h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It seems you *want* to see Islam as a violent religion. I've noticed a lot of this lately. Especially in my country. The Republican party especially has, in spite of Bush's opinion to the contrary (one of his saner stances), stopped just short of proclaiming Islam to be pure evil.

I got Adib confused with Hafiz.

Il,

Why don't you try responding to the specific points I've raised, rather than just attacking me?

dave

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/F106900?thread=233731 Thats the thread where I answered these questions. I have not taken the good things out of context at all plus just by writing the so called bad point it is out of context because the ayaats before it and after explain in full whats being said. Most of these verses is actually taslking about what you do to those who repeatly attack etc. Adib

Dave,

I would say that the leadership of most arab nations makes up considerably less that 0.1% of its population. I would also point out that most arab leaders do not incite violence. If you want to make a case that theocracies aren't much cop, I would agree, but that's not specific to Islam.

I only know of one (no, actually two) Muslim clerics in Britain that preach pro-violence, and I only know of them through news reports. There must be thousands (tens of thousands?) of Muslim preachers country-wide. So surely that supports the idea that the media has a bias towards portraying Islam as violent? Not necessarily intentional or a huge conspiracy, but still bias.

Casting my mind back, the Creation vs Evolution thing was resolved by writing 2 opposing articles and submitting them together as a Uni project. Would anyone support the same idea here, someone to write an 'Islam is a religion of destruction' article then submit the 2 together? Or are both sides going to shout at me for even suggesting it?

Gif

I don't see anything wrong with that idea Gif. I just can't understand why the author refuses to address the points. Adib/Muzaakboy - why not mention what you just said in the article? That would address the points, and really round out the article.

dave

I read the link to your explanations for the violent passages. That still doesn't justify not including them, with your explanations, in order to balance the entry. What's the big deal here?

Have you guys given up?

Ok I have included it all.

Adib

Hi Adib,

I found the new section quite difficult to read. Is it possible to shorten it? If not, perhaps break it up with sub-headers, highlight the quotes, etc?

Perhaps for each out-of-context quote you could present it like this:

1 Header Describing Quote (as a header)

2 Short Quote from Koran (in bold)

3 Why this appears to promote violence

4 Long Quote Showing Context (in bold) (or perhaps a link to the relevant verse in an on-line Koran if there is such a thing)

5 Why this doesn't really promote violence.

Also, who were these 'other tribes' that the Muslims were fighting? The history seems a bit sketchy.

Sorry, I know that there's a lot of work there. And the more you add to this article, the more people insist should be in it!!

Gif

P.S.: 'Mohammedan' is an archaic but perfectly good word meaning 'Muslim' - 'follower of Mohammed' after the pattern of 'Christian', so I don't know why there's a [sic] after it in your quote. If the [sic] is there in the original, I guess you should leave it in though.

I wasn't able to get through it all, but quickly - it seems to address the violent passages and give good explanations

It still seems a little first personish:
"Does this seem bloodthirsty? Thought not. This shows that Muslims must restrain them self’s to doing things for Gods wishes and not for our own means. It shows that Muslims should always seek peace when that option is available."

You seem to assume that your reader is automatically biased against you. Is this how you want to come across?

dave

ooops sorry will change it.

Adib

Still there? Still working?

I don't know.

Sorry I don't have much time on line at the moment as I am very busy doing other things.

I will do my best to amke you all happy with it.

ADib

I can understand being busy with other things. But you do have quite a few entries still sitting around here in Peer Review, left unpolished. If you're not going to have time to work on them for awhile, my suggestion would be that you remove the entries from Peer Review for now, and them come back and resubmit them to Peer Review when you have more time again.

Removing the entries from PR won't remove them from h2g2, by the way, it would just move these conversation threads from the Peer Review forum to the bases of the entries themselves.

Just my

I think we should remove all the entries from Peer Review, periodically. Start with a clean slate so to speak.

I will remove them today if I get the time, its just that my machine is a bit slow as my other one is broke, and finding my entries on that long list is a pain.

Adib

Muzaakboy wrote: "finding my entries on that long list is a pain."

They can all be found on this page, all clumped nicely together:

<./>RF1?entry=0&order=authorid&dir=0?skip=150&show=25</.>


Mikey

This will be a great entry someday...please don't hesitate to ask for proofreading help if you need it during the review process.

dave

Ok thanks, what I need to do is have a holiday, sit in front of this maching for about a week and edit every think i need to do. But life is rather hectic at the moment I will try and remove them other entries.

Adib