[oldfogey101]

Originally Posted by Blairdennon

But the information on the KKK the people who speak about the KKK, even KKK members themselves is all information you have obtained from the media in some form or other. On this information you base your judgement yet say it is no serious way to base a judgement?

If the KKK come on TV and say they want to get rid of non-whites, then they are racist. I don't need to have been to a KKK meeting to know this.

If you go on TV and say the law in the UK states that blasphemy is illegal, you may be telling the truth. A foreigner would know this is false in reality only by visiting the UK

Blimey, I hope that is clear now

If you had no knowledge of the UK and read the blasphemy laws then yes you might. If you read the news and found out they were hanging people for blasphemy then not only would you know they had the law but were applying it. If you search high and low and find no convictions for blasphemy then you know it may be as good as deprecated. But still be careful.

May be. But I might think people are very well behaved so that it is never applied.

Superficial is of course your opinion. There are several authors I am aware of who have resided many years in Islamic countries and have come away with diametrically opposed views. Neither is superficial by your definition but it certainly does not result in the same opinion.

Authors can come with agendas too.

THe EDL and Sikhs and Muslims on the Shambala site was, if memory serves many weeks ago, I thought we were discussing the over 30% of the Muslim world I had just commented on; however I think that may have been to give an alternative report to EDL members being within a Sikh demonstration and how that was viewed and what those interviewed had said. That was my point about garnering information from many sources. It does seem to be a spiritual site so is it knuckledragging?

It was an alternative view, and I recall there was quite a bit of inaccurate bigotry on it. Again, you'd know this if you knew a bit more about the places mentioned. But I digress.

[MJsDirtyDiana]

I’ve seen the film in question and there is nothing offensive about it. Typical Muslims are getting offended about nothing as usual…

[doom&gloom]

Originally Posted by MJsDirtyDiana

I’ve seen the film in question and there is nothing offensive about it. Typical Muslims are getting offended about nothing as usual…

As other posters have said it's because there's a depiction of Mohammed in it, no depictions of Mohammed are allowed, you could draw a stick man and write The Prophet Mohammed underneath it and it would cause a riot.

[theid]

Originally Posted by oldfogey101

You'd be incorrect then - because in many cases laws are not enacted. To give one example, I think the blasphemy law is still law in the UK (It is in some US states for sure) - on paper you could be arrested, but you wouldn't be.

On paper, a foreigner may think that's draconian. When they arrive in the UK, they may hear blasphemous words. Then their impression would be a world apart from the reality.

Blasphemy law abolished in 2008, for very practical and sensible reasons. Hoorah!

[oldfogey101]

Originally Posted by doom&gloom

As other posters have said it's because there's a depiction of Mohammed in it, no depictions of Mohammed are allowed, you could draw a stick man and write The Prophet Mohammed underneath it and it would cause a riot.

What do you mean? Depictions have occurred throughout the centuries.

A lot are from Central Asia, many from Afghanistan c.16th or 17th century.

[doom&gloom]

Originally Posted by oldfogey101

What do you mean? Depictions have occurred throughout the centuries.

A lot are from Central Asia, many from Afghanistan c.16th or 17th century.

There have been some in the past but not many, in Sunni countries today they are banned and any depiction today provokes anger especially from Sunni Muslims because they believe it promotes idolatry.

This is also why the Wahhabis destroyed many religious sites associated with Mohammed in Mecca and Medina.

[oldfogey101]

Originally Posted by doom&gloom

There have been some in the past but not many, in Sunni countries today they are banned and any depiction today provokes anger especially from Sunni Muslims because they believe it promotes idolatry.

Quite a few were produced in Ottoman Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, more in Algeria, Uzbekistan, Indonesia - these are only the famous ones. So I don't think you can say not many were produced - not many Mona Lisas have been produced either.

I doubt it's banned in all Sunni countries, for example areas that might be mainly non hardline (perhaps Sufi Sunni areas).

In any case the point is this. Portraits of the prophet have been produced many times in the past, so there is nothing in Islam that says these portraits must not be produced - only some extreme elements say so, and even then it's probably down to alterior agendas.

This is also why the Wahhabis destroyed many religious sites associated with Mohammed in Mecca and Medina.

Wahhabism is a small sect within Islam - it too probably has hardline and slightly more moderate elements (but Wahhabism is generally fundamentalist).

[Blairdennon]

Originally Posted by oldfogey101

If the KKK come on TV and say they want to get rid of non-whites, then they are racist. I don't need to have been to a KKK meeting to know this.

If you go on TV and say the law in the UK states that blasphemy is illegal, you may be telling the truth. A foreigner would know this is false in reality only by visiting the UK

Blimey, I hope that is clear now

Not at all. If a KKK man comes on telly and says I want to get rid of all non-whites you immediately assume that is all KKK people because very few others stand around saying 'not me guv, not my views, he's on his own' and do not remonstrate against him. If Choudary appears on telly and says this is what Muslims want and we will behead you if you do not obey and I immediately assume this is what Muslims are like because there are very few remonstrating against him and even fewer standing around saying not me guv, not my views, he's on his own' that is a leap too far. It may be but you are being as clear as mud. You know exactly what the KKK are like based on news reports and their own words and actions but I have no idea what Muslims are like based on news reports and their own words and actions.

[oldfogey101]

Originally Posted by Blairdennon

Not at all. If a KKK man comes on telly and says I want to get rid of all non-whites you immediately assume that is all KKK people because very few others stand around saying 'not me guv, not my views, he's on his own' and do not remonstrate against him. If Choudary appears on telly and says this is what Muslims want and we will behead you if you do not obey and I immediately assume this is what Muslims are like because there are very few remonstrating against him and even fewer standing around saying not me guv, not my views, he's on his own' that is a leap too far. It may be but you are being as clear as mud. You know exactly what the KKK are like based on news reports and their own words and actions but I have no idea what Muslims are like based on news reports and their own words and actions.

If a KKK individual comes on TV and says ' I want to get rid of non-whites - that is what we, the KKK, want', I assume that is what the KKK wants until another KKK member steps forward and says 'I am in the KKK, I do not want to get rid of non-whites' - if he is a bona fide KKK member, I will then assume that not all KKK members want to get rid of non-whites.

If Anjem Choudary says 'This is Islam', I will take it at face value until someone says Islam is something else - Since I know most Muslims have different interpretations of Islam and rarely are fundamentalist (which I think constricted to the chav end), I will assume not all Muslims are like AC, and that, since he is the leader of a small group, Islam4UK or some other knobended name, I will further assume that members of Islam4UK follow that type of Islam. But not all Muslims.

Long-winded, but I'm pointing out the obvious.

[theid]

First it was Christian missionaries going round the world telling everyone theirs was the one true faith and now it's the Muslims. Meanwhile Christian fights Christian and Muslim fights Muslim. What a mess!

[Blairdennon]

Originally Posted by oldfogey101

If a KKK individual comes on TV and says ' I want to get rid of non-whites - that is what we, the KKK, want', I assume that is what the KKK wants until another KKK member steps forward and says 'I am in the KKK, I do not want to get rid of non-whites' - if he is a bona fide KKK member, I will then assume that not all KKK members want to get rid of non-whites.

If Anjem Choudary says 'This is Islam', I will take it at face value until someone says Islam is something else - Since I know most Muslims have different interpretations of Islam and rarely are fundamentalist (which I think constricted to the chav end), I will assume not all Muslims are like AC, and that, since he is the leader of a small group, Islam4UK or some other knobended name, I will further assume that members of Islam4UK follow that type of Islam. But not all Muslims.

Long-winded, but I'm pointing out the obvious.

Indeed you are but the point I have made is that in terms of numbers those who say 'this is Islam' as an unpleasant manifestation are a significant proportion of the whole and those who actively oppose them are not a significant proportion of the whole. Whereas the likes of the Westboro Baptists who may constitute an unpleasant, though small, face of Christianity are opposed by a significant number of other Christians.
The laws, and the application of those laws, in Islamic countries strengthens this impression. The same impression was given during the Rushdie affair where in the UK the number of Muslims interviewed who thought the death fatwa was wrong were almost non-existent whereas those interviewed who thought it was justified were falling over themselves to be heard. Every picture tells a story, it is not our fault that the story is not a pleasant one.

[oldfogey101]

Originally Posted by Blairdennon

Indeed you are but the point I have made is that in terms of numbers those who say 'this is Islam' as an unpleasant manifestation are a significant proportion of the whole and those who actively oppose them are not a significant proportion of the whole. Whereas the likes of the Westboro Baptists who may constitute an unpleasant, though small, face of Christianity are opposed by a significant number of other Christians.
The laws, and the application of those laws, in Islamic countries strengthens this impression. The same impression was given during the Rushdie affair where in the UK the number of Muslims interviewed who thought the death fatwa was wrong were almost non-existent whereas those interviewed who thought it was justified were falling over themselves to be heard. Every picture tells a story, it is not our fault that the story is not a pleasant one.

I think I've said this before, but you don't seem to accept it - it's your impression that the 'unpleasant manifestation' of Islam is the significant proportion. That's not my perception. The significant proportion of Muslims are the ones you don't hear about or see unless you actively go out of your way in real, non-virtual situations.

You've already admitted to stepping foot into one Muslim country (morocco I think it was), for a few hours - which is as good as not being to any imo. If I told you that they used a hacksaw to cut off limbs in Tunisia - you'd probably believe me!

[Blairdennon]

Originally Posted by oldfogey101

I think I've said this before, but you don't seem to accept it - it's your impression that the 'unpleasant manifestation' of Islam is the significant proportion. That's not my perception. The significant proportion of Muslims are the ones you don't hear about or see unless you actively go out of your way in real, non-virtual situations.

You've already admitted to stepping foot into one Muslim country (morocco I think it was), for a few hours - which is as good as not being to any imo. If I told you that they used a hacksaw to cut off limbs in Tunisia - you'd probably believe me!

Then the problem is with your reading of what I say. I said a significant proportion not the significant proportion. I hope you understand the difference because it seems to keep escaping you.

If you have been to Tunisia then I would have to believe you according to you because personal experience trumps everything. I suppose if I told you that groups of people were killing other people in Britain today because of a belief in evil spirit possession you would not believe that that was possible. It is indeed strange what surfaces in countries when you pull back the covers and all too often there appears to be Islam lurking somewhere nearby.

[oldfogey101]

The extremists are a minority, but a significant one - that I don't disagree with.

You seem to be implying that Islam has a minority of extremists but a significant amount more than other religions - by your lack of the word 'significant' to describe extremists from non-Muslim groups. Considering you've not been to a Muslim country, this deduction comes from where?

Every religion has them - you'll not disagree with that I think - but 'Islam has more' - did you survey a billion Muslims from home while never visiting a Muslim country. Plus the remaining 5 billion to ascertain the relative figures from each religion?

How do you know there's not a significant number that oppose extremists among Muslims? Just to clarify - you have met a Muslim in real life, haven't you?

[theid]

Originally Posted by Blairdennon

The same impression was given during the Rushdie affair where in the UK the number of Muslims interviewed who thought the death fatwa was wrong were almost non-existent whereas those interviewed who thought it was justified were falling over themselves to be heard.

At this time it was illegal in this country to threaten or encourage violence (it still is!) but sadly, nobody was charged. I think that perhaps if people had been arrested, charged and sentenced if found guilty we may have been spared a lot of the violence and rhetoric we have seen since. Unfortunately a "softly, softly" approach was adopted and radical imams and troublemakers generally were tolerated for years in teaching establishments and in mosques. Abu Hamza took over a mosque and the elders and congregants of that mosque tried for years to have him removed, without success. Very bad decision on the part of government which I am sure they are now regretting.

[Blairdennon]

Originally Posted by oldfogey101

The extremists are a minority, but a significant one - that I don't disagree with.

You seem to be implying that Islam has a minority of extremists but a significant amount more than other religions - by your lack of the word 'significant' to describe extremists from non-Muslim groups. Considering you've not been to a Muslim country, this deduction comes from where?

Every religion has them - you'll not disagree with that I think - but 'Islam has more' - did you survey a billion Muslims from home while never visiting a Muslim country. Plus the remaining 5 billion to ascertain the relative figures from each religion?

How do you know there's not a significant number that oppose extremists among Muslims? Just to clarify - you have met a Muslim in real life, haven't you?

Islam, as I have said before, seems to move the normal distribution curve towards the extreme end. That neither says or implies that all Muslims are extreme but it does say that with Islam comes a higher proportion of those who are extreme and those who have a tendency towards the violent extreme end and fewer on the other peaceful extreme end.

Opposing extremism is not a process of sitting back and saying nothing to do with me. That is disagreeing with them, opposing them calls for a little extra, that little extra that was missing during the Rushdie affair, and the cartoons, and Lord Ahmed's threat to blockade Parliament with 10,000 Muslims
As regards meeting Muslims I have worked with them, socialised with them, lived beside them and listened to them.

[jamct]

Originally Posted by Meilie

This.

??????? Sorry but what do you mean by 'This'

[Speak-Softly]

Originally Posted by oldfogey101

Quite a few were produced in Ottoman Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, more in Algeria, Uzbekistan, Indonesia - these are only the famous ones. So I don't think you can say not many were produced - not many Mona Lisas have been produced either.

I doubt it's banned in all Sunni countries, for example areas that might be mainly non hardline (perhaps Sufi Sunni areas).

In any case the point is this. Portraits of the prophet have been produced many times in the past, so there is nothing in Islam that says these portraits must not be produced - only some extreme elements say so, and even then it's probably down to alterior agendas.

Wahhabism is a small sect within Islam - it too probably has hardline and slightly more moderate elements (but Wahhabism is generally fundamentalist).

A small sect?
But the biggest influence in Saudi.

It has Saudi oil money backing it and is being spread throughout the Islamic and western world.
75 billion over the last 30 years I have seen quoted.

The proposed "super mosque" in London was backed by Saudi money and was Wahabbist and it was opposed by many muslims here.

Many of the Islamic schools in this country are funded through the same channels, as are quite a few mosques.
The more radical Immans are also getting funding from the same source.

And the same pattern is happening throughout the world.

Where it hasn't got a hold is only in the countries where there are equal forces opposing the doctrine or the country has been able to resist the money.
Dismissing Wahhabbism as just being a "small sect" is nonsense.
It's the equivalent of dismissing the Westborough lot if they had the American goverment funding them.

[theid]

Originally Posted by Speak-Softly

It has Saudi oil money backing it and is being spread throughout the Islamic and western world.
75 billion over the last 30 years I have seen quoted.

The proposed "super mosque" in London was backed by Saudi money and was Wahabbist and it was opposed by many muslims here.

Many of the Islamic schools in this country are funded through the same channels, as are quite a few mosques.
The more radical Immans are also getting funding from the same source..

And of course the UK won't say "boo" to Saudi Arabia because of the oil and the arms deals (remember the Thatcher connection) so this has been allowed to continue unchallenged for decades.