This is what unwise immigration policies get you, unfortunately. Hit up the link for pics. These protestors ought to be waterboarded for shits & giggles.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1160958/Home-war--troops-greeted-abuse-Muslim-protesters.html
QuoteHome from the war... and our troops are greeted by abuse from Muslim protesters
By Michael Seamark, Andrew Levy and Matt Sandy
Last updated at 1:25 AM on 11th March 2009
Twice in two years they have fought in Iraq. Twelve of their regimental comrades paid the ultimate price there and in Afghanistan.
Over the past two years they have spent day after day patrolling hostile territory, where every passer-by could have a gun or a bomb.
So the 200 men of the 2nd Battalion Royal Anglian Regiment perhaps had a right to expect a heroes' welcome yesterday on a homecoming parade through Luton.
Muslims
Venom: Faces contorted with fury, some of the Muslim demonstrator who marred the homecoming of the Royal Anglian Regiment yesterday
Instead, they were faced with the hate-filled jeers of anti-war protesters waving placards saying: 'Anglian soldiers: Butchers of Basra,' and 'Anglian soldiers: cowards, killers, extremists.'
There was a furious reaction from the hundreds lining the streets to support the soldiers – known as the Poachers. Shouting 'scum' and 'no surrender to the Taliban', they turned on the Muslim demonstrators.
Police were already out in force to protect the anti-war group and arrested two men among the soldiers' supporters.
Police closely monitor the anti-Army group as the 200-strong regiment passes through Luton town centre
Last night the mother of David Hicks, a captain with the Royal Anglian Regiment who was killed in Afghanistan in August 2007, called the protests 'extremely distressing'.
'I felt very saddened and extremely upset,' said Mrs Hicks, of Wokingham, Berkshire. 'I also feel a little angry. I think every mother or father who has lost somebody in Afghanistan or Iraq would feel very difficult about this.
'It's very easy to tarnish all the Muslim community with the same brush, but I do wonder, if the roles were reversed, if such a protest would be allowed in a Muslim country.'
Gordon Brown condemned the protests and ministers and senior politicians branded the demonstration 'insulting' and 'sordid.'
Shadow Secretary of State for Defence Dr Liam Fox said: 'This is offensive, appalling and disgraceful.
Tempers flared as pro-Army supporters took offence at the small protest and police were forced to separate the groups
'It is only because of the sacrifices made by our armed forces that these people live in a free society where they are able to make their sordid protests.'
Luton South Labour MP Margaret Moran called for an inquiry into the way police handled the incident.
She said: 'Calling people baby-killers and the rest seems to amount to provocation of the worst kind when these lads and lasses have risked their lives for the freedom these people enjoy. It seems to me this amounted to huge provocation and was potentially racially divisive.'
But the Muslim protesters were unrepentant. Teacher Sayful Islam, self-styled leader of the Luton branch of al-Muhajiroun – the now-banned radical organisation led by Sheikh Omar Bakri – said: 'The anger has been rising. The parade was the final insult.
'They have killed, maimed and raped thousands of innocent people. They can't come here and parade where there is such a Muslim community. What do they have to be proud of?'
The battalion is based in Germany, but Bedfordshire is one of the areas where it recruits, along with neighbouring Hertfordshire and Northamptonshire.
Trouble flared as the soldiers marched to a meeting with the Duke of Gloucester, the regiment's colonel-in-chief, and local dignitaries.
He said:' The anger has been rising up. The parade was the final insult.
'They have killed, maimed and raped thousands of innocent people. They can't come here and parade where there is such a Muslim community. What do they have to be proud of?'
Leaflets urging Muslims to demonstrate against the soldiers' homecoming had been distributed around Luton earlier in the week.
Under the headline 'Criminals' it railed against the troops' 'audacity' at marching though the town centre and accused them of having 'blood on their hands.'
It read 'Muhammad said :"He among you who sees a munkar (evil) should change it with his hand. If he can not do that , then with his tongue(by speaking out against it)".'
It finished with the words:' We urge the Muslims of Luton not to stay silent against these murderers of Muslim men, women and children and to do what we as Muslims have been obliged to do and speak against an open evil.'
Police had penned the protesters into a small area and two lines of officers separated them from a large number of local people, waving Union and St George's flags. At one point a man climbed onto a roof and threw a packet of bacon at the Muslim group.
Bedfordshire police said the Muslim protesters were later 'escorted from the area to a safe place to disperse'.
The force said last night: 'Everything that went on will be examined and if any offences have been committed then we will arrest them.'
An Army spokesman said the battalion, which is due to take part in a similar march in Watford today, was 'deeply touched' by the strong support shown by the people of Luton.
He said: 'There is no better boost to a soldier than to see hundreds of people turn out to watch them on parade.'
and the muslitards leave no opportunity unexploited to make sure that the non-muslims will hate them with a passion and will gladly move them into the ovens when the time comes.
QuoteAt one point a man climbed onto a roof and threw a packet of bacon at the Muslim group.
:D Yay for him!
Religious people are stupid. Film at 11.
To be honest, I don't see how this is different from any other anti-war protest, or anti-abortion protest etc.
I'm obviously all for putting Christians in the ovens in response to Fred Phelps's protests at soldier funerals, but I don't think most people would see it that way.
It's the same old problem. According to the Independent there were about 20 nutters protesting about the troops :
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/muslim-antiwar-protesters-abuse-troops-1642232.html
The town of Luton has a muslim community of about 30,000 so this is a pretty poor turnout by any standards.
Meanwhile Irish terrorists have murdered two British soldiers and an Ulster cop in the past few days, yet the idea of getting angry with the Irish on a communal basis never enters my thoughts.
I still think it's a cultural thing, Islam is alien to the British; whereas Ireland and Irish culture is an inextricably enmeshed part of British culture.
Quote from: Martinus on March 11, 2009, 03:04:57 AM
Religious people are stupid. Film at 11.
To be honest, I don't see how this is different from any other anti-war protest, or anti-abortion protest etc.
I'm obviously all for putting Christians in the ovens in response to Fred Phelps's protests at soldier funerals, but I don't think most people would see it that way.
Fred Phelps has some interesting ideas re: you and ovens.
QuoteThis is what unwise immigration policies get you, unfortunately. Hit up the link for pics. These protestors ought to be waterboarded for shits & giggles.
Explain then: Fred Phelps.
This was on the same scale.
The big police operation as ar esult of it was to stop the general population beating the crap out of the protestors which says qutie a bit I think...
Quote from: Martinus on March 11, 2009, 03:04:57 AM
Religious people are stupid. Film at 11.
To be honest, I don't see how this is different from any other anti-war protest, or anti-abortion protest etc.
It's not. It is just really really bad press for British Muslims. They need better PR guys.
Quote from: Josquius on March 11, 2009, 08:11:09 AM
QuoteThis is what unwise immigration policies get you, unfortunately. Hit up the link for pics. These protestors ought to be waterboarded for shits & giggles.
Explain then: Fred Phelps.
This was on the same scale.
The big police operation as ar esult of it was to stop the general population beating the crap out of the protestors which says qutie a bit I think...
Difference of course being that Phelps is one guy with a bunch of hangarounds and I would wager even most people who agree with him think it's in poor taste. These guys are legion, and their peers find their behaviour completely acceptable.
Quote from: Josquius on March 11, 2009, 08:11:09 AM
Explain then: Fred Phelps.
This was on the same scale.
If this was the only group of Muslims in the world who did this sort of thing I would agree it is on the same scale.
Have you been in a cave with cotton stuffed in your ears and missed the last 30 years or so?
Quote from: Slargos on March 11, 2009, 08:44:14 AM
Quote from: Josquius on March 11, 2009, 08:11:09 AM
QuoteThis is what unwise immigration policies get you, unfortunately. Hit up the link for pics. These protestors ought to be waterboarded for shits & giggles.
Explain then: Fred Phelps.
This was on the same scale.
The big police operation as ar esult of it was to stop the general population beating the crap out of the protestors which says qutie a bit I think...
Difference of course being that Phelps is one guy with a bunch of hangarounds and I would wager even most people who agree with him think it's in poor taste. These guys are legion, and their peers find their behaviour completely acceptable.
Have you read what RH posted? There were 20 of these guys there. That's the usual turnout at Phelps's protests as well.
Quote from: Valmy on March 11, 2009, 08:46:55 AM
Quote from: Josquius on March 11, 2009, 08:11:09 AM
Explain then: Fred Phelps.
This was on the same scale.
If this was the only group of Muslims in the world who did this sort of thing I would agree it is on the same scale.
Have you been in a cave with cotton stuffed in your ears and missed the last 30 years or so?
I think Sweden is rubbing off a bit too much on Josq. T'ain't his fault really.
Quote from: Martinus on March 11, 2009, 08:47:34 AM
Quote from: Slargos on March 11, 2009, 08:44:14 AM
Quote from: Josquius on March 11, 2009, 08:11:09 AM
QuoteThis is what unwise immigration policies get you, unfortunately. Hit up the link for pics. These protestors ought to be waterboarded for shits & giggles.
Explain then: Fred Phelps.
This was on the same scale.
The big police operation as ar esult of it was to stop the general population beating the crap out of the protestors which says qutie a bit I think...
Difference of course being that Phelps is one guy with a bunch of hangarounds and I would wager even most people who agree with him think it's in poor taste. These guys are legion, and their peers find their behaviour completely acceptable.
Have you read what RH posted? There were 20 of these guys there. That's the usual turnout at Phelps's protests as well.
I will admit that I sortof spaced out after the thread title. It's not like these kind of protests are not thirteen to the dozen.
Quote from: Martinus on March 11, 2009, 08:47:34 AM
Have you read what RH posted? There were 20 of these guys there. That's the usual turnout at Phelps's protests as well.
Yes because these are the only extreme Muslims in all of Europe.
Quote from: Valmy on March 11, 2009, 08:51:40 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 11, 2009, 08:47:34 AM
Have you read what RH posted? There were 20 of these guys there. That's the usual turnout at Phelps's protests as well.
Yes because these are the only extreme Muslims in all of Europe.
And yes because Phelps is the only extreme Christian in all of the world.
Quote from: Martinus on March 11, 2009, 08:52:57 AM
And yes because Phelps is the only extreme Christian in all of the world.
I assure you Phelps' brand of "Christianity" is quite unique.
Unless you want to produce the name of the other group of Christians who stake out military funerals calling on the deaths of people they do not like.
Quote from: Slargos on March 11, 2009, 08:48:45 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 11, 2009, 08:47:34 AM
Quote from: Slargos on March 11, 2009, 08:44:14 AM
Quote from: Josquius on March 11, 2009, 08:11:09 AM
QuoteThis is what unwise immigration policies get you, unfortunately. Hit up the link for pics. These protestors ought to be waterboarded for shits & giggles.
Explain then: Fred Phelps.
This was on the same scale.
The big police operation as ar esult of it was to stop the general population beating the crap out of the protestors which says qutie a bit I think...
Difference of course being that Phelps is one guy with a bunch of hangarounds and I would wager even most people who agree with him think it's in poor taste. These guys are legion, and their peers find their behaviour completely acceptable.
Have you read what RH posted? There were 20 of these guys there. That's the usual turnout at Phelps's protests as well.
I will admit that I sortof spaced out after the thread title. It's not like these kind of protests are not thirteen to the dozen.
I don't know - are they?
And also I want to say I FUCKING HATE THIS BOARD. I HATE HOW QUOTING LOOKS. THIS IS FUCKING PISSING ME OFF. FOR FUCKS SAKE.
Quote from: Martinus on March 11, 2009, 08:55:32 AM
And also I want to say I FUCKING HATE THIS BOARD. I HATE HOW QUOTING LOOKS. THIS IS FUCKING PISSING ME OFF. FOR FUCKS SAKE.
Yeah you can hardly tell who said what.
Everything looks so...tiny
Quote from: Martinus on March 11, 2009, 08:55:32 AM
Quote from: Slargos on March 11, 2009, 08:48:45 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 11, 2009, 08:47:34 AM
Quote from: Slargos on March 11, 2009, 08:44:14 AM
Quote from: Josquius on March 11, 2009, 08:11:09 AM
QuoteThis is what unwise immigration policies get you, unfortunately. Hit up the link for pics. These protestors ought to be waterboarded for shits & giggles.
Explain then: Fred Phelps.
This was on the same scale.
The big police operation as ar esult of it was to stop the general population beating the crap out of the protestors which says qutie a bit I think...
Difference of course being that Phelps is one guy with a bunch of hangarounds and I would wager even most people who agree with him think it's in poor taste. These guys are legion, and their peers find their behaviour completely acceptable.
Have you read what RH posted? There were 20 of these guys there. That's the usual turnout at Phelps's protests as well.
I will admit that I sortof spaced out after the thread title. It's not like these kind of protests are not thirteen to the dozen.
I don't know - are they?
And also I want to say I FUCKING HATE THIS BOARD. I HATE HOW QUOTING LOOKS. THIS IS FUCKING PISSING ME OFF. FOR FUCKS SAKE.
That settles it.
I love this board. ;D
Quote from: Valmy on March 11, 2009, 08:54:19 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 11, 2009, 08:52:57 AM
And yes because Phelps is the only extreme Christian in all of the world.
I assure you Phelps' brand of "Christianity" is quite unique.
Unless you want to produce the name of the other group of Christians who stake out military funerals calling on the deaths of people they do not like.
You are kidding, right? Phelps may be an extreme example, but there are others. There are the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson who think 911 is the punishment for tolerance of homosexuality; the likes of the catholic bishop Williamson who thinks Jews invented Holocaust and are guilty of killing Jesus; the likes of Polish Father Rydzyk, head of a catholic media empire, who says Jews, homos and masons control the EU; the likes of the recently appointed catholic bishop of Linz who thinks that Katrina and the great Pacific tsunami few years ago were a punishment for gay bars and sex tourists; Dominionists (including one candidate for the governor of Texas) who believe Leviticus should be made into national law etc. etc.
And, same as with muslims, I don't see the Christian leaders rushing to disavow themselves from Phelps every time he says that God hates fags or that they should be put to death. In fact, Vatican was perfectly happy to ally with muslim states recently in opposing a UN resolution that would call for abolition of death penalty for homosexuals. So fuck you and your Christian apologism.
What does 'unwise immigration policy' have to do with idiots born in the UK?
Quote from: Map Sucks on March 11, 2009, 09:05:48 AM
What does 'unwise immigration policy' have to do with idiots born in the UK?
Their ancestors had to have immigrated at some point. ::)
So...where were all the vocal Muslims in the "Support the troops" crowd telling the idiot Muslims to STFU?
Quote from: Berkut on March 11, 2009, 09:07:09 AM
So...where were all the vocal Muslims in the "Support the troops" crowd telling the idiot Muslims to STFU?
You mean the moderates? I believe they're busy herding doodoos.
Yeah, mooslims and Christians are just as bad.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bilerico.com%2F2007%2F09%2FIranian-gays-hanging.jpg&hash=7fcf04134f70365e87974470a1864e66f2754f11)
Quote from: Slargos on March 11, 2009, 08:44:14 AM
Difference of course being that Phelps is one guy with a bunch of hangarounds and I would wager even most people who agree with him think it's in poor taste. These guys are legion, and their peers find their behaviour completely acceptable.
That's just the point though, they're not.
Quote
If this was the only group of Muslims in the world who did this sort of thing I would agree it is on the same scale.
Have you been in a cave with cotton stuffed in your ears and missed the last 30 years or so?
I can't think of this happening in the UK at any time before. Similar stuff maybe (Abu Hamza's rallies) but again only with small groups of idiots.
Quote from: Martinus on March 11, 2009, 09:03:53 AM
You are kidding, right? Phelps may be an extreme example, but there are others. There are the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson who think 911 is the punishment for tolerance of homosexuality; the likes of the catholic bishop Williamson who thinks Jews invented Holocaust and are guilty of killing Jesus; the likes of Polish Father Rydzyk, head of a catholic media empire, who says Jews, homos and masons control the EU; the likes of the recently appointed catholic bishop of Linz who thinks that Katrina and the great Pacific tsunami few years ago were a punishment for gay bars and sex tourists; Dominionists (including one candidate for the governor of Texas) who believe Leviticus should be made into national law etc. etc.
And, same as with muslims, I don't see the Christian leaders rushing to disavow themselves from Phelps every time he says that God hates fags or that they should be put to death. In fact, Vatican was perfectly happy to ally with muslim states recently in opposing a UN resolution that would call for abolition of death penalty for homosexuals. So fuck you and your Christian apologism.
You don't see them disavowing a dude saying 'God hates America'? Then I guess you are blind.
I am on your side here dude, remember that. However I don't automatically lump every person I disagree with as equally vile. There is a difference between dragging gays in the streets and executing with public support them like extreme Muslim countries do and what I generally see Christians doing. Also it is worthwhile to note that alot of gay people are Muslim and Christian and plenty of people from both faiths are on your side. You cannot just defeat religion in order to get what you want. It will never happen and in my opinion religion simply needs to be updated, it is too fundamentaly a part of human nature to be destroyed fortunately or unfortunately.
Also my views have been tainted by the fact that I, admittedly, spend lots of time with pro-gay rights Christians sometimes I forget they are in the minority.
Quote from: Berkut on March 11, 2009, 09:07:09 AM
So...where were all the vocal Muslims in the "Support the troops" crowd telling the idiot Muslims to STFU?
That must be one good news source if you know enough about the composition of the crowd to know that there were no Muslims at the parade in good faith. :)
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on March 11, 2009, 09:11:13 AM
Yeah, mooslims and Christians are just as bad.
Yep. Let me know when that happens in Poland Mart.
Quote from: Map Sucks on March 11, 2009, 09:15:43 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 11, 2009, 09:07:09 AM
So...where were all the vocal Muslims in the "Support the troops" crowd telling the idiot Muslims to STFU?
That must be one good news source if you know enough about the composition of the crowd to know that there were no Muslims at the parade in good faith. :)
I know no such thing - do you?
And who the fuck are you, anyway?
Then how did you know there were no Muslims telling the idiots to STFU? (or thinking it more likely, it is very difficult to shout down people when the Police keep the groups well apart as they are trained to do)
Quote from: Map Sucks on March 11, 2009, 09:30:09 AM
Then how did you know there were no Muslims telling the idiots to STFU? (or thinking it more likely, it is very difficult to shout down people when the Police keep the groups well apart as they are trained to do)
I don't recall saying I knew there weren't any - hence the '?' in my post.
However - one might suspect that if some local Muslim groups HAD shown up, it would be noted. If some local Muslim leadership had spoken out, perhaps that might be noted as well. Perhaps not - and hence the question.
I can only assume from the vehemence and angst of your posts that in fact you ahve more information than I do, and in fact such things did occur. Please share your source with us.
Quote from: Berkut on March 11, 2009, 09:32:12 AM
Quote from: Map Sucks on March 11, 2009, 09:30:09 AM
Then how did you know there were no Muslims telling the idiots to STFU? (or thinking it more likely, it is very difficult to shout down people when the Police keep the groups well apart as they are trained to do)
I don't recall saying I knew there weren't any - hence the '?' in my post.
However - one might suspect that if some local Muslim groups HAD shown up, it would be noted. If some local Muslim leadership had spoken out, perhaps that might be noted as well. Perhaps not - and hence the question.
I can only assume from the vehemence and angst of your posts that in fact you ahve more information than I do, and in fact such things did occur. Please share your source with us.
I don't think they'd really have the chance.
