Radical clerics who preach violence are not out of touch with mainstream Muslim views, according to nearly half of British Muslims questioned in a poll

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13391671,00.html

A quick summary;

2% agreed with what the suicide bombers did
5% thought there was justification in the koran for the bombings.
46% said they thought of themselves as Muslim first and British second


So if we take the BBC's word that there are 1.5m Muslims in the UK that means;

30,000 agree with the bombers
75,000 believe it was justified
Nearly 700,000 believe they are Muslim first and something else British/Pakistani/wherever they originally hail from second.

Why do they come here, more importantly why do we let people stay in the UK who despise our values and culture?

I despise your values, do I have to go?

Originally posted by GHS1961

Why do they come here, more importantly why do we let people stay in the UK who despise our values and culture?

Good question. Something like that is a real eye opener. It's a minority still, but a very significant one.

totally agree, couldnt agree with you more !!!!

for god sake let this country sort itself out, now im not promoting or encouraging racism at all as i think its awful but somewhere we have to drop this PC bo**ocks and get down to it and yes we are going to upset people somewhere along the line.

lets take the US's approach to this you enter this country and you live here, you are american first then your own religion second no questions. compare this to the UK approach...........................

now i know its not as simple as that and all that and a million factors come into play, but come on if people are known or seriously thought of as a threat to the UK give the power to the government and lets deport them, their family, their business dont tlet them, trade with anyoen within the UK and ban them.... it makes sense !!!! i mean if u have a business and u think one of your members of staff is capable of bringing your company to stand still would you just plod along or get them out of your company ????

christ i think the shift of power needs to go to the police and government and not the these idiots

The only way for britain to save herself now is for us ALL to learn much much more about Islam and Muslims.

The bombers all came from the Mirpuri region of Pakistan, and all attended radical schools there. Even in the same city, other islamic schools were saying 'we're nothing to do with them' as they had a reputation for radical imams and advocation of un-islamic tactics.

So you can imagine, if you are a muslim from southern india, or from indonesia, there is not much that you know about the 7/7 bombers!

So we all need to know - what 'brands' or 'factions' of islam are more radical, and which can we identify and sympathise with?

Originally posted by GHS1961
Why do they come here, more importantly why do we let people stay in the UK who despise our values and culture?

"Communicate Research interviewed 462 UK-based Muslims by phone"

Pretty shoddy survey.

Originally posted by GHS1961

more importantly why do we let people stay in the UK who despise our values and culture?

well our goverment wouldn't want to offend them would they that'd be racsist:rolleyes:

Originally posted by GHS1961


A quick summary;

2% agreed with what the suicide bombers did
5% thought there was justification in the koran for the bombings.
46% said they thought of themselves as Muslim first and British second



What about the figures for the other religions. I bet there are christians, Jews, Hindus etc out there that would consider themself christian Jewish or Hindu 1st and british 2nd.

As for the survey in general, I dont feel that surveys show the true light. You would need to survey a significant percentage of the population for it to be of any use.

Originally posted by kathythebean
Even in the same city, other islamic schools were saying 'we're nothing to do with them' as they had a reputation for radical imams and advocation of un-islamic tactics.


In which case should they not have reported them to the relevant authorities?

Originally posted by GHS1961
Radical clerics who preach violence are not out of touch with mainstream Muslim views, according to nearly half of British Muslims questioned in a poll

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13391671,00.html

A quick summary;

2% agreed with what the suicide bombers did
5% thought there was justification in the koran for the bombings.
46% said they thought of themselves as Muslim first and British second


So if we take the BBC's word that there are 1.5m Muslims in the UK that means;

30,000 agree with the bombers
75,000 believe it was justified
Nearly 700,000 believe they are Muslim first and something else British/Pakistani/wherever they originally hail from second.

Why do they come here, more importantly why do we let people stay in the UK who despise our values and culture?

SPOT ON 100% CORRECT

Originally posted by t020
In which case should they not have reported them to the relevant authorities?

In Pakistan? Yes they probably should have done..I don't know if they did or not, I just saw in on a news report and read it in the paper.

I was just trying to highlight how many different strains of islam there are, and how little we know about them all. To see 'all muslims' as a homogenous group is a bit dangerous really.

Originally posted by spyro2000
What about the figures for the other religions. I bet there are christians, Jews, Hindus etc out there that would consider themself christian Jewish or Hindu 1st and british 2nd.

As for the survey in general, I dont feel that surveys show the true light. You would need to survey a significant percentage of the population for it to be of any use.

I agree with Spyro - How many other members of a particular religion would say for example they were Christian first and then the nationality of the coutry they reside in?

What I mean, t020, is that you cannot extrapolate data from 450 uk based muslims, to reflect the diversity of muslim public opinion in england? In my opinion.

I'm not being an apologist.

Originally posted by kathythebean
What I mean, t020, is that you cannot extrapolate data from 450 uk based muslims, to reflect the diversity of muslim public opinion in england? In my opinion.

I'm not being an apologist.


Ok but why are you addressing me?! I questioned why the more moderate Islamic schools did not report the aforementioned radical ones. I've not commented on the validity of the survey. 450 does seem a small sample.

Originally posted by GHS1961
2% agreed with what the suicide bombers did


Be interesting to know the margin of error for this survey.

Originally posted by ARMANI
I agree with Spyro - How many other members of a particular religion would say for example they were Christian first and then the nationality of the coutry they reside in?

you've got to be kidding?? you honestly reckon if you surveyed a decent sample of christian british people they would say they were "christian first, british second"??

i'm christian by default, but religion has lost all meaning for me, as i would imagine it has for most british "christians" these days.. i consider myself to have decent morals and an excellent upbringing, i don't need religion.. i'm not denouncing it, some people love that ****, but imo you're every day average brit would consider themselves "british first, christian second"..

anyway, that's irrelevant here.. the point is, out of all those faiths, which one has the highest percentage of nutters who want to bomb the crap out of stuff?

anyone got an abacus ?

I was addressing you because I wanted to make sure you hadn't misunderstood my original post - that is, I wasn't saying the other islamic schools were innocent of everything, just saying that if there's that much diversity of thought between islamic schools in one city in one country, imagine how much there is across the world!

Wanted to make sure you knew it was more of an interested aside than a PC diatribe?

Originally posted by dirtybobby

anyway, that's irrelevant here.. the point is, out of all those faiths, which one has the highest percentage of nutters who want to bomb the crap out of stuff?

lol, fair comment.

I kid you not i just phoned the company and they said the margin of error was 4%

So the proportion of Muslims who supported the bombings could be as high as 6% or as low as -2%.
Lies, Damn lies and statistics seems appropriate.



Funny Sky didn't mention that

agree the validity of that survey doesnt matter adn i think its clear and obvious by teh crazy evenst going off aroudn the world which religion within it has the biggest bunch of nutters ! fromt aht doesnt the religion have some obligation to try adn sort it out rom within rather then say we arent all like that ????????? not that easy..this is where people should be clamped down on !!!!

arghhhhhhhhh

hey these guys didnt say iam pakistani first and british second. the say they have one religion and they consider themselves as citizens of this country, whats wrong with that?
REligion teaches you to be kind , tolerant and that you shoudl do good things in your life because this life in only a test.
There are what the media call "islamic terrorists" or "extremist muslims", i would call them "muslims gone astray". they are making a painful wrong statement if they say they are doing anything that harm mankind in the name of religion.
And why all this "hate" about muslims in some of threads when in other conflicts nothing of this kind happens
Learn about different cultures, you will never be 100% in agreemnet with all of them, but you will see that many "preach" love of others and yourlseves.

apologies i think my key board is broken and missing letters !

Originally posted by kathythebean
I was addressing you because I wanted to make sure you hadn't misunderstood my original post - that is, I wasn't saying the other islamic schools were innocent of everything, just saying that if there's that much diversity of thought between islamic schools in one city in one country, imagine how much there is across the world!

Wanted to make sure you knew it was more of an interested aside than a PC diatribe?

How thoughtful of you. I was however, already aware that there are many different streams of Islam, I was just making the point that it's up to the moderates to report the radicals.

Originally posted by dinkdankdo10
the validity of that survey doesnt matter



Whether something is true or not doesn't matter?
Strange stance to take.

Originally posted by spyro2000
lol, fair comment.

exactly.. if the same survery was done of afrocarribean ppl, and it came out with similar results, no-one would care because their fath and beliefs do not include oppression of women, blowing people up, and other generally antisocial behaviour..

if a mate said to me "i'm rastafarian first, british second" i'd be like "fair enough mate".. if a mate said "i'm muslim first, british second," i'd be like "fair enough, but keep that muslim **** in check and remember where you're living"..

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
I kid you not i just phoned the company and they said the margin of error was 4%

So the proportion of Muslims who supported the bombings could be as high as 6% or as low as -2%.


I think -2% might be a bit difficult!

learn about other cultures...mate do me a favour your telling me let them blow the sh*t out of everythign and everyone but learn about their culture....what a load of crap. i had friends that where very nearly caught up in that crap 2 weeks ago, u tell them they should be learning about the bombers/muslim culture.

two way thing mate they could start by learning about OURS as they are in OUR country and take hand outs from our daft government!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by dirtybobby


anyway, that's irrelevant here.. the point is, out of all those faiths, which one has the highest percentage of nutters who want to bomb the crap out of stuff?

How about the IRA - Just because they are Irish does that make it right for us to go round being sceptical of mixing in with the Irish community - No

The same is happening to muslims now, what was happening with the irish (due to the IRA being irish)

Originally posted by t020
How thoughtful of you. I was however, already aware that there are many different streams of Islam, I was just making the point that it's up to the moderates to report the radicals.

I'm sorry, t020, I think we may have got crossed wires? I wasn't trying to teach you something.

I wasn't disputing that they should have reported the radicals. Actually addressing you was more of an effort to show you I was agreeing with you and taking a balanced view.

Well don't worry I'll never address you again? :confused:

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
I kid you not i just phoned the company and they said the margin of error was 4%

So the proportion of Muslims who supported the bombings could be as high as 6% or as low as -2%.
Lies, Damn lies and statistics seems appropriate.



Funny Sky didn't mention that

How on earth do they compute the margin of error !?

How do they arrive at a figure of 4% ?

Originally posted by kathythebean
I'm sorry, t020, I think we may have got crossed wires? I wasn't trying to teach you something.

I wasn't disputing that they should have reported the radicals. Actually addressing you was more of an effort to show you I was agreeing with you and taking a balanced view.

Well don't worry I'll never address you again? :confused:

Ok, you're right, we seem to have got our wires crossed. Apologies.

Originally posted by t020
I think -2% might be a bit difficult!

Yes, the margin of 4% is to be interpreted something like:

"2% means 2% plus or minus 4% of 2%"

It'll be based on a multinomial distribution, but I haven't got time to figure it out accurately right now!

Originally posted by dirtybobby
anyway, that's irrelevant here.. the point is, out of all those faiths, which one has the highest percentage of nutters who want to bomb the crap out of stuff?

Fundamentalist Christians?

because their fath and beliefs do not include oppression of women, blowing people up, and other generally antisocial behaviour..

dirty bobby, their faith doesnt say that, get informed.
whensomeone is misinformed, even if we put in front of them what they think is false, they dont wanna hear it.

you know the collective suicide ( of brainwashed people sacrifying their own kids as well because they have been brainwashed and misinformed by one "stronger" man), was a christian sect! did people come up with that **** about all christians being aware and not doing anything and thatr christianity was wring, NO!
well the small % of muslims supportung the bombings or carrying them is in the same bag!

Originally posted by CaptainSwing
Yes, the margin of 4% is to be interpreted something like:

"2% means 2% plus or minus 4% of 2%"

It'll be based on a multinomial distribution, but I haven't got time to figure it out accurately right now!

Yes, and a negative figure is of course impossible.

Originally posted by Jamie
How on earth do they compute the margin of error !?

How do they arrive at a figure of 4% ?

Not sure..... and I clearly am

Originally posted by ARMANI
How about the IRA - Just because they are Irish does that make it right for us to go round being sceptical of mixing in with the Irish community - No

The same is happening to muslims now, what was happening with the irish (due to the IRA being irish)

clearly you didn't read my post correctly.. or chose not to misread in order to make in invalid point.. i'll reiterate for your benefit:

Originally posted by dirtybobby
anyway, that's irrelevant here.. the point is, out of all those faiths, which one has the highest percentage of nutters who want to bomb the crap out of stuff?

i'm irish myself, i know all about the segregation and what they get up to.. i said which faith had the highest percentage :roll:

the IRA, despite all their efforts, never once pulled off atrocities on the level that these extremists have..

anyway, the point is, for a person to say they are "muslim first, british second" has far greater ramifications than "catholic first, british second," or "hindu first, british second" etc..

Originally posted by evildrneil
Fundamentalist Christians?

I think you're in denial if you don't accept the fact that, at this moment in time, the religion with the most problems is Islam. Yes, they're in a minority, most Muslims are moderate, etc etc, but that still doesn't change the fact that these people think they are acting in the name of Islam.

Originally posted by CaptainSwing
It'll be based on a multinomial distribution ...

Whatever that is !!!

Seems to be based on statistics or something, so it's basically a guess, albeit an educated one, yeah !?

I would have thought that the actual (real-life) 'margin of error' could actually be anything. Reality not being the same as statistics and all that.

Seems a bit irresponsible to call it a 'margin or error' that's all.

Originally posted by t020
I think you're in denial if you don't accept the fact that, at this moment in time, the religion with the most problems is Islam. Yes, they're in a minority, most Muslims are moderate, etc etc, but that still doesn't change the fact that these people think they are acting in the name of Islam.

i'm glad someone gets what i'm trying to say..

Originally posted by CaptainSwing
Yes, the margin of 4% is to be interpreted something like:

"2% means 2% plus or minus 4% of 2%"

It'll be based on a multinomial distribution, but I haven't got time to figure it out accurately right now!

In that case stats have changed alot since I did them! As far as I'm aware the margin of error is a +/- value calculated from the variability in the sample and the degree of precision required (trpically 95%) - so it would indeed be 2% +/- 4% - or in other words a pretty pointless assay!

Most opinion surveys are based upon small samples of the target population (most people would be surprised about how small many of them are). However, there are many other factors which determine a 'good' sample. But even if you choose good sampling techniques, you still have to ask the right questions - and still have to have some method of interpeting and collating the answers. Having said that, the results of this particular survey do not seem to be too out of line with others i have seen on the same subject. As for the margin of error, all surveys based on sampling, indeed even those which are not, have margins of error. If you ever see a survey which denies this, ignore what it says.

Puttin a bit of a spanner on the works here and im not saying that these bombings are right (they are clearly wrong), but who hear thinks that these terrorist bombings are a sort of direct revenge to the Iraq war.

Wether you think the war in iraq was right or wrong, i feel that these terrorist bombings are because of it.

Originally posted by bookie
you know the collective suicide ( of brainwashed people sacrifying their own kids as well because they have been brainwashed and misinformed by one "stronger" man), was a christian sect! did people come up with that **** about all christians being aware and not doing anything and thatr christianity was wring, NO!

yes they do, you idiot! have you never heard people going on about mental christian extremists doing exactly the things you describe?? when anything like that happens, we all hear about it and every sighs and says "those stupid fundamentalist christians :roll:"..

why are you ignoring the very simple point i made??

look at all the terrorist attacks around the world.. perhaps calculate them based on number of fatalities.. now divide them up based on the faith of the perpetrator.. who wins??

****ing hell it's not rocket science..

Originally posted by evildrneil
In that case stats have changed alot since I did them! As far as I'm aware the margin of error is a +/- value calculated from the variability in the sample and the degree of precision required (trpically 95%) - so it would indeed be 2% +/- 4% - or in other words a pretty pointless assay!

But 2% - 4% = -2%, which is nonsense. The minimum would be 0%, obviously. I think that would be just a tad optimistic...

But it's not impossible that the actual real life figure is not in line with the surveyed figure +/- the margin of error.

If that's the case, the whole margin of error thing is just pointless hog-wash.

Originally posted by spyro2000
Puttin a bit of a spanner on the works here and im not saying that these bombings are right (they are clearly wrong), but who hear thinks that these terrorist bombings are a sort of direct revenge to the Iraq war.

Wether you think the war in iraq was right or wrong, i feel that these terrorist bombings are because of it.

No, not really. The war in Iraq may have raised the UK's profile globally amongst the terrorists, but the attackers in London were homegrown and the evidence suggests they got into fundamentalism before the UK even invaded Iraq. I think September 11th brought Islamic terrorism to the fore and will have created more terrorists among people seeking to be part of something.

Originally posted by evildrneil
In that case stats have changed alot since I did them! As far as I'm aware the margin of error is a +/- value calculated from the variability in the sample and the degree of precision required (trpically 95%) - so it would indeed be 2% +/- 4% - or in other words a pretty pointless assay!

Yes it would be a bit silly. The margin of error on the 2% can't go down as low as zero, since more than zero people must have responded that way!

(About 9 or 10 in the sample of 450-odd.)

Originally posted by t020
But 2% - 4% = -2%, which is nonsense. The minimum would be 0%, obviously. I think that would be just a tad optimistic...
You seem a bit obsessed by this negative figure :) The error depends on the sample size and has just been quoted as a general figure (remember there are three questions quoted, possibly more asked in the survey). Forget about the fact that mathematics says it could be -2% and worry more about the points people are trying to make...

Originally posted by spyro2000
Puttin a bit of a spanner on the works here and im not saying that these bombings are right (they are clearly wrong), but who hear thinks that these terrorist bombings are a sort of direct revenge to the Iraq war.

Wether you think the war in iraq was right or wrong, i feel that these terrorist bombings are because of it.

I dont think they are because of it, it's just another reason for them to do what they do.

I'm also wary of that sdurvey, although nevertheless i do feel (my opinion!) that there's a large number in this country who agree with what happended in London and this is from the 'younger element' of the religion.

Originally posted by dirtybobby
anyway, that's irrelevant here.. the point is, out of all those faiths, which one has the highest percentage of nutters who want to bomb the crap out of stuff?

Ok, lets just go and have a survey in the American and British Armies in Iraq shall we . . . . .

Whoa, this thread is a hornet's nest. What is hapening with the terrorism situation in this country is abonimable. But let's also condemn the fact an estimated 25000 civilians have been killed in Iraq by the bombs of Neo Christian America (with the assistance of Christian Mr. Blair). The country is now in the grip of a civil war that is seeing bomb attacks like 7/7 occur on a daily basis. The occupaton is illegal (no UN backing), corruption is blatantly rife (lucrative rebuilding contracts going to firms like Haliberton, Dick Cheney's old company) and resources are being stolen from under the noses of the Iraqi people (eg $8 billion dollars going missing from wealth recovered from Saddam's palaces by US troops). Our government signed up for all of this, and now we're experiencing the backlash.

We have to stop this rabble rousing jingoism against certain sections of our communities and address the roots of why the terrorists are doing what they're doing. To point the finger of blame at Muslims as a singular group is a dangerous road. War and terror, terror and war, the war on terror- it's all wrong and serves only the interests of a handful. The rest of us have to pay the consequences.

Originally posted by spyro2000
Puttin a bit of a spanner on the works here and im not saying that these bombings are right (they are clearly wrong), but who hear thinks that these terrorist bombings are a sort of direct revenge to the Iraq war.

Wether you think the war in iraq was right or wrong, i feel that these terrorist bombings are because of it.

I don't think 'right' and 'wrong' come in to it spyro.

I mean, the world is in such a mess today because we all think we're 'right' and the other guy is 'wrong' and there's no attempt to empathise and understand what's going on with the other guy or consideration (or care) for what effect our actions have on him.

There seems to be less and less empathy and understanding in the world ...

Put 5 billion apes on rock in space with limited resources and space, they start to get fearful and violent towards each other, that's just the nature of apes, and that's just what's happening.

Originally posted by youwhatref
I dont think they are because of it, it's just another reason for them to do what they do.

I'm also wary of that sdurvey, although nevertheless i do feel (my opinion!) that there's a large number in this country who agree with what happended in London and this is from the 'younger element' of the religion.

yeah, i would agree with the "younger element" statement.. i think it's hard for young muslims in britain these days to know exactly what their faith is, as what they learn at home (i don't mean extremist stuff, i'm taking genuine islamic faith) is so different to the culture around them..

slightly derailing for a moment, i was asking one of my muslim friends the other day why he thought so many asian kids these days seem to act "black".. wearing akademiks, calling each other "nigga" etc.. he was saying that it's because they don't really have a culture of their own to identify with, or at least one which fits in with british lifestyle, so that's the next best thing..

i'm not explaining it very well, he did a much better job than me (clearly it was something he had thought about before), but i think it supports the notion that it is easier for extremists/fundamentalists/nutters/etc. to brainwash young muslims, as it is hard for them to find direction for their faith..

Originally posted by dirtybobby


i'm not explaining it very well, he did a much better job than me (clearly it was something he had thought about before), but i think it supports the notion that it is easier for extremists/fundamentalists/nutters/etc. to brainwash young muslims, as it is hard for them to find direction for their faith..

Im actually agreeing with you now (says with a smile on his face).

The brainwashers are easily able to take things out of context and adjust it to their opinions, and enforce it onto those impressionable around them.

Originally posted by Lestat
Ok, lets just go and have a survey in the American and British Armies in Iraq shall we . . . . .

ha bloody ha :roll: you know full well i was referring to terrorist attacks..

and don't start calling the war "a terrorist attack" and getting all left wing on us.. no-one likes dubya, but there's no point derailing the thread and muddyingup the discussion..

you can try and justify things as much as you like, take peoples' words out of context, twist semantics, etc.. we're talking about terrorist bombings, and we're talking about how the majority of them in teh current climate are performed by muslims.. yes, we know they're extremists, don't tar all with the same brush, blah blah..

just accept it..

Originally posted by t020
But 2% - 4% = -2%, which is nonsense. The minimum would be 0%, obviously. I think that would be just a tad optimistic...

The margin of error is a calculation based on the sample size and degree of confidence you wan't in your results - it doesn't actually realte directly to the responses given. Basically the rule of thumb is that if the margin of error approaches the value in the survay then the survay is meaningless!

Originally posted by dirtybobby
yes they do, you idiot! have you never heard people going on about mental christian extremists doing exactly the things you describe?? when anything like that happens, we all hear about it and every sighs and says "those stupid fundamentalist christians :roll:"..

why are you ignoring the very simple point i made??

look at all the terrorist attacks around the world.. perhaps calculate them based on number of fatalities.. now divide them up based on the faith of the perpetrator.. who wins??

****ing hell it's not rocket science..

I think this opinion is deeply offensive. The US administration are extreme Christian Fundamentalists and they have killed thousands in the middle East. They claim it's to wipe out Osama and his boys, but the real reason is to get their grubby mits on the oil.

How far back do you want to take this fatality comparison? I think if you look at the history of religious conflicts, the Christians would come up trumps every time.

Originally posted by evildrneil
Fundamentalist Christians?
Do you think it's possible to class the racists within the BNP ranks as Fundamentalist Christians ?

Originally posted by dirtybobby
and don't start calling the war "a terrorist attack" and getting all left wing on us.. no-one likes dubya, but there's no point derailing the thread and muddyingup the discussion..

You can fairly resonably argue it was - no UN backing etc. as has been pointed out. I'm fairly certain that if you spoke to any of these fundamentalist muslims they would class the US/UK attack as terorism and the bombers as freedom fighters. It's all a matter of perception and to be honest I don't think either side has anything to be proud off!

And as a complete aside - if there is a god floating around out there no matter what you call him/her/it, he/she/it created all off us and is probably not happy about us slaughtering each other in his/her/it's name!!!

Originally posted by kathythebean
The only way for britain to save herself now is for us ALL to learn much much more about Islam and Muslims.

The bombers all came from the Mirpuri region of Pakistan, and all attended radical schools there. Even in the same city, other islamic schools were saying 'we're nothing to do with them' as they had a reputation for radical imams and advocation of un-islamic tactics.

So you can imagine, if you are a muslim from southern india, or from indonesia, there is not much that you know about the 7/7 bombers!

So we all need to know - what 'brands' or 'factions' of islam are more radical, and which can we identify and sympathise with?

But aren't Mirpuris mostly Sufi, and isn't that one of the gentler, more mystical branches of Islam? Or am I misinformed?

I think I read that most Muslims in the north of England are from Mirpur, and that Mirpuris are treated as second class citizens in Pakistan.

Originally posted by Tubthump
I think this opinion is deeply offensive.

gutted :roll:

How far back do you want to take this fatality comparison? I think if you look at the history of religious conflicts, the Christians would come up trumps every time.

touché :)

Originally posted by evildrneil
And as a complete aside - if there is a god floating around out there no matter what you call him/her/it, he/she/it created all off us and is probably not happy about us slaughtering each other in his/her/it's name!!!

I'd say he/she/it would be utterlty and competely indifferent.

Originally posted by dirtybobby

the IRA, despite all their efforts, never once pulled off atrocities on the level that these extremists have..
Some things are easily forgotten aren't they? (http://www.channel4.com/life/microsites/O/omagh/) :roll:

Originally posted by DaBouncer
Do you think it's possible to class the racists within the BNP ranks as Fundamentalist Christians ?

Interestingly the BNP used to put a lot of empathies on it's Pagan credentials but since it ran intimidations campaigns against the Co-Op bank alongside this group:
http://www.christianvoice.org.uk

They have started to refer to themselves much more as being Christians. Despite of course the churches heavy involvement in campaigning against them.

Originally posted by DaBouncer
Some things are easily forgotten aren't they? (http://www.channel4.com/life/microsites/O/omagh/) :roll:

no, not at all.. it killed 28 people.. how does that possibly compare to the attacks muslim extremists have pulled off in the last 5 years???? even the recent london one had a higher fatality rate than that.. you've just helped prove exactly the point i was making, thanks :roll:

Originally posted by dirtybobby
no, not at all.. it killed 28 people.. how does that possibly compare to the attacks muslim extremists have pulled off in the last 5 years???? even the recent london one had a higher fatality rate than that.. you've just helped prove exactly the point i was making, thanks :roll:

I dont think its a competition as to who killed the most, wether they were Irish IRA or Muslims, what they have done is unforgivable fullstop. I dont care who does these bombings, All I care about is getting them stopped.

Originally posted by dirtybobby
no, not at all.. it killed 28 people.. how does that possibly compare to the attacks muslim extremists have pulled off in the last 5 years???? even the recent london one had a higher fatality rate than that.. you've just helped prove exactly the point i was making, thanks :roll:

Srebrinica - 10 years ago.

Tell me that wasn't an act of terorrism. Committed against the muslim population by Orthodox Christian Serbs.

Couldn't happen here, but from the sound of it, some people might like it to.

Originally posted by dirtybobby
no, not at all.. it killed 28 people.. how does that possibly compare to the attacks muslim extremists have pulled off in the last 5 years???? even the recent london one had a higher fatality rate than that.. you've just helped prove exactly the point i was making, thanks :roll:

Why this obsession with fatality rates? What point does that prove? In that case does the Nazis extermination of the Jews count? What about the "ethnic cleansing" in former Yugoslavia? You do have a very short memory.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Srebrinica - 10 years ago.

Tell me that wasn't an act of terorrism. Committed against the muslim population by Orthodox Christian Serbs.

Couldn't happen here, but from the sound of it, some people might like it to.

Sorry mate, I seemed to have reiterated your point.

Originally posted by spyro2000
I dont think its a competition as to who killed the most, wether they were Irish IRA or Muslims, what they have done is unforgivable fullstop. I dont care who does these bombings, All I care about is getting them stopped.

i know i agree, but dabouncer completely misread my post and posted a link which essentially proved the point i was making.. i'm going for lunch with my missus now, so can't be arsed to backpeddle and explain it with links, just read through the thread again, i'm sure it will make sense :)

in a nutshell, i was saying "muslim first, brtitish second" had more severe ramifications than saying "[insert faith here] first, british second" because in the current terrorist climate muslim extremists were easily the biggest perpetrators.. or something..

read back, it will all become clear lol..

Originally posted by dirtybobby
i'm going for lunch with my missus now, so can't be arsed to backpeddle and explain it with links, just read through the thread again, i'm sure it will make sense :)



Well I guess well see you a bit later, thats if youve still got electricity when u get back :rolleyes:

Originally posted by ARMANI
I agree with Spyro - How many other members of a particular religion would say for example they were Christian first and then the nationality of the coutry they reside in?

I would have thought most Christian believers would put their God and faith ahead of their nationality. Almost certainly the Jehovah's Witnesses would, as they do not believe in man- made governments, and thus abstain from voting.

Originally posted by dirtybobby
and don't start calling the war "a terrorist attack" and getting all left wing on us.. no-one likes dubya, but there's no point derailing the thread and muddyingup the discussion..
I don't think it's so much a matter of whether or not the war was a terrorist attack/justified/whatever, it's a matter of deaths of innocent civilians.

Put another way: focus for a moment on how you feel about the fact that about 50 innocent civilians have been killed in London. Now imagine that figure were 25000. What would you want to do to the perpetrators then?

Put another way: would you rather be living in London or Fallujah?

Originally posted by dirtybobby
no, not at all.. it killed 28 people.. how does that possibly compare to the attacks muslim extremists have pulled off in the last 5 years???? even the recent london one had a higher fatality rate than that.. you've just helped prove exactly the point i was making, thanks :roll:
I don't think I have.
How can you compair the amount of people murdered and call one not as bad as the other?

The Real IRA Killed 28 people in that attack. Did they know or intend to kill that many? The chances are they intended to kill a lot more... thankfully they didn't.

Islamic Extremists managed to kill over 50 people (which by the way is hardly a vast amount of difference) last Thursday. The chances are they intended to kill a lot more.

The fact of the matter is you can't compaire the 2 Terrorist groups and call one OK and the other not due to the amount of fatalities they managed to inflict on the particular occaision.

The fact that you would do this just shows how small minded, bias and un-informed you really are. :loopy:

Originally posted by t020
No, not really. The war in Iraq may have raised the UK's profile globally amongst the terrorists, but the attackers in London were homegrown and the evidence suggests they got into fundamentalism before the UK even invaded Iraq.
But the youngest suicide bomber was 18, the UK and USA have been killing people in Iraq since 1990. When he was 3.

They certainly start these suicide bombers off young nowadays.

I was close to Srebrinica 10 years ago as we were based with the UN. It was appalling to see what had happened and the lives it devasted.

Religous wars never solved anything they just killed people from both sides, its a complete waste.

There, things sparked to create fear and hatred and is happening in London. We never know where this may lead.

I believe British is an attitude and not a right, it doesnt matter where you were born or what colour you are. "Respect and freedom for all". If you dont agree then you cant be British so get lost!

Originally posted by Jamie
How on earth do they compute the margin of error !?

How do they arrive at a figure of 4% ?

sqrt(462) is around 4%. Fairly standard way to get it isnt it? Bottom line is if they want to measure a 2% effect they need more people in the sruvey...

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Srebrinica - 10 years ago.

Tell me that wasn't an act of terorrism. Committed against the muslim population by Orthodox Christian Serbs.

Couldn't happen here, but from the sound of it, some people might like it to.

Muslims (and Croats) commited dreadful atrocities against the Serbs in WW2 and also in the Balkan conflicts in the 1990s. Indeed, there was even an SS division formed largely of Bosnian Muslims and Croats during WW2. Some Nazi SS officers were reported as being shocked at the murderous zeal with which some Muslims and Croats turned on their Serb neighbours. I think that many of the atrocities commited against, and examples of ethnic cleansing of, Serbs by Muslims and Croats in the 1990s went under-reported in the West because they did not fit easily into the simplistic view of the these conflicts which became the conventional wisdom in the West - i.e. that the Serbs were the bad guys and the Muslims and Croats were the victims. One of the reasons why Srebrenica happened was that armed groups from this town had been launching raids on local Serb villages, attacking their inhabitants and fuelling Serb rage. Since the end of the Kosovan conflict, Serbs (together with Gypsies and other non-Albanian ethnic groups) have been ethnically cleansed from most parts of Kosovo, with the West largely turning a blind eye.

Originally posted by DaBouncer
The fact of the matter is you can't compaire the 2 Terrorist groups and call one OK and the other not due to the amount of fatalities they managed to inflict on the particular occaision.

The fact that you would do this just shows how small minded, bias and un-informed you really are. :loopy:

i didn't do anything like that.. you're memory of what i have said/posted is incorrect.. go back and read it.. i have better things to do (wrap presents) than justify myself on an internet forum, especially to someone who substitutes the syllable "da" for the word "the"..

Originally posted by dirtybobby
especially to someone who substitutes the syllable "da" for the word "the"..

:heyhey: :clap:

You are all absolutely ridiculous.

I'm off back to the thread about girls bottoms.

:hihi:

Originally posted by kathythebean
I'm off back to the thread about girls bottoms.

:hihi:

finally, someone who wants to discuss serious world issues :heyhey:

Memo To Suicide Recruits

If its so good in heaven, why don't the recruiters go instead?

I think we have been far too willing in the past to let some really dangerous characters into the UK (especially London). These people claim asylum here and then when we are generous (or stupid) enough to give it to them instead of being greatful they do all they can to stir up hatred of us and possibly plan to kill us.

What mugs we must be to let this happen.:loopy:

Sid...errr....they were british.

No-one let them in - someone let their grandparents in.

Now stick to the girls bottoms thread you seem to know more about that :hihi:

Originally posted by dirtybobby
i didn't do anything like that.. you're memory of what i have said/posted is incorrect.. go back and read it.. i have better things to do (wrap presents) than justify myself on an internet forum, especially to someone who substitutes the syllable "da" for the word "the"..
Wow what a debating style you have :lol:
I apologise if I have got under your skin by raising issues with your obvious one minded view point of the worlds troubles in todays society.

I believe you stated here (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=508854#post508854) (for the second time) the following statement.
Originally posted by dirtybobby
anyway, that's irrelevant here.. the point is, out of all those faiths, which one has the highest percentage of nutters who want to bomb the crap out of stuff?
This was in response to Armani making a valid comment about the IRA commiting these types of attrocities and made a comparission about segregation (or lack thereof) between English and Irish.

You then stated (in the same post as linked above) the following:
Originally posted by dirtybobby
i'm irish myself, i know all about the segregation and what they get up to.. i said which faith had the highest percentage

the IRA, despite all their efforts, never once pulled off atrocities on the level that these extremists have..
You made the level of attrocities a comparisson here indicating that because in one act of violence on one day the IRA never managed to murder as many people as Islamic Extremists have it some how makes it not as bad.
Allow me to spell it out to you... Y-O-U A-R-E W-R-O-N-G.
You cannot justify one act of violence against a group of people as some how being better than the other based on fatalities.

I appreciate the point you were making before Armani raised the IRA issue was due to a percentage of Muslims in the UK (which by the way is based on a survey that cannot be relied upon) classing themselves as Muslim First and British Second is in your opinion worrying.

I addressed you blatant ignorant view that the IRA attrocities somehow pale in comparisson to those of the Islamic Extremists. They are as bad as each other.... end of.

Have a nice day :D

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
I kid you not i just phoned the company and they said the margin of error was 4%

So the proportion of Muslims who supported the bombings could be as high as 6% or as low as -2%.
Lies, Damn lies and statistics seems appropriate.



Funny Sky didn't mention that

If even one person said they agree with it it is one too many. Why do we allow such people in our country?

Originally posted by kathythebean
Sid...errr....they were british.

No-one let them in - someone let their grandparents in.

Now stick to the girls bottoms thread you seem to know more about that :hihi:

I am talking about some of the so called radical clearics etc who seak asylum because if they were deported back to Saudi Arabia they would receive the death penelty (ah, now wouldn't that be sad.)

Slim Sid, does that big "S" on your avatar stand for "Sun reader" perchance?

Originally posted by DaBouncer
I appreciate the point you were making before Armani raised the IRA issue was due to a percentage of Muslims in the UK (which by the way is based on a survey that cannot be relied upon) classing themselves as Muslim First and British Second is in your opinion worrying.

thank you, that was all my point was!

I addressed you blatant ignorant view that the IRA attrocities somehow pale in comparisson to those of the Islamic Extremists. They are as bad as each other.... end of.

Have a nice day :D

in which case, "ditto" lol.. i never ever intended to suggest that the IRA's actions were "inferior".. i have lost close family to IRA attacks.. indeed, my cousin was forced from her house during the riots in the 90s due to her being married to an RUC man.. i think my point got lost in the quagmire of replies, but you have essentially clarified it in the first quote..

christ.. you think i'd be doing something better than this when it's my gf's birthday today lol.. right, presents are now wrapped, surprise prepared.. i'm off to see her..

see y'all later..

Originally posted by Tubthump
Slim Sid, does that big "S" on your avatar stand for "Sun reader" perchance?

Do you defend these people's presence in this country then?

This is more a question. If I went abroad to these various countries like pakistan etc and told them I wanted to live their. I was going to build a christian church and tell everyone that Muslim life was wrong. They were only to read the bible and schools were to teach my child seperate values as not to offend. What would happen?
Would I get a major arms wide open and welcome as we do in Britain? or would something else happen?

Do gooders Do Bad! Brtain used to be Great Britain but the pc brigade has ripped out the great. If one of the london Bombers were told they were being deported a "do gooder" would step up and fight for their rights.

An early post says in America, you are american first and anything after that second? If people choose to come and live here it is because it is good, so british ways must be good for all those peope to want to come here. So you should be expected to live our way. If you don't like our way don't come here. Is it this simple?

Just views and questions

Beighton

Originally posted by slimsid2000
Do you defend these people's presence in this country then?

I don't for one minute condone the actions of hate fuelled extremists. I just think it's a little bit depressing when people start jumping on the whole "asylum seeker" debate as being the source of everything that's wrong with the world. It's an argument that's straight out of the pages of the Sun, and bares one or two resemblances to the maniacal rantings of your extremist clerics. As Kathythebean has pointed out, these bombers were British born, so bringing the issue of asylum into the discussion is straying from the point.

Tubthump I had exactly the same debate with my flatmate last night.

He was coming out with the "send em back" line. Where mate, to Leeds?

Funny how people get confused in't it?

Originally posted by Tubthump
I don't for one minute condone the actions of hate fuelled extremists. I just think it's a little bit depressing when people start jumping on the whole "asylum seeker" debate as being the source of everything that's wrong with the world. It's an argument that's straight out of the pages of the Sun, and bares one or two resemblances to the maniacal rantings of your extremist clerics. As Kathythebean has pointed out, these bombers were British born, so bringing the issue of asylum into the discussion is straying from the point.

Ok then. Should we have ever become a culti-cultural country in the first place?

I'm not answering no to this as I believe there are benefits to it but there are drawbacks also.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
Ok then. Should we have ever become a culti-cultural country in the first place?

I'm not answering no to this as I believe there are benefits to it but there are drawbacks also.

Yes I think we should. Obviously I personally can not answer this as a no :rolleyes:

The sheer cultural diversity of sheffield is one of the reasons I love the city so much. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Fine. as I said there are advantages but any honest look at the subjest also has to look at the disadvantages and recent events would have been less likely in an all white country.

I am not putting forward an argument against multi-culturalism just pointing out there are two sides to it.

What I want to know, slimsid2000, is ....

Should asian / muslim ladies with cute bums also be deported? Or should exceptions be made?

(appologies in advance to all human kind for my making light of a very serious subject matter ... ladies bums!).

Originally posted by slimsid2000
Fine. as I said there are advantages but any honest look at the subjest also has to look at the disadvantages and recent events would have been less likely in an all white country.
Yeah, right. Like Hicksville USA, home of the Oklahoma bombers and other such right-thinking individuals :loopy:

Originally posted by slimsid2000
If even one person said they agree with it it is one too many. Why do we allow such people in our country?

Because it's their country too perhaps?

Yes I agree with you that one person condoning suicide bombings is one too many, but this thread wasn't started about one person it referred to 2% of all British Muslims, and as even a glimpse at the survey reveals. That figure is totally unreliable and worthless as a statistic.

Originally posted by spyro2000
What about the figures for the other religions. I bet there are christians, Jews, Hindus etc out there that would consider themself christian Jewish or Hindu 1st and british 2nd.

As for the survey in general, I dont feel that surveys show the true light. You would need to survey a significant percentage of the population for it to be of any use.

That’s secondary to the point. But how many Christian, Jewish or Hindu suicide bombers have you heard of over your life time or your parent’s life time? I bet you can’t even think of one. That’s because these religions do not believe in the killing of innocent people. It is the Muslim faith that has these grey areas within their very beliefs that has helped cause this sort of thing!

Islam needs to modernise itself in much the same way the Christian faith has. It is these teachings, based on thousand year old texts written in times of conflict that are being used as justification for their actions.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
Fine. as I said there are advantages but any honest look at the subjest also has to look at the disadvantages and recent events would have been less likely in an all white country.


I'm sure that if Hitler had his way that Nazi Germany would have been a Utopia for its Master race of blonde hair and blue eyed Ayrians. We would be a world at peace I'm sure...

Are you serious???!!!

Originally posted by rich951
You seem a bit obsessed by this negative figure :) The error depends on the sample size and has just been quoted as a general figure (remember there are three questions quoted, possibly more asked in the survey). Forget about the fact that mathematics says it could be -2% and worry more about the points people are trying to make...

Yes, Sir! But people were talking as though a negative amount of people could've responded a certain way, which annoyed me intensely!

Originally posted by Tubthump
But let's also condemn the fact an estimated 25000 civilians have been killed in Iraq by the bombs of Neo Christian America (with the assistance of Christian Mr. Blair). The country is now in the grip of a civil war that is seeing bomb attacks like 7/7 occur on a daily basis.

I agree with much of what you say, but that figure is not right. According to Iraq Body Count/Oxford Research Group, 37% of the civilian deaths (about 9200) have been caused by the US-led coalition. Bad enough, of course, but the remaining 63% (about 15,600) have been caused by others, especially "predominantly criminal killings", "anti-occupation forces alone" and "unknown agents". The latter groups have caused by far the majority of civilian deaths since the invasion itself.

The insurgency and associated crime/anarchy presumably wouldn't have happened without the US-led invasion, but that's a different issue.

See:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4692589.stm

and

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4696875.stm

Originally posted by Tubthump
I don't for one minute condone the actions of hate fuelled extremists. I just think it's a little bit depressing when people start jumping on the whole "asylum seeker" debate as being the source of everything that's wrong with the world. It's an argument that's straight out of the pages of the Sun, and bares one or two resemblances to the maniacal rantings of your extremist clerics. As Kathythebean has pointed out, these bombers were British born, so bringing the issue of asylum into the discussion is straying from the point.

I tend to agree. I have always had a theory that if other countries decided to expel people of british origin and return them to GB that we would be in a much worst situation. For example, could you imagine Australia returning all the descendants of convicts who stole Aborigine land, USA returning descendants of settlers who stole Native American's land, various African countries sending back the white farmers who stole their land, Spain returning the crims from the Costa del crime. Not a very nice picture is it.

Originally posted by DanSumption
But the youngest suicide bomber was 18, the UK and USA have been killing people in Iraq since 1990. When he was 3.

They certainly start these suicide bombers off young nowadays.

Not even the leftist of lefties could argue the original Gulf War wasn't necessary though, surely?

Originally posted by evildrneil
Fundamentalist Christians?

Can we have evidance on how you came about this answer here?

Originally posted by slimsid2000
Fine. as I said there are advantages but any honest look at the subjest also has to look at the disadvantages and recent events would have been less likely in an all white country.

I don't believe I just read that :o
Are you that small minded to think that if the country had remained an all white country (i.e. never have allowed immigrants) that we would be free from attrocities like this?

What about the IRA (sorry to bring this back into it but it's just to make this simple point) are they not white?
Were they not bombing the s**t out of our country well before a minority of Islamic Extremists decided to do the same?

slimsid I'm sure your post may have been written with the best of intentions but please lets not go down the whole race route on this.
If anything you would have been better saying an all religion free country. At least that way you might have had a point.

Hmmm no christian/hindu/whatever terrorist groups - IRA, Real IRA, KKK, Lords Resistance Army in Uganda (who not only go in for murder but forced canibalism and mutilation in the name of christianity), Gods Army in Burma, Aum Shinrikyo (Bhuddist/Hindu), Kach and Kahane Chai (both Jewish), Various anti-abortion groups in the US (laughably called pro-life!) etc. etc. etc.

Originally posted by DaBouncer
I don't believe I just read that :o
Are you that small minded to think that if the country had remained an all white country (i.e. never have allowed immigrants) that we would be free from attrocities like this?

What about the IRA (sorry to bring this back into it but it's just to make this simple point) are they not white?
Were they not bombing the s**t out of our country well before a minority of Islamic Extremists decided to do the same?

slimsid I'm sure your post may have been written with the best of intentions but please lets not go down the whole race route on this.
If anything you would have been better saying an all religion free country. At least that way you might have had a point.

I did specifically say "recent events" meaning of course the London bombs of yesterday and two weeks ago. I never said it would have prevented any other terrorism or that there are not advantages to imigration.

And lets not forget the aparthied government in South Africa used to justify their actions by the bible

Originally posted by slimsid2000
Fine. as I said there are advantages but any honest look at the subjest also has to look at the disadvantages and recent events would have been less likely in an all white country.


I think you should read this web page Sid.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/332807.stm

Originally posted by slimsid2000
I did specifically say "recent events" meaning of course the London bombs of yesterday and two weeks ago. I never said it would have prevented any other terrorism or that there are not advantages to imigration.

That argument is as ridiculous as saying, "if only we hadn't invented aeroplanes, then 9/11 or Lockerbie could never have happened".

Originally posted by serapis
Can we have evidance on how you came about this answer here?

It can be argues that the US/UK attack on Iraq was a terrorist assualt organised by Christian fundamentalist neo-cons which certainly killed more people than Muslim fundamentalists. Whether you agree with this point of view or not depends pretty much on which side of the freedom fighter/terrorist divide you are on (i.e. if you approve they are freedom fighters and if you don't they are terrorists).

Though I have to admit that the comment was actually thrown in more as a 'devils advocate' than strictly as an answer!

Originally posted by evildrneil
It can be argues that the US/UK attack on Iraq was a terrorist assualt organised by Christian fundamentalist neo-cons which certainly killed more people than Muslim fundamentalists. Whether you agree with this point of view or not depends pretty much on which side of the freedom fighter/terrorist divide you are on (i.e. if you approve they are freedom fighters and if you don't they are terrorists).

Though I have to admit that the comment was actually thrown in more as a 'devils advocate' than strictly as an answer!

I dont ever remember TB or GB using the bible as justification for their actions!

I posted this on the other thread to show that people are not all out to get at one another.

I've been watching the news all day and seeing how events have unfolded, I imagined that all the muslims and christians would be against each other now and fighting and backstabbing etc . . . .

I walked up to the shop about half an hour ago to find both muslims and christians stood chatting about it all, both groups were absolutely disgusted with what has happened and were wanting the same thing - that the criminals be caught and bought to justice.

After chatting in a civilised manner, It actually made me feel better somehow to think something like this is actually bringing certain communities closer

few facts for some ignorant people:

islam does not ask people to kill - the only time you are allowed to be a martyr is whn you fight for your religion - the terrorists are claiming to be fighting in the name of islam but are actyually not

muslims condemn these terrorists but have empathy for those who carried it out - i.e. backlash from iraq etc - i disagree with bush - i.e. in iraq - i supported the view that saddam is a tyrant but against the war - i don't think they had to fgo hand in hand which is what bush was suggesting -

think why you have these terrorists - tackle the route of the problem and you get rid of the terrorism - ira - peace process - etc etc.

people are missing the point totally - you don't have to be extremists to agree with WHY they are doing it - try and tackle the route of the problem and then see whether you still get terrorists - i'll put money on it that it will dissapear.

as for the recruiters - if you didn't have the major injustices in the middle east and afghanistan and iraq - the recruiters would have nothing to lure the moderate people -

if it's muslims generally - how long have you had muslims in this country ??? at least 50 years - has britain had any problems wioth muslims in these years apart from the odd riot here or there - no - there must be a reason why its happening - are people blind and thick - i think they are

and one more thing - all of this is to do with OIL and other resources -
you can certainly think what you like but i challenge anyone to counter this view
why are we hanging around in iraq - OIL - soldiers dying evryday
sleep in your bed tonight and know that you are seeing this day cos of bush and blair wanting oil

Originally posted by terrano

think why you have these terrorists - tackle the route of the problem and you get rid of the terrorism - ira - peace process - etc etc.

I disagree with you on so many counts but this part sums it up best. Your location is S4 so I presume you live in England, yet you refer to British society as "you". Surely the term should have been "we"?

Originally posted by t020
I disagree with you on so many counts but this part sums it up best. Your location is S4 so I presume you live in England, yet you refer to British society as "you". Surely the term should have been "we"?

Bit pedantic but very true nonetheless

And it aint very often I agree with mr T

Originally posted by Saifa
Bit pedantic but very true nonetheless

And it aint very often I agree with mr T
I pity the fool ;)

Originally posted by t020
Not even the leftist of lefties could argue the original Gulf War wasn't necessary though, surely?
They can and did. But that's beside the point.

It wasn't so much the Gulf War that turned Iraqi opinion against the Western interventionist powers, it was firstly George Bush senior's call for all reasonable Iraqis to rise up and overthrow Saddam, followed by his making a quick getaway and leaving all reasonable Iraqis to die, and secondly the ten year UN sanctions regime which killed many of the most vulnerable in Iraqi society but left Saddam relatively untouched.

I raise this point because it's one which Moslem friends have made to me in recent days, and because I'm sick and tired of hearing Bush, Blair and their cronies parroting the line "these terrorist attacks had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq. September 11th happened before the invasion of Iraq".

Originally posted by serapis
That’s secondary to the point. But how many Christian, Jewish or Hindu suicide bombers have you heard of over your life time or your parent’s life time? I bet you can’t even think of one. That’s because these religions do not believe in the killing of innocent people. It is the Muslim faith that has these grey areas within their very beliefs that has helped cause this sort of thing!
How wrong can you be???

The world leaders in suicide bombing are actually secular Hindus. No Moslem organisation even comes close. The Japanese (Shinto/Buddhist) also ran a fairly brisk trade in this type of activity during WWII. Ditto Aum Shinrikyo (a cult mixing Buddhist and Hindu beliefs).

Even if we accept the view that the vast majority are law abiding and would not hur t a fly,you still have some who will kill you given the chance.
I think the trouble comes from the fact the koran which is what seems to drive these people to do what they do,has never been amended so as to reflect the times we live in.
Some of the comments in sharia law need to be made clearer and amended so there can be NO missunderstanding by ANYONE.
After this has been done no one will have to argue the toss the translation is right or wrong,EASY.

Originally posted by Tubthump
an estimated 25000 civilians have been killed in Iraq by the bombs of Neo Christian America (with the assistance of Christian Mr. Blair).

The British and American forces are 'mixed religion' forces.

There were possibly Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Athiests, Agnostics, Pagans and God knows what else involved in the Iraq conflict on the side of the west.

For anybody, including the 'Nutters for Islam' brigade, to say that Christian armies are to blame for 25000 civilian deaths is a little far off the mark.

The forces may be mixed religion - however the controlling junta is most definately of a fundamentalist christian bent!

To be honest I think getting "whitey" (for want of a better word) to have increased suspicion and / or loathing for muslims is one of the goals of the extremists.

Think about it - whitey hates muslims more, more muslims feel alienated from mainstream society, more recruits for the bombers. More bombs, whitey hates muslims even more, and so on

So, we can all do summat to fight the terrorists right now. And that's not base our view of an entire religion on the nutty fringe.

You get me?

Originally posted by evildrneil
The forces may be mixed religion - however the controlling junta is most definately of a fundamentalist christian bent!

and that 'junta' was voted into power by the religions/beliefs I mentioned before.

If Blair and Bush had both been Jewish, you can bet your last rolo that these nutters would still have blown up innocents in a Christian location.

Let's face it, they hate ANYONE who doesn't agree with them. This even includes their own brethren. They hate anyone who isn't THEM!!

Originally posted by DanSumption
It wasn't so much the Gulf War that turned Iraqi opinion against the Western interventionist powers, it was firstly George Bush senior's call for all reasonable Iraqis to rise up and overthrow Saddam, followed by his making a quick getaway and leaving all reasonable Iraqis to die, and secondly the ten year UN sanctions regime which killed many of the most vulnerable in Iraqi society but left Saddam relatively untouched.


It wasn't so much the Gulf War, but four decades of America and its mates knobbing around in the Arab world, trying to control the flow of oil. That and the fact that at no point has the Arab world actually had much of a hearing about its needs, desires and thoughts generally. If you don't listen to a child it will have a tantrum. If you patently stamp all over a set of people while ignoring it individuals will have, erm, tantrums. Until The US and its cohorts take a serious look at how it has comported itself during the latter part of the 20th Century and has a measured look at the future, accepting that Islam is part of things, disaffected young muslims will continue to set themselves alight in the West's capitals. While Tony is telling the muslim leaders of this nation to root out the evil in their congregations he might want to ask them what they think about our Britain in 50 years' time. And once they have come up wth their vision of things, he might want to ring Georgie W and pass on the message. In short sentences, obviously. Bush then might want to call his pal Sharon and tell him to stop being such a fat, self-righteous criminal and accept that the land the good lord chose for his tribe is shared with several others.

Shalom.

Originally posted by joyphil
Shalom.
Amen!

Originally posted by DanSumption
Amen!

Annoyingly, although I spent today with a very eloquent and intelligent muslim (who actually knew one of the bombers personally), I never did ask him what the Koranic 'amen' is. Does anybody know?

Oh aye. Interestingly this chap said the following: "we all knew Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction. He was an idiot, just an idiot." Bearing in mind it was George Bush who resumed arms against him, I couldn't help but be struck by the irony. Ho hum.

Originally posted by joyphil
Annoyingly, although I spent today with a very eloquent and intelligent muslim (who actually knew one of the bombers personally), I never did ask him what the Koranic 'amen' is. Does anybody know?
"Amin" (with a long "i", i.e. "Ameen").

From The Oxford University Press's "The Koran: A Very Short Introduction" - a caption beneath a musical notation of the Fatiha on page 85 reads:

The reciter ends by adding an amin ('amen'), which rhymes nicely with dallin. From Edward Lane, An account of the manners and customs of the modern Egyptians written in Egypt during the years 1833-1835, London 1895, pp382-3

I thank thee! I have the Koran (or Q'uran) here somewhere, but I think it has disappeared under a pile of Jilly Coopers and Harry Potters.

Didn't you know that according to Muslim doctrine the Koran has to be placed above any other books, literally as well as figuratively?

Originally posted by joyphil
I thank thee! I have the Koran (or Q'uran) here somewhere, but I think it has disappeared under a pile of Jilly Coopers and Harry Potters.
Oh dear. From the same book:
No practicing Muslim would allow a copy of the Koran to be anywhere but at the top of a pile of books
But then I guess you're not a practicing Muslim and your copy probably isn't in Arabic, so you should be OK. Besides, doesn't Harry Potter trump Allah?

Edit: Snap, LordChav.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Didn't you know that according to Muslim doctrine the Koran has to be placed above any other books, literally as well as figuratively?

That's for practicing muslims. I'm moderately agnostic, so in my house every book has to fend for itself. The Holy Bible shares shelf space with Michael Ondaatje and Iris Murdoch at the moment, although I'm sure there used to be en A-Z of Manchester lurking there at one point. Found a great book on the shelf the other day - the Deluxe A-Z of Birmingham. Surely the most inappropriately named tome in cartography?

Harry Potter trumping Allah? Surely not. Although quite a few Christians seem worried the boy wonder will hex Jesus, on account of him being evil and all...

Originally posted by joyphil
Found a great book on the shelf the other day - the Deluxe A-Z of Birmingham. Surely the most inappropriately named tome in cartography?
I once had to write a review of a BMI website where, as part of a gushing in-flight mag feature, they mis-spelt the city "Brimingham". It conjured up visions for me of some cornucopia of the Midlands.

Ignoring , for the time being , all the pros and cons of recent events-------I should think every possible aspect has nearly been covered by now anyway------I was struck by a sort of simplistic anti-American sentiment running through it all as regards oil.
One would imagine that the only people that have ever benefitted from MiddleEastern oil have been America. We have 25 million vehicles in this country . What do they run on ------steam ? How many S.F. people would be glad to give up THEIR car so that we don't have to be involved in the Middle East or anywhere else , so that our economy keeps moving ?
How did we and the Americans get involved in Saudi Arabia , Iraq and Kuwait in the first place? We , 'inherited ' Iraq after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, when Iraq was a poor , chaotic desert country , suffering from the mis-management and oppression of the Turks. I don't suppose at that time it seemed like a prize , more like a burden.
Saudi wasn't even united as a country until the 1920's. There was always a strong bond between the British and the Arab world , partly of anti-Turkish origin [Lawrence of Arabia and all that ].
When oil was discovered after the 2nd. World War , who was going to develop it ? Who had the resources to get it drilled , refined and moved ? Principally , the Americans , of course. The Arab states who had oil grew extremely rich , our economies kept moving and Western companies got rich too. What were they supposed to do ? Leave it there or let the Russians do the job?
Have the Arabic nations distributed their wealth fairly amongst their people ? Hardly ! Has this lead to a lot of them feeling disaffected ? Probably.
The West did not invade the Middle East to get oil. They were welcomed as co-partners to get the stuff out.
Saddam Hussein brought the 1st. Gulf War on himself by invading an independent country , in an especially volatile region and for the next 10 years did not keep to his side of the Peace bargain. It's ludicrous to suggest that , "America invaded Iraq for oil ". America has no particular problem getting oil------and how much oil would they get from a war -torn country anyhow ?
The Americans and British may have invaded Iraq for the wrong reasons and I believe that they virtually lied about the reasons anyway but oil is not the issue and we never ,"conquered " the Middle East for it in the beginning.

Originally posted by royjames
Even if we accept the view that the vast majority are law abiding and would not hur t a fly,you still have some who will kill you given the chance.


Food for thought from royjames. Made me think of this -

David John Copeland is a former member of the British neo-Nazi National Socialist Movement who became known as the "London nailbomber" after a 12-day bombing campaign in April 1999 aimed at London's black, Asian, and gay communities.

Over three successive weekends, Copeland placed homemade nail bombs, each containing up to 1,500 four-inch nails, outside a supermarket in Electric Avenue, Brixton, an area of south London with a large black population; in Brick Lane in the east end of London, which has a large Asian community; and in the Admiral Duncan pub in Soho's Old Compton Street, the heart of London's gay community. No warnings were given before the bombs exploded.

The attacks claimed three lives, all in the Admiral Duncan pub bombing.

Source: Wikipedia

Even if we accept the view that the vast majority {of fascists} are law abiding and would not hur t a fly,you still have some who will kill you given the chance.......

.....even when you are having a quiet drink in a London pub.

Originally posted by redrobbo
Even if we accept the view that the vast majority {of fascists} are law abiding and would not hur t a fly,you still have some who will kill you given the chance.......
:clap: :clap: :clap:

Originally posted by redrobbo
Food for thought from royjames. Made me think of this -

David John Copeland is a former member of the British neo-Nazi National Socialist Movement who became known as the "London nailbomber" after a 12-day bombing campaign in April 1999 aimed at London's black, Asian, and gay communities.

Over three successive weekends, Copeland placed homemade nail bombs, each containing up to 1,500 four-inch nails, outside a supermarket in Electric Avenue, Brixton, an area of south London with a large black population; in Brick Lane in the east end of London, which has a large Asian community; and in the Admiral Duncan pub in Soho's Old Compton Street, the heart of London's gay community. No warnings were given before the bombs exploded.

The attacks claimed three lives, all in the Admiral Duncan pub bombing.

Source: Wikipedia

Even if we accept the view that the vast majority {of fascists} are law abiding and would not hur t a fly,you still have some who will kill you given the chance.......

.....even when you are having a quiet drink in a London pub.

True, but Copeland was an oddball and a loner. The Copeland case is qualitatively different from the seemingly large international network of terrorists, a network comprising ideologues, organisers, foot soldiers and fellow travellers, with which we are currently struggling. I think you are in danger of minimising the current threat by comparing it to the case of Copeland.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
True, but Copeland was an oddball and a loner. The Copeland case is qualitatively different from the seemingly large international network of terrorists, a network comprising ideologues, organisers, foot soldiers and fellow travellers, with which we are currently struggling. I think you are in danger of minimising the current threat by comparing it to the case of Copeland.

Don't suicide bombers count as misguided, oddball loners? I'm fairly certain you couldn't class them as "mainstream" muslims in any way?

Well they are certainly oddballs by most peoples definition, but acting in teams of four at a time doesnt suggest "loners", unfortunately.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
True, but Copeland was an oddball and a loner. The Copeland case is qualitatively different from the seemingly large international network of terrorists, a network comprising ideologues, organisers, foot soldiers and fellow travellers, with which we are currently struggling. I think you are in danger of minimising the current threat by comparing it to the case of Copeland.

My post was in response to royjames, who expressed the view that "you still have some {Muslims} who will kill you given the chance".

This is an entirely fallacious argument, which propagates mistrust of all Muslims.

Copeland may have been acting alone, but he was a former member of a neo-Nazi organisation. So was John Tyndall, who has recently died.

In 1962, Tyndall was convicted under the Public Order Act for organising the neo-Nazi group, Spearhead. In 1966, he was convicted of illegal possession of a firearm and half a dozen coshes - "protection against Jews", whom he described as "poisonous maggots". In 1986, he was jailed for a year for conspiracy to incite racial hatred.

Idealogues, organisers, foot soldiers and fellow travellers can belong to any organisation, be they extremist Muslim, fanatical Christians, or home-grown neo-Nazis, etc.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
True, but Copeland was an oddball and a loner.
Yes, he was a delusional neo-nazi, I think "oddball" and "loner" a par for the course. And?

Originally posted by DanSumption
"Amin" (with a long "i", i.e. "Ameen").

From The Oxford University Press's "The Koran: A Very Short Introduction" - a caption beneath a musical notation of the Fatiha on page 85 reads:

Is it true that the Koran also states that the Prophet Mohammed married a 6 year old girl and "consummated" the marriage when she was 9?

Originally posted by redrobbo
My post was in response to royjames, who expressed the view that "you still have some {Muslims} who will kill you given the chance".

This is an entirely fallacious argument, which propagates mistrust of all Muslims.

Copeland may have been acting alone, but he was a former member of a neo-Nazi organisation. So was John Tyndall, who has recently died.

In 1962, Tyndall was convicted under the Public Order Act for organising the neo-Nazi group, Spearhead. In 1966, he was convicted of illegal possession of a firearm and half a dozen coshes - "protection against Jews", whom he described as "poisonous maggots". In 1986, he was jailed for a year for conspiracy to incite racial hatred.

Idealogues, organisers, foot soldiers and fellow travellers can belong to any organisation, be they extremist Muslim, fanatical Christians, or home-grown neo-Nazis, etc.

Indeed they can - and have done so in many different political contexts. But the neo-Nazis (thank goodness) have never had the kind of support or the numbers comparable to the current terrorist threat and which make it so dangerous to our society.
As far as we know, Copeland was not part of a terrorist network and was probably more comparable in psychological make up to the lone assassins of US presidents or to the US unabomber rather than to the members of Al Qaida cells or networks. According to some recent reports, several thousand Britsh muslims may have attended terrorist training camps in Afghanistan or Pakistan in recent years. If this figure is any where near accurate, it probably exceeds the combined total for all members of far right groups in the UK

Originally posted by DanSumption
Yes, he was a delusional neo-nazi, I think "oddball" and "loner" a par for the course. And?

And read the other two sentences

Originally posted by t020
Is it true that the Koran also states that the Prophet Mohammed married a 6 year old girl and "consummated" the marriage when she was 9?
I have no idea. I'll let you know if I find out as much in my studies, but it sounds to me like something which may be (to use a Christian term) apocryphal.

Originally posted by redrobbo
Copeland may have been acting alone, but he was a former member of a neo-Nazi organisation. So was John Tyndall, who has recently died.

The BNP are very keen to stress that Copeland was attacking along, however Tony Lecomber who leads their campaign in London is very much a part of the party and he has no less then five convictions under the explosives act, as well as string of offences for violent racist assaults.

Originally posted by DanSumption
I'll let you know if I find out as much in my studies
OK, my studies were relatively brief. I try not to believe everything I read on the Internet, but the stuff at http://www.muslimhope.com/WhyDidMohammedGetSoManyWives.htm at least has a veneer that suggests reliability, though I haven't checked any sources:

3. 'A’isha was Abu Bakr’s daughter. She married Mohammed when she was (six) 6 years old, went to his house when (nine) 9. Bukhari vol.7:88 p.65; Sahih Muslim vol.2:3309,3310,3311 (p.715,716)

Contrary to this marriage being important for political reasons, Abu Bakr was the first convert to Islam.

This wife of Mohammed is mentioned in many places, including Sahih Muslim vol.1:1694 (p.372); Abu Dawud vol.1:1176 p.305; vol.1:1268 p.335; vol.1:1330 p.350; Abu Dawud vol.1:1336 p.351; vol.1:1419 p.373; vol.2:2382 p.654.

‘Aisha played with dolls while Mohammed was present. Sahih Muslim vol.4:5981 p.1299

‘Aisha was 6 (or 7) years old when she was married, and the marriage was consummated when she was nine years old. al-Tabari vol.9 p.130,131

A’isha was married when she was six years old, and nine when she went to Mohammed’s house. Ibn-i-Majah vol.3:1876 p.133

A’isha was seven years old when she married, nine years old when she lived with Mohammed, and 18 years old when he died. (not Sahih) Ibn-i-Majah vol.3:1877 p.134

A rationale trying to explain why Mohammed married such a young girl is given in Sahih Muslim vol.2 footnote 1859 p.715. It says that "it was some exceptional circumstances that Hadrat ‘A’isha was married to the Prophet… The second point to be noted is that Islam has laid down no age limit for puberty for it varies with countries and races due to the climate, hereditary, physical and social conditions." They also mention support from the disreputable Kinsey report on Sexual Behaviour in the Human Female.

Mohammed himself once deliberately struck ‘Aisha "on the chest which caused me pain", according to Sahih Muslim vol.2:2127.

There was other discord too. One incident, started by A’isha was so bad, Mohammed kept away from his wives for a month 29 days) Ibn-i-Majah vol.3:2060 p.241. Ibn-i-Majah vol.3:2063 p.243. This is the context of Sura 50:1.

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :o :o

most Muslims are absolutely no diferent to me.

a few get taken in by the propoganda whcih Mosques have allowed to surfice. Hopefully this will stop now.

First of all stewart cpoeland wasNEVER a member of the BNP just so those who insinuate this know its not true, and to try to compare one man when you have maybe hundreds of potential muslim terrorists is stupid to say the least.
Oh and yes the prophet mohhamed did indeed take a girl of 9 to be his wife,I will let you draw your own conclusions if this is right or proper.
Oh and finaly I wont take any lectures from labour people about violence,after all your party are responsible for killing thousands of innocent Iraqis and thus making us a bigger target for the terrorists than need be the case.

Originally posted by royjames
Oh and yes the prophet mohhamed did indeed take a girl of 9 to be his wife,I will let you draw your own conclusions if this is right or proper.

Doncha just love it when people try to judge the activities of the past by the morals of today! Your talking about events over 1500 years ago. Do you feel the same about medieval england (a mere 700 years ago) when the age at which girls could get married was 12 though the nobility were typically getting hitched much younger - six (and younger) being not at all unkown.

Originally posted by evildrneil
Doncha just love it when people try to judge the activities of the past by the morals of today! Your talking about events over 1500 years ago. Do you feel the same about medieval england (a mere 700 years ago) when the age at which girls could get married was 12 though the nobility were typically getting hitched much younger - six (and younger) being not at all unkown.

But he married Aisha in 622 when he was 52 years old.

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
The BNP are very keen to stress that Copeland was attacking along, however Tony Lecomber who leads their campaign in London is very much a part of the party and he has no less then five convictions under the explosives act, as well as string of offences for violent racist assaults.

Copeland's acts were deplorable and he was motivated by hate, apparently driven by a Fascist ideology.

But in terms of hate fuelled crimes, those carried out on 7/7 probably killed more people than any pure 'hate crimes' carried out by Fascists in the UK in the last 20 or 30 years.

Whether we like it or not - those driven by hatred fuelled by extremist Islam appear, on numbers alone, to have killed more than those driven by hatred fuelled by Fascism in the last few decades in the UK.

Joe

Originally posted by LordChaverly
But he married Aisha in 622 when he was 52 years old.

And? Your still talking about a different culture and a different time. Morals are transient things almost entirely dependant on the culture and time in which you are. Trying to judge something that happened in the middle east in 622 by the standards of 2005 UK is at best meaningless...

Originally posted by evildrneil
And? Your still talking about a different culture and a different time. Morals are transient things almost entirely dependant on the culture and time in which you are. Trying to judge something that happened in the middle east in 622 by the standards of 2005 UK is at best meaningless...
But didn't this chap write a book, at this time (in history), that is still regarded by many to be current and relevant...

...and that book has not been (and cannot be) updated, ever.

:suspect:

Originally posted by evildrneil
And? Your still talking about a different culture and a different time. Morals are transient things almost entirely dependant on the culture and time in which you are. Trying to judge something that happened in the middle east in 622 by the standards of 2005 UK is at best meaningless...

I am not trying to do this at all. I was responding to your point about the nobility getting hitched much younger - as indeed was the case and still is in some parts of the world. But the implication seems to be that the parties involved would have been roughly the same age.

It is ironic that you view the morals and behaviour patterns common to the Middle East in the 7th century as meaningless for the UK in the 21st. The reality is though that the Koranic edicts seem to be largely based on these and Muslim scholars study Mohamed's sayings and doings in order to find the correct way of living.

I don't know the facts about the case of Mohammed but I believe the child marriages of the Middle Ages in England were in fact between kids of roughly the same age and were not in fact , "marriages " as we use the term.
I think the , "marriages " in the Middle Ages were marriages of convenience , often between powerful families , who needed , quickly to form alliances. The children had no say in it , obviously , and the children lived normal lives with their families and then re-united with their legal husbands at , the then , normal marrying age.
EvilDrNeil is correct in saying that moral outlooks and standards change. Romeo and Juliet were only supposed to be 14 and 12 years old , respectively --------but the other poster made THE important point ,why then does the Islamic world take the Koran at absolutely face value , if so much is different and why do most religiouns tend to do this ? Is it too challenging to adapt the , "rules " to the circumstances ?

Originally posted by Fareast
Is it too challenging to adapt the , "rules " to the circumstances ?

I think this is the nub of many problems relating to fundamentalism. This harking back to a time when people were more at one with their god/s. The theory being that if society can live in the way that they did when a particular messiah was around then we could get closer to god. That way there is no need to adapt the rules to changing social trends. Just look at the way the CofE is being riven about the ordination of women.

Oddly enough, most fundamentalists, be they of any religious leaning, put a lot of emphasis on the role of women being a subservient one.

Misogyny plays a large part imo.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
But didn't this chap write a book, at this time (in history), that is still regarded by many to be current and relevant...

...and that book has not been (and cannot be) updated, ever.

:suspect:
I've been discussing this a lot with a Moslem friend of mine. As anyone who's read my opinions here over recent weeks will know, I'm not a big fan of the Koran (or any religion), but I think that a few of the things he has said to me are worth repeating here:



The Koran is considered God's final message to mankind but not God's only message to mankind. It's the final message because we, Muslims, believe that every people in the world has been given a message. One way of understanding these messages, or revelations, is to think of them as a culture correcting device - a culture gets to the point where it's barbaric ie people are murdering babies that are female cause they want male babies, or whatever, imagine a culture going ape doing all sorts of horrible things. This is a situation where the people have forgotten the truth. So what happens is a revelation is given to them to remind them what they know is true. They can choose to listen to that revelation or ignore it.

The point is that once you have been given multiple revelations - then the onus is on you to listen or not. If you choose to forget them, then that is your choice and Muslims believe that there are consequences to doing so.

So Muslims believe that all people have been given the tools and intellect to distinguish the truth from falsehood.

Muslims believe that one of the reasons that people have forgotten the truth is because they have often taken the revelations that come from God and re-written them to suit their historical conditions.

I guess something else I ought to explain here.

The notion of truth is Islam is actually quite close to what could be understood as a truth in the scientific world. A truth is something that can be thought of as a natural law. So a "law" might be that if you leave a plant, that needs water, in the sun and don't water it - then it will die. That's a "law of nature". Of course we can genetically alter the plant and so on. But my point is simple, science is about uncovering the laws of the universe that we are subject to. Understanding these laws doesn't mean we break them, it just means we can work with them better.

Similarly the idea of truth in religion is that there are a set of laws, properties of the universe and human nature. If we deny them, then there are consequences - but it's our choice if we want to deny them or not. So for example if we want to ignore the law of gravity and pretend that we're flying when we're in freefall - well, just know that the consequence is that we will hit the ground.

These laws are eternal and universal. If we re-write them with the times, we're simply deluding ourselves.

Muslims believe that many cultures have done this. They have re- written the laws of the universe to suit their historical conditions.
As a result of long historical processes of re-writing, people can no longer distinguish truth from falsehood.

The Koran in Arabic is the unchanged word of god, the original revelation given to the Arabs 1400 years ago. It is unchanging because that was a promise made by God about this final message - the final message cannot and will not be re-written by man. Hence it is unchanging. No two copies of the Koran in Arabic are ever different.

...

You also seem to be implying that Islam is an unchanging religion - with no philosophy reflecting changes in time. That is not true. There are masses of movements, debates, philosophical arguments happening within the Islamic world. It's a very fluid situation.

Of course that doesn't mean there isn't a bedrock that doesn't change- a little bit like how science needs to build on the things it knows to be true. Scientific revolution doesn't mean a total rejection of what came before.

The Koran is not axiomatic - it is truth but it's not axiomatic. It's a set of messages that are rooted within a historical context and so reflects historical events of the time. Axioms do not do this.

...

...things need to be understood in the historical context within which they were revealed. In order to grasp why they are in the Koran you need to take the time to understand the context they were revealed in. Only then is it possible to address them. Addressing them outside of a historical context is like picking aline from a speech that Julius Caesar gave to the Romans and asking why I believe that line. It may be the truth but it only makes sense because it was being said by someone to someone else in a particular situation in a particular time.

I and very few Muslims read the Koran a-historically.


I'm still very worried about those who do read the Koran a-historically, but this at least puts things more into context and helps me to understand how some of the 7th Century-isms of the Koran are dealt with by modern Moslems.

looks like about 70 killed in Egypt now....Islamic fundamentalism raises its ugly head again. And most of the dead are probably muslims from jordan and egypt itself.

This is why people think of "islam" and "terrorist" together. Islam is its own worst enemy.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
[BIt is ironic that you view the morals and behaviour patterns common to the Middle East in the 7th century as meaningless for the UK in the 21st. The reality is though that the Koranic edicts seem to be largely based on these and Muslim scholars study Mohamed's sayings and doings in order to find the correct way of living. [/B]

I didn't say that - I said trying to judge the activities of someone in a tribal arabic culture in the 7th century by the standards of 21 century England is meaningless. Social morality is a fairly transient thing and trying to judge one culture by the standards of another is unhelpfull and meaningless. Perhaps marriages between 60-ish year olds and children in tribal arabic cultures in the 7th C were fairly routine? (N.B. I'm not a historian and am not asserting this as the truth just wondering if it is the case!)

Originally posted by evildrneil
I didn't say that - I said trying to judge the activities of someone in a tribal arabic culture in the 7th century by the standards of 21 century England is meaningless. Social morality is a fairly transient thing and trying to judge one culture by the standards of another is unhelpfull and meaningless. Perhaps marriages between 60-ish year olds and children in tribal arabic cultures in the 7th C were fairly routine? (N.B. I'm not a historian and am not asserting this as the truth just wondering if it is the case!)

But isn't it human nature for adults to NOT be attracted to pre-pubescent children as a means of protecting the young? Surely that hasn't changed over time even if morals have?

Originally posted by t020
But isn't it human nature for adults to NOT be attracted to pre-pubescent children as a means of protecting the young? Surely that hasn't changed over time even if morals have?

As noted above child marriages are hardly uncommon through history and in many cultures.

I wonder if there is one law for the muslims and another for everyone else


.Man distributed race hate leaflet
A Muslim who distributed pamphlets calling for a holy land jihad against Jews has escaped jail.
Zaheen Mohammed, 27, admitted handing out leaflets that read: "The hour will not come until Muslims fight the Jews and will kill them."

Southwark Crown Court heard how Mohammed from Newham, east London, was in poor mental health in October 2000 when he tried to incite racial hatred.

On Friday he was give a two-year community rehabilitation order.

It was before 9/11 and before what has happened in society now

Tanveer Qureshi, defending

Mohammed, a security guard, pleaded guilty to one count of distributing pamphlets with intent to stir up racial hatred and a second of possessing material for the same purpose.

Tanveer Qureshi, defending, said when Mohammed took to the streets of Whitechapel, in east London, the world was a very different place.

"It was before 9/11 and before what has happened in society now," he said.

He said Mohammed was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia at the time, but his health had improved and he has since got a job, married and had a child.

Passing sentence, judge Nicolas Loraine-Smith said: "You were openly distributing some deeply offensive literature which was calculated to stir up racial hatred against the Jewish community. It was a stark and ghastly message."

He said under normal circumstances the offences would merit a custodial sentence, but because of Mohammed's previous poor mental health a rehabilitation order was more appropriate.






E-mail this to a friend Printable version




LINKS TO MORE LONDON STORIES


SelectSecond man held over bomb alertWeekend travel hit by disruptionParliament protester to fight banFuneral for bus explosion victimLondon losing house price crownLondon 'under attack' - StevensWeek in Pictures: LondonThames history revealed on shoreShooting watershed for UK security


BBC LONDON
Travel, features and more from the BBC website for London



RELATED INTERNET LINKS:
Her Majesty's Courts Service
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites


TOP LONDON STORIES NOW
Second man held over bomb alert

Weekend travel hit by disruption

Commons protester to fight ban

Funeral for bus explosion victim

| What is RSS?


TOP UK STORIES NOW
Eight Britons hurt in Egypt bombs

London alerts: At-a-glance

Will police now shoot to kill?

Shock after Stockwell shooting

| What is RSS?




News alerts | E-mail services | Mobiles/PDAs | Headlines for your site
Help | Privacy & Cookies Policy | News sources | About the BBC Back to top ^^

News Front Page | World | UK | England | Northern Ireland | Scotland | Wales | Politics
Business | Entertainment | Science

Originally posted by royjames
I wonder if there is one law for the muslims and another for everyone else
No, but I'm all for introducing separate laws for people who clutter up their posts by pasting all manner of irrelevant bumph from a web page.

Originally posted by royjames
| What is RSS?

...

| What is RSS?

Go on then Roy, tell us, what is RSS? And while your at it, you can tell us "About the BBC Back to top ^^" too.

Originally posted by royjames
I wonder if there is one law for the muslims and another for everyone else

Why - is the mitigating plea of Diminished Responsibility due to psychiatric problems available only to Muslims?

Originally posted by evildrneil
Why - is the mitigating plea of Diminished Responsibility due to psychiatric problems available only to Muslims?
I'm just waiting for the leadership of the BNP to step forward and admit to suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. Would perhaps explain a thing or two. "The voices told me to do it!"

Originally posted by evildrneil
As noted above child marriages are hardly uncommon through history and in many cultures.

I never disputed that but are you trying to say paedphilia is natural in some way??

Originally posted by t020
I never disputed that but are you trying to say paedphilia is natural in some way??

That rather depends on the definition of paedophelia - these days in the UK a relationship with a 12 year old is paedophilia - roll back to Medieval times and it becomes the age of marriage and is the age of consent in a number of countries around the world.

Originally posted by evildrneil
That rather depends on the definition of paedophelia - these days in the UK a relationship with a 12 year old is paedophilia - roll back to Medieval times and it becomes the age of marriage and is the age of consent in a number of countries around the world.
ISTR there are pacific islands where this was also the case at least until very recently.

The debate on this thread seems to have crystallised into two broad viewpoints.

Firstly there are the posters who put forward the 'muslim exceptionalism' arguments, i.e. that there is at the present time something exceptional about the doctrine and practice of Islam which makes it distinctive and different from other creeds in its impact on (and degree of compatibility with) the modern world

Secondly, there are those who attempt to counter this view by putting forward various 'non-exceptionalism' arguments, which purport to demonstrate comparisons and parallels between the doctrine and practice of Islam and those of other faiths or belief systems.

Personally, I think the evidence is becoming ever clearer that the former arguments have greater cogency, not least because Islam is the only one of the major religions which has not become largely secularised; and which has yet to undergo a major reformation; and which makes no distinction between religion and politics (among many other things).

In their crudest manifestations, the proponents of 'non-exceptionalism' on this thread remind me a little of the naive idealists and gullible fools who thought that Russian Bolshevism was really no different from other forms of socialism (just a little more extreme perhaps) or that the Fascists were misunderstood, and in any case had legitimate grievances, and at least made the trains run on time. We should not make the same mistake. The Islamo-fascists are of course but a small minority of the Ummah (i.e. the Islamic community as a whole) , but unfortunately they are numerically large enough to constitute a grave and present danger.

I think the thing with Islam is that as it relies and teaches directly from an ancient text it is often seen as a more barbaric faith than the other major religions.

Christianity seems to take biblical stories and put the in a modern context to make them "easier" for people to relate to.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
The Islamo-fascists are of course but a small minority of the Ummah (i.e. the Islamic community as a whole) , but unfortunately they are numerically large enough to constitute a grave and present danger.
What your analysis doesn't mention is that "Islamo-facism" is a relatively recent phenomenon and that, for example, Moslems kept large swathes of the world in relative harmony for several centuries before Christians came along with their inquisition.

There is the potential for evil in all religions, but it takes politics to make that evil manifest itself (though I agree that Islam's lack of distinction between religion and politics is very unhelpful).

Pardon Me, Me Lord -

What about those of us who think that islam is too broad a faith to comment on as a whole and should be seen in the context of country and individual circumstance?

*little curtsey*

:)

Originally posted by kathythebean
Pardon Me, Me Lord -

What about those of us who think that islam is too broad a faith to comment on as a whole and should be seen in the context of country and individual circumstance?

*little curtsey*

:)

kathy, you may rise, my wise bean.

If you read my post again I made a distinction in it between Islamo-fascism and Islam as a whole. I mentioned that I thought that the adherents of the former were but a small minority of Islamists as a whole. Unfortunately, in terms of their capacity to do serious damage to societies around the world they are not an insignificant minority. Therin lies the issue and the problem

This new poll on British Muslim attitudes by YouGov, a highly respected polling organisation, is interesting. Make of it what you will. Here is a report on it, which contains a link to the results.

http://pollingreport.co.uk/blog/index.php?p=424

Its the kind of statistic that makes the PC liberal elite start shifting uncomfortably on their fence. "Er....but Islam is a religion of peace....no blood for oil.....blah...not in my name...gibber....george bush is hitler.....buy organic food.....etc"

There are central tenets to fundamental islam that are not compatible with capitalism and democracy. That is not debateable.

So around 10% feel no loyalty whatsoever to the country,thats a awful lot of people who dont really care .
And 6 % think its justified to kill the british people,well what more do you need to realise this multi racial experiment is a complete failure.
I suppose the P C lot will make something else from this,after all they cant really admit this is the reality as it destroys all their arguments about diversity being strength and all the rest of the bull.
This country is paying the price for the liberal ideals of multiracial and multi culturalism, so called diversity,its all a big con and the people will come to see this the more of our lot are killed.
Oh and yes I mean by the term (our lot )white indigenous people,my party has long told you the reality is all lies and now you can see we told the truth.
Wake up before its too late.

Originally posted by DanSumption
What your analysis doesn't mention is that "Islamo-facism" is a relatively recent phenomenon and that, for example, Moslems kept large swathes of the world in relative harmony for several centuries before Christians came along with their inquisition.

There is the potential for evil in all religions, but it takes politics to make that evil manifest itself (though I agree that Islam's lack of distinction between religion and politics is very unhelpful).

This is a strange view of history. Islam was and is a proselytising faith and much of this proselytising in the 'several centuries before Christians came along with their inquisition' was done with the sword. Do you think a large swathe of the Indian sub continent became Islamic as a result of peaceful Islamic missionaries knocking on doors? The Islamisation of what we now call the Middle East was likewise largely achieved through conquest, as was also true of the conquest of Andalusia.

Oh my god royjames you're right. I think I've just seen the light.

I think we should lock them all up, or send them back to the country their grandparents came from in the 1950s. That'll stop all this rubbish!


:|

Originally posted by kathythebean
Oh my god royjames you're right. I think I've just seen the light.

I think we should lock them all up, or send them back to the country their grandparents came from in the 1950s. That'll stop all this rubbish!


:|


Excellent idea Kathy good to see you seen the light at last.;) :thumbsup:

Originally posted by royjames
So around 10% feel no loyalty whatsoever to the country,thats a awful lot of people who dont really care .
And 6 % think its justified to kill the british people,well what more do you need to realise this multi racial experiment is a complete failure.

That rather depends on the amount of loyalty felt by non muslims doesn't it? Perhaps the muslims actualy feel more loyal to their addopted country than the people born here???

Originally posted by skny
There are central tenets to fundamental islam that are not compatible with capitalism and democracy. That is not debateable.

There are central tenets to fundamental Islam that are not compatible with the Islamic faith most muslims practice. That is entirely debatable, and the sooner Western government starts debating the matter with the Islamic world the sooner the madness of fundamentalism (that of Al Quaida right through to that of Royjames) can be shown the door. The sooner we can move towards a political scene that actually reflects the patchwork quilt of cultures this globe has become since the boat and the jet engine were invented. You and Roy raking up history isn't going to help the future all that much.

Originally posted by evildrneil
That rather depends on the amount of loyalty felt by non muslims doesn't it? Perhaps the muslims actualy feel more loyal to their addopted country than the people born here???


Ok tell me just what do you base this on? I dont think so ,you just wont accept the fact its all a big con will you?
No offence but its what I expected you to say.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
This new poll on British Muslim attitudes by YouGov, a highly respected polling organisation, is interesting. Make of it what you will. Here is a report on it, which contains a link to the results.

http://pollingreport.co.uk/blog/index.php?p=424

It's kind of difficult to know what to make of it without more details - the page itself points out that this was a very small sample which makes you wonder how small and what the margin of error is? However one thing that both polls show i that it is a small minority of muslims showing any support for the bombings and violence.

To relate this to the title of this thread no not all mulsims are moderate (which I don't think anyone has claimed) but the vast majority are...

Yeah royjames, sign me up, I'd love to come and hang out with you and your gang.

LordChav, what I was trying to get at is that the title of this thread is ridiculous - all muslims? It encourages comments from all sides of the arguement like:

"Perhaps the muslims actualy feel more" or "they should be" or "we should tell them"

statements that don't actually mean anything and dont shed any light on anything.

(sorry, for 'I'd love to' please read 'I'd rather ride down a staircase of razor blades into a bath filled with vinegar and maggots than')

Originally posted by royjames
Ok tell me just what do you base this on? I dont think so ,you just wont accept the fact its all a big con will you?
No offence but its what I expected you to say.

Ermmmm if you re-read I didn't actually state anything so there is no need to base my comment on anything - I was asking a question. Without a comparison of the percentage of other groups feeling 'loyalty' (however that is defined) it's not really possible to single out any one group as being particulaly 'disloyal' is it?

Well to me being disloyal means going around with explosives strapped to your body in order to kill innocent people.
Cant get much more disloyal than that can you?

"You and Roy raking up history isn't going to help the future all that much." I'm raking up history? Quotes, please.

Originally posted by royjames
Well to me being disloyal means going around with explosives strapped to your body in order to kill innocent people.
Cant get much more disloyal than that can you?

You don't seriously think that 10 percent of the muslims in the country are planning to do that do you?

I dont think the poll results are particularly conclusive, as I think a poll of average english students would rack up a very small but notable group (whacked out wanabee anarchists etc) that would applaud any attack on western consumer driven society, you would also have a number of people claiming we deserve all we get due to our close associations with the US.

Originally posted by evildrneil
You don't seriously think that 10 percent of the muslims in the country are planning to do that do you?


No I dont,the figure of 6% is probably more nearer the mark,either way thats a hell of a lot of people,even if its say 2% its still many people who want to or are willing to kill us all.
Face it, this so called diversity bull is unfolding in front of your eyes,and the sooner the people see it for what it is the better for all of us.
I hate to say it but this country is going to pay a heavy price for the folly of the traitors in the commons who let this country turn into this multi racial slum it is now.

Originally posted by royjames
I hate to say it

Really? :rolleyes:

I dont see how the ethnic mix of a country makes it more prone to terrorist atrocities. Look at france and holland, they arent exactly under siege from terrorists and look at countries that are suffering like egypt and turkey, they arent exactly "multi-racial slums" are they?

Similar problems in Holland (http://slate.msn.com/id/2109523/)

I think royjames has a very utopian view that if somehow we could make 'them' all go 'home' then everything here would be fine. :loopy:

Originally posted by skny
There are central tenets to fundamental islam that are not compatible with capitalism and democracy. That is not debateable.
That's true. Ditto Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism... why not just come out with it and say "there are central tenets to religion that are not compatible with capitalism and democracy"?

Originally posted by LordChaverly
This is a strange view of history. Islam was and is a proselytising faith and much of this proselytising in the 'several centuries before Christians came along with their inquisition' was done with the sword. Do you think a large swathe of the Indian sub continent became Islamic as a result of peaceful Islamic missionaries knocking on doors? The Islamisation of what we now call the Middle East was likewise largely achieved through conquest, as was also true of the conquest of Andalusia.
Yes, Islam was a prostelytising faith during its first few centuries, but once it had taken control of territories there was actually a remarkable degree of tolerance towards Jews, Christians and even Hindus - Moslem spain was a melting pot which directly led, via the Moslem importation of ancient Greek texts, to the Renaissance. It was only once the Christians kicked the Moslems out that 400 years of mayhem and torture kicked off.

Because we're constantly "editing" our religion to fit society. That's anathema to fundamentalist muslims. Its probably not a nice idea to fundamentalist christians either, but they just write into the Daily Mail.

Originally posted by skny
Because we're constantly "editing" our religion to fit society. That's anathema to fundamentalist muslims. Its probably not a nice idea to fundamentalist christians either, but they just write into the Daily Mail.

Or join the KKK! Or bomb an abortion clinic (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_0027.htm) !

(we dont all edit)

Originally posted by royjames
No I dont,the figure of 6% is probably more nearer the mark,either way thats a hell of a lot of people,even if its say 2% its still many people who want to or are willing to kill us all.
Face it, this so called diversity bull is unfolding in front of your eyes,and the sooner the people see it for what it is the better for all of us.
I hate to say it but this country is going to pay a heavy price for the folly of the traitors in the commons who let this country turn into this multi racial slum it is now.

I would think a figure of probably considerably less than 1% is probably closer to the mark! Though how on earth are you trying to link this with multiculturality?

Oh and multi-racial slum? Just where do you live???

Isnt that more indicative of american society as a whole than christianity though? Abortion doctors are not being murdered here, or in Ireland, which has huge numbers of anti-abortionists regularly parading around with religious placards saying "pray to mary, mother of the unborn"

Originally posted by skny
Because we're constantly "editing" our religion to fit society. That's anathema to fundamentalist muslims. Its probably not a nice idea to fundamentalist christians either, but they just write into the Daily Mail.

Or join the KKK, blow up doctors who perform abortions etc etc

Originally posted by evildrneil
I would think a figure of probably considerably less than 1% is probably closer to the mark! Though how on earth are you trying to link this with multiculturality?

Oh and multi-racial slum? Just where do you live???


First of all just why do you think its nearer to 1%?
And to the question of how does it link in with the racial mix of this country,its easy, the mix is made up of those who came here say 40 yrs ago and now its their off spring which are doing the killing.
As to the point about Holland and France ,well they havent upset the muslims in their countrys like we have by attacking Iraq,maybe if they had then they also would be facing suicide bombers?

Originally posted by royjames
First of all just why do you think its nearer to 1%?

Empirical evidence - so far we have had what four suicide bombers now say this is one percent of people likely to become suicide bombers that gives us a total of what 400. Now if we have a population of 1.6 million that gives a total of 0.025 percent.

And to the question of how does it link in with the racial mix of this country,its easy, the mix is made up of those who came here say 40 yrs ago and now its their off spring which are doing the killing.

A tinytinytiny minority of them - so are you saying that because of this miniscule percentage the 'multi-cultural experiment' has failed - so what about the MUCH higher percentage who live in harmony with other cultures? That argument (such as it is) seems to be somewhat lacking in rationality and realism...

Originally posted by LordChaverly
This is a strange view of history. Islam was and is a proselytising faith and much of this proselytising in the 'several centuries before Christians came along with their inquisition' was done with the sword. Do you think a large swathe of the Indian sub continent became Islamic as a result of peaceful Islamic missionaries knocking on doors?

You raise an interesting point here, regarding 'Islam being spread by the sword'. There's a large number of Muslims in the Far East, and as far as I'm aware, no Muslim soldiers ever set foot there in the time of Mohammed the Prophet.

I'm sure that Islam was spread there when Muslims travellers and merchants brought with them a superior ideology to what the 'natives' already had.

But I'm sure you'll have another view.

Many thanks.

Abdul ,

Not sure where you mean by , "Far East " ?
That's generally meant to mean , China , Japan , [maybe] you could also include the Phillipines and eastern Russia and of course the two Koreas and Taiwan.Not many Muslims there ,unless there are some in the Philliipines.
If you mean India , well by force or not , Islam was not a great success story in India where about 80% of the people are Hindu.
The other big spread of Islam came about with the expansion of the Ottoman Empire which took Islam into S.E.Europe and N.Africa. It's arguable how much pressure the Ottomans put on those they conquered to convert to Islam but I bet anyone who wanted to progress under the Ottomans found it easier if they did convert.
On the whole though , I don't think Islam did force many people at sword -point to convert but to be honest my knowledge of the history of Islam in India is almost non-existent

Originally posted by Fareast
Not sure where you mean by , "Far East " ? That's generally meant to mean , China , Japan , [maybe] you could also include the Phillipines and eastern Russia and of course the two Koreas and Taiwan.Not many Muslims there ,unless there are some in the Philliipines.

Many thanks for your response, Fareast.

I meant countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Thailand and Indonesia. South east Asia would probably be a more accurate location!

Originally posted by Fareast
If you mean India , well by force or not , Islam was not a great success story in India where about 80% of the people are Hindu.

Yes, but about 12% of the population are Muslim. The % may be relatively small, but that's 12% of a billion people!

Originally posted by skny
Isnt that more indicative of american society as a whole than christianity though? Abortion doctors are not being murdered here, or in Ireland, which has huge numbers of anti-abortionists regularly parading around with religious placards saying "pray to mary, mother of the unborn"

Indicative of American society? Yes and no. I think that the huge population and size difference between the US and the UK has more to do with it.

UK Population:
60,441,457 (July 2005 est.)

Area - comparative:slightly smaller than Oregon.

US Population:
295,734,134 (July 2005 est.)

Area - comparative:about half the size of Russia; about three-tenths the size of Africa; about half the size of South America (or slightly larger than Brazil); slightly larger than China; almost two and a half times the size of the European Union. World's third-largest country by size (after Russia and Canada) and by population (after China and India); Mt. McKinley is highest point in North America and Death Valley the lowest point on the continent.

Taken from here. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html I found this rather interesting. But you can see that with such a population difference, it stands to reason we'd have a few more crazies. Some parts of the US are much less diverse than others. There's also huge differences in local culture, depending on where you are. Go down south, and they drink "sweet tea", which is iced tea with boiled corn syrup in it (Gah!), and they give you a glass big enough to drown a horse in. They also put butter on their cereal. Come to California, where there are more places to get a glass of juice than a glass of beer. Ask for bread and you are just as likely to get a tortilla.

There are those who feel that the only "true" religion is theirs. Sort of like the old joke about being quiet in heaven, because the Catholics think they're the only ones there. And folks having different religious views are fine, except when some followers try to force their views on the rest of us, and get violent when people don't seem to be listening.

That goes for muslim extremists AND crazed Army of God types! http://www.armyofgod.org/

Originally posted by kathythebean
Or join the KKK! Or bomb an abortion clinic (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_0027.htm) !

Are the above group the ones you meant, kathy? I had a look around their site, and am really more concerned about this:http://www.savecalifornia.com/ The main focus of their outrage seems to be gay marriage. That and the Grand Theft Auto San Andreas game. ;)

:) Sierra

I'm not having a go at american society when I say "indicative of american society as a whole", its logical that you will have 5 or 6 times as many nutters as us in the UK! But as far as "terrorism" goes, I doubt most americans see militant christians being a genuine threat. Grand theft auto on the other hand... :D


"I'm sure that Islam was spread there when Muslims travellers and merchants brought with them a superior ideology to what the 'natives' already had."

Superior?

I doubt the relatives of the two hundred victims of the Bali bombing would agree with that. Don't most of the countries you mention suffer from radical extremist terrorism?

Interesting article from the BBC about 'jihad'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4711003.stm

Joe

Originally posted by skny
I'm not having a go at american society when I say "indicative of american society as a whole", its logical that you will have 5 or 6 times as many nutters as us in the UK! But as far as "terrorism" goes, I doubt most americans see militant christians being a genuine threat. Grand theft auto on the other hand... :D

No offense taken, skny. You are correct in your assesment that most Americans don't view militant Christians as a threat. Probably because there are so few of them. I personally know of a few Christians, and Mormons, who refuse to send their kids to school, because of what they perceive as a "bad influence". They home school them.

And this is not limited to Christian types, either. We have Iranian neighbors (I believe they are muslims) who also refuse to send their son to "regular" school. Funny, as the local public schools were good enough for his sisters. He attends an expensive private school instead. I learned this while talking with his father one day, who graciously informed me that most American schools were "no good".

Hey thanks! My kids go there!

The only trouble these people have ever encountered in the neighborhood was not from any native born Americans. The patriarch of the Hindu family down the street has made it very clear that he doesn't care for them.

Ahhh, for a little tact some days......

:) Sierra

Originally posted by evildrneil
That rather depends on the definition of paedophelia - these days in the UK a relationship with a 12 year old is paedophilia - roll back to Medieval times and it becomes the age of marriage and is the age of consent in a number of countries around the world.

But no matter what the age of consent, it's very unlikely a 9 year old is anything but a pre-pubescent child. Whether legally/morally right or wrong, it's surely physically unnatural?

Originally posted by t020
But no matter what the age of consent, it's very unlikely a 9 year old is anything but a pre-pubescent child. Whether legally/morally right or wrong, it's surely physically unnatural?

As evildrneil said earlier though, there are many historical examples of marriages to 9 year old girls (and even younger). In 1254, the future King Edward I travelled to Spain for an arranged marriage at the age of 15 to 9-year-old Eleanor of Castile.

So its ok then for a man aged over 50 to have sex with a girl of 9? You really amaze me sometimes just how you try to justify that whats not justifiable, pedophilia.
No wonder the country is in the mess it is?

Originally posted by royjames
So its ok then for a man aged over 50 to have sex with a girl of 9? You really amaze me sometimes just how you try to justify that whats not justifiable, pedophilia.
No wonder the country is in the mess it is?

:huh: My post wasn't about a 50yr.old man, it was about a 15yr.old future King of England in 1254! Kindly point out where I justified paedophilia from this historical analogy. No, I didn't think you could.

Originally posted by redrobbo
As evildrneil said earlier though, there are many historical examples of marriages to 9 year old girls (and even younger). In 1254, the future King Edward I travelled to Spain for an arranged marriage at the age of 15 to 9-year-old Eleanor of Castile.

I know, I'm not saying it's exclusive to one religion/culture/etc. I'm just saying that whether it was legal or moral at the time is irrelevant. A 9 year old back then or here today is still very unlikely to have even started puberty, so is a *child*. I would think, or certainly would like to think, that only a very small percentage of men (today, thousands of years ago, it doesn't matter when) would be sexually attracted to children.

Also, I don't see how the fact that others in history may have done the same thing is relevant at all. They're not the ones who are worshipped thousands of years on.

Originally posted by redrobbo
:huh: My post wasn't about a 50yr.old man, it was about a 15yr.old future King of England in 1254! Kindly point out where I justified paedophilia from this historical analogy. No, I didn't think you could.

I've just joined the end of this thread So all muslims are moderate? after not reading it for a day or so.

That must be the most obscure tangent I've ever seen a thread take and there is no way I'm going to bother to trace it back or try and catch up!

Originally posted by t020
I know, I'm not saying it's exclusive to one religion/culture/etc. I'm just saying that whether it was legal or moral at the time is irrelevant. A 9 year old back then or here today is still very unlikely to have even started puberty, so is a *child*. I would think, or certainly would like to think, that only a very small percentage of men (today, thousands of years ago, it doesn't matter when) would be sexually attracted to children.

While women would get married at very relatively young ages in the Middle East, they wouldn't have any sexual relations until the woman was older... which I think answers the point you were making.

Originally posted by t020
But no matter what the age of consent, it's very unlikely a 9 year old is anything but a pre-pubescent child. Whether legally/morally right or wrong, it's surely physically unnatural?

Dunno about that - if you look at history and psychology (e.g. Kinsey) it appears that children are sexually active and that relationships between adults and children are common both homo- and hetero-sexual nature were not uncommon. Of course these were taking place at the same time that children were part of the adult environment (working etc.) rather than separate as they currently are. An argument can be made that child sexuality is a social taboo rather than physically unnatural.

N.B. Before anyone jumps on me, this is NOT a moral judgement or any form of support of paedophilia!

Religious radicals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why are they in our country

First they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out – Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists
And I did not speak out – Because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out – Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for me – And there was no-one left to speak out for me.
Small minorities that are led by radical beliefs turn into war mongers.
Hitler before he became famous for being a total psychotic ****** took Germany out of depression and totally refurbished the infrastructure, trains busses etc, he actually did a lot of good for the country, so the country supported him, then he became power hungry and the rest is history.
Based on the above quote----- first they came for the Jews
Are we not doing this?
If they kill your family I shall care but not get involved for it is not my family
If they kill your friends I shall care but not get involved because they are not my friends
If they kill my family and friends then and only then I shall get involved because it affects me.
This is Britain 2005. If you went to Saudi and pinched an apple from the market you would have your hand chopped off, so I am lead to believe. We are in their country and must respect their laws.
Sod this Political correctness; issued by mamby pamby bleeding heart liberals. They are in our country and must respect our laws.
They are British first and foremost. Religion does not give a person a right to blow people up for a cause. Even if you can’t see what’s happening you should be reacting to what you can see.
Then we get “well were doing this because what you are doing in Iraq or Russia or wherever”
So that gives you a right to kill innocent people and children doe’s it.
Sod off to Iraq and fights there don’t bring it to the British people who have no control over the current situation.
Nobody and nothing gives you or anybody a right to kill innocent people, nobody.
Now I am going to get “but your doing it in Iraq”
No the government is fighting for democracy?????? In Iraq.
If terrorists and religious factions kept out of the situation there would be no blood shed.
But you can’t can you, like Hitler you are saying your fellow man is not as good as you,
Sunnis saying Muslims are the dregs of the earth and Muslims saying Sunnis are “however you spell it” are the dregs of the earth.
Don’t bring your religious wars over here, British people will only take so much you know!!!!
Bring back Winston Churchill that’s what I say.
Either follow British laws, ways of life and principles or sod off back to your country.
Now I am going to be accused of racism!!!!!!!! Or fascism!!!!!!
I don’t care I am saying it as I see it!!!!!!!!!!
Before they come for my son!!!!!

Quoted above

"Hitler before he became famous for being a total psychotic ****** took Germany out of depression and totally refurbished the infrastructure, trains busses etc, he actually did a lot of good for the country, so the country supported him, then he became power hungry and the rest is history."

Hmmmm i am not to sure that the above is true

Hitler sort of took Germany out of a depression. In real terms he probably made the long run a whole lot worse but in the short term, yes.

And these British people who break the law. I assume you aren't making a differential between Muslim Britains and other Britains? Since the prisons seem to be full of white men. What about the Irish? Since they are all obviously IRA bombers whould they all be kicked out of the country? :loopy:

oh and religious radicals. I assume you are talking about right wing Christians and the Pope as well?

Because the Pope has killed a hell of a lot more people than any Muslim fundamentalist.

Originally posted by A_True_Brit

Now I am going to get “but your doing it in Iraq”
No the government is fighting for democracy?????? In Iraq.


Do you not see any irony in that??????

Enforcing democracy??????

Would the west be bothered if there was no oil or money to be made from it????

Why is there not this level of involvement in Africa??????? why not impose some democracy there???

Can you not see why they would be P****d with the west????

Originally posted by skny
"I'm sure that Islam was spread there when Muslims travellers and merchants brought with them a superior ideology to what the 'natives' already had."

Superior?

I doubt the relatives of the two hundred victims of the Bali bombing would agree with that. Don't most of the countries you mention suffer from radical extremist terrorism?
Erm, I think you'll find the Bali bombings came quite a bit after Islam had spread to that part of the world.

Originally posted by A_True_Brit
First they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out – Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists
And I did not speak out – Because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out – Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for me – And there was no-one left to speak out for me.

They came for the palmists,
but I wasn't a palmist
so I did nothing.
They came for the bungee jumpers,
but I wasn't a bungee jumper
so I did nothing.
They came for the players' agents,
but I wasn't a players' agent
so I did nothing.
They came for the Charles Manson fans,
but I wasn't a Charles Manson fan,
so i did nothing.
They came for the reflexologists,
but I wasn't a reflexologist
so I did nothing.
They came for the camp TV chefs,
but I wasn't a camp TV chef
so I did nothing
They came for the Romos,
I laughed.
They came for the martial arts enthusiasts,
but I wasn't a martial arts enthusiast
so I did nothing.
They came for Eammon Holmes
and I think I'm right in saying I applauded.
They came for the Danni Behr
I said she's over there
behind the wardrobe.
Turn a Blind Eye
Sometimes it's best to turn a Blind Eye.

(© Half Man Half Biscuit)

A_True_Brit - I'm sure you make your point very eloquently. But what the hell is it?

PS. Sunnis are Muslims.

Originally posted by A_True_Brit
Now I am going to be accused of racism!!!!!!!! Or fascism!!!!!!
I don’t care I am saying it as I see it!!!!!!!!!!
Before they come for my son!!!!!
All I'm accusing you of is positive discrimination in favour of exclamation marks.

Originally posted by JFKvsNixon
Quoted above

"Hitler before he became famous for being a total psychotic ****** took Germany out of depression and totally refurbished the infrastructure, trains busses etc, he actually did a lot of good for the country, so the country supported him, then he became power hungry and the rest is history."

t020 did all that?

Originally posted by dirtybobby
you've got to be kidding?? you honestly reckon if you surveyed a decent sample of christian british people they would say they were "christian first, british second"??

i'm christian by default, but religion has lost all meaning for me, as i would imagine it has for most british "christians" these days.. i consider myself to have decent morals and an excellent upbringing, i don't need religion.. i'm not denouncing it, some people love that ****, but imo you're every day average brit would consider themselves "british first, christian second"..

anyway, that's irrelevant here.. the point is, out of all those faiths, which one has the highest percentage of nutters who want to bomb the crap out of stuff?

well...............now you mention it, why not jump on Cathloics too? Also if you look at History, why not Christians ? any faith you choose. It isn't even faith that causes this, it's humans who hide behind a faith and distort its intent. What faith was Hitler???? not Muslim!

Originally posted by bonny
What faith was Hitler???? not Muslim! wasn't he Jewish

Originally posted by sonofman
wasn't he Jewish

Catholic

Originally posted by bonny
well...............now you mention it, why not jump on Cathloics too? Also if you look at History, why not Christians ? any faith you choose. It isn't even faith that causes this, it's humans who hide behind a faith and distort its intent. What faith was Hitler???? not Muslim!
Hitler was Catholic as was Mussolini.

Irelevent though as they did not go to war preaching religion.

Muslim extremists on the other hand are waging a Jihad (holy war) against the west or unbelievers.

That does make this a religious act!

Originally posted by redrobbo
:huh: My post wasn't about a 50yr.old man, it was about a 15yr.old future King of England in 1254! Kindly point out where I justified paedophilia from this historical analogy. No, I didn't think you could.


Maybe you ought to try to stick to the thread i e muslims and not go on about old england:loopy:
Oh and dont be so presumptious that I was refering to you.

Originally posted by Delboy3
Hitler was Catholic as was Mussolini.

Irelevent though as they did not go to war preaching religion.

Muslim extremists on the other hand are waging a Jihad (holy war) against the west or unbelievers.

That does make this a religious act!

Hitler did do it in the name of God. His army had belt buckles with the inscription that "God is with us".

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord," Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf.

"Erm, I think you'll find the Bali bombings came quite a bit after Islam had spread to that part of the world"

Dont be facetious. My point is that maybe this isnt quite the "superior ideology" suggested.

Originally posted by redrobbo
As evildrneil said earlier though, there are many historical examples of marriages to 9 year old girls (and even younger). In 1254, the future King Edward I travelled to Spain for an arranged marriage at the age of 15 to 9-year-old Eleanor of Castile.
But no one is suggesting that we should follow the morals or actions of Edward I...

...whereas a good number of people do believe that they should follow the moral, and exact written teachings of a 52 year old who married a 6 year old, and then went on to consummate the marriage when she was only 9 (and he was 55).

One case above is very much a historical incident, the other has direct links to a current religion, and its beliefs (although not for all its believers obviously).

It's a bit misguided to get into any debate about whether Islam is a bad religion, whether it's responsible for the suicide bombings etc etc. From a purely practical perspective, virtually none of the 1.6 million Moslems in this country are going to be swayed from their religion by even the most well presented argument. Similarly, any fascist idea of just "undoing" the multicultural strand of our society is just unworkable. You can't just deport 1,600,000 people and divide up their property; plus they play a vital role in our economy - Personally, I'd really rather see the tens of thousands of white British layabout dole scroungers being deported, preferably to somewhere without a welfare state. So any debate about whether Islam is inherently wrong, or whether multiculturalism is unworkable is irrelevant really. The point is, both are here to stay.

Which leads us to the problem of Islamic extremism. According to whatever polls have been cited, we have anything between 400 and 10,000 Moslems in this country who would quite cheerfully admit that they'd like to see you or me die because of our beliefs and way of life. Bare in mind that that leaves at the very least 1,590,000 Moslems who are more concerned with how to pay their next gas bill than bringing down western civilisation. But yes, 400 or 10,000 people with extremist beliefs is still too many.

So who are these extremists? Now, I'm no expert, but looking at our batch of home grown suicide bombers, they all appear to be young men. Like all young men, they'll be ambitious, wanting to leave their mark on the world, they'll be angry, they'll want to shout about who they are, they'll be competetive and want to be better then everyone else at whatever they do. They're also part of a minority culture - they'll feel isolated from the mainstream - you don't find large groups of Asians getting hammered in pubs, discussing football, being sick in the streets and picking fights with strangers do you (that's how young western men deal with anger and isolation).

If these young Moslem men come from extremely religious backgrounds, then they're being raised with certain values. They look at what's happening in the world - Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Israel - and surely they're seeing their religion, their very way of life under seige. Now, I'm sure most can see both sides of the coin, they can see that the Americans had no choice but to go after Bin Laden, that the Israelis ought to have a homeland, but not everybody can always see both sides of the story. If they've been brought up in a family with a narrow or racist perspective of the world, or have been attending a mosque since childhood that supports extremist views, then it's inevitable that they'll adopt those views. And then they'll want to fight for them.

Anyway, I'll stop the rant now. My point is that we can understand extremism. And if we can understand it, we can tackle it.

Originally posted by skny
"Erm, I think you'll find the Bali bombings came quite a bit after Islam had spread to that part of the world"

Dont be facetious. My point is that maybe this isnt quite the "superior ideology" suggested.
I wasn't being in the least facetious. I was pointing out that Islam was quite likely superior to the ideology in that part of the world at the time it spread there.

Or would you understand me better if I used an example closer to home? Europe had been in intellectual stagnation for the best part of a millenium when the Spanish Caliphate was proclaimed in the 10th century. Moslems brought Euope its first urban and commercial economy since the Roman Empire, and under Caliph Al-Hakam II Spain became a centre of learning, not just forging new knowledge but also reintroducing classical philosophy to Europe. As I think I've already mentioned on this thread, if it weren't for the Muslim Caliphate, the European Renaissance would not have happened until much later, if at all.

Originally posted by Funky Dave
Similarly, any fascist idea of just "undoing" the multicultural strand of our society is just unworkable. You can't just deport 1,600,000 people and divide up their property;
<sarcasm>Yes, but perhaps we could shoot all the Brazilians in the country. That might solve the problem of Islamic extremism, perhaps?</sarcasm>

I agree with you 100% Dave, very well put.

i think you are giving far too credit to Islam there, as it seemed to have marginal influence on pre-renaissance era Italy and northern europe. Saying the renaissance would not have taken place without the introduction of the Islamic Caliphate in Spain is taking quite a leap.

"I was pointing out that Islam was quite likely superior to the ideology in that part of the world at the time it spread there." And what ideology was that? There's no need to be condescending, i understand your posts, just don't necessarly agree with them.

Originally posted by Abdul
While women would get married at very relatively young ages in the Middle East, they wouldn't have any sexual relations until the woman was older... which I think answers the point you were making.

No, the Koran states the marriage was when she was 6 and it was "cosummated" (To complete (a marriage) with the first act of sexual intercourse after the ceremony, To fulfill (a sexual desire or attraction) especially by intercourse.) when she was 9.

Mod: Can we get this back on topic please? Ta.

Originally posted by Kristian
Mod: Can we get this back on topic please? Ta.

It is on topic. In order to discuss whether Muslims are moderate or not it's important to understand what they worship and the religion's roots, surely?

Originally posted by t020
It is on topic. In order to discuss whether Muslims are moderate or not it's important to understand what they worship and the religion's roots, surely?
So then we can continue to balance this argument with other holy book atrocities and wobbly moral guidance?