UK anti-Muslim hate crime soars, police figures show

[mistermack]

As long as it is a nice comfy corner with lots of snacks, I don't mind.

Just as well. Don't forget a good book. The Koran should do nicely.

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.

Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').

Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this blah blah blah

There are more than a hundred more similar.

[cronus]

I don't mind the sunies but I'm wary of the shites. Don't know anything about either but I'm going on a gut instinct here.

[NineBerry]

There are more than a hundred more similar.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

The point is that people who are deluded enough to claim they believe that any book is written by some impossible deity are also deluded enough to ignore away all the stuff they don't agree with in that book. Someone isn't an extremist simply because she believes the quran or the bible is the word of God.

And to prevent the usual reply:

About one-third of the American adult population believes the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally word for word.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/onethi ... -true.aspx

[mistermack]

Someone isn't an extremist simply because she believes the quran or the bible is the word of God.

Of course they are. It's an extreme position to take.
And isn't it funny, that muslims are blowing themselves up every day, to prove that they believe it.

Not something you're likely to see from any christian, no matter how fundie they are. And as far as I'm concerned, US fundamental christians ARE extremist. More extemist than a few idiots who left a pig's head outside a mosque.

In any case, if you asked most christian PRIESTS in the UK if they believed that every word in the bible was true, the vast majority would say no.
Whereas if you asked all the muslims, virtually all of them would say yes.

[cronus]

Someone isn't an extremist simply because she believes the quran or the bible is the word of God.

Of course they are. It's an extreme position to take.
And isn't it funny, that muslims are blowing themselves up every day, to prove that they believe it.

Not something you're likely to see from any christian, no matter how fundie they are. And as far as I'm concerned, US fundamental christians ARE extremist. More extemist than a few idiots who left a pig's head outside a mosque.

In any case, if you asked most christian PRIESTS in the UK if they believed that every word in the bible was true, the vast majority would say no.
Whereas if you asked all the muslims, virtually all of them would say yes.

It's because the Bible only promises eternal life rather than 72 distractions for all that time....ahead.

[Rum]

Frankly I am finding it harder and harder to treat anyone who believes their religion is right and everyone else's is wrong with anything but contempt.

[cronus]

Frankly I am finding it harder and harder to treat anyone who believes their religion is right and everyone else's is wrong with anything but contempt.

How about many paths and one God then?

[Rum]

Dogma, rigidity, conformity and the fear of stepping out of line - the hallmarks of religion so insecure it will threaten endless pain and burning if you cross the line. If someone wants to be a common or garden deist without those things that's up to them.

Thomas Paine had the right idea..he had many of course.

[cronus]

Dogma, rigidity, conformity and the fear of stepping out of line - the hallmarks of religion so insecure it will threaten endless pain and burning if you cross the line. If someone wants to be a common or garden deist without those things that's up to them.

Thomas Paine had the right idea..he had many of course.

Deism, why not?....afterall we ultimately know nothing of either this side of the curtain or the next. Whereas people are at all levels of understanding, inner development and temperament....and a peaceful existence going along with the local popular 'fuzzy god concept' allows time for growth all round.

[Rum]

Not for me. Evidence, evidence, evidence.

[cronus]

Not for me. Evidence, evidence, evidence.

OK. It will come in a dream sometime within the next year.

[Warren Dew]

The general perception is that the muslims tolerate the extremists. And I think it's accurate.

And atheists tolerate the extremists. As in the post above yours.

When was the last time the Crown Prosecution Service prosecuted someone for an antiatheist hate crime?

The article lacks information on what kinds of crimes were recorded. The article itself only speaks of threats on online sites or the incident with the pig heads. But above the article there is a picture with a petrol bomb attack. So the question is how big is the number of the several categories of crimes. Online threats are a different category than direct personal threats. And exploding bombs is a whole different category again.

If it's a crime, it's a crime; if it's not, it's not. Classifying it as "hate" or "religious hate" just exacerbates artificial divisions between people by treating people as parts of groups rather than as individuals.

The informers take risks. "I cannot give you my name because I fear for my life,” one writes. But they come forward, again and again and again and again. They even contact the FBI when the suspicious character is its own planted impostor.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... s_can.html

In the U.S., where an antimuslim hate crime is the same as any other crime, sure.

[JimC]

The soaring figures could be, in part, simply a classic example of higher reporting rates, and/or police forces being forced, for PC reasons, to treat any minor and vaguely anti-muslim comment more seriously than before...

[Svartalf]

I don't mind the sunies but I'm wary of the shites. Don't know anything about either but I'm going on a gut instinct here.

I prefer myself a moderate shi'ite, or even an Ismaelian to a howling wahhabi ... and those are fully sunnite.

[Seth]

Are they hate crimes, or is it civil defense?