Cause for concern?

Oh heck look whats crawled out from under its stone..

Freedom : Oh right, so one morning Mr and Mrs Lardy woke up and decided that today we are going to feed kids utter shite and lead them toward an early death? Thats not how it works Hora and well you know it.

Regarding Fat Muslims, in my travels I have found that generally its only in the West and Westernised countries, and please don’t waste your time on finding a picture of some fat bastard somewhere. Its about the broader <sic> picture obviously.

Grumm, funny you should mention burqas. On my morning commute I regularly ride past a woman wearing one who is a lollipop lady for a local school. Clearly either a dangerous radical or a victim of oppression by her husband or imam.

Surfer immediately jumped in with comparisons with Iran, which just isn’t valid – it’s controlled by an oppressive regime that mantains its power through fear, and religion is just a convenient peg to hang it on.

When did I mention Iran?

I dont have time to follow this interesting thread much today however If nothing else I will make my thoughts clear.
As an Atheist (and specifically on the subject of Islam) I see it as dangerous, punitive and medieval. It is certainly not alone as most other religions are also.
That is why it is important to keep one persons belief in an imaginary friend as seperate as possible from the levers of the state power, political, social and economic.
We dont achieve that in this country (although we do better than the US IMO) and despite what mr Agreeable says

We live in a secular society anyway,

he is wrong. The UK is not secular, however the US is.
Shariah law bases itself on this system of faith. As such it is flawed.
It uses its laws to punish religious misdemeanors. The word you are looking for Tyger is Apostasy. This is the practice that all people have the option to practice and that is changing religion if they choose.
In countries that practice Sharia law the penalty is death. I suspect many dont practice it however some do and you dont need to read the Daily mail (I dont) to google real incidents of this Barbaric practice.

Unfortunately that statement is both very frequently true, and also an often used justification trotted out by racist bigots for their vile filth. (That comment is not aimed at you personally Grumm) Generally its used when folk comment without any knowledge, understanding or acknowledgement of the wider truths, and usually on a VERY narrow spectrum of issues which the vast majority of Muslims find abhorrent, as if they were representative of the whole faith.

Even a basic understanding of Sharia law exposes it for what it is and I have made my thoughts clear on that. To attempt to cloud the issue in false intellectualism or label critics as bigots and racists is a ploy you have used to undermine arguments on this thread. I need no understanding of “wider truths” to know that the mistreatment of women and children is wrong and I do not need to refer to any religious “texts” to know this.

but it is often used in blatantly racist conversations

Then you need to challenge racism whenever you encounter it. Not by mixing race and religion.

Regarding the Gays thing, I presume therefore that you will be starting one about both the Catholic church and the C of E which are very blatantly institutionally Homo-phobic, as opposed to Islam where the concept has in fact been embraced (admittedly mainly behind closed doors) for millenium, except by a very limited number of extremists.

There have been many threads on christianity and people on this forum have been vocal in both support and criticism. The fact that Christianity is homophobic should not make homophobic Muslims feel any better! Homosexuality under Sharia law can lead to capital punishments. It is not accepted as you indicate.

Maybe if Muslims worldwide were more outspoken or vocal against about what’s happening in Iran

Iran is a model of freedom and democracy compared with most Muslim countries. When was there last an election – flawed or otherwise – in Saudi Arabia?

how do you successfully reduce the influence of the unsavoury element without alienating the rest.

By panicky headlines, sensationalist generalisations and restricting their religious freedom of course. It’s obvious!

It’s interesting you mention faith schools. I agree that these are a bad idea, just look at the intelligent design cobblers that was being peddled by Reg Vardy’s academys. 😉

Grumm I’m typing this slowly for you again, try to grasp it.

Mr Agreeable :

People are subject to all sorts of pressures from their parents, peer group or the people they worship with.

Grumm:

Yes and generally in this country we try to educate people to think for themselves, and try to stop people who exert undue pressure on others – except where religion is concerned it seems.

G:

In the exerting pressure on people department, may I suggest that you read up on Rupert Murdochs influence and the ongoing manipulation of our electoral processes on his part.

Grumm :

And yeah, so because Rupert Murdoch controls lots of the press, sharia courts that discriminate against women are ok. Nice logic there – you are sounding increasingly incoherent and silly

Blimey you realy aren’t putting it on are you? 😯

Grumm, funny you should mention burqas. On my morning commute I regularly ride past a woman wearing one who is a lollipop lady for a local school. Clearly either a dangerous radical or a victim of oppression by her husband or imam.

Well there you go, that’s conclusive proof that no women are oppressed in Islam and that radical fundamentalist Islam is a myth invented by the Daily Mail.

Even a basic understanding of Sharia law exposes it for what it is and I have made my thoughts clear on that

Well that certainly cleared that up for me ….. phew!

I notice G and Mr Agreeable, that you are ignoring IanMunro’s point about Islamic faith schools.

Grumm I’m typing this slowly for you again, try to grasp it.

Mr Agreeable :

People are subject to all sorts of pressures from their parents, peer group or the people they worship with.

Grumm:

Yes and generally in this country we try to educate people to think for themselves, and try to stop people who exert undue pressure on others – except where religion is concerned it seems.

G:

In the exerting pressure on people department, may I suggest that you read up on Rupert Murdochs influence and the ongoing manipulation of our electoral processes on his part.

Grumm :

And yeah, so because Rupert Murdoch controls lots of the press, sharia courts that discriminate against women are ok. Nice logic there – you are sounding increasingly incoherent and silly

Blimey you realy aren’t putting it on are you?

I am also an admirer of the miracle that is “cut and paste” however this makes no sense. You are only reinforcing Grumms argument. Your stance seems to be that because there are other negative forces in society the forces that religion brings to bear are ok.

Even a basic understanding of Sharia law exposes it for what it is and I have made my thoughts clear on that

Well that certainly cleared that up for me ….. phew!

Is that what you are reduced to now? Is that the only comment or challenge you wish to make after my post?

Grumm, read my post above. I don’t agree with faith schools, I think they’re a really bad idea which does nothing for society. Sharia courts however have clear benefits – do you have any idea what the legal costs of your average divorce are? – and they are attended by adults who agree (there’s that word again) to do so.

You’d be rightly annoyed if you’d come to, say a business agreement over a settlement of a debt with someone else, both of you agreed to it of your own free will, and then someone told you you couldn’t enforce it because people are being stoned to death in some third world country.

I mentioned the lollipop lady as a small example that people DO integrate into UK society even if they are from a pretty strict Muslim background. I wonder whether her kids will be wearing burqas too, something tells me not.

Dear God……

Surfer, Grumm makes the point that we in this country try to stop people who exert undue influence on others.

In response to that I have pointed out that that patently isn’t the case by citing the most blatant architect of mass manipulation that there is probably in the world outside of religion.

Grumm has then chosen to ignore that point and tried to score points with sarcasm, which once again does his case little credit, somewhat like your minor foray into that discipline in your own post.

Is that what you are reduced to now? Is that the only comment or challenge you wish to make after my post?

Nope, but responding as I really would like to would get the thread closed and me barred, so I felt it best to ignore it in the main. Happy to give you a detailed breakdown of my views on you and yours if you would like it though. Point me at your email address and its yours in a heartbeat.

Grumm, read my post above. I don’t agree with faith schools, I think they’re a really bad idea which does nothing for society. Sharia courts however have clear benefits – do you have any idea what the legal costs of your average divorce are? – and they are attended by adults who agree (there’s that word again) to do so.

But they are disproportinately in favour of the man. The women has few rights. Is that the type of agreement you think is acceptable?

You’d be rightly annoyed if you’d come to, say a business agreement over a settlement of a debt with someone else, both of you agreed to it of your own free will, and then someone told you you couldn’t enforce it because people are being stoned to death in some third world country.

With full agreement it would hardly need enforcing! if it was unfari and one made recourse to law then at least one may be hapy that a third party intervened.

I mentioned the lollipop lady as a small example that people DO integrate into UK society even if they are from a pretty strict Muslim background. I wonder whether her kids will be wearing burqas too, something tells me not.

Maybe its just me but it sounded like an example of the opposite!

With full agreement it would hardly need enforcing!

Wow, that’s naive.

Really have to do some work now, but for all of you who are up in arms about human rights around the world, take action, dont just post on here (as per Spongebob’s pathethic response earlier).

I’ve been signed up to Amnesty International’s Urgent Action network for a few years now and as a part of this wrote letters in support of this woman. It’s a really good feeling knowing that international pressure, letters included, no doubt played a small part in reversing what would have been a barbaric decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amina_Lawal

Surfer, Grumm makes the point that we in this country try to stop people who exert undue influence on others.

In response to that I have pointed out that that patently isn’t the case by citing the most blatant architect of mass manipulation that there is probably in the world outside of religion

Grumm is correct we do attempt to stop this however eluding to examples where it is not achieved does not make the argument for the introduction of faith based law any stronger.
Murdoch has incredible influence however it does not match the level of indoctrination practiced in some Muslim countries that restrict education and study unless it is religious.

You seem to be stressed.

I’ve been signed up to Amnesty International’s Urgent Action network for a few years now and as a part of this wrote letters in support of this woman. It’s a really good feeling knowing that international pressure, letters included, no doubt played a small part in reversing what would have been a barbaric decision.

It’s their culture, we should respect it. Anything else would be bigoted.

You seem to be stressed.

And I’m tempted to paraphrase the famous Churchill to Lady Astor exchange, but you probably wouldn’t get it.

And I’m tempted to paraphrase the famous Churchill to Lady Astor exchange, but you probably wouldn’t get it.

Do you have to take special courses in order to be as patronising as you, or does it just come naturally?

I would but not hugely relelvant given the parties!

Do you have to take special courses in order to be as patronising as you, or does it just come naturally

Its entirely natural, but I have honed it to a fine edge over the years by sharpening it up on the surfers of this world. Actually, its a great hobby you should try it some time. Much better than sarcasm, and the best bit is that they genuinely don’t get it, as you can clearly see from his post above.

I thank you 8)

If arguments fail eh? which they clearly have!

Big of you to admit that, perhaps, just perhaps I was wrong about you.

😉

OK Ok you asked for it, I am getting bored with this but just for you …

Grumm is correct we do attempt to stop this however eluding to examples where it is not achieved does not make the argument for the introduction of faith based law any stronger.
Murdoch has incredible influence however it does not match the level of indoctrination practiced in some Muslim countries that restrict education and study unless it is religious.

And your point is ?? I’ve already explained mine above, which is that his assertion that we try to stop people exerting undue influence is patently incorrect. With the exception of disputing another of his sweeping statements it has no relevance to Sharia Law, much as his original and obviously incorrect comment didn’t.

Regarding the Policy Exchange, its a right wing think tank, favoured by centre to far right. I believe the chinless wonder pays them some credence. Denis MacEoin, is one of their sources. For that reason much of what they have to say on the subject of Islam is quite simply fundamentally flawed.

Now there’s a self-professed ad-hom if ever I’ve seen one.

Have I missed anything? 🙄

Assuming of course that criticism of Denis MacEoin is a slur as opposed to a fact. If you read through the thread I think you will find that his veracity as an expert is generally accepted as being dubious given a) His self professed relationship with Israel, distaste for Islam, and alongside that the fact that he is strongly suspected of forging research.

Given that and the fact that each of these assertions are easily checked is it reasonable to accept the research, and or word of this individual, or a report commissioned by the Policy Exchange of which he was the author, as being anything other than slanted in a particular way?

I put it to you that it is not.

TS: Nah not really

Have I missed anything?

Not really. G is coming across all needy and arguing with himself because after ignoring peoples arguments and calling people names nobody will join in.

G is coming across all needy and arguing with himself because after ignoring peoples arguments and calling people names nobody will join in.

I dont have time to follow this interesting thread much today

Bit of pot calling the kettle something there Surfer if you don’t mind me saying so

Anyway, up I was responding to acracers point regarding ad hom. I would understand if you thought that was talking to myself, but honestly it wasn’t.

Regarding calling people names, I don’t think I did to be fair, that would be saying things like Knob Jockey, Big Girls Blouse, Tossy Toss Pot and the like, and although sometimes I’ll admit that the temptation overwhelms me I try hard not to do that.

The Independent View

This is the Independents take on the subject complete with references to the reports original author.

The point here is that in a western democracy religion and law courts are seen as a toxic combination – a view I fully endorse. I keep repeating myself – apologies old age etc – but this two tier approach to society leads to and deepens divisions. By creating a separate ‘legal’ entity we already acknowledge that it’s ‘us and them’ ‘protestant and catholic’ ‘Muslim and Christian’ – this will further fan the flames of division within the country.

You can all be as contrite as you like about the situation but realise this that it only takes a couple of hot heads on each side to cock things up for everyone.

Anyone for a pork sandwich and a balaclava?

I suggest you do a bit of research on what an ad-hom is, G. Doesn’t matter whether what somebody says is wrong, if you say it has to be wrong simply because of who’s saying it.

On International Women’s Day, in March, there was a huge demonstration in London, backed by feminists, supporters of gay rights and others – including a substantial number of Muslims – who marched under a banner saying: “No sharia and faith-based laws – one law for all.” They claimed that the supposedly voluntary nature of the courts is a sham, because many Muslim women are pressured into accepting their rulings, and that sharia courts dispense cheap injustice.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-big-question-how-do-britains-sharia-courts-work-and-are-they-a-good-thing-1724486.html

Racists.

Ah but the Independent printed an incorrect answer to its crossword in 2004! We have to dismiss it as a source of information.

acracer, thats not what I’m saying at all. What I am saying is that because of those issues, most of which are accepted on here you should discount what has been written, that is not the same as saying its wrong, what it is saying is that at the very least you should acknowledge a bias, and at worst ignore what is said, as its not possible to fathom out the right from the wrong, especially as the guy has fabricated supporting evidence in the past.

My defintion of Ad Hominem is an argument where an author or similars views are rejected in an argument by some irrelevant fact being introduced to undermine the veracity of that individual. I do not think that these are irrelevant, in fact they are at the very core of what has been written, so to quote myself earlier in the thread …. Ad Hom, My Arse!! 😉

LOL

grumm – Member

On International Women’s Day, in March, there was a huge demonstration in London, backed by feminists, supporters of gay rights and others – including a substantial number of Muslims – who marched under a banner saying: “No sharia and faith-based laws – one law for all.” They claimed that the supposedly voluntary nature of the courts is a sham, because many Muslim women are pressured into accepting their rulings, and that sharia courts dispense cheap injustice.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-big-question-how-do-britains-sharia-courts-work-and-are-they-a-good-thing-1724486.html

Racists.

Posted 9 minutes ago # Report-Post
surfer – Member
Ah but the Independent printed an incorrect answer to its crossword in 2004! We have to dismiss it as a source of information

Now these are ad hom…. couldn’t have timed it better myself, thanks lads. 😆

Grumm, supporting human rights should be about upholding certain principles universally, not picking and choosing when to apply them.

If you have a look at the European Convention of Human Rights, it enshrines people’s freedom to worship in the way that they choose, both in practice and observance, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the law. I can’t see anything about the way that Sharia courts are used in the UK which is inconsistent with this.

People being pressured or unduly influenced is a problem with almost every aspect of the legal system in the UK and there are mechanisms in place to guard against it. You might as well say that criminal trials are rubbish because witness intimidation happens.

Keep the funnies coming by the way, they’re really making today fly by. 🙄

Well done G for making up your own definition of Ad Hom, then ignoring the fact that there are seemingly a substantial number of muslims who share others concerns about sharia law.

Of course they are all brainwashed by the Daily Mail.

Mr Agreeable maybe you should ask the muslim women who marched against it?

I find it amazing that to you it seems that everything is fine up until the point when a criminal prosecution can be brought.

Again well put Mr A.

I think the problem is that they are not grasping what Sharia law means in reality, as opposed to in Daily Fail Terrorvision. The excellent article posted by Tanky says it quite well, but again they only pick out bits out of context

Interesting how Grumm for instance failed to select all of this above :-

On International Women’s Day, in March, there was a huge demonstration in London, backed by feminists, supporters of gay rights and others – including a substantial number of Muslims – who marched under a banner saying: “No sharia and faith-based laws – one law for all.” They claimed that the supposedly voluntary nature of the courts is a sham, because many Muslim women are pressured into accepting their rulings, and that sharia courts dispense cheap injustice. Denis MacEoin, author of the Civitas report, argues: “Women are not equal in sharia law, and sharia contains no specific commitment to the best interests of the child that is fundamental to family law in the UK. Under sharia, a male child belongs to the father after the age of seven, regardless of circumstances.” The Muslim Council of Britain says that this talk is “scaremongering”

Presumably becuase that last sentence from the extremely moderate Muslim Council does rather support what I’ve been saying all along.

My defintion of Ad Hominem

Is that from the same place as your definition of racism?

Think we should stick to accepted definitions as oppose to making up our own.

If you have a look at the European Convention of Human Rights, it enshrines people’s freedom to worship in the way that they choose, both in practice and observance, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the law. I can’t see anything about the way that Sharia courts are used in the UK which is inconsistent with this.

Of course not. One is talking about religious belief the rest is about law. They are seperate why are you combining them?

People being pressured or unduly influenced is a problem with almost every aspect of the legal system in the UK and there are mechanisms in place to guard against it. You might as well say that criminal trials are rubbish because witness intimidation happens.

Whats your point?