that he’s “just doing his job” when he went into ISIS land, but he did so knowing what was waiting for him. They’ve been slaughtering, kidnapping, raping and beheading soldiers and civilians alike every day since this thing started, so he must expect that his “press” pass will not likely earn him immunity to the “rule”. ISIS country is not the USA, or Europe or SE Asia; he rolled the dice, he loses his head. Everybody knows the risks. Ferguson journalists reporting in a mob/riot situation would know that to be assaulted/arrested, if they so encounter, are just worst-case-scenario occupational hazards, and that good people and the police will be around to extract him from more harm and there’ll be paramedics available to nurse them. The risk of kidnap & death is almost nil (probably much lower than what American cops face every day, I think). The onus is on the journo to exercise his own good judgement to know where he can go to do his job, and where he can’t/shouldn’t. Most jobs entail calculated risks, but ISIS country is a death wish.

  • Teacher in China

    Wow, this thread got busy fast. Anyone else hear that apparently the Japanese netizens were doing this in response to the fact that they think the original photo was a fake? I couldn’t find any sources because I’m drunk and lazy right now, but I heard it from someone at dinner and it would certainly explain things a little more.

  • Amused

    Still playing “Mythology Comment Wars” on this thread tonight?

  • Probotector

    Agreed, although Matt is half-Asian. However, I doubt Greg Bland Dino knows that. His head would probably explode if he did.

  • Kai

    Start with some of the information other commenters like @gregblandino have contributed. It should take you to places like this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha#Age_at_marriage

    No one is denying that Muhammed’s consummation with Aisha at age 9 is considered statutory rape according to our modern values. I’d even say age 9 is considered young even BACK THEN when early marriage was not uncommon. The thing is, there’s a lot of existing information about this issue in Islam that contextualizes it beyond the pedophilic perversion being insinuated.

  • Alex Dương

    Doesn’t “the law” refer to the Torah / first five books of the Old Testament (which includes Leviticus)?

    • elizabeth

      That is the Old Testament Jewish written law. But the Law referred to by Jesus is also applicable to Gentiles, not just the Jews.

      You would need to read the whole Bible from cover to cover to understand the ideological development and significance of what Jesus was talking about.

      Paul has also made references to the Ten Commandments e.g. Romans 13:8-10 & Galatians 5:14.

      In essence, the Ten Commandments can be seen as the central pillar of God’s expectations and the rules in the Torah as the Old Testament way of guiding the Jews to fulfill the commandments. That is why some Old Testament (OT) practices are ‘not applicable’ to New Testament (NT) believers.

      To explain the difference, it’s just like humans still wear clothes but ours differ from those in, say, the 16th century times. Practices and rules may change with the times, but the central tenets of God’s law (expectations) and Christianity (story of the Kingdom of God and salvation) do not change.

      But that is not to say that the Old Testament is obsolete. Without the OT, the Bible is not complete because the OT and NT together chronicle the story of God’s redemption plan for humankind.

      • Alex Dương

        Again, it’s unclear to me that “the law” refers only to the ten commandments and not the Torah. Nonetheless, I think the conclusion that Christians don’t have to follow the Torah is perfectly valid.

        • elizabeth

          Honestly, perhaps the only way to clarity is to read the whole Bible to see the big picture. Otherwise, it’s like a blind man touching only an elephant’s trunk and then maybe it’s tail to figure out the connection between the parts.

  • Pete of Perth
    • Xue

      nothing worthwhile to be learnt from that Isamaphobic, zealot site.

      • Pete of Perth

        Tell that to IS

  • jonny

    one of the kidnapped japanese is a complete weirdo. he thought he was a chinese princess who spied on the japanese during WW2. and he cahnged his name to a feminine one

  • Xia

    Should make a horror movie out of this: Child girl haunted and possessed by her unborn sibling, taking revenge on mother. Inspired by a true event.

    • filthyswit .

      Sounds more like an album from King Diamond.

  • redgirls

    I scratched my name but not for fame upon a whitened wall,
    Bobby Sands was here l wrote in fear in boyish, shakey scrawl,
    l wrote it low where eyes don’t go t’was but to testify,
    that l was sane and not to blame
    should here l come to die. . . . .
    There is no source or foreign force can break one man who knows,
    that his free will no thing can kill, and from that Freedom grows!

  • Rafasa Arandas

    If only China and Japan could put aside their old grievances…even momentarily…

  • Guest

    whole Japanese story is more dramatic than novel. How Goto took a risk of his life to rescue hit friend Yukawa. Inhuman ISIS killed Yukawa. All human feel condolence except for Chinese. Korean has also conflict with Japanese in terms of WW2, but nobody mock them.
    http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/26/asia/isis-japan-hostages-up-to-speed/

Personals @ chinaSMACK - Meet people, make friends, find lovers? Don't be so serious!»