British Muslims launch 'Islam is Peace' campaign

[9mmRifle]

http://news.trendaz.com/cgi-bin/readnews2.pl?newsId=1036360&lang=EN

Great Britain, London / Trend corr. G.Ahmadova / PR-campaign directed to improve the Muslims image kicked off in the Great Britain. A group of the company ‘Islam is Peace’ will place postcards and images of believers of different profession with inscription “I am proud of to be British Muslim” on buses, trains and metro stations. Initially the campaign was launched in London and afterwards will expand throughout Britain. The group is planning to hold exhibition tour in the country to familiarize people with followers of Islam in Britain, the Council of British Muslims reported to the Trend News Agency.

[9mmRifle]

difference of opinion ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFuJz0hA5rc

[AgentX]

Yeah! War is peace, black is white, idiocy is intelligence and I am Clark Kent.

[muck]

British Muslims launch 'Islam is Peace' campaignIf you believe that, you'll believe anything. I don't care how many sura and quotes of quuran they present to us. Christianity was a very violent and hardly peaceful religion, too, but the time has changed this religion. As long as the time does not change Islam, I'll reserve the right to label it a violent and intolerant religion. This assessment does not refer to any believers in particular but to their religion in general.

[seraosha]

Holy crap, they can't still be pushing that utter b.s.
Islam means submission, not peace.

Dhimmitude or forcible conversion does not equate "peace" in my book.

[xMarsx]

What a farking joke.

[timetraveller]

Islamaphobia is very evident nowadays ....

[Van Gogh]

If they really want success, they should do like the guy in the video said and target violent muslims instead of people afraid of muslims. They gotta clean up their own mess starting from within.

[Hollis]

Islamaphobia is very evident nowadays ....


To bad you don't know the meaning of Phobia. There is a bases for the Fear, it is real, I'll let you play with this data base;

http://www.tkb.org/IncidentDateModule.jsp

I think the attacks on New York, London, Madrid, ect, actually did happen. They where not some delusional anti-Islamic fantasy to create a phobia against Islam.

Personally, I think this is a move in the right direction. I don't think this is a either or situation. It is good to see the Islamic community taking positive action. The best way to handle Islamic extremists is internally. Externally, non-Muslim can only restrict or limit the entire community or parts of it. That goes with out saying, to any other groups having problems.

While some may feel it is not enough, change does not always happen in big giant steps.

Thanks for the post.

[Moodymoddy]

I'd like to agree with them - and must admit, some of these posts do seem kind of narrow minded.

Islam *is* a religion of peace - but, admittedly, peace towards those who practice it. I was speaking to one Muslim who said if he killed an insect, be it a wasp about to sting him or even an ant on his kitchen table - he would be questioned regarding it once he dies.

You must remember that the Koran was written in a time where people where different. The value of life was much lesser then it is today. People lived by the book, and literally died by the book. So it is very easy for these people, the extremist few to claim Allah wants them to kill a few infidels. But I'm sure there are similar chapters in the bible - as someone else has mentioned, History shows that Christianity has had a far from peaceful existance.

Much like if I where to take the words of the bible literally - I would be a homo****** hating, *** abstaining... I could go on. But I'm not. I don't take it word for word - to do that in this day and age would be extremist.

My point being - Don't label the whole religion based on the actions of a select few. In my opinion [Some of which you would be surprised. By this post I do seem a politically correct bastard - but believe me, thats misleading p-)] thats merely providing a fuel to the fire. Most Muslims are peaceful - out of the 1.61 billion muslims [source: http://www.islamicpopulation.com/] (http://www.islamicpopulation.com/%5D) are you telling me that even half of them are extremist?!

For the record, I am a Christian myself. I hope I haven't come off arrogant or too opinionated as I am still a new member. I just thought I'd throw my 2 pence in.

[oldsoak]

IMHO, convincing me is not anywhere near as important as convincing some of those who claim they follow it.

[Ordie]

Any effort to support modernist Muslims to re-claim thier religion from the fundametalist is good.

I hope they are encouraged to make religious opinions and transparent judgements open to the masses and challenge the fundamentalist, who have dominated the internet, media attention, publishing houses, schools, and madrasas.

In a nutshell, we need to incubate and support a Reformation movement within Islam.

[Lazy Lob]

Islam *is* a religion of peace...............

...........You must remember that the Koran was written in a time where people where different. The value of life was much lesser then it is today. People lived by the book, and literally died by the book.

So what are you trying to say? You seem to contradict yourself. On one hand you’re saying it’s “peace” then on the other you state that people have died by the “book” giving the poor excuse it was written long ago. Do you realise the Koran unlike the bible is regarded by Muslims as being the word of god delivered by Gabriel and therefore immutable (that includes by time)?

[Tokamak]

They should be targeting Muslims not the rest of the people. Those who really believe that Islam gives them the right or the obligation to kill are Muslims so they have to show them that they (extremist) are wrong.

[Ordie]

They should be targeting Muslims not the rest of the people. Those who really believe that Islam gives them the right or the obligation to kill are Muslims so they have to show them that they (extremist) are wrong.
You're right.

No only it's an educational effort to dispel the negative image, but also send a message to 3rd generation British Muslims, especially the youth, that they are part of the overall British society.

Feelings victimhood played into the hands of the extremist who manipulated the suicide bombing in London. The key is to change this negative attitude. This is important because attitudes are contaigious.

Anyway I say Bravo to this effort.

[Maktab]

First off, could everybody please stop throwing the charge of Islamophobia around. It's a red herring. Islam is a religion, not a race, and it should be as open to criticism, mocking and downright disrespect as any other religion and political ideology is. It's not like everybody gets uppity about 'Christianophobia' each time Dawkins writes a book, it should be no different for Islam.

Back on topic, I'm pretty much behind any initiative by British Muslim leaders that emphasises their identity as Brits over and above their identity as Muslims, and which reinforces the fact that there is not just one strain of Islam from which to choose. This doesn't seem like it's quite there yet, but it looks like it may be a promising start.

People often forget this, but the virulent strain of fundamentalist Islam that has spawned most Islamic terrorism is actually a fairly recent phenomenon, dating from the formation of the Muslim Brotherhood and specifically from the teachings of Sayyid and Muhammed Qutb from the 1930s onwards. The movement they launched was ironically in many ways a Reformation of Islam, because they insisted that Muslims had strayed from the true word of Muhammed and the Qu'ran, and that their fellow Muslims had been corrupted. Thus their followers urge a return to the ultra fundamentalist, anti-modern, literalist, 'pure' form of Islam that they believe was practiced in Muhammed's time and which they hope will precipitate a revival of Islamic glory.

But the movement is still relatively young. We often fall into the trap of looking at this issue as a centuries-old and unchanging struggle, but that's not true. If Wahhabist/Salafist/Qutbist Islam is a recent strain that is taking over Islam, there's no reason it can't be combated by other schools of thought. But that kind of pushback against it is something that can only come from within Muslim communities, not from without.

[Hollis]

Maktab, well said. You did a much better job than I.

One sure aspect of life is CHANGE...... it is always good to support positive change.

[Moodymoddy]

So what are you trying to say? You seem to contradict yourself. On one hand you’re saying it’s “peace” then on the other you state that people have died by the “book” giving the poor excuse it was written long ago. Do you realise the Koran unlike the bible is regarded by Muslims as being the word of god delivered by Gabriel and therefore immutable (that includes by time)?


I do see that I was very hypocritical there - I apologise for that.

I just fail to see the point in labelling it violent and evil, when in fact - the amount of practitioners who that accurately describes is infact really low. I'm sure if we looked at the Koran in enough depth we could find all kinds of things that most modern muslims don't do.

[xMarsx]

I just fail to see the point in labelling it violent and evil, when in fact - the amount of practitioners who that accurately describes is infact really low. I'm sure if we looked at the Koran in enough depth we could find all kinds of things that most modern muslims don't do.

Really low?? If 99.5% are peace loving and .5% are extremists (I suspect higher) that is 8,000,000 f*cking people! Really low, my as*s!

