Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wacp)
    The Muslim population here in the UK is only around 4%, so I don't think it is too late.

    The optimistic side of me thinks we don't even need to limit immigration. Islam, like Christianity, will not be able to withstand the force of science and reason. Atheism/agnosticism will, hopefully, continue to grow and dominate.
    Population of muslims will rise over the decades (mainly due to birth rates and perhaps due to policy of gov over the coming decades)

    It's not just about the numbers of muslims but also the views and attitudes of the of non-muslims population regarding their fellow citizens....

    islam won't follow the route of christianity and its defeat to science and reason as there isn't anything in the quran which is contradicted by science......

    as for atheism/agnosticism, they will continue to grow, but have littele impact on the progress of islam (as long as equality laws are in place)....
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PlanetEuropa)
    How about the discovery of genetics ? for one. There are too many to mention. Albiet the discoverers are in a secular country not a christian state.
    So christianty "invented" genetics? That is odd, name some more.

    (Original post by Elipsis)
    How about the computer you're typing on right now? Or the internet you're logged onto to get onto this forum. Or the screen you're looking at? Or the windows that are keeping the cold out. Or the light you're sitting under? Or the heat that is keeping you warm? Or the food that you eat for dinner? Hmmmm.
    Are you taking the piss, or do you really think that Christianity was behind the invention of the computer, TSR, double glazing, electricity and electric heaters. I'm having a chinese for dinner, please explain how this was a christian invention?

    (Original post by Wacp)
    My view is that a tolerant, liberal society does not have to tolerate the intolerant and the illiberal. It's self-preservation.

    They may be present in other countries, but they are not defended with religious conviction.
    No, itself contradiction and a silly generalisation. Well yes they are, look at the world through your eyes, not through your disdain for Islam.

    Now not that I think I am better then you lot, I am going to stop answering. When I am being told that christianity was behind many recent technological inventions, genetics (yes a monk did lay the ground work but he hardly "discovered" the whole concept) and that it is okay to be intolerant to Islam because our ideas are better, I see a pointless and never ending discussion emerging.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    Just a reminder to everyone, I won't tolerate offensive comments being made in this thread. If I have to moderate this thread once more, it's going in the bin.
    As a moderator, isn't moderating what you're supposed to do?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    The ISI is completely justified in training fighters to go into Kashmir and taking on the Indians- for most native Kashmiris the fighters are potential liberators and the Indian troops who have murdered 89,000 people since 1989 and tortured and raped many others are the oppressors who are universally hated.

    I can justify the ISI's support for certain Taliban factions purely because it's in the best interests of Pakistan. The intelligence agencies of all countries look to serve their nation's best interest no matter how morally deplorable their actions. This is why RAW tortured innocent Kashmiris on the basis on they might know something, why the CIA supported the gencocidal Khmer Rouge etc.

    And to your last point the government of Pakistan is corrupt, weak and dysfunctional and thus it's good that the army and the ISI are autonomous- ever wondered why they are always referred to as "Pakistan's only properly functioning institutions"?
    Don't talk about dysfunctional, Pakistan is a barely functioning state; its 10 on the failed state index. I am stunned, you just disregarded Wikileaks, Wikipedia, various witnesses, governments for some Pakistani propaganda. "The ISI is justified in going into Kashmir and taking on the Indians", that is the kind of ideology that terrorists embrace. Your not in a position to justify anything of the sort and shame on you.
    RAW doesn't send militants into Pakistan's territory, why should the ISI be allowed to when there are agreements in place? Why, because they aren't. The government has little control over the ISI. Pakistan is a breeding ground for terrorists, they are brainwashed, trained and equipped by the intelligence agency. There are two faces to Pakistan, the ISI and its government. After 26/11 the Pakistani government denied any involvement, they made the right call because they had no knowledge of it. But it later became clear as investigations progressed and Pakistan had to accept it.
    Terrorist activity must be condemned, the ISI isn't protecting the nation, no one knows what they are really up to. They consistently make stupid decisions endangering their already fragile nation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bunty64)
    Population of muslims will rise over the decades (mainly due to birth rates and perhaps due to policy of gov over the coming decades)
    It will rise but it should stabilise if immigration is controlled.

    (Original post by bunty64)
    It's not just about the numbers of muslims but also the views and attitudes of the of non-muslims population regarding their fellow citizens.
    A bit of elaboration would be appreciated.

    (Original post by bunty64)
    its defeat to science and reason as there isn't anything in the quran which is contradicted by science.
    WTF?

    Actually, there is e.g. evolution.

    (Original post by bunty64)
    as for atheism/agnosticism, they will continue to grow, but have littele impact on the progress of islam (as long as equality laws are in place)....
    I don't see why the atheistic arguments against Christianity and et cetera aren't going to be persuasive to some Muslims.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adam_zed)
    No, itself contradiction and a silly generalisation. Well yes they are, look at the world through your eyes, not through your disdain for Islam.
    WTF are you talking about?

    You keep evading the issues.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by midpikyrozziy)
    As a moderator, isn't moderating what you're supposed to do?
    I can also elect to scrap a thread if it gets to the point where it's out of control, which I'm on the verge of doing on the basis of how much crap I've had to remove so far (and that's only including the content that's been reported!) and how far off topic it's gone.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wacp)
    WTF are you talking about?

    You keep evading the issues.
    LOL considering all your posts have evaded all my points, I wouldnt have thought that you were really entitled to use that as a defence.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adam_zed)
    LOL considering all your posts have evaded all my points, I wouldnt have thought that you were really entitled to use that as a defence.
    What have I evaded?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Hmm...
    "We must strike the West in their most vulnerable, economic point!"
    "Ahh yes, Brother, but where?"
    "Stockholm Shopping Centre, where else?"

    If I may say so, I love how they pick the most lush, juicy targets. They've really dropped game. 9/11 = big. 7/7 = less big. Glasgow Airport = Meh. Stockholm = Right, now you're just being silly.

    Still, in light of that, R.I.P to the person killed and I hope the other two survive.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bunty64)
    My hope is that the swedish gov crack down on the root of this terrorist attack (if it is one) unlike the british (who didn't confront pakistan on their support or lack of response to islamic extremist ideology/terror trainging etc after the london bombings and the general global islamic terror acts.

    Britain have invaded iraq and afghanistan to supposedly "liberate" oppressed people (and fight a "war on terror") yet act like a little ***** when it comes to pakistan)......

    How many lives and billions have they wasted on these wars (money which could have been well spent at home)
    Pakistan is a tough problem though. It's not hugely stable - but isn't close enough to collapse to intervene at all. And I think that reasonably, there isn't really much Britain and America could be doing that they aren't doing now. When you say "confront" what do you mean? Invade? Isolate? It must be hard enough for Pakistan to approve the American military to operate in it's borders as it is.

    Iraq and Afghanistan aren't in the same league as Pakistan though - Pakistan is far stronger than both of them combined. And is, theoretically at least, a democratic nation.

    In hindsight, maybe it wasn't worth going to war, but the lives lost and billions spent on the wars aren't just for nothing. You may not see it as value for money, but it has had some results.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jaggedspike)
    Don't talk about dysfunctional, Pakistan is a barely functioning state; its 10 on the failed state index. I am stunned, you just disregarded Wikileaks, Wikipedia, various witnesses, governments for some Pakistani propaganda. "The ISI is justified in going into Kashmir and taking on the Indians", that is the kind of ideology that terrorists embrace. Your not in a position to justify anything of the sort and shame on you.
    RAW doesn't send militants into Pakistan's territory, why should the ISI be allowed to when there are agreements in place? Why, because they aren't. The government has little control over the ISI. Pakistan is a breeding ground for terrorists, they are brainwashed, trained and equipped by the intelligence agency. There are two faces to Pakistan, the ISI and its government. After 26/11 the Pakistani government denied any involvement, they made the right call because they had no knowledge of it. But it later became clear as investigations progressed and Pakistan had to accept it.
    Terrorist activity must be condemned, the ISI isn't protecting the nation, no one knows what they are really up to. They consistently make stupid decisions endangering their already fragile nation.
    I'am sorry you just ignored my post and repeated what you said before and talking about breeding ground for terrorists, I'am fairly sure the Maoists control huge swathes of the Indian countryside. Here read these responses carefully:

    1) The fact that the Indians are despised by the majority of Kashmiris is NOT Pakistani propaganda- it's true whatever source you consult. The murder of 89,000 Kashmiris- almost universally without trial or proof- is also a fact recorded by many human rights organisations such as Amnesty, HRW and what not. Also a definite FACT is the countless incidences of torture, murder and rape still taking place by Indian troops.

    It is a FACT basically that most Kashmiris want India to **** off and support the FREEDOM FIGHTERS who are fighting against oppression- these people are the ones the ISI supports.

    2) You tell me about disregarding wikileaks and yet there's an article in there where a US diplomat is quoted as saying that although Pakistan is deifnitely NOT a failed state, it still has many problems. I suggest you find it.

    3) Pakistan accepted that the terrorists came from Pakistan not that the ISI was responsible- India still hasn't presented viable evidence to support its case so if anyone's belieiving biased state propaganda- it's you.

    4) The ISI and army are definitely always called Pakistan's only stable functionin instiutions- you can read that on the BBC or whatever where I have repeatedly come across the phrase. They're certainly better, less corrupt etc. that the government.

    5) No one knows what the ISI is up to because they are a SECRET agency. Which is exactly the reason why no one knows what the CIA or MI6 are up to either.

    Read through my points carefully and answer them all just to avoid any misunderstandings. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    measured response from Swedish PM

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11979671
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wacp)
    It will rise but it should stabilise if immigration is controlled.



    A bit of elaboration would be appreciated.



    WTF?

    Actually, there is e.g. evolution.



    I don't see why the atheistic arguments against Christianity and et cetera aren't going to be persuasive to some Muslims.
    the muslim population of britain is very small yet there are those who perceive the influence of muslism to be greater than it actually is and so see it as a threat.

    If the majority of non-muslims view muslims and their culture/beliefs in a favourable light then this will only seen to intensify the threat perceived by a section of our society from the muslim population. If the majority of non-muslims see the muslims in an unfavourable light then this will make the 4% muslim population seem even smaller and hence eradicate the perceived muslim threat.

    The quran has passages which refer to atoms, pregnancy, geography;mountains, earthquakes etc which fits in with scientific discoveries over the centuries so in that sense there is no contradiction between science and the quran…

    as for evolution, there may be muslims who believe in it, just not in that humans evolved from lesser species etc…. The topic of evolution of humans is not a “deal-breaker” as such…..


    In short,the views of atheists will not be as effective on muslims as they have been on Christianity because of the concept of trinity. Many Christians who question their faith do so because of this conept…. Trinity will be the downfall of Christianity as a monotheistic religion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bunty64)
    the muslim population of britain is very small yet there are those who perceive the influence of muslism to be greater than it actually is and so see it as a threat.

    If the majority of non-muslims view muslims and their culture/beliefs in a favourable light then this will only seen to intensify the threat perceived by a section of our society from the muslim population. If the majority of non-muslims see the muslims in an unfavourable light then this will make the 4% muslim population seem even smaller and hence eradicate the perceived muslim threat.
    WTF are you talking about? That doesn't even make sense.

    (Original post by bunty64)
    The quran has passages which refer to atoms, pregnancy, geography;mountains, earthquakes etc which fits in with scientific discoveries over the centuries so in that sense there is no contradiction between science and the quran…
    No, what the Quran has is some vague verses which some Muslims, retrospectively, and with a lot of imagination, are juxtaposing onto modern scientific discoveries.

    (Original post by bunty64)
    as for evolution, there may be muslims who believe in it, just not in that humans evolved from lesser species etc…. The topic of evolution of humans is not a “deal-breaker” as such
    What do you mean it is 'not a deal breaker'? The scientific community and academia virtually universally supports evolution as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, anthropology, and others. Denying it means you're contradicting science.

    (Original post by bunty64)
    In short,the views of atheists will not be as effective on muslims as they have been on Christianity because of the concept of trinity. Many Christians who question their faith do so because of this conept…. Trinity will be the downfall of Christianity as a monotheistic religion.
    Evidence?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum9999)
    Pakistan is a tough problem though. It's not hugely stable - but isn't close enough to collapse to intervene at all. And I think that reasonably, there isn't really much Britain and America could be doing that they aren't doing now. When you say "confront" what do you mean? Invade? Isolate? It must be hard enough for Pakistan to approve the American military to operate in it's borders as it is.

    Iraq and Afghanistan aren't in the same league as Pakistan though - Pakistan is far stronger than both of them combined. And is, theoretically at least, a democratic nation.

    In hindsight, maybe it wasn't worth going to war, but the lives lost and billions spent on the wars aren't just for nothing. You may not see it as value for money, but it has had some results.
    Yeah brilliant response. I can't actually believe people think the US can easily invade Pakistan- the Pakistanis will definitely suffer more casualties but firstly their army is pretty strong and highly trained and the guerilla fighting afterwards in the North East alone will be a hellish version of Vietnam. I mean at least 200,000-300,000 US troops will die in the first year alone in my opinion. Also when the army is defeated, the troops will just melt away and join the guerilla fighters.

    In relation to your point about democracy- it's not the best system for everyone. For Pakistan, a military dictatorships which allows media freedom, freedom of speech etc. but skips all the bureacracy, ensures there's no corruption etc. will be best imo.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum9999)
    Pakistan is a tough problem though. It's not hugely stable - but isn't close enough to collapse to intervene at all. And I think that reasonably, there isn't really much Britain and America could be doing that they aren't doing now. When you say "confront" what do you mean? Invade? Isolate? It must be hard enough for Pakistan to approve the American military to operate in it's borders as it is.

    Iraq and Afghanistan aren't in the same league as Pakistan though - Pakistan is far stronger than both of them combined. And is, theoretically at least, a democratic nation.

    In hindsight, maybe it wasn't worth going to war, but the lives lost and billions spent on the wars aren't just for nothing. You may not see it as value for money, but it has had some results.
    this isn't about helping unstable countries....

    I see american and britain as hypocrites who invade countries who have nothing or very little to do with islamic terrorism and yet give billions to the one country who they on record have countless times stated that they are deeply involved in terrorism.

    No not invade, as britain wouldn't be able to handle the backlash, not just on the battlefield, but at home (what with the large pakistani pop) and across the muslims world..... not to mention the nuclear issue!

    Put strong diplomatic sanctions on pakistan like they are doing with iran and have done with iraq in the past and with other countries.....

    why give pakistan billions a year when they know they are involved in terrorism.

    no way were the invasions of iraq/afghanistan worth it. try telling that to the million or so dead and the weekly repatriation of british soliders dying in vain....
    no good has come out of these wars (it has only been good for the extremist recruitment drive)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adam_zed)
    So christianty "invented" genetics? That is odd, name some more.



    Are you taking the piss, or do you really think that Christianity was behind the invention of the computer, TSR, double glazing, electricity and electric heaters. I'm having a chinese for dinner, please explain how this was a christian invention?



    No, itself contradiction and a silly generalisation. Well yes they are, look at the world through your eyes, not through your disdain for Islam.

    Now not that I think I am better then you lot, I am going to stop answering. When I am being told that christianity was behind many recent technological inventions, genetics (yes a monk did lay the ground work but he hardly "discovered" the whole concept) and that it is okay to be intolerant to Islam because our ideas are better, I see a pointless and never ending discussion emerging.
    Christianity created the environment for these things to be discovered, in the same way Islam stifles such an environment of discovery from being created. If you are going to attribute things discovered in an Islamic world to Islam, you could at least not be hypocritical and apply that same logic to Christianity.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bunty64)
    this isn't about helping unstable countries....

    I see american and britain as hypocrites who invade countries who have nothing or very little to do with islamic terrorism and yet give billions to the one country who they on record have countless times stated that they are deeply involved in terrorism.

    No not invade, as britain wouldn't be able to handle the backlash, not just on the battlefield, but at home (what with the large pakistani pop) and across the muslims world..... not to mention the nuclear issue!

    Put strong diplomatic sanctions on pakistan like they are doing with iran and have done with iraq in the past and with other countries.....

    why give pakistan billions a year when they know they are involved in terrorism.

    no way were the invasions of iraq/afghanistan worth it. try telling that to the million or so dead and the weekly repatriation of british soliders dying in vain....
    no good has come out of these wars (it has only been good for the extremist recruitment drive)
    Do you think we would have invaded Pakistan if they didn't have nukes? Of course we would. Furthermore in Pakistan we have an at least slightly accepting state, who is willing to try and build an army to make its citizens behave appropriately in the international environment. The Taliban were never going to play ball. The million or so dead are dead thanks to Islam, we in fact only killed 1-2% of all civilians. And of the civilians we did kill in Afghanistan/Iraq, only a small handful were on purpose. This is why other countries like Pakistan and Somalia that we haven't invaded have almost similar death counts, despite a lack of our troops being there.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wacp)
    WTF are you talking about? That doesn't even make sense.



    No, what the Quran has is some vague verses which some Muslims, retrospectively, and with a lot of imagination, are juxtaposing onto modern scientific discoveries.



    What do you mean it is 'not a deal breaker'? The scientific community and academia virtually universally supports evolution as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, anthropology, and others. Denying it means you're contradicting science.



    Evidence?
    In essence the decline of Christianity which we have seen over the decades what with “science and reasoning” is something which some believe will also happen to islam. I don’t believe this will be the case as muslims tend to be consistent in their beliefs even though it may go against the popular view of that particular society. This is the reason why I believe Christianity has been in decline… I don’t believe islam will follow this pattern.

    with regards to scientific verses in the quran, muslims can only interpret it retrospectively….. In short muslims and some non-muslim believe that science doesn’t contradict their faith so I don’t believe will have any affect on the Islamic faith and its number of followers.

    The scientific field may hold the popular views but it don’t believe that “science and reasoning” will have an impact on islam as it has done on Christianity (perhaps due to the different books and following of the Christian texts) and the one consistant quran….

    Science is not a force to “defeat” a religion. It didn’t set out to “defeat” Christianity.................


    Sorry, been waffling on...... In short, don't believe that science wil have an impact on islam and its number of followers....
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.