Islam - What's your view on it?

[Scaff]

One can argue there is modern Islam. The bible hasnt changed much over the past centuries, however the interpertation had changed. Which leaves room for Islam to perhaps "evolve" to what christianity is today. The most important thing is for middle eastern countries to develop and that is what is why the people there still hold on to olde (more literal) interpertation of the Qu'ran.

Is also important to remember that this is in a state of flux on both sides.

We only have to go back a little over a hundred years to see the inverse. In a world ruled by empires, in comparative terms the Ottoman empire was significantly more progressive that the Western ones when it came to social care, womens rights and LBGT rights.

The Tanzimat started in 1839 and was way ahead of the European Empires and the US in a number of ways.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanzimat

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


While it was still far from perfect, it does have to be viewed in contemporary terms.

 

[PocketZeven]

Is also important to remember that this is in a state of flux on both sides.

We only have to go back a little over a hundred years to see the inverse. In a world ruled by empires, in comparative terms the Ottoman empire was significantly more progressive that the Western ones when it came to social care, womens rights and LBGT rights.

The Tanzimat started in 1839 and was way ahead of the European Empires and the US in a number of ways.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanzimat

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


While it was still far from perfect, it does have to be viewed in contemporary terms.

Yes exactly! If you go further back people seem to forget that europeans (and thus "white americans") where considered barbarians for a long time by more advanced civilisations like the Persians (now middle east) etc.

 

[Mr Tree]

UKMikey and I came from the political correctness topic, so you should check that for antecedents. I said that if I had to choose a religion then I would live in modern christianity. I'm an atheist, I don't like religions at all, I know that the Bible also has bad verses, but modern christianity reformed itself so most of the people don't follow them at all. The point was that I'm more concerned if somebody is a believer of islam than a believer in christianity, because most of the fundamentalists in christianity wouldn't kill me for my beliefs unlike islamic fundies.

Is it better to be killed for being you or locked up?

And after you've done your time you'll probably have to pretend not to be who you are.

I'd pick the 'fast' way out, yet I can see how people value being alive more then how that life has to be lived.

 

[Dobermann92]

Is it better to be killed for being you or locked up?

And after you've done your time you'll probably have to pretend not to be who you are.

I'd pick the 'fast' way out, yet I can see how people value being alive more then how that life has to be lived.

I'm too scared to death to get myself killed. In a sense if you would die for your principles you would keep your honour but in a real situation I would be too coward to do that Of course if brutal torture would be impossible to avoid then I would consider suicide as a viable option.

By the way, there is no verse in the Bible nor in the Qur'an which is directly against torture, but in the Bible's case there is the verse from Jesus about the turning of the other cheek which can be interpreted to be against that, although history shows that this verse didn't stop christians from torturing others for information.

In islam acording to my knowledge apostasy is punishable by death, which makes atheists and believers of non-Abrahamic religions in a tough spot because your only way out is that you say that you are of the religion of the Book. Which means you tell to the believers of islam that you are jewish or christian (I would do the latter because for obvious reasons) and then you have to pay a fine to keep your beliefs. I've yet to see a similar verse in the Bible, it usually mentions that non-believers will go to Hell, so a christian must try to convert them to save from Hell. Most muslims won't try to convince you because the Qur'an says that it is obvious that Allah exists so everybody who denies it is a fool.

 

[Dobermann92]

Youtube is constantly censoring right or moderate leaning people, yet muslim propaganda can spread without any problems on their platform.
Here is a video proving that:

 

[huskeR32]

Youtube is constantly censoring right or moderate leaning people, yet muslim propaganda can spread without any problems on their platform.
Here is a video proving that:

Out of curiosity, could you provide some specific examples of right-/moderate-leaning censorship that makes for a good comparison to this? As is, your comment is a little too broad and undefined to illustrate much of anything.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Youtube is constantly censoring right or moderate leaning people, yet muslim propaganda can spread without any problems on their platform.
Here is a video proving that:

That video was anti-islamic in its intent... or did you link the wrong thing? Or say the wrong thing? Perhaps you could summarise the video as you saw it? Could find a quote from the guy who condemned portraying mohammed also saying that the Charlie Hebdo attack was okay? The video seemed to be introduced on that premise but the quote to justify the conflation was missing.

