'Honour' violence is acceptable, say one in five young British Asians

reply to post by cavtrooper7


Shukran

I only would like to say one thing, I have never seen my mother hit in any manner, my father always extremely kind and gentle man with us all. There are many very good and respectful Muslim men. I think it may be something like in every culture, some good some bad.

When I marry, I will marry someone like him inshallah

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by torqpoc
I have a BSc, an MSc and know the difference between you're and your.

My usage is correct.

Look it up - I did to just double check. If you want to be a grammar Nazi, don't correct people for grammar usage that is correct.

By the way, I have a bit more than a BSc and an MSc. But if brandishing your degrees makes you feel better.

Originally posted by torqpoc
Do not stand there however and tell me that everyone in the UK is using the term Asian because they really mean Muslim

You appear to have reading comprehension problems. I clearly stated that the media uses the term 'Asian' to describe Muslims who have been accused of a crime.

That was the whole point. You appear to have spectacularly missed it.

I am not the only one missing points then. You state in your OP that "you" feel the newspapers are using the term Asian instead of Muslim. You actually have no proof of that, therefore it is your opinion and something you have surmised and or assumed. You know what they say about assumption, right?

I do not have reading comprehension problems, if you had stopped with the condescending nature of your posts from the outset, we would have gotten along a lot better I feel. Only a person of limited intelligence would resort to using someone's country of origin to argue their point. Same goes for the other two poneys following suit, oh hahah it's so funny to make fun of the French. It's so passe I can't tell you how disgusted it makes me feel that people like you still roam the earth. Xenophobe, bigots and racists.

My opinion, and point, is that in current day to day life noone in the UK, aside from the newspapers who might be using the term to denote Muslims, uses the term Asian to denote Muslims because that would be both fallacious and insulting to all the non Muslim Asians that reside in the UK, point which you seemed to spectacularly miss and continue to.

The point about you're and your wasn't a dig at you, directly anyway, it was simply to state that my command of the English language is sufficient, as was my decision to discuss rather personal aspects of my life and qualifications since it was you who decided to attack that aspect and to infer I wasn't capable of arguing this point, please don't spin that around to make me look like a fool, you accomplished that quite well, both in my case and yours. If you truly have more than a BSc and MSc, isn't it time you showed that in your posts rather than slating people for being non English? You seem to be an oaf and a bit of a decelebrate crettin to me, maybe it was a PhD in Underwater Basket Weaving you acquired? Or are you the kind that resorts to a bit of fisty cuffs when someone throws sand in your face? Thinking of joining a white supremist group perhaps?

I think we're done now.. continue with the French jibes and i'll retort in kind, it really was base to even go there and if you had any solid matter in your scrotum you would have sidestepped that point entirely. Just goes to show what you're truly made of, doesn't it?


T

Originally posted by LaborofLove
Honour is the thing that makes men kill other men for honour of country.

Part of my own definition of honour, is that if you are going to attack someone, a] you don't attack someone who doesn't have the physical ability to defend themselves, and b] you don't attack someone without granting them an equitable opportunity to defend themselves, as well. Sniping, carpet bombing, smart missiles, and air support in general are thus not part of said definition.

I don't consider woman beating to be part of said definition either, unless the woman in question is one who is capable of beating you herself, and some are.

Men who murder women for adultery are not men; they are craven, spineless animals. It's a case of murdering someone purely because your own ego was bruised. If they actually had a conscience, it would do nothing but increase their shame.

Um, in the hopes of contributing something of a phenomenon thats going on in the UK, I would like to present the case of my elementary school best friend who moved to the UK from Hungary with her husband and 3 kids just two years ago.

They live in a town called Stevenage and Ive had casual Skype chats with her occasionally, and watched my moderate Palestinian friend, turn into something of an extremist.

It was shocking to say the least because this girl was brought up so free spirited she could have married whoever she wanted to, she went to college in Jordan and had a job before having kids.

What transpired was at first she started to complain little by little, of how the British treat her. She does cover her hair but not her face, and wears makeup to top it all off. She said one time she had taken the kids to the local park and parked her car outside on the street where all the cars were. When it was time to go home, she passed by an elderly white woman who swore at her, and told her to go away, how dare she park where she had. Stunned, she couldn't say anything and went back home.

Another time, she encountered a lady at the local school who openly insulted her and said she didn't want to see hijabiis or some such come there.

So over time, I noticed she became very disgruntled and bitter at the way random people were treating her because she was covered. When one of your closest friends tells you such horror stories you simply try to make them feel better, and you try to play down the hatred they received to the idiocracy of random people. But it didn't do any good with her. As time passed, she became more and more hateful of the British. So much so that she started openly supporting Bin Laden on her Facebook posts and saying what a wonderful martyr he was. At that point I had to disagree with her ofcourse and instead of arguing with her, simply deleted her from my friends list because I cannot and will not tolerate such behavior.

This is probably just one incident, but it sort of provided a peak into the psyche of a person who faces constant hatred when they try to socialize. By the way, she was very happy in Hungary, she still has friends who are Hungarian and what not.

I don't know what it is, but for the British to blame the Muslims living there without considering how they might have looked down upon them as they came, sounds like the way Americans blame Mexicans for every wrong thing they do. Is it a remnant of a white supremacist attitude that is pushing these people to border line obsession with their religion because they are constantly belittled? And let me remind you, my friend isn't a border line obsessor about religion at all. We've grown up together and although have always been good girls, never have I seen her become so bitter and defensive about it.

Originally posted by nusnus
Another time, she encountered a lady at the local school who openly insulted her and said she didn't want to see hijabiis or some such come there.

I will admit that in the case of the hijab, I do consider it wrongfully discriminatory if women are banned from wearing it.

I think the reason why Westerners react the way they do to it, is because it is viewed as being symbolic for a few different things; not for what it is literally, as such.

The first point, I think, is that I've observed that covering in virtually any context, is generally interpreted by Western feminists as a sign of repression. For the record, I do not condone the Western feminist attitude here, either. American/European feminists consider it their right to not only dress fairly close to outright nudity, but also expect to be able to do so without any form of negative reaction from anyone else. The "slut walk," protests are held by women protesting the fact that they are looked down on for dressing provocatively.

The second point is that the hijab is regarded as a symbol of imperalistic encroachment or social infiltration. As upsetting as this may unfortunately be for you to hear, nusnus, I think it's necessary to emphasise here, the degree of intense fear of Islam that exists in non-Islamic society, at this point. Islam is largely regarded as a social pathogen by Western society, so if women in hijab are seen, it is considered an indication that the local area has become infected.

So the attacking/criticism of women in hijab by non-Muslims, is (if not consciously) essentially seen as a sociological immune response. As I'm sure you've witnessed on this forum, there is a perception among many non-Muslims, that they need to engage in cultural (and literally even ethnic) self-defense, in order for their own belief systems and/or way of life to survive.

My own attitude with regards to this issue, I will admit, is largely Darwinian at this point; in the sense that I am inclined to believe that if Islam genuinely is, for whatever reason, more sociologically or biologically fit than Western society, then ultimately, not only will the West be assimilated, but that assuming that Islam has the necessary characteristics to do that, then it will presumably be a beneficial thing for the species as a whole. May the best man win, in other words.

I do believe that Islam has a major reproductive advantage in the area of male/female relations. I think feminism probably has a larger role to play in the decline of Western birth rates, than the usual contemporary Western cultural Marxist would like to believe. Feminism emphasises the wellbeing of the individual woman, whereas Islam, I think, focuses on the wellbeing of the collective, despite the pattern of behaviour towards individual women being more abusive in many cases.

Most damagingly, feminism has literally made the pathological hatred of men, a mainstream social institution, in Western society. It is considered completely normal at this point, to the degree that it is not brought up at all. I've said repeatedly that if I've ever had any incentive for conversion myself at all, it would be the possibility of finding a wife. I am single, and barring a literal act of God, at 35 I expect to be for the rest of my life at this point.

As another potential sociological advantage, Islam is considered legalistic and repressive by Western standards; and truthfully to a degree according to my own as well. Lack of individual freedom can be a sociological evolutionary advantage, however, in the sense that it places more emphasis on the survival of the collective, at the expense of the happiness of the individual. As someone who would usually be considered a libertarian socialist politically, I have long believed that the imbalance in favour of the individual over the collective, is one of the most potentially lethal social characteristics of Western (and particularly American) society.

I will also be honest when I say that, Islam aside, I am not a white supremacist, and I have never felt terribly comfortable about being a member of the Anglo-Celtic ethnic group, which I truthfully consider one of the least desirable on the planet. I have not been treated well by them, to a large extent.

I considered the film Avatar to be an uncanny allegorical account of my own conversion to Shakta Hinduism in 2007, during which I began to psychologically withdraw from my own ethnicity (and move more towards India, culturally) in a similar manner to the way Jake embraced being Na'vi rather than human.

I think a lot of the white supremacists are scared of that. I think there's an unconscious realisation that to a large extent, as a civilisation, America and Europe genuinely do deserve to die at this point. So they're railing against it, and grieving it, but deep down, they know.

Wow.

Just wow.
It amazes me the lengths and lies that that the DailyMail will go to. It certainly has no shame.
Now it is just straight-up inventing stories?

Every line involving a number in that article is a complete twist on the truth. And to think they tried pinning this on a BBC Documentary for validity!

Now for some truth to counter the nonsense:

Do Young British Muslims Support Honour Violence
The ComRes poll commissioned by Panorama, to which the Mail's scaremongering headline refers, found that 69% of respondents agreed with the proposition that "Families should live according to the concept of 'honour', or 'Izzat'". That particular question made no reference at all to violence. Furthermore, the poll was conducted among British Asians of various faith communities. 70% of Muslim respondents said they agreed with living according to the concept of honour, but so did 79% of Sikhs, 64% of Hindus and 62% of Christians.

...

In fact only 6% of respondents agreed with the proposition that "In certain circumstances, it can be right to physically punish a female member of the family if she brings dishonour to her family or community". The figure was also 6% for respondents aged 16-24 and 7% for those aged 25-34. There were more Christians (8%) who agreed with this proposition than Muslims (6%).

...

18% of British Asians in the 16-34 age bracket said they thought one or more of these actions could be regarded as "reasonable justifications", three times more than those who thought it was "right" to carry out physical punishments (6%).

Neither ComRes nor Panorama saw fit to try and explain this anomaly, preferring instead to emphasise the higher and discount the lower figure.

reply to post by Jameela


Just passing through... Again...
Read about the formation of islam, outside of the context of holy writtings, widen your horizons. You are on a board where people are for the most part paranoid, but many have learnt enough to become scared. What one Arab does to another is everyone's business. What one priest does to little boys is everyone's business, I doubt you would advocate that it should be buried in the church walls. You have an innocence about you, which comes from blind faith. God, however, gave you intelligence, use it. I promise you Meelah, He will look at you on judgement and say "take that scarf off, I gave you beauty as a blessing from Me, to show the world what I'm capable of.".

My mistake. Wrong Post. I finally got around to reading through this thread, and while much of what I said has already been mentioned, the bigoted stuff in here is making my head turn! Apologies .

These people bring dishonour to my land and way of life. So I guess its ok by them, if I dish out a little anger and violence towards them? Whats good for them and their way of thinking. Just dosnt cut it here in the UK. But if thats how they look at things, then who am I to diagree? What honour is there in killing some one who wants freedom from a crazy religious way of thinking?

Originally posted by babloyi
My mistake. Wrong Post. I finally got around to reading through this thread, and while much of what I said has already been mentioned, the bigoted stuff in here is making my head turn! Apologies

If you expressed as much outrage about honour killings as you do about the 'bigotry' of talking about honour killings, then I could perhaps not mistake you for an apologist for Muslims who murder women in the name of family honour...

Originally posted by torqpoc
I am not the only one missing points then. You state in your OP that "you" feel the newspapers are using the term Asian instead of Muslim. You actually have no proof of that, therefore it is your opinion and something you have surmised and or assumed.

I provided you with a long list of newspaper articles which used the term 'Asian' to describe Muslims who had been accused of a crime.

Yet, you have provided no evidence to support your own assertions, apart from a certain Gallic 'confidence ' in your own opinion.

Originally posted by torqpoc
I do not have reading comprehension problems, if you had stopped with the condescending nature of your posts from the outset, we would have gotten along a lot better I feel.

You immediately started calling people bigots and racists, so to accuse my response to you as being condescending shows you lack social skills and introspection.

Originally posted by torqpoc
Only a person of limited intelligence would resort to using someone's country of origin to argue their point.

When a Frenchman is telling three Britons that their understanding of how British English is used is wrong, then country of origin is of great relevance.

Originally posted by torqpoc
My opinion, and point, is that in current day to day life noone in the UK, aside from the newspapers who might be using the term to denote Muslims, uses the term Asian to denote Muslims because that would be both fallacious and insulting to all the non Muslim Asians that reside in the UK, point which you seemed to spectacularly miss and continue to.

My whole point was that newspapers were using the term 'Asian' to denote Muslims.

For someone who clearly thinks his English is better than three Britons, your reading comprehension is somewhat questionable.

Do you actually read what people write before calling them racists and bigots?

It appears not.

Originally posted by torqpoc
It's so passe I can't tell you how disgusted it makes me feel that people like you still roam the earth. Xenophobe, bigots and racists.

So according to you, you weren't trying to have a dig at me then you call me a "Xenophobe, bigots and racist".

Why the change of heart?

Originally posted by torqpoc
If you truly have more than a BSc and MSc, isn't it time you showed that in your posts rather than slating people for being non English?

The fact that you being a Frenchmen telling British people that their understanding of English is wrong while yours is correct, makes the fact that you are a Frenchman rather relevant.

Originally posted by torqpoc
You seem to be an oaf and a bit of a decelebrate crettin to me, maybe it was a PhD in Underwater Basket Weaving you acquired? Or are you the kind that resorts to a bit of fisty cuffs when someone throws sand in your face? Thinking of joining a white supremist group perhaps?

Have you considered therapy?

Maybe basket weaving, but without any sharp tools?

Originally posted by torqpoc
I think we're done now.. continue with the French jibes and i'll retort in kind, it really was base to even go there and if you had any solid matter in your scrotum you would have sidestepped that point entirely. Just goes to show what you're truly made of, doesn't it?

Look, I can only apologise for challenging your assertion that a Frenchman can tell three Britons that their understanding of British English is inferior to your own.

One thing is sure. Your ego is monstrous.

How untypical for a Frenchman. Or perhaps not.

By the way, if the French are so superior, why does the whole world speak English and not French?

Originally posted by nusnus
I don't know what it is, but for the British to blame the Muslims living there without considering how they might have looked down upon them as they came, sounds like the way Americans blame Mexicans for every wrong thing they do.

Perhaps it is her insistence to cover her hair, as an immigrant, not a tourist, that upsets British people?

When in Rome, do as the Romans do...

Unless you are a Muslim immigrant, of course. Then you expect the host culture to bend to you.

In fact, rather than uncover her hair, or leave the UK, your Muslim friend was driven into the arms of Bin Laden...

What is it about Muslims that make them like that? Their religion perhaps?

Originally posted by ollncasino

What is it about Muslims that make them like that? Their religion perhaps?

The "christians" are just an inflexible.

Oh, and yes, it is a religion thing... ALL religions.

reply to post by ollncasino


Well, I know from experience that when you cover a part of your body and you're used to covering it for years, opening it up feels like opening any other part of your body, i.e. very indecent. But you're right, am sure it was her hair cover that got the British riled up, but to suggest that people need to remove their usual clothing to fit into society is nonsense. If she had her face covered and refused to uncover that I'd understand since a lot of world cultures depend on seeing facial cues and form trusting bonds on what they see on peoples faces.

Now if there was a law saying that women had to uncover their hair, and she went against that law then I'd have nothing to say because well, its a law. The same way Saudi's impose certain clothing rules on everyone that enters their country, and everyone does obey these rules in order not to cause trouble, she would have no other choice but to. Also, she's bound to stay in the UK due to her husbands work contract. She doesn't really want to stay there I assure you. But she'll probably find a way to live in peace or live in isolation because most Palestinian(Jordanians) do not get along with the extreme Pakistanis or Indians for example.

On a side note, ever since I posted my response, a Muslim friend of mine sent me a video of a lady in Britain who went and faced a group of extremist Muslims who were protesting on the streets of her home town. They were covered from head to toe (the women) and everybody was chanting 'police go to hell!'. This upset me to no end honestly, no body has the right to do this. And if this was my country I would kick them out, not for going out on the street and protesting, but for inciting and spreading hatred. The worst bit in the video was when she went and asked one of the ladies: "Doesn't your religion say you have to obey the laws of the land you live in?" and the covered lady was like: No!

o.0 You should have seen the WTF expression on my face. What is this nonsense? Where do these people get these teachings? Who's responsible? Honestly I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of the gov officials who have to catch and persecute these idiots, because they cant unless they do something illegal. But if they don't they will allow certain extreme elements within these groups to go on teaching and preaching the hatred that has been a thorn on the side of the society as a whole. What a mess!

But again, I don't think this is a religious issue, this is a political issue and the ethnic divisions that occur when ignorant masses immigrate from countries like Pakistan etc. Then the British have to limit the number of people coming from there, and or kick them all out enmasse. I've no objections to that. They'd deserve it.

reply to post by petrus4


This is precisely why I don't cover my hair anymore. But its not the fault of the Americans or non Muslims that the world has come to such a tragic existence. It is the fault of ignorant Muslim masses, who instead of using their own judgement and bother learning their religion themselves, trust the interpretations of ignorant clerics.

I remember back when I was a teenager, my entire family and I used to come to the US for vacations, since my mom was covered, she would get a bit of attention from the local ladies, but it was more in the way of wonder, than in the way of hatred. We've had numerous people come up to us and tell us how admirable it was that people still stuck to their religious beliefs and weren't afraid to show them.

But now, the world has changed drastically. Even if I believe that groups who are responsible for showcasing Muslims in a bad light, like Al-Qaeda etc were originally NWO funded and were paid to make my religion look bad, I cannot understand the minds of the IDIOTS who are affected by these groups. I cannot fathom why my friend chooses to hate the British for their hatred in return, rather than simply accepting the fact that theyre not welcome in that culture anymore. As I've said before, Islam with its values and teachings and morales has never failed me, but Muslims have.

And it is due to their overall failure to market themselves in good light, their overall failure to fix their own problems instead of blaming it on the Big Demon the West, that has brought me to a point where I do not wish to show my religion, or tell anyone about it unless specifically asked. And if its at all possible, I'd like to avoid the conversation of religion in the first place because well, it brings out the ugly side of other people, that I'd rather not see. Their prejudices, their incompassion, or their general hatred of all things Islam. I think God would prefer that I avoid the non Muslims their insults to my religion and Prophet by avoiding the subject completely. At least then they would not be speaking ignorance but keep it to themselves.

REMINDER

In case anyone has missed this policy, please read the following:

**ALL MEMBERS** The recent surge in Hatred, Racism, and Sheer Stupidity STOPS NOW

reply to post by ollncasino

Originally posted by ollncasino
If you expressed as much outrage about honour killings as you do about the 'bigotry' of talking about honour killings, then I could perhaps not mistake you for an apologist for Muslims who murder women in the name of family honour...

Ohohoh! The ad hominem attacks! And not only that, you're using "apologist" as an insult! Classic tactic! Pity it was exposed in the thread DontTreadOnMe linked above.

Vague and ambiguous phrasing too! Are you suggesting muslims are people who murder women in the name of family honour? Or that I am apologising for those muslims that do? I suppose those non-muslims who murder women in the name of family honour get an okay from you? Vague and ambiguous is always best, because that way one can back out whenever someone accuses them of bigotry!

The study that your original post cited was investigated many kinds of asians, and categorised them by age as well as religion. Since not all of them were muslim, the assertion that:
"One in five British Asians are muslims" and "'Asian' is a euphemism for muslim"
strung together that way is an idiotic lie, as can be seen from the study itself. And the fact that you for some reason seem to be offended by what another person does or doesn't wear speaks much about your outlook.

PS: Just because a person is "ethnically British" is no indication that they can speak english properly. Just go into any major city and speak with them to find that out.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by babloyi
My mistake. Wrong Post. I finally got around to reading through this thread, and while much of what I said has already been mentioned, the bigoted stuff in here is making my head turn! Apologies

If you expressed as much outrage about honour killings as you do about the 'bigotry' of talking about honour killings, then I could perhaps not mistake you for an apologist for Muslims who murder women in the name of family honour...

Back off, olln. Whatever wrong I may have done nusnus or babloyi myself, I will accept no more of your poison towards them; or from anyone else for that matter.

These two are no apologists for radicals. They are Muslims, yes; but according to their own conscience only. They are responsible for their own actions, not for those of anyone else.

If you would attack anyone, then go to the forums of the true radicals and attack them, if you have the courage. Whoever of the radical horde you may have to legitimately fear, Jameela, babloyi, and nusnus are innocent, and I have seen that proven multiple times.

Let there be no one else who spews hate towards them. Let the fascist cowards behind keyboards, as said, go and find real, radical Muslims to fight, if they wish for conflict. I will see no more bile hurled at people of genuine faith and conscience, whose only crime is having Allah as their ishta deva.

If as a non-Muslim, you would see me as a traitor for this, then so be it. If it is also true, that as moderates, they would not do the same for me against the radicals of their own faith, as I am an infidel to them, then so be it also. But my own Goddess has pleaded to me for them, and I will ignore her no longer.

reply to post by petrus4


The OP has actually distorted the facts of this report from his very first post. But hey who cares about facts when it's easier to post a distorted piece with the intention of rallying anger against young British Asians. It wasn't 1 in 5 it was 6%. Quite a smaller figure, but doesn't make for a catchy thread title.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by nusnus
I don't know what it is, but for the British to blame the Muslims living there without considering how they might have looked down upon them as they came, sounds like the way Americans blame Mexicans for every wrong thing they do.

Perhaps it is her insistence to cover her hair, as an immigrant, not a tourist, that upsets British people?

When in Rome, do as the Romans do...

Unless you are a Muslim immigrant, of course. Then you expect the host culture to bend to you.

In fact, rather than uncover her hair, or leave the UK, your Muslim friend was driven into the arms of Bin Laden...

What is it about Muslims that make them like that? Their religion perhaps?

edit on 5-4-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)

What is it about cloth that makes you angry?

Assimilation means 'to render similar', but I believe I can be in your society and be a contributing factor for the good. Why would I have to be exactly the same as everyone else?

Is it not differences that make us unique individuals? It is our differences which contribute to a well rounded society, if some were not different in the way they approach the sciences our world would not be what it is today.. I do not have to be the same as you.

In action I am who and what I am.

I do not have to walk naked before you in order to contribute to the good. I contribute from my heart, my mind, my good actions. Cloth does not effect these good things, cloth is just cloth, but it keeps purity between men and women. It keeps you from turning your head to stare at my behind as I walk by while you are experiencing lewd thoughts.

It is only cloth, it represents purity, and protects purity. If my purity angers you, then anything which is pure is what you desire to destroy.

Why am I not free to wear more cloth?


How does cloth make you fear me?



files.abovetopsecret.com...




files.abovetopsecret.com...


When contribution to society is connected to a lack of cloth, then what society desires to be contributed has nothing to do with intelligence, with good actions, with heart. I wont be 'eye candy' but I can be your doctor, your pharmacist, your lawyer, your co-worker, your nurse, your friend. Cloth does not effect these things. And if it does, perhaps you are the one who needs to rethink things.