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

[ardianto]

I see. So it isn't like complete malignment etc. Right? we have to think good of people, otherwise it'll reflect on us as being judgmental and stuff.

may Allah :swt: forgive me for any wrong I might have said. Ameen.

My post has been moved to your new thread.

http://www.islamicboard.com/clarifi...stions-doubts-shariah-islamic-ettiquette.html

Lets continue this topic there.

 

[Abz2000]

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

The correct way is to establish Islam in the law books and in the hearts of the future generations.

 

[cooterhein]

The correct way is to establish Islam in the law books and in the hearts of the future generations.

Very nice. Now in the interest of getting a real answer- what sort of Muslim would be able to talk you out of that plan, and what would he have to do in order to accomplish that?

 

[Abz2000]

The answer i provided (which you quoted above) is the real answer, the people of the united kingdom of great britain have ensnared themselves by commiting enormous injustice and God has already passed a sentence of retribution, it is best that all repent, submit to God, regain their dignity as human beings, and walk the noble path which God has shown, and are thereby saved from punishment and humiliation in this world and in eternity.

My job is to call to salvation, and not to call to hell.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you cooterhein;

Speech that incites violence (accompanied by words like imminent present danger) may be prosecuted by law,

We know that cartoons of the prophet pbuh, can incite violence, so why are these cartoons still visible on sites like Google?

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.

Eric

 

[jabeady]

Greetings and peace be with you cooterhein;



We know that cartoons of the prophet pbuh, can incite violence, so why are these cartoons still visible on sites like Google?

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.

Eric

Because there are too many cartoonists to be intimidated, or killed, by the comparatively small number of violent Muslims?

Hey, it's possible.

 

[Serinity]

Greetings and peace be with you cooterhein;



We know that cartoons of the prophet pbuh, can incite violence, so why are these cartoons still visible on sites like Google?

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.

Eric

These images can be really provocating. How would it feel to be likened to the Nazi regime, or drawing parables of one's party to the Nazi regime?

Any sane, decent man can see the intentions behind such deregatory pictures. They are only there to incite oppression. And I do feel this whole "Freedom of speech" feels like oppression.

Imagine your mother or father, or a Prophet, say Musa :as: , be defamed, and then be told "shut it, freedom of speech" This whole freedom of speech can be used for evil, imo.

But as a Muslim we should not act on emotions. But I certainly find it natural, and one should feel offended when one's Prophet :saw: is defamed.

may Allah :swt: forgive me if I said anything wrong. Ameen.

And Allah :swt: knows best.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you jabeady;

Because there are too many cartoonists to be intimidated, or killed, by the comparatively small number of violent Muslims?

Hey, it's possible.

I really don't get it, we have sexual discrimination laws, anti racism laws, so why do we still allow these cartoons? We know they offend and can incite violence.

I am against violence of all kinds, and I also am against deliberately provoking people.

The thread asks, What's the right way for UK Muslims to persuade extremists to stop being extremists? So we can make these cartoons illegal. It's not rocket science.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.

Eric

 

[Abz2000]

To see actual semites being accused of anti-semitism by khazars and ashkenazis is also insulting (of the intelligence of the people of the planet).

But then, it does point out how frustrated and stupid the enemies of Allah actually are in the face of rational argument.

 

[cooterhein]

The answer i provided (which you quoted above) is the real answer, the people of the united kingdom of great britain have ensnared themselves by commiting enormous injustice and God has already passed a sentence of retribution, it is best that all repent, submit to God, regain their dignity as human beings, and walk the noble path which God has shown, and are thereby saved from punishment and humiliation in this world and in eternity.

This type of rhetoric is the problem that needs solving, it is not the solution.

My job is to call to salvation, and not to call to hell.

You honestly think a Christian is backing the call to hell, just because it's not the right kind of Muslim....I can see I'm not the one who's going to talk you out of this, but I do see what's happening on a couple of other threads with you and I hope some Muslims can talk some common sense into you.

Always remember, you're not law enforcement. You do not enforce Islamic law. Ever. Not even a little bit.

 

[Abz2000]

This type of rhetoric is the problem that needs solving, it is not the solution.


You honestly think a Christian is backing the call to hell, just because it's not the right kind of Muslim....I can see I'm not the one who's going to talk you out of this, but I do see what's happening on a couple of other threads with you and I hope some Muslims can talk some common sense into you.

Always remember, you're not law enforcement. You do not enforce Islamic law. Ever. Not even a little bit.

You'll remember what i told you one day, and you will wish you had listened rather than argued.


Chapter Name:Al-Araf Verse No:7:79

9فَتَوَلَّى عَنْهُمْ وَقَالَ يَا قَوْمِ لَقَدْ أَبْلَغْتُكُمْ رِسَالَةَ رَبِّي وَنَصَحْتُ لَكُمْ وَلَكِن لاَّ تُحِبُّونَ النَّاصِحِينَ {79*

007:079*Shakir:
Then he turned away from them and said: O my people I did certainly deliver to you the message of my Lord, and I gave you good advice, but you do not love those who give good advice.

007:079*Sherali:
Then Salih turned away from them and said, 'O my people, I delivered the Message of my Lord unto you and offered you sincere counsel, but you love not sincere counsellors.

007:079*Yusufali:
So Salih left them, saying: "O my people! I did indeed convey to you the message for which I was sent by my Lord: I gave you good counsel, but ye love not good counsellors!"

 

[Futuwwa]

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

I haven't listened to what the UK government is saying, so take this for what it's worth. I know, though, that generally speaking, these kinds of government or government-backed initiatives tend to come off as signaling that the only good Muslim is one who will kiss the bum of Western secular humanism and unquestioningly reject any Islamic idea even slightly contrary to it.

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

As someone who has seen the radicalization process firsthand, even if only anecdotally, I might know. Radicalization ultimately comes from a feeling of alienation, from the perception that the world is against us, and out to get us. They have seen the Islamic world get ruthlessly dominated by foreign powers for a hundred years and counting. They have seen how Muslim blood is cheaply spilled, while the spilling of Western blood in retaliation is met with outrage. They see the media portray Muslims in a demonizing way. They experience discrimination and bigotry firsthand, and see how such bigotry against them is being practiced with impunity, while simultaneously seeing how acts of bigotry by Muslims against others gets cracked down on, signaling to them that they're an underclass whom it is uniquely acceptable to hate on. They are bombarded from the mainstream about proclamations about how their values are incompatible with Western society, framed in such a way as to portrary them as a foreign element allowed in society on sufferance and with a duty to conform, rather than equal citizens enjoying freedom of conscience. I'm not saying these perceptions are true, and I'm not interested in that discussion. I'm just saying, that's what things look like to a significant number of Muslims living as minorities in the UK and elsewhere in the West. These kind of things, seen and experienced over the years, pile up, and slowly and steadily build up the conviction that the world is out to get us. That conflict is inevitable, and it's the infidels' fault that we can't have nice things.

What would the primary argument against extremism be, then? Well, to show that there is a significant amount of real, genuine desire for coexistence on the opposite side. That things don't have to be the way they are. That we can make coexistence happen if we try. That yes, there are indeed people out there who are bigoted against Muslims, but have become so largely by having reached the same conclusion as you have, but from the other side, making them mirror images of you.

Standing up for apostates, sexual deviants, blasphemers and Salman Rushdie isn't something that I can see as a relevant priority. On the contrary, the notion that Muslims need to conform to Western-approved opinions on such matters is highly counterproductive.

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

That's not a question that can properly be answered in a simple and straightforward way. There is proper grassroots desire for real coexistence. As for extremism, the situation is complicated by the fact that while few may actually condone or support extremism, there are many more who share the grievances of the extremists. They are likely to resent the notion that extremism, in itself, is the issue that matters, and that by implication, all would be well if only Muslims would roll over and suffer their oppression and their grievances in silence.

 

[cooterhein]

Greetings and peace be with you cooterhein;



We know that cartoons of the prophet pbuh, can incite violence, so why are these cartoons still visible on sites like Google?

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.

Eric

Like I said, and like you quoted, there is a discussion to be had about speech that incites. But it's a bit more nuanced than the idea that all such speech should be banned everywhere; rather, the language used in the inciting speech scenario specifies that in order to be truly inciting, it must be somehow directed "at the person of the hearer." I would argue that speech which mocks Islam should not be in the same class of speech as child pornography, in that it should not be barred from existing in its entirety. After all, the main reason kiddie porn is treated that way is because it is so harmful to the child or children in question. Islam is not harmed by the speech we're talking about, Mohammed is not harmed in any comparable manner. It's only a real issue when it's put in front of a Muslim in some form or fashion. If there simply is offensive speech out there, somewhere, in the world, you don't get to complain about it simply because it exists and you're able to find it. If someone finds a way to put it in front of you, that's a different situation, but you're not going to be able to dictate that such speech should not be able to exist at all. So....I believe that answers your specific question in a fair amount of detail. Basically, it's not truly inciting you unless someone is finding a way to put it in front of you. Being directed "at the person of the hearer" is the legal phrase that's going to mean the most in this analysis.

I will go on to point out that in the US, Canada, and the UK, the cartoons that were the centerpiece of this controversy never made it onto people's television screens in any of these countries, and they were not reprinted in any of their newspapers. This was done by choice, due to it being a sensitive situation, and also in part because it is one thing to be able to google something and go out of your way to be offended, it is quite another to have something show up on page 3 of your newspaper, or appear on your TV screen while you're watching the news. The West in general, and the English speaking countries especially- although I'm not totally sure about Australia, I am sure about the other three though- made a point of not inciting their Muslim populations. Yes the material continues to exist, but the news and entertainment of the Anglosphere did not put in in front of you in an inciting manner. It's not just a question of whether something exists, it also matters exactly what is done with it.

This is a crucial distinction from both a practical standpoint and very much from a legal standpoint, and it invites a comparison with the course of action that Egypt chose to take. They didn't just reprint the cartoons, the cartoons were made to be more offensive than they were in the first place and then Egyptian newspapers put them in front of everybody. So now all of a sudden, Coptic Christians in North Africa are at serious risk of violence for something that was done by Danish cartoonists a thousand miles away. And not from terrorists and extremists, mind you, but from regular mainstream Muslims, especially the ones who are devout and take their religion very seriously. Oddly enough, it was Egypt that incited its people with this material and the West that did not. And across the rest of the Middle East and North Africa, there were Muslims who very much went out of their way to ensure that the angriest Muslims in the world were able to see it. That is the key to inciting people, you put it in front of them.

 

[jabeady]

Greetings and peace be with you jabeady;

I really don't get it, we have sexual discrimination laws, anti racism laws, so why do we still allow these cartoons? We know they offend and can incite violence.

It's called Freedom of Speech, and it is enforced specifically to protect the speaker against the offended.

Everything said by anyone is going to offend somebody, somewhere, some time. This includes preaching Christianity. Some of these offended people carry weapons, and aren't shy about using them. Is that going to stop you from witnessing (assuming that you do)?

It is an arguably regrettable necessity of free speech that you defend the speech you hate. See if you can rent the true-story movie "Skokie." If you can't or don't, it's the true story of how Jewish Holocaust survivors living in a Chicago suburb defended the free-speech rights of the American Nazi party.

I am against violence of all kinds, and I also am against deliberately provoking people.

Generally, so am I, but there are places I don't go in this town without a gun.

The thread asks, What's the right way for UK Muslims to persuade extremists to stop being extremists? So we can make these cartoons illegal. It's not rocket science.

Where do you draw the line? If we make cartoons depicting Mohammed and Allah illegal, why not Include Jesus, Buddha, Baal and Zoroaster? Personally, I would be *really* offended if you didn't think the Flying Spaghetti Monster was important enough to be included.

What about Satan? There are plenty of Satanists around, and you should *really* be afraid of pissing off those folks!

BTW, if you do what the extremists want you to do, will that make them play nice, or will it encourage to keep it up? How far are you willing to go to appease them?

I gather you're in the UK. I'm old enough that I have to marvel at having to instruct a Brit about appeasement. Google David Chamberlain in Munich.

 

[Abz2000]

Futuwwa, you mentioned a lot of things that actually strike a chord in me lol. I wonder, is it just that you're a lot wiser or was i misreading you back when i was in England.....

 

[Futuwwa]

Futuwwa, you mentioned a lot of things that actually strike a chord in me lol. I wonder, is it just that you're a lot wiser or was i misreading you back when i was in England.....

Before you get your hopes up, let it be said that I still don't buy any of your conspiracy theories.

 

[Futuwwa]

I gather you're in the UK. I'm old enough that I have to marvel at having to instruct a Brit about appeasement. Google David Chamberlain in Munich.

Would he be a relative of Neville Chamberlain?

"Appeasement" is a meaningless buzzword. There is no objective measure to determine what constitutes appeasement. One man's redress of grievances is another man's act of appeasement.

 

[cooterhein]

I haven't listened to what the UK government is saying, so take this for what it's worth. I know, though, that generally speaking, these kinds of government or government-backed initiatives tend to come off as signaling that the only good Muslim is one who will kiss the bum of Western secular humanism and unquestioningly reject any Islamic idea even slightly contrary to it.

Thank you very much for this, I'm not the biggest fan of secular humanism myself. To me, it seems more synonymous with French society than with English or American society- secular in the sense of treating all religion with equal hostility, rather than with equal friendliness and fairness.

What about the term secular liberalism? If you ask me, there's an important distinction with that terminology, but I'm not sure if it strikes you the same way.

As someone who has seen the radicalization process firsthand, even if only anecdotally, I might know.

Wonderful!

Radicalization ultimately comes from a feeling of alienation, from the perception that the world is against us, and out to get us. They have seen the Islamic world get ruthlessly dominated by foreign powers for a hundred years and counting. They have seen how Muslim blood is cheaply spilled, while the spilling of Western blood in retaliation is met with outrage. They see the media portray Muslims in a demonizing way. They experience discrimination and bigotry firsthand, and see how such bigotry against them is being practiced with impunity, while simultaneously seeing how acts of bigotry by Muslims against others gets cracked down on, signaling to them that they're an underclass whom it is uniquely acceptable to hate on. They are bombarded from the mainstream about proclamations about how their values are incompatible with Western society, framed in such a way as to portrary them as a foreign element allowed in society on sufferance and with a duty to conform, rather than equal citizens enjoying freedom of conscience.

Okay, first....in light of how Choudary was just arrested, at what point is mainstream Islam going to realize that efforts to establish an Islamic state and impose Shariah in public spaces (the key here is public spaces) is just not a winning strategy? Change your strategy, and you will do much better in this world. You've probably noticed by now, the West has zero sympathy for people who want Shariah law enforced in public spaces in the UK. Abz2000 could die today and a couple billion people would be pretty okay with it, just because he wishes Shariah upon Great Britain and upon the rest of the world as well. Maybe that's actually not compatible with Western society.

I'm not saying these perceptions are true, and I'm not interested in that discussion. I'm just saying, that's what things look like to a significant number of Muslims living as minorities in the UK and elsewhere in the West. These kind of things, seen and experienced over the years, pile up, and slowly and steadily build up the conviction that the world is out to get us. That conflict is inevitable, and it's the infidels' fault that we can't have nice things.

I didn't know Muslims were so interested in having nice things. I thought that having control was a higher priority, specifically having religious control and having the ability to punish those who break Islamic law.

Let me ask you a question. Suppose you did a survey of all British Muslims. Option one- Britain will give you all sorts of really nice things, but in exchange one Muslim country that currently enforces Shariah law on the general public will adopt secular laws and immediately stop punishing people for breaking Islamic law. Let's say, Pakistan. Or maybe they can pick a different one. And option two- Great Britain will adopt and enforce Shariah law on all its citizens, but all the Muslims presently living in the country have to surrender all the nice things that they currently have and pay really hefty taxes for a period of 10 years. Or maybe it's 5, I'm just making things up. After that, everything will go back to normal, except Shariah law will be what governs everyone.

Broadly speaking, which way do you think that would go? Do you think it would be an incredibly close vote, or would there be a clear winner where these priorities are concerned?

What would the primary argument against extremism be, then? Well, to show that there is a significant amount of real, genuine desire for coexistence on the opposite side. That things don't have to be the way they are. That we can make coexistence happen if we try. That yes, there are indeed people out there who are bigoted against Muslims, but have become so largely by having reached the same conclusion as you have, but from the other side, making them mirror images of you.

Now that's a very good point. It brings to mind the question of nationalism, and of national identity- is there a way to redefine British national identity in a way that's a bit different from how it is now, that both sides can reach a fundamental agreement on?

Standing up for apostates, sexual deviants, blasphemers and Salman Rushdie isn't something that I can see as a relevant priority. On the contrary, the notion that Muslims need to conform to Western-approved opinions on such matters is highly counterproductive.

You might find that you really need to conform to some Western-approved opinions in order to be seen as compatible with Western society. As a Christian, I have some definite opinions on these matters as well, and I don't particularly like it when people break divine law. But I don't hurt or kill anyone as if I were God's law enforcement officer. We at least need to reach an understanding on what laws get enforced, and who gets to enforce them.

Here, let me re-frame this just a little bit. Speaking for mainstream Muslims in Great Britain, let's talk about extra-judicial violence. In general, can you commit to that as a relevant priority? Are you willing to make sure you don't make any exceptions on this when it comes to apostates, sexual deviants, blasphemers and so forth?

Or do you think that consistent patterns of extra-judicial violence that's solely motivated by religion....is somehow not a priority? And how would you explain that to me.

That's not a question that can properly be answered in a simple and straightforward way. There is proper grassroots desire for real coexistence.

Do you think we can capitalize on that real desire while decoupling it from the desire to force people to submit to Islamic law? Can we reach an understanding on the inherent contradiction between "no compulsion in religion" and "Islamic law enforced in every public space and on anyone who happens to be there"?

As for extremism, the situation is complicated by the fact that while few may actually condone or support extremism, there are many more who share the grievances of the extremists.

Just a bit more than the grievances, also some key ideology. There is plenty of non-violent extremism in the mainstream, in that there are identical beliefs absent the networking and the violence.

They are likely to resent the notion that extremism, in itself, is the issue that matters, and that by implication, all would be well if only Muslims would roll over and suffer their oppression and their grievances in silence.

Freedom of speech is alive and well in the UK. Look at Choudary, he was able to stay out of prison for 20 years and his speech was very loud and very harmful that whole time. There doesn't seem to be any actual threat of Muslims being incarcerated en masse, at least not so far. The main thing we're looking for is some contributions that are realistic and just a bit more helpful than they have been up to this point. That is not the same thing as telling you to roll over and suffer in silence, just be smart and make the adjustments that you obviously need to make. But this needs to come from an actual Muslim, who's accepted as a proper Muslim by the mainstream, and he needs to do more than just tell non Muslims what to do. We are looking for some action on the Islamic side here as well.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you jabeady;

It's called Freedom of Speech, and it is enforced specifically to protect the speaker against the offended.

Why would you want the right to offend others with impunity? Surely it is better to be kind.

It is an arguably regrettable necessity of free speech that you defend the speech you hate.

Why should I want to defend offensive speech? Am I missing some kind of atheist logic here?

but there are places I don't go in this town without a gun.

I am so pleased I live in the UK.

BTW, if you do what the extremists want you to do, will that make them play nice, or will it encourage to keep it up? How far are you willing to go to appease them?

It is far better to try and be kind to all people.

I gather you're in the UK. I'm old enough that I have to marvel at having to instruct a Brit about appeasement. Google David Chamberlain in Munich.

As I recall, Franklin Roosevelt wasn't too keen on war either, it was only Pearl Harbour that forced him to get involved a couple of years later. Now you can't keep America from invading countries, according to some figures they could be responsible for as many as thirty million deaths since WW2.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.

Eric

 

[jabeady]

Would he be a relative of Neville Chamberlain?

Oops!

"Appeasement" is a meaningless buzzword. There is no objective measure to determine what constitutes appeasement. One man's redress of grievances is another man's act of appeasement.

We're not talking about a redress of grievances, we're talking about murder.

Wiki:
"The right to petition government for redress of grievances is the right to make a complaint to, or seek the assistance of, one's government, without fear of punishment or reprisals."