New cult I came across (anyone wanna discuss islamicfundamentalism?)

[Tread Softly]

Hi. I came across a website the other day, Texan Christians I think, that see it as their religious duty to enforce their views across America. They are looking to set up a government that would relink Christianity with the State to a greater degree, creating a country where non-Christians would get treated like Blacks under South African apartheid. They think a woman's place is in the home and should not be allowed to refuse their husband's demands for sex, men and women should be segregated except in the family home, homosexuals should be executed, they want all children to memorise at least one of the Gospels, they want to ban all music apart from the singing of psalms, and they think that the age of consent for sex should be lowered to 9.

Anyway, I was wondering if this cult could be described as fascist and whether this kind of thing should be challenged?

[RedAnarchist]

It sounds more like you're trying to trick us. A lot of those things go on in Islam and in countries like Iran. Let me guess, EDL?

- In Iran Islam is entwined deeply with the state.
- Some nutters think Islam is going to overtake Europe and turn all non-Muslims into second class citizens.
- The segregation of men and women, and the oppression of women, is seen in many countries as well as places like Iran and Saudi Arabia.
- Iran executes homosexuals, and I think that's part of Sharia Law, which certain European nutters think Muslims want to enact in Europe.
- I'm not sure about the psalm and gospels one.
- Mohammed had sex with Aisha, a nine year old girl.

[Dimentio]

Yes, this seems like a hook. No one here is thinking that islam is progressive. What one should avoid to do is to de-individualise muslims. There is no grand plan to islamify Europe.

[Sasha]

yup, why so intrested in a, if it exsists, insignificant unnamed religious cult in texas if your from EDIT that was mean from me ;-) uk?

[Tread Softly]

Yes you are correct, I'm talking about fundamentalist Islam, in particular Salafi Islam. The psalms reference was to the fact that under fundamentalist Sharia no music (except for nasheeds) would be allowed. The gospels reference was to the belief that memorising the koran is deemed pretty much better than any other expenditure of energy. The 9 year old reference was to the fact that under fundamentalist Sharia there would be no minimum age for marriage and that marriage could be consummated as soon as the wife has started to menstruate.

I'm not EDL, at least yet, but I'm interested in what they have to say, despite the presence of some racism and some tendency to tar all muslims with the same brush. EDL state they wish to oppose the radical Islam I have given a brief description of in my original post.

Salafi Islam is the methodology or sect which is spreading rapidly through the UK Muslim community, in particular the young men, very well financed from Saudi Arabia. They believe it is their religious duty to bring Sharia to the UK, and hate the West and hate Westerners. Their fatwa (religious rulings) website is islam-qa dot com. A general sense of Salafi Islam (the sect of Osama bin Laden) can be found by reading the delusional ummah dot com Current Events section for a month or so.

You are right it is important to realise that the Muslim community is very diverse, and some sects such as the Sufi one appear to be "just another Abrahamic spiritual religion". However, the intelligent moderate Muslim community are aware, as is the British government, as are people who have researched Islam, that there is a strain of Islam which creates, nurtures and supports extreme acts such as terrorism, and in addition which sees as their religious duty the imposition of fundamentalist Sharia laws across the world. Don't take my word for it, do some research yourselves, you will be incredulous, then worried, then horrified. These are not just a few crazies without well-established religious backing.

The reason for my post is to find out whether you chaps have any particular view on a government run on Sharia principles, and to see whether you knew that the threat to the UK was not insignificant. I am a man of reason and would be happy to be corrected or set on a different path.

Finally, I do not see why the location of my computer is relevant and why an anti-fascist moderator should divulge this information given that I have not made this public.

[Tread Softly]

By the way, I'm not lazy, I've read some of your Islam threads, but they cast no real light on my questions.

[Sasha]

moved to religion

[Tread Softly]

Thank you for moving to the correct sub-forum. Apologies for my error in posting it under Theory.

[Tread Softly]

C'mon guys, I'm genuinely interested; in addition to your views on Islamic extremism, why you chose to vehmently oppose EDL who's stated aim is anti-Islamic extremism. Do you oppose EDL for who they are, or who set them up, or who leads them, or for what they are fighting for?

It's worth repeating that I support EDL stated aims but I haven't made my minds up about them yet.

[Raúl Duke]

I'm not from the UK so I'm not sure much about the EDL but...

Salafi is one sect of islam out of many. Just like the fundamentalist christianity you mentioned is one sect of out many. In general, leftists tend to oppose religion (whether because they're anti-theists and want to see its end or just think its rubbish and don't care) and/or see to it that the current and future society is intensely secular as can be (whether they're opposed to religion in principle or not). The issue is leftists also do not focus on individuals but on trends or groups. This entails we're not in the habit of beating up muslim or arab immigrants or burning down mosques.

However, you would be wrong to think that leftists are "ok with islamic fundamentalism" (unless, to make a sectarian remark, they're from SWP :P ). We're opposed to that and see it as reactionary. The issue is that among many issues in the UK we don't see a trend that the UK is under some "islamification" that threatens its western way of life like the EDL does (Although I'm assuming, I'm not British and never been to the UK). There're bigger problems facing the UK right now.

In fact your example may be a joke, but we just did have a bunch of crazy Christian militiamen arrested a few weeks ago so...
that shit is real...fundamentalism is not tied to just Islam. The U.S. probably faces an actual threat from Christian fundamentalism taking power/pushing laws more so than the UK has over alleged Islamic fundamentalism taking power/pushing laws.

[Dean]

C'mon guys, I'm genuinely interested; in addition to your views on Islamic extremism, why you chose to vehmently oppose EDL who's stated aim is anti-Islamic extremism. Do you oppose EDL for who they are, or who set them up, or who leads them, or for what they are fighting for?

It's worth repeating that I support EDL stated aims but I haven't made my minds up about them yet.

The EDL is an Islamophobic, and generally xenophobic party. The same is true for any frightened nationalists who identify with their rulign class in opposition to the rights of foreigners (and before you start on your inevitable tirade, neither I nor anyone else here thinks its a "right" to impose Islamic law on others).

Communists typically oppose religious nationalism, but most of us make a point not to single any one group out, except for specific ones which seek imposition of religious law on others. You won't find many of us using terms like islamofascism because these terms are primarily used in defense of racist wars of aggression on Arab and Muslim populations. It's just ludicrous to act like Shariah in the UK is a real threat - what is a threat, however, is the Islamophobic tendencies throughout Europe.

[¿Que?]

The U.S. probably faces an actual threat from Christian fundamentalism taking power/pushing laws more so than the UK has over alleged Islamic fundamentalism taking power/pushing laws.
This!

Given the military resources available to the UK government, both that it has and support from the US, do you really think you're being realistic Tread Softly (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=28475)? Without popular support (and in certain cases with it), it would be nearly impossible to overthrow the UK government and maintain power. You may have sounded slightly less delusional (albeit a bit racist) if you had just said you were concerned with Islamic terrorism in the UK as opposed to your fear that they're going to take over.

[Dean]

C'mon guys, I'm genuinely interested; in addition to your views on Islamic extremism, why you chose to vehmently oppose EDL who's stated aim is anti-Islamic extremism. Do you oppose EDL for who they are, or who set them up, or who leads them, or for what they are fighting for?

It's worth repeating that I support EDL stated aims but I haven't made my minds up about them yet.

I wonder how you feel about this headline: S African far-right leader killed
Eugene Terreblanche, the South African white far-right leader, who fought to preserve apartheid in the early 1990s, has been beaten and hacked to death at his farm. (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2010/04/20104322441810877.html)
:laugh:

[Tread Softly]

Hi chaps, thanks for the replies. From the moderator abusing his powers in this thread to some of the comments, I can see you assume many things about me and these assumptions have led to a slightly derisory and hostile tone. Interesting, because the tendency for some people on this forum to shoot off judgements without much evidence is something I noticed before posting which is why I went in on an oblique angle in my original post, in a failed attempt to avoid pre-judgement.

I agree that some members of the EDL are islamophobic and xenophobic. They are challenged by other members on their forum for their views. EDL is a grassroots organisation open to all and largely working class, they have the whole bag of views represented. I can't comment on them too much because I've only just come across them. Nevertheless, their stated aim is opposition to radical Islam, not all Islam, and sometimes it may be worth putting aside middle-class disdain for idiotic generalisations and skin-colour nonsense when the fight merits it.

I am not happy to hear about anyone dying, but I do not agree with the reported views of Eugene Terreblanche. He sounds like a racist c*&t.

I note your comment that the US is more at danger of Christian fundamentalism than from Islamic fundamentalism and this accords with what I know. This is not the case in the UK.

In the UK the two political dangers I think are the rise of fascism and the rise of fundamentalist/extreme Islam. My view is that these two dangers will increase hand-in-hand, with fascism tailing Islamification.

Let's not get hung up on semantics too much here please (unlike many of your threads!) - when I refer to the danger of Islam I am referring to the fundamentalist take on their political ideology which is an integral part of their religion (the implementation of Sharia and Sharia itself) together with the pathological hatred of the West and Westeners that always goes hand in hand with fundamentalist thinking such as Salafism. Let me make it clear that I believe the majority of Muslims in the UK are moderate, and only part of the problem in so much as they are not speaking out, as much as they should, against those who are (arguably) perverting their religion, or to be more precise, not speaking out with as much cohesion and unity as they should.

But here's the rub. If you do a bit of digging around Muslim forums and look at Muslim opinion polls and study the teachings of, for instance, the Salafi movement, you realise that the problem is more insiduous than you may have at first supposed. A recent well-respected UK TV series calls it Generation Jihad, a generation of young, mostly male, Muslims who spit on their parents' "cultural islam" and instead follow the Salafi-influenced teachings which I have previously described.

You could of course say that this problem is being exaggerated and walk away from it. But I challenge any of you to investigate this first before dismissing it. No-one is saying there is an imminent danger, but the nature of the beast is such that it is clear what may happen in the future should this problem not be diffused or otherwise be addressed. The government is aware of it which is why they are desperately trying to get their Prevent program to work (it is coming off the rails), and why the UK intelligence services are monitoring 2000 UK Muslims who are at risk of committing acts of terrorism (tip of the iceberg).

This is not a problem of marginal looney individuals. There is a significant number of Muslims in the UK (best estimate I've seen is 15% being hardcore Salafis according to a Muslim website, but many more being influenced) who hate freedom, secularism, democracy, human rights, and the separation of religion and state. Whilst (mostly) agreeing that innocents should not die under Islam, they consider taxpayers as complicit in their government's actions and therefore not innocent. They consider it their religious duty to bring about medieval Sharia which will swipe away over a millennia of cultural progress. Wal bara, hate what Allah hates, and boy do they do that.

/rant.

[Sasha]

like workers being to only people who can destroy capitalism (as both capitalism and communism only can exsist if a significant part of the proletariat supports it) the only people who can fight islamicfundamentalism are muslims. Any attempt to fight this fight either for them (mislead but sincere) or over them (stick to hit the dog with) will rightly be seen as racism and will do nothing but alienate them and send more muslims in the arms of fundamentalism. We can and must support the fight of secular and moderate moslims against fundamentalism (as religious fundamentalism is always combined with patrarchy, homphobia and authoritarianism) but its their fight to fight.

and besides, like someone earlier said, we have bigger fish to fry, not only our end goal of destroying capitalism and establising a revolutionary society but also more emidiate threaths, to give you an example, here in the netherlands we have christianfundamentalists with an significant amount of seats in the parlemaint and the last time where even part of the coalition goverments that where activly trying to destroy established women- (voting, abortion etc etc), gay- and humanrights.
And then i should wory about those 150 burkawearers?

and lets talk a bit about Geert Wilders, the dutch hero of the EDL, behind his extreme anti-islamism (that he uses to gain popularity but witch he is already showing to be willing to abandon mostly as soon as he gets into power) lies an agenda of corporatist anti-democracism (sommething similair to facism).
So its a bit ironic that you claim to be worried for two things, facism and islamicfundamentalism because not only do the EDL and the like play (as i explained above) in the hands of the islamic fundamentalist but they are also being reqruited as the footsoldiers of the new fascists.

[Dimentio]

Salafi islam is hardly a threat on the political level in any western non-muslim nation. It is a convenient scapegoat though for petty-bourgeois movements like the EDL and perhaps the UKIP. The real issue is not even salafism, since salafism is a marginal phenomenon in the islamic world. The real reason is "we want it back to the good old days when Charles and Diana were married, Churchill was prime minister, christianity ruled Britain and we did not have any these funny-speaking Asians".

Since it is impossible to build a movement on such a foundation without being ridiculed and scorned, it is a smarter strategy to simply attack a marginal ideology which is prevalent in some tiny segments of the wider muslim minority. Then, you could attack muslims and at the same time appear as a defender of liberal values.

If we'll take the original example. Ponder that there was a christian cult which held such values. Such cults exist within christianity, even though they are even more marginal than salafis are within islam. It would be near impossible - in Britain or America - to start a witch-hunt against them. Everyone would think that they have the right to their privacy (at least if they aren't Jamaicans, Armenians or any other foreign-looking group).

The activities of the EDL are not propelled by any genuine anti-salafist conviction. In fact, the EDL has not even attempted to analyse salafism, simply stating that it (and islam in general and muslims in general) is advocating shar'ia, the rape of children, female mutiliation and so on - that it is an evil ideology shortly speaking.

I agree that salafism - as well as all other variations of fundamentalist islam - are reactionary ideologies. I think most people here do. The difference is that the EDL (at least seem to, by their word and actions) equalise muslims and islam, as if muslims are different from the English to the extent that they possess no individual free will and are composed of what I believe islamophobes are seeing as a hive-like mind.

Islamophobes imagine that the muslims think like this: "Must... Obey... Allah... Central Hive Mind... Must... Breed... Must Outbreed infidel... Obey... Obey... Obey... Allahu Akhbar... Breed... Breed... Kill Infidel... Rape 9-year old... Obey... Obey... Allah..."

It is telling that EDL are not trying to talk with muslims, despite that salafism exist in muslim minority communities (and amongst a tiny segment of ethnic English convertites as well). Instead, the EDL is predominantly preaching amongst the ethnic English. If the EDL was genuinly interested in fighting salafism and islamic fundamentalism, they would try to talk with muslims. Instead, they are talking with the ethnic English, as well as conservative, fascist and zionist circles, where most people are already opposed to militant islamism.

Neither has the EDL spoken out against religious-inspired practices carried out by the salafists in the islamic world, except for when showing the "barbarism of islam". They rather focus on terror attacks carried out by islamist movements on westerners, as well a support for western troops in muslim countries.

In short, their ideology could be translated into the simple statement: "We rox, you sux!"

Movements like the EDL are more dangerous than the BNP. Western supremacism is the new white supremacism. Instead of attacking the skin colour of the "object of aggression", they attack alleged or real cultural practices in the group, and then in the name of tolerance, democracy, anti-fascism and liberalism proceed to call for the discrimination, ostracisation, military subjugation and suppression of said group. The reason why the EDL is existing, alongside soccer hooliganism and violence in English working class communities, is because of deplorable life standards which are the direct cause of thatcherism and blairism - in short neo-liberalism.

I doubt the lads in the EDL would care about muslims enough to demonstrate against them if they felt that their life was secure. They would maybe not love muslims, but they wouldn't feel threatened by them if they had a social safety net which was real, guaranteed employment and lived in beautiful neighbourhoods where they could feel they could control their own destiny. The same for the rank-and-file members of salafist movements.

[Tread Softly]

I agree with pretty much everything both of you just said, except for your statement that salafi islam is hardly a threat on a political level. I would argue that it will be a threat in a number of generations, and that is clear if you research salafi islam and its current influence.

EDL say they are against extreme islam, only a few of their people know about the salafis or deobandis, but their largely instinctive and experience-based fear appears to be pointing at the correct threat. I am saying that however they got to their stated goal and whatever their beliefs are now, their stated goal is at least valid even if you were to say that everything else about them is not valid.

As for thinking "Must...Obey...Allah", you've just described any religious Muslim. Islam means Submission, they just differ on exactly what that means.

In short, strip away every part of the EDL except for their stated goal, and my suggestion is that this stated goal is a valid and important one. Which is why I wonder why you oppose them so vehemently, rather than just criticising their methods or reasoning etc.

Like I said, the key thing here is whether you see fundamentalist/extreme Islam as a possible threat in the nearish future, which I would suggest depends on your level of knowledge.

[Devrim]

Like I said, the key thing here is whether you see fundamentalist/extreme Islam as a possible threat in the nearish future, which I would suggest depends on your level of knowledge.

It depends what you mean by a threat. If you think that there is any likelihood of Islam conquering state power and implementing Shariah law then you really are living in a fantasy land.

If you are talking about the threat of terrorist bombings then yes, I think it exists. I think that organisations like the EDL will push more people towards it.

Devrim

[SpineyNorman]

Interesting, because the tendency for some people on this forum to shoot off judgements without much evidence is something I noticed before posting which is why I went in on an oblique angle in my original post, in a failed attempt to avoid pre-judgement.

What? In the same way as the EDL make ill informed statements about muslims and Sharia?


I agree that some members of the EDL are islamophobic and xenophobic. They are challenged by other members on their forum for their views.

Utter nonsense. ALL EDL members are, at the very least, Islamophobic. I do not see how it could be possible to argue otherwise. And, with reagards to their forum, of course they delete comments from people who are honest about their views - the forum is the public face of the EDL. There are journalists and opponents reading them all the time. Your average EDLer is a bit dim; the leadership is not.


EDL is a grassroots organisation open to all and largely working class, they have the whole bag of views represented.

Yet more nonsense. The EDL is what the yanks would call an astroturf movement. Alan Lake, the EDL founder and financier, stated in a meeting with the undeniably fascist Sweden Democrats that he intended to start a street movement against Islam and that he would use football hooligans as his footsoldiers. Have a look - nothing is hidden. And the idea that they represent all views is clearly bollocks. Have a look on their website - they have now come out against anarchists, socialists, communists and trade unionists. These are some of the prerequisites of a proto-fascist mob.


I can't comment on them too much because I've only just come across them.

It shows.


Nevertheless, their stated aim is opposition to radical Islam, not all Islam, and sometimes it may be worth putting aside middle-class disdain for idiotic generalisations and skin-colour nonsense when the fight merits it.

And the Democratic Peoples' Republic of North Korea is both democratic and a peoples' republic. At risk of derailing the thread, I have some invisible gold for sale, really cheap. PM me if you are interested. And what's this middle class disdain bollocks about? Just because we can spell and string a sentence together, that does not make us middle class. YOUR assumption that working class people cannot hold our views and articulate them in the way we do is simply a manifestation of your anti-working class prejudice (see, two can play at that game). I would define most of the EDLers I have met as petty-bourgeois, not working class - self employed law and order UK/BNP/right wing tory types. Any working class elements in there are more than likely simply elienated by the social and economic conditions they find themselves in and along comes a fascist claiming to be an antifascist with a simple answer to a complex question - it's all the Mulsims' fault.


I am not happy to hear about anyone dying, but I do not agree with the reported views of Eugene Terreblanche. He sounds like a racist c*&t.

That's where we differ. He deserved to die, I hope he suffered terrible agony and I hope more of his kind receive the same treatment.


I note your comment that the US is more at danger of Christian fundamentalism than from Islamic fundamentalism and this accords with what I know. This is not the case in the UK.

Again, utter shite. There are fore more Christian reconstructionists in this country than there are political Islamists. Take Paul Ray, one of the EDL founders, as an example. But how exactly can a minority, within a minority that only represents <3% of the population be a threat? You clearly have no faith in secularism whatsoever.


In the UK the two political dangers I think are the rise of fascism and the rise of fundamentalist/extreme Islam. My view is that these two dangers will increase hand-in-hand, with fascism tailing Islamification.

Are you naturally this dim or does it come only with practice? The reverse is in fact true. Prior to the Orwellian "war on terror" we had no problems with "extremists". Since then, anti-muslim bigotry has become mainstream. Some elements of the Muslim community have since turned in upon themselves, their perception being (quite rightly in most cases) that they are under attack from all angles. Just like with the disaffected kids in the EDL, someone comes along and offers them a simple answer and the understandably clutch it with both hands. Islamophobia breeds extremism, not the other way around.


Let's not get hung up on semantics too much here please (unlike many of your threads!) - when I refer to the danger of Islam I am referring to the fundamentalist take on their political ideology which is an integral part of their religion (the implementation of Sharia and Sharia itself) together with the pathological hatred of the West and Westeners that always goes hand in hand with fundamentalist thinking such as Salafism.

You're sounding like George W Bush here: "They hate us 'cos we're free." On one hand you agree that most muslims are not political Islamists, on the other you are claiming that it is a fundamental part of their religion - which is it? Their "hatred of the west" is not at all pathological, unlike the EDL's (and I suspect your) bigotry. It is in fact entirely rational. "The west" has been raping their countries of their natural resources, imposing authoritarian theocratic regimes (the very ones we now claim to oppose, BTW), crushing secular popular movements and killing innocent civilians in countries where many of them have family. And their hatred is pathological? Fuck off.


Let me make it clear that I believe the majority of Muslims in the UK are moderate, and only part of the problem in so much as they are not speaking out, as much as they should, against those who are (arguably) perverting their religion, or to be more precise, not speaking out with as much cohesion and unity as they should.

You are a disingenuous little worm, arne't you? You say that they are not the problem, then suggest that they are because they "don't speak out". Why is it their responsibility any more than anyone else's? They have played no part in any attrocities - tehy are no more responsible than you or I. In fact, I would argue that "the west" is far more culpable. It was, after all, the USA that funded, armed and trained many of these groups, encouraging the worst of their excesses to fight as a proxy in the Cold War.


But here's the rub. If you do a bit of digging around Muslim forums and look at Muslim opinion polls and study the teachings of, for instance, the Salafi movement, you realise that the problem is more insiduous than you may have at first supposed. A recent well-respected UK TV series calls it Generation Jihad, a generation of young, mostly male, Muslims who spit on their parents' "cultural islam" and instead follow the Salafi-influenced teachings which I have previously described.

What I am about to say may shock you. People who spend too much time on the internet are not representative of the population as a whole. If they were, most white people would be fascists, the BNP would be in power, homosexuality would be outlawed, the death penalty would be introduced for wearing a hoodie and you would know what you were talking about. And it would seem to me that a TV programme with a title like "Generation Jihad" might not be entirely impartial.


You could of course say that this problem is being exaggerated and walk away from it.

Or you could say that it is being exaggerated and keep an eye on developments, as any sane person would. You could also join the National Secular Society's One Law for All campaign. They do actually have some politics, unlike you. They won't touch the EDL with a shitty stick, BTW. Why do you think no moderate or ex muslims join the EDL but do join OLFA?


But I challenge any of you to investigate this first before dismissing it.

You make the mistake of assuming that we have not. I would suggest that, unlike yours, our research has gone beyond reading a couple of Hitchens books, watching a few videos by notorious youtube loon Pat Condell and watching Fitna.


No-one is saying there is an imminent danger, but the nature of the beast is such that it is clear what may happen in the future should this problem not be diffused or otherwise be addressed.

And you think a bunch of pissed up hoolies singing "who the fuck is Allah", "Allah was a paedo" and "we hate pakis more than you" are the people to do it? Fuck's sake. All this will do is further alienate British Muslims and push them into the arms of the nutters. I would have thought this was self-evident. There are genuine political campaigns against Sharia (which is being grossly exaggerated by right wing loons), I have mentioned the best one above.


The government is aware of it which is why they are desperately trying to get their Prevent program to work (it is coming off the rails), and why the UK intelligence services are monitoring 2000 UK Muslims who are at risk of committing acts of terrorism (tip of the iceberg).

So, at a time when the next government, whoever they are, will be making cuts that make Thatcher's look kind, whilst still wasting billions on illegal wars, you can't see any other motivation? You don't think that this helps to justify the cost to ordinary people and the genocide "are twoops", as the EDL call them, are subjecting the Middle East to? Distraction, anyone?


This is not a problem of marginal looney individuals. There is a significant number of Muslims in the UK (best estimate I've seen is 15% being hardcore Salafis according to a Muslim website, but many more being influenced) who hate freedom, secularism, democracy, human rights, and the separation of religion and state. Whilst (mostly) agreeing that innocents should not die under Islam, they consider taxpayers as complicit in their government's actions and therefore not innocent. They consider it their religious duty to bring about medieval Sharia which will swipe away over a millennia of cultural progress. Wal bara, hate what Allah hates, and boy do they do that.

You're a twat. That could have come straight from BNP news or the Dail Wail (Hurrah for the Blackshirts). See my comments above on the validity of internet polls. There is one on facebook at the moment. The Lib Dems are top, followed by UKIP, the BNP, then the Tories, then Labour. Does that sound right to you? Internet polls are not representative and are easy to manipulate.

I conclusion, the EDL are horrible bastards and I suspect you are too.

[Sasha]

In short, strip away every part of the EDL except for their stated goal, and my suggestion is that this stated goal is a valid and important one. Which is why I wonder why you oppose them so vehemently, rather than just criticising their methods or reasoning etc.

what was the stated goal of national socialism? what was the stated goal of Thatcher? what is the stated goal of the catholic church? what is the stated goal of salafist islam?

anyone can state anything, its your actions that expose you for what you are. And, like i argued before, the actions of the EDL and their like only strenghten the fascists/extreme-right and the islamic fundamentalists. i'm not favouring one side of the same coin. I will opose them both.
And then i will choose wich one to fight the most active based on only two things. 1. my analysis on wich of the two is on this moment the most direct threat and 2. wich one i, as an white workingclass lad and not an muslim, can actualy effectivly fight instead of strenghten.

[SpineyNorman]

EDL say they are against extreme islam, only a few of their people know about the salafis or deobandis, but their largely instinctive and experience-based fear appears to be pointing at the correct threat.

Translation: they rely on their ignorant prejudice rather than any kind of serious analysis.


I am saying that however they got to their stated goal and whatever their beliefs are now, their stated goal is at least valid even if you were to say that everything else about them is not valid.

There are serious campaigns against their "stated aims". The National Secular Society promote some very good ones.


As for thinking "Must...Obey...Allah", you've just described any religious Muslim. Islam means Submission, they just differ on exactly what that means.

Claiming that a hetrogenous group is in fact a homogenous mass is the very essence of bigotry. Well done.


In short, strip away every part of the EDL except for their stated goal, and my suggestion is that this stated goal is a valid and important one. Which is why I wonder why you oppose them so vehemently, rather than just criticising their methods or reasoning etc.

In other words, ignore everything they do but use their propaganda to define both them and their opponents and they're not too bad? Could say the same about the NSDAP really, couldn't you?


Like I said, the key thing here is whether you see fundamentalist/extreme Islam as a possible threat in the nearish future, which I would suggest depends on your level of knowledge.

I agree, I would, however, suggest that we come to very different conclusions on this matter.

[Sasha]

edit

[SpineyNorman]

Oh, and I'm still wondering what you think about their hysterical attitude towards communists, anarchists, socialists, trade unionists and the left in general. These are included in their stated aims. Are you saying you agree with this too? I have to say that they look more like the SA's stupid grandson every day.

[Devrim]

just to inform you and everbody else in this tread, this remark just earned tread softly an perma-ban for discrimination but i'll wait with implementing it till this thread has run its course.

Can you explain to me what is discrimitory about this remark in particular, please? Islam does mean submission, and Muslims do think they should obey the will of God.

Devrim

[Tread Softly]

Spiney, why the need to coat your perfectly reasonable arguments with spitting emo-bile?

I am obviously a bit slow in the head, as I do not understand why defining Islam as the Religion of Submission (obey Allah) is classed as discrimination? Look up "meaning of the word islam" on islam-qa dot com, or look up islam on wikipedia, or anywhere else. I did not say this with any malice, my understanding is that this is just factual?

[SpineyNorman]

I find you odious and I do not mind pointing that out. If that constitutes "emo bile" in your little mind then so be it.

The word Islam means submission. This much is correct. But to suggest that this means all religious muslims (how can you be non-religious muslim?) submit utterly to allah is a ludicrous, illogical and ultimately bigoted slur. It is not your pointing out the meaning of a word that makes you a bigot, it's the conclusion you draw from taht definition that does that.

Still waiting to hear your opinon on the EDL's union/left bashing.

[SpineyNorman]

Devrim: It's this bit: "As for thinking "Must...Obey...Allah", you've just described any religious Muslim." I have a problem with, and I think it is also what psycho was referring to.

[Sasha]

Can you explain to me what is discrimitory about this remark in particular, please? Islam does mean submission, and Muslims do think they should obey the will of God.

Devrim

i stand corrected, i misread the quote in question, i changed my post.
in light of all other remarks of tread softly i assume he will be still banned sooner than later.

[Devrim]

Devrim: It's this bit: "As for thinking "Must...Obey...Allah", you've just described any religious Muslim." I have a problem with, and I think it is also what psycho was referring to.

Yes, it tends to imply that Muslims are morons. I didn't like it either. Would I get banned if I said the same thing about Christians though?

I don't think that the poster is possibly a right-wing troll. He may not be though. Lots of workers, who consider themselves to be 'on the left', do feel worried about political Islam. I would rather engage with them than just condemn them as bigots.

Devrim

[Sasha]

hence why i said that this thread should run its course first.

[SpineyNorman]

Yes, it tends to imply that Muslims are morons. I didn't like it either. Would I get banned if I said the same thing about Christians though?

I don't think that the poster is possibly a right-wing troll. He may not be though. Lots of workers, who consider themselves to be 'on the left', do feel worried about political Islam. I would rather engage with them than just condemn them as bigots.

Devrim

Fair enough. I wasn't asking for him to be banned, by the way. The way he went about introducing this topic suggests to me that he is a right wing troll. I am not saying that nobody should be concerned about political Islam, but if I wanted to know what people thought about it I would be open and just ask, rather than try to "hook" people using a Christian analogy. And I find such remarks equally offensive when they refer to Christianity. However, most people accept that groups like the Quakers are nothing like the Westborough Baptist Church. There seems to be a common belief that Anjem Choudary, the Fred Phelps of Islam, is somehow representative of the faith as a whole.

[Dimentio]

I agree with pretty much everything both of you just said, except for your statement that salafi islam is hardly a threat on a political level. I would argue that it will be a threat in a number of generations, and that is clear if you research salafi islam and its current influence.

EDL say they are against extreme islam, only a few of their people know about the salafis or deobandis, but their largely instinctive and experience-based fear appears to be pointing at the correct threat. I am saying that however they got to their stated goal and whatever their beliefs are now, their stated goal is at least valid even if you were to say that everything else about them is not valid.

As for thinking "Must...Obey...Allah", you've just described any religious Muslim. Islam means Submission, they just differ on exactly what that means.

In short, strip away every part of the EDL except for their stated goal, and my suggestion is that this stated goal is a valid and important one. Which is why I wonder why you oppose them so vehemently, rather than just criticising their methods or reasoning etc.

Like I said, the key thing here is whether you see fundamentalist/extreme Islam as a possible threat in the nearish future, which I would suggest depends on your level of knowledge.

The EDL would only be valid if 1. muslims became a majority, 2. islam and its varieties are not spreading like other ideologies, but are biological traits which are inherited from birth. Salafism is a reaction against modernity, not an inherent trait. Radical salafism/wahhabism is also a result from failed nationalist states in the Islamic world. In the 1950's and 1960's, Arab nationalism was the big fashion there. The period when salafism at large was popular was at the wake of the US invasion of Iraq, when about 40% of the Arab population supported al-Qaeda.

That doesn't imply that they supported al-Qaeda's ideology, but supported al-Qaeda because al-Qaeda fought against the aliens, much like you are supporting the EDL not because of their proto-fascist ideology but because of the alleged "alien threat". The main difference is of course that your "aliens" have not arrived as an invading force and to a certain extent have lived in Britain for generations, while the "aliens" in Iraq are routinely shooting at Iraqis and follow a real, collective, central command.

The EDL dislike muslims - not Islam but muslims - simply because of the irrational fear that Britain will be muslim. It is like being muslim is an ethnicity rather than a religion like christianity. If we say that the muslims in Britain had white skin, blonde hair and blue eyes instead, they would not be seen as an alien force but as a religious group like mormons, protestants, catholics and Jews.

In the United States in the 19th century, there was a populist movement much like the EDL. They wanted to throw out all catholics - especially the Irish and the Italians - out of the fear that "they would take our jobs" and "they (the Italians) are swarthy" and the most popular "the catholics come here to outbreed us protestants and deliver these United States to the Pope". Islamophobia is basically like a merger between antisemitism and antipapism.

What you have said in your post is that muslims possess a hive mind, and have no individual aspirations, hopes or fears. Because the antipapists in the 19th century actually had the excuse that there is a pope, that the Catholic Church is a hyper-centralised structure with the aim of influencing governments and enstrengthen itself. Islam have no church hierarchy, no religious figurehead, a diversity between different islamic cults which rival christianity, and is at least as diverse as christianity.

What the EDL are saying is this: England is a good country, with a good culture and no problems. The problems are caused by the muslims and the "lefty pc politicians" who want to turn Britain into a Shar'ia state, live on our welfare (if they are unemployed), take our jobs (if they are successful).


The EDL are thus doing two things which are unacceptable from a progressive point of view.

Firstly, they sweep all the inner contradictions of British class society under the rug, proclaiming that everything will be fine when the muslims are gone (even if no one is saying that directly, limiting the population growth of a minority group, curbing immigration of that group and singling that group out as troublesome would mean discrimination and a rapid slide down to apartheid).

Secondly, no ethnic group or group of ethnic groups should be singled out, de-individualised and subjected to suspicion only on the basis of belonging to said group. The EDL are accusing the muslims of possessing a hive mind, of intentionally having many kids (so they would take over Britain), of wanting to institute radical islam. Islam is suddenly no longer a religion, but an alien race of insects which somehow someday appeared in Britannia with the intention of conquering it by peaceful means.

This is especially funny since "the English Defense League" rather should focus on attacking the British upper class, especially the nobility. The British nobility possess a lot of tax-deductible land, the queen formally owns all land in Britain. And the entire British nobility actually belonged to a foreign people originally, the Normans.

The Normans immigrated in 1066, forbade the English to hunt on their own land, instituted massive taxes, brutalised the population and replaced a tribal aristocratic system with a more hierarchical model. England has never ceased to be a Norman colony.

Lets compare the Norman immigration of 1066 with the muslim immigration since the 1930's.

The Norman immigration was extremely violent. They immediately overthrew the government of England and instituted their own government instead.

The muslim immigration in comparison is entirely peaceful. The muslims have not overthrown the British government or established an own counter-government.

The Norman immigration consisted mainly of a small group of armed men who was very well-organised and had a leadership with a direct goal of establishing power over an island which belonged to another people.

The muslim immigration is consisting of a variety of groups who are organised on family basis and have immigrated either because of the hope of a better future or the need to flee their own countries.

The Norman immigrants established themselves as the ruling elite, forcing the English to work for them (given that the lords are mainly of Norman descent, it could be argued that system has survived for one millennium to a certain extent).

The muslim immigrants have largely established themselves in immigrant enclaves. A small minority of them have acquired higher status jobs, but the vast majority are either unemployed or taking the jobs which are the most lowliest valued.

Britain has been invaded numerous times. Before the Normans invaded, the English themselves sailed from north-western Germany and Denmark, colonising the island, pushing the native Romano-Celts to Wales, Scotland and Bretagne (Arthur was actually a historical figure, a Welsh resistance leader against the invading English, a bit ironic heh, like if Big Foot would become the national symbol of America). Before the English, the Romans invaded the island, under the rule of emperors Claudius and Nero. The Romans were even more brutal than the Normans, probably slaughtering about two thirds of the population.

In short, the muslim immigration in Britain does not share any characteristics of an invasion. Invaders come with weapons, institute their own government in the land, colonises the land and discriminates its original population. They acquire a more affluent standard of living, often establishing themselves as a ruling caste and monopolise the positions of power or high status professions.

The muslims on the contrary have not come with weapons, instituted an own parallell government, they have not colonised the island, they have not discriminated the English. Neither have they acquired a more affluent standard of life or established themselves as an elite. On the contrary, they are often poorer than the lads in the EDL, more subjected to discrimination and racism, more separated from power to influence even their own lives and segregated to certain blocks.

As long as the situation where British muslims are scapegoated by society and by thugs like the EDL is persisting, some of them will become hostile. Imagine that you grow up in a society where the ethnic majority despises you, where you always feel that you are sticking out, or that people who are looking like you are being treated worse. That someone is yelling "fucking Paki" after you. The natural reaction is that you search for your own kind, and that you avoid hanging out in places where you are exposed to racism and contempt.

If your hypothesis about muslims was correct, then it would be scientifically proven that muslims in fact are a variety of bee or ant, since they are "planning to take over" without having even a government to do so. They must be communicating through telepathy if your ideas would be correct. :lol::lol::lol:

Anyway. Who is taking most resources from the English working class, and forcing you to live in ugly, decrepid buildings? Who is consuming the most resources which otherwise could be used to improve England tremendously?

This woman?

http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2007/0712/bhutto_uk_1228.jpg

Or this woman?

http://static.open.salon.com/files/queen_elizabeth_ii1244224853.jpg

[Tread Softly]

My long reply just got wiped out by being timed-out of the forum. I'll try again.

By the way, why do I have an infraction for prejudiced language? Explain please.

[SpineyNorman]

My long reply just got wiped out by being timed-out of the forum. I'll try again.

By the way, why do I have an infraction for prejudiced language? Explain please.

To the best of my knowledge you don't. What you said was, however, very distasteful.

Please include a justification for the EDL's anti union/left agenda in your next post.

[Dean]

EDL is a grassroots organisation open to all and largely working class, they have the whole bag of views represented.
I'm pretty sure that there was a recent lawsuit because they were not, in fact, allowing members of "any color" to participate.


Let's not get hung up on semantics too much here please (unlike many of your threads!) - when I refer to the danger of Islam I am referring to the fundamentalist take on their political ideology which is an integral part of their religion (the implementation of Sharia and Sharia itself) together with the pathological hatred of the West and Westeners that always goes hand in hand with fundamentalist thinking such as Salafism. Let me make it clear that I believe the majority of Muslims in the UK are moderate, and only part of the problem in so much as they are not speaking out, as much as they should, against those who are (arguably) perverting their religion, or to be more precise, not speaking out with as much cohesion and unity as they should.

But here's the rub. If you do a bit of digging around Muslim forums and look at Muslim opinion polls and study the teachings of, for instance, the Salafi movement, you realise that the problem is more insiduous than you may have at first supposed. A recent well-respected UK TV series calls it Generation Jihad, a generation of young, mostly male, Muslims who spit on their parents' "cultural islam" and instead follow the Salafi-influenced teachings which I have previously described.

You could of course say that this problem is being exaggerated and walk away from it. But I challenge any of you to investigate this first before dismissing it. No-one is saying there is an imminent danger, but the nature of the beast is such that it is clear what may happen in the future should this problem not be diffused or otherwise be addressed. The government is aware of it which is why they are desperately trying to get their Prevent program to work (it is coming off the rails), and why the UK intelligence services are monitoring 2000 UK Muslims who are at risk of committing acts of terrorism (tip of the iceberg).

This is not a problem of marginal looney individuals. There is a significant number of Muslims in the UK (best estimate I've seen is 15% being hardcore Salafis according to a Muslim website, but many more being influenced) who hate freedom, secularism, democracy, human rights, and the separation of religion and state. Whilst (mostly) agreeing that innocents should not die under Islam, they consider taxpayers as complicit in their government's actions and therefore not innocent. They consider it their religious duty to bring about medieval Sharia which will swipe away over a millennia of cultural progress. Wal bara, hate what Allah hates, and boy do they do that.

/rant.

Islamic violence, in particular that expressed via Jihad (struggle) and the Mujaheddin (freedom fighters) is primarily a political tool that issued in response to foreign incursions, occupations and economic and political terror.

The greatest threat in terms of terror and antagonism between Muslims and the West is actually this orientation of violence and subjugation towards many middle-easterners. This is precisely what the "nuclear" conflict with Iran is a bout: a nation which represents the interests of its constituency more, that is in demanding more capital stay in Iran, is not to be tolerated by imperial aggressors.

[Tread Softly]

The Notification in my inbox, Spiney, says I have an infraction for prejudiced language.

I have no interest in including a justification for the EDL's anti union/left agenda in my next post as those issues are of no importance to me and the only thing I support about the EDL is their stated goal of being opposed to extreme Islam. I also have no interest in speaking to forum dwellers whose posts are clearly the result of someone frothing at the mouth. If you pose some questions which do not include ad hominem attacks I will answer them.

As the forum ate my last post I shall comment in smaller chunks.

Firstly Devrim: thank you for taking the time to understand my queries.

Like you, I am also unconvinced that a Sharia takeover is a distinct possibility, however, I would not dismiss a person who believes it may be a problem for future generations. I have yet to make up my mind about this. But in theory if Muslims do reach an effective majority and Salafism continues to spread then it would become a probability. If you do not believe this then I would say you are not thinking about this issue with as much knowledge as you should have.

My main concern is indeed that extreme Islam, and the most pervasive form of this I've come across is Salafism (calling any Muslim a Wahhabi is very offensive by the way), generates a culture that encourages terrorism as stated in my earlier posts. It was quite a journey for me to discover the Salafis, and another journey to realise how extremely well-funded and well-spread their teachings were - I state again these are a growing and significant sect/movement in the UK although still in a minority.

I agree that a violent EDL will push more Muslims towards extremism. They know this, and despair at the latest problems in Dudley, for instance.

(responses to others to follow)

[Tread Softly]

To psycho (why did you infract me?):

I understand your distinction between stated aims and actions. As I said before, it is only their stated aims that I have some agreement with. I am watching their actions and will do so for a longer period before making my mind up about what those actions say about them.

(response to Dimentio to follow)

[SpineyNorman]

I have no interest in including a justification for the EDL's anti union/left agenda in my next post as those issues are of no importance to me and the only thing I support about the EDL is their stated goal of being opposed to extreme Islam.(responses to others to follow)
You implied that, were we to ignore what they actually do, taking into account only their stated aims (we'll ignore the obvious problems with taking this approach for now) then you are in supprt of their program. I pointed out that they have now come out against communism, anarchism, socialism and trade unions - this is now one of their stated aims. So are you now saying that you do not agree with their stated aims? :confused:

[Sasha]

But in theory if Muslims do reach an effective majority and Salafism continues to spread then it would become a probability. If you do not believe this then I would say you are not thinking about this issue with as much knowledge as you should have.

so you want to defend democracy against majority rule? :rolleyes:
well lets play along with your fiction for a bit, so lets asume that "the muslims" would be a "threat" to become the majority and that you are right that they as soon as they are that majority will all force sharia law upon us. how are you going to prevent that? forced conversion? suspend democracy? deportation? stopping them breeding? extermination? what? what can be your "no the EDL are not fascist" sollution?

[SpineyNorman]

Careful psycho, that sounded a bit sarcastic. He's a sensitive soul and he will not reply to abusive posts.

[Sasha]

To psycho (why did you infract me?):


because your an discriminating biggot who i would have normaly already banned 10 posts ago but because people are actualy taking the effort to engage you i'm letting you around for a bit longer.
Make no mistake, this is an forum for revolutionary leftist and since you are not, you are strictly a guest here.

[SpineyNorman]

At risk of derailing the thread, does anyone else see paralels between the way people like the EDL see muslims (ie. bent on world domination, with extremists representing true Islam and moderates supporting them by playing the part of deceptive quislings) and classic antisemitic conspiracy theories such as the protocols?

[Sasha]

oh no, its even got an whole field of self discribed "experts" who write propaganda books withoud any scientific backing.

[Tread Softly]

Dimentio:

Muslims are not in a majority and they may never achieve a majority. However I would point out that where they are in a majority then things change. I am not saying this is good or bad, or saying this is a result of culture or wealth/poverty or religion. It was interesting to see the Panorama program on Tower Hamlets, where a Muslim-controlled council cut funding to non-Muslim groups and endeavours.

Salafism may be a fashion and I hope you are right. But it has the traits of a far more enduring meme. For instance, despite the core belief of a Muslim that criticism of other Muslims is deeply wrong (especially in front of non-Muslims), Salafis are quick to condemn slightly different Muslims as munafiq. They also encourage a mind-set that the media is biased towards them and not to be trusted in any way, in particular when Muslims kill other Muslims or do something abhorrent - when you first see their zionist/blackwater/cia/mossad/illuminati conspiracy theories you chuckle but then a great unease sets in as you realise their world view, enforced by this stance on news, is completely dislocated. The very nature of submission and the belief that this world is nothing but a test also means that for extremists their moral compass is divorced from their conscience - all that matters is the sharia and this is most fair even if it does not seem to be: their world is an alien one to me. Rationality does not hold. Salafis also only hold that the first 3 generations of companions provided valid haddith, so abrogation stops at that 3rd generation: moderate Muslims also tell me that they have paid for certain religiously important texts to be altered so that none of the texts falling within those 3 generations conflict with their beliefs.

Osama bin Laden was/is a Salafi, by the way. The Taliban are Deobandis (type of Sufi I've been led to believe).

I wish to discuss your hive mind comment and your invasion comment later, but for now I have to put the kids to bed. I have noted your comments about the EDL and thank you for these as I was curious.

[Dimentio]

Just a short notice. That people in the muslim community support conspiracy theories is not a proof that they are dangerous, but that they are afraid about the intention of western states and see themselves as weak and exposed, much like the EDL are doing with their "they intentionally breed us out"-notions.

Also, a lot of Americans, 33%, believe in some form of 9/11 truthism, conspiratism or stuff like that. I have read somewhere that conspiratism is most widely prevalent in America and the Arab world. It is not a gradient of malevolence, but a gradient of the sense of alienation.

[Tread Softly]

Dimentio, your hive mind comment is interesting. Whilst of course there is no collective mind at work here, there are the concepts of bida and haram to look at.

Bida is innovation. Bida in Islam is deeply frowned upon by Muslims, in particular by the Salafis, and it is often used as an insult by them against another sect. An example of bida would be if a Muslim took two haddith and drew a conclusion from the way they interacted. Or it might relate to a certain way of praying. But in the first instance you can see that what might seem to us to be good use of an individual mind is not allowed. It is not up to the individual Muslim to determine what the Koran and Sunnah says, that is the sole right of the imams.

We then come across the concepts of haram and halal. What is not expressly forbidden (haram) in Islam is allowed, but what is allowed falls into sub categories such as things which are positively good (halal) and things which should be avoided if possible. Bearing in mind the concept of bida, we can see that a Muslim is allowed no individual reasoning when it comes to things which are haram. So I guess in matters of what is haram there is no room for individual maneuvering. Perhaps I stretch the point though. Certainly, Christians are allowed to draw inspiration from the Bible whereas Muslims are not allowed to use the Koran as inspiration - it is the literal truth albeit one with multiple levels of meaning.

Invasion, you state, requires weapons, implementation of own government, colonisation and discrimination. I am sure you already know that an integral part of Islam is its political dimension, and that Sharia is a form of government very different from our own which includes its own form of apartheid (google "jizya" for a taster). I could also point out to you videos of a few individual Muslims and a number of forum posts where shouts of "we will take your daughters and wives as war booty" are made. War booty is only allowed under violent jihad conditions. War booty includes slaves, not forbidden under Islam (moderates agree that slavery is not forbidden before anyone's head starts exploding). So at least some Muslims believe that the UK will be taken over by force, and if you go read Salafi forums you will note that these beliefs are not uncommon. Reading these forums also shows that (however unlikely in reality) there is an intent to take over the UK - this is seen as an integral religious duty of Salafis. It is the reason why extremist Muslims stay in the UK in the face of their opposing religious duty of hirja (moving to a location better for a Muslim with less shirk).

Muslims do not have a straightforward leadership. They talk about ummah, but they are as diverse and fractured as any other religion, perhaps more so. The Shias of course have their Ayatollah. But the Sunnis have imam after imam from different combinations of sect and school of fiqh from different cultures and with different agendas, all giving contradictory fatwa. For me this is a reason why a Sharia takeover is less likely.

Finally, for psycho, why am I a discriminating biggot? I would very much dislike to be one, so please be specific and point to my offending remarks.

[Tread Softly]

That people in the muslim community support conspiracy theories is not a proof that they are dangerous, but that they are afraid about the intention of western states and see themselves as weak and exposed

I agree. However, combine conspiracy theories with a refusal to accept the world as reported by journalists and you have something which I would argue is dangerous - someone operating with a mental picture of the world that is divorced from reality. Before you accuse me of exaggerating please have a good read of the Current Events section of ummah dot com, or many many other Muslim websites (not even just the fundamentalist ones).

[Tread Softly]

so you want to defend democracy against majority rule? :rolleyes:
well lets play along with your fiction for a bit, so lets asume that "the muslims" would be a "threat" to become the majority and that you are right that they as soon as they are that majority will all force sharia law upon us. how are you going to prevent that? forced conversion? suspend democracy? deportation? stopping them breeding? extermination? what? what can be your "no the EDL are not fascist" sollution?

Moderate Muslims point to some form of democracy in the Caliphate and thus say that some democracy would remain under Sharia. Salafis tend to say that democracy is evil, a kuffar invention ("do not imitate the kaffir" is one of their favourite haddith). Salafis actually think voting is haram as it is acknowledging a legislative authority other than allah, but amusingly fall silent when discussing Tower Hamlets or any other situation where Muslims have voted and gained power. I think it fair to assume that if there were a takeover it would be by fundamentalists and therefore democracy would go out the window. Bear in mind what I said earlier that this takeover is not something I see as inevitable or probable - I simply haven't made up my mind about this.

As for a solution, I have no clue. But I think a wider awareness of the problems of fundamentalist Islam is important, in particular its political element, its widespread and growing nature, and its extremely well-padded funding.

[Dimentio]

I agree. However, combine conspiracy theories with a refusal to accept the world as reported by journalists and you have something which I would argue is dangerous - someone operating with a mental picture of the world that is divorced from reality. Before you accuse me of exaggerating please have a good read of the Current Events section of ummah dot com, or many many other Muslim websites (not even just the fundamentalist ones).

Journalists are not neutral themselves, and the image of the world we are served by newspapers and channels is always separated from reality.

I think the muslim conspiratists are no more separated from reality than people like Alex Jones, who have millions of followers across the Atlantic.

Internet is not a good instrument to check public opinion. It tend to be a haven for people with views which either are or are seen as extreme by the mainstream community.

I very well know about Jizya, the idea that you have the right to lie to a non-muslim if you are saving muslim lives or advance the interests of the Ummah. I also know about the dhimmi system of Islam, and so on. I have not claimed that Islam is the religion of peace, but unlike you, I make a distinction between muslims and islam.

That is not the point. That some muslims want to install such a system in Britain is not an actual sign of capability. The only reason why conservative islam is even a (minor) political force within islam in Britain, is that there is in existence a racism which is de-individualising muslims and forcing them to group together against a perceived or real majority society which they see as threatening to them as individuals.

So... what is your solution to "the muslim problem"? More state monitoring? Arrest some preachers? Close some mosques? Demolish some mosques? Ban veils? Stop muslim immigration? Put penalty taxes on muslim women with many kids? Arrange boycotts of Pakistani-owned firms? Deport the muslims? March through their blocks singing "God save our gracious Queen"? Burn Qurans? Gas-chambers?

[Tread Softly]

I am aware of bias in journalism, but that is different from the sort of delusion you see on fundamentalist Muslim forums.

I have also been aware, for almost 2 decades, how the internet changes a poster's personality and character - I wrote a dissertation on it when we were still just on gopher.

Jizya is the tax on non-Muslims under Sharia. You're thinking of takiyya. On the face of it takiyya only applies to Shias, not Sunnis, but Salafis apparently have haddith which shows that it is permitted to them too.

I do make a distinction between muslims and islam. I have Muslim friends, one came over for lunch today actually, I have moderate Muslims I correspond with on these very issues, I worked for 10 years in a predominantly Muslim environment and have still have friendships from there. But Islam is a way of life, especially for fundamentalists. My comments on Salafism are not just some abstract load of religious theorizing, Salafism has a real impact on behaviour and character.

As I said above, I have no clue what the solution is other than to increase awareness.

My point I guess is that I see extreme Islam as a significant threat. Even if we discount the possibility of extremists taking over the UK, as is their stated religious duty, there is still the fact that extreme Islam creates an environment where terrorism is created and nurtured and supported. I guess you have to experience that environment to appreciate it, hence my website links.

So here we have a problem, extreme Islam. EDL say they oppose it. You guys obviously hate the EDL. You see extreme Islam as a smaller fish than groups like the EDL, hence you oppose them. Some of you don't seem to see extreme Islam as a risk at all, or at least appear to greatly underestimate it.

I dislike both fascists and extreme Islam, I think we weight the threats differently.

All I'd suggest is that, if you have time, you look at Salafi beliefs. Your weighting of the threats may change and I promise you that it will be intellectually stimulating and indeed fill you with amazement (you know, those moments where your eyes bounce off the monitor screen, you stare at the ceiling and repeatedly slap your forehead shouting "Oh my god no way oh my god!")....

Thank you, and I shall stick around to learn/discuss/answer more if there is a demand for it, or just hang around a bit reading other posts. I still don't know why I'm a discriminating biggot.

[SpineyNorman]

Bida is innovation. Bida in Islam is deeply frowned upon by Muslims, in particular by the Salafis, and it is often used as an insult by them against another sect. An example of bida would be if a Muslim took two haddith and drew a conclusion from the way they interacted. Or it might relate to a certain way of praying. But in the first instance you can see that what might seem to us to be good use of an individual mind is not allowed. It is not up to the individual Muslim to determine what the Koran and Sunnah says, that is the sole right of the imams.

We then come across the concepts of haram and halal. What is not expressly forbidden (haram) in Islam is allowed, but what is allowed falls into sub categories such as things which are positively good (halal) and things which should be avoided if possible. Bearing in mind the concept of bida, we can see that a Muslim is allowed no individual reasoning when it comes to things which are haram. So I guess in matters of what is haram there is no room for individual maneuvering. Perhaps I stretch the point though. Certainly, Christians are allowed to draw inspiration from the Bible whereas Muslims are not allowed to use the Koran as inspiration - it is the literal truth albeit one with multiple levels of meaning.

Does someone want to tell him about Papal infallibility? And why Martin Luther was important to Protestants?


Invasion, you state, requires weapons, implementation of own government, colonisation and discrimination. I am sure you already know that an integral part of Islam is its political dimension, and that Sharia is a form of government very different from our own which includes its own form of apartheid (google "jizya" for a taster). I could also point out to you videos of a few individual Muslims and a number of forum posts where shouts of "we will take your daughters and wives as war booty" are made. War booty is only allowed under violent jihad conditions. War booty includes slaves, not forbidden under Islam (moderates agree that slavery is not forbidden before anyone's head starts exploding). So at least some Muslims believe that the UK will be taken over by force, and if you go read Salafi forums you will note that these beliefs are not uncommon. Reading these forums also shows that (however unlikely in reality) there is an intent to take over the UK - this is seen as an integral religious duty of Salafis. It is the reason why extremist Muslims stay in the UK in the face of their opposing religious duty of hirja (moving to a location better for a Muslim with less shirk).

And where is your evidence that anything other than a negligible number of Muslims want this? Other than a few nutty comments from a few internet loons, there isn't any, is there? You sound like a conspiraloon. Have you ever been on Scumfront, by the way? There's plenty of non-muslims calling for far more frightening things than this on there - and they form a bigger proportion of the non-muslim British population than the Islamoloons do of Muslims.


Muslims do not have a straightforward leadership. They talk about ummah, but they are as diverse and fractured as any other religion, perhaps more so. The Shias of course have their Ayatollah. But the Sunnis have imam after imam from different combinations of sect and school of fiqh from different cultures and with different agendas, all giving contradictory fatwa. For me this is a reason why a Sharia takeover is less likely.

That's like an interval - a bit of sanity to go along with your Islamophobic conspiracy theory.

In my opinion, you this comment is probably the worst you have made:

"As for thinking "Must...Obey...Allah", you've just described any religious Muslim."

You might as well have said any muslim - after all, how could one be non-religious and a muslim at the same time?

Still waiting for an answer as to whether you still agree with the EDL's stated aims now that you know their targets include anarchists, communists and trade unionists.

[SpineyNorman]

So... what is your solution to "the muslim problem"? More state monitoring? Arrest some preachers? Close some mosques? Demolish some mosques? Ban veils? Stop muslim immigration? Put penalty taxes on muslim women with many kids? Arrange boycotts of Pakistani-owned firms? Deport the muslims? March through their blocks singing "God save our gracious Queen"? Burn Qurans? Gas-chambers?

I would like to see your answer to this question too. I personally think that people who see this as a credible threat are either paranoid or have fallen for the media exaggerations. But, let's say you are right, what should we do about it? Saying "something!!!!" is not an answer. Personally, I think addressing the conditions that are driving Muslims towards the lunatic fringes is the way to go, not contributing to said conditions, as the EDL so clearly are.

[Dimentio]

I am aware of bias in journalism, but that is different from the sort of delusion you see on fundamentalist Muslim forums.

I have also been aware, for almost 2 decades, how the internet changes a poster's personality and character - I wrote a dissertation on it when we were still just on gopher.

Jizya is the tax on non-Muslims under Sharia. You're thinking of takiyya. On the face of it takiyya only applies to Shias, not Sunnis, but Salafis apparently have haddith which shows that it is permitted to them too.

I do make a distinction between muslims and islam. I have Muslim friends, one came over for lunch today actually, I have moderate Muslims I correspond with on these very issues, I worked for 10 years in a predominantly Muslim environment and have still have friendships from there. But Islam is a way of life, especially for fundamentalists. My comments on Salafism are not just some abstract load of religious theorizing, Salafism has a real impact on behaviour and character.

As I said above, I have no clue what the solution is other than to increase awareness.

My point I guess is that I see extreme Islam as a significant threat. Even if we discount the possibility of extremists taking over the UK, as is their stated religious duty, there is still the fact that extreme Islam creates an environment where terrorism is created and nurtured and supported. I guess you have to experience that environment to appreciate it, hence my website links.

So here we have a problem, extreme Islam. EDL say they oppose it. You guys obviously hate the EDL. You see extreme Islam as a smaller fish than groups like the EDL, hence you oppose them. Some of you don't seem to see extreme Islam as a risk at all, or at least appear to greatly underestimate it.

I dislike both fascists and extreme Islam, I think we weight the threats differently.

All I'd suggest is that, if you have time, you look at Salafi beliefs. Your weighting of the threats may change and I promise you that it will be intellectually stimulating and indeed fill you with amazement (you know, those moments where your eyes bounce off the monitor screen, you stare at the ceiling and repeatedly slap your forehead shouting "Oh my god no way oh my god!")....

Thank you, and I shall stick around to learn/discuss/answer more if there is a demand for it, or just hang around a bit reading other posts. I still don't know why I'm a discriminating biggot.

The really fun thing, is that the only salafi state in existence, Saudi Arabia, is a political ally to the west and Israel, against the Shi'ite axis. I know exactly how bizarre salafi beliefs are (ban on music, burkas, death penalty by pushing down walls on people, ban on flowersI. But there are other bizarre groups out there.

Last time I checked, salafism/wahhabism is only a majority belief in Saudi Arabia - which is a western client state. In Pakistan, Afghanistan and Chechnya, there are salafi movements funded by money from individuals in Saudi Arabia, but even if their goal is world conquest, they are incapable of doing anything else than establish local islamic states. The greatest salafi threat would be against India (if the salafis gain control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal), not Britain.

The threat of salafism in the Arab World and the Islamic World in general is waning, because the salafis are routinely blowing up other muslims in the air. A movement with such a methodology cannot be successful. Salafism is also not the most attractive islamist current, and is seen as a heretic current by most muslims.

Yes, they are funding mosques and clerics in western European countries, but when the muslim youth who are orientating themselves towards salafism see what salafism is meaning in practice, a lot of them would either pool in support into muslim brotherhood-style islamism, Shia islamism or become secularists. It is telling that despite that Saudi Arabia has the resources to buy the entire islamic world, the attractiveness of Saudi Arabia is so low that the only places where their ideology holds any sway are backwaters like Chechnya, Afghanistan, the Swat Valley and decrepid suburbs in western Europe.

What your argumentation is, is:

"We must support the EDL because salafism is evöööl!!!!!1111"

There is no analysis of why salafism becomes popular, only assuming that muslims are liars and want to outbreed "us English". When you are questioned, you are only replying with vague examples of how salafism is evil.

The reason why people here don't give a fucking damn about salafism is that the people here know about salafism. They know about how demeaning it is to women, to children, to people of other faiths, to the intellect of humanity, to culture and arts. That is not important though.

What is important to analyse is why salafism is popular. The analysis brought forth by Tread Softly is a joke which would make even a catholic scholar in Dark Age Europe blush. Muslims are reduced from individuals who - like us - are making choices based on what they perceive to be their interests, into a grey mass of either willness-deprived slaves or evil alien insects who want to colonise the British isles.

From a right-wing perspective, everything to the left seems to be a homogenous mass of opposition to their worldview. To some extent, it is the same from the left (massing together social democrats with fascists for an example). But the more I am observing how right-wing types argument contra left-wing people, it becomes more and more evident that right-wing beliefs like for example the western supremacism of the EDL are founded a lot on emotionalism, exaggeration, generalisation and superficiality.

One example is: "We cannot have Pakistanis here, they are boiling shrimps in their bath-tubs!"

What the fuck does that have to do with them being here or not?

Another example is: "They refuse to shake hand in their culture. That is outrageous!"

Yet another is: "They are wearing veils! They cannot wear veils here! Could we go out with the Bible in their countries!?"

The dichotomy between "the west" and "islam" is created and supported by those groups on both sides who want to simplify the political spectrum and increase the strength of their respective factions. It is telling that those groups who often are crying out the loudest against islam are the same groups who are crying out about the loss "of judeao-christian values" in western society.

It is usual to often hear such groups replace "the west" with "christianity" as interchangeable objects. That serves the double purpose of mustering political support against muslims and erode the membrane which is existing between the public sphere and religion. In short, instead of bringing us back to the 19th century, islamophobic and western supremacist groups want to bring us back to the 11th century and the spirit of the crusades.

All internal dissent against the ruling class must therefore be squashed, because people cannot complain when a group of women who dress in veils are threatening the fundamental christian values of western civilisation! Soon they would force us all to bow to Mecka!

Please please, enlighten me.

Have the muslims in Britain today ever oppressed the British people? How have they done so? By existing there?

[Tread Softly]

There is a split in Saudi Arabia between the monarchy which is pro-Western-oil-purchase and members of the clergy. A recent example is the introduction of free mixing, that is, females and males in the same place, in the King's new University: clerics were up in arms about this.

I hope you are correct about Salafism waning in the Islamic world, and suppose you have reasoning beyond the fact that they're blowing other Muslims up (I had no idea they were doing this by the way, could you give me an example please?).

Yet moderate Muslims as well as the government in the UK are worried about the spread of extremism and Salafism in particular, and I have seen their teaching and propaganda in action over many months of intense study. Some Muslims are repelled by them certainly, others are not. I hope my careful analysis and that of the moderate muslims I talk to is incorrect, and that you are right - perhaps you are better placed than us to make such a judgement.

I have asked why you oppose the EDL, I don't think I've said you should support them (contrary to your last post). And what on earth are you talking about me assuming muslims are liars and want to outbreed us? (Some of them certainly aim to outbreed us but even most of them think that this is a pipedream.)

You are right I have not talked about why Salafism has become popular, other than through funding. This is the sort of thing that could be addressed when talking about a solution, but I am not discussing a solution at this time.

Again you talk about alien insects! I thought I had addressed this point! You yourself stated
Islamophobes imagine that the muslims think like this: "Must... Obey... Allah... Central Hive Mind... Must... Breed... Must Outbreed infidel... Obey... Obey... Obey... Allahu Akhbar... Breed... Breed... Kill Infidel... Rape 9-year old... Obey... Obey... Allah..." I then took part of your paragraph and used it thus

As for thinking "Must...Obey...Allah", you've just described any religious Muslim. Islam means Submission, they just differ on exactly what that means. For this I get an infraction and accused of suggesting a hive mind. My quoted part is taken from your post, the second sentence is simply fact, and I have explained why I believe it is accurate to make a distinction between a cultural and a religious muslim - muslims certainly use this categorisation themselves. Or are you suggesting that it is not right for me to suggest that religious people feel that they must obey their god?

You then get into comments on right-wing stuff which I really have no clue about. I was at the May Day protest near Center Point (7-10 years ago or something like that) I've voted Green and Labour, probably vote Conservative next election, I think veil bans are ridiculous - just because I mention EDL without being totally derogatory you think I'm a fascist and share the views of what you see as a typical EDL participant. Fact is I'm a rabid atheist who likes cooking and religion and forum whoring.

I would comment that if you think the dichotomy between the West and Islam is just some kind of political construction then you are deeply mistaken. Strip away any motives of any group's stance and you still have fundamental differences, some of which I have mentioned.


Have the muslims in Britain today ever oppressed the British people? How have they done so? By existing there?
Firstly this is almost a strawman, as I am only talking about extremists. Secondly, I fear the word oppression, for you, may be laden with more meaning than I am aware of (I don't know, that's just a hunch from browsing this forum). In answer, extremists have committed acts of terrorism and the threat is ongoing; and my suggestion (once again) is that if anyone looks at Salafi websites or listens to their preachers and sermons and nasheeds and literature and listens to what moderate muslims have to say about the matter when you really press them, then I wager you will come away thinking that the support of terrorism through the teachings of extreme Islam is significantly wide spread and getting bigger. On this matter I hope you are right and I am wrong.

[El Rojo]

hmmm, ive just come acroos this thread. looks interesant. im going out now but ill be looking forward to mucking in mas tarde.

mods, please don't ban this chap just coz he is asociated with the EDL. Bottom line is they are mostly proles, so id rather talk them round than fight them. And if we had no dialogue with our enemies, what kind of movement would we be? were not fanatics.

[Tread Softly]

Hi El Rojo. It's quite funny really, I've been told you're against extreme Islam, I state that I share this view, I ask the reasons for your opposition to EDL given that they have stated they are against extreme Islam, and I get slobbered on for it. They may use words of fewer syllables on far right websites but at least they read your posts and don't make self-affirming assumptions.

By the way, I hope you do not take my word for anything I have said about extreme Islam, I hope you go look for yourself I've given enough links to get people going. The dry academic encyclopedic version of extreme Islam is one thing, the observation of extreme Islam in action as it preaches and comments is something even more eye-watering.

Dimentio has already cut to the chase though. (1) will extreme Islam pose a political/takeover threat to the UK in the future? (2) is extreme Islam spreading in the UK? If there were definitive evidence of either, of course, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I think we are largely agreed that Sharia (certainly as seen by fundamentalist/extreme Muslims) is an abomination of darkness and evil (well it bloody well is), and that extreme Islam creates nurtures supports and protects terrorists (I haven't been challenged on that one).

[Tread Softly]

Just googled "proles", apologies for not being "up" on the glossory necessary to discuss politics at a higher level.

There might be an internet forum rule somewhere, that if you disagree with the forum denizen majority then you will be labelled as their antithesis.

I've been called pretty much everything now thanks for the laugh.

[Dimentio]

The IRA and the Real IRA has committed more acts on terror on British soil, but yet I somehow haven't seen the EDL call for "that something needs to be done about the catholics". Terrorism is of course something which must be condemned, but as little as you could start to discriminate all Irishmen or Catholics because of what a few nationalists are doing, you can discriminate all muslims because of what a few did in 2005.

Thing is, most muslims are unwilling to side with non-muslims in issues like salafism exactly of the same reason that most Irishmen in the early 20th century - even those who opposed very extreme groups - were reluctant to turn in the extremists to the police. Because they viewed the British police as their enemy and did not trust the intentions of the state or of the (in this case) British people.

Why should muslims have to make a public distance from other muslims, when all Irishmen don't need to make a public distance from the IRA? Why are only muslims somehow collectively responsible?

In Pakistan and Iraq, the Salafi organisations have made themselves universally hated because they attack schools, mosques, groups of civilians and so on. While most Sunni and Shi'ite groups in Iraq concentrated on attacking the coalition forces, the Wahhabis in for example the al-Qaeda-affiliated "Islamic State of Iraq" mostly attacked Shi'ites and later Sunnis, basically transforming the resistance war into a sectarian civil war.

[Tread Softly]

The IRA aren't blowing stuff up in the UK these days. And they do not have a mission statement that says "take over the UK and impose Sharia law". Whereas extreme Islam is, and does.

I agree with your second paragraph, but repeat my remark earlier in this thread that there is a religious ruling not to criticise another muslim and also a religious ruling to only accept Islam as a legislative body (roughly speaking). Furthermore extreme Muslim distrust is not for police but for all non-Muslims, which is one of many examples of the extreme Muslim lifestyle being incompatible with the West.

Also, repeating myself again, I do not discriminate against all Muslims. If you're talking about the EDL that is another matter: some of them do oppose Islam full stop, some of them do oppose Muslims full stop, but some of them do not, and I haven't made up my mind whether those who over-generalise about Muslims are just indicative of the open-door policy of the EDL forum and marches or whether these views point to a darker group agenda than the one publically stated. In all honesty at this time, taking into account everything you guys have said in this thread, I am leaning more to thinking that the immoderate views some of the EDL hold are just a result of their supporters being a mixed bag (although I am open to have my mind changed and my eyes opened, if closed).

I was unaware that Salafis were hated in Iraq, or even in Pakistan (although I keep close tabs on the Pakistan Army's campaign against the Pakistani Taliban), so thank you for that observation.

The argument you make in your third paragraph has been made to be my moderate Muslims. The difference is that the Irish blew things up for reasons of country, whilst extreme Muslims blew themselves up for reasons intrinsically linked with their religion. So people quite rightly turn around to their Muslim neighbours and ask them whether their religion does indeed condone such actions. For reasons given in previous posts answers to this question only came in unconvincing dribs and drabs. I wouldn't say all Muslims are "somehow collectively responsible", but if someone blows themselves up on behalf of an extended community and religion it is surely valid to ask that extended community and religion whether they support that action.

[Dimentio]

Extreme muslims blow themselves up for country. If the UK wasn't involved in wars of occupation in muslim countries, there would not be a fertile ground for radical clerics to implant destructive ideologies into the heads of youth from a cluster of minority groups which already felt encircled by the general society. They don't blow themselves or others up because they hate fish'n'chip, constitutional monarchy or Monty Python, but because they feel - for rational or irrational reasons - that the state is holding a grudge against them.

Moreover, I think a larger proportion of the Irish sympathised with the IRA than the British muslims in general sympathised with the subway bombers of 2005 (note also that few terror attacks have occurred since then - think one was planned back in 2007, but foiled).

I am in full agreement that it is hard to find any organisation which is more insane, irrational and counter-productive to its own stated goals than al-Qaeda. Even within "extreme islam", al-Qaeda and anti-western wahhabism is but a tiny drip, which most militant muslims actually oppose. The reason why other islamist groups, both moderates and radicals, are unwilling to openly condemn al-Qaeda for westerners, is the same reason why many communists dislike WTO riots but are unwilling to answer for the rioters to right-wingers and non-communists - because they aren't answerable to these actions in the first place and shouldn't need to somewhat justify their existence in front of people who may want to suppress their beliefs.

[SpineyNorman]

OK. I realise how sensitive you are, what with your superior western values and all that, so I am going to be really polite this time. Please, please can you answer these questions for a lowly member of the untermensch like me? I realise that it is below you. I am, after all, a lowly coal-miners' son.


Furthermore extreme Muslim distrust is not for police but for all non-Muslims, which is one of many examples of the extreme Muslim lifestyle being incompatible with the West.

Please define "the west" and explain why these views are incompatible with it, yet compatible with other parts of the world. (And no, the western hemisphere is not an answer, I want to know what the unique character traits are that make the two things incompatible).


Also, repeating myself again, I do not discriminate against all Muslims. If you're talking about the EDL that is another matter: some of them do oppose Islam full stop, some of them do oppose Muslims full stop, but some of them do not, and I haven't made up my mind whether those who over-generalise about Muslims are just indicative of the open-door policy of the EDL forum and marches or whether these views point to a darker group agenda than the one publically stated. In all honesty at this time, taking into account everything you guys have said in this thread, I am leaning more to thinking that the immoderate views some of the EDL hold are just a result of their supporters being a mixed bag (although I am open to have my mind changed and my eyes opened, if closed).

Have a look at the leadership. We have Paul Ray (AKA Lionheart, AKA Paul Cinato), a hardcore right wing christian zionist, who has attempted to infiltrate peaceful pro-Palestinian groups in order to trick them into being photographed with weapons so that he can smear them (and I won't even go into his weird Christian reconstructionist beliefs; cruisades and all sorts, just as dangerous as any Islamist). We have Chris Renton (AKA John Sheridan), a national organiser for the BNP. We have Alan Lake, a multi-millionaire businessman who was recorded speaking to the openly fascist Sweden Democrats about setting up anti-muslim streetgangs, using football hooligans as foot soldiers, in order to increase the tensions between muslims and non-muslims. There's Jeff Marsh, leader of the Welsh Defence league, who has been convicted of stabbings - his WDL, in their only mobilisation, burned an anti-nazi flag and chanted, in unison (ie. not a few entrists) "BNP, BNP, BNP!" Members photographed outside Marsh's house with him, holding the WDL banner, were later seen giving roman salutes. The forum moderators include "Wigan" Mike Heaton, leader of the amusing but openly Nazi BFF (well, he was a moderator until he was charged with racially motivated internet death threats and was bailed on the condition that he would not use the net). So, this is not a few trying to worm their way in from the edges - in fact I'd say the leadership is far more sinister than anyone in the rank and file. And I can give you links for all of this if you so wish - I have not yet made enough posts to be able to put them here. Most of the EDL membership turn up for a ruck; they're just hoolies who can't get away with it at the footie any more. It's the leadership that make them dangerous IMO, as they direct their aggression towards an already defensive, alienated minority.



The argument you make in your third paragraph has been made to be my moderate Muslims. The difference is that the Irish blew things up for reasons of country, whilst extreme Muslims blew themselves up for reasons intrinsically linked with their religion. So people quite rightly turn around to their Muslim neighbours and ask them whether their religion does indeed condone such actions. For reasons given in previous posts answers to this question only came in unconvincing dribs and drabs. I wouldn't say all Muslims are "somehow collectively responsible", but if someone blows themselves up on behalf of an extended community and religion it is surely valid to ask that extended community and religion whether they support that action.

Did all Muslims ASK them to blow themselves up on their behalf? I guess I missed that part. Yes, the IRA/INLA conducted bombing campaigns for political reasons, Catholicism was merely the group indicator. However, it is clear to anyone with any knowledge of history, or any capacity for social analysis, that Islamist suicide bombers blow themselves up for political reasons. That their political actions are expressed in terms of religion is irrelevant; many Irish Nationalists dressed up their rhetoric in religious language. Although you claim to be an atheist, your philosophical world view is clearly one of idealism; the religious ideas are the driving force in your mind. I, however, am a materialist - My view is that it is the material conditions an individual is subjected to shape his or her consciousness. Yes, there is some feedback in terms of the character of the actions this induces (hence the Islamic rhetoric) but the results are essentially the same.


Oh, and why do you assume that the term "prole" is used in a derogatory sense? I can't soeak for anyone else here but I, for one, am proud of my proletarian status. You'll know when you've pissed someone off; they'll call you middle class.

My criticism of the EDL has nothing to do with whether Islamism is a threat or not. My problem is three-fold. First, they detract attention from most important issues, directing it instead towards classic right wing scapegoats which opens up opportunites for the far right. Second, they provide a breeding ground for fascist ideas, allowing the horrible bastards at the top to disseminate their fascist ideology to working class people who would suffer greatly if the state turned fascist. Third, they further alienate ordinary Muslims, making them more open to the ideas the EDL claim to oppose.

Still waiting to find out whether you still approve of the EDL's stated aims, now that you know they include Ernst Rohm-esque left bashing. It is relevant as you have stated that you approve them.

[SpineyNorman]

Just to add, if you are even considering voting Tory then you are a right winger.

[Devrim]

The IRA and the Real IRA has committed more acts on terror on British soil, but yet I somehow haven't seen the EDL call for "that something needs to be done about the catholics". Terrorism is of course something which must be condemned, but as little as you could start to discriminate all Irishmen or Catholics because of what a few nationalists are doing, you can discriminate all muslims because of what a few did in 2005.

I haven't been able to keep up with everything on this thread, but I just wanted to comment on this point. The Irish 'troubles' have moved from centre stage now and the Irish are pretty much integrated in British life.

Historically though England football fans have always chanted 'No surrender' at football matches, and when I first lived in England there was a shocking amount of anti-Irish sentiment. I can remember seeing NBNI at the end of advertisements for accommodation in the newspapers.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Moderate Muslims point to some form of democracy in the Caliphate and thus say that some democracy would remain under Sharia.

You seem to have read a lot about Islam, but understood very little. What does the term 'moderate Muslims' even mean? What would people understand on here if I started to talk about 'moderate Christians'?

If 'moderate Muslims' are the same sort of people as the sort of 'Christians' that you meet in the West who say that they believe in God, but don't take it much further than that, then you are so far off the mark, it is unbelievable.

The sort of 'moderate Muslims' that I spend Friday afternoons drinking with in the pub after work, all vote for left-wing parties, complain about the Islamic governing party, and would be completely against any idea of a Caliphate.

I think that this is part of the problem with your whole approach. You start by seeing Muslims as 'other' when in reality they are just the same as most people you know except that they have slightly different superstitions about a Sky God.

Yes, of course there are Islamic fundamentalists, but then there are people like Ian Paisley too.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I am sure you already know that an integral part of Islam is its political dimension, and that Sharia is a form of government very different from our own which includes its own form of apartheid (google "jizya" for a taster).I very well know about Jizya, the idea that you have the right to lie to a non-muslim if you are saving muslim lives or advance the interests of the Ummah.

Dimentio, you are wrong here. جزْية‎ ,or Jizya means tax. The idea that you are referring to is تقية, or Taqiyya.

Jizya refers to the practice of taxing non-Muslims generally at a different rate than Muslims , used for example in the Ottoman Empire. It exempted people from the normal tax imposed on Muslims, and freed them from the obligation of military service.

I think that really it should be looked at in its historic context, especially considering that it is not practised anywhere today.

Yes, it is divisive and can be called a form of 'apartheid'. Obviously the Muslims of the time had a lot to learn about human rights, and should have taken up the Christian world's answer to the same situation as practised in, let's say Spain. Massacre, forcible conversion, and the expulsion of up to 800,000 people seems a much more civilised way of dealing with these things.

What an evil, vicious intolerant religious fanatic the Ottoman Sultan must have been to take in those 90,000 Jews who came to the Ottoman Empire, not because they were suffering and being massacred in their homeland, but purely then he could enforce 'apartheid taxes' on them.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I could also point out to you videos of a few individual Muslims and a number of forum posts where shouts of "we will take your daughters and wives as war booty" are made.

Undoubtedly, there are a few fanatics. There are in every religion. I could point you to the President a large Christian country, which co-incidentally has the largest arms budget in the world, who comes out with things like this:


God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did
...
This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while.

I think really that you can rest easy in your bed at night without worrying that a few isolated religious extremists aren't going to take your wife and daughters as war booty.

I wish people in the Middle East could say the same. Unfortunately, in a country neighbouring to ours there are over a million people who certainly won't sleep safely in their beds tonight because they are dead, killed in that man's crusade. Many others of course don't sleep easily.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Like you, I am also unconvinced that a Sharia takeover is a distinct possibility, however, I would not dismiss a person who believes it may be a problem for future generations. I have yet to make up my mind about this. But in theory if Muslims do reach an effective majority and Salafism continues to spread then it would become a probability. If you do not believe this then I would say you are not thinking about this issue with as much knowledge as you should have.


At present the 1,591,000 Muslims in the UK make up 2.8% of the population. This means they are massivly outnumbered by people claiming that they are Jedi Knights by religion. Wahhabism is a very small current within this despite Saudi spending, and I would imagine that it amounts to less than 1% of the 1,591,000 people. On the other hand in the last UK census, 390,000 identified themselves as Jedi Knights by religion. Basically then, you have more chance of being overrun by Han Solo and Luke Skywalker than Wahhabis.

Muslims are not going to become a majority in the UK. Wahhabism is not going to become the majority with in UK Islam. However, I think that Chewbacca is a very dangerous threat that you should be careful about.

Devrim

[Dimentio]

Dimentio, you are wrong here. جزْية‎ ,or Jizya means tax. The idea that you are referring to is تقية, or Taqiyya.

Jizya refers to the practice of taxing non-Muslims generally at a different rate than Muslims , used for example in the Ottoman Empire. It exempted people from the normal tax imposed on Muslims, and freed them from the obligation of military service.

I think that really it should be looked at in its historic context, especially considering that it is not practised anywhere today.

Yes, it is divisive and can be called a form of 'apartheid'. Obviously the Muslims of the time had a lot to learn about human rights, and should have taken up the Christian world's answer to the same situation as practised in, let's say Spain. Massacre, forcible conversion, and the expulsion of up to 800,000 people seems a much more civilised way of dealing with these things.

What an evil, vicious intolerant religious fanatic the Ottoman Sultan must have been to take in those 90,000 Jews who came to the Ottoman Empire, not because they were suffering and being massacred in their homeland, but purely then he could enforce 'apartheid taxes' on them.

Devrim

I'm sorry for my mix-up. And, yes... its true beyond all doubt that Islam during the middle ages was a lot - a lot - more tolerant than medieval christianity. If one knows about Abbasid, about Fatimid and Grenada, it is absolutely perplexing that Islam did not begin the industrial revolution.

[black magick hustla]

You seem to have read a lot about Islam, but understood very little. What does the term 'moderate Muslims' even mean? What would people understand on here if I started to talk about 'moderate Christians'?

If 'moderate Muslims' are the same sort of people as the sort of 'Christians' that you meet in the West who say that they believe in God, but don't take it much further than that, then you are so far off the mark, it is unbelievable.

The sort of 'moderate Muslims' that I spend Friday afternoons drinking with in the pub after work, all vote for left-wing parties, complain about the Islamic governing party, and would be completely against any idea of a Caliphate.

I think that this is part of the problem with your whole approach. You start by seeing Muslims as 'other' when in reality they are just the same as most people you know except that they have slightly different superstitions about a Sky God.

Yes, of course there are Islamic fundamentalists, but then there are people like Ian Paisley too.

Devrim

To be honest, I don't think muslims are "equally" moderate than christians. It depends from region. I think its very different to speak about turkish muslims than, lets say, egyptian or argelian muslims. One cousin told me I was going to burn in hell. The other one told me Algeria is no place for christians (Even if I am not a christian ...). One of my cousins is a militant of some crazy religious organization. My dad's brothers etcetera were not religious at all. They are all, at most, secular patriots.

The demise of the secular left (and how more fucked up everything has become) has brought a massive decomposition in people's minds.

[Devrim]

The other one told me Algeria is no place for christians

Right because nobody in 'Christian countries' would ever say that about Muslims.


To be honest, I don't think muslims are "equally" moderate than christians. It depends from region.

I might even take a little bit of a Marxist line on this and say it is more than a little connected to class.;)


I think its very different to speak about turkish muslims than, lets say, egyptian or argelian muslims.

Yes, you are right about Turkey in general, but then differences exist within Turkey. In general the cities tend to be more 'secular' than the countryside. Turkey is possible the most unislamic Muslim country. It is also one of the most industrialised ones.

The peasantry has a tendency to be religious and superstitious. Let's compare like with like. We can compare Muslims in Manchester or İzmir with Christians in Manchester or other industrial cities. If we are going to compare Muslims in from peasant backgrounds wouldn't it be fairer to talk about those loons in the Philippines I saw nailing each other to crosses on TV the other day?

Of course their are parts of it connected to 'national culture' too. I find the US much more 'in your face' Christian than the UK for example.


The demise of the secular left (and how more fucked up everything has become) has brought a massive decomposition in people's minds.

This is very true, particularly in the 'Muslim world' since the defeat of the secular left at the end of the 1970's beginning of the 80s.

It applies to 'Christian countries' too though. The UK has becomes more religious as well. If you had told me back in the 1970s when I used to stand on the terraces at Old Trafford in Manchester every week that thirty odd years down the line you would have gangs of football supporters on the street of the UK England defending their 'Christian heritage'. I would have laughed at you.

Devrim

[<Insert Username Here>]

Crush all fundamentalists and cults which would interfere with Socialism. Extreme christians and muslims alike. Religion must become an entirely private matter, like sexuality. Keep your sex in the bedroom and your religion in your temple or church.

[black magick hustla]

Right because nobody in 'Christian countries' would ever say that about Muslims.


That is true. I can think of a few americans that would say that.



I might even take a little bit of a Marxist line on this and say it is more than a little connected to class.;)
This is true





The peasantry has a tendency to be religious and superstitious. Let's compare like with like. We can compare Muslims in Manchester or İzmir with Christians in Manchester or other industrial cities. If we are going to compare Muslims in from peasant backgrounds wouldn't it be fairer to talk about those loons in the Philippines I saw nailing each other to crosses on TV the other day?I don't think christian militancy is as frequent as muslim one is though. I have lived in Mexico for a big chunk of my life, one of the most conservative countries in Latin America. I never heard in the news of Christian militant groups today. There are a few I can think of but they are so irrelevant that I did not hear of them in the news. Don't misenterpret me, a lot of people are really backward and I've heard of some instances of gay people beaten to death. But there was never a sort of religious-political line.

Its something my dad and uncles talk a lot about, actually. the rise of religious militancy in their children. I remember being in Algeria a long time ago and my uncle was so disgruntled at the fact that one of his daughters was so religious that he would always request her in purpose to bring his booze. (I think he has a bit of a problem with alcohol). I dont get that vibe from mexico.



Of course their are parts of it connected to 'national culture' too. I find the US much more 'in your face' Christian than the UK for example.
Yes, the US is very pious. To add to the discussion, there was in the news this christian apocalyptic milita that planned to start an insurrection against the state by killing a cop.




This is very true, particularly in the 'Muslim world' since the defeat of the secular left at the end of the 1970's beginning of the 80s.

It applies to 'Christian countries' too though. The UK has becomes more religious as well. If you had told me back in the 1970s when I used to stand on the terraces at Old Trafford in Manchester every week that thirty odd years down the line you would have gangs of football supporters on the street of the UK England defending their 'Christian heritage'. I would have laughed at you.This is true but I think in general, it has hit harder people in the Middle East. Maybe it has nothing to do with religion and more with geographic consequence though.

Devrim[/QUOTE]

[Tread Softly]

Interesting that Dimentio and Spiney say that terrorists want to blow themselves up for country, or political reasons, and (Spiney) that their political actions are expressed in religious terms is irrelevant. The term "country" may have to be widened to "ummah" here. In any case, this idea just doesn't seem plausible to me, as their religious character and teachings appear to me to be an integral part of their suicide: "bypass the fires of hell (in which many if not most muslims will burn), kill the unbelievers who dare to desecrate islam, end your miserable meaningless existence in this life, and obtain a place in paradise closest to allah".

Dimentio you say moderates are unwilling to condemn extremists because they aren't answerable to these actions in the first place. I shall give the standard response here, that these actions are being done in the name of Muslims everywhere and in the name of their religion and done with the word allah on their lips. Their supporters also support their explosive actions using evidence from the koran and haddith. If something is done in the name of a group then non-members of that group are surely allowed to ask whether what was done really was in their name or whether what was done was a perversion. And it is also fair for non-members of that group to examine closely all aspects of the group (teachings/scripture) rather than just rely on any made-for-public response.

Spiney, EDL's leadership will be a relevant factor when I come to make a final judgement about them but we shall have to disagree on how important that is relative to their stated goal. If a pondlife scum dives into a burning building to pull someone out I'm not going to dismiss their actions; if they say they are going to campaign against nazis I'm not going to dismiss their stated goals. I would rather agree with their stated goal and then enter into a dialogue about the rest of it: this is what I would have thought you guys might do, for example, rather than dismiss the EDL in its entirety with such vehemence.

Spiney, by the way, I just did a political spectrum test and I come out as very liberal (as opposed to authoritarian) and dead-centre on the economic line, whatever the hell all that means. The extreme Muslim lifestyle is centered around the Koran and Sunnah and in particular their lifestyle-guidelines the principles of Sharia: I do not think it is my job to tell you why this is incompatible with Western culture, or pretty much any non-Muslim culture, you'll have to research this yourself. Suffice to say Islam has not had a Reformation or Enlightenment (there is no individual interpretation or inspiration allowed) and their ideal culture is pretty much the same as that found in the 7th Century. If you think 7th Century culture and modern culture is compatible then I really can't help. Be under no illusion the Sharia is a thing of utter horror. Go on a Muslim forum and ask them sincere questions and they will answer you if you want to learn about it.

Insert said "Religion must become an entirely private matter, like sexuality". I agree almost completely! I say 'almost' because if someone was getting off on porno cartoons of naked children I would still want to put them on the naughty step.

[Tread Softly]

Devrim, thank you for backing me up on my definition of jizya. Turkey is very much in the news in the Islamophobe world at the moment, with the topic being the combination of potential EU entry and relaxed visa restrictions with other (Muslim) countries.

You say I have read a lot but understood very little, which is funny because Muslims have several times told me that I have developed a better understanding of Islam than most (sic) Muslims. Yes I was perhaps being lazy in my use of the word "moderate", but I didn't want to dilute my more important points. By moderate I mean non-extremist, those Muslims like those you know who are happy to have members of the opposite sex for friends, happy to have non-Muslims as friends, who do not want to impose Sharia on the country their parents or grandparents moved to (or in the once slightly-more-secular Turkey!), who are happy to go to the pub to have a (non-alcoholic I presume) drink with their non-muslim mates, or even those who consider themselves fundamentalists but who seek to live peacefully side-by-side non-Muslims. Not a comprehensive list of course - I'm not pretending to have a concise description of either extremist or non-extremist. Or perhaps it is to do with a secular viewpoint - something which Maldoror reminded me of. Is there anything else you think shows that I do not understand Islam? Please let me know.

I disagree that the religious extremists are isolated. I believe that if you were to conduct a questionnaire of Muslims in the UK the prevalent view would be "well you shouldn't have invaded afghanistan and iraq". I get this all the time from Muslims. It doesn't matter what point you're discussing, the answer is always "but you occupied iraq and afghanistan and blow up palestinian children". I have seen no evidence of isolation, but I have seen evidence of a fight back by moderates.

I agree that Bush is a nutter and I could say a lot of other horrible things about the US. But we're discussing fundamentalist Islam here.

I've never seen a convincing argument that Muslims could ever outbreed non-Muslims in the UK. But they do hold the majority in some areas of the UK and the nature of that area changes. And it would be very easy, even for me, to purchase a Pakistani passport. I have interviewed a muslimah in the UK who was brought over here when she was 12 to marry, had her first child at 13, and her passport says she is 19. We'd have to factor in immigration.

What are your thoughts on the Muslim culture (predominantly Pakistani/Bangladesh rather than Arab) in the UK changing the nature of areas in the UK, creating segregated areas, creating Sharia courts which muslimahs have to use? Is this just tough luck, or an unfortunate consequence of misguided immigration policies, or actually the fault of the original inhabitants, or something to be celebrated, or what? Should cultures that are new to a country be wholly embraced or should they be moderated? I know nothing about "the left" so don't know your stance on this. My own view is that new ingredients add to the flavour of the cultural soup, but that some ingredients should be added slowly with much stirring, and perhaps there are some ingredients which just shouldn't be added at all.

[Devrim]

You say I have read a lot but understood very little, which is funny because Muslims have several times told me that I have developed a better understanding of Islam than most (sic) Muslims.

Yes, that is sort of what I meant. You have this idea that Muslims are people who are really very Islamic. Most Muslims I know wouldn't know half of the things that you know about different Islamic groups and ideas, but...but it is not what all Muslims are. Most Muslims that I know don't really know why we have the religious festivals. It is a bit like the last time I went to England, and I was explaining to a young English kid, the connection between Jesus, and Christmas, and it was all new to him. The last time I had a long chat about religion with people including one who was a serious believer, we were talking about the concept of 'people of the book'. They were under the impression that there were four books, funnily enough non of them could name the fourth.

You view is sort of like talking to a Catholic priest, and then thinking you know how lay Catholics live..


those Muslims like those you know... who are happy to go to the pub to have a (non-alcoholic I presume) drink with their non-muslim mates

Well no. I think that this reflects on the same thing. Every Muslim I know, except the Imam I used to live next door to, drinks alcohol. Now of course there are many Muslims who don't in this country, but beer is the most popular drink here, and actually has its highest sales in the most Islamic city in the country, Konya. To me you have some very strange ideas about what Muslims are like.

Also if you ever get the chance to go there, nobody in the world drinks like the Iranians. To indulge in national stereotypes for a moment, they make the Russians, and the Irish look like light weights. Whenever I have been there I have always ended up really drunk. I suppose that is not the sort of image of Iran that you had in mind.


I disagree that the religious extremists are isolated. I believe that if you were to conduct a questionnaire of Muslims in the UK the prevalent view would be "well you shouldn't have invaded afghanistan and iraq". I get this all the time from Muslims. It doesn't matter what point you're discussing, the answer is always "but you occupied iraq and afghanistan and blow up palestinian children". I have seen no evidence of isolation, but I have seen evidence of a fight back by moderates.

I wouldn't phrase it like that. I don't think that you did occupy Iraq, and Afghanistan and blow up Palestinian children', but I could say something very similar. The western countries shouldn't be surprised that their actions in the Middle East have resulted in Islamic terrorism at home. I don't support Islamic terrorism. Nor am I actually a Muslim. I come from a Catholic background, and I am not religious at all. I don't think that you needed to be much of a political analyst to have seen that one coming though. A revulsion at the activities of the West in the Middle East does not make one an Islamic fundamentalist, however, much the US and UK governments seem to be working as hard as they can to create them.


I've never seen a convincing argument that Muslims could ever outbreed non-Muslims in the UK. But they do hold the majority in some areas of the UK and the nature of that area changes.

The only borough in the UK that is majority non-white is Tower Hamlets. I doubt Muslims are in the majority even there though. I think this is the result of scaremongering rather than an analysis of the facts.


What are your thoughts on the Muslim culture (predominantly Pakistani/Bangladesh rather than Arab) in the UK changing the nature of areas in the UK,

I will come back to this one later as I have to go out soon.

Devrim

[SpineyNorman]

Spiney, EDL's leadership will be a relevant factor when I come to make a final judgement about them but we shall have to disagree on how important that is relative to their stated goal. If a pondlife scum dives into a burning building to pull someone out I'm not going to dismiss their actions; if they say they are going to campaign against nazis I'm not going to dismiss their stated goals. I would rather agree with their stated goal and then enter into a dialogue about the rest of it: this is what I would have thought you guys might do, for example, rather than dismiss the EDL in its entirety with such vehemence.

The EDL is rotten to the core. You think we haven't bothered to submit them to serious analysis? Sod off. When they first emerged from the sewer, I actually defended them, convinced that they were genuinely frightened by what they had been fed via the Murdoch ministry of truth. Given that they hate us at least as much as Muslims, why do you think they would listen to us? And yes, I have tried. As my gran used to say, if you sleep with dogs, you're gonna get fleas.


Spiney, by the way, I just did a political spectrum test and I come out as very liberal (as opposed to authoritarian) and dead-centre on the economic line, whatever the hell all that means.

Well, that puts you to the left of Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems. Off the top of my head, the parliamentary party closest to your views would be the Greens. How can you justify voting for the old Etonian arse Cameron? Must be a fair bit of dissonance going on there. And you say religious people are irrational. By mother is a practicing Catholic and her politics are entirely consitant.


The extreme Muslim lifestyle is centered around the Koran and Sunnah and in particular their lifestyle-guidelines the principles of Sharia: I do not think it is my job to tell you why this is incompatible with Western culture, or pretty much any non-Muslim culture, you'll have to research this yourself.

Well, first you'd have to explain what Western culture is. The culture followed by the Aristocracy and right wing Christian Daily Mail types? American greed is good, quasi-objectivist cultrue? Football hooligan culture? Because my culture is not compatible with any of those either. (Intentionally so).


Suffice to say Islam has not had a Reformation or Enlightenment (there is no individual interpretation or inspiration allowed) and their ideal culture is pretty much the same as that found in the 7th Century. If you think 7th Century culture and modern culture is compatible then I really can't help. Be under no illusion the Sharia is a thing of utter horror. Go on a Muslim forum and ask them sincere questions and they will answer you if you want to learn about it.

I have learned about it. When I was in my early twenties I was just like you - thought that if we could only get rid of religion then everyone would live in peace and we would all act rationally. It's a load of bollocks though. As a hairy Jewish feller once said:
"Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo." So should we add to the conditions that produce this feeling, as the EDL do, or should we
work to addres these conditions? I can list many barbaric "Western" (still not sure exactly what that means) practices that also belong in the dustbin of history. Does that mean we should support anti-West hooligan gangs?



I say 'almost' because if someone was getting off on porno cartoons of naked children I would still want to put them on the naughty step.

You are very strange.

[SpineyNorman]

Spiney, EDL's leadership will be a relevant factor when I come to make a final judgement about them but we shall have to disagree on how important that is relative to their stated goal.

Just coming back to this, now that you know that their stated goals now include the suppression of the left and trade unions, do you still support them? I am STILL waiting for a proper answer to this question.

[Tread Softly]

Just coming back to this, now that you know that their stated goals now include the suppression of the left and trade unions, do you still support them? I am STILL waiting for a proper answer to this question.

My apologies I cannot answer this question as I have insufficient knowledge about the left or trade unions. I am simultaneously studying Sikhism, Shi'a Islam, electrical wiring and modern day China at the moment and I really can't fill my time, let alone my brain, with any other subject at this time. I also didn't know that they want to suppress those things, although some members do moan about them, but that's not the same.

[Tread Softly]

Spiney said "When I was in my early twenties I was just like you - thought that if we could only get rid of religion then everyone would live in peace and we would all act rationally." You are arrogant and presumptious. These two traits may not necessarily make one incorrect, but in this thread your presumptions fail dismally.

Do you know anything about Islam? Do you think the arguments that apply to Christianity apply to Islam? They do not, they are not comparable. Islam is not just a religion, it is a way of life. Islam is not just spiritual, it is practical. And it is not open to debate for the believers (arguments, when they occur, are about the strength of the evidence in koran and sunnah, about abrogation, not about the interpretation of the message): even the Imams seem to tend to agree to disagree on points of fiqh rather than directly debate with each other. It comes back to the "moderate" description - the fact is you have Muslims who are "good", who follow the Koran and Sunnah relatively closely, and Muslims who are just cultural or "bad" (eg. go to mosque and pray once per week rather than 5 times per day, have had passages from the koran read to them in arabic but have never read it themselves in a language they understand), who don't care or know about what their scriptures say. I am not saying there is a hive mind, but without an Enlightenment or Reformation there is no room for individual interpretation or expression or inspiration: it is valid for two people to be Christian, believe in a few core points, then disagree on most other things: the same is not the case with Muslims - although they have core beliefs and sects (that differ almost entirely on the differences of fiqh which is considered of minor consequence) they are either "good" or "bad" (as described above). And this is not a pick-n-mix religion, you have to accept the whole shebang, not just the nice bits but the dark bits too (and fuck me their scriptures are full of hate and fear and death - read the koran yourself if you think I'm exaggerating - it doesn't take long half of it is a repeated phrase about hellfire).

Islam is not just a religion it is an ideology, integral to the spiritual and ritual aspects you have the political and behavioural dimension. "Freedom of religion" needs a special category for Islam as only certain aspects of Islam fall under what most people understand as religion (in fact I would tentatively suggest that Islam is incapable of being restricted to a private individual matter). The political dimension tells a Muslim how to lead their life based on their perfect individual Muhammed, and describes the principles by which the ideal political system should be practiced. Sharia is perfect, and terrible, if it fails the only reason will be because it is implemented by imperfect men. Have you seen beheading videos? Amputation videos? Stoning videos? These are part of the perfect system. And they don't just apply under hadd, they can occur in tazir cases too at the discretion of the judge. As a side point, culture can get in the way here - the news is full of stories of girls being flogged after being raped as they committed zina - these are cultural practices not actually backed by Sharia, although some dispute it. Men are superior to women. Women lack choice, must not refuse sex with her husband, can not stop her husband telling her she should not leave the house, or stop her husband taking a slave girl, or stop her husband taking 3 more wives (the husband doesn't even need to tell his wife he is getting married again). A man of any age can marry a girl of any age and consummate that marriage as soon as the girl starts to menstruate. Under a Sharia state (but not under a non-Sharia state) apostates (those who were once muslim becoming a non-muslim) should be put to death (the moderates say only if they make a fuss about it). Muslim men and women may not be friends. Men and women (non-mahram) may not be alone together as shaitan will always be the third person present. Under Sharia there will be no music except for nasheeds, perhaps with drums. Al wara wal bara - love what allah loves and hate what allah hates - a Muslim must hate the sin hate the sinner, he must hate non-Muslims and certainly not take them as friends. Democracy, the separation of religion and state, all of that would go. I could go on and on. And my point is that these things are not up for debate (except minor points of circumstances when they apply) - these are just absolute facts about Islam. So you have "good" Muslims who know these things, and "bad" Muslims who do not know these things, or shy away from them as they are so difficult to reconcile with both modern life and, in my opinion, normal human conscience. You cannot be a Muslim and say that those things do not apply to you. These are the type of things which make Islam different.

I'm moving away from extremism to some extent here to describing general features of Islam, but it is important to see the base from which extremism rises and why Islam cannot be defended or critised from the viewpoint that it is "just" a religion in the normally understood meaning of that word.

The best way to learn about Islam, by the way, in my opinion, is dialogue with Muslims. This is why I recommend forums as a place to learn as well as the koran and haddith. A dialogue, especially when centered around current world events or topics of concern to muslims, keeps things fresh and vibrant and easy to keep the brain oiled.

[Tread Softly]

Oh, forgot to mention that gays will be killed under Sharia.

What the things I have described in my last post mean is that it is all very well saying Muslims are not Islam is not Muslims, but if a Muslim does not follow the example of Muhammed and does not live their life by Sharia, and hold as their perfect world what I have described above, that is, if they are the sort of Muslim some of us may want to see, then they are actually "bad" Muslims (as described above).

I would suggest that Islam needs a Reformation, an Enlightenment, it needs a severing of the cord between imams and individual, between the literal interpretation of their scriptures and their religious practice. Otherwise, unless there only exist "bad" Muslims, there will always be an incompatibility and therefore friction, between those who follow Islam and those individuals and states who do not. It was no large feat to come up with this suggestion, as it is simply the inverse of what fundamentalists (some of which are extremists) are saying, that non-Sharia states and lifestyles are incompatible with Islam and therefore should be seen as incompatible to Muslims who follow the Koran and Sunnah.

[Devrim]

and they think that the age of consent for sex should be lowered to 9.

This I presume refers to Mohammed's marriage to Aisha bint Abu Bakr. It is something that we hear a lot about nowadays. I think that part of the reason that it is raised is that people know it is deeply offensive to Muslims to call their prophet a paedophile.

It completely ignores the historical context, in which marriages to children were extremely common amongst the ruling class for political reasons.

Richard II of England for example married Isabella of Valois when she was at the ripe age of six and he was 29(this by the way was hundreds of years later, and of course is not the only example of this sort of behaviour amongst English royalty.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Isabela_richard2.jpg/220px-Isabela_richard2.jpg

(Richard and Isabella on their wedding day)

Yet we never hear him called 'Richard the Peodo' or anything like that:

The same ideas continue to come up:


The political dimension tells a Muslim how to lead their life...A man of any age can marry a girl of any age and consummate that marriage as soon as the girl starts to menstruate.

Where does this apply? Whilst not claiming that under age marriage never happens, most Islamic countries, the exceptions being Saudi and Brueni, have laws limiting the marriageable age to at least 15, but more often older.

If you compare this country to the UK, here you can get married at 18, 17 with parental permission, and 16 with special circumstances with court approval (basically given when a young girl has got pregnant). That is actually higher than England where you can marry at 16 with parental consent, or Scotland where you can marry at 16.

Of course there are cases of under-age marriage like this:


Prosecutions in Texas

On November 5, 2009, a Schleicher County, Texas jury found Raymond Merril Jessop (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raymond_Merril_Jessop&action=edit&redlink=1), 38, guilty of sexual assault of a child. According to evidence admitted at trial, Raymond Merril Jessop sexually assaulted a 16 year old girl to whom he had been "spiritually married" when the girl was 15 years old.[49] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Da y_Saints#cite_note-guilty-48) The same jury sentenced Raymond Jessop to 10 years in prison and assessed a fine of $8,000.00.[50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Da y_Saints#cite_note-convicted-49)
On December 18, 2009, a Schleicher County, Texas jury found Allan Keate guilty of sexual assault of a child. He was sentenced to 33 years in prison. Allan Keate fathered a child with a 15-year old girl.[51] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Da y_Saints#cite_note-50) According to documents admitted at trial, Keate had also given three of his own daughters away in “spiritual” or “celestial” marriage, two of them at 15 and one at 14, to older men. The youngest of the three went to Warren Jeffs.[52] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Da y_Saints#cite_note-51)
On January 22, 2010, Michael George Emack pled no contest to sexual assault charges and was sentenced to seven years in prison. He married a 16-year-old girl at YFZ Ranch on August 5, 2004. She gave birth to a son less than a year later.[53] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Da y_Saints#cite_note-52)
On March 17, 2010, a Tom Green County, Texas jury found Merril Leroy Jessop (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merril_Leroy_Jessop&action=edit&redlink=1) guilty of sexual assault of a child after deliberating only one hour.[49] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Da y_Saints#cite_note-guilty-48) Evidence admitted at the criminal trial proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Merril Leroy Jessop, 35, sexually assaulted a 15 year old girl while living at the FLDS Ranch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YFZ_Ranch) in Schleicher County, Texas.[49] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Da y_Saints#cite_note-guilty-48) The jury sentenced Jessop to 75 years in prison and assessed a $10,000.00 fine.[54] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Da y_Saints#cite_note-leroy-53)


Oh my mistake, the people in this instance are Christians.

Devrim

[Tread Softly]

Hi Devrim, I have no belief at all that all or even most Muslims are Islamic. I see what you're saying of course. But note that I am talking about Islam, about Islamic extremists, and not tarring all non-extremist (or even extremist) Muslims with the same brush. I'm not talking much about non-extremist Muslim lifestyles and can't see that I've done so, although I point to a few problems in my above posts.

As for Iranians and Turkish Muslims I had no idea about the alcohol consumption there so thank you for pointing that out. In the UK I have only come across 2 Muslims who drink alcohol. I've come across loads that smoke marijuana though so I know many do not avoid all intoxicants. Again though, this thread is about the significant number of fundamentalists.
================
Here's a recent example of that argument strategy about occupation, by the way, in a discussion with Muslims about the recent wikileak:

Me "I think the intent of the apache pilots was genuine, in that I think they believed they were working within the rules of engagement applying at that time. But people who are given awesome tools of war like the apache should have better judgement to perceive situations correctly....But maybe we don't have all the facts here."

Muslim1 "What facts are you talking about treadsoftly ? The most glaring fact is the Invasion of Iraq based on lies resulting in mass killings of Iraqis by those white crusader pigs ."

I've noticed that many Muslims, even moderate ones, feel that the West's actions in Muslim countries justifies all acts of hatred and violence by them where-ever. They are united in their concept of ummah when it comes to their hatred and violence and condemnation in response to these foreign interventions, but in the same breath complain when they are asked for a response to these acts. They want to be able to be free to cheer on the Taliban whilst not wanting to be judged in the same manner. They want to describe dead British soldiers as stepping stones on the way to Islamic success but then say "why should I need to justify these extremists you don't see me asking a catholic to justify fiddling with little boys".
===============

The change of an area when Muslims become a majority is not scaremongering, it is a reality, and the kind of dismissive tone that some people take on this issue is an insult to people who have had their homes and neighbourhoods changed dramatically. Take a walk through Leicester, or Bradford, or parts of Birmingham next time you're over here. A sudden and massive influx of immigrants, combined with a reluctance to integrate, means that the Pakistani (for instance) culture just gets lifted up from Pakistan and dumped wholesale into the UK. The culture of materialism is strong though and you will often get fundamentalist Muslims lamenting the sinking of their ummah into dunya (a great first step then in my opinion). I look forward to your post commenting on culture.

[Tread Softly]

Devrim; as I'm sure I've said before it is one thing to take menstruation as an age when you can have penetrative sex with a girl in a historical context, quite another to state that it should apply in our current age under a perfect government.

Fundamentalists say that Sharia is not applied correctly under any current State, the closest that got there was Afghanistan under the Taliban. They of course blame this on the leaders of those Muslim countries whose perversions hold them under the unfluence of the filthy oil-loving kuffars. No-one is saying you can look at any state to see the full glory of Sharia.

I don't see what your example of Christian loonies has to do with a divine law which all Muslims, if "good"/pious, should obey and hold as sacred and incontrovertible truth. The various points I have made about Sharia above are to Muslims what forgiveness is to Christians. That some Muslims avoid or are ignorant of them is beside the point.

[SpineyNorman]

My apologies I cannot answer this question as I have insufficient knowledge about the left or trade unions. I am simultaneously studying Sikhism, Shi'a Islam, electrical wiring and modern day China at the moment and I really can't fill my time, let alone my brain, with any other subject at this time. I also didn't know that they want to suppress those things, although some members do moan about them, but that's not the same.

Have a look at this: www.englishdefenceleague.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=181:labour-partys-affiliation-to-union-criminality&catid=42:feature-stories

So you're saying that you could be persuaded that it is OK for them to attempt to crush political opponents? (We can, after all, ignore the "I'm not racist but... style disclaimer at the beginning) I am sure people here could answer any questions you may have about the left and trade unions.

[SpineyNorman]

Spiney said "When I was in my early twenties I was just like you - thought that if we could only get rid of religion then everyone would live in peace and we would all act rationally." You are arrogant and presumptious. These two traits may not necessarily make one incorrect, but in this thread your presumptions fail dismally.

Do you know anything about Islam? Do you think the arguments that apply to Christianity apply to Islam? They do not, they are not comparable. Islam is not just a religion, it is a way of life. Islam is not just spiritual, it is practical. And it is not open to debate for the believers (arguments, when they occur, are about the strength of the evidence in koran and sunnah, about abrogation, not about the interpretation of the message): even the Imams seem to tend to agree to disagree on points of fiqh rather than directly debate with each other. It comes back to the "moderate" description - the fact is you have Muslims who are "good", who follow the Koran and Sunnah relatively closely, and Muslims who are just cultural or "bad" (eg. go to mosque and pray once per week rather than 5 times per day, have had passages from the koran read to them in arabic but have never read it themselves in a language they understand), who don't care or know about what their scriptures say. I am not saying there is a hive mind, but without an Enlightenment or Reformation there is no room for individual interpretation or expression or inspiration: it is valid for two people to be Christian, believe in a few core points, then disagree on most other things: the same is not the case with Muslims - although they have core beliefs and sects (that differ almost entirely on the differences of fiqh which is considered of minor consequence) they are either "good" or "bad" (as described above). And this is not a pick-n-mix religion, you have to accept the whole shebang, not just the nice bits but the dark bits too (and fuck me their scriptures are full of hate and fear and death - read the koran yourself if you think I'm exaggerating - it doesn't take long half of it is a repeated phrase about hellfire).

Islam is not just a religion it is an ideology, integral to the spiritual and ritual aspects you have the political and behavioural dimension. "Freedom of religion" needs a special category for Islam as only certain aspects of Islam fall under what most people understand as religion (in fact I would tentatively suggest that Islam is incapable of being restricted to a private individual matter). The political dimension tells a Muslim how to lead their life based on their perfect individual Muhammed, and describes the principles by which the ideal political system should be practiced. Sharia is perfect, and terrible, if it fails the only reason will be because it is implemented by imperfect men. Have you seen beheading videos? Amputation videos? Stoning videos? These are part of the perfect system. And they don't just apply under hadd, they can occur in tazir cases too at the discretion of the judge. As a side point, culture can get in the way here - the news is full of stories of girls being flogged after being raped as they committed zina - these are cultural practices not actually backed by Sharia, although some dispute it. Men are superior to women. Women lack choice, must not refuse sex with her husband, can not stop her husband telling her she should not leave the house, or stop her husband taking a slave girl, or stop her husband taking 3 more wives (the husband doesn't even need to tell his wife he is getting married again). A man of any age can marry a girl of any age and consummate that marriage as soon as the girl starts to menstruate. Under a Sharia state (but not under a non-Sharia state) apostates (those who were once muslim becoming a non-muslim) should be put to death (the moderates say only if they make a fuss about it). Muslim men and women may not be friends. Men and women (non-mahram) may not be alone together as shaitan will always be the third person present. Under Sharia there will be no music except for nasheeds, perhaps with drums. Al wara wal bara - love what allah loves and hate what allah hates - a Muslim must hate the sin hate the sinner, he must hate non-Muslims and certainly not take them as friends. Democracy, the separation of religion and state, all of that would go. I could go on and on. And my point is that these things are not up for debate (except minor points of circumstances when they apply) - these are just absolute facts about Islam. So you have "good" Muslims who know these things, and "bad" Muslims who do not know these things, or shy away from them as they are so difficult to reconcile with both modern life and, in my opinion, normal human conscience. You cannot be a Muslim and say that those things do not apply to you. These are the type of things which make Islam different.

I'm moving away from extremism to some extent here to describing general features of Islam, but it is important to see the base from which extremism rises and why Islam cannot be defended or critised from the viewpoint that it is "just" a religion in the normally understood meaning of that word.

The best way to learn about Islam, by the way, in my opinion, is dialogue with Muslims. This is why I recommend forums as a place to learn as well as the koran and haddith. A dialogue, especially when centered around current world events or topics of concern to muslims, keeps things fresh and vibrant and easy to keep the brain oiled.

You just copied and pasted that from that fascist prick Wilders and his film Fitna, didn't you? Islamic fundamentalists are utter loons. I don't think anyone here disagrees with this. However, you cannot abstract these peoples' beliefs and actions from their historical context. And it's wrong to say that there is no equivalence in Christianity - have you ever met a Christian reconstructionist? And it's really rich for you, who assumes none of us know anything about Islam, even Devrim who lives in Turkey, and that we have come to our conclusions based upon sheer ignorance and dogmatism.

Ballbag.

Oh, by the way, I have been contributing to the National Secular Society's One Law for All campaign for about two years now. There is a good reason why they refuse to have anything to do with the EDL. Back when the EDL were still content beating eachother up at football matches, I was doing something constructive to help those who ARE suffering under Sharia. Whilst the EDL are indulging in some paranoid fantasy about invasions and working as a recruitment tool for the loons they claim to oppose, OLFA are giving support to people within the Muslim community, you know, the ones who are actually in a position to do something about it.

[Dimentio]

Hi Devrim, I have no belief at all that all or even most Muslims are Islamic. I see what you're saying of course. But note that I am talking about Islam, about Islamic extremists, and not tarring all non-extremist (or even extremist) Muslims with the same brush. I'm not talking much about non-extremist Muslim lifestyles and can't see that I've done so, although I point to a few problems in my above posts.

As for Iranians and Turkish Muslims I had no idea about the alcohol consumption there so thank you for pointing that out. In the UK I have only come across 2 Muslims who drink alcohol. I've come across loads that smoke marijuana though so I know many do not avoid all intoxicants. Again though, this thread is about the significant number of fundamentalists.
================
Here's a recent example of that argument strategy about occupation, by the way, in a discussion with Muslims about the recent wikileak:

Me "I think the intent of the apache pilots was genuine, in that I think they believed they were working within the rules of engagement applying at that time. But people who are given awesome tools of war like the apache should have better judgement to perceive situations correctly....But maybe we don't have all the facts here."

Muslim1 "What facts are you talking about treadsoftly ? The most glaring fact is the Invasion of Iraq based on lies resulting in mass killings of Iraqis by those white crusader pigs ."

I've noticed that many Muslims, even moderate ones, feel that the West's actions in Muslim countries justifies all acts of hatred and violence by them where-ever. They are united in their concept of ummah when it comes to their hatred and violence and condemnation in response to these foreign interventions, but in the same breath complain when they are asked for a response to these acts. They want to be able to be free to cheer on the Taliban whilst not wanting to be judged in the same manner. They want to describe dead British soldiers as stepping stones on the way to Islamic success but then say "why should I need to justify these extremists you don't see me asking a catholic to justify fiddling with little boys".
===============

The change of an area when Muslims become a majority is not scaremongering, it is a reality, and the kind of dismissive tone that some people take on this issue is an insult to people who have had their homes and neighbourhoods changed dramatically. Take a walk through Leicester, or Bradford, or parts of Birmingham next time you're over here. A sudden and massive influx of immigrants, combined with a reluctance to integrate, means that the Pakistani (for instance) culture just gets lifted up from Pakistan and dumped wholesale into the UK. The culture of materialism is strong though and you will often get fundamentalist Muslims lamenting the sinking of their ummah into dunya (a great first step then in my opinion). I look forward to your post commenting on culture.

The issue of course being that Iraq did not invade the United Kingdom...

Islamophobes and extreme zionists often like to point out some form of perverse moral equivalence when confronted with criticism. "Yes... we maybe did a little too much... but they believe in conspiracy theories or they don't like gays or they are antisemites!"

[Barry Lyndon]

I am very strongly opposed to Islamic fundamentalism, as I am to Christian fundamentalism. But the crowing about the 'threat' of Islamism from both right-wing and apparently left-wing bigots is pretty astonishing when you consider the fact that the United States government and to a lesser degree the Europeans played a major role in destroying the secular nationalist(ie Nasserist), socialist, and Marxist political forces in Muslim countries that could have acted as a counter-balance to the religious fudamentalists in the first place. From the US support of the destruction of the PKI(Indonesian Communist Party), in which a million communists were massacred, to the CIA sponsorship of the mujuhideen which toppled the Afghan communist government(a government that had women's rights), to the bloody purges of tens of thousands of communists in Iraq and Sudan, the strongest opponents of Islamic fanaticism were wiped out because they were also strong opponents of US imperialism in the Muslim world. It's not a coincidence that Islamic fundamentalism became a major force in the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia, in the 1980's, after all the major left forces in these regions were decimated. They filled the political vacuum of opposition to US imperialism. I really don't have time for people who proclaim themselves 'experts' on 'Islam' and are unaware of that history.

Having said that, yeah, its pretty disgusting that Mohammed married and had sex with a 9 year old girl. Of course, the whole Old Testament is pretty disgusting, with graphic descriptions and condoning of incest, slavery, human sacrifice, prostitution, and even genocide. It's all evidence that one should not live their life according to 1,400 or 2,000 year old books, and most people, even most religious people, do not do so in practice because on a certain level they know its not practicable.

[Devrim]

But the crowing about the 'threat' of Islamism from both right-wing and apparently left-wing bigots is pretty astonishing when you consider the fact that the United States government and to a lesser degree the Europeans played a major role in destroying the secular nationalist(ie Nasserist), socialist, and Marxist political forces in Muslim countries that could have acted as a counter-balance to the religious fudamentalists in the first place. From the US support of the destruction of the PKI(Indonesian Communist Party), in which a million communists were massacred, to the CIA sponsorship of the mujuhideen which toppled the Afghan communist government(a government that had women's rights), to the bloody purges of tens of thousands of communists in Iraq and Sudan, the strongest opponents of Islamic fanaticism were wiped out because they were also strong opponents of US imperialism in the Muslim world. It's not a coincidence that Islamic fundamentalism became a major force in the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia, in the 1980's, after all the major left forces in these regions were decimated. They filled the political vacuum of opposition to US imperialism. I really don't have time for people who proclaim themselves 'experts' on 'Islam' and are unaware of that history.

Maldoror touched on this before.
The demise of the secular left (and how more fucked up everything has become) has brought a massive decomposition in people's minds.

To be honest the example you use about Indonesia isn't one that has occurred to me before, maybe because it is outside of the Middle East and not in the same time period that I associate with that tendency. Generally I think that this is something that went on at the end of the 1970s and through the 1980s, Afghanistan as you mentioned, the defeat of the left by the Islamicists in the Iranian revolution, the rise of Hezbollah and the fall of AMAL during the Lebanese civil war, the 1980 coup in Turkey, the rise of HAMAS in Palestine, and the beginning of the civil war in Algeria in 1991 are just some of the major events that mark the period.

I will have to learn more about Indonesia.

Devrim

[Barry Lyndon]

Devrim-

A lot of people equate Muslim with 'Arab' or 'Middle Eastern'. But Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world and in the mid 1960's it had the third largest communist party in the world, besides the ones in China and the USSR that were actually in power. So the argument that Muslims are somehow culturally incapable of aligning themselves with revolutionary Marxist ideas is shown to be bullshit by that example alone.

[Tread Softly]

I'll come back to this thread in a number of days, sorry, real life activity splurge / holidays/ etc. Be back soon!

[Devrim]

A lot of people equate Muslim with 'Arab' or 'Middle Eastern'.

Yes, particularly the Arabs. I remember going to Al-Asqa years ago. The (Palestinian) security guard didn't want to let my girlfriend in as it was a Friday and only open to Muslims. Although not a Muslim, I'm an Arabic speaker so I think he just presumed I was. My girlfriend was asked to recite something from the Koran, which she couldn't, of course. Then she got out her (Turkish) passport, which has a star and crescent on the front, and identified her religion as Islam. She was then told by the security guard that Turks aren't real Muslims.


So the argument that Muslims are somehow culturally incapable of aligning themselves with revolutionary Marxist ideas is shown to be bullshit by that example alone.

I never thought that, but I would point to the mass strike in Iran in 1979 before the 'Communist Party' of Indonesia. Maybe that is a sort of 'Middle-East-centerism' though. ;)

Devrim

[Tread Softly]

Bumping for Tony "the greatest world threat is radical Islam" Blair.

[Crimson Commissar]

Devrim-

A lot of people equate Muslim with 'Arab' or 'Middle Eastern'. But Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world and in the mid 1960's it had the third largest communist party in the world, besides the ones in China and the USSR that were actually in power. So the argument that Muslims are somehow culturally incapable of aligning themselves with revolutionary Marxist ideas is shown to be bullshit by that example alone.
They're not culturally incapable of it, but their religious beliefs just conflict with their political ones. How can you be a true communist when you believe that there is an all powerful god which EVERY human being has to obey? How can you be a true communist when you believe that all people who are not of your religion must burn in hell for their supposed "crimes against god"? Yes, there are definitely religious people who do not necessarily believe that, but what I just described is what is stated in both the quran and the bible. It doesn't matter how many people try to liberalise Islam, the fact still remains that it is a reactionary religion if you go by what is said in it's holy book. And if people are willing to just pick a few things out of their religion and leave all the rest, like people are doing with christianity now, then why are they not willing to abandon their ridiculous beliefs completely? Going against what was actually written in the bible or quran just makes christians and muslims seem even more stupid to me, to be honest.

[danyboy27]

those who are affraid of the ''invasion'' of radical islam in their countries need to chill out and understand how demographic work.

its been proven that immigrant tend to have fewers children after 2 generation, and most of the cultural or religious background get dilluated by the society itself the immigrant live in.

what stilumate extremism is mainly hatred and ignorance.

you want to fight radical islam? chill out and get in touch with moderates.

[Forward Union]

C'mon guys, I'm genuinely interested; in addition to your views on Islamic extremism, why you chose to vehmently oppose EDL who's stated aim is anti-Islamic extremism.

Actually, they claim to be against all "extremism" and yet have been linked to bomb making, smashing up shops, Combat 18, Numerous violent football firms and support Israel, and British Imperialism which have done more damage to the world than Islamic Terrorism could dream of.

They do not oppose Islam because it is exceptionally dangerous, but because they prefer British Imperialism. If the EDL had its way, I would still be working a shit job with low pay and high rent, because they quite like the Idea of an English ruling class, aristocracy and conservative attitudes along those lines, and their actions entrench the strength and position of these groups.

They can't help me or you at all. What can help me on the other hand, is industrial organising. That can get me higher wages, shorter hours, better conditions, and best of all, Unions have been the most democratising force in history, and have always been on the forefront of the defence of womens rights and those of other minorities.

Fascism, not such a good track record for such things.


Do you oppose EDL for who they are, or who set them up, or who leads them, or for what they are fighting for?Who set them up is obviously an important factor here. Who they are? not at all, they're people like you and me who have been mislead by sloganeering.

[Rainsborough]

Having read the posts in this thread, I now understand the reasoning behind not allowing debate with any 'fascists'.

[Trigonometry]

I think Islam is definitely contradictory to Communism (Chinese Muslim here) as like Islam Communism comes with a whole set of beliefs and is a way of life of its own just like Islam is.

However the extent of incompatibility is greater than many seem to think, many associate with Islam with ultra conservatism, strong clergy. But I feel such things are simply because of backwardness of most Islamic societies, a lot of the ultra conservatism of Islam roots really in traditional culture of the local people and the practices have little roots in Islamic doctrine and simply renegade hadiths, e.g. practice of veiling women had widely existed in Pre-Islamic society, and often the cultures have melded with Islam, e.g. in Chechnya there is severe problem of bride capturing and many attribute this as an acceptable Islamic practice, which it is not however the mountain Chechen people had always done this.

Another point is that Islamic clergy, is much reminiscent of an old institutionalised church in Europe, when the church's laws were of great importance in society, this I view is simply a result of the backwardness of such societies and the traditionalism. E.g. in Pakistan attendence of religious schools and training to be a clergymen studying fiqh (Islamic jursiprudence) holds great prestige where as in a place like Turkey and Far Western China it would be viewed in the same light as a person training to be a priest in the UK, this is due to the more progressive nature of the countries where clergy is not a route to political power.

Also the Hadiths, which is the basis of much Islamic practices adhered to majority of Muslims today, and which forms a large part of Islamic jurisprudence and gives legitimacy to the clergy as inheritors of Muhammad's authority. So much in many cases where the Quran does not address an issue it is used as the sole authority on an issue combined with the judgements of scholars (clergymen). And in cases where Quran addresses an issue, it often adds detail and much directions as well as often 'explaining' the meaning, which really contradicts that the Quran is sufficient alone as religious authority, and that Muhammad is the last of God's prophets.

Onto the authority of the Hadith, interestingly the Hadith are attributed sayings of Muhammad done by Umar ibn abdul aziz, done 3 generations after his death and in itself the hadith even narrates
"Do not write anything from me except the Qur'an. Whoever wrote, must destroy it." Muhammad, as narrated by Abu Sa'eed al-Khudri

Hadith guide Muslims from the way you pray, times you do it, way you wash your hands, another point of interest is it is much similar to the gospel in that it is all attributed to the supposed author Mark/John/Peter in this case Muhammad without them ever knowing of it, an argument used by Muslims frequently to debate the legitimacy of Bible as a holy book.
The extent of Hadiths influence can be clearly seen simply in prayer, the Quran does not mention praying 5x a day, however due to the power of the Hadiths, Muslims pray 5x a day, predicting the Sun and Moon to get the timing perfect, clean themselves in order of hands, mouths, nose, face, arms, hairline, ears and then feet 5x a day before they pray and pray with clearly defined actions and mantras. This is the power of the Hadiths, it in practice dictates more to the Muslim than the Quran and presents to the world a distinct face of Islam, a complete life style down to every detail.

It is greatly incompatible with Communism simply because of this, communism although on paper is simply a way of governance and economic theory, communists are more than this, they subscribe to an entire lifestyle, to strive to be the revolutionary man, homo sovieticus in every respect, to differing extents, for one thing the idea of calling another a comrade has nothing to do with economic theory, however many communists do it because it is part of being a homo sovieticus, part of the identity, does a capitalist give a title to other capitalists because of his economic views? Communism is a life style to many people to varying extents, and Islam is definitely a life style.

You cannot live two lives at once