UE, you should at least read the link if you're not familiar with the history. SC at least did me that courtesy. The crimes referred to were the part of the British genocide in Kenya.
What has that got to do with anything
I've said? I don't remember claiming that no atrocities were ever carried out by the British during the days of the empire? I'm very well aware of that history, and it has bugger all
to do with this argument. What are you trying to say? Because our some members of our great-great-grandfathers generation seriously mistreated people in far off places, that that means it is wrong for us to condemn Islam for things happening today?? Are you seriously asking people to accept this line as reasonable?? Hey...guess what...not so long ago, women in England weren't allowed to vote and homosexuality was illegal! Therefore, we'd be hypocrites for condeming Islamic cultures for stoning rape victims, wouldn't we!
Islam is a very large, hetrogeneous phenomenon with many different and contradictory interpretations. Not a monolithic bloc - static and unresponsive to change.
What f***ing planet are you living on? "Islam is not a monolithic bloc"?? So, erm, it's not very heavily based on a text written in the 6th century then? "Islam is not unresponsive to change"? REALLY??? I have some news for you: Islam is about the only thing on this sorry planet that is even less "responsive to change" than the Roman Catholic Church.
Taking the crimes of a group of people who belong to a culture and holding the whole culture responsible as if is were a homogeneous entity is pretty much the definition of prejudice.
Ah, so all those crimes committed by muslims in Islamic countries who are just doing what the Quran tells them to do have nothing to do with Islam, right?
As a counter example, Christianity can be said to advocate the death penalty for homosexuality as well as numerous other bizarre crimes.
And, as already pointed out on numerous occasions, in the culture of north-western, protestant Europe, a very long and difficult ideological battle was fought with the Christian, especially the Catholic, authorities. Eventually after four centuries and countless small steps forwards, European Christianity was forced to change. It was forced to PROGRESS. You understand what "progressive" means, right?? You understand that Christianity only changed because of pressure put on it by people who wanted their society to progress, right?
So what's your f***ing "counter-example" supposed to prove, AndySir?
Why hasn't the same thing happened to Islam, AndySir?
Should be condemn Christianity for the crimes committed in it's name (and the letter)?
For crimes being committed now
? Yes, of course. For crimes committed in a previous era, yes, but with the acknowledgement that that was then and this now and that inbetween there has been.....CULTURAL f***ing PROGRESS