Page 1 of 2

The London police's definition of Islamophobia

PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:26 am
by Ariel
How awful. This is the London police's definition of Islamophobia , and it includes any criticism of Islam as a religion and the impact it has had on culture.

The state protection of Islam is a blatant violation of the separation of religion and state. :ohmy:


Image

Re: The London police's definition of Islamophobia

PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:32 pm
by manfred
I have a question.... do they mean that ALL eight things TOGETHER must be met before something is "islamophobic" or any one of them or a number of them?

1 to 5 describe demonstrable facts. So we all must deny facts?

Re: The London police's definition of Islamophobia

PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:29 pm
by Fernando
I think No.7 on its own would be considered sufficient, so I suspect any - rather than all together - would do the job.
How on earth have we come to this Orwellian situation? Has there been any primary legislation that allows "hate crime" to be a charge simply because a single, unconnected person says something is "Islamophobic"? And does this primary legislation openly define it by a publication of the Runnymede (ha!)* Trust and derived, I believe, from the Muslim Brotherhood?
*For those outside the UK
It is notable for its association with the sealing of Magna Carta

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runnymede

Re: The London police's definition of Islamophobia

PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:41 pm
by Fernando
In another thread, sum says
I maintain that the fundamental relationship is based on the hatred and enmity of muslims towards non-mulims as Koran 60:4 dictates.

Should the police then not adopt a crime of "Infidelophobia" and compile a matching list of eight sins?

Re: The London police's definition of Islamophobia

PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:15 pm
by Garudaman
manfred wrote:1 to 5 describe demonstrable facts. So we all must deny facts?

what demonstrable facts? you mean your demonstrable lies? & yes we all must condemn lies! :lol:

Re: The London police's definition of Islamophobia

PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:46 pm
by manfred
One to five are simply true, and no amount of "political correctness" can alter that. We can produce huge amounts of evidence from Islamic sources that establish these points really beyond reasonable doubt.

Very briefly:

1) Islam is fundamentalist. This prevents change.
2) Muslims see themselves as superior to others and separate from them, as the Qur'an teaches this.
3)It is irrational to pretend that a book full of errors and hatred could be written by God. Sharia is primitive and barbaric. Women are treated as possessions.
4)Islam has always been political, and has been spread through violence.
5)The declared aim of Islam is world domination.

As to 6, I look at criticism if it has merits, and the who raised it is irrelevant.

About 7: Not all Muslims are the same, and not all follow the teachings of Islam fully. I do not want to exclude Muslims from society, but neither will I accept Muslims demanding others to adapt to them. We are a secular country. I expect Muslims to do the same as I would do in a foreign country: Accept the rule of law (ONE law only) and respect your fellow citizens. Do not expect society to give you special treatment because of your religion.

About 8: I oppose Islam as an ideology, but not Muslims as people.

Re: The London police's definition of Islamophobia

PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:45 am
by Garudaman
that's because you dont know how liberal the Quran could be :

QS. 96
Have you seen the one who forbids (9) A servant when he prays? (10) Have you seen if he is upon guidance (11) Or enjoins righteousness? (12) Have you seen if he denies and turns away - (13) Does he not know that Allah sees?

QS. 4:75. And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and children who say, "Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people and appoint for us from Yourself a protector and appoint for us from Yourself a helper?"

QS. 9:13. Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time?


see? the command of the Quran is the command based on the logic reason, so basically without the logic reason there's no command, & with the kind of verses :

QS. 28:77. do good as Allah has done good to you

QS. 5:32. whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely

QS. 5:34. Except for those who return [repenting] before you apprehend them. And know that Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.


if you see the verse like this :

QS. 5:38. [As for] the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands in recompense for what they committed as a deterrent [punishment] from Allah. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.

QS. 24:2. The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day.


you can interpret those mentioned punishments as the less punishment as long its can stops those crime.

Re: The London police's definition of Islamophobia

PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:14 am
by sum
Hello Garudaman

Islamophobia is an oxymoron as you well know. Fear of Islam is rational, NOT irrational

So far there are over 33,000 known jihadi attacks worldwide with random killings in just about every country since 9/11. Not knowing whether there is going to be another terror attack where one lives and works is what Muhammad wanted - Victory by Terror. What a wonderful man. What a wonderful prophet of a claimed merciful and compassionate god.

Is Allah truly a merciful and compassionate god if he permits the evil Muhammad to spread terror, mutilations, killings and sex slavery? In fact Allah also demands these evils and so makes himself indistinguishable from the evil Muhammad.

Do you support spreading terror by random killing sprees by muslims on non-muslims just as Muhammad did?

sum

Re: The London police's definition of Islamophobia

PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:43 am
by Fernando
A further point: If it is a phobia, should an "Islamophobic" crime be described not as a "hate" crime but as a fear crime? A mother animal will attack an intruder because she fears for her babies and surely delivers a "fear" bite, not a "hate" bite - however right or wrong she might be about the intruder's intentions.

Re: The London police's definition of Islamophobia

PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:06 pm
by manfred
you can interpret those mentioned punishments as the less punishment as long its can stops those crime.


"less" of a punishment? Do tell that to someone who had his hand and foot cut off.

So to you anything is ok as long as it stops the crime? How about tying a person to two cars and tearing him in half on a publish place for bad parking? It may reduce bad parking, so that is fine then?

Boiling people in oil for allowing their dog poop on the street and not clear it up?

And have people in Saudi Arabia, where they carry out such amputations you so casually approve of, stopped stealing?

In your country there are some very stiff punishments for drug offences... have they stopped people using drugs?


And do me a favour garudaman, do not simply post fraction of some verses ... a) you surely know about abrogation and b) some of the verses you mention actually paint a very stark picture if you do not leave things out.

Just one example:

QS. 5:32. whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely


Now, let's look at the bits you left out when you said this:
This is the whole verse:

Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.


And this is the next one:

Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,



So who do we have here? A command not to kill, or a statement about the sanctity of like?

Nothing at all even remotely like that.

The first verse quotes in passing a saying from the Jewish Talmud, not as a command for the Muslims, but as as background statement, a way to make a point about "the Jews".... they are nasty and disobedient, and they do no listen to Mohammed, so they need to be punished, as specified in the verse that follows. It is basically an anti-Semitic, racist rant, not a pious command.

I too can read the Qur'an you know...

Also this:


QS. 24:2. The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day.


The actual text does not say "unmarried", as you know. Sharia prescribes stoning for married "adulterers", including rape victims who complain publicly.

And lashing someone in public is "liberal" to you?

"without pity"? That is "liberal"?

Re: The London police's definition of Islamophobia

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 11:16 am
by Garudaman
manfred wrote:"less" of a punishment? Do tell that to someone who had his hand and foot cut off.

i said less punishment, & less punishment = no hand cut

manfred wrote:This is the whole verse :

the whole verse are QS. 5:27-34, & QS. 5:33-34 basically are another form of QS. 5:27-32.

manfred wrote:And lashing someone in public is "liberal" to you?

less punishment than lashing = no lashing = liberal

Re: The London police's definition of Islamophobia

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:09 pm
by sum
Hello Garudaman

There have been over 33,000 known jihad attacks in many different countries.

Do you condemn them all or perhaps just some or perhaps none at all?

These attacks are the reason why there is rapidly increasing Islamorealism.

sum

Re: The London police's definition of Islamophobia

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:12 pm
by Garudaman
sum wrote:Hello Garudaman

There have been over 33,000 known jihad attacks in many different countries.

Do you condemn them all or perhaps just some or perhaps none at all?

These attacks are the reason why there is rapidly increasing Islamorealism.

sum

do you have evidence those are technically really jihad attacks?

Re: The London police's definition of Islamophobia

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 5:32 pm
by sum
Hello Garudaman

When they shout Allahu-Akbar while committing the atrocity then I would claim that it is jihad.

Do you agree and so condemn these atrocities?

sum

Re: The London police's definition of Islamophobia

PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 1:51 am
by Ibn Rushd
Well, #2, Islam has influenced others. They influenced Medieval Christianity to bring back the slave trade, gave us the Inquisition(s) and gave us racial hierarchy. So Islam is clearly not on its own on this one.

Re: The London police's definition of Islamophobia

PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 12:43 pm
by Fernando
Brendan O'Neill has an excellent article in Spiked.
No, Islamophobia is not the new anti‑Semitism


Brendan O’Neill
Editor

It is historically illiterate to compare criticism of Islam with hatred of Jews.
He dismisses "Islamophobia" for what it is - political coinage.
Anti-Muslim prejudice unquestionably exists, but Islamophobia is an invention. Don’t take my word for it. Take the word of the Runnymede Trust, one of Britain’s leading race-equality think-tanks. It openly boasts that it is ‘credited with coining the term Islamophobia… in 1997’. And what does this term Islamophobia mean? It doesn’t mean racial hatred. Runnymede’s definition of Islamophobia, which has been adopted by the Metropolitan Police, includes any suggestion that Islam is ‘inferior to the West’, and even the belief that Islam is sexist. If you think Islam is ‘unresponsive to change’, you are Islamophobic. And, get this, if you ‘reject out of hand’ ‘criticisms of the West made by Islam’, you’re an Islamophobe. So even to ridicule Islam’s view of the West is apparently to be infected with the ‘cancer’ of this so-called racism.

These are criticisms of religion. In a free society they ought to be entirely legitimate views, subject to no punishment whatsoever. And yet the police actually say in their internal documents that the ideas listed above count as ‘Islamophobia’. That is chilling. Anti-Muslim prejudice is out there, yes. But ‘Islamophobia’ is an elite invention, a top-down conceit, designed to chill open discussion about religion and values and to protect one particular religion from blasphemy.

Do please read it all at
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/no-islamophobia-is-not-the-new-anti-semitism/21474

Re: The London police's definition of Islamophobia

PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 6:31 am
by Garudaman
sum wrote:Hello Garudaman

When they shout Allahu-Akbar while committing the atrocity then I would claim that it is jihad.

Do you agree and so condemn these atrocities?

sum

everybody can shout AllahuAkbar, make statement this is what Islam teach, or quote Quran verse! :wot:

Re: The London police's definition of Islamophobia

PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 6:43 am
by sum
Hello Garudaman

Do you agree that muslims have engaged in murderous jihad at least 33,000 times since 9/11?

sum

Re: The London police's definition of Islamophobia

PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 12:14 pm
by Ariel
A woman who asked police why some muslims were being allowed to pray in London's Hyde Park, (praying in London's Royal Parks is illegal, regardless of the religion), finds herself under arrest at her home.

The police apparently claimed there was a possible homophobic element driving the arrest, and a suspicion of perversion of the course of justice, which is of course the MET's job.

Other than the South Yorkshire Police Force, which appears to have been run by criminals since the 1970s, London's MET is the most corrupt force in the UK.



Re: The London police's definition of Islamophobia

PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 3:44 pm
by Ariel
Police Defend Thousands of Hours Spent Investigating ‘Hate Incidents’ Amidst Crime Epidemic

Police across 30 forces have wasted thousands of hours reviewing 11,236 ‘hate incidents’, figures have revealed, while crime and violence surge in Britain and the vast majority of robberies go unsolved.
The National Police Chiefs’ Council defended the protocol as “vital” after the 2015-16 figures were revealed, which included such ‘hate incidents’ – acts too trivial to be classed as crimes – as people complaining of barking dogs and of receiving “racist looks” from strangers.

Since the government’s release of an action plan in which success is defined as maximising the number of ‘hate’ complaints, police have proactively solicited reports of such incidents from the public and are required to record and investigate each one by sending an officer or making telephone calls.

According to the Daily Mail, which notes that even just 15 minutes spent looking into each incident would have taken up 3,750 hours of officers’ time, the reports included people offended by newspaper cartoons and a student claiming to have been refused drinks in a bar due to alleged racism.

Such incidents are upgraded to a ‘hate crime’ if a law is found to be broken.

A “non-conforming-gender-specific lesbian” reported being the victim of a so-called hate incident when a man stood “intimidatingly” close to her wheelchair, while another complainant alleged the barking of a man’s dog was “racist”.

One in 20 of the reported incidents related to posts made on social media, the Mail reports, with one case involving a woman informing police that someone on Facebook had told her she bore a physical resemblance to the character of Peter Griffin from the cartoon Family Guy.

A National Police Chiefs’ Council spokesman said: “By recording and reviewing reports of hate incidents, police forces play a vital role in helping prevent hate crime.

“Officers can often use these reports as an indication of where and when tensions could escalate into violence. Victims and those feeling vulnerable should report any incident of hate crime to the police.”

Image
Labour-controlled Hackney council is sending 'Enforcement Officers' to mosques to encourage them to report "hate crimes".