Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Is London Becoming "more Islamic Than Many Muslim Countries Put Together" ?
205 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
andy-hughes, //let's be accurate, you took a section of fiction's post out of context and used it to bolster your argument - the remainder of the sentence doesn't support what you said at all, which is why you edited it out. //
What on earth are you talking about? All I've said is that I think the results of a poll might be interesting - and since fiction-factory thinks the question I proposed isn't complex enough, I've said 'just as well I've abandoned the idea then'. What's wrong with that?
What on earth are you talking about? All I've said is that I think the results of a poll might be interesting - and since fiction-factory thinks the question I proposed isn't complex enough, I've said 'just as well I've abandoned the idea then'. What's wrong with that?
-- answer removed --
ummmm
/// AOG - I haven't even answered on this thread so why you're condemning me I really don't
know! ///
So sorry ummmm, I do sincerely apologise, the post was not intended for you, it was just that I misspelt what perhaps should have been Mmmmm!! hence the addition of the two exclamation marks.
The person who it was aimed at knew perfectly well who it was addressed to.
/// AOG - I haven't even answered on this thread so why you're condemning me I really don't
know! ///
So sorry ummmm, I do sincerely apologise, the post was not intended for you, it was just that I misspelt what perhaps should have been Mmmmm!! hence the addition of the two exclamation marks.
The person who it was aimed at knew perfectly well who it was addressed to.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
allen
/// They are ruining this site, and might even get it closed. ///
They are no more ruining this site as those who wish to stifle free speech and free expression.
This is why this site is so popular it is one of the very few outlets these days where one can express an opinion, without fear and trepidation.
For example, look at voicing an opinion against mass immigration, at one time one could only voice an opinion at the risk of being labelled racist, but then it was announced by Labour that they had made mistakes and it was perfectly okay to debate on Immigration.
/// They are ruining this site, and might even get it closed. ///
They are no more ruining this site as those who wish to stifle free speech and free expression.
This is why this site is so popular it is one of the very few outlets these days where one can express an opinion, without fear and trepidation.
For example, look at voicing an opinion against mass immigration, at one time one could only voice an opinion at the risk of being labelled racist, but then it was announced by Labour that they had made mistakes and it was perfectly okay to debate on Immigration.
Allen @ 12:27 //An organized corp of anti-Muslims turn almost EVERY thread into an excuse to libel and slur Islam//
"With respect", as they would say on Question Time, your remark is a libel and slur on posters like me who attack Islam, Allen. We are not attacking the guy in the corner shop or the girl who fits our new specs, we're attacking an ideology.
I don't know you've been around when some of us have tried (sometimes patiently and civilly) to explain our disquiet with Islam. I'll try to summarize the main ideological objections.
Firstly, Islam is totalitarian; secondly, it is supremacist; and, thirdly, it sanctions the use of force in order to impose itself on non-Muslims.
I justify the first objection with the observation that Islam is more than religion: Islamic law covers everything which we would classify under the headings family,civil and criminal law as well as the devotional prescriptions for religious observance and the moral life. This law (the Sharia) is the law of God Himself and supersedes all "man-made" law.
On the second, there is a clear divide in the literature between the Muslim community (the "umma") - "the best of people" - and non-Muslims - "those whom God hates" and "the most vile of people". There is provision under the Sharia for toleration of non-Muslims, but it is a tolerance conditional on the acceptance by non-Muslims of inferior legal status.
And on the third point, Islam since its inception has sought to extend the reach of Divine Law by persuasion or force - "I have been charged to fight until religion is only for Allah" (Mohammed). That's "offensive" jihad which is not mandatory on all Muslims and can can only be initiated by the legitimate head of the Muslim community - the Caliph. There is also "defensive" jihad which is mandatory on all Muslims. This is protecting the community when under attack.
How far are these points valid, relevant and of proper concern for Western countries with our concepts of equality under the law, human rights and freedom of speech who have significant Muslim minorities? None at all? Perhaps, but look at countries today which describe themselves as Islamic, or have incorporated parts of the Sharia into their constitutions and penal codes. Which of them would you or I care to live in? And particularly those of us who are women or gay.
"With respect", as they would say on Question Time, your remark is a libel and slur on posters like me who attack Islam, Allen. We are not attacking the guy in the corner shop or the girl who fits our new specs, we're attacking an ideology.
I don't know you've been around when some of us have tried (sometimes patiently and civilly) to explain our disquiet with Islam. I'll try to summarize the main ideological objections.
Firstly, Islam is totalitarian; secondly, it is supremacist; and, thirdly, it sanctions the use of force in order to impose itself on non-Muslims.
I justify the first objection with the observation that Islam is more than religion: Islamic law covers everything which we would classify under the headings family,civil and criminal law as well as the devotional prescriptions for religious observance and the moral life. This law (the Sharia) is the law of God Himself and supersedes all "man-made" law.
On the second, there is a clear divide in the literature between the Muslim community (the "umma") - "the best of people" - and non-Muslims - "those whom God hates" and "the most vile of people". There is provision under the Sharia for toleration of non-Muslims, but it is a tolerance conditional on the acceptance by non-Muslims of inferior legal status.
And on the third point, Islam since its inception has sought to extend the reach of Divine Law by persuasion or force - "I have been charged to fight until religion is only for Allah" (Mohammed). That's "offensive" jihad which is not mandatory on all Muslims and can can only be initiated by the legitimate head of the Muslim community - the Caliph. There is also "defensive" jihad which is mandatory on all Muslims. This is protecting the community when under attack.
How far are these points valid, relevant and of proper concern for Western countries with our concepts of equality under the law, human rights and freedom of speech who have significant Muslim minorities? None at all? Perhaps, but look at countries today which describe themselves as Islamic, or have incorporated parts of the Sharia into their constitutions and penal codes. Which of them would you or I care to live in? And particularly those of us who are women or gay.
-- answer removed --
/(PS I wouldn't have wanted to live in Europe or the fledgling US a few hundred years ago when our Christian tolerance was less well-developed than it is now).//
The "pack" (at least this member of it) attacks "the extreme examples of Sharia or the Islamic faith", Allen, but also notes that in countries like the Islamic Republics of Iran and of Pakistan (not to mention Saudi Arabia)many of the "extreme examples" are fairly mainstream. It further notes that Muslim majority countries which forty years ago would have been cited as modern, secular and democratic (Indonesia, Malaysia and Turkey among others) have all, under political pressure, made accommodations to some of the "extreme" elements of Sharia. There have been few Islamic countries in the modern era which haven't had sizeable Islamist movements (remember Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood in the Arab Spring?). So recent history suggests that the Muslim world is moving in the opposite direction to the Christian world of the last five centuries, i.e. in the direction of more dogma rather than less.
The important question to me, then, is this: "What proportion of the rapidly increasing Muslim populations of Europe shares these Islamist sympathies?". The answer to that question doesn't have to be "Most of them". (Neither is it the same question as "How many want run us down with trucks?", although that question is neither irrelevant nor trivial. The answer to that question could be "None at all" without affecting the point I'm trying to make, or, I suspect, the point behind the OP.) The question equates to "How many want Western societies to become less Western and more Islamic?". Even a relatively small activist minority can have an influence disproportionate to its size. There's an example in the (partially) foiled Trojan Horse affair in Birmingham, you'll recall. An activist minority may also coerce and intimidate a passive majority. (Remember the mayor of Tower Hamlets?).
You might look at the success that has been achieved so far. These are cases when Muslim sensibilities are accommodated at the expense of non-Muslim, and cases where special dispensations are made to Muslims which are denied others. Simple examples: removal of pork from schools, time off for prayer and exemption from hygiene rules in hospitals.
But the biggest triumph of the activists has been the censorship of of the mainstream media: where did you see the Charlie Hebdo, or the Danish cartoons?
The "pack" (at least this member of it) attacks "the extreme examples of Sharia or the Islamic faith", Allen, but also notes that in countries like the Islamic Republics of Iran and of Pakistan (not to mention Saudi Arabia)many of the "extreme examples" are fairly mainstream. It further notes that Muslim majority countries which forty years ago would have been cited as modern, secular and democratic (Indonesia, Malaysia and Turkey among others) have all, under political pressure, made accommodations to some of the "extreme" elements of Sharia. There have been few Islamic countries in the modern era which haven't had sizeable Islamist movements (remember Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood in the Arab Spring?). So recent history suggests that the Muslim world is moving in the opposite direction to the Christian world of the last five centuries, i.e. in the direction of more dogma rather than less.
The important question to me, then, is this: "What proportion of the rapidly increasing Muslim populations of Europe shares these Islamist sympathies?". The answer to that question doesn't have to be "Most of them". (Neither is it the same question as "How many want run us down with trucks?", although that question is neither irrelevant nor trivial. The answer to that question could be "None at all" without affecting the point I'm trying to make, or, I suspect, the point behind the OP.) The question equates to "How many want Western societies to become less Western and more Islamic?". Even a relatively small activist minority can have an influence disproportionate to its size. There's an example in the (partially) foiled Trojan Horse affair in Birmingham, you'll recall. An activist minority may also coerce and intimidate a passive majority. (Remember the mayor of Tower Hamlets?).
You might look at the success that has been achieved so far. These are cases when Muslim sensibilities are accommodated at the expense of non-Muslim, and cases where special dispensations are made to Muslims which are denied others. Simple examples: removal of pork from schools, time off for prayer and exemption from hygiene rules in hospitals.
But the biggest triumph of the activists has been the censorship of of the mainstream media: where did you see the Charlie Hebdo, or the Danish cartoons?
Latest Posts
ChatterBank6 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles18 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.