Harry's Place

Why are we so focussed on Islamist and Muslim opinions and actions in the UK?

What forces us to discuss these issues?

Its worth stepping back and be clear why its important to us to expose/discuss these angles. We aren’t so interested in Christianity or Judaism.

Is the answer that we are under threat from Islamists and our duty is to bring this to people’s attention? SOmetimes you are so wrapped-up in teh game that you forget why you are in it.

Here’s a role for David Davis. Become the Geet Wilders of the UK.

Astonishing how he can use forced marriage as a further reason why someone would be forced towards extremism, and even more astonishing that no-one has called him on such a breathtakingly obvious sleight of hand argument.

Reminds me of the female Al Qaeda fighters demanding more equality in terms of completely missing the point.

Massoud Shajareh and his IHRC are Islamofascists of the first order who have form. They are directly sponsored by the Islamic Republic (specifically the hard-line Khomeinist faction now fronted by Ahmadinejad) out of the Islamic Republic’s London agency and their primary activity was to monitor and intimidate Iranian students within British Universities and secondly to form a broad radical Islamist coalition (both Shia and Sunni) to shape the public debate in the UK in favour of the acceptance on hard-line Islamist positions – Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism, anti-Israel Qods day, introduction of Sharia, Salman Rushdie, etc.

That the Brown Government and the British security services allows the IHRC and Shajareh to operate without impunity in the full knowledge that they are funded by the Islamic Republic should be an affront to those few left in this country who support the values of inter-community relations, tolerance, and liberalism … but little or nothing is done to confront the IHRC. The Guardian regularly gives them op Ed pages and the Left except the efforts of a few notables on this blog views them as “progressives”.

When I see Shajareh deported and some support being given to Iranian student dissidents then I will know that Brown’s governments is serious about combating and not appeasing Islamists in the UK.

It is important to note the background of any purported spokesman for the Muslim community nowadays. Faizul-Aqtab Siddiqui represents the Bareilawi community, and his Hijaz College is well-known to be affiliated to them. While they may make alliances with other communities on certain issues (the Danish cartoons, for example), any attempt they make to represent the generality of the Muslims themselves will be resisted, and certainly their scholars will not be permitted to judge on their affairs. The Deobandis and Wahhabis or “Salafis” regard them as heretics, and a few years ago I remember when elements associated with Hijaz College gained control of a mosque in south London for a while, and a campaign was mounted to replace their committee with Deobandi/Tablighi people, which eventually succeeded, but in the meanwhile there was a fight in the mosque at the Friday prayer.

Regarding forced marriage, it may come as a shock to you but there are Muslim scholars and imams in this country who will already support a woman who wants out of a forced marriage, and the mainstream opinion among Islamic scholars is that this type of marriage is not permitted anyway. So, it is not surprising that an Islamic scholar links opposition to forced marriages with Shari’a. As for the dumb jibe about martyrdom videos, we all know what those responsible stand for, namely big political issues such as Palestine and Iraq rather than personal ones.

Charter 3:103 just proposes that Muslims stick together and not let race or nationalism divide them. What is wrong with that?

Regarding the link about who is a true Muslim, the group under consideration was the so-called Free Muslim Coalition, a publicity vehicle for one Kamal Nawash, a wannabe Republican politician from Virginia. This group claims to theoretically support democracy, but opposes introducing it in the Muslim world now because people would elect Islamists (I would have thought that people who support spreading democracy in the Muslim world would find that significant). When they held a march against terrorism in Washington in 2005, they were so desperate to appear to have a wide range of support that they published the name of any supporting organisation that was submitted to them, and ended up including some which did not support them, a clothes shop in Arizona, people with anti-Muslim agendas and one “organisation” whose name included the words “Nawash sucks dick” backwards. The “Free Muslims” are known as spoilers who make a show of publicly opposing Muslim causes and throwing around accusations of “extremism” so as to make Nawash look like a real patriot. It’s not surprising that they would support the so-called free speech rally.

As for a Muslim attending it, that a Muslim would a rally to specifically support the right, even in a free country, to insult the Prophet would seem rather incongruous to me as a Muslim. While I do support free speech and might attend a general rally to defend it if it appeared to be under threat, and do not expect a non-Muslim society or state to defend the honour of my religion when they do not defend their own, I am not going to give my time to purposely defend the right of bigots to insult Islam.

Once “private”, voluntary Shariah is recognised, full scale separation of Shariah family law will follow. Then we will see things like the Mosque call to prayer being given special legal privilege.

Much voluntary observance of Shariah is already recognised. People are allowed to visit mosques, pray as they see fit, eat halal food and give to charity. Force feed them pork and convert them to Christianity, it’s the only way. :)

I’m sure this is a very important issue, Neil, but I would echo Maven’s sentiments, surely there are other issues in the world?

do you think it is wise to give an opportunity for some of the local headbangers to rant against Muslims (Orwell, Field, just wait for JP)?

why not simply post a link to little green footballs and hope that the headbangers will take their hatreds there?

Can people stop painting all Muslims with the same brush? Sure, we have a very real, fast-growing problem with Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism.

If we truly wish to stop this perverse minority world from hijacking mainstream Islamic institutions, politics and religious intepretations we need to support the forms of Islam that happily existed side by side with us before we had allowed the Saudis etc. to get a foothold in Europe. Time we closed down the schools and mosques of extremism financed by foreign dictatorships and had our own state-financed Islamic institutions whose views and politics would necessarily be open to public scrutiny and the law of our land. We need to encourage the UK’s Muslims to see themselves as UK citizens who happen to be Muslims. We need them to understand it is the Islamist extremists rather than the non-Muslim majority who are dividing them and making them feel isolated. You can’t do that if you see all Islamic individuals or institutions as potential fifth columnists and suicide bombers. As I’ve posted before, Islam is a collection of different religions. Some of those Islamic religions appear to be very close to each other, but often they differ significantly enough to be treated as separate religions. Islamic fundamentalism is relatively new and generally alien to most Islamic religions. Let’s help encourage our Muslim citizens to appreciate that point, rather than stigmatise them.

I am not going to give my time to purposely defend the right of bigots to insult Islam.

And indeed, why should you, sweetie?

Your time is taken up defending islamist bigots, and as all know, that’s a full-time job!

Why you spent whole weeks defending the abduction of ‘Molly’.

Inhabiting the skewed, incestuous world of ‘body-double’ Christs, you saw her kidnapping as an issue of human rights!

I’m sure this is a very important issue, Neil, but I would echo Maven’s sentiments, surely there are other issues in the world?

There are, but unfortunately I was too busy to blog about David Davis.

do you think it is wise to give an opportunity for some of the local headbangers to rant against Muslims (Orwell, Field, just wait for JP)?

I don’t agree with them.

why not simply post a link to little green footballs and hope that the headbangers will take their hatreds there?

I wish they would go there. This post is not about bigotry, but about opposing reactionary attempts to impose religious law on a community. So they can fuck off.

This post has attracted some ridiculous and hysterical comments. If use of Sharia may offer a credible and effective way to police issues like forced marriage in some Moslem communities it seems to me that the pragmatic approach is to try it out for size.

It is important to realise that there are no such thing as group rights. Many of us have been ambushed by calls for special rights for Muslims, but until the Archbishop saga, few of us had thought through the ethical and legal issues. What at first may seem reasonable enough is, in fact, just the thin end of yet another wedge that Muslim activists are trying to foist on us. Muslims in Britain (and elsewhere that the writ of Sharia does not run) have rights as citizens – period. Where Sharia rules, they have special privileges as Muslims, bought at the expense of non-Muslims – as if acts of random violence against them by Muslims were not bad enough.

The Government has to unequivocally stamp on this: only one law runs in Britain – that written by our lawmakers.

As a follow-up, comments that I deem to be of a bigoted nature will be be deleted in this thread.

Considering the amount of Muslims in this country who would be very happy to see Sharia law implemented and the fact that establishment figures like the Archbishop of Canterbury seem to think that there is nothing wrong with this, and that’s probably inevitable, I consider this to be a very important issue.

“Yusuf Smith
Charter 3:103 just proposes that Muslims stick together and not let race or nationalism divide them. What is wrong with that?”

So you support both the right and mission of ‘White’ supremicists to form parties, gain power and attack non-white Britons?

What the hell is going on over there, Neil? This is getting beyond ridiculous (as if that were possible).

@Neil D
Would it be bigotry to point out that 46 percent of young British Muslims answered yes to the imposition of sharia law — whether or not it would be the whole package or only family law?
Approximately one third, according to another survey, said yes to the killing of apostates?
And if one third of British Christians said yes to the killing of apostates from Christianity, would it be unfair and bigotted to draw certain conclusions about the general British Christian population or at least a substantial part thereof?
Is it bigotry to draw a certain conclusion about religious tolerance from the fact that almost all Muslim states impose some kind of legal penalty on converts from Islam? The treatment of apostates is the litmus test for whether any nation with a substantial Muslim population can maintain its pluralism. Apostates from Christianity aren’t killed in Kentucky,but apostates from Islam are killed even in secular Turkey.
Is it then wrong to extrapolate from this state of affairs to the implications for immigration policy? It seems that soft leftists are willing to criticize these aspects of “Islamism” but at the same time insist that it’s bigotry to draw any consistent conclusion for immigration policy.

Note that taking any position on Muslim immigration is a distinct issue from whether even asking the question should be considered bigotry.
One might either argue that
(a) There is no correlation between any critical mass of adherents of a religion and religious tolerance and hence no implications for immigration;
(b) There is a somewhat weak to significant correlation depending on the insignificant to critical mass of adherents of a religion and religious tolerance and hence implications for immigration; but debating any implications exceeding respectable human rights discourse is potentially dangerous and must be avoided;
(c) There is a correlation and hence implications for immigration but answering the question in the affirmative should not dictate any violation of human rights discourse.
Framing the question is often descriptive more than proscriptive.

The water grows warmer, as yet unnoticed by the frog.

In her book, “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings,” Maya Angelou said black minority men deep down do not want equality or change. What they want is an EXCHANGE. That is, the black man wants be in the driver’s seat and have the power of the white man.

I think this is true for males in all minorities which is what this Sharia ploy is all about. It is a way for Muslim males who feel marginalized and powerless in the west to gain a foothold of power in the white world.

Furthermore, Muslim cultures are patriarchal favoring the male in property and family rights, etc. When a man that grows up in an environment that favors his every whim ends up in a culture dominated by those that don’t favor him, the desire to find an avenue to power becomes paramount. Thus the preoccupation of Muslim males trying to find power in British society. It’s about ego and control, nothing more.

Muslims in Canada tried to get Sharia implemented in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario and the provincial governments of each outlawed it. They were having none of it and neither were Canadians who made a loud hue and cry when Muslims attempted to bring it in through the backdoor. They said it would run parallel to the Canadian judicial system and could be overriden by the law of the land. Harumph, fuck that noise. We weren’t that gullible, nor were women of all stripes going to lay down and let it be put in force.

I want to see my Muslim sisters who are of the sect that practices FGM under the guise of Sharia keep their clitoris’s and not have to marry some old fart because she’s been ordered to by her father.

Christ, even Britian grew out of arranged marriages. Muslims should be looking to learn how the U.K. did so, rather than trying to roll back the clock.

FUCK SHARIA LAW!!!

Where will we be in 10 or 15 years with these backward people, They are gaining political strength year on year, Each year their are more of them and their opinions show no sign of moderation or accomodation with western political norms.

They are playing a sophisticated political game here, appealing to our desire for moderate muslims who we can do business with, but the so called moderates have exactly the same aim as the nutters.

What they cannot get with violence and the threat of violence they will try to get with appeals to sweet reason, political pragmatism and common humanity, None of which will count for anything when they are in the driving seat.

They want sharia courts know but will that be the end of their demands?, Where will we be in a decade or two?, There is a limit to what we can realistically throw overboard without splitting the social fabric to atoms, because if muslims can have it why can’t everybody else?

If there’s one thing we can be sure of its that these courts will gradually and maybe not so gradually expand their jurisdiction to include everything that goes on in the muslim community.

These so called elders will be very powerful political figures and our weak and craven political class will use them as intermediarys thereby cementing sharia law in place as a permanent fixture.

The future doesent look bright, islam makes its gains and stakes out its territory, Mainstream politicians are seemingly powerless to stop islams remorseless encroachment.

Islam is this countrys number one political preoccupation not bad for a group who are 3 or 4 % of the population, islam has a huge head of steam behind it, also growing in numbers and public profile are the BNP, Who knows where that will end up either.

However it pans out none of it looks good to me.

I have no issue whatsoever with the ‘operation’ of sharia courts as voluntary societies with no force whatsoever in UK law. Anybody is free in a free society to ask for respected third party arbitration on any matter. It is entirely voluntary if they heed it or not. There is no legal compulsion.

Siddiqi isn’t going as far as that dumb ass Rowan Williams. Siddiqi merely states that sharia courts are a cheap informal means of sorting out disputes between Muslims on a religiously determined basis, if they wish to seek such advice. Nothing wrong with that.

Williams (though he denied it) wanted sharia enforced. The problems with that are legion.

1. ‘Sharia’ is not a universal body of ‘law’, but a bundle of decisions (’fiqh’) by jurists over 1400 years of interpreting the Quran, currently running to four main law schools. What is ’sharia’ in one place is not ’sharia’ in another.
2. Most people (Muslims and non-Muslims alike) confuse ’sharia’ which means ‘way, or path’ with ‘fiqh’ (legal decisions of jurists).
3. The work of coming to a single global standard ’sharia’ is vast, has not begun, and would take centuries. It’s a legal minefield. As a ‘legal system’ there is no one ’sharia’, there are umpteen rulings on specific things.
4. Why should a UK citizen be compelled to answer to ’sharia’ just because their parents happenned to be Muslim and that made them automatically, ‘Muslim’?
5. If a British born Muslim wished to resile from sharia judgement and would prefer the British courts what would happen? Could he/she be forced into sharia?
6. What would happen in cases involving Muslims and non-Muslims?

The whole thing is unworkable.

But as informal arbitration on a voluntary basis I have no problem with it.

Siddiqi isn’t going as far as that dumb ass Rowan Williams.

Siddiqui is a gradualist. Building legitimacy for Sharia on a voluntary basis is a first step for its acceptance within the wider community on a more formal basis.

Where will we be in 15 years?

Still in a pluralist secular society. While people like Siddiqui should be opposed, it is primarily because we should be concerned about the rights of Muslims who are relatively unempowered in a predominately patriarchal culture, than because we are heading to the Islamisation of the UK. That is a fantasy held by Islamists and bigots, who are two sides of the same coin.

Neil D:

Fifteen years ago could you have predicted that this would be a concern of yours in the Year of Our Lord, 2008?

“…Islamists and bigots, who are two sides of the same coin.”
Strange moral equivalence. Care to define bigots? Is Pue Research Islamophobic for giving Muslim respondents an opportunity to fuel Islamophobic fantasies?

Yusuf Smith

You ask – Charter 3:103 just proposes that Muslims stick together and not let race or nationalism divide them. What is wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong – as long as any grouping of Muslims do not follow an Islamist agenda aimed at shoving Islam and their extreamist interpretations of its tenants down the throats of individuals who dont want Islam or any of its tenants shoved down their throats.

Perhaps Islam can be used to reduce nationalist divdes – but its clear to me that you are hiding behind the spectre of Nationalism to push religious seperatism … in doing so you are no different to Slobadan Milosovich and his ilk …. you just push a different seperatist agenda … that of religious seperatism.

When large numbers of “moderate” demand a reformation in every aspect of the Islamist political project then you can make a credible argument – till then im afraid you are just airing reasonable sounding nonsense.

There is no more important issue for the future of our country than this one.

If we don’t actively strive to counter Shariah, we will see more and more Shariah creep until there are geographical areas where it is in full operation with pubs and alcohol sales banned, gays outlawed etc

To counter Shariah we need to control the Islamic schools with their parallel education system; stop the seclusion of Muslim women from the rest of society; get rid of the Muslim dress code in schools; stop foreign clerics coming here to spread their poison; stop Saudi money coming into this coutnry to support the Mosques; close down the bogus Islamic charities; stop all future Muslim immigration, except where a vigorous screening process shows the individual is fully committed to democracy and freedom under the law.

It sounds to me like Siddiqi talks a lot of sense.

While I do support free speech and might attend a general rally to defend it if it appeared to be under threat, and do not expect a non-Muslim society or state to defend the honour of my religion when they do not defend their own, I am not going to give my time to purposely defend the right of bigots to insult Islam.

So the idea here is, not that you defend the ideas that your recently adopted belief system contains, but that you protect your belief system from “insult”.

I’m a liberal. I defend liberalism, by promoting its values and arguing against people who claim that they are invalid or harmful. My belief system is incapable of being insulted, because it does not have a life, independent from those people who support it.

Your belief system, as a recently converted Muslim, appears to operate in a different way. It has a personality, and an existence, all of itself, which needs defending by its acolytes?

