British Muslims - What They Really Think

[CUMBRIANDRAGON]

now what group does that remind you of?

Being Anti-Islam is not racist.
I hate all religeons equally.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Being Anti-Islam is not racist.
I hate all religeons equally.

So you hate Jews???????

Frats Rmp3

 

[audiotech]

Being Anti-Islam is not racist.
I hate all religeons equally.

I'm an atheist myself, but I respect other people's beliefs and would find it the height of stupidity to walk up to someone and begin a conversation by saying "I hate your beliefs, but hey what do you think of mine"?

 

[durruti02]

what.
a.
fucking.
idiot

in that one post you have summed up all that is bad about urban .. arrogence .. inability to try to understand anothers point of view and abuse ..

i have spoken to you on a number of occassions and thought you better than that mate ..

do you not think that your post is in any way what i am trying to talk about???? that if you step outside the club you do not get debate but get abuse?? do i do this to you ??? or anyone else??

and p.s. ed .. i am not on ttg .. it sounds like a total waste of space .. i am trying to get across, what i and others i know think, that something has been lost on urban ..

 

[CUMBRIANDRAGON]

So you hate Jews???????

Frats Rmp3

I hate religeons not people . There is a difference you know.

 

[CUMBRIANDRAGON]

I'm an atheist myself, but I respect other people's beliefs and would find it the height of stupidity to walk up to someone and begin a conversation by saying "I hate your beliefs, but hey what do you think of mine"?

Yes you are right . I once told Abu Hamsa that I was a atheist but I respect your beliefs.

 

[Bear]

Being Anti-Islam is not racist.
I hate all religeons equally.

I hate some religions more than others because some are more brutal, violent and evangelical than others. But I don't hate people.

 

[audiotech]

Yes you are right . I once told Abu Hamsa that I was a atheist but I respect your beliefs.

Hamsa is using religion for political means which I neither like, nor respect.

 

[iROBOT]

this is crap. If you think back it was Norman Tebbit who tactically shifted the racially motivated attacks upon minorities to "culturalism", but the idea that Norman Tebbit was being any less racist than he had ever been before his "cricket test" etc, is complete bollocks.

Likewise with the BNP. They have shifted their scapegoating to Moslems merely as a means of circumventing the anti-race laws, and if anyone is dreaming that the BNP are not racially motivated they are being naive in the extreme. The BNP have clearly explained they see their attacks as Moslems purely as a base to creating their ideal of an all-white Britain.

Does this mean that everybody who criticised Moslems is racist? No not at all, but the fact that Muslims in popular body politic have become the new Jews, does mean such criticisms by revolutionaries need to be couched in a fashion that will not legitimate the ruling class and fascist campaign IMHO.

fraternal greetings. ResistanceMP3

fraternal greetings to you too. ResistanceMP3

Using the scapegating of Jews in the west is a bit of a red herring isnt it? For one the Jews didnt have there own nations where their extreme elements planned attacks on the west, (wherever you may think the guilt lies for this), the Islamic threat to is real (at least in London) The Jewish "threat" never was

A safer analogy would be the way the "communist threat" of the cold war, used by neo-conservatives to instill fear in the genral population.

Now I fully understand what you mean about the BNP/Tebbit (I'm Asian so I've lived with it's consiquences in A REAL way). However you'll find that this attidude to extreme Islam is held in non white societies too. How would you approch this attitude or do you feel that's a separate issue?

If of course you point is one of simply stateing that this is just cloaked racism youre probably right, but this does not eleviate the fears of people who actually live under the threat is Islamic extremist, in a way the europeans never had with the Jews.

Now my point about calling it racism is that when I spout off about some cunt in the pub slagging off Asians (blah blah) as sucide bombers and me trying to point out that it's a religion and not race the stock answer is "your all the same"

They couldnt even tell you the diffence between a Hindu/Buddhist/Muslim because we are all lumped as one as the "other" and by calling anti Islamic fear as racist brings in people like me that have fuck all to do with it.

But I understand your point. I hope you understand mine.

 

[CUMBRIANDRAGON]

Hamsa is using religion for political means which I neither like, nor respect.

The New Testament was put together by Emperor constantine for political means.Every religeon was created for political means

 

[CUMBRIANDRAGON]

fraternal greetings to you too. ResistanceMP3

Using the scapegating of Jews in the west is a bit of a red herring isnt it? For one the Jews didnt have there own nations where their extreme elements planned attacks on the west, (wherever you may think the guilt lies for this), the Islamic threat to is real (at least in London) The Jewish "threat" never was

A safer analogy would be the way the "communist threat" of the cold war, used by neo-conservatives to instill fear in the genral population.

Now I fully understand what you mean about the BNP/Tebbit (I'm Asian so I've lived with it's consiquences in A REAL way). However you'll find that this attidude to extreme Islam is held in non white societies too. How would you approch this attitude or do you feel that's a separate issue?

If of course you point is one of simply stateing that this is just cloaked racism youre probably right, but this does not eleviate the fears of people who actually live under the threat is Islamic extremist, in a way the europeans never had with the Jews.

Now my point about calling it racism is that when I spout off about some cunt in the pub slagging off Asians (blah blah) as sucide bombers and me trying to point out that it's a religion and not race the stock answer is "your all the same"

They couldnt even tell you the diffence between a Hindu/Buddhist/Muslim because we are all lumped as one as the "other" and by calling anti Islamic fear as racist brings in people like me that have fuck all to do with it.

But I understand your point. I hope you understand mine.

Some very good points .Deep down I think alot of us know the dangers from Islamic extreamism.Yes I know all religeons can be extream but for me Islam in this country is alot dangerous than any other religeon in this country. The film Monty Python the life of Brian if this was about Islam it could spark a civil war. Jerry Springer jesus opera if this was about Islam there would be riots and buildings being petrol bombed all over this coutry.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I hate some religions more than others because some are more brutal, violent and evangelical than others. But I don't hate people.

I'm guessing you're talking about Christianity then?

resistanceMP3

 

[mk12]

Well, i'd argue they are all pretty violent! Suicide bombings, amputations, circumcisions, wars, genocide...

 

[TremulousTetra]

fraternal greetings to you too. ResistanceMP3

Using the scapegating of Jews in the west is a bit of a red herring isnt it? For one the Jews didnt have there own nations where their extreme elements planned attacks on the west, (wherever you may think the guilt lies for this), the Islamic threat to is real (at least in London) The Jewish "threat" never was

A safer analogy would be the way the "communist threat" of the cold war, used by neo-conservatives to instill fear in the genral population.

Now I fully understand what you mean about the BNP/Tebbit (I'm Asian so I've lived with it's consiquences in A REAL way). However you'll find that this attidude to extreme Islam is held in non white societies too. How would you approch this attitude or do you feel that's a separate issue?

If of course you point is one of simply stateing that this is just cloaked racism youre probably right, but this does not eleviate the fears of people who actually live under the threat is Islamic extremist, in a way the europeans never had with the Jews.

Now my point about calling it racism is that when I spout off about some cunt in the pub slagging off Asians (blah blah) as sucide bombers and me trying to point out that it's a religion and not race the stock answer is "your all the same"

They couldnt even tell you the diffence between a Hindu/Buddhist/Muslim because we are all lumped as one as the "other" and by calling anti Islamic fear as racist brings in people like me that have fuck all to do with it.

But I understand your point. I hope you understand mine.

thanks irobot, that was a thought-provoking post.

I would maintain that if you take a step back and look at the big picture and the main players of politics today Moslems, rather than political Islam, are the new Jews. Maybe you feel more comfortable with your analogy of the "communist threat", and that too does capture the point I'm trying to make. Muslims, rather than political Islam, are the bogeyman, the scapegoat. (By the way, Jews were seen as economic terrorist, working from within to destroy Germany through their ‘global economic control/conspiracy'.) And I won't emphasise for large swathe of today's political players it is muslins who are the bogeyman, not the minority of political Islam. This is probably encapsulated by the popular "clash of civilisations" phrase used by the neoconservatives and neo-fascists and the comments you highlighted "your all the same" or

I hate some religions more than others because some are more brutal, violent and evangelical than others. But I don't hate people.

all of these suggest there is something innate/immutable in the culture/religion that leads towards violence and terrorism. When the truth is Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all have the potential for violence and terrorism.

No I don't have a problem with anybody criticising Christianity, Islam, Judaism, I do it myself. All I have said is that revolutionaries have to be careful in the current climate I've painted above found a couch these criticisms.

However, I would like to take up something you have said, about you being frightened of Islam. You see I am far more frightened of Christian fundamentalism. I think Christian fundamentalism is a far bigger threat to the global community east and west. This is basically because Christian fundamentalists have far more power with their control of the White House etc.

And there is a distinction between political Islam, political Christianity, and political Judaism/Zionism. Political Islam, Al Qaeda and Osman bin laden etc, are politically and morally bankrupt in their tactics of terrorism, tackles undisputed. However, if you look at what they say there is is any reaction to imperialism, rather than an attempt to impose some kind of imperialism on the west. They are saying "we have no interest whatsoever in the West. As far as we concerned you can rot in your own hell. We just want your forces out of our countries." This is no excuse. I'm not suggesting it anyway this excuses there actions. But it is a starting point for analysis of cause and effect, and a real solution to the problem in my opinion. Basically what I am arguing is no matter how wrong politically and morally bankrupt Al Qaeda is, they are not the cause of the problem, they are a symptom of Western imperialism (imperialism= subjugation of a lands peoples and resources to the benefit of another country.)

After all that on the this agreement with you, I do want to emphasise that I do agree with you about criticising political Islam. Not only do I agree with you, I do criticise it outside the mosque. Not only that I provide an alternative to political Islam with the anti-war movement and respect. An alternative that argues for unity instead of apartheid, a better future instead of regression.

Fraternal greetings. ResistanceMP3

 

[TremulousTetra]

Well, i'd argue they are all pretty violent! Suicide bombings, amputations, circumcisions, wars, genocide...

I agree with you entirely that they all have the potential as my post above says. However, if we look at Thursday the ninth of March 2006 and ask "which has the biggest potential for horrific slaughter, the suicide bomber of political Islam or the industrialised war machine of political Christianity in the White House"? I think the latter is a far more formidable threat.

fraternal greetings resistanceMP3

 

[audiotech]

The New Testament was put together by Emperor constantine for political means.Every religeon was created for political means

It is thought it that Mathew, Mark, Luke and John with added works from Paul, Peter and Jude wrote the texts that make up the New Testament. Now accepting that they did indeed write these texts, did they write these for political means do you think?

 

[nwnm]

"The film Monty Python the life of Brian if this was about Islam it could spark a civil war. Jerry Springer jesus opera if this was about Islam there would be riots and buildings being petrol bombed all over this coutry." Fundamentalist Christians are far too busy petrol bombing abortion clinics in the states to be bothering their muddled little heads with all that theatre stuff....

 

[PrinceToad]

The problem that I can see with your post #509 is that you've stitched together disparate events, pieces of history and ideas around Islam and religious freedom to bolster your argument without really elucidating exactly how (for example) point a might relate to point b. In other words, your argument, however well-informed, was presented in more of the form of a Rush Limbaugh "join the dots" rant, but with more intellect behind it..

Just my humble opinion, of course, so feel free to abuse or disabuse me.

I think you mistake my argument. The point that I am trying to make is that some (Islamic) extremists are trying to lump all Muslims together, by saying "This is an attack on all Muslims!!" when it clearly isn't, and I was stating a little evidence to show that most Muslims clearly do not think this. Of course, non-Islamic extremists are perfectly happy to go along with this. Perhaps I did not put this well.

I was also attempting to counter the conspiraloonacy that this was part of some pre-planned attack aimed at provoking Muslims, as it clearly isn't. A quick glance at the actual pictures, and the course of actions following their publication clearly shows this.

Muslim liberals are attempting to oppose this attempt to categorise their religion and culture in such extreme and repressive terms. #517 I was attempting to show how the extremists had created this illusive appearance of frenzy. A single leftist group in the UK has fallen in with this, but otherwise, everyone, Muslim and non-Muslim, is much on the same side. Media outlets, both here and in the middle east, are desperately trying to portray this as a "clash of civilisations" or a case of "imperialist crusading" but it clearly isn't.

I feel that the Rush Limbaugh approach is to claim that all Muslims want to impose religious censorship, which is what the opportunist swappie types are trying to claim.

 

[Bear]

I'm guessing you're talking about Christianity then?

resistanceMP3

Nope, why would you think that? Since you mentioned it, Islam is my least faviourate. The ones I have the most respect for are Bahai and Buddism.

I think Islam has far more potential for violence than Christianity. When a religion is dominate in any place at any particular time, then that religion has the ability to be used as a tool of power and be violent. But I don't see violence and oppression as being part of the New Testament with is primarly what Christianity is based on (or is supposed to be). I can't honestly say the same about Islam.

According to the New Testament, Jesus Christ (Christianity's founder unless you want to attribute the religion to Paul) was despised by the world and nailed to a cross. Jesus taught secularism and said that government and religion could demand different things (he made this clear over the temple tax when he said give to Ceaser what is Ceasers and give to God what is God's).

In the New Testament all the apostles including Paul) were persecuted and killed, they were not those doing the persecuting, nor did they have any political power. In fact, Christianity was oppressed for it's first three centuries until Roman Emporer Constantine converted. The New Testament concept of maryterdom is Christians being killed for refusing to renonce their faith. There is no concept of them dying in battle, having political power or converting people by force in the New Testament, none, none at all.

These things cannot be said about Islam. Muhammad was a warrior as well. He killed people, had slaves and there was a concept of mayterdom that involved dying in battle from the outset. Before Muhammad died he expelled all non-Muslims from certain places, in other places they were forced to pay a special tax. He made the word of a non-Muslim worth half that of a Muslim in court. During it's founders time Islam was a political system that unfairly discrimated against non-muslims. Only a complete idiot or someone who is totally ignorant would deny that.

I dislike Islam more than Christianity for those reasons. However, I will admit that when any religion is the majority in a specific place, then in that place, at that time, it can be a huge political force and used violently. However, I do not see any 'seeds' of violence and oppression in the New Testament, or the early Christian Church, that came later when it was able to be used as an instrument of power. But I see violence and oppression in Islam from the very beginning.

However, saying all that, that does not mean the Islam or Muslims today necessarly are violent or intolerant, fortunately most of them are not.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I think you mistake my argument. The point that I am trying to make is that some (Islamic) extremists are trying to lump all Muslims together, by saying "This is an attack on all Muslims!!" when it clearly isn't, and I was stating a little evidence to show that most Muslims clearly do not think this. Of course, non-Islamic extremists are perfectly happy to go along with this. Perhaps I did not put this well.

I was also attempting to counter the conspiraloonacy that this was part of some pre-planned attack aimed at provoking Muslims, as it clearly isn't. A quick glance at the actual pictures, and the course of actions following their publication clearly shows this.

Muslim liberals are attempting to oppose this attempt to categorise their religion and culture in such extreme and repressive terms. #517 I was attempting to show how the extremists had created this illusive appearance of frenzy. A single leftist group in the UK has fallen in with this, but otherwise, everyone, Muslim and non-Muslim, is much on the same side. Media outlets, both here and in the middle east, are desperately trying to portray this as a "clash of civilisations" or a case of "imperialist crusading" but it clearly isn't.

I feel that the Rush Limbaugh approach is to claim that all Muslims want to impose religious censorship, which is what the opportunist swappie types are trying to claim.

What? can you make that clearer please?

RMP3

 

[CUMBRIANDRAGON]

I agree with you entirely that they all have the potential as my post above says. However, if we look at Thursday the ninth of March 2006 and ask "which has the biggest potential for horrific slaughter, the suicide bomber of political Islam or the industrialised war machine of political Christianity in the White House"? I think the latter is a far more formidable threat.

fraternal greetings resistanceMP3

Yes the fundamentalists in the White House are as bad al-qaeda.They just treat their people abit better.

 

[CUMBRIANDRAGON]

It is thought it that Mathew, Mark, Luke and John with added works from Paul, Peter and Jude wrote the texts that make up the New Testament. Now accepting that they did indeed write these texts, did they write these for political means do you think?

They never wrote these texts they were passed down by word of mouth.
Don't forget the other 200 or so gospels that were kept out of the new testament.Yes Christianity was formed for political reasons.

 

[CUMBRIANDRAGON]

Nope, why would you think that? Since you mentioned it, Islam is my least faviourate. The ones I have the most respect for are Bahai and Buddism.

I think Islam has far more potential for violence than Christianity. When a religion is dominate in any place at any particular time, then that religion has the ability to be used as a tool of power and be violent. But I don't see violence and oppression as being part of the New Testament with is primarly what Christianity is based on (or is supposed to be). I can't honestly say the same about Islam.

According to the New Testament, Jesus Christ (Christianity's founder unless you want to attribute the religion to Paul) was despised by the world and nailed to a cross. Jesus taught secularism and said that government and religion could demand different things (he made this clear over the temple tax when he said give to Ceaser what is Ceasers and give to God what is God's).

In the New Testament all the apostles including Paul) were persecuted and killed, they were not those doing the persecuting, nor did they have any political power. In fact, Christianity was oppressed for it's first three centuries until Roman Emporer Constantine converted. The New Testament concept of maryterdom is Christians being killed for refusing to renonce their faith. There is no concept of them dying in battle, having political power or converting people by force in the New Testament, none, none at all.

These things cannot be said about Islam. Muhammad was a warrior as well. He killed people, had slaves and there was a concept of mayterdom that involved dying in battle from the outset. Before Muhammad died he expelled all non-Muslims from certain places, in other places they were forced to pay a special tax. He made the word of a non-Muslim worth half that of a Muslim in court. During it's founders time Islam was a political system that unfairly discrimated against non-muslims. Only a complete idiot or someone who is totally ignorant would deny that.

I dislike Islam more than Christianity for those reasons. However, I will admit that when any religion is the majority in a specific place, then in that place, at that time, it can be a huge political force and used violently. However, I do not see any 'seeds' of violence and oppression in the New Testament, or the early Christian Church, that came later when it was able to be used as an instrument of power. But I see violence and oppression in Islam from the very beginning.

However, saying all that, that does not mean the Islam or Muslims today necessarly are violent or intolerant, fortunately most of them are not.

The early Church had torture chambers .Hundreds of thousands maybe millions were killed by the church because they were called wiches.The early chuch has alot of blood on its hands.

 

[nino_savatte]

The early Church had torture chambers .Hundreds of thousands maybe millions were killed by the church because they were called wiches.The early chuch has alot of blood on its hands.

Not just witches, but so-called heretics like the Bogomils, the Paulicians and the Albigensians got tortured and burned too.

 

[audiotech]

They never wrote these texts they were passed down by word of mouth.
Don't forget the other 200 or so gospels that were kept out of the new testament.Yes Christianity was formed for political reasons.

According to Bear in a post above:

There is no concept of them [Christians] dying in battle, having political power or converting people by force in the New Testament, none, none at all.

Therefore it would appear that although Christianity has been used for political purposes. The beginnings of the ideas surrounding it were to do with a belief system in a god with no politics.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Yes the fundamentalists in the White House are as bad al-qaeda.They just treat their people abit better.

by "their people" you mean the rich, surely?

resistanceMP3

 

[Bear]

The early Church had torture chambers .Hundreds of thousands maybe millions were killed by the church because they were called wiches.The early chuch has alot of blood on its hands.

Until the Christianity was accepted by the Roman authorities about 300 years after it came into being they didn't do things like that at all. Rather, the Christians were the ones being oppressed; the persecution of Christians started under Nero and continued for 100's of years. Then Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity...

Until Christianity was accepted by the rulers of the day and then used as a political force there weren't torture chambers, nor does the New Testament condone that anywhere.

 

[Bear]

According to Bear in a post above:



Therefore it would appear that although Christianity has been used for political purposes. The beginnings of the ideas surrounding it were to do with a belief system in a god with no politics.

Not exactly. If you read the New Testament after the gospels you'll find that they felt that God wanted them to be separate from politics and just about everything else they regarded as wrong. Basically, the apostles spoke like they were in the 'last days', they regarded the world as evil and wanted to keep themselves pure by seperating themselves from it rather than change it. They were to obey the rulers and keep away for the corruption, the doctrine was one of 'seperation', I guess that was their politics. That is why strict Christian sects like the Brethren and such don't vote. In fact, even Jehovahs Witness don't vote, it's against their rules.

They had opinions for sure, but they didn't try and impose those by force. They were isolationalists if you can understand what I mean by that.

The early church were into staying out of things to keep pure rather than forcing their opinions. That happened 100's of years after Christ.

 

[Bear]

by "their people" you mean the rich, surely?

resistanceMP3

Are you saying that the Republican party treat poor americans as badly as the Taliban treat women etc... I don't like the Republican party either but if that's what you're saying I think you're deluded.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Are you saying that the Republican party treat poor americans as badly as the Taliban treat women etc... I don't like the Republican party either but if that's what you're saying I think you're deluded.

well yes it is a question of scale and perspective. Yes the Taleban, who are not necessarily Al Qaeda as you were talking about the earlier, do treat their people pretty badly from our perspective and I would guess the perspective of many ordinary Afghanistan people. However, they are quite amateur when compared to the US. It is the industrial scale of the US's threat, to not only own people but all peoples, that is more frightening to me. The Christian fundamentalists in the White House threaten us all with environmental destruction, Third World war destruction, and the common ruin of the contending classes. This is why I find Christian fundamentalism in the White House more frightening than Islamic fundamentalism in a fairly insignificant backwater like Afghanistan. And lastly though the Christian fundamentalists in the White House may not treat American people too badly, they don't have any problem arming, sponsoring, and supporting regimes like the Taleban, Saddam Hussein, Pinochet etc ad nauseam.

fraternal greetings, resistanceMP3