About this message on the front of a bus?

[Iop]

This morning in town a bus passed me with the phrase Mash'alla displayed on the front instead of the bus number and destination. AIBU to have found it unsettling?
We're in an area with a large Pakistani Muslim population and there were small pockets of celebration following the initial attacks on Israel (nothing violent or disruptive, just horns/cheering/Palestinian flag waving).
If I were to complain to the bus company (I won't - I don't have time) it would be on the grounds that it's unprofessional for bus drivers to be proclaiming their political or religious beliefs on the front of their busses. But if I'm honest my discomfort was about more than that - I wouldn't have felt as unsettled if the message had been "vote Tory" or "Happy Diwali" even though neither of those reflect my personal beliefs any more than Mash'alla does.
Am I being reasonable or Islamaphobic?

What makes you think this is the celebration of the attack on Israel exactly?

So your favourite pizza place does this, then the next, then the next. It’s all choice being taken away. There aren’t an infinite number of restaurants.

Which it's why it's just as well it's not happening in most restaurants.

How much pizza do you eat? 🤣

How many restaurants in the UK do you genuinely think are either Kosher or Halal?

I'd say that ham is definitely still available but there has also been a gradual replacement of ham with 'turkey ham' - quite often this is only made clear on the small ingredient list on the back as opposed to on the front packaging. I find the taste of turkey ham, or any really processed ham, vile, so am always careful to make sure I buy decent quality proper ham. I have no issue with both ham or turkey ham being available but think turkey ham is making it's way into a lot of things which previously contained ham.

There aren't an infinite number of customers demanding turkey ham either. So any business offering it where there is no demand won't prosper. And if there is the demand, no problem.

Obviously there is a certain radius around where I live where restaurants I can reasonably be expected to patronise are located. I have no idea what it is like in the rest of the country.

How many where you live are exclusively Kosher or Halal, how many aren’t?

I wonder what Native Americans or Australian aboriginal people think of White Christian, foriegners, building thousands of churches in THEIR country, practising THEIR traditions using English phrases on buses, traffic signs, etc.

Would you say this is unacceptable because these white Christians are actually guests in a foreign land, they are not indigenous people. They were not invited. They landed in boats.

It sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

Many Muslims and various other religions have been here for generations, this is their country, they are British as well, whether you like it or not. It's not up to you or me to allow them to practice their culture, like we are some superior race.

Why would I know how many restaurants there are near me exclusively serving diets I don’t follow?

Obviously people only notice the changes that impact them.

Out of everything that I wrote, your takeaway is “since the Arab conquests”?

Let me ask you this: do you hate the Mongols for their conquests?

Or the Chinese for theirs?

The Italians for theirs (Roman Empire)?

The French (Norman conquest)?

The British for theirs?

Maybe the Russians then?

There have been ~90-100 “conquests” in the history of the world and you chose to nitpick over the Arab empire. This says something quite unflattering about your personality!

Wasn’t it “offensive” when Christianity was forcibly established by conquering armies? Or did you think that telegrams were sent asking followers of others religions to convert?

While many (christian) white settlers definitely improved conditions/amenities in the areas they moved to, they definitely also enforced their way of life on indigenous people. They didn't really set a great example of how to move to a new country and respectfully live with those who existed there already, sadly.

You missed the point spectacularly.

The crusades were a reaction to the Arab conquests, they were taking territories which had formerly belonged to Christian Europe and the crusade were counter-attacks trying to win them back. Therefore it was the Arab conquerors who set themselves up as the enemy by their invasions.

For context https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim_conquests

And yet, the God in the Abrahamic tradition is the same God! So the Head of the Anglican Church has the same God as Muslims!

No, you have!

How did these Christian countries come into being? They were invaded!

And my point to you, in reply to your somewhat ridiculous one about Arabs deserving it (as that is how it came across), was that if you have a problem with Arab conquests, you should have a problem with all conquests!

But instead of admitting that perhaps your only problem is the Arab conquests, you double down, without thinking about my point - Christian countries became Christian through being conquered!

So again, do you have a problem with all Empires and conquerors, or just Muslim ones?

Do you agree with the Spanish Inquisition perhaps?

It's very easy to assume everyone must be pre-occupied with events in Israel and Palestine.
Without trying to dismiss or diminish them it's just not the case.
Obviously I am aware, but I don't read papers or watch the news. I listen to the radio and may follow a story online....but sometimes I accidentally overlook things because I am busy, or I actively try to avoid being drawn in for different reasons.

So no its not obvious that using a phrase would automatically be seen as a signal or linked to certain events.

Christian countries became Christian through being conquered!

You need to brush up on your history!

The Roman Empire was collapsing, its centre moving about. This was happening at the same time Christianity was actually on the rise, word of mouth, grassroots. Christians were persecuted by the Romans. Eventually, converting the Empire to Christianity saved it. It wasn’t through invasion, it was ‘spreading the gospel’ by ordinary people which Christianised Europe, and it was later than the Arab conquests, when the Imperial Europeans forceably Christianised other nations. For example in Australia.

There’s an Islamic beard? I don’t think you should racially or socially profile based on beards. I remember when the IRA were bombing England - they were white people too. And that’s exactly why you shouldn’t profile based on beards, but rather try to remember that lunatics come in all shapes and sizes and facial grooming techniques 🙂

No, they certainly did not set a good example at all, and it is a matter of opinion whether they actually improved the indegous populations way of life.

The point I was trying to make is that our British and European ancestors felt it was perfectly fine to rock up and forcefully inflict their culture, beliefs, and language on other nations. In some cases, obliterating these natives, but how dare anyone come here and practice their religion and celebrate their culture.

You post doesn’t make logical sense. You make no attempt to understand what other people mean. You are waving around sweeping statements hoping others reading haven’t got time to scrutinise how your reply doesn’t properly relate to the post you are responding to.

Oh I see now! When the Romans were conquering, it was all done politely and without weapons or bloodshed!

Same with the Normans invading England - everyone was having croissants and hot chocolate - nice!

And when the British wanted to grow their Empire, it was all tea and scones.

I think I understand you now - only the Bad Horrible Muslims used force.

The Spanish Inquisition was not about forcibly converting Jews and Muslims to Catholicism but it was Rioja and paella all around, whilst watching bullfights!
Mary I of England didn’t use force to try to convert the English back to the Catholic Church at all, using quite unsavoury methods.

All that history is a lie! It was only the Arabs that did those nasty things!

And Australia really isn’t the best example either, considering there are no pure blood indigenous people left!

I think you’ll find that the Roman Empire started spreading Christianity in the 4th century CE. Islam didn’t even start until the 7th century.

Well, my post was very sarcastic! I took issue with your “certain kind of beard” which was ridiculous. Beards, no beards, white, black, sky blue pink, you can’t racially or socially profile what a terrorist (aka lunatic) looks like. And to say it’s a beard that alerts you to “shifty” looking people is nonsensical!

Oh I see now! When the Romans were conquering, it was all done politely and without weapons or bloodshed!

Flippin’ ‘eck. See what I mean?

You seriously need to brush up on your history. The Roman Empire was collapsing during the rise of Christianity. It really wasn’t in any position to do any conquering. When the Romans were in their expansion phase, their gods were pagan Gods, roughly matching earlier Greek gods.

@Free2

Read this post ^^

I am not the only one who realises that it’s not only the nasty bad Arabs that used force when conquering! Other people agree with me! Shocker, eh?