Immigration and Racism in Britain and USA

No, I didn't.

Besides underlining Francis' response ..

I really believe that there are a lot of similarities - the ProvIRA claimed (claims) their 'program' on the very same level as militant Muslims do.

And for both, you'll find people pro and contra.
For both, any side claims to have the (ultimate) correct view and insight.

Which might be - or not.
Fact is, both are terrorists.

0 Replies

I think I understand you, certainly when arguments are settled by the gun, internal debate tends to suffer...

But my point is that radical islamists seem to be the only significant group who believe violence is condoned if not encouraged by their prophet and blessed by allah himself.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

The truth was most Irishmen just wanted the same political freedoms long enjoyed by Englishmen, The revolution was at times bloody, but there was no retribution or injustice inflicted on the losing side after independence. I agree with Steve that there does seem to be something in the Moslem culture & governance that encourages religious zealotry and intolerance.

I had assumed it fairly clear that Walter and I, if I'm not very much mistaken, were both talking of Catholic Irish extremists in the context of the Northern-Irish conflict of the last few decades. The bombs that have exploded through Britain, the brutal, sectarian - and mostly pointless - terror within Northern-Ireland itself.

Their sourcewell has surely not lacked in "religious zealotry and intolerance", neither on the side of the IRA nor on that of the Protestant militias.

It was definitely more about that than about the "Irishmen just wanting political freedoms". But then I realise that latter description of yours referred to the struggle for Irish national independence way back when - I just cant figure out why you'd act like our reference was to those days, rather than to the wanton Northern Irish terror in more recent decades.

The bloody experiences with the Northern-Irish, in any case, mean that the British do already have a long experience with the nature of zealotic, violent, sectarian extremism - and also with distinguishing between the sectarian zealots and the religion or nation that they purport to represent as a whole. Who knows that may have contributed to the BBC's perfect ability to distinguish between things "Muslim" and "Muslim extremist".

I do, by the way, George, agree that both the experience of European colonialism and the subsequent failure of the Middle-Eastern and North-African regimes to modernise and democratise have played a large role in the stunted economic and cultural development of the region. There is no question that both have helped create a conservatism and lack of curiosity that is holding the peoples there down. But all that seems to be only more of an argument about how it isnt all about an intrinsic problem with the religion of Islam.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

I would say the situation in N Ireland was not primarily religious, although the communities divided along religious lines.

Religious and national, is and was the divide, for sure. But whether you consider the IRA to primarily have a national (Irish) or a religious (Catholic) identity, I'm sure the Brits have over time learned to easily make the distinction between the "extremist Irish" or "extremist Catholics" on the one hand - the kind that makes bombs go off all over the place - and "the Irish" and "the Catholics" overall.

Steve 41oo wrote:

Moreover one can only have respect for the central tenets of the Christian faith...forgiveness, love one's enemy, turn the other cheek etc. I know its an impossibly high standard to live up to, but I dont seem to hear similiar messages coming from within Islam.

I dont mean to be overly sharp here, but that might say more about you than about Islam. There are of course plenty of Muslim religious leaders who appeal both to their followers and to the outside world to remember that Islam also teaches tolerance and peace - but when you hear about one of those, you tend to laugh them away as meaningless and hypocritical. Who knows, in some cases they may well be, but that changes little about the damned-if-they-do, damned-if-they-dont trap you're setting here: you complain that you dont hear religious messages of peace, forgiveness and tolerance from Muslim leaders, but when people do speak about Islam as a religion of peace, you scorn and ridicule them for being hypocrites and ignoring the facts.

0 Replies

Philosopher Julian Baggini spent six months living in Rotherham, Yorkshire. Here ("How racist is Britain"), he explains why he doesn't believe most white Britons are racists - even though he heard racist language almost everywhere he went.

0 Replies

Good Article, Walter.

But while reading it, I observed that its all about British believing that they are not racist. Now that looks the most convenient way of argument.

Well we forget about those 1 billion people out there in the Indian subcontinent , what do they believe of british and racism?

Has anyone tried to clear their doubts?

Looks a difficult job to manipulate their opinions right. So lets believe in what "british" believe for the time being!

Unintentional racism! I like that word.

Another way to justify yourself.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

There are of course plenty of Muslim religious leaders who appeal both to their followers and to the outside world to remember that Islam also teaches tolerance and peace ...

Where?

nimh wrote:

..but when you hear about one of those

Thats the problem I can't hear them.

nimh wrote:

...you tend to laugh them away as meaningless and hypocritical.

You imagine I would do this. But then I can't hear them.

It seems to me that Islam is driven from the bottom up. A few radicals in the audience can soon drive out the "moderate" message.

In any case as I said its far too easy to say "Islam is ok, apart from a few extremists". Where do you draw the line? What are these extremists doing within Islam if its a religion of peace and tolerance? Why are they not driven out, told they are not following the will of the Prophet...that they are positively un-Islamic and liable to excommunication?

I dont expect you to answer this nimh but if you know a "moderate Muslim" who would care to have a go, I would be pleased to hear from him (or her....are there any lady imans? Smile

)

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

nimh wrote:
There are of course plenty of Muslim religious leaders who appeal both to their followers and to the outside world to remember that Islam also teaches tolerance and peace ...

Where?

Well, thats the point, isnt it?

I read a lot of news, but then you do as well, I think.

I read about Muslim religious leaders saying things like that fairly often. You say you never come across any.

Since I assume that the reports about Muslim leaders talking about the importance of tolerance in the religion, about their condemnation of violence and terrorism, etc, are not made up, I must assume that the problem here lies somewhere between their words and your eyes - perhaps in the selection of what articles one reads, in what newspapers and how those report them, what catches one's eyes and what is brushed aside or forgotten straight away, etc, etc.

Steve 41oo wrote:

What are these extremists doing within Islam if its a religion of peace and tolerance? Why are they not driven out, told they are not following the will of the Prophet...that they are positively un-Islamic

But they are! Have you not come across any of the condemnations by Muslim leaders about July 7, for one? Many have said exactly that: that the terrorists are not following the will of the Prophet, that their acts are un-Islamic. There's been at least one actual fatwa declared against this terrorism. Thats been covered in the media as well, I've seen it. How come you havent?

Quote:

You imagine I would do this. But then I can't hear them.

I am admittedly going on memory here, cause I'm not really in for a long A2K archive search right now. But I seem to remember you ridiculing 'Islam as a religion of peace' talk more than once here.. may be wrong.

Quote:

I dont expect you to answer this nimh but if you know a "moderate Muslim" who would care to have a go, I would be pleased to hear from him

I appreciate the invitation, really - dialogue is always good. But to be honest, I wouldnt pull anyone I know IRL into these A2K discussions.. not talking about this topic in specific, just in general. Both for my privacy, and their comfort :wink: .

Though actually, truth be said - I mean, its now hypothetic, since Ive moved to Hungary, and there's few Muslims here. But another reason I wouldnt have asked my Muslim colleagues in my previous job (who did indeed include a very vocal and assertive Moroccan girl) is because frankly, they seemed pretty fed up with being questioned by their white neighbours about pretty much anything any Muslim did wrong in the world for the past five years. I couldnt blame them.

But, like I said, there are the many condemnations of the Muslim leaders themselves, including those in your own country, up till and including a fatwa. Am I supposed to go Googling and achive-surfing to dig some examples up, to refute yet another poster forwarding the "they never spoke out" claim? I dont feel like it.. but I've done so before.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

What are these extremists doing within Islam if its a religion of peace and tolerance? Why are they not driven out, told they are not following the will of the Prophet...that they are positively un-Islamic

OK, because I'm an incorrigable nerd, I took at least the 5 minutes for a search for any post by myself with the word "fatwa" in it.

That alone netted me this post - which I wrote in a conversation with you, in fact, Steve.

nimh wrote:

"Jihad", what is usually translated as "holy war", does not actually have the equation with calling people to murderously immolate themselves and others, however. Of course there are extremist preachers who do make it about that - but then you're back exactly to my statement that it's not "the muslims" that pose the danger, but specific extremist groups among them. In "mainstream" Islam, as in mainstream Hinduism etc, the concept of religious murder as a shortcut to heaven is not accepted, or not accepted anymore. That's how there came to be a bunch of fatwas proclaimed by mainstream clergy against those who did do the exact thing you're talking about - suicide bombers of the London type (here's some examples and here's another one).

Now if you followed those links at time, you found these things below as well. And mind you, all the below itself was just what I could find within 10 minutes with Google.

So what, then - after all that, for one - is this talk about how you never hear Muslim leaders speak the language of peace/tolerance/forgiveness, or how you're not hearing them tell these extremists that "they are not following the will of the Prophet...that they are positively un-Islamic"?

Lord Ellpus wrote:

There you go, Finn........some fatwas for you.

http://wikiproxy.whitelabel.org/index.php?url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4694441.stm

nimh wrote:

Thank you Lord, thats one: UK Muslims issue bombings fatwa

Here's a bunch more:

Spanish Muslims issue Bin Ladin fatwa

Quote:
Sunday 13 March 2005

Spain's leading Islamic body has issued a religious order declaring Usama bin Ladin to have forsaken Islam by backing attacks such as the Madrid train bombings a year ago.

The Islamic Commission of Spain timed its fatwa on Friday to coincide with the first anniversary of the attacks, which killed 191 people and were claimed in the name of al-Qaida in Europe. [..]

"We declare ... that Usama bin Ladin and his al-Qaida organisation, responsible for the horrendous crimes against innocent people who were despicably murdered in the 11 March terrorist attack in Madrid, are outside the parameters of Islam," the commission said.

RUSSIAN MUSLIM LEADER CALLS AFGHAN ULAMAS TO EXTRADITE BIN LADEN

Quote:
2001-09-20

The Afghan ulamas ought to have long ago expelled Osama bin Laden from the country, Talgat Tadjuddin, High Mufti of the Russian Muslims, said to newsmen.

A man who advises to kill cannot be God's counsellor, however much he may quote the Koran, and he will bring nothing but evil to the country which gives him shelter, stressed the Mufti as he called to "punish evil".

Prominent Muslim Cleric Denounces bin Laden

Quote:
Thursday, Oct. 18, 2001
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - A prominent Muslim cleric today denounced terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden and urged Afghanistan's Taliban rulers not to risk thousands of lives for him.

"Bin Laden is not a prophet that we should put thousands of lives at risk for," said Tahirul Qadri, who heads the Pakistani Awami Tehrik Party.

Qadri, who has thousands of followers in Pakistan and abroad, also criticized the Taliban for sheltering bin Laden and urged the Muslims to "see the difference between jihad and acts of terrorism."

[..] "Bombing embassies or destroying non-military installations like the World Trade Center is no jihad," Qadri said, and "those who launched the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks not only killed thousands of innocent people in the United States but also put the lives of millions of Muslims across the world at risk."

[..] the Taliban had no justification for continuing to protect bin Laden. Why protect him? Is he a saint or a prophet? He is a man who himself has admitted arranging car-bomb attacks on U.S. embassies. He is no saint."

A Top Sunni Cleric on the Use, and Misuse, of Islam

Quote:
Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, the grand imam of Egypt's al-Azhar mosque and the most widely respected and influential moral voice for Sunni Islam [..] scoffed when I read him the 1998 call to arms that bin Laden called his fatwa: "We . . . with God's help . . . call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill Americans and plunder their money."

"Osama bin Laden is no specialist in religious affairs," the grand imam quipped, to the delight of the imams seated to his left. And then he added: "Islamic law banishes anyone who issues an untrue fatwa." About the references in the hijackers' documents that they were martyrs and would achieve paradise, Tantawi was equally contemptuous. "They are not martyrs but aggressors," he said. "They will not achieve paradise, but will receive severe punishment for their aggression." In Islam, he noted, there is an exact equivalent of Moses's commandant against killing. "Whoever shall kill a man or a believer without right," said the grand imam, "the punishment is hell forever. Allah will be angry with himand give him a great punishment." Especially ugly, Tantawi said, is the criminal who murders by surprise, "from the back," because "it is against morality and good honor."

Bin Laden Stirs Struggle on Meaning of Jihad

Quote:

Qaradawi Rejects Al-Qaeda's Killing of Innocents

Quote:
Prominent Muslim scholar Dr. Youssef Al-Qaradawi has condemned Al-Qaeda for their fuel tanker suicide bombing of a centuries-old Jewish synagogue on the Tunisian island of Djerba in April 2002.

[..] Dr. Al Qaradawi said that in Islam it is not permissible to attack places of worship such as churches and synagogues or attack men of religion, even in a state of war.

"Civilians, such as the German tourists, should not be killed, or kept as hostages. Jews, not in conflict with Muslims, must not be killed either. Anyone who commits these crimes is punishable by Islamic Sharia and have committed the sin of killing a soul which God has prohibited to kill and of spreading corruption on earth," said Dr. Al Qaradawi.

GRAND IMAM OF EGYPT DENOUNCES TERRORISM

Quote:
House of Representatives
October 31, 2001

Mr. [JOSEPH] PITTS [Republican of Pennsylvania]: [..]

Just a few days ago, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, the highest and most respected Islamic authority in the world, who resides in Egypt, also made this clear. The Grand Imam said that the Koran specifically forbids the kinds of things the Taliban and al-Qaida are guilty of. He said the jihad Usama bin Laden has called for against America is invalid and not binding on Muslims. He said that "Islam rejects all of these acts." He called terrorism un-Islamic. In fact, he says, "Killing innocent civilians is a horrific, hideous act that no religion can approve." [..]

nimh wrote:

Want more? See this handy overview:

Muslims Condemn Terrorist Attacks

nimh wrote:

Last week I linked in a scope of fatwas and other Muslim clerical condemnations of terror.

