Im surprised an article as vitriolic and slimey (in the sense that its an incredibly well written piece of propaganda/hate) has been posted on this site, considering it doesn't have that much to do with technology, entrepreneurship etc.
I think the author has a great deal of trouble distinguishing between significant class problems in the UK (particularly poor first and second generation immigrants who are trying to resettle) and a religion.
For instance, what reason does the author think Islam has for calling women slags? I mean cant the author extrapolate potentially that while these individuals are Muslim, their actions are not Islamic?
The second and third point simply rehash that. Spreading rumours and defaming people is clearly a sin in Islam yet the author fails to distinguish between the actions of these alleged Muslims and the rules and responsibilities promoted by Islam.
I also fail to see why the author is disgruntled about the Islamic Society shutting down a valentines day ball when they did so in a manner that wasn't illegal or against university policy. If anything, isnt that a positive example of democracy and public utility in action?
At the end of the day I think the most telling part of the story is the end, when the author acknowledges that he is afraid to reveal the location of the university for fear of some kind of reprisal. In the war of ideas, the winners are those who are willing to sacrifice for their beliefs. The author fails to realise that the Muslims on campus are succesfull because they are willing to suffer negative criticisms or complains (or vitriolical anonymous web postings) to promote ideas and thoughts that they believe are good.
I think the author has a great deal of trouble distinguishing between significant class problems in the UK (particularly poor first and second generation immigrants who are trying to resettle) and a religion.
For instance, what reason does the author think Islam has for calling women slags? I mean cant the author extrapolate potentially that while these individuals are Muslim, their actions are not Islamic?
The second and third point simply rehash that. Spreading rumours and defaming people is clearly a sin in Islam yet the author fails to distinguish between the actions of these alleged Muslims and the rules and responsibilities promoted by Islam.
I also fail to see why the author is disgruntled about the Islamic Society shutting down a valentines day ball when they did so in a manner that wasn't illegal or against university policy. If anything, isnt that a positive example of democracy and public utility in action?
At the end of the day I think the most telling part of the story is the end, when the author acknowledges that he is afraid to reveal the location of the university for fear of some kind of reprisal. In the war of ideas, the winners are those who are willing to sacrifice for their beliefs. The author fails to realise that the Muslims on campus are succesfull because they are willing to suffer negative criticisms or complains (or vitriolical anonymous web postings) to promote ideas and thoughts that they believe are good.