• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dawkins And Islam

It is virtually impossible to have a sensible discussion in Britain regarding race, immigration, Islam etc, because to even bring these subjects up leads to an automatic branding unless of course you happen to be black or a Muslim or <insert minority here> commenting on your own group. Until Britain grows up and allows it's citizens to openly debate such topics without the stigma, which can easily break a career, then most people who hold any view that questions such a minority keeps their head well and truly below the parapet.
.

A common criticism in the UK, but not a valid one, and one often used by people who eat up most of the time they could be criticising government policy on immigration, by instead complaining that they cannot talk about it.

They enjoy falsely complaining they are being repressed. But of course you are not one of them are you?

Oh, and by the way, I read the Guardian, and I criticise Islam on a regular basis. Am I a naughty lefty?
 
Last edited:
I've heard that bookstores catering to the angrier sort of Islam are becoming more common in the UK. Is that true?

I walked past the shop next to the East London Mosque proudly displaying Syed Qutb's Milestones in the window the other day.

To give you some context here, the East London Mosque is often praised by the UK government as draining extremism..
 
I walked past the shop next to the East London Mosque proudly displaying Syed Qutb's Milestones in the window the other day.

To give you some context here, the East London Mosque is often praised by the UK government as draining extremism..


I almost wonder which Muslim population is more prone to radicalism, the one in USA or the one in the UK, or other Western European Countries.

I have feeling this discussion of radical Islam in the UK will be split off to it's own thread.
 
Well, I actually haven’t read a lot about Dawkins, I really don't follow the creationism/evolution debate. I find it boring actually. But I find people who will beat up on the creationists constantly while not saying anything about even radical Islam to be hypocritical. I know it is easier in some countries to bash Christianity than it is to bash Islam. That’s what I was venting frustration at.
So you were beating up at a strawman, all whilst insulting a professor for something he didn't do? Intellectual dishonesty much?
 
I almost wonder which Muslim population is more prone to radicalism, the one in USA or the one in the UK, or other Western European Countries.

I have feeling this discussion of radical Islam in the UK will be split off to it's own thread.

Given that eight British men were in the last stages of preparing a plot to blow American planes out of the sky back in 2006 (That had a high probability of succeeding if it hadn't been for the British police), I think it is fair to say which one..

The US simply doesn't have the same history of fundamentalist clerics like Omar Bakri and Abu Hamza. They gave birth to an entirely new group of Islamists, such as Omar Brooks and Anjem Choudary.

Plus, remember what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said to Yosri Fouda in 2002: "You would make the perfect terrorist. You live in London."

Remember, the US got attacked in 2001 by highly intelligent graduates from Hamburg Universities. The same was going to happen in the summer of 2006, except this time it was going to be blokes from London.
 
Turn off your computer. Hop a flight to say Iran or Saudia Arabia and tell them your veiws. I am positive they will accomodate you!! :D

Proving what, exactly? Certainly not the existence of your version of God.

It is nice to live in a part of the world in which ignorant, brutal, intolerant fools do not have the authority to violently suppress those who's views differ from the majority, isn't it?
 
Dawkins doesn't dare attack Islam because he is a coward. Pure and simple.

Richard Dawkins said:
Islam deserves criticism on account of the logical consequences of its dogma, namely, that the murder of fellow human beings is to be rewarded with sensual pleasure in a hedonistic 'Paradise'- a concept born in the fantasies of an Arab rebel some fourteen centuries ago. The religion of Mohammed is a dangerous system when the teachings and example of the 'prophet' are believed and followed.

If by "attack" you mean "offer open criticism of" then you are flat out wrong. Pure and simple.
 
A) In the current political climate it could cost him his chair in Cambridge
B) He's doesn't fancy having a fatwa issued on him
or
C) I've totally misread some newspaper spin and said situation does not exist. He's not pulling punches with any religion more than another.

(C)
 
Last edited:
If you attack Islam, you will pay a price.

You're right. I attacked islam a few days ago and I had to pay 23 cents. If islam good for anything, its that it gives us a reason to use pennies.
 
Well, as I said, if you believe the figures, four out of ten British Muslims wish to see Sharia Law in Britain,
I don't think you did. I googled this and found the poll in question. The problem with the "sharia law" question is that it could be anything from marriage counseling to stoning homosexuals. Of course, one would wish that people would always stand up for secularism, but unless secularism has been a very major topic in the general discussion (such as in Turkey, and perhaps France), I would be amazed if the average poll taker had a very good understanding of the concept of secularism.

I think that to get any good understanding of the levels of extremism, you have to look at other questions as well. For example, poll takers were asked to choose one of the following:
"Western society is decadent and immoral and Muslims should seek to bring it to an end, if necessary by violent means."
"Western society may not be perfect, but Muslims should live within it and not seek to bring it to an end."

The first statement got 7% support, the second one 80%.

Asked whether it was right or wrong:
"For Muslims to attack Danish embassies in Muslims [sic] countries as a result of the publication of the cartoons"
(14%: right, 82%: wrong)
"For Muslim demonstrators to carry placards calling for the killing of those who insult Islam"
(12%: right, 82%: wrong)
"To exercise violence against those who are deemed by religious leaders to have insulted Islam"
(13%: right, 79%: wrong)

"How loyal do you personally feel towards Britain?"
Very loyal: 49%
Quite loyal: 42%
Not very loyal: 5%
Not loyal at all: 2%

(similar figures when asked about the perceived loyalty of other Muslims)

So all in all, I don't think that poll supports the stance that the Muslim population in general has become very radical.

Well, but something like that can happen for a wide variety of reasons. Either, such views are very popular with the Muslim population in general, and they have actively chosen such an extremist because they feel he represents them. This does not seem to be supported by the poll above. Or, it could be that most Muslims are not very preoccupied with religious matters, and that extreme but zealous factions can use this to gain an influence that is much greater than their popular support would warrant.


Anyway, I am in no way arguing that Islam is not a threat in Europe. A few Muslim terrorists can kill you or me. They can't really destroy our societies though, unless other forces abuse panic created by such quite limited (in military terms) attacks. But even so, that's certainly a threat, even if it should not be overstated.

What I am arguing, is that there does not seem to be any evidence for the common assertion that Muslims in general have an anti-secular, anti-democratic agenda and that they, or their (allegedly countless) children, will ruin Europe by their sheer numbers.
 
Many people who complain about being called racists are just mad because they dislike accurate criticism of their racism. You can tell because they call people who accurately describe them silly names like "lefty useful idiots," or "Guardianisters." Then, those racists turn it around and claim that the minorities they discriminate against are the real racists... as you have done, coincidentally.

It is such a common pattern that one would assume at some point racists would learn to stop broadcasting their idiotic bigotry... but that assumption would be wrong.
Really. Perhaps you ought to read this quote from Dawkins.

"It seems as though teachers are terribly frightened of being thought racist. It's almost impossible to say anything against Islam in this country, because [if you do] you are accused of being racist or Islamophobic."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-parents-import-creationism-into-schools.html

Funny how that echoes my sentiments. Are you now going to accuse Dawkins of racism or apologise to me? It's exactly the same people who accuse people for speaking out of being racist that fall into the categories above. Just because I group people and give them names does not mean I'm a racist. I wonder if we'll here them pipe up over Dawkins' comments.
 
Last edited:
A common criticism in the UK, but not a valid one, and one often used by people who eat up most of the time they could be criticising government policy on immigration, by instead complaining that they cannot talk about it.

They enjoy falsely complaining they are being repressed. But of course you are not one of them are you?

Oh, and by the way, I read the Guardian, and I criticise Islam on a regular basis. Am I a naughty lefty?
Would this include Dawkins aswell?

"It seems as though teachers are terribly frightened of being thought racist. It's almost impossible to say anything against Islam in this country, because [if you do] you are accused of being racist or Islamophobic."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-parents-import-creationism-into-schools.html

Where do you stand now with your comments? Of course I am not being repressed I am merely stating the truth. It seems that Dawkins is in agreement.
 

Back
Top Bottom