Just where do we go from here?

[DVV]

I have to admit the phrase "It's not real Islam" has always irked the crap out of me. Says who? I mean really who defines what "real" Islam is and what isn't? Who defines what "real" Christianity is? Putting aside the idea that there is any "real" religion, I rather imagine that if you counted up the number of extremist muslims over "mainstream" muslims, you'd find the former outweigh the latter by a long shot. And by extremists, I mean any muslim who believes in the subjugation of women, and who practices it. If you are alright with slitting your daughter's throat to restore your family honor, you are pretty much alright with killing some random man on the street for your religion too.

Excellent post.

To which I just can add that Muslims who believe in peace and equality merely think they are Muslims.

Indeed, most of them are called Abdul Anderson.

[Errata]

"Ideas don't hurt people. People hurt people."

The trouble is, this argument seems to lead to the proposition "Nazi ideas never hurt anyone" which I'm sure is not what you meant at all.

Nazi ideas never hurt anyone. Nazis acting on those ideas on the other hand did. During the course of this conversation I though it would easier if several contributors simply dropped dead. And I note that to date, they have not. So ideas are in fact harmless. And it sounds strange coming from a psychotically liberal Jew, but remember I've also been struggling with mental illness my whole life. The first thing you have to learn is that what is in your head does not have to dictate any part of your life. I can think terrible things with a clear conscience, as long as I never ever act on them. A person can die sick at heart, miserable, alone, and full of hate for all I care, as long as it never translates into action. It's people who are the deciding factor. Not the idea.

[The Good Michael]

Although I agree whole heartedly with what you have written. Im not sure the questionnaire would solve anything. Unless it was some kind of legal contract enabling immediate expulsion if any of the agreed conditions were reneged upon.
It would be easy to tick all the right boxes ,but it wouldnt really mean a great deal.

That's what I meant. A binding thing and if it were broken....expulsion

[Robert]

"Ideas don't hurt people. People hurt people."

The trouble is, this argument seems to lead to the proposition "Nazi ideas never hurt anyone" which I'm sure is not what you meant at all.

[Chris]

And I stand by that - if it means that the security of the UK can best be served by monitoring those from certain regions more closely than some others then i would not have problem with that.

Well, at any rate I'm pleased you have clarified what you meant, because that statement about moderating immigration from Muslim countries was made in response to my asking what you meant by "[taking] a robust stand against the Islamisation of the UK, US and continental Europe", and it gave me a very different impression from the one I'm getting from what you're saying now.

[Smoking Joe]

Heard just now on BBC radio2 ,so I guess its trustworthy That one of the fanatics not only had been on police radar for several years,but MI5 had tried to recruit him some time ago as an informant.Apparently according to the snippet, the police ,from then on discontinued surveillance on him .Didnt catch it all .

[Smoking Joe]

The interesting thing...for me anyway is that a religion that openly promotes unchanged values from the 7th century can be considered to be somehow adding to society. If we have a plague or a virus, we expect our government and specialists to do whatever they can to develop solutions in order to protect its citizens. When the plague of Islam comes to a country, we are told that we need to just relax, that it isn't the problem. And of course if one could ask a plague if it were the problem, it would have to say, "No."

I will say this again: Any judgement passed on an individual who happens to be Muslim, is met with outrage by the vociferous religious leaders. All other religion are able to separate the individual from the philosophy. If Muslims themselves cannot do this, how are we supposed to?

I propose a questionnaire for all immigrants into America that will include many questions about fairly common values of equality and about enforcing the wearing of certain apparel based upon religious belied. If they fail the exam, they don't get to the interview process and must go back to the really crappy lands that spat them out. If they want to emigrate, it should be because they agree with the social mores of their new homeland, and not simply because their particular sect is persecuted by another sect.

Mike

Although I agree whole heartedly with what you have written. Im not sure the questionnaire would solve anything. Unless it was some kind of legal contract enabling immediate expulsion if any of the agreed conditions were reneged upon.
It would be easy to tick all the right boxes ,but it wouldnt really mean a great deal.

[Chris Scott]

I was going by your comment earlier in this thread:
"Apart from the fact that immigration in the UK needs much tighter control in general, then in answer to your query then, yes, if the answer lies to an appreciable extent in moderating those who come from Muslim countries and regions then so be it."

That conveyed to me that it wasn't just concern about overall numbers, and that it was Muslim immigration you wanted to limit, not the immigration of undesirables from all backgrounds.

And I stand by that - if it means that the security of the UK can best be served by monitoring those from certain regions more closely than some others then i would not have problem with that.
What I am saying is that controlling immigration serves more than one purpose. When we try to control the influx purely on the basis of numbers coming in and its effect on the infrastructure, then numbers are paramount and all groups must be treated alike.
If it is a question of security and threats to the UK then control of those coming in from certain regions hostile to the UK might have to be handled more closely.
I see nothing controversial or illogical in that.

[Smoking Joe]

????

Some useful links:

http://news.google.com/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/

http://news.sky.com/

As for the rest of your post I can only say, "Keep it coming!"

Thanks for the links Kind sir
Maybe in the future,if a similar situation arises ,maybe I could bypass these links you so graciously offered,and instead check first with your good self as to whether any reports are true or false?
I trust this will not stifle you in any way.

[Chris]

My thoughts on immigration are based mostly on numbers - we are a small island and there are too many people here chasing too few resources and services. There should just as stringent checks made on, for example, white Australian or Canadians wishing to settle here as any other group.
The one proviso is that I would certainly beef up our ability to exclude and remove people who are known to have inflammatory or radical views that espouse or advocate violence. But this would apply across the board, to deep south Christian fundamentalists, Hindu extremists etc just as well as to islamists.

I was going by your comment earlier in this thread:
"Apart from the fact that immigration in the UK needs much tighter control in general, then in answer to your query then, yes, if the answer lies to an appreciable extent in moderating those who come from Muslim countries and regions then so be it."

That conveyed to me that it wasn't just concern about overall numbers, and that it was Muslim immigration you wanted to limit, not the immigration of undesirables from all backgrounds.

[Cogidubnus]

I propose a questionnaire for all immigrants into America that will include many questions about fairly common values of equality and about enforcing the wearing of certain apparel based upon religious belied. If they fail the exam, they don't get to the interview process and must go back to the really crappy lands that spat them out. If they want to emigrate, it should be because they agree with the social mores of their new homeland, and not simply because their particular sect is persecuted by another sect.

I know where you're coming from Mike, and it's a view I can respect...The practical difficulty I have, particularly with the last sentence, is that it could so easily have been used to justify turning away jewish refugees from Germany in the late 1930s...and I'm sure you didn't mean it in that context.

All the best

Dave

[The Good Michael]

Hi Mike

Does it mean you're not impressed by Fleetwood Mac ?



Cheers

The interesting thing...for me anyway is that a religion that openly promotes unchanged values from the 7th century can be considered to be somehow adding to society. If we have a plague or a virus, we expect our government and specialists to do whatever they can to develop solutions in order to protect its citizens. When the plague of Islam comes to a country, we are told that we need to just relax, that it isn't the problem. And of course if one could ask a plague if it were the problem, it would have to say, "No."

I will say this again: Any judgement passed on an individual who happens to be Muslim, is met with outrage by the vociferous religious leaders. All other religion are able to separate the individual from the philosophy. If Muslims themselves cannot do this, how are we supposed to?

I propose a questionnaire for all immigrants into America that will include many questions about fairly common values of equality and about enforcing the wearing of certain apparel based upon religious belied. If they fail the exam, they don't get to the interview process and must go back to the really crappy lands that spat them out. If they want to emigrate, it should be because they agree with the social mores of their new homeland, and not simply because their particular sect is persecuted by another sect.

Mike

[Ally]

I have to admit the phrase "It's not real Islam" has always irked the crap out of me. Says who? I mean really who defines what "real" Islam is and what isn't? Who defines what "real" Christianity is? Putting aside the idea that there is any "real" religion, I rather imagine that if you counted up the number of extremist muslims over "mainstream" muslims, you'd find the former outweigh the latter by a long shot. And by extremists, I mean any muslim who believes in the subjugation of women, and who practices it. If you are alright with slitting your daughter's throat to restore your family honor, you are pretty much alright with killing some random man on the street for your religion too.

[Chris Scott]

The trouble is that - if I understood correctly - you also suggested that we should adopt an immigration policy designed to limit the number of Muslim immigrants, or at any rate to make it more difficult for Muslims to immigrate than for others. So I think the kind of clean distinction between 'Muslimophobia' and 'Islamophobia' that you're suggesting would be very difficult to maintain in practice.

My thoughts on immigration are based mostly on numbers - we are a small island and there are too many people here chasing too few resources and services. There should just as stringent checks made on, for example, white Australian or Canadians wishing to settle here as any other group.
The one proviso is that I would certainly beef up our ability to exclude and remove people who are known to have inflammatory or radical views that espouse or advocate violence. But this would apply across the board, to deep south Christian fundamentalists, Hindu extremists etc just as well as to islamists.

[DVV]

Can any kind soul remind me how are called non-muslim countries in islamic terminology ?

Thanks in advance