Why do islam hates people?

[MichaelBliss]

 Website Review - http://www.palestinefacts.org/ - Propaganda Alert
http://www.palestinefacts.org/

The website displayed above is a farce. It's a thinly disguised attempt to colour the Arab-Israeli conflict in the blue colours of Zionism and making it appear like this is the truth, at least from a Palestinian standpoint. The target audience for this website is people who are not very knowledgeable about the conflict and who don't know who to ask for information. However, even with zero facts, you will quickly discover the bias, as I will demonstrate below:

1-It's Anonymous

No one seems to want to claim responsibility for this website, as this paragraph quoted from the FAQ section demonstrates:

    "There is no one individual editor. The site has been prepared by a team of writers and editors who are knowledgable of the history, politics, economics and military situation in the Middle East, based on information compiled from the best available sources. They have developed Palestine Facts to provide much-needed factual information to everyone who may be interested in the current situation in Israel, how it evolved to today's status, and what might be reasonable policies for the future."



I wonder how many of those "team of writers" are Zionist? or Arab?
Would you trust the opinion of someone without a name?

2- The nomenclature used is exclusively zionist:

For example, the Occupied West Bank is called Judea and Samaria which is a biblical name fanatic Zionists like to call Arab land that they believe belongs to them. No one (even the UN) uses such names except Israel. This is the same area where some Israeli soldiers refuse to serve on ethical grounds. The UN has issued numerous resolutions deeming Israeli settlements in that area illegal, and yet Israel continues to build on land that is not theirs.

3- Biased Maps:

    "Invalid Palestinian Arab Maps.Anti-Israel forces have made an industry out of producing invalid maps that either deny the existence of Israel altogether or distort the history and modern situation."



Basically according to this "unbiased" website, any map that is pro-Palestinian is automatically anti-Israeli. What biased logic. The aim of this website is to delete Palestine from the world vocabulary. Interestingly, they do not mention anything about the Israeli Apartheid Wall which was unilaterally drawn by the Israelis and which clearly illegally annexes Arab land that does not belong to Israel.

Even Wikipedia acknowledges that: "Parts of the barrier are built on land seized from Palestinians", although their maps show a clear bias against the Palestinians by naming Arab land with Jewish names. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_West_Bank_barrier

Unbiased websites such as this: http://www.stopthewall.org/maps/150.shtml show the land grab graphically on accurate maps.

4- Biased Sources:

Any academic knows that the quality of your thesis is underpinned by the quality of your sources. This website uses exclusively Israeli sources to describe their supposed Palestinian viewpoint. It's like asking the KKK to abolish slavery. Their map references include:

    The Department for Jewish Zionist Education, The Jewish Agency for Israel
    State of Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
    Maps of Israeli Interests in Judea and Samaria, Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies
    etc..



5- Denial of any Palestinian history or rights:

The site blatantly tries to argue everything for Israel's benifit, it even claims that the Occupied Territories are not such but they are "occupied territories" very much in the same way that Arabs try to deny Israel's existence by calling it "Israel".

There is a section called Arabian Fables that is as logical as a drunken alcoholic abusive rapist. For example:

    "The "Palestinians". That is the fundamental myth.



Again, the use of the quotations to indicate that the Palestinians don't exist. Weird, because the word Palestine has been there since even before the Arabs came to Palestine, and is a Greek name in fact, more than 2000 years old. Another gaping hole in their logic especially since their website's name is Palestine Facts!

What about this:

    "Josef Goebbels, the infamous propaganda minister of the Nazis, had it right. Just tell people big lies often enough and they will believe them."



Let's get it clear. This is a website full of anti-Palestinian propaganda. What is very ironic is that they use Nazi propaganda to claim that their propaganda is correct. Well two wrongs never made a right.

Let's never forget that it's Nazi Germany that killed the Jews and not Arab Palestinians. The holocaust is not an Arab problem but the Arabs have had to pay for it. Wouldn't it be fairer if we founded Israel inside Germany?

[1714546593]

1714546593

[1714546593]

1714546593

[J. J. Phillips]

If Bryant Coleman's beliefs are the result of an Israeli propaganda campaign, then the Israelis must have a very bizarre propaganda strategy.

As I've mentioned many times before, the Arab-Israeli is complicated and with a long history.

http://palestinefacts.org/

It didn't start with "hamas rockets." The fact that the rockets are usually ineffective actually supports Israeli strategy. Many Israelis used to die in suicide bombings on a regular basis. Israeli policy in the past 20 years has made suicide bombings much more difficult to carry out. Hamas is open about the fact that they're genocidal.

Most peoples beliefs are conditioned by Hollywood to one degree or another.  Not sure who runs this site that you linked to but at first glance it's not very informative.  You would learn a lot more reading these few pages I think:

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html

"As I've mentioned many times before, the Arab-Israeli is complicated and with a long history."

No, the Arab-Israeli [conflict] is only 68 years long, mentioning it many times won't make it true.

You don't know what you are talking about, and yes, it's from watching too much t.v. etc.

I'd consider 68 years a long time. Maybe you're older than me. Even so, both of our links acknowledge the issue is over a century old. Just going back a century, it would be hard to argue that WW1 and the Balfour Declaration weren't vital to the history. WW1 was how Britain gained control over Transjordan after the Turkish/Ottoman empire collapsed. The Balfour Declaration already made it clear that Britain intended part of that to be a Jewish homeland.

I've looked at ifamericansknew before, and it's clearly a propaganda site rather than a site trying to inform about the history.

You might want to consider that you've been brainwashed. Maybe you should start listening to see if the same people who give you your information also talk about how the world is secretly controlled by a cabal of International Jewish Bankers and/or Lizard People.

[J. J. Phillips]

Unbiased websites such as this: http://www.stopthewall.org/maps/150.shtml show the land grab graphically on accurate maps.

Wait. You really think a website named "stopthewall" is unbiased?

Let's never forget that it's Nazi Germany that killed the Jews and not Arab Palestinians. The holocaust is not an Arab problem but the Arabs have had to pay for it. Wouldn't it be fairer if we founded Israel inside Germany?

The Palestinians sided with Nazi Germany.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haj_Amin_al-Husseini

Even today "moderate" Palestinian politicians can help themselves get more votes by using the nickname "Hitler."

Hamas is explicitly genocidal towards the Jews.

Look, I understand you side with them too. Lots of people in this part of bitcointalk are essentially Nazis who want to exterminate the Jews. It's natural that you'd want to fit in and be a Nazi too. Go ahead. Enjoy yourself.

And I hope you die in a fire like all Nazis should.

[Spendulus]

Unbiased websites such as this: http://www.stopthewall.org/maps/150.shtml show the land grab graphically on accurate maps.

Wait. You really think a website named "stopthewall" is unbiased?

Let's never forget that it's Nazi Germany that killed the Jews and not Arab Palestinians. The holocaust is not an Arab problem but the Arabs have had to pay for it. Wouldn't it be fairer if we founded Israel inside Germany?

The Palestinians sided with Nazi Germany.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haj_Amin_al-Husseini

Even today "moderate" Palestinian politicians can help themselves get more votes by using the nickname "Hitler."

Hamas is explicitly genocidal towards the Jews.

Look, I understand you side with them too. Lots of people in this part of bitcointalk are essentially Nazis who want to exterminate the Jews. It's natural that you'd want to fit in and be a Nazi too. Go ahead. Enjoy yourself.

And I hope you die in a fire like all Nazis should.

Well, yeah.  We all know Bliss is rabid dog Jew Hater, but hey, he's got a cool avatar, so....

After all, those damned Jews in Israel don't hang gays, and they don't throw them off tall buildings.  Man, they are just not with the program.  Can you believe that? 

Next thing you know, a couple of these middle estern countries will go to war with each other to resolve once and for all whether to (1) hang the homos (2) throw them off tall buildings.

I so like it when pro-Muslim play the victim card and claim Islamophobia.

[MichaelBliss]

Nice strawman.  "Jew hater"  where do you get this b.s.

lol @ ifamericansknew.org being a propaganda site.   The authors of the articles aren't anonymous trolls and the content is well researched and corroborated, as opposed to the anonymous propaganda from palestinefacts that was linked.

Yeah 68 years isn't long, especially considering the entire Israeli claim on the land goes back 2,000 years.  LOL  @ the backwards history lesson on WWII.  Hitler was actually in favour of establishing Israel, why not, the whole idea of a "Jewish Race" that the zionists and nazis have in common is completely racist and basically the same thing. 

A few of you are intelligent enough to follow up on some of this and see where you are wrong.  Others, might be ideologically, perhaps religiously driven, and you are about as lost as the people you are arguing with.  (Not me, I'm out)

[Spendulus]

Nice strawman.  "Jew hater"  where do you get this b.s.

lol @ ifamericansknew.org being a propaganda site.   The authors of the articles aren't anonymous trolls and the content is well researched and corroborated, as opposed to the anonymous propaganda from palestinefacts that was linked.

Yeah 68 years isn't long, especially considering the entire Israeli claim on the land goes back 2,000 years.  LOL  @ the backwards history lesson on WWII.  Hitler was actually in favour of establishing Israel, why not, the whole idea of a "Jewish Race" that the zionists and nazis have in common is completely racist and basically the same thing. 

A few of you are intelligent enough to follow up on some of this and see where you are wrong.  Others, might be ideologically, perhaps religiously driven, and you are about as lost as the people you are arguing with.  (Not me, I'm out)

Sure, just tell me this.

Pakistan - number of displaced people when it was created an order of magnitude higher than when Israel formed.

But nobody's complaining.

Oh, wait, it really is ALL ABOUT THOSE EVIL JOEEESSS!!

I forgot.

Lol...

[Mehek]

I am here to just say one thing? Why do YOU hate people? and you should really give a valid reason not a shitty one that says 'Because Jews, Because Christians, Because Atheists'
and Yes, I am a people's person for those who ask, just tell me, come out of your shell and say why you HATE people like myself, and I could be here to clarify things to you, or not...
Also here is something that most muslims mistake about people's person like me is that "Christianity or Buddhism hate other religions" for this I say, Christianity or Buddhism does not hate ANY religion, but they suggest to 'invite' them to Christianity or Buddhism or Judaism, as slowly, and peacefully, even if they refuse, you can try and try, until it's their choice, you stop. and for all the wars that happened, it's because this other religion decided to come into war on Christianity or Buddhism or Judaism.

If you need anything clarified, I may not be here to answer you, don't be scared, I won't be offended by anyone, also haters, you can reply, I won't care Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink


In other news ->

I  dont understand why people build up hate against each other because of their religion or country or race or whatever . We are all humans ,we are all the same . We all want to be happy and live a peaceful life . Then why do people come in the path of greed , hate , corruption ,etc.and why dont they just  live an honest life. live and let live ,folks.

[BADecker]

I am here to just say one thing? Why do YOU hate people? and you should really give a valid reason not a shitty one that says 'Because Jews, Because Christians, Because Atheists'
and Yes, I am a people's person for those who ask, just tell me, come out of your shell and say why you HATE people like myself, and I could be here to clarify things to you, or not...
Also here is something that most muslims mistake about people's person like me is that "Christianity or Buddhism hate other religions" for this I say, Christianity or Buddhism does not hate ANY religion, but they suggest to 'invite' them to Christianity or Buddhism or Judaism, as slowly, and peacefully, even if they refuse, you can try and try, until it's their choice, you stop. and for all the wars that happened, it's because this other religion decided to come into war on Christianity or Buddhism or Judaism.

If you need anything clarified, I may not be here to answer you, don't be scared, I won't be offended by anyone, also haters, you can reply, I won't care Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink


In other news ->

I  dont understand why people build up hate against each other because of their religion or country or race or whatever . We are all humans ,we are all the same . We all want to be happy and live a peaceful life . Then why do people come in the path of greed , hate , corruption ,etc.and why dont they just  live an honest life. live and let live ,folks.

Because, "Me want this, and this, and this." And if I am not smart enough to get it by working for it, then I am stupid enough to take it from others by force. The result often destroys the one who lives his hate.

This is what is happening to ISIS. They follow both the peace directives and the violence/hate directives in the Islamic writings. The frustration of trying to do both in the contradictory ways that the writings present both to them, causes them to become hateful of their own religion, of themselves for following it. But they don't know any other religion, so they take their hate out on other people.

[sukamasoto]

Actually I'm respect all religion.
But these day, mostly criminal come from Islam. Terorist, ISIS, etc  This religion is something different than others. I hate mostly afterward. Is it because this religion is very dominant so they can do anything they like ?

[BADecker]

Actually I'm respect all religion.
But these day, mostly criminal come from Islam. Terorist, ISIS, etc  This religion is something different than others. I hate mostly afterward. Is it because this religion is very dominant so they can do anything they like ?

I respect the fact that people are people. I look for the truth in religion.

[Wilikon]

I am here to just say one thing? Why do YOU hate people? and you should really give a valid reason not a shitty one that says 'Because Jews, Because Christians, Because Atheists'
and Yes, I am a people's person for those who ask, just tell me, come out of your shell and say why you HATE people like myself, and I could be here to clarify things to you, or not...
Also here is something that most muslims mistake about people's person like me is that "Christianity or Buddhism hate other religions" for this I say, Christianity or Buddhism does not hate ANY religion, but they suggest to 'invite' them to Christianity or Buddhism or Judaism, as slowly, and peacefully, even if they refuse, you can try and try, until it's their choice, you stop. and for all the wars that happened, it's because this other religion decided to come into war on Christianity or Buddhism or Judaism.

If you need anything clarified, I may not be here to answer you, don't be scared, I won't be offended by anyone, also haters, you can reply, I won't care Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink


In other news ->

I  dont understand why people build up hate against each other because of their religion or country or race or whatever . We are all humans ,we are all the same . We all want to be happy and live a peaceful life . Then why do people come in the path of greed , hate , corruption ,etc.and why dont they just  live an honest life. live and let live ,folks.

I am here to just say one thing? Why do YOU hate islam? and you should really give a valid reason not a shitty one that says 'Because media'
and Yes, I am a muslim for those who ask, just tell me, come out of your shell and say why you HATE it, and I could be here to clarify things to you.
Also here is something that most people mistake about islam is that "Islam hates other religions" for this I say, Islam does not hate ANY religion, but it suggests to 'invite' them to islam, as slowly, and peacefully, even if they refuse, you can try and try, until it's their choice, you stop. and for all the wars that happened, it's because the other religions decided to come into war on Islam.

If you need anything clarified, I am here to answer you, don't be scared, I won't be offended by anyone, also haters, you can reply, I won't care

I care

 

[BADecker]

I care

 

I care as well. I just am not crazy about being a Christian missionary where some Muslim will chop off my head for trying to save his soul.

Muslims don't care. That's not why they "evangelize." They do it because they are following orders.

Some Christians evangelize because they are following orders. But many Christian evangelizers actually care.

[jaysabi]

I haven't seen the movie, so I wouldn't know how accurate or not it is. I didn't miss your point, I disputed it directly. Your point is, as you just said, "the interest of a culture in encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from, instead of harshly suppressing it" as you seek to differentiate it from Muslim cultures which you believe would harshly suppress an individual such as Turing. Your point is Turing was appreciated greatly for his work, and my rebuttal was he obviously wasn't, as evidenced by how harshly the great and brilliant war hero was suppressed after the war when he was prosecuted for who he was and chemically castrated. These actions do not show a "culture encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from" because the caveat was "unless you're gay, in which case you will be suppressed."

Maybe before making broad sweeping generalizations of this sort, you might want to look at say, 100 people who knew him?  What is "a culture?"
It's a lot more than a couple cops who made a case up against the man.

You did not dispute my point one bit in condemning English culture of that time, from the modern point of view.

My point remains.  If the Islamics had then ruled Britian, he would not have done his work, and you would likely not have a computer today.

Interchange "culture" with "society" and see if it helps your understanding any. Your point remains discredited. British society was not morally superior because they actually suppressed him slightly less harshly than an Islamic one theoretically might have. The British government didn't prosecute him until the war was over, so there's every reason to believe an Islamic government would have similarly used him for his talents in order to aid a war effort, and then persecuted him afterwards like the Brits did.

[Wilikon]

I haven't seen the movie, so I wouldn't know how accurate or not it is. I didn't miss your point, I disputed it directly. Your point is, as you just said, "the interest of a culture in encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from, instead of harshly suppressing it" as you seek to differentiate it from Muslim cultures which you believe would harshly suppress an individual such as Turing. Your point is Turing was appreciated greatly for his work, and my rebuttal was he obviously wasn't, as evidenced by how harshly the great and brilliant war hero was suppressed after the war when he was prosecuted for who he was and chemically castrated. These actions do not show a "culture encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from" because the caveat was "unless you're gay, in which case you will be suppressed."

Maybe before making broad sweeping generalizations of this sort, you might want to look at say, 100 people who knew him?  What is "a culture?"
It's a lot more than a couple cops who made a case up against the man.

You did not dispute my point one bit in condemning English culture of that time, from the modern point of view.

My point remains.  If the Islamics had then ruled Britian, he would not have done his work, and you would likely not have a computer today.

Interchange "culture" with "society" and see if it helps your understanding any. Your point remains discredited. British society was not morally superior because they actually suppressed him slightly less harshly than an Islamic one theoretically might have. The British government didn't prosecute him until the war was over, so there's every reason to believe an Islamic government would have similarly used him for his talents in order to aid a war effort, and then persecuted him afterwards like the Brits did.

You and spendulus are not muslims. I am not a muslim.

A simple idea: why don't you ask directly that question to the muslims in this thread. Find out if this man would have been accepted, as openly gay, in a society based on sharia law. Why not let the people with the necessary experience answer? Could be yes. Could be no.

Ask away.

[Spendulus]

I haven't seen the movie, so I wouldn't know how accurate or not it is. I didn't miss your point, I disputed it directly. Your point is, as you just said, "the interest of a culture in encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from, instead of harshly suppressing it" as you seek to differentiate it from Muslim cultures which you believe would harshly suppress an individual such as Turing. Your point is Turing was appreciated greatly for his work, and my rebuttal was he obviously wasn't, as evidenced by how harshly the great and brilliant war hero was suppressed after the war when he was prosecuted for who he was and chemically castrated. These actions do not show a "culture encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from" because the caveat was "unless you're gay, in which case you will be suppressed."

Maybe before making broad sweeping generalizations of this sort, you might want to look at say, 100 people who knew him?  What is "a culture?"
It's a lot more than a couple cops who made a case up against the man.

You did not dispute my point one bit in condemning English culture of that time, from the modern point of view.

My point remains.  If the Islamics had then ruled Britian, he would not have done his work, and you would likely not have a computer today.

Interchange "culture" with "society" and see if it helps your understanding any. Your point remains discredited. British society was not morally superior because they actually suppressed him slightly less harshly than an Islamic one theoretically might have. The British government didn't prosecute him until the war was over, so there's every reason to believe an Islamic government would have similarly used him for his talents in order to aid a war effort, and then persecuted him afterwards like the Brits did.

It's total bullshit.

Country A.  Homosexual behavior is illegal and results in jail if prosecuted.
Country B.  Homosexual behavior is illegal and you are killed.

Go ahead, claim these are morally and ethically equivalent.

[harlenadler]

I haven't seen the movie, so I wouldn't know how accurate or not it is. I didn't miss your point, I disputed it directly. Your point is, as you just said, "the interest of a culture in encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from, instead of harshly suppressing it" as you seek to differentiate it from Muslim cultures which you believe would harshly suppress an individual such as Turing. Your point is Turing was appreciated greatly for his work, and my rebuttal was he obviously wasn't, as evidenced by how harshly the great and brilliant war hero was suppressed after the war when he was prosecuted for who he was and chemically castrated. These actions do not show a "culture encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from" because the caveat was "unless you're gay, in which case you will be suppressed."

Maybe before making broad sweeping generalizations of this sort, you might want to look at say, 100 people who knew him?  What is "a culture?"
It's a lot more than a couple cops who made a case up against the man.

You did not dispute my point one bit in condemning English culture of that time, from the modern point of view.

My point remains.  If the Islamics had then ruled Britian, he would not have done his work, and you would likely not have a computer today.

Interchange "culture" with "society" and see if it helps your understanding any. Your point remains discredited. British society was not morally superior because they actually suppressed him slightly less harshly than an Islamic one theoretically might have. The British government didn't prosecute him until the war was over, so there's every reason to believe an Islamic government would have similarly used him for his talents in order to aid a war effort, and then persecuted him afterwards like the Brits did.

It's total bullshit.

Country A.  Homosexual behavior is illegal and results in jail if prosecuted.
Country B.  Homosexual behavior is illegal and you are killed.

Go ahead, claim these are morally and ethically equivalent.

You are being ignorant of the probability of being charged and actually sentenced to the crime. While the punishment is harsh as a deterrent, you need to have 4 religous, sane and righteous men with good conduct to testify that they explicitly saw with their own eyes two people of the same sex having intercourse. Now where are you going to find that? You're going to have 4 of these good men peeking into people's bedrooms or what? It's almost impossible to convict someone, unless they confess themselves. They cannot be forced into confessing anything, and they will have to testify against themselves four times - each time, the judge will tell them to SAY NO because if they say they didn't do it and it cannot be proven, they cannot be punished. If they are drunk or insane then they cannot confess against themselves. Alan Turing simply would not have been convicted if he was under Islamic Rule, unlike British rule where he was forced to confess.

Moreover, there is no exact punishment for homosexuality in Islam. The are currently mroe than 50 Muslim majority countries with varying degrees of sharia law. Of those, the only countries which have a prescribed death penalty for homosexuality are:
Mauritania
Somaliland (part of Somalia)
Saudi Arabia
Yemen
Iran

The United Arab Emirates also has, legally, a death penalty for acts of homosexuality. However, most cases are dealt with via fines, prison sentences, or expulsion from the country. I have not been able to find any cases of a death sentence having been dispensed by the courts in the United Arab Emirates.

[Wilikon]

I haven't seen the movie, so I wouldn't know how accurate or not it is. I didn't miss your point, I disputed it directly. Your point is, as you just said, "the interest of a culture in encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from, instead of harshly suppressing it" as you seek to differentiate it from Muslim cultures which you believe would harshly suppress an individual such as Turing. Your point is Turing was appreciated greatly for his work, and my rebuttal was he obviously wasn't, as evidenced by how harshly the great and brilliant war hero was suppressed after the war when he was prosecuted for who he was and chemically castrated. These actions do not show a "culture encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from" because the caveat was "unless you're gay, in which case you will be suppressed."

Maybe before making broad sweeping generalizations of this sort, you might want to look at say, 100 people who knew him?  What is "a culture?"
It's a lot more than a couple cops who made a case up against the man.

You did not dispute my point one bit in condemning English culture of that time, from the modern point of view.

My point remains.  If the Islamics had then ruled Britian, he would not have done his work, and you would likely not have a computer today.

Interchange "culture" with "society" and see if it helps your understanding any. Your point remains discredited. British society was not morally superior because they actually suppressed him slightly less harshly than an Islamic one theoretically might have. The British government didn't prosecute him until the war was over, so there's every reason to believe an Islamic government would have similarly used him for his talents in order to aid a war effort, and then persecuted him afterwards like the Brits did.

It's total bullshit.

Country A.  Homosexual behavior is illegal and results in jail if prosecuted.
Country B.  Homosexual behavior is illegal and you are killed.

Go ahead, claim these are morally and ethically equivalent.

You are being ignorant of the probability of being charged and actually sentenced to the crime. While the punishment is harsh as a deterrent, you need to have 4 religous, sane and righteous men with good conduct to testify that they explicitly saw with their own eyes two people of the same sex having intercourse. Now where are you going to find that? You're going to have 4 of these good men peeking into people's bedrooms or what? It's almost impossible to convict someone, unless they confess themselves. They cannot be forced into confessing anything, and they will have to testify against themselves four times - each time, the judge will tell them to SAY NO because if they say they didn't do it and it cannot be proven, they cannot be punished. If they are drunk or insane then they cannot confess against themselves. Alan Turing simply would not have been convicted if he was under Islamic Rule, unlike British rule where he was forced to confess.

Moreover, there is no exact punishment for homosexuality in Islam. The are currently mroe than 50 Muslim majority countries with varying degrees of sharia law. Of those, the only countries which have a prescribed death penalty for homosexuality are:
Mauritania
Somaliland (part of Somalia)
Saudi Arabia
Yemen
Iran

The United Arab Emirates also has, legally, a death penalty for acts of homosexuality. However, most cases are dealt with via fines, prison sentences, or expulsion from the country. I have not been able to find any cases of a death sentence having been dispensed by the courts in the United Arab Emirates.

 


Then the UAE and all the countries listed would not have been the birth place of the computer... Their religion helps the brains to flee to the USA, France, UK...

By the way are you a muslim and do you know the ins and outs of sharia law?
I am still waiting for you to ask, openly, how the muslims in this thread feel about taking orders from an openly gay man, even if this gay man was about to save their nation and ultimately help win a gigantic war...


Ask away... Everyone is friendly here

 

[BADecker]

I haven't seen the movie, so I wouldn't know how accurate or not it is. I didn't miss your point, I disputed it directly. Your point is, as you just said, "the interest of a culture in encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from, instead of harshly suppressing it" as you seek to differentiate it from Muslim cultures which you believe would harshly suppress an individual such as Turing. Your point is Turing was appreciated greatly for his work, and my rebuttal was he obviously wasn't, as evidenced by how harshly the great and brilliant war hero was suppressed after the war when he was prosecuted for who he was and chemically castrated. These actions do not show a "culture encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from" because the caveat was "unless you're gay, in which case you will be suppressed."

Maybe before making broad sweeping generalizations of this sort, you might want to look at say, 100 people who knew him?  What is "a culture?"
It's a lot more than a couple cops who made a case up against the man.

You did not dispute my point one bit in condemning English culture of that time, from the modern point of view.

My point remains.  If the Islamics had then ruled Britian, he would not have done his work, and you would likely not have a computer today.

Interchange "culture" with "society" and see if it helps your understanding any. Your point remains discredited. British society was not morally superior because they actually suppressed him slightly less harshly than an Islamic one theoretically might have. The British government didn't prosecute him until the war was over, so there's every reason to believe an Islamic government would have similarly used him for his talents in order to aid a war effort, and then persecuted him afterwards like the Brits did.

It's total bullshit.

Country A.  Homosexual behavior is illegal and results in jail if prosecuted.
Country B.  Homosexual behavior is illegal and you are killed.

Go ahead, claim these are morally and ethically equivalent.

You are being ignorant of the probability of being charged and actually sentenced to the crime. While the punishment is harsh as a deterrent, you need to have 4 religous, sane and righteous men with good conduct to testify that they explicitly saw with their own eyes two people of the same sex having intercourse. Now where are you going to find that? You're going to have 4 of these good men peeking into people's bedrooms or what? It's almost impossible to convict someone, unless they confess themselves. They cannot be forced into confessing anything, and they will have to testify against themselves four times - each time, the judge will tell them to SAY NO because if they say they didn't do it and it cannot be proven, they cannot be punished. If they are drunk or insane then they cannot confess against themselves. Alan Turing simply would not have been convicted if he was under Islamic Rule, unlike British rule where he was forced to confess.

Moreover, there is no exact punishment for homosexuality in Islam. The are currently mroe than 50 Muslim majority countries with varying degrees of sharia law. Of those, the only countries which have a prescribed death penalty for homosexuality are:
Mauritania
Somaliland (part of Somalia)
Saudi Arabia
Yemen
Iran

The United Arab Emirates also has, legally, a death penalty for acts of homosexuality. However, most cases are dealt with via fines, prison sentences, or expulsion from the country. I have not been able to find any cases of a death sentence having been dispensed by the courts in the United Arab Emirates.

 


Then the UAE and all the countries listed would not have been the birth place of the computer... Their religion helps the brains to flee to the USA, France, UK...

By the way are you a muslim and do you know the ins and outs of sharia law?
I am still waiting for you to ask, openly, how the muslims in this thread feel about taking orders from an openly gay man, even if this gay man was about to save their nation and ultimately help win a gigantic war...


Ask away... Everyone is friendly here

 

Now you're trying to tell us that there aren't any true Muslims here ^^.

 

[Wilikon]

I haven't seen the movie, so I wouldn't know how accurate or not it is. I didn't miss your point, I disputed it directly. Your point is, as you just said, "the interest of a culture in encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from, instead of harshly suppressing it" as you seek to differentiate it from Muslim cultures which you believe would harshly suppress an individual such as Turing. Your point is Turing was appreciated greatly for his work, and my rebuttal was he obviously wasn't, as evidenced by how harshly the great and brilliant war hero was suppressed after the war when he was prosecuted for who he was and chemically castrated. These actions do not show a "culture encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from" because the caveat was "unless you're gay, in which case you will be suppressed."

Maybe before making broad sweeping generalizations of this sort, you might want to look at say, 100 people who knew him?  What is "a culture?"
It's a lot more than a couple cops who made a case up against the man.

You did not dispute my point one bit in condemning English culture of that time, from the modern point of view.

My point remains.  If the Islamics had then ruled Britian, he would not have done his work, and you would likely not have a computer today.

Interchange "culture" with "society" and see if it helps your understanding any. Your point remains discredited. British society was not morally superior because they actually suppressed him slightly less harshly than an Islamic one theoretically might have. The British government didn't prosecute him until the war was over, so there's every reason to believe an Islamic government would have similarly used him for his talents in order to aid a war effort, and then persecuted him afterwards like the Brits did.

It's total bullshit.

Country A.  Homosexual behavior is illegal and results in jail if prosecuted.
Country B.  Homosexual behavior is illegal and you are killed.

Go ahead, claim these are morally and ethically equivalent.

You are being ignorant of the probability of being charged and actually sentenced to the crime. While the punishment is harsh as a deterrent, you need to have 4 religous, sane and righteous men with good conduct to testify that they explicitly saw with their own eyes two people of the same sex having intercourse. Now where are you going to find that? You're going to have 4 of these good men peeking into people's bedrooms or what? It's almost impossible to convict someone, unless they confess themselves. They cannot be forced into confessing anything, and they will have to testify against themselves four times - each time, the judge will tell them to SAY NO because if they say they didn't do it and it cannot be proven, they cannot be punished. If they are drunk or insane then they cannot confess against themselves. Alan Turing simply would not have been convicted if he was under Islamic Rule, unlike British rule where he was forced to confess.

Moreover, there is no exact punishment for homosexuality in Islam. The are currently mroe than 50 Muslim majority countries with varying degrees of sharia law. Of those, the only countries which have a prescribed death penalty for homosexuality are:
Mauritania
Somaliland (part of Somalia)
Saudi Arabia
Yemen
Iran

The United Arab Emirates also has, legally, a death penalty for acts of homosexuality. However, most cases are dealt with via fines, prison sentences, or expulsion from the country. I have not been able to find any cases of a death sentence having been dispensed by the courts in the United Arab Emirates.

 


Then the UAE and all the countries listed would not have been the birth place of the computer... Their religion helps the brains to flee to the USA, France, UK...

By the way are you a muslim and do you know the ins and outs of sharia law?
I am still waiting for you to ask, openly, how the muslims in this thread feel about taking orders from an openly gay man, even if this gay man was about to save their nation and ultimately help win a gigantic war...


Ask away... Everyone is friendly here

 

Now you're trying to tell us that there aren't any true Muslims here ^^.

 

It is as stated. Nothing less. Nothing more.

Until a clear answer, Alan Turing is like the Schrödinger's cat stuck inside a box with "Sharia Law" written on it.

I have little hope people will get that joke...

[Spendulus]

I haven't seen the movie, so I wouldn't know how accurate or not it is. I didn't miss your point, I disputed it directly. Your point is, as you just said, "the interest of a culture in encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from, instead of harshly suppressing it" as you seek to differentiate it from Muslim cultures which you believe would harshly suppress an individual such as Turing. Your point is Turing was appreciated greatly for his work, and my rebuttal was he obviously wasn't, as evidenced by how harshly the great and brilliant war hero was suppressed after the war when he was prosecuted for who he was and chemically castrated. These actions do not show a "culture encouraging brilliant work from whomever it may come from" because the caveat was "unless you're gay, in which case you will be suppressed."

Maybe before making broad sweeping generalizations of this sort, you might want to look at say, 100 people who knew him?  What is "a culture?"
It's a lot more than a couple cops who made a case up against the man.

You did not dispute my point one bit in condemning English culture of that time, from the modern point of view.

My point remains.  If the Islamics had then ruled Britian, he would not have done his work, and you would likely not have a computer today.

Interchange "culture" with "society" and see if it helps your understanding any. Your point remains discredited. British society was not morally superior because they actually suppressed him slightly less harshly than an Islamic one theoretically might have. The British government didn't prosecute him until the war was over, so there's every reason to believe an Islamic government would have similarly used him for his talents in order to aid a war effort, and then persecuted him afterwards like the Brits did.

It's total bullshit.

Country A.  Homosexual behavior is illegal and results in jail if prosecuted.
Country B.  Homosexual behavior is illegal and you are killed.

Go ahead, claim these are morally and ethically equivalent.

You are being ignorant of the probability of being charged and actually sentenced to the crime. While the punishment is harsh as a deterrent, you need to have 4 religous, sane and righteous men with good conduct to testify that they explicitly saw with their own eyes two people of the same sex having intercourse. Now where are you going to find that? You're going to have 4 of these good men peeking into people's bedrooms or what? It's almost impossible to convict someone, unless they confess themselves. They cannot be forced into confessing anything, and they will have to testify against themselves four times - each time, the judge will tell them to SAY NO because if they say they didn't do it and it cannot be proven, they cannot be punished. If they are drunk or insane then they cannot confess against themselves. Alan Turing simply would not have been convicted if he was under Islamic Rule, unlike British rule where he was forced to confess.

Moreover, there is no exact punishment for homosexuality in Islam. The are currently mroe than 50 Muslim majority countries with varying degrees of sharia law. Of those, the only countries which have a prescribed death penalty for homosexuality are:
Mauritania
Somaliland (part of Somalia)
Saudi Arabia
Yemen
Iran

The United Arab Emirates also has, legally, a death penalty for acts of homosexuality. However, most cases are dealt with via fines, prison sentences, or expulsion from the country. I have not been able to find any cases of a death sentence having been dispensed by the courts in the United Arab Emirates.

 


Then the UAE and all the countries listed would not have been the birth place of the computer... Their religion helps the brains to flee to the USA, France, UK...

By the way are you a muslim and do you know the ins and outs of sharia law?
I am still waiting for you to ask, openly, how the muslims in this thread feel about taking orders from an openly gay man, even if this gay man was about to save their nation and ultimately help win a gigantic war...


Ask away... Everyone is friendly here

 

This is perhaps said better than the way I phrased it.  That was why I emphasized that the movie got it wrong in portraying Turing as a closet homosexual. He was the complete opposite.   

I believe it is a certainty that "he could not have done his work in an Islamic country" and that of course has tremendous consequences.

However, perhaps our friends could prove the opposite.  Can they point to an openly gay scientist doing work of such proportions in the Muslim world?

I am not saying "being nice to them."   That's not the point at all.