Election

[Wickerman]

So 9% of the population commit 5% of the crime. What does this tell us?

I'm sure that is comforting to the parents of the 15 year old girl.

[Karl]

On this thread, the first to throw insults (labels?) like "racist" and "Islamophobic" came from your side of the fence.

Don't start with the childish "he started it" nonsense. It's not even relevant here. I never said anything remotely like "I don't talk to racists/islamophobes". I'm willing to engage, I don't use labels as an excuse to tuck tail.

I'm sure that is comforting to the parents of the 15 year old girl.

Huh? What's that got to do with a n y t h i n g ?

[Karl]

Right in your first line is where we disagree - to you they are all asylum seekers, to others they are mostly illegal migrants.
Somewhere in the middle lies the truth.

Whether someone is an asylum seeker or not is not subject to opinion. If someone seeks asylum, he's an asylum seeker - by very definition. It doesn't matter if you feel convinced that he's actually an "illegal immigrant", because facts don't care about your feelings. It is up to the powers that be to vet asylum seekers, to ensure that they have a legitimate claim to seek asylum. This all Illegal immigrants are mainly visa overstays, as everywhere else - not refugees.

As you are no doubt well aware, the new running mate for Trump has noticed Britain has a significant Islamist problem.

Yeah, that's a real credible source right there.

I know he was making light, but if this is noticeable to our biggest ally, then maybe you should re-evaluate your thinking.

The running mate of someone not in office is not your biggest ally. No one in government has "noticed" this, have they? It is noticeable to a populist/alarmist politician. Why on earth would you take that seriously at all? Have you heard Trump's immigration rhetoric? It's out of this world crazy.

People in Britain are telling you what is happening, take the blinkers off.

You don't speak for Britain, mate. No, neither do I, but your side is a minority of people. Who just got their asses kicked in the last election, by the way.

Strengthening the borders is not extremist.

No one ever suggested such a thing either. But "strengthening the border" isn't what you have in mind.

Perhaps being raised in a country where 'spare the rod and spoil the child' was replaced with Political Correctness, has raised a generation of Lotus Eaters who are scared of making a decision for fear of offending someone.

Or perhaps it has raised a generation with LESS crime than the previous. Your rhetoric is identical to the ones we have heard in the past, including when people such as you were all up in arms over the "waves" of Jewish refugees coming out of Russia, then Germany.

Immigration is only useful if it benefits the country, applicants must meet certain standards.

Certainly. But are we talking about immigration or refugees? Because those are two completely separate topics.

If anyone is to be allowed entry by circumventing the standards then particular attention must be paid to their application.

Are you saying this is not already the case?

As it is right now we have no idea how many are genuine asylum seekers and how many are opportunist migrants.

I don't know, the authorities have been doing a pretty good job so far.

The status quo a recipe for disaster.

So you say, so you have always said, but the disaster never comes. Hell, you guys have been in office for 14 years now, and STILL disaster is looming. Apparently.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So to sum up, we have side A - who believe that there is a problem with too much immigration in the UK and that not enough is done to control the illegal immigrants and who also believe that there is a problem within Islam which is more serious and possibly more potentially far-reaching than side B do. Side B think that side A are, at best alarmist, at worst racist, Islamophobe etc.

And side B - who believe that there is no issue with immigration and take a ‘more the merrier’ outlook. The also see no issue within Islam of any real seriousness and that all of this is blown out of all proportion by the lying right-wing Press. Side A think that side B are too Woke or PC to face the truth.

This may be the boring approach but isn’t it at least a possibility that the truth might lie somewhere within a territory in the middle of all this and that we should all perhaps be more willing to look at the other side? I personally accept that the right wing Press fan the flames (as all Press do in fact) whilst we are in the centre trying to find out which is corrrect, the facts and figures presented by the Left or the Right.

Karl said this on immigration:

“You don't speak for Britain, mate. No, neither do I, but your side is a minority of people. Who just got their asses kicked in the last election, by the way.”

But in every single poll that has been take Immigration is right up there with the problems that voters want sorting. In one or two polls it was above ‘the economy,’ so this is clearly an issue. Millions of people have the exact same opinions as some of us on here. Surely you can’t dismiss a huge chunk of the populace as phobes?

We appear to be between Fraser from Dad’s Army “we’re all doomed!” and some leftist hippie “chill out man, everyone is cool, be mellow.”

Like in many subjects maybe it’s the middle where the danger lies unseen and unchallenged? On both sides.

[Karl]

Can your points get weaker Karl. It’s the woke who are the arch-labellers.

Pull the other one. Someone as free with their labels as you are is in no position to make that accusation. Besides, everyone considers themselves "woke" in their own way. The expression is originally a conservative one: From "Britain, awake" (Thatcher) to "Deutschland, erwache" (guess who), and beyond. The word "woke" has only recently been used in reference to political correctness, while YOUR side is the one who has always claimed to be "awakened" ( <-woke) while others are blissfully unaware (sleeping) of the dangers that you, saviours of the nation, Genius of Britannia's Isle, have identified. You think it's the other side that uses the most labels, because you can't hear yourself.

I’ve never said that someone is wrong just because they are a Muslim. But I’ll say that jihadist Muslims was wrong to fly planes into the World Trade Centre or are you one of those who say that the USA were somehow to blame?

You were the one who dismissed all Muslims as fundies, remember? And yes, you did say that every single Muslim is a fundamentalist.

You seem to believe that any word of criticism constitutes some kind of hate crime.

I have said absolutely nothing which should have led you to that conclusion.

THIS is the problem.

I agree, your constant strawmanning IS the problem. Case in point:

And side B - who believe that there is no issue with immigration

There is no such side. No one has ever said, or even suggested, that there is NO issue with immigration. We just take issue with your alarmist position, because you absolutely do make a mountain out of a mole hill.

The phrase “you can’t say that.” And not enough people standing up to say “no, you can’t do that.”

No one has said you "can't say" anything. But if you say something demonstrably incorrect, then people have a right to correct you. You have the right to say what you want, but so do we. You do NOT have the right not to be contradicted.

But in every single poll

What is it with you and your blind faith in polls? WHICH polls? Your claim has the same credibility as "every single person I have spoken to..." Here's a hint: if a poll asks, "do you think there is a problem with immigration?" then that's a LEADING question, and the poll most likely has an AGENDA. Where is the poll published? How big is the sample size? What is the sample? I should also like to add that "every single poll" has no source.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You were the one who dismissed all Muslims as fundies, remember? And yes, you did say that every single Muslim is a fundamentalist.
.

Because they are. A fundamentalist is someone that believes that their holy book is the absolute word of god.

[Tab]

Because they are. A fundamentalist is someone that believes that their holy book is the absolute word of god.

Just a quick one before I go back and read through the last few pages. I thought we had put this to bed with my last reply to this statement of yours. Not all Muslims are fundamentalists. One more example to prove the point, Non-denominational Muslims. A significant portion of the Muslim community identify as Non-denominational, and many of those do not adhere strictly to fundamentalist interpretations of the Quran.

I also think your interpretation of fundamentalism is wrong. It is closer to a strict belief in the literal interpretation of religious texts. For example Buddhist Fundamentalism obviously has no god involved.

What sort of evidence will you accept that not all Muslims are fundamentalists? That there is nuance and complexity in an individuals relationship with their own faith?

All the best,
'Sorry for the fact checking again' Tab

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just a quick one before I go back and read through the last few pages. I thought we had put this to bed with my last reply to this statement of yours. Not all Muslims are fundamentalists. One more example to prove the point, Non-denominational Muslims. A significant portion of the Muslim community identify as Non-denominational, and many of those do not adhere strictly to fundamentalist interpretations of the Quran.

What sort of evidence will you accept that not all Muslims are fundamentalists? That there is nuance and complexity in an individuals relationship with their own faith?

So, you can point out Muslims who will say “parts of the Quran are not the word of God but the words of men and so the Quran is not an entirely holy book?

[Karl]

Because they are. A fundamentalist is someone that believes that their holy book is the absolute word of god.

No, that is not the definition. Even liberal, all-inclusive Christians believe the Bible is the absolute word of God. A fundamentalist is someone who has a dogmatic view on religion, goes for a literal interpretation as much as possible, and what's more, believes religious laws trump the government's laws. A fundamentalist is distinguished from a moderate or progressive/iconoclast.

[Tab]

So, you can point out Muslims who will say “parts of the Quran are not the word of God but the words of men and so the Quran is not an entirely holy book?

I actually edited my post before you replied to point out that your definition of fundamentalism is wrong. It is the literal interpretation of religious texts, not that the text is a literal word of god. Buddhist fundamentalists for example do not believe their religious texts are the word of god.

So with that in mind and to answer your question. Do I think that there are Muslims who will say that some parts of the Quran are not the direct words of god. Yes. However, I am not sure why that would make it "not an entirely holy book". Is there a definition of Holy I am not aware of?

Regarding actual fundamentalism - Do I think that there are Muslims out there who do not believe in strict adherence to the literal interpretation of the Quran? Absolutely without doubt. Whether or not they still believe the words come directly from god or not does not come in to it.

All the best,
Tab

[The Rookie Detective]

Just a quick one before I go back and read through the last few pages. I thought we had put this to bed with my last reply to this statement of yours. Not all Muslims are fundamentalists. One more example to prove the point, Non-denominational Muslims. A significant portion of the Muslim community identify as Non-denominational, and many of those do not adhere strictly to fundamentalist interpretations of the Quran.

I also think your interpretation of fundamentalism is wrong. It is closer to a strict belief in the literal interpretation of religious texts. For example Buddhist Fundamentalism obviously has no god involved.

What sort of evidence will you accept that not all Muslims are fundamentalists? That there is nuance and complexity in an individuals relationship with their own faith?

All the best,
'Sorry for the fact checking again' Tab

Excellent point.


There are many variations of belief in the religion of Islam; some are more moderate than others.

There are at least half a dozen different sects of Islam that all have different views and relative levels of Piousness.

Wahabism for example is a more strict belief system compared to some other sects; whereas Quranism/Quaranists are more moderate in their world views and is an area of Islam that is becoming more popular with younger Muslims who seek moderation whilst remaining loyal to the Quran.

There is so much infighting between the various sects and sub-sects of Islam that it makes Christianity look like it has its s**t together.

There are books and writings named collectively as the "Hadith" which are essentially a series of stories and oral tradition passed down through generations and then used as a means to follow Islam.
The issue with the "Hadith' is that they all contradict each other and some even oopose the words of the authentic and original book of Islam; namely the Quran.

The problem with the Western world is that we lack the desire and capacity to want to learn WHY there are ongoing divides in the world.

What doesn't help is if we tarnish all Muslims as fundamentalists; because there are vastly and overwhelmingly more moderate Muslims than there are Muslim militant extremists

The majority of Muslims are killed by other Muslims because there are so many variations of Islam that oppose each other and so to tarnish everyone with the same brush is simply a means for the uneducated West to try and deal with and process the relative unknown.

In 2023 Saudi Arabia (the geographical birthplace of Islam) took a step in the right direction by allowing the words of the moderate Quranists (believiers in the Quran and opposed to all Hadith writings) to be brought into the mainstream. Compare that to a decade ago when Quaranists were imprisoned for speaking out against the Hadith.

An interesting side note... the name of the prophet Muhammad appears in the Quran only 4 times.

114 chapters of the Quran, and the most important man in the Islamic faith; the 40 year old man who founded Islam in 610 AD, is mentioned only 4 times.

I am not a Muslim but I believe it's rather important to learn and educate myself in such matters, so that I can form a more moderate, respectful and informed understanding of how the world really works.


RD

[Tab]

Please post all further comments to Tab and Karl,

Number 7 Woke Street,
Fluffybunnyshire,
Soundbitesville.
Planet Notthisone.

Where everyone is lovely and kind and no one dislikes anyone else and no one ever says anything that might upset someone else. And when the streets are full of people saying ‘death to all infidels’ we know that it really means ‘why not pop round for a pot of tea and a slice of cake.’ And when the population tells you in poll after poll after poll after poll after poll that they have concerns then we can still ignore them because they don’t really mean it. Do they?

All of the things that have happened over the last few years, some of them mentioned on here, and there’s more that we’re all aware of and you can still say ‘hey there’s no problem,it’s just the right wing press making it all up.’ What is the point in constantly bringing up the moderates. Of course most Muslims are good people; it shouldn’t need stating like a mantra. But it’s not them that are the problem and I don’t see them weeding out the extremists from their communities.

You bring stuff up and you just get arrogance and condescension from in response Tab. Fine. Quote your percentages to the families of the people that died on 9/11. I’m sure that they’ll be impressed and made much lighter of heart that the future is so rosy. I recall Christopher Hitchens once mentioning a nightmare scenario…the possibility of an Iran with Nuclear weapons. Well, that’s another we can tick off the list.

Happy days.

I am sorry you have a problem with me pointing out lies. This rant of yours comes across as "Who cares if some of the stuff me, Geddy and Wickerman have said are lies. Who cares if the odd story we told was made up. We are still obviously correct so who gives a f*ck. How dare you quote correct figures and stats! How do you think the families of the people that died on 9/11 feel hearing corrected information. What they obviously want to hear are the lies and hate filled misinformation we are saying."

It's just all so odd.

Everything is available for everyone to read in this thread. I encourage everyone to go back and read everything from the beginning and see if you come to the same conclusion Herlock just has in this post.

All the best,
Tab

[Tab]

Excellent point.


There are many variations of belief in the religion of Islam; some are more moderate than others.

There are at least half a dozen different sects of Islam that all have different views and relative levels of Piousness.

Wahabism for example is a more strict belief system compared to some other sects; whereas Quranism/Quaranists are more moderate in their world views and is an area of Islam that is becoming more popular with younger Muslims who seek moderation whilst remaining loyal to the Quran.

There is so much infighting between the various sects and sub-sects of Islam that it makes Christianity look like it has its s**t together.

There are books and writings named collectively as the "Hadith" which are essentially a series of stories and oral tradition passed down through generations and then used as a means to follow Islam.
The issue with the "Hadith' is that they all contradict each other and some even oopose the words of the authentic and original book of Islam; namely the Quran.

The problem with the Western world is that we lack the desire and capacity to want to learn WHY there are ongoing divides in the world.

What doesn't help is if we tarnish all Muslims as fundamentalists; because there are vastly and overwhelmingly more moderate Muslims than there are Muslim militant extremists

The majority of Muslims are killed by other Muslims because there are so many variations of Islam that oppose each other and so to tarnish everyone with the same brush is simply a means for the uneducated West to try and deal with and process the relative unknown.

In 2023 Saudi Arabia (the geographical birthplace of Islam) took a step in the right direction by allowing the words of the moderate Quranists (believiers in the Quran and opposed to all Hadith writings) to be brought into the mainstream. Compare that to a decade ago when Quaranists were imprisoned for speaking out against the Hadith.

An interesting side note... the name of the prophet Muhammad appears in the Quran only 4 times.

114 chapters of the Quran, and the most important man in the Islamic faith; the 40 year old man who founded Islam in 610 AD, is mentioned only 4 times.

I am not a Muslim but I believe it's rather important to learn and educate myself in such matters, so that I can form a more moderate, respectful and informed understanding of how the world really works.


RD

This post genuinely lifted my heart a little. Thanks RD.

[Svensson]

So to sum up, we have side A - who believe that there is a problem with too much immigration in the UK and that not enough is done to control the illegal immigrants and who also believe that there is a problem within Islam which is more serious and possibly more potentially far-reaching than side B do. Side B think that side A are, at best alarmist, at worst racist, Islamophobe etc.

And side B - who believe that there is no issue with immigration and take a ‘more the merrier’ outlook. The also see no issue within Islam of any real seriousness and that all of this is blown out of all proportion by the lying right-wing Press. Side A think that side B are too Woke or PC to face the truth.

I would like to fine-tune your summation of side B:

There is an issue with migration but the solution offered by Side A ("You Foreigner, you bad, you must leave") is beneath what I would expect from a civilised society and I for one, like to live in a civilised society. Side A is lacking the capacity to differentiate between legal/wanted immigration and illegal/unwanted immigration. Side A is also lacking the desire to propose solutions to whatever problems are the direct result of mismanaged immigration. Such as:

- the application process for work permits is taking too long and/or is not always fair (like question of dependents)
- Once an application has been rejected, there are few mechanisms to deport unsuccessful applicants.
- there is just not enough capacity in the system to deal with applicants.

Speaking of capacity, I expect my elected representatives, who are supposed to be the finest and brightest in the country, to be able to conjure up some workable solutions for these issues but this would require intelligence AND application. They are taking the lazy way out and just shout "Foreigners out" from the top of a soap box. And to make matters worse, they propagate BS stories about foreigners which, as a foreigner myself, is pretty damn hurtful.

[Geddy2112]

Can we all agree that there are good, nice, friendly Muslims in this country as there are Jews and Christians, however there is also 'bad' Muslims in this country and Jews and Christians? (Oh and atheists too...)