Now, add another one. This is translated from the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. I´m sure (or perhaps I´m not...) that there is enough coverage in US media as well? [..]

Quote:
American Fatwa against Terrorism

WASHINGTON. 29 July. A council of 18 prestigious sunnite and shiite jurists and scientists from the US and Canada on Thursday night published an Islamic legal judgement (Fatwa), in which every form of terrorism and the use of violence against civilians is condemned. Muslim jurists and associations in Europe have recently published similar fatwas.

The fatwa, which was presented at a press conference in Washington by the President of the North-American islamic law council (Fiqh Council), Muzammil Siddiqi, and will be read out during the important Friday prayer in many mosques in North-America, amongst other things says: "Every act of terrorism that targets civilians is forbidden in Islam. It is forbidden to a Muslim to involve himself with or support persons or groups that commit terror attacks or acts of violence." Whoever attacks the life and property of civilians through suicide attacks or other forms of violence "is a criminal and not a martyr". Moreover, the Fatwa lays down that "it is the religious and civic duty of a Muslim to cooperate with the authorities to protect the lives of civilians".

The fatwa is supported by the main Muslim organisations in North-America. Furthermore, the Council of American-Islamic Relations [the same that has been vilified by American conservatives-nimh] has started a campaign with radio and TV messages under the title "Not in the name of Islam", in which it is confirmed that Islam forbids terrorism. Whoever commits such acts of violence in the name of Islam, betrays his religion, the messages state. [..]

This is what I mean. It's there. You've even been pointed it out before, here, apparently. So if you're still continuing saying anyway that you just "can't hear" Muslims saying these things, then, I'm sorry, but I must assume that that is indeed the problem - you cant hear it.

Sorry - I do realise I must sound terribly snotty when I say that. But mostly it's just fatigue. Time after time someone comes up with this "why dont ordinary Muslims speak up? Why dont mainstream Muslim leaders speak up?", and you know - you answer them that they do, you bring them examples, but it seems to just slide off the argument like water from a duck's back. And a year later they're saying it again, or someone new is - "Why dont they speak up?". Confused

0 Replies

There's nothing new going on here. Beautiful weather today, no traffic accidents and no murders today does not make the news--it is sensation--and usually those sensational things with a morbid attraction are the most powerful--which sells sells newspapers, or advertising on a news program. Well over a hundred million Americans profess to be Christian, and do not advocate violence against abortion clinics, or a "war on Islam"--but what makes the newspapers and the television gab-fests mascarading as news will be something like Robertson calling for the assassination of Chavez.

There are some inescapable facts about the Muslim world. There are a fringe of fanatics in every religion--Christians who approve of and who abetted Eric Rudolph, fundamentalist Hindus who are willing to condone and even lead attacks on mosques--but in the Muslim world, far too many people have little education, and less to lose. Christians in the West have a lot to lose, and increasingly, Hindus have a decent life and something to lose. But the poor, ignorant Muslim in Afghanistan who has no employment, who sees the same old drug-running war lords set up by the West--has little or nothing to lose, and is prime recruiting material for the Taliban.

0 Replies

Five muslims were arrested in Britain yesterday in connection with plotting violent acts against the public.

Whatever the moderates within that faith say (and I am with Steve on this) the British Council of Muslim Churches (or some such name, their top organisation in this country) have refused to acknowledge World Holocaust Day.

They are demonstrably not on-side, and arguably many of them are anti-British. The least you could say is they are muslim first and British/European second.
That is, they take their lead, and their instructions, from their religious leaders. They want to change British law.

0 Replies

Hey I just realised....that last sentence could also apply to British catholics (and some anglicans) this week! Rolling Eyes

Oo-er. Deep waters. Confused

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Hey I just realised....that last sentence could also apply to British catholics (and some anglicans) this week!

Oo-er. Deep waters.

Indeed. That was precisely the issue for which Henry VIII had Thomas More executed.

0 Replies

Well I thank you nimh for taking the trouble to find those links, and I take it on board. And Setanta is correct too in saying condemnation of criminal acts is hardly newsworthy compared to the criminal act which is condemned.

Nevertheless, the perception certainly by me and I dont think I'm the only one is that at least in Britain the Muslim leaders do not speak out clearly enough.

Last week there was a Channel 5 documentary about Islamists extremists. After the 7/7 bombing the govt called together Muslim leaders from all over the place to thrash out what was alienating Muslim youth and how we can prevent the slide into extremism. [note the govt called the pow-wow, you might have thought the initiative would have come from Muslims desperate to dissociate themselves from terrorists...but thats an aside].

After the big meet, Channel 5 secretly filmed at least two of the great and the good among the Muslim leaders sharing a platform with radicals calling (amongst other things) for the violent overthrow of the democratic system in the UK to be replaced by sharia'a law.

For me it was that documentary, coupled with the trial of the failed 21/7 bombers that tipped the balance away from Islam completely.

0 Replies

I think Setanta's point above is well-taken. However, middle class Moslems in Britain don't have much in common with the postulated poor, isolated individual in Afghanistan who may indeed have nothing much to lose and few available gains from the modern world. By virtue of their participation in the modern culture and economy of the UK and the choice they made to go there, they have become a part of that society and owe it a measure of allegiance -- which, I believe, is Steve's point.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I think Setanta's point above is well-taken. However, middle class Moslems in Britain don't have much in common with the postulated poor, isolated individual in Afghanistan who may indeed have nothing much to lose and few available gains from the modern world. By virtue of their participation in the modern culture and economy of the UK and the choice they made to go there, they have become a part of that society and owe it a measure of allegiance -- which, I believe, is Steve's point.

Exactly and the government is desperately and belatedly trying to get cohesion into British society. Well meaning non-interference (and shameful neglect) has led (post 9/11) to huge numbers of alienated young Muslims who owe their primary allegiance to Islam.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6294643.stm

0 Replies

nimh I looked at quite a few links you provided showing Muslim leaders condemning terrorism. There were quite a few I'll admit. From Egypt Pakistan Lebanon Spain. USA.

The only reference I found to British muslim leaders denouncing terrorism was a BBC report dated 23 June 06

Quote:

...

Islamic leaders across Birmingham have issued a joint message against terrorism in a bid to tackle mistrust of Muslims in the UK.

It has been welcomed by the chief constable of the West Midlands.

The message is thought to be the first joint statement made by Muslim scholars in the UK against terrorism.

And yes I admit I didnt hear it. Perhaps if they had been saying the same thing every Friday for the 5 years previous I might have done.

0 Replies

This is from a report on a debate between Ken Livingstone (London Mayor) and Dr Daniel Pipes (American academic) on the so called "Clash of Civilisations". It took place last Saturday in London, and received no publicity because Livingstone who believes in dialog with radical Islamists, lost.

Quote:

The claim by Dr. Pipes that the UK is now the biggest terror threat to the US because of (radical) Muslims in the UK is perhaps the most significant and far-reaching observation from the debate. Britain refuses to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir, and has allowed the activists of the now-disbanded group Al-Muhajiroun to continue openly campaigning against democracy and promoting terror. These individuals are the wet-nurses of terrorism. Pipes cited Richard Reid, the shoe-bomber, who was indoctrinated by Al-Muhajiroun.

As culpable as the Islamist radicals who thrive in Britain are the government officials and civil servants from MI6 and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. These are actively engaged in a policy of "Engaging With the Islamic World".

The FCO's "Engaging with the Islamic World Group (EIWG)" was founded in 2003, while Al-Muhajiroun was still active. With an annual budget of $15.8 million, this group, headed by 26-year old Mockbul Ali, a former student radical, actively promotes dialogue with radicals such as Qaradawi. Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, the godfather of Hizb ut-Tahrir's British chapter, and spiritual ideologue of Al-Muhajiroun, was allowed openly to preach radicalism and hate for 20 years in Britain. Not once was he taken to court. Radical Islamists thrive in Britain, and are threatening the British/American "special relationship". But they do this solely because the UK authorities allow them to.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

This is from a report on a debate between Ken Livingstone (London Mayor) and Dr Daniel Pipes (American academic) on the so called "Clash of Civilisations". It took place last Saturday in London, and received no publicity because Livingstone who believes in dialog with radical Islamists, lost.

Looking over the webresources and in the print media, one can get a that view of that.

Certainly, it is broadly discussed in extreme right- and left-wing blogs as I could notice.

There, even before it actually started, it was already discussed, e.g. why Jews could take part: the Zionist Federation has asked the mayor to reschedule the date because on Shabbat, which no Orthodox Jew wouldl be able to put forth his views.

I find it interesting what Pride said: "It's not about war, it's about victory!"

The program is here - have you been there as well, Steve?

0 Replies

I dont understand why the conference received so little publicity...cant find anything about it on the BBC yet it was chaired by Gavin Estler (widely respected BBC journalist).

The pro-Pipes people say its because their side scored a resounding victory.

0 Replies

Immigration and Racism in Britain and USA

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know