Liberal values and the promotion of British Islamic rule
Jon | 11.06.2009 11:06 | Analysis | Anti-racism | Repression | Birmingham
Clearly, if the group could be defined politically at all, they appeared to mix left/liberal complaints about reduced personal freedom with a harsh and authoritarian law-and-order stance enforced by a one-party religious state - hardly compatible bedfellows. I wondered if the freedom to protest would be revered just as long as it takes to replace British law and democracy with Sharia law, at which point it could be abandoned. The existence of fairs of this kind should be of interest to all leftists, especially those involved in anti-fascist work; to what extent should the left tolerate groups (of any creed) who agitate to abandon freedom and democracy? Is our policy of inclusivity towards minority groups - which is laudable in itself - overriding the defence of liberal values?
I spoke to one chap, Kamron, (and will apologise if I've spelled that incorrectly) and introduced myself. I was interested to start with, from the perspective of tolerance, why he couldn't just leave gay lifestyles alone. He replied that they were described as wrong in the Qur'an, and that he knew homosexuality to be wrong, and that deep in my heart, I knew it too. I had to protest several times against this rhetorical technique: if I were to search in my heart, I was told, I would discover that he spoke the truth, regardless of whether he'd put forward a convincing case for the point in hand.
Kamron went on to explain that democracy would be removed from the UK, in his utopian vision, and replaced with a complex system of rulers, heads of state, delegating and executing assistants, a judiciary, courts, and an Islamic army ("the army is usually the tool that opens up other countries to the dawah of Islam"). This is all helpfully set out in a leaflet entitled "Guide To The Ruling System In Islam", which says just as Kamron does, that everything is "proved" by what the prophet Mohammed said, as quoted in the Qur'an.
This proof led us on to our next problem - the rightness of the Qur'an. My interlocuter made much play of the different versions of the Christian Bible, and for how long it had remained unwritten after the life of Jesus. I agreed with him on this point, but whether or not the original Qur'ans exist (there are two, I am told) that does not automatically make its contents true, and nor should everyone be forced to accept them. Upon my declaring that all organised religion is harmful, I received the reassurance that non-Muslims would be looked after under Shariah. Interestingly, during this exchange, one or two racists turned up (allegedly white supremacists) intent on disrupting proceedings, and some of the assembled group of Muslim men - twenty or so - rushed towards them, chanting "Allahu Akbar" (God is Great). I advised Kamron that they'll end up looking like a bunch of extremists from a bad Hollywood movie if they persist in doing that, even if they are dealing with fascists; the racist press would have a field-day.
Freedom is a falsehood, I was told, for it cannot be right to do anything you want without boundary. I advised Kamron to study something other than Islamic thought here - specifically libertarianism - but I suspect this fell on deaf ears. Freedoms are always competing with each other, I said: I am not free to kill my neighbour on a whim, since he has a right to his life. I should be free to speak my mind, but not to falsely cry "fire" in a crowded place, for this deprives those who hear it of the freedom to go about their business. Our exchange was a case in point: Kamron was free to speak about the abolition of liberty, but not free to forcibly restrict mine - which is, sadly, exactly what he claimed to want.
One particular dilemma persisted for me throughout our conversation. Since these proponents of a minority religion have been welcomed to the UK, as I think was right, how far should liberal tolerance extend to having our incumbent religious and cultural systems challenged with imported ones? Jesus probably *was* a Muslim, though one wonders whether conservatively dressed Muslims hanging a large banner announcing this in Birmingham, in critical terms, might just look like they were *trying* to cause offence. I am trying to phrase this carefully - lest I sound like a lazy racist from the Daily Mail - but a set of white Christians hanging a large banner in Iran about the indecently young age of Mohammed's wife could not reasonably expect their roadshow to remain open for long.
We argued some while about the proof for a divine creator, and whether the existence of material prior to the big bang was evidence that a god(s) exists. I said that it was not: could existence not have occured randomly? Much of the unsuccessful refutation sounded much like Christian Creationism, which I felt did not bode well for science under the regime Kamron favours.
Closing the discussion, my speaker didn't seem to mind that the cultural gap between conservative Middle-Eastern Islamic values and the prevailing non-totalitarian culture would cause violent friction. Contrary to Christian doctrine, I was told, Islamic thought can be studied in infinite detail by anyone. Doing so would close the cultural gap and help anyone facing the Islamic court to understand the process set against them. I took this to mean that, despite assurances that non-Muslims would be looked after under Sharia, one would have to study Islamic law just to survive, and given the aggressive and wide-ranging law-and-order policies on offer, not to study Islamic theory in such circumstances might actually be foolhardy.
I was assured that a thief had to pass several criteria before his hand was cut off, and that there had been only a limited number of instances in Saudi Arabia in the last so-many years. The punishment for adultery is lashes, or stoning to death in some cases; homosexuality may also carry the death penalty, as does converting from Islam to another religion. The value of a female witness is considered in some interpretations as half of that of a male witness.
I don't know what a brain-washed person might be like; I've always fancied that they might appear drunk, sleepy, hypnotised, and that they would speak in a slow monotone. But Kamron was none of these things; instead he was bright, conversational and well-read. His powers of logic and argument were not brilliant, but he overrided the need for both with a complete certainty of his faith and the rightness of Islam to solve all woe and conflict. I tried to convince him of the value of freedom, and of a society that is not so prescriptive that all the joy is drained from it, and of a culture that is not so totalitarian that everyone must live in fear. I failed to make a noticeable impact, but as I walked away, I wondered: should I get back in touch at a later time, and try again to save Kamron from his folly?
Jon
Comments
Hide the following 17 comments
religion to the rescue?
11.06.2009 11:44
The group in Brixton had a banner that read: Communism is Dead, Capitalism is Dying, Islam is the way forward. Why groups such as these are by no means representative of wider opinion, I think it is telling that, for some groups at least, fairly harldine religious responses to the perceived crisis seem more appealing than, say, a left-wing alternative. I'm not just talking about radical Islam, but also evangelical Christianity, which in some parts of London, is taking a very strong hold. This, combined with the revivial of far-right political parties, especially in Europe, makes for some pretty scary combinations of ideas knocking about in volatile times.
worrier
No Tolerance, Please.
11.06.2009 12:01
Tactically not taking them on leaves a gap for the BNP and other white fascists to fill and be seen as the only people standing up to Islamic fascism. This will positively effect the image of the far right among those most likely to swing towards supporting them.
Therefore anti-fascist should oppose them on ideological and tactical grounds. However, we must be careful in doing so. Recently moderate Muslims confronted more hard line Islamics and this should be encouraged, where possible Muslims themselves should be on the front lines of these actions. We should also be careful what we criticise, it is perfectly legitimate for someone to hold a sign reading"JESUS WAS A MUSLIM" if they want, we are not Iran that's the whole point, what we must oppose is there fascist beliefs about individual freedom.
Mixed Race British Person
Jesus Christ...
11.06.2009 12:37
"Jesus probably *was* a Muslim"
Given that he was born about six hundred years before Mohammed that would be tricky. Jesus, if he existed, was Jewish.
Norvello
Fascism
11.06.2009 12:49
From the article, I assume Kamron is middle aged, which leads on to your question at the end of the story. There's nothing anyone can do to change this mans ideas, despite many people seeing his views as extreme. To have this much belief in a faith and a want to incorporate it into a government shows that he has been completely consumed by his religion and he genuinely thinks Sharia law is the way forward. Of course, any rational person would be strongly opposed to the idea. Like you say; "One would have to study Islamic law just to survive" if it were to be introduced into our culture, as we were born with and have grown with the British culture and so know no different. The extreme forms of punishment and degredation of women are enough for anyone to see this is a terrible way to run a country, where everyone is living in fear.
Again, great article. Hope to see you post again.
LoudMimeDave
Social Stress and Extremism
11.06.2009 14:41
Keep in mind, that many of these hardline schools of thought in Islam are rooted in Muslim countries that have been invaded and occupied by western nations such as Saudi Arabia. Abdul Wahab, for instance was a 'religious scholar' that had been rejected in Syria but was quickly picked up by British intelligence and teamed up with the Saudi clan who were then used to take control of the Arab peninsula, now called Saudi Arabia. Of course, apart from taking control of the oil fields in this part of the world, I believe another objective was to subvert the original Islamic culture. If you read accounts of the entry of the western sponsored Saudis into the Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina you will see how they slaughtered all those who were considered an ideological threat to their future tyranny and dictatorship. A similar pattern can be seen throughout the Middle East and other parts of the Islamic world.
Most of these young Muslim people in Britain and Europe feel threatened by the likes of the BNP and are driven into the arms of these Fascist Muslim Leaders who play on these fears and indoctrinate them with hate and extremism. Similar patterns of abuse can be seen in Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and many other religious or political ideologies. I truly believe there is a high degree of social engineering behind all this. People are being maneuvred away from their true human nature.
I think you will find that the true teachings of the Prophet Muhammad would not harm or offend anyone. This is another case of identity theft, just as Evangelical Christians such as George W Bush, have used the name and reputation of Jesus of Nazereth for their own perverted desires. I think you will also find that all the western installed Kings and dictators of the middle east are Free Masons. They are not religious, they only use religion to achieve their goals of power and wealth. The corruption of real knowledge is being carried out all around the world, amongs all communities. This process is ruthless and very well organised but only benefits a very few.
People are being manipulated by those who have taken control of the world's wealth and power. The most tragic thing, is that very few can see through the smoke screen that has been created to devide and weaken people around the world. The teachings of the Prophets, Sages and Wise men are not supposed to divide mankind but bring unity and peace.
Any teaching that contradicts the human conscience is wrong. This is our moral compass and guide. Love and peace to all my brothers and sisters of goodwill.
Patience in adversity is beautiful.
Abdullah
White liberals to the rescue!
11.06.2009 14:45
Perhaps you got a bit carried away here, but you forgot to question any of the cirmcumstances that lead people to embrace such ideas. There's no mention of the fact that these people are a very small marginal voice of the muslim community too.
I wonder why you didn't take time to focus on the broader context of these groups instead of wallowing in your own sanctimonious self-satisfaction.
Don't tell me you're a white middle class male who knows better and can lead these people to salvation!
context?!
I'm all in favour
11.06.2009 15:04
Christianity is corrupt anyway. Look at two of the ostenatiously Christians of recent times - George W. Bush and Tony Blair. Their so-called faith didn't stop them making war, stealing oil, all for the "good" of the world. These people, and others like them in Parliament, are welcomed into Westminster Abbey and Westminster Cathedral. Welcomed! For the evil they have inflicted on the world. Tony Blair gets a meeting with the pope. "What for?", one wonders. Was it for starting a war? Or was it for causing all the deaths through sanctions? Or was it stealing the oil?
Seeing the likes of Bush and Blair, these filth of the world, standing up and proclaiming their "Christianity", makes me vomit.
This country was pagan long before the Christians took over. I wouldn't mind for one minute if Sharia law came in, and perhaps then we can stone these scum to death in Parliament Square.
Kitab
@ context?!
11.06.2009 16:04
I totally welcome this report and hope there will be anti-fascist opposition to this group of fascists as well. We shouldn't stand for it because of the colour of there skin. Of course, there are many moderate Muslims and they should be on the front lines of this struggle.
Mixed Race British Person
Thanks all for your comments
11.06.2009 18:20
@Mixed Race British Person - I agree the ideas need to be tackled, and also that not doing so opens up a space for the BNP. You are quite right we need to be careful in doing so, though, as good intentions on the left could well be seen to be endorsing mainstream Islamophobia, which will not help us at all.
In terms of tackling these ideas, I do wonder whether we need a set of well-intentioned people who sufficiently understand liberal thought (and my definition here is loose enough to permit everyone - from centre-left reformists to communists and anarchists - to be willing to define what that consensus means and why it is worth defending). That there were several angry exchanges on Saturday demonstrates that, faced by well-read Islamic scholars, some people lose their temper rather than patiently conduct a rational argument. These days, intellectualism amongst ordinary people in the street has gone out of fashion, and I do not regard this as a positive development.
@Norvello - dammit, you are right! I should have spotted that.
@LoudMimeDave - thanks for your kind comments. I should have mentioned in the article that Kamron was in his mid-to-late twenties. I tend to pessimism but I am not sure all people like him will *never* change their ideas - I think at least some can be persuaded towards a more moderate position. But we do need a lot of people to engage in debate to do that.
@Abdullah - thank you for your input. My theme in this response has generally been about how to challenge religious extremism but your good points about the corruption of Western governments explain why I am cynical about "British citizenship" and taxpayer-funded inclusivity projects. I tend to see them as an automatic mechanism that absorbs genuine Muslim anger over Establishment imperialism abroad and its self-righteous misuse of "human rights and democracy" values as intellectual cover.
Your points on the fakery of Blair and Bush as "Christians" explain why @Kitab is keen to dismiss Christianity as corrupt. It would be much like my dismissing Islam as corrupt on the basis of the notorious corruption of the House of Saud. Both assertions unfairly tar each religion with the brush of negativity - but in both cases it is the greed of the people involved, not the religion.
That said, I tend to regard all organised religions as harmful - partly because I think they sometimes foster the corruption of moderate ideas that the article itself attempted to challenge. I would prefer all people of a spiritual persuasion had their connection to God directly without the malign involvement of others. But my dichotomy is that religious freedom must be supported, since the authoritarianism required to ban it would be oppressive.
Incidentally Blair is an interesting case, as I think he genuinely thought he was doing the right thing in Iraq. That he has been responsible for the resulting conflagration - with 0.8m-1.3m "excess deaths" (to quote the Lancet) - demonstrates a worrying sociopathy and scant regard for international law. I am not convinced that more deaths (non-British ones at least) would have shaken his certainty. Only opprobrium in the international media would have presented a powerful challenge, which is why I tend to regard them as fundamentally complicit.
@Kitab - I agree that the sanctimoniousness of Bush and Blair (Blair especially in my view) is sickening. But I don't agree that killing them is the answer - I believe that our humanitarianism can do better than that. In fact I would like to think that (moderate) Muslims would rather see him in court where he can explain himself and be judged by his peers - with life imprisonment the worst we can do to him. I disagreed with the assassination of Saddam Hussein so it would be hypocritical of me to support capital punishment for Blair, even if it is tempting.
@context - thanks for your response. I think you analysis is way off the mark though. I couched a lot of my terms in careful language and I don't at all agree that my piece was moralistic or sensationalist. I reported the facts as I found them, backed up with some research from the internet.
There are a couple of points I would expand on which may help to explain my perspective. Firstly, I am particularly averse to the positions of faux-left individuals like David Aaronovitch, Nick Cohen and Christopher Hitchens whose hawkish and Islamophobic perspectives quite rightly earn them condemnation. I am not writing here for money or fame - I am writing from a genuinely left perspective (anti-racist, anti-imperialism and anti-war) out of a quiet concern for decent democratic values. I am certain that the Daily Mail would not have carried my piece, especially since I specifically mentioned the suggestion that they have racists amongst their writing staff!
The search for broader context is entirely right and I could have added some of that. That said, it would only be my guesswork as to what causes dissatisfaction with liberal values and entrenches hardline religious doctrine - I don't fully know what causes it. My article was intended to be factual with reasonable assertions and commentary. However a discussion regarding context can happen here in the comments - and if you have specific knowledge in this area then you should write a response article. I would be pleased to read it.
I was rather hoping that a tolerant perspective showed in the piece, even if perhaps you didn't notice it. I specifically said to my interlocutor that he should advise his colleagues not to chase white racists down the street shouting religious phrases (twenty men versus two or three) as I thought it was a gift to the racist media. I have also not been carping from the sidelines as is the wont of reactionaries; I would not have written the article if I had not had a thorough conversation with a group member beforehand. The article was not planned and is specifically a response to the roadshow, which I came across by chance.
I would also politely query your understanding of class and liberalism. I am white and by mainstream standards I am middle-class. But since I am firmly on the left politically - and chained to a corporate office of alienated labour by virtue of wanting a house over my head - I regard myself as working class. I am not particularly troubled if I am considered middle-class but I didn't choose that label and I didn't choose the environment I was born into.
"Liberal" has for too long been a dirty word amongst the left generally and I think it needs rescueing. It has rather become synonymous with centre-right thinking and implies either wishy-washy inaction or whatever the status quo is doing (which in the US/UK is patently illiberal - has it ever being genuinely liberal?). My use of the word - I think its true sense - was about the radicalism of democracy, free speech, tolerance, the application of logic and reason, managing conflicting rights fairly, and the idea that people can be selflessly interested in improving the lot of the human race.
@All - thanks for your comments. Keep 'em coming.
Jon
Very interesting thoughtful post
12.06.2009 11:18
I too met and had a brief chat with some young Muslim lads who gave me some literature to read it was patronising drivel. Apparently as a woman I am immediately far less capable than any man of looking after my own financial affairs!Furthermore in a society where every woman is clad head to toe will be a society without rape!!! Tell that to our sisters who are raped and oppressed in countries where Sharia is practiced!
At least I suppose there is a common bond between these guys and the BNP in wanting to bring in corporal punishment!
Pigs are "dirty" so the pamphlets said, what dirtier than humans who have defiled the globe with toxic cocktails?
I emailed those who wrote the pamphlet 3 months ago and I am still awaiting a reply.
Christians who call for the death of gay people and sentenced young rape victims to lives of imprisonment and hard labour (in the Irish Magdalen Laundries closed 1994) and muslims who want a gender apartheid are fascists by another name and undermine the messages of compassion, fairness and integrity which all major religions have at their core. Let us never forget what the ruling classes used christianity for when they burned and tortured hundreds of thousands of healers and other ordinary folk including toddlers accross Europe and when they did the same to kill millions during the Holocaust. Islam could be used in the same way here to destroy and subject millions of ordinary people this is a real threat.
Let us never forget that there are many christians and muslims who dissent and combat all oppression.
Lynn Sawyer
The Trinity of Intolerance.
12.06.2009 13:33
All three sects insist there is only one deity and that only their sect can reveal that.
All three sects insist only sect members will get rewarded after death.
All three sects practice religious persecution of other sects.
All three sects practice degrees of gender discrimination.
All three sects insist that secular affairs are beneath their sects governing principles.
All three sects declare they can determine what is right and what is wrong.
If any of these three sects were to run for power they would be represented by a Fascist Party. It makes sense and would give access to the power to enforce religious rulings onto non-religious people.
The fact is that religions (not the spiritual practices of individuals) are the source of an astounding amount of human suffering because they interfere in human affairs, not the other way around. Shari'ia is not the only version of religious law. The UK has eclessiastical courts which render judgement and have Bishops sitting as Lords Spiritual.
The Abramic Religion and its Trinity of Intolerance has been the source of the greatest amount of suffering the world has experienced. There is no difference between the Abramic Religion causing innocent bystanders - such as Pagans - from suffering in the Twelfth century and the Abramic Religion causing innocent bystanders - such as commuters - from suffering now.
The Abramic Religion is the religion of fascists when practiced in public. An injury from one is an injury from them all.
Abraham
I don't know much about judaism and Islam
13.06.2009 10:13
I am not a christian (although I do enjoy carol services), more of a pagan really, I am fully aware that if any of these organised religions were to gain a stranglehold we'd all be for the chop (or the fire etc). Within living memory the church ruled over and judged ordinary folk we have only just tamed it into a relatively benign force in the UK, Islam should never replace it. I would also be vehemently against a society which hounded all christians, muslims, jews and others enforcing athesism, or another religion. As long as it harms no one people should be free to do as they please.
At least as infidels we won't go to "heaven" can you imagine the rows and fights between white supremacist christians and jihadists? I think that as a woman I am only entitled to eat a few dates anyway for eternity if I became muslim and would probably still be some sort of chattel if I joined some nutter christian far right sect. Nah I'll continue to see divinity in each living creature, plant, landscape, water, sky etc and fight against human supremist, anthropocentric crap. Another thing the Abrahamic religions do is set humans above all creation, I believe this is nonsense and that we are part of the web of life and that we evolved from other animals and will evolve into something else (unless we become extinct).
Lynn Sawyer
Why the concern
14.06.2009 20:17
I suspect the reason behind the interest in these particular group of preachers is the fact they help to confuse the politics of no occupation and anti-imperialism with the outmoded religion these individuals preach. As indeed your article does when you mention Iran. What has Iran got to do with these preachers. Perhaps they do not even share the same sect as the Iranian regime. Iran rejected the Shah, gave the US a bloody nose and remains a thorn in the US's strategy for the region. Now everything in Iran I might not agree with it nevertheless threatens the West's interest in the region. It is more of a democracy than any other country in the region including Israel.
This preoccupation of anything a muslim does and giving it special labels is the 21st century equivalent of the "White man's burden" of the 19th and 20th century that justified colonialism. It is another attempt by the West to civilize the barbarians.
Please do not read this as a defence of Islam it is a more a critique of the collective intentions behind the preoccupation with so called islamists. In many ways what the muslim does is a reflection of what is done to him as a collective. If he is going to be abused. He has two options. One is to change his ways and some muslims do that. Some on the other are defiant and annoy you even more by exaggerating the tenets of their faith as you experienced with these individuals. Other like me, ask the question why is it happening and would it ba an issue if the muslim lands were not occupied and link it to the global issues of Palestine, Iraq Afghanistan etc.
wasim
Apathy
15.06.2009 10:27
The idea is obviously patently absurd. Fair enough that groups should organise themselves consensually (and the Jews have been doing this for centuries in the UK with Talmudic Courts). But the problem is, as is obvious to anarchists, how much consensus can there be within a theocracy... (deliberate lack of question mark).
Add to this the incredible nonsense of rebranding Shariah as a misrepresented system, and you are fast approaching cloud-cuckoo-land as fast a ambulance approaching an asylum.
To be fair, the movement for Shariah in the UK has been indeed often distorted, as most advocates of Shariah are likely more at the moderate end, wanting merely the scope to handle civil matters in accordance to their beliefs, rather than calling the extremist garbage of beheadings and amputations and stonings.
You only have to look Shariah as it is still practised in Saudi, to get the creeps at even the thought of that taking hold anywhere... Note that nothing much is said in the Western press about Saudi, despite the fact they are still going strong and were the pioneers of the Wahhabism in Afghanistan and the sick parent of the Taliban.
Shariah law as writ is disgusting, evil and totally incompatible with anarchism or any sense of human rights. But don't get me wrong it is no more sick than Jewish or Christian religious law. It is all hocus pocus garbage from the dark ages that really should be peacefully and rationally discouraged.
Relieved in a sick kind of way
@wasim
15.06.2009 12:05
I am intrigued that you could read into my article a denigration of anti-imperialism, especially after my comments to @context. I rather think in this debate, I can assert as much as I like my opposition to Western imperialism, recognise that Iraq is an example of Western imperialism, and call for Blair/Bush to be taken to the Hague, but it is as if these words do not appear on your screen! I agree that some people are using the existence of anti-democratic views to challenge non-Establishment perspectives, but I am not doing that. My motivations are nothing to do with supporting the injustice and destruction that Muslims are expected to tolerate in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan and Palestine.
I mentioned Iran just as an example of the absence of liberal tolerance - I was exposing the hypocrisy of using liberal tolerance and freedom of speech for a political scenario that would abolish both. My point was that in illiberal regimes, criticism of the prevailing culture is dealt with harshly - unlike in the UK where a ludicrous public proposal for totalitarianism is tolerated and discussed.
(I confess I am puzzled that there was only a very minor police presence given the size of the roadshow. When I attended a street meeting on Palestine in New Street in January we were surrounded by 10-15 officers, which is peculiar given that calling for justice for the Palestinians is in truth a lot less radical than calling for the implementation of Sharia Law. I am therefore open to the belief that the authorities are giving radical Islamic clerics an extra degree of free movement in order to provide material for the right-wing press to try to discredit anti-imperialist and anti-war movements generally.)
The issue of Iran generally is quite difficult, in my view. One cannot support the regime for a variety of human rights reasons, but opposing it looks like support for CIA tinkering, which all leftists should be suspicious of (or opposed to). I rather like Craig Murray's recent take on the hypocrisy of the left and the right ( http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/06/iran.html). This is why I am cautious when reading articles on Indymedia asking the British government not to recognise the result - as if the British government care about what the Iranian people think! ( http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/06/432286.html).
Jon
comment
15.06.2009 18:16
these groups should be welcomed as they are left politically and deserve free speach whereas the bnp are right politically and dont deserve free speach
we can have it both ways folks
mary
Fight fascism
30.06.2009 13:27
I'd agree with what "mixed race british person" has already said. Religious fundamentalism and fascism should be confronted regardless of who is promoting it. Whether it's the BNP calling for the repatriation of non-whites or Islamists calling for Sharia law in criminal courts.
I think an important thing to build upon in the fight against either type of fascism is our shared struggle in society. It seems that more and more people are seeing themselves as an identity linked to either race or religion, but it is neither of these things which determine our place in society or our material wellbeing. Our shared experience of exploitative employers, money grabbing lanlords, banks that profit from our poverty and politicians that implement the interests of the wealthy at the expense of the working class, are far more relevant than what god we do or do not believe in or the colour of our skin. When people see themselves primarily as a race or religion and see their allies and enemies in such light it just leads to conflict and balkanisation.
The chap at the demo sounds like a typical fundamentalist, offering no evidence or reason for his prejudices but simply saying that a religious book states it so it is the only way he can think. Such irrational behaviour stopped being quite so prevalent in christian circles after the enlightenment but some muslims seem to neglect reason or rationality for religious dogma, this is of course nothing to do with islam per se but with the mentality of some of those who follow it.
BruisedShins