Islam - What's your view on it?

  • Thread starter SalmanBH
  • 5,688 comments
  • 237,243 views
My View on Islam:

-Majority of Muslims I have personally met have been far from what I call dangerous, Having Lived in Western Sydney for most of my life I have met many as well.

- Majority seem to be very religious, at a much higher level then Christians.

- They are Very defensive about their religion

- Fanatics definetly are at a Higher rate then other major religions and also have many different factions.

The way I put most of it down to is most Muslims are from 3rd world countrys with lots of oppression from their governments meaning information of outside world is limited, I have found second generation muslims living in western countries defintely are heading towards religious relaxation just like Christians have in the last 50 years.


At the end of the day that's what I think it comes down to.
 
Seems that the Fox news bit yesterday was only a shorter version of another piece he did on Fox that was even more absurd.

Steve Emerson's comments on Europe are so utterly inaccurate that its flat out lies....



http://i100.independent.co.uk/artic...view-is-even-worse-than-you-think--lkO4fdUh5x

...its effectively six minutes of utter nonsense, yet a number of Americans are going to watch this and actually believe this is factual.

His claim at the end is (and I quote) "Europe is finished", sorry but this kind of nonsense is a big part of the problem.

I cannot make any factual claims one way or the other to what is said in the video, but in my own experience, when you gather large numbers of relatively homogeneus ethnic groups together in a "ghetto" environment, it's quite often the case that they will be crime riddled and gang controlled. I grew up in Toronto and everyone knew that you didn't go to the Jane-Finch corridor at night unless you wanted to buy drugs or get shot. Half the boys were wearing blue bandanas and half were wearing red and it wasn't a fashion statement. Same with Jamestown on the west side. I imagine this is also the case in high poverty, low income neighbourhoods across Europe, Muslim or otherwise. Poverty often breeds crime given the right mix of circumstances. Maybe Muslim communities are somehow immune to this and Mr. Emerson is off base, but somehow I doubt it. Just because some don't see these neighbourhoods anecdotally doesn't mean they don't exist. It would far more surprising if they didn't.
 
Do the "no-go zones" he referred to actually not exist?
Staying with friends in Wurzburg, Germany, one day I was taken "down town". I was really confused that we didn't head in to the city that I had spotted after being picked up from the airport. I asked about it, and it was explained that the city was pretty much 100% Russian, and no German would dare enter. This, from the mouth of a very liberal soul.

I have no experience with Muslim "no-go zones", but I certainly would not be blindly dismissive of the potential.
 
I cannot make any factual claims one way or the other to what is said in the video, but in my own experience, when you gather large numbers of relatively homogeneus ethnic groups together in a "ghetto" environment, it's quite often the case that they will be crime riddled and gang controlled. I grew up in Toronto and everyone knew that you didn't go to the Jane-Finch corridor at night unless you wanted to buy drugs or get shot. Half the boys were wearing blue bandanas and half were wearing red and it wasn't a fashion statement. Same with Jamestown on the west side. I imagine this is also the case in high poverty, low income neighbourhoods across Europe, Muslim or otherwise. Poverty often breeds crime given the right mix of circumstances. Maybe Muslim communities are somehow immune to this and Mr. Emerson is off base, but somehow I doubt it. Just because some don't see these neighbourhoods anecdotally doesn't mean they don't exist. It would far more surprising if they didn't.
I covered this to a degree in a parallel thread on the same topic and yes areas of towns and city's in the UK have higher levels of unemployment and crime, due to socio-economic factors you have described and areas with a higher Muslim population are not immune to it. That neither makes them a no-go area nor does it make Islam the cause, would the areas of predominantly white poverty in parts of Glasgow or black poverty in Bristol be 'Christian no-go areas' (they are after all Christian areas and in the case of Bristol strongly identify as such)?

My job takes me all around the UK and as someone who loves cooking I very often shop in areas of high immigrant populations (Indian, Muslim and Asian mainly) and never once have I found any of these areas, regardless of City or Town, to be no-go areas in which I was under threat. Often quite the opposite.

My own town's Muslim population is shared with an area of high Irish population, is one of the 'poorer' areas in the town and happens to be very safe and trouble free, despite the fact the Mosque is 200m and in line of sight of an Irish pub. Yet not one issue has ever occured based on that. The only area of marked trouble in the (large) town is in a lower income/high unemployment area of dominantly white population, yet this would not be described as a Christian no-go or trouble spot.

However the claims made in the piece went far further than that, specifically that the entire city of Birmingham was a no-go area, that the UK had effectively 'lost' to Islam. Its the second largest city in the UK with a predominantly Christian and Atheist population and a 'Mulsim' area that is far from a no-go area (it actually has some great food shops and places to eat) that I have visited countless times.

The same applies to this claim of Islamic police being the de-facto police force in certain areas of London and other cities. Its based of a single event in which three people tried to tell people to stop drinking in the street and to cover up, when people refused it came to pushing and shoving. The three were arrested, tried and jailed. We have had more issues and events of 'Christian Street Patrols" (the name they use) 'invading' mosques (the term they use) and telling Muslims to 'go home' or convert and forcing bibles on them.

I've not said for a second that the UK (and Europe) doesn't have areas of higher crime and that some may worry before going into them, that however doesn't make them a product of any religion, nor does it mean that whole towns and cities have been lost, that strict Sharia is in place and that 'Europe is lost'.
 
Last edited:
Would you mind providing specific examples of actions committed by terrorists, and what Islam says to forbid those actions? I'm not too familiar with most of the Quran, and it's important to the discussion, because if it's not extremely clear and is open to interpretation, then you can't justify saying they aren't "true" Muslims because arguably they just have a different interpretation of both their actions and of the religion.

Also, if they are "fake" Muslims for not following a certain rule, where do you draw the line between "true" and "fake" Muslims, or people of any religion for that matter. Are Christians who don't stone disobedient children "fake" Christians? What about Muslims who eat pork and drink alcohol, how much is that open to interpretation, and are they all "fake" Muslims?

This is why I tend to avoid categorising people into "true" and "fake" beyond the absolute core of having a belief in god "X", because it can easy become completely subjective and meaningless.

Also, if you're right that every religious terrorist, whose religion doesn't condone their actions, is actually a fake religious person, does that mean that pretty much only atheists and deists (guessing that covers everyone who believes in a god, but not a religion) can be terrorists?


Of course, it will be my pleasure

First of all, I want you to know that I am not a scholar in any religion at all. However my knowledge of Islam comes from books that are written by respectable scholars and from direct conversations with them. I will not claim to be a religious person who knows every single law of every single religion inside out, or even of one. But I would like to be able to say I am a good person because of the morals that I have been taught by my parents, teachers and also by religions. So, because of this there may be parts I will not be able to explain properly and I hope you forgive me for that, but I will do my very best. And what I said about "true" and "fake" Muslims was probably somewhat borderline, but I will explain why I said that in this post too.

So, that being said I will address the first point before quoting anything at all. The Quraan for Muslims is a guidance book, covering everything from how to conduct oneself in the company of others, to stories from the past such as Noah (peace be upon him) and his Ark, all the way to a topic that everyone seems to know about in some way or another, and that is Jihad or Jihaad. Anyone who denies that the Quraan does mention Jihad has clearly not read it, but the Quraan also states that it is a book that can guide people towards Islam, or misguide them away from Islam. A rather interesting fact to note though is that the longest verse/sentence in the Quraan has nothing to do with fighting, or praying or following God etc, but rather it is about loaning money. That shows the importance of fairness with regards to money, but anyway that is going a little off topic; back to the guidance and misguidance. For this reason, Muslims believe that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was sent as a guide to help the Muslims understand what the Quraan meant and to show them all the finer points of Islam. It is mentioned that he came to confirm many of the teachings and stories that were said before (by other Prophets) and to clarify certain things. These clarifications and teachings became known as Hadith, and for a Muslim this is one of the fundamental parts of Islam, just as important as the Quraan.

Now we have established the basis of Islam and what it predominantly relies upon. So we can start to piece together bits and bobs. We have all seen what these Terrorists have done but I will try to break it down into points to discuss as best as possible:
- They walked onto the streets of city with intent to disrupt
- They murdered those who insulted the Prophet, despite them being unarmed
- They murdered innocent police officers who were doing their job
- They took hostages in an innocent supermarket for no reason other than "they are jews"
- They evaded the law, trying to get away from the crimes they committed
- They caused unease and made an entire section of Paris a dangerous place to be in.

Just taking those points in itself is pretty bad. I understand that there were insults at the Prophet of Islam, and yes I personally believe that all religions should have a limit where they are protected and that should be direct insulting of their Prophet or God. I have made jokes about Islam, Christianity and Judaism with Muslims, Christians and Jews and quite honestly we all found them pretty funny. The thing is that we knew there was a limit were it would stop being funny and start being insulting. I understand what the magazine was also trying to do, it is being defiant to show that they can say whatever they want, whenever they want. And I respect that choice but feel that there are limits that should never be crossed. But that is just me!

Back to the incidents that unfolded here. In an earlier post I talked about the law in Islam called Hirabah or Hiraba, depending on how you wish to spell it. I will mention a few points that cover this law:
- If someone puts people in fear on the road
- Night or day
- In a city or countryside
- Alone or in a group
- To make people fear for
- Their lives
- Their property
- Their money
- They may be raped
From this law (which comes from one of the four major schools of Islamic teaching [these are four permissible ways of interpreting religion, each with slight variation] but used in all) you can see that the terrorists committed the acts they did and have fallen into breaking this law. This law is actually one of the more important laws in Islam and is repeatedly discouraged through the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. So that is the first point. Also, Hiraba comes from the Arabic root Hariba, which basically means "to become angry". So in this way, this terrorisation is forbidden in Islam. But that is just a "lower" level. It can go much further than that, and that is if someone commits an act that is mentioned in there, such as theft, robbery, rape, murder, etc. Then Islam comes down even more strongly upon them. In fact, some scholars actually say that whilst what I described above is Hiraba from a legal standpoint, in action it can mean "To attempt to kill/harm someone in a stealthy fashion with the intent to cause concern, fear and terrorise a community". Which is exactly what these people did.

As we have this law covered now, I will quote some verses from the Quraan and some sayings from the Hadith about peace, respect, tolerance etc. But before I do that I WILL say that out of the 6000ish verses in the Quraan about 150ish or thereabouts talk about Jihad. But almost all of them do not talk about the Jihad that most people know. Jihad in itself means to struggle. This could be a struggle for a person who is in difficulty not to steal. This can mean a struggle for an ill person to keep going until he/she is better, etc etc. Jihad does not mean to pick up a sword and kill in the name of God. In actual fact, whilst mentioned in the Quraan, that is actually classed as a lower form of Jihad, a form that should not be used unless 100% necessary. And even then, when Jihad is declared in the form of war upon someone or something, there are rules of engagement that MUST be followed. The Quraan mentions this when talking about war, by saying (paraphrasing) "But do not transgress your boundaries [follow the rules of engagement], for God does not love those who transgress".

This brings me on to the rules of engagement for war. These are stated by Muhammad (pbuh) and therefore should be followed by every Muslim, regardless of what sect they may belong to. Some of the rules go like this:
- You cannot hurt the innocent or unarmed
- You must not harm women, children, the ill, or elderly
- You must not cut down fruit bearing trees
- You must not damage buildings, especially those of religious value (Churches etc)
- You must not fight in anger
- You must give the ones you are to fight a fair time warning (in one instance, a four month warning was given)
- etc etc

So as you can see, Islam is very strict when it comes to declaration of war. On top of that, the only people who can declare physical, violent war in the name of Islam are the leading Muslim Scholars, and that is only after a ruling body of them agrees. Not even a government can declare war on another government on its own. With that being said, even then it can be debated whether or not the war is actually allowed. So really there is no justification for the terrorist attacks that happen in the name of Islam, not in Paris or London or New York City or anywhere. If you want to read more about Hirabah, I suggest looking at the writings of Dr Robert Crane, J.D about this subject.

And now, I will write in some quotes from both the Quraan and Hadith that I said I was going to do but got sidetracked!

On being trustworthy:
"A truthful and trustworthy merchant is associated with the Prophets" - Hadith
This is to highlight to businessmen the important of not cheating anyone

On character:
"Make your character good for the people" - Hadith
This quote is to show how important it is for a Muslim to be of good character at all times.

"He will not enter paradise whose neighbour is not secure from his wrongful conduct" - Hadith
"Anybody who believes in Allah and the Last day should not harm his neighbour, and anybody who believes in Allah and the last day should entertain his guest generously, and anybody who believes should talk what is good, or keep quiet (abstain from bad talk)" - Hadith
"There is reward for kindness to every living thing" - Hadith
"God is kind and likes kindness in all things" - Hadith
"There are many doors to goodness. Saying "glory/praise be to God", enjoining good, forbidding evil, removing harm from the road, listening to the deaf (until you can understand), leading the blind, guiding one to the object of need, hurrying with all the strength in one's legs to the one in sorrow who is asking for help, and supporting the weak with the strength of one's arms" - Hadith
"Do not be people without minds of your own, saying that if others treat you well you will treat them well and that if they do wrong you will do wrong. But instead accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and not do wrong if people do evil" - Hadith
These show what it means to be a complete Muslim, and I quote these only because they highlight nothing about Muslims to Muslim relations, but Muslim to everyone relations.
"The true servants of God, the most gracious, are those who walk on the Earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, reply with peace" - Quraan, chapter titled "The Criterion"
"The worst of guardians is a cruel ruler. Beware of becoming one of them" - Hadith
"The most hated person in the eyes of God is the most quarrelsome one" - Hadith
"Make things easy and don't make them harsh and difficult. Give cheer and glad tidings, and do not create hatred" - Hadith
"The strong man is not the one who is strong at wrestling, but the one who controls himself in anger" - Hadith
"Seek knowledge, from the cradle to the grave" - Hadith
"Wisdom is a long cherished wish to the believer. He takes it from wherever he listens to it, and he does not mind where it came out" - Hadith
I like this one because it again highlights that a Muslim does not become wise just by listening to Muslims, but rather takes the knowledge and wisdom from wherever he can find.
"Speak nicely to people" - Quraan, chapter titled "The Cow"
"When you are greeted with a greeting, greet in return with what is better than it, or at the very least return it equally" - Quraan, chapter titled "The Lady". This one actually went further, with a companion of Muhammad (pbuh) saying that if the Pharoh (who tried to persecute Moses (peace be upon him) was to greet nicely, then he would still respond with a polite greeting.
"A Muslim is one whose hands and tongue other people are safe" - Hadith
"And good and evil deeds are not alike. Repel Evil with Good. And he who is your enemy will become your dearest friend" - Quraan, chapter entitled "Explanation in detail"

On charity:
"Do not turn away a poor man even if all you can give him is half a date" - Hadith
This shows that a Muslim should never turn away someone who needs them, even if they can only give very little.
"Indeed, an ignorant man who is generous is dearer to God than a worshipper who is miserly" - Hadith
On doing good consistently:
"Do good deeds properly, sincerely and moderately and know that your deeds will not make you enter Paradise" - Hadith
This is actually a pretty interesting one when expanded, because it highlights the fact that just by doing a good deed once does not mean that you are to enter heaven, rather you should be doing more and more good deeds for your whole life with the hope that it is enough.

On racism:
"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab. Nor has a non-Arab any superiority over an Arab" - Hadith
On this one I would like to quote two others that echo this saying, the first by President Mandela, and the second by President Jefferson:
"No one is born hating another person because of his skin, or his background, or his religion"
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

On forgiveness:
"It is better for a leader to make a mistake in forgiving than to make a mistake in punishing" - Hadith
"God will not be merciful to those who are not merciful to people" - Hadith
"Show forgiveness" - Quraan, chapter titled "The Heights"

Relations between husband and wife:
"And among his signs is this: that he created mates for you from yourself so that you may find rest and peace of mind in them, and he ordained between you love and mercy" - Quraan, chapter intitled "Rome"
"The most perfect in faith amongst believers is he who is best in manners and kindest to his wife" - Hadith
I like this one because it shows that the most perfect in faith may not be the one who prays all day and all night, or fasts all the time or goes to Makkah every year, but the one who loves his wife and treats her with kindness and good manners.

On Religion:
"They are losers, those who make a religion hard and tough. They imperil themselves who enforce tough practises of Islam. They destroy themselves, those who are extremes" - Hadith
"Islam is spacious (and has room for relaxation), and I have been sent with an easy and straightforward religion" - Hadith

As you can see there is A LOT for peace in Islam, I really could go on for thousands and thousands of words, but I know it is not needed. The next point I want to bring up is when people refer to specific verses in the Quraan that promote violence. I will state one right here:
"Kill them, wherever you find them" - Quraan, chapter entitled "The Cow"
This seems pretty violent, and there is no doubt about that. However, the verse in question (and a few others like it) talk in a very restricted sense and talk about very specific incidents. If one was to study the context around the verse and the time when it was revealed as Muslims believe, you will see how restricted it actually is. Similarly, I will now quote the Bible:
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" - Matthew:10
That seems pretty violent too! But it is obvious upon further study of that too that the whole quote relates to a very restricted and specific incident. Jesus (peace be upon him) taught the world about love, and friendship and care and kindness etc. A small quote for an isolated and restricted incident does not mean Christianity is a horrible, warmongering religion! Similarly, a small quote in the Quraan, which is superseded literally 100s of times cannot be a pretext for saying Islam promotes war and violence.

Even more important, and going back to the whole rules of war etc:
An individual can pray alone. But he cannot take matters into his own hands when it comes to fighting - That is also a law in Islam

So from all this, we can determine that Islam is a religion of peace, where the exception is war. And the exception has the strictest possible set of rules before it becomes valid. Which leads me to conclude that a true Muslim would not break these fundamental laws concerning war.

As for the question about pork and alcohol, I am not sure what the full ruling upon that is, but I know that if a Muslim is starving then he may consume both. And lastly I am not saying that a Terrorist is only an atheist or deist, because the Terrorists firmly believe (for what reason I have no idea) that what they are doing is completely justified and permissible in the religion they follow. So as far as they are concerned, they are of that religion but as far as I am concerned they are not truly of that religion.

I know this is stupidly long and I am really sorry, but I hope this helps us all understand Islam a little more!


EDIT:
Just thought I would add a few more examples here to highlight how peaceful Muslims are meant to be. A couple I posted before but I will add one more too:

Example One is of respect:
The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was once sitting in the company of his companions. Whilst he was talking he saw a funeral procession approach. He stopped, and stood up quietly as it passed. When the companions saw a tear fall they asked him why. The Prophet replied, "Was he not a human being? Does he not deserve the same respect?"
Respect. Something that should be engrained in every Muslim.

Example Two is of tolerance, respect and conduct:
When the prophet went to the city now known as Madinah there were three major religions there other than the Muslims. They were the Jews, The Christians and the Fire Worshippers. From what we assume today about Islam, we would have thought that the Prophet would have gone in and told them all to become muslim or leave, right? But that was not what happened. Instead the Prophet invited all the people over to first sleep in his company, so that he could talk to people and get to know the community. Thereafter he wrote three treaties, one for each of the religions. Nowhere on those treaties did it say "you must become muslim". As a matter of fact, the first thing on each treaty was, "I will protect you, your families and your property". As well as this the prophet gathered all the Muslims and said to them that they must never harm anyone of those people under the treaty. Never to damage their property or steal from them. If they did, they would never smell the fragrance of paradise. That is how high in regard these people were held. On top of that, the Prophet met with the Monks, Rabbis and Priests and told them categorically that whilst he does not believe what they believe, he recognises them as the religious leaders and will respect them in that capacity.
Tolerance and good conduct at it's best.

Example Three: dislike of fighting.
There was an incident in which the Muslims were called to arms. When they reached the battlefield there was nobody to fight. They waited but nobody showed up. During this waiting some of the fighters began to get restless, ready to fight. Did the Prophet urge them to prepare more? No. Instead he chided them and asked them why they were eager to spill the blood of another human. If the enemy failed to show, then nobody would need to be killed.
Fighting? No needed unless necessary.

Example 6: Sharing and Tolerance
A group of Christians were travelling and they came to Madinah. It was the time for their prayers yet they had nowhere to pray. The Prophet opened up one of the most sacred mosques in Islam and told the Christians that they could pray in peace in the mosque.
Sharing.

And one more to add:
There was an old woman who the Prophet was helping with her load (not sure what it was, probably shopping etc). Now the woman had no idea at all who was helping her, and whilst he walked with her she warned him about a man by the name of Muhammad, who she had been told was spreading evil and corruption, twisting peoples beliefs etc. She gave insult upon insult to Muhammad, not knowing that this was the very man who was helping her. But at the very end of the journey she asked him his name. He replied "My name is Muhammad". Note how he did not leave her alone, or hurt her or say things back to her but rather he listened calmly and helped her despite the fact that she was insulting him. That is what a good Muslim does.
Okay, now I really am done!

edits for spellings
Edit 2: wanted to add a bit more!
 
Last edited:
I've not said for a second that the UK (and Europe) doesn't have areas of higher crime and that some may worry before going into them, that however doesn't make them a product of any religion, nor does it mean that whole towns and cities have been lost, that strict Sharia is in place and that 'Europe is lost'.
The problem with the FOX interview is that it's geared towards a foregone conclusion. It's like a scientist cherry-picking evidence to fit a theory that was decided in advance, rather than developing a theory based on the evidence.

The message of the interview is intended for the stereotypical FOX demographic - the people who feel threatened by the idea that there may be some value in another person's way of thinking, because if that way of thinking has value, then clearly the FOX demographic is doing something wrong. They want to hear that they are right, and that there is comfort in doing what they they have always done the way they have always done it. As a result, they spew forth all manner of ridiculous and oftentimes contradictory rhetoric. Liberals are either impotent daydreamers too caught up in satisfying everyone's feelings to do anything, or secretly conspiring with a Zionist cabal to achieve something that is never clearly defined as needed; Muslims are a shapeless, formless bête noire that are somehow barbaric savages that border on animals (invoking the anti-German propaganda of World War I) and at the same time are tactical geniuses who are waging a war on culture with the potential to undermine the demographic's values; and Europe is a cautionary tale on the dangers of liberalism, an economic black hole, and now, apparently, the last fortress between the righteous and noble conservatives and the chaotic, insatiable appetites of the Muslim world, which has since fallen.

It would be hilarious if it wasn't so terrifying. But it all comes down to the desire among viewers that they are right, that they always have been right, and that they will continue to be right so long as they keep doing what they have always done.
 
As many point out, the wider Muslim community are always amongst the first to condemn extremism and terrorism undertaken in the name of Islam. Then, there are lovely articles such as this which all too often go unreported.

It looks pretty self-explanitory but @Dennisch, can you shed any light on this?

eLKLDKD.jpg
 
Nothing more to it? No problems in Rotterdam or the Randstad at present?

Not for saying that. I think there was a politician who found the words a bit too strong but pretty much everyone here agrees with his statement.

The justice department is now making quick work of taking away Dutch citizenship from those who don't like our society. That's one thing I like to see happen sooner than later.
Shred their Dutch passport and kick'em out.

Let's see how much their lives improve without Dutch money.
 
Last edited:
I covered this to a degree in a parallel thread on the same topic and yes areas of towns and city's in the UK have higher levels of unemployment and crime, due to socio-economic factors you have described and areas with a higher Muslim population are not immune to it. That neither makes them a no-go area nor does it make Islam the cause, would the areas of predominantly white poverty in parts of Glasgow or black poverty in Bristol be 'Christian no-go areas' (they are after all Christian areas and in the case of Bristol strongly identify as such)?

My job takes me all around the UK and as someone who loves cooking I very often shop in areas of high immigrant populations (Indian, Muslim and Asian mainly) and never once have I found any of these areas, regardless of City or Town, to be no-go areas in which I was under threat. Often quite the opposite.

My own town's Muslim population is shared with an area of high Irish population, is one of the 'poorer' areas in the town and happens to be very safe and trouble free, despite the fact the Mosque is 200m and in line of sight of an Irish pub. Yet not one issue has ever occured based on that. The only area of marked trouble in the (large) town is in a lower income/high unemployment area of dominantly white population, yet this would not be described as a Christian no-go or trouble spot.

However the claims made in the piece went far further than that, specifically that the entire city of Birmingham was a no-go area, that the UK had effectively 'lost' to Islam. Its the second largest city in the UK with a predominantly Christian and Atheist population and a 'Mulsim' area that is far from a no-go area (it actually has some great food shops and places to eat) that I have visited countless times.

The same applies to this claim of Islamic police being the de-facto police force in certain areas of London and other cities. Its based of a single event in which three people tried to tell people to stop drinking in the street and to cover up, when people refused it came to pushing and shoving. The three were arrested, tried and jailed. We have had more issues and events of 'Christian Street Patrols" (the name they use) 'invading' mosques (the term they use) and telling Muslims to 'go home' or convert and forcing bibles on them.

I've not said for a second that the UK (and Europe) doesn't have areas of higher crime and that some may worry before going into them, that however doesn't make them a product of any religion, nor does it mean that whole towns and cities have been lost, that strict Sharia is in place and that 'Europe is lost'.
I can take you shopping or out for a bit to eat in Jamestown and Jane-Finch as well. The criminal element isn't stupid, nor would they be running around raping and pillaging constantly. They would take care of the merchants because they are usually extorting them for money to fund their criminal operations. Visiting a restaurant or trinket shop isn't going to tell you anything about the true nature of the criminal element in any neighbourhood.

As I said, I can't prove anything one way or the other and neither can you, but having experienced that kind of phenomenon first hand, it's easily believable to me that certain neighbourhoods are run by a criminal element in a given ethnic group, Muslim or otherwise.
 
Last edited:
I can take you shopping in Jamestown and Jane-Finch as well. The criminal element takes care of the merchants because they are usually extorting them for money to fund their criminal operations. Visiting a restaurant or trinket shop isn't going to tell you anything about the true nature of the criminal element in a neighbourhood.
I've not said its doesn't mean a criminal element doesn't exist in those areas, what I said was that these areas were not 'Muslim no-go areas', as that was the specific claim made in the Fox piece.

The specific (and utterly incorrect) claim made was that Birmingham was a Muslim only area in which whites could not venture (which does raise the question does this guy assume that white = not Muslim) and the police had given over to Islamic Sharia patrols. He also went on to claim that this had occurred in numerous places in the UK and Europe, to the degree that 'Europe was lost'; something that is simply a fantasy.

Why not take a look at Trip Advisor and see how many pubs, bars and restaurants Birmingham has selling alcohol (over 1,600 on Trip Advisor alone), with all the lovey pictures from people who have used them drinking booze and tucking into a myriad of pork based products (just a colleague of mine did this very morning when we were in Birmingham for a customer visit, both very white, very much non-Muslim and very much eating bacon).
 
I've not said its doesn't mean a criminal element doesn't exist in those areas, what I said was that these areas were not 'Muslim no-go areas', as that was the specific claim made in the Fox piece.

The specific (and utterly incorrect) claim made was that Birmingham was a Muslim only area in which whites could not venture (which does raise the question does this guy assume that white = not Muslim) and the police had given over to Islamic Sharia patrols. He also went on to claim that this had occurred in numerous places in the UK and Europe, to the degree that 'Europe was lost'; something that is simply a fantasy.

Why not take a look at Trip Advisor and see how many pubs, bars and restaurants Birmingham has selling alcohol (over 1,600 on Trip Advisor alone), with all the lovey pictures from people who have used them drinking booze and tucking into a myriad of pork based products (just a colleague of mine did this very morning when we were in Birmingham for a customer visit, both very white, very much non-Muslim and very much eating bacon).
Silly me. I didn't realize that Trip Advisor was the place to go to find out if an area had a large criminal element based on how many places are selling booze and pork:lol:.

The Fox piece may be exaggerated, but it doesn't mean there aren't elements of the truth in it. You'll have to forgive me if I don't accept your pub visits and luncheon dates as evidence of anything one way or the other.

 
Silly me. I didn't realize that Trip Advisor was the place to go to find out if an area had a large criminal element based on how many places are selling booze and pork:lol:.

The Fox piece may be exaggerated, but it doesn't mean there aren't elements of the truth in it. You'll have to forgive me if I don't accept your pub visits and luncheon dates as evidence of anything one way or the other.
What does a criminal element have to do with this at all?

That was not the claim made on the Fox piece, a piece that was not an 'exaggeration' but a flat out fantasy. No part of Birmingham has been lost to Muslim extremists, no part of it is a no-go area for non-muslims, Sharia patrols do not routinely beat people in London and other parts of the UK. Not a single piece of that is accurate.

The first part (no-go areas) is simply not true at all, the second (Sharia patrols) was a single incidence of three people who tried it once, got ignored by people which resulted in a minor scuffle which saw them arrested, tried and jailed.

Are you seriously suggesting that parts of the UK do have Muslim no-go areas in which the police and non-muslims can't go or that the police have given over parts of UK towns and cities to be patrolled by Sharia enforcement groups? What kind of evidence do you require?

Look here's a place in the Bullring, slap bang in the centre of Birmingham (near Moor Street Station - so that's clearly been taken over) that sells pork and booze...

http://www.bullring.co.uk/shops/restaurants/jamies-italian

....these Sharia police really need to sort it out allowing this kind of thing to continue.

Honestly from the perspective of someone who travels the whole of the UK regularly and spends a fair bit of time in Birmingham, to even suggest that the Fox piece 'may be exaggerated' is frankly hilarious (or it would be were it not for the fact that a percentage of those who viewed it will think it true or even partially true).
 
Last edited:
Silly me. I didn't realize that Trip Advisor was the place to go to find out if an area had a large criminal element based on how many places are selling booze and pork:lol:.

The Fox piece may be exaggerated, but it doesn't mean there aren't elements of the truth in it. You'll have to forgive me if I don't accept your pub visits and luncheon dates as evidence of anything one way or the other.

Except that 1,600 or so places selling alcohol doesn't sit with Birmingham being a Muslim controlled city to me.

Nor did anything else at all in the so called "news" feature that Fox broadcast.

It is nothing like that in the country I am living in.
 
What does a criminal element have to do with this at all?

That was not the claim made on the Fox piece, a piece that was not an 'exaggeration' but a flat out fantasy. No part of Birmingham has been lost, no part of it is a no-go area for non-muslims, Sharia patrols do not beat people in London and other parts of the UK. Not a single piece of that is accurate.

The first part (no-go areas) is simply not true at all, the second (Sharia patrols) was a single incidence of three people who tried it once, got ignored by people which resulted in a minor scuffle which saw them arrested, tried and jailed.

Are you seriously suggesting that parts of the UK do have Muslim no-go areas in which the police and non-muslims can't go or that the police have given over parts of UK towns and cities to be patrolled by Sharia enforcement groups?

As I said, I can't prove anything one way or the other and neither can you, but having experienced that kind of phenomenon first hand, it's easily believable to me that certain neighbourhoods are run by a criminal element in a given ethnic group, Muslim or otherwise.
 
And I have already addressed that.

The claim made by Fox has nothing at all to do with criminal elements, it was a claim that due to the imposition of Sharia rule the entire city of Birmingham had been lost, that non-Muslims simply didn't enter it.

Not because of criminality (i.e. socio-economic factors driving a higher crime rate) but because the UK had let Muslims take it over (an implied Caliphate within the UK). That claim does not have a single grain of truth to it at all, and I do have a wealth of first hand experience and knowledge of that.

The claimed Muslim take over hasn't even managed to claim Whitechapel (the location a certain A Choudry uses as his base) failing to even manage to gain a Muslim majority, get all the pubs closed down and saw his Sharia patrol arrested. My apologies as well - I stated earlier that it had been one incident, it was actually a total of three - however the total number arrested and charged was not three, but eight. Those responsible for all three events were arrested and charged - so how exactly that gets turned into Sharia police being in charge of areas of London and other towns and cities is beyond me. Only the most deluded or biased mind could possibly turn one into the other, when in every case those involved were resolved by the police (oh and condemned by the local Mosque in every case - those arrested were not even members of the local mosque either).

Hold the press, Fox was nearly right, but its not Islam, its Klingon.......

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/birmingham-now-100-percent-klingon-2015011394318
 
Last edited:
The claimed Muslim take over hasn't even managed to claim Whitechapel ... failing to even manage to gain a Muslim majority, get all the pubs closed down ...

Crumbs, bloody immigrants, comin' over here, tryin' to steal our Monopoly board pub crawls.
 
And I have already addressed that.

The claim made by Fox has nothing at all to do with criminal elements, it was a claim that due to the imposition of Sharia rule the entire city of Birmingham had been lost, that non-Muslims simply didn't enter it.

Not because of criminality (i.e. socio-economic factors driving a higher crime rate) but because the UK had let Muslims take it over (an implied Caliphate within the UK). That claim does not have a single grain of truth to it at all, and I do have a wealth of first hand experience and knowledge of that.

The claimed Muslim take over hasn't even managed to claim Whitechapel (the location a certain A Choudry uses as his base) failing to even manage to gain a Muslim majority, get all the pubs closed down and saw his Sharia patrol arrested. My apologies as well - I stated earlier that it had been one incident, it was actually a total of three - however the total number arrested and charged was not three, but eight. Those responsible for all three events were arrested and charged - so how exactly that gets turned into Sharia police being in charge of areas of London and other towns and cities is beyond me. Only the most deluded or biased mind could possibly turn one into the other, when in every case those involved were resolved by the police (oh and condemned by the local Mosque in every case - those arrested were not even members of the local mosque either).

Hold the press, Fox was nearly right, but its not Islam, its Klingon.......

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/birmingham-now-100-percent-klingon-2015011394318
There is literally no one here arguing that Fox was correct and truthful, I'm not sure why you are flogging this dead horse. But just because Fox is way off base and exaggerating to the point of silliness, doesn't mean that the opposite is true either or that their isn't a grain of truth to the assertion that ethnic gangs have a great deal of control in neighbourhoods in which they concentrate. This is a worldwide phenomenon that has been around for hundreds of years, I don't see why Europe or Muslims would be any exception to this.
 
Exactly as the article states.

He is becoming a lot more popular for his approach on these types of situations than our PM, Sissy Rutte.

"Anyone who expresses support for terror as a means to overthrow our constitutional democracy, as far as I'm concerned, should leave the country at once,"

Can you imagine a German saying that? Politically correct lefties and media would go insane, calling it nazism all over again. That's why no one dares to say the truth anymore
 
There is literally no one here arguing that Fox was correct and truthful, I'm not sure why you are flogging this dead horse. But just because Fox is way off base and exaggerating to the point of silliness, doesn't mean that the opposite is true either or that their isn't a grain of truth to the assertion that ethnic gangs have a great deal of control in neighbourhoods in which they concentrate. This is a worldwide phenomenon that has been around for hundreds of years, I don't see why Europe or Muslims would be any exception to this.
Quite simply because you seem to be equating religion with crime.

Is the St Paul's area of Bristol a Christian no-go zone? Or the Gorbals in Glasgow the same?

No one (in particular myself) has said that areas with higher levels of criminality doesn't exist in the UK or even Europe (and we have said so repeatedly), it's the cause that is the question. A great deal of evidence exists and has existed to show that socio-economic factors drive this. I'm not aware of any evidence to show that religion however drives this.

So why in the areas with a higher Muslim population (but still interestingly not a majority) would they be labeled 'Muslim no-go areas'?

For a grain of truth to exist in the Fox piece that would have to be the reason, they quite literally claimed that these no go-areas exist because they have been taken over by Muslims, who have imposed Sharia law and are now run as an effective Caliphate.

Now I would ask you, do you have any evidence at all to support such a claim? Have you seen any evidence to support such a claim?
 
Seems the Chinese are taking a hard line:

http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...-passes-burqa-ban-in-its-largest-muslim-city/

Quite simply because you seem to be equating religion with crime.

Is the St Paul's area of Bristol a Christian no-go zone? Or the Gorbals in Glasgow the same?

No one (in particular myself) has said that areas with higher levels of criminality doesn't exist in the UK or even Europe (and we have said so repeatedly), it's the cause that is the question. A great deal of evidence exists and has existed to show that socio-economic factors drive this. I'm not aware of any evidence to show that religion however drives this.

So why in the areas with a higher Muslim population (but still interestingly not a majority) would they be labeled 'Muslim no-go areas'?

For a grain of truth to exist in the Fox piece that would have to be the reason, they quite literally claimed that these no go-areas exist because they have been taken over by Muslims, who have imposed Sharia law and are now run as an effective Caliphate.

Now I would ask you, do you have any evidence at all to support such a claim? Have you seen any evidence to support such a claim?
What claim? I have made no claims about Fox News being accurate nor any claim that Muslims have taken over and imposed a Caliphate in any neighbourhood, nor that Islam is the root cause of possible criminal behaviour.

but in my own experience, when you gather large numbers of relatively homogeneus ethnic groups together in a "ghetto" environment, it's quite often the case that they will be crime riddled and gang controlled.

As I said, I can't prove anything one way or the other and neither can you, but having experienced that kind of phenomenon first hand, it's easily believable to me that certain neighbourhoods are run by a criminal element in a given ethnic group, Muslim or otherwise.

You seem to be looking for some black and white, all or nothing hook to hang me on when it comes to Muslims and it isn't there. The grain of truth is that large ethnic concentrations in ghettos almost inevitably leads to gang activity, given the right conditions of poverty, a real or percieved indifference from the established "main stream" elements of the rest of society etc. etc. etc. It's a worldwide phenomenon seen in most large cities of the world. It's not a stretch to imagine that there are certain places one just doesn't wander into at night in Paris that are controlled by "Muslim" gangs. Just as there are places in Toronto you don't wander into at night that are controled by Somali gangs or Asian gangs or any other number of ethnic gangs. And of course I'm sure there are caucasian gangs too.

I'd be more shocked if that wasn't the case with Muslims in Paris as well, given their high poverty rate and concentration in public housing. Since I have to explain everything over and over, I have to go on record as saying that doesn't mean the Fox report was correct or accurate.
 
Last edited:
Can you imagine a German saying that? Politically correct lefties and media would go insane, calling it nazism all over again. That's why no one dares to say the truth anymore
Yes, a lot of them. They're called Pegida. ;)
 
No one (in particular myself) has said that areas with higher levels of criminality doesn't exist in the UK or even Europe (and we have said so repeatedly), it's the cause that is the question. A great deal of evidence exists and has existed to show that socio-economic factors drive this.
To drive down one level from those "socio-economic factors", might we find discrimination, high unemployment, poverty and hopelessness? Are there scholarly studies we might review?
 
Seems the Chinese are taking a hard line:
What claim? I have made no claims about Fox News being accurate nor any claim that Muslims have taken over and imposed a Caliphate in any neighbourhood, nor that Islam is the root cause of possible criminal behaviour.
I didn't say that you made any claim about Fox news being accurate.

I said for the Fox news piece to be accurate, not that you claimed it was accurate.

You did however open the interpretation about it to ethnic and socio-economic factors, which was never a factor in the piece or part of the claim they made.


You seem to be looking for some black and white, all or nothing hook to hang me on when it comes to Muslims and it isn't there. The grain of truth is that large ethnic concentrations in ghettos almost inevitably leads to gang activity, given the right conditions of poverty, a real or percieved indifference from the established "main stream" elements of the rest of society etc. etc. etc. It's a worldwide phenomenon seen in most large cities of the world. It's not a stretch to imagine that there are certain places one just doesn't wander into at night in Paris that are controlled by "Muslim" gangs. Just as there are places in Toronto you don't wander into at night that are controled by Somali gangs or Asian gangs or any other number of ethnic gangs. And of course I'm sure there are caucasian gangs too.

I'd be more shocked if that wasn't the case with Muslims in Paris as well, given their high poverty rate and concentration in public housing. Since I have to explain everything over and over, I have to go on record as saying that doesn't mean the Fox report was correct or accurate.
Interesting.

Muslims and Islam are not/is not an ethnic grouping, its a religious grouping.

You make the distinction in every other example that you use, but not that one. This is the exact point I was making when I asked about St Paul's and Gorbals, as both of these are areas of strong Christianity yet they would never be described as being controlled by Christian gangs (despite being Christian majorities in both cases).

Even when you focus on ethnicity its still unproven that its the prime driving factor behind criminal activity in these cases, are poor white people less likely to be criminals than poor black, asian, etc people?

However that totally gets off the point anyway, the Fox piece never mentioned anything other than Islam (as in a Sharia controlled version of the faith) as the cause for the supposed no-go areas. As such any other factor around the causes of gang activity, levels of criminality, etc. were never a part of the point they were attempting to make, as such I still fail to see why you brought it to the table.

To drive down one level from those "socio-economic factors", might we find discrimination, high unemployment, poverty and hopelessness? Are there scholarly studies we might review?
A large meta-study has been done for just that...

http://cjr.sagepub.com/content/18/2/182.short
 
Last edited:
A large meta-study has been done for just that...

http://cjr.sagepub.com/content/18/2/182.short
Sweet! A study from 1982!

Here's something slightly more relevant:

http://etn.sagepub.com/content/13/6/689.abstract
  1. University College London, UK
  1. Saffron Karlsen, Department of Applied Health Research, UCL, 1–19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 6BT, UK. Email: s.karlsen@ucl.ac.uk
  1. James Y. Nazroo
  1. University of Manchester, UK
Abstract
Muslims in Europe are increasingly constructed as problematic and insular. This article examines whether this construction may be justified and the impact this has had on the attitudes of Muslims living in different countries in Europe. Over 70 percent of Bangladeshi, Turkish and Moroccan Muslims living in Britain, Germany and Spain, respectively, felt ‘at home’ in their country of residence. This sense of being at home, and whether the events of 11 September 2001 or 11 March 2004 affected this was associated with citizenship of or birth in Europe, experiences of victimization and perceived local social support. Citizenship, experiences of discrimination and strength of religious identities were associated with reporting British, German or Spanish identities. Rather than providing evidence of self-segregation, these findings emphasize the impact of the political and social marginalization faced by Muslim groups in Europe, which significantly affects their ability to feel themselves at home there.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13691830903471537

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
Volume 36, Issue 3, 2010
Political Participation in France among Non-European-Origin Migrants: Segregation or Integration?
PreviewView full textDownload full text
Access options

DOI:
10.1080/13691830903471537
Rahsaan Maxwella*
pages 425-443

  • Published online: 17 Dec 2009

Abstract
This article examines the political incorporation of minority migrant groups in Western Europe by analysing voting rates. I present the first quantitative data that compare turnout rates among multiple minority migrant groups in France and show that non-European-origin migrant groups have lower turnout rates than native French metropolitans. I claim neighbourhood effects can explain these turnout differences, suggesting that the underlying determinants of minority migrant voting behaviour in France are similar to those of native metropolitans. However, because non-European-origin migrants are more likely than native metropolitans to live in disadvantaged urban areas they have lower turnout rates.


http://ips.sagepub.com/content/30/3/297.abstract


International Political Science Reviewips.sagepub.com
  1. doi: 10.1177/0192512109105642 International Political Science Review June 2009 vol. 30 no. 3 297-317
Islam, Jihadism, and Depoliticization in France and Germany
  1. Anouar Boukhars
    1. aboukhars@wilberforce.edu
Abstract
Pressures from within (Islam) and without (globalization and European integration) have made Germans and the French feel apprehensive about their national identity and culture. Both countries are visibly struggling to defuse the potentially explosive mix of nationalism and fear of the Muslim “stranger,” while defining citizenship for their marginalized and disenfranchised immigrants. The issue is no longer the building of “defensive citadels” of “Frenchness” or “Germanness,” particularly since Germany has finally come to grips with the reality that the Gastarbeiter (guest workers) are there to stay. The challenge for Germany and France today is to define what kinds of values are essential for their countries' secular model of society and what kinds are negotiable.

------------------------------------------

There's loads more articles. Just google scholarly articles for "sensitive urban zones Europe"

http://ns2.merip.org/mero/interventions/urban-violence-france

http://mq.dukejournals.org/content/18/1/89.citation
 
Last edited:
Sweet! A study from 1982!

Umm no.

Its a Meta-study that contains links to a wide range of other studies that have cited it, the most recent of which was published this year!

It would seem that you didn't even bother to look down the list of linked studies.

You also requested studies relating to socio-economic factors, so your following list is only 'more relevant' if you change your original request!

Here's something slightly more relevant:

http://etn.sagepub.com/content/13/6/689.abstract
  1. University College London, UK
  1. Saffron Karlsen, Department of Applied Health Research, UCL, 1–19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 6BT, UK. Email: s.karlsen@ucl.ac.uk
  1. James Y. Nazroo
  1. University of Manchester, UK
Abstract
Muslims in Europe are increasingly constructed as problematic and insular. This article examines whether this construction may be justified and the impact this has had on the attitudes of Muslims living in different countries in Europe. Over 70 percent of Bangladeshi, Turkish and Moroccan Muslims living in Britain, Germany and Spain, respectively, felt ‘at home’ in their country of residence. This sense of being at home, and whether the events of 11 September 2001 or 11 March 2004 affected this was associated with citizenship of or birth in Europe, experiences of victimization and perceived local social support. Citizenship, experiences of discrimination and strength of religious identities were associated with reporting British, German or Spanish identities. Rather than providing evidence of self-segregation, these findings emphasize the impact of the political and social marginalization faced by Muslim groups in Europe, which significantly affects their ability to feel themselves at home there.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13691830903471537

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
Volume 36, Issue 3, 2010
cleardot.gif
Translator disclaimer
cover.jpg

Political Participation in France among Non-European-Origin Migrants: Segregation or Integration?
PreviewView full textDownload full text
Access options

DOI:
10.1080/13691830903471537
Rahsaan Maxwella*
pages 425-443

Publishing models and article dates explained
  • Published online: 17 Dec 2009

Abstract
This article examines the political incorporation of minority migrant groups in Western Europe by analysing voting rates. I present the first quantitative data that compare turnout rates among multiple minority migrant groups in France and show that non-European-origin migrant groups have lower turnout rates than native French metropolitans. I claim neighbourhood effects can explain these turnout differences, suggesting that the underlying determinants of minority migrant voting behaviour in France are similar to those of native metropolitans. However, because non-European-origin migrants are more likely than native metropolitans to live in disadvantaged urban areas they have lower turnout rates.


http://ips.sagepub.com/content/30/3/297.abstract


International Political Science Reviewips.sagepub.com
  1. doi: 10.1177/0192512109105642 International Political Science Review June 2009 vol. 30 no. 3 297-317
Islam, Jihadism, and Depoliticization in France and Germany
  1. Anouar Boukhars
    1. aboukhars@wilberforce.edu
Abstract
Pressures from within (Islam) and without (globalization and European integration) have made Germans and the French feel apprehensive about their national identity and culture. Both countries are visibly struggling to defuse the potentially explosive mix of nationalism and fear of the Muslim “stranger,” while defining citizenship for their marginalized and disenfranchised immigrants. The issue is no longer the building of “defensive citadels” of “Frenchness” or “Germanness,” particularly since Germany has finally come to grips with the reality that the Gastarbeiter (guest workers) are there to stay. The challenge for Germany and France today is to define what kinds of values are essential for their countries' secular model of society and what kinds are negotiable.

http://ns2.merip.org/mero/interventions/urban-violence-france


http://mq.dukejournals.org/content/18/1/89.citation

And the upshot of these is?

Do they provide positive proof of the Birmingham caliphate?
 
Back