UKC

That's what terrorists are. Religion is an excuse for doing what they want, when they want, the way they want... Let's not get too emotive and start mixing up things:
Religions have their place in society (I am atheist but if I don't bother them and they me...it's all good).
People who flee their countries (whether it be from persecution or poverty) should be helped - we would want the same for ourselves and family- as much as is possible.
Our countries should not close themselves to the world ( though fear, ignorance and selfishness).

What happened in my homeland is truly sad and shocking. It is what many people in the world live with daily, lest we forget!

In reply to French Erick: We'll do exactly what ISIS want and close our borders down tightly so that the refuge apostates that they are driving out of their homes die in the seas... and we'll feel OK about it as they're all barbarous muslims. What's the world coming to...

In reply to French Erick:
Very true, nothing wrong with religions, nothing wrong with one religion in particular.

Important to remember this was nothing to do with Islam.

Also that although Mohamed (as described by the sympathetic, indeed hagiographic, Muslim texts and tradition, as a child-rapist, rapist generally, mass-murderer, thief, bandit-chief, warlord and evil tyrant, was nothing to do with Islam. Similarly Allah, described as a vicious, manipulative, all-powerful being that simply plays with human beings that have no will of their own, save what he attributes to them, so that he could save them if he wanted but doesn't bother, in order to play with them as a cat plays with a mouse and then torment them in hell forever for doing something that they had no free will over anyway, is nothing to do with Islam.

Islam is a religion of pieces ... er religion of peace, that inspires universal love, brotherhood, social justice and total content. Islam, on the other hand, is a violent, barbaric, intolerant, aggressive, expansionist, obscurantist, primitive desert cult that has no more morals than a mafia godfather. So clearly Islam is just like Jesus meek and mild, or the calm contemplative Buddha, but without the bad bits of those religions.

In fact, Islam is nothing to do with Islam.

In reply to beardy mike:


What do you suggest a nation does to protect its people from acts of terror instead?

Armed police on every venue? Far more surveillance of all citizens? Train and use hundreds of secret agents to infiltrate organisations? Become passive and accept the slaughter of its people?

I could predict this thread will have many people bemoaning a tightening of borders and making no concrete suggestions about how to protect the people better.

I don't see closing borders as that effective as many of the murdering scum are already here, and have been either for a long part of their life, or from birth. For this reason the only concrete suggestion I do tend to see on here - different foreign policy - also is not going to help.

What do we do?

In reply to beardy mike:


The world's the same as it's always been. However, do you think having porous borders and allowing large scale, unchecked immigration from places where this kind of thing is normal is a really good idea?

In reply to French Erick:

Bampots, yes, but of the dangerous type. Paris already had a strong military presence after the Charlie Hebdo attacks earlier this year (my office is close to the Grand Mosque & we have at least two armed police &/or army just outside all the time now), but still these attacks happened. I also live close to the hotel where the German football team where staying & there was a heavy police presence outside when I walked past at about 7 yesterday evening. Can the security get stricter without making everyday life difficult ? If we need such security does that mean the terrorists are winning ? Not feeling very optimistic today

In reply to Doug:

They are dangerous. They remain thugs and dishonest people. In the ranks you have the idiot, simple minded and/or dissaffected lads from poor background and broken homes (by war/poverty) who end up blowing themselves up for a an afterlife reward (umpteen virgins or whatever), before they go, they get to play with gun and potentially do things that are unspeakable in States with law and order (pillage, rape and kill). The truly fanatics are at the top, they are the masterminds... but they want the same things but at more reasonable age (late life).

What will not sort anything out overall for the "safety" of our citizens:
1) mad policing
2) blind racism
3) paying the countries to keep their refugees (money will get shared and sucked by the mighty/crooks)

I have no concrete answer however.

In reply to French Erick:


Many such terrorists are well-educated, middle-class people with decent jobs.

I'm interested: why the almost knee-jerk need to absolve religion? It quite blatantly is a large part of the motivation for many terrorist acts in the last twenty years.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
It's most odd. How can anyone think these attacks weren't by "religious fanatics"? They may be other things too of course but that doesn't remove the religious angle.

In reply to French Erick:


Imagine we were discussing political rather than religious philosophies: clearly fascism and the personality-cult communism of North Korea are more violent and unpleasant than Chinese style market-communism or UK parliamentary democracy. Equally some religions can be more violent and generally unpleasant than others. Islam has particular problems because of its founder. Viewing someone who practiced mass execution, mutilation of criminals, marriage to a 12 year old, forced marriage/rape of captured women and polygamy as the prophet of god has consequences.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Article by Maajid Nawaz (a moderate Muslim and anti-extremism campaigner):

"In January 2013, after Bin Laden’s death but long before ISIS’s emergence, my counter-extremism organisation Quilliam declared (to choruses of raised eyebrows at the time), “It’s a full blown jihadist-insurgency, stupid.” And no insurgency is sustainable, or even possible, without a level of residual support for its core ideological aims among the core communities from which it draws its fighters.

"Jihadism has well and truly taken root among an entire generation of angry young Muslims. This is particularly the case in Europe, where thousands have left to join ISIS. This insurgency is incredibly hard to tackle, because its recruits remain invisible in our very own societies, born and raised among us, fluent in our languages and culture, but full of venom for everything they have been raised into."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/13/paris-proves-we-ll-never-k...

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Not necessarily knee jerking. Yes, terrorista do these things in the name of religion, we shouldn't blame all that religion for it. If we do, we risk to put all people following that said religion in the same bag:
Most muslims would never bother you, in fact, I would even say the majority.
Same as Christians who would not do atrocious things (think pro-lifers killing Drs...).

I guess what I am trying to say is that all the religious people I know are all anti violence and would not resort to arms and weapons to put their point across (mostly Christians, quite a few Muslims and some other denominations but in lesser numbers). I am completely atheist and still friend with them ( and I hope they also with me as a friend), which is probably a sign that they are open-minded.

The other point that I am trying to express rather poorly is:
when it comes to analysing who commits these acts- they behave like lawless bandits. I would say that this is their defining feature, regardless of the "religion" they seem to, would have you to, or they think they, believe.
Take them and infiltrate them anywhere else in a similar conflict and they would find their place in the picking order.
They may think they are right. They may appear to be educated but at the end of the day what they like is: having power, being feared, and by extension enjoy their power by committing acts they know to be bad with impunity.
Hence they are just thugs and bampots creating a place where they can do what they want.

This is obviously my opinion.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Here's is Islamic State's statement on the attacks:

Urgent: Statement about the Blessed Paris Invasion on the French Crusaders

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

The Almighty said: “And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allah! But Allah's (Torment) reached them from a place whereof they expected it not, and He cast terror into their hearts so that they destroyed their own dwellings with their own hands and the hands of the believers. Then take admonition, O you with eyes (to see).” [Al-Hashr: 2]

In a blessed attack for which Allah facilitated the causes for success, a faithful group of the soldiers of the Caliphate, may Allah dignify it and make it victorious, launched out, targeting the capital of prostitution and obscenity, the carrier of the banner of the Cross in Europe, Paris… Youths who divorced the world and went to their enemy seeking to be killed in the cause of Allah, in support of His religion and His Prophet, Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, and his charges, and to put the nose of His enemies in the ground. So they were honest with Allah, we consider them thusly, and Allah conquered through their hands and cast in the hearts of the Crusaders horror in the middle of their land, where eight brothers wrapped in explosive belts and armed with machine rifles, targeted sites that were accurately chosen in the heart of the capital of France, including the Stade de France during the match between the Crusader German and French teams, where the fool of France, Francois Hollande, was present.

[They also targeted] the Bataclan Conference Center, where hundreds of apostates had gathered in a profligate prostitution party, and other areas in the 10th and 11th and 18th [arrondissements] and in a coordinated fashion. So Paris shook under their feet, and its streets were tight upon them, and the result of the attacks was the death of no less than 100 Crusaders and the wounding of more than those, and unto Allah is all praise and gratitude.

Allah had granted our brothers their wish and gave them what they loved, for they detonated their belts in the gatherings of the disbelievers after running out of ammunition, we ask Allah to accept them among the martyrs and make us follow them.

Let France and those who walk in its path know that they will remain on the top of the list of targets of the Islamic State, and that the smell of death will never leave their noses as long as they lead the convoy of the Crusader campaign, and dare to curse our Prophet, Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, and are proud of fighting Islam in France and striking the Muslims in the land of the Caliphate with their planes, which did not help them at all in the streets of Paris and its rotten alleys. This attack is the first of the storm and a warning to those who wish to learn.

Allah is Great

“But honor, power and glory belong to Allah, and to His Messenger (Muhammad), and to the believers, but the hypocrites know not.” [From Al-Munafiqun: 8]

In reply to French Erick:

Very well said.

I like to think of it that you cannot bomb an idea. Every time we try to bomb this idea, it grows - and we know that, yet we continue.
How can you defeat an idea? By showing that your own idea is better. That means communication, honesty, integrity need to be preserved - not broken.

In reply to French Erick:


You are indeed right, they wouldn't. But that does not absolve the more extreme versions of Islam! What would it take to convince you that the more extreme versions of Islam really are a problem?

I'm quite sure that majority of people in Soviet Russia and Mao's China were decent, peaceful people who only wanted to get on with their lives. And yet the totalitarian communist systems of those nations were doing great harm.

Saying that *communism* did great harm, is not saying that all communists or everyone who lived under those systems was evil and violent.

Saying that non-moderate Islam is doing great harm is not saying that all Muslims or everyone who comes from an Islamic background is evil and violent.

But we really do need to be able to say that there really is a problem with some versions of Islam, just as there really was a problem with totalitarian communism.

Islam cannot reform unless the issue is faced up to. And we cannot do that if we automatically claim that anything bad is "nothing to do with Islam". It *is* to do with Islam! These attacks really *are* to do with Islam!

That is *not* saying that every Muslims is a bad or harmful person, it is saying that *Islam* -- the ideology, not the people -- is flawed, and that *Islam* -- the ideology, not the people -- is harmful and needs to be reformed.

That's why moderate Islamic reformers such as Maajid Nawaz totally reject this "nothing to do with Islam" untruth as it prevents facing up to and thus dealing with the problem.

In reply to French Erick:


Once again you try hard to excuse the religion, to make out that their real motivations are anything but what they say they are.

What would it take to convince you that their interpretation of their religion really is a major part of their motivations and a major factor in what they are doing?

In reply to French Erick:

Another point:

Who suffered most from Soviet-era and Mao-era communism? Who suffers most today from North Korean communism? Quite clearly it was and is the citizens of those countries.

Who suffers most from the harmful aspects of Islam? Quite clearly it is the Muslims, the citizens of countries where Islam is strong. They are the ones who suffer most from the wars and the lack of economic and intellectual development. Millions of them (literally) are trying to flee such countries.

You do not do the people of North Korea any favours by pretending that there is nothing wrong with totalitarian communism, and you do not do people in Islamic countries any favours by pretending that there is nothing wrong with Islam.

The world needs to wake up to the fact that Islam really is a very big problem, and that we need to reform Islam. We should not hide from that fact, nor seek to excuse Islam, just because it is a "religion"!

In reply to French Erick:

Firstly, condolences and best wishes.


I agree with much of what you say, but it's pretty clear that they are both bampots AND religious fanatics.

There are plenty of religious fanatics of various flavours who manage to resist the urge to slaughter innocent people (or maybe never have such an urge).

And there are murderous thugs who kill or even massacre without needing religion to motivate them.

But a co-ordinated slaughter such as this requires the participants to be both callous, and possessed of an extreme ideal they can unify under to motivate and justify their actions.

Religious fanaticism can readily provide both the motivation, and the necessary detachment from their victims ("us and them").

We should not pretend that Islam isn't part of the problem - though it certainly isn't restricted to Islam, or caused by all Muslims, or by all types of Islam.


Equally, we should try to get away from the notion that it's possible to fight wars remotely, with few or no casualties on our side, and we shouldn't pretend this has nothing to do with our activities and history in the Middle East.

Regardless of whether we should or shouldn't be involved in conflicts there, we can't pretend that this sort of attack has nothing to do with such involvement.

We may be sometimes able to bomb targets without much immediate risk to our military personnel, but there are still going to be counter-attacks - war will always have consequences for all sides.

I suppose the question there is whether not getting involved will have worse consequences.

In reply to Coel Hellier:



There is a difference between the cultural practice, and the scripture. If you look inside the Bible, you find the same hate-filled passages - and these too have been used for acts of hate. But we turn a blind eye to these passages (e.g. nobody believes adulterers should be stoned to death anymore), as they're not relevent to the majority of Christians. The same is true of Islam.
If this reform you insist upon happens to Islam, then it will need to happen to Christianity too - otherwise you're singling out one religion, and singling out one religion will only make things FAR worse - you're are actually then persecuting the whole religion, and that to many is worth fighting against.

In reply to wintertree:

Well for starters understanding that what we're doing in Syria at the moment isn't achieving anything would be good. Can you point to any wars we've been involved in which insurgency was the modus operandai, when we've actually achieved what we set out to do? I can't think of any. Somehow we need to strangle ISIS at source. Tighten the border around ISIS. And yeah I get that that's a hard task. The only way ISIS will die is by proving that they have no credability. You ask how we deal with supporters who are already here? That's it. If ISIS's ambitions are crushed by showing the supporters that armageddon is not coming because we're not going to stoop to their level, and starve the caliphate of supplies and weapons and most importantly ready and willing youngsters, it will slowly but surely die. As soon as you show that they are wrong and that what they believe in is BS, support will reduce naturally. And whilst I agree to some extent that having porous borders doesn't help, not addressing the root cause is a complete failing on our behalf. And when I say failing I mean of ourselves.

The reality is that many of those fleeing Syria are genuine refugee's. You could have said the same of the Jews during the war - how can you tell that there weren't nazi agents in amongst them? Well we are unfortunately at war, and we must take the rough with the smooth. Yes - these killings are vile and repungent, but how many have died in Syria, and continue to die trying to escape? 148 is a drop in the ocean compared to what they are suffering. It's our own lack of preparedness and us burying our heads in the sand which has meant we've been caught with our trousers down.

Just pointing and screaming "f*cking muslims" is about the same as pointing and screaming "f*cking germans". It doesn't actually get us anywhere. We need to quietly go about setting and tighening a perimeter around the Caliphate , so tight that nothing comes in or goes out. Don't get involved with open combat with them unless they bring it to us, and just silently suffocate them.

In reply to SenzuBean:


Not so. Most Christian churches today accept basic rights such as: separation of church and state; the right of apostasy, to not be a Christian; the right of free speech and the right to criticise a religion.

Mainstream Islam does not accept any of those things. Most Islamic countries do not accept the principle of church/state separation. Thus religious laws are imposed on everyone, regardless of their consent. In most Islam-dominated countries, you do not have the right to criticise Islam. As just one example, Rafi Badawi was sentenced to 10 years jail and 1000 lashes for doing so. In most Islamic countries apostasy is a criminal act. Et cetera.

That is why Islam needs reform, whereas Christianity does not -- it has already been through that process, and has now lost most of its power to impose itself on people.


Yes, I am singling out Islam as a far more harmful and problematic religion than the other major religions. (Not that the others are faultless.)


You can only persecute *people*. Islam needs to be subject to criticism, and it needs to lose its power to impose itself on people. That is not "persecuting" it.

In reply to French Erick:

Well said Erick.

In reply to beardy mike:


I think that's rather naive. Plenty of religions are "BS" but that doesn't stop people believing them. For example, the Mormon religion was fraudulently created by a known con-man, yet that doesn't stop tens of millions believing it. US-style Biblical literalism has been refuted many times, but that doesn't stop hundreds of millions believing it.


Which overlooks the widespread support they have in surrounding lands. Minority support, yes, but still widespread support. The simple fact that we have to recognise is that ISIS could not have got where it is without *significant* support amongst swathes of Muslims.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Sorry - that wasn't well phrased. I wasn't refering to the religion as BS (which it obviously is) but that we need to make sure that armageddon doesn't come - that the almighty battle they are preparing to wage is not going to happen by simply containing them rather than agressing. If the Caliphate ceases to exist, and ISIS are seen to be responsible for that, then they have no basis within a religious context to command. And without a single driving force at the helm of the many splinter groups, it will be hard to co-oprdinate attacks like we've just seen. If ISIS are seen to be weak within the community who belives they are right then they will lose ground rapidly. Just bombing the hell out of them is not going to achieve much.

In reply to Coel Hellier:



It seems like in just of over half of the countries where Islam is the majority religion, there actually is separation of the state and religion.

https://nosharia.wordpress.com/list-of-muslim-majority-countries-with-sects...

In reply to Coel Hellier:






You're comparing foreign governments and local churches... There's a huge difference. I'm talking about what we can do _here_ (which is very little, the vast majority of the problems stem from what we did _over there_).
I definitely agree Islam needs to be subject to criticism (as should all religions), and the practice should be separated from state - and that to do that, we need to show acceptance of moderate Islam over here.

In reply to Timmd:

That list is way too simplistic. Take, for example, the first on the list, Indonesia. It is not officially "Islamic", and yet you can be sent to jail for six years if you "insult a major religion" on the internet.

For example, Alexander Aan put a post on facebook saying "If God exists, why do bad things happen? ... There should only be good things if God is merciful", and saying that heaven, hell, angels, and devils are "myths".

He was charged with: "disseminating information aimed at inciting religious hatred or hostility", "religious blasphemy", and "calling for others to embrace atheism", and got sentenced to two and a half years in jail.

[From your list, you may be right that quite a lot of the ex-Soviet republics have church/state separation, as a holdover from the Soviet era, but that's not typical of Islam.)

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Was away putting my wood away for the winter.
You are giving me food for thoughts.

It is mostly due to "interpretations" in your view? The same as say inquisitorial middle ages Catholicism?
I will read closely what you wrote and attempt to digest it.

In reply to Coel Hellier:



I found this interesting http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/from-pol-pot-to-isis-anything-that-f...

In reply to French Erick:

Might be worth posting this :-
http://www.mcb.org.uk/a-statement-of-solidarity-from-british-muslim-communi...

We are profoundly saddened by the loss of innocent lives in Paris, and our deepest condolences are with the family and friends of the victims, and the French nation.

Britons of all backgrounds, of every faith, every denomination, and none, are horrified by what we have learned, and are determined that those who seek to divide our diverse and peaceful communities in Europe will not succeed.

There is no justification for murder, and all British faith communities agree that those who commit acts of violence cannot do so in the name of any faith. Any such claim is illegitimate.

British Muslim communities are equally appalled by the violence, and angered by those who commit abhorrent acts in the name of religion. The perpetrators do not represent us; their views are perverse and self-serving.

We urge all communities in Britain and France to stand firm with compassion and solidarity. We must not let these terrorists divide us, otherwise the terrorists will win. Let us not play into their divisive narrative, and instead show them that people of all faiths and none can live peacefully, together.

Like the terrorists who want to divide communities, there will be some in the days ahead who will try to use this atrocity to attack innocent people. We equally reject their intentions.

It is evil people who do evil things; such acts will only increase our resolve to remain united.

In reply to off-duty:


The trouble with this is that it just denies the problem. It fails to recognise that some versions of Islam see this as legitimate. It fails to recognise that hundreds of British Muslims have gone to fight for the Islamic State. It fails to recognise that there is any problem at all with Islam. It gives no account of why this strand of Islam exists.

The Islamic reformers, in contrast, do recognise the problem: they want an Islam that welcomes free speech, that welcomes dissent, that welcomes apostasy, that welcomes pluralism and democracy, and that sees all of these things as routes to progress.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I'm not sure it's a denial of the problem, more a rejection of any validity in the Islam practiced by Daesh.
I agree with Nawaz, that acceptance that Islamism is a problem that Muslims need to address, rather than simply deny.
Moderate driven reform is vital, but it's very difficult for moderate UK Muslims to drive reform in idealist fanatics in another country. No reason not to try though.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

''MCB: "There is no justification for murder, and all British faith communities agree that those who commit acts of violence cannot do so in the name of any faith."''

How have you managed to read all that into the above statement?

In a climate where attacks on Muslims have increased since 9/11, with most of them being on women who cover their faces and heads, and where attacks on Muslim graves have increased, and numbers leaving the UK have, I'm not quite sure what you want them to say?

In reply to Timmd:


I want them to say:

"Islam need to embrace free speech and pluralism. Islam needs to stop regarding apostasy as a crime or a betrayal. British Muslims need to stop shunning those who Muslims who renounce the religion. We should declare that people should be free to draw cartoons about Mohammed, because no religion should be beyond scrutiny. Blasphemy should be regarded as a boon to society! We should embrace a discussion about the nature of Islam in the modern world, even if that means questioning some of the very basics of Islam."

In short, I want them to say what people like Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are saying.

In reply to off-duty:


Even recognising that there *is* an "Islam practiced by Daesh" would be a start!


I agree, which is why it would be good for moderate UK Muslims to advocate moderate Islam here in the UK.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
I'm not saying you're wrong about things needing to change, but how do you think that might play into the hands of groups like Britain first?

It already is recognised amongst more moderate Muslims that some way of checking who comes into the UK to preach (and what they preach) is needed, but couldn't this kind of statement being seized upon as justification of their intolerance of Muslims (by the far right) cause some communities to withdraw into themselves, making things harder when it comes to counter terrorism?

What I'm trying to say (probably rather badly due to tiredness), is that keeping social cohesion and addressing the need for change, and giving counter terrorism measures the best chance of being successful, all need to be kept in a state of harmony, that things need approaching in a way which doesn't make social cohesion more difficult to maintain, given any tensions which may exist.

There are people out there just waiting to go 'See? We need to get rid of the Muslims' Even if it's nobly given, the statement you'd like to see would be twisted by certain people.

In reply to Timmd:


Such groups are small and pretty insignificant. For example, at the Rochester and Stroud by-election last year, Britain First came ninth with 56 votes. The Raving Loony Party got three times that, at 151 votes.


I agree. And one of the utterly stupid things that this government does (and previous governments were no better) is to promote "faith" schools, such that children from Muslim families are all herded into Islamic schools and told that they're Muslims, and other children will be herded into Christian schools, and be told that they're Christians.

The same policy -- except there segregating Protestant and Catholic -- has produced ongoing deep societal division in Northern Ireland. As a matter of urgency, we need to ban any state school from selecting pupils based on their parents' religion, and encourage policies to de-segregate schools.

On the more general point, if it is moderate Muslims who are speaking up and demanding reform of Islam, then that will not cause divisions between Muslims and the rest of the nation.

In reply to Simon4:

Well, I wouldn't go that far. Any credo that substitutes a fiction for reality will always be inherently open to misuse.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
Put it this way, since spikes in attacks against Muslims always follow attacks like this, can't you see that if there's somebody with the potential for negative thoughts against Muslims following an attack, that if there's a statement put out along the lines you mention, they can be more likely when passing a Muslim in the street to find themselves thinking 'Those Muslims need to change' ?

In reply to Timmd:


You have to be somewhat careful which statistics you look at for this, since some of them are products of Islamist groups trying to play the victim card. (Though there are of course genuine attacks also.)

But, no, not really I don't. I don't think that greater recognition from Muslims that Islam needs to be reformed would encourage attacks on them.

In reply to Timmd:

I am getting round to see, and maybe even accept, Coel's viewpoint.
It is not sitting well with my other principles about "live and let live" as regards religion. Thus, utterly depressed, I am no retiring with a bottle of red to use as medicine agaisnt... human race's foibles and self-inflected tribulations.
If I have a break-through and come up with a solution, I'll let you know...but don't hold your breath.

Whether religion is in or out...there is still, out there, a big bunch of bampots who probably do not deserve the air they are breathing!

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I had a feeling you'd say that. I think you're underestimating the depressingly flawed ways in which people can sometimes think. If everybody thought as reasonable or logically as yourself, there'd probably be less misunderstandings and tensions between different people.

Usually I'm an optimist, but if you look at how distrust and tensions between different communities build, it doesn't take much quite often.

In reply to French Erick:

Enjoy that red!

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I agree completely with your comments on this thread coel.

Was going to post more but to be honest cant add anything useful beyond your analysis.

Other than to wonder if its possible for Islam to take the same journey in a few years that took Christianity a few centuries.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I happened to be in Winchester a few months ago, at the time of Evensong. Since I love choral music, and I'd never attended evensong before, I went in to the cathedral, and took my place in the lovely, 14th century choir stalls. There was some beautiful singing. And then came the first Lesson. It was from the OT (Joshua, I think), and was about the Israelites having a go at five cities that had ganged up to attack them, and how God intervened with a bit of big rocks chucked from the sky smiting.

And I sat there stunned about what I was supposed to take from this 'lesson', and wanting to stand up and ask 'just WTF was that about? And what relevance does it have today?', and appalled that no-one else seemed in the least bothered by it.

So it's not just Islam that has, and still preaches about the Righteous, and Vengeant smiting of the Lord. Christianity is still using the OT in its teachings, and the OT isn't that much different to the Koran in its attitudes.

In reply to captain paranoia:

As coel points out, Christianity has accepted the separation of church and state, the right to follow other faiths or none, and removed blasphemy as an offence. Whatever they say in some churches, its place in society and the power it has to shape the policies of governments and the laws of the land are limited. But that evolution took generations. Can Islam marginalise itself in the blink of an eye, in historic terms?

In reply to Timmd:


The central problem is they can't give up the doctrine that Mohammed was an infallible prophet of god and start teaching that a lot of the stuff he did was morally wrong. They can say 'raping female prisoners is wrong' or 'beheading prisoners is wrong' but Mohammed forcibly married a female Jewish prisoner and beheaded prisoners so unless they also say Mohammed was wrong their statement is inconsistent.

