The problem with Islam.
Discussion
zygalski said:
Oh ok. How about this then. We live in a pluralistic, multicultural society where people are not persecuted for having a religious faith.
Don't like it? Fine. Bugger off to China & don't let the door hit your arse on the way out
Likewise, being pluralistic and not wanting those inflicting extreme elements of any religious faith onto others, those who wish to do so can also bugger off, in the opinion of most of the country.Don't like it? Fine. Bugger off to China & don't let the door hit your arse on the way out
Digga said:
zygalski said:
Oh ok. How about this then. We live in a pluralistic, multicultural society where people are not persecuted for having a religious faith.
Don't like it? Fine. Bugger off to China & don't let the door hit your arse on the way out
Likewise, being pluralistic and not wanting those inflicting extreme elements of any religious faith onto others, those who wish to do so can also bugger off, in the opinion of most of the country.Don't like it? Fine. Bugger off to China & don't let the door hit your arse on the way out
I thought Winston was on a one man crusade to ridicule those in the UK of religious faith with much the same gusto as his efforts to be allowed to call black people ni**ers to their faces.
You know... typical fantasist keyboard warrior stuff.
zygalski said:
Digga said:
zygalski said:
Oh ok. How about this then. We live in a pluralistic, multicultural society where people are not persecuted for having a religious faith.
Don't like it? Fine. Bugger off to China & don't let the door hit your arse on the way out
Likewise, being pluralistic and not wanting those inflicting extreme elements of any religious faith onto others, those who wish to do so can also bugger off, in the opinion of most of the country.Don't like it? Fine. Bugger off to China & don't let the door hit your arse on the way out
I thought Winston was on a one man crusade to ridicule those in the UK of religious faith with much the same gusto as his efforts to be allowed to call black people ni**ers to their faces.
You know... typical fantasist keyboard warrior stuff.
Now I have your attention again, would you like to live in an Islamic country?
WinstonWolf said:
zygalski said:
WinstonWolf said:
Ah, I thought you'd forgotten to answer.
Now I have your attention again, would you like to live in an Islamic country?
Nope. Now I have your attention again, would you like to live in an Islamic country?
Quite happy in multicultural Britain, ta.
93% say the should obey British law.
So your idea of "such a high percentage" is actually 5% & 7%?
zygalski said:
WinstonWolf said:
zygalski said:
WinstonWolf said:
Ah, I thought you'd forgotten to answer.
Now I have your attention again, would you like to live in an Islamic country?
Nope. Now I have your attention again, would you like to live in an Islamic country?
Quite happy in multicultural Britain, ta.
93% say the should obey British law.
So your idea of "such a high percentage" is actually 5% & 7%?
Asked if acts of violence against those who publish images of the Prophet Muhammad can "never be justified", 68% agreed that such violence was never justifiable.
But 24% disagreed with the statement, while the rest replied "don't know" or refused to answer.
That's between a third and a quarter of Muslim's whose values are out of kilter with British ones.
wc98 said:
Cheese Mechanic said:
Of course you cannot be arsed, far easier to say something is inaccurate, just because you want it to be.
How about this then From the pen of Lefty Dan Hodges in todays DT
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11434695/...
"Two weeks ago I took part in a debate on free speech, hosted by the Islamic Education and Research Academy. It was a good discussion, well attended, with an almost exclusively Muslim audience. Near the end, one audience member began to defend the killing of apostates. I challenged him, as did the other non-Muslim panelists. None of the Muslim panelists challenged him. No members of the audience challenged him. Instead, when he’d finished defending the murder of apostates, a significant section of the audience applauded him. "
Yep, murder being justified in a public meeting in the UK . Islam is not looked at with deep suspicion because people want to do that, they do it because of what it preaches and what its followers practise.Inconvenient eh?
i would be interested in a response to this from bsr and jali . while i am not in the all muslims are terrorists camp,incidents like this do concern me .How about this then From the pen of Lefty Dan Hodges in todays DT
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11434695/...
"Two weeks ago I took part in a debate on free speech, hosted by the Islamic Education and Research Academy. It was a good discussion, well attended, with an almost exclusively Muslim audience. Near the end, one audience member began to defend the killing of apostates. I challenged him, as did the other non-Muslim panelists. None of the Muslim panelists challenged him. No members of the audience challenged him. Instead, when he’d finished defending the murder of apostates, a significant section of the audience applauded him. "
Yep, murder being justified in a public meeting in the UK . Islam is not looked at with deep suspicion because people want to do that, they do it because of what it preaches and what its followers practise.Inconvenient eh?
ks.All you need to do is read the tenuous wording that has spawned all these tabloid headlines(and yes, I do count the Telegraph in that sentence nowadays) to see that. These results are taken out of context and twisted for the benefit of frothing up the tabloid masturbators.
Lets take the headline versus the sentence in the poll:
Headline: Over a quarter of British Muslims have sympathy for the Charlie Hebdo terrorists. That is far too many
Derived from: "Presented with the statement “I have some sympathy for the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris”, 27 seven percent agreed with the statement"
The latter does not mean the former. In fact, absent context, it does not mean anything at all. Sympathy with motives? How vague could that be? Given that I have no idea what that question means, putting 1000 random muslims on that spot with a question phrased like, the answer means nothing. In fact, the question is so vague it must have been posed after more direct questions, the answers to which would make that statistic more relevant.
Eg:
Do you think the Hebdo terrorists actions were wrong? 100% Yes
Do you have a degree of sympathy with their motives? 25% yes
versus:
Do you think the Hebdo terrorists were wrong? 25% No
Do you have a degree of sympathy with their motives? 25% Yes
In the first example the answer to the question is categorically meaningless, where as in the second example it is meaningful and worrying. The fact that the taboids isolate it out of context like they have, and twist its meaning suggests to me that it is more likely to be the first, I just don't have the time to research every s
t tabloid story I see so am happy to assume its crap.I don't think this means everything is fine. Far from it. IN fact, I think there is a worrying self fulfilling escalation of anti muslim feeling in turn spawning increasingly isolated/frustrated young muslims. It may be the other way round, it doesn't really matter but I do think we are starting to become a divisive nation.
zygalski said:
WinstonWolf said:
zygalski said:
WinstonWolf said:
Ah, I thought you'd forgotten to answer.
Now I have your attention again, would you like to live in an Islamic country?
Nope. Now I have your attention again, would you like to live in an Islamic country?
Quite happy in multicultural Britain, ta.
93% say the should obey British law.
So your idea of "such a high percentage" is actually 5% & 7%?
"Are you loyal to Britain" 95% (according to you) say yes. I wonder what the response would be if the question was "Loyal to Britain 1st or Islam 1st"? I doubt you would even make it in to 10% answering Britain. Dont get me started on the law question!
And there lies the problem that some have tried to highlight at the risk of being called racist or anti Islamic.
Grumfutock said:
All in how you frame the question though.
That I agree with 100%. Surveys of this sort have very limited worth imo.For instance, some on PH may well have "sympathy" with the BNP, EDL etc. However, I'm betting far less than the figure that have "sympathy" with a cause would actually go around shouting at strangers & deliberately provoking fights with them because they aren't the same race as you.
Edited by zygalski on Monday 2nd March 14:46
blindswelledrat said:
Just about everything you read, including these type of polls are complete bks.
Where then, would you go, to try and find out the current position vis-a-vis our immigrant community's attitudes to these pertinent matters? That's if you don't live in a multi-culti hotspot or work in one (like many people in the UK)?ks.Dan Hodges is a metropolitan lefty. He has excellent credentials (mum is a Labour MP) and can normally find an anti-shire-county-retired-colonel angle to poke at the soft right underbelly of the Tories. For him to spell it out in what looks like un-ambiguous terms sound like a wake up call.
Why do you so vehemently disagree?
blindswelledrat said:
Just about everything you read, including these type of polls are complete bks.
All you need to do is read the tenuous wording that has spawned all these tabloid headlines(and yes, I do count the Telegraph in that sentence nowadays) to see that. These results are taken out of context and twisted for the benefit of frothing up the tabloid masturbators.
Lets take the headline versus the sentence in the poll:
Headline: Over a quarter of British Muslims have sympathy for the Charlie Hebdo terrorists. That is far too many
Derived from: "Presented with the statement “I have some sympathy for the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris”, 27 seven percent agreed with the statement"
The latter does not mean the former. In fact, absent context, it does not mean anything at all. Sympathy with motives? How vague could that be? Given that I have no idea what that question means, putting 1000 random muslims on that spot with a question phrased like, the answer means nothing. In fact, the question is so vague it must have been posed after more direct questions, the answers to which would make that statistic more relevant.
Eg:
Do you think the Hebdo terrorists actions were wrong? 100% Yes
Do you have a degree of sympathy with their motives? 25% yes
versus:
Do you think the Hebdo terrorists were wrong? 25% No
Do you have a degree of sympathy with their motives? 25% Yes
In the first example the answer to the question is categorically meaningless, where as in the second example it is meaningful and worrying. The fact that the taboids isolate it out of context like they have, and twist its meaning suggests to me that it is more likely to be the first, I just don't have the time to research every st tabloid story I see so am happy to assume its crap.
I don't think this means everything is fine. Far from it. IN fact, I think there is a worrying self fulfilling escalation of anti muslim feeling in turn spawning increasingly isolated/frustrated young muslims. It may be the other way round, it doesn't really matter but I do think we are starting to become a divisive nation.
thanks for taking the time to post that . i have to say the escalation of reporting relating to muslims is also a concern to me .i reckon i probably have more muslim friends than most up here on the east coast of scotland,outside the cities anyway ,and my personal experience does not reflect the results of any of these polls.ks.All you need to do is read the tenuous wording that has spawned all these tabloid headlines(and yes, I do count the Telegraph in that sentence nowadays) to see that. These results are taken out of context and twisted for the benefit of frothing up the tabloid masturbators.
Lets take the headline versus the sentence in the poll:
Headline: Over a quarter of British Muslims have sympathy for the Charlie Hebdo terrorists. That is far too many
Derived from: "Presented with the statement “I have some sympathy for the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris”, 27 seven percent agreed with the statement"
The latter does not mean the former. In fact, absent context, it does not mean anything at all. Sympathy with motives? How vague could that be? Given that I have no idea what that question means, putting 1000 random muslims on that spot with a question phrased like, the answer means nothing. In fact, the question is so vague it must have been posed after more direct questions, the answers to which would make that statistic more relevant.
Eg:
Do you think the Hebdo terrorists actions were wrong? 100% Yes
Do you have a degree of sympathy with their motives? 25% yes
versus:
Do you think the Hebdo terrorists were wrong? 25% No
Do you have a degree of sympathy with their motives? 25% Yes
In the first example the answer to the question is categorically meaningless, where as in the second example it is meaningful and worrying. The fact that the taboids isolate it out of context like they have, and twist its meaning suggests to me that it is more likely to be the first, I just don't have the time to research every s
t tabloid story I see so am happy to assume its crap.I don't think this means everything is fine. Far from it. IN fact, I think there is a worrying self fulfilling escalation of anti muslim feeling in turn spawning increasingly isolated/frustrated young muslims. It may be the other way round, it doesn't really matter but I do think we are starting to become a divisive nation.
i do however accept there may be a huge difference up here compared to other areas so am open to the idea that in certain areas/situations there are very real problems appearing.
i do think your last paragraph nails the current situation perfectly.
blindswelledrat said:
Just about everything you read, including these type of polls are complete bks.
All you need to do is read the tenuous wording that has spawned all these tabloid headlines(and yes, I do count the Telegraph in that sentence nowadays) to see that. These results are taken out of context and twisted for the benefit of frothing up the tabloid masturbators.
Lets take the headline versus the sentence in the poll:
Headline: Over a quarter of British Muslims have sympathy for the Charlie Hebdo terrorists. That is far too many
Derived from: "Presented with the statement “I have some sympathy for the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris”, 27 seven percent agreed with the statement"
The latter does not mean the former. In fact, absent context, it does not mean anything at all. Sympathy with motives? How vague could that be? Given that I have no idea what that question means, putting 1000 random muslims on that spot with a question phrased like, the answer means nothing. In fact, the question is so vague it must have been posed after more direct questions, the answers to which would make that statistic more relevant.
Eg:
Do you think the Hebdo terrorists actions were wrong? 100% Yes
Do you have a degree of sympathy with their motives? 25% yes
versus:
Do you think the Hebdo terrorists were wrong? 25% No
Do you have a degree of sympathy with their motives? 25% Yes
In the first example the answer to the question is categorically meaningless, where as in the second example it is meaningful and worrying. The fact that the taboids isolate it out of context like they have, and twist its meaning suggests to me that it is more likely to be the first, I just don't have the time to research every st tabloid story I see so am happy to assume its crap.
I don't think this means everything is fine. Far from it. IN fact, I think there is a worrying self fulfilling escalation of anti muslim feeling in turn spawning increasingly isolated/frustrated young muslims. It may be the other way round, it doesn't really matter but I do think we are starting to become a divisive nation.
Desperate attempt to shoot the messenger(s) and to cast doubt on inconvenient facts. ks.All you need to do is read the tenuous wording that has spawned all these tabloid headlines(and yes, I do count the Telegraph in that sentence nowadays) to see that. These results are taken out of context and twisted for the benefit of frothing up the tabloid masturbators.
Lets take the headline versus the sentence in the poll:
Headline: Over a quarter of British Muslims have sympathy for the Charlie Hebdo terrorists. That is far too many
Derived from: "Presented with the statement “I have some sympathy for the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris”, 27 seven percent agreed with the statement"
The latter does not mean the former. In fact, absent context, it does not mean anything at all. Sympathy with motives? How vague could that be? Given that I have no idea what that question means, putting 1000 random muslims on that spot with a question phrased like, the answer means nothing. In fact, the question is so vague it must have been posed after more direct questions, the answers to which would make that statistic more relevant.
Eg:
Do you think the Hebdo terrorists actions were wrong? 100% Yes
Do you have a degree of sympathy with their motives? 25% yes
versus:
Do you think the Hebdo terrorists were wrong? 25% No
Do you have a degree of sympathy with their motives? 25% Yes
In the first example the answer to the question is categorically meaningless, where as in the second example it is meaningful and worrying. The fact that the taboids isolate it out of context like they have, and twist its meaning suggests to me that it is more likely to be the first, I just don't have the time to research every s
t tabloid story I see so am happy to assume its crap.I don't think this means everything is fine. Far from it. IN fact, I think there is a worrying self fulfilling escalation of anti muslim feeling in turn spawning increasingly isolated/frustrated young muslims. It may be the other way round, it doesn't really matter but I do think we are starting to become a divisive nation.
The poll was by the BBC, that rabid right wing racist xenophobic organisation.
Dan Hodges as well as being the son of a Labour MP (I think Glenda Jackson) is also in a senior position in migration matters, and of similar standing in Hope not hate. Again all extreme well known examples of hysterical xenophobic right wing nutterism.
Sigh>
blindswelledrat said:
I don't think this means everything is fine. Far from it. IN fact, I think there is a worrying self fulfilling escalation of anti muslim feeling in turn spawning increasingly isolated/frustrated young muslims. It may be the other way round, it doesn't really matter but I do think we are starting to become a divisive nation.
I agree with you.However, I cannot see a solution.
Over the weekend I asked a couple of moderate Muslims if they thought that women who commit adultery should be punished. They both responded aggressively, and refused to answer the question.
I'm left with the impression that they cannot dispute the literal interpretation of the Koran. They cannot condone violence against women on PH without getting banned.
Which do you think is the greater evil, Islamaphobia or Homophobia?
Choose one.
don4l said:
I agree with you.
However, I cannot see a solution.
Over the weekend I asked a couple of moderate Muslims if they thought that women who commit adultery should be punished. They both responded aggressively, and refused to answer the question.
I'm left with the impression that they cannot dispute the literal interpretation of the Koran. They cannot condone violence against women on PH without getting banned.
Which do you think is the greater evil, Islamaphobia or Homophobia?
Choose one.
absolutely no choice to be made - homophobiaHowever, I cannot see a solution.
Over the weekend I asked a couple of moderate Muslims if they thought that women who commit adultery should be punished. They both responded aggressively, and refused to answer the question.
I'm left with the impression that they cannot dispute the literal interpretation of the Koran. They cannot condone violence against women on PH without getting banned.
Which do you think is the greater evil, Islamaphobia or Homophobia?
Choose one.
The Islamic world is going through it's own dark age and inquisition that the Western Christianity went through 1000 years ago. A period where questioning the 'good book' is forbidden and punished, where living by and for the church is the law!
It will come through it as we did but it will take a long time and I am not sure the modern world will or can survive it. That is what worries me.
It will come through it as we did but it will take a long time and I am not sure the modern world will or can survive it. That is what worries me.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff