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

[Morch]

In reply to my accusers:

1) No go areas for non Muslims in Muslim countries is not the issue here.

I have never experienced any; though I admit I have not visited every Muslim country, and not Saudi. Any examples, anyone? .

I have never made any attempt to deny that the human rights record of some Muslim countries is appalling. But we are talking about Muslims in the West; are we not?

2) One stupid councillor in Radstock, not Bradford, made a stupid comment about the English flag.

The Muslim reaction to her comment? From the same article

The objections raised about the flag of St George were branded “oversensitive” by the local Muslim community while the Muslim Council of Britain said England's patron saint should not be associated with “any hatred of Muslims”.

Spokeswoman Nasima Begum said: "St George needs to take his rightful place as a national symbol of inclusivity rather than a symbol of hatred.”

There's more from Muslims along the same lines, but Forum fair use rules mean I can't quote all of the comments in that article.

This another example of someone reading just the headline and using it here to 'prove' their view. One would think they'd have learned by now to read the whole article!

3) Peaceful demonstration is one of the rights we enjoy in the UK; and if the Palestinian flag was raised over Preston town Hall in such a protest; so what? It doesn't fly there permanently!

The Union Flag does.

I live in a town with a large Muslim population; the town hall regularly flies both the Union Flag and the Cross of St. George (sorry, can't find a picture).

4) Most (all?) of the posted 'experiences' about 'no go zones' in the UK come from members who live in Thailand!

I live in the UK in a town with a large Muslim population. I regularly travel to other towns with as large, even larger, Muslim populations. My experiences are totally different.

The only time I was ever made to feel unwelcome was not in a predominantly Muslim area, but in a predominantly West Indian one; but that was many years ago shortly after the Broadwater Farm riot.

'White flight' has occurred for many years, mainly caused by prejudice and concerns over property prices that prejudice brings. It didn't start when Muslims moved in; it started when West Indians moved in; though it wasn't called white flight then.

Of course, if white families do move out of an area when non white families move in then, for example, schools in that area are going to have fewer white pupils.

5) Sharia courts, Beth Din and other arbitration services has been explained. That certain posters don't see the reality of the situation of such services and that their status under UK law is exactly the same only shows that they are blinded by prejudice.

6) Unfortunately, the UK is not crime free and all sorts of crimes do continue to be committed and, unfortunately, often the perpetrators are not caught and so go unpunished. But attempting to enforce Shari law in the streets on non Muslims is a crime and is punished; if you post a video of yourself committing a crime on YouTube then the police are going to come knocking on your door!

Such attempts are also condemned by Muslims in the UK; Muslim leaders speak out against ‘vigilante’ group that has tried to enforce its version of Islam in East London

Muslim groups have condemned a string of YouTube videos that have been uploaded over the last few weeks by a vigilante group in Tower Hamlets.

A spokesperson for the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), which is based in Whitechapel commented on a series of videos that show the group’s attempt to enforce Sharia Law.

He said: “The views expressed in the videos are not justified in the religion of Islam.

“The vast majority of British Muslims do not hold this view and utterly condemn it.”

7) That the TV channel which broadcast the views of the radical cleric was fined shows that the broadcasting of such views is unacceptable in the UK.

8) So called no go zones in the UK are a myth; and those of us who live in the UK know this.

That some prejudiced people refuse to enter an area with a large Muslim population is their choice; nothing is stopping them from so doing except their own prejudice.

Evidence from non Muslim residents, business owners etc. in other European cities shows this to be the case there, as well.

There is a consistent refusal to acknowledge is that while each instance may be deemed as insignificant by itself, and may (or may not) be condemned and rejected by community leaders, this holds up to a point. When taking all these isolated instances as a whole - things look different. Denying that this point of view as legitimate needs better arguments than simply wishing it away.

That some claims are overblown, incorrect or disregard context, does not make all of them irrelevant of mistaken. Picking which instances to refute and asserting that this is general proof for all others being wrong will not convince anyone but the convinced.

Posters who related their experiences may currently live in Thailand - their experiences detailed happened in relevant countries. That others have different experiences - fair enough, the world would be boring otherwise. Doesn't make for wholesale dismissal of alternate experience.

The issue with sympathizers of the notion that Sharia law become the law of the land is that these persistent calls, regardless of their success, are an abomination as far as the overwhelming majority is concerned. That there is no stomping of these calls, be it for fear of upsetting PC sensitivities or tacit tolerance by Muslim community rightly angers people. Had Sharia courts been the full scope of the issue, comparing it to their Jewish counterparts would have been relevant. Rather, it is the voices that demand further concessions for Muslim culture abroad that cause more animosity. If it was simply a matter of taking what's given (Sharia courts as strictly afforded by the law of the land) things wouldn't seem as bad.

[7by7]

I am not asking about attacks on places of worship: which, of course, no one can defend.

Whether they be Muslims attacking churches and synagogues, or non Muslims attacking mosques: Research reveals HALF of all Britain's mosques have been attacked since 9/11 as anti-Islam violence spreads

I am asking about no go areas for non Muslims in Muslim countries; not opinions about them, but facts.

As far as I can ascertain, the only place in any Muslim country non Muslims are legally banned from entering is Mecca.

No one has yet been able to provide any other examples..

[F430murci]

Call it what you like, but this sounds like a Muslim no-go zone and is an apparent indication of what happens when police try to enter these types of areas.

Reporting approximately 30 police killed when they entered this area of autonomy with an autonomous government and tried to arrest a bomb maker.

--------

Under the deal, brokered by Malaysia, the Moro rebels were to surrender their weapons and disband after the government had set up a new autonomous government in the south and granted the Muslim minority wider economic and political power.

Police had wanted to arrest Zulkifli bin Hir, a Malaysian bomb expert who has a $5 million bounty on his head from the U.S. State Department, an army spokesman said.

Local officials in Mamasapano said 27 police officers and five rebels were killed. Seven more police officers were unaccounted for and a further eight captured by Muslim rebels.

http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKBN0KY0LZ20150125?irpc=932

Edited January 25, 2015 by F430murci

[Mosha]

I am not asking about attacks on places of worship: which, of course, no one can defend.

Whether they be Muslims attacking churches and synagogues, or non Muslims attacking mosques: Research reveals HALF of all Britain's mosques have been attacked since 9/11 as anti-Islam violence spreads

I am asking about no go areas for non Muslims in Muslim countries; not opinions about them, but facts.

As far as I can ascertain, the only place in any Muslim country non Muslims are legally banned from entering is Mecca.

No one has yet been able to provide any other examples..

Medina - Non muslims are forbidden to enter, That took all of 30 secs to research. I'm a slow typer

[Morch]

The only Muslim country which does not allow public worship by non Muslims is Saudi Arabia.

Other than that, please give some examples of non Muslim no go areas in Muslim countries.

There is quite a large gap between what is supposedly allowed and what happens in practice.

Muslims could hold a mass prayer/public gathering in most Western cities (assumed city authorities approve), without great fear of incurring consequences. Now try applying the same for Christians (not to mention Jews) in the Muslim world.

[7by7]

Morch;

I have taken the 'incidents' reported by certain members and shown them to be false. Not insignificant; false.

I agree that people do have different experiences; but as I said those who claim such no go areas exist are usually prompted by their own refusal to enter the area concerned; the facts show that these areas in the West are a myth. Many non Muslims freely enter them, live in them, work in them.

Calls for the imposition of Sharia law in any part the UK, or any other non Muslim country, are an abomination. But such calls come from a tiny minority of the Muslim community in those countries and are, rightly, condemned by Muslim politicians, clerics, representatives and individuals in the country concerned.

This vast majority are, as you put it, 'taking what they have been given.'

Calls for Muslims in the West to be rounded up and put into camps until deported (sound familiar?), and I've seen such calls on this very forum, are just as much an abomination.

[Morch]

Sorry to spoil the party again.

It is simply not true that Christian or Jewish enclaves are not allowed in any "Moslem country".

I've got a friend from Bethlehem, Christian Palestine. And one Arab fiend from Tel Aviv, Israel. Both areas are not considered to be 'no go' areas for Muslims or any other religion. I've got friends from Damaskus, Syria. Damaskus is one of the biggest Jewish and Christian enclaves in the world. Same same Beirut, Bagdad before Mr - sorry, I forgot the name - found a good excuse to blow it up. And many many more, last not least Istanbul, West Turkey, and, of course, Bangkok and Thailand. Not every West Asian or Arab nation with a Muslim majority is an Islamic Republic. Some are, of course, but they are only a handful of them.

IS and AlQaida now find themselves on the losing side, so they were waiting for a good chance to strike an attack, in order to keep their troops amused and get their follower in line. You are only doing their job if you blow for a crusade as revenge. If you really don't like them, for whatever reason, you should simply ignore them. Striking back, and maybe declaring a war on Muslims in Europe, is the biggest favour you can do them. They had their chance, and most Muslim countries took their chance. The trick is not to blame them all, but to pick out the hardliners and isolate them.

Why bother with facts when one got friends to tell him what's what?

Nevertheless, Jewish communities, such as they are, in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq are almost non-existent nowadays (and to make it clear, this been the situation for many years now, the numbers of Jews in Iraq dwindled long before both Gulf Wars).

[Morch]

Morch;

I have taken the 'incidents' reported by certain members and shown them to be false. Not insignificant; false.

I agree that people do have different experiences; but as I said those who claim such no go areas exist are usually prompted by their own refusal to enter the area concerned; the facts show that these areas in the West are a myth. Many non Muslims freely enter them, live in them, work in them.

Calls for the imposition of Sharia law in any part the UK, or any other non Muslim country, are an abomination. But such calls come from a tiny minority of the Muslim community in those countries and are, rightly, condemned by Muslim politicians, clerics, representatives and individuals in the country concerned.

This vast majority are, as you put it, 'taking what they have been given.'

Calls for Muslims in the West to be rounded up and put into camps until deported (sound familiar?), and I've seen such calls on this very forum, are just as much an abomination.

You have taken to disproving some, and explaining away or ignoring others. Whenever faced by something which cannot be refuted, the standard claim is that its just a tiny minority which is not representative or an isolated case. That is, if it even gets acknowledged. Other occasions, a rather minor detail is used to discredit the whole thing (what comes to mind in this regard is the clip with the USA reporter, which was clearly over the top, although the clip itself showed some disturbing things - just an example).

I do not necessarily hold the notion that No Go zones are actually completely No Go. Doesn't have to be a binary definition, and it might not be quite the same in every area, city or country. That there are currently areas in Western cities which are mostly populated by Muslims and in which, to one degree or another, non-Muslims and certain manifestations of Western culture are not welcome is undeniable. Whether one wishes to term the as No Go zones is another matter. Obviously, clinging to the literal and extreme interpretation of "No Go zone" is not quite what most posters were about. It is a myth only in as much as someone makes a far reaching claim as the one you seem to be trying to deny - not sure that this best describes all (or most) of the posts so far.

The point with voices calling for Sharia law to be the law of the land is that despite all the asserted negative and non-supportive view of the Muslim community, these calls remain persistent and do not lose much potency. There could easily be a protest assembled over this or that outrage against Islams or Muslims (even in relation to events happening elsewhere). Getting people to march against something like calls for Sharia law....not that much.

Can't recall my posts having much to do with calls for rounding up Muslims and deporting them, other than generally rejecting these notions. Sure there was a point to bringing it up, though...?

[micmichd]

The only Muslim country which does not allow public worship by non Muslims is Saudi Arabia.

Other than that, please give some examples of non Muslim no go areas in Muslim countries.

Ask the Coptic Christians of Baghdad.

Six suicide jihadis of a group called Islamic State of Iraq attacked a Syrian Catholic church in Baghdad during Sunday evening Mass, on 31 October 2010, and started killing the worshippers, helping the Christians to hell and themselves to heaven, as they said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Baghdad_church_massacre

I could go on. I dont think I need to.

I think you need to understand numbers. 2010 was long ago, do you want anyone else to refer to yesterday's papers? Even the IS border attacks in Saudi Arabia seem to be now under control, I guess even the Saudis prefer US Dollars to Jihad. I guess 'no-go areas' are only no-go areas for fundamentalists who are out for trouble, and maybe right-wing groups should be banned from there.

The rest is an issue for Urban Housing and Development, nothing else. Certainly a good idea from the Mayor of Paris to 'de-slum' the Moslem area, maybe not so good an idea to settle Charlie Hebdo there at present times. There are bad and good examples for Urban Housing and Urban Development in all European cities (and in Thailand), and also for the correction of past mistakes.

[chuckd]

I am not asking about attacks on places of worship: which, of course, no one can defend.

Whether they be Muslims attacking churches and synagogues, or non Muslims attacking mosques: Research reveals HALF of all Britain's mosques have been attacked since 9/11 as anti-Islam violence spreads

I am asking about no go areas for non Muslims in Muslim countries; not opinions about them, but facts.

As far as I can ascertain, the only place in any Muslim country non Muslims are legally banned from entering is Mecca.

No one has yet been able to provide any other examples..

...and Medinah.

[dragonfly94]

How about making western Europe a no go area for any more Muslim immigration, after all it's not been a success has it

[Ulysses G.]

I think you need to understand numbers. 2010 was long ago

2010 is not long ago. 1910 is long ago.

[Steely Dan]

As Morch stated the problem is far greater than would be the case if you just adopt an unrealistic binary 'yes' or 'no'. To do so can only be reasonably regarded as yet another strategy for giving a misleading impression as to what things are really like. This is why the decline of Christian populations in the Middle East or Jewish ones in France and Sweden are telling.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/22/inside-frances-sharia-no-go-zones/

[craigt3365]

Please stay on topic. This is not a review of media outlets.

[H1w4yR1da]

Excellent article here.

"Large Islamic populations have pushed hard against the European way of life and become what Caldwell calls an "adversary culture" that rejects the tolerance and secularism modern left-leaning Europe has so aggressively embraced in its laws, often in fear of non-Muslim religious influences on contemporary lifestyles."

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/010715-733743-france-learns-too-late-its-been-importing-seeds-of-terrorism.html

Edited January 26, 2015 by H1w4yR1da

[laislica]

In August, an Islamic television channel based in Birmingham was hit with a hefty fine after a Muslim hate preacher told viewers—live on air—that it was the duty of all Muslims to murder anyone who shows disrespect for the Prophet Mohammed.

Noor TV, a Satellite Television Channel that broadcasts programs about Islam throughout Europe, was fined £85,000 ($115,000) by the British broadcasting regulator known as Ofcom for inciting people to commit murder.

In a separate case, Ofcom ordered DM Digital Television to pay a fine of £85,000 ($115,000) after it broadcast a speech by an Islamic scholar who said Muslims had "a duty to kill" anyone who insulted the Prophet Mohammed.

The Manchester-based channel—which claims it has a worldwide audience of 30 million—describes itself as bringing "Asian and English cultures closer" by integrating its people, the cultural diversity, communities and the economy.

Such wonderful people. Shock horror. A Muslim Scholar uttering such words of peace and love.

Full viewing here.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b69_1390450017

If we were consistent then there would be prohibitions on broadcasting excerpts from the Quran and Hadiths which could be considered as advocating violent or supremacist behavior. After all a man was arrested for quoting verbatim Winston Churchill seeing as the quote was deemed offensive by some.

Which leads to this question:

Which translation of the Koran can Non-Arabic speakers trust?

A friend was working in Dubai and bought an English translation of the Koran.

Only to be advised by an Arab linguist that it was a "toned down version"

- so as not to alarm....

[JockPieandBeans]

In August, an Islamic television channel based in Birmingham was hit with a hefty fine after a Muslim hate preacher told viewers—live on air—that it was the duty of all Muslims to murder anyone who shows disrespect for the Prophet Mohammed.

Noor TV, a Satellite Television Channel that broadcasts programs about Islam throughout Europe, was fined £85,000 ($115,000) by the British broadcasting regulator known as Ofcom for inciting people to commit murder.

In a separate case, Ofcom ordered DM Digital Television to pay a fine of £85,000 ($115,000) after it broadcast a speech by an Islamic scholar who said Muslims had "a duty to kill" anyone who insulted the Prophet Mohammed.

The Manchester-based channel—which claims it has a worldwide audience of 30 million—describes itself as bringing "Asian and English cultures closer" by integrating its people, the cultural diversity, communities and the economy.

Such wonderful people. Shock horror. A Muslim Scholar uttering such words of peace and love.

Full viewing here.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b69_1390450017

If we were consistent then there would be prohibitions on broadcasting excerpts from the Quran and Hadiths which could be considered as advocating violent or supremacist behavior. After all a man was arrested for quoting verbatim Winston Churchill seeing as the quote was deemed offensive by some.

Which leads to this question:

Which translation of the Koran can Non-Arabic speakers trust?

A friend was working in Dubai and bought an English translation of the Koran.

Only to be advised by an Arab linguist that it was a "toned down version"

- so as not to alarm....

As " Moderate " Muslims and a raft of " Islamic Militant " Muslims have different interpretations of the Koran.

I do not think it really matters what version non - Arabic speakers trust.

[phrodan]

I have never seen so much drivel posted in my life. That 7x7 guy makes a very valid point about people barring themselves from entering so-called no go areas. We refer to them as sh*tebags and there's plenty of them on this thread. Normally these sh*tebags are the first to call for military action against everyone while they run the other direction.

Typical of a certain brand of my fellow Brits. Cowards to the core and witless with it.

[JockPieandBeans]

I have never seen so much drivel posted in my life. That 7x7 guy makes a very valid point about people barring themselves from entering so-called no go areas. We refer to them as sh*tebags and there's plenty of them on this thread. Normally these sh*tebags are the first to call for military action against everyone while they run the other direction.

Typical of a certain brand of my fellow Brits. Cowards to the core and witless with it.

Yes, he does seem to represent some of your descriptive fellow Brits.

They are usually called apologists, PC Brigade or other such name.

Again, you are correct. They are usually the 1st to scream for Military intervention, having never served themselves.

Quite an apt description. Well done.

[7by7]

<snip>

As far as I can ascertain, the only place in any Muslim country non Muslims are legally banned from entering is Mecca.

No one has yet been able to provide any other examples..

Medina - Non muslims are forbidden to enter, That took all of 30 secs to research. I'm a slow typer

I stand corrected on that point; so that's two.

Any others?

However, to quote from the start of the OP

Why the Muslim 'No-Go-Zone' Myth Won't Die

There's no evidence of extremist takeover of areas in Europe or the United States. So why do the claims continue?

DAVID A. GRAHAM

Have you heard about the areas of Europe, or perhaps even of the United States, that are run by jihadists and which non-Muslims can't even enter?

So the fact that non Muslims are not allowed to enter the two holiest cities in the Muslim world, neither of which are in Europe or the USA, is hardly relevant to the topic; is it?

Neither is a battle between government forces and rebels in the Philippines.

Neither is the status of non Muslim places of worship in Muslim countries.

Though I will say that just because some countries do not allow freedom of religion, freedom of movement, freedom of speech and some or all of the other freedoms we take for granted is not a justifiable reason for us to abandon or restrict those freedoms ourselves.

Even though some members here want us to.

As for the rest of my points, I see the usual suspects have reverted to their usual tactics of childish derision and insults; as they always do when presented with facts they don't like but can't refute.

[Morch]

<snip>

As far as I can ascertain, the only place in any Muslim country non Muslims are legally banned from entering is Mecca.

No one has yet been able to provide any other examples..

Medina - Non muslims are forbidden to enter, That took all of 30 secs to research. I'm a slow typer

I stand corrected on that point; so that's two.

Any others?

However, to quote from the start of the OP

Why the Muslim 'No-Go-Zone' Myth Won't Die

There's no evidence of extremist takeover of areas in Europe or the United States. So why do the claims continue?

DAVID A. GRAHAM

Have you heard about the areas of Europe, or perhaps even of the United States, that are run by jihadists and which non-Muslims can't even enter?

So the fact that non Muslims are not allowed to enter the two holiest cities in the Muslim world, neither of which are in Europe or the USA, is hardly relevant to the topic; is it?

Neither is a battle between government forces and rebels in the Philippines.

Neither is the status of non Muslim places of worship in Muslim countries.

Though I will say that just because some countries do not allow freedom of religion, freedom of movement, freedom of speech and some or all of the other freedoms we take for granted is not a justifiable reason for us to abandon or restrict those freedoms ourselves.

Even though some members here want us to.

As for the rest of my points, I see the usual suspects have reverted to their usual tactics of childish derision and insults; as they always do when presented with facts they don't like but can't refute.

Though I will say that just because some countries do not allow freedom of religion, freedom of movement, freedom of speech and some or all of the other freedoms we take for granted is not a justifiable reason for us to abandon or restrict those freedoms ourselves.

Eh?

Muslims in the West enjoy freedom of religion, freedom of movement and freedom of speech. The issue is not abandoning or restricting these freedoms, which are already granted. This is more about some of the Muslims in the West seemingly wanting more than that. If anything, most of the debate got to do with restrictions applied to the majority in order to accommodate the sensitivities of a minority group.

[dragonfly94]

<snip>

As far as I can ascertain, the only place in any Muslim country non Muslims are legally banned from entering is Mecca.

No one has yet been able to provide any other examples..

Medina - Non muslims are forbidden to enter, That took all of 30 secs to research. I'm a slow typer

I stand corrected on that point; so that's two.

Any others?

Well there was your fake claim the Bible in both testaments has laws about wife beating, then there was the wrong Voltaire quote, so that's 4, any more?

[7by7]

<snip>

Though I will say that just because some countries do not allow freedom of religion, freedom of movement, freedom of speech and some or all of the other freedoms we take for granted is not a justifiable reason for us to abandon or restrict those freedoms ourselves.

Even though some members here want us to.

Though I will say that just because some countries do not allow freedom of religion, freedom of movement, freedom of speech and some or all of the other freedoms we take for granted is not a justifiable reason for us to abandon or restrict those freedoms ourselves.

Eh?

Muslims in the West enjoy freedom of religion, freedom of movement and freedom of speech.

Indeed; but some members here want to restrict those freedoms.

The issue is not abandoning or restricting these freedoms, which are already granted. This is more about some of the Muslims in the West seemingly wanting more than that. If anything, most of the debate got to do with restrictions applied to the majority in order to accommodate the sensitivities of a minority group.

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?

[7by7]

Well there was your (7by7) fake claim the Bible in both testaments has laws about wife beating, then there was the wrong Voltaire quote, so that's 4, any more?

Not an answer to the question I asked about places in Muslim countries where non Muslims are banned; but:-

I corrected my error on that particular Biblical point.

I did not misquote Voltaire; I said that the source of the quote was unknown, though often attributed to him.

Is English your first language?

[JockPieandBeans]

<snip>

As far as I can ascertain, the only place in any Muslim country non Muslims are legally banned from entering is Mecca.

No one has yet been able to provide any other examples..

Medina - Non muslims are forbidden to enter, That took all of 30 secs to research. I'm a slow typer

I stand corrected on that point; so that's two.

Any others?

Well there was your fake claim the Bible in both testaments has laws about wife beating, then there was the wrong Voltaire quote, so that's 4, any more?

The post deleted today, where there was a fabricated paragraph about being threatened with physical violence on these pages.

There's number 5

[7by7]

1) How do you know it was fabricated; are you calling me a liar? Can you read my PMs?

2) What has it to do with Muslim cities non Muslims can't enter.

Like dragonfly94, you are really getting desperate.

Why not try and provide a rational refutation of my points, with independent evidence, instead of this childish game?

[Morch]

<snip>

Though I will say that just because some countries do not allow freedom of religion, freedom of movement, freedom of speech and some or all of the other freedoms we take for granted is not a justifiable reason for us to abandon or restrict those freedoms ourselves.

Even though some members here want us to.

Though I will say that just because some countries do not allow freedom of religion, freedom of movement, freedom of speech and some or all of the other freedoms we take for granted is not a justifiable reason for us to abandon or restrict those freedoms ourselves.

Eh?

Muslims in the West enjoy freedom of religion, freedom of movement and freedom of speech.

Indeed; but some members here want to restrict those freedoms.

The issue is not abandoning or restricting these freedoms, which are already granted. This is more about some of the Muslims in the West seemingly wanting more than that. If anything, most of the debate got to do with restrictions applied to the majority in order to accommodate the sensitivities of a minority group.

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?

Most members are not in a position to restrict anyone, except for Moderators and such. In effect, Muslims in the West enjoy a wide array of freedoms and rights, many of which are not open to them in Muslim countries. There are no real plans that I am aware of to drastically change this state of things. The far more common position is that further demands for concessions and rights are to be withheld, and that cases were lines are crossed ought to be dealt with in a far stricter manner. That is not quite the same things as taking freedoms and rights away.

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.

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".

[laislica]

If we were consistent then there would be prohibitions on broadcasting excerpts from the Quran and Hadiths which could be considered as advocating violent or supremacist behavior. After all a man was arrested for quoting verbatim Winston Churchill seeing as the quote was deemed offensive by some.

Which leads to this question:

Which translation of the Koran can Non-Arabic speakers trust?

A friend was working in Dubai and bought an English translation of the Koran.

Only to be advised by an Arab linguist that it was a "toned down version"

- so as not to alarm....

As " Moderate " Muslims and a raft of " Islamic Militant " Muslims have different interpretations of the Koran.

I do not think it really matters what version non - Arabic speakers trust.

I understand there is only one possible way to understand of the Koran,

that the later passages supersede any conflicting more moderate earlier passages.

The principle of Taqiyya allows a Muslim to deceive or lie in order to better further the spread of Islam.

My point was that unless a translation is totally honest and true, only Arab speakers would really understand what the Koran means.

[JockPieandBeans]

If we were consistent then there would be prohibitions on broadcasting excerpts from the Quran and Hadiths which could be considered as advocating violent or supremacist behavior. After all a man was arrested for quoting verbatim Winston Churchill seeing as the quote was deemed offensive by some.

Which leads to this question:

Which translation of the Koran can Non-Arabic speakers trust?

A friend was working in Dubai and bought an English translation of the Koran.

Only to be advised by an Arab linguist that it was a "toned down version"

- so as not to alarm....

As " Moderate " Muslims and a raft of " Islamic Militant " Muslims have different interpretations of the Koran.

I do not think it really matters what version non - Arabic speakers trust.

I understand there is only one possible way to understand of the Koran,

that the later passages supersede any conflicting more moderate earlier passages.

The principle of Taqiyya allows a Muslim to deceive or lie in order to better further the spread of Islam.

My point was that unless a translation is totally honest and true, only Arab speakers would really understand what the Koran means.

Your 1st paragraph is absolutely correct.

My point was that even Arab speakers do not really understand the Koran. The so called " Islamic scholars " cannot even agree. what hope is there for the remainder.

The standard of education in a lot of Islamic Countries hammers home the reality, that a great many Muslims have no idea what the Koran actually says, as they cannot read it, but rely on what their Imams preach to them.

Therein lies the problem.

[laislica]

Which leads to this question:

Which translation of the Koran can Non-Arabic speakers trust?

A friend was working in Dubai and bought an English translation of the Koran.

Only to be advised by an Arab linguist that it was a "toned down version"

- so as not to alarm....

As " Moderate " Muslims and a raft of " Islamic Militant " Muslims have different interpretations of the Koran.

I do not think it really matters what version non - Arabic speakers trust.

I understand there is only one possible way to understand of the Koran,

that the later passages supersede any conflicting more moderate earlier passages.

The principle of Taqiyya allows a Muslim to deceive or lie in order to better further the spread of Islam.

My point was that unless a translation is totally honest and true, only Arab speakers would really understand what the Koran means.

Your 1st paragraph is absolutely correct.

My point was that even Arab speakers do not really understand the Koran. The so called " Islamic scholars " cannot even agree. what hope is there for the remainder.

The standard of education in a lot of Islamic Countries hammers home the reality, that a great many Muslims have no idea what the Koran actually says, as they cannot read it, but rely on what their Imams preach to them.

Therein lies the problem.

I'd like to agree with you except that I believe all the scholars really do agree but they hide behind the principal of Taqiyya

which allow them to appear to differ for the benefit of non-Muslims.

Muslims are allowed to deceive non-Muslims if it helps Islam.

For non-Muslims this principle, called Taqiyya is another surprising concept of Islam.

While most other religions speak highly of truthfulness, the Koran instructs Muslims to lie to non-Muslims about the beliefs and political ambitions to protect and spread Islam.

There are many examples of today's Islamic leaders saying one thing in English for the Western press and then saying something entirely different to their own followers in Arabic a few days later. Deceiving the enemy is always useful in war and Islam is at war with the non-Islamic world until the world follows Sharia law. All non-Muslims living in non-Islamic states are therefore enemies, so deceiving Westerners is totally acceptable, even encouraged if it can forward the goals of the spread of Islam.

As a recent example, Islamic American relief agency was seemingly raising money for orphans but in fact giving the money to terrorists. They deceived goodhearted Western infidels into giving money to organisations that are actively killing Western infidels.

Having said this, I believe that we are on the same page, maybe we just describe it slightly differently?