- Joint statement by academics and public figures on the government’s implementation of PREVENT through the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015
The latest addition to the United Kingdom’s counter-terrorism framework comes in the form of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (CTS Act). The CTS Act has placed PREVENT on a statutory footing for public bodies to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism by tackling what is claimed to be ‘extremist ideology’. In practice, this will mean that individuals working within statutory organisations must report individuals suspected of being ‘potential terrorists’ to external bodies for ‘de-radicalisation’.
The way which PREVENT conceptualises ‘radicalisation’ and ‘extremism’ is based on the unsubstantiated view that religious ideology is the primary driving factor for terrorism. Academic research suggests that social, economic and political factors, as well as social exclusion, play a more central role in driving political violence than ideology. Indeed, ideology only becomes appealing when social, economic and political grievances give it legitimacy. Therefore, addressing these issues would lessen the appeal of ideology.
However, PREVENT remains fixated on ideology as the primary driver of terrorism. Inevitably, this has meant a focus on religious interaction and Islamic symbolism to assess radicalisation. For example, growing a beard, wearing a hijab or mixing with those who believe Islam has a comprehensive political philosophy are key markers used to identify ‘potential’ terrorism. This serves to reinforce a prejudicial world view which perceives Islam to be a retrograde and oppressive religion that threatens the West. PREVENT reinforces an ‘us’ and ‘them’ view of the world, divides communities, and sows mistrust of Muslims.
While much of the PREVENT policy is aimed at those suspected of ‘Islamist extremism’ and far-right activity, there is genuine concern that other groups will also be affected by such policies, such as anti-austerity and environmental campaigners – largely those engaged in political dissent.
Without due reconsideration of PREVENT’s poor reputation, the police and government have attempted to give the programme a veneer of legitimacy by expressing it in the language of ‘safeguarding’. Not only does this depoliticise the issue of radicalisation, it shifts attention away from grievances that drive individuals towards an ideology that legitimises political violence.
PREVENT will have a chilling effect on open debate, free speech and political dissent. It will create an environment in which meaningful change in policy can only be sought outside the system. Therefore, PREVENT will make us less safe.
We believe that PREVENT has failed not only as a strategy but also the very communities it seeks to protect. Instead of blindly attempting to strengthen this project, we call on the government to end its ineffective PREVENT policy and rather adopt an approach that is based on dialogue and openness.
Signing with institution name is for identification purposes and not for institutional endorsement.
Prof. David Miller University of Bath
Dr Tarak Barkawi London School of Economics and Political Science
Abdoolkarim Vakil King’s College London
Dr Salman Sayyid University of Leeds
Asim Qureshi CAGE
Yahya Birt University of Leeds
Dr Sadek Hamid Liverpool Hope University
Prof. Tariq Modood University of Bristol
Dr Fauzia Ahmad University of Bristol
Bill Bolloten Teacher and education consultant
Dr Katy Sian University of Manchester
Dr Charlotte Heath-Kelly University of Warwick
Dr Narzanin Massoumi University of Bath
Dr Tom Mills University of Sussex
Dr Vian Bakir Bangor University
Dr Justin Cruickshank University of Birmingham
Dr Peter Kennedy Glasgow School of Business for Society
Robin Richardson Instead Consultancy
John Grayson South Yorkshire Migration and Asylum Action Group
Batur Talu Independent researcher on social science
This serves to reinforce a prejudicial world view which perceives Islam to be a retrograde and oppressive religion that threatens the WestReplyDelete
Errrr, maybe because it is? Some of the signatories think Jihadi John to be a beautiful young man (present tense deliberate), it doesnt void the initial point, but it does illustrate the free pass they are desperate to give to barbarians.
"The way which PREVENT conceptualises ‘radicalisation’ and ‘extremism’ is based on the unsubstantiated view that religious ideology is the primary driving factor for terrorism."ReplyDelete
More oppressive new laws are not good. But an ever growing gruesome pile of headless corpses in the name of Islam substantiates the link.
"Academic research suggests that social, economic and political factors, as well as social exclusion, play a more central role in driving political violence than ideology." These may well be contributory factors but religion is the 'primary driving' cohesive glue binding them all. People who wish to oppose social and economic exclusion usually get involved in things like trade unionism, leftist political groupings etc, not religios extremism hell bent on world genocide of anyone not muslim.
Christy, the PREVENT strategy is doomed to fail, as every initiative will, because it doesnt/cant reference the scripture that gives groups like ISIS their moral defence against the acts they carry out. David Cameron will even write to the BBC complaining about the 'Islamic' part of their Islamic State references. I severely doubt Cameron has read the Koran,Sunnah or Hadiths, he just relies on SpAds like Tariq Ramadan to assure him its all just Islamophobic smears.I severely doubt anyone that defends Islamic scripture (that isnt Muslim) has actually read them either. PREVENT relies on this very fact.ReplyDelete
So who told you who jihadi john was some one like Ruth Dudley Edwards have you forgot who hung drewn and quartered Robert emmet and who hung men like henry joys head and many more united irishmen's head on a large post in the centre of the towns and not to mention what. The French did with gelatines Islamic state is manufactured by the west to justify there butchery in predominantly muslim country's i became politically aware threw watching the slaughter in Ireland in the last phase of the war there not threw any religious beliefs how would you feel if Ireland didn't exist any more like Syria or IraqReplyDelete
It seams i spelt guillotine wrong sorry a machine the French used to cut head off till it abolished capital punishment in 1981ReplyDelete
Nicola, your point isnt clear.Are you saying an Irishman who has never beheaded anyone, cannot criticise Jihadi John because the French guillotined people?ReplyDelete
It would depend on whose definition of failure you measure PREVENT by? I would liken it to legislating for Stazi-ism. Stalinist Russia and the East German Stazi are two historic examples of where this sort of repressive legislation was considered to be very effective and successfully operated for years. That innocent people got caught up in their webs only made people more fearful and co-operative.
The difficulty I have with the campaign as detailed above is that it comes down to this -it has more to do with one division of Muslims denying that another division are killing in the name of Islam (regardless of how many atrocities substantiate that fact). I think both divisions Islam need to privately sort their religious definitions of Islam out without holding the rest of us to ransom. Both divisions of Muslims probably have each read and interpreted the Koran and Prophet's Hadith to suit themselves -it might very well be that their views are indistinguishable from the views expressed by those have never read either book. Muslims are constantly defining who they think are good Muslims and who are not -for instance some Muslims would deny that the entire Iranian Muslim population are Muslims at all, others allege that non-Arabic speaking Muslims are not 'real' Muslims.
So for me I would not support this campaign when it endeavours to cause its own injustice by denying that thousands of innocent people are being brutally slaughtered in the name of Islam. This campaign is fundamentally wrong in claiming that "unsubstantiated view that religious ideology is the primary driving factor for terrorism. ...social, economic and political factors, as well as social exclusion, play a more central role in driving political violence than ideology" I am sure that poverty stricken christian minorities throughout the Middle East are reassured that poor English Muslims are traveling out to kill them because of social exclusion in the UK and not on Religious Jihad..
Mankind, including the French and British, have moved on from those forms of barbarities and terrorism and are no justification for the savagery or terrorism that you are defending today.
I agree with the thrust of the article. I can see a valid argument against believing that religious ideology is the primary force with political violence.ReplyDelete
In his book "Terrorism, How to Respond" Richard English makes a number of convincing arguments why in the Middle East religion is less of a factor than say Western foreign policy, support for Israel and wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
If the US and UK go into a country, start a war and millions die maybe the slaughter raises hackles more than religious belief.
The despicable treatment of prisoners also doesn't help. Neither do cultural changes like Western corporations setting up shop in the Middle East or the US Army setting up bases in sensitive areas.
As for the UK if you demonise a religion you'll reap what you sow.
Anyway we all need our bogeymen so since Communism is over the Islamists are the next big thing. Time for a witch hunt.
you never answered my last question(s) to you, but here goes,
In his book "Terrorism, How to Respond" Richard English makes a number of convincing arguments why in the Middle East religion is less of a factor than say Western foreign policy, support for Israel and wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
Ok, but how does that explain its expansion in say the century after Mohammeds death? The rape, pillage, massacres predate any Western involvement in that region?
...Neither do cultural changes like Western corporations setting up shop in the Middle East...
So in the reverse arrangement, say those that graffiti "N*****S OUT" in E.Belfast have a right to resist what they see as unwanted Cultural changes? Graffiti is less objectionable than terror isnt it?
Anyway we all need our bogeymen so since Communism is over the Islamists are the next big thing. Time for a witch hunt.
Can you give an example of this witchhunt comparable to that over Communism? Given much potential criticism of Islam is proscutable? Given until recently the Law Society was issuing guidlines for solicitors to draw up Sharia compliant documents? Given anyone that does criticise Islam is depicted as extreme in nearly every major newspaper or other media outlet?
DaithiD, "Ok, but how does that explain its expansion in say the century after Mohammeds death?" I never said it did, I am explaining violence today.ReplyDelete
In fact if we go back only a little while Saddam and Bin Laden weren't much trouble to the West as allies. So inevitability a problem? I don't think so. Not to the West at any rate. To their own people? Certainly. Did the West care or did we fund their atrocities? Did the chemicals used to gass the Kurds come from the West? Did the US fund the mujahadeen against the Russians?
Racist slogans and hatred like in your example are not based on any logic but based purely on ignorance and racism. The Westernisation of the Middle East is understandably unwelcome. I don't welcome McDonald's or Coca Cola getting a foothold in Ireland so I can empathise with others in a completely different, more polarised cultural setting feeling that way. Glossy, capitalist, ruinous multinationals were never my cup of tea.
The witchhunt is the demonisation of the Muslim community in the UK. The bias in stop and search operations, arrests and also analogies can be seen with attempts to deradicalise people. Turning people against others in the UK when the only outcome will be more polarisation and more terrorism.
Sorry, DaithiD. Could you direct me towards your questions I failed to answer? Normally I request a post's follow-up comments to be emailed and I answer anything put to me. Maybe I didn't tick the box.ReplyDelete
"we all need our bogeymen"
Do you really believe that ISIS and other religious whacknuts like them are a figment of our imagination?
I do not like the idea of more oppressive or repressive legislation for the reasons I say above. Unfortunately the reality is there are religious fanatics killing innocent people. I do not like it but unfortunately PREVENT holds some potential for legitimacy. And as things go whatever legitimacy there might be will be over exaggerated, abused and eventually the law will be broadened to other areas it was not originally intended.
The campaign organizers on one hand deny the reality that people are being killed by religious fanatics for religious reasons -an Islamic caliphate. My guess is that the jihadists are driven by religious reasons as they themselves state that that is their reasoning for killing. The authors go on in their letter to suggest that the religious fanatics are really driven because of economic and social exclusions in the UK and not because of Islamic jihad-ism.
You say you agree with the campaigners so maybe you can explain how social and economic exclusion in the UK can result in young men deciding that the answer to their problem is to travel to the otherside of the world, to maybe a country they have never been before, participate in the slaughter of poverty stricken villagers, rape and sell into sexual slavery any young girls or women it the village?
The bogeymen is very real and causing real harm to real people.
Islam is a retrograde and oppressive religionReplyDelete
Diplock, "Do you really believe that ISIS and other religious whacknuts like them are a figment of our imagination?"ReplyDelete
No. I compared the fear created in the West to that of Communism. Communism was very real too. Was the fear created in the West justified? I don't think so.
The people in the Middle East are getting slaughtered in their thousands. The West is hardly touched by comparison. There is a problem with UK citizens travelling to join ISIS. My point is that legislation like the one mentioned in the original post treats a section of the community as bogeymen. Legislation like that will only drive more to travel. Demonisation through draconian means will only turn people against the state.
As for your last question, social and economic exclusion alone wouldn't drive people to join ISIS. It would however make them despondent, disenchanted and disgruntled making them more vulnerable to approaches, more susceptible to propaganda etc than would otherwise be the case.
As for a solution to ISIS. I hope one is found. They are a horrific crowd. Very real. Did they arise out of nothing? Was it purely religion? Or are their roots in the Iraq and Syrian Wars, helped on their way through circumstances created by the West?
I remember on the BBC news an anti Syrian Army commander stating that in his estimations ten percent of his fighters were Al Quaeda. This should have been a warning to the West but the UK and US kept funding them. For months after the interview. Purely because they wanted rid of Assad who was a horror himself.
If there is a solution I hope it's the right one as things could get worse depending on the response.
While I am suspicious of any new legislation by nature I compare it to the Irish Withholding Act 2011 -brought in to counter clerical abuse and the deafening silence from Church Officials. So how bad would it be for any Imams preaching intolerance and hatred to have to look over their shoulder at their own congregation for fear that any one of them might report them?
I understood your point about communism -the fear was irrational and stirred up by psycho-ops and propaganda (which are no doubt also present today with Islam). The general overall fear of communism was of extreme regime change -with Islam -your throat is slit -unless you might be prepared to live contrary to your own conscience should you not believe in Islam but submit to it. One might not like communism but it is a rational ideology. Islam, although it might be structured, is irrational and illogical.
On the other-hand fear of communism was not entirely irrational because you could neither trust the Russians nor Americans that either would not start a nuclear war. We know now that on a few occasions the launch of nuclear weapons came perilously close so anyone fearing the possibility of a nuclear war would have been right.
If I fear personally that I might be Islam's next victim then that might be irrational. Irrationality in that respect is dependent upon my location -if I were some place else it might be irrational if I did not fear for my life.
ISIS has more to do with austerity than Islam.Dear God.ReplyDelete
Incidently Simon, you dont need to answer, but i asked what city you lived in. There is a sharia road show going round Britian now and I caught the Whitehcapel stage, i just wondered if there was a chance of you catching it. Not one person challenged these people when i was there, maybe 1000 muslims had passed them (it was a market day and my missus is always late!).Maybe they just wanted a peaceful life, but do you think if it was a National Front stall it would of been allowed without challenge? Ive said before how that community reacted when the EDL was there, they were so fired up i nearly got lynched, and would of if my missus didnt step in.ReplyDelete
Yet this #No2Democracy roadshow is supposedly bismirching their religion, is right there in front of them, and they did nothing.
DaithiD, I thought the "what city do you live in?" was a rhetorical question.ReplyDelete
The Internet is a strange beast so I hope you don't mind if I don't answer that.
Diplockcourts, "On the other-hand fear of communism was not entirely irrational because you could neither trust the Russians nor Americans that either would not start a nuclear war."ReplyDelete
As with Communism when the threat wasn't one-sided the same goes for the problems in the Middle East. If you go into a country and start a huge war with a result of millions dead you can not be surprised if there is a violent response of whatever guise.
My point is the Middle East was suffering massively before ISIS. Much more than we're suffering here. So when people suffer deaths and casualties there is always a response often in proportion to the scale of conflict.
Saddam was funded and supplied by the West as a friend. He gassed and killed many people and his human rights record was atrocious.
When the West entered Iraq for the second time anti-war protesters warned that millions would die. It seems an even bigger problem has arisen that no one could forsee.
Look at the calls for action in the West after the beach attack in Tunisia. That is how people respond when a relatively small number are murdered. What is it like when millions are murdered in your region? Well, we have seen the response.
I know it isn't as simple as that but the above explanation is definitely a factor.
PS Simon, you may appreciate this take on it, it deals with it the ISIS in a slightly different way than described here. I think there is something deeply affecting about the art including in the article too.ReplyDelete
DaithiD, "ISIS has more to do with austerity than Islam.Dear God" Nobody was saying that.ReplyDelete
If young people are disenchanted, disempowered, disillusioned, disgruntled and being discriminated against in ways such as stop and search and pressure to give information by the UK government they are obviously much more likely to succumb to approaches from ISIS.
People need a feeling of belonging and if they don't have it poverty can exacerbate the disillusionment. Nobody said ISIS themselves have more to do with austerity than religion. People who share the same religion don't all go to ISIS but people who share disenchantment and disempowered are more likely to leave to join them.
The reference to austerity in the main post was that anti austerity protesters and environmental campaigners could also be affected by the legislation.
Insurgency against occupying forces is one thing but Muslims are not choosey about the nationality of who they kill or whether they are part of an occupying force or not. We can gasp at the mayhem and destruction the Brits and Us have caused. But equally we can be repulsed at the personal up close savagery of Muslims operating at ground level and only prey that they do not get air superiority. Their goal goes beyond fighting Brits or Americans but to kill all non-muslims. The ultimate goal many jihadists claim is for an Islamic world caliphate without infidels.
American and British invaders are not the only contributors to the long and torturous history of the middle east. Muslims who come from countries, including the UK or US, are slaughtering whole indigenous communities. Many of these western Muslims do not only come from hard done by poverty stricken inner cities but are also from middle class above average backgrounds. In fact I and many people I know fit the hard done by profile more that maybe we should be out there killing instead, but we are not.
Instead of trying to find excuses for them we should take them at their word that they are out there, or in the west, killing for religious reasons and not because they are unhappy with waiting times in hospitals or the high levels of unemployment.
We have seen videos of western Muslims calling on others to give up their cars and western comforts to fight and die for Allah. Why do you and the authors of the above letter insist that they are committing the atrocities for other reasons other than religious ones? I would suggest it is because you, and they, are trying to delude yourselves into believing that there must be a different Islamic narrative. Islam is in crisis and Muslims pretending that it is not serves no purpose other than to avoid dealing with the extreme side of their faith.
Christy, thank you. The views we have both outlined are such an unpopular concept, but the truth always is.ReplyDelete
I once asked Douglas Murray in a Q&A session at an Islam-centric talk if the UK politicians are (true to form) publicly lying about the nature of the problem, but in secret agree with our premise. He said he knew for a fact they are (and now makes a point of saying this articles too), but they cannot admit it. Instead they strategise for the problem they would like it to be, rather than the one it is, and hope the concessions dull the immediacy of their actions.
Our modern Idols of freedom and rule of law have no purchase against theirs, Allah.Their definition of occupation of the middle east is not just Western military, but any non-Muslims (Sunni ones at that) .Their method for dealing with this is the exact same as the founder of Islam, to the letter, peace in Islam comes when everyone has submitted.
I understand there was documentary about ISIS sex slaves, and people shocked they use girls as young as nine. There was no commentary about this age is significant for girls in Islam, yet we are told there is a witch hunt for Islam.
I urge everyone to read the Koran & to read the hadiths of 'Sahih Bukrari' and 'Sahih Muslim',and decide for themselves.You can find them online for free..
Diplockcourts, "Insurgency against occupying forces is one thing but Muslims are not choosey about the nationality of who they kill or whether they are part of an occupying force or not."ReplyDelete
Equally the US and UK forces aren't choosey about whether they kill or torture combatants or civilians.
"We can gasp at the mayhem and destruction the Brits and Us have caused. But equally we can be repulsed at the personal up close savagery" Agreed but the Brits and US were just as up close and had air superiority to boot. But you're right they are both to be repulsed.
"Instead of trying to find excuses for them we should take them at their word". I am sorry but I wasn't making excuses. I was relaying the explanations for the violence I have read which are shared by commentators I have much respect for and who have made compelling arguments that religion is a secondary factor. Writers, journalists and academics like Noam Chomsky, Robert Fisk and Richard English. I happen to agree with them and they're not excuses. Whether the reason for violence is socio-economic, cultural and anti-imperialist or on the other hand religious neither root cause is an excuse. There are no excuses.
Trying to understand the fires that keep ISIS going is not looking for excuses rather an attempt at working out how to deal with it. How to prevent and mitigate terrorism. If you look at the wrong reason you'll either not prevent terrorism or make things worse.
I have read opposing arguments but I am yet to be swayed by them. I admit that Richard English's book was more focused on Al Quaeda than ISIS which was yet to appear at the time of print but his convincing arguments transfer almost directly.
"Many of these western Muslims do not only come from hard done by poverty stricken inner cities but are also from middle class above average backgrounds." I agree that there are many from middle class or wealthy backgrounds. It is difficult to argue that people from the West are more likely to join ISIS if they feel disenchanted or disgruntled and poverty would exacerbate that. The key phrase is "more likely". I didn't say they had a monopoly.
I do not see any legitimacy with ISIS. That doesn't prevent me looking for the factors of causation. I read what I can and have come to some conclusions. The more compelling arguments sway me. I cannot articulate myself like the writer's I mentioned nor do I have access to their research but if I am convinced by their arguments I take a certain position. I agree that terrorism particularly the Islamic kind isn't an exact science.
If you and DaithiD are convinced otherwise so be it. If everyone thought the same the world would be boring. Maybe a little more dangerous depending on the response. DaithiD is a little disingenuous saying my view is the popular one. Not in the media state or otherwise, not with the government and certainly not when I talk to people.
Whose better or worse between the US and ISIS is not the point. The whole claim of the authors, with whom you agree, is that there are all these other things that drive Islamic fanatics and its not really religion.
Yes social and economic factors can motivate people into insurgency or terrorism. But that is not in all cases, for instance, if some religious freak carry's out a suicide mission in the name of Allah I take him at his word and do not try and speculate that what he really meant was that he was motivated because his social welfare cheque was withheld.
You, Chomsky, Fisk, English or the petitioners above, are not qualified psychologists to say that Jihadists are not really thinking what they say they are thinking.
We have all seen the videos of one fanatic after another say they are motivated by their belief in Islam. We have all seen the terrible things they have done in the name of Islam. When jihadists say they are committing atrocities in the name of Islam and then kill a bunch of people then there is a clear correlation between words and deeds that they meant what they said. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's not a deprived hedgehog; even if Chomsky, Fisk, English say it is.
I am not saying that you are making excuses for the atrocities I am saying that you are making excuses for Islam by claiming that Jihad Muslims are driven to kill by anything other than their belief in Islam.
Diplockcourts, "But that is not in all cases, for instance, if some religious freak carry's out a suicide mission in the name of Allah I take him at his word and do not try and speculate that what he really meant was that he was motivated because his social welfare cheque was withheld."ReplyDelete
I am not saying suicide bombing isn't linked to religion but I read a convincing argument that suicide bombing is used primarily because in conventional warfare your own combatants would die in higher numbers and your enemies be they civilians or combatants would die in lower numbers. They are more effective proportionately and since in wars people face a high likelihood of death they opt for an end which will cause the greatest damage.
"You, Chomsky, Fisk, English or the petitioners above, are not qualified psychologists to say that Jihadists are not really thinking what they say they are thinking."
Fisk has seen many of these people close up and reported from Syria living with the fighters for months. Chomsky is highly respected in his field also. Richard English is a Professor of Political Studies who specialises in terrorism but hey they're not psychologists so they don't know what they're talking about. Eh?
I am sure even psychologists would be in disagreement. Is religion a flag of convenience? Is it something used by the terrorists to garner a sense of belonging? Or is it because they believe in Islam that is making them kill people?
If it is the latter then all is lost. You can't stop people believing in Islam. If it is primarily because of things like the Western foreign policy and invasions, Western support for Israel, and abuses like Abu Garib and Guantanamo, rendition and torture like that described in Ian Cobain's book "Cruel Brittania" then all is not lost. And we can do something about it. Try banning belief in Islam or killing all Muslims if you feel that will help.
If religion is the main factor and I am not saying it's not a factor at all but if it is the main spur to the extremists then why aren't all Muslims killing people?
Diplockcourts, "The whole claim of the authors, with whom you agree, is that there are all these other things that drive Islamic fanatics and its not really religion."ReplyDelete
Nobody is saying religion isn't a factor. They are not saying religion isn't a significant factor. They are saying it's not the main factor.
Diplockcourts, "I am not saying that you are making excuses for the atrocities I am saying that you are making excuses for Islam by claiming that Jihad Muslims are driven to kill by anything other than their belief in Islam."ReplyDelete
You said I was making excuses for the terrorists. I am saying I am not. I am looking for root causes. If you want to get into crass semantics I will repeat my point. There is no excuse for terrorism, terrorists, actions or actors. Whether you agree the driving force is religion or other factors is not making excuses either way.
You seem to be saying in the paragraph above that religion is the sole cause. Do you really believe Western intervention whether militarily in the Middle East, or foreign policy, support for Israeli war crimes, torture and killing of non-combatants has provided no drive for Islamic terrorists?
None at all? Is there 'nothing other' than religion in the mix?
Simon, Most of the affronts by the West in the region you list are only affronts because they constrain their Wahabbi-Salafi designs on the region: so we are right back to religion as the primary factor in the mix.ReplyDelete
That is not to say all Muslims are violent, but the ones who are no more deviant from their texts than the ones who arent.
And I wasnt being disingenuous, you share the view of Obama/Cameron/Merkhel etc, you share the view of nearly every editorial line in the major UK newspapers I have read about ISIS. Yours is the most agreeable to the State. The trajectory of mine has got people prosecuted.We should , at least, agree on that.
"You said I was making excuses for the terrorists" No I didn't, I said you are making excuses for Islam and its avoidance to recognize or deal with its extreme elements. Let me set the benchmark for this form of extremism -if a christian minister was to call for the murder of all gays or anyone who defect from Christianity they would be denounced as extremists and possibly face prosecution for hate crime. However these extremes are as moderate as Imams get but we often overlook that because we are constantly appalled at how extreme Islam can really get. In fact if any Imam were to preach tolerance and acceptance of gays or apostates then they themselves would risk being killed for that.
"... I read a convincing argument that suicide bombing ..." no doubt what you read was interesting even if questionable but the most commonly cited reason why suicide bombers say that they are going to do what they do is because they want become religious martyres for Islam. Again I accept them at their word and to say otherwise is only to avoid their interpretation of Islamic ideology.
As for Fisk and co -I said previously that people resort to insurgency or terrorism for many different reasons. But in this instance Islamic terrorists/jihads claim by word and deed that they are doing so because of their belief in Islam. Fisk or Chomsky have no authority to say they are not doing it for Islam. Nor do you.
"... if it is the main spur to the extremists then why aren't all Muslims killing people?" That's what ISIS and co say that more Muslims should be killing to achieve an Islamic world caliphate. And remember that 'moderate' Muslims only say that gays and apostates should be killed; an acceptable level of killing.
In Irish Law it is an offense if the Catholic church (or anyone) do not report clerical sexual abuse as soon as they become aware of it. Why should Islamic leaders be permitted to espouse extremism and hatred and not be reported? Do you think gays should be killed? Why should we allow Imams who preach these sort of things or worse to be immune from prosecution?
Diplock, "You said I was making excuses for the terrorists" No I didn't, I said you are making excuses for Islam and its avoidance to recognize or deal with its extreme elements.ReplyDelete
You said and I quote "Instead of trying to find excuses for them we should take them at their word that they are out there, or in the west, killing for religious reasons and not because they are unhappy with waiting times in hospitals or the high levels of unemployment."
If you are going to revise what you say at least be honest about it.
Diplock, "Why should Islamic leaders be permitted to espouse extremism and hatred and not be reported? Do you think gays should be killed? Why should we allow Imams who preach these sort of things or worse to be immune from prosecution?"ReplyDelete
I have encountered this crap before on the quill. Just because I disagree with someone's views on the subject of Islamic terrorism they suggest I must support the terrorists' ideology or methods. Why direct such questions at me if it is not the same sort of crap. Trying to undermine my arguments by a different route.
First question- Anybody violating hate speech laws can be reported and no one has immunity from being charged or sentenced.
Second question- No. I think the LGBT community should get preferential treatment and protection due to the discrimination and hate crime directed at them still today. I have marched for LGBT rights and campaigned for such rights.
Third question- see first answer.
Ok there is a little ambiguity in how I phrased what you quote and your taking it out of context with what we have been debating does not help. I was in no way trying to imply that you found Islamic terrorism acceptable -I have been arguing, and continue to do so, as to why you and the petitioners come up with excuses that their belief in religion is peripheral to their actions, which they claim are in the name of Islam? You have agreed that jihads come from both prevailed and unprivileged backgrounds so the common connect is through their belief in Islam; which means religion is the main driver and the other things that you refer to are merely concomitant factors. I have reasoned with you that I could not see why someone disgruntled with life in the UK would express that by traveling to another country and killing the indigenous people of that region? They say they are doing it for religious reasons -you and the petitioners unconvincingly say they are not.
Re: "I have encountered this crap before on the quill."
I simply returned your own style of argument back at you you had put it on to me to explain why more Muslims are not killing -like I should know? -nevertheless, I gave you my answer and played the same technique back at you which you take exception with.
"Anybody violating hate speech laws can be reported and no one has immunity from being charged or sentenced."
The proposed legislation is intended to address the problem of people not reporting hate crimes and incitement to violence. I am not exactly comfortable with the idea but I do recognize that there is merit in it. Are you now agreeing with myself and DaithiD?
I think almost everyone has seen the various secret video recordings taken from inside Mosques where hate speech and intolerance are the main food for thought for many Muslims to contemplate. The Imams are escaping prosecution because none of the congregation report their crimes to police. Myself and DaithD seem to share the view that perhaps there is merit in the proposed legislation and we have challenged the above petition. I have drawn from the Irish experience where similar legislation (Withholding Act 2011) was necessary to address clerical abuse and the lack of reporting about that.
I note that those connected with the petition who asked Anthony to highlight it on his blog have been very silent in this debate.
Re: your position on the persecution of, or hate speech directed against, the LBGT community is confusing? There is a clear conflict between your support for both the victim and one class of abuser; in this case, Islam, which advocates that they should be killed? And on this issue alone we are also talking about 'moderate' Muslims.
DaithiD, "Most of the affronts by the West in the region you list are only affronts because they constrain their Wahabbi-Salafi designs on the region: so we are right back to religion as the primary factor in the mix."ReplyDelete
You are joking aren't you? Millions dead, thousands tortured, support for Israel are 'only' affronts because they constrain religious designs?
If the things I listed happened in any other country you'd get a violent response no matter what the religious make up of the inhabitants.
Try living with drones constantly overhead like in places in Pakistan or Afghanistan and then come back to me with explanations that people are only annoyed by them because of their religion.
Diplockcourts, "Fisk or Chomsky have no authority to say they are not doing it for Islam. Nor do you."
First of all I am not saying they are not doing it for Islam. For the umpteenth time I have explained that. My position is that Islam isn't the primary motive.
Secondly, What authority is this? Do I need a license or permission to voice my opinions? I have to make up my mind by making informed decisions by critically reading material, learning new ideas and deciding what sounds like the more likely explanation. I am purely giving my views. So are you.
My views are based on the information I judge as worthwhile and which I value. If I come to a conclusion I am open for my mind to be changed later. However when the explanations come from valued sources and I don't hear any plausible arguments to the contrary my mind will stay made up.
Diplockcourts, "Are you now agreeing with myself and DaithiD?"ReplyDelete
I am saying there is already in place the ability to report hate speech and no-one is immune from prosecution. I fear the legislation will alienate people and lead to more attacks.
"There is a clear conflict between your support for both the victim and one class of abuser; in this case, Islam, which advocates that they should be killed?"
None of my Muslim friends want homosexuals to be killed. "Moderate" Muslims as you call them don't want to kill homosexuals. I certainly wouldn't support anyone who wants to kill people because of sexuality or religion or anything they have no control over like age, sex, ethnic status or colour.
I support people's freedom of religion which is a different thing and which is universal. Not when it amounts to hatred or when it places people or their property in danger. Freedom of religion and conscience are in the United Nations Covenant on human rights. Right to Life is inviolable and is more important.
Judging something and looking for root causes is not the same thing as supporting it or anything ancillary to it.
The authority is the people doing the killing in the name of Islam -they say they are going to kill for Islam, they do just that, therefore it is pretty conclusive that their main reason was Islam. Hence, religious motivation "sounds like the more likely explanation" no matter what "new ideas" you might like to think.
You have no authority to say these people do not know their own mind just because their words and actions are not convenient with your opinion. Your attempt to trump their reason why they are killing with your opinion gives me the impression that you are trying to defend the honour of Islam because you do not agree with their brand of Islam.
Their war cry is not 'one man, one vote' but 'allahu akbar' which is very specifically religious.
Diplockcourts, "I have been arguing, and continue to do so, as to why you and the petitioners come up with excuses that their belief in religion is peripheral to their actions, which they claim are in the name of Islam? You have agreed that jihads come from both prevailed and unprivileged backgrounds so the common connect is through their belief in Islam; which means religion is the main driver and the other things that you refer to are merely concomitant factors."ReplyDelete
I don't see how saying something is a root cause of something else is the same as coming up with excuses in any shape or form. We are trying to understand terrorism and how to deal with it.
Islam may be a common connect but that itself doesn't prove it is the primary drive to terror.
In the Middle East the other factors I mentioned above can produce violence of a sort we in the West haven't suffered for decades.
As for the UK people leaving to join ISIS we agree they come from all walks of life. We'll never read the statistics of their socio-economic statuses. But it seems only common sense that feelings of alienation, despondency and disenfranchisement would make individuals more susceptible to propaganda and approaches from extremists.
Legislation that will lead to further that alienation won't help.
This legislation aims to curb terrorism and "non-violent extremism". To stop terrorism in the UK and the support for terrorism.ReplyDelete
The definition of terrorism used in the legislation comes from the Terrorism Act 2000 (TACT 2000): an action that endangers or causes serious violence to a person/people; causes serious damage to property; or seriously interferes or disrupts an electronic system. The use or threat must be designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public and is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
It also covers non-violent extremism.
With regards to terrorism, support for terrorism or non-violent extremism: "People suspected of being involved in such activity must be referred to the police."
As you can see the legislation is wide enough to cover environmental protestors and anti-austerity activism.
Not only that but Republican or Loyalist activity falls neatly within the remit. People can be legally obliged to give information on people they suspect of not only 'terrorism' but if they support it or are involved in "non-violent extremism".
Even if it only applied to Islamists it would be a mistake as it would alienate people unnecessarily.
But it applies to a wider target. The duty on people to inform the police of their suspicions is McCarthy-like in scope and substance.
It may at the minute be focused on certain areas where radicalisation can happen to vulnerable individuals however it can apply to the groups above. When atrocities occur the government often take the opportunity to play on our fears to take away a little of our civil liberty. Restrict our freedoms to save us? All it will lead to is more alienation.
Why do they kill in the name of Islam. Do they kill in the name of Islam because of Islam? It seems a very odd cause and effect. Did Islam cause them to terrorise? If it is the cause why didn't it cause it earlier? Islam has been a constant.
How come the terrorism has only relatively recently been as predominant and virulent as we see today?
Have the factors I listed regarding changes in the Middle East had no effect at all? Even before the second Iraq war people were warning it would open a can of worms, that a worse situation than rule under Saddam would arise.
Other factors have changed. They mightn't have caused the violence alone. But they were definitely a catalyst.
Re your post at 9:18 PM, July 18, 2015
You are not saying anything different than what I have said already. I would have the same concerns:"More oppressive new laws are not good." I came into this issue taking objection with the petitioners because reference to the ample evidence of the link between Islam and atrocities needed to be pointed out. Denying that people are being slaughtered in the name of Islam is its own injustice. I have always been aware that there are other "contributory factors but religion is the 'primary driving' cohesive glue binding them all". It is not merely a 'common connect' but the specific reason expressed by the perpetrators. Have you evidence that they are telling lies to account for what is often their final act in this world?
Re your post at 10:12 PM, July 18, 2015
Are you back to playing this game again that you had a hissy fit over? I have no idea why they do anything other than they say it is for Islam and I take them at their word. You're the man with all the opinions and ideas that they are really doing it for some other reason. I still cannot figure how you have reconciled in your head support for LBGT's while at the same time tolerant of 'moderate' Islam's policy that they should be murdered??
How come the terrorism has only relatively recently been as predominant and virulent as we see today?"ReplyDelete
Simon I do appreciate the time you have taken to argue your points, but it seems to be going round in circles, and it seems that because of your certainty it is nothing to do with Islam, you have never actually considered the opposite argument, and sought it out.Its called conformation bias. You wouldn't make a statement like this if you had even the slightest grounding in Islams birth and spread from Medina. There is twisted humane logic to their harshness, their Prophet instructed them to do such awful acts "it would scatter those behind them", so less people die. Id rather debate the logic of that, than if it exists in a text you can find yourself.
I think at this stage nobody will concede, but please think twice about patronising critics as part of something unknowing witch hunt.
DaithiD, "and it seems that because of your certainty it is nothing to do with Islam,"ReplyDelete
Diplockcourts, "Denying that people are being slaughtered in the name of Islam is its own injustice."
It is impossible talking to you both. I haven't said it has nothing to do with Islam. The last time I explained this I noted I explained it for the umpteenth time. I have lost count of the number of times I have explained myself. It's like talking to a brick wall.
Diplockcourts, "I still cannot figure how you have reconciled in your head support for LBGT's while at the same time tolerant of 'moderate' Islam's policy that they should be murdered??"
We have covered this before as well. "Moderate" Islam does not have a policy that LGBT people should be murdered. How can anyone who wants all LGBT people murdered be described as "Moderate". 19 Muslim majority countries have decriminalised homosexuality.
I have great difficulty with how some people in the Muslim world treat women and LGBT people but my position isn't one of support for anybody but one of analysis which is a different thing altogether.
DaithiD. You are right. We are going around in circles. However, since I have already explained that I think it has to do with Islam although it's not the primary drive for the Terrorism and also that I don't support people who want to kill LGBT people please don't ask: here why do you say it's got nothing to do with Islam? Or Why do you tolerate the policy of killing LGBT people?
Maybe asking the same questions over and over leads me to repeat myself.
Correct Simon, I actually regretted writing the "nothing to do with" part when I read it back, its not your position. My position is it is only to do with Islam in the way it manifests presently, so reflexively wrote yours was diametrically opposed.But for your arguement to be true, Islams atrocities need to have started in response to Western interference. If it did not, it would just be a continuation of the motives and methods established by Mohammed himself to spread Islam.ReplyDelete
If you can find me example in mainstream media of the dismissal of the Charleston shooters racist motives in favour of economic deprivation, then ill relent in the bile I unleash on those who claim such positions.
"I have lost count of the number of times I have explained myself. It's like talking to a brick wall."
It was never lost on me when you used a word formulation something like 'Islam is not the 'main' reason' -that implies that you accepted that it is somewhere in the mix? Therefore, I understood our disagreement to be over Islam's 'proportional' influence on jihads? I say it is the main reason you say it is not.
"How can anyone who wants all LGBT people murdered be described as "Moderate"." That was my point and confusion with your own position.
"19 Muslim majority countries have decriminalised homosexuality."
That is tokenism that has more to do with international relations and treaties. For example the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)or The Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (CCASG) which neither have lived up to their own responsibility in the protection and safeguarding of human rights. There are no Muslim governmental organisations or conventions to promote or protect human rights of anyone much less the LBGT community. The same 19 countries you refer to do not take any meaningful measures to discourage or prevent anyone from discriminating against or attacking gays. And no we have not covered this before you avoided the issue. I am not aware, perhaps you are and failed to mention, of a single 'moderate' Imam who preaches tolerance and acceptance of gays? As I said previously, for an Imam to stick his head up like that would in itself probably result in his own murder.
"I have great difficulty with how some people in the Muslim world treat women and LGBT people but my position isn't one of support for anybody but one of analysis which is a different thing altogether."
You have voiced support for the petitioners that Islam is not the primary motivator of jihads and have consistently argued that other factors are. I understood that you are prepared to accept that religion is only incidental to the mix of what makes a jihad? Your arguments with both myself and DaithD have been consistently supportive of Islam and that our view of Islam is quite wrong. Even when we have explained the reasoning behind our logic you blank us both out. And that is fair enough if you are defending a strongly held point of view in defense of Islam but that has no relation or comparison with being analytical.
You are not as fair or open minded on the injustices and abuses of Islam as you wish to pretend that you are. When jihadists declare or carry out Holy War against non-believers in the name of Islam you have argued very forcefully that 'other factors' other than religion are the main reason. You have never once presented anything plausible to explain yourself why it is wrong to accept jihads at their word?
You claim your position is purely analytical?? Going around in circles implies that question have been asked and answered and thus the cycle. I have repeated myself quite a lot about how jihads explain themselves -you just motor on with your own fixed position that jihads do not know what they are talking about. If that's being analytical then you fooled me.
Jihadists have also said the reasons for the terrorism are not just religious. They have said the West attacking the Middle East is justification also.ReplyDelete
When fighting a country viewed as an Anti-Islamic aggressor like the USA and claiming you're fighting for your co-religionists and fighting for that religion itself it adds a legitimacy to your terror. When the enemy is perceived as being Anti-Muslim in your territory it makes sense to claim you're fighting on behalf of Muslims. I never said they were lying.
I belief them when they say they are fighting for Islam.
I also believe them when they say they a
are fighting for other reasons.
After the 9/11 attacks Bin Laden's justification was clear enough,
"The United States and their allies are killing us in Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir and Iraq. That's why Muslims have the right to carry out revenge attacks on the US... The American people should remember that they pay taxes to their government and that they voted for their president. Their government makes weapons and provides them to Israel, which they use to kill Palestinian Muslims. Given that the American Congress is a committee that represents the people, the fact that it agrees with the actions of the American government proves that America in its entirety is responsible for the atrocities that it is committing against Muslims. I demand the American people to take note of their government's policy against Muslims...The onus is on Americans to prevent Muslims from being killed at the hands of their government."
Religion is interwoven with culture, nationalism, communal grievances etc. So to see it in isolation is a mistake.
Suicide bombers are not unique to Islam. Richard English notes "It has been used by secular groups such as the Kurds, the Tamil Tigers, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs and Jews".
He goes on to say "the radically religious do seem more likely than others to engage in suicide attacks, and that such attacks are more likely to target members of other religions."
That doesn't negate the fact that suicide bombings are often driven by real politik, desperation and tactically cause more damage than conventional attacks.
The 9/11 attacks were suicide attacks but Bin Laden listed American foreign policy as the reason. What Bin Laden said doesn't mean it had nothing to do with religion. It only means other factors are at work.
Religion is unlikely to be the sole cause particularly since many fundamentalists aren't violent and many non-fundamentalists can be violent.
You are right Diplockcourts in that I can't name an Imam who supports LGBT rights but I can't name one who doesn't so that doesn't prove anything. I don't know any Imams.
Simon, you cant judge a religion just by the actions of adherents. You dont know how pious some of them are or are not. It is more accurate to judge the faith by its scriptures rather than the behaviour of its followers. If ISIS were anomalies to Islam, peversions of it as Cameron and Obama would claim, it could easily be refuted by its scholars.Even that is deceptive,this is an example of relying on that kind of measure :ReplyDelete
Well worth a read Christy, Im totally in awe of the case you are putting. What a headache you must of been for State lawyers!
How can you claim Nationalism plays a part ? They do not recognise borders, they see them as artificial divisions, the only see Muslim and non-Muslim, Dar-al Harb (Land Of War) and Dar-al Islam (Land of Islam).All roads lead to Mecca Simon.
Im going to ignore the LGBT claims, I think Peter Tatchell gets this issue, called Islamophobic naturally.
"Religion is unlikely to be the sole cause"
When I argue that it is the primary/main reason then clearly I am not defining their actions to religion being the "sole cause".
I am aware of all the other things you mention -but when someone kills and dies for religion then that is of a higher order which sorta trumps all other material/political annoyances/grievances. It is safe to assume that they considered their religious beliefs to be more sacred.
Suicide is not unique to war or terrorism either but we were not discussing the broad spectrum. I am also in no doubt that some Muslims might not be too fond of Islam -but do not want to die for being apostates.
"You are right Diplockcourts in that I can't name an Imam who supports LGBT rights but I can't name one who doesn't so that doesn't prove anything."
It proves your claim as an impartial annalist is a load of bunkum: "my position isn't one of support for anybody but one of analysis" I thought you were arguing against me because you had some empirical evidence that not all Imams are extremists when it comes to the LBGT community --you seem to have crossed over from being the impartial individual looking for enlightenment to ignorantly defending the indefensible. I suppose being the reasonable man that you are then we can expect you to re-evaluate your supportive position on LBGT rights and the 'moderate' Muslims who would wish to see them dead -they are kinda mutually exclusive.
DaithiD, "Im going to ignore the LGBT claims, I think Peter Tatchell gets this issue, called Islamophobic naturally."ReplyDelete
Muslims tend to be less tolerant towards LGBT people than others in that most think homosexuality is wrong. But to say that is the same as wanting them all murdered is a different thing entirely.
There are gay Muslims don't forget. Just like women they are poorly treated by many in the Muslim world.
Intolerance is wrong. Wanting to kill people because of their sexuality is reprehensible beyond words.
I pointed out that many Muslim majority countries have decriminalised homosexuality to disprove Diplockcourts position that "Moderate" Muslims want LGBT people murdered.
What about those Muslims who don't want LGBT people murdered. If the bloodthirsty ones are termed "moderate"? How do you describe the tolerant ones?
As for interpretations of Islam. Many Muslim scholars preach peace. Some preach violence. Which is the correct interpretation? I am not a theologian and judging by what you have said DaithiD it is clear you are not a theologian either. So it would be a meaningless exercise for us to argue theology.
Diplockcourts, "When I argue that it is the primary/main reason then clearly I am not defining their actions to religion being the "sole cause"."ReplyDelete
So we are in agreement to a certain extent? We agree that there are different factors. We just don't agree on their varying levels of influence. I am happy enough with that.
"It proves your claim as an impartial annalist is a load of bunkum" Everyone has their bias. Absolutely everyone. Nobody is wholly impartial. Everybody writes and analyses from a certain position. I didn't claim to be an "impartial annalist".
I said I analysed what I read. Everybody analyses what they read. It doesn't make you an analyst. If you don't question what you read you end up believing everything and understanding nothing.
Simon, what is a moderate? Someone that doesnt follow their faith as detailed by centuries of practice and supported by scripture? The question that reveals moderates true intention is : In a perfect Sharia state, is the killing of homosexuals permissible? They cannot answer "no", because that would be supplanting Allah's law with manmade law.ReplyDelete
If some Muslim countries have outlawed LGBT punishments, great, but it is despite their religion, not because of a kinder reading.
PS In terms theologians commenting, my real name is Dawud al-Connamari so......
"I pointed out that many Muslim majority countries have decriminalised homosexuality to disprove Diplockcourts position that "Moderate" Muslims want LGBT people murdered."
However, you failed to 'disprove' me -decriminalization is a meaningless exercise because it was done for other reasons than to protect the welfare or human dignity gays. There is also no question that there would be many Muslims who would not wish ill on anyone even from other faiths or none. That was why I focused my argument on imams and Islamic leaders -the official Islamic line is that gays, apostates, and blasphemers are to be killed (even if any given imam does not himself wish to see anyone killed for those reasons). I was, as you have picked up, highlighting the difficulty in trying to understand what is a moderate Muslim. Many imams in the UK (and Ireland) who are accredited with being 'moderates' (and in many ways they are) but they also are not moderate. What would be more practical and meaningful in the 19 Muslim majority countries would be for Islamic leaders to declare equality and tolerance for the LBGT community --but they would never do that because they hate gays so much -it is so deeply held in Islam that they see homosexuality as an affront to Allah.
ISIS would claim, as devout Muslims that they all are, that they preach peace -first they have to cleanse their world of the infidels. DaithiD has linked to a piece detailing the hypocrisy and fallacies of some Islamic writings.
Simon, DaithiD made some very good and pertinent points and has done throughout this discussion and I note your response to him that: "So it would be a meaningless exercise for us to argue theology." You have come out defending Islam but when it gets awkward for you you retreat as you have done here; you avoid unfavorable responses; or you try to claim impartial analytical observer crap.
Neither Daithi nor I are trying to trap, trick or ambush you. We have each reasoned with difficult questions about Islam and are expressing them here giving you the opportunity to correct us where we are wrong. Your reference to the 19 countries was a worthy shot but I have made out a clear case how that is not as you would portray it and has not benefited any homosexuals, for instance, a number of gay men have sought asylum here in Ireland on ground that they will be discriminated against or persecuted if returned to their country of origin. Decriminalization means that they will be returned -so here is the danger; while in their respective countries they would have kept their gender orientation secret for good reason and Ireland will return them to the authorities of that country. Officially their state will not deal with them because of decriminalization but their fellow Muslims will because their secret will be out.
DaithiD, "How can you claim Nationalism plays a part ?" A lot of the time with the Islamic World fundamentalist religion and nationalism reinforce one another. For example in Iraq nationalist elements of the Ba'ath Party formed part of the terrorist campaign against the USA.ReplyDelete
Diplockcourts, "When I argue that it is the primary/main reason then clearly I am not defining their actions to religion being the "sole cause"."ReplyDelete
Have we agreed that with Islamic Terrorism there are other factors driving it as well as religion? That was my original point. I am happy if we agree that there are different factors but that they have different degrees of influence.
The Osama Bin Laden quote demonstrated American foreign policy also plays a role. You yourself have said religion isn't the sole cause.
I don't want to be brought down endless routes like LGBT or Theology. I didn't bring them up. You and DaithiD did to avoid the subject at hand.
If I answered your questions on everything you bring up regarding Islam which is a wide subject and neverending we in turn would have an endless discussion. The debate was on whether Islam as a religion causes terrorism. All ancillary routes by DaithiD and yourself are pure diversions.
Whether intentional or not it will lead to an endless thread. You can see that, at least?
So, please answer my question about the core of the debate. You don't have to if you don't want to but it would wind it up and allow us all to move on.
You may have buckets of time on your hands to debate Islam but I don't. As I say it is a worthless venture as neither of us are theologians. DaithiD also comments on economics but that doesn't make him an economist.
"Have we agreed that with Islamic Terrorism there are other factors driving it as well as religion?"
Had you been reading what I write then you'd know that from my first post in and consistently throughout I have always acknowledged other factors: "These may well be contributory factors but religion is the 'primary"
"DaithiD also comments on economics but that doesn't make him an economist."
And you post on blogs without reading them doesn't mean you have a clue about what your talking about.
"I don't want to be brought down endless routes like LGBT or Theology. I didn't bring them up. You and DaithiD did to avoid the subject at hand."
Ok, I see, good strategy -play dumb throughout the core issue then jump out when attempts are made to simplify or explain things for your understanding.
Diplockcourts, As I said I have limited time to debate. Certainly even more limited when debating with someone who is so blinkered as to believe legalising homosexuality in Muslim majority countries hasn't benefited any gays. In fact you seem to think it has made their situation worse. What about those LGBT people who would otherwise have been locked up? You don't think it has helped any gays? Give your head a shake.ReplyDelete
You made a point about LGBT people seeking asylum. Many factors are considered when people seek refugee status and if a person can show they would be persecuted on return to their own country that is the test. The fact that their government has legalised homosexuality would be a factor but wouldn't be seen in isolation. If there is compelling evidence that a person would be persecuted on return the fact that the government has legalised homosexuality wouldn't negate that evidence.
But if you think your view is the correct one you'd better get on to Amnesty International quick to warn them that decriminalisation of homosexuality in majority Muslim countries won't help any gay person. So they'd better stop campaigning for it.
On the original matter Diplockcourts, "I have always acknowledged other factors" I am afraid you started acknowledging that only recently in the debate.. Particularly with reference to Islamic Terrorism.
You said the following, "My guess is that the jihadists are driven by religious reasons as they themselves state that that is their reasoning for killing.
Why do you and the authors of the above letter insist that they are committing the atrocities for other reasons other than religious ones?
I am not saying that you are making excuses for the atrocities I am saying that you are making excuses for Islam by claiming that Jihad Muslims are driven to kill by anything other than their belief in Islam.
I said previously that people resort to insurgency or terrorism for many different reasons. But in this instance Islamic terrorists/jihads claim by word and deed that they are doing so because of their belief in Islam."
You seem to have gradually moved from your initial position of claiming Jihad Muslims aren't "driven to kill by anything other than their belief in Islam" to saying there are indeed other factors. Of lesser influence but "excuses" none the less.
I am glad you changed your mind. I don't really want to spend all next week as well spending time changing your mind about other things. I will leave well enough alone.
Lord Diplock, you are being called to the bar.
You are such a bullshitter. Decriminalization does little to nothing to prevent, deter or inhibit the Islamic belief that they should be killed. What I did say is that it has generally been done because of international treaties and obligations and not really for the welfare of gays which are given no protection from attack or discrimination. I note you raise the LBGT issue when you think it suits you and are pretty silent on how moderate does moderate really mean when talking about Islamic tolerance or encouragement to murdering gays. Amnesty I'm sure will explain to you the distinction between ongoing Islamic (religious) believe/policy against gays and whether a country has decriminalized or not.
Jihad Muslims by virtue of being jihadists are driven by their belief in Islam. Not all Muslims are jihadists asshole! DaithiD has pointed out, and provided a link, explaining how jihadists expand their grievances/excuses under Islamic law and thus justifying their Jihad on almost any ground they desire (Religious War means that religious objectives remain the primary objective). I am saying the same thing as I have said in my first posting, and others subsequent, to this one.
Time limitations are obviously not your concern -its a convenient cop-out because when you think you can twist or manipulate things around to your warped defense of Islam you are not slow to jump right in and start posting again.
You claimed that you are trying to understand and analysis things and not support one side or the other?? There is no evidence of that on your part throughout this blog. You are distinctly and consistently very guarded about your support for Islam even when you are shown to be wrong or you yourself concede that you have no evidence or knowledge to say that DaithiD or I are wrong. Clearly you have a fixed agenda. We have seen this sort of behaviour before when suspected Israeli Trolls try to make Israel sound like a fair and reasonable country. Are you an Islamist Troll? I have been thinking about that because I have seen your postings in other blogs here when Islamic terror is being discussed, and you are, in all cases, very understanding or defensive of Islam while at the same time trying to come across as reasonable by saying that you do not support or condone some atrocity or other.
Diplockcourts, Sorry dude if it got a little heated there.ReplyDelete
I am happy enough with the outcome of the original debate. I couldn't get my head round how you and DaithiD looked at other factors as being only concomitant ones and therefore really to do with Islam and not stand-alone factors.
Since we agree that different factors are at work, but disagree on the levels of influence they have, it seems a decent way to end the debate.
I hope we can bury the hatchet?
Simon, given the topic in question, it really should provoke outrage and hate from either side. If you accept Islam may play a part (however small) in the motivation of groups like ISIS, i dont know why you started off with warnings of demonisation and witchunts. Surely an agreeable stategy would cover all these factors, PREVENT doesnt do this.Look what happened to a book like the Turner Diaries after the OKC bomb, it was poured over for violent messages.ReplyDelete
Any executive summary of will start off “Given Islam is a religion of peace, and nothing to do with groups like ISIS, we look at ways.......”
DaithiD, I am afraid I will have to end it here. My problem with Prevent is that it will inevitably alienate people which will have an adverse effect on the overall situation.ReplyDelete
My position on the Islamist groups is that the other factors are not merely concomitant, not dependent on Islam and are in fact more powerful drivers.
My position on people leaving the UK to join ISIS is that other factors can make people more vulnerable to approaches and propaganda etc.
I think you and Diplockcourts look at the other factors, both in the UK and the Middle East as really being at root to do with Islam.
Anyway, I am finished with the post in question. I don't think further discussion will get us anywhere. All the best!
Like DaithiD I expect 'heated' given the subject matter. If you take any of the other factors you can think of then it will also be couched in Islamic jargon and pronouncements -which makes them concomitant issues; none of these factors are ever cited as being primary standalone or detached from Islam (Including any war against the USA or Brits). Correspondingly, Islam never arises as a concomitant factor to any other factor. Rather, adherence to Islam alone is often cited as the main or only motivating factor. None of your arguments came close to contradicting those facts.
While violent Muslims might in reality be in a minority among Muslims universally they represent a larger more vocal unified international front than peaceful Muslims do. Albeit every now and then we will get a few isolated and ineffective ripples from the peaceful majority of Muslims protesting against the jihads, but that appears to dissipate as quickly as it might have arisen for lack of heart or conviction. I have often, at times, seen those objections as being disingenuous and self-serving because they seem to happen in places where they are in a minority and concerned (understandably) that they could suffer locally from any backlash against some jihadist atrocity or other. You have struck me as someone driven to give uncritical voice or defense to the 'silent' Muslim majority. Perhaps one of the best arguments that you did put up was about the 19 Muslim majority countries that have decriminalized homosexuality. Here you attempted to represent what is purely a political move to pacify international relations as being a seismic change of heart on the part of Islam toward the LGBT community. It was not. Islam has not shifted 1mm on how strictly it views or would deal with homosexuality. Even your expressed satisfaction to "the outcome of the original debate" has all the appearance of a best 'choice' or 'preference' that defends Islam against 2 people that have provided reasoned argument supported by evidence and facts that you could not counter. Even when you disclosed: "I can't name one who doesn't so that doesn't prove anything" you continue to insist on the narrative that you prefer. Your 'satisfaction' is not one of an impartial observer balancing opposing logical arguments as you would like us to believe but one that continues to prefer flawed or weak reasoning because your agenda is to put the best face on Islam that you can.
Thought I would revisit this since I have read about a Paramilitary member from a Republican background being described as being 'Radicalised'.ReplyDelete
It won't be long until Prevent applies here.
This is a snoopers charter that the likes of Edward Snowden warned us about. Giving succour to terrorists is not what this document is about but to legitamise the role of Govt in keeping an ear and eye out for those who may be swayed to terrorism- how about the state sponsored terrorism and the role of the US/Uk and its allies, where is that document to sign, or keep an eye on. If we are to be fair and honest in the debate we just can't take over a billion Muslims and say 'watch out'. In the 50's it was the West Indians, in the 70's it was us Irish, now in the noughties it's the Muslims. There is always an enemy to fear and loathe. What's happening now, and it should be condoned, didn't arrive from the yonder- cause and effect.ReplyDelete