From MI5 research regarding the process of islamic radicalisation:

Quote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1

So identifying oneself within the mainstream islamic community in the UK actually protects against violent radicalisation - according to British intelligence.

In light of this, consider the islamic community's reaction to the recent violent protests in Sydney - as detailed in this post of mine.

In another thread I created a while back, I demonstrated how leaders representing mainstream islam in the UK had condemned the so called "muslim patrols" happening on the streets of London.

After 9/11 there were a plethora of statements of condemnation by mainstream muslim leaders - and has been the pattern for just about every other act of violent extremism carried out in the name of islam.

Of course you can be cynical and talk about the crocodile tears or whatever - but saying mainstream islam is insincere or not serious about stopping extremism is one thing, but where is the evidence that such institutions actively facilitate the extremists/terrorists - especially in light of what the MI5 research claims?

The arguments I've seen here are of two kinds: 1. quotes from the Quran and hadith illustrating islam's supposed violent/extremist doctrinal basis and 2. anecdotes of muslims supporting/carrying out acts of violent extremism.

With regards to the first - mainstream islamic scholars, teachers and leaders directly refute the doctrinal basis of islamic extremism - and in fact make a doctrinal case for the opposite view - ie that islamic texts actually promote peace and tolerance. The point here is not to debate this doctrinal basis itself, but to determine the extent to which muslims themselves are swayed by their own doctrine in carrying out extremism. If, as I contend,  the mainstream muslim population believe in a tolerant/peaceful islamic doctrine, then how can it be argued that mainstream islam is facilitating extremism in islam? It is not good enough to merely provide doctrinal evidence of islam's intolerance and violence, it needs to be demonstrated how it causes mainstream teahings and practices to facilitate extremists to act the way they do. Otherwise, in the face of the mountain of evidence that mainstream islam rejects and discourages extremism and violence - the only thing left is to dismiss such activities as a non-representative fringe.

Secondly, we have all seen the anecdotes - the beheading placards, gruesome pictures of victims of terrorism, so called "clerics" talking about violence and jihad etc etc. All individual cases - which are irrelevant if they can't demonstrate an overall trend in behaviour within mainstream islam. Of course it should go without saying that for every anecdote of support for violence, 10 others can be found rejecting and condemning it. Such infantile games prove nothing.

In short, where is the evidence that violence and extremism is institutionalised and manufactured within mainstream islam? 

As I have pointed out many many times FD, Abu and Falah are not representative of mainstream islam.

Do any search on muslim organisations that represent mainstream islam in Australia, UK and the US - and just about anywhere else, you will see that the message is consistent: extremism and violence in the name of islam is rejected and condemned.

For your point to make any sense, you would have to demonstrate that the muslim community overwhelmingly rejects the peaceful/tolerant messages that are promoted by their official bodies and leaders - and instead follow much more closely the messages espoused by Abu and co. How are you going to demonstrate this?

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2013 at 1:12pm:


I call bullshit. Please provide evidence for this claim - if you can.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2013 at 4:15pm:


Hmmm quite a following eh? Well thats very meaningful FD. Do you actually have any idea what percentage of muslims in the UK he represents? Is he affiliated at all with any mainstream islamic bodies?

Actually, as usual I went and did your research for you. The guy's name is Anjem Choudary, formerly spokesman of the radical group Islam4UK. This is the same group that had to cancel its planned 'march for sharia' due to a lack of interest.

Choudary was rather eloquently described by one British muslim thusly:

Quote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/jan/04/anjum-choudary-wootto...

Chodary is a joke, and he is completely rejected by mainstream islamic bodies. Even those who think he is a serious threat don't pretend he is anything close to representative:

Quote:


Quote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/6945946/To-what-extent-does-Anjem-Choud...

So what do actual mainstream islamic bodies say about extremism and violence in the name of islam?

The muslim council of Britain - the umbrella organisation representing all British muslims:

on terrorism:
Quote:

http://www.mcb.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27&Itemid=29

on integrating muslim into mainstream British society:
Quote:

http://www.mcb.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=992&Itemid=66...

Anything else FD? I hope you have something better than that clown.

Then how is it supposed to work FD?

See if you can provide some actual evidence for your claims too.

If not, stop wasting my time.

Brian, FD is simply trying to turn this discussion off on to an irrelevant tangent. He is very good at doing that.

The purpose of it is to take the focus away from the central argument of this thread - which he knows he can't dispute.

But I'm not going to let him do that here.

So just so we don't lose focus on what we are discussing here, in response to my original statement that there is no evidence that extremism and violence is fostered/facilitated within mainstream islam - and in fact the evidence suggests the exact opposite - FD contended with this claim about mainstream islam:

Quote:


I then asked for evidence, and he came back with the example of Anjem Choudary. I then pointed out that he is demonstrably *NOT* representative of mainstream UK muslims, and has been rejected by said muslims.

So FD is basically proving the point that I wanted to make in this thread. That the argument that mainstream islam is responsible for creating extremists and terrorists is based only on innuendo, select anecdotes and above all, by completely ignoring what mainstream islamic bodies and leaders actually say and preach.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2013 at 6:33pm:



You mean like the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?   They fought a very long, extremely bloody war in Europe to allow freedom of Christian Worship, it was called The Thirty Years War.  Tens of millions dead.  Some horrendous war crimes as well, all amongst Christians, some of whom refused to allow others to worship how they wanted.

It's interesting how few Christians know or understand the history of their own belief system.    It's even worse when you have a wiki which presents such a narrow view that it doesn't understand it either. 

At what point in history do you Gandalf wish people to comment regarding "mainstream islamic community in the UK actually protects against violent radicalisation" as I, an individual from Leicester in the Midlands may be able to dispel any and all myths regarding the loving face of Islam. Should you prefer to go further back in time say the year 1066 in loving Spain I can tell you about the slaughter of innocent Jews, Please let me know what period suits YOU. I will reply.