Manhattan explosion

[tyr_13]

Not in the slightest. Muslims are accepted and respected members of the community, London has a Muslim mayor. As the documentary quoted above shows, this is in spite of supremacist hatred taught in top London mosques.

Here is one area where your perspective is so massively skewed as to make the discussion worthless. First, top London mosques? Why insert 'top' in there? Define your terms. Second, this is no different than saying that Baptists are accepted and respected despite the vile hatred spewed by the WBC. It's disingenuous and paints and inaccurate picture of the whole.

Muslims are also allowed to freely enter and exist the West in the same manner as anyone else. If there is to be stable coexistence between Muslims who follow Islam as written in their holy books and human civilization as we need it today, the separation must be significantly more severe to the point it makes Trumps' proposals look like that of a no-borders one humanity hippie. In terms of isolation, think North Korea where both sides of the fence take extreme effort to keep a certain group isolated from the rest of the world.

I really can't argue against your position any more effectively than to just quote it here.

I neither like nor advocate that solution, in fact I think it's a horrible prospect.

You hate it so much you advance it despite all evidence to the contrary. Now, I logically come to conclusions I hate rather often, but that generally means I keep looking at the evidence all around rather than focusing on easily disproven assertions over and over again.

But if Muslims believe Islam is unchangeable, unalterable and must be practiced in the manner described

THAT'S A BIG UNPROVEN IF!

Muslims, like many Christian factions, find they can change their actions as they grow in their understanding and interpretation of the holy books and teachings of their scholars. As a matter of point, for many Muslims in many places this is actually more sound than for many Christians, besides the Mormons who have the entire progressive revelation thing going on. (Yes, I've read the Judeo-Christian-Islamic holy books, and I recommend the Skeptic's annotated versions.) Most who do this claim they are still following the unchanged, original scriptures, just understanding them better. I see that as basically a semantic rationalization many times, but also from the philosophy side of it have no problem with them doing so. This is especially because it usually results in bringing religious belief in line with social progress.

Your basis for argument in this section is neither inherent nor unique to Islam.

this solution is still preferable to destroying Islam the only way an outsider can destroy it (gas chambers et.al.). This is why I propose that Muslims get their feces in order and make Islam compatible with modern human civilization. Many claim to have done so already, if that's indeed true I'm not asking of anything that's beyond their abilities.

Yes you are. You're asking, rather demanding, that they change other people's interpretation of Islam more than through speech, which they are already doing. What mechanism do you propose they use? They're already doing what they can (they being the majority of Muslims in the west, and it appears a plurality in many other places). And let me remind everyone that I keep specifying 'in the West' because that's the only place 'we' can actually have any significant measure of control over the interaction.

To repeat: What mechanism?

Calling ISIS extremist is no different to calling Nazis evil or the sky blue. It's not something that's up for debate, an axiom, and we aren't debating that at all. We're debating the role and significance Islam played in creating the monsters like ISIS, Boko Haram and other groups. If you claim the role of Islam in them isn't significant and don't either offer substantial evidence for that (of which there was none presented yet) or else credibly counter all evidence presented for it (I haven't seen one credible counter to one shred of evidence, just a lot of hand-waving, obfuscation and misdirection), you are an apologist.

This is false. That's not an apologist. Of course Islam played a significant role, and no one disputes that outside of what that role was specifically and if it was an inevitable outcome or even necessary. This is why people then bring up Christianity's past and continued role in such violence. It isn't an inevitable outcome of Islam, nor Christianity, nor Buddhism, for violence and terrorism; it's an inevitable outcome of people using religion. Someone else wanted to know why atheists can 'defend' Islam? It's because it's not Islam itself. That's way overly specific. It's people, using uncritical belief to control others. When you say that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with western values, you're only correct insofar as any uncritical belief is. It's nonsensical to separate out something such as Islam and go 'oh, this one, this is a bad one, not these other ones'. I have lots of problems with all religions, and some ideas in some more than others, but that doesn't mean I'm an apologist for not agreeing with your specific criticisms. They don't have to apologize for things it's not specifically responsible for. Otherwise we fall down the SJW rabbit hole of having to take responsibility for being white, or male.

No, it doesn't. An actual critical thinker would figure that out by now.

McHrozni

I suspect that's why you haven't been able to explain why then. Those are at odds for the reasons I've gone into more above. The demands you keep making of Muslims in the west are all either something they're already doing, or something it's not possible for them to do.

 

[A'isha]

Here is one area where your perspective is so massively skewed as to make the discussion worthless. First, top London mosques? Why insert 'top' in there? Define your terms.

I'm also curious, since the documentary involved four mosques out of the 1,750 in the UK: two belonging to the openly Salafist/Wahhabist Ahl-i Hadith movement (one in Derby and one in Birmingham), one belonging to the openly-Islamist and Maududi-following UKIM (also in Birmingham), and only one in London, built as a pet project of the Saudi king.

The one in London, incidentally, is the largest of all the mosques featured in the documentary, but isn't anywhere close to being the largest mosque in London (much less the UK) - it's half the size of the actual largest mosque in the UK, the Baitul Futuh Mosque in Morden, London, which has a capacity of 10,000 people.

Baitul Futuh is also, incidentally, an Ahmadi mosque.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I didn't say that was controversial or that you were "advocating shooting anyone". Just demonstrating the catch 22 that can happen in extreme narratives. Peaceful, benevolent and law abiding people may be seen as not doing enough while those that fight and more actively oppose can the seen as just another extremist faction of an ideology. Again it depends on how one frames the narrative, which itself can be rather extreme.

I understand, but there comes a point when peaceful, benevolent and law-abiding people must make a stand against the violent and the murderous. I perosnally would applaud Muslims leaving Britain to help their co-religionists and fellow humans in Iraq and Syria, regardless of whether the British government approved of it. In fact I think it would be hypocritical of the government to condemn people for doing what it is doing itself.
The fact remains that many more Muslims have gone to fight for ISIS than have gone to fight against it. Fear of legal repercussions does not seem to be affecting these numbers. Although I have no evidence for this, I suspect that those returning from fighting against ISIS are more likely to meet with sympathy and tacit approval from the authorities than those returning from those fighting for it. I am prepared to be wrong if anyone has evidence to the contrary: this is just my assumption.
Similarly, the propaganda for ISIS is widespread: the message coming from those Muslims opposed to it is strangely muted. Before anyone shouts "media bias!", let me point out that the British media is hardly biased in favour of ISIS propaganda. Now, it may just be that non-extremist Muslims are not as good at marketing. I don't accept that as an excuse. Given the rising amount of hate crime, and the views displayed on this forum,then it is surely a matter of some urgency that British Muslims sort this out. If they genuinely oppose ISIS, and genuinely want to stop the exodus of radicalised jihadis from their communities, then they need to do a heck of a lot more to get this message across.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

They do all those things. It isn't controversial, unless we choose to ignore them doing all those things.

Pro tip: Doing all those things does not stop terrorism.

I'm not ignoring anything. If there are serious, widespread efforts being made by the Muslim community in Britain, or anywhere else, to combat extremism, I would love to hear about them. Unfortunately, all I have heard so far is denial: denial that this is a Muslim problem, denial that Muslim fundamentalists are Muslim, denial that any of this has anything to do with Islam.Pus numerous attempts to shift the blame to the West, or to Israel.
I would also like to add that, if you are correct and these efforts are being made, then they need to have a rethink, because it clearly isn't making any difference. There are more ISIS-inspired attacks then ever before.
Marplots: as you seem to be saying that attempts to stifle extremist recruitment will not stop terrorism, then what do you suggest will?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

If you mean "condemn it", they do.



The question "where all all the non-extremists at an extremist mosque" kind of answers itself. Muslims aren't forced to gonto the nearest mosque whether they approve of it or not. Muslims, like the members of any other kind of congregation, go to the mosques and choose the imams they want based on individual preference.

As described in the sequel documentary, the mosques in question are heavily influenced by Wahhabist ideology, thanks to money from Saudi Arabia. Muslims who object to that sort of thing (and there are many of them) aren't exactly likely to stick around a place like that for very long. [EDIT: If they even would go to any of those mosques in the first place, considering which specific mosques were in the documentary]

Do they condemn it? Let's see. If you are correct, then Muslim organisations around Britain would have voiced their approval of this documentary, and condemmed the extremists.

:Muslim groups such as the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC) have condemned the documentary as "another example of anti-Muslim hostility," stating that it "exemplifies the problems of inherent Islamophobia and racism within the mainstream media." The Muslim Council of Britain criticised it as "heavily hyped," while its Secretary-General, Muhammad Abdul Bari, described it as employing the "dishonest tactic of selectively quoting from some recorded speeches for the purpose of misrepresentation." The Islamic Cultural Center of London, the UK Islamic Mission, and the Markazi Jamiat Ahle-hadith organisations, all of whom are featured in the documentary, have issued separate responses. In a press release, the Saudi Arabian Embassy in London denied the charges made by the documentary, labelling them as "false allegations."

The Saltley Gate Peace Group issued a press release giving its "undiminished support" to the Green Lane Masjid stating that Imam Abu Usamah "…is accepted by much of his congregation and the wider interfaith community to be a peaceful man and is known to promote peace to his congregation," and that Abu Usamah "…encourages worshippers to avoid 'political Islam and radicalism.'"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercover_Mosque
Oh dear. It seems the Islamic community of Britain went into knee-jerk denial mode.
I thought you said that Muslims condemned extremism? Because it looks a lot like they are excusing it here. This was a golden opportunity for British Muslims to distace themselves from the intolerant, murderous fundamentalists in their midsts. Instead, they did exactly the opposite: closed ranks and cried 'Islamophobia'.

 

[marplots]

Marplots: as you seem to be saying that attempts to stifle extremist recruitment will not stop terrorism, then what do you suggest will?

I don't have any good ideas or suggestions. Terrorism is such an old idea and it takes so little to institute, I don't think it can ever be quashed entirely. As to reducing it? Here I would look to whatever the experts have to say, since I am not studied in the relevant areas.

As to what Muslims in the west should do? They are already doing as much as I am, since personally I'm doing bupkis about ISIS.

 

[A'isha]

I understand, but there comes a point when peaceful, benevolent and law-abiding people must make a stand against the violent and the murderous. I perosnally would applaud Muslims leaving Britain to help their co-religionists and fellow humans in Iraq and Syria, regardless of whether the British government approved of it. In fact I think it would be hypocritical of the government to condemn people for doing what it is doing itself.

Why aren't you wondering where the floods of Christian volunteers from the US and UK racing to the Levant on their own to help their co-religionists and fellow humans in Iraq and Syria are, and why aren't you also exhorting them to do so if they really are against what ISIS stands for?

The fact remains that many more Muslims have gone to fight for ISIS than have gone to fight against it.

Because ISIS has pretty much exhausted (or murdered) the potential pool of recruits willing to join them in the area and have to appeal to the outside for help, while there are entire armies and air forces of Muslims in the area who are already fighting ISIS.

(This is, of course, the reason why there aren't masses of Christians from Western countries trying to travel to the Levant to fight a private war against ISIS - like with the Muslims who oppose ISIS above, their countries and their countries' allies are already fighting a military campaign against ISIS, and aren't crazy or willing to abandon their lives and families enough to try and fight ISIS themselves in a completely different country far away from home)

Similarly, the propaganda for ISIS is widespread: the message coming from those Muslims opposed to it is strangely muted. Before anyone shouts "media bias!", let me point out that the British media is hardly biased in favour of ISIS propaganda.

Yes, that's why Anjem Choudary kept getting invited to give his opinion on TV by the BBC and Sky, while Muslims who weren't terrorist lickspittles rarely were.

I'm not ignoring anything. If there are serious, widespread efforts being made by the Muslim community in Britain, or anywhere else, to combat extremism, I would love to hear about them. Unfortunately, all I have heard so far is denial: denial that this is a Muslim problem, denial that Muslim fundamentalists are Muslim, denial that any of this has anything to do with Islam.Pus numerous attempts to shift the blame to the West, or to Israel.
I would also like to add that, if you are correct and these efforts are being made, then they need to have a rethink, because it clearly isn't making any difference. There are more ISIS-inspired attacks then ever before.

You first demand evidence that you're wrong, then in the very next paragraph state you won't change your position even if you do get that evidence.

I thought you said that Muslims condemned extremism? Because it looks a lot like they are excusing it here. This was a golden opportunity for British Muslims to distace themselves from the intolerant, murderous fundamentalists in their midsts. Instead, they did exactly the opposite: closed ranks and cried 'Islamophobia'.

The IHRC complained because they knew the documentary would be used...well, exactly as you're trying to use it now: as a tool with which to attack the entire religion and all its adherents. Then you quote the MCB's (who are quite often criticised by other British Muslims themselves) rather anodyne statement that the documentary was "heavily hyped".

The rest of those statements are either the Salafist and Islamist groups featured in the documentary, or a statement issued by an interfaith group founded by a Methodist minister. And from all this you conclude that "British Muslims" as some kind of unified whole "excuse extremism", ignoring the fact that many of those British Muslims are quite open and active in shutting down extremism when they see it. Even the most extreme and conservative of Muslims, Salafis, are more often anti-violence than not:

Some extremists have tried to take advantage of this by targeting salafi mosques in an attempt to recruit young Britons for violent jihad. They have adopted similar entryist tactics to those once employed by Militant in the Labour Party. Abu Hamza succeeded at Finsbury Park mosque, but a two-year infiltration plot at Brixton mosque, where the shoe-bomber Richard Reid worshipped, failed because non-violent salafis were alert to the danger.

The first individuals to report violent salafis to the British police were the non-violent salafis, who greatly outnumber the extremists, but the police largely ignored them. After 9/11 the leaders of several salafi mosques realised the danger of their position. "They recognised that they had become a useful vehicle for extremists and the problem of antagonism [this caused] between them and the rest of the Muslim community," says Mehmood Naqshbandi, " and they have gone to great pains to work with the authorities at all levels."

One conservative salafi leader went so far in an internet question session to tell Muslims that it was OK for them to work with the intelligence services to uncover violent jihadists. They had a duty to protect Britain, he said, which is a good place to be a Muslim. After 9/11 salafis in Birmingham subsidised the translation and distribution of a celebrated 1998 fatwa by Ibn Baz, the Saudi Grand Mufti, condemning terrorism, hijacking and suicide bombing.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

<snipped whataboutism>

Nope.nice try, but I'm not getting sidetracked. Different topic for a different thread.

Yes, that's why Anjem Choudary kept getting invited to give his opinion on TV by the BBC and Sky, while Muslims who weren't terrorist lickspittles rarely were.

So you now admit that Choudary was a terrorist recruiter? Because you said he was a joke before.

You first demand evidence that you're wrong, then in the very next paragraph state you won't change your position even if you do get that evidence.

I have said no such thing. Please quote me saying this, or retract and apologise.

The IHRC complained because they knew the documentary would be used...well, exactly as you're trying to use it now: as a tool with which to attack the entire religion and all its adherents. Then you quote the MCB's (who are quite often criticised by other British Muslims themselves) rather anodyne statement that the documentary was "heavily hyped".

Again, your determination to excuse any unsavoury behaviour by any Muslim anywhere blinds you to reality. Please quote me where I have said that this behaviour is displayed by all Muslims, or retract and apologise.Then you can explain how any of the statements made by the Imams are acceptable in any context. I didn't see any condemnation in your post of these statements, merely an attempt to dismiss publicising them as anti-Muslim propaganda. Will you state for the record that you find these sentiments unacceptable?

The rest of those statements are either the Salafist and Islamist groups featured in the documentary, or a statement issued by an interfaith group founded by a Methodist minister.

And thus are still Muslim. What point were you trying to make again?

And from all this you conclude that "British Muslims" as some kind of unified whole "excuse extremism", ignoring the fact that many of those British Muslims are quite open and active in shutting down extremism when they see it. Even the most extreme and conservative of Muslims, Salafis, are more often anti-violence than not:

And, entirely consistently with my stated position, I am happy to hear this. I would still ask, though, why this opposition is so toothless? Why does the Muslim community allow these nutcase preachers to control mosques? It may be my ignorance of the intricacies of Islam speaking here, but if an Imam preaches that young girls should be beaten, or Jews should be killed, then why are their positions not challenged? You have already said that Muslims will simply ignore this abhorence, and go to another mosque. Why is this OK? Why are these scumbags not removed from their positions? It is your argument, I believe, that their opinions do not represent the true teachings of Islam. How is it, then, that such people are allowed to remain in positions of authority within Islam? And do you not think that this tolerance of extremism, violence and hatred tarnishes Islam?

 

[A'isha]

So you now admit that Choudary was a terrorist recruiter? Because you said he was a joke before.

He can be both, in my view. He's a buffoon who is quite happy to act as a mouthpiece for terrorist views. I don't know if he had any hand in directly recruiting for ISIS (in the sense of signing up individuals himself), but he certainly was very prolific (with the aid of the British media) in spreading ISIS' message.

I have said no such thing. Please quote me saying this, or retract and apologise.

You're right, and I apologize.

Please quote me where I have said that this behaviour is displayed by all Muslims, or retract and apologise.

You said "I thought you said that Muslims [no modifier, just "Muslims" as a whole] condemned extremism? Because it looks a lot like they [no modifier, just "they" as a whole] are excusing it here. This was a golden opportunity for British Muslims [a modifier to specify Muslims in Britain, but no further modifier, just "British Muslims" as a whole] to distace themselves from the intolerant, murderous fundamentalists in their midsts. Instead, they [no modifier, just "they" as a whole again] did exactly the opposite: closed ranks and cried 'Islamophobia'."

If you didn't mean "Muslims" as a whole or "British Muslims" as a whole, why did you write it that way?

[EDIT: And I didn't read it as "some Muslims" because it makes no sense to me that way: "I thought you said that some Muslims condemned extremism? Because it looks a lot like some Muslims are excusing it here" is a nonsequitur.]

Then you can explain how any of the statements made by the Imams are acceptable in any context. I didn't see any condemnation in your post of these statements, merely an attempt to dismiss publicising them as anti-Muslim propaganda.

They aren't acceptable (I even called it "terrible ****" above).

The kinds of statements and preachers (I *********** hate Bilal Phillips) recorded in the documentary are horrible, unacceptable, and part of the reason I strongly reject both Salafism and Islamism (I've also posted before about how much I loathe the Muslim Brotherhood).

And, entirely consistently with my stated position, I am happy to hear this. I would still ask, though, why this opposition is so toothless? Why does the Muslim community allow these nutcase preachers to control mosques? It may be my ignorance of the intricacies of Islam speaking here, but if an Imam preaches that young girls should be beaten, or Jews should be killed, then why are their positions not challenged?

As seen in the link I gave you, they are.

You have already said that Muslims will simply ignore this abhorence, and go to another mosque. Why is this OK? Why are these scumbags not removed from their positions? It is your argument, I believe, that their opinions do not represent the true teachings of Islam. How isi it, then, that such people are allowed to remain in positions of authority within Islam? And do you not think that this tolerance of extremism, violence and hatred tarnishes Islam?

Because there is no one that Muslims who disagree with this can appeal to in order to get those imams removed or to ensure that those mosques don't preach hatred and violence. If a mosque is founded by an Ahl-i Hadith preacher and draws together Ahl-i Hadith adherents to make up its congregation, what, exactly, do you think non-Ahl-i Hadith Muslims can do about it?

It's not like the Catholic or Anglican churches where a problematic clergyman can be removed by his superiors higher up the chain. It's more like evangelical Christianity, where anyone can build (or rent) a building somewhere, set themselves up as the preacher, gather together a like-minded congregation, and preach whatever **** they like from the pulpit about how gays deserve the death penalty and God's law should be the law of the land and the secular ruler is the Devil, and no one can do anything about it.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

I suspect that's why you haven't been able to explain why then. Those are at odds for the reasons I've gone into more above. The demands you keep making of Muslims in the west are all either something they're already doing,

They keep reading past the evidence for this part.

Glossing over or ignoring.

I wonder why that is?

or something it's not possible for them to do.

This too.

It's almost like they don't like the subject.

Inconvenient, I guess.

 

[smartcooky]

Oh dear. It seems the Islamic community of Britain went into knee-jerk denial mode.
I thought you said that Muslims condemned extremism? Because it looks a lot like they are excusing it here. This was a golden opportunity for British Muslims to distace themselves from the intolerant, murderous fundamentalists in their midsts. Instead, they did exactly the opposite: closed ranks and cried 'Islamophobia'.

Excellent point

The IHRC complained because they knew the documentary would be used...well, exactly as you're trying to use it now: as a tool with which to attack the entire religion and all its adherents. Then you quote the MCB's (who are quite often criticised by other British Muslims themselves) rather anodyne statement that the documentary was "heavily hyped".

Ever asked your self why that might be? Whether or not you have, carry on reading, you might learn something about how and why we perceive you and your religion.

The rest of those statements are either the Salafist and Islamist groups featured in the documentary, or a statement issued by an interfaith group founded by a Methodist minister. And from all this you conclude that "British Muslims" as some kind of unified whole "excuse extremism", ignoring the fact that many of those British Muslims are quite open and active in shutting down extremism when they see it.

Your average secular or Christian man in the street wouldn't know Wahhabism from Salafism from Hanafism. They wouldn't know a Sunni from a Shi-ite either, nor a Baha'i if they tripped over one..

IMO, "moderate" Islam has not done a very good job of educating the secular man in the street in understanding the differences, and more importantly, the implications. He thinks that a Muslim is a Muslim is a Muslim and they're all the same. Its rather like lumping together Roman Catholics and Presbyterians and Anglicans and just saying, "Well, they're all Christian so they are all the same"

I think some of this is related to the points McHronzi keeps trying to make, and which fall on deaf ears in this forum from people like you who are more interested in defending Islam against criticism, than understanding why that criticism exists and what it will take to find solutions. You behave much like the IHRC has in that respect, always shooting the messenger instead of understanding the message.

If "Islam"/The Muslim World (or whatever you want to call it) really want the general public of the west to consider them as a religion of peace, then it is incumbent upon them to educate us. Simply, whining "but, but we're a religion of peace" does NOT cut the mustard; people simply don't believe you; they see Muslims as all the same. Muslims are not doing enough to debunk that view!

As Cosmic Yak said, the TV programme was a golden opportunity for moderate Islam to show up the extremists for who and what they are. It was a chance to distance themselves; instead, they took up a siege mentality thereby strengthening the western view that Muslims are are all the same.

What a shame that chance went begging!

 

[A'isha]

Your average secular or Christian man in the street wouldn't know Wahhabism from Salafism from Hanafism. They wouldn't know a Sunni from a Shi-ite either, nor a Baha'i if they tripped over one..

IMO, "moderate" Islam has not done a very good job of educating the secular man in the street in understanding the differences, and more importantly, the implications. He thinks that a Muslim is a Muslim is a Muslim and they're all the same. Its rather like lumping together Roman Catholics and Presbyterians and Anglicans and just saying, "Well, they're all Christian so they are all the same"

I think some of this is related to the points McHronzi keeps trying to make, and which fall on deaf ears in this forum from people like you who are more interested in defending Islam against criticism, than understanding why that criticism exists and what it will take to find solutions. You behave much like the IHRC has in that respect, always shooting the messenger instead of understanding the message.

If "Islam"/The Muslim World (or whatever you want to call it) really want the general public of the west to consider them as a religion of peace, then it is incumbent upon them to educate us. Simply, whining "but, but we're a religion of peace" does NOT cut the mustard; people simply don't believe you; they see Muslims as all the same. Muslims are not doing enough to debunk that view!

Funny, I've been spending most of my time here trying to do exactly that, and all I've gotten for my trouble is being called an apologist for terrorism, a "fellow traveler", and a practitioner of taqiyya (and in one memorable instance, an actual jihadist).

[EDIT: And I already know what McHrozni's solution is. It seems to be a pretty Final one.]

As Cosmic Yak said, the TV programme was a golden opportunity for moderate Islam to show up the extremists for who and what they are. It was a chance to distance themselves; instead, they took up a siege mentality thereby strengthening the western view that Muslims are are all the same.!

Most Muslims in Britain are too busy confronting actual extremists in their communities to care what you think the IHRC should have done regarding a TV show.

 

[Hercules56]

Pressure cooker bombs are no joke.

Done right, blown right by a big crowd, they can kill dozens or more.

We got very lucky. Next time will probably be worse.

 

[smartcooky]

Funny, I've been spending most of my time here trying to do exactly that, and all I've gotten for my trouble is being called an apologist for terrorism, a "fellow traveler", and a practitioner of taqiyya (and in one memorable instance, an actual jihadist).

You're doing fine. Even if I completely disagree with you on a lot of stuff, more often than not I still come away from any "Muslim" thread you are debating in knowing and understanding just a little more about Islam than I did before. However, this forum is not the general public or a least not enough if it that it will make any difference, its the rest of your Muslim pals that don't seem to be doing bubkiss to improve public perception of your religion!

Every chance the representatives of the Moderate Muslims get, every time they are asked for a view, whether it be debates, panel discussions, conferences, TV interviews, at Mosque or whatever, they need to stop reciting the "but Islam is religion of peace" meme, and start telling us WHY it is? What makes it so?

What exactly is it that makes the extremists interpret the Qur'an in the way they do?

What is Wahhabism, Salafism, Hannafism? Is it extremism, and are its adherents dangerous? If so, why; if not, why not?

What is the difference between a Sunni and a Shi'ite and why do they hate each other? Do they actually hate each other or is that just a western perception?

Why do Muslims apparently treat their women like second class citizens? If this is an incorrect perception, explain why, and what the truth is?

These are not questions I am asking, but the answers are the types of things I expect to hear from moderate Muslim leaders, not the inane defence of Islam.

[EDIT: And I already know what McHrozni's solution is. It seems to be a pretty Final one.]

Now you see, you're shooting the messenger again.

That is not his "solution" at all. It is a warning against what he believes will happen if a solution is not found, and he repeatedly says the idea horrifies him. Its no different to a climate scientist warning about rising sea levels. The scientist doesn't want it to happen, he's just warning us that he thinks it is going to happen.

Most Muslims in Britain are too busy confronting actual extremists in their communities to care what you think the IHRC should have done regarding a TV show.

All very well, but perception is reality. Muslims need to get the message out to the public... they had a chance with that TV program to use Prime Time (the TV news hour) to get a message out in relation to a high-profile media investigation... they blew it!

 

[smartcooky]

Pressure cooker bombs are no joke.

Done right, blown right by a big crowd, they can kill dozens or more.

We got very lucky. Next time will probably be worse.

Boston Marathon

 

[McHrozni]

At about the point where your argument in this thread went from "Jihadist terror is the biggest terror threat in Europe and these numbers prove it!" to "Why are you looking at numbers from Europe to try and determine whether jihadist terror is a threat? You have to look at other places where jihadist terror is actually prevalent and dangerous!", I figured you didn't need my help any more in undercutting your own position regarding that, and decided to move on to the rest of your Gish gallop of genocidal ********.

Lots of things can be used to prove it. The terror numbers in Europe in themselves are sufficient proof. If you still find it lacking because you require overwhelming evidence for it (which is unreasonable, but still) there is also plentiful other evidence for it, I have cited some of it.

Against all this you have what? Personal opinions of a few medieval scholars.

Since the passage doesn't specify the nature of the striving, there have been a number of interpretations.

I didn't ask you for opinions from medieval scholars, I asked you which other interpretations fit the description of this 'striving'. Pilgrimage to Mecca doesn't exclude women (merely segregates them), isn't usually fatal (an occasional stampede notwithstanding) and doesn't make a pilgrim rich, therefore Muqātil ibn Sulaymān was wrong (or worse, a hypocrite).

The rest basically agree it's a war effort, but they disagree on various trivial details. Therefore we can conclude you can't produce a single meaning for Jihad other than a war effort. Can I consider this question closed now? You have no objections?

Note, I only take objections in the form of other possible meanings that fulfill the described criteria, which I repeat again: it is reasonable to exclude the sick and the lame, participation of women is significantly different than that of men, many participants will die, many of those who survive will end up enriching themselves, it must be something feasible for 7th century Arabia (no missions to Moon or transatlantic voyages) and it must have backing within Islamic holy sources.
A medieval war effort fits all the criteria. I assert it is the only thing. As such, Jihad in the proper context means war, specifically a holy war.

I think it's cute that you're still trying to scare me by telling me I'm going to go to hell because you think I'm some kind of bad Muslim for not accepting your ISIS-lite interpretation of Islam.

Personally I'm convinced you aren't going anywhere, because all you believe in are the ravings of a 7th century lunatic that won't tell you what will happen to you after death because he wasn't in position to know. But since you clearly think his ravings are significantly more trustworthy than me, you must believe you're going to Hell.

Your problem, not mine.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Here is one area where your perspective is so massively skewed as to make the discussion worthless. First, top London mosques? Why insert 'top' in there? Define your terms. Second, this is no different than saying that Baptists are accepted and respected despite the vile hatred spewed by the WBC. It's disingenuous and paints and inaccurate picture of the whole.

I get you point, actually. To get an accurate picture as a whole, we must necessarily examine the teachings extremists base their extremism as well. This is where it gets ugly, obviously.

Since you mentioned the WBC, I think it would be good to examine the teachings of the Quran on the matter:

(Quran 7:81): "Verily, you practise your lusts on men instead of women. Nay, but you are a people transgressing beyond bounds (by committing great sins)."

And then look at the examples of how their prophet interpreted the teachings:

Abu Dawud (4462) - The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.".

Abu Dawud (4448) - "If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death."

I would say the WBC, whose congregation represents a tiny minority of Bapists, is outright moderate compared to that. They don't stone people to death for being gay, they're obnoxious to them.

If you can't understand the difference I invite you to be obnoxious to me for a day and see what it does to me. I'll stone you to death on the next day. Deal?

You hate it so much you advance it despite all evidence to the contrary.

What evidence to the contrary? Existence of WBC doesn't mean Islam is good you know

THAT'S A BIG UNPROVEN IF!

Fine, no problem, I prefer it that way.

Muslims, like many Christian factions, find they can change their actions as they grow in their understanding and interpretation of the holy books and teachings of their scholars. As a matter of point, for many Muslims in many places this is actually more sound than for many Christians, besides the Mormons who have the entire progressive revelation thing going on. (Yes, I've read the Judeo-Christian-Islamic holy books, and I recommend the Skeptic's annotated versions.) Most who do this claim they are still following the unchanged, original scriptures, just understanding them better. I see that as basically a semantic rationalization many times, but also from the philosophy side of it have no problem with them doing so. This is especially because it usually results in bringing religious belief in line with social progress.

Fine, fine, as I said, I prefer it that way. The things is though ... a great many Muslims disagree. Somehow Muslims who agree with you are relevant and to be heard and those that don't are to be ignored.

It looks like a double standard to me. Care to explain your reasoning?

Your basis for argument in this section is neither inherent nor unique to Islam.

Unique aspect doesn't bother me in the slightest. Islam deserves to be criticized and altered whether it can be rightfully compared to another ideology or not. I think it's unique in it's severity and occasionally content, but that's not a big issue as far as I'm concerned.

As for it being inherent, it's a done deal. If you had really red the books you mention you'd know that.

Yes you are. You're asking, rather demanding, that they change other people's interpretation of Islam more than through speech, which they are already doing. What mechanism do you propose they use? They're already doing what they can (they being the majority of Muslims in the west, and it appears a plurality in many other places). And let me remind everyone that I keep specifying 'in the West' because that's the only place 'we' can actually have any significant measure of control over the interaction.

To repeat: What mechanism?

For starters, their holy books as written and published to this day contain volumes of stuff that actively discourages human civilization in favor of a 7th century primitivism. While it's there Islam can not be fully reformed. The solution is obvious and has a historic precedents - the first Caliph decided on which holy texts are true and which are heretical and burned the latter (alongside those who disagreed too loudly).

Secondly, the effort against extremists (if it exists, it's a big, unproven IF) is nearly invisible. Massive rallies against ISIS and other extremists (including Boko Haram, Hamas et.al.) would discourage recruitment and show the entire world they prefer human advancement and civilization to the ravings of a 7th century lunatic. Instead we see passive aggression at best.

If these two were done, this would go a long way towards both changing Islam for the better and improving the reputation of both Muslims and Islam as a whole, changing their lives for the better. Once these are significantly prevalent we can start looking for other minor things that could also be done.

You may now start writing excuses as to why they should not be done.

This is false. That's not an apologist.

Really? What would make one an apologist then?

Of course Islam played a significant role, and no one disputes that outside of what that role was specifically and if it was an inevitable outcome or even necessary. This is why people then bring up Christianity's past and continued role in such violence. It isn't an inevitable outcome of Islam, nor Christianity, nor Buddhism, for violence and terrorism; it's an inevitable outcome of people using religion.

And the reason why we retort to this with the ridiculous gulf between Buddhist terrorists and Islamic terrorists is because, well, there is a ridiculous gulf between Buddhist terrorists and Islamic ones.

You see, even if all religion can inspire terrorism (and I'm not convinced of that in the slightest, it's another big, unproven IF that you take for granted), that doesn't mean Islam can't inspire terrorism in ways and to the extent no other religion can ever dream of. The evidence for that is overwhelming, it ranges from outrageous levels of Islamic violence in both frequency and severity to the content of Islamic holy literature to the passivity of Muslims in the face of the carnage to the justifications the extremists use.

Against this we have what? A meek "but but but other religions do that too", ignoring the difference of several orders of magnitude, flat-out denials of validity of the opinions of those doing the carnage and an occasional appeal to authority that is clearly not listened to any more.

Sorry, no deal. The evidence for the problems being inherent to Islam is overwhelming, above and beyond any reasonable doubt. You either need to demonstrate all the evidence is false or else prove the negative. Good luck with either.

Someone else wanted to know why atheists can 'defend' Islam? It's because it's not Islam itself. That's way overly specific. It's people, using uncritical belief to control others.

That's just the mechanism as to how the religion of Islam becomes a problem. If no one believed in it we could safely ignore it the same way we already ignore the horrific human sacrifice once prevalent in various faiths and cults of Central America. We study it, but we don't see any reason to condemn or justify it or do anything else about it. That's not the case with Islam however, hence this debate and many others.

When you say that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with western values, you're only correct insofar as any uncritical belief is. It's nonsensical to separate out something such as Islam and go 'oh, this one, this is a bad one, not these other ones'. I have lots of problems with all religions, and some ideas in some more than others, but that doesn't mean I'm an apologist for not agreeing with your specific criticisms. They don't have to apologize for things it's not specifically responsible for. Otherwise we fall down the SJW rabbit hole of having to take responsibility for being white, or male.

One of the problems with Islam is that it requires, indeed demands, uncritical belief of it, to the exclusion of all else. No other major religion goes quite that far.
While it is true that limiting your life (technologically or in other ways) to how it's described in any holy book, new or old, would always cause drastic problems either immediately or down the line, Islam is a religion that demands just that. Furthermore, a significant minority of Muslims ascribes to that. Islam also requires Muslims to be fairly uncritical of one another, which is probably why those that disagree of them so often pretend it's not their problem.

Furthermore, I'm not looking for an apology. It won't do any good to apologize, and no one will demand an apology if an overwhelming majority of Muslims takes a visible and non-trivial stand against the problematic parts of Islam. As long as they'll be more interested in taking a stand against, say, Israel, their reputation will only deteriorate. They don't have much leeway left though.

I suspect that's why you haven't been able to explain why then. Those are at odds for the reasons I've gone into more above. The demands you keep making of Muslims in the west are all either something they're already doing, or something it's not possible for them to do.

Herein we see a problem of double standards the apologists use, perhaps unknowingly.

You guys seem to think that if only some Muslims ascribe to the violence and hate in their holy scriptures, that's not a problem because they're a small minority, but if some of Muslims (a small if not tiny minority) ascribe to improving their religion they're doing a fine job as a religious community and redeem the crazies.

With Christians, you use a different standard - because a minuscule minority of Christians ascribe to the violence and hate in their holy scriptures, Christianity is a problem. The fact an overwhelming majority doesn't isn't seen as a redeeming feature.

For example: you mentioned the WBC, which has ~40 followers out of about 225 million Christians in the USA. In contrast, out of 3 million or so Muslims in US, about 250 tried to join ISIS - the difference is 500-fold before we consider the fact you compared WBC (obnoxious) to ISIS (beyond Nazi). If you were using the same standards for both, irrespective of which of these two standards you were using you wouldn't even think of the WBC.

Try constructing the same argument by using the same standard for both religions. It won't work regardless of which standard you'll use. If you can't make the argument without double standards, the argument is invalid.

McHrozni

 

[Cosmic Yak]

He can be both, in my view. He's a buffoon who is quite happy to act as a mouthpiece for terrorist views. I don't know if he had any hand in directly recruiting for ISIS (in the sense of signing up individuals himself), but he certainly was very prolific (with the aid of the British media) in spreading ISIS' message.

I'm sorry, but I can only see that as wilful ignorance. Did you read the link I posted? Choudary was directly responsible for recruiting a number of UK-based jihadis, several hundred ISIS followers, and indirectly responsible for more.
I also don't get your point about holding the British media responsible for this. I would have thought that revealing the extent of his intolerance, hatred and fanaticism would have led most people to abhor his views and shun his groups. What you are saying, if I'm reading this correctly, is that large numbers of Muslims were attracted by these same qualities- and that isn't their fault, it's the media's fault.
Now you may- and almost certainly will- claim that this had nothing to do with Islam or Muslims. If that is the case, can you show how many Christians, atheists, Hindus, Sikhs or Buddhists were also swayed by Choudary's propaganda? Because I don't know of any and, if that's the case, then this must have something to do with Islam and Muslims as opposed to other faith (or non-faith) groups.

You're right, and I apologize.

Thank you.

You said "I thought you said that Muslims [no modifier, just "Muslims" as a whole] condemned extremism? Because it looks a lot like they [no modifier, just "they" as a whole] are excusing it here. This was a golden opportunity for British Muslims [a modifier to specify Muslims in Britain, but no further modifier, just "British Muslims" as a whole] to distace themselves from the intolerant, murderous fundamentalists in their midsts. Instead, they [no modifier, just "they" as a whole again] did exactly the opposite: closed ranks and cried 'Islamophobia'."

If you didn't mean "Muslims" as a whole or "British Muslims" as a whole, why did you write it that way?

[EDIT: And I didn't read it as "some Muslims" because it makes no sense to me that way: "I thought you said that some Muslims condemned extremism? Because it looks a lot like some Muslims are excusing it here" is a nonsequitur.]

To be fair, I could have phrased that better. However, the link I used made no mention of any condemnation of the mosques in question from any British Muslim organisation. I think it is reasonable to conclude that the majority of British Muslims did not condemn those mosques or preachers, and neither did ( as far as I know) any major British Muslim organisations. I am happy to be corrected on this, as always.

They aren't acceptable (I even called it "terrible ****" above).

The kinds of statements and preachers (I *********** hate Bilal Phillips) recorded in the documentary are horrible, unacceptable, and part of the reason I strongly reject both Salafism and Islamism (I've also posted before about how much I loathe the Muslim Brotherhood).

Yet they are still Muslims, regardless of your personal feelings about them.

As seen in the link I gave you, they are.



Because there is no one that Muslims who disagree with this can appeal to in order to get those imams removed or to ensure that those mosques don't preach hatred and violence. If a mosque is founded by an Ahl-i Hadith preacher and draws together Ahl-i Hadith adherents to make up its congregation, what, exactly, do you think non-Ahl-i Hadith Muslims can do about it?

Here, I think you are contradicting yourself. You cannot claim that Muslims are stopping extremist preachers from controlling mosques, whilst at the same time saying they are powerless to do just that.

It's not like the Catholic or Anglican churches where a problematic clergyman can be removed by his superiors higher up the chain. It's more like evangelical Christianity, where anyone can build (or rent) a building somewhere, set themselves up as the preacher, gather together a like-minded congregation, and preach whatever **** they like from the pulpit about how gays deserve the death penalty and God's law should be the law of the land and the secular ruler is the Devil, and no one can do anything about it.

In Britain at least, that is absolutely not true. Freedom of speech excludes calls for violence or killing. Hate crimes are against the law, and can be reported to the authorities.

 

[Wolrab]

No true Muslim condones terrorism.

 

[A'isha]

Every chance the representatives of the Moderate Muslims get, every time they are asked for a view, whether it be debates, panel discussions, conferences, TV interviews, at Mosque or whatever, they need to stop reciting the "but Islam is religion of peace" meme, and start telling us WHY it is? What makes it so?

They do, but those don't get press and attention like "Muslims want to cut off your head!"

Again, how many times was Anjem Choudary interviewed on national (and international) TV, compared to even every other non-extremist Muslim put together.

Now you see, you're shooting the messenger again.

That is not his "solution" at all. It is a warning against what he believes will happen if a solution is not found, and he repeatedly says the idea horrifies him. Its no different to a climate scientist warning about rising sea levels. The scientist doesn't want it to happen, he's just warning us that he thinks it is going to happen.

Over in the Israel/Palestine thread warning Jews that unless they stop trying "to gather money and power in the face of a miserable piopulation" and supporting Israel's actions against the Palestinians, they're doomed to genocide again. He doesn't want this to happen, he says, he's trying to save the Jews by warning them off the path they're on.

The other posters on that thread (quite rightly) aren't buying that kind of genocidal ********. I'm curious as to why it's so accepted in this thread.