Mosque attacked by Islamists!

[FazFnd]

Mr Galloway does speak some good words but sometimes he dosnt but I always watch press tv coz for me they tell the real truth

[flamingjimmy]

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.

You think that claiming that Islamism has nothing to do with Islam, is not absurd, when it is literally impossible to define Islamism without making reference to Islam, seriously you're going to stand by that?

 

 

The only way we can measure that is by waiting to see how Muslims vote as Islamic countries become more democratic.

Exhibit A: Egypt. The Muslim brotherhood is very powerful, many millions of Egyptians want to see their country run by an explicitly Muslim government. They are not all extremists.

 

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.

British muslims represent a teeny tiny minority of Muslims.

 

 

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.

I have never said nor implied that. Please show me where I have.

 

You on the other hand, have said that something has 'nothing to do with' something else that you now seemingly acknowledge as one of the root causes of the other, which is, as I have said, absurd.

 

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,

Islamism is based on the early history of Islam, when Muhammed and those who followed him set up explicitly Muslim states. All the early Muslims were Islamists, Islam started off as a political movement as much as a religious one.

 

It isn't based on distorting the Quran it's based on looking at the life of Mohammed and those who immediately followed him and saying 'yeah, lets do that'.

 

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,

You lying liar! You quite clearly meant the other thing and are only changing now that you have realised your mistake.

 

Islam does allow non Muslim ideology, Islamism seeks to eradicate it, that is why they are incompatable, sorry for the error.

If you had actually owned up to the error, instead of pretending you just meant something else, then I might've accepted that.

 

What you actually said was (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.

Yes, I am suggesting that, and I'm quite sure that its true, I've met many muslims who take their religion less seriously than Islamists.

 

What I said was that Islamists 'tend to take their religion more seriously'.

 

You responded with this:

 

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

 

I said that x tends to produce y, and you argued against me as if I'd said y is a direct cause of x.

 

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 Why are you using the Taliban, an accepted extremist group as an example of Islamism,

Because they are islamists. What a stupid question.

 

unless you actually share my viewpoint that they are closely related?

When have I said they aren't related? All I've said is that they aren't the same, which is exactly how you treated them up until you begun moving the goalposts in this post and retreating from your earlier position.

 

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 worked with Muslims who were Islamists myself in the past, I've had a conversation with an old work colleague about how he thinks the UK would be sooooo much better if it were run as an Islamic state. This guy isn't an extremist, he's a nice guy. But he would like to see Islam dominate politically, that makes him an Islamist.

 

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.

Those who ignore the relgion in practise and only want to look at whatever they deem to be the 'core principles' of a given religion are going to have no context in which to understand anything and will undoubtedly impart their own biases and be just as selective as those they decry.

 

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.

I really don't think some dirt poor farmer in Afghanistan trying to scrape a living gives a damn what I think of him, I'm sure he'd much rather my government didn't stomp through his land than me say some mean things about him on the internet.

 

You don't want to propose solutions but you know I am wrong.

Oh I'd love to propose solutions, I just don't have any. Of course I think you're wrong, what would be the point in this discussion if we both agreed on all of it.

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.

Are you really so insecure that you can't have a discussion with someone who has no qualms about saying he thinks you are totally and utterly mistaken in the way you are looking at a problem?

 

I have said nothing that suggests my only agenda is to rid the world of religion, unsurprisingly because that is not my only agenda, it's a smokescreen you're trying to use because the rest of your post doesn't stand up.

 

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

That does not make any sense, did you think you were being clever here?

 

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.

It is a testimony to your underhandedness that you'd use such ridiculous terms to describe my postings on this thread. That you have the nerve to call me ignorant when you were discussing Islamism using a misinterpretation of the first paragraph of the wikipedia page on the subject is quite hilarious, actually.

[PaliRichard]

That you have the nerve to call me ignorant when you were discussing Islamism using a misinterpretation of the first paragraph of the wikipedia page on the subject is quite hilarious, actually.

 

It would be if I hadn't already acknowledged it was a mistake.

 

One thing I do not do is lie, I do make mistakes, as I said I have no wish to debate this further with you, I just felt that clarification necessary considering your accusation.

[namtaB]

You think that claiming that Islamism has nothing to do with Islam, is not absurd, when it is literally impossible to define Islamism without making reference to Islam, seriously you're going to stand by that?

 

 

Exhibit A: Egypt. The Muslim brotherhood is very powerful, many millions of Egyptians want to see their country run by an explicitly Muslim government. They are not all extremists.

 

British muslims represent a teeny tiny minority of Muslims.

 

 

I have never said nor implied that. Please show me where I have.

 

You on the other hand, have said that something has 'nothing to do with' something else that you now seemingly acknowledge as one of the root causes of the other, which is, as I have said, absurd.

 

Islamism is based on the early history of Islam, when Muhammed and those who followed him set up explicitly Muslim states. All the early Muslims were Islamists, Islam started off as a political movement as much as a religious one.

 

It isn't based on distorting the Quran it's based on looking at the life of Mohammed and those who immediately followed him and saying 'yeah, lets do that'.

 

You lying liar! You quite clearly meant the other thing and are only changing now that you have realised your mistake.

 

If you had actually owned up to the error, instead of pretending you just meant something else, then I might've accepted that.

 

Yes, I am suggesting that, and I'm quite sure that its true, I've met many muslims who take their religion less seriously than Islamists.

 

What I said was that Islamists 'tend to take their religion more seriously'.

 

You responded with this:

 

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

 

I said that x tends to produce y, and you argued against me as if I'd said y is a direct cause of x.

 

Because they are islamists. What a stupid question.

 

When have I said they aren't related? All I've said is that they aren't the same, which is exactly how you treated them up until you begun moving the goalposts in this post and retreating from your earlier position.

 

I have worked with Muslims who were Islamists myself in the past, I've had a conversation with an old work colleague about how he thinks the UK would be sooooo much better if it were run as an Islamic state. This guy isn't an extremist, he's a nice guy. But he would like to see Islam dominate politically, that makes him an Islamist.

 

Those who ignore the relgion in practise and only want to look at whatever they deem to be the 'core principles' of a given religion are going to have no context in which to understand anything and will undoubtedly impart their own biases and be just as selective as those they decry.

 

I really don't think some dirt poor farmer in Afghanistan trying to scrape a living gives a damn what I think of him, I'm sure he'd much rather my government didn't stomp through his land than me say some mean things about him on the internet.

 

Oh I'd love to propose solutions, I just don't have any. Of course I think you're wrong, what would be the point in this discussion if we both agreed on all of it. Are you really so insecure that you can't have a discussion with someone who has no qualms about saying he thinks you are totally and utterly mistaken in the way you are looking at a problem?

 

I have said nothing that suggests my only agenda is to rid the world of religion, unsurprisingly because that is not my only agenda, it's a smokescreen you're trying to use because the rest of your post doesn't stand up.

 

That does not make any sense, did you think you were being clever here?

 

It is a testimony to your underhandedness that you'd use such ridiculous terms to describe my postings on this thread. That you have the nerve to call me ignorant when you were discussing Islamism using a misinterpretation of the first paragraph of the wikipedia page on the subject is quite hilarious, actually.

 

A fantastic example of multi quote character assasination old chap

[johncocker]

A fantastic example of multi quote character assasination old chap

 

some people really do have to much time on thier hands:roll: