Sorry about the delay: one wishes to embrace the entire world, but one cannot.
Which is to say: time is limited.
In any event, here's my response to ghost.
Try to understand that Islamic law is about protecting the weak and vulnerable, that is the spirit of Shariah law, that is what Muslims want to see in their countries, they want protection for the weak and vulnerable. I’m not here to defend any nations interpretations of the law, I know about the corruption and injustice in countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran etc. and I won’t go into individual cases, the issue of rape in Shariah has been addressed earlier in this thread.
But this is precisely the point. Sharia specifically does not defend the weak and vulnerable in practice; rather, it seems to persecute them. Women’s rights stifled, apostates murdered. If that is the spirit of the law, then it may be telling that that spirit is lacked everywhere in the world that sharia is practiced today. Is this really the system you think should be preferred to Western law?
Apparently so:
If you’re attacking Muslims because they want to have Shariah law over Western laws, then you must understand that Muslims take their religion a lot more seriously than Christians or Jews. As Muslims we have our own law (Shariah), the West cannot impose their views and laws on the Muslims and vice versa.
I am talking about the imposition of sharia in
Britain, my home nation, not Pakistan. If you really believed that muslims cannot impose their laws on the West, then you should forcefully remonstrate those who rioted over the pictures of Mohammed, those who burned the Danish embassy, and those who voted “Yes, I would like to lord it over the kufr” in those polls and leave it at that.
GeoffP, Muslims don’t need crocodile tears from people like you!
Excuse me? Care to explain that statement? I am suddenly unsympathetic to the plight of muslims trapped by sharia? And what kind of people are “people like me”? Brits? Kufr? Which?
Because of your aggressive and hostile attitude.
And, strangely, this too from a guy who boasted that he had friends from Slough involved in the racist riots in Britain. Again, the comparison could have been a mountain, or a large dense rock, or anything else a dandelion might have been ineffectual against. Ghost chose a fortress. That's not really my doing.
Mate, what is a moderate? Tell me, what's your definition of a moderate?
I would have thought that fairly obvious, but why don’t you pick someone who has this correct ‘spirit’ you talk about? Someone. Anyone. A name, like Ramadan - oh, well not him, obviously - or Bunglawala - oops, no, not that guy - or...is Bakri still gone? Let's see a moderate. Such a moderate would renounce religious violence, renounce sharia, renounce jizya and dhimmitude. He would renounce any penalty for apostacy. He would permit actual free discourse among these benighted "Abrahamic faiths". Why can such an individual not be found? Are they all afraid they'd be accorded the same fate as Sadat? If so, why?
What do you know about me? I've always taken a strong stand against extremism
Good. My experience of you so far is that you attack me here, who only is interested in pointing out the severity of the problem. I would assume that my postings would be good ammunition for you in your online debates.
The attitudes of the Muslims in the UK are effected not just by stuff that happens in the UK but by World events * cough * Illegal Iraq war, Afghanistan, Guantanamo bay, Abu Ghraib * cough *
Indeed? The attitudes of non-muslims in the UK are, similarly, beginning to be affected not just by stuff that happens in the UK, but by world events, and by historical ones * cough * 9/11, 7/11, dhimmitude, oppression of the Copts, the genocide of the Armenians, jizya, Sura 9, Sura 5, human rights in the ummah, jihad, massacre of the Quraysh * But why should we pander to contingency? =)
The Islamic Institutions in this country are strong, their roots go deep. Our parents came here back in the 70s (some came earlier), they weren't considered extreme. There was no terrorism back then, no bombs, nothing like that.
But – in their lands of origin – there was always dhimmitude, and violence against non-muslims. Ask a Copt, or a immigrated Lebanese Christian, or an Occidental Jew, or an Israeli of the early era. And ask a Pakistani, or a Saudi, or an Afghan why the destruction of Israel - a nation that does not border them, nor have dealings with their nations - is so important. A religious view, possibly? What would one say about a European expressing a desire to roll back islamic borders in Turkey or North Africa? If impressions are so important, why are they only important for the followers of islam?
This whole issue is alot more complicated that you suggest. Muslims in the UK face alot of discrimination, this increased after the 9/11 attacks, the Muslims in the UK had nothing to do with that.
And yet, there is abundant and widespread sympathy for terrorism. How much more there was, we don’t know: it is only now that the sermons of the imams, given in Arabic all those 70 years, are being examined to see what they actually contain.
Getting jobs, getting into good schools etc. is all that much harder for Muslims now.
Is it? Last I heard, anti-Semitic attacks far, far outstripped those on muslims, to say nothing of the legal recourse provided all citizens and inhabitants of Britain that frankly do not exist in Pakistan. And what, precisely, is “draconian” about the anti-terrorism laws in Britain now? Specify.
Discrimination against Muslims in Britain
I read the report and it was quite subjective - there was no specification of what "discrimination" constituted. Recently, I was trying to arrange for a place for my son to sit on a bus. There was a seat beside a muslim woman and when I gestured politely - and smiled - for her to move her hand and coffee cup, she just stared back at me with hostility. I asked again - this time with words - and she just blanked me. Should I assume that she refused to let my child sit beside her because he was - as you put it - kaffir? Apparently so.
I agree there is still discrimination in the labour market, because people are getting a rather bad sense of what islam is. This sense is not being invented. It is being reported on. People are nervous. If blond-haired women with Scandinavian names were acting radically and violently, then people would be reasonably expected to be a little more suspicious of such people.
I see your accusations and digs at the Muslim communities as attacks.
Then there we are then. If I cannot criticize islam without it being seen as an attack even by so moderate a moderate as yourself, then we are already at an impasse. My position – which is well-founded by history – is also that islam is a violent religion. It may change, it is far more likely not to, but there is little doubt of its past.
And what shall be done with this attacker of islam? What to do with this obstinate, infuriating infidel, who insists despite all blithe assurances in pointing out the innumerable pebbles and stones and potholes and gaping, yawning chasms in the road to this perfect Caliphate, where all problems shall vanish like the morning mist over the dunes? Funnily enough, as Communist as I am (and I have to admit this to myself, basically, despite my better yearnings), I am not for one moment fooled by the old leftist rub that “Once perfect communism is obtained, the state shall just wither away” or somesuch nonsense. It won’t, and neither will sharia or islam or dhimmitude or jizya or lapidation or anything else. It will merely be another level of control, this one dictated by a happily untestable god living in a rock in Mecca; a boot upon the boot upon the human neck.
My statement doesn’t imply the poll is meaningful. I was just trying to say you are distorting a poll that is already a waste of space, sensationalism and that.
It is? My impression was that polls were conducted to obtain the sentiments of the populace, or of a proportion of them. So should we now refute all polls, for fear that the questions have been inappropriate construed, or interpretively mishandled, or obstinately categorized, or which just illustrate things we don’t like? Perhaps, too, we might throw up our hands to public opinion altogether, and to science, and to knowledge, and just let allah know what he knows, and won’t tell us.
Those polls serve no purpose but to further demonise and malign the Muslim communities in the UK without addressing the key issues (discrimination against Muslims, Iraq war, Afghanistan etc.) This whole issue is complicated and polls would not do it any justice.
Actually, it would be sufficient merely to say: “I don’t support violence”. The attaching of issues to the central issue – based on your own inherent absolute assumptions of right and wrong – illustrates not complexity, but conditional support.
You’re right, its not terribly surprising, it did come from the US Admin after all.
Tell me, would you support such an attack?
Well! That’s complex. Terribly complex. You see, the whole issue is complicated.
Complicated. I think your question would need to take into account some of the key issues (9/11, discrimination against non-muslims, 7/11, 7/7, the penalty for apostacy in Islamic nations, the subjugation of women in islam, the current phase of the moon, and whether it’s raining outside). The whole issue is very complicated and a simple question would not do it any justice.
[For the irony-intolerant: please read juuuuust a little higher. A little higher. Up to his comment. There it is. You're welcome.]
No hate clerics have been expelled (purely the fault of the authorities) they have been removed from their centres (because of the Muslims). Bakri was not expelled, he left of his own accord and was then told he was not wanted back. The blame falls on the British authorities.
And again: the blame is on the kufr. Where have these clerics been removed by their congregations?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4691594.stm
The above link illustrates that the police removed him, not the congregation. No change of heart there – a change of membership, at best.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4676524.stm
So the MCB officially denounces HT. I assumed rather that you were going to illustrate for me a mosque that had booted out its imam for his extremity.
I also note that despite the proclamation from MCB, Inayat Bunglawala (a potentially funnier name not existing in Western parlance) is also cited, and still in residence despite his apparent involvement with sending threatening mails to a popular website for its comments on islam. I believe the phrase was that the sender “hoped for the day when [you] pigs get your throats cut”.
I also checked out this link on Hitz ut-Tahrir and found that their core philosophies are essentially that islam is a complete way of life, that Western law is irrelevant compared to Islamic law, sharia law naturally being preferred. They also say they don’t support violence or anti-Semitism. Yet these seem to be your opinions too; neither profess any extremism, yet one can hardly argue that HT isn’t extremist. Wherein, then, do you differ with their viewpoint? Or is your differing one of degree rather than philosophy?
You keep forgetting the Muslims! Moderate Muslims want to get on with their own lives too. Extremist preachers should be deported, those that advocate violence should be arrested. Britain needs to come down hard on those that support and praise such attacks (Abu Izzadeen) but no, the media gives these extremists a platform. They don't have any credibility on the ground yet they are allowed to spew their propaganda. The authorities here are way too soft.
There, if only there perhaps, we agree. These people need to be expunged. But not only that. Attitudes in the Islamic community slide like sand. No one seems to support terrorism…unless Israel continues to exist. Or unless they stop responding to being rocketed. Or unless someone wants to leave islam.
Unless. Unless. Unless.
I am reminded of a Dr. Seuss tale, and not in a good reflection.
Geoff
