227 replies to this topic

[Futtocks]

Much of the stuff we object to in the Koran is also in the Bible. September 11 was an apalling atrocity. But it's only four hundred years since a band of Catholic terrorists tried to blow up the king in parliament. In the century before both Catholics and Protestants were burned at the stake for their religion. In England. There were plenty of atrocities commiteed by the Crusaders - arguably holy warriors - "crusader" is still a term of abuse among Muslims.
Before condemning a whole religion for the horrors perpetrated by the few we'd do well to look at our own history.

Quite; Islam is a younger religion than Christianity. Take a look back to what the Christian Church was up to at the same stage in their development and you'll find a hell of a lot more death, torture and general inhumanity.

It doesn't excuse the actions of those who selectively ignore section of their faith's teaching, in order to justify some really vile attitudes. Extremist Islamic windbags advocating death to unbelievers or the likes of the Westborough Methodists - they're all moral perverts.

[Bedford Roughyed]

The guys who did this did not do it because the Koran told them to. They didn't do it in the name of Islam. There was no religious aspect to this crime.

They happened to be muslims who did the crime, they didn't do the crime because they was muslims.

90 odd % of the UK is Christian, we don't don't look at the bible for every rape, drug offense, gangland hit, grooming crime, etc.

[bigred]

The guys who did this did not do it because the Koran told them to. They didn't do it in the name of Islam. There was no religious aspect to this crime.

They happened to be muslims who did the crime, they didn't do the crime because they was muslims.

90 odd % of the UK is Christian, we don't don't look at the bible for every rape, drug offense, gangland hit, grooming crime, etc.

I totally agree that there is no clear religious aspect to these crimes. It would be too easy to pin the blame on the Koran or Islam per se.
The fact remains however that it's a problem peculiar to the Muslim community in these towns and we have to look at why it is happening with the alarming frequency it is and what could be the root causes of why men in their 20's and 30's(many married with children of their own) feel it's acceptable to sexually abuse schoolgirls?
I certainly know that when this issue first came to light in the Oldham area, at first there was incredulity amongst some of the elected officials that this could be happening so frequently on the streets of the town, one even going so far as to say that if such a thing was then it was likely to be a one-off, isolated incident!
Needless to say, as evidence came to light, that official was forced to accept that her initial statement was misguided.
I know that at one point we had 6 girls in care within the borough and social services involvement with quite a few other young girls and their families too. It's hard to get across to people the utter contempt these people have for both their victims and authority. They simply do not see or accept that what they are doing is a crime.
My personal view is that it's a combination of factors, many alluded to above by Bowes and Martyn. The wider Muslim community have to take ownership of the problem too, it's too easy for the majority to turn a blind eye and say that it's white girls who are the problem, and that some bring it on themselves through their own behaviours. If respect for women is taught in the home, then it has to be respect for ALL women and not just Muslim girls. If people of authority do not stand up and condemn what is happening then there's a danger that they may eventually be seen to be complicit in some way. That would be a sorry road to go down!

[Martyn Sadler]

Much of the stuff we object to in the Koran is also in the Bible. September 11 was an apalling atrocity. But it's only four hundred years since a band of Catholic terrorists tried to blow up the king in parliament. In the century before both Catholics and Protestants were burned at the stake for their religion. In England. There were plenty of atrocities commiteed by the Crusaders - arguably holy warriors - "crusader" is still a term of abuse among Muslims.
Before condemning a whole religion for the horrors perpetrated by the few we'd do well to look at our own history.

It isn't condemning a whole religion to suggest that there are some sections of its holy book that, if put into practice, should be unacceptable in a modern, liberal society.

The problem, it seems to me, is that for some time there has been a move towards a more literal interpretation of the Koran, both in terms of its 'good' and 'bad' elements. This seems to have emanated from Saudi Arabia initially, but has spread quickly throughout the world.

As for our own history, if we were still burning people at the stake, and justifying it on religious grounds, then we would all be condemning it. As it was 400 years ago, there isn't much we can do about it now. The interpretation of Islam is a more pressing matter in the present day.

[Steve May]

It doesn't excuse the actions of those who selectively ignore section of their faith's teaching, in order to justify some really vile attitudes. Extremist Islamic windbags advocating death to unbelievers or the likes of the Westborough Methodists - they're all moral perverts.

A good friend and colleague of mine is a Muslim and he's a very thoughtful chap. He converted when he wanted to marry a Muslim girl and is now very quietly devout. He just gets on with it and makes no fuss about it - I only found out about his faith when he refused the offer of a pint on an office jolly one night.

I asked him about this recently and he pointed out that the key thing to remember about Muslim nutters is that they are nutters. If they weren't Muslim they'd still be nutters.

He also said there's nothing whatsoever in the Koran to justify their attitude and he found the whole thing appalling.

[waistline expansionist]

A good friend and colleague of mine is a Muslim and he's a very thoughtful chap. He converted when he wanted to marry a Muslim girl and is now very quietly devout. He just gets on with it and makes no fuss about it - I only found out about his faith when he refused the offer of a pint on an office jolly one night.

I asked him about this recently and he pointed out that the key thing to remember about Muslim nutters is that they are nutters. If they weren't Muslim they'd still be nutters.

He also said there's nothing whatsoever in the Koran to justify their attitude and he found the whole thing appalling.

Calling them "nutters" does not explain their heightened propensity to commit certain offences, and the heightened tendency to commit them against girls of one particular race.

When C4 eventually showed the Keighley documentary there were interviewees on the BBC who suggested it was all the fault of the evil white kaffir girls. Do you wish to go that far down to road of PC or would you rather investigate and tackle the actual problem?

[Steve May]

Calling them "nutters" does not explain their heightened propensity to commit certain offences, and the heightened tendency to commit them against girls of one particular race.

When C4 eventually showed the Keighley documentary there were interviewees on the BBC who suggested it was all the fault of the evil white kaffir girls. Do you wish to go that far down to road of PC or would you rather investigate and tackle the actual problem?

"PC" has nothing to do with it. It's not a crime to hold vile views. It's a crime to act on them and people who do should be locked up.

[ckn]

The guys who did this did not do it because the Koran told them to. They didn't do it in the name of Islam. There was no religious aspect to this crime.

They happened to be muslims who did the crime, they didn't do the crime because they was muslims.

90 odd % of the UK is Christian, we don't don't look at the bible for every rape, drug offense, gangland hit, grooming crime, etc.

If Ian Huntley had been a muslim then he'd be condemned as such with his actual crimes being blamed on him being a muslim rather than him "just" being a deranged killer. Same with all other recent nasty criminals.

Although I don't have the facts available, I'd guess that if you were to compare the numbers of serious crimes committed by muslims and those of white Christian descent, as a direct percentage of population, then you'd probably get a fairly even match.

Just as branding all Catholics paedophiles because of the actions of a number of Catholic priests would be wrong then so should it be wrong to brand all muslims in the way they are in some parts of the media. In Ipswich, the local media was reporting that all the prostitution gangs involved in the criminal exploitation of immigrant prostitutes were of Chinese descent, that doesn't mean that all Chinese people in Ipswich are pimps.

A lot of people get themselves all wound up when they see a crime committed by a muslim when in reality, as mentioned in the quoted post, it's very rarely relevant in the slightest that he/she is a muslim.

[bowes]

Much of the stuff we object to in the Koran is also in the Bible. September 11 was an apalling atrocity. But it's only four hundred years since a band of Catholic terrorists tried to blow up the king in parliament. In the century before both Catholics and Protestants were burned at the stake for their religion. In England. There were plenty of atrocities commiteed by the Crusaders - arguably holy warriors - "crusader" is still a term of abuse among Muslims.
Before condemning a whole religion for the horrors perpetrated by the few we'd do well to look at our own history.

We've fought for hundreds of years to replace the grip of one oppressive ideology over society so why replace it with another?

[Millman]

We've fought for hundreds of years to replace the grip of one oppressive ideology over society so why replace it with another?

You're not up for election are you?

[WearyRhino]

If there is an identifiable trend in who commits sexual crimes of this nature against women then it is groups of men.

[Millman]

90 odd % of the UK is Christian, we don't don't look at the bible for every rape, drug offense, gangland hit, grooming crime, etc.

I didn't know that.

[waistline expansionist]

Although I don't have the facts available, I'd guess that if you were to compare the numbers of serious crimes committed by muslims and those of white Christian descent, as a direct percentage of population, then you'd probably get a fairly even match.

Even if, in overall terms, numbers of crimes Muslim v non-Muslim were about equal (and I very much doubt that would be the case), there exists a heightened propensity among certain racial and cultural demographics to commit certain types of crimes.

As Paul Condon found out, this subject is "not to be discussed".

[JohnM]

I'm Spartacus.

[Martyn Sadler]

If Ian Huntley had been a muslim then he'd be condemned as such with his actual crimes being blamed on him being a muslim rather than him "just" being a deranged killer. Same with all other recent nasty criminals.

Although I don't have the facts available, I'd guess that if you were to compare the numbers of serious crimes committed by muslims and those of white Christian descent, as a direct percentage of population, then you'd probably get a fairly even match.

Just as branding all Catholics paedophiles because of the actions of a number of Catholic priests would be wrong then so should it be wrong to brand all muslims in the way they are in some parts of the media. In Ipswich, the local media was reporting that all the prostitution gangs involved in the criminal exploitation of immigrant prostitutes were of Chinese descent, that doesn't mean that all Chinese people in Ipswich are pimps.

A lot of people get themselves all wound up when they see a crime committed by a muslim when in reality, as mentioned in the quoted post, it's very rarely relevant in the slightest that he/she is a muslim.

Admirable sentiments, but the argument doesn't really add up. If we were to follow it to its logical conclusion the whole issue of Catholic priests would have been reported as isolated incidents with no thread connecting them, just individual men with no suggestion that they were Catholics or priests. And reporting of that sort would have disguised a major problem that the Church wouldn't then have been forced to confront.

Whether we like it or not, the common thread in this case is that a crime is being committed by gangs of men who happen to be Muslim. We are entitled to ask whether there is something in the culture they are experiencing that allows them to regard this behaviour as somehow acceptable. If there is, then, like the Catholic church, the Muslim community needs to confront the problem.

[ckn]

Admirable sentiments, but the argument doesn't really add up. If we were to follow it to its logical conclusion the whole issue of Catholic priests would have been reported as isolated incidents with no thread connecting them, just individual men with no suggestion that they were Catholics or priests. And reporting of that sort would have disguised a major problem that the Church wouldn't then have been forced to confront.

Whether we like it or not, the common thread in this case is that a crime is being committed by gangs of men who happen to be Muslim. We are entitled to ask whether there is something in the culture they are experiencing that allows them to regard this behaviour as somehow acceptable. If there is, then, like the Catholic church, the Muslim community needs to confront the problem.

Ah but saying "Catholic priests abused young people" is completely justifiable as it was because they were Catholic priests that they had effective immunity for so long and it was directly related to them being in a position of power as a priest. Same with this guy, it's perfectly acceptable to call him a "muslim cleric" because that's the position that was abused. If there were a number of similar muslim clerics then any article exposing them would be 100% entitled to state that in the title.

If I were convicted of a serious crime, that had nothing to do with religion, it would be disproportionate to start the article on my sentencing with "Atheist Yorkshireman" so why is it acceptable to simply say "muslim" in front of every muslim criminal just because at one point they ticked a box to say they classed themselves as a muslim.

[Martyn Sadler]

Ah but saying "Catholic priests abused young people" is completely justifiable as it was because they were Catholic priests that they had effective immunity for so long and it was directly related to them being in a position of power as a priest. Same with this guy, it's perfectly acceptable to call him a "muslim cleric" because that's the position that was abused. If there were a number of similar muslim clerics then any article exposing them would be 100% entitled to state that in the title.

If I were convicted of a serious crime, that had nothing to do with religion, it would be disproportionate to start the article on my sentencing with "Atheist Yorkshireman" so why is it acceptable to simply say "muslim" in front of every muslim criminal just because at one point they ticked a box to say they classed themselves as a muslim.

Most reports that I read in the local newspapers in this part of the world that cover these stories make no reference to the fact that the perpetrators are Muslims. Unfortunately, their names are usually a giveaway.

But the point I'm making is that we need to find out whether there is anything in what they are being told in mosques that makes them believe that it is acceptable, even in a perverted reaction to what they are being taught, to abuse non-Muslim women. If we don't do this then we are doing a great disservice to the victims, and to any future victims. We are also doing a disservice to the vast majority of Muslims who would never dream of exploiting young, impressionable women in this way.

[bowes]

If there is an identifiable trend in who commits sexual crimes of this nature against women then it is groups of men.

Why is that form of blaming one group okay but not another when they're both equally true?

[bowes]

You're not up for election are you?

Better than woolly people like you letting this go ahead

[WearyRhino]

Why is that form of blaming one group okay but not another when they're both equally true?

Because given the nature of the crimes committed they had to be men but didn't have to be Muslims - in other words it is relevant.