Sharia law being imposed in London "Muslim areas"

[likesfish]

This one's a doosie though. He accuses other people of being niave while believing that we're keeping the Falklands because it's the high minded morally correct thing to do and nothing to do with the UK being able to claim resources around them.

More the fact we retook them which was the right thing to do it won maggie an election and argentina is to poor to do anything about it and hilariously inept.
Even the uk establishment isnt capable of planning a war to keep oil that wont be discovered for another 30 years

 

[ViolentPanda]

Next time i am in saudi, i might set up my own little roadblock - enforce people to have four stellas, a sausage roll from gregs, and maybe a little bit of cocaine.

I'm not sure that Greggs sausage rolls actually contain any pork, though.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Bringing up someone else's wrongs are a bad way to justify your own. It merely makes you seem worse.

Bloody hippy.

 

[dylans]

Among the world's religions, Islam does seem to generate the most antipathy, around the world, and does seem to be involved in the greatest number of outrages. Is this perhaps a consequence of selective news reporting, or is there something real behind it?

I can try and offer a serious answer to that.

A form of religious nationalism,a political ideology, Islamism, has arisen in parts of the Muslim world and has succeeded in carving a narrative and, to varying degrees, has replaced or is fighting to replace, the traditional secular nationalism that has defined the anti colonial struggles in these countries. In particular it is fighting to replace Arab nationalism which was and is a secular nationalist ideology. In place of "all Arabs are a nation". Islamism preaches "all Muslims are a nation" and appeals to mythical ideas such as the Muslim ummah. It first came to to worlds attention as a distinct fighting political ideology in Egypt and Algeria in the 80s. It drew strength and recruits and ideological expansion in the wars of Afghanistan, spread to Pakistan and now is fighting for the right to speak for the worlds Muslims.

It has a problem however. There is no Islam. There are many. I mean, there is no single homogeneous "nation" called Islam. Islam is a religion which is followed by a quarter of the worlds population and which encompasses many cultures and takes on many forms. Despite its claim to speak for Islam as a whole, it is predominantly a Sunni Wahabite phenomenon which takes its inspiration from the form of strict puritanical Islam preached in Saudi Arabia. Ironically, it is the bastard child of the Saudi regime, a regime its followers denounce for corruption.

In order to claim a single Islam then it does what all fundamentalist movements do. It denies the legitimacy of non Sunni, non Wahabi Muslims. Only their particular branch is defined as true Islam and all other branches, traditions, cultural interpretations etc are dismissed as heretical. (and often killed or persecuted) There is an added irony here. When people such as the EDLdenounce "Islam" as a whole or blame all Muslims when referring to these kinds of groups they are actually feeding into the narrative of these fundamentalist groups. Because they agree that there is a single Islam and they claim to be it. When in fact there is no Islam there are many. This idea is as toxic to fundamentalists as it is to those who preach Islamophobia. There is no Islam and they certainly are not it. There is a political movement which draws on the religious language and symbolism of a particular branch of Islam in order to project an ideology of religious nationalism and which seeks to speak for all Muslims but they don't.

 

[Greebo]

I'm not sure that Greggs sausage rolls actually contain any pork, though.

They do - it's hidden in a list of ingredients longer than a ballerina's leg.

 

[ViolentPanda]

They do - it's hidden in a list of ingredients longer than a ballerina's leg.

Down near the toe, I suspect.

 

[8ball]

<snip>
It has a problem however. There is no Islam. There are many. I mean, there is no single homogeneous "nation" called Islam. Islam is a religion which is followed by a quarter of the worlds population and which encompasses many cultures and takes on many forms...

Agree with a lot of that, except to say that there is also not just one 'Islamism' - there are some elements under that umbrella that are quite moderate and reasonable, just as is the case with 'non-Islamist' Muslims.

 

[likesfish]

Wahabism is possibly the worst possible relegion to get several billion dollars a year to spread its faith you have to go back hundreds of years to old school catholism to meet the same level of intolerance and prepardeness to spill blood in the name of there god.
The saudi muj in bosnia managed to get a rep for execess in bosnia and that was the balkans!!!

 

[Frances Lengel]

I don't see the Westerners committing atrocities in the name of Christianity, but only in the name of preserving order and civilization. But then they do commit atrocities, so I doubt know that either deity approves much.

I was raised a Buddhist, and as a result got imbued with the idea that at heart all religious impulses are good things. This is becoming a hard belief to sustain.

Buddhists are the biggest wankers going.

 

[8ball]

Buddhists are the biggest wankers going.

Everyone seems to know one buddhist who is an utterly judgmental, sanctimonious, selfish bellend.

I'm wondering if it's always the same guy.

 

[Frances Lengel]

Everyone seems to know one buddhist who is an utterly judgmental, sanctimonious, selfish bellend.

I'm wondering if it's always the same guy.

Nah there's loads of them.

 

[8ball]

Nah there's loads of them.

The only Buddhists I can think of off the top of my head are the Dalai Lama and Adam Yauch (RIP), both good eggs by most accounts.

 

[DotCommunist]

as for these respect other peoples religions attributed to buddhists its not always the case. My old dears a pretty fundy christian and couldn't attend a buddhist funeral her mate invited her too because a) the 'temple' or whatever had a massive golden calf on the roof and b) they wanted shoes off and ma felt that both the golden calf and the shoe removal were a bit too much, as she believes in a very jelous god.


the righteous indignation of the buddhist was well funny

 

[ferrelhadley]

The only Buddhists I can think of off the top of my head are the Dalai Lama and Adam Yauch (RIP), both good eggs by most accounts.

Steve Jobs and Sting.

 

[Dr Jon]

Everyone seems to know one buddhist who is an utterly judgmental, sanctimonious, selfish bellend.

I'm wondering if it's always the same guy.

The women are worse.
Both adopt religion for the same reason that thieving crapitalist scumbags go to church: to attempt to demonstrate that they're good, worthy human beings.
It actually demonstrates that they have a significant braincell deficit.

 

[Frances Lengel]

The only Buddhists I can think of off the top of my head are the Dalia Lama and Adam Yauch (RIP), both good eggs by most accounts.

He's a wanker for a start. And Ad rock's gone down in my estimation as well. Buddhism itself though, when you read a bit about it, it really is as much (if not more) pernicious than any of the other religions.

 

[8ball]

He's a wanker for a start. And Ad rock's gone down in my estimation as well. Buddhism itself though, when you read a bit about it, it really is as much (if not more) pernicious than any of the other religions.

Who do you like?

 

[8ball]

Steve Jobs and Sting.

Ok, you win.

 

[Frances Lengel]

Who do you like?

Erroll Garner, Audrey Hepburn, Rita Hayworth, The Bee Gees, The Bangles, horses and elephants.

Not cats though. And not Buddhists either.

 

[dylans]

Agree with a lot of that, except to say that there is also not just one 'Islamism' - there are some elements under that umbrella that are quite moderate and reasonable, just as is the case with 'non-Islamist' Muslims.

I don't know about moderate or reasonable (with respect to political Islam) Although I agree that Islamism takes many different ideological forms, I think the whole project of political Islam is reactionary in all its forms. The idea that Muslims are a nation which is the essence of all political Islamism, is inevitably exclusionary and sectarian for the simple reason that in order to define a billion people as a nation purely on the basis of religion then you have to define that national identitity in a way that excludes those who don't fit the model. Thus, non Muslims are out which doesn't bode well for Egyptian Copts for example. They don't fit the nation. Shia are out (if the nationalism is Sunni). Traditionally persecuted or "heretical" sects such as the Ahmadi, are out. Branches such as sufi are out etc.


That said, I certainly agree that Islamism has many faces. The pan Islamic guerillarism of Bin Laden is the most infamous but arguably not the most successful or popular, The Islamism of the Muslim Brotherhood, with its gradualism and constitutionalism is undoubtedly the most popular and influential form of Islamism in the world and the one that is on the resurgence across the Arab world. They have the Presidency in Egypt, they are on the verge of taking power in Jordan and they play a large role in events in Syria.

In the past, the Islamism of Jinnah and the Pakistan project was the most successful and this was a form of religious nationalism that defined the nation in very strict regional terms. It was a project to create a homeland for the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent.

And of course, the Islamic revolution in Iran also created a form of political Islam that was very influential amongst Shia and still inspires in Shia communities across the Middle East. However, given that Shia are a minority in most Muslim countries, it was always going to be a form of Islamism that remained a minority ideology

 

[8ball]

I don't know about moderate or reasonable (with respect to political Islam) Although I agree that Islamism takes many different ideological forms, I think the whole project of political Islam is reactionary in all its forms...

This was a documentary on Radio 4 where they were discussing this 'moderate Islamism' (I think they perhaps phrased it a little differently but 'Islamism' was def part of it) - I don't know what proportion of what passes as 'Islamism' is this form, it seemed quite academically inclined and was quite focused on the political as personal rather than enforcement of Quranic rules through organised institutions. The view seemed to be that Allah, being infallible, must made all these non-Muslims for a reason and that their expression of their relationship with Allah must necessarily be different, so it didn't hold up to make everyone subject to Quranic rules.

I'm probably garbling at least some of this to some extent - quoting from memory here.

 

[Frank Merton]

I can try and offer an serious answer to that..

Thanks for that thoughtful and informed piece.

My perception is that the various "Abrahamic" religions that came out of the Middle East and all at least doctrinally trace their roots back to Abraham are all influenced by early Hebrew monotheism in two ways -- the condemnation of idolatry and the idea that God is a jealous deity, not permitting the worship of other gods.

This seems just set to evolve into religious intolerance and sectarianism.

Most of the West has learned the value of religious tolerance, even if it does mean you have to put up with idols and religious symbols all over the place, as a way to keep down sectarian violence. Europe learned this the hard way in years of warfare.

That Islam is not a single "thing" we all know; the secularist Muslims I know from Malaysia and Indonesia are Muslims; they don't doubt the truth of their faith, but they are tolerant anyway as citizens of the world. I ask them if I go to Hell and they tell me Hell is a complicated place and not to worry about it. I ask them what they think of a unified Muslim political state and they say not to worry about it either, that they have no intention of being ruled by Arabs, and that is the only way it could happen.

Still, the teaching that all religions but one's own are false and somehow of the Devil or evil is present and is not denied if one presses it. This we rarely find among Christians nowadays and never have found in most Asian religions, except a few under Christian influence (CaoDaism comes to mind).

And this is the thing I think is behind the trouble. Sectarianism is essentially an arrogant idea and breeds intellectual arrogance. Worse, in some personalities inclined to bigotry (and such people are found everywhere), it leads to justification of outrages. Religions need to go further than just teach tolerance; they need to teach that there is good in other religions, that in our limited human perspective we each see only a small part of what no doubt is a tremendously over-arching truth.

We find this idea dominating in more and more of the world's faiths, except Islam and Jehovah's Witnesses (and of course the pacifism of the latter keeps them out of the headlines). As a result I am pessimistic and worried about Islam.

 

[8ball]

I ask them if I go to Hell and they tell me Hell is a complicated place and not to worry about it.

I am pessimistic and worried about Islam.

I don't think we see the complete picture via our media when it comes to Islam. Would be nice to have a Muslim's perspective (or three) on this thread.

 

[butchersapron]

**oops**

 

[DotCommunist]

wrong thread butch

 

[ymu]

It reminds me a bit of when there was a surge in the number of young men in South London converting to Islam, partly through gang involvement, some 8 - 10 years ago. Some of them were going around trying to force others to convert, saying that they were justified in robbing people as they were doing it for Islam and other shite that had nothing to do with the religion. Lots of kids were really freaked out by it. One young man was murdered in Brixton, so it was said, partly because he refused to accept Islam. One of the boys I worked with back then said that he wasn't prepared to convert, and thought he might up dead as a result of it. I raised it with the immam and other members of members Brixton Mosque, who condemned the behaviour and issued a press release in the South London Press, similar to the East London Mosque.

I think that was a bastardised form of the Nation of Islam without the depth of political analysis. Religion as a means of controlling and demanding obedience from the gang members. Same old same old, just not done by a state in this instance.

 

[stuff_it]

Among the world's religions, Islam does seem to generate the most antipathy, around the world, and does seem to be involved in the greatest number of outrages. Is this perhaps a consequence of selective news reporting, or is there something real behind it?

It's a young religion in a way, look at what the Christians were doing that long after their founding.

I'm not sure that Greggs sausage rolls actually contain any pork, though.

Less than a Tesco's beefburger but I bet there's some pig in there - whether you would describe those parts as meat is another matter.

 

[SpineyNorman]

It's basically religious. Don't be so Marxist-ly naive. That Europeans don't give religion a second thought is true enough, but its not wise to see the whole world in European terms.

I always wonder what it is that cause some people to automatically blame the US for everything that smells bad in the world. It's a certain form of envious blindness I guess. Shit the US does plenty of bad things, but that sort of world-view is really distorted.

Marxist-ly naive lol

This post really doesn't merit a considered response, since it's just a load of hand waving bollocks. So I'll just offer you this:

Buddhists were doing suicide bombings years before the Islamists even thought about it.

 

[Riklet]

was it because they were buddhists though?

...just as are islamists a reactionary threat to progressive politics, just because they are muslims?

I'd agree with lots of what's in dylans's excellent posts, n argue not. they most definitely are a reactionary threat however.

 

[SpineyNorman]

was it because they were buddhists though?

...just as are islamists a reactionary threat to progressive politics, just because they are muslims?

I'd agree with lots of what's in dylans's excellent posts, n argue not. they most definitely are a reactionary threat however.

That's kind of my point.