I'm aware of that incident. Quilliam allows its staff to write whatever they want on their own time and it's a representation of that person's views, not the organization. They didn't vet the article. In response, Tommy Robinson barged into their offices and threatened people. The guy is a ####ing nutbar. Which should be obvious enough when you see crap like this:
If that isn't extremist xenophobic nonsense, I don't know what is.
I should note that Khurram Butt, one of the London attackers, was reported to police by Nawaz's organization as an extremist for attacking their head of Islamic studies. The police knew who he was.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 06-06-2017 at 03:44 PM.
I'm aware of that incident. Quilliam allows its staff to write whatever they want on their own time and it's a representation of that person's views, not the organization. They didn't vet the article. In response, Tommy Robinson barged into their offices and threatened people. The guy is a ####ing nutbar. Which should be obvious enough when you see crap like this:
If that isn't extremist xenophobic nonsense, I don't know what is.
Harris said he needed to change that policy where he will need to review all articles before publishing.
I wouldn't call Tommy a nutbar. He has grown up in an area of Britain rife with grooming gangs and police who did nothing about it. Watch these two speeches and tell me if you still think he is a nutbar.
Q & A
This is a speech he has been trying to give for a long time that police keep trying to shut down. Goes through the false charges by the police a lot.
Let's be accurate here. The United States created "the Taliban." The Taliban were one of the tribes that the CIA recruited and trained to fight the Soviets. It was their training and the power vacuum left by the Soviets that drove the Taliban to power. If the US had stuck around and not turned their back on the Taliban, they may not have radicalized.
bin Laden was actually at odds with the Taliban to begin with. Only later, with a common enemy, did bin Laden find a relationship and comfort with the Taliban.
That's a helluva an idea. Let the people be in control and punish their own by their own laws. Brilliant Captain.
Bin Laden was pretty instrumental in the formation of the Taliban. Although. the Taliban had its roots largely in Madrassas in Pakistan, which were funded by Saudis. There was a split at some point between Bin Laden and the Taliban, but that was temporary and it was over the issue that Arabs should play in the Afghan government/military as opposed to any major ideological role.
Bin Laden returned to Afgahnistan in 1996 after being banned from Sudan and set up his own Al Qaeda mini-state there.
The USA was funding the Mujahideen, in the Afghan/USSR conflict. The Mujahideen were led by Bin Laden. So you can't say that the USA was funding the Taliban, who were in conflict with Bin Laden. It was the opposite, if anything, except that Bin Laden and the Taliban were not in conflict.
So for an overall timeline:
1990- Bin Laden leaves after defeating the Soviets - with US help.
1991-1996 - The Taliban, supported largely by Saudi sponsored madrass trained fighters in Pakistan gain control of Afghanistan. The Taliban did not gain control of Kabul until September 27, 1996.
1996 - Bin Laden returns to Afghanistan on May 18, 1996.
I'm not really seeing this major rift you're talking about. It looks like mutual support between the Taliban and Bin Laden to me, Bin Laden playing a large role in the Taliban founding throughout.
There is an interpretation or ideology that ISIS follows that is outright rejected and physically fought against by Muslims. ISIS does not represent the religion or the majority of the followers.
Only idiots think it represents the majority. But religions are more than just what the majority of their followers believe. Does the fact most American Christians disapprove of making threats against abortion clinics mean that the people who carry out those threats aren't Christians, and their hatred of abortion, has nothing to do with Christianity?
It's been posted here before, but I highly recommend anyone who hasn't done so already to read this article in the Atlantic:
Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, “the Prophetic methodology,” which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail. Muslims can reject the Islamic State; nearly all do. But pretending that it isn’t actually a religious, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to be combatted, has already led the United States to underestimate it and back foolish schemes to counter it. We’ll need to get acquainted with the Islamic State’s intellectual genealogy if we are to react in a way that will not strengthen it, but instead help it self-immolate in its own excessive zeal...
Centuries have passed since the wars of religion ceased in Europe, and since men stopped dying in large numbers because of arcane theological disputes. Hence, perhaps, the incredulity and denial with which Westerners have greeted news of the theology and practices of the Islamic State. Many refuse to believe that this group is as devout as it claims to be, or as backward-looking or apocalyptic as its actions and statements suggest...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Although Wood qualifies his claim by pointing briefly to the theological diversity within Islam, Islam scholars argue that he glosses over one of the most important components of any faith tradition: interpretation. Jerusha Tanner Lamptey, Professor of Islam and Ministry at Union Theological Seminary in New York, told ThinkProgress that Wood’s argument perpetuates the false idea that Islam is a literalistic tradition where violent texts are taken at face value.
“That’s very problematic to anyone who spends any of their time dealing with the diversity of interpretations around texts,” Lamptey said. “Texts have never been only interpreted literally. They have always been interpreted in multiple ways — and that’s not a chronological thing, that’s been the case from the get-go … [Wood’s comments] create the [impression] that Islam is literalistic, backward-minded, and kind of arcane or archaic, and we’ve moved past that narrative.”
How does the fact that the Kurds, both men (YPG) and women (YPJ) are fighting ISIS fit in your (false) narrative? Kurds are Muslims. In fact many Muslims are fighting and dying in the struggle against ISIS.[/url]
While it's true that the majority of anti-Islamist fighting is done by Muslims, Kurds are not the best example.
Kurdish culture has a clearly secular bent (meaning separation of the spiritual from the everyday life). In other words they often follow the Muslim traditions, but don't consider themselves very religious. (Probably partially Soviet influence, and partially from being I think forced converts to Islam.)
They're also not all Muslims (although the vast majority are). Something like a million of Iraq Kurds are Yarsanis, another half a million are Yazidis, and I think even the Zoroastrianists (which derives from the teachings of that Zarathustra) have their own areas.
And they follow I think kind of their own branch of Sunni Islam? (Or a branch that's not as common in the area anyway.)
Please don't quote me on any of this though
I think my main point is:
a) There's a lot more variation in religions in the Middle-East than what you can learn from media, and that variety matters more than people think
b) The Kurds are probably the least religious people in the Middle-East.
Bin Laden was pretty instrumental in the formation of the Taliban. Although. the Taliban had its roots largely in Madrassas in Pakistan, which were funded by Saudis. There was a split at some point between Bin Laden and the Taliban, but that was temporary and it was over the issue that Arabs should play in the Afghan government/military as opposed to any major ideological role.
Bin Laden returned to Afgahnistan in 1996 after being banned from Sudan and set up his own Al Qaeda mini-state there.
The USA was funding the Mujahideen, in the Afghan/USSR conflict. The Mujahideen were led by Bin Laden. So you can't say that the USA was funding the Taliban, who were in conflict with Bin Laden. It was the opposite, if anything, except that Bin Laden and the Taliban were not in conflict.
So for an overall timeline:
1990- Bin Laden leaves after defeating the Soviets - with US help.
1991-1996 - The Taliban, supported largely by Saudi sponsored madrass trained fighters in Pakistan gain control of Afghanistan. The Taliban did not gain control of Kabul until September 27, 1996.
1996 - Bin Laden returns to Afghanistan on May 18, 1996.
I'm not really seeing this major rift you're talking about. It looks like mutual support between the Taliban and Bin Laden to me, Bin Laden playing a large role in the Taliban founding throughout.
Actually the local Mujaheddin in Afghanistan pretty much thought that Bin Laden and his foreign Mujaheddin were complete idiots who were there not to fight the Soviets to free Afghanistan but to achieve Martyrdom.
At the same time, the US funded the Afghan Mujaheddin which later became the Taliban, but Bin Laden wanted nothing to do with US aid preferring that the money came from pure Muslim countries.
There was a rift between local Taliban and foreign fighters, however the locals who later became the leadership in Afghanistan were grateful that Bin Laden and his group were so good at making the Soviets expend valuable ammunition;
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Actually the local Mujaheddin in Afghanistan pretty much thought that Bin Laden and his foreign Mujaheddin were complete idiots who were there not to fight the Soviets to free Afghanistan but to achieve Martyrdom.
At the same time, the US funded the Afghan Mujaheddin which later became the Taliban, but Bin Laden wanted nothing to do with US aid preferring that the money came from pure Muslim countries.
There was a rift between local Taliban and foreign fighters, however the locals who later became the leadership in Afghanistan were grateful that Bin Laden and his group were so good at making the Soviets expend valuable ammunition;
Well I disagree. I think, in addition to downplaying OBL's role in Afghanistan, you're ignoring the influence of the Pakistani Madrassas. More of the Taliban's initial fighting force came from there than anywhere else. The local Afghan Mujaheddin were basically just involved in a lot of infighting in the post-Soviet era. It wasn't until the Pakistan/Saudi backed Madrassas got involved that the Taliban became organized. The student's themselves were a mixture of Afghan refugees and Pakistanis.
I think this thread is devolving into another one of those "history expert" ones, so I'll end this debate with me getting this last little word in
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
One your first point, that is mainly directed to the person I had quoted, as they've happily posted and defended propaganda content from white nationalist organisations (specifically Britain First, which is a runoff from the neo-Nazi BNP and has links to NI terrorist groups). I just don't think it's appropriate for someone who posts content taken directly from neo-nazis and terrorists to make objective comments on the moral standards of anyone else, period. Brietbart gets laughed out of most political circles here, so I think most of would agree spreading neo-Nazi propaganda and defending it is many categories worse.
Thanks for responding to my post, discussion is good. I have seen so many posts of hateful rhetoric that are lies in all sorts of political debates - neither side of an argument should resort to that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
I can't "justify the positives" of Sharia, as I can only justify the positive interpretations of any religion. My first inclination is that religion is problematic and can lead to some fairly toxic beliefs (and justifications for those beliefs). Islam is no different. But, without the ability to eradicate religion, I believe the best possible path is to celebrate and support those who are progressive, and who are liberal, rather than blanket condemnation.
I think you may want to invest some time into seeing why people criticize Sharia, see what types of countries it comes from, and then debate if it represents Canadian values.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
There are gay Muslims, feminist Muslims, but they are still Muslims who follow Sharia. Sharia is really no different than the teachings of the Bible in the sense that people can take some pretty horrible things from it, but there's a lot of light to be had. From the conversations I've had and the people I've been around, (for progressive Muslims at least) Sharia teaches self control, being at peace with your neighbor, respecting your own body, being honest, etc. I know Muslims who don't drink or smoke because of Sharia, those who observe Ramadan do so because of Sharia, it's just used as a tool to inspire good people to be better.
People should not use a god to inspire people to be better - it is proving to be a terrible strategy. Sharia is bad for gays people and females, is there something that is misleading my view on it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Does it allow the exact opposite? It does, and that's a huge problem. As you said, there is an issue with institutionalised racism in parts of the Muslim world and while we have our own problems, we can still act as an imperfect leap in the right direction.
You have posted positively about Muslims and I don't disagree. When people move here from (for example) Pakistan, is there some process where they suddenly lose the racist hate government/schools taught them? As a jew, I have first hand experienced absolute hate speech from Muslims, with wives, kids and dads screaming at us (they don't represent all Muslims, I get that). I assume they brought this baggage with them from back home. I think we must work on a solution to eliminate this mindset. Similarly, there was a police shooting on an immigrant and the believe was that the immigrant came from a country that simply did not trust or respect police, and when the officer tried to arrest the person, he violently resisted, leading to his death. One of the discoveries was that the community/city needed to more to reach out to the community to avoid a similar situation in the future. But if we ignore what is happening (or we isolate people by called them racist/islamophobic), then we are failing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Progressive, liberal Muslims should be held up as the example and championed because those are the people that can affect the most change in Islam worldwide. That doesn't mean we stop criticising the bad parts of Islam or shouting down things like extremism and those who wish to override secular laws with religious ones, but those people are far fewer than the dramatic presence they seem to have to conservative westerners.
I am not championing religion, period. I think what we are all trying to figure out is what is a progressive, liberal Muslim? Are they the Muslims that drink alcohol? Are they the Muslims that believe in Sharia law? I know that for the Jews, the minority are heavily religious, and the bulk of Jews do not agree with much of what they do with their lives. Progressive, liberal Jews often typify social justice, education, liberal laws, charity, etc with no religious following - on both sides of the political spectrum. Help me understand what the progressive Muslim looks like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
I think the best thing we can do is talk about Islam with some nuance. Not as some concretely good or bad thing. I don't believe there's anything but ignorance to saying there's no problem with Islam, just as I don't believe there's anything but ignorance to saying Sharia is an evil perversion.
I do my best to push religion backwards, and I think society should as well. I do not promote it, nor should I. Star Wars makes as much sense to me as God.
Instead of shovelling hate on him as some have indirectly done in this thread, we should be holding him up and making sure his words are heard by those who need the message. Change comes from within, and all that.
Forget about the hate, and walk through solutions. Try not to engage in partisan politics, and instead talk through policy. Again, thanks for posting.
The Following User Says Thank You to Nage Waza For This Useful Post:
I'll let you in on a secret my little sheep, first off I'm not fully white and one of my best friends wife is from Pakistan, he hasn't met her family ever and she hasn't visited her home or her parents and 2 siblings since she left Pakistan 22 years ago for school.
Why? because if she went home her dad or brother likely would kill her for leaving Islam and marrying a Filipino Christian that's why.
Take comfort in knowing you still have your same 5 or 6 brother sheep's thanking your posts and agreeing with your views.
I'll also let you in on a little secret, one of my best friends who is Muslim married a white Christian girl and her parents haven't spoken to her since. They've disowned her and called her a sand ****** loving whore when she told them she was going to marry a Muslim.
Now I don't know if you're a racist, but there is zero doubt you're a bigot. It's written in every single one of your posts and the hate is very strong.
I'll also let you in on a little secret, one of my best friends who is Muslim married a white Christian girl and her parents haven't spoken to her since. They've disowned her and called her a sand ****** loving whore when she told them she was going to marry a Muslim.
Now I don't know if you're a racist, but there is zero doubt you're a bigot. It's written in every single one of your posts and the hate is very strong.
Obviously there are idiots everywhere. How about coming up with some solutions to existing problems? The name calling is tiresome.
A football fan reportedly yelled “###### you, I’m Millwall” as he single-handedly took on the three knife-wielding London terror attackers armed with nothing more than his fists.
Roy Larner has already been hailed a hero, with a petition launched for him to be awarded the George Cross medal for his actions in the Black and Blue steakhouse on Saturday night.
In fighting back, the 47-year-old Millwall fan gave dozens of others who were in the Borough Market restaurant the chance to escape.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Ozy_Flame For This Useful Post:
Phyllis Larner, 78, told The Sun: “He’s fearless, my son. He’ll give as good as he gets.
“He’s quite nippy and lippy and wouldn’t back down from a fight.
“He wouldn’t care who it was or if they had a knife or gun.”
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to RougeUnderoos For This Useful Post:
