Islam in Britain - One Year Later

[BPSCG]

why reduce it to jesus? The OT is part of the bible too....last time i checked.....

andyandy, as Darat points out, we had this debate before you got here, I believe. I'll sum it up for you, rather than do a Claus on you and tell you to go look it up:

1. The primary teachings of Christianity come from Jesus (I'm making no claim that he is divine).
2. The primary teachings of Islam come from Muhammad.
3. Faithfully following the teachings of Jesus will generally not bring a person into conflict with the principles of liberal democracy. E.G., if he forgives an aduteress, if he turns the other cheek when someone strikes him, he is not breaking any laws. Jesus in fact was a proponent of the separation of church and state ("render unto Caesar...").
4. Faithfully following the teachings of Muhammad will often bring a person into conflict with the principles of liberal democracy. E.G., if he stones an adulteress or a homosexual, if he kills an unbeliever, he is following the teachings of Muhammad, but is generally breaking the law.
5. Ergo, Christianity as taught by its greatest teacher, is consistent with the principles of liberal democracy. Islam, as taught by its greatest teacher, is not.

why look for a papal bill? Why not just look at the core text that Catholism is based upon?

It's papal bull. And the core text that Catholcism is based on is the teachings of Jesus.

I see this is getting Darat irritated () so I won't go any farther with this, even though it's only mildly off-topic. If you want to see the entire thread, PM me and I'll run it down for you.

 

[Lucky]

BPSCG: When an ignorant Brit or European starts a thread about some complex American issue, attempts to reduce it to some ‘four legs good, two legs bad’ type of baby-talk, and shows no interest at all in the experience and opinions of people he’s addressing who have daily first-hand knowledge of the situation, you and other Americans are rightly annoyed or scathing.

Nothing wrong with drawing our attention to these surveys, but don’t you think it would have been more to the point to link to the sources and ask UK posters how this relates to our experience, rather than launching into yet another pointless anti-Islamic attack?

Your Wall Street Journal link is subscribers only. I looked at the Pew Global Attitudes Project website and found this and this, which give a very different picture.

As for the YouGov poll, the Wall Street Journal’s “24% said they were prepared to help terrorists, if needed” statement is, in my opinion, outright dishonest. I couldn’t find the actual question, but from the YouGov site, “24% have some sympathy with the ‘feelings and motives’ of those who carried out the attacks” (sample size 526). You see, this is not a statement about personal readiness to aid terrorists; it's about an understanding of their motives, which is a very different matter. (A second’s thought should have told you, and the Wall Street Journal, that “are you prepared to help terrorists” is a staggeringly unlikely question for this type of survey.)

Oddly (and it seems to be a true coincidence), the Pew Global Attitudes Project gives the same 24% figure for a similar question (though 9% expressed only a weak belief). From a sample of 412 UK Muslims:

“Violence against civilian targets in order to defend Islam can be justified...Often/Sometimes (15%), Rarely (9%), Never 70(%), D/K (6%).”

Both seem to be respectable surveys, but the sample sizes are plainly too small, and we are told nothing about sampling methods.

So, the 24% of British Muslims who are prepared to help terrorists boils down to 126 people who understand the feelings and motives of terrorists, or 62 people who think violence against civilian targets for their cause is justified.

I’m more than willing, if you’re interested, to share my experiences (including some very negative ones) of living as a tiny Jewish outpost in an area of West Yorkshire with a large Muslim population. You could learn something (I have).

Even if they do see reasons for the bombings, that doesn't make them any less moderate. The question of whether they're "moderate," in this context, would be whether they supported the bombings, or would help to do so.

Cleon: Bizarre to find myself agreeing with you on this issue, but you are quite right that to understand is not to condone. For instance, I fully understand why my ultra-orthodox Israeli relative got himself arrested for violence against the Israeli army in opposing the evacuation of Gush Katif (he took his son with him too), and I could even discuss it with him cordially, but that doesn’t mean I support his action.

 

[Apollyon]

imo, the problem is the lack of willingness of some Muslims to meld into a society or culture. They desire an entire culture to adopt their ways instead. The response of every western culture in which they make that desire known is basically going to be "tough [rule8]." Regardless of any economic situation that culture clash is going to cause problems.

That's where Christianity and Islam part ways as well. Christianity learned long ago to adapt to cultural changes, albeit that change often comes slowly. Islam remains inflexible and that attitude is bound to cause even more problems in the future.

Maybe the answer is to teach Muslims to adapt, if that's even possible? Either that or cross your fingers and hope for the best.

 

[Darat]

andyandy, as Darat points out, we had this debate before you got here, I believe. I'll sum it up for you, rather than do a Claus on you and tell you to go look it up:

1. The primary teachings of Christianity come from Jesus (I'm making no claim that he is divine).

This is incorrect, according to Christians the Bible is not meant to be the word of Jesus, it is meant to have been authored by many different people.

1. The primary teachings of Islam come from Muhammad.

Agreed, whilst Muhammad is not meant to have actual wrote down the words of the Koran according to Muslims it is his words.

1. Faithfully following the teachings of Jesus will generally not bring a person into conflict with the principles of liberal democracy. E.G., if he forgives an aduteress, if he turns the other cheek when someone strikes him, he is not breaking any laws. Jesus in fact was a proponent of the separation of church and state ("render unto Caesar...").

Not true - the teachings of Christ (as per his given words) are completely at odds with liberal democracy.

1. Faithfully following the teachings of Muhammad will often bring a person into conflict with the principles of liberal democracy. E.G., if he stones an adulteress or a homosexual, if he kills an unbeliever, he is following the teachings of Muhammad, but is generally breaking the law.

Many Muslims would disagree with your interpretation of their religion and many wouldn't. However since the majority of Muslims live in secular states even when they form the vast majority of the population then I think a reasonable conclusion is that the majority of Muslims don't believe this interpretation of their faith. (I think this is correct I've done a rough and ready calculation based on the data here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country)

1. Ergo, Christianity as taught by its greatest teacher, is consistent with the principles of liberal democracy. Islam, as taught by its greatest teacher, is not.

It's papal bull. And the core text that Catholcism is based on is the teachings of Jesus.
[/list]

No it isn't (to both points).

I see this is getting Darat irritated () so I won't go any farther with this, even though it's only mildly off-topic. If you want to see the entire thread, PM me and I'll run it down for you.

Not irritated it's just that your facts are wrong and you demonstrate by these arguments that you have little understanding of either Islam or Christianity as the people who call themselves Christians or Muslims interpret it. (Plus this is not a topic for this section of the forum - it is a topic for the "Religion..." section.)

 

[BPSCG]

Nothing wrong with drawing our attention to these surveys, but don’t you think it would have been more to the point to link to the sources and ask UK posters how this relates to our experience, rather than launching into yet another pointless anti-Islamic attack?

Well, it certainly devolved into that, but if you read carefully some of my earlier posts, that was not the discussion I was aiming for. I touched on this in one of those posts, but it seems to have gotten ignored in the general screaming about whether Muslims are blood-drenched monsters or innocent lambs.

What I thought was the salient point of the article, and what I tried to get a discussion going about, was this extract:

[British Islam] has adopted part of the anticapitalist discourse of communism, adding to it some anti-Semitic and anti-Christian themes of Nazism, and completing the mix with Third-Worldist lamentations against racism and imperialism. This Islam is an ideology masquerading as a religious faith.

Few sermons delivered at British mosques deal with theology, and none allows God more than a cameo role. Instead, they rage about Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya, Kashmir.

Emphasis mine.

That was what I was hoping to get people to discuss, but it immediately got derailed with a stupid and irrelevant comparison to American Christian fundamentalists, and things went downhill from there.

Now, since you twitted me for not asking how this relates to the experiences of UK posters, do you think, from your vantage on the east side of the Atlantic, that British Islam is an ideology masquerading as a religious faith?

 

[andyandy]

The statistics do highlight the existence of a radical minority in the uk - but also that the vast majority of uk muslims are concerned by this.....

Of British Muslims taking part in the poll, 77% said the rise of Islamic extremism worried them.

and the 24 % figure whilst shocking does require further analysis.....

A total of 24% of the British Muslims questioned thought there were times when suicide bombing was acceptable.

That figure broke down into 3% who said it was often justifiable, 12% who said only sometimes, and 9% who thought it was only rarely acceptable.

I'd like to see the initial question.....but if it was

1) "are there justfications for suicide bombing?" then this is not the same as

2) "were the attacks on the tube/9-11 etc. justifiable....?"

"are there justfications for suicide bombing?"
has no context.....Is the question concerned with the morality of the method of warfare? is "suicide bombing" against a military target any more morally repugnant than than sending men over the trenches against a military target?

An affirmative answer to 1) is a opinion on the morality of suicide bombing as a method in warfare

An affirmative answer to 2) is an acceptance of the al-qaeda doctrine and an acceptance that civilians are legitimate targets

the two are not the same - so before we analyse the answer too much, let's establish, what was the question?




http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5111248.stm

 

[andyandy]

I see this is getting Darat irritated () so I won't go any farther with this, even though it's only mildly off-topic. If you want to see the entire thread, PM me and I'll run it down for you.

ok....let's save this debate for another thread.....

 

[Dr Adequate]

Someone let me know when the immoderate pope issues a papal bull saying Jesus wants us to slay unbelievers, homosexuals, and adulterers.

Someone let me know when the MCB issues a fatwa.

These are good guys.

I can actually show you American Christians supporting the bit of the Mosaic law that says to stone unruly children. There are nuts everywhere.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Please answer the question without resorting to ad hom attacks. Is this statement... ...true or false?

It's complete bloody nonsense.

I live here.

Leicester is the most racially mixed city in the UK: I know whereof I speak.

Phillips is a woo. Oops, there I go with that pesky ad hominem.

 

[andyandy]

Now, since you twitted me for not asking how this relates to the experiences of UK posters, do you think, from your vantage on the east side of the Atlantic, that British Islam is an ideology masquerading as a religious faith?

I'd say that you cant separate ideology from religious faith......be that Muslim, Christian or whatever.....

 

[Darat]

...snip...

That was what I was hoping to get people to discuss, but it immediately got derailed with a stupid and irrelevant comparison to American Christian fundamentalists, and things went downhill from there.

Now, since you twitted me for not asking how this relates to the experiences of UK posters, do you think, from your vantage on the east side of the Atlantic, that British Islam is an ideology masquerading as a religious faith?

Yes and no.

The evidence is that the general level of unrest is caused by whatever has caused similar unrests in the UK in the past, however the unrest is being taken advantage of by people external to the UK and used both as a political tool (and of course they use terrorism as a political tool). One of the ways they are doing this is to export their version of Islam (which is a politicised Islamic faith) to the UK and use that to recruit people already disillusioned with Britain.

 

[Dr Adequate]

What I thought was the salient point of the article, and what I tried to get a discussion going about, was this extract:Emphasis mine.

This Islam is an ideology masquerading as a religious faith.

Well why didn't you say so?

That was what you wanted us to discuss?

Why didn't you say so?

Or are you just hastily backpedaling from all the other stuff you posted? --- which, it seems, you do not want us to discuss.

 

[Lucky]

What I thought was the salient point of the article, and what I tried to get a discussion going about, was this extract:

[British Islam] has adopted part of the anticapitalist discourse of communism, adding to it some anti-Semitic and anti-Christian themes of Nazism, and completing the mix with Third-Worldist lamentations against racism and imperialism. This Islam is an ideology masquerading as a religious faith.

That was what I was hoping to get people to discuss, but it immediately got derailed with a stupid and irrelevant comparison to American Christian fundamentalists, and things went downhill from there.

Now, since you twitted me for not asking how this relates to the experiences of UK posters, do you think, from your vantage on the east side of the Atlantic, that British Islam is an ideology masquerading as a religious faith?

If you wanted a discussion why didn’t you link to the neutral sources instead of that rather bigoted and distorted Wall Street Journal article? It’s surely obvious that an OP consisting of such a provocative quotation will instantly polarise the responses in two equally pointless directions.

I would not attempt to summarise this complicated issue in a single sentence, and ‘masquerading’ is certainly wrong. Let’s get away from ‘it’s really {x} but it pretends to be {y}; it’s both, neither, and an elaborate synthesis.

I think that the majority of British Muslims are moderately religious, and have an understandable fear that their religion is being undermined by a secular society that is becoming increasingly unsympathetic to any manifestation of religion.

I think that the majority of British Muslims have a compound identity that combines their religion, their cultural background including their parents’ or grandparents’ homeland, and their current home, and they do not see this as a contradiction (unless driven to do so). As a British Jew, with family in Israel, I completely understand that. It’s something that British Jews feel we have in common with British Muslims. (And I see why it’s impossible for most Brits to understand.)

I think that Islam worldwide is increasingly taking on the character and aspirations of Arab nationalism, and vice versa. ‘Arabist Islam’ would be a suitable term for this movement.

I think that anti-semitism is, and always has been, an essential part of Arabist Islam.

 

[BPSCG]

Well why didn't you say so?

That was what you wanted us to discuss?

Why didn't you say so?

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?

 

[epepke]

BPSCG: When an ignorant Brit or European starts a thread about some complex American issue, attempts to reduce it to some ‘four legs good, two legs bad’ type of baby-talk, and shows no interest at all in the experience and opinions of people he’s addressing who have daily first-hand knowledge of the situation, you and other Americans are rightly annoyed or scathing.

That's a nice acknowledgement, though it would be nicer if there were some understanding of that when it hapens, rather than just when it is expedient. I see far too much ignorant baby talk, especially about race relations in the US.

But anyway, even if you don't think that BPSCG is interested in hearing about this, I am. So please tell me.

This may betray my ignorance as an ugly American, but I still can't get over the Jean Charles de Menezes thingummy. There was a BBC program on this a couple of months ago. I have it on disk, but I can't find it right now. It demonstrated, fairly compellingly, I think, that the standards of the police unit with guns for avoiding killing civilians are considerably lower even than the state of Israel. There was an inquest promised at the end of February that never materialized. And when I bring it up here, I get told that I will have to wait seven years for someone to be charged, and in the meantime it's perfectly fine that they're out there with guns. What gives?

 

[Dcdrac]

I also see an apparent reluctance for any of the major political parties to tackle these issues head on. There are many reasons for this, one is a simple fact - Blair is a very religious person and actively supports sectarianism.[/QUOTE]

In total agreement, it is one of the reasons I stopped working for the government.

 

[Darat]

I

...snip..

I think that the majority of British Muslims are moderately religious, and have an understandable fear that their religion is being undermined by a secular society that is becoming increasingly unsympathetic to any manifestation of religion.

...snip...

This does show how perceptions colour our opinions. I would state that the the total opposite of your statement "secular society that is becoming increasingly unsympathetic to any manifestation of religion" is the case in the UK today!

We have had a government that for the last almost 10 years has promoted like no other government in modern history the setting up of faith schools, whether they be Islamic, Christian, Sikh, Judaic or whatever. We have new legislation (and further planned legislation) that for the first time ever in the UK has made non-Christian religious hatred a criminal offence. Employment law has been changed to both stop discrimination on religious grounds yet also to make employers consider someone's religion in the course of employing someone.

Religion and religious beliefs are more "protected" and in a way promoted by the state then any other time in modern history.

I think that the majority of British Muslims have a compound identity that combines their religion, their cultural background including their parents’ or grandparents’ homeland, and their current home, and they do not see this as a contradiction (unless driven to do so). As a British Jew, with family in Israel, I completely understand that. It’s something that British Jews feel we have in common with British Muslims. (And I see why it’s impossible for most Brits to understand.)

This I think is a universal truth, it is just that when you are in the majority in a society it's harder to see that it is the same for you. When you get down to it people may consider themselves "British" but it's always British and "something else". An example I have used here before is the town I was brought up in. The next local town (only 4 miles away) was considered "alien", when the local boroughs were merged in the 70s huge resentment was created because it combined two "ethnic groups" that considered themselves quite distinct and this resentment still exists today. Many of my relatives are now 2nd and 3rd generation "British" but still considered themselves in some ways "Welsh".

I think that Islam worldwide is increasingly taking on the character and aspirations of Arab nationalism, and vice versa. ‘Arabist Islam’ would be a suitable term for this movement.

I think that anti-semitism is, and always has been, an essential part of Arabist Islam.

Agreed.

 

[Dcdrac]

Arabist islam = Wahibib and is being promoted by those lovley dictators the Bin Saud family, its ok they are on our side, our kind of dictators, no regieme change there then.........

But it is not yet the majority form of islam that is still largely Sunni wiht shias clsoe behind and a sprinkiling of sufis as well.

In fact i know fo people who are actively resisting the spread of Wahibism as they see it as perveerrting Islam, mostly Brit muslims as it happens. Trouble is they do not have the resources the Saudi dictators can command, for instance say tyou want ot build a mosque the saudi embassy will back you but they will also demand a say on who makes up its goevernoing body so chances are it will be packed with wahibis, or wahibi sympathisers.

Bin Laden is a prime example of a whacked out Wahibi.

Just a few antio Wahhibbi articles:

http://www.isim.nl/files/Review_15/Review_15-17.pdf

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/comment/stalinsky200406280902.asp

 

[Jekyll]

Abolish the doctrine of multiculturalism? Why? I don't see how this has anything to do with multiculturalism.

Philips is the Guardian's answer to Ann Coulter. For her everything is to do with multiculturalism, which is just another way of saying "not being Catholic enough".

 

[Mephisto]

It's odd how when the actual numbers don't look pretty people begin citing percentages instead.

Isn't it also odd how the first person to cite percentages happens to be a JREF moderator living in the UK citing census facts - of course facts are rarely "pretty" when alarmists can't get everyone's panties in an wrinkle.