Remember the 'Undercover Mosque' programme?

retired_ks reddy · 08-09-2007, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Neil Purvis:
Did you ever patent the Space Pig? Tempted to steal your idea and make my millions.

Go for it, dude. Anything that stops you sucking money from the state for once has to be all good. You can buy me some beer if it works :thup:

retired_ks reddy · 08-09-2007, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by spotg:
As I may have said. I am okay with freedom of speech.

I would even be happy for those retards to be interviewed on TV and air those views.

It only serves to highlight their idiocy after all.

It does indeed. But it also sparks off riots.

retired_therob · 08-09-2007, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Bert Preast:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by msteuk:

When did I say I believed him?

Well either Dispatches did indeed give us an accurate idea of his views, or they cut and pasted and he's really a lovely chap.

What do you think? </BLOCKQUOTE>

Disingenuous. The point in my previous post was that an unfair cut-and-paste job is not mutually exclusive with him and the others in the programme being dangerous extremists. It's not an either-or situation as you suggest.

retired_selvinel · 08-09-2007, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Bert Preast:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by spotg:

And they show that by asking leading questions about interpretations of islam, and turn a sentences which goes something like

"Some of the more extreme texts advocate throwing homosexuals off the highest mountain, and that is the sort of teaching that we are trying to eradicate"

into

"advocate throwing homosexuals off the highest mountain"

Make a programme finding some real extremists preaching real hate, by all means, then the police can go in there and make arrests, but a show like this which gives a distorted impression of the people featured helps nothing.

Abu Usamah is a Salafi. SAL-AF-I. They take all the sacred texts literally, however extreme. Salafis are the ones saying throw the poof down the well, they are NOT the ones preaching moderation.

Do you understand? </BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand better than you. I also understand Salafism is a tag, not a sect. it's the Wahhabi who take it literally, the Salafi do not necessarily do that.

retired_ks reddy · 08-09-2007, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by msteuk:

Disingenuous. The point in my previous post was that an unfair cut-and-paste job is not mutually exclusive with him and the others in the programme being dangerous extremists. It's not an either-or situation as you suggest.

Any such documentary will always be a cut and paste job. The point is whether the subject's views were represented unfairly or not. They weren't.

retired_ks reddy · 08-09-2007, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fat Bhoy Tim:

I understand better than you. I also understand Salafism is a tag, not a sect. it's the Wahhabi who take it literally, the Salafi do not necessarily do that.

No, Salafism is a sect and they take the earlier texts literally. For them the time of pure islam was the days of the prophets and the few generations that came afterwards. Any jurisprudence or scholarship since is a corruption.

retired_kkaigle · 08-09-2007, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Bert Preast:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by spotg:

And they show that by asking leading questions about interpretations of islam, and turn a sentences which goes something like

"Some of the more extreme texts advocate throwing homosexuals off the highest mountain, and that is the sort of teaching that we are trying to eradicate"

into

"advocate throwing homosexuals off the highest mountain"

Make a programme finding some real extremists preaching real hate, by all means, then the police can go in there and make arrests, but a show like this which gives a distorted impression of the people featured helps nothing.

Abu Usamah is a Salafi. SAL-AF-I. They take all the sacred texts literally, however extreme. Salafis are the ones saying throw the poof down the well, they are NOT the ones preaching moderation.

Do you understand? </BLOCKQUOTE>

Those preaching moderation are no better though, are they?

retired_ks reddy · 08-09-2007, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pandaLUFC:

Those preaching moderation are no better though, are they?

Eh? They're much, much better. Trouble is they aren't backed up by a global organisation with billions of dollars.

retired_ks reddy · 08-09-2007, 11:08 AM

Oh I see, you were just calling me a racist. np

retired_selvinel · 08-09-2007, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Bert Preast:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Fat Bhoy Tim:

I understand better than you. I also understand Salafism is a tag, not a sect. it's the Wahhabi who take it literally, the Salafi do not necessarily do that.

No, Salafism is a sect and they take the earlier texts literally. For them the time of pure islam was the days of the prophets and the few generations that came afterwards. Any jurisprudence or scholarship since is a corruption. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Salafism is a subsect, and they believe the way Islam was practised in the first few centuries of Islam was perfection. Hence literal interpretation is a symptom, not a cause.

Remember the 'Undercover Mosque' programme?

Grab a beer, sit back and relax.

Remember the 'Undercover Mosque' programme?