Muslim preacher ‘who advocated dying while fighting jihad’ given platform at London U

[Kalis]

Well, he spoke shit and then flip-flopped on it.
If that is good enough to become president it's good enough to speak somewhere.

President of Malta flip flops? I don't know anything about her, other than it is a her, not a him.

Aren't you normally fighting for freedom of speech?

Allowing him to speak is up to the university, as far as I can see nothing he said breaks any laws, as objectionable as his views are. As ctd123 pointed out, he dances on the line, giving him a platform where his views are debated may push him over the line into illegality.

Sure, but if this somehow makes him a radical supporting terrorism, then me liking apples makes me a radical supporting Chinese Cultural Revolution. I prefer to judge people's words, not their background; people change their views over the years, and it doesn't matter to me personally what he said somewhere 10 years ago. We are talking about him being given a speech platform at London U, so in this context it only matters what he says nowadays and what he is going to say there, not what he believes "deep inside".

It seems to me that people only are against it because he is a Muslim who has said something controversial. No one seems to have a problem with people like Pence speaking at universities, who is actually an open homophobe advocating for forced "conversion therapy". Free speech either is applied to all, or to none. It is stupid to only allow those people with controversial views speak who happen to be on the side of your civilization, this isn't what free speech is about.

I have no love for all these preachers with semi-totalitarian views. At the same time, we are already giving the platform to many of them, so I don't see how this case is any different.

Many speakers, who aren't anywhere near as contoversial as this person, e.g. Richard Dawkins and Germaine Greer, are barred from speaking by left wing student bodies, but this man is given a free pass due to him ticking the Muslim box.

You've got the double standard correct, you've got whose guilty of doing it wrong.

[Theinquisition]

After listening to some of his views and speeches, he does not come across as nice, pleasant, or reasonable.

I think the common theme of a lot of his thoughts I would use is anti-semitic.

Pretty much.

The dude is clearly unhinged.

- - - Updated - - -

President of Malta flip flops? I don't know anything about her, other than it is a her, not a him.



Allowing him to speak is up to the university, as far as I can see nothing he said breaks any laws, as objectionable as his views are. As ctd123 pointed out, he dances on the line, giving him a platform where his views are debated may push him over the line into illegality.



Many speakers, who aren't anywhere near as contoversial as this person, e.g. Richard Dawkins and Germaine Greer, are barred from speaking by left wing student bodies, but this man is given a free pass due to him ticking the Muslim box.

You've got the double standard correct, you've got whose guilty of doing it wrong.

Maybe that's all conservative speakers have to do to be able to speak at universities, just claim to be muslim

[Kalis]

Maybe that's all conservative speakers have to do to be able to speak at universities, just claim to be muslim

It does seem to trump being a woman (Germaine Greer) and gay (Milo Yiannopoulos, or Miles Johnson as it would be if he didn't have such a silly name).

Germaine Greer isn't even a conservative, she is a prominent 1970s feminist, but she doesn't regard transsexuals as women and that view is a no-no under identity politics, so she gets the banhammer.

[Theinquisition]

It does seem to trump being a woman (Germaine Greer) and gay (Milo Yiannopoulos, or Miles Johnson as it would be if he didn't have such a silly name).

Germaine Greer isn't even a conservative, she is a prominent 1970s feminist, but she doesn't regard transsexuals as women and that view is a no-no under identity politics, so she gets the banhammer.

Indeed.

Advocate the murder of non believers........cool

Say they believe you are the gender corresponding with the genitals you are born with......nope

[Kalis]

Indeed.

Advocate the murder of non believers........cool

Say they believe you are the gender corresponding with the genitals you are born with......nope

Not agreeing with modern feminist agenda...banned for misogyny.

Advocate beating women...come on in.

[Theinquisition]

Not agreeing with modern feminist agenda...banned for misogyny.

Advocate beating women...come on in.

Do they want a trump? Because this is how you get a trump

[NED funded]

It does seem to trump being a woman (Germaine Greer) and gay (Milo Yiannopoulos, or Miles Johnson as it would be if he didn't have such a silly name).

Germaine Greer isn't even a conservative, she is a prominent 1970s feminist, but she doesn't regard transsexuals as women and that view is a no-no under identity politics, so she gets the banhammer.

I don't get this. Isn't the majority of the UK goverment conservative? Shouldn't they do something about it?

[Collegeguy]

Maybe that's all conservative speakers have to do to be able to speak at universities, just claim to be muslim

I think you're on to something here.

[Kalis]

I don't get this. Isn't the majority of the UK goverment conservative? Shouldn't they do something about it?

This is not a Westminster issue, it is a university administrator issue.

[Spectral]

Indeed.

Advocate the murder of non believers........cool

Say they believe you are the gender corresponding with the genitals you are born with......nope

As always, the important thing here is "who, whom?". If a Muslim is advocating killing white Christians, it's probably because they were oppressed - after all, have you looked at the oppressed-oppressor access? Likewise, a privileged white feminist that doesn't believe Caitlyn Jenner has always been a woman is just a transmisogynist.

[Kalis]

Why don't you two take a room and continue the circle-jerk?

First of all, he claims he didn't say those things. In other words: he distances himself from it.
Let's not forget that people asked him to come and speak there.
The only on that could ban this guy is the university and they don't feel like it.

So the hours of videos of him saying those things are all fake? That seems implausible.

- - - Updated - - -

As always, the important thing here is "who, whom?". If a Muslim is advocating killing white Christians, it's probably because they were oppressed - after all, have you looked at the oppressed-oppressor access? Likewise, a privileged white feminist that doesn't believe Caitlyn Jenner has always been a woman is just a transmisogynist.

I think a transmisogynist would be a transsexual person that hates women, as 'miso-' is 'hate'.

Though trans- is Latin, so fuck that Greek-Latin abomination.

[Spectral]

I think a transmisogynist would be a transsexual person that hates women, as 'miso-' is 'hate'.

Though trans- is Latin, so fuck that Greek-Latin abomination.

I think you're making the mistake of attributing linguistic coherence to intersectionality lunatics. Here's transmisogyny on Wiki:

Transmisogyny (sometimes trans-misogyny) is the intersection of transphobia and misogyny. It was coined by Julia Serano in her 2007 book Whipping Girl and used to describe the unique discrimination faced by trans women because of "the assumption that femaleness and femininity are inferior to, and exist primarily for the benefit of, maleness and masculinity",[1][2][3] and the way that transphobia intensifies the misogyny faced by trans women (and vice versa).[1] Transmisogyny is a central concept in transfeminism and is commonly seen in intersectional feminist theory.

Whatever.

[Sarange]

The issue is really that all "jihad" means is "struggle". An alcoholic fighting his addiction is fighting a jihad. A feminist like Malala Yousafzai fighting for women's education rights in Afghanistan, that's jihad. There's no explicit connection to violence in there. It's a term that can INCLUDE violent struggles, just like the English word "fight" can refer to both non-violent struggles (fighting an illness) and violence. Really, people mostly react badly because it's OH MY GOD SCARY ARABIC WORD. Like ALGEBRA.

"Dying while fighting jihad" is basically just a way of saying "fighting to the death". That's it. You could paraphrase Voltaire as "i disagree with what you say, but I'll engage in jihad to the death to defend your right to say it". And that doesn't change the meaning.

Then again... Jihad was also used for military advancement to promote islam. It is not just internal struggle, even if that was the original meaning.
The context in which jihad is used matter alot. Though, it is easier just to call people islamophobes.

[Deleted]

The last guy who attacked me with Jihad was Cubia. Wouldn't take them serious tbh. There is very little evidence that people honestly take actions due to their religion. Neither crusaders nor nazis honestly believed in their course, they were just human beings drunk by power.

So let them talk, but in most cases nothing happens. They are very disappointing.

[Endus]

Then again... Jihad was also used for military advancement to promote islam. It is not just internal struggle, even if that was the original meaning.
The context in which jihad is used matter alot. Though, it is easier just to call people islamophobes.

Obviously, context matters. But "jihad" is just the Arabic word for "effort". It's loosely comparable to the English word "fight". Which, yes, has violent interpretations, but ALSO non-violent ones. Is "fighting cancer" violent? Is "fighting a losing battle" an expression that always suggests physical violence? Of course not. Anyone making that argument would be laughed at, because of how obviously-ridiculous it is.

And suggesting that "jihad" is violent is exactly as ridiculous, and the only reason people feel otherwise is that they speak English and not Arabic, and they have some need to lash out at Muslims.

[Theinquisition]

Obviously, context matters. But "jihad" is just the Arabic word for "effort". It's loosely comparable to the English word "fight". Which, yes, has violent interpretations, but ALSO non-violent ones. Is "fighting cancer" violent? Is "fighting a losing battle" an expression that always suggests physical violence? Of course not. Anyone making that argument would be laughed at, because of how obviously-ridiculous it is.

And suggesting that "jihad" is violent is exactly as ridiculous, and the only reason people feel otherwise is that they speak English and not Arabic, and they have some need to lash out at Muslims.

I'm sure there are thousands of victims of Isis who would love to argue the meaning of the word "jihad" with you.

[tehealadin]

And suggesting that "jihad" is violent is exactly as ridiculous, and the only reason people feel otherwise is that they speak English and not Arabic, and they have some need to lash out at Muslims.

Well this isn't true, is it? If I could speak Arabic, it wouldn't change the fact that for most people in the West, when they hear about Jihad, someone got murdered. Jihad becoming synonymous with violent extremism isn't solely about the language that people speak, the violent Islamists play a large role in that. Sure, many people think Jihad only means murdering the infidel, I don't dispute that, however in the absence of violent Islamists, do you honestly think that non Arabic speakers would consider Jihad as an act of violence?

[rammsz]

From someone who is born in the middle east (Bahrain), and raised a muslim (but an athiest), Jihad is just a scary word that non-arabs or non-muslims get scared of. It doesn't mean what you think. BUT, I do agree with you about how they could have someone go up on the platform that says its okay to treat your wives like that.

Also, OP, you have a serious problem on Muslims. Where I am from jews and muslims live peacefully. We disagree with all terrorist groups, and we believe in equality, we believe that women are independent. Not all Muslims are like that, there are a bunch of extreme muslims more than there are extreme jews and christians. It sucks, but I hate it when peaceful people are thrown into that category.

[garr21]

Why don't you two take a room and continue the circle-jerk?

First of all, he claims he didn't say those things. In other words: he distances himself from it.
Let's not forget that people asked him to come and speak there.
The only on that could ban this guy is the university and they don't feel like it.

Last of all: The guy has already spoken at the dinner. Nothing about it in the papers.

You know if your going to follow the social justice rules better follow them to the letter, we found a hole in the logic and are discusing it. That does not make it a circle-jerk. I saw what you did there just so you know(trying to derail).

Oh and if he did not say those things why is there documented cases where he did? (google search for more information)
If he was a white male you would be calling for his fucking head and deplaformed him so fast he would have got wiplash.
If i hurt your feelings apply to Endus and he can infract me for it ya big baby.

[Endus]

Well this isn't true, is it? If I could speak Arabic, it wouldn't change the fact that for most people in the West, when they hear about Jihad, someone got murdered. Jihad becoming synonymous with violent extremism isn't solely about the language that people speak, the violent Islamists play a large role in that. Sure, many people think Jihad only means murdering the infidel, I don't dispute that, however in the absence of violent Islamists, do you honestly think that non Arabic speakers would consider Jihad as an act of violence?

You do realize that what you're describing here is textbook prejudice, right? People reacting irrationally based on personal bias.