Manhattan explosion

[A'isha]

As long as you don't cherry-pick the data and look at the whole thing, the picture is clear.

As you learned to your dismay when you tried it.

When faced with a dilemma of showing what actions other than a medieval war effort fit the description of Jihad found in the Quran, she resorted to appealing to an authority of an 7th century literate person, whose best claim to qualification was that his opinions were respected by a horde of (mostly) illiterates.

You insist that Salafists are correct when they claim to be following the Islam of Muhammad's time, and yet when I show you a major, influential Muslim scholar who died barely 150 years after Muhammad did (ie, a whole lot closer to the Islam of Muhammad's time than you or the Salafists are) that interpreted Islam far differently from the way you do, you devote a whole lot of effort to desperately trying to find ways to make him and his inconvenient interpretations disappear, so you can keep pretending that Muslims not only have to, but only ever have interpreted their religion the exact same way you do.

the fact a lot of other philosophers from a similar time and with a similar claim to infallibility disagreed with him is the obvious,

That cuts both ways, and in fact is precisely what undercuts your claims: Muslims disagree about the interpretation of even passages that you think are straightforward and clear cut, and always have.

That's solely because the police is so good at preventing attacks. The number of successful attacks appears to bear little to no correlation because good police work makes them a statistical anomaly.

If that were true, then we'd see a correspondence with (and a corresponding rise in) foiled attacks. And we don't.

That would, at best, mean that during this time Islam was less of a danger than separatism.

Which is contrary to your oft-repeated claims. And which also, as I said above, shows that Islamist terror is something situational, not something endemic or constant.

This is because the two situations are so vastly different that they're outright incomparable. Jews in Israel face a genocide if they significantly change their ways in the way it's supposed to prevent a genocide, a classic example of a Catch 22 in action. Muslims all over the world face a genocide if they don't change their ways, and a massive improvement in their lives if they do.

"No, see, his threatened genocide of an entire religious group is bad, but my threatened genocide of an entire religious group is good!"

 

[A'isha]

Please list Christian groups who are doing something similar to Boko haram and how they justify their actions. If they don't do it in a consistent or logical way, this 'argument' will rightfully be considered null, obviously.

That's right, quadraginta! If you can't prove that a violent religiously-motivated group treats their violent religious ideology in a consistent and logical way, then McHrozni (who is the arbiter of what counts as a violent religiously-motivated group and what doesn't) won't accept them, because if there's anything that's a hallmark of violent religiously-motivated groups, it's consistency and logic.

 

[A'isha]

It's worse - IT'S BREXIT


Marmitegate: Live page readers continue to email their views

If it results in the removal of Marmite from store shelves, then I might have to reconsider my view about Brexit being bad for the UK.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

As that article points out, not only were a whole lot of people (including the editor of the Jewish Chronicle) making the same point I'm making, the BBC was presenting him as representing the (as in only) Muslim viewpoint.

The article says nothing of the sort. It says that Choudary presented himself as the voice of Islam. It does not say anywhere that the BBC presented him as the only Muslim viewpoint.

If the BBC, as they say in their defense, were actually interested in "a wide range of views from across the political and religious spectrums", why was he pretty much always the only Muslim appearing during these debates and interviews?

As I have said before, he wasn't: this is a claim founded solely in your fervent desire to believe it to be true.
Examples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FT-CTA8tpA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMBp2eIJDUU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyhyMtP2Nsk

I have asked you to provide examples of BBC interviews where he was allowed an unopposed platform, a request I note you have declined to answer, or even acknowledge.

It makes one wonder why they focused their recruiting on those who knew the least about Islam and specifically warned against trying to recruit more devout Muslims.

Those Muslims who knew least about Islam.The implication here is that, if they knew more about Islam, they wouldn't be in so much danger of being radicalised. I agree that those most fixed in their beliefs are the least likely to be changed by others: it's almost axiomatic. However, the implication you seem to be making is that, if they really knew the "true message" of Islam, they wouldn't be radicalised.

And then you say this:

As I've said before, there aren't any that are "representative of 'true Islam'", because Islam is too varied to have just a single "representative view".



Did I not just say "my point has never been that people like Choudary or even ISIS aren't Muslims, just that they follow a particular interpretation of Islam that's different from, and not shared by, most other Muslims" in the post you replied to?

So the teachings of jihadist Islamists like Choudary are still entirely within the bounds of correct Islamic belief and practice, according to your own words. A minority, for sure, but still Muslims. And yet this is, in your eyes, not a failing of Islam itself, but something to do with the BBC.
Right.

Because some Muslims can't get mosques that they don't control, have no one they can appeal to who does have control, and aren't even members of shut down?

If the preachers in those mosques are breaking the law, then they can be shut down- a point I made earlier, that you dodged by referring to an example in America of hate speech that was allowed. I am not aware of any preacher in the UK having been removed because he was calling for Jews to be killed or young girls to be beaten for refusing to wear the hijab. Once again, this doesn't mean it hasn't happened, and I'm happy to be corrected, but the mosques featured in the C4 documentary were clearly in breach of the law, and clearly had been for some time, yet were still spouting hatred and calls for intolerance, violence and the overthrow of democracy without a word of protest from those attending, and without a word of protest from the wider Muslim community.
By the way, last year in Saudi Arabia, the government ordered that video cameras be installed in every mosque, to monitor what was being preached. If Muslims themselves cannot, or will not, monitor what is being said in the name of their religion, then perhaps the government should. What do you think about this?

A tabloid referencing a poll with no name and no link?

Which turned out to be true. Knee-jerk response noted.

Breitbart? Really?

Knee-jerk denial again. Does any of this show the story is untrue? Or are you trying to cast doubt by attacking the site rather than the story?

Why can one Channel 4 documentary be repeatedly cited as evidence for what "can be said to constitute the activities of the majority of British Muslims", but not another Channel 4 documentary?

You have said this several times, and I was wondering where you got this from, so I went back to my original post. This is what I said:

Neither do I, and I have never posted anything remotely resembing such a statement. In fact, I posted the opposite: opposing extremism isn' extremist, it is just.
My point, which is either being misunderstood or deliberately strawmannned, is that the Muslim community should be trying to prevent the radicalisation process that is leading so many to join ISIS abroad, or commit atrocities in their own countries. Anjem Choudhary is a good example of this. He stayed one step ahead of the law for years, whilst being a major groomer of terrorists. It beggars belief that no-one in the wider Muslim community knew what he and his various organisations were doing. All that needed to be done was for someone to report him. Years went by, and this didn't happen. This is not an isolated incident. Channel 4's documentary Undercover Mosque revealed the messages of hatred and intolerance being preached in mosques all over the UK. Why did the supposedly peaceful and tolerant Muslim majority not do something about this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercover_Mosque

As anyone can see, at no point did I say that the views of these preachers represented a majority: in fact, quite the opposite. From whence comes your strawman, A'isha, because it certainly wasn't me?

*sigh*

You can spare me the weary and melodramatic sighs. A'isha. Despite having been given numerous opportunities, you are still only grudgingly offering a weak condemnation of Anjem Choudary, describing him as 'mildly dangerous'. The fact is that the man was the foremost recruiter of jihadists we have uncovered so far, not just in Britain, but across Europe. He has inspired the deaths of scores of people, maybe more. Yet you continue to insist that the BBC is the real culprit, and that Choudary was just a 'buffoon'.
You acknowledge that violent jihadist extremism is compatible with Islamic teaching, yet you see no inherent problem with Islam. You admit that there is no mechansim within Islam to monitor and regulate mosques and preachers, yet will again not take the next logical step, which is to say that there is a need for this. There is a need for reform within Islam, so that the impunity with which preachers of intolerance, hatred and violence are allowed positions of authority in the Islamic world is removed.
This is why I said you are part of the problem. You dodge or deny all the awkward questions, and try to place the blame on anyone or anything except for Muslims and Islam. This is a pattern which is repeated across the Islamic world, and (IMO) is one of the main reasons for the amount of Islamic-inspired violence that we are currently witnessing. Blame anyone- blame western media, blam the Americans, blame the Jews, but never, ever admit that there is an inherent problem within Islam itself. As long as this continues, there will never be any solution to these problems.

 

[A'isha]

The article says nothing of the sort. It says that Choudary presented himself as the voice of Islam. It does not say anywhere that the BBC presented him as the only Muslim viewpoint.

Really? Then who was the other Muslim in the debate with Lord Carlile to provide a different Muslim viewpoint from Choudary's?

Because if he presented himself as the voice of Islam on the BBC, and there were no other Muslims on to contradict that, then the BBC was indeed presenting him as the only Muslim viewpoint.

As I have said before, he wasn't: this is a claim founded solely in your fervent desire to believe it to be true.
Examples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FT-CTA8tpA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMBp2eIJDUU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyhyMtP2Nsk

That third link features Choudary as, again, the lone Muslim voice. So of the links to Choudary appearances that you yourself provided, fully half of them feature Choudary as the one and only Muslim POV presented.

The implication here is that, if they knew more about Islam, they wouldn't be in so much danger of being radicalised.

That certainly appears to be what the jihadis themselves think.

So the teachings of jihadist Islamists like Choudary are still entirely within the bounds of correct Islamic belief and practice, according to your own words.

As are groups like the Ahmadiyya and the Nur Ashki Jerrahi Sufi order. Islam is large, it contains multitudes.

