I have lived in Muslim countries and I have worked with them and for them.

KSA is a desolate pit only suitable for the medieval peasants who live there. Saudis should not be allowed in the UK.

You need to remember that all Muslims are indoctrinated from birth and are bound by their faith. KSA (Saudia Arabia) is fundng the building of mosques throughout the UK.

In a few years they Muslims will outnumber us as they make more children. In about 20 -30 years we will be ruled by Sharia law.

Watch what happens...

hmmm

The problem the West has with Islam is that there are many facets to the religion (as with all religions). Many of us meet people holding a wide range of beliefs but sometimes will not be aware of the fact and sometimes will not understand the nuances of the differences between two strands of the same religion. I know this mostly because as a Jew there are huge similarities between the two religious, especially in the aspect of differences between strands. The disparity in beliefs can be so large as to wonder of they are indeed of the same religion.

So, general Islamophobia is probably a disguise for a form of racism. However there are many strands of Islam of which one should be very concerned. Wahabiism - as practiced by the Saudis - in a very strict form of the religion and that form is growing in power and numbers of adherents. Note that at the height of the refugee crisis last summer, we all asked " where is the help from the wealthy Arab countries?". The answer was that Saudi Arabia offered money - but only to build 120 new mosques in the UK. That kind of help we don't need. Al Queda stems from Wahabiism.

On the other hand, the Sufis and Ahamdis (like the Glasgow shop keeper murdered by another Muslim) are very much live and let live. The differences also arise from the culture of the source of the immigrant. Wearing the burka has no basis in Islam per se, but comes from a general source requiring women to be modest and is then 'gold plated' by the place the woman comes from. The burka is apparently rare in Iran but obviously very prevelant in Afghanistan.

I am concerned about growing numbers of radical Moslems in Europe and the lack of response from the governments, but to assume that all Moslems are trying to take over and/or kill us is simply over the top.

I am pretty surprised and appalled at John F's post.

"Ever since they sabred their way into Jerusalem, sparking off the 'crusades', they have apparently been 'trying to take over' when and wherever they can. When they become numerous in a nation, even giving them their own countries (east and west pakistan) has been no solution."

The word "they" is here applied to the Muslims who captured Jerusalem in 1098 (I assume this is what is meant); these people were North African Arabs. The people who were given East and West Pakistan were/are an ethnically diverse group, but not North African Arabs. By the way, East Pakistan is now called Bangladesh. There are other Arabic and non-Arabic Muslim countries, of course. But there is no "one nation" here.

Or is the word "they" being used to mean Muslims? If so, this is to confuse political identity with religious identity. And I have a strong suspicion that we are dealing with the well-known prejudiced mentality of "they (in this case Muslims) are all the same".

The matter of the Scottish newsagent is interesting precisely because it illustrates the fact that not all Muslims are the same. The victim belonged to a group that had moderate and inclusive views; the murderer had extreme views.

I doubt that clerics, being scholars, have either the time or the inclination to develop weaponry, though the extreme ones would probably encourage others to do so.

I am unaware of what China has done that shows it grasps the "enormity of the problem". As for evoking Trump - why that dangerous buffoon should be regarded as speaking any kind of sense on any subject I have no idea, except that he seems to appeal to those with much prejudice and little intelligence.

I hope no-one thinks that I believe that there is no threat from extreme forms of Islam. I believe there is an inevitability that further atrocities will be committed all over the world. But to treat all Muslims as potential terrorists bent on taking over the world is to fall into the trap that the extremists have set; nothing would please them more than for non-Muslims to treat every Muslim as an enemy and produce the backlash that would result. That is the real danger.

Edited by FP on 10/08/2016 at 17:46

Have a look at any of these links so you can understand how misguided the terrrorists are.

www.muslimsforpeace.org/

Pleasant though your link is, one man's misguidance is another's divine purpose. Like it or not, there is an idealogy conducting an ongoing physical war against humane secular society as we know it. That ideology is Islam, its adherents are Muslims (who cherry-pick its obligations at their peril) and its stated aim is to make everyone believe there is a god/allah/jehovah and to bring the whole world under Islamic law by force. If you want to learn a bit more about it, try this link to an old article by an American academic who specialises in the subject.

www.meforum.org/2159/are-judaism-and-christianity-...m

That's me done on this - not keen on a fatwa.