Islam in Britain - One Year Later

[Tailgater]

I was being sarcastic, but I was also making the point that no one can convince an religious extremist of anything in opposition to his beliefs. You may be right that creationism isn't taught in America, but it's certainly not for not trying, but here I go poisoning the well again.

True and true. Creationism is pushed by religions (all religions with varying stories) just like every other country in the world. Thank insert here for seperation of church and state. Alot of countries do not have this option. That's like saying we have green trees.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Have we not heard some of those same statements from the leaders of terrorist countries? Right before they smoke a cigar and high five each other.

No, of course not.

Like I said before, where are the protests? the masses of angry muslims?

Quoted in the post you are supposedly responding to.

the intervention of the majority actively saving the minority from the wrong road they have taken?

Examples given in my two previous posts. Why don't you read them?

If the "majority" of muslims feel that there is evil among them trying to divide them....

Where did you get all that lovely straw? I never said a word about Muslims in general. We are discussing British Muslims.

We have already conceded that a tiny minority of them are nuts. This does not excuse people who are equally nuts trying to tar them all with the same brush.

 

[Darat]

Perceptions do indeed colour our opinions!

I find your assessment of religious vs secular trends in our country as way off the mark as you evidently find mine. From this survey (the most recent I could find on the YouGov site), you are clearly in a small minority on that.

Well that one was about perceptions - look at what happens when yo start to ask specific questions regarding legislation:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/uk_faith_in_the_uk_poll/html/2.stm

Almost twice as many believe the UK’s main religions should influence the country’s law-making as disagree.

Even among those who claim to have no religion, almost half support that view, although nearly as many believe our faiths should not play such a role.

Perhaps the religious see it one way, the non-religious another...

Blair, I don’t doubt, is genuinely religious, though not in a flirting-with-fundamentalism way. I’m not aware that any other member of the government has shown any signs of religious belief.

You've never heard about Ruth Kelly's religiosu beliefs, the fact that she is a member of Opus Dieus (sp?)?

New Labour’s faith schools policy is not primarily religious; it has much more to do with their barmy Thatcherite agenda to privatise education.

Sorry have to disagree - if that was the case there would have been no need for the legislation to exclude religious schools from certain obligations etc.

...snip...

By any measure I can think of, such as religious observance, divorce, proportion of co-habiting couples who are married, proportion of children born to married couples, sexual permissiveness, society is becoming steadily more secular. I am not expressing an opinion here about any of these things, but the evidence is staring you in the face and it’s quite unusual for anyone to dispute it.

I've had to go back to your original post and my response and I seem to have gone off in the wrong direction in my responses. My point is that we have had a government that has by any measure increased and promoted religion more then any other modern government and has passed legislation that means the state now protects and promotes religion in a way it didn't do 10 years ago.

You are of course totally correct when you state how society as a whole has moved during the same period.

Sorry for getting things so confused.

It’s too much of a stretch to claim the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill as an example of religious beliefs being ‘promoted by the state’. The original idea was to close a loophole in the racial hatred legislation, which allowed the courts to define whether a particular religious group is a ‘race’ (and therefore entitled to protection).

We will have to disagree with this - my view is that there was no need for new legislation to accomplish any of this - this happened because there was a government that was sympathetic to religious groups.

I think the idea was misguided and I don’t support the legislation, but then I’m also against any legislation that treats racism as a crime different from any other kind of bigotry.

We agree.

In the couple of generations or so for which we’ve had a substantial Muslim population in this country there has been an enormous decline in the status and influence of religion. As Muslims tend to be more religious than society in general, and religion is an important part of their group identity, this social trend is acting against integration

A very good point.

 

[brodski]

You've never heard about Ruth Kelly's religiosu beliefs, the fact that she is a member of Opus Dieus (sp?)?

Opus Dei (Or "hopeless dei" as she is known). And remember that she is now in charge of a raft of equality briefs, as well as "community cohesion" but refused to say that she thought that homosexuality was a legitimate life style.

 

[Polaris]

This guy?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...110.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/10/ixuknews.html



Muslims are not going to convince people they are moderates when they profess a goal of imposing their religious beliefs on an entire nation.

For most Muslim activists, that IS being moderate.

 

[Polaris]

I'm not sure you understood the intent of my statement.

Citing percentages instead of numbers tends, imo, to be a method of marginalizing the issue. Saying 'Well, it's on a small percentage of a minority' kind of hides the fact that 16,000 Muslims in Britian profess the desire to join a terrorist group. No matter how someone wants to parse the numbers, 16,000 potential terrorists is a LOT. That number is not insignificant and reducing it to a percentage does not make it insignificant.

I'm not arguing PCness. Im arguing precisely against it. And speaking of being PC, I notice that whenever the subject of Muslims is brought up that it's seemingly considered politicaly incorrect to speak of their potenital for bad behaviour. A flood of people rush to their defense. Anyone who does say something perceived as bad about Muslims is almost instantaneously typified as a knucle-dragging bigot simply by virtue of attempting to suggest that some Muslims are capable of doing bad things. But, Christians? Well those bad, bad Christians are fair game. Let the bashing begin. (btw, I'm agnostic and have no affiliation with any religion whatsoever.)

To me, THAT is PC and is a common theme on so many forums across the internet.

That's because it's safe to bash Christianity. You don't see thousands of Christians marching in world capitals with signs that say "Christianity will rule the world" and "Behead the enemies of Christ". How many celebrities take shots at Christianity all the time, but refuse to even go near the cornucopia of horror that is and has been Islam? If you dare to say Islam is intolerant and dangerous, it IS possible to be killed for it.

 

[CapelDodger]

In the couple of generations or so for which we’ve had a substantial Muslim population in this country there has been an enormous decline in the status and influence of religion. As Muslims tend to be more religious than society in general, and religion is an important part of their group identity, this social trend is acting against integration

I think it's important to note that mostly second- and third-generation British Muslims are being noisily religious lately. (The same seems to be the case in France, where some girls insist on wearing the hijab even though their mothers never did.) The early failures to integrate relate more to the social norms of the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities the first immigrants came from. In particular, the status of women and the authority of the family patriarch. They were observant Muslims, but not in any way impassioned. Mosques were social clubs (for the patriarchs), just as many CofE churches are. There's a generational element to what's been going on, and playing-up to adolescent grandstanding never helps. Unfortunately that's been happening - and not on the Muslim side.

The young Muslims who are most vulnerable to Islamist heresies are those who've learnt no more about Islam than festival dates and rituals. The same applies to young Christians who fall for sects such as the Children of God. We all know that cults (religious, political and woo) target adolescents as the easiest marks. The Islamist groups are overwhelmingly young, and the average age doesn't seem to be increasing, which suggests a lot of wastage at the top end and continuing recruitment at the bottom. They also don't seem to growing very quickly, if at all.

Another problem (one that's being addressed by Muslim communities) is that home-grown preachers are few and far between, so they've been imported (just like all those Irish priests around the world). Along with Saudi contributions to mosques have come Wahabbi preachers. The British Muslim establishment didn't pay enough attention to that, but they're on the case now.

I reckon it's a passing phase and religion will soon become un-cool again. The thing is not to get hysterical about it.

 

[CapelDodger]

I already pointed out the criteria for clear condemnation: condemn terrorists by name.

Why? When the US Marine Corps condemns behaviour that sullies its good name, do you expect them to name every perpetrator?

It's really quite simple, it's been absent from the start, and I don't believe a single one of them is really condemning terrorism if they can't do that.

Look at the quotes provided by Dr Adequate.

Point me to someone who DOES do that, and I'll believe that person is truly condemning terrorism.

Look at the quotes provided by Dr Adequate.

Hide your head in the sand all you want, but what gets said in the mosque in arabic isn't what those same people say in English at a press conference.

Two obvious questions : how good is your Arabic? And how much time have you spent listening to it spoken in British mosques?

In other words, how do you know they say one thing in English and another in Arabic?

There's not much Arabic spoken in British mosques apart from the ritual stuff. It's as well understood as Latin is by Catholics. British Muslims are overwhelmingly from Pakistan and Bangladesh, far from Arabia. They tend towards English and Urdu.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why? When the US Marine Corps condemns behaviour that sullies its good name, do you expect them to name every perpetrator?

