/* */

PDA

View Full Version : State multiculturalism has failed, says David Cameron



سيف الله
02-05-2011, 06:15 AM
Salaam

More pressure being heaped on Muslims. Seems that they want to launch a drive to secularise Islam.


The prime minister will criticise "state multiculturalism" in his first speech on radicalisation and the causes of terrorism since being elected.

Addressing a security conference in Germany, David Cameron will argue the UK needs a stronger national identity to prevent people turning to extremism.

Different cultures are encouraged to live apart, and objectionable views met with "passive tolerance", he will say.

He will also signal a tougher stance on groups promoting Islamist extremism.

Mr Cameron is to suggest there will be greater scrutiny of some Muslim groups that get public money but do little to tackle extremism.

Ministers should refuse to share platforms or engage with such groups, which should be denied access to public funds and barred from spreading their message in universities and prisons, he will argue.

"Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism," the prime minister will say.

"Let's properly judge these organisations: Do they believe in universal human rights - including for women and people of other faiths? Do they believe in equality of all before the law? Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government? Do they encourage integration or separatism?

"These are the sorts of questions we need to ask. Fail these tests and the presumption should be not to engage with organisations," he will add.

BBC political correspondent Ben Wright said the prime minister would be delivering a stark message to his audience in Munich - that European countries must "wake up to what's happening within their borders".

Mr Cameron will draw a clear distinction between Islam the religion and what he describes as "Islamist extremism" - a political ideology he says attracts people who feel "rootless" within their own countries.

"We need to be clear: Islamist extremism and Islam are not the same thing."

The government is currently reviewing its policy to prevent violent extremism, known as Prevent, which is a key part of its wider counter-terrorism strategy.

The short speech will make it clear that Mr Cameron wants a stronger sense of citizenship and national belonging to replace an approach he thinks has failed, added our correspondent.

'I am a Londoner too'

A genuinely liberal country "believes in certain values and actively promotes them," Mr Cameron will say.

"Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law. Equal rights, regardless of race, sex or sexuality.

"It says to its citizens: This is what defines us as a society. To belong here is to believe these things.

"Each of us in our own countries must be unambiguous and hard-nosed about this defence of our liberty."

He will say that under the "doctrine of state multiculturalism", different cultures have been encouraged to live separate lives.

"We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values."

Building a stronger sense of national and local identity holds "the key to achieving true cohesion" by allowing people to say "I am a Muslim, I am a Hindu, I am a Christian, but I am a Londoner... too", he will say.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994

Bad times ahead. . . .
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Woodrow
02-05-2011, 06:40 AM
I read that as a duplication of what has happened and continues to happen to the Native Americans. What is being proposed is forced assimilation into British Culture. Confirm to the Populis poli or be forced out.

Assimilation is not coexistence it is the genocide of those who fail to become one with the "elite".
Reply

GuestFellow
02-05-2011, 12:25 PM
:sl:

David Cameron has criticised "state multiculturalism" in his first speech as prime minister on radicalisation and the causes of terrorism.

I'm not surprised to hear this coming from David Cameron. He needs to raise the issue of national identity in order to distract the public from focusing on the cuts.
Reply

Muezzin
02-05-2011, 12:51 PM
What is 'muscular liberalism'?

Also, threads merged.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Thinker
02-05-2011, 02:29 PM
I heard the speech and was totally un-shocked by what I heard because for me, for a long time, it looked inevitable. Lots of different ethnic groups have come to the UK, some have kept a low profile, prospered and integrated. For many years Muslims in the UK adopted that profile and there was no problem. Starting some time after 9/11 there has been a vocal minority who have been beating a drum about who they are and what they want and what they want is there own dar-al-Islam within the UK. I have said here a hundred times that the British are a peaceful tolerant people but if you keep banging that drum eventually they will turn and start asking questions. That is now happening and again many times on this forum I have said that you would do well to look upon me as a useful tool to hone your skills on answering difficult questions because eventually they will be asked in open debate amongst the wider populous and in that arena they will be a lot more difficult to answer.

Multiculturalism is divisive, division is bad integration is good. That, like it or not, is the message that will be banging out of a different drum for the forthcoming future.

My advice to all the Muslims in the UK (which you will no doubt reject) is keep your heads down, your mouths shut and try to look a little less like a Muslim fundamentalist and hope that it’ll all blow over.
Reply

Nizam1
02-05-2011, 03:03 PM
I see nothing wrong with what David Cameron has said.

And that's a first.
Reply

aadil77
02-05-2011, 03:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Nizam1
I see nothing wrong with what David Cameron has said.

And that's a first.
I agree, muslim need to start to integrate a bit more, we're slowly becoming isolationists and alienating ourselves from everyone else.

We also need to condemn dodgy groups like al muhjairoun more often, cause they are the reason EDL are gaining support.
Reply

Zafran
02-05-2011, 04:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
I agree, muslim need to start to integrate a bit more, we're slowly becoming isolationists and alienating ourselves from everyone else.

We also need to condemn dodgy groups like al muhjairoun more often, cause they are the reason EDL are gaining support.
Salaam

I think with the problem with terrorism and the media as made muslims reject the wider society as being out there to get us. What needs to be done is coming to a common ground.

Furthermore I dont believe in "Integration" that suggested by Thinker and his ilk (I dont think any Muslim or ethnic minority will) but rather we should contribute more to the society - Like Tariq Ramadan said in one of his speeches.

Edit - I would also like to add that the problem of extremism is also heavily deep rooted in the UKs foriegn policy (Iraq and Afghanistan) which David Cameron should recognise (ofcourse he wont).

peace
Reply

GuestFellow
02-05-2011, 07:38 PM
:sl:

I suspect David Cameron has raised these issues to distract attention from the public sector cuts.

At a security conference in Munich, he argued the UK needed a stronger national identity to prevent people turning to all kinds of extremism.
National identity itself can lead to extremism. By extremism, I mean that some people might feel superior to other races and even towards British people who come from an ethnic background.

He also signalled a tougher stance on groups promoting Islamist extremism.
How would one define Islamist extremism? How are these groups promoting extremism?

The speech angered some Muslim groups, while others queried its timing amid an English Defence League rally in the UK.
This reinforces my suspicion that David Cameron has another motive. I doubt he is truly interested in national security issues.

As Mr Cameron outlined his vision, he suggested there would be greater scrutiny of some Muslim groups which get public money but do little to tackle extremism.
I personally believe Muslim groups should not receive money from the government, especially a government that declared wars against Muslim countries, supports Israel and promotes biased policies towards countries within Asia and even send some Muslim to Uzbekistan to be tortured.

Ministers should refuse to share platforms or engage with such groups, which should be denied access to public funds and barred from spreading their message in universities and prisons, he argued.
So, what has happened to freedom of speech?

Do they believe in equality of all before the law?
I believe in equity.

Do they encourage integration or separatism?
What does integration mean?

Conservative Party chairman Baroness Warsi hit back, saying that "to smear the prime minister as a right wing extremist is outrageous and irresponsible".
I agree. He's a neoconservative.

The government is currently reviewing its policy to prevent violent extremism, known as Prevent, which is a key part of its wider counter-terrorism strategy.
It will not work.

Lets keep this in context.

Some western countries (e.g. America and Britain) have created too many problems in the Middle East, created a monster (Israel), supports dictators (e.g. Saudi Royal Monarchy) and are spreading military bases across the world (e.g. Saudi Arabia, etc.) This is why 9/11 happened.

America responded like a lunatic and declared hostile relations to Syria, Iran, Cuba and waged wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. The mainstream media across the western world declared Muslims as ''terrorists,'' have ex-Muslims (e.g. Nonie Darwish, Wafa Sultan, Ayan Hissy) on their shows as though they are experts on Islam and the general public becomes paranoid. Right wing politicians became popular because they blamed all the problems on Muslims. Throughout America and Europe, some Muslims were attacked and beaten up. This has lead to London bombings attack.

America and Britain need to sort out their foreign policy, then this all issue of terrorism will be solved.
Reply

Rhubarb Tart
02-05-2011, 09:10 PM
Salam

Surely we have some parts to play in this. Is it not all down to foreign policies? I think problem are with Muslims in the north and it has been before 9/11.
I also noticed Muslims getting more hostile towards non Muslims and in return non Muslims are starting to be hostile to Muslims. How do you think EDL was set up?

What business do Muslims have in attending funerals and being aggressive?
What business do we have calling non Muslims *****s, pigs, dogs, dirty, filthy? Why is that we accept speakers using these items? And I have seen these items used in this forum especially the term *****.
What business do we have in accepting and suggesting bad treatment towards non Muslims? i.e. non Muslims deserve to be raped.
Not all non Muslims agree with foreign policies. Not all Jews support Israel. Not all non Muslims believe Islam or Muslims are evil.
Reply

CosmicPathos
02-05-2011, 09:18 PM
muscular liberalism? lol. does that mean violence? How muscular?
Reply

جوري
02-05-2011, 09:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by mad_scientist
muscular liberalism? lol. does that mean violence? How muscular?

So muscular it is playing at your nearest gay club!
Reply

GuestFellow
02-05-2011, 09:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by sweet106
Salam

Surely we have some parts to play in this. Is it not all down to foreign policies?
Salaam,

For terrorism, the main problem is foreign policy. People do not carry out attacks for no reason. There are many Muslims that are against terrorism. It's time the US and the UK acknowledge their own mistakes too, otherwise the issue of terrorism will not be solved.

I think problem are with Muslims in the north and it has been before 9/11.
North? What problem? I'm not sure what you are talking about.

How do you think EDL was set up?
You tell me.

What business do Muslims have in attending funerals and being aggressive?
What funeral?

What business do we have calling non Muslims *****s, pigs, dogs, dirty, filthy?
I never called anyone pigs, dogs, etc.

Why is that we accept speakers using these items?
Since when I have accept these ''items?''

And I have seen these items used in this forum especially the term *****.
Post an example then.

What business do we have in accepting and suggesting bad treatment towards non Muslims? i.e. non Muslims deserve to be raped.
We? Please do not generalise. I never said non-Muslims deserve to be mistreated.

Not all non Muslims agree with foreign policies. Not all Jews support Israel. Not all non Muslims believe Islam or Muslims are evil.
I'm already aware of this.
Reply

Rhubarb Tart
02-05-2011, 09:46 PM
@Guestfollow

I was talking in general not about you.

The government will never acknowledge their mistake because they still continuing to make those mistakes.
North of England is the problem, Muslims are isolated. And I don’t how they managed to get like that.
EDL was formed as a response to few Muslims who protested in soldiers’ funeral. EDL have most of their support from north (see my point above).
You may never accept these items but there are Muslims who use and accept these items from speakers.
I won’t post examples because I would cause feud and single out particular members on this forum. And I am not here to do that.
And there is plenty of Muslims (not all) that do accept non Muslims to be mistreated.
Reply

GuestFellow
02-05-2011, 09:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
I heard the speech and was totally un-shocked by what I heard because for me, for a long time, it looked inevitable. Lots of different ethnic groups have come to the UK, some have kept a low profile, prospered and integrated. For many years Muslims in the UK adopted that profile and there was no problem.
There have always been problems regarding ethnic divisions. I'm sure you heard of the Bradford riot?

Starting some time after 9/11 there has been a vocal minority who have been beating a drum about who they are and what they want and what they want is there own dar-al-Islam within the UK.
Yes, there are some Muslims that wanted the Sharia to be implemented. These people are allowed to voice their opinion because the laws allow this. At least it shows how the Iraqis feel when a foreign force comes to their nation and establish a system for them.

I have said here a hundred times that the British are a peaceful tolerant people but if you keep banging that drum eventually they will turn and start asking questions.
Not all British people (including both Muslims and non-Muslims) are peaceful and tolerant people. Hopefully, these people are a minority.

That is now happening and again many times on this forum I have said that you would do well to look upon me as a useful tool to hone your skills on answering difficult questions because eventually they will be asked in open debate amongst the wider populous and in that arena they will be a lot more difficult to answer.
I doubt anyone of us in real life are going to debate about these issues.

Multiculturalism is divisive, division is bad integration is good. That, like it or not, is the message that will be banging out of a different drum for the forthcoming future.
What does integration mean?

My advice to all the Muslims in the UK (which you will no doubt reject) is keep your heads down, your mouths shut and try to look a little less like a Muslim fundamentalist and hope that it’ll all blow over.
Most of us already have our mouth shut. Even if Muslims were really quiet, some people are going to say Muslims are not integrating and are secretly supporting terrorism and the usual rubbish.

This issue is not going to go away until its too late... :skeleton:
Reply

M.I.A.
02-05-2011, 09:50 PM
i dont get exactly how they would like muslims to integrate?

maybe they should put out leaflets for the muslims on how to be more british.. just so we know what we are doing wrong.

if the main point of address is extremists then blaim the extremists, why tell muslims in the community its our job to tackle extremism?
its like telling the white majority they are responsible for the BNP and such groups, the protection for the whole of the muslim community is just not there.. the piece of mind and security they would like is sadly missing.. maybe if we integrate the whole situation will just evaporate... but i doubt it.
Reply

GuestFellow
02-05-2011, 10:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by sweet106
@Guestfollow

I was talking in general not about you.
:sl:

No harm done.

The government will never acknowledge their mistake because they still continuing to make those mistakes.
Then the issue of terrorism will not be solved anytime soon.

North of England is the problem, Muslims are isolated. And I don’t how they managed to get like that.
Isolated in what way?

EDL was formed as a response to few Muslims who protested in soldiers’ funeral.
ELD has a problem with Muslims in general. They dislike Muslim women wearing the Niqaab, want the Muslims to re-interpret the Qur'aan and dislike the fact that so many Muslims do not support the troops. Until Muslims have left Islam or stop practicing Islam completely, these people will never be happy.


You may never accept these items but there are Muslims who use and accept these items from speakers.
Then they shouldn't. There are many ways to convey a particular point without using offensive terms. I acknowledge that there are Muslims that do and say bad things, in fact, I even created a topic about this:

The harsher you are, the more Islamic you are?

Overall, these are domestic issues. Before 9/11, there were racial issues within Britain, particularly involving Pakistanis. Following 9/11, these racial issues have transformed into religious issues.

There needs to be a clear distinction between foreign issues and domestic issues in order to understand the root cause.
Reply

Rhubarb Tart
02-05-2011, 10:02 PM
Also we need to accept that there are certain parts of Islam, non Muslims will never accept. No matter how many times we explain it to them.
Reply

aadil77
02-05-2011, 10:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran
Salaam
I think with the problem with terrorism and the media as made muslims reject the wider society as being out there to get us. What needs to be done is coming to a common ground.
Not really, we haven't faced much islamophobia until recently when people like anjem choudary said its ok to kill british civilians on tv. The EDL would not exist if it wasn't for al muhajiroon and their ilk.

Furthermore I dont believe in "Integration" that suggested by Thinker and his ilk (I dont think any Muslim or ethnic minority will) but rather we should contribute more to the society - Like Tariq Ramadan said in one of his speeches.
We can't continue to alienate ourselves from society, its bad dawah and gives muslims a bad image.

Edit - I would also like to add that the problem of extremism is also heavily deep rooted in the UKs foriegn policy (Iraq and Afghanistan) which David Cameron should recognise (ofcourse he wont).
Ofcourse it is, but that gives us no excuse to not sort our own problems out
Reply

M.I.A.
02-05-2011, 10:36 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994

the root causes of radicalisation,

forced marriage(read human rights violations)

mis-information on the plight of muslims across the world


i would agree that forced marriages are wrong, this is something that should be addressed on a personal basis as it is not taught as part of the religion.. household by household by household.. personal choice and in turn family turmoil.

mis-information, well the only place where the british forces are publicly placed is in iraq and afghanistan.. fighting terror against muslims.

nothing can be done for the palistinians, its not the fight of the british.. so whats the mis-information?
the war on terror is not the same as combating human rights violations wherever they may be?
i can understand the british army is stretched but i guess you could get more conscripts if it was intent in bringing a lasting peace to places of less strategic importance.

when the government is transparent about what it wants britain to be, then maybe the government can start asking for the support of british muslims without question... as is.. it goes against much of what we believe in islamicially... freedom, justice, morality and peace..
and i know it is easy to say these are not the values islam represents, that is the muslims fault.. we should try harder to be better muslims.

i so badly would like to see people of different faiths and colours living in the same land, in this case i am truely of the minority.
Reply

GuestFellow
02-05-2011, 10:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
Not really, we haven't faced much islamophobia until recently when people like anjem choudary said its ok to kill british civilians on tv. The EDL would not exist if it wasn't for al muhajiroon and their ilk.
:sl:

I agree. Anjem Choudary and some other Muslims have made things worse. From this perspective, I understand why some British people are angry.
Reply

LauraS
02-05-2011, 10:56 PM
Sikhs and Hindus seemed to have fully integrated into society but it does seem that the same hasn't happened with the Muslim communities. There are certain towns in the UK where the majority of the population appears to be Muslim. It shouldn't be about Muslims losing their culture just about Muslims and everyone else in the UK mixing more. There aren't many Muslims around where I live but I had a Muslim friend at school and I know of another Muslims girl in the school. They got on with everybody and there was no tension because they were Muslims are anything. In fact everyone got on well regardless of culture or religion.
Reply

GuestFellow
02-05-2011, 11:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by LauraS
Sikhs and Hindus seemed to have fully integrated into society but it does seem that the same hasn't happened with the Muslim communities.
So how should Muslims fully integrate? It would be helpful if someone can explain this in detail.
Reply

LauraS
02-05-2011, 11:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
So how should Muslims fully integrate? It would be helpful if someone can explain this in detail.
Well I don't know, I don't know the thoughts and feelings of the Muslim community. All I can say is what I observe and obviously what others have. You get Sikh and Hindu families living amongst everyone else but there just seems to be streets or even towns where it's purely Muslim people. :hmm: It's just what seems to have happened, there may be areas where there are plenty of Muslims and other groups living together.
Reply

GuestFellow
02-05-2011, 11:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by LauraS
Well I don't know, I don't know the thoughts and feelings of the Muslim community.
Neither do I...everyone has different needs, wants and aspirations. o_o

All I can say is what I observe and obviously what others have. You get Sikh and Hindu families living amongst everyone else but there just seems to be streets or even towns where it's purely Muslim people. :hmm: It's just what seems to have happened, there may be areas where there are plenty of Muslims and other groups living together.
Well...I'm not sure how this is a problem.

From what I know, my area used to be a predominantly white working class area. As time went by, people moved out while Asians moved in. Now, mostly Asian people live here, the majority are Muslims.
Reply

aadil77
02-05-2011, 11:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by LauraS
Well I don't know, I don't know the thoughts and feelings of the Muslim community. All I can say is what I observe and obviously what others have. You get Sikh and Hindu families living amongst everyone else but there just seems to be streets or even towns where it's purely Muslim people. :hmm: It's just what seems to have happened, there may be areas where there are plenty of Muslims and other groups living together.
This is the issue I'm talking about. I agree sikhs, hindu's, blacks and other ethnic minorites have integrated pretty well, its cause its alot easier for them to 'fit' in, all they have to do is go down the pub or go clubbing and they're sorted. For us its a bit different, we have to be careful of not compromising our beliefs. Obviously theres are alot of other alternatives to going drinking or raving, end of the day its up to us to make an effort.
Reply

GuestFellow
02-05-2011, 11:35 PM
^ I know Blackpool ( IB member) got along with Muslims after playing football with them. o_o
Reply

Perseveranze
02-05-2011, 11:51 PM
Asalaamu Alaikum,

He can start by removing EDL, as long as there around, so are extremists. Simple as that, because I don't remember any "Muslim" terrorists harming countries like Africa, Japan or whoever didn't bother to invade Iraq/Afghanistan etc.
Reply

Perseveranze
02-05-2011, 11:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
This is the issue I'm talking about. I agree sikhs, hindu's, blacks and other ethnic minorites have integrated pretty well, its cause its alot easier for them to 'fit' in, all they have to do is go down the pub or go clubbing and they're sorted. For us its a bit different, we have to be careful of not compromising our beliefs. Obviously theres are alot of other alternatives to going drinking or raving, end of the day its up to us to make an effort.
Asalaamu Alaikum,

You hit the nail. The Prophet said;

This verse speaks of the few people on earth, the "strangers", who prohibit mankind from evil. These are the same people the Prophet (peace be upon him) spoke about when he said, "Islam began as something strange, and it shall return to being something strange, so give glad tidings [ar. Tooba. This is a tree in Paradise. So the Prophet (peace be upon him) is giving the good news of Paradise to these strangers.] to the strangers." It was asked, "Who are those strangers, O Messenger of Allah?" He replied, "Those that correct the people when they become corrupt." [Reported by Abu Amr al-Dani, from the hadith of ibn Masoud. It is authentic according to al-Albani. Another narration says, "Those that correct my sunnah which has been corrupted by the people after me."] In another narration he said in response to the same question, "They are a small group of people among a large evil population. Those who oppose them are more than those who follow them." [Reported by ibn Asaakir. It is authentic according to al-Albani.]
Muslims are too strange to fit in :)
Reply

aadil77
02-06-2011, 12:07 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Perseveranze
Asalaamu Alaikum,

You hit the nail. The Prophet said;
This is true akhi, but its not just about fitting in, its about having good relations with non-muslims. Look at the example of the prophet, he didn't spread islam by keeping his head down, not greeting others, not caring for others and keeping to himself, did he? He got along well with everyone which is why everyone loved him for his qualities.

Muslims are too strange to fit in :)
I disagree, plenty of muslims I know fit in without compromising deen at all
Reply

Perseveranze
02-06-2011, 12:54 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
This is true akhi, but its not just about fitting in, its about having good relations with non-muslims. Look at the example of the prophet, he didn't spread islam by keeping his head down, not greeting others, not caring for others and keeping to himself, did he? He got along well with everyone which is why everyone loved him for his qualities.



I disagree, plenty of muslims I know fit in without compromising deen at all
Asalaamu Alaikum,

Think you misundestood. I meant strangers in terms of we couldn't fit into certain society that had the norm of drinking alcohol, late parties, smoking etc. Sure, we can get along with them and live in peace, but fitting in is a different story unless we had to comprimise our deen.
Reply

David Gould
02-06-2011, 02:03 AM
David Cameron in singling out one group and ignoring the EDL and other extremists groups that cause divisions in society and has set back relations between Islamic Groups and non-Muslims by about twelve years. He failed to acknowledge that it was the invasions by Blair's Government that drove many Muslims to feel isolated and alienated and a small number to become radicalised. He has confused the issue here by introducing this term "state Multiculturalism" which means nothing and hence trying to claim all attempts at pluralism, that is working in many areas, are encouraging extremism. How wrong can one man, poorly advised and misinformed be? I am a Christian member of Interfaith groups where I work closely and very happily with my Muslim friends. They condemn the bombings that took my daughter's life in 2005...and they are sensitive toward my seeking to bring the faiths closer together and develop dialogue.

David Cameron is totally ignorant of the many groups that meet up and down the country that are working at community level to improve relations between of faith groups. Understanding each other's believes and acting with trust, understanding and sensitivity are key things to building relationships of respect. I am honoured to number among my friends several Muslims and I value their input into both our groups and into the community at large. I am not prepared for some millionaire clod-hopping ignoramus to come and destroy what has taken us years to patiently build.

Unlike David Cameron I have read the Qur'an and love the simple message of peace it brings to mankind from God. As a Christian there are areas where we differ...but through both faith's God calls His people...US to his service, to honour each other, and to respect each other..."dispute not with the people of the book..." and all that. I have favourite passages from the Qur'an as I do in the Bible. I find much fault in the Bible which has been tampered with over the years. The message has never changed. god calls His people to repent and lead a life within His ways...what is not to understand in that?

I will continue to love my Muslim Brothers and Sisters, share friendship, spiritual insights and God's Love. I will continue to organise joint events where we can explore at greater depth each other's faith. And above all I will follow what I believe God has called me to do...to be His slave and do His bidding...
Reply

جوري
02-06-2011, 02:06 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by David Gould
I will continue to love my Muslim Brothers and Sisters, share friendship, spiritual insights and God's Love. I will continue to organise joint events where we can explore at greater depth each other's faith. And above all I will follow what I believe God has called me to do...to be His slave and do His bidding...

Thank you like Eric H.. I find you to put some of my disenchantment with Christians of the west to rest..

peace
Reply

Zafran
02-06-2011, 02:06 AM
Not really, we haven't faced much islamophobia until recently when people like anjem choudary said its ok to kill british civilians on tv. The EDL would not exist if it wasn't for al muhajiroon and their ilk.
I believe the Islamophobia started around about 9/11, The taleban media stories, then 2004 bombings and ofcourse Al Mhhajiroon make things worse - The problem also is that Anjem Choudery and his ilk attract the media far more then the religious muslims do.

We can't continue to alienate ourselves from society, its bad dawah and gives muslims a bad image.
I agree we need to come to a common ground.

I also agree we need to sort our own problems out but its bad for the UK government if they still cant start with basics in tackling extremism - foriegn policy.
Reply

Zafran
02-06-2011, 02:17 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by LauraS
Sikhs and Hindus seemed to have fully integrated into society but it does seem that the same hasn't happened with the Muslim communities. There are certain towns in the UK where the majority of the population appears to be Muslim. It shouldn't be about Muslims losing their culture just about Muslims and everyone else in the UK mixing more. There aren't many Muslims around where I live but I had a Muslim friend at school and I know of another Muslims girl in the school. They got on with everybody and there was no tension because they were Muslims are anything. In fact everyone got on well regardless of culture or religion.
Are you sure? Lets see the Black africans Have the majority realy integrated or do we still have black african Ghettos?
What about the white working class who actually join the EDL and the BNP? there are areas where (never mind Muslim) but anyone asian looking will have problems living in there area?
Then we have asians and there Ghettos?

The UK is full of people that havent integrated its simple - the muslims however should get out of there Ghettos I believe - I'm actually against the Ghetto culture.
Reply

Woodrow
02-06-2011, 04:01 AM
Peace David it is indeed a pleasure to see you again. Your compassion for all people has always been a refreshing sight to behold.
Reply

CosmicPathos
02-06-2011, 05:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


So muscular it is playing at your nearest gay club!
lol. I think he has a thing for muscular things.
Reply

David Gould
02-07-2011, 01:10 AM
That Speech (an article by David Gould)

So where to we start with that dog’s breakfast of misinformation that was the British Prime Minister’s speech in Munich on 12th February.

Let us begin with the whole notion of the blame being put on something he called “State Multiculturalism” whatever this might be. No serious social thinker has used this term beyond the nineties which rather dates any reading Cameron has done. If his reading had been up to date he would have known that social thinkers have adopted the term “Pluralism” which embodies the ideas of social and community integration and inclusion rather than the previous somewhat patronising terms of toleration. The whole notion of ‘tolerance’ which underpinned the theories of Multiculturalism as a school of thought, implies that a superior being has to find it in his or her heart to tolerate something or someone who could well be inferior. One can see why such thinking was abandoned in the late nineties for a more accurate term to explain the social change that has taken place.

Also before we leave this quaint phrase of “State Multiculturalism” let us try to make sense of why it is in some way to blame for the radicalisation and growth of urban extremism in the last ten years. For this is Cameron’s claim that the passive tolerance has allowed this to take place. Again we have this harking back to outdated outmoded thinking that the likes of Tariq Modood et al would want to see in terms of the ghetto-isation cultural groupings and the growth of alienations within subcultures rather that the overall explanation of how society is organised. The crisis of multiculturalism which was addressed by many thinkers in the early 2000s where increasingly single groupings of people were isolated from the mainstream service deliveries within communities led to the whole notion being rethought and reformed.

Any serious student of social change when studying the rise of urban radicalisation within Britain would not be looking at the passive acceptance of liberals as the start point. Rather they would be looking at the fact that following 9/11 and the attacks on an increasingly imperialistic American Expansionism in the acquisition of scarcer fossil fuels, the US and by default the UK invaded not one but two countries that were seen as majority Muslim with no clear end plan of their invasions and occupations. In the face of these invasions which some commentators saw as having been perpetrated on the basis of falsehoods and increasingly seen as a direct attack upon Islam itself a growing anger grew till it boiled over. From all the records left behind by the four bombers of the London Transport system of July 7th 2005 it is clear that they saw the invasion of Iraq as the catalyst of their actions rather than the liberal views of “State Multiculturalism”.

We move on one sentence in that speech to the unnamed groups that Cameron blames for not having condemned terrorist extremism while being supported by financial grants that originated from government sponsorship. Again I would strongly question the evidence here about the use of government money to sponsor organisations that encouraged radicalisation. As Cameron was not specific it is hard to see his point other than like the empty promises of the rules of the game changing, made by the former Prime Minister Blair, being a rather vague threat to one religious group that he seems to blame all our woes upon. By engaging with his own polemic Cameron tries to wield the big stick or threat of cutting the funding. The flaw here being that the biggest source of third sector local funding was the very local authority budgets that he has already cut. Hence his threat rings hollow and seems more like a veiled threat against one particular plank of his so called Big Society, namely the Islamic Community in Britain.

Perhaps we also need to look further back at the effect of the rising figures of immigration over the years since the 1960s and how the alienation was caused. It is of interest also in passing to look at the words of the French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin, is his address to the French legislature when he was defending the ban of ostensibly religious symbols in public schools. He refers to both France as the ‘old land of Christianity’ and to the inviolable principle of laïcité or secularism. Whereas most of the main partners in Europe have the separation of church and state as the accepted norms it came as a shock to many of those coming to the country that this should be so. This would seem doubly so if one has come from an Islamic country where religion and politics are almost interchangeable. The sense of disengagement that many feel when they experience the way of life in the west is most acute as though being thrown into space without a life support system. It was this sense of being lost within a secular system that Prime Minister Blair first promised to address in pre-election speeches and then supremely ignored once in power.

The mistake that Cameron is making is to threaten the very groups that attempt to address with a form of fiscal xenophobia that is breath-taking. By singling out one group or the adherents of just one faith and blaming all the cultural woes on the system of law that their faith espouses is to ignore the fact that arranged marriages are a cultural norm for a part of the world that includes Hindus, Christians as well as Muslims. He may dislike the system and want to discourage it but to blame it on one group when so many practice this is to be pointedly disproportionate and politically naïve. He might have also lobbed in the practice of honour killings while he was at it…again not the sole preserve of the Islamic community; having wider cultural and patriarchal roots.

The other attack that is implicit within these somewhat poorly chosen words is the attack on what the public perceive of as the meaning of Multiculturalism. Public perception always lags behind the academics in this respect so the word Multicultural is still perceived as a gaol or target. Frequently linked with the words equality and diversity the prime Minister seems to attack anyone who dares to stay outside his limited view of what it means to be British. For a start he expects every person to speak English totally ignoring the fact the wider families frequently involve older persons for whom the learning of a new language is prohibitively difficult. He expects everyone to learn about the history of the land. He forgets that most of the people coming to this country have come to escape grinding poverty and feel they must work every minute of every day to support sometimes large family groups. Then a large proportion of their wages goes back ‘home’ to help support those left behind so leisure time is not something most immigrants can afford in the early days of their lives here. I have known many indigenous white kids on leaving school having little or no knowledge of the history of the UK and a small proportion at as illiterate and as innumerate as the day they started school.

So while Cameron tries hard to create a legacy in Munich his speech has caused ripples of disapproval and anger in many areas of the country. He may well find in the days to come that his words rob him of the good will of the very people upon whom he was relying to deliver his Big Society ideas.

Bibliography:
Secularism, Religion and Multicultural Citizenship (2009) Edited by G. Levey and T. Modood. Cambridge University Press
Multiculturalism (2007) Tariq Modood, Polity Press
The Quest for Meaning Developing a philosophy of Pluralism (2010) Tariq Ramadan, Penguin Books
Reply

aamirsaab
02-09-2011, 09:10 PM
One of my neighbours is Hindu, the other is Jewish and my best friend is an atheist.

Multiculturalism has most certainly not failed. Common sense, on the other hand, has.
Reply

GuestFellow
02-09-2011, 10:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by mad_scientist
lol. I think he has a thing for muscular things.
:sl:

It is actually a strong indicator that David Cameron is considering to adopt neoconservatism. That is what I think he meant by muscular liberalism.
Reply

Uthman
02-09-2011, 10:46 PM
Liberalism & it's effects on Society
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-11-2011, 06:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Uthmān
Liberalism is the opposite of Authoritarianism. Yes, individual liberty leads to less social cohesion, and taken to an extreme would mean anarchy, but I for one would prefer that over authoritarian tyranny (the other extreme - where big brother is watching).
Reply

David Gould
02-12-2011, 01:10 AM
Egypt tonight goes down a new and exciting road. My prayers and thoughts for this people who have caste off the heavy yoke of tyranny...lets just hope they do not fall under a new one. Too much liberalism could be bad for one while too little is dangerous.
Reply

سيف الله
02-14-2011, 11:40 PM
Salaam

Another programme on Muslims in Britain :hmm:. Having watched snippets of it, aspects of teh way Islam is taught I strongly object to. Having said that its obvious that the issues raised is being used as a stick to convince muslims to assimilate and abandon parts of Islam that the governing classes dont agree with. What do you guys think?

Heres trailer



Dispatches: Lessons in Hate and Violence - Part 1

Reply

GuestFellow
02-15-2011, 12:22 AM
^

:sl:

I'm not expecting Channel 4 to make a documentary about showing Muslims in a positive light. It will not be interesting for the public. I have yet seen the entire documentary but I agree, children should not be kicked, especially when reading the Qur'an. The speaker talking about Hinduism is ignorant...
Reply

M.I.A.
02-15-2011, 12:30 AM
i remember my teacher hitting my hand with a cane when i was learning the quran, but those people in the vids are going too far really. he was completely the opposite of those people in the vids.. such a nice person i have never known.

caught me talking in class countless times lol

looking back i never thought bad of him at the time or now.

i still dont have a fistfull beard so that worried me a lot.
Reply

Thinker
02-17-2011, 09:07 PM
Hi group

I have just read through the posts in this thread and am heartened to see some of you agreeing that British Muslim should make a greater effort to integrate. The post highlighting the fact that every other colour and faith has integrated or at least integrated better/more than Muslims is undeniable. The post that asks what does that mean, what do they want us to do to integrate is also a valid question and one I’d like to tackle.

The question follows: does Islam allow Muslims to ‘integrate’ into a non-Muslim society? Is it not the case that Islam specifically commands that Muslims not only must not integrate they must do everything they can to not to take on the appearance of or adopt the customs and culture of non-Muslims? If that is the case Muslims categorically cannot integrate. So why not say it loud and clear – “we are going to live in your country, we’re going to carry a UK passport, we’re going to accept all the benefits of being a citizen but we’re never going to integrate.” If that’s the truth, post it on a placard on the doors of your mosques and let everybody know exactly they way it is.

And, whilst you’re there add a postscript on the placard that states - in addition there are numerous customs and practices which although abhorrent to British customs and values and which are not obliged by Islam but which are a part of a culture in Islamic countries which we intend to continue to pursue to further distance ourselves from becoming an integrated part of British society.

Tell me what part of these statements is not true?
Reply

IslamicRevival
02-17-2011, 09:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
The question follows: does Islam allow Muslims to ‘integrate’ into a non-Muslim society
What do you mean by 'Integrate' What do you want from us?

Is it not the case that Islam specifically commands that Muslims not only must not integrate they must do everything they can to not to take on the appearance of or adopt the customs and culture of non-Muslims?
Where did you get this from? The part that is highlighted is a pile of rubbish

If that is the case Muslims categorically cannot integrate. So why not say it loud and clear – “we are going to live in your country, we’re going to carry a UK passport, we’re going to accept all the benefits of being a citizen but we’re never going to integrate.” If that’s the truth, post it on a placard on the doors of your mosques and let everybody know exactly they way it is.
:rollseyes
Reply

جوري
02-17-2011, 09:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
Tell me what part of these statements is true?

The part where you admit that you stink worse than a donkeys ass!


by the way how are things in Cyprus?

all the best
Reply

جوري
02-17-2011, 09:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lost Identity
Where did you get this from? The part that is highlighted is a pile of rubbish

when you are a fetid ape, you're bound to create and mire in rubbish.. question is why admins allows excrement to remain on the forum?
Isn't it time we took out the trash?.. or perhaps the good ape can enroll in the British services instead of scurrying away to a foreign country and serve like any good primeval primate while pounding on that hairy pectus of his and show that bravery in a place like say Afghanistan? Ape heads are especially prized I hear as they have a shortage for both buckets and good brooms!
Reply

Thinker
02-17-2011, 09:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lost Identity
What do you mean by 'Integrate' What do you want from us?
Integration - definitions

Pertaining to a group or society whose members interact on the basis of commonly held norms or values.
The organisation of the psychological or social traits and tendencies of a personality into a harmonious whole.

In short, integration is a process where we all merge together as one people sharing the same cultural values.
Reply

Thinker
02-17-2011, 09:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lost Identity
Where did you get this from? The part that is highlighted is a pile of rubbish
I got it from thie forum; Instead of writing off what I have said itemise what I have said and tell me it is wrong?
Reply

جوري
02-17-2011, 09:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
basis of commonly held norms or values.

what kind of norms or values can one hope to hold with un-evolved apes do you suppose?
Reply

aadil77
02-17-2011, 09:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
I got it from thie forum; Instead of writing off what I have said itemise what I have said and tell me it is wrong?
How about a source?
Reply

Thinker
02-17-2011, 09:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
The part where you admit that you stink worse than a donkeys ass!
by the way how are things in Cyprus?
all the best
Come on - you can do better than that!! btw what is a donkey's ass and what does it smell like:statisfie
Reply

Thinker
02-17-2011, 09:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
How about a source?
Tell me which part is wrong? Are you saying for example that Islam does not command that Muslims look differently than non Muslims? Why do Muslim men wear beards?
Reply

جوري
02-17-2011, 09:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
Come on - you can do better than that!! btw what is a donkey's ass and what does it smell like

Sure I could.. but as is in Islam.. one is to communicate with others to their level of expertise and not speak above them as to not alienate them..

that part that is about to be kicked is the donkeys butt:



and generally is smells like a pile of dung.. I don't want to include a pic of that as I just had dindin

all the best
Reply

جوري
02-17-2011, 09:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
Tell me which part is wrong? Are you saying for example that Islam does not command that Muslims look differently than non Muslims? Why do Muslim men wear beards?

why do monks, Jews, sikhs and countless others sport beards?
Reply

aadil77
02-17-2011, 09:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
Tell me which part is wrong? Are you saying for example that Islam does not command that Muslims look differently than non Muslims? Why do Muslim men wear beards?
does that stop them from integrating?

again I'd like a source
Reply

جوري
02-17-2011, 10:02 PM
maybe he can go and tell this fellow below to integrate better (just so we don't have doubts to his sincerity) but only of course after letting him on to the secret that the wall he's standing by is built by Sultan Suliman the magnificent around the 1500's not king Solomon..





perhaps then we can tolerate his drivel about beards and integration and tolerance!
Reply

Thinker
02-17-2011, 10:26 PM
The question is: does Islam allow Muslims to ‘integrate’ into a non-Muslim society?

If you don’t agree with my statement . . . .
Is it not the case that Islam specifically commands that Muslims not only must not integrate they must do everything they can to not to take on the appearance of or adopt the customs and culture of non-Muslims?

Do you then agree with the counter statement. . . . .
Islam allows and encourages Muslims to integrate they must do everything they can to take on the appearance of and adopt the customs and culture of non-Muslims?
Reply

GuestFellow
02-17-2011, 10:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
Tell me which part is wrong? Are you saying for example that Islam does not command that Muslims look differently than non Muslims? Why do Muslim men wear beards?
Muslim men do not wear beards...they grow it. XD

format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
Hi group
Howdy.

The question follows: does Islam allow Muslims to ‘integrate’ into a non-Muslim society?
As long as we can still practice Islam, then I see no problems.
Reply

جوري
02-17-2011, 10:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
The question is: does Islam allow Muslims to ‘integrate’ into a non-Muslim society? If you don’t agree with my statement . . . . Is it not the case that Islam specifically commands that Muslims not only must not integrate they must do everything they can to not to take on the appearance of or adopt the customs and culture of non-Muslims? Do you then agree with the counter statement. . . . . Islam allows and encourages Muslims to integrate they must do everything they can to take on the appearance of and adopt the customs and culture of non-Muslims?

Quote us from the Quran and ahadiths pls.
also do you see something wrong in keeping ones identity?.. do you integrate with homosexuals, transvestites and prostitutes because they're a popular sub-culture in your society? You need scotty to beam you up so you can formulate better questions.. I have seen better questions from fifth graders!
Reply

Thinker
02-17-2011, 10:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
why do monks, Jews, sikhs and countless others sport beards?
Why does barnacle Bill the sailor wear a beard, why does any none Muslim wear a beard - because they want to. Why do Muslim men wear a beard and why must it be a fist long and with a shaven moustache? You know and I know why and it's not because they want to or because it's fashionable; or do you know why, maybe you don't know what Islam commands?
Reply

جوري
02-17-2011, 10:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
Why does barnacle Bill the sailor wear a beard, why does any none Muslim wear a beard - because they want to. Why do Muslim men wear a beard and why must it be a fist long and with a shaven moustache? You know and I know why and it's not because they want to or because it's fashionable; or do you know why, maybe you don't know what Islam commands?

Really Jews and sikhs and monks sport beards because they want to? Perhaps you can quote me from the source directly.. again.. I prefer things that are sourced from reputable references than from out of your ass and I think most people will agree to that!
Reply

Thinker
02-17-2011, 10:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
why do monks, Jews, sikhs and countless others sport beards?
They wear beards because they want to. Why do Muslim men wear beards and why must they be a fist long and with a shaven moustache - I know the reason and you know; if you don't know the reason you show a shallow knowledge of Islam!
Reply

جوري
02-17-2011, 10:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
They wear beards because they want to. Why do Muslim men wear beards and why must they be a fist long and with a shaven moustache - I know the reason and you know; if you don't know the reason you show a shallow knowledge of Islam!

still waiting for your source on the afore mentioned groups.. or was there a part of what I'd written that was difficult for you to understand?
Reply

جوري
02-17-2011, 10:36 PM
if you don't know what a reputable source is, and not speaking out of your ass, please let me help you along:

Question 11.1.5: Dress: Why do many Jewish men sport beards and/or long sideburns?

Answer:

The Torah, the Five Books of Moses, has a commandment not to shave the
corners of the head. [Specifically, Leviticus 19:27 says, "Do not
round the corner of your head."] The Torah also forbids a male Jew
from removing hair from one's sideburns and temple are (known as
pei'ot ha-rosh). Actually, the sideburns merely have to be long enough
that one can pull on the hair, and the beard area can be shaved with
something other than a sharp blade (many people accept the use of
electric shavers). But specifically within the Chassidic community,
there is a custom not to shave (and frequently not even to trim) the
beard, and to permit the sideburn area (all the way up to the top of
the ear) to grow long as well (the long sideburns are called peyot) .
Some tuck the hair up under their kipot/skullcaps, while others curl
the hair. Many Orthodox say the payes (a.k.a. earlocks/sidelocks)
begin right at the temple, to just behind the ear, and must grow no
shorter than the top of the cheekbone. Then they are to be worn pushed
forward of the ear so as to be visible. Many, following Rabbi Nachman,
grow them long because he said he could "pull them by their payess out
of hell" once he was in Paradise!

Another note related to the "not rounding of the corners". This is in
direct relation to the passage about not harvesting the corners of the
field, but leaving it alone for G-d. Finally, in not rounding "the
four corners" of the face, we have a comparison with the tzitzis at
the four corners of the tallit. People forget that the hair, the
harvesting, and the tallit are all mitzvot.

On a practical level, shaving or trimming of the beard is not
permitted on the Sabbath or Holidays, and for a few stretches during
the year [such as portions of the time between Pesach and Shavuos]. A
beardless man will grow days or weeks of stubble, but a bearded man
who doesn't shave or trim his beard during that time will not look
significantly different.

To be specific, the Law is that one must not use a straight razor
(including safety-razors) on one's temples or to shave one's beard.
Those Jewish men who have wanted to be clean-shaven have had various
options; in the past century, either depilatory powder (ancestor to
Nair), or electric shavers. Electric shavers (at least most of them;
check with your local Orthodox rabbi for acceptable brands) function
like a scissors: two relatively dull blades pinch off the hair, rather
than one very sharp blade slicing it off.

Chasidim and some others have kabbalistic reasons for growing a beard,
so they will not take advantage of modern technology. Otherwise,
Jewish men having beards have it for other reasons, be they simply "to
look Jewish"
or style or whatever.

As for sidelocks, that is a result of a peculiar interpretation of the
law against shaving one's temples. The basic law is that there must
remain enough hair to bend it over with one's fingers; that can be as
little as 1/2 inch or so. Some, notably Hungarian chasidim and
Yemenites, do not cut the sidelocks at all, and they grow very long.
Most chasidim have short sidelocks: thin, 2-3", that they tuck behind
their ears, so you won't see them.

Many who grow long peyos do so for Kabbalistic reasons. One of the
opinions in Kabbalah is that the peyos need to be worn long only until
the beard grows in. Once the beard grows, the peyos of the side of the
head should not be allowed to grow down beyond where the sides of the
beard begin to appear.

Finally, some Jewish men just don't like to shave.


http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ...ection-42.html


Now, how about asking Jews if they can or are willing to integrate in British culture and hold on to British values (whatever those maybe) or is it just a Muslim's beard that bothers you?
or let me sum it up for you.. are you a hypocrite? Yes, yes you are!

all the best
Reply

GuestFellow
02-17-2011, 10:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

Now, how about asking Jews if they can or are willing to integrate in British culture and hold on to British values (whatever those maybe) or is it just a Muslim's beard that bothers you?
or let me sum it up for you.. are you a hypocrite? Yes, yes you are!
:sl:

You raised a good point. What are British values? What are Muslims to be integrating into...
Reply

R Khan
02-17-2011, 10:43 PM
The Prophet Muhammad(sas) instructed the men to "grow the beard"; "leave the beard" but he also told the men to take care of it's appearance (not to look messy) so some companions adopted the "fist-size" length in order to cut any excessive hair. One of the key reasons growing a beard is: it something the Prophet(sas) himself did and what the other Prophets had also done, but also for the Muslim men to have their own "look" (shortened/trimmed moustache and a beard). The sikhs grow their hair, beard and moustache. The Jews also grow a beard.

Shaven moustache because we aren't supposed to drink water which passes through hair (unhealthy), so if you have a long moustache it will pass through it.
Reply

Thinker
02-17-2011, 10:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
:sl:
You raised a good point. What are British values? What are Muslims to be integrating into...
So many but let's start with one. We great each other with handshake; if we offer our hand and it is refused, culturally that is offensive. That is one of our values it is our culture and it has been stated om this forum that Muslim women will not (should not) shake hands. That is just one of many. We can start there if you like?
Reply

جوري
02-17-2011, 10:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
You raised a good point. What are British values? What are Muslims to be integrating into...

Let me sum up British values as I have learned from the likes of our primeval friend.
1- fornication
2-drunkenness
3-homosexuality
4-hatred and warmongering (especially of Muslims)
5-libel and slander
6- sexual liberation like that French actress that died recently they keep singing her praise as pushing the limits for sexual liberation maria shneider or whatever the hell her name is.. basically taking off your clothes before middle aged men in a movie much ado about nothing save soft porn, then being thrown into a life of drugs and alcohol and lesbianism and early death and that of course is liberation that those brutish muslims may never understand..

are British values or the values that Europe is singing about now a days.. anything to do with morality and common decency think its polar opposite and those are their values.

hope that helps insha'Allah

:w:
Reply

R Khan
02-17-2011, 10:48 PM
Yes, so what is you problem if Muslim women do not shake hands with men?
Reply

IslamicRevival
02-17-2011, 10:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
I got it from thie forum;
We are still waiting, Source?

Instead of writing off what I have said itemise what I have said and tell me it is wrong?
We are not forbidden from integrating into ' A Non Muslim society'

Do you then agree with the counter statement. . . . .
Islam allows and encourages Muslims to integrate they must do everything they can to take on the appearance of and adopt the customs and culture of non-Muslims?
You expect us to go against Islamic law for the sake of 'Cultural Values'? Get out of here man
Reply

aadil77
02-17-2011, 10:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
The question is: does Islam allow Muslims to ‘integrate’ into a non-Muslim society?

If you don’t agree with my statement . . . .
Is it not the case that Islam specifically commands that Muslims not only must not integrate they must do everything they can to not to take on the appearance of or adopt the customs and culture of non-Muslims?

Do you then agree with the counter statement. . . . .
Islam allows and encourages Muslims to integrate they must do everything they can to take on the appearance of and adopt the customs and culture of non-Muslims?
I don't agree with any of your statements. Simple answer is we can integrate to the extent it doesn't condradict any islamic principles
Reply

جوري
02-17-2011, 10:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
So many but let's start with one. We great each other with handshake; if we offer our hand and it is refused, culturally that is offensive. That is one of our values it is our culture and it has been stated om this forum that Muslim women will not (should not) shake hands. That is just one of many. We can start there if you like?

for the third time I am asking you, do you find it offensive when the Japanese refuse to handshake and prefer to bow instead or Just Muslims?



do you disrespect everyone's etiquette or just Muslims?

I'd really like an answer to that!
Reply

GuestFellow
02-17-2011, 10:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
So many but let's start with one. We great each other with handshake; if we offer our hand and it is refused, culturally that is offensive. That is one of our values it is our culture and it has been stated om this forum that Muslim women will not (should not) shake hands. That is just one of many. We can start there if you like?
What is wrong with saying hi or hello? I do that all the time when I used to work and no female staff was upset/offended. Give me the entire list...

format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


Let me sum up British values as I have learned from the likes of our primeval friend.
1- fornication
2-drunkenness
3-homosexuality
4-hatred and warmongering (especially of Muslims)
5-libel and slander
6- sexual liberation like that French actress that died recently they keep singing her praise as pushing the limits for sexual liberation maria shneider or whatever the hell her name is.. basically taking off your clothes before middle aged men in a movie much ado about nothing save soft porn, then being thrown into a life of drugs and alcohol and lesbianism and early death and that of course is liberation that those brutish muslims may never understand..

are British values or the values that Europe is singing about now a days.. anything to do with morality and common decency think its polar opposite and those are their values.

hope that helps insha'Allah

:w:
:wa:

I think it is safe to conclude that British people do not have a official set of values..everyone does what they want as long as the law permits it.
Reply

IslamicRevival
02-17-2011, 11:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
I think it is safe to conclude that British people do not have a official set of values..everyone does what they want as long as the law permits it.
You just hit the

on the head
Reply

Thinker
02-17-2011, 11:14 PM
We can dance around the details all day but the simple question is - does Islam allow Muslims to ‘integrate’ into a non-Muslim society? Yes or no? And integration mean acceptance of the fundamental values of that society which is about accepting its cultural values - simple as that. Yes or no?
Reply

IslamicRevival
02-17-2011, 11:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
We can dance around the details all day but the simple question is - does Islam allow Muslims to ‘integrate’ into a non-Muslim society? Yes or no? And integration mean acceptance of the fundamental values of that society which is about accepting its cultural values - simple as that. Yes or no?



Sorry to say but you really are a joker of the highest magnitude!
Reply

Thinker
02-17-2011, 11:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
What is wrong with saying hi or hello? I do that all the time when I used to work and no female staff was upset/offended.

I think it is safe to conclude that British people do not have a official set of values..everyone does what they want as long as the law permits it.
It's not about what the law permits it's about what society accepts as its norms. Refusing a handshake is legally your right but is also refusing to accept a cultural norm which in turn is refusing to integrate. Again, your legal right but you should come out and say I will not integrate or I will.
Reply

جوري
02-17-2011, 11:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
It's not about what the law permits it's about what society accepts as its norms. Refusing a handshake is legally your right but is also refusing to accept a cultural norm which in turn is refusing to integrate. Again, you legal right, so either come out and say I will not integrate or I will.
go ahead shake hands don't be shy..

Reply

Thinker
02-17-2011, 11:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by R Khan
Yes, so what is you problem if Muslim women do not shake hands with men?
If you can't see that this is a (one of) the problems you are fooling yourself. It is just one of many reasons why Muslims are setting themselves apart and saying we will not integrate. That's your legal right, you can do that but you are too frightened to say it because you know the questions that will follow.
Reply

Thinker
02-17-2011, 11:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

go ahead shake hands don't be shy..
Cheap - very cheap. Shame on you.
Reply

R Khan
02-17-2011, 11:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
If you can't see that this is a (one of) the problems you are fooling yourself. It is just one of many reasons why Muslims are setting themselves apart and saying we will not integrate. That's your legal right, you can do that but you are too frightened to say it because you know the questions that will follow.
So in other words you want an excuse to touch women?
I will say it here: we aren't frightened; if you culture and your so-called "norms" contradict our principles then in return we walk away from such things and hold onto our principles.

format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
It's not about what the law permits it's about what society accepts as its norms. Refusing a handshake is legally your right but is also refusing to accept a cultural norm which in turn is refusing to integrate. Again, your legal right but you should come out and say I will not integrate or I will.
What about.. if I don't like you so I won't shake your hand?

Your using something so small as a hand shake for your arguments about integration, try something more higher please.
Reply

Ansariyah
02-17-2011, 11:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
We can dance around the details all day but the simple question is - does Islam allow Muslims to ‘integrate’ into a non-Muslim society? Yes or no? And integration mean acceptance of the fundamental values of that society which is about accepting its cultural values - simple as that. Yes or no?
Wats wit this yes or no black n white attitude. chillax! Its not that complicated as u are making it out to be now is it. Theres gotta be a middle ground somewhere.

A non-Muslim does not have to follow my ways/traditions beliefs, Same goes for me. Why must I accept their tradition. Theres a big difference between respect & acceptance. I have to respect other peoples cultures n beliefs that doesnt mean that I have to be part of their crowd.

To clarify, by respect I mean to know that its their choice to do wat they see fit. But it doesnt mean that I think highly of some of the aspects of western societies.
Reply

yas2010
02-17-2011, 11:39 PM
I know many Jewish men who will not hand shake any women
I know many Jewish women who will not hand shake any man.

But the 'Jewish Community' are deemed as being 'Integrated'
Reply

R Khan
02-17-2011, 11:43 PM
And they say we are "frightened"?

Paranoid much?
Reply

جوري
02-17-2011, 11:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
Cheap - very cheap. Shame on you.

How so? you'd deny that you'd not shake hands with a sick person? or that you'd respect a Japanese custom or even a Jewish one.. yet all that ever bothers you is that Muslims like to hold on to their identity? So who is cheap and a sellout?
Reply

GuestFellow
02-17-2011, 11:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
We can dance around the details all day but the simple question is - does Islam allow Muslims to ‘integrate’ into a non-Muslim society? Yes or no?
Yes, as long as we can practice Islam.

And integration mean acceptance of the fundamental values of that society which is about accepting its cultural values - simple as that. Yes or no?
What cultural values?

format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
It's not about what the law permits it's about what society accepts as its norms. Refusing a handshake is legally your right but is also refusing to accept a cultural norm which in turn is refusing to integrate. Again, your legal right but you should come out and say I will not integrate or I will.
By refusing a handshake with a female staff, that means I'm not integrating? -_-;;

What is wrong with a simple smile and hello? I always say that and it works.

@ τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

What happened to that hand? O_O
Reply

yas2010
02-17-2011, 11:56 PM
This debate surrounds 'muslims' accepting the 'host' cultural 'values'.
What about 'host' accepting certain values of muslims?!
Reply

CosmicPathos
02-17-2011, 11:57 PM
@ thinker: I'd like to use my shaking hand and do a machine-gun slapping maneuver on that monkey face of yours till you evolve into a human! grrrr RAWR.
Reply

GuestFellow
02-18-2011, 12:04 AM
:sl:

I googled British values and here there are:

I. The rule of law. Our society is based on the idea that we all abide by the same rules, whatever our wealth or status. No one is above the law - not even the government.

II. The sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament. The Lords, the Commons and the monarch constitute the supreme authority in the land. There is no appeal to any higher jurisdiction, spiritual or temporal.

III. The pluralist state. Equality before the law implies that no one should be treated differently on the basis of belonging to a particular group. Conversely, all parties, sects, faiths and ideologies must tolerate the existence of their rivals.

IV. Personal freedom. There should be a presumption, always and everywhere, against state coercion. We should tolerate eccentricity in others, almost to the point of lunacy, provided no one else is harmed.

V. Private property. Freedom must include the freedom to buy and sell without fear of confiscation, to transfer ownership, to sign contracts and have them enforced. Britain was quicker than most countries to recognise this and became, in consequence, one of the happiest and most prosperous nations on Earth.

VI. Institutions. British freedom and British character are immanent in British institutions. These are not, mostly, statutory bodies, but spring from the way free individuals regulate each other's conduct, and provide for their needs, without recourse to coercion.

VII. The family. Civic society depends on values being passed from generation to generation. Stable families are the essential ingredient of a stable society.

VIII. History. British children inherit a political culture, a set of specific legal rights and obligations, and a stupendous series of national achievements. They should be taught about these things.

IX. The English-speaking world. The atrocities of September 11, 2001, were not simply an attack on a foreign nation; they were an attack on the anglosphere - on all of us who believe in freedom, justice and the rule of law.

X. The British character. Shaped by and in turn shaping our national institutions is our character as a people: stubborn, stoical, indignant at injustice. "The Saxon," wrote Kipling, "never means anything seriously till he talks about justice and right."
Source
Reply

R Khan
02-18-2011, 12:05 AM
Waah machine-gun slap! :O this bradda is RAGING!

You could probably just train him and level him up a bit and then he'll evolve eventually, most pokemons evolve.
Reply

جوري
02-18-2011, 12:09 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
@ τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ What happened to that hand? O_

It is a mycobacterium pretty much like that which causes TB and Leprosy .. called Mycobacterium ulcerans causes Buruli ulcer.. you can read about it on google if you want..
people should really learn how the other half lives before they fixate on such trivialities!

:w:
Reply

جوري
02-18-2011, 12:11 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
stupendous series of national achievements

I love British talk.. mmmmmmm stupendous
Reply

yas2010
02-18-2011, 12:21 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
. The rule of law. Our society is based on the idea that we all abide by the same rules, whatever our wealth or status. No one is above the law - not even the government.
Is this the same rule that applied to MPs, when they made false expenses claims? Oh Please!!!
Reply

yas2010
02-18-2011, 12:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
Britain was quicker than most countries to recognise this and became, in consequence, one of the happiest and most prosperous nations on Earth.

Nothing to do with the legacy of colonialism then?
Reply

GuestFellow
02-18-2011, 12:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

It is a mycobacterium pretty much like that which causes TB and Leprosy .. called Mycobacterium ulcerans causes Buruli ulcer.. you can read about it on google if you want..
people should really learn how the other half lives before they fixate on such trivialities!

:w:
:sl:

Oh man, that is really sad...may Allah ease their pain.
Reply

GuestFellow
02-18-2011, 12:34 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by yas2010
Is this the same rule that applied to MPs, when they made false expenses claims? Oh Please!!!
:sl:

Well I agree those values do not necessarily reflect reality...
Reply

جوري
02-18-2011, 12:34 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
Oh man, that is really sad...may Allah ease their pain.

ameen ya rabb.. easily treated to with such cheap basic antibiotics but you can tell that they can't afford it.. like many other people in the world.. I'd hate to derail the thread but I find these petty squabbles that westerns fixate on so infuriating..
how many children die each day of starvation and/or dehydration.
how many people young and old are devastated by war and disease as we write
how many people are taking to the streets to protest their oppressive regimes
how much of the world's population lives below poverty line

and this guy is upset because he can't shake hands with a Muslim woman and doesn't like the sight of bearded men? Please give me a freaking break!
we need to put things into perspective for some of these people!
Reply

yas2010
02-18-2011, 12:36 AM
ameen ya rabb.. easily treated to with such cheap basic antibiotics but you can tell that they can't afford it.. like many other people in the world.. I'd hate to derail the thread but I find these petty squabbles that westerns fixate on so infuriating..
how many children die each day of starvation and/or dehydration.
how many people young and old are devastated by war and disease as we write
how many people are taking to the streets to protest their oppressive regimes
how much of the world's population lives below poverty line

and this guy is upset because he can't shake hands with a Muslim woman and doesn't like the sight of bearded men? Please give me a freaking break!
we need to put things into perspective for some of these people!

Sister so beautifully put! :)
Reply

جوري
02-18-2011, 12:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by yas2010
Sister so beautifully put!

Jazaki Allahh khyran dear sister-- I have enjoyed your posts as well :D
Reply

CosmicPathos
02-18-2011, 12:52 AM
He likes to shake hands with a Muslim female. Just admit monkey.
Reply

GuestFellow
02-18-2011, 12:53 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


ameen ya rabb.. easily treated to with such cheap basic antibiotics but you can tell that they can't afford it.. like many other people in the world.. I'd hate to derail the thread but I find these petty squabbles that westerns fixate on so infuriating..
how many children die each day of starvation and/or dehydration.
how many people young and old are devastated by war and disease as we write
how many people are taking to the streets to protest their oppressive regimes
how much of the world's population lives below poverty line

and this guy is upset because he can't shake hands with a Muslim woman and doesn't like the sight of bearded men? Please give me a freaking break!
we need to put things into perspective for some of these people!
:sl:

Sis, what you said complements this thread, it did not derail the topic.

When I go to town, I see homeless people sitting on the street and begging people for money and food and sleep on the ground. Houses are being repossessed and people losing their jobs. However, the mainstream media plus David Cameron are more concerned about whether Muslims are integrating into society...a society that cannot even define its own values.

It is laughable how much attention Muslims get when we make up 2.8% of the British population...
Reply

Woodrow
02-18-2011, 01:01 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
Why does barnacle Bill the sailor wear a beard, why does any none Muslim wear a beard - because they want to. Why do Muslim men wear a beard and why must it be a fist long and with a shaven moustache? You know and I know why and it's not because they want to or because it's fashionable; or do you know why, maybe you don't know what Islam commands?
I can only speak for myself. When I reverted one of my first desires was to grow a beard and I did not even know it was obligatory. I did not think because of my race I would ever have a beard. In the 65 tears before I reverted the closest I could get to a beard was a sick mustache that looked like a wilted caterpillar. About like this:





that guy is supposed to be one of my ancestors on my mother's side. I inherited his beard growing ability. I got my beard because my prayers to grow one were answered. Many of us do have a beard by choice and not just because it is sunnah to have one. Some of us would still have our beard if it was not sunnah, as long as it is permitted too.
Reply

yas2010
02-18-2011, 01:02 AM
When I go to town, I see homeless people sitting on the street and begging people for money and food and sleep on the ground. Houses are being repossessed and people losing their jobs. However, the mainstream media plus David Cameron are more concerned about whether Muslims are integrating into society...a society that cannot even define its own values.

It is laughable how much attention Muslims get when we make up 2.8% of the British population...

:sl:
Brother in Islam

You have hit the nail on the head. Scapegoating and hater mongers will always divert the truth.
We must always remember the perseverance of the Prophet (pbuh) and that we as muslims are like saplings we will survive what ever adversities come our way. Insh'Allah.
:)
Reply

جوري
02-18-2011, 01:05 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
It is laughable how much attention Muslims get when we make up 2.8% of the British population...
sadly all our money is poured into their societies by the billions by these despots that they've instated to govern us.. we get no respect at home or abroad (thanks to their pan-Arabism/colonialism/greed/filth) nearly 200 yrs now to rid ourselves of their grip and have our ummah back on its feet and at this crucial juncture they want to burrow a hole here and a hole there and have us chasing after after our tails or other utter stupidities in the name of 'integration' when it is all just a disgusting scheme to separate Quran from Sunnah and turn us into them, a silly genderless/identity-less people who shelf their religion as an old relic to be visited on holidays if at all.. otherwise sport a scarlet letter on our mosques that we can't integrate so they can better identity us for their target practice. Their stupidities whether 'good natured' or their preferred style of violence always seem to backfire and breed exactly the opposite.. the best part of it all I must admit is when their own 'pure bred' convert to Islam.. like the former PM's sister in law.. ouch that is really got to hurt and frankly it pleases me immensely!

:w:
Reply

جوري
02-18-2011, 01:09 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by mad_scientist
@ thinker: I'd like to use my shaking hand and do a machine-gun slapping maneuver on that monkey face of yours till you evolve into a human! grrrr RAWR.

when I first entered med-school I was this pissed off all the time.. sad to say you'll only be more impatient and more pissed off as the days go by :lol: so try to ration it as to not sap yourself out of juice completely in one setting..

:w:
Reply

Maryan0
02-18-2011, 02:59 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by mad_scientist
@ thinker: I'd like to use my shaking hand and do a machine-gun slapping maneuver on that monkey face of yours till you evolve into a human! grrrr RAWR.
:-\ ...
Salam
Reply

Thinker
02-18-2011, 09:47 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by mad_scientist
He likes to shake hands with a Muslim female. Just admit monkey.
Have you considered the possibility that good evidenced intellectual debate might better progress your views?
Reply

Thinker
02-18-2011, 09:50 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by yas2010
This debate surrounds 'muslims' accepting the 'host' cultural 'values'.
What about 'host' accepting certain values of muslims?!
I’d like to hear your reasons why you believe that non-Muslims living in a non-Muslim country should adopt Islamic customs, practices and values?
Reply

Thinker
02-18-2011, 09:53 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by yas2010
Nothing to do with the legacy of colonialism then?
Groan – come on, that pathetic excuse for failure was beaten to death a long time ago.
Reply

Thinker
02-18-2011, 10:08 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
I can only speak for myself. When I reverted one of my first desires was to grow a beard and I did not even know it was obligatory.
I presume that you now know the reasons why Muslim men are obliged to wear the beard and the beard od a certain style? Does that reason and the statement you make by wearing the beard not alter anyting?
Reply

Thinker
02-18-2011, 10:20 AM
The argument about whether multiculturalism is good or bad is over. It ended when Trevor Philips denounced (Chairman of The Commission for Racial Equality) called for it to be ditched and David Cameron simply nailed the coffin shut – that is that whether you like it or not.

You all shout me down simply for asking for honesty from you all. If you believe that Islam forbids integration into a non-Muslims society just say it, simply state that “we will not integrate, we will not accept and take on the standards and values of British society and it is our intention to set up our own little dar-al-Islam with the UK” - be honest; is that too difficult?

It seems to me that you have three choices:

1. Integrate – which means looking more like your fellow citizens and less like the mujahadeen; accept common social standards (handshakes; talking face to face etc); mixed gender schooling, work and social interaction etc etc.

2. Refuse to integrate and set up you own little versions of dar-al-Islam.

3. Hijrah – Muhammad, knew it wouldn’t work and stated that you shouldn’t do it.

If there is another option I’d like to hear it.
Reply

GuestFellow
02-18-2011, 10:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
You all shout me down simply for asking for honesty from you all.
I didn't shout... :cry:

If you believe that Islam forbids integration into a non-Muslims society just say it, simply state that “we will not integrate, we will not accept and take on the standards and values of British society and it is our intention to set up our own little dar-al-Islam with the UK” - be honest; is that too difficult?
I've said that Muslims will integrate as long as we can practice Islam. Simple really...I have a beard and used to work in a law firm.

It seems to me that you have three choices:

1. Integrate – which means looking more like your fellow citizens and less like the mujahadeen; accept common social standards (handshakes; talking face to face etc); mixed gender schooling, work and social interaction etc etc.
Everyone looks different. There used to be a girl in my class who used to change her hairstyle every month. Some people are into Goth. Some Sikh men wear a Turban and grow a full beard. I've seen Jewish men wear those skull caps.

So I'm not sure what you mean by "looking more like your fellow citizen"...

What is wrong with same sex schools?

So according to you, in order for a person to integrate, they need to achieve the following...

1. Looking more like everyone else...whatever that is.
2. No beard
3. Handshake...
4. Go to mix gender schools
Reply

aamirsaab
02-18-2011, 12:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
I’d like to hear your reasons why you believe that non-Muslims living in a non-Muslim country should adopt Islamic customs, practices and values?
What Islamic customs, practices or values are we talking of exactly?
Reply

سيف الله
02-18-2011, 01:03 PM
Salaam

format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
The argument about whether multiculturalism is good or bad is over. It ended when Trevor Philips denounced (Chairman of The Commission for Racial Equality) called for it to be ditched and David Cameron simply nailed the coffin shut – that is that whether you like it or not.

You all shout me down simply for asking for honesty from you all. If you believe that Islam forbids integration into a non-Muslims society just say it, simply state that “we will not integrate, we will not accept and take on the standards and values of British society and it is our intention to set up our own little dar-al-Islam with the UK” - be honest; is that too difficult?

It seems to me that you have three choices:

1. Integrate – which means looking more like your fellow citizens and less like the mujahadeen; accept common social standards (handshakes; talking face to face etc); mixed gender schooling, work and social interaction etc etc.

2. Refuse to integrate and set up you own little versions of dar-al-Islam.

3. Hijrah – Muhammad, knew it wouldn’t work and stated that you shouldn’t do it.

If there is another option I’d like to hear it.
No

Just because Trevor Philips and David Cameron say multiculturalism failed (actually for David Cameron its State multiculturalism) doesnt make it so.

And your drivel about 'intergration' has nothing to with intergration, its more like 'assimilation'. Forgive me but I have no desire to ape after you or your values.

Having said that there are many aspects of British society that I like and many I dont, I take what I like and compatible with my faith and leave the rest. Its really that simple. If you dont like it *shrug*.

You'd better get used to it.
Reply

جوري
02-18-2011, 01:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
What Islamic customs, practices or values are we talking of exactly?

haven't you been reading? he'd like to shake your woman's hand while shaving you! :D

:w:
Reply

جوري
02-18-2011, 01:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
Groan – come on, that pathetic excuse for failure was beaten to death a long time ago.

I'd have liked to witness that beating rather than hearing about it from you...BTW with this new tidal wave all over the middle east I predict a greater fall to your not so great empire...

by the way (as a none brit) I find that British people to be under-educated and have very poor hygiene. When I lived there for a couple of years this cleaning lady (I assure you a pure bred) used the newspapers that I threw out to wipe her butt -- clogged my toilet on more than one occasion that I ended up just leaving toilet paper in there rather than bringing it to her attention as to not embarrass her-- she always had money for cigarettes though which was a conundrum .. Is that a British custom that Muslims have to adapt to amongst others?

all the best
Reply

Thinker
02-18-2011, 03:47 PM
And it was narrated that ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Umar said: I heard the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “Be different from the mushrikeen: let your beards grow and trim your moustaches

The reason Muhammad decreed that Muslim men must wear that style of beard was so that Muslims could identify themselves from the enemy; the enemy being everyone who was not (is not) a Muslim.

How (dis)integrating is that!!
Reply

جوري
02-18-2011, 04:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
And it was narrated that ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Umar said: I heard the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “Be different from the mushrikeen: let your beards grow and trim your moustaches The reason Muhammad decreed that Muslim men must wear that style of beard was so that Muslims could identify themselves from the enemy; the enemy being everyone who was not (is not) a Muslim. How (dis)integrating is that!!
Have you not read this:
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
Jewish men having beards have it for other reasons, be they simply "to look Jewish"
post # 68..

It isn't 'dis(integrating) it is distinguishing!
people want to keep their own identity-- and that is admirable indeed.. if you don't like it don't have Muslim friends, or Jewish friends, or sikh friends or any kind of people who are distinguished in their own way.. with attitude like yours and comprehension like yours, you're best suited the company of chavs like the cleaning lady who used newspaper to wipe her ass..


good luck to you!
Reply

Thinker
02-18-2011, 07:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

It isn't 'dis(integrating) it is distinguishing!
people want to keep their own identity-- and that is admirable indeed.. if you don't like it don't have Muslim friends, or Jewish friends, or sikh friends or any kind of people who are distinguished in their own way.. with attitude like yours and comprehension like yours, you're best suited the company of chavs like the cleaning lady who used newspaper to wipe her ass..
good luck to you!
It is commonly quite easy to anticipate the responses to my posts but I do live in hope that some of you will put a little thought and research into their response.

If insulting me brings you some comfort or pleasure I really don’t mind but what does puzzle me is that you don’t seem to realise how that portrays you. Can you not see that by responding to structured evidenced argument with childish insults makes you look to be, at best, devoid of an intelligent response and at worse stupid. I know you are better than that; do yourself a favour and try to progress your view with a logical, structured evidenced argument.
Reply

glo
02-18-2011, 07:59 PM
The Christian-Muslim Forum made the following response to the Prime Minister's Speech:

Response to the Prime Minister's speech at the Munich Security Conference from the Presidents of the Christian Muslim Forum:

1. As Presidents of the Christian Muslim Forum we utterly condemn incitement to, and acts of, violence, and support attempts to get to the root of the issues we face together. Our vision is of the UK as an open, inclusive, tolerant society built on strong shared values, supported by Christians and Muslims.

2. However, we are concerned that talking of ‘British values’ can encourage far right groups, who are now using the Prime Minister’s comments in their communications. It can also incorrectly imply that Muslims do not share ‘British values’.

3. We need a national conversation about integration and what an integrated society looks like. As an organisation we promote this conversation locally and nationally, producing a leaflet on Local Friendship. Conversations must involve face to face meeting; lack of dialogue on common values and ‘extremism’ is part of the problem. We have been creating these conversations over the last five years with religious leaders, teachers, women, young people and academics. One major barrier is repeated negative comments about the Muslim community, which encourage segregation and parallel living.

4. We fully recognise the need for Christian and Muslim leaders to condemn violent extremism and seek ways to overcome it, including analysis of the issues and underlying causes.

5. We encourage Christian and Muslim leaders to engage with Government to build a more confident and mature society with a much clearer understanding of our shared values, their roots and everyone’s place within that society.

Rt Revd Dr Richard Cheetham (Co-Chair), Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra (Acting Co-Chair), Dr Nicholas Wood, Shaykh Abbas Ismail, Rt Revd Paul Hendricks, Rt Revd Donnett Thomas
http://www.christianmuslimforum.org/...nisters-speech
Reply

جوري
02-18-2011, 08:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
It is commonly quite easy to anticipate the responses to my posts but I do live in hope that some of you will put a little thought and research into their response.
If you're getting similar responses from multiple people, perhaps the fault then lies with your queries rather than the response to them?
If insulting me brings you some comfort or pleasure I really don’t mind but what does puzzle me is that you don’t seem to realise how that portrays you.
I should care as to how I am being perceived by an ill read ape? I wonder what next!
Can you not see that by responding to structured evidenced argument with childish insults makes you look to be, at best, devoid of an intelligent response and at worse stupid. I know you are better than that; do yourself a favour and try to progress your view with a logical, structured evidenced argument.
No I can't see that, and certainly your pedestrian, repetitive queries shouldn't be dignified with a response all together, if I didn't find the concept of humiliating you so relaxing and virtually appealing! .. but I am surprised that an ape of your stature can formulate an intelligent thought outside of the usual echolalia that we've seen time and again from you.. perhaps you're indeed on the verge of evolving?

all the best
Reply

GuestFellow
02-18-2011, 08:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
How (dis)integrating is that!!

There is a difference between integration and assimilate. What you desire is the latter...

format_quote Originally Posted by Integration

integration [ínti gráysh'n]
n

1. equal access for all: the process of opening a group, community, place, or organization to all, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or social class

2. acceptance into community: the process of becoming an accepted member of a group or community
format_quote Originally Posted by assimilate

assimilate [ə símmi layt]
(3rd person present singular assimilates, present participle assimilating, past and past participle assimilated)
v

1. vti social sciences integrate: to integrate somebody into a larger group, so that differences are minimized or eliminated, or become integrated in this way

[15th century. < Latin assimilat- , past participle of assimilare 'make the same' < similis 'like']

-assimilable [ə símmiləb'l], , adj
-assimilator, , n
-assimilatory [ə símmilətəri, ə símmi láytəri], , adj
^ Definitions from the Microsoft word dictionary...
Reply

Mike3449
02-21-2011, 11:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
What is 'muscular liberalism'?

Also, threads merged.

Whatever it is, it does not sound good.

Would Europe or America invade Serbia today? For any reason?

I don't think so.

I think they would turn a blind eye.
Reply

GuestFellow
02-21-2011, 11:39 PM
^ What has Serbia have to do with this?
Reply

سيف الله
06-05-2011, 03:37 PM
Salaam

Looks like PM Cameron going to take a hardline approach to create a so called 'British' Islam. An Islam that will serve the needs of the British State.

Oh dear, do they never learn from history? :hmm:

PM wins row with Nick Clegg over crackdown on Muslim extremists

Counter-terrorism review insists groups must reflect British mainstream values to get funds


David Cameron will emerge as the victor from a bitter cabinet battle over multiculturalism this week as the government unveils a hardline approach to tackling Islamist extremism.

Home Office sources say that Cameron has quashed Nick Clegg's argument for a more tolerant attitude to Muslim groups by insisting on a strategy centred upon the notion that violent extremism is incubated within the ideology of non-violent extremism. The shift in approach will be outlined when the government's counter-terrorism strategy is unveiled by the home secretary, Theresa May, on Tuesday. Central to the Prevent strategy is a broader definition of extremism that will be extended beyond groups condoning violence to those considered non-violent but whose views, such as the advocacy of sharia law, fail to "reflect British mainstream values".

A Home Office source said: "There will be a direct challenge to these [non-violent] groups."

The Prevent review has been delayed for five months because of disagreements within the coalition cabinet. In his view that engaging with non-violent extremists can be used as a bulwark against violent extremists, Clegg has been joined by the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, the Tory chairman, Baroness Warsi, and others including Charles Farr, the head of the office of security and extremism. They argue it is crucial to maintain a distinction between violent and non-violent extremism and that it is necessary to engage rather than alienate.

Warsi, who sits on the cabinet subcommittee dealing with integration, is understood to disagree strongly with the new direction of Prevent but has been dissuaded from publicly criticising the strategy.

Among those supporting the prime minister on a crackdown on Muslim groups was the education secretary, Michael Gove, and Lord Carlile, who is in charge of the Prevent review. Ostensibly the strategy echoes Cameron's contentious speech to an international counter-terrorism conference in Munich last February when he suggested that "state multiculturalism" had failed. During the speech the Tory leader categorised those who espoused an ideology of Islamic extremism alongside those who supported violence. He said: "Move along the spectrum, and you find people who may reject violence, but who accept various parts of the extremist world view, including real hostility towards western democracy and liberal values."

A Home Office source said: "When a prime minister states something so unequivocally, it is unlikely they will be allowed to deviate from that." The strategy will warn Muslim groups that they will only receive public funding under certain conditions. Groups would be allocated funding on short-term projects but only after proving they do not promote or support extremist views. "Under the old Prevent strategy we sprayed a lot of cash willy-nilly and the new strategy is opposed to that," said the source.

Haras Rafiq, director of Centri, a counter-extremism consultancy, welcomed the strategy, but said the main challenge was implementation. "They need to build a criteria to establish which organisation they fund has extremist views, which one doesn't, and ensure extremist groups do not receive funding from other pots." One group, the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board, which has links to the hardline Muslim Association of Britain, received £250,000 in the year up to April but has already had its annual public funding withdrawn, the Observer has learned.

During the Munich speech Cameron said it was "nonsense" to fund groups with extremist elements, adding: "Would you allow far-right groups a share of public funds if they promise to help you lure young white men away from fascist terrorism? Of course not." The strategy, however, will shy away from naming groups, effectively dismissing speculation that the initiative will proscribe non-violent, extremist Islamist groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir, a step which Cameron has publicly supported but which legal sources advise is not possible. The Conservative manifesto named Hizb ut-Tahrir as a group it wanted to proscribe; in 2009 the then shadow home secretary, Chris Grayling, promised to "immediately ban" the group if the Tories were elected.

The strategy to be unveiled this week will explain that the issue of funding groups that promote community cohesion will be left to the Department for Communities and Local Government. Sources say that under the previous system community groups had to apply for support from counter-terrorism funding, which succeeded only in stigmatising them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...lim-extremists
Reply

Who Am I?
06-05-2011, 09:55 PM
I read that last post and then went and checked the figures for the Islamic population of the UK.

From Wikipedia:

The vast majority of Muslims in the UK live in England and Wales: of 1,591,000 Muslims recorded at the 2001 Census, 1,536,015 were living in England and Wales, where they form 3% of the population; 42,557 were living in Scotland, forming 0.84% of the population; and 1,943 were living in Northern Ireland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_i...United_Kingdom

Only 3% of the population and they're freaking out this much?
Reply

GuestFellow
06-05-2011, 10:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Junon
Salaam

Looks like PM Cameron going to take a hardline approach to create a so called 'British' Islam.
:sl:

He can keep on dreaming.

David Cameron will emerge as the victor from a bitter cabinet battle over multiculturalism this week as the government unveils a hardline approach to tackling Islamist extremism.
It would be helpful if they could explain what "Islamist extremism" means.

Home Office sources say that Cameron has quashed Nick Clegg's argument for a more tolerant attitude to Muslim groups by insisting on a strategy centred upon the notion that violent extremism is incubated within the ideology of non-violent extremism.
This is what Nick Clegg and David Cameron wanted. To disagree on certain issues for the next election.

Central to the Prevent strategy is a broader definition of extremism that will be extended beyond groups condoning violence to those considered non-violent but whose views, such as the advocacy of sharia law, fail to "reflect British mainstream values".
What are mainstream British values? Parts of the Sharia law are already implemented in the UK, but in accordance with British law.

Warsi, who sits on the cabinet subcommittee dealing with integration, is understood to disagree strongly with the new direction of Prevent but has been dissuaded from publicly criticising the strategy.
The strategy will warn Muslim groups that they will only receive public funding under certain conditions.
Then Muslims should not rely on public funding. The Muslim community needs to get organised and gather private donations.

David Cameron is another typical politician. Someone who cannot resolve real difficult problems like unemployment, alcohol related crime and teenage pregnancy and focuses on trivial issues.
Reply

سيف الله
06-05-2011, 10:45 PM
Salaam

Oh, it gets better and better, they really are ramping up the pressure. . . . . .

Universities 'complacent' over Islamic radicals, Theresa May warns

The Home Secretary has criticised universities for their “complacency” in tackling Muslim extremism as she prepares to publish the Government’s updated strategy for countering Islamic radicalism.


Theresa May told The Daily Telegraph that universities were not taking the issue of radicalisation seriously enough and that it was too easy for Muslim extremists to form groups on campuses “without anyone knowing”. She also said the Government would cut funding to any Islamic group that espoused extremist views, and set out the “key British values” to which those seeking support must subscribe. It is understood that about 20 groups are already losing their funding. Mrs May made her comments ahead of the publication this week of the updated version of the Prevent counter-terrorism strategy.

“I think for too long there’s been complacency around universities,” she said. “I don’t think they have been sufficiently willing to recognise what can be happening on their campuses and the radicalisation that can take place. I think there is more that universities can do.”
Mrs May said universities had to “send very clear messages” and “ask themselves some questions about what happens on their campuses”. She also criticised the Federation of Student Islamic Societies for not challenging extremism sufficiently. “They need to be prepared to stand up and say that organisations that are extreme or support extremism or have extremist speakers should not be part of their grouping,” Mrs May said.

Her remarks follow comments made by Nicola Dandridge, the head of Universities UK, which represents vice-chancellors, claiming there was no evidence that extremist speakers at university encouraged violence. As part of the Prevent strategy, the Government will define as extremists anyone who “does not subscribe to human rights, equality before the law, democracy and full participation in society”, including those who “promote or implicitly tolerate the killing of British soldiers”.

Mrs May said: “We are looking at a set of values we believe we have here in the UK and those people opposed to those values are people who the Government won’t be funding or engaging with.” It is understood that the strategy will also name 25 boroughs that are most at risk from Islamist extremism, including areas of London, Birmingham, Leeds, Bradford and Manchester. There will also be a move to limit access to extremist websites from public buildings, particularly schools and public libraries.

Details of partnerships with YouTube and AOL to try to tackle extremism online, using lessons learned from anti-paedophile policing will be made public. As well as fighting violent extremism, the Government will tackle extremist philosophies in general, including groups that can act as a “stepping stone” to terrorism. “There’s an ideology out there that we need to challenge and when we first came in as a government one of the things we were very clear about here at the Home Office was we needed to look at extremism, not just violent extremism,” Mrs May said.

As a result of Prevent’s review of government support, about 20 out of 1,800 organisations that received funding over the past three years, will have their cash withdrawn. “It’s a result of a close look at the values of the organisations themselves,” Mrs May said. “There’s more that we will be doing because it is very clear that we are going to be much more focused on effective monitoring and the effectiveness of groups and making sure that they are having an outcome.

“This isn’t just about giving money to groups and the number of people they deal with, it’s about a proper outcome.” The strategy will also seek to counter radical Right-wing terrorists following a rise in the threat from such extremists. “We should not just look at one particular type of terrorism but look at violent extremism and terrorism more widely as well,” Mrs May said. The Home Secretary said the Prime Minister gave “a very clear message” in a speech in Munich in February when he spoke of the failure of multiculturalism. “We are putting into play what comes out of that Munich speech,” she said.

The Government will produce two strategies, with the second “integration strategy” to be published by the Department for Communities and Local Government later in the year. “In the past the brand of Prevent has become slightly tainted and we want to separate those strands of community cohesion,” Mrs May said. Prevent has been criticised in some quarters as a means to spy on the Muslim community, but Mrs May said: “I don’t see anything wrong with identifying people who are vulnerable to being taken down a certain route, who could become a threat to members of the public.

“We need to encourage people to be willing to identify vulnerable individuals. Most people recognise the value of using all the tools available to prevent terrorist activity and encourage people to actively talk to the police. “Everyone who has an interest in being part of British society should recognise that we are all in this together.” The strategy will also incorporate the Prime Minister’s pet project, the Big Society, promoting the idea of mobilising the “silent majority” of Muslims.

“Sending clear messages about our values is part of the information we want to put out,” said Mrs May.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...May-warns.html
Reply

Ramadhan
06-06-2011, 02:35 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Junon
Salaam Looks like PM Cameron going to take a hardline approach to create a so called 'British' Islam. An Islam that will serve the needs of the British State. Oh dear, do they never learn from history? PM wins row with Nick Clegg over crackdown on Muslim extremists Counter-terrorism review insists groups must reflect British mainstream values to get funds


:sl:

This news actually make me LOL. It clearly shows and is evidence that the so-called "democratic" and "free" western countries are mere hypocrites.
Where's Trumble when you need him?
Reply

Who Am I?
06-06-2011, 04:13 AM
Like I said, 3% of their population and they're going nuts over an "Islamic Invasion".
Reply

Trumble
06-06-2011, 06:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ramadhan
This news actually make me LOL. It clearly shows and is evidence that the so-called "democratic" and "free" western countries are mere hypocrites.
Where's Trumble when you need him?
While it's always nice to be wanted, I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere for someone to defend Cameron and (particularly) Clegg from any charges of hypocrisy!!

Needless to say, though, it 'clearly shows' nothing of the sort. People can be hypocrites, countries cannot.
Reply

سيف الله
06-09-2011, 12:25 AM
Salaam

Two interesting response.



PREVENT: Cameron admits defeat by forcing Muslims to convert to liberal values

Ahead of the launch of the government’s revised PREVENT strategy, it has been widely reported that it will link violent extremism with Islamic beliefs – which in themselves have no link to violence but simply contradict secular liberal values. The British government is now openly exhibiting totalitarian tendencies, forcing Muslims to subscribe to a monolithic set of government approved values.

The fact that they are resorting to this aggressive approach is an admission that they have completely failed to convince Muslims through argument and discussion.

Commenting on the PREVENT review, Taji Mustafa, media representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Britain said: “This policy has nothing to do with security. It is about forcing a set of values on a community simply because their beliefs do not conform to secular liberal norms, and is proof that liberals can be supremacist.”

“After bombing Afghanistan and Pakistan, does Mr Cameron still expect people to believe in the Blairite delusion that it is Islamic beliefs that are the cause of security threats to the UK? Most serious observers have abandoned this discredited world view, which continues to be propagated by some politicians, and self-serving think tanks and academics whose funding relies on such nonsense.”

“This Conservative-Liberal government has decided to display an open hostility to Islam – threatening to cut funding to some groups – in order to impose Cameron’s definition of ‘British’ values, and coercing Muslims to leave any Islamic values that the government labels ‘extremist’. It is worth recalling that the Blair-Brown government’s definition of ‘extremism’ included a belief in the Islamic Caliphate system of governance in the Muslim world; Islamic values in relation to intimate relations between men and women; and views on resistance to Western occupation in the Muslim world.”

“Our message to the Muslim community is: let the government keep their funding and let us keep our Islamic values. PREVENT funding has been largely rejected by the Muslim community who look at those who took it with suspicion so this ‘withdrawal’ is unlikely to affect many. This community built thousands of mosques, businesses, and schools largely without government funding. It was through initiative, hard work and most of all the help of Allah (swt). No amount of government funding will compensate for us abandoning our Islamic principles and values.”

“Our community would be doing a great injustice to itself and destroying decades of hard work if it did what Cameron and his government ask of us: to put loyalty to him above loyalty to the wider Muslim Ummah; to feel happy and proud when he orders British troops to kill Muslims in colonial wars; to accept his version of sexual morality as the norm; and to remain silent when oppression of the Ummah conflicts with British foreign policy interests.”

“At a time when people in the West are seriously questioning the capitalist economic system, the West’s destructive colonial exploits around the world, the sexualisation of youth culture, the breakdown of family life, and the rise of disrespect and antisocial behaviour, does Mr Cameron seriously expect Muslims – in Britain or elsewhere – not to look to Islam for answers that would best suit their community and indeed the wider world?”

“For years, governments in the Middle East that had accepted British and American money in order to curb the rise of Islamic values and secure Western interests are now reaping the response from their oppressed and exploited people. Now, it seems Mr Cameron hopes to bring this discredited colonial approach to Muslim communities within Britain.”

“The Muslim community should reject such proposals to compromise our Islamic values as a condition of citizenship and instead work hard to preserve and uphold Islamic values, and engage with the people in the wider society based upon these noble values.”

http://www.hizb.org.uk/current-affai...liberal-values
Reply

سيف الله
06-09-2011, 08:49 PM
Salaam

The campaign to secularise Islam continues. . . . .

Bill limiting sharia law is motivated by 'concern for Muslim women'

Lady Cox, the proposer, says aim is to prevent discrimination against Muslim women and 'jurisdiction creep' in Islamic tribunals


Islamic courts would be forced to acknowledge the primacy of English law under a bill being introduced in the House of Lords.

The bill, proposed by Lady Cox and backed by women's rights groups and the National Secular Society, was drawn up because of "deep concerns" that Muslim women are suffering discrimination within closed sharia law councils.

The Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill will introduce an offence carrying a five-year jail sentence for anyone falsely claiming or implying that sharia courts or councils have legal jurisdiction over family or criminal law. The bill, which will apply to all arbitration tribunals if passed, aims to tackle discrimination, which its supporters say is inherent in the courts, by banning the sharia practice of giving woman's testimony only half the weight of men's.

Cox said: "Equality under the law is a core value of British justice. My bill seeks to preserve that standard"

In a similar way to Jewish Beth Din courts, sharia tribunals can make verdicts in cases involving financial and property issues which, under the 1996 Arbitration Act, are enforceable by county courts or the high court.

The tribunals should only be deciding civil disputes but two years ago the think-tank Civitas claimed sharia courts, some 85 of which operate in Birmingham, London, Bradford and Manchester, had crossed the proper limits of their jurisdiction and were regularly giving illegal advice on marriage and divorce.

Cox said they are increasingly ruling on family and criminal cases, including child custody and domestic violence. Jurisdiction "creep" had caused considerable suffering among women compelled to return to abusive husbands, or to give up children and property.

Diana Nammi, of the Iranian and Kurdish Women's Rights Organisation, said: "Women and children are very vulnerable members of the community and under sharia law they become invisible. Women and children are the most vulnerable in minority communities where religion tradition and culture has become the identity taking precedence over the human rights and women's rights that are protected under civil, UK law."

The bill requires public bodies to inform women they have fewer legal rights if their marriage is unrecognised in English law. Cox said she had found "considerable evidence" of women, some of whom are brought to Britain speaking little English and kept ignorant of their legal rights, suffering domestic violence or unequal access to divorce, due to discriminatory decisions made. "We cannot continue to condone this situation. Many women say: 'We came to this country to escape these practices only to find the situation is worse here.' "

Cox said she would be asking the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, who caused a row last year when he said a recognised role for sharia law seemed unavoidable, to back her bill. She said: "By appearing to condone this inherent discrimination system which is causing real suffering to women, he has failed to recognise that suffering. He is appearing to forward the acceptability and validity of Sharia law in this country."

Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said: "Laws should not impinge on religious freedoms, nor should courts judge on theological matters. By the same token, democratically determined and human rights compliant law must take precedence over the law of any religion."

Aina Khan, a solicitor who advises on sharia law, said: "It is good in parts. I would like to see best practice in sharia councils, like in the Beth Din model and I would like some legislation. I don't want somebody opening up a sharia board in their front room. Of course sex discrimination laws must apply. But there are some alarmist tones in the bill. Where she goes wrong is assuming that some sort of misogyny and discrimination goes on. Eighty per cent of its users are women."

Khurshid Drabu, adviser on constitutional affairs to the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "Bills of this kind don't help anybody. They don't appear to understand that we live in a free country where people can make free choices. Yet again, it appears to be a total misunderstanding of the concept that underpins these arbitration councils. Sharia councils operate under consent. If there is a woman who suffers as a result of a decision by one of these councils a woman is free to go to the British courts."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/j...s-muslim-women
Reply

GuestFellow
06-09-2011, 10:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Junon
Salaam

The campaign to secularise Islam continues. . . . .
Salaam,

It will be interesting to see how this ends.

Bill limiting sharia law is motivated by 'concern for Muslim women'
I find that hard to believe.

Lady Cox, the proposer, says aim is to prevent discrimination against Muslim women and 'jurisdiction creep' in Islamic tribunals
This is the same women who supports Dutch MP Gilbert.

Islamic courts would be forced to acknowledge the primacy of English law under a bill being introduced in the House of Lords.
What planet is she from? Does she understand the British legal system?

These Islamic Tribunals are ADR (alternative dispute resolution). This means to resolve disputes outside of the traditional courts (e.g.County Court). It is encouraged for people to resolve disputes by themselves to save time and money and the Judge will not consider your claim if you have not tried to resolve the dispute without considering ADR.

These Tribunals already comply with existing legislation. For example, Muslim Arbitration Tribunal complies with the Arbitration Act 1996.


The bill, proposed by Lady Cox and backed by women's rights groups and the National Secular Society, was drawn up because of "deep concerns" that Muslim women are suffering discrimination within closed sharia law councils.
I want to know the name of these women's rights groups and what evidence they have that Muslim women are suffering discrimination.

The Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill will introduce an offence carrying a five-year jail sentence for anyone falsely claiming or implying that sharia courts or councils have legal jurisdiction over family or criminal law.
....What? How is this going to be implemented?

The bill, which will apply to all arbitration tribunals if passed, aims to tackle discrimination, which its supporters say is inherent in the courts, by banning the sharia practice of giving woman's testimony only half the weight of men's.
I will be VERY surprised if this bill is passed. This is rubbish.

The tribunals should only be deciding civil disputes but two years ago the think-tank Civitas claimed sharia courts, some 85 of which operate in Birmingham, London, Bradford and Manchester, had crossed the proper limits of their jurisdiction and were regularly giving illegal advice on marriage and divorce.
What happened then? Did they cross the limits for their jurisdiction?
Reply

سيف الله
06-10-2011, 09:11 PM
Salaam

Thanks for the reply brother and I more or less agree with your objections. Ill reply eventually on what I think is going what the government is trying to do is to manipulate Muslims into assimilation. Thats what I think

Heres another very interesting article on this subject, lessons to be learned from history.

Kulturkampf (Culture War)

Kladderadatsch 1875   Zwischen Berlin und Rom?formatjpg -

The German term About this sound Kulturkampf (help·info) (literally, "culture struggle") refers to German policies in relation to secularity and the influence of the Roman Catholic Church, enacted from 1871 to 1878 by the Prime Minister of Prussia, Otto von Bismarck. The Kulturkampf did not extend to the other German states such as Bavaria.

The Catholic Church comprised one third of the population of Prussia. In the newly founded German Empire, Bismarck sought to appeal to liberals and Protestants by reducing the political and social influence of the Catholic Church.

Priests and bishops who resisted the Kulturkampf were arrested or removed from their positions. By the height of anti-Catholic legislation, half of the Prussian bishops were in prison or in exile, a quarter of the parishes had no priest, half the monks and nuns had left Prussia, a third of the monasteries and convents were closed, 1800 parish priests were imprisoned or exiled, and thousands of laypeople were imprisoned for helping the priests.

Bismark's program backfired, as it energized the Catholics to become a political force in the Centre party. With a new pope willing to negotiate, and with the loss of the anti-Catholic Liberals on other issues, Bismarck dropped the Kulturkampf. Bismarck then gained the Centre party support on most policy positions, especially his attacks against Socialism.

Long term results

Nearly all German bishops, clergy, and laymen rejected the legality of the new laws, and were defiant in the face of heavier and heavier penalties and imprisonments in closed by Bismarck's government by 1876, all the Prussian bishops were imprisoned or in exile, and a third of the Catholic parishes were without a priest. In the face of systematic defiance, the Bismarck government increased the penalties and its attacks, and were challenged in 1875 when a papal encyclical declared the whole ecclesiastical legislation of Prussia was invalid, and threatened to excommunicate any Catholic who obeyed. There was no violence, but the Catholics mobilized their support, set up numerous civic organizations, raised money to pay fines, and rallied behind their church and the Center Party. The government had set up a capital old-Catholic Church, which attracted only a few thousand members.

Bismarck realized his Kulturkampf was a failure when secular and socialist elements used the opportunity to attack all religion. In the long run, the most significant result was the mobilization of the Catholic voters, and their insistence on protecting their church. In the elections of 1874, the Center party doubled its popular vote, and became the second-largest party in the national parliament—and remained a powerful force for the next 60 years, so that after Bismarck it became difficult to form a government without their support.

Origin and character of the Kulturkampf

In the decades before the Kulturkampf began, the 1850s and 1860s, there existed extensive and entrenched anti-Jesuit paranoia, anti-Catholicism, anti-monasticism and anti-clericalism. Since 1848, the German states saw a resurgence of Catholic monastic life and a growth in the number of monasteries and convents.[22] German liberals monitored and tabulated a dramatic rise in the numbers and types of monasteries, convents and clerical religious, a fact which made for convenient propaganda, the monastic life being cast as the epitome of a backward Catholic medievalism.

Prussian authorities were particularly suspect of the spread of monastic life east and west into the Polish and French ethnic areas. The Diocese of Cologne, for example, saw a tenfold increase of monks and nuns between 1850 and 1872, and other areas saw similar increases.

A wave of anti-Catholicism and anti-Catholic propaganda accompanied the Kulturkampf, accompanied by “outright hatred” by the liberals who considered Catholics the enemy of the modern German nation. The Kulturkampf was not, however, a spontaneous popular occurrence, but “a campaign against the Catholic Church conducted through the law, with the police and bureaucracy as its principal agents”, the legality of which gave it its “sinister character”:

Clergy arrested, humiliated, and marched through the streets by the police; house searches conducted by the police looking for evidence of disloyalty; the Catholic press suppressed; the civil service cleansed of Catholics; the Army used to disperse a Catholic crowd gathered to witness the appearance of the Virgin; nuns and monks and clergy fleeing the country; official support for popular harassment and intimidation of Catholics.
No one however was killed and few were injured, as Bismarck did not seek to extinguish Catholicism in his land, but rather sought to assimilate the Polish peasants and saw international Catholicism as an enemy of the "still fragile German Reich".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulturkampf

Edit:

I know its a serious situation but heres some light relief,

This is what the establishment want to turn Muslims into



The horror :skeleton:
Reply

Amadeus85
06-12-2012, 11:32 PM
This short clip says all about modern multiculturalism in Europe.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AOc4CfSYv4
Reply

Pygoscelis
06-15-2012, 07:00 PM
Multiculturalism may have failed in Europe, but it is thriving in Canada. It can work!
Reply

Muezzin
06-15-2012, 07:04 PM
Why has this thread been resurrected after a year?
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!