Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: wheatleylad on September 26, 2015, 10:19:53 am
-
This will no doubt be my last post on here as I will probably be banned.
I posted a statement a few days ago and received a warning that I was contravening the rules. Apparently somebody had complained about what I had said and thought that it was Islamaphobic. This raises a few questions about this site doesn't it.
1. Somebody doesn't have the moral fibre to challenge me directly and feels they must run to the moderator like a schoolboy or girl,
2. Free speech is being stifled by left wing motivated people who can see no further than the ends of their noses.
3. I really hope that they never have cause to regret their closed minds and we never lose our freedom.
4. For the information of all, radical Islam has little to do with real Islam. One only has to look at ISIS and countries which are fighting it.
5. Why is it wrong to say that I love my country as it is? As an English man is this not allowed?
6. Why is it wrong to openly state opposition to radical Islamists who would have us subject to sharia law and the barbarism of ISIS?
7. Censorship is the beginning of the loss of freedom. One has only to study history and glance around the world.
8. Stifling freedom of expression only drives people into the arms of the extremists. This is precisely what happened under New Labour and their obsession with PC and multi culturism.
9. See what Trevor Phillips says now. I think he knows a little bit more about these things than any of us do.
-
1. No, somebody has read the Forum rules and drawn the mod's attention to a post they think contravenes them.
2. Freedom of speech has nothing at all to do with Forum Rules. If you don't like the Forum Rules, you shouldn't have agreed to abide by them.
3. What freedom have you lost? You have the freedom to have an opinion, there is no God-given right to make other people suffer you expressing it.
4. Yes, but what point are you making?
5. Who has said that it is wrong for you to say what you have said there - unless, of course, you didn't say it in the way you have here?
6. Who has said that it is wrong for you to say what you have said there - unless, of course, you didn't say it in the way you have here?
7. Name one country without censorship of one form or another. Go on, you must know of one...
8. There is no such thing as complete freedom of expression. If you think it's a bad thing, no doubt you'd like to give paedophiles the freedom of expression to broadcast on Cbeebies. That's what complete freedom leads to. Unless, of course, you'd want to stifle their freedom of expression. You can't have it both ways.
9. He's said lots of things. Are we supposed to look up everything and then work out which bit you want us to take note of? How about you do the legwork instead of coming out with a lazy catch-all statement that ultimately means nothing?
-
There are many strand of intolerance and extremism Wheatleylad, and in my view you appear to be coming mighty close to one of them.
I have no idea what you wrote, but can guess, and whatever it was I am afraid will always be tainted with your past associations and postings. People were annoyed by that, maybe you should have thought before posting something inflamatory.
If you know your history you will know that there never has been such a thing as free speech. At various times,various political powers have sought to put down extreme ideas and ideologies - in fact you seem toclaimtowish to do the same - and claiming it is generally the last resort of the lost argument.
Finally, this is a football forum, there are better places for political ideologies.
-
I just find it incredibly sad that a man has wasted years of his life trying to wind people up on a football forum for a team he more than probably doesn't give a shit about.
-
4. For the information of all, radical Islam has little to do with real Islam. One only has to look at ISIS and countries which are fighting it.
Having looked at Your post that was removed (you probably can't remember what exactly you posted) you didn't distinquish between radical Islam and real islam. Your post just mentioned Islam. Thats why your post was deemed islamophobic
-
Political correctness.
Or, as it used to be called, not being an obnoxious Kitson.
-
The problem with todays world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!
Uncanny Wheatley. I would never have thought Prof Brian Cox would have ever heard of you. But he must have. He's summed you up to a T.
Your opinions are valueless. I will ridicule them as often and as long as I wish to if you continue to have the temerity to put forward unthinking shite such as you have offered this last few years.
BobG
-
Wheatley.
You said that there were questions raised about the site. Then you gave us 7 statements.
Is there anyone there to help you? Only, I'm looking after the kids tonight so I can't.
-
We never did much much about other religions when at school
However Islam seems a peaceful religion
I will put on record I am totally against ISIS
I also don't agree with having other religions imposed on us such as kids at school having halal meat - yes have it available as a choice
-
4. For the information of all, radical Islam has little to do with real Islam. One only has to look at ISIS and countries which are fighting it.
Having looked at Your post that was removed (you probably can't remember what exactly you posted) you didn't distinquish between radical Islam and real islam. Your post just mentioned Islam. Thats why your post was deemed islamophobic
I'm not sure we can really distinguish between radical and real Islam and that is the problem our political leaders keep coming up against.
ISIL and those like them are Islamic, they are very Islamic indeed that is why more moderate Muslims have difficulty in opposing their hardline view. The more Islamic someone is the greater the chance they will be drawn to the idea of fighting for the caliphate in someway.
Now I hope I haven't strayed into making a racist comment with that.
-
RD
I don't think you've made a racist comment there. Just a daft one.
What on earth do you mean by "the more Islamic someone is the greater the chance they will be drawn to the idea of fighting for the caliphate in someway"? What do you mean by "more" Islamic? I know people who are profoundly, devoutly Islamic, who would not raise a finger to harm any living thing.
It's not how deeply Islamic someone is (however you would measure that) that defines their propensity to violent struggle. It's how deeply they are influenced by a particular interpretation of their belief. Lumping ALL Muslims into one grouping and judging them all in a one-dimensional way (which is effectively what you are doing by your comment as far as I can see) ignores the multi-faceted nature of the reality. To me, to hear someone so intelligent coming out with a line like that is deeply worrying.
-
4. For the information of all, radical Islam has little to do with real Islam. One only has to look at ISIS and countries which are fighting it.
Having looked at Your post that was removed (you probably can't remember what exactly you posted) you didn't distinquish between radical Islam and real islam. Your post just mentioned Islam. Thats why your post was deemed islamophobic
I'm not sure we can really distinguish between radical and real Islam and that is the problem our political leaders keep coming up against.
ISIL and those like them are Islamic, they are very Islamic indeed that is why more moderate Muslims have difficulty in opposing their hardline view. The more Islamic someone is the greater the chance they will be drawn to the idea of fighting for the caliphate in someway.
Now I hope I haven't strayed into making a racist comment with that.
Following that logic though, all religious people would be automatically drawn to the extremes. So all Protestants would become Bible-bashing fundamentalists and Catholics would all be Jesuits.
Admittedly I don't know a lot of Muslims, but the ones I met in hospital thought ISIS and Jihadists generally were a bunch of nut-jobs.
-
This article is pretty long, but well worth a read:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/)
-
BST
If I can draw a couple of points from the Atlantic article, which I think is very good BTW.
The difficulty modern, peace loving Muslims have is ISIL insist that they will not waver from governing precepts that were embedded in Islam by the Prophet Muhammad and his earliest followers. They are authentic throwbacks and their behaviour includes a number of practices that modern Muslims tend to prefer not to acknowledge as integral to their sacred texts. Slavery, crucifixion, and beheadings are smack in the middle of the medieval tradition and ISIL are bringing it wholesale into the present day.
Muslims can say that slavery is not legitimate now, and that crucifixion is wrong but they cannot condemn slavery or crucifixion outright without contradicting the Koran and the example of the Prophet. Denying the holiness of the Koran or the prophecies of Muhammad is straightforward apostasy.
This is why I say the more Islamic a person is the more likely they are to be drawn to ISIL because it is the result of following in detail those God given teachings. It is the moderates who are deviating from the Koran and in denying it risk the punishment of death.
Maybe I'm reading it wrong but it doesn't look that multifaceted and the idea that ISIL are not religious as espoused by Obama and Cameron is just ignoring the truth.
-
RD
You are committing the mistake of assuming that there is a unique "correct" interpretation of any religious text.
There is not. Never. Ever.
That is why religions are so successful. Because anyone can read whatever they want into them.
Take Christianity and the Bible. If you are of one point if view, you can read "an eye for an eye" and base your outlook around that. If you are of the opposite point of view, you can read "turn the other cheek" and live by that example.
All things to all people.
Islam and the Koran are no different. Violent people will be attracted to biolent concepts. Peaceful ones will be attracted to peaceful ones.
Claiming, as you do that there is one and only one "correct" interpretation of the Prophet's words falls into precisely the trap that ISIL and the radicals set for you. They WANT the West to believe the line that the Koran and the Prophet require them to engage in violent jihad against us. Because they want to cut off the possibility of peaceful co-existence.
You appear happy to help them in their quest.
-
RD
You are committing the mistake of assuming that there is a unique "correct" interpretation of any religious text.
There is not. Never. Ever.
That is why religions are so successful. Because anyone can read whatever they want into them.
Take Christianity and the Bible. If you are of one point if view, you can read "an eye for an eye" and base your outlook around that. If you are of the opposite point of view, you can read "turn the other cheek" and live by that example.
All things to all people.
Islam and the Koran are no different. Violent people will be attracted to biolent concepts. Peaceful ones will be attracted to peaceful ones.
Claiming, as you do that there is one and only one "correct" interpretation of the Prophet's words falls into precisely the trap that ISIL and the radicals set for you. They WANT the West to believe the line that the Koran and the Prophet require them to engage in violent jihad against us. Because they want to cut off the possibility of peaceful co-existence.
You appear happy to help them in their quest.
RD
If you want a parallel with an example that you might be more familiar with, try asking yourself whether the Crusades were undertaken by 'true' Christians or 'extremist' Christians..?
-
I wonder what the Pope thinks, you would think he might have studied the issue in some depth:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1140549/Pope-says-Koran-book-peace-Islam-peaceful-religion.html
-
RD
You are committing the mistake of assuming that there is a unique "correct" interpretation of any religious text.
There is not. Never. Ever.
That is why religions are so successful. Because anyone can read whatever they want into them.
Take Christianity and the Bible. If you are of one point if view, you can read "an eye for an eye" and base your outlook around that. If you are of the opposite point of view, you can read "turn the other cheek" and live by that example.
All things to all people.
Islam and the Koran are no different. Violent people will be attracted to biolent concepts. Peaceful ones will be attracted to peaceful ones.
Claiming, as you do that there is one and only one "correct" interpretation of the Prophet's words falls into precisely the trap that ISIL and the radicals set for you. They WANT the West to believe the line that the Koran and the Prophet require them to engage in violent jihad against us. Because they want to cut off the possibility of peaceful co-existence.
You appear happy to help them in their quest.
RD
If you want a parallel with an example that you might be more familiar with, try asking yourself whether the Crusades were undertaken by 'true' Christians or 'extremist' Christians..?
Or even how many of them were in fact Christians at all!
-
Wilts
That article. The Comments section. Time and again there are several hundred "likes" for commenters saying variations on "They (Muslim leaders) never denounce terrorism."
Funny, that. In a 10 second Google search you can find:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/muslim-leaders-condemn-attack-warn-on-anti-islamic-sentiment-in-europe-1420654885
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/isis-concern-british-muslim-leaders-condemn-extremist-group-9599273.html
https://m.facebook.com/AusTeaParty/posts/721085384593354
http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/08/21/muslim-leaders-have-roundly-denounced-islamic-s/200498
The question that keeps coming back to me is: Why do apparently intelligent people, with the whole internet at their disposal, want to convince themselves and/or others that the whole of Islam supports the barbaric headcases of ISIL and the like? What do they stand to gain by ignoring the facts that many, MANY Islamic leaders have repeatedly condemned terrorist acts by Muslims, and the depravity of ISIL?
-
Wilts
That article. The Comments section. Time and again there are several hundred "likes" for commenters saying variations on "They (Muslim leaders) never denounce terrorism."
Funny, that. In a 10 second Google search you can find:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/muslim-leaders-condemn-attack-warn-on-anti-islamic-sentiment-in-europe-1420654885
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/isis-concern-british-muslim-leaders-condemn-extremist-group-9599273.html
https://m.facebook.com/AusTeaParty/posts/721085384593354
http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/08/21/muslim-leaders-have-roundly-denounced-islamic-s/200498
The question that keeps coming back to me is: Why do apparently intelligent people, with the whole internet at their disposal, want to convince themselves and/or others that the whole of Islam supports the barbaric headcases of ISIL and the like? What do they stand to gain by ignoring the facts that many, MANY Islamic leaders have repeatedly condemned terrorist acts by Muslims, and the depravity of ISIL?
Is it willful ignorance? Is it wish fulfillment?
Your guess is as good as mine.
-
I think there is an inherent laziness in a majority of the population in this country. To take a simple example, you can see it every week in the 'forecast the result' threads. How many ever say the Rovers are going to lose? It's intellectual laziness driven by emotion. What's different when people talk about Moslems as has been described in this thread? Nothing. These examples are once again lazy opinions expressed by people who's emotions have been engaged - this time by the right wing press.
To me though, the better, and more important, question, is why is our press not doing anything noticeable to encourage peace and harmony?
BobG
-
Bob, there is a newspaper called something like The Good News paper, which sells dozens of copies. As opposed to the scandal sheets, which sell a few million between them. Peace and harmony isn't news, having someone to fight is.
It's there all through history how do you solve problems at home, go find someone to fight next door, next village, next town, next country etc, and to have a reason to fight them you need to make them an enemy. If the evidence for that is there fine, if not make it up, people will believe what they want to believe whatever they are presented with, the OP being a perfect case in point.
Twas ever thus.
-
I understand that you can't lump all Muslims in together as a single group. Islam is diverse and ISIS happily slaughter many Muslims in Syria for not having the correct interpretation of the religion. ISIS even have deep divisions with Al Qaeda.
My point is the current narrative amongst the western establishment is the notion that ISIS aren't "real" Muslims. The argument goes they can't be "real" because Islam is a religion of peace. I don't think that's being quite honest. It is sometimes claimed that the root word of Islam is “al-Salaam,” which is “peace” in Arabic. So the religion of peace...
ISIL and the likes of Anjem Choudary beg to differ. An Arabic word only has one root. The root word for Islam is “al-Silm,” which means “submission” or “surrender.”
Submission and peace can be very different concepts, even if a form of peace is often brought about through forcing others into submission. As the modern-day Islamic scholar, Ibrahim Sulaiman, puts it, "Jihad is not inhumane, despite its necessary violence and bloodshed, its ultimate desire is peace which is protected and enhanced by the rule of law."
You can't claim they aren't Islamic as the West is trying to. They spend an awful lot of time studying it, they know their interpretation is robust.
We have to say they follow the wrong interpretation but again it is difficult to argue this because what they believe is written in the Koran.
The real problem is their message is proving popular, a lot of young British Muslims aren't from the Saudi Wahhabist sect, that isn't found in Pakistan for instance but the strict interpretation has a popularity. You see young people dressed in traditional Arab dress, not the Punjabi garb of older generations.
So I don't think I'm saying there is only one correct interpretation. I'm saying the idea that ISIS don't follow a valid interpretation of Islam is wrong.
They are Islamic, very Islamic and that strict, old interpretation has an appeal and with the backing of Saudi money it is spreading. The Saudis have offered to build 200 new mosques in Germany, for instance, chances are they will prefer them to teach a strict Wahhabist version ISIL and Al Qaeda base their beliefs on.
-
RD
Your last post is a world away from what you said earlier. You're now saying that ISIL have "a valid" interpretation of Islam, whereas before you said that the more Islamic someone was, the more likely they were to be drawn to a violent approach. I hope you are now accepting that someone can absolutely be a devout believer in Islam whilst being disgusted and abhorred by ISIL. Like several Muslims I know. Like the ones I gave examples of earlier.
If you ARE saying what I think you are, then, yes, I agreed with you wholeheartedly. ISIL have an interpretation of Islam which needs to be confronted. Which is why we need to make common cause with devout Muslims who intepret the Koran differently.
This is a centuries long process. There is a strong strand of Islam which sees the nuances in the Koran and, hopefully, they will win out over the decades and the centuries. Just as, mostly, moderate interpretations of the Bible have supplanted the violent extremists (slave traders, KKK etc) who justified their bigotry by their own interpretations of the Bible.
It is CRUCIAL that we understand and support the moderate, modernising Muslims.
-
Perhaps I didn't express myself well enough when I said I thought the more Islamic someone was the more they would be drawn to the violent approach.
What I meant was the more literally they take the teachings the more they will be drawn to the violent approach.
As that article in the Atlantic makes clear, ISIL and their ilk try to follow the prophet to the letter. That to me is very Islamic.
-
RD
Anyone who claims to follow ANY sacred text to the letter is, in my opinion, either deluded or schizophrenic.
What ISIL are doing is highlighting certain aspects of the Koran and ignoring or conveniently re-interpreting ones that don't suit them.
Just like EVERY believer of EVERY religion does.
-
BST
I can't for the life of me understand how anyone can take religious belief so seriously but I've never been a religious person.
I think we often want to compare Islam to Christianity because we know that better. I think there is a difference because the core belief of Christianity goes back to the Ten Commandments and Though Shall Not Kill looms very large. Christ was a Jewish carpenter who preached peace.
In Islam, Muhammed was a warrior and his example was warlike. There doesn't appear to be quite the same overarching message of peace. That to me seems like a significant difference. The other difference is sharia and the belief that gods law trumps man made law. I think the most dispiriting thing recently was the way a relatively stable nation like Egypt was unable to implement a democratic system of law.
Still, I do understand that they are taking a particular interpretation.
My Mother in Law is a committed Buddhist, that looks like the most peaceful serene belief system on the planet and yet. I simply cannot bring up the subject of the war in Sri Lanka with her. The idea that Buddhist monks with bald heads and robes can be violent seems an anathema but there are plenty of examples of it.
-
I think we often want to compare Islam to Christianity because we know that better. I think there is a difference because the core belief of Christianity goes back to the Ten Commandments and Though Shall Not Kill looms very large.
Moses is mentioned more than any other individual in the Koran, Mohammed included.
As for the Ten Commandments, this site is an interesting comparison. Especially as it appears to be a Christianity-based website:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran_ten_commandments.htm
-
Glyn without wanting to get too deeply into interpretations of religious texts. The King James Bible is pretty unequivocal when it says Thou Shall Not Kill. This maybe a historic quirk, and the meaning of kill may have changed from meaning murder but there it is. Thou shall Not Kill. Clear.
Then look at the Koran. It has caveats. Your website says it proves the Koran is against murder but it doesn't read that it is against killing.
There maybe caveats in Christianity too but I don't think it's as clear as the Koran which defines them more specifically and plentifully.
-
Glyn without wanting to get too deeply into interpretations of religious texts. The King James Bible is pretty unequivocal when it says Thou Shall Not Kill. This maybe a historic quirk, and the meaning of kill may have changed from meaning murder but there it is. Thou shall Not Kill. Clear.
Then look at the Koran. It has caveats. Your website says it proves the Koran is against murder but it doesn't read that it is against killing.
There maybe caveats in Christianity too but I don't think it's as clear as the Koran which defines them more specifically and plentifully.
And that site gives a few examples from the Bible, just above the tabled list.
-
Well, you dont get this kind of thing on Facebook!
This has turned into a very interesting debate. Thanks everyone.
-
I have yet to come across any religion that encourages somebody to murder another, for me all religions are about loving and forgiving and trying to be a better person.
All religions have a god, just under a different name, no war should start over religion, they start over humans interpretations made to fit what they want to do.
-
1. No, somebody has read the Forum rules and drawn the mod's attention to a post they think contravenes them.
2. Freedom of speech has nothing at all to do with Forum Rules. If you don't like the Forum Rules, you shouldn't have agreed to abide by them.
3. What freedom have you lost? You have the freedom to have an opinion, there is no God-given right to make other people suffer you expressing it.
4. Yes, but what point are you making?
5. Who has said that it is wrong for you to say what you have said there - unless, of course, you didn't say it in the way you have here?
6. Who has said that it is wrong for you to say what you have said there - unless, of course, you didn't say it in the way you have here?
7. Name one country without censorship of one form or another. Go on, you must know of one...
8. There is no such thing as complete freedom of expression. If you think it's a bad thing, no doubt you'd like to give paedophiles the freedom of expression to broadcast on Cbeebies. That's what complete freedom leads to. Unless, of course, you'd want to stifle their freedom of expression. You can't have it both ways.
9. He's said lots of things. Are we supposed to look up everything and then work out which bit you want us to take note of? How about you do the legwork instead of coming out with a lazy catch-all statement that ultimately means nothing?
1 That is my whole point, someone decided that it was unacceptable and sought to censor it.
2.I refer you to me previous point.
3. Expressing it is not making people adopt it. I was just expressing it.
4. I am attempting to point out that the re should be freedom to criticise things, even religion. Just like some here have criticised the Christian religion.
5. The moderator obviously and the person who reported me to him or her.
6. I was commenting on this country.
7.This is just a childish remark.
8. Trevor Philips has stated that multi culturalism has been a failure and that integration is the way forward.
-
I just find it incredibly sad that a man has wasted years of his life trying to wind people up on a football forum for a team he more than probably doesn't give a shit about.
This particular part of the forum is for general discussions.
-
I just find it incredibly sad that a man has wasted years of his life trying to wind people up on a football forum for a team he more than probably doesn't give a shit about.
I haven't been on this site for anywhere near a year yet!! You really are paranoid.
-
Putting aside the usual suspects who seem unable to have a rational discussion, there has been some very interesting comments placed on here.
Nice to see some reasoned debate and not just those who disagree, shouting down those they disagree with.
-
Political correctness.
Or, as it used to be called, not being an obnoxious Kitson.
Well, that's the benign interpretation of it. Certainly there is something to be said for people being discouraged from saying things that are blatantly racist, sexist etc, or are just blatantly offensive to most reasonable people.
On the other hand, it can refer to a desire to silence unfashionable or unorthodox views. That is where political correctness takes on a more sinister context.
-
I know we (probably) all know the line to cross regarding racism etc but what gets me is when people speak on behalf of people who wouldn't be bothered in first place
Is it wrong to call someone a jock or a taff - I've never known a Scot or Welsh man (sorry person) take offence
-
I know we (probably) all know the line to cross regarding racism etc but what gets me is when people speak on behalf of people who wouldn't be bothered in first place
Is it wrong to call someone a jock or a taff - I've never known a Scot or Welsh man (sorry person) take offence
Well since Taff is short for Dafydd, or David, our Patron Saint I don't see why I or any other Welsh person should take offence at that term.
What does actually make me mad is the odd occasion when someone plays the racist card when totally inappropriate. I experienced an example a while ago on a high-speed train from Amsterdam to Paris. A lady boarded at a stop in Belgium with a child of about 3 years old. It was a designated quiet carriage, and the kid was clearly very tired and wanting to sleep, but the lady kept waking the child, playing with him, and of course he kept on crying each time. A businessman working in the carriage quietly and politely asked if she might do more to keep the child quiet .... and her response was to shout 'racist' at the top of her voice so that everyone looked up.
I had a very hard time not to become involved, and it was one of the most annoying things. Like me, no-one dared to challenge her.