Originally Posted by Burney
At least we have one candidate to vote for on Thursday who wishes to hold Saudi Arabia to account. Too bad the other main runner is an ally of the evil Wahabbists though.
Sorry, the thought of Jeremy holding someone to account is just hilarious.
Ah, but those 'conversations' will be condemned as racist or Islamophobic by all the usual suspects and be shut down. It's already happening. The Guardian this morning has run an article condemning any such talk. The article was of course written by a muslim convert who happens to work for a Saudi-funded organisation within one of our leading (and most radicalised) universities.
They're not interested in 'conversations'.
For me, the problem is that it's impossible to counter the ideology behind these attacks without denigrating the entire religion of Islam.
How could an Imam look a young man at risk of radicalisation in the eyes and tell him simultaneously that a) The Koran contains the literal, uncreated word of Allah b) Muhammad flew to the moon on a winged horse c) Everything the Koran says about martyrdom is bull**** and should be ignored
The problem here is religious faith
The slight problem being that 'holding the Saudis to account' would mean our petrol stations running dry in a week and the lights going out.
I despise the Saudis and agree with you about their role in all this, but to ignore the vicious realities of realpolitik is just childish.
Burney, a few weeks ago you assured me that I'd wake up on June 9th a happy man.The slight problem being that 'holding the Saudis to account' would mean our petrol stations running dry in a week and the lights going out.
I despise the Saudis and agree with you about their role in all this, but to ignore the vicious realities of realpolitik is just childish.
Are you as sure today as you were then?
I'm experiencing a severe bout of squeaky bum time
True, but with each atrocity the sympathy for that sort of political correctness lessens and the focus on issues within our Muslim communities becomes greater. I think there's enough acceptance now that these conversations need to be held.
Chap in the Times the other day wrote a an article that was difficult to argue with, actually. It effectively said that we'll beat the terrorists the way we always do. We'll put up with it until they grow bored of killing us.
Oddly enough, of all people the Archbish of Cant was on Today this morning actually pointing out that to suggest ISIS has 'nothing to do with Islam' or isn't religiously motivated is arrant nonsense and that muslims must acknowledge their religion's role in all this. He also pointed out that this 'nothing to do with Islam' line was usually trotted out by secular liberals who have no understanding of what faith actually means to a religious believer and the role it plays in dictating their actions. The presenter clearly didn't like this much and kept going on about how they were 'deranged'.For me, the problem is that it's impossible to counter the ideology behind these attacks without denigrating the entire religion of Islam.
How could an Imam look a young man at risk of radicalisation in the eyes and tell him simultaneously that a) The Koran contains the literal, uncreated word of Allah b) Muhammad flew to the moon on a winged horse c) Everything the Koran says about martyrdom is bull**** and should be ignored
The problem here is religious faith
I mean, being a lefty CofE type, he fudged it about with a load of waffle about ecumenism, 'outreach' and 'good neighbours', but his point was very much that this IS about Islam.
True, but with each atrocity the sympathy for that sort of political correctness lessens and the focus on issues within our Muslim communities becomes greater. I think there's enough acceptance now that these conversations need to be held.
Chap in the Times the other day wrote a an article that was difficult to argue with, actually. It effectively said that we'll beat the terrorists the way we always do. We'll put up with it until they grow bored of killing us.
They won't get bored. Hatred of non-believers defines them. There is no concession we could make (short of becoming a pure Sharia state) that will ever appease them and there is no negotiation to be had. Why would they get 'bored'?
I think the nature of Islam is often misrepresented in this regard. That's why we have so many Muslims who quite happily coexist with the rest of us within a liberal, secular democracy. I was interested what Islam and Sharia Law actually said about homosexuality so I googled this the other day. I was surprised at the lack of clarity the Koran really provides. It suggests that my view that much of this extremism is culturally driven, as opposed to being required by Islam, is correct.For me, the problem is that it's impossible to counter the ideology behind these attacks without denigrating the entire religion of Islam.
How could an Imam look a young man at risk of radicalisation in the eyes and tell him simultaneously that a) The Koran contains the literal, uncreated word of Allah b) Muhammad flew to the moon on a winged horse c) Everything the Koran says about martyrdom is bull**** and should be ignored
The problem here is religious faith
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote