“My problems with Alexandra? Surely, being a convert from Christianity, and a non-practising one at that, she is the last person who has any right to accuse a person who has been a Muslim for 24 years of being a disgrace to his religion! On national TV of all places! If she wants to preach Islam, she should be a hijab-wearing, five-time- praying Mulyani- not a drinking, smoking, swearing, shouting, intimidating Big Brother contestant! ”

Well yes and no. Anyone can speak but Islam (as with other religions) has always been best preached not through words. In Islam its not allowed to publically humiliate someone – if they are commiting a sin they should be privately advised in a polite way not as you say, on national tv. God ordered Moses (pbuh) to go to Pharaoah who had claimed divinity for himself the worst sin and “speak to him gently” (Quran). The Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) never publically criticised anyone ;but spoke in general terms about wrong things e.g “what do you think of a person who does such and such”

If anyone is a disgrace to Islam, in my mind, that person is Alexandra. If you ask me, she has given our religion a far worse reputation in front of the British public than Mohammed ever will.”

nusrat

“If you ask me, the reason Muslims feel discriminated against is because of our own actions.
Because of our refusal to truly condemn violence by our co-religionists.”

but unless we are commiting the violence are selves why on earth should we apologise? since when is collective guilt a part of Islam? we dont have original sin we have “no soul shall bear the burden of another” .

Its a libel to say that Muslim scholars havent spoken out on terrorism http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm
but the point surely is why should Muslims have to do something not demanded of from any other group?

Who are you to dictate who may or may not teach about Islam.
I am a Muslim [female], by birth, and consume pork, drink alcohol, have pre-marital sex, pray sparingly,and have performed the Haj pilgrimage.
According to you, I should not talk about Islam, right?
If you ask me, the reason Muslims feel discriminated against is because of our own actions.
Because of our refusal to truly condemn violence by our co-religionists.
We protest when the media bunches us together following a bomb blast, Yet we make common cause with every Muslim issue under the sun.
We seriously need to take a look at ourselves, before blaming others.
And people like you need to stop becoming self appointed representatives for the “ummah”. Really.

Oh yeah, I forgot, when you write a sentence like this:

The fact is that members of a specific community are targeting members of another community violently because of what they are. One cannot compare it to Northern Ireland, for example, which was a traditional war over land. Why not call it what it is – by failing to do so aren’t we doomed to repeat the same mistakes? We should make the current state of affairs an ending, not a beginning.

And then use the word “communal” specifically in reference to the 7/7 attacks, you think you can hide behind an ignorance of the meaning of the word “communal”, then that’s pretty shameless.

Now I more than expect lashes of clever snarkery from my fellow debaters from time to time, but it never fails to appall whenever I come up against the worst kind of moral cowardice. What exactly does are the communes you’re referring to? Do you have an Amis qualifier at hand?

I don’t know what your hang up about white people is

See what I mean?

By the way, I’m writing from the Bailey on Holloway Road, sipping cold beer. So I’m perfectly calm. Cheers!

Sid has this annoying habit of being a jackass from time to time, pay no notice of his shameless flamebaits.

*AHEM*!

“where in that “disgusting” statement I refer to white Christians. “

Sid has this annoying habit of being a jackass from time to time, pay no notice to his shameless flamebaits.

“I wonder if they were targeting “the government””

The bombers did make a video which was shown a year after the bombings where they claimed that it was the government invasion of Iraq that made them do that.

“Islamicist terrorists appear to hate the non-Islamic community simply for being what it is, and if any Muslims happen to get caught up in their attacks then so be it.”

I am not entirely sure what motivates the highest spheres of Islamic terrorists, though I know that they create and disseminate a distorted narrative of the world to young people – not unlike the white racist narrative – in order to destabilise governments in the West through attacks to its civilians. I do agree with you that there is hate: hate of those who do not follow their psychotic view of Islam, and that includes moderate Muslims. My only disagreement with you is the use of the term “communal violence” because
on one side, I don’t believe these terrorists can be considered a community – they are a group. And on the other side, their target is too wide and diverse to be considered one community… they are attacking the whole country, no? That’s my understanding.

And there were no battles between 60-100 Asian youth of Pakistani origin and the majority white community.

The entry is a clear rewriting of history to suit an agenda.

‘Well, that was my understanding. The Wiki entry gave me a different impression.’

Its surprising that you had one understanding which coincided with mine, but then changed it based on a wiki entry.

It’s not so different. Republican terrorists found the thought of living under the british state inherently abhorrent, amoral even if successful, and so a fate they would do anything to avoid. They certainly absolutely hated the Brits, and despised the Prods. Which, as it turns out, clouded their judgement enough to make them pick a strategy that had very little, if any, chance of attaining their stated objectives.

Islamists are pretty much the same: they want a state perhaps organised differently, but more importantly named differently, with a different source of legitimacy. The main differences between the movements are:

1. the demographics
2. the fact their overseas supporters don’t speak English, so you don’t tend to hear them explaining themselves much
3. there is no Muslim equivalent of the Pope and the catholic Priesthood, so they can claim religious as well as political backing

Hate can make you stupid, so you follow a stupid strategy. But it’s still a strategy.

I think I’ll leave your comment to speak for itself, though I’d appreciate it if any sane person can explain to me why, how or where in that “disgusting” statement I refer to white Christians.

Thanks.

And of course add to that the Blair doctrine of triangulation ie what they could get away with; they blamed the rioters without a mention of the BNP’s well-publicised march. And managed to appear tough but blind.

That was one success which New Labour handed to the BNP on a plate.

Speaking of answering questions, it seems you have refused to answer the ones I asked in #124, in response to your disgusting statement you made in #122:

I don’t think numbers have anything to do with definition. If members of one community attack members of another community because of their identity, that is a form of communal violence in my book. Killing 55 people is a pretty violent thing to do and as I said, many others would have been killed had the plots succeeded.

Which is to suggest that if a bunch of Muslim extremists detonate themselves in a crowded train in London (London! not Reykjavik), and for that matter in Aldgate East, that the only people of any importance who died were the pious white Christians like yourself. And that’s why it is tantamount to a “communal” attack.

Hence you disregard the dozens of non-white, non-Christian people who died that day.

Christopher Hitchens is right. You born-again Christian god-worriers really do think that the universe revolves around you and that the firmament has been arranged for your singular benefit.

Not so. It came out of a demonstration against the BNP’s planned march through Bradford.

The demonstration itself consisted of all the various communities that make up Bradford. It was intended to keep the BNP off the streets.

The BNP tactic was no different to what the NF used to do in the 70s. They planned to march through mainly non-white areas to instill fear. And always in their wake would be people brutally beaten in the side-streets. Away from prying eyes. Its not for no reason they are seen as Nazis.

However, most comments have simply tried to label me a racist, which is of course in itself racist when there is no evidence for doing so.

I know the feeling! Sometimes it’s like talking to a brick wall except worse because you get a whole lot of abuse back about presumed prejudices.

By the time of the 2nd set, dynamics had coralled different demographics, in line with the the current reactionism.