Islamaphobia in Tory party?

[jakesmith]

rscott said:

jakesmith said:

rscott said:

Yet again you try and deflect this thread away from its subject toward a different one. Why not go on the Labour anti-Semitism thread to complain about their leader.

Yet again you try to deflect this thread away from any scrutiny. Why not go to The Guardian if all you want is to read comments from like minded virtue signallers desperate to prove their woke credentials.

There's a separate thread for scrutiny of Labour's problems. This one is for, what appears to be, a smaller problem of the Tories.

Any chance you can manage to post in the relevant threads next time?

Hello again R.Stoat, just to respectfully say, you are not the arbiter of this forum, much as you do have a minor reputation for attempting to get people banned from threads when they challenge your / your tag team's opinions presumably in order to shut down debate. Anyway, let's move on: I have posted relevant arguments regarding this topic (one of which I will repeat below for the purposes of an example), despite it being only a few posts above this, you / your team chose to ignore it. Why would that be?

jakesmith said:

biggbn said:

You know it is just as easy to pull the Christian Bible to bits like this? That's the problem with historical texts, open to interpretation and misinterpretation. Do away with them all. Shackles to a divisive past that many are unwilling or unable to leave.

And which of the 2 religions still has a large number of the world's population living the literal values of that book in this day and age?
Try telling someone about to have their hand chopped off for stealing in Saudi or an adulterer in Pakistan about to be stoned to death that they are unwilling to leave the past behind them.

[Rare]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Rare said:

Whether he is or the party is, that didn’t seem to bother the electorate.

Although it appears to have an effect on Muslims. They don’t feel safe anymore !
https://metro.co.uk/2019/12/15/british-muslims-sta...

Somebody should point out to them the risks of being killed by somebody purely because they are Muslim is far less than being killed in an rta.

RTAs are a pretty spurious comparison. You accept a level of risk with driving, it doesn't mean we should tolerate racist murder so long as it is less frequent.


Odd that he would fly over 50 odd Muslim majority countries to go to New Zealand. Perhaps he doesn't like Muslims much himself?

The chances of an RTA are regularly thrown around when the threat of being killed by a Muslim terrorist is put forward.

In fairness there probably aren’t many Muslims countries you would want to live in having lived in the UK.

[biggbn]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

biggbn said:

For what it's worth, I do not think Boris is islamaphobic, racist or homophobic. He has just used some ill advised language for shock value/to sell papers in the past, something he must address now he is prime minister and held to a higher level of enquiry.

What if a huge part of his appeal is that he is not afraid to cause some offence?

There may be some merit in that for some. I cannot stand the man, not for political reasons, I think he is one of the more moderate conservatives, but for his actions and behaviour. I appreciate this is purely personal and he has huge popular/populist? appeal for many. That's cool, that's what makes our world turn.

I do think his actions, such as the peerage for Goldsmith, Will eventually bite his arse and damage the Tory party, but as I stated earlier, I hope I am wrong and am willing, as ever, to have my mind changed. His newspaper 'persona' is just that, a persona. He really needs to find a statesman like persona to unite the country once again.

[Rare]

jakesmith said:

biggbn said:

You know it is just as easy to pull the Christian Bible to bits like this? That's the problem with historical texts, open to interpretation and misinterpretation. Do away with them all. Shackles to a divisive past that many are unwilling or unable to leave.

And which of the 2 religions still has a large number of the world's population living the literal values of that book in this day and age?
Try telling someone about to have their hand chopped off for stealing in Saudi or an adulterer in Pakistan about to be stoned to death that they are unwilling to leave the past behind them.

This is always a strange argument to put forward.

So what, other religions don’t seem to act On these verses in the UK.

There is the suggestion that there are bad verses in the Koran ??
You won’t get many Muslims agreeing to that.

[jakesmith]

Rare said:

jakesmith said:

biggbn said:

You know it is just as easy to pull the Christian Bible to bits like this? That's the problem with historical texts, open to interpretation and misinterpretation. Do away with them all. Shackles to a divisive past that many are unwilling or unable to leave.

And which of the 2 religions still has a large number of the world's population living the literal values of that book in this day and age?
Try telling someone about to have their hand chopped off for stealing in Saudi or an adulterer in Pakistan about to be stoned to death that they are unwilling to leave the past behind them.

This is always a strange argument to put forward.

So what, other religions don’t seem to act On these verses in the UK.

There is the suggestion that there are bad verses in the Koran ??
You won’t get many Muslims agreeing to that.

There are bad verses in many religious books but one seems to be taken a bit more literally and acted on a little more frequently than others, do you remember ISIS for example? They caused quite a hoo-ha not too long ago.

[Vanden Saab]

Rare said:

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Rare said:

Whether he is or the party is, that didn’t seem to bother the electorate.

Although it appears to have an effect on Muslims. They don’t feel safe anymore !
https://metro.co.uk/2019/12/15/british-muslims-sta...

Somebody should point out to them the risks of being killed by somebody purely because they are Muslim is far less than being killed in an rta.

RTAs are a pretty spurious comparison. You accept a level of risk with driving, it doesn't mean we should tolerate racist murder so long as it is less frequent.


Odd that he would fly over 50 odd Muslim majority countries to go to New Zealand. Perhaps he doesn't like Muslims much himself?

The chances of an RTA are regularly thrown around when the threat of being killed by a Muslim terrorist is put forward.

In fairness there probably aren’t many Muslims countries you would want to live in having lived in the UK.

Very true, the rate of RTAs in some of them are truly shocking...

[rscott]

jakesmith said:

rscott said:

jakesmith said:

rscott said:

Yet again you try and deflect this thread away from its subject toward a different one. Why not go on the Labour anti-Semitism thread to complain about their leader.

Yet again you try to deflect this thread away from any scrutiny. Why not go to The Guardian if all you want is to read comments from like minded virtue signallers desperate to prove their woke credentials.

There's a separate thread for scrutiny of Labour's problems. This one is for, what appears to be, a smaller problem of the Tories.

Any chance you can manage to post in the relevant threads next time?

Hello again R.Stoat, just to respectfully say, you are not the arbiter of this forum, much as you do have a minor reputation for attempting to get people banned from threads when they challenge your / your tag team's opinions presumably in order to shut down debate. Anyway, let's move on: I have posted relevant arguments regarding this topic (one of which I will repeat below for the purposes of an example), despite it being only a few posts above this, you / your team chose to ignore it. Why would that be?

jakesmith said:

biggbn said:

You know it is just as easy to pull the Christian Bible to bits like this? That's the problem with historical texts, open to interpretation and misinterpretation. Do away with them all. Shackles to a divisive past that many are unwilling or unable to leave.

And which of the 2 religions still has a large number of the world's population living the literal values of that book in this day and age?
Try telling someone about to have their hand chopped off for stealing in Saudi or an adulterer in Pakistan about to be stoned to death that they are unwilling to leave the past behind them.

Sorry if I've upset you Smiffy, just think it's hilarious that the person you complained when Tory Islamophobia was mentioned in the Labour anti-Semitism thread is the one who keeps dragging this thread off topic.

I think the only posts I've reported in NP&E are those actually wishing or praising physical harm toward others, whatever the religion, ethnicity or sexuality. Sorry to disappoint you.

Yep, there are parts of the world who follow their old religious texts almost to the letter, which isn't always compatible with Western views on human rights.

Interesting to see that some Christian reconstructionists want to reintroduce it in the USA, but luckily haven't been successful. Sadly the evangelical Christians there have pushed through strong anti-abortion laws, using their faith as justification (including one which makes requiring doctors to re-implant ectopic pregnancies, something medically impossible).

Oh and stoning isn't actually mentioned in the Koran (although it is defined as a punishment in the Talmud). Koran suggests 100 lashes for adultery.
Seems it's another of the areas of Islam based on Hadiths, which appear to be open to wide ranges of interpretation by different branches of Islam. Probably why it's usage as a punishment varies considerably from region to region. Support for it seems to be strongest in areas where it was already used as a punishment before Islam existed and weakest the further away you get from the Middle East.

It's an interesting subject, but probably not for this thread, to debate how and where these punishments came from. Quite a lot of historians suggest they pre-date many of the religions in those areas and religious texts have been re-interpreted to support their use.

Not sure it's really for this thread though - I thought it was for discussion of the attitudes of some Tory party members toward Muslims in this country. Not sure there's much support amongst British Muslims for stoning or amputation.

[JagLover]

biggbn said:

You know it is just as easy to pull the Christian Bible to bits like this?

As far as I am aware virtually all the problematic things said in the bible are in the old testament. Jesus was a fairly peace loving dude and his preachings, passed on by his disciples reflect this. Islam from its very creation was a religion designed to unite a people and lead them out of the Arabian desert for conquest.

In just a few decades after the fall of Mecca in 629 Arab armies had destroyed the Sassanid empire and overrun most of the Byzantine empire.

biggbn said:

Do away with them all. Shackles to a divisive past that many are unwilling or unable to leave.

Amen to that

[biggbn]

A minority of fundamentalists, be they Muslim or Christian apply translations that suit their agendas of hate and divisiveness. Unfortunately they get all the attention, make all the noise. I have Muslim and Christian friends, and many non believers...and guess what? They are just people like you and I, no agendas, no rhetoric, and they are as appalled as the rest of us whenever an atrocity is comitted by a 'representative' of their faith.

I had a class of Asian shopkeepers and restauranteurs around the time of one of the London atrocities. They were pouring over the papers when I came in and one, an elderly man in his early seventies turned and said 'George, I hope you know this is not our religion. This is an idiot!'

I base my opinions on my own experiences, and appreciate others may not have similar ones. But until I am proven wrong, I will continue to believe people are essentially decent but can be corruptible, and religion can be a huge corrupter in the right circumstances to the right audience...as can political rhetoric?

[biggbn]

JagLover said:

biggbn said:

You know it is just as easy to pull the Christian Bible to bits like this?

As far as I am aware virtually all the problematic things said in the bible are in the old testament. Jesus was a fairly peace loving dude and his preachings, passed on by his disciples reflect this. Islam from its very creation was a religion designed to unite a people and lead them out of the Arabian desert for conquest.

In just a few decades after the fall of Mecca in 629 Arab armies had destroyed the Sassanid empire and overrun most of the Byzantine empire.

biggbn said:

Do away with them all. Shackles to a divisive past that many are unwilling or unable to leave.

Amen to that

Yup, the Bible 2 is a much better movie than the original. God moved from a Ray Winstone type heartless geezer to a Morgan Freeman kindly gent. Horses for courses, control mechanisms for their times.

[biggbn]

rscott said:

Sorry if I've upset you Smiffy, just think it's hilarious that the person you complained when Tory Islamophobia was mentioned in the Labour anti-Semitism thread is the one who keeps dragging this thread off topic.

I think the only posts I've reported in NP&E are those actually wishing or praising physical harm toward others, whatever the religion, ethnicity or sexuality. Sorry to disappoint you.

Yep, there are parts of the world who follow their old religious texts almost to the letter, which isn't always compatible with Western views on human rights.

Interesting to see that some Christian reconstructionists want to reintroduce it in the USA, but luckily haven't been successful. Sadly the evangelical Christians there have pushed through strong anti-abortion laws, using their faith as justification (including one which makes requiring doctors to re-implant ectopic pregnancies, something medically impossible).

Oh and stoning isn't actually mentioned in the Koran (although it is defined as a punishment in the Talmud). Koran suggests 100 lashes for adultery.
Seems it's another of the areas of Islam based on Hadiths, which appear to be open to wide ranges of interpretation by different branches of Islam. Probably why it's usage as a punishment varies considerably from region to region. Support for it seems to be strongest in areas where it was already used as a punishment before Islam existed and weakest the further away you get from the Middle East.

It's an interesting subject, but probably not for this thread, to debate how and where these punishments came from. Quite a lot of historians suggest they pre-date many of the religions in those areas and religious texts have been re-interpreted to support their use.

Not sure it's really for this thread though - I thought it was for discussion of the attitudes of some Tory party members toward Muslims in this country. Not sure there's much support amongst British Muslims for stoning or amputation.

Thanks for this excellent post. These threads wander and I guess a discussion of the main faiths is pertinent in a thread about islamaphobia? Regardless, thanks for your input which I am finding helpful and informative

[jakesmith]

biggbn said:

Thanks for this excellent post. These threads wander and I guess a discussion of the main faiths is pertinent in a thread about islamaphobia? Regardless, thanks for your input which I am finding helpful and informative

Firstly, thanks for thanking R-Stoat for his impressive looking post that sadly ignores things like surveys that show 30% of Muslims would favour Sharia law in the U.K. And whilst it’s 12 years old, as I can’t be bothered to find something newer as am presently in Nando’s, I’m sure an update would be even more pronounced. I find it disturbing given the fantastic fair society we have.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6309983.stm

Secondly Thanks for keeping us on track and honest on the thread. Although drift is inevitable when even the most fanatical proponents of the title of the thread, comprising Plastic Pig, BeitchStewie, R-stoat and yourself have now all said that BoJo is in fact or likely, not racist. Less scope to stay on track.

[andy_s]

biggbn said:

A minority of fundamentalists, be they Muslim or Christian apply translations that suit their agendas of hate and divisiveness. Unfortunately they get all the attention, make all the noise. I have Muslim and Christian friends, and many non believers...and guess what? They are just people like you and I, no agendas, no rhetoric, and they are as appalled as the rest of us whenever an atrocity is comitted by a 'representative' of their faith.

I had a class of Asian shopkeepers and restauranteurs around the time of one of the London atrocities. They were pouring over the papers when I came in and one, an elderly man in his early seventies turned and said 'George, I hope you know this is not our religion. This is an idiot!'

I base my opinions on my own experiences, and appreciate others may not have similar ones. But until I am proven wrong, I will continue to believe people are essentially decent but can be corruptible, and religion can be a huge corrupter in the right circumstances to the right audience...as can political rhetoric?

After twenty years living and working in Muslim countries I'd completely agree. Fixating on the script of the Quran doesn't get to the bottom of things, Algeria for example is a Muslim secular republic that has banned the burqa/niqab in work places, something that would cause riots in Marseille. Also there are multiple different sects that have their own interpretations of it and different levels of adherence throughout the population.

The best example of deliberate misinterpretation is that of Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini who basically invented the suicide bomb in the eighties. Khomeini was the spiritual leader as well as the head of the country, and was engaged in conflict with Iraq, who were far superior militarily; he needed more in his arsenal. There is a festival among the Shi'a where the death of Mohamed's nephew was celebrated by self-flagellation - this 'self-harm' [proscribed in the Quran, as is suicide - God alone decides your fate.] was allowed as it was to mark the glory of god.
So Khomeini made a Clerics decision to interpret this as 'self-harm is OK if it's for Gods purpose' which then became 'if you die for god, you go to paradise'. This enabled him to use 10's of thousands of children to be used as human waves across the minefields, killing them all. In Tehran it was celebrated by turning the city fountains red. And the people were pleased, as god was happy and the children had gone to paradise. Unreal.

[This was then adopted and refined by Islamic Jihad in the '83 Beirut suicide bombing - Khomeini called it the 'poor mans atomic bomb'.]

So yeah, a bit more to it than what is written, and hence my wariness to ideologs in general; when they seize the mind, you will either eat your own pets or give thanks your children are dead. It's a human virus.

Edited by andy_s on Sunday 22 December 15:32

[rscott]

joke-smiffy said:

biggbn said:

Thanks for this excellent post. These threads wander and I guess a discussion of the main faiths is pertinent in a thread about islamaphobia? Regardless, thanks for your input which I am finding helpful and informative

Firstly, thanks for thanking R-Stoat for his impressive looking post that sadly ignores things like surveys that show 30% of Muslims would favour Sharia law in the U.K. And whilst it’s 12 years old, as I can’t be bothered to find something newer as am presently in Nando’s, I’m sure an update would be even more pronounced. I find it disturbing given the fantastic fair society we have.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6309983.stm

Secondly Thanks for keeping us on track and honest on the thread. Although drift is inevitable when even the most fanatical proponents of the title of the thread, comprising Plastic Pig, BeitchStewie, R-stoat and yourself have now all said that BoJo is in fact or likely, not racist. Less scope to stay on track.

Good to see that the majority of British Muslims don't want Sharia Law here then.
Other more recent surveys (even the 2016 Channel 4 one which only sampled areas of high Muslim population) show support for Sharia as the dominant law in this country is falling.
C4 survey showed only 23% wanted to live under Sharia law.
Bearing in mind that survey only interviewed Muslims living in areas of high Muslim population (apparently it was too expensive to interview others) and so is only representative of around half the UK Muslim population, it's not unreasonable to suggest that the views sampled are slightly skewed toward those of less integrated citizens and that support across the Muslim population as a whole is lower.

I'm sure many Muslims in the UK try to live within some aspects of Sharia, just as many Christians and Jews try to live within the religious laws set down by their faiths.
It's when those laws conflict with the law of the land that it can get contentious. Personally, I'd expect everyone to accept that the laws of the country they live in override religious laws.

For example, when a country bans all unstunned slaughter (as Denmark has), I'd expect all citizens to accept that and act within the law.

That's not to say I'd accept laws being changed specifically to outlaw certain religious practices, unless those changes have solid justification. So banning unstunned slaughter on welfare grounds is fine with me, but banning wearing of the burkha in public (for example) wouldn't be.

[jakesmith]

rscott said:

Good to see that the majority of British Muslims don't want Sharia Law here then.
Other more recent surveys (even the 2016 Channel 4 one which only sampled areas of high Muslim population) show support for Sharia as the dominant law in this country is falling.
C4 survey showed only 23% wanted to live under Sharia law.
Bearing in mind that survey only interviewed Muslims living in areas of high Muslim population (apparently it was too expensive to interview others) and so is only representative of around half the UK Muslim population, it's not unreasonable to suggest that the views sampled are slightly skewed toward those of less integrated citizens and that support across the Muslim population as a whole is lower.

I'm sure many Muslims in the UK try to live within some aspects of Sharia, just as many Christians and Jews try to live within the religious laws set down by their faiths.
It's when those laws conflict with the law of the land that it can get contentious. Personally, I'd expect everyone to accept that the laws of the country they live in override religious laws.

For example, when a country bans all unstunned slaughter (as Denmark has), I'd expect all citizens to accept that and act within the law.

That's not to say I'd accept laws being changed specifically to outlaw certain religious practices, unless those changes have solid justification. So banning unstunned slaughter on welfare grounds is fine with me, but banning wearing of the burkha in public (for example) wouldn't be.

Much of your post is surprisingly ok so well done and thanks for that, but the first bit is utterly wretched

[rscott]

jakesmith said:

rscott said:

Good to see that the majority of British Muslims don't want Sharia Law here then.
Other more recent surveys (even the 2016 Channel 4 one which only sampled areas of high Muslim population) show support for Sharia as the dominant law in this country is falling.
C4 survey showed only 23% wanted to live under Sharia law.
Bearing in mind that survey only interviewed Muslims living in areas of high Muslim population (apparently it was too expensive to interview others) and so is only representative of around half the UK Muslim population, it's not unreasonable to suggest that the views sampled are slightly skewed toward those of less integrated citizens and that support across the Muslim population as a whole is lower.

I'm sure many Muslims in the UK try to live within some aspects of Sharia, just as many Christians and Jews try to live within the religious laws set down by their faiths.
It's when those laws conflict with the law of the land that it can get contentious. Personally, I'd expect everyone to accept that the laws of the country they live in override religious laws.

For example, when a country bans all unstunned slaughter (as Denmark has), I'd expect all citizens to accept that and act within the law.

That's not to say I'd accept laws being changed specifically to outlaw certain religious practices, unless those changes have solid justification. So banning unstunned slaughter on welfare grounds is fine with me, but banning wearing of the burkha in public (for example) wouldn't be.

Much of your post is surprisingly ok so well done and thanks for that, but the first bit is utterly wretched

The piece which disagrees with your views, I guess?

Simple fact is the C4 survey was widely criticized as being not representative of the entire British Muslim population because it excluded around half of British Muslims who lived in areas of low Muslim population. So it could not be representative of the views of all.

Would you agree that where a minority faith makes up a considerably higher than average part of the community, those followers will tend to be less integrated with the wider population? So if a survey is taken solely from those groups, it would be skewed away toward more traditonal/conservative/less liberal views?

Even if you consider the C4 survey as being representative of all British Muslims, it still contradicts your claim of rising support for Sharia.

[jakesmith]

That’s terrible too... you’ve compared 2 completely different surveys, one of which you’ve criticised as unrepresentative, you’ve whitewashed the still alarmingly high preference shown, and you’ve misrepresented my position as even the lower figure is of great concern and I stated myself it was a guess that it was rising. Your statements comprise a cherry picked Triggers broom of a mess. Come on R-Stoat you can do a lot better than this.

[rscott]

joke-smiffy said:

That’s terrible too... you’ve compared 2 completely different surveys, one of which you’ve criticised as unrepresentative, you’ve whitewashed the still alarmingly high preference shown, and you’ve misrepresented my position as even the lower figure is of great concern and I stated myself it was a guess that it was rising. Your statements comprise a cherry picked Triggers broom of a mess. Come on R-Stoat you can do a lot better than this.

Really Smiffy, you're getting very upset about me daring to point out the flaw in your claim that you were sure an updated survey would show more pronounced support.

If you want to see change over time, you tend to need to compare different surveys - looking at the same one twice won't tell you much.

I'm just repeating the criticisms of others about the survey - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.co...

Just because I didn't mention the support for Sharia doesn't mean I'm trying to whitewash it. Without knowing exactly what the question was, it's hard to comment.

If they were asked if they wanted Sharia to be the primary legal system then I'd thoroughly condemn it. However, if they said they wanted to be able to follow Sharia law where compliant with British law, that's a less concerning figure.
For example, I don't have any issues with a faith wanting to carry out their own weddings in line with their laws, provided they also register the wedding as per UK law.

[bitchstewie]

jakesmith said:

Although drift is inevitable when even the most fanatical proponents of the title of the thread, comprising Plastic Pig, BeitchStewie, R-stoat and yourself have now all said that BoJo is in fact or likely, not racist. Less scope to stay on track.

Nobody is being "fanatical".

If there hadn't been reports and incidents of Islamophobic behaviour and suspensions of Conservative councillors there wouldn't be anything to discuss.

Discussing events that have happened and questioning why they happened and asking why people like Sajid Javid called for an independent inquiry is hardly "fanatical".

[jakesmith]

rscott said:

Really Smiffy, you're getting very upset about me daring to point out the flaw in your claim that you were sure an updated survey would show more pronounced support.

If you want to see change over time, you tend to need to compare different surveys - looking at the same one twice won't tell you much.

I'm just repeating the criticisms of others about the survey - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.co...

Just because I didn't mention the support for Sharia doesn't mean I'm trying to whitewash it. Without knowing exactly what the question was, it's hard to comment.

If they were asked if they wanted Sharia to be the primary legal system then I'd thoroughly condemn it. However, if they said they wanted to be able to follow Sharia law where compliant with British law, that's a less concerning figure.
For example, I don't have any issues with a faith wanting to carry out their own weddings in line with their laws, provided they also register the wedding as per UK law.

What utter tripe masquerading as reasonable. That really was abysmal, only if you don’t mind me saying of course.

We have one of the most carefully and painstakingly implemented / evolved legislative systems on the planet with checks and balances a plenty, and you’re advocating introducing a parallel one for the comfort of people who have chosen to leave a repressive country to live here but want to reintroduce their system of law. And you’re ok with it as long as it doesn’t exceed your subjective view of what is and isn’t reasonable. How on Earth would Sharia govern certain transactions not others!?

Stop trying to paint me as upset too El Stoat. It’s all good, just because I’ve called your feeble post out yet again doesn’t mean I’m upset. I’ve had a lovely Nando’s, not upset at all.