AND SO IT BEGINS? SHARIA LAW IN BRITAIN?

Oh, and after comparing the reality of human rights granted to the citizenry of Indonesia and Turkey as compared to that enjoyed by the USA or the UK or other western nations, perhaps you would like to make a case that the wealth/opportunities/prosperity of the average Indonesian or Turk is comparable to the average citizen of the USA or the UK or other western nations?

Some of the illustrations posted above, however, show how a nation's constitution and/or official policy can be trumped by demands of Islamic fundamentalists if such fundamentalists have sufficient clout.

Certainly the laws of a country controlled by Islamic fundamentals are far more likely to lack accommodation for human rights than do the laws of the UK and most other developed western countries.

In case you don't know, OE, the issue of headscarves IS based on Sharia law. That the ban would be imposed or lifted purely addresses issues of Sharia law. I suppose the fact that the Parliament was accommodating Sharia law is immaterial in that example?

Even as you single that one example out and ignore all the other examples. Even as you cannot show that my statement re imposition of some or all of Sharia law is incorrect but you suggest I am ignorant?

If you are so damn sure I am the ignorant one, then make your case that the examples I used--these are a very few of many MANY examples that could be cited--are wrong. Until you do that or retract your remarks, I will choose to discuss this with people interested in actually discussing the subject instead of trying to discredit Foxfyre.

In most, perhaps all, predominantly Islamic countries, however, all citizens, Muslim or not, are required to observe some or all of Sharia law.

And then perhaps you might like to offer a rationale for WHY such could never happen in the UK? Or any other developed country in the west? Especially since the thread starter involved British accommodation of demands from Islamic fundamentalists WITHOUT there being a Muslim majority?

Foxfyre wrote:

And then perhaps you might like to offer a rationale for WHY such could never happen in the UK? Or any other developed country in the west? Especially since the thread starter involved British accommodation of demands from Islamic fundamentalists WITHOUT there being a Muslim majority?

SHARIA LAW IN BRITAIN? is (part of) the title of this thread.
And some journalists interpreted Lord Phillips how they liked to it and not according to what he actually sais (and what had been later confirmed by the PM).

There is neither a Catholic nor a Jewish majority in the UK - but both Jewish law as well as Canon Law can be chosen in certain civil cases.

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.

Bullshit yourself - you are.

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.

And yet you didn't argue the violent tendencies of Buddhisim or Hinduism. Convenient to take that position now but it found no place in your prior postings.

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.

Well then that is the point you should have made instead of "Christianity is as bad as Islam."

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

Yeah, that must be it.

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.

Not surprising that you are so easily amused. Sort of like a cretin playing with his feces.

Is it really necessary to point out to you that asserting that Muslims are not condemning terrorist violence is not the equivalent of asserting Islam is evil?

I guess so.

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.

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.

FreeDuck wrote:

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.

Then I am having a hard time understanding your question, as it, forgive me, seems pretty silly.

It seems that you have inferred that because I do not find a fatwa by an Islamic group in India to be terribly influential in the greater Islamic world, that the substance of the fatwa is contrary to my "accepted view of Islam"

In fact the substance of this particular fatwa is in keeping with my understanding of the teachings of Islam. That I believe it will have little impact on the current practice of Islam throughout the world speaks more to my assessment of modern muslims than of the tenets of Islam.

In general, modern muslims are as ignorant as 13th century christians, and this is the point I have been arguing.

This says nothing about Islam or Christianity as religions.

It says everything about the progress towards modernity the followers of each religion, in general, have made.

There is a reason that Islam is a dangerous agent in today's geo-politics and it is no more because of the teachings of Mohammed than the Inquisition was due to the teachings of Christ.

It is simply foolish to assert that, currently, the negative impact of actions claimed to be based on the Islamic faith are equivalent to the negative impact of actions claimed to be based on the Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, Taoist et al faiths.

Every faith can be co-opted by extremists and most have.

Take a clear look around the world right now and tell me which faith is most subject to this poison.

Christianity?

Hinduism?

Judaism?

Taoism?

Clearly it is Islam, and trying to draw some idiotic notions of equivalence between modern day Christianity and modern day Islam serves no point other than the self-loathing motivated desire to run down Western Civilization.

We can speculate how the modern Christian world would respond to Christian terrorists duplicating the frequency and severity of Islamic terrorist attacks, but I think it's fairly safe to assume we would see hundreds of thousands of people marching in protest in Washington, New York, Berlin, Paris, Madrid, Rome, Dublin, Sydney, London, Prague, Buenos Aires, and Brazilia (to name but a few.)

Do we see anything even approaching a meagre duplication of such speculated events in Damascus, Baghdad, Mecca, Medina, Jakarta, Ankara, Cairo, Amman, Islamabad, Abuja, Tehran, Rabat, Khartoum, Kuala Lampur, Niamey, Dakar, Mogadishu, Tirana, Beirut, Tripoli, Nouakchott et al. ?

Nope.

So spare me the nonsensical arguments of religious tolerance, especially when you advance the notion of religion (of any sort - and particulary the Western variety) as a historical bad actor.

Like it or not, Islam reigns supreme in nations that are notable for the level of ignorance of their people. This is a real problem when bizarre, uneducated and rustic interpretations of a religion's teachings supplant its orthodoxy.

My interest in this thread topic, however, is the risk of one people losing their basic culture via encroachment of another people into it. And if such encroachment should be say people committed to Sharia law, should that be considered normal and acceptable with no expectation of negative consequences? Is there no room for concern?

I would like for there to be an intelligent discussion about that. So far the focus has been mostly on demonizing the one introducing the subject and asking the question.

Foxfyre wrote:

My interest in this thread topic, however, is the risk of one people losing their basic culture via encroachment of another people into it. And if such encroachment should be say people committed to Sharia law, should that be considered normal and acceptable with no expectation of negative consequences? Is there no room for concern?

I would like for there to be an intelligent discussion about that. So far the focus has been mostly on demonizing the one introducing the subject and asking the question.

Well, I offered some links to the English and Welsh Law as well as quotations by the Lord Chief Justice for England and Wales.
Again: he said that said that Islamic legal principles could be employed to deal with family and marital arguments and to regulate finance, that such had been done so before and that the English and Welsh Law is above all.

I wish some of our resident Brits here would chime in though. I think they might be helpful to the discussion.

What is "the uniquely British culture" in your opinion?

How is this "uniquely culture" reflected NOW in the English and Welsh, the Scottish and the Norther Irish Law?

And why do you insist that their is a "British Law" when there has never been one at all?

Who isn't familiar with the ethnically identifiable cuisine