[Moodymoddy]

Really low?? If 99.5% are peace loving and .5% are extremists (I suspect higher) that is 8,000,000 f*cking people! Really low, my as*s!

Even then - Would it be fair to persecute 99 people, for the sake of 1's action? All because they where binded by religion? This is exactly the same, of course when you multiply the denominator, the numerator goes up aswell and vice versa.

[seraosha]

I think you need to quit ****ing around and get a copy of the Q'uran and educate yourself. It's all there, in black and white, and leaves no doubt as to what place "people of the book" play, not to mention apostates, polytheists and atheists. You are not going to like it.

Or just keep speaking from ignorance, something folks now days seem to revel in.

[LaoSexMachine]

Reminds me of used car commercial 3 in the morning. Actions not words will convince people.

[Moodymoddy]

I think you need to quit ****ing around and get a copy of the Q'uran and educate yourself. It's all there, in black and white, and leaves no doubt as to what place "people of the book" play, not to mention apostates, polytheists and atheists. You are not going to like it.

Or just keep speaking from ignorance, something folks now days seem to revel in.

I have a copy, I have used it numerous times to help my study of Arabic. [Although, Merely character recognition as classical arabic is different to what I am in the process of learning]

If you read my original post, I make it clear that it isn't full of love and furry animals. I say in no un-certain terms that its bloody, and that the history of Islam itself is bloody.

My point being - Is Christianity's history bloody?! Hell yes. But people have the right to worship any damn religion they want to - and I fully support that.

When they go over the top - Then theres a problem. We're not discussing a whole religion - we're discussing a select group of individuals who take the religion to the extreme - hence the term extremist.


ANNOUNCE PAINFUL PUNISHMENT TO THOSE WHO DISBELIEVE (9:3)

O Prophet! Urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred... (8:65)

Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve (8:55)

And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah (8:39)

There you go, I'm going as far as PROVIDING you with quotes from the Koran. See - I acknowledge that the Koran is full of hatred and violence aswell.

Now according to some of you guys, It seems that all Muslims must take these words and live by them. So how come in the news we are seeing stories like the one being discussed here? Or ones like this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7040774.stm (Notice: Muslim leaders and clerics - I think they know they're own religion better then most of us)

Because, to steal the BBC's words - Thats *mainstream* Islam. That is your average Muslim person. These extremists are the problem - Not the average Muslim. To tarnish a whole religion because of the actions of a few IS wrong.

[Ordie]

Proof texting is a means to rationalize actions or beliefs.

[Mu-Meson]

You're right.

No only it's an educational effort to dispel the negative image, but also send a message to 3rd generation British Muslims, especially the youth, that they are part of the overall British society.

Feelings victimhood played into the hands of the extremist who manipulated the suicide bombing in London. The key is to change this negative attitude. This is important because attitudes are contaigious.

Anyway I say Bravo to this effort.

Did you see the video? The 5 point plan does nothing but emphasize their own feeling of being the 'victim'. One of the points was about 'grievences'. Presumably that means that they are 'grieved' that they aren't blowing themselves up quite as often as the Palis or other jihadis. Hell, the FIRST point was to bang the Islamophobia drum again. There are more attacks against ~14 million Jews in the world than against 1.61 billion Muslims (note I dispute that figure as the numbers quoted seem to fluctuate by over 100 million each time), and a huge proportion of these attacks are carried out BY muslims. F***king hypocrisy. For the particular drive to cover themselves in the cloak of 'victim' we have the lefties to thank. Being a victim means giving a open-ended mandate of moral superiority, whereby they can do NO wrong because they are the 'victim'. These guys see the sweet deal given to every other 'victim' group and just want in.

BTW does anyone else think it must take a lot of chutzpa to be putting these posters on BUSES!??!

[Warlord]

It might be so that after 10-20 years, instead of "peace, man" we'd be saying "Islam, dude".

That's the spin. As I've said in the other tread, pre 9/11, Islam is "submission to Allah, post 9/11, Islam is "peace".

They should educate from within first.

[Ordie]

Did you see the video? The 5 point plan does nothing but emphasize their own feeling of being the 'victim'. One of the points was about 'grievences'. Presumably that means that they are 'grieved' that they aren't blowing themselves up quite as often as the Palis or other jihadis. Hell, the FIRST point was to bang the Islamophobia drum again. There are more attacks against ~14 million Jews in the world than against 1.61 billion Muslims (note I dispute that figure as the numbers quoted seem to fluctuate by over 100 million each time), and a huge proportion of these attacks are carried out BY muslims. F***king hypocrisy. For the particular drive to cover themselves in the cloak of 'victim' we have the lefties to thank. Being a victim means giving a open-ended mandate of moral superiority, whereby they can do NO wrong because they are the 'victim'. These guys see the sweet deal given to every other 'victim' group and just want in.

BTW does anyone else think it must take a lot of chutzpa to be putting these posters on BUSES!??!

The only video I saw was the link on the second post of this thread. The rest of the clip was a biased detractor.

Now the best means of advertising in the UK is in public transport. Unlike in the US, transit ridership in the UK is high and any ad space guarantees high visibilty to get your message across.

Public transport companies do reserve the right to exclude any ad's if they wish.

The Brits are on to something, they know military and policework can only go so far. The next level is propaganda against the extremist by denying them fresh recruits and creating a wedge between the extremist and the local normal Muslim community.

[number nine]

Quote:ANNOUNCE PAINFUL PUNISHMENT TO THOSE WHO DISBELIEVE (9:3)

Quote:O Prophet! Urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred... (8:65)

Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve (8:55)

And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah (8:39)

@Moodymoddy

This text has been, it is, and will be interpeted by the word. Whether by majority or minority don't really matter, because we will have the problem anyway.

[Warlord]

@Moodymoddy

This text has been, it is, and will be interpeted by the word. Whether by majority or minority don't really matter, because we will have the problem anyway.


Quote:ANNOUNCE PAINFUL PUNISHMENT TO THOSE WHO DISBELIEVE (9:3)

Quote:O Prophet! Urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred... (8:65)

Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve (8:55)

And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah (8:39)

I used some of those quotes when I spoke to muttawa. He refers to those disbelievers or Kafirs as the pagans and not the "people of the book" i.e. Jews and Christians. Totally BS, since those verses was used or refer to against the Jews in Makkah and the Christian kingdoms.

[number nine]

I used some of those quotes when I spoke to muttawa. He refers to those disbelievers or Kafirs as the pagans and not the "people of the book" i.e. Jews and Christians. Totally BS, since those verses was used or refer to against the Jews in Makkah and the Christian kingdoms.

Indeed, because problem is not in interpreting the words. You'll either interpret them or not at all.

And I am not a jew or christian. Not by any stretch of imagination. Nor a muslim. What an epithet they have for me.

[Nansouty]

[...]First off, could everybody please stop throwing If Wahhabist/Salafist/Qutbist Islam is a recent strain that is taking over Islam, there's no reason it can't be combated by other schools of thought. But that kind of pushback against it is something that can only come from within Muslim communities, not from without.

Excellent summary. I'll just add that the roots of these movements can be traced, IMO, to hanbalism ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanbali ), a conservative movement that appeared in the 9th century. It gained resurgence after 1258, and the fall of Bagdad to the Tartars, through the writings of Ibn Taymiyyah ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Taymiyah ). The driving force behind his position was the attribution of the fall of Bagdad to the way he thought God had punished Muslims who had strayed from Muhammad's original teachings. Hanbalism got a prominent position over more liberal interpretations of Islam, like sufism, and has never been pushed from it since. Wahabism and salafism are mostly later offshoots of hanbalism IMO.

[Doublethinker]

Not sure, how this can be adequately conveyed to muslim scholars (whatever that is), but all Western states are secular and religious leaders don't take part in the decision-making proccess.

I also have a trouble understanding, how some 130 men can represent 99.9% of muslims, since there is no such institution as church in Islam, and an opinion of any mufti holds as much value as an opinion of a simple muslim.

And finally, the fact that muslims still view all conflicts with the West in the paradigm of christian/muslim relations, shows that they haven't even started understanding, that world politics has been governed by different principles for more than five centuries already.

[number nine]

Excellent summary. I'll just add that the roots of these movements can be traced, IMO, to hanbalism ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanbali ), a conservative movement that appeared in the 9th century. It gained resurgence after 1258, and the fall of Bagdad to the Tartars, through the writings of Ibn Taymiyyah ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Taymiyah ). The driving force behind his position was the attribution of the fall of Bagdad to the way he thought God had punished Muslims who had strayed from Muhammad's original teachings. Hanbalism got a prominent position over more liberal interpretations of Islam, like sufism, and has never been pushed from it since. Wahabism and salafism are mostly later offshoots of hanbalism IMO.

You are missing the point.
You can't interpret the whole of Koran by the word, without picking the enormous amount of hate and preaching of violence toward those who disbelieve. The solution is obviously not to interpret the whole of Koran by the word but... do we know how to interpret a Koran? Is there a concensus among the islamic scholars how it should be interpreted? No. So, believer can well interpret it in a way that is unacceptable today? Yes. That is quite a mess.

Let's see whether is the problem in parts of the Koran or interpretation. Without incriminated portions of Koran neither unacceptable interpretation would exist. Cause is obvious.

But what is a solution? Quite obvious it's the ulema to clean up the mess. There needs to be concensus what interpretations of Koran are unacceptable.

Also, apparent tolerance of Muslims toward "people of the book" is a charade and in itself insulting. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are not only religions in existence. Are they tolerant toward Buddhism, Hinduism, or believers in Japanese Shinto?

[Snoshi]

I think that someone said it already.

These clerics need to spread this message to their own followers instead of trying to teach Britons that its a peaceful religion.

The thing is that more and more young people are following the "wrong" version of Islam and that is the problem.
Stop the spread of the extremism and you will see that people will start to agree with you that Islam is religion of peace.

[number nine]

Even bigger problem is lenience toward these "wrong" versions of Islam. In other religions such differences in interpretation would be unacceptable!

[Nansouty]

You are missing the point.
You can't interpret the whole of Koran by the word, without picking the enormous amount of hate and preaching of violence toward those who disbelieve. The solution is obviously not to interpret the whole of Koran by the word but... do we know how to interpret a Koran? Is there a concensus among the islamic scholars how it should be interpreted? No. So, believer can well interpret it in a way that is unacceptable today? Yes. That is quite a mess.

Let's see whether is the problem in parts of the Koran or interpretation. Without incriminated portions of Koran neither unacceptable interpretation would exist. Cause is obvious.

But what is a solution? Quite obvious it's the ulema to clean up the mess. There needs to be concensus what interpretations of Koran are unacceptable.

Also, apparent tolerance of Muslims toward "people of the book" is a charade and in itself insulting. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are not only religions in existence. Are they tolerant toward Buddhism, Hinduism, or believers in Japanese Shinto?

Fundamentalism is by no ways a specificity of Islam... see the Armagedonites of Christianity. There will never be a consensus, there has never been one in any of the revealed religions. My point was rather to highlight the origins of Islamic fundamentalism. It takes its sources in the perceived humiliations the Muslims have felt since the end of the Baghdad Caliphate, not in any written part of the Quran. Sufism is fairly tolerant in that respect, and in no way less muslim than hanbalism.

[phoebus]

Islam is just another religion. Those lads in UK need to get over this "special feeling" they may have about the whole "Islam is peace" story (plus the undercover "islam is above everything" rhetoric) and start promoting some sensible people in their hierarchy, not crazy lunatics.

[martinexsquaddie]

its a start more normal Muslims we see in the press the better.
the jihadists are a tiny tiny minority and need to be shown to be that

[number nine]

Fundamentalism is by no ways a specificity of Islam... see the Armagedonites of Christianity. There will never be a consensus, there has never been one in any of the revealed religions.

Yes but don't forget that every Christian church will distance itself from such crazies in short order.



My point was rather to highlight the origins of Islamic fundamentalism. It takes its sources in the perceived humiliations the Muslims have felt since the end of the Baghdad Caliphate, not in any written part of the Quran.

I was not talking about fundamentalism in religion, which if you wish to know, can be, but of course needn't be, very tolerant, because it's only an attempt to revive the religion by literal interpretation of the holy texts, but about aggressiveness and preaching of violence which has nothing to do with recent or historical fundamentalistic revival movements, but was imbued in the religion by it's prophet! These things which were acceptable in seventh century, but are not today, are the problem, because they are interpreted, and create jihadi of all possible denominations. Fundamentalism is not bad per se.

Solution I said is progressive and modern interpretation of islamic holy texts which will be mandatory. Plain and simple, if jihadi are misinterpreting the religion, why they aren't apostates?



Sufism is fairly tolerant in that respect, and in no way less muslim than hanbalism.

And you can find other offshoots or denominations of Islam which are
very tolerant, I'm certain. However they are not the topic of the discussion. Neither are millions of tolerant law-abiding Muslims. Problem is that crazies find shelter in masjids, rather than being labeled as heretics and apostates, what will other religions do with their own crazies.

[AZRON]

For those of you that stick to the " small minority" of fanatics excuse did you skip the history lessons pertaining to a small group of colonels in the Japanese army that brought the Bushido code to prominence and a dominate military program in the 1920s ?

For those of you who stick to the " small minority " excuse for the Islamic militancy did you skip the lessons of Hitler and Mein Kampf in the 1920s and what it brought forward in the 1930-40s timeframe ?

For me the secret gauge of Muslim tolerance or not starts in the dress code trends among Muslim women. I don't need to go any farther.
Just compare over the last 40 years in places like Kuwait or Malaysia or Iran. Then see how it changes or not as we roll out the future.

[number nine]

For those of you that stick to the " small minority" of fanatics excuse did you skip the history lessons pertaining to a small group of colonels in the Japanese army that brought the Bushido code to prominence and a dominate military program in the 1920s ?

But it dominated earlier Meiji era too, just like 1925-1945 period you are talking about. Japanese militarism had much deeper roots. And in particular it was not brought about by bringing of "Bushido code" to the military but by wish to establish military shogunate and expand the rule of the Emperor.



For those of you who stick to the " small minority " excuse for the Islamic militancy did you skip the lessons of Hitler and Mein Kampf in the 1920s and what it brought forward in the 1930-40s timeframe ?


And what are those lessons? Just asking, because you will find idiots of such sort next to your doorstep today, just like I can observe them here in my country.



For me the secret gauge of Muslim tolerance or not starts in the dress code trends among Muslim women. I don't need to go any farther.

It's only one aspect of the problem. And you are oversimplifying it by trying to gauge it by dress code of muslim women alone. For example in many countries otherwise Islamic, women don't need to be veiled. Tolerance toward other religions might be better gauge you are seeking, and especially not Judaism and Christianity alone, but Hinduism (of whom some sorts are far from monotheism), and Buddhism and the like.



Just compare over the last 40 years in places like Kuwait or Malaysia or Iran. Then see how it changes or not as we roll out the future.

Yes I can. Iran was for example no less an islamic country then, during the Shah. And that is the problem, islamic overthrow was sucessful because the people were not tolerant and open minded enough and that allowed Khomeini to seize power in the first place. Just like prevalent old Prussian militaristic mindset allowed Hitler to seize power in Germany in the thirties. But apparently everything was just fine during the Shah in Iran and during the Weimar Republic in Germany, wasn't it? Apparently.

Don't dumb the problem down. It's too complex.

[haze99]

Gents, allow me to cut to the chase, if Islam is so grand, then why are these people living in Western Europe? (In this case, the UK?) Wealth, travel, freedom? Why, did they leave the countries they came from? Of 22 Islamic nations on earth, why aren't Europeans packing up and moving there in droves? Or South Americans? Or Central American's, at that!
Okay, if your a second or third generation muslim and don't like where your parents live, move! (why the July 07, 2005 bombers just didn't do this, is puzzling?)
I forsee a time when Western Europe may be pulling out the prayer rugs and growing their beards.

[Ordie]

Gents, allow me to cut to the chase, if Islam is so grand, then why are these people living in Western Europe?

The outcome of European colonization.

[LaoSexMachine]

The outcome of European colonization.


Doubt it. More like escaping their oppressive situation in their homelands.

[Ordie]

Doubt it. More like escaping their oppressive situation in their homelands.

If I recall, wasn't there was a labor shortage in the UK after WW2?

[LaoSexMachine]

If I recall, wasn't there was a labor shortage in the UK after WW2?

Does it still explain the influx of many people from the middle east to western countries now?

[number nine]

Gents, allow me to cut to the chase, if Islam is so grand, then why are these people living in Western Europe? (In this case, the UK?) Wealth, travel, freedom? Why, did they leave the countries they came from?

Religion itself is not connected with for example, opportunity for a better job, better education for your child and the like. Just apply your words to another religion and you will see how much they don't make sense. This will be good enough explanation for Ezekiel25:17 too, I hope.



Of 22 Islamic nations on earth, why aren't Europeans packing up and moving there in droves? Or South Americans? Or Central American's, at that!

They would be, if these countries were wealthy and offered better opportunity for job and career advancement. And when it is the case they do, because there are foreigners who work in ME countries.



Okay, if your a second or third generation muslim and don't like where your parents live, move! (why the July 07, 2005 bombers just didn't do this, is puzzling?)

You need a legal framework for this. And a framework which will make it hard to label as "ethnic cleansing" and "forceful expulsion", or in similar words.

By the way, if that Muslim has a citizenship of your country, he is no less your nationality than you are my friend. Simply they don't want to move, and you can't expel them.

[LaoSexMachine]

Well most religion I read about don't try to have a " X-religion is peace campaign". Why do you have to justify your existence in you adopted country or new homeland if you say you are as "peaceful" as you say you are. I watched the vid. Nothing but "Woe is me" shyt.

[number nine]

Well most religion I read about don't try to have a " X-religion is peace campaign". Why do you have to justify your existence in you adopted country or new homeland if you say you are as "peaceful" as you say you are. I watched the vid. Nothing but "Woe is me" shyt.

Why do you pretend that you don't know the answer? I will refer you to my earlier post (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2812779&postcount=39)


Problem is that crazies find shelter in masjids, rather than being labeled as heretics and apostates, what will other religions do with their own crazies.

It's plain and simple, a hipocrisy. Not of those ordinary people who believe, but of islamic clergy. Those plain believers are manipulated, no matter whether they are AK-47 wielding fanatics or not.

[Ordie]

Does it still explain the influx of many people from the middle east to western countries now?

Perhaps not.

But the terrorists in the London bombings were third generation Britons.

[haze99]

Well Ordie, that doesn't give me warm-fuzzies about the grand-children of muslim immigrants.
number9, religious relativity is not going to work here. Sorry, you cannot compare another "religion" to this issue. (there are no Baptist Bombers Brigades, nor Hari Krishna Holy Warriors or Buddhist's for the Liberation of Bangkok!)
There are rich muslims nations to move too, like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan and Oman. If you really want to follow mohammed, then feel free to move there! I hear hear that Somalia has some prime property to set-up a business, if they would prefer.
If push comes to shove, then you best believe that the government can expel people. Whether you like it or not. I would prefer this over turning my local town into current-day downtown Baghdad. With IED's, roving militia's and car-bombings of shopping centers.

[Ordie]

Well Ordie, that doesn't give me warm-fuzzies about the grand-children of muslim immigrants.

Anyone can become a terrorist regardless of background or religion.

For example, Timothy McVeigh, a US Army Veteran, NRA member, Catholic and registered Republican was neither an immigrant, Muslim, or religious.

Yet he committed the worst terrorist attack prior to 9/11 in Oklahoma City.

[KVLG]

Anyone can become a terrorist regardless of background or religion.

For example, Timothy McVeigh, a US Army Veteran, NRA member, Catholic and registered Republican was neither an immigrant, Muslim, or religious.

Yet he committed the worst terrorist attack prior to 9/11 in Oklahoma City.

Well, McVeigh was a agnostic for most of his life. In fact, he only changed right before he was executed. Also, I believe I have heard it stated that while most Moslems certainly aren't terrorists, nowadays, most terrorists are Moslems.

[number nine]

number9, religious relativity is not going to work here. Sorry, you cannot compare another "religion" to this issue. (there are no Baptist Bombers Brigades, nor Hari Krishna Holy Warriors or Buddhist's for the Liberation of Bangkok!)

Maybe you are right, but I still believe that Islam can be interpreted as a modern religion. Most believers actually interpret it that way... However, islamic clergy, in my opinion, should be even forced to interpret Islam in a modern way.



If push comes to shove, then you best believe that the government can expel people. Whether you like it or not. I would prefer this over turning my local town into current-day downtown Baghdad. With IED's, roving militia's and car-bombings of shopping centers.

What people? If you mean ordinary believers, I disagree. If you mean Islamic priests who are spewing hate and inciting violence, I agree. Look, just preaching that apostate, a former believer who disavowed Islam, must be punished by death is an incitement to crime, thus crime itself. I am pretty certain anyone preaching that Christian, for example, who disavowed the faith must be punished by death would be arrested in short order.

[Guerrier_Franc]

How many muslims in Britain ?

[Lazy Lob]

How many muslims in Britain ?

1.6 million

[Mastermind]

It comes down to this; If any person who is an adherent to any religous dogma must, by definition, accept the "code" of that dogma as a guide to his or her way of living. That "Code" is the Quoran, the Bible or Torah, what ever...is a written definion of what adherents MUST believe in order to be accepted within the group living by the code.

If members stray from living by the code, the others can use the authority of the code to demonstrate their errant ways and demand they either adhere or be forced out. If the code is ingrained since birth and offers damnation or salvation according to how well the adherent obeyed, the code becomes more than just a book...it is a life style!

If the code demands murder of anyone who does not adhere to it, then everyone who adheres to the code or lives by it is a potential murderer and those who actually carry out the murders can not be successfully criticized by the others...in fact, they must support the acts of murder with either physical support or at the very least by willful silence!

All else is just prue Bull scatology!

It can not be denied that the Quoran calls for absolute subjugation to the way of Islam by all persons living on this planet and for the ones who do not bow to it, death or slavery. If you study the religion, believe in the religion and live by the relgion, you simply can not resist the code of the relgion.

The code of Islam is there for everyone to read it and to see for themselves. If you are not an adherent...you can never have peace in the presence of devout Muslims...they may allow you to live for now...so long as you have the power to resist their dogma....but, as they slowly gain power over any population, they will demand their code be followed absolutely...and they will establish that code as the law of the land...and every non-Muslim will be either put to death or enslaved. The brutal beheadings, the amputations, the public whippings, the enslavement and subjugation of women and all the other ancient and cruel ways of islam will be the way of life for everyone.

And that absurd declaration that "Islam is Peace" has only one possible meaning...that is Islam is Peace only after all the world is finally converted to Islamic rule...(at that time, of course, the several factions of Islam can murder each other for the full right to control Islam's teachings).

That's in their code, it is irrefutable and everyone who is not of Islam who is alive today, had better realize the truth of it, or simply accept the fact that you or you descendants will eventually be forced to submit to the yoke of Islam.

[AZRON]

Anyone can become a terrorist regardless of background or religion.

For example, Timothy McVeigh, a US Army Veteran, NRA member, Catholic and registered Republican was neither an immigrant, Muslim, or religious.

Yet he committed the worst terrorist attack prior to 9/11 in Oklahoma City.

You are absolutely right. Only 90% of the current bunch of terrorists and 90% of the killings are done by Muslims. So those 10% (other causes) constitute a CYA statement of conveinence for many smoke and mirror apologists.

[Lazy Lob]

It comes down to this; ...................

Couldn't have put it better myself.