This wasn't a big muslim event- just the group of idiots decided to go and protest the troops return. Those who were there to celebrate their returning were those who had a active interest in the army. To muslims in general it was a pretty irrelevant event unless they fell under one of the two other groups.
Quote from: Martinus on March 11, 2009, 08:55:32 AM
I don't know - are they?
And also I want to say I FUCKING HATE THIS BOARD. I HATE HOW QUOTING LOOKS. THIS IS FUCKING PISSING ME OFF. FOR FUCKS SAKE.
Crop your quotes, faggot.
Quote from: Berkut on March 11, 2009, 09:32:12 AM
Quote from: Map Sucks on March 11, 2009, 09:30:09 AM
Then how did you know there were no Muslims telling the idiots to STFU? (or thinking it more likely, it is very difficult to shout down people when the Police keep the groups well apart as they are trained to do)
I don't recall saying I knew there weren't any - hence the '?' in my post.
However - one might suspect that if some local Muslim groups HAD shown up, it would be noted. If some local Muslim leadership had spoken out, perhaps that might be noted as well. Perhaps not - and hence the question.
I can only assume from the vehemence and angst of your posts that in fact you ahve more information than I do, and in fact such things did occur. Please share your source with us.
Are there Christian groups showing up at every Christian fundamentalist anti-gay or kill-abortion-doctors protest to show their disagreement?
Quote from: Berkut on March 11, 2009, 09:32:12 AM
However - one might suspect that if some local Muslim groups HAD shown up, it would be noted. If some local Muslim leadership had spoken out, perhaps that might be noted as well. Perhaps not - and hence the question.
If some mooslim counter protesters had shown up, the media would be falling all over themselves to report it.
Quote from: Josquius on March 11, 2009, 09:37:28 AM
I don't think they'd really have the chance.
This wasn't a big muslim event- just the group of idiots decided to go and protest the troops return. Those who were there to celebrate their returning were those who had a active interest in the army. To muslims in general it was a pretty irrelevant event unless they fell under one of the two other groups.
So it is safe to say that the "typical" Muslims cant' be bothered to organize and protest or even speak out except for a few who will go and act like nutjobs.
Which is why people think they are, at best, accepting of the views of the radicals. Because they do not speak out against them, and when they do, it is mostly along the lines of "Well, those guys do not represent Muslims, but they do have a point..."
Quote from: Martinus on March 11, 2009, 09:40:14 AM
Are there Christian groups showing up at every Christian fundamentalist anti-gay or kill-abortion-doctors protest to show their disagreement?
I am not sure...though that sounds sort of like fun. I should see about organizing one.
The problem is the last time I was aware in advance of a anti-gay Christian rally it was the pray for the California prop thing. It is not like the picket gay bars or something.
Americans just do not protest enough.
I remained a shade unconvinced your original question was not rhetorical, but no matter.
I don't know how prominent the local Muslim leadership in Luton is, and whether the press sought their reaction. I have seen neither remarks from them, nor indication that they declined to comment.
What I do know is the difficulty of having a meaningful Muslim organisation in the UK. While it is convenient for many White Christians to apply that template to the brown folk, anyone who scratches the surface of the Muslim community in the UK learns quickly taht the real distinctions are between Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Indian, Lebanese, Syrian etc etc.
Quote from: Martinus on March 11, 2009, 09:40:14 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 11, 2009, 09:32:12 AM
Quote from: Map Sucks on March 11, 2009, 09:30:09 AM
Then how did you know there were no Muslims telling the idiots to STFU? (or thinking it more likely, it is very difficult to shout down people when the Police keep the groups well apart as they are trained to do)
I don't recall saying I knew there weren't any - hence the '?' in my post.
However - one might suspect that if some local Muslim groups HAD shown up, it would be noted. If some local Muslim leadership had spoken out, perhaps that might be noted as well. Perhaps not - and hence the question.
I can only assume from the vehemence and angst of your posts that in fact you ahve more information than I do, and in fact such things did occur. Please share your source with us.
Are there Christian groups showing up at every Christian fundamentalist anti-gay or kill-abortion-doctors protest to show their disagreement?
You see lots of counter-protesters actually, it isn't uncommon. And since most Americans are Christians, walla! There you go.
But on the other hand, I don't think there is a general perception problem where it appears like most typical Christians are supportive or tolerant of the Phelps-like assholes. So it isn't really analogous.
Everyone know that Phelps and his kind represent a radical extreme that your average Christian does not support in any way. I don't think that is the case with Muslims. Plus Islam has a much larger perception problem since the difference between some moderate Muslims who were born in the US/UK/West and some "moderate" Muslims who are recent immigrants is rather striking.
Quote from: Berkut on March 11, 2009, 09:42:22 AM
Quote from: Josquius on March 11, 2009, 09:37:28 AM
I don't think they'd really have the chance.
This wasn't a big muslim event- just the group of idiots decided to go and protest the troops return. Those who were there to celebrate their returning were those who had a active interest in the army. To muslims in general it was a pretty irrelevant event unless they fell under one of the two other groups.
So it is safe to say that the "typical" Muslims cant' be bothered to organize and protest or even speak out except for a few who will go and act like nutjobs.
Which is why people think they are, at best, accepting of the views of the radicals. Because they do not speak out against them, and when they do, it is mostly along the lines of "Well, those guys do not represent Muslims, but they do have a point..."
Thats pretty representative of average non-muslim people too.
There are some vocal anti-extremist muslims though.
And...yes. I'd imagine many will see these protesters as having a point. Not just in the muslim community but in the general community a majority of people are anti-war. The war is bad, we should pull out asap, blah blah, etc.... Most people will agree with that.
However; attacking the soldiers for just doing their job is a bad thing.
There would be (and isn't when it happens) no problem with muslim anti-war protests. Its just here they've gone beyond that and had a go at some good, honest men who were just doing what the country (for right or wrong) told them. I'm sure the majority of muslims with an ounce of sense would agree with me there.
Quote from: Map Sucks on March 11, 2009, 09:44:16 AM
I remained a shade unconvinced your original question was not rhetorical, but no matter.
I don't know how prominent the local Muslim leadership in Luton is, and whether the press sought their reaction. I have seen neither remarks from them, nor indication that they declined to comment.
What I do know is the difficulty of having a meaningful Muslim organisation in the UK. While it is convenient for many White Christians to apply that template to the brown folk, anyone who scratches the surface of the Muslim community in the UK learns quickly taht the real distinctions are between Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Indian, Lebanese, Syrian etc etc.
Hmmm, but apparently the radicals can manage to organize well enough to have these little protests. Once would think the non-radical could orgnaize enough to issue a press release or something saying "Hey, those assholes are just that - assholes. They don't represent us, we think they are morons, and we support the troops who went and died to try to make things better in other countries".
I reject the idea that their silence is somehow mandatory, and ONLY the radicals can possibly be heard.
Quote from: Josquius on March 11, 2009, 09:47:02 AMI'm sure the majority of muslims with an ounce of sense would agree with me there.
That may very well be true - but they apparently won't say so publicly. And when they do, it is is with an ounce of agreement, and a few pounds of equivocation.
Actually, that's a common feature in comparing collective action between groups. Extremists are more organised because they're more energised and coherent. That's why radicals often hijack political agendas, whether the activity be malicious like planting bombs or relatively benign like campaigning against sex and violence on TV.
Quote from: Map Sucks on March 11, 2009, 09:51:29 AM
Actually, that's a common feature in comparing collective action between groups. Extremists are more organised because they're more energised and coherent. That's why radicals often hijack political agendas, whether the activity be malicious like planting bombs or relatively benign like campaigning against sex and violence on TV.
Well...usually but if we were in a position where the extremists were hijacking our entire society I bet we would be more energised and coherent. We are not doing anything because we do not feel like radicals are doing anything very serious to our society.
Quote from: Berkut on March 11, 2009, 09:48:38 AM
[qumeaningful Muslim organisation in the UK. While it is convenient for many White Christians to apply that template to the brown folk, anyone who scratches the surface of the Muslim community in the UK learns quickly taht the real distinctions are between Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Indian, Lebanese, Syrian etc etc.
Hmmm, but apparently the radicals can manage to organize well enough to have these little protests. Once would think the non-radical could orgnaize enough to issue a press release or something saying "Hey, those assholes are just that - assholes. They don't represent us, we think they are morons, and we support the troops who went and died to try to make things better in other countries".
I reject the idea that their silence is somehow mandatory, and ONLY the radicals can possibly be heard.
[/quote]
But then that's giving the idiots undue weight and admitting that it may be up for debate that they could possibly represent the general community. I think it says quite enough that only 20 out of 20,000 (or was it 30,000?) muslims showed up here. Especially given that most of them would agree with the core anti-war views.
I think what it says is that the radicals get to represent islam, since they are the only ones who have a voice that is heard. Presumably because the non-radicals are making a tactical choice to not respond?
I don't buy it - I think it is because there really isn't all that much dis-satisfaction in the "moderate" Muslim community with these views. Certainly there is some, but there appears to be a LOT who think that the radicals are wrong to be so radical, but fundamentally right in their basic view on the positions.
I could be wrong about this of course - but then, it would be easy for the "vast majority" of Muslims who we are assured are very moderate to correct my perception.
Delanda Carthago Est !
Mark them, herd them, ship them out.
G.
QuoteI think what it says is that the radicals get to represent islam, since they are the only ones who have a voice that is heard. Presumably because the non-radicals are making a tactical choice to not respond?
Responding is not a "free" activity. Organising takes time, money and social capital (ie connections and the right kind of social network). No one is going to listen to a community group unless they have some sort of recognition from the government or the press (ie they have a minister's ear, or do some sort of stunt for the journalists).
Apart from the MCB, I can't really think of any really coherent Muslim organisations in the UK. In fact from what I do know (a colleague I used to sit next to at work was involved in this area so I picked up a lot from him) it seems there are actually many different, small and uncoordinated organisations. There is no unified Muslim voice in the UK, really. There is no version of the Anglican or Catholic church for them to call.
And the diversity of the community of Muslims within the UK realise that this too militates against organisation. Go to a Gaza protest in Trafalgar Square, and you will see Arabs and left-wing white people. You will not see many Bangladeshis, Malaysians or Singaporeans. A protest about Afghanistan will attract the die-hard anti-war folk, who are not united by religion or ethnicity but by a specific anti-'imperial' agenda. They're all Muslims from the outside, until they sit in a room together and then the South Asians sit away from the Southeast Asians and the Levantine Arabs are in their little clique. It's a bit like trying to organise Christians - it's, in reality, a short-hand that is irrelevant. Here in London, Serbs go to the local Serbian church for mass, not the Greek or Russian ones. And the Croats all go to the Croatian mission, rather than one of the many, entirely more convenient, Catholic churches dotted all around the city.
Yet on the other hand we have Muslims serving in our armed forces, working in our diplomatic corps and in our Ministry of Defence. They, too, are not organised: there is no association of Muslim officers that gets quoted in the press - nor is there an organisation of Islamic diplomats that gets thrown in the column inches with a quote.
The situation is more like atheists, curiously enough. You have a few self-appointed spokesmen who get all the camera time by virtue of their prolific output. But because the community is so diverse and simply uninterested in mobilising, you don't really have an atheist community voice in any sense. Yes, sometimes a few people club together, people donate money for adverts on buses, but that is not group mobilisation in any real sense.
And to be honest, I can understand why a lot of Muslims don't bother organising. They are getting on with their own lives. I don't mobilise against the BNP even though I find their views repugnant, and my speaking out is limited to dinner parties and interweb fora. But that doesn't mean I tacitly support their views!
Quote from: Map Sucks on March 11, 2009, 10:32:05 AM
The situation is more like atheists, curiously enough. You have a few self-appointed spokesmen who get all the camera time by virtue of their prolific output. But because the community is so diverse and simply uninterested in mobilising, you don't really have an atheist community voice in any sense. Yes, sometimes a few people club together, people donate money for adverts on buses, but that is not group mobilisation in any real sense.
Um how is it that it can be compared to Atheists? Muslims go to Mosque and have an actual community. Where as Atheists have nothing as Atheists.
If they do not mobilize their community that is their own failing.
Quote from: Valmy on March 11, 2009, 10:37:31 AM
Where as Atheists have nothing as Atheists.
And that's the way we like it.
Quote from: Map Sucks on March 11, 2009, 10:32:05 AM
Responding is not a "free" activity. Organising takes time, money and social capital (ie connections and the right kind of social network). No one is going to listen to a community group unless they have some sort of recognition from the government or the press (ie they have a minister's ear, or do some sort of stunt for the journalists).
Apart from the MCB, I can't really think of any really coherent Muslim organisations in the UK.
Well let's take the MCB then. Apparently, the heavy burdens involve in issuing press releases did not prevent them from issuing a blizzard of them condemning Israel over the attacks in Gaza. When it comes to trashing Zionists, there doesn't seem to be any difficulty in "responding" or organizing.
The impression that many people have is that the mainline Muslim groups don't criticize the radicals because either they sympathize with their motivations and objections (if not their precise methods) or because they are too afraid to say anything. Perhaps that impression is unfair - but there it is, and groups like the MCB have not done much to dispel it.
QuoteUm how is it that it can be compared to Atheists? Muslims go to Mosque and have an actual community. Where as Atheists have nothing as Atheists.
So because Muslims go to a mosque, they should necessarily form a community? I know the concept of the umma indicates that they nominally form one united community, in practice this has not been the case for the majority of Muslims.
There are of course exceptions but the identities that often matter more for a muslim are national ones - just like every Catholic does not, in fact, take orders from the Pope.
One example of the misunderstanding this conflation brings about is the idea that in the UK, Muslim communities are somehow self-segregating. But once you peel away the label of Muslim and look at ethnicity, the story changes markedly, and what in fact turns out to be the case is that some groups are far more conservative than others - Bangladeshis, for example, lead the way in measures of "integration", whereas Pakistanis lag behind. And anecdotally, I spent last Saturday getting hammered at a party with a bunch of Lebanese and Palestinian Muslims.
QuoteIf they do not mobilize their community that is their own failing.
Failing? Why should they mobilise into a community? They have their own ethnic communities.
Quote from: Map Sucks on March 11, 2009, 10:58:33 AM
So because Muslims go to a mosque, they should necessarily form a community? I know the concept of the umma indicates that they nominally form one united community, in practice this has not been the case for the majority of Muslims.
There are of course exceptions but the identities that often matter more for a muslim are national ones - just like every Catholic does not, in fact, take orders from the Pope.
Um...they meet at this building and I presume they would only go to meet there because they are like minded with the other people there. Are you saying if a Catholic diocese felt a certain way they would not organize to do something about it? Of course they would and do all the time. The church community itself is a tool for social action. They is why churches end up doing alot of community service and charity and the like, it is not like non-religious folks are not also in favor of and want to do those things but they tend to lack the ready made legions of volunteers a religious community affords.
QuoteFailing? Why should they mobilise into a community? They have their own ethnic communities.
Oh Muslims do not have festivals? They never get together socially to do anything?
I guess Islam is not at all like Jews and Christians and they just huddle alone in their bedroom and read the Quran every night? Nonsense.
On the other hand do ethnicities have special meeting houses and get together once a week to talk about ethnicity and do charity work? Highly doubtful.
I did not mean to say that ALL Muslims were united into one giant community. Just that I presume there are radical Mosques and non-radical mosques and they both are equally well organized. Why the former, and presumably smaller one, gets all the time in the press is bizarre to me.
In any case they already exist as a community. Even if said community is split by ethnicities that really doesn't matter.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 11, 2009, 10:58:20 AM
Quote from: Map Sucks on March 11, 2009, 10:32:05 AM
Responding is not a "free" activity. Organising takes time, money and social capital (ie connections and the right kind of social network). No one is going to listen to a community group unless they have some sort of recognition from the government or the press (ie they have a minister's ear, or do some sort of stunt for the journalists).
Apart from the MCB, I can't really think of any really coherent Muslim organisations in the UK.
Well let's take the MCB then. Apparently, the heavy burdens involve in issuing press releases did not prevent them from issuing a blizzard of them condemning Israel over the attacks in Gaza. When it comes to trashing Zionists, there doesn't seem to be any difficulty in "responding".
The impression that many people have is that the mainline Muslim groups don't criticize the radicals because either they sympathesize with their motivations and objections (if not their precise methods) or because they are too afraid to say anything. Perhaps that impression is unfair - but there it is, and groups like the MCB have not done much to dispel it.
http://www.mcb.org.uk/media/press.php
Indeed there is a flurry of responses to Gaza. But also responses to Mumbai, a call for calm with the publication of the 'Jewel of Medina', a short statement on the teacher arrested in Sudan, and also on the website is a blanket condemnation of all terrorism performed in the name of Islam.
Anyway, the MCB is one of those bodies that has been criticised in the past as being self-appointed. I don't know enough about it to know fully whom they speak for.
Quote from: Map Sucks on March 11, 2009, 11:04:47 AM
http://www.mcb.org.uk/media/press.php
Of wow - they JUST put that up on their site sometime in the last couple minutes. It was not there when I posted.
I concede the point.
Yeah nice post there by the MCB.
QuoteUm...they meet at this building and I presume they would only go to meet there because they are like minded with the other people there. Are you saying if a Catholic diocese felt a certain way they would not organize to do something about it? Of course they would and do all the time. The church community itself is a tool for social action. They is why churches end up doing alot of community service and charity and the like, it is not like non-religious folks are not also in favor of and want to do those things but they tend to lack the ready made legions of volunteers a religious community affords.
Yes, and? The views of one diocese would not really warrant publication. But the views of the Anglican church or the Archbishop of Westminster (the Catholic church in the UK) would. And as far as I know there is no similar overarching body for all mosques in the UK.
QuoteOh Muslims do not have festivals? They never get together socially to do anything?
I guess Islam is not at all like Jews and Christians and they just huddle alone in their bedroom and read the Quran every night? Nonsense.
QuoteOn the other hand do ethnicities have special meeting houses and get together once a week to talk about ethnicity and do charity work? Highly doubtful.
Er, actually, they are remarkably common - in London, at least. Today, I drove past a specificly Bangladeshi community centre. I know it performs charitable work as it is in a deprived area. And last week I had supper in a Serbian community centre in West London.
Remember, it is one thing to have a religion in common, but quite another to have a native tongue and set of cultural understandings in common.
QuoteI did not mean to say that ALL Muslims were united into one giant community. Just that I presume there are radical Mosques and non-radical mosques and they both are equally well organized. Why the former, and presumably smaller one, gets all the time in the press is bizarre to me.
I think this is common with radical agendas. In the 1980s, Thatcher attacked the press for giving Irish terrorism the "oxygen of publicity". In the 2000s, you will make a more attractive news article talking about the firey hate being preached at a Finsbury Park mosque than you will about the voice of normal British Muslims, who I regret to say are generally are as tedious and dull as the average white person is.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 11, 2009, 11:07:50 AM
Quote from: Map Sucks on March 11, 2009, 11:04:47 AM
http://www.mcb.org.uk/media/press.php
Of wow - they JUST put that up on their site sometime in the last couple minutes. It was not there when I posted.
I concede the point.
Wasn't there when I posted it either! They must have a mole on Languish.
Quote from: Map Sucks on March 11, 2009, 11:16:39 AM
[Yes, and? The views of one diocese would not really warrant publication. But the views of the Anglican church or the Archbishop of Westminster (the Catholic church in the UK) would. And as far as I know there is no similar overarching body for all mosques in the UK.
So they have community organizations that are already designed to advance ideas of morality and social justice and charity through organized group action. That is rather convenient don't you think?
QuoteI think this is common with radical agendas. In the 1980s, Thatcher attacked the press for giving Irish terrorism the "oxygen of publicity". In the 2000s, you will make a more attractive news article talking about the firey hate being preached at a Finsbury Park mosque than you will about the voice of normal British Muslims, who I regret to say are generally are as tedious and dull as the average white person is.
What you thought people were dull just because of their race? Anyway I find radical people pretty boring as well, they are sorta cool as a gimmick but they just say the same shit over and over and over.
QuoteSo they have community organizations that are already designed to advance ideas of morality and social justice and charity through organized group action. That is rather convenient don't you think?
Indeed they do, but there are many forms of group action. A mosque may have a kitchen for the homeless, but not a press officer (and given how hard our press officer is worked at my institute, I have learnt that getting into the press is not easy). It's like a normal church - public communication will be in the form of a newsletter or mailing, or more likely an announcement at weekly prayer. Getting a unified voice across a city, county or nation is very different and much more difficult (for one, the more people, the harder it is to agree on a message, wording or leadership).
QuoteWhat you thought people were dull just because of their race? Anyway I find radical people pretty boring as well, they are sorta cool as a gimmick but they just say the same shit over and over and over.
Normal people of all races are generally dull. Mediocrity is the great leveller.
Quote from: Valmy on March 11, 2009, 11:14:16 AM
Yeah nice post there by the MCB.
It was probably nice as could be expected, but they probably could have omitted the "Islamophobes" bit.
The more I think of it, it seems a bit half-arsed.
Quote from: Valmy on March 11, 2009, 11:14:16 AM
Yeah nice post there by the MCB.
This?
QuoteThe MCB is appalled at media reports of the scenes at a homecoming parade for British soldiers in Luton on 10th March 2009. This small minority do not speak for Muslims but instead provide fodder for Islamophobes keen to drive a wedge between Britons.
Secretary General Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari said, "Whilst we understand the deeply held and widespread opposition to the disastrous war in Iraq, the Muslim Council of Britain condemns any form of protest where individuals are harmed or threatened. The 'protestors' did not speak for the majority of people who opposed that war."
"British soldiers are simply carrying out orders on behalf of the government of the day. They have endured and sacrificed much, and we are glad they are back home", added Dr Abdul Bari.
I don't see what's so praiseworthy about it. It's OK to call returning squaddies baby killers as long as they aren't threatened? Anyone who uses this protest as evidence of a wider trend in the Muslim community is an Islamophobe?
LOL, this is just the kind of comments that I am talking about.
The problem here is NOT the protesters, according to the MCB - the problem is the reporting of the protesters, and the "islamophobes". Victimhood FTW!
Quote from: Berkut on March 11, 2009, 11:59:46 AM
LOL, this is just the kind of comments that I am talking about.
The problem here is NOT the protesters, according to the MCB - the problem is the reporting of the protesters, and the "islamophobes". Victimhood FTW!
It says that?
Who are you?
Quote from: Berkut on March 11, 2009, 12:03:12 PM
Who are you?
I resent your lack of profanity. It is unseemly. :o
Quote from: Berkut on March 11, 2009, 09:07:09 AM
So...where were all the vocal Muslims in the "Support the troops" crowd telling the idiot Muslims to STFU?
I imagine if there were any they were in the crowd with everyone else. The police kept people welcoming the troops and these guys on the opposite sides of the road and separated to stop any incidents.
QuoteHowever - one might suspect that if some local Muslim groups HAD shown up, it would be noted. If some local Muslim leadership had spoken out, perhaps that might be noted as well. Perhaps not - and hence the question.
Well that suspicion is based on two, I think faulty, premises. That the British press are rigorous in their reporting (especially examining a large crowd of people and asking if they're Muslim or not) and that the Daily Mail would be interested in finding out.
QuoteWell let's take the MCB then. Apparently, the heavy burdens involve in issuing press releases did not prevent them from issuing a blizzard of them condemning Israel over the attacks in Gaza. When it comes to trashing Zionists, there doesn't seem to be any difficulty in "responding" or organizing.
The front of the MCB's website has a highlighted press statement declaring 'Luton Protestors do not Speak for Muslims'.
QuoteI don't see what's so praiseworthy about it. It's OK to call returning squaddies baby killers as long as they aren't threatened? Anyone who uses this protest as evidence of a wider trend in the Muslim community is an Islamophobe?
Actually I think it's an internal argument. There was a really interesting programme about the Salman Rushdie fatwa on recently. One of the things that struck me about it was that Muslims who opposed it initially or now oppose it framed their opposition within the context of 'this is not a good image for us; this behaviour undercuts what we say about ourselves'.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 11, 2009, 01:37:25 PM
The front of the MCB's website has a highlighted press statement declaring 'Luton Protestors do not Speak for Muslims'.
Which is ridiculous since they speak for plenty of Muslims, not least of all themselves.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 11, 2009, 01:37:25 PM
Actually I think it's an internal argument.
What's an internal argument?
Quote from: Map Sucks on March 11, 2009, 11:32:30 AMpublic communication will be in the form of a newsletter or mailing
That, or in the form of decapitation.
Btw check out the one with the bluetooth headset. I bet he's taking business calls while calling soldiers "butchers" ;D
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2009%2F03%2F11%2Farticle-1160958-03D30F6C000005DC-708_468x313.jpg&hash=bde3b69e6330a2499e936b505d4ebccab0a9670d)
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 11, 2009, 01:37:25 PM
Actually I think it's an internal argument. There was a really interesting programme about the Salman Rushdie fatwa on recently. One of the things that struck me about it was that Muslims who opposed it initially or now oppose it framed their opposition within the context of 'this is not a good image for us; this behaviour undercuts what we say about ourselves'.
So they had a debate over whether or not it was acceptable to murder authors for what they write?
And this is evidence for how reasonable and moderate they are - not because murdering authors isn't sucha great idea, but because of how it looks to others?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 11, 2009, 01:44:01 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 11, 2009, 01:37:25 PM
Actually I think it's an internal argument.
What's an internal argument?
The argument that this sort of thing just provokes Islamophobes. The thing I'm worried about is that there are two things going on at once.
There's radical Islam and the West, we have issues and we want the moderates, as it were, to stamp on and drown out the radicals. Now this isn't ever going to make the news, because moderation and common sense don't make good copy.
But the other thing is that if the moderates please us then chances are they've lost credibility with the great mass of Muslims who are somewherein between Mullah Omar and Mona Sidiqqi. So basically moderates have to speak with a forked tongue. On the one hand they have to appease us to some degree - especially groups like the MCB which gets their credibility from the government recognising them as 'community leaders' - while on the other arguing with the radicals from a set of basic Islamic ideals rather than the truths of a secular Western perspective.
So we get a moderate who says 'this looks bad' and we react as people here have by commenting that that's a bit underwhelming. While the Muslims who opposed or now oppose the fatwa started from that but they then made a more fundamental argument that 'this undermines what we say we are' which reaches a far more important point.
It may not satisfy our demands for them to take a stand but I think that's of secondary importance to the argument being made within Islam.
Quote from: derspiess on March 11, 2009, 01:46:20 PM
Btw check out the one with the bluetooth headset. I bet he's taking business calls while calling soldiers "butchers" ;D
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2009%2F03%2F11%2Farticle-1160958-03D30F6C000005DC-708_468x313.jpg&hash=bde3b69e6330a2499e936b505d4ebccab0a9670d)
"No you cannot have your credit card balance, imperialist pig! Your account has been closed! Allahu ackbar!"
Quote from: Berkut on March 11, 2009, 01:50:18 PM
So they had a debate over whether or not it was acceptable to murder authors for what they write?
And this is evidence for how reasonable and moderate they are - not because murdering authors isn't sucha great idea, but because of how it looks to others?
Yeah. Because it reaches the argument of does what we do match what we declare ourselves to be. It's a more nuanced eyebrow raise at 'the religion of peace stuff'. And no religious figure in the world would start off their argument from the basic premise that liberalism's very good and that we should have free speech.
That's why in the Sikh riots over a play that was offensive to their religion they got support from local Muslims, local Hindus and the local Christian churches including the CofE and the RC Bishops.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 11, 2009, 01:55:57 PM
while on the other arguing with the radicals from a set of basic Islamic ideals rather than the truths of a secular Western perspective.
Edit: nevermind I was confused by who possessed the Islamic ideals in that sentence.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 11, 2009, 01:55:57 PM
But the other thing is that if the moderates please us then chances are they've lost credibility with the great mass of Muslims who are somewherein between Mullah Omar and Mona Sidiqqi. So basically moderates have to speak with a forked tongue.
If we've reached the point where Shelf is saying moderate Muslims are a fringe we can declare victory and move on to the next topic.
Quote from: Valmy on March 11, 2009, 01:58:58 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 11, 2009, 01:55:57 PM
while on the other arguing with the radicals from a set of basic Islamic ideals rather than the truths of a secular Western perspective.
Now wait a second here. I thought the moderates were preaching that real true Islam is all about peace and it is the radicals who are not Islamic. You make it sound like the moderates do not actually believe that and radical terrorists are in fact the real Muslims.
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. The challenge for the mdoerates is to reconcile the violence within the Quran with the other stuff.
Though of course it changes in different cultural contexts.
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 11, 2009, 02:03:25 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 11, 2009, 01:55:57 PM
But the other thing is that if the moderates please us then chances are they've lost credibility with the great mass of Muslims who are somewherein between Mullah Omar and Mona Sidiqqi. So basically moderates have to speak with a forked tongue.
If we've reached the point where Shelf is saying moderate Muslims are a fringe we can declare victory and move on to the next topic.
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 11, 2009, 02:06:00 PM
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
Fucking savages.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 11, 2009, 02:04:18 PM
Now we get Geert Wilders.
And what's wrong with Geert?
I love the lengths that we will go to to justify inaction on the part of the "moderate Muslims". we create these elaborate theories about how how they cannot speak out because no one will listen, and now this new one where they could speak out, but are careful not to because they don't want to lose credibility with slightly less mdoerate Muslims.
Like all the supposedly millions Muslims out there are all sitting around going "Damn, we really want to speak out in strong terms in support of liberal Western values, but nobody will listen! Or we have to be careful not to piss other off -however shall we approach this oh-so-difficult problem!".
It is pure fancy - just a self created justification for their relative silence. There is no actual reasons given for this, no evidence that it is the case, just an argument for why this could be the reason for their silence.
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.
Like I said before - they can easily dispel this notion if it is incorrect. Their silence is deafening.
raciss >:(
Berkut will no longer be allowed entry into the UK due to his hate speech :P
Quote from: derspiess on March 11, 2009, 02:23:36 PM
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.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/
oddest website I think.
Lots of stuff there on islam, much of it written by what appear to be ex-muslims.
And yet... there's times they make Wilders seem like a real moderate.
That said, I'm pretty much certain that it is a better strategy to never yield an inch to islam than to do differently. Religions with inventors like mohamed don't need to exist, just like ideologies with leaders like hitler or stalin don't need to exist either.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on March 11, 2009, 02:41:13 PM
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.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F3%2F31%2FPim_Fortuyn_portrait_%2528by_Jean_Thomassen%2529.jpg&hash=16b315f8478df22c16bf30037a79e43138d2c2f7)
:worship:
QuoteWell, 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?
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 11, 2009, 01:37:25 PM
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.
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).
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 11, 2009, 02:04:18 PM
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.
QuoteIncidentally 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.
Quote from: Warspite on March 11, 2009, 04:14:08 PM
QuoteWell, 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.
Quote from: Warspite on March 11, 2009, 04:14:08 PM
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?
The crowd needs 'naught but a whiff of grapeshot.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 11, 2009, 08:49:21 PM
The crowd needs 'naught but a whiff of grapeshot.
Stroking the Islamic victim complex is never that productive.
Quote from: Valmy on March 11, 2009, 09:27:21 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 11, 2009, 08:49:21 PM
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.
QuoteThe anger has been rising up. The parade was the final insult.
Are we supposed to fear this?
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on March 11, 2009, 02:41:13 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 11, 2009, 02:23:36 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 11, 2009, 02:19:08 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 11, 2009, 02:06:00 PM
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.
QuoteThat 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.
QuoteI 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.
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).
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 13, 2009, 11:31:00 AM
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"?? :D
QuoteThe 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.
Are there a lot of British soldiers of Pakistani or other Muslim immigrant descent?
Some opinions on the muslim protestors by a prominent British muslim :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/7941347.stm
Question Time is a major politics/current affairs programme btw.
Quote from: Queequeg on March 13, 2009, 11:54:43 AM
Are there a lot of British soldiers of Pakistani or other Muslim immigrant descent?
The Army is getting better (but still has a long way to go) in getting minorities into its ranks.
The officer corps is almost exclusively white. And even then, for certain regiments, the officers are dominated by certain public schools.
I don't know about the Royal Navy. I hear the RAF is better than the other services with minority representation.