In such a case, condemnation is rather secondary. What matters is whether or not those who have done wrong are actually held accountable, and THAT is the standard I hold our military to. And it's a higher standard than I'm holding the muslim community to, because words are easier to come by. Furthermore, I didn't ask that muslim community leaders name every terrorist, which is the standard you're trying to establish here. I ask that they at least name some. And I don't see it happening.

Look at the quotes provided by Dr Adequate.

I did. And not one of them names a single terrorist by name. So I don't know why you keep telling me to look at the quotes, because it was precisely this aspect of those quotes which I was commenting on.

 

[Lucky]

You've never heard about Ruth Kelly's religiosu beliefs, the fact that she is a member of Opus Dieus (sp?)?

You’re right; I forgot Ruth Kelly. I think she’s one of the few members of the government who genuinely believe in faith schools as a matter of principle rather than political expediency, and that might partly explain her appointment as Secretary of State for Education.

Almost twice as many believe the UK’s main religions should influence the country’s law-making as disagree.

Even among those who claim to have no religion, almost half support that view, although nearly as many believe our faiths should not play such a role.

The BBC’s ‘interpretation’ is highly misleading, and I can’t see the point as the same page gives the actual statement that people were asked to agree or disagree with: ‘Our laws should respect and be influenced by UK religious values’. ‘Religious values’ is quite ambiguous, but it certainly doesn’t mean organised religion. The question could well be interpreted to mean ‘Do you think our laws should be at all influenced by the Judeao-Christian moral tradition?’, and I think almost anyone would see that as a very moderate proposition. (I guess it was just the standard shoddy journalism rather than a conscious attempt to deceive.)

Sorry have to disagree - if that was the case there would have been no need for the legislation to exclude religious schools from certain obligations etc.

Except that religious bodies have to be persuaded that it's in some way in their interests to cough up large amounts of money to subsidise public education; that there can be something different about the schools they fund.

We will have to disagree with this - my view is that there was no need for new legislation to accomplish any of this - this happened because there was a government that was sympathetic to religious groups.

Again, I disagree that the government is religious, or especially sympathetic to religious groups. I don’t mean that having a religious Prime Minister has no effect at all (and I concede Ruth Kelly), but the government in general, and New Labour, are every bit as secular as politicians and parties have been for the last several decades.

By your insistence on this point I think you are giving entirely the wrong impression to non-Brits, especially Americans, who probably imagine that there is a similar situation here to that in the US, with a significant and growing fundamentalist influence in politics, education etc.

And just think what you’re saying: We expect the Prime Minister to have no discernable religion, because that’s the usual state of affairs in this country and has been throughout living memory. Doubtless we will soon revert to that state of affairs, and if you think that in itself will make this country a better place to live then you’re a much more optimistic person than I am. (The faith schools policy will remain, because any government would have to spend money to overturn it.)

To some extent I see you as an ally in this discussion, because you are trying to defend British Muslims from an unjustified bad press. But I also see a couple of problems with your position:

1) In some ways I think you overstate the moderation and reasonableness of typical Muslim opinions. For instance, I don’t remember you ever mentioning the tacit approval for virulent anti-Israel rhetoric, verging on anti-semitism, that pervades Muslim culture at all levels in the UK. As it happens, I don’t think this anti-semitism is very deep-rooted, and in most cases it could probably be cured simply by Muslims having some personal contact with Jews. It is very regrettable that wider society has chosen to condone (or, at best, ignore) this attitude for so long.

2) On the other hand I think you are handicapped in your efforts to understand British Muslims by your extreme dislike of religion. I’ve noticed that quite a few posters here who (because their hearts are in the right place) want to be sympathetic to Muslims, pick out for their approval those few individuals who have publicly repudiated Islam. (I have the impression this includes you, but I apologise if I’m mixing you up with other posters.)

Western Muslims, on the whole, are religious (without being fanatical). This is perhaps less true of the younger ones, but not very much so. They are not going to abandon their religion in order to please, or blend in with, the rest of society, and nor should they. The Muslims I most respect are the ones who refuse to surrender Islam to bigots, lunatics or Arab clerics living in the Middle Ages, and are quietly working to modernise and reform their religion.

But these are exceptional people, and it’s not reasonable to expect all Muslims to have that resolve and that ability.

 

[Tailgater]

No, of course not.

Yes, of course. Most leaders in the middle east came out to give sympathy after the series of attacks from 911 through the london bombings saying that it did not represent true Islam only to give examples of why we deserved it later. Maybe it was bad example and too broad for this. It's unfortunate that they get more press than local leaders.

Quoted in the post you are supposedly responding to.

Examples given in my two previous posts. Why don't you read them?

I did and I'm glad they are speaking out. Not sure how a handful of quotes=protests of the masses, but ok. It is hard to take them serious and I know they might speak for most muslims, but they are severely overshadowed by the masses that take the streets to cheer when westerners die. Like I said earlier, the streets in Chicago (where i am) were filled with people celebrating on 911, not protesting the acts of a "minority".

Where did you get all that lovely straw? I never said a word about Muslims in general. We are discussing British Muslims.

We have already conceded that a tiny minority of them are nuts. This does not excuse people who are equally nuts trying to tar them all with the same brush.

Hmm, I took that from your post from The Muslim Council of Britain... "The Muslim Council of Britain said the bombings were "evil deeds." "The evil people who planned and carried out these series of explosions in London want to demoralize us as a nation and divide us as a people," the group said in a statement. "

I think it's great that there are active muslims against this. I'm sure there is alot more around the world like them. Leaders of terrorist countries have made it hard to take these words serious without action when they talk peace and tolerance, then support killing us. My main point was the overwhelming population that comes out to cheer when something bad happens to the west despite the numbers that condem the action. I'm not trying to give the impression that no one ever did anything in the muslim community. We have the terrorists, then we have those opposed to terrorism, then we have the rest of the popultaion that we only see when it's time to wave flags for the dead.

 

[Cleon]

I already pointed out the criteria for clear condemnation: condemn terrorists by name. It's really quite simple, it's been absent from the start, and I don't believe a single one of them is really condemning terrorism if they can't do that. Point me to someone who DOES do that, and I'll believe that person is truly condemning terrorism.

This is hilarious, and really silly.

He posted several examples of Muslim organizations condemning terrorist acts in no uncertain terms, with no room for wiggle, no room for double-speak, and no possible way to dance around it. They called terrorism "un-Islamic" and "evil." Evil! There is no possible way for them to be less ambiguous about their feelings.

But nooo....That's still not enough, they have to condemn the terrorists by name to make you happy. And then, I'm sure, you'd find some other criteria to gauge their "true" feelings towards terrorism--probably via the "out" below.

Hide your head in the sand all you want, but what gets said in the mosque in arabic isn't what those same people say in English at a press conference.

Do you have any actual evidence that the people Dr. Adequate quoted have said something different in mosque, or is this just supposition?

Oh, and incidentally, much like synagogues, imams' sermons are usually in the native language of the region--because usually most of the mosques' attendees aren't fluent Arabic speakers, any more than most Jews are fluent Hebrew speakers.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is hilarious, and really silly.

He posted several examples of Muslim organizations condemning terrorist acts in no uncertain terms, with no room for wiggle, no room for double-speak, and no possible way to dance around it. They called terrorism "un-Islamic" and "evil." Evil! There is no possible way for them to be less ambiguous about their feelings.

There damned well is plenty of room for double-speak, starting with the definition of the word "terrorism". Killing Israeli civilians on a bus, for example? That's not terrorism, that's "resistance". Condemning 9/11 as "un-Islamic"? Easy to do, especially if you think Mosad or the CIA did it. That's why I want them to name names, because names AREN'T ambiguous. Everything in those quotes provides for more than enough wiggle room, including and ESPECIALLY the word "terrorism". Hell, people on this message board can't even agree on the definition, with AUP claiming in a different thread that our invasion of Iraq constitutes terrorism (bets on how many of those Dr. A quoted agree with that?). You don't have to have the same standard as me for what you accept as sufficient condemnation, but if you can't understand why I want more than has been so far offered, then you're clueless.

 

[Cleon]

There damned well is plenty of room for double-speak, starting with the definition of the word "terrorism".

No, you don't get that one. They condemned the specific act in question, the bombing, as evil and un-Islamic. No getting around that.

Killing Israeli civilians on a bus, for example? That's not terrorism, that's "resistance".

Your evidence that they have made this statement is...?

Condemning 9/11 as "un-Islamic"? Easy to do, especially if you think Mosad or the CIA did it.

Your evidence that they think this is....?

That's three times you've attributed opinions to these individuals and organizations and completely failed to provide a single shred of evidence to back your claims up.

That's why I want them to name names, because names AREN'T ambiguous. Everything in those quotes provides for more than enough wiggle room, including and ESPECIALLY the word "terrorism".

No, this is simply not the case. They condemned those specific terrorist acts as "evil" and "un-Islamic." No matter how hard you try to dance, there is NO room for ambiguity there. None whatsoever.

You don't have to have the same standard as me for what you accept as sufficient condemnation, but if you can't understand why I want more than has been so far offered, then you're clueless.

Oh, please, spare me the special pleading. They condemn a specific act as "evil" and "un-Islamic," and you harp on about differing definitions of "terrorism." You're simply fishing for something for which their completely unambiguous condemnations aren't good enough.

There is NO room for wiggle room in statements like this, Ziggy:

Along with all Londoners and the people of Britain, we are deeply shocked and saddened by the bombing attacks of 7 July 2005 that caused the loss of at least 52 innocent lives, wounded hundreds and disrupted the peace and order of the civic and community life of the metropolis. We regard these acts as utterly criminal, totally reprehensible, and absolutely un-Islamic.

"We regard these acts as utterly criminal, totally reprehensible, and absolutely un-Islamic."

Let's say that again, shall we?

"We regard these acts as utterly criminal, totally reprehensible, and absolutely un-Islamic."

Oh, yeah, Ziggy, it sure sounds like they're hemming and hawing, there.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, you don't get that one. They condemned the specific act in question, the bombing, as evil and un-Islamic. No getting around that.

There is when you don't name the culprits. Conspiracy theories are frighteningly common among Islamists - that was my point regarding who caused 9/11. It's easy to condemn an act if you can also claim someone else did it. I want proof that they don't think someone else really did it, and that proof is them naming names.

Your evidence that they have made this statement is...?

I'm not claiming they made that statement. I'm saying I cannot tell that they don't think that, I'm not in the mood to give them the benefit of the doubt, and that in order to convince ME that they really DO oppose terrorism, they've got to name the actual terrorists (which really isn't a great burden on them at all). It's really that simple.

 

[Cleon]

There is when you don't name the culprits. Conspiracy theories are frighteningly common among Islamists

Do you mean "Islamists" or "Muslims?" Either way, some evidence would be nice.

- that was my point regarding who caused 9/11. It's easy to condemn an act if you can also claim someone else did it. I want proof that they don't think someone else really did it, and that proof is them naming names.

*sigh* And when they do that, just to make you happy, you will want them to declare that the culprits weren't Muslims for committing it. And when they "excommunicate" the terrorists, you'll want them to condemn them to hellfire. And when they condemn them to hellfire, you'll want them to declare that Muslims should vote Republican/Tory. And so it goes.

I'm not claiming they made that statement. I'm saying I cannot tell that they don't think that, I'm not in the mood to give them the benefit of the doubt,

Good, I'll remember that the next time some right-wing kook bombs an abortion clinic. Guilt by association is a lovely thing if you're an ideologue, I suppose.

and that in order to convince ME that they really DO oppose terrorism, they've got to name the actual terrorists (which really isn't a great burden on them at all). It's really that simple.

Great burden? No. Silly, stupid, pointless exercise that no remotely rational person would take seriously? Absolutely.

Incidentally, you're demanding more of Muslims than you are of most Republicans.


"We regard these acts as utterly criminal, totally reprehensible, and absolutely un-Islamic."

You still don't have a remotely reasonable point, Ziggy.

 

[Ziggurat]

*sigh* And when they do that, just to make you happy, you will want them to declare that the culprits weren't Muslims for committing it. And when they "excommunicate" the terrorists, you'll want them to condemn them to hellfire. And when they condemn them to hellfire, you'll want them to declare that Muslims should vote Republican/Tory. And so it goes.

You wouldn't be coming to conclusions about me without any evidence, would you?

You have no reason to conclude I would change my requirements. I've laid them out once, ONLY once, and I'll stick to them. That you don't agree with my requirements is fine, but don't accuse me personally of changing my requirements after the fact when nothing of the sort has or will happen.

Good, I'll remember that the next time some right-wing kook bombs an abortion clinic. Guilt by association is a lovely thing if you're an ideologue, I suppose.

Would you accept their condemnation of such criminals if they named them? Because if you want to adopt my standard honestly, you've got to commit to that too. And I presume you're trying to be honest, no?

Incidentally, you're demanding more of Muslims than you are of most Republicans.

On what basis can you possibly evaluate what I do or do not demand of Republicans? You know nothing about me personally, Cleon, and you're certainly not making very good guesses as to what my political beliefs are.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

By your insistence on this point I think you are giving entirely the wrong impression to non-Brits, especially Americans, who probably imagine that there is a similar situation here to that in the US, with a significant and growing fundamentalist influence in politics, education etc.

...snip...

The facts speak for themselves, in the last 10 years there have been more laws passed that specifically single out religious beliefs as being different to other idealogical beliefs then any time in recent history (e.g. post WW 2).

...snip...

To some extent I see you as an ally in this discussion, because you are trying to defend British Muslims from an unjustified bad press. But I also see a couple of problems with your position:

I'm not an "ally" in any discussion, I have my point of view and if I believe it is based on facts and evidence I will argue for it whilst at the same time being willing to listen to new evidence and change my mind.

I have argued against mis-characterisation of British people who are Muslim in the same way I have argued against mis-characterising of Israelis, Americans and other stereotypes. It is the mis-characterisation I argue against.

1) In some ways I think you overstate the moderation and reasonableness of typical Muslim opinions. For instance, I don’t remember you ever mentioning the tacit approval for virulent anti-Israel rhetoric, verging on anti-semitism, that pervades Muslim culture at all levels in the UK. As it happens, I don’t think this anti-semitism is very deep-rooted, and in most cases it could probably be cured simply by Muslims having some personal contact with Jews. It is very regrettable that wider society has chosen to condone (or, at best, ignore) this attitude for so long.

What a strange criticism - why should I have mentioned this unless it was part of the discussion? I've never mentioned many aspect of Muslim UK culture because it hasn't been relevant to any discussion I've been involved in.

2) On the other hand I think you are handicapped in your efforts to understand British Muslims by your extreme dislike of religion. I’ve noticed that quite a few posters here who (because their hearts are in the right place) want to be sympathetic to Muslims, pick out for their approval those few individuals who have publicly repudiated Islam. (I have the impression this includes you, but I apologise if I’m mixing you up with other posters.)

...snip...

You are wrong.

 

[Mephisto]

See my posts nos. 5 and 9, which tried to get the discussion back on track from Mephisto's stupid, irrelevant derail, and which specifically highlighted what I wanted to discuss. I'm sorry I didn't make it clear enough by saying, "Hey, let's discuss this."

Now, can we discuss this?

Hey! I'm glad to be the train to derail your thoughts. How about answering another derail - unless you'd rather accuse me of "poisoning the well," or building strawmen just for you.

IF, Islam is indeed ideology masquerading as religion (and yes, I know we're talking about British Muslims, but I think the same thought can be applied across the board) - why aren't American Muslims or Canadian Muslims, or Muslims in Brazil or Bolivia carrying out terrorists attacks?

 

[BPSCG]

IF, Islam is indeed ideology masquerading as religion (and yes, I know we're talking about British Muslims, but I think the same thought can be applied across the board) - why aren't American Muslims or Canadian Muslims, or Muslims in Brazil or Bolivia carrying out terrorists attacks?

I don't understand your question or your point.