Do you think that it is appropriate to ‘respect’ or ‘value’ the religious opinions of someone who believes that, in an ‘ideal’ world religious converts, homosexuals and people who have sex outside of marriage should be killed?

Is that a rhetorical question to insinuate that multiculturalists respect and value individuals who believe that people should be killed for having sex outside marriage? Give me a break. But let me ask you, what do you intend to do with people with those beliefs?

Nothing would be written in stone. Definitions would change over time to reflect our laws.

Let's not conflate things. Having moderate or extremist views is not against the law, and I obviously think that moderate voices should challenge extremist voices, and everything is fine as long as people do not resort to violence and do the the sort of things that violate our laws. What you propose is to have some arbitrary definition to cage Muslims with labels – moderate and extremist – and only listen to those considered moderates. I think that's undemocratic, and when one group is not heard and is turned into pariah, then they would will tend to resort to violence.

A little while ago we interviewed a Muslim man who refused to shake hands with women or to look them in the face. Regardless of whether you “expect a tolerant society to accommodate reasonable demands”, the job would have involved meeting and dealing with external clients

That is not a reasonable demand – PERIOD. In fact, even if the job didn't involve meeting with clients, I would not hire this man (real or imaginary) using the same justification as one would not hire a racist who refuses to work with non-whites, or has a tendency to rant about “race replacement” and how non-whites are conspiring to destroy Britain for the sins of colonisation. This is a non-issue, and there is no way you would get in problems for not hiring a misogynist. I mean, do you really think that someone who discriminates against women would win a case against you?

Regardless of any of this Ravi, I’m interested; do you have any suggestions to address the problems that exists disproportionally among Muslims in the UK?

What specific problems do you refer?

-“I have no idea why you think we need this sort of thing.”

Okay, Ravi, will you define for me, what is a moderate Muslim or moderate Islam?

Do you think that it is appropriate to ‘respect’ or ‘value’ the religious opinions of someone who believes that, in an ‘ideal’ world religious converts, homosexuals and people who have sex outside of marriage should be killed?

I’m not talking of ‘sin’ here. Not a belief that these issues will damn someone in an afterlife. I’m speaking of the support for the punishment of these people in an ‘ideal’ world and in other countries. Is it appropriate for someone with those views to be running a state-funded school?

-“I consider you an extremist because of your disgraceful contempt against non-whites and immigrants in Britain (see race replacement rant) and Islamophobic comments.”

So you do have views on what is ‘extremist’?

-“I also consider those who oppose gay rights and marriage as extremists. But I would never go so far as to want the government or society to dictate in strict terms what is moderate and what is extremist, because I believe that goes against freedom of speech, and this is away for society and government to censor people.”

I agree. However, the issue here is what is acceptable in our state institutions. It would be reasonable to demand that schools do not teach opposition to gay rights. Indeed this is probably covered by our laws.

-“The discussion of what values are moderate and extreme is something that we – as a society – need to have in every generation, and writing things on a stone prevents that sort of discussion.”

Nothing would be written in stone. Definitions would change over time to reflect our laws.

“Catholics do see homosexual behaviour as a sin, see sex outside marriage as a sin, and are against all types of abortions. These values are very different from the mainstream but I do not see you whining about them. Your list is specifically targeted for the people you do not like. I do believe every group has the right to their own values, and that includes those that we consider racists, bigots and intolerant.”

I have no issue about people believing that something is a ‘sin’. That doesn’t make one an extremist. However, if a Catholic leader was seen to advocate laws that punished homosexuality and sex outside of marriage, or advocated or supported violence against abortion doctors in other countries, then they would be an ‘extremist’ and as such they would have no place running schools or preaching in churches.

A Muslim leader or organisation that believes a convert will burn in hell for eternity is not an ‘extremist’. However, if they supported the execution or imprisonment of converts in other countries or wished for that to be the case here then they would be an ‘extremist’.

“That is not totally unreasonable. But I believe that in the long run is a bad idea. I think we are far better when religion is not mixed with government, and one is not influenced by the other, which is something your idea would lead to.”

I am not suggesting that religion should be mixed with government. These would not be ‘State-appointed’ leaders. They would be ‘State-recognised’. And as I said, this happens in France and throughout the Muslim majority world. The State must have criteria for recognising a view as representative of Islam. Otherwise, we are left in the current situation where we have self-appointed ‘Muslim leaders’ funded and supported by countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia.

-“In a liberal democracy, every individual has the right to make demands, and you should not be paranoid when Muslims do it.”

Yes, every individual should have the right to make demands. However, those demands currently carry a great deal of extra weight when the ‘demander’ claims a religious motivation.

There have been cases where the demands of self-declared ‘Jedis’ have been laughed away, because it is not recognised as a religion. However, as an employer, I would feel justifiably intimidated if a Muslim employee made a demand, which I felt was unreasonable, and claimed a religious basis. They would currently be able to rely on discrimination laws. I have practical experience of this:

A little while ago we interviewed a Muslim man who refused to shake hands with women or to look them in the face. Regardless of whether you “expect a tolerant society to accommodate reasonable demands”, the job would have involved meeting and dealing with external clients, at a senior level, in a professional commercial environment. It was felt, unanimously, that this person would not be acceptable to our clients. However, in rejecting the applicant, we had to give other reasons, then sit back and worry about whether we’d be taken to an industrial tribunal.

Regardless of any of this Ravi, I’m interested; do you have any suggestions to address the problems that exists disproportionally among Muslims in the UK?

Or do we not have a problem?

The first thing we need to do is agree on and define which interpretation of Islam is the version that our society accepts as representing ‘moderate’ Islam. The Islam that deserves tolerance and respect. The Islam that is appropriate to ‘value’ and ‘celebrate’ and what people like you would describe as “enriching the wonderful mosaic of our happy, harmonious and diverse society”.

I have no idea why you think we need this sort of thing. I consider people like you extremists because of your disgraceful contempt against non-whites and immigrants in Britain (see race replacement rant) and Islamophobic comments. I also consider those who oppose gay rights and marriage as extremists. But I would never go so far as to want the government or society to dictate in strict terms what is moderate and what is extremist, because I believe that goes against freedom of speech, and this is away for society and government to censor people. The discussion of what values are moderate and extreme is something that we – as a society – need to have in every generation, and writing things on a stone is not the way a healthy society which values freedom of speech should go on about doing business.

These values would reflect our laws and cover areas such as the equality of women, tolerance towards homosexuals (whilst obviously understanding the right to consider it a sin), the acceptance of the supremacy of British law, respect for secular democracy and the freedom of people to change their religion or marry whomever they wish to marry.

Catholics do see homosexual behaviour as a sin, see sex outside marriage as a sin, and are against all types of abortions. These values are very different from the mainstream but I do not see you whining about them. Your list is specifically targeted for the people you do not like. I do believe every group has the right to their own values, and that includes those that we consider racists, bigots and intolerant.

The next stage would be to appoint State-recognised Muslim leaders

That is not totally unreasonable. But I believe that in the long run is a bad idea. I think we are far better when religion is not mixed with government, and one is not influenced by the other, which is something your idea would lead to.

When a Muslim ‘demands’ an ‘extreme’ or unreasonable accommodation and claims that it is part of Islam, instead of the Daily Mail having a fit and employers feeling intimidated by ‘discrimination’ laws

In a liberal democracy, every individual has the right to make demands, and you should not be paranoid when Muslims do it. If there is a compelling reason for why we have certain laws (like health issues), then they should be explained clearly and it should override any religious or non-religious demand. In any other cases, I would expect a tolerant society to accommodate that.

I do think that even though a decision to make a Muslim (or a non-white) more comfortable in this country does not affect you in any way, nevertheless a part of you dies inside.

Since all talk of x million expellees from Palestine and y million from Islamic countries [i.e. Arab lands plus Iran] in the direction of what is now Israel, the realities of postwar Europe merit reflection:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/dec2009/stei-…

Thanks Reza – that's all I needed to know.

This is a huge subject, but I’ll make a start on the basis that you may actually set aside your default hostility and try to think about the ideas I propose.

The first thing we need to do is agree on and define which interpretation of Islam is the version that our society accepts as representing ‘moderate’ Islam. The Islam that deserves tolerance and respect. The Islam that is appropriate to ‘value’ and ‘celebrate’ and what people like you would describe as “enriching the wonderful mosaic of our happy, harmonious and diverse society”.

Now everyone, both non-Muslims and “The Vast Majority of Moderate Muslims” accepts that fanatics such as Anjem Choudhary do not represent ‘moderate’ Islam. You’ll agree that his version of Islam doesn’t ‘enrich’ our society. It doesn’t deserve ‘tolerance’ or ‘respect’.

But the existence of people like Choudhary create problems that many people like you fail to see.

He is a convenient bogyman. He simplistically exemplifies ‘extreme’ Islam. And this leads naive multiculturalists to the utterly spurious conclusion that every Muslim who doesn’t subscribe to Choudhary’s world-view must be ‘moderate’. This leads multiculturalists to bury their heads in the sand and stop asking questions. They have their ‘extreme’ Islam. Our society only needs to counter Choudhary’s views and everything will be just peachy. And what’s more, that view is supported by only a small minority of Muslims, so countering isn’t even a big problem.

That approach is no less stupid than saying that anyone who doesn’t support the mass deportation of ethnic minorities isn’t a racist.

Now what steps are necessary to define the version of Islam that is acceptable to British?

Firstly we need to encourage that in order to be recognised by the State, any organisations that represents Muslims, Islamic schools, mosques and imams subscribe to a declaration that puts down acceptable values for our society. (I understand that moral relativists would have problems with singling out Islam, so we’d probably have to do the same with all religious organisations).

These values would reflect our laws and cover areas such as the equality of women, tolerance towards homosexuals (whilst obviously understanding the right to consider it a sin), the acceptance of the supremacy of British law, respect for secular democracy and the freedom of people to change their religion or marry whomever they wish to marry.

The next stage would be to appoint State-recognised Muslim leaders (such as in France, as well as most of the Muslim-majority countries). A Mufti for the Sunnis, a Grand Ayatollah for the Shia and appropriate State-recognised leaders for the other divisions or sects.

Each of these leaders will have subscribed to the values above.

Mosques and Islamic institutions would operate under the direction of these leaders who would be responsible for allowing the appointment as well as forcing the dismissal of imams. They would sanction the building of mosques and have an input on the curricula of Islamic schools.

Another important step would be to prevent the importation of ‘extreme’ versions of Islam from countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. Currently, these countries are active in funding the building of mosques and provide imams and mullahs into this country.

Similarly, the funding of mosque building and provision of imams would be banned from organisations considered to promote what has been defined as the ‘extreme’ interpretation of Islam.

I don’t believe that it would be particularly difficult to legislate against organisations in countries that prevent freedom of religion being allowed to send money and people to propagate their version of Islam in the UK.

This won’t solve all of the problems. Obviously people like Choudhary will refuse to accept a State-recognised Mufti. I suspect many Muslims might.

However, these groups will no longer be able to describe themselves as mainstream British Muslims. We have many odd-ball and extreme Christian groups operating outside the Church of England, the Catholic Church etc. It doesn’t create problems.

Our society doesn’t feel under pressure to accommodate their demands as representing ‘Christianity’. We can ask our recognised Christian leaders who will confirm it doesn’t. And we treat those demands appropriately: As coming from a tiny and unrepresentative cult or sect.

A practical example:

When a Muslim ‘demands’ an ‘extreme’ or unreasonable accommodation and claims that it is part of Islam, instead of the Daily Mail having a fit and employers feeling intimidated by ‘discrimination’ laws, instead of costly and socially divisive court cases like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_%28Begum%29_v_He…

we ask the Mufti, “is this requirement part of Islam?”

And if he says “no”, we reply, “no, you can’t rely on our ‘freedom of religion’ laws to fight for this accommodation as it is not part of the religion of Islam as recognised in this country”.

It works to some extent in France. It could work here.

We do not believe in moderate Catholics. We believe there are Catholics and those who want to leave Catholicism. Some Catholics are more active than others, but all Catholics want Christian law and the Pope to rule the world. Moderate Catholics are those who watch non-Catholics being killed, but still say the rosary when the killing is happening…..Therefore, we obviously oppose Catholics because Opus Dei are merely Catholics, and Catholics are Opus Dei.

Make sense?

Err.

No.

Are you sure you want either Steven or Reza to use bullet points?

I have ideas on ways of dealing with this, but suspect they’ll be too complicated for lefties to comprehend.

Actually I get it Reza. Both you and Stephen live in Mel Philip's world, and most of us don't. And every day you feel the need to share that paranoid world of yours to us. If you need psychotherapy, there are professionals to help you.

As far as I know, besides ranting about Islam, you never attempted to say what you would do about the things you rant about if you were in power. I just have trouble understanding how you differ from the BNP, and this would be a good opportunity for you to make a case. Please, lay down a series of actions that would solve the problems of your world using bullet points.

See, when an issue becomes complicated, you don’t seem to be able to get your head around it. Stephen and I actually differ on this issue. I accept that this is difficult for some people to understand.

Particularly those people who see the world in one-dimension: left or right; multiculturalist or racist; open-borders immigration or BNP bigotry.

“Stephen – you should encourage Reza to come to your event! Get him to demonstrate! Show that he's not just an armchair warrior.”

I wish Stephen well, and have offered financial support to his group in the past. I spoke to him a couple of years ago, when the organisation was first established in the UK and raised some of my concerns then.

The fundamental point on which I disagree with Stephen is that the main danger we face is from the ideology of Islam and certainly the interpretation of Islam that is becoming the accepted wisdom in British mosques and among organisations representing “The Vast Majority of Moderate Muslims”.

I disagree that Individual Muslims are necessarily a threat, although I recognise that they are being used as “ballast” by the forces of Islamification.

I have ideas on ways of dealing with this, but suspect they’ll be too complicated for lefties to comprehend.

So I’ll leave you pretending everything is okay and the future is going to be just peachy.

And sniping at anyone who argues otherwise.

“Here is one version of the Tale As Told By Reza:”

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?…

You'll never get any acknowledgement, never mind discussion from lefties and multiculturalists regarding dirty little truths such as these.

If they can't be denied they’ll be ignored.

Further to my question above, some answers to the following queries previously addressed to you would also be constructive:

Your statement:

Hindus tell me the Taj Mahal is in fact a Hindu temple that was converted into a mausoleum.

(Source: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6595#co…)

My subsequent response, from the same thread:

There are over 800 million Hindus in the world, the vast majority of them in India itself. Based on spurious alleged evidence which actually has no credibility amongst respected mainstream Indian academics, a very tiny fraction of them believe what you have stated. Perhaps you are unaware that the rest of the global Hindu population does not, and within India, the type of Hindus you are referring to are ridiculed as a laughing stock and a lunatic fringe group by the majority of that country's Hindu population.

Do you personally believe that the Taj Mahal is actually a converted Hindu temple ?

I am not extreme, I am just more knowledgable than most non-Muslims.

Are you claiming that you are more knowledgeable about Islam and Muslims in relation to the Indian subcontinent than Guru Gobind Singh was ?

See: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6688

Are you also claiming that you are more knowledgeable about Islam and Muslims in relation to the Indian subcontinent than Guru Hargobind was ?

See: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6771

Regarding your other references, history is constantly re-written. Historians have their own agendas every bit as much as I do and every bit as the Taqiyya merchants in the mosques do.

I am just more knowledgable than most non-Muslims

Finally, are you also claiming that you are more knowledgeable about Islam and Muslims in relation to the Indian subcontinent than the British historian William Dalrymple is ? And are you accusing William Dalrymple of lying in the various books & published articles he writes about the subject ?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?…

personally, i think stephen gash would benefit from intravenous injections of nusrat fateh ali khan until he lightens up.

That's actually a very good point.

Stephen Gash,

Do you believe the following statements attributed to the SIOE are applicable to the late Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan ?

We do not believe in moderate Muslims. We believe there are Muslims and those who want to leave Islam. Some Muslims are more active than others, but all Muslims want sharia law and Islam to rule the world. Moderate Muslims are those who watch non-Muslims being killed, but still say Allah u Akbar when the killing is happening…..Therefore, we obviously oppose Islamists because Islamists are merely Muslims, and Muslims are Islamists.

In a nutshell, are you claiming that the late Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan was an “Islamist” ?

Stephen – you should encourage Reza to come to your event! Get him to demonstrate! Show that he's not just an armchair warrior.

Here's the story as I remember it:

Commissioned on the basis of their impeccable reputation, researchers at Berlin Technical University were sent out to report of racist / xenophobic attacks within the EU and came back with a documented hard factual report which included plenty of assaults on Jews by Muslim youths …

The EU commissars howled wirth dismay and told the researchers to rewrite it so that most reported nastiness was being done by neo-Nazi skinheads – a version suitable to be broadcast on the BBC and on EURONEWS, in fact – and the researchers staunchly refused and stood by the report as they had written it so the report was shelved but not before a few 'samizdat' copies had escaped and a very few honest journalists told the tale aloud.

Innocent” is a purely subjective term. Who is innocent? It is believed that before planning the 9/11 attacks, Osama Bin Laden sought advice from Islamic scholars as to whether the targets could be considered as “innocent”.

This is the sort of argument that I think even Mel Philips would think is ridiculous… but then again, I might be wrong.