Mosque attacked by Islamists!

[flamingjimmy]

I want to break down what you're saying because I think you're generalizing.

I'm generalising far less than you are. You want to pretend that Islamism is the same as extremism, and that all Islamists are extremists who want to kill all non-muslims. This is just not the case at all, and is quite ridiculous.

 

Firstly of course if Islam didn't exist there would be no Islamism

Right, which makes your assertion that "Islamists' have very little to do with the actual religion of Islam" rather absurd (which was pretty much the only reason I chose to write a response to your post, because of the absurdity of that one statement, my response to the rest of your post was just a courtesy).

 

but that does not mean Islamism is a part of Islam. Without meat vegetarianism (as an ideology) wouldn't exist but that doesn't automatically mean the two share the same values.

Islamism is a part of Islam, it is an Islamic ideology shared by thousands, possibly millions of Muslims.

 

Also, who said anything about them all sharing the same values as all other Musllims? Certainly not me, so I'm not sure who the second part of that paragraph is aimed at.

Muslims get labelled as 'moderate' if they want to argue against the ideology of Islamism in a manner that suggests they are not accepting Islam 'properly', that they are being too wishy washy, but in most cases 'moderate' Muslims are simply Muslims, they don't water down the Quran, they simply live by it.

You are setting up a false dichotomy between 'moderates' and 'islamists'. The dichotomy is between moderates and extremists, Islamists come in both flavours. There are plenty of people who want to see Islam to be all powerful politically who do not favour beheading non Muslims or suicide bombing.

 

Islam is the religion of those who wish to submit to the will of Allah (or as they believe the will of Allah to be), the will of Allah is outlined in the Quran. Islamism as an all encompassing ideology is not compatable with this, from wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism (My bold)

 

The religion of Islam (that being the will of Allah, the Quran) does not ask for the elimination of the non Muslim,

Neither does Islamism, you have completely misunderstood the sentence in the wikipedia page that you made bold.

 

It does not say that Islamists want to kill all non muslims, it says that Islamists want to eliminate all non-Muslim infulences in their societies. Perhaps you need a refresher course on how commas work, also you appear to have added an extra 'the' (my bold) which completely changes the meaning.

 

You gave the impression you were speaking from knowledge, yet it has just become clear that one of the centerpieces of your argument was found by badly misreading the first paragraph of a wikipedia page.

 

Taking religion seriously is not the same as being an Islamist.

I have neither said nor replied that it is, just that Islamists tend to take their religion seriously. Can you not see a distinction? I'm beginning to wonder about your comprehension.

 

I can't comment on the Taliban but most of those who have what I would say are views 'on the edge' of either Islamism or extremism that I have met spend very little of their time actually directly reading from the Quran. There is a massive trade in Islamic 'scholars' who tour, release dvd's etc who are massively influencial, especially to the 20-40 age group of Muslims and who 'interpret' the Quran on behalf of their followers. I do know (because I have been to the talks/seen the dvd's what these people are peddling) that it is very different to what is in the Quran.

 

Of course this doesn't mean that they don't read the Quran, and I have no 'evidence' of figures, but in my experience among the, shall we say, impressionable, an interpretation by a popular 'scholar' is much more influencial than the book is.

So, no different from pretty much any other religious ideology in that sense then.

 

 

There are many interpretations, usually based on what the individual wants to get accross. Islam and Buddhism are very similar in the fact that there are very few 'versions' of the texts and they tend to be quite clear and universal,

Not clear enough, or else you wouldn't get these horrifically violent Muslims and (admittedly fewer, but still there) Buddhists that you do get.

 

So what would you suggest? forcibly remove Islam altogether to get rid of the extremism? I am not a Muslim, I don't agree with everything in the Quran but some people do. For those people we (or more correctly they) have to differentiate between Islamism and Islam. Because Islam is not the hard edged nut case ridden religion imagined by us in the west. Many aspects of 'Islamism' contradict the Quran. Education for, and by Muslims to understand this is what is needed. But if we 'rational' people refuse to make a distinction then 'they' certainly wont. And when all 'they' see is us saying 'Islam is this and that' then the real extremists within Islam say 'Look, this is what the west think of us' and all we do is fuel the flames.

Tbh I doubt that they care at all what we think of them, they certainly care a lot what we do to them. I'm sure they wouldn't give a damn if we all thought they were complete nutters provided we didn't do things like send unmanned drones to murder their families.

 

We can use rationality to teach the distinction without giving them the idea we are 'out to get them'.

If you could reason with religious people, then there would be no religious people. I'm not here to propose solutions, these problems are far bigger than I can begin to solve. All I know is that you are looking at it wrong, and have completely the wrong idea about what Islamism is. So if you want to come up with a solution, you'd better get your grasp of these issues better.

 

 

The Quran doesn't say 'behead apostates',

Ah, the main point you return to in your conclusion is the completely invalid one, I've already dealt with this.

 

We either work with them, ignore them completely or fight against them, which would you prefer?

A combination of the 3 plus education and ridicule.

[PaliRichard]

I'm generalising far less than you are. You want to pretend that Islamism is the same as extremism, and that all Islamists are extremists who want to kill all non-muslims. This is just not the case at all, and is quite ridiculous[/Quote]

 

No I don't. But they are closely related. Not all Islamists are extremists, but all Muslim extremists (at least every one that I have ever heard of) are Islamists.

 

Right, which makes your assertion that "Islamists' have very little to do with the actual religion of Islam" rather absurd (which was pretty much the only reason I chose to write a response to your post, because of the absurdity of that one statement, my response to the rest of your post was just a courtesy).[/Quote]

 

It is not an absurd statement at all, it's roots are in Islam, that doesn't make it the same thing. I would rather you avoid the courtesy and stick to the points.

 

Islamism is a part of Islam, it is an Islamic ideology shared by thousands, possibly millions of Muslims[/Quote]

 

The only way we can measure that is by waiting to see how Muslims vote as Islamic countries become more democratic. Certainly in Britain the majority of Muslims in my experience do not want 'Islamist' society. They are happy to live in our country abiding by our rules, apart from a small number the only ones who react against our society are the ones who feel they are being harassed. This leads to Islamist ideals and in some cases extremism (let me stress as you seem to have missed it that I am not saying they are the same thing).

 

Also, who said anything about them all sharing the same values as all other Musllims? Certainly not me, so I'm not sure who the second part of that paragraph is aimed at[/Quote]

 

My point was, as I have tried to repeat that just because something as a root in something else that it isn't the same thing. Which is exactly the point you're trying to make.

 

You are setting up a false dichotomy between 'moderates' and 'islamists'. The dichotomy is between moderates and extremists, Islamists come in both flavours. There are plenty of people who want to see Islam to be all powerful politically who do not favour beheading non Muslims or suicide bombing.[/Quote]

 

No I'm not, you're just not understanding me. Islamists and extremists are not the same thing, but many of the ideologies of Islamism are based in the same thing as extremism, that is the elevation of the secondry texts over the Quran. Islamism and extremism both lean heavily on the Shariah which in many cases does contradict the Quran.

 

Neither does Islamism, you have completely misunderstood the sentence in the wikipedia page that you made bold.

 

It does not say that Islamists want to kill all non muslims, it says that Islamists want to eliminate all non-Muslim infulences in their societies. Perhaps you need a refresher course on how commas work, also you appear to have added an extra 'the' (my bold) which completely changes the meaning

 

 

You gave the impression you were speaking from knowledge, yet it has just become clear that one of the centerpieces of your argument was found by badly misreading the first paragraph of a wikipedia page.

[/Quote]

 

Sorry, I can see why you would think that, that was my not checking through my post before I posted which I agree drastically changed my meaning , what I meant was non Muslim ideology, Islam does allow non Muslim ideology, Islamism seeks to eradicate it, that is why they are incompatable, sorry for the error.

 

I have neither said nor replied that it is, just that Islamists tend to take their religion seriously. Can you not see a distinction? I'm beginning to wonder about your comprehension[/Quote]

 

What you actually said was

they tend to to take their religion a little more seriously[/Quote] (my bold), this changes the whole context, you said a little more seriously, a little more seriously than who? This very different to your latest claim of they tend to take the religion seriously, which is a standalone comment and is fair enough. By adding the a little more you are suggesting that there are Muslims who take it less seriously.

 

Also with regard to that and the accusation that you levied at me suggesting I didn't know the difference between Islamism and extremism you followed that with

The taliban for example....[/Quote] Why are you using the Taliban, an accepted extremist group as an example of Islamism, unless you actually share my viewpoint that they are closely related?

 

So, no different from pretty much any other religious ideology in that sense then[/Quote]

 

You are entitled to your opinion, I disagree personally, I think the 'ideal' of religion is to work from the texts and view other sources in context of them, this is the opposite of taking the word of a scholar and not putting it in the context of the text, it shpuld, in my opinion be the other way around. But each to their own.

 

 

Not clear enough, or else you wouldn't get these horrifically violent Muslims and (admittedly fewer, but still there) Buddhists that you do get[/Quote]

 

Maybe not to you, maybe you would benefit from spending a month with practicing Muslims and then a month with those with Islamist views so that you can witness the difference first hand. I have spent enough time with Muslims of both leanings and the difference is obvious. The same is true of any religion (I would even say ideology) those that listen largely to someones interpretation rather than reading the core principles themselves tend to have a more 'skewed' vision of what they believe.

 

Tbh I doubt that they care at all what we think of them, they certainly care a lot what we do to them. I'm sure they wouldn't give a damn if we all thought they were complete nutters provided we didn't do things like send unmanned drones to murder their families[/Quote]

 

I disagree, I think Muslims (as anyone else) care how they are percieved, and what we think of any group is usually the driving force behind our behaviour towards them.

 

If you could reason with religious people, then there would be no religious people. I'm not here to propose solutions, these problems are far bigger than I can begin to solve. All I know is that you are looking at it wrong, and have completely the wrong idea about what Islamism is. So if you want to come up with a solution, you'd better get your grasp of these issues better[/Quote]

 

You don't want to propose solutions but you know I am wrong. On that note of absolute ignorance from you I will refrain from replying to you again. It seems that your only agenda is to rid the world of religion.

 

If you could reason with the anti religious maybe their would be less religious extremists in the world.

 

It is a testimony to your ignorance and prejudice that you think ridicule should be employed against the religious, on that note I bid you farewell.

[MrSmith]

PaliRichard what percentage of the worlds Muslims do you think are Islamists and how many Muslims do you think follow a more peaceful version of Islam in which everyone on the planet are equals, and should have equal rights, and the right to express themselves without fear of death threats.

 

 

 

Poll reveals 40pc of Muslims want sharia law in UK

 

These results are from a poll of Muslim students:

 

 

– 33% claim that killing is justified if done to protect religion.

– 40 percent support the introduction of sharia for British Muslims.

– 33 percent support a worldwide Islamic caliphate based on sharia.

What do British Muslims think of the UK?

[PaliRichard]

PaliRichard what percentage of the worlds Muslims do you think are Islamists and how many Muslims do you think follow a more peaceful version of Islam in which everyone on the planet are equals, and should have equal rights, and the right to express themselves without fear of death threats.

 

 

 

Poll reveals 40pc of Muslims want sharia law in UK

 

These results are from a poll of Muslim students:

 

 

– 33% claim that killing is justified if done to protect religion.

– 40 percent support the introduction of sharia for British Muslims.

– 33 percent support a worldwide Islamic caliphate based on sharia.

What do British Muslims think of the UK?

 

There isn't a 'peaceful version of Islam' where people are treated as equals. That is not the same as eradicating the ideologies of those who disagree with you. In Islam non Muslims are allowed to live side by side with Muslims but they are not 'equal' there are different taxes levied on them for a start. That is far different from Islamism which seeks to remove different ideologies altogether.

 

I don't know what percentage of the worlds Muslims are Islamists, I don't claim to. What i have said is that in my experience most Muslims are not. Like I said to FJ, it will be interesting to see how Muslims vote when the Islamic countries adopt democracy.

 

Regarding your figures (and I am in no way disputing them) I will comment on them.

 

33% claim that killing is justified if done to protect religion.

 

Is Islamic, I don't agree with it but it is not, in Islam, outside of what is poermitted.

 

40 percent support the introduction of sharia for British Muslims.

 

It says for British Muslims, so that doesn't mean it is forced on anybody else. Is there anything wrong with a group deciding on it's own governance? I think the details would have to be examined, for example would the Sharia, when it conflicted with British law overrule it? These are important questions who's answers are not reflected in the poll.

 

33 percent support a worldwide Islamic caliphate based on sharia.

 

Again this is a bit vague. What exactly does it mean because a Caliphate traditionally isn't a 'dictator', the people still have the right to vote to determine how, and what decisions are made.

 

Other than the last one none of the poll results even relate to Islamism, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.

 

I'm going out now and may not have chance to reply for a couple of days but I'm still not sure why you keep throwing point after point at me. It seems to me you are clutching at straws to try and get me to admit something but I'm not sure what the 'something' is.

[MrSmith]

There isn't a 'peaceful version of Islam' where people are treated as equals. That is not the same as eradicating the ideologies of those who disagree with you. In Islam non Muslims are allowed to live side by side with Muslims but they are not 'equal' there are different taxes levied on them for a start. That is far different from Islamism which seeks to remove different ideologies altogether.

 

I don't know what percentage of the worlds Muslims are Islamists, I don't claim to. What i have said is that in my experience most Muslims are not. Like I said to FJ, it will be interesting to see how Muslims vote when the Islamic countries adopt democracy.

 

Regarding your figures (and I am in no way disputing them) I will comment on them.

 

33% claim that killing is justified if done to protect religion.

 

Is Islamic, I don't agree with it but it is not, in Islam, outside of what is poermitted.

 

40 percent support the introduction of sharia for British Muslims.

 

It says for British Muslims, so that doesn't mean it is forced on anybody else. Is there anything wrong with a group deciding on it's own governance? I think the details would have to be examined, for example would the Sharia, when it conflicted with British law overrule it? These are important questions who's answers are not reflected in the poll.

 

33 percent support a worldwide Islamic caliphate based on sharia.

 

Again this is a bit vague. What exactly does it mean because a Caliphate traditionally isn't a 'dictator', the people still have the right to vote to determine how, and what decisions are made.

 

Other than the last one none of the poll results even relate to Islamism, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.

 

I'm going out now and may not have chance to reply for a couple of days but I'm still not sure why you keep throwing point after point at me. It seems to me you are clutching at straws to try and get me to admit something but I'm not sure what the 'something' is.

 

Not really, just trying to establish why you think the Muslims that commit atrocities aren't really Muslims and don't really follow Islam. You seem to have hit the nail on the head with this.

 

There isn't a 'peaceful version of Islam' where people are treated as equals.

[namtaB]

Shame it wasn't the skyline hugging monstrosity in Sheffield...

[PaliRichard]

Not really, just trying to establish why you think the Muslims that commit atrocities aren't really Muslims and don't really follow Islam. You seem to have hit the nail on the head with this.

 

Why is it that you have spent most of this thread avoiding addressing the answers I give you and when you do address them you selectively (or mis) quote?

 

We (as far as I can tell) were not talking specifically about Muslims who commit atrocities, we were talking about Islamism as an ideal.

 

You quoted me saying

There isn't a 'peaceful version of Islam' where people are treated as equals[/Quote]

 

What I actually said, which changes the context entirely of my statement, was

There isn't a 'peaceful version of Islam' where people are treated as equals. That is not the same as eradicating the ideologies of those who disagree with you. In Islam non Muslims are allowed to live side by side with Muslims but they are not 'equal' there are different taxes levied on them for a start. That is far different from Islamism which seeks to remove different ideologies altogether[/Quote]

 

I wasn't saying There isn't a 'peaceful version of Islam', I was saying in Islam people aren't treated equally, if you are part of a different ideology you are still allowed to live alongside Muslims, but you don't have equal status as them.

 

That is not something I personally agree with, but it is far different from either Islamism, which seeks to eradicate different ideologies altogether, and the selective quoting you did from me, which makes it look like I was saying Islam isn't peaceful when practiced according to the ideal.

 

You claimed you weren't trying to get me to admit something yet you have hardly addressed any points I've made throughout this conversation other than to mis quote me to make it look like I have said something which contextually I didn't say.

[moabdul]

Its about Idol worship. I am not saying its right or logical.

[Green Web]

Why is it that you have spent most of this thread avoiding addressing the answers I give you and when you do address them you selectively (or mis) quote?

 

We (as far as I can tell) were not talking specifically about Muslims who commit atrocities, we were talking about Islamism as an ideal.

 

You quoted me saying

 

What I actually said, which changes the context entirely of my statement, was

 

I wasn't saying There isn't a 'peaceful version of Islam', I was saying in Islam people aren't treated equally, if you are part of a different ideology you are still allowed to live alongside Muslims, but you don't have equal status as them.

 

That is not something I personally agree with, but it is far different from either Islamism, which seeks to eradicate different ideologies altogether, and the selective quoting you did from me, which makes it look like I was saying Islam isn't peaceful when practiced according to the ideal.

 

You claimed you weren't trying to get me to admit something yet you have hardly addressed any points I've made throughout this conversation other than to mis quote me to make it look like I have said something which contextually I didn't say.

 

But Islamic suppression is because of the ideology behind it, if people are treated differently then it is not a religion of peace, tolerance or understanding.

 

No faith which is this divisive and hateful inspired by primitive barbaric Islamic teachings can ever be reformed, these idelogies belong in the stone age where the faith originated.

[MrSmith]

Why is it that you have spent most of this thread avoiding addressing the answers I give you and when you do address them you selectively (or mis) quote?

 

We (as far as I can tell) were not talking specifically about Muslims who commit atrocities, we were talking about Islamism as an ideal.

 

You quoted me saying

 

What I actually said, which changes the context entirely of my statement, was

 

I wasn't saying There isn't a 'peaceful version of Islam', I was saying in Islam people aren't treated equally, if you are part of a different ideology you are still allowed to live alongside Muslims, but you don't have equal status as them.

 

That is not something I personally agree with, but it is far different from either Islamism, which seeks to eradicate different ideologies altogether, and the selective quoting you did from me, which makes it look like I was saying Islam isn't peaceful when practiced according to the ideal.

 

You claimed you weren't trying to get me to admit something yet you have hardly addressed any points I've made throughout this conversation other than to mis quote me to make it look like I have said something which contextually I didn't say.

 

Sorry I was under the impression that you were claiming that Islam treats people equally and it was Islamism that doesn’t, therefore Islamism isn’t really Islam. So Islam and Islamism both discriminate based on religion and race.