Trevor Phillips is presenting this program later this week. As you may know he is a former former head of Britain’s Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).
It seems, if this report is true, that he as a descendant of immigrants has serious concerns about the lack of integration of immigrants following the Muslim faith.
This link IS from Breitbart, but quotes Mr. Phillips writing in the Times, so perhaps may be of more value to those who are not, shall we say, on the same wavelength as Breitbart!
www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/10/thought-europes-muslims-gradually-blend-britains-diverse-landscape-known-better/
Some people may see Mr. Phillips as an "Uncle Tom": others may see him as a man who has seen the light!
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 11 Apr 16 at 13:59
|
The thread seems on the border line.
What are the other forum posters thinking.
The thread seems like a great discussion.
Well done for posting it.
|
I have a horrible feeling about where this thread may head...
Is it too much to hope that offensive sentiments will be avoided?
Last edited by: Focal Point on Sun 10 Apr 16 at 19:34
|
|
Roger dissing muslims? Yawn.
|
"Roger dissing muslims? Yawn."
As I read it, Mr Phillips was dissing Muslims. If that were the case, then is Mr Phillips a racist? We need to hear the expert views of the sniffers.
|
>> Roger dissing muslims? Yawn.
>>
Instead of attacking the messenger, why not answer the points made in the article?
If you have an informed opinion that is different to Roger's or mine or in this case Trevor Phillips...share it.
|
snipquote once more for the lazy git
>> If you have an informed opinion that is different to Roger's or mine or in
>> this case Trevor Phillips...share it.
Because Trevor Philips is not constantly battering this web site on a daily basis with every bad thing he can drag up, mostly stuff which is made up from sources with an agenda that agrees with his.
So Yawn.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 11 Apr 16 at 01:32
|
>> Because Trevor Philips is not constantly battering this web site on a daily basis with
>> every bad thing he can drag up, mostly stuff which is made up from sources
>> with an agenda that agrees with his.
>>
>> So Yawn.
>>
Yes, yes, yes........ very good.
So what do you think of Trevor Phillip's views then?
|
Ah different question.
I'll let you know when i have seen the program that goes with the newspaper article.
|
>> Yes, yes, yes........ very good.
>>
>> So what do you think of Trevor Phillip's views then?
Looking at the briebart summary answer me this
>>One in five Muslims in Britain never enter a non-Muslim house;
How many non muslims enter a muslim house? less than one in five i guess.
>>39 per cent of Muslims, male and female, say a woman should always obey her husband;
I wonder what the non muslim answer would be? - funnily they have add male and female in there, does that say muslim women are happy to obey? When did "obey" get removed from Christian marriage vows?
>>31 per cent of British Muslims support the right of a man to have more than one wife;
How many non muslim have affairs? what percentage of mormons support polygamy?
>>52 per cent of Muslims did not believe that homosexuality should be legal;
I bet you'll get a higher score than that if you asked non muslim groups in the uk.
>>23 per cent of Muslims support the introduction of Sharia law rather than the laws laid down by parliament.
So a huge majority - 77% dont. What percentage of Jews support Beth Din?
So this is the very worse that Briebart could headline? Riiiiggghhht
|
If you choose a UK household at random, then it is about 25 times more likely to be non-muslim than muslim.
But I still don't think the percentages are very enlightening in themselves.
I do think it is probably true however that assimilation has gone into reverse. This may of course be something to do with the fact that it is an objective of the militant Islamists to drive wedge between muslims and the western societies they live in.
|
>> I do think it is probably true however that assimilation has gone into reverse. This
>> may of course be something to do with the fact that it is an objective
>> of the militant Islamists to drive wedge between muslims and the western societies they live
>> in.
The thought struck me last night, that roger is a anti muslim version of a fundamentalist cleric, reaching for and reading his versions of the koran, putting his extreme interpretation onto the texts and facts, trying to indoctrinate others into intolerance and hatred, repeatedly preaching the idea of non believers forcing out those who do. I dont think he has a mufti, or Mullah, self radicalised i think.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 11 Apr 16 at 07:34
|
>> Looking at the briebart summary answer me this
>>
>> >>One in five Muslims in Britain never enter a non-Muslim house;
>> How many non muslims enter a muslim house? less than one in five i guess.
I think you'll find the point is: if 20% of Muslims are making a point about not walking into non-Muslim houses, that's quite a pointed stance to take, by quite a lot of people, bearing in mind the numbers of non Muslim people that live in the UK and therefore the availability of non Muslim houses to refuse to walk into.
