I was a radical Islamist who hated all of you

0

MOST people find it hard to imagine stabbing another human being, let alone almost decapitating someone with a meat cleaver.

 


To do so in broad daylight and in the middle of the road, while asking passers-by to take pictures, simply beggars belief.

Few can understand how the British jihadists Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale could be filled with such hate.

I'm ashamed to say I can. For I was similar to them once.

I spent 13 years inside Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), the global Islamist organisation that first spawned al-Muhajiroun, the banned Islamist terrorist organisation founded by Omar Bakri Muhammad and Anjem Choudary.

Bakri and Choudary both knew Adebolajo, a 28-year-old who was raised as a Christian. Like Adebolajo, I was raised in Essex in an educated, middle-class and well integrated family.

Again, like Adebolajo, I went on to further education. He dropped out, while I gained a law and Arabic degree from The School of African and Oriental Studies and a Masters in political theory from the London School of Economics.

(The belief that all radicalised young Muslims must lack jobs or are socially awkward loners is a dangerous misconception. I did not lack career opportunities, nor did I lack friends or girlfriends.)

And I, too, was caught up in the aftermath of a Jihadist street murder in which a man was killed with a machete. It was 1995 and I was president of the Student Union at Newham College in East Ham. The union was nothing but a front for HT. We siphoned off money to our cause, giving lectures and preaching anywhere and everywhere – the street, the yard and the canteen, where I would stand on the tables and spout hate.

Written By: Maajid Nawaz
continue to source article at news.com.au

NO COMMENTS

    • In reply to #1 by The Grapes of Roth:

      “Islamism is not Islam.”

      Ohhhh dearry me, that’s not going to go down too well on this site. I think this is another case of a Muslamic journalist practicing Taqiya.

      No. You’re wrong. Tuqiya is exclussively Shia but the Islamists of today are Sunni.

    • In reply to #1 by The Grapes of Roth:

      “Islamism is not Islam.”

      Ohhhh dearry me, that’s not going to go down too well on this site. I think this is another case of a Muslamic journalist practicing Taqiya.

      I don’t think so- that would be a knee jerk assumption. He didn’t say Islamism is not Islam- Islam is a religion of peace, blah, blah, blah…”- shouldn’t we give him the benefit of the doubt?

  1. Come now. After what Britain, USA and Canada did to Afghanistan and Iraq when none of them had attacked, I would fully expect any Muslim to have murderous fantasies. This is nothing to do with religion. It is about revenge.
    Almost nobody in those three countries even knows what they did is illegal. They are blithely unaware that Muslims have legitimate motive to hate them. They try to blame it on an irrational religion.

    • Why do muslims care what happened in Iraq or Afghanistan? I’m talking about the vast majority of muslims who have never been to either country, don’t know anybody there and don’t (apparently) care that some sects of muslims brutalise other sects within those countries and there are some muslims in both places that actually think it’s better to not have Saddam or the Taliban in control. Would those muslims be outraged if the USA, Britain and Canada launched an illegal war on Spain or India?

      That’s why this has EVERYTHING to do with religion. It’s religion which is used to create a false brotherhood that muslims (who fight like cats in a sack when left to their own devices) are encouraged to fight for and it is passages from the koran that are used to justify killing in the name of that false brotherhood.

      In reply to #2 by Roedy:

      Come now. After what Britain, USA and Canada did to Afghanistan and Iraq when none of them had attacked, I would fully expect any Muslim to have murderous fantasies. This is nothing to do with religion. It is about revenge.
      Almost nobody in those three countries even knows what they did is illegal….

    • Yup I’m with the others on this too. There is only one tiny thin dubious connection between the countries you mentioned – religion.

      You also then proved how wrong you are in defending islam by being unable to use a word that didn’t imply their guilt – “any Muslim” so it is about religion isn’t it?

      Yet the wars, illegitimate or not, were not about religion. No soldiers were given orders to kill islamist just terrorists. You’d think if there was a wing of your particular fantasy that did harbour terrorists you would be grateful that something was being done to save your brand not want “revenge”. What is the revenge for, the death of terrorists? Why don’t more islamists want to kill the terrorists themselves, seems like that’s the solution?

      In reply to #2 by Roedy:

      Come now. After what Britain, USA and Canada did to Afghanistan and Iraq when none of them had attacked, I would fully expect any Muslim to have murderous fantasies. This is nothing to do with religion. It is about revenge.
      Almost nobody in those three countries even knows what they did is illegal….

      • In reply to #6 by alaskansee:

        Yup I’m with the others on this too. There is only one tiny thin dubious connection between the countries you mentioned – religion….

        Sorry, but I have to say there is another: OIL. And this one surely isn’t tiny.

        • In reply to #61 by sffmadman66:

          In reply to #6 by alaskansee:

          Yup I’m with the others on this too. There is only one tiny thin dubious connection between the countries you mentioned – religion….

          Sorry, but I have to say there is another: OIL. And this one surely isn’t tiny.

          Please be explicit about Afghanistan’s OIL reserves, proven or projected. Also about the Afghan regime before the US intervention and its relation to Al Qaida, proven or projected.

          • In reply to #63 by G_O_D:

            In reply to #61 by sffmadman66:

            In reply to #6 by alaskansee:

            Yup I’m with the others on this too. There is only one tiny thin dubious connection between the countries you mentioned – religion….

            Sorry, but I have to say there is another: OIL. And this one surely isn’t tiny.

            Please be explicit…

            I made no mention of Afghanistan’s oil reserves, and I wouldn’t because I know nothing about it. I referred to another event, and I was specific about it, which had to do with Iran. And I said that, in the past, the U.S. government has given some people reason to hate us. That is not to say all of them hate us for these reasons, nor does it excuse terrorism. It means that just because they are guilty does mean we are innocent.

            Ah…sorry. I see the confusion. That’s my fault. I replied to a comment that specified “these countries” and I did not frame my response in that way.

    • In reply to #2 by Roedy:

      Muslims have legitimate motive to hate them…

      Which Muslims? Are you quite convinced that there are not others who think differently? Do you think those equality, education and democracy lovers passionately supporting Ahmad Shah Massoud, the ones that had their clock rolled back a thousand years with a flood of Arab money and a horde of Pakistani invaders felt as you proposed? What were they thinking when finally their champion was assassinated by Bin Laden September 10th 2001?

    • In reply to #2 by Roedy:

      Come now. After what Britain, USA and Canada did to Afghanistan and Iraq….

      They did what they did TO Afghanistan and Iraq, not IN Afghanistan and Iraq. Subtle choice of words. And why not throw Canada in the mix, maybe no one will notice that it was not involved in Iraq, only in the far most justified war ‘against’ Afghanistan.

      • In reply to #11 by G_O_D:

        In reply to #2 by Roedy:

        And why not throw Canada in the mix, maybe no one will notice that it was not involved in Iraq, only in the far most justified war ‘against’ Afghanistan.

        It was notable that Afghanistan only was mentioned by Lee Rigby’s murderer. For any to fail to acknowledge that this was clearly part of the ongoing fundamentalist versus progressive struggle is most unfortunate. Of course the regressives will choose to paint it as variously racist, imperialist etc.

      • In reply to #11 by GOD:

        In reply to #2 by Roedy:

        Come now. After what Britain, USA and Canada did to Afghanistan and Iraq….

        They did what they did TO Afghanistan and Iraq, not IN Afghanistan and Iraq. Subtle choice of words. And why not throw Canada in the mix, maybe no one will notice that it was not involved in Iraq,…

        Oh. He was talking about current events (or at least more recent). There are, however, examples of Western oil companies exploiting the region for their own benefit back in the 20th century, regardless of how it affected the people there. Here’s one (already mentioned in another comment): The Shah of Iran did not care for his people; he only cared about the money he received from the U.S. and from big business. When the Iranians rebelled, demanding democracy, the U.S. supported the Shah. If you had been a citizen of Iran back then, how would that make you feel?

    • In reply to #2 by Roedy:

      Come now. After what Britain, USA and Canada did to Afghanistan and Iraq when none of them had attacked, I would fully expect any Muslim to have murderous fantasies. This is nothing to do with religion. It is about revenge.
      Almost nobody in those three countries even knows what they did is illegal…

      revenge ? you probably not aware of this.Neither of Lee Rigby’s murderers were from Afghanistan or Iraq.

    • In reply to #2 by Roedy:

      Come now. After what Britain, USA and Canada did to Afghanistan and Iraq when none of them had attacked, I would fully expect any Muslim to have murderous fantasies. This is nothing to do with religion. It is about revenge.
      Almost nobody in those three countries even knows what they did is illegal….

      I talk about this all the time. No one will listen; even some of the most open-minded people I know. They want to believe what they learn through mainstream media and ignore any evidence to the contrary. So, as far as they are concerned, all these radicals have no reason to hate us. That may be true for some, but not likely all. And yet, we have plenty of Christians who hate for no other reason than “the Bible says so.” Boggles the mind; mine, anyway.

  2. @Roedy

    I guess you failed to read the article by another former muslim Ali Razvi. He explains why you’re wrong better than I ever could. But then, something makes me think you don’t want to hear the truth.

    It is about religion. Whether you like it or not. It is.

    • In reply to #4 by MAJORPAIN:

      @Roedy

      I guess you failed to read the article by another former muslim Ali Razvi. He explains why you’re wrong better than I ever could. But then, something makes me think you don’t want to hear the truth.

      It is about religion. Whether you like it or not. It is.

      There is no truth: What will these outspoken former militants do for the victims and their families? Nawaz’s and Razvi’s opinions mean nothing.

      The hard truth is that most people remain docile enough to think that we live in an fair and equitable world run by engineers or some crap like that: Where all people are always rewarded or punished the same, have jealousy, envy, and spite for others’ irrespective of their skin color, to which ya’ll averting your eyes from.

      What if I shouted out that someone hacked the head off, not of a stranger halfway ’round the world, but that of “My White, Western Brother” in broad daylight?

      Would you think I was motivated by religion then?

      This scenario would no longer be about religion, would it?

      • In reply to #8 by fractaloid:

        In reply to #4 by MAJORPAIN:

        @Roedy

        I guess you failed to read the article by another former muslim Ali Razvi. He explains why you’re wrong better than I ever could. But then, something makes me think you don’t want to hear the truth.

        It is about religion. Whether you like it or not. It is.

        Ther…

        This is interesting: “The hard truth is that most people remain docile enough to think that we live in an fair and equitable world run by engineers or some crap like that:”. How do you know this? If it’s a “hard truth”, then the evidence should be easy to point to- so go ahead.

        • In reply to #18 by KRKBAB:

          In reply to #8 by fractaloid:

          In reply to #4 by MAJORPAIN:

          Plenty of evidence KRKBAB but it seems that you need to give yourself permission to even think it’s the racist attack that I suggest.

          Murderers lie.

          The ongoing racial tensions in the U.K. and Europe are obvious to me, but these issues seem to be obfuscated by what the crazy murderer said to passers-by. It’s viral.

          Would Charles Manson have his Helter-Skelter ideological fust-for-the-flames of his own racial hatred given consideration? His wasn’t, but Anders Behring Breivik had his neo-Nazi ideology actually considered and examined, even though that was clearly a racial attack.

          So if Manson was to murder a prominent Jewish Hollywood family, today, would it be acceptable for the media to sanitize the facts in this manner? Would he be anti-Semitic or would he be a religious nut? I suppose you’d choose the later. [Add that the proverbial engineers seem to be the media].

          Racial in-group biases are far more deep than religious ones, so it takes precedence and underpins the problem. This was a racist assault, with all the same themes.

          Besides, an actual progressive thinker might instead examine the perpetrators’ lives: How is the U.K. naturalizing their Nigerian immigrants? Are they getting meaningful employment? What about the global migration issues? What about peace in Nigeria? Plenty of evidence KRKBAB.

          • In reply to #20 by fractaloid:

            In reply to #18 by KRKBAB:

            In reply to #8 by fractaloid:

            In reply to #4 by MAJORPAIN:

            Plenty of evidence KRKBAB but it seems that you need to give yourself permission to even think it’s the racist attack that I suggest.

            Murderers lie.

            The ongoing racial tensions in the U.K. and Europe are obvio…

            First of all- Islam isn’t a race- it’s a religion. Also, I wasn’t calling your statement racist!? Lastly, all of your evidence is evidence of what, exactly?

          • In reply to #30 by KRKBAB:

            In reply to #20 by fractaloid:
            In reply to #18 by KRKBAB:
            In reply to #8 by fractaloid:
            In reply to #4 by MAJORPAIN:
            First of all- Islam isn’t a race- it’s a religion. Also, I wasn’t calling your statement racist!? Lastly, all of your evidence is evidence of what, exactly?

            I didn’t send you any of that information. You must have made that up all by yourself.

    • In reply to #4 by MAJORPAIN:

      @Roedy

      I guess you failed to read the article by another former muslim Ali Razvi. He explains why you’re wrong better than I ever could. But then, something makes me think you don’t want to hear the truth.

      It is about religion. Whether you like it or not. It is.

      I believe this. However, the West has given plenty of reasons for some people in the Middle East, and other parts of the world, to hate us, too. This is not something that should be easily dismissed.

  3. “But Islamism is not Islam. Islamism is the politicisation of Islam, the desire to impose a version of this ancient faith over society. To achieve this, Islamism uses political grievances, such as mine, to alienate and then provide an alternative sense of belonging to vulnerable young Muslims. Preying on the grievances of disaffected young men is the bedrock of Islamism.
    Like all bigoted ideologies, it plays on the identity politics game, creating a “them and us”, in order to provide a home for the “us” against the alien “other” and control the community by acting as the sole “representative” of Muslims.”

    Islamism is not Islam? Now there’s a false distinction if I ever saw one. I tried reading the Koran and gave up after the first 10 pages because reading the incessant, repetitive, and boring “us vs. them” bullshit was like being hit over the head by a windmill. Not Islam my arse.

    • In reply to #5 by Dave H:

      “But Islamism is not Islam. Islamism is the politicisation of Islam, the desire to impose a version of this ancient faith over society. To achieve this, Islamism uses political grievances, such as mine, to alienate and then provide an alternative sense of belonging to vulnerable young Muslims. Preyi…

      Maybe it is. But this is still important: “Preying on the grievances of disaffected young men is the bedrock of Islamism.” Change “Islamism” to “Islam” if you want. Some of them actually do have grievances that led them to become terrorists. Maybe not all, but enough. A little bit of history is all I need to know this. A British oil company set up a common Iranian soldier to become the Shah, and when he oppressed his people they wanted democracy. Who did the U.S support then, I wonder? You guessed it. This–with Iran–is just one example among many.

      I’m not saying it justifies terrorism. I’m just saying that there are deeper issues here, and they all need to be addressed.

      • In reply to #60 by sffmadman66:

        A British oil company set up a common Iranian soldier to become the Shah, and when he oppressed his people they wanted democracy.

        What? WHAT? First, he was a Persian soldier, common or not, but how is that relevant? What is it that elevates “common” folk to royal status anyway? Not the people surely? Ever heard of the divine right of kings? This subject could open a nasty can of worms and the god fearing religious will be found crawling about at the bottom of it.

        • In reply to #65 by Ignorant Amos:

          What? WHAT? First, he was a Persian soldier, common or not, but how is that relevant? What is it that elevates “common” folk to royal status anyway? Not the people surely? Ever heard of the divine right of kings? This subject could open a nasty can of worms and the god fearing religious will be found crawling about at the bottom of it.

          I agree where the Shah came from is irrelevant. What he was matters and he was a tyrant and a torturer of the worst kind. And its a stain on the record of nations like the US and UK that we put him in power and helped him stay there for so long. And its simply irrational to think that our history of doing that doesn’t play some role in the way people in the middle east currently feel about the West.

          • In reply to #66 by Red Dog:

            What he was matters and he was a tyrant and a torturer of the worst kind. And its a stain on the record of nations like the US and UK that we put him in power and helped him stay there for so long. And its simply irrational to think that our history of doing that doesn’t play some role in the way people in the middle east currently feel about the West.

            It isn’t the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, that was ousted in the 70′s we are talking about, but his father, Reza Shah, set up by the British and Soviets oil companies, who that Shah ousted . Persia has had a lot of ousting, deposing and murdering of its leadership over the millennia.

            How far back should we go? Modern Empire (1501–1979)? Earlier? How about the Islamic Caliphs (641–946)?

            Why stop with western influence in the Persian gulf for that matter?

            While I agree that what we, the west, does in the east will have some impact on how those in the east view westerners, nevertheless, there is Islamic stoking of the fires that is uncalled for and helps the situation not one little bit.

  4. Like all bigoted ideologies, it plays on the identity politics game, creating a “them and us”, in order to provide a home for the “us” against the alien “other” and control the community by acting as the sole “representative” of Muslims.

    This is exactly how I feel about the evangelical Christian church/school I grew up in. They really zeroed in on reminding us our senior year that we would be graduating and “the world” would be out to get us. I found that “the world” really didn’t care and that all the people that had supposedly had an agenda against my faith (gays, liberals, environmentalists, scientists, etc) were just people being people.

  5. Islamism is not Islam.

    it’s an interpretation of Islam. But more fundamental (and, perhaps correct).
    A case of Belief in Belief.

    By the way, the first time i read the expression belief in Belief was in a Groo comic Book by Sergio Aragones. Those stories always end with a Moral. The exact words: To many only believe in belief (Groo, issue 58 1989), I wonder if Dennett used this expression after ou before Sergio Aragones.

  6. I think Maajid Nawaz continues to show exemplary courage to keep on saying these things. It is people like he who will get to solve this problem in the fulness of time. He deserves our help and support and thanks.

    Until we understand the asymmetry of risk within Islam between taking the moral/progressive position and the fundamentalist/regressive position we will never get to provide the right kind of support to the right kind of people who can fix this thing from the inside.

  7. When he says that Islamism is not Islam, he is saying that political Islam (wanting to implement a theoracy based on Sharia)and the religion of Islam are not one and the same. Islamism is a political idealogy based on the religion of Islam. However, one can be a Muslim and not an Islamist. This should be encouraged as much as possible, if it is not otherwise possible to decovert someone out of Islam all together.

  8. This, I maintain, is similar to what groups such as the WRP do by targeting insecure individuals and telling them that “The Party” has answers to all their problems.

    And, we in the host cultures have to examine the mote in our own eye and ask ourselves if we are innocent of the prejudice that drives, mostly but not entirely, young men into ranks of the Jihadists.

    This is not in any way to excuse the stone age savagery they commit, but to point out that these young people have at arms length what is, in my carefully examined verdict, the most fowl of religions which promises nothing short of paradise.

    World, we have problems which must be addressed urgently, and they are, the leaders of Islam, and our own political weaklings!

    The Islamic bully boys sense that weakness and exploit it; they scent blood and we need to wake up to the fact that they mean business!

    • In reply to #21 by Stafford Gordon:

      This, I maintain, is similar to what groups such as the WRP do by targeting insecure individuals and telling them that “The Party” has answers to all their problems.

      What is the acronym WRP and “The Party”?

      And, we in the host cultures have to examine the mote in our own eye[s] and ask ourselves if we are innocent of the prejudice that drive…

      Although I ignore religion by default as it has literally become ‘immaterial’ to my own reality, I share your verdict of these binary political systems and our doing a bit of our own housekeeping. Add that Islam genuinely has political weaklings in their ranks as well, but something that Westerners seem to welcome all too often.

      The best response to any political bullying comes from post-colonial thought, something that our minorities should be very well versed in. We should adhere to the idea that: the majority does not rule, what’s good for the goose is not good for the gander, and any one-law-for-all policy will not deliver on promises, say, of paradise, such that some 1-5% are still more equal than others.

      Those in the host nations must refrain from being party to further overarching world changes that Islam is also about achieving, whether through violent means, or through the bias, quintessentially facile and empty responses of moderates, ex-extremists, and ex-Muslims. Tools of manipulation in my POV.

      Islam’s business is about achieving a fantastical united world order by any means necessary. Perhaps you were also implying how fowl and familiar that idea is in Western memory? Thought experiment:

      “I wish the whole Roman populace had a single neck, so that I could wring it instantly!” ~ Nero.

      I maintain that the broad measures by “The Allies” thus far are also a violation of our sovereign freedoms, that do not cost, but are ensured by one’s nation. Dunno that freedom costs per say? The Bush-Cheney regime fell into a trap: setting up sweeping changes that are no solution to globally distributed societal problems, like security and perhaps not economic ones either.

      World, get back to that mote…

  9. dissapointing article.

    I guess it’s good to give examples of how people who are not jihadists become jihadists but it offers no insight, if anything it’s potentially dangerous as it may create a stereotype image of the convert that detracts from other factors. This writer is a bit like the Woolwich murderer. I get it, but at a time when people are looking for simple answers, anecdotes don’t help.

    in his mind he has seperated islam as a belief in allah from islamism which is a political movement. a smokescreen we could do without. from my understanding of the written work in islamic texts, the political movement was always there.

    what would be a more honest distinction is islam from fundamental islam, meaning, like with christianity, seperating the cherry-picked liberal view that doesn’t get the believer in trouble with secular law and the narrow, perhaps more honest version of doing things by the book.

    I do applaud anyone who’s escaped from a life of hatered, especially if they’re trying to help others out too but I feel he has one step further to go. He wants to encourage debate among muslims, that’s good but he has still returned to the fixed point of “don’t blame islam”, and polarises people using terms like islamaphobe when any use of debate must at it’s centre question the religion that unites every jihadist regardless of how they became radicalised

  10. ……

    @Roedy

    I guess you failed to read the article by another former muslim Ali Razvi. He explains why you’re wrong better than I ever could. But then, something makes me think you don’t want to hear the truth.

    It is about religion. Whether you like it or not. It is.

    Just a small point of order, but Ali A. Rizvi identifies as an atheist Muslim, not a former one. For reasons which remain a mystery to yours truly, this description doesn’t seem to sit too well with some folks here. Cultural Christianity is fine; the phrase non-believing Jew doesn’t raise an eyebrow… but atheist Muslim is a no-no. You have to wonder why this is.

    The funny thing is that those of us who maintain that Islam may not be entirely to blame for acts of terror committed in its name and hold that people should be held accountable for their own actions are the ones who are accused of being apologists for the religion.

    We try to say “no, no, it isn’t some book written fourteen hundred years which is responsible for terrorist attacks; Muslims are not some homogeneous group with no will of their own,” and are shot down for our troubles.

    Well, here is a message to all those who insist on saying Islam is to blame for events such as the one in Woolich: You are the apologists for Islamism; not us.

    You are the ones who offer excuses. You are the ones who use Islam as mitigation for these horrendous acts. You are the terrorist enablers. You, in reacting the way you do, are the ones who give terrorism its significance. And your Pavlovian response is what may make future attacks an inevitability.

    It’s almost embarrassing that you don’t see the role you play in furthering terrorism’s goals. How can you not get that in invisible ink on the back of every EDL or BNP membership badge the phrase Islamism thanks you for your contribution is emblazoned?

    We get that many of you on the far right are not that smart. We get that the culture in which you’ve been raised may have led you to believe you should be driving a Bentley and living in a mansion with a coterie of supermodels. We get that your lottery numbers never came up and you’re pissed because of it. And we get that you blame immigrants and others who are different to you for your shortcomings. And you know what, we don’t care anymore. Your failures are your own. Deal with it.

    On one side we have inadequate Islamists who are spoiling for a fight, and on the other side are their counterparts who are only too eager to engage. Isn’t there an island somewhere all you losers can sod off to and leave the rest of us in peace? The Hunger Games was a popular movie; you dickhea…you guys could all be film stars.

    Mind you, The Hunger Games was good because its protagonists were tough. If there’s one thing we know about Islamist/BNP/EDL types, it’s that no matter how splendid their beards are or how many tattoos they have, at heart they’re all pathetic.

    • In reply to #23 by Katy Cordeth:

      ……

      Well, here is a message to all those who insist on saying Islam is to blame for events such as the one in Woolich: You are the apologists for Islamism; not us.

      I find this language incautious and hides by imputing motives the possibility of a more constructive attitude that should be possible. But, Katy, is bang on if she would agree with this-

      “You are unintentional enablers of Islamism.”

      If you wanted to design a religion to garner a loyal band of warriors with suitable threats and promises, Islam pretty much fits the bill. It does so because it was designed so. But, people are inherently decent and brains inherently metaphorical, wired for analogy. Thus there is no necessary tyrannical consequence of the words of the Koran only in the interpretations clerics and leaders who exploit its original intentions for their own political ends. (I concede their job is easier than most priests and shamans.)

      (The Bible’s original intention was to create governable sheeple, but is usefully hobbled by the mishmash of personal agendas from its various editor/stakeholders.)

      The fact that there are shining examples of decent, popular Muslim leaders (please take time to read about Ahmad Shah Massoud) means that Islam is not fated for ignominy.

      To Katy’s point; If we approach Islam as fated to fail we can make no progress, nor too any of the people fatefully born into a Muslim world. We know the progress to rationality from superstition is slow. Individuals may turn their lives around in months or years but cultures take generations. To tread on green shoots, believing they are doomed to fail is entirely a barren strategy.

      • In reply to #25 by phil rimmer:

        In reply to #23 by Katy Cordeth:

        Well, here is a message to all those who insist on saying Islam is to blame for events such as the one in Woolich: You are the apologists for Islamism; not us.

        I find this language incautious and hides by imputing motives the possibility of a more construct…

        Having no conscious intention does make a finer point of a prior comment of mine, although you probably didn’t intend this!

        I reject the idea that Islam is the primary motive for jihadist murders, prefering instead the deeper racial, ethnic, nationalist and other in-group biases, along with poverty and a sense of belonging, or lack thereof.

        For most of our life, we don’t navigate through the world fully conscious, this conserves the incredible amount of energy that our brains need. We seek patterns unconsciously, even when information is given to us from unreliable sources such as bloody-handed murderers; we will accept what crazy people say if/when it fits into our larger map of the world, or when it “fits the bill” as you say.

        Hence, it probably helps people sleep at night when we ‘know’ the reasons are idealogical, because that can be changed far easier than your race and far easier than creating an environment that actually welcomes racial diversity.

        [Admittedly, non-religious causes of human behavior fits into my picture of the world. My strategy to reject religion is to remove it from all areas of my life. I will continue to do so even in the face of any evidence for which there is none.]

        Obedience to authority is also not peculiar to Islam. Sure, it isn’t always our intention to manipulate, or be manipulated, so other factors – which I feel are being ignored – must be causative. Ideological rants are merely a confounding background noise. As seen on TV.

        Also The Koran isn’t the only cultural icon that has generated warriors or that is full of battle scenes, so that’s not endemic to Islam either.

        • In reply to #28 by fractaloid:

          In reply to #25 by phil rimmer:

          I reject the idea that Islam is the primary motive for jihadist murders, prefering instead the deeper racial, ethnic, nationalist and other in-group biases, along with poverty and a sense of belonging, or lack thereof.

          I cannot agree your intention here in relation to Afghanistan associated incidents. Committing an atrocity with the the word “Afghanistan” on your lips directs me to a root problem of fundamentalist Islamist clerics and leaders exploiting fundamentalist Muslims. If fundamentalist Muslims (the Taliban) funded by Arabs paying for huge numbers of Pakistani invaders hadn’t attacked decent democratic egalitarian Muslims in Afghanistan, with Bin Laden finally having their leader assassinated, then we wouldn’t be paying for it now.

          Some Muslims are guilty here, with the greatest blame for the fundamentalist Islamic leaders and clerics. Decent, democratic egalitarian Muslims who have fought bravely for their position deserve only praise. I urge you to use the term “Islam” with the greatest of care of whom and what you mean. We may fool ourselves else.

          • In reply to #32 by phil rimmer:

            In reply to #28 by fractaloid:

            In reply to #25 by phil rimmer:

            I reject the idea that Islam is the primary motive for jihadist murders, prefering instead the deeper racial, ethnic, nationalist and other in-group biases, along with poverty and a sense of belonging, or lack thereof.

            I cannot agree…

            Oh well, take care, because the only atrocity here is that you believe that a murderer’s confession is the complete picture. It’s completely irrational.

            Religious status is not a requirement to understand any human behavior. You might as well tell Scotland Yard about their astrological sign or send in the psychics. Religious status is not a requirement to understand homicidal maniacs. It just means that my fellow atheists find a chance to vindicate themselves on RDFRS!

            If I was psychic I’d say that (if history serves me right) there will typically be the follow-up confessions and media profiling will calibrate with reality as pieces of the puzzle fit together – living conditions will finally be on your lips. Solutions will then be destined for the govts too hard basket as per usual… until next time (you can pay me later).

            Is it rational to discriminate between individuals based on their penchant for democratic and egalitarian causes? Is that the way to take care of those whom I speak? Too many people have been getting rich off such fear and delusion, Dick Cheney & Osama bin Laden, both of ‘em. bin Laden was well thought of in the entire “Islamic world” and I can understand how some of his actions might be reinforced with praise. What did he do with his social currency?

          • In reply to #34 by fractaloid:

            In reply to #32 by phil rimmer:

            the only atrocity here is that you believe that a murderer’s confession is the complete picture.

            Since when is a root problem the complete picture? Why did you move the goal post talking first of a “primary motive”, which idea I followed carefully, then move on to “the complete picture”? I don’t mind insults, when there is something for them to be about.

          • In reply to #35 by phil rimmer:

            In reply to #34 by fractaloid:
            In reply to #32 by phil rimmer:

            the only atrocity here is that you believe that a murderer’s confession is the complete picture.

            Since when is a root problem the complete picture? Why did you move the goal post talking first of a “primary motive”, which idea I foll…

            So you’re offended? Thanks if you are being honest, because that is the exact evidence that one seeks as to why the govt, police and media sanitizes public opinions – or more accurately, engineer “opinion fit for public consumption” – in the first place. Still I’ve obviously become preachy or something ‘cos other RDFRS users have been easily insulted, incredibly up tight, anal about producing evidence (which they should make an effort for themselves) and far too emotional to read my comments properly! Lol!

            Apologies only that I’m a lazy wordsmith.

            If you’re still bothered to read my dribble, then I guess the so-called root problem can be visualized as encapsulated within a complete picture of an individual’s lifespan / biography / profile. A complete picture is not available to you or I at the moment, unless you take the easy energy saving route of accepting this confession at face value, as you have done along with the rest of the general public. What has surprised me today is the realization that so few are willing to even consider other areas of a perpetrator’s life that is not of his religious background. I find that is a very annoying part of human nature.

            To many he is simply painted as a Muslim who killed because he said he was. A sick man standing there foaming at the mouth with rubbish spewing out of his mouth, a lot like me really, but to me he has made a series of bad decisions, which we all do under certain pressures from our environment which includes our interactions with the society that we live in. Religious status is not required to explain homicide (although it would be of interest to the authorities’ attempts at identifying his accomplices) when the deeper homicidal motive available is racial – not that he murdered because he was Nigerian, but this was a slow burning response to the racist society he found himself in. Imagine that most wouldn’t have seen him as Muslim. And please don’t tell me that the U.K. and Europe has no racial issues, that would really be moving the goal posts.

            Lol.

          • In reply to #36 by fractaloid:

            What has surprised me today is the realization that so few are willing to even consider other areas of a perpetrator’s life that is not of his religious background. I find that is a very annoying part of human nature.

            You say all sorts of things without the slightest bit of supporting evidence. How do you know that “so few are willing to even consider other areas of a perpetrator’s life”? During the early stages of this atrocity, every agency involved refused to be drawn on the speculation it was an Islamist inspired terrorist attack. Is it your assertion that the investigating officers are not pursuing all possible motives for this atrocity? But just focusing on the obvious. This is probably why other RDFRS members get a bit anal when you make assertions based on nothing but your opinion.

            To many he is simply painted as a Muslim who killed because he said he was.

            Well, call me old fashioned again, but until something subsequently substantive is discovered, the dirtbags word is all we have to go on. But that is not the case now though is it? Unfortunately for your racism hypothesis, the evidence coming in supports the original assertion made by the perpetrator himself, that it is a religiously motivated attack.

            A sick man standing there foaming at the mouth with rubbish spewing out of his mouth, a lot like me really, but to me he has made a series of bad decisions, which we all do under certain pressures from our environment which includes our interactions with the society that we live in.

            No shit Sherlock…and from there you jump to “it was a racially motivated murder”? Like we all run out and carry out irrational racially atrocious actions when the world is against us…NOT. And again, you have not supported this claim with anything in any case..

            Religious status is not required to explain homicide (although it would be of interest to the authorities’ attempts at identifying his accomplices) when the deeper homicidal motive available is racial

            I’ve read some dross on this site over the years, this is up there with the best of it.

            -not that he murdered because he was Nigerian, but this was a slow burning response to the racist society he found himself in.

            To begin with they were not Nigerian.

            But let me get this straight, it is your assertion that these two bozo’s went to the lengths they did in converting to Islam in order to facilitate a deep seated yearning they had to cut some white persons head off as some sort of psychopathic protest against the racist society they have been forced to endure? Really? Why? Why not dispense with the middle man and do the evil dead as racially motivated Christians? All that Islamist indoctrination must have been a right pain in the arse to go through for someone not taking it sincerely. Are there no racist Christians anymore?

            Imagine that most wouldn’t have seen him as Muslim.

            WTF?…How does one see a persons religion? What does a Muslim look like? Your mask is slipping factaloid, be careful.

            And please don’t tell me that the U.K. and Europe has no racial issues, that would really be moving the goal posts.

            OFFS, stop building strawmen, will ya?

          • In reply to #40 by Ignorant Amos:

            In reply to #36 by fractaloid:

            What has surprised me today is the realization that so few are willing to even consider other areas of a perpetrator’s life that is not of his religious background. I find that is a very annoying part of human nature.

            You say all sorts of things without the slightest…

            That needed doing. Cheers. I’d rather lost the will to type. Now back you get to that other barrel of fish at StrangeNotions.

          • In reply to #40 by Ignorant Amos:

            In reply to #36 by fractaloid:

            What has surprised me today is the realization that so few are willing to even consider other areas of a perpetrator’s life that is not of his religious background. I find that is a very annoying part of human nature.

            You say all sorts of things without the slightest…

            Well done. A nice thing about this site is that if one isn’t up to it there will be others to hold the fort against the handwringers, the Wrath of Cordeth™, Jihad-deniers (like Holocaust deniers except fully acceptable and promoted by the policers of political correctness) and apologists for religion in general.

          • In reply to #34 by fractaloid:

            Oh well, take care, because the only atrocity here is that you believe that a murderer’s confession is the complete picture. It’s completely irrational.

            It may have escaped your notice, but both the perpetrators where Christians until radicalized. I’m sure I can say that they showed no intent on racial murder until this radicalization. They extensively attended meetings held by known Muslim extremists. They were members of a proscribed Islamic group. One of them is said to have been arrested trying to join a terrorist training camp.

            “A suspect in last week’s savage killing of a British soldier on a London street was arrested in Kenya in 2010 while apparently preparing to train and fight with al-Qaida-linked Somali militants, an anti-terrorism police official said Sunday.”

            “Michael Adebolajo was then handed over to British authorities in the East African country, another Kenyan official said.”

            All a bit over the top for the average racist, public beheading, really? No, what we seen was blatant religious sectarianism by religious extremists. Something I’ve witnessed before on the streets of Britain.

            They targeted Lee Rigby because he was a British soldier, not because he was white. There is plenty of softer white targets in the UK. They hung about until armed response police arrived whereupon they made a futile effort to assault officers…I’m going to go out on a limb here, but that smacks awfully like an attempt at “Suicide by Cop” in order to achieve martyrdom.

            The previous foiled plot to behead a soldier on British soil was slightly more complicated, they were after a Muslim specifically in order to send a particular message. I suppose had Lee Rigby been a Muslim or swarthy skinned you would not be pursuing YOUR irrational hypothesis that it was a racially motivated murder?

            No, I’m afraid that all the circumstantial evidence points to a radical Muslim extremist attack on the perceived enemy, the recorded confession, another martyrs trick, was the icing on the cake for me.

            If you have some evidence in support of your hypothesis, I’m open to review my stance, without any evidence all you have is
            pure conjecture.

          • In reply to #39 by Ignorant Amos:

            In reply to #34 by fractaloid:

            Oh well, take care, because the only atrocity here is that you believe that a murderer’s confession is the complete picture. It’s completely irrational.

            It may have escaped your notice, but both the perpetrators where Christians until radicalized. I’m sure I can say…

            Great evidence you’ve got there.

          • In reply to #43 by fractaloid:

            Some argument you’ve got there. As flimsy as you might see it, I’ve still presented an argument with evidence. Like I said already, this sort of thing is all to familiar to me. It isn’t the first of it’s kind seen on the streets of Britain.

            BTW, the perp seemed to demonstrate his motive when he appeared in court yesterday. Of course that could all be a show to hide his underlying racial motivation, but I can’t know that and neither can you.

          • In reply to #44 by Ignorant Amos:

            In reply to #43 by fractaloid:

            Some argument you’ve got there. As flimsy as you might see it, I’ve still presented an argument with evidence. Like I said already, this sort of thing is all to familiar to me. It isn’t the first of it’s kind seen on the streets of Britain.

            Yes I’ve been watching from afar. As for the argument, I agree with the conclusion – I want religion fucken gone – but public opinion is irrational.

            It was relieving to see somebody hasn’t tired themselves out on alt. motives. The anti-Muslim rhetoric was getting 2-dimensional and I admit I don’t want to believe in that, but I stand next to the dishonesty factors involved in mass-media, public opinion and murderer’s confessions. I’m sure law-enforcement is quite well equipped to make their own genetic, psychological and criminological assessments, which are often counter-intuitive to public perceptions and won’t mean anything.

            The death-by-cop link isn’t peculiar to Islam, so thanks for that. Conversion was very good timing and fits well into my argument based on migration studies, especially how people are integrated. I’ve been looking at German-Turkish people and it seems very well researched. I’m a nativist when it comes to that and I’m not sorry. Apologies for bringing up individual differences and damaging your sensibilities. How clumsy of me to be so direct, while making such an important typo in regards to country of origin. I am ashamed.

            When you have some more evidence for my argument don’t bother telling me about it, because I’m just a foreign impartial observer offering an alternative POV. I don’t appreciate such a thing either and put it all down to vicarious speculation, that often comes across as patronizing.

            Your observation of London streets was very enlightening and I hope NO harm will come your self and your family. If I was thrust into the milieux I’d be quite nervous (also). Trying to negate racial and religious differences with a passionate and dedicated fervor maintain very well-meaning intentions, but it doesn’t mean it’s valid. It’s mere cognitive dissonance.

            Now I can rest… assured that atheism won’t be used as a motive to kill!

            [Ignorant Amos! Text editor lagging on my PC. I meant to type "NO harm to your family.." so hope you didn't read this before that correction!]

          • In reply to #45 by fractaloid:

            It was relieving to see somebody hasn’t tired themselves out on alt. motives. The anti-Muslim rhetoric was getting 2-dimensional and I admit I don’t want to believe in that, but I stand next to the dishonesty factors involved in mass-media, public opinion and murderer’s confessions. I’m sure law-enforcement is quite well equipped to make their own genetic, psychological and criminological assessments, which are often counter-intuitive to public perceptions and won’t mean anything.

            But you have still provided not a shred of anything to support your position other than wishful thinking. This is exactly same sort of thing we criticize the religious for, exactly the same thing.

            The death-by-cop link isn’t peculiar to Islam, so thanks for that.

            I never suggested it was so why the straw man? I gave the link to show that suicide by cop is a viable concept. Can you suggest an alternative reason for why they did not attempt to escape, something a racist attacker would’ve invariably made an effort to do. Only fanatical Muslims believe in this kind of martyrdom.

            Conversion was very good timing and fits well into my argument based on migration studies, especially how people are integrated. I’ve been looking at German-Turkish people and it seems very well researched.

            First, you haven’t made an argument. Second of all, Michael Adebolajo converted over ten years ago. Third, he didn’t migrate from anywhere, he is British born and university educated.

            I’m a nativist when it comes to that and I’m not sorry.

            Ah…the mask has finally fell off. You want this atrocity to be racially motivated. So how do you feel about those natives of your country that wish to immigrate to other nations. You do now nativism is irrational, right? The world was historically populated by migrants.

            Apologies for bringing up individual differences and damaging your sensibilities.

            You haven’t damaged my sensibilities, you’ve just demonstrated that atheists can cover the spectrum of social norms and can be irrational too.

            How clumsy of me to be so direct, while making such an important typo in regards to country of origin. I am ashamed.

            I have no idea what the hell you are wittering on about.

            When you have some more evidence for my argument don’t bother telling me about it, because I’m just a foreign impartial observer offering an alternative POV.

            Again, you don’t have an argument, you haven’t offered one to be considered. You are entitled to be an observer from wherever you like, but you are not being impartial. You haven’t offered an alternative POV, you made an assertion based on what we can all see as your own racial bias…an assertion that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny based on what facts we know.

            I don’t appreciate such a thing either and put it all down to vicarious speculation, that often comes across as patronizing.

            Spoing! Vicarious speculation is all you’ve got…how patronizing do you think that make you look on a website devoted to “Reason and Science”?

            Your observation of London streets was very enlightening and I hope NO harm will come your self and your family.

            What are you wittering about now?…What observation? What harm is going to come to my family or I on the streets of London considering we are hundreds of miles away?

            If I was thrust into the milieux I’d be quite nervous (also).

            What milieu are you on about?

            Trying to negate racial and religious differences with a passionate and dedicated fervor maintain very well-meaning intentions, but it doesn’t mean it’s valid. It’s mere cognitive dissonance.

            No one is doing this here but you. The attack was NOT racially motivated, it was religiously motivated. It is you that is displaying cognitive dissonance. Do you know the difference between racism and religious sectarianism? Because Lee Rigby was murdered for the later, not the former, and all the evidence points to that hypothesis. You have yet to put forward anything that supports your counter hypothesis…which means it can be disregarded as fanciful bollocks.

            Now I can rest… assured that atheism won’t be used as a motive to kill!

            No, but your nativism, or xenophobic, ideology might. In fact,history shows us it has.

          • In reply to #46 by Ignorant Amos:

            In reply to #45 by fractaloid:

            It was relieving to see somebody hasn’t tired themselves out on alt. motives. The anti-Muslim rhetoric was getting 2-dimensional and I admit I don’t want to believe in that…

            Richard Dawkins mentioned xenophobia is natural, but that doesn’t mean any geneticist thinks it is morally right. I’m just saying you should be more aware of it’s power over us and take it into account when you look at social divisions. It’s much better than denial.

            You believe in what you want; I’m pretty sure you can Google ‘cognitive dissonance.’ If you want to discredit psychology to defend your strong opinion, so be it. It’s all futile on my behalf, so you’re welcome.

          • In reply to #47 by fractaloid:

            Richard Dawkins mentioned xenophobia is natural, but that doesn’t mean any geneticist thinks it is morally right.

            Natural or not, it is still a phobia and by virtue, irrational. Why a geneticist would have any thoughts on the matter being morally right beats me.

            What relevance it has to this discussion also beats me.

            I’m just saying you should be more aware of it’s power over us and take it into account when you look at social divisions.

            What? WHAT? So it is now xenophobia at the heart of the matter? How many times does it need saying…the perpetrators were not immigrants. The victim was not an immigrant. Your nativism is a red herring.

            It’s much better than denial.

            Who is in denial here apart from you?

            You believe in what you want;

            No, it is you that is believing what he wants. I am going where the evidence is taking me.

            I’m pretty sure you can Google ‘cognitive dissonance.’ If you want to discredit psychology to defend your strong opinion, so be it.

            I don’t need to Google cognitive dissonance to see you are full of it if you think you understand the meaning of the term. I am defending a strong opinion with the evidence at hand, that’s what we do around here. Something you have as yet failed miserably to attain.

            It’s all futile on my behalf, so you’re welcome.

            Yes it is futile on your behalf, not that ya made any effort, but thanks for conceding the point anyway.

          • In reply to #48 by Ignorant Amos:

            Natural or not, it is still a phobia and by virtue, irrational. Why a geneticist would have any thoughts on the matter being morally right beats me.

            Duh! No wonder I’m not bothering to give you any “evidence.” Here’s some, but I wouldn’t want to boggle your mind too much over these complex matters, so I’ve provided for that more than anything.

            Would’ve been much better talking to myself had I been a zookeeper. Start here:

            Naïve cynicism (Wikipedia): occurs when people expect more egocentric bias in others than actually is the case

            Benforado, A. & Hanson, J. D. (2007). Naïve cynicism: Maintaining false perceptions in policy debates: the basic subconscious mechanism by which dispositionists [Islam bad?] discredit and dismiss situationist [Society bad?] insights and their proponents Source: Emory Law J., PDF link available.

            The bias blind spot: Psychological dynamics & social consequences: “…recent evidence that people are quite capable of recognizing the operation of bias in human judgment – except when that bias is their own.” Source: Center for Behav. & Decision Res.

            Pronin, E., Kennedy, K., & Butsch (2006). Bombing versus negotiating: How preferences for combating terrorism are affected by perceived terrorist rationality. Basic & App. Psych. PDF.

            Pronin, E. & Kugler, M. B. (2006). Valuing thoughts, ignoring behavior: The introspection illusion as a source of the bias blind spot. J. Exp. Soc. Psych. PDF.

            RE: Lies & deception

            See all of Paul Ekman’s contributions (Wikipedia)

            Detecting deception: Some research links lying with such facial and bodily cues as increased pupil size and lip pressing but not with blinking or posture.

            1. Fewer first-person pronouns. Liars avoid statements of ownership, distance themselves from their stories and avoid taking responsibility for their behavior

            2. More negative emotion words, such as hate, worthless and sad. Liars are generally more anxious and sometimes feel guilty.

            3. Fewer exclusionary words, such as except, but or nor – - words that indicate that writers distinguish what they did from what they did not do. Liars seem to have a problem with this complexity, and it shows in their writing. Source: Am. Pysch. Assoc.

            RE: Race and genetics (Wikipedia).

            Cross-race identification bias (Wikipedia): refers to the decreased ability of people of one race to recognize faces and facial expressions of people of another race… Economics [heading] …one clearly sees the negative impacts…

            … such as the Pygmalion or Rosenthal effect (Wikipedia): the greater the expectation placed upon people, the better they perform… [cf.] Golem effect low expectations lead to a decrease in performance

          • In reply to #48 by Ignorant Amos:

            In reply to #47 by fractaloid:

            Naïve cynicism (Wikipedia): occurs when people expect more egocentric bias in others than actually is the case

            Benforado, A. & Hanson, J. D. (2007). Naïve cynicism: Maintaining false perceptions in policy debates: the basic subconscious mechanism by which dispositionists [Islam bad?] discredit and dismiss situationist [Society bad?] insights and their proponents Source: Emory Law J., PDF link available.

            The bias blind spot: Psychological dynamics & social consequences: “…recent evidence that people are quite capable of recognizing the operation of bias in human judgment – except when that bias is their own.” Source: Center for Behav. & Decision Res.

            Pronin, E., Kennedy, K., & Butsch (2006). Bombing versus negotiating: How preferences for combating terrorism are affected by perceived terrorist rationality. Basic & App. Psych. PDF.

            Pronin, E. & Kugler, M. B. (2006). Valuing thoughts, ignoring behavior: The introspection illusion as a source of the bias blind spot. J. Exp. Soc. Psych. PDF.

            RE: Lies & deception

            See all of Paul Ekman’s contributions (Wikipedia)

            Detecting deception: Some research links lying with such facial and bodily cues as increased pupil size and lip pressing but not with blinking or posture.

            1. Fewer first-person pronouns. Liars avoid statements of ownership, distance themselves from their stories and avoid taking responsibility for their behavior

            2. More negative emotion words, such as hate, worthless and sad. Liars are generally more anxious and sometimes feel guilty.

            3. Fewer exclusionary words, such as except, but or nor – - words that indicate that writers distinguish what they did from what they did not do. Liars seem to have a problem with this complexity, and it shows in their writing. Source: Am. Pysch. Assoc.

            RE: Race and genetics (Wikipedia).

            Cross-race identification bias (Wikipedia): refers to the decreased ability of people of one race to recognize faces and facial expressions of people of another race… Economics [heading] …one clearly sees the negative impacts…

            … such as the Pygmalion or Rosenthal effect (Wikipedia): the greater the expectation placed upon people, the better they perform… [cf.] Golem effect low expectations lead to a decrease in performance

          • In reply to #51 by fractaloid:

            In reply to #48 by Ignorant Amos:

            In reply to #47 by fractaloid:

            Naïve cynicism (Wikipedia): occurs when people expect more egocentric bias in others than actually is the case

            Benforado, A. & Hanson, J. D. (2007). Naïve cynicism: Maintaining false perceptions in policy debates: the basic subconsc…

            Yes, yes, yes…all fine and dandy, nice non sequiturs indeed, but where is your evidence to support your hypothesis that the Woolwich murders were carried out for racial reasons?

          • In reply to #52 by Ignorant Amos:

            In reply to #51 by fractaloid:

            Where’s the evidence that it wasn’t?

          • In reply to #54 by fractaloid:

            In reply to #52 by Ignorant Amos:

            In reply to #51 by fractaloid:

            Where’s the evidence that it wasn’t?

            By that logic…they murdered that off duty soldier for any hypotheses I care to propose…your argument, or for lack of evidence, your non-argument, is still moot. You surely must be aware of the proposition that it is the person making the positive assertion that has the onus of proving their thesis? I could easily have just said you were talking rubbish and in light of your having nothing to say in support of the rubbish, just left it there, but that would have been no fun at all.

            @ phil rimmer

            I am the cause of this Ignorant Fractaloid exchange…

            No, ya weren’t the cause. It was a ridiculous argument and still is. Even if it is correct, which I still have seen no evidence to even suggest it is, it is based on pure conjecture on the part of an individual. We don’t do argument like that around here. Next we’ll have the religious telling us all god-did-it because of their wishful thinking…dohhh!!!!

    • In reply to #23 by Katy Cordeth:

      ……

      @Roedy

      I guess you failed to read the article by another former muslim Ali Razvi. He explains why you’re wrong better than I ever could. But then, something makes me think you don’t want to hear the truth.

      It is about religion. Whether you like it or not. It is.

      Just a small point of orde…

      Katy, I party agree with some of what you have to say here. I don’t believe for example that all Muslims behave as a cohesive group, I do believe you can be a cultural Muslim in the same sense that you can be a cultural Catholic, or Jew. I do think the vast majority of Muslims and descent people.

      However I do feel that religion like many other cultural factors will have a specific impact on its adherents to the extent that they follow it. Mormons tend not to drink coffee or tea, Evangelicals are more likely to dismiss global warming and believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, etc. Certainly what I have read of the Koran is ranting and violent (much like the Bible-in fairness I haven’t finished reading the Koran -it may get better). I’m fairly certain that is most Muslim countries where very affluent, had higher standards of education across all citizens including women (true enough in some largely Muslim countries, there would not likely be an more issues than any Western religion).

      Currently though, Islam is having an impact in that certain interpretations of it are likely in extremists, at this time, to lead to certain types of violent acts (I haven’t read that much about the murder in question here so I won’t comment directly).

      I do not think this is all Muslims but a minority who take it this seriously. By me noticing that for example I would be committing suicide to parody the Prophet Mohamed, while I am perfectly safe to do so with any other God does not make me a bigot. Noticing that at this moment in time, the extremists of Islam are behaving in a way consistent with a very literal interpretation of the Koran does not make me a bigot. Believing the likes of Ayaan Hirsi Ali when they give well founded and personal reasons for criticizing Islam does not make me (or presumably her) a bigot.

      I am all for nuance, and I hope I have not caused you personal offense, but I am not taking the blame for violence when I note that adhering to certain religious doctrine is not good for society. Yes, there are people who’s hatred of Muslims in general leads them to jump on any excuse to attack them all. But most on this site genuinely just hate dogma, and I don’t fancy being censored because you may think me a bigot and to be blamed for encouraging violence by disagreeing with what I think is an ill thought out basis for belief. I genuinely hope this was not your intent. If I have misunderstood I apologize in advance.

    • In reply to #23 by Katy Cordeth:

      Hi katy

      ” the funny thing is that those of us who maintain that islam may not be entirely to blame for acts of terror committed in its name and hold that people should be held accountable for their actions are the ones who are accused of being apologists for the religion.”

      Those of us who maintain that islam is a barbaric religion in need of urgent reforms do believe that holding terrorists accountable for crimes they committed stops short of solving the problem of jihadism ..Unlike apologists we do not (for political correctness sake) ignore the source of religious terrorism which is the doctrine of hate.

  11. “Reply” button’s bust.

    fractaloid #24

    Strictly speaking “WRP” isn’t an acronim, since it doen’t form an already existing word; but language changes all the time, as has the current meaning of acronim.

    The letters WRP are the initials of the Workers’ Revolutionary Party. I speak as one who knows! It was part of my miss spent youth.

    I would very much like to be able to ignore religion, and certainly would were it not for the fact that it does harm to children; life long in many cases.

    There are far too many angry and disillusioned black and Asian youths in UK, and there have to be reasons it.

    They are suffereing from racism and other forms of discrimination stemming from the majority communities, and in many cases the education system has let them down; ergo, blame can clearly be apportioned in the direction of the majority. Although things are very, very gradually improving there’s still a hell of a long way to go.

    We are a “mixed race family” – a passe term – , in which I’m the spook. But we’re fortunate enough that our daughters both went to university as did their mum. So I’m not just the resident whitey, I’m also the dunce of the family.

    • In reply to #27 by Stafford Gordon:

      fractaloid #24

      Strictly speaking “WRP” isn’t an acronim, since it doen’t form an already existing word; but language changes all the time, as has the current meaning of acronim.

      Thanks. If it makes you feel any better WRP at least gave you the language to recognize real social concerns.

  12. More than 1,100 people have been killed since April, raising fears of a return to widescale Shi’ite on Sunni violence of the kind that killed thousands in 2006-2007.

    Probably got nothing at all to do with religion just a friendly disagreement over the rules of quidditch.

  13. I am the cause of this Ignorant Fractaloid exchange, having been accused of not seeing the motivation of racism or, at least, a response to racism, in the murder.

    I think I also stand accused of blaming instead “Islam”, plain and unqualified as that.

    Fractaloid, you must put up evidence for these accusations, the evidence allowing us to discount the murderers statements invoking Aghamistan, in the glare of the publicity they created for themselves, the account of why they would not promote their true cause. Or you must concede you have made a mistake and withdraw them.

    Regarding Islam can you write a two or three sentence account of my position on this?

    • In reply to #53 by phil rimmer:

      I am the cause of this Ignorant Fractaloid exchange, having been accused of not seeing the motivation of racism or, at least, a response to racism, in the murder.

      My references are enough evidence for now. I’m busy, but thanks for leaving it open for summary, ie. 2 quick sentences:

      “The liar sure managed to invoke Afghanistan within phil rimmer & et al., not me though, I don’t believe liars. As for the relationship between phil rimmer and Islam, it’s gone viral.”

Leave a Reply