ENGLAND: Home of the Islamophobe extremists...

[observer]

But I totally agree with you (for once lol) that the vast majority of people in the UK are anti-EDL.

Haha - there's always common ground in the world!

 

[Ali Mujahidin]

So in a nutshell he's rude and organises stupid demonstrations

I see. So in another nutshell, he's basically a nut case who shouldn't have been allowed out of his shell or whatever that he's hiding in. Being rude and stupid is not anywhere near to what Islam and dakwah is about. Whenever I see people, who claim to be Muslims, condemning other religions, I am reminded of an occasion where the Holy Prophet said to his companions,

"Don't curse your parents."

Aghast, the companions asked,

"Ya RasululLah, how can we do such a terrible thing as curse our own parents?"

To which the Holy Prophet answered,

"When you curse the parents of other people, it will make them angry and they, in turn, will curse your parents. So by cursing the parents of other people, you are cursing your own parents."

That, of course, is only an approximation of what actually transpired. The gist of the incident is that we are told not to go around condemning other people's religions because our action of condemning other people's religions will cause other people to condemn our religion.

If you are familiar with Arabic, you can look up this hadith in Sahih Bukhari at the reference below:

 

[Mustafa2012]

:alhamd: The killer of Mohammed Saleem, the same man behind a series of bomb attacks appears to have been caught. It took a while but it seems they finally got the guy.

Click Here To Read

What I find strange is that although this man is as "terrorist" as they come and this is a right wing, politically and religiously motivated murder, yet there's no mention of the word "terrorist" or "terrorism" in the article to describe him.

I have not seen this story given front page or peak time coverage (except for the Metro newspaper) although this is just as bad as the murder of Lee Rigby. Not only did this cowardly man stab an innocent grandfather in the back multiple times but he also tried to kill more people with a series of bombs which he planted at mosques to try to spark off a race war. This is one sick man yet notice how he is not labelled a "terrorist".

 

[Taabuu]

Salaam

Another update. This was on 2 days ago.

Its an interview with the leader of the EDL (yeah I know) but it gives a good idea of how they think and what Muslims are up against.

ISLAMOPHOBIA------ A DOCUMENTARY.
A MUST WATCH
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNrL4OnEt4Q

 

[Independent]

What I find strange is that although this man is as "terrorist" as they come and this is a right wing, politically and religiously motivated murder, yet there's no mention of the word "terrorist" or "terrorism" in the article to describe him.

Nevertheless, Pavlo Lapshyn was investigated by the Anti Terrorist unit and charged under terrorist legislation.

It seems he was acting alone although of course inspired by extreme right wing ideology on the internet and elsewhere. As such there is no wider terrorist agenda of campaign to be discussed. It's particularly bizarre because he had only been in the UK a mere 5 days when he committed the first offence. Barely stepped off the plane.

He was a fan of Timothy McVeigh. His prime motivation seems to have been racist rather than religious - he targeted the mosque because everyone appeared to be non white. He wanted to divide people and spark a race war. His tactics and motivations are therefore similiar to his exact political opponents.

It's an impressive piece of police detective work to hunt him down so quickly as he had zero prior record and was in fact in a successful career.

 

['Abd-al Latif]

ISLAMOPHOBIA------ A DOCUMENTARY.
A MUST WATCH
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNrL4OnEt4Q

:hiding:

Muslims aren't up against much.

 

[aamirsaab]

[snip]...This is one sick man yet notice how he is not labelled a "terrorist".

In fairness, he was addressed as a terrorist on the news last night.

 

[Mustafa2012]

Nevertheless, Pavlo Lapshyn was investigated by the Anti Terrorist unit and charged under terrorist legislation.

It seems he was acting alone although of course inspired by extreme right wing ideology on the internet and elsewhere. As such there is no wider terrorist agenda of campaign to be discussed. It's particularly bizarre because he had only been in the UK a mere 5 days when he committed the first offence. Barely stepped off the plane.

He was a fan of Timothy McVeigh. His prime motivation seems to have been racist rather than religious - he targeted the mosque because everyone appeared to be non white. He wanted to divide people and spark a race war. His tactics and motivations are therefore similiar to his exact political opponents.

It's an impressive piece of police detective work to hunt him down so quickly as he had zero prior record and was in fact in a successful career.

If he was investigated and charged by the Terrorism Unit under the Terrorism Act then why was there little mention of this in the media. Why is this terminology being hidden from the public view?

It doesn't matter whether he was acting alone or with others. The fact remains is that he was planning other attacks and if he wasn't caught, he would have gone on to commit further attacks which could have harmed and killed many innocent people. That according to me is "terrorism", yet the media reserves the word "terrorism" only for attacks carried out by Muslims. That is a type of brainwashing and use of negative associations to incite hatred.

If his aim was to target non whites then why not target colored people of a different religion and race? Why did he target Pakistani Muslims? This part does not make sense.

I thank Allaah that this racist man was caught before he could cause more harm.

 

[Independent]

If he was investigated and charged by the Terrorism Unit under the Terrorism Act then why was there little mention of this in the media. Why is this terminology being hidden from the public view?

He has been described as a terrorist in some reports, no one is hiding anything. The UK state is a victim of this attack, not in any way a sympathiser.

It doesn't matter whether he was acting alone or with others.

There is no ongoing threat because he was an isolated individual. He does not appear to be part of any terrorist organisation.

That according to me is "terrorism", yet the media reserves the word "terrorism" only for attacks carried out by Muslims

No they don't and they haven't in this case. You have to accept that if a Muslim commits a terrorist act on behalf of Al Qaida or other terrorist network (as did the Tsamaev brothers in the Boston Bombing, for instance), then discussion of Al Qaida is bound to occur in the media accounts and the phrase 'Islamist terrorism' or some substitute will be very frequent.

If his aim was to target non whites then why not target colored people of a different religion? Why did he target Muslims? This part does not make sense.

It's what he said himself. Is he telling the truth? Who knows. It's plausible - a UK mosque would be a place where a large number of non-white people might gather, particularly for someone who doesn't know his way around. The guy is Ukrainian, he was only in the country less than a week. Given a chance maybe he would have planted a bomb in an African Christian church in London next, who can tell?

I thank Allaah that this racist man was caught before he could cause more harm.

I'm with you all the way on this one. What a pointless waste of life - his own as well as his victim's.

 

[Mustafa2012]

He has been described as a terrorist in some reports, no one is hiding anything. The UK state is a victim of this attack, not in any way a sympathiser.


There is no ongoing threat because he was an isolated individual. He does not appear to be part of any terrorist organisation.


No they don't and they haven't in this case. You have to accept that if a Muslim commits a terrorist act on behalf of Al Qaida or other terrorist network (as did the Tsamaev brothers in the Boston Bombing, for instance), then discussion of Al Qaida is bound to occur in the media accounts and the phrase 'Islamist terrorism' or some substitute will be very frequent.


It's what he said himself. Is he telling the truth? Who knows. It's plausible - a UK mosque would be a place where a large number of non-white people might gather, particularly for someone who doesn't know his way around. The guy is Ukrainian, he was only in the country less than a week. Given a chance maybe he would have planted a bomb in an African Christian church in London next, who can tell?


I'm with you all the way on this one. What a pointless waste of life - his own as well as his victim's.

Whenever a Muslim commits an act of terror it's reported in almost every form of media on the front page with the label "terrorist".

Yet when people like like this guy plant bombs at mosques and have been found with extremist material, they are called Nazi far right extremists but not Nazi Terrorists as they are. Fascism is a type of religion for some due to the extent of time and effort they dedicate to some.

If a Muslim commits an act of terrorism, yes it will be automatically called "Islamic Terrorism" but what I don't understand is why is it when a Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Facist Right Wing Nazi commits an act or terrorism they are not given the label of Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Facist Right Wing Nazi Terrorist.

When Anders Brevik massacred hundreds of his own people because he was unhappy with Muslim immigrants being allowed into his country he was not called a terrorist as the definition rightly fitted but instead shown sympathy and people were swayed by the stories of patriotism that he painted. Instead of getting at least a year for every person he killed he got away with just 20 years. And now he's writing a book which will probably be sold and will make him a very rich man.

Whether Pavlo Lapshyn acted alone or with others, whether it was a one off or ongoing he still carried out acts that were designed to cause terror to larger groups of people. That according to the classical definition of the English language makes him a terrorist. I notice you too are trying very hard to avoid using the word terrorism to describe these latest attacks but try as you may, his actions and intentions which have been reported in the press, clearly match the definition of the word terrorism.

Terrorism is committed every day by people and governments all over the world. Just because they change the labels and call it something else doesn't change the action or the damage that is caused. The real terrorists walk around freely living luxurious lifestyles all paid by taxpayers money while innocent hardworking individuals are made the scapegoats.

BTW There has been no credible evidence presented to date to link the Tsarnev brothers to the Boston Bombings. His brother was shot dead before he could give his side of the story and the other was shot in the throat so he too couldn't talk and give his side of the story. There is plenty of evidence of a cover up of some kind. So I'm surprised you're even quoting a case like that.

I'm sure you're familiar with the saying, "You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time."

 

[Independent]

If a Muslim commits an act of terrorism, yes it will be automatically called "Islamic Terrorism" but what I don't understand is why is it when a Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Facist Right Wing Nazi commits an act or terrorism they are not given the label of Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Facist Right Wing Nazi Terrorist.

Incorrect, all of them have groupings which have been referred to as terrorist at one time or another. But not all of them are especially active right now.

In the UK, anyone in their thirties or over will associate terrorism with Northern Ireland. In this conflict, one side were referred too as Catholic/Republican terrorists, the other as Protestant/Unionist terrorists. It's absolute nonsense to say that the media avoided the term.

But the Northern Irish problem is over (or at least much reduced). Today, as far as the UK is concerned, Muslim terrorist groups are the principle active threat so they get the most coverage. What's more, unlike most other terrorist groups, many Muslim groups claim to be acting specifically in the name of their religion. You may consider them not 'true' Muslims as a result - but that's what they call themselves so you can hardly blame the media for reporting it.

Does the media go too far and drift towards stereotyping? Yes it does. UK media overhype everything. They want headlines that scream, not whisper.

There was a time in the UK when to be Irish was to be associated with terrorism. But today most English people have an actively positive attitude towards Irish people. My son (who has lived his whole life in Ireland till now) has been welcomed into his new UK school and is popular specifically because he is Irish. That's some turnaround in just a decade.

The negative stereotyping of Muslims will disappear as quickly as that of the Irish, once the underlying cause is removed. And that cause is not the media, but ongoing acts of terrorism.

Instead of getting at least a year for every person he killed he got away with just 20 years

Brevik was convicted of terrorist offences. He was given the maximum sentence under Norwegian law. What else do you expect them to do? Break their own law?

I notice you too are trying very hard to avoid using the word terrorism to describe these latest attacks

No I don't - Lapshyn is a terrorist using terrorist techniques. I hope he's locked away for life.

BTW There has been no credible evidence presented to date to link the Tsarnev brothers to the Boston Bombings

I don't want to get into a debate about this as we're getting into conspiracy territory and it's a bottomless pit. But it's worth mentioning that Ukranian websites are also claiming that Lapshyn has been framed and is innocent.

In fact, this kind of claim is made about every single high profile incident that ever occurs without exception. Maybe this was a conspiracy too? Maybe Lapshyn was framed by Al Qaeda? They've got the means and the motive (and that's more than enough for a good conspiracy).

Do I think it could have been Al Qaeda? Not for one second. And no more do I think that the Tsarnevs are innocent.

Rather than trying to blame the media, or waste time with endless conspiracy theories that allow us to make anyone guilty we feel like, it would be better to concentrate on facing up to reality. There is no point in trying to persuade anyone that Muslims are incapable of terrorist actions when we hear of new incidents in iraq or Pakistan practically every week. The vast majority of terrorism by Muslims kills not westerners, but fellow Muslims in Muslim countries.

Terrorist actions not in any way exclusive to Muslims, but neither are Muslims immune to them. And at this particular point in history, many Muslim groups are in the foreground. That wasn't always the case in the past and it will surely change in the future. But trying to deny it as a media conspiracy will simply prolong and deepen the problem.

Too many people have got the notion that the way to solve this problem is to attack the media. That's what's called 'shooting the messenger' and it seriously isn't working.

 

[Mustafa2012]

Sorry I haven't been able to reply. Been quite busy over the last few days.

I'll comment on each of your points one by one.

Incorrect, all of them have groupings which have been referred to as terrorist at one time or another. But not all of them are especially active right now.

This may be the case within the classification system of the criminal justice system but terrorist attacks carried out by members of other religious groups are rarely ever labelled Jewish, Christian, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist terrorist in the media. That's where the problem lies. The media has the power to present information in a mis-leading way which can create a like or dislike for certain groups of their choosing.

In the UK, anyone in their thirties or over will associate terrorism with Northern Ireland. In this conflict, one side were referred too as Catholic/Republican terrorists, the other as Protestant/Unionist terrorists. It's absolute nonsense to say that the media avoided the term.

But the Northern Irish problem is over (or at least much reduced). Today, as far as the UK is concerned, Muslim terrorist groups are the principle active threat so they get the most coverage. What's more, unlike most other terrorist groups, many Muslim groups claim to be acting specifically in the name of their religion. You may consider them not 'true' Muslims as a result - but that's what they call themselves so you can hardly blame the media for reporting it.

Does the media go too far and drift towards stereotyping? Yes it does. UK media overhype everything. They want headlines that scream, not whisper.

There was a time in the UK when to be Irish was to be associated with terrorism. But today most English people have an actively positive attitude towards Irish people. My son (who has lived his whole life in Ireland till now) has been welcomed into his new UK school and is popular specifically because he is Irish. That's some turnaround in just a decade.

The negative stereotyping of Muslims will disappear as quickly as that of the Irish, once the underlying cause is removed. And that cause is not the media, but ongoing acts of terrorism.

As far as the IRA and the media go, I appreciate what you're trying to say and the comparisons you're trying to draw to terrorism committed by ignorant Muslims however I'm not sure if both these types can be compared as one was limited to a certain country whereas the other is global.

Islam as a faith itself is attacked by the media on all fronts all over the world everyday. So how much more will terrorism committed by some ignorant Muslims be addressed? That is the difference.

I do agree that some ignorant Muslims are causing a lot of problems for the rest of the Muslim community as whole. If these idiots stopped giving the media and other organizations excuses to oppress the innocent among us then the world would be a better place but it might be a while the ignorants among us learnt what Islaam is really about.

Brevik was convicted of terrorist offences. He was given the maximum sentence under Norwegian law. What else do you expect them to do? Break their own law?

I expect them to change the law as it is a travesty of justice to give a man who took away 72 lives, just 20 years. This law is a major flaw in the Norwegian justice system.

But it's worth mentioning that Ukranian websites are also claiming that Lapshyn has been framed and is innocent.

In fact, this kind of claim is made about every single high profile incident that ever occurs without exception. Maybe this was a conspiracy too? Maybe Lapshyn was framed by Al Qaeda? They've got the means and the motive (and that's more than enough for a good conspiracy).

Anything's possible these days. It could have been anyone that wants to discredit Muslims and the faith of Islam. And that's probably a lot of people or organizations.

Rather than trying to blame the media, or waste time with endless conspiracy theories that allow us to make anyone guilty we feel like, it would be better to concentrate on facing up to reality. There is no point in trying to persuade anyone that Muslims are incapable of terrorist actions when we hear of new incidents in iraq or Pakistan practically every week. The vast majority of terrorism by Muslims kills not westerners, but fellow Muslims in Muslim countries.

Terrorist actions not in any way exclusive to Muslims, but neither are Muslims immune to them. And at this particular point in history, many Muslim groups are in the foreground. That wasn't always the case in the past and it will surely change in the future. But trying to deny it as a media conspiracy will simply prolong and deepen the problem.

Too many people have got the notion that the way to solve this problem is to attack the media. That's what's called 'shooting the messenger' and it seriously isn't working

I don't blame the media completely nor did I ever deny Muslims are capable of acts of terrorism. I accept fully that there are some Muslim individuals and a no. of groups who have a seriously incorrect understanding of Islaam and the rules of engagement. It's these people and groups that are giving the rest of the Muslim community as bad name and image. This is big shame and it destroys that hard work that many law abiding Muslims do around the world. The problem is that some of the groups that are causing problems are large and have a lot of resources and influence. They are difficult to stop. The only way the average Muslim can do anything about them is to advise, educate and pray that Allaah guides the ignorant.

While I accept that there are a number of individuals and groups among the Muslim community that are to blame for some of the problems around the world, at the same time, I feel that certain organizations around that world are capitalizing upon that and using that to add fuel to the fire so to speak.

I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to confirm that some of the major acts of terrorism attributed to Muslims were indeed committed by Muslims. And even if you argue that some of them were capable of doing it, then why did the security organizations responsible for monitoring potential attacks fail to stop those attacks when they are capable of stopping much lesser attacks on an everyday basis? There are many unanswered questions about 9/11, 7/7, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria etc. which bring in to the question who is actually responsible for those attacks. There are more and more films being released about extreme right wing western organizations that will go to any lengths to achieve their aims. I wonder why these films are being released more and more nowadays. Maybe someone is trying to tell us something.

The people responsible for ordering the invasion of Iraq, the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives both in Iraq and amongst the western soldiers who fought there are walking around scot free without being held to account for their actions. The findings of Iraq report seems to have been put on hold for an unusually long time. Why are ordinary law abiding citizens people made to feel the full force of the law while the decision makers responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands allowed to walk around with immunity from the law?

If certain organizations stopped all the false flag operations, the lies, mis-information and stopped using traitors and sell-outs to give Islaam a bad name, I'm sure the no. of acts of terrorism attributed to Muslims would be far less than what we see reported.

People from all walks of life and faiths are waking up to the lies and oppression and infringement of freedom caused by various individuals and organizations upon people from all faiths and backgrounds. People are not stupid. They can see the lies and how public money is being squandered on projects that make life more and more difficult for people. If the media and technology is being used for the wrong purposes as we have being seeing recently then it might just backfire on those misusing it.

As far as the media goes, I do not believe they can be classified as messengers. They play a far greater role. As we have said before, the media is largely owned by Zionists whose main aim is the destruction of Islam and the establishment of their extremist ideology. With that said, their goal is not merely to be a mirror but their goal is to paint the Muslim world in a worse light than it really is. They use extremist actions to make the world believe that Islaam is a religion of extremism when this is far from the truth.

The fact that Islaam is the fastest growing religion in the world should make people think how can it be such a bad religion when people are flocking to it on a daily basis. There must be something that people find appealing to make it the fastest growing religion in the world. In fact, whenever there is a major attack on Islaam in the media, more and more people want to learn about it and instead of turning people away from it, it attracts them to it. So this is a kind of miracle which is a testimony to the greatness of the religion of Islaam.

Allaah willing I pray that the ignorants among us are guided to the Straight Path. This is something we pray for at least 5 times a day, every day. I also pray that people judge Islaam by what is mentioned in the pure teachings of The Qur'aan and the authentic sayings of The Prophet Muhammaad, Allaah's final Messenger to Mankind (obviously according to the right context in which they are applicable to, not placing a verse or saying in a completely wrong context). If a Muslim's speech and actions are in line with these then only should the action be attributed to Islaam and if an individual or groups actions have no evidence to support it from these authentic sources then the actions should NOT be attributed to Islaam but to ignorant individuals who have an agenda of their own.

May Allaah, The Most High guide us all to The Straight Path.

 

[Independent]

In the event that far right groups do begin a concerted, connected campaign of terror against western targets they will receive the same vilification that Muslim terrorist groups do now. Currently, they have a fraction of the scale, support and organisation. Lapshyn and Brevik are both isolated mavericks. Brevik was hugely destructive, but there's no ongoing organisation to fight. No ‘war on terror’ to begin. The same with Lapshyn.

There are many unanswered questions about 9/11, 7/7, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria etc. which bring in to the question who is actually responsible for those attacks.

The great majority of people in the world do not see these events as black flag operations. However, there are two groups of people where a critical mass of people do indeed take the conspiracy view. Those two groups are far right supporters and some Muslim societies. Surveys show strong belief in 9/11 conspiracy theories in certain countries (eg Egypt and Palestine). What is significant is that these views have extended way beyond the radical fringe into the supposedly moderate middle - to the extent that everyone is familiar with such views and many people at least half believe them.

Rather than trying to argue about these events in particular (which would take forever) let's skip to some different questions.

1. I believe that most Muslims do sincerely reject terrorism and regard it as against Islam. Most often this issue gets asked after a spectacular event (9/11, 7/7, Woolwich etc). But instead of condemnation, the first response you may hear from a Muslim is a mix of: 'Muslims couldn't do something like this', 'it was a black flag op by western governments against their own people', 'it was an attack on Muslims' (even though it was a western target), and most important of all, 'you in the west deserve this by your own actions because this is no worse than the terror you inflict on Iraq etc'. It's often hard to tell whether an individual Muslim condemns or supports the action (I can think of many examples on this forum).

This adds up to the most complete denial of responsibility imaginable: ‘We didn't do it, you did it to yourself, and in any case you deserved it.’ Incredibly, many individuals will deny Muslim involvement one minute, while celebrating Al Qaeda’s success and warning there’s more to come the next. They literally have it both ways. Somehow, these events are portrayed both as a moral judgment on the west and as act by the west itself. Each new terrorist act is taken as further proof of western immorality.

How is this likely to be received by a western audience? Much of it would seem incomprehensible. What do you mean we did it to ourselves?! That’s ridiculous and offensive!

The impression is given that Muslims deny responsibility for any attacks on the west at all (and in fact you have listed all the major incidents).

The ordinary western citizen will then lay this denial alongside other evidence. He may see a video of the alleged Muslim perpetrator claiming responsibility and saying they did it in the name of Islam. He may see popular street support in Muslim countries (eg Palestinians welcoming 9/11). He will hear the alleged perpetrator tell us he was justified in his barbarous act because of western aggression in Iraq etc. The citizen will hear exactly the same point of view expressed by the wider Muslim community. They may also hear a series of Muslim ‘spokespeople’ who give entirely contradictory accounts of what is or is not allowed in Islam.

So to summarise: the western citizen will see an apparently Muslim man, openly claiming responsibility, and giving reasons entirely consistent with those held by millions of other Muslims. Yet at the end of all this, the citizen is now told this act wasn't committed by a Muslim at all, but by his own government.

Can you be surprised if this argument isn’t working?

2. The strange thing is that even those Muslims who say it’s a Zionist conspiracy don’t behave as if they really and truly believe it. Logically, if it’s all the Zionists fault, then the west is a victim not a perpetrator. Westerners have been tricked along with everyone else.

Yet in practice this is hardly ever expressed except in the form of an insult (‘sheeple’ etc). There is no attempt to persuade, to find common cause. Those Muslims who believe in this conspiracy also tend to view the west as an age old enemy and individual westerners as - literally – agents of shaytan. Many of them criticise western society in every way, as if they would like to smash every aspect of it.

In practice, they seem to use the conspiracy theory simply as an excuse for their pre-existing anti western views, and as a way to remove all moral responsibility for their own actions.

3. In many ways it would be nice for me to believe in this conspiracy. It would mean that this world, which I already view fairly positively, has the chance to become much better if the Zionists were overthrown. In truth, it would be to my advantage to join you in believing in this conspiracy.

The reason I don't is because I find it wholly unconvincing. Many of its most popular advocates (David Icke etc) are figures of ridicule who can't get basic facts right. Why would I choose to trust someone in the big things when they routinely misrepresent and actively lie about the detail? I find it even less convincing when many of those who tell me they’re right and I’m wrong, also tell me they know I’m part of the conspiracy. Now, there aren’t many things in the world I can know absolutely for certain, but this I know for sure is crap.

I wish I could persuade you and others to reconsider this view but I recognize that’s not easily going to happen. So long as this belief is widespread in Muslim society there can be no end to strife. I can’t undeclare a war I never knew I declared in the first place.

As it happens an interesting article on this subject has just popped up on the BBC website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24650841

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another update.

I like the irony of Jack Straw being there as somebody whos somewhat of an 'expert' on Islam. I also like how they keep going on about how Islam needs a 'reformation', failing to understand the full implications of what they are saying. (Eg. it was one of the reasons that led to Christianitys decline.)

Interesting video nevertheless.

 

[Abdul-Halim265]

These back-lashes are what makes the whole situation all the more tragic!

A mosque in my home town suffered an arson attack following the Woolwich attack. Luckily not much damage was done, but it causes many problems - peaceful communities are disrupted, Muslims live in fear, Muslims AND non-Muslims are told by the media that they have to fear each other ...

I sent a letter expressing my sadness and support and prayers ... I don't know what difference it will make, but I felt I had to so SOMETHING.

Much effort is being made to build peaceful relationships between our faiths and others - but it only takes the action of a few idiotic extremists on both sides to undo all that. imsad

Still, I will never give up hope that peace is possible.

Unfortunately, this is definitely the case. As a Muslim living in the UK myself (British born and bred) I know all too well that if there's one group of people which the media does love to demonise, it is Muslims. Most Muslims in the UK aren't extremists at all, and homogenising us all as extreme, and judging the majority from the minority, is simply wrong. Yet unfortunately, although many do understand this, many more easily-swayed individuals will not.

However, I am by no means giving up hope. Inshallah much will change.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Unfortunately, this is definitely the case. As a Muslim living in the UK myself (British born and bred) I know all too well that if there's one group of people which the media does love to demonise, it is Muslims. Most Muslims in the UK aren't extremists at all, and homogenising us all as extreme, and judging the majority from the minority, is simply wrong. Yet unfortunately, although many do understand this, many more easily-swayed individuals will not.

When people are isolated from the muslims in their community, if they don't get out much, or stick to their friends alone, it isn't surprising that they would get such an image of muslims. This can happen at a less extreme level as well. I never believed that all muslims were fundamentalist extremist terrorist types, but I *DID* once believe, based mostly on the media, that all muslims were conservative. I've since found that most are, but by no means all. I know some socially liberal muslims, which really surprised me a lot more than meeting socially liberal christians or jews.

 

[Karl]

When people are isolated from the muslims in their community, if they don't get out much, or stick to their friends alone, it isn't surprising that they would get such an image of muslims. This can happen at a less extreme level as well. I never believed that all muslims were fundamentalist extremist terrorist types, but I *DID* once believe, based mostly on the media, that all muslims were conservative. I've since found that most are, but by no means all. I know some socially liberal muslims, which really surprised me a lot more than meeting socially liberal christians or jews.

"socially liberal Muslims". This is a euphemism for sycophantic apostates that are trying to appease the West. They don't believe in freedom like their name suggests but embrace the West's dogmas and bigotry. They even want to stamp out certain customs and practices that are halal! And make other certain things halal that are haram. They are the worst of heretics and blasphemers. They are the rotting infiltrating agents out to destroy Islam.

 

[glo]

A mosque in my home town suffered an arson attack following the Woolwich attack. Luckily not much damage was done, but it causes many problems - peaceful communities are disrupted, Muslims live in fear, Muslims AND non-Muslims are told by the media that they have to fear each other ...

I sent a letter expressing my sadness and support and prayers ... I don't know what difference it will make, but I felt I had to so SOMETHING.

Just wanting to send an update.

My letter did make a difference. I received a kind return letter and an invitation to an interfaith Eid event.
And many, many other people from all faiths and none had sent messages of support and sympathy too.

 

[Abdul-Halim265]

When people are isolated from the muslims in their community, if they don't get out much, or stick to their friends alone, it isn't surprising that they would get such an image of muslims. This can happen at a less extreme level as well. I never believed that all muslims were fundamentalist extremist terrorist types, but I *DID* once believe, based mostly on the media, that all muslims were conservative. I've since found that most are, but by no means all. I know some socially liberal muslims, which really surprised me a lot more than meeting socially liberal christians or jews.

I always figured that there were liberal Muslims and that not all Muslims were terrorists by any means, as some would have me believe. But the media never showed me this really, or many other people for that matter (it was something that you largely figure out for yourself). No wonder so many people are under the impression that Muslims are a homogeneous mass of terrorists; their weak minds are only fed one side of the story.

 

[LauraS]

When people are isolated from the muslims in their community, if they don't get out much, or stick to their friends alone, it isn't surprising that they would get such an image of muslims. This can happen at a less extreme level as well. I never believed that all muslims were fundamentalist extremist terrorist types, but I *DID* once believe, based mostly on the media, that all muslims were conservative. I've since found that most are, but by no means all. I know some socially liberal muslims, which really surprised me a lot more than meeting socially liberal christians or jews.

And this is a big part of the problem. From what I've read on Islamic forums Muslims see no reason why they should mix with non-Muslims at all, even showing complete disdain and superiority to them. And in wider society Muslims just don't mix. You just can't live in a non-Muslim country, isolate yourself and not expect there to be problems- that's just life. The problem between Muslims and non-Muslims cannot solely be blamed on non-Muslims.