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

[sister herb]

I am also wondering what UK non-Muslims are planning to do to stop extremist islamophobics. Isn´t that too a rising problem in your society? Specially after the brexit voting.

Hate creates hate.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you cooterhein;

Eric H
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.

cooterhein
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.

I am British and a Christian, and as I said above, if America and Britain consider themselves to be Christian nations, we should love and pray for our enemies, and NOT bomb them. The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter. The Chilcot report pretty much condemns the invasion of Iraq. Thirteen years later, we can see the mess Iraq has been left in, 150,000 dead, 2 million refugees, countless numbers of wounded civilians, and a generation of Iraqi children growing up with mental health issues.

Eric H
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.

cooterhein;
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.

Ok, so if it offends you directly, then you would do something about it legally. But just hypothetically, if you were to flood the internet with pornographic cartoons of the wives and mothers of a million random people. The chances are, that some of them would violently take the law into their own hands, not everyone would react like you say you would.

Similarly, when cartoonists draw offensive cartoons of the prophet pbuh, they reach an audience of a billion Muslims, most of whom would be offended, but not react violently, But out of a billion Muslims, the odds just will be that some will react violently, a few million Muslims will suffer mental health issues. Why would anyone want to offend people with mental health issues?

As a Christian, I am deeply offended by the cartoons of the prophet pbuh, why should anyone have the need to offend, surely it is better to be kind and bring out the best in all people.

cooterhein;
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.

It is far better to forgive than to hate, we should pray for those we consider to be enemies, you will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.

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

Lawyers get paid, they will defend murderers for a price. My idea of justice for all people does not need lawyers, twenty thousand children are left to die every single day as a result of grinding poverty, preventable disease and starvation. The world has enough resources to feed them all, but we spend trillions on wars that kill people, in the west, we spend billions on diets because we overeat, we pay footballers millions for kicking a ball. Our idea of justice that overlooks the unnecessary deaths of a hundred million children since 9/11, but focuses on the deaths caused by ISIS, seems very wrong.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.

Eric

 

[cooterhein]

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

They aren't necessarily more important. However- and this goes for both of you- Islamic law and any other religious law for that matter is optional, while actual laws, like UK law, are mandatory.

Again, Islamic law is optional. You opt in and out of it freely, by choice. There is no compulsion in religion, remember? But UK law is mandatory. It is not optional. You live in the UK, you must obey UK law. You don't have a choice. These laws are not even a little bit optional. They are, wait for it, compulsory. There may be no compulsion in religion (allegedly), but there is compulsion in actual laws of a state that pays people to enforce these laws.

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

Well, you have to adhere to man made laws. So does everybody, pass the word along if anyone is confused about that. Good on you for obeying God's laws, those are optional and don't you forget that either. This links up nicely with something else I keep repeating- you are not law enforcement.

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

Feel free to get yourself the rest of the way there then, I said Islamic law is optional, that includes the option of obeying them and adhering to them by choice.

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

I respectfully disagree.

 

[cooterhein]

I am also wondering what UK non-Muslims are planning to do to stop extremist islamophobics. Isn´t that too a rising problem in your society? Specially after the brexit voting.

Hate creates hate.

Well, let's take a look at how much of a problem that really is. Ramadan ended not that long ago, from the beginning of this past Ramadan to right now, how many people in the UK were killed by Islamophobes?

I'm going to estimate zero. There was, however, a Desi Sunni who drove a couple hundred miles to Scotland and killed an Ahmadi who was well loved by his community, this became the first clear-cut example of murder-specific spillover from Pakistan to the UK. That happened in....oh, that was in June, during Ramadan.

Are you suggesting that we focus on Islamophobia because you think that will solve the extremism problem? If so....I doubt that will actually work. Or maybe you don't think extremism is really a thing, or that it's not really a problem, so you want to shift the focus to something you care about.

If that is the case, I will suggest that you go make your own thread. They're free. No cost to you.

 

[cooterhein]

Greetings and peace be with you cooterhein;



I am British and a Christian, and as I said above, if America and Britain consider themselves to be Christian nations, we should love and pray for our enemies, and NOT bomb them. The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter. The Chilcot report pretty much condemns the invasion of Iraq. Thirteen years later, we can see the mess Iraq has been left in, 150,000 dead, 2 million refugees, countless numbers of wounded civilians, and a generation of Iraqi children growing up with mental health issues.

I agree, that was terrible, and the estimated number of Muslims in the UK who should now break laws and kill people is....zero. They still should't do that. I mean, why bring that up if not to excuse lawless action? What other reason is there to bring it up?

Ok, so if it offends you directly, then you would do something about it legally.

No no no, not just if it offends me directly. It has to be illegal, and it could happen to anyone. If something is illegal, then law enforcement should be called upon to handle it. Whether it's me or you or anyone. Some offensive material is actually illegal, and you happened to give me an example of something that was. If anyone's likeness if widely disseminated in pornographic fashion without their consent, this is grounds for legal action. For me, if it happens to me, or for you or for anyone. Notice I say grounds for legal action, Not grounds for lawless action.

But just hypothetically, if you were to flood the internet with pornographic cartoons of the wives and mothers of a million random people. The chances are, that some of them would violently take the law into their own hands, not everyone would react like you say you would.

Okay, first, in this hypothetical, that would be illegal and the guilty person would probably be locked up before anyone else could get to them. But then you have a bunch of angry people, and what do you say to these people? Do you tell them to go ahead and find someone who looks like they might be vaguely associated with the guilty party, and to commence with some lawless violence against that person?

I get the gist of what you're talking about, and I'm going to remind you that the first people who usually get hurt or killed in these types of incidents are the people who happen to be in whichever US embassy is most conveniently available for burning. We're talking about innocent people- more than just innocent, these are people who traveled outside their country of origin in order to establish ties with another country- and then because millions of people are angry about what someone else did, those people get hurt or killed.

That's the thing that needs to stop.

Similarly, when cartoonists draw offensive cartoons of the prophet pbuh, they reach an audience of a billion Muslims, most of whom would be offended, but not react violently, But out of a billion Muslims, the odds just will be that some will react violently, a few million Muslims will suffer mental health issues. Why would anyone want to offend people with mental health issues?

Okay, first, if we're talking specifically about the Charlie Hebdo cartoons those were not terribly offensive and they did not initially reach a very wide audience. What happened was this, and you can feel free to use the Internet to check this out. There were some Muslims who were able to discover the cartoons in their extremely limited circulation, and they were so offended that they decided it was necessary to disseminate them far more widely in the Middle East and North Africa. Oh, and by the way, they altered some of the cartoons so that they would be much more offensive than they initially were. It was Muslims who spread that to the angriest Muslims in the world, and they intentionally stirred things up as much as they could. THAT is what led to these people getting killed, and just as soon as those heinous murders became worldwide news, THEN Charlie Hebdo became a household name outside of its limited circulation in Denmark and demand for the cartoons went from a few thousand to millions and millions.

So that's what happened there. Muslims should not act as if they were poor victims who just sat there through all of that, and for the record I'm not aware of any evidence that any of the Charlie Hebdo murderers were mentally ill. Neither were the Muslims who disseminated the altered-and-more-offensive cartoons to the angriest Muslims that they could find.

I do understand that with this kind of thing, there's an argument to be made for inciting speech. You could plausibly conclude that very offensive portrayals of Mohammed are that type of speech. An important corollary to this, however, is the aspect of this type of law which stipulates that it can't be properly considered inciting speech unless it is directed at the person of the hearer. In other words, the Charlie Hebdo thing was a situation where somebody, somewhere in the world and in a limited capacity, put some things out there that would offend Muslims if they ever saw them. But Charlie Hebdo was not responsible for putting these things in front of Muslims. Instead, it was Muslims who altered some of these cartoons and disseminated them inappropriately, and I can only assume they did this because they wanted to make sure somebody got killed. And of course it worked.

Now how do you feel about that course of action?

As a Christian, I am deeply offended by the cartoons of the prophet pbuh, why should anyone have the need to offend, surely it is better to be kind and bring out the best in all people.

That's good to know, and are you equally offended by the actions of the Muslims who altered some of those cartoons and disseminated them in the Middle East and North Africa in order to provoke a conflagration? Please be clear in your response.

It is far better to forgive than to hate, we should pray for those we consider to be enemies, you will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God.

Okay, I can agree with that.

Lawyers get paid, they will defend murderers for a price. My idea of justice for all people does not need lawyers, twenty thousand children are left to die every single day as a result of grinding poverty, preventable disease and starvation. The world has enough resources to feed them all, but we spend trillions on wars that kill people, in the west, we spend billions on diets because we overeat, we pay footballers millions for kicking a ball. Our idea of justice that overlooks the unnecessary deaths of a hundred million children since 9/11, but focuses on the deaths caused by ISIS, seems very wrong.

Those are some very good things to be concerned about, however the nature of talking about things and focusing on things is such that we can only do one thing at a time. I think we actually should spend some time focusing on the deaths caused by Daesh, and also spend some other time focusing on a variety of other things. Like how athletes are overpaid, and much food is wasted without being distributed in a way that makes sense. Those would be a couple of things, but I'm not sure how likely they are to come up on a specifically Islamic forum.

Edit- when I mentioned that some people get paid to ensure justice for all, I didn't have lawyers in mind. I actually had law enforcement in mind. Muslims who think they're Islamic law enforcers are part of the problem, not the solution, that was the main idea behind that.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.

I hope that does include the minority within the minority- Ahmadi Muslims in Scotland, gay Muslims who maybe....aren't supposed to....hold on to their religion while also pursuing a gay relationship, but let's hope for enough justice that nobody goes and kills these people. Justice for apostates as well, including the ones who speak out in a very public manner after they've left Islam.

And justice for everyone else too. But these people ^^^ are part of that.

 

[cooterhein]

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?

There are some Catholics and perhaps some Orthodox Christians who would agree that I am indeed a heretic, although it's not considered polite or beneficial to put that out there very often. And yes sir, free speech is all good.

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.

Noted.

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

Okay, so there's two basic types of extremists. There are violent extremists who break laws because they think they were put on Earth to enforce Islamic law, and then there's non-violent extremists who don't do the things that get you put in a cell, but they do make excuses for the people who do and they believe there are some instances where it's permissible for a Muslim to break the law in the name of Allah. If I were very confident in your non-extremist status, I would ask if you're planning on passing anything along to anyone you know who might potentially become a violent extremist. (What are really the odds that you know someone like that? Well, if you include everyone you talk to on the Internet, the odds go up significantly).

But I'm not totally confident that you're not an extremist. You're definitely not a violent extremist, but there's a reasonable chance that you're the type of person who would make excuses for the people who are.

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

I'll obey the laws of man because I have to, and it's not optional. I will also obey the laws of God as I have understood them from the Bible and from a reasonable amount of religious education. By choice, mind you, not because anyone is forcing me to. And although I'm not planning on opting out, that option does exist for me and it's something I can do without living in fear of violence.

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.

Okay, Mr. Tight Boundaries. Couple of questions. If you had the chance to kill Salman Rushdie, would you?
If, in a somewhat contrived situation, another Muslim seemed plausibly able to kill Salman Rushdie- and you had the ability to stop him, thus protecting Salman Rushdie- would you protect Salman Rushdie?
If anyone ever succeeds in killing Salman Rushdie and is then, maybe, rewarded with much wealth from the Iranian ayatollah, will you make excuses for that Muslim or will you condemn his actions?
And finally, what is your personal assessment of what the Iranian ayatollahs have done? One of them put a large bounty on this man's head, and the other one raised the bounty and made the reward even larger. I completely condemn this course of action, but what about you? You did just tell me you have a really tight understanding, so let's see what you do with this.

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?

Okay, first, my particular branch of Christianity is fairly likely to have a friendly relationship with limitations on alcohol. The college I went to, for example, was a dry campus, even students who were of legal age aren't allowed to drink as long as they're enrolled there. (This includes spring break, which is intentionally timed so it doesn't coincide with very many other colleges). As a matter of fact, there was a time when the professors of this college were also not allowed to drink, even at home. This restriction was eventually put to an end, but professors are still encouraged to adhere to sometimes-vaguely-worded levels of conduct that amount to a similar sort of thing.

And second, I'm looking at a few of the commentaries on that verse and the general consensus seems to be that the bad actor in question is probably the Antichrist, who is never specifically named. And one more thing- I'm neither Catholic nor Orthodox, so I'm one of those Christians who doesn't really do the saint thing. I do acknowledge what's admirable in a large number of saints, but I'm also comfortable with questioning whether certain people deserved to be saints, and whether certain portions of hagiography are less than historically accurate, sometimes to the point where I question if certain saints properly existed as described, or were they perhaps a character created from an amalgam of different stories that were partially true. None of that particularly applies to Paul, but the main thing here is that I'm not someone who gives you a good opportunity to hold my feet to the fire when it comes to sainthood.

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

There's so much that I could say about this, but I realize where I am and I'm going to hold back. Like I said earlier in the thread, I don't particularly wish to offend anyone very much. You may feel differently, but that's where I'm at.

 

[kritikvernunft]

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?

I voluntarily obey Divine Law. However, the very first statement in Divine Law says that there is just one Lawmaker, and that it is forbidden to associate other lawmakers as partners next to or above this One Legitimate Lawmaker. Therefore, it is forbidden behaviour unto me to voluntarily obey any law that is was not instituted by the One God, our Beloved Master, the Creator of the Universe. Therefore, as matter of faith, I will seek to utterly disobey any law of which the origin cannot be brought back to the One God. Hence, I consistently seek to prove my loyalty to the One God by NOT obeying other masters.

Therefore, what you call "the law" is therefore something to disobey and to utterly NOT obey. You will go to hell after you die, if you voluntarily obey that kind of rules.

There are 200+ national states claiming that they have the right to invent new laws. Which one of these should you obey? All of them? That would even be impossible because the entire set is utmost inconsistent.

Furthermore, I consider people who voluntarily obey man-made laws to be despicable traitors.

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.

All legitimacy necessarily emanates from the laws of the singular God. The people whom you call "law enforcement" were not appointed by the singular God. Hence, these people have no special status whatsoever, and are not exempt in any way from the provisions in Divine Law. More specifically, the mere fact of wearing a uniform will never exempt these people from the provisions in the Qisas, i.e. the Lex Talionis, governing the moral status of hostile behaviour, and summarized as: An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. What's more, anybody arguing against the Qisas as universal, Divine Law, is a blasphemer and must be dealt with under the provisions in Divine Law concerning blasphemy.

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.

Advocating that anybody should obey man-made law is a pagan depravity. This behaviour is strictly forbidden onto the believers, who may only advocate that other people voluntarily submit to Divine Law.

 

[kritikvernunft]

There are violent extremists who break laws because they think they were put on Earth to enforce Islamic law ...

The strategies of these people may not always work. It is true that they may do things that are self-defeating. So, they should learn to modulate their behaviour a bit, in order to make it more effective.

... and then there's non-violent extremists who don't do the things that get you put in a cell, but they do make excuses for the people who do and they believe there are some instances where it's permissible for a Muslim to break the law in the name of Allah ...

There is no need to make excuses for them. My main strategy, is to just ignore them, as long as they don't badly exaggerate by breaking Divine Law. In those cases, it is more a question of confronting them with the idea that you cannot promote Divine Law by breaking its very provisions. As long as they remain consistent and non-contradictory, I will personally just keep ignoring them. If they are self-defeating, I will probably express my disapproval. However, if they manage to be effective, and there was arguably no other way to make an omelet than by breaking eggs, I may even applaud them.

I'll obey the laws of man because I have to, and it's not optional. I will also obey the laws of God ...

That is contradictory and inconsistent because the very first law of God says that you shall recognize no other lawmakers than God. You will not get any benefits out of obeying God's law, if you also obey Satan's law.

This is exactly what the pagans also do. They obey to God, but they invent lots of other gods to whom they also obey. Paganism is pointless. It destroys the active ingredient in religion, which is the refusal to obey to just whoever claims that you should: There is just one God, and it is not the ruler. Seriously, it is not the obedience to God's law that is the active ingredient, because in that case paganism would also be valid as a religion. It is the disobedience to everything else, that is. The faith in the singular God will always lead to conflicts with the rulers, who will always desire to get associated as partners next to or even above the singular God. Therefore, you must embrace and glorify conflicts with the rulers over this.

You see, as an anti-statist liberterian, I know that there are libertarians who do not believe in God and do not desire to obey Divine Law, and I also know that there are also Muslims who voluntarily obey to man-made law, but still, at the core of both views -- Islam and anti-statist libertarianism -- you can still find the active ingredient of rejecting man-made law, which should allow for duly dismantling and sinking the National State. Divine Law is not anarchy. There are undoubtedly enough Muslims who believe that too. Libertarians probably don't, but they also have no alternative, which should allow Divine Law to win by default. The National State is a serious impediment to Divine Law. Therefore, it has to go.

 

[kritikvernunft]

If you had the chance to kill Salman Rushdie, would you? If, in a somewhat contrived situation, another Muslim seemed plausibly able to kill Salman Rushdie- and you had the ability to stop him, thus protecting Salman Rushdie- would you protect Salman Rushdie?

The real punishment for Salman Rushdie is that there is a fatwa commissioning his assassination and that there really are people who want to carry it out and kill him. Effectively killing him, however, is actually not such a good idea. It would also destroy his punishment. So, the current outcome is certainly satisfactory. He must live under 24/7 round the clock police protection, because otherwise, he will indeed get killed. Therefore, as long as his police protection constitutes a sufficiently credible effort to protect him from his fatwa, the execution of the fatwa itself should remain suspended.

 

[Zafran]

If your talking about Quilliam foundation then they are stupid - Its like ex racists teaching non racist people how not be racists. This time around you have extremists teaching non extremist Muslim how not to be extreme. Its laughable. Its one of the reasons they have jumped to Sam Harris and others for back up.

furthermore how many terrorists organisations have they stopped? how many Terrorist attacks have they stopped? Non - Its a hustle and non Muslims and paying for it.

 

[LaSorcia]

As I re-read the Bible book of Numbers for the nth time, I decided not to gloss over it. There must be a reason God wanted us to read it. So I paid attention and came to a great realization: it is our brothers and sister we are fighting with. We should stop. On both sides.

And, as Christians, we should act as guests here on IB. I have found good hospitality here for the most part, and I try to be an accommodating guest.

 

[cooterhein]

Its like ex racists teaching non racist people how not be racists. This time around you have extremists teaching non extremist Muslim how not to be extreme. Its laughable. Its one of the reasons they have jumped to Sam Harris and others for back up.

I'd probably say it's more similar to a strategy where you hire ex-hackers in order to do a really good job of building a firewall. Or using an ex-thief as a consultant on how to properly secure things. There are some real-world examples of very comparable situations where this is a widely accepted strategy.

furthermore how many terrorists organisations have they stopped? how many Terrorist attacks have they stopped? Non - Its a hustle and non Muslims and paying for it.

Any time you ask how many of the things that haven't happened, didn't happen although otherwise they would have happened....I understand the basic premise, that it hasn't been terribly effective so far, but the precise way in which you phrased it is a bit problematic. There's just no way to measure how many things haven't happened. Nobody even tries to keep track of that, and it would be impossible to do that if anyone did.

Now, speaking as a non Muslim, I think I can see why non Muslims would feel inclined to give money to these kinds of people- maybe not these exact people, but in general I feel like this sort of thing codifies arguments and ideas in ways that non Muslims don't have easy access to, and it makes us feel like something is being built by people who are better positioned to do it than we are. And we feel like we learn things from it. In the analysis of Sam Harris, for example, he wrote a book about reforming Islam, he had a certain co-author on the book, and according to Sam Harris, his views and his way of thinking about the issue were modified to a large extent by his co-author and his co-author was influenced to a certain extent but not nearly as much. Which is about what you would expect, but it means something to hear it stated explicitly.

People who really hate these types of efforts might suggest that these Muslims are Uncle Toms who are simply amplifying what the non Muslims are saying anyway, but I think that vastly underestimates the extent to which these particular Muslims are really modifying the way that non Muslims think about all of this. I suppose I'm not surprised to find out that isn't happening to any great extent at a grassroots level among UK Muslims, but it may be possible in the long term, and either way non Muslims are getting something out of it. We modify how we think about this, we welcome the change and we like it. That's typically how it goes.

 

[kritikvernunft]

furthermore how many terrorists organisations have they stopped? how many Terrorist attacks have they stopped?

You see, the National State uses force, say, "violence", to impose its man-made law onto the believers. That is detestable behaviour. Why would any believer prioritize the issue with the occasional suicidal extremists over the problem of the obnoxious behaviour of the National State? In ways, the National Statists may just be getting a taste of their own medicine. Quite a few of these suicide bombers are indeed possibly misguided, and are just causing mostly useless trouble. Point conceded. However, in my opinion, none of that can be a priority for us. In the greater light of things, all of that is obviously unimportant and has nothing to do with the real problem. Why would anybody pay attention to what a National State sees as their priority? What exactly are these National Statists offering in exchange to entice us to prioritize their needs above our own? My priorities are mine, and their priorities are theirs. Therefore, while sitting around the negotiation table with the National Statists, we should only agree to pay attention to their problems, on the condition that they agree to pay attention to our.

 

[Zafran]

I'd probably say it's more similar to a strategy where you hire ex-hackers in order to do a really good job of building a firewall. Or using an ex-thief as a consultant on how to properly secure things. There are some real-world examples of very comparable situations where this is a widely accepted strategy.

In the movies - In real life they go to jail and stay there. Its also doesn't make the world safer but it does make the thief and hacker richer. While we are at it we can let the ex BNP members teach non racist white people how not be racist. If this isnt absurd to you then I dont know what it.

People who really hate these types of efforts might suggest that these Muslims are Uncle Toms who are simply amplifying what the non Muslims are saying anyway, but I think that vastly underestimates the extent to which these particular Muslims are really modifying the way that non Muslims think about all of this. I suppose I'm not surprised to find out that isn't happening to any great extent at a grassroots level among UK Muslims, but it may be possible in the long term, and either way non Muslims are getting something out of it. We modify how we think about this, we welcome the change and we like it. That's typically how it goes.

Wrong about "Non Muslims saying" - there are plenty of non Muslims who can see shill Sam Harris and the Quiliam foundation are. Actually if you look broad enough you will see that non Muslims have varied opinions and views - from banning every muslim or nuking them to re educating the radicals etc etc. The Muslims are varied as well but I believe that you cant seem to see that.

Any time you ask how many of the things that haven't happened, didn't happen although otherwise they would have happened....I understand the basic premise, that it hasn't been terribly effective so far, but the precise way in which you phrased it is a bit problematic. There's just no way to measure how many things haven't happened. Nobody even tries to keep track of that, and it would be impossible to do that if anyone did.

Lets ask the MI5 and the army and compre them to how effective they stop the terrorists organisation and compare them to Quiliams "effective" work.

 

[talibilm]

We can't persuade such brain washed people except through making them understand Islam through the right meaning of understanding the verses of Noble Quran with Daleels like quoting asbabe nuzul or the situations on when those verses which are misquoted (favouring extremism) where revealed and the bad effect of ' unrest ' on Islam also seen in the history of Islam where islam grew at slow pace (about 1500 Sahabas in 16 years of preaching) untill Treaty of Hudaibiya which was considered as a loose of face even by the greater Sahabas when Prophet :saws: accepted peace instead of fight but Allah, Al Hakim described as THE VICTORY in the noble Quran and in just couple of years Muslims swelled many times into 10,000 Sahabas leading into peaceful conquest of Mecca where these brain washed brothers need to learn. In my opinion those stir extremism unreasonably ( except in cases like Israeli occupation etc) are not well wishers of Islam.


Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 53 :: Hadith 406

Narrated Abu Wail:
We were in Siffin and Sahl bin Hunaif got up and said, "O people! Blame yourselves! We were with the Prophet on the day of Hudaibiya, and if we had been called to fight, we would have fought. But 'Umar bin Al Khatab came and said, 'O Allah's Apostle! Aren't we in the right and our opponents in the wrongs' Allah's Apostle said, 'Yes.' 'Umar said, 'Aren't our killed persons in Paradise and their's in Hell?' He said, 'Yes.' 'Umar said, 'Then why should we accept hard terms in matters concerning our religion? Shall we return before Allah judges between us and them?' Allah's Apostle said, 'O Ibn Al-Khattab! I am the Apostle of Allah and Allah will never degrade me. Then 'Umar went to Abu Bakr and told him the same as he had told the Prophet.On that Abu Bakr said (to 'Umar). 'He is the Apostle of Allah and Allah will never degrade him.' Then Surat-al-Fath (i.e. Victory) was revealed and Allah's Apostle recited it to the end in front of 'Umar. On that 'Umar asked, 'O Allah's Apostle! Was it (i.e. the Hudaibiya Treaty) a victory?' Allah's Apostle said, "Yes"


The thread below will elaborate those daleels or proofs from the Noble Quran and hadiths where Allah & his Prophet :saws: clearly endorsed Peace instead of Confrontation & called it as'' THE VICTORY - Surah Al Fath ''

http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?451049-Kill-All-the-Polytheists-Did-the-Verse-9-5-say-So


and also this allied thread if you have ample time

http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthre...force-Islam-No-Says-an-Hindu-Prof-with-Proofs

 

[sister herb]

Well, let's take a look at how much of a problem that really is. Ramadan ended not that long ago, from the beginning of this past Ramadan to right now, how many people in the UK were killed by Islamophobes?

You think that islamophobic hate speaking can continue as long as nobody lost their life? But isn´t it too late to stop it after that? What I just wrote: hate creates hate. If you want that your neighbor doesn´t hate you, treat him kindly. If you insult him with nasty cartoons, words full of hate and violence, he most likely doesn´t think that you want anything good for him.

He feels you hate him and he will do same to you.

Hate creates hate.

By the way, how much racist violence has raised at the last times in UK?

Incidents of anti-Muslim abuse up by 326% in 2015

https://www.theguardian.com/society...muslim-abuse-up-by-326-in-2015-says-tell-mama

I would to be very concerned because of kind of rising of hate, shouldn´t you feel same? Remember that this isn´t the first time in the Europe, when people don´t say NO enough early to the far-right haters.

I also agree with Eric H, we all should realise from where and why all this "islamist" extremism has started. Was here al-Qaeda or Daesh before the Persian Gulf/Iraq wars?

Nope.

 

[talibilm]

You think that islamophobic hate speaking can continue as long as nobody lost their life? But isn´t it too late to stop it after that? What I just wrote: hate creates hate. If you want that your neighbor doesn´t hate you, treat him kindly. If you insult him with nasty cartoons, words full of hate and violence, he most likely doesn´t think that you want anything good for him.

He feels you hate him and he will do same to you.

Hate creates hate.

By the way, how much racist violence has raised at the last times in UK?

Incidents of anti-Muslim abuse up by 326% in 2015

https://www.theguardian.com/society...muslim-abuse-up-by-326-in-2015-says-tell-mama

I would to be very concerned because of kind of rising of hate, shouldn´t you feel same? Remember that this isn´t the first time in the Europe, when people don´t say NO enough early to the far-right haters.

I also agree with Eric H, we all should realise from where and why all this "islamist" extremism has started. Was here al-Qaeda or Daesh before the Persian Gulf/Iraq wars?

Nope.

Yep, This could be a Main cause of the roots of consequent extremism by the Muslim victims there hew .

 

[kritikvernunft]

He feels you hate him and he will do same to you. Hate creates hate.

You describe the mutual hate between mister A and mister B, but you forget to describe the situation of the bystander, mister C. Is it a problem that mister A and mister B hate each other? No, not necessarily. There could be advantages for mister C. You see, A and B will hate each other anyway. So, the question then becomes, how can we benefit from that? What can we achieve by taking advantage of that? I think that this is the point where you seriously underestimate the potential. It may even be possible to turn all of that into a one-way bet: whether A and B hate each other then no longer matters, because regardless of that, there will always be benefits for C.

Furthermore, the Qisas insists that hatred is morally neutral. Its moral status depends on the common history of mutual hostility that precedes the hatred. Hence, I do not automatically disapprove of hatred. The feeling may be absolutely understandable.

 

[sister herb]

You ask how Muslims in UK can persuade extremists to be extremist. You seem to start to solve the problems from the wrong points. I have thought kind of matters a long time and I have one solution.

We need the new world order which is based on justice and equality. Hate and extremism get its fuel from unequality. People all around the world have been too long time under the political, economical and military pressure of the rich countries. The whole world economy system bases to the same unequality. So-called developed countries want to secure their own economic and don´t let enough for the others to survive and to develop their own economies. Those wars are a tool how the West keeps other countries in fear and under their rule. What wars then cause to those other countries? In a nutshell: their economy is in ruins, the GDP remains low, society can not evolve, people feel that they have no future, refugee flows are growing and extremism feels well. People feel they don´t get justice and they behave like people usually do in kind of situation: they take the justice to their own hands.

Is the new world order like this one a realistic option? Of course not. But without it efforts to end extremism are baseless. They are like cure the symptoms although you should try to solve the basic problem which cause those symptoms like hate speech and extremism.

 

[cooterhein]

If you insult him with nasty cartoons, words full of hate and violence,

You're playing rather fast and loose with the term "violence." No Muslims were physically harmed in the creation of these cartoons, even after they were reprinted and widely distributed in Egypt of all places (who decided to do that)? If Jesus is depicted walking into a room, saying "Hi," and Mo (actually labeled as Mo in the cartoon) is depicted as saying "Hey," no violence is involved here, and under Danish law let's also remember this is perfectly legal. (Again, why was this reprinted in Egypt? Who decided to do that?) The only violence that's happening here is when Muslims ignore every applicable law against violence and they go and murder people. That's where the violence comes in, and don't you dare make any excuses for that.

You shouldn't ever kill people. You in general, nobody should ever kill anybody. Even if it's in self defense, you should plan ahead and use non-lethal force to defend yourself, and let's be honest, in the UK it's not that easy to get a gun so it's not very realistic in any event. Basically, there are laws against violence, there are laws against murder, and they should not be broken. Period. End of story.

Stop making excuses. It's unacceptable.

He feels you hate him and he will do same to you.

Hate creates hate.

Has it ever occurred to you that Muslims are doing some things that earn them just a bit of hate? If I did hate Islam- which I don't, you said it not me- do you honestly think I would hate it because of how good and perfect it is, and for its impeccable record of peace, and for all the good things that Muslims have done? Do you honestly think that non Muslims assess Islam in this manner and then decide this is a thing that's worthy of hate?

No, no, no. Check this out. Muslims kill non Muslims for breaking the laws of a religion that they don't belong to. That is unacceptable. And it's something that Islam, as a religion, is responsible for. Non Muslims are not responsible for these lawless acts of violence, Muslims are. I hold Islam responsible for these attacks and so many others, and I'm saying that doesn't mean I hate Islam, it just means I hold the perpetrators responsible and not the victims. And I am telling you for what will probably not be the last time, that you need to stop making excuses for people who murder other people. Stop it. I won't get tired of telling you that, so I hope that you eventually get tired of making those excuses.

By the way, how much racist violence has raised at the last times in UK?

Incidents of anti-Muslim abuse up by 326% in 2015

How many murders, exactly?

I would to be very concerned because of kind of rising of hate, shouldn´t you feel same? Remember that this isn´t the first time in the Europe, when people don´t say NO enough early to the far-right haters.

The ascendant threat of the far right is a legitimate problem that's worth spending some time being worried about. Do you honestly think that any attempt at imposing Islamic law on a resistant secular population is an actual solution to that problem though?

I also agree with Eric H, we all should realise from where and why all this "islamist" extremism has started. Was here al-Qaeda or Daesh before the Persian Gulf/Iraq wars?

Islamist extremism comes from Islam, and from the imposition of Islamic law on people who are clearly saying No Thank You. That's optional, and I opt out. And then very devout Muslims say There is no compulsion in religion, but this is actually not optional.

Seriously though, it comes from Islam. We're not talking about a secular movement, we're not talking about economic theory. This isn't Marx and Engels. We're talking about religious text. The people who lead these movements and give form to their core ideologies tend to be people with plenty of advanced education in Quranic study, some are basically scholars in their own right, and that is the skill set that goes into these sorts of things.

Nope.

Oh, well done, two groups that came into existence relatively recently. There's a couple of things completely wrong with your line of reasoning, though. If al-Quaeda and Daesh really just boil down to the logical reaction toward an aggressive Western Satan, why in the world is Daesh going after the Yazidis so hard? What sort of connection does a Yazidi person have to the West, and when was it exactly that they invaded a country? While I'm waiting for your explanation, I'll go ahead and offer up the idea that Quranic texts and Islamic ideology are the very obvious and only reason for why they're doing what they're doing, and you could go on and on with several dozen other examples. I will go on to point out that it's not at all uncommon in the UK for some very odd statements to come out of the Muslim community. For example, if you look around just a little bit, you'll probably be able to find a London-born Muslim of North African origin who talks about drone strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and talks in a critical fashion about UK and US foreign policy in terms of their military "abusing our land" and "killing our civilians, our women and children." If religion had no role to play in this, it would be extremely odd to hear a Londoner of North African origin talking about the ME and South Asia in possessive terms like this. But there clearly is a very strong religious aspect, and it really doesn't just boil down to an aggrieved people upset at being attacked. Of course there is a strong religious component, even when foreign policy also has something to do with it.

I will also point out that these groups are not doing very much that's terribly new. No matter how much the Saudis insist otherwise, Daesh is basically the second coming of Muhammad ibn abd al-Wahhab. He imposed jizya, he killed other Muslims that he didn't consider sufficiently observant, he targeted whole sects of Muslims, he executed people in exactly the same ways that Daesh is. And he did all this without being opposed by forces outside the region, and the Saudi state is what eventually came of it. As of right now, over half of the suicide bombers in Syria and Iraq are people who have Saudi citizenship. So how about that.

Now, the roots of al-Qaeda begin in Afghanistan and the fight against the Soviets, but 1983 was a bit of a turning point in that jihad had never previously included the possibility of being a suicide bomber, or of killing innocent civilians not at all involved in the field of battle among several other things. These are innovations, and it requires ignoring many parts of the Quran that otherwise clearly forbid such things. However, the rationale for normalizing these innovations is religious in nature and not at all secular. Arguments for the normalizing of suicide bombing and the murder of innocents do not hinge on US foreign policy or on the way in which wars are being fought, they hinge on a rather bad method of analyzing religious text and it is and always has been an argument from Islamic history and from Islamic teaching. The US did not bomb al-Qaeda into those conclusions, Muslims reasoned their way there through religious study.