40% of British Muslims want Sharia Law.

[dazzleman]

Nothing remotely suprising about a large minority of a minority group wanting that sort of thing; Scotland still has it's Catholic schools and I'm pretty sure that Manchester and some other cities with a history of Irish immigration do as well (they were still around in the '80's at the very least). And then there's enforced bi-lingualism in Wales (I still think that having Welsh names on signs in the likes of Monmouth, Welshpool or Radnor is deeply comical). Cornwall used to have seperate courts for Tin miners until the 19th century, County Durham had it's own courts until the '70's or so (and I'm pretty sure these were organised along semi-religious lines for a long time)... it's not like supporting some form of two-tier system in anything is especially unusual or especially sinister. Frankly I'm a little suprised that the number in favour wasn't higher.

As for Sharia law itself... it's extremely disorganised and is barely useful as a legal system (and it's debatable what is and isn't Sharia etc), not that most Muslims are aware of that (just as most Britons in general aren't aware how absurdly byzantine the legal system is). Besides most people wouldn't mind if the death penalty was brought back for serious offenses; how is this *any* worse than that? (especially when you bear in mind how the death penalty was traditionaly applied here).

As for the general topic of integration and all that; a lot still needs to be done about that (and the fault for the lack of integration is NOT repeat NOT usually the fault of the various Kashmiri/Punjabi/Bangladeshi/etc communities. Thinks like the Biradari system haven't exactly helped, but were it not for ambitious local politicians it'd have died off years ago. The main reason for the lack of integration among Bangladeshis is the racist policies of [then] Liberal Democrat controlled Tower Hamlets council in the '80's and '90's) but overall the pattern is no where near as bleak as the media likes to paint it (the media hasn't got a clue on this sort of issue).

...and finally... the record of pollsters at polling Muslims is *not* impressive... to put it mildly... Labour's majority would be quite a lot smaller if it was...

Al, you're really dragging a few red herrings through here.

To compare the preference of some Catholics for Catholic schools to Sharia law is absurd.  Sending a child to Catholic school doesn't affect the rest of society.

Your death penalty comparison is also absurd.  To have a death penalty for a few narrow defined, heinous crimes is a far cry from saying that a woman should be stoned for going outside without her burkah, and seeking to forcibly impose that not only on your own community, but on those who predated you and, foolishly, welcome you to their society.

Europeans (and Americans too) need to reclaim control of their/our values in their own countries.  It is absurd to allow interlopers to redefine your society's culture and values in a way that the long-standing majority doesn't want.  What do you think you owe these people?  I've got the answer -- NOTHING.

[dazzleman]

To compare the preference of some Catholics for Catholic schools to Sharia law is absurd.  Sending a child to Catholic school doesn't affect the rest of society.

I should have been clearer; the Catholic schools in question are state schools (not private) and were largely set up due to pressure from a large immigrant community (in this case Irish).
Now the effect of wanting seperate schools isn't the same as wanting a seperate legal system in mostly immigrant areas, but the reasons for *wanting* it are exactly the same.
Or for that matter, the Islamic bank accounts (ie; no interest) that are now availiable in a couple of places.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No it isn't; this wasn't a reference to the death penalty in the U.S, but the way it was applied when it was still the law here (which was sadistic in the extreme). Before certain reforms in the 20th century, English law was every bit as needlessly cruel, sadistic, arbitary and pointlessly brutal as the worst aspects of the most warped interpretations of Sharia in certain areas (I'm thinking of northern Nigeria here).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think that many people are calling for the introduction of stoning-for-not-covering-up.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The poll didn't ask about the rest of society; the question was whether they wanted Sharia law in *predominantly Muslim areas* (but that wasn't what the headline was o/c).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What has that got to do with this exactly?

The issue of who controls the values and culture of society is exactly what this is all about.  These people want to forcibly impose extreme values on society as a whole, regardless of what they are actually saying.  Of course, every society has dominant values; the question is, which ones will they be?

By pushing for Sharia law, this is the first step to imposing their values on society.  It is also a way of refusing to mainstream themselves to the society in which they live.  I am not a believer in the efficasy of multicultural societies, and I don't believe that muslims areas should have a separate legal system, as they de facto already do in some places.

The behavior of muslims with respect to the Danish cartoons makes it clear enough that they wish to impose their values.  What I love the best is that these people have no problem with the most vile attacks on other religions, but they go nuts over a couple of cartoons.  They are psychotic.

[dazzleman]

You know Daz, you can write very well, but I sometimes, just sometimes, wonder whether you actually can read.

What am I reading wrong?  Isn't more just that I'm putting a different interpretation on what I've read than you would?  If I have made a factual error, please let me know.

[dazzleman]

Ah yes, I'm sorry. I overlooked the "regardless of what they're saying" part. You can read, you're just paranoid. Probably a paranoid schizophrenic.

Not sure what part you're talking about, and I don't intend to go back and re-read the whole damn thing.

Suffice to say that I find the attitude of some muslims very alarming.  You should too, if you were smart.  It's not paranoia, but rational concern about the behavior of a people who appear to be experiencing mass insanity.  As a German, you ought to have some experience with that, and concern about where it could lead.  People also said that those alarmed about the Nazis were paranoid, but they should have listened earlier.  Lots of lives could have been saved.

[dazzleman]

In that case, you (and millions like you, all over the "West") are seeing the splinter in the other's eye and overlooking the [help with biblical English needed] in their own eye.

But that's what I've been saying for years... I have far more fear of Western anti-Islamic bigotry and fanaticism (especially when posing as / considering itself to be liberal (Euro sense) ) than I have of devout Muslims. And anybody claiming that all devout Muslims - that's really what this poll question comes down to - wants to "forcibly impose extreme values on society as a whole" (read: our society) no matter what they say is a) at least potentially a menace to world peace b) is using an argumentation that does remind me, as a German who knows his history, of National Socialism. (And my great granddad joined that party in the mid 1920s.)

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying "you're a Nazi" or "Afleitch and Pym (our Pym) are Nazis" or "Bush is a Nazi" or whatever. All I'm saying is, you - us; as in this society to which I belong - are on a pretty dangerous slope at the moment.

Nobody said that EVERY devout muslim wants to impose his faith on everybody.  Just as not every German wanted to attack every neighboring country and kill 50 million people.  It only requires that there is a strong base that wants to do that, and the vast majority either doesn't active oppose that agenda, or gives it tacit approval.  That appears to be the situation with muslims.

I think you fear the wrong danger.

[dazzleman]

All I'm saying is, you - us; as in this society to which I belong - are on a pretty dangerous slope at the moment.

We are, but I believe a different slope to the one you believe. I believe that we are in danger of loosing our liberal and democratic traditions if we don't fight for them. I'm not a racist; I don't have a problem with Hindu's, Sikhs and so on. I don't even have a problem with Muslims. I DO have a problem with Islam and I don't disguise that. I also don't like fundamentalist Christians either so I am being consistent in my views.

If anything political Islam is fascist in itself. If you sit down look at and then break down the demands and the world view of many Muslim political groups, they are fascist. Now I am talking about political Islam here, the Hizb ut Tahrir's of the world. It degrades women, executes homosexuals is violently anti-semetic, believes the west is corrupt, democracy is pointless and only those who succumb to Islam would be allowed any positions of authority what so ever. It is disgusting, perferted and wrong yet THAT groups is to be invited to the UK Parliament for a meeting!

Sharia law is just as stomach turning too and if it is to be believed that 40% of British Muslims wish Sharia law to be imposed that is very disturbing to anyone who believes in liberty and the rule of law.

I agree with your point of view Andy, other than that I don't share the degree of distaste that you have for fundamentalist Christians.  I believe very much in the Christian faith, and I don't see fundamentalists committing violence with the broad support of their communities, as muslims are.

[dazzleman]

Nobody said that EVERY devout muslim wants to impose his faith on everybody.

The issue of who controls the values and culture of society is exactly what this is all about.  These people want to forcibly impose extreme values on society as a whole, regardless of what they are actually saying.

I rest my case.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I could make a better, but still not exactly good, case, that that appears to be the situation with neocons.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I fear the danger at my own door, the one that threatens my own country and hometown, and some friends of mine.

I'm not saying everything is alright with Arab society (obviously. That'd be daft).

Lewis, I think that muslims, by playing the victim, are making the same mistake that many ethnic minorities in the west have made in recent years.

They'd be a lot better off in the long run, IMO, if they were, on some level, willing to acknowledge and somehow address society's somewhat justified fears and suspicions about them, rather than just becoming outraged about them.  Their present attitude simply deepens the problem.

[dazzleman]

Lewis, all I can say is, enjoy living under Sharia.  And don't think they'll be very tolerant of your sort.  You are willfully blind to the dangers that militant islamic fascism poses, just as many were blind to the dangers of the Nazis.

[dazzleman]

Lewis, all I can say is, enjoy living under Sharia.  And don't think they'll be very tolerant of your sort.

sigh ... not a f**ing issue here...

Right...and the Nazis were just misunderstood people who simply wanted to politically unite ethnic Germans.

[dazzleman]

Lewis, all I can say is, enjoy living under Sharia.  And don't think they'll be very tolerant of your sort.

sigh ... not a f**ing issue here...

Right...and the Nazis were just misunderstood people who simply wanted to politically unite ethnic Germans.

Better parallel... German emigrants in England or France in the 1930s were not Nazi double agents.

Maybe, maybe not.  Yet ethnic Germans in countries neighboring Germany were a very effect 'fifth column' against the country in which they lived.  In a clash of values between the west and militant islam, I suspect I know which side some percentage of Europeans muslims will symphathize with.

[dazzleman]

Muslim is not an ethnic group.

Well, I agree, but they sure function as one, especially when they accuse people who question their beliefs of "racism."  If you act like an alienated ethnic group, rather than a religion, you'll be treated like one.  It is really a matter of identity, and some people consider their religion to be their ethnicity.  I don't, but many do.

[dazzleman]

What do you think of this, Lewis?  Do you think a person insulting Christians would be treated this way?
_____________________________________________

German court convicts man for insulting Islam Thu Feb 23, 9:47 AM ET
 


DUESSELDORF, Germany (Reuters) - A German court on Thursday convicted a businessman of insulting Islam by printing the word "Koran" on toilet paper and offering it to mosques.

ADVERTISEMENT
   
The 61-year-old man, identified only as Manfred van H., was given a one-year jail sentence, suspended for five years, and ordered to complete 300 hours of community service, a district court in the western German town of Luedinghausen ruled.

The conviction comes after a Danish newspaper printed cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad -- sparking violent protests around the world from Muslims who saw the images as sacrilegious and an attack on their beliefs.

Manfred van H. printed out sheets of toilet paper bearing the word "Koran" shortly after a group of Muslims carried out a series of bomb attacks in London in July 2005. He sent the paper to German television stations, magazines and some 15 mosques.

Prosecutors said that in an accompanying letter Manfred van H. called Islam's holy book a "cookbook for terrorists."

He also offered his toilet paper for sale on the Internet at a price of 4 euros ($4.76) per roll, saying the proceeds would go toward a "memorial to all the victims of Islamic terrorism."

The maximum sentence for insulting religious beliefs under the German criminal code is three years in prison.

[dazzleman]

Funny law that... your article fails to mention it, but "insulting religious beliefs" is only illegal if the insult is deemed "suitable to endanger the peace" (ie, provoking those insulted into rioting, basically) - mind you, it's not necessary that anybody actually riots as a result. In this case, this was held to be the case (though nobody rioted, they just notified the police.)
What's more, while jail is a possibility, even in the case of a conviction there's usually just a fine. In this case, a fine was not considered sufficient due to the defendant's criminal record (arson, possession of unlicensed explosives - nothing to do with Islam. In fact, an earlier suspended jail sentence of his expired the very day of the trial.) Another odd note: He's a third cousin of Theo van Gogh.
One more note on the article: While he offered to sell his toilet paper on his website, he didn't actually sell any, nor does he seem to have ever had the intention to. It was just a childish prank really.

This is the first time that a jail sentence (suspended or not) was handed out for an insult to Islam, btw. 99% of investigations are for insults to Christians' religious beliefs. And over 90% of these do not end up in court because the prosecution correctly notes that the insult was not suitable to endanger the peace. I'm not sure when the last jail sentence was handed down - the last non-suspended one was probably several decades ago - , but I know authors of Titanic satirical magazine have been sentenced to pay fines almost every single year of its existence for insulting Christians' religious beliefs. Really, it's quite a ridiculous law, and I'd prefer to see it gone.

Btw, here's the cover of Titanic's march issue (I wanted to print this in this thread anyways, and I was thinking about losing some words about this court case as well)


("Religionen im Vergleich" is religions compared. "Fakten Fakten Fakten" is related to an old feud with FOCUS news magazine that I won't got into detail about here. The four dicks belong to Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and Judaism. Whether this is to say that Muslims have small dicks, hence their inferiority complex, or to say that Christians are the biggest dickheads on the planet, or something else entirely, is of course in the eye of the beholder, as is the identification of these things as dicks. The note in the lower righthand corner says "Please Torch Here".)

Of course, it takes a lot less to 'endanger the peace' when you are dealing with a violent group, versus a more peaceful group.  You are talking about a group of people who preach murderous hate of Jews, Christians, etc. on a daily basis, and then become riotous when some little cartoon making fun of them is published.

So in reality, for an insult to Christians to actually 'endanger the peace,' it would have to be a lot worse than any insult to muslims.  Nice way to justify completely unfair treatment.

[dazzleman]

Repeat ... the law was created with christian blasphemy in mind ... repeat ... it has been used almost exclusively for this purpose.

Has anybody done a year in prison for blaspheming Christians?  For the record, I hope not.  I believe in freedom of expression, not protection of the 'sensitivities' of certain groups.

[dazzleman]

Repeat ... the law was created with christian blasphemy in mind ... repeat ... it has been used almost exclusively for this purpose.

Has anybody done a year in prison for blaspheming Christians?  For the record, I hope not.  I believe in freedom of expression, not protection of the 'sensitivities' of certain groups.

I would have to check to be sure, but I would very much assume that people have ... in the 1960s and earlier. The law was probably created under the Kaiser... it may have had some teeth pulled since. Mind you, nobody's done a day in prison for blaspheming Muslims, ever. Mind you, I don't agree with this verdict. (Which is his own fault... he probably talked himself into a -suspended- jail sentence by the risible lies and fudges he did in court. Still wrong.)

Well, honestly, I'm not interested in what happened earlier than the 1960s with respect to this law.  I'm more interested in how it is being used to advance political correctness today.