I wonder what being Muslim in name only means?
The BBC has an item on Today asking if Islam is not compatible with modernity, can Islam ever comfortably conform to Western society? Ali Allawi, former cabinet minister in the Iraqi post-war governments, argues in his new book The Crisis of Islamic Civilisation that Muslim modernisers have been seduced by a certainty in scientific knowledge to the extent that they are now Muslim in name alone.
Not sure where this one goes. It seems to me that for some Islamics their interest in “scientific knowledge” does not extend much beyond wiring up an explosives belt or planting a road site bomb. Or maybe piloting a plane or two. To express such a view on the BBC, as I have done on a few occasions, is to invoke the wrath of the Beeboids. It strikes me that Muslim modernisers is an oxymoronic term, a bit like principled politician or balanced BBC. Why can we not challenge Islam, just as every other faith is challenged? Might it be that whilst all religions are equal, some are more equal than others?
Regarding Malik – i knew he was dodgy when i heard his first name “Shahid”
Dig around and you’ll find the real meaning of that name.
“Micheal Neumann said… 6:14 PM, May 15, 2009”
Christendom has given us the United States of America – the greatest Republic that ever existed in human history.
One doesnt need to say any more.
sorry -typo – “the greatest Republic that HAS ever existed”.
although, at the rate Obama is going, i wouldnt be surprised if the USA is referred to in the past tense within 20 years.
“Ut strikes me that Muslim modernisers is an oxymoronic term, a bit like principled politician or balanced BBC.”
Or, indeed, like “moderate Muslim”
“CryBaby, you seem to be a good example of the uneducated non-religious fanatic, where your only ‘wisdom’ seems to come from BNP leaflets.”
Childish abuse
Delete please
Childish abuse
Delete please
11:57 PM, May 15, 2009
asking for deletion of comments you disagree with says more about you than the comment you object to.
Anon – I challenge you to back that up. You are indeed accusing me of being racist which I’m more than happy to debate because you are wrong.
I’m sick and tired of some minorities using the race card in this country. It’s not fair and Malik did it yesterday with the Telegraph. You all saw it!
But for speaking my mind I’ve become a childish, BNP racist!
And by the way, I am not white – I am an asian so now what?
I totally stand by what I said above and will not delete those comments. I say it from experience and believe it to be accurate and true.
Dont worry about it. No name or I.D = No worthwhile opinion. (unless its Atlas Shrugged, who is cheerfully consistent)
The first comment on this thread proves that this particular Anonymous has no personal integrity and just comes here looking for a fight. His comment at the top of this thread is the perfect example. He decided based solely on reading David Vance’s post that it must have been different than what DV claimed. It’s totally obvious to anyone who actually listened to the segment that this Anonymous didn’t even bother to do that. He just took a contrary position out of spite. That’s troll behavior, and not just providing a “counterfactual”.
I dont object to fellow bloggers putting me straight, that’s completely cool because if they’re right, I’ll accept it and I’ve shown that in this thread.
What is uncool is accusing someone of being something without backing it up – and I agree with your point about anonymous troll behaviour.
CryBaby,
Our trolls (except the time-waster – earlier on this thread – who pestered Sue yesterday) like to accuse without backing things up. They are dicks.
What I like about this site is that its contributors do back things up. We give evidence, and often plenty of it, when we accuse people. Your troll was a dick.
If it was the same troll I (and Martin) replied to earlier, it also didn't read what we actually wrote very carefully & was a very stupid troll.
crybaby – “Pakis – the UK seems to be focussing on immigrating and promoting this lot because they are the lowest for”
That is racist.
DP – David Vance writes:
“It seems to me that for some Islamics their interest in “scientific knowledge” does not extend much beyond wiring up an explosives belt or planting a road site bomb. Or maybe piloting a plane or two. To express such a view on the BBC, as I have done on a few occasions, is to invoke the wrath of the Beeboids. It strikes me that Muslim modernisers is an oxymoronic term, a bit like principled politician or balanced BBC.”
If you don’t see that this view is asinine, offensive, and not worthy of serious engagement then i suggest it is you who have no personal integrity.
Anonymous. First of all, using the word paki is NOT racist. Pakistani people call themselves pakis. (and if you search paki on you-tube, there’s 100s of native pakistanis using this term when referring to themselves) i.e. one such video is called Paki 4 Life. Look it up!
So its ok for them to call themselves a paki, but god forbid should anyone else say it – they’d be branded a racist!
Unfortunately for me, I used to live in a densely populated paki area, most of these were immigrants, a lot of them would also claim benefits. They would also arrange marriages to get more relatives into the country and breeding? – well I dont have all day to go into that one!
There’s loads of shameful things I’ve seen them do and this has nothing to do with their colour and everything to do with their attitudes. It’s no wonder the good British people are getting hacked off – I dont blame them.
Anon, these are just facts and not hatred or racism. I admit that I am disgusted with the government for allowing this to happen and it still is! If you went to a few of these areas for yourself, you would see what I mean. Unless of course you already do?
A few years back I went Pakistan for a colleague’s wedding and then it all became crystal clear why there’s so many immigrants and why I felt disgusted with the majority of them! It’s because the whole country is a shit-hole.
It seems some people are icapable of accepting bare facts. Chritendom give us the USA? I suppose the genocide of native Americans coupled with Hiroshima, My Lai, Iraq, the contras yadda yadda yadda is really something to be proud of.
Anonymouswineliberal 5:54 PM
Now you’re just changing the subject by attacking David Vance. As always, you’re unwilling and unable to actually, honestly discuss BBC bias.
‘I was groomed for jihad in Britain’
A Muslim teenager in London gives the first inside account of how extremists are luring recruits.The Times
Crybaby – It is your term “they are the lowest form” that betrays your racist attitudes.
DP – The BBC not allowing a “challenge” from the asinine viewpoint DV holds is not a sign that it lacks impartiality. It is a sign that it possesses journalistic integrity.
That said, DV is of course a regular contributor to the BBC.
So anyone who makes any opinion of pikeys or gypsies are also racist then? Nonsense!
Assumptions and opinions are based on how that cultural group of people act in their lives and I dont give a monkeys about political correctness in relation to this.
It’s this correctness that stops us from admitting the truth.
Rather than pick up on the words I use, I would prefer that you prove to me that my view of these people is incorrect and here is why.
I 100% stand by my opinion.
M.N.
You need to check your facts on Hiroshima. It is obvious you don’t have a clue about what lay behind Truman’s decision. But no doubt Truman is a bete noir to you because he recognised the State of Israel – for essentially moral reasons.
You obviously hate the Americans’ history. Just like the BBC, you cannot see that it is the US that has defended us for 60 years, the Americans that have funded the UN, the Americans who had the balls to intervene in Yugoslavia, the Americans who give far far more than any other nation per capita in charity eg to Africa. It is your lot – the Russians and Chinese etc, who really fuel the arms trade, who prop up dictatorships, who are the real villains.
Anonymouswineliberal @9:01 AM
DP – The BBC not allowing a “challenge” from the asinine viewpoint DV holds is not a sign that it lacks impartiality. It is a sign that it possesses journalistic integrity.
You still haven’t even listened to the segment, have you? You don’t know what David Vance is even talking about, yet you just keep on digging.
The fact remains that you didn’t listen to the segment at all, and merely took your own misreading of DV’s post and ran with it. Your comment at the top of this thread takes a contrary position based solely on your own imagination. You didn’t listen to the segment, you misunderstood what DV wrote, and you decided to contradict him anyway.
Don’t you understand what you’ve done here?
‘politicalislam.com’:-
“The Good Holocaust Denial”
[Extract]:
“The German Holocaust created Israel and the modern Jew. Although not all Jews agree on the truth of the Torah, all Jews agree on the German Holocaust. To deny the truth of the Holocaust is a crime in Germany. German Holocaust denial will even get the ire of the cultural Jew who never crosses the threshold of the synagogue.
“Notice that the term German Holocaust is used, not Holocaust, because there is a much earlier Holocaust that occurred under Mohammed in Arabia. But as we will see, the German Holocaust and its basis in a totalitarian ideology can be criticized, while the political ideology of Islam is beyond the pale of critical thought. We may savage the Nazi and his ideology, but the Muslim and his ideology of political Islam has to be respected with the silence of deliberate ignorance-denial and justification.” (Bill Warner.)
DP
Recognise the following:
“If Islam is not compatible with modernity, can Islam ever comfortably conform to Western society? Ali Allawi, former cabinet minister in the Iraqi post-war governments, argues in his new book The Crisis of Islamic Civilisation that Muslim modernisers have been seduced by a certainty in scientific knowledge to the extent that they are now Muslim in name alone”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8051000/8051253.stm
David Vance lifted half his copy from the Today programme website. The piece was actually playing when David posted below about TFTD (it starts at 8:24, DV posted the TFTD piece at 8:25, and the Allawi piece at 8:35 – a suspiciously rapid reaction). It is my contention that David didn’t listen to the piece; merely saw what the subject was on the website and used it as a peg for his asinine comments about Islam.
This is perhaps a fascinating insight into DV’s methods. How much of the coverage he implies he has heard has he actually heard I wonder. You can see from both these pieces that he doesn’t actually suggest he’s heard them, or offer insights based on his interpretation on what he’s heard (see his more personalised comments on Tiger Tiger by way of contrast). The McFall piece too could have been written based on what appeared on the Today itinerary. Indeed, on the latter you’ll see on his blog that Oliver Kamm has mixed reviews on McFall’s (cross-party) Committee’s reports – which may well have come across on the interview (i haven’t heard it)
Can DV assure us he actually listened to these items? I don’t think he did, or certainly not all of them.
PS – you’re right by the way: I didn’t listen to the piece when first i posted, so mea culpa and sorry about that. I broke a golden rule that i should never comment on something i haven’t heard or read. My guess is though I’m on an equal footing with DV on that.
Anonymouswineliberal,
You clearly still haven’t listened to the segment. Your contention that David Vance could not possibly have listened to it either shows that you haven’t listened to it yet. Otherwise, you’d realize that the first words out of Humphrys’ mouth would be enough for anyone to understand that the whole thing is a challenge to the idea that Islam might not be compatible with modern civilization. So it’s entirely possible for DV to hear thirty seconds of this and get the idea.
The rest of your comment is an irrelevant dance before you finally admit the truth. David Vance was still right, and you attacked his position without having bothered to listen yourself. You even tried to argue the point, knowing full well what you had done, and it’s taken you this long to admit it. What do you ever hope to gain with such behavior?
The scales have fallen from my eyes: David Vance does not listen to some of the Today items he posts about (and mea culpa neither do I). Rather, he relies on the itinerary that goes up on the website and uses this as a peg to write his opinion on the broad matter at hand. It is my guess that he did this for all three items on 15 May.
So he’s more interested in expressing his opinion than analysing whether there’s any bias.
This explains a lot about his posts on Today. Many a time I have heard an item on Today and then read David’s interpretation and been blown away that someone could interpret it so differently to me. Well this explains it: he doesn’t listen to some of what he posts about!
It’s like reviewing a restaurant having read the menu.