Are Muslims to blame for the rise in Islamophobia?

[tonmoy]

No this is democracy. Not sure if you live in India but in the UK people have a legal right to object to any aspect of society as long as they dont break any laws.

lol.... You are funny..

 

[Technics 1210]

The Church of England, and many Christians, were opposed to gay marriage in the UK. This is failing to integrate!

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant! LOL

 

[Technics 1210]

No this is democracy. Not sure if you live in India but in the UK people have a legal right to object to any aspect of society as long as they dont break any laws.

Spot on. The same law in the UK protects the lower caste Hindus when it comes to equality. The UK put a swift stop to the failed integration by Hindus in the UK who decided to enact and import the backward caste system.

Hindus were complaining big time, and were, and still are, against the caste law in the UK.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38663143

 

[The_Odd_One]

The Church of England, and many Christians, were opposed to gay marriage in the UK. This is failing to integrate!

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant! LOL

Failing to integrate with whom? That's an example of difference of opinion.

 

[KingKhanWC]

I am not a model but I do not pretend to be one by not letting anyone see my hair as if others are dying to see them.

Where did you read "my parents" in my post? I am lucky to have moderate parents who did not force any such thing on me.

Those are my observations from how most of the practicing Muslims raise their kids in the US. It seems like most Muslim families have their own way of life in which completely contradicts with the western culture.

Covering your head has no place in the modern world because it is an ancient practice with no usefulness just like wearing cowboy hats and boots is not an attire for the present time. In some cases, it is forced upon little girls which may qualify as child abuse.

If the Queen loves to wear it , why shouldn't others? Is she backward and not in tune with modern society?

 

[The_Odd_One]

View attachment 90427

If the Queen loves to wear it , why shouldn't others? Is she backward and not in tune with modern society?

What a desperate attempt. The queen did not wear it because she does not want to show her hair for religious reasons and she does not wear it every time she goes outside of her palace.

 

[Technics 1210]

View attachment 90427

If the Queen loves to wear it , why shouldn't others? Is she backward and not in tune with modern society?

That's nothing, every picture of Virgin Mary has her covering her head, not to say anything of Mother Theresa!

I bet he would want to see women near naked walking down the street - Kamasutra influence. Eeek!

 

[KingKhanWC]

What a desperate attempt. The queen did not wear it because she does not want to show her hair for religious reasons and she does not wear it every time she goes outside of her palace.

So its ok to wear it but never for religous purposes? You changing your tune like an amatuer flute player but ok lets go with it.

 

[KingKhanWC]

That's nothing, every picture of Virgin Mary has her covering her head, not to say anything of Mother Theresa!

I bet he would want to see women near naked walking down the street - Kamasutra influence. Eeek!

I think it's some sort of weird hair fetish but you could be right.

Accoring to the poster, it's ok to cover you hair if it's cold or any other purpose but not because it's religous. Strange chap.

 

[The_Odd_One]

So its ok to wear it but never for religous purposes? You changing your tune like an amatuer flute player but ok lets go with it.

I think I made it clear that if you cover your head for a valid reason, for example when it is really cold, then there is nothing wrong with it. I have a problem with the religious logic. Anyway, people are free to wear whatever they want and I am free to find their reasoning idiotic.

 

[The_Odd_One]

I think it's some sort of weird hair fetish but you could be right.

Accoring to the poster, it's ok to cover you hair if it's cold or any other purpose but not because it's religous. Strange chap.

It is normal to wear gloves and pads when you are on the cricket field but it will be abnormal to wear them at work. I hope you understand the difference.

 

[KingKhanWC]

I think I made it clear that if you cover your head for a valid reason, for example when it is really cold, then there is nothing wrong with it. I have a problem with the religious logic. Anyway, people are free to wear whatever they want and I am free to find their reasoning idiotic.

Thats your problem. Get some help and stop worrying about what women wear. Good luck.

 

[The_Odd_One]

That's nothing, every picture of Virgin Mary has her covering her head, not to say anything of Mother Theresa!

I bet he would want to see women near naked walking down the street - Kamasutra influence. Eeek!

Yes and Virgin Mary died 10 years ago, right? Great logic!

There is a middle ground between covering yourself foolishly and running naked.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Islamophobia is NOT an acceptable term since it confuses legitimate argument against Islamic ideology to anti muslim bigotry.
I have problems with Islamic ideology but I have no problems with Muslims. Big difference if you ask me.

Seems like the British govt agrees with my view. They have sacked one of their own advisors Roger Scruton, a well known author and philosopher who echoed your claim that there is nothing wrong with Islamophobia and that it was a false term.

https://www.theguardian.com/culture...lls-for-dismissal-islamophobiad-soros-remarks

 

[MenInG]

After the Sri Lanka attack...any change in opinions?

 

[barah_admi]

Sounds silly but there are opinions which state that Muslims have brought Islamophobia onto themselves by supporting 'radical' idea etc

Do you agree?

Would someone be allowed to create a thread and open discourse on the topic "Are black people to blame for slavery?"

 

[jagatk]

Would someone be allowed to create a thread and open discourse on the topic "Are black people to blame for slavery?"

Not necessarily black people but African black people were as responsible for slavery as slaves themselves. Europeans were middle men, buying slaves in Africa and selling them in Americas, but they rarely ever were the ones who captured the slaves. It was the African tribes leaders and kings who did that.

 

[BreadPakoda]

Most Muslims find it difficult to co-exist with people from other religions, especially when the others are in a minority. Of course, there would be some fantastic Muslims, who would mind their own business but then you meet some, especially from the subcontinent - who want to convert you, say their religion is the only "true" one or slip in a sentence or two on why Aurangzeb's killing of minorities made sense back in the day.

They want a separate state, separate laws etc. That's the perception I've got from living in different cities across the globe.

I belong to a very small minority in India which most of you must not have even heard of. So my views are a bit free from bias.

There are consequences to it. I see a lot of Hindus frustrated these days. Thanks to polarization of views, most repeated see what they want to see and are fed with news that antagonizes them against the Muslims. And sadly, many Hindus in India too have become hard liners. Hindu extremism is a reality today.

 

[James]

Quite simple this one really:

No.

Anti-Muslim sentiment and fear of Muslims fuelled by the mass media are what’s to blame for Islamophobia.

The only thing I’d add is that some Muslims are extremely violent and murderous towards other Muslims, but this particular strand of anti-Muslim behaviour is not connected to Islamophobia, it is more about politics.

 

[Robert]

Would someone be allowed to create a thread and open discourse on the topic "Are black people to blame for slavery?"

Some black Africans profited from the Atlantic Passage. Back when Mrs Robert was at school, the African girls looked down on her - “You are descended from slaves” one said. To which Mrs R replied ‘And you are descended from those who sold my descendants to the slavers”. They spat in her face.

And then there was the Arab slave trade where black Muslims certainly profited too.

 

[troodon]

A section of Muslims are responsible for the rise in Islamophobia.

 

[Sirris]

Is this a "phobia" you are born with or does it develop over time? I am also not a fan of giving every issue its buzzword. To me the whole thing is about a lack of trust.

The reason behind this lack of trust involves both parties. Some amongst one party are too passive and indifferent to take proactive measures to decrease the gap, while the some in the other party are actively painting a one sided picture and twisting the events and narrative to further increase the lack of trust.

 

[troodon]

Is this a "phobia" you are born with or does it develop over time? I am also not a fan of giving every issue its buzzword. To me the whole thing is about a lack of trust.

The reason behind this lack of trust involves both parties. Some amongst one party are too passive and indifferent to take proactive measures to decrease the gap, while the some in the other party are actively painting a one sided picture and twisting the events and narrative to further increase the lack of trust.

Nobody is born with a phobia of Islam. Its the News people get from around the world and the scenes we see on tv adds a lot of doubts and apprehension.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Most Muslims find it difficult to co-exist with people from other religions, especially when the others are in a minority. Of course, there would be some fantastic Muslims, who would mind their own business but then you meet some, especially from the subcontinent - who want to convert you, say their religion is the only "true" one or slip in a sentence or two on why Aurangzeb's killing of minorities made sense back in the day.

They want a separate state, separate laws etc. That's the perception I've got from living in different cities across the globe.

I belong to a very small minority in India which most of you must not have even heard of. So my views are a bit free from bias.

There are consequences to it. I see a lot of Hindus frustrated these days. Thanks to polarization of views, most repeated see what they want to see and are fed with news that antagonizes them against the Muslims. And sadly, many Hindus in India too have become hard liners. Hindu extremism is a reality today.

I think when non-Muslims can come out with glib statements like the opening sentence there, then it shows that Islamophobia is very real. This is the narrative which is being constructed around the world and my guess is that it is not to difficult to feed it.

 

[slipcatch]

Most Muslims find it difficult to co-exist with people from other religions, especially when the others are in a minority. Of course, there would be some fantastic Muslims, who would mind their own business but then you meet some, especially from the subcontinent - who want to convert you, say their religion is the only "true" one or slip in a sentence or two on why Aurangzeb's killing of minorities made sense back in the day.

They want a separate state, separate laws etc. That's the perception I've got from living in different cities across the globe.

I belong to a very small minority in India which most of you must not have even heard of. So my views are a bit free from bias.

There are consequences to it. I see a lot of Hindus frustrated these days. Thanks to polarization of views, most repeated see what they want to see and are fed with news that antagonizes them against the Muslims. And sadly, many Hindus in India too have become hard liners. Hindu extremism is a reality today.

I am a Muslim and I know many other muslims, they do not have problem living in west.

But you seem to suffer with ignorance, which is letting you to be phobic without even realizing due to your ignorance.

 

[slipcatch]

I think I made it clear that if you cover your head for a valid reason, for example when it is really cold, then there is nothing wrong with it. I have a problem with the religious logic. Anyway, people are free to wear whatever they want and I am free to find their reasoning idiotic.

Hold up,

So you are okay with what people wants to wear while criticizing what they are wearing.

How lost are you?

 

[Robert]

What a desperate attempt. The queen did not wear it because she does not want to show her hair for religious reasons and she does not wear it every time she goes outside of her palace.

As a matter of fact, British Christian ladies of Her Majesty’s age often cover their hair out of modesty. You will note that she usually has a hat on. My old Grandmother always wore a headscarf or a hat when she left the house.

 

[barah_admi]

Not necessarily black people but African black people were as responsible for slavery as slaves themselves. Europeans were middle men, buying slaves in Africa and selling them in Americas, but they rarely ever were the ones who captured the slaves. It was the African tribes leaders and kings who did that.

I could counter these points but it is besides what I was saying and it is obvious why mening failed to reply.

Sad as he is normally a very good poster.

 

[jagatk]

I could counter these points but it is besides what I was saying and it is obvious why mening failed to reply.

Sad as he is normally a very good poster.

First of all it should be slavers in the orignal post and not slaves, stupid autocorrect.

Secondly my point was that muslims are while not totally responsible for their current troubles near a lot of responsibility much like African black people. Until ISIS the Muslim community had an excuse of the Saud family and the money they spent on breeding terrorism. But post ISIS it isn't the case anymore, muslims across the world going and joining up with a terrorist organization clearly shows there is clearly something wrong there.

 

[Angrez Pakistani]

This whole conversation is skewed in favour of the right wing talking points. Muslims reside around the world and they are really diverse in race, ethnicity, and even ideologies. I for one don't believe people should be killed just because they converted to a different religion. You may find others who do subscribe to that level of ideology. So when you are questioning if Muslims are responsible for Islamophobia, you are consciously or unconsciously buying into the framework that feeds off of lumping all Muslims together, regardless of their individual beliefs.

 

[Salman]

This whole conversation is skewed in favour of the right wing talking points. Muslims reside around the world and they are really diverse in race, ethnicity, and even ideologies. I for one don't believe people should be killed just because they converted to a different religion. You may find others who do subscribe to that level of ideology. So when you are questioning if Muslims are responsible for Islamophobia, you are consciously or unconsciously buying into the framework that feeds off of lumping all Muslims together, regardless of their individual beliefs.

From the personal experience of being born and brought up in the the UK, I have seen Muslim migrants from a prominently South Asian or African backgrounds who arrived within the last 2 decades regardless of how decent they are have anover obsession with always trying to really broadcast their faith to the extent it has alienated their own future generations. I have many level headed English friends and colleagues who have either moved away from or planning to move away from their home towns as they no longer feel they are equal members of the local communities, the ones that stay are only there for economic reasons, it simply is not right!

Image is everything, take a walk down Bury Park Luton, Small Heath Birmingham, Bradford and parts of Manchester or London, the general local Muslim population are non welcoming, prefer not to interact with people outside their culture and will never have the etiquette to be accepted by the general population, it's embarrassing to say the least, i worry about the future of my own children's social acceptance in Britain thanks to the OTT bearded lala's and unapproachable niqabi sister folk over populating the landscape everywhere you look, If i was non Muslim, i'd be wanting to move far away from these areas and embrasure Islamophobic sentiment due to what we are doing.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

From the personal experience of being born and brought up in the the UK, I have seen Muslim migrants from a prominently South Asian or African backgrounds who arrived within the last 2 decades regardless of how decent they are have anover obsession with always trying to really broadcast their faith to the extent it has alienated their own future generations. I have many level headed English friends and colleagues who have either moved away from or planning to move away from their home towns as they no longer feel they are equal members of the local communities, the ones that stay are only there for economic reasons, it simply is not right!

Image is everything, take a walk down Bury Park Luton, Small Heath Birmingham, Bradford and parts of Manchester or London, the general local Muslim population are non welcoming, prefer not to interact with people outside their culture and will never have the etiquette to be accepted by the general population, it's embarrassing to say the least, i worry about the future of my own children's social acceptance in Britain thanks to the OTT bearded lala's and unapproachable niqabi sister folk over populating the landscape everywhere you look, If i was non Muslim, i'd be wanting to move far away from these areas and embrasure Islamophobic sentiment due to what we are doing.

That is the great thing about Britain, if you no longer feel comfortable in your surroundings, it is easy to move somewhere else. Did you move out? I never lived in a majority Muslim area myself, we started life off in a really rough white area where the houses were getting broken into every other evening, but we moved into a nice area quite quickly where I did most of my growing up. Now I'm in a posh area, which is great in that it's quiet and peaceful, but neighbours tend to keep themselves to themselves around here. Quite a few of them are Jewish, probably don't like mixing that much either.

 

[Ronaldo7]

The U.S. should have not funded these terrorist organisations in the first place. This would have meant that these terrorists would not have had any weapons or equipment to carry out such attacks.

 

[Ronaldo7]

That is the great thing about Britain, if you no longer feel comfortable in your surroundings, it is easy to move somewhere else. Did you move out? I never lived in a majority Muslim area myself, we started life off in a really rough white area where the houses were getting broken into every other evening, but we moved into a nice area quite quickly where I did most of my growing up. Now I'm in a posh area, which is great in that it's quiet and peaceful, but neighbours tend to keep themselves to themselves around here. Quite a few of them are Jewish, probably don't like mixing that much either.

Culture is a part of the reason but people hating muslims is also a big factor. Generally muslims don't want to live in areas where they are outnumbered as them being attacked would be much more likely.

 

[barah_admi]

First of all it should be slavers in the orignal post and not slaves, stupid autocorrect.

Secondly my point was that muslims are while not totally responsible for their current troubles near a lot of responsibility much like African black people. Until ISIS the Muslim community had an excuse of the Saud family and the money they spent on breeding terrorism. But post ISIS it isn't the case anymore, muslims across the world going and joining up with a terrorist organization clearly shows there is clearly something wrong there.

Who are these Muslims joining up with ISIS? How many of them are there? According to US intelligence, ISIS at its peak had 20 000 members...out of 1.5 billion Muslims on this planet.

Far more people voted for a Hindu extremist government in India and a man who was blacklisted by almost every western democracy (including the UK and US), ten times as many people are part of far right organisations across Europe.

Now looking at those numbers, if someone decided to bomb INdia for example, to remove the high number of extremists, would you say "Hindus are to blame for the bombing of India"?

 

[jagatk]

Who are these Muslims joining up with ISIS? How many of them are there? According to US intelligence, ISIS at its peak had 20 000 members...out of 1.5 billion Muslims on this planet.

Far more people voted for a Hindu extremist government in India and a man who was blacklisted by almost every western democracy (including the UK and US), ten times as many people are part of far right organisations across Europe.

Now looking at those numbers, if someone decided to bomb INdia for example, to remove the high number of extremists, would you say "Hindus are to blame for the bombing of India"?

You think voting for a politician who promised development and zero tolerance to corruption to a people who 3-4 years before that had been hearing only about one scam after other where the no of zeroes in the figures made your eyes fall out.

Also the blacklisting was pure political nonsense, somehow modi is blacklisted but no other politician or even despot made it to the list. The US list had literally only 1 name modi. And UK PM was one of the the first ones to congratulate modi on his win. Heck UK even ended that ban before he was even in the discussion for PM.

But I digress, what I am talking about is different, when people leave their countries and life in name of religion to kill people there is a problem. You will find nutjobs in every religion but only Islam seems to be still in the 1400's with their crusade type calls and responses. ISIS is but one organization, LeT, Taliban all have muslims across the world joining them. This is a problem very specific to Islam, no one else seems to have this problem and this is something muslims have allowed to happen to themselves.

You are as responsible for bigots taking over your religion as they themselves.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Who are these Muslims joining up with ISIS? How many of them are there? According to US intelligence, ISIS at its peak had 20 000 members...out of 1.5 billion Muslims on this planet.

Far more people voted for a Hindu extremist government in India and a man who was blacklisted by almost every western democracy (including the UK and US), ten times as many people are part of far right organisations across Europe.

Now looking at those numbers, if someone decided to bomb INdia for example, to remove the high number of extremists, would you say "Hindus are to blame for the bombing of India"?

I would. Winston Churchill was the greatest PM the world ever saw and he had a very derogatory view of Indians. Almost a century has passed since they won their independence and the country still looks like a tip.

 

[Ozymandiasza]

Marching against terrorism does help in setting the perception, certainly in the UK where the majority of Islamophobes complain why Muslims are not marching against Islamic terrorism/denouncing it. Because people do not see Muslims denounce Islamic terrorism, same people believe Muslims support Islamic terrorism.

Struggle has very little to do with it. There are millions of Christians who struggle in Latin America, there is no case of worldwide Christianophobia. Millions of Muslims struggled long before 9/11 - these was no Islamophobia.

Yes, there was. It took another form called "Orientalism".

 

[jagatk]

I would. Winston Churchill was the greatest PM the world ever saw and he had a very derogatory view of Indians. Almost a century has passed since they won their independence and the country still looks like a tip.

Your greatest prime minister murdered more bengalis than hitler did jews, if he wasn't on the winning side he would have been rightly tried as war criminal. So don't give a fly's *** what that piece of trash scumbag racist thought of us.

 

[Ronaldo7]

Your greatest prime minister murdered more bengalis than hitler did jews, if he wasn't on the winning side he would have been rightly tried as war criminal. So don't give a fly's *** what that piece of trash scumbag racist thought of us.

PM at that time was Nurul Amin. Not many even know of him.

 

[jagatk]

PM at that time was Nurul Amin. Not many even know of him.

PM of what?

 

[Ronaldo7]

PM of what?

Pakistan.

 

[jagatk]

Pakistan.

How is that even possible, Pakistan did not exist before the world war 2. I am talking of the bengal famine that english policies caused during WW2.

 

[Robert]

How is that even possible, Pakistan did not exist before the world war 2. I am talking of the bengal famine that english policies caused during WW2.

Ah yes, I was forgetting the English policy of typhoon control.

Also the English policy of causing the Japanese to invade and commit genocide across East and South Asia so that millions of refugees poured into Bengal.

English people control everything.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Hold up,

So you are okay with what people wants to wear while criticizing what they are wearing.

How lost are you?

Because they are free in their actions and I am in my thoughts.

 

[The_Odd_One]

As a matter of fact, British Christian ladies of Her Majesty’s age often cover their hair out of modesty. You will note that she usually has a hat on. My old Grandmother always wore a headscarf or a hat when she left the house.

No offence to the Queen or Christian ladies but I am not very fond of any religion. For me, there is no difference between Christian nuns and Muslim women covering themselves excessively.

 

[jagatk]

Ah yes, I was forgetting the English policy of typhoon control.

Also the English policy of causing the Japanese to invade and commit genocide across East and South Asia so that millions of refugees poured into Bengal.

English people control everything.

Typical English response to acts they committed, was it typhoon or the Japanese that decided policies that led to the deaths. I suppose it was the refugees who rejected aid that was to provided by other countries, must have been the Japanese who decided that stockpiling food in Europe as reserve was more important than using it to feed famine affected people.

Britian rose on the back of exploitation and abuse, atleast America and Germany had the decency to accept the wrongs they committed. But then again you are the people who don't believe you did much wrong in killings thousands of civilians at jalianwalabug.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

No offence to the Queen or Christian ladies but I am not very fond of any religion. For me, there is no difference between Christian nuns and Muslim women covering themselves excessively.

Same here. Although I am all for freedom of women to choose what they wear, I am not a fan of Hindu women wiping the red smear on their foreheads, it looks like they have been shot and the blood stain left unwashed.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Typical English response to acts they committed, was it typhoon or the Japanese that decided policies that led to the deaths. I suppose it was the refugees who rejected aid that was to provided by other countries, must have been the Japanese who decided that stockpiling food in Europe as reserve was more important than using it to feed famine affected people.

Britian rose on the back of exploitation and abuse, atleast America and Germany had the decency to accept the wrongs they committed. But then again you are the people who don't believe you did much wrong in killings thousands of civilians at jalianwalabug.

At least British atrocities were committed over a century ago, your own 'rock star' PM presided over a massacre of minorities when he was a leader of his state. Today's Britain has welcomed many Indians to make England their home, how welcoming is today's India for minorities?

 

[jagatk]

At least British atrocities were committed over a century ago, your own 'rock star' PM presided over a massacre of minorities when he was a leader of his state. Today's Britain has welcomed many Indians to make England their home, how welcoming is today's India for minorities?

You really are a master at whataboutism, also the England that is so welcoming minorities voted for brexit because it didn't like the immigration much, the current PM was the chief instigator in trying to deny services and deport the windrush generation, people who are legally living in Britain for decades, so let's not talk about how welcoming they are. Modi is an ******* but that doesn't make colonial crimes dissapear.

 

[cricketjoshila]

At least British atrocities were committed over a century ago, your own 'rock star' PM presided over a massacre of minorities when he was a leader of his state. Today's Britain has welcomed many Indians to make England their home, how welcoming is today's India for minorities?

Do you have any proof of the Indian PM being involved in massacres? Dont post media opinions. They are not proof.

India is so welcoming that everytime there is a problem in the neighbourhood, they flock into India. Be it Pakistani hindus, Tibetan buddhists, Lankan tamils, Bangladeshis of all kinds, Rohingyas, and god knows who else. I wish my country was less welcoming for the refugees so that millions would not illegally enter my country and strain our resources and take up our land.

 

[Technics 1210]

You really are a master at whataboutism, also the England that is so welcoming minorities voted for brexit because it didn't like the immigration much, the current PM was the chief instigator in trying to deny services and deport the windrush generation, people who are legally living in Britain for decades, so let's not talk about how welcoming they are. Modi is an ******* but that doesn't make colonial crimes dissapear.

You are so wrong, as always.

Windrush generation issue was down to an error which was corrected and not only were those effected by the windrush generation issue compensated, but were swiftly given a UK Passport.

As for UK voting for Brexit because of immigration, you have squat idea of the realities.

You talk about whataboutism but rely on generalisations yourself.

 

[jagatk]

You are so wrong, as always.

Windrush generation issue was down to an error which was corrected and not only were those effected by the windrush generation issue compensated, but were swiftly given a UK Passport.

As for UK voting for Brexit because of immigration, you have squat idea of the realities.

You talk about whataboutism but rely on generalisations yourself.

Who had the windrush records destroyed? The whole compensation stuff was only done to take the stink off what was becoming a big scandal , there are actual recorded transcripts of her giving details how she is reducing immigrants nos.

You can claim the NHS bus lies, EU regulations, the moon if you want. But if you think getting out of EU had nothing to do with freedom of movement and immigration then you are living in lala land.

It's not generalization if it's true mate.

 

[Technics 1210]

Who had the windrush records destroyed? The whole compensation stuff was only done to take the stink off what was becoming a big scandal , there are actual recorded transcripts of her giving details how she is reducing immigrants nos.

Who had the Windrush records destroyed? You do believe in conspiracy theories!

The official Home Office reports confirmed it was an error, no one deleted files on purpose, and less than 100 people were mistakenly deported (now have returned).

You can claim the NHS bus lies, EU regulations, the moon if you want. But if you think getting out of EU had nothing to do with freedom of movement and immigration then you are living in lala land.

It's not generalization if it's true mate.

What are you wittering on about? NHS? What has this got to do with anything? You claimed UK voted for Brexit because of immigration. All those who voted for Brexit were agsint immigration were they?

Evidence please or quit talking about something you have no idea about.

 

[jagatk]

Who had the Windrush records destroyed? You do believe in conspiracy theories!

The official Home Office reports confirmed it was an error, no one deleted files on purpose, and less than 100 people were mistakenly deported (now have returned).

It's not a conspiracy, they actually destroyed documents that would make identification difficult and the British Home Office accepted the fact that they destroyed the documents.

What are you wittering on about? NHS? What has this got to do with anything? You claimed UK voted for Brexit because of immigration. All those who voted for Brexit were agsint immigration were they?

Evidence please or quit talking about something you have no idea about.

Why do you think then did Britian decide to leave EU?

 

[Technics 1210]

It's not a conspiracy, they actually destroyed documents that would make identification difficult and the British Home Office accepted the fact that they destroyed the documents

Why do you think then did Britian decide to leave EU?

All I asked for was some evidence, but you have provided none. You have a habit of making bold claims but never back them up with anything.

I also notice how you use the term Britain instead of England

also the England that is so welcoming minorities voted for brexit because it didn't like the immigration much

I was going to say that England just didn't vote for Brexit, the UK did - England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

Why Britain voted to leave the EU was down to a number of reasons, but not just immigration as you claimed above.

So from my perspective, you do generalize, and you do not even live in *Little* England.

 

[Smbhayi]

Partially probably.

Just taking a day to day life example, in PP even, it does seems like some Muslims try to force their opinion on others. Quran is God's word for Muslims but not for non Muslims.

that's not true at all.. in various verses it says it's for all mankind's..

 

[CCAD]

You really are a master at whataboutism, also the England that is so welcoming minorities voted for brexit because it didn't like the immigration much, the current PM was the chief instigator in trying to deny services and deport the windrush generation, people who are legally living in Britain for decades, so let's not talk about how welcoming they are. Modi is an ******* but that doesn't make colonial crimes dissapear.

He just has obsession with India and Hindus.. brings them into every thread for no reasons.
Wonder what is the cause of this obsession.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

He just has obsession with India and Hindus.. brings them into every thread for no reasons.
Wonder what is the cause of this obsession.

It is a treatment I invented which I call Experiential Awareness Therapy (EAT) where my words provide food for thought and you get to become aware of others experience through these thought provoking contributions.

 

[jagatk]

All I asked for was some evidence, but you have provided none. You have a habit of making bold claims but never back them up with anything.

Here's your evidence

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/18/europe/uk-windrush-documents-destroyed-intl/index.html

I was going to say that England just didn't vote for Brexit, the UK did - England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

Scotland and North Ireland voted remian, Leave won Wales by the second lowest margin, Outside of London entire england voted Leave, so to include the others is wrong, it was a primarily english decision.

Why Britain voted to leave the EU was down to a number of reasons, but not just immigration as you claimed above.

So from my perspective, you do generalize, and you do not even live in *Little* England.

I am not generalizing, since Cpt has been including modi in every discussion he has here and that modi's or bjp's views are somehow whole India's views, am just using the standards Cpt. set.

These are some of your brexit PM's views. She has claimed ala Trump that Asylum seekers are foreign criminals, she opposes EU freedom of movement,she has claimed that Britian/england recieve no benefit from immigration. Something economists have proven to be false. She has blamed unemployment, lack of investment by Govt in Housing and schools in england on immigrants, that all in just 1 speech.

Nigel Farage was the face of Brexit, he has been nothing but anti immigration, having once claimed that immigrants spread HIV. I

 

[jagatk]

It is a treatment I invented which I call Experiential Awareness Therapy (EAT) where my words provide food for thought and you get to become aware of others experience through these thought provoking contributions.

Mate you are coming off as obsessed to the point of madness. You want to discuss modi, create a thread, or use one of the many that are already on here. No need to add modi to every discussion because you don't like him.

 

[cricketjoshila]

that's not true at all.. in various verses it says it's for all mankind's..

Thats for the ones who believe in the holy quran. For those who dont, its not for them.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Mate you are coming off as obsessed to the point of madness. You want to discuss modi, create a thread, or use one of the many that are already on here. No need to add modi to every discussion because you don't like him.

I think if you read back, it was you who mentioned Modi before me, I was talking about Winston Churchill. This is why the EAT treatment is so useful, it can take you out of a narrow focus and make you see different perspectives.

 

[Technics 1210]

Here's your evidence

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/18/europe/uk-windrush-documents-destroyed-intl/index.html

All the evidence says is the archives were destroyed, but you are linking the destruction of archives (which is quite common practice after time) with a deliberate scheme by the PM to deport Windrush generation. This is a conspiracy theory for which you have no evidence. The fact is, the Home Office used tax records and utility bills as evidence - how do you think they were granted Passports?

Scotland and North Ireland voted remian, Leave won Wales by the second lowest margin, Outside of London entire england voted Leave, so to include the others is wrong, it was a primarily english decision.

Nonsense. If you want to be pedantic about it then the leave vote was a majority in England AND Wales; your comment above excludes the other leave votes in Scotland and NI - does the leave vote not count in Scotland and NI? Of course it does! Leave won when ALL the votes in the UK were counted. What news channel do you read/watch?

These are some of your brexit PM's views. She has claimed ala Trump that Asylum seekers are foreign criminals, she opposes EU freedom of movement,she has claimed that Britian/england recieve no benefit from immigration. Something economists have proven to be false. She has blamed unemployment, lack of investment by Govt in Housing and schools in england on immigrants, that all in just 1 speech.

Are you talking about Theresa May here? TM Does not oppose freedom of movement, she has never said Britain/England receives no benefit from immigration and she has never blamed unemployment on immigration. For your record, she is a REMAINER!

However she is trying to get a deal which honours the referendum result which is to leave the EU - and leaving the EU means leaving the 4 freedoms. This is democracy, she is trying to implement the referendum result.

Nigel Farage was the face of Brexit, he has been nothing but anti immigration, having once claimed that immigrants spread HIV. I

Farage is another story.

I honestly question your sources and interpretation. Let me guess, FAUX news.

Also, a small tip, NON-EU immigration is higher than EU immigration in the UK, and by law the UK can control the levels of NON-EU immigration, but it does not. If England as you say was anti immigrant it would have imposed a lower limit on Non-EU nationals, including Indians, Pakistanis, etc - but this is not the case.

 

[slipcatch]

Because they are free in their actions and I am in my thoughts.

Sure, but you are criticizing them for practicing what you are preaching.

 

[jagatk]

I think if you read back, it was you who mentioned Modi before me, I was talking about Winston Churchill. This is why the EAT treatment is so useful, it can take you out of a narrow focus and make you see different perspectives.

It was another poster who brought modi in to discussion but his view was very much within what was being discussed. You brought in Modi to defend Churchill which is the definition of whataboutism.

 

[barah_admi]

You think voting for a politician who promised development and zero tolerance to corruption to a people who 3-4 years before that had been hearing only about one scam after other where the no of zeroes in the figures made your eyes fall out.

Also the blacklisting was pure political nonsense, somehow modi is blacklisted but no other politician or even despot made it to the list. The US list had literally only 1 name modi. And UK PM was one of the the first ones to congratulate modi on his win. Heck UK even ended that ban before he was even in the discussion for PM.

But I digress, what I am talking about is different, when people leave their countries and life in name of religion to kill people there is a problem. You will find nutjobs in every religion but only Islam seems to be still in the 1400's with their crusade type calls and responses. ISIS is but one organization, LeT, Taliban all have muslims across the world joining them. This is a problem very specific to Islam, no one else seems to have this problem and this is something muslims have allowed to happen to themselves.

You are as responsible for bigots taking over your religion as they themselves.

Modi was blacklisted due to his involvement in the massacre of Muslims in gujarat, the state for which he was governor.

The ban was lifted because countries like the UK wanted to have better trade relationships with India not because Modi was relieved of those accusations.

Thirdly, you have made yet another baseless claim. Can you, once again, give me the stats on who these Muslims are that leave their countries to carry out terror attacks elsewhere and why they are higher in number than other terrorists and such groups. The christ Church attacker was Australian, Ukrainians planted bombs outside f mosques in the UK, a number of tamil tiger suicide bombers were Indian, bombings in Germany during its segregation were often carried out by those trained on either side of the border.... I could go on and on.

So, why would you only blame Muslims for this and not the entirety of other religions and ethnicities?

In fact, you keep saying this is happening in higher numbers among Muslims than other groups, yet white supremacists and nationalists have killed me re Americans in terror attacks this decade than Muslims in America.

You see, your bigotry and denial of facts come sout when faced with truth.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

It was another poster who brought modi in to discussion but his view was very much within what was being discussed. You brought in Modi to defend Churchill which is the definition of whataboutism.

Churchill was attacked by Indians whereupon I remarked that at least Churchill's bigotry was from another century as compared to your own current era PM Modi who was elected by modern Indians. Not so much whataboutism, as whatabout whataboutism.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Islamophobia is rising because of the coverage the media gives to violence done by Muslims. The countries with the most homicide per capita are non Muslim. How much much coverage is given to the violence in El Salvador, or Honduras, South Africa, Brazil, Mexico? Is the religion of the people of these countries ever mentioned? Is the culture mentioned? Do people insult the residents of these countries for having no winners of Noble Prize in Science, as some posters have done on this website for Muslims? No, instead they are seen as victims, rightfully so, suffering from a small amount of thugs who reside in these countries.

 

[Itachi]

That's nothing, every picture of Virgin Mary has her covering her head, not to say anything of Mother Theresa!

I bet he would want to see women near naked walking down the street - Kamasutra influence. Eeek!

Kamasutra doesn't advocate woman walking down down street naked. At least read the book before making any reference.

 

[Robert]

Typical English response to acts they committed, was it typhoon or the Japanese that decided policies that led to the deaths. I suppose it was the refugees who rejected aid that was to provided by other countries, must have been the Japanese who decided that stockpiling food in Europe as reserve was more important than using it to feed famine affected people.

Britian rose on the back of exploitation and abuse, atleast America and Germany had the decency to accept the wrongs they committed. But then again you are the people who don't believe you did much wrong in killings thousands of civilians at jalianwalabug.

Some very broad generalisations here. If you look at the thread about Amristar + 100 you will see me vehemently condemn General Dwyer. Even Churchill was appalled by that incident.

There were no food stockpiles in Europe in 1943 - Great Britain was one sunk convoy away from starvation herself, and there was another famine in Greece.

The Benghal Famine was precipitated about by a series of acts of God plus a mass refugee influx. It was mismanaged by the Raj administrators, who could have sent surpluses from their provinces to Bengal but chose not to, in the belief that it would be seized by the Japanese and used to feed their advance across India, in which case there really would have been a deliberate genocide as committed in China and Korea.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Some very broad generalisations here. If you look at the thread about Amristar + 100 you will see me vehemently condemn General Dwyer. Even Churchill was appalled by that incident.

There were no food stockpiles in Europe in 1943 - Great Britain was one sunk convoy away from starvation herself, and there was another famine in Greece.

The Benghal Famine was precipitated about by a series of acts of God plus a mass refugee influx. It was mismanaged by the Raj administrators, who could have sent surpluses from their provinces to Bengal but chose not to, in the belief that it would be seized by the Japanese and used to feed their advance across India, in which case there really would have been a deliberate genocide as committed in China and Korea.

In all this do you realise that the Japanese had committed troops and resources to Subhash Chandra bose who was leading the army into India. So this thought that there would have been a deliberate genocide doesnot wash.

Japanese committed no genocide in India. British govt killed millions and millions.

 

[Robert]

Japanese committed no genocide in India. British govt killed millions and millions.

Of course they didn't commit a genocide in India, the British Indian Army stopped them getting in!

Else they would have committed genocide like they did in China and Korea.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Of course they didn't commit a genocide in India, the British Indian Army stopped them getting in!

Else they would have committed genocide like they did in China and Korea.

Sir,

Please read my post above. The troops supplied by japan were led by Subhash Bose. Please read about it. There was no genocide that was going to happen.

 

[mustang]

I would say some are ruining it for the majority of good muslims. Tolerance is the operative word - how many muslims can live side by side without demanding separate social/legal "compounds" for themselves, without imposing their beliefs on others, and without trying to convert others (some Christian denominations are equally guilty of this).

To the Pakistani/Muslim PPers saying no to OP's point, how do you explain instances like this? -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2nlIfn8tNA -- "British police go to hell, UK go to hell" ... that's what the video says. Seriously?

If some of these immigrants moved to my country and started protesting like this, I sure as hell will not like it. Why would I want to be in uniform and serve in the military to protect their freedom? Will make me question that for sure.

 

[mustang]

View attachment 90427

If the Queen loves to wear it , why shouldn't others? Is she backward and not in tune with modern society?

man, talk about taking things out of context? Case 1: Someone covering their head out of their own free will (feeling cold, sickness, fashion, personal choice ...). Case 2: Religious/Social enforcement dictating women what to wear and thus forced to cover their head without freedom of choice.

How are these 2 similar again? I would say this is a weak attempt to justify what is being forced upon women. It is will known that gender equality is at a very low level among muslim community which is very sad because I'm sure there are many talented muslim women who are being suppressed.

 

[mustang]

and another video for y'all to see ...

To all Pakistani/Muslim posters here - as a non-muslim, I empathize with the concerns of demonizing an entire community. The gentlemen in that video (Gulistan Khan at 4:22) above stated it spot on - "We have been in this country for generations. This is our country, so why do we have to justify every time we say Allahu Akbar?". Valid point of course. I do request genuine answers to my questions below

1. Muslims like any other minority community in the west feel victimized. Why are non-muslims not even LEGALLY (forget social acceptance which is at a higher level of "Maslowian hierarchy" here) allowed their own places of worship?
2. How many muslim nations can you name where non-muslims are legally allowed to be leaders of their country per the constitution?

Irony that I see - Muslim posters here comment about social discriminations against muslims in non-muslim countries. In some of the countries where Islam is in the majority there is not even legal acceptance, forget social acceptance. How do you explain that?

Legal/constitutional protection of minorities is the basic first step. Y'all do not even have that for us "Kaffirs". But here you are commenting about Trump supporters/Modi supporters/Zionists hating against muslims. Well, at least in all of those countries muslims have freedom of religion and can be leaders of those countries by law.

Seems like you want to apply a higher standard (social) to other communities when your own communities are not even catering to the lower level basic standard (legal/constitutional) when it comes to protecting religious minorities.

I hope to get genuine responses for this. Sadly when I raise this point here, PPers seem to only resort to personal attacks and getting too defensive instead of a logical discourse.

 

[Robert]

Sir,

Please read my post above. The troops supplied by japan were led by Subhash Bose. Please read about it. There was no genocide that was going to happen.

That was the fella who raised the Indian Legion which swore allegiance to Hitler, yes?

So he would have removed the Raj (fair enough) but turned India into an Imperial Japanese client state. Gandhi called him ‘misguided’ and the Indian National Congress distanced themselves from his tactics and ideology.

I get it that many Indians see no moral difference between loss of life under Churchill, Hitler and Hirohito - dead is dead after all - but consider that the famines under the Raj were caused by incompetence in dealing with natural disasters, and contrast with the deliberate mass exterminations of foreign nationals which took place under the Nazis and Imperial Japan. The latter had no regard for human life which was not Japanese. I do not believe that India would have been better off under them, and almost certainly a lot worse off.

 

[barah_admi]

and another video for y'all to see ...

To all Pakistani/Muslim posters here - as a non-muslim, I empathize with the concerns of demonizing an entire community. The gentlemen in that video (Gulistan Khan at 4:22) above stated it spot on - "We have been in this country for generations. This is our country, so why do we have to justify every time we say Allahu Akbar?". Valid point of course. I do request genuine answers to my questions below

1. Muslims like any other minority community in the west feel victimized. Why are non-muslims not even LEGALLY (forget social acceptance which is at a higher level of "Maslowian hierarchy" here) allowed their own places of worship?

How many Muslim countries exist on this planet? How many of them govern by Islamic law? How many of them govern by modern, western laws? How many govern by a combination of both? And finally, how many of them ban non Muslims from worshiping?

Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh....I could go on and on, have never instituted any laws that ban Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs etc from worshiping. Where did you get this idea from that they have/do?

2. How many muslim nations can you name where non-muslims are legally allowed to be leaders of their country per the constitution?

Why is this a negative? Britain does not allow for none Christian monarchs. Does that enrage you also? The bottom line is, in Islam the state and faith are one so how can the ruler of an Islamic state be one who does not follow Islam? That would be chaotic and non-sensical.


Irony that I see - Muslim posters here comment about social discriminations against muslims in non-muslim countries. In some of the countries where Islam is in the majority there is not even legal acceptance, forget social acceptance. How do you explain that?

Legal/constitutional protection of minorities is the basic first step. Y'all do not even have that for us "Kaffirs". But here you are commenting about Trump supporters/Modi supporters/Zionists hating against muslims. Well, at least in all of those countries muslims have freedom of religion and can be leaders of those countries by law.

Seems like you want to apply a higher standard (social) to other communities when your own communities are not even catering to the lower level basic standard (legal/constitutional) when it comes to protecting religious minorities.

I hope to get genuine responses for this. Sadly when I raise this point here, PPers seem to only resort to personal attacks and getting too defensive instead of a logical discourse.

I have answered your stated questions in bold and listed my own for you to answer.

I will now respond to the overall theme of your post which is that non-Muslims do not have rights under Muslim countries. I repeat, most of these countries do not follow Islamic law however, even without it I am struggling to find a Muslim country that has laws oppressing and stopping other religions from worshiping. The three largest Muslim countries (Pakistan, Bangladesh and Malaysia) have rights for religious minorities.

If we talk about Islam and its actual laws, it also has rights protecting minorities, so much so, that in a wartime situation, Muslims have an obligation to protect the non Muslim population of their country, while the non Muslims have no obligation to even fight.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I would say some are ruining it for the majority of good muslims. Tolerance is the operative word - how many muslims can live side by side without demanding separate social/legal "compounds" for themselves, without imposing their beliefs on others, and without trying to convert others (some Christian denominations are equally guilty of this).

To the Pakistani/Muslim PPers saying no to OP's point, how do you explain instances like this? -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2nlIfn8tNA -- "British police go to hell, UK go to hell" ... that's what the video says. Seriously?

If some of these immigrants moved to my country and started protesting like this, I sure as hell will not like it. Why would I want to be in uniform and serve in the military to protect their freedom? Will make me question that for sure.

That's a video of Anjem Choudhery and his merry band of followers on a demo, he was jailed for some time and only got out recently. Obviously if the general Muslim was like that we would have had civil war by now.

Not sure if you are being serious by using this as an example or you are just genuinely ignorant. It would be like me putting a video of Tommy Robinson on here and claiming he represents the majority white British.