Verbal

We also beat Tottenham 1-0 at White Hart Lane - my first game. Ron Davies scored the winner, and we made a team with Alan Gilzean, Martin Chivers, Pat Jennings and (I think) Mike England look quite ordinary.

That ‘someone’ was me. I do find it depressing that you understood so little of what I wrote. I have no particular opinions about what’s good or bad about the religion itself, other than those based upon what I’ve seen. My point in talking about Sufism in particular is that it explicitly rejects Shariah. As someone who’s spent time studying what happens at one of the world’s most sacred Sufi shrine, at Sehwan Sharif, I can only tell you that what happens there is about as far removed from your clichéd view of the religion as it is possible to imagine. Sufis aren’t some small, insignificant part of the religion; in the Indian sub-continent, and in the largest population centres of Pakistan in particular, they are the dominant form of religious practice. So it is no surprise that the Wahhabis have taken especial care to wipe out all traces of Sufi beliefs and customs. Not that we in the West care, but Sufis once also dominated in Afghanistan. But there shrines have been burned down, and the adherents terrorized and murdered. Why does this matter? Because what’s really going on is a battle for the soul of the religion. Al Qaeda’s basic end-game is to assume control of Mecca and Medina – to ‘liberate’ it from the House of Saud, whom Osama bin Laden regards as too soft and thoroughly corrupt. If you think shariah is bad now, wait until OSM and his wild bunch gets his hands on the real levers of power. Now we fancifully believe that we are engaged in a ‘clash of civilizations’ – a war on terror where one way of life will triumph over another. For OSM, however, the attacks in the West are nothing more than ‘spectaculars’ (his word), whose intention is to act as a recruitment drive for more maniacs and to raise enough money to take them that little step further towards Mecca. The West, in other words, is a sideshow. We are not important – just cannon fodder. Our deaths and maimings simply mean more cash and carriers in another, unrelated cause. As part of this general strategy, OSM and his lieutenants explicitly want to drive as many Muslims into a corner as possible – wherever they are. Only then will they ‘see the light’ and come over and support him. The great paradox of the BNP’s behaviour regarding Muslims is that they are, quite directly, acting as recruiting sergeants for al Qaeda. Every Muslim beaten up by BNP thugs is another potential recruit. Revenge is a dish best served with a plateful of dynamite. Moderate Muslims are under assault, on the one hand, by al Qaeda evangelists, and on the other, by thuggish dimwits in ‘white-rights’ organizations like the BNP. It’s no wonder many feel under siege. This is why we should support traditions of Islam like Sufism. By the way, I’m sorry, but I always treat with the utmost scepticism claims that start with: ‘I have read the Koran and…’ Unless you’re an actual, devoted Muslim, the book is interminably, unreadably boring and unintelligible. As evidence that you haven’t read it, your claim that ‘The Koran does tell its followers to spread Sharia Law’ is untrue – for the pretty good reason that the Koran predates the formulation of Shariah by three hundred years or more. Also, your claim that all ‘Islamic societies treat the Koran as their constitution’ is patent rubbish. The largest Muslim country in the world, by far, Indonesia, has a constitution that explicitly incorporates five religions. If you look at the Pakistani flag, the large band of white represents Christianity, etc, etc. It’s only in places like Saudi Arabia and the places where Wahhabism has spread like a disease that the Koran could be said to be a constitution. The enemy isn’t all Muslims. If you don’t understand that, and bang on as if they were, you are not part of the solution regarding the extremists – you’re part of the problem. You are a cog in the engine that churns them out.

Think I may have to give up on the Lounge. Too much aggression and unkindness around.

Sorry, you just tested the limits of my knowledge of Austria.

It's queuing back to Vienna?

What is the EEC?

A climate change denier from New Orleans... When the city was doing a passable impression of Atlantis, did you not even the briefest pause for thought?

I didn't say Wahhabism is or isn't 'Islam'. To say either is clearly idiotic. Islam as a religion has many strands, just as Christianity does. The tragedy is that Wahhabis, sponsored by the Saudis, have exported their violent ideology across the Islamic world, with devastating results. The BNP are screaming about Muslims for their own sleazy reasons. What exactly is real the 'issue' with Islam? It is, surely the violence perpetrated by the Wahhabis and their Jihadist followers.. Feeble d*ckheads like the BNP, by casting all Muslims in the same light, actually help to make the problem worse. No one looking at this sensibly is turning a blind eye. On the contrary, the BNP and their fellow travellers are the ones turning a blind eye, or two, to the real causes of - and solutions to - jihadist extremism.

One of the problems with any discussion about Islam is our profound ignorance of it. This is not a dig at you by any means - it's a widespread phenomenon that actually reinforces the problem itself. Islam's foundation dates back to the late sixth century, when it started as a social reform movement intended to bring monotheism to the polytheistic Arab peninsula. The brand of Islam you mean, when you talk about Saudi Arabia, dates back only to the 18th century - and to a psychopathic preacher called Abd al-Wahhab. After a motiveless attack on a woman, whom he stoned to death, he was evicted from the settlement he'd been staying in for some years, and wound up at an oasis village led by a nobody called Saud. Long story short, they entered into a pact which resulted in Wahhab gaining control of Mecca and Medina and Saud gaining political power. Ever since - and especially after the discovery of oil - the Saudis have exported this brand of Islam (known as 'Wahhabism') for all their worth. And that's a LOT. Consequently, the dominant liberal traditions in Islam, like sufism, have been shattered, and their adherents murdered and threatened. Believe it or not, Afghanistan was until relatively recently a country dominated by Sufi traditions of Islam. The shrines they once worshipped in are now mostly destroyed. How closely is Wahhabism related to Islam? Well of course, if you ask them, they ARE Islam. And unfortunately, you are one of many who simply perpetuate the myth. But ask yourself another question: how closely are the Wahhabis related to Mohammad and the original founders of the religion? A fairly graphic answer lies in the actions of Wahhabis in 1802, who, in a fit of collective rage, destroyed the graves of Muhammad's wives and daughters, and desecrated the places where he had grown up. By the way, 'Sharia' simply did not exist in Muhammad's time. The first mosque he built in Medina did not separate men from women, and women - especially his wife - had a profound influence on his most critical decisions and actions. Oh, and the Taliban are mostly ethnic Pashtuns, whose warrior-like ethos ("Pashtunwali') actually predates Islam by centuries - and goes back to the time of Alexander the Great.

I would very much like to get that image out of my head.

I shouldn't find that funny, I really shouldn't...

That would have been a good clue until recently, but Weston's right - my real name is Quad Wrangle, the talented axe murderer and stamp collector. I don't know how he put two and two together.

You have Babelskate?

Nope, don't understand a word.

I like the idea, though, of publishing the reasons for infractions and bans. This one is good: 'Permanently banned for persistent, worthless posting.' Now that wouldn't apply to ANYONE on here...

I think you're being a touch paranoid. The mods locked the other thread you started for perfectly good reasons, and could hardly be accused - after all the time that thread ran - of being censorious.

What?!

As Henry Porter says in the Guardian article, the council are claiming loudly that they've been misquoted, then not only fail to say how, but go on to confirm the story in all its awfulness.

From that link: "We have simply reiterated that the fully supervised play sessions we run at our adventure playgrounds - Harebreaks and Harwoods - are for children aged 5 -15 years old, and that parents/carers of children and young people who visit these play sessions are not able to stay on site with their children during play sessions. This reduces any potential risks to children and ensures they are able to play freely."

I'm curious about what it was exactly that prompted the threat of legal action. Did it come out of a discussion about Nick Griffin on Question Time?

I doubt it very much.

Speaking as a limpy lefty, I'm stunned by this, quite frankly. And I don't think this is a 'left-right' issue at all. Some of the most basic civil liberties in Britain have been severely eroded by an Orwellian impulse in the government to monitor every single aspect of our lives. But it doesn't just infect the government; the police are at it as well. The Guardian's revelations about how the police simply invented a new category 'domestic extremist' - which has no meaning in British law - to target people who disagree with the authorities, reveals how this 'mission creep' is starting to overwhelm us.

In Watford, parents have just been banned from supervising their own children in council-run playgrounds. If your kids need a push on a swing, they will have to depend on council-appointed (and presumably CRB-vetted?) 'play rangers'. You will have to stand in a designated safe area away from the playground itself. According to Watford's Mayor, Dorothy Thornhill: 'Sadly, in today's climate, you can't have adults walking around unchecked in a children's playground.' After the recent 'scare' of one mother watching over her friend's children for a couple of hours a day, the criminalisation of normal family life continues apace. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2009/oct/28/parents-playground-children

My sentiments entirely.

Freaky! I somehow knew that! Ooh goosebumps...