BS: Islamic radicalism . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 01:54 PM

indicting an entire population for the actions of a few leads to the same thing

And yet, Jim on another thread you indicted 'the good people of Lewes' for the actions of a few. I did not answer on that thread because it had nothing to do with it but maybe this is the place to discuss how you differentiate between the two.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 11:49 AM

"I am not saying that Jim is right either and all is sweetness and light in the Muslim community as a whole."
I'm not Dave - I have no time for any religion, and I run a mile at the idea of any to them having political influence.
I do say that those who have moved to Britain have fitted in and are law abiding citizens.
They have been recognised as such and have been cited as being the most ready, of all British immigrants, to embrace British laws.
I asked what the alternatives Mike et al were proposing concerning immigrants - forcible or 'voluntary' repatriation - ghettoisation - I raised a few hackles with the suggestion of tattooed numbers on their arms - can't see why - indicting an entire population for the actions of a few leads to the same thing
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 11:34 AM

The problem is that the majority of Muslims are just like you and I as are the majority of Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus and the plethora of other religions that exist. But there are some who commit crimes in the name of their religion, whatever it is. But there is a prevalence of crimes being committed in the name of Islam at present and those crimes are the ones that seem to do most harm to everyone. I do not know if Michael is right about the teachings of that religion being any different from the teachings of other religions. I have never read the Koran and I have no intention of doing so. I am not saying that Jim is right either and all is sweetness and light in the Muslim community as a whole. There is a discrepancy between actuality and perception that needs to be addressed. I am sure that when another bogey man comes along the anti - and pro - Islamist factions will fade away.

How about we make one now? I think that Martians are to blame for all the worlds ills. Them green bastards with their secret brain rays, infiltrating every aspect of life make my blood boil. I think I will write a stiff latter to the Daily Mail. :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 09:04 AM

Jim, your link to sharia law is screwed up. I think that is what you meant to post.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 05:14 AM

"It's only a small minority"
Which is not the point
The point is that you choose to target Muslims living in Britain and depict them as a threat - the Enemy Within, as did Eunuch Powell before you
Part of Muslim teaching is that, if Muslims live in non-Muslim countries, they should respect national beliefs and adhere to national laws – which exactly describes the behaviour of British Muslims.                     Those you and your 'volcano-squatting (surely a candidate for the next Olympics) friends have chosen to denigrate.
Sharia Law is open to misinterpretation and abuse, as are any aspects of any religion – it has become the bigot's Sword of Damoclese..
Sharia Law

"My church approves of gays Steve"
C of E toleration of gays
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 03:49 AM

millennia

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 03:46 AM

My church approves of gays Steve, and we have gay priests and bishops and many, many gay members.
It just has a millenia old definition of marriage that it is not ready to change yet.

We have had female priests for years and bishops soon.
Females form more than half our congregations and we run our Church how we want to.
Outsiders are entitled to their opinion of course, but what has it to do with you?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 03:46 AM

And I think it a point worth making, in response to all these "It's only a small minority" pleas, that several of the Sharia states -- N Nigeria, Pakistan, parts of Malaysia, Syria -- are democracies; they hold elections, and these administrations have been elected by a majority vote. NB that when Israel did hand back the Gaza area [to which I agree they had no legitimate claim] to Palestinian Arab control, the population expressed their gratitude by overwhelmingly electing a Hamas government at the first opportunity; leaving Israel with a hostile enclave at its heart, which proceeded to bombard kibbutzim within range with ballistic missiles. I regret that I don't find this "only a minority" argument an overwhelminglyly convincing one.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 03:43 AM

"At a mixed school in southern Afghanistan, two teachers were executed for refusing to stop educating girls"

Christianity ?

Buddhism ?

Judaism ?

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 01:58 AM

And have a look too at Janice Turner's op-ed in Saturday's Times: just some unisdputed facts about actions of Islamic governments in Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, & jiggery-pokery in Birmingham schools. Here are just two sentences from many one might have pull-quoted:-

--At a mixed school in southern Afghanistan, two teachers were executed for refusing to stop educating girls. Their pupils were forced to watch--

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 07:44 PM

Does your church approve of gay marriage, Keith, or just gay "marriage"? Women bishops??

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Lighter
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 01:05 PM

> it is THE FAITH itself, to which these 'peopel' subscribe, that specifically and explicitly lays on them the duty to perform these acts.

Actually it's only a particular radical interpretation of the faith - read into it by the zealots themselves - that lays on the "duty" to commit acts of terror.

If not, they wouldn't be a small minority among overwhelmingly law-abiding Muslim population.

As we all know, the bible contains passages that, ripped from context, zealously emphasized, or absurdly overinterpreted, suggest that homosexuals must be stoned to death, that slavery is fine, and that conversion by the sword is A-OK. ("I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.")

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 01:02 PM

"Is the UN Envoy an Islamophobe in your opinion?
(Just asking. Not arguing)"

No! Not REALLY?

He WAS the one who knew in 2002 that Bush was manipulating the evidence and still went with him into two wars in Muslim countries.

But he he isn't an Islamophobe.............MUCH!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 12:39 PM

If you accuse my church and my religion of any of those things then you talk bollocks

Nope. Try again. This time with sentience.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 12:24 PM

If you accuse my church and my religion of any of those things then you talk bollocks, but that has been discussed endlessly on countless threads and I will not discuss it with you on here.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 12:12 PM

Because it is bollocks? <>/I>

Nope. Try again.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 11:33 AM

Because it is bollocks?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 10:48 AM

All major religions have built into them misogyny, hatred or strong condemnation of other religions, intolerance to homosexuality/lesbianism. While not specifically part of this discussion, I wonder why these things are so seldom mentioned?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 06:28 AM

I've made my point and see no purpose in repetition.

Adieu, thread,

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 04:08 AM

Mither: -

(a) Wrong Fred
(b) The Royal Guardsmen.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 04:00 AM

Cross posted
It is not "the faith" but how that "faith" is interpreted by individuals and groups who wish to use it for their own purposes or to back up their own fanaticism.
All "faiths" are capable of being misinterpreted and misused - the Christian one being among the front runners.
Judaism in the hands of fanatics is on display every time you read about what is happening in Israel.
Buddhist fanatics are attempting to bring about holy war in Myanmar - I've always been told that Buddhism is synonymous with 'Peace'.
One of the features of Muslim life in Britain is its passive and law-abiding nature - a fact you Islamophobe volcano-squatters have continued to deliberately ignore.
Are you seriously suggesting that this is because all British Muslims have abandoned their "faith"?
We know that the handful of Muslim criminals involved in underage sex have abandoned their "faith" , which forbids them having sex outside marriage.
If it was a question of "faith", Britain, with its million to a million and a half Muslim population would have long ago bee plunged into religious warfare and its streets would have long bee "rivers of blood" as Eunuch predicted all those years ago.
You appear more and more like him every time you put finger to keyboard.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 03:24 AM

The politics of any individual posting to this forum can only be of any interest to those who with to use it as a diversion from adult argument, such as your good self.
I can remember no specific posting I have ever made which "reveals" my own - though I'm sure you are able to jog my memory.
Bringing my imagined political leanings up and now attempting to instigate a debate around them is a pretty clear indication of the paucity of your own arguments.
If you equate "leftie" with being appalled by human rights abuses, opposing sectarianism and race hatred and being prepared to speak out on these issues, I'll just have to take your word for it and bear it in mind when the next election is due.
It really is none of your business and if your weren't as desperate as you seem to be to divert attention from your own hypocritical and extremist outlook on life, you would know it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 03:23 AM

See the letter in this morning's The Times, "Pakistani justice", from the All Party Parliamentary Group for International Freedom of religion or Belief.

Let me revert, yet again, to the constant accusation, from Jim et al, that I must allow that "it was religious fanatics wot dunnit, not the Muslim peopel as a whole". I have never accused "the peopel as a whole" as being directly involved, or even approving. The point which he will not get is that it is THE FAITH itself, to which these 'peopel' subscribe, that specifically and explicitly lays on them the duty to perform these acts; and his "fanatics" are simply the ones who do as their Prophet bid. There is no other major religion whose founders even suggested such injunctions, so any few, like Westboro Baptists &c, who embrace such activities, are not obeying any thing laid down by their faiths.

But Muslims who do so are, even if those do not constitute the whole, or even the majority, of the Faith's adherents. So it is the Faith itself, and its explicit teaching, with which I take issue; not just "the peopel". It, not they, constitute(s) the threat to the world, and any who can't see it are ostriches. And they who think it unfair to point this out are foolish -- I still often recall with a chuckle Richard's taking me to task for being "more critical of one religion than others"!

Can Jim et al really not get this?

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,michaelr
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 07:22 PM

Thanks for clarifying, Michael.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 05:26 PM

You "reveal your politics" with every post you post, Jim; and then get all hoity if anyone notices.

You have also voluntarily asserted your religious position iirc. Want to withdraw that info as being suddenly confidential, like your "Top Secret" politics?

We don't happen to be discussing your date of birth. But if it became an issue, I presume you would mention it, not declare vehemently that it was no-one's biznis but yours, Captain Mainwaring. You wouldn't get many prezzies that way either, would you?

What the hell is the matter with you? I really think you must have flipped at last...

~M~
dob 12 v 32

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Stringsinger
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 03:50 PM

Mr. Blair fails to mention that the only country ever to use nuclear weapons is the US.
Not only that, he is discounting religious radicalism in all the other sects as well.
As someone who supported the bombing of Iraq on false pretenses, he is hardly
credible as a harbinger of Muslim doom.

It must be mentioned that militant radical Christianity is a threat to the US and the world, those radicals that are now engaging in violence in the US South and West.

An attempt to accuse lefties of bias and dismiss any of their arguments because you don't agree with them is a McCarthyist tactic.

Also, we mustn't rule out the Jewish extremists such as Meyer Kahane and the Jewish Defense League, obvious radical religious terrorists.

Radical religionists, no matter what their persuasion have been responsible for wars and hatred since they are guided not by human concerns but have been brainwashed by dogma.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 03:33 PM

The Hotshots!

Took me ages to sit there and recall who sang Snoopy vs The Red Baron.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 03:02 PM

"Of course they are, Jim. They are a primary factor in the matters we are discussing; how can we do so if they are not to bed taken into account?"
I take this to be some strange impenetrable joke - or are you seriously confirming that all discussions have to be preceded by revealing ones politics - or religion - or maybe date-of-birth?
Beats responding to the points, I suppose.
Stupid boy!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 11:39 AM

And I still haven't made out quite how Senator McCarthy managed to infiltrate our discourse, either! Who else are you going to drag irrelevantly into your denunciations of me for no perceptible reason? Otto von Bismarck? Titus Oates? Snoopy and the Red Baron? Brutus & Cassius? Bill Brewer Jan Stewer Peter Gurney Peter Davie Dan'l Whiddon Harry Hawk, Lord Peter Wimsey...?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 11:31 AM

Mind you, Jim, your arguments are getting a bit strange and scattergun. Suddenly your King Charles's Head, the late Baroness Thatcher, has put in an appearance. Now what you imagine she has to do with all this, from beyond the grave, I cannot conceive. Not working up to one of those funny old tantrums of yours, are you? You know how worried we all get for you...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 11:19 AM

"My politics is no business of yours"
.,,.
Of course they are, Jim. They are a primary factor in the matters we are discussing; how can we do so if they are not to bed taken into account?

Who is trying to restrict whose freedom of speech around here, I should like to know?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 10:43 AM

Mainstream Islam?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 10:33 AM

My politics is no business of yours even if your assessment is accurate
And is has no relevance to this or any discussion unless you want to take your McCarthyism to it's logical conclusion and demand an oath of allegiance to 'St Margaret' before making a contribution here.   
If my views on humanitarian issues - the basis of my contribution to these threads - are your interpretation of "being a leftie", fair enough.
I've met a number of Lefties down the years - I don't recall many of them being racist bigots, most have been humanitarians and pacifists - many of them were the Jews I talk about who were my friends when I lived in Manchester.
Despite the efforts of Mrs Pinochet, "lefties" have points of view and the right to express them, here on Mudcat and elsewhere - that is, until your lot come banging on the door one night to take those of us who disapprove to take us away, as happened in Maggie's "wonderful example to true democracy", Chile.
Maybe I should reconsider my present political apathy and go and joi something
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 09:35 AM

Are you sure that is what he meant to say? After all, CofE is a religion. Why would he add a religion to a statement about a terrorist philosophy? He didn't say Islam, Judaism or Pastafarianism for that matter.

TC.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 09:14 AM

What Blair actually said,
"Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has described radical Islam as the greatest threat facing the world today."

I expect he meant to say that CofE was a close second.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11182225

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 08:56 AM

BBC 24 April 2014 Last updated at 22:38 BST

The UN estimates more than 50,000 people have fled the violence in Nigeria and crossed into neighbouring Niger.

Boko Haram's Islamist militants have intensified their violent campaign, killing over 1,500 people since the start of this year alone, according to human rights groups.

Most recently, they are suspected to be behind the mass abduction of more than 200 school girls.

Ibrahim Tidjani is a Koranic teacher, who crossed into Niger with his family and some of his pupils at the end of April last year, after his village, Manguno, was raided by Boko Haram fighters. Sixty people were killed in the attack, including his father and brother.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 08:50 AM

No-one has suggested he was right at all Greg, but you all seemed to dismiss his message as somehow irrelevant.

How can we be sure that the UN Middle East Peace Envoy is completely wrong and there is no threat to world peace and stability specifically from militant Islam?

What reassurance would you give to the people of Nigeria say?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 08:42 AM

Well FW Keith, conversely How can we assume that the UN Middle East Peace Envoy is completely RIGHT?

Or for that matter, how can we be completely sure the sun will come up tomorrow?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 08:36 AM

Just received my copy of this week's Spectator. One sentence from its first page Portrait Of The Week feature: "Brunei delayed,'due to unavoidable circumstances', the introduction of laws imposing death by stoning of adulterers and the severing of limbs for theft". New laws, you will note; not old ones which just happen to survive. Wonder what those 'unavoidable circumstances' could have been, or how long the 'delay' will be. Not holding breath.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 08:18 AM

Returning to the speech, how can we be sure that the UN Middle East Peace Envoy is completely wrong and there is no threat to world peace and stability specifically from militant Islam?

What reassurance would you give to the people of Nigeria say?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 07:54 AM

And all v well to chuck terms like 'garbage' around; but if your "can't be arsed" isn't a perfect instance of the old "mind's made up, do not confuse with facts please" bromide, then I reckon it will do till a better one comes along.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 07:28 AM

Since when was being a dirty rotten stinking capitalist anything to do with Tory Bridge?

Only one of us two has ever voted Tory in their lives. Would the readers wish to guess which of is it was?

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 07:10 AM

Oh, come on, Jim. You might not have any formal party affiliation, but it's idle to deny that your views are far more representative of a left-inclined position than any other. I suspect that, if any other interlocutor suggested any different, you would be resentful & annoyed.

As to those other faiths you mention. Well, Judaism is specifically and explicitly non-proselytising -- a club which, far from seeking new members, makes it difficult for any who want to to get in. The founder of Christianity did indeed declare himself the way and the life and said that none came to the father but by him; but he did not then go on and say that his followers therefore had a duty to kill any who failed to recognise this, and later accretions [Crusades, Inquisitions] constituted aberrations from, rather than followers of, his teachings.

The Koran, otoh, as Aayan Hirsi Ali points out, does enjoin the duty of Jihad and of militant proselytisation. Such activities are specifically imposed by its founder's own words on all true followers of his faith. I have ref'd two previous posts of my own which spell out my specific objections to allowing that faith to gain a worldwide foothold. If you are too idle, "can't be arsed", to follow them up, that's your problem. But it doesn't render militant Islamism any less of a threat to the world, or make this law-abiding majority any less, as any Islamist will tell you, departers from the true teachings of The Prophet. Just hope your descendants will not fall victim to those who do take his teachings and his commands seriously. I shall have none, so what do I care?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 05:49 AM

How would you know Mither - tory-lite!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 05:28 AM

Depends on who shouts Lefty! And who hears it Bridge...

As to the subject. I give up.

Islamic fundamentalism is a sign of the dangers of nurturing religion. Nothing to do with Muslims. Nothing to do with any identifiable group. It is an inevitable result of perpetuating superstition in modern society.

A pox on all their houses.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 04:26 AM

"the insufferable self-righteous little lefty prig!"
What my politics are is none of your business and has nothing to do with what I say - I am not a member of any particular party - I have no political line - I haven't voted in a general election of well over a decade.
If anything, I am a humanist (with a small h) and a pacifist (with reservations).
Some time ago you bent over backwards to find my politics - no doubt to use a a smearing substitute for argument - I declined, to no avail - you have decided to use a fictionalised construction of my politics as a substitute anyway - your kind always do.
So feel free to continue your "McCarthyite personalised rant", though you need no prompting from me - your kind never do
" Fusilier Rigby, Theo Van Gogh, Ali Akbar Tabataba'i, Hitoshi Igarashi, Meir Kahane, " are all examples of Islamic extremism.
Perhaps you'd like a list of examples of Christian or Israeli, or Buddhist - or any other type of religious or nationalist extremism - and will I be allowed to attribute those examples to entire national or cultural groups.
Come on Mike - give us a break - you used to be (or at least seem to be) better than this garbage.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 03:53 AM

Pray explain or expound as to "McCarthyite personalised rant". Regret have not the remotest idea as to which part of what I have posted this description might refer.

"doesn't change any of the facts about what we are discussing"

Agree with that right enough: deaths of Fusilier Rigby, Theo Van Gogh, Ali Akbar Tabataba'i, Hitoshi Igarashi, Meir Kahane, et al; Pakistani exploitation of vulnerable young females, &c &c - all certainly remain incontrovertible 'facts'.

Thank you for your apology, which is appreciated.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 02:57 AM

I apologise for not noticing your comment on genital mutilation - my dipping into this 'discussion' - shouldn't multi-task - i'm no good at it.
Still doesn't change any of the facts about what we are discussing - nor does it alter the fact that you have now resorted to a somewhat childish McCarthyite personalised rant rather than respond to facts.
In which case, a suggest you take your Ukip closet fascism and stick it.
Have a good day.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 02:05 AM

... that air which Kingsley Amis summed up so cogently in "Why Lucky Jim Turned Right" [1967], as "joining in the massed choir of half-a-million voices crying in the wilderness".

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 01:51 AM

Maybe not, Richard; but there is often an element of, as I say, self·righteous priggishness involved in the urging of the views which the word subsumes.