If the preachers in those mosques are breaking the law, then they can be shut down

Then they should be shut down by the authorities. I note that smartcooky argued "The problem here is that in the Western World we have something called "The Law" part of which is something called "Freedom of Speech". These hamper our ability to effectively deal with the Anjem Choudarys of this world, so our options for dealing with a person who says things we don't like, are limited."

Belgian thought likewise reacted to my statement that the authorities should have been aware of the kinds of things preached at these mosques by the nature of the movements and organizations they openly belong to by calling it a "STASI like approach".

By the way, last year in Saudi Arabia, the government ordered that video cameras be installed in every mosque, to monitor what was being preached. If Muslims themselves cannot, or will not, monitor what is being said in the name of their religion, then perhaps the government should. What do you think about this?

I think that governments should strive to be as little like Saudi Arabia as possible, in all areas. But your mileage may vary.

Which turned out to be true. Knee-jerk response noted.

Not quite. I had to go digging for the actual survey, since your tabloid link didn't say a single thing about who did it or where it came from. And when I did find it (no thanks to you and your link), it turns out that the tabloid's claims about it, which you repeated, were more than a little misleading.

Or don't you have any comment about the survey showing Muslims in Britain actually saying they'd turn in someone to the police that they suspected of terrorism at a higher percentage than non-Muslims would?

(Personally, I'm rather concerned about the survey finding that 43% (nearly half!) of non-Muslims in Britain apparently do think someone close to them would get involved with people who support terrorism. Just what are you Brits getting up to over there?)

Knee-jerk denial again. Does any of this show the story is untrue? Or are you trying to cast doubt by attacking the site rather than the story?

Considering that your other link was so misleading as to border on falsehood, and given Breitbart's track record, why should I trust it?

You have said this several times, and I was wondering where you got this from, so I went back to my original post. This is what I said:


As anyone can see, at no point did I say that the views of these preachers represented a majority: in fact, quite the opposite. From whence comes your strawman, A'isha, because it certainly wasn't me?

Channel 4's documentary Undercover Mosque revealed the messages of hatred and intolerance being preached in mosques all over the UK. Why did the supposedly peaceful and tolerant Muslim majority not do something about this?.

This is from that first post you mention, implying that the reason was because the majority of British Muslims agreed with those mosques and preachers in the documentary.

I think it is reasonable to conclude that the majority of British Muslims did not condemn those mosques or preacher

More implying that the reason was because the majority of British Muslims agreed with those mosques and preachers 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.

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'.

Here you make it explicit that you think that the reason was because the majority of British Muslims agreed with those mosques and preachers in the documentary. When I called you on your broad language, you responded with the following:

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.

Implying, again, that the reason was because the majority of British Muslims agreed with those mosques and preachers in the documentary.

I have also spent time trying to find any British Muslim organisation that condemned the extremists rather than the documentary, and have again found nothing.

Then you do it again here, implying once more that the reason was because the majority of British Muslims agreed with those mosques and preachers in the documentary.

The fact is that the man was the foremost recruiter of jihadists we have uncovered so far, not just in Britain, but across Europe. He has inspired the deaths of scores of people, maybe more. Yet you continue to insist that the BBC is the real culprit, and that Choudary was just a 'buffoon'.

I never said that he was the "real culprit", but that the BBC and others are responsible for helping him spread his message out of all proportion to what his influence would be otherwise. And as all those quotes in the Guardian link you provided show, I'm hardly alone in making that assessment.

And I see that in one of your linked videos above, the fact that other Muslims in Britian also considered him a joke (using that exact word, even!) was brought up.

You admit that there is no mechansim within Islam to monitor and regulate mosques and preachers, yet will again not take the next logical step, which is to say that there is a need for this.

How, exactly, would that "next logical step" be taken, in your view? Or is Saudi-style surveillance and Saudi-style enforcement of a single religious view by the government it?

 

[Giz]

You can spare me the weary and melodramatic sighs. A'isha. Despite having been given numerous opportunities, you are still only grudgingly offering a weak condemnation of Anjem Choudary, describing him as 'mildly dangerous'. The fact is that the man was the foremost recruiter of jihadists we have uncovered so far, not just in Britain, but across Europe. He has inspired the deaths of scores of people, maybe more. Yet you continue to insist that the BBC is the real culprit, and that Choudary was just a 'buffoon'.
You acknowledge that violent jihadist extremism is compatible with Islamic teaching, yet you see no inherent problem with Islam. You admit that there is no mechansim within Islam to monitor and regulate mosques and preachers, yet will again not take the next logical step, which is to say that there is a need for this. There is a need for reform within Islam, so that the impunity with which preachers of intolerance, hatred and violence are allowed positions of authority in the Islamic world is removed.
This is why I said you are part of the problem. You dodge or deny all the awkward questions, and try to place the blame on anyone or anything except for Muslims and Islam. This is a pattern which is repeated across the Islamic world, and (IMO) is one of the main reasons for the amount of Islamic-inspired violence that we are currently witnessing. Blame anyone- blame western media, blam the Americans, blame the Jews, but never, ever admit that there is an inherent problem within Islam itself. As long as this continues, there will never be any solution to these problems.

