Launch of Council of ex-Muslims

[bindeweede]

The BHA supports this...........
http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/newsarticleview.asp?article=2373

[Lord Muck oGentry]

The BHA supports this...........
http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/newsarticleview.asp?article=2373

I see there's a link to the Council's manifesto:

http://www.ex-muslim.org.uk/indexManifesto.html

Good stuff. Brave too.

[median]

Good stuff. Brave too.

Indeed. A case of opening oneself up to a potential backlash from those wanting to call upon some jihad or fatwa, as a penance.

Whilst we are on the subject, I have often heard the argument that 'if people aren't happy with this country, or the West' then why live here?'

Is there a problem with this statement?

[Woodchopper]

Whilst we are on the subject, I have often heard the argument that 'if people aren't happy with this country, or the West' then why live here?'

Is there a problem with this statement?

Because the UK, and the rest of the West, is built upon criticism and debate. Its the right of everyone who lives in a democratic country to state exactly what they think is wrong with it. In that way we (very slowly) manage to improve things. The strength of a free society is in the free exchange of ideas. Even if some people find some of those ideas offensive.

[median]

Because the UK, and the rest of the West, is built upon criticism and debate

A reasonable sentiment, Woodchopper.
However, it seems a free exchange of ideas, at least in the public domain is something that isn’t being allowed possibly for the fear of being perceived as racist.
Given the recent events, the term ‘criticism’ seems to have been extended by some to incorporate killing innocent people in the name of some deity or ideology.
If the West is hated so much then why would an individuals themselves in a situation where they had to ‘endure’ such an existence. Why not go and live in a civilization that better suits the ideology?

[Mongrel]

If the West is hated so much then why would an individuals themselves in a situation where they had to ‘endure’ such an existence. Why not go and live in a civilization that better suits the ideology?

Because they want to pick and choose which aspects of which culture they live by.
"I'll take the freedom of speech, one of the better higher education systems in the world and free health care in modern hospitals with a side of religious intolerance and treating women like dirt please"

Edit -Just in case that's taken the wrong way I also know that England has such a smorgasbord of cultures it's built on it's hard to point out anything that's truly English.

[Allo Allo]

Because the UK, and the rest of the West, is built upon criticism and debate. Its the right of everyone who lives in a democratic country to state exactly what they think is wrong with it. In that way we (very slowly) manage to improve things. The strength of a free society is in the free exchange of ideas. Even if some people find some of those ideas offensive.

For me, this reply just didn’t quite answer Medians post which suggested a valid idea that if you don’t like things, a good way of dealing with it, is to move to where you don’t have to deal with what you don't like. This would be analogous to the people who left South Africa because of Apartheid. They refused to live under an oppresive regime. Why live in a “free country” if “freedom and democracy “is not one of the ideas you support?

I didn’t see a problem with that statement.

I think a more interesting question is what is the reason for living in a “free country” if “freedom and democracy “is not one of the ideas you support? During Apartheid there were people who were for many reasons unable to leave the country - they had to stick it out until change came. I don't see that hope for those opposed to freedom and democracy coming about as quickly in the UK.

M
:knitter:

[Araneus]

For me, this reply just didn’t quite answer Medians post which suggested a valid idea that if you don’t like things, a good way of dealing with it, is to move to where you don’t have to deal with what you don't like.

That is only a valid idea if (1) there is a better place to move to, and (2) you have the means (financial, legal, linguistic etc) to actually move there.

However, I believe that in the context of Islamic extremists this is a red herring anyway: they don't commit terrorist acts because they don't like living here, they commit them out of retaliation for what they perceive as unfair or unacceptable treatment of their people by the West. This is not a greivance which is resolved by their emigration.

The "they hate our freedom" line is pure fabricated bullshit by corrupt governments who don't want to address the real causes of terrorism. Nobody kills themselves in a suicide bombing because they don't like the idea of other people being free, they do it out of personal anger and hate. Without examining the cause of that hate, there can be no progress in resolving terrorism.

[Legaleagle]

Nobody kills themselves in a suicide bombing because they don't like the idea of other people being free, they do it out of personal anger and hate. Without examining the cause of that hate, there can be no progress in resolving terrorism.


The original aim of Al-Qauda as stated by Osama bin Laden is to force the US to pull out of Saudi Arabia. Nothing to do with curbing freedoms in Western Countries.

Having defeated one superpower in Afghanistan in the 1980s Osama saw what a band of men who were prepared to die for their cause could achieve against a band of better armed men who didn't particularly want to die for theirs.

He certainly taps into and uses the Islamic religion as a motivating factor for his followers but we should not be sidetracked by the Islamic element in all this. It is, to my mind, essentially a Nationalistic movement and not a religious one. These people are fighting for self-determination in the same way as the Viet Cong, the Mujahadin, Fidel Castro et al. they are not fighting to stop British people from boozing, chatting and screwing each other.

Just because some people in our own country have been indoctrinated into Al-Queda terrorist cells, it does not follow that the British Muslim community as a whole wishes to destroy British Society and ought to be told to "pipe down or bugger off back to Pakistan or wherever".

[tkingdoll]

The original aim of Al-Qauda as stated by Osama bin Laden is to force the US to pull out of Saudi Arabia. Nothing to do with curbing freedoms in Western Countries.

Having defeated one superpower in Afghanistan in the 1980s Osama saw what a band of men who were prepared to die for their cause could achieve against a band of better armed men who didn't particularly want to die for theirs.

He certainly taps into and uses the Islamic religion as a motivating factor for his followers but we should not be sidetracked by the Islamic element in all this. It is, to my mind, essentially a Nationalistic movement and not a religious one. These people are fighting for self-determination in the same way as the Viet Cong, the Mujahadin, Fidel Castro et al. they are not fighting to stop British people from boozing, chatting and screwing each other.


This article has much to say on the subject, and from an ex-member of a Muslim terror group, too.


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2115832,00.html

From the article:

"When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology."

[Allo Allo]

It is, to my mind, essentially a Nationalistic movement and not a religious one. These people are fighting for self-determination in the same way as the Viet Cong, the Mujahadin, Fidel Castro et al. they are not fighting to stop British people from boozing, chatting and screwing each other.

Where do they wish their "self detemination" to be? How can you compare Al Quada with Viet Cong, the Mujahadin, Fidel Castro et al - do explain! ??? Umkhonto We Sizwe had "terrorist" training camps all over Africa - they never once placed bombs in anyone's country except their own!


Just because some people in our own country have been indoctrinated into Al-Queda terrorist cells, it does not follow that the British Muslim community as a whole wishes to destroy British Society and ought to be told to "pipe down or bugger off back to Pakistan or wherever". No one said this - the point of a democracy is that you are supposed not to have to pipe down. You are supposed to be able to say your piece. Therefore, you have to accept there maybe things you don't want to hear and things that others don't want to hear. If you feel you have to get violent about it, then that is NOT acceptable behavior in a democracy. There are other ways to change things. Umkhonto We Sizwe was formed by Mandela et al because South Africa was NOT a democracy and so nothing could change - but it did - and peacefully too.

The worrying part of Islam is "Global Jihad" - I don't like the Christian idea of "Global Christianity" either. Religions and countries that "conquer" make me very uneasy. We are not blameless in this respect either - and do we actually HAVE a democracy?

M
:knitter:

[median]

That is only a valid idea if (1) there is a better place to move to, and (2) you have the means (financial, legal, linguistic etc) to actually move there.


Araneus, the problem I see with this statement is that a) surely an Islamic state is a 'better' destination for those individuals (although one acknowledges the vagueness of the term 'better' and b) the means seems to be strangely uni-directional. Linguistic barriers, for example, seem more prevalent transferring from east to west?


No one said this - the point of a democracy is that you are supposed not to have to pipe down. You are supposed to be able to say your piece. Therefore, you have to accept there maybe things you don't want to hear and things that others don't want to hear. If you feel you have to get violent about it, then that is NOT acceptable behavior in a democracy

Quite, my right to express an opinion stops when it physically affects the lives of others. Clearly, other types of people have a problem with this concept.

[Cuddles]

Whilst we are on the subject, I have often heard the argument that 'if people aren't happy with this country, or the West' then why live here?'

Is there a problem with this statement?

The first obvious point which has already been raised is means. Many people just don't have the resources to be able to move to a different country. You have to bear in mind this is not the same situation as refugees coming to Britain who generally have nothing to lose no matter what country they move to. The people who might be wanting to leave already have homes and jobs and families and will not be willing to throw everything away simply because they disagree with some things about their home.

The point I think most important point, that is close to what Woodchopper said, is why should they move? This is their home just as much as it is ours. OK, so there are some things they don't like about it. So what? Can anyone in any country honestly say they are happy with everything about their home? There are probably hundreds of things I could list that are wrong with Britain, but I think the pros outweigh the cons by a long way and so I stay here.

As it probably says in the bible, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Unless someone can honestly say that they find absolutely nothing wrong with any aspect of Britain then they can't say that anyone else should leave for finding things wrong with Britain.

[Legaleagle]

Allo Allo wrote
Where do they wish their "self detemination" to be? How can you compare Al Quada with Viet Cong, the Mujahadin, Fidel Castro et al - do explain! ??? Umkhonto We Sizwe had "terrorist" training camps all over Africa - they never once placed bombs in anyone's country except their own!

OK, as I understand it Al Quada's objectives are broadly speaking these:

1) Removal of all US troops from Saudi Soil (this has now expanded to cover Iraq and Afghanistan as well)
2) Dismantle the Israeli state
3) Change all pro-Western and secular governments in other islamic states to theocracies
4) establish the unified political authority of Islam throughout the middle east (Caliphate)

So they see themselves as fighters for these aim. They see the governments of Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the gulf states as puppets of the west, occupied by western troops (there is some truth in this). The other more secular nations in the region (e.g.Turkey, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt) they regard as western style nations whose style of government must change or they remain apostates not observing the true requirements of Islam.

Could we not compare these aims with the aim of Ho Chi Minh of uniting the Vietnamese People under the Atheist-Leninist system? or Castro doing the same in Cuba.

I guess they attack us in the West because we are the prop which supports the secular Islamic states and Israel econmically and militarily and if they can convince us to simply wash our hands of the whole matter it will be easier to achieve their aims. I don't think they have any chance of succeeding btw.

If we are going to talk about the British Jihadi Network (which I wasn't) then I guess their aims are different as they appear to be trying to set up the Caliphate in the UK! Now, anyone who thinks that is going to happen must really have a screw loose.



No one said this - the point of a democracy is that you are supposed not to have to pipe down. You are supposed to be able to say your piece. Therefore, you have to accept there maybe things you don't want to hear and things that others don't want to hear. If you feel you have to get violent about it, then that is NOT acceptable behavior in a democracy. There are other ways to change things. Umkhonto We Sizwe was formed by Mandela et al because South Africa was NOT a democracy and so nothing could change - but it did - and peacefully too.

I must have misunderstood then. I thought we were discussing the idea that "if people aren't happy with this Country or the West why live here". By the way, is someone going to suggest that I am deported to Monaco because I don't like paying UK income tax (oh please, if only!).

The comarison with Mandela is not one that I made as his struggle was not to impose his own idea of a political system on others, but for people to be given a choice of what government they wanted.


The worrying part of Islam is "Global Jihad" - I don't like the Christian idea of "Global Christianity" either. Religions and countries that "conquer" make me very uneasy. We are not blameless in this respect either - and do we actually HAVE a democracy?

M

The term "Global Jihad" does not to necessarily mean that they are trying to bring the whole globe under Islam. Global Jihad is simply a means of securing the Caliphate in the Middle East. This is the same misconception as the idea that the Crusades were launched to destroy Islam, they were not, they were an attempt to wrest back from Muslim control the holy places which had only recently been taken by Islam from the declining Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire.

[Woodchopper]

There seem to be two separate threads here.

a) people who criticise the West but choose live there (or here); and
b) people who bomb the West but choose to live there (or here).

Taking the first point. I would first repeat what I said and what Cuddles mentioned as well. If you read any national newspaper you will find people criticising and complaining about Britain. Certainly the complaints in the Daily Mail are different to those in the Guardian, but you don’t have to go very deep before you find it. But most of these authors wouldn’t want to live anywhere else. As with much of the Muslim population, its where they were born or emigrated to.

“However, it seems a free exchange of ideas, at least in the public domain is something that isn’t being allowed possibly for the fear of being perceived as racist.”

You may have found that to be the case. But I think that there is a lot of criticism, especially of Islam. I’ve just read God is Not Great which dished out a lot against Mohammad and his followers. But I haven’t read reviews of the book which described Hitchens as being racist. (OK, you may be able to find one or two but still I don’t see that charge being levelled generally).

The key to me is to behave like a good sceptic and criticise ideas and evidence rather than indulge in ad homonim attacks (against individuals). The latter could verge upon racism, the former shouldn’t. Sceptics have a long history of criticising religion. We should stand up for that right, as long as we accept the right of the religious to criticise us.

Concerning the people that engage in bomb attacks, there may be similarities and differences. [And clearly I completely condemn anyone who uses violence in a democratic country]. Obviously it’s very difficult to get inside their minds, but what the heck I shall make a few points anyway (this is the interweb after all). First, the bombers may well regard the UK as home. The IRA didn’t try to evacuate the population of Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland. The south was a catholic country after all. But Belfast and Derry and Armagh are where their homes are. The IRA attacked the British state, but they had no intention of leaving their homes. Likewise, the recent bombers obviously had big problems with Britain – but do they feel a sense of belonging for anywhere else?

Second, and possibly overlapping with the first point, are there any countries in which an Islamist would feel at home? It pains me to say it but I actually agree with Tony Blair’s statement that Muslims have much more freedom to worship in the UK than they do in many other Muslim countries. Radical islamists are being arrested and detained, and sometimes tortured, in many muslim countries – such as Egypt or Saudi Arabia. As I write this post the Pakistani army besieges a mosque in Pakistan. As Legaleagle wrote, the objectives of Al Qaeda etc seem to be focussed upon creating truly Islamic regimes in the Middle East. One of the reasons they have a problem with the West is because they think that we prevent their objectives by intervening in the region and propping up corrupt governments.

Third, it’s a dumb point but if you are convinced that you are a holy warrior who will be welcomed into paradise when you die, you probably don’t want to move house and live peacefully in a farm in Iran. You probably want to strike at your enemy. Which in this case is Britain.

Concerning Arenus point that:

Nobody kills themselves in a suicide bombing because they don't like the idea of other people being free, they do it out of personal anger and hate. Without examining the cause of that hate, there can be no progress in resolving terrorism.

I do though think that some of the hatred comes from the religious’ hatred of the consequences of freedom. I include extreme Christians here as well. There does seem to be a general perception that the West is corrupt, immoral and materialistic. The Islamist and Christian fundamentalists appear to have very profound objections to thinks like homosexuals marrying, freely available pornography and sex outside of marriage (even if some of them seem to engage in these things in private). In the UK the Islamists put a bomb outside a nightclub, in the USA the Christians bomb abortion clinics (an Islamist wouldn’t do that as they don’t believe that the foetus gets a soul at conception). The Islamists’ bombs have been more effective (or at least some of them) but the sentiment remains the same.

There is a profound conflict between the religious who believe that moral truth and certainty is found in the pages of a holy book, and those in a democracy who believe that it is found through enquiry and debate. The two may be able to get on for a bit, but what happens when the democrats decide that having sex outside of marriage isn’t that bad after all (especially if you are gay)? Obviously one answer is to become wishy washy like the Church of England. But if people seriously believe that the text in the Koran of Bible is the word of God, there isn’t much room for compromise.