Marching against al-Muhajiroun


by Sunny
26th October, 2009 at 8:00 am    

British Muslims for Secular Democracy today announces the launch of its plans to organise a demonstration on Saturday 31st October to counter a demonstration by Al Muhajiroun, at which they will call for the abolition of democracy in Britain and the imposition of Shariah Law on all.

That demonstration has been called by Islam 4 UK – a successor organisation to Al Muhajiroun. British Muslims for Secular Democracy are organising the counter demonstration, bringing together a number of religious and non-religious groups.

Shaaz Mahboob, vice-chair of British Muslims for Secular Democracy says:

Our counter-demonstration is based on our belief in, and commitment to, those liberal values that define the British state, including legal and constitutional equality for all, equal rights for women and minorities, and religious freedom, including the right to be free of faith.

Please join us via our website, at www.seculardemocracy.org, and via their Facebook page.

Invite your friends, help get the word out, and see you in Piccadilly Circus, 1 pm, Saturday 31 October.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: British Identity,Islamists,Religion






132 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. pickles

    New blog post: Marching against al-Muhajiroun http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6323




  1. Ismaeel — on 26th October, 2009 at 9:49 am  

    Very poor strategy, there are many Muslims who dont like Al Mahajaroon but few who are willing to contrast the values of Liberal Democracy and the Shariah in the way that this group seems to be planning.

    Wouldn’t it be better just to ridicule their ridiculous stance of marching to downing street to ask the PM to abolish the British constitution and the whole political system and give it to them to establish a shariah state.
    It’s about as daft as Sikhs turning up to the Vatican and demanding the Pope turn it into Khalistan (forgive me if I spelt that wrongly).

    In fact if you’re not careful you may end up with fewer Muslim counter protesters and actually end up giving a counter productive message…

  2. Wyrdtimes — on 26th October, 2009 at 10:26 am  

    This is excellent – well done all concerned.

    Not before time I hasten to add.

  3. platinum786 — on 26th October, 2009 at 10:33 am  

    Hmm, how many British Muslims are comfortable identifying themselves with the term “secular democracy”. This is an unnown group, one that I doubt will have much appeal. People would be quite willing to march against HT, but the banner of secular democracy I think you’ll find is a turn off. If this was organised by say UAF, then it would have been a success.

  4. Reza — on 26th October, 2009 at 10:41 am  

    “We … share a common belief in secular democracy and the values of the British liberal state such as legal and constitutional equality for all, equal rights for women and minorities, and the right to religious freedom (including freedom from religion).”

    Good intentions.

    It will be interesting to see just how many members of ‘The Vast Majority of Moderate Muslims’ (‘TVMMM ®’) are willing to get behind that statement.

    Because there’s the rub. There’s no doubt that ‘TVMMM ®’ find the Al Muhajiroun approach to be extreme. Yet the ugly truth is that far too few of them are willing to support all of the pronouncements in the above statement.

    Because to do so would mean declaring full opposition to sharia law and therefore opposition to the fundamental principles of the Islamic belief system.

    And few will do that. Just wait and see.

    I predict that we’ll see a few ‘ex-Muslims’ there saying the right thing. If any devout Muslims do turn up, look out for weasel words. Meaningless pronouncements about ‘peace’ and ‘tolerance’. But you’ll see nothing about opposing sharia law.

  5. Effendi — on 26th October, 2009 at 11:50 am  

    platinum786:

    “People would be quite willing to march against HT, but the banner of secular democracy I think you’ll find is a turn off. If this was organised by say UAF, then it would have been a success.”

    Very strange. The UAF are a broad-based socialist group of the hard-Left. One of the mainstays of socialist ideology is authoritarian, state-enforced Atheism. You would rather march behind atheists than with Muslims who support religious freedom in a secular democracy? Very odd.

    Reza:

    What a mangled car crash of a comment. I would take you far more seriously if your ideas weren’t so imprinted with armchair commentary. All British Muslims are not crypto-Islamists you know, in spite of what your prejudices tell you. If you really want to fight Islamist extremism, posting contrarian comments on blogs is not enough. Get out of your armchair.

  6. platinum786 — on 26th October, 2009 at 12:08 pm  

    ^^^ to be fair to myself, and most other people, we don’t know the life history and the ideology of either of these groups. Mosy people don’t have time or the interest in finding out. Most people tend to be politically quite passive.

    You said to me;

    One of the mainstays of socialist ideology is authoritarian, state-enforced Atheism.

    I wouldn’t know if that is true or not. My personal understanding of socialism was ideas like the NHS, state benefits, grants to let poor students into uni. Didn’t know that Atheism had much to do with it.

    similarly, my understanding of UAF was, people who marched against facists, and not much else. For political nerds it sounds like I’m really stupid, probably am, but then so are millions of others like me who only take a passing interest in politics or none at all.

    Now the Muslim group for Secularism, or whatever their name is, I don’t know anything about them either, but I tend to view Muslim groups using the word secualrism with suspicion. The suspicion usually is that they’re only in it for government money. It’s a seterotype, maybe even a bit racist of me, but i don’t know anything about them.

    Hence why i’d rather associate myself with a group, i think i know, rather than one i don’t know.

    As for Reza’s point;

    We … share a common belief in secular democracy and the values of the British liberal state such as legal and constitutional equality for all, equal rights for women and minorities, and the right to religious freedom (including freedom from religion).

    I think you’d find most Muslims do agree with that. Of course self haters loathing in self pity with beg to differ.

  7. Effendi — on 26th October, 2009 at 12:14 pm  

    I wouldn’t know if that is true or not. My personal understanding of socialism was ideas like the NHS, state benefits, grants to let poor students into uni. Didn’t know that Atheism had much to do with it.

    In that case, I suggest you get to know about it!

    The principles of Liberal Democracy are not based on atheism nor is it anti-religion, quite the contrary it promotes tolerance and religous freedom. Something which the the Stalinist politics of the UAF would not support.

    By the way that last comment you referenced isn’t Reza’s point. It is taken from the website who have organised this counter-demo.

    http://www.seculardemocracy.org/

    And if you agree with its sentiments, as you say you do, I trust you will support the Britons (Muslim and non-Muslim) who will march against al-Muhajiroun on Saturday 31 October.

  8. Reza — on 26th October, 2009 at 12:15 pm  

    effendi

    “I would take you far more seriously if your ideas weren’t so imprinted with armchair commentary.”

    Armchair commentary huh?

    I was born a Muslim. Until 2001 I considered myself to be a Muslim, albeit a non-religious one. Whatever that meant.

    I rejected Islam as an unjust, brutal and intolerant ideology because I got out of my armchair and studied it. I read the Qur’an (in English). I read pro and anti Islam books. And armed with knowledge, I questioned. I questioned an Imam at my local mosque. I questioned Muslim cabbies. I questioned Muslim anti-war petitioners and Islamic prothlesizers in the high street. I’ve questioned many Mullahs and even an Ayatollah in Iran. I wrote to the Muslim Council of Muslims with my questions.

    And the answers I received formulated my views on Islam.

    And the reason I’m reluctant to get out of my armchair today and declare my views in public is because of this:-

    “A poll conducted by the Policy Exchange last year suggested that over a third of young British Muslims believe that the death penalty should apply for apostasy.”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7355515.stm

    So don’t you dare effendi, sit smugly in your armchair, armed with no knowledge of Islam whatsoever, and ask me to get out of mine.

    I would dearly love to. But I’m scared to. Like many other ex-Muslims I know.

    And people like you, naïve appeasers, are complicit in the atmosphere of fear we live in.

  9. Effendi — on 26th October, 2009 at 12:28 pm  

    I think it’s you who is sitting in your armchair Reza and we all know it. This is a broad-based inclusive group of sincere British Muslims who have not renounced their religion, nor their traditions, to fight for this country’s religious freedom. It also includes non-observant Muslims and non-Muslim Britons. We fight against Islamist religious extremism whose actions and deleterious infamy has, for too long, been used against them. The commanlity is the love of this country that we live in, of secular liberal values.

    If you were really as serious about the fight for secular liberalism and aginst religious extremism, as you say you are, you would at the very least, support the right of Muslims to embrace the liberal democracy and love this country that we live in. Rather than pour scorn and derision on this sentiment. Is that very hard for you to undsertsand?

  10. Reza — on 26th October, 2009 at 1:02 pm  

    Effendi

    “If you were really as serious about the fight for secular liberalism and aginst religious extremism, as you say you are, you would at the very least, support the right of Muslims to embrace the liberal democracy and love this country that we live in.”

    And any Muslim that rejects sharia law has my full support. As does any Muslim that supports equal rights for women, the right of people to be homosexual, the right to reject islam or try to convert Muslims without punishment.

    And most Muslims would say that they support those rights.

    But this has to be unequivocal. Naive appeasers like you don’t understand what I mean by unequivocal.

    You must dig deeper.

    What you don’t understand is that many of the Muslims who tell you they support secular democracy say so as part of the Islamic covenant: Muslims living in the lands of unbelievers have an Islamic duty to uphold the laws of those lands and not to make war on the unbelievers as long as Muslims are allowed to practice their religion in peace and not driven from their homes. It’s that clear.

    Therefore there are always some ‘caveats’ to the support of secular democracy and freedom of thought.

    Try asking Muslims, if they are willing to condemn unequivocally the brutal ‘Hadd’ punishments (stoning, limb amputation, beheading etc.) being implemented for ‘crimes’ such as unlawful intercourse, homosexuality or changing ones faith from Islam to another or none. Ask them if they condemn it under any circumstances, anywhere in the world.

    Keep pressing for a proper answer. You’ll get the point eventually.

    Most Muslims will speak in caveats. Such as obeying ‘British Law’. A moratorium on Hadd until a Kalifah is established. A moratorium until the return of the Mahdi.

    Or they’ll deflect the issue. They’ll tell you that Islam believes in granting mercy. That such punishments are very difficult to implement under Islamic law.

    But they won’t denounce it, unequivocally.

    And that for me is no different to a KKK supporter that rejects lynching black people, because it is not appropriate to do so at this time.

    But in an ideal world…

    You are misled in your understanding of Islam effendi, because you don’t understand the questions you must ask, and how you must ask them.

    I’m not.

  11. Effendi — on 26th October, 2009 at 1:19 pm  

    Reza

    You come across a little like the Otto character from “A Fish Called Wanda”. You think you’re a philosopher but you’re actually a bit of a ficko. What’s more, your essentialist ideas of assigning all Muslims as crypto-Islamists is not a million miles from the BNP – they happen to be white supremacists who use religion as a code for racial supremacism, if you’re unaware.

    There is no need for British Muslims to renounce Islam if they are to embrace the principles of liberal democracy, fight against religious extremism, tolerance and a love of this country. They can and do form alliances with non-Muslims, lapsed Muslims, in fact anyone who shares these fundamental ideas.

    And that’s exactly what this counter-demo is about on Satuday, 31st October. Give that armchair and those snarky blog comments a rest and join us, if you share these values.

  12. Effendi — on 26th October, 2009 at 1:27 pm  

    You are misled in your understanding of Islam effendi, because you don’t understand the questions you must ask, and how you must ask them.

    By the way, Reza, I write at the Spittoon blog:

    http://www.spittoon.org/

    You will find that it is written by a group of Muslims and non-Muslims who are very well versed in the minutiae of Islamist politics and extremist groups, and are prepared to give those ideologies a very hard time indeed. So please don’t assume that you’re the only expert on Islam on PP just because there are not many Muslims on here who are prepared to oppose your essentialist nonsense.

  13. Reza — on 26th October, 2009 at 1:30 pm  

    effendi

    I’m willing to reopen my mind. After all, it took a long time for my study of Islam and my discussions with Muslim scholars and ordinary Muslims to close it.

    Maybe I’ve been staggeringly unlucky in the people I’ve spoken to.

    But if you do know a prominent Muslim scholar that may be able to reassure me about the nature of Islam, then please let me know where I can find him.

    I’d sincerely welcome an ideologically sound and credible viewpoint on how true Islam can be compatible with true tolerance, freedom and democracy.

  14. douglas clark — on 26th October, 2009 at 1:34 pm  

    Effendi,

    Well, thank God we’ve another expert on here.

    Is what Reza said:

    Try asking Muslims, if they are willing to condemn unequivocally the brutal ‘Hadd’ punishments (stoning, limb amputation, beheading etc.) being implemented for ‘crimes’ such as unlawful intercourse, homosexuality or changing ones faith from Islam to another or none. Ask them if they condemn it under any circumstances, anywhere in the world.

    right or wrong?

    I think we ought to know.

  15. Effendi — on 26th October, 2009 at 1:44 pm  

    douglas clark

    That’s largely correct. However, the large majority of the world’s Muslims live in Muslim-majority nations (Indian, Pakistan, Malyasia, Bangladesh, Indonesia) and they live under systems that do not implement the Hadd punishments and nor does there seem to be any movement for there to be so. That includes the Muslims living in Britain.

  16. douglas clark — on 26th October, 2009 at 1:49 pm  

    Effendi,

    That’s fine in principle. And tends to undercut Rezas’ arguements quite a lot. But what is one to make of the Arab nations? And some that are not exactly Arab, like Somalia. I take it Indian was just a mistake? If you really meant India….

  17. douglas clark — on 26th October, 2009 at 1:56 pm  

    Anyway,

    It is not exactly reassuring to be told that Reza is largely right. I consider these practices to be barbaric and wrong-headed.

    What have you to say to that?

    That they are there in the background perhaps, but kept in reserve?

  18. Effendi — on 26th October, 2009 at 1:58 pm  

    douglas clark,

    Just to be clear: Are you agreeing with Reza (and the BNP) that all British Muslims are essentially illiberal savages who cannot embrace the principles of Secular Democracy because of the content of their religious doctrines?

  19. Sunny — on 26th October, 2009 at 2:01 pm  

    I predict that we’ll see a few ‘ex-Muslims’ there saying the right thing. If any devout Muslims do turn up, look out for weasel words. Meaningless pronouncements about ‘peace’ and ‘tolerance’. But you’ll see nothing about opposing sharia law.

    ahh es, they can never please you eh Reza? Typical.

    Why don’t you go? You’re an ex-Muslim after all right?

  20. Jay — on 26th October, 2009 at 2:05 pm  

    However, the large majority of the world’s Muslims live in Muslim-majority nations (Indian, Pakistan, Malyasia, Bangladesh, Indonesia

    India ain’t a Muslim-majority nation dude. Unless all those Hindus and Sikhs and Christians just converted overnight or something. Maybe, it was wishful thinking or something.

  21. fugstar — on 26th October, 2009 at 2:07 pm  

    Awwww its so cute.

    I never though of the mojo’s as worthy of staging a protest for.

    I must conclude that through their obsession with winning white approval, way of distancing themselves from the unwashed messier elements and general cluelessness, BDS&M are showing the world (saturday london shoppers rather) what they are.

    A bunch of silly Pakis.

    Anish Kapoor anybody?

  22. Effendi — on 26th October, 2009 at 2:09 pm  

    “A bunch of silly Pakis.”

    Oh dear. Join Reza and douglas clark at the back of the line.

  23. Effendi — on 26th October, 2009 at 2:13 pm  

    Jay, sorry my mistake, I included India because it has one of the largest indigenous Muslim populations in the world.

  24. douglas clark — on 26th October, 2009 at 2:14 pm  

    Effendi,

    Absolutely not. I have never met a Muslim that would meet that definition. Although, on the internet…

    There are some Muslim nutcases around Effendi, or haven’t you noticed? I tend to think of them much as I used to think of the Reverend Iain Paisley and his flock. Or the latest iteration of a nutcase with an LLB Hons. In other words, not worth bothering about.

    It is however a valid question whether my personal experience should be put in a sort of balance with Rezas’ hysterics.

    I happen to think not, but it is also pretty clear that a tiny minority of Muslims would fit Rezas bill, rather than yours or mine. The fact that you appeared to agree with Reza on the question of, lets keep it to one subject, eh, of death for apostasy is a tad worrying. You are supposed to be the liberal.

  25. douglas clark — on 26th October, 2009 at 2:19 pm  

    Effendi @ 22,

    You may wish to withdraw your insulting, crude and meaningless remark, in as much as it was directed at me.

    And you could try an expiremental apology to me too. For it was I that pointed out your error, long before Jay did. India, indeed!

  26. Effendi — on 26th October, 2009 at 2:19 pm  

    douglas clark

    I refer to your invoking of Reza’s illiberal assertions that all Muslims are doctrinal fanatics on this thread. You brought up the Hadd law trope and seemed to agree with his assertions. Not once but twice. Am I mistaken in assuming you agree with him?

  27. douglas clark — on 26th October, 2009 at 2:31 pm  

    Effendi,

    No.

    I asked a question of you. I didn’t invoke anything whatsoever. It was you that agreed with Rezas assertions, not me.

    Are you incapable of reading?

    Here it is again:

    Absolutely not. I have never met a Muslim that would meet that definition.

    Did you think I was directing that comment to outer space or something? It was in response to your previous attempt at a wind up:

    Just to be clear: Are you agreeing with Reza (and the BNP) that all British Muslims are essentially illiberal savages who cannot embrace the principles of Secular Democracy because of the content of their religious doctrines?

    The question of Shahira Law is a legitimate concern to those of us who aren’t Muslims, and cuts across common law. I cannot, in all honesty, say I am comfortable about it.

    You are completely mistaken if you think Reza and I agree on much at all. Even on a subject we may have common ground on – like keeping religion out of education – we have a completely different perspective.

  28. fugstar — on 26th October, 2009 at 3:44 pm  

    I think somebody should order a strategic flashmob to generally mock all two sad groups.

    Armed with 20 foot long dupattas they could tie a mojo each to a britmussecdem and ask them to sort out their daddy issues and stop making a nuisance.

    Or maybe simulate a wrestling match between a caveman wearing a jubba and a boring asian accountant dressed in pakistan manufactured adult gear.

  29. platinum786 — on 26th October, 2009 at 3:57 pm  

    I personally don’t care all that much. As a community we face bigger problems than Al Muhajiroun, like the levels of poverty or education amongst our youth. Seems to me anyone only is concerned about British Muslims when you think we’re going to suddenly turn into terrorists and blow stuff up. We’re not all that stupid.

  30. Reza — on 26th October, 2009 at 4:06 pm  

    Douglas

    Ouch. I genuinely sympathize with you. It’s true that we generally disagree. I consider you as an extremist when it comes to ‘tolerance’. I feel that you strive so hard to be ‘tolerant’ that you’ll sometimes close your eyes to the intolerable. So seeing someone like you attacked by effendi for daring to question the fact that many Muslims may support a legal system that is brutal and intolerant feels so grossly unfair. It smarts even me.

    I’m used to being attacked for being intolerant. I accept that you are not.

    But you now have a choice. To stick your head below the parapet and continue to be seen and liked as ‘Mr Tolerant’ or to continue to ask questions and stand up for the principles of freedom and true tolerance.

    Christianity experienced a reformation because of the brave people that questioned and criticized the status quo. Nothing less is necessary to force Islam into self-reflection. Silence on this, not questioning the status quo, is the worst thing a principled person could do.

    Appeasement and self-censorship is a betrayal of freedom. The freedom you believe in so strongly.

    Sunny

    I’d willingly support the demonstration and its stated aims. And I’ll even risk being open about being an ex-Muslim. After all, according to people like you and effendi, there is no chance of that admission being met with open contempt and hostility by the Vast Majority of Moderate Muslims assembled there. Is there?

    Rationality means keeping an open mind. Always considering the chance that you may be wrong. You should try it sometime.

    I’m ready for an epiphany. This is not joke. I truly am. I want to go to the demo and ask some the VMMM what they believe. I’ll be respectful. I always am. Let’s see how they answer my questions.

    Effendi

    I’d like to bring a placard, which I believe is in accordance with the stated aims of the demo. It will say, “Support freedom and democracy. No Sharia in the UK!”

    Could I take that placard? It’s a sincere and genuine question.

  31. bananabrain — on 26th October, 2009 at 4:21 pm  

    Christianity experienced a reformation because of the brave people that questioned and criticized the status quo.

    speaking personally, the brave people in question were perfectly happy to go ahead and continue oppressing mine, as well as embarking on centuries of ongoing warfare with the status quo in question.

    so, obviously, that’s the solution islam should go for, as it’s worked so well in the past.

    fatimids, anyone?

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  32. Jay — on 26th October, 2009 at 4:25 pm  

    A bunch of silly Pakis.

    What a vile, disgusting, bigoted, inverted cretin you are.

  33. Jay — on 26th October, 2009 at 4:30 pm  

    I personally don’t care all that much. As a community we face bigger problems than Al Muhajiroun, like the levels of poverty or education amongst our youth. Seems to me anyone only is concerned about British Muslims when you think we’re going to suddenly turn into terrorists and blow stuff up

    To be fair, that is worth worrying about, not only because we don’t want ourselves or or beloved family members to be blown up, but because the act of doing so poisons and unbalances our society in the long term. WHy else should anyone else care about British Muslims, any more than we care about British Catholics, Jews, Sikhs etc etc etc.

    And regarding poverty levels and education – that is something that Muslims should strive themselves to better through introspection and hard work.

  34. Reza — on 26th October, 2009 at 4:32 pm  

    bananabrain

    “…speaking personally, the brave people in question were perfectly happy to go ahead and continue oppressing mine…”

    What a ridiculous thing to say. Those brave people challenged the persecution of Jews! Some of them risked their lives and liberty to do so.

    The reason that no significant mainstream Christian group advocates hostility to Jews is because of the bravery of those people who condemned and criticised it at a time when it was seen as acceptable.

    How else do you think Christanity evolved?

  35. Effendi — on 26th October, 2009 at 4:35 pm  

    Could I take that placard? It’s a sincere and genuine question.

    And the answer to your question is “yes”. There is such a placard. Have a look at the video, it’s in there. But does that mean you will now support the British Muslims for Secularism who are in this demo? I doubt it.

    The thing is, we are resisting Shari’ah, and people like you and douglas clark are insinuating that all Muslims, even those who are fighting against the imposition of Shari’ah in the UK are crypto-Islamists.

    I don’t think your question was a sincere one. It is simply a mendacious piece of whataboutery.

    Either that, or you have us mistaken for Inayat Bunglawala. But that’s a different story.

  36. douglas clark — on 26th October, 2009 at 4:36 pm  

    Reza,

    I don’t think I am striving to be tolerant. I just genuinely like a lot of the folk that write and comment here. I have learned a lot from them.

    But not everyone, obviously.

    Pickled Politics has, since day one, strived to strike an editorial balance somewhere between a right and left in religion as well as politics.

    That is, more or less, where I’ve always seen myself. And, whilst I am an atheist, I am generally quite quiet about it.

    It amuses me that, on the one hand John Lee Barnes wants to deport me, or worse, and on the other hand Effendi gets his knickers in a twist. One thinks I am a wishy washy socialist, t’other that I am BNP. It says more about them than it does about me.

    So, I am quite happy sitting on the fence, because to the left and to the right of me I see a desert…

  37. fugstar — on 26th October, 2009 at 4:49 pm  

    32.
    not really, its an imitative quality that they have which they think makes them civilised, but which marks them out for trying to hard to create a new caste for themselves.

    saturday is going to be soo much fun, and so a consequence of question time.

  38. douglas clark — on 26th October, 2009 at 4:54 pm  

    Effendi,

    Are you actually as thick as you appear to be?

    and people like you and douglas clark are insinuating that all Muslims, even those who are fighting against the imposition of Shari’ah in the UK are crypto-Islamists.

    Where have I accused you of being a crypto-Islamist? I refer you back to your post at 15. You are the idiot that agreed with Reza, not me.

    I have neither insinuated nor stated any such thing. I support the BMSD protest.

    Your inability to answer a question without taking the huff and acting all righteous is quite irritating, wrongheaded and frankly the sort of thing I’d expect from a dullard.

    I despair at your comprehension levels, I really do.

  39. Reza — on 26th October, 2009 at 4:58 pm  

    effendi

    “And the answer to your question is “yes”. There is such a placard. Have a look at the video, it’s in there. But does that mean you will now support the British Muslims for Secularism who are in this demo? I doubt it.”

    You are so wrong. Of course I’ll support any Muslim who rejects sharia law, supports secular democracy, tolerance of homosexuals, equality for women and the freedom of everybody to join and leave any religion they want to. I’ll come to your demo and bring my banner. And I guarantee that if you meet me you’ll find someone who is far more tolerant than you’d be expecting.

    The only difference between you and me is the opinion of how many British Muslims comprise the above viewpoint. You say it’s an overwhelming majority. I say that it is a small majority.

    You say that Muslims who believe otherwise are a tiny minority. I say that they are a significant minority.

    You can produce no evidence to back up your view. And I have plenty to back up mine:-

    “Poll reveals 40pc of Muslims want sharia law in UK”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html

    “A poll conducted by the Policy Exchange last year suggested that over a third of young British Muslims believe that the death penalty should apply for apostasy.”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7355515.stm

  40. Effendi — on 26th October, 2009 at 5:06 pm  

    Reza

    I don’t disagree with you or the Telegraph figures. The difference between you and I is that you seem to be too easily discouraged by the figures which makes you reluctant to leave your armchair but rather snipe from the sidelines or on blogs.

    We at the BMSD think that the levels of extremism in the larger Muslim community is all the more reason why we are marching against extremism on Saturday.

  41. Don — on 26th October, 2009 at 5:22 pm  

    Reza,

    I suspect you and bananabrain are defining ‘reformation’ differently. The key figures in the Reformation (the split with Rome) were Luther and Calvin, both rabid antisemites who urged vigorous persecution of the jews.

    Perhaps you are thinking of the later liberalisation of some branches of the church? There was nothing liberal about the Protestant Reformation.

  42. Reza — on 26th October, 2009 at 5:29 pm  

    Effendi

    “I don’t disagree with you or the Telegraph figures. The difference between you and I is that you seem to be too easily discouraged by the figures which makes you reluctant to leave your armchair but rather snipe from the sidelines or on blogs.”

    I resent that. I would like nothing more than to get out of my armchair.

    Can you imagine how it feels to know that so many people think that you should die for rejecting Islam?

    Can you possibly imagine how it feels to be in the same space as people like that?

    I don’t believe you can.

    That’s why I hide in discussion forums.

    It’s true that cowardice; concern for my life and my family’s welfare drives me, and many like me, underground. I wish I could be braver.

    That’s why I get so angry about artificial concepts such as ‘The Vast Majority of Moderate Muslims.’

    The fact that a Muslim may not support planting bombs to blow up British civilians does not make them ‘moderate’. I fully understand that Islam forbids it.

    Neither does opposing nut-jobs like ‘Islam 4 UK’ make a Muslim ‘moderate’.

    As I said earlier, ‘moderate’ means rejecting sharia law, supporting secular democracy, tolerating and accepting homosexuality, supporting full equality for women and the freedom of everybody to join and leave any religion they want to.

    Unequivocally!

    And when you accept that definition of ‘moderate’ you have to accept that there are a frighteningly high number of British Muslims out there that are anything but ‘moderate’.

  43. Effendi — on 26th October, 2009 at 5:31 pm  

    Reza

    Nice line on victimhood you’ve got there. I’m a cultural Muslim and an atheist but I don’t believe that I need to to berate the entire British Muslim community as savages who want to execute me for apostasy. There will be plenty of ex-Muslim groups and individuals at the march, alongside devout Muslims. This is Britain, not the Islamic Republic of Iran. if Maryam Namazie can, so can you.

    Get over yourself.

  44. bananabrain — on 26th October, 2009 at 5:36 pm  

    reza:

    What a ridiculous thing to say. Those brave people challenged the persecution of Jews! Some of them risked their lives and liberty to do so.

    er, you talked about the christian reformation. the prime mover behind this was martin luther, you know, the author of, among other things, the 60,000-word opus “on the jews and their lies”:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies

    i think you and i must be talking about entirely different christian reformations, but it beats the hell out of me which one you are on about.

    The reason that no significant mainstream Christian group advocates hostility to Jews

    you mean, apart from those who believe in supersessionism?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism

    or those that think that those jews who don’t die in the wars of armageddon will end up converting to christianity?

    significant? imagine american foreign policy without their influence.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  45. Jay — on 26th October, 2009 at 5:39 pm  

    not really, its an imitative quality that they have which they think makes them civilised, but which marks them out for trying to hard to create a new caste for themselves.

    Yes, further confirmation of what a stupid, splenetic, repulsive, witless little nasty cretin you are.

  46. Reza — on 26th October, 2009 at 5:42 pm  

    Effendi

    “Nice line on victimhood, but I’m a cultural Muslim and an atheist but I don’t believe that I need to to berate the entire British Muslim community as savages who want to execute me for apostacy. Get over yourself.”

    What? Didn’t I say earlier:-

    “Of course I’ll support any Muslim who rejects sharia law, supports secular democracy, tolerance of homosexuals, equality for women and the freedom of everybody to join and leave any religion they want to. I’ll come to your demo and bring my banner.”

    So who is berating the entire British Muslim community?

    I’m simply unwilling to go along with the ‘Vast Majority etc.’ bullshit.

    I’m simply not going to sit back and pretend that extremist views and unacceptable levels of intolerance exist in only a ‘tiny minority of British Muslims’. That is not my personal experience and neither can you or anyone else provide me with any evidence on why I should believe that.

  47. Effendi — on 26th October, 2009 at 5:44 pm  

    I’m certainly not saying that and it would be silly of you suggest that I am.

  48. Reza — on 26th October, 2009 at 5:45 pm  

    bananbrain @ #45

    Don @ #42 picked up my error and speculated correctly on the point I was trying to make.

  49. bananabrain — on 26th October, 2009 at 5:52 pm  

    aha! i thought so. i stand by my point about “significant mainstream” christian groups – just look at the theology of the so-called “christian zionists” and then tell me if it’s ultimately hostile to us (and everyone else) or not.

    to be frank, any group that believes in proselytisation is going to be problematic, whether you’re calling it “da’wah”, “witnessing” or “kiruv” – all of these are rooted in chauvinism and their ultimate endpoint is persecution for those that beg to differ with the “TRUTH”, whether in mogadishu, rural alabama or kiryat ‘arba.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  50. Don — on 26th October, 2009 at 6:07 pm  

    Effendi,

    Having just read the thread through I’m puzzled by the exchange #14 to #18. As far as I can see, Douglas asked you if Reza was correct in his assertion that a practicing muslim could not outright reject Hudd laws and punishments, although they might not seek their implementation, because they are integral to the faith.

    You replied that Reza was largely correct. Apparently you felt Douglas’s response (appalled surprise)warranted linking him to the BNP. That struck me as a dishonest attempt to shut down the debate.

    So can you clarify? Is it possible to be a practicing muslim (and I am aware that there may be some risk of tautology in that expression) and reject Hudd laws unequivocally? To reject sharia unequivocally?

    Obviously I am aware that there are numerous schools of thought which disagree over the details, but are these laws per se as central to islam as, say, bodily resurrection is to christianity? That the best we can hope for is a moratorium, Tariq Ramadan style?

    Because I really do get the impression that when moderate religious believers debate fundamentalist believers the fundamentalists are usually better informed and more likely to be correct. The moderates are nicer, but as long as they accept the divinely inspired/dictated nature of the central text, they will lose the argument.

  51. Tory — on 26th October, 2009 at 6:10 pm  

    March all you want, the British government will continue to impose multiculturalism on the population. Thats why Hiz just got a 100k of taxpayers dosh.

    In my humble opinion, you might get 10 or 20 people marching for ‘secular Islam’ but the government wont give a monkeys.

  52. Effendi — on 26th October, 2009 at 6:27 pm  

    Don

    I had no intention of shutting down debate on the state of covert and overt, conscious and unconscious extremism in Islamic communities. We analyse and debate those issues all the time on The Spittoon.

    I simply have no time for douglas clark’s mendacious contrarianism and his willful stupidity.

    When my colleague Faisal, raised questions about Amnesty UK and it’s alliance with Anwar al-Awlaki, a prominent theoretician of the al-Qaeda, douglas clark’s position in the debate was to play down the significance of that alliance, as I recall. His reasoning was that Amnesty need to make those kind of alliances for political expediency! Turned out douglas clark didn’t want to accept the significance of such an alliance because of course he has a direct debit to A-UK.

    And here, we are discussing the need for British Muslims to face down extremism in its own communities. And the same Mr Clark’s position was to glibly echo Reza’s point, which is that all Muslims, including the moderates organising marches against Shari’ah and al-Muhajiroun are essentially illiberal savages who cannot embrace the principles of Secular Democracy because of the presence of medieval Hadd Laws in their religious doctrine.

    I called him BNP, although I know he isn’t. I simply wanted to draw attention to risks of inconsistency.

  53. limpia — on 26th October, 2009 at 6:33 pm  

    From my perch here in nyc, I think this is one of the most fascinating discussions yet. I respect Reza, admire his arguments, his openmindedness as well as his reluctance to participate.

    Yet, at the same time, I truly hope that the group does well on saturday. Reza and effendi appear to have alot in common, and i wouldnt be shocked if they both go to the rally. Here’s to the Reformation!

  54. Don — on 26th October, 2009 at 7:05 pm  

    I had no intention of shutting down debate

    No? Pulling the BNP card is not debating, so yes.

    We analyse and debate those issues all the time on The Spittoon.

    I know, I read it regularly but very seldom comment because I don’t have anything to contribute to most of the topics. I find it a useful site, though.

    I simply have no time for douglas clark’s mendacious contrarianism and his willful stupidity.

    Way to advance the debate.

    When my colleague Faisal, raised questions…

    You didn’t link to the thread in question so all I know is that Douglas supports Amnesty UK and once spoke up for them. Shocking.

    Now if Faisal says his comments there make him BNP-worthy I’d be interested to hear it.

    And the same Mr Clark’s position was to glibly echo Reza’s …

    Douglas is glibly echoing Reza? Yeah, two peas in a pod.

    illiberal savages

    Pompous twit.

  55. Refresh — on 26th October, 2009 at 7:10 pm  

    Effendi,

    What a strange way to make a point. You lump, quite plausibly, Reza with the BNP, then Douglas with Reza. Voila, you turn Douglas into the intellectual wing of the BNP.

    All because Douglas had the temerity to ask whether you thought Reza’s questions were pertinent.

    Reading through the thread, I had this sinking feeling that you might actually be Sid/Faisal. It was his style to pick a fight over a spurious point, inappropriately raise the temperature. Insult anyone and everyone within a keystroke of comments. And worst of all, never had the good grace to acknowledge his mistakes or misunderstandings. Which is precisely what happened with the Amnesty Int. thread.

    Douglas was correct throughout that thread, Sid tried ‘bring down’ Amnesty Int. by arguing that it was suffering from Entryism.

    Are all of you at Spittoon a little touched?

  56. Effendi — on 26th October, 2009 at 7:19 pm  

    Don, let me re-iterate. Reza’s comments in recognising all Muslims to be incapable of embracing liberal democracy and therefore crypto-Islamists and therefore the efficacy of the Muslims organising this march is BNP-material.

    I don’t know what his intentions or motives were for doing so, I don’t even know if he is diametrically opposed to Reza, but he did echo Reza’. Which is why I called him out for being sympathetic to a BNP line of thinking *on this thread* and an appeaser of the worst kind libreal appeasement of Islamism *in another*. (here is the link). I don’t find that kind of inconsistency very useful in debate.

  57. Don — on 26th October, 2009 at 7:22 pm  

    Refresh,

    I agree with you about Effendi, but he ain’t Faisal.

    Let’s not start that again.

  58. Don — on 26th October, 2009 at 7:47 pm  

    The question of whether or not observant islam is compatible with secular democracy is a valid one, as many voices both within and without islam maintain that it is not.

    You were asked your opinion and you gave it. You agreed that Reza was substantially correct. That certain abhorent strictures, while neither actively sought nor desired by most, could not in good conscience be rejected outright because they were integeral to the faith.

    You self describe as an atheist. How would you not see that as a reasonable question?

    And let me get this straight, you are ‘calling’ Douglas for both sympathy with the BNP and appeasing Islamism. What else? Morris Dancing?

    I don’t find that kind of inconsistency very useful in debate.

    A foolish consistency is the bugbear of small minds.

  59. persephone — on 26th October, 2009 at 8:09 pm  

    “The question of whether or not observant islam is compatible with secular democracy is a valid one”

    I agree & think it entirely viable to ask the question that Douglas did without wild accusations of being a BNP sympathiser.

    The question is how real/viable would it be to start a dialogue about such reformation?

  60. Reza — on 26th October, 2009 at 8:50 pm  

    I suspect I started this by somehow winding Effendi up with one of my deliberately provocative, Islamophobic posts.

    (Islamophobia can often be misconstrued as ‘Muslim-phobia’. But one is a perfectly rational fear and dislike of an ideology, the other is of a people. Two very different things.)

    The irony here is that I’m not sure what Effendi and Douglas were disagreeing about.

    During this discussion Effendi has accepted that there is a significant (rather than ‘tiny’) minority of intolerant and illiberal Muslims. He’s accepted that the existence of “covert and overt, conscious and unconscious extremism in Islamic communities”.

    So ironically I find myself in full agreement with him. We mustn’t condemn all Muslims as intolerant and illiberal. Neither must we ignore the reality that there are a very, very high number of British Muslims that are.

    The only thing I suspect we disagree on is ‘hope’. I suspect that Effendi harbours a hope that Islam will one day be reformed. I on the other hand believe that Islam is pretty much incapable of fundamental reform. In any case, all that would result is a schism, creating a ‘moderate’ sect and leaving large numbers of Muslims supporting the traditional orthodoxy.

    The second irony is that Douglas, a premier league moral relativist, ‘follower’ and ‘believer’ made the commendable yet uncharacteristic move of asking Effendi to comment on my assertion that observant Islam may be incompatible with secular democracy.

    And the ultimate irony is that Effendi blew up at him. “Ultimate” irony because had Effendi simply accepted then, as he has since, that there are fundamental difficulties within orthodox Islam being compatible with democracy, and that those problems affect many (but not all) Muslims, then I have no doubt that Douglas would have gone into ‘moral equivalence’ mode and rushed to the defense of Islam.

    Such are the intricacies of the human thought-process.

    Remarkable.

  61. MaidMarian — on 26th October, 2009 at 9:25 pm  

    Reza (60) – ‘Such are the intricacies of the human thought-process.’

    Coming as that statement does from a person who has a priori moral condemnation down to a fine art it feels rather like a lecture from Jordan on putting my chest away.

  62. qidniz — on 26th October, 2009 at 9:26 pm  

    Your inability to answer a question without taking the huff and acting all righteous

    Characteristic. Uncannily similar; a dead giveaway.

    I despair at your comprehension levels, I really do.

    He will deny it, of course, but you’re addressing your old friend Sid/Faisal.

  63. qidniz — on 26th October, 2009 at 9:36 pm  

    And the ultimate irony is that Effendi blew up at him. “Ultimate” irony because had Effendi simply accepted then, as he has since, that there are fundamental difficulties within orthodox Islam being compatible with democracy, and that those problems affect many (but not all) Muslims, then I have no doubt that Douglas would have gone into ‘moral equivalence’ mode and rushed to the defense of Islam.

    This entire thread in a nutshell. Only in Leftistan, folks, only in Leftistan.

  64. Reza — on 26th October, 2009 at 9:52 pm  

    quidniz

    “Only in Leftistan, folks, only in Leftistan.”

    Funny. But also very, very depressing.

  65. MaidMarian — on 26th October, 2009 at 10:00 pm  

    Reza (64) – Out of interest, does your vision of ‘democracy’ include freedom of religion?

  66. Effendi — on 26th October, 2009 at 10:21 pm  

    For what it’s worth, I think religious extremism is deep-rooted and pervasive in British Muslim society and its institutions. To the extent that even so-called Muslim “liberals” like Inayat Bunglawala have come a long way, but have a long way to go. They are still shilling for deeply illiberal ideologies and organisations. Most Muslims are largely ambivalent to or even supportive of the entryist tactics Islamist orgs and their agencies. As some commenters on this thread have shown themselves to be.

    I also think Reza’s comment at #41 is spot on. Our opinions diverge when he assumes that the situation is not salveageable or that Muslims are inherrently Islamist in nature – the crypto-Islamist point of view that advocates of the the now discredited Eurbian doctrine. Or when he wishes to exchange one form of identity politics (Islamism) with another (the BNP). I would go further and say that more than 40% of British Muslims might support shari’ah, and a significant number might even want Hudud laws incorporated into British Law.

    I hope you can all come to the march and face up to and protest against your own homegrown pet extremisms this Saturday. And by that I mean the Al-Muhajiroun and the BNP and the Hindutva, and you know on this thread who the proponents of those are.

    Thank you Sunny for posting this. :D

  67. Boyo — on 26th October, 2009 at 10:30 pm  

    It’s all in Reflections on the Revolution in Europe.

    Of course there are many Muslims that support secular democracy. Sadly however there are also many who do not, like Platinum for example. They won’t be marching, but only because they, like most supporters of secular democracy, are “silent”.

    Still, they support Sharia, separatism, and freedom within their context, ie with limits on criticism of anything they deem “sacred”. They will change our country – they already have. They are here for the money and the services, not because they have any respect for our values (whatever they are, right Picklers?), and because they can live their lives relatively unmolested.

    The only cloud on their horizon, as a matter of fact, are the heathens who make it all possible…

    There’s no practical solution (although of course one can try to mitigate the situation, like secularise education and slash benefits). But other than that, we’re stuck with them.

  68. Reza — on 26th October, 2009 at 10:35 pm  

    MaidMarian

    “Out of interest, does your vision of ‘democracy’ include freedom of religion?”

    I believe that democracy must allow the freedom to believe and say anything whatsoever and to live however one wants to live, as long as no one is harmed or unreasonably bothered.

    So yes, I support freedom of religion, whether someone wants to worship Allah, God, the Force, Odin or Satan, then they should be free to do so.

    But democracy also must allow the freedom to criticize, insult or even ridicule any ideology, belief system or religion. As long as there is no incitement to harm people.

    However, in a democracy, no one has the right to demand or expect special privileges, respect or treatment for their beliefs just because they say that they are following a religion.

    And in a democracy, society has the democratic right to draw a line on what aspects of that religion are and are not tolerable in that society.

  69. Reza — on 26th October, 2009 at 10:38 pm  

    Boyo

    “It’s all in Reflections on the Revolution in Europe.”

    A brilliant book. Everyone should read it.

  70. MaidMarian — on 26th October, 2009 at 10:43 pm  

    Reza (68)- ‘And in a democracy, society has the democratic right to draw a line on what aspects of that religion are and are not tolerable in that society.’

    Do you have strains of Elgar playing in the background? Prize for wearing out the word, ‘democratic,’ though.

    That is not an argument, that is motherhood and apple pie. Sorry, democratic motherhood and democratic apple democratic pie.

    I can only agree with your quote. I can only disagree with your, ‘islamophobic,’ sentiment.

    Democratic.

    You say, ‘We mustn’t condemn all Muslims as intolerant and illiberal. Neither must we ignore the reality that there are a very, very high number of British Muslims that are.’ Replace the word, ‘Muslim,’ with just about any other identity and that sentence works. Democratic.

    Oh, and before you start to scream, ‘moral equivalence,’ are you telling me that in that fine speech about ignoring reality you are saying that the intolerance and illiberal ism of some groups are qualitatively different to that of other groups – and if so, how so.

    Democratic.

  71. Sunny — on 27th October, 2009 at 12:20 am  

    But one is a perfectly rational fear and dislike of an ideology, the other is of a people. Two very different things.

    Funny you should say that Reza, because the time these issues come up you actually go into how Muslims countries are mostly populated by idiots and how, even when some Muslims claim they’re against Islamism, you doubt their motivations.

    I don’t see much discussion of theology from you, only the lame trolling from the likes of qidniz, Boyo and a few others, including BNP types. Boring, but we can see through it.

  72. falcao — on 27th October, 2009 at 1:00 am  

    secualarists must be worried if they feel the need to attend such a ridiculous counter demonstration.

    why give these guys any credibility they are after publicity not disimilar to another balaclava wearing mob!

  73. RezaV — on 27th October, 2009 at 1:55 am  

    MaidMarian

    “Replace the word, ‘Muslim,’ with just about any other identity and that sentence works. Democratic.”

    Oh I see. Every ‘group’ of people contains “intolerant and illiberal” elements. Well fancy that! Perhaps I’ve been a bit hard on Islam.

    Hey, hold on a minute. To think of it it’s not really that simple. You little tinker you, MaidMarian, with your cleverness! You almost had me going!

    You see, as I’ve just figured out, the difference is that “intolerant and illiberal” Christians, Jews, Sikhs, atheists, Communists, Mongolians and hell, even the bigots of our very own BNP don’t, in any significant numbers, support the killing and maiming people as a fundamental part of their ideology. For ‘crimes’ such as sex outside of marriage or homosexuality.

    And what’s more, I’m certain not a single member of any of those groups would advocate killing someone who wanted to leave them.

    So you see MaidMarian, Islam IS special. And that’s what makes Muslims so special. Because they have more, bigger, better and badder “intolerant and illiberal” members among them than the ‘competition’.

    And what’s more, the “intolerant and illiberal” Muslims can (and do) demand ‘respect’ for their beliefs because they’re a ‘religion’. But the BNP can’t.

    See. It’s not that complicated now is it?

  74. Reza — on 27th October, 2009 at 2:11 am  

    Sunny

    “I don’t see much discussion of theology from you, only the lame trolling from the likes of qidniz, Boyo and a few others, including BNP types. Boring, but we can see through it.”

    I’ve raised plenty of theological discussions. There are even some in this thread if you bother to look. The fact you don’t see them says something about you not seeing anything that contradicts your intellectually bankrupt world-view.

    And you actually mention “discussion”? All you ever do is make baseless pronouncements unsupported by any evidence or simply contradict points, again without ever providing evidence. “Oh no it isn’t!”. Like the “argument clinic” sketch in Monty Python. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

    And failing all that you resort to an ad hominem attack, albeit a bland and humourless one.

    Now that’s boring.

  75. persephone — on 27th October, 2009 at 2:17 am  

    @73 No its not very complicated.

    There are easy parallels with the BNP.

    The latest being from Nick Griffins appearance on QT when he uses the religious card by stating a return to Christian England. As to intolerance & being illiberal, the prime example was Griffin saying that homosexuals were creepy & perverse. As to resorting to violence – he justifies podium sharing with the KKK in that they don’t maim (any more) and further excuses his connection with them by saying that all he was doing was being a good shepherd to the young wayward KKK.

    And that was the new, improved & sanitised version of Griffin’s BNP.

  76. persephone — on 27th October, 2009 at 2:22 am  

    @73 No its not very complicated.

    There are easy parallels.

    The latest being from Nick Griffins appearance on QT when he uses the religious card by stating a return to Christian England. As to intolerance & being illiberal, the prime example was Griffin saying that homosexuals were creepy & perverse. As to resorting to violence – he justifies podium sharing with the KKK by saying that they don’t maim (any more) and further excuses his connection with them by saying he was only being a good shepherd to the young wayward KKK.

    And that was the new, improved & sanitised version of Griffin’s BNP.

  77. Reza — on 27th October, 2009 at 11:02 am  

    persephone

    “There are easy parallels.”

    Indeed there are. Griffin regularly gives away the fact that the BNP represents an unpleasant and intolerant ideology.

    And whilst all BNP supporters may not necessarily be unpleasant people, they support an ideology, however ostensibly sanctified, is considered by most people to be unpleasant.

    The parallel ends however, in that BNP supporters have no legal right or support whatsoever to demand for people and institutions to accommodate or even tolerate their ideology.

    Muslims on the other hand do.

  78. Effendi — on 27th October, 2009 at 11:33 am  

    The parallel ends however, in that BNP supporters have no legal right or support whatsoever to demand for people and institutions to accommodate or even tolerate their ideology.

    Hilarious. What you mean other than being voted to 2 EC seats this year?

    It is possible to be anti-Islamist extremist without being an advocate for another form of extremism. The good name of Right wing politics is done disservice by mendacious extremists like yourself and qidniz, soiling their towels.

    Will you be marching with the English Defence League this Saturday Reza? They at least have the notion that it is possible to be a British patriot without recourse to the cretinous nonsense of Nick Griffin.

    And all from the safety of your armchair. How very brave.

  79. Random Guy — on 27th October, 2009 at 12:47 pm  

    Reza @ #73 said: “You see, as I’ve just figured out, the difference is that…Christians, Jews, Sikhs, atheists, Communists, Mongolians and hell, even the bigots of our very own BNP don’t…support the killing and maiming people as a fundamental part of their ideology. For ‘crimes’ such as sex outside of marriage or homosexuality.”

    Funny then that the last 10 years have borne witness to 2 illegal invasions by the Western states, as part of an “ideology” that you support, causing massive death and despair to millions of innocents. Even funnier how pretty much all the groups in your little list have been involved in some sort of slaughter over the last 100 years.

  80. Reza — on 27th October, 2009 at 1:06 pm  

    Random Guy

    Talk about stretching moral equivalence!

    “Illegal invasions”, by definition are not a fundamental part of anyone’s ideology.

    People do bad things. Sometimes with good intentions. They always will.

    But only Islam, at a fundamental ideological level, advocates the killing and maiming people for ‘crimes’ such as sex outside of marriage, homosexuality or changing one’s religion.

  81. Raj — on 27th October, 2009 at 1:11 pm  

    You see, as I’ve just figured out, the difference is that “intolerant and illiberal” Christians, Jews, Sikhs, atheists, Communists, Mongolians and hell, even the bigots of our very own BNP don’t, in any significant numbers, support the killing and maiming people as a fundamental part of their ideology.

    So you see MaidMarian, Islam IS special. And that’s what makes Muslims so special. Because they have more, bigger, better and badder “intolerant and illiberal” members among them than the ‘competition’.

    Randomly picking the first religion mentioned in that list:

    The Inquisition.

    The Conquistadors.

    And as previously mentioned by other writers on this blog…

    The slaveowning Confederate ‘South’ during the American Civil War.

    The KKK, which had 15% of the eligible American population as members during its peak in the 1920s, approximately 4-5 million men.

    19th Century British colonialists in India, including some senior Christian religious leaders and many senior officials who declared a religious mandate to take over and subjugate India and were also actively endorsing the use of British imperial might to achieve the mass conversion of the entire Indian population.

    The massacres and devastation which were unleashed against Indian civilians as well as rebel soldiers by British forces as revenge for the Indian Mutiny. There are even records of British soldiers deliriously singing Psalms while they were butchering their targets.

    These all involved large numbers of Christians killing and maiming people as a fundamental part of their ideology. Neither Islam nor Muslims are ‘special’ when it comes to this kind of thing.

  82. Reza — on 27th October, 2009 at 1:17 pm  

    Raj

    “These all involved large numbers of Christians killing and maiming people as a fundamental part of their ideology.”

    No Raj this was never a “fundamental part of their ideology.” In any case, Christianity doesn’t work like that. It isn’t a legal framework.

    And today we don’t have ant groups of people in any significant numbers who believe, at a fundamental ideological level, that the killing and maiming people for ‘crimes’ such as sex outside of marriage, homosexuality or changing one’s religion is acceptable.

    Only Muslims do that.

  83. Raj — on 27th October, 2009 at 1:40 pm  

    Reza

    All of those groups involved very large numbers of people who were devout, practising Christians and fully believed they had a religious mandate for their actions. In many cases they also had the full support of influential members of the Christian clergy.

  84. Refresh — on 27th October, 2009 at 1:41 pm  

    Tell me Reza, when watching The Question Time BNP Special did you find yourelf saying to Cyrus and Darius – “I could do better than that Nick Griffin”.

    And did their eyes light up in wonderment? As ours do everytime you post.

  85. Random Guy — on 27th October, 2009 at 1:50 pm  

    Reza @ #79: “People do bad things with good intentions”.

    Well that just about sums it up then doesn’t it? Because I am pretty sure that is the justification you can find for any number of unsavoury acts.

    It has been repeated time and time again how the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the “War on Terrorism” are about protecting our “way of life” etc.

    Undoubtedly, with no room for any other interpretation, the imperialist agenda is always rooted in ideology. The democratic agenda as espoused by the US/UK and its allies who are in Iraq, is rooted in ideology. Every twisted argument that has been used as justification for the demonisation of Muslims and the stealing of Natural resources in Iraq, has been rooted in ideology. Ideology (with the aid of outright lies) is what was used to manufacture public consent for the war. Your argument against one ideology, when pitted against the realities that result from the ideology that you support, destroys your argument.

  86. Reza — on 27th October, 2009 at 3:16 pm  

    Random Guy

    “Every twisted argument that has been used as justification for the demonisation of Muslims…”

    That’s not correct. Many Muslims help demonise themselves with their declared beliefs. Widely accepted, mainstream beliefs shared by a significant minority of British Muslims, as I’ve highlighted many times in this topic.

    “…and the stealing of Natural resources in Iraq, has been rooted in ideology.”

    Oh please! You can be anti-war you know without making cretinous statements like that.

  87. Paul — on 27th October, 2009 at 3:40 pm  

    These all involved large numbers of Christians killing and maiming people as a fundamental part of their ideology. Neither Islam nor Muslims are ’special’ when it comes to this kind of thing.

    Right now, Islam is ‘special’

  88. Random Guy — on 27th October, 2009 at 3:44 pm  

    Reza

    Pfft, give me a break. Your arguments against Islam are paper-thin given the actions of the UK and US in Iraq. I would suggest you focus on those issues before moving on to the bigger and better stuff. If you can maybe devote your time to how reparations can be made in terms of war crimes and perhaps free aid to rebuild public infrastructure, then maybe you would come across as someone who is credible about changing things for the better.

    I mean, its obvious that you are only here to re-iterate tired old lines about Islam. Its not even clear who you are really. I think PP gets a regular influx of a new name with old views every few months. And as you can only play one note, the monologue can get kind of lame.

  89. Reza — on 27th October, 2009 at 4:17 pm  

    Random Guy

    Clearly you have little understanding of Islam and confuse my criticism of that ideology as criticism of everyone that calls themselves ‘Muslim’. These are two different things.

    All the major schools of Islamic Jurisprudence state that, since Sharia is God’s law and states certain punishments for each crime, they are immutable. That includes the Hudud punishments, such as the death penalty for apostasy.

    That’s why we have situations like this in Britain today:-

    “A poll conducted by the Policy Exchange last year suggested that over a third of young British Muslims believe that the death penalty should apply for apostasy.”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7355515.stm

    I explained previously why Islam cannot be compared with other religions:-

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6149#comment-180870

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6149#comment-180880

    As for the situation in Iraq (which I oppose) it is not a valid comparison for the purposes of this debate. Secular ideologies change and evolve. Mistakes are made and learned from.

    However ‘gods’ law remains just that.

  90. Random Guy — on 27th October, 2009 at 5:30 pm  

    Reza,

    I am afraid that the Iraq war is a valid comparison for this debate. It has nothing to do with secular ideologies. As you must know, there was a very strong Christian and Israeli agenda behind the idea of going to war. Classifying it as a secular ideology is a misnomer, and besides, if ideology is what we are debating, then there should be no exceptions to what is on the table.

    Also, regarding “Mistakes being made and learnt from” – well, no mistakes were made in the whole process, were they? The decision to go war was a very deliberate one.

    “God’s law remains just that.”

    Indeed. And so does man’s.

  91. Refresh — on 27th October, 2009 at 9:45 pm  

    Reza,

    Just been reading about Radovan Karadzic’s trial. Reminded me of you. Especially this bit

    ‘Karadzic was quoted as observing: “Muslims can’t live with others. They will overwhelm you with their birthrate and other tricks. We cannot allow that to happen.”‘

  92. persephone — on 28th October, 2009 at 2:28 am  

    ^ Thats an interesting parallel & other similarities with Reza include:

    As a psychiatrist, Karadzic focused primarily on patients with neuroses, especially paranoia. Some observers have noted that many of his political pronouncements – which the Washington Post diplomatically noted seem to be “misstatements of fact” – often are meant to instill fear and a measure of paranoia in his listeners. “

  93. douglas clark — on 28th October, 2009 at 2:59 am  

    Effendi @ 52,

    Referring to me:

    I called him BNP, although I know he isn’t. I simply wanted to draw attention to risks of inconsistency.

    So, you knowingly lied about me?

    ————————————————-

    My current theory, if anyone is the least bit interested, is that the vanguards of stupidity, spokespeople for the BNP and the likes of Al Margarine, constitute minute groupsicules in the body politic.

    But they make a claim of right to far larger constituencies. Either because folk have recorded a protest vote in their favour or because they see themselves as ‘keepers of the faith’.

    Due to the, somewhat desperate, nature of media to stoke controversy, they obtain TV and Press coverage that is completely out of proportion to their actual influence.

    Their exposure to the light is generally a good thing.

    However, that, in turn, leads others to look at the model – extremist statements, stupid banners and delibrate confrontation for instance – and the undoubted fact that mainstream politicians will try to triangulate almost anything, usually by throwing money at it. And they will say to themselves, why not me? Why not my groupiscule? It is a shill. T’other thread, where Rumbold highlighted that Hizb-ut Tahir front organisations are allegedly being given money to subvert democracy is an example of how supine our political class has become.

    I actually welcome anyone that wants to share the middle ground, and that clearly includes BMSD.

    Effendi sees my membership of Amnesty International as a bad thing. Whilst BMSD is the new kid on the block, and all power to it’s elbow, Amnesty International has been doing good work for a long long time now.

    I leave you with this by William Butler Yeates:

    TURNING and turning in the widening gyre
    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity.

  94. dave bones — on 28th October, 2009 at 11:31 am  

    Yes. Very funny. Be aware they (Al- Muj) often change venue at the last minute and have not turned up in Traf sq. twice before.

  95. Reza — on 28th October, 2009 at 11:45 am  

    Refresh

    “Just been reading about Radovan Karadzic’s trial. Reminded me of you. Especially this bit

    ‘Karadzic was quoted as observing: “Muslims can’t live with others…”

    That’s unfair. I don’t say that Muslims cannot live with others.

    I do say that any society that allows itself to become ‘duo-cultural’ (i.e. two similarly large cultural, ethnic or religious groups living in the same space) will inevitably descend into inter-community conflict.

    Unless that conflict is suppressed by a very powerful totalitarian regime.

    The former Yugoslavia is a perfect example of this. As is Iraq, Sri Lanka, Darfur.

    Hell, just put the name of any conflict anywhere around the world into this sentence and you’ll get my point.

  96. Refresh — on 28th October, 2009 at 1:09 pm  

    ‘I don’t say that Muslims cannot live with others.’

    That is exactly the path you are on, and you go on as far as advocating a solution. And going by the scope of your ambition you are talking about the final Final Solution. You are a particulary nasty species.

    ‘That’s unfair.’ Isn’t that what Karadzic is saying right now in the Hague.

    To A Louse (by Robert Burns)

    …..

    O, wad some Power the giftie gie us
    To see oursels as others see us!
    It wad frae monie a blunder free us
    An’ foolish notion:
    What airs in dress an’ gait wad lea’e us,
    And ev’n Devotion!

  97. Refresh — on 28th October, 2009 at 1:17 pm  

    Douglas, I am not sure you owe Effendi any explanation. On the contrary, he owes you an apology of the most grovelling kind.

    I am inclined to pursue the notion that he is Sid/Faisal. Their traits are remarkably similar.

  98. qidniz — on 28th October, 2009 at 1:23 pm  

    I don’t say that Muslims cannot live with others.

    Islam doesn’t allow Muslims to live with others. It doesn’t even allow them to live with themselves.

  99. Refresh — on 28th October, 2009 at 1:26 pm  

    And yet there is over a billion muslims, most of them living as minorities. Something doesn’t quite add up does it?

  100. Reza — on 28th October, 2009 at 1:32 pm  

    Refresh

    You can say whatever you like.

    After all people like you are driven by a purely ideological perception rather than measurable rationality. And also by the hatred and envy of privilege and advantage. As is the way of the left.

    You also, I suspect deep down, have a resentment and even hatred for the indigenous people and culture of this country. I’ve seen that trait in many ‘ethnic’ people.

    That’s why you so dearly want to destroy forever what it means to be culturally British and to put another ‘multicultural’ identity in its place. An identity that will give you ‘the upper hand’ over the people you resent.

    What’s more, you never provide any credible evidence to refute views that oppose yours. Neither do you provide such evidence to support your world-view. Only baseless pronouncements.

    And when you feel cornered you resort to Godins law:-

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

    Pathetic.

    Yet it’s all so typical of the left.

  101. Refresh — on 28th October, 2009 at 1:35 pm  

    So I wasn’t unfair at all.

    There is something of the night about you.

  102. Effendi — on 28th October, 2009 at 2:10 pm  

    It is hysterical lefties like Refresh and douglas clark and their ideologues such as George Galloway – with their racism of low expectations of Muslims in Britain, (not that dissimilar from the far-right, I hasten to add) who owe British Muslims “an apology of the most grovelling kind”.

  103. Refresh — on 28th October, 2009 at 2:14 pm  

    Yes, yes Effendi. Can you clear up one thing?

    Are you or are you not Sid/Faisal?

  104. Reza — on 28th October, 2009 at 2:14 pm  

    Refresh

    No, not unfair if you accuse me of believing this:-

    “…any society that allows itself to become ‘duo-cultural’ (i.e. two similarly large cultural, ethnic or religious groups living in the same space) will inevitably descend into inter-community conflict.”

    For example, Iran, a predominantly Shia country with a distinct Iranian national identity accommodates small populations Jews, Christians, Sunnis and non-Iranians without many problems.

    However, if any one of those religious, cultural or ethnic groups grew sufficiently large, then Iran would plunge into inter-community violence.

    That is the way of the world. Look at every conflict and see if you can say it isn’t so.

    The relevance if ‘Muslims’ with regard to the UK and Europe is that this is the only group that I believe could grow large enough to trigger an inevitable inter-community conflict.

    It’s not the fault of Muslims. It’s not the fault of non-Muslims.

    That’s just the way the world is and has always been.

  105. Effendi — on 28th October, 2009 at 2:17 pm  

    Refresh, can you clear up one thing:

    “And yet there is over a billion muslims, most of them living as minorities. Something doesn’t quite add up does it?”

    Such as your numbers, maybe? Got a fact to back that up? Facts are sacred but comment is, er, cheap, as we can see.

  106. qidniz — on 28th October, 2009 at 2:19 pm  

    And yet there is over a billion muslims, most of them living as minorities.

    You are mistaken. Only about one-fifth of the world’s Muslims do not live in Muslim-majority states. Never mind that 20% making nuisances of themselves, that the other 80% live almost without exception in hellholes speaks for itself. You could say, it indeed adds up.

  107. Reza — on 28th October, 2009 at 2:28 pm  

    Effendi

    The left hates facts.

    In that way it is more like a religion, based purely on faith and the comfort that those views give the ‘believers’.

    Indeed, the left is more at home ignoring, censoring and shouting down facts.

    I’ve repeatedly challenged someone, anyone, here to refute my evidence-supported statements with evidence. I have an open mind. I respect other viewpoints. I’m willing to be swayed.

    But all I ever get is childish contradiction, ad hominem attacks, Godwins Law and baseless pronouncements.

    You’ll wait a long time for lefties to come up with facts to back up their arguments.

  108. Effendi — on 28th October, 2009 at 2:29 pm  

    qidniz, Not *all* of the 20%.

    I think you will find that it is a loud, vocal minority of the 20% diaspora, who represent ‘Armani Islamism’ in Western society , and is basically pushed my hardline multiculturalists and Islamist appeasers.

  109. Refresh — on 28th October, 2009 at 2:31 pm  

    You are right – 1 in 5 out of 1.57billion.

    I should have said a significant number of them living as minorities.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/08/muslim-population-islam-survey

    Facts indeed are important.

  110. Effendi — on 28th October, 2009 at 2:38 pm  

    Or should I say the ‘ASDA-george Islamism’ and their covert and overt proponents resident in the West!

  111. qidniz — on 28th October, 2009 at 2:52 pm  

    qidniz, Not *all* of the 20%.

    I think you will find that it is a loud, vocal minority of the 20% diaspora, who represent ‘Armani Islamism’ in Western society , and is basically pushed my hardline multiculturalists and Islamist appeasers.

    Of course not.

    And the phenomenon you allude to — the existence of a “loud, vocal” group pushing bellicose agendas — is also not restricted to the diaspora.

    The fact of the matter is that a majority of Muslims are ballast: cultural Muslims who in their day-to-day lives have reduced Islam to a set of quotidian “life rules” and who therefore simply assume that doctrinal Islam underwrites their culturally inherited common sense.

    They are mistaken, of course, and nothing shows this as clearly as the impedance mismatch with the “Islamists” in their midst. Not only are they mistaken, they are also tragically afflicted. By Islam. It is no accident that the problems begin with someone starting to take Islam seriously.

    Islam is far and away the biggest problem that Muslims have.

  112. fugstar — on 28th October, 2009 at 3:39 pm  

    I think he is sid.

    Looking forward to lampooning the British S&M vs Muhajirun Deathmatch on Saturday. May they cancel eachother out!

  113. Effendi — on 28th October, 2009 at 3:51 pm  

    Yes, that model certainly exists qidniz.

  114. qidniz — on 28th October, 2009 at 3:52 pm  

    I think he is sid.

    He probably is, but whether he is or not, either way, doesn’t explain or illuminate anything. Let it go.

  115. fugstar — on 28th October, 2009 at 4:00 pm  

    Hmmm it would explain one thing.

    And that is how far he has come to embody english oriental mispronounciation.

  116. Effendi — on 28th October, 2009 at 4:20 pm  

    fugstar, or should I say, Fuad Ali:

    How many pro-Hamas, Jamaati and HT students are there doing doctorates with you at King’s College London who will be marching with Anjem’s Army? Just you or will there be more?

  117. douglas clark — on 28th October, 2009 at 4:54 pm  

    Refresh @ 97,

    No, I certainly do not owe Effendi an explanation, nor have I provided him with one.

    However, anyone that has waded this far into this thread could reasonably assume that there is no smoke without fire, if I don’t deny it outright. Which is what I thought I had done @ 93.

    And now, having actually admitted that he had made up stuff – i.e. lied about me by claiming I was BNP – Effendi now claims I’m a some sort of potential Respect wannabe. Effendi, digging another great big hole for himself:

    It is hysterical lefties like Refresh and douglas clark and their ideologues such as George Galloway…..

    Well, that’s not true either, at least as it applies to me.

    How long before Effendi has to retract that too?

    The rest of that sentence continues with:

    – with their racism of low expectations of Muslims in Britain, (not that dissimilar from the far-right, I hasten to add) who owe British Muslims “an apology of the most grovelling kind”.

    I can assure you all that I have no racism of expectations, whether it is low, medium or high. And, I am pretty sure my poor opinion of George Galloway is pretty well known on here. (Sorry Refresh, but I remember him from way back.)

    Perhaps Effendi could stop making a complete, utter fool of himself, long enough to get his foot out of his mouth and apologise?

  118. bananabrain — on 28th October, 2009 at 5:43 pm  

    For example, Iran, a predominantly Shia country with a distinct Iranian national identity accommodates small populations Jews, Christians, Sunnis and non-Iranians without many problems.

    WHAT? the reason there aren’t any “problems” is that any time anyone in the government wants to make a point, they can haul out one of the jews, accuse him of being an israeli spy and execute or disappear him at will, without anyone to gainsay this. the jews there are frightened, intimidated and completely without allies – are you seriously suggesting this is the same situation that british muslims find themselves in? i don’t see iranian jews blowing themselves up on public transport in tehran.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  119. Refresh — on 28th October, 2009 at 6:08 pm  

    qidniz, it would be peculiar behaviour if it was Sid/Faisal. But not easy to ‘let go’, given that in the guise of Effendi he attacks Douglas Clark for disagreeing with Sid/Faisal on the Amnesty International thread.

    What is going on?

  120. qidniz — on 28th October, 2009 at 8:56 pm  

    What is going on?

    I have no idea. I too have noted the remarkable similarity in style or “voice”, but beyond that, quite frankly, I don’t much care, least of all for old threads.

  121. douglas clark — on 28th October, 2009 at 9:19 pm  

    Hmm…

    I do not want this thread to fall off the front page until Effendi admits his lies. Nor do I want Pickled Politics to become an adjunct to The Spittoon.

    The only method available to me is to keep raising this.

    Which I will do.

    Until Effendi puts up or shuts up. Or until Sid / Faisal says that Effendi is a tit.

    I find this complete lack of support from Sid / Faisal, insulting in the extreme. For, I thought we were friends. And, if we were, why didn’t you tell Effendi I am not BNP? Your complete silence on this thread suggests that anyone that disagrees with you is fair game.

    Well, fuck you, Faisal / Sid. If you don’t know me better than that you have been a liar most of your time on here.

    For Sid could have told Effendi what a tit he was making of himself, for Sid/Faisal is either completely mad or is now pretending that he and I didn’t agree most of the time.

    When we did.

    So, where is Sid / Faisal around this debate? I’d expect him to be masturbating around his new friends, like Effendi and the like.

    Fuck off Faisal.

  122. douglas clark — on 28th October, 2009 at 9:45 pm  

    Faisal,

    It is a bit of a challenge. I think you are being a bit of a tit. You don’t. You remain silentish.

    C’mon.

    Debate, rather than hide behind stupid names or, perhaps, the stupid people like your entire Spitoon intelligencia, who add up to a big fat zero.

  123. fugstar — on 29th October, 2009 at 12:07 am  

    Spitoon is like poo, spoon, tit, spit all in the same concept.

    Good luck finding that narrative of innocence that you so desperately wish to possess.

  124. douglas clark — on 29th October, 2009 at 3:17 am  

    Well, Faisal? What do you have to say?

  125. douglas clark — on 29th October, 2009 at 3:26 am  

    Don’t pretend that you don’t read here. Subject to Sunny Hundal telling me to stop, I will keep asking you. Is Effendi your new chum that you cannot deny? If so, why?

  126. douglas clark — on 29th October, 2009 at 3:51 am  

    I have written to the Spittoon editorial team. As it challenges his new chums to actually debate in an honest way, I do not expect a reply from our Sid.

    Which is truly sad.

    Silence is golden, and oor Faisal (Sid) is a master of that.

    At least now, he is incapable of denying this little spat, for I have written to him directly.

    He employs liars and he is happy to do so.

    Nuff said.

  127. douglas clark — on 29th October, 2009 at 6:22 am  

    Well, nuff said meantime. Until Faisal (Sid) actually replies on here. He and bananabrain are just being dishonest.

    I refer you to bananabrain at 118, which is whataboutery of the first order.

    What does bananabrain have to say about Effendi lying about me? Bugger all. He prefers to change the subject, who is so naive that they can’t see that?

    Bananabrain.

    Address the issue. Was Effendi right?

    Am I some sort of BNP wanabee, or alternately a Respect fan?

    If you think either is true you have truly misunderstood me.

    Your new best friend, Effendi, is an admitted liar and not someone I’d have thought you would be defending.

    I simply have no time for douglas clark’s mendacious contrarianism and his willful stupidity.

    ?

  128. douglas clark — on 29th October, 2009 at 6:44 am  

    Well,

    Lets see what your Faisal has to say. I’d expect that the Spitoon would be out in numbers.

    However your wee hero is silent, so far, on this thread.

    Which is much as I’d expect.

    I simply have no time for douglas clark’s mendacious contrarianism and his willful stupidity.

    Really?

    Let your leader try to argue that.

  129. douglas clark — on 29th October, 2009 at 11:48 am  

    So, continuing silence from Sid. I’d have expected better…

  130. Refresh — on 29th October, 2009 at 11:07 pm  

    Leader?

    You make them sound like a cult!

  131. douglas clark — on 30th October, 2009 at 1:20 am  

    Refresh,

    They are a cult.

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.