considering that the news outlets I have listened to this morning and yesterday have had 10 min pieces on the size of gaga's heels and beckham starting a football team in Miami , I think its fairly obvious that the programme which for people like me was a fascinating insight into the myths the bullshit and the normal played out stances from both sides
yet for some reason the tv and radio companies are uncomfortable with having to put out the differing view
His name isn't Tommy Robinson, It's Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. Not sure why he needed to change his name other than to look hard (he chose the name of a famous Luton football hooligan)
Glad he's seen the error of his ways with the EDL thugs and is trying to engage in debate but he did create the EDL and now seems to have thrown it away now it no longer suits him.
The problem has never been foreigners or people with different coloured skins or just different religions but fundamentalist religions be that Muslims or Christians or whatever.
Take it you are not a fan ?
Henry Irving (not his real name) is the leader of the Bromley Defence League.
He'd never engage in debate with the Bromley Branch of the Palace Ultras.
His name isn't Tommy Robinson, It's Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. Not sure why he needed to change his name other than to look hard (he chose the name of a famous Luton football hooligan)
Glad he's seen the error of his ways with the EDL thugs and is trying to engage in debate but he did create the EDL and now seems to have thrown it away now it no longer suits him.
The problem has never been foreigners or people with different coloured skins or just different religions but fundamentalist religions be that Muslims or Christians or whatever.
Take it you are not a fan ?
Of fundamentalists Christians/Muslims and other haters, no.
It is unrealistic to remove or change holy text in the Koran. But it certainly isn't unrealistic for Imams to interpret them differently. Islam seems to me to be a religion more than any bar possibly catholisism, where believers act and behave according to what they are told they can or can't do.
The problem is - if you say take the bits out - the fundamentalists won't forget they were there. As has been said - it would be dangerous if everything in the bible was taken literally - but that is what fundamentalism is all about. Tommy Robinson isn't going to change anything, that is only going to come from progressive Muslims themselves - but he does seem to have genuinely changed his position and that should serve as a positive example for others who may come for a place where he has been.
Having said that, there was a focus on him in the program, but the issues raised were much bigger than him. We need more programmes of this standard on the telly.
Tommy Robinson once again came across as a very switched on chap who was able to back his opinions up with facts.
Not really facts and that is part of the problems we all face. Any passage from any religious/holy text can be interpreted, by anyone from scholars to megalomaniacs in a myriad of ways. All faiths have their quota of people who stick rigidly to one intepretation, and they will seek out passages that back their views whilst ignoring those that don't. They then try to justify their views by speaking as though their interpretations are indisputable fact.
I wouldn't say the interpretations can be seen as 'fact', but the statement that absolutely zero people had been turned in by the Islamic community (when there clearly is an extremism problem) was pretty eye opening.
I wouldn't say the interpretations can be seen as 'fact', but the statement that absolutely zero people had been turned in by the Islamic community (when there clearly is an extremism problem) was pretty eye opening.
But how can we possibly know this? My understanding is that the police and intelligence agencies don't generally reveal who their informers are.
Extremist ideology is not illegal. I doubt that many terrorists stand up at prayers and tell everyone what they are planning.
I wouldn't say the interpretations can be seen as 'fact', but the statement that absolutely zero people had been turned in by the Islamic community (when there clearly is an extremism problem) was pretty eye opening.
I very much hope that the initiatives this year introduced by the Muslim community for this exact reason in places like Birmingham will start to produce some results. Hopefully the EDL will follow suit.
It is unrealistic to remove or change holy text in the Koran. But it certainly isn't unrealistic for Imams to interpret them differently. Islam seems to me to be a religion more than any bar possibly catholisism, where believers act and behave according to what they are told they can or can't do.
The problem is - if you say take the bits out - the fundamentalists won't forget they were there. As has been said - it would be dangerous if everything in the bible was taken literally - but that is what fundamentalism is all about. Tommy Robinson isn't going to change anything, that is only going to come from progressive Muslims themselves - but he does seem to have genuinely changed his position and that should serve as a positive example for others who may come for a place where he has been.
Having said that, there was a focus on him in the program, but the issues raised were much bigger than him. We need more programmes of this standard on the telly.
Excellent post.
I'm often interested talking to a Christian friend of mine when he tries to explain exactly why fundamentalist, literalist views are wrong, and his more liberal interpretation is right. He tries to interpret the text one way, to fit in with the current times and thinking. i.e. "what did God mean" but he really struggles when I ask why was something in there if God didn't mean it. He understands the historicity of the bible, and that it was written by people a few thousand years ago and cobbled together from several conflicting texts, and he understands science well but he won't make the leap that if some of the bible is is wrong or shouldn't be followed, then why shouldn't the rest of it. you can tell he's conflicted, but doesn't want to abandon his entire belief system.
There was the same thing with Mo in the TV show when he challenged about Sharia law and stoning, and he just wouldn't condemn it. He just couldn't admit that his sacred text was fallible, and the whole faith crumbles like a stack of cards when questioned. You could see the conflict and it was gripping television.
Credit to Robinson, for accepting that a lot of what he thought was wrong and changing his views. Very hard to do when his views were so much a part of his identity and notoriety.
In that twitter shot, he asks the question "Is it true........" so he's not spreading rumours he's asking for confirmation.
I've also seen a video of the muslim football fans praying in a corner of the Trevor Brooking stand - I didn't hear any racist abuse towards them, I didn't hear any EDL shouts - but I did hear some West Ham fans singing "Irons, Irons".
It's islamophobiawatch who are not worried about their facts.
There is no way that you can interpret large segments of the Bible (especially the Old Testament) in any way other than what they say.
God repeatedly commands his people to commit genocide, mass murder, rape, infanticide etc. That's simply how things were in the ancient world. It can't be adapted for modern sensibilities and both fundamentalist and on-fundamentalst Christians simply have to ignore it.
I don't know the Koran as well but I expect it is similar.
It is unrealistic to remove or change holy text in the Koran. But it certainly isn't unrealistic for Imams to interpret them differently. Islam seems to me to be a religion more than any bar possibly catholisism, where believers act and behave according to what they are told they can or can't do.
The problem is - if you say take the bits out - the fundamentalists won't forget they were there. As has been said - it would be dangerous if everything in the bible was taken literally - but that is what fundamentalism is all about. Tommy Robinson isn't going to change anything, that is only going to come from progressive Muslims themselves - but he does seem to have genuinely changed his position and that should serve as a positive example for others who may come for a place where he has been.
Having said that, there was a focus on him in the program, but the issues raised were much bigger than him. We need more programmes of this standard on the telly.
Excellent post.
I'm often interested talking to a Christian friend of mine when he tries to explain exactly why fundamentalist, literalist views are wrong, and his more liberal interpretation is right. He tries to interpret the text one way, to fit in with the current times and thinking. i.e. "what did God mean" but he really struggles when I ask why was something in there if God didn't mean it. He understands the historicity of the bible, and that it was written by people a few thousand years ago and cobbled together from several conflicting texts, and he understands science well but he won't make the leap that if some of the bible is is wrong or shouldn't be followed, then why shouldn't the rest of it. you can tell he's conflicted, but doesn't want to abandon his entire belief system.
There was the same thing with Mo in the TV show when he challenged about Sharia law and stoning, and he just wouldn't condemn it. He just couldn't admit that his sacred text was fallible, and the whole faith crumbles like a stack of cards when questioned. You could see the conflict and it was gripping television.
Credit to Robinson, for accepting that a lot of what he thought was wrong and changing his views. Very hard to do when his views were so much a part of his identity and notoriety.
Good point. I am not a believer, but I don’t think it is my place to convince people to adopt my position. When my son has asked me about religion, I have always told him that I am not religious, but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be. He needs to find his own truth. That is my biggest problem with religion, as families think it is their duty to make these decisions for their Children – but you end up being a Christian, Muslim, Hindu even athiest etc… for the wrong reason – not because you believe, but because you are taught to believe or not believe. If a liberal Muslim or Christian finds a way to reconcile their religion with the modern day- good luck to them I say – no need to convince them otherwise. Where I have a problem with religion is when it hurts people – I have seen cases where religion has had a positive impact in people’s lives.
Like when a child is asked their religion and says "I'm an atheist" and the response is "Aren't you a bit young to decide?" Did you say that when the other children said "Church of England" or "Jewish"? Of course not.
From my perspective I totally endorse this view however, as TR pointed out in the documentary the Muslim community are not going anywhere and we have to get on with that fact. Dialogue is the only way forward. Always was and always is. If previously extremist activists can realise this fact then the future might not be as bleak and confrontational as it otherwise might have been. Time as always will tell but as far as I am concerned this latest episode is a step in the right direction.
Dialogue won't get us far. What the programme suceeded in was showing a glimpse of the answer - which is that change can only be achieved from within. A lot of people - especially young people are looking for something to believe in and at the moment in certain communities the wrong people are on hand to fulfill this need- what is needed is more of the right people who have a different, more positive message.
But this also means we should challenge those that claim to be pro British society and community and demand that their action speak as loudly as their words! If we can't openly state why something is wrong for fear of being accused of being racist, we will never get to the heart of the issue. We shouldn't need an ex EDL leader to show us that!
Wasn't it dialogue that got TR and Mo to realise each had some valid points and fears that need to be considered ? Wasn't it dialogue that started to change Robinsons opinion and direction ? I agree that change should and will need to come from within the Muslim community and the right wing movement but there is no better way to start that long and challenging process than by talking with each other.
Well I had never seen two muslims disagree on the things in the religous book in the manor they did
Nor had I ever seen or heard of the hatred aimed at quillem or the poor guy from the muslim council of gb from british muslims
And for the first time I can recall things were discussed openly and honestly with both sides at time coming across as stupid on certain actions
Watch it and form your own opinion
Muslims can disagree, the evidence of this is often in the news from around the world.
It's true that the only way I can fully form an opinion on this show is too watch it. However I suspect some people when deciding what to put in the news (clearly it is impossible to watch everything) may have based their decision on a thought process similar to that in my previous post. Of course, some people who make the decision, may have watched the programme and decided it was not newsworthy.
very sad that a decent information article is being neglected because it does not fit the mainstream view on Islam and Tommy Robinson
If the only new information relates to Mr Robinson as an individual, then why is it newsworthy?
He is (was) the leader of a large far right street protest group, newsworthy in my book.
Mr Robinson was a nobody before the EDL. With the EDL he represented a section of society, and whether you agreed with his views or not, those views represented that section of society and were worth considering. Now without the EDL and not clearly representing a significant section of society, his views now are not much more newsworthy than Joe Bloggs'. This may change again in the future.
That's the point, it was about his decision to quit the EDL, the process that took him to that decision and his future hopes and interactions with Muslims to achieve those goals. Very newsworthy, IMO, as you stated, whether you agreed with his actions or the EDL, which I hasten to add, I didn't/don't, he was still a major figure in recent years and the EDL made a very big impact. If Bob Crowe stood down tomorrow, it wouldn't make him any less newsworthy the next day, even though I detest the man and his politics.
I wasn't saying there shouldn't be dialogue - just that Tommy Robinson isn't going to be listened to by muslims - not in a way where they will change anything, where as they are more likely to listen to fellow muslims.
I wasn't saying there shouldn't be dialogue - just that Tommy Robinson isn't going to be listened to by muslims - not in a way where they will change anything, where as they are more likely to listen to fellow muslims.
TBH I think the underlying issue of why the EDL can't do what they say they want to - fight Islamic extremism - is that the message they send is currently one of "fight Islam". If a group you are part of has internal disagreements but is then attacked by an outside group, you stick together to defend yourselves. This tends to strengthen those within your group who hold the most straightforward lines - in the case of Islam, those who would not question anything in the Koran. By trying to march in Tower Hamlets and similar areas, the EDL closed down a lot of debate between Muslims, because the hardliners could turn round and say "no we can't talk about interpretations of the Koran, we've got the EDL attacking us next week.'
I suspect, at least with Tommy Robinson, the penny has dropped on this and he had the choice of carrying on and making things worse or changing tack. I think the fact that he actually talked to Muslims means he probably started to get a sense that they are not all the same. It's not a coincidence either that a far larger proportion of those arrested or involved in Islamist terrorism are converts, without the background in the religion that would give them space to disagree with particular arguments. I used to work with a guy who was pretty fundamentalist, and I could beat him in almost any argument. Though he was from a Muslim country, he was like a born again Muslim, without the tradition. When another muslim guy started, he rubbished a lot of what the first fellow said, and I found it more difficult to argue with him from where I'm coming from.
And people generally pick and choose what religious teachings they follow - all the Catholic countries in Europe have lower birth-rates than the UK, so people are clearly ignoring the Church's teaching when it suits them. I think similar things happen in Muslim countries, but we tend to only hear about the bad stuff, although sadly there is a lot of it, like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan....
But you can never beat a fundamentalist in an argument because they can't enter into it with an open mind! He wasn't a muslim, but I remember lunchtime discussions with a colleague who was a 7th day adventist a few years back. He wanted to discuss his religion because he wanted to convert us. It was very illuminating to me to listen to him and see where he was coming from. When he was trying to convince us that Dinosaurs never existed and their bones were those of big boned people that scientists put together to fool us, it is difficult to comprehend how any sane person could take that stance. Other than that he was a decent, intelligent guy. Unfortunately, people can be manipulated to stop the mind questioning.
Can we stop all the 'he's really a clever bloke' shit now then? Gobshite tosser just jumping on whatever bandwagin was convenient for him at the time to keep his name in the spotlight.
Can we stop all the 'he's really a clever bloke' shit now then? Gobshite tosser just jumping on whatever bandwagin was convenient for him at the time to keep his name in the spotlight.
Can we stop all the 'he's really a clever bloke' shit now then? Gobshite tosser just jumping on whatever bandwagin was convenient for him at the time to keep his name in the spotlight.
Comments
yet for some reason the tv and radio companies are uncomfortable with having to put out the differing view
He'd never engage in debate with the Bromley Branch of the Palace Ultras.
The problem is - if you say take the bits out - the fundamentalists won't forget they were there. As has been said - it would be dangerous if everything in the bible was taken literally - but that is what fundamentalism is all about. Tommy Robinson isn't going to change anything, that is only going to come from progressive Muslims themselves - but he does seem to have genuinely changed his position and that should serve as a positive example for others who may come for a place where he has been.
Having said that, there was a focus on him in the program, but the issues raised were much bigger than him. We need more programmes of this standard on the telly.
Extremist ideology is not illegal. I doubt that many terrorists stand up at prayers and tell everyone what they are planning.
I'm often interested talking to a Christian friend of mine when he tries to explain exactly why fundamentalist, literalist views are wrong, and his more liberal interpretation is right. He tries to interpret the text one way, to fit in with the current times and thinking. i.e. "what did God mean" but he really struggles when I ask why was something in there if God didn't mean it. He understands the historicity of the bible, and that it was written by people a few thousand years ago and cobbled together from several conflicting texts, and he understands science well but he won't make the leap that if some of the bible is is wrong or shouldn't be followed, then why shouldn't the rest of it. you can tell he's conflicted, but doesn't want to abandon his entire belief system.
There was the same thing with Mo in the TV show when he challenged about Sharia law and stoning, and he just wouldn't condemn it. He just couldn't admit that his sacred text was fallible, and the whole faith crumbles like a stack of cards when questioned. You could see the conflict and it was gripping television.
Credit to Robinson, for accepting that a lot of what he thought was wrong and changing his views. Very hard to do when his views were so much a part of his identity and notoriety.
http://www.islamophobiawatch.co.uk/how-quilliam-joined-former-edl-leader-in-spreading-false-rumour-about-cheap-muslim-only-football-tickets/
Seems like the same vile rubbish as normal but now with someone managing his PR and public image better so he doesn't end up arrested quite as often.
I've also seen a video of the muslim football fans praying in a corner of the Trevor Brooking stand - I didn't hear any racist abuse towards them, I didn't hear any EDL shouts - but I did hear some West Ham fans singing "Irons, Irons".
It's islamophobiawatch who are not worried about their facts.
A dangerous and unhelpful group of attention seeking people
God repeatedly commands his people to commit genocide, mass murder, rape, infanticide etc. That's simply how things were in the ancient world. It can't be adapted for modern sensibilities and both fundamentalist and on-fundamentalst Christians simply have to ignore it.
I don't know the Koran as well but I expect it is similar.
But this also means we should challenge those that claim to be pro British society and community and demand that their action speak as loudly as their words! If we can't openly state why something is wrong for fear of being accused of being racist, we will never get to the heart of the issue. We shouldn't need an ex EDL leader to show us that!
If Bob Crowe stood down tomorrow, it wouldn't make him any less newsworthy the next day, even though I detest the man and his politics.
I suspect, at least with Tommy Robinson, the penny has dropped on this and he had the choice of carrying on and making things worse or changing tack. I think the fact that he actually talked to Muslims means he probably started to get a sense that they are not all the same. It's not a coincidence either that a far larger proportion of those arrested or involved in Islamist terrorism are converts, without the background in the religion that would give them space to disagree with particular arguments. I used to work with a guy who was pretty fundamentalist, and I could beat him in almost any argument. Though he was from a Muslim country, he was like a born again Muslim, without the tradition. When another muslim guy started, he rubbished a lot of what the first fellow said, and I found it more difficult to argue with him from where I'm coming from.
And people generally pick and choose what religious teachings they follow - all the Catholic countries in Europe have lower birth-rates than the UK, so people are clearly ignoring the Church's teaching when it suits them. I think similar things happen in Muslim countries, but we tend to only hear about the bad stuff, although sadly there is a lot of it, like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan....
.