I think you’re deluded, mate. Your belief system no more needs defending from “insult”, than that of a kid who is really really into Dungeons and Dragons. It stands or falls by its own merits, and by the actions of those who have internalised its values. When you say it needs protecting from insult, you’re projecting your own ideas, and rendering them incarnate.

However, thinking that Islam exists, out there, in the absence of people, is a fundamental error.

If use of Sharia may offer a credible and effective way to police issues like forced marriage in some Moslem communities it seems to me that the pragmatic approach is to try it out for size.

Another solution might be to spend the next ten years promoting the liberal value of autonomy, and for the whole nation to provide support for people forced into unwanted marriage.

I think I’d prefer that.

I mean, Scientology, or becoming a Trappist Monk might equally combat forced marriages. But I’d go with the solution which has actually worked, as opposed to the ones which palpably haven’t.

Quite frankly, these people are deluded. Look at any Muslim country that is governed by sharia law. Are they paradisical? There is not real solidarity between Muslims, they all follow different schools and have different interpretations, and they blow each othe up for not agreeing with them. Look at the Muslim states that exist, how could these legal principles, even if which particular ones could be agreed, be applied to a modern state? Andy Newman thinks Siddiqui talks a lot of sense? Which bits exactly make sense to him? As for the enemies of Muslims being allowed to sow the seed of discontent and enmity between Muslims? They have to blame us for everything don’t they? If they ‘loved’ and ‘honoured’ each othe so much they would be vassels in our Crusader hands, woudl they. Yeah, I’ve heard that Islamicists are against ‘forced’ marriages, but I don’t think this means they are against arranged marriages, they still approve of the formal etiquette between men and women. The details you learn form the terrorist trials that go on are interesting. Married couples don’t actually sit in the same room most of the time, the women can’t eat with the men etc. The still live very separate lives. As a socal experiment I would be interested to see how far Islam could make inroads into this country, but as a British non-religious person I am hoping it doesn’t. By the way, I think it is a real sign of the lack of clout of the left that GWBush will be setting foot in this country tomorrow and there will not be a massive demonstation to show our contempt for him and his politics. I blame people like Andy Newman, George Galloway and the rest of them for that.

Sharia Law is not the answer to anything. English Common Law is, and we should be enforcing it equally, without all these unofficial exemptions.

One example, the article linked to the campaign against forced marriages. We do not need such a law.

We already have laws against sexual intercourse without consent. Parents who force their children into non-consensual sex should be prosecuted and placed on the register of sex offenders. Why aren’t they?

We already have laws against abduction. Parents who deliver their children into captivity overseas, or steal their passports , or sell their kids on the marriage market should be prosecuted. Why aren’t they?

We already have laws against threats and violence and intimidation. Why aren’t they being enforced?

We need to reassert our own laws, and the precepts underpinning them.

Off topic: Re the previous thread about the private prosecution in the Steven Lawrence case. Civil proceedings are no substitute for criminal convictions. This is peripheral window-dressing, and it is deeply unsatisfying.

It sounds to me like Siddiqi talks a lot of sense.

Does it? That doesn’t surprise me.

Tell me, are there any other belief systems which are not simply anti-socialist, but are anti-liberal, which you think make “a lot of sense”?

Sue R is right. Islamists are fantasists. They think they have gotton away with a lot in Britain because we are too polite and to incredulous to seriously challenge them. But that’s changing, as the truth dawns.

Islam is not a unified system. The umma is pure fantasy. The kalifa is in cloud cuckoo land. Who would be Caliph? Islam divides Muslims as much as it unifies them. The post by Rostam shows how divided Muslims are; the Deobandi from the Barelvi, whilst neither recognises the Ahmadis as even Muslims.

Bah! Humbug!

Neil D

You say muslims are relatively unempowered in a predominantly patriarchal culture, How so when they are British citizens with all the rights you and me have.

If they are as you say they are its because they choose it.

You also state Islamisation of the UK is a fantasy, I wish i could be as confident of that as you are, Will there realy be no change to our secular society when muslims number 10% of the population or 20%.

That time is coming within a decade or two, Unless islam gets moderate real quick an accomodation with sharia law seems inevitable at some point.

Maybe they wont Islamise the entire society or nation but they will have their way in significant areas of it, geographically and culturally.

A dutch cabinet minister recently stated that he would be happy with sharia law if it was democratically voted for, And a Swedish minister has stated that Swedes should be tolerant of muslims so when they are a majority they will be so to us, We could be in the same position a decade or two hence.

If present trends continue and i see nothing to be able to say they wont, we will be facing some hard choices in the years ahead.

And if mainstream partys dont face these issues others with a different agenda will, The BNP is waiting in the wings, Ten years ago they barely existed know i hear them talked about in work, They too have dramatically raised there public profile and are electorally significant.

Will the next 15 years be better or worse for secular Britain?, I say worse.

Well people have to get this feudal sharia nonsense straight. It is NOT a legal system, never was. It really means ‘a spiritual path’, like the dharma, if you’re a Buddhist. There is ‘fiqh’ but there is no consensus on that. The best that can be said for it is that it may be a system of ethics, which will requires translation into ‘law’ as we know it.

I repeat what I said that I have no problem with Muslims choosing to use sharia courts on a voluntary basis which have no status in UK law. It’s a free society, choose your poison.

It’s like asking your guru for advice.

What I do have a problem with is the stupidity of gullible westerners who swallow the Islamist bait that sharia is a proper legal system; it is nothing of the sort.

Sharia as a ‘legal system’ is a chimera, and as long as we think there is equivalence between it and a proper system of law, there will be trouble.

I’m all in favour of Sharia when it comes to capital punishment and harsh punishments (but not amputation, that’s a bit much) for “standard” criminals under its jurisdiction (ie Muslims who commit felonies proscribed by UK law) . Obviously apostasy, adultery and homosexuality should not be subject to such punishments, definitely not.

Perhaps a compromise could be achieved here ? It could be a popular idea.

“It realy means a spiritual path”, Yes and jihad just means inner struggle

“Its like asking your guru for advice”, Who is being gullible here?

”Sharia as a ‘legal system’ is a chimera, Tell that to the Pakistani Government or the Sudanese.

Where the rubber meets the road this stuff WILL be law, you can bet your life on it, No muslim fundamentalist is going to pass up a power wielding opportunity like that.

You must have a lot of faith in the muslim community and its leaders to do the right thing here, I have seen nothing of islam its adherents, leaders or spokesmen to have any such trust myself.

It is you who are gullible, do you realy think it will go no further than a bit of advice here and their over small matters, not a chance, It will be a one way ratchet leading inexorably to a parallel legal system.

You say muslims are relatively unempowered in a predominantly patriarchal culture, How so when they are British citizens with all the rights you and me have.

The same way in which women in the 1950s were relatively unempowered in a predominately patriarchal culture, despite having the rights associated with British citizenship.

Devorgilla, you’re being pedantic. Shari’ah in Islam is considered to be the pure, abstract set of divine laws that mere earthlings cannot only attempt to discover through fiqh (jurisprudence). Shariah has been so commonly confused with fiqh in the Islamic world that it has become a synonym for it. Relative few Muslims know the ins and outs of their religion, even if they know lots about rituals such as praying, that is why Islam’s religious scholars (ulama, fuqaha etc) are so revered, because they’re the only chaps who seem to know anything. Muslim scholars recognise that the components and methodologies of fiqh vary considerably according to which Islamic religion we’re talking about (even if the substance of Islamic law appears to vary little in practice between most Islamic relgions), whereas all Muslimc scholars would claim that there is only one pure, unalterable Shariah. So it makes sense to talk about “Shariah” if you’re rabble rousing Islamist pathetically trying to unite the Islamic community. Most Islamists know fuck all about their own so-called religion, which is why they’ll never get what they think they want…

A lot of Muslimis seem to believe that it is a proper system of jurisprudence, so who’s going to convince them otherwise? I just wonder how the less ‘populist’ bits like not allowing non-Muslims to own property and not allowing figurative art or buying ‘temporary’wives or reintroducing wergeld/bloodmoney for killing a person will go down with the person on the Clapham bendybus, or lowering the age of consent to 9 years of age. Andy Newman, Yusef Smith, got any ideas how to sell it? Oh, yeah, we’d have to burn all our Bibles as well, plus a lot of other books too.

Sport would be out too, as they are not allowed to wear shorts or appear barebreasted (boxing). Swimming except in voluminous gowns (like surgical gowns) is out too, so bang go most sporting records. Are Europeans really going to allow that sort of nonsense to go on? And as for the tax-collecting, it could all turn very ugly. The problem is that these deluded fantastists encourage disaffected youth to believe that the world owes them a living and teh best thing to do to the infidel is to blow them up because tehy are being denied what is rightfully theirs.

“Maybe they wont Islamise the entire society or nation ”

You just said that? Are you serious?

Hey send me your ID and credit card details, maybe I won’t clean out your savings. And maybe….

Women in 1950’s Britain basically had the same rights as men. It may have been the case that bank managers wanted a signature from a husband or a man before they advanced a loan, but I don’t think that was legal, just the bank’s policy. Certainly, if you murdered a woman, it would be treated with the same gravity in law. Perhaps, Neil D could explain what he means about women in 1950’s Britain not having equality before the law? Anyway, he is eliding ‘empowerment’ and ‘legal rights’. That is dishonest.

I disagree albert, devorgilla is not being pedantic, he better understands the inconsistencies at the heart of Fiqh and Sharia than most Muslims and all Islamists that I know of.

Rowan Williams and the Liberal Left resemble each other in this respect – they unquestioningly give their uninformed and misguided support to an Islamist ideology which is dangerously half baked, convoluted, and flawed.

Listen to hardcore Islamists drone on about the “perfection and completeness of the Quran and Islam in its every manifestation” as a religion, system of government, source of jurisprudence, etc. etc. and recall those half crazed Communists of old who believed much the same about the ramblings of Marx, the Communist Manifesto, and the perfection of a Communist society …. and recall that spectrum of the “liberal” left that supported Marxist Orthodoxy and whitewashed every aspect of its real world shortcomings. Read for example George Berhard Shaw’s disgraceful report on the starvation of the Ukraine by Stalin which lead to the death of millions and Pilger’s reports from Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge and you’ll soon realise that its déjà vu all over again.

Islam is an incoherent system of law and governance – it has never been implemented successfully. Islamism is a dangerous ideology – based on Islam has more in common with classic fascist ideology. Its not pedantry to point all this out.

Devorgilla –

You say:

“I repeat what I said that I have no problem with Muslims choosing to use sharia courts on a voluntary basis which have no status in UK law. It’s a free society, choose your poison.”

This isn’t unproblematic for a number of reasons.

One is that parents voluntarily choosing Shariah may then apply it to their children with all the consequences that flow from that.

Sue R, before the passing of the sex discrimination Act in 1975 (something incidentally which this country only signed up to because they had to to secure admission into what is now the EU), it was legal to discriminate against women in almost every field of economic and social life, including differential rates of pay for the same work, the rights of economic institutions to refuse credit and mortgages (with or without a male guarantor’s signature); it was readily assumed by the courts (as it still sometimes is) that women “provoked” or “asked for” rape; that women could not be raped by their husbands; that domestic violence was not a crime; that a murder of a woman could be counted as a “crime of passion” and therefore not be treated as a murder of a man; that women if attacked by strangers in the street could be held to be responsible if they were deemed to be wearing “provocative” clothing; that a woman’s lover could be sued by an aggrieved husband for “restitution of conjugal rights” or for “alienating his wife’s affections; a woman could be forced to retire on marriage or on reaching a much earlier retirement age than men. Sure, women could give sworn testimony in court on the same basis as a man, but so what, given the blatant inequality in both the substance and the operation of the law.

