Naive – it’s perfectly in order to write “Naif” in English without the diaeresis – but stick with “Naive” – as most English speakers do. I only brought that up because I genuinely did not know whether you were a gay man or a lesbian. I apologize if you found my utter-fool comment too aggressive; I see from your reaction that you are a much better and more sensitive person than I am.

I am glad you are fully aware of the danger for gays in Muslim countries. This danger (among many others) is solely because of the immutable teachings of Islam, so I cannot understand why you are in favour of a Christian church being used by Muslims to promote those same teachings of intolerance, hate and savagery… I assume that the bishop prohibited the church being used for such purposes rather than the mayor? Or is the church in question under the jurisdiction of the Franciscans, whose death-wish vis-a-vis Islam has been demonstrated also in the Netherlands? If the Muslims contact a group of Pentecostals or Baptists in your town, one would hope that they would be missionised rather than invited to practise their cult in the protestant churches.

Islam instructs Muslims to act in a friendly and accommodating manner when they are in a position of weakness; but not when they are in the majority: this tactic is stated quite clearly in the Koran. Or perhaps you think that mosques throughout the ummah are sometimes loaned to Christians, Bahais, Buddhists, Zoroastrians &c?

My “too much information” remark concerned your heart-on-sleeve announcement your adoration for your Moroccan friend to a gang of hard-bitten strangers. I hope it brings you much happiness. As for your remote Jewish ancestry through your grandmother – you should ask a pious Muslim what that implies in koranic terms.

You write a superb, idiomatic English. (I think you’re being a little OTT to compare my comments to anything even remotely naziesque.)

My dear Smart Alec, I would rather be an utter fool, than behave as you do. I am a man, and I have been to Morocco and had no trouble with my gayness, quite on the contrary. But I appreciate your warning. I’m used to living in countries where homosexuality is illegal. I have not accepted this new invitation to go to Morocco and I won’t set foot in any Arab country again, because I’m afraid of being held hostage.

I used the name Naive, because I wanted to learn something from you smart Alecs. I don’t think I can learn much from you with the destructive traits in your character. I think one of the biggest problems in our world is the lack of manners; without these I can see no future. I know that people on this site are very forthright and that one can expect a clout or two, but there is a limit. I’m not sure, but I think the word Naif has two dots on the i, otherwise I may have used it.

In the Veronese case of the priest occasionally allowing Muslims to worship in his church, no threat was posed to the church’s normal functions and the only reaction was one of gratitude. One of my best female friends has, at present, an Albanese boyfriend who will have absolutely nothing to do with me because I am Gay. But he does talk to me in a very friendly way when he sees me in the street or looks out of a car or flat window. I return the friendliness, because I believe in holding onto the little bit of humanity that’s left in people. Maybe I have a Bhuddist trait in my character. You might say “drop your female friend,” but we have been friends for many years and I wasn’t going to waste time and energy on being indignant about such pettiness. Though, when things get serious I fight like a tiger.

I have always hated Islamic fundamentalism, and when leftish friends tell me I have to understand its culture, I reply that there is only one word for it: barbarism.

I’m surrounded by people who are politically naive or stupid. If I were strict about my principles I would have to cut off my relations with everyone and everything. I would not sit here writing to you. Even going along with the every day ways of the world threatens us with the great inhuman future of mankind. Even watching the commercial fare that’s offered on TV and thinking about the norms it represents is terrifying Someone on this thread said they would have to check out the ideas of an Arab before accepting him as a friend. I don’t make such tests on people. But I will now, out of curiosity, ask my friend Karim about these views. I will ask him when I next have my haircut, whether he minds the fact that I’m Jewish. I’m not, though I did have a Jewish great grandmother in Germany. Is this too much information? And why would you want to censor it? Are you embarrassed? David T did mention the gay subject in his article.- I’m seeing another Albanese friend this morning. When I asked him about Islam he said he didn’t bother about that (and he’s not being executed). He was at pains to tell me that he accepted Gays. In Albania, he said, the anti-gay legislation has been dropped, but Gays still had a hard time and were beaten up by the police.

I think being alert to every trace of anti-Semitism is very important and for this reason there must be a Harry’s place. it would be a consolation if it were not tragic. But there is a danger of going overboard with hatred and nastiness. They are counter-productive and begin to resemble the objects of their hatred.

I saw another vicious fight on a Harry’s place thread, with people calling each other fucking trolls and such things. I thought both these people were making valid points and couldn’t understand the vitriol. I am a newcomer and maybe an outgoer, though I will continue to read the site.

Muslims cant denoucne Jihadi violence because I am almost certain that Russia will invade Afghanistan again.

“Wrong Monty it was 31% – see table on page 47 of
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/libimages/246.pdf”
Whether the number is something in between 31 or 48 percent it is nonetheless alarming, which I am sure you would admit if the 31 percent constituted whites believing in the execution of “race traitors”.
“LC seems to have disappeared almost as fast as his “evidence”.”
Not at all, but pointing out the obvious, my time is limited.
@hasan prishtina

SO yu concede that Christianity is different from Islam, resulting in another political reality where Christians is the majority. Therefore noChristian
penalty for apostasy, no Christian law mandating that Christian women can’t legally marry non-Christian men.
So what Christians hold to be Christian faith does not entail use of the state to persecute or humiliate non-Christians in any equivalent to the legal codes
of most if not all official Muslim nations.

“I have never claimed that Christianity is the same as Islam; no two religions are the same. The point is that when countries have deemed themselves to be
ruled by Christian principles, the penalty for apostasy was death, Christians could not marry non-Christians (for both try most of Europe up to the 18th
or 19th century, depending on the country, and Russia into the twentieth) and non-Christians had no rights whatever other than those granted by the local
ruler – hence the need for Court Jews.

The reason that is not the case today is because Christianity has been abandoned as a principle of rule and has been replaced by the values of liberalism
and enlightenment. Christians at the time judged these values to be inimical to Christianity. They were right.”
No, Christians killing for apostasy could not find any sanction in the new testament for why death for apostasy was not just morally permitted but even required, but Muslims reading the quran and sira would be doctrinally constrained by the texts and the narration of Mohammad’s example.
I agree with you that Christians are capable of doing mischief in the name of their religion, but since the mandate for killing apostates is not doctrinally entrenched in the new testament and the narration of what Jesus did, Christians could at least reject violence in the name of Christianity without the doctrinal weakness inherent in any Islamic liberalism.
Again, I am not ruling out the possibility that any Islamic reform movement with mass appeal could arise in the future, but in order to reject death for apostasy, any Muslim reformer would have to convince the ummah that the scolary consensus is not only in doubt but flatly wrong.Since any such question of the scolary consensus may also be perceived as apostasy, we are not anything near any liberalization of Islam.

In all post-Christian nations the evolving standard of the law is in the direction of less discrimination not more entrenchment of discrimination against
heretics and nonbelievers.

However, after a secular interlude, Muslim nations are rapidly tightening legal discrimination against the infidel population.

!”Every single one? Senegal? Mali? Kosova? Again, these are just the ones that come to mind.”

By Muslim nations I mean nation states with Islam as the state religion. Everywhere Islam gets a foothold in the constitution — persecution of non-Muslims is almost inevitable.
Senegal, Mali and Kosova are secular republics.