This isn’t the anniversary for 9/11, it’s the 9th of September today and the twin towers attack occurred on the 11th of September, 2001.

Yes, but its relevant today because today is the Friday before 9/11 tenth anniversary, and the message will be read out as Mosques during prayers.

Seems those two small children, those two young supposedly 21st century British schoolgirls, are dressed EXACTLY like the terrorists and all they stood for would approve of!

Young children in 21st century Western, non-Islamic, Britain brainwashed into thinking that their hair is a sexual sin not to be glimpsed.
The veil comes next I’m sure…by their own’ brainwashed choice of course.

Great stuff.

Now if only all the the dawah peddling, Salafi, Wahaabi, Deobandi, Tableegi Jamaati, Jamat-e-Islami Muslim supremacists would shut the fuck up, we’d actually have no problem with Islam in Britain.

@ 4

Course we would. If people are prepared to hold everyday Muslims to account for the behaviour of the “dawah peddling, Salafi, Wahaabi, Deobandi, Tableegi Jamaati, Jamat-e-Islami Muslim supremacists”, they’ll clearly find any excuse to keep peddling their Islamophobia.

@ 3 Jimboy

“Seems those two small children, those two young supposedly 21st century British schoolgirls, are dressed EXACTLY like the terrorists and all they stood for would approve of!”

So what? People have the right to dress how they wish. Covering your hair doesn’t make you an ally of terrorists, does it?

This thread is another proof of the bias on LC.

This 9-11 statement is essentially press release.
But no one has asked the obvious critical questions: what is the motive behind the press release: does the press release matc up with the behaviour of he organisation.

Compare the LC reactions on the Abortion threads this week: every public statement by Dorries has been scrutinised, there have been people projecting all sorts of motives.

Every thread has been started with criticism – not one started by simply reporting a public statement of Dorries or whoever.

Chalk and cheese: some people/groups on LC are fair game for extremely robust suspicion and scrutiny. And alot of stupidity – ‘what the Right really want is to stop women having sex’ et al!

Other groups have their press releases put up, and critical facilities are suspended.

@ 7 What group are you talking about here? Muslims in general, or one of three groups behind the statement? Because the idea that you can subject an entire religious group to the same level of close scrutiny as you can a single elected official is silly – whereas individual groups can and should be scrutinised if they’re political.

That said, if you have dirt on whatever group it is you’re talking about, you should present it instead of complaining that nobody else has done it for you.

Chaise

> complaining that nobody else has done it for you.

That is not something I had done.
I simply pointed out the clear fact, of LC’s different attitude to questioning some organisations versus others.

You ask:

> What group are you talking about here? Muslims in general, or one of three groups behind the statement?

Well, the latter first of course – as you explained, that’s the only sensible way.

So having clarified that if we do ask robust questions about what those organisations have done or said – that we are explicitly NOT criticising Muslims in general – are any LC’ers willing to apply their analysis skills to scratch the surface on those 3 organisations?

Or will LCers feel that because groupings of an Islamic nature are not in the ‘list of enemies’, there is no stomach for asking about those groups?
–
It’s already telling, that the OP made no effort to profile those 3 organisations – many LCers will not be familiar with the 3: so cannot know if they are groups with values close to those of a liberal disposition. Or less liberal.

Any Chaise – do you want to 30 minutes of googling on them – or shall I ?

@ 9 Just Visiting

You can do it. I agree with you that people tend to avoid criticising groups they see as friendly. But I’m not going to go around researching every organisation whose name I read on the internet simply on spec. I wouldn’t have time to do anything else. At present, I have no reason to believe that there are problems with these groups.

Given the seemingly long list of Muslim groups, right now I’ve no knowledge good or bad of the 3 groups:
1. Radical Middle Way
2. Islamic Society of Britain
3. Inspire

Maybe some other LCers have already researched them?

@ 11

Like I say, I’m not sure why anyone on LC would research them if they have no reason to suspect them of unpleasant aims in the first place. There are a million and one organisations out there, you can’t research them all.

If, on the other hand, a group has made a statement you disagree with, you’ve got every motive to investigate them.

*And if you have reason to suspect them and still don’t look into it, that’s when confirmation bias comes into play.

Chaise, why attempt to engage with him/her/it? It is utterly pointless.

Just Visiting has precisely the same mindset as the muslim extremists it purports to be concerned about. The only difference is that JV uses a different book to justify it’s bigotry. The questions asked are idiotic in the extreme, so don’t waste your time, or demean yourself, by engaging with the idiot who asked them.

@ 14

JV and I have argued before regarding the reporting of Islamic and Christian opinions. But given that he’s claiming that the site is biased towards eulogising Muslims, I’d hardly be proving anything by ignoring the claim.

Apathy 14

Why so aggressive?

> The only difference is that JV uses a different book to justify it’s bigotry.

A book? You going off on tangents?

> The questions asked are idiotic in the extreme.

Why idiotic?

Like I said in 7 above and you;ve ignored:

If a group of political organisations put a press release about say Abortion – then LC will immediately question sceptically the motives behind the groups and what incentives they may have had to make the statement.

That’s just normal,scientific analysis – it’s what we (hopefully) teach our kids at school to do.

Or if it was a group of pharmaceutical companies.
Or a group of alternative medicine groups.

So why does that not apply to a press release from a group from one religion?

Chaise

You’re rigt that as mere punters here on LC, we dont have time to research every group mentioned.

But I think the OP does have a responsibility to check their sources.

Many people have read and some twittered from this article

LC will have done a dis-service to it’s readers if it turned out that one of the group turns out to be not entirely in line with liberal values.

It would also have been helpful actually, for the OP to have given a thumbnail sketch of the 3 groups- to gve LC readers an overview.

So, with scientific critical facility mode on: first thing is to read the press release.

First thoughts are that overallm it is rather bland and ‘we all support motherhood and apple pie’.

Take this sentence:
> The last ten years have not been easy. Tragically, we have seen thousands more people from all walks of life become victims of terrorism.

The facts are that the bulk of that terrorism has been Islamic inspired.

So the press release is rather thin – it refrains from even mentioning the role that Islam (whether understood or misunderstood) plays in global terrorism.

Point Two:
There is no reference to any projects, activities carried out within islam to counter terrorism.
Given that so much terrorism comes out of islamic communities – it doesn’t matter whether the perpertrators understood or mis-understood Islam, it is the Islam community that is the only one can take on the problem at source.

So given those 2 points -my view would be that the press release is more posturing than substance

> So given those 2 points -my view would be that the press release is more posturing than substance

I wonder if that view is shared by Muslim groups that are noticeable by their absence?

Eg the Quilliam Foundation: anyone who has not read Quillaim guy Ed Hussain’s book ‘The Islamist’ should be cauitous about commenting on Islam and terrorism in a public forum :<)

Just Visiting, I feel I should use my critical faculties to question your motives in posting on this topic. According to your posts that’s a pretty reasonable thing to do. On the other hand, I really can’t be arsed because your motives are obvious, aren’t they? So I’ll confine myself to picking some of your posts to pieces (easy, because you’re not vey clever, but fun, nevertheless):

“> The only difference is that JV uses a different book to justify it’s bigotry.

A book? You going off on tangents?”

Nope, no tangents. It’s a reference to the fact that you are a religious bigot. You use the bible (a book) to justify your bigotry whereas muslim fundamentalists use the koran (and other books) to justify theirs. You could, I suppose, call it “questioning your motives.” You’re keen on that so stop whingeing about it when someone does it to you. Anyway, If you understood the reference in my post then your comment is disingenuous. If you didn’t understand it then you’re even dimmer than I thought.

“> The questions asked are idiotic in the extreme.

Why idiotic?”

That, in itself, is an idiotic question. If you aren’t able to work out why, and I suspect that you genuinely aren’t, then there’s little hope for you.

“If a group of political organisations put a press release about say Abortion – then LC will immediately question sceptically the motives behind the groups and what incentives they may have had to make the statement.”

Yes, they might. But there might be some point. Not in this case. The motives of the organisations concerned are clear to anyone with eyes, the ability to read and a functioning brain. Rules you out, eh?

“That’s just normal,scientific analysis” No, it isn’t. There’s nothing scientific about it. You have no concept of scientific method or structured reasoning, so don’t attempt to imply that you do.

Finally,

“Why so aggressive?” There was nothing aggressive about my post. I made it obvious that I think you’re a deeply unpleasant little person whose critical faculties (if they exist) have been completely suppressed by a thoughtless adherence to a version of a set of ancient superstitions that you think gives you the right to impose your prejudices on others (know any other groups of people who might have the same problem?) but that’s not being aggressive, now is it?

Could people point to some surveys showing how many islamists/muslims believe 9/11 was either an American or Jewish conspiracy? Or both.

KenDodd’sdad’sdog’sdead

Yes, that is a widely held view among Muslims – the Jewish conspiracy explanation.
No stats- but Ed Hussain in his ‘the Islamists’ says that the educated Saudi’s he met whilst improving his Arabic + Qu’ran studies there believed it was Jewish operation and that all Jews working in the Twin Towers had been indvidually called that morning and told not to go t work!

Apathy

> Nope, no tangents. It’s a reference to the fact that you are a religious bigot. You use the bible (a book) to justify your bigotry

You’ve got the wrong person. I’ve not used the bible to justify anything.
Evreything you said about me is wrong.

Maybe take a deep breath before you hit Submit next time? – you’re in danger of coming across as a ranter who’s blind hatred of anything christian trumps any logic.

There is no reference to any projects, activities carried out within islam to counter terrorism.

Uh? The press release constitutes an activity to counter terrorism.

There’a no pleasing the likes of Just Visiting. They spend every waking second demanding that Muslims get their house in order, etc, but any actual example of Muslims attempting to do exactly that is immediately dismissed out of hand as “posturing”, and the motives of its participants suspected.

Tell me, ‘Just Visiting’, why would you not welcome a press release which pays tribute to the victims of 9/11 and rejects the actions and philosophy of the killers on that day?

Actually don’t tell me. I know the answer. It’s because the people who wrote it are Muslims and therefore must be lying as a ploy to disguise their muderous intentions.

Chaise – you’re engaging a troll mate

Larry

> Uh? The press release constitutes an activity to counter terrorism.

Er no,a press release, in isolation, is just a press release.
Whereas a press release supported by action -that’s different.

> It’s because the people who wrote it are Muslims and therefore must be lying as a ploy to disguise their muderous intentions.

Well, there are several on LC who would disbelieve every press release issued by every religious body – such is their view of religions.

You there Sally? : <)

I thought you were just visiting? Maybe you should change your name to permanent residence?

LMAO!

“”"So what? People have the right to dress how they wish. “”"

Yeeeeees. Those two girls are really dressing the way THEY want!

You mean the way they have been brainwashed into dressing by Islmaic zealots disguised as parents and older siblings.

So while their Infidel schoolgirl companions braid hair, wear slides, decorate teach others hair and just play and have fun…….
These two girls have supposedly decided themselves to cover their hair completely (and neck, ears, arms, legs) because to do less would be to sin and invite rape on themselves (heard it myself…from a a young Muslim man in a schoolyard as he lectured his Sister, there to pick her kids up, about how un-Islamic all this hair on show was) and this enlightened, 21st century decision was made with no malign influence at all……SURE!

Little girls in 21st century Britain brainwashed into covering up in desert religious garb at the fanatic behest of zealot parents who live by a unreformed, 1500 year old, extremist religious doctrine is so against anything remotely liberal you yet agin show just how sick supposed liberals have become.

As was recently written in an article I read…Christianity was reformed by liberals attacking the worst excesses, mocking the hardline doctrines and fighting the extremists to brings about change.
Liberal (true liberal, not your garbage) thought and deed in an evolving society reformed Christianity.

But now…that essential for reform liberal standpoint and action (that should be taking on Islam in the West as it did Christianity all those years ago) is instead now defending, helping and appeasing the same excesses and hardline doctrines in Islam it successfully reformed in Christianity.
The weapon of change, has now joined that which it once fougt against!

You shame this generation and all the generations to come.

If your brand of liberalism was around when Christianity needed reform. we’d still be burning witches today!

You have failed liberalism, failed the future itself and that is the greatest of victories for the Islamic terrorists!

And oh yeah…What does the football shirt prove?

One of the 7/7 scum was a big football fan. One helped out at his local school.
But all that is rendered into dust when Islam calls.

A football shirt!? Taken as proof of (contradiction in terms) ‘moderate’ and benign Islam?
Really?

Just Visiting – “You’ve got the wrong person. I’ve not used the bible to justify anything.
Evreything you said about me is wrong.”

What? Never? I find that hard to believe coming, as it does, from the LC’s resident religious fundamentalist and, by the way, nothing I’ve said about you is wrong:

a.) You ARE a religious bigot
b.) It IS obvious that your only reason for criticising the listed muslim organisations is that they are muslim organisations (again, look upon this as me questioning your motives, something you seem to think is valid so, as previously stated, stop whingeing about it). You don’t like muslim organisations because they are not christian, hence, your ultimate justification for your irrational hatred is your twisted view of the bible.
c.) The questions you ask ARE stupid.

And two other points:

a.) “you’re in danger of coming across as a ranter who’s blind hatred of anything christian trumps any logic.” I don’t hate anything christian. I’ve been criticising YOU, not christianity or christians in general. Don’t try to deflect this or create a strawman.
b.) “Maybe take a deep breath before you hit Submit next time?” Interesting from the person who posted “Evreything you said about me is wrong.” Proof reading. Try it sometime. Before you hit “Submit Comment.”

Sunny 25

Can you support your name calling and tell me what I’ve said in this thread that is trolling?

Your comment and this thread shows your bias and that of many on LC – you want critical thought suspended when it comes to some groups, but with others you alow unfettered speculation and character assasination.

Why did you not intervene Sunny in the abortion threads earlier when people were saying dross like ‘anti-abortionists don’t want women to have sex’ and Sally was spouting bile?

Those threads were full of over the top, un-evidenced attacks.

Whereas you intervene here to name call – and look, all I’ve said is that we should not suppress our critical facilities when a religious grouping make a public statement. !!

Why is that thought such a threat to you?

@31 “tell me what I’ve said in this thread that is trolling?”

Everything.

Hope that helps.

Apathy

It’s time to put up or shut up.

You said:
> JV uses a different book to justify it’s bigotry

So go on then, show where on LC I did that.

Apathy

You do hate christians. That’s the only conclusion from what you’ve posted here in this thread.

>“you’re in danger of coming across as a ranter who’s blind hatred of anything christian trumps any logic.” I don’t hate anything christian. I’ve been criticising YOU, not christianity or christians in general. Don’t try to deflect this or create a strawman.

This is getting funny – you’ve been criticising me simply because you think I have been doing things that show I’m a christian! Like your quote above about the bible.

Like when you ascribe my motives like this
> You don’t like muslim organisations because they are not christian

QED it’s christians you hate. Period.

Worse, so keen are you on witch-hunting christians that you even hate people like me that haven’t even done the ‘nasty christian things’ you accuse us of!!

That’s obsessive behaviour.

@33 ” You said:
> JV uses a different book to justify it’s bigotry”

No, I wrote it. I wrote many things, why pick on that one? Is it because you think you’ve seen the chance to win on a nit – picking point or because you can’t think of anything to say in response to the other points I make? In either case, bad luck. This might be difficult for you, but try to follow the argument in 30, point b (the first point b, not the second). There’s a similar explanation for the hard of thinking in post 20 (second long paragraph). This explains what I meant. You really shouldn’t need this kind of help because the point I was making is obvious.

“So go on then, show where on LC I did that.” Once again, I’m calling into question your motives. You know, what you claim you’re doing when you ask stupid questions about why a list of muslim organisations agreed to a press release (jeez, thought we’d covered this one). I’m performing the same process on you which you claim to be performing on them. Don’t like it, do you? I think you’re motivated by an adherence to a particular interpretation of christianity. You don’t have to explicitly quote the bible for that to be apparent, do you?

@ 35 “you’ve been criticising me simply because you think I have been doing things that show I’m a christian!” No, because you’re a religious bigot. I made that abundantly clear.

“Like when you ascribe my motives like this
> You don’t like muslim organisations because they are not christian

QED it’s christians you hate. Period.”

You really shouldn’t attempt to use devices (logic) or abreviations (QED) which you don’t understand. You’ve done it here and made yourself look (more) ridiculous. The statement “you don’t like muslim organisations because they are not christian” contains no indication of my views on christianity.

To reiterate, it’s all about YOU, not christianity.

Apathy 35

I repeat – put up or shut up.

>> @33 ” You said:
>> JV uses a different book to justify it’s bigotry”
>
> No, I wrote it. I wrote many things, why pick on that one?

If you make a statement -you must be expected to be called up on it, and to support it. That’s the rules of any debate.

So either withdraw that statement – or supply evidence to support it.

I won’t bother replying to anything else you’re saying – there’s no point if you wion’t adhere to this basic principle.

“If you make a statement -you must be expected to be called up on it, and to support it.” I did. Several times. I can’t be held responsible for any cognitive deficiencies on your part.

“I won’t bother replying to anything else you’re saying” Don’t blame you. It’s been going pretty badly for you so far, why make it worse?

Apathy

>“If you make a statement -you must be expected to be called up on it, and to support it.” I did. Several times

No you haven’t.

Nowhere have you pointed to where I wrote something that supports your claim that ”JV uses a different book to justify it’s bigotry”.

@39 You’re obviously confused. Could I refer you to post 37 which was written by, erm, you ……

“I won’t bother replying to anything else you’re saying”

Didn’t last long, did it?

“No you haven’t.” Yes, I have. Several times. Couldn’t have made it clearer. Read posts 30, 35 and 36. Explaining this is becoming tiresome.

Apathy

this is tiresome. None of the posts you mention are at all relevant.

Please quote here the exact phrases of mine, that you think support your claim: ”JV uses a different book to justify it’s bigotry”.

Those phrases of mine must obviously be ones in which:
i) I refer to the bible (which is the book you meant)
ii) I use that reference in making a statement that you think is bigotted.

Just for extreme clarity – you need to quote words that I have written. Nothing else. Not anything you have written.

@ “Just for extreme clarity – you need to quote words that I have written. Nothing else. ”

Ok. How about this? “I won’t bother replying to anything else you’re saying” You’re demonstrating a lack of consistency here.

“this is tiresome” yes, I believe I said something similar: “Explaining this is becoming tiresome.” However, I’ll repeat myself, in the hope that, this time, you understand: Read posts 30, 35 and 36. Now do try and keep up.

And of course Apathy, as there is nothing on LC I’ve said that supports your claim…. I imagine you’ll go abit quite now.

Or maybe jump off to other LC threads, to attack me there. Oh too late, you already have attacked me on the 911 thread.

@43 “And of course Apathy, as there is nothing on LC I’ve said that supports your claim…. I imagine you’ll go abit quite now.” On the other hand, I could have responded to your previous post already. Seems I have. Take a look at post 42. And, by the way:

“I won’t bother replying to anything else you’re saying” It’s not really working out for you, is it?

So Apathy

by not quoting my words – you’re agreeing that you cannot find any of my words that support your claim:”JV uses a different book to justify it’s bigotry”.

Last chance – if you can show anything I’ve said that fits – then quote it now.

It’s so little effort – just copy + paste and you’ve proven you’re right!
It’s an easy Win for you – if such words of mine exist!

Go Apathy – victory in sight for you, eh?!

Well if this comments thread proves anything it’s that Muslim groups are condemned regardless of what they do.

Cylux

How so? I see no condemnation in the thread.

Cylux

the strongest words have been mine:
>… So the press release is rather thin…
> …. the press release is more posturing than substance

Hardly comndemnation? Not by LC standards!

I guess, your view may be coloured by whether you’d agree or not with the statement:

“Given that so much terrorism comes out of islamic communities – it doesn’t matter whether the perpertrators understood or mis-understood Islam, it is the Islam community that is the only one can take on the problem at source”

@47 You must have missed Davey boy’s posts at the very least then. Though quite what motivated some to ignore the OP entirely in favour of having a go about the kids in the stock photo is beyond me.

Cylux

yeah, you’re right – that was whacky.

You didn’t respond to my bit starting: “Given that so much terrorism comes out of islamic communities …”

@45 “by not quoting my words – you’re agreeing that you cannot find any of my words that support your claim:” I’m not agreeing to anything, don’t be ridiculous … oh, sorry, I realise you can’t help that. I’ve explained the point, several times. As, stated above, I can’t be held responsible for any cognitive deficiencies on your part.

“Last chance” Really? You’re sure? This is definitely my “last chance”? I rather think that you don’t decide how many “chances” I get. But if it helps you believe that you do, carry on.

And finally, remeber typing

“I won’t bother replying to anything else you’re saying” ? And yet you did. Four times.

So, in the absence of anyone else commenting about the 3 organisations behind the press release – here’s the result of my Googling.

I choose the islamic Society of Britian: http://www.isb.org.uk

I’ll post my conclusion first, for those how can’t be bothered to read the details :<)

Conclusion
—————
Certainly ISB and it's project Islam Arewareness Week IAW aim to portray Islam in a good light to non-Muslims – which is not an aim you can criticise in any group that exists to support a particular worldview.

But have they taken that aim and ended up being merely propagandists?

And how, without willingness to face the reality of Islam on the ground: will the Islamic community get to groups with those who (whether they have misunderstood islam or not) are committing and advocating terrorist acts in its name?

Charity Status – lack of
——————————–
They are not a charity registered with the Commission. But one of their projects is: Zakat Trust.
Given the tax benefits of being a registered charity – why would they not be registered? Is it because they can't fulfil the requirements of a registered Charity – or some other reason – I have no info on that.

So : looking at their site.
One of their other projects is the Islam Awareness Week http://www.iaw.org.uk: who also run a website http://www.plainislam.org.uk

Looking at those last two websites – from the perspective of a LC reader – there are several jarring moments.

Jarring statements: 'Gender Equality' page
———————————————-
http://www.plainislam.com/in-depth/gender-equality.aspx

It is keen to position how 'reformist scholars' don't agree with conservative ones that "a woman's witness is worth half that of a man's, in most areas of law."

But fails to say whether such reformist scholars have actually made a difference anywhere. Without that, it is as unhelpful as if to say a nationalistic organisation posted a page saying how some 'reformist' thinkers now welcome immigration of all types….!

Out on the islamic street: this organisation for example see no harm in treating women less well than men: the Sharia council in London (www.islamic-sharia.org) : Men can submit Islamic divorce forms for £200 whereas women are stung £400!

And of course the Prophet (who is the ideal man and to be imitated by Muslims) himself said: ‘Your lack of common sense can be determined from the fact that the evidence of two women is equal to one man. That is a proof.'

Even Wikipedia points to so many islamic sources where the witness of a women is half that of a man – or even not valid at all.

So IAW is being very unhelpful in ignoring the specifics of all these genuine issues in Islamic theology.

Most crippling – they are so unspecific as to not even give a name to one reformist thinker ? !

Jarring statements: 'Pluralism' page
———————————————-
Phrases like the following don't ring true:

It is important to note that differences in belief are the plan of God. The abolition of such differences is not the purpose of the Quran, nor is the Prophet Muhammad sent for that purpose….
… This is how the terms dhimmah (protected minority) and jizya (taxes collected from the dhimmah) emerged.

As Sunny will know from the volume of discussion on Pickled Politics – the case of the death threats in the UK against Usama Hasan: that there is far from widespread agreement that differences are permitted in Islam – even among Muslims in the UK who are exposed to westernising influences here.

And the fate of minority religions right now in Muslim majority countries:
Anyone following the news knows the extreme situation of say coptic christians in Egypt or Ahmadi sect members in Pakistan:
It is clear that today Dhimmihood often means the opposite of protected.

LMAO!

“””So what? People have the right to dress how they wish. “””

Yeeeeees. Those two girls are really dressing the way THEY want!

You mean the way they have been brainwashed into dressing by Islmaic zealots disguised as parents and older siblings.

So while their Infidel schoolgirl companions braid hair, wear slides, decorate teach others hair and just play and have fun…….
These two girls have supposedly decided themselves to cover their hair completely (and neck, ears, arms, legs) because to do less would be to sin and invite rape on themselves (heard it myself…from a a young Muslim man in a schoolyard as he lectured his Sister, there to pick her kids up, about how un-Islamic all this hair on show was) and this enlightened, 21st century decision was made with no malign influence at all……SURE!

Little girls in 21st century Britain brainwashed into covering up in desert religious garb at the fanatic behest of zealot parents who live by a unreformed, 1500 year old, extremist religious doctrine is so against anything remotely liberal you yet agin show just how sick supposed liberals have become.

As was recently written in an article I read…Christianity was reformed by liberals attacking the worst excesses, mocking the hardline doctrines and fighting the extremists to brings about change.
Liberal (true liberal, not your garbage) thought and deed in an evolving society reformed Christianity.

But now…that essential for reform liberal standpoint and action (that should be taking on Islam in the West as it did Christianity all those years ago) is instead now defending, helping and appeasing the same excesses and hardline doctrines in Islam it successfully reformed in Christianity.
The weapon of change, has now joined that which it once fougt against!

You shame this generation and all the generations to come.

If your brand of liberalism was around when Christianity needed reform. we’d still be burning witches today!

You have failed liberalism, failed the future itself and that is the greatest of victories for the Islamic terrorists!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/richardlandes/100104166/by-reacting-to-911-with-self-recrimination-the-western-elites-have-strengthened-the-hand-of-brutal-islamism/

“”By reacting to 9/11 with self-recrimination, the Western elites have strengthened the hand of brutal Islamism “”

So when, in order to seem peaceful, we abandon non-westerners to brutal political cultures in the name of some quasi-religious commitment to cultural relativism, we betray everything we claim we support. Such attitudes seem particularly inadvisable when facing an apocalyptic foe dedicated to the destruction of all our progressive values.

If the only people who fight Islamic triumphalism are really on the Right, their solutions will obviously favour harsh responses. Liberals and progressives would, presumably, struggle harder to come up with more creative and less violent forms of effective resistance. So it constitutes a catastrophic loss of creative energy to have a “Left” that believes that somehow, if only we were nicer to Muslims, they’d be nicer to us, one that views as an alarming embarrassment anyone who points out the Islamic contribution to the problem, as a saboteur of this effort at placation, an “enemy of peace.” It also represents a colossal betrayal of genuine Muslims moderates who really do want to live in a vibrant civil society that respects everyone; where Muslims respect infidels, and infidels respect Islam.

Davey Boy

you’ve posted your earlier 28 again. Duplication does not help.

Oh dear, this thread is another that proves LC suspends critical faculties when it comes to Islam and Muslims.

The thread spells it ou for all to see.
The OP puts up a press release, organised by 3 muslim groups.

When I ask – does anyone on LC know anything about those groups – no one does.
Not even the OP !

I then look at the group’s websites and post some sensible questions – does anyone want to discuss the website of a Muslim organisation?

Not one.

But this is a Muslim organisation that LC has given air-time, and approval too, by posting their press release: does no one on LC care to discuss the website of an organisation approved of by LC in that way.

Nope.

QED – LC suspends critical judgement on matters Islamic.

and actually the iSB, or it’s chair Julie Siddiqi may one day need some active support from LC – so shame that LC takes so little interest in now.
–
Whilst I may have been critical of their websites, that they seemed too much PR – too much aimed to please a Western ear.

Some Muslims seem to have taken a similar view – and interpreted ISB’s chair Julie Siddiqi therefore as an apostate.

That’s logical in Islam: you speak out against Islamic values, you’re an apostate.

But these Muslims also know know the Islamic punishment for apostasy, so they’re beng entirely consisetnt with Islam when they write:

> ok serious question for a minute…
>
> hyperthetically the mujahideen invade the uk and take it over…
> are these women killed as apostates or taken as slaves?

—————————————————————————————-
One day Julie of ISB may need the help of people like some of us at LC – active help. To escape the death threats due to her apostacy.

(quote above from forums.islamicawakening.com – written by Muslims, based in the UK it seems.