Topic: Islamism

[۩ Imperator ۩]

Or for being gay. Remind us what your church teaches about them.

Is it the people or the church or both that ridicules, to use your word, in this case ?

You might consider that Catholic doctrine discriminates against gay people. I for my part agree that it does, and am an opponent of this. As a Christian first and a Catholic second, I would argue that Jesus' example contradicts the Vatican on this matter. As a liberal Catholic, I think my best position on this is to argue that case within the Church and to challenge the homophobic views which are held generally by older people in the church (as in society as whole).

That said, there is a distinction to be drawn between discrimination and ridicule. Both wrong, no doubt, but not the same thing.  As a matter of interest, had the recent thread about Pope Francis not been so spectacularly derailed, we might have had the opportunity to discuss his recent letter to Italy's gay Catholics. Such discussion is sadly impossible on RAWK, as there are those intent on labeling all Catholics as enablers of sex offenders, whether or not that is the topic under discussion.

At any rate, I think this topic has taken a bit of a detour from the Islamism it set out to discuss.  If you would like to interrogate me further, don't hesitate to send me a PM.

[Corkboy]

Does it? People are routinely ridiculed for being black, for being disabled, for being women, for being ugly, for being short, for being tall, etc etc. It is people who can't deal with people different from them who do the ridiculing.

Just to tidy up, none of those things are beliefs. Nobody should be ridiculed for what they are or how they were born but ideas, beliefs, ideologies, dogmas, these are things which require the sort of analysis that may result in ridicule. Tough shit. You may as well say that communists or conservatives can't be ridiculed.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Just to tidy up, none of those things are beliefs. Nobody should be ridiculed for what they are or how they were born but ideas, beliefs, ideologies, dogmas, these are things which require the sort of analysis that may result in ridicule. Tough shit. You may as well say that communists or conservatives can't be ridiculed.

The thing is though Corky if we are to believe Dawkins' assertion that religious belief is determined by place of birth and religion of your parents rather than choice or faith then the gap between ridiculing someone for their beliefs is sailing very close to ridiculing them for their ethnicity.  No?

[Fat Scouser]

Outstanding post. Long overdue.

I agree. People should be free to believe whatever they want. Just a pity all people don't see it that way.

should just keep quiet on the matter?

Maybe not, but I should have remembered there isn't many laughs in this malarkey.

[Kenny's Jacket]

The thing is though Corky if we are to believe Dawkins' assertion that religious belief is determined by place of birth and religion of your parents rather than choice or faith then the gap between ridiculing someone for their beliefs is sailing very close to ridiculing them for their ethnicity.  No?

That's an interesting point. I live in SE Asia where people's religion is often stated on their ID cards and you get labelled.  It can be difficult living in certain countries if you want to become an atheist, or follow a religion that you are not supposed to follow.



 

[Jshooters]

The thing is though Corky if we are to believe Dawkins' assertion that religious belief is determined by place of birth and religion of your parents rather than choice or faith then the gap between ridiculing someone for their beliefs is sailing very close to ridiculing them for their ethnicity.  No?

I disagree. Unless you are ridiculing children for their religious beliefs it will have been a considered choice to continue with a belief into adulthood. I was raised a catholic but when I developed the ability to reason I realised that religion didn't add up and am now an atheist.  People in adulthood have chosen to continue their belief system (that initially they had little or no choice in) and therefore are open to ridicule

[BarryCrocker]

The thing is though Corky if we are to believe Dawkins' assertion that religious belief is determined by place of birth and religion of your parents rather than choice or faith then the gap between ridiculing someone for their beliefs is sailing very close to ridiculing them for their ethnicity.  No?

I grew up in Catholic Ireland and was educated in a catholic school in Australia. Most of my closest friends are from school over 25 years ago. None of us are religious so to speak and outside this very close group I seriously do not know what religion their partners are or actually care. If we were to talk about anything it would be ideology rather than religion.

