AND SO IT BEGINS? SHARIA LAW IN BRITAIN?

FreeDuck wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
The religiously political equivalent of an obscure monastic order in Scotland rendering a judgment on a certain Christian behavior.

Is this the relevance you assign to all fatwas, or just the ones that go against your accepted view of Islam?

Did you not read my entire post or did you just choose to select from it a line that would fit what you felt was a clever retort? For if you read just one line beyond the one you quoted, you would have found:

"Not to be dismissed, but to be applauded and encouraged, and yet as evidence that Islam is self-regulating? Please."

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
The religiously political equivalent of an obscure monastic order in Scotland rendering a judgment on a certain Christian behavior.

Are you referring to the Darul Uloom Deoband and its influence in Islam? Because in that case, the problem seems to be your ignorance rather than the insignificance of that particular Darul Uloom.

...

And your unwillingness to spend 30 seconds Googling and reading up on a topic before publicly displaying that ignorance.

Well, then perhaps you can enlighten me and our fellow posters as to the evidence of the signifigant political role Darul Uloom Deoband has on global Islam.

It certainly doesn't follow, and here I expect our good friend Setanta to throw in his support, that an Islamic organization that is influential in India has the same credibility elsewhere in the world of Islam.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
In India, of all places, 10,000 to 15,000 people can hardly be considered a "huge turnout."

Finn seems intent on displaying other varieties of ignorance. Since 1947, when West Pakistan and East Pakistan (Bangladesh) were separated from the rest of the subcontinent which became India, there has been no significant population of Muslims in India in any concentration outside of Kashmir. So 10,000 to 15,000 people who are interested in Islam is a large turn out in India, indeed.

You know Pooch, since you're such a Wikipedia scholar, I'm surprised you missed this

Islam in India is the second-most practiced religion after Hinduism. There are approximately 151 million Muslims in India's population as of 2007. Currently, India has the second or third largest population of Muslims in the world.

or this

The largest concentrations-about 47% of all Muslims in India, according to the 2001 census--live in the 3 states of Uttar Pradesh (30.7 million) (18.5%), West Bengal (20.2 million) (25%), and Bihar (13.7 million) (16.5%).

LINK

Oh, and by the way, where is Darul Uloom Deoband located? Yes that's right, Uttar Pradesh. With 30.7 million muslims in Uttar Pradesh alone, a crowd of 10,000 to 15,000 can hardly be considered "Huge," unless the expected involvement in a Darul Uloom Deoband event crowd is minimal, which would sort of put the kabosh on Old Europe's scold.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Finn displays his ignorance in other ways, as well. I have already pointed out that the difference between the people in "christian countries" and those in "muslim countries" is largely economic. In the places which can be called "christian countries," the population has something to lose.

Finn ignores the evidence about christian extremist groups in the United States. Finn constructs a strawman to the effect that christianity has assured economic and cultural development in the west, while Islam has retarded such development in the middle east--i made no such argument.

But he ignores the point about the Serbs altogether. Radovan Karadić, the wacko Sarajevo psychiatrist who became the spiritual leader of the Bosnia Serbs is a fugitive, accused of war crimes, specifically that he ordered ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. One of his earliest and most effective moves in Bosnia was to hammer on the use of the term "Turk" for Bosnian Muslims, knowing the ancient antipathy of Serbs toward Turks would help to demonize the intended victims.

Finn displays an appalling ignorance of the situation in the Six Counties (Ulster is not an appropriate name, given that three of the nine counties of Ulster lie in the Republic). A few people in the Republic, and a great many people in the Six Counties will ask a person their name, knowing how easily one's religion can be identified by their family name. For ambiguous names, they'll even ask how it is spelled--for example, Kelly is a Catholic name, while Kelley is a Protestant name. Finn probably is ignorant of the fact Ian Paisley, the First Minister in Northern Ireland until he resigned just a little over a month ago, has been a Protestant radical since the 1950s. When the Presbyterian church in Northern Ireland would no longer allow Paisley to use their churches for his gospel mission, he founded the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster. Paisley and the Free Presbyterians have publicly condemned the Catholic Church and various Popes, stating that Catholic doctrine and liturgical practice mean that they are not christian. But Finn doesn't think it's about religion.

There appear to be a lot of things which Finn things for no better reason than that he thinks he can contruct a position from which to argue--as opposed to thinking them because he has informed himself well and has come to a carefully considered opinion based on the information he has absorbed.

It is your incredible conceit that inevitably leads you to "strawman" accusations. Unlike you, I am not squeamish about directly responding to your postings and so unless I respond directly to you or quote your pedantic drivel it really doesn't matter whether or not I address an argument you have not made. All things do not revolve around The Pooch.

In fact, Finn has not ignored the evidence of christian extremist groups in the United States. Finn has not denied such groups, but he certainly has argued that their existence doesn't establish an equivalence between modern Islam and Christianity in terms of the number and degree of violent incidents by extremist groups, or for the general proclivity for religious based violence of each faith.

If you really believe the conflict in Northern Ireland was based primarily on religion, you are not only ignorant, you are a fool. Because you may be able to find an instance when the Protestants condemned the liturgical practices of the Catholics (and I write "may" because unlike some of your fans, I don't, at all, assume you are a master historian), in no way provides a proof that the conflict was about religion.

As for the conflicts involving Serbia: Any attempt to reduce the historically violent dynamics of this region to a single source of causation is to display appalling ignorance.

There is a reason modern usage of the term "ethnic cleansing" is so associated with this region and why the term "religious cleansing" wasn't coined.

While it is true that the targets of Serbian ethnic cleansing were predominately muslims (Bosnians and Albanians) there is no evidence that the Serbians had any forgiveness for the minority Christian populations of these regions, unless they declared themselves as collaborators.

The Serbians (overwhelmingly Orthodox Christians as they may have been) were still the targets of Christian Croatian ethnic cleansing.

This geographical area is known as The Balkans and the term "Balkanizationation" does not have a religious connotation. The ethnic disputes within this region, undoubtedly, have a religious component, but it is appalling ignorant to suggest that religion was the primary force behind the region's conflicts.

Proof in the pudding; When the Christian Serbs sought to eradicate the Muslim Bosnians, what "Christian" nations sent their "Christian" warriors to support them? How many foreign muslims found their way to the fighting in this region?

0 Replies

While not a Christian, Muslim, Jew or Jain, I don't have an aversion to formalized religions, and I do not distinguish among them all as to which is good and which might be bad.

It is as idiotic to assert that Islam is an evil religion as it is to so accuse Christianity.

The argument on this thread seems to center, however, on the rather juvenile position of "Well, you think Muslims are so bad, just look at what Christians have done!"

The great irony of the position that Islamic violence is equivalent to Christian violence is that it tends to be most often argued by people who, ostensibly, believe religion is a fraud.

How to explain the defenders of Islam being the same attackers of Christianity?

Clearly they are not muslims.

The overwhelming majority of them are far too sophisticated to buy into membership in any religion, and yet they defend Islam.

I'm sure they will argue that they are not defending Islam but showing that there is no difference among the world's great religion.

BS

If that argument had any substance we wouldn't see this postings and links that suggested Islam was A-OK while Christianity was "BAD."

I would be content if it actually amounted to some sort of intellectually vacuous notion that the concepts of "superior" and "worse" have no viability, but clearly this is not the case.

Obama is superior --- McCain is worse.

Europe is superior --- Southeastern America is worse.

Liberalism is superior --- Conservatism is worse.

Etc, etc, etc...

What we actually have is a quite sizeable group of citizens who are more inclined to defend the other than the common. Is this really a good thing beyond the personal conceits of these citizens?

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The argument on this thread seems to center, however, on the rather juvenile position of "Well, you think Muslims are so bad, just look at what Christians have done!"

Bullshit, you're the only one here who is presenting arguments as puerile as that.

The basis for Fox's earlier attempt at argument in this thread was that Islam is essentially evil, and a threat to civilization and good governance wherever it appears. Specifically, Fox attempted to claim that Muslims do not speak out against terrorist violence. Old Europe has shot that claim all to hell.

The point of speaking about extremist Christian violence (or Hindu violence, or the violence of one set of Buddhists against another set off Buddhists in Sri Lanka) is to point out that no religion has clean skirts when it comes to bloody violence. The point is not to say that Christianity is "as bad" as Islam, it's to point out that no religious confession can claim the moral high ground as regards murderous violence, that the members of no religious confession should automatically be demonized, or sanctified.

You're just whining because you can't come up with a plausible argument in defense of yet another idiotic thread by Fox.

0 Replies

It is more than a little hilarious to see Finn writing: "It is as idiotic to assert that Islam is an evil religion as it is to so accuse Christianity."--while he continues to try to assert that Old Europe has not been able to demonstrate that Muslims condemn terrorists violence.

I guess that's the shotgun approach to rhetorical exchange. Scatter all sorts of silly arguments over the topic, in the hope that one of them will stick.

If it is idiotic to assert that Islam is an evil religion, it will be equally idiotic to argue that there is no plausible evidence that any significant number of leaders of Islam speak out against extremist violence.

Finn seems rather "conflicted" as they say these days--he wants to support Fox's dimwitted argument that Muslims don't condemn extremist violence, at the same time as he wishes to sound reasonable and sage in his estimation of the relative moral value of religious confessions. Maybe he just wants to keep his cake, and eat it, too.

0 Replies

Oh boy, Finn is awfully entertaining right now. Speaking of himself in the third person (how charming), he writes:

Quote:

In fact, Finn has not ignored the evidence of christian extremist groups in the United States. Finn has not denied such groups, but he certainly has argued that their existence doesn't establish an equivalence between modern Islam and Christianity in terms of the number and degree of violent incidents by extremist groups, or for the general proclivity for religious based violence of each faith.

Of course, one mustn't count those pesky Irish, and one must ignore the Orthodox Serbs, attempting ethnic cleansing against Muslims and Catholics--but, nevertheless, it is a rather hilarious juxtaposition to:

Quote:

It is as idiotic to assert that Islam is an evil religion as it is to so accuse Christianity.

Apparently, by Finn's own criterion, the first quoted passage is evidence of his idiocy.

You're not very good at this sort of thing, Finn--in fact, you're bloody lousy at it. Don't flatter yourself that i'm squeamish about addressing you. If i don't have to endure a stench such as yours, i don't. I have no masochism in me.

Tell me some more about "the pooch," Finn. Shall we take that as evidence of the profound wisdom and clever, adroit address of your forensic method?

0 Replies

Radovan Karadzic, Bosnian Serb propagandist, and fugitive from war crimes charges:

"This, what you are doing, is not good. This is the path that you want to take Bosnia and Herzegovina on, the same highway of hell and death that Slovenia and Croatia went on. Don't think that you won't take Bosnia and Herzegovina into hell, and the Muslim people maybe into extinction. Because the Muslim people cannot defend themselves if there is war here."

-- Sarajevo, addressing the Bosnia Parliament, 1991.

"Today, from the perspective of the Serbian nation, it is only acceptable to be independent, that we may not be dominated, that the numerical superiority of another nation doesn't influence us, that our fate will not be determined by the percentage of Muslims in Bosnia. That is our right!"

-- Sarajevo, in a 1991 interview

"The Serbs have only two friends: God, and the Greeks."

-- At a rally in Athens in support of Serbs, in 1995

Yet Finn would have you believe that religious sentiments played no part in the Bosnian war.

0 Replies

Finn is content to ignore the distinction i have already pointed out between the Catholic Croatians and the Orthodox Serbs--more evidence of his appalling ignorance i guess. And, he writes this:

Quote:

How many foreign muslims found their way to the fighting in this region?

According to the United States Institute for Peace, quite a few--hundreds of Iranian Revolutionary Guards, alone, not counting Mujahideen from other nations. Speaking of the implementation of the a part of the Dayton Accords, the USIP's train and equip program for the Bosnian police and military, the USIP notes:

Quote:

The Train and Equip program has also been used as a lever with the Bosnian government to remove foreign mujahideen fighters and to terminate the military and intelligence relationship with Iran. The arms flow from Iran to Bosnia has stopped. Hundreds of Iranian Revolutionary Guards were deployed to Bosnia; they are no longer there, nor are the mujahideen. A high-level Bosnian official in the Ministry of Defense with direct links to Iran was removed from his post as a result of pressure from the United States and the promise of Train and Equip resources once he resigned.

Another source, which claims to have archived a Los Angeles Times article, estimates as many as 4000 mujahideen in Bosnia:

Quote:

Beginning in 1992, as many as 4,000 volunteers from throughout North Africa, the Middle East and Europe came to Bosnia to fight Serbian and Croatian nationalists on behalf of fellow Muslims. They are known as the moujahedeen. A military analyst called them "pretty good fighters and
certainly ruthless."

Hilarity always ensues with Finn. First, he wants to claim that that there is no equivalence between the violence of Muslims and Christians, then he says it is idiotic to claim that Islam is an evil religion, and he also, apparently, wants to suggest that the Bosnian War had no religious overtones, and that the implied (his implication) absensce of Muslim volunteers there is proof of that. Poor Finn.

0 Replies

It would never have occurred to me that any reasonably intelligent person who was paying attention from 1991 to 1998 would not have known that Muslim mujahideen flocked to Bosnia. Guess where that leaves Finn?

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
The religiously political equivalent of an obscure monastic order in Scotland rendering a judgment on a certain Christian behavior.

Is this the relevance you assign to all fatwas, or just the ones that go against your accepted view of Islam?

Did you not read my entire post or did you just choose to select from it a line that would fit what you felt was a clever retort? For if you read just one line beyond the one you quoted, you would have found:

"Not to be dismissed, but to be applauded and encouraged, and yet as evidence that Islam is self-regulating? Please."

Yep, I read it all, and my question remains.

0 Replies

In my own defense, I have never said that Islam or Muslims are evil on this thread or on any thread on A2K or any other board. I have said that Islamic terrorism is evil and that most-not all but most--terrorism in the world today is being conducted by Islamic terrorists. I have also made a point to say that the great majority of Muslim people are non violent and peace loving people. Both things can be and are true.

Some are straining to suggest that modern Christianity produces terrorism and terrorist activity in the same way as does Islam. To say that is absurd and ignorant at best and is extreme prejudice at worst even though a Christian or Christians can be implicated in acts of terrorism. Islamic terrorism is common relatively speaking. Christian terrorism is essentially non existant by comparison. Finn was absolutely correct to make that observation even though I don't believe he subscribes to the Christian faith.

Where some have taken the most issue with me was in my observation/opinion that it is fairly rare-not impossible but fairly rare-to find many Muslims who will speak out against and denounce Islamic terrorism. Most-not all but apparently most-Muslims are afraid that should they do so, they put themselves at risk for death or worse at the hand of the terrorists. Their fears are not unrealistic.

Conversely it is difficult-not impossible but difficult-to find any Christians who will not denounce terrorism committed by anybody. I am confident that it is an extremely rare Christian who fears that speaking out against terrorism will put him/her at risk of death or any unpleasant consequences at the hand of other Christians.

Whatever Islamic or Christian history is in the books does not change what is here and now in the least.

Now then, this line of discussion is interesting, but it is not relative to what I had in mind with the original thesis of the thread. I used recognition of Sharia Law in the UK as the example along with the following (with some minor editing of the original post to hopefully increase clarity):

Quote:

Assimilation of other cultures into the existing culture of a nation tends to enrich and expand the cultural wealth of a nation without eroding its uniqueness and strengths.

But what about dual cultures within a nation?

On the Israel/Hamas/Hezbollah/Iran thread there has been spirited discussion about the ramifications for Israel and whether its culture would survive an Islamic Arab majority. The U.S. immigration threads also include a dynamic of an "American culture" versus competing cultures coming in. And at least a few Brits are now raising their eyebrows at how long the uniquely British culture and virtues of law can be sustained with increasing competition (from a separate growing and increasingly activist Muslim population.)

So here......red flags? Or no big deal?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

In my own defense, I have never said that Islam or Muslims are evil on this thread or on any thread on A2K or any other board. I have said that Islamic terrorism is evil and that most-not all but most--terrorism in the world today is being conducted by Islamic terrorists. I have also made a point to say that the great majority of Muslim people are non violent and peace loving people. Both things can be and are true.

I guess that's worth acknowledging. However, you also said

Foxfyre wrote:

While most Muslims are not terrorists or violent in any way, it is much more difficult to find Muslims who will speak out against terrorism for fear of retaliation if any part of the Quran is criticized or disputed.

So far, you have not retracted that. Or clarified it. Maybe you just meant to say it is much more difficult to find Muslims who will speak out against terrorism, because it's so darn hard to use Google and find that kind of information in under a minute.

0 Replies

No I won't retract that nor clarify it because it is the Quran and worship of Allah that ALL Islamic terrorists use as their justification for terrorism. It is a component, an important component, of the whole. You don't insult the Quran or Allah with impunity in the Islamic world.

Now perhaps you would like to discuss the topic instead of nitpicking semantics or phraseology OE?

0 Replies

Based on the original question about Sharia Law in Britain, I have wondered whether some practices of a religion become obsolete at some point in history.

For example, the prohibition against eating pork in orthodox Judaism. One time the prohibition prevented trichinosis. In my opinion, today it is an obsolete need, and is reflected in the acceptance of eating pork by Reformed Judaism.

In other words, if we assume that modernity advances society in general, should there not be reluctance to allow religions to move society away from modernity?

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

Based on the original question about Sharia Law in Britain, I have wondered whether some practices of a religion become obsolete at some point in history.

For example, the prohibition against eating pork in orthodox Judaism. One time the prohibition prevented trichinosis. In my opinion, today it is an obsolete need, and is reflected in the acceptance of eating pork by Reformed Judaism.

In other words, if we assume that modernity advances society in general, should there not be reluctance to allow religions to move society away from modernity?

An excellent observation Foofie. My Muslim neighbors may or may not be 'orthodox' Muslim, but they dress and behave just like everybody else around here. No head scarves when they go out. I don't know if they follow more Muslim traditions when they attend prayers at the Mosque or otherwise go to the Islamic Center here. The only reason I know they are Muslim is because they have mentioned going there and we had a brief discussion on prayer and religion when one of their family members was critically ill awhile back. (I offered to pray for her and they graciously thanked me and advised they were Muslim but it couldn't hurt. . . .) I don't know if they eat pork, but I was careful to avoid including anything 'unkosher' when I took food over during their crisis.

Just look at how much Christian customs have changed over the decades. There was a time out of respect for Christian mores that just about everyplace in the US rolled up the sidewalks on Sunday, everything was closed, and the Sabbath Day was observed. The Blue Laws got ridiculous. Once in the 1960's I went to a 7-11 in Arlington TX to buy panty hose on Saturday so that I could wear them on Sunday. I was advised that Sunday was their day to sell panty hose and the Blue Laws woud not allow them to sell them on Saturday. It was that dumb!!!!!

Over time I think most of us merge our various customs, races, and ethnic backgrounds and mix them into the whole. We assimilate. But not always.

It is the 'not always' part that I think some see the problem with a national policy that allows different people to follow different laws based on religion or ethnicity. Right now that is all pretty ambiguous and, as some have pointed out, the British law trumps Muslim law when there is a significant conflict. But if the Muslim population should increase to a majority, would they retain British law? Or would they replace it with Sharia law? Would Britain as a unique culture cease to exist? Is a national policy recognizing Sharia law the first step toward that eventuality?

Far fetched. Possibly. Would it be a good thing if that happened though? I can't think of any reason that it would be.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

...But if the Muslim population should increase to a majority, would they retain British law? Or would they replace it with Sharia law? Would Britain as a unique culture cease to exist? Is a national policy recognizing Sharia law the first step toward that eventuality?

Far fetched. Possibly. Would it be a good thing if that happened though? I can't think of any reason that it would be.

If you are asking me, I am an unrepentent Anglophile, regardless of how they treated their colonies over the centuries. I still talk English, and like Charles Dickens. And, the BBC comedies are enjoyable.

So, it is a subjective response that I would never want to think the British lose their Britishness. Hear! Hear!

And, while Americans are not British, I personally believe it was the influence of the British culture that made Americans what they are; stiff upper lip and all that stuff.

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

...But if the Muslim population should increase to a majority, would they retain British law? Or would they replace it with Sharia law? Would Britain as a unique culture cease to exist? Is a national policy recognizing Sharia law the first step toward that eventuality?

Far fetched. Possibly. Would it be a good thing if that happened though? I can't think of any reason that it would be.

If you are asking me, I am an unrepentent Anglophile, regardless of how they treated their colonies over the centuries. I still talk English, and like Charles Dickens. And, the BBC comedies are enjoyable.

So, it is a subjective response that I would never want to think the British lose their Britishness. Hear! Hear!

And, while Americans are not British, I personally believe it was the influence of the British culture that made Americans what they are; stiff upper lip and all that stuff.

Me too. Even 200 years has not erased all those British customs and values that we brought from the Old World for sure, though we have intermingled inherited British culture with all manner of other cultures to create a uniquely American culture.

But agreed. I would miss the Benny Hills and British humor; hearing a British accent. British written children's books are unsurpassed in the world. Even the culture of the Queen and her court is felt here in America and, much as does art and music, affects us positively and we watch with fascination.

So I hope those sometimes pompous but absolutely wonderful Brits hold their dominion if for no other reason than there should always be an England. And somehow, looking at all Islamic countries around the world, I can't see how an Islamic Britain would be an improvement on or preferable to what Britian now has.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Some are straining to suggest that modern Christianity produces terrorism and terrorist activity in the same way as does Islam.

No, not at all. With no strain at all, i am saying that it is not Islam that produces terrorism, no more than it is Christianity which produces terrorism. If you are going to assert that Islam produces terrorism, on the basis of the warped religious views of those who practice terrorism in the name of Islam, then it can be as easily alleged that people like Eric Rudolph, or the Serb Nationalists are terrorists because Christianity made them that way.

Jesus, how stupid can you get. You want to deny that Christianity "produces" terrorism, and at the same time allege that Islam does. If all you are going to allege is a matter of scale, then how do you account for the more than 8,000 Muslim men and boys deliberately slaughtered at Srebrenica, precisely because they were Muslim? You'd have to stack a hell of a lot of terrorist attacks for which you allege Islam is the cause, one on top of the other, to match that figure of 8,000 in a single incident. How many killings were involved in Serb terrorism against Croats and Slovenes because they're Catholics and Bosniaks and Kosovars because they Muslims? How many killed in Ireland and England because of that conflict? If there is any straining going on here, it is Fox straining at gnats while swallowing (a) bull.

Quote:

To say that is absurd and ignorant at best and is extreme prejudice at worst even though a Christian or Christians can be implicated in acts of terrorism. Islamic terrorism is common relatively speaking. Christian terrorism is essentially non existant by comparison. Finn was absolutely correct to make that observation even though I don't believe he subscribes to the Christian faith.

Such a conclusion can only be reached by ignoring the economic and political causes of terrorism in the Muslim world, while (as Finn has attempted to do) alleging political reasons for the terrorism of Christians in Ireland and the Balkans. Such a conclusion can only be reached by ignoring that there is little to no terrorist activity in the majority of the Muslim world. Indonesia is the largest Muslim nation in the world. There has been one significant act of terrorism in the last decade. That conclusion can only be reached by being selectively blind to extremists who themselves allege a Christian motivation, while selectively turning a spotlight on the activities of extremists who themselves allege a Muslim motivation. That is the best measure of absurdity and ignorance in this thread.

Quote:

Where some have taken the most issue with me was in my observation/opinion that it is fairly rare-not impossible but fairly rare-to find many Muslims who will speak out against and denounce Islamic terrorism. Most-not all but apparently most-Muslims are afraid that should they do so, they put themselves at risk for death or worse at the hand of the terrorists. Their fears are not unrealistic.

Conversely it is difficult-not impossible but difficult-to find any Christians who will not denounce terrorism committed by anybody. I am confident that it is an extremely rare Christian who fears that speaking out against terrorism will put him/her at risk of death or any unpleasant consequences at the hand of other Christians.

The majority of Christians live in (relatively) democratic states which enjoy a high degree of economic security, and therefore enjoy a high degree of police security. The majority of Muslims do not. I have already pointed out the huge difference that economic security and political freedom makes in the attitudes of those who can be recruited by extremist militants. It is equally true that a lack of basic police security makes it far more dangerous for people to speak out in the mostly impoverished Muslim world, a world in which the stable nations are usually stable because they are police states. In Algeria, a Muslim fundamentalist government was elected, and overthrown by the military. Extremists, including the entire array of suicide bombers and jihadists arose, and were quickly put out of business, by an effective police state. It is relatively safe to denounce someone to the police in Algeria. In addition, within the context of North Africa, Algeria is affluent, one of the most affluent nations in Africa. There is far less ground to recruit suicide bombers and jihadists in Algeria than elsewhere in the Muslim world, and that as much as an effective police state accounts for the failure of extremist Muslim resistance to the police state imposed by the military. People have something to lose, and they don't want to lose it.

How much different would it be in the United States, a nation with literally millions of Christian crackpots, if people had nothing to lose? How much different would it be in the United States, a nation with literally millions of Christian crackpots, to speak out against Christian extremism, if there were no effective police force to keep the public peace?

Typical of almost every argument i've ever seen Fox advance at this site, this is a simple minded appeal to selective vision and bigotry.

Quote:

Whatever Islamic or Christian history is in the books does not change what is here and now in the least.

Oh yeah, you want to be sure to throw that in there, because, historically, there is no other religious confession in the world which can hold a candle to the Christians for pure bloody slaughter. Islam burst on the world somewhat less than 1400 years ago. What was Christianity up to as it approached 1400 years. It doesn't bear thinking about.

Quote:

Certainly as the Roman Empire slowly collapsed, the Goths, Franks, Huns, Vandals, Angles, Saxons, et al, who invaded Western Europe changed the culture of that area within a relatively short time.

Another example of Fox's fractured fairy tales of history. Although rejecting an historical analysis of the violence of Christianity versus the violence of Islam, she is eager to trot out a bullshit line of historical comparison for her main thesis.

The authority of Rome in the west slowly collapses, the empire itself survived for another thousand years. Every people mentioned here by Fox was at one time or another admitted to the Roman empire as foederati or foolishly allowed in for their military service, and that includes the Huns (Aetius, who was to defeat Attila in Gaul in 451, himself used a Hunnic army to subdue the Burgundians). The "barbarians" to which Fox blithely refers in her profound ignorance, seized in the western part of the empire portions of the territory which the imperial administration could no longer control--Roman control did not fail because the barbarians arrived, the barbarians arrived because Roman control was disintegrating.

The "culture" of the tribes called barbarians was far more profoundly affected by the empire than Fox seems able to comprehend. Their languages were forever altered by the exposure to Latin, a language which survives today in the speech of literally billions of people. Their law codes were drastically altered or abandoned altogether in favor of variations on the Roman code. Their religious practices were abandoned altogether to embrace on form or another of Christianity--ironically, many of the so-called barbarians became Arians, but that did not lead to the triumph of what became known as the Arian heresy. Yet Fox would have us believe that the arrival of these tribes meant some kind of profound cultural sea change. The only profound change in western Europe and northern Africa was political. Every invading tribe adopted the language of the empire, the law codes of the empire and the by then dominant religion of the empire. All they changed was the names and faces of the slave masters.

Fox is pleased to call this a Muslim "invasion." I would be interested to know how she alleges that Muslims living in England, arrived there as citizens of the Commonwealth, established and maintained by the English, constitute an invasion. I would be interested to know how she thinks that compares to Vandals, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Burgundians, Alans, Avars, Franks and all the other tribes setting for themselves as kings and petty aristocrats. Does she allege that the Muslims of England are going to enslave the former population and lord it over everyone?

As usual, when it comes to history, Fox makes it up as she goes along.

0 Replies

AND SO IT BEGINS? SHARIA LAW IN BRITAIN?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know