should the police tip off communitys when they plan a raid

All you have to do is look at some of the fights between Shia and Sunni muslims to see this in full effect.

 

Well I can think of dozens of muslim leaders that we have felt could be trusted who have later been found to have been playing a double game.
that includes members of the armed forces and security services , clerics doing prison visiting, leaders of groups that have been promoting the message that islam has nothing to do with terrorism who have themselves been later jailed for terrorist offences .

You have had members of the united states army who rolled grenades into rooms where their fellow soldiers were sleeping and then machine gunned survivors because of jihad .

Im not as trusting as you, in the haddith you have mohammed telling people that its ok to pretend to be friendly with someone if that’s the only way you can get to kill them .

The british government doesn’t have a clue who they can and cannot trust

As for the divisions in islam that hasn’t stopped shia and sunni and other branches of islam getting together to kill infidels in the past ,I don’t know of a branch of islam that isn’t politicised

 

You could say the same about anyone. Paedophile priests for instance - you don't automatically assume every priest is a paedophile. Should all priests be banned from being in charge of children because of the actions of a few?

 

Not really a valid comparison, because abusing children goes completely against what a priest is supposed to do, whereas Muslims of all sects are supposed to struggle (jihad) to spread the "truth" of islam around the world. It's written in the Qu'ran, which to all Muslims is the undisputable word of Allah. Honestly, find a translation and study it, I've been working my way through for a while and the more I read the scarier it gets. The terrorists Muslims are being truer to the essence of their faith than the moderates.

 

You could make the case (and many do) that the killing of innocents goes against everything muslims are supposed to do

 

Seriously, read the Qu'ran. It's long and it's archaic and you have to compare different translations to make sure you're understanding things, but it's worth it to educate yourself.

I'm afraid the "religion of peace" line we are being fed by moderates seems like a lot of wishful thinking to me. When they refer to passages that forbid violence, what they don't tell you is that most of these passages only apply to fellow Muslims. The Qu'ran is quite specific about how non-believers aren't entitled to the same rights and freedoms as Muslims - Jews are singled out especially. It's a supremacist religion, it really can't coexist in peace with others.

 

I have no desire to debate the relative merits of different interpretations of the Quran, and it's going off topic anyway. But moderate Islam is a very real phenomenon; there are plenty of moderate muslim leaders in the UK whose concern is integration and who would not condone acts of terror. Moderate Islam is vastly in the majority in the UK.

 

Actually, I think it's rather relevant when considering whether Muslims should be briefed with sensitive information about other Muslims.

"Moderate" Muslims are simply those who are apathetic about the jihad aspect of the religion and don't want to rock the boat in their nice comfortable western lives. I agree that they are the vast majority in the UK, but when the problem is so deeply rooted in the fundamental tenets of the faith even "moderate" communities are going to produce some individuals who get serious about their religion and take the jihad obligation to heart. We've already seen this with the profile of the 7/7 bombers - they were all "such nice lads" who suddenly became radicalised. I agree with jonny2mad that it's impossible to tell who may be a jihadi sympathiser and it's sheer lunacy for the police to tip any Muslims off about planned operations. Even apathetic "moderates" may balk at betraying their devout jihadi brothers - that's another huge no-no laid down in the Qu'ran.

We need to stop taking the "religion of peace" claims at face value and actually examine where the jihad phenomenon originates. Muslims will have to accept that they will come under more scrutiny now and that unfortunate mistakes like the Forest Gate fiasco may happen. It's the price they pay for following a religion that by it's very nature is designed to conquer the world by any means necessary.

 

thats fucking stupid. that would only add to the problem.

 

Not when you have a majority of muslims who disagree with you about your interpretation of the Quran. It doesn't matter what your opinion is of what the Quran says you should do, it matters what theirs is.

 

You're really missing my whole point about the Qu'ran. It's not considered fallible and open to interpretation like the Bible; It's full of rules that are very, very black and white. There's little vagueness to argue around, in fact it often goes into unnecessarily precise detail (for instance detailing the exact proportions a deceased man's wealth should be shared between different relatives.)

You're assuming that most Muslims would disagree with me about the jihad obligation, but I don't think that any truly devout Muslim would. They just prefer to keep quiet and sweep it under the rug for the moment. Conveniently, the Qu'ran also explicitly permits them to lie about their intentions to us infidels.

 

I'm really not. Your "fundamentalist" interpretation of the Quran may well be the more logically sound reading. But that's really not the point. Most muslims in Britain are Sufi - which is a spiritual, non-politicised branch of Islam. Most normal people use their innate sense of morality to decide what is religious rather than a fundamentalist, logical literary-critical reading of doctrine to decide what is moral. Muslims are of course mostly normal people. That they may be misinterpreting the Quran when they think of jihad as a spiritual struggle rather than a physical fight is not the point. That they are in the overwhelming majority a peaceful and moral people is.

 

Funny you should say this. I was just reading a local paper the other day around my in-laws and saw a huge article about how police have planned cannabis factory raids around the Essex area over the next two weeks, targetting suburban greenhouses and agricultural warehouses.

Now, I had to chuckle a bit at reading this. Not by any means because I agree with these raids (I think it would be much more worthwhile to say crack down on a heroin den or crackhouse or maybe go after the bastards that stole two of my cars in the past year); but because it's like telling everyone that has one of these cannabis factories to pack up and move out quick. I mean, the only better thing they could do is flash a big light saying "quick, the filth is on it's way."

 

What better way to get people to destroy their own stash without having to actually expend any police resources I mean, they could only afford to mount so many raids, but a widespread threat of raids will mean people do all the work for them of their own accord without the police having to lift a finger!

 

to say sufi muslims are a peaceful non-politicised branch of Islam , isnt correct.
if you look at the conquest of india a lot of the jihadis there were sufi the conquest couldnt have taken place without the sufi.

so were a lot of the people who fought under the (mad mahdi) Muhammad Ahmad ibn against the Egyptians and then the british beheading general gordon at Khartoum .

the mahdi himself mostly studied sufi teachings he was a sufi Shaikh, the dervish his followers were sufi

the mahdi imposed strict islamic law and his armys didnt just fight the british, they invaded ethiopia and they had bad relations with just about everyone of their neighbours because of their plans to spread tha khalifa through jihad.

never trust a sufi

 

There are few religious movements which have not committed historical atrocities. Perhaps I should have said "in the present day UK sufism is a peaceful non-politicised branch of Islam".

I think this is tipping over into prejudice

 

you could say more peaceful in the present day to a extent maybe.

I still wouldnt tip sufis off on anti terrorist intelligence because even in the present time there are sufis that have been involved in terrorism lots of the chechens groups have sufis.

Shamil Basayev the guy who was behind the beslan school attack was a sufi
and the attacks of moscow theatres and lots of other attacks

and I dont see that sufism is non-politicised just keeping a lower profile maybe

interesting article by andrew bostrom on sufi jihad

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4495&search=Sufi

http://www.andrewbostom.org/ interesting site hes a a medical doctor a proffessor ,who is also a expert on jihad and wrote about it when no historian would touch the subject

 

This is the whole 'judging everyone by the actions of a few' again. Again, you don't ban all priests from looking after children because there have been cases of paedophile priests...

Demonstrating that there are some nasty sufis as an attempt to discredit everyone is essentialism and as such logically flawed. I don't agree with tipping off anyone about raids, but your reasons for disagreeing with it are wrong. Using the issue to try to stir up distrust about a whole section of society is reprehensible

 

distrust of people who intend destroying you is a virtue .

sufis have worked traditionally as a sort of fifth column they come in talk their usual bullshit get a foothold established in the country they wish to conquer increase in number and gradually take over the country.

if you watch the film on andrew bostom site not the top one but the bottom one The Heritage Foundation Speech .
you will hear him talking about dhimmitude the secondclass apartied of non muslims dictated by islamic law, its quiet interesting you can see the same process happening in other countrys today .

 

The misguided belief that every muslim is trying to destroy you is a prejudice.