Hurrah for the moderate Muslims of Luton!

[monkeytrousers]

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6392580.ece

"Qadeer Baksh, chairman of the Islamic Centre in Luton, said a group of around 200 moderate followers descended on Bury Park in the town - where the extremists regularly preach from a stall - to drive the protesters away.

Numbering about six, the extremists were surrounded and themselves barracked with calls of ?We don?t want you here?, said Mr Baksh. "

Sounds mobbish to me, TBH.

It's a shame that the police couldn't do anything to stop the extremists setting up shop and preaching every week. I did think that there were laws against that sort of behaviour.

I have said I don't blame those who took action. I have every sympathy for their position and feelings. I'm just not sure we should leave it to private groups. If the first lot were doing something wrong (which they were) why are we not dealing with them properly?

Mr Baksh said: ?There were about 200 of us and just a few of them. We didn?t even let them put their stall up. This is not the end. This is just the beginning>>

Islamist is a term usually tied up with political, and extremist political, interpretations of Islam. It's not a term used in the context of moderates.

I think we can take it as read it was the extremists making the synagogue comment. It's pretty common for people of that sort of belief to think anyone who challenges them is part of some sort of non-specific, wide-ranging "Zionist conspiracy"

Well, if you think that is mobbish, all I cam say is you have little imagination of the bullying and threats that take place to stop moderate muslims having a voice in the first place.

This is not some side show, it's life and death - either we as athiests, christians, moderate muslims or whatever make a strong show against murderous extremism, or we allow extreminsm to flourish.

On a very fundamental level, we need to value our culture enough to fight for it.

and well done Mr Baksh. Incredibly brave and people like him need support.

In the same way as Islamist is a term which means a very politicised, extremist practitioner of Islam,

so Andrew Sullivan and commentators like him describe as 'Christianist' the nutcases who took over the US Republican party during the Bush years.

Sullivan is a political commentator, British-born, Christian, gay, conservative, and is at the forefront of those who argue that the Bush Republicans have very little to do with social and economic conservatism. In fact, he argues they they have more in common with Islamic extremists than with other Christians.

Yes, saw this and was extremely pleased. Well done to them.

It must be difficult for moderate Muslims, all tarred with the same brush by people who don't know any better.

When the IRA were in full swing back in the 1980s/90s I simply don't believe there was the same backlash against "moderate" Catholics.

Ergo, I'm sure there is an underlying level of racism there as well - which is somehow "allowed" because "well, they might be terrorists, mightn't they?"

I don't know. If 200 people "descended" on a BNP rally of 6 people I'd think that was a bit dodgy too.

There aer laws in place to stop people stirring up trouble and making inflamatory public speeches. They were doing it every week. It should have been a police matter.

It shouldn't be up to ordinary people to go and sort it out situations like this. It could have turned really nasty.

Message withdrawn

Belfast bloke, "In fact, he argues they they have more in common with Islamic extremists than with other Christians."

This is the kind of relativsm that turns the argument upside down and back up it's own backside. It is not help to anyone except extremists.

Neo-conservatism could also be called neo-liberalism. It is progressive values with a conservative slant to foerign policy - i.e. the manitanence of indiginous cultural values, especially liberal democratic ones which are being eroded by ultra conservative extremimists who would wish to impose a male dominated patriachy - which is bad news for most men as well as women, as it anly benefits men who have magaged to collect a lot of resources, allowing them to practice polgyny - which far from being good for all men means most men are sentenced to a life of celibacy.

That's just one of the perks for the men on top of the ultra conservative pyramid.

You may disagree with Bush, but to compare them with people who kill women for being raped, hang homosexuals, and tyranise everybody is ludicrous

Ozziegirly, which bit was racist?

And what race would that be. You do know it's a religion don't you?

of course I know it's a religion.

What my post said was that there was never the same backlash against catholics, tarring all catholics with the "terrorist" label when the IRA were carrying out their bombing campaign.

So I said, ergo, the backlash against muslims (who are, on the whole, not white anglo saxons) was more of a race issue than a religion issue, and in fact, the fact that they are muslims is probably irrelvant to some people as they would simply focus on the colour of their skin, whatever their religion is.