bloody norah... :-(

[Montreal Wanderer]

I was going to leave this subject alone, but in light of BWFC_i talking about "people who start sentences stating 'I'm not a racist, but...'" and all that implied, and Monty hinting that maybe the rozzers should be giving me a knock for what I've posted on here, and a comment by Pru which I thought was unhelpful, and a post by Il-pirate that directly accused me of being both racist and xenophobic, plus William the White stating I was spouting froth, and not least a post by Bish accusing certain posters of not addressing The Facts... In light of this I shall overnight attempt to put my argument across in a civilised, dialectical, reasoned, argument. I can do no more than that. I shall post it in the morning after I have thought it through... bet you can't wait!

Hang on - in this regard I noted the police were tracking down and charging people who had preached hatred against an identifiable group, specifically Muslims, on the internet. My concern was actually for TW itself and perhaps a warning for our members to think before hitting 'submit'. Spotty is by no means alone in his views on TW. I must be honest and felt some of Spotty's remarks did concern me (but not him alone), but ultimately that is a problem for the mods. Further what would be illegal in Canada may be perfectly acceptable in the UK - I'm not qualified to judge.

Regarding remarks directly aimed at Spotty, I actually asked questions which he failed to answer and perhaps never saw. For example, he suggested we consider the teachings found in the Hadith. I asked whether he was referring to the Sunni Hadith or the Shiite Hadith - I gather there are significant difference in the various texts. He has not responded but it is likely in all the mud slinging it got lost.

Anyway I have basically bowed out of the debate. I find it sterile as nothing I say will change anyone's mind, and all I receive from those who disagree with me are hostile and, to my mind, scarcely rational rebuttals.

First of all this is not the post I promised last night (so you still need to campaign for the Spotto Six). But to answer this directly. Yes Monty I missed your question. I was referring to both of them, both the Shia and Sunni versions, they both reveal an awful lot about Islam's attitude to the unbeliever.
As for the law getting involved, this is a debate, I think free speech is still allowed in this country, unlike in Iran say. And yes I am aware that the law regards publishing on the internet as equal to publishing by print, but there must be intent to defame, to libel, and somebody has to be defamed. I don't think anybody on here has defamed anybody. What's more the cases you referred to were about incitement, about people organising other people to 'do things'. Me, and others on here are railing against what people have 'done' - the complete opposite of why the rozzers are getting involved, don't you think.

It is clear the law is different in the UK than in Canada. Here, to write on the internet "I hate all effing X's (X being an identifiable group against which discrimination is prohibited) because they did this that and the other and they plan to take over the world" would be illegal.

Our Human Rights Act (down, Hoboh) defines the identifiable groups:

3. (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

Our Criminal Code states:

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

In terms of jurisprudence our Supreme Court ruled as early as 1990 that "hate propaganda denotes any expression that is "intended or likely to circulate extreme feelings of opprobrium and enmity against a racial or religious group"" Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892 at 902

These laws trump free speech as our Holocaust deniers discovered.

It struck me that some of the remarks in this thread might well result in a prosecution in Canada so I raised the question. However, it seems UK law about which I know little may be different.

Finally, I note the irony that just over a century ago the group accused of trying to take over the world were Jews - see the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I'm sure most Jews are relieved that the mantle of alleged world domination has fallen on other shoulders.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

but it still troubles me when people in the outside world and on here (not you LLS) have said things like "I hate the Muslims".

to be fair to LLS, he DID say something very much like that....

when asked by WtW:

Do you think it might be a good idea to differentiate between hating or detesting Islam and hating and detesting Jihadists?

LLS replied:

No.
I don't. Any tw*t that believes in that shite is abhorrent to me.

I purposefully used the word abhor and William the White used the words detesting. To detest is simililar enough to the word abhor for me not to feel it was dissembling to answer the question. In my answer I strictly used abhor once more.
Abhor: to regard with extreme repugnance or aversion.
So I have an extreme aversion to the philosophy of Islam. I believe many of the concepts in it to be ridiculous (not least that any sane person can possibly accept that God speaks exclusively fouteen hundred year old Arabic), and I have a repugnance to the stance that muslims take on various issues, not least halal meat. I abhor the handing down of death sentences on writers and drawers of cartoons, etc etc.

That is completely different to the statement "I hate the Muslims". Which I have neither said, written or implied. The statement "I abhor Islam", and the statement "Any tw*t that believes in that shite is abhorrent to me" is a separate concept entirely. To find repugnance in a philosophy is not the same as hating the people who hold that philosophy.
I abhor capitalism. I do not hate the populace that live in capitalist societies
I abhor Islam. I do not hate muslims.
I abhor animal cruelty. On that one I can confirm that I hate abusers of animals with a vengeance that jihadists would probably savour.
Do I make myself clear? This was one of the reasons why I returned to this subject. To make myslf clear on this point.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I was going to leave this subject alone, but in light of BWFC_i talking about "people who start sentences stating 'I'm not a racist, but...'" and all that implied, and Monty hinting that maybe the rozzers should be giving me a knock for what I've posted on here, and a comment by Pru which I thought was unhelpful, and a post by Il-pirate that directly accused me of being both racist and xenophobic, plus William the White stating I was spouting froth, and not least a post by Bish accusing certain posters of not addressing The Facts... In light of this I shall overnight attempt to put my argument across in a civilised, dialectical, reasoned, argument. I can do no more than that. I shall post it in the morning after I have thought it through... bet you can't wait!

Hang on - in this regard I noted the police were tracking down and charging people who had preached hatred against an identifiable group, specifically Muslims, on the internet. My concern was actually for TW itself and perhaps a warning for our members to think before hitting 'submit'. Spotty is by no means alone in his views on TW. I must be honest and felt some of Spotty's remarks did concern me (but not him alone), but ultimately that is a problem for the mods. Further what would be illegal in Canada may be perfectly acceptable in the UK - I'm not qualified to judge.

Regarding remarks directly aimed at Spotty, I actually asked questions which he failed to answer and perhaps never saw. For example, he suggested we consider the teachings found in the Hadith. I asked whether he was referring to the Sunni Hadith or the Shiite Hadith - I gather there are significant difference in the various texts. He has not responded but it is likely in all the mud slinging it got lost.

Anyway I have basically bowed out of the debate. I find it sterile as nothing I say will change anyone's mind, and all I receive from those who disagree with me are hostile and, to my mind, scarcely rational rebuttals.

First of all this is not the post I promised last night (so you still need to campaign for the Spotto Six). But to answer this directly. Yes Monty I missed your question. I was referring to both of them, both the Shia and Sunni versions, they both reveal an awful lot about Islam's attitude to the unbeliever.
As for the law getting involved, this is a debate, I think free speech is still allowed in this country, unlike in Iran say. And yes I am aware that the law regards publishing on the internet as equal to publishing by print, but there must be intent to defame, to libel, and somebody has to be defamed. I don't think anybody on here has defamed anybody. What's more the cases you referred to were about incitement, about people organising other people to 'do things'. Me, and others on here are railing against what people have 'done' - the complete opposite of why the rozzers are getting involved, don't you think.

It is clear the law is different in the UK than in Canada. Here, to write on the internet "I hate all effing X's (X being an identifiable group against which discrimination is prohibited) because they did this that and the other and they plan to take over the world" would be illegal.

Our Human Rights Act (down, Hoboh) defines the identifiable groups:

3. (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

Our Criminal Code states:

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

In terms of jurisprudence our Supreme Court ruled as early as 1990 that "hate propaganda denotes any expression that is "intended or likely to circulate extreme feelings of opprobrium and enmity against a racial or religious group"" Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892 at 902

These laws trump free speech as our Holocaust deniers discovered.

It struck me that some of the remarks in this thread might well result in a prosecution in Canada so I raised the question. However, it seems UK law about which I know little may be different.

Finally, I note the irony that just over a century ago the group accused of trying to take over the world were Jews - see the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I'm sure most Jews are relieved that the mantle of alleged world domination has fallen on other shoulders.

See my answer above.

[Montreal Wanderer]

but it still troubles me when people in the outside world and on here (not you LLS) have said things like "I hate the Muslims".

to be fair to LLS, he DID say something very much like that....

when asked by WtW:

Do you think it might be a good idea to differentiate between hating or detesting Islam and hating and detesting Jihadists?

LLS replied:

No.
I don't. Any tw*t that believes in that shite is abhorrent to me.

I purposefully used the word abhor and William the White used the words detesting. To detest is simililar enough to the word abhor for me not to feel it was dissembling to answer the question. In my answer I strictly used abhor once more.
Abhor: to regard with extreme repugnance or aversion.
So I have an extreme aversion to the philosophy of Islam. I believe many of the concepts in it to be ridiculous (not least that any sane person can possibly accept that God speaks exclusively fouteen hundred year old Arabic), and I have a repugnance to the stance that muslims take on various issues, not least halal meat. I abhor the handing down of death sentences on writers and drawers of cartoons, etc etc.

That is completely different to the statement "I hate the Muslims". Which I have neither said, written or implied. The statement "I abhor Islam", and the statement "Any tw*t that believes in that shite is abhorrent to me" is a separate concept entirely. To find repugnance in a philosophy is not the same as hating the people who hold that philosophy.
I abhor capitalism. I do not hate the populace that live in capitalist societies
I abhor Islam. I do not hate muslims.[/]
I abhor animal cruelty. On that one I can confirm that I hate abusers of animals with a vengeance that jihadists would probably savour.
Do I make myself clear? This was one of the reasons why I returned to this subject.

It is getting better but by your answer to WtW while you do not hate Muslims you do abhor them. Correct?

[thebish]

not 100% sure why "Any tw*t that believes in that shite is abhorrent to me" - if "that shite" is "the philosophy of Islam" is any different to saying "Muslims are nice people and I abhor them".. Muslims are people who believe in Islam (or "that shite")

but as you say that in your mind it IS different - then I guess that's partially clarified!

you abhor all the people who believe in Islam (and they are also tw*ts)

but you don't abhor all Muslims

hmmmm.....

[Lost Leopard Spot]

but it still troubles me when people in the outside world and on here (not you LLS) have said things like "I hate the Muslims".

to be fair to LLS, he DID say something very much like that....

when asked by WtW:

Do you think it might be a good idea to differentiate between hating or detesting Islam and hating and detesting Jihadists?

LLS replied:

No.
I don't. Any tw*t that believes in that shite is abhorrent to me.

I purposefully used the word abhor and William the White used the words detesting. To detest is simililar enough to the word abhor for me not to feel it was dissembling to answer the question. In my answer I strictly used abhor once more.
Abhor: to regard with extreme repugnance or aversion.
So I have an extreme aversion to the philosophy of Islam. I believe many of the concepts in it to be ridiculous (not least that any sane person can possibly accept that God speaks exclusively fouteen hundred year old Arabic), and I have a repugnance to the stance that muslims take on various issues, not least halal meat. I abhor the handing down of death sentences on writers and drawers of cartoons, etc etc.

That is completely different to the statement "I hate the Muslims". Which I have neither said, written or implied. The statement "I abhor Islam", and the statement "Any tw*t that believes in that shite is abhorrent to me" is a separate concept entirely. To find repugnance in a philosophy is not the same as hating the people who hold that philosophy.
I abhor capitalism. I do not hate the populace that live in capitalist societies
I abhor Islam. I do not hate muslims.[/]
I abhor animal cruelty. On that one I can confirm that I hate abusers of animals with a vengeance that jihadists would probably savour.
Do I make myself clear? This was one of the reasons why I returned to this subject.

It is getting better but by your answer to WtW while you do not hate Muslims you do abhor them. Correct?

Incorrect I merely replied to his question "between hating or detesting Islam and hating and detesting Jihadists". He used Islam - a philosophy, not Muslims - individual people.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I was going to leave this subject alone, but in light of BWFC_i talking about "people who start sentences stating 'I'm not a racist, but...'" and all that implied, and Monty hinting that maybe the rozzers should be giving me a knock for what I've posted on here, and a comment by Pru which I thought was unhelpful, and a post by Il-pirate that directly accused me of being both racist and xenophobic, plus William the White stating I was spouting froth, and not least a post by Bish accusing certain posters of not addressing The Facts... In light of this I shall overnight attempt to put my argument across in a civilised, dialectical, reasoned, argument. I can do no more than that. I shall post it in the morning after I have thought it through... bet you can't wait!

Hang on - in this regard I noted the police were tracking down and charging people who had preached hatred against an identifiable group, specifically Muslims, on the internet. My concern was actually for TW itself and perhaps a warning for our members to think before hitting 'submit'. Spotty is by no means alone in his views on TW. I must be honest and felt some of Spotty's remarks did concern me (but not him alone), but ultimately that is a problem for the mods. Further what would be illegal in Canada may be perfectly acceptable in the UK - I'm not qualified to judge.

Regarding remarks directly aimed at Spotty, I actually asked questions which he failed to answer and perhaps never saw. For example, he suggested we consider the teachings found in the Hadith. I asked whether he was referring to the Sunni Hadith or the Shiite Hadith - I gather there are significant difference in the various texts. He has not responded but it is likely in all the mud slinging it got lost.

Anyway I have basically bowed out of the debate. I find it sterile as nothing I say will change anyone's mind, and all I receive from those who disagree with me are hostile and, to my mind, scarcely rational rebuttals.

First of all this is not the post I promised last night (so you still need to campaign for the Spotto Six). But to answer this directly. Yes Monty I missed your question. I was referring to both of them, both the Shia and Sunni versions, they both reveal an awful lot about Islam's attitude to the unbeliever.
As for the law getting involved, this is a debate, I think free speech is still allowed in this country, unlike in Iran say. And yes I am aware that the law regards publishing on the internet as equal to publishing by print, but there must be intent to defame, to libel, and somebody has to be defamed. I don't think anybody on here has defamed anybody. What's more the cases you referred to were about incitement, about people organising other people to 'do things'. Me, and others on here are railing against what people have 'done' - the complete opposite of why the rozzers are getting involved, don't you think.

It is clear the law is different in the UK than in Canada. Here, to write on the internet "I hate all effing X's (X being an identifiable group against which discrimination is prohibited) because they did this that and the other and they plan to take over the world" would be illegal.

Our Human Rights Act (down, Hoboh) defines the identifiable groups:

3. (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

Our Criminal Code states:

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

In terms of jurisprudence our Supreme Court ruled as early as 1990 that "hate propaganda denotes any expression that is "intended or likely to circulate extreme feelings of opprobrium and enmity against a racial or religious group"" Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892 at 902

These laws trump free speech as our Holocaust deniers discovered.

It struck me that some of the remarks in this thread might well result in a prosecution in Canada so I raised the question. However, it seems UK law about which I know little may be different.

Finally, I note the irony that just over a century ago the group accused of trying to take over the world were Jews - see the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I'm sure most Jews are relieved that the mantle of alleged world domination has fallen on other shoulders.

See my answer above.

Well, it is not much of an answer if we are talking about the laws (or possible lack thereof in England) of hate speech. All I said was that, in Canada, at least, you and others would be skating on thin ice with some of the pronouncements. I am not sure that circumlocutions like "While I abhor all followers of Islam (a shite religion) I do not hate Muslims" would avail in a Canadian court of law - but then again it might.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

not 100% sure why "Any tw*t that believes in that shite is abhorrent to me" - if "that shite" is "the philosophy of Islam" is any different to saying "Muslims are tw*ts and I abhor them".. Muslims are people who believe in Islam (or "that shite")

but as you say that in your mind it IS different - then I guess that's partially clarified!

you abhor all the people who believe in Islam (and they are also tw*ts)

but you don't abhor all Muslims

hmmmm.....

See the answer above.

[Montreal Wanderer]

but it still troubles me when people in the outside world and on here (not you LLS) have said things like "I hate the Muslims".

to be fair to LLS, he DID say something very much like that....

when asked by WtW:

Do you think it might be a good idea to differentiate between hating or detesting Islam and hating and detesting Jihadists?

LLS replied:

No.
I don't. Any tw*t that believes in that shite is abhorrent to me.

I purposefully used the word abhor and William the White used the words detesting. To detest is simililar enough to the word abhor for me not to feel it was dissembling to answer the question. In my answer I strictly used abhor once more.
Abhor: to regard with extreme repugnance or aversion.
So I have an extreme aversion to the philosophy of Islam. I believe many of the concepts in it to be ridiculous (not least that any sane person can possibly accept that God speaks exclusively fouteen hundred year old Arabic), and I have a repugnance to the stance that muslims take on various issues, not least halal meat. I abhor the handing down of death sentences on writers and drawers of cartoons, etc etc.

That is completely different to the statement "I hate the Muslims". Which I have neither said, written or implied. The statement "I abhor Islam", and the statement "Any tw*t that believes in that shite is abhorrent to me" is a separate concept entirely. To find repugnance in a philosophy is not the same as hating the people who hold that philosophy.
I abhor capitalism. I do not hate the populace that live in capitalist societies
I abhor Islam. I do not hate muslims.[/]
I abhor animal cruelty. On that one I can confirm that I hate abusers of animals with a vengeance that jihadists would probably savour.
Do I make myself clear? This was one of the reasons why I returned to this subject.

It is getting better but by your answer to WtW while you do not hate Muslims you do abhor them. Correct?

Incorrect I merely replied to his question "between hating or detesting Islam and hating and detesting Jihadists". He used Islam - a philosophy, not Muslims - individual people.

Muslims are those who believe in Islam. You said "Any tw*t that believes in that shite is abhorrent to me". Any nice person is clearly an individual. If any nice person is abhorrent, so clearly are all nice people.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Never mind - the bish has been through this while I was composing.
Free the Spotty Six.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Muslims are those who believe in Islam. You said "Any tw*t that believes in that shite is abhorrent to me". Any tw*t is clearly an individual. If any tw*t is abhorrent, so clearly are all tw*ts.

Ahh, I see. I wasn't looking into the convolutions of the sentence structure, I was attempting to answer WtW's question.
as I said I merely replied to his question "between hating or detesting Islam and hating and detesting Jihadists". He used Islam - a philosophy, not Muslims - individual people.
I see that I did not get my concept across, for this I apologise.
Am I now making myself clear?

[thebish]

LLS - I'm still not sure how your phrase

"Any tw*t that believes in that shite is abhorrent to me" does NOT mean that all Muslims are abhorrent to you.

I am assuming (as you seem to make clear) that:

"that shite" = the philosophy of Islam

"Any tw*t that believes in" = all actual people who believe in

clearly you think I have misunderstood you - can you explain how?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

LLS - I'm still not sure how your phrase

"Any tw*t that believes in that shite is abhorrent to me" does NOT mean that all Muslims are abhorrent to you.

I am assuming (as you seem to make clear) that:

"that shite" = the philosophy of Islam

"Any tw*t that believes in" = all actual people who believe in

clearly you think I have misunderstood you - can you explain how?

I will try.
The question as posed by WtW was: Do you think it might be a good idea to differentiate between hating or detesting Islam and hating and detesting Jihadists?

My answer meant no I do not see the difference between detesting (I prefer and used the nuanced abhor) Islam (the philosophy thereof) and detesting (and here we can allow detestation to stand) Jihadists.
That is what my answer was meant. I worded it poorly because of the awkward mix up between Islam and Jihadists – if the question had been “Do you think it might be a good idea to differentiate between hating or detesting Muslims and hating and detesting Jihadists?” – the answer there would have been different, and would be Yes.
I again apologise if my incorrect usage of English I gave you an incorrect idea of what I meant. And by the logic that has been applied by both yourself and Monty I appreciate that I did give a false impression of what I meant.

I don’t believe in any of the other posts that this incorrect impression has been continued, I think the rest accurately portrays what I think and what I feel.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Muslims are those who believe in Islam. You said "Any tw*t that believes in that shite is abhorrent to me". Any tw*t is clearly an individual. If any tw*t is abhorrent, so clearly are all tw*ts.

Ahh, I see. I wasn't looking into the convolutions of the sentence structure, I was attempting to answer WtW's question.
as I said I merely replied to his question "between hating or detesting Islam and hating and detesting Jihadists". He used Islam - a philosophy, not Muslims - individual people.
I see that I did not get my concept across, for this I apologise.
Am I now making myself clear?

Yes, you misspoke earlier and have now clarified your meaning. Still thin ice in Canada mind.

[William the White]

abhor: v. detest; hate. concise Oxford Dictionary. Though I'm obviously prepared to accept what I think is LLS's assertion that he thought 'abhor' had a milder connotation.

I don't see any problem in accepting LLS's assertion that he was distinguishing between Islam and Muslims and in a overheated debating mode misstated when he said that stuff about believers.

I think Islam has many aspects to it. The militant version is repellent, in my view. But it does not represent all Muslims. My own experience of living in Sudan was the faith was held lightly by many Muslims - I was fortunate enough to make friends with very bad Muslims wherever I went, and we got some serious drinking done.

Islamic art and architecture is tremendous, and much mor to my taste than much Christian art and architecture - I'd have the Alhambra and the Mezquita at Cordoba over York minster any day (and that's my favourite large cathedral in the UK).

[Lost Leopard Spot]

abhor: v. detest; hate. concise Oxford Dictionary. Though I'm obviously prepared to accept what I think is LLS's assertion that he thought 'abhor' had a milder connotation.

I don't see any problem in accepting LLS's assertion that he was distinguishing between Islam and Muslims and in a overheated debating mode misstated when he said that stuff about believers.

I think Islam has many aspects to it. The militant version is repellent, in my view. But it does not represent all Muslims. My own experience of living in Sudan was the faith was held lightly by many Muslims - I was fortunate enough to make friends with very bad Muslims wherever I went, and we got some serious drinking done.

Islamic art and architecture is tremendous, and much mor to my taste than much Christian art and architecture - I'd have the Alhambra and the Mezquita at Cordoba over York minster any day (and that's my favourite large cathedral in the UK).

I welcome the fact that I think I have now made my position plain. I am an admirer of Islamic architecture and to a certain extent Islamic history. Islamic art on the other hand I find to be meh. I probably never will meet you eye to eye on Islam itself: you are an obvious admirer, in fact I'd half guessed from your posts that you yourself were Muslim.
So my next question, posed in the spirit of genuine inquiry is - do you think there is a global jihadist movement, or do you think it is just disparate political action under a false label?
And as I'm back on my phone and all the awkwardness that implies I shall answe Monty in that I have no idea how thin or thick the ice is but I believe in free speech and debate and if ny country wants to try to prosecute me for that, so be it.

[Montreal Wanderer]

abhor: v. detest; hate. concise Oxford Dictionary. Though I'm obviously prepared to accept what I think is LLS's assertion that he thought 'abhor' had a milder connotation.

I don't see any problem in accepting LLS's assertion that he was distinguishing between Islam and Muslims and in a overheated debating mode misstated when he said that stuff about believers.

I think Islam has many aspects to it. The militant version is repellent, in my view. But it does not represent all Muslims. My own experience of living in Sudan was the faith was held lightly by many Muslims - I was fortunate enough to make friends with very bad Muslims wherever I went, and we got some serious drinking done.

Islamic art and architecture is tremendous, and much mor to my taste than much Christian art and architecture - I'd have the Alhambra and the Mezquita at Cordoba over York minster any day (and that's my favourite large cathedral in the UK).

I welcome the fact that I think I have now made my position plain. I am an admirer of Islamic architecture and to a certain extent Islamic history. Islamic art on the other hand I find to be meh. I probably never will meet you eye to eye on Islam itself: you are an obvious admirer, in fact I'd half guessed from your posts that you yourself were Muslim.
So my next question, posed in the spirit of genuine inquiry is - do you think there is a global jihadist movement, or do you think it is just disparate political action under a false label?
And as I'm back on my phone and all the awkwardness that implies I shall answe Monty in that I have no idea how thin or thick the ice is but I believe in free speech and debate and if ny country wants to try to prosecute me for that, so be it.

Islam also did a great deal for science, especially medicine and astronomy, as well. I admire all historical forces, religious or secular, that have advanced mankind, while deploring those same forces that detract from advancement. Lest I be thought a Muslim like William, I am an atheist born to the Church of England. I find all mainstream religions improbable, yet most contain a good moral or ethical message at their heart including Islam - the Q'ran prohibits wars of aggressive expansionism. I believe that all religions are from time to time hijacked by 'leaders' for their own purposes of political power and control, but this does not make the original message bad however it is distorted. In some way I envy those capable of an act of faith, but rely on my intellect as my best if imperfect guide.

As for the law - well, here free speech is limited which may or may not be a good thing.

[Relentless09]

Can we just not settle this by saying peaceful Muslims who are of no harm to the United Kingdom are welcome but Radical Muslims have no place in our society ?

[Prufrock]

LLS, if you are saying that Islam is a religion more likely, in itself, to lead to violence, rather than Muslims are more likely to be violent, then, whilst I disagree, I can at least go with that as a non-cretinous or feline position.

You're in no trouble of defamation (though you don't need to intend to defame) and thankfully, due to recent 'good thing' done by the govt., you're no longer in danger of prosecution for saying stuff that is merely insulting.

So, everyone is a winner.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Can we just not settle this by saying peaceful Muslims who are of no harm to the United Kingdom are welcome but Radical Muslims have no place in our society ?

Rather I would say peaceful decent people who cause no harm to the UK are welcome while violent, unpleasant troublemakers
have no place in a civil society.