Muslims, Islam and violence.

[Kumagoro]

One problem is that the news gives these nutters more coverage than they deserve.
Its a fashionable subject and everything is manipulated in someway in the media.

I wonder how people I knew at uni (friends but not very close friends) from UAE, quatar and
saudi would have reacted. I dont think they would have thought like those on TV, but its hard
to tell as I knew them before afghanistan etc.

I just find it ironic that these people behave in the way they were portrayed in the cartoons.

At my local uni they had a protest (muslim students that is) about how they are against
those protests in london. Doubt it will be in the news as well its not as interesting huh.

[mike_dowler]

Have just caught up with this thread...

Originally Posted by Wyoming
One other minor point - there have been anti-semitic cartoons and articles published in newspapers in Israel (for obvious reasons). There has been no comparable action by the Jewish community over such things.

True, but as discussed just uo above, perhaps the Jewish faith is either less open to misinterpretation or hasn't had as long to be twisted into something it isn't?

Well, considering that the Jewish faith has been around several times longer than Islam (ca. 8k years as opposed to 1400) I think the second option is unlikely. And there seems to be plenty of variance within Judaism (liberals to orthodox), so the first is unlikely too.

The problems we have in this country with radical Islam is the same that every other western country has
1. A failure to tackle extremism...
2. Poor Asylum policy...
3. Immigration policy...

And this is missing the point - the vast majority of the violence has happened in the Middle East. This is not about cultural tensions in the UK, but about a wider issue. Empirically, there seems to be a link between Islam and violence. Please note, I am not saying that every person who identifies as a Muslim is violent, nor am saying that violence is unknown outside Islam. But as Nick pointed out, this widespread, unilateral violence is relatively unknown in other religious groups (e.g. www.godhatesfags.com which someone else referred to, is run by one small group of people - pretty much a cult - in the US. Violence in Northern Ireland was bilateral and had political, as well as ethnic and religious associations). What we are seeing here is violence based purely on religious beliefs - there is no suggestion that Denmark had any political ambitions in the Lebanon.

As I understand it, Islamic scripture teaches the establishment of an Islamic kingdom throughout the whole Earth, and teaches Muslims to work towards that goal. That is the motivation for the violence - it is a political struggle between Islam and non-Islam. There is no room for negotiation, because the kingdom is not going to be ruled by democracy, but according to God's laws.

This isn't such a strange idea, because lots of ideologies put their ideals before human life - think of animal rights protesters torching houses or sabotaging cars, or the number of people who were killed in Vietnam and Korea because it was better to have 'democracy' rather than 'communism'.

The question to ask is - which ideology is correct, and how do you know?

Perhaps a solution to this apparent schism over how the Koran should be interpreted would be helped by Muslims having a... I don;t know what he'd be called but having a Muslim version of the Pope or something... someone to tell the extremist to chill out

Even here you seem to be saying that Islam is OK - as long as it's Islam according to your rules. Which is exactly what the protesters in the Lebanon were saying about Western secularism. Even relativism (the idea that no ideology is better than any other) is an ideology, so all relativists are hypocrites when they say that all ideologies are equally valid.

Long post - sorry. Thought it might generate some useful discussion though

[yamangman]

Lets face it, we're all human at the end of the day, people are indoctrinated and people prescribe, but whatever the case people will use whatever they can to their own ends. In my opinion it's no wonder that their are people who are extremeists who so readily and easily believe in such radical ways of thinking. Nevertheless it makes me no less disgusted by the dual-standards and intolerence that so many can occupy. Other than that, it seems to be disaffected young people who are so easily manipulated.

As far as i'm concerned all schools should use a school uniform. Anything that is not in the school uniform should be banned. Crosses, Turbans, Yarmulkas.....

[iranu]

At my local uni they had a protest (muslim students that is) about how they are against those protests in london. Doubt it will be in the news as well its not as interesting huh.

That's exactly what must happen. The ordinary people organising themselves and showing the media and the rest of us that they do not agree with the marches in London. They must also ensure that their is no place for the extremists to hide within their communities even if that means going to the authorities.

The problems we have in this country with radical Islam is the same that every other western country has
1. A failure to tackle extremism...
2. Poor Asylum policy...
3. Immigration policy...

And this is missing the point - the vast majority of the violence has happened in the Middle East.

No it's not missing the point at all. Some of the protesters in London were causing a criminal offence. That is incitement to violence or murder. You have to ask yourself why these people feel they need to carry banners saying "butcher those who mock Islam" and cover their faces in a democracy that allows legitimate protest and why they are here at all if they wish to demonstrate in such a fashion. That's all part of the 3 points above. Why are we allowing extremists to be based here at all? Those people commiting an offence should have been arrested and a) deported if not British and b) prosecuted if they were.

The reason why violence happened in Syria and Lebanon is because it was organised by the government or religious "leaders". It is well known that the cartoons were published at the end of October, so how come it's only now that the Lebanese felt the need to burn down embassies ? It's simple - it has been planned for by people who took the images to Egypt added 3 more that weren't published then stirred up the resentment and extremism. They are using the religion to bolster their grip and manipulate. It doesn't take much to get a crowd going in the middle east especially if they feel wronged.

The loonies and nutters in this country picked up on the row in the middle east and decided to have a go themselves. What I am saying is that we should not tolerate people inciting violence, however, because we have these failed policies extremists are A) amongst the population and have killed B) are not subject to British law because we are all too afraid of hurting their feelings or being acused of racism.

[[GSV]Trig]

Look at it this way, there will always be killings and arguments..
Free speech gives us the right to think and say what we want, yet were not allowed to do that if it upsets other people, you cant have it both ways, until everyone is the same, earns the same, believes the same and follows the same rules etc etc then there will always be problems like this.....

[Taz]

I've had some spare time in my hotel room to look into this whole issue a bit more, particularly with regards to the 'cartoons'. I would encourage you all (those that have strong views in particular) to read the following article:

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=10253

Then read this article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...703501,00.html

And then this one:

http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2006/02...onspiracy.html

I'm not sure what to make of it all. Perhaps there is a little more beneath the surface than was initially apparent? Even if the suggestions in those articles are true, there is no excuse whatsoever for violence or offensive banners during demonstrations I hasten to add.

[directhex]

who's not seen all the cartoons in question, out of curiosity?

[[GSV]Trig]

I havent

[mike_dowler]

No it's not missing the point at all. Some of the protesters in London were causing a criminal offence. That is incitement to violence or murder. You have to ask yourself why these people feel they need to carry banners saying "butcher those who mock Islam" and cover their faces in a democracy that allows legitimate protest and why they are here at all if they wish to demonstrate in such a fashion. That's all part of the 3 points above. Why are we allowing extremists to be based here at all? Those people commiting an offence should have been arrested and a) deported if not British and b) prosecuted if they were.

My point was that this (deportation) would not solve the (worldwide) problem - there would still be violence, and perhaps even more hatred. The protests in London were hardly 'extreme' when compared with those in the Lebanon. The only difference, if Iranu had his way, is that he would be able to watch the protests on the telly and think "well, at least British people aren't like that"

I don't agree with the protests at all - I just think that all of us need to consider what justification we have for the ideologies we follow, and have some objective discussions about which one is right, and why.

[iranu]

I'm afraid that the British government and the British police force have no jurisdiction worldwide. What they do have is jurisdiction in Britain and have sworn to uphold the law in this country. That is why my points a) and b) should be followed. We have no power to tell people in Lebanon what laws they should have.

The reason that there is hatred and violence in the Middle East is not too difficult to see.

In nearly every country you have a very small minority who control most of the wealth and have all of the power. Now this maybe true of all countries but in the west there is at least opportunity to get out of poverty. They keep the people down by keeping them poor, controlling the media, and blaming domestic problems on the west. They use Islam as a political tool to deflect bad policy that restricts the freedoms and opportunities of the people and turn the subsequent frustration into anti-western, anti-semitic protest.

i.e All your problems are caused by the west and the Jews, don't blame your rulers, we are as persecuted as you are.

Until democracy is established in the Middle East then there will always be this feeling. It will take a long time. The cold war took 45 years this will most likely take longer.

[Taz]

Good points iranu. As someone that is involved in both sides of the 'divide', I can tell you that one of the things that upsets the people of the Middle East is the *perceived* double standards of the West.

Here are two examples: in the recent elections in Egypt (a close ally of the US), one of the parties, the Muslim Brotherhood, was restricted by the Egyptian authorities. Its supporters were not allowed to reach polling stations by the authorities. Hence, Hosny Mubarak was re-elected. This led to riots in Egypt but Mubarak was congratulated by the 'West'. He is essentially a dictator and Egypt has one of the worst human rights records in the world (source: http://hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=egypt).

President Bush recently commented on countries in the Middle East that must follow the path of democracy, usually singling out Iran and Syria - note that I don't necessarily agree with the policies of the governments of either of those countries! Egypt was not mentioned.

My second example is Saudi Arabia - ruled by the House of Saud - one of Americas closest allies. Saudis essentially 'own' around 3-4% of America through investment. Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest trading partners of America. However, there is no democracy in Saudi. Indeed, the law is basically Sharia law (Islamic law). Women cannot vote and they cannot even drive a car! The human rights records of Saudi Arabia are even more deplorable than Egypt (source: http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=saudia). Saudi Arabia is hardly ever mentioned by President Bush when he talks about democracy in the Middle East.

So, it is these preceived 'double-standards' that causes *some* of the problems in the Middle East. Don't get me wrong here, I am not supporting any form of violence, but just trying to convey the deep-rooted issues in the Middle East. I have worked in both Egypt and Saudi Arabia over the years so have first-hand experience of the gulf between what the people want and what the governments actually do.

So, perhaps a fairer attitude towards the Middle East will speed up democracy. At the moment I feel there is too much 'them and us' and this causes a lot of resentment. Life for the ordinary man or woman in Saudi Arabia is not that different from here in the UK or in the US. People go to work in plush, modern offices, they take their families to shopping malls, restaurants, etc. They have aspirations like you and I. They even go to McDonalds! Unfortunately, the only thing we ever see on our television screens is violence. Yes, of course, there is too much violence. Yes, those countries do need democracy - indeed, the people of those countries *want* democracy. But whilst the corrupt governments of those countries in the Middle East that are US-friendly are supported by the West, the people of those countries will continue to live under dictatorships.

[RVF500]

Religion has been manipulated by leaders throughout history. You only have to look at the crusades to see what happened to Muslims and Christians living side by side peacefully in what is now Turkey. But the Byzantine emperor sees his power threatened. So he has a word with his mate the pope. Who in turn puts a bit of spin on the 10 commandments and tells the armoured thugs ruling Europe that 'thou shalt not kill Christians' ergo, killing the infidel is ok. In fact it gets you brownie points with God. Net result is countless dead and centuries of violence as a result of the political agenda hidden behind the shield of religion. Today Bin Laden refers to the west as 'crusaders'.

Currently I'm working in Senegal where the population is 95% Muslim. I'm in the 5%. We've discussed these cartoons. The general consensus is that it was a bad idea and shouldn't have been done. But the thinking is that it shouldn't have been done because it was obvious that it would be used to stir up unrest. Here they celebrate Christmas as well as Islamic festivals and just get on with things. There are no news cameras here because no one is burning flags or embassies.

We must have freedom of speech but you can't say anything that might upset someone else. There's a dichotomy if ever I saw one. You either have freedom of speech or censorship. You can't have it both ways. The crux is tolerence. When one group is aiming at a global kingdom there is no room for tolerance. This is because one group (the militants therein) are determind to eradicate the beliefs and way of life of the other. Hardly a recipe for peace.

The only way to stop them is for the silent majority to stand up to them. Unfortunately the silent majority is, well, silent.

I do wonder what would happen to me (being white/English) if I paraded around trafalgar square with a placard saying 'behead/butcher the none Christians'? I think plod would bang me up so fast that my feet wouldn't touch. Have any of our placard wielding demonstrators had their collar felt yet? Which takes us back to the 'one rule' argument. It doesn't actually have to be so. But if the PERCEPTION is strong enough then the majority feeling is that it is so.

The problem now is that many westerners see Islam as violent and threatening. No wonder Taz feels besieged.

[Nick]

Even here you seem to be saying that Islam is OK - as long as it's Islam according to your rules.

Well I've not actually said that Islam and the Muslim faith are bad, as far as I'm aware and that's not my view even if I might have come across that way.

And no, it's not Islam according to 'my rules' but everyones rules, ie, the Law.

So by the same mechanism that a Catholic priest goes to prison for murder (not saying Catholics are murdereres, just an example!) a Muslim exhorting others to kill non-Muslims should also go to prison.

Is this a free speech issue? No, not really. Sure, have free speech and tell me your side of the sotry, no problem.

Stand on a soapbox and tell me how Westerners are the spawn of Satan... that's fine.

But tell me that I should take up arms, slay my neighbour and then eat his children... THEN I have problem.

There is a clear and definite line between preaching a belief and inciting others to violence... which is actually one of the problems I always had with the Christian faith. I just can't agree with ANY religion that condones violence in its own name... Such as Chritianity and the Crusades and, when I was at school, all that rhetorical stuff about being a Christian warrior. Ok, so they weren't actually telling me to go off and physically fight non-Christians but the suggestion of being a 'warrior' implies violence at some point... So to be religious is to have to be violent? So that's why I'm not religious.

But back to the point, I'm not suggesting Muslim should do anything other than practise their religion as they see fit, but the simple fact is that they WILL have to do this within the bounds of the law.

I'm well aware of the fact that the MASSIVE majority of Muslims just want a quiet life, as Taz has pointed out. But I was just wondering if it was time for them to look at some sort of 'top man' to help guide the faithful in times like these.

[iranu]

We must have freedom of speech but you can't say anything that might upset someone else.

Your post upsets me. Please remove it. If it is not removed I will butcher you. Sound familiar?

Who decides what upsets them? If you could not print or say something because it might upset someone else, then all freedom is lost, because you could never gaurantee that what you printed or said would not upset someone. Being upset about something is not a reason to ban free speech. These people need to grow up and realise that in a free society the press or the individual has every right to upset or offend others. The only conclusion one can draw is that Islam is incompatible with free speech and western democracy. This implies big world problems in the future.

The only way to stop them is for the silent majority to stand up to them. Unfortunately the silent majority is, well, silent. .

I agree.

I do wonder what would happen to me (being white/English) if I paraded around trafalgar square with a placard saying 'behead/butcher the none Christians'? I think plod would bang me up so fast that my feet wouldn't touch. Have any of our placard wielding demonstrators had their collar felt yet? Which takes us back to the 'one rule' argument. It doesn't actually have to be so. But if the PERCEPTION is strong enough then the majority feeling is that it is so.

This is the problem. The police are now politicised and therefore not eveyone is deemed equal under the law. Much easier to nick the white, lone protester than be seen to nick an ethnic minority Muslim for incitement to murder. Because the police will not take action it leaves the law abiding indiginous population feeling angry and threatened and therefore more likely to resent those being favoured.

The problem now is that many westerners see Islam as violent and threatening. No wonder Taz feels besieged.

Unfortunately due to the reactions of his fellow Muslims this is now the case.

However, ordinary Muslims do themselves few favours. They should have come out and said, "we find the cartoons offensive, we would prefer it if you respected our wish not to print them, however we support your right to print them". It seems that Muslims in Europe or elswhere for that matter do not value free speech. They would get a better reaction/press if they campaigned in a more dignified manner, that way they would have the moral high ground and avoid providing the west with a much distorted view of Islam.

[RVF500]

I'm well aware of the fact that the MASSIVE majority of Muslims just want a quiet life, as Taz has pointed out. But I was just wondering if it was time for them to look at some sort of 'top man' to help guide the faithful in times like these.

You have a fair point. Whilst working in India I was in the old part of Mumbai a lot. Which is almost exclusively Muslim. It is also the more rundown part of town (excluding the slums). My Indian work colleague explained that demographically they make up the most of the illiterate people in the population. They go to their Imams fo rany kind of guidance. Now, this potentially leads to a small local cleric wielding a lot of power. We've seen the effect of this in Iraq where clerics have been seen to incite crowds on occaision. Basically his interpretation is gospel. The lack of education of the people around him may well suit his own agenda.

If there was a more structured heirarchy then perhaps people in positions of responsibility could be curbed should they be operating outside the bounds of the faith and the law. Perhaps the like of Moqtada and his Mehdi militia could have been reined in without the loss of lie that resulted. Let's not forget that when he came out a number of murdered Iraqis were found in the cellars of the building where he was headquartered. To some it may seem as if he had got awa with murder. Which brings us back to the point Nick made about ultimately being subject to the law.

However. It's not for me to tell people how their faith should be run. Just a few observations. Freedom of speech doncha know?

[Big RICHARD]

The 'average Joe' Muslim does nowhere near enough to distance himself from the lunatic extreme Muslims that we see almost weekly paraded on our tv. It is time for YOU Johnny Muslim to separate yourself from these idiots, before you get tarred with the same brush.