Another step towards Eurabia?

fly_agaric

Frederico wrote:

I firmly believe the Christians in the US administration are far far worse than any muslim terrorists, they certainly kill alot more people.

Here is another way of looking at it for you which you may find somewhat helpful (or not). Who would you put in command of a few thousand MIRVed ICBM's?

Bush, Bin Laden, or the head-cutting chappie from Iraq (oh, I think he's dead now, isn't he?)? Or maybe Mahmood Ahmadinejad? (he's not a "Muslim terrorist" of course but he must be at least as much an Islamic fundie as Bush or anyone else in the US admin. is a Christian Fundie)

Also, the insurgents or infighting between different groups are causing most of the deaths in Iraq now.
[I know the US admin. bears ultimate responsibility for this also, but they are not the ones actually doing the killing in those cases and that wasn't the goal of their invasion but rather an unexpected consequence. I am not downplaying their culpability here].

Frederico

fly_agaric wrote:

Here is another way of looking at it for you which you may find somewhat helpful (or not). Who would you put in command of a few thousand MIRVed ICBM's?

Bush, Bin Laden, or the head-cutting chappie from Iraq (oh, I think he's dead now, isn't he?)? Or maybe Mahmood Ahmadinejad? (he's not a "Muslim terrorist" of course but he must be at least as much an Islamic fundie as Bush or anyone else in the US admin. is a Christian Fundie)

Also, the insurgents or infighting between different groups are causing most of the deaths in Iraq now.
[I know the US admin. bears ultimate responsibility for this also, but they are not the ones actually doing the killing in those cases and that wasn't the goal of their invasion but rather an unexpected consequence. I am not downplaying their culpability here].

The man who cuts the head off someone, or blows himself up, or crashes a plane into a building is nowhere near as dangerous as the man who by simple decisions can lead to the unnecessary death of thousands of civilians. The latter man creates the hate that drives the first. Thats just my opinion. Either way I despise islamic extremism as much as I despise western warhawks and their self righteous state terrorism.

philologos

this isn't a step closer to Eurabia this is just Islamofobia which is unfounded as all it comes from is stereotypes.

The Corinthian

Jakkass wrote:

this isn't a step closer to Eurabia this is just Islamofobia which is unfounded as all it comes from is stereotypes.

Really? How so? We have an increasing number of cases where any kind of criticism, no matter how indirect or justified of Islam is met with indignation, threats and even violence. These are real and documented events, if they were not you might be right to accuse people of paranoia.

So I’d suggest that your pronouncement of Islamofobia is little more than a cliché.

philologos

Only a small minority of Muslims are actually extremists. The majority of Muslims wouldn't go burning things or attacking people because of a play. Islam is a religion of peace you have to remember, regardless of the amount of airtime Islamic extremists get.

toomevara

Jakkass wrote:

this isn't a step closer to Eurabia this is just Islamofobia which is unfounded as all it comes from is stereotypes.

Now which 'stereotypes' would they be? The suicide train bomber 'stereotype'? the nutter who cuts your throat in a park 'cos he doesnt like your art 'stereotype' or the 'nutter who flies civilian airliners into tall buildings 'stereotype'. Or maybe you mean the fanatics who bomb the UN 'stereotype' Yep all completely without foundation, nothing to fear there then, think I'll just head back to la-la land and bury my head in the sand with all the other ostriches....

This isn't about 'islamophobia', thats just a handy, debate-ending slur bandied about just like 'anti-semite' or 'racist' is to stifle debate which flies in the face of a particularly craven, apologist streak of self-hating western political correctness.

Belle Ende

Jakkass wrote:

Only a small minority of Muslims are actually extremists.

Stupid cliched remark #1

.
Not at all. Islam commands its many millions of followers to oppress and subjugate all manner of different types of people, including gays, women, non-muslims, and on and on and on and on. Extreme in the mainstream.

Its 'benevolence' and 'peace' is realistically only reserved for Muslims.

Jakkass wrote:

Islam is a religion of peace you have to remember

Stupid cliched remark #2

.
Islam is not a 'religion of peace'. It is a religion of submission. Submission to Allah's rules, or a submissive existance as a downtrodden dhimmi, or worse.

toomevara wrote:

This isn't about 'islamophobia', thats just a handy, debate-ending slur bandied about just like 'anti-semite' or 'racist' is to stifle debate which flies in the face of a particularly craven, apologist streak of self-hating western political correctness.

"STOP HATING ISLAM! OR ELSE!"

Mad Finn

There are not many Muslims in this country. OK maybe there are more than there were 20 years ago but they're still a tiny minority.

What I want to know is: how many people here have met Muslims, in Ireland or elsewhere and on what basis are you making these paranoid, bellicose statemets such as 'keep on invading their countries' and branding all Muslims as 'Terrorists' beheaders and mass murderers who fly planes into buildings.

I think most of the anti-Muslim fear mongering here is being done by people who know bugger all what they're talking about, gleaning their information from a combination of Fox News, the British/Oirish tabloids and the paranoid culture warriors that infest the so-called quality Irish press, the likes of Mark Dooley, John Waters.

If it is immigrants to Ireland you fear then I think you should all read the lyrics to this song written by one of our better song writers Paul Brady. It's about being an Irish immigrant in Britain 30 years ago.

Just change the context a little and you would update it almost perfectly to our times. Appropriately enough it's called 'Nothing but the same old story'

'Came down to their city
Where I worked for many's the year
Build a hundred houses
Must have pulled half a million pints of beer
Living under suspicion
Putting up with the hatred and fear in their eyes
You could see that you're nothing but a murderer
In their eyes, we're nothing but a bunch of murderers

I'm sick of watching them break up
Every time some bird brain puts us down
Making jokes on the radio
Guess it helps them all drown out the sound
Of the crumbling foundations
Any fool could see the writing's on the wall
But they just don't believe that it's happening

Now there's a crowd think I'm allright
Say they like my turn of phrase
Take me round to their parties
Like a dressed up monkey in a cage
And I play my accordion,
oh but when the wine seeps through the facade
It's nothing but the same old story
Nothing but the same old story. '

Nothing indeed.

toomevara

Mad Finn wrote:

There are not many Muslims in this country. OK maybe there are more than there were 20 years ago but they're still a tiny minority.

What I want to know is: how many people here have met Muslims, in Ireland or elsewhere and on what basis are you making these paranoid, bellicose statemets such as 'keep on invading their countries' and branding all Muslims as 'Terrorists' beheaders and mass murderers who fly planes into buildings.

Mate, I live in Leeds, home of the 7/7 bombers, home to one of the largest muslim populations in the UK, and which has a huge self-ghettoising muslim population who in the main want little or nothing to do with the larger population.

I currently live in a shared flat, there are five of us, two are muslims...oh the debates we have...I'm 34, first studied the qur'an when I was 17 and have since then studied the history and culture of the islamic world and watched in horror as fundamentalist political islam of the wahabi, salafist variant peddled by the Saudis has gained currency across the muslim world. I am not an ignornant islamophobe, that's precisely why I'm so worried. The debate in the muslim world is over, thats the problem, the moderates lost, the fundamentalists have the moral high ground at the moment and I see little or nothing changing there in the forseeable. Another 7/7 is just a matter of time make no mistake...

Oh, and I lived and worked in London in the late 80's early 90's and need no lectures on the hardships faced by the Irish over here , i've just about had it all thrown in my face over the years and I can tell you it's often just bubbling under the surface even now....

Frederico

toomevara wrote:

Mate, I live in Leeds, home of the 7/7 bombers, home to one of the largest muslim populations in the UK, and which has a huge self-ghettoising muslim population who in the main want little or nothing to do with the larger population.

I currently live in a shared flat, there are five of us, two are muslims...oh the debates we have...I'm 34, first studied the qur'an when I was 17 and have since then studied the history and culture of the islamic world and watched in horror as fundamentalist political islam of the wahabi, salafist variant peddled by the Saudis has gained currency across the muslim world. I am not an ignornant islamophobe, that's precisely why I'm so worried. The debate in the muslim world is over, thats the problem, the moderates lost, the fundamentalists have the moral high ground at the moment and I see little or nothing changing there in the forseeable. Another 7/7 is just a matter of time make no mistake...

Oh, and I lived and worked in London in the late 80's early 90's and need no lectures on the hardships faced by the Irish over here , i've just about had it all thrown in my face over the years and I can tell you it's often just bubbling under the surface even now....

The only reason we are debating this is because one very very clever man decided to brainwash some men into flying planes into buildings.. he knew what the West's reaction would be.. and how right he was.. now Islamic fundamentalism grows and grows thanks to the Wests reaction.. its just a vicious circle.. we are as much at fault as they are.

Sesshoumaru

Frederico wrote:

The only reason we are debating this is because one very very clever man decided to brainwash some men into flying planes into buildings.. he knew what the West's reaction would be.. and how right he was.. now Islamic fundamentalism grows and grows thanks to the Wests reaction.. its just a vicious circle.. we are as much at fault as they are.

Yes yes it always our fault the terrorists attack us. The poor stupid Muslims can't think for themselves. They're always just reacting to what we in the West do :rolleyes:

Hobbes

Sesshoumaru wrote:

Yes yes it always our fault the terrorists attack us. The poor stupid Muslims can't think for themselves. They're always just reacting to what we in the West do :rolleyes:

Read it again. Thats not what he said at all (assuming you where being sarcastic).

However all this hatred to the west didn't just appear for no reason. Go read your history books.

philologos

Mad Finn wrote:

What I want to know is: how many people here have met Muslims, in Ireland or elsewhere and on what basis are you making these paranoid.

I have greeted some in my local area when i walked past or anything but it has never entered a full blown conversation.

Hobbes

Belle Ende wrote:

Criticism of certain religions...still carries powerful taboos with it.

Criticism of most religons still carries taboos with it. Just because we can freely mock the Catholic church doesn't mean you can elsewhere. Or as an Irish person try mocking protestants in a trouble spot in the north of Ireland. See how much of a taboo it is.

The fact of the matter is that a lot of censorship, violence and arguments flare up with all religons. Or does no one pay attention anymore?

Offhand, lets see. Christian right getting a cartoon banned in the USA, asking for the banning of tallahassee nights. Christans and Catholics asking (and getting) a banning of South Parks Bloody Mary episode. Scientology bans in relation to South park and host of other things. Abortion laws. Mel Gibson.

The list is endless.

But the simple fact of the matter is all the whining isn't going to change anything. A muslim isn't going to stop being a muslim just because you don't like it. In much the same way you are less likely to change based on your religon or lack there off.

So the point becomes where is the middle ground. I am not talking about the extremists. There is no middle ground with them, but extremists don't make the majority (otherwise they wouldn't be called extremists).

What do you think is going to happen if you are going to try and force your beliefs on others? Especially at the point of a gun? Such actions just push people to extremism.

It won't work for Muslim Extremists so why do you honestly think it will work for the West?

toomevara

Hobbes wrote:

Criticism of most religons still carries taboos with it. Just because we can freely mock the Catholic church doesn't mean you can elsewhere. Or as an Irish person try mocking protestants in a trouble spot in the north of Ireland. See how much of a taboo it is.

I really cannot think of any place in the world where criticising the catholic church (as I'm wont to do on many an occasion) will end up in having a death sentence passed against you by the pope, yet thats exactly what happened in the Rushdie affair, a murderous fatwa issued by the grand ayatollah, a supposed 'man of God'. Sorry, while I take your point on one level, the fact of the matter is that any critiscism of The Prophet or the Qur'an in the current climate requires a brave man, because potential violence is the outcome. I really wish that muslims would return to the hadith and the life of the prophet for guidance in this matter. Smile and walk away was his prescription when faced with those who did not understand or mocked Islam.....

Hobbes wrote:

Offhand, lets see. Christian right getting a cartoon banned in the USA, asking for the banning of tallahassee nights. Christans and Catholics asking (and getting) a banning of South Parks Bloody Mary episode. Scientology bans in relation to South park and host of other things. Abortion laws. Mel Gibson.

All valid examples of cases where offended practitioners of a given religion have peacefully made a case and achieved a favourable outcome. Fair enough. The problem with many muslims is that the default position is incensed, illogical outrage, an overwhelming willingness to take and find offence, followed by the appearance of the inevitable islamic rent-a-mob, advocating violence and mayhem. A cartoon depiction of the prophet causes outrage and moves muslims to demand respect for him, yet its OK to burn an effigy of the pope in the street without any sense of the inherent irony? It's laughable.

Hobbes wrote:

But the simple fact of the matter is all the whining isn't going to change anything. A muslim isn't going to stop being a muslim just because you don't like it. In much the same way you are less likely to change based on your religon or lack there off.

This isn't 'whining' and no one is suggesting for a minute that muslims should stop being muslims, that's preposterous. What I'm saying is that muslims need to understand that if they wish to live in a western secular society they must abide by and accept the rules and norms of that society. Just as monty python can lampoon jesus christ so artists/comedians et al. can lampoon the prophet in a western democracy. If they can't handle that, well I'd suggest there are losts of places they could move too where Islamic writ and the sharia run. I'd humbly suggest though, that many wouldn't be overly impressed by the lack of freedoms they'd experience there, yet take for granted here.

Hobbes wrote:

What do you think is going to happen if you are going to try and force your beliefs on others? Especially at the point of a gun? Such actions just push people to extremism.

Again nobody is forcing anyone to do anything by any means, never mind at the point of a gun. Muslims who live in the west do so by choice and must accept the laws and customs of the west. it's simple really, they are here at their own volition and are accorded full freedom to practice their religion, just as you and I are. But that is as far as it goes, there can never be any special treatment for Islam least of all when there is an implied threat of physical violence.

Belle Ende

toomevara wrote:

any criticism of The Prophet or the Qur'an in the current climate requires a brave man, because potential violence is the outcome.

Not just now, but through the past and into the future too.

toomevara wrote:

no one is suggesting for a minute that muslims should stop being muslims, that's preposterous.

There's nothing preposterous about that suggestion. This world's people would have one less thing (and religion is the BIG thing) to justify their persecutive tendencies.

oscarBravo

Belle Ende wrote:

There's nothing preposterous about [the suggestion that muslims should stop being muslims].

That's a truly bizarre position. You honestly think there's nothing preposterous, not to say xenophobic, about the concept of eliminating a culture that a substantial chunk of the world's population chooses as its entire way of life, never mind religion?

Belle Ende

oscarBravo wrote:

That's a truly bizarre position. You honestly think there's nothing preposterous, not to say xenophobic, about the concept of eliminating a culture that a substantial chunk of the world's population chooses as its entire way of life, never mind religion?

What inflated hooey.

There's nothing preposterous about suggesting that the religious should drop the invisible-man-in-the-sky hocus pocus. A capital pitch.

Hobbes

toomevara wrote:

I really cannot think

Thats the problem. All you think about is the Catholic church. Yet there are numerous instances protests/violence from various religons both in modern day and in history.

Can't think of a place? Trouble spots in Northern Ireland critising roman catholics could certainly get you a beating.

Become an abortion doctor in the US and your guaranteed to get a death sentance from Christan fundies.

All valid examples of cases where offended practitioners of a given religion have peacefully made a case and achieved a favourable outcome.

Ok so either your for freedom of speech or against it. In all cases peoples freedom of speech where the issue and the religon won.

As I said I just picked them off the news thats recently. A small google will find you numerous examples of violence by other religons throughout the ages.

The problem with many muslims is that the default position is incensed, illogical outrage, an overwhelming willingness to take and find offence

BS. Lets take South Park as an example. The banning of Muhammad wasn't asked for by Muslims. The TV network did it. In fact Muhammad appeared in the opening credits of every episode until that point from "Super Best Friends" episode which featured him in it.

Did you see any rioting in all that time?

Also people always quote the Denmark cartoon as a mantra without actually reading up on what happened. The cartoons didn't cause the protesting/riots. A group of imans went to the middle east with a copy of the cartoons and copies of other material they were sent as proof of how anti-Islamic the west is. They only did this after thier request to be heard on the subject of the offense was rebuffed. The cartoon itself had been out for months prior to that and absolutly no violence.

So your conclusion that the simple things set them off is BS.

What I'm saying is that muslims need to understand that if they wish to live in a western secular society they must abide by and accept the rules and norms of that society.

Which is what many do quite well. Dig out the thread about Sharia Law and Ireland for examples.

You seem to think because a person is Muslim they are automatically like the fanatics in the Middle East. When the truth is so far from that senario.

bonkey

Belle Ende wrote:

What inflated hooey.

There's nothing preposterous about suggesting that the religious should drop the invisible-man-in-the-sky hocus pocus. A capital pitch.

You are, of course, correct. There is nothing stopping anyone from suggesting that the religious freely choose to abandon their religion.

However, anything stronger than a suggestion, or any abandonment of the notion that it be a free choice made by the religious themselves.....that would be a different story entirely.

That wouldn't jsut be proposterous, it would be hypocrtical.

Mad Finn

Belle Ende wrote:

What inflated hooey.

Belle Ende, eh?

Great name! (Shame about the attitudes)

The_Scary_Man

There is a good piece here fom the Guardian about racial and cultural integration in Britain.

Let's have an open and honest discussion about white people

He makes some good points about examining the changing attitudes of Europeans as well as those of Muslims.

The Corinthian

The_Scary_Man wrote:

There is a good piece here fom the Guardian about racial and cultural integration in Britain.

It’s a dreadful piece and is simply regurgitating the old “it’s all the white guy’s fault” argument.

No one is suggesting that racism does not exist in the UK or elsewhere, or that the present War on Terror™ has not exacerbated Muslim extremism in these communities, but to suggest that it all comes down to that (and that is essentially all the article does as it makes little effort to suggest any culpability by the immigrant communities) would be asinine. I actually find it bizarre that people seem to think, for example, that Caucasians have some sort of monopoly on racism.

The film East is East - made in 1999 and set in the 1970’s, so it safely predates the War on Terror™ - is a good examination of Muslim culture in Britain (made by British Muslims, I might add). Racism by the White Britons is repeatedly portrayed, however it is not this that is shown as the greatest barrier to integration but the strictly traditional and often racist attitudes of the Muslim community itself.

Simply continuing this myth that even Muslim rejection of integration is somehow down to European racism is not going to solve anything and is simply going to perpetuate this problem. It might make some Guardian readers feel slightly more smug and self-righteous than usual though.

The_Scary_Man

The Corinthian wrote:

It’s a dreadful piece and is simply regurgitating the old “it’s all the white guy’s fault” argument.

Thats not what I get from it at all. It seems to me to be putting forward the idea that we all bear some responsibility for this polarisation.

Its all well and good to point the finger and say "They're the bad guys, we're the good guys." but where do we go from there? What is your solution to this problem?

This is not a one-sided problem, some people seem to be happy to put the whole situation down to the 'violent nature' of Islam but to do so vastly oversimplifies a complex political problem.

The moves of the major political parties to the centre have robbed us of the choice we once had between the balancing ideologies of the right and left so that anyone wishing to go against the grain and vote to change the status quo is forced to opt for a fringe option as they seem to be the only ones who aren't parroting the same lines of populist ****e. People of all colours and creeds are being pushed to the outer edges of the political spectrum and embracing ideas that would have seemed unthinkable in the mainstream ten years ago. When you become that disillusioned and alienated by your government then anarchy becomes a viable option.

This is not a Muslim problem. This is a problem we all have to face and deal with and I would put it to you that our efforts would be better served were they applied to finding a solution rather than trying to uncover whose fault it is.

The Corinthian

The_Scary_Man wrote:

Thats not what I get from it at all. It seems to me to be putting forward the idea that we all bear some responsibility for this polarisation.

Then you’re obviously reading another article then, as the article you linked to does no such thing. It barely touches on the topic of extremism - let alone Muslim attitudes in general - and when it does it ultimately lays the blame of any wrongdoing on the doorstep of what it sees as a flawed Western system.

People of all colours and creeds are being pushed to the outer edges of the political spectrum and embracing ideas that would have seemed unthinkable in the mainstream ten years ago. When you become that disillusioned and alienated by your government then anarchy becomes a viable option.

Sure it will... :rolleyes:

This is a problem we all have to face and deal with and I would put it to you that our efforts would be better served were they applied to finding a solution rather than trying to uncover whose fault it is.

That’s little more than another cliché, TBH. It’s all very well wanting to concentrate upon a solution to a problem, but only an idiot would do so without understanding the causes for that problem, and - God forbid - that may involve pointing the finger at a few people.

bonkey

The Corinthian wrote:

It’s a dreadful piece and is simply regurgitating the old “it’s all the white guy’s fault” argument.

No. Its not.

Its pointing out that "the white guy" would be incensed if our entire culture was held accountable / blamed for the actions of an unaccouintable minority within them.

It is arguing that "the white man" sees no problem tarring all Muslims with the same brush, despite the fact that were the same logic applied to us, we would rightly object.

In short, the piece is arguing that the "all those Muslims are to blame" is an unfair position, typically held by people who would be outraged were the same logic to be applied to some large grouping that they belonged to.

If anything, the article agrees with your aversion to blaming "the white man" for the actions of a subsection of said grouping, but goes further and dares to suggest that we should have the honesty to apply the same aversion to the "Islam/Muslims are to blame" tarring that is all the rage these days.

Simply continuing this myth that even Muslim rejection of integration is somehow down to European racism is not going to solve anything

Nor is the myth that this is what the article you're rubbishing was talking about.

jc

The_Scary_Man

The Corinthian wrote:

Then you’re obviously reading another article then, as the article you linked to does no such thing. It barely touches on the topic of extremism - let alone Muslim attitudes in general - and when it does it ultimately lays the blame of any wrongdoing on the doorstep of what it sees as a flawed Western system.

I'm sorry I just don't get that from this article but then again we're not exactly coming at it from the same viewpoint.

Sure it will... :rolleyes:

So you're saying that it doesn't? What option is there then for people who don't believe that the mainstream centrist parties properly represent their views?

That’s little more than another cliché, TBH. It’s all very well wanting to concentrate upon a solution to a problem, but only an idiot would do so without understanding the causes for that problem, and - God forbid - that may involve pointing the finger at a few people.

I'm not against people being held to account if thats what you're saying. Its the demonisation of one group and the shifting of all of the blame on to them that I view as counter-productive to a solution or understanding the causes.

The Corinthian

bonkey wrote:

No. Its not.

Feel free to back up what you’ve said from said article, as I certainly don’t see it there.

The_Scary_Man wrote:

I'm sorry I just don't get that from this article but then again we're not exactly coming at it from the same viewpoint.

I’ve explained how it is one sided, if you disagree feel free to cite the article in question and refute what I’ve said. Otherwise you’re either reading a different article, have not read it properly or have a bizarre notion of balance.

So you're saying that it doesn't? What option is there then for people who don't believe that the mainstream centrist parties properly represent their views?

This thread is not about how ‘The Revolution is Coming’. If you want to do that feel free to start a thread on it.

I'm not against people being held to account if thats what you're saying.

Actually it’s what you said:

The_Scary_Man wrote:

I would put it to you that our efforts would be better served were they applied to finding a solution rather than trying to uncover whose fault it is.

And I was responding to that.

bonkey

The Corinthian wrote:

Feel free to back up what you’ve said from said article, as I certainly don’t see it there.

sure thing.

from the article wrote:

Only then perhaps will it become sufficiently apparent for those with insufficient imagination just how crude and crass the framing of the debate about Muslims has been. Any group of people will rightly bristle at the demand to answer collectively for the acts of individuals with whom they share an identity but over whom they have no control.

(highlighting mine)

The entire article hinges on the sentence that I've highlighted. Without this sentence, of course it reads like a "white man's burden" argument.

The Corinthian

bonkey wrote:

The entire article hinges on the sentence that I've highlighted. Without this sentence, of course it reads like a "white man's burden" argument.

TBH, even with it, it still reads like a "white man's burden" argument.