Incident on London Bridge

[Silva]

This is extremist terrorism, not Muslim terrorism, just as IRA bombings were extremist terrorism, not Christian terrorism.

They were shouting "this is for Allah", no matter what the other billion Muslims say it doesn't change that.

 

[Vidic_In_Moscow]

I just can't believe people could be so callous to other human beings. There is always a reason for everything but I'm at a loss how someone could lose all humanity like that. You'd think even at the last second your instincts would tell you that what you're doing is wrong. So disturbing that we have people like this living in the UK. How could you do that to random innocent people?

 

[Cheesy]

This is extremist terrorism, not Muslim terrorism, just as IRA bombings were extremist terrorism, not Christian terrorism.

It's not Muslim terrorism as such but it is Islamic extremism (in many cases) and in such cases most of the perpetrators either follow Islam or claim to follow Islam. The discussion/debate over the correct/incorrect terminology is a discussion with some merit but I don't think we need to jump over someone for using slightly incorrect phrasing. If it's even incorrect.

 

[AshfordLad]

I wonder how the guys sprint past him and yet he's able to identify their religious orientation...

Bit pedantic but wtf is "religious orientation"? Surely you mean persuasion.

 

[Zlatattack]

Give me some advice. I usually only get into conversations with people at work or in the pub. I want to engage with muslims in my area. I don't work with any and they don't go to the pub.

That's a tricky one really. I'd suggest googling where your nearest mosque is and then just pop in one day and ask them the same question.

I bet there's loads of other people like you, I wonder if we should do like open days or something? The problem is the quality of the response you'll get will vary from mosque to mosque. Some mosques are setup really well for interfaith dialogue, others wouldn't have a clue. With no central authority it's hard to have any standards.

 

[Raoul]

Bit pedantic but wtf is "religious orientation"?

Their religion.

 

[MadMike]

Any ideas as to casualties? It seems that almost every witeness that has dialled in to a radio station claims to have seen a body or two.

Officially only one fatality confirmed but some newspapers running with headlines of at least 7. Definitely loads of casualties though. Many people were stabbed and quite a few injured on the bridge by the van.

 

[Silva]

I just can't believe people could be so callous to other human beings. There is always a reason for everything but I'm at a loss how someone could lose all humanity like that. You'd think even at the last second your instincts would tell you that what you're doing is wrong. So disturbing that we have people like this living in the UK. How could you do that to random innocent people?

As history teaches us, it takes far less that we'd hope to dehumanize others.

 

[Cheesy]

That's a tricky one really. I'd suggest googling where your nearest mosque is and then just pop in one day and ask them the same question.

I bet there's loads of other people like you, I wonder if we should do like open days or something? The problem is the quality of the response you'll get will vary from mosque to mosque. Some mosques are setup really well for interfaith dialogue, others wouldn't have a clue. With no central authority it's hard to have any standards.

I think it's something that could be worth pursuing. Credit to the likes of @Denis Irwin and yourself who not only support the idea of further integration but are willing to actually go out and try to achieve it through a number of different means.

 

[Kaos]

Officially only one fatality confirmed but some newspapers running with headlines of at least 7. Definitely loads of casualties though. Many people were stabbed and quite a few injured on the bridge by the van.

Thanks.

I hope the casualties stay non-fatal and reports of bodies being exaggerated.

 

[the hea]

This is extremist terrorism, not Muslim terrorism, just as IRA bombings were extremist terrorism, not Christian terrorism.

IRA bombings where political terrorism, this is religious terrorism.

 

[Cheesy]

IRA bombings where political terrorism, this is religious terrorism.

All religion is political to an extent, though. That's inherently the case. These actions don't exist in a vacuum and the religious and political motivation is both relevant to the discussion. Sometimes one is more prevalent than the other but the IRA was generally, of course, affiliated to a certain religion, as are anti-Catholic groups like the Orange Order etc.

 

[Jericholyte2]

They were shouting "this is for Allah", no matter what the other billion Muslims say it doesn't change that.

People can shout whatever they want to, but to claim it's the fault of the religion because some extremists go too far is pathetic. To that end how about we ban Christians for all the millions who had been killed in the various 'Christian' holy wars. As an atheist I personally think religion in all its forms causes an awful lot of trouble, you can't blame the religion for what a minute proportion of mentally ill extremists do.

 

[MadMike]

I just can't believe people could be so callous to other human beings. There is always a reason for everything but I'm at a loss how someone could lose all humanity like that. You'd think even at the last second your instincts would tell you that what you're doing is wrong. So disturbing that we have people like this living in the UK. How could you do that to random innocent people?

You're thinking of conscience. There's nothing in your instincts to prevent your from killing, quite the opposite in fact.

 

[Dante]

IRA bombings where political terrorism, this is religious terrorism.

ISIS terrorism is politcal terrorism.The first 'S' is more relevant is more relevant than the first 'I'.

Minus Isis, this wouldn't have happened. This is nationalist terrorism.

 

[langster]

I think it's something that could be worth pursuing. Credit to the likes of @Denis Irwin and yourself who not only support the idea of further integration but are willing to actually go out and try to achieve it through a number of different means.

Agreed. @DenisIrwin made a brilliant post earlier but it was pretty much ignored. I was guilty of that myself, I had it quoted to reply but the convo moved on so quickly I deleted it.

 

[Zlatattack]

I think it's something that could be worth pursuing. Credit to the likes of @Denis Irwin and yourself who not only support the idea of further integration but are willing to actually go out and try to achieve it through a number of different means.

It's really tricky for us as a community. Most mosques are setup as places to pray and don't have a proper community function. They were established by working class migrants and are administered voluntarily. The only people who get a salary are the imams and most of them get minimum wage.

Now I'm second generation here, people like me and others work and live in the wider community, we've got the skill sets to better utilise mosques but don't really know where to begin.

My local mosque over the last 15 years has hired English speaking imams, do interfaith work, have a library, women's facilities, a youth group, an Islamic studies curriculum, but so many others are just converted houses where locals head to pray and then leave.

 

[Wibble]

This is extremist terrorism, not Muslim terrorism, just as IRA bombings were extremist terrorism, not Christian terrorism.

True but Muslim inspired so discussion around the relationship between the two is inevitable.

 

[Silva]

People can shout whatever they want to, but to claim it's the fault of the religion because some extremists go too far is pathetic. To that end how about we ban Christians for all the millions who had been killed in the various 'Christian' holy wars. As an atheist I personally think religion in all its forms causes an awful lot of trouble, you can't blame the religion for what a minute proportion of mentally ill extremists do.

You're right. But the terrorists still acted for Islam, and there's little point in pretending they didn't or that the religion had no impact in their decision to do it.

 

[Kaos]

Do we know if the perpetrators were British born?

 

[the hea]

All religion is political to an extent, though. That's inherently the case. These actions don't exist in a vacuum and the religious and political motivation is both relevant to the discussion. Sometimes one is more prevalent than the other but the IRA was generally, of course, affiliated to a certain religion, as are anti-Catholic groups like the Orange Order etc.

They where affiliated to a certain religion but their aim was political and not Religious.

 

[Silva]

ISIS terrorism is politcal terrorism.The first 'S' is more relevant is more relevant than the first 'I'.

Minus Isis, this wouldn't have happened. This is nationalist terrorism.

They where affiliated to a certain religion but their aim was political and not Religious.

They were shouting "This is for Allah", not "This is for ISIS".

 

[Ubik]

Do we know if the perpetrators were British born?

We still aren't sure of their total number or status right now, let alone their identities.

 

[Vidic_In_Moscow]

You're thinking of conscience. There's nothing in your instincts to prevent your from killing, quite the opposite in fact.

Of course there is, or we'd all be killing people all the time. If you're thinking of self-preservation then sure, but otherwise I'm not seeing the point you're making really.

 

[Wibble]

I think maybe you need to rethink your post a little!

Muslim related. Probably more related than Irish terrorism was to religion. So religion related discussion is inevitable.

You can discuss the link between Muslim (related) terrorism and the religion itself without thinking Muslim=terrorist. Not that all people can of course.

 

[2 man midfield]

Sigh. Why can't people just be nice to eachother?

 

[Jericholyte2]

Not true, they believe they're working for Allah, but try and point out anywhere in Muslim text where anything like this is mentioned. Never mind the fact that Islam is directly translated as 'peace', builds the view that everyone is a brother or sister and reports that anyone who takes a life shall be banished from their form of paradise.

These acts are not in the name of Allah, not in the name of Islam, they are extremists who have a warped view of their religion.

And before anyone hits me with anything, I'm actually Atheist.

 

[Cheesy]

It's really tricky for us as a community. Most mosques are setup as places to pray and don't have a proper community function. They were established by working class migrants and are administered voluntarily. The only people who get a salary are the imams and most of them get minimum wage.

Now I'm second generation here, people like me and others work and live in the wider community, we've got the skill sets to better utilise mosques but don't really know where to begin.

My local mosque over the last 15 years has hired English speaking imams, do interfaith work, have a library, women's facilities, a youth group, an Islamic studies curriculum, but so many others are just converted houses where locals head to pray and then leave.

Cheers, interesting. Out of interest, what's your general opinion on the whole issue of integration as a whole? Critics of British Muslims tend to often argue that they're overly conservative, and out of touch with our values in regards to women, homosexuality etc, and that many are unwilling to integrate with wider society. But on certain issues like homosexuality there's also a fair argument that many of the same problems probably exist within British Christianity; it's just that we're more used to that. Additionally, another criticism has often been regarding freedom of speech and Islam holding a negative view towards it, but again, for all our parading of freedom of speech there are plenty of Westerners on all sides of the political spectrum who will be hostile to views that differ from their own.

Additionally, do you notice a major differentiation between your own generation and ones that have come before you? The issue of homegrown terrorism is an interesting one in certain respects because we're sometimes seeing people who have been born/lived in Britain being radicalised all the same. But my general view is that people who are born in Britain/get the same opportunities growing up here will probably become more liberal than previous generations (if previous generations have been particularly conservative) but again I'm not sure how true that is.

I ask because my own experience with Islam has been close to non-existent - I'm in an area of Scotland where immigration is incredibly low and where we barely had immigrants at all in our schools, and where I've tended to meet more when advancing to uni etc. But even then, Glasgow - while being more multicultural than towns surrounding it - still tends to be fairly low on immigration and ethnic minorities compared to other UK cities. So it's always something wherein a lot of my views have been informed more on the opinions/stats of others.

 

[Cheesy]

They where affiliated to a certain religion but their aim was political and not Religious.

But, again, similar can be argued for ISIS; their religious aim is inherently a political aim as well. In attempting to implement a religious caliphate they're inherently trying to gain political power. It's a very, very different case to the one in Ireland but some parallels remain.

 

[Vidic_In_Moscow]

Not true, they believe they're working for Allah, but try and point out anywhere in Muslim text where anything like this is mentioned. Never mind the fact that Islam is directly translated as 'peace', builds the view that everyone is a brother or sister and reports that anyone who takes a life shall be banished from their form of paradise.

These acts are not in the name of Allah, not in the name of Islam, they are extremists who have a warped view of their religion.

And before anyone hits me with anything, I'm actually Atheist.

Every view of a religion is a belief though, when you get down to it. So who is to say which view is warped and which view isn't? Maybe they're all warped. Does it become warped when someone does something we don't like? Who are you to say what they did was or wasn't in the name of?

 

[Jippy]

Where's @rednev when you need him.

 

[Cheesy]

Not true, they believe they're working for Allah, but try and point out anywhere in Muslim text where anything like this is mentioned. Never mind the fact that Islam is directly translated as 'peace', builds the view that everyone is a brother or sister and reports that anyone who takes a life shall be banished from their form of paradise.

These acts are not in the name of Allah, not in the name of Islam, they are extremists who have a warped view of their religion.

And before anyone hits me with anything, I'm actually Atheist.

Islamic texts has plenty of violent passages which advocate extreme action. Likewise, it's got plenty of passages which promote messages of peace, but if we're going to highlight one then I think it's only fair we highlight the other. Again, similar can be said for religions like Christianity - the Bible is littered with contradictions, both significant and insignificant.

 

[Silva]

Not true, they believe they're working for Allah, but try and point out anywhere in Muslim text where anything like this is mentioned. Never mind the fact that Islam is directly translated as 'peace', builds the view that everyone is a brother or sister and reports that anyone who takes a life shall be banished from their form of paradise.

These acts are not in the name of Allah, not in the name of Islam, they are extremists who have a warped view of their religion.

And before anyone hits me with anything, I'm actually Atheist.

https://quran.com/2/191-193

It's a book written 1400 years ago, it's not completely against the whole violence thing. Especially considering it was written by a conquerer.

 

[Jericholyte2]

Every view of a religion is a belief though, when you get down to it. So who is to say which view is warped and which view isn't? Maybe they're all warped. Does it become warped when someone does something we don't like? Who are you to say what they did was or wasn't in the name of?

It becomes warped when a religion which has 1.2bn peaceful practitioners and a 0.001% (if that) proportion who feel the need to express their views with violence.

 

[Dante]

Bear in mind that ISIS hate muslims in general. ISIS are a political movement.

 

[Cheesy]

Every view of a religion is a belief though, when you get down to it. So who is to say which view is warped and which view isn't? Maybe they're all warped. Does it become warped when someone does something we don't like? Who are you to say what they did was or wasn't in the name of?

Aye, this is a fair point. By no means should anyone think this is a representation of Islam as a whole (because it's clearly not) but I think it's dishonest if we decide to dismiss a certain interpretation of a religion because it's the uncomfortable one. Presuming we're going on the basis of the text itself, it advocates both peace and violence. And while the vast majority in Britain and beyond will opt for the peaceful interpretation, there's clearly a significant sect which argues the opposite and which is causing death and destruction as a result.

 

[Silva]

It becomes warped when a religion which has 1.2bn peaceful practitioners and a 0.001% (if that) proportion who feel the need to express their views with violence.

The proportion doesn't matter. There are probably close to 1.2bn interpretations of Islam to accompany those 1.2bn Muslims, it only takes a few extremists for it to be a problem.

 

[Wibble]

Where's @rednev when you need him.

Indeed. Far too much reason and nuance in this thread.

 

[Kaos]

ISIS are a sectarian movement. They consider Shia Muslims to be their biggest enemies and have marked all 200million of them for death.

 

[Nikhil]

Three men stabbed a woman in an incident according to an eyewitness in The Guardian.