[Closed] Cause for concern?

I don't think it was accurate no, he said their motives were wrong, according to you that's the same as saying what they say is inaccurate. Ain't necessarily so is what I'm saying 🙂

PS : Did you note Nick, that I did not put that section as a quotation?? Thats because I got fed up with copying and pasting it, and paraphrased what he had said. I think you'll find the interpretation was accurate, unless you want to argue that point.

Paraphrasing and distorting are not the same things.

Just utter the words Sharia Law and immediately the hysterics start. Its that simple

Where you are concerned that certainly seems to be the case. Some people are actually trying to have a reasoned debate.

In what way was I distorting what you said Grumm?

Wrong : Inaccurate ....... Difference ? I would say that is something is wrong it is also by definition inaccurate. Please do enlighten me if I've got that "inaccurate".

Where you are concerned that certainly seems to be the case. Some people are actually trying to have a reasoned debate.

Wheres the reasoning?

Kimi, Massa and that Hamilton are full on racist's.

Well, racE'ists' I guess 🙄 😆

Grumm said: "and [b]their motives[/b] for saying things are pretty much universally wrong"

An example: the BNP say (maybe, for the sake of discussion) that blacks make up a disproportionate amount of the prison population. That is accurate, but the [u]motives[/u] are wrong.

Thank you DrJ, but he has had it explained to him many times already and clearly doesn't get it.

I haven't read much of this thread apart for the first few posts, but as far as this is concerned :

tyger has posted this sort of thing before.

IMO, tyger does indeed have an agenda.

It appears to me that tyger is frantically anti-Islam. He is also extremely pro-Israeli and pro-Zionist. He very strongly supported the recent slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza.

I don't get the impression that tyger is pro-Zionist from a Jewish perspective. Rather, he appears to be some sort of Christian fundamentalist who is extremely pro-Zionist in much the same way that the Christian fundamentalist fanatics in the United States are.

The Christian fundamentalists in the US (who were behind George Bush) have some sort of bizarre belief about the 12 tribes of Israel and how the United States has a Christian duty to God's Promised Land (Zion)

[url= http://dissidentvoice.org/Apr06/Berkowitz18.htm ]Hagee, the pastor of San Antonio's Cornerstone Church, and the head of a multi-million dollar evangelical enterprise, recently brought together 400 Christian evangelical leaders representing as many as 30 million Christians for an invitation-only "Summit on Israel." The result was the launching of a new pro-Israeli lobbying group called Christians United for Israel[/url]

He very strongly supported the recent slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza.

Really?!!!!!!

Yep hora - the Israelis went into Gaza to kill Palestinians. He very strongly supported that action.

Nah, that would have been extreme trolling for attention. Either that or he is a Paedophile.

Nah, that would have been extreme trolling for attention.

Plenty of christian fundamentalists very strongly supported the Israeli action in Gaza.

I have no idea how many of them are paedophiles.

I suspect however, that it is only a very small minority.

DrJ - Member
Grumm said: "and their motives for saying things are pretty much universally wrong"

An example: the BNP say (maybe, for the sake of discussion) that blacks make up a disproportionate amount of the prison population. That is accurate, but the motives are wrong.

Yep got it and understood that bit. So please explain to me how that statement is a foundation for stating that

it's faulty logic to assume that everything they say is therefore incorrect.

Grumm and others are then using the Policy Exchange and Denis MacEoin as some sort of academic verification of Islamophobia in respect of Sharia Law, where in fact the man is a self professed supporter of Israel, etc etc etc. Google it and check it out for yourself. I have posted the Wikipedia extract for the sake of brevity, but you don't have to be an internet genius to independantly verify both his credentials and those of the Policy Exchange on respect of lying and rabble rousing over non issues.

Sharia Law as a serious issue in the UK?? Think about it for about 10 seconds and you will realise immediately thats you are being wound up.

[b][u]Exert From Wikipedia on Deni MacEoin[/u][/b]

[i]He continues to work on Islamic issues, particularly the development of radical Islam. [u]In December 2007 the BBC news program Newsnight produced evidence that suggested some material on which MacEoin's report on radical Islam in the UK for Policy Exchange, "The Hijacking Of British Islam", was based had been forged[/u]. Gabriele Marranci, an anthropologist at the University of Western Sydney specialising in the study of Muslim communities has made numerous criticisms of the methodology of the report.[2] Accusations of partisanship and bias have also been made against MacEoin. [u]He has stated: "I do not hold a brief for Islam. On the contrary, I have very negative feelings about it,[/u] but still try to appreciate those elements that elevate it (such as the finer forms of Sufism, the poetry, the architecture, and the belief in material simplicity over greed)... [u]I am pro-Israeli and involve myself in the defence of Israel[/u]

This of itself is not evidence of anything other than the need to be deeply suspicious of anything the bloke writes on the subject.

How can you on the one hand acknowledge that what the BNP and for that the Daily Mail is printing is on the one hand universally wrong in its "motivation", and then on the other state that its logical that some of what they say is correct.

Can we have that picture of the girls looking happy again now please?

RUN AWAY RUN AWAY!
.
.
.
.
[img] [/img]

Grumm and others are then using the Policy Exchange and Denis MacEoin as some sort of academic verification of Islamophobia in respect of Sharia Law, where in fact the man is a self professed supporter of Israel, etc etc etc.

Er... actually I was the first person to point out that Denis MacEoin has been accused of faking research before, a few posts in on the first page. I'm also not certain of the accuracy of the Policy Exchange survey, but if you actually read it it's not just saying 'look at these evil dangerous Muslims that want to destroy our way of life', but has some quite interesting insights into the views of Muslims in this country.

As I said, I can look at sources as useful/interesting even if I don't agree with all of their conclusions or their motivation, because not everything is black and white in my world. I imagine I would disagree with Denis MacEoin's views on Israel pretty strongly and he clearly has an axe to grind on Islam, but that doesn't necessarily mean he is automatically wrong in everything he says.

ernie_lynch, brant

Well hello and "thanks" for your comments! 🙂

Erm... I'm not sure if I should justify myself on here or just disappear (!) but for I've obviously created a bad impression with you and never meant to, so I'm really very sorry.

With regards to having any sort or agenda against anyone, once again I'm very sorry for having given that impression but absolutely not true.
As a loving father of my two children and someone that always carries the value of family very highly I take issue with being labeled a Paedophile even in jest and feel maybe it's you who owe me an apology for that.

With regards the statement you made Gus, ernie, Che or whatever you want to call yourself 🙂

"It appears to me that tyger is frantically anti-Islam. He is also extremely pro-Israeli and pro-Zionist. He very strongly supported the recent slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza."

I'm not anti anyone or pro anyone. The way I saw what was happening was that Israel was defending itself against Hamas lobbing bombs and rockets at them from the Palestinians in Gaza. Hamas took shelter in civilian populated areas and there were casualties - it was terrible as is any loss of life but I don't agree with you that Israel just invaded Gaza to slaughter Palestinians. Okay I'll say no more on the subject.

As for me, I'm English born and bred, I love my country and feel very protective about it's history and heritage and worry for the future of it (as typical of most parents) but I'm not a BMP supporter neither am I an extremist in anything (except building my guitar and biking!). I've been on this forum longer than most (if you include the old one) and on the whole think it's great and also the people on here. If both of you have issues with me then I'll be happy to chat with you and try to sort them my end but please don't libel me or assume things about me which are incorrect.

🙂

Grumm : This in essence is my whole point of disagreement

but that doesn't necessarily mean he is automatically wrong in everything he says.

Regarding the Policy Exchange, its a right wing think tank, favoured by centre to far right. I believe the chinless wonder pays them some credence. Denis MacEoin, is one of their sources. For that reason much of what they have to say on the subject of Islam is quite simply fundamentally flawed.

This sort of Sharia Law thing has been going the rounds in my world for some considerable time. I regularly receive chain emails from people that I would have hoped knew better, but clearly don't. Dear old Denis is frequently quoted in them, and taken at face value, " because he's an academic". As I said above, there is no need to debate it, a few seconds thought would immediately discredit the notion. For the following reasons. Firstly for Sharia Law to hold any sway in this country it would require not only an act of Parliament, that act would have to go through The House of Lords, that well know bastion of radical religious zeal, but even then it would have to comply with European law too. So what are the chances of that? Well unless we are planning on an overwhelming swing towards Islamic extremisim in Europe some time soon so the political processes are overwhelmed with extreme mullahs etc then its somewhere between slim and none.

A thread like this where intelligent and articulate people sit and discuss the concept just gives the notion credence. That is exactly how the BNP and Denis MacEoin operate. It is a gradual picking away at rational thought, and a subtle placing of suggestions such as this one in peoples psyche.

So what I am doing is pointing out the flaws in the arguments being used not solely by you, but your point on motives has become a focal point. Their motive is to spread disinformation and through that process persuade people that there nasty and deceitful propoganda had some merit.

I'm not anti anyone or pro anyone.

What a load of rubbish. Islam and the threat it supposedly poses to our way of life are a recurring theme in your postings. I'd guess that you're quite an insecure person and this is your way of dealing with it, but to anyone who can read between the lines you come across as a cowardly bigot.

Mr Agreeable - well, you're entitled to your opinion but you're just plain wrong! I'm not cowardly or a bigot. I may be worried by certain traits that Islam appears to show but I'm not anti Islam or anti Muslims.

Tyger, what comes across in your posts is fear of the unknown and suspicion of people who follow a different religion to you. If you're afraid or suspicious of something with no basis other than a bunch of half-baked factoids ("thin end of the wedge" indeed - is Islam somehow exceptional amongst religions in being exempt from UK law then?) that makes you prejudiced. Or a bigot, if you will.

I don't believe for a second that there is any realistic chance of Sharia law being introduced for criminal cases in any official way, and I think that generally speaking the 'threat' of it is exaggerated by The Mail etc - however, I don't think that unofficial Sharia courts are a good thing, and I don't think fundamentalist religion of any kind is a good thing. There are no other radical fundamentalist religious movements that have any kind of significant support in this country - hence why Islam is the one we are talking about.

You seem to be falling into the trap of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' - because you are opposed to misguided emails, the Daily Mail, and people like Denis MacEoin, you are actually trying to defend something which is the complete antithesis of your apparently liberal beliefs.

If you bothered to actually read the Policy Exchange report rather than screaming RACIST you would see some interesting things, such as:

Some Islamic scholars have called for a major reinterpretation of sharia law to reflect
modern ideas about human rights, equality for women and tolerance of religious conversion.
Other Islamic scholars disagree with this view and say that sharia law is absolute
and should not be interpreted to fit in with western values. Which of these is closest to
your opinion?”

49% said it should be interpreted, compared to 39% who disagreed.

So, a majority of Muslims in this country would like sharia law to reflect modern ideas about human rights, equality for women and tolerance of religious conversion. Doesn't make for a very good Daily Mail headline does it?

So maybe Muslims aren't the evil threat they are made out to be, wonderful. Does that then mean that every aspect of Islam is fine and shouldn't be challenged or questioned?

Mr Agreeable - maybe I type without thinking sometimes because I'm getting caught up (enjoying) the discussions - too enthusiastic, sorry!

But here's an example of why I flag some of these issues for discussion:

I listened to a Radio 4 prog yesterday about how, under Sharia law in Iran, anyone who changes their Muslim faith can expect to be executed. In the west I don't know of anywhere where you can be executed for becoming a Muslim. Now personally I don't know if this is accurate or not but when I hear that Sharia law is becoming more widespread in the UK it worries me as someone who loves this country and hard fought for freedoms. I'm not a flag waving BMP bigot but I'm just concerned and want to know what others think. Instead I'm just getting accusations thrown at me 🙁

What a load of rubbish. Islam and the threat it supposedly poses to our way of life are a recurring theme in your postings. I'd guess that you're quite an insecure person and this is your way of dealing with it, but to anyone who can read between the lines you come across as a cowardly bigot

As an Atheist I also have concerns about Islam and I suspect there are millions like me. Are we all cowardly bigots?

What that says Grumm is that the alarmist headlines and so forth are exactly that and not in any way reflective of the Muslim in the street. Much as Northern Ireland was personified in the press as a hot bed of Terrorism for 30 or 40 years, when in fact a few hundred on all sides, perhaps less, had any involvement.

These alarmist articles are propoganda nothing more. They have already succeeded in making the term Sharia Law to be a terrible threat to our Western virginity, all the while overlooking the simple fact that its the oldest legal system in the world, has been around successfully for 1000's of years, is the basis for much of our own legal system and in the majority of cases the excesses are limited to a few areas where the interpretation is corrupted and taken to extremes.

The argumnents you are putting forward are architypal of those which as I said before start with the phrase "I'm not a racist but....". (And before the Religion/Racism thing erupts again, could I just ask the simple question Anti-Semitism : Racism or Religious persecution??..... Don't bother I won't respond to that point.)

Poxy forum!! Double post

Yes apparently anyone who expresses any concern about any aspect of Islam is a bigot.

Honestly this is exactly the kind of bollocks that plays into the hands of the likes of the BNP etc, as they can use it to claim they are victims of 'political correctness gone mad'.

Im concerned about any religion that requires frequent devotion, what you should eat, what you should wear etc etc.

Religion shouldnt be about control but about celebration. The control aspect is very much a human trait.

Anti-Semitism : Racism or Religious persecution??..... Don't bother I won't respond to that point

Then dont make it.

Muslims have been trying for some time to have their religion above criticism, even apealing to European courts to have criticism of Islam a crime.
Religion is a choice and we are free to criticise that choice just as we may criticise a persons political persuasion. By elevating its status you are trying to place it above analysis.
It is not racism and you should not try to marginalise those who argue against it.

all the while overlooking the simple fact that its the oldest legal system in the world, has been around successfully for 1000's of years, is the basis for much of our own legal system and in the majority of cases the excesses are limited to a few areas where the interpretation is corrupted and taken to extremes.

Many crude medical practices were the forerunner to the Germ theory of disease. Because one was before the other doesnt make it better. It is widely used (not a "few areas") to disproportionately penalise women.

The argumnents you are putting forward are architypal of those which as I said before start with the phrase "I'm not a racist but....

So are all aspects of Islam above criticism? Does feeling at all uncomfortable about any aspect of Islam make you a bigot? What a stupid blinkered attitude.

I also don't like the Catholic Church's stance on condoms or homosexuality - is that allowed or does that make me a bigot too? Maybe that's ok because the Daily Mail doesn't rip on Catholics much?

Yes apparently anyone who expresses any concern about any aspect of Islam is a bigot.

Unfortunately that statement is both very frequently true, and also an often used justification trotted out by racist bigots for their vile filth. (That comment is [u]not[/u] aimed at you personally Grumm) Generally its used when folk comment without any knowledge, understanding or acknowledgement of the wider truths, and usually on a VERY narrow spectrum of issues which the vast majority of Muslims find abhorrent, as if they were representative of the whole faith.

You also raise an interesting point in respect of Catholicism. You are right in that respect. But, do you think that might be because bigots don't see catholicism as some threat to their Aryan maculinity, (given that locally in the UK its largely a white working/middle class religion), rather than that point being some sort of justification for Islamophobia.

Questioning religion is all very well but you seem to be saying that people shouldn't have the right to practice it. We live in a secular society anyway, and the idea that Islam will somehow slip between the cracks and come to take precedence over this in wider society is ridiculous. Surfer immediately jumped in with comparisons with Iran, which just isn't valid - it's controlled by an oppressive regime that mantains its power through fear, and religion is just a convenient peg to hang it on.

Meanwhile, what plays into the hands of the BNP are vague suggestions that we have a massive enemy in our midst who are hell-bent on destroying Western society, such as the ones in the report Grumm cited. I wonder how many people criticising Islam on this thread have met any Muslims or have any day to day interaction with them. Unless you have the sixth form debating society view that everyone religious is suffering from a mental illness, they are normal people just like me and you.

Hurrah for Mr Agreeable!

Quite right and well said. Encapsulates my views very well. Obviously being agreeable is much more persuasive than my rather less than subtle "My Arse!" approach, but hey it takes all sorts to spin a wheel.

Questioning religion is all very well but you seem to be saying that people shouldn't have the right to practice it.

People shouldn't have a right to practice it if it involves oppressing people and inciting hatred, eg against gays. It may only be a minority who do so, but does that mean we should just accept it?

such as the ones in the report Grumm cited.

Did you actually read the report? Or the other bits I posted out of it? No didn't think so

I wonder how many people criticising Islam on this thread have met any Muslims or have any day to day interaction with them.

I have worked with a few Muslims, and one ****stani student I would say was a friend. What relevance does that have to anything?

People shouldn't have a right to practice it if it involves oppressing people and inciting hatred, eg against gays. It may only be a minority who do so, but does that mean we should just accept it?

You are taking the Dawkins view that religion can be a tool of oppression and should therefore be suppressed. Spot the irony there. Religions don't have a monopoly on prejudice or homophobia though and, as I said earlier, if someone's beliefs start to affect people in a negative way then there are remedies under English law.

Maybe if Muslims worldwide were more outspoken or vocal against about what's happening in Iran (especially as Islam Sharia law is a convenient peg to hang it on - as you put it) I'd feel less uneasy.

Grumm : The "I work with a few muslims" etc comment is on a par with, "I'm not a racist but". It seeks to justify the unjustifiable, and again not aimed at you, but it is often used in blatantly racist conversations.

Re your report posting, yes I did and yes I have and thats the foundation for my anger on the matter, it is blatantly flawed and blatantly biased. I have already explained several times over why flawed sources should not be given credence. You seem intent on acknowledging the flaws and then accepting the content, and frankly that does not do you credit.

Regarding the Gays thing, I presume therefore that you will be starting one about both the Catholic church and the C of E which are very blatantly institutionally Homo-phobic, as opposed to Islam where the concept has in fact been embraced (admittedly mainly behind closed doors) for millenium, except by a very limited number of extremists.

Try to remember that Islam encapsualtes as many variations as you can think of religions, including Christianity, which they tend to view as a kind of sub category of Islam, with Jesus being one of their prophets. Its for this reason that the sweeping generalisations are so ridculous and blatantly stupid.

There are shitloads of Muslim critics of the regime in Iran, many of whom are its former citizens.

And quite a few who are very bravely expressing their point of view openly at great personal risk on the streets within that country.

So, Mr Agreeable, just so as I'm genuinely clear on this, you're saying that contrary to what I heard on Radio 4 yesterday, that anyone changing their faith from Islam under Sharia law won't get persecuted and that the persecution is actually only the regime in Iran that's responsible for this?

tyger : If I may, that is arguing the general against the specific. Obviously, given that Islam is one of the most predominate religions in the world, you will always be able to find sects that prove a point one way or the other. There is no point in the question.

Try to grasp the concept that Islam is a coverall term for a huge range of beliefs, some weird, some wacky. Some followers are arseholes, most aren't.

So whats your point?

anyone changing their faith from Islam under Sharia law won't get persecuted

Not in the UK, because UK law takes precedence over Sharia law. The House of Lords have made this quite clear:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/23/religion-islam

I'm just trying to understand why (it appears) that Islam seems so intolerant and hostile towards anyone who is considered an infidel or non-Muslim? I take your point that (as you put it) some followers are arseholes and others aren't but the principles held in Sharia law are the same surely throughout the world?