 

[Mr Tree]

That video was anti-islamic in its intent... or did you link the wrong thing? Or say the wrong thing? Perhaps you could summarise the video as you saw it? Could find a quote from the guy who condemned portraying mohammed also saying that the Charlie Hebdo attack was okay? The video seemed to be introduced on that premise but the quote to justify the conflation was missing.

I watched a portion of it last night. Do you mean he is being anti islamic and what do you mean with conflation? Is his critique only valid if the one he critiques is justifying the charlie hebdo attacks?

I might have misunderstood you.

 

[Scaff]

I'm too scared to death to get myself killed. In a sense if you would die for your principles you would keep your honour but in a real situation I would be too coward to do that Of course if brutal torture would be impossible to avoid then I would consider suicide as a viable option.

By the way, there is no verse in the Bible nor in the Qur'an which is directly against torture, but in the Bible's case there is the verse from Jesus about the turning of the other cheek which can be interpreted to be against that, although history shows that this verse didn't stop christians from torturing others for information.

In islam acording to my knowledge apostasy is punishable by death, which makes atheists and believers of non-Abrahamic religions in a tough spot because your only way out is that you say that you are of the religion of the Book. Which means you tell to the believers of islam that you are jewish or christian (I would do the latter because for obvious reasons) and then you have to pay a fine to keep your beliefs. I've yet to see a similar verse in the Bible, it usually mentions that non-believers will go to Hell, so a christian must try to convert them to save from Hell. Most muslims won't try to convince you because the Qur'an says that it is obvious that Allah exists so everybody who denies it is a fool.

Oh the Bible has its own death to unbelievers sections:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2015/01/22/yes-the-bible-does-say-to-kill-infidels/

https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/nonbelievers.html

 

[PocketZeven]

Youtube is constantly censoring right or moderate leaning people, yet muslim propaganda can spread without any problems on their platform.
Here is a video proving that:

The bible and Quran are always measured by 2 different standards.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I watched a portion of it last night. Do you mean he is being anti islamic and what do you mean with conflation? Is his critique only valid if the one he critiques is justifying the charlie hebdo attacks?

The video is quite anti-Islamic and recycles the old potted arguments as if they generally apply to every muslim - a test which doesn't stand up for islam or any other wide religon. The rant should be about extremists and would work far better that way.

"Once again we witness another slander against our beloved prophet under the deceptive veil of freedom of speech...yet there is another hollow attempt to frame the issue around so-called freedomn of speech, the freedom of the press and fundamental Western values when in reality the issue on hand is rank hatred against islaam and the muslims".

That's quite an extremely expressed view although, as in Buddhism, many find depictions of their prophet offensive. I don't see the mention of the terror attack though - only a mention of depicting mohammed, and then we can only presume that it's this particular Hebdo publication that we're talking about.

So let's get this straight... Charlie Hebdo pokes fun at mohammed in a cartoon, islamic terrorists subsequently kill twelve people... people defend Charlie Hebdo by saying they were excercising free speech and then this guy makes a video saying that the real crime here is the hatred of muslims via depictions in cartoons."

That's where I see the conflation - it would have been easy to simply include a quote from the guy saying all the things that are referred to here, but there isn't one... and that's what I asked @Dobermann92 for. I didn't bother with the rest of the video as I presumed the remaining edits would be just as lazy.

 

[Dobermann92]

Oh the Bible has its own death to unbelievers sections:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2015/01/22/yes-the-bible-does-say-to-kill-infidels/

https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/nonbelievers.html

Yes, it has. Can you point any person who advocates for the killing of atheists in the christian community and has more than a several followers?

The video is quite anti-Islamic and recycles the old potted arguments as if they generally apply to every muslim - a test which doesn't stand up for islam or any other wide religon. The rant should be about extremists and would work far better that way.



That's quite an extremely expressed view although, as in Buddhism, many find depictions of their prophet offensive. I don't see the mention of the terror attack though - only a mention of depicting mohammed, and then we can only presume that it's this particular Hebdo publication that we're talking about.



That's where I see the conflation - it would have been easy to simply include a quote from the guy saying all the things that are referred to here, but there isn't one... and that's what I asked @Dobermann92 for. I didn't bother with the rest of the video as I presumed the remaining edits would be just as lazy.

Of course you did not watched the whole video, why would you, it confronts your worldview. Why would I try to find a quote about condemning the Charlie Hebdo attacks, I'm not the person who made the video. Maybe he did maybe he didn't, that isn't justifies advocating for violence. Are you a muslim? Because I can't imagine any other reason to defend this person.

Islam is itself the extremist idea, that is the whole point. If it is "anti-muslim", so what, we have the right not to care about other people's feelings, it is a free society.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Of course you did not watched the whole video, why would you, it confronts your worldview.

Thank you for supposing what I was thinking but it wasn't a very good try.

I didn't watch the video because you posted it without being arsed to comment on what you took away from it. We were expected to watch it for you. Your only comment was a contradictory statement that videos like the one you posted couldn't be posted. Another poor try, in my opinion.

Why would I try to find a quote about condemning the Charlie Hebdo attacks, I'm not the person who made the video.

Because your speaker's initial assertion is (as I quoted before) "So let's get this straight... Charlie Hebdo pokes fun at mohammed in a cartoon, islamic terrorists subsequently kill twelve people... people defend Charlie Hebdo by saying they were excercising free speech and then this guy makes a video saying that the real crime here is the hatred of muslims via depictions in cartoons" with zero evidence that speaker had said that. If he did then naturally I (and anyone of sound mind) would deplore that. The problem was that your video made a claim without being able to show the source - that's something of a red flag when they had presumably had the source video as clear evidence.

Maybe he did maybe he didn't

Quite so, but that goes to the point above - if he didn't then what's to complain about? Buddhists, Muslims and Christians have all been sensitive about the portrayal of "religious" figures from their histories. Some still are. Fact. The more extreme members of each "religion" can be real arseholes about it.

Are you a muslim? Because I can't imagine any other reason to defend this person.

That makes no sense.

Islam is itself the extremist idea, that is the whole point.

Let me guess, you're going to use an extremist view of the qu'uran to show that? Make sure you include other Abrahamic texts, @Scaff did some of that work for you already.

If it is "anti-muslim", so what,

So you said that such videos weren't allowed but posted one that inexplicably was. Gracious.

 

[Dobermann92]

Thank you for supposing what I was thinking but it wasn't a very good try.

I didn't watch the video because you posted it without being arsed to comment on what you took away from it. We were expected to watch it for you. Your only comment was a contradictory statement that videos like the one you posted couldn't be posted. Another poor try, in my opinion.

First, do not skew what I said. There are videos on youtube like that muslim made (I wasn't talking about GM Skeptic), yet Alex Jones or Mumkey Jones (and many others!) were banned from the platform. (I don't even like Alex Jones at all) It is the double standard which is unacceptable. You can defend it that as a company it can decide whom it will ban, but that's all.

Because your speaker's initial assertion is (as I quoted before) "So let's get this straight... Charlie Hebdo pokes fun at mohammed in a cartoon, islamic terrorists subsequently kill twelve people... people defend Charlie Hebdo by saying they were excercising free speech and then this guy makes a video saying that the real crime here is the hatred of muslims via depictions in cartoons" with zero evidence that speaker had said that. If he did then naturally I (and anyone of sound mind) would deplore that. The problem was that your video made a claim without being able to show the source - that's something of a red flag when they had presumably had the source video as clear evidence.

What should he showed? That people defend Charlie Hebdo? Or the claim that the real hatred of muslims via depictions in cartoons? He is explaining it in the video. Are we watching the same video?

Quite so, but that goes to the point above - if he didn't then what's to complain about? Buddhists, Muslims and Christians have all been sensitive about the portrayal of "religious" figures from their histories. Some still are. Fact. The more extreme members of each "religion" can be real arseholes about it.

For me the point is that if they want to be peacefully coexist in a society with european and american people then they shouldn't call for hate crimes when coming to showing cartoons.

Let me guess, you're going to use an extremist view of the qu'uran to show that? Make sure you include other Abrahamic texts, @Scaff did some of that work for you already.

I'm not defending christianity at all, I said that several times.

"Extremist view" of the Qur'an doesn't exist in a typical sense, they use the same book as the moderates, but they cherry pick only the bad verses. The big difference between christian and muslim extremists that christian extremists demonstrate at a dead homosexual man's funeral while muslim extremists cut off people's head and plonk homosexual people off from high buildings.