Rape in marriage was counted as a crime in Jewish religious law

Rostam

Islam doesent have to be implemented succesfully,
just implemented.

Why, as field points out do liberals have to always qualify their arguments when confronted by a Islamist apologist like Yusuf Smith? Does Yusuf qualify his position? No. he merely couches it is reasonable sounding argument. Devorgilla – you understand the incosistencies between the law, Sharia and Fiqh so why advocate Sharia it should be allowed in any form under any circumstances?

Phil – are you pedantic or simply an advocate for Islamism?

I agree with Rostam to a great extent. Islamism is extremely dangerous. I suspect our only point of potential disagreement would be my own conviction that islam itself is extremely dangerous. I am convinced that islamism is indivisible from islam.

Sue R, before the passing of the sex discrimination Act in 1975 (something incidentally which this country only signed up to because they had to to secure admission into what is now the EU), it was legal to discriminate against women in almost every field of economic and social life, including differential rates of pay for the same work, the rights of economic institutions to refuse credit and mortgages (with or without a male guarantor’s signature); it was readily assumed by the courts (as it still sometimes is) that women “provoked” or “asked for” rape; that women could not be raped by their husbands; that domestic violence was not a crime; that a murder of a woman could be counted as a “crime of passion” and therefore not be treated as a murder of a man; that women if attacked by strangers in the street could be held to be responsible if they were deemed to be wearing “provocative” clothing; that a woman’s lover could be sued by an aggrieved husband for “restitution of conjugal rights” or for “alienating his wife’s affections; a woman could be forced to retire on marriage or on reaching a much earlier retirement age than men. Sure, women could give sworn testimony in court on the same basis as a man, but so what, given the blatant inequality in both the substance and the operation of the law.

Rape in marriage was counted as a crime in Jewish religious law for over a thousand years before the relevant English laws even contemplated that women had the right to refuse sexual intercourse in marriage.

While I don’t disagree that contemporary Islamic law may operate grossly unequally between women and men in most circumstances, I don’t think this is the whole story. I think that there are some protections for women in Islamic law which are sane and enlightened. No doubt Youssuf Smith could elaborate on that.

In respect of marriage laws, Jewish law is recognised for those Jews who want to marry and divorce within it by English law. In recent years, the UK has adopted laws which refuse a secular divorce to religiously married Jews who have not first obtained a religious divorce; this has been very strongly supported by Jewish women as one way to close off the scope for a recalcitrant/vindictive Jewish man to keep his ex wife chained to married status under Jewish law, thus preventing her from remarrying. There is no question of Jews being able to ignore or flout English laws because of this provision. I can see similar possibilities for that area of Sharia law to be recognised by the English courts; one of the difficulties however, is that Jewish law is always constrained by the requirement that “The law of the land is the law”–ie secular national laws override provisions of Jewish law. I don’t know of similar provisions within Islam. Additionally, Jewish religious law in Europe outlawed the practice of polygamy in the twelfth century. I would imagine that UK policymakers would be wholly reluctant to accept recognition of polygamy and concubine status within the orbit of English law.

Religiously observant Jews can also, by agreement, submit business and other disputes to a Jewish religious court, in the same way that relations between secular businesses and organizations can submit themselves by agreement to a variety of mediation organizations. I don’t see why there shouldn’t be equivalent facilities recognised for religious Muslim business organizations.

But there is not and never has been any question of a parallel system of Jewish religious legal courts for any aspect of the criminal law. This is the area which I think raises alarm.

“Islam is an incoherent system of law and governance – it has never been implemented successfully. Islamism is a dangerous ideology – based on Islam has more in common with classic fascist ideology. Its not pedantry to point all this out.”

It’s a staple of classical anti-semitism for accusations exactly like the ones I’ve quoted (and which I see as based on profound ignorance) to be made about Jewish religious law. I don’t think it’s an instance of pedantry to “point out” conclusions like those. It’s an instance of plain old bigotry.

Chesterton gives my argument better than I can:

“The real mistake of the Muslims is something much more modern in its application than any particular passing persecution of Christians as such. It lay in the very fact that they did think they had a simpler and saner sort of Christianity, as do many modern Christians. They thought it could be made universal merely by being made uninteresting. Now a man preaching what he thinks is a platitude is far more intolerant than a man preaching what he admits is a paradox. It was exactly because it seemed self-evident, to Muslims as to Bolshevists, that their simple creed was suited to everybody, that they wished in that particular sweeping fashion to impose it on everybody.”

Rostam,

‘Devorgilla – you understand the inconsistencies between the law, Sharia and Fiqh so why advocate Sharia it should be allowed in any form under any circumstances?’

Because in a free society we have the right of free association. So do Muslims. I could go to my Christian pastor and ask him his advice on some troubling matter connected with my life as a Christian and agree to abide by it. But his advice carries no force whatsoever in law and must remain within UK law. So should sharia. It is merely religiously inspired advice.

Should my pastor recommend I do something that is contrary to British law and I carried it out, we would both be in trouble. And rightly so.

Most of those who consult sharia courts just want advice about troubling personal matters like divorce, child access, etc.

Whatever is ‘decided’ it cannot affect any rights they have under British law. But if they want to waive goodbye to better rights under UK law, believing they’ve done something holy and worthy, then good luck to them.

If sharia is a voluntary code it defangs it. It is only when the state gives it power by recognising it as a comprehensive legal code comparable to British law that we are in trouble.

It is NOT ‘law’ in that sense.

I don’t fear the Siddiqis of this country so much as the Rowan Williams and the Hazel Blears. It’s stupid British people who are putting us in danger.

Sharia is not fiqh and neither is fiqh a comprehensive legal code but a body of medieval legal decisions from diverse parts of the Muslim world about which Muslims are not all agreed. Therefore it lacks ‘legitimacy’.

albert, I am not being pedantic, I’m being precise.

Muslims need to be corrected about their misconceptions about sharia, separate the ‘hype’ of the Islamists from the hard fact.

And so do we! Before this muddle gets any further.

Fact: sharia literally means in Arabic, ‘path, or way’.
Fact: only a very few ‘legal judgments’ are actually given in the Qu’ran. Unfortunately they are all the nasty ones, such as the hadd penalties, or that one man’s testimony is equal to two women’s.
Fact: what most Muslims confuse with ’sharia’ is ‘fiqh’ or legal decisions and jurisprudence by jurists over 1400 years in four current ‘law schools’ from diverse parts of the Muslim world which have NEVER been collected together in one body; DO NOT represent a comprehensive legal code; and are locally variant. Oh, then there’s the problem of language! Only 25% of Muslims are Arabs! And only a minority of Arabs understand Classical Arabic… (God’s own speech!)

In other words, ’sharia’ is medieval customary law about which there is NO consensus amongst Muslims, and therefore, no legitimacy.

Whatever is ‘decided’ it cannot affect any rights they have under British law. But if they want to waive goodbye to better rights under UK law, believing they’ve done something holy and worthy, then good luck to them.

Yes but what happens in instances where a religious guide encourages someone to take action which violates the rights of a British citizen …. case in point an instance where a Mullah advises a believer to take his child who may be a minor to an country where Sharia law is in force – Iran or Pakistan for example and marry them off in an arranged marriage …. would you still wish them Luck? Would you still see nothing wrong. For a parent to take their child abroad is not against any British Law that I know of. Neither is it easy to prove that the child did not agree to the marriage.

Why pussyfoot around this issue. If Sharia is incompatible with the underlying principles of British Law then it should not be institutionalised within the UK in any form whatsoever.

Then the Mullah has encouraged violation of the rights of a British child and is guilty of child abuse as is the parent.

It’s about boundaries; voluntaryism has boundaries and Muslims living in the UK have to respect British law.

I agree it should not be institutionalised but that’s not what I’m talking about.

You’re talking about making it illegal. I cannot agree to that. For one thing it is red rag to a bull.

I’m talking about educating Muslims about sharia and its limits, and their rights and duties as British citizens.

Then the Mullah has encouraged violation of the rights of a British child and is guilty of child abuse as is the parent.

In theory you may be right …. in practice you are wrong …. the Mullah will give his advice/make his ruling with impunity under the aegis of some British governmental body – which will be enough to convince many Muslims that they are acting in accordance with British Law when they act on the ruling handed don to them by the Sharia Court.

It seems to me that you are confusing the traditional role of a Mullah with that of a priest. A Mullah can act as judge and jury to devouts Muslim on almost any matter religious or secular, a priest can’t and I dont believe does.

It should be illegal for any religious man to provide guidance and make rulings on any non spiritual matter.

Priests (or rather ‘the Church’) used to have such powers.

They couldn’t try the ‘four pleas of the crown’ (treason, murder).
But they could try moral crimes, like wife-beating (even in the middle ages it was illegal here), desertion, child molestation, rape, drunkenness, bestiality, ‘keeping bad neighbourhood’ (anti-social behaviour), swearing, adultery, fornication, homosexuality, and the like. They could inflict capital punishments for things like bestiality.

But our medieval history was an ongoing battle between princes and their priests. (’Can nobody rid me of this troublesome priest?’). The princes won. Then the people took on the princes, and the people won. It’s called modernity. Now the Church acts in accordance with secular law in which the people through their MPs, have a say in making. But arrogant dumb asses like Rowan Williams just can’t help themselves or pass up the chance to enlarge their role again, even if it is piggy-backing on the backs of poor Muslims! Repugnant man!

But mullahs never had such powers as they do now! These enlarged roles are quite recent and not at all traditional! In the days when there were caliphs, amirs, khans, whatever, sharia courts were inferior courts and almost dwindled into nothing. The caliph’s court made policy and rules. It’s only in the last 150 years, since traditional Muslim government has passed away, to be replaced with colonial, then post-colonial governments, that sharia courts have started to revive as a form of opposition to corrupt authoritarian governments, and with them the extravagent claims of these arrogant troublesome mullahs!

You see, I feel sorry for the poor people. I feel we need to put them straight about what sharia is and isn’t; they need to know that sharia is really about ethics, not ‘laws’. There never has been a universal and comprehensive legal code called ’sharia’. Mullahs did what the khans, amirs, and caliphs said and should do what the UK civil authorities now say.

@Judy
“While I don’t disagree that contemporary Islamic law may operate grossly unequally between women and men in most circumstances, I don’t think this is the
whole story. I think that there are some protections for women in Islamic law which are sane and enlightened.”
Really? Under Islamic law, the man can get a divorce by pronouncing Talaq three times, whereas the woman may only get a divorce for good cause.
What sane and enlightened is there in a legal system granting rights to men not granted equally to women?
Whether or not it was sane an enlightened by the standards of the Celtic or Germanic tribes at the first century is a moot point. All what matters is that it is blatantly inconsistent with any minimally decent notion of equality.

“Siddiqui is a gradualist. Building legitimacy for Sharia on a voluntary basis is a first step for its acceptance within the wider community on a more formal basis.”

The best thing about a ‘voluntary basis’ is that you only need enough volunteers to reach that critical mass when peer-group pressure takes over.

These kinds of debates have now matured so much, I think I’m ready to opt out of them.

Just a few links to spread informed and enlighten debate a bit further.

A Primary School has won an award from a group of newspapers:

http://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/content/newham/recorder/news/story.aspx?brand=RECOnline&category=newsNEWHAM&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsnewham&itemid=WeED12%20Jun%202008%2012%3A19%3A58%3A943

This is a School where they are confident community cohesion and mutual respect are good when muslim parents turn up for a event for Guru Nanak’s birthday and Sikh parents turn up for an event for Eid-ul-Fitr.

Three UK Cabinet ministers were among the attendees at an event for activities encouraging muslim youth not to get any where near extremism in the first place.

http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/walthamforest/walthamforestnews/display.var.2317054.0.waltham_forest_antiterror_strategy_praised_by_ministers.php

And last but not least, if you watch stand up comedians live, go and see

http://www.shaziamirza.org/

Incisive, clever and brilliantly funny. Her award-winning fortnightly page in the “New Statesman”

http://www.newstatesman.com/columns/shazias-week

is nothing like as good as the real woman live on stage.

You see, I feel sorry for the poor people. I feel we need to put them straight about what sharia is and isn’t

devorgilla

You dont feel sorry enough not to patronise them. and the censor on this thread doesnt seem to feel sorry enough not to censor a my comments.

I stand by what I say –

religious doctrine is not an effective source in formulating laws in a liberal society.

Islam happens to be a particularly flawed source for formulating laws.

As devorgilla points out most European Muslims that advocate Sharia are themselves ignorant about the history of Islam in general and the adoption of Sharia in particular. They are simply engaged in identity politics.

Islamism is a facist ideology that must be confronted. It can not be compromised with or appeased. Islamism is rooted in the Quran and Islamic teaching but should not be confused with either the Quran or Islamic teaching – Islamism is nothing but an extreame facist interpretation of Islam.

The fellow travellers of Islamism are the same useful idiots that blindly supported the most virulent and extream Communist regimes.

Moderate Muslims dont need to be patronised [here I am refering to the censor of this thread not devorgilla] … instead they should be challenged to determine the role that their faith should play in a liberal society.

Perhaps, Neil D could explain what he means about women in 1950’s Britain not having equality before the law? Anyway, he is eliding ‘empowerment’ and ‘legal rights’. That is dishonest.

Do not confuse dishonesty with your inability to comprehend the written language.

I was not talking about equality before the law. Muslim women have equality before the law in this country at present. However, just as with non-Muslim women before them, there are cultural reasons for why some of them (and by no means all) are in weak positions to exert their rights in a free society. This is by no means only a problem in the Muslim community; it also exists in other minority groups and in the wider population. However, Islam (or some Islamic activists more accurately) is the only faith that is attempting to build a parallel legal system, either formal or informal, which would be used to prevent women from seeking their rights under British Law.

@Judy. Excellent discourse on the use of Jewish Law courts. I believe there is one tiny inaccuracy <iIn recent years, the UK has adopted laws which refuse a secular divorce to religiously married Jews who have not first obtained a religious divorce;

I believe that the “Religious Divorce Act” says that there has to be an agreement that a Jewish Divorce will be granted and that it does not have to have been granted at decree absolute.

Also, that act implies it is also applicable to any religious based divorce although Jews are specifically mentioned.

There were so many Antisemitic attacks at the time of ABoC’s pronouncement about parallel Shariah. “Ere, if the Jews can ‘ave it then why not Muslims”. This allowed the Antisemites to THEN attack the tradition of Rabinnical courts on the basis of “We don’t want Shariah so why should the Jews have something that looks exactly like Shariah – ban them both!”

In reply to Judy’s comment, I have never heard of serious attempts to get Muslim criminal law introduced in the UK, although I have sometimes heard it said that a few hand choppings would cut the crime rate although amputation does not apply for violent robbery as opposed to plain theft (and not even all theft, and not fraud). I am aware that Muslim men refusing to divorce wives is a problem, but whether they are likely to take a second wife and leave the first wife chained, or just refuse to end the marriage, or (in some cases) simply take a second religious wife, I do not know. If there is a law which refuses a secular divorce where a religious marriage has not been ended, many Muslims would support extending it to Muslim religious marriages although I’m sure some men would grumble.

As for rape in marriage or the requirement of four witnesses to prove rape, these are common subjects of misconception; see here for the first topic and here for the second. The important thing is that the law of Pakistan or some other Muslim country today does not necessarily represent the Shari’a; often these systems appear to have been formed deliberately to oppose the West or “westernised” Muslims.

Regarding polygamy and the supremacy of secular law: there is a difference of opinion on this. There is no dispute that anti-social behaviour and obvious lawbreaking or rebellion is forbidden, particularly where it may draw negative attention on the Muslim community; the difference is as to whether breaking the law per se is a sin, i.e. whether such acts as cycling through a red light is a sin if it is against the law. In the west, there is a substantial minority of Muslims who have engaged in polygamy without registering the marriages with the state, and the common justification is that such marriages are not illegal but just not recognised. There are Muslims who oppose this, saying that the second wife has no protection for her property or other rights, would get nothing if the husband died intestate, and is dishonoured by being regarded as a mistress in the eyes of the law. However, since there has been no attempt to prosecute Muslims in any English-speaking country, even since 9/11, even when many of those involved live in places like northern Virginia where Muslims were being prosecuted for terrorist speech and ‘training’ offences and even when Mormons were being prosecuted for polygamy (admittedly, they went to much greater extremes and claimed benefits), many Muslims have come to regard polygamy as safe. However, needless to say, a lot of Muslim women will not tolerate it for themselves, as a perusal of Muslim matrimonial websites will demonstrate.

The problem with religious laws accepting the supremacy of secular laws is that secular laws can be exceedingly tyrannical, such as when you have a Communist atheist state which demands that Muslims (or any religious people) not pray, or not teach their children their religion, or you may have a feudal kingdom in which the king can pick any girl he likes and she and her family cannot say no (e.g. Swaziland). You also get countries where one section of the population is deemed higