Shooting in Paris at satirical mag

[thebish]

^ where did the 1% come from - never mind the 10%!!

[Worthy4England]

^ where did the 1% come from - never mind the 10%!!

It's like this.

There are mummy muslims and daddy muslims...

[Hoboh]

^ where did the 1% come from - never mind the 10%!!

It's like this.

There are mummy muslims and daddy muslims...

[Hoboh]

^ where did the 1% come from - never mind the 10%!!

I know where 0% regularly comes from

[jaffka]

How many did those 3 manage to kill?

Whatever the percentage is, it's fecking significant.

[Hoboh]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... Islam.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Didn't take long did it?
Just for Pru and the Multi Culti's we are letting this person spout off in our intolerant society.

Rahman has acted as a provocateur in what he says are Islamist interests. He participated in the Islamist demonstration outside the Danish Embassy in London in 2006, where he prayed, "O Allah, we want to see another 9/11 in Iraq, another 9/11 in Denmark, another 9/11 in Spain, in France, all over Europe. O Allah, destroy all of them." On 9 November 2006, he was found guilty at trial of the charge of inciting racial hatred. The jury could not reach a verdict on the charge of soliciting murder. The Crown indicated it would seek a retrial.
At his retrial in 2007, Rahman was convicted of the second charge of solicitation to murder, and sentenced to six years in prison. This sentence was reduced to four years on appeal in October 2008. During his trial, the prosecution asserted that Rahman, while not a member of any organisation, was soliciting unknown person(s) to murder other unknown person(s) from among the American occupying forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Since completing his four-year sentence at the end of 2010, Mizanur Rahman immediately began to revive his Islamist activities around the UK and on the Internet. He has called for the laws in Britain to be changed to the Islamic Shari'ah so that the country would become an Islamic Khilafah state.
Mizanur Rahman claims that many Muslim prisoners in the UK are being illegally detained, unfairly treated and abused. He has referred to 'crimes' committed by prison officials in Belmarsh prison in talks and internet addresses since his release from prison.
He has also claimed that his arrest was driven by a media campaign. He said his action are a challenge to and an "exposition freedom of speech".
In November 2010, immediately after completing his four-year prison sentence, he was interviewed by Rageh Omar for a BBC2 series on the life of Muhammad. Questioned about jihad and violence related to insurgencies around the world against western forces, he said, "violence can be praiseworthy and can be dispraised."

[Hoboh]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ttack.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This has to be a piss take, right? first the Muslims now this
A private army in the UK I thought that was against the law, just watch the uproar when the EDL decide to put up patrols of UK protection!
Multi Culti UK you know it makes sense!

[TANGODANCER]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ttack.html

This has to be a piss take, right? first the Muslims now this
A private army in the UK I thought that was against the law, just watch the uproar when the EDL decide to put up patrols of UK protection!
Multi Culti UK you know it makes sense!

Come on Hoboh. This is a police-sanctioned and trained back-up security group against terrorism, not some root and loot mob. Prevention has always been better than cure.

[Hoboh]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ttack.html

This has to be a piss take, right? first the Muslims now this
A private army in the UK I thought that was against the law, just watch the uproar when the EDL decide to put up patrols of UK protection!
Multi Culti UK you know it makes sense!

Come on Hoboh. This is a police-sanctioned and trained back-up security group against terrorism, not some root and loot mob. Prevention has always been better than cure.

It looks more like the privatisation of the Police to me to be honest, where will it stop?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

So according to your viewpoint you accept there are muslims developing a co-existence with non-muslims?

Yes.
Does that upset you
Trouble is, if you quiz me further, I'll have to lecture you on religion-lite, and the fact that Islamic societies are more backward, more medieval, in their insistence that being born into a community forces the child to 'be' Muslim ( for example)
So in actual fact the 'Muslims' you quote aren't fxckin Muslims, according to their doctrine they do not forge associations with non-Muslims.
They even have word for it Tafkir or someat like that...Read the Koran, and weep.
Muslims aren't born, they are developed. Most of the people you think are Muslim are poor bastards struggling to overthrow the shite that religion imposes on free minds born into slavishly imposed religious societies.
Religion enslaves.
Islam not only enslaves its own, its motivation is to enslave all. Its translation is EXACTLY that. Islam means 'slave of God'.

[thebish]

hey - Hoboh - pssssst... Birmingham is entirely Muslim - the whole city - and non-Muslims don't go there - and they have muslim police there who physically attack and beat anyone who isn't dressed as a Muslim should be...

it's true... see how shocked that woman is to hear of such a thing... I imagine you must now look that shocked!

[Montreal Wanderer]

She wan't shocked - that's what she looks like. Mr Emerson is a regular contributor to Fox News and was appearing on Judge Pirro, a show hosted by the failed Republican politician Jeanine Pirro.

Ms Pirro responded to her guest's claim that the British government doesn't "exercise any sovereignty" in Birmingham by saying: "You know what it sounds like to me, Steve? It sounds like a caliphate within a particular country."

Longer interview in the above link.

[Prufrock]

Thanks again Rupert!

[Hoboh]

Thanks again Rupert!

Thanks for what? Not sweeping what is clearly a problem with the interpretation of Islam for quite a large number of people under the carpet!
If you want to look at that sort of society try this

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/117 ... by_police/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

About as bland apiece of reporting as you can get.

No arrests

Comments being heavily censored if any reference is made to the ethnic make up of the group.

Is this what you would rather have?

[jaffka]

Pru, seeing as you think that there isn't a problem you could just be the person to travel to Syria and put your point of view forward and sort out all the problems.

I am pretty sure that we can have a whip around and get your flight paid for, in fact I know one poster on here who would pay for it outright.

Do you want to take me up on the offer?

[Prufrock]

The stupidity it takes to get to the conclusion that I don't think there's a problem, given what I've posted on this over the last week, is astonishing.

[CAPSLOCK]

The stupidity it takes to get to the conclusion that I don't think there's a problem, given what I've posted on this over the last week, is astonishing.

I'm not astonished

[Lost Leopard Spot]

The stupidity it takes to get to the conclusion that I don't think there's a problem, given what I've posted on this over the last week, is astonishing.

I for one am not of the opinion that you don't think there is a problem. But, before we get carried away in fraternal rapture, you will probably agree that we are miles away from each other's points of view as to the cause of the trouble.

So, just so you can (potentially) understand my POV a little clearer I have a few analogues/anecdotes and scenarios to help me put it across.

1. Say, hypothetically, that your firm went on a bus trip through Northern Kenya, and it was stopped by some members of al-Shabab*. Now the usual outcome of these occurences (and they do happen, for real) is for the youths to seperate out the passengers into two lots: Muslims and non-Muslims. Ask yourself why, if they are just lone nutters as Worthy insists, they do this.
Whatever the reason is (nutters who happen to be Muslims v. people who are driven to rampaging killing because of which religion they are), you will end up dead and Amber won't. Amber won't have killed you but her religion would have.
[* in the same manner as Boko Haram - Western Education is Forbidden we can call them Al-Shabab - the Youth wing of the Islamic Courts Union ]

2. The brother of the dead policeman in Paris lumps together as a matter of course that Islamophobes, racists and right wingers are one and the same - he is wrong. It is not legitimate to be a racist. It is legitimate to be right wing, although I'm not. It is equally legitimate to be an Islamophobe, which I am, although not approved of amongst the opinion makers and intelligentsia within a liberal, secular, western democracy. Islam is an idea, a religion, not a birthright - one isn't born a Muslim because you are Arab just the same as being a white Englishman doesn't make you an Anglican (just ask Tango and thebish).
The brother of the dead policeman is subtly wrong on another point too - the people who killed his brother are not not-Muslim because they shot his (Muslim) brother. They are Muslims who happened to shoot a policeman.

3. I know that you think Amber and some fighter in the Islamic State are worlds apart: you see a sweet London girl and a psychopath and conclude that my Islamophobia is purely intolerant rantings. My trouble is that I cannot seperate out her beliefs from his.
She's a Muslim living in the west according to the doctrines and principles outlined in the Koran. The Koran does say that Muslims who live outside the ummah must obey the laws of the lands they live in. It also exhorts its followers to expand the ummah and to do this through jihad. In fact this is a sacred duty of all Muslims.
Yes there are interpretations , subtle differences of interpretation of the doctrines espoused from within the Koran, and comments on the sayings of the prophet (the Hadith) - and yes, jihad can be interpreted as a philosophical rather than a military struggle - but this brings us to the major point and that is that unlike all other religions and philosophies the Koran is the direct and unadulterated word of God - or that's what Muslims believe.
And its pretty difficult if not impossible to put peaceful interpretations of Allah stating that Muslims should "strike fear into the hearts of the unbeliever", and to "strike the neck of the unbeliever"**
[**the two strikes above are different words in Arabic, with the strike the neck having a specific meaning of to cut with a sharp blade - it cannot be reinterpreted as a strike like a match for example].
Now when God tells you to do these things it becomes a little more difficult to interpret your way out of the exhortation (if you believe in God).
So why you may be asking isn't Amber doing these things - because she's living amongst the unbelievers and because not all Muslims actually practice the Islamic Doctrine.
The trouble comes because a significant proportion of Muslims who live amongst the unbelievers wish to carry out the word of God and spread the ummah and sharia into the lands of the unbelievers and there is an even greater proportion of those who live within the ummah who wish a more fundamental practice of the doctrine (which is why they are called fundamentalists).
You're (Pru's) assertion that even the Saudis think that ISIS are nutters is no consolation - one lot is just more fundamental than the other, and all of them (even Amber , if she is a Muslim) has that sacred duty to spread Islam, through jihad, until the entire world is the ummah.

This is why I disagree strongly with Worthy's assessment that they are just nutters who happen to be Muslims. My 'understanding' is that being Muslim means carrying out the exhortataions of the Koran - and being an unbeliever in those terms is not a comfortable place to be.

[Prufrock]

The stupidity it takes to get to the conclusion that I don't think there's a problem, given what I've posted on this over the last week, is astonishing.

I for one am not of the opinion that you don't think there is a problem. But, before we get carried away in fraternal rapture, you will probably agree that we are miles away from each other's points of view as to the cause of the trouble.

So, just so you can (potentially) understand my POV a little clearer I have a few analogues/anecdotes and scenarios to help me put it across.

1. Say, hypothetically, that your firm went on a bus trip through Northern Kenya, and it was stopped by some members of al-Shabab*. Now the usual outcome of these occurences (and they do happen, for real) is for the youths to seperate out the passengers into two lots: Muslims and non-Muslims. Ask yourself why, if they are just lone nutters as Worthy insists, they do this.
Whatever the reason is (nutters who happen to be Muslims v. people who are driven to rampaging killing because of which religion they are), you will end up dead and Amber won't. Amber won't have killed you but her religion would have.
[* in the same manner as Boko Haram - Western Education is Forbidden we can call them Al-Shabab - the Youth wing of the Islamic Courts Union ]

2. The brother of the dead policeman in Paris lumps together as a matter of course that Islamophobes, racists and right wingers are one and the same - he is wrong. It is not legitimate to be a racist. It is legitimate to be right wing, although I'm not. It is equally legitimate to be an Islamophobe, which I am, although not approved of amongst the opinion makers and intelligentsia within a liberal, secular, western democracy. Islam is an idea, a religion, not a birthright - one isn't born a Muslim because you are Arab just the same as being a white Englishman doesn't make you an Anglican (just ask Tango and thebish).
The brother of the dead policeman is subtly wrong on another point too - the people who killed his brother are not not-Muslim because they shot his (Muslim) brother. They are Muslims who happened to shoot a policeman.

3. I know that you think Amber and some fighter in the Islamic State are worlds apart: you see a sweet London girl and a psychopath and conclude that my Islamophobia is purely intolerant rantings. My trouble is that I cannot seperate out her beliefs from his.
She's a Muslim living in the west according to the doctrines and principles outlined in the Koran. The Koran does say that Muslims who live outside the ummah must obey the laws of the lands they live in. It also exhorts its followers to expand the ummah and to do this through jihad. In fact this is a sacred duty of all Muslims.
Yes there are interpretations , subtle differences of interpretation of the doctrines espoused from within the Koran, and comments on the sayings of the prophet (the Hadith) - and yes, jihad can be interpreted as a philosophical rather than a military struggle - but this brings us to the major point and that is that unlike all other religions and philosophies the Koran is the direct and unadulterated word of God - or that's what Muslims believe.
And its pretty difficult if not impossible to put peaceful interpretations of Allah stating that Muslims should "strike fear into the hearts of the unbeliever", and to "strike the neck of the unbeliever"**
[**the two strikes above are different words in Arabic, with the strike the neck having a specific meaning of to cut with a sharp blade - it cannot be reinterpreted as a strike like a match for example].
Now when God tells you to do these things it becomes a little more difficult to interpret your way out of the exhortation (if you believe in God).
So why you may be asking isn't Amber doing these things - because she's living amongst the unbelievers and because not all Muslims actually practice the Islamic Doctrine.
The trouble comes because a significant proportion of Muslims who live amongst the unbelievers wish to carry out the word of God and spread the ummah and sharia into the lands of the unbelievers and there is an even greater proportion of those who live within the ummah who wish a more fundamental practice of the doctrine (which is why they are called fundamentalists).
You're (Pru's) assertion that even the Saudis think that ISIS are nutters is no consolation - one lot is just more fundamental than the other, and all of them (even Amber , if she is a Muslim) has that sacred duty to spread Islam, through jihad, until the entire world is the ummah.

This is why I disagree strongly with Worthy's assessment that they are just nutters who happen to be Muslims. My 'understanding' is that being Muslim means carrying out the exhortataions of the Koran - and being an unbeliever in those terms is not a comfortable place to be.

We don't disagree at all on the cause of the problem, I think we agree exactly there. It's a belief in a divine actor that means moral authority is appropriated from this world into the next by an entity that cannot be questioned, and a belief that what that divine actor wants is the carrying out of some of the very nasty things that are either in, or are interpreted from things that are in, the Quran.

Where we disagree, and where you are wrong, is on the scale and absolute nature of the problem. You make claims for which you have no basis to argue they are true (such as that my friend is living in the West according to the doctrines and principles in the Quran and the then explicitly made assumption that she, like any Muslim must be definition accept everything that is said in the Quran).

Well no. The Bible incites violence against many groups of people: it says that gays, those who work on the Sabbath, those who handle pig skin, those who wear clothes make of two sorts of fabric are abominations and should be put to death. Yet you'll find those views represent the views of almost no Christians at all in the world. Muslims are just as capable of choosing the bits of the book they want to believe. Just because you've unilaterally decided that not to be true is irrelevant.

Oh, and it's "Your" .

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Oh, and it's "Your" .

...bastard

Well no. The Bible incites violence against many groups of people: it says that gays, those who work on the Sabbath, those who handle pig skin, those who wear clothes make of two sorts of fabric are abominations and should be put to death. Yet you'll find those views represent the views of almost no Christians at all in the world. Muslims are just as capable of choosing the bits of the book they want to believe. Just because you've unilaterally decided that not to be true is irrelevant.

It's not even my view, as I don't understand the doctrine (although I understand the principle)... it comes from Muslim scholars. As I've said elsewhere, there's a Muslim concept about it which is like the worm ourouboros, constantly devouring it's own tail. Her argument (or any Muslim who argues) that they can selectively dip into the Koran will be called Takfiri, and the way of the takfiri is that of the unbeliever (a least she and me'll have that much in common).
and whatever the Bible says it is not the direct undisputable word of God according to Christian and Jewish scholarship (despite what some fundamentalist Christians believe) whereas Islamic scholarship states the Koran is the direct word of God transmitted through the Prophet - and it's blasphemous of a Muslim to say otherwise, and we all know the fate of blasphemers (if you live in the ummah)