C4 Dispatches documentary
In a rather alarming wake-up call, the latest Channel 4 Dispatches programme goes undercover inside Britain’s largest and most well-known mosques to find they are being turned into hotbeds for spreading of hatred, intolerance and bigotry.
In the documentary we see all sorts of ridiculous religious edicts issued by Islamic preachers:
-That homosexuals should be executed
-Jews are pigs
-That women are ‘deficient’ and should be subject to physical punishment at a man’s discretion
-Non believers are ‘Kuffars’ or the Islamic equivalent of Untermensch
-It is okay for a man to marry a prepubescent nine-year-old girl
-Entire countries should be subservient to the rules of an imaginary god who may or may not exist
The worrying fact is all of this is happening in some of Britain’s largest and most mainstream mosques and what Islamic preachers are saying publicly is apparently vastly different to what they are preaching privately.
Like most religious fanatics, they completely oppose democracy and believe it can eventually be destroyed by firstly creating a state within a state, and waiting for the day when their numbers are sufficient to overthrow the Kuffars. For a good reason, they take the long view and believe that time is on their side.
The programme does however show the views are of moderate Muslims speaking out against this kind of religious fanaticism. But if mainstream Islam in Britain has been infected to the degree which we see here, then those moderates certainly have their work cut out for them in preserving Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance as it should be.
We are of course, the architects of our own doom - much of the funding and religious ideology originates from Saudi Arabia and is paid for by the oil revenues we give them. George Bush is inept handling of the war on terror is giving these Islamic is extremists more ammunition to use against us. While Tony Blair is engaging in a pointless war in Iraq, he is ignoring the ticking timebomb which the extremists back home are helping to create.
watch this and inshallah this may clear up the wrong message channel 4 potrait through no fault of their own as they have no real undestanding and education of the religon. Some one tell me why after 9/11 so may people converted to the religon and no documentry was made, many of whom were weman in America. What did they understand from this islam which they embraced? Did da woman think oh i wann be beaten to death , let me join this religon cause i wanna b abused. Please take a look at this persons justification of the talks he has given and hopefully some misunderstanding about islam . cruelty is from the human being and their interpretation of islam.
Islam is not suppose to teach hating people but to hate certain acts.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=5621979422472502457
shu said this on January 21st, 2007 at 6:37 pm
I have no problem with making a distinction between the more peaceful nature of the religion itself and the actions of its followers. However, as far as some of its followers are concerned, many of those words spoken on tape are a pretty clear-cut and unambiguously in favour of preaching hatred and intolerance. What’s on the record stands as a testament to that and there is only so much you can do in terms of damage control and putting things ‘in context’. As with Christianity, hating the sin and not the sinner, is the more moderate view, but the Imans in the documentary take that one step further, and advocate the execution of homosexuals (to quote one of their examples).
I would also like to see some figures to back up your claims of a greater than average increase of people in America converting to Islam post 911.
Having watched the video I would like to make the following comments…
The deficiency of women:
I am certainly glad to hear the preacher in question distance himself from the claim that women are deficient, although the example he quoted from the Koran clearly indicates otherwise. That two women witnesses are equal to one male witness which any reasonable person would agree portrays women as being inferior to men.
Moslems obeying the laws of the country they are living in:
As far as the present circumstances are concerned, he states that it is okay from Moslems to observe the laws of the countries they are living in. But as he states himself, the goal of Islam’s practitioners is to spread the religion to all four corners of the earth, which would mean that at some point we would all end up obeying the laws of Islam whether we liked it or not. This would also mean the eradication of democracy as we know it.
On hating non-Moslems:
He states Allah hates the disbelief of non believers, therefore Moslems are also obligated to do so. As mentioned previously, there is a fine line between hating what a person does and the person themselves and while he himself may have clarified his remarks, judging by the nature of some of the other preachers in the documentary, they also had difficulty distinguishing between the two.
An imam has the rights to crucify an individual:
He appears to indicate that it is an option (as opposed to an obligation) for an imam in an Islamic state to decide whether or not to crucify someone as a punishment. But that an imam would be unlikely to do so, due to Moslems traditional aversion to associating with anything that resembles a Christian symbol such as a cross - a roundabout and slightly ludicrous explanation. What we should have heard from him was an unambiguous condemnation of a method of torture which has no place in a modern democratic society. Granted, most Islamic societies at present are neither modern nor democratic, they should at least be aspiring towards a more progressive ideal, and not harking back to a darker age of civilisation.
The execution of homosexuals:
He, like many Christians, may believe that homosexuality is an abomination. According to him, the notion that homosexuals should be punished by being thrown off a cliff is somebody else’s idea, not his own and also not for him to decide on. Fair enough, but where is the condemnation and why did he cite that as an example in the first place?
Jihad is part of Islam:
He describes jihad as A) a ‘military campaign’ which should be entered into with caution and with careful understanding. B) a daily struggle to be a better Moslem. To his credit, he does distance himself from the current bunch of jihad driven terrorists and denounces them as ‘coward’s who have lost the plot’. However, he also states rather more sinisterly, that if Moslem’s find themselves in a position of military weakness, they should refrain from engaging in military jihad and instead rely on spreading their religion by more peaceful means. The implication here is that the only thing which is stopping them from engaging in jihad is the threat of sufficient militarily force to counter it.
Admin said this on January 22nd, 2007 at 7:18 am