BoxRec

I started to read Bucaille's book a few years ago. Its a bit like reading a modern review of Nostradamus from someone who wants to show Nostradamus had the gift of prophecy. The Koran (I am Western, hence the Western spelling), which I have read (although of course only in English), is in parts a beguiling, provoking and always interesting read.

However, given the style of the narrative, is hard to give literal interpretation (may be completely different in Arabic), so to state as Bucaille does that it is consistent with science is utterly simplistic.

I can't be bothered to trawl through the net, but I do remeber years ago a lengthy article in one of the Sunday broadsheets that suggested there was no evidence Bucaille had ever converted to Islam and implied it was all a great money-spinner for him.

I am almost tempted to begin my great work tommorow morning.

I will remove them with nail scissors if neccesary and spray them with gold spray and affix them to the engraved plaque beneath each lovingly framed photograph of my 'offspring.'

Terence wrote:

"The people of the book" are granted second-class, discriminatory existences in Islamic states; other folks (Hindus, Buddhists, Zaraostrians, Atheists) are granted no existence at all. Conversion or death is the alternative open to them.

So why are there many faiths in the Lebanon and the Phillipines? Where does it say in the Koran that the 'other people of the book' must convert or die? Please throw them up. Or will actualy having to refer to something once again force you to put up the shield of 'this is not applicable.'

As for the various faiths in Lebanon and the Phillipines, I suppose this owes in part to the fact that these are secular, not Islamic states (btw, I wonder whether you are happy with this state of affairs); and in other parts to the fact that Christians are "people of the book".

As for the "other people of the book" you misread my post -- "other people of the book" face conversion or discriminatory existence in an Islamic state.

Folks who are NOT people of the book (roughly 40 percent of mankind) face conversion or death.

Because it is discriminatory. Islam may wish to impose relgiously motivated obligations on its members (as long as these members are free to leave if they disagree with these obligations). But Islam has obviously no right whatsoever to impose obligations on non-members. If that leads to monetary advantages to non-members Islam will simply have to live with the incentives it has created.

I suppose inheritance tax does not discriminate against savers? Zakat is a pillar of Islam, conversition tax a means of brigding that gap. It is more egalitarianism than our tax system.

Zakat discriminates on religious grounds, and is therefore unacceptable.

(which is, of course, totally different from discriminating according to income or the personal savings rate.)

The legality of Spain is a question that you refuse to address.

I did address this 'point',

No you did not.

has hezbollah attacked Spain? You threw Spain up and pushed me to answer it.

Hezbollah doesn't have missiles that can reach Spain. Al-Qaeda has pronounced though that it intends to liberate Al-Andalus from the Crusaders.

Btw, the question to you remains: do you consider Spain an illegal state?
There are two possible answers: YES or NO.

And unless I grossly overread something you haven't settled for any of these options so far.

You brought up the misreading of the Torah by orthodox Jews and refuse ot answer.

Since you repeat this for the umpteenth time, and I have every time in the past corrected your mistake, I have to assume that you knowingly speak the untruth.

I NEVER brought this up. You did.

I consider the debate on the reading of the Torah or any other relgious scripture irrelevant for the quesiton at hand (which is: the legality of the state of Israel).

Just come clean and admit that you have not read the Torah and cannot answer this point.

HELLO: it is irrelevant (as is my reading or not of the Torah)

In this specific example: the Catholic church is perfectly entitled to not offer my kids schooling, AS LONG AS the Catholic church does not try to prevent my children from access to other forms of schooling. It is the responsibility of society, of course, to make sure that such alternatives exist.

Don't many US schools of a Catholic bent have greater prestige and funding. They do here and greatly increase your childs chances of advancement. It is a form of elitism. As is the fact that a RE teacher who lacks faith is barred from teaching in faith schools. In this all faiths are guilty. If your partner is true in Catholic faith marriage to a non-Catholic is a great risk, you can walk into a divorce, she can only apply for annulment. The onus still falls on your children to join that clun otherwise you lead your wife into sin. The Catholic Chruch, over here, is barring many kids from decent schooling at places like St. Bedes and the like.

There are enough excellent non-Catholic schools, so this is a non-issue. As for marriage, what counts for me (and my partner) at the end of the day is legal marriage. And as long as the Catholics don't try to mess with that they can do with their bit whatever they wish.

The "separation of church and state" thing is really rather easy, once you have understood the concept.

We are pretty much done here Pundit. I addressed as many points as possible and that throwing up of scripture then swallowing sticks out like a sore thumb. You are I lucky I only just mastered this pesky quote function

Well, then stop replying. As long as you write stuff I take issue with I will respond though.

Cheers, P

Terence wrote:Ezzard, I don't believe in psychology per se (I did study it in college, it is more Donald Duck than sociology). James is right, people used to tell stories. Do you know the Iliad was a vocal history? A vocal history that we know 'interpret' as a text. It is BS man. You are getting a bit Derren Brown with the billboard stuff. That only works on the weak minded, a growing number I'm afraid. You are merely proving my thesis right by denying the writer a right to interpret his own work! Why do you think that writers, not academics, are called on to turn their work into screenplays. Story telling was once prevalent but an academic cannot eke out a living putting a commentary on a story, well they can but there is no glory so they interpret it. There is no imagination anymore, that is why hardly anyone can write. How many fight reports report on a fight? How many are gossip and second-hand text?

There is a formula to unlocking a text, you read it carefully and unpack loaded words. Those profs wasted their lives because they probably wanted to find their meaning in the text and then sell it in book form. That is all academia is. It is dying on its arse.

'A Remembrance of Things Past' is a cast-iron refutation. A man reminiscing that has been hijacked by associational psychiatry. His social milieu, geography etc is according to you a big part yet he is the fulcrum of all of this, a man occupies a place in time. Know that man and know his work. Conversely Heidegger opened a lecture on Aristotle entitled (paraphrase) 'Biographical Background of Aristotle' with: "He lived, he worked and then he died!" That was it. However this stance may have changed post-1930's.

Someone did indeed edit Proust, they did not run the changes by the newspaper bosses, or the mob, or society at large, they ran them by Proust who had the final say about whether they should take place. The text is produced and edited, ultimately, by one man. Look at the problems of unfinished texts, 'The Castle' (which I recommend) of Kafka springs to mind. You need to know the man, read 'The Trial', then 'Letter to Father' and then 'The Trial'. You say the man fades? Ask a milieu to write a book.

I agree that we strive for meaning. I'm striving still. Our eternal question is: "what is the meaning of life!" and we ask one another this question, we should we really look in the mirror and ask: "what is the meaning of my life" in this sense or success will be great.

I must dash chaps. It probably says many positives about us that we've gotten so far without slagging one another off! I would say this ... is the sound of one-hand clapping but that would be another 5 pages!

Cat Stephens converted to Islam, can't he write a folk-song about all this? Would anyone listen? His duet with Ronan Keating was a crime against Shariah.

Cheers, I always enjoy your boxing posts and have done the same here. I'll have one last stab at it before I go home...

It's odd for you to say that you don't believe in psychology... It exists. It's existence is beyond what we may want to or not want to believe. Ever played cards? Chatted up a bird? Played a joke on someone? Fallen for a trick? Been intimidated? Intimidated someone else?

Psychology is the under pinning of our whole consumer society and effects everyone, no matter what their religion or beliefs. It's got nothing to do with Derren Brown. It's the stuff of advertising, of selling, and it works. You only have to look at every heavily in debted sports car driver or nike wearing benefits hound to see that our desires have ben tapped into by the psychologists. Human activity can be predicted, this is psychology. Whether it is advertising, stockbroking, betting odds, whatever they are, are all effected by and informed by psychology. In fact it is so pervasive in our lives that we don't even realise it. By the way, I'm not a psychologist (thought I'd better clear that up). It has nothing to do with being weak-minded. Psychology is the most underrated discipline in sports, including boxing. I am always wary attempts to dismiss it as it is an airtight thesis (in its geenric sense) and the nemesis of almost every belief system I can think of (although, yes, it is a belief system like anythign else).

The writer has a right to interpret their own work but this does not make them right. The individual has a right to interpet their own life but it does not make them any happier, any more meaningful, or any closer tothe 'right' reading you are suggesting is out there (if only we could find it).

Most academics (literary ones) cannot or do not want to write fiction. Terence, you know a lot about the subjects you have spoken about on this thread (and I've learned from your insight) but your understanding of an academic's/critic's job is wrong. A great writer only becomes a great writer when he/she is championed by a great critic. I'm not saying whether it is right or wrong merely that this is the way it is and always has been. They do not get asked to write screenplays because they are not screenwriters, and most would refuse the vocation. I have a unique insight into this. I am happy to respond to a PM.

Your formula for unlocking a text is noble but essentially futile. The profs wasted their professional lives becasue those texts deny meaning and actively provoke readers to throw away their decoders. These profs didn't get it, and instead ploughed through armed with their dictionaries and encyclopedias only to find they'd been chasing their tails.

Proust's work is with us now because he wrote it but the process of me being able to walk into a shop and buy it today relies upon much more than his efforts. It had to go through many many processes and acceptance by people and institutions to survive. All these people did not manage to attain the single correct reading that you believe is possible, so there is a lot more to this text than the writer, the ink and the page. Ask a man to write a book without a space in whcih to have lived even a portion of a life.

exmuslim wrote:It is typical to hear Muslims that the Quran can only be understood in Arabic. That however is a coop out, a way to deflect discussion.

I'm sorry to inform you but it can't be translated properly into English. Certain Quranic Arabic words simply don't have any specific definitions in English. You're supposedly Arabic, you should know this.........

...........Not that I believe you're Arabic for a second. I would like a Moderator to check your ip address to confirm that you have a 'static' Saudi Arabian ip address If you are really an arabic speaker based in Saudi Arabia then please accept my sincerest apologies and I hope I didn't offend you........

Many English translations of the Quran are severely incorrect and this has been a big issue of debate amongst English speaking muslims, there's absolutely no doubt about that. If you are denying that then you're dillusional.

It is an unbelievably indepth book which is hard enough to fully comprehend for a normal Arabic speaker and with the added hurdle of reading it via an incorrect translation you will be led astray. The only way you can possibly read the Quran in English is under the guidance of a scholar.

Infact you also need the guidance of a scholar EVEN if you read it in Arabic because it is very complex and Quranic Arabic is not identical to normal Arabic. Furthermore, there are some light references in the Quran to various issues that don't go into too much depth. Further information in regards to these issues can be found in the Prophets' hadith. All muslims should follow the prophets' authentic hadith. The prophets hadith is absolutely IMMENSE and this is one of the reasons why you need the guidance of a scholar or an 'experienced student of knowledge'.

I hope you the best of luck in your journey, don't let your anger cloud your vision of Islam. The ignorant people who are 'supposedly' treating you incorrectly are not practising Islam properly, thus THEY are to blame NOT the religion.

lawllb wrote:

exmuslim wrote:It is typical to hear Muslims that the Quran can only be understood in Arabic. That however is a coop out, a way to deflect discussion.

I'm sorry to inform you but it can't be translated properly into English. Certain Quranic Arabic words simply don't have any specific definitions in English. You're supposedly Arabic, you should know this.........

...........Not that I believe you're Arabic for a second. I would like a Moderator to check your ip address to confirm that you have a 'static' Saudi Arabian ip address If you are really an arabic speaker based in Saudi Arabia then please accept my sincerest apologies and I hope I didn't offend you........

Many English translations of the Quran are severely incorrect and this has been a big issue of debate amongst English speaking muslims, there's absolutely no doubt about that. If you are denying that then you're dillusional.

It is an unbelievably indepth book which is hard enough to fully comprehend for a normal Arabic speaker and with the added hurdle of reading it via an incorrect translation you will be led astray. The only way you can possibly read the Quran in English is under the guidance of a scholar.

Infact you also need the guidance of a scholar EVEN if you read it in Arabic because it is very complex and Quranic Arabic is not identical to normal Arabic. Furthermore, there are some light references in the Quran to various issues that don't go into too much depth. Further information in regards to these issues can be found in the Prophets' hadith. All muslims should follow the prophets' authentic hadith. The prophets hadith is absolutely IMMENSE and this is one of the reasons why you need the guidance of a scholar or an 'experienced student of knowledge'.

I hope you the best of luck in your journey, don't let your anger cloud your vision of Islam. The ignorant people who are 'supposedly' treating you incorrectly are not practising Islam properly, thus THEY are to blame NOT the religion.

Haven't I heard this before somewhere.....

YES:

STALIN & co. are to blame for the fact that Socialism ended in desaster, NOT the teachings of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin.

Karl Marx strived for peace dammit! Stalin & Co are to blame, spot on dear boy!

lawllb wrote:Karl Marx strived for peace dammit! Stalin & Co are to blame, spot on dear boy!

Yeah, the problem are always the practical men who are unable to put perfect theories into practice. So blame them for the mess, not the theories.

lawllb wrote:

exmuslim wrote:It is typical to hear Muslims that the Quran can only be understood in Arabic. That however is a coop out, a way to deflect discussion.

I'm sorry to inform you but it can't be translated properly into English. Certain Quranic Arabic words simply don't have any specific definitions in English. You're supposedly Arabic, you should know this.........

...........Not that I believe you're Arabic for a second. I would like a Moderator to check your ip address to confirm that you have a 'static' Saudi Arabian ip address If you are really an arabic speaker based in Saudi Arabia then please accept my sincerest apologies and I hope I didn't offend you........

Many English translations of the Quran are severely incorrect and this has been a big issue of debate amongst English speaking muslims, there's absolutely no doubt about that. If you are denying that then you're dillusional.

It is an unbelievably indepth book which is hard enough to fully comprehend for a normal Arabic speaker and with the added hurdle of reading it via an incorrect translation you will be led astray. The only way you can possibly read the Quran in English is under the guidance of a scholar.

Infact you also need the guidance of a scholar EVEN if you read it in Arabic because it is very complex and Quranic Arabic is not identical to normal Arabic. Furthermore, there are some light references in the Quran to various issues that don't go into too much depth. Further information in regards to these issues can be found in the Prophets' hadith. All muslims should follow the prophets' authentic hadith. The prophets hadith is absolutely IMMENSE and this is one of the reasons why you need the guidance of a scholar or an 'experienced student of knowledge'.

I hope you the best of luck in your journey, don't let your anger cloud your vision of Islam. The ignorant people who are 'supposedly' treating you incorrectly are not practising Islam properly, thus THEY are to blame NOT the religion.

lawllb,

you did not offend me, dont worry. You are polite and educated in a western country (so it seems to my untrained eye) and did not use the vitriolic language that other Muslims use toward Murtads. I am not at the time in my country. I work on a contract in Europe until early December when I will return to Makkah.
For your other points, I do speak Fusha Arabic and I do understand Al Quran.
The only difference between English translations and the original is that translators sanitize its most barbaric and violent commandments. It is a simple book, representing the knowledge and morals of 7th century Arabia. Translations are not the issue, this is just a decoy. Same goes for Ahadith. (Bukhari, Muslim, etc.)

Point is lawllb, that you seem to hold to a version of liberally interpreted Islam that most Muslim scholars would call Shirk and at best Bida. In their eyes you are just as much a Murtad as am I. As you know (or at least should know), Muslim societies are discriminatory in nature; there is no separation of state and religion.

I live in Makkah (except when doing work in Europe or business trips to Jeddah, Taif or Ar Riyadh) and I know Islam inside out. Inside Arabia no other centre of worship is allowed but a Mosque. You will never see a church, a temple, a synagogue or a stupa anywhere. Bible, crucifixes, amulets of the Hindus are confiscated and burned. All non-Muslims are discriminated. As you know Arabia, the birth place of Muhammad has no constitution other than the Quran and the Suna of the prophet. It is therefore the most Islamic society in the world, applying Islam to the letter. All these discriminatory practices come from the Quran itself. You know, the Quran, in Fusha, untranslated in English. Deny it as you may, that is the truth.

I thank you for your good wishes in my journey. I only wish you could join me one day and see all men as brothers, not as Muslim vs Kufar.
Maybe one day you will visit me in Makkah and have good Arabian tea with me or strong coffee and dates from Madinah, and I dont have to fear for my life for leaving Islam. A bit of pluralism never hurt any society, you know.
By the way, Makkah is a nice city, you should visit it one day.

Peace to you,

Karim

Well if he isn't Arabic, it is a mighty good impression.

exmuslim wrote:
Point is lawllb, that you seem to hold to a version of liberally interpreted Islam that most Muslim scholars would call Shirk and at best Bida.

Not one scholar in the world would ever say that I was committing shirk, not in any sense whatsoever, think about it carefully. Furthermore talking to a Murtad is not Biddah, therefore I am doing nothing wrong. I think you must have come across the worst of scholars if this is your impression. I've met scholars/imams of all Islamic sects and I've never come across one who would be of this opinion. In my humble opinion it seems that you've had a tough ride and have come across the wrong people in Islam, all I can do is apologise on our religion's behalf. Trust me the vast majority of us are not like that.

Like I said the death penalty for a Murtad is not Quranic and the prophet only killed a few deserters because it was a time of war and deserting your religion meant that you were not willing to fight for them (this 'should ' not be the case today in Saudi Arabia and thus this precedent is being used incorrectly). Deserters (in a time of war) have been killed in many self-proclaimed 'civilised' nations, so this is not out of the ordinary.

Furthermore most muslims do not believe that Saudi Arabia follows Islam correctly. We believe that, at this moment in time, there is no Islamic country that properly follows the Shariah law. Even the strictest 'Salaafis' argue this.

Furthermore even the most educated 'students of knowledge' and English speaking scholars have clearly illustrated that the Quran can't be correctly translated into English and I've heard tapes on this in the past. They went through various words and various stories/issues referred to in the Quran where an ordinary reader would need immense guidance (from someone of knowledge) in order to comprehend the full 'jist' of it. Like I stated earlier the Hadith is absolutely IMMENSE, the dozens of huge books in 'Bukhari' and 'Muslim' are hardly the tip of the iceberg, there are MANY MANY more hadith Thus someone reading the Quran in English (or even in Arabic) will need guidance to comprehend Islam properly.

Isn't this part of the problem of religious texts though. Like all texts the meaning can never be taken literally as all texts are open to interpretation by the reader. Although there are some who will argue that a text can be taken literally, literally according to whose interpretation.

A classic example of this is in the bible, I forget where exactly, but there is a passage that says you shall not ingest the blood of another man. Now this could refer to cannibalism, or it could be a more symbolic statement about not wallowing in the bloodshed of others. What I am pretty sure however is that it DOES NOT refer to blood transfusions. However, to a Jehova's witness it applies to just that.

I just remembered, that in fact the story of the daughters being drowned in the swimming pool was in fact in Saudi Arabia. The two daughters were guilty only of meeting two American students who were studying there.

They were seen by one of the religious police (what are they called over there again?) and reported to the father. The father then called one of the local clerical magistrates, the daughters were tried in the house, (apparently according to the story In the Independent) then beaten, tied up, placed in a sack with rocks, and drowned in the families swimming pool. This isn't a commentary on Islam by the way, because I am pretty sure that Islam wouldn't condone drowning your own daughters for disobeying you and meeting with American students.

It's incredible isn't it, that Saudia Arabia, presided over by a clan of billionnare Royal Family with no hint of democracy and a law based entirely on a medieval set of rules, is never mentioned by Bush or Blair. I thought they intended to spread democracy all over the world, well I guess Saudi Arabia is part of the world is it not?

Yes, how surprising that our fair and democratic governments would abandon their lofty and deeply held principles in order to faciliate the movement of money through the exchequer.

Well, sounds like you're in a bad spot alright mate.

It never ceases to amaze me when people complain about immigrants. Either they compain about them 'sponging off the state' (in fact I seem to recall from when I signed on that there seemed to be a lot of baseball cap wearing, sovreign ring wearing pasty faced chavvies in the dole queue, usually with a spliff behind their ear and a pair of 90 quid trainers on their feet, and a Nike tracksuit that cost more than my entire outfit), or they complain about 'their nicking our jobs.' The reason they get the jobs is they work for less money than your average soft-arsed westerner who can happily live off 50 quid a week and housing benefit, whilst supplementing their income from drug dealing/thieving/cash in hand work

Now of course I am making some generalisations here. There are a lot of people who don't want to be out of work, who are trapped by circumstances, and are very depressed by it all, but there's also a tremendous amount of lazy arsed feckers in this country who get all bitter about Polish immigrants coming over and working their arses off. The same people who when they want some building work done on their house hire a polish or ukranian bloke and his team to come and do the job for half the time and money that the fat tea drinking English builder will do it for.

That's what's really pissing people off, is that the building trade is full of rip off merchants (I know, my dad was in it for years) who get away with murder by slacking on the job and overcharging, and suddenly there's an influx of young, hungry and experienced building workers who will do the job quicker and for less money.

Today's immigrant is tommorows business owner and today's tax payer.

What a lot of people don't realise also, is that up until recently, asylum seekers (the small minority in all this at only 3% of the total immigrant population) were NOT ALLOWED to work when they applied for Asylum, and thus were forced to sign on to survive. This was recently changed so that the exchequer could tax them, and quite rightly so. If someone wants to live here, whether they are accepted or not, then why not let them work for their keep?

I guess one thing living near Muslims is you're not likely to be kept awake by them partying all night and puking in the street.

I have to say though, I've a distrust of any society which purports to having no vices, it's just not normal.

Terence wrote:Aside from the beheadings and Jihad Muslims are fairly quiet around my way

I used to work for the Dole, or Jobcentre Plus as it was named. British kids don't want to work. That is a burnden on us but they get away with it due to the Sun screaming about Poles stealing our jobs. We do our jobs poorly, the Poles don't. Give me a choice between a British/Irish builder or a Pole and I'll go with the Pole.

I'm sure my neighbourhood is at the forefront of Western collapse. On Monday a gang of youths, laughably it must be said, attempted to steal my dog off me, on Tuesday the shop next door to me suffered an armed-raid in broad daylight and on Wednesday there was a gang-rape under the archway next to my house. Last night was fairly quiet, aside from a gang of lads ripping the piss out of a female officer and fleeing when they called for back-up.

Now I'm dealing with a severly mentally/learning challenged student who is incapable of studying but is on a course due to equal opps and the colour of money

I'm happy-go-lucky and find the whole thing fairly amusing. Orwell oonce wrote a nightmarish vision where the UK was known as Airstrip One and was a platform for US agenda's. The other week a US jet landed without permission and refuled at one of our airbases on route to taking bombs to Israel. If you didn't laugh you'd go mad. Good ol' Georgie.

Ps Ezzard, I also think your idea of the 'death of the author' is off-kilter somewhat. You talk about the role of psychology and social interaction yet if you kill the author you kill his psychological state of mind and his placement. So how do you judge the text? As I understand you do this then take a critical theory, say feminist theory, and apply its psychology to the text. Feminism is the mind of the Other, the female, how do you take a critical approach using feminism to a autobiography of a male life? Can Germain Greer give us a better reading of Proust than the reading of Proust himself?

I'd say no as she is dense.

Speaking of texts, I have to hit the books for at least four weeks

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5282446.stm

How to stay healthy? Go for a walk and throw away the kebabs you fat pieces of shit

We are fat, stupid and lazy by and large. Truly the AmericaniZation of the UK is almost complete. All we need now is the advances of Nazi science to be hijacked by our "thinkers".

Christ almighty, sounds like a lovely neighbourhood, the estate agents round there must be bloody smooth talkers, didn't you notice the open warfare on the streets when you moved in.

What pisses me off when I hear the talking heads speaking of the small number of hardliners in the UK, is that a few cartoons bring our Muslim protesters in their 1000's, yet when civilians are blown up in London, in the name of Islam, how many Muslim protests where there then?

MightyWarrior wrote:What pisses me off when I hear the talking heads speaking of the small number of hardliners in the UK, is that a few cartoons bring our Muslim protesters in their 1000's, yet when civilians are blown up in London, in the name of Islam, how many Muslim protests where there then?

Who were they supposed to protest against? The suicide bombers were dead. Instead what the muslim community did was publicly condemn their actions.

I don't know of one muslim who didn't seriously condemn their actions. The imams held meetings and publicly stated that these people acted against the teachings of Islam and will be punished in hell, etc.

A protest was not appropriate in this situation. If there was a hizbollah-esque group in the UK then we would protest against them. However, protesting against dead bombers makes no sense. The best option was to publicly condemn their sick actions.

I told all my non-muslim mates that these guys were sickos and didn't act in accordance with Islam. They were brainwashed radicals and in the past such sick radicals can be found in all the main religions.

lawllb wrote:

MightyWarrior wrote:What pisses me off when I hear the talking heads speaking of the small number of hardliners in the UK, is that a few cartoons bring our Muslim protesters in their 1000's, yet when civilians are blown up in London, in the name of Islam, how many Muslim protests where there then?

Who were they supposed to protest against? The suicide bombers were dead. Instead what the muslim community did was publicly condemn their actions. I don't know of one muslim who didn't seriously condemn their actions. The imams held meetings and publicly stated that these people acted against the teachings of Islam and will be punished in hell, etc.

A protest was not appropriate in this situation. If there was a hizbollah-esque group in the UK then we would protest against them. However, protesting against dead bombers makes no sense. The best option was to publicly condemn their sick actions.

REally? than why do 33% of British Muslims consider them as martyrs?

Terence wrote:Council

I moved in as a student, decided to stay on due to the cheap rent. I don't intend buying property here so took the risk.

I pay council tax for police I never see, ambulances that are inept and a surrounding area being pinned back by the expansion of the university. All the old university buildings are being re-done and guess where the rats head too?

Throw in the surgery across the road where you fend off smackhead muggers just to see a, uselss, GP and it paints a rosy imageof the UK.

All this and it is by no means the worst area I've lived in, Gorton went from Ok to awful in five years.

It is a good job I'm invincible

Soon enough the rich will move into gated communities, the university will pin us back and most of our population will be in the service industries. I think the UK could have a fourth-world inner state within the foreseeable future.

Well, things are looking a lot rosier in leafy Fulham.....

the stuff about the Gated communities though has more than a tinge of truth to it. We are seeing more and more impossibly expensive apartment buildings going up all over London, enclaves where the Rich can enjoy a dazzling view over London and literally look down on the peasant folk. What happened to the provision of social housing in this country, why are we building more and more swanky homes for those who probably already own a raft of properties in London?

We are seeing a growing divide in this country between the haves and have nots. There are a lot of people who are falling through the floor and ending up with no access to services. With no access to the internet, consumer credit or even debit cards, they are locked out of a lot of the dazzling hi tech world we supposedly live in. Apparently the gap between the rich and poor in this country, (presumably the wage gap between high and low earners) is now higher than it was in the victorian era.

I've got mates who work in the stockmarket who are earning upwards of 500k a year. What do they do? They sell funds to people and make money for the company they work for, what real benefit is that providing to this country, absolutely fack all. It's just one massive circle jerk, the investors make money from buying funds, the fund managers make money for selling it to them, and the company makes money from their cut of the funds. The exchequer gets their slice of it all, but not so much as there are countless ways for the rich to evade tax if they are smart enough.

Whilst I am sometimes envious of the money, I couldn't bear doing such a facile pointless job for a living and that being my whole life.

lawllb wrote: Who were they supposed to protest against?

Against a terror act, commited in "their" country, in the name of Islam - if they thought this was terribly wrong, why not protest?

But a bunch of cartoons? Watch out here they come!!

As I recally there was a protest march from moderate muslims, it was on the news.

E wrote:

lawllb wrote:

MightyWarrior wrote:What pisses me off when I hear the talking heads speaking of the small number of hardliners in the UK, is that a few cartoons bring our Muslim protesters in their 1000's, yet when civilians are blown up in London, in the name of Islam, how many Muslim protests where there then?

Who were they supposed to protest against? The suicide bombers were dead. Instead what the muslim community did was publicly condemn their actions. I don't know of one muslim who didn't seriously condemn their actions. The imams held meetings and publicly stated that these people acted against the teachings of Islam and will be punished in hell, etc.

A protest was not appropriate in this situation. If there was a hizbollah-esque group in the UK then we would protest against them. However, protesting against dead bombers makes no sense. The best option was to publicly condemn their sick actions.

REally? than why do 33% of British Muslims consider them as martyrs?

I can guarantee you 100% that NOWHERE NEAR 33% of muslims consider them as martyrs. Infact I am 100% sure that not even 1% considers them as martyrs. I live in the most populated muslim area in the UK and I have NEVER come across one person who believes that these guys were martyrs. I also visit muslim areas in Bradford, Glasgow, Cardiff, Leicester etc, and once again I have never come across one person who believes they were martyrs.

If I ever did come across someone who argued that they were martyrs then I would make that person look foolish because his argument wouldn't stand up in accordance with Islam. Islam clearly condemns people who commit suicide, there is no doubt about that ("do not kill yourselves" (Quran 3:29)

The prophet said that if a group of people or a state has a treaty with the muslims, whether it be by agreement or having a truce with the muslims residing in their country, then it is FORBIDDEN to harm such people. This includes non-muslims in their own lands and non-muslim workers in muslim lands. If you want the exact quote from the Hadith then I can provide it for you.

In my calculated estimation there are probably a couple of hundred radicals in the whole of the UK who consider them as martyrs (yes this is a couple of hundred too many and they can potentially cause a lot of harm). There were only around 4 imams in the WHOLE of the UK who were on the side of these radicals, one of whom was Abu Hamza and the other was Omar Bakri Mohammed. Both of these imams had a hundred or so real 'followers'.

These couple of hundred radicals are quite vocal and try to cause trouble in civil demonstrations organised by muslims that are against the wars in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, etc. You may see a dozen or so of these idiots carrying sick banners and dresssing up as terrorists, but trust me these are a very TINY minority. I've been to a lot of the demonstrations and it's the same few radicals that ALWAYS show up to cause trouble and give us a bad name. The rest of the protestors (of which there are tens of thousands) are totally civil.

MightyWarrior wrote:

lawllb wrote: Who were they supposed to protest against?

Against a terror act, commited in "their" country, in the name of Islam - if they thought this was terribly wrong, why not protest?

You don't protest against 'acts', it makes no sense whatsoever. You protest against the state in order for them to prevent something from happening. It is blatently obvious that the terrorist acts had NOTHING to do with Islam.

In the past there have been murders committed by radical Christians, I wouldn't expect all Christians to protest against them because it is blatently obvious that such people didn't comply with their religion. If the moderate believers protested then it would come across like they had something to apologise for, which they didn't.

Protests were considered by Imams but were deemed inappropriate. There would have been no benefit of organising a protest in this situation. Therefore there's no point wasting thousands of pounds in organisational fees to achieve nothing. The muslim protest get no TV coverage anyway, unless they do something wrong like carry sick banners (that's the biased media for ya!)

Like I said, protests normally occur in order to encourage the state to prevent something from happening, e.g. stop wars, stop injustice, and even to stop people from insulting your religion, etc. Protesting against acts of terrorism is not appropriate in this situation, it would achieve nothing more than publicly condemning the actions. Who would we have been actually protesting against anyway? The terrorists were dead and any other terrorists out there don't give 2 sh*ts about a protest. What one should do is PUBLICLY condemn these terrorists and make it totally clear that they didn't act in accordance with Islam. Consequently the most appropriate action was taken and our voices were heard.

lawllb wrote:

E wrote:

lawllb wrote: Who were they supposed to protest against? The suicide bombers were dead. Instead what the muslim community did was publicly condemn their actions. I don't know of one muslim who didn't seriously condemn their actions. The imams held meetings and publicly stated that these people acted against the teachings of Islam and will be punished in hell, etc.

A protest was not appropriate in this situation. If there was a hizbollah-esque group in the UK then we would protest against them. However, protesting against dead bombers makes no sense. The best option was to publicly condemn their sick actions.

REally? than why do 33% of British Muslims consider them as martyrs?

I can guarantee you 100% that NOWHERE NEAR 33% of muslims consider them as martyrs. Infact I am 100% sure that not even 1% considers them as martyrs. I live in the most populated muslim area in the UK and I have NEVER come across one person who believes that these guys were martyrs. I also visit muslim areas in Bradford, Glasgow, Cardiff, Leicester etc, and once again I have never come across one person who believes they were martyrs.

If I ever did come across someone who argued that they were martyrs then I would make that person look foolish because his argument wouldn't stand up in accordance with Islam. Islam clearly condemns people who commit suicide, there is no doubt about that ("do not kill yourselves" (Quran 3:29)

The prophet said that if a group of people or a state has a treaty with the muslims, whether it be by agreement or having a truce with the muslims residing in their country, then it is FORBIDDEN to harm such people. This includes non-muslims in their own lands and non-muslim workers in muslim lands. If you want the exact quote from the Hadith then I can provide it for you.

In my calculated estimation there are probably a couple of hundred radicals in the whole of the UK who consider them as martyrs (yes this is a couple of hundred too many and they can potentially cause a lot of harm). There were only around 4 imams in the WHOLE of the UK who were on the side of these radicals, one of whom was Abu Hamza and the other was Omar Bakri Mohammed. Both of these imams had a hundred or so real 'followers'.

These couple of hundred radicals are quite vocal and try to cause trouble in civil demonstrations organised by muslims that are against the wars in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, etc. You may see a dozen or so of these idiots carrying sick banners and dresssing up as terrorists, but trust me these are a very TINY minority. I've been to a lot of the demonstrations and it's the same few radicals that ALWAYS show up to cause trouble and give us a bad name. The rest of the protestors (of which there are tens of thousands) are totally civil.

Yes I can well believe that. After all, it's worth remembering that it is the news programme makers in collusion with the press and to a degree the government who decide what IS and ISN'T news.

Television news especially gives and incredibly distorted view of the world. Of all the events that went on in the world in any given day, only a miniscule proportion is selected as being 'newsworthy.' If you want to see just how different news can be, then listen to the world service, they don't carry as much news as they used to from around the world, but you realise that the world is not just the area we inhabit.

It's far more newsworthy to report ad nauseum on the Gulf War, or on Muslim's protesting about some cartoon which someone only devised to whip up a name for themselves in the first place. The cameraman under direction from the on the spot broadcaster is of course going to focus on the idiots carrying banners saying 'Death to Tony Blair, Death to the West' because it makes for a more sensational image. That is not to say however that it is representative of the whole event.