<p>Don’t be ridiculous, violence is part of all religions. It just happens that it is the Islamic civil war that is causing so much trouble these days. I notice that you ignored the rest of the post that you couldn’t attack. </p>
<p>The problem in Britain was cited by the British authorities as an issue because the Pakistani community has stayed Pakistani and the British authorities felt they had no right or business interfering in its operation. I didn’t make that up. If you read that as me referring to all Pakistanis, that was not my intent. The actual defense of the police commissioner was pretty much what I said. </p>
<p>I would point to a good explanation of the problem in an op-ed by Sarfraz Manzoor in the NYT in which he says: “My early years in Luton were lived inside a Pakistani bubble. Everyone my family knew was Pakistani, and most of my fellow students at school were Pakistani. I can’t recall a white person ever visiting our home.” He then says, “Rotherham has the third-most-segregated Muslim population in England: The majority of the Pakistani community, 82 percent, lives in just three of the town’s council electoral wards. Voter turnout can be as low as 30 percent, so seats can be won or lost by a handful of votes — a situation that easily leads to patronage and clientelism.”</p>
<p>And he continues: “These dynamics help explain why so few spoke out about the culture that produced the crimes — a culture of misogyny, which Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, a Conservative politician who was raised near Rotherham, criticized in 2012, saying that it permits some Pakistani men to consider young white women “fair game.” It would be a brave leader, Pakistani or otherwise, who would tell the Pakistani community that it needed to address such issues, or that the road to progress required Pakistani parents to relax their strictures and allow their sons and daughters to marry out.”</p>
<p>Like I said, I didn’t make up the isolation of Pakistanis from British society. That it doesn’t apply to all Pakistanis is not the point, just as it’s not the point that all Muslims aren’t terrorists. And I’d further point out that all immigrant groups tend to live together, that noting Pakistanis live together isn’t odd. And that other groups have had criminals; one need only watch the Godfather movies to see how the old criminal syndicates followed immigrants to America. But the case of Muslims in Britain and in Europe in general seems to be different by orders of magnitude. </p>
<p>And I note the same raping of teenage girls was uncovered last year in Oxford: Pakistani men preying on teenage British girls. In cases dating back to 2005, British authorities completely ignored rapes of young white girls, including some who were in the custody of the Oxford County Social Services. These girls were as young as 11 and they stated in court that staff watched as these - let’s be honest - young, Muslim Pakistani males took underage white girls out of County care. They gave them drugs and alcohol and then passed them around for rape. They have so far identified 22 girls. </p>
<p>That’s a sick culture. Sick, sick, sick. </p>
<p>I meant to add in my last post that the differences between Shia and Sunni are as large or larger than those which divide Catholics and Orthodox or Protestant from Catholic. It isn’t just how you hold your hands when you pray but goes to the root of the nature of revelation: the Sunni believe it stopped with Muhammed and the Shia believe it continues through their imams. One can narrow the gap a little - by noting the “revelations” are really interpretations - but it can never go away. To many Sunni, the Shia are irredeemable heretics who don’t fully accept Muhammed as Prophet. </p>
<p>I still don’t see why people think having “good” Muslims denounce these heinous acts is going to be productive. Cathartic perhaps, but not productive. The “bad” Muslims don’t give a rat’s behind what the “good” Muslims say, any more than the Haredim in Israel care what the Reform Jews have to say or the Westboro Baptist Church cared what the Methodists have to say. </p>
<p>Well, imagine an alternate history in which Saudi Arabia maintains an air force base near Montgomery, Alabama, and Cuba is a prosperous Islamic client state of Saudi Arabia. </p>
<p>Do we really think there would be no horrible violence against Arabs and/or Muslims, foreign or domestic, in this country, because the citizenry is basically Christian??? </p>
<p>There is a lot of history there that fuels radical Islam.</p>
<p>Even in this country, which is prosperous and politically stable, we see conspiracy theories about our President not being an American citizen, etc. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is why it has to go way beyond words and speeches and retaliatory bombing campaigns.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Carelessly linking bad Muslims with Haredim with Westboro makes for a very poor analogy, haredim are rather removed from any process of political violence. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I accept you do not believe violence is part of Islam, or more accurately, your version of Islam. </p>
<p>However, if not Islamic-based and motivated violence, then exactly what do you call the acts of violence that ISIS, AQ, and Muslim Brotherhood members are perpetrating? All who say they are Muslims following Islam, so clearly they do not agree with you.</p>
<p>I am not asking for a religious debate or anything. Just wondering when you see such violence by these people {ISIS, AQ, and Muslim Brotherhood}, what name do you give it? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is why I used the term lesser of two evils. </p>
<p>We were hated before, hence 9/11 and the bombings in 1992, 1988, 1983, etc., so being hated is nothing new. I rather be on their turf and have the fighting and their energy contained rather than what we are seeing with the growing Islamic Caliphate re ISIS.</p>
<p>It definitely can take a while to build reliable, trusted infrastructure, while still eliminating bad elements. Cutting and running after 10 years was not a wise move. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good point re violence. </p>
<p>However, I read it not as equating violence, but, as to the larger point that those factions do not not care what other groups of the same religion say.</p>
<p>Since I try to be complete, this is an addendum to my post #81: </p>
<p>The issue of Pakistani men raping teenage white British girls has been known for over a decade. But discussion of it has been actively suppressed. In 2004, BBC Channel 4 made a documentary called Edge of the City about young Pakistani men preying on white teenage girls as young as 11 in Bradford and Keighley. Before it was aired, a number of anti-racism, anti-racism, anti-whatever groups complained … and the police joined them, including one Chief Constable, so Channel 4 shelved it. This documentary was made 10 years ago about events that had been occurring for a number of years and the problem has only become worse. Pretending things are fine has the opposite effect.</p>
<p>I don’t think so, the larger point is that haredim in general want to be left alone. “Bad muslims” and Westboro folk want to be in other peoples’ face.</p>
<p>I wasn’t equating violence. I was just commenting that the one faction doesn’t care what the others think, so “good” Muslims being horrified and disapproving doesn’t serve to make the “bad” ones think twice. In one ear and out the other. </p>
<p>@zoosermom Why would I attack the rest of your post for the sake of attacking? I wasn’t even trying to attack the statement I quoted, I was merely disagreeing with it. You may feel that it’s obvious that all religions are violent, but there are many who do not.</p>
<p>@Lergnom Thank you for clarifying. I wasn’t aware of this.
It’s true that religious divisions among Muslims go quite deep, but it’s more complex then simply referring to Sunni-Shia. Often people put labels of “Shia” on things that are also practiced by some Sunni’s, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the reverse is true as well. So the argument sometimes goes, “this practice is wrong, this practice is done by Shia’s [when it’s done by the majority of Shias and not as many Sunnis], Shia’s are wrong.” It is often from the specific practice or belief that divisions occur, and these practices/beliefs can’t always be identified as being exclusively Sunni/Shia.</p>
<p>"However, if not Islamic-based and motivated violence, then exactly what do you call the acts of violence that ISIS, AQ, and Muslim Brotherhood members are perpetrating? All who say they are Muslims following Islam, so clearly they do not agree with you.</p>
<p>I am not asking for a religious debate or anything. Just wondering when you see such violence by these people {ISIS, AQ, and Muslim Brotherhood}, what name do you give it?"</p>
<p>My guess is that the answer will be, that these people are not TRULY following Islam. </p>
<p>In addition, I am curious how one who is a believer in the kind, gentle form of Islam that treats women with true equality and respect, clarifies to themselves the way that Islam is practiced in most predominantly Muslim countries. Not with such outright barbarity as seen by ISIS, but with a contempt and disrespect towards human rights, in particular towards women. How one justifies treating 50 percent of ones population as second class citizens, in particular, in the name of Islam. Are the millions of people in these countries not true Muslims, does that explain it?</p>
<p><a href=“Case Against Haredi Man Who Spit On And Terrorized Little Girls Dropped - FailedMessiah.com”>FailedMessiah.com;
<p>
</p>
<p>I understand your interpretation. You looked at it deeper than I did though. I was looking at the talking past each other part. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it might be best to restrict this discussion to the issue of violence and the killing of innocents and non-believers. </p>
<p>The reason I say this is that culturally societies have different customs and beliefs, which are not the norm for others. I do find it difficult to look at a country, such as Saudi Arabia, and deduce outright that how they treat women is wrong for them and their culture. Wrong for me and my culture, yes. However, I am not comfortable telling them that they should change their culture though, as I darn sure would not want them telling me to change mine. </p>
<p>Now, I think outright violence is a totally different thing in that it physically harms and kills people. </p>
<p>"Now, I think outright violence is a totally different thing in that it physically harms and kills people. "</p>
<p>Yeah I suppose you can say that physical harm and killing people is universally bad, and treating women as if they are a somewhat lower species is just a cultural thing makes sense; unless you are a woman.</p>
<p>“Yeah I suppose you can say that physical harm and killing people is universally bad, and treating women as if they are a somewhat lower species is just a cultural thing makes sense; unless you are a woman.”</p>
<p>I do believe that awcntdb is a man, and perhaps coming from some men’s perspectives, treating women with hatred and contempt, as if they are slaves and a lower form of life, is just a difference of culture. Stoning women, imprisoning them, forcing them to marry whomever the parents choose, requiring several witnesses to declare a rape as valid, withholding education, the right of free travel, forcing them to cover their body, denying them the rights that men have----just a matter of cultural differences. Similar to you preferring vanilla ice cream, while I like chocolate chip.</p>
<p>The reason I bring it up (though awcntdb has directed that we should restrict this discussion to other things), is because mistreatment of women appears to be one of the main tenants of Islam. And these newer, particularly vicious groups, appear to be focused on dictating even worse treatment of women. </p>
<p>“Now, I think outright violence is a totally different thing in that it physically harms and kills people”</p>
<p>Ah, the outright violence that is going on right now is a totally different thing because it is physically harming and killing men, as opposed to just women. Completely different. NOW we’re horrified.</p>