Manhattan explosion

[A'isha]

You know, I don't make a point to stalk people from forums to figure out as many intimate details about their lives as possible.

I alluded to it in my sig, even! [EDIT: You know, the one that read "I feel, as an atheist, about people like Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher the way that Christians must feel about Fred Phelps”]

It's weird for someone who was raised into nonsense but has grown out of it to defend it from all criticism, come hell or high water.

I don't defend it against all criticism. Just stupid criticisms, like yours.

If Bapists start blowing up planes, airports and shooting up concerts in the name of Jesus, I'll do just that.

You'd appeal to the Catholic Pope to do something about Baptist terrorists? Ooookay...

I see your grasp of Christianity isn't any better than your grasp of Islam.

That's not the case in the slightest. Fighting against someone who has a lot to lose is a whole lot easier than someone who has nothing to live for in the first place. I suspect this is a major reason behind polygamy in Islam - it creates a large body of young males whose only chance of ever seeing a woman is to go to war to either capture one, loot enough wealth to marry, or die and go to paradise (another problem with Islam right here).

Of all the problems with polygamy in the countries where it's currently legal (both Muslim like Iran and non-Muslim like South Africa), wars to raid and capture women or loot are pretty far down the list.

 

[A'isha]

Well, let's see. Possibly because, as I pointed out before, you did just that- if we use your own arguments.

Ah, so you were just trying to make some kind of dumb pseduo-tu-quoque rhetorical point, rather than making any kind of actual argument.

Let's subject your post to your own criticism.

Except, as I pointed out in my post there (which you conveniently edited out), I even tried giving you the benefit of the doubt and reading your words as if you meant "some Muslims", and pointed out how that resulted in a nonsensical sentence. Now look what happens if you do the thing that I did for you but you didn't, apparently, want to reciprocate (because then you couldn't play your little gotcha games, I guess):

"At least currently, the completely decentralized nature of Islam means that someone like [the Saudi government (and all its associated state religious apparatus)] 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)."

In fact, reading my sentence there as if I wasn't talking about the the Saudi government (and all its associated state religious apparatus) in the context of and in response to your specific statement that I "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", but was instead answering you by (for some inexplicable reason) actually talking about individual civilian Muslims living in Saudi Arabia is nonsensical. It literally makes no sense at all, and the only reason you're even making this forced attempt at reading it that way is so you can try to make your weak little "Looks like the broad brush is on the other foot now, hah hah!" rhetorical gotcha.

For at least the third time: The article says nothing of the sort. Do, please, quote anything from the article that says that.

Okay.

"Imran Awan, a criminologist and expert on terrorism and extremism, said: 'My view is that it's almost like a continuous narrative – I'm not sure if it's to do with piquing their audience – but I think he fuels everything that is anti-British. In a way many people believe he is one of the key links to radicalising young people and, if he is one of those people, it is giving him the oxygen of publicity he so badly craves.'

Awan, a lecturer at Birmingham City University, said he felt uncomfortable with Choudary using the collective 'we' in his interview. 'That I found uncomfortable because it implies he's talking for us, myself as a Muslim and the law-abiding Muslim community. He doesn't speak for myself or the law-abiding Muslim community.'

He added: 'As a Muslim and as a criminologist the whole idea is trying to counter the extremist narrative and you can genuinely do that – but inviting people like him on the show all you do is give him a platform.'"

I had to google Sean Hannity, because I did not know who he was, and I didn't remember reading any reference to him in the article to which I had linked.
I then discovered the reason: because there was no mention of him in the article to which I had linked. Nor was there any mention of him in the British TV interviews to which I had linked.
Why was this?
Because Sean Hannity isn't British.
In a debate about Anjem Choudary's appearances and coverage on British media, you chose to introduce a personality who is an American presenter on Fox News.
Now if you want to talk about how Muslims are portrayed on American TV, that's fine, but to use that as an example of the bias of British media is misleading at best, or, to those less forgiving, blatantly dishonest.
Why did you do this, A'isha? Sean Hannity has no relevance to this debate at all. Was this just a smokescreen, or was there some point about the British media you thought you could make by citing the example of a presenter on Fox News?

Hannity works for one of the "other media outlets" I mentioned, Fox News, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Sky and most of the UK tabloids that love to give all kinds of attention to Choudary. His interview with Choudary appears in the "related videos" lists on YouTube for the videos you linked to, and I brought him up to illustrate the pointlessness of using "well, the non-Muslim host kept saying he was wrong" as a defense to the charge that he was presented as "the" Muslim point of view on shows where he appeared. I selected him because I wanted to show that the problem goes beyond merely the four videos you linked (which themselves are bad enough), and as an American he was familiar to me so I used him as my example.

I'm curious why you think an American TV host like Sean Hannity gave a British figure like Anjem Choudary a solo appearance on his American show, though.

EDIT: Oh, and as a side note, in today's news the Iraqi Christian town of Qaraqosh, occupied by ISIS two years ago, is currently being assaulted by an allied force of Iraqi army units, Kurdish Peshmerga, and Christian militia, as part of the larger campaign to free Mosul from ISIS' grip.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Let me get this straight. You think this:

Okay.

"Imran Awan, a criminologist and expert on terrorism and extremism, said: 'My view is that it's almost like a continuous narrative – I'm not sure if it's to do with piquing their audience – but I think he fuels everything that is anti-British. In a way many people believe he is one of the key links to radicalising young people and, if he is one of those people, it is giving him the oxygen of publicity he so badly craves.'

Awan, a lecturer at Birmingham City University, said he felt uncomfortable with Choudary using the collective 'we' in his interview. 'That I found uncomfortable because it implies he's talking for us, myself as a Muslim and the law-abiding Muslim community. He doesn't speak for myself or the law-abiding Muslim community.'

He added: 'As a Muslim and as a criminologist the whole idea is trying to counter the extremist narrative and you can genuinely do that – but inviting people like him on the show all you do is give him a platform.'"

Is an answer to this:

Because the issue, as pointed out by the people quoted in the Guardian article you yourself linked to, is that Anjem Choudary is brought on to give "the Muslim viewpoint", and the BBC and other media outlets not only don't oppose his claims in that regard, but they contribute to it.

For at least the third time: The article says nothing of the sort. Do, please, quote anything from the article that says that.
Here's the link again:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/dec/20/bbc-today-programme-cleric-anjem-choudary

I am not surprised that you continue to claim this in spite of the facts: what surprises me is that, apparently, no-one except me on this skeptics forum has read the article, and/or is prepared to challenge you on this. What you are claiming is absolutely untrue, and it makes no difference how many times you repeat this claim: it will still remain total fiction.

Especially as I already said this:

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.

The really sad thing is that you're probably serious.

Hannity works for one of the "other media outlets" I mentioned, Fox News, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Sky and most of the UK tabloids that love to give all kinds of attention to Choudary. His interview with Choudary appears in the "related videos" lists on YouTube for the videos you linked to, and I brought him up to illustrate the pointlessness of using "well, the non-Muslim host kept saying he was wrong" as a defense to the charge that he was presented as "the" Muslim point of view on shows where he appeared. I selected him because I wanted to show that the problem goes beyond merely the four videos you linked (which themselves are bad enough), and as an American he was familiar to me so I used him as my example.

But Murdoch doesn't own the BBC. Which is what we were talking about.

I think the rest of my post stands:

I had to google Sean Hannity, because I did not know who he was, and I didn't remember reading any reference to him in the article to which I had linked.
I then discovered the reason: because there was no mention of him in the article to which I had linked. Nor was there any mention of him in the British TV interviews to which I had linked.
Why was this?
Because Sean Hannity isn't British.
In a debate about Anjem Choudary's appearances and coverage on British media, you chose to introduce a personality who is an American presenter on Fox News.
Now if you want to talk about how Muslims are portrayed on American TV, that's fine, but to use that as an example of the bias of British media is misleading at best, or, to those less forgiving, blatantly dishonest.
Why did you do this, A'isha? Sean Hannity has no relevance to this debate at all. Was this just a smokescreen, or was there some point about the British media you thought you could make by citing the example of a presenter on Fox News?

You are using an American interview of which I was previously unaware, with an American interviewer of whom I had never heard before, to make claims about Choudary being presented as the "voice of Islam" in the British media, in an attempt to prove me wrong about Choudary's portrayal by the British media.

Can you see one or two possible flaws in that argument?

I'm curious why you think an American TV host like Sean Hannity gave a British figure like Anjem Choudary a solo appearance on his American show, though.

Firstly, I fail to see what relevance this has to a discussion about Choudary's appearances on British TV.
Secondly, after you rejected the whistleblower story I linked to because of the reputation of the site on which it was featured, I find it strange that you expect me to give any credence at all to what Fox News does.
Thirdly, as I haven't seen the interview- as it had no previous relevance to our discussion, prior to your moving the goalposts yet again- I cannot comment on Hannity's motives.
Fourthly, if you want to move the discussion to an examination of the portrayal of Muslims by the American media, I suggest you start a new thread, rather than trying to obscure the issue in this one.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Except, as I pointed out in my post there (which you conveniently edited out), I even tried giving you the benefit of the doubt and reading your words as if you meant "some Muslims", and pointed out how that resulted in a nonsensical sentence. Now look what happens if you do the thing that I did for you but you didn't, apparently, want to reciprocate (because then you couldn't play your little gotcha games, I guess):

Again, it saddens me to think that you are actually being serious, after I said this:

Towards the end of your post, I think you began to realise what you had done, and I will acknowledge that you said:

Yes, not all Saudi citizens are extremists or Wahhabis.

Whatever you are trying to prove here, it isn't working.

 

[A'isha]

Let me get this straight. You think this:



Is an answer to this:





Especially as I already said this:

The really sad thing is that you're probably serious.

The quoted comments from the Guardian article were specifically made in reference to the Carlile debate. Feel free to bring up the other Muslims giving their POV different from Choudary's that were in that debate.

But Murdoch doesn't own the BBC. Which is what we were talking about.

Nope, I've constantly referenced Sky and other media outlets as well when discussing Choudary's appearances.

You are using an American interview of which I was previously unaware, with an American interviewer of whom I had never heard before, to make claims about Choudary being presented as the "voice of Islam" in the British media, in an attempt to prove me wrong about Choudary's portrayal by the British media.

No, I was using him as an example of how a non-Muslim host of a TV show he's on arguing with him isn't a valid defense against those shows presenting him as the only Muslim POV.

If you really don't like it, feel free to use the Carlile debate instead. The person in the Guardian article that I quoted as being displeased with Choudary getting to present himself as the only Muslim POV certainly did.

 

[A'isha]

Again, it saddens me to think that you are actually being serious, after I said this:




Whatever you are trying to prove here, it isn't working.

Here, I'll spell it out for you: the fact that not all individual civilian Muslims living in Saudi Arabia are extremists or Wahhabis is true, but also completely irrelevant to the actions and attitudes of the Saudi government (and it's associated state religious apparatus), which (despite your persistent efforts at derailing the discussion with your epic deliberate missing of the point) is what I was talking about in response to your post about an authoritarian mechanism within Islam for monitoring for religious deviance and enforcing adherence to a single version of it.

Now, are we all clear about this, or are you going to try and keep dragging this discussion down with more attempts at rhetorical mud wrestling?

 

[tyr_13]

Right here. Seems clear enough to me.

Oh, and a slightly longer version here.

So, was this knee-jerk apologism, or did you just not read all of her posts?

I read and understood them, which is apparently one up on you. She did not claim there were no local authorities and the context of those posts make it completely clear that she was addressing the specific criticisms of Muslims in the west as a whole. Notice the italicized qualifications that you're ignoring. It's dishonest to change the set under discussion to change what someone is claiming. It's a straw man. I wish I could say I believe you're just doing it by mistake, but that's clearly not the case.

You keep doing this changing of sets to make a statement mean something it doesn't, and then not accepting the clarification.

 

[McHrozni]

I alluded to it in my sig, even! [EDIT: You know, the one that read "I feel, as an atheist, about people like Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher the way that Christians must feel about Fred Phelps”]

I don't run a running record of everyones' signatures. I don't even read them for the most part. Sue me.

I don't defend it against all criticism. Just stupid criticisms, like yours.

Given how substantiated my criticism and that of many other posters here is and given your dismissive attitude towards it I'm very skeptical of your claim. Can you prove it?

You'd appeal to the Catholic Pope to do something about Baptist terrorists? Ooookay...

Certainly. The Pope could do a lot, for example trying to win over Baptists who were genuinely outraged by the abuse of their faith. Some would likely even cross over into the RCC, benefiting everyone, except the terrorists.

You know, kind of what we're saying Muslims should be doing, but you refuse to even consider the possibility, because it's impossible?

Another thing I'd do in such example is call on Baptists to organize their religion in a way that would permit them to separate themselves from terrorists in a meaningful way. Exactly like what I'm saying about Islam, really. I really don't see why this could be controversial, but you somehow manage to deny the possibility of that happening, but never come up with a single convincing reason.

Of all the problems with polygamy in the countries where it's currently legal (both Muslim like Iran and non-Muslim like South Africa), wars to raid and capture women or loot are pretty far down the list.

Maybe, but I'm not talking about current reasons, but reasons from 14 centuries ago. If you wanted to create a religion that would allow you to conquer the world, polygamy is an excellent first start. A promise of paradise where you get to **** more virgins than you ever had the chance to see is another such feature. Veiling of women to ensure youngsters don't even think about mating and get violent from the overflow of testosterone is another.

Granted, none of these features is Islamic in origin, but was adopted into Islam from neighboring cultures, but that's besides the point. The point is that Islam took all the features a cult dedicated to conquering the world by force would. There are few if any benign explanations for that.

McHrozni

 

[Cosmic Yak]

The quoted comments from the Guardian article were specifically made in reference to the Carlile debate. Feel free to bring up the other Muslims giving their POV different from Choudary's that were in that debate.

Dodge noted, on two counts. Firstly, you are once again claiming that Choudary presenting himself as the voice of Islam is the same as the BBC presenting him as the voice of Islam, which, no matter how many times you say it, will never be true. He was a controversial and newsworthy figure, who courted the media skilfully. He was not presented as the voice of Islam in the interview, nor, as far as I am aware, has he ever been presented as such by the BBC.
Which brings me to your second dodge. You keep trying to focus on this one interview, and studiously ignoring all the others, because you think it will bolster your case. Your refusal to address the wider issue of Choudary's overall presence in British media speaks volumes. I have linked to interivews in which he was challenged by other Muslims, yet you keep coming back to this one interivew, as if one interview can be scaled up to represent the majority. This is something that you would naturally condemn, right?

Nope, I've constantly referenced Sky and other media outlets as well when discussing Choudary's appearances.

Nope. You have referenced Sky once, in post 587. You made one other reference to "international media" in post 600. Every other time- posts 549, 554, 587, 589 and 608- you specified British media or the BBC.

No, I was using him as an example of how a non-Muslim host of a TV show he's on arguing with him isn't a valid defense against those shows presenting him as the only Muslim POV.

No, you were citing an irrelevant example in an obvious attempt to move the goalposts. There is no comparison between Fox News and the BBC.

If you really don't like it, feel free to use the Carlile debate instead. The person in the Guardian article that I quoted as being displeased with Choudary getting to present himself as the only Muslim POV certainly did.

Hobson's choice. If I don't like your irrelevant example, I can only use one other example, which conveniently happens to be unrepresentative of the debates in question.
No, thanks. I think I'll use the interviews I linked to in which Choudary was challenged by other Muslims.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I read and understood them, which is apparently one up on you. She did not claim there were no local authorities and the context of those posts make it completely clear that she was addressing the specific criticisms of Muslims in the west as a whole. Notice the italicized qualifications that you're ignoring. It's dishonest to change the set under discussion to change what someone is claiming. It's a straw man. I wish I could say I believe you're just doing it by mistake, but that's clearly not the case.

You keep doing this changing of sets to make a statement mean something it doesn't, and then not accepting the clarification.

No, A'isha claimed there were no authorities. I assumed this meant local as well as national. If you want to redefine the set to suit your argument, then it is you who is arguing dishonestly, not me.

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

No-one. No mention of whether this was national or local. What would be the point? No-one means no-one, at any scale.

Where did A'isha calm there was no local authorities or local 'majorities'?

Are you saying that A'isha is acknowledging that the majority of Muslims in Britain are extremists? My point was that she has consistently said they are a minority. Unfortunately, in the case of High Wycombe, that is not the case. 80% of the Muslims there attended those 3 mosques.
This led me to think about this, and the claim that Muslims who are not members of these mosques may be unaware of what is preached there. In the specific case of High Wycombe, 80% of the mosque attendees belonged to mosques where extremism was allegedly preached. That means that the vast majority of High Wycombe's Muslims may well be extremists, or at least are comfortable enough with the idea that they continue to attend these mosques.
That leaves the other 20%. I find it hard to believe that Muslims in a town like High Wycombe do not mingle with each other. Do the 20% of non-extremists isolate themselves? Different shops and markets? Different cafes? Different community centres? Different neighbourhoods entirely? I find it hard to believe that there is no contact between these groups. They must surely be aware of each other's views and affiliations.
That is a principle that I think can be reasonably scaled up to more areas. Muslims do not only go to mosques. They have numerous opportunities to mix and mingle with each other, and thus numerous opportunities to become aware of unsavoury beliefs. Then we can factor in social media. It is disingenious, I think, to argue that moderate Muslims are unaware of extremist views because they do not attend extremist mosques. Muslims, like everyone else, do not live in a void. They live in communities with multiple connections and ties.

Why anyone would think that this proves that there's a "central mosque authority" or something that Muslims can appeal to, or that the local organization of a half-dozen mosques in a tiny town with a tiny Muslim population can be scaled up to make judgments about Muslims in the whole of the UK is somewhat mystifying, to say the least.

Then allow me to demystify you.
As quoted above, you said there was "no one" Muslims could go to about extremist mosques or imams. I showed that there was, in that case, a local organisation that controlled the mosques, that other Muslims could approach. If you look back at my post, you will see I made no mention of a 'national Muslim authority': that is a strawman of your own invention.

However, if you want to talk about the lack of a national Muslim authority to monitor what is preached in mosques, then we can.
Let me cite the story of Finsbury mosque.

The £8m Finsbury Park Mosque opened in 1988. And with one of the then biggest prayer halls in Britain, many Muslims regarded it as a major milestone.

But by the late 1990s, amid the growth of radical Islamism, it had become a meeting place for extreme voices, including that of Abu Hamza.

But by the time the Charity Commission stepped in, the watchdog found Abu Hamza had effectively intimidated the trustees into giving him control, allowing him to churn out sermons and material pushing his radical line, while many of his supporters lived on the premises.

One of the men who used to spend time at the mosque was Kamel Bourgass, an Algerian man jailed for the murder of a policeman and an alleged ricin poison plot.

The commission eventually barred Abu Hamza from the premises - but he continued to use the building right up until police closed it down in January 2003 amid a major al-Qaeda associated investigation.

So here we have a major mosque that got taken over by extremists. Eventually, the Charities Commission and the police shut it down. This triggered a debate among British Muslims about contol over mosques. Abu Hamza was confronted by members of the Muslim Association of Britain, a national Muslim organisation, and one that featured on the list of national Muslim organisations that you yourself linked to.

Dr Azzam Tamimi, one of MAB's leading figures, says the Metropolitan Police asked his organisation to try to turn around Finsbury Park.
"Finsbury Park Mosque should be considered one of the very rare success stories where the Muslim community and others came together and decided to rescue the mosque," says Dr Tamimi.

This then triggered the debate I mentioned:

Dr Zaki Badawi, the former head of London's Muslim College and one of the most respected clerics in Europe, first proposed elections for mosques 20 years ago.

Dr Badawi, who died last month aged 83, argued democracy would create stronger communities and leadership for the young.

He complained that many mosque leaders in the UK had no mandate from their wider community, in particular women and young British-born Muslims.

"It's proved to be very difficult [to reform mosques]," he said before his death. "Most of our people come from countries where elections are not regarded as one of the ways of conducting business.

Ashgar Bukhari of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, a small but vocal campaign group, has been attacking the leadership of mosques in Britain for more than three years, arguing that they have collectively failed the youth.

His organisation says many mosque leaders rely on clan-like politics from south Asia and have ignored calls from British-born Muslims for democratic standards.

"Mosque leaders are expert in only two things - covering themselves and hanging on to power," he says.

"The only people who can combat terrorism are those guys in the mosques and they are not doing anything about it. They're not engaging with the youth, they're not engaging with our women. They're in a clique, which takes control and holds onto power.

Note that these comments come from Muslims, and use plurals throughout. They are clearly stating that this is a widespread problem, and not one solely confined to Finsbury Mosque.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4639074.stm

Okay, then. Who do the members of the MECAWT masjid, which is not a member of the Wycombe Islamic Mission and Trust and not related to their three mosques, do to get those 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 they go to the board members of the Wycombe Islamic Mission and Trust and say "we don't like what you're doing, quit it", and the board of the Wycombe Islamic Mission and Trust says "no, buzz off", what is the next step the members of the MECAWT masjid should take to get them stopped?

Exactly the question that British Muslims were asking after the Finsbury Mosque incident. The result was the setting up of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosques_and_Imams_National_Advisory_Board

The Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board (MINAB) originated in the United Kingdom on 27 June 2006 with the aim of promoting best practice in British mosques. It is an independent self-regulatory body aspiring to build capacity in mosques, help deliver standards and ensure mosque personnel have a better understanding of British Muslims needs so that it can address any concerns more effectively. It works with and represents all Muslim traditions and schools of thought.

Fantstic idea. Muslims come together to police their own religion. So what happened?

[T]he MINAB (Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board) which was conceived and led by the Muslim communities, had remained inactive in the last few years for a variety of reasons.

http://www.minab.org.uk/

As I pointed out above, the "Ahl-i Hadith" I mention in that post you quote to accuse me of having said that mosques can never have local authorities is a local authority that I was specifically citing as an organization of mosques that one could use to tell what sort of ideology is preached at mosques under its umbrella. [EDIT: Not to mention that the entire point of that post was to ask what you think Muslims who aren't members of the aforementioned organizations or of the mosques belonging to those organizations are supposed to do.]

*facepalm*

They were supposed to come together to sort this out. They had a golden opportunity, at a national level, and they squandered it.
*facepalm*

 

[CosCos]

This whole comparison between the various sects in christianity vs. Islam is a major red herring anyway. The fact is Islam has two major sects and is no where near as fractured as christianity is. Further, of the two major islamic sects, 90% falls in sunni. So islam is far more homogenous than christianity is so enough with the stupid strawmen about baptists and catholics. Last I checked baptists aren't drowning people in cages or driving vans through throngs of people.

The closest analog to an ISIS in christianity is probably the westboro baptist church. It's a really really strained analogy since they're mostly talk, no action; they are a tiny minority pretty much limited to one geographic location; and (this is the big one) are widely reviled by everyone. I don't see any christians running to defend westboro from any attacks against christianity like the knee jerk muslims do.

Another red herring is all this talk about there no being central authority in islam. While that may be technically true, the azhar university in cairo is widely seen as the authority on all things sunni dogma, from interpreting the koran and the ahadith, to issuing fatawi about this or that. If there is any conflict about anything people turn to the azhar for the final word. Any idiot mufti can issue a fatwa about the sun revolving around the earth and what not, but none are taken as seriously as those issued by al azhar.

So for all the apologists, how about we start there? Why doesn't one of the most respected bodies in islam even speak out against say, ISIS, much less condone what they do? Instead of the moderate muslims throwing their hands in the air and automatically getting into defend islam mode, how about you start at the seats of education and start making noise that what's happening in the name of that religion is NOT ok?

How did we get from jim crow laws to where we are today within a half century in america? It wasn't defeatist attitudes and staunch dogmatism like our moderate muslims here. It took everyone to honestly look at the problem and say that's not right and fix it, rather than dig in and defend some outdated ideal. That's why it has to start from within. No amount of external pressure will yield results until the extremists start feeling the pressure from the inside. That's the problem right now, muslim extremist launches terror event, there is a backlash against muslims, there is worldwide condemnation from muslims about the backlash and not the initial event, extremists get emboldened, rinse repeat.

The real problem are the people doing things in the name of islam, not the mean things people say in response.

 

[tyr_13]

No, A'isha claimed there were no authorities. I assumed this meant local as well as national. If you want to redefine the set to suit your argument, then it is you who is arguing dishonestly, not me.

No, still manifestly you. A'isha claimed there were no authorities who control Islam or most Mosques. She explained clearly and repeatedly that anyone can open a Mosque and call themselves and expert or scholar. Your straw man is extraordinarily dishonest after it's been clearly explained over and over what was meant.

When she said 'no authorities in Islam', she was talking about Islam on the level of the general or in another case the level of Britain. Your assumption is illogical.

No-one. No mention of whether this was national or local. What would be the point? No-one means no-one, at any scale.




Are you saying that A'isha is acknowledging that the majority of Muslims in Britain are extremists? My point was that she has consistently said they are a minority. Unfortunately, in the case of High Wycombe, that is not the case.

This set change completely invalidates your criticism of A'isha and your conclusion. What are Muslims who don't live in that area and don't attend those places to do? Tell you they are extremists somewhere? We already knew that.

80% of the Muslims there attended those 3 mosques.
This led me to think about this, and the claim that Muslims who are not members of these mosques may be unaware of what is preached there. In the specific case of High Wycombe, 80% of the mosque attendees belonged to mosques where extremism was allegedly preached. That means that the vast majority of High Wycombe's Muslims may well be extremists, or at least are comfortable enough with the idea that they continue to attend these mosques.
That leaves the other 20%. I find it hard to believe that Muslims in a town like High Wycombe do not mingle with each other. Do the 20% of non-extremists isolate themselves? Different shops and markets? Different cafes? Different community centres? Different neighbourhoods entirely? I find it hard to believe that there is no contact between these groups. They must surely be aware of each other's views and affiliations.
That is a principle that I think can be reasonably scaled up to more areas. Muslims do not only go to mosques. They have numerous opportunities to mix and mingle with each other, and thus numerous opportunities to become aware of unsavoury beliefs. Then we can factor in social media. It is disingenious, I think, to argue that moderate Muslims are unaware of extremist views because they do not attend extremist mosques. Muslims, like everyone else, do not live in a void. They live in communities with multiple connections and ties.

Aware of them in abstract, not aware of them any more than you would be through the exact same mechanisms. Your argument here is self-defeating.

Muslims should do something through some mechanism that's not available to you, even though everything said so far has been either something they're already doing, or something not possible to do. It's that simple. You and others making your argument still haven't shown what additional mechanism can be utilized. Everything else is hand-wringing and demonization.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

No, still manifestly you. A'isha claimed there were no authorities who control Islam or most Mosques. She explained clearly and repeatedly that anyone can open a Mosque and call themselves and expert or scholar. Your straw man is extraordinarily dishonest after it's been clearly explained over and over what was meant.

When she said 'no authorities in Islam', she was talking about Islam on the level of the general or in another case the level of Britain. Your assumption is illogical.

The fact that anyone can open a mosque does not mean that mosque cannot be controlled. Had you read the articles I linked to, you would have known that.
A'isah said there were no authorities which controlled mosques. You know that. I have posted that quote several times.
This was after she posted a list of national Muslim organisations, at least one of which does control mosques (the MAB).
Then this shifted to 'no local authorities'. Again, I posted links showing that there were indeed local authorities in charge of mosques, to which Muslims could appeal if they didn't like the way things were going.
In the article about Finsbury Mosque, it mentioned the Charities Commission. This is the government body which supervises all charities in the UK, and which was responsible for setting in motion the process of expelling the extremists from Finsbury mosque.
Thus, we have local Muslim authorities, national Muslim authorities and national government authorities.
And yet you continue to insist that none of these exist. Extraordinary.

This set change completely invalidates your criticism of A'isha and your conclusion. What are Muslims who don't live in that area and don't attend those places to do? Tell you they are extremists somewhere? We already knew that.

No, you have misread my post. A'isha claims that extremists are a minority in Britain. She also says that only Muslims who attend extremist mosques are extremists. Fine. 80% of High Wycombe's Muslims attend the mosques in question.
By her own arguments, the majority of Muslims in High Wycombe are extremists, as they attend extremist mosques.
Shifting the focus of the debate to Muslims who do not live there is your tactic, not mine. I never said Muslims who do not live there should report extremism. You did. Strawman.

Aware of them in abstract, not aware of them any more than you would be through the exact same mechanisms. Your argument here is self-defeating.

Muslims should do something through some mechanism that's not available to you, even though everything said so far has been either something they're already doing, or something not possible to do. It's that simple. You and others making your argument still haven't shown what additional mechanism can be utilized. Everything else is hand-wringing and demonization.

No, again you have not read my post thoroughly, and have gone into knee-jerk apologist mode.
If I worked, socialised or otherwise mingled with peope who had extremist views, I would almost certainly know about it. I don't see what is so controversial or ridiculous about that. This is not abstract: this is about the people you live and work with, in the context of a religious and ethinc community in a small town.
What is this mechanism that isn't available to me, that you are talking about?
What additional mechanism are you talking about? From anti-hate speech laws, to the Charities Commission, there are multiple mechanisms for reining in extremists, that are as available to me (if I still lived in the UK) as they are to British Muslims. What is lacking, as evidenced by the rest of my post (that part you ignored entirely) is the will of Muslims to use them.
Before you respond again, I would urge you to read my posts more carefully. You seem to have misread parts, and ignored the bulk, of what I have said.

 

[Belgian thought]

YouTube fight is required.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Anjem+Choudary+speaking


Pick and scratch
Islam is crotch

Fat Budd-ah
Hippy Jesus
Bad verses too

And don't get me started
On those Hindus

Know your place
You sack of pooh

And as for Jews?
They run the world

 

[tyr_13]

The fact that anyone can open a mosque does not mean that mosque cannot be controlled. Had you read the articles I linked to, you would have known that.
A'isah said there were no authorities which controlled mosques. You know that. I have posted that quote several times.
This was after she posted a list of national Muslim organisations, at least one of which does control mosques (the MAB).
Then this shifted to 'no local authorities'. Again, I posted links showing that there were indeed local authorities in charge of mosques, to which Muslims could appeal if they didn't like the way things were going.
In the article about Finsbury Mosque, it mentioned the Charities Commission. This is the government body which supervises all charities in the UK, and which was responsible for setting in motion the process of expelling the extremists from Finsbury mosque.
Thus, we have local Muslim authorities, national Muslim authorities and national government authorities.
And yet you continue to insist that none of these exist. Extraordinary.

You're repeating the same straw man. No one controls 'the mosques', but some groups control some mosques. Is English not your first language? This is exactly like saying why don't the other Baptist church organizations (some of which control many churches!) shut down the WBC.

Better example. If I said 'no one controls pizza shops overall', it would not be contradicted by 'hey, Pizza Hut Northwest controls hundreds of them! Why can't I use my Dominoes gift card here?'. There are national pizza authorities, and local pizza authorities, and even pizza associations, yet you wouldn't expect Papa John's to be able to change the menu at Pizza Hut. Yet somehow, this is exactly what you're arguing with mosques.

No, you have misread my post. A'isha claims that extremists are a minority in Britain. She also says that only Muslims who attend extremist mosques are extremists. Fine. 80% of High Wycombe's Muslims attend the mosques in question.
By her own arguments, the majority of Muslims in High Wycombe are extremists, as they attend extremist mosques.
Shifting the focus of the debate to Muslims who do not live there is your tactic, not mine. I never said Muslims who do not live there should report extremism. You did. Strawman.

This is ridiculous. You've moved the goalposts that were under discussion.

No, again you have not read my post thoroughly, and have gone into knee-jerk apologist mode.
If I worked, socialised or otherwise mingled with peope who had extremist views, I would almost certainly know about it. I don't see what is so controversial or ridiculous about that. This is not abstract: this is about the people you live and work with, in the context of a religious and ethinc community in a small town.

You have no idea what you're talking about. The 'I never knew' response from people who have been close to people who have done all manner of horrible things is a trope. People often have no idea.

You might know, but there is a better chance you would not. It's comforting to think that we ourselves would never miss such things, but the reality is that people do all the time.

What is this mechanism that isn't available to me, that you are talking about?

That's what I'm asking you!

What additional mechanism are you talking about? From anti-hate speech laws, to the Charities Commission, there are multiple mechanisms for reining in extremists, that are as available to me (if I still lived in the UK) as they are to British Muslims. What is lacking, as evidenced by the rest of my post (that part you ignored entirely) is the will of Muslims to use them.
Before you respond again, I would urge you to read my posts more carefully. You seem to have misread parts, and ignored the bulk, of what I have said.

As A'isha has already shown over and over, Muslims report all the time. You're ignoring evidence again that has already been amply supplied.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

You're repeating the same straw man. No one controls 'the mosques', but some groups control some mosques. Is English not your first language? This is exactly like saying why don't the other Baptist church organizations (some of which control many churches!) shut down the WBC.

Better example. If I said 'no one controls pizza shops overall', it would not be contradicted by 'hey, Pizza Hut Northwest controls hundreds of them! Why can't I use my Dominoes gift card here?'. There are national pizza authorities, and local pizza authorities, and even pizza associations, yet you wouldn't expect Papa John's to be able to change the menu at Pizza Hut. Yet somehow, this is exactly what you're arguing with mosques.

You have (twice) claimed that I am being dishonest, but I can assure you I am not. I am trying very hard to understand the point you are trying to make (and yes, English is my first language): I just don't think you're expressing it very well.
When you say 'control over mosques', what exactly do you mean? Do you mean what version of Islam is followed there? Do you mean the espousal of extremist views, and ways of controlling that? Do you mean the legal status of mosques as institutions?
All of these are different. If you could be more precise in your definitions, then perhaps we could get somewhere.

This is ridiculous. You've moved the goalposts that were under discussion.

No, I just said the same thing over again. As I said, I don't think you're reading my posts very thoroughly.
If you disagree, then please explain how you think the goalposts have moved.

That's what I'm asking you!

You mentioned this mechanism. Why don't you try to be clearer, and then we can deal with this as well.

Muslims should do something through some mechanism that's not available to you

That's what you said. I was asking for clarification, and you threw it back in my face. That wasn't very helpful.

As A'isha has already shown over and over, Muslims report all the time. You're ignoring evidence again that has already been amply supplied.

No, I have not and am not ignoring that. In fact, just the opposite. You seem to have forgotten that the High Wycombe story originally found its way into this discussion because I linked to it. The story is about a Muslim in that town who reported extremist preaching to the authorities, and received death threats from other Muslims as a result.
A'isha refused to believe it, because of the site I initially found it on, even though I cautioned her against doing that. I then followed up, and showed that the story is indeed true. (A'isha has yet to acknowledge that, BTW).
I then did some more digging, and came up with the Finsbury Mosque incident, in which Muslims, working with the British authorities, went into that mosque and evicted the extremists.
This led to the setting up of MINAB, an organisation expressly designed to overcome the obstacles that you and A'isha keeo going on about. This organisation did not achieve anything near its potential, due to a lack of finance from the Muslim community, and ( and here I'm speculating) a lack of will to make it work.
The reporting so far- which I freely acknowledge (again)- has been on an ad hoc basis. What is needed, what I am calling for, and what you seem not to understand, is a formal, national, multi-sect mechanism to allow this to happen. It is imperative we do so, and that we can protect those who do blow the whistle. Yet, if I suggest this impetus comes from Muslims, I am told that this is impossible, because no-one can supervise mosques except for the single one of which they are a member. It cannot come from Muslim organisations, because that would lead to Saudi-style opression, and it is impossible to create a multi-sect umbrella organisation in Islam,and it cannot come from the state, again because of a rejection of government "surveillance". I kept on at A'isha for a solution to this problem until she answered, and her eventual answer was 'I don't know'.
Let me ask you the same question. I think we can both agree that the reporting of extremism (and again I'm specifically talking about the UK here), is not adequately preventing the radicalisation of some of Britain's Muslim youth, nor is it leading to the shutting down of mosques that foster this, nor the expelling of extremist preachers. What od you suggest be done about it?

 

[McHrozni]

Better example. If I said 'no one controls pizza shops overall', it would not be contradicted by 'hey, Pizza Hut Northwest controls hundreds of them! Why can't I use my Dominoes gift card here?'. There are national pizza authorities, and local pizza authorities, and even pizza associations, yet you wouldn't expect Papa John's to be able to change the menu at Pizza Hut. Yet somehow, this is exactly what you're arguing with mosques.

This example is bad for two reasons. One, Dominoes would just love to take control of Pizza Hut Northwest if it got the chance, and will to do so if it can. It's called competition and market share.
Second, expanding business share is a tad less urgent to preventing from innocent people being killed in the name of the religion you claim to be a part of.

You might want to completely reconstruct your entire narrative. No one is saying the task ahead of Muslims is an easy one. It's not. No one is saying their current power structure is adequate to the task, it's obviously not. This isn't a valid reason for them not to do it though, especially given the stakes involved.

McHrozni

 

[metacristi]

Really? I didn't know that. That's one weird denialist indeed.

McHrozni

It is at least puzzling that someone raised in this religion who become an atheist can immerse so much in Edward Said's ideology (head on criticism of islam entirely via reason is nonetheless 'islamophobia' and so on). Little in common with these people. By the way no problem with islam? This video shows something else, there is a big problem even in the free world I'm afraid; in reality the impersonal dynamics of sharia at the average level in the muslim population* can lead very well to the islamization of the West itself in certain conditions. In my view it is wishful thinking to expect a durable enlightened phase of islam** without us helping to create a 'critical mass' of people rejecting openly the inerrantism of the quran. Important criticism of islam, entirely via rational argument, is a must I'm afraid.


*as even one of the 'moderate' Islamic leaders in the above video recognized the islamic civilization is still driven by religion and not the other way around; sadly the liberal forces are in extreme minority in the Islamic world and unfortunately it is not enough to be 'peaceful', at the moment, to create also very modern countries

** even the fact that islam modernized in some aspects is much more the result of the Wesdtern pressure than due to an internal mechanism from inside the Islamic civilization, I'm afraid Huntington is way closer to the truth here than the deniers of existence of clear cut enough civilizations

 

[Hlafordlaes]

YouTube fight is required.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Anjem+Choudary+speaking


Pick and scratch
Islam is crotch

Fat Budd-ah
Hippy Jesus
Bad verses too

And don't get me started
On those Hindus

Know your place
You sack of pooh

And as for Jews?
They run the world

Do you have another, equally misguided list including all manner of political philosophies, equating them all morally and in terms of maximizing, say, social well-being non-violently? No?

Didn't think so. Here's a nice piece of history whose theological arguments have not varied in Islam, Sunni or Shia.

Then Kathir refers to the Pact of Umar, which shows how Umar, the second caliph, institutionalized Qur'an 9:29's demand that non-Muslims be put in a state of subjection. Kathir writes:

The scholars of Hadith narrated from Abdur-Rahman...that he [Abdur-Rahman] said,

I recorded for Umar [the second caliph], may Allah be pleased with him, the terms of the treaty of peace he conducted with the Christians of Ash-Sham [Ash-Sham ≈ Syria. Muhammad died in 632, and Christian Syria was the first Islamic conquest (634-636) outside Arabia]:

[Christians were compelled to sign this:] "In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. This is a document to the servant of Allah, Umar, the Leader of the faithful, from the Christians of such and such city. When you (Muslims) came to us [Christians] we requested safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion. We made a condition on ourselves that we will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk, nor restore any place of worship that needs restoration nor use any of them for the purpose of enmity against Muslims. We will not prevent any Muslim from resting in our churches whether they come by day or night, and we will open the doors [of our houses of worship] for the wayfarer and passerby. Those Muslims who come as guests, will enjoy boarding and food for three days. We will not allow a spy against Muslims into our churches and homes or hide deceit [or betrayal] against Muslims. We will not teach our children the Qur'an, publicize practices of Shirk [Shirk means polytheism and worshiping anyone (including Jesus) that Muslims believe is not God], invite anyone to Shirk, or prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so. We will respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them. We will not imitate their clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names, or ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons. We will not encrypt our stamps in Arabic, or sell liquor. We will have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are, wear belts around our waist, refrain from erecting crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets. We will not sound the bells in our churches, except discretely, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims, nor raise our voices [with prayer] at our funerals, or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets. We will not bury our dead next to Muslim dead, or buy servants who were captured by Muslims. We will be guides for Muslims and refrain from breaching their privacy in their homes."

When I [Abdur-Rahman] gave this document to Umar [second caliph], he added to it,

"We will not beat any Muslim. These are the conditions that we [Christians] set against ourselves and followers of our religion in return for safety and protection. If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion."

Thus Qur'an 9:29, according to Ibn Kathir, who is arguably the most popular Qur'an interpreter of all time (except for Muhammad), requires what we in the United States would consider to be a sacralized form of apartheid or Jim Crow for non-Muslims. And many other Qur'an verses and canonical hadiths point in the same direction.

That is one sick religion. Haughty and full of its own ****. Look at Islam, turn from it 180º, and you can find the true north of ethics and reason.

(BTW, if this part of the hadith is questioned, the questioner should mention the source for the full texts of the hadith the questioner prefers. I am quite sure similar texts to the above will be in that version as well. Dialectic shell game.)

 

[McHrozni]

It is at least puzzling that someone raised in this religion who become an atheist can immerse so much in Edward Said's ideology (head on criticism of islam entirely via reason is nonetheless 'islamophobia' and so on). Little in common with these people.

Yeah. I'm highly skeptical about truthfulness of A'isha in this, and in many other things she claimed on this forum.

McHrozni