London attack: Muslims raise more then £17,000 in 24 hours for victims of Westminster terror and families

First topic message reminder :

Crowdfunding campaign now aiming for new target of £20,000 thanks to 'heartwarming' response

A crowdfunding campaign started by a Muslim man who witnessed the Westminster attack has raised more than £17,000 in just a day for victims of the atrocity and their families.

The Muslims United for London page passed the £3,000 mark within an hour of going live and surpassed £10,000 over the next 15 hours as hundreds of people rushed to donate.

Muddassar Ahmed said he started the fund after witnessing the attack, having entered Portcullis House just 10 minutes before terror struck and being barricaded inside for four hours.

“I was shocked to see the injuries and loss of life outside my window,” he wrote.

“I reflected on what it means to be a born-and-bred Londoner and found myself proud of how security and medical services responded, how ordinary passers-by offered first aid, and what our Parliament means to me, an institution that is the oldest of its kind in the world and how, regardless of our critiques of government policies or political parties, remains an institution that reflects how the will of the people can be expressed with civility and dignity.”

He has now raised the fund’s target to £20,000 because of the unexpected “high demand and heartwarming response”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-westminster-attack-Muslims-raise-money-victims-crowdfunding-khalid-masood-isis-terror-a7647196.html?cmpid=facebook-post

Thorin wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

No the Quran doesn't!

If the Quran did the Muslims around the world including scholars and Imams wouldn't be CONDEMNING attacks!

It's really simple

People are fucked up

So if it as perfect, how is it that no Muslim can agree?

It is simple, only an idiot would write a book, where for 1400 years people would fight over it and still not agree.

You are right, people are fucked up for following bullshit

People are fucked up for not accepting a Diety! But that's your choice and you have no right to condemn Billions who do. The arrogance you portray is dispicable. I'll ignore it this time though. If you want to keep debating with me watch your words.

eddie wrote:Crowdfunding campaign now aiming for new target of £20,000 thanks to 'heartwarming' response

A crowdfunding campaign started by a Muslim man who witnessed the Westminster attack has raised more than £17,000 in just a day for victims of the atrocity and their families.

The Muslims United for London page passed the £3,000 mark within an hour of going live and surpassed £10,000 over the next 15 hours as hundreds of people rushed to donate.

Muddassar Ahmed said he started the fund after witnessing the attack, having entered Portcullis House just 10 minutes before terror struck and being barricaded inside for four hours.

“I was shocked to see the injuries and loss of life outside my window,” he wrote.

“I reflected on what it means to be a born-and-bred Londoner and found myself proud of how security and medical services responded, how ordinary passers-by offered first aid, and what our Parliament means to me, an institution that is the oldest of its kind in the world and how, regardless of our critiques of government policies or political parties, remains an institution that reflects how the will of the people can be expressed with civility and dignity.”

He has now raised the fund’s target to £20,000 because of the unexpected “high demand and heartwarming response”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-westminster-attack-Muslims-raise-money-victims-crowdfunding-khalid-masood-isis-terror-a7647196.html?cmpid=facebook-post

Thanks Eddie for posting this

But just like every other thread it becomes a bashing one.

Posters on here keep banging on about how Muslims don't do anything and yet when they do it's still not good enough.

Thor, people interpret holy books in different ways.
The bible for eg is not to be taken literally.....if it was we would all be plucking each others eyes out and cutting our kids in half.

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So if it as perfect, how is it that no Muslim can agree?

It is simple, only an idiot would write a book, where for 1400 years people would fight over it and still not agree.

You are right, people are fucked up for following bullshit

People are fucked up for not accepting a Diety! But that's your choice and you have no right to condemn Billions who do. The arrogance you portray is dispicable. I'll ignore it this time though. If you want to keep debating with me watch your words.

So let me get this straight

I am fucked up for not accepting a deity?

Seriously

You will also forgive this time for this?

How badly do you sound like an extremist sexy?

Ho do I need your approval on my beliefs?

Thank you for proving what is wrong with Islamic ideology

Thorin wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

No the Quran doesn't!

If the Quran did the Muslims around the world including scholars and Imams wouldn't be CONDEMNING attacks!

It's really simple

People are fucked up

So if it as perfect, how is it that no Muslim can agree?

It is simple, only an idiot would write a book, where for 1400 years people would fight over it and still not agree.

You are right, people are fucked up for following bullshit

On the other hand all holy books bring comfort, peace and happiness to billions of people throughout the world.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So if it as perfect, how is it that no Muslim can agree?

It is simple, only an idiot would write a book, where for 1400 years people would fight over it and still not agree.

You are right, people are fucked up for following bullshit

On the other hand all holy books bring comfort, peace and happiness to billions of people throughout the world.

Okay, they bring comfort you say?
I agree, to those in fear of death or suffering.

Is that not playing on the weak Syl?

So why would anyone love someone who demands people follow their beliefs, when humans have the capacity for greater compassion? What you do syl, if confronted with two parents that threatened their creation as a child with harm. If they did not follow their beliefs. That they would torture this child. Then they did torture?

Would you class that as child abuse?

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

On the other hand all holy books bring comfort, peace and happiness to billions of people throughout the world.

Okay, they bring comfort you say?
I agree, to those in fear of death or suffering.

Is that not playing on the weak Syl?

So why would anyone love someone who demands people follow their beliefs, when humans have the capacity for greater compassion? What you do syl, if confronted with two parents that threatened their creation as a child with harm. If they did not follow their beliefs. That they would torture this child. Then they did torture?

Would you class that as child abuse?

Of course its child abuse, thats what I mean about people interpreting words in different ways.
I am not a reader of any holy book, but I remember the bible from my childhood, and to me it seemed a good reference in parts of how to treat people well...the parables one could relate to, they made good stories which coud be transferred to modern living.

But obviously some of it is not to be taken literally...we dont slay giants with stones, thats picking on large people. We dont cut our children in half if their rightful parent isnt given custody, though the way some estranged parents carry on they may as well do.

I dont think you have to be weak to believe in religion either, it can help when loved ones die, believing they have gone to a better place, and picking out the bits that tell us to care for each other....how can that be bad?

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Okay, they bring comfort you say?
I agree, to those in fear of death or suffering.

Is that not playing on the weak Syl?

So why would anyone love someone who demands people follow their beliefs, when humans have the capacity for greater compassion? What you do syl, if confronted with two parents that threatened their creation as a child with harm. If they did not follow their beliefs. That they would torture this child. Then they did torture?

Would you class that as child abuse?

Of course its child abuse, thats what I mean about people interpreting words in different ways.
I am not a reader of any holy book, but I remember the bible from my childhood, and to me it seemed a good reference in parts of how to treat people well...the parables one could relate to, they made good stories which coud be transferred to modern living.

But obviously some of it is not to be taken literally...we dont slay giants with stones, thats picking on large people. We dont cut our children in half if their rightful parent isnt given custody, though the way some estranged parents carry on they may as well do.

I dont think you have to be weak to believe in religion either, it can help when loved ones die, believing they have gone to a better place, and picking out the bits that tell us to care for each other....how can that be bad?

This is no interpretation but the relationship with the abrahamic deity

This deity professes conditional love

Yet we have more compassion.

That is why no intelligent being would be ruled by emotion.

Yet stupidly some humans think they would

But if someone follows their religion and believes in it, using it as a guidance in their lives, and respecting its teachings, which they interpret in a good and loving way (and billions do)...then why should you knock it?

Syl wrote:But if someone follows their religion and believes in it, using it as a guidance in their lives, and respecting its teachings, which they interpret in a good and loving way (and billions do)...then  why should you knock it?

I would simply challenge how and why it is good to them.

What you should ask, is why many non believers are not hung up as religious people are Syl


As long as their belief does not effect me or others.

I am happy for them.

When I am threatened for having a opinion at odds with Islam?

Well, what can I say?

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:But if someone follows their religion and believes in it, using it as a guidance in their lives, and respecting its teachings, which they interpret in a good and loving way (and billions do)...then  why should you knock it?

I would simply challenge how and why it is good to them.

What you should ask, is why many non believers are not hung up as religious people are Syl


As long as their belief does not effect me or others.

I am happy for them.

When I am threatened for having a opinion at odds with Islam?

Well, what can I say?

Why? It's not your business.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I would simply challenge how and why it is good to them.

What you should ask, is why many non believers are not hung up as religious people are Syl


As long as their belief does not effect me or others.

I am happy for them.

When I am threatened for having a opinion at odds with Islam?

Well, what can I say?

Why? It's not your business.

Really?

The  Pope says to millions of Africans not to use contraceptives

I just made it my business

Agree with me or disagree Rags?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why? It's not your business.

Really?

The  Pope says to millions of Africans not to use contraceptives

I just made it my business

Agree with me or disagree Rags?

It's up to them if they want to listen to the Pope.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Really?

The  Pope says to millions of Africans not to use contraceptives

I just made it my business

Agree with me or disagree Rags?

It's up to them if they want to listen to the Pope.

No Problem Rags, I just appointed you as manager of birth control.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's up to them if they want to listen to the Pope.

No Problem Rags, I just appointed you as manager of birth control.

Is this the current Pope? You were full of admiration for him not long ago.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


No Problem Rags, I just appointed you as manager of birth control.

Is this the current Pope? You were full of admiration for him not long ago.

I am.


So what are you going to do in your new role?

Didge the problem with most things are due to their misuse and misinterpretation by people

eddie wrote:Didge the problem with most things are due to their misuse and misinterpretation by people

Okay

Where does that misuse start Eddie

Are you providing an excuse for anyone that breaks the law here over interpretation?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Is this the current Pope? You were full of admiration for him not long ago.

I am.


So what are you going to do in your new role?

I'm not the Pope. Why is your business what people in Africa do, or why they listen to the Pope?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I am.


So what are you going to do in your new role?

I'm not the Pope. Why is your business what people in Africa do, or why they listen to the Pope?

Its not my business, so why does he Pope think its his?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm not the Pope. Why is your business what people in Africa do, or why they listen to the Pope?

Its not my business, so why does he Pope think its his?

I don't know. I wasn't talking about the Pope - you were the one who dragged him into this for some bizarre reason.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Its not my business, so why does he Pope think its his?

I don't know. I wasn't talking about the Pope - you were the one who dragged him into this for some bizarre reason.

Well try to use empathic intelligence

That the  makes for a far more interesting debate

Night

x

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't know. I wasn't talking about the Pope - you were the one who dragged him into this for some bizarre reason.

Well try to use empathic intelligence

That the  makes for a far more interesting debate

Night

x

That makes no sense. You suddenly started bleating on about the Pope for absolutely no reason.

Syl wrote:(1)Well it has helped by pointing out that Muslims dont attack or kill  indiscriminately.

(2)He wasnt even a Muslim himself, which makes his words even more powerful imo.

(3)If he can see that violent acts of terrorism have nothing to do religion, so should others.

[/quote]

(1) Muslims do attack and kill other people... and you are right that it is not 'indiscriminately'... as the attacks are overwhelmingly targeted at non Muslims and places where non Muslims are considered to be vast in number... there have even been plenty of examples of islamist terrorist attacks where they have specifically divided the hostages into Muslim/non Muslim groups before letting the Muslims go free and then carrying out massacre of the non Muslims...

http://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/6310/0/islamist-militants-target-christians-in-kenyan-shooting-


(2) '...he wasn't a Muslim...' - and yet he tried to say that the attacker 'wasnt a Muslim'... when the attacker definitely WAS a Muslim...!

(3) He may like to think/believe that violent acts of terrorism have nothing to do religion... he may also like to think/believe that the moon is made of cheese...!

It never makes sense to me, that a thread about humans helping other humans, can have any negative posts.

Come on eddie... the op story only exists because of the pro Muslim propaganda angle...

What would happen to you, if you decided that your statement wasn't true?

eddie wrote:What would happen to you, if you decided that your statement wasn't true?

I'm not sure what you mean by your question...

But... where would this op story be if it didn't contain the distinct references to being 'Muslim' based/oriented...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:(1)Well it has helped by pointing out that Muslims dont attack or kill  indiscriminately.

(2)He wasnt even a Muslim himself, which makes his words even more powerful imo.

(3)If he can see that violent acts of terrorism have nothing to do religion, so should others.

(1) Muslims do attack and kill other people... and you are right that it is not 'indiscriminately'... as the attacks are overwhelmingly targeted at non Muslims and places where non Muslims are considered to be vast in number... there have even been plenty of examples of islamist terrorist attacks where they have specifically divided the hostages into Muslim/non Muslim groups before letting the Muslims go free and then carrying out massacre of the non Muslims...

http://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/6310/0/islamist-militants-target-christians-in-kenyan-shooting-


(2) '...he wasn't a Muslim...' - and yet he tried to say that the attacker 'wasnt a Muslim'... when the attacker definitely WAS a Muslim...!

(3) He may like to think/believe that violent acts of terrorism have nothing to do religion... he may also like to think/believe that the moon is made of cheese...!



[/quote]
.....................


Well yes Muslims do kill and attack other people, so do Jews and Christians....using their religion as as excuse to kill is just that, an excuse, gives them a point in their madness.
I'm not sure why you think they target areas where Muslims are less likely to be, seems to me public transport and tourist areas attract all people from all walks of life ....and dozens of Muslims died in the 9/11attacks.

I think the man who shouted out to tha attacker in the subway  meant people who act this way are not true Muslims.

The third point has been answered in the first point.

Come off it...

Tommy Monk wrote:

eddie wrote:What would happen to you, if you decided that your statement wasn't true?

I'm not sure what you mean by your question...

But... where would this op story be if it didn't contain the distinct references to being 'Muslim' based/oriented...!?

What would happen to you if you could accept the story is just what it is?

Tommy Monk wrote:Come off it...

Brilliant response Tommy.

Tell me, when the IRA were bombing Britain did you blame all Catholics, or all Irish?

I still say it has nothing to do with faith and all to do with the primitive hill shepherd brain

Even if we look at the IRA the people that committed the atrocities could 'justify' it to themselves due to the belief they were protecting their tribe(or hills)

In the age of Metropolises, Globalization and multiculturalism the hill shepherd has no place and is thus become a problem for social cohesion.

veya_victaous wrote:I still say it has nothing to do with faith and all to do with the primitive hill shepherd brain

Even if we look at the IRA the people that committed the atrocities could 'justify' it to themselves due to the belief they were protecting their tribe(or hills)

In the age of Metropolises, Globalization and multiculturalism the hill shepherd has no place and is thus become a problem for social cohesion.

Really?

That shows you fail to understand the IRA conflict

How were they protecting their tribe when they knee capped Irish Catholics?

Or murdered Irish Catholics?

How does ISIS protect their tribe when they kill so many Muslims ???

I think it is you that doesn't appreciate the illogical nature of hill shepherds

veya_victaous wrote:How does ISIS protect their tribe when they kill so many Muslims ???

I think it is you that doesn't appreciate the illogical nature of hill shepherds  

So you just destroyed your own argument and that its not tribal, but ideological based off Islam

LOL
Islam is a tribe
'Britishness' or what ever the fuck Tommy and nicko stand for is a tribe
This 'American Ideal' in the head of Trumpsters is a tribe

I am using the term 'tribe' in regards to the self defined group that they 'belong to' Not necessarily the real group
Which is why You are being an unreasonable prick to Muslims to suggest that the Hill shepherd speaks for them all.
They are as accurate a representation as The Trumpsters are to the US Constitution or the likes of Tommy an nicko are to the real British peoples (London does have a Muslims major after all, so obviously not all Brits are as dimwitted)

Or are you saying that the Englishness contains this Ideology of Oppression and invasion

veya_victaous wrote:LOL
Islam is a tribe
'Britishness' or what ever the fuck Tommy and nicko stand for is a tribe
This 'American Ideal' in the head of Trumpsters is a tribe

I am using the term 'tribe' in regards to the self defined group that they 'belong to' Not necessarily the real group
Which is why You are being an unreasonable prick to Muslims to suggest that the Hill shepherd speaks for them all.
They are as accurate a representation as The Trumpsters are to the US Constitution or the likes of Tommy an nicko are to the real British peoples (London does have a Muslims major after all, so obviously not all Brits are as dimwitted)

Or are you saying that the Englishness contains this Ideology of Oppression and invasion

No it is not. Islam is a religious ideology, that has many different ethnic groups and cultures

A tribe is something like football hooliganism

People identifying behind a nation, no matter their ethnicity is not a tribe

You simple spout idiocy, not anything your formed yourself, but what you plagiarize from other Far Lefties
Stop attacking posters because you do not like them

You can attack their beliefs, which again is not tribalism

You are just using this as a platform to attack posters.

Pathetic

Thinking about this thread, which started off so positive and somehow became so negative, and the arguments about who is to blame, some people condemning religion, culture, country of origin, hill shepherds (whatever they are) etc, etc, all the blame means the people who terrorise and create divide win.
When we hear leaders say terrorists wont win, well they wont win by killing people themselves, but they may one day win by causing hate and distrust.

Syl wrote:

Well yes Muslims do kill and attack other people, so do Jews and Christians....using their religion as as excuse to kill is just that, an excuse, gives them a point in their madness.
I'm not sure why you think they target areas where Muslims are less likely to be, seems to me public transport and tourist areas attract all people from all walks of life ....and dozens of Muslims died in the 9/11attacks.

I think the man who shouted out to tha attacker in the subway  meant people who act this way are not true Muslims.

The third point has been answered in the first point.

I don't think they're using religion as an excuse to cover their madness, it's a bit more complex than that. Islam is a religion but it's also a cultural identity to many, so the two things are sometimes intertwined and it becomes a political issue.

The man probably did mean that the the terrorist wasn't a true Muslim - it's a common theme when there are terrorist attacks.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Well yes Muslims do kill and attack other people, so do Jews and Christians....using their religion as as excuse to kill is just that, an excuse, gives them a point in their madness.
I'm not sure why you think they target areas where Muslims are less likely to be, seems to me public transport and tourist areas attract all people from all walks of life ....and dozens of Muslims died in the 9/11attacks.

I think the man who shouted out to tha attacker in the subway  meant people who act this way are not true Muslims.

The third point has been answered in the first point.

I don't think they're using religion as an excuse to cover their madness, it's a bit more complex than that. Islam is a religion but it's also a cultural identity to many, so the two things are sometimes intertwined and it becomes a political issue.

The man probably did mean that the the terrorist wasn't a true Muslim - it's a common theme when there are terrorist attacks.

I think that's exactly what the man in the subway meant, that the attacker wasn't a true Muslim, if he was he wouldn't be stabbing an innocent man in the name of his religion.

I think religion is at the base of many wrong doings...or rather people who think their religion is the only one and anyone who doesn't follow it is unworthy...its people who cause problems, not religion..

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think they're using religion as an excuse to cover their madness, it's a bit more complex than that. Islam is a religion but it's also a cultural identity to many, so the two things are sometimes intertwined and it becomes a political issue.

The man probably did mean that the the terrorist wasn't a true Muslim - it's a common theme when there are terrorist attacks.

I think that's exactly what the man in the subway meant, that the attacker wasn't a true Muslim, if he was he wouldn't be stabbing an innocent man in the name of his religion.

I think religion is at the base of many wrong doings...or rather people who think their religion is the only one and anyone who doesn't follow it is unworthy...its people who cause problems, not religion..

To be honest, we don't actually know Masood's motive. It's easy to assume that he did it in the name of his religion, but he didn't leave any kind of statement behind, and he didn't say anything at the time as far as I know. It's a reasonable assumption though.

Syl wrote:Thinking about this thread, which started off so positive and somehow became so negative, and the arguments about who is to blame, some people condemning religion, culture, country of origin, hill shepherds (whatever they are) etc, etc, all the blame means the people who terrorise and create divide win.
When we hear leaders say terrorists wont win, well they wont win by killing people themselves, but they may one day win by causing hate and distrust.

Well, its very important to understand the religious ideology, of which this person was religious and held beliefs from islam. So to ignore that is ignoring part of the problem

By all accounts he had a decent Christian upbringing...maybe he was just a wrong un who was easily led.
If as stated he was radicalised in prison, maybe his hatred has grown since then, culminating in last weeks murders.
He did send a message a couple of minutes before he drove his car into people, for some reason that's not available
(Techie stuff I don't understand) but it sounds ridiculous that his last message cant be accessed even by police.

Syl wrote:By all accounts he had a decent Christian upbringing...maybe he was just a wrong un who was easily led.
If as stated he was radicalised in prison, maybe his hatred has grown since then, culminating in last weeks murders.
He did send a message a couple of minutes before he drove his car into people, for some reason that's not available
(Techie stuff I don't understand) but it sounds ridiculous that his last message cant be accessed even by police.

Again what was the ideology that he followed, for him to believe he should murder people?

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:By all accounts he had a decent Christian upbringing...maybe he was just a wrong un who was easily led.
If as stated he was radicalised in prison, maybe his hatred has grown since then, culminating in last weeks murders.
He did send a message a couple of minutes before he drove his car into people, for some reason that's not available
(Techie stuff I don't understand) but it sounds ridiculous that his last message cant be accessed even by police.

Again what was the ideology that he followed, for him to believe he should murder people?

I have no idea...do you?

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Again what was the ideology that he followed, for him to believe he should murder people?

I have no idea...do you?

I do, Islam. 

Whether that form of Islam is extreme to other Islam, its still Islamic beliefs.

Syl wrote:By all accounts he had a decent Christian upbringing...maybe he was just a wrong un who was easily led.
If as stated he was radicalised in prison, maybe his hatred has grown since then, culminating in last weeks murders.
He did send a message a couple of minutes before he drove his car into people, for some reason that's not available
(Techie stuff I don't understand) but it sounds ridiculous that his last message cant be accessed even by police.

I didn't know that - it would interesting to see if they ever manage to access it.

Message was sent via 'WhatsApp'... which is a commonly used messaging service but one where encryption can be used.

Syl wrote:Thinking about this thread, which started off so positive and somehow became so negative, and the arguments about who is to blame, some people condemning religion, culture, country of origin, hill shepherds (whatever they are) etc, etc, all the blame means the people who terrorise and create divide win.
When we hear leaders say terrorists wont win, well they wont win by killing people themselves, but they may one day win by causing hate and distrust.

Spot on. It's making people pick a side. Divide and conquer.