Is this going to be a party running for political election?
Rory 7 on how to stop Homegrown Islamic Extremists
- Thread starter rcoobc
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Adebesi
Full Member
Why isnt there an opportunity?Throwing suggestions around that Islam needs to reform is off for me. It points to a large part of the blame being on muslim communities and teachings.
Most of these people are being radicalised online, the crazy land of chemtrails. Are you saying if theyd have been taught tolerance then they wouldnt have succumb to the ISIS propaganda so easily?
If there was an opportunity for some of the crazy British white supremacists to go somewhere on a holy crusade to fight for their cause they would. They'd claim to be killing under the name of christianity too.
Rory 7
Full Member
Is this going to be a party running for political election?
I guess so? Why not?
The banlieues are pretty diverse in terms of ethnic background but there are large populations of Muslim and primarily North African Muslims to be found there; marginalisation has been well documented as have tensions between communities particularly in Marseille.
There is a French council yes but it has no political power per-se. My suggestion re: a political movement is to give these marginalised people something to identify with that reflects their values and opposes ISIS. I doubt any mainstream French political parties are doing that very well. Again, I'm not saying its the answer, but a lack of a unified political response to what is ultimately a political movement (ISIS) is badly needed. Albeit with the caveat already raised, it probably also needs reform of Islamic teaching.
It's a secular state obviously they have no power on french citizens, you want France to become an Islamic state?
Wouldn't that cause even more political divide? If most Muslims vote for the National Muslim Party and it supports any policy that's different to the other parties, it's going to be highlighted as a community difference. Every seat it won would be called by the far-right as an attempt by Muslims to take over the country etc.I guess so? Why not?
Rory 7
Full Member
It's a secular state obviously they have no power on french citizens, you want France to become an Islamic state?
Obviously not. I want some mechanism for greater more coherent leadership for Muslim communities. Its only a suggestion...
Rory 7
Full Member
Wouldn't that cause even more political divide? If most Muslims vote for the National Muslim Party and it supports any policy that's different to the other parties, it's going to be highlighted as a community difference. Every seat it won would be called by the far-right as an attempt by Muslims to take over the country etc.
Under a PR system a party like that could hold the balance of power, allowing for greater representation in parliament.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2009
- Messages
- 58,536
You are in some countries- think it was around £70 in Turkey.By experience, you won't be fined if you are not carrying it.
It's not the representation I have an issue with, it's how that will be portrayed by the far-right and perceived by the nation as a whole. Every time a terrorist activity happens there's going to be pressure on such a party to denounce the attack in stronger terms and recommend even more extreme action than the far-right, else they'll get called out for being 'soft on their fellow Muslim terrorists'. Parties along religious lines never help reduce inter-community conflict, they only exacerbate it.Under a PR system a party like that could hold the balance of power, allowing for greater representation in parliament.
Rory 7
Full Member
It's not the representation I have an issue with, it's how that will be portrayed by the far-right and perceived by the nation as a whole. Every time a terrorist activity happens there's going to be pressure on such a party to denounce the attack in stronger terms and recommend even more extreme action than the far-right, else they'll get called out for being 'soft on their fellow Muslim terrorists'. Parties along religious lines never help reduce inter-community conflict, they only exacerbate it.
That's a bit of a cop-out in my opinion. An entire community opts out of the political discourse of a country because they are afraid of being denounced by the far-right? This is the kind of thing I'm getting at, when do these atrocities actually prompt action against this death cult? The traditional ways of preaching against them at the mosque don't seem to be working. Surely this whole mess needs a complete rethink, from the ground up.
Smores
Full Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2011
- Messages
- 26,163
Why isnt there an opportunity?
You'd essentially need a white european country under attack from a muslim state. Further it would have to be somewhere like Ukraine where the state hasnt really got complete control and arms are available. The BNP started having meetings at a pub i drank at once, ive no doubt theyd all have joined such a 'crusade'.
The platform for young muslim men to join a cause is there. The internet makes it easy for the most twisted and confused to be converted and recruited.
The problem with that is a "political" struggle will always run up against the fact that the word of the quran is infallible and if taken literally there are passages in the quran that justify what the terrorists do. I mean, in a sense what you are proposing is where we already are. Most Muslims accept what terrorists do is wrong. Imams say what they do is wrong. The Muslim mainstream condemns it. And yes, Muslims have suffered from it worse than non-Muslims. But until the underlying faith is discredited, or at least reinterpreted in the same way Christianity has (so people still believe in it, there are still Christians, but they do not read the bible literally), it will still be possible to use religion as a tool for recruitment for terrorism, and nothing will change.
You have to tackle it at source basically.
I dont understand what that means. You want Muslims to accept their religion is actually a falsity? Is that right?
Likewise didn't Bush and Blair both act in line with their Christian belief system ie:military practiioners of Christianity have not undertaken any re-interpretaion whatsoever.
Last, ISIS is a reaction to legally dubious Western military intervention in the Middle East which was a reaction to 9/11 which was a reaction to the creation of Israel on historically Palestinian lands. So in my opinion, that's the source.
It's not the representation I have an issue with, it's how that will be portrayed by the far-right and perceived by the nation as a whole. Every time a terrorist activity happens there's going to be pressure on such a party to denounce the attack in stronger terms and recommend even more extreme action than the far-right, else they'll get called out for being 'soft on their fellow Muslim terrorists'. Parties along religious lines never help reduce inter-community conflict, they only exacerbate it.
Particularly when Muslims aren't one single community, there is no way to unify them behind the same banner. Muslims from Maghred, Comoros or sub saharian Africa are culturally different, they don't live their religion the same way.
The people in that community can choose to voice their opinions as citizens, they don't have to voice it as part of their religion. Just like they can vote for any political party that represents their political views which may/may not be shared by other Muslims. Part of the problem is thinking of those people as only part of one social bloc: as if being Muslim defines their entire identity.That's a bit of a cop-out in my opinion. An entire community opts out of the political discourse of a country because they are afraid of being denounced by the far-right? This is the kind of thing I'm getting at, when do these atrocities actually prompt action against this death cult? The traditional ways of preaching against them at the mosque don't seem to be working. Surely this whole mess needs a complete rethink, from the ground up.
Tbh, I'm not sure if it's the lack of effectiveness of mosque preaching, but rather the fact that not all Muslim religious leaders condemn these attacks wholeheartedly in private. I've met a few extremist preachers, they don't support terrorism but they're not willing to say its 100% wrong either.
People have been blaming Muslims since 9/11, their doors were kicked in, their shops smashed. But how was an American Muslim meant to stop 9/11? ?A state sponsored? act from people from half the world away.
It wasn't fair then, and it isn't fair now.
Muslims didnt vote these people in. They aren't their leaders. They aren't anything.
It's ridiculous.
It wasn't fair then, and it isn't fair now.
Muslims didnt vote these people in. They aren't their leaders. They aren't anything.
It's ridiculous.
Rory 7
Full Member
The people in that community can choose to voice their opinions as citizens, they don't have to voice it as part of their religion. Just like they can vote for any political party that represents their political views which may/may not be shared by other Muslims. Part of the problem is thinking of those people as only part of one social bloc: as if being Muslim defines their entire identity.
Tbh, I'm not sure if it's the lack of effectiveness of mosque preaching, but rather the fact that not all Muslim religious leaders condemn these attacks wholeheartedly in private. I've met a few extremist preachers, they don't support terrorism but they're not willing to say its 100% wrong either.
And there we have it. Yet I was the 'bad guy' for suggesting leaders need to do more!
The people in that community can choose to voice their opinions as citizens, they don't have to voice it as part of their religion. Just like they can vote for any political party that represents their political views which may/may not be shared by other Muslims. Part of the problem is thinking of those people as only part of one social bloc: as if being Muslim defines their entire identity.
Tbh, I'm not sure if it's the lack of effectiveness of mosque preaching, but rather the fact that not all Muslim religious leaders condemn these attacks wholeheartedly in private. I've met a few extremist preachers, they don't support terrorism but they're not willing to say its 100% wrong either.
Islam is not the problem and it's not Muslims fault.
Otherwise many millions of Indonesians, Malays, Turks, Indians and Nigerians would be partaking in a global war which the west would lose.
This is the actions of a tiny few. And those people are no longer welcome in mainstream Muslim society. Focus on the warped few, not on Islam.
Well, what do you want the non-extremist leaders to do? Those who are inclined towards more fundamentalist ideas will go to mosques and listen to preachers who are more suited to their views. You can't exactly stop them.And there we have it. Yet I was the 'bad guy' for suggesting leaders need to do more!
Hmm? I don't really disagree with that, but I don't think it's black and white. There is a spectrum from Muslims who are part of terrorist groups, to those who support it but aren't involved, to those who don't support it but don't condemn it enough either, and those who wholeheartedly condemn it (the majority). The groups that make up the minority are responsible to different extents.It's so tiresome. Islam is not the problem and it's not Muslims fault.
Otherwise many millions of Indonesians, Malays, Turks, Indians and Nigerians would be partaking in a global war which the west would lose.
This is the actions of a tiny few. And those people are no longer welcome in mainstream Muslim society. Focus on the warped few, not on Islam.
What of that is hard to understand?
Rory 7
Full Member
Well, what do you want the non-extremist leaders to do? Those who are inclined towards more fundamentalist ideas will go to mosques and listen to preachers who are more suited to their views. You can't exactly stop them.
This is probably where I am on shaky ground. Can other non-extremist leaders not shut down mosques, report their teachings to the authorities and preach against their teachings? I'm sure they can. But that's probably all they can do. To me it's the absence of political leadership that is the problem. What ISIS is promoting is a religious and political ideology. And I don't see a credible alternative being put forward at a political level by Muslim leaders and in turn Muslim communities.
Adebesi
Full Member
I am saying there is no single source. I am saying Palestine is definitely a source, but its not the only one.I dont understand what that means. You want Muslims to accept their religion is actually a falsity? Is that right?
Likewise didn't Bush and Blair both act in line with their Christian belief system ie:military practiioners of Christianity have not undertaken any re-interpretaion whatsoever.
Last, ISIS is a reaction to legally dubious Western military intervention in the Middle East which was a reaction to 9/11 which was a reaction to the creation of Israel on historically Palestinian lands. So in my opinion, that's the source.
In terms of the reinterpretation, I am suggesting that in an Islamic Reformation, Muslims would accept that the Quran is not the infallible word of God. Is that the same as accepting their religion is a falsity? I dont think it necessarily is. You still have Christians. Christianity is still a religion, people still believe in it. But you dont find many Christians who believe the bible is literally, word for word, true. I think that is a fair statement, though maybe you disagree.
Certainly there are some mentalists, creationists and the like. But few people who take the bible without a pinch of salt. The bible says you shouldnt touch a woman who is on her period, I havent met any Christians lately who adhere to that rule. The bible condones slavery. The bible recommends that parents have their children stoned to death for disobedience. These are things that Christians are happy to sweep under the carpet in the name of squaring their religious beliefs with modern realities. So now, even devout Christians say that the bible was written in another time, when different rules applied, and they believe the underlying message, the essence of the text, rather than its letter, literally, word for word. If Muslims took that same step, that would significantly undermine the ability of radical clerics to use the text of the Quran to justify terrorism. However, they dont. The Quran is sacrosanct, every single word of it is the word of God. Questioning it is taboo. The fact that it was written 1500 years ago, in cultural circumstances that have no relevance today, makes no difference.
You can preach differently, but you can't really shut down a mosque or report preachers to authorities for refusing to condemn terrorism. These preachers aren't going to go out and say ISIS is great, they'll say something like terrorist attacks have led more people to becoming aware of Islam and reading the Quran to discover what it really says, and this is a good thing.This is probably where I am on shaky ground. Can other non-extremist leaders not shut down mosques, report their teachings to the authorities and preach against their teachings? I'm sure they can. But that's probably all they can do. To me it's the absence of political leadership that is the problem. What ISIS is promoting is a religious and political ideology. And I don't see a credible alternative being put forward at a political level by Muslim leaders and in turn Muslim communities.
Muslim communities in the West aren't really going to put out a competing political agenda to ISIS because they don't have one. For the most part they just want to live normal lives in a normal environment like everyone else. That's not a specifically Muslim ideology.
There are many muslims who accept that it's about interpreting the Quran in context. But I wouldnt know if it's widespread.However, they dont. The Quran is sacrosanct, every single word of it is the word of God. Questioning it is taboo. The fact that it was written 1500 years ago, in cultural circumstances that have no relevance today, makes no difference.
Last edited:
Rory 7
Full Member
You can preach differently, but you can't really shut down a mosque or report preachers to authorities for refusing to condemn terrorism. These preachers aren't going to go out and say ISIS is great, they'll say something like terrorist attacks have led more people to becoming aware of Islam and reading the Quran to discover what it really says, and this is a good thing.
Muslim communities in the West aren't really going to put out a competing political agenda to ISIS because they don't have one. For the most part they just want to live normal lives in a normal environment like everyone else. That's not a specifically Muslim ideology.
This is true and this is what makes this whole thing so complex but there just has to be more that can be done to prevent radicalisation, surely? As I say I'm only putting ideas out there, not sure if any of them make are realistic or not. I genuinely don't here fresh thinking on this topic coming from leaders, Muslim or otherwise.
This is true and this is what makes this whole thing so complex but there just has to be more that can be done to prevent radicalisation, surely? As I say I'm only putting ideas out there, not sure if any of them make are realistic or not. I genuinely don't here fresh thinking on this topic coming from leaders, Muslim or otherwise.
The radicalisation is already prevented through religious education in madrasas and different classes. Now if I interpret your words correctly you are looking for the eradication of radicalisation and it's not going to happen.
Rory 7
Full Member
The radicalisation is already prevented through religious education in madrasas and different classes. Now if I interpret your words correctly you are looking for the eradication of radicalisation and it's not going to happen.
I understand madrasas are educating against radicalisation but others on here have already discussed how some mosques aren't doing all they can. I don't follow you on the highlighted text.
Adebesi
Full Member
That's interesting, in the other thread where this conversation started @Raees said asking moderate Muslims to accept that the Quran is not literally true and infallible is unrealistic.There are many Muslims who accept that it's about interpreting the Quran in context. But I wouldnt know how many.
Listen, Im no expert on this, Im not Muslim, I was not raised Muslim. I have read a bit about this and the argument I am making here is one I lifted directly from a book and am simply passing on because I found it interesting - and, I have to admit, compelling. But I am not saying it is 100% correct, or that doing what I have said above will solve things. Having said that, I am given to understand that Islam is a fairly black and white religion, that even mainstream Muslims understand the Quran to be the dictated word of god and that it is therefore correct, 100%.
But if Imams came out and said what you say above publicly, that the Quran should not be read literally, but be interpreted, and that it was OK to ask questions about doctrine and question the validity of some of God's words, and if that became the mainstream position of the religion as a whole - as it is in Christianity - I think it is fair to say over time you would get less Islamic terrorists.
Whenever I went to a Christian church in the US or hung out with evangelicals they always claimed the Bible was the exact word of God and 100% true. As an atheist I of course was allowed to ask questions or doubt its validity, but none of them ever did. Is that so different to how devout Muslims view the Quran?Listen, Im no expert on this, Im not Muslim, I was not raised Muslim. I have read a bit about this and the argument I am making here is one I lifted directly from a book and am simply passing on because I found it interesting - and, I have to admit, compelling. But I am not saying it is 100% correct, or that doing what I have said above will solve things. Having said that, I am given to understand that Islam is a fairly black and white religion, that even mainstream Muslims understand the Quran to be the dictated word of god and that it is therefore correct, 100%.
But if Imams came out and said what you say above publicly, that the Quran should not be read literally, but be interpreted, and that it was OK to ask questions about doctrine and question the validity of some of God's words, and if that became the mainstream position of the religion as a whole - as it is in Christianity - I think it is fair to say over time you would get less Islamic terrorists.
devilish
Juventus fan who used to support United
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2002
- Messages
- 62,920
Whenever I went to a Christian church in the US or hung out with evangelicals they always claimed the Bible was the exact word of God and 100% true. As an atheist I of course was allowed to ask questions or doubt its validity, but none of them ever did. Is that so different to how devout Muslims view the Quran?
Catholics don't
Adebesi
Full Member
No its not. Its exactly the same.Whenever I went to a Christian church in the US or hung out with evangelicals they always claimed the Bible was the exact word of God and 100% true. As an atheist I of course was allowed to ask questions or doubt its validity, but none of them ever did. Is that so different to how devout Muslims view the Quran?
I know you do get these kinds of Christians. Especially in America. But they are in a tiny minority. Even in the US, and even among evangelicals, I think there is a little more of a sense that you have to read between the lines. So I think the difference is, what is a tiny, extreme fringe in Christianity is the mainstream in Islam - in the sense of literal interpretation, I mean.
I believe Maajid Nawaz is one of these people who challenge the idea that the Quran is literal. He's a cofounder of Quilliam, the think tank that took Tommy Robinson under it's wing for a time.That's interesting, in the other thread where this conversation started @Raees said asking moderate Muslims to accept that the Quran is not literally true and infallible is unrealistic.
Listen, Im no expert on this, Im not Muslim, I was not raised Muslim. I have read a bit about this and the argument I am making here is one I lifted directly from a book and am simply passing on because I found it interesting - and, I have to admit, compelling. But I am not saying it is 100% correct, or that doing what I have said above will solve things. Having said that, I am given to understand that Islam is a fairly black and white religion, that even mainstream Muslims understand the Quran to be the dictated word of god and that it is therefore correct, 100%.
But if Imams came out and said what you say above publicly, that the Quran should not be read literally, but be interpreted, and that it was OK to ask questions about doctrine and question the validity of some of God's words, and if that became the mainstream position of the religion as a whole - as it is in Christianity - I think it is fair to say over time you would get less Islamic terrorists.
He's also corwrriten that book Islam and the Future of Tolerance with Sam Harris (much caf loved) which someone else mentioned today.
I understand madrasas are educating against radicalisation but others on here have already discussed how some mosques aren't doing all they can. I don't follow you on the highlighted text.
In all things based on belief, you will have extremists, there is nothing you can do to eradicate them other than getting rid of the belief itself. And like other said there are mosques with extremist preachers, like some churches have extremists preachers, it's not that they are not doing all they can since they are extremists, to charicature they are the enemy.
Adebesi
Full Member
OK so it is happening. But it isnt yet mainstream. Maybe over time it will and maybe if it does it will make a difference and we will start to see an end to this phenomenon.I believe Maajid Nawaz is one of these people who challenge the idea that the Quran is literal. He's a cofounder of Quilliam, the think tank that took Tommy Robinson under it's wing for a time.
He's also corwrriten that book Islam and the Future of Tolerance with Sam Harris (much caf loved) which someone else mentioned today.
Or maybe I am barking up completely the wrong tree and it really is all because of western hypocrisy. And the fact that millions of Muslim children are taught the infallibility of a medieval text that condones violence is completely irrelevant.
Rory 7
Full Member
In all things based on belief, you will have extremists, there is nothing you can do to eradicate them other than getting rid of the belief itself. And like other said there are mosques with extremist preachers, like some churches have extremists preachers, it's not that they are not doing all they can since they are extremists, to charicature they are the enemy.
True. But all belief systems can and should be challenged. Christianity had its reformation. Islam currently has this crazy strand pervading it through ISIS. Surely mainstream Islam needs to strengthen its resolve to integrate with Western values even more if this ISIS stuff is gaining a foothold. As Hollande put (I think) we need a more "Enlighted Islam". It might not stop attacks immediately but a serious bit of reform in the faith could move things on, even a little bit?
Great video from the BBC, when Tommy met MoOK so it is happening. But it isnt yet mainstream. Maybe over time it will and maybe if it does it will make a difference and we will start to see an end to this phenomenon.
Or maybe I am barking up completely the wrong tree and it really is all because of western hypocrisy. And the fact that millions of Muslim children are taught the infallibility of a medieval text that condones violence is completely irrelevant.
There was a caf thread possibly started by Mockney at the time, although I can't find it. Maybe it was part of another thread.
OK so it is happening. But it isnt yet mainstream. Maybe over time it will and maybe if it does it will make a difference and we will start to see an end to this phenomenon.
Or maybe I am barking up completely the wrong tree and it really is all because of western hypocrisy. And the fact that millions of Muslim children are taught the infallibility of a medieval text that condones violence is completely irrelevant.
Most Muslims don't follow the Quran literally, if you just take the prayers as an example most don't make all of them or in West Africa most people are muslim and animist or fetishist.
Adebesi
Full Member
Great video from the BBC, when Tommy met Mo
There was a caf thread possibly started by Mockney at the time, although I can't find it. Maybe it was part of another thread.
Cheers, Ill watch this later. Itll be a nice break for when I am tired of thinking about Brexit or post-capitalist society.
I am saying there is no single source. I am saying Palestine is definitely a source, but its not the only one.
In terms of the reinterpretation, I am suggesting that in an Islamic Reformation, Muslims would accept that the Quran is not the infallible word of God. Is that the same as accepting their religion is a falsity? I dont think it necessarily is. You still have Christians. Christianity is still a religion, people still believe in it. But you dont find many Christians who believe the bible is literally, word for word, true. I think that is a fair statement, though maybe you disagree.
Certainly there are some mentalists, creationists and the like. But few people who take the bible without a pinch of salt. The bible says you shouldnt touch a woman who is on her period, I havent met any Christians lately who adhere to that rule. The bible condones slavery. The bible recommends that parents have their children stoned to death for disobedience. These are things that Christians are happy to sweep under the carpet in the name of squaring their religious beliefs with modern realities. So now, even devout Christians say that the bible was written in another time, when different rules applied, and they believe the underlying message, the essence of the text, rather than its letter, literally, word for word. If Muslims took that same step, that would significantly undermine the ability of radical clerics to use the text of the Quran to justify terrorism. However, they dont. The Quran is sacrosanct, every single word of it is the word of God. Questioning it is taboo. The fact that it was written 1500 years ago, in cultural circumstances that have no relevance today, makes no difference.
Thanks for your considered thoughts.
There are about 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide. ISIS is estimated to have around 100000 recruits in Syria and also world wide. That means ISIS is 0.00000625% of Muslims worldwide!!!
What that tells me is that Muslims are already living within a transformed set of laws. Some Muslim countries like Turkey and Malaysia have taken those concepts of reform into national law and implemented into modern day culture. Country's like Pakistan and Iran used to until covert CIA influence sent both countries into extreme adoptions of Sharia Law.
My point is simply that people who follow Islam don't practice the Qu'ran to the letter anyway and the vast vast vast vast majority are not misinterpreting a verse that supposedly legalizes the suicidal killing of non Muslims civilians. Islam has evolved just like every other culture in the world. The word of the Qu'ran may be sacrosanct but it's not being followed to the letter by most. Asking somebody to kill themselves is quite an ask... 99.9999999% won't do it, no matter the emotional or spiritual context.
Unfortunately 0.00000625% of Muslims need to be either eradicated or re-educated. And the reasons people choose to join such organisations need to be resolved, starting with Palestine. A formal and theoritetical exercise of Islamic navel gazing via some great transformation is not going to deter them. Just as the Chistian reformation did not stop the Klu Klux Klan and war mongers like Bush and Blair.
That's the ball game. Nothing else
Adebesi
Full Member
And the guy from yesterday ate pork and drank alcohol, so Ive read. But I imagine he believed what he was doing was God's will, and he may also have been looking forward to some super-sexy times in the afterlife.Most Muslims don't follow the Quran literally, if you just take the prayers as an example most don't make all of them or in West Africa most people are muslim and animist or fetishist.
So yes, there is an inconsistency there.
Share: