Just where do we go from here?

[DVV]

Islam cannot speak with a single voice.
Phil

Neither can christianity or buddhism.
But islam can speak with one book, which Weltanschauung is crystal-clear and fundamentally non-egalitarian.
Even if islam had a "Pope", that pope could not change the fact that non-muslims must be fought, killed, forced to accept islam, or humiliated as dhimmis.

[Ally]

I presume your idea of human rights doesn't include any concept of people being allowed to make decisions for themselves about how they lead their lives. I have to say I find this an absolutely bizarre attitude.

How many decisions do women in Islamic run countries get to make for themselves about how to lead their lives? In Saudi Arabia women aren't allowed to drive. In Saudi Arabia, fourteen year-old children were allowed to burn to death rather than being allowed to leave a burning building without their headscarves.

It is not just acts of terrorism that is the problem with Islam. It is the overall religion when it is used to shape and frame laws and societal customs.

Islam, as practiced, relegates women to an inferior status to men. Period.
You cannot really talk about human rights requiring us to allow freedom of choice when there is no real freedom of choice for half of the population under certain systems. It is not Islam in isolation that is the problem, though I agree Islam is amongst the worst of religions currently being practiced. It is when people use an outdated and misogynistic belief system to frame their government and enslave half the population that is the problem. And currently Islam is the only religion that controls a number of governments outright.

[Phil H]

Simply Google (or any other search engine) the term "Islam growing" and read any number of results, many from Muslim sources as they are proud of the spread of their religion and the growth in the number of followers.

Why should they not be proud - it is an ancient faith which has given much to the world. Islamic science was far ahead of European science and medicine for centuries, also mathematics.

Surely we should be asking WHY is Islam so appealing worldwide, what does it offer that other faiths apparently do not?

I say again, as in my previous post, there is NO CENTRAL HAND DIRECTING ISLAM - people are speaking for themselves in converting. Why is that not true of Christianity, outside Africa - and there, Christianity is often intolerant and fundamentalist in its expression (see the problems the Church of England is having on liberal issues).

Phil

[Phil H]

But if you start banning one religion, where do you stop?

In Britain, Roman Catholicism was once feared - people thought that the allegience of catholics was to the Pope not the state. That was only changed in 1829.

I seem to recall that was even an issue c 1960 when JFK was seeking election as president of the USA. He was catholic. Now it's no issue.

But today, another issue has arisen - should Roman Catholicism be banned because of the actions of some of its priests against children?

I think the answer would be no.

In the UK we have certain rules about the practice of religion. There was a storn around 30 years ago when someone slaughtered a goat in a public street - inhumane treatment of animals/ not the right place - it was dealt with by law.

Why are we becoming so obsessed with Islam, by the way? Had the outrage in Woolwich this week been a gangland killing would we be asking for whole sections of social housing to be cleared? Murders and crime happens all the time. This was not a 9/11 or a 7/7 after all.

My point is not that we should not be vigilant, or that there is not a terrorist risk, but to be balanced and sensible in our approach. Madmen, violent people, literalists, exist in all societies, all religions. In the Uk, in most cases the colour of a criminals skin is NOT a factor in anything but descriptions and photofit pictures - the media would be rightly censured if it mentioned a criminals race where is was not specifically relevent.

There is NO SUCH THING as Islam - there is a religion with many sects, all of whom interpret their scriptures differently - just as some Christians preach prior selection (predestination) as to who will be saved, or promise eternal hellfire to sinners (like me!!). We have had sects in Christianity like the Waco bunch but we do not generalise or overreact.

Islam cannot speak with a single voice. It has no Dali Lama, or Pope. What needs to be tackled is inappropriate teaching by certain imams or the existence of certain organisations. But we need to be careful or we will create a society in which we damage free specch and things we value.

We cannot be arbitrary or we risk others being arbitrary to ourselves.

Phil

[Chris Scott]

Is Islam the enemy? No, because if it was, all of it's followers would be the enemy, and they simply aren't. Nor is there any evidence at all that Islam is getting any bigger, or drafting more converts. So it isn't spreading. The unchallengeable belief that both ideas are true is both bigoted and just factually incorrect. So if someone calls you a bigot for that, it's because you are being a bigot about that. IE: You will not accept anyone else's view on that subject.

But one of the major boasts of Muslims themselves is that Islam is the fastest growing faith in the world?
What is your definition fo "spreading"? Do you mean it is not being practiced in larger geographical areas or that the number of its adherents is not growing?
Either assertion is palpably untrue.
"According to the Guinness Book of World Records, Islam is the world’s fastest-growing religion by number of conversions each year: "Although the religion began in Arabia, by 2002 80% of all believers in Islam lived outside the Arab world. In the period 1990-2000, approximately 12.5 million more people converted to Islam than to Christianity"."
Simply Google (or any other search engine) the term "Islam growing" and read any number of results, many from Muslim sources as they are proud of the spread of their religion and the growth in the number of followers.

[Jonathan H]

Learn from Iran

As a socialist and a feminist I find the treatment of women in Islamic countries to be evil and disgusting.

I also find the treatment of gay people in those societies to be just as repugnant and criminal, among many other appalling aspects.

I wish we had invaded Iran, not Iraq, and liberated at the very least women and gay people by smashing that totalitarian, theocratic state into smithereens.

Now we will simply bomb them rather than also liberate the people to quash their nuclear program.

As far as Islam in the West it is not the fault of Muslim immigrants, often coming from poverty, that they bring their intolerant religion to Western countries.

Forget violence and terrorism as that is carried out by a tiny minority of nutters of all creeds, and no creeds at all.

The issue we face is an intolerant ideology growing in voting strength, as they have democratic the right to do.

Big Business and the wine-sipping so-called leftist elite could not care less about the ruination of the West, as they jet off to their next conference to congratulate each other on being progressive -- and sickeningly praising the alleged 'inclusivity' of absolutist faiths who would haul them away in chains if given the chance.

Iran is despicable but at least they are honest about it. If we went there as tourists and then announced we wanted to become citizens and that we wanted women to be first class citizens, gay people to marry, a multi-party system, a multi-faith culture they would politely say 'no thanks'.

But in reverse we allow the corporations and their clerks -- the politicians -- in this unholy alliance of profiteers and the politically-correct, to overload our societies with members of an intolerant ideology.

Islamic immigration needs to be suspended -- about ten years ago -- to defeat not Muslims but those who care only about the exploitation of their labour and damn any social cohesion.

Even Iran gets that. Allow us in in large numbers and their state is gone.

[Chris]

Lest anyone think I'm an Islamophobe, no I'm a humanist. I see this particular religion as a suppression of human rights and dignity the sole purpose of which is to allow all men to empower themselves over women, for that is what Islam has never evolved from.

You're really suggesting the forcible extirpation of an entire religion - because you consider that that religion suppresses human rights? I presume your idea of human rights doesn't include any concept of people being allowed to make decisions for themselves about how they lead their lives. I have to say I find this an absolutely bizarre attitude.

[The Good Michael]

Perfect post, Mike



Of course - for various reasons.
However, In Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria, etc, that's another story.
And many of those who don't resort to violence do respect their coreligionists engaged in holy war/terrorism.
Indeed, how would they not ?
For one hadith praising peace, you'll find hundreds preaching war.
That's why islam is the problem. Not only those who have the balls to kill.

Absolutely, David.

Mike

[DVV]

Perfect post, Mike

I do understand that it's a small percentage of Muslims who resort to violence
Mike

Of course - for various reasons.
However, In Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria, etc, that's another story.
And many of those who don't resort to violence do respect their coreligionists engaged in holy war/terrorism.
Indeed, how would they not ?
For one hadith praising peace, you'll find hundreds preaching war.
That's why islam is the problem. Not only those who have the balls to kill.

[The Good Michael]

There is a simple answer here. It's to ban Islam as an organized "religion" and to turn all mosques into useful facilities such as half-way houses and asylums. You people who live in just one country, don't see how bad this fundamentalist, sharia crap is. It's crept into all countries in Central Asia, where I was just living and the atrocities are mounting. Islam cannot be peaceful. Its precepts won't allow for such things. It needs to be regarded by its parishioners as a thing of the past that they can celebrate in a nostalgic way, much as Americans of Norwegian descent celebrate Christmas with a pot romegrot and some Scandinavian cookies. Nostalgic views never kill anyone. As distasteful as it may seem, we European types need to support all political groups, no matter how brutal, who are against Sharia or any other religious state. Everywhere in the middle east and North Africa where rulers have been deposed or voted down, the vacuum has been filled with sick people who don't believe in equality, human rights, or anything else most of us hold dear. I do understand that it's a small percentage of Muslims who resort to violence, but as long as they still all call each other brother, any attack on a person who happens to be Muslim, becomes an attack on all Muslims. If they cannot separate religion from humanity, the religion must go.
It is really simple.

Lest anyone think I'm an Islamophobe, no I'm a humanist. I see this particular religion as a suppression of human rights and dignity the sole purpose of which is to allow all men to empower themselves over women, for that is what Islam has never evolved from. As our societies have morphed to at least make attempts for equality and inclusiveness, Islam has refused to budge from its origins. Even the Catholic church as come so much further than Islam of any stripe.

Mike

[Phil H]

After considerable reflection, I am going to speak personally - that is about myself, not getting personal with others.

Speaking as a gay man, I see no reason why I, as a taxpaying, law-abiding, moral citizen, should not have exactly the same rights as any other citizen, or why any other citizen should have the right to judge me or discriminate against me on the grounds of my sexuality.

If I ran a guest house, I would not dream of asking a heterosexual couple what they did in the bedroom - it is entirely their affair (assuming one is not a child or being forced) - so why should anyone ask me? I often meet a straight male friend for a weekend away and we share a twin bedded room - it make sense in cost terms. Why should I have to explain myself to anyone because THEY are prejudiced against me? It's THEIR problem not mine.

Why in an equal society should I not be able to marry if I wished (I don't! ) rather than having to be satisfied with a second level arrangement? I am told "marriage" is about the ability to have children, so why are older people or infertile couples allowed to marry? Why should two loving men or women in a long-standing relationship be discriminated against when a straight couple could marry for lust and divorce in six months?

WHO (in today's world) is to tell me I am immoral, wrong or take a view that somehow I am unequal? On what grounds?

I could apply all this to religion or race.

Incidentally, I find many of the arguments used against same sex marriage very reminiscent of those used about enfranchising black people in 60s America - or earlier. See the recent film "Lincoln" to hear the arguments about freeing the slaves. The arguments are cover for bigotry, homophobia, prejudice and they say more about the people who hold those views than they do about the people the views are aimed at. Period.

Ever heard about the experiment done in a US school, it's quite famous and was filmed, where a teacher divided the class by the colour of their hair, dark/fair and then praised one group. The resulting prejudice and the feelings it gave rise to were frightningly fast and terrifying in their implications.

But,it is also clear that those focusing on their prejudices (I am thinking wider than posters in this thread so no one should take this as an attack) do not think through what they say.

How would they like to be denied service in a restaurant on grounds of class (too posh, too common?)? How would they feel if their children could not attend certain classes, or were denied legal, medical or welfare rights because of some inherited or family trait? How if certain jobs were denied them, or they had to move home, or felt continually threatened?

Whatever life might have been like 50 years ago, whatever views might have been valid then, they no longer are. Times have changed. Like it or not, as some may not, the "immigrant" population IS now integral, no one will ever change that. Take women's rights - many many women work and it is an economic necessity to maintain a quality of life. The implications are that there can be no discrimination against women in the workplace (whatever may have been the position in the past) that they must be treated equally, that patronising attitudes and condecension are outlawed as is harrassment by male colleagues. Attitudes change, for all sorts of reasons (not force feeding or indoctrination etc but because society changes as a result of its experiences) people have to keep up with that, like it or not.

Sorry to have gone on, but I need to be absolutely clear about where i stand on this and I am happy to respond to any direct views (however strongly phrased) other members may have on me or what I have said.

Phil

[Limehouse]

Erratta,
If that post was addressed to me ,Here's my answer. If it wasnt then ignore it,

I did not Say I hated Muslims. I said ,in effect, Islam and the spread of Islam,was the enemy. The reasons why I said that were outlined About 400 pages ago...or at least it seems like it was.
It seems the hurdle that designates whether one is a bigot or not has been lowered to such a degree that only the slimmest and shortest of us can crawl underneath. It seems personal dislike of sections or groups of society ,even without actively engaging in any action against them constitutes bigotry.

There are millions of followers of Islam living peaceful, useful, blameless lives all over the world. Many of them took time out yesterday to pray for the victim and his family and to pray for an end to the abuse of their faith.

[Limehouse]

Not an easy post to read, Smoking Joe - a bit tensely typed. but I'll try to respond.

The "force feeding" or denial of views held by the public majority or minority, on a range of issues Immigration, Islamification of Britain,and come to that of Western Europe,Gay marriage,

I see no "force feeding" of any kind. Where is ANy evidence of the "islamification of Britain. Most of the country has NO islamic residents. What form does islamification take? (Building mosques? Curry houses? Curry is Britain's favorite food now - I don't thnk people have to be forced to eat it!! Gay marriage - where is the harm in that? Homosexuality has been legal for 40years or so - why should not two people who love each other marry?

To hold contrary views ,or to disagree has in the past ,the recent past, instantly labelled people as racists,homophobes,Islamophobic and the lord knows what else.

Quite right too - discrimination is wrong, morally and legally. We should treat people as they are not by labels, and thiose who don't, deserve to be called what they are. Acting in ways that are different because of a persons, skin, sexuality, religion etc says more about the person discriminating than about the group targetted. We learned lessons from Hitler and the way he treated the Jews and we've made sure that such ideas can NEVER be put into practice again. that's common sense not force feeding!!

It has led to some being dismissed from their places of employment,or being harassed in some form or another.

Quite right - discriminating against someone because they are coloured or female, gay or handicapped is plain WRONG. No organisation can or should tolerate such behaviour. It has no place. Do it, and one day you'll find that the behaviour is reversed. Practicality is the issue. (Surely the deep South of the USA before the 60s, and the apartheid regime in S Africa should have taught us a few things.

We now live in a multicultural world, like it or not. We have to deal with it.

Court cases ,in one case the owners of a B&B being prosecuted for not allowing a gay couple to rent a room for the night,and other absurdities.

Not absurdities, practicalities - or we'll find people being turned away because of their religion or way of speaking, their dress or because they are old. People cannot play favorites with the law - we live in a democracy, people can lobby their MP to get it changed.

The public has always welcomed immigrants to these shores,so goes the mantra.....has it really?

The Hugenots, people fleeing the French Revolution - but England has always been multi-racial, we are all "mud-bloods" to use the Harry Potter analogy - there's bits of Roman, Norman, Viking, Saxon, Celtic in all of us.

In many cases immigrants do the jobs others will not do. I'd point to all the corner shops now run by those you call immigrants.

The other problem is what is an immigrant? Does one include all the Aussies, S Africans, New Zealanders etc to be found in the UK? Or just those of colour? How long must a family be in the UK before being "British"?

And if one sees a problem in "immigration" how does one resolve it? Send them home - they are "home" probably in the third generation. Make them second class citizens? Does one include those who are half-caste, a quarter immigrant; an eighth?

The film The Conference with Kenneth Branagh, about the 1942/3 Wansee Conference, showed the Nazis discussing that sort of issue. Have we learned nothing?

Phil

An excellent post Phil, as always.

[Errata]

Erratta,
If that post was addressed to me ,Here's my answer. If it wasnt then ignore it,

I did not Say I hated Muslims. I said ,in effect, Islam and the spread of Islam,was the enemy. The reasons why I said that were outlined About 400 pages ago...or at least it seems like it was.
It seems the hurdle that designates whether one is a bigot or not has been lowered to such a degree that only the slimmest and shortest of us can crawl underneath. It seems personal dislike of sections or groups of society ,even without actively engaging in any action against them constitutes bigotry.

Well, yeah.

big·ot·ry
[big-uh-tree]
noun, plural big·ot·ries.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

Synonyms
1. narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.

A bigot never had to lynch a man to be a bigot. He had to show bias against a race, creed, religion, etc. Someone who acts on such prejudice is a criminal. As that's illegal.

And here's another one. Everyone is prejudiced about something. Positively or negatively, we all prejudge. And we have to. We don't even remotely have the time to judge every single person we meet on their individual merits. What differentiates bigots from those of us engaging in normal human behavior is that simple anthropological prejudice doesn't resist a challenge. If I judge that I'm not going to like somebody based on some characteristic they exhibit, and they try to change my mind, I won't dislike them despite proving to be a genuinely enjoyable person. If a black guy tries to convince a Klansman that he's a good guy, the Klansman will never allow the black man to succeed, be he the incarnation of Jesus. Bigotry.

Is Islam the enemy? No, because if it was, all of it's followers would be the enemy, and they simply aren't. Nor is there any evidence at all that Islam is getting any bigger, or drafting more converts. So it isn't spreading. The unchallengeable belief that both ideas are true is both bigoted and just factually incorrect. So if someone calls you a bigot for that, it's because you are being a bigot about that. IE: You will not accept anyone else's view on that subject.

But I'll throw you a bone on this. Islam isn't the enemy, (because ideas being formless notions rarely are) nor is it spreading. But it got a whole lot louder relatively quickly, and if it isn't spreading, it certainly is moving. Figure out why it's moving and you've figured out the real problem.

[Smoking Joe]

Erratta,
If that post was addressed to me ,Here's my answer. If it wasnt then ignore it,

I did not Say I hated Muslims. I said ,in effect, Islam and the spread of Islam,was the enemy. The reasons why I said that were outlined About 400 pages ago...or at least it seems like it was.
It seems the hurdle that designates whether one is a bigot or not has been lowered to such a degree that only the slimmest and shortest of us can crawl underneath. It seems personal dislike of sections or groups of society ,even without actively engaging in any action against them constitutes bigotry.