Sunny Hundal website



  • Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sunny Hundal
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • Looking for Muslim extremists under your bed?


    by Sunny
    18th February, 2009 at 9:21 am    

    The Guardian has published leaked proposals on what would constitute a ‘Muslim extremist’, according to a government document.

    According to a draft of the strategy, Contest 2 as it is known in Whitehall, people would be considered as extremists if:

    • They advocate a caliphate, a pan-Islamic state encompassing many countries.
    • They promote Sharia law.
    • They believe in jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world. This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military.
    • They argue that Islam bans homosexuality and that it is a sin against Allah.
    • They fail to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan.

    Are these stupid idiots reading Melanie Phillips for guidelines? There are many Sikhs who advocate a Sikh state based on Sikh principles, will they be criminalised? Armed resistance against the Israeli military is perfectly defensible, even David T of Harry’s Place admitted it. And anyone who thinks their religion bans homosexuality (will we be locking up conservative Christians and Jews too?) is an extremist too? And on the last point, I can just imagine these people playing the ‘Decent Left’ game of: But will you condemn this or that?

    Anyone who has spent time with more than five Muslims can tell you that some of the most conservative Muslims are very anti-terrorism. In fact they sometimes don’t even believe in political engagement and think a person should focus on God alone (as many religious folk tend to do, generally). So the proposals fall flat from the start.

    On top of that it smacks of singling Muslims out for thought-crimes. Is that how you’re meant to win hearts and minds? The argument that Well, Muslims are blowing stuff up and no one else is, so targeting them specifically is OK is a commonly made argument by many bigots. These “anti-totalitarians” want the same civil laws when it comes to family matters, but when the government wants to criminalise a community specifically then it’s OK. They constantly attack Muslims for not accepting ‘enlightenment values’ of free speech, but when Muslims are branded ‘extremist’ for holding conservative views then they shuffle their feet and pretend they’re still holding some sort of candle to liberty.

    There are Sharia courts in the UK already because the law allows some civil cases to be arbitrated through mutual agreement. This allowed Jewish Beth Din courts to flourish. According to this piece of idiocy, if you’re a Muslim arguing for a shariah court in your area you’ll be placed under watch but if you’re a Jew doing the same then you’re fine. So much for equal standards, hey?

    Asim Siddiqui is spot on:

    Rather than encourage Muslim groups and civil society to widen the space for young Muslims to discuss contentious issues and take the time they need to come up with their own answers, we have a state-sponsored proposal to essentially close down and criminalise perfectly legitimate and much needed debate.

    It comes as no surprise then, that David T and Melanie Phillips are in agreement over these plans.

    What it does however illustrate is that if extremism is to be rooted out, then the government is no longer a valid partner. They’re increasingly liable to screw things up further by arbitrarily designating people or groups as extremist even if they’re not. That really is the best way to push more people towards extremism. Any Muslim organisation that now works with the government will be vilified by most Muslims even further. The government is turning itself into a liability rather than a partner to peace. But then, what else did we expect from such an authoritarian bunch?


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: British Identity,Civil liberties,Religion,Terrorism






    170 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs
    1. Looking for Muslim extremists under your bed? - Politics Unlimited | UK politics news

      [...] Read Looking for Muslim extremists under your bed? at Pickled Politics [...]


    2. Pickled Politics » Qatada Deported

      [...] am in favour of laws and actions which target de-facto Islamists rather than laws which attempt to criminalise Muslims en-mass. Or opinions, like Bunglawala’s, which are made specifically to obfuscate the [...]




    1. Don — on 18th February, 2009 at 9:38 am  

      They promote Sharia law.

      So the CofE loses its special status? There’s an up side to everything.

    2. marvin — on 18th February, 2009 at 9:49 am  

      Hahaha @ Don

      The government has actively encouraged and worked with ‘Muslim extremists’ for years. And now they now seem to be targeting people who think ridiculous (if abhorrent) things? Bizarre.

      Still, I am assuming that believing in Sharia alone is not intended to be used as an indicator of a ‘muslim extremist’, I would assume rather that all these things
      taken together would do so.

    3. MaidMarian — on 18th February, 2009 at 9:52 am  

      ‘On top of that it smacks of singling Muslims out for thought-crimes. Is that how you’re meant to win hearts and minds?’

      Sunny, please stop using that line, you will wear it out at your current rate. What part of the above makes you think that this is an exercise in winning hearts and minds?

      Goodness, the root cause of Islamic extremism is Islamic ideology - quite why you refuse to draw the distinction is beyond me.

      There is a world of difference between religion and extreme religion, like there is a world of difference between national pride and xenophobia.

      Incidentally, ‘There are many Sikhs who advocate a Sikh state based on Sikh principles, will they be criminalised?’ What did you think about those Sikhs outside the Birmingham playhouse going off on one about ‘Behtzi?’ Was that criminal behaviour or were they ‘criminalised’ by evil government stooges?

    4. platinum786 — on 18th February, 2009 at 10:00 am  

      They’d better lock us all up then…. lol

      Someone has really really lost then plot and I fear for our security. Whilst the government is running around number crunching teror suspects using these stupid rules, the real terrorists will slip under the net.

      There must be some agenda behind this, but I don’t know what yet. No government is stupid enough to want to isolate or bully the Muslim population, there’s like 2 million plus of us and the population is likely to double in 15-20 years. That’s a lot of voters.

      So what is the angle? Perhaps they want to use scary statistics to rush in anti terror laws and ID cards and other big brother schemes. However it’s hard to see how a democracy benefits from that. A dictatorship would, but in a democratic country, what do they gain from knowing where i am or where you are, at any particular moment?

      This may sound outlandish, but is someone interested in muddying the waters to allow terrorists to slip under the net and succeed?

      If this is a serious suggestion by the government I’m lost for words at how ridiculous it is.

    5. Ed — on 18th February, 2009 at 10:08 am  

      “Are these stupid idiots reading Melanie Phillips for guidelines?”

      No, this is a Quilliam Foundation proposal. I thought that was obvious? You can even find Ed Husain’s comment in the article itself.

    6. munir — on 18th February, 2009 at 10:17 am  

      “Are these stupid idiots reading Melanie Phillips for guidelines?”

      Ed
      No, this is a Quilliam Foundation proposal. I thought that was obvious? You can even find Ed Husain’s comment in the article itself.

      Yes exactly. They are reading Melanie Phillips for guidelines. Where do you think Ed gets his ideas from? He certainly doesnt get them from traditional islam (what he claims to represent)

    7. munir — on 18th February, 2009 at 10:20 am  

      MaidMarian
      “Goodness, the root cause of Islamic extremism is Islamic ideology ”

      Says a zionist supporter of Israel.

      Guffaw.

    8. munir — on 18th February, 2009 at 10:21 am  

      Truly excellent post btw Sunny.
      You have an excellent understanding of the Muslim community.

    9. MaidMarian — on 18th February, 2009 at 10:24 am  

      munir (7) - I’m sorry, that section of my comment that you quote. What part of that is it that you disagree with?

    10. munir — on 18th February, 2009 at 10:25 am  

      platinum786

      ” No government is stupid enough to want to isolate or bully the Muslim population, there’s like 2 million plus of us and the population is likely to double in 15-20 years. That’s a lot of voters”

      I think you are being naive. Muslims are a small minority. There are far far more anti-Muslim votes from the majority community to be tapped than that - votes the BNP/UKIP/Tories and indeed Labour are keen to tap.

      As Gary Younge once put it about the “Muslim threat” - more people in Europe vote for far right anti-Muslim parties than there are actual Muslims in Europe.

    11. munir — on 18th February, 2009 at 10:29 am  

      Maid Marian

      “munir (7) - I’m sorry, that section of my comment that you quote. What part of that is it that you disagree with?”

      As someone who actually knows Islamic “idealogy” (sic) -all of it. Foreign policy ,the killing of Muslims and domestic opression is the root cause of extremism.

      You presumably would have people believe Palestinians blowing themselves up has nothing to do with Israel stealing their land.

    12. Sid — on 18th February, 2009 at 10:39 am  

      Yeah, this initiative is just simply a big pile of poo.

      That checklist alone is very offensive, very selective and very stupid. It’s simply not possible to define “Who is an Extremist” with the use of high-level bullet points and almost no analysis of what they mean.

      It basically means that my dear old mother is an extremist, in spite of the fact Tony Blair, that god-fearing Bible exponent, is less liberal than she is.

    13. platinum786 — on 18th February, 2009 at 10:44 am  

      • They advocate a caliphate, a pan-Islamic state encompassing many countries.

      I advocate a Caliphate. I want an EU styled superstate for Muslims, with a combined identity, a combined market, a single currency, shared resources, shared legislation and laws, a combined military force too, a combined foreign policy. I don’t think having one big nation would work as you fail to represent the views of everyone correctly and properly and that would lead to the failure of it again, as it has in the past, but a federation of states, with 1 leader, like the EU has, but without revolving as often is something I definitely want. I can even see it happening in South America, expect the likes of Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia and Brazil to soon have a much closer relationship than before.

      In this world your either somebody or your nobody. states like Russia, the USA, China have the political, military and economic clout to be stand alone somebody’s, Europe had to form a block to do the same, and Muslim countries will need to do the same, in order to have the influence they desire.

      • They promote Sharia law.

      I promote Shariah law. I’m not always comfortable with how it is implemented in some parts of the Muslim world, but the concept of a set of laws which encompass and are inline with the teachings of Islam is appealing to me. Do we need shariah law in Britain, I don’t think so, considering 58 million Britons wouldn’t fall under it’s jurisdiction, but in Muslim countries, I think it could help and is an ideal that all Muslims look towards. Anyone who at this stage is jumping up and down in their seat thinking “you want Taliban law” calm down…. Shariah law is not Taliban law, Taliban law was the interpretation of shariah law by a bunch of uneducated bigots with a political agenda.

      • They believe in jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world. This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military.

      I believe in that. Palestine is an occupied state, the people of Palestine have every right to fight Israel and other Muslims have the right to support their struggle. Now if you are doing so in a manner which is contradictory to the law of the country you live in, I would suggest you leave and hand in your citizenship at Immigration on the way out. Hence I support the Palestinian cause through legal means, as I quite like it here. If i decided it was more effective for me to shoot at Israeli soldiers rather than to work politically and charitably towards the Palestinian cause, I would hand in my passport on the way out.

      The same applies for Kashmir. All my people want is the right to vote on their future, whether they will be Pakistan or India. Then UN has legislated them that right, why do those who defend the borders of Israel with such vigour not defend the right of my people to define their borders as agreed by the same body?!

      There are rules to an armed Jihad btw, blowing up school buses is against the rules, some would even argue the use of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons is also against the rules. I’d like to know how many people are genuinely fighting a Jihad. Because the core of it is, to fight to defend the Muslim body right. So if Hamas is fighting Israel one day and handing out beatings to Fatah officials the next day is that really a Jihad or a political war? You’ve got to ask yourself, if one day your sniping at an Israeli soldier and the next day firing rockets at a town in Israel without a care in the world for what you hit, what would god say to that? What would the Prophet Muhammed say? What would Saladin say?

      • They argue that Islam bans homosexuality and that it is a sin against Allah.

      Islam does forbid homosexuality, no doubt about it. You can lock me up, you can hang me, I’ll say it to my last breath. That’s not to say I’m going to stop anyone being gay, but don’t expect to see me on gay pride marches, unless I am stuck in traffic behind them. I’m a religious person, I have my views, I won’t change them, what is everyone’s problem with that? I think abortion is wrong too, does the government hold that against me?!

      • They fail to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan.

      As do I (I’m getting a feeling I’m doing myself no favours by writing any of this). I genuinely do feel for the lads killed in combat, they’re soldiers and did what all good soldiers do, follow orders. Kudos to them. However the war they fought in was illegal in Iraq and unnecessary in Afghanistan. Would a couple of years of negotiating with the Taliban to dismantle Al Queda have hurt? We could have tried, rather we made a bad situation worse. Most of what is labelled as the Taliban today is actually pukhtoon tribals, I don’t blame them for fighting US forces, they were in charge, they had influence, you came, took out the Taliban (who are pukhtoon) and replaced them with the ethnic minority. How many of you would like it if the Afghans invaded Britain and put me in charge?

      I can’t condone the sectarian violence or even the politics or the affiliates of many of these groups who are fighting NATO forces in Iraq and Afghanistan BUT, as they say all’s fair in love and war, right? Just because your fighting some “bad people” doesn’t make war right, because the ones who suffer are normal people. Your average Taliban fighter has never seen Afghanistan in a state of peace. all they know is war, I don’t hold grudges against uneducated brainwashed war orphans. Their parents might be old enough to remember peace, but not them. Similarly I have nothing but sympathy for the good soldiers who die fighting the dirty wars, they are top guys, real pro’s and I feel for them, but I won’t condemn someone fighting back in a war.

    14. Golam Murtaza — on 18th February, 2009 at 10:45 am  

      Oh dear, a big fat FAIL on bullet point three. Well, I guess my closest prison is Armley (Leeds). Might as well hand myself in. Anyone want my CD and DVD collection?

    15. Random Guy — on 18th February, 2009 at 10:45 am  

      I think the April Fools documents must have got mixed up with all the other Proposals. Its really the only explanation.

      Mind you, when proposals like this are ‘leaked’ there normally is a very good reason for it. I would like to speculate on it further, but I have already wasted too many brain cells on this…

      EDIT: LOL Golam.

    16. soru — on 18th February, 2009 at 10:51 am  

      Seems like a bunch of scare-mongering to me: irresponsible journalists building up a non-story into a scary government threat.

      From the article:

      ‘Those considered extreme would not be targeted by the criminal law, but would be sidelined and denied public funds.’.

      Do you really think that a Christian group campaining against the evils of homosexuals deserves public funds? What would the Indian government say if some Sikh group that shot a policeman had a nice office in north london paid for by the taxpayer? Are the BNP suitable people to run a community regeneration project?

      If Muslim groups are currently being treated differently from those examples, given special privileges because of some bigoted government view of them as ‘scary’, then surely that would be the real story worth reporting?

    17. MaidMarian — on 18th February, 2009 at 10:52 am  

      Munir (11) – ‘Foreign policy ,the killing of Muslims and domestic oppression is the root cause of extremism.’

      I’m sorry, but this is total cobblers. States can not and should not decide foreign policy with the prime consideration being whether a group of religious fanatics will decide to take umbrage and commit mass murder on public transport or wherever. What you are suggesting is that we hand a de facto veto over government policy to extreme and violent people because you happen to agree with said people’s religion. Right?

      Why should the opinions of potential suicide bombers about the Iraq War or the middle east trump those of elected representatives or anyone else? There are many groups of people who opposed the Iraq War but very few of them agree with, or carry out, terrorist attacks.

      The extremists that this proposal is self-evidently aimed at are not ‘compelled’ or ‘driven’ to extremist acts; they knowingly choose to carry them out. And to my mind they could very easily choose to get a grip and choose not to carry out these acts.

      The way that you bring I/P into this, a point not in the article, shows up the laziness of your thinking. It is the worst kind of reductivism. If all else fails, head for the lowest common denominator that is I/P. Not everything can be reduced to I/P – even if I did accept the proposition that the Palestinians were latter day saints and that Muslims never kill Muslims.

      The root cause of Islamist terrorism is Islamist ideology. One would hope that this is an uncomfortable thought for those who would rather blame anyone for terrorism except the terrorists themselves.

      Crikey.

    18. platinum786 — on 18th February, 2009 at 11:01 am  

      Soru, judging by the wide reaction on this blog, don’t you think it’s fair to see the government wanted to get to know Muslims, it did, it started to hear stuff it doesn’t like, and now only wants to know Muslims who won’t say those things?

      Feel free to spend tax payer money how you want, it’s not like anyone ever gets a say in that anyway. But if the government thinks it’s going to give funds to fringe liberal groups and by that hope that they then become the majority, they’ve got another thing coming.

      Money is not a concern to me, my concern is being labelled an extremist, for holding perfectly normal views.My concern is for security, if they decide to put me and hundreds of thousands of others on a database which is supposed to be used to monitor terrorists, then i can assure you terrorists will slip under the net and strike at Britain with ease,whilst the security services are concerned because Mr Hussain the taxi driver thinks gays are unnatural.

    19. marvin — on 18th February, 2009 at 11:24 am  

      Platinum786 you want to live by the rules of Islam? You so adulterers with 4 male Muslim witnesses should be stoned to death? Thieves or those causing mischief in the land should have the hands and feet cut off on opposing sides of the body? Apostates should be executed, as should those who insult Islam? Non-muslims should be given dhimmi status, providing they confirm to the preconditions?

      Not surprised. Forgive me for my woolly liberal western ways, but I DO see this as extreme. Unless, I have got ‘living by Islamic rules’ all wrong. Do I?

    20. Sid — on 18th February, 2009 at 11:39 am  

      Shariah is not all about the enforcing of the veiling of women or the use of corporal punishment laws - which can only be dispensed by the State. There is a difference between Shariah as ‘rule of law’ of the State and Shariah which is the religious “praxis” of individuals.

      Further analysis of the term is required rather than simply to use it as a broad-brushed descriptor which further adds to the criminalisation of Muslims, for doing nothing at all other than to practice their faith(s).

      Up until the 18C, English common law which is still to this day based on “the law of the Church of England” called for execution as punishment for thieves who stole property worth more than 5 shillings. Were all English Christians extremists for going along with that rule? Or was it phased out of legislature without criminialsing “believers”?

    21. cjcjc — on 18th February, 2009 at 11:45 am  

      Marvin - if platinum and others who “promote” Sharia were to be forced to live under it they would scarper back here pretty sharpish I suspect

      It’s the same with all armchair revolutionaries - they idolise tyrants and murderers from the comfort of a liberal democracy

    22. marvin — on 18th February, 2009 at 11:49 am  

      Yup people who supported that rule were abhorrent and ‘extremist’. Killing people for minor things is extreme. Sid

      I await answers from Platinum786 on which bits he or she supports.

      criminalisation of Muslims, for doing nothing at all other than to practice their faith(s)

      If this means condemning Muslims who simply follow Mohammed’s quote “Kill he who changes his religion” then yes. How terrible and bigoted of us.

      Sid, Sharia is almost universally accepted to have incredibly harsh punishments, not by Westerners but by the Muslim world themselves.

      I understand your instinct to defend people who are for sharia, and I think it’s their human right to believe pretty much what they want, as long as they are not participating in barbaric practices that humans should have grown out of a long time ago…

    23. Random Guy — on 18th February, 2009 at 11:51 am  

      Marvin, your response seems like a bit of an over-reaction to me. I think it is a bit unfair to put so many assumptions on what Platinum786 believes, but you do sound a tad hysterical.

      Your use of the word ‘dhimmi’ immediately excludes you from the ‘wooly liberal’ category, anyway. In fact, it sound like the rantings of an ANTI-Islamic extremist.

      Cjcjc, your comment is uncalled for, but illuminating on how your mind works when it comes to these issues. That is one of the reasons you are so out of your depth on this. In my opinion.

    24. Sofia — on 18th February, 2009 at 11:55 am  

      well lock me away now!

    25. Sid — on 18th February, 2009 at 11:56 am  

      Sid, Sharia is almost universally accepted to have incredibly harsh punishments, not by Westerners but by the Muslim world themselves.

      Actually, if you’re going to take pains to be absolutely objective, than that’s a load of sweaty bollocks.

      English common law long denied married women any prooperty rights or indeed legal representation without their husbands. When the British applied their law to Muslims in place of Shariah, which they did in some colonies, the result was to strip married women of the property that Islamic law had *always* granted them.

      England has not always been the beacon of progress towards equality of the sexes, y’know?

    26. marvin — on 18th February, 2009 at 11:56 am  

      So anybody who utters the word dhimmi is an anti-islamic extremist? Sounds bigoted to me, and hypocritical. “So many assumptions”. Touche.

      Platinum786 would not be the first PP commenter to be in favour of stoning to death. You think I am wrong to question her/him? Why?

    27. Sofia — on 18th February, 2009 at 11:56 am  

      and marvin you need to read up a bit more mate…you have it all so wrong!! on so many different levels

    28. marvin — on 18th February, 2009 at 11:56 am  

      Right Sid, can we talk about 2009 now, ta. :P

      What do I have wrong? I am merely questioning Platinum786 who has shown himself to be an bigoted antisemite, who is in favour of Sharia law. I am just trying to figure out if they are a reformer or a traditionalist. Which bits of Sharia?

    29. Kismet Hardy — on 18th February, 2009 at 11:58 am  

      Fuck me. My entire family are Muslim extremists

    30. Sid — on 18th February, 2009 at 11:59 am  

      You have to view things in their historical context, Marv.

    31. munir — on 18th February, 2009 at 12:00 pm  

      Maid Marian

      “I’m sorry, but this is total cobblers. States can not and should not decide foreign policy with the prime consideration being whether a group of religious fanatics will decide to take umbrage and commit mass murder on public transport or wherever. What you are suggesting is that we hand a de facto veto over government policy to extreme and violent people because you happen to agree with said people’s religion. Right? ”

      Er.. are you unwell? When did I say it should?

      You seem to forget that the vast majority of people in this country opposed the Iraq war. Why didnt the govt listen to them? The govt and its apologists said the Iraq war would make us safer against terrorism- the anti-war groups said it would make us much less safer.
      Who do you think was right?

      The ironic thing is that out foreign policy when it came to Iraq WAS decided by a small gamg of neo-con extremists with their own agendas.

      “The way that you bring I/P into this, a point not in the article, shows up the laziness of your thinking. It is the worst kind of reductivism.”

      The point is you are a zionist apologist for Israel and this is what motivates you to blame Islamic ideaology rather than blaming state terror

      “The root cause of Islamist terrorism is Islamist ideology. One would hope that this is an uncomfortable thought for those who would rather blame anyone for terrorism except the terrorists themselves.”

      LOL. I do blame ALL terrorists , both the non-state and the state terrorists they respond to it kind.
      You rightly say the al qaida terrorists have a choice; but act as if states have no choice to endulge in terror and to attack other countries and kill people

      Unlike you who condemns non-state but condones state terror.

      And of course if this proposal goes forth it will be illegal even to support resistance against invading armies. How convenient for state terrorists.

    32. cjcjc — on 18th February, 2009 at 12:02 pm  

      The opinions listed are without question “extreme”.
      And objectionable and obnoxious.
      And indeed one could draw up a similar list of “extreme” beliefs from other religions too.

      How the state should *react* - if at all - to the holders of those beliefs is a completely different question.

    33. douglas clark — on 18th February, 2009 at 12:03 pm  

      I dunno,

      Promoting a Caliphate seems not much different to me than promoting the EU. And I do that.

      Promoting Sharia law might be OK if they revised the sentencing policies. Perhaps rather than stoning adulteress females to death a policy of going “tch, tch” at them would win many new adherents. The penalties in Islam are out of synch with the modern world.

      Jihad, or armed resistance is not much different from what the Maquis did. Ones mans terrorist, etc, etc.

      Homophobia is still quite prevelant amongst the non Muslim population. It is wrong, but it is mainstream.

      Failure to condemn the deaths of British soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. That is a toughy. But I seem to remember the peace demonstrators in America having no truck with their Vietnam veterans. Not saying it’s right, just saying that it has a Western precedent.

      Though I wouldn’t necessarily think that anyone who shared all these views was entirely sane.

    34. munir — on 18th February, 2009 at 12:08 pm  

      There is a good explanation of sharia here

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/beliefs/sharia_2.shtml

    35. Random Guy — on 18th February, 2009 at 12:10 pm  

      Marvin @ 26: “So anybody who utters the word dhimmi is an anti-islamic extremist? Sounds bigoted to me, and hypocritical. “So many assumptions”. Touche.”

      Ahahahaha. You missed out the part where I said “sound like” instead of “is”. You are a bit too quick with putting labels on people Marv.

      And to be honest, the only people I have known to use ‘dhimmi’ in any form of conversation are exclusively using the term as part of a discriminatory justification, or in other words, ass-hats. Now don’t go leaping into a frenzy just yet Marv, i’m not calling YOU an ass-hat.

    36. munir — on 18th February, 2009 at 12:10 pm  

      marvin
      “Yup people who supported that rule were abhorrent and ‘extremist’. Killing people for minor things is extreme. Sid”

      Says the supporter of Israels slaughetr in Gaza from extremist website Harrys Place!!

    37. Sofia — on 18th February, 2009 at 12:11 pm  

      kismet…you son of an extremist you!!!

    38. Sid — on 18th February, 2009 at 12:16 pm  

      And indeed one could draw up a similar list of “extreme” beliefs from other religions too.

      No no, we can’t do that. We shouldn’t do that. no no, not at all, that would be, that would be…

    39. Jai — on 18th February, 2009 at 12:21 pm  

      Sunny, Sid, Leon, Rumbold, MaidMarian,

      Munir = Blah, people. He’s not even bothering to change his writing style or mannerisms, and has also been using the same phrases verbatim as previously used by him under different aliases on other recent threads.

    40. Sunny — on 18th February, 2009 at 12:24 pm  

      MM: Goodness, the root cause of Islamic extremism is Islamic ideology - quite why you refuse to draw the distinction is beyond me.

      And that has what to do with the points I’ve made enough?

      If Islamic theology is the root cause, then you mean that Islam itself is an extremist ideology, and ergo any Muslim is an extremist?

      What did you think about those Sikhs outside the Birmingham playhouse going off on one about ‘Behtzi?’ Was that criminal behaviour or were they ‘criminalised’ by evil government stooges?

      I have no sympathy for those people. But would I want them to be followed by the MI5 just because they objected to a play? NO.

      Just have a brief think about what you’re saying MM, and don’t just regurgitate the crap that is written on other blogs please.

    41. Sunny — on 18th February, 2009 at 12:28 pm  

      Do you really think that a Christian group campaining against the evils of homosexuals deserves public funds?

      Presumably then, we should immediately shut down all Catholic schools.

      OH WAIT! This is for Muslims only. I forgot.

    42. douglas clark — on 18th February, 2009 at 12:35 pm  

      Sunny,

      You can’t close down all the Catholic Schools. What would the poor priests do…?

    43. cjcjc — on 18th February, 2009 at 12:37 pm  

      I have no sympathy for those people. But would I want them to be followed by the MI5 just because they objected to a play? NO.

      That sums up my view.

      But we all want SOME people followed by MI5.
      Of course we only want the right people followed…

    44. Sid — on 18th February, 2009 at 12:46 pm  

      You can’t close down all the Catholic Schools. What would the poor priests do…?

      Get real jobs.

    45. douglas clark — on 18th February, 2009 at 12:50 pm  

      munir @ 34,

      Well, thanks for the link. Frankly any religion that is bossy enough to say this - from your link:

      To ensure the establishment of religion, God Most High has made belief and worship obligatory. To ensure its preservation, the rulings relating to the obligation of learning and conveying the religion were legislated.

      .

      I’d certainly not thrive in that environment, what with being an atheist an’ all. Doesn’t the Koran have a word for people like me, djinn or something? Whatever.

    46. platinum786 — on 18th February, 2009 at 12:52 pm  

      Marvin, your fundemental understanding of Islam and Shariah is flawed, it’s like trying to discuss farming with a chav from a council estate, you wouldn’t understand, not that i won’t stop you trying to learn.

      First of all, take some time to understand that Shariah law only applies to Muslims. I’m sure you’ll be releived to hear that.

      Secondly, as Sid has said Shariah law is more than stoning people and hanging them, not that any of that is a bad thing. Winnona Ryder would not be stealing dresses for a buzz if her hand was going to be chopped off.

      Should apostates be killed? Ask the Malaysian courts. People have successfully converted from Islam to other religions. One woman recently converted to islam and then back again. the state was deemed to have failed to teach her enough about islam to see it as the correct path. She was a free woman who was allowed to do what she wants. However you wouldn’t have read that story.

      Shariah courts would look to see whether the state had failed to provide for the citizen, before they chop anyones hand off for theft. We call the concept Zakat, something you’ve probably heard funds hamas with weapons rather than provides food aid around the world. But that’s just the circles you roll in Marvin.

    47. Sid — on 18th February, 2009 at 1:00 pm  

      Secondly, as Sid has said Shariah law is more than stoning people and hanging them, not that any of that is a bad thing. Winnona Ryder would not be stealing dresses for a buzz if her hand was going to be chopped off.

      I didn’t say that.

      What I have said is that the Shariah which is a set of religious rules that govern individual religious praxis should be absolutely honoured.

      But the rule of law which means that religious scholars can mandate corporal punishment or stoning for adultery (etc etc etc) should be repealed, or reformed, whatever you wish to call it. Either that or keep Shariah out of the public domain completely, and in the private space, where frankly, it belongs and can harm no one. Just as it has been done with other religious laws.

      This applies to the Beth Din and any other parallel extra-constitutional religious law.

    48. soru — on 18th February, 2009 at 1:01 pm  

      Further analysis of the term is required rather than simply to use it as a broad-brushed descriptor which further adds to the criminalisation of Muslims, for doing nothing at all other than to practice their faith(s).

      Yes, and you won’t get that as long as your source of information is hysterical scaremongering journalism/blogging of the ‘the scary government is coming to lock all muslims up in camps’ variety.

      This is precisely the politics of fear: when debating some mundane issue, raise the prospect of something genuinely scary, in the hope it causes people to become stupid and do what you want.

      Is there anyone here who wouldn’t describe a Jewish settler who believed in a religiously-mandated war to create a Greater Israel as an ‘extremist’? And then everyone worth talking to would be able to distinguish such a person from someone else who, say, thought a defensive war to preserve the current state of Israel could be justified under the right circumstances.

      Why the double standards? Do muslims really scare you so much?

    49. douglas clark — on 18th February, 2009 at 1:04 pm  

      Platinum 786,

      Glad I showed you how to do bold. Or maybe not :-) .

      The implementation of Shariah law is to place one religious philosophy above that of the secular state. On these grounds alone, it is wrong. There is nothing to be said in favour of religious courts, whether they are Muslim, Jewish or Christian.

      Quite apart from anything else they seem to have, or have had, penalties for disbelief that are vindictive, to say the least.

      So there!

    50. Sid — on 18th February, 2009 at 1:05 pm  

      #48: Why the double standards? Do muslims really scare you so much?

      What double standards? Who’s “you”? I am a muslim, you cretin.

    51. platinum786 — on 18th February, 2009 at 1:09 pm  

      Cheers or the bold stuff Doug much appreciated.

      In a multicultural society like Britain, shariah law is uncalled for really. Some aspects of Muslim civil law yeah fine, but i don’t think we’ll see anyone stoning anyone any time soon, nor should we.

      However I think we should watch progressive states like Malaysia and see how it unfolds. Places like Iran or Saudi Arabia or militant groups in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, are no examples of Shariah. The concept is abused for power and control. It’s blatent.

      Malaysia seems to be bucking the trend, I think we should at least watch to see what happens.

    52. douglas clark — on 18th February, 2009 at 1:12 pm  

      platinum786 @ 51,

      Fair enough.

    53. marvin — on 18th February, 2009 at 1:14 pm  

      I am aware that some apostates have not been killed in Islamic states you idiot! What do YOU think? Yes or No?

      . Winnona Ryder would not be stealing dresses for a buzz if her hand was going to be chopped off. ……Shariah courts would look to see whether the state had failed to provide for the citizen, before they chop anyones hand off for theft.

      As I suspected, you support amputations as punishment, given the right circumstances. Don’t be shy P786!

      Ok so for amputations, what about stoning adulterers (given the incredibly rare nature of such circumstances etc etc), you are against in an Islamic state?

    54. cjcjc — on 18th February, 2009 at 1:21 pm  

      “Progressive” states like Malaysia…which explicitly discriminates against its citzens of Chinese and Indian descent…right

    55. platinum786 — on 18th February, 2009 at 1:27 pm  

      cjcjc: Name me a single state devoid of discrimination. Malaysia has it’s problems, as do all states but I think it’s fair to say it’s doing pretty well. Maybe you could put it in the same league as Italy (building Mosques, restrictions against foods of particualr cultures in some places) or France (headscarf ban), or Germany (Turkish citizens).

      Marvin:

      you are against in an Islamic state?

      Don’t fall overyourself. What is that supposed to mean?

      Take a deep breathe, compose yourself, I’m sure your still in shock from realising that as a non Muslim Shariah law doesn’t actually apply to you.

    56. cjcjc — on 18th February, 2009 at 1:33 pm  

      Malaysia has state-enforced ethnic quotas for jobs.

      Of course just about anywhere is progressive relative to Saudi Arabia.

    57. marvin — on 18th February, 2009 at 1:36 pm  

      Platinum786, so if I go to any Islamic state and insult mohammed or Islam, sharia law will not be applied?! Hahaha. I’ll try that next time i’m in the Islamic Republic or Saudi Arabia! I’m sure they’ll allow me my secular laws!

      So you support death for apostasy given the right circumstances! Beautiful. I was right all along!

    58. soru — on 18th February, 2009 at 1:37 pm  

      Presumably then, we should immediately shut down all Catholic schools.
      OH WAIT! This is for Muslims only. I forgot.

      3 seconds googling finds precisely that as an equivalent level of proposal:

      http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/may/07053108.html

      Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association (GALHA) says, “Such is the level of homophobia in the Catholic Church that its schools should be taken from it and returned to the community sector.”

      Of course, you don’t feature that with hints of Catholics being burnt at the stake by next Wednesday. Which is fine: this is your business, you choose which stories you want to distort, hype and sensationalise, who you want to scare.

      Thing is, there is a serious debate to be had on:

      1. if x% of minority group 1 and x+y% of minority group 2 hold a certain view about minority group 3, should policy towards group 1 and 2 be the same?

      2. at what level of criticality of a terrorism problem should we say ‘fuck the homosexuals‘?

      The age of homosexual consent was first introduced in England and Wales in 1967. But because of political opposition to gay rights in Northern Ireland it was not implemented in the province until October 1982.

      But you won’t get any of that kind of discussion here if you first dumb people down by trying to scare them.

      This is a discussion of which of the QF and MCB should get funds to run youth clubs - putting people in camps is not a possible answer to the question asked.

    59. douglas clark — on 18th February, 2009 at 1:55 pm  

      marvin,

      It is pretty plain that you are used to commenting on sites like Harry’s Place where actually ridiculing someone else’s arguement is de rigour.

      Platinum 786 has not said what you have accused him or her of. What was said @ 51, for instance, is that it is is being misused:

      Places like Iran or Saudi Arabia or militant groups in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, are no examples of Shariah. The concept is abused for power and control. It’s blatent.

      To then accuse Platinum 786 of being in favour of these regimes, or their warped implementation of Sharia law is frankly ridiculous.

      Not that I’m for it, mark you. But could we at least run a civil discussion?

    60. marvin — on 18th February, 2009 at 2:07 pm  

      Why are you making assumptions on P786′s behalf? Does he or she support death for apostasy or adultery, which is the generally agreed punishments under Sharia law?

      I’ll leave the jokes aside. Yes or no,this for Platinum786 ONLY please. I am a little confused why people are jumping to defend P786 even before they have answered. If your relatives are for stoning adulterers then perhaps you should challenge that too…

    61. munir — on 18th February, 2009 at 2:17 pm  

      douglasclark

      “munir @ 34,

      Well, thanks for the link.” ”

      You are welcome

      “Frankly any religion that is bossy enough to say this - from your link:

      To ensure the establishment of religion, God Most High has made belief and worship obligatory. To ensure its preservation, the rulings relating to the obligation of learning and conveying the religion were legislated.”

      You appear to be spoiling for an argument. This sadly is often the state of irreliguos people who lead meaningless lives devoid of purpose. The quote above relates only to Muslims and the things pertaining to worship and belief they are obligated to learn and perform. These are obligations only on Muslims and it isnt an obligation to become a Muslim.

      Ironic given this you accuse sharia of being bossy on athread about a secular governemnt telling people what they can and cant think!!! Sharia for example nowehere says to non Muslims -you must believe in one God, you must believe in teh Prophets, you must believe in our laws. UK law as above will be saying you must believe homosexuality is OK. Not difficult to see which is more tolerant.

      Sharia gives a large degree of autonomy to non-Muslims in their own legal dealings something the “tolerant” common civil laws would never do for their minorities.

      “I’d certainly not thrive in that environment, what with being an atheist an’ all.”

      I can hardly think of a better argument for Sharia than that. In fact athiests DID exist in traditional Muslim socities. Imam Abu Hanifa’s debates with athiests in the mosques of Baghdad are famous as is the poet al-maari a strong critic of religion. These things happened under states which ruled by sharia to the letter.

      ” Doesn’t the Koran have a word for people like me, djinn or something? Whatever.”

      Sufaha I would say would be far more appropriate.

    62. munir — on 18th February, 2009 at 2:19 pm  

      cjcjc

      “Malaysia has state-enforced ethnic quotas for jobs.

      Of course just about anywhere is progressive relative to Saudi Arabia.”

      If only every country could be as progressive as Israel where a convert the day before to judaism from Peru as soon as they step off the plane in Tel Aviv have more rights than an Arab whose family has lived their for millenia.

      They can even take that Arabs land if they like it.

    63. douglas clark — on 18th February, 2009 at 2:30 pm  

      marvin,

      I’ve made it pretty plain, see here:

      Quite apart from anything else they seem to have, or have had, penalties for disbelief that are vindictive, to say the least.

      that I do not agree with any link between medieval sentencing policy and a modern religious faith. It is anathema to me.

      Please, at least read what the other person has to say, rather than assuming too much….

      My position on this issue is not yours, neither is it necessarily Platinum 786′s.

    64. The Common Humanist — on 18th February, 2009 at 2:32 pm  

      Munir
      “Sharia gives a large degree of autonomy to non-Muslims in their own legal dealings something the “tolerant” common civil laws would never do for their minorities”

      Yes, it is just all segregation and pass laws in the UK……..oh wait, it isn’t and you are guilty of the same sweeping generalisations of some of the posters on here.

    65. cjcjc — on 18th February, 2009 at 2:32 pm  

      munir/blah - back to Israel; brilliant.

    66. MaidMarian — on 18th February, 2009 at 2:34 pm  

      Sunny (40)

      MM: Goodness, the root cause of Islamic extremism is Islamic ideology - quite why you refuse to draw the distinction is beyond me.

      And that has what to do with the points I’ve made enough? [sic]

      - Because the proposal you report on in your article is clearly targetted at this distinction. You may not like how thye go about it - quite fair enough, I see your point.

      If Islamic theology is the root cause, then you mean that Islam itself is an extremist ideology, and ergo any Muslim is an extremist?

      - No. I think EXTREMIST Islamic theology is the root cause. I am capable of distinguishing between Islamic theology and Islamic nut-cases. You are putting words into my mouth.

      What did you think about those Sikhs outside the Birmingham playhouse going off on one about ‘Behtzi?’ Was that criminal behaviour or were they ‘criminalised’ by evil government stooges?

      I have no sympathy for those people. But would I want them to be followed by the MI5 just because they objected to a play? NO.

      - Entirely fair enough. I agree. Even though you don’t actually answer the question.

      Just have a brief think about what you’re saying MM, and don’t just regurgitate the crap that is written on other blogs please.

      - Untwist your underwear.

    67. platinum786 — on 18th February, 2009 at 2:34 pm  

      It’s too complex an issue to reply with simply a Yes or No answer. I’m assuming it has been something done in the past, yet at the same time the Malaysian Shariah courts (which I’m also not the worlds biggest fan of btw) have deemed it possible for someone to be an apostate and not be punished for it at all. Hence as you can see within “Islamic shariah courts” there are clear differences. So I suspect it boiled down to the details of each individual case.

      I’m not a religious scholar, nor do I have qualifications in Islamic law, I only know what i’ve researched, and this is not an issue I have researched greatly into. From my generic understanding of religion, God is all forgiving etc, so I don’t see why people would be killed for deciding not to follow god, surely God will punish them? But at the same time, the same can be applied to all laws, and society needs laws.

      So the question is asked, is the law required and if so what should the punishment be. Here is a very long view;

      http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Apostasy1.htm

      Don’t know wether you’ll be reading it all, if your interested, you should, I doubt you will.

    68. Andrew — on 18th February, 2009 at 2:34 pm  

      “Any Muslim organisation that now works with the government will be vilified by most Muslims even further.”

      One of my work colleagues is on the committee of a mosque. They were about to apply for PVE funding. Now the plan has been put on ice because the reaction from the youth is likely to be very negative! They’re now waiting to see what the final version of Contest 2 actually says.

    69. MaidMarian — on 18th February, 2009 at 2:37 pm  

      Munir (31) - ‘The point is you are a zionist apologist for Israel and this is what motivates you to blame Islamic ideaology rather than blaming state terror ‘

      You are a wind-up merchant - right?

    70. munir — on 18th February, 2009 at 2:39 pm  

      cjcjc
      “munir/blah - back to Israel; brilliant.”

      You seem uncomfortable discussing the grotesque racism of the Israeli state (though not the Malay state).

      Why is that?

    71. munir — on 18th February, 2009 at 2:45 pm  

      Munir (31) - ‘The point is you are a zionist apologist for Israel and this is what motivates you to blame Islamic ideaology rather than blaming state terror ‘

      Maid Marian
      You are a wind-up merchant - right?

      Cool prove me wrong
      are you
      1) A zionist
      2) A supporter of Israel

    72. cjcjc — on 18th February, 2009 at 2:46 pm  

      Good grief - you suggested that Malaysia was “progressive” - when challenged you suggested France and Italy were no better then changed the subject to Israel

    73. douglas clark — on 18th February, 2009 at 2:52 pm  

      munir,

      ‘Tis you that needs to explain yourself, not me.

      You appear to be spoiling for an argument. This sadly is often the state of irreliguos people who lead meaningless lives devoid of purpose.

      So, by deluding yourself that there is a personal god, your life is justified? Explain that to me.

      For my own part, I couldn’t care less whether you believe in god or the flying spaghetti monster. Just don’t attempt to impose it on me or other people, OK?

      And there is a less than subtle difference between what you say in your post at 61 and the link you gave which I quoted.

      I am quite interested in the concept of apostasy. If you are born a Muslim then you aren’t allowed - under a strict interpretation - to ever give it up. That would fit quite well with a controlling philosophy.

      It also shows a complete lack of strength in your faith if apostasy has to be met with such severe penalties.

    74. Refresh — on 18th February, 2009 at 2:52 pm  

      Can I remind everyone, Sunny’s post is about what the government could do with regards a section of its citizens.

      Its no surprise some want to get into the question of whether Islam itself is incompatible with life as we have come to know it in the last 20~30 years.

      My view is that these ‘suggestions’ for identifying extremism are far more dangerous to the ‘way of life’ everyone wants to protect than they are to muslims.

      The other side no one considers is, what is the parallel stance that muslim countries could take? I am mystified as to why everyone seems to talk and walk as if we the western world is the only existence on this planet.

    75. Refresh — on 18th February, 2009 at 2:59 pm  

      I like Golam’s approach. Hand yourself in.

      Now there is a demo I would love to go. Two million men, women and children all agree to march to their regional Police HQ to hand themselves in.

      And if we were to arrange that, then I don’t doubt that number would easily double if not treble as people of good will join us. Add to that number those that will realise their way of life is under threat. I estimate 10 million, with many more cheering on from home.

      The government would fall.

      Marvin, I do not expect you to be there.

    76. David T — on 18th February, 2009 at 2:59 pm  

      If the Government is planning to lock up non-violent extremists who want a Caliphate that persecutes gays, women and non Muslims, support terrorism outside the UK, and so on, but have not committed any criminal offence then I am dead against it.

      On the other hand, if the Government has decided that :

      - public money is not going to go to groups which are extreme in these ways

      - it will not be partnering, officially consulting with, or otherwise “engaging” - except as police informants - with extremists

      they have my praise.

      I know that you think that working with the likes of Azad Ali and his merry band of Jamaatis is the way of the future.

      However, you ought to stop for a moment and consider the direction you’re heading in Sunny.

      I think you’ve radically over-estimated the support for people with these views in this country.

      The opposition to bolstering extremists who say they’re against terrorism in the UK comes from the same people who wouldn’t take this sort of crap from the BNP or Geert Wilders.

    77. munir — on 18th February, 2009 at 3:02 pm  

      cjcjc
      “Good grief - you suggested that Malaysia was “progressive” - when challenged you suggested France and Italy were no better then changed the subject to Israel”

      No I didnt. You must be confusing me with someone else.
      Presumably all these darkies are the same to you :)

    78. Refresh — on 18th February, 2009 at 3:02 pm  

      DavidT, go away. You’ve worked for this all these years. I am not sure I want you here, gloating.

      Isnt’t this the Euston Manifesto made personal?

    79. MaidMarian — on 18th February, 2009 at 3:02 pm  

      Refresh - I don’t actually think that the question is about whether Islam per se is incompatible. The question is whether an aggressive form of religious identity politics is compatible.

      You may well be right that the principle of the proposals in the article is holding out a hostage to fortune, but that does not mean that the underlying issue is less real or problematic. That the guiding light is religion does not make a qualitiative difference to my mind.

      Or am I missing something?

    80. platinum786 — on 18th February, 2009 at 3:02 pm  

      Andrew, PVE has gotten a lot of critisism, initially it was like “why do the government want to give money to Muslims, must be an angle”. That was picked up by more radical elements who run with it and go quite far to prortray any organised activity which is not HuT ran as “backed by the government” hence infering that your being brainwashed of sorts.

      The advice I would give your friend is that that PVE is a bit touchy and i think a bit out of touch, a lot of money has been given out and in return for a lot of unrealistic targets. If the Mosque is new to these tpyes of governemnt funds, I’d suggest to tread carefully as commuity schemes are not always as simple to setup and run as they seem. I’d also suggest that the mosque do some work with it’s own funding/community funding to make sure people are aware they are out there.

      They will face critisism, as long as they know what they are doing and they are delivering results to the community, these will soon be washed away.

      In Derby stuff like religious classes setup by Muslim organisations have been targetted, by these types, as have speeches and events organised by mainstream Mosques where prominnent internationally recognised scholars have attended. I see it as acts of desperation on behalf of the terrorists.

      The key is to make sure the community your trying to help does not feel your out of touch with them.

    81. David T — on 18th February, 2009 at 3:07 pm  

      Two million men, women and children all agree to march to their regional Police HQ to hand themselves in.

      And if we were to arrange that, then I don’t doubt that number would easily double if not treble as people of good will join us. Add to that number those that will realise their way of life is under threat. I estimate 10 million, with many more cheering on from home.

      You’re living in a fantasy world.

      1. You’re basing your response on a hostile leak of a government policy that seeks to define the boundaries of who they will, and won’t partner with. This is most emphatically not a proposal to lock up every Muslim with extreme politics in the UK.

      2. Exactly how popular do you think that Islamists, who support a Caliphate that discriminates against non-muslims and women, kills gays and apostates, and restricts democracy with Sharia law is?

      Outside the pages of the Guardian, precisely how much support do you think there is for the killing of British soldiers?

    82. munir — on 18th February, 2009 at 3:10 pm  

      Sunny
      “If Islamic theology is the root cause, then you mean that Islam itself is an extremist ideology, and ergo any Muslim is an extremist?”

      Maid Marian
      “- No. I think EXTREMIST Islamic theology is the root cause. I am capable of distinguishing between Islamic theology and Islamic nut-cases. You are putting words into my mouth.”

      Oh dear. Sunny has caught Maid Marian out so she/he has resorted to lying

      recall her/his earlier posts :

      #3
      “Goodness, the root cause of Islamic extremism is Islamic ideology .”

    83. munir — on 18th February, 2009 at 3:14 pm  

      David T
      “Exactly how popular do you think that Islamists, who support a Caliphate that discriminates against non-muslims and women, kills gays and apostates, and restricts democracy with Sharia law is?”

      Ironic for a person who promotes Ed Husain, Gina Khan or even ex-Muslims like Maryam Namazie as representative of voices of the Muslim community to start criticising others for lack of support

    84. Refresh — on 18th February, 2009 at 3:16 pm  

      DavidT, you are the last person who should be offering reassurances.

    85. Sunny — on 18th February, 2009 at 3:17 pm  

      Oh dear. David t if you think that I think cosying up to the likes of Azas Ali is a good think then you’re either descending into the sort of sophistry your mate Neil D likes to engage in or can’t read what I write.

      Unlike you, I’m not in the business of presuming guilt or evidence of support for terrorism without proper evidence.

      The issue of funding is a different one to that of who is branded as an extremist and isn’t worked with at all. Even there too you are woefully naive. But since you’ve now got into the business of presuming that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is an extremist or supporting them, your points don’t surprise me

    86. David T — on 18th February, 2009 at 3:18 pm  

      DavidT, go away. You’ve worked for this all these years. I am not sure I want you here, gloating.

      I’m not gloating. I’m relieved.

      What worries me most is this:

      I lose the argument for pushing for pluralism, and moderate liberal values as the bulwark against Islamism, and that the balance of the argument swings towards a Geert Wilders end/reverse Muslim immigration ‘solution’.

      There has, as you know, been an argument in the Home Office and in policy forums generally between two options:

      - engaging with non violent but extreme Islamists, on the understanding that in return for prestige and sponsorship, they’ll keep Al Qaeda at bay; and

      - not partnering with such Islamist politicians.

      The fact is, the ONLY reason that the Government has ever considered partnerships with non violent extremists is because we face a terrorist threat from their close ideological cousins.

      We don’t consider partnering or engaging with the BNP, or addressing their ‘grievances’, even though there’s a neo Nazi terrorist threat at all.

    87. David T — on 18th February, 2009 at 3:21 pm  

      You’ve evidently convinced yourself - on the basis of what, I don’t know - that the Government is about to lock up any Muslim who says that God Hates Fags. Or that the Caliphate is a Good Thing.

      Well, I’d be interested to see why you think that the Government is about to criminalise nutters, as opposed to simply not being prepared to sponsor or fund them.

      Unfortunately, I’m off, so I shall never know why you’ve convinced yourself of this.

    88. marvin — on 18th February, 2009 at 3:21 pm  

      Blah/munir, you sound like you’ve just quoted names of dangerous terrorists!!! I suppose in your world they are terrorists.

    89. David T — on 18th February, 2009 at 3:24 pm  

      “Ironic for a person who promotes Ed Husain, Gina Khan or even ex-Muslims like Maryam Namazie as representative of voices of the Muslim community to start criticising others for lack of support”

      We support liberals, democrats, and pluralists.

      If you want to support people who make Nick Griffin look like Nick Clegg, go on!

      You’ll get applause from Victoria Brittan, Seauauauauamas Milne, and some pasty white students wearing keffiyahs.

      But believe me, you’re out on a limb.

      Most people in the country can spot an extremist, whether they’ve white skin or brown skin. The same attitude that results in most people rejecting the British National Party will do for you.

    90. Sunny — on 18th February, 2009 at 3:31 pm  

      MM - I don’t think you’re explaining yourself properly. Assume that ‘extremist’ Islamic ideology is behind terrorism. I happen to think it’s political agendas that enable ppl to brainwash young recruits into terrorism. I say this because we have examples throughout history of Jews, Christians Hindus and Sikhs engaging in terrorism while using religion as justification. The question then is - how do you differentiate between hardcore conservatives and those likely to turn extremist?

    91. douglas clark — on 18th February, 2009 at 3:32 pm  

      David T,

      Quite frankly the idea of engaging with non violent extremists seems to me to be tackling the issue arse over elbow. Is this what passes for policy advice within the Westminster village? It would be far more sensible to engage with non violent mainstream muslims and let the extremists hang out to dry. Subject to your correct point about using narks.

      If there is a terrorism threat, and it appears to be a tad overstated, then lets put resources into MI5 in order to nullify it. Or even support mainstream Muslims that are probably as horrified as I am that idiotic wee laddies are willing to blow up their co-religionists for the sake of a terrorist headline.

      This is simple stuff. Why the hell is the government incapable of managing it in a proper way? Perhaps the answer lies in their colonialist attitudes…

    92. marvin — on 18th February, 2009 at 3:36 pm  

      This is simple stuff. Why the hell is the government incapable of managing it in a proper way? Perhaps the answer lies in their colonialist attitudes…

      Indeed. Get the tribal chiefs on-side mentality. They seem to be treated like the exotic other, rather than emphasising universalism in human values.

    93. platinum786 — on 18th February, 2009 at 3:41 pm  

      Does anyone think this is Labour swapping the left wing vote for the right wing one?

    94. Refresh — on 18th February, 2009 at 3:51 pm  

      DavidT, if as you say/imply that we should not worry the problem is not that big, ‘and its not you’, then what the hell are you pushing for. And why so much effort, and why the legions of bigots behind you?

      What’s wrong with Douglas’ suggestion that the security services put more effort in?

    95. Refresh — on 18th February, 2009 at 3:59 pm  

      Platinum and Douglas,

      Good points on the EU and the Caliphate. For years, well before there was a blogoshpere, I considered the Caliphate as the original version of the EU.

    96. Sid — on 18th February, 2009 at 4:03 pm  

      Did it look like this?

    97. munir — on 18th February, 2009 at 4:21 pm  

      David T

      “We support liberals, democrats, and pluralists.”

      HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA

      You support bigots with muslim names (pref Israe supporting bigots) so you can say “look they are Muslims/from the Muslim community too”. These people are no liberals.

      Namazie is a unreconstrcted commie who if she ever took power in Iran is on record as saying she would basic opress religious freedoms.

      The credibility of any Muslim zionists support is, ipso facto, severely severely dented

      “You’ll get applause from Victoria Brittan, Seauauauauamas Milne, and some pasty white students wearing keffiyahs.”

      You way of racialising things is deeply distatsteful and symbolic of your attutudes

      “Most people in the country can spot an extremist, whether they’ve white skin or brown skin.”

      Or zionist skin? You David T seemed happy to be on a limb and back Israels murderous slaughetr of Palestinain women and children in Gaza a position only shared by the fellow anti-Muslim far right.

      ” The same attitude that results in most people rejecting the British National Party will do for you.”

      Seriously your comparing political aspects of the Islamic religion with a doctrine of racial genocide does you no favours amongst Muslims. It just shows how craven the Muslims who collaboare with you truly are. Its particularly ironic since as a zionist you are a racial supremacist

    98. munir — on 18th February, 2009 at 4:25 pm  

      marvin
      “Blah/munir, you sound like you’ve just quoted names of dangerous terrorists!!! I suppose in your world they are terrorists.”

      no just deluded . In my world and most civilized peoples terrorists are murderous scum like Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir and Ariel Sharon.
      In Israelis these terrorists are heroes

    99. Sid — on 18th February, 2009 at 4:25 pm  

      blah/munir/mushtaq - fuck off you lunatic.

    100. Nyrone — on 18th February, 2009 at 4:56 pm  

      Thanks for linking this, totally missed it..

      Great contribution #13 Platinum!

    101. Ala — on 18th February, 2009 at 6:00 pm  

      I do condemn the deaths of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. I condemn the British government. Does that count?

      If it doesn’t, then at least I have my gay friends.

    102. Mary — on 18th February, 2009 at 6:18 pm  

      Platinum @ #13 - WOW great stuff!

      And thankyou Sunny, for bringing it back to sanity with your blogs.

    103. Refresh — on 18th February, 2009 at 6:26 pm  

      Crumbs, DavidT, just had a quick glance at HP covering this very topic - and there is one regular there who supports jewish courts of arbitration and not sharia, on the simple basis that by definition they share our values as they are ‘judeo-christian’.

      Sick people!

      I think you should shut up shop.

      BTW, someone else wonders if the authors of the proposals have been reading HP - which is why I find you smug with a desire to gloat.

      Sick!

      And yet another wanting to remove the Homophobia test, as that would trap christians and jews, and replace it with anti-semitism.

      Sick!

    104. dave bones — on 18th February, 2009 at 6:54 pm  

      What does “definition” even mean in this case? The government defines you as an extremist. Most of the Muslims I have met would be proud of that definition.

      A friend of mine came across a hand out in Kabul defining who might be a suicide bomber. It said things like

      They may have a beard, or they may be clean shaven.

      They may look extremely agitated, or they may look very calm and distant…

    105. MaidMarian — on 18th February, 2009 at 6:59 pm  

      Sunny (92) - Thank you for taking the time to reply further, appreciated. For what it’s worth, I don’t think we disagree on that much.

      ‘The question then is - how do you differentiate between hardcore conservatives and those likely to turn extremist?’

      We could argue all day and all night about whether the fact that religion is involved makes a qualitative difference. To my mind it does, I suspect others will disagree.

      I think that the problem is that the only sure fire way to make your differentiation is after the fact of an attack. Truth is, no one has a sure fire way.

      But where I disagree with you is that government is under pressure to, ‘do something.’ Rightly or wrongly they are under pressure that the talkboard crowd are not.

      Best of luck to you.

    106. comrade — on 18th February, 2009 at 8:26 pm  

      They believe in jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world. This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military.

      The above is the most dangerous for the British State and it’s allies across the Glove, this is not just targeting Mulims but anybody who supports the above. There are more none Muslims who support armed groups across the Glove, The Tamils, [ one hundred thousand marched in london] Latin America, the Naxalites in India and the Maoist in Nepal. Even bigger threat to the British State is organised millitant ‘British Working Class’ Attaching the name Muslim to all this, is easly exceptable to the wider British People because the Mulims have been demonised by the State and its mouth piece ‘The Press’

      Before the Eighties I never heard of ‘Muslim Terrorist’ its was always the Marxist guerillas

      Have any of you guys read THE ENEMY WITHIN BY Seumas Milne, this is on the secret war against against the Miners Strike of 1984, it expose the role of the M15 and the Special Branch.

    107. Clean Shaven Don — on 18th February, 2009 at 9:02 pm  

      The Tamils, [ one hundred thousand marched in london]

      Really? Link?

    108. comrade — on 18th February, 2009 at 9:31 pm  

      The Tamils, [ one hundred thousand marched in london]

      Really? Link?

      I was there.

    109. marvin — on 18th February, 2009 at 9:48 pm  

      Good enough for me. If you can’t trust a communist, who can you trust!

    110. Don — on 18th February, 2009 at 10:00 pm  

      And you counted? How?

      You say you were there, I’ll take your word. Just want to know how you got to 100,000.

    111. Refresh — on 18th February, 2009 at 10:13 pm  

      MaidMarian, sorry I was in no mood to give a rational response earlier. I am fuming.

      ‘The question is whether an aggressive form of religious identity politics is compatible.’

      It never was about religion, ever. Those that play to the caricature of extremists are useful idiots probably to both sides.

      The hostage to fortune in my opinion is it will create a tier of society forever under watch. And the country could not bear the strain. The country will fall apart, and within 5 years we will have fascists in cabinet. And you can thank the DavidT Fellowship for their tireless work for this.

      There are so many things I want to say, but I think it may wreck the astrisk key on my keyboard.

      Well lets put it this way, if DavidT still had his beard (which sadly had to disappear for his mugshot for the Daily Mail), I would be pulling it out for him hair at a time as a sponsored event for Comic Relief.

    112. Refresh — on 18th February, 2009 at 10:17 pm  

      And I would send Marvin to Sweeney Todd for an even closer trim.

    113. comrade — on 18th February, 2009 at 10:27 pm  

      And you counted? How?

      Same way as the BBC. they take a few zeros off, and I added a few zeros on.

    114. Refresh — on 18th February, 2009 at 10:31 pm  

      ‘Same way as the BBC. they take a few zeros off, and I add a few zeros on, have you got a problem that?’

      Love it :)

      As a favour, can you remove Marvin’s two zeros. His deep baritone is really getting to me.

    115. Don — on 18th February, 2009 at 10:34 pm  

      Comrade,

      So bullshit then? Why waste my time?

      Refresh,

      PP beard plucking for Comic Relief? I’d pay for that.

    116. soru — on 18th February, 2009 at 10:55 pm  


      The hostage to fortune in my opinion is it will create a tier of society forever under watch. And the country could not bear the strain. The country will fall apart, and within 5 years we will have fascists in cabinet.

      What’s your definition of fascist?

      If you wrote down that definition, presumably it would include some people who didn’t self-identify as fascist: it is unlikely a near-future UK cabinet minister would actually come to work dressed up as Prince Harry. They would no doubt object to you describing them that way, and probably leak a story to the Telegraph headlined ‘why the government says your Gran is a fascist’.

      Why the double standards? You can throw around the word ‘fascist’, with or without definition, but if anyone attempts to define ‘extremist’ that is an outrage that will inevitably destroy society as we know it?

    117. comrade — on 18th February, 2009 at 10:56 pm  

      Don

      So bullshit then? Why waste my time?

      That’s the figure I picked up from the organizers, I trust them, more then BBC

      I do apologies for time wasting, it was only said in a sense of humour

    118. Refresh — on 18th February, 2009 at 10:57 pm  

      ‘PP beard plucking for Comic Relief? I’d pay for that.’

      Thanks, Don.

      Anyone else want to contribute? Its a good cause.

    119. Paul Moloney — on 18th February, 2009 at 10:59 pm  

      “Should apostates be killed? Ask the Malaysian courts. People have successfully converted from Islam to other religions. One woman recently converted to islam and then back again. the state was deemed to have failed to teach her enough about islam to see it as the correct path. She was a free woman who was allowed to do what she wants. However you wouldn’t have read that story.”

      Your Fisher Price version of religious freedom in Malaysia doesn’t correspond with reality:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_religious_freedom_in_Malaysia#Nyonya_Tahir

      “Revathi Massosai is a Malaysian woman who was raised as a Hindu but her identity card designates her as a Muslim. She has declared her religion to be Hindu and has petitioned unsuccessfully to have the word “Islam” removed from her identity card. Massosai married a Hindu man, but her marriage is not recognized by the Malaysian government because of the religion issue. Massosai was incarcerated for six months in an Islamic re-education camp because of her attempts to renounce Islam in favor of the Hindu religion.[16] Revathi was denied the guardianship of her new born baby and was not allowed to meet her Hindu husband.”

      P.

    120. Refresh — on 18th February, 2009 at 11:01 pm  

      Soru, I was thinking along the lines of Forza Italia and the Northern League. In clean suits and patent leather.

      Patent leather underwear I believe.

    121. Refresh — on 18th February, 2009 at 11:22 pm  

      Soru

      ‘They would no doubt object to you describing them that way, and probably leak a story to the Telegraph headlined ‘why the government says your Gran is a fascist’.’

      The point I was making is that they will be in government.

    122. comrade — on 18th February, 2009 at 11:23 pm  

      Refresh
      Anyone else want to contribute? Its a good cause.

      Have you tried S….net? you’ll get a better response.

    123. soru — on 18th February, 2009 at 11:30 pm  

      Good points on the EU and the Caliphate.

      Quick point - the bullet points define a caliphate as ‘a pan-Islamic state encompassing many countries’, i.e. an empire. The EU is far from being a state - it’s a economic bloc with some aspirations to become a federation. Arguing for the voluntary formation of an Islamic EU would definitely not make someone an extremist: wanting to kick off a holy war to unite all the countries of the middle east into a single unitary state would.

      If I could be illiberal and ban one thing, it would be the use of Arabic words like Caliphate, Shar’ia and Jihad within English - these terms pretty much always obfuscate, confuse and mislead. There are dozens of words in English to distinguish between different types of political system, legal system, and armed conflict.

      Presumably, in actual Arabic, there are a similar number of word and phrases to make the distinction between an empire and a treaty, between not eating pork and beheading adulterers, between fighting a unfortunately necessary war and killing women and children out of hate.

      But as English loan words they just mean ‘any such thing, but done by Muslims’. Which reduces all political discussion involving them to a vocabulary of about 5 words.

      Unsurprising it then gets nowhere. If you translated back into English, it would sound something like:

      ‘killing innocent women and children is wrong’

      ‘I disagree, it is right to shoot down a plane that is bombing your house’

    124. Refresh — on 18th February, 2009 at 11:32 pm  

      Comrade

      What is S….net?

      I would try it, but we need to keep it a PP event. For so many reasons.

    125. soru — on 18th February, 2009 at 11:49 pm  

      The point I was making is that they will be in government.

      The way to avoid bigots of the ethnic majority winning an election is not to ratchet up the level of tribal fear when discussing minor political issues like which particular Muslim quango gets a few thousand pounds to run a youth club.

      Whatever the rules are, they should be the same for all groups: noone should get special privileges as a reward for being sufficiently scary.

      Otherwise everyone will be doing it: shiny suits and sunglasses would probably be more the british style than patent leather underwear.

    126. Refresh — on 18th February, 2009 at 11:58 pm  

      Its laid out in tribal terms. You might have noticed.

    127. soru — on 19th February, 2009 at 12:40 am  

      Yes: and who laid it out in those terms?

      This BBC report on exactly the same issue describes things entirely differently. It doesn’t contain any of the language used in the guardian article, which presumably was written as, at best, a paraphrase, by the journalist or his contact.

      The Guardian report was transparently written with an agenda of opposing these proposals, making them seem so shocking and scary that anyone with brown skin reading them would feel the creep of fear down their spine.

      It worked on you, and most people here, obviously. But, if you don’t want to experience life in the modern world like a viewer of a horror movie, you may want to consider being less easily manipulated into fear in future…

    128. Refresh — on 19th February, 2009 at 1:26 am  

      Soru, HP seem to be happy with the proposals as defined in the Guardian article. What am I missing? Are those bullet points incorrect?

    129. douglas clark — on 19th February, 2009 at 4:06 am  

      David T @ 91,

      The degree of hysteria that you like to abstract as normal discussion, Starbucksnacht for instance, is ludicrous beyond the extreme.

      Frankly you are only interested in stirring up a pro Israel consensus. That is what you are about. That is all you are interested in - apart from some fetish for left wing groupiscules.

      Lets see you give a link to your evocation of Nazi Germany on the streets of London. Produce it here and see what dogs abuse you get.

      You do remember your hysteria? Don’t you?

      Frankly, shut your site down. It is time that the stale cheese, a Euston Manifesto gone rancid if you will, was a memory for us. And perhaps a lesson for you.

      Is Nearly Oxfordian a personal friend? ‘Cause he or she is worse than you.

    130. medic — on 19th February, 2009 at 6:40 am  

      oops! i think i might be an extremist!

    131. Desi Italiana — on 19th February, 2009 at 8:05 am  

      A Third World Man’s guide to extremists:

      • They advocate a free market, a pan-American political-economic state-like structure with unaccountable (with unelected directors) institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF, encompassing many countries.
      • They promote the free market-again!
      • They believe in invading countries for economic spoils, providing billions of dollars of funding to extremist politicians, military dictators, and selling arms anywhere in the world. This includes hypocritically preaching “democracy” and “human rights” while funding, supporting, or keeping in power some of the grossest violators of democracy and human rights. Military responses are often seen as the only responses. They also lie and provide fabricated “evidence” to conquer other nations.
      • They point that Islam bans homosexuality, that it is a sin against Allah, and that it is a terrible religion. In the meantime, anti-gay sentiment and propositions to revoke the civil liberties of gays in places like the US still exist.
      • They fail to condemn-let alone COUNT- the killing of Iraqi citizens.

    132. Desi Italiana — on 19th February, 2009 at 8:12 am  

      Oh, and I forgot to add:

      -They oust your democratically elections officials

      -They impose harsh sanctions if they don’t agree with you, sanctions which affect civilians the most

      -They pick and stick it to tiny nations that pose no credible threat, like Cuba.

    133. Desi Italiana — on 19th February, 2009 at 8:25 am  

      “• They believe in jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world. This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military.”

      Jihad and armed resistance in general are not the same thing. There have been plenty of armed resistances that derive no inspiration or ideology from Islam. How short and/or selective our memory is when it comes to global politics.

    134. munir — on 19th February, 2009 at 8:51 am  

      Douglas Clark superb post at #132

    135. munir — on 19th February, 2009 at 8:52 am  

      Soru
      “Presumably, in actual Arabic, there are a similar number of word and phrases to make the distinction between an empire and a treaty, between not eating pork and beheading adulterers, between fighting a unfortunately necessary war and killing women and children out of hate.”

      what a turd you are Soru.

      In any language.

    136. sonia — on 19th February, 2009 at 10:53 am  

      Heh heh heh, well i daresay if all of these points are present, we could deem someone to be a religious extremist. Sigh, which most people are who go around thinking their god wants gay people dead. still, i suppose its a free world and they can believe what they like and be seen to be moral people while they’re at it.

      good point Soru in 126, words like Jihad and Sharia are complex and are open to interpretation anyway. (can’t see why munir thinks you’re a turd)

      great points from Desi Italiana -esp. how they understand the ‘free market’ - heh, that’s another of these ‘jihad, caliphate’ type terms. We want the free market! and no one knows what that actually means.

      frankly though, the US is such a religious country, it was a bit freaky. Immigrant countries and all that - concentrating religious feelings. the Left Behind stuff - shudder! it made growing up in the middle east feel like growing up in a ‘non-religious’ environment. I mean who goes to a Bible College in this day and age? If you go to a Madrassa, most muslims (not in the UK, but elsewhere, i.e. in countries where they aren’t worried about being minorities) will think you ARE weird (or your parents are).

    137. sonia — on 19th February, 2009 at 10:57 am  

      well the muslim extremists should all come here to the UK, they’ll blend in much easier. Never heard anyone talking about caliphates (outside of history class) in Kuwait, and you would fall about laughing if you did. Gosh, there are so many weird muslims in this country, its unbelievable. and all done to diasporic sentiment - crazy.

    138. douglas clark — on 19th February, 2009 at 10:58 am  

      There is a thread over on Harry’s Place that addresses the issue of nuclear weaponry in the Middle East. See here:

      http://tinyurl.com/d5u2rv

      What, as Stephen Fry might say, is ‘quite interesting’ about it is that the only nuclear state in the Middle East - I see India and Pakistan as Far East, but there you go - wants to retain its’ franchise as the only actor able to commit a holocaust.

      And the level of discussion is about the justice of murdering the scientists that are, putatively, working on an Iranian bomb.

      For the record, I am against nuclear proliferation, and especially amongst states that might use it. That trio includes India, Pakistan and David T’s favourite other country, Israel. The prospects of a peaceful resolution to the threat of an Iranian nuclear state are hindered by the cheer leaders for the Israeli nuclear arsenal.

      Oppenheimer - father of the bomb in popular mythology - said, “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” These folk see that as a desirable option.

      The First World War taught us that allowing monarchs to play soldiers had consequences beyond the losing side putting them back in a box and quietly weeping. The Second World War taught us that the rules had changed, that a nation could be subjugated very, very easily, if you used an Atomic Bomb.

      That genie is out of the box now and we now have keyboard warriors defending the right of unstable regimes - and I do mean Israel - to possess the technology to kill anyone they choose.

      This is not a sensible way of dealing with political differences.

    139. sonia — on 19th February, 2009 at 11:02 am  

      anyway this is all such bullshit and fear-mongering, as if you could go around ‘monitoring’ people, even if you wanted to (whether you think there is a problem or not is another matter) it never works, look at the House of Un-american activities etc. etc.

      the BNP if anyone should be worried, rather than ‘muslim extremists’. who was that kid at greenwich university - that they wanted out? thats’ the sort of thing that’s more realistic.

    140. sonia — on 19th February, 2009 at 11:03 am  

      The State is just trying to scare everyone. technically anyway most of us anarchists are considered ‘extremists’ and would be done if they could catch us :-)

    141. douglas clark — on 19th February, 2009 at 11:18 am  

      Sonia @ 141,

      HUAC was a bit of a nightmare for those that were ‘investigated’. It was a tad Orwellian….

      And at 142. I’m beginning to think that the only sensible folk left on this planet are anarchists. Not, it must be said, namby pamby Libertarians.

    142. sonia — on 19th February, 2009 at 11:24 am  

      yeah douglas of course it was. and a complete failure anyway. and also as Ally F said on asim siddiqui’s article on cif, the labelling theory thing is hugely important. tell someone they’re a problem, and they will become one. especially if they feel they’re some kind of ‘unwanted minority’ in the first place.

      this is of course all keeping the “clash of civilisations” thing going very nicely. samuel huntington must be very happy.

      send everyone to saudi arabia on sri-lankan passports, that’ll do the trick, if you really want to sort muslim britain out :-) oh of course, wait, that would require some heavy-handedness as well. ah well! i guess the state had better get used to the idea it can’t do much about any of these sorts of things.

    143. sonia — on 19th February, 2009 at 11:37 am  

      i like this comment though from the cif thread:

      Adam Siddiqui

      There is much debate in Muslim communities on what an “Islamic state” actually is or should look like in the modern world

      Will it permit lap dancing?

      of course it will - for the rich overlord men only though. :-)

    144. sonia — on 19th February, 2009 at 11:41 am  

      anyway snide comments aside, there is clearly a difference between recognising something as a problem, and then deciding what you can do about it. if people think homophobia isn’t a problem, or theocracies, well then, that is interesting, to say the least. Anyway, this is all not painting religion in a good light. of course that’s different to saying that someone should be in trouble for subscribing to a religion. In fact you don’t need to really, you could just shame them into it.

    145. douglas clark — on 19th February, 2009 at 11:45 am  

      Sonia,

      There seems to be an enormous investment in the ‘clash of civilisations’ meme. You can get very rich writing books in the US that support that idea. Her with the Adams apple, I forget her name, sells books based on the idea that Muslims should be converted to Christianity. How medieval is that?

      If the state were to recognise it’s own limits, it would be a day for opening the champaign. Sadly, they still believe in themselves.

    146. sonia — on 19th February, 2009 at 12:00 pm  

      just the US? what about here…and everywhere else. douglas, sadly the clash of civilisations meme DOES not go one way. its we dont like them, they don’t like us. where have you heard this recently? everywhere. and it feeds off each other, that’s the point. folks like the MCB wouldn’t be able to exist without it. Angry muslim clerics/christian evangelicals would be nowhere without that kind of thinking.

      of course state apparatus believes in itself. we shouldn’t forget that, which is why this whole discussion is brimming over with irony.

    147. douglas clark — on 19th February, 2009 at 12:11 pm  

      Sonia @ 148,

      Point taken. :-(

    148. sonia — on 19th February, 2009 at 12:15 pm  

      don’t be sad dear douglas :-)

    149. Refresh — on 20th February, 2009 at 1:44 am  

      Sonia, as an anarchist what sympathy could you have with HP?

    150. Refresh — on 20th February, 2009 at 1:49 am  

      DavidT,

      ‘Frankly you are only interested in stirring up a pro Israel consensus.’

      And following on from a pro-Israel consensus, is it essential it also has to be anti-muslim?

    151. cjcjc — on 20th February, 2009 at 9:53 am  

      Is it possible to “stir up” a consensus?

    152. munir — on 20th February, 2009 at 10:24 am  

      Refresh
      “And following on from a pro-Israel consensus, is it essential it also has to be anti-muslim?”

      No it isnt. However nearly all zionists have hoisted their petards to the anti-Muslim bandwagon and are milking it for all they’ve got on the basis of “if it makes the Arab/Muslims look bad it makes Israel look good”

      This is a stupid tactic because
      1) The hatred against Muslims they stir up could easily spill into hatred of Jews (perhaps theyd rather like this as it would encourage emigration to Israel)
      2) It fatally prevents them ever being accepted in a region that is predominantly Muslim and Arab if they present themselves as fighters in the war against Islam or as the anthises of Arabs/Muslims.

    153. ramiie — on 20th February, 2009 at 1:18 pm  

      The threat posed by the Jihadists should not be underestimated. Just like the ridiculous Trots before them dreamt of world communism, they dream about a pan islamic state, and will continue to create mayhem as armed terrorists or intellectual terrorists, and will play the LONG GAME in order to push their noxious agenda. As a christian and right thinking westernised human being, I feel that much of what passes as Islam in the minds of said new world order Jihadists is nothing short of a declaration of war. They must be beaten militarily and intellectually everywhere in the west. They must be uncovered and challenged in our schools, universities, work places, places of leisure, in fact wherever they uncoil themselves. I dont want to wake up one day to find that some local, let alone national politician, has decided that women should consider adopt the headscarf or burka..and it could happen, if these craven leftist hand wringing apologists like some of you liberals have your way.

    154. Sam — on 20th February, 2009 at 3:06 pm  

      Judging from Sid’s cracking open of the bubbly in response to the deporting of Abu Qatada, I would’ve thought he would be celebrating these leaked government proposals? After all, Sid welcomes laws that allow Muslims to be deported without real reason, so surely he would welcome any move by the government to get rid of those pesky, homophobic women-hating Muslims?

    155. Sam — on 20th February, 2009 at 3:09 pm  

      Ramiie, go to Harry’s Place. There are others who hate Muslims, regardless of how religious they may or may not be, as much as you do. Being Muslim is a crime: you can enjoy being judge, jury and (in your bloodsoaked dreams) executioner in their comments sections.

    156. Sid — on 20th February, 2009 at 3:13 pm  

      After all, Sid welcomes laws that allow Muslims to be deported without real reason, so surely he would welcome any move by the government to get rid of those pesky, homophobic women-hating Muslims?

      No mate, I welcome laws that allow Islamists to be deported for real reasons such as for killing innocent Muslim and non-Muslim people and therefore afford their relatives some justice. Try and understand that point - it is crucial.

    157. Sam — on 20th February, 2009 at 3:52 pm  

      Has it been proven by a court of law that Qatada has killed people? Have charges been brought, has a trial taken place, has evidence been produced over his murders? Or do you simply think he deserves to be tortured to death in Jordan without any credible trial?

    158. Don — on 20th February, 2009 at 4:02 pm  

      Sam,

      Depends. Do you recognise the Jordanian legal system as legitimate? Jordan sentenced Abu Qatada in absentia in 2000 to life imprisonment for his involvement in a plot to bomb tourists who would be in Jordan to attend the Millennium celebrations.

      So has been found guilty of plotting murder, and sentenced.

    159. Don — on 20th February, 2009 at 7:28 pm  

      To get back on topic, if that is remotely possible, these leaked proposals seem to be about establishing criteria for which groups the government feels should be eligible for partnership/funding/ running social programmes.

      That’s not unreasonable.

      Having these criteria apply only to one group is very unreasonable.

      Could they be tweaked to apply across the board?

      • They advocate a caliphate, a pan-Islamic state encompassing many countries.

      Tricky, as the definition of Caliphate as a state is problematic. Perhaps something along the lines of;

      The British government will only partner/finance/endorse groups which direct their energies towards improving the lot of UK citizens and residents, and not some big global dream.

      • They promote Sharia law.

      Easier.

      They seek to insinuate or introduce theocracy into the legal system.

      I could get behind that.

      • They believe in jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world. This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military.

      They believe in jihad, or armed resistance,… Now that’s just weasle words. Do they mean jihad i.e. armed resistance or jihad and any other form of armed resistance?

      This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military.

      Obviously. Would it also include British citizens serving with or actively supporting other, non-Palestian miltary groups?

      So how about;

      The British government will not partner/finance/endorse groups which encourage, support or endorse violence against anybody with whom we are not actually at war.

      • They argue that Islam bans homosexuality and that it is a sin against Allah.

      They argue that their religious beliefs entitle them to exemption from laws which protect the rights and dignities of others.

      • They fail to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan.

      They celebrate, support or excuse deaths and pain in pointless fucking conflicts.

      Obviously some work needs doing, but in principle I don’t see anything wrong in laying down some rules about who you are prepared to get into bed with.

    160. sonia — on 20th February, 2009 at 7:55 pm  

      well said don - its not unreasonable at all, but as you say, it shouldn’t apply to just one ‘group’ or any ‘group’ at all, but principles applying to anyone applying.

      Re: first point -

      “They advocate a caliphate, a pan-Islamic state encompassing many countries.

      i’d say this one to me is about resisting ‘empire’/ imperialism/imperialistic attitudes within the realm of governance.

    161. sonia — on 20th February, 2009 at 7:56 pm  

      after all, it should be recognised that empires are/ought to be a thing of the past, or at least are recognised to be highly problematic and undemocratic!

    162. Refresh — on 20th February, 2009 at 9:16 pm  

      Don,
      If it was a choice between one or the other, the first excludes muslims as whole and your revision excludes nutters and the government.

      Unless I’ve misunderstood.

      One thing you could consider in your proposition is that we are not living through reasonable times. The other is to acknowledge the right to self-determination.

    163. Don — on 20th February, 2009 at 9:58 pm  

      Refresh, I think we more or less agree. What does acknowledge the right to self-determination. mean in the context of anything I have said?

    164. Refresh — on 20th February, 2009 at 10:26 pm  

      No not anything you’ve said, but a precursor to democratic development is a nation holding its destiny in its own hands and not agents of an external power, who by definition will only acknowledge its own interests.

      Which is my way of saying, lets exclude groups which support dictatorships, and I guess since we’ve concluded your guidelines already excludes the government; we should explicitly exclude other types of groups too, such as thinktanks whether acting alone or in concert with external powers (allies or not).

    165. Don — on 20th February, 2009 at 10:55 pm  

      guess since we’ve concluded your guidelines already excludes the government;

      Do they? I missed that conclusion. Expand.

    166. Refresh — on 20th February, 2009 at 11:26 pm  

      I did misunderstand then:

      ‘They celebrate, support or excuse deaths and pain in pointless ****** conflicts.’

    167. Don — on 21st February, 2009 at 9:59 am  

      Point taken.

    168. Jai — on 24th February, 2009 at 11:03 am  

      Bit late in catching up on this particular thread…..Absolutely brilliant post #161 by Don. That’s exactly the sort of brainpower and lateral thinking that’s needed in order to effectively deal with this issue.

      Don, time for you to run for office. “Yes We Can” has obviously already been used by another dude, but I’m sure we could come up with a suitably snarky campaign slogan for you.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.