My extended family is made up of an aunty who is a 'relaxed' muslim that converted 30+ years ago, to uncles who beat their chest chanting Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa while they exit a church but do not want any of their children to marry a non-christian or even be gay.

At the end of the day, to think that anybody is the conduit between you and what you believe in is false. The thing about belief is, it's what you perceive to be real, There is no actual proof.

[The Gulleysucker]

.... there isn't many laughs in this malarkey.

That Shaykh seems a right laugh a minute in that link I gave, an all round entertainer and funny guy.

He's also remarkably stupid in seeming to think not only that the fiddle and the violin are distinct instruments but failing to clearly mention the true instruments of the Devil, the Banjo and the Ukelele....(bit of ridicule there)

If he can't get that simple detail correct, what hope is there that the rest of his fatwa and so called learned research is anything other than nonsense. He also seems somewhat obsessed with sex, which seems to be a pattern for a lot of these characters.


On more serious matters, I feel that at best, and even then only tenuously, by their very nature only one religion can ever be the correct and true one.

Acceptance of that means all the tenets of the other religions must not only be incorrect and possibly false but also very much man made and thus quite fairly open to inspection, criticism and quite possibly ridicule, especially if they involve talking snakes, flying horses, silver plates that mysteriously disappeared, the wearing of special underwear, snipping off the body parts of infants, prohibiting blood transfusions, the mandatory wearing of beards, the mandatory being clean shaven, the wearing of trousers up over your ankles, Women having to dress like black letterboxes, Wotan, Xenu and other such patent and ignorant fanciful nonsense.

And if there is such a thing as a divine creator, it will surely exist and forever be outside of our understanding and concepts of reality, and thus unknowable to us mere mortals and we should accept only that, that we don't and never will know. 

Which means everything else, all religious beliefs and laws and evolved practices and rituals must be simply man made inventions that have been constructed and imposed or caught the imagination in less enlightened times by those seeking a purpose and meaning to their often perilously fraught and miserable existance and circumstances and to provide an explanation of the things that they could see around them but didn't understand.

But as I intimated earlier, if someones faith is truly strong, perceived scorn and ridicule of that faith by others should really be of no consequence to them and surely the response if any should simply be to refute with unassailable and provable facts, but I also should add, never by unthinking dogma or quoting archaic text of dubious providence.

And therein lies the difficulty, and I suspect the reason many wish to suppress such criticism of religions. They have no answer.

[electricghost]

That Shaykh seems a right laugh a minute in that link I gave, an all round entertainer and funny guy.

Excellent post Gulley

The thing is though Corky if we are to believe Dawkins' assertion that religious belief is determined by place of birth and religion of your parents rather than choice or faith then the gap between ridiculing someone for their beliefs is sailing very close to ridiculing them for their ethnicity.  No?

There is a very important distinction to be made. Ethnicity has no choice involved, religious beliefs do.  One can be changed, the other cannot. Now I agree that in many religious places the children have no choice as to what religion they are to follow, but surely that is an argument against the indoctrination of children rather than against ridicule of supernatural claims that have no evidential support.

[Yorkykopite]

I agree. People should be free to believe whatever they want. Just a pity all people don't see it that way.

Which brings us back to Islamism.

Is there anyone on these boards who feels that religion should be outlawed? That people shouldn't be free to believe whatever they want? Of course not. Atheists, no matter how militant, are not exactly known for banning religion - certainly not in modern democracies. They may criticise religion, historicise it, perhaps even ridicule it. They want a firewall between church/mosque and State and they often object to having religion 'on the rates' or taught in public schools. But you won't find modern atheists wanting to ban the thing. I certainly wouldn't. People have a perfect right to pray and go to whatever place of worship they want - so long as they don't expect my money to help them.

Intolerance belongs to the other side. And Islamists are nothing except intolerant. Once again I point out the elementary fact that the scores of mosques and churches which are destroyed across the world every year are not destroyed by atheists. They are firebombed and ambushed - usually - by fanatical Islamists.

Do Islamist ideas deserve ridicule? Course they do. They're barmy. The only thing that stops more ridicule, I guess, is fear. These people are notoriously quick to respond to a joke with bombs and guns.

[Fat Scouser]

That Shaykh seems a right laugh a minute in that link I gave, an all round entertainer and funny guy.

Like I said, mate, I think it's a form of madness. That will insult friends of mine, Christian and Muslim. But it's my own belief. I stand by it... anyone using the Koran, Bible, Tora, what ever, as some sort of historical text books and fact, have got to be mad. And I should be allowed to hold that belief without fear.

I stated in the Christianity being a Roman conspiracy thread, what I think of faith and people that believe. I don't have to repeat it or justify myself. Besides, I never came in here to talk about religion. I made my point, far too many times, I don't believe Islam is the biggest danger facing me. And if I have to pick a sect that frighten me, the Christian, bible bashing, Neo-Con right in America, and Zionists worldwide, frighten me far more than any Muslim... violent radicals, with dirty suitcases, included.

[Fat Scouser]

Which brings us back to Islamism.

No it doesn't, Yorky mate. I've said my piece. I'm off.

[youll never walk alone it]

right so lets get this right over the past 2 decades the christians have killed how many?  300 000?  almost all innocents? thats very conservative btw, but its islam whose the threat to world peace?   
The west wants us to hate muslims end of the sooner people realise this the better...speaking as a lapsed protestant btw.

[Yorkykopite]

Worse than Simon Jenkins? I've been called worse names.

Again, you twist words, this time mine. I didn't say that the attacks were because of the presence of the mall. I said that the mall was selected as a target because it is an obvious symbol of economic imperialism. Would you deny this?

Yes on both scores.

1. It isn't "an obvious symbol of economic imperialism" (or even an obscure one). It's just a place where people, relatively wealthy ones admittedly, go to shop in Nairobi. There are plenty of 'imperialist' or neo-colonialist economic institutions in Africa (most of them Chinese) but a shopping mall isn't an obvious one.

2. And, yes, I'd deny that this is why it was even chosen. Sure, there was a good chance of there being more non-Muslims (infidels, heretics etc) in the mall and Al-Shabab, on this mission at least, wanted to single out Jews, Christians and Hindus. That's probably why it a 'good' target for them. They were more concerned about targetting non-Muslims than 'economic exploiters'. Hence the terrifying 'roll calls' where the victims had to try and cite bits of the Koran in order to continue to live. They weren't asked, so far as I know, whether they had stocks and shares. The terrorists simply wanted to know whether they were devout Muslims who knew the words of the 'merciful and compassionate' Prophet Muhammed.

I wish I could see the world in such black and white terms as you. Your view seems to be that terrorism is the fault of the terrorist and therefore it can't possibly have any other contributing causes. In my view, that is simplistic and plain wrong. I believe that terrorism is the fault of the terrorist too. I also believe that the philosophy and aims of the terrorist is by definition absolutely fucked up, whether it be ties to religious fanaticism, nationalism or whatever. I think it is important to ask ourselves the question, then, why do these nutters find an audience? I think it is because they preach their message to the poor and disenfranchised. Why are there so many poor and disenfranchised people in the world? Because there is so much inequality.

Western activities are not the cause of terrorism, but they do encourage a world in which extremism is more likely to take root.

That is my position simply stated, and I hope you do not find it too offensive.

I certainly don't find it 'offensive'. Why would I?

I find it confusing.

That's because you conclude by saying that "western activities are not the cause of terrorism". I wholeheartedly agree. That, I thought, was what we've been arguing about. So I'm glad to have persuaded you away from the idea that we are in anyway responsible for what the terrorists do.

But then there's that other bolded comment where you appear to contradict yourself and suggest that there might be "other contributing causes" after all.

[jambutty]

As a father of 4, I have coached baseball and footy in my spare time to youngsters in Brooklyn for the past 25 years.

For the past 3 years I just coach footy and only to toddler girls.  Because there are virtually no sporting opportunities for young girls in the greatest city on earth.  Fucking disgrace.

I'm constantly preaching to these girls how superior they are to boys , to eradicate at least in their minds the 2nd class status they inherit in most of the world due in large part to religion which almost exclusively sees them as subservient homemakers and mothers.

Afaic, you either believe in the equality of women or the 'holy' books.

My theory is that Mother Nature is God.

Or at least his wife.

[۩ Imperator ۩]

 

I find it confusing.

That's unfortunate. I've explained it as clearly as I am capable of doing. As such, I'll have to give up on this conversation also, as I am finding it wearing and pointless.

[Yorkykopite]

That's unfortunate. I've explained it as clearly as I am capable of doing.

I think you have.

[the oxonian]

Yes on both scores.

1. It isn't "an obvious symbol of economic imperialism" (or even an obscure one). It's just a place where people, relatively wealthy ones admittedly, go to shop in Nairobi. There are plenty of 'imperialist' or neo-colonialist economic institutions in Africa (most of them Chinese) but a shopping mall isn't an obvious one.

sure they said on the sky news, day of the attack that the mall could of been targeted because it was jewish owned

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

I grew up in Catholic Ireland and was educated in a catholic school in Australia. Most of my closest friends are from school over 25 years ago. None of us are religious so to speak and outside this very close group I seriously do not know what religion their partners are or actually care. If we were to talk about anything it would be ideology rather than religion.

My extended family is made up of an aunty who is a 'relaxed' muslim that converted 30+ years ago, to uncles who beat their chest chanting Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa while they exit a church but do not want any of their children to marry a non-christian or even be gay.

At the end of the day, to think that anybody is the conduit between you and what you believe in is false. The thing about belief is, it's what you perceive to be real, There is no actual proof.

Much as I am delighted to see that Dawkins assertion debunked by so many, there are clearly societies where it is far less easy to "choose" than modern day Ireland or Australia (or any of the others mentioned).  Whether that be through a lack of rational non-religious education or whether that be through fear.  Or both. 

[John C]

I can't think of his name right now, but that fat arsed news reader fella in the white suit, went on to become MP for chester,

Martin Bell?

[Jshooters]

Much as I am delighted to see that Dawkins assertion debunked by so many, there are clearly societies where it is far less easy to "choose" than modern day Ireland or Australia (or any of the others mentioned).  Whether that be through a lack of rational non-religious education or whether that be through fear.  Or both.

I don't think that anyone was debunking Dawkins' (fairly obvious) assertion, it was more to do with the choice to continue a belief into adulthood.

You make a good point about certain parts of the world being such that a belief system is retained through fear or lack of alternative credible education.

To take it back to the original question - is ridiculing people's religion akin to ridiculing their ethnicity...... it's subjective isn't it? American senators who believe that the earth was created in 7 days 4000 years ago are, in my opinion, deserving of ridicule and this has nothing to do with their ethnicity.   They have obviously been given the freedom and education to make an informed choice to continue believing this version of events.

However I see your point (if I have understood it correctly) that a relatively uneducated African person, for example, who believes the same thing should not be subject to the same level of scrutiny as the American senator because their worldview will not have had the same chances of development.  In this scenario it might seem that to ridicule their religious beliefs is to ridicule their ethnicity as one is intertwined with the other.

 

[Corkboy]

You can't criticise any belief that comes from honest ignorance. I would have thought that was self evident.

[Yorkykopite]

To take it back to the original question - is ridiculing people's religion akin to ridiculing their ethnicity......

Not at all. I understand the Dawkins point that the type of religious beliefs you hold are usually a matter of where you were born. That seems empirically true. But although it's a clever move to turn this point on its head and claim that - as a consequence - ridiculing religion is akin to ridiculing a person's ethnicity, that's all it is - a piece of sophistry. It would be like claiming immunity to any belief system that came, as it were, 'with the territory'. One would be prevented under this code from, say, ridiculing American patriotism since most American patriots are demonstrably born in America. Or, even better, since there's far less immigration, Russian patriotism. But we'd find it objectionable to be told that we shouldn't ridicule or even criticise the followers of Putin since the followers of Putin were born in Russia and therefore predisposed at birth to love their country.

There's no difference between this and territorially-based religious belief. They're both fair game for criticism and ridicule.

Unlike fixed racial or ethnic characteristics over which people have no control and which therefore ought to command an equality respect.

[electricghost]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24516181

Malaysia court rules non-Muslims cannot use 'Allah'

A Malaysian court has ruled that non-Muslims cannot use the word Allah to refer to God, even in their own faiths, overturning a 2009 lower court ruling.

The appeals court said the term Allah must be exclusive to Islam or it could cause public disorder.

People of all faiths use the word Allah in Malay to refer to their Gods.

Christians argue they have used the word, which entered Malay from Arabic, to refer to their God for centuries and that the ruling violates their rights.

One Malaysian Christian woman said the ruling would affect the community greatly.

"If we are prohibited from using the word Allah then we have to re-translate the whole Bible, if it comes to that," Ester Moiji from Sabah state told the BBC.
'Disappointed and dismayed'

The 2009 ruling sparked tensions, with churches and mosques attacked.

It came after the government said that a Catholic newspaper, The Herald, could not use the word in its Malay-language edition to describe the Christian God.

The newspaper sued, and a court ruled in their favour in December 2009. The government then launched an appeal.

Upholding the appeal on Monday, chief judge Mohamed Apandi Ali said: "The usage of the word Allah is not an integral part of the faith in Christianity. The usage of the word will cause confusion in the community."

The Herald editor Reverend Lawrence Andrew said he was "disappointed and dismayed", and would appeal against the decision.

"It is a retrograde step in the development of law in relation to the fundamental liberty of religious minorities," he said.

The newspaper's supporters have argued that Malay-language Bibles have used Allah to refer to the Christian God since before Malaysia was formed as a federal state in 1963.

"Allah is a term in the Middle East and in Indonesia it is a term both for Christians and Muslims. You cannot say that in all of the sudden it is not an integral part. Malay language is a language that has many borrowed words, Allah also is a borrowed word."

However, some Muslim groups have said that the Christian use of the word Allah could be used to encourage Muslims to convert to Christianity.

"Allah is not a Malay word. If they [non-Muslims] say they want to use a Malay word they should use Tuhan instead of Allah," Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar, a lawyer representing the government, told the BBC.

Dozens of churches and a few Muslim prayer halls were attacked and burned in the wake of the 2009 ruling, highlighting the intensity of feeling about issues of ethnicity and faith in Malaysia.

Some Malaysians believe the governing Malay-Muslim party is using the case to boost its Islamic credentials among voters, the BBC's Jennifer Pak reports from outside the court in Putrajaya.

Malay Muslims make up almost two-thirds of the country's population, but there are large Hindu and Christian communities.

Prime Minister Najib Razak's coalition won elections in May, but it was the coalition's worst result in more than half a century in power.

[Kenny's Jacket]

The current ruling party were concerned they would loose the election a few months ago to a party with more hardline Islamic views. Therefore the cheating that went on during election day was even more blatant, so it doesn't surprise me they are looking to increase popularity amongst the hardline muslims.

As for the verdict, just plain stupid and very typical of powerful malays.

[Yorkykopite]

Jonathan Swift would have a field day.

Is there a Malaysian Swift? I hope so.

[Golden_Child]

Does it? People are routinely ridiculed for being black, for being disabled, for being women, for being ugly, for being short, for being tall, etc etc. It is people who can't deal with people different from them who do the ridiculing.

I respect your opinions on LFC related matters but this post makes no sense.

I'm a CofE child who went to a catholic school (and thoroughly loved it). I even wanted to convert at age 11 but it didn't happen.

At age 14 I realised that the David v Goliath story was bollocks and decided that the bible was bullshit. Everything since has just confirmed this.

One thing I can say is that religion is ultimately a personal choice. Many factors may affect this but it does not discount the opinions of people of a magic sky wizard.

Many people do not believe but don't say anything because of their surroundings. The number of atheists is much higher than you believe.

None of these things are the same as being gay, black or trans.

I can't be talked into loving cock by a 'preacher', I can't be turned black.

Its a non debate.

[Corkboy]

"Islam does not allow terrorism at any cost. Islam condemns all violence and terrorism plaguing the world today. Muslims should demonstrate a love for peace and unity,” Sheikh Abdulaziz al-Sheikh, the Grand Mufti of the Ka'aba.

[AA1122]

I find the 'phenomenon' of jihad and these Islamist groups very interesting. This discussion should not be about who are the worst people in the world? Or, is religion a load of bullshit? The real questions are about why are so many young male muslims turning to jihad and radical Islamist groups? And, how do we stop this?

These groups seem to be thriving all of the time with new groups emerging in countries all over the world. I find it pretty scary, the influence that some of these groups have, when the majority of fighters are barely out of adolescence. To think that they can now be bearing arms and ruining peoples lives.

What would their argument be? This BBC article is pretty interesting, it says that 'jihadists' (maybe this is not the correct term for some of the people described) go to Syria 'humanitarian reasons' and that many are well-educated and from middle class backgrounds. Of course, many may be poorly educated and go to these groups for many other reasons.

Who are the British jihadists in Syria?
The home secretary and MI5 have warned about the terrorist threat from British residents fighting in Syria. But who are these young men who have gone to fight in another country's war - how did they get there, what are their long term goals and do they pose a threat to UK security?

MI5 says there could be as many as 200 British fighters in Syria. With other Europeans, they make up around 10% of the foreign opposition forces, with most coming from Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and Libya.

The BBC has learned there are a group of 20 young men from the UK who are fighting against forces allied to President Bashar al-Assad near Atma, on the Turkish border.

One of the men, who calls himself Abu Muhadjar, says he had a good upbringing: "I grew up in fairly nice area. I come from a decent family, close-knit family, well educated. Everyone in my family is a university graduate. I'd consider it a middle class family.

"My family do know where I am and what I'm doing. Just like any mother and father, of course they're going to be worried about their son. I'd be lying to say it's not dangerous here and no-one wants to bury their own children."

The BBC has questioned a number of jihadists on the front line through a Muslim journalist in Syria. They would not talk to us directly by phone or Skype because of concerns about their security and we have no independent means of verifying their identity.

Abu Muhadjar would not give much away about his background, but explained why he was there: "There's many reasons made me leave my life and come here. The first is religious reasons - due to the fact that it's upon every single Muslim to protect Muslim lands and blood of Muslims if it's been transgressed upon.

"Second is humanitarian reasons - alongside of my fighting I tend to do aid work as well."

Shiraz Maher of the Centre for the Study of Radicalisation at King's College London, says Syria has become a magnet for young Muslims across the world eager to take part in jihad - a holy war, or struggle to defend Islam.

He says: "At the moment Syria seems to dominate the global jihadist mind, it is the premier location in the world to go and fight jihad today."

Mr Maher says: "One of the interesting things we've seen is that other jihadist groups, such as al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and (al-Shabab) in Somalia have issued a communique saying, 'Listen, don't forget about us, we also need foreign fighters, don't all go to Syria.'"

He says intelligence sources have told him most British jihadists are in their 20s, university-educated and Muslims of British Pakistani origin.

The BBC has been told that up to 20 people from the Sudanese community and several Syrians from the UK have gone to fight in Syria.

What concerns British officials most is how many are fighting with jihadist groups linked to terrorism.

Richard Barrett, a former intelligence officer who has recently been working for the UN on counter terrorism, says it is likely to be the majority: "Many rebel groups are wary of foreign fighters because they think they're going to be out of control.

"Many foreign fighters are being attracted to the extremist wing and al-Qaeda people are encouraging them to come and join them."

With Turkey only a budget flight away, it is cheaper for jihadists to get there and cross to Syria to fight than it is to get to Afghanistan or Somalia.

While some have gone under their own steam, the BBC has also been told of organised networks to get young men there.

Salah al Bander, who runs the Sudanese Diaspora and Islamism Project, says extremists recruit these young men through prayer rooms attached to mosques and then arrange their travel.

He says: "These kids don't have the means to buy a plane ticket. There is a kind of railroad between British and Western cities and linking points in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey to bring these individuals inside Syria to go and join specific organisations."

But Abu Muhadjar says the decision to go to Syria was his alone: "There's no recruitment process to come here. It's an individual decision that I took.

"Upon my arrival I found some like-minded brothers, I came across in the same manner. Their goals are the same so they're the ones that I was attracted towards the most and I joined them so we can fight together."

Home Secretary Theresa May has described Syria as a training ground for a new generation of British terrorists and the head of MI5 says thousands of Islamist extremists see the British public as a legitimate target for attacks.

But another British jihadist, who calls himself Abu Islam, says Britain has nothing to worry from him: "For me personally I was born and raised there, that's my home.

"If I wanted to do something in UK I wouldn't have come here. If I did want to do something in UK I would have already done it by now, but I'm here. "

Abu Muhadjar also denies they will be a threat: "That's slightly surreal to go back to UK and start a jihad there. I do understand their concern but you cannot paint everyone with the same brush.

"As to the global jihad - I couldn't tell you if I'm going to be alive tomorrow let alone future plans."

In its annual report to Parliament, the Intelligence and Security Committee described the involvement of UK residents in Syria as posing a significant threat for years to come but chairman Sir Malcolm Rifkind says not everyone who returns will be radicalised.

He says: "There will be some who have gone purely because of strong feelings about Syria and may not feel the same extreme views in regard to other countries including the United Kingdom.

"But we must assume that from amongst the total, there will be some who seek to use the experience they have obtained in Syria for further acts of terrorism in this country. That must be a possibility."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24520762 (This topic will be discussed on Radio 4 tonight http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03cn72s)

The fact is that this 'phenomenon', as I would call it, only seems to be increasing and if we cannot engage and prevent these people from these activities then we could have very scary times ahead.

"Islam does not allow terrorism at any cost. Islam condemns all violence and terrorism plaguing the world today. Muslims should demonstrate a love for peace and unity,” Sheikh Abdulaziz al-Sheikh, the Grand Mufti of the Ka'aba.

I would say that Islam and the political use of Islamism are two different things, although I am not really qualified to talk on the subject. I just find it fascinating and alarming.

[zero zero]

The fact is that this 'phenomenon', as I would call it, only seems to be increasing and if we cannot engage and prevent these people from these activities then we could have very scary times ahead.

Interesting article, AA.

How would you hope to prevent Britons from going to Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and eventually Syria? Also, how is this any different from people who went to fight against Franco in the Spanish Civil War?

[Corkboy]

ADDIS ABABA - Two Somali suicide bombers who had planned to kill soccer fans during Ethiopia’s World Cup qualifying match against Nigeria on Sunday blew themselves up accidentally before carrying out the attack, the Ethiopian government said on Monday. source

[electricghost]

Jonathan Kay: Outside the world’s media glare, Bangladesh is fighting against militant Islam

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/10/15/jonathan-kay-outside-the-worlds-media-glare-bangladesh-is-fighting-against-militant-islam/

[only6times]

A cover version of Roy Harpers "Black cloud of Islam" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_Nb4ryg6Vo

[jambutty]

"Islam does not allow terrorism at any cost. Islam condemns all violence and terrorism plaguing the world today. Muslims should demonstrate a love for peace and unity,” Sheikh Abdulaziz al-Sheikh, the Grand Mufti of the Ka'aba.

This needs to become a fatwah. 

[electricghost]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24582781

UK Muslims warned of militant al-Shabab threat


British Muslims who speak out against extremism are being warned that they could be targeted by members of the Somali militant group al-Shabab.

British Muslim commentator Mohammed Ansar said he was currently under police protection because of what he was told was a "credible threat".

It comes after al-Shabab militants posted a video online which named Muslims who have criticised jihadists.

Scotland Yard said it was investigating the video.

The hour-long film is narrated by an unidentified man with a British accent.

It praises acts of Islamist terrorism.


Mr Ansar said he was visited by police and given protection earlier this week.

The imam and broadcaster Ajmal Masroor said he had also had a late night visit from two detectives after he was named in the film.

He said police warned him they had credible evidence of a potential threat against him.

But Mr Masroor told the BBC he would not be silenced and would continue to speak out against terrorism and extremism.

Scotland Yard confirmed it had spoken to a number of individuals and said it was currently assessing the contents of the video.

At least 67 people died when suspected al-Shabab militants stormed Kenya's Westgate shopping centre on 21 September.

Al-Shabab is fighting to create an Islamic state in Somalia and is banned as a terrorist group by both the US and the UK.

The Islamist group, which is believed to have between 7,000 and 9,000 fighters, controls large parts of Somalia.

[the 92A]

To be anti-Zionist does not equate with being anti-Semitic however when 'anti-Zionism is used as a cover to trot out anti-Semitic ideas such as Jewish control of the Banking system that is not anti-Zionist but anti-Semitic and has no place on RAWK.

[youll never walk alone it]

But  being antil muslim is ok mate?

[The Fletcher Memorial]

But  being antil muslim is ok mate?

Who's being anti muslim?

[Bullet500]

What's the biggest threat to world peace today?

Abrahamic cults have been nothing more than threats to world peace anyway. Historically, I think the largest number of people have been killed are due to conflicts caused by these cults.

With all due respect to everyone, can't you keep your opinions to yourself? If you're atheists and don't believe in religions, so be it. Why you people try to impose your views on others? If faith is a personal matter and should not be imposed on others, not believing in faith should not be imposed. Wherever any violence based on religion occurs, the atheists barge in, tell their opinions well and good and spew venom on the religion and faith. Blame the madness of men and their thirst for power, ego... and don't blame something they use to justify their hatred. By concentrating only on negative things committed in the name of religion, these intellectuals are discounting everything good that's done because of faith, just because it doesn't their narrative. Every group has zealots.  Aren't we being tribal and do idiotic things in the name of love of Liverpool FC. Btw, I'm not equating them two.

If world is without religion, these rationalists would've us believe the world will be a peaceful place, full of prosperity and happiness. Because that's what happened in Latin countries, Russia, Vietnam, Cambodia, China and the South East bloc controlled by Communists.  Yeah, right. Religion did not play much of a role in the shaping of those societies. So what went wrong? These people are discounting the unbelievable power and depth of madness of humans, their unquenchable thirst for power and influence over others. Religion did more of a good than bad if you look at it whole. Don't blame the arrow but the archer. Religion is a powerful idea. It depends on how it is being used. Suggest people will do well to read "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" among other books. We don't have a stable mind. We are a weak willed species.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

One last request, if you are non-believer fine. Why do you blame everything negative on religion and God? If you do that, then will you come into every thread where the belief in God and faith changed the life of people for the better and praise the religion? We know your ideas, you have made it known countless times. It's so tiresome this constant scapegoating of religions. If you want bash up religion, then create threads where it has helped people a lot too, if you're truly rational. Lastly, religion is a good tool. It works according to who wields it.

Cults are never good for any society. What's the difference between the Communist cult and "religious" cult? I don't see any.

Truly a fascinating concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Judgment

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Abrahamic cults have been nothing more than threats to world peace anyway. Historically, I think the largest number of people have been killed are due to conflicts caused by these cults.

You are wrong by at least a whole order of magnitude but don't let that stop you preaching...