Why the Muslim 'no-go-zone' myth won't die

[H1w4yR1da]

Another cultural thing, practised by some but by no means all Muslim women.

Usual Islamaphobe ignoring of facts which don't suit your prejudice.

'Islamophobe'? 'Predjudice'?

Isn't that record worn out by now?

And with regards to a crusade. A modern day crusade against this perhaps.

But I'm sure you'll find some excuses.

[phrodan]

Maybe best to stick to relevant current day events as you apologists just love to bring up centuries old events to excuse muslim atrocities.

Ain't THAT the truth!

No - it's not the truth, as many of the current grievances are rooted in relatively recent history. These grievances have to be addressed, and I fear some will never be. The Iraq War was an unmitigated disaster from the start - and it's nowhere near over yet.

[phrodan]

Try and not be so selective in your quotes, old chap - you completely eradicated the bitter truth about the colonial oppression of the Spanish and USA.

Maybe best to stick to relevant current day events as you apologists just love to bring up centuries old events to excuse muslim atrocities.

Says the man with the Knight Templar avatar, who on this thread has called for a new crusade.

Usual deflection. The relevant word here is 'new'. As in 'present day'. Or 'modern'.

Blinkers off, old chap - you would have more credibility if you weren't using an inflammatory avatar and calling for a modern day crusade.

[H1w4yR1da]

By all means let people buy and eat what they want but not force the majority of us to follow these rituals.

Exactly!

And there is the issue of Halal Certification Fees, which is basically a form of extortion, supporting Islamic (is there any other?) Terrorism.

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/03/29/are-you-inadvertently-supporting-islamic-terrorism-by-unwittingly-buying-halal-food/

http://www.boycotthalal.com/halal-funds-terrorists-zakat/

[Jay Sata]

All I ask for in supermarkets is a section labeled non halal.

If you have the misfortune to be imprisoned in the UK there is no choice as all meat has to be halal.

In terms of the title of this thread it appears the majority are in a no go area having this ritually slaughtered meat forced on them.

[H1w4yR1da]

Blinkers off, old chap - you would have more credibility if you weren't using an inflammatory avatar and calling for a modern day crusade.

No blinkers here - eyes are wide open.

And I'm not really worried about credibility with fans of Islam.

Ditto with the avatar inflaming those very same people.

[JockPieandBeans]

Is that meant to be " Jews "

Must be the in-breeding

[SoiBiker]

If you have the misfortune to be imprisoned in the UK there is no choice as all meat has to be halal.

Even the pork?

[Jay Sata]

If you have the misfortune to be imprisoned in the UK there is no choice as all meat has to be halal.

Even the pork?

You joke but this is a true story from the Manchester Evening News...

Manchester's Strangeways and other prisons around the country have been put on alert after it emerged Halal pies served to inmates may contain traces of pork.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said last night that all affected products, including pies and pasties, had been removed.

The products had been supplied by a Halal-certified company. Muslims are not permitted to eat pork.

The incident follows last month's 'horse burger' scandal, where horse DNA was found in value supermarket burgers.

An MoJ spokesman said: "All prisons have been informed about this very regrettable incident and we reported this issue to the Food Standards Agency immediately.

"We are taking immediate steps to suspend the contract with the relevant subcontractor."

Justice minister Jeremy Wright said: "This is an absolutely unacceptable situation and one which we regret greatly. Clearly this must be distressing for those affected and they can be reassured we are doing everything we can to resolve the situation. The Prison Service is investigating this as a matter of urgency."

[7by7]

Another cultural thing, practised by some but by no means all Muslim women.

Usual Islamaphobe ignoring of facts which don't suit your prejudice.

'Islamophobe'? 'Predjudice'?

Isn't that record worn out by now?

Maybe, but not as worn as the label of apologist applied by you and others to anyone who does not share your hatred.

Not as worn as the accusations of diversion and twisting made by you and others to all facts you can't refute.

And with regards to a crusade. A modern day crusade against this perhaps.

But I'm sure you'll find some excuses.

If you provide the source to those pictures so that I can see the context, I will be happy to comment on them.

[Steely Dan]

7x7

I have just seen your PM and for obvious reasons I will not respond by PM. All I will say on your PM is that I did not see it, and the reason for it being deleted is nothing to do with me. Take that up with whatever MOD deleted it.

As you say, forced marriage is illegal in both the UK and Pakistan.

Yes it is. However, that does not stop it happening, does it ? I do not think I need to post link after link on the subject, it is there for all to read should they so desire.

As for abuse, from the NSPCC:

• Over 90% of sexually abused children were abused by someone they knew.
• Over 2,700 children were identified as needing protection from sexual abuse last year.
• The NSPCC’s helpline responded to over 7,300 contacts about sexual abuse last year.
• Over 18,600 children and young people talked to ChildLine last year about sexual abuse.
• Over 23,000 sexual offences against children were recorded in the UK last year.

Are you seriously suggesting that all, or even the majority, of these cases were Muslim children abused by their Muslim parents, other relatives or Muslims known to them?

I did not mention abuse. I specifically mentioned forced marriages and FGM. So I have to wonder why you felt the need to throw this into your reply. It would not have been an attempt at deflection would it ?

But as you were kind enough to impart the above knowledge, it might have been a good idea to to try and obtain a breakdown of perpetrators if you are going to try and use it as argument. Otherwise it means nothing.

As for FGM; another abhorrent crime, and for far too long nothing was done in the UK about it; but that is changing.

Changing ? 1 conviction for FGM in the UK.

NHS figures show 467 newly identified cases of girls and women needing treatment after female genital mutilation in England last month.

By my reckoning that should have been at least another 467 convictions getting closer to 934 if it was 2 parent families. So please dont try to tell me that things are changing. It is not.

I suggest that you read this.

http://www.equalitynow.org/sites/default/files/FGM%20EN%20City%20Estimates.pdf

It shows quite clearly that is a cultural thing, Muslim culture. Although there are a very small % of other nutjobs that practice it.Female genital mutilation is illegal in Egypt, yet 90% of the women under 50 are circumcised. In other words to baldly state what the law is is meaningless. Whether or not something is 'cultural' is another red herring. A religion named submission with an all encompassing political, legal and social influence is going to have more than a little influence in cultural practices.

The culture/religion nexus is also unlikely to magically change the moment someone immigrates from a Muslim state, not without far more and education than our leaders are willing to give. Hence a few Muslims may condemn the Charlie Hebdo murders, but you won't see tens or hundreds of thousands demonstrating to that effect, whilst you do have those numbers protesting against blasphemy in much of the Islamic world.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Scott

[micmichd]

What about a real myth that will not die, that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, surely even an apologist would not claim this any longer?

[micmichd]

There are fundamentistic and liberal-pragmatic wings within Islam and Christian religions, as already named.

[pmugghc]

I've never heard of a no-go-zone in a reasonably well-developed country. I've heard of places that are best avoided, at least at night, but even these are not 'no-go-zones'.

From what I've read, those are the areas where people like Hugh Grant go to get hookers. And it seems like the police have no problem going into those areas.

"No-go" zones isn't a binary classification. But when the firefighters don't want to go to a place without a police escort how do you classify that? There are several such places in Sweden. The linked article is in Swedish:

http://avpixlat.info/2014/09/06/flera-anlagda-bilbrander-i-okant-invandraromrade/

[His Masters Voice]

I saw one of these areas dominated by immigrants just recently. It was filled with businesses catering to the immigrants, with signage in their own language. There were immigrants everywhere, dressing and acting as they chose without any regard for local custom. They spoke their own language and expected locals in the area to do the same. Many of them seem to look down on the locals, and most made no effort to integrate with local culture in any way.

Sukhumvit, I think it was called.

Sukhumvit Soi3/1 ?

[pmugghc]

Latest news, 49 Filipino police killed entering a mythical no go zone.

http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2015/01/27/1417217/iqbal-justifies-attack-toll-soars-49

In which part of Yorkshire are the Philippines?

Read the OP. It's not just about the UK

Now - that's twisting things just a little bit far, is it not? The OP refers to the "west," and then the "Daily Mail."

Lets for a moment look at the Philippines - invaded by the Spanish, subjected to concentration camps, forced religious doctrine, mass rape and other assorted humiliations. They fought for Independence - won, and were stripped of it a year later by that arch-driver of freedom, the good ole USA. Who then;

Subjected them to concentration camps, mass rape, and genocide for having the temerity to fight for their freedom from oppression and tyranny. Oh, the irony.

So - what next - oh, Muslims in the Philippines. There's been Muslims in the Philippines since way before the arrival of Christianity. No Johnny-come-lately guys here, seven hundred years of Islam - established before Columbus was was even a twinkle in his fathers eye. They have been at the forefront of the fight against the European, Japanese and American oppressors for years - defending their right to live in their homeland as they see fit. So to call it a "Muslim no-go." area is a bit of a stretch, old chap. These are a people seven hundred years in the making determined to repel the foreign devil, and his filthy religious teachings.

Carry on.

Would you go to e.g. Tawi-Tawi? The US Gov't thinks not:

http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/alertswarnings/philippines-travel-warning.html

Edited January 27, 2015 by pmugghc

[Morch]

<snip>

There are always dissidents, of all faiths and politics, in any society who want to change that society to their way of thinking or beliefs; and in a free society they should be allowed to express their beliefs; as long as they remain within the law, of course.

But in the West, certainly as far as the UK is concerned, Muslims with this view are a very tiny, almost insignificant, minority; even though they get virtually all the press.

Perhaps you can give us some examples of restrictions applied to the majority in any non Muslim country in order to accommodate the sensitivities of the Muslim minority?

<snip>

Oh, back with the tiny minority bit. Fine. For starters, this alleged "very tiny, almost insignificant, minority" has a strange way of not going anywhere. Seems like all the claimed indignation, condemnation and whatnotation does not effect it one bit. The fact remains that these voices aren't getting weaker as time goes by, perhaps the opposite? And as for them hogging the media attention - perhaps if the assumed majority of the community would do something a wee more proactive, rather than issuing the usual damage control denunciations, both phenomenons will decrease.

Unless draconian measures are brought in restricting freedom of speech, measures which will effect us all, then dissident voices are not going away.

But if those voices go outside the law, they are dealt with according to the law: for example Abu Hamza, who in 2006 was sentenced by a UK court to 7 years imprisonment for inciting violence and racial hatred.

Of course these radical voices are going to attract most, if not all, of the media attention. The headline "Muslim does not express extremist views" aint going to sell many papers!

Representatives of the Muslim population, such as the Muslim Council of Britain, do regularly issue statements and press releases condemning hate speech by extremists; that the press choose not to publish them is not the MCB's fault.

What do you mean by doing something 'a wee more proactive?'

Things like this, perhaps?

As for ways in which the majority accommodates the minority? Halal food would be an obvious example, avoiding publishing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons after the attack would be another. The attack itself, in my opinion, is the prime example of how things will pan if a line isn't drawn and strictly adhered to. As you do not accept the existence of areas mostly populated by Muslims being less than welcoming for non-believers, do not accept that persistent calls for Sharia law replacing the law of the land are an issue, and do not accept that PC talk trying hard to avoid making any connection between religions and actions taken in its name - it would be very hard to carry a meaningful exchange regarding "examples".

In what way is Halal food accommodating the minority?

In the same way that Kosher food, and Shechita slaughter, which has been available in the UK for far longer than Halal, accommodates the Jewish minority.

If you ban one, it would be hypocrisy on a grand scale not to ban the other.

But, you may say, people are being forced to buy Halal meat!

By whom? Like Kosher food, Halal food is clearly labelled; otherwise it's target market wouldn't buy it!

There was a long discussion on Halal in this topic, so I wont go into great detail here.

But; pre slaughter stunning is allowed under both Halal and Shechita; provided the animals heart is not stopped. This is the dispensation which is asked for and granted under EU law; that the stun does not kill the animal, but renders it unconscious.

Information from the UK's Food Standard Agency shows that in the UK 88% of animals slaughtered by Halal methods are pre stunned, but only 10% of animals slaughtered by Shechita are.

Other information shows that in many situations, the hindquarters of an animal slaughtered by Schechita is considered not to be Kosher and sold on to supermarkets etc. So a non Muslim or non Jewish British shopper is far more likely to unknowingly buy Shechita slaughtered meat than Halal, and that Shechita meat is far more likely to have not been pre stunned than any Halal meat they may buy.

Relevant links can be found in the topic linked to.

Not publishing Charlie Hebdo cartoons after the attack?

Many media outlets in many country did so.

The attack itself, and following ones, were, rightly, condemned by leading Muslims, Muslim representatives and ordinary Muslims. Even though many said they found the cartoons themselves offensive they also said that was no excuse for murder.

As for the rest of your post; I have made my position clear on those points, and provided reputable evidence to back up that position. If you wish to challenge that, do so. But saying "it would be very hard to carry a meaningful exchange regarding "examples"." is, I'm sorry to say, a cop out.

If examples exist, if evidence exists to counter my views; provide it.

Some would say that the way infringements of the law by the likes of Abu Hamza and Choudary were not dealt with swiftly enough or in something resembling a satisfactory manner. That more leeway was given to them and others. There were many experiences related to Muslim violence previously relayed, both by posters and by links, of instances where authorities don't want to know - at least not until it is too late. You may dispute this, of course, or blame the authorities.

Yes, the headline "Muslim does not express extremist views" is no news. Then again, "Mass protest by Muslims against ______ (insert any of the things mentioned on these topics) might just make it. Internet and media campaigns are less of a news item as well. And the thing is that when Muslims are annoyed with something, they sure can get a crowd going - but less so when it goes against their own community. It is often noted, on some topics related to criticism on Israel, that there are, in fact, Jews actively and vocally protesting against it. There is relatively little of the same when it comes to Muslims in the West criticizing Muslims or things done in the name of Islam. Pardon me if I am not overly impressed with condemnation statements issued after the deed, a more proactive approach - be it educational, public relations oriented, whatever - that would show express commitment to the

values of host countries, would go a long way toward easing animosity and suspicion, perhaps creating a better overall social climate. Again, feel free to blame the media, the authorities etc.

Those voices calling for things which are anathema for Western ideals, might not disappear overnight. Probably not for a long while. Without the Muslim community actively taking a stand on this (as opposed to reactive statements), hard to imagine how there will be any constructive development. Marginalizing such voices starts at home. If the home crowd is not interested, harder to get support. If the home crowd reacts negatively to these voices, they will die out or move out.

Despite your claims, it would seem Halal food is not a choice everywhere (as posters were kind enough to point out not the first time). It accommodates the minority by robbing the majority of a choice, which was previously taken for granted. It is patently not anything like Kosher food, which is always clearly marked, and was never enforced on the general public as an almost sole choice (well, unless one considers Israel). As something catering for the needs of a minority - no issues, as something which is rammed down consumers throats and wallets, an issue. No one said anything about banning either, but rather it is an issue of allowing the general public a choice. If most of the meat is Halal anyway - what does it matters whether its labelled or not? This is not a real choice. And to be clear, I don't care one bit about slaughter techniques, they aren't pretty no matter what, and being me - animals got the right to be tasty.

Many main stream media outlets avoided publishing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons after the attack. Some media channels did backwards loops not to call the attackers terrorists and not to mention anything about them being Muslim or it having to do with Islam. This was actually discussed on many topics not so long ago, topics in which you partook. As for Muslims communities in the West (not even talking worldwide) - like said above, reactive statements and internet campaigns are all well and good, they do not carry the same weight of masses on the streets. When this is compared with Muslims protests and riots worldwide that supported the attack (one way or another), the relative silence is easier to hear.

You did not make your position clear, other than commenting (again) about things which are not quite central to the issue. And no, providing half a dozen links to Halal related issues in the UK and touching clip on an internet campaign are not solid backing for the general argument. But then again, this is nothing new. The usual skipping over Muslim community actions, blaming the media, claiming authorities are on top of things, one liners saying it ain't so when nothing else serves, and then expanding on a single item with a host of links to minor details. Well done.

Not here to disprove claims which I did not make. Like I said, hard to carry a meaningful exchange regarding examples this way. Call it a cop out for all I care, not impressed.

[Ulysses G.]

But then again, this is nothing new. The usual skipping over Muslim community actions, blaming the media, claiming authorities are on top of things, one liners saying it ain't so when nothing else serves, and then expanding on a single item with a host of links to minor details. Well done.

In other words, the same old SPIN!

[Steely Dan]

But then again, this is nothing new. The usual skipping over Muslim community actions, blaming the media, claiming authorities are on top of things, one liners saying it ain't so when nothing else serves, and then expanding on a single item with a host of links to minor details. Well done.

In other words, the same old SPIN!

Indeed the minor details are repeated like the stage act of some minor league club singer. They do tend (and intend) to make one forget what the topic was about, and heaven knows there is enough material relating to no go zones alone.

[arunsakda]

Brixton had tensions between police and locals in the late 70's/early 80's - culminating in the riots in 1981. That doesn't make it a no-go area.

Tottenham has had similar issues in more recent times. I know several white people that live there, too.

Brixton is now a gentrified area where young professionals push prams and sip cappuccino. I doubt one could find a flat there less than £450k.

[H1w4yR1da]

Brixton had tensions between police and locals in the late 70's/early 80's - culminating in the riots in 1981. That doesn't make it a no-go area.

Tottenham has had similar issues in more recent times. I know several white people that live there, too.

Brixton is now a gentrified area where young professionals push prams and sip cappuccino. I doubt one could find a flat there less than £450k.

It would be better to talk about the East End of London and some parts of northern towns when discussing no-go areas.

Maybe not no-go areas in the strictest sense at the moment but what with Sharia patrols and beatings, random attacks on non-muslims and rape of non-Muslim children, these areas are certainly dangerous for the indigenous population.

Edited January 28, 2015 by H1w4yR1da

[H1w4yR1da]

Another cultural thing, practised by some but by no means all Muslim women.

Usual Islamaphobe ignoring of facts which don't suit your prejudice.

Cultural? Yes, as the poster earlier stated, it's Islamic culture. Just because a few other backward tribes who call themselves something other than Islamic practice it, doesn't make it any less Islamic.

And this muslim disagrees with you.

IMAM IN AUSTRALIA DEFENDS FGM, SAYS IT’S AN ‘ISLAMIC RIGHT’……….

http://tundratabloids.com/2012/12/imam-in-australia-defends-fgm-says-its-an-islamic-right.html

Another proud shining example of Integration and respect for the indigenous culture.

Edited January 28, 2015 by H1w4yR1da

[micmichd]

Brixton had tensions between police and locals in the late 70's/early 80's - culminating in the riots in 1981. That doesn't make it a no-go area.

Tottenham has had similar issues in more recent times. I know several white people that live there, too.

Brixton is now a gentrified area where young professionals push prams and sip cappuccino. I doubt one could find a flat there less than £450k.

It would be better to talk about the East End of London and some parts of northern towns when discussing no-go areas.

Maybe not no-go areas in the strictest sense at the moment but what with Sharia patrols and beatings, random attacks on non-muslims and rape of non-Muslim children, these areas are certainly dangerous for the indigenous population.

[micmichd]

Do you mean Islamic patrols jump into bypassers and pick someone out from the queue?

[micmichd]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_HIV/AIDS

Another cultural thing, practised by some but by no means all Muslim women.

Usual Islamaphobe ignoring of facts which don't suit your prejudice.

Cultural? Yes, as the poster earlier stated, it's Islamic culture. Just because a few other backward tribes who call themselves something other than Islamic practice it, doesn't make it any less Islamic.

And this muslim disagrees with you.

IMAM IN AUSTRALIA DEFENDS FGM, SAYS ITS AN ISLAMIC RIGHT.

http://tundratabloids.com/2012/12/imam-in-australia-defends-fgm-says-its-an-islamic-right.html

Another proud shining example of Integration and respect for the indigenous culture.

Let's be fair, Christians have their ways to exclude suspects, too. Above is one.

Edited January 28, 2015 by micmichd

[chiang mai]

Opinion and input from a reliable source and a well known publication I see, not - Stop it, please, you look more like the Daily Star et al every day.

[Steely Dan]

Another cultural thing, practised by some but by no means all Muslim women.

Usual Islamaphobe ignoring of facts which don't suit your prejudice.

Cultural? Yes, as the poster earlier stated, it's Islamic culture. Just because a few other backward tribes who call themselves something other than Islamic practice it, doesn't make it any less Islamic.

And this muslim disagrees with you.

IMAM IN AUSTRALIA DEFENDS FGM, SAYS IT’S AN ‘ISLAMIC RIGHT’……….

http://tundratabloids.com/2012/12/imam-in-australia-defends-fgm-says-its-an-islamic-right.html

Another proud shining example of Integration and respect for the indigenous culture.

A UK doctor is being prosecuted for carrying out FGM and Heartlands hospital Birmingham has reported 1500 cases in five years - that's one hospital. It would seem alien third world cultures miraculously persist once people have cleared immigration.

Meanwhile the head of ISIS issues a fatwa ordering two million women in Iraq to be circumcised. Yet more culture I see, he cited preservation of Islamic values as his reason for the fatwa.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Steely Dan

[laislica]

Mr Sata, I suggest you go and look at the Halal section the next time you visit Sainsbury's, Tesco's, Morrison's etc!

Though I grant you, in an area with a small or non existent Muslim population, there probably wont be one.

If the meat was not labelled as Halal, many Muslims wouldn't buy it!

The traditional way of killing meat in non Muslim countries did not involve pre stunning or other methods these days considered humane; the animals throat was cut while the animal was conscious!

Pre stunning etc. is a relatively modern thing; in most European countries humane slaughter did not become law until the 1950s.

Even so, it doesn't always work!

The 'Humane Slaughter' Myth (Warning; following this link will take you to a video many may find distressing.)

A number of schools in the UK switched to Halal meat without telling anyone, so as not to offend the Muslim children or their families.

This was widely reported in the UK Press

The Guardian, The Telegraph and others.

Google is your friend and will help you check.

However, I have to agree with an important point that you raised.

The media is owned by corrupt people who have vested interests in stirring up trouble.

They manipulate the "News" in such a way as to incite angry upsets - you are right -

to sell their media and gain maximum profit.

[laislica]

Brixton had tensions between police and locals in the late 70's/early 80's - culminating in the riots in 1981. That doesn't make it a no-go area.

Tottenham has had similar issues in more recent times. I know several white people that live there, too.

Brixton is now a gentrified area where young professionals push prams and sip cappuccino. I doubt one could find a flat there less than £450k.

It would be better to talk about the East End of London and some parts of northern towns when discussing no-go areas.

Maybe not no-go areas in the strictest sense at the moment but what with Sharia patrols and beatings, random attacks on non-muslims and rape of non-Muslim children, these areas are certainly dangerous for the indigenous population.

As I posted before, perhaps the terminology is wrong?

Better to call them Commandeered Areas? (CA)

Brixton was a London CA and there were many across the UK, including my home town.

There is no way a white Honky would dare to venture into their lawless area, it was simply not safe.

Again as I posted before, the difference was that the "Visitors" had only one agenda, to get more skills, have more opportunities and get a better life.

As they succeeded in doing that the ghettos slowly dispersed into the wider community, allowing the run down areas to be gentrified, exactly as you described above.

The difference is that the Muslims do not want to integrate.

They want to follow the laws as written in the Koran and dominate and will not rest (be at peace)

until they have replaced the local culture with Islam and Shaira Law.

This is a requirement of the Koran - simple.

[Steely Dan]

Brixton had tensions between police and locals in the late 70's/early 80's - culminating in the riots in 1981. That doesn't make it a no-go area.

Tottenham has had similar issues in more recent times. I know several white people that live there, too.

Brixton is now a gentrified area where young professionals push prams and sip cappuccino. I doubt one could find a flat there less than £450k.

It would be better to talk about the East End of London and some parts of northern towns when discussing no-go areas.

Maybe not no-go areas in the strictest sense at the moment but what with Sharia patrols and beatings, random attacks on non-muslims and rape of non-Muslim children, these areas are certainly dangerous for the indigenous population.

The East End, funny you should mention it, here we have another mythical enforcing of Sharia.

http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/newsgallery/?public_id=39672