I might disagree with what you say but I would fight to the death for your right to say it. Voltaire. You misunderstand me. It was rash of me to state that a single act of reasonableness from a Muslim would be sufficient to change my mind. Sorry. Bid to emphasise was wrong.
The IRA bombed their way to the negotiating table and so will militant Islam. Sharia Law is just around the corner. We will accommodate them. We always do. Life will change.
The only option is us accepting huge changes to the way we live. Ethnic cleansing is not desirable or possible.
Imagine a Charlie Hebdo every day in a different town in London. How would the authorities react do you think?
I think we are possibly saying similar things from differing perspectives. I do not necessarily disagree with an awful lot that has been posted, in respect of how it could go, am I concerned absolutely, esp for my ten year old son. However call it a failing but I still struggle to see all Muslims as intrinsically evil.
I posted in haste and spotted immediately but you can't edit the title! Maybe a kind moderator can? Some very lively debate going on and some strong opinions from some unexpected contributors!. I don't feel very well equipped to comment as I live in a comfortable Shire village in a solely WASP community. I have no Muslim friends and have just gained a negative attitude from the alien parts of London that I sometimes drive through. Muslim immigrants do not seem to fit well into British society. It's really kicking off in France today. There is surely going to be attacks on Islamic targets through France and it will get messy. I hope people can stay calm as I do believe there are good Muslims out there who don't want to be linked in anyway to this madness. But they are silent..... I understand the injured policeman who was coldly killed, was a Muslim. Around the World, by far the highest death toll is of Muslims being killed by Islamic extremists. There are plenty of home grown and educated (?) Muslims of both sexes who are easily enticed into radical thinking and prepared to give up all the wonderful benefits (excuse the pun) and go to Syria to join ISIL. Salmond Rushdie came out with a couple of interesting quotes: Author Salman Rushdie, whose book 'The Satanic Verses' prompted Iranian clergy to issue a death fatwa on him, has condemned the attack on the Paris offices of satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo. Speaking in support of the publication, which had its old offices burned down after printing cartoons that mocked the Prophet Muhammad, Mr Rushdie said 'religion deserves our fearless disrespect'. He added that the strike by suspected Al Qaeda militants, which left 12 dead, was a sign of the 'deadly mutation in the heart of Islam.' We need moderate Muslims to be heard speaking of their support for Western values and way of life and being prepared to identify and expel radicals from their communities. I can't see it happening though, so the vicious cycle will continue....
As far as I am concerned, this isn't about a religious or race ideaology......... It can't be if they are killing people of their own race and religion indiscriminately. Seems more like just a lust for killing.
To be a Muslim, you need to adhere to a belief system that includes being prepared to perform some acts that most non-Muslims would find pretty unacceptable. We are talking about killing people for what they believe or what they say. Do we all accept that premise? Yes? Now, people are discussing the idea of "moderate" Islam, or "Islam Lite" if you like. Presumably, this is following the teachings of Mohammad, the Quran, the Haddiths but drawing the line at performing murder. Well, by cherry-picking the core beliefs of your chosen religion, can you be described as being of that religion? If I were to say, "I am a Christian but I don't believe Jesus Christ was a real live person" you could be forgiven for tell me that I am not, in fact, a Christian. And you would be forgiven for saying so, I would feel no compulsion to behead you for blasphemy. So, orthodox Muslims are potential murderers, by definition. What do you call "Muslims" who will not murder "infidels"?
I came to that conclusion thirty years ago over "The Troubles". Gangsterism and love of murder masquerading as nationalism.
I think its true to say that the biggest killer of muslims arund the world is other muslims. Odd in my view but it illustrates what fek'd up savages they are. In the mind set of "i am more devout than you" nonsense, its possible to understand that the slightest deviation from a point of view is heresy. Reminds me of the previously mentioned sketch "are you the people's front of Judea ?" No less laughable either.
Islam in United Kingdom is the second largest religion with results from the United Kingdom Census 2011 giving the UK Muslim population in 2011 as 2,786,635, or 4.4% of the total population. The vast majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom live in England: 2,660,116 (5.02% of the population). According to some arguments here, these old stats are clear cause for excremental concern - they're all reading the Koran! How do we protect ourselves from these infidel blood lusters? How have we survived so long? What are they waiting for before they start to kill us all? 2.7m murderous neighbours in waiting... why haven't we been paranoid for years? Are we still letting them into the country? How do we get rid of those here already? Who can we blame? Will our government take heed of Donald Trump's advice and drop the gun laws so we can all arm ourselves? Why are the mosques still standing? Should our women cover up? Where do we start?
Freedom to express an opinion whether it is shared or dis-agreed upon by others, is everyone's fundamental right. Just as anyone else has the right to express a view or opinion you may disagree with. What is fundamentally wrong is for an individual/s of any religious persuasion to believe they have the right to "impose" their disagreement on others who do not share their beliefs or harbour their same religious stance, by using anything other than a reasoned and rational debate. Even then, no one is duty bound to see eye to eye. Extremists represent nothing more than a dysfunctional fractured group of deeply misguided individuals, who in their failure and ineptitude to communicate their ideas across, instead resort to physical abuse, sensationalism, threats and violence, in a bid to ensure they are heard. These are not true representatives of the religion they believe in. The true representatives are those who, whilst sharing the same underlying religious beliefs may be about the only thing they have in common, are civilized and intelligent enough to be able to function in a normal humane manner. Giving in to such base measures, does nothing but create martyrs. What they fail to appreciate is whilst they may make the headlines, they will never rob people of the right to express their views and no one is ever going to, or should ever pander to them. All they do is incite mistrust and jaded views, which sadly spill over to tarnish all with the same brush. No elevation of understanding takes place just a pointless waste of life/lives and stoking of the fire. Progress, they may argue has been made. All they have achieved, if you can call it an achievement, is widen the gulf. Way to go.
FFS! I do think they are wrong. And I have every right to say that. Just as you have every right to say that I am wrong. What's so difficult to understand? And anyone is perfectly at liberty to use any linguistic device they choose to "minimise" others' arguments. Have you never watched broadcasts from parliament? What no one is at liberty to do is withdraw the freedom of others to mock or disagree with them. Especially at the point of a gun.
Quite apart from whether you think people should be able to believe anything they want to, which is sort of where we are in western democracies - it's freedom of religion - when you delve deeper into it, you can see that some of these belief systems, maybe all of them, don't sit very well with the values we profess to espouse. Catholicism, Christianity even, takes as a starting point the idea of original sin. You are alive, therefore you are a sinner, therefore you must praise God and ask for forgiveness. Isn't that a really crummy way of examining the human condition? Instead of glorying in all the great things that humans are, it takes a really negative viewpoint as its starting point. For Islam, you have a book which is the unalterable divine word of God. There can be no interpretation of this: it's the law. And it's a law that comes with a whole host of impositions and interdictions. If you love freedom for the individual - the cornerstone of current western thought - you aren't going to get on very well with this system of thought. Your mode of dress is codified, the relations between the sexes are codified, what you eat is codified. Fundamentalists are simply imposing the code. That is where I think there is a woolliness of thinking about religious fundamentalism. What is non-fundamentalist religion? The idea that although you are told to do certain things you don't do them? Or is it that you choose other bits of your holy book to believe and ignore the bits you don't like? After all, there is plenty of scope for this as they are full of contradictions. Either the Koran is telling you to kill non Muslims, or it is telling you that you should never kill anyone. What is more likely is that both commands are in the book so you pick and choose.
Fair point. However freedom for the individual is their right to live a full life by whatever code of ethics they choose to follow. This may be viewed as immoral by some and perfectly "normal" by others. What no-one has the right to do is impose this code on others, even if it is sanctioned within the script of their own religious text. You can harbour differing beliefs and you can express differing views. Regardless of that, you cannot or should not be allowed to impose them on others against their will. No religion stands taller than the other, except in the eyes of it's followers. Sadly since some marginalized people are reluctant to accept this fact, they will never realise the futility in trying to refute it.
