Tommy Robinson

News, Banter and anything else non football!!
User avatar
FlatCapDave
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 9:36 am

Re: Tommy Robinson

Postby FlatCapDave » Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:01 pm

Neville Bartos wrote:I'm not entirely convinced Robinson or the EDL can be taken at face value.
Robinson has stated he left the BNP -- after a year -- because he didn't know Nick Griffin had been in the National Front, and that the BNP didn't accept non-whites. Which, if you think about it, is laughable.
And Robinson himself left the EDL because, and I quote 'it's ranks had become swollen with racist and neo-nazi supporters'.


Of course he can't. Neither can ANTIFA or any other far right or far left group. Once you venture that far outside the middle ground you're working to an agenda that is fascist for the most part, because your view is so narrow that anyone who doesn't fall within the boundaries of what you believe is the enemy.

Neville Bartos wrote:All religions seem to have a problem with each other, I'll not argue that point at all. Religion is the driving force behind plenty of ongoing conflicts around the planet. And even when people share the same religion they still want to fight.

I'm pretty certain most reasonable people are against militant Islam. And since when have marches, riots and confrontation been anything but divisive? I don't think anything the EDL does helps with things like radicalisation, isolation, or sends any kind of message that isn't divisive.

I'll ask you what you think is the answer to radicalisation and militant Islam is?


The answer to militant Islam is the same thing that was the answer to militant Christianity back in the day, and that's some form of reformation.

I know it's not the done thing to say it, but if we're brutally honest Islam is still stuck in the dark ages. This "war" with militant Islam is a war between a modern, inclusive society and a society that still draws its influence from the dark ages.

Don't get me wrong, christianity was like that not too long ago, but eventually shit changed to an extent, and that's the only thing that can really change Islam, in my opinion.

Closing our eyes and pretending the problem doesn't exist isn't the answer though, no matter how much people seem to think it is.

Honestly, if you think about, it's fucking ridiculous.

Imagine if Christians today were cutting about London dressed like this?

Image

Image

They'd get mocked, and rightfully so.
0 x

User avatar
Neville Bartos
Posts: 2175
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2016 2:29 am
Location: Flyyyyyyyyyin'

Re: Tommy Robinson

Postby Neville Bartos » Sun Jun 17, 2018 9:55 pm

FlatCapDave wrote:
Neville Bartos wrote:I'm not entirely convinced Robinson or the EDL can be taken at face value.
Robinson has stated he left the BNP -- after a year -- because he didn't know Nick Griffin had been in the National Front, and that the BNP didn't accept non-whites. Which, if you think about it, is laughable.
And Robinson himself left the EDL because, and I quote 'it's ranks had become swollen with racist and neo-nazi supporters'.


Of course he can't. Neither can ANTIFA or any other far right or far left group. Once you venture that far outside the middle ground you're working to an agenda that is fascist for the most part, because your view is so narrow that anyone who doesn't fall within the boundaries of what you believe is the enemy.

Neville Bartos wrote:All religions seem to have a problem with each other, I'll not argue that point at all. Religion is the driving force behind plenty of ongoing conflicts around the planet. And even when people share the same religion they still want to fight.

I'm pretty certain most reasonable people are against militant Islam. And since when have marches, riots and confrontation been anything but divisive? I don't think anything the EDL does helps with things like radicalisation, isolation, or sends any kind of message that isn't divisive.

I'll ask you what you think is the answer to radicalisation and militant Islam is?


The answer to militant Islam is the same thing that was the answer to militant Christianity back in the day, and that's some form of reformation.

I know it's not the done thing to say it, but if we're brutally honest Islam is still stuck in the dark ages. This "war" with militant Islam is a war between a modern, inclusive society and a society that still draws its influence from the dark ages.

Don't get me wrong, christianity was like that not too long ago, but eventually shit changed to an extent, and that's the only thing that can really change Islam, in my opinion.

Closing our eyes and pretending the problem doesn't exist isn't the answer though, no matter how much people seem to think it is.

Honestly, if you think about, it's fucking ridiculous.

Imagine if Christians today were cutting about London dressed like this?

Image

Image

They'd get mocked, and rightfully so.


The reformation was less about militancy and more about challenging the power of the Catholic Church.
I don't think anyone could call Martin Luther a liberal, or even a liberalising influence.

There's also no Muslim equivalent of the Roman Catholic Church, or a figure like the Pope. We already have different Muslim sects -- Sunni, Shia, Sufi, etc.

Religion tends to reflect society as opposed to the other way around. The most populous Muslim countries tend to be non democratic, third world, or both. These places use religion as a means of control, a stick to keep people in order.
Christianity is still used much the same way in some African countries.

The idea that Christianity is no longer a political, as well as a religious, ideology is a bit wide of the mark. The US being a perfect example of a place where conservative Christian values are constantly infringing on secular rights and freedoms.

I don't think there's a cure for militancy or radicalisation. Time, education, secularism, inclusiveness, lessen the impact over time.
What doesn't help are faith schools and Sharia courts.

I was reading a very interesting poll that showed that British Muslims over 55 were, by a good margin, a lot more liberal than any other age group. Which suggests time does eventually change attitudes.

People can dress how they like, it's a free country. :D

Anyway, mate, it's a subject that not likely to go away anytime soon.
0 x
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

User avatar
FlatCapDave
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 9:36 am

Re: Tommy Robinson

Postby FlatCapDave » Mon Jun 18, 2018 7:46 am

Neville Bartos wrote:The reformation was less about militancy and more about challenging the power of the Catholic Church.
I don't think anyone could call Martin Luther a liberal, or even a liberalising influence.


I'm not talking about how it was seen back then, I'm talking about the effects it had that we see today.

Neville Bartos wrote:Religion tends to reflect society as opposed to the other way around.


And I think that's where the problem is coming from. Western society is, for the most part, pretty secular. We've grown away from religion in many ways, but yet we're being asked to reverse that way of thinking to accommodate a certain group of people.

Just as I pointed out in those images of people in ancient Christian dress, if people started dressing like that in central London they'd elicit some pretty strange looks and reactions. To be hones, they'd be outright ridiculed in many ways.

Yet, it happens every day with Muslims and we're told that it's the norm and should never be questioned.

Neville Bartos wrote:The most populous Muslim countries tend to be non democratic, third world, or both. These places use religion as a means of control, a stick to keep people in order.

Christianity is still used much the same way in some African countries.


Exactly.

And we see people from those countries come here and in many cases they wish to bring certain elements of that society with them.

And you're right, we do see Christianity used in the same way in some African countries. If people from those nations wanted to come to Europe and implement some of the backwards shite that they consider normal over there they'd be told pretty quickly that it's not on, or they should be at least.

Neville Bartos wrote:The idea that Christianity is no longer a political, as well as a religious, ideology is a bit wide of the mark. The US being a perfect example of a place where conservative Christian values are constantly infringing on secular rights and freedoms.


No one said it wasn't still a political and religious ideology though, did they? I certainly didn't.

I said that as time goes on the general population in the western world is realising that it's all a load of old nonsense, and we're drifting away from it.

Where the "culture clash" is coming in, is where we have a society that is drifting away from a religion that could be considered reasonably modern, only to be told that we must not question or criticize a religion that is still based in the dark ages.

As for the US, the big difference for me in that situation is that those conservative Christians are routinely mocked and derided by the more intelligent and progressive members of society.

When it comes to those same enlightened comedians, public figures, gay rights champions and so on applying the same rules to Islam we don't see the same vigour, do we?

Neville Bartos wrote:I don't think there's a cure for militancy or radicalisation. Time, education, secularism, inclusiveness, lessen the impact over time.

What doesn't help are faith schools and Sharia courts.


There may not be a cure of sorts, but what we need to do is stop pandering to these religious headcases, regardless of what side they're on.

The whole thing is a load of old bollocks, and we should be free to say so if we want, without fear of being convicted of a fucking hate crime.
1 x

User avatar
whu
Posts: 1746
Joined: Sun May 29, 2016 10:20 am

Re: Tommy Robinson

Postby whu » Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:30 am

fuck off nev

technical bit done

;) :i am genuinely amused: whufc_crest
2 x
Tell the truth or get out of our club - NO SURRENDER

User avatar
Gonzo
Posts: 5784
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 8:13 pm

Re: Tommy Robinson

Postby Gonzo » Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:06 am

Neville Bartos wrote:
FlatCapDave wrote:
Of course he can't. Neither can ANTIFA or any other far right or far left group. Once you venture that far outside the middle ground you're working to an agenda that is fascist for the most part, because your view is so narrow that anyone who doesn't fall within the boundaries of what you believe is the enemy.



The answer to militant Islam is the same thing that was the answer to militant Christianity back in the day, and that's some form of reformation.

I know it's not the done thing to say it, but if we're brutally honest Islam is still stuck in the dark ages. This "war" with militant Islam is a war between a modern, inclusive society and a society that still draws its influence from the dark ages.

Don't get me wrong, christianity was like that not too long ago, but eventually shit changed to an extent, and that's the only thing that can really change Islam, in my opinion.

Closing our eyes and pretending the problem doesn't exist isn't the answer though, no matter how much people seem to think it is.

Honestly, if you think about, it's fucking ridiculous.

Imagine if Christians today were cutting about London dressed like this?

Image

Image

They'd get mocked, and rightfully so.


The reformation was less about militancy and more about challenging the power of the Catholic Church.
I don't think anyone could call Martin Luther a liberal, or even a liberalising influence.

There's also no Muslim equivalent of the Roman Catholic Church, or a figure like the Pope. We already have different Muslim sects -- Sunni, Shia, Sufi, etc.

Religion tends to reflect society as opposed to the other way around. The most populous Muslim countries tend to be non democratic, third world, or both. These places use religion as a means of control, a stick to keep people in order.
Christianity is still used much the same way in some African countries.

The idea that Christianity is no longer a political, as well as a religious, ideology is a bit wide of the mark. The US being a perfect example of a place where conservative Christian values are constantly infringing on secular rights and freedoms.

I don't think there's a cure for militancy or radicalisation. Time, education, secularism, inclusiveness, lessen the impact over time.
What doesn't help are faith schools and Sharia courts.

I was reading a very interesting poll that showed that British Muslims over 55 were, by a good margin, a lot more liberal than any other age group. Which suggests time does eventually change attitudes.

People can dress how they like, it's a free country. :D

Anyway, mate, it's a subject that not likely to go away anytime soon.



Nice posts from both of you boys.

There are two big stumbling blocks in Islamic reformation .

Firstly the Koran is 'perfect' and can't be changed. It's actually Haram (forbidden) to try and change it. The final words from the prophet are the last words of god, no other prophecy's will follow.

Also men have to copy the prophets life and there is going to be no way of sugar coating him and trying to make it look peaceful. There is little point in trying to argue the meaning of the work 'Jihad' when the main man in the book spread his religion by genocide, murdered over half a million people, wedded toddlers and made the wives of those he beheaded his sex slaves.

Christianity had the New Testament which could be used to counter the fire and brimstone of the previous book and also had a main character who was healing and feeding people.. . . . . . it's a damn sight easier to spin that.
2 x

User avatar
Neville Bartos
Posts: 2175
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2016 2:29 am
Location: Flyyyyyyyyyin'

Re: Tommy Robinson

Postby Neville Bartos » Tue Jun 19, 2018 6:49 pm

FlatCapDave wrote:
Neville Bartos wrote:The reformation was less about militancy and more about challenging the power of the Catholic Church.
I don't think anyone could call Martin Luther a liberal, or even a liberalising influence.


I'm not talking about how it was seen back then, I'm talking about the effects it had that we see today.

Neville Bartos wrote:Religion tends to reflect society as opposed to the other way around.


And I think that's where the problem is coming from. Western society is, for the most part, pretty secular. We've grown away from religion in many ways, but yet we're being asked to reverse that way of thinking to accommodate a certain group of people.

Just as I pointed out in those images of people in ancient Christian dress, if people started dressing like that in central London they'd elicit some pretty strange looks and reactions. To be hones, they'd be outright ridiculed in many ways.

Yet, it happens every day with Muslims and we're told that it's the norm and should never be questioned.

Neville Bartos wrote:The most populous Muslim countries tend to be non democratic, third world, or both. These places use religion as a means of control, a stick to keep people in order.

Christianity is still used much the same way in some African countries.


Exactly.

And we see people from those countries come here and in many cases they wish to bring certain elements of that society with them.

