[Closed] Cause for concern?

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 ****s 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.

[i]They dont deal with criminal law. [/i]
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.

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. [i]Most[/i] 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.

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.

Oh really?

So please clarify for in what way exactly I am wrong in what I am saying, which is quite simply that the Daily Mail and the BNP are not great sources of unbiased reporting or truth. Therefore it is wise to discount what they say.

<Sits back arms folded waiting with interest for the response.>

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.

I didn't say that, you are mis-representing me yet again. Try actually reading what I said and stop being so patronising. You could write for the Daily Mail yourself with that kind of attitude.

G, where does Grumm say

Grumm : Daily Mail and BNP are almost universally inaccurate

Because I simply cannot find it.

If you look through the Dail Mail report of 85 Sharia Law Courts in the UK, the only thing that is different to the syndicated story that's almost exactly the same in all the papers is the headline, which is typically Dail Wail.

Your point that it's simpler to just ignore the Daily Mail, you can't, because their influence is part of the problem.

2nd post down on page 3 of this thread

No he doesn't.

trailmonkey - Member
This thread is indeed a cause for concern. Anyone who wishes to avoid a turgid fight to the death between the usual champions of all that is righteous and the neaderthal paranoia of the Sun/Mail massive, should CLOSE THE THREAD NOW.

Eerily prescient, the "turgid" bit anyway.

At the risk of sounding childish : Yes he does

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

[b]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.[/b]

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.

Posted 2 hours ago

[i]Whole post copied for info relevant paragraph highlighted.[/i]

Incidentally I wholly agree with Mr Agreeable. However, as long as people keep getting sucked into this utter bollocks about Islam in the UK and continuously reinforcing this utter drivel. I will take great delight in pi$$ing them off by pointing out the flaws in the arguments and the inherant racism that is being exhibited, and I make no apology whatsoever for that.

Which is clearly not the same as

Grumm : Daily Mail and BNP are almost universally inaccurate

Yeah except strangely I seem to be on the other side to the usual in this lovely thread.

2nd post down on page 3 of this thread

Nope, wrong again. Try actually reading what I said.

Does the fact that the Guardian reported the same story make it ok to talk about it now?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/8581818

I will take great delight in pi$$ing them off by pointing out the flaws in the arguments and the inherant racism that is being exhibited, and I make no apology whatsoever for that.

Its a fair enough motive however so far you have failed to achieve it.

I will take great delight in pi$$ing them off by pointing out the flaws in the arguments

Where have you done that then? Please highlight the relevant paragraphs like you did so well before.

inherant racism that is being exhibited,

I think you are confusing race with religion. One is chosen and it is fair game to analyse and criticise.

Check out Dennis MacEoin and see what I mean. The guy is fairly widely discredited, and definately could be accused of having an anti Islamic bias. The Policy Exchange is a definitely right wing think tank, and if they are basing their thinking on the writings of Dennis MacEoin have to be questioned.

All this is scaremongering of the worst kind. No more no less, it is the oxygen that the likes of the BNP breath. Just utter the words Sharia Law and immediately the hysterics start. Its that simple

PS : Did you note Nick, that I did not put that section as a quotation?? Thats because I got fed up with copying and pasting it, and paraphrased what he had said. I think you'll find the interpretation was accurate, unless you want to argue that point.

Well why didn't you say so?

I don't think it was accurate no, he said their motives were wrong, according to you that's the same as saying what they say is inaccurate. Ain't necessarily so is what I'm saying 🙂

PS : Did you note Nick, that I did not put that section as a quotation?? Thats because I got fed up with copying and pasting it, and paraphrased what he had said. I think you'll find the interpretation was accurate, unless you want to argue that point.

Paraphrasing and distorting are not the same things.

Just utter the words Sharia Law and immediately the hysterics start. Its that simple

Where you are concerned that certainly seems to be the case. Some people are actually trying to have a reasoned debate.

In what way was I distorting what you said Grumm?

Wrong : Inaccurate ....... Difference ? I would say that is something is wrong it is also by definition inaccurate. Please do enlighten me if I've got that "inaccurate".

Where you are concerned that certainly seems to be the case. Some people are actually trying to have a reasoned debate.

Wheres the reasoning?

Kimi, Massa and that Hamilton are full on racist's.

Well, racE'ists' I guess 🙄 😆

Grumm said: "and [b]their motives[/b] for saying things are pretty much universally wrong"

An example: the BNP say (maybe, for the sake of discussion) that blacks make up a disproportionate amount of the prison population. That is accurate, but the [u]motives[/u] are wrong.

Thank you DrJ, but he has had it explained to him many times already and clearly doesn't get it.

I haven't read much of this thread apart for the first few posts, but as far as this is concerned :

tyger has posted this sort of thing before.

IMO, tyger does indeed have an agenda.

It appears to me that tyger is frantically anti-Islam. He is also extremely pro-Israeli and pro-Zionist. He very strongly supported the recent slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza.

I don't get the impression that tyger is pro-Zionist from a Jewish perspective. Rather, he appears to be some sort of Christian fundamentalist who is extremely pro-Zionist in much the same way that the Christian fundamentalist fanatics in the United States are.

The Christian fundamentalists in the US (who were behind George Bush) have some sort of bizarre belief about the 12 tribes of Israel and how the United States has a Christian duty to God's Promised Land (Zion)

[url= http://dissidentvoice.org/Apr06/Berkowitz18.htm ]Hagee, the pastor of San Antonio's Cornerstone Church, and the head of a multi-million dollar evangelical enterprise, recently brought together 400 Christian evangelical leaders representing as many as 30 million Christians for an invitation-only "Summit on Israel." The result was the launching of a new pro-Israeli lobbying group called Christians United for Israel[/url]

He very strongly supported the recent slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza.

Really?!!!!!!

Yep hora - the Israelis went into Gaza to kill Palestinians. He very strongly supported that action.

Nah, that would have been extreme trolling for attention. Either that or he is a Paedophile.

Nah, that would have been extreme trolling for attention.

Plenty of christian fundamentalists very strongly supported the Israeli action in Gaza.

I have no idea how many of them are paedophiles.

I suspect however, that it is only a very small minority.

DrJ - Member
Grumm said: "and their motives for saying things are pretty much universally wrong"

An example: the BNP say (maybe, for the sake of discussion) that blacks make up a disproportionate amount of the prison population. That is accurate, but the motives are wrong.

Yep got it and understood that bit. So please explain to me how that statement is a foundation for stating that

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

Grumm and others are then using the Policy Exchange and Denis MacEoin as some sort of academic verification of Islamophobia in respect of Sharia Law, where in fact the man is a self professed supporter of Israel, etc etc etc. Google it and check it out for yourself. I have posted the Wikipedia extract for the sake of brevity, but you don't have to be an internet genius to independantly verify both his credentials and those of the Policy Exchange on respect of lying and rabble rousing over non issues.

Sharia Law as a serious issue in the UK?? Think about it for about 10 seconds and you will realise immediately thats you are being wound up.

[b][u]Exert From Wikipedia on Deni MacEoin[/u][/b]

[i]He continues to work on Islamic issues, particularly the development of radical Islam. [u]In December 2007 the BBC news program Newsnight produced evidence that suggested some material on which MacEoin's report on radical Islam in the UK for Policy Exchange, "The Hijacking Of British Islam", was based had been forged[/u]. Gabriele Marranci, an anthropologist at the University of Western Sydney specialising in the study of Muslim communities has made numerous criticisms of the methodology of the report.[2] Accusations of partisanship and bias have also been made against MacEoin. [u]He has stated: "I do not hold a brief for Islam. On the contrary, I have very negative feelings about it,[/u] but still try to appreciate those elements that elevate it (such as the finer forms of Sufism, the poetry, the architecture, and the belief in material simplicity over greed)... [u]I am pro-Israeli and involve myself in the defence of Israel[/u]

This of itself is not evidence of anything other than the need to be deeply suspicious of anything the bloke writes on the subject.

How can you on the one hand acknowledge that what the BNP and for that the Daily Mail is printing is on the one hand universally wrong in its "motivation", and then on the other state that its logical that some of what they say is correct.

Can we have that picture of the girls looking happy again now please?

RUN AWAY RUN AWAY!
.
.
.
.
[img] [/img]

Grumm and others are then using the Policy Exchange and Denis MacEoin as some sort of academic verification of Islamophobia in respect of Sharia Law, where in fact the man is a self professed supporter of Israel, etc etc etc.

Er... actually I was the first person to point out that Denis MacEoin has been accused of faking research before, a few posts in on the first page. I'm also not certain of the accuracy of the Policy Exchange survey, but if you actually read it it's not just saying 'look at these evil dangerous Muslims that want to destroy our way of life', but has some quite interesting insights into the views of Muslims in this country.

As I said, I can look at sources as useful/interesting even if I don't agree with all of their conclusions or their motivation, because not everything is black and white in my world. I imagine I would disagree with Denis MacEoin's views on Israel pretty strongly and he clearly has an axe to grind on Islam, but that doesn't necessarily mean he is automatically wrong in everything he says.

ernie_lynch, brant

Well hello and "thanks" for your comments! 🙂

Erm... I'm not sure if I should justify myself on here or just disappear (!) but for I've obviously created a bad impression with you and never meant to, so I'm really very sorry.

With regards to having any sort or agenda against anyone, once again I'm very sorry for having given that impression but absolutely not true.
As a loving father of my two children and someone that always carries the value of family very highly I take issue with being labeled a Paedophile even in jest and feel maybe it's you who owe me an apology for that.

With regards the statement you made Gus, ernie, Che or whatever you want to call yourself 🙂

"It appears to me that tyger is frantically anti-Islam. He is also extremely pro-Israeli and pro-Zionist. He very strongly supported the recent slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza."

I'm not anti anyone or pro anyone. The way I saw what was happening was that Israel was defending itself against Hamas lobbing bombs and rockets at them from the Palestinians in Gaza. Hamas took shelter in civilian populated areas and there were casualties - it was terrible as is any loss of life but I don't agree with you that Israel just invaded Gaza to slaughter Palestinians. Okay I'll say no more on the subject.

As for me, I'm English born and bred, I love my country and feel very protective about it's history and heritage and worry for the future of it (as typical of most parents) but I'm not a BMP supporter neither am I an extremist in anything (except building my guitar and biking!). I've been on this forum longer than most (if you include the old one) and on the whole think it's great and also the people on here. If both of you have issues with me then I'll be happy to chat with you and try to sort them my end but please don't libel me or assume things about me which are incorrect.

🙂

Grumm : This in essence is my whole point of disagreement

but that doesn't necessarily mean he is automatically wrong in everything he says.

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.

This sort of Sharia Law thing has been going the rounds in my world for some considerable time. I regularly receive chain emails from people that I would have hoped knew better, but clearly don't. Dear old Denis is frequently quoted in them, and taken at face value, " because he's an academic". As I said above, there is no need to debate it, a few seconds thought would immediately discredit the notion. For the following reasons. Firstly for Sharia Law to hold any sway in this country it would require not only an act of Parliament, that act would have to go through The House of Lords, that well know bastion of radical religious zeal, but even then it would have to comply with European law too. So what are the chances of that? Well unless we are planning on an overwhelming swing towards Islamic extremisim in Europe some time soon so the political processes are overwhelmed with extreme mullahs etc then its somewhere between slim and none.

A thread like this where intelligent and articulate people sit and discuss the concept just gives the notion credence. That is exactly how the BNP and Denis MacEoin operate. It is a gradual picking away at rational thought, and a subtle placing of suggestions such as this one in peoples psyche.

So what I am doing is pointing out the flaws in the arguments being used not solely by you, but your point on motives has become a focal point. Their motive is to spread disinformation and through that process persuade people that there nasty and deceitful propoganda had some merit.

I'm not anti anyone or pro anyone.

What a load of rubbish. Islam and the threat it supposedly poses to our way of life are a recurring theme in your postings. I'd guess that you're quite an insecure person and this is your way of dealing with it, but to anyone who can read between the lines you come across as a cowardly bigot.

Mr Agreeable - well, you're entitled to your opinion but you're just plain wrong! I'm not cowardly or a bigot. I may be worried by certain traits that Islam appears to show but I'm not anti Islam or anti Muslims.

Tyger, what comes across in your posts is fear of the unknown and suspicion of people who follow a different religion to you. If you're afraid or suspicious of something with no basis other than a bunch of half-baked factoids ("thin end of the wedge" indeed - is Islam somehow exceptional amongst religions in being exempt from UK law then?) that makes you prejudiced. Or a bigot, if you will.

I don't believe for a second that there is any realistic chance of Sharia law being introduced for criminal cases in any official way, and I think that generally speaking the 'threat' of it is exaggerated by The Mail etc - however, I don't think that unofficial Sharia courts are a good thing, and I don't think fundamentalist religion of any kind is a good thing. There are no other radical fundamentalist religious movements that have any kind of significant support in this country - hence why Islam is the one we are talking about.

You seem to be falling into the trap of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' - because you are opposed to misguided emails, the Daily Mail, and people like Denis MacEoin, you are actually trying to defend something which is the complete antithesis of your apparently liberal beliefs.

If you bothered to actually read the Policy Exchange report rather than screaming RACIST you would see some interesting things, such as:

Some Islamic scholars have called for a major reinterpretation of sharia law to reflect
modern ideas about human rights, equality for women and tolerance of religious conversion.
Other Islamic scholars disagree with this view and say that sharia law is absolute
and should not be interpreted to fit in with western values. Which of these is closest to
your opinion?”

49% said it should be interpreted, compared to 39% who disagreed.

So, a majority of Muslims in this country would like sharia law to reflect modern ideas about human rights, equality for women and tolerance of religious conversion. Doesn't make for a very good Daily Mail headline does it?

So maybe Muslims aren't the evil threat they are made out to be, wonderful. Does that then mean that every aspect of Islam is fine and shouldn't be challenged or questioned?

Mr Agreeable - maybe I type without thinking sometimes because I'm getting caught up (enjoying) the discussions - too enthusiastic, sorry!

But here's an example of why I flag some of these issues for discussion:

I listened to a Radio 4 prog yesterday about how, under Sharia law in Iran, anyone who changes their Muslim faith can expect to be executed. In the west I don't know of anywhere where you can be executed for becoming a Muslim. Now personally I don't know if this is accurate or not but when I hear that Sharia law is becoming more widespread in the UK it worries me as someone who loves this country and hard fought for freedoms. I'm not a flag waving BMP bigot but I'm just concerned and want to know what others think. Instead I'm just getting accusations thrown at me 🙁

What a load of rubbish. Islam and the threat it supposedly poses to our way of life are a recurring theme in your postings. I'd guess that you're quite an insecure person and this is your way of dealing with it, but to anyone who can read between the lines you come across as a cowardly bigot

As an Atheist I also have concerns about Islam and I suspect there are millions like me. Are we all cowardly bigots?