"100" wrote:

Irfghan, not really right now. The article says what it says. Did you read it?

Yeah I read it. It takes a microscopic approach. Look as how things are 'on the ground.'

The approach is good. But that don't mean it's necessarily right.

I would have to read it again to see which bits I agree with and which bits I don't.

"100" wrote:

Maybe Irfghan can write something predictably shameless in an attempt to ignore the point.

Peace and love.

:roll: It would help if you state what your point is (in as few words as possible).

"100" wrote:

Peace and love.

Right back atcha! [img]http://www.islamicaweb.com/forums/images/smilies/kiss.gif[/img]

Actually the ad hominems are mine, Aasiyah. Bad me? You're pretty defensive. The article wasn't about you, I think. I've said already, I'll respond to your non-comments late tonight.

Irfghan, then you should read the article again, lazy bum. What else? I'm not summarising if you don't bring a point. fwiw I have already given a very brief interpretation and overview, smartypants, and your question only demonstrates you want to give me a hard time, it's understood.

More later.

I don't wanna give you a hard time. Seriously.

Just read through the the thread again. You did give a brief summary.

Now I'll read the article again.

"100" wrote:

In any case, I'll reply later to justify these highly upsetting ad hominems.

y wud ur own ad hominems be upsetting (none of us are upset, so i assume ur the upset 1). but then agen y wud u 'justify' our ad hominems. lol, plz write a lil' more clearly 100.

hominems??

I've read it again. Man, it goes on a bit.

The first half is about social ills blighting young British Muslims. Some generalisations are made but on the whole the ills he talks about are real.

But halfway through the article he seems to suggest that Islam is itself to blame for the problems faced by its followers. Hmm...

Some interesting points about rap music and how people of a certain mental capacity listen to it.

He ends with a rather sinister point. That among British Muslims there are enough terrorist 'sympathizers to make suspicion and hostility toward Muslims by the rest of society not entirely irrational.'

Anyway. This guy is actually called Anthony Daniels and he is a retired psychiatrist and used to practice in Birmingham.

"irfghan" wrote:

But halfway through the article he seems to suggest that Islam is itself to blame for the problems faced by its followers. Hmm...

exactly wot i was getting at. thanx irf.

Hayduh, its 'ad hominems':

ad hom·i·nem
adj.
Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason

ive learnt somat 2day

woooo

Salam Muslims
Peace Non-Muslims

In my opinion the program was geared around legitimising Islam upon secular British values and not exemplifying Islam as the truth that came to mankind to take them from the darkness and into the light.

I never had a problem with any Muslim calling herself or himself British until seeing a spectacle of this sister wearing the union jack as a jilbab! In fact this reminds me of the sister who sang the American anthem in front of an American military and public.

Things we do to make the non-Muslims love us! Even if it means compromising our divine identity.

Yes in comparison to the Muslim countries run by dictators, whom are supported and maintained by the western powers, Britian is far better a country since is based upon one intellectual creed i.e. secularism. The Muslim world are so corrupt simply because they have not adopted one creed but several creeds (e.g. secularism, Islam, nationalism etc) and will refer to all upon pragmatist premises. Look at the intellectual debate regarding the constitution of Iraq – the Shariah is a basis and not THE basis!

Muslims must wake up and truly understand that when it is said that “Islam is a complete way of life” it is literally a complete way of life with rules on all aspects of life. There is no need to try to make Islam “some how” adapt to the corrupt reality when it came to change the corrupt society to conform with divine guidance!

w/s Muslims
Peace Non Muslims

Easy D,

That is your position, that you are not British. You have a problem with anyone but the BNP taking pride in our flag. I think it's a shame.

Apologies the rest of this is lengthy, it is just the response I promised to Raf786 and Aasiyah, and a lot of it is quotes. (I have edited the bit about Aasiyah's definition of Islamism, having done a little homework).

Raf 786,

-- "100 what is your point

-- "dont post long boring articles then talk jibberish like your the only one that can understand it"

That's your interpretation. Obviously 'what is your point' is a silly question when I have posted an article outlining what kind of proud, arrogant frame of mind young Muslim men sometimes ("6-13%") have that can lead to unpleasantness and hostility, after you have taken on arguing in typically demented grammar (just a side point) that "...living in this country can brainwash... the best muslims in this world are those in Mecca,medina, asia and north african where they dont just practise islam they live it and have shariah law... islam was the leading innovators in science, medicine, maths, physics and general livng conditions for at least 10 centuries... (government) strategy involves ID cards, taking away our civil liberties, isolation of muslims and terror laws in which many hundreds of muslims have gotten arrested without being charged held... (Omrow) seriously you need to read up on islam outside the school curriculum and outside the corrupt biased propagandist media". I hope that helps with the context of [url=http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_4_suicide_bombers.html]the article I posted[/url].

-- "I have nothing agaisnt integration, we have integrated into british society we work, live and socialise with britains.

-- "but they want us to live like them, go to the pub , dress like them , they have mixed up ideas about us thet is due the media portraying us negatively."

What a load of rubbish! "They"..."Us". That isn't it at all. You're Muslim. And you're British. The point is you don't feel like a contribution to society, you feel better than society. I guess you don't give a sh*t about non-Muslims. That was why I addressed the article to you. I thought it might shock you into being an inspiring example of a British Muslim, but you found it boring, and thought I was just being pretentious. OK.

-- "the article (sic)
-- "'Many young Muslims, unlike the sons of Hindus and Sikhs who immigrated into Britain at the same time as their parents, take drugs, including heroin. They drink, indulge in casual sex, and make nightclubs the focus of their lives. Work and careers are at best a painful necessity, a slow and inferior means of obtaining the money for their distractions'

-- "this is wrong and just portraying us negatively, it is segragating us and states muslim men are worse of the immigrants. On what does he base these opinions on , i gaurantee if he researched birmingham he would have found 90% of hindus and sikhs drink and indulge in casaul sex compared to about 39% of muslim men."

Which is it - wrong, or portraying you negatively? What kind of guarantee is that? Here is what you told Omrow:

-- "just come to birmingham, bradford you will find the worst muslims in the world who do drugs,drink , girls and generally disregard religion"

Not a contradiction per se, but it does suggest you're full of convenient make-believe claptrap, and just don't like being described as a British subculture. That's basically what the article says too.

-- "'A highly secularized Muslim population whose men nevertheless wish to maintain their dominance over women '

-- "this is the biggest stereotype going , just because muslim women are predominantly housewifes and covered up, they are opressed"

Remember he's a doctor. A lot of beaten and depressed women have come to him with their problems. I myself am aware of the phenomenon of very depressed Muslim girls trying to run away, and being chased down. My good friend's sister was in that position just recently. His brothers were pretty harsh. What is not a mere stereotype, however, in any culture, is proud youths refusing to admit a problem.

-- "'Surveys suggest that between 6 and 13 percent of British Muslims—that is, between 98,000 and 208,000 people—are sympathetic toward Islamic terrorists and their efforts'.

-- "how? where? did he conduct such a survey ?"

I don't know. [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/23/npoll23....'s one[/url] but it isn't as generous. I think he must mean terrorism in Britain though, because the 6% figure is very low.

-- "what does he count as Islamic terrorists ?"

I guess that's up to the Muslims in the survey, isn't it?

-- "terrorist is a terrorist why add islamic to it, that is a trick of the media giving islam a bad name by always associating it with terrorism
-- "why arent russians called christian terrorist who killed 100000s of innocent chechans
-- "or the IRA called catholic terrorist"

I think the survey was specific to jihadi terrorism, otherwise Muslims would not have supported it.

-- "I could have further analysed and quoted 3/4 of this biased article but just mentioned few things,"

Feel free, maybe from the point of view of a proud British Muslim, such as Omrow, upset that his brothers are bringing him shame.

-- "the fact you think so much of this racist article shows how narrow minded and brainwashed you are 100"

Excellent summary. I'm pleased to have come across such an open-minded, free-thinking young man.

Aasiyah,

So, your thing about the footnotes and bio is pretty irrelevant. When I first Googled him plenty of other articles came up that had footnotes.

Your 'rebuttal' was initially "this article isn't constructive". Fair enough. But that isn't really a rebuttal. Even if his point was that Muslims cannot integrate, that would be constructive, although we would both disagree with him. It is not his point, hence I point out that bin Laden is an Islamist, whereas Mohammed was a Muslim. Clearly Dalrymple also sees the difference, or he would not write of percentages.

You then added an opinion on why men convert. I also have opinions on that, but they are not broad, only based on case studies. I had a good friend who converted in prison and stopped drinking. When he came out he merely sold drugs and went back to jacking cars and house burglaries. When he came out the second time he only sold drugs. Then he started drinking again. Funny thing is he wasn't half as rude and paranoid as his practising friends. I know some Muslims who painted my parents' house were former convicts. I was there for a whole week and got pretty friendly. They were very nice guys, full of rubbish about Jews which I was happy to dispel, but apart from that, no complaints. Maybe Islam helped them. I know it gave them more focus when they were in jail, at their most vulnerable. Scientologists also do a lot of work in prison. They have a high success rate there. Anyway, Dalrymple has also written about some case studies, whatever you think. You have an issue with his reference to the BBC, which is clear enough. You could also take it as a reference to the liberal British, and read the surrounding paragraphs. You will see the profound truth in his statement about "...the logic that has driven Western social policy for so long: that any difference in economic and social outcome between groups is the result of social injustice and adverse discrimination. The premises of multiculturalism don’t even permit asking whether reasons internal to the groups themselves might account for differences in outcomes."

Obviously any groups which consistently reject those "reasons internal to the groups themselves" are sadly stuck with their lot, and proud of it.

Now, before I go off on one about your definitions of Islamism:

Is·lam·ism
n.
1. An Islamic revivalist movement, often characterized by moral
conservatism, literalism, and the attempt to implement Islamic values
in all spheres of life.
2. The religious faith, principles, or cause of Islam.

... I did Google the definition, and found the exact first definition - with one crucial additional word in it - juxtaposed with quite a different second definition, not to mention a less savoury Wiki definition. Your definitions were last published in 2000 (in the American Heritage Dictionary), but it is fair to say the word was more obscure and that meaning has fallen out of use.

The reason I said you undermined the author, is in lengthy replies, there was nothing of substance in regard to the article, but there was the following:

-- "lol i read it thru. sum of the authors points are correct, but not constructive. 100 wot exactly wos the point of posting that?"
-- "about halfway down he stopped making sense...Quote:"
-- "...and where did this guy study islam again? in this paragraph he seems to be suggesting that Islam IS the problem (adding '-ism' to the end doesnt change anything)" (Of course it does - 100) "hence, his comments are not constructive."
-- "another point thats wierd about this guy - he hasnt provided any references. he quoted the BBC, and theres no footnote. then he pulls out such statistics (which are all available online) and he cant even provide a link for that either. i wonder y he doesnt mention the statistics in his own country, the U.S: the ratio of women to men converting to Islam over there is 5:1. pretty clear i reckon." (And never mind that he is British, we've covered that - 100)
-- "but this guy isnt british is he? he's writing for an american magazine so i assumed he's american. my question about 'where did he study islam' was a serious one, i'd like to know more about the author, it helps in understanding his viewpoint. i googled this guy but just got a load of his articles, no biography."
-- "no, it is not a challenging piece actually, just rather long. since you're suggesting that i wanted to rebut it before i even started reading it, i might aswell tel u that i actually made a conscious effort to read through the entire article with an open mind. 100, it does not help when u act as tho ur always right and anyone who disagrees with u is ignorant." (What? - 100)

Am I doing you some injustice? I find you much more open than Raf786, but that isn't saying a heck of a lot. :roll: Peace and love anyway. Eid Mubarak!

B'shalom.

100 im impressed

by the amount of crap that can come out of one person

you ever heard of those people who write 10 pages and still get a U

someone give 100 a tissue

he got the worse case of verbal diarrhea

raf,

At least I've clarified my intent, and you have illustrated your thoughtlessness. With it you limit your importance and that is not satisfying to either of us, so if you're willing we can maybe look forward to further discussions on the matter at some other time.

raf, 100 provided an apparently well thought out refutation of ur comments. by insulting him, u prove nothing, just that u are unable to answer him logically.

100, i will anser ur post tomorrow.

wassalaam.

I look forward to it. Eid Mubarak, Aasiyah.