moonraker

What you need to remember is that there are posters on here that think terrorism, anti-Semitism, gender segregation, the encouragement of jihad are all a price worth paying for the Islamic takeover of our towns and cities.

Your credibility was already very low with this stupendously stupid statement you now have none whatsoever. There is not a single poster on here who's views from their posts could be accused of any of this.

Just interesting that you highlight and promote a statement with no detail behind it that they produced leaflets against terrorism, but ignore the leaflets that they actually detail that support jihad, just strange that's all.

As one who is so keen to ensure literal precision are you now proposing that Muslims may not comply with the ‘religious duty of Muslims to maintain the religion’ the original and proper meaning of Jihad. I know the word has been hijacked and reinterpreted by some to mean violent struggle, but you of all people would surely refute that based on your well documented exactitude in matters of word definition. Should we therefore take a similar view of all Christians as the bible says ‘GOD Almighty Commanded His followers to fight for His Holy Cause’. It is men (predominantly) that have interpreted and bent these holy scriptures to their own non-religious malevolent ends.

Sometimes you have to compare apples with oranges to make people rethink their point of view so how about this: when you take away the gun no shot is fired. When you take away religion there's no need to slaugther non-believers... Does it make any sense to you?

Yes, but one is eminently achievable, practicable and enlightened, take away or tightly control guns, the other is, well not even hypothetically possible, and why stop with Islam, I personally am not very keen on a number of religions; Satanism, Scientology, Jedism to name a few. So which of the 4200 documented religions would you eradicate? so rather than Apples and Ornages more akin to comparing apples and cocunuts, one is soft and easy to deal with, the other is tough and very hard to get into.

The article is nonsensical on its definition of Deobandism though. It is certainly not "a highly orthodox spiritual version of Islam." It is explicitly hostile to the spiritualist traditions in mainstream Sufism (the latter which is actually the dominant form of the religion in Pakistan). It's a slightly watered down version of Wahhabism, and was a direct Islamist reaction to the 1857 uprising against the British which finally put paid to the Mughal empire.

 

One thing the article does get right is this:

 

 

 

There is most certainly a Corbynist attitude that Islamism can be included as among liberation ideologies against the imperialist West (and therefore all Muslims as natural allies with this) - which is the mirror image of the extreme-right racists' garbage that Muslims are synonymous with Islamism.

 

As I've said many times, it's liberal Islam in all its forms that needs defending - and both the far-left's and the far-right's feeble-minded equivalences merely wave on the extremists. This makes dubious and gullible individuals like Sour Mash as much cheerleaders for Islamic extremism as any Corbynista.

Thank you, once again you provide the informed and mature understanding of these very complex issues. Sadly the myopic will still want to simplify everything and want to know when the backlash is coming, why Muslims run the labour party and what is going to be done about this or that and they will continue sight cherry picked examples of practises and behaviours that are in one or more ways, distasteful, unacceptable or illegal, and dogmatically failing to accept that it is universally acknowledged their are real issues, as there are in all cultures, but that does not excuse the blanket condemnation of a whole religion.

If memory serves I'm not so sure that you ever have made much of a point about oppossing homophobia.

 

Nevertheless, I do symaptise with your sense of confusion about the sheer complexity of life in the modern multi-culteral Britain. It seems to me that immigrants arriving here must show respect for, and adapt to, this society's core (often liberal) values. It goes without saying that they, like everyone else, must also abide with UK law - or face the consequences. We on the other hand should respect their right to worship the religion of their choice and try to comprehend the different culture they come from. Where the these objectives clash then existing British law and the democratically expressed will of the majority must prevail. As ever a sense of moderaton and mutual respect is key.

 

It would be so much simplier if we could somehow go back to a point in the past where everyone in the UK followed the same religion, exhibited the same skin colour and shared a similar set of values and beliefs. We can never go back to that monoculture past for a number of reasons alas - not the least of which being that this Britain of the imaginaton never really existed in the first place!

 

Putting my amateur historian's hat on, I predict that what will happen here over time is that Britain will again successfuly absorb this latest wave of immigration just as it has done so many times in the past. Whether they be: Saxon, Viking, Jewish, Norman, Huguenot, Caribbean or Islamic - our history suggests that eventually these islands have a way of consuming newcomers and turning them into Britains. That is what I hope happens anyway because I don't see a better alternative on offer from the likes of you or Sour.

 

A future Britain that kind of resembles that famous old Coca Cola advert - if you are old enough to remember it.

The best post on this thread by far, no insults, no silly links, no pedantry, just brilliant.

I listened to an interview with her on Radio 4 recently, she was remarkable person who fought against every obstacle athat was put in her way and produced some stunning structures. A great loss to architecture and our bult environment.

I'm just a simple Dutchman so I hope that the Brexit will happen as it could be the first step of the downfall of this monster called EU. I'm all for Europe but against a union in its current structure with too much political power and too many politicians who are making a mess of it. Besides, there are too many differences between east, south and northern european countries so it won't ever work out, there's simply not enough support from too many citizens. So, before we have to pay taxes directly to Brussels, let's kill this monster... The costs of a breakaway will probably be immense (especially for countries with the Euro as a currency) but at least each country will have the possibility to take measures to deal with them instead of following orders from Brussels which lead to nowhere.

van many thanks for your non partisan perspective. Whilst I have argued to remain in your points are well made and sadly only to true. I suppose what I really want to happen is a complete realignment of the EU power structures and a recognition, as you allude to, of the regional variations that present such huge challenges that the eurocrats seem incapable of even voicing let alone addressing. To me the risk of leaving and failing to gain at least an equitable deal for the UK still seems to great, and the fragmented and fundamentally ill considered leave campaign does not provide a level of mitigation I can buy into.

There's two links, two two meetings, one in Birmingham, one in Oldham, any reason why you continue to deny this?

Apologies you are correct, I was fooled by the use of the same photograph at the top of each article. Strange to use a phot of one meeting in an article about a completely different meetings. Still now we have 2 meetings, that really is conclusive evidence of the hold Muslims have on the Labour Party. What worries me even more now I think about it, the Tories have a Muslim in the current cabinet, their second in 5 years surely that is the end of British culture, I must check whether they are moderate or extremist although I am not sure it makes any difference so hope fully they are reasonable Muslims (is there actually such a thing). They certainly are persistent these folk, to think its only 150 years since the first Muslim sat in the house of Lords and now here they are in cabinet, the onward march of Muslim Culture is irresistible.

You said yourself you weren't happy with the spread of moderate muslim culture. Your words, not mine I'm afraid.

The spread of a culture and the rate of immigration are not one and the same thing. The spread of Western European culture around then world was not effected by mass migration but in the main by force of arms and/or superior technology.

I have referenced two meetings, you haven't even bothered looking at the links, but prefer to waffle on.

 

At least you've confirmed you don't want to see any further muslim immigration into the UK, slightly bigoted view I feel though, but at least you're being honest.

You cant even work out that the two links you provide are two articles about the same meeting, that is a singular event and hence a meeting not meetings. I am now getting headache trying to comprehend what sort of logic it takes to continue to; not anwer questions, continually reference and repeat the same inconclusive evidence, attempt to alter that which others write and represent it as the original, fail to acknowledge anything anyone else says that does not support 'its not a backlash, were all doomed due to the Islamic march across Europe, to many muslims are extremist, extremist supporters or symapathysers and on and on'.

I have referenced two meetings, you haven't even bothered looking at the links, but prefer to waffle on.

 

At least you've confirmed you don't want to see any further muslim immigration into the UK, slightly bigoted view I feel though, but at least you're being honest.

So now you have transmogrified my statement that ‘I wasn’t happy with the spread of any particular culture’ to ‘I am not happy to see further Muslim immigration’. Your pure gold Sour, your ability to interpret others views and statement into something fundamentally different (grotesque even) is straight out of the Donald Trump Debating for Dummies manual. Abraham Lincoln is oft quoted as saying ‘You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time’, but you couldn’t fool any of the people any of the time, apart from perhaps yourself.

Lets check the facts. Did gender segregation take place at these meetings happen? Yes. Do you think they are regular, moderate muslims? Yes. Are you happy with the spread of this regular, moderate Islamic culture across the Uk and Western Europe? Yes. Do you describe anyone that doesn't think such behaviour is a good thing as a bigot? Yes.

 

How is that for some questions and answers?

Rubbish your have just answered questions you made up yourself, not ones you have been posed by others attempting to have an adult debate. As the questions you have posed are directed at me please allow me the courtesy of answering them rather than answering them for me 1. you say these ‘meetings’ yet referenced only one. 2. Why aren’t they moderate, what evidence do have to the contrary? 3. I have never said I am happy with spread of moderate Islamic culture or any particular culture across the UK or anywhere for that matter. 4. No I describe you as a bigot and against the definition of bigot the content of your posts presents a fairly water tight case for my claim.

And another small worm for you to chew on, the most successfully enforced culture in history is that of Western Europe, I happen to believe that on balance this has been beneficial, however I am sure many decedents of the indigenous people of North and South America, Australia etc . might take me to task on that.

Interesting that you think that gender segregation is just a normal, regular part of every day Islamic culture, which you want to see a growth of through the UK. Bizarre.

Yet again claimimg I said something that I clearly did not, and still no answers.

Like saying, "you're female - sit over there"

What proof is there that that was said, dont invent stuff.

Twitter and Facebook posts, what a backlash

 

That'll show those terrorists and no mistake.

Did you miss the official statements from respected and acknowledged Islamic institutions and leaders, no as usual you choose to ignore that which does not fit your bigotry.

I haven't told anyone how to live their lives.

 

So, I'll ask again, moderates or extremists? Or will you just rant and not answer?

Uh the answers in my last response moderates. Now will you answer the myriad of questions that have been put to you? Im not holding my breath. And as you are so keen on literal definition, neither I nor anyone else has ranted on this message board, ranting is verbal act not a written one.

Someone who supports a culture that enforces gender segregation at public meetings is a fan of tolerance and freedom of choice

 

Out of interest, do you consider the people that arranged the set up of these meetings moderates or extremists?

Someone who choses what others may think and do within the law is a bigot, a person whose habitual state of mind includes an obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerance of the people who hold them. Who are you to tell people how to live their lives, I thought the British had moved on from outlawing the adherence to the religion of ones choice. An still you fail to actually answer anything just answer a question with a question (Answer moderates) and drag up inconsequential third party media reports that you obviously believe constitute admissible evidence, when all they do is reinforce your bigotry.

You're in support of gender segregation and think its a good thing. Most people don't.

Where did I say that, the segregation was not instigated by the Labour Party but by the attendees culture, traditions and religion. There are many cultural, traditional and religious behaviours and boundaries across Britain that I personally do not subscribe to, if others choose to adopt them or accept them and they are within the law and do not harm or devalue mineor any other individuals life who am I to criticise. Sadly you ignore a couple of the greatest British cultural traditions, that of tolerances and freedom of choice.

Just read the links.

So a minor meeting of Oldham West and Royton Labour Parties - Labour’s ‘Friends of Bangladesh’ appears to be segregated and UKIP provides narrative whoopee. Without doubt men are on one side and women on the other, with one exception all of the attendees appear to be of sub-continent ethnicity, and I would hazard a guess that those attending are more than happy with this arrangement. What would you have the labour party do, force them to sit in designated seats, would that not be an infringement of personal choice. Are you advocating that all events in the UK must ensure that the genders are equally dispersed, the Women’s Institute or the Mothers Union might struggle to comply? This may be a cultural and religious issue but it is definitely not a political one. So if all you can offer as evidence of Muslims having a hold on our country is a single, local, meeting organised by a predominantly Muslim group in support of secular political candidate you really do need to grow up.

Running meetings with the 2nd biggest Parliamentary party in the country, attended by senior members of that party.

Wow which Labour Party meetings? Who are these Muslim extremists running the meetings? What are the meetings about?

No, there wasn't a backlash. Not under any of the definitions of "antagonistic" or "a strong negative reaction by a large number of people".

 

Worrying to see that Muslim extremist have such a hold on mainstream British society and the current Labour party though.

YYou argue there has been no backlash, because your interpretation of the definition does not fit what has occurred and then you make a completely unfounded claim that Muslim extremists have a hold on British society. Within my understanding of the term ‘a hold on British Society’ I might concede that the bankers or other influential commercial interests have some sort of hold on British society but to claim that any terror group has is nonsensical, they certainly have an effect but that is not the same thing. Please explain what you mean by a hold on British society?

Well, posting simplistically. I firmly believe negotiating deals in a bloc with Greece and Spain is akin to asking Real Madrid & barca to negotiate new TV deals with the remainder of La Liga rather than negotiate deals based on their own strengths.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Or akin to the Premier League (the most successful league by a range of measures) who negotiate collectively. Or would you prefer the big 4/5 clubs ignore the rest of the clubs and just look after themselves? It is gnerally understood there is greater strength in numbers even when some of that number are individually obvioulsy not as strong as others.

That's an incredibly patronising statement and certainly won't be persuading anyone who has real concerns about the EU if they are dismissed in this manner. I've tried to engage you sensibly regarding this topic but comments like that make me not want to bother.

I apologise, I was being somewhat reactionary. In my defence, I am somewhat frustrated with the inability of many of those who post simplistic statements about complex issues and then try to defend themselves with hackneyed assertions about what has or is actually happening. As I have repeatedly stated I recognise the failings of the EU but firmly believe that it is our best option. It is those who do not debate in a grown up manner, as you do, that irritates and leads to what you reasonably call patronising responses.

I think that wanting the best for the UK, all 65 odd million of us, is not narrow self interest.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

At last something I can agree with, just I do not belive leaving the imperfect EU is the best way to achieve that in our Globalised world.

Don't be a pedant. Obviously by committee, means having to do what's best for multiple countries not just one.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

And the problem with that is? It was not pedantic, just pointing out that your inference about commitees not working is wrong. The whole problem with the serial moaners on here is that they are incapable of thinking beyond their narrow self interest, the majority of their comments are just reactionary.