QFT

 

[A'isha]

QFT

I certainly agree that Islamic extremism needs to be confronted by both Muslims and non-Muslims. But I pretty strongly disagree with Cosmic Yak about what Muslims are doing about extremism, what Muslims can do about extremism, what Muslims think about extremism, what non-Muslims are and should be doing in all of that, and whether Saudi Arabia is a good model for other governments to follow regarding Islam.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Really? Then who was the other Muslim in the debate with Lord Carlile to provide a different Muslim viewpoint from Choudary's?

Dodge noted. You said he was presented by the BBC as the voice of British Muslims, That is absolutely untrue.

Because if he presented himself as the voice of Islam on the BBC, and there were no other Muslims on to contradict that, then the BBC was indeed presenting him as the only Muslim viewpoint.



That third link features Choudary as, again, the lone Muslim voice. So of the links to Choudary appearances that you yourself provided, fully half of them feature Choudary as the one and only Muslim POV presented.

The third link shows him being challenged on his views, The other two feature opposing Muslims. Again, you are absolutely in error.

Then they should be shut down by the authorities. I note that smartcooky argued "The problem here is that in the Western World we have something called "The Law" part of which is something called "Freedom of Speech". These hamper our ability to effectively deal with the Anjem Choudarys of this world, so our options for dealing with a person who says things we don't like, are limited."

Belgian thought likewise reacted to my statement that the authorities should have been aware of the kinds of things preached at these mosques by the nature of the movements and organizations they openly belong to by calling it a "STASI like approach".



I think that governments should strive to be as little like Saudi Arabia as possible, in all areas. But your mileage may vary.

How do you propose that the British authorities become aware of what is being preached in mosques if British Muslims will not report it, if British Muslims condemn undercover reporters revealing it, and if you oppose any kind of monitoring such as CCTV?

Considering that your other link was so misleading as to border on falsehood, and given Breitbart's track record, why should I trust it?

So you can't disprove it. Dodge noted.

This is from that first post you mention, implying that the reason was because the majority of British Muslims agreed with those mosques and preachers in the documentary.

Absolutely untrue.

More implying that the reason was because the majority of British Muslims agreed with those mosques and preachers in the documentary.

Absolutely untrue.

Here you make it explicit that you think that the reason was because the majority of British Muslims agreed with those mosques and preachers in the documentary. When I called you on your broad language, you responded with the following:

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.

Implying, again, that the reason was because the majority of British Muslims agreed with those mosques and preachers in the documentary.

Absolutely untrue. I said I could not find any condemnation of the preachers, and invited you to post some.

I have also spent time trying to find any British Muslim organisation that condemned the extremists rather than the documentary, and have again found nothing.

Then you do it again here, implying once more that the reason was because the majority of British Muslims agreed with those mosques and preachers in the documentary.

Absolutely untrue. Show me where I implied anything. This is a simple statement of fact. I have not been able to find any condemnation by any British Muslim organisation. Nowhere in that post do I make any kind of conclusion as to why that should be.

I never said that he was the "real culprit", but that the BBC and others are responsible for helping him spread his message out of all proportion to what his influence would be otherwise. And as all those quotes in the Guardian link you provided show, I'm hardly alone in making that assessment.

And I see that in one of your linked videos above, the fact that other Muslims in Britian also considered him a joke (using that exact word, even!) was brought up.

And yet again you refuse to condemn him, and yet again blame the BBC for his actions and influence. Is it really that difficult to acknowledge that the guy was a terrorist recruiter?

How, exactly, would that "next logical step" be taken, in your view? Or is Saudi-style surveillance and Saudi-style enforcement of a single religious view by the government it?

Well I don't know. A'isha- you tell me. You have consistently claimed that what is being preached in mosques is out of the control of Muslims, and have repeatedly blamed the authorities for not acting. Yet you are strangely silent when it comes to concrete suggestions as to what the authorities should do, resistant to the monitoring of sermons, and call such initiatives a' STASI-like approach'. (Yes, I know it wasn't you, but you quoted it in support. You clearly agree with the sentiment). You also bemoan the fact that there is no mechanism within Islam to perform this function, yet seem reluctant to suggest that one be put in place.
So, if you don't want external monitoring, and you reject internal monitoring, then it seems to me that you are happy for the status quo to continue, which means the next Choudary will be allowed to recruit, radicalise and inspire the next generation of jihadis.
So again,A'isha, you tell me. What should be done?

 

[jimbob]

The Muslims I interact with on a daily basis have no problems with a lack of violence.

Sorry - they have no more problems with behaving in a socially responsible and non-violent manner than anyone else.

As some of them are pretty devout, I guess the problem can't be inherent to the religion.

 

[A'isha]

Dodge noted. You said he was presented by the BBC as the voice of British Muslims, That is absolutely untrue.

Then (again) who were the Muslim voices opposing him in that debate with Lord Carlile.

The third link shows him being challenged on his views,

Who were the Muslim voices opposing him in that appearance?

The other two feature opposing Muslims. Again, you are absolutely in error.

And it's funny how Choudary always seems to get invited on, and how often he got to be on by himself.

How do you propose that the British authorities become aware of what is being preached in mosques if British Muslims will not report it, if British Muslims condemn undercover reporters revealing it, and if you oppose any kind of monitoring such as CCTV?

My point was British Muslims didn't need to report those mosques, since they openly belong to openly extremist groups. So if nothing was done about those mosques, it sure isn't because there's no way the authorities could have known about what goes on in those mosques.

Oh, and to wonder how non-extremist Muslims attending completely different, non-extremist mosques (like the aforementioned Ahmadiyya mosque that's the largest mosque in the UK) are supposed to inform the authorities about what goes on in those mosques they don't attend.

So you can't disprove it. Dodge noted.

You give me one link that's so misleading as to almost be a lie, and another link from a site that's infamous for the lies it's told, and then toss the burden of proof onto me?

EDIT: And, speaking of dodges, you still haven't addressed your own cited survey showing that Muslims in Britain actually say they'd turn in someone to the police that they suspected of terrorism at a higher percentage than non-Muslims say they would.

Absolutely untrue.

Yes, I'm sure you kept harping on the documentary and the fact that only two out of who knows how many British Muslim organizations even said anything at all about it one way or the other because you don't believe that the documentary represents the view of most British Muslims.

Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

And yet again you refuse to condemn him

Seriously?

spout hateful nonsense

spread ********

terrorist lickspittle

dangerous

a mouthpiece for terrorist views

(And that's just in this thread. Don't forget my reaction to the news that he'd finally been convicted of supporting terrorism, or when I posted "I, for one, have been pretty open about my opposition to (and, at times, visceral hatred of) Islamic extremist individuals and groups, even the ostensibly nonviolent ones like the Muslim Brotherhood, Abdurrahim Green and his iERA, and (as seen in this thread) Anjem Choudary.")

What do you want me to say? That I explictly condemn Anjem Choudary and his hateful, vile, terrorist-supporting ******** ideology? Because, since you couldn't apparently tell from my descriptions of him above, I most certainly do.

If you had trouble figuring out that I don't like Choudary or the kind of **** he preaches, no wonder you apparently think Muslims in the UK don't condemn extremists.

Well I don't know. A'isha- you tell me. You have consistently claimed that what is being preached in mosques is out of the control of Muslims, and have repeatedly blamed the authorities for not acting. Yet you are strangely silent when it comes to concrete suggestions as to what the authorities should do, resistant to the monitoring of sermons, and call such initiatives a' STASI-like approach'. (Yes, I know it wasn't you, but you quoted it in support. You clearly agree with the sentiment). You also bemoan the fact that there is no mechanism within Islam to perform this function, yet seem reluctant to suggest that one be put in place.
So, if you don't want external monitoring, and you reject internal monitoring, then it seems to me that you are happy for the status quo to continue, which means the next Choudary will be allowed to recruit, radicalise and inspire the next generation of jihadis.
So again,A'isha, you tell me. What should be done?

Whatever the problems with the status quo, I don't know of a "solution" that wouldn't make things worse in some way.

At least currently, the completely decentralized nature of Islam means that someone like the Saudis can't get control of the whole religion and enforce their own particular viewpoint on all Muslims everywhere (particularly since they're doing their damndest to try and pull that off anyway).

 

[CosCos]

I certainly agree that Islamic extremism needs to be confronted by both Muslims and non-Muslims. But I pretty strongly disagree with Cosmic Yak about what Muslims are doing about extremism, what Muslims can do about extremism, what Muslims think about extremism, what non-Muslims are and should be doing in all of that, and whether Saudi Arabia is a good model for other governments to follow regarding Islam.

You spend all your time, energy, and intellectual resources on defending a bankrupt and despicable ideology. If you and others like you devoted half the time you devote to apologism to actually confronting the injustices of your ideology you might actually solve the issue. You just don't see the irony of it. People like me would love to see people like you vociferously speak up against the "bad guys" in your religion. Instead you are so blinded by said ideology all you can do is circle the wagons and speak up against perceived injustices. As if people being mean towards islam is on the same level as drowning people in cages.

 

[marplots]

You spend all your time, energy, and intellectual resources on defending a bankrupt and despicable ideology. If you and others like you devoted half the time you devote to apologism to actually confronting the injustices of your ideology you might actually solve the issue. You just don't see the irony of it. People like me would love to see people like you vociferously speak up against the "bad guys" in your religion. Instead you are so blinded by said ideology all you can do is circle the wagons and speak up against perceived injustices. As if people being mean towards islam is on the same level as drowning people in cages.

This is unfair. I see no evidence that the poster's ideology is as you describe. One cannot assume that a personal take on religious dogma aligns with any particular version. I have seen no call to violence - just the opposite in fact.

Even worse, the poster has gone to great lengths to explain this.

 

[CosCos]

For every token "boy golly gee those ISIS fellers sure are bad" I see thousands of words devoted to how bad Christianity is TOO (or at least WAS 800 years ago); how mean people are towards muslims; how misunderstood poor islam is etc etc.

For ***** sake what do you call someone who has done her damnest to twist the stats to show that there really is no islamic terrorist threat? No, her ideology is exactly as I describe and it's pretty despicable the lengths atheists will go to defend that horrendous religion in the name of political correctness.

Dawkins, Hitchens et al absolutely nailed it re: ALL religions, no wonder they're such pariahs in the atheist community now run by SJWs.

 

[Giz]

As if people being mean towards islam is on the same level as drowning people in cages.

It seems as if the real tragedy when people get drowned in cages is that someone might develop a negative opinion of Islam.

http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2016/08/31/who-shocks-us-lces-reaction-to-muslim-terror-attacks/

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Which I agree edges him more towards the dangerous end of things than the buffoon end of things he was before. But that also raises the question of why the press kept giving him a platform.



It'd be one thing if they brought him on to confront his nonsense. But they let him spread his propaganda mostly unopposed, and they kept bringing him on, over and over.

And it's funny how Choudary always seems to get invited on, and how often he got to be on by himself.

I think we may be talking at cross-purposes here. You said Choudary was always, or usually, on British TV unopposed.
I posted 3 videos of his appearances on the BBC, in which he was opposed in each one.
Now you are saying that he should have been opposed by other Muslims.
OK, but two of the three videos show just that.
Now you ignore that and concentrate on one, the Radio 4 interview with Lord Carlile.
No, he wasn't opposed by another Muslim in that particular interview, he was opposed by Lord Carlile and John Humphreys, the interviewer.
But my original point, the one that answered your original point, still stands. Choudary was not allowed an unopposed platform.
For at least the third time of asking, if you can link to an appearance where he wasn't challenged, please do so. Otherwise you will have to concede the point.
Furthermore, I don't understand this fixation on having him only challenged by Muslims. He lives in Britain. He is a British citizen. Surely he can be challenged by any Brtion? Why does it not count if he is challenged by a non-Muslim? If you are going to say 'because he is seen as representative of British Muslims', don't, because that simply isn't true. The only person who says he is that, is Choudary himself. Very few people (and I am not one of them) will agree with him, and no-one on the BBC or in the reputable parts of the British media has said so.

You give me one link that's so misleading as to almost be a lie, and another link from a site that's infamous for the lies it's told, and then toss the burden of proof onto me?

EDIT: And, speaking of dodges, you still haven't addressed your own cited survey showing that Muslims in Britain actually say they'd turn in someone to the police that they suspected of terrorism at a higher percentage than non-Muslims say they would.

If you are going to dismiss the story about a whistleblower being threatened, then, yes, the burden of proof is on you to back that up.
Now, regarding the survey I quoted. I will admit that trusting the Express was probably not the wisest of things to do. Their headline was misleading: not untrue, but misleading.
However, it still doesn't help your case. You have repeatedly stated that British Muslims are falling over themselves to confront extremism. Unfortunately, misleading headlines aside, the survey demolishes that proposition. Muslims are only slightly more likely to report someone they suspect of plotting an attack, but are twice as likely as non-Muslims to believe someone close to them may be doing so. The idea that British Muslims are making enormous efforts to stamp out extremism is still not supported by the facts.

Yes, I'm sure you kept harping on the documentary and the fact that only two out of who knows how many British Muslim organizations even said anything at all about it one way or the other because you don't believe that the documentary represents the view of most British Muslims.

Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

There is a third option, which seems to have escaped you completely.
The majority of British Muslims are aware of what is being preached in those mosques- and you yourself have said they are "well-known extremists"- but they choose to tolerate or ignore it. This does not mean they agree with it. It means they know about it, but they do nothing about it.
This is what I meant. Look back over my posts in this light, and you will see this. No bells at all.

(And that's just in this thread. Don't forget my reaction to the news that he'd finally been convicted of supporting terrorism, or when I posted "I, for one, have been pretty open about my opposition to (and, at times, visceral hatred of) Islamic extremist individuals and groups, even the ostensibly nonviolent ones like the Muslim Brotherhood, Abdurrahim Green and his iERA, and (as seen in this thread) Anjem Choudary.")

What do you want me to say? That I explictly condemn Anjem Choudary and his hateful, vile, terrorist-supporting ******** ideology? Because, since you couldn't apparently tell from my descriptions of him above, I most certainly do.

If you had trouble figuring out that I don't like Choudary or the kind of **** he preaches, no wonder you apparently think Muslims in the UK don't condemn extremists.

This is certainly a step in the right direction. You're almost there. You are still falling short of acknowledging that he was a major terrorist recruiter, and thus responsible for many deaths. His activities in Britain and in Europe went way beyond simply preaching hatred and extremism: he, and his cohorts, actively recruited people and sent them to Syria. He inspired, led and helped to train British-based jihadist murderers as well. I still cannot understand why you are finding it so difficult to acknowledge and condemn this. It does you no favours at all.

Whatever the problems with the status quo, I don't know of a "solution" that wouldn't make things worse in some way.

At least currently, the completely decentralized nature of Islam means that someone like the Saudis can't get control of the whole religion and enforce their own particular viewpoint on all Muslims everywhere (particularly since they're doing their damndest to try and pull that off anyway).

So you just wash your hands of it and hope for the best? Really? There cannot be a solution to the problem of unchecked extremism within Islam without the action and support of Muslims. You claim to be one of the moderate Muslims who just want peace and tolerance. That's great, and I applaud you for it. However, this will not arise out of apathy or a shrug of the shoulders. The non-Muslim world cannot impose a solution on Islam. The reform must come from within. If even moderates like yourself are unable to even consider this possibility, then what hope is there? The inevitable outcome is more war, more terrorism (from both sides) and less tolerance.

 

[quadraginta]

You spend all your time, energy, and intellectual resources on defending a bankrupt and despicable ideology. If you and others like you devoted half the time you devote to apologism
<snip>

It's a shame that you have to predicate your arguments on outright lies, but not unexpected.

It does stand in well as an overview of the positions you take.

 

[McHrozni]

You insist that Salafists are correct when they claim to be following the Islam of Muhammad's time, and yet when I show you a major, influential Muslim scholar who died barely 150 years after Muhammad did (ie, a whole lot closer to the Islam of Muhammad's time than you or the Salafists are) that interpreted Islam far differently from the way you do, you devote a whole lot of effort to desperately trying to find ways to make him and his inconvenient interpretations disappear, so you can keep pretending that Muslims not only have to, but only ever have interpreted their religion the exact same way you do.

As I said multiple times over, primitivism is a major issue with Islam. A major influential scholar of any age (or topic) could be wrong, which is why arguments from any scholar must stand on their own, regardless of his influence, reputation, knowledge or any other factor you deem relevant. For whatever reason these ones' don't, yet you still push his opinions as if they were still relevant.

The only interpretation of Jihad that is consistent with era and descriptions and prerequisites for it in the Islamic holy literature is a medieval war effort. The fact some passages don't make it crystal clear by themselves in no way impacts that. The fact you keep trying to muddle the issue shows your blatant disregard for honesty and respect for the intelligence of the rest of the people here.

That cuts both ways, and in fact is precisely what undercuts your claims: Muslims disagree about the interpretation of even passages that you think are straightforward and clear cut, and always have.

Muslims disagree on the interpretations of various passages for many reasons, one of whom could very well be political: Muslims choose to claim passages say something else than what they say in order to avoid their religion being recognized as a source of evil.

You know, kind of what you're doing all the time?

If that were true, then we'd see a correspondence with (and a corresponding rise in) foiled attacks. And we don't.

Which part of the phrase "statistical anomaly" is unclear to you an requires further explanation?

Which is contrary to your oft-repeated claims. And which also, as I said above, shows that Islamist terror is something situational, not something endemic or constant.

This is true for any activity involving humans. I do wonder though what is your explanation for the fact the first three bloodiest terrorist attacks in Europe were all Islamist, and all in the past 15 years. What explains it?

"No, see, his threatened genocide of an entire religious group is bad, but my threatened genocide of an entire religious group is good!"

Please point out where I threatened a genocide.

Use this definition of threat, please:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/threat

1. a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course; menace:

If you can't you owe me an apology. You owe me several apologies for deliberately misrepresenting my points already, but this one is outright slanderous.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Those Muslims who knew least about Islam.The implication here is that, if they knew more about Islam, they wouldn't be in so much danger of being radicalised. I agree that those most fixed in their beliefs are the least likely to be changed by others: it's almost axiomatic. However, the implication you seem to be making is that, if they really knew the "true message" of Islam, they wouldn't be radicalised.

I actually find it rather amusing how freely A'isha applies this double standard. Islam is to be considered benign, if there was at least one Muslim in history who 'interpreted' it in a benign way. The standard for Christianity is the opposite: the fact there was at least one Christian who 'interpreted' Christianity in a malign way, Christianity itself can be considered a problem.

In the meantime, Muslims very often brutally repress Christian minorities in Muslim-majority countries (where Christianity typically predates Islam by centuries) and Muslims conduct terror attacks against Christians in Christian majority countries (where Muslims are immigrants, be it first, second or third generation), and he refuses to say either of that has anything to do with Islam, whose texts are so convoluted they don't actually mean anything, apparently.

Quran (9:29): Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

On top of it all, Christians are probably the minority that has it the least bad in Muslim majority lands. Go figure.

You know what's really sad? We have more trust in the communications capabilities of an illiterate 7th century camel merchant than A'isha has in her God. You'd think that an omnipotent, omniscient God would be able to tell a message of peace in a way that wouldn't require you to have a crystal ball and the gift of clairvoyance to understand the deep meaning, and that wouldn't require you to completely butcher verses just to make them seem less evil. An illiterate 7th century camel merchant could understandably encounter problems, but the way I see it, he managed it - in a mangled way, but he managed it, somehow.
Yet, A'isha thinks so low of this perfect God of hers that she thinks he too is practically illiterate, to the point of being practically unable to communicate a coherent message. At least she won't be cold in the afterlife

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

So you just wash your hands of it and hope for the best? Really? There cannot be a solution to the problem of unchecked extremism within Islam without the action and support of Muslims. You claim to be one of the moderate Muslims who just want peace and tolerance. That's great, and I applaud you for it. However, this will not arise out of apathy or a shrug of the shoulders. The non-Muslim world cannot impose a solution on Islam. The reform must come from within. If even moderates like yourself are unable to even consider this possibility, then what hope is there? The inevitable outcome is more war, more terrorism (from both sides) and less tolerance.

A major issue with Islam is that many non-extremists Muslims simply wash their hands or worse, actively discourage criticism. A'isha is one of the problematic Muslims who, while she doesn't actively encourage the preaching of violence and hate, actively prevents from it being addressed at the core.

The only solution non-Muslims can offer to this is the Final one. When explained that A'isha simply shoots the messenger and continues to pretend nothing is wrong, because an 8th century 'scholar' said so.

I stand by the question she quoted in her signature. I'd love to see the answer.

McHrozni

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I thought I'd do a little more digging about the story I linked to about a British Muslim receiving death threats after saying that imams had been glorifying violence.
A'isha has summarily dismissed this story, because it was featured on a website she does not like.
Here is the story as reported by the local newspaper. Some interesting quotes:

In a letter to MP Steve Baker, the 55-year-old said: “I was under threat of physical violence from the time I made my complaint.

“Now real threats have been made since the BFP article, as well as threatening language used against me on social media.

“I have been warned by well-wishers of threats of violence against me including sanctioning my murder if and when I travel to Pakistan.”

The person in question, Khalil Ahmed, is quite convinced this has happened. First-hand testimony.
Does he have evidence that the imams in these mosques have said what he alleges? He seems to think so:

Responding to requests for evidence to back up his claims, Mr Ahmed, said: “I have witnesses who heard the sermons first hand.

“However, those witnesses are afraid of physical retribution and social exclusion from the community.”

Contrary to what A'isha claims, there is a local Islamic authority in charge of the mosques:

The Wycombe Islamic Mission and Trust controls the three mosques under investigation; Jubilee Road Mosque, Townfield Mosque, in Totteridge Road, and Castlefield Mosque, in Rutland Avenue.

Contrary to what A'isha claims, these mosques are not attended by a minority of local Muslims:

According to the trust, about 80 per cent of High Wycombe’s Muslim residents are members of the trust’s three mosques; Jubilee Road Mosque, Townfield Mosque, in Totteridge Road, and Castlefield Mosque, in Rutland Avenue.

This is not an isolated incident: High Wycombe has a history of producing jihadists:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...terror-plots-the-High-Wycombe-connection.html

So, from what I have been able to find, the story is true. Khalil Ahmed has been to both the police and his local MP, and the trust in charge of the 3 mosques in question have said they are going to investigate.
http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/new...te_preaching____in_High_Wycombe/?ref=mrb&lp=1