Your point doesn't cover the angle of non-Muslims actually refusing to walk into Muslim houses, just the fact that, numbers wise, there are more non Muslims than Muslim and therefore they'd be less likely to walk into a Muslim house, because they don't happen to know one... rather than them refusing to go there.
>>
>> >>39 per cent of Muslims, male and female, say a woman should always obey her
>> husband;
>> I wonder what the non muslim answer would be? - funnily they have add male
>> and female in there, does that say muslim women are happy to obey? When did
>> "obey" get removed from Christian marriage vows?
Are you saying that a survey of non Muslim people in this country would have similar numbers state that women should obey men? If so, I don't agree.
>> >>31 per cent of British Muslims support the right of a man to have more
>> than one wife;
>> How many non muslim have affairs? what percentage of mormons support polygamy?
Having more than one wife and being legally entitled to do it, is a completely different ball game than someone shady having an illicit affair.
>> >>52 per cent of Muslims did not believe that homosexuality should be legal;
>> I bet you'll get a higher score than that if you asked non muslim groups
>> in the uk.
.... and I bet you wouldn't. 30 years ago+...maybe. Not nowadays, especially amongst the younger generation.
>> >>23 per cent of Muslims support the introduction of Sharia law rather than the laws
>> laid down by parliament.
>>
>> So a huge majority - 77% dont. What percentage of Jews support Beth Din?
Near enough a quarter of any community is still quite a high number
Would you agree they are both wrong if they usurp or try to usurp the laws of this country and/or disadvantage any part of the population?...e.g. women.
|
>> I think you'll find the point is: if 20% of Muslims are making a point
>> about not walking into non-Muslim houses, t
No I think you will find that the point is no-one has specifically asked non Muslims if they would or wouldn't go into a muslim house. What do you think the answer would be if they did?
>> Are you saying that a survey of non Muslim people in this country would have
>> similar numbers state that women should obey men? If so, I don't agree.
Ask my mother, or anyone of her generation, I'll tell you that women of her generation DID believe in that marriage vow. Don't forget when you are canvasing Muslim opinion you are in effect talking to a group a generation or so behind ours. And as generations evolve that is changing. If you know any modern muslim women you would soon find out who wears the trousers. In both senses.
>>
>> Having more than one wife and being legally entitled to do it, is a completely
>> different ball game than someone shady having an illicit affair.
>
I wonder how many non muslim guys, when asked would agree. And what is divorce if its not the same as polygamy And there is no difference between having a bit on the side and a wife, I really can't see how you can say its morally different.
>>
>> >> >>52 per cent of Muslims did not believe that homosexuality should be legal;
>> >> I bet you'll get a higher score than that if you asked non muslim
>> groups
>> >> in the uk.
>>
>> .... and I bet you wouldn't. 30 years ago+...maybe. Not nowadays, especially amongst the younger
>> generation.
See my generational comment above And I still think you would be surprised if the country as a whole was asked.
>> >> So a huge majority - 77% dont. What percentage of Jews support Beth Din?
>>
>> Near enough a quarter of any community is still quite a high number
Its not. See the generational thing again
>>
>> Would you agree they are both wrong if they usurp or try to usurp the
>> laws of this country and/or disadvantage any part of the population?...e.g. women.
Where it is a religious or contractual matter I dont see why it can't live alongside (dont forget the concept of banking and interest in Islam is forbidden) as it already does and has done for years with Beth Din. Common law has in the uk always evolved organically.
As I said, if this is the worse that a site like Briebart can drag up, then bring it on.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 10 Apr 16 at 23:36
|
I do agree if you talk to the older generation regarding marriage,homosexuality and who wears the trousers there would be a surprising agreement with the muslims.
Regarding a second wife how many men or women have a bit on the side when given the change.
Hyprocritical behaviour comes to mind.
|
>> No I think you will find that the point is no-one has specifically asked non
>> Muslims if they would or wouldn't go into a muslim house. What do you think
>> the answer would be if they did?
I'd be very surprised if any noticeable portion would state they'd refuse to enter a Muslim house. Yes you'd have a few hotheads, but percentage wise IMO it would be exceptionally small, we are by and large a tolerant country.
>> Ask my mother, or anyone of her generation, I'll tell you that women of her
>> generation DID believe in that marriage vow.
Yes, i'd sort of agree with that, your mother/my gran's generation were different...but we've well evolved as a country since then.... and we were nowhere near the multi wife or absolute 'do as you are told' that the article is suggesting though.
>> Don't forget when you are canvasing Muslim opinion
>> you are in effect talking to a group a generation or so behind ours. And
>> as generations evolve that is changing. If you know any modern muslim women you would
>> soon find out who wears the trousers. In both senses.
Yes, but we are having a real problem with young men being radicalised, not so much old- timers stirring the pot. In other words the Muslim community is having problems with its younger generation.
>> if its not the same as polygamy And there is no difference between having a
>> bit on the side and a wife, I really can't see how you can say
>> its morally different.
I think it is very different. There will always be the morally corrupt/greedy who will grab a bit more. But having something accepted by your society and 'normalised' is totally different.
>> See my generational comment above And I still think you would be surprised if the
>> country as a whole was asked.
I think the young in this country are well tolerant of gay people, almost there in fact with their acceptance. Far better than my generation and definitely better than yours.
>> >> Would you agree they are both wrong if they usurp or try to usurp
>> the
>> >> laws of this country and/or disadvantage any part of the population?...e.g. women.
>>
>> Where it is a religious or contractual matter I dont see why it can't live
>> alongside (dont forget the concept of banking and interest in Islam is forbidden) as it
>> already does and has done for years with Beth Din. Common law has in the
>> uk always evolved organically.
I disagree. Sharia law disadvantages some and we should have none of it, we have perfectly acceptable State laws.
Last edited by: Westpig on Mon 11 Apr 16 at 07:59
|
>> I'd be very surprised if any noticeable portion would state they'd refuse to enter a
>> Muslim house. Yes you'd have a few hotheads, but percentage wise IMO it would be
>> exceptionally small, we are by and large a tolerant country.
Yet here we are discussing a post raised directly because of someone else intolerance. Ironic isn't it.
|
>> Yet here we are discussing a post raised directly because of someone else intolerance. Ironic
>> isn't it.
>>
Well at least we are discussing it.
There would have been a time in the fairly recent past where i'd have been 'sniffed' and called the 'R' word and all debate would have been shut down.
The other thing is, I don't think Roger is half as bad as you think he is. He may well have firm views that are different to yours... but do you really think he's a Neo Nazi?..... I don't.
|
>> The other thing is, I don't think Roger is half as bad as you think
>> he is. He may well have firm views that are different to yours... but do
>> you really think he's a Neo Nazi?..... I don't.
I think he is as racially intolerant and just as xenophobic as they were, and for all the same reasons, (tho not the same goal) So yes I do.
|
>> >> The other thing is, I don't think Roger is half as bad as you think
>> >> you really think he's a Neo Nazi?..... I don't.
>> I think he is as racially intolerant and just as xenophobic as they were, and
>> for all the same reasons, (tho not the same goal) So yes I do.
You trivialise the unbelievably vile horror of Nazism, as well as being rather intolerant and extreme yourself, with that statement.
I hope you feel able to reconsider it. There are a lot of people out there that I would put beyond the pale before Roger, even without counting the ones who have Swastika flags on their bedroom walls.
|
>> >> I think he is as racially intolerant and just as xenophobic as they were,
>> and
>> >> for all the same reasons, (tho not the same goal) So yes I do.
>>
>> You trivialise , as well as being rather intolerant and
>> extreme yourself, with that statement.
I consider you are wrong on both counts.
>> I hope you feel able to reconsider it.
So, no.
|
"I think he is as racially intolerant and just as xenophobic as they were"
As I understand it, Islam is a religion, not a race. If I said that I took a dim view of Scientologists or Mormons, would you call me a racist?
As far as I can see, the only difference between a religion and a cult is size.
|
>> "I think he is as racially intolerant and just as xenophobic as they were"
>>
>> As I understand it, Islam is a religion, not a race. If I said that
>> I took a dim view of Scientologists or Mormons, would you call me a racist?
If you called them "the enemy" and spent all day every day peppering chat groups with misrepresented examples to back up your dislike and attempt to spread hatred, guess i might yes.
>> As far as I can see, the only difference between a religion and a cult
>> is size.
Not sure how you managed to get a "cult" into the conversation.
|
>> I disagree. Sharia law disadvantages some and we should have none of it, we have
>> perfectly acceptable State laws.
State laws disadvantage some, and some of them have in the past been far from acceptable. Some of them still are. Think you were moaning about Sunday Trading laws?
|
|
Is the font of the heading for this thread gradually morphing into Arabic? We should be told.
|
|
Yes its text from the Koran. "It says death to all infidels, starting in Worksop."
|
>> State laws disadvantage some, and some of them have in the past been far from
>> acceptable. Some of them still are. Think you were moaning about Sunday Trading laws?
>>
Yes, all good points.
However our State laws are enacted by elected representatives in parliament and there's mechanisms for changing them.
.... whereas Sharia Law.............
|
"... our State laws are enacted by elected representatives in parliament and there's mechanisms for changing them.
.... whereas Sharia Law............."
Herein lies the problem. There is a huge and fundamental divide between the Western philosophy, ethos and mind-set and the Islamic (at least in its traditional version).
The former has gradually and sometimes painfully extracted itself from the authoritarian, church-dominated society of the Middle Ages and has become a culture of free thinkers, where the talents of the individual are celebrated. We prize modernity, creativity, enterprise and human rights. We prize democracy, in which every individual has a say on how things are done in our country.
None of those matter to the Islamist (and quite clearly there are swaths of the Muslim community who are tacitly or not so tacitly in support). Above everything else the will of the deity is paramount and the interpretation of that will is based on a narrow view of the holy book, which most of them agree on, bar a few details. None of what is seen as the decadence of the west, with its cultivation of the individual, counts for anything at all. Democracy is seen as evil, since it places man higher than God.
Trevor Phillips is right in saying that the integration of such communities into British society is a vast challenge. I only hope it is not an insuperable one.
|
>> Trevor Phillips is right in saying that the integration of such communities into British society
>> is a vast challenge. I only hope it is not an insuperable one.
History of immigration to the UK suggests its not. Our evil decadent ways are so attractive to most* that barriers to enjoying it disappear with generations.
*most. I had to put that in because as sure as eggs is eggs someone will pop up and say ah what about the exceptions. And that is what they will be, exceptions, a small minority. The radicalised someone said. I think they number about 1,000 out of several millions. We probably have just as many neo nazi BNP members.
|
>> However our State laws are enacted by elected representatives in parliament and there's mechanisms for
>> changing them.
>>
>> .... whereas Sharia Law.............
Why would you object to a business agreement between Muslim parties which provided for disputes to be dealt with in accordance with Sharia principles?
No different from other agreements which provide for arbitration and absolutely consistent with a government policy to move disputes out of the courts and into Proportionate/Appropriate Dispute Resolution.
Suspect I'm more liberal/nuanced than you are on allowing Sharia to be used in divorce and family matters and I'd still have reservations. Wouldn't rule out 'kitemarking' for suitably flexible schemes applying religious principles to Family Mediation though.
|
>> Suspect I'm more liberal/nuanced than you are on allowing Sharia to be used in divorce
>> and family matters and I'd still have reservations.
.... and there you have it then. You've answered your own question.
|
>>Wouldn't rule out 'kitemarking' for......
Its the UK. It is subject to UK law.
If someone wants to add additional Ts&Cs in a contract, that is up to them. But the contract itself is subject to UK law. Not Sharia or anything else.
That includes divorce and family matters, and no "kite marking" [daft ass term] at all. Its not required or neccessary. Everything is subject to UK law.
If someone prefers another legal system, then that is their right and they should move to wherever that legal system prevails.
That is not the UK. Where UK law should prevail.
|
>> Its the UK. It is subject to UK law.
>>
>> If someone wants to add additional Ts&Cs in a contract, that is up to them.
>> But the contract itself is subject to UK law. Not Sharia or anything else.
Allowing Sharia 'arbitration/mediation' is no different from any other clause providing for other forms of non court resolution. You will know better than me I think but I understand arbitration clauses are pretty common in big business contracts. As you say they do not (cannot?) deny a party still aggrieved after arbitration the chance to go to court.
I was responding to WP who seemed troubled by such a concept.
>> That includes divorce and family matters, and no "kite marking" [daft ass term] at all.
>> Its not required or neccessary. Everything is subject to UK law.
IIRC you now have to participate in family mediation via an approved provider before getting a divorce. If both parties want that mediation to have an Islamic cultural bent then that shouldn't be a problem for the rest of us.
There is a second factor alluded too my Zero; we allow Jewish religious courts some legal recognition. I don't think we can unwind that without a massive controversy. There is an argument that Islam should have the same status.
|
>> If both parties want that mediation to have an Islamic cultural bent then
>> that shouldn't be a problem for the rest of us.
That's somewhat short sighted.
What happens if one of the parties has in reality had no real say in the matter(s), has got to the point where they feel the need to take the legal course they are on and have bravely taken that step... and would like to look forward to the unbiased British law that should protect them?
Why should they become a 2nd class citizen?
>> There is a second factor alluded too my Zero; we allow Jewish religious courts some
>> legal recognition. I don't think we can unwind that without a massive controversy. There is
>> an argument that Islam should have the same status.
Agreed.
IMO British law should be the only option.
|
>> What happens if one of the parties has in reality had no real say in
>> the matter(s), has got to the point where they feel the need to take the
>> legal course they are on and have bravely taken that step... and would like to
>> look forward to the unbiased British law that should protect them?
>>
>> Why should they become a 2nd class citizen?
As we've already established I have a more nuanced view of Islamic divorce than you do. As in different sects of Christianity there is considerable variation between and within the branches of Islam. The idea that a man simply needs to pronounce the word for divorce three times in quick succession may be true in certain extremes but according to my Muslim former colleagues it's not typical. More common are forms where the pre-divorce period is characterised by attempts to mediate between the parties and their families; something English/Welsh justice is moving towards now
I was not however advocating the wholesale formal adoption of Islamic divorce. My suggestion was that Family Mediation, already now a requisite prior to divorce, could be provided on an Islamic basis. That is not a barrier to access to 'unbiased' British Law. It could also be argued that a formal recognition would reduce the opportunity for the sort of misogynistic pressures and practices which you invite us to infer exist.
|
>> As we've already established I have a more nuanced view of Islamic divorce than you
I genuinely don't know what that means. Divorce is a legal term, thus it falls absolutely and solely under UK Law within the UK.
People are entitled to get whatever counselling they want, but the law is the law and no "nuances" are required.
I have no interest in any religion's approach to divorce. I see no reason that they shouldn't follow any approach they want provided it falls within UK law.
Where does that need amending?
If someone doesn't want to use UK law then they should move to somewhere it doesn't apply. The rest of the world, for example.
As i have said, I think anybody who wants to come to the UK should be allowed to do so. I do not, however, advocate changing the UK to something they prefer or try to insist upon.
|
Mark,
I'm thinking along lines of difference between civil and religious divorce and extent of cross recognition. I don't think you can re-marry in a Catholic church on basis of a civil divorce and same may apply in Islam
Recollection is that there is some 'concession' for Jewish religious divorce but I my be wrong and have not got time to research it now.
|
I don't really mind what someone does in church or as part of their religion. Its their belief system after all.
Just as long as it falls under the law of the country.
|
>> The idea that a man simply needs to pronounce the word for
>> divorce three times in quick succession may be true in certain extremes but according to
>> my Muslim former colleagues it's not typical.
I don't suppose it is all that common, however, in those cases it does occur, would you agree it's wrong?
More common are forms where the pre-divorce period
>> is characterised by attempts to mediate between the parties and their families; something English/Welsh justice
>> is moving towards now
Yes... and who does the mediation? If it were to be an independent, open minded type of person, yes damned good idea.
If not, it could well be somewhat one sided, couldn't it?
>> would reduce the opportunity for the sort of
>> misogynistic pressures and practices which you invite us to infer exist.
Oh yes, I do infer. Do you deny they exist?
|
"That is not the UK. Where UK law should prevail."
I think that's spot-on.
What sticks in the craw is the idea that, of the immigrants come to this country, some very self-consciously do not integrate and apparently have the idea that our laws are immoral and offensive and must be changed. To be strictly fair, one should add that it's often not the immigrant generation that makes a big issue of this, but the second generation, their offspring.
It is interesting to compare this stance with that of the Jewish community, who have historically maintained their religious and cultural identity, without trying to impose their ideas on their hosts, while making great contributions to British society.
As regards Jewish courts ("Beth din") and Islamic Sharia, providing these operate as some kind of arbitration within UK law I can't see a problem.
Last edited by: Focal Point on Wed 13 Apr 16 at 10:25
|
>> >> >>23 per cent of Muslims support the introduction of Sharia law rather than the laws
>> laid down by parliament.
>>
>> So a huge majority - 77% dont. What percentage of Jews support Beth Din?
20% of all car accidents happen because drivers don't obey traffic rules.
So, 80% of car accidents happen after obeying traffic rules.
Hence, to reduce number of accidents, we should not obey traffic rules from now on.
:o)
|
When we say "muslim" here, we mean people with (some) muslim ancestors?
But I don't call myself "christian" just because I have christian ancestors, and I'd resent a survey that tried to draw conclusions based on that invalid assumption.
As for the question, when did I last visit a christian or non-christian household? I've no idea. How would I tell? Likewise, some people seem able to spot a jew at 25 yards, but I've no idea, and I married one. :)
(I'm using lower case initial letters for the sake of consistency. I know Christian usually has a capital C, but does Muslim similarly, out of respect?)
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 11 Apr 16 at 13:58
|
CP, this illustrates another part of the problem.
When we say "Muslim", what is meant is people who probably have Muslim ancestors and who are also active believers - who attend mosque, pray and fast, among other things. Though there are undoubtedly Muslims who are pretty secular, in my experience they keep their heads down. Remember the recent case of the Muslim shop-keeper murdered on the grounds that he disrespected Islam by expressing views tolerant of other faiths; he was unwise enough to draw attention to himself.
When we say "Christian" we mean a much vaguer concept. Christianity, to twist a phrase, is a broad church, including those who believe in some kind of deity connected with the Bible, who probably never pray and who may go to a religious service one or two times a year, who have only the sketchiest of notions about the Christian faith of any type - and those who are deeply immersed in their faith and take it into their daily lives - the latter belonging to a vanishingly small percentage of what is basically a secular population.
So Christianity embraces a wide range of beliefs and behaviours, with the preponderance towards the secular, while Islam may technically cover a wide range, but in practice tends to be weighted towards the religious, at least in outward observance and behaviour.
It is the difference in mind-set that this illustrates (which I tried to explain in my previous post) that poses the biggest challenge.
(In case you're wondering where I'm coming from on this, I have dealt with sizeable Muslim pupil numbers in comprehensive schools during my teaching career - mainly of Pakistani and Bangladeshi backgrounds - and I was involved in the multicultural experiment in the eighties and nineties - and am married to someone whose previous husband was a Bangladeshi Muslim and who lived in Bangladesh for a number of years. I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I do have some idea what I'm talking about, I think.)
|
>> Remember the recent case of the Muslim shop-keeper
You mean Asad Shah in Glasgow, of whose murder a Bradford Muslim, Tanveer Ahmed, stands accused.
Mr Shah's likely sin, according to the BBC report, wasn't wishing his Christian customers a happy easter but being an Ahmadi Muslim (and as you say putting his head above the parapet). Ahmadis are not considered Muslim by the more mainstream Muslims, especially Sunnis, and may even be considered apostates subject to punishment by death.
For the five million Ahmadis, religious persecution has been particularly severe and systematic in Pakistan, which is the only state to have officially declared that Ahmadis are non-Muslims. Pakistani laws prohibit the Ahmadis from identifying themselves as Muslims, and their freedom of religion has been curtailed by a series of ordinances, Acts and constitutional amendments. When applying for a Pakistani passport, Pakistanis are required to declare that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was an impostor prophet and his followers are non-Muslims
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Ahmadis
I wouldn't want to extrapolate too far from this (people of any religion or none can become unhinged) but what we have, if Tanveer Ahmed is guilty, is a 32 year old resident of Bradford prepared to kill on the grounds of religious difference. That suggests to me that we should not dismiss messengers such as Trevor Philips out of hand. The picture he presents, when he does, may be unrepresentative or misleading, but a bit of time looking deeper might be well spent.
As said previously, militant Islamism is first a problem for peaceful Muslims. If we want to accept that we will have 3 or 4 million Muslims in this country by the 2020s then the non-militant ones need our support and tolerance, not alienation.
So which is the right assumption?
That the risk of a sizeable proportion, even a minority, of that 3 or 4 million coming under the rod of the militants is worth worrying about?
Or that we have always been a nation of immigrants and it will be OK?
|
>> So which is the right assumption?
>>
>> That the risk of a sizeable proportion, even a minority, of that 3 or 4
>> million coming under the rod of the militants is worth worrying about?
>>
>> Or that we have always been a nation of immigrants and it will be OK?
Lets try getting it into perspective, bearing in mind its at the forefront of popular press.
We have in the UK, 3 million who claim to be muslims. Of those how many are brought to justice for terrorist acts, discussed succeeded planned or failed, - A quick trawl reveals about 65 since 2006. Its claimed 40 plots have been foiled in that time. I wont even try to put that into percentage terms even if i combined the two - its so small its meaning less. So how are the muslim population supposed to root out a problem most of them are not even aware of?
Lets jump to the UK muslims in ISIS issue, before certain members of this forum jump on that bandwagon. Official figures cite 500/600. There are over 900 in the British Armed forces, how about that!
So lets get the "muslim problem" into perspective shall we. Not that any of this will change ayatollah Radical Rogers mind.
|
"We have in the UK, 3 million who claim to be muslims. Of those how many are brought to justice for terrorist acts, discussed succeeded planned or failed, - A quick trawl reveals about 65 since 2006. Its claimed 40 plots have been foiled in that time. I wont even try to put that into percentage terms even if i combined the two - its so small its meaning less. So how are the muslim population supposed to root out a problem most of them are not even aware of?"
I think the last sentence is disingenuous. What some non-Muslims suspect (with some justification) is that, while there is indeed a very small percentage of fully-fledged terrorists amongst the Muslim community, there nevertheless exists a culture which allows, or at least, does not prevent, support for extremism. In the recent past it has seemed all too easy for those wishing to twist the minds of young, impressionable Muslims to achieve just that.
One of the problems is the lack of integration.
|
>> So lets get the "muslim problem" into perspective shall we.
I have no problem with perspective... however, infinitely small percentages do not mean ignoring the problem.
Another 7/7 or a Mumbai are a real concern for this country.
For the vast majority of peaceful, law abiding Muslims.... some people are committing or planning to commit, atrocities in the name of their religion.
|
>>
>> So lets get the "muslim problem" into perspective shall we.
I'm trying to do just that, rather than glibly dismissing serious comments or starting any sort of bandwagon.
The proportion of ISIS fighters in Syria for example of the Muslim population is thought to be only about 0.25%.
That is still about 10 x your number of ISIS members expressed as a % of UK Muslims. Good.
I didn't say I expected Muslims to "root out" militants, I said they need our support and tolerance, not alienation. One can see that if only 1% becomes radicalised, then we might expect a big problem.
For that not to happen, we need to make sure that we do not give the 3m a hard time (which I assume is what you are saying too) on account of the 600.
The experts I believe expect that we will have a Paris/Belgium attack at some point, only the when is in question. I would characterise that as a problem, wouldn't you?
I'm not a believer in this sort of thing mending itself.
I'm also aware - who isn't, after Blair's pacification campaigns - that the wrong kind of intervention can easily make matters much, much worse.
Alienating 3 million of our people by treating them all as potential terrorists, or just terrorist symathisers, would be a serious error.
Even in ISIS held areas of Syria and Iraq, the vast majority of the Muslim (and non-Muslim) population surely just wants a peaceful life. I hope that the various tools of the authorities will think about that before they get too enthusiastic with their profiling.
Last edited by: Manatee on Mon 11 Apr 16 at 18:01
|
>> The experts I believe expect that we will have a Paris/Belgium attack at some point,
>> only the when is in question. I would characterise that as a problem, wouldn't you?
Of course we will, of course it is, as it has always been since the early 1970s, only the source of the threat has changed over 50 years.
>> Alienating 3 million of our people by treating them all as potential terrorists, or just
>> terrorist symathisers, would be a serious error.
So why do we get a whole programe on mainstream TV "What British Muslims Really Think." I dont recall a "What the irish really think" (mind you we assumed half the population supported the IRA along with half of New York)
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 11 Apr 16 at 19:01
|
>> So why do we get a whole programe on mainstream TV "What British Muslims Really
>> Think.
Good question.
|
>> So why do we get a whole programe on mainstream TV "What British Muslims Really
>> Think."
Would you prefer the issue wasn't discussed at all, that we all ignore it?
|
>> >> So why do we get a whole programe on mainstream TV "What British Muslims
>> Really
>> >> Think."
>>
>> Would you prefer the issue wasn't discussed at all, that we all ignore it
Lets have a "what do white racist think" one as well than shall we?
|
>> Lets have a "what do white racist think" one as well than shall we?
>>
Why would you want to do that?....Balance?.....What balance would there be?
|
It would be interesting to understand more about 'not visiting a non Muslim household'.
Doest it mean they'd refuse a social invitation? Refuse to cross threshold on any pretext whatsoever?
And if yes either way why. Alcohol? Pork Products? Dogs?
|
>> Though there are undoubtedly Muslims who are pretty secular, in my experience they keep their heads down.
They're a bit more like us than that. It's true that Islam as a relatively recent religion still has a tiresomely militant side, but there are large numbers of Muslim atheists who are just like us Christian atheists - fully up to speed on how not to offend believers unless they really ask for it, relaxed and courteous to those of all beliefs.
Fortunately militant believers tend in the nature of things to be quite thick, so it's child's play to brush them aside and casually tie them in ideological knots. You can do it quite kindly if you want.
|
>> Fortunately militant believers tend in the nature of things to be quite thick, so it's
>> child's play to brush them aside and casually tie them in ideological knots. You can
>> do it quite kindly if you want.
Unless of course they are "right" and prepared to argue with a gun or bomb.
And I'm pretty sure some of the militant kind are fearsomely intelligent and not at all interested in an argument.
|
Yes Manatee, there's no talking to some people.
I forget when I first noticed that. More than half a century ago for sure.
:o}
|
|
Trevor Philips is OK. Personable.
|
>>52 per cent of Muslims did not believe that homosexuality should be legal;
I bet you'll get a higher score than that if you asked non muslim groups in the uk
Doubt it - Eire voted in favour of gay marriage rights last year 62-38% and I wouldn't expect the Irish to be significantly more pro-gay than UK.
On second thoughts they do have a bigger population of Priests than GB.
|
I haven't read this whole thread. Neither have I read the breitbart link (what's the point?), but taking Roger's statement as accurate and objective....
"has serious concerns about the lack of integration of immigrants following the Muslim faith."
That seems like a fair point to me. Not just the Muslims of course, but all foreign communities within the UK. I think anybody and everybody should be welcome. But they are supposed to be joining us not establishing an enclave among us.
Mind you, I think the British are just as bad, in Spain for example.
|
DM reports on the other side of the story :o
Muslims are more progressive than Tories and the Church on issues such as a gay rights, insists Warsi as she hits out at claims some do not integrate into British life
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3538896/Muslims-progressive-Tories-says-Baroness-Warsi.html
Last edited by: Focusless on Thu 14 Apr 16 at 08:27
|
A 'vox pop' piece in the Guardian covers views of Muslims on the Phillips prog (which I have yet to see).
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/14/what-british-muslims-really-think-about-channel-4s-show
Particularly interesting that there is so much criticism of the programme's data gathering methodology. Point also well made is that Islam is itself hugely diverse across it's geographical range from the Balkans to far east and Africa.
Neither do I think Phillip's status as of Afro Carribean immigrant stock gives him any additional credibility over a white presenter in this context.
|
I've only watched the first half of it so far.
There was a control group for comparison, and it was quota'd so should be fairly robust as far as it goes, but I am unsure of the real value of it or what you do with it. I don't think making the programme was a great idea, or that Trevor Philips added much.
1,000 sample doesn't sound like much out of 3,000,000 but from a statistical viewpoint it should be fairly robust.
E&OE - I'm a bit rusty on this so I can't guarantee I have done it correctly - assuming a random sample of 1,000, and a 50% positive response to a question (e.g. "do you think homosexuality should be illegal"), one should be 95% confident that if repeated across the larger group the response would be in the range 47%-53%.
There are some assumptions behind that, that should be more or less true, and of course there is still a 5% chance that the response for 3,000,000 would lie outside that range.
On a 4% response (e.g. "some sympathy for suicide bombers") that confidence level fits with a range of 2.8% to 5.2%.
On that basis, if correct, a 1,000 sample seems reasonable. But it ignores the fact that changing the question slightly, or even the context, could give a quite different result.
Also, because it is impractical, the sample was not random, so quotas will have been set for demographic groups to make the sample representative. This will introduce a level of error, although opinion researchers are usually pretty good at it.
|
|
Well, I eventually watched it... and it makes many valid points IMO.
|
>> Well, I eventually watched it... and it makes many valid points IMO.
A fact which is entirely consistent with published critiques......
|
I judge the Koran similar to the Bible.
The Koran is to Islam what the Bible is to Christians ( rather than just Roman Catholics)
|
>> The Koran is to Islam what the Bible is to Christians ( rather than just Roman Catholics)
Catholics don't really go in for the Bible in a big way fluffy. It's more sort of in the background for them.
Nonconformists are another matter, into the Bible (in various versions) big time.
|
|
The Bible: Old testament or New testament? Very big difference. The dogmatists of the christian-label right tend to the literal interpretation of selected parts of the old testament, whilst ignoring the radically different new testament and the epistles. Not read the Koran and the later hadiths but I suspect the islamists use a similarly selective process to pick out the exceptional parts and ignore the broad picture and the concept of tolerance and mercy. In the end analysis, the islamists are seeking a renewal of their colonial strength and methods, which was not unlike the British for a lesser time. Not a religious matter at all, except for the dupes.
Last edited by: NortonES2 on Mon 18 Apr 16 at 20:29
|
�What British Muslims Really Think�. - fluffy
