Incident at London Bridge

[Alty]

I'm in London and don't feel unsafe. I could have quite easily been in London Bridge on Saturday - a couple of mates who'd invited me for a drink and got evacuated round there. You just get on with it tbh.

I worry more about my mates getting killed cycling than by terrorists.

Whatever terror is meant to achieve*, it's not a successful way to engender mass fear among a populace. People are very good at rationalising and coping with shitty situations - making awful the new normal. That's why people tolerate paying £800 pcm for a room in a cramped, damp-ridden flat-share in Zone 3**.

I reckon shitty housing situations is a bigger source of anguish and uncertainty for my pals than terrorism. Access to proper healthcare, especially mental health care next. Then, idk, those six weeks when they ran a reduced service on the Piccadilly Line. Terrorism is so far down the list that if you can worry about it, you're probably doing alright.

I'm not being flippant - no-one even mentioned Saturday's events in work today. Not even mythologising Londoners or blitz spirit or whatever - I just don't think any of us have the luxury of sitting around being terrorised when our rent is due this week.

* Tried to address "the purpose of terrorism" here.
** perhaps more valid to think about the cities around the world that experience far more frequent and deadly terror than London - and still civil society goes on cos it has to.

I agree to an extent in as much as I don't know anyone who plans to change their behaviour or move out of the city in response to the terror threat. But nobody at your work even mentioned Saturday's events? Are you all robots??

 

[Laker]

I agree to an extent in as much as I don't know anyone who plans to change their behaviour or move out of the city in response to the terror threat. But nobody at your work even mentioned Saturday's events? Are you all robots??

Nobody mentioned it at my work either. Granted we're not in London though many of us do have to go to London from time to time. Don't know why, guess it's just becoming more "normal" sadly.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

A theologian can make of the scripture just about anything they like, seemingly with the backing of an omnipotent super-being, which is what makes it so dangerous in the first place. Whether that's the original meaning of the text, assuming such a thing is possible to know, is neither here nor there really. It took hundreds of years of blood and grief to civilize Christianity in the West somewhat, and the argument for starting afresh with a new primitive desert religion by importing hundreds of thousands of people directly from the Middle East with no thought to assimilation seems to be some incoherent mumblings about Islamophobia and little else.

This is very bad history. The roots of current reactionary interpretations of Islam and violence perpetrated by their adherents are very firmly rooted in the twentieth century and largely spread by colonial and neocolonial realpolitik.

It's not Islam that needs civilising but capitalism/imperialism.

 

[HertsWolf]

'Seemingly', meaning from their perspective. If they believe the fundamentalist's interpretation of the scripture then from their point of view these acts are sanctioned by a deity. Whether they're right or not matters less than what they believe, because that's what they act upon.

The extremists, I feel, can be likened to people who commit mass murder saying "God told me to do it" or "Voices made me do it". Doesn't mean that God or any voices did, in fact, tell them to do it.....so I agree that it's from their perspective. However, there are other individuals....imams, preachers, go-betweens, recruiters...who are the catalyst for this extreme violence, and his may be where intelligence and direct action is targeted.

 

[HertsWolf]

This is very bad history. The roots of current reactionary interpretations of Islam and violence perpetrated by their adherents are very firmly rooted in the twentieth century and largely spread by colonial and neocolonial realpolitik.
It's not Islam that needs civilising but capitalism/imperialism.

Discuss (10 marks)

 

[The Eyes of Self Actual]

This is very bad history. The roots of current reactionary interpretations of Islam and violence perpetrated by their adherents are very firmly rooted in the twentieth century and largely spread by colonial and neocolonial realpolitik.

It's not Islam that needs civilising but capitalism/imperialism.

Twentieth century – my goodness. You Commies are a strange bunch.

Islam has been conquering nations and “converting” their people from day 1.

There hasn’t been a time since the 7th century when Islam has been at peace with the world. It was convert or death then, it’s convert or death now.


No Commie’s attempt at re-writing of history is going to change these facts.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

If by 'the interpretation of Islam' we mean Wahhabism or Salafism, then the roots of it go back to the 18th century when it was adopted by the Saud family.

I'd like to think that when Ian talks about the issues with imperialism, that he includes Islamic imperialism in that rather than just 'Western' imperialism. Like most world religions, it was spread through conquest and empire. We could look at how Islam was first propagated through north Africa and Europe under the various caliphates of the 7th and 8th centuries. Later the Ottomans must rank up there as one of the foremost empires in world history on most metrics.

The Saud family controlled that peninsula through conquest to form the first Saudi state. It was the merging of the Saud family with the Wahhabi movement that gave them the power to do that in the 18th century. School level history tells us the Saudis were then conquered and subjugated by the Ottomans in the 19th century. Then fast forward to the 20th century and WW1, the collapse of the Ottoman Turks produced the vacuum through which current Wahhabist Saudi Arabia was (re)born.

You could argue that later on capitalism gave the Saudis their wealth and platform on the world stage through the discovery and production of oil. But I'd think one of the world's largest oil reserves would have granted Saudi Arabia immense wealth and a seat on the global stage regardless of what economic system the world operated under. Soviet Russia needed oil as much as anyone.

 

[HertsWolf]

Twentieth century – my goodness. You Commies are a strange bunch.
Islam has been conquering nations and “converting” their people from day 1.
There hasn’t been a time since the 7th century when Islam has been at peace with the world. It was convert or death then, it’s convert or death now.
No Commie’s attempt at re-writing of history is going to change these facts.

You xenophobic hatemongers are a strange bunch.
Both Christians and atheists have been doing the same thing. For many centuries.
Love the way what you say is "facts" but what anyone else who disagrees with you says is "fake news".
I guess you are the EDL or BNP member allocated to this forum to constantly troll and talk shite?

 

[Abertawe]

I wouldn't give it the attention it craves.

 

[The Eyes of Self Actual]

You xenophobic hatemongers are a strange bunch.
Both Christians and atheists have been doing the same thing. For many centuries.
Love the way what you say is "facts" but what anyone else who disagrees with you says is "fake news".
I guess you are the EDL or BNP member allocated to this forum to constantly troll and talk shite?

I don’t know whether to reply to your posts anymore – do you promise not to edit it in its entirety hours after posting it again?


But credit where it is due – you managed a reply without the word RACIST in it.

Of course you threw in xenophobic, hatemongers, EDL and BNP but it shows progress.

Hopefully in the coming weeks you could attempt adding to the debate.

 

[HertsWolf]

I don’t know whether to reply to your posts anymore – do you promise not to edit it in its entirety hours after posting it again?


But credit where it is due – you managed a reply without the word RACIST in it.
Of course you threw in xenophobic, hatemongers, EDL and BNP but it shows progress.
Hopefully in the coming weeks you could attempt adding to the debate.

Only said "racist" when you clearly stated that African people were totally unimportant. And then, bless, you informed all of us that being anti-Muslim wasn't racist because Islam isn't a race because none of us are bright enough to know that. It's such a classic line from a xenophobic hatemonger.
Out of interest, are you really Anjem al-Choudhary in disguise? You are playing his agenda brilliantly. How's Belmarsh treating you?

You have no response to what I or others have written. That's why you are rambling off on this tangent. You do this every time.
How's your brown shirt doing? Presumably mummy irons it for you.

 

[The Eyes of Self Actual]

Only said "racist" when you clearly stated that African people were totally unimportant. And then, bless, you informed all of us that being anti-Muslim wasn't racist because Islam isn't a race because none of us are bright enough to know that. It's such a classic line from a xenophobic hatemonger.
Out of interest, are you really Anjem al-Choudhary in disguise? You are playing his agenda brilliantly. How's Belmarsh treating you?
You have no response to what I or others have written. That's why you are rambling off on this tangent. You do this every time.
How's your brown shirt doing? Presumably mummy irons it for you.

Word count:

· Racist
· Racist
· Race
· Xenophobic
· Hatemonger
· Brown shirt

Attempt at debate..... Hmmm, not quite there. Give it a few weeks.

 

[Renegade]

Post count:

59 about Islam.
1 about computer games.

 

[HertsWolf]

Word count:

· Racist
· Racist
· Race
· Xenophobic
· Hatemonger
· Brown shirt

Attempt at debate..... Hmmm, not quite there. Give it a few weeks.

You repeatedly make statements with zero evidence to back them up. You have been very quick in multiple threads to try to ridicule what others have said in disagreement with you, yet claim anything that runs counter to your extremist views as "FAKE NEWS" (sic) or the views of liberals, or leftists. There has been a lot of discussion of solutions, pros and cons, on other threads but you just declare your hateful dialogue. You have no compassion, no understanding, no viable suggestions....just anger, ridicule, disdain and division. You mock but you have nothing to add, just inaccurate sweeping generalisations.

You throw in nastiness and hatred and then claim that others aren't offering debate.
It is you that offers no debate, no practical solutions, nothing useful to what is a complex and challenging situation for all of us.

Your "solutions" would lose us the liberal democracy that we have enjoyed as the peace dividend after the wars of the 20th Century. Your "solutions" would result in internment camps, the splitting of families, increased violence and would result in the alienation of many more people.
I genuinely believe you are solely here with a political purpose to stir up discontent and fear, and that you will disappear soon, probably not long after the election.

 

[NorfolkWomble]

Yes, a perversely manufactured radical theology.

2:190 Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress.

Wiki: Islamic rules of war for all the major schools.

And according to the radicals, the West is fighting them. I can't really remember it because it was a few months ago that I finished reading it but Sayyid Qutb justifies offensive jihad. He argues that firstly, practising democracy is denying the oneness of God, and goes on to argue that this is an attack. I can't really remember it. Very interesting read though, there is a really good book with an in depth introduction in it which makes a lot of sense.

If by 'the interpretation of Islam' we mean Wahhabism or Salafism, then the roots of it go back to the 18th century when it was adopted by the Saud family.


The Saud family controlled that peninsula through conquest to form the first Saudi state. It was the merging of the Saud family with the Wahhabi movement that gave them the power to do that in the 18th century. School level history tells us the Saudis were then conquered and subjugated by the Ottomans in the 19th century. Then fast forward to the 20th century and WW1, the collapse of the Ottoman Turks produced the vacuum through which current Wahhabist Saudi Arabia was (re)born.

You could argue that later on capitalism gave the Saudis their wealth and platform on the world stage through the discovery and production of oil. But I'd think one of the world's largest oil reserves would have granted Saudi Arabia immense wealth and a seat on the global stage regardless of what economic system the world operated under. Soviet Russia needed oil as much as anyone.

Read something interesting recently about the use of the words Wahhabi and Salafi, let me see if I can find the twitter thread.

https://twitter.com/OmairTAhmad/status/871802112472211457

 

[AFCB_Mark]

Read something interesting recently about the use of the words Wahhabi and Salafi, let me see if I can find the twitter thread.

https://twitter.com/OmairTAhmad/status/871802112472211457

From what I gather, followers of what you might call Wahhabism actually hate that term because they believe labeling it as such differentiates it from the rest of Islam, a differentiation being the opposite of what they'd like. I gather they prefer Salafist if it has to be given any label? Very interesting link btw - thank you for finding.

 

[HertsWolf]

Read something interesting recently about the use of the words Wahhabi and Salafi, let me see if I can find the twitter thread.
https://twitter.com/OmairTAhmad/status/871802112472211457

That Twitter thread is very interesting. The subsequent dialogue is also good, and fairly anodyne.....writing all that while he should have been putting together an article about Bangladeshi vehicle pollution.

 

[shane]

I genuinely believe you are solely here with a political purpose to stir up discontent and fear, and that you will disappear soon, probably not long after the election.

He has to be a current member under a different name. Why would you register on a football forum to go straight to the politics sub-forum and only post about Islam?

Hes enjoying himself - press "ignore" and let him at it.

 

[JaseTheVillain]

He has to be a current member under a different name. Why would you register on a football forum to go straight to the politics sub-forum and only post about Islam?

Hes enjoying himself - press "ignore" and let him at it.

Because he was banned from the other forum for the same thing, he'd been doing it years on there, since I was posting there, and that was about 8 years ago now.

Also, he has the distinction as the first member I've ever ignored. Highly recommended.

 

[The Eyes of Self Actual]

Another day another attack – France this time. Ugh, what have the mass immigration enthusiasts built for us? What do they have planned for the future… If only they weren’t naïve. Sadly we all have to suffer!

 

[Abertawe]

We've plundered Christian Africa and South American nations just as thoroughly.

We didn't instill a Wahhabi death cult dominion in Christian Africa and South America.

 

[sl1k]

And according to the radicals, the West is fighting them. I can't really remember it because it was a few months ago that I finished reading it but Sayyid Qutb justifies offensive jihad. He argues that firstly, practising democracy is denying the oneness of God, and goes on to argue that this is an attack. I can't really remember it. Very interesting read though, there is a really good book with an in depth introduction in it which makes a lot of sense.

The figurehead of the Muslim Brotherhood, an authoritarian political movement that wishes to impose an ultra-conservative interpretation which essentially at its' core is based on an imagined time and society of the prophet. 'Imagined' because there was very little written then (it was an oral tradition) and like I mentioned earlier - the Hadiths were compiled 200 years after his death.

This also goes back to the People of Reason vs People of Tradition. The Quran consists of broad moral directives; the Rationalists understood examples of the prophet (the Hadiths) were limited to his own context whereas the Traditionists became fixated on him, almost elevating him to a deity-like figure. He was the greatest among men no doubt, but he was just that - a man who's actions cannot be interpreted in a timeless capacity.

Read something interesting recently about the use of the words Wahhabi and Salafi, let me see if I can find the twitter thread.

https://twitter.com/OmairTAhmad/status/871802112472211457

The Kharijites were the first extremist-terrorist movement that broke out after the first civil war of Islam in the seventh century between the 4th Rightly Guided Caliph Ali and Muawiyah (who later established the Umayyad Dynasty of the caliphate). They assassinated Ali (cousin and son-in-law of the prophet), rebelled against Ummayads and persisted against the Abbasids.

I mentioned the link between the Hanbali school and Wahhabism in an earlier post, which though is considered a 'major school', is only prevalent in the Saudi Arabia and Qatar regions.

 

[Stringy]

Twentieth century – my goodness. You Commies are a strange bunch.

Islam has been conquering nations and “converting” their people from day 1.

There hasn’t been a time since the 7th century when Islam has been at peace with the world. It was convert or death then, it’s convert or death now.


No Commie’s attempt at re-writing of history is going to change these facts.

That doesn't stand up to the evidence. The first Islamic Empire emerged as the former Persian and Roman Empires disintegrated. Cities chose to submit or face death - but the religious freedoms of the new subjects were respected. There is evidence that Jews, Muslims and Christians lived harmoniously in several countries. Pottery, for example, has been unearthed which showed inscriptions praising Allah and the Christian God in the former empires.

Take Muslim Spain for example, other religions were allowed to continue practicing so long as they accepted a sort-of second class citizenship, which for one thousand years or more ago was pretty damn tolerant.

 

[Stringy]

http://www.chad.co.uk/news/shop-vandalism-a-hate-crime-say-police-1-8581307

Hate crime reported in Mansfield.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

The extremists, I feel, can be likened to people who commit mass murder saying "God told me to do it" or "Voices made me do it". [...]

I don't believe that's true at all. Those people have genuine diagnosable mental health problems. This is ideology-dependent. It's not even a particularly irrational interpretation of the scripture compared to many other interpretations out there, just far more harmful.

We didn't instill a Wahhabi death cult dominion in Christian Africa and South America.

We didn't do that in the Middle East either. Wahhabism was dominating the Arabian peninsula a couple of hundred years ago without our help. Either way, we're back to ideology.

 

[TheMinsterman]

We didn't do that in the Middle East either. Wahhabism was dominating the Arabian peninsula a couple of hundred years ago without our help. Either way, we're back to ideology.

We actively avoided conflict with the Wahhabis in the late 1700s/early 1800s, British naval commanders and British Indian generals were specifically instructed by Bombay to NOT engage with them when they were attacking the Qawasim at Ras Al-Khaimah (their vassals). It was only the eventual intervention of the Egyptian Pasha that put an end to the first Wahhabi empire and the damage was already done by that stage. We had diplomatic dialogue with their leader and avoided acting because we were preoccupied with Napoleon and then campaigns in India.

 

[HertsWolf]

I don't believe that's true at all. Those people have genuine diagnosable mental health problems. This is ideology-dependent. It's not even a particularly irrational interpretation of the scripture compared to many other interpretations out there, just far more harmful.

Worth reading the commentary that NorfolkWomble links to above. https://twitter.com/OmairTAhmad/status/871802112472211457 .....
..because yes it is a very different and a very irrational interpretation.
We didn't do that in the Middle East either. Wahhabism was dominating the Arabian peninsula a couple of hundred years ago without our help. Either way, we're back to ideology.[/QUOTE]
And again, have a look through that excellent Twitter commentary. I'm not denying it's ideological, but anyone can create a weird and wonderful ideology out of anything. It doesn't make it "no particularly irrational". In fact, it does.

 

[HertsWolf]

That doesn't stand up to the evidence. The first Islamic Empire emerged as the former Persian and Roman Empires disintegrated. Cities chose to submit or face death - but the religious freedoms of the new subjects were respected. There is evidence that Jews, Muslims and Christians lived harmoniously in several countries. Pottery, for example, has been unearthed which showed inscriptions praising Allah and the Christian God in the former empires.

Take Muslim Spain for example, other religions were allowed to continue practicing so long as they accepted a sort-of second class citizenship, which for one thousand years or more ago was pretty damn tolerant.

You really don't think he's interested in facts, do you? What you say is clearly "FAKE NEWS". Only his 'facts' are correct.

On the bit about different faiths living harmoniously, I remember a lecture in which the Portugal, and particularly Lisbon, under Henry the Navigator was described as a golden age largely because of the interaction between different faiths. I think there's been a book written about this recently.

 

[HertsWolf]

Another day another attack – France this time. Ugh, what have the mass immigration enthusiasts built for us? What do they have planned for the future… If only they weren’t naïve. Sadly we all have to suffer!

And in Tehran. Bet that's doing your fucking head in, eh?
Yeh, let's kick all the ....ummm.... Muslims out of Iran. Close all the mosques! Well at least do extreme vetting of all Muslims and monitor them for two years! Shriek! Shriek!

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

You really don't think he's interested in facts, do you? What you say is clearly "FAKE NEWS". Only his 'facts' are correct.

On the bit about different faiths living harmoniously, I remember a lecture in which the Portugal, and particularly Lisbon, under Henry the Navigator was described as a golden age largely because of the interaction between different faiths. I think there's been a book written about this recently.

Isn't it usually the case that imperial exploitation abroad leads to a "golden age" of peace and tolerence domestically? Some comrades wrote this a while back about Jewish/Muslim relations particularly in the Cordoba Caliphate and the Ottoman Empire.

http://jewdas.org/the-real-history-of-jewish-muslim-relations/

Obviously both of those empires were a disaster for the people being exploited, and both collapsed into inter-communal violence and genocide once the well of prosperity dried up.

"The answer to division is, was, and always has been socialism: the complete political and economic equality of people."