Radical Islams response to the tragedy in Norway
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-08-2011, 04:07 AM (This post was last modified: 03-08-2011 04:14 AM by Andy.)
Radical Islams response to the tragedy in Norway
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5CZ_AVyRzg

A few bearded bafoons have decided to set up "sharia-controlled" zones in London. They seem to be convinced that a strict application of sharia law will solve all of our problems in europe.

Many of these guys have been charged/convicted of terrorism. The gentleman on the right (Anjem Choudary), spent his youth drinking, taking drugs and having sexual relations with "infidels". How kind of him to take some time off from that, to tell the rest of us how we should behave.

You can call these guys extremists or fundamentalists, but the fact remains. This is what happens when you read the koran and do exactly as you are commanded to.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2011, 07:45 AM
RE: Radical Islams response to the tragedy in Norway
Hey, Andy.

I believe that your post was a mischaracterisation of these men and their aims.

------

On the video itself:

I certainly don't agree with the product they're pedaling, but they offer some insightful analysis at times.

Their reaction reminds me of the Black Panther Party. The difference in ideology is that the BPP advocated "All power to all peoples" while these men advocate a one-size-fits-all approach. The BPP were socialists and these Muslim men theocrats, but both were advocating radical change as a means of solving what they identified as serious societal and systemic problems. Of course I'd rather not see the widespread implementation of what really amounts to an authoritarian regime, but nothing that is going on is occurring in a vacuum.

It seems that the Western policy is to put heads in sand and wish Muslims away. There's no attempt to directly engage and have a dialogue with them and every attempt to demonise, undermine, imprison and kill them. So while I don't agree with the solution these men offer, I think dismissing these men as crazy is fuel for the fire. Wishing the BPP away didn't take shotguns out of the hands of the black men patrolling the streets and destroying the BPP didn’t stop the civil rights movement.

Ultimately I believe that these four men sitting behind a plastic table have very little functional power, but they represent the vanguard of a movement that, however flawed, directly addresses a very serious issue, Muslims in Europe in the context of global Muslim repression and discrimination and wars in Muslim homelands, that no one else seems willing to touch with a ten foot pole. If you ignore a problem, it solves itself and almost never in a way that pleases. I don't think dismissal is required here. I think complex, adult, engagement is.

Muslims in Europe and around the world are looking for solutions just like blacks were in the 60's. The equivalent of Black Panther Parties and Malcolm Xs and Martin Luther King Juniors and a thousand others are offering solutions and the Muslims of the world are going to listen to whomsoever takes action and provides meaningful change. If we remove ourselves from the equation, who they follow will be completely out of our hands and we will only be able to react to the ramifications of that movement. One of the men in a video had a good point, he said, to paraphrase, that "years ago, the discussion was about female circumcision and Halal meat. Now it's about the implementation of Sharia. The level of discussion has risen." Not only is the discussion about Sharia, it's about false imprisonment and death at home and abroad. This situation is unsustainable. It needs to be solved. It will be solved. We can be a part of that, or we can be helpless spectators who have the audacity to say we're being victimised. I think it's silly for us to ignore this because there are moderate forms of Islam, ones that for reasons of fear and political expedience we refuse to acknowledge the existence of, that we can engage with and that represent the more attractive path of least resistance to Muslims. We can engage with that, or we can engage with these men sitting behind a plastic table, who years from now will be sitting behind a wall of armed soldiers.

As an aside, when I step back and look at the complexity and scope of our current situation, the one this particular issue is nested in, the interaction of nationalism, religion, neo-conservative globalism and race, alongside the unfettered omnidirectional transmission of memes, cultural ideas, thanks to globalisation, migration, global commerce, international travel and the Internet, I can only stand in awe and I can only scratch my head when people pretend that the situation is a simple one.

In the 1960's, Muslim extremists were called black people and people then were just as scared of them. Here's Bobby Seale in the 1960's. Strip away the current spin against Muslims, and what he's saying and what he's reacting to is not that far off from what these Muslim men are saying and reacting to.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ghost's post
03-08-2011, 08:48 AM
RE: Radical Islams response to the tragedy in Norway
Wow. I don't even know what to say to that, but i guess i will try anyway:

I will just pull out a few points from this 1:05 hour long jaw-dropping "press conference":

- Non-muslims are dogs, and should be treated as such
- Sharia will be implemented all over the world. If people don't go along peacefully, they will use force.
- Muslims should live in seperate enclaves in the cities. (Apartheid!?)
- The ultimate goal of islam is ... drumroll ....WORLD DOMINATION!
- Muslims are not obligated to obey the laws of the countries they live in.

These are just a few of the uncivilized things that these men believe in. Their main agenda seems to be the implementation of the sharia law. Here is a quick summary of what that law stands for:

Homosexuals should be stoned. Apostates should be stoned. Men are worth twice as much as women. Women should cover themselves completely whenever they leave home. (Which, by the way, they are not allowed to do without the company of a muslim man) You can marry young girls down to the age of 9. Thieves have their hand cut off. Other types of criminals are lashed, beaten, stoned or beheaded.

How can you possibly condone something like that?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2011, 10:12 AM
 
RE: Radical Islams response to the tragedy in Norway
(03-08-2011 08:48 AM)Andy Wrote:  Wow. I don't even know what to say to that, but i guess i will try anyway:

I will just pull out a few points from this 1:05 hour long jaw-dropping "press conference":

- Non-muslims are dogs, and should be treated as such
- Sharia will be implemented all over the world. If people don't go along peacefully, they will use force.
- Muslims should live in seperate enclaves in the cities. (Apartheid!?)
- The ultimate goal of islam is ... drumroll ....WORLD DOMINATION!
- Muslims are not obligated to obey the laws of the countries they live in.

These are just a few of the uncivilized things that these men believe in. Their main agenda seems to be the implementation of the sharia law. Here is a quick summary of what that law stands for:

Homosexuals should be stoned. Apostates should be stoned. Men are worth twice as much as women. Women should cover themselves completely whenever they leave home. (Which, by the way, they are not allowed to do without the company of a muslim man) You can marry young girls down to the age of 9. Thieves have their hand cut off. Other types of criminals are lashed, beaten, stoned or beheaded.

How can you possibly condone something like that?

With all due respect, I'm not sure you read Ghost's post. He/She isn't condoning it, and even states a dislike of much of what they are advocating. But I think the comparison he/she draws demonstrates a certain awareness of why groups like this pop up, (and thus a possible solution).

I also think there is a McCarthy type of attitude today, especially among right wing conservatives, towards Muslims and Islam in general. It's the new boogieman, and this type of attitude is very detrimental to the willingness and ability to peacefully engage Islamic communities of all stripes so that we don't have to live in a "us vs them" opposition type atmosphere. This isn't denying that extremists exist who will use the Koran to justify atrocities, it's recognizing the nuance often present in reality.
Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2011, 10:51 AM
RE: Radical Islams response to the tragedy in Norway
Andy.

Uhm, hi. I'm reality. Have we met?

Which part of, "I certainly don't agree with the product they're pedaling," "I'd rather not see the widespread implementation of what really amounts to an authoritarian regime," and, "So while I don't agree with the solution these men offer," did you take to mean, "I condone?"

I'm sorry for my sarcasm, but that sort of thing really cheeses me off because it's lazy, it's dismissive and it's manipulative. You missed my point entirely.

So how about this? Take off your "the sky is falling" glasses and read what I actually wrote instead of projecting things that other people said that you disagree with onto me.

Also, be honest. I sat down and watched the entire video. I don't remember any of the men say anything like, "Non-muslims are dogs, and should be treated as such."

To answer your question, no. That is not apartheid. Not even close.

If you want to limit things to, Sharia is bad m'kay, then fine. You'll get a lot of agreement. I myself have zero interest in living under Sharia law. I won't go as far as saying that it's bad, but it certainly isn't for me. But what is the value of that discussion? I invite you to look at the larger picture. The single most important point they made (the black one in the middle) is that Muslims are here. Their ranks are growing faster than any other group both by birth and by conversion and many of them were born in Europe and grew up there. They're not going anywhere. Period. There are a lot of forces at work here and, I feel, understanding those forces in their specific context and bringing everyone involved together for direct engagement will offer us many more solutions than arbitrarily picking one force, the desire for Sharia, and pretending that it constitutes the entire discussion and that solutions can be found in isolation.

So, Sharia ain't for me m'kay. There. We're in agreement. What's next?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2011, 09:55 PM
RE: Radical Islams response to the tragedy in Norway
Matt,

Since you seem like a reasonable fellow, I'm puzzled by this statement of yours:

(03-08-2011 10:51 AM)Ghost Wrote:  I myself have zero interest in living under Sharia law. I won't go as far as saying that it's bad, but it certainly isn't for me.

If the points Andy made about the content of Sharia are correct, which I believe they are--to wit, "Homosexuals should be stoned. Apostates should be stoned. Men are worth twice as much as women. Women should cover themselves completely whenever they leave home. (Which, by the way, they are not allowed to do without the company of a muslim man) You can marry young girls down to the age of 9. Thieves have their hand cut off . . ."--why would you not state unequivocally that you feel Sharia law is bad?

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2011, 07:25 AM (This post was last modified: 06-08-2011 07:28 AM by Filox.)
RE: Radical Islams response to the tragedy in Norway
The solution to this problem is quite simple. Every state has it's laws and you are to follow them. If you start following Sharia laws, but you don't live in Sharia-ruling state, then you are not following the laws of the state that you live in, therefore, you should go to jail. So, instead of giving all sorts of religious freedoms, the European countries (and other parts of the world as well) should have laws based on the state and law, not religions. If you don't like the laws of, for example France or Great Britain, you can always go back to some other state where you will like their politics. Religious freedoms have and need to have some limits and boundaries, if they don't, then religions start to change the laws and that makes us not-equal. Why would some Muslim have his law in my state? Then we would have to give in to Christian laws, Buddhist wishes, Hindu wishes, everyone... How would that state survive after it? No, there can be no mixing of religion and state, not when laws are concerned. They should be written independently of any religion and that is the only way to make us all equal in front of the law. Everything else is making somebody more equal than others. And it matters not if Muslims are majority or minority in that state, because not everyone is Muslim. Or Christian, or Buddhist, or atheist, whatever you like.

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2011, 07:59 AM
RE: Radical Islams response to the tragedy in Norway
Hey, cufflink.

Overall, I don't "feel" that it's bad because I don't let feelings replace facts. I don't believe that it's bad because I don't believe in good and bad or good and evil. I don't think that it's bad because good and bad are themselves religious concepts.

Daniel Quinn offers one of the simplest parables of good and bad. There is a fox and a hare. If the fox captures the hare, it's good for the fox and bad for the hare. If the hare gets away, it's good for the hare and bad for the fox.

Good and bad are subjective realities. I find it silly to pretend that they are objective ones. I find it silly to use them at all.

I don't believe that a Darwinist has any use for simplistic concepts such as good and bad. There is no good and there is no bad in Darwinism. Things are either adaptive, maladaptive or exaptive. There is ZERO morality, opinion, or judgement involved. And anyone who thinks that adaptive is just a synonym for good just plain doesn’t understand selection and/or lacks the ability to see things in context.

A wise Imam once said, to grossly paraphrase, if we're comparing the best of us to the worst of the other, what are we actually doing? Every system has its flaws. It’s easy to identify the flaws in another system and it’s idiotic to pretend that my own system is not equally as flawed. There is no such thing as perfection in Darwinism and no such thing as better. So sure, Sharia has things that I don't like. But so does Quebec law. I'm getting married and Quebec law forbids my fiancée from taking my name under any circumstance. Does that mean that Quebec law is objectively bad? That's absurd. I just attended a Sharia wedding presided over by a very conservative Imam and it was beautiful and full of wisdom and I've never laughed so hard at a wedding. Does that mean Sharia is objectively good? Of course not. That's absurd.

Anybody who says that cultural practices should be a certain way is either woefully ignorant of Darwinism or lying. Cultural practices are what they are because of selection, not idealism, and they are constantly changing. It's no less absurd to call a particular culture bad than it is to call a great white or a sloth or a platypus bad.

As far as I'm concerned, nothing is bad. Also, nothing is good.

So is Sharia for me? I don't think so. Is it bad? No.

I mean, think about it for a second. “Sharia is bad.” What a simplistic, credulous and utterly childish way to view things.

Bottom line is, anyone trying to convince you that a system or a cultural group is objectively bad or objectively good is selling something. If you believe it, lets you and me have a little discussion about this swamp land in Florida I have for sale.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2011, 08:28 AM
RE: Radical Islams response to the tragedy in Norway
Andy this was covered in another thread http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thre...Sharia-law
Its not true it was either some pranks or some bs made up by a paper

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2011, 11:33 AM
RE: Radical Islams response to the tragedy in Norway
Ghost

(06-08-2011 07:59 AM)Ghost Wrote:  As far as I'm concerned, nothing is bad. Also, nothing is good.

A bit overly simplistic, don't you think? Nothing is bad? What about murder? Is murder bad? Is flying an airplane into a building bad? What about forced female genital mutilation? That has been culturally selected as well, but is it simply adaptive? Or can if fall within the realm of good or bad?

Secondly, comparing cultural development to Darwinian natural selection is, at best, disturbing and your animal comparisons are, at best, disingenuous. Human beings are not animals and cultures do not evolve through the process of natural selection but by ongoing traditions often decided by those who hold the most power. Some cultural decisions are benign but others clearly are not. The caste system in India, the treatment of women in the middle east, the illusion of white, christian superiority in Europe that gave rise to the slave trade are all cultural developments that came about not as a result of natural selection but because people in power made it so. There is a difference between a predator hunting and a human being making a choice to impose his will on someone else.

I agree with you that no culture has a monopoly on the concepts of "good" or "bad" and there is good and bad in all cultures. But, to claim that there can be nothing that is objectively "good" or "bad" is false. Hacking off the clitoris of a 13 year old girl is objectively bad. Celebrating a wedding with dancing is objectively good.

Finally, while there are stupid laws in every land, you can't compare stupid legislation to cultural rules and religious laws that are set in stone. Your Quebec example, stupid as that is, can easily be changed with the right number of votes in the provincial legislator. It's just not the same thing.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like BnW's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: