Are you familiar with these deradicalization efforts with children in the UK?

[Zafran]

I haven't heard about any of these statements of derision before. Are there any sources I can look at?

The labour party is a good place to start or the LIb dems.

 

[kritikvernunft]

There is no definition for radicalization. There isn't one for extremism either. These terms are not even meant to describe any particular belief, but only the intensity of such belief. Since when has intensity of belief actually become an objective and measurable quantity? It would first require a quantitative theory of belief along with a belief arithmetic and algebra. If belief is a quantifiable value, we must be able to express an order relation in which for two beliefs, we can assess if belief1 <= belief2. How do you do that? Can we also add up beliefs? Is the concept of belief1 + belief2 really meaningful? What about the scalar multiplication a x belief ? Is belief1 + belief1 = 2 x belief1 ?

One social worker from east London told The Telegraph that she was now regularly having to involve the police as rebellious and often troubled teens parroted Islamist ideas they had seen on the internet.

This mostly means that you cannot trust your children with social workers, who may denounce them for otherwise nondescript ideas that these social workers do not like. Why would these children keep communicating with these social workers? In order to stay out of trouble, and since they could be accused of behaviour for which there is no definition -- and no definition even possible -- parents will have no other choice than to instruct their children not to talk to these social workers. Will these social workers also denounce to the police, children who show no interest in communicating with them? Furthermore, these social workers are obviously happily busy destroying the security context of their own jobs. If these social workers go on like that, there is absolutely nobody who will be able to keep guaranteeing their safety. Who exactly will keep protecting them from the inevitable reprisals? I would personally not lift a finger. I am telling you, let all these problems just fester. We are not doing anything at all, and even less than that, because we are just too lazy to get off our chair and actually do something! ;-)

 

[Karl]

When all of the encouragement is being done in the interest of preventing violence, preventing civil war, and preventing revolution, how exactly does that lead to civil war and revolution?

Well, the liberals foment violence by being totally incompatible with Islam to begin with, and the only way a Muslim (or a Hindu or Buddhist for that matter) can live as a liberal is to give up their religion and become a liberal. The liberals invite Muslims into the country and then prohibit them from practising various things that are halal in Islam (e.g. the wearing of burqas, marriage under the age of 16 years of age, polygamy etc). Furthermore, the continuing mass immigration from Asia and Africa only increasingly incites the relatively silenced right wing nationalist elements as well as leading to their increase in numbers as more and more indigenous Europeans realise what is going on in their countries. Right wing nationalists are suppressed, and just like a pressure cooker they are likely to one day explode into an onslaught of fury, massacring immigrants as well as the treasonous liberals who let them into Europe in the first place.

 

[kritikvernunft]

... then prohibit them from practising various things that are halal in Islam (e.g. the wearing of burqas, marriage under the age of 16 years of age, polygamy etc).

I don't think that they would listen, anyway. I suspect that they mostly ignore all these "prohibitions", most of which are unenforceable anyway.

... they are likely to one day explode into an onslaught of fury, massacring immigrants as well as the treasonous liberals who let them into Europe in the first place.

Have you ever talked with any one of these castratos? They are indeed loud, but in reality, they would never be willing to risk their lives or die for what they believe in. Hence, their beliefs are utterly unimportant. The feminist State is contradictory. If you arm the men to fight in order to provide protection for the women, these men will rule over the women again. The feminist State does not want that at all. Therefore, the feminist State will insist on disarming the men. That means, however, that they are not in a position to defend themselves, or to do so something like "massacring immigrants". Feminism and the use of force by men, are utterly incompatible. In that sense, preventing the males from dominating, cannot go together with arming the males for the purpose of dominating. They can impossibly overcome this contradiction. Islam protects the Muslims from subscribing to this contradiction. That is also why the feminist State does not like Islam, but at the same time the feminist ideology also prevents them from doing anything about it. In other words, the castratos are just running around in vicious circles. Just watch them, while having a good laugh!

 

[Snel]

There is no definition for radicalization. There isn't one for extremism either. These terms are not even meant to describe any particular belief, but only the intensity of such belief. Since when has intensity of belief actually become an objective and measurable quantity? It would first require a quantitative theory of belief along with a belief arithmetic and algebra. If belief is a quantifiable value, we must be able to express an order relation in which for two beliefs, we can assess if belief1 <= belief2. How do you do that? Can we also add up beliefs? Is the concept of belief1 + belief2 really meaningful? What about the scalar multiplication a x belief ? Is belief1 + belief1 = 2 x belief1 ?

One social worker from east London told The Telegraph that she was now regularly having to involve the police as rebellious and often troubled teens parroted Islamist ideas they had seen on the internet.

This mostly means that you cannot trust your children with social workers, who may denounce them for otherwise nondescript ideas that these social workers do not like. Why would these children keep communicating with these social workers? In order to stay out of trouble, and since they could be accused of behaviour for which there is no definition -- and no definition even possible -- parents will have no other choice than to instruct their children not to talk to these social workers. Will these social workers also denounce to the police, children who show no interest in communicating with them? Furthermore, these social workers are obviously happily busy destroying the security context of their own jobs. If these social workers go on like that, there is absolutely nobody who will be able to keep guaranteeing their safety. Who exactly will keep protecting them from the inevitable reprisals? I would personally not lift a finger. I am telling you, let all these problems just fester. We are not doing anything at all, and even less than that, because we are just too lazy to get off our chair and actually do something! ;-)

Very interesting observations. There are more questions we should ask. I'm thinking about these people, like the social workers you were mentioning, why are they trying to solve undefined problems? The motivation is undoubtedly a perceived benefit. Because the problem is undefined, they get to individually define it the way they see fit to morally justify their actions against this "problem". They create a personal definition that will serve their personal interests with the help of this obscurity. If the problem was well defined then this obscurity wouldn't be there to help them. It would therefore be easier to globally challenge the idea that this really is a problem. Thereby you risk causing a large portion of the public to judge it as a non-issue. Consequently this will lead to judging the (sometimes violent) actions taken in the name of combating it as unjustifiable.
This might undermine whatever triggered this effort in the first place. The same power that was able to cause almost the entire world to join this effort will most likely be a great obstacle in the way of getting a solid definition.

These obscurities can serve as a protection for a power-structure that holds an incorrect world-view. It's also very likely that someone who thinks he benefits from an incorrect world-view would make an effort to protect it by avoiding intellectual confrontation.

Basically, what you are asking for is likely to be very hard to get.

 

[kritikvernunft]

Basically, what you are asking for is likely to be very hard to get.

That is fantastic! That means that we are on to something! Intractabilities are the mainstay of cryptography. For example, it it considered pretty much impossible to reverse a hash:

$ echo "hello" | sha256sum
5891b5b522d5df086d0ff0b110fbd9d21bb4fc7163af34d08286a2e846f6be03 -

The following problem is considered intractable:

$ echo "5891b5b522d5df086d0ff0b110fbd9d21bb4fc7163af34d08286a2e846f6be03" | reverse_sha256sum
hello <---- cannot be done

For all practical purposes, the very fact that it cannot be done is also the reason why it will be very useful. The impossibility to achieve a particular goal, is very valuable. If the problem is truly intractable, there must be a way to monetize it, and in that way, to prove our point, i.e. the intractability of the problem. Seriously, the best way to prove your point, is by making money from it. Nobody will deny it any longer after you show them the cash. So, let us elaborate what exactly is intractable and how we will monetize the corresponding proof.

 

[cooterhein]

Well, the liberals foment violence by being totally incompatible with Islam to begin with,

I hate to do this, I prefer to handle responses in larger chunks and not go line by line, but there's a lot going on here immediately. First, being from the US I am aware that in US identity politics we completely misuse the term "liberal" and that can muddy the waters. I assume you're using the term "liberal" in its actual sense, the way it's used in the UK and the rest of Europe, in the sense that pretty much all of Western civilization has been brought on board with secular liberalism with few exceptions and just some subtle wrinkles. At least when it comes to religious freedom, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and the absence of religious coercion. So even though I'm from the US, I'm attempting to think of this in a more European way (even though I don't have much practice at it) because I do know that the US version of liberal is not at all helpful. I'm thinking of John Stuart Mill and the dramatic changes that he visited upon Victorian England, while suggesting that these sorts of changes are no more incompatible with Christianity than they are with Islam, and any religious milieu would be better for its application (without really doing anything to sacred texts or core doctrines of course, and yes this is doable).

Oh, one other thing. I can't help but take issue with just a bit of this immediate phrasing, and maybe you didn't mean to do it quite this way so I won't go at it too hard. You suggest that a group of people is inciting violence and fomenting something or other, first and foremost, by "being" a certain way. That's some wrongheaded thinking if you completely meant to put it just so, people don't do these horrible things just by being a certain way. You don't "be" horrible things into existence. When this does happen, and right here I'm not even arguing against the basic premise of whose fault it is, a series of bad decisions, bad moves, and bad actions lead to a bad result. Sure there's philosophical underpinnings and modes of thought that contribute to these things being done, but in terms of immediate causality, people do certain things and that is what immediately leads to certain outcomes. It's far more helpful to identify specific bad actions, then evaluate whether a different course of action would be compatible with the existing framework of thought. If so, change some of what's being done and it's fairly easy to do. If not, then maybe certain aspects of the prevailing mode of thought....philosophy of the time....value system or what have you, maybe some of that needs to change. You're immediately jumping to the conclusion that wholesale change is needed and that secular liberalism is the whole entire problem, it just needs to be brought up by the root and disposed of, and you're just going to need a mountain of facts and evidence and arguments in order to bring people to that conclusion. If that's exactly where you wanted to go with it, I mean. I just want to point out how many changes in actual actions and in real policies can be made without seriously harming the way in which UK citizens think about themselves, the world, and how they should relate to each other. And there's some potential changes to their way of thinking that doesn't involve wholesale change. In order to argue for that as an absolute necessity, I'm going to make you work for that. If that's what you really want to do.

Moving on. Apologies for the immediate jump-cut.

and the only way a Muslim (or a Hindu or Buddhist for that matter) can live as a liberal is to give up their religion and become a liberal.

Again, I hate to do it again so soon, but this is a clear and distinct truth-claim. Secular liberalism is not a religion, it is not competing with Islam as a religious rival, and nobody has to give up their religion in order to live in peace as a secular liberal. At a bare minimum, it is pretty simple. Obey the law. Use common sense. Do not become violent for religious reasons, and if you're not employed by the state to do so, don't become violent at all. With rare exceptions like self-defense or if you happen to compete in combat sports, otherwise don't initiate violence or attempt to force some version of your religion on people who don't follow your religion. That's pretty much it. Do you stop being a Muslim when you do those things? No you do not. And you also get to live in peace, and continue living period. And so do the rest of us, we enjoy that as well.

The liberals invite Muslims into the country and then prohibit them from practising various things that are halal in Islam (e.g. the wearing of burqas, marriage under the age of 16 years of age, polygamy etc). Furthermore, the continuing mass immigration from Asia and Africa only increasingly incites the relatively silenced right wing nationalist elements as well as leading to their increase in numbers as more and more indigenous Europeans realise what is going on in their countries. Right wing nationalists are suppressed, and just like a pressure cooker they are likely to one day explode into an onslaught of fury, massacring immigrants as well as the treasonous liberals who let them into Europe in the first place.

That's a bigger chunk, I'm feeling quite a bit better about this. I wasn't aware that burqa banning had gone into effect in the UK, I do know about France but I thought the UK was just talking about it and so far not doing too much. The UK and France are both secular, as you know, but these are secular places that comport themselves toward religion in general in ways that are very different. France is far more hostile to religion in the public square, the UK not so much. Are you talking about situations where Muslim women need to identify themselves, like if law enforcement is detaining them or if their picture is being taken for identification purposes? If that's all you're talking about, Islam is flexible enough to handle that, and with a bit of time and effort I could locate the fatwahs to demonstrate that. But I'm not even sure if that's the specific thing you're talking about, and you probably knew that already.

Marriage under the age of 16, I wasn't aware of that but honestly it's a slight discrepancy in the boundaries of what is permissible, getting married past the age of 16 does not force anyone to violate Islam and it does make good common sense. Hey there it is again, use common sense.

Polygamy? Really? That only makes a tiny bit of sense when men are at war, they are killing all these other men, and all these women and children look an awful lot like unclaimed property to the conquering warriors. In a stable society with very little violence and conquering, this is a terrible idea. Let me break this down for you, it's really just math. Considering the disparity of wealth as it exists among Muslims in the UK, you can pretty much expect that the wealthiest 20% of Muslims will average 3 wives or so. Maybe 2 and a fraction, but for the sake of round numbers let's say 3. So the top 20% of men have, as wives, 60% of the women. More or less, maybe it's more like 50. Whatever. The next 40% of Muslim men in terms of wealth stratification do not have what it takes to support 3 wives per man on average, but they will probably average significantly more than 1. Let's say they can do between 1 and 2 on average, 1.5 more or less. That works out to about 60% of the Muslim women being claimed by the middle and upper-middle class of Muslim men. That leaves the bottom 40% of Muslim men with nobody. And a lot of these men are going to be younger, they're going to be unemployed or under-employed, they're doing the best they can but they aren't in a position to own a house and start a family until they're almost 30 usually. And at the same time, all the Muslim women their age (and especially the most attractive ones) are becoming the wives of older and/or wealthier men, because why not, why wait, in this scenario they can. No wonder this sort of thing goes hand in hand with pushing the age of marriage downward, your 30 year old men are going to be scouring a desperately scarce courtship scenario for the next barely-pubescent girl just as soon as she has her first menstruation. Or they're looking for other workarounds like finding someone from outside the UK, the point is there is no real workaround for this kind of scarcity, not when it's obviously going to reach this level of absurdity. Then you've got a bunch of young men struggling to find work and with no real prospect of finding a wife and starting a family, what do you think this exact sort of man is going to do? This is not any sort of a plan under present circumstances, so please remember to obey the law and use common sense.

And by the way, you might be using the word "incitement" in a rather loose way. Just because someone somewhere in the UK has beliefs that a right-wing person disagrees with, that does not constitute incitement. In order to really be incitement, it must be something that is directed at the person of the hearer. Granted, when people reside in the UK and a right wing person is also in the UK, that makes it possible for proper incitement to happen. If polygamy is in play in a big way, it makes it awfully likely that incitement will happen, and this will lead to a whole lot of dead Muslims. So please use common sense. With that being said, I don't acknowledge incitement as real incitement unless directed at the person of the hearer. Simply hearing about something is called "news" or perhaps "masochism" if you deliberately seek out upsetting things on the Internet, and knowing that something distasteful is out there is called "preoccupation" or perhaps "obsession." Incitement is done to a person, directly to that person and most likely by the person who is doing the inciting.

Is that it? Yeah, I suppose that's it for now.

 

[cooterhein]

Very interesting observations. There are more questions we should ask. I'm thinking about these people, like the social workers you were mentioning, why are they trying to solve undefined problems? The motivation is undoubtedly a perceived benefit. Because the problem is undefined, they get to individually define it the way they see fit to morally justify their actions against this "problem". They create a personal definition that will serve their personal interests with the help of this obscurity.

I'm pretty sure the problem is fairly well defined, at least where Muslim children are concerned. The problem is that some of them think it would be a good idea to leave their family and their country of origin in order to, as one example, go be a jihadi bride. The problem is that charismatic young men with good marketing skills are making a point of reaching a generation of very young children that are frequently able to do things online that their parents don't see, and they're reasonably careful about saying certain things around their parents, so if anyone else hears anything they should have an effective plan in place to check that. But...I guess I'm the only one who wants to talk about the stated plan and purpose for this program. Everyone else is determined to ignore the most obvious things about its premise and straw-man it to death. This is incredibly foolish, you know, to say nothing of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[kritikvernunft]

... if you're not employed by the state to do so, don't become violent at all ...

Violence is never a goal in itself. Violence could at best be a -- rather crude -- tool to achieve another goal. With Islam being on its way to achieve its goal, just by demographic means, you will find that many Muslims advocate against the use of force. I mostly agree with the mostly tactical consideration that if a problem can be solved without resorting to the use of force, it is preferable to solve it without. However, the idea that you could trust people employed by the state not to abuse their power, is impossibly naive and gullible and in total disregard for the facts. The solution to the problem of violence can impossibly be to give the State a monopoly on violence. As you know, the American police had developed an absolutely obnoxious habit of targeting black men and even unceremoniously killing them. The idea was that black men would not shoot back anyway ... until they spectacularly did, of course. The future will tell us, if this has solved the problem, or at least, reduced it. One thing is for sure, however, "not becoming violent when you are not employed by the state to do so" was never going to do anything to solve the problem. The entire "black lives matter" story has always been a joke. Respect ultimately always rests on the fear for reprisals. The State is not your friend. The State does not have your best interest at heart. The State is certainly not something that you can trust. On the contrary, it is, and it has always been an absolute requirement to totally distrust the State and its employees. In the singular God we trust, and in nothing else.

 

[Muhammad]

I haven't heard about any of these statements of derision before. Are there any sources I can look at?

Yes, you can read the following links:

http://www.preventwatch.org/joint-statement-on-prevent/ [360 leading Professors, Academics, professionals in Terrorism and community leaders called for an end to Prevent]
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ling-prevent-strategy-radicalisation-scrapped
http://5pillarsuk.com/2015/09/07/nus-calls-for-boycott-of-govts-prevent-counter-terrorism-agenda/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31792238

One of the stated reasons for focusing on kids more, is that Daesh is focusing on reaching kids more as a bit of a change in strategy. Is that incorrect?

Focusing on kids more should not mean incriminating them for mispronouncing the word 'cucumber' or wearing the wrong T-shirt. Moreover, it should not mean distributing ‘counter-extremism’ questionnaires to children as young as nine. With the age of criminal responsibility at ten years of age in England and Wales, this arrangement sees children being monitored before they can even be held criminally accountable for their own actions. And yet, some have suggested children as young as five need to be watched for signs of extremism.

Whilst programs like Prevent may be pushed by citing favourable outcomes, they are simply new powers to intervene and control the Muslim community based on a rationale of automatic suspicion. They rely on the faulty premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, such programs will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory. It is therefore of little surprise that concerns about Prevent have been highlighted in several reports by the Home Affairs Select Committee as well as numerous reports by NGOs. What is needed is an approach that targets actual terrorism without stigmatising or stereotyping those affected.

 

[Karl]

[MENTION=39180]cooterhein[/MENTION] "Western civilization has been brought on board with secular liberalism" Yes and is very far left. All your "common sense" arguments are from a Liberal point of view which is simply not compatible with Islam (or Christianity for that matter). Bottom line what people do in their private lives is not the state's business. As a hard line parental sovereigntist my position is that all matters to do with offspring including polygamy, age of marriage, and age of having sexual interaction etc is solely down to the prerogative of the father, NOT a government or collective.

You can ramble on rationalizing "common sense" arguments against various activities until the cows come home. Nonetheless, to do so is simply IMMATERIAL in terms of what I have been trying to point out. A secular state prohibiting and persecuting various practices which are entirely permissible under a religion is NOT conducive to peaceful interaction across different social groups! It instead leads to conflict and even hate. Do you see what I mean? Let's say for example if I was to practice polygamy or marry a wife under 16, while those things are completely acceptable and permissible under Islam, they would nonetheless definitely lead to my persecution and prosecution under the secular laws of the atheistic collectivists. I can't possibly see how that situation could ever be deemed harmonious interaction!

 

[kritikvernunft]

As a hard line parental sovereigntist my position is that all matters to do with offspring including polygamy, age of marriage, and age of having sexual interaction etc is solely down to the prerogative of the father, NOT a government or collective.

Yes, agreed.

No matter how many idiots vote for how many other idiots, such voting circus can never extend, alter, or abrogate Divine Law.
Long live Donald Trump and Hillary put-her-in-jail Clinton!

 

[cooterhein]

Yes, you can read the following links:

http://www.preventwatch.org/joint-statement-on-prevent/ [360 leading Professors, Academics, professionals in Terrorism and community leaders called for an end to Prevent]
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ling-prevent-strategy-radicalisation-scrapped
http://5pillarsuk.com/2015/09/07/nus-calls-for-boycott-of-govts-prevent-counter-terrorism-agenda/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31792238

I did read through these rather carefully, in particular the one signed by 360 leading professors and so forth (which appears to be about half Muslim and half non-Muslim). There were several things it specified that Muslims should absolutely not be singled out on account of, and one of them was this. "Mixing with those who believe Islam has a comprehensive political philosophy." Point of clarification, if I may- is this basically a rewording of Islamism? The idea that some form of Islam should be imposed on society at large- also known as Political Islam, a set of ideologies holding that Islam should guide social and political as well as personal life- is that the same sort of thing? Did all these people sign off on something that basically says Islamism is not a problem for anybody, and Islamists should not be singled out? It seems that way to me, I'm wondering if it seems that way to you.

Focusing on kids more should not mean incriminating them for mispronouncing the word 'cucumber' or wearing the wrong T-shirt.

Of course not. Even Quilliam has been somewhat critical of its implementation, in certain respects.

Moreover, it should not mean distributing ‘counter-extremism’ questionnaires to children as young as nine. With the age of criminal responsibility at ten years of age in England and Wales, this arrangement sees children being monitored before they can even be held criminally accountable for their own actions. And yet, some have suggested children as young as five need to be watched for signs of extremism.

That seems fairly reasonable.

Whilst programs like Prevent may be pushed by citing favourable outcomes, they are simply new powers to intervene and control the Muslim community based on a rationale of automatic suspicion.

That does not seem quite as reasonable.

They rely on the faulty premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam,

Terrorism and extremism, not inherently connected with Islam? According to every Islamist terror group ever, they have a deeply held core belief in their inherent connection to Islam. Daesh just recently published the reasons for why they hate the West. Why We Hate You, and Why We Fight You, is what it's called. Among those stated reasons, you will find this.

"6. We hate you for invading our lands and fight you to repel you and drive you out. As long as there is an inch of territory left for us to reclaim, jihad will continue to be a personal obligation on every single Muslim.

What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list. The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay jizyah and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you. No doubt, we would stop fighting you then as we would stop fighting any disbelievers who enter into a covenant with us, but we would not stop hating you.

What’s equally if not more important to understand is that we fight you, not simply to punish and deter you, but to bring you true freedom in this life and salvation in the Hereafter, freedom from being enslaved to your whims and desires as well as those of your clergy and legislatures, and salvation by worshiping your Creator alone and following His messenger. We fight you in order to bring you out from the darkness of disbelief and into the light of Islam, and to liberate you from the constraints of living for the sake of the worldly life alone so that you may enjoy both the blessings of the worldly life and the bliss of the Hereafter."

By the way, reason number one- and clearly ordered that way as a top priority- is that they hate the West because we are disbelievers. Reason two is that we permit what is haram in Islam, and we disallow some of the things that are halal. Daesh is being extremely clear about their reasoning and their intentions, and when they state their core beliefs this clearly, I take them at face value. I take it you do something different?

Now, I do want to be fair to you, I think I see what you're doing with the word "inherent." Right upfront, I will say it's pretty clear to me that Daesh and AQ and Boko Haram and so forth have quite a lot to do with Islam. These people are Muslims, and their (clearly) stated goal is to force Islam on others. They have something to do with Islam, quite a lot actually. And all of this is a serious problem that has to do with Islam. But even I would not argue that terrorism and extremism is inherent to Islam, in the sense that it is permanent, essential, or characteristic to Islam. With the right strategies, it can be checked, managed, and eradicated. All of this has quite a lot to do with Islam though, and in order to address this terrorism and extremism, rather large numbers of Muslims will have to change some things about themselves so that terrorism and extremism within the religion can be demonstrably temporary and not permanent, rather than theoretically non-characteristic.

What is needed is an approach that targets actual terrorism without stigmatising or stereotyping those affected.

Does this mean Islamism ought to be a protected ideology, held absolutely harmless as if it has no relation to terrorism at all? Targeting actual terrorism sounds great, I definitely support that. The thing is, there is also the stated goal of countering extremism, which I would argue is nearly synonymous with Islamism, and counter-extremism ought to be separate from counter-terrorism at a strategic and delivery level. So yes, we're looking at two separate issues, the question is do you wish to nix the entire counter-extremist concept? If so, is that in any way motivated by the idea that you might reasonably be considered an Islamist?

 

[cooterhein]

@cooterhein "Western civilization has been brought on board with secular liberalism" Yes and is very far left.

Left is a good place, in this particular sense of the word. Secular liberalism has led to a more well-developed civilization that is actually, demonstrably, materially better than it used to be. Western civilization is far from perfect, but overall it is currently the best thing going by any reasonable measure.

All your "common sense" arguments are from a Liberal point of view which is simply not compatible with Islam (or Christianity for that matter).

It can be for Islam, and it obviously is for Christianity and has been for quite some time. What would make you think it's not compatible with Christianity, the pre-Reformation statements and practices of the Catholic Church? I'm a Christian, of the Protestant variety, a descendant of English Protestantism more so than Germanic and more distinctly American than anything else. Why would my particular strand of Christianity be incompatible with secular liberalism? Even with Islam, at best you could say that Hanafi Islam (as one example) in its present form, that's so important to say in its present form, is incompatible with secular liberalism. But who says a Muslim must necessarily align with a certain school of jurisprudence in order to be properly acknowledged as a Muslim?

Actually, now that I think about it, there probably are some people who say that. The point is, they're wrong, and there are plenty of Muslims who aren't tied to anything more specific than that which also happens to explicitly oppose secular liberalism. And when it comes to those more-specific things that do such a thing, it's possible for such things to change.

Bottom line what people do in their private lives is not the state's business.

A state like Afghanistan, or Iran, or KSA, or Egypt, or Indonesia, or....just the UK? Only the West?

As a hard line parental sovereigntist my position is that all matters to do with offspring including polygamy, age of marriage, and age of having sexual interaction etc is solely down to the prerogative of the father, NOT a government or collective.

I would argue that religious freedom ought to be guaranteed by the state, but that the state also has responsibilities when it comes to the health and safety of its citizens, and to some extent their morality.

A secular state prohibiting and persecuting various practices which are entirely permissible under a religion is NOT conducive to peaceful interaction across different social groups! It instead leads to conflict and even hate.

I can point to examples of religious sectarianism under Islamist rule so easily it's basically pointless. Kindly point me in the direction of actual, real-world examples where secular liberalism has clearly led to conflict and hate between religious groups, and please indicate how I can be sure secular liberalism is the reason why these very bad things happened.

Do you see what I mean?

Not yet, not at all. Not whatsoever, not even a little bit.

Let's say for example if I was to practice polygamy or marry a wife under 16, while those things are completely acceptable and permissible under Islam,

Still? Really? You're serious. Not all of Islam, I hope. Under which school of jurisprudence are all of these things considered acceptable? All four of the Sunni and both of the Shia?

they would nonetheless definitely lead to my persecution and prosecution under the secular laws of the atheistic collectivists.

Well, you can't expect to ignore the law and just get away with it. Oh, and these are not atheistic collectives. That's only a little bit accurate in France.

I can't possibly see how that situation could ever be deemed harmonious interaction!

I'm curious, are you living among the unbelievers? If so, some of them might be able to help you figure it out.

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings cooterhein,

I did read through these rather carefully, in particular the one signed by 360 leading professors and so forth (which appears to be about half Muslim and half non-Muslim). There were several things it specified that Muslims should absolutely not be singled out on account of, and one of them was this. "Mixing with those who believe Islam has a comprehensive political philosophy." Point of clarification, if I may- is this basically a rewording of Islamism? The idea that some form of Islam should be imposed on society at large- also known as Political Islam, a set of ideologies holding that Islam should guide social and political as well as personal life- is that the same sort of thing? Did all these people sign off on something that basically says Islamism is not a problem for anybody, and Islamists should not be singled out? It seems that way to me, I'm wondering if it seems that way to you.

I don't know; I was simply providing you with the links you asked for. For further information on what these 360 people believe, it is better you ask them.

Terrorism and extremism, not inherently connected with Islam? According to every Islamist terror group ever, they have a deeply held core belief in their inherent connection to Islam.

MI5's behavioural science unit would apparently disagree with you. In their research, they have found that, 'far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation.'

Daesh is being extremely clear about their reasoning and their intentions, and when they state their core beliefs this clearly, I take them at face value. I take it you do something different?

I don't think taking a face-value approach to the issue of extremism or terrorism will do anyone any favours. In the statement signed by 360 academics and public research, it was clearly stated that, 'academic research suggests that social, economic and political factors, as well as social exclusion, play a more central role in driving political violence than ideology. Indeed, ideology only becomes appealing when social, economic and political grievances give it legitimacy. Therefore, addressing these issues would lessen the appeal of ideology.'

Right upfront, I will say it's pretty clear to me that Daesh and AQ and Boko Haram and so forth have quite a lot to do with Islam. These people are Muslims, and their (clearly) stated goal is to force Islam on others. They have something to do with Islam, quite a lot actually. And all of this is a serious problem that has to do with Islam.

I don't understand the conclusion here. ISIS is neither about the tenets of Islam nor helping Muslims. That much should be obvious when an overwhelming number of Muslim scholars and religious leaders have been warning their communities against ISIS’ ideology for some time now, and considering that a significant number if not majority of victims have been Muslims themselves. It is clear that rather than diverting all resources on the stated justifications of such groups, we need to look at the root causes behind their emergence.

I note that a very similar discussion has already preceded in some of your other threads such as:
http://www.islamicboard.com/clarifi...lims-persuade-extremists-stop-extremists.html
Some of the members have written very detailed and informative posts there; unfortunately, the same cannot be said for your responses to them. I won't be getting into the same discussion with you here.

 

[greenhill]

That is a lot of replies.

It has occurred to me that there is deliberate move by the powers that be to give children the rights to make their decision and strip parents of their authority.

And the real purpose behind all that is precisely to root out Islam, despite what they say. It is our responsibility to guide our children to the path of Allah. No child really wants to hear of restrictions when their friends have none.

It gets even harder for parents :exhausted


eace:

 

[Serinity]

How I dislike it when the Government tries to meddle in how Muslim parents should raise their child. As Muslims, we believe in Islam, we know Islam is truth, so we raise them up to be Muslims. That is their right upon the parents. All of mankind are born Muslim, technically.

For the authorities to take the children, just because of them reading Qur'aan - is stupid. I as a child read Qur'aan.

It is a duty upon Muslim Parents to teach their children Islam, and instill love for Islam, with the help of Allah.

we can not have disbelievers take our children, and taking them away from Islam. I call this "deradicalization" a hoax! There is nothing radical about anything in Islam. The solution is to have children being taught the Quraan, and what exactly do these programs do, except to make the children paranoid of being Muslims?

 

[kritikvernunft]

... what exactly do these programs do, except to make the children paranoid of being Muslims?

My intuition says that they will get what they have asked for, and this will probably be exactly the opposite of what they want.

It always works like that. Everybody always ends up getting what they asked for. Seriously, if you consistently ask for something, that is exactly what you will be getting, and when you are dealing with living adversaries, it is always the worst possible outcome that will materialize. This is a consequence of Murphy's Law: Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.

Imagine that you build a wall around a city, and that you intend to defend it. It is one meter wide everywhere, except in one place where it is only 10 centimeters wide. Where do you think that the enemy will attack? Yes, indeed, and this is just Murphy's Law. Hence, just one single inconsistency in what they are doing, guarantees that they will be toast. We all know that what the State does, is always full of inconsistencies. Therefore, just wait, and see, and laugh! ;-)

 

[Serinity]

My intuition says that they will get what they have asked for, and this will probably be exactly the opposite of what they want.

It always works like that. Everybody always ends up getting what they asked for. Seriously, if you consistently ask for something, that is exactly what you will be getting, and when you are dealing with living adversaries, it is always the worst possible outcome that will materialize. This is a consequence of Murphy's Law: Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.

Imagine that you build a wall around a city, and that you intend to defend it. It is one meter wide everywhere, except in one place where it is only 10 centimeters wide. Where do you think that the enemy will attack? Yes, indeed, and this is just Murphy's Law. Hence, just one single inconsistency in what they are doing, guarantees that they will be toast. We all know that what the State does, is always full of inconsistencies. Therefore, just wait, and see, and laugh! ;-)

I hope their tactics backfires and they get what they asked for.

Prevent, contrary to what many believe, actually reinforces ISIS' and actually works in favour of ISIS! Tell me what ISIS does? Those who thinks of joining ISIS will be even more convinced when they see Prevent trying to hunt Muslims.

This targetting of children is wrong. It only works in favour of ISIS.

ISIS may use prevent to say "hey see, the kuffar hate you all, join us and lets us fight them! kill them all! look at how they try to take our children and bring them to disbelief."

Wallah, I am against the Government taking our children - it is OUR children.

The Disbelievers who support prevent only reinforces ISIS and "legitimises" ISIS. Imo.

 

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Source

Nursery staff to be forced to report toddlers at risk of becoming terrorists

Nursery school employees will have a duty to report young children who are at-risk of becoming terrorists under proposed new legislation

By BEN TUFFT
Sunday 04 January 2015

Nursery staff will be forced to report toddlers at risk of becoming terrorists under plans drawn up by the Home Office.

It is part of the department’s consultation over ways to enhance its anti-terrorism strategy, Prevent.

Critics have dismissed the proposals as being unnecessarily draconian and turning staff, who are meant to be caring for youngsters, into spies.

The consultation document on the Prevent Strategy states: “Senior management and governors are expected to assess the risk of pupils being drawn into terrorism, including support for the extremist ideas that are part of terrorist ideology.”

It continues, staff are expected to “identify children at risk of being drawn into terrorism” and “challenge extremist ideas which can be used to legitimise terrorism”.

The Home Office said it would not expect the hypothetical situation of a young child being taught that non-Muslims are wicked to be ignored. Equally, anti-Semitic comments made in front of nursery workers should be reported, the department added.

But opponents of the plans are unsure how they will work in practice.

“It is hard to see how this can be implemented. It is unworkable. I have to say I cannot understand what they [nursery staff] are expected to do,” Davis Davis, the Conservative MP and former shadow home secretary, told the Telegraph.

“Are they supposed to report some toddler who comes in praising a preacher deemed to be extreme?

“I don’t think so. It is heavy-handed,” he added.

Childcare providers are just one of the sectors that will be affected by the new rules. Schools, colleges, universities, prisons and hospitals will all be subject to the stringent rules “to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism”.

The plans are in a document submitted with the Government’s Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, which is going through Parliament.

A Government spokesperson told The Independent: “Schools, including nurseries, have a duty of care to their pupils and staff. The new duty in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism will be seen in a similar way to their existing safeguarding responsibilities.

"We are not expecting teachers and nursery workers to carry out unnecessary intrusion into family life but we do expect them to take action when they observe behaviour of concern. It is important that children are taught fundamental British values in an age-appropriate way.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above is an actual news story.

My personal opinion on the news story: Yes, let's worry about terrorist toddlers, because THAT's the real problem! Let's prevent (pun intended!). Personally, I don't like toddlers throwing tantrums, but you never know...especially if the toddler is a Muslim toddler toddling along prattling gibberish, *shrugs* (ominous music playing in the background), maybe, could be, should be a sign of a future terrorist. (Ominous music keeps playing in the background and finishes with a high-pitched scream, the scream of murdered egalitarianism.)