Have you read my previous post? I said "These days I think Jordan is one of the more moderate Islamic states - even fairly democratic and does not persecute gay people." Do try to keep up.

I described it as an "Islamic state", no need for you to say I would consider it Muslim. It was also nice of Jordon (albeit somewhat late in the day in 2013) to change their penal code so that it no longer permits family members to beat or kill a member of their own family whose 'illicit' sexuality is interpreted as bringing 'dishonor' to the entire family. As of 2013, the newly revised penal code makes honor killings, as a legal justification for murder, illegal. Welcome to the 21st century Jordan.

Running out of arguments? Cheap shot - why not just call me an evil racist?

It's funny, I was walking past a newsagents today and I saw the front pages of the papers and thought of this thread. The Mail ran a story about the sisters who've gone out to fight against IS. The Telegraph ran the headline that Cameron had accused the Muslim community of encouraging this, and the Express warned that more extremists were being let in via asylum.

There was a Muslim kid, about 14, outside the shop, and I was thinking Christ, what must he think when he sees these ridiculously hyperbolic scare-mongering headlines? Just put yourself in his shoes for a second: you're brought up being told that your religion is peaceful, charitable and tolerant, then all of a sudden you see headlines claiming that your religion is negligent and barbaric. Evidently most Muslims ignore it, given that 99.99% still live in this country in peace and harmony. But a tiny tiny minority must look at it and feel that their belief is sufficiently under attack for them to go and do something stupid. Where is Cameron even getting this message that the Muslim community isn't doing enough? When was the last time he even visited a mosque or spoke to an Imam?

In the last post I accused you of generalising Muslims, and I felt like maybe I overstepped the mark. But then I remembered a post you made where you said you'd be fine if your daughter became a Buddhist, but not a Muslim. Why? There is, in this country, a 99.9% chance she would be a perfectly acceptable Muslim, just as there is a perfectly reasonable chance she'd be a very tolerant Buddhist. The chances of her going out to join ISIS are probably only slightly higher than her going out to Burma and joining the Rakhine who themselves are massacring the Muslims in the area. There's probably a better chance she'd actually go out and join the Kurds or the other foreign forces fighting against ISIS. Therefore for me, what that comment suggested was that you genuinely believed that just being a Muslim, regardless of what sect, was in itself a dangerous thing, and that's something I find really worrying, because it's just so untrue.

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

But why doesn't that 'risk management' run to Buddhists, who are also committing atrocities, or Christians, who as we've seen in America so recently, are still committing atrocities? Granted, it's a tiny, tiny proportion who are doing so, but then the same is true of Muslims!

As for your last paragraph, read this and tell me in what way the MCB could be more conclusive in their distancing from terrorists: [Link] They actually have more of a reason to chastise ISIS than most, given that they probably represent so many Muslims who have family being killed by ISIS.

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

All so sadly predictable

I can almost understand the husbands, who are wracked with guilt and embarrassment saying this, but others should tell them how stupid it is.

My username has nothing to do with my religious beliefs