If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
The "Islam Is Peace" campaign...
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Why are there big advertisements on London buses advertising the www.islamispeace.org.uk website which is full of outright lies?
It seems like the Islamic propaganda machine is in full swing on our shores and the naive gullible Westerners are falling for the lies hook line and sinker.
Very soon you'll be forced to believe that the Quran contains "scientific miracles" too. :rolleyes:
Being an ex-Muslim of Pakistani origin, I am well informed on Islam and Islamic issues, and I know what is said behind closed doors (like the Channel 4 Dispatches programme discovered).
When is this country gonna have the guts to call a spade a spade?
It seems like the Islamic propaganda machine is in full swing on our shores and the naive gullible Westerners are falling for the lies hook line and sinker.
Very soon you'll be forced to believe that the Quran contains "scientific miracles" too. :rolleyes:
Being an ex-Muslim of Pakistani origin, I am well informed on Islam and Islamic issues, and I know what is said behind closed doors (like the Channel 4 Dispatches programme discovered).
When is this country gonna have the guts to call a spade a spade?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Doubt it will ever happen, but I sometimes wish it would.
Of course most Muslims are peaceful, a reminder of that is welcome. However, there should be no glossing over the unfortunate fact that there are religious fanatics following a form of Islam that seek to unleash terror and bloodshed; and bring general misery to innocent people. These people have succeeded frequently in Iraq, they’ve had successes in Israel and they were successful in New York, Madrid and London. Whilst there are genuine concerns that our civil liberties are being curtailed in the name of counter-terrorism I think anybody who doubts future successes of this fanatical element within Islam is dangerously deluded.
:yes:
I think there's two sides to the story though. Some things are perfectly innocent, but some things are brought about with an agenda to antagonise religous people by atheists who believe they're infinitely superior because they don't believe in 'fairys' (or often have some other such condescending way of saying 'god').
I'm not religious, but with the cartoons - they did cause offense because it's part of the muslim teaching etc. - they should not have to censor themselves but they should also be sensitive. But in defiance of 'religious oppression' (apparently), every other newspaper across the continent reproduced them.
If you were a muslim and you found it offensive, you'd be pretty pissed off. It's not about 'liberal society'. It's about respecting other people's sensitivities. Nobody has any right to say what offends someone else isn't valid - yet in this case because it was offensive on religious grounds suddenly 'liberals' decided to say they didn't have the right to be offended.
Whilst denial helps nobody, I don't think either that polarising muslims, or religious and not religious, or anything like that, even comes close to start helping the situation. It is one similar to northern Ireland where no side can win, it will be only through compromise and understanding on both sides that will lead to be a peace and a happy coexistence. In Iraq, these groups you talk of are guilty of the same - looking at Americans and seeing them as soldiers who will run over children, arrest people at gunpoint for indefinite incarceration, rather than a collective group of people where every person has his own individual motivations and ideas and uniqueness.
They have a right to be offended and to make clear that they feel the cartoons were offensive. Same as Catholics have the right to wave placards outside Jerry Springer the Opera. But they don't have the right to make threats against Salman Rushdie or murder Theo van Gough.
fortunately or unfortunately we live in a secular democracy and the rights of people to insult religion without fearing for their lives need to also be protected (bearing in mind incitement to commit racial hatred is a crime so you cannot go so far in criticising religion as you could for say criticisng someone for foxhunting)
The problem is that the moderates in the religion agree with you. That we should respect people's religious views. Why should we? Because as soon as you accept that you should respect people's religious views, you have to accept that you should respect everyone's religious views. And people rioting, burning flags and actually injuring people are given a justification for their actions, whereas in reality the moderate muslims should be coming out and condemning them. I don't know if this is the moderate muslim's fault that you don't see it, or whether they're simply not afforded the media coverage. But if so-called moderates have any respect for freedom of speech, they should stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the Danish newspaper, whether they agree with them or not. I'd be happy to sign a petition to release the man from prison who was arrested for demonstrating against the newspaper, because I respect his right to voice his opinion, even if his opinion is that Denmark should be bombed (as long as he doesn't actually do it). That opinion "offends" me I suppose, but I still think he should be allowed to offend me.
The right to offend people is one of the most important rights we have (incidentally, who said they didn't have the right to be offended?). If not, then why not extend it to political beliefs? We can't criticise the Conservative's policy on inheritance tax in case it offends them. That's a key part of the Conservative ideology, in the same way that not drawing cartoons is a key part of the Islamic ideology. What's the difference? Ideas should always be open to disagreement and even ridicule, and it's up to the people who believe them to defend them. Putting the blame on the people making the criticisms of religions is the reason the likes of Ayaan Hirsi Ali have to go everywhere under police escort after a death threat to her was pinned onto the body of Theo van Gogh. The whole "condescending" argument you put against atheists is the biggest smokescreen in history, designed to shield the fact that so far no one has come up with a single reasonable argument against it. The age-old tactic of I can't respond to the argument, so I'll attack the person making the argument instead to divert attention.
alright, so what is being said behind closed doors?
What some Muslims in the Christian West fail to realise is that when they attack people for being insensitive or derogatory towards Islam, they fail to realise that the very nature of their religion is blasphemous and insulting to Christians because they reduce Jesus Christ from 'God' to a second rate 'prophet'. For all their problems, Christians are far more tolerant these days of criticism and insults to their religion than Muslims are. Muslims need to aspire to that.
This is the point tbh. There are fanatics in EVERY religion not just islam and it would do people good to remember that before pointing the finger at any one religion specifically.
People are killed in the name of religion every day of the week and people will always scapegoat one religion over another.
It doesnt make it right though
Couldn't agree more. :yes:
There are certainly fanatics in every religion, but that doesn't mean that every religion is equally susceptible to fanatics. All religions i've come across are fantastically nonsensical, but some are definitely more nonsensical than others.
The Qu'arn - in its original Arabic form - is believed by Muslims to be the literal word of God. Now if you believe that a book is the literal word of God, you can easily argue that it is not only acceptable, but right and proper, you cut off the hands of a thief.
Poppy-cock. If you decide to adhere rigidly to the sacred texts of the major religions you're going to be a fruit-cake. You can't selectively pick an aspect of religion and laud it as being civilised, while at the same time ignoring that it happily condones stoning people to death.
technically we live in an Anglican CoE country even if individuals do not believe it themselves
personally islam is like most other religions it has it's fair share of fanatics and a good proportion of people who aren't good or bad people, they're just erm human like everyone else
the thing with religion also is that there is many ways they can be interpreted and bastardised effectively BUT people can believe whatever the hell they like, it's their actions not their beliefs that make them illegitmate so to speak
only about 1 in 20 people in this country and europe are muslim and islamic countries did make a lot of advancements in mathematics and science, including methods of astronomical observations etc etc but then again all sorts of places have
many people in this country who aren't muslims would probably agree with cutting off the hands of regular thiefs - it's a matter of attitude to the world not your religion
islam as a general religion at the moment "has the perception" of a lot of fanatics because it is fastly growing in developing countries, being mainly funded by saudi groups i believe and we don't often hear of fanatical hindus and christians as you get in india and parts of western africa respectively
it's almost like the malaria/HIV scenario where malaria could be treated everywhere in the world with a snap of the finger it's that easy, but as we have near 0 chance of catching it we'd fund HIV instead as it's transmission isn't affected by poverty
A bit simplistic that. Islam was as capable of murdering prisoners and heretics as the crusaders and the medieval mind also produced writers such as Chaucer and Thomas Mallory.
Though to an extent its irrelevant. Christianity had the reformation and whilst there are extremes they remain much rarer than in the Moslem world (and like extremist Hindus tend to be very much concentrated in a relatively small area and are a limited threat outside that area)
If you ever talk with a theologist or whatever they're called (my uncle is one lol), you'll understand everybody interprets their own religion differently. The fact that most religious texts contradict themselves is enough for a bit of controversy. Although they are seen as 'the word of god', it does not mean you take the literal meaning of every single thing.
Religion and intelligence are not exclusive, and (not pointing the finger at you) that's something a lot of atheist zealots don't seem to realize, happily labeling all religion as fantasy / stupidity.
The fact a lot of religious texts condone acts such as stoning to death does comes simply from the environment in which they were written where culturally it was common place. For example, women in Christianity, Islam are seen as second class traditionally, and this derives from the culture that was present at the time. If they were written 2000 years earlier then it would have been a very different picture that we see today, where female rulers were not uncommon and in general (from what I've read), women were seen as 'holy' and revered / respected.
So it is the duty of a good religious scholar to accept the scriptures as a whole foundation, but also understand that not all of it is appropriate to the present day, and that religious belief and practice must go side-by-side with the common cultural norms of today.
What I was trying to highlight was that it's not the religion, it's entirely the culture and environment the people are in.
That's technically true (unless you live in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland) - though I'd argue in pratical terms the CoE has pretty limited impact and that in practice we live in a secular country
I agree, but its also a circular argument. Part of the environment and culture is shaped by religion (albeit much more in medieval times than now)
The alternative is to allow the extremists to be seen as the majority. It may not be fair, but that's life.
After one atrocity by the UVF I can remember going with my parents to a protest with lots of other Prods where we demonstrated against the murderers to make clear they weren't the majority or doing it in our name. Thousands of decent Catholics did the same after Enniskillen.
Gradually it dawned on both the terrorists and the English that the IRA and UVF weren't mainstream bodies, but marginal groups with whom the majority disagreed (even if the Protestants I demonstrated with supported the UK and the Catholics who protested against the IRA supported a united Ireland)
the thing is though, very few people are willing to broadcast people who are well quite normal people not homocidal nutters or anything like that
Just thought I'd post this link featuring Robert Spencer regarding the "IslamIsPeace" campaign...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFuJz0hA5rc
The point about the 'Islam is Peace' thing, and this is the criticism I think San is making, is that they may be trying to disconnect, in peoples' minds, the idea that this terrorism is connected to Islam at all. There are some Muslims who are intent on breaking this connection and in-light of them, Gordon Brown has decided that the government will not call Islamic terrorists Islamic terrorists. Apparently they're just criminals with no Islamic basis for their beliefs and actions. I was reading a report by the 'Conservative Muslim Forum' the other day, which suggested that the Conservatives should do the same thing. This is supposedly for the ostensible reason that not all Muslims believe in this strain of Islam and therefore they shouldn't all be stuck in the same box; which is fair enough, if that's the case. But many commentators already do so by making the distinction between Islam and 'Islamism' (the political fundamentalist interpretation of Islam). But that doesn't seem to satisfy them. Ex-Islamists have been interviewed on the BBC and they make the same distinction.
Why is it so important that we call Islamic terrorism by its real name anyway? Well, firstly because peaceful Muslims can then denounce and distance themselves from it, they're hindered from confronting and tackling the fact that there are other Muslims who interpret Islam in a manner that isn't peaceful at all if they just bury their heads in the sand and try to get people to believe that Islamism has nothing to do with Islam. Secondly, because if we're to fight Islamism effectively we have to understand it and what fuels it – what fuels it is an interpretation of Islam - if we don't we're liable to make mistakes in the way we deal with it: For example the retarded idea people are promulgating nowadays that the lesson we need to take from Northern Ireland is that we should deal with Hamas, whether they recognise Israel's right to exist or not.
Fair enough, and I am fairly sure I have seen protests of that sort from Muslims here in the UK in the news in the past. But the two comparisons dont really work because the 'Muslim community' here isnt really anything of the sort. Certainly there are some areas with a large Muslim population, and there are some Imam's with a big following, but they certainly dont have any national or even large area leaders.
As for whether we should call the extremists Islamists, or just terrorists - I think it depends, some groups take the religion more seriously than others. The Madrid bombings were very largely political and not so much religious, where as other bombings have been different. And of course lets not forget that there are loads of other terrorists around the world who have nothing to do with Islam - but they dont kill western people very often so they go relatively un-noticed.
Islamists tend to latch on to 'political' issues to further their cause, but the thing fueling Islamism isn't the political issue. The ex-Islamists the BBC have interviewed in the past say just that on the 'it's our foreign policy' critique. Those other terrorists who have nothing to do with Islam aren't called Islamists, obviously we're going to be more concerned with the ones that are attacking us.
Which Islamic sect is it then which advocates terrorism, barbarism and murder?
And to your last point, I don't think the IRA recognised Nothern Irelands right to exist as seperate from the rest of Ireland either.