So you said that such videos weren't allowed but posted one that inexplicably was. Gracious.

Another misrepresentation of what I said. Videos from right leaning or moderate people are deleted or demonetized for arguing against muslim extremist hatred, yet the video of the muslim guy did not get deleted.

It is hard to argue with a person who is deliberately wants to misinterpret what I'm saying. Bad tactics, very bad tactics.

 

[huskeR32]

Videos from right leaning or moderate people are deleted or demonetized for arguing against muslim extremist hatred, yet the video of the muslim guy did not get deleted.

Do you have a link to the original video of that Muslim man? All you’ve shown so far is an anti-Muslim video using excerpts of it. Doesn’t really do much to prove your assertion that YouTube is overflowing with “Muslim propaganda.

 

[FPV MIC]

Do you have a link to the original video of that Muslim man? All you’ve shown so far is an anti-Muslim video using excerpts of it. Doesn’t really do much to prove your assertion that YouTube is overflowing with “Muslim propaganda.

There's a link under the original video that was posted here, this is it: https://youtu.be/K-nnqxtMDtw

 

[Scaff]

First, do not skew what I said. There are videos on youtube like that muslim made (I wasn't talking about GM Skeptic), yet Alex Jones or Mumkey Jones (and many others!) were banned from the platform. (I don't even like Alex Jones at all) It is the double standard which is unacceptable. You can defend it that as a company it can decide whom it will ban, but that's all.

Alex Jones is neither moderate or simply right leaning.

What should he showed? That people defend Charlie Hebdo? Or the claim that the real hatred of muslims via depictions in cartoons? He is explaining it in the video. Are we watching the same video?

Can you cite some examples of people who actually fall into the right leaning or moderate catagory?

Also youtube, etc can pick and chose what appears in the site, it's a private business It's no different from the fact that posts here at GTP must meet the AUP or they will be removed

For me the point is that if they want to be peacefully coexist in a society with european and american people then they shouldn't call for hate crimes when coming to showing cartoons.

The use of the term they would seem to be you applying this to all Muslims.

I'm not defending christianity at all, I said that several times.

"Extremist view" of the Qur'an doesn't exist in a typical sense, they use the same book as the moderates, but they cherry pick only the bad verses. The big difference between christian and muslim extremists that christian extremists demonstrate at a dead homosexual man's funeral while muslim extremists cut off people's head and plonk homosexual people off from high buildings.

Your big difference is factually innacurate, this effect can be applyed to almost every faith.

Another misrepresentation of what I said. Videos from right leaning or moderate people are deleted or demonetized for arguing against muslim extremist hatred, yet the video of the muslim guy did not get deleted.

Citation required, and a real one not the far right just claiming this is happening

It is hard to argue with a person who is deliberately wants to misinterpret what I'm saying. Bad tactics, very bad tactics.

Of you think the AUP is being broken then use the report button.

There's a link under the original video that was posted here, this is it: https://youtu.be/K-nnqxtMDtw

I've just watched the entire thing and really don't see what the issue is.

He a sensitive religious chap who don't think people should be able say thing about his faith (so the same as a good number of Christians), thinks his religion is right (ditto the Christians), and thinks everyone can be converted by having a chat to them (ditto Christians).

Not quite sure what the issue is here, and I personally disagree with every thing he said.

 

[FPV MIC]

I've just watched the entire thing and really don't see what the issue is.

He a sensitive religious chap who don't think people should be able say thing about his faith (so the same as a good number of Christians), thinks his religion is right (ditto the Christians), and thinks everyone can be converted by having a chat to them (ditto Christians).

I was just pointing out to others that the link they were asking for was already there (in the first place I looked), but I did watch it. I also agree with you... religious folk all think they're right about their religion, and it wasn't much different to any other religious video.

 

[Scaff]

I was just pointing out to others that the link they were asking for was already there (in the first place I looked), but I did watch it. I also agree with you... religious folk all think they're right about their religion, and it wasn't much different to any other religious video.

Sorry if it came across as being critical of yourself.

It was more just amazement that someone could take that and turn it into anything more sinister than 'religious bloke wants to talk people into being in the same religion as his'.

On this level he's no more scary that Mormons or JW.

 

[TenEightyOne]

"Extremist view" of the Qur'an doesn't exist in a typical sense, they use the same book as the moderates, but they cherry pick only the bad verses. The big difference between christian and muslim extremists that christian extremists demonstrate at a dead homosexual man's funeral while muslim extremists cut off people's head and plonk homosexual people off from high buildings.

It's extremist christians who all use the same book without embellishment, not extremist muslims - they use additional hadith. The extremist view in both religions (because they're effectively the same religion) is that homosexuality is an abomination deserved of death. You'll find plenty of fire-and-brimstone christian preachers telling you the same thing.

It's a shame that you interpret disagreement as defence of extremism, it's just disagreement. Your source was poor and arguably took an extreme approach itself. If they want to make an argument they need to show the facts - it really wouldn't have been hard to do, and then there would have been a great discussion point.

 

[Mr Tree]

The video is quite anti-Islamic and recycles the old potted arguments as if they generally apply to every muslim - a test which doesn't stand up for islam or any other wide religon. The rant should be about extremists and would work far better that way.

I'm watching the video in half an hour but GMS talks about religious people on the extremer side of the spectrum. So I geuss your critique here is that that isn't clear? I'm only assuming and trying to know what I.should pay extra attention to.

"Extremist view" of the Qur'an doesn't exist in a typical sense, they use the same book as the moderates, but they cherry pick only the bad verses. The big difference between christian and muslim extremists that christian extremists demonstrate at a dead homosexual man's funeral while muslim extremists cut off people's head and plonk homosexual people off from high buildings.

I might be the odd one here but if anyone ever protests at the wedding of a loved one of mine for being gay or trans or eating something a stupid book says they shouldn't, then I very much hope that person brought with his running legs. Because if I catch him it's not going to end well for him/her.

Another misrepresentation of what I said. Videos from right leaning or moderate people are deleted or demonetized for arguing against muslim extremist hatred, yet the video of the muslim guy did not get deleted.

It is hard to argue with a person who is deliberately wants to misinterpret what I'm saying. Bad tactics, very bad tactics.

Can you give examples?
Also this happens to left leaning channels just as much. And on the alex jones ban, well if you break the rules of a platform, said platform will ban you nothing unfair about that. Please explain why if you disagree.

Do you have a link to the original video of that Muslim man? All you’ve shown so far is an anti-Muslim video using excerpts of it. Doesn’t really do much to prove your assertion that YouTube is overflowing with “Muslim propaganda.

GMS has the link in the discription, it would suprise me if this tile he didn't I'll check it out.

utube, etc can pick and chose what appears in the site, it's a private business It's no different from the fact that posts here at GTP must meet the AUP or they will be removed

I don't know if he means what you said or the issue of false flagging. Becaise youtube has an issue of false flagging content.

I've just watched the entire thing and really don't see what the issue is.

He a sensitive religious chap who don't think people should be able say thing about his faith (so the same as a good number of Christians), thinks his religion is right (ditto the Christians), and thinks everyone can be converted by having a chat to them (ditto Christians).

Not quite sure what the issue is here, and I personally disagree with every thing he said.

I find the issue being he want's to police what we can draw or say.
Nothing special about that all religions have those people.

It's a shame that you interpret disagreement as defence of extremism, it's just disagreement. Your source was poor and arguably took an extreme approach itself. If they want to make an argument they need to show the facts - it really wouldn't have been hard to do, and then there would have been a great discussion point.

I'm anticipating to watching the video with great joy

 

[Scaff]

I don't know if he means what you said or the issue of false flagging. Becaise youtube has an issue of false flagging content.

Its more the case that YouTube can ban a person, remove a video, remove a channel, etc fro any reason they like. It is, at the end of the day, a private business. It gets to make those choices, based on rules it sets, and can amend at any time.

Its also when people conflate it with free speech, when its not a free speech issue at all.

I find the issue being he want's to police what we can draw or say.
Nothing special about that all religions have those people.

Indeed they do.

Here we have some Christians's firebombing a museum and attacking police over a statue.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...jesus-sculpture-after-violence-protests-haifa

which of course pales in significance when compared to the murders, attempted murders, assaults, kidnappings, arson. bombings and general threats carried out in the name of God by Christian Pro-Life groups.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

 

[Mr Tree]

Its more the case that YouTube can ban a person, remove a video, remove a channel, etc fro any reason they like. It is, at the end of the day, a private business. It gets to make those choices, based on rules it sets, and can amend at any time.

Its also when people conflate it with free speech, when its not a free speech issue at all.


Indeed they do.

Here we have some Christians's firebombing a museum and attacking police over a statue.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...jesus-sculpture-after-violence-protests-haifa

which of course pales in significance when compared to the murders, attempted murders, assaults, kidnappings, arson. bombings and general threats carried out in the name of God by Christian Pro-Life groups.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

This is what I meant with

Nothing special about that all religions have those people.

I agree there is nothing special about extremer muslims. There are extremes in every ideologie so I didn't want to single islam out I just wanted to point out I find that to be an issue as I find it an issue for christianity or other religions.

I'm sorry if I was unclear about that.

Edit: I agree yt can do what they want, they're a private bussines. I agree they can choose the AUP.
I also think that if the AUP has a bias for one ideologie over an other it would be unfair, totaly legal and ok, just unfair.

 

[Scaff]

.
Edit: I agree yt can do what they want, they're a private bussines. I agree they can choose the AUP.
I also think that if the AUP has a bias for one ideologie over an other it would be unfair, totaly legal and ok, just unfair.

I would agree if that's the case.

How ever a quick youtube search for Theonomy leads to a massive number of channels advocating it, on such example is:

https://www.youtube.com/user/americanvisiontv

No given that this advocates the establishment of Christian rule with no separation of Church and State (in fact quite the opposite), and advocates a return to OT law as the moral arbiter. Which would mean the death penalty for a rather long list of things.

It is in effect no different from Muslims calling for a caliphate, simply in Christian form. Given that they are plentiful on YouTube, its patently not true when people claim that its a biased platform.

When the likes of Matt Powell still has a channel, after repeatedly and publicly calling for the state execution of all homosexuals its clearly not the case. Its even less of a case when Matt Powell was interviewed and doubled down on those claims the video exposing him was taken down and the atheist channel that interviewed him was hit with a strike, but Matt Powell's account remains up.

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com...sing-christian-who-wants-gay-people-executed/

So when people (and I know its not you) claim that its just the right that's being de-platformed on YouTube it really is hard to take them even remotely seriously.

 

[SestoScudo]

Is also important to remember that this is in a state of flux on both sides.

We only have to go back a little over a hundred years to see the inverse. In a world ruled by empires, in comparative terms the Ottoman empire was significantly more progressive that the Western ones when it came to social care, womens rights and LBGT rights.

The Tanzimat started in 1839 and was way ahead of the European Empires and the US in a number of ways.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanzimat

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


While it was still far from perfect, it does have to be viewed in contemporary terms.

I know the Ottoman Empire decrminalised homosexuality the hilarious thing is Turkish society is pretty homophobic even transphobic but there is a lot of gay bars even a transexual singer is famous in the country.

 

[Scaff]

It seems that Geert Wilders message is so convincing that a second former member of his far right party has converted to Islam.

https://www.politico.eu/article/for...itician-converts-to-islam-joram-van-klaveren/

 

[Dennisch]

It seems that Geert Wilders message is so convincing that a second former member of his far right party has converted to Islam.

https://www.politico.eu/article/for...itician-converts-to-islam-joram-van-klaveren/

It's a political party filled with special people, run by a political clown. So it's hardly surprising that one of those loonies does a funny like this.

 

[Mr Tree]

It's a political party filled with special people, run by a political clown. So it's hardly surprising that one of those loonies does a funny like this.

I think a few of them are pursuaded in their ideology due to faulty logic and sense of identity. If an other identity swoops by and forces you to change your ideas, while at the same time providing an other identity based on faulty logic, it doesn't seem to far fetched they fall for it.

This is just a hypothesis ofcoarse.

 

[Johnnypenso]

It's a political party filled with special people, run by a political clown. So it's hardly surprising that one of those loonies does a funny like this.

Hey, it's a tough choice. Far right vs. worshipping an imaginary man in the sky.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Interesting story about how Albanian Muslims helped Jews hide during the Holocaust:

https://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/exhibitions/besa/index.asp

What is sad though is that recognition of this period in an event at Golders Green Mosque was cancelled, partly because a group was threatening to boycott it:

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/...cises-holocaust-exhibition-cancelled-1.478232