you will see countless examples of the evil of religion at work.

The evils of religion or the evils of society? Or even individuals?

Not denying that religion isn’t usually a constructive influence on society. Just that Islam seems to be getting singled out a lot.

As IanMunro says, there have been similar courts for Orthodox Jews for years. These also treat women in a manner that could be seen to be discriminatory (although as I’ve said above, how do you convince someone they’re being hard done by when they voluntarily choose that course of action?). In any event, society has not yet collapsed.

The fact that the BNP and Daily Mail lap it up doesn’t necessarily mean it should be ignored though does it?
Yep pretty much

You see I find that kind of attitude rather silly. Yes the Mail and BNP are nasty bigoted **** and their motives for saying things are pretty much universally wrong. But it’s faulty logic to assume that everything they say is therefore incorrect.

The statistic I posted is from a survey which has nothing to do with the Mail or BNP and if you read the report doesn’t seem to be trying to fan the flames of intolerance. In fact it finds many things which would probably pleasantly surprise Daily Mail readers about British Muslims. That doesn’t however mean that everything is hunky-dory.

doh double post!

No-one is saying that everything is hunky-dory. However if we lived in a society where people weren’t free to follow their choice of religion, and choose (there’s that word again) to resolve disputes in accordance with it, things would be far less hunky-dory.

As IanMunro says, there have been similar courts for Orthodox Jews for years

They dont deal with criminal law.

No-one is saying that everything is hunky-dory. However if we lived in a society where people weren’t free to follow their choice of religion, and choose (there’s that word again) to resolve disputes in accordance with it, things would be far less hunky-dory.

Thats quite a leap! Why would you assume a totally secular society would be a worse society?
There is evidence that secular societies including the Scandinavian countries have far lower crime rates, lower early mortality rates, murder rates and sexually transmitted diseases.
It is a myth that religion contributes anything constructive.

They dont deal with criminal law.
And neither will any sharia court in this country.

Not officially maybe.

They dont deal with criminal law.
And neither will any sharia court in this country.

Thats incorrect. UK Sharia courts have been involved in criminal investigations in liaison with the police. Unlike Jewish courts it has been made clear a desire to rule on criminal matters in the UK.

Surfer, I think you are getting confused. Will there be special Sharia prisons opening? Will the police have to cooperate with Sharia courts to enforce sentences of stoning and beheading?

No-one has mentioned stoning and beheading except you.

I’ve introduced Munro’s law.
Under it followers are allowed to shoot anyone found or suspected of fly-tipping.
It’s not official, but apart from that it’s completely legal 😉

Surfer, I think you are getting confused. Will there be special Sharia prisons opening? Will the police have to cooperate with Sharia courts to enforce sentences of stoning and beheading?

I’ve no idea, however your posts have gone from being coherent and intelligent to just making silly remarks.
I don’t think I am confused, why do you ask?
It seems you are the one unable to keep on topic.
Shall we stop now?

doesn’t seem to be trying to fan the flames of intolerance

except for the opening statement?

the rise in Islamic fundamentalism amongst the younger generation

which it then goes on to spectacularly fail to back up, there may even be a fall in fundamentalism, but you can’t tell from reading that report!

I’m with you Ian, death to the fly-tippers!

grumm – Member

The fact that the BNP and Daily Mail lap it up doesn’t necessarily mean it should be ignored though does it?
Yep pretty much

You see I find that kind of attitude rather silly.

So sorry, thought you were actually taking things they said as factually accurate and worth basing an opinion on……

……wait a minute apparently you are

But it’s faulty logic to assume that everything they say is therefore incorrect.

So you are in fact saying what I thought you were …… In which case times two with bells on back at you.

**** me!! What sort of half wit posts

Yes the Mail and BNP are nasty bigoted **** and their motives for saying things are pretty much universally wrong.

and then tries to argue that you can in fact trust anything which they say???????

Flipping heck ….. Is it me?? Is it an age thing??? Is it the education system???…

I think the UK should embrace Sharia Law, sure you can’t get drunk or gamble, but you can still get stoned.

In defense of Grumm the motives can be wrong even if the information is correct.

G I think your logic is flawed.

If the BNP told me in their literature that 2+2 made 4 should I disbelieve them because the rest of their literature is made up of lies?

I think that is the point that was being made, clearly I thought.

Dr Hasan, who has been presiding over sharia courts in Britain for more than 25 years, argues that British law would benefit from integrating aspects of Islamic personal law into the civil system, so that divorces could be rubber-stamped in the same way, for example, that Jewish couples who go to the Beth Din court have their divorce recognised in secular courts.
He points out that the Islamic Sharia Council, of which he is the general secretary, is flooded with work. It hears about 50 divorce cases every month, and responds to as many as 10 requests every day by email and phone for a fatwa – a religious verdict on a religious matter.
Dr Hasan, who is also a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain on issues of sharia law, says there is great misunderstanding of the issue in the West.

“Whenever people associate the word ‘sharia’ with Muslims, they think it is flogging and stoning to death and cutting off the hand,” he says with a smile.
He makes the distinction between the aspects of law that sharia covers: worship, penal law, and personal law. Muslim leaders in Britain are interested only in integrating personal law, he says.
“Penal law is the duty of the Muslim state – it is not in the hands of any public institution like us to handle it. Only a Muslim government that believes in Islam is going to implement it. So there is no question of asking for penal law to be introduced here in the UK – that is out of the question.”
Despite this, Dr Hasan is open in supporting the severe punishments meted out in countries where sharia law governs the country.
“Even though cutting off the hands and feet, or flogging the drunkard and fornicator, seem to be very abhorrent, once they are implemented, they become a deterrent for the whole society.
“This is why in Saudi Arabia, for example, where these measures are implemented, the crime rate is very, very, low,” he told The Sunday Telegraph.

But then he seems to contradicts himself.

In a documentary to be screened on Channel 4 next month, entitled Divorce: Sharia Style, Dr Hasan goes further, advocating a sharia system for Britain. “If sharia law is implemented, then you can turn this country into a haven of peace because once a thief’s hand is cut off nobody is going to steal,” he says.
“Once, just only once, if an adulterer is stoned nobody is going to commit this crime at all.
“We want to offer it to the British society. If they accept it, it is for their good and if they don’t accept it they’ll need more and more prisons.”
These sentiments, and the vast cultural gulf they expose, alarm many in the West and go to the heart of the debate about the level of integration among Muslims living in Britain and their acceptance of British values.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576066/We-want-to-offer-sharia-law-to-Britain.html

which it then goes on to spectacularly fail to back up, there may even be a fall in fundamentalism, but you can’t tell from reading that report!

I think most Muslims and experts on Islam would say it was blindingly obvious that fundamentalist Islam is on the rise.

Try reading this – http://www.amazon.co.uk/Al-Qaeda-True-Story-Radical-Islam/dp/0141019123

this is only going to end in tears, both this thread and the whole religion thing.

chocolate biscuit anyone, kettles just boiled ……………

G why don’t you try reading what I actually said, then try thinking about it for a second.

As surfer and Nick have pointed out, what I am saying is that because something appears in the Daily Mail, it doesn’t automatically mean it is a non-issue and should be ignored. Yes chances are the information is presented in a highly biased way etc.

I studied history at uni and in which we were taught to look at all sources as useful info, as long as you consider potential bias, evidence, and motives for saying so etc.

I use an RSS reader and read stories from lots of different news sources – to me it’s interesting to see how issues are portrayed differently. The kind of hysterical ‘lalalalala I’m not listening to the nasty people’ attitude is hardly very helpful.

Neither is equating Islam with stonings, amputations and Al Qaeda…

I think most Muslims and experts on Islam would say it was blindingly obvious that fundamentalist Islam is on the rise.

Maybe they would, that’s not the point though is it, I was talking about this report specifically, and if ‘experts’ are using it to assert that there is a rise in Islamist Fundamentalists then I’d question their ability to make that assertion, presumably there is other analysis that actually does demonstrate an increase?

surfer – Member
G I think your logic is flawed.

If the BNP told me in their literature that 2+2 made 4 should I disbelieve them because the rest of their literature is made up of lies?

Given that you are a self confessed Islamaphobe I would guess that you would believe whatever they said even if it was 4,397 + 9,897,386 = 4!

Nick – Member
In defense of Grumm the motives can be wrong even if the information is correct.

So Nick, how do you tell which is which in an environment where you have already accepted that what they say is almost universally wrong?? Personally I would take myself off somewhere else where the information available was a tad less slanted and that I personally felt was defensible, but then I have a very strong aversion to talking like a complete idiot, especially in a situation where I may well be publically asked to back up what I am saying or detail my sources, like on an internet forum whilst discussing something that is on the borderline of legality for example.

We are wholly committed to a free, fully funded National Health Service for all British citizens.

http://bnp.org.uk/policies/health/

Now I can agree with that, as I am sure most people do – does that mean that I/they support the BNP? Please help me, I’m very confused.

Personally I would take myself off somewhere else where the information available was a tad less slanted and that I personally felt was defensible, but then I have a very strong aversion to talking like a complete idiot, especially in a situation where I may well be publically asked to back up what I am saying or detail my sources, like on an internet forum whilst discussing something that is on the borderline of legality for example.

Except that what I posted came from a Policy Exchange think tank and has nothing to do with the BNP or The Daily Mail. If you have such a strong aversion to talking like a complete idiot, then you’d best be quiet.

Given that you are a self confessed Islamaphobe I would guess that you would believe whatever they said even if it was 4,397 + 9,897,386 = 4!

But isnt that just childish? If you have to resort to this because you have no coherent argument then that is a bit pathetic.

Woo! Yeah! Let’s see some hair-pulling! 🙂

Neither is equating Islam with stonings, amputations and Al Qaeda…

If you actually read the book you would see that he argues that the use of the term Al-Qaeda is basically wrong and that the organisation doesn’t really exist in the sense it is conceived of in western media etc.

It was actually Dr Hasam of the Islamic Sharia Council who was advocating stonings and amputations – lots of people on here would probably agree with him if it wasn’t for the fact that he’s a Muslim, judging by some of the ‘law and order’ threads on here.

Although my comment on being an Islamophobe was ill judged. I am not.
I am an atheist however and dislike all religions.

If you actually read the book you would see that he argues that the use of the term Al-Qaeda is basically wrong and that the organisation doesn’t really exist in the sense it is conceived of in western media etc.

So if Al Qaeda is a sensationalist blanket term applied to a few scattered groups of individuals, why are you mentioning it in the same breath as a system of law that predates anything the Western world has come up with?

Do you really think that allowing Muslims to settle disputes in the way they choose is going to fan the flames of discontent and trigger more bus bombings?

So Nick, how do you tell which is which in an environment where you have already accepted that what they say is almost universally wrong??

He (Grumm) didn’t say that though, stop twisting things.

Do you really think that allowing Muslims to settle disputes in the way they choose is going to fan the flames of discontent and trigger more bus bombings?

That is the point I was trying to make ages ago, it’s the media that takes these reports (which appear fundamentally flawed in the first place) and then twist them to suit their agendas, this is what fans the flames.

So if Al Qaeda is a sensationalist blanket term applied to a few scattered groups of individuals, why are you mentioning it in the same breath as a system of law that predates anything the Western world has come up with?

*sigh

Because that book explains in an extremely well researched fashion how and why fundamentalist islam has become such a dynamic and fast growing phenomenon and why it’s ideology is appealing to many Muslims, including some in this country. Support for sharia law, especially in it’s more extreme forms, is likely to be related to this. For some people I’m sure they are happy with it being just for divorces etc – some clearly would like it to go further.

I didn’t even mention Al Qaeda, it’s just in the title of the book.

Just because a small minority of Muslims would like it to happen, doesn’t mean it will. Most people in the UK are in favour of the death penalty, but it still hasn’t been reintroduced.

I’d agree that Islam is a pretty scary religion at times. Coming from a good old half-arsed C of E background, it seems to require a ridiculous degree of faith and commitment. But it doesn’t mean that people who adhere to it are unable to fit into UK society.

Mr Agreeable – Member

“So if Al Qaeda is a sensationalist blanket term applied to a few scattered groups of individuals, why are you mentioning it in the same breath as a system of law that predates anything the Western world has come up with?”

Interesting point, you may wish to check history regarding (system of) law.

Keep going folks it’s all very interesting.

Obviously I mean predates any system of law that doesn’t involve feeding people to lions, or strangling them then burying them in a bog.

committed

There you go I’ve picked out a direct quote too. Does that mean that what they are saying is unimpeachably accurate? Any fool can pick a sentence or a word from anywhere out of context and make it seem acceptable.

If its too much for you to grasp I will spell it out for you.

Grumm : Daily Mail and BNP are almost universally inaccurate
Grumm : But it’s faulty logic to assume that everything they say is therefore incorrect.

Nick, thats exactly what the man said, in the same paragraph so in what way am I twisting it??

I have to say in the simplistic world I live in these two statements would be mutually exclusive. Perhaps they aren’t in yours, but in mine you would have to assume that it is difficult verging on impossible to sort the wheat from the chaff and therefore the only logical thing to do is to discount everything from those sources so as to avoid the bias.

Surfer: I take it your backtracking is in respect of the fact that you have realised that I am merely quoting your own post back at you? If thats childish, then fair play, thats what I am. However, I am not stupid enough to publically pronounce that I am an Islamaphobe.

Surfer: I take it your backtracking is in respect of the fact that you have realised that I am merely quoting your own post back at you? If thats childish, then fair play, thats what I am. However, I am not stupid enough to publically pronounce that I am an Islamaphobe.

Yet you seem hell bent on making yourself look even more of an idiot with your comments. If i were you I would stop digging.

I backtracked on that quote yes. I suspect I am the “bigger” person for doing that, its called accepting when you make a mistake.

You still dont see that you are wrong and even the selective quotations you have chosen dont help with your argument.