And you're right, we do see Christianity used in the same way in some African countries. If people from those nations wanted to come to Europe and implement some of the backwards shite that they consider normal over there they'd be told pretty quickly that it's not on, or they should be at least.

Neville Bartos wrote:The idea that Christianity is no longer a political, as well as a religious, ideology is a bit wide of the mark. The US being a perfect example of a place where conservative Christian values are constantly infringing on secular rights and freedoms.


No one said it wasn't still a political and religious ideology though, did they? I certainly didn't.

I said that as time goes on the general population in the western world is realising that it's all a load of old nonsense, and we're drifting away from it.

Where the "culture clash" is coming in, is where we have a society that is drifting away from a religion that could be considered reasonably modern, only to be told that we must not question or criticize a religion that is still based in the dark ages.

As for the US, the big difference for me in that situation is that those conservative Christians are routinely mocked and derided by the more intelligent and progressive members of society.

When it comes to those same enlightened comedians, public figures, gay rights champions and so on applying the same rules to Islam we don't see the same vigour, do we?

Neville Bartos wrote:I don't think there's a cure for militancy or radicalisation. Time, education, secularism, inclusiveness, lessen the impact over time.

What doesn't help are faith schools and Sharia courts.


There may not be a cure of sorts, but what we need to do is stop pandering to these religious headcases, regardless of what side they're on.

The whole thing is a load of old bollocks, and we should be free to say so if we want, without fear of being convicted of a fucking hate crime.


I think the major effect of the reformation was to decentralise power. That's not really an issue with Islam. Whereas pre reformation Christianity was pretty much a one party state, Islam has never really had that. I couldn't tell you who, if anyone, is considered top man by Shia Muslims, or Sunni's.
In the end I think the militant aspect of Islam feeds on ignorance. It's no exaggeration to say that education sets people free. It's why the Taliban shoot little girls in the head for wanting to go to school.

Secularism, or a more secular society is, in my opinion, absolutely the result of educating the masses. And we could probably add economic affluence into the mix. Show me an educated, wealthy society and I'll show you a a society where conservative religion is pretty much marginalised.

Free thought, critical thinking, science and logic are all the mortal enemies of superstition.
They suck the power right out of religion. And once the power has gone it's nigh impossible to get it back. It's why groups like Al Qaeda cite the 'westernisation' of Muslim countries as something they're fighting against.

I didn't mean to imply you'd said Christianity was no longer political. It's just that a lot of people see it as some toothless old fogey compared to Islam. Which it's not.
There's still plenty of people who'd love a return to the kind of justified bigotry and general nastiness that a powerful a Christian lobby can provide.

And I absolutely agree that no concessions should be made to religion. We've just gotten rid of blasphemy laws, the last thing we need is to bring a new set in reclassified as 'hate speech'. There should be no state funding for faith schools. No Sharia courts. Animals should not be inhumanely killed for the sake of halal or kosher foods.

I'm not sure celebrities are the best barometer to use for judging criticism. Look what happened to poor old Matt Damon for saying slapping a woman's 'arris wasn't as bad as child rape.
There's plenty of well thought out and reasoned criticism of Islam to be found. Unfortunately all those people desperate to hate Asians seem to have taken refuge in bashing Muslims. And Muslims aren't a race, so you can't be racist for hating them.
So, for good or bad there are certain connotations involved in some criticisms that aren't there with others.

I'm not sure Islam is alone in wanting to be exempt from criticism. Certainly Muslim nations at the UN have been pushing for blasphemy to be included in international law.
Religion is, and always has been, a dangerous thing.
The problem is keeping reasonable, logical criticism from slipping into straight up bigotry.
0 x
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

User avatar
Neville Bartos
Posts: 2175
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2016 2:29 am
Location: Flyyyyyyyyyin'

Re: Tommy Robinson

Postby Neville Bartos » Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:10 pm

Gonzo wrote:
Neville Bartos wrote:
The reformation was less about militancy and more about challenging the power of the Catholic Church.
I don't think anyone could call Martin Luther a liberal, or even a liberalising influence.

There's also no Muslim equivalent of the Roman Catholic Church, or a figure like the Pope. We already have different Muslim sects -- Sunni, Shia, Sufi, etc.

Religion tends to reflect society as opposed to the other way around. The most populous Muslim countries tend to be non democratic, third world, or both. These places use religion as a means of control, a stick to keep people in order.
Christianity is still used much the same way in some African countries.

