h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Keep your banana Arnie. I think you swing a little closer to the tree than most.

What you fail to understand is the deep-rootedness of the Zionist conspiracy theory amongst Arabs in general and Muslims in particular. To Western eyes, where criticism of any specific group is deemed racist, the Arab mindset is a racist one. However, they don't see it like that. Muslims are taught from birth that Jews are the source of all evil. Many are able to see through this, but many don't. Possibly a majority of Muslims believe in Zionist conspiracy theories, does that make the Muslim world racist?

Yasser Arafat believed implicitly in the Zionist conspiracy. Does that mean that, as a racist, no world leader should have held talks with him. Hezbollah regularly report on the Zionist conspiracy, as do Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Morrocco, Libya ..... in fact every Muslim or Arab nation reports the Zionist Conspiracy as fact. Should the West break off all relationships with these "racist" countries?

The fact that no Western country has done so says to me that they are realistic enough to be blase about such errant nonsense and set it to one side in order to allow meaningful discussions. They show an understanding and maturity that you singularly fail to demonstrate.

Interestingly, your defence of 'subject y' rests on the fact that Muslims are fed the Zionist Conspiracy Theory with their mothers milk. (In itself a belief that borders on racism, but probably falls somewhat short because it's actually just a gross oversimplification.)

Let us pose an alternative theory. 'Subject y' is a male who comes to Islam late in life, and converts around the time of his marriage to a Muslim woman. Which of the following two statements is therefore more likely to be true in considering his actions and beliefs;

a) 'Subject Y' might be expected to believe in trhe ZCT because all Muslims do
b) 'Subject Y' *choose* to believe in the ZCT, a theory that in Western education tends to be laughed at, if taught at all.'

Oh, and Robert Kilroy-Silk is like a broken clock. By simple weight of the amount of garbage he spews he's bound to get one or two things right, but that hardly makes him a role-model for logical debate.

As for the main topic of the debate, well obviously it's a good idea for women to have more influence in Mosques.

But let us not phrase it in in such self-congratulatory terms. Took us white Christian folk 2,000 years to give women the vote, so making a fuss about Islam failing to do it in 1,100 years might be seen as hypocrisy.

And the one thing we know we can't do is *force* these people to change their views, by fair means or foul.

<>

Not really a gross oversimplification though Blues. It's a belief endorsed by, amongst others, Sir Iqbal Socranie, Abdullah Jamal, Dr Imran Waheed and Dr Taj Harney - chairman of the Muslim Education Centre in Oxford who said in 2004:

"We see it from the time you're a child, you're given this idea that those people are kuffar, they're unbelievers. They are not equal to you, they are different to you. You are superior to them because you have the truth, they don't have the truth. You will go to heaven, they will go to hell. So we have this from a very young age."

The chief Prison Doctor, Theodore Dalrymple has spoken about how many Muslim prisoners in Britain exhibit classic signs of brainwashing underlying psychological traumas.

A third scenario to add to the two you give could be,

c) Subject Y has been immersed in a culture for decades and has come to exhibit beliefs that are endemic in that culture.

Irrelevant. They are still *adopted* beliefs.

Unless you believe that subject Y is so weak minded that he had no option but to adopt them.

And you're right, of course. It's not a gross simplification to acknowledge that the ZCT is spoon-fed to Muslims as a matter of course.

Different matter entirely when you infer that they all believe it as a result of that spoon feeding.

What's irrelevant? Heads of Muslim associations, education centres, Prison Doctors? Not to mention various Presidents and heads of State?

Or is the thought of someone going native bizzare to you? I would have thought it was a well-known situation, one acknowledged by the FO for a start.

And if you think we should soft-pedal on the issue of Muslim womens rights just because they're a bit new-fangled to us, read this then tell me we should sit with our thumbs up our arses.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1153446,00.html

<>

1) I didn't say "all", I said "many"
2) If many don't believe it as a result of "spoon feeding", where do you think they draw inspiration from.

To try to deny that it is a commonly held belief is, IMO, being wilfully ignorant.

And the idea that someone who has 'gone native' might be an unreliable source of information is new to you?

And if you'd like to point out where I suggested we should 'soft pedal', as opposed to 'not attempt to force' I'd be grateful.

I beleive it was na ttempt to force a set of belief systems on the inhabitants ofn Iraq that has led to the present bloodbath there.

OK, O great wise one. We get the point.

What *exactly* are your proposals to save us from this? Instead of rushing about like Mo screaming 'won't somebody please think of the children', let's hear you put forward a coherent, workable solution for this.

I would have thought that someone who has gone native in an Islamic culture would be an excellent source of information about Islamic culture, wouldn't you?

Not attempting to force would appear to preclude enforcing the law.

Well of course i gree with you, o great wise one. The scales have fallen from my eyes in a damascene conversion and I await your wisdom with baited breath.

Alternatively I might consider that someone gone native in a culture is the *least* likely to be able to offer considered, measured views on that culture, particularly if they have gone native to the extent of believing something as basuically farcical as the ZCT.

Potholers done the law with you. I can't be arsed to have that argument again.

First of all, we need to acknowledge that there are inherent parts of Islamic culture that are anathema to western liberalism, rather than simply screaming racist at anyone who mentions it and drowning out the debate with indignant rants.

Secondly, we must offer support to those within the Muslim community who wish to embrace western liberalism. At the moment, the majority of Muslim voices in the media and the majority of Govt funding goes to the more extremist figures.

Thirdly, the benefit of the law must be applied equally to all and not withheld from some because of cultural sensitivities.

Not comprehensive, but a starting point.

I'm afraid it probably has nothing to do with cultural sensitivities and everything to do with the HRA, which guarantees freedom of worship. If that worship is sexist then that's a matter for those within the religion, not the State, to put right.

It also guarantees freedom of speech. So they can go on spouting racist clap-trap all they like. It also guarantees me a right to point out they, or indeed anybody else, is spouting racist clap-trap. I don't see what other form of 'acknowledgement' you want 'us' to make.

>Secondly, we must offer support to those within the Muslim community who wish to embrace western liberalism. At the moment, the majority of Muslim voices in the media and the majority of Govt funding goes to the more extremist figures.<

On the first point I am regrettably forced to agree with you and find it a constant source of regret that more moderate voies do not put themselves forward more often - though there are than you may think, albeit not in the 'political arena'. Omid Djallili and Anihla Baig spring to mind.

On the second, do you have facts and figures to back that up or are you extrapolating from one or two instances? This is *not* a cheap shot but I know how easily people can be taken in by 'all council tax in Lambeth spent on groups for one-armed black lesbians' in the popular media.

Figures for funding for culturally-specific ventures are notoriously difficult to come by. Michael Gove MP has raised this question in Parliament on a number of occasions with no concise response.

But look at the two main, instantly recognisable Muslim figures in the UK today - Sir Iqbal Socranie & the MCB, both consulted with regard to and playing a hand in the formulating of govt policy.

Socranie led the book burning marches and called for the death of Salman Rushdie 2 weeks *before* the infamous fatwa declared by Ayatollah Khomeini. The establishment reaction? He received a knighthood. What message does that send to genuine moderates who try to be heard?

The MCB have called for Sharia law and called the debate on the niquab "racist".

The Govt appointed a Muslim to an advisory committee on which preachers should be allowed into Britain. I forget his name, but he was a member of Hizb Ul Tahir,who have handed out leaflets calling for Jews to be murdered in the West.

The lesson is clear for Muslims. Soft voices do not get attention. As a further example, they only have to look at Gerry Adams and Martin Mcguinness. McGuinness in particular bombed and murdered his way into the House of Commons and a position of respect and power.

The single most positive piece of news has been the support of the Islamic Education Centre in Oxford which helped a council fight the case of a schoolgirl demanding the right to wear the niquab in school. They won, thankfully and were quite explicit in calling this piece of clothing a "face mask" which is divisive and inflammatory.

To debate the niqab is not racist but the way some people do it can be seen as and in some cases is motovated by racism.

SWL you speak about elements of Islam being in direct opposition to liberal western democracy. heres the news there are elements of western thought that are directly opposite to the liberal western dmocracy you speak of as if its a black idea held by all the white people in the west. It is not and neither is the idea of killing or converting every non Muslim part of the game plan for every one who prays to Allah.

When you have pulled your head from up your @rse people might be able to have a proper debate about this with you.

one love

There speaks the voice of unintelligibility

You are right it is confusing I shoud have said:
...as if its a *block* idea held by all of white, christian europe.

It also needs to be said that not all of Europe has always been liberal and for a good long time some parts of it have been home to Muslims (not that the two things are mutually exclusive by any means). Besides this there are some Europeans who dont consider other people who are European by birth not to be European at all. Its vry confusing for a long time I thought you were bstinate, this was a rash judgement perhaps you just arent capable of underrstanding the issues.

one love

Coming from a self-confessed thief who is in favour of discrimination, you'll understand when I say I don't give a shit for your opinion.

Brilliant reasoning; only take into account information that suits your own agenda and disregard anything that comes from people you may not like.

You'll go far....and hopefully soon.