Dublin Imam Cast Out By Fanatic Irish Muslims

Jizzy

I find it especially worrying that the Muslim population has doubled within four years, and that 50% of Muslim youths want a Sharia state. Sure, not all Muslims are bad, but there's obviously an extremely high level of radicalism within the Irish Muslim community. Why are the Muslims in Ireland so extremist? Can anyone tell me?

Dublin imam takes on the fanatics

Beneath a basketball net in a freezing sports hall, a Muslim cleric is waging war on Islamic extremism.
Imam Shaheed Satardien is taking a stand against those Muslims in Ireland whom he claims are too sympathetic to Osama bin Laden and the cult of the suicide bomber. At Friday prayers in the sports hall in north-west Dublin, the South African-born former anti-apartheid activist warns his multinational congregation against blaming other religions and the West in general for all Muslims' ills.
Cast out by the majority Islamic community in Dublin for his outspokenness, the 50-year-old preacher says he has received death threats. 'I am standing firm in my beliefs,' Satardien says. 'The truth is more important than being popular or living a quiet life. Extremism has infected Islam in Ireland. It's time to get back to the spiritual aspect of my religion and stop it being used as a political weapon.'
The imam from Cape Town fled his native country following death threats, he says, from Islamic extremists in South Africa. His younger brother, Ibrahim, was shot dead in 1998 following a row with Islamic radicals in the city. When Satardien was told he would be next, he travelled to Ireland, the birthplace of his maternal grandmother, and pleaded for asylum.
'I never, ever, expected that Muslims would come under the influence of extremists in Ireland when I arrived here with my family. So I was shocked to find support for Osama bin Laden, to discover the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood and even al-Qaeda here in Dublin.'
Satardien fell out with the main Dublin mosque at Clonskeagh, singling out the influence of Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian born sheikh who has spoken openly in support of suicide bombers and issued fatwas on gays.
According to Satardien, al-Qaradawi's European headquarters is based at the Clonskeagh mosque in south Dublin. Its own website refers to al-Qaradawi and to Clonskeagh as the headquarters of the sheikh's European Council for Fatwa and Research. The authorities at the Clonskeagh mosque and at the South Circular Road mosque, the other main establishment in Dublin, angrily deny the extremist accusation. They point out that these mosques attract thousands of mainstream Muslims to their doors each week.
Satardien, however, is adamant that extremist Wahhabi sects have infiltrated the republic's 40,000-strong Muslim community, especially in Dublin. 'Young, impressionable Muslims in Ireland are being raised to think that suicide bombers are cool. I know for a fact that when the Americans killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi [al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq who died after an airstrike in June last year] there were prayers for him in this city. This was for a man who slaughtered other Muslims. What I am trying to do is convince the young people that such practices are un-Islamic, that there is another way,' he says.

Read the Observer here

Extremist lawyer wants flag of Islam on Leinster House

The flag of Islam should be flown over Leinster House, an Islamic extremist said tonight.
Speaking in Dublin before addressing a Trinity College debate, Anjem Choudray also reiterated controversial views that Muslim violence is justified in certain circumstances.
The British-born lawyer, 39, angered the Irish Government last year when he said that Ireland risked becoming a target for a 9/11 style attack because it allowed US war planes to refuel at Shannon Airport.
Mr Choudray said: “As a Muslim, I believe Islam is superior to every other way of life and that it can resolve all the social and economic problems that Ireland suffers from.
“And as a symbol of that, the flag of Islam should be flown over the Dáil.
“This is symbolic of the fact that all societies will be run better according to God’s law.”

Read Ireland On-Line here

wes

Incredibly mis-leading title there. The man is being (sadly) ignored more than anything else from what I have seen. I would like to see the main stream pay this man more attention, but right now I reckon its just the establishment rejecting him to put any problems that may exist under the rug. The death threats are extremely worrying I have to say.

As for Choudray, he isn't Irish for one thing, he lives in the UK. Sky News Ireland and other interviewed him. People need to stop giving this guy air time. He is a joke by any persons standards. The story is very old and he is what you would call a loud mouth. The best thing to do is ignore him as he is the sort that craves attention by shouting stupid things at the top of his lungs.

Lastly the entire young Irish Muslims being extremists; well reading some of the questions on the poll you are referring too, they are badly worded to say the least. I am not saying it should be ignored, but I wouldn't take it as gospel or anything.

Hobbes

Jizzy wrote:

I find it especially worrying that the Muslim population has doubled within four years

Why is it worrying?

and that 50% of Muslim youths want a Sharia state.

You appear to be misrepresenting or rather massaging the figures for your *shock* As I recall that poll the majority of Muslims did not want a Sharia state.

Why are the Muslims in Ireland so extremist? Can anyone tell me?

How about you tell us with actual research done rather then two stories which appears you didn't even read.

Any more crap like that and your taking a holiday from this forum.

Wibbs

All I would add to this is that Anjem Choudray is clearly a attention seeking nutjob judging by most of his statements. Nutters like him make better headlines though.

Hobbes

Just to add the 50% claim came from this site..

http://www.lmr.ie/Muslims%20in%20Ireland%20-%20Prime%20Time%20Investigates.htm

Which if you read will show that the OP is completly false in their claims that most Irish muslims are extremists. If anything its the reverse.

Jizzy

Hobbes wrote:

Why is it worrying?

Because according to that imam, there is a high level of extremism among many Irish Muslims.

You appear to be misrepresenting or rather massaging the figures for your *shock* As I recall that poll the majority of Muslims did not want a Sharia state.

What poll are you talking about? I was referring to one I seen in the Irish Independent.

More than half of young Muslims (57pc) believe Ireland should become an Islamic State. Almost one-in-five (19pc) said they "respect" al-Qa'ida terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1743702&issue_id=15023

How about you tell us with actual research done rather then two stories which appears you didn't even read.

Huh? I did read those. You really I'd be dumb enough to post two stories I didn't even read? Please don't answer that

Any more crap like that and your taking a holiday from this forum.

You seem to have misunderstood me. I'm not trying to vilify or generalize Irish Muslims. Sorry if you took offence. I know many Muslims, and most of them are decent people. I'm just genuinely interested in why there is such a high level of extremist opinions among many in their community. Is it because they feel disenfranchised or something?

Hobbes

Jizzy wrote:

Because according to that imam, there is a high level of extremism among many Irish Muslims.

Right, so why misrepresent a poll?

What poll are you talking about? I was referring to one I seen in the Irish Independent.

Which is what I linked to above, the actual source of the data. Also as I already pointed out you are using one statistic to try and paint a picture of extremism.

You don't even appear to point out other stats in the news article that you posted to. For example " The majority (58pc) say they would be prepared to give up parts of their religion or culture if it conflicts with Irish law.". Does that sound like extremism to you?

Not to mention that the news report using the inverse stats. Tell me how 81% respect Tony Blair more then OBL is being extremist?

I'm just genuinely interested in why there is such a high level of extremist opinions among many in their community.

As I said if you bothered to read the story you link, or even the actual report you would find that the majority are not extremist at all.

lostexpectation

another vapid article about the vapid Satardien

Jizzy

Hobbes wrote:

You don't even appear to point out other stats in the news article that you posted to. For example " The majority (58pc) say they would be prepared to give up parts of their religion or culture if it conflicts with Irish law.". Does that sound like extremism to you?

I never said that the majority of Irish Muslims were extremist(that's why I said most of them were decent people), but the fact that one-fifth of them respect Osama Bin Laden is quite unsettling. That is an extremely high number.

As I said if you bothered to read the story you link, or even the actual report you would find that the majority are not extremist at all.

I agree that the majority of Muslims are not extremist. That's why I wrote that most of them were decent people.

From my last post:

I know many Muslims, and most of them are decent people.

Hobbes

I refer you to your first post.

Sure, not all Muslims are bad, but there's obviously an extremely high level of radicalism within the Irish Muslim community.

You clearly were not going for the most of them being decent, in your first post from your comments. If that is not the case I suggest you word your posts a bit better.

but the fact that one-fifth of them respect Osama Bin Laden is quite unsettling.

one fifth of them also marked Bush as the most respected in the poll. Even so percentages are meaningless without totals and surveys are meaningless without survey data.

Also even if all the Muslims in Ireland wanted a Sharia state it's not going to happen. They only make up 0.8% of the Irish population (estimated) and that is total population, not just the ones that can vote.

Also for Shaira law to be implemented would require a change to the constitution which would have to be ratified by the whole population of Ireland.

Jizzy

Hobbes wrote:

You clearly were not going for the most of them being decent, in your first post from your comments. If that is not the case I suggest you word your posts a bit better.

I stand by that statement. Most muslims in Ireland are decent people, but a HUGE minority of them appear to support extremism. And according to that imam, fundamentalism is rife among the population among young Irish Muslims(which is evidenced by the fact that 1/5th of them support Bin Laden).

Also even if all the Muslims in Ireland wanted a Sharia state it's not going to happen. They only make up 0.8% of the Irish population (estimated) and that is total population, not just the ones that can vote.

I don't think Ireland will have a Muslim majority for the forseeable future however it's very possible we will have home grown terrorism among our Islamic population. What happened in London could very easily happen in Dublin, unless we do something about the fundamentalism the imam speaks of.

InFront

I agree the title of this article is wrong, and very misleading. The Sheikh may possibly have been 'cast out' if that is the term you want to use, but even that does not make us "fanatical Irish Muslims". Personally I do not like the sentiment that anyone should be "cast out".

I agree with the Sheikh on certain issues. I like the way he handled the anti-Danish cartoons march last year, I think he did a particularly good job. However, I wonder what his intentions are.
If anyone else saw the "Would You Believe" show about him a few months ago, you could almost be forgiven for thinking that the Muslim population of Ireland are a great danger or a threat to peace. The title of this programme ought to have ben "Should You Believe Him". He did the same thing in a Sunday Newspaper artcile a few months back, and caused a lot of upset in doing so.

The ridiculous accusations he has put against the Muslim community who do not follow him, and in particular young Muslims, strikes me as unjustified scare mongering.
I do not believe he is adequately in touch with the genuine opposition to terrorism that exists here - opposition to terror in London and New York yes, but also opposition to terror in the Middle East. I have no doubt, based on experience, that this is by far the majority opinion in Ireland. However recent, Muslims have a great history with ireland, long may it continue.

I do think the poll the OP refers to is unreliable. As Hobbes has says, it puts GWB on the same 'popularity' as Bin Laden. If someone suggested to me that 19% of Muslims support George Bush, I would not hesitate in telling them that I think that is grossly mistaken. Why should the Bin Laden figure be any less incorrect?

I think that Dr Satardien could be a positive force for islam in this country, but not as long as he continues to make unsubstantiated allegations. Nobody likes to see division, it is not God's will to have Muslims fighting each other, and nobody knows better than Him.

Hobbes

Jizzy wrote:

What happened in London could very easily happen in Dublin, unless we do something about the fundamentalism the imam speaks of.

No it couldn't. For starters the attacks in England were a direct result of Englands actions within Iraq and had nothing to do with the attackers claiming to be Muslim.

Is there extremism in Ireland? Of course anyone would be a fool to deny. There is extremism in all aspects of life. There are still extremists Republicans and Protestants who would be quite happy to see other people die for their beliefs. There are even extremist Catholics who think if you don't go to mass every Sunday you shouldn't even be spoken to.

So the point your trying to get across (which the facts you are using claim your wrong) is that the Muslim community is a hotbed of fanaticals ready to strap bombs to themselves.

This is completely false. While there is a radical element it is the minority, and if you bothered to read the poll you would see the reason why the youth share such views is that 60% (afair) believe they are misrepresented in day to day press, that by being Muslim you are being labeled as defacto-terrorist as well as the actions going on in the middle east. Which a couple of years ago disagreeing with would of also of labeled you a "terrorist lover", now however seeing as the majority of Americans even think what is going on is wrong it all suddenly changes.

Address those issues and you will find the level of extremism will drop considerably.

As infront mentions, most of this is scaremongering and to continue to try and do the same on this forum will get you banned.

HelterSkelter

Jizzy wrote:

I don't think Ireland will have a Muslim majority for the forseeable future however it's very possible we will have home grown terrorism among our Islamic population. What happened in London could very easily happen in Dublin, unless we do something about the fundamentalism the imam speaks of.

Do you not think it would be a better idea to do something about the Irish Government allowing war planes to land in our so-called neutral country on their way to participate in an illegal war.

Jizzy

Hobbes wrote:

For starters the attacks in England were a direct result of Englands actions within Iraq and had nothing to do with the attackers claiming to be Muslim.

Even if England bombed the whole Islamic world, it still wouldn't justify those cowardly attacks in London. If Muslims oppose the war in Iraq, great, just make a peaceful protest like everybody else. Don't go around bombing innocent civilians.

You may also be interested in what Mohammad Sidique Khan, one of the four 7 July bombers has to say

Our religion is Islam - obedience to the one true God, Allah, and following the footsteps of the final prophet and messenger Muhammad... This is how our ethical stances are dictated.
Your democratically elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world.
And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters.
Until we feel security, you will be our targets. And until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight.
We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation.
I myself, I myself, I make dua (pray) to Allah... to raise me amongst those whom I love like the prophets, the messengers, the martyrs and today's heroes like our beloved Sheikh Osama Bin Laden, Dr Ayman al-Zawahri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and all the other brothers and sisters that are fighting in the... of this cause.
With this I leave you to make up your own minds and I ask you to make dua to Allah almighty to accept the work from me and my brothers and enter us into gardens of paradise.

There are even extremist Catholics who think if you don't go to mass every Sunday you shouldn't even be spoken to.

If these beliefs are what constitutes extremism, then my granny is a Catholic extremist. The difference between my granny and Muslim terrorists is that my granny isn't going around bombing innocent civilians.

So the point your trying to get across (which the facts you are using claim your wrong) is that the Muslim community is a hotbed of fanaticals ready to strap bombs to themselves.

According to that imam, yes. Even if 20% of the Irish Muslim community were extremists, that's still thousands of people, a figue which is unacceptably high.

While there is a radical element it is the minority, and if you bothered to read the poll you would see the reason why the youth share such views is that 60% (afair) believe they are misrepresented in day to day press, that by being Muslim you are being labeled as defacto-terrorist as well as the actions going on in the middle east.

If by getting vilified in the media, your community feels the need to resort to terror, then clearly you're not fit to live in a democratic society. In a free liberal society, we have freedom of speech. If Muslims don't want their religion to be criticised, no-one's stopping them from leaving.

lostexpectation

Jizzy wrote:

What happened in London could very easily happen in Dublin, unless we do something about the fundamentalism the imam speaks of.

which fundamentalism, nationalism.

InFront

Jizzy wrote:

Even if England bombed the whole Islamic world, it still wouldn't justify those cowardly attacks in London.

Okay, but that isn't the point. The point is that it is political violence. Political violence has limited relevance to a religious forum.
You can differentiate between Catholics who joined the IRA and Catholics who live good lives, right? Surely you would not be talking about the IRA like this in a Christianity forum.

Originally posted by Jizzy
In a free liberal society, we have freedom of speech. If Muslims don't want their religion to be criticised, no-one's stopping them from leaving.

If everybody who had a grievance with "the west" had to leave, there'd be nobody left here. You seem on the one hand to be championing freedom of freedom of speech, and on the other hand warning Muslims that if they have a problem go home (even if home is probably Blanchardstown)?
What about the right to protest? Is it only called freedom of speech if a non-muslim exercises it?

Jizzy

InFront wrote:

Okay, but that isn't the point. The point is that it is political violence. Political violence has limited relevance to a religious forum.
You can differentiate between Catholics who joined the IRA and Catholics who live good lives, right? Surely you would not be talking about the IRA like this in a Christianity forum.

Indeed you can. Apart from a few wackos like P O' Neill, the IRA has never really been very characteristically 'Catholic', in the religious sense. Look at their political wing, Sinn Féin. They loath Roman Catholicism. They attacked the Catholic Church for it's 'reactionary' position on sexual morality. Sinn Féin wants legalized abortion. They want so called homosexual 'marriage'. They don't praise God for anything. There's nothing Catholic about them. They may be anti-protestant, but that's only because of the traditional connection between protestantism and unionism.

Furthermore, the threat to our security from unionist or republican terrorists is minimally low. Clearly the same cannot be said of Muslim terrorists. Some have already called for our airports to be bombed.

If everybody who had a grievance with "the west" had to leave, there'd be nobody left here. You seem on the one hand to be championing freedom of freedom of speech, and on the other hand warning Muslims that if they have a problem go home (even if home is probably Blanchardstown)?
What about the right to protest? Is it only called freedom of speech if a non-muslim exercises it?

Note that I said they weren't worthy of living in a democratic society if they resort to terror. I will accept anyone's right to freedom of speech, as long as it doesn't interfere with my rights. Muslims have every right to protest against the vilification of their religion. But if they expect special laws to made for them that criminalize criticism of Islam, forget about it. Of course they have every right to campaign for such laws, but they have no right to get them.

InFront

Jizzy wrote:

Indeed you can. Apart from a few wackos like P O' Neill, the IRA has never really been very characteristically 'Catholic'

More to the point I was making, apart from a few Catholics who sympathise with the iRA, Catholicism is not charcateristically terrorist. Apart from guys like Muhammad Sidique Khan, Islam is not characteristically terrorist either.

They may be anti-protestant, but that's only because of the traditional connection between protestantism and unionism.

Yes. Equally, some extremist/ militant Muslims are anti-Christian, but this is because of their aversion to western culture.
With respect, you're not doing your argument any favours there.

You also bring up the vilifaction of Islam. This is really a completely different issue. The vilification of Islam is of particular concern to all Muslims. Terrorism involves a negligibly tiny amount of Muslims. 99.9998% of British Muslims have never committed an act of terror. 100% of Irish Muslims have not committed acts of terror. These are not opinion polls, but facts. Indisputable facts. What does that tell you about your original statement

"there's obviously an extremely high level of radicalism within the Irish Muslim community. Why are the Muslims in Ireland so extremist?"

Schuhart

Hobbes wrote:

For starters the attacks in England were a direct result of Englands actions within Iraq and had nothing to do with the attackers claiming to be Muslim.

I’m not commenting on the main theme, but I do feel moved to say that this seems to be a very questionable statement. Terrorist acts are the responsibility of the people committing them. If the perpetrators had a problem with the war in Iraq they had legitimate political options for advancing those views.

I’d also wonder, although I’m open to reason on this point, at the suggestion that the attacks had no connection to the people involved having some perverted sense of this being a way to express solidarity with people they saw as co-religionists. I recall seeing a video of one of them saying something about ‘our people’ being killed. As I understand it, the man in question was not of Iraqi ancestry, which leaves me wondering who he thought was ‘our people’.

All the time, let me stress I’m not giving credence to exaggerated claims of the dangers of Islam. I’m simply coughing because of what I see as outlandish statements being made in response to such claims.

InFront wrote:

More to the point I was making, apart from a few Catholics who sympathise with the iRA, Catholicism is not charcateristically terrorist. Apart from guys like Muhammad Sidique Khan, Islam is not characteristically terrorist either.

I think Jizzy’s point is that the IRA is based on nationalism and not religion. Historically, many prominent Irish Republicans were actually Protestants.

I think the IRA example is still useful to get across the concept of how every Muslim cannot be held responsible for the actions of a few nutters. But it is necessary to bear in mind that when talking about the IRA, the contrast is how every Irish person cannot be held responsible for the actions of a few, rather than Irish Catholics specifically. In the past, IRA members were excommunicated by the Church authorities as they had no time for revolutionaries. Catholicism in this context is more of an ethnic identifier than a religion, and not an utterly reliable one as a significant minority of Northern Catholics are Unionist.

InFront

Schuhart wrote:

If the perpetrators had a problem with the war in Iraq they had legitimate political options for advancing those views.

Of course they did, and thye did not exercise those legitimate options. Terrorism was not a legitimate option. The most anyone here is saying is that these guys reacted to a political occurance and not something they read one day in the Qur'an.

I think Jizzy’s point is that the IRA is based on nationalism and not religion.

Right, but my point is that the terrorism in question is based on politics, not religion.
Yes, the July 7th terrorists identified strongly with their felow Muslims' suffering, but that is not the root of their motivation. Where did the needless, terrible, human suffering come from? We all already know.

I certainly don't want to sound cruel, but when a foreign power massacres tens of thousands of people, they cannot reasonably expect this fact not to have at least some repercussions. Nobody can justify events like July 7th, but we can trace its cause.

Even though Shehzad Tanweer and Muhammad Sidique Khan and the others begin by announcing themselves as Muslims, the essence of their actions inasmuch as their video transcripts can tell us, is in politics. They were ultimately motivated by US foreign policy.
The fact that they are acting to political wrongdoing does not make their actions correct or any less inexcusable, of course, but different. They are not acting in accordance with, or motivated by Islam, and this sets them apart from Muslims.
So for these reasons I cannot understand why their actions ought to be repeatedly tied to Muslims.

If you had asked me on July 7th 2005, 'who is Muhammad Sidique Khan' I wouldn't have had a clue, of course. Neither would any of us. All I know now is this is some crazy guy who one day blew himself up on a train. What am I supposed to do about that, as a Muslim? I can't take responsibility or offer an apology or explanation any more than you can or should. I have my own life, all of us do.
I don't see why any Muslim on this forum or in 'real life' should have to explain himself because of four dead men he has nothing to do with.

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

Even though Shehzad Tanweer and Muhammad Sidique Khan and the others begin by announcing themselves as Muslims, the essence of their actions inasmuch as their video transcripts can tell us, is in politics. They were ultimately motivated by US foreign policy.

I’d take their assertion of their faith to be something they felt relevant – which to my mind refutes Hobbes’ bald statement that it has nothing to do with the attackers claiming to be Muslim.

It’s really none of my business, because it’s your religion (Hobbes' comment is what dragged me in here). But, for what it worth, from my perspective the assignment of the ultimate motivation to US foreign policy reads to me like trying to excuse the whole business away without asking any difficult questions about why someone would invoke their religion before committing a terrorist act. Plenty of people oppose US foreign policy. I’d expect most would see it as a grotesque irony to express that opposition by killing more people.

InFront wrote:

I don't see why any Muslim on this forum or in 'real life' should have to explain himself because of four dead men he has nothing to do with.

That’s true, and not unlike the situation of Irish Republicans who did not support the IRA.

What I’d throw into the pot is that, at some level, Irish people have to acknowledge that the territorial claim to Northern Ireland that used to appear in Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution allowed Republican paramilitaries an opportunity to claim legitimacy. Muslims may need to reflect on how others, who would also assert themselves to be Muslim, can form a mindset supportive of such actions and apparently see those actions in a religious context.

Hobbes

Schuhart wrote:

I’d take their assertion of their faith to be something they felt relevant – which to my mind refutes Hobbes’ bald statement that it has nothing to do with the attackers claiming to be Muslim.

Ok then ask yourself this. If the UK was not in Iraq as it was now do you think the 7/7 attacks would of happened? If so why?

Just because someone claims they are representing a demographic doesn't mean that the demographic in question agrees or even condones their actions.

Schuhart

hobbes wrote:

Ok then ask yourself this. If the UK was not in Iraq as it was now do you think the 7/7 attacks would of happened? If so why?

This question is evasive. Lots of people think the UK should never have gone into Iraq. In that context, and given the statements made by the people concerned, can you explain how, without suspending the law of gravity, you can say this has nothing to do with the attackers claiming to be Muslim. It might or might not be the most important factor in their mindset. But clearly it has something to do with it.

hobbes wrote:

Just because someone claims they are representing a demographic doesn't mean that the demographic in question agrees or even condones their actions.

That’s clearly not at issue. I’m Irish. If some other guy goes around blowing people up because he’s claiming some legitimacy in my name, I don’t support him. But I do have more than a passing interest in what makes him think that way, and even a recognition of the line of reasoning that takes him there. There isn’t an exact match between religion and nationalism, but I think a similar level of interest is only to be expected in the context where a faith is seen as the mobilising factor.

wes

Schuhart wrote:

This question is evasive. Lots of people think the UK should never have gone into Iraq. In that context, and given the statements made by the people concerned, can you explain how, without suspending the law of gravity, you can say this has nothing to do with the attackers claiming to be Muslim. It might or might not be the most important factor in their mindset. But clearly it has something to do with it.

They clearly felt that if there "Muslim Brothers" were being attacked that it was an attack on them as well. So they decided to kill more innocent people in response. Its a twisted perversion of the concept of Muslims brotherhood. In this case blowing up innocent people is "helping". The mind set is nuts (i am not saying they were crazy, its just that there mindset is crazy from my P.O.V).

I think religion comes into it in that they felt an affinity of sorts to the people in Iraq since they are the same religion. The act was ultimaltely a response to the invasion of Iraq and what they did was a defense of there "brothers" there. They could have helped by joining an anti-war movement instead of deplorable attacks on innocents, but they sadly chose violence in the form of reprehensible mass murder.

Hobbes

Schuhart wrote:

This question is evasive. Lots of people think the UK should never have gone into Iraq.

The question isn't evasive at all. The simple fact is terrorism exists. Extremists exist in all areas and extremism flourishes when it has a cause to stand behind.

Certainly it may of had something to do with the people who carried out those attacks but just because it did to them doesn't automatically mean every Muslim is the same, nor does it mean that their ideals are the same as the Muslim population.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Victor

Jizzy wrote:

Furthermore, the threat to our security from unionist or republican terrorists is minimally low. Clearly the same cannot be said of Muslim terrorists.

I have never been attacked by a Muslim. My co-workers, friends and I have been attacked by members of Sinn Fein.

I've never looked under the seat of a bus for a Muslim bomb, I have for a loyalist one.

Now I realise thigns are changing, but experience points in the direction of loyalists and republicans, not Muslims (although there are Muslim loyalists and no doubt, some Muslim republicans).

Schuhart

Hobbes wrote:

The question isn't evasive at all. The simple fact is terrorism exists. Extremists exist in all areas and extremism flourishes when it has a cause to stand behind.

That reads like sheer bluster, particularly in the context of someone invoking their faith before committing a terrorist act.

Hobbes wrote:

Certainly it may of had something to do with the people who carried out those attacks but just because it did to them doesn't automatically mean every Muslim is the same, nor does it mean that their ideals are the same as the Muslim population.

Is this really as close as you can get to a frank admission that your statement that this had nothing to do with the attackers claiming to be Muslim is nonsense? Why the need to continually tag on comments that just because some Muslims thought this was religiously justified doesn't mean its a general core value, as if that was at stake in some way. I've made it utterly, totally and explicitly clear that this is not the issue. Do you think your statement gains credibility in some way by avoiding addressing the issue?

Hobbes wrote:

Correlation does not imply causation.

It most certainly doesn't. If this has some relevance to this discussion, I'd be awfully glad if you could let us know what it is. Without retreating into fantasy or irrelevance.

Wibbs

wes wrote:

They clearly felt that if there "Muslim Brothers" were being attacked that it was an attack on them as well. So they decided to kill more innocent people in response. Its a twisted perversion of the concept of Muslims brotherhood. In this case blowing up innocent people is "helping". The mind set is nuts (i am not saying they were crazy, its just that there mindset is crazy from my P.O.V).

I think religion comes into it in that they felt an affinity of sorts to the people in Iraq since they are the same religion. The act was ultimaltely a response to the invasion of Iraq and what they did was a defense of there "brothers" there. They could have helped by joining an anti-war movement instead of deplorable attacks on innocents, but they sadly chose violence in the form of reprehensible mass murder.

This pretty much nails it on the head for me.

Wibbs

Schuhart wrote:

If this has some relevance to this discussion, I'd be awfully glad if you could let us know what it is.

I was wondering about that myself.

Hobbes

Schuhart wrote:

That reads like sheer bluster

To you prehaps.

The point of the OP is that somehow Irish Muslims are extremists. After pointing out that in fact this is not the case (from his own links) that we are somehow to believe that the Muslim religion is still the core reason of why the attacks took place.

It isn't. It is motivated by what is going on in the Middle East. Also while they claim their actions are because of their religion what they did pretty much sends them to Hell and is totally against what Islam stands for.

The issue I have is that some people seem to think that because a terrorist claims that they are doing in the name of their God that it validates a Correlation between them and normal Muslims.

It doesn't. Thats what I mean by it does not have anything to do with being a Muslim.