Deobandi Britain? No thanks.

whypatcondellisntfun · 18-07-2008, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bear

The issue here is the influence of Deobandi in Britain and Europe.

How assertive! I love it when you get stroppy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bear

Since as was the case with Abu Hamza who was allowed to preach hate until the US stepped in, Riyadh ul Haq has also been left to continue his filth speech.

The question then arises why.

Since decisions to prosecute in Britain are taken by the CPS and “public interest” as well as “cultural sensitivity” form part of the decision making process the question then arises who is providing guidance on these issues.

The answer is of course the Government, and more importantly the advisors they involve who in the case of Muslim issues are predominantly Muslims.

Erm. Trouble with that is, if the Police become aware of an offence, they don't have to ask the permission of Government to arrest somebody for that offence, I could be wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bear

You can be sure that those advisors include a number of individuals with an agenda that has everything to do with the continued progressing towards the Islamification of our country, and nothing to do with maintaining a fair decent just and ethnically integrated society

Infamy, infamy! They've all got it in for me!

Sorry, couldn't help that. Whilst I would agree that certain advisors have an agenda, dare I say that it could also be a personal agenda? Perhaps seeking power for themselves? Are the advisors part of the Deobandi movement also???? Who are the mind-benders?????

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bear

'K, let’s just “ do a catch up” on the Deobandi.

Dar ul-Uloom Deoband got its name from the movement started up in Deoband in India in the mid nineteenth century by a group of ulema in which one Qasim Nanautawi played a key role. His background and activities lmakes for interesting reading to say the least.

In effect (and in fact, even today) it is an offshoot of the Wahhabis, the Deoband were passionately anti-British because of the British presence in India, and that hatred remains still today.

I getcha.... sorry, do carry on...

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bear

It is also why the effective spiritual control over so much of British Islam is actually provided by the Saudi Arabian Wahhabis, a chilling thought in itself for those who know anything about the Ultra Orthodox sect.

Booooooo!!! Hisssssss! Nasty Wahhabis. Seriously. I actually agree with you here. Unfortunately, those Wahhabi types from Saudi have loadsamoney, but, I digress into geopolitics again, and this is strictly about religion isn't it? No politics here. No sir.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bear

Now for some independent evidence to uphold my statements regarding the role and nature of the Deobandi influence in Britain today.

Let’s start with The Times, a credible source.

Yay. Go Times go!

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bear

“Almost half of Britain’s mosques are under the control of a hardline Islamic sect whose leading preacher loathes Western values and has called on Muslims to “shed blood” for Allah, an investigation by The Times has found.

Note. The report you quote above is dated September 7, 2007. In the same report, we find this nestled away...

Quote:

A commentator on religious radicalism in Pakistan, where Deobandis wield significant political influence, told The Times that “blind ignorance” on the part of the Government in Britain had allowed the Deobandis to become the dominant voice of Islam in Britain’s mosques.

Khaled Ahmed said: “The UK has been ruined by the puritanism of the Deobandis. You’ve allowed the takeover of the mosques. You can’t run multiculturalism like that, because that’s a way of destroying yourself. In Britain, the Deobandi message has become even more extreme than it is in Pakistan. It’s mind-boggling.”

Note that "the Deobandi message has become even more extreme than it is in Pakistan. It’s mind-boggling".

The next day. In the same newspaper, you quote:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bear

“the question is whether aggressive battle is by itself commendable or not”. “If it is, why should the Muslims stop simply because territorial expansion in these days is regarded as bad? And if it is not commendable, but deplorable, why did Islam not stop it in the past?”
He answers his own question thus: “Even in those days . . . aggressive jihads were waged . . . because it was truly commendable for establishing the grandeur of the religion of Allah.”

These words are not the product of a radical extremist. They come from the pen of one of the most acclaimed scholars in the Deobandi tradition.

So in the space of 24 hours, Deobandi went from being "hardline" and "extreme" in The Times, to suddenly not being the product of a radical extremist... What is more worrying is that the same Journalist (Andrew Norfolk) wrote both articles, one of which talks about an "ultra-conservative movement, which gave birth to the Taleban in Afghanistan" and one of which says Deobandis are not "radical extremists". Well, which is it?

Here is another article written by the same man, on September 7, 2007, The homegrown cleric who loathes the British - Times Online in which he describes ul Haq as he "delivers his own interpretation of the holy text, and what sounded so lyrical becomes a stark manifesto of separationist loathing."... but a different article, on the same day, written by the same Andrew Norfolk, declares that "Moderates attack ‘fundamentally wrong’ approach to teaching Islam". Here is the gist of that article:-

Quote:

Riyadh ul Haq, who has preached of the “evil influence” of the West, may be a faithful representative of the Deobandi school of Sunni Islam but he does not speak for all Islamic scholars, let alone all Muslims. No one knows that better than Sheikh Ibrahim Mogra.

Mr Mogra, the chairman of the Muslim Council of Britain’s interfaith relations committee, is a graduate of the same Deobandi seminary in Bury, Greater Manchester, that Mr ul Haq attended, but he does not like to call himself a Deobandi. His vision of a pluralistic, tolerant Islam is starkly at odds with mainstream Deobandi thinking, as is his belief that for British Muslims “our loyalty to Britain must be unquestionable”.

Mr Mogra’s desire to forge an understanding of Islam that incorporates “British traditions like tolerance and respect for others” is shared by Hamid Qureshi, the chairman of the Lancashire Council of Mosques. Mr Qureshi, who runs an interfaith organisation called Building Bridges in Burnley, is not a Deobandi. His concern is “to break the Muslim shell, the cocoon in which we surround ourselves”. “To suggest that mixing with non-Muslims is somehow a threat to Islam is fundamentally wrong. We need to reach out to people on human grounds. That’s what Islamic teaching is all about,” he said.

Evidently there is a disagreement about what Islam is about... Which version of Islam sells the most papers?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bear

Believe me, there is a whole lot more to support this.

I do agree that geopolitical factors did indeed provide a fertile ground for the re-emergence of The Taliban, certainly the US involvement of them in its war-by-proxy with the USSR was a key factor as you point out in what you wrote regarding the use of them by the US, but here again, this is a bit of a red herring since the key issue here is the role that the Deobandi take in Britain today.

Fine. But the peaceful cleric I quoted above is also a graduate of the Deobandi school. He brings a peaceful message. I'm a firm believer in chucking people out or into prison if they preach hate, Muslim or not. Simple as.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bear

Islam co-exists with little fuss until it is in a position to flex its ideological muscles and start to make demands just as took place in Britain up to the late ‘90’s

It then starts demands though the devout and activists that must be Jihad towards total conversion of the lands in which it present into a part of Dar ul-Islam.

There term, as you are no doubt well aware of relates to those lands in which Islam rules, or at least subjugates others, or can exist as Dar ul-Islam communities, in fact colonies that grow and link up until ……

It may at some stage be worth examining the meaning. scope, and origin of “Dar ul-Islam”, of its counterpart “Dar ul-Haarb”, the origins of the names, and the various states that exist between the two.

Islam is an ideology, Muslims are people caught up to varying degrees by that ideology.

People are to varying degrees and for various reasons pliant, Islam is not.

Another thread I think.

whypatcondellisntfun · 18-07-2008, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bear

The issue here is the influence of Deobandi in Britain and Europe.

Oh. And you'll find another rebuttal of The Times' article here:

A toxic mix of fact and nonsense | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

BonnieDundee · 19-07-2008, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Islam is a religion of death.

Rubbish.

On Islam you are completely incorrect Bear and lacking in proof as well.

Quote:

Instead the concentration on the “afterlife” above all else, even to a greater extent than Christianity which it plagurised with “The Last Day” and all that entails.

Xtianity largely plagiarised that itself and there is no more concentration on the afterlife in Islam than xtianity.

Quote:

Islam is about obeying the law as pick and mixed from Christian and Jewish (and other) sources as well as the bits invented by Mohammed in order to get into The Gardens of Paradise where all the things prohibited on earth are there in abundance for the True Believers who have “walked the walk”.

Xtianity is much the same, it is abut obeying the law in various books decided upon by church officials which are influenced by Judiasm, Greek philosophy, zoroatrainism, various messianic cults and paganism.

BonnieDundee · 19-07-2008, 04:03 AM

One should always remember who owns the Times!

Any Murdoch media outlet is not worth the paper or airwaves it comes across. Has anyone ever watched the complete **** that is Fox News channel?

The Bear · 19-07-2008, 07:30 AM

Guys, you’ve got the facts. You’ve seen Islamic “kitman” at work on this thread, you’ve seen the news coming from the UK daily, you’ve seen what is happening in the world. Make of it what you will.

Minds on this subject are seldom if ever there to be changed though people who haven’t been aware of the “events behind the events” or who really think the whole thing is a storm in a teacup may have seen a spark that if followed will lead to an inferno they never knew existed..

Then there’s the “we’ve seen it time and again when one group has been demonised and have turned out simply to be different a bit” group who expect the same again. To those I suggest a deeper contrast and compare exercise between what has been seen in the past and what is taking place today.

This thread was started following the Mohammed and Aisha thread to bring the issue of the Deobandi influence into isolation following a challenge in that thread to prove my assertion regarding the place of this hard line anti-Western domination of around a half of the British mosques. That I have done.

What I will end with is a link to a clip which compares what one man sees as a correlation of Islamic population densities with actions undertaken within various countries from a book written by a man with his own agenda.

In spite of his doubtless bias in my opinion what he writes is at the very least food for thought.

There’s no particular reason for my choice of site, it was simply the top of the Google list as a result of my search.

FrontPage Magazine

Mikeuk · 19-07-2008, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bear

The issue is that the “indigenous British People” have now become a thing of the past, especially the indigenous English people, and it’s primarily an English problem we face.

That phrase sounds dangerously racist.

Is this the real reason you attack the BNP?

The Bear · 19-07-2008, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeuk

That phrase sounds dangerously racist.

Is this the real reason you attack the BNP?

No, Mike, and if you look at the context in which I use the terms that I have you’ll see it’s not racist in the least since it refers to a previous post and so to a region of Britain.

Why do I dislike the BNP? Because of their small print policies, and an absolute conviction that a leopard can’t change its spots.

Mikeuk · 19-07-2008, 09:49 AM

Quote:

"I have set and always will set my face like flint against making any difference between one citizen of this country and another on grounds of his origin" - Enoch Powell

Our Muslim Brother shows great wisdom and understanding. It's no surprise to find such tolerance coming from one of the world's most inclusive religions.

All religions have evil fanatics and killers. Look at the racist Spanish Inquisition or the sexist ravings of John Knox.

Many of Hitler's Nazi madmen, sadly, were baptised Christians.

It's time to seek the best in all human beings, regardless of race or religion!

whypatcondellisntfun · 19-07-2008, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bear

Guys, you’ve got the facts. You’ve seen Islamic “kitman” at work on this thread, you’ve seen the news coming from the UK daily, you’ve seen what is happening in the world. Make of it what you will.

Why avoid my rebuttal?

The Bear · 19-07-2008, 09:56 AM

Powell was not a Muslim.

19-07-2008, 04:03 AM	#14 (permalink)
BonnieDundee Uber Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Between Mallaig and Cornwall. Posts: 2,809	One should always remember who owns the Times! Any Murdoch media outlet is not worth the paper or airwaves it comes across. Has anyone ever watched the complete **** that is Fox News channel? __________________ "It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state." -Bruce Schneier How to Overthrow the System: brew your own beer; kick in your TV; build your own cabin and pss off front porch whenever you bloody well feel like it.* Edward Abbey Leopold Kohr.

19-07-2008, 07:30 AM	#15 (permalink)
The Bear Uber Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: East Anglia Posts: 2,178	Guys, you’ve got the facts. You’ve seen Islamic “kitman” at work on this thread, you’ve seen the news coming from the UK daily, you’ve seen what is happening in the world. Make of it what you will. Minds on this subject are seldom if ever there to be changed though people who haven’t been aware of the “events behind the events” or who really think the whole thing is a storm in a teacup may have seen a spark that if followed will lead to an inferno they never knew existed.. Then there’s the “we’ve seen it time and again when one group has been demonised and have turned out simply to be different a bit” group who expect the same again. To those I suggest a deeper contrast and compare exercise between what has been seen in the past and what is taking place today. This thread was started following the Mohammed and Aisha thread to bring the issue of the Deobandi influence into isolation following a challenge in that thread to prove my assertion regarding the place of this hard line anti-Western domination of around a half of the British mosques. That I have done. What I will end with is a link to a clip which compares what one man sees as a correlation of Islamic population densities with actions undertaken within various countries from a book written by a man with his own agenda. In spite of his doubtless bias in my opinion what he writes is at the very least food for thought. There’s no particular reason for my choice of site, it was simply the top of the Google list as a result of my search. FrontPage Magazine __________________ I am an old man. I have eaten much salt.

19-07-2008, 09:56 AM	#20 (permalink)
The Bear Uber Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: East Anglia Posts: 2,178	Powell was not a Muslim. __________________ I am an old man. I have eaten much salt.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode