A Muslim's view on the English Defence League

[Arcana XV]

After Cameron's speech in Munich and the EDL demonstration in Luton, followed by much mention of this group on this forum, I decided to do some research. They seem to be very unpopular with most of our British posters and I wanted to find out why that is. It's an annoying habit of mine to never take anyone's word for anything before I have a chance to look into it and make up my own mind.

On the group's website I came across this very interesting piece written by a British Muslim scholar. He seems reasonable, fair and willing to admit that the EDL may have perfectly legitimate reasons to be worried about the rise of Islamism in Britain and elsewhere in the West. His words echo those of all the moderate Muslims I know.

Here's an excerpt from his essay:

I mentioned earlier that the EDL's criticisms go deeper than the condemnation of terrorist atrocities. Of course we must guard against the prejudiced assumption that all Muslims are part of the same terrorist-inspiring ideology, and I am certainly not claiming that these ignorant and offensive views do not exist. But we are lucky that in this country we will find so many friends who are willing to stand up against unjust discrimination. Freedom of religion is well protected here, and we must always appreciate that those who allow us these freedoms would never be given equal freedom to carry out their religious observances in Mecca or, indeed, in many Muslim countries throughout the world.

The danger that we must guard against is not the immediate threat posed by a few lone individuals, but the greater challenge posed by legitimate concerns about our religion's apparent incompatibility with the foundations of liberal democracy. Even if the EDL were a bunch of neo-Nazi fanatics (which I'm certain they are not), that does not give us licence to ignore the grounds for their criticism. The EDL often do have the good grace to try and draw a distinction between the so-called radicals and 'decent Muslims'. They also claim that Muslims are often the first victims of Islam. Whilst that may appear to be a gross conclusion, it is grounded on the very real problems of gender apartheid and wretched cultural traditions surrounding the preferred punishment for apostasy (in most cases, death).

In the face of a religion which, to them, appears to threaten not only their particular ideals, but the fundamental rights and freedoms of modern Britain, it is no wonder that their group is fairly categorised as belonging to the 'anti-Islam' group of organisations. These organisatons are growing in numbers and influence across Europe, and whilst they certainly have their fair share of unpleasant characters, we cannot afford to write off their concerns, or assume that their views are unreflective of the communities that they claim to represent. We must acknowledge that being 'anti-Islam' is not the same as being Islamophobic. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but we must be willing to accept criticism. We need to if we are to adapt.

The rest of his essay can be accessed here:

English Defence League News - Influential Muslim Leader Defends the EDL

Personally, I agree with this man that the EDL has a point and is not inherently Islamophobic. But I also think that this group attracts all manner of racists, neo-Nazis, fascists and viciously anti-Islam (not to be confused with anti-Islamism) characters and that this fact will prevent them from establishing the sort of credibility they need for an actual dialogue to take place with the Muslim community.

Thoughts?

ETA: HA! Just saw the little bit at the end. Of course this man doesn't exist. :lol: Oh, well. Still, if he did, I would agree with him. :lol: My questions stand.

 

[Laila]

Unfortunately, Sheikh Widaad Abdel-Rahman does not exist.

But that's the point.

If he did he would be joining us in Luton on February 5th 2011.
:2wave:

 

[Arcana XV]

Unfortunately, Sheikh Widaad Abdel-Rahman does not exist.

But that's the point.

If he did he would be joining us in Luton on February 5th 2011.
:2wave:

Like I said. My questions stand. I hear the EDL has Muslims amongst its members. What if he did exist? What would you say to him?

 

[Laila]

Like I said. My questions stand. I hear the EDL has Muslims amongst its members. What if he did exist? What would you say to him?

I'd tell him to speak for himself because he does not represent me or my views. These Muslims can join whatever group they want as is their right. But I do not and never will support EDL

 

[Arcana XV]

I'd tell him to speak for himself because he does not represent me or my views. These Muslims can join whatever group they want as is their right. But I do not and never will support EDL

You don't have to support them to admit that they have some valid complaints. I don't really support them either. I think they'll remain even more on the fringe than the BNP because of the type of people they attract, but someone needs to adress their concerns or they're going to grow like an abscess and it will get ugly when it bursts. Do you not think that Cameron's speech the other day was one way to adress those concerns?

 

[William Rea]

After Cameron's speech in Munich and the EDL demonstration in Luton, followed by much mention of this group on this forum, I decided to do some research. They seem to be very unpopular with most of our British posters and I wanted to find out why that is. It's an annoying habit of mine to never take anyone's word for anything before I have a chance to look into it and make up my own mind.

On the group's website I came across this very interesting piece written by a British Muslim scholar. He seems reasonable, fair and willing to admit that the EDL may have perfectly legitimate reasons to be worried about the rise of Islamism in Britain and elsewhere in the West. His words echo those of all the moderate Muslims I know.

Here's an excerpt from his essay:



The rest of his essay can be accessed here:

English Defence League News - Influential Muslim Leader Defends the EDL

Personally, I agree with this man that the EDL has a point and is not inherently Islamophobic. But I also think that this group attracts all manner of racists, neo-Nazis, fascists and viciously anti-Islam (not to be confused with anti-Islamism) characters and that this fact will prevent them from establishing the sort of credibility they need for an actual dialogue to take place with the Muslim community.

Thoughts?

ETA: HA! Just saw the little bit at the end. Of course this man doesn't exist. :lol: Oh, well. Still, if he did, I would agree with him. :lol: My questions stand.

Put simply, I do not trust a word they say and I do not trust their motives.

 

[Laila]

Put simply, I do not trust a word they say and I do not trust their motives.

Pretty much this.
I do not think they care very much about Muslim extremists, I think that subject is something being used as a tool to gain support. They always go on and on about Immigrants - period.

 

[William Rea]

You don't have to support them to admit that they have some valid complaints. I don't really support them either. I think they'll remain even more on the fringe than the BNP because of the type of people they attract, but someone needs to adress their concerns or they're going to grow like an abscess and it will get ugly when it bursts. Do you not think that Cameron's speech the other day was one way to adress those concerns?

Cameron has aligned himself with a religious crusade when all he needed to do was align himself with UK law against the ethnic traditions that do not meet UK laws, why? What is he actually going to change in criminal law that doesn't already cover sexual equality, hate crimes or plotting to cause criminal damage or harm?

He is a coward who has decided to go for political expediency by aligning himself with the far right to keep the mid-right voters who are attracted by the "blame someone else" honey pot.

Concerns? Yes there are concerns, very legitimate ones but he has started shooting his mouth off before he has shown us the substance of what he intends to do about it and for a British PM to do that is unforgivable.

Note - Yes I am very upset about this and yes I know it's only a political forum!

Note - Now that Cameron has decided to make ethical stances on giving government money to organisations that might be promoting "Islamists" I assume that he will not be funding or providing Foreign and Trade Office staff or MPs for visits to Saudi Arabia to sell them UK manufactured arms and technology?

 

[alexa]

Like I said. My questions stand. I hear the EDL has Muslims amongst its members. What if he did exist? What would you say to him?

I hope it wasn't my putting the link in of the Scottish Muslim who apparently has joined the EDL which gave you this idea. While he would appear to have good motivation, to view his stance as evidence that the EDL is in any way an organisation which sane Muslims would join could only come from someone who knows nothing about them which, as you have said, is your position.

What you have with the EDL is

no one should doubt the group’s intention to bring race *conflict on to the streets. The last time the EDL marched through Luton, 250 of them went on the *rampage in an Asian area of the town. Shop windows were smashed, cars overturned and a number of people were attacked.

Special Investigation: English Defence League and the hooligans spreading hate on the High Street | Mail Online

I chose the Daily Mail because I know Andalablue had previously posted an excellent article by them on the EDL coupled with the reality they are possibly the people you would least expect to be so forthcoming.

This is England: On the trail of the English Defence League | Mail Online

Again I am sorry if by posting that video of the naive Scottish Muslim I gave you a wrong impression. You really need to do more research on this. One naive Muslim and one fake article are no evidence of Muslim support for the EDL.

 

[Arcana XV]

Cameron has aligned himself with a religious crusade when all he needed to do was align himself with UK law against the ethnic traditions that do not meet UK laws, why? What is he actually going to change in criminal law that doesn't already cover sexual equality, hate crimes or plotting to cause criminal damage or harm?

He is a coward who has decided to go for political expediency by aligning himself with the far right to keep the mid-right voters who are attracted by the "blame someone else" honey pot.

Concerns? Yes there are concerns, very legitimate ones but he has started shooting his mouth off before he has shown us the substance of what he intends to do about it and for a British PM to do that is unforgivable.

Note - Yes I am very upset about this and yes I know it's only a political forum!

Note - Now that Cameron has decided to make ethical stances on giving government money to organisations that might be promoting "Islamists" I assume that he will not be funding or providing Foreign and Trade Office staff or MPs for visits to Saudi Arabia to sell them UK manufactured arms and technology?

I think what he's doing is exactly what the French center-right parties did when they publically acknowledged the concerns of the extreme right-wing parties. I think it's a smart thing to do. It may be cowardly in a sense, but it effectively destroyed the rising support the extremist parties were getting from people who felt the government was not listening to them. It would be very irresponsible to keep ignoring the voices coming from members of the EDL and even more irresponsible to keep calling them names. Many of their supporters deserve the name-calling, but there are just as many who don't and who join these sorts of groups because no one else will listen to them. You run the risk of their numbers rising to levels that are no longer manageable and things could get ugly very quickly in places like Luton, where the number of Muslim immigrants is quite high.

 

[Arcana XV]

I hope it wasn't my putting the link in of the Scottish Muslim who apparently has joined the EDL which gave you this idea.

Not at all. I was reading about the demonstrations in Luton and the news articles mentioned that the EDL has Muslim members. I haven't seen any of your posts.

While he would appear to have good motivation, to view his stance as evidence that the EDL is in any way an organisation which sane Muslims would join could only come from someone who knows nothing about them which, as you have said, is your position.

What you have with the EDL is

Special Investigation: English Defence League and the hooligans spreading hate on the High Street | Mail Online

I chose the Daily Mail because I know Andalablue had previously posted an excellent article by them on the EDL coupled with the reality they are possibly the people you would least expect to be so forthcoming.

This is England: On the trail of the English Defence League | Mail Online

Again I am sorry if by posting that video of the naive Scottish Muslim I gave you a wrong impression. You really need to do more research on this. One naive Muslim and one fake article are no evidence of Muslim support for the EDL.

I actually don't expect any Muslim support for the EDL. If I were Muslim, they'd be the last group I'd support. All I'm saying is you can't keep ignoring these people. They're not going to go away. Underestimating them would be a grave error. Every country that tried it came to regret is as that only increased the number of supporters, which led to many of their leaders successfully running for office.

 

[Djoop]

Lol, only a small minority of EDL members are racist hooligans, the overwhelming majority are peace loving hippies with a genuine concern for human rights.

 

[alexa]

Not at all. I was reading about the demonstrations in Luton and the news articles mentioned that the EDL has Muslim members. I haven't seen any of your posts.



I actually don't expect any Muslim support for the EDL. If I were Muslim, they'd be the last group I'd support. All I'm saying is you can't keep ignoring these people. They're not going to go away. Underestimating them would be a grave error. Every country that tried it came to regret is as that only increased the number of supporters, which led to many of their leaders successfully running for office.

Please provide links to the Muslim supporters of the EDL. Personally I do not go with appeasement or support of thugs but to each their own and for what it is worth, Cameron has absolutely denied his speech was intended in any way to give support for the EDL though he has come in for severe criticism from others for giving this speech on the same day as an EDL march.

You are merging two threads Arcana. Your quote to begin this has been shown to be a fake. The other issues belong to the thread already started.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

I've seen tv news interviews where the (blacked out) EDL boss says they have black members, Jewish members and have swelled their ranks with ordinary people genuinely worried about the rise of Islamism in particular and Islam in general.

And this poses a question other posters may not have considered: Where for you personally, if any, is the dividing line between Islam and Islamism?

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

If he did he would be joining us in Luton on February 5th 2011.

Intruiging. Are those italac words an impersonation of an EDL man or the words of somebody planning to join a Muslim mob on the streets?

There have certainly been riots before at the hands of Muslims so I'd stand at the back if I were you.

I actually don't expect any Muslim support for the EDL. If I were Muslim, they'd be the last group I'd support.

Though it has to be said that the whole 'poor Muslims' thing wears a bit thin. Ordinary whining Muslims are in no physical danger from the EDL itself whilst the Islamo-maniacs are typically the ones to go berzerk and risk a slap in the chops.

Or not, as it turns out, as cops have told the EDL boss to LEAVE Luton because a few Muslims feel 'agitated': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzpF3d9WHN4

Indeed, it's very difficult to take pious statements like 'Islam and Islamism are set apart' seriously because all Muslims seem suddenly united against the bogeyman EDL.

 

[Djoop]

These protests and counterprotests by groups like EDL/MDL, non of em represents the citizens who get to pay for their stupidity. At the end of the day the public, also the republic of public, can pay for their police escort and their 24/7 protection. Consider that.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

The police have certainly been packed to protect the EDL, though any genuine risk of trouble has been proved to come from the 'good guys' in the Muslim ranks or UAF. And there have been far less police cordons holding them off.

At the end of the day, all have a right to protest. That's what the EDL do. But the likes of counter-marching Islamists are the ones who seek to directly impose their Sharia will on the nation. And if it wasn't for them we'd not need police cordons, save to watch for potential bad behaviour from thugs mingling inside the EDL crowd.



Counter-protesting Muslims are just too stupid (and the Bennett-led liberal-left too hate-filled) to leave the EDL to protest unmolested. Such would probably only barely make the regional news if it was a quick and trouble-free march over in hours. But the PJ-clads turn up looking for bother, providing risk of riot, then playing victim due to the risk of riot. Then they bellyache about EDL protests when they find such have a higher profile due to the new tensions. And such grumbles are met with universal mainstream Muslim acclaim.


These Muslims are fools to themselves. Left alone, any protests against Islamisation for that matter fade into the background noise of constant concession. The always demanding, petulant and perpetually offended Muslim Community in Britain gain more than they lose by living here. But they always seem to insist that Islamification must also be seen to be done, with no brooking of serious opposition and threatening 'tensions' if people don't roll over. No wonder they're so effing unpopular.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Indeed, it's very difficult to take pious statements like 'Islam and Islamism are set apart' seriously because all Muslims seem suddenly united against the bogeyman EDL.

The thing I am coming to understand, is there is True Islam, and false Islam.

Muslims that want to convert by force, are false muslims.

Muslims that force others to believe are false muslims.

There is a difference.

My best friend is a liberal muslim, but her mom was a Quran scholar and is a little bit more conservative. But talking to her, she says all these and I quote "****heads" like Bin Laden, have twisted and subverted the faith, but muslim haters also twist and mistranslate things to suit their goals to.

There is no obligation to believe in Islam, by the words of the Quran:

No obligation to Believe.

Surah 10: Yunus

99. If it had been the lords will,
they would all have believed
All who are on Earth!
Wilt thou then compel mankind
against their will, to believe!

100. No soul can believe, except
By the will of Allah

By this we can see, that if it had been Allahs plan to make everyone on Earth believe, he would have done so, but in not doing so, he gave man free will, making faith a moral achievement, and non faith a sin, as all of the major religions do. As a complementary proposition, men must not be impatient or angry if they have to content against unfaith, and most important of all, they must gaurd against the temptation of forcing faith. Forced faith is no faith.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Osama and his friends didn't exactly pull their Islamo-rhetoric from thin air did they? They've endured with a quote for every occasion and an Islamic world reflecting their own supremacism to a greater or lesser degree.


And what should also be remembered is that peaceful passages in the Koran tended to be 'abrogated', that is cancelled out by later 'revelations' of violence when Muhammad ruled Mecca but which still remained in the Koran.



Hence, direct contradictioons like these verses appear:

Those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, theirs will be a heavy doom.--3:4

Don't question anything Muhammed says or choose disbelief over faith. 2:108

War is ordained by Allah, and all Muslims must be willing to fight, whether they like it or not. 2:216

Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. 4:89

Those who submit and convert to Islam will be treated well. (Those who don't submit will be killed. See previous verse.) 9:6

Fight against Christians and Jews "until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low." 9:29

We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Their habitation is the Fire 3:151

Christians and Jews must believe what Allah has revealed to Muhammad or Allah will disfigure their faces or turn them into apes, as he did the Sabbath-breakers. (See 2:65-66) 4:47

We've been through this before and it just goes on and on.


Peaceful Muslims get it too:

If you believe in only part of the Scripture, you will suffer in this life and go to hell in the next. 2:85

Certainly, forced conversion is no conversion at all. But what's so good to convert to? Peaceful Muslims may cherry-pick on their own account but they're certainly backing a lsoer into trying to rehabilitate the religious equivilent of Hermann Goering anyway.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Good people are bad Muslims if they consider themselves truly orthodox. Hence the formation of the Sufi sect, who effectively rewrote Islam to suit their own 'hippy' outlooks. However, they're sadly in the underwhelming minority.




A look at the revealing (yet badly set out) 'Meaning of the Holy Qur'an' by Abdullah Yusuf Ali - just to outline that nothing has been misrepresented by bigots, as excused by liberals:


9:5

But when the forbidden months
Are past, then fight and slay
The Pagans wherever you find them.
And seize them, beleaguer them,
And lie in wait for them
In every stratagem (of war);
But if they repent,
And establish regular prayers,
And practice regular charity,
Then open the way for them:
For Allah ids Oft-Forgiving,
Most merciful.

And what does good old Abdullah write in the footnote?

According to the English phrase, you cannot fight a war with kid gloves. The fighting may take the form of slaughter or caputure or seige or ambush... But even then there is room for repentence and amendment on the part of the guilty party, and if that takes place our duty is forgiveness and the establishment of peace.

Two things are clear. First, the Koran is talking about aggressive wars of domination as anybody fighting a war of defence wouldn't say 'wait until the end of the Forbidden Months'. Muhammad certainly advocated attacking other people during their holy festivals to catch them off guard and he definitely had no respect there.

And slaughter is perfectly acceptable when imposing Islam. Peace can only be a Muslim peace and nobody should be allowed to be what they like within Muhammad's reach. Everyone's in the wrong but the Muslims and so people must be whacked until they learn. Indeed, Muhammad had 200 Jews massacred when Islam was still young, just for a bloodening, as well as a 120 year-old Jewish poet for 'mocking' him. (Indeed, the Koran tells people to 'beware of poets' (26:224).)

Some Religion of Peace!



Amana Online Store: The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an (Hard Cover)

 

[Jetboogieman]

Slaughter is perfectly acceptable when imposing Islam. Everyone's in the wrong but the Muslims and so people must be whacked until they learn.

You're quoting it out of context.

Surah 9: Al Tawbah

4. (But the treaties are) not dissolved
With those pagans with whom
ye have entered into alliance
and who have not subsequently
failed you in aught
nor aided anyone against you
so fulfil your engagements
with them to the end
of their term: for Allah
Loveth the righteous

The war, fighting and slaughter they speak of has actually less to do with spreading Islam, and more to do with those who act treacherously against Muslims and side with their enemies. A fair enough point of view that all the major religions have.

I.E. "Don't **** with us".

 

[gunner]

You don't have to support them to admit that they have some valid complaints. I don't really support them either. I think they'll remain even more on the fringe than the BNP because of the type of people they attract, but someone needs to adress their concerns or they're going to grow like an abscess and it will get ugly when it bursts. Do you not think that Cameron's speech the other day was one way to adress those concerns?

I don't support them, but as you suggest, there are legitimate concerns that need addressing. That said the EDL are most definitely not the organization that should be in anyway, shape or form, involved with addressing those issues. Unfortunately, its often groups like this that bring it to the public forum.
Its government policy that needs a revisit and it will be interesting to see how Camerons narrative about multiculturalism is received.
Arcana the head of the EDL revels in his new found status even enjoying be named after a well known football hooligan. You pretty much have the make up of the organisation correct a large hooligan/racist element so the genuine message is somewhat lost.

Edited to add. News ran a piece on the EDL this week and highlighted the 'security services' surmised the group would dissolve pretty soon after their inception. Two years on and they have grown in strength and numbers.
Paul

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

You're quoting it out of context.

The man said himself that slaughter was a legitimate strategem of war.

"Don't **** with us".

Hitler took war crimes as policy too. And Koran 9:29 is effective commandment to subjugate unbelievers and have them pay heavy taxes as second-class citizens. In Mecca such a policy of segragation still continues, with non-Muslims banned from certain parts of the city.

That's far far more than poor little Muslims hitting back at some nasty nasty Jew or Christian picking on them. Jihad took over the ENTIRE Middle East for the Muslims remember.


The fact of the matter is that Muhammad was first booted from Mecca for trying to convert everybody. He fled to Medina and spent years building an army before returning to Mecca in conquest. War and subjugation are part and parcel of Islam, with plenty of references to war and punishment and none to love and empathy for others.



Another of my favourites:

Those who ignore Allah's "clear proofs" will be seized and punished severely. 40:22

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

That said the EDL are most definitely not the organization that should be in anyway, shape or form, involved with addressing those issues.

They still have the right to free assembly and free speech. If they start promoting violence and disorder then they'll run the risk of proscription. Saying 'you can protest but you can't' is dangerous mind control. As bad as Islam in fact.

And the EDL also have an inadvertant irritant value for all the otherwise smug liberals and Islamics who have been getting far too used to having their own way over everyone else. Political correctness and Islamism are a toxic mix.

 

[gunner]

They still have the right to free assembly and free speech. If they start promoting violence and disorder then they'll run the risk of proscription. Saying 'you can protest but you can't' is dangerous mind control. As bad as Islam in fact.

And the EDL also have an inadvertant irritant value for all the otherwise smug liberals and Islamics who have been getting far too used to having their own way over everyone else. Political correctness and Islamism are a toxic mix.

I have not suggested they should be stopped from protesting. What i am suggesting is their involvement should be limited to just that and their extreme message ignored.

Paul