What's the right way for UK Muslims to persuade extremists to stop being extremists?

[cooterhein]

There are certain people and a certain organization in the UK that (from what I've been told here) don't have grassroots support from UK Muslims on the whole. They do have support from the UK government, but it's not getting much traction from the broader Muslim community, specifically most of the people on this forum.

So. Without naming names or engaging in ad hominem attacks on people that I went out of my way Not to name, I have a couple of questions about where you are at.

Question one. On several occasions, I have seen the term "government stooge" repeatedly used, along with statements to the effect that some Muslims just repeat what the UK government wants them to say about extremism. Please read this question carefully and actually answer it, because this is the thing that I need an answer to. What exactly is the UK government saying about extremism, and what exactly is wrong with it?

Question two. Suppose a Muslim used to be an extremist, but now he's not, and what he now does is convince other people to take the same path of leaving extremism. If this were done in a forum-approved, truly grassroots manner, what would that look like? What would be the primary arguments against extremism, and in the end, would the newly-minted non-extremist seek to protect the lives of apostates, gay people, offensive cartoonists, Salman Rushdie, etc.?

Question three. As far as you're able to tell, is there any sort of proper grassroots desire among UK Muslims to get extremists to stop being extremists? If that's not the case, what do the grassroots want instead of that?

 

[Abz2000]

One would need to research the definotion of the term "extremism" and wonder if a government is guilty of atheist/secular/economic extremism, or atheist transgression beyond bounds before looking at how people who are reacting should be labelled and what should be done to stifle lawful reaction.

Actually, i find that people haven't yet reacted to the crimes of the u.k government up to the extent allowed by the law of equal retaliation which keeps criminals in check, for if they had, london, and especially SW1 would be a smouldering ruin.

 

[M.I.A.]

can't stop em, stay away from them.

doesn't really help that the western government's are penalising western Muslims..

my advice would be to pick up on any discrimination and report it to the police.

Maybe raise how the police respond, with local councillors and mp's.

...that probably doesn't answer the opening post, such a narrow minded view of the world probably already has its own answer.

my post?

it's what the Jews do.

you might think it fear.. never be so niev, most people don't chuck there lives away for people that couldn't care less.

as for protecting anybody,

all people are free to walk the land and do as they do.. and each person is lead on a path of questions and answers.

no comment and a quick phonecall should always be available.

...for those with low speech skills.


cool I'll have one of everything.

 

[Serinity]

we have to know extremism according to what Qur'an and the Sunnah deems extremism.

Sodomy is condemned in Islam, so I don't see why we'd ever protect their rights. Apostates are killed after trial, if they don't return in a state controlled by Shariah.

As for protecting offenders and those who do propaganda against Islam, with satire etc. I'd assume it to be kufr if one knows what he is doing. Protecting someone who ridicules your religion? Never.

Never will I protect someone who does satire with my religion. That is like protecting someone for insulting and doing satire with your wife or mother. But to a higher level.

you are basically asking us to go against our religion by protecting people who transgress the limits of Allah?

 

[kritikvernunft]

On several occasions, I have seen the term "government stooge" repeatedly used, along with statements to the effect that some Muslims just repeat what the UK government wants them to say about extremism.

Yes, but if the government pays you enough money to say that kind of things, why would you NOT do that? Extracting money from the government is a good thing (tm)! As long as it is clear to everybody that you are being paid good money by the government to say what you are saying, there should be no problem whatsoever in doing that. I would actually quite encourage it.

Suppose a Muslim used to be an extremist, but now he's not, and what he now does is convince other people to take the same path of leaving extremism.

Since it is not particularly clear what "extremism" means, there is no problem with convincing people to abandon and leave undefined beliefs. I do that all the time!

The term "extremism" has no definition but it certainly has a negative connotation. So, you could educate other people on the truth: "Extremism" is a term meant to express negative feelings about others. If I call you a "extremist", I do not mean anything besides the fact that I want to say that I do not like you.

Question three. As far as you're able to tell, is there any sort of proper grassroots desire among UK Muslims to get extremists to stop being extremists?

When I do not like someone, I will not particularly call him an "extremist", because the government already uses that term to designate people that they consider undesirable. I am too single-minded to adopt other people's terminology. That is why I use my own. Therefore, I prefer to use another term to express negative feelings about someone:

You are an unorthodox abnormalist!

It means nothing else than the fact that I do not like this person.
This person should be shunned, rejected, banned, expelled, disavowed, reprobated, dismissed, and utterly repudiated!

 

[cooterhein]

we have to know extremism according to what Qur'an and the Sunnah deems extremism.

Sodomy is condemned in Islam, so I don't see why we'd ever protect their rights.

Hopefully, out of a general distaste for extra-judicial violence. Everyone should be protected from that, right?

Apostates are killed after trial, if they don't return in a state controlled by Shariah.

I think you know there's plenty of apostates that are frequently killed without any judicial process, and it happens in Muslim majority and minority countries that are not controlled by Shariah all the time.

As for protecting offenders and those who do propaganda against Islam, with satire etc. I'd assume it to be kufr if one knows what he is doing. Protecting someone who ridicules your religion? Never.

I think I understand what you're saying. Nobody, especially some kufr, should feel as if they are able to propagate anything anti-Islam, criticize the religion or satirize Mohammed. My question is:

Or what?

Answer carefully, depending on how you answer you may be an extremist.

Never will I protect someone who does satire with my religion. That is like protecting someone for insulting and doing satire with your wife or mother. But to a higher level.

I understand the comparison, however in both instances I would have an interest in protecting freedom of speech and the speaker as well.

you are basically asking us to go against our religion by protecting people who transgress the limits of Allah?

No, I'm not asking you to do that. Here's what I'm asking you to do.

I'm asking you to understand that although you believe in Islamic law, and although you may see people breaking Islamic law, you are not law enforcement. No one has ever given you the responsibility of enforcing that law or any other, and you probably don't know anyone who actually has the job of enforcing Islamic law.

So you are not law enforcement, neither is he, neither is that guy, and the guy who just threw a gay man off the roof? He's not law enforcement either. So you shouldn't take it on yourself to punish those who break Islamic law, and you should also help inform other potentially confused Muslims if they seem to think they are law enforcement, because they are not. Could you pass that along if the situation should arise?

Now, does any of that put you in a position where you're going against your religion?

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you cooterhein;

I'm asking you to understand that although you believe in Islamic law, and although you may see people breaking Islamic law, you are not law enforcement. No one has ever given you the responsibility of enforcing that law or any other, and you probably don't know anyone who actually has the job of enforcing Islamic law.

America has bombed and invaded countless countries, who gave them the right to impose their law on other countries? America and Britain have caused far more misery on this Earth than ISIS. If America and Britain consider themselves to be Christian Nations, then we should love and pray for our enemies, not bomb them.

Serenity
Never will I protect someone who does satire with my religion. That is like protecting someone for insulting and doing satire with your wife or mother.

Cooterhein
But to a higher level. I understand the comparison, however in both instances I would have an interest in protecting freedom of speech and the speaker as well.

So if someone was to flood the internet with pornographic cartoons of your wife and mother, you would protect their right to do so, rather than protect the rights of your wife and mother. This is not my idea of human rights.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people

Eric

 

[jabeady]

So if someone was to flood the internet with pornographic cartoons of your wife and mother, you would protect their right to do so, rather than protect the rights of your wife and mother. This is not my idea of human rights.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people

Eric

All rights have limits. One saying we have here is that Free Speech does not allow you to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Publishing pornographic pictures of someone without their permission violates their rights on several grounds, and is generally illegal for other reasons. A second saying is that your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins.

However, more to the point, we have another saying: In order to have free speech, you must protect the speech you hate. This has led to such odd occurrences as Jewish lawyers defending American Nazis. It's often distasteful, but necessary. And yes, I would do it.

 

[sister herb]

However, more to the point, we have another saying: In order to have free speech, you must protect the speech you hate. This has led to such odd occurrences as Jewish lawyers defending American Nazis. It's often distasteful, but necessary. And yes, I would do it.

I am still waiting the situation where those whose protect the unlimited freedom of speech, spread their own hate speech and then start to protect the rights of some other extremists whose yell at the street corners that all non-Muslims should to kill. They don´t do anything else than only use their unlimited freedom of the speech.

Then we have real "freedom of the speech" in the society.

 

[M.I.A.]

However, more to the point, we have another saying: In order to have free speech, you must protect the speech you hate. This has led to such odd occurrences as Jewish lawyers defending American Nazis. It's often distasteful, but necessary. And yes, I would do it.

...did he win?

or turn into a sheep or something?

 

[cooterhein]

Greetings and peace be with you cooterhein;



America has bombed and invaded countless countries, who gave them the right to impose their law on other countries? America and Britain have caused far more misery on this Earth than ISIS. If America and Britain consider themselves to be Christian Nations, then we should love and pray for our enemies, not bomb them.

I think you basically want to hurt people who make you angry, and if this wasn't your excuse you'd find a different one.

So if someone was to flood the internet with pornographic cartoons of your wife and mother, you would protect their right to do so, rather than protect the rights of your wife and mother. This is not my idea of human rights.

That's actually illegal, and I would do everything in my power to ensure that law enforcement handles it properly. Actual law enforcement, not me taking the law into my own hands.

Can you please say just one thing that would indicate that you're opposed to extra-judicial violence on principle? Give me something. All I see so far is excuses for illegal behavior.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people

Eric

You know there's people who get hired and have an actual job description that involves ensuring justice for all people.

 

[cooterhein]

All rights have limits. One saying we have here is that Free Speech does not allow you to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Publishing pornographic pictures of someone without their permission violates their rights on several grounds, and is generally illegal for other reasons. A second saying is that your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins.

However, more to the point, we have another saying: In order to have free speech, you must protect the speech you hate. This has led to such odd occurrences as Jewish lawyers defending American Nazis. It's often distasteful, but necessary. And yes, I would do it.

You bring up a very good point, freedom of speech is not entirely without legal limits. Notice I'm invoking legality, while acknowledging there are limits.

Speech that incites violence (accompanied by words like imminent present danger) may be prosecuted by law, certain pornographic speech is restricted especially where it's underage or non-consenting, yelling fire in a crowded theater is another good example. There are limits to free speech, and in the UK, as it is almost anywhere that you'd want to live, there are laws that describe the limits of free speech pretty precisely.

There are also people who enforce the law, they are collectively known as law enforcement.

There is also a certain kind of person who becomes very angry when someone offends them, albeit without breaking any of the laws of the UK, and they decide it's time for some illegal, lawless, extra-judicial violence. Why? Because somewhere else in the world, bombs are being dropped. Or because back in their homeland, important religious leaders will praise them and say "you are a ghazi," or "you died a shaheed," or "you were defending namoos-e-Rasool."

So yes, there are limits to free speech. Those limits are known to us by laws, and they are enforced by law enforcement. It's a pretty simple system, and if anyone is looking for the place where you get to break into that system and do harm (illegally I might add) because of your great anger and offense, that's not supposed to happen. It's not a part of the system, and it will always be a bug no matter how much anyone wants to make it a feature.

Not you, of course, not the person I'm replying to. Thank you for pointing out the limits of free speech and for the rest of your reply, which was very nice to see. I know it's hard sometimes, and I appreciate the effort that you're making.

 

[Scimitar]

However, more to the point, we have another saying: In order to have free speech, you must protect the speech you hate. This has led to such odd occurrences as Jewish lawyers defending American Nazis. It's often distasteful, but necessary. And yes, I would do it.

Do what? protect the right to someones hate speech?

There is a difference between free speech and hate speech, but the American bill of rights has blurred the difference.

And that's the American brand of "free speech", the sheeple version. Yes.

Scimi

 

[cooterhein]

I am still waiting the situation where those whose protect the unlimited freedom of speech, spread their own hate speech and then start to protect the rights of some other extremists whose yell at the street corners that all non-Muslims should to kill. They don´t do anything else than only use their unlimited freedom of the speech.

Then we have real "freedom of the speech" in the society.

Anyone who believes in truly unlimited freedom of speech is bound to do something illegal at some point and get in trouble for it, because the law of the UK does not permit truly unlimited freedom of speech. I actually am aware of the legal limits on freedom of speech, and it is good that there are some limits.

Here's the thing. I have a particular message that I'm trying to get across, and it doesn't have anything to do with arguing that free speech is limitless (it's not) or that I may offend people however much I want (again, there are limits, and I don't particularly want to offend people a whole lot). There is a certain message I'm trying to get across though, and here it is.

Obey the law. Seriously, obey the law. Even if you are angry, even if you are offended, obey the law. Don't change the subject to foreign policy, don't explain to me just how super angry you are, just obey the law. Once I'm very sure that you intend to obey the law on a consistent basis, then you can talk about whatever you like.

You are not law enforcement. If you think you are, but you're really not, and you go ahead and punish someone for breaking Islamic law, you are actually the one who's breaking the law. UK law, the kind that gets you sent to prison. If you survive the encounter.

So it all really comes back to just one thing. Obey the law. Which is to say, the law of the UK, if that's where you live.

Pretty simple, right? I hope everybody can do that, even if you do object to certain aspects of UK and US foreign policy. Of course there are very good reasons to have a problem with that, I'm sure those reasons are well founded, but still. Obey the law. It's pretty simple, and I honestly hope that everyone here will be able to do that.

Also, please keep in mind that every once in awhile, you will be offended and angered by people for religious reasons- just ask yourself if the offensive person is breaking the law. If they are, get law enforcement on it. It's not your job to handle. If they are not breaking the law, do whatever you like, just as long as you make sure you're not breaking the law either.

 

[cooterhein]

Do what? protect the right to someones hate speech?

There is a difference between free speech and hate speech, but the American bill of rights has blurred the difference.

And that's the American brand of "free speech", the sheeple version. Yes.

Scimi

It's a pretty simple concept, Scimi. I'm asking you to obey the law.

Just obey the law. Do you think you can do that? If you are offended and angered by someone for religious reasons, make sure you put an actual law enforcement person on it if someone broke the law while offending you. Don't handle it yourself. And if you are offended by someone who didn't break the law while doing so, make sure you don't break the law either.

Do you think you can obey the law, Scimi? Can you make sure you always do so on a regular basis, please? That's all I want. If you want to call me "sheeple" because of that, well and good. Just as long as you obey the law, okay?

Yes, of course I'll obey the law, what do you take me for? Of course I'll obey the law, why would you even question that? Is what I hope to hear back from you.

 

[Abz2000]

Yes, obey the law which is most just and most authoritative, you'll always end up at square one in it's complete form because nothing whatsoever can stand against the wisdom of the Creator and Master of the universe and succeed long term.
It is also futile to attempt to totally compartmentalize the law into "foreign policy" and "local policy"
in order to attempt to justify an unjust standard since the same sun rises over all of us and so does the moon.
Such methods of provoking greed and unjust selfishness via racism are quite outdated and impotent before a globally awakened people.
And i also find it quite distasteful when people duped into secularism shift the blame for criminal actions by the government between margaret thatcher, john major, tony blair, brown, cameron, labour, lib-dem, tories, con-dem, etc when they had the same monarch either blackmailed or willingly signing the authorization letters, appears to be quite a distractive theatre.

The distinction of Islamic law is that it doesn't differentiate based upon racism and imaginary borders that are regularly violated, but upon justice and injustice, truth and falsehood.
So please consider when the devil attempts to instigate into placing bull/horse manure on the scales to counter-measure pure and wholesome food grain.

 

[cooterhein]

Abz, all I'm asking you to do is clearly state that you will always obey the law of the UK (assuming that's where you live) and that you will not attempt to enforce Islamic law on account of you not being law enforcement, and you will most certainly not do anything pertaining to Islamic law that would violate the law of the UK.

Can you do this?

 

[Scimitar]

It's a pretty simple concept, Scimi. I'm asking you to obey the law.

Just obey the law. Do you think you can do that? If you are offended and angered by someone for religious reasons, make sure you put an actual law enforcement person on it if someone broke the law while offending you. Don't handle it yourself. And if you are offended by someone who didn't break the law while doing so, make sure you don't break the law either.

Are you an idiot or something? honest question. Where did I state I don't obey law? you must be completely heretical as a Christian to come off with such idiotic appeals... don't be offended - free speech is all good right?

Do you think you can obey the law, Scimi? Can you make sure you always do so on a regular basis, please? That's all I want. If you want to call me "sheeple" because of that, well and good. Just as long as you obey the law, okay?

I won't call you a sheep, i'll call you something more accurate - fundamentally inflexible to ideas - hypocritically you think you can discuss the very same ideas you make mince meat out of.

And yes, in case you were wondering, I'm typing this from a cell coz I broke laws - NAAAAT

Yes, of course I'll obey the law, what do you take me for? Of course I'll obey the law, why would you even question that? Is what I hope to hear back from you.

You can obey whoever you like - I'll obey God instead - while you obey the laws of men.

My doctrinal investment ensures that I stay well within the boundaries of laws men make - because as a Muslim I have a tighter understanding of what I can and cannot do. While western laws give humans rights to abuse each other - the very same you hold highly, I crush under my foot and treat all humans equal, regardless of race, religion or whatever.

Meanwhile - you as a Christian have no moral laws nor limitations on diet or alcohol because Paul did away with them - the man your camp call a saint, but is actually described in Zechariah 11:16-17 no?

How about we indulge in some comparatives? between your book and mine?

You clearly have come here with green ears and zealoutry misplaced - the most morally sound religion on the face of this earth is Islam - and modern law systems owe a debt of gratitude to Islam and Muhammad pbuh last sermon.

Oh look, we back here again.

Scimi

 

[Abz2000]

Abz, all I'm asking you to do is clearly state that you will always obey the law of the UK (assuming that's where you live) and that you will not attempt to enforce Islamic law on account of you not being law enforcement, and you will most certainly not do anything pertaining to Islamic law that would violate the law of the UK.

Can you do this?

Oh dear, now you're asking for conditions despite the status quo?
Ok, let me be straightforward and simple: i will to the best of my ability comply with any law which complies with the laws of God and doesn't go against the laws of God.
It is necessary at this point to ask yourselves and your politicians if you and they will do the same.

 

[Scimitar]

Oh dear, now you're asking for conditions despite the status quo?
Ok, let me be straightforward and simple: i will to the best of my ability comply with any law which complies with the laws of God and doesn't go against the laws of God.
It is necessary at this point to ask yourselves and your politicians if you and they will do the same.

Allow him bro Abz, Cooterhein doesn't realise that Gods laws are harder to keep than mankinds laws - what I find ridiculous is how he seems to think man made laws are more important

When I obey Gods laws I already adhere to man made laws...

but If I adhere to man made laws, I'm left short in fulfilling Gods laws.

His fundamental faculty of reason doesn't exist. His premise is faulty and his logic - broken.

Scimi