The idea that Christianity is no longer a political, as well as a religious, ideology is a bit wide of the mark. The US being a perfect example of a place where conservative Christian values are constantly infringing on secular rights and freedoms.

I don't think there's a cure for militancy or radicalisation. Time, education, secularism, inclusiveness, lessen the impact over time.
What doesn't help are faith schools and Sharia courts.

I was reading a very interesting poll that showed that British Muslims over 55 were, by a good margin, a lot more liberal than any other age group. Which suggests time does eventually change attitudes.

People can dress how they like, it's a free country. :D

Anyway, mate, it's a subject that not likely to go away anytime soon.



Nice posts from both of you boys.

There are two big stumbling blocks in Islamic reformation .

Firstly the Koran is 'perfect' and can't be changed. It's actually Haram (forbidden) to try and change it. The final words from the prophet are the last words of god, no other prophecy's will follow.

Also men have to copy the prophets life and there is going to be no way of sugar coating him and trying to make it look peaceful. There is little point in trying to argue the meaning of the work 'Jihad' when the main man in the book spread his religion by genocide, murdered over half a million people, wedded toddlers and made the wives of those he beheaded his sex slaves.

Christianity had the New Testament which could be used to counter the fire and brimstone of the previous book and also had a main character who was healing and feeding people.. . . . . . it's a damn sight easier to spin that.


The problem with religious texts -- the Quran and Bible specifically -- is that they're open to interpretation. And my word do we see cherry picking in both cases too.
When something as seemingly specific as 'thou shalt not kill' can be entirely ignored, then what's the point of any of it?

In the end the worst of Islam (and Christianity) is just horrible people, justifying doing horrible things, by picking out horrible passages, both in and out of context, from their religious book of choice. It's human nature.
If, as I'd hope the majority would, you wish to do no harm and make no judgements, I bet my bollocks you could find sufficient in either book to more than justify that live and let live approach.
0 x
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

User avatar
Gonzo
Posts: 5784
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 8:13 pm

Re: Tommy Robinson

Postby Gonzo » Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:43 pm

Neville Bartos wrote:
Gonzo wrote:

Nice posts from both of you boys.

There are two big stumbling blocks in Islamic reformation .

Firstly the Koran is 'perfect' and can't be changed. It's actually Haram (forbidden) to try and change it. The final words from the prophet are the last words of god, no other prophecy's will follow.

Also men have to copy the prophets life and there is going to be no way of sugar coating him and trying to make it look peaceful. There is little point in trying to argue the meaning of the work 'Jihad' when the main man in the book spread his religion by genocide, murdered over half a million people, wedded toddlers and made the wives of those he beheaded his sex slaves.

Christianity had the New Testament which could be used to counter the fire and brimstone of the previous book and also had a main character who was healing and feeding people.. . . . . . it's a damn sight easier to spin that.


The problem with religious texts -- the Quran and Bible specifically -- is that they're open to interpretation. And my word do we see cherry picking in both cases too.
When something as seemingly specific as 'thou shalt not kill' can be entirely ignored, then what's the point of any of it?

In the end the worst of Islam (and Christianity) is just horrible people, justifying doing horrible things, by picking out horrible passages, both in and out of context, from their religious book of choice. It's human nature.
If, as I'd hope the majority would, you wish to do no harm and make no judgements, I bet my bollocks you could find sufficient in either book to more than justify that live and let live approach.


To be honest mate I'm sick of taking about it but until people read the Koran they will assume that it's like the bible. It's not.

It's fundamentally important that anyone talking about the Koran remembers that it has rules governing how it is read. In short every passage supersedes the previous one. Muhammad was peaceful for the first 9 years of his religion and acquired 150 followers. After that he started to spread the region by Jihad and became a warlord so yes there are peaceful verses in the Koran but they are trumped by the second part of the book.

I take what you are saying about interpretation but surely you must understand that Muslims worship the prophet and men must use him as a moral compass?

He married a 6 year old, the texts are clear as day. He participated in 27 massacres, beat children who didn't pray, executed gays, married his daughter-in-law, raped a disabled girl, had sex with the corpse of his dead aunt, instructed his followers to rape women in front of their husbands, ordered war on Christians & Jews . . . . . . . . and that is the tip of the iceberg as well as leaving out the worst two bits which I can't even type.

All of the above is classed as 'Sunna' and is clearly thought of as divine and can't be criticised. In fact show me a muslim who will refuse to condone anything the prophet did and I'll show you a fatwa.

I'm not religious and I don't care much for defending Christianity but when people compare the two religions it scares the shit out of me because people know a little of the bible and nothing of Islam. They make generalisations and assume the scriptures are similar which they are not at all.

I get why people don't want to sit down and read all of theses holy texts because they are boring as fuck but by conservative estimates 25% of British muslims only read the holy texts (that's all a devout muslim is allowed to read). That's 750,000 people in this country alone reading a religious doctrine instructing them to conquer the world and convert it to Islam by any means necessary.

There ain't much left open to interpretation mate, we all know some nice people who are Mulsim but they are not particularly devout. They have not read the Koran, Hadith & Sira and interpreted it another way because there is not another way to interpret it . . . . . it's not vague.

I know the above is uncomfortable reading but it is the truth, I've not made a single fucking word of it up.

So all this talk of a reformation of Islam is nonsense and will not happen. It's a nice comfort blanket to think it reform can but the Koran can't be tweaked . . . . . . . . . it needs to be completely rewritten which is punishable by . . . . . yes you've guessed it DEATH.
1 x

User avatar
Neville Bartos
Posts: 2175
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2016 2:29 am
Location: Flyyyyyyyyyin'

Re: Tommy Robinson

Postby Neville Bartos » Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:43 pm

Gonzo wrote:
Neville Bartos wrote:
The problem with religious texts -- the Quran and Bible specifically -- is that they're open to interpretation. And my word do we see cherry picking in both cases too.
When something as seemingly specific as 'thou shalt not kill' can be entirely ignored, then what's the point of any of it?

In the end the worst of Islam (and Christianity) is just horrible people, justifying doing horrible things, by picking out horrible passages, both in and out of context, from their religious book of choice. It's human nature.
If, as I'd hope the majority would, you wish to do no harm and make no judgements, I bet my bollocks you could find sufficient in either book to more than justify that live and let live approach.


To be honest mate I'm sick of taking about it but until people read the Koran they will assume that it's like the bible. It's not.

It's fundamentally important that anyone talking about the Koran remembers that it has rules governing how it is read. In short every passage supersedes the previous one. Muhammad was peaceful for the first 9 years of his religion and acquired 150 followers. After that he started to spread the region by Jihad and became a warlord so yes there are peaceful verses in the Koran but they are trumped by the second part of the book.

I take what you are saying about interpretation but surely you must understand that Muslims worship the prophet and men must use him as a moral compass?

He married a 6 year old, the texts are clear as day. He participated in 27 massacres, beat children who didn't pray, executed gays, married his daughter-in-law, raped a disabled girl, had sex with the corpse of his dead aunt, instructed his followers to rape women in front of their husbands, ordered war on Christians & Jews . . . . . . . . and that is the tip of the iceberg as well as leaving out the worst two bits which I can't even type.

All of the above is classed as 'Sunna' and is clearly thought of as divine and can't be criticised. In fact show me a muslim who will refuse to condone anything the prophet did and I'll show you a fatwa.

I'm not religious and I don't care much for defending Christianity but when people compare the two religions it scares the shit out of me because people know a little of the bible and nothing of Islam. They make generalisations and assume the scriptures are similar which they are not at all.

I get why people don't want to sit down and read all of theses holy texts because they are boring as fuck but by conservative estimates 25% of British muslims only read the holy texts (that's all a devout muslim is allowed to read). That's 750,000 people in this country alone reading a religious doctrine instructing them to conquer the world and convert it to Islam by any means necessary.

There ain't much left open to interpretation mate, we all know some nice people who are Mulsim but they are not particularly devout. They have not read the Koran, Hadith & Sira and interpreted it another way because there is not another way to interpret it . . . . . it's not vague.

I know the above is uncomfortable reading but it is the truth, I've not made a single fucking word of it up.

So all this talk of a reformation of Islam is nonsense and will not happen. It's a nice comfort blanket to think it reform can but the Koran can't be tweaked . . . . . . . . . it needs to be completely rewritten which is punishable by . . . . . yes you've guessed it DEATH.


I understand what you're saying, mate, but Shia, Sunni and Sufi are all based around different interpretations.
And to be clear, the Hadiths are reports of what Mohammed did, whereas the Quran is (allegedly) his own words. So, in effect, the Hadiths are an effort, by others, to set a framework for how to interpret Muhammad's words and actions.

There is a clear interpretive and dogmatic disconnect between Sufism and mainstream Islam though. Less emphasis is placed on the Hadiths and Sharia law and more on spiritual and ritualised praise.
They don't believe that Sharia should be the only legal system for Muslims, let alone non-Muslims, and are quite happy to embrace democracy.

Seriously, once you start reading about the differences between Sufism and mainstream Islam, you start to see that those differences are huge.

Even between Sunni and Shia there are differences on how they view the Hadiths.

To quote; 'The Sunni and Shiite sects of Islam encompass a wide spectrum of doctrine, opinion and schools of thought. The branches are in agreement on many aspects of Islam, but there are considerable disagreements within each. Both branches include worshipers who run the gamut from secular to fundamentalist. Shiites consider Ali and the leaders who came after him as imams. Most believe in a line of 12 imams, the last of whom, a boy, is believed to have vanished in the ninth century in Iraq after his father was murdered. Shiites known as Twelvers anticipate his return as the Mahdi, or Messiah. Because of the different paths the two sects took, Sunnis emphasize God’s power in the material world, sometimes including the public and political realm, while Shiites place value in martyrdom and sacrifice.'

The real tragedy of all this is that Sufis, the smallest and most peaceful Islamic sect of the three are horribly persecuted by mainstream fundamentalists.

So, I don't buy into the idea that the path is pretty well defined and deviation is just that. Sufism proves that a very different approach is entirely possible... it's just a shame it's not much more common.
0 x
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

User avatar
Gonzo
Posts: 5784
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 8:13 pm

Re: Tommy Robinson

Postby Gonzo » Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:36 pm

Neville Bartos wrote:
Gonzo wrote:
To be honest mate I'm sick of taking about it but until people read the Koran they will assume that it's like the bible. It's not.

It's fundamentally important that anyone talking about the Koran remembers that it has rules governing how it is read. In short every passage supersedes the previous one. Muhammad was peaceful for the first 9 years of his religion and acquired 150 followers. After that he started to spread the region by Jihad and became a warlord so yes there are peaceful verses in the Koran but they are trumped by the second part of the book.

I take what you are saying about interpretation but surely you must understand that Muslims worship the prophet and men must use him as a moral compass?

He married a 6 year old, the texts are clear as day. He participated in 27 massacres, beat children who didn't pray, executed gays, married his daughter-in-law, raped a disabled girl, had sex with the corpse of his dead aunt, instructed his followers to rape women in front of their husbands, ordered war on Christians & Jews . . . . . . . . and that is the tip of the iceberg as well as leaving out the worst two bits which I can't even type.

All of the above is classed as 'Sunna' and is clearly thought of as divine and can't be criticised. In fact show me a muslim who will refuse to condone anything the prophet did and I'll show you a fatwa.

I'm not religious and I don't care much for defending Christianity but when people compare the two religions it scares the shit out of me because people know a little of the bible and nothing of Islam. They make generalisations and assume the scriptures are similar which they are not at all.

I get why people don't want to sit down and read all of theses holy texts because they are boring as fuck but by conservative estimates 25% of British muslims only read the holy texts (that's all a devout muslim is allowed to read). That's 750,000 people in this country alone reading a religious doctrine instructing them to conquer the world and convert it to Islam by any means necessary.

There ain't much left open to interpretation mate, we all know some nice people who are Mulsim but they are not particularly devout. They have not read the Koran, Hadith & Sira and interpreted it another way because there is not another way to interpret it . . . . . it's not vague.

I know the above is uncomfortable reading but it is the truth, I've not made a single fucking word of it up.

So all this talk of a reformation of Islam is nonsense and will not happen. It's a nice comfort blanket to think it reform can but the Koran can't be tweaked . . . . . . . . . it needs to be completely rewritten which is punishable by . . . . . yes you've guessed it DEATH.


I understand what you're saying, mate, but Shia, Sunni and Sufi are all based around different interpretations.
And to be clear, the Hadiths are reports of what Mohammed did, whereas the Quran is (allegedly) his own words. So, in effect, the Hadiths are an effort, by others, to set a framework for how to interpret Muhammad's words and actions.

There is a clear interpretive and dogmatic disconnect between Sufism and mainstream Islam though. Less emphasis is placed on the Hadiths and Sharia law and more on spiritual and ritualised praise.
They don't believe that Sharia should be the only legal system for Muslims, let alone non-Muslims, and are quite happy to embrace democracy.

Seriously, once you start reading about the differences between Sufism and mainstream Islam, you start to see that those differences are huge.

Even between Sunni and Shia there are differences on how they view the Hadiths.

To quote; 'The Sunni and Shiite sects of Islam encompass a wide spectrum of doctrine, opinion and schools of thought. The branches are in agreement on many aspects of Islam, but there are considerable disagreements within each. Both branches include worshipers who run the gamut from secular to fundamentalist. Shiites consider Ali and the leaders who came after him as imams. Most believe in a line of 12 imams, the last of whom, a boy, is believed to have vanished in the ninth century in Iraq after his father was murdered. Shiites known as Twelvers anticipate his return as the Mahdi, or Messiah. Because of the different paths the two sects took, Sunnis emphasize God’s power in the material world, sometimes including the public and political realm, while Shiites place value in martyrdom and sacrifice.'

The real tragedy of all this is that Sufis, the smallest and most peaceful Islamic sect of the three are horribly persecuted by mainstream fundamentalists.

So, I don't buy into the idea that the path is pretty well defined and deviation is just that. Sufism proves that a very different approach is entirely possible... it's just a shame it's not much more common.



And therein lies the problem in this country I'm afraid.

The one branch of Islam that does truly integrate is the Ahmadiyya. I used to live in Sutton and used to pass through Morden where they had a mosque.

The women wore veils but it was more a headscarf and always very colorful and the men were bearded but it was more stubble and they had a very different attire to what we are used to seeing Muslims wear. The very fact that women are to be seen at the mosque at all sets it apart straight away but they are very inclusive.

There were some football pitches opposite which the Ahmadiyya community took on and looked after for everyone in the local area. The council had previously run them and the subs were shocking and crippling to local clubs but the Mosque took on all the costs and upgraded the facilities.

They used to have 'British' days too and the women would all wear Union Jack headscarfs and they festooned the mosque in British (and Chelsea :?) flags as well as inviting everyone in for grub and putting on a fair at the football pitches.

Sounds lovely eh?

Well as more and more started to move into the area a lot of the local business's were taken over by those attending the mosque. I got very friendly with the owner of the off-licence who told me a bit more about their beliefs and the mosque.

They are basically outcasts. He explained how the Saudi's were funding mosques in Britain and how conservative Islam was on the rise. They'd paid over £10m to build that Mosque in Morden and he said the budget was dwarfed by what the Saudis were ploughing in to promote the Salafi-Wahhabi doctrine in this country.

It wasn't just the Wahhabi's either. They were seen as too liberal by both the mainstream Sunni and Shia and had been forced to leave their old mosque by other muslims. These liberal and progressive muslims were completely outnumbered by various forms of conservative Islam in this country.

I thought he was being over dramatic really but he once said to me. "They'll get us here too, the attacks will continue. The problem with many Muslims is that they come here (Britain) for a new life but they bring all of the old conflicts with them. The Sunni still want to murder the Shia and they all still want to murder Jews & Christians".

Once the attacks started I knew he wasn't bullshitting.
There was constant graffiti (illegible to me but Akhi told me they were threats), non-stop vandalism, infidel sprayed on the imams cars, attacks and three arson attempts.

Much wasn't reported to the police but the railings got higher and the security got better but it wasn't enough. Eventually the thing was set completely ablaze and considering this mosque was about half the size of Upton Park it was an almighty fire. According to a friend of mine they were pulling in fire crews from 5 neighboring boroughs.

I've seen liberal Islam mate and they got fucked because they are a minority and the majority have to desire to reform. Quilliam are giving it a go and I really like Maajid but I see no evidence either in the UK or globally to suggest Islam is reformable.
3 x


Return to “Topical Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests