Burka ban

smacl · 31-08-2016 03:37PM

I'm religious and support the ban

recedite wrote: »

That refers to a traditional form of Islam in countries such as Albania, the Caucasus and some former soviet republics, a form which is perhaps more used to co-existing with other peoples. The Islam practiced in the UK is predominantly Pakistani and Bangladeshi in origin, while in France it is of North African origin. With both heavily influenced in recent years by Saudi inspired Salafist preachers. I don't think the Pew research has anything to say on these sub-groups that exist in Western Europe, but the You Tube video I posted gives a fair idea of the mindset of one such group in the UK, which is probably fairly typical.

Agreed that the Pew research isn't that relevant to issues being seen in Western Europe, and that the influence of Salafists such as Fahad Quresh is a cause of concern. With regards to the UK, the survey I previously linked does give some notion of the effect of this influence which remains quite small. (~5% by my reading, YMMV). I would also be concerned that blunt anti-Islamic sentiment directed at the larger Muslim community is playing into the hands of the extremists, who need a sympathetic Muslim population to survive and grow.

More simply, I think having a go at the Muslim population as a whole in Western Europe over the actions of ISIS is misguided. Once again, and also stated in the linked survey, the moderate Muslim population should clearly be doing more to distance itself from the extremists.

recedite · 31-08-2016 04:03PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

smacl wrote: »

the moderate Muslim population should clearly be doing more to distance itself from the extremists.

Unfortunately the extremists are the ones who are following the Koran and doing it right. They are not going to accept any criticism from the nominal "Muslim" who goes to the pub and has a pint and a pork pie. That guy is just going to lie low and hope everybody else leaves him alone.

smacl · 31-08-2016 04:43PM

I'm religious and support the ban

recedite wrote: »

Unfortunately the extremists are the ones who are following the Koran and doing it right. They are not going to accept any criticism from the nominal "Muslim" who goes to the pub and has a pint and a pork pie. That guy is just going to lie low and hope everybody else leaves him alone.

Quite possibly, but the nominal Muslim with his pint of bitter and pork pie is about as likely to be influenced by Salafist extremists as you or I are to become scientologists. Of those I know in the UK, they like the pint and the pork pie, tow the line when at home with the family, and have no interest in religion whatsoever.

starshine1234 · 31-08-2016 04:50PM

But they also have no interest in being killed. Their more extreme compatriots would likely target moderate muslims to make an example of them to minimise defections.

It's not that different to how a criminal gang, like the Mafia, control large groups of people through intimidation and fear.

Moderate muslims have no appetite to stick their head above the parapet and I think they're right to take that attitude.

silverharp · 31-08-2016 05:40PM

As interesting aside (not burqa related) , Sargon reads a Pakistani skeptic's letter about some aspects tot he political side of Islam. some interesting points brought up about how islam sees the west and the west sees Islam

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2xtSUCQWLA

Peregrinus · 01-09-2016 02:26AM

recedite wrote: »

Unfortunately the extremists are the ones who are following the Koran and doing it right. They are not going to accept any criticism from the nominal "Muslim" who goes to the pub and has a pint and a pork pie. That guy is just going to lie low and hope everybody else leaves him alone.

Well, the extremist will be glad to know that he has a fatwa from such an authoritative imam as recidite to the effect that he is "doing it right".

This will be particularly comforting as the overwhelming weight of opinion in the Islamic world is that he is doing it wrong. This view is not confined to nominal Muslims who drink pints and eat pork pies; it's absolutely the mainstream religious view. And this is hardly surprising, when we consider that 99% of Islamist violence is directed at Muslims. Muslims are hardly likely to find much appeal in a view which holds that authentic Islam basically consists of the Islamic world cannibalising itself. That view is, basically, only held by psychotics and bigots.

In fact, rec, you must be one of the few people to hold this view who is neither a psychotic nor a bigot. You should think more carefully about the company you are keeping!

recedite · 01-09-2016 10:48AM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Peregrinus wrote: »

In fact, rec, you must be one of the few people to hold this view who is neither a psychotic nor a bigot.

Very charitable of you to give me the benefit of the doubt there

Anyway, punishments such as death and stoning are clearly advocated in the Koran, which was written by Mohammad and directed by Allah himself. The problem for those seeking to kill apostates and heretics is that different variations of Islam such as shia and sunni have come to view each other as heretics, hence the "cannibalism" as you call it. But for those involved, it is not cannibalism, because the other crowd are clearly heretics and are doing it all wrong.
Hence, both are right in their own way.

Michael OBrien · 01-09-2016 10:53AM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, the extremist will be glad to know that he has a fatwa from such an authoritative imam as recidite to the effect that he is "doing it right".

This will be particularly comforting as the overwhelming weight of opinion in the Islamic world is that he is doing it wrong. This view is not confined to nominal Muslims who drink pints and eat pork pies; it's absolutely the mainstream religious view. And this is hardly surprising, when we consider that 99% of Islamist violence is directed at Muslims. Muslims are hardly likely to find much appeal in a view which holds that authentic Islam basically consists of the Islamic world cannibalising itself. That view is, basically, only held by psychotics and bigots.

In fact, rec, you must be one of the few people to hold this view who is neither a psychotic nor a bigot. You should think more carefully about the company you are keeping!

There are many things wrong with your analysis and also of the pork pie eating muslim analysis.
There is a huge difference between objecting to ISIS and objecting to most of the practices of ISIS. There are salafists that don't support ISIS because they don't recognise their leader as the legitimate caliphate. Other reasons are based on myth and legend, as some of the objections that were brought up in the letter the non ISIS head clerics wrote to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Mostly its political manuvouring.
Of course any NON salafists will find fault with ISIS because ISIS views them as apostates. So asking non salafists is going to be like asking non irish catholics about if they support the IRA.
Islam is not ONE religion but many many variants, much like other religions in that regard. However Islam also states this is a sign of falsehood, so 'true' muslims don't see other muslims as muslims, hence the killing of 'muslims' are not in contradiction at all, much like how protestants don't see catholics as christians, and have killed them.

In so far as the drinking, pork pie eater being no risk, that is also a mistake.
The guy that when shooting and driving a van through crowds of people in Nice shouting allahu akbar was allegedly a criminal that had lived a fairly unlsamic life until RECENTLY radicalized.
In Islam there is a balance of sin, with angels on each shoulder recording all your sins. If you lived a bad life and then became VERY religious, you are now going to be very worried about hell. The ONLY way to guarantee salvation is through Jihad and Martyrdom. There are other ways to help balance the books, but if you want to be 100% sure, that is how you do it, according to the quran which 100% of all devout muslims accept as divinely written (more than even christians believe in the bible, as the quran was hand made in gold by allah, given to gabriel to show Mohammed, which he recited to others to record (after a fashion).
So you can radicalise a pork eating muslim, and there are plenty of muslims that view sowing your seeds when young and being more observant when older as acceptable behaviour, as long as you balance your deeds ultimately.
So for instance doing Dawah is one great way for a muslim to balance the books as it were. This includes deceit if necessary as the goal is more to balance the books than worry if the 'new' muslim is informed and legitimate.
This is why 7 out of 9 new western recruits leave Islam within 2 years, as they were tricked into saying the shahada. In muslim countries 'leaving' is much harder of course as both the quran and strong hadiths support killing apostates.

silverharp · 01-09-2016 12:39PM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Islam is not ONE religion but many many variants, much like other religions in that regard. However Islam also states this is a sign of falsehood, so 'true' muslims don't see other muslims as muslims, hence the killing of 'muslims' are not in contradiction at all, much like how protestants don't see catholics as christians, and have killed them.

Assuming you are taking about NI , I doubt many people were killed because they had a false view of God ? whereas for instance that Muslim shop keeper in Scotland that was murdered was specifically because his religious views were "wrong"

Odd aside there was a case in France recently were a French couple were attacked in a restaurant because they had ham on their pizza, the 2 muslims were trying to sell them drugs at the time and told the couple they would go to hell. Not overly logical as the couple were presumably going to hell anyway as they weren't Muslim.

Michael OBrien · 01-09-2016 04:02PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

silverharp wrote: »

Assuming you are taking about NI , I doubt many people were killed because they had a false view of God ? whereas for instance that Muslim shop keeper in Scotland that was murdered was specifically because his religious views were "wrong"

Odd aside there was a case in France recently were a French couple were attacked in a restaurant because they had ham on their pizza, the 2 muslims were trying to sell them drugs at the time and told the couple they would go to hell. Not overly logical as the couple were presumably going to hell anyway as they weren't Muslim.

The points were based on two different issues. I was trying to make the point that christianity, like Islam, has a history of infighting and it does not stop both sides calling themselves christian.

On the other paragraph. That is kinda funny, its almost like a trigger moment. It reminds me of Hitchen's story about certain catholic IRA members objecting to their use of condoms in bombs on religious grounds.

Cabaal · 01-09-2016 05:35PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Michael OBrien wrote: »

The points were based on two different issues. I was trying to make the point that christianity, like Islam, has a history of infighting and it does not stop both sides calling themselves christian.

I would hope we can atleast all agree on this,

There's are millions of people that call themselves Christians, some old extreme views that gay people should be killed or that being gay should be illegal etc.

You have only to look at the 82% self per-claimed Catholics in Ireland, we know for a fact that the vast majority of which must certainly don't even agree with the Vatican's rules on marriage, sex, gay people etc.

Much as there are millions of people that call themselves Muslims, but like Christians their views also differ massively. That still however doesn't stop them from call themselves Muslim...even if the eat bacon, have a state marriage to a non-muslim etc.

Both sides have in fighting, both sides have murdered people of their own faith and both sides have dark dark histories.

No faith is squeaky clean, but also no side should be entirely tarred with the same brush just because some people in the religion do very bad things. It is however evident from many posts in this thread that many just love to tar.

recedite · 01-09-2016 10:44PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Cabaal wrote: »

No faith is squeaky clean, but also no side should be entirely tarred with the same brush just because some people in the religion do very bad things. It is however evident from many posts in this thread that many just love to tar.

In the same way, you could say that during WWII both sides did some terrible things, so nobody was really to blame.
Well actually, the side following the aggressive, expansionist, domineering ideology were to blame. The less radicalised citizens on the same side as the nazis were also to blame, but to a lesser extent.

silverharp · 02-09-2016 08:05AM

Cabaal wrote: »

I would hope we can atleast all agree on this,

There's are millions of people that call themselves Christians, some old extreme views that gay people should be killed or that being gay should be illegal etc.

You have only to look at the 82% self per-claimed Catholics in Ireland, we know for a fact that the vast majority of which must certainly don't even agree with the Vatican's rules on marriage, sex, gay people etc.

Much as there are millions of people that call themselves Muslims, but like Christians their views also differ massively. That still however doesn't stop them from call themselves Muslim...even if the eat bacon, have a state marriage to a non-muslim etc.

Both sides have in fighting, both sides have murdered people of their own faith and both sides have dark dark histories.

No faith is squeaky clean, but also no side should be entirely tarred with the same brush just because some people in the religion do very bad things. It is however evident from many posts in this thread that many just love to tar.

it was a point brought up in the video I linked but the west has not had to deal with a religion that is in its ascendancy. its not tarring everyone but its about seeing a religious/political set of ideas that you want to see less of not more of and not sure where it will go if the establishment just sits on its hands.

Cabaal · 02-09-2016 08:23AM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

recedite wrote: »

In the same way, you could say that during WWII both sides did some terrible things, so nobody was really to blame.
Well actually, the side following the aggressive, expansionist, domineering ideology were to blame. The less radicalised citizens on the same side as the nazis were also to blame, but to a lesser extent.

good job Godwining your own post,

Second off, both religions have a history of oppressive expansion to the loss of locals.

smacl · 02-09-2016 08:26AM

I'm religious and support the ban

recedite wrote: »

In the same way, you could say that during WWII both sides did some terrible things, so nobody was really to blame.
Well actually, the side following the aggressive, expansionist, domineering ideology were to blame. The less radicalised citizens on the same side as the nazis were also to blame, but to a lesser extent.

Worth remembering that history books are written by the winner. If we're talking aggressive, expansionist and domineering the British Empire comes to mind first, but many other countries in Europe and throughout the world were similar. As for invasive idealogy (and never one to miss a dig the Catholics), how about the Spanish conquistadors in South America for example?

I don't buy the good guys vs bad guys line for most conflicts. Once you start digging, you'll find no shortage of atrocities committed by most major powers throughout history.

recedite · 02-09-2016 08:31AM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Cabaal wrote: »

both religions have a history of oppressive expansion to the loss of locals.

smacl wrote: »

history books...
..atrocities committed by most major powers throughout history.

For Christianity it is just that; ancient history. Those days have gone, and the religion has become liberal and modernised.
Secondly, Christianity is just a religion, whereas Islam is an ideology combined with a religion. Islam is never comfortable until it dominates the society it infiltrates. It contains a whole set of rules and regulations about how society should be run, and how to treat any dissenters (which is badly).

silverharp · 02-09-2016 08:32AM

Cabaal wrote: »

Second off, both religions have a history of oppressive expansion to the loss of locals.

so they get their go now? :pac:

smacl · 02-09-2016 09:45AM

I'm religious and support the ban

recedite wrote: »

For Christianity it is just that; ancient history. Those days have gone, and the religion has become liberal and modernised.
Secondly, Christianity is just a religion, whereas Islam is an ideology combined with a religion. Islam is never comfortable until it dominates the society it infiltrates. It contains a whole set of rules and regulations about how society should be run, and how to treat any dissenters (which is badly).

Depends what you consider ancient. Ireland was agressively homophobic until a few decades ago and the church has a long history of abuse, particularly of those who are in breach of its archaic notions of morality. 1663 dead women in Magdalene laundries ring any bells? The first and second gulf wars were also waged by predominantly Christian powers on foreign soil for what are increasingly looking like rather dubious reasons. Never did find those WMDs and the subsequent war on terror has led to in excess of one million casualties.

Note the above is in no way a pro-Islam argument, just a reminder that there is no shortage of atrocious action coming from the West either. Having worked in bible belt America and parts of the Middle East, I find them both pretty oppressive.

Michael OBrien · 02-09-2016 11:34AM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

recedite wrote: »

For Christianity it is just that; ancient history. Those days have gone, and the religion has become liberal and modernised.
Secondly, Christianity is just a religion, whereas Islam is an ideology combined with a religion. Islam is never comfortable until it dominates the society it infiltrates. It contains a whole set of rules and regulations about how society should be run, and how to treat any dissenters (which is badly).

I would say that christianity is far from liberal or modernised. Its apologetics are modernised and some christians are liberal but the faith, the texts, remain the same. Uganda being a shining example of this.
Christianity is still awful, in every way, it is just muzzled in the west. The beast is not tamed, so if the secular rule slips, it will still get bad pretty quick. The statements from the PR pope on transgender issues shows that even the Catholic church (which is the most consistently politically savvy of the major christian denominations to my limited knowledge) is still terrible (leaving aside even their rampant sex abuse scandals).
I am far more worried about Christianity than Islam. I critisize the Islamic texts because I find media lie about that a lot, and that is dangerous, but Christianity has the power in the West, and that means it is more likely to sting you than Islam.
I attended a baptist bible study, at the request of the pastor, and found the message very disturbing, very predatory and very depressing. Nothing was liberal or modernised, except a thin skin of music and food. People were nice, but a kind of stepford wives nice.

recedite · 02-09-2016 12:21PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Stepford wives are in the ha-penny place compared to some Burqa wives. Ever wonder what they talk about in private?
This video from our neighbours across the water in Yorkshire.

looksee · 02-09-2016 12:58PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

'A Muslim should emigrate to a Muslim country' ... so why is she still there?

It did seem that one person was making all the claims, I am not sure that she was getting all that much support. I think that if a woman here went to a similar meeting in a Christian environment - ok maybe 20 years ago - she would be unlikely to argue with the speaker putting forth ideas about, say, Catholic education. She might go away and say, 'well that was a load of nonsense', but she was not likely to step out of line in front of her neighbours. And anyone not interested in being talked to about religious matters would not be at the meeting in the first place.

I did go to meetings in a rural area, maybe 30 years ago, just a discussion group doing much what Boards or facebook does now, sharing ideas. It was not a religious meeting at all, though everyone except me was Irish and Catholic, and the Parish Priest turned up, just to keep an eye on proceedings. He actually said that it was his responsibility to make sure that discussions were 'appropriate', and no-one pulled him up on it.

Cabaal · 04-09-2016 08:36AM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

recedite wrote: »

For Christianity it is just that; ancient history. Those days have gone,

Are they?
Funny enough it was christian groups that heavily inspired Uganda to bring in Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014...otherwise known as the Kill the Gays bill. Not forgetting the Russian Orthodox Church involvement in anti-gay laws in Russia.

They still very much have blood on their hands,

recedite wrote: »

Christianity is just a religion, whereas Islam is an ideology combined with a religion. Islam is never comfortable until it dominates the society it infiltrates. It contains a whole set of rules and regulations about how society should be run, and how to treat any dissenters (which is badly).

You're kidding me right?
That line describes what the catholic church did in Ireland and here you are claiming christian religions are "just religions".
I'm thinking you don't know your history about religion in Ireland, perhaps start by doing some basic research on McQuaid,

GritBiscuit · 04-09-2016 09:57AM

I'm religious and support the ban

And let's not forget the Irish education system...still in 2016 designed to shut out Catholic dissenters and make the gateway to education difficult without that all magical baptismal cert...or the Christian symbology that still adorns the walls of public office. When the status quo is challenged it's often met with choruses of "We're a Christian society", "This is the way Ireland does things, don't like it get out", etc, etc. Doesn't sound particularly progressive and inclusive to me...

Why is allowing a religion that declares gay people to be second class citizens the right to educate our children or refusing women the right to bodily integrity through the 8th amendment any less damaging or pervasive? I'm obviously not a fan of Muslim extremists. I'm not a fan of the Burka either tbh, really I just don't like the idea that women are told what they can and can't do on a topic that men have absolute freedom from whether that be demanding women cover up or demanding they strip off...besides, I think if you want to argue freedoms without sounding hysterically anti-Muslim, you have to secularise your own back yard first.

Cabaal · 04-09-2016 10:05AM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

GritBiscuit wrote: »

When the status quo is challenged it's often met with choruses of "We're a Christian society", "This is the way Ireland does things, don't like it get out", etc, etc. Doesn't sound particularly progressive and inclusive to me...

You know I've actually had that said to me,

If I don't like the local tax payer funded and built school (it was built a few years ago) I should apparently move elsewhere or leave the country.
:rolleyes:

The church still has control in this country, in relation to laws, hospitals and school but also people's mindsets.

recedite · 04-09-2016 06:44PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Fair enough, sure the ladies at a bible study meeting are probably just as likely to have a chat about killing their neighbours. Muslims, methodists, meh... sure they're all the same anyway.

KingBrian2 · 04-09-2016 07:02PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Their are plenty of religious zealots whatever the religion. Allowing people to freely worship is key to any secular state.

Cabaal · 04-09-2016 07:05PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

recedite wrote: »

Fair enough, sure the ladies at a bible study meeting are probably just as likely to have a chat about killing their neighbours. Muslims, methodists, meh... sure they're all the same anyway.

and you think every muslim has this discussion too?
:rolleyes:

At the end of the day both religious books (christian and muslim) call for the death of people, you will have groups that use these texts as justification for their actions and deeds and you'll also have those that say the bits about killing people are not relevant or "taken out of context".

But also at the end of the day both religions need to modify their religious texts and remove such parts from them. They've edited their religious texts before and they can sure as hell do it again.

Of course removing the texts won't change the extremists on both sides, they'll merely refer back to the other text which is "gods word".

looksee · 04-09-2016 08:15PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

recedite wrote: »

Fair enough, sure the ladies at a bible study meeting are probably just as likely to have a chat about killing their neighbours. Muslims, methodists, meh... sure they're all the same anyway.

I was making the point that only one person in that group was proposing anything of the sort, people were asking questions but they were not 'chatting' about it. One woman did try to argue that making friends would be a good way of converting people, but she was dismissed.

I do not know how that group came to be there, whether they knew what they would be listening to, whether they knew each other well enough to feel free to dispute her arguments. These are women who have been brought up to be obedient and not argue, to obey the rules; they are not western women who know they can speak out without fear and are accustomed to both free speech and to having opinions.

jackofalltrades · 09-09-2016 02:35PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Thought this had to be a wind up when I first read it but it seems legit.
From here:

West Midlands Police said they have “no barriers” relating to the burka - which covers the face as well as the body - as they announced that they would discuss allowing the traditional Islamic dress to become part of a policewoman’s uniform.

Chief Constable David Thompson said he would look into employing officers who wear the burka as he tries to increase the percentage of black and minority ethnic (BME) officers in the region to 30 per cent.

recedite · 09-09-2016 03:07PM

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Burkinis assert their rights in Derry. Police protection was provided, despite no actual objectors being present.

We wore our traditional burkinis, despite the facebook oppression. A bit disappointed that there was nobody there at the beach to take any notice of us. The water was feckin freezing. Returned to the city happy that we had struck a blow for a woman's right to be oppressed by her religion. And a refugee's right to refuse to integrate, while milking the system for all its worth.

Burka ban

Comments