In reply to French Erick:

This piece from the Spectator puts its finger more succinctly on the essence of what is behind the current global conflict than anything else I have read. It is unfortunate that it was published in a paper that occupies an identifiable position on the old-fashioned left-right political spectrum because that will give people who want to ignore what it says something they can focus on to justify avoiding the truth. But if you get as far as reading the excerpt below it will become clear that this urge to hide from truths that are are staring us all in the face is exactly the the thing we have to address if we are to stand any chance of dealing with the real problem:

"The night after the Charlie Hebdo atrocities I was pre-recording a Radio 4 programme. My fellow discussant was a very nice Muslim man who works to ‘de-radicalise’ extremists. We agreed on nearly everything. But at some point he said that one reason Muslims shouldn’t react to such cartoons is that Mohammed never objected to critics.

There may be some positive things to be said about Mohammed, but I thought this was pushing things too far and mentioned just one occasion when Mohammed didn’t welcome a critic. Asma bint Marwan was a female poetess who mocked the ‘Prophet’ and who, as a result, Mohammed had killed. It is in the texts. It is not a problem for me. But I can understand why it is a problem for decent Muslims. The moment I said this, my Muslim colleague went berserk. How dare I say this? I replied that it was in the Hadith and had a respectable chain of transmission (an important debate). He said it was a fabrication which he would not allow to stand. The upshot was that he refused to continue unless all mention of this was wiped from the recording. The BBC team agreed and I was left trying to find another way to express the same point. The broadcast had this ‘offensive’ fact left out.

I cannot imagine another religious discussion where this would happen, but it is perfectly normal when discussing Islam. "

http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/will-politicians-finally-admit-tha...

In reply to Andy Morley:

That was a good read.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


You accept this and I accept this because we aren't Muslims, but many Muslims can't accept it, in the same way as I suspect you can't accept that intelligent design is a form of science.

In reply to Andy Morley:

Another article by Maajid Nawaz:

"Yet it is not, as many suppose, just a handful of imams who are to blame for this radicalism. There is a whole industry of activists – sometimes in the guise of advocacy groups and campaigners for human rights – who travel round mosques, universities, colleges and even community centres filling the heads of young Muslims with hateful ideology."

"This does not by itself create a generation of terrorists, but it creates an atmosphere; a new world of non-violent extremists."

"No insurgency is sustainable, or even possible, without a level of residual support for its ideological aims among the core communities from which it draws its fighters."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3319063/Root-radicals-schools-jai...

In reply to Phil1919:

Me too.

In reply to TobyA:
??? Intelligent design isn't a form of science - or if you consider it to be so, then you have devalued the word science so much that you have rendered it meaningless.

In reply to TobyA:


You can, scientifically, suggest intelligent design as a theory to be explored and tested. It's nowhere near proven, of course.

-Belief- in intelligent design is faith, not science.

Within science, intelligent design is, at most, a viable theory - not a "form of science".

In reply to Andy Morley:

Islam's been there for quite sometime, as has Christianity. Both have many contradictions and potential interpretations. Both have gone through phases of more and less violence and restriction of freedoms done in their name. I suspect, but I don't know, that the current upsurge in violence in the name of Islam has more to do with socioeconomic factors than Islamic text being a bit more open to nasty interpretation than Christian ones.

Regarding the specific case of the BBC not broadcasting the chap's point about Mohamad killing a critic. Obviously that's not good. Generally, though, the its not a simple question of speaking the truth about Islam or not. As the Collier's article says above there's people going around pushing a nasty interpretation of Islam. Well there's people going round trying to stir up bad feeling the other way too and they twist and exagerate the truth as well as down right lie. They don't say as the author of this article does - most of Muslims are peacefu but there's a significant amount that are not. They just shout Islam is a a religeon of violence. It's a very fine line to walk.

In reply to TobyA:

Whatever else it might be, 'intelligent design' is most definitely, and indeed by definition, *not* a form of science: it has an uncontestable endpoint - namely, 'the designer' - and is therefore not founded on scientific method.

In reply to French Erick:

The article below has just made my day. Perhaps *finally* people are beginning to stop ignoring the elephant in the room, and to start facing reality. This was written by a Pakistani journalist on a Pakistani website:

"Muslim world, on the other hand, keeps clinging on to the rotten narrative of ‘terrorism has no religion’ and ‘terrorists don’t represent true Islam’.

"Let’s see for ourselves if it’s just a bunch of extremists or the ideology has been embedded in the entire Muslim world.

"Reuters reported last year that atheists face death sentences in 13 countries, all of which are Muslim.

"Rokhsana, an Afghan woman was stoned to death last week in Afghanistan due to her refusal to forcibly marry someone. Such laws are part of Iran Penal Code which explains the full procedure of stoning.

"151 people were executed in Saudi Arabia this year, which according to Amnesty International is the highest in last two decades. Raif Badawi, a Saudi free-thinker has been awarded flogging sentence due to his blogs. Mohammed al-Nimr, a 20 – years old Shia boy has been sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia for participating in anti-Kingdom Arab Spring Protests.

"The situation is equally worse in Iran where two poets were sentenced to whipping for ‘shaking hands with opposite sex.’

"In Bangladesh, systematic lynching of atheist and secularist bloggers has become a norm as others fear death.

"Coming to Pakistan, Council of Islamic Ideology wants to discuss whether Ahmadis are just non-Muslims or apostates. Ahmadis live in an environment of fear where they are unable to even practice their religion. Shias regularly face wrath of the Sunni majority as evident in two major bomb blasts during Muharram processions. Fear has again gripped Quetta as members of Hazara community are being targeted in a fresh wave of targeted killing.

"The Lal Masjid cleric, a known law-offender who has publicly pledged his allegiance with ISIS roams around freely in the capital, announcing a fresh start of his Sharia campaign.

"If all these events don’t point towards the extremist mindset embedded in the Muslim society today, ask 10 people randomly about Mumtaz Qadri and majority would term him a hero – if not all.

"Muslim world, on the whole is drenched with intolerant extremists following the literalist and fundamental version of Islam.

"The fundamental mistake committed by Muslims all over the world is statements like 'Terrorism has no religion', 'Terrorists don't represent Islam'. Rather than being in denial and delusional, let's accept the fact that these terrorists ARE Muslims and they DO represent an interpretation of Islam – which most Muslims reject.

"Neither equating the whole Islamic world with terrorism, nor giving sweeping statements, acquitting it from the responsibility, is the solution. Islam needs a reformation and Muslims need to be educated about changing world realities and evolving societies."

http://nation.com.pk/blogs/14-Nov-2015/paris-attacks-when-will-we-accept-th...

In reply to French Erick:

People are not basically evil, their belief makes them do evil things. The one single factor that is common to these terrorists, all of them everywhere, is Islam.

Islam is the belief that makes people do evil things.

In reply to cragtaff: so do other belief systems. Thats not an apologies for anything though

There are also, I believe, inherently evil people though i doubt that applies to all the people in this case.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

That's my point Rob. That's how many "moderate" (for the want of any other better term) Muslims feel about ISIS. They think these people are breaking fundamental rules about what believe makes someone a Muslim, therefore they ARE NOT Muslims. Those of us who aren't Muslims can just see it as differing interpretation of the faith, but they don't, just like a professional scientist (well 99.9% of them) won't see intelligent design as science. An anthropologist studying epistemic communities or some such might do, but not your common or garden theoretical physicist.

In reply to Coel Hellier: You are obviously a fan of Nawaz! I've met Maajid a couple of times and he's a really nice guy with an amazing story, but he is liberal democrat. No one is perfect.

More seriously have you read his book? It is meant to be great. I haven't although I have read Ed Husain's which is interesting. But sadly Quilliam still doesn't seem to have much traction with Muslims widely, even in the UK. From chatting to Muslim colleagues who are politically/socially engaged, they either hadn't heard of them or saw them still as tarred with the New Labour brush.

In reply to TobyA:

Hi Toby, first the science/creationism analogy isn't really appropriate. Many mainstream Muslims agree with ISIS on much of their theology. It's just that they consider that ISIS take it too far. E.g. they may not fully approve of the violence. But, ISIS is fully in line with groups at the extreme end of Islam. That's why it gets a lot of support. Ditto groups like Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and Boko Haram and all the others.

Further, the denouncing of other Muslims as "non Muslims" is one of the big problems in Islam. Ayaan Hirsi Ali discusses this a lot in her book "Heretic". It leads to a lot of the Sunni v Shia tension, and it itself can lead to extremism when any Muslim can denounce other Muslims for their interpretations of Islam, since, of course, becoming "not-Muslim" is the epitome of sinfulness in the eyes of most Muslims, worthy of the death sentence.


Yes, sadly, we have arrived at the situation where the "mainstream" bodies supposedly representing Islam tend to be quite extreme and not at all moderate (at least, no moderate by Western standards). Part of the fault for this is that past governments have actively supported extremist Islamic groups, promoting them as the voice of the Muslim community as part of their "multiculturalism" strategy. The Ed Husain book talks about that issue.

It is also quite ridiculous the amount of vitriol and opprobrium that Nawaz gets from mainstream Muslim groups, simply for being moderate -- simply for being the sort of person who can cope with a cartoon of Mohammed without freaking out and getting violent.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

How many mainstream Muslims are you talking about, where are the figures, and are they mainstream - or at the extreme end of Islam?

It almost reads like you're conflating both.

Mainstream in which context (in the UK or in another part of the world)?

The Muslims I've known would never agree with ISIS, in any shape or form.

In reply to Timmd:


My statement was that: "Many mainstream Muslims agree with ISIS on *much* *of* their theology."

And it's true. Much of ISIS theology is also mainstream Islamic theology. Yes, there are differences, just as there are theological differences between Catholicism and Protestantism.

And yet, the overlap between Catholicism and Protestantism is sufficiently great that they can reasonably be regarded as variants of the same religion -- and the overlap between ISIS theology and mainstream Islam is sufficiently great that they are clearly variants of the same religion.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Which bits do they disagree on?

In reply to Coel Hellier:
So you think mainstream Muslims approve 'slightly' of the violence ISIS use?

'Many mainstream Muslims agree with ISIS on much of their theology. It's just that they consider that ISIS take it too far. E.g. they may not fully approve of the violence. But, ISIS is fully in line with groups at the extreme end of Islam. That's why it gets a lot of support. Ditto groups like Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and Boko Haram..'

Which mainstream Muslims, UK ones, Saudi ones...who is it whom you speak of?

All I'm really after is accuracy, when it comes to discussions about Muslims when following an attack like this, as one of the key aims of such events is to fracture our societies, in setting people against one another and aiding the recruitment of new members. You're generally pretty precise.

In reply to Timmd:


For example, many Islamic countries have the death penalty for apostasy and blasphemy or variants of "insulting Islam". Some have the death penalty for gay acts. On such things they are in line with ISIS.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
They have, but you get Muslims in this country who consider themselves mainstream who *don't* approve of the death penalty for being gay or insulting Islam or apostasy, which is the point I'm aiming at making (in between cooking my tea).

In reply to Timmd:


Why sure, but, again, my statement was: "**MANY** mainstream Muslims agree with ISIS on *much* *of* their theology."

I am not saying that all Muslims agree with ISIS on everything -- clearly they don't. What I am saying is that the many of ISIS's ideas and attitudes are widespread in Islam.

Here, for example, is a book for schools issued by the Saudi Arabian government:

"Homosexuality is one of the most disgusting sins and greatest crimes.... It is a vile perversion that goes against sound nature, and is one of the most corrupting and hideous sins.... The punishment for homosexuality is death. Both the active and passive participants are to be killed whether or not they have previously had sexual intercourse in the context of a legal marriage.... Some of the companions of the Prophet stated that [the perpetrator] is to be burned with fire. It has also been said that he should be stoned, or thrown from a high place."

Now, ISIS actually does throw gays off high buildings, whereas, as far as I'm aware, Saudia Arabia doesn't. But this does show that ISIS is not out of line with many mainstream versions of Islam on this point.

There is a list of 22 countries where you could be jailed or put to death for apostasy here: http://www.loc.gov/law/help/apostasy/ Anyone want to guess how many of the 22 are Islamic?

Again, that is 22 *nations* where the laws are in sympathy with ISIS on that issue.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


This is of course true, but as those countries are not, or are only barely democracies, it doesn't prove what Muslims in those countries think, even though in some countries like Pakistan it's clear there is a lot of support for such policies. There are also horrible punishments for what seems to me non-crimes in non-Muslim countries. I'm not sure what current polling of Muslim communities in Europe and North America say though.

In reply to TobyA:


Indeed. Whether people can jailed for dissent and things like press freedom need to be looked at too, and whether religion is being used as a means of maintaining power by those who have it.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
Fair enough, I'm just not wanting it to seem implied that the same applies to the UK, because an aim of these kinds of acts is to fracture social cohesion and to aid recruitment as a result, so the recruiters can say 'See? They're all against us, so you need to join us...etc etc'

If UK people start to think of British mainstream Muslims are approving slightly of the violence of ISIS and that kind of thing, they're starting to succeed.

In reply to Timmd:

'whether religion is being used as a means of maintaining power by those who have it. ' Er ... I don't like to be gratuitously offensive, but I don't think a huge research grant is necessary to understand why the Saudis upper echelons - who seem quite happy to cavort in London Casinos and with Russian prostitutes - cite Islam to enforce slavery on their own population and the 1,000s they import from other counties to build their stupid, jerry-built skyscrapers, wipe their infant's bottoms and clean their toilets.

In reply to Timmd:


Well, according to polls, the *majority* of British Muslims do *not* support Western principles of free speech and tolerance. E.g.:

"78% of [British] Muslims thought that the publishers of the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed should be prosecuted, 68% thought those who insulted Islam should be prosecuted and 62% of people disagree that freedom of speech should be allowed even if it insults and offends religious groups."

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Therein lies a question I've long harboured; who gets to determine which branch of Islam is extreme and which is moderate?

Through the enlightened lens of the liberal West, amongst a culture that has benefitted from the fruits of the Scientific Metod, it is easy for a Muslim on these shores to declare ISIS' Wahhabism as a perversion of the 'religion of peace'.

But why is peaceful interpretation of the Koran any truer than the brutal, literal interpretation of that of an ISIS Islamic scholar?

This is the problem with ALL religions. They are NOT self correcting (and cannot be), because interpretation of religious text (itself part of the claim, not part of the evidence), is through personal revelation.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Not because Christianity decided that was the correct thing to do, but because secular powers ripped away the power of the Church over life and death. And the Church didn't just accept this meekly. Granted, this was a few hundred years ago, but the Christian world was ruled by the Church in much the same way as the Muslim countries Coel mentions about are still dominated by today. It's the reform to secular rule that is required.

In reply to TobyA:

>This is of course true, but as those countries are not, or are only barely democracies,

Yes, they're theological autocracies or patrilineal autocracies heavily reliant on theology for maintenance of family power.

That's the problem, isn't it?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

A poll, 9 years ago, it would seem: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/291

Any idea if that questions have been asked again since? No idea how or if that would have changed over the last decade, but you could imagine quite big changes in either direction.

In reply to captain paranoia:

In some cases, although not in others (Indonesia, Bangladesh for example). But Gulf/Mid East states, absolutely.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


I think it can be a form of science. I cover it in my science classes, I discuss the evidence they say supports it (very little) and show the evidence for a blind watch maker approach and the gaps in their understanding. I don't think just saying it is wrong helps. People are being exposed to it as a science, some of the websites are well put together, so I think accepting it as a form of science and challenging it is a more successful response.

Many of these assumptions are wrong but if we don't discuss that in science where is it discussed as it won't be discussed in RE.. There was a website the other day discussing embryological differences as support for ID, when in fact embryological similarities are one of the main pieces of evidence for the accepted version of evolution.

In reply to Shani:


It's moderately ironic that the Islamic world was at one time the saviour of scientific knowledge from the ancient world, at a time when Christianity frowned upon such heretical nonsense, and encouraged scientific and mathematical study and innovation.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


That is potentially worrying, but it isn't at all the same thing as supporting the death penalty for becoming an ex Muslim, for being homosexual or being critical of Islam, which is what my posts have been relating to.

''Fair enough, I'm just not wanting it to seem implied that the same applies to the UK, because an aim of these kinds of acts is to fracture social cohesion and to aid recruitment as a result, so the recruiters can say 'See? They're all against us, so you need to join us...etc etc'
If UK people start to think of British mainstream Muslims are approving slightly of the violence of ISIS and that kind of thing, they're starting to succeed. ''

In reply to Roadrunner5:
I do love UKC.. People disagree with a view where you suggest explaining and providing evidence and education to support a view... What an enlightened forum..

In reply to TobyA:

>That's how many "moderate" (for the want of any other better term) Muslims feel about ISIS.

Your comparison is very weak.

It would be more like scientists claiming that those who worked on weapons research were not true scientists, as they were working on things to be used to hurt and kill.

And any scientists claiming that would also be wrong. Whilst there's little in common between science and religion, both can be used to help and to harm, and you don't stop being a scientist, or a Muslim, or whatever, just because others dislike the way you're using it.

It is far from unusual for the religious to believe that their way is the only true one, and that other sects of the same religion are not valid; it doesn't stop these sects from belonging to that religion.

In reply to TobyA:

And he's also not happy this morning!

"Guardian editorial on the #ParisAttacks basically takes up an entire page to say: "do nothing". I'm sorry, but your faux-desire to "protect our values" would've resonated with us if you didn't actually spend your days prior to this gnawing at those values by promoting & defending the very Islamism that led to all this. Shame on you."

In reply to Phil1919:


I thought so - there's plenty more like it out there, but the more intelligent analyses often get swamped by sensationalist journalism.

In reply to Donald82:


I'm afraid that's an over-simplistic evaluation. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are a family of religions, collectively know as 'the Abrahamic Religions'. They have not all been around for the same length of time - Judaism is by far the elder of the family. Christianity has been around for about 2000 years. Islam has been with us for 1300 or so.

They are also qualitatively different. Judaism is based on the concept of 'The Law'. Christianity is based on the word of a prophet who overturned The Law (literally as well as metaphorically) with a message of love, which though not necessarily implemented by the majority of his followers, is there for all to see if they want to live their lives following the scriptures. Islam is also based on the word of a prophet who overturned established practices and who wrote his own Law, though one that was based in part on selections from older laws. Mohammed's message was not one of love but one of conquest. As well as being a prophet, he was also a warlord.

In reply to Andy Morley:

You might like this analysis of ISIS. Many members are not ideologically driven by Islam -

"More pertinent than Islamic theology is that there are other, much more convincing, explanations as to why they’ve fought for the side they did. At the end of the interview with the first prisoner we ask, “Do you have any questions for us?” For the first time since he came into the room he smiles—in surprise—and finally tells us what really motivated him, without any prompting. He knows there is an American in the room, and can perhaps guess, from his demeanor and his questions, that this American is ex-military, and directs his “question,” in the form of an enraged statement, straight at him. “The Americans came,” he said. “They took away Saddam, but they also took away our security. I didn’t like Saddam, we were starving then, but at least we didn’t have war. When you came here, the civil war started.”"

http://awdnews.com/top-news/what-i-discovered-from-interviewing-imprisoned-...

In reply to Andy Morley:

Another interesting analysis on the Wahhabist roots of ISIS which are fundamentally Saudi driven:

"One dominant strand to the Saudi identity pertains directly to Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab (the founder of Wahhabism), and the use to which his radical, exclusionist puritanism was put by Ibn Saud. (The latter was then no more than a minor leader -- amongst many -- of continually sparring and raiding Bedouin tribes in the baking and desperately poor deserts of the Nejd.)

The second strand to this perplexing duality, relates precisely to King Abd-al Aziz's subsequent shift towards statehood in the 1920s: his curbing of Ikhwani violence (in order to have diplomatic standing as a nation-state with Britain and America); his institutionalization of the original Wahhabist impulse -- and the subsequent seizing of the opportunely surging petrodollar spigot in the 1970s, to channel the volatile Ikhwani current away from home towards export -- by diffusing a cultural revolution, rather than violent revolution throughout the Muslim world.

But this "cultural revolution" was no docile reformism. It was a revolution based on Abd al-Wahhab's Jacobin-like hatred for the putrescence and deviationism that he perceived all about him -- hence his call to purge Islam of all its heresies and idolatries."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism-saudi-arabia_b...

A very self-aware statement on FB:

https://www.facebook.com/sulaiman.daud.503/posts/10153827144425955

In reply to Shani:


Hi Shani, you are right to point out that there are many more dimensions to the current conflict than the religious doctrines and dogmas behind Islam. The changes that have been going on in the world for the past 200 years probably owe more to techhnological development than to religion. I would stick my neck out and say that the current ones are the biggest set of changes affecting humanity since we moved from being hunter-gatherers to settled farmers 10,000 years ago. Whatever your take as to their relative importance, these changes pose major challenges to all the different civilisations of the world because none of those different civilisations, nor the individual cultures within those civilisations can escape their effects.

Blaming the countries seen to be at the forefront of change is a common reaction - you have quoted an example of people blaming the Americans, which is a not uncommon response, meanwhile, the Greeks, to take a different example, blame the Germans for Greek misfortunes. I think it's fair to say that cultures that tend to blame other people for their loss of position in the world, whether economic or military, do less well than those who look to their own ability to do something about it. The Chinese and Japanese who are no stranger to American economic and military domination, have responded differently - they have copied the Americans economically and militarily in some ways and could be said to be beating the Americans at their own game on many fronts.

Why is it that some cultures and civilisations respond to all this in a positive way (overall) while others respond in a more globally damaging way? Personally I think that the ideologies, superstitions and dogmas at the heart of each culture play a huge part in determining the nature of their response.

In reply to Andy Morley:
Hi Andy, I didn't aim to reduce analysis of ISIS down to 'blaming the Americans'. What I thought was interesting about that article is that it pointed to other fundamental drivers behind support for ISIS that we can ALL relate to (as they are not specifically religious in nature):

- Security. Who doesn't want societal security and civil order? One of the fundamental responses to the attacks in Paris has been to support those that keep us safe - assisting the security services, arming the police etc.... In fact ISIS have an explicit manifesto to sow chaos and then to come in to secure the peace (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_of_Savagery)

- Finance. Just as historically in Britian (and Ireland), people have taken the King's Shilling, in economically dire times the chance to provide for your family can lead to certain choices ("...the promise of a way out of their insecure and undignified lives; the promise of living in pride as Iraqi Sunni Arabs, which is not just a religious identity but cultural, tribal, and land-based, too.")

The final paragraph also draws some interesting points about ISIS support from the West:

"Recruitment [of ISIS] plays upon desires of adventure, activism, romance, power, belonging, along with spiritual fulfillment."

Again, many of us on UKC can see the appeal of adventure. That youths should be drawn to status and power as well is understandable.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on this point:

"Personally I think that the ideologies, superstitions and dogmas at the heart of each culture play a huge part in determining the nature of their response"

*I have not 'disliked' your post.

In reply to Shani:


OK - let's take a step back. I'm sorry if you thought I was suggesting that - I only pointed to 'blaming the Americans' as an example of different responses to the dizzying waves of change that are affecting our world. That surely is something we can all relate to, but our different responses to change are all culturally determined to a point. To take another example, also extremely relevant - the following BBC radio programme catalogues some of the demons thought (by Andrew Marr) to dog French culture in the face of the same wider phenomenon - the bigger changes that affect us all.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06p7b7l

I did read your other message about the schisms that have affected Islam. Similar schisms have affected Christianity and many other religions and have brought about some truly horrendous episodes of religiously-inspired violence. However, this can be of some comfort to people brought up in Christian cultures who want to shake off their own superstition and some of the more negative things associated with our religious heritage because if you go back to the root of Christianity, its central message is one of love. That makes it easier for us to hang on to the good points of our own cultural heritage even when we reject the mumbo-jumbo and jingoism that have subsequently come to be associated with Christianity.

I feel genuinely sorry for Muslims who find themselves in a similar position because when they go back to the source of Islam, they have to deal with the historical evidence which shows that it was predominently a religion associated with a campaign of military conquest and was pretty much invented by the militarly leaders behind that conquest. There is also some historical evidence to show that in this, Islam at some stage drew on very cynical and manipulative ideas derived from the Ancient Greeks (particularly Plato) who in a very calculating way, invented and used religions as a way of supporting state rule.

That problem seems to be one of the central ones to me, and I would say it was the driver behind the confict between the broacasters that I quoted.

In reply to skog:


It does to those believers though, doesn't it. Many Christians don't accept Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses as Christian. You telling them that they are wrong won't change that.

In reply to Shani:

I read that yesterday, but I think I read it in the Nation, errr... yes http://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-interviewing-isis-p... Interesting. It did focus on local recruits as opposed to Europeans going to do jihad, although plenty of evidence that many of them are no experts on Islamic theology/history though, also.

In reply to the thread:

Another good article from a Muslim.

http://atheistni.org.uk/2015/11/15/the-quran-is-not-infallible/

In reply to Andy Morley

Er... The facts that religions are different and have been about for different amounts of time are both consistent with my post and, well, really obvious....

In reply to Donald82:


Jolly good. Sounds as if we are vehemently agreeing with one another then.

In reply to Andy Morley:

I disagree with you. You don't understand my point or are being deliberately obtuse. I think probably the latter, which is sad as you're peddling the kind of nonsense that encourages bigotry.

Night.

In reply to the thread:

This one is also worth a read, by a Muslim member of the Conservative Party.

"I am utterly fed up with hearing people, both Muslim and non-Muslim, argue that the religious views of the terrorists are irrelevant."

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2015/11/mohammed-amin-it-is-not-en...

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Good, but no mention of sending their children to integrated schools, rather than segregated faith schools...

In reply to Coel Hellier: I thought that comes across as clear sighted.