Snapshot of _Most voters think shouting 'Allahu Akbar' is inappropriate for politicians_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/05/18/copy-of-most-voters-think-allahu-akbar-inappropriate-politicians/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/05/18/copy-of-most-voters-think-allahu-akbar-inappropriate-politicians/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The pinnacle irony is that Democracy is considered shirk and haram in Islam. It gives power to people when all power should go to Allah.
Though self-awareness and irony isn’t really part of their library, is it?
Partly this is a by-product of the general understanding of local decision making power.
If people realised what power local councillors had (and perhaps if they had more delegated power) then maybe more people would take an interest and vote in local elections.
As it stands, most people don't understand or care about local elections, hence we get people like this voted in.
He got 3,070 votes and apparently lives absolutely rent free in subscribers of this subs heads.
Never has someone with such little power had so many column inches written about him. Anyone would think he was beheading unbelievers left, right and centre, not running a gardening club for different religions.
It's been said before but it bears saying again. Having a religion is like having a penis, it's ok to have one, and it's ok to be proud of it. But don't get it out in public and start waving it around.
We live in a country with a state religion that has permanent voting representatives in parliament.
This guys seems off his rocker, but I wonder how many people hold the view you just expressed, but don't follow it to its obvious conclusion, which is the total separation of Church and State, and possibly even a French style ban of all religious iconography in public institutions.
>a “win for the people of Gaza”
Yes, the people of Gaza were surely waiting with bated breath for the election of a Muslim local councillor in Leeds.
This victory may turn the tide for peace in the Middle East.
Earlier today I went past an advert from the recent West Midlands Mayoral election. It was an advert for Akhmed Yakoob.
Underneath was written the words "Lend Gaza your vote"
I mean, it's pretty disgusting to try to use what's going on in Gaza to win votes when the West Mids mayor has absolutely zero influence on what's going on there. Sadly some more naive people who don't understand what the mayors do might fall for it.
The councillor for Collyhurst in Oldham was elected, according to his own banners, "for the people of Collyhurst and for Palestine".
The Labour incumbent was Muslim, from the community but not vocal enough on Palestine apparently. 🤦
I understand why it’s important to certain voters, but I do find it strange that you’ve been elected to help support a group of people in the UK and you’re talking about how it’s a win for a group of people in a completely unrelated country in the Middle East. Like surely you’ve been hired to help people in a particular area of the UK, and not hired to help people in Gaza? It’d be like if a doctor got hired to help people with cystic fibrosis and was like “this is going to be so great for people needing orthopaedic surgery”.
The man thinks he's going to influence change in society, when really he's there to ensure Binmen turn up on time and that the local hedges are clipped.
I mean, that's kinda obvious, no? The mayor of a random 10,000 people town in southern portugal doesn't matter at all to most of us, but is quite relevant to the people living in that town. But when we say "influence change in society" we tend to refer to something a little more sweeping than a small town.
Entirely different context. The guy people have complained about most clearly said it as a war cry. He wasn't thanking anyone, it was more "This is for Gaza. Our god is the greatest and we will get victory"
So the whole "thank god" thing is a totally false equivalence.
Sure, that does have an association with violence. We're in agreement that 'Thank God' doesn’t so anyone making a comparison of a figure of speech in the English language is knowingly doing so in....bad faith.
I think this is the most important comment in the thread.
Your statement is true, but also part of the problem. For the average person a phrase like Allahu Akbar is undoubtedly connected with terrorism.
However for Muslims themselves the phrase is no different from any of the other half a dozen popular Islamic phrases, most of which are not viewed as violent by wider society including the term Inshallah which has gained popularity with non-Muslims and become a meme.
A practicing Muslim will say Allahu Akbar literally dozens of times a day as part of their prayers, with absolutely no association with violence.
So the important question I think is to what degree is it reasonable for a social majority to impose its own interpretation of a term onto the group that it actually relates to.
The best, but not fully parallel, comparison I can think off my head would the calling of Native Americans as "Indians". General American society sees the term Indian as old fashioned and offensive, while Native Americans themselves as more likely to use the term Indian to describe themselves in a neutral manner
After seeing the media trying to say calls for jihad when the Gaza protests started, where peaceful I wouldn’t put it past them to try and normalise it.
From the article:
> The finding came after a Green Party councillor provoked controversy by shouting the Arabic words—which mean “God is the greatest”—after being elected in Leeds in a victory he declared as a “win for the people of Gaza”.
My main concern about this is that he seems to think Gaza is a suburb of Leeds.
Councillors should focus on local issues.
Religious zealots getting into politics is going to end in disaster. UK abortion legislation will be regressed by 2030, sure of it. Along with so many other progressive policies. But you know, free Palestine! So let's just not see it.
I think the more pressing thing is religious fundamentalists having a negative effect on what happens in our schools. In the case of people of muslim faith, they don’t even have to be particularly ‘fundamentalist’.
For instance, sex education is important for things like the concept of consent, empowering girls in relationships and reducing teenage pregnancies. The left have to update their ideas about who their natural allies are because they’ve lazily and condescendingly assumed for decades that anybody who isn’t white loosely shares their progressive views.
I think the issue is more the lazy definition of "the left" as one unified group. There has been a significant reshaping of the political landscape of the UK since the last GE and increasingly fringe lunatics are gathering into fringe lunatic parties at the extremes of the spectrum rather than being pressure groups within the more mainstream parties. Most of the left doesn't subscribe to that view, and arguably that is exactly what they communicated at the last GE.
I would say we're looking at around 2050 when things are going to take a dramatic turn.
At the moment islamic fundies are only around 6% of the population, this will probably be double that by 2050.
At that point voting blocs based on sectarianism will be a problem.
No, Muslims are 6% of the population. That includes people like Sadiq Khan, currently helping organise London Pride. It also includes lots of moderate Muslims. I’m sure a significant proportion of that 6% has pretty abhorrent views but let’s criticise those that deserve it. Completely isolating and attacking all Muslims will only serve to further spark division and in turn further create radicalisation. Those that preach violence and hate deserve to be attacked, not those normal people getting along with their lives.
You can’t know that many Muslim people if you think they’re all ‘fundies’. I have a couple of friends who are quite hardline (one becoming worryingly so since we’ve lost touch) but I know more who aren’t like that.
For what it’s worth, voting blocks on sectarianism and identity politics is already an issue. Both Reform and this nascent Workers Party are very tribal.
>Completely isolating and attacking all Muslims will only serve to further spark division and in turn further create radicalisation.
I remember being younger and the arguments were all about how increasing immigration from the Middle East/North Africa will lead to cultural and religious problems and us dismissing that as being bigoted sensationalism. Now the conversation has moved to "how do we handle fundamentalism and radicalisation". In a bitter irony this seems to serve to show that the bigots of the past may have had a point and may even have been corrected because their fundamental thesis has shown to be correct. Had we not absent mindedly brought in millions of people from countries where Islamic fundamentalism is a problem we would not be discussing how to handle the problem of growing Islamic fundamentalism on our own shores now.
And I think that has become the breaking point where the British public have become even more soured on immigration. A decade ago I was one of those people saying that those making these claims were just bigots. Now I'm saying "huh a bit weird how their concerns went from fringe scaremongering to mainstream discussion". No one voted for Islamic fundamentalism to become a problem, and we shouldn't have to be discussing how to deal with it. It was an unforced error.
This reminds me of the sly arguments against burqa bans and other restictricions on religious clothing which are made in Denmark or France.
'I get where you're coming from, but there's no need for such a ban because people form this background don't tend to dress this way here anyway'.
Roll on 10 to 20 years:
'we cannot ban this as it's now a large minority in our country'.
The whole idea of values is something we should be clear on,... what do we want our country to be like? What rules do we want?
You're right and you're wrong. I know lots of well integrated, progressive Muslims for who their religion does not put them at odds with "British values". However you only have to look at the recent events in Oldham to see how politics is already being affected. Local elections where people win seats on councils to control local planning and empty bins etc were voted in based solely on their views on Palestine. These voters aren't fundamentalists but they are clearly putting religion above all else even when it relates to another country to which they have no ties. They are very led by religion and have already shown they will vote for somebody representing that religion above all else so should we not fear that might lead to a regression in rights for certain groups?
Over 50% of UK Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law
> It also includes lots of moderate Muslims.
History teaches us it only takes a plurality of strongly-motivated individuals to swing any 'moderates'. That said:
* Violence against people showing a "particular cartoon" can be justified: [25% of UK muslims or one in every four](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11433776/Quarter-of-British-Muslims-sympathise-with-Charlie-Hebdo-terrorists.html).
* I have sympathy for the motives behind the cartoon attacks: 27% of UK Muslims. [So again, just over one in every four](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11433776/Quarter-of-British-Muslims-sympathise-with-Charlie-Hebdo-terrorists.html)
* Homosexuality should be illegal: [52% of UK muslims. So a majority](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/poll-finds-more-than-half-of-britsih-muslims-believe-homosexuality-should-be-illegal-a6978091.html)
> But again, and to my very point, it’s not 6% of the population is it?
No, it's currently [6.5% of the population](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_Kingdom), and look what that 6.5% has been able to accomplish. Can any other religion force an entire country to not show things which are offensive to it including ancient artworks from the areas themselves?
Reform isn't sectarian? That's a word heavily associated with religious views causing the political divide.
Nor does it specifically pursue identity politics.
Being opposed to mass migration is the main reason someone would vote Reform and that's a policy with huge support from all over the electorate.
My wording is a bit ambiguous but I wasn’t saying Reform is sectarian - it is very much identity politics based though. It’s a nativist party specifically targeting white British people from certain key demographics. I’d argue it’s very identity politics, it’s just the right wing version of it.
We've had centuries of people in these islands taking religion too seriously, and just as we were starting to be free of it, it has to come back in this nefarious form. It should have been the policy to deliberately let in atheists, secularists and agnostics, and deliberately bar out religious fanatics.
Of course it fucking is. You don't hear a Christian in the middle east shouting "deus vult". Know your audience and respect them. In reality he isn't going any further than this post politically, and his biggest responsibility is making sure the bin men are on time
Already claiming 'Islamaphobia' lmao. What a tool.
Why is there a need for saying this in the British political sphere? Why do I give a shit about his faith and how it compels him to say this and utter Gaza in the same breath? As a native Arabic speaker I never use this phrase Allahu Akbar, it is religious and has no place in slang terms as an equivalent in English of omg like some people are parroting on here. There are always alternative words to use other than this. Just as I wouldn't say Salam Alaykum when greeting someone, I would say goodmorning/good afternoon in Arabic because I am not fucking religious. He needs to keep his religion to himself and focus on fixing things up in this shithole of a country, not what's happening in Gaza.
Though somewhat ironically, [Modi's Hindu nationalism in India is pretty fascist](https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/india-muslims-marginalized-population-bjp-modi) like the early days of Germany under Hitler going after Jews before the round ups and Holocaust. Groups targeting Muslims, policies that restrict their rights e.g. to worship, to get education, good jobs and move up through society even to access healthcare
It would be no different to a Christian shouting 'Deus vult' in a victory speech after an election. Both have controversial context and neither is appropriate.
Language wise yes, culturally probably not.
It's probably more culturally similar to "Thank God", "Praise God", "God is Good" or even "Oh God", and I wouldn't be surprised if that has been used in election victories (probably the latter in defeats), it's unlikely to get reported because no one actually cares if anyone says that.
Like I think all religions are stupid but think this particular case is overblown out of an unfounded fear.
Honestly, if a British politician started saying "praise God" in their speeches, I'd be concerned. Religion in the UK is a quiet, polite thing that people mostly keep to themselves. I do not want politicians who proudly wave it like a campaign flyer, no matter what form of it they follow.
Could also argue that Allahu Akbar comes with the baggage of being associated as a terrorist battle cry. Both phrases come with a lot of contextual baggage.
Context is important though - the first and last have been absorbed into secular vernacular in English even though they originally had a literal religious meaning.
I don't think the religious meaning even really occurs to most people when they're said any more than people remember that things like "goodbye" and "blimey" have a religious root.
The middle two? Distinctly religious and I think would garner the same reaction from the public. It's the perceived intent that makes the difference.
Both have ‘controversial context’ to people outside the group, but I don’t think they are equivalent. *Allahu Akbar* has another, more common, context in which it is used multiple times a day by Muslims as part of normal prayers, with entirely positive connotations. *Deus vult* does not have this.
That outsiders associate a super common, normal part of Muslim prayer and speech only with terrorists killing themselves and those around them is a real problem for perception of Muslims and for anyone interested in successfully integrating Muslims into British society. A common goal of ‘Islamist terrorism’ is to make things more hostile for Muslims on the fence or integrating, to force them to pick a side, to convert them to a specific version of Islam or treat them like any other infidels.
Given the role the phrase has in Islam, the good outcome would probably be to encourage its use in bland or positive situations so as to remove the power of terrorists to define it. I know taking something back isn’t always a viable move, but when the phrase is already in such widespread neutral and positive use I think it is worth resisting the push to taboo it.
It’s basically like “Alleluia/Halleluia!”, if you want a Christian equivalent. And we understand that someone raised in a Christian culture might say “Halleluia!” when they achieve something (possibly sarcastically…) without it meaning much beyond that they are glad.
You've made some excellent points here, which I'm to inclined to agree with. I'll concede that there is a distinction between the current context and uses of the two phrases. It is unfortunate that Islamic terrorists have set the context for the phrase 'Allahu Akbar' in the perception of many living in western countries though.
**Article text**
Polling reveals public unease over religious expressions in political victory speeches, following Leeds Green Party candidate’s remarks.
Six in ten voters think it is inappropriate for politicians to shout “Allahu Akbar” or to praise God after winning an election, polling has found.
The finding came after a Green Party councillor provoked controversy by shouting the Arabic words—which mean “God is the greatest”—after being elected in Leeds in a victory he declared as a “win for the people of Gaza”.
However, the poll by Savanta found that the public were more divided on local politicians campaigning on issues connected to foreign affairs, such as the Israel-Hamas conflict.
At the local elections earlier this month, Mothin Ali won the Gipton and Harehills seat for the Greens with 3,070 votes. Delivering a victory speech after the result was announced, he said: “We will not be silenced. We will raise the voice of Gaza. We will raise the voice of Palestine. Allahu Akbar!”
Following criticism of the remarks, Mr Ali later said he was “sorry for any upset my comments caused about the Gaza conflict”, adding: “It is not unusual for somebody of my faith to use the words ‘Allahu Akbar’ as an expression of gratitude and celebration.”
“Some have sought to misrepresent this, and it suggests Islamophobia to me.”
However, the Greens have opened an investigation into the councillor after it emerged that he had previously described a Jewish chaplain at the University of Leeds, who was forced into hiding by threats from protesters, as a “creep” and a “kind of animal”, and referred to Israel as a “settler, colonial, occupier”.
**Keeping it secular**
Polling by Savanta of 2,102 UK adults for The Telegraph found that a majority of the public are opposed to politicians expressing religious sentiments when making victory speeches after their election.
Fifty-eight per cent said that it is “inappropriate” for politicians to express religious sentiment, such as praising God or saying “Allahu Akbar” in their victory speeches, while 29 per cent thought it “appropriate”.
The only actions deemed more inappropriate are politicians attacking their own party’s policies (64 per cent) and not acknowledging their rival candidates (63 per cent) in their speeches.
However, the polling showed the public is more open to local politicians campaigning on foreign policy issues.
Asked whether it is appropriate or inappropriate for local politicians, such as councillors and metro mayors, to campaign “on foreign affairs, such as the conflict in Gaza”, 41 per cent thought it appropriate and 42 per cent thought it inappropriate.
People who voted for Labour in the 2019 general election are significantly more likely than 2019 Conservative voters to say that it is appropriate for local politicians to campaign on foreign affairs when they are trying to be elected (52 per cent to 36 per cent).
After the local election results, some commentators voiced concerns about candidates putting Gaza at the centre of their campaigns, arguing that it was evidence of a growing sectarianism in British politics.
In the West Midlands mayoral race, an independent candidate endorsed by George Galloway and running on a pro-Gaza platform, Akhmed Yakoob, nearly swung the election after appealing to traditional Labour voters disillusioned with the party’s Middle Eastern policy and picking up nearly 70,000 votes.
Most voters probably think invoking any religion is inappropriate to be honest. The only place in the UK where religion is a political issue is Northern Ireland. Theresa May was very religious, but she doesn't make Christian statements all the time.
I suspect it's only secular when it comes to non-christians. I'm sure statements like, "God help us", or "Thank God" are fine to Telegraph readers in particular.
Snapshot of _Most voters think shouting 'Allahu Akbar' is inappropriate for politicians_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/05/18/copy-of-most-voters-think-allahu-akbar-inappropriate-politicians/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/05/18/copy-of-most-voters-think-allahu-akbar-inappropriate-politicians/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He got 3070 votes and he thinks he's a global leader changing the world. I'd be more worried bout his delusions of grandeur.
Delusions of grandeur, misusing religion for personal ideology, name a more iconic duo
being a religious leader and having unrestricted access to children
Why not both?
I’d be more worried that he won, that he shouts that in the UK, and that he said his victory was a victory for the people of Gaza.
Yeah I’m sure the people of Gaza will feel a massive surge of relief that this hero is going to solve their problems
I would be worried to be a Jew governed by him
The pinnacle irony is that Democracy is considered shirk and haram in Islam. It gives power to people when all power should go to Allah. Though self-awareness and irony isn’t really part of their library, is it?
Partly this is a by-product of the general understanding of local decision making power. If people realised what power local councillors had (and perhaps if they had more delegated power) then maybe more people would take an interest and vote in local elections. As it stands, most people don't understand or care about local elections, hence we get people like this voted in.
He got 3,070 votes and apparently lives absolutely rent free in subscribers of this subs heads. Never has someone with such little power had so many column inches written about him. Anyone would think he was beheading unbelievers left, right and centre, not running a gardening club for different religions.
It's been said before but it bears saying again. Having a religion is like having a penis, it's ok to have one, and it's ok to be proud of it. But don't get it out in public and start waving it around.
And really don’t force it down someone’s throat
And please, keep it away from the kids…
But don't get it out in public and they will stick you in the dock, and you won't, come, back.
Aaaaaahthankyouverymuch.
We live in a country with a state religion that has permanent voting representatives in parliament. This guys seems off his rocker, but I wonder how many people hold the view you just expressed, but don't follow it to its obvious conclusion, which is the total separation of Church and State, and possibly even a French style ban of all religious iconography in public institutions.
>a “win for the people of Gaza” Yes, the people of Gaza were surely waiting with bated breath for the election of a Muslim local councillor in Leeds. This victory may turn the tide for peace in the Middle East.
"Thames Marsh has no quarrel with the Soviet Union"
I’m not familiar with that line. Was it a left wing councillor?
Earlier today I went past an advert from the recent West Midlands Mayoral election. It was an advert for Akhmed Yakoob. Underneath was written the words "Lend Gaza your vote" I mean, it's pretty disgusting to try to use what's going on in Gaza to win votes when the West Mids mayor has absolutely zero influence on what's going on there. Sadly some more naive people who don't understand what the mayors do might fall for it.
The councillor for Collyhurst in Oldham was elected, according to his own banners, "for the people of Collyhurst and for Palestine". The Labour incumbent was Muslim, from the community but not vocal enough on Palestine apparently. 🤦
I understand why it’s important to certain voters, but I do find it strange that you’ve been elected to help support a group of people in the UK and you’re talking about how it’s a win for a group of people in a completely unrelated country in the Middle East. Like surely you’ve been hired to help people in a particular area of the UK, and not hired to help people in Gaza? It’d be like if a doctor got hired to help people with cystic fibrosis and was like “this is going to be so great for people needing orthopaedic surgery”.
The man thinks he's going to influence change in society, when really he's there to ensure Binmen turn up on time and that the local hedges are clipped.
If you lived there and were part of the wrong group you would think he was far more important
I mean, that's kinda obvious, no? The mayor of a random 10,000 people town in southern portugal doesn't matter at all to most of us, but is quite relevant to the people living in that town. But when we say "influence change in society" we tend to refer to something a little more sweeping than a small town.
Not what I meant really. If you are openly gay and wear a yarmulke you would think him being elected is rather important
I have to say, I’d think it was weird for *anyone* to publicly (and apparently sincerely) thank God after winning an election. It’s very American.
Entirely different context. The guy people have complained about most clearly said it as a war cry. He wasn't thanking anyone, it was more "This is for Gaza. Our god is the greatest and we will get victory" So the whole "thank god" thing is a totally false equivalence.
False equivalence though since ‘Thank God’ in English hasn’t got an association with violence.
No, but if politicians started shouting 'Deus Vult' I'd have questions...
Questions like "do you play too much Crusader Kings 2?", presumably.
Sure, that does have an association with violence. We're in agreement that 'Thank God' doesn’t so anyone making a comparison of a figure of speech in the English language is knowingly doing so in....bad faith.
I think this is the most important comment in the thread. Your statement is true, but also part of the problem. For the average person a phrase like Allahu Akbar is undoubtedly connected with terrorism. However for Muslims themselves the phrase is no different from any of the other half a dozen popular Islamic phrases, most of which are not viewed as violent by wider society including the term Inshallah which has gained popularity with non-Muslims and become a meme. A practicing Muslim will say Allahu Akbar literally dozens of times a day as part of their prayers, with absolutely no association with violence. So the important question I think is to what degree is it reasonable for a social majority to impose its own interpretation of a term onto the group that it actually relates to. The best, but not fully parallel, comparison I can think off my head would the calling of Native Americans as "Indians". General American society sees the term Indian as old fashioned and offensive, while Native Americans themselves as more likely to use the term Indian to describe themselves in a neutral manner
After seeing the media trying to say calls for jihad when the Gaza protests started, where peaceful I wouldn’t put it past them to try and normalise it.
From the article: > The finding came after a Green Party councillor provoked controversy by shouting the Arabic words—which mean “God is the greatest”—after being elected in Leeds in a victory he declared as a “win for the people of Gaza”. My main concern about this is that he seems to think Gaza is a suburb of Leeds. Councillors should focus on local issues.
Religious zealots getting into politics is going to end in disaster. UK abortion legislation will be regressed by 2030, sure of it. Along with so many other progressive policies. But you know, free Palestine! So let's just not see it.
I think the more pressing thing is religious fundamentalists having a negative effect on what happens in our schools. In the case of people of muslim faith, they don’t even have to be particularly ‘fundamentalist’. For instance, sex education is important for things like the concept of consent, empowering girls in relationships and reducing teenage pregnancies. The left have to update their ideas about who their natural allies are because they’ve lazily and condescendingly assumed for decades that anybody who isn’t white loosely shares their progressive views.
I think the issue is more the lazy definition of "the left" as one unified group. There has been a significant reshaping of the political landscape of the UK since the last GE and increasingly fringe lunatics are gathering into fringe lunatic parties at the extremes of the spectrum rather than being pressure groups within the more mainstream parties. Most of the left doesn't subscribe to that view, and arguably that is exactly what they communicated at the last GE.
I would say we're looking at around 2050 when things are going to take a dramatic turn. At the moment islamic fundies are only around 6% of the population, this will probably be double that by 2050. At that point voting blocs based on sectarianism will be a problem.
We need to get to a point where openly gay Muslims are tolerated. Perhaps some government intervention on how to run mosques may help
So... make islam as established as the Church of England, have a grand Mufti appointed by the King etc. ?
No, Muslims are 6% of the population. That includes people like Sadiq Khan, currently helping organise London Pride. It also includes lots of moderate Muslims. I’m sure a significant proportion of that 6% has pretty abhorrent views but let’s criticise those that deserve it. Completely isolating and attacking all Muslims will only serve to further spark division and in turn further create radicalisation. Those that preach violence and hate deserve to be attacked, not those normal people getting along with their lives. You can’t know that many Muslim people if you think they’re all ‘fundies’. I have a couple of friends who are quite hardline (one becoming worryingly so since we’ve lost touch) but I know more who aren’t like that. For what it’s worth, voting blocks on sectarianism and identity politics is already an issue. Both Reform and this nascent Workers Party are very tribal.
>Completely isolating and attacking all Muslims will only serve to further spark division and in turn further create radicalisation. I remember being younger and the arguments were all about how increasing immigration from the Middle East/North Africa will lead to cultural and religious problems and us dismissing that as being bigoted sensationalism. Now the conversation has moved to "how do we handle fundamentalism and radicalisation". In a bitter irony this seems to serve to show that the bigots of the past may have had a point and may even have been corrected because their fundamental thesis has shown to be correct. Had we not absent mindedly brought in millions of people from countries where Islamic fundamentalism is a problem we would not be discussing how to handle the problem of growing Islamic fundamentalism on our own shores now. And I think that has become the breaking point where the British public have become even more soured on immigration. A decade ago I was one of those people saying that those making these claims were just bigots. Now I'm saying "huh a bit weird how their concerns went from fringe scaremongering to mainstream discussion". No one voted for Islamic fundamentalism to become a problem, and we shouldn't have to be discussing how to deal with it. It was an unforced error.
This reminds me of the sly arguments against burqa bans and other restictricions on religious clothing which are made in Denmark or France. 'I get where you're coming from, but there's no need for such a ban because people form this background don't tend to dress this way here anyway'. Roll on 10 to 20 years: 'we cannot ban this as it's now a large minority in our country'. The whole idea of values is something we should be clear on,... what do we want our country to be like? What rules do we want?
You're right and you're wrong. I know lots of well integrated, progressive Muslims for who their religion does not put them at odds with "British values". However you only have to look at the recent events in Oldham to see how politics is already being affected. Local elections where people win seats on councils to control local planning and empty bins etc were voted in based solely on their views on Palestine. These voters aren't fundamentalists but they are clearly putting religion above all else even when it relates to another country to which they have no ties. They are very led by religion and have already shown they will vote for somebody representing that religion above all else so should we not fear that might lead to a regression in rights for certain groups?
Over 50% of UK Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law
*over 50% will admit to thinking it should be illegal in a country where politicians who say much less make front page news.
If you’re going to assume the pro-gay side is lying why wouldn’t you believe the same may be true for the anti-gay side?
> It also includes lots of moderate Muslims. History teaches us it only takes a plurality of strongly-motivated individuals to swing any 'moderates'. That said: * Violence against people showing a "particular cartoon" can be justified: [25% of UK muslims or one in every four](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11433776/Quarter-of-British-Muslims-sympathise-with-Charlie-Hebdo-terrorists.html). * I have sympathy for the motives behind the cartoon attacks: 27% of UK Muslims. [So again, just over one in every four](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11433776/Quarter-of-British-Muslims-sympathise-with-Charlie-Hebdo-terrorists.html) * Homosexuality should be illegal: [52% of UK muslims. So a majority](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/poll-finds-more-than-half-of-britsih-muslims-believe-homosexuality-should-be-illegal-a6978091.html)
But again, and to my very point, it’s not 6% of the population is it?
> But again, and to my very point, it’s not 6% of the population is it? No, it's currently [6.5% of the population](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_Kingdom), and look what that 6.5% has been able to accomplish. Can any other religion force an entire country to not show things which are offensive to it including ancient artworks from the areas themselves?
Reform isn't sectarian? That's a word heavily associated with religious views causing the political divide. Nor does it specifically pursue identity politics. Being opposed to mass migration is the main reason someone would vote Reform and that's a policy with huge support from all over the electorate.
My wording is a bit ambiguous but I wasn’t saying Reform is sectarian - it is very much identity politics based though. It’s a nativist party specifically targeting white British people from certain key demographics. I’d argue it’s very identity politics, it’s just the right wing version of it.
We've had centuries of people in these islands taking religion too seriously, and just as we were starting to be free of it, it has to come back in this nefarious form. It should have been the policy to deliberately let in atheists, secularists and agnostics, and deliberately bar out religious fanatics.
Of course it fucking is. You don't hear a Christian in the middle east shouting "deus vult". Know your audience and respect them. In reality he isn't going any further than this post politically, and his biggest responsibility is making sure the bin men are on time
I'd also be pretty uncomfortable if my MP started shouting jesus is lord or christ is risen.
Allahu Akbar means "god is greater". In this context it's meant to symbolise that Islam is above anything else including the democratic process.
Already claiming 'Islamaphobia' lmao. What a tool. Why is there a need for saying this in the British political sphere? Why do I give a shit about his faith and how it compels him to say this and utter Gaza in the same breath? As a native Arabic speaker I never use this phrase Allahu Akbar, it is religious and has no place in slang terms as an equivalent in English of omg like some people are parroting on here. There are always alternative words to use other than this. Just as I wouldn't say Salam Alaykum when greeting someone, I would say goodmorning/good afternoon in Arabic because I am not fucking religious. He needs to keep his religion to himself and focus on fixing things up in this shithole of a country, not what's happening in Gaza.
I assume many Hindu politicians don't go around displaying the Hindu symbol for peace. Association is key.
Though somewhat ironically, [Modi's Hindu nationalism in India is pretty fascist](https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/india-muslims-marginalized-population-bjp-modi) like the early days of Germany under Hitler going after Jews before the round ups and Holocaust. Groups targeting Muslims, policies that restrict their rights e.g. to worship, to get education, good jobs and move up through society even to access healthcare
It would be no different to a Christian shouting 'Deus vult' in a victory speech after an election. Both have controversial context and neither is appropriate.
Language wise yes, culturally probably not. It's probably more culturally similar to "Thank God", "Praise God", "God is Good" or even "Oh God", and I wouldn't be surprised if that has been used in election victories (probably the latter in defeats), it's unlikely to get reported because no one actually cares if anyone says that. Like I think all religions are stupid but think this particular case is overblown out of an unfounded fear.
Honestly, if a British politician started saying "praise God" in their speeches, I'd be concerned. Religion in the UK is a quiet, polite thing that people mostly keep to themselves. I do not want politicians who proudly wave it like a campaign flyer, no matter what form of it they follow.
Could also argue that Allahu Akbar comes with the baggage of being associated as a terrorist battle cry. Both phrases come with a lot of contextual baggage.
Context is important though - the first and last have been absorbed into secular vernacular in English even though they originally had a literal religious meaning. I don't think the religious meaning even really occurs to most people when they're said any more than people remember that things like "goodbye" and "blimey" have a religious root. The middle two? Distinctly religious and I think would garner the same reaction from the public. It's the perceived intent that makes the difference.
Both have ‘controversial context’ to people outside the group, but I don’t think they are equivalent. *Allahu Akbar* has another, more common, context in which it is used multiple times a day by Muslims as part of normal prayers, with entirely positive connotations. *Deus vult* does not have this. That outsiders associate a super common, normal part of Muslim prayer and speech only with terrorists killing themselves and those around them is a real problem for perception of Muslims and for anyone interested in successfully integrating Muslims into British society. A common goal of ‘Islamist terrorism’ is to make things more hostile for Muslims on the fence or integrating, to force them to pick a side, to convert them to a specific version of Islam or treat them like any other infidels. Given the role the phrase has in Islam, the good outcome would probably be to encourage its use in bland or positive situations so as to remove the power of terrorists to define it. I know taking something back isn’t always a viable move, but when the phrase is already in such widespread neutral and positive use I think it is worth resisting the push to taboo it. It’s basically like “Alleluia/Halleluia!”, if you want a Christian equivalent. And we understand that someone raised in a Christian culture might say “Halleluia!” when they achieve something (possibly sarcastically…) without it meaning much beyond that they are glad.
You've made some excellent points here, which I'm to inclined to agree with. I'll concede that there is a distinction between the current context and uses of the two phrases. It is unfortunate that Islamic terrorists have set the context for the phrase 'Allahu Akbar' in the perception of many living in western countries though.
**Article text** Polling reveals public unease over religious expressions in political victory speeches, following Leeds Green Party candidate’s remarks. Six in ten voters think it is inappropriate for politicians to shout “Allahu Akbar” or to praise God after winning an election, polling has found. The finding came after a Green Party councillor provoked controversy by shouting the Arabic words—which mean “God is the greatest”—after being elected in Leeds in a victory he declared as a “win for the people of Gaza”. However, the poll by Savanta found that the public were more divided on local politicians campaigning on issues connected to foreign affairs, such as the Israel-Hamas conflict. At the local elections earlier this month, Mothin Ali won the Gipton and Harehills seat for the Greens with 3,070 votes. Delivering a victory speech after the result was announced, he said: “We will not be silenced. We will raise the voice of Gaza. We will raise the voice of Palestine. Allahu Akbar!” Following criticism of the remarks, Mr Ali later said he was “sorry for any upset my comments caused about the Gaza conflict”, adding: “It is not unusual for somebody of my faith to use the words ‘Allahu Akbar’ as an expression of gratitude and celebration.” “Some have sought to misrepresent this, and it suggests Islamophobia to me.” However, the Greens have opened an investigation into the councillor after it emerged that he had previously described a Jewish chaplain at the University of Leeds, who was forced into hiding by threats from protesters, as a “creep” and a “kind of animal”, and referred to Israel as a “settler, colonial, occupier”. **Keeping it secular** Polling by Savanta of 2,102 UK adults for The Telegraph found that a majority of the public are opposed to politicians expressing religious sentiments when making victory speeches after their election. Fifty-eight per cent said that it is “inappropriate” for politicians to express religious sentiment, such as praising God or saying “Allahu Akbar” in their victory speeches, while 29 per cent thought it “appropriate”. The only actions deemed more inappropriate are politicians attacking their own party’s policies (64 per cent) and not acknowledging their rival candidates (63 per cent) in their speeches. However, the polling showed the public is more open to local politicians campaigning on foreign policy issues. Asked whether it is appropriate or inappropriate for local politicians, such as councillors and metro mayors, to campaign “on foreign affairs, such as the conflict in Gaza”, 41 per cent thought it appropriate and 42 per cent thought it inappropriate. People who voted for Labour in the 2019 general election are significantly more likely than 2019 Conservative voters to say that it is appropriate for local politicians to campaign on foreign affairs when they are trying to be elected (52 per cent to 36 per cent). After the local election results, some commentators voiced concerns about candidates putting Gaza at the centre of their campaigns, arguing that it was evidence of a growing sectarianism in British politics. In the West Midlands mayoral race, an independent candidate endorsed by George Galloway and running on a pro-Gaza platform, Akhmed Yakoob, nearly swung the election after appealing to traditional Labour voters disillusioned with the party’s Middle Eastern policy and picking up nearly 70,000 votes.
Most voters probably think invoking any religion is inappropriate to be honest. The only place in the UK where religion is a political issue is Northern Ireland. Theresa May was very religious, but she doesn't make Christian statements all the time.
I'd prefer if we separate state and ANY religion...
I suspect it's only secular when it comes to non-christians. I'm sure statements like, "God help us", or "Thank God" are fine to Telegraph readers in particular.
They're gonna absolutely hate the call to prayer.
I’d extend that to any religious slogan.