Muslims 'Greet' Returning British Troops on Parade

[Warspite]

Well, here is another reason, and Occam suggests mine is closer to the truth:

They don't give a shit. They don't think the radicals are so wrong as to need repudiation. That in fact their silence is an accurate representation of their views on the issue, in a general sense.

Have you spoken out in public about every issue that you think is a grave threat to your preferred way of life?

[The Minsky Moment]

The front of the MCB's website has a highlighted press statement declaring 'Luton Protestors do not Speak for Muslims'. 

Please note comments above - that press statement was not yet on their site when I posted my comment.

[Warspite]

For anyone interested, have a look at the Qulliam Foundation.

Started by an ex-radical who is now trying to work to separate 'Islamism' from 'Islam' (his words).

I have a colleague at work who is a Muslim expert on Islamic radicalisation who is really pissed off at this foundation - for the reason that he's been working on this very same grand project with a lot of people in his particular community, and then these 'celebrity' repentant radicals come along and take all the limelight.

So there are actual examples of Muslims in the UK working against these trends. However, these organisations do not get a great deal of media attention except from the odd occasion when they make a publicity blitz (Ed Husain is the closest thing to a posterboy for the counter-radicals, but even he's rarely seen on TV or outside the Guardian newspaper).

[The Minsky Moment]

I think they're both Muslims and are having a genuine fight about the future of their faith.  I think Islam can be a religion of peace but the moderates, if they're to have any chance don't want to base their faith on what we want or western liberal precepts, but on Islam. 

I don't think the issue is whether moderates will base their beliefs on what "we want" or "western liberal precepts".  There were points in Islamic history when scholars and leaders embraced the idea of universal rational principles and values and operated on the premise that because Islam (as a true religion) must be a fortiori reflect and incorporate those traditions, Islamic texts and traditions could only be interpreted in a manner consistent with reason.  The opposition between "western precepts" and Islam is a false dichotomy - the Islamic philosophical tradition is part and parcel of the development of the "western" philosophical tradition.  It just so happens that right now, some of the more powerful factional movements in Islam reject that tradition.

Put another way, if the moderates are in a position where they feel they have to apologize or explain away (with forked or straight tongues) their commitment to basic human rights, freedom of speech, equality of the sexes, etc. then they have already lost before the battle has even been fought.  Better to at least try and lose than to not try at all.

Incidentally the thing that really struck me was how much of a higher class martyr for free speech we used to have.  Salman Rushdie, genuinely erudite and witty and intelligent, a guy who wrote remarkable books and you sense didn't really want to provoke this countroversy.  A man whose life was really almost destroyed by the strain of being under police protection.

Now we get Geert Wilders.

That is the test of whether a society really believes in its principles or not - whether one is willing to defend the rights of scumbags, because rights are either universal or they aren't human rights at all, they are just privileges granted in return for (and contingent on) good behavior.  Commitment to free speech shouldn't turn on the personal qualities of the people who suffer and die for it.

[Berkut]

Well, here is another reason, and Occam suggests mine is closer to the truth:

They don't give a shit. They don't think the radicals are so wrong as to need repudiation. That in fact their silence is an accurate representation of their views on the issue, in a general sense.

Have you spoken out in public about every issue that you think is a grave threat to your preferred way of life?

I can't think of too many things that I consider a grave threat to my way of life, but then, I don't think the correlation works - there isn't any problem with people perception of middle class white guys that I feel any need to combat. I am quite content with the the generalized perception of my social group.

[Valmy]

Have you spoken out in public about every issue that you think is a grave threat to your preferred way of life?

I guess I do not see any grave threats to my way of life out there.  Anything I should be speaking out about?

[jimmy olsen]

The crowd needs 'naught but a whiff of grapeshot.

[Valmy]

The crowd needs 'naught but a whiff of grapeshot.

Stroking the Islamic victim complex is never that productive.

[derspiess]

The crowd needs 'naught but a whiff of grapeshot.

Stroking the Islamic victim complex is never that productive.

A discrete waterboarding is my solution, then.

[Siege]

The anger has been rising up. The parade was the final insult.

Are we supposed to fear this?

[Slargos]

And what's wrong with Geert?

It's too bad that gay dude isn't still around.  It was much more difficult to dismiss that guy as a evil racist like they do with Geert.

Which is, obviously, why he was killed.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I thought the forum would like to read this piece, it's from your super soaraway Sun :

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/article2314309.ece


Way to go in the War on Terror, search white grannies, make fat perspiring businessmen take their shoes and belts off and employ muslim radicals in the baggage-handling area. Perhaps our culture deserves to die, we are such morons.

[Sheilbh]

Anyone with a position on religion is a fringe.  Most people just go to the Mosque/Church/Gurdwara once a week, or on the holidays, and don't really think about it very much for the rest of the time.

Plus I think it depends what we mean by moderate and radical.

We're not talking about about positions on religion.  We're talking about positions on decency, justice, freedom of expression, reciprocity and political violence

Freedom of expression and our conception of justice are western liberal ideas.  What I mean is that if we want for moderation to 'win' within Islam it has to be seen as grounded in Islam, not the Enlightenment.

That is the test of whether a society really believes in its principles or not - whether one is willing to defend the rights of scumbags, because rights are either universal or they aren't human rights at all, they are just privileges granted in return for (and contingent on) good behavior.  Commitment to free speech shouldn't turn on the personal qualities of the people who suffer and die for it.

Well I'm sure the Netherlands offers Wilders protection.  I find it difficult to admire someone who almost seems to wish for persecution for his free speech, while wanting to restrict the sppech of others.  I can't think of someone who enjoys being attacked more than Wilders.  Actually Segolene Royal but that's it.

I don't think the issue is whether moderates will base their beliefs on what "we want" or "western liberal precepts".  There were points in Islamic history when scholars and leaders embraced the idea of universal rational principles and values and operated on the premise that because Islam (as a true religion) must be a fortiori reflect and incorporate those traditions, Islamic texts and traditions could only be interpreted in a manner consistent with reason.

Yeah.  I mean Islam, like Christianity has in its theology a synthesis of reason and received truth.  But the schools I can think of, within Islam, were generally associated with persecution against people who opposed them, because they had state and elite support.  Though I believe there's been a resurgence and more interest in the more heavily rationalist schools over the last couple of decades.

I went to a lecture a couple of weeks ago re-appraising the Mu'tazili for example.

You're right that the dichotomy's wrong but what I mean is that in a religious argument if the more rationalist or the moderates are to win then that needs to be based on solid Islam.  It needs to come from the received truths of certain hadiths and the Quran.  As nice as it might be to hear a few Egyptian Tom Paine's, they'll have as little traction in Islamic societies as Paine had in Norfolk.

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally yesterday's newspapers made for some interesting browsing.

These troops marched through Watford and there weren't any protests but there were quite a lot of Asians in the crowd cheering and waving, some of them were even wearing headscarves.  Of course that wasn't the main story (still on the 'PROTESTS OF HATE') and no-one asked members of the crowd whether they were Muslim or not.

The other thing that made me laugh was that one of the protestors is a social worker who helps look after mentally disabled people.  The Daily Mail (or Express) translated this fact as 'Mr. Omar, who claims to care for the mentally ill' (I hate these smilies).

[derspiess]

Incidentally yesterday's newspapers made for some interesting browsing.

These troops marched through Watford and there weren't any protests but there were quite a lot of Asians in the crowd cheering and waving, some of them were even wearing headscarves.  Of course that wasn't the main story (still on the 'PROTESTS OF HATE') and no-one asked members of the crowd whether they were Muslim or not.

So-- if this had been reported as the main story, what would have been the headline?  "MUSLIMS DON'T SHOUT AT TROOPS ON PARADE"??

The other thing that made me laugh was that one of the protestors is a social worker who helps look after mentally disabled people.  The Daily Mail (or Express) translated this fact as 'Mr. Omar, who claims to care for the mentally ill' (I hate these smilies).

Good stuff

I hate the smilies as well-- particularly the disturbing tongue smiley.