Thread: Poll highlights divide between Muslims, non-Muslims in Britain

It is too complex an issue.

A poll of 1000 only is too small a representation if one wants to obtain a view.

There is no doubt that a vary large number of Moslems do not find the terrorists actions, be it the WTC or London bombing, terribly wrong. They feel that it is but a retribution for the "war" being waged against Islam; they fail to differentiate that the war is not against Islam but against terrorists and that unfortuntely the terrorists, all of them, just happen to be Moslems.

Actually, the British govt themselves are responsible for what has happened in the UK. In their self deluding moralistic high horse of being the most liberal minded nation of the world, they have turned the Nelson's eye to all terrorist groups of all hues, operating within the UK. They had no qualms since these terrorist groups did not do anything that upset British society per se. It is only when the terrorists "socked them in the eye" (to quote a line from the Beatles) on 7/7, did they realise that their fraud liberalism has come home to haunt them.

Sow and ye shall reap.

Originally Posted by Ray

Actually, the British govt themselves are responsible for what has happened in the UK. In their self deluding moralistic high horse of being the most liberal minded nation of the world, they have turned the Nelson's eye to all terrorist groups of all hues, operating within the UK. They had no qualms since these terrorist groups did not do anything that upset British society per se. It is only when the terrorists "socked them in the eye" (to quote a line from the Beatles) on 7/7, did they realise that their fraud liberalism has come home to haunt them.

Sow and ye shall reap.

Agreed. You'd think their experiences with the IRA would have taught them better. Perhaps it was the "colonial guilt" they've supposedly been feeling the past few decades that led them down this path of folly.

Parihaka,

Not colonial guilt as much as a combination of strategic concerns and the usual votebank pandering that occurs everywhere. In the case of the UK, from all I have been able to discern, there was a stated policy bias not to crack down on ethnic Muslims on a live and let live basis despite their acts elsewhere, because of HMG's relations with strategically important Pak (during the cold war). Others got through (rebels against Mubarak, Algerian Islamists etc) because they simply didnt matter for the UKs own interests or hurt it, lastly, the likes of Galloway and some Labour MPs etc have sought to win campaigns in Muslim/ Sikh dominated neighourhoods by picking up on their emotive causes or whatever war they are waging from afar. A combination of all these three issues, has caused "Londonistan" .

I remember in the late 80's- India submitting a list of funding orgs of Khalistanis - it went nowhere. Similar attempts to track J&K terror funding (from UK based Mirpuri Muslims) were stalled in red tape and HMG officials were least bothered.

But then I think Omar Saeed Sheikh (killer of Danny Pearl) & his history started waking the UK up.

Archer,

Yes indeed, the sobriquet Londonistan and for that matter Bradfordabad was well earned by the UK.

The price of appeasement though for the UK, if that indeed is what it was all about, is to have Europe’s most anti-western Muslim population.

See this story from just a fortnight back dealing with a completely different poll :

Poll shows Muslims in Britain are the most anti-western in Europe

Meanwhile I think there could be one more factor besides those you named that could be at work.

Namely the national origins of the UK’s Muslim population ( See last para here ).

Originally Posted by parihaka

Source

Parihaka, most of the differences cited narrate how the two indeed are from two different schools of thought.

However as you saw only 2% wanted to hook up with Al Q (what I'm wondering were they reported in after they said yes?).

It's a good thing they're objecting to most of the things unfairly thrusted upon them by anti-terror laws.

This is very important:

Once you know young people are angry about foreign policy, you can create an education program in Muslim institutions. You can say to them: 'If you are angry about foreign policy, that's fine, you can change it peacefully and democratically.' That's what they don't know. They're right to be angry - they're wrong in how they carry that anger forward."

The governemnt is not doing enough to deal with the issues at hand. Evidently people are not happy with the way foreign policy is being dealt with in particular towards muslim nations. Until the government is willing to accept that then nothing will happen, no gain will be made.

Actually, the British foreign policy is not great towards any nation, be it Moslem or otherwise!

Israel finds it not fair in UK's defence of Palestinian and their violent acts. But I don't find Jews taking to the streets or emasculating the British economy [since Mahathir claimed in the Organisation of Islamic States meeting in KL) that the Jews own the world!]

So, I reckon, it does not hold water what is being stated in defence of Islam vis a vis UK policies.

Originally Posted by platinum786

The governemnt is not doing enough to deal with the issues at hand. Evidently people are not happy with the way foreign policy is being dealt with in particular towards muslim nations. Until the government is willing to accept that then nothing will happen, no gain will be made.

Be more upfront and say "Muslim people", not people in general.

I find this line of reasoning showing extra-territorial loyalty exactly why Muslim populations are often looked at askance.

Despite the UKs own strategic imperative or whatever reason it is in Iraq or the way it acts towards Muslim nations, you seek to arm twist it or have it conform to your perception of the ideal. If the bulk of the UK, Christian-Buddhist-Hindu are ok with the current policy, then learn to live with it and not wear a chip on your shoulder about how the Muslim countries are treated.
Its not as if the bulk of them treat non Muslims or non Muslim countries with care or concern either.

If you still have such feelings, or others do, then be honest to your deen or culture or religion and leave, back to Mirpur or Pakistan or Dubai- instead of coercing your fellow citizens to do what you want and treat Muslim nations differently just because they are Muslim.

I know of many Jews who did precisely that, when they saw their loyalty towards their country and Israel being conflicted. Those that do lobby for Israel in the US dont threaten or protest the way the Muslim community does.

Till you realize that you are part of a multi-cultural society and in democracy, the larger bloc gets its way, and that Muslims are not necessarily special to have their regions treated differently...there is not going to be much sympathy for your POV either. Just being frank.

There are 14 million jews in the world, they get there way.

there are 1.5 billion plus muslims in the world they2 will get thier way too soon...it's jsut a matter of using brains and exchanging services and ideas rather than blocks of explosives and comments between idiots.

This loyalty thing for ones religion is not just a sole muslim thing,t ake for example the jew that the palestinains hold, he's of french nationality, it's not bad or terrible for him to have extra-territorial loyalties is it?!

Originally Posted by Asim Aquil

Parihaka, most of the differences cited narrate how the two indeed are from two different schools of thought.

However as you saw only 2% wanted to hook up with Al Q (what I'm wondering were they reported in after they said yes?).

It's a good thing they're objecting to most of the things unfairly thrusted upon them by anti-terror laws.

This is very important:

The commonality displayed by the poll is heartening, but the danger in treating any group as special and deserving special treatment is that it reinforces that groups feelings of difference and independence.
The argument can apply to any group in any country, whether the Maori in New Zealand with the treaty of Waitangi settlements or affirmative action programmes in the USA. It actually accentuates and reinforces the differences and perpetuates the sense of grievance.