Diafol and Welsh 606rs.

comment by RB&W -Same Place-Same Club-Same Man (U21434)
posted 57 minutes ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 4 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by RB&W -Same Place-Same Club-Same Man (U21434)
posted 6 hours, 6 minutes ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 34 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance of Kungfu Ten Hag (U23079)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 3 minutes ago
True Vengeance.
But a tiny quibble. The colour of the skin should not matter a toss.
But a difference in religion can, if that religion insists on a different way of life.
So a Muslim is in charge is perfectly okay, so long as he/she does not wants non Muslims to change their way of life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It's only possible to push through certain policies if it gained popularity with the party, a party that's predominantly secular and white would not support a entirely Muslim agenda even if the figurehead / face is of Muslim persuasion. Whilst I can understand what you mean, it's comes across as scaremongering and misguided.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Makes you wonder how a British Muslim leader would deal with Afghan, Iraq or ISIS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You mean a democratically elected British Muslim PM who lead either a Conservative of Labour administration in the Houses of Commons?

What do you wonder about?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

How their religious beliefs would conflict with their role as leader.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you not worry about religious conflict if a British PM has other religious beliefs other than Muslim. Say if they were Christian or Jewish?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you give me a comparative example?

comment by Mamba the Chief Disinformation Officer on JA60... (U1282)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 34 minutes ago
Aren't all faiths kind in nature though? That's one thing they have in common surely and sadly extremists and radicals of all religions throughout the ages have sadly not got the memo.

Personally speaking I'd prefer the world without Religion entirely though. It's all made up in my eyes so all equally silly. That would just leave us with the one last remaining evil to argue and fight over.....money. That's one evil we sadly can't live without though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Money and borders/land.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Football.

comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 5 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by RB&W -Same Place-Same Club-Same Man (U21434)
posted 57 minutes ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 4 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by RB&W -Same Place-Same Club-Same Man (U21434)
posted 6 hours, 6 minutes ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 34 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance of Kungfu Ten Hag (U23079)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 3 minutes ago
True Vengeance.
But a tiny quibble. The colour of the skin should not matter a toss.
But a difference in religion can, if that religion insists on a different way of life.
So a Muslim is in charge is perfectly okay, so long as he/she does not wants non Muslims to change their way of life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It's only possible to push through certain policies if it gained popularity with the party, a party that's predominantly secular and white would not support a entirely Muslim agenda even if the figurehead / face is of Muslim persuasion. Whilst I can understand what you mean, it's comes across as scaremongering and misguided.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Makes you wonder how a British Muslim leader would deal with Afghan, Iraq or ISIS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You mean a democratically elected British Muslim PM who lead either a Conservative of Labour administration in the Houses of Commons?

What do you wonder about?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

How their religious beliefs would conflict with their role as leader.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you not worry about religious conflict if a British PM has other religious beliefs other than Muslim. Say if they were Christian or Jewish?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you give me a comparative example?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That a no then ?

comment by Vengeance of Kungfu Ten Hag (U23079)
posted 17 hours, 7 minutes ago
comment by
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance o
posted 44 minutes ago
comment by Kobra
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by manusince52
posted 3 hours, 3 minutes ago
True Vengeance.
But a tiny quibble. The colour of the skin should not matter a toss.
But a difference in religion can, if that religion insists on a different way of life.
So a Muslim is in charge is perfectly okay, so long as he/she does not wants non Muslims to change their way of life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Can I begin by saying you're a decent bloke, from what I know of you in here. We have had our disagreements, Rashy for example but it's never been nasty and I think you are a top bloke.

That said, and I'm Muslim and practicing, it does get to me that the way the media and some off the Muslim leaders have lead decent folk to be worried about Islam and Muslims.

I wish I had more space and time to go through it all. However it is what it is. But I will say that Islam itself and Muslims who study their faith would not be seen as "scary" as what often gets presented.

The so called Muslim mayor, for example, should use his faith, imo, to look at issues that really matter to people. Eg poverty, housing and law (not shariah as that isn't what most people think it is).

Might surprise a few that some of "our" policies today came from Islam. So the Jury system and child benefit etc.

Genuinely not having a go at you in any way. Just frustrated when I see what my faith has become because of the likes of ISIS and Taliban etc and peoples general understanding based on these type of events/organisations.




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sadiq Khan is operating in a democracy, he happens to be a Muslim, he's operating within a secular political spectrum so why does he need to do anything else other than why he was elected Mayor just to be accepted as a Muslim or improve the image of the faith? People can accept his faith or not, that's a different matter. I'm more interested in policies, the decisions he makes and how that impacts the capital and people of London. He also has to consider life after politics and millions that will roll in, he won't do anything more or less that will impact his profile negatively.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sadiq Khan can do whatever he likes. Wasn't my point.

I'm more concerned that decent folk are worried about my faith because of how it's presented.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

People with intelligence are capable of researching Islam. Why does it need any type of representation, positive or otherwise to convince anyone? There is plenty of free material on YouTube, for example. People with intelligence know the true message of the faith, its focus on charity, about tolerance, etc. Those who are ignorant have already made up their mind, no one can change that ignorance, it's entirely up to them.

From the outset, the faith can appear to have a self image problem, especially in the West, and that's entirely due to it being highjacked by small groups of extreme elements inspired by the Wahabi movement. It's image is also compounded by the silence of the moderate majority. All of these elements are focused on and magnified by the press, sensationalised to appease the ignorant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

People don't though. They buy into things without research.

For example you mentioned the wahabi movement. This is the biggest nonsense if you look at the man who it is named after. Mohammed bin Abdul wahab.

The man was a moderate, didn't believe in violence unless it was for defensive purposes, absolutely believed in women's rights and education. His own daughter became a scholar.

He was a man who was against the Ottomans. Hence why a campaign was made against him. Many of the stories of him are a false narrative.

He would have been anti ISIS, anti Al Qaeda.

comment by Kobra
posted 4 hours,
comment by Vengeance of Kungfu Ten Hag
posted 17 hours, 7 minutes ago
comment by
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance o
posted 44 minutes ago
comment by Kobra
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by manusince52
posted 3 hours, 3 minutes ago
True Vengeance.
But a tiny quibble. The colour of the skin should not matter a toss.
But a difference in religion can, if that religion insists on a different way of life.
So a Muslim is in charge is perfectly okay, so long as he/she does not wants non Muslims to change their way of life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Can I begin by saying you're a decent bloke, from what I know of you in here. We have had our disagreements, Rashy for example but it's never been nasty and I think you are a top bloke.

That said, and I'm Muslim and practicing, it does get to me that the way the media and some off the Muslim leaders have lead decent folk to be worried about Islam and Muslims.

I wish I had more space and time to go through it all. However it is what it is. But I will say that Islam itself and Muslims who study their faith would not be seen as "scary" as what often gets presented.

The so called Muslim mayor, for example, should use his faith, imo, to look at issues that really matter to people. Eg poverty, housing and law (not shariah as that isn't what most people think it is).

Might surprise a few that some of "our" policies today came from Islam. So the Jury system and child benefit etc.

Genuinely not having a go at you in any way. Just frustrated when I see what my faith has become because of the likes of ISIS and Taliban etc and peoples general understanding based on these type of events/organisations.




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sadiq Khan is operating in a democracy, he happens to be a Muslim, he's operating within a secular political spectrum so why does he need to do anything else other than why he was elected Mayor just to be accepted as a Muslim or improve the image of the faith? People can accept his faith or not, that's a different matter. I'm more interested in policies, the decisions he makes and how that impacts the capital and people of London. He also has to consider life after politics and millions that will roll in, he won't do anything more or less that will impact his profile negatively.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sadiq Khan can do whatever he likes. Wasn't my point.

I'm more concerned that decent folk are worried about my faith because of how it's presented.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

People with intelligence are capable of researching Islam. Why does it need any type of representation, positive or otherwise to convince anyone? There is plenty of free material on YouTube, for example. People with intelligence know the true message of the faith, its focus on charity, about tolerance, etc. Those who are ignorant have already made up their mind, no one can change that ignorance, it's entirely up to them.

From the outset, the faith can appear to have a self image problem, especially in the West, and that's entirely due to it being highjacked by small groups of extreme elements inspired by the Wahabi movement. It's image is also compounded by the silence of the moderate majority. All of these elements are focused on and magnified by the press, sensationalised to appease the ignorant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

People don't though. They buy into things without research.

For example you mentioned the wahabi movement. This is the biggest nonsense if you look at the man who it is named after. Mohammed bin Abdul wahab.

The man was a moderate, didn't believe in violence unless it was for defensive purposes, absolutely believed in women's rights and education. His own daughter became a scholar.

He was a man who was against the Ottomans. Hence why a campaign was made against him. Many of the stories of him are a false narrative.

He would have been anti ISIS, anti Al Qaeda.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

That's the element you fail to grasp, extremists highjacking a movement for their own gain irrespective of what the original movement stood for. Extremists distort the truth and that's always been the issue and it will continue be the case, the moderate majority are too weak to counter this threat.

comment by Vengeance of Kungfu Ten Hag (U23079)
posted 53 minutes ago
comment by Kobra
posted 4 hours,
comment by Vengeance of Kungfu Ten Hag
posted 17 hours, 7 minutes ago
comment by
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance o
posted 44 minutes ago
comment by Kobra
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by manusince52
posted 3 hours, 3 minutes ago
True Vengeance.
But a tiny quibble. The colour of the skin should not matter a toss.
But a difference in religion can, if that religion insists on a different way of life.
So a Muslim is in charge is perfectly okay, so long as he/she does not wants non Muslims to change their way of life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Can I begin by saying you're a decent bloke, from what I know of you in here. We have had our disagreements, Rashy for example but it's never been nasty and I think you are a top bloke.

That said, and I'm Muslim and practicing, it does get to me that the way the media and some off the Muslim leaders have lead decent folk to be worried about Islam and Muslims.

I wish I had more space and time to go through it all. However it is what it is. But I will say that Islam itself and Muslims who study their faith would not be seen as "scary" as what often gets presented.

The so called Muslim mayor, for example, should use his faith, imo, to look at issues that really matter to people. Eg poverty, housing and law (not shariah as that isn't what most people think it is).

Might surprise a few that some of "our" policies today came from Islam. So the Jury system and child benefit etc.

Genuinely not having a go at you in any way. Just frustrated when I see what my faith has become because of the likes of ISIS and Taliban etc and peoples general understanding based on these type of events/organisations.




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sadiq Khan is operating in a democracy, he happens to be a Muslim, he's operating within a secular political spectrum so why does he need to do anything else other than why he was elected Mayor just to be accepted as a Muslim or improve the image of the faith? People can accept his faith or not, that's a different matter. I'm more interested in policies, the decisions he makes and how that impacts the capital and people of London. He also has to consider life after politics and millions that will roll in, he won't do anything more or less that will impact his profile negatively.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sadiq Khan can do whatever he likes. Wasn't my point.

I'm more concerned that decent folk are worried about my faith because of how it's presented.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

People with intelligence are capable of researching Islam. Why does it need any type of representation, positive or otherwise to convince anyone? There is plenty of free material on YouTube, for example. People with intelligence know the true message of the faith, its focus on charity, about tolerance, etc. Those who are ignorant have already made up their mind, no one can change that ignorance, it's entirely up to them.

From the outset, the faith can appear to have a self image problem, especially in the West, and that's entirely due to it being highjacked by small groups of extreme elements inspired by the Wahabi movement. It's image is also compounded by the silence of the moderate majority. All of these elements are focused on and magnified by the press, sensationalised to appease the ignorant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

People don't though. They buy into things without research.

For example you mentioned the wahabi movement. This is the biggest nonsense if you look at the man who it is named after. Mohammed bin Abdul wahab.

The man was a moderate, didn't believe in violence unless it was for defensive purposes, absolutely believed in women's rights and education. His own daughter became a scholar.

He was a man who was against the Ottomans. Hence why a campaign was made against him. Many of the stories of him are a false narrative.

He would have been anti ISIS, anti Al Qaeda.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

That's the element you fail to grasp, extremists highjacking a movement for their own gain irrespective of what the original movement stood for. Extremists distort the truth and that's always been the issue and it will continue be the case, the moderate majority are too weak to counter this threat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Extremists don't hijack the movement. It's a narrative created by those who fight the extremists whilst preventing a philosophy coming to the fore.


My point though was always that people buy into narratives which mislead even the most well intentioned into believing in the whole as an enemy. When such an enemy doesn't exist.

You'd think people would not be so easily lead. People who will argue against a philosophy whilst not knowing what it is.

comment by Kobra (U19849)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance of Kungfu Ten Hag (U23079)
posted 53 minutes ago
comment by Kobra
posted 4 hours,
comment by Vengeance of Kungfu Ten Hag
posted 17 hours, 7 minutes ago
comment by
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance o
posted 44 minutes ago
comment by Kobra
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by manusince52
posted 3 hours, 3 minutes ago
True Vengeance.
But a tiny quibble. The colour of the skin should not matter a toss.
But a difference in religion can, if that religion insists on a different way of life.
So a Muslim is in charge is perfectly okay, so long as he/she does not wants non Muslims to change their way of life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Can I begin by saying you're a decent bloke, from what I know of you in here. We have had our disagreements, Rashy for example but it's never been nasty and I think you are a top bloke.

That said, and I'm Muslim and practicing, it does get to me that the way the media and some off the Muslim leaders have lead decent folk to be worried about Islam and Muslims.

I wish I had more space and time to go through it all. However it is what it is. But I will say that Islam itself and Muslims who study their faith would not be seen as "scary" as what often gets presented.

The so called Muslim mayor, for example, should use his faith, imo, to look at issues that really matter to people. Eg poverty, housing and law (not shariah as that isn't what most people think it is).

Might surprise a few that some of "our" policies today came from Islam. So the Jury system and child benefit etc.

Genuinely not having a go at you in any way. Just frustrated when I see what my faith has become because of the likes of ISIS and Taliban etc and peoples general understanding based on these type of events/organisations.




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sadiq Khan is operating in a democracy, he happens to be a Muslim, he's operating within a secular political spectrum so why does he need to do anything else other than why he was elected Mayor just to be accepted as a Muslim or improve the image of the faith? People can accept his faith or not, that's a different matter. I'm more interested in policies, the decisions he makes and how that impacts the capital and people of London. He also has to consider life after politics and millions that will roll in, he won't do anything more or less that will impact his profile negatively.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sadiq Khan can do whatever he likes. Wasn't my point.

I'm more concerned that decent folk are worried about my faith because of how it's presented.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

People with intelligence are capable of researching Islam. Why does it need any type of representation, positive or otherwise to convince anyone? There is plenty of free material on YouTube, for example. People with intelligence know the true message of the faith, its focus on charity, about tolerance, etc. Those who are ignorant have already made up their mind, no one can change that ignorance, it's entirely up to them.

From the outset, the faith can appear to have a self image problem, especially in the West, and that's entirely due to it being highjacked by small groups of extreme elements inspired by the Wahabi movement. It's image is also compounded by the silence of the moderate majority. All of these elements are focused on and magnified by the press, sensationalised to appease the ignorant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

People don't though. They buy into things without research.

For example you mentioned the wahabi movement. This is the biggest nonsense if you look at the man who it is named after. Mohammed bin Abdul wahab.

The man was a moderate, didn't believe in violence unless it was for defensive purposes, absolutely believed in women's rights and education. His own daughter became a scholar.

He was a man who was against the Ottomans. Hence why a campaign was made against him. Many of the stories of him are a false narrative.

He would have been anti ISIS, anti Al Qaeda.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

That's the element you fail to grasp, extremists highjacking a movement for their own gain irrespective of what the original movement stood for. Extremists distort the truth and that's always been the issue and it will continue be the case, the moderate majority are too weak to counter this threat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Extremists don't hijack the movement. It's a narrative created by those who fight the extremists whilst preventing a philosophy coming to the fore.


My point though was always that people buy into narratives which mislead even the most well intentioned into believing in the whole as an enemy. When such an enemy doesn't exist.

You'd think people would not be so easily lead. People who will argue against a philosophy whilst not knowing what it is.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

That's just nonsense, central to extremists' view is for Islam to go back to basics, effectively going back to the dark ages, to the time of the Prophet, Wahabism has been their driving force, it is not just a narrative by those countering extremism.

A poster above:

"Muslims aren't treated equally and there's a special place in hell reserved for folk".

Less than 12 hours later......

ISIS claim responsibility for a huge terrorist attack in Moscow....

Talk about getting your answer fully answered and then some.

Question*

comment by Vengeance of Kungfu Ten Hag (U23079)
posted 22 hours, 5 minutes ago
comment by Kobra (U19849)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance of Kungfu Ten Hag (U23079)
posted 53 minutes ago
comment by Kobra
posted 4 hours,
comment by Vengeance of Kungfu Ten Hag
posted 17 hours, 7 minutes ago
comment by
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance o
posted 44 minutes ago
comment by Kobra
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by manusince52
posted 3 hours, 3 minutes ago
True Vengeance.
But a tiny quibble. The colour of the skin should not matter a toss.
But a difference in religion can, if that religion insists on a different way of life.
So a Muslim is in charge is perfectly okay, so long as he/she does not wants non Muslims to change their way of life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Can I begin by saying you're a decent bloke, from what I know of you in here. We have had our disagreements, Rashy for example but it's never been nasty and I think you are a top bloke.

That said, and I'm Muslim and practicing, it does get to me that the way the media and some off the Muslim leaders have lead decent folk to be worried about Islam and Muslims.

I wish I had more space and time to go through it all. However it is what it is. But I will say that Islam itself and Muslims who study their faith would not be seen as "scary" as what often gets presented.

The so called Muslim mayor, for example, should use his faith, imo, to look at issues that really matter to people. Eg poverty, housing and law (not shariah as that isn't what most people think it is).

Might surprise a few that some of "our" policies today came from Islam. So the Jury system and child benefit etc.

Genuinely not having a go at you in any way. Just frustrated when I see what my faith has become because of the likes of ISIS and Taliban etc and peoples general understanding based on these type of events/organisations.




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sadiq Khan is operating in a democracy, he happens to be a Muslim, he's operating within a secular political spectrum so why does he need to do anything else other than why he was elected Mayor just to be accepted as a Muslim or improve the image of the faith? People can accept his faith or not, that's a different matter. I'm more interested in policies, the decisions he makes and how that impacts the capital and people of London. He also has to consider life after politics and millions that will roll in, he won't do anything more or less that will impact his profile negatively.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sadiq Khan can do whatever he likes. Wasn't my point.

I'm more concerned that decent folk are worried about my faith because of how it's presented.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

People with intelligence are capable of researching Islam. Why does it need any type of representation, positive or otherwise to convince anyone? There is plenty of free material on YouTube, for example. People with intelligence know the true message of the faith, its focus on charity, about tolerance, etc. Those who are ignorant have already made up their mind, no one can change that ignorance, it's entirely up to them.

From the outset, the faith can appear to have a self image problem, especially in the West, and that's entirely due to it being highjacked by small groups of extreme elements inspired by the Wahabi movement. It's image is also compounded by the silence of the moderate majority. All of these elements are focused on and magnified by the press, sensationalised to appease the ignorant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

People don't though. They buy into things without research.

For example you mentioned the wahabi movement. This is the biggest nonsense if you look at the man who it is named after. Mohammed bin Abdul wahab.

The man was a moderate, didn't believe in violence unless it was for defensive purposes, absolutely believed in women's rights and education. His own daughter became a scholar.

He was a man who was against the Ottomans. Hence why a campaign was made against him. Many of the stories of him are a false narrative.

He would have been anti ISIS, anti Al Qaeda.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

That's the element you fail to grasp, extremists highjacking a movement for their own gain irrespective of what the original movement stood for. Extremists distort the truth and that's always been the issue and it will continue be the case, the moderate majority are too weak to counter this threat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Extremists don't hijack the movement. It's a narrative created by those who fight the extremists whilst preventing a philosophy coming to the fore.


My point though was always that people buy into narratives which mislead even the most well intentioned into believing in the whole as an enemy. When such an enemy doesn't exist.

You'd think people would not be so easily lead. People who will argue against a philosophy whilst not knowing what it is.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

That's just nonsense, central to extremists' view is for Islam to go back to basics, effectively going back to the dark ages, to the time of the Prophet, Wahabism has been their driving force, it is not just a narrative by those countering extremism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This isn't a what is nonsense. Whereby there are certain groups who do try this it ultimately isn't the message of Al Wahab.