Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team.
Roshonara Choudhry, Islam, Iraq and terrorism.
Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12
Tags: terrorism islamism Islam Iraq
The famous journalist Helen Thomas, who for over four decades covered the White House for various US news agencies, tried repeatedly, at press conferences, to get an answer to the question, why exactly are the terrorists attacking us?
She was puzzled and sceptical because she found it hard to imagine that suicide bombers where ready and willing to give their lives, and kill innocent people, just because they hated and despised our way of life, our values, and our democracy.
She never got a proper answer to her questions. It was always the same old, same old. They hate us for our way of life, and nothing else, no real reason at all. Because they are mad, bad, and evil. Whilst we are peace-loving, friendly, generous to a fault, and benign. Our empire, whoops! which of course doesn't even exist, is an empire of peace, progress and pure, brotherly love.
On the other hand, if one examines what the terrorists actually say about their motives for attacking us, we find a completely different rationale for their actions and violence. And these views are repeated over, and over, and over again.
We can deny the truth of their assertions. We can call them insane, mad, bad, inhuman, liars... but what we cannot do, is pretend that these misguided, angry, and often radicalized young people, haven't actually said what they've said.
Nowhere, in all the terror attacks committed over the last few decades has anyone ever said that they are attacking the west, which includes Israel and their own puppet regimes, because of our freedoms, our way of life, because of our inherent goodness. Nowhere.
It seems simple. What motivates them. You are killing us, occupying our countries, supporting dictatorships, deny us democracy and self-determination; so stop killing us and we will stop killing you. It's primative, but something we shouldn't find that difficult to understand. A tooth for a tooth, an eye for and eye.
Yet we mostly refuse to recognise these simple truths about the war on terror, and instead delude and lie to ourselves about what is really happening.
Stuart, I feel sorry for you.
You appear to be masquerading as someone who holds a different view to your actual view, but you're such an idiot you haven't quite managed to make either view clear.
Rather than misread, assume, misspell, insult and generally spout utterly meaningless drivel here, can I suggest you take your particular brand of stupidity to somewhere it will be given a fair hearing - Radio 5 Live was developed with complete cretins like you in mind.
There's little point in anyone trying to engage you in sensible discussion, as contrary to what Dr Dolittle claimed, you actually can't talk to the animals. Sadly, you're not allowed to put them down these days either.
Writeon - are you serious?
Because no other people apart from muslims carry out acts if terror in the name if there religion!
When the planes flew into the twin towers they were shouting alluh Akbar! If Israel defended itself against Hamas they ate not instructed by the Torah but Muslims wage war and kill in the name of Mohamed and the Koran, wake up.
"The Quran CAN BE USED to justify terrorism. That's the point at issue here - it has been, and will be used that way in future."
LeftisForward, so can the Bible, the Torah, and pretty much any book of scripture that is written in poetic language. No reason to single out Muslims (who incidentally are expected to refer to these other books as well).
This woman is obv a bit mad, but two things spring to mind.
The Iraq war was a massive injustice to millions of innocent people. Nothing has been done to correct this injustice, and there is no outlet for people to express their distaste. There is no accountability for the Iraq war and the lies that lead to it. Tony Blair lied. The MPs voted blindly. Similar things can be said for many of our foreign policy affairs really, since democracy is only a pretense when America asks for something, but Iraq is the most prominent example at this time.
Unfortunately fools like the girl who committed this horrible act make it harder to convince people that seeking this justice is not the same as giving in to terrorism.
Is this young woman's religion really a significant factor here? Why do we think it is in the west?
As a disturbed individual how exactly is she representative of Muslims or Islam?
What concerns me is the stereotyping of Muslims as violent and ready to use terror against us for no rational reason, but because they hate us, and they are Muslims.
Considering how many Muslims we have killed in response to terrorist attacks against us, it's surprising that there isn't far more terrorism aimed at the west. After all, if we launch wars and invade entire countries, which to hundreds of thousands of deaths and massive material destruction, on scale that dwarfs both the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks, and we feel perfectly justified in doing this; then how must many Muslims feel in return? Don't they have a right to feel under attack? Don't they have a right to fight back? Even if they are wrong?
And why isn't our violence against Muslim countries defined as Christian attacks, or even Jewish acts of violence?
It's as if we refuse to acknowledge that we are killing and bombing too. Almost like it isn't happening at all. Or that our killing Muslims on a huge scale, compared to the terrorism aimed at us, is a different class of killing. Killing for a real and good reason. Not like the Muslims, who seem to kill for the pleasure of killing innocent people, without rhyme or reason.
see archibald, my vision of you is with a bald head and selling copies of the socalist workers party outside the dss office in surrey,as for 5 live,i love that station,and in fact on stephen nolans show when medhi hassan and i am no great fan of him but hes a decent enough guy took on that slippery silvery toungue tory iain dale last week and wiped the floor with him i thought that was great radio and well done medhi hassan for taking down dale a few notches,your problem is archy,you hate working class people like me because you think your so self superior,yes my spelling is crap,my grammar is crap.i pleade guilty to that,but i tell you what punk,i dont care or give a toss what you think about me mate.
Stuart consider the innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan who, like you, also don't want to be blown up.
Unfortunately they are in a poor country and are faced with the all the power and might of a very rich Empire.
I agree wholeheartedly with Writeon we need to look at ourselves when we ctiticise others. The conflict in the world is about a whole lot more than religion.
Mrs Nobody, personal insults - is that all your made off, pah!
Many of the overtly anti-Muslim comments here make one despair for the future. But then "religious" conflicts have never really been based on rationality, but biggotry.
But what can one expect when our leaders continually tell us the Great Lie that Muslims are attacking us because that hate our freedoms, democracy, and way of life.
This isn't an explanation. It's an excuse. A gigantic, propaganda, ruse, specifically designed to divert attention from the real reasons we are envolved in conflicts on the other side of the world.
It reminds me of the rationale for the european invasion of the Holy Land centuries ago, what we still refer to as the Crusades.
After the massive edifice of lies constructed to justify the invasion of Iraq, why anyone of even minimal intelligence would believe a single word regarding the "war on terror" is beyond me, yet many people still do believe, no matter how outrageous the lies are, as long as they come from authority figures.
Islam is associated with Islamic terrorism because that is the association that the terrorists themselves choose to make.
Muslims who compare crime committed by people who happen to be nominal members of other religions to religious terror committed explicitly in the name of Islam are comparing apples to oranges.
Yes, some of the abortion clinic bombers were religious (as Muslims enjoy pointing out), but consider the scope of the problem. There have been six deadly attacks over a 36 year period in the U.S. Eight people died. This is an average of one death every 4.5 years.
By contrast, Islamic terrorists staged nearly ten thousand deadly attacks in just the six years following September 11th, 2001. If one goes back to 1971, when Muslim armies in Bangladesh began the mass slaughter of Hindus, through the years of Jihad in the Sudan, Kashmir and Algeria, and the present-day Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq, the number of innocents killed in the name of Islam probably exceeds five million over this same period.
In the last six years, there have been perhaps a dozen or so religiously-inspired killings by people of all other faiths combined. No other religion produces the killing sprees that Islam does nearly every day of the year. Neither do they have verses in their holy texts that arguably support it. Nor do they have large groups across the globe dedicated to the mass murder of people who worship a different god, as the broader community of believers struggles with ambivalence and tolerance for a radical clergy that supports the terror.
Muslims may like to pretend that other religions are just as subject to "misinterpretation" as is their “perfect” one, but the reality speaks of something far worse.
Don't worry, as a progressive I am more than happy to condemn the Bible and Torah also. Religion has had its day. And not just religion - other forms of non-rationalist, non-evidence-based ideology also.
If something inspires people to murder, then I have problem with it. Mehdi's excuse, that "the Quran shouldn't be read in that way" fails, because (a) we are not all Muslims who believe that the Quran is the work of God (and hence that it makes sense to say "God intended it to read this way, not the other way") and (b) not all Muslims agree that it should be read that the way Mehdi says. Look, thousands of people in Europe were massacred in the Middle Ages because Catholics claimed that "if you read the Bible properly, it proves that transubstantiation happens" and Protestants claimed "if you read the Bible properly, it proves that transubstantiation does not happen". Now we know that this was just two groups of people reading the Bible in two different ways: neither way is the "divine, right" way, since we know the Bible to be factually incorrect, philosophically unsound, and the work of man not god. A Catholic will still say "the Bible proves transubstantiation if read properly" just like Mehdi will say "the Quran promotes non-violence if read properly". Both statements are meaningless, and simply reduce down to "when I read the holy book my way, it agrees with me [and by extension people who read it another way are wrong]".
Zain's defence that "Other Holy Books do exist" is not a defence at all. They're all piffle, and man-made not holy. Britain will be a better place when nobody takes the Quran seriously. Britain will be a better place when nobody takes any other holy book seriously either. As a rational, secular progressive I am happy to condemn them all. That is by no means islamophobic and I'm not singling out the Quran at all, except to the degree that it happens to be the Quran that inspired the act we are talking about not some other equally ludicrous and deluded book.
Lou, I'm afraid what you wrote about homosexuality and Islam is badly wrong. It's condemned by the religion and specifically by the teachings of Muhammad, not just for social-historic reasons. In fact culturally, same-sex relations (calling it "homosexuality" is superimposing a modern construction on it) were widespread in the Middle East at that time, and are known to have been practised among the Bedouin. Islam specifically condemns it, and threatens harsh punishment for liwat (same-sex behaviour). The term itself derives from "Lut" (Jewish "Lot"), and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. The destruction of those towns is justified in the Quran by reference to their sexual practices (in fact, more explicitly than the Torah does). The hadith are very important in Islam (please don't just read the Quran, it's like trying to understand modern Judaism on the basis of the Old Testament but forgetting the Talmud) and their attitude to homosexuals is very clear for both active and passive participants: "Whoever you find committing the sin of the people of Lut, kill the one who does it and the one to whom it is done". That isn't some later social construction added to Islam, it is part of the core message of Muhammad.
Put in simple language, so-called "Muslim radicalization" is simply explained, and contrary to the establishment view, is perfectly understandable.
If I was a Muslim I would be "radicalized" too. In fact not becoming radicalized would be a sign that I was probably brain-dead.
Many Muslims are angry and violently opposed to western attacks on their countries, massive interference in their internal affairs, our support for brutal dictatorships, and our utter contempt for how many people we kill when we invade their countries, destroy them, and impose brutal occupations.
Put very simply, we rape, rob, and kill Muslims with virtual impunity, and then we act shocked and throw our hands, which of course are not covered in blood and gore, in horror when the victims of all this terrible slaughter and agression have the timerity to actually defend themselves and fight back.
Sven King: I have a question for you. Don't misunderstand me, it's neither rhetorical not confrontational - I'm genuinely interested in your response. It seems that you mistrust Muslims as you believe that they have a hidden agenda and their values are incompatible with western society (correct me if I'm wrong). So, what would it take to convince you otherwise?
As I've stated before, Muslims have repeatedly condemned violence and terror, although such declarations are often overlooked (and Mehdi has himself frequently written against extremism). Regardless of whether the onus should really always be on Muslims to repeatedly prove their "innocence" in the face of presumed guilt by association (something that strikes me as a little distasteful), let us assume that Muslims in this country make heartfelt collective and personal declarations that they condemn violence and are not seeking to impose an Islamic state on the UK; would you not then simply turn around and cry "taqiya" (a concept you appear to have misunderstood)? It seems to be a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't".
And, ultimately, where will this lead us all?
She may have been unfamiliar with Quranic verses but by all accounts this young woman was highly intelligent if immature. This is an extremely sad situation for all involved. Frightening for Stephen Timms and a disaster for the woman and her family. It was not helped by the morons who supported her outside the Court either.
I am hoping that she will be fully assessed in custody for any mental illness and will be able to deal with her distorted thinking with maturity. At least she will be able to finish her degree in prison and her release date will be in her own hands.
Sadly, it also means that access to MPs will be much more tightly controlled particularly in inner city areas. It seems the appropriate time now for MPs to be properly trained on how to position desks in constituency offices, how to deal with disturbed people etc. What a sad reflection of the society we have become.
Stephan Timms, you could say, was on the frontline, as our young lads wherever they find themselves in the World defending what we stand for.
And there are casualties....
That is, sadly, life.
You seem to be promoting the old marxist (now neocon) idea of "the end justifies the means".
I agree defeating communism is a good idea, but carpet bombing South East Asia wasn't, particularly because the communists were mostly nationalists opposed to foreign occupation.
Which is why following the American exit, the Vietnamese were immediately at loggerheads with the Chinese.
The 'war on communism' was in fact a cold war arrangement between the two superpowers to share the world.
That's why when the Berlin wall fell, it took everyone by surprise (odd if it was planned) and why, for example, Thatcher was aghast at the thought that this would lead to a reunited Germany.
A genuine anti-communist would have promoted trade deals and cultural exchanges, rather than bomb the people you profess to want to help.
I'm sure your hostility towards Islam is genuine and self serving, but saying that people you disagree with should go and live in Iran, misses the point.
My priority is to promote British liberty, independence and democracy, not to be manipulated by agents of a foreign power against the national interest of my own country.
The idea that one can conflate, or lump all Muslims together into a great mass, a gigantic cultural stereotype, a simplistic lie; and then alleged that all violence associated with Muslims or found in Muslim societies, has a simple root cause - Islam; is absurd, and just plain wrong and non-sensical.
The Koran is not a recipe for terrorists, or a justification for crimes against humanity. This kind of ingorant argument, is, frankly, ridiculous. One can easily find passages in the religious texts of both Jews and Christians, which can be used, abused, and misinterpreted, to justify many different types of heinous crimes.
The Bible is full of ghastly stories, chock full of terrible violence, and justifications for genocide and war. In a word terrorism. The God character in the Old Testament is a truly terrible figure, a bloodthirsty, psychopath, toying with human lives for his perverse amuesment.
Inter-Muslim ethnic violence doesn't prove that Islam or Muslims are inherently violent. Wars between Muslim countries have virtually nothing to do with religion at all, but have far deeper causes.
Mixing up, wars, ethnic violence, terrorism, sectarian conflicts, is unhelpful and confuses the issue, unless one is determined to find "religious" causes behind everything connected with violence where Muslims are involved, even where there is no causal link.
Muslim terrorists, do not make a direct link between their actions and their religion. One has to sepparate mere rhetoric from actual causes.
We justify our attacks on Muslims by recourse to democracy and freedom, and nobody believes these excuses, so why should we believe that Muslims are any different than we are. A hypocrite is a hypocrite, no matter what religious label they flaunt.
We alleged that we were invading Iraq because of WMDs, but this was a lie, a fabrication, an excuse, a phantom. Like the idea that we face a Muslim threat. Lies on top of lies, propaganda designed to justifty western imperialsim.
Shia and Sunni are both Muslim. The war between Iraq and Iran was between two Muslim countries. These conflicts would seem to indicate that being a Muslim doesn't really have much significance here. That war is war, regardless of religion.
In reality the labels Muslim and Islam have virtually no significance in any of these conflicts, except as crude and convinient labels, which divert attention and obscure more important reasons for conflict.
Olijan : Yes I do mistrust some Muslims and I dont think Islam is a progressive but actually regressive Ideology. I don't think they have a hidden agenda but an agenda that the wider public isn't aware of but is becoming increasingly aware. That Agenda restricts freedom of speech and expression surrounding anything critical of Islam. There is a hair trigger sensitivity in the Muslim world that we cannot run the Danish Cartoons, say the name Mohamed - but blowing each-other up doesn't seem to matter.
There is a creeping and stealth Sharia finding its way into western democracy's...no other religious group imposes itself and is as intollerent of womens rights, minorities, Gays, and non-muslims as Islam.
I dont hate Muslims, I just dont like what Islam does to them.
I will post again but there words by Robert Spencer really sum up what any genuine attempt for Islamic counties to reduce the real fear of there ideology.
"If Muslim states really want to end "Islamophobia" in the West, here is an easy way they can do it without going to all the time, trouble and expense of running to the UN and trying to get laws passed that are at variance with the settled law and custom of Western non-Muslim states:
1. Focus their indignation on Muslims committing violent acts in the name of Islam, not on non-Muslims reporting on those acts.
2. Renounce definitively not just "terrorism," but any intention to replace the U.S. Constitution (or the constitutions of any non-Muslim state) with Sharia even by peaceful means. In line with this, clarify what is meant by their condemnations of the killing of innocent people by stating unequivocally that American and Israeli civilians are innocent people.
3. Teach Muslims the imperative of coexisting peacefully as equals with non-Muslims on an indefinite basis.
4. Begin comprehensive international programs in mosques all over the world to teach against the ideas of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism.
5. Actively work with Western law enforcement officials to identify and apprehend jihadists within Western Muslim communities.
You just don't find people of other religions carrying out acts of violence in the name of there religion, whatever there text says. If it happened in the 9th century then it did, but it is only Muslims who are carrying out Jihad attackes on massive scale inline with what the Koran teaches.
I just don't see the peace loving Muslims, where are they??? I just dont see Muslims address this..its all Islamophobia you say...its not tho, it real concerns, you cant discuss the truth on Islam without being told your a hate monger.
What you decide to do with your religion is your deal, I'm not telling you or anyone to do anything and I wont 'give up' discussing what is the next challenge the World has to defeat, radical Islamic.
It would be really refreshing if more Muslim wouldnt take the reporting of Islamic violence personally, they should be getting angry about people committing these acts...go out on the streets and show your rage at these people...but it never happends.
Instead someone makes a cartoon of Mohamed and there are riots and people are killed over it...I mean....its an Illness of the mind - there's no moral clarity in Islam.
Again you're talking out of your backside. Let's look at what a real expert says about the Iraq War then. After all, it's the reason Timms got stabbed.
And let's look at who was behind the lies and deceptions that got us there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans
And let's not forget about their fortuitous, "new Pearl Harbor".
But like I said, don't let FACTS get in the way of your hate-filled BS. If this was 1930's Germany, you'd be saying exactly the same thing, except the word muslim would be replaced by jew, gypsy, homosexual, socialist, etc.. It's called scapegoating, and you're being played oh so well.
Mohammads actions documented in the Quran and Hadiths clearly reveal to anyone who reads them that he was a murderous criminal terrorist, there's no way around those facts unfortunately.
There are also 100s of verses in the Quran and Hadiths inciting muslims to discriminate, dominate and murder non-muslims.
So if Roshonara thinks Mohammad version of Islamic morals are an example to follow, then choosing to murder a non-muslim who she disagrees with, isn't really that surprising.
If Roshonara was considering the question "What would my prophet Mohammad do in this situation" her obvious conclusion, following Mohammad principles and values, would be to commit murder.
Unfortunately it doesn't look like the "peaceful" muslims are able or willing to reform or reconcile these negative aspects of their religion. They seem to prefer to bury their heads in the sand, become overly defensive of criticism, or are just plainly in Islamo-denial about it all, while the fascist clerics who control and define what Islam is in todays world, show everyone exactly what an intolerant, violent, hateful, misogynistic and discriminating faith Islam really is at it's core.
The "Peaceful' muslims seriously need to take control of their religions and turn it's disgraceful reputation around, before it reaches a tipping point of no return.
CrISpY DuCk here you go
Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."
Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".
Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."
Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"
Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."
Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-"
Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"
Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
Quran (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."
Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah"
Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
Quran (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves"
Quran (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way"
(61:9): "He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist."
The Quran contains over 100 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers.The above is a small selection.
A decade since the wars began it is painfully sad to read stories in the press about British citizens harming their fellow Brits. If we ignore skin colour for a moment; what we see here is: "I am going to kill my brother because my brother is killing my brothers". What a crazy state of affairs. The ongoing Wars in the Middle East and Asia drives a wedge between some Muslims and society while the violent acts by some British Muslims drives a wedge between the Muslim community and the rest of society. When will the madness end? Advice to the next generation; multicultural societies are extremely delicate so please handle with care.
Bringing other religions down to the level of Islam is one of the most popular strategies of Muslim apologists when confronted with the spectacle of Islamic violence.
Most Muslims live peacefully, without harming others, so how can Islam be a violent religion? If Islam were the religion of terrorists, then why aren’t most Muslims terrorists?
The same question can easily be turned around. If Islam is a religion of peace, then why is it the only one that consistently produces religiously-motivated terrorist attacks each and every day of the year? Why are thousands of people willing and able to cut off an innocent person’s head or fly a plane into a building while screaming praises to Allah? Where’s the outrage among other Muslims when this happens… and why do they get more worked up over cartoons and hijabs?
Rather than trying to answer a question with a question, however, let's just say that the reason why most Muslims don't kill is that (regardless of what Islam may or may not teach) it's wrong to kill over religion.
Consider that many Muslims would not even think of amputating a thief's hand. Does this mean that it is against Islam to do so? Of course not! In fact, this mandate is clearly found in one of the last verses in the Qur'an (5:38) and in the example of Muhammad according to the Hadith (Bukhari 81:792).
Muslims may believe whatever they want to about what Islam says or doesn't say, but it doesn't change what Islam says about itself. As an ideology, it exists independently of anyone's opinion. As such, it may be studied objectively and apart from how anyone else practices or chooses to interprets it.
The Qur'an plainly teaches that it is not just proper to kill in the name of Allah in certain circumstances, but that it is actually a requirement. Muslims who don't believe in killing over religion may be that way out of ignorance or because they are more loyal to the moral law written in their hearts than they are to the details of Muhammad’s religion. Those who put Islam first or know Islam best know otherwise.
In fact, few Muslims have ever read the Qur'an to any extent, much less pursued an honest investigation of the actual words and deeds of Muhammad, which were more in line with hedonism, deception, power and violence than with moral restraint. The harsh rules that Muslim countries impose on free speech to protect Islam from critique also prevent it from being fully understood. In the West, many Muslims, devout or otherwise, simply prefer to believe that Islam is aligned with the Judeo-Christian principles of peace and tolerance, even if it means filtering evidence to the contrary.
It is no coincidence, however, that the purists of the faith – those most prone to abandoning themselves to Islam without moral preconception – are always the more dangerous and supremacist-minded. They may be called ‘extremists’ or ‘fundamentalists,’ but, at the end of the day, they are also the more literal and dedicated to the Qur’an and following the path of Jihad as mandated by Muhammad.
No doubt there is a big conflict going on at the moment, against capitalism versus the mega/giga bits per minute that technology is bring us, and certain people are scared. Some say shite like new world order. But what solution is there for that than a village, or some hollocaust/amageddon caused event?
Ah well, live day by day.
oops - mega/giga bits per second even - I still thought I was in the early 2000s then...
Israel should share Jerusalem and make peace with the Palestinians, with international guarantees.
This would improve the security of Israel and the diaspora, who would no longer have to defend the excesses of the Israeli government.
Avoiding this fact, by conflating the conflict, as a war between 'Muslims and the west' is manipulative and dishonest - and why your posts are often unbalanced.
Im aware of what the 4 Hadiths on homosexuality and the 7 sayings in the Quran say on homosexuality.
The Hadiths were written down at least 200 years after Muhammed's death and by the ninth century the number of Hadiths had multiplied, many were thought to be fabricated.
Islamic scholars call for closer examination of the Quran when interpreting Hadiths as some were authentic and many fabricated for political or theological purpose.
Different groups under the umbrella of Islam have different interpretations of the Hadiths but there is not one proven authentic Hadith or passage in the Quran that says homosexuality is a crime and must be punished. Just like there is nowhere in the Quran that authorises stoning as a punishment, only in the Hadiths that came much later do we see punishment by stoning for homosexuality, adulterers and atheists prescribed.
I disagree with you, I believe that the Hadiths are some social constructions added later to Islam for political and theological purposes and not the core message and sayings of Muhammad. Much like everything in the New testament isn't gospel according to Christ either.
Anyway, thanks for an interesting debate leftisforward nevertheless.
Robin Hood - your a dangerous fool, someone should lock you away.
see writeon your so not writeon,in fact your a pathetic liberal left wing idiot that the muslim fascists love and in fact most moderate muslims hate,in fact i will go one step further,nick griffin of the bnp has stated after he read the koran he stated that if he was born a muslim he would be most likely be as radical and as anti western as abu hamsa and shiekh omar bakri and be angry at the way muslim countrys are being treated all over the world,i believe nick griffin is actually a secret muslim convert hence thats why the bnp website banned me from making comments on there blog,get the message writeon.
Jerusalem should be declared an 'International City' as it doesn't belong to any one prticular religion, and should be administered by a Council of all Religious Faiths including Hindus Sikhs and Buddhists, perhaps these three might bring a bit of sanity to the whole argument over who controls it. But one thing is clear: Jerusalem is not the sole province of Israel.
It should be under the political control of the UN.
oh.and iain mr slimey tory dale has banned me from his website for calling him a bald nugget headed cretiness excuse maker for attacking the poor and weak in society while he lives it up in leafy tumbridge wells with the rest of his fox hunting tosspot tory wankers,yes,mr dale loves his point of view on lbc,but dare challenge that fox on his website and its banned from england.
Over the past 50 years the USA has killed more people in the world than any other nation.
We could if we chose define their murderous activity as Christian fundamentalism but personally I think it has more to do with economic factors. We could also, if we chose, call the US a terrorist state, some do.
Our own prejudices determine how we label others.
As Harry Patch said shortly before he died, 'war is state organised murder.'
Robin - Your a terror and murder apologist...
Your view...its all Israels fault....all the problems of the world, its all Israel....Hamas the people doing the violent acts don't even have responsibility...they are not culpable...they cant make choices...they cant screw up unless its Israels fault...again its the left wing tactic of never taking responsibility.
You have such a morally incorrect point of view. Your a screwed up wicked little sh*t.
you miss the point writeon,when these terrorists behead or commit acts of terrorism againstthe infidel or kaffir as they call us they always quote from the koran before they commit murder or mayhem,so that shuts your appeasing of terrorism down straight away..
You just cannot get the point. They employed her but not as Political Editor.
Michaelangelo can paint what he likes - no one was paying him to paint political pictures. Again another person misses the point.
WHat is wrong with people that the chief political editor of a political magazine can be allowed to write so exclusively about Islam and people who want politics cannot mention that.
The suregon treating Stephen Timms was called 'Asif Choudhry'! The security guard who restrained Roshonara Choudhry until the police arrived was called 'Faisal Butt'. All Muslims
Carlos, If you don't like the editor's policy, other magazines are available.
Oh dear, Sven is losing it. It's "you're", or "you are", not "your". Understand, idiot? :P Also, do you know what a logical fallacy is? Because your posts are filled with them. You don't try and construct a person's argument, then knock down your own construct.
But anyway, what you did say makes it evidently clear that you do in fact hate muslims. Everyone can see it. Like I said, people like you are being played oh so well by those who are trying to manipulate us into war after war (against Israel's enemies). That is why I made the analogy of 1930's Germany. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/11/06/gordon-duff-yemen-al-qaeda-prese...
I think much of our disagreement is superficial. As a materialist I believe the entire message of Islam is actually a man-made construction. As far as I'm concerned there is "not one proven authentic Hadith or passage in the Quran" that does anything at all - the whole thing is "inauthentic" in the sense of being non-divine. To what extent the hadiths are "genuine" is not a particularly interesting question to me: either it was man-made at the time of Muhammad, or man-made after, but what's relevant is how Muslims interpret and use that teaching.
It's an interesting prospect that a "reformed Islam" (think e.g. of Project Itjihad) may be able to dump the hadiths and adopt a more liberal interpretation of Quranic principles ("apply the spirit of the Quran as relevant to 2010, not how it literally was applied in 7th century Arabia"). I'm sure that it would be possible to construct a gay-friendly version of Islam, just as there are gay-friendly churches (e.g. the Cosmopolitan Church of Prayer) which have largely stripped-out or excused the anti-gay verses of the Bible. But in the global context, neither gay-friendly liberal Islam nor gay-friendly liberal Christianity are actually the mainstream approach, they are very much minority affairs.
And the existence or not of a liberal strain of Islam would NOT have saved us from Roshonara Choudhry. Her family religious tradition was actually very liberal and relaxed! But because she self-identified as a Muslim, and because she therefore treated the Holy Books with a degree of reverence that man-made works do not deserve, it opened up the trap of radical Islam. Radical Islam is not an obviously false reading of the Quran and Hadiths that clearly contradicts their divine message - they are complex, human works which, like all other literature, is open to multiple readings. In fact the radical conservative readings of Holy Texts (both Christian and Muslim) are quite plausible - it involves less mental gymnastics to just read things literally, than to come up with an excuse for everything that seems violent or prejudiced ("Oh, Paul didn't really mean that literally"... "What it says here about apostates, is actually superceded by another more liberal verse here"... "Muhammad probably didn't say that really"... "The translation is unclear"... "That was the right solution for the ancient Middle East but we should interpret it as a metaphor for our time" ... ad infinitum). The message of radical preachers is powerful because it is direct and clear - read what this stuff actually says. It's gory. It's pretty cruel. And it's just as much a valid reading of a book, to focus on the violence and honour and the fever of faith, than it is to focus on the woolly fluffy liberal caring stuff. People will read things in multiple ways, and while it would be nice if everyone saw the cuddly pro-democracy feminist pro-gay open-minded-on-the-philosophical-question-of-God Muhammad, a lot of people are going to see the opposite.
Roshonara Choudhry didn't come from a family that saw the harsh, misogynistic, violent side of Islam. But they taught her to see herself as a Muslim, and to see the Quran as the word of God, and the sayings of Muhammad as a valuable addition to human civilisation, and for her to seek the meaning and purpose of her life in their words. What she found in them was something dark and disturbing and violent that the liberal Muslims and their apologists, wish she hadn't, but it's undeniable that it is in there as a viable reading. Just like Protestants and Catholics will read the Bible in two different ways, and neither will "disprove" the other into non-existence by quoting Bible verses and haggling over semantics of translations, or textual reliability, so will liberal and radical Muslims continue to see (or project) different things in the Quran and Hadiths. Roshonara Choudhry accepted the "wrong" reading: not wrong because it was a meaning other than that which a non-existent God has intended, but wrong because it took her down a path of self-defeating destruction and violence, contrary to the culture and values of her own country. To see the liberal vision would have been wrong in a different sense: wrong-headed to believe that a God who wasn't there, had a tolerant vision of non-believers and sinners, but less dangerous to the rest of society. Yet it's not possible for us or even her family to change which of those two types of wrongness she would choose. Had Roshonara Choudhry been taught that she was just a cultural Muslim, that there is no God but a social construction, that there is no divine plan in this world for her and she would have to make her own path in life, that the "holy" texts are the work of man albeit of historical cultural importance... then perhaps she would not have taken the fool's errand of devoting the purpose of her life to following the desires of a fictitious being, as divined from the ambiguous words of a man-made work. Perhaps she could have avoided both forms of wrong. If you allow people the choice between those two forms, you must accept that some people will choose the darker and more dangerous one.
Even more logical fallacies! You just can't handle FACTS. Go troll elsewhere.
Dave : You got it so so wrong, Its not Israel who needs to make peace, its the Islam with Jews / Israel - look at the rhetoric from Muslim countries who would lets face it love to see the tiny Jewish people in Israel wiped of the face of the earth - they would rejoice like barbarians. 850,000 Jews lived in Arab nations before Israel was founded in 1948. It says most were forced to flee due to hostility when Israel was created and have lived in the middle east long before Islam even existed, is it wrong that Jew's should have a tiny peace of land to call there own? Its very convenient for Arab nations to use Israel as there focus for the hatred but lets face it they are all mostly corrupt and wicked regimes with terrible human rights.
We need to remove the verses of hate from the Quran and stop the Islamic preachers from preaching it.
The Quran Dehumanizes Non-Muslims
and Says that They are Vile Animals
Verse 5:60 even says that Allah transformed Jews of the past into apes and pigs. This is echoed by verses 7:166 and 2:65.
A hadith says that Muhammad believed rats to be "mutated Jews" (Bukhari 54:524, also confirmed by Sahih Muslim 7135 and 7136).
Verses 46:29-35 even say that unbelieving men are worse than demons who believe in Muhammad.
Very sad to see a hard working constituency MP attacked like this but good news that he wasnt killed. Timms has one of the safest majorities in the house, lets hope he doesnt need a massive security presence in future
Robin Hood - typical Lefty likes to see himself as a do good saviour.
Of course, there are exceptional Muslims who do not agree with Islamic supremacy and sincerely champion secularism and respect for all people.
I don't hate Muslims but parts of the Quran with its violent and hate filled texts that are preached regularly here and in Muslim countries by the Islamic supremacists.
Lets make no mistake, people like Medhi and any true Muslim adhere to what the Quran says, there is no moderate Islam - Islam is Islam, that's it.
The Quran Says that People of Other Religions are to be Violently Punished in This World
The Quran Says that Non-Muslims are
Destined for Eternal Torture in Hell
The Quran Says that Allah does NOT Love Unbelievers
Allah Himself Prevents Non-Muslims from Understanding
Allah Actually Causes Non-Muslims to Sin
The Quran Says that Non-Muslims Should Not be Taken as Friends
The Quran Says that Other Religions are Cursed by Allah
The pattern of violence and aggressive disregard for human suffering that is persistent in Muslim history and contemporary attitude toward non-believers reflects the message of the Quran, which is one of personal superiority and arrogance.
Well said Amin. With grossly disproportionate attention on a few Muslim individuals in the media, people overlook the 'normal' Muslims who are the true victims in all of this.
It reminds me of when I was a bit younger and used to think that all Chinese people were natural martial artists who could kick your butt because my experience with them was predominantly through kung fu flicks!
The list of Quranic verses you posted are exhortations and rules refarding warfare. There's nothing wrong with that...British troops certainly aren't told in their manuals to rub shoulders and smile for the camera on the battlefield! And it is no difference in this case.
The issue here is when someone gets wrong that a vigilante action like that doesn't come under legal warfare, just as if a British man wanted to stab an Iraqi man under the notion it was legal war.
That's what it was... a confusion, albeit a deadly one.
i think this girl needed to be assessed by a psychiatrist. God as a lawyer I was horrified at this interview because i really do believe she should have been properly assessed, it would go some way towards explaining her actions.
Left is Forward - I agree on the point that it's about interpretation and teaching - with any religion too.
Re paragraph 2, Liberal Muslims bring hope. Let's face it, western acceptance and tolerance of homosexuality is a very new thing and certain acts were illegal until recently. We can therefore hope that in due course, time will bring a more modern interpretation of Islam and acceptance and tolerance for others.
Agree with most of your final paragraph but I would say in addition to that, it isn't just about Roshonara making the wrong choice of two choices of wrong. I think it's also about her mental health regardless of anything else and that it can't be put down to simple radicalisation and exposure to extremism, although that exposure is bound to be a factor in the equation too.
There, in my opinion, was a personality change and a conflict going on within herself regarding her religion for a long time, she was receiving conflicting messages and had no one to discern and discriminate them with.
The main trigger for her - looking for answers I guess - seems to have been the Iraq War, the Israel thing is after exposure to the videos, but Iraq seems to have deeply disturbed this young lady and at a pivotal point in her life too at just 14.
Whilst I think her actions were wrong, I don't believe she was of truly sound mind and it's a desperately sad waste of a life.
anjem choudary and abu hama said there is no such thing as a moderate muslim,either your a muslim or your not a muslim, we are all one people like a tree with branches and acorns growing out of them,i bet that and i could be wrong the majority of muslims in this country secretly support the likes of abu hamas and anjem choudarys message of hate and fascism against non muslims but dont like to admit it in public due to fear of being outed as a jihadi supporting extremist,now i could be wrong,but i have to ask the question,why do you never see the so called moderate muslim out on the street demonstrating against the radical hate and race preachers like abu hamsa and anjem choudary,i would love to hear the answer to that from the so called moderate muslims in here including mehdi hassan.
My observation? She is mental. Harsh but fair.
Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.