Terror -- The Uk's New Christmas export

alexa · Jan 4, 2011

Republic_Of_Public said:
As part of the vanguard banging on about nothing other than not all Muslims are terrorists or general evil-doers, even on this very topic, that's a bit of a mysterious thing to say.

You said that not all Muslims were evil doers. I applauded you. However you went on to say

Though the point to be made is that the evil is endorsed by the religion. Get that and you get the point of the alternate point of view to yours.

and this is where you go off. Now it is fine to say that evil is endorsed in all these religions, that is Christianity, Judaism and Islam, but to pick out Islam is a straw man.

That is not to say that some Muslims have not taken to using it in a literalistic way but you need to be able to see that not all Muslims interpret Islam in a literalistic way or wish for their States to be run by Islamic law. It might also help in your understanding of the issues if you were aware that it is Muslims themselves that Islamist Wahhabis and Salafi/Jihaddists go after first. They are considered as much non Muslim as you or I. What we are seeing is an attempt by a nasty brutal breakaway form of Islam coupled with extreme Political writings written when people were being tortured in jail, trying to claim it is Islam....and you appear to believe them....in this way you are unable to see the picture properly.

Republic_Of_Public said:
What's that supposed to prove? Hitler wanted world war but the vast majority of Nazi Party members just wanted to sit back and enjoy their New Germany without butchering anyone. And that included Der Fuhrer's number two Hermann Goering, even though anyone could buy a copy of Mein Kampf and see what Hitler wanted!

Same with the Muslims and their 'fuhrer' Mohammad's proclaimations in the Koran and Hadith.

I see we are moving in the direction of the Stormfront posts TED mentions above.

Republic_Of_Public said:
Koran 9:29 is unambiguous. I never said all Musims are literalist, nor did I say that all want Sharia law (though things often end up that way anyhow).

You may not know the meaning of the word literalistic but when I said that for traditional Muslims, Islam was a religion not a political ideology, you immediately gave a quote from the koran to prove that this was not the case. I pointed out that you were being like the literalistic salafis and wahhabi and that that was no proof that traditional Muslims wanted Islamic states. However you continue with this

How am I meant to read the literally-put passage of Koran 9:29:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
You either read the words in a book literally or disregard the printed meaning in favour of fantasies. And the liberal-left haven't been slow at that, hence the 'religion of peace' nonsense in face of all the evidence.

Islam's political system, consciously established by Muhammad who wrote most of the Koran AFTER he had become 'king' of Mecca, is laid out here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/87827-terror-uks-new-christmas-export-31.html#post1059192683 Showing your complete inability to understand and accept new bits of information given to you.

Republic_Of_Public said:
As I've said before, I've known older Muslims who had come here to escape their Islamic paradise and get a bit of peace, sanity and democracy.

Bangaladesh, Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia and Malaysai have all voted non Islamist parties into power. Clearly if all Muslims read the Koran in a literalistic manner this would not be the case. Your belief that due to the Koran Muslims want Islamist states is wrong. When given the choice they usually say no.

Republic_Of_Public said:
What, other than Palestine, Indonesia, United Arab Emirates, Sudan, Syria, Iran or any other place instigating the likes of brutal Sharia rule for example? Erm.....

I will leave people to their own knowledge and understanding to decide what they want to make of this lot. I have a day to live.

Mira · Jan 4, 2011

Came across this picture among dozens more at Reuters Pictures, thought I'd share.

Republic_Of_Public · Jan 4, 2011

...no proof that traditional Muslims wanted Islamic states.

They get what they vote for. And even then in a climate where the democracy given them can seem to mean a lot less.

...but to pick out Islam is a straw man.

I'm happy to repeat that Islam is unique because its exhortation to murder and oppression are the direct words of God via the 'prophet'. Jesus never killed any Jews for example.

And Christianity is, after scores of reforms, more like what it was in the mind of Jesus before it was taken over by Romans, whilst the Jews have traditionally been victims rather than perpetrators.

....you need to be able to see that not all Muslims interpret Islam in a literalistic way or wish for their States to be run by Islamic law.

Never claimed otherwise. And Muslims are always telling each other they are not the 'proper' Muslims. For all my claimed follies on the Islam issue, my opponents have a grave one in their own tendency to take one Muslim's opinion which fits theirs and set it in concrete.

I see we are moving in the direction of the Stormfront posts TED mentions above.

Smear. Hitler was just as bad as Muhammad!

http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/87827-terror-uks-new-christmas-export-31.html#post1059192683

That's a good link, well worth constant airing I agree.

Showing your complete inability to understand and accept new bits of information given to you.

For the fourth time of asking, how do I interpret the literalistically-put Koran 9:29? You don't know do you, hence your propensity for invalidation and insult.

Bangaladesh, Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia and Malaysai have all voted non Islamist parties into power.

Pakistan is a brutal Sharia state involved with genocide, with a recent deputation begging the UN to impose Sharia Law across its jurisdiction.

In Bangla Desh, Muslims there act like the usual wild animals, imposing brutal Sharia and oppressing the likes of the Sikhs, as usual.

Turkey is only now gradually pulling itself free of the orthodox Islam which led them to kill Christians and oppress non-believers within living memory.

I mentioned Indonesia myself whilst Malaysia has its own record of Sharia brutality and other Islamic cultural filth.

It's all in the Koran - the terrorists' and totalitarian sadists' joke book!

Malaysia considers switch to Islamic law - Telegraph

Sharia law already operates in some Malaysian states and is occasionally applied to non-Muslims, as in July when Islamic officials forcibly ...

Sharia Court in Malaysia Sentences Woman to Be Flogged For Drinking a Beer at a Nightclub « JONATHAN TURLEY

Bangladesh: Woman dies after receiving 40 lashes in Sharia punishment - Jihad Watch

The sharia state of Bangladesh - ShiaChat.com

The sharia-obsessed holy warriors in Bangladesh killed eight people today with their human exploding drones for Allah. ...

Islamic states

Your belief that due to the Koran Muslims want Islamist states is wrong.

See my previous answers.

I will leave people to their own knowledge and understanding to decide what they want to make of this lot.

What, the truth? You asked a question, I answered and now you've run away. And it counters your attitude that Islam is a Religion of Peace and that's that.

Republic_Of_Public · Jan 4, 2011

Came across this picture among dozens more at Reuters Pictures, thought I'd share.

Looks nice enough. What's the news story?

The picture takes on the appearance of a peace and reconciliation, coming-together thing. Well worth encouraging if there was a serious chance that more and more people across the Muslim world could let human nature over-ride a stone-age religio-political ideology.

Hard when, for example, 78% of Pakistanis believe Muslims should be killed for 'apostasy'!

___________________________

http://formermuslimsunited.american...of-a-hatchet-job-in-national-post-commentary/

In Pakistan, about 78% to 82% of Muslims want strict sharia, complete with the death penalty for apostasy and stoning to death of adulterers.

Pew: 78% Pakistani Muslims favour death for apostasy!

____________________________________________________________

An absolutely CORKING answer from Grant:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/87827-terror-uks-new-christmas-export-38.html#post1059196201

One for the scrap-book I'd say!

Mira · Jan 4, 2011

Republic_Of_Public said:
Looks nice enough. What's the news story?

The picture takes on the appearance of a peace and reconciliation, coming-together thing. Well worth encouraging if there was a serious chance that more and more people across the Muslim world could let human nature over-ride a stone-age religio-political ideology.

Hard when, for example, 78% of Pakistanis believe Muslims should be killed for 'apostasy'!

___________________________

http://formermuslimsunited.american...of-a-hatchet-job-in-national-post-commentary/

Pew: 78% Pakistani Muslims favour death for apostasy!

____________________________________________________________

An absolutely CORKING answer from Grant:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/87827-terror-uks-new-christmas-export-38.html#post1059196201

One for the scrap-book I'd say!

The picture shows a Muslim woman protesting against the church biombing in Egypt.
I come across this kind of images almost daily, but unfortunately I don't see much of it published in the mainstreem media.

Arcana XV · Jan 4, 2011

Mira said:
Came across this picture among dozens more at Reuters Pictures, thought I'd share.

Where's this picture from, Mira? Is it in relation to the recent bombing in Egypt?

Never mind, just saw your post above mine.

Republic_Of_Public · Jan 4, 2011

The picture shows a Muslim woman protesting against the church bombing in Egypt.

Splendid. If only hopeful people like this were voted into office.

A small but brave rump of both Christian and Muslim protestors have demonstrated against the evil perpetuated when Islamists take their Koran's words seriously.

Unfortunately everything's against them, especially as persecution against Coptic Christians is the de-facto norm in Egypt:

"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)

"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)

http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/koran.html

The persecution and discrimination against the Christian Copts in Egypt takes many forms; the most obvious manifestation is limiting their freedom to practice their religious rites, sometimes through violent means. Many believe such acts of violence takes place due to the Egyptian Government's attitude of failing to apply deterrent laws on assailants on one hand, and the increase in 'Muslim mob justice' of taking the law in their own hands without fear of retributive justice, on the other.

http://www.aina.org/news/20090701003916.htm

Infinite Chaos · Jan 4, 2011

Grant said:
Which words did i twist and where is the lie??

“Blaming the IRA on the Americans now?” is one very good example of twisting my words. The lie is trying to pretend you were ignorant of groups like NORAID.

Grant said:
-- If you called me a liar you'd be seen as a fool. And if you are talking of NORAID why not say so?

This is a thread about terrorism and about perspectives on terrorism. In a sub section about other terrorist groups in the UK, why would I be talking about any fundraising other than legitimised fundraising for terrorist groups in the USA? Especially after you said this - “Blaming the IRA on the Americans now?”

You knew very well I was talking about groups like the IRA and very well that they raised funds openly in the US for many years. Funds that would be used to buy bombs to kill British civilians in England and on Northern Irish soil. Seems I wouldn't be a fool to call you out.

Grant said:
-- Then you must be grateful that the US, after so many generations, finally solved your problems.

The US didn't “solve” the problem, the Northern Irish, British and Eire peoples and govts did that: with a US senator as arbiter. Do you know how arbitration works?

Grant said:
Oh. by adding "some"? Do we really need to go back once again and rehash your earlier posts?

Please be my guest. My point still stands and you misread it.

Grant said:
I doubt your honesty here.

Click to expand...

You're a left wing European. What more need be said?

Nothing, we both agree you were dishonest.

Grant said:
"Bare faced cheek"?? LOL!! What a hoot you Eurolefties are! And the British lefties are among the most precious!

See above, you were dishonest.

Grant said:
My position on the US is clear and I have stated it before.

Click to expand...

I must have missed it.

I'll find the relevant threads and link them if you're really being honest.

Grant said:
(well, we paid our lend lease off) for WW1 and WW2.

Click to expand...

They also owe Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, etc. You'll never be able to pay any of those countries back, and that includes the United States.

And about bloody time! And at rates anyone would envy! What about all the lives lost? Have you paid that back yet?

Read the quoted part.

Grant said:
And when was that? Many Canadians died each hour in European wars and now the Brits moan and whine when they lose one soldier a week. How can you ever be taken seriously?

Do you want links for UK numbers and losses in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Grant said:
we got shafted over Suez

Click to expand...

The Brits were not to be trusted further, and it remains obvious why this is so.

So why did the US ask us to go in with them to Vietnam? That was only 4-5 years after Suez.

Grant said:
-- There is no will in Europe.

For what?

Grant said:
Then you should elect smarter politicians, like the Americans do

Nixon? Carter? :lol Or what about this lovely bunch?

Grant said:
You then spin my words completely out of context and create something new from it.

Click to expand...

I am using quotes!

Do you know the difference between “quote” and “spin?” Let me help, a quotation is a citing verbatim of a person's words. A “spin” is an interpretation put on the original person's words by another – for whatever reason.

Grant said:
Again, why not point out any lies.

Let's start with the words “Blaming the IRA on the Americans now?”

gunner · Jan 4, 2011

Republic_Of_Public said:
A small but brave rump of both Christian and Muslim protestors have demonstrated against the evil perpetuated when Islamists take their Koran's words seriously.

Its good to see you differentiate between Muslim and Islamist Rop. Also, you infer what Alexa has been trying to get across to you reference 'taking a literalistic viewpoint' of the Koran, which is what radical Islamists are following.

Paul

Gardener · Jan 4, 2011

Infinite Chaos said:
This is a thread about terrorism and about perspectives on terrorism. In a sub section about other terrorist groups in the UK, why would I be talking about any fundraising other than legitimised fundraising for terrorist groups in the USA? Especially after you said this - “Blaming the IRA on the Americans now?”

Actually, it's about the way Britain has become a terrist hub that now exports its Islamist terrorism elswehere and the factors that contribute to this situation.

It is the reflexive need to deflect away from the Islamist nature of such that provides the answer as to why Britain is now such a Islamist terrorist stronghold.

Infinite Chaos · Jan 4, 2011

Republic_Of_Public said:
-- A small but brave rump of both Christian and Muslim protestors have demonstrated against the evil perpetuated when Islamists take their Koran's words seriously--

I'll add my congrats to your brave recognition.

Here's an example from 2008 too, this time based in the UK.

How I escaped Islamism
Shiraz Maher

For almost four years I was on the front line of British Islamism serving as a regional officer in northeast England for Hizb ut-Tahrir, an extremist group committed to the creation of a puritanical caliphate. Since leaving in 2005, I’ve been concerned at just how easy it was for me to join a radical Islamist movement — and why there was hardly any support available when I decided to leave.

Hizb was a large family in many ways: a group offering social support, comradeship, a sense of purpose and validation. At 21, it was intoxicating to me.

I embraced my new Islamist identity and family with eagerness. Islamism transcends cultural norms, so it not only prompted me to reject my British identity but also my ethnic South Asian background. I was neither eastern, nor western; I was a Muslim, a part of the global ummah, where identity is defined through the fraternity of faith.

Islamists insist this identity is not racist because Islam welcomes people of all colours, ethnicities and backgrounds. That was true, but our world view was still horribly bipolar. We didn’t distinguish on the basis of colour, but on creed. The world was simply divided into believers and nonbelievers. It was a reality that came back to haunt me last month when I realised that Bilal Abdullah and Kafeel Ahmed, the two men linked with the alleged plot to attack London and Glasgow, were among my closest friends when I studied at Cambridge University.

My time in Cambridge was a turning point. I was studying for a doctorate, researching the development of Islamic political thought in late colonial India, which proved to be my saviour. My research caused me to find marked points of rupture in both the historical and theological narrative of what the Hizb was having me believe. Previous generations had failed, the Hizb told me, to apply Islam to the reality of a changed and changing world in the early 20th century. What I found could not have been further from this.

People like Shiraz that turn away from islamist groups should be supported (I don't mean financially) - however he is also right when he states that the muslim community as a whole needs to formulate a response to extremism within its ranks.

The significance of this should not be underestimated. When I first left, I emphasised that the challenges of Islamist extremism could never be overcome until the Muslim community formulated its own response. Since meeting Ed and becoming aware of the emerging network of other former members, many of them also holding a senior rank at one time, I was reassured. An influential figure still within the movement, but who is close to leaving, told me and Ed recently, “Don’t worry, your message is being heard.”

Gardener · Jan 4, 2011

gunner said:
Its good to see you differentiate between Muslim and Islamist Rop. Also, you infer what Alexa has been trying to get across to you reference 'taking a literalistic viewpoint' of the Koran, which is what radical Islamists are following.

Paul

It is still unfortunate, however, that you change the definition of "Islamist" to suit your agenda by restricting the designation to such an extremist degree that only those actively plotting to murder people en masse can possibly qualify.

Infinite Chaos · Jan 4, 2011

Gardener said:
Actually, it's about the way Britain has become a terrist hub that now exports its Islamist terrorism elswehere and the factors that contribute to this situation.

It is the reflexive need to deflect away from the Islamist nature of such that provides the answer as to why Britain is now such a Islamist terrorist stronghold.

I've been thinking I should start a separate thread as my discussion with Grant is a potential derailment. Mind you - I think gunner is still awaiting accurate facts and figures from you on the numbers if you're claiming the UK is a "terrorist stronghold"

Gardener · Jan 4, 2011

Infinite Chaos said:
I've been thinking I should start a separate thread as my discussion with Grant is a potential derailment. Mind you - I think gunner is still awaiting accurate facts and figures from you on the numbers if you're claiming the UK is a "terrorist stronghold"

Feel free to start a separate discussion.

When I point to legitimate and scientifically conducted opinion polls regarding the belief systems of British Muslims, such evidence is ignored in favor of the agendas in question. One poster even went so far as to accuse those who conduct the research of being a "hate site"

One cannot argue for common sense with true believers. When a political agenda demands willful denial in favor of a lock-step orthodoxy that takes the form of systematic punishment for any acknowledgement of the extent as well as the nature of the ideology behind the terrorism, there is no use providing even more facts and figures to those who demand them, but provide none, themselves, and are are unwilling to form honest and consistent definitions of the very terms in question.

It is only when you folks desist with this ultra conformist, knee-jerk defense of any and all matters pertaining to Islam including political Islam that you will begin to see why your country's Muslim population is becoming more and more radical, and why your country is now exporting terrorism.

gunner · Jan 4, 2011

Gardener said:
It is still unfortunate, however, that you change the definition of "Islamist" to suit your agenda by restricting the designation to such an extremist degree that only those actively plotting to murder people en masse can possibly qualify.

Its more unfortunate that your divisive, moralistic approach to the subject hinders your ability to actually debate.
Keep suggesting the 'UK is a terrorist hub' means what? You have neither the inclination or ability to produce actual fact of these assertions. Remember your claim the 'UK has hundreds of thousands' of Islamists...offer some proof?
Of course, this will be near on impossible because of the contentious interpretation of 'Islamist'. So, as Arcana has correctly pointed out some words, or their usage, within this debate pretty much put in place an insurmountable barrier and should be avoided.
When i tried bringing the debate back to basics you very much shied away, for fear of exposure, and suggested it was to simplistic. Sometimes this simplicity is whats needed to fully understand each others viewpoint. Rop has lately been very direct, confirming he actually believes we are at war with Islam. This in itself, although i do not agree with his premise, opens up new avenues for discussion and debate.
If we follow your interminable path, it becomes just that 'interminable'
Keep in mind facts can, and values cannot, be established beyond controversy!

So countering your claims, America looks to have similar problems

"More than 20 young American men from the Minneapolis area have traveled to Somalia to fight for the Shabaab, a militant Islamic organization that is waging an insurgency against the country's government".

Recruiting Americans for Jihad - Video Library - The New York Times

I have offered this piece as it very much meets with your requirements for evidence.

Paul

Gardener · Jan 4, 2011

gunner said:
Its more unfortunate that your divisive, moralistic approach to the subject hinders your ability to actually debate.
Keep suggesting the 'UK is a terrorist hub' means what? You have neither the inclination or ability to produce actual fact of these assertions. Remember your claim the 'UK has hundreds of thousands' of Islamists...offer some proof?
Of course, this will be near on impossible because of the contentious interpretation of 'Islamist'. So, as Arcana has correctly pointed out some words, or their usage, within this debate pretty much put in place an insurmountable barrier and should be avoided.
When i tried bringing the debate back to basics you very much shied away, for fear of exposure, and suggested it was to simplistic. Sometimes this simplicity is whats needed to fully understand each others viewpoint. Rop has lately been very direct, confirming he actually believes we are at war with Islam. This in itself, although i do not agree with his premise, opens up new avenues for discussion and debate.
If we follow your interminable path, it becomes just that 'interminable'
Keep in mind facts can, and values cannot, be established beyond controversy!

So countering your claims, America looks to have similar problems

"More than 20 young American men from the Minneapolis area have traveled to Somalia to fight for the Shabaab, a militant Islamic organization that is waging an insurgency against the country's government".

Recruiting Americans for Jihad - Video Library - The New York Times

I have offered this piece as it very much meets with your requirements for evidence.

Paul

No, Paul. You offered a source that defind the term Islamist, and when I pointed you to various attitudes of British Muslims that were undeniably Islamist in nature, you changed the definition to suite your agenda because you could not handle the truth.

It is attitudes such as these that enable the radicalization of your Muslim population.

Republic_Of_Public · Jan 4, 2011

Its good to see you differentiate between Muslim and Islamist Rop. Also, you infer what Alexa has been trying to get across to you reference 'taking a literalistic viewpoint' of the Koran, which is what radical Islamists are following.

I see huge grey areas between Islamists and 'ordinary' Muslims. Huge numbers of Islamics here, who consider themselves peaceful and who wouldn't dream of bombing anybody, can still accept that it's right and proper to demand massive cultural impositions such as Sharia courts/banking/slaughter, minarets or political and civil service groups. Abroad, as outlined many times, 'ordinary' Muslims can be more volatile.

And the 'literalistic' bit is the crux of the whole division between both sides. Liberal-Leftists generally say that Islam is a religion of peace but was highjacked by political extremists later. But evidence backs up my view that Islam was an aggressive, expansive religio-political movement from the start, picked up by thugs and psychos right across Islam's years whilst peaceful Muslims just went along with it. Indeed, it took the breakaway Sufis to re-interpret Islam from the ground-up, ignoring any inconvenient evil bits they did not like, to kick-start a compromise Religion of Peace which best suited more spiritual and decent people who had no choice but be Islamic.

Arcana XV · Jan 4, 2011

gunner said:
So countering your claims, America looks to have similar problems

"More than 20 young American men from the Minneapolis area have traveled to Somalia to fight for the Shabaab, a militant Islamic organization that is waging an insurgency against the country's government".

Recruiting Americans for Jihad - Video Library - The New York Times

I have offered this piece as it very much meets with your requirements for evidence.

Paul

Here's another worrying article:

Threat of Homegrown Islamist Terrorism - Council on Foreign Relations

It seems to me that home-grown terrorism is rising everywhere. The question is, how will each country deal with the problem? I can't help but mention France again and its superb counter-terrorism units. Are the UK and US ready to learn something from our French friends?

Gardener · Jan 4, 2011

Arcana XV said:
Here's another worrying article:

Threat of Homegrown Islamist Terrorism - Council on Foreign Relations

It seems to me that home-grown terrorism is rising everywhere. The question is, how will each country deal with the problem? I can't help but mention France again and its superb counter-terrorism units. Are the UK and US ready to learn something from our French friends?

One very recent event involved one who lived 40 miles from here.

I make no excuses for him, however, and neither do the large majority of Americans. As a rule, we are able to see that the terrorism is a product of the Islamist political ideology and that the Islamist political ideology is rooted in the Muslim religion.

When the day comes when the large majority of Americans on this board call people an "Islamophobe" or accuse them of "Muslim bashing for objecting to the terrorism and the Islamist ideology, I will grant you that the problem in America is, indeed, as great as it is in the U.K. , Sweden or Belgium. Until such a time, I would advise more Europeans to learn that it isn't an act of bigotry to resist a totalitarian political movement -- even if the totalitarians say it is.

mbig · Jan 4, 2011

Arcana XV said:
Here's another worrying article:

Threat of Homegrown Islamist Terrorism - Council on Foreign Relations

It seems to me that home-grown terrorism is rising everywhere. The question is, how will each country deal with the problem? I can't help but mention France again and its superb counter-terrorism units. Are the UK and US ready to learn something from our French friends?

It's worrying... and it's INEVITABLE.
Literalist/Fundamentalist (aka Islamist) upbringing Will result in some people having the 'courage' to go the extra mile and Act on behalf of those beliefs. The IDENTICAL beliefs many others hold but aren't willing to commit the acts for. Thankfully.

While 'terrorists' act in a violent way, most other Islamists do so more passively and noticeable by dress, [poll] attitudes, or various forms of intolerance/non-integrationist behavior.
Definitely many, many, Islamists who aren't terrorists, despite the bizarre terminology some in this string attempt.

alexa · Jan 4, 2011

Republic_Of_Public said:
I see huge grey areas between Islamists and 'ordinary' Muslims. Huge numbers of Islamics here, who consider themselves peaceful and who wouldn't dream of bombing anybody, can still accept that it's right and proper to demand massive cultural impositions such as Sharia courts/banking/slaughter, minarets or political and civil service groups. Abroad, as outlined many times, 'ordinary' Muslims can be more volatile.

I think you make a good point here. One which is rarely mentioned and yet is definitely there.

combating Islamophobia involves looking at us/them
relationships, and therefore at ‘us’ (non-Muslims) in the first instance rather than ‘them’
(Muslims). More generally, it is about issues of identity, anxiety and mutual tolerance in
a globalised world. A similar point is made by Tariq Ramadan:
While European countries and citizens are going through a real and deep
identity crisis, the new visibility of Muslims is problematic …At the very
moment Europeans find themselves asking, in a globalising, migratory
world, "What are our roots?", "Who are we?", "What will our future look
like?", they see around them new citizens, new skin colours, new symbols
to which they are unaccustomed.

apologies, I did not take the link from where I took that quote.

I have been reading quite a lot from Quilliam recently (much more still to do). While I do not always agree with their view, along with their good information another thing comes through strong and sound. They have every intention of integrating and becoming a part of our society and that will make change. I have found myself once or twice stepping back and thinking, what..I feel a bit territorial....but then because their ideas and attitude is on the whole very good, I find after an initial resistance
and hesitation, I look forward to it.

I also share your concern about slaughter but for me it would not amount to an 'against Muslims' thing.

Republic_Of_Public said:
And the 'literalistic' bit is the crux of the whole division between both sides. Liberal-Leftists generally say that Islam is a religion of peace but was highjacked by political extremists later. But evidence backs up my view that Islam was an aggressive, expansive religio-political movement from the start, picked up by thugs and psychos right across Islam's years whilst peaceful Muslims just went along with it. Indeed, it took the breakaway Sufis to re-interpret Islam from the ground-up, ignoring any inconvenient evil bits they did not like, to kick-start a compromise Religion of Peace which best suited more spiritual and decent people who had no choice but be Islamic.

The Literalist issue is extremely important because it is not the original teaching of most of our Muslims. Indeed the Salafi is extremely restrictive literalist and because of the similarities between that as a religious teaching and Al Qaeda types, it makes people following it more vulnerable. Hence it was good to know that certainly a significant number here had become aware and interested in another ways. To look at it in extremes obviously is not right. There will be Salafi's who would never ever hurt anyone under any conditions and those who do not follow Salafi will be like everyone else, some nicer than others.

It would I think be more helpful if we could start from a position of seeing a Muslim as a valuable human being like anyone else and then see the terrorists etc as deviants from that, for want of a better way of putting it.

julietsm · Jan 4, 2011

TacticalEvilDan said:
You know, if the accepted social practice around here is to tolerate this kind of blind, seething, pointless hate, we may as well rename the place "Stormfront Lite."

Seriously.

My hatred for Islam is hardly blind. I am reading your quran right now and have found quite enough to make me hate it.
Intereting that none of the islamists here seem to use the term "abrogation". All of those fuzzy and warm "good-vibe" verses that Mo came up with in Mecca have been SUPERCEDED by the violent Medina verses.
You seem to think we don't know this.
THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT ISLAM THAT IS NOT WORTHY OF HATRED by democratic, peace-loving people.
We are onto you and you book of hate.

liblady · Jan 4, 2011

julietsm said:
My hatred for Islam is hardly blind. I am reading your quran right now and have found quite enough to make me hate it.
Intereting that none of the islamists here seem to use the term "abrogation". All of those fuzzy and warm "good-vibe" verses that Mo came up with in Mecca have been SUPERCEDED by the violent Medina verses.
You seem to think we don't know this.
THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT ISLAM THAT IS NOT WORTHY OF HATRED by democratic, peace-loving people.
We are onto you and you book of hate.

wow, you're making quite a splash.

Republic_Of_Public · Jan 4, 2011

I think you make a good point here. One which is rarely mentioned and yet is definitely there.

And it's good that we're chewing things over.

Indeed the Salafi is extremely restrictive literalist and because of the similarities between that as a religious teaching and Al Qaeda types, it makes people following it more vulnerable.

There's the crisis - to uncritically view the Koran as written (often even with the Hadith for its context) gives you the clearest possible sign that Muhammad meant to do other people a great deal of harm. And the Salafi, apparently basing their approach on that of the first Muslims, cannot really be sidelined as some kind of fringe nutters in Islamic terms.

Indeed, far too many verses in the Koran threaten Muslims with dire consequences for not doing Muhammad's evil bidding, such as slaughtering unbelievers 'wherever you find them'. Muhammad knew such wickedness was against human nature and put the frighteners on his people like a gangland boss. That's how the Number One Muslim approached his valuable human beings!

I've been of the opinion for years that peaceful Muslims (including ones I've known) usually have little interest in the likes of 9:29 and prefer to stick to the (abrogated) peaceful verses to live their lives by. In this I live and let live. But that doesn't stop me looking at Islam itself or any social concessions I see as unreasonable.

Arcana XV · Jan 4, 2011

liblady said:
wow, you're making quite a splash.

Let her splash around all she likes and enjoy the freedoms she wants taken away from others. The irony she personifies is truly epic.

Terror -- The Uk's New Christmas export

alexa

Mira

Republic_Of_Public

Republic_Of_Public

Mira

Arcana XV

Republic_Of_Public

Infinite Chaos

gunner

Gardener

free market communist

Infinite Chaos

Gardener

free market communist

Infinite Chaos

Gardener

free market communist

gunner

Gardener

free market communist

Republic_Of_Public

Arcana XV

Gardener

free market communist

mbig

onomatopoeic

alexa

julietsm

Member

liblady

pirate lover

Republic_Of_Public

Arcana XV