How does being concerned about spread of Islam in the West make someone far-right?

I don't support a far-right ideology and never have. The ideology of Islam, like the ideologies of both Christianity and Judaism are all very right wing. Some far right Christians shoot up abortion clinics, I don't blame ordinary peaceful Christians and nor should I.

However I will never accept ordinary Muslims who've done nothing wrong being blamed for or punished for the acts of despicable terrorists. That's where we differ.

One of the great pulls for young Muslims into the arms of extremists is a feeling that they are not wanted or trusted here and that's down to people like you.

By all means throw the book at the disgusting terrorists, but suggesting that we should ban 1.6 billion people from a country because of the acts of a few terrorists, really is fascism in action.

On the other hand, you will ignore polls conducted by highly respected non-partisan bodies that show that a majority of Muslims worldwide are extraordinarily conservative and right-wing if it means you get to keep pushing your baseless conjecture about how the vast majority of Muslims are "moderates" and "peaceful".

Except polls very often have deliberately misleading or vague questionning which can easily be spun, just as the Sun did when they claimed 800% of Muslims loved Isis..

They can think what they want. I don't agree with a thought police. What matters is what they do and the vast, vast majority are peaceful and do not commit atrocities and crimes.

By all means throw the book at terrorists and string them up, by all means call them evil, but never blame ordinary, innocent Muslims for the acts of terrorists.

That's a fundamental humanitarian principle, we don't blame people for what they haven't done. Banning 1.6 billion Muslims from entering a country because of the actions of a few extremists is punishing people for what they haven't done.

And do you not think that if we do that, it makes the lure of Islamic extremism far greater?

Now do tell me, what part of my reasoning is 'far right'?

But PEW isn't The Sun. It doesn't have an agenda. There are polls in that very same survey that are used by people to show how few Muslims support terrorism. The only thing tainting those polls for you is your perspective on them because of your agenda. If you look at the methodology, if you learn a little about PEW, you'll see they're almost certainly highly informative.

I'm not interested in terrorists. But I do worry that a people with such consistently ultra-conservative views perhaps may clash with our liberal society. I don't see why those views shouldn't be criticised as much as possible to expose them and make people turn away from them.

Not allowing people into the country isn't punishing people, because being allowed in is a privilege.

The amount of stigma and political rhetoric against fascism in Europe since WW2 has meant that only tiny minorities of people support it. I don't see why such pressure against Islamism wouldn't do a similar thing.

It isn't. But you have avoided that fact that you do rather pander to, or at least deflect criticism from, a far-right ideology and a far-right demographic, even if claim to be against it.

I think it's pretty valid to claim that far-right implies anti-Islam .
far-right => anti-Islam
Now far-right doesn't just mean anti-Islam . They are against immigrants in general (especially the ones with an 'inferior' nationality such as Romanians for Nigel Farage , while Germans are fine as neighbors ) .

However anti-Islam DOES NOT IMPLY far-right . It means you are a sensible Westerner!
Islam is an ideology , anti-Islam the opposition to that ideology . My opinion :Anyone who is in favour of progress (and is sensible) would be against Islam (since the whole ideology refers to a backward society ) .

Anti-Islam doesn't mean you are against muslims as citizents of Western countries . For me it means that I want them to change and adjust to our societies . Back laws against Islam (not against muslims) ; minimise faith schools ( do not fund them at least !), try to distribute them uniformly in your country , do not fund any religious institution (whatever that is) .

Of course Islam is a problem but far-right is not the solution. They seem to make more sense , because they provide a solution to that problem (a problem that more liberal parties ignore) but that doesn't mean they won't continue their plans ; build up walls , be against immigrants .

I think it's pretty valid to claim that far-right implies anti-Islam .
far-right => anti-Islam

As long as you're able to distinguish between Islam (the disturbing and archaic religion) and Muslims (ordinary people who shouldn't be treated differently to you or me) then you're golden.

Actually, we critics of Islam tend to be the people who actually do make that distinction.

It's many Muslims themselves and left-wing fellow travellers who assert that criticism of Islam equals hatred of Muslims.

If you go up to a religious person and tell them why their religion is bad the probably would feel like you were attacking them. But the reason this debate isn't so difficult to have isn't because of Muslims and the 'left-wing' it's because of these guys:

What a dishonest and obnoxious post.

First, religious people need to get the **** over it. In a democracy we are entitled to criticise ideas. Religion is not a race, and a religious person is not entitled to shriek "Wacist!" simply because you pointed out the glaring flaws and bigoted core ideology of their belief system. All theistic religions are backward, superstitious and regressive, but it's only Islam that is the almost exclusive source, at present, of worldwide chaos, mayhem, murder, mass rape, suicide bombing and enslavement.

Second, it's utterly pathetic for you to imply that criticism of Islam means you're some kind of BNP member and that their position makes criticism of Islam impermissible. It suggests a complete lack of intellectual substance behind your position, and a preference for fraudulent accusations of neo-Nazi associations over genuine engagement and discourse. Not to mention it's a fundamental logic fail; the fact that neo-Nazis also criticise Islam has no actual bearing on the validity of criticisms and you don't get to cry "Look the far-right also crticises Islam" to shut down any critique of this backward religion.

I oppose the fascistic, misogynist, homophobic, intolerant, violent character of Islam because I am a humanist social democrat, and Islam is fundamentally incompatible with civilised democracy. That doesn't mean every Muslim is a bad person or they subscribe to every regressive element of their religion, but equally that has no actual bearing on the underlying nature of Islam.

That's actually not necessarily true. There are many on the neo-Nazi far right who view Muslims as freedom fighters against the "Jewish conspiracy", and praise their attacks on the "ZOG" (Zionist Occupation Government, which is their name for the US government... that's right, not Israel, it's what they call the American government)

I agree with large parts of that but there is a difference between a Romanian and a German in the example you used.

The German is likely to be far more similar in every way to a British person than a Romanian and more likely to be better off too.


Posted from TSR Mobile

It sounds like you're the one getting sensitive and obnoxious. I did not say that criticising Islam made you a BNP member

These fascistic, far-right groups have corrupted the debate and prevented meaningful dialogue on the subject of Islam, religion and their place in society by allowing people who want to have a sensible, intelligent discussion get smeared.

You seem to be the smearing, even if implicitly. The debate has not been corrupted, they have not prevented meaningful dialogue. Such dialogue may continue irrespective of far-right insanity.

To bring the BNP and neo-Nazis into the debate is, I'm sorry, dishonest in the context of the points I were making, which you chose not to rebut but instead assert that no-one may make any such criticisms because, apparently, the far-right ruined it and that's the end of that.

There seems to be an intellectually dishonest position spreading through the soft and hard left that because the far-right criticises Islam, it is therefore the duty of left-wing people to defend Islam and thus oppose the far-right, irrespective of the actual merit of the debate at hand. This is a mindset that is to be opposed and called out by all right-thinking, sensible people

Muslims are today's noble savages, and thus above reproach. Everything they do is excused and protected as part of their culture. Sadly, this was applied to even cannibals and tribes guilty of human sacrifice back in the day, so this madness knows no bounds. It's just that in the old days, average people were too smart to listen to that form of left-wing thought seriously. Now, there are enough of these starry-eyed, noble savage praising romantics running around that we have to worry what they think.

So let me get this straight.

Am I correct in thinking that although I support decriminalising drugs; opening drug rehabilitation centres; getting rid of the legal benefits of marriage entirely (so no one is discriminated against); freedom of speech; secularism; publicly funded healthcare, schools, and university; and a welfare system, I'm actually far-right because I have the consistancy to dislike all kinds of traditionalist ultra-conservatism, and don't make an exception for Islam?
Could someone explain how this works? Does far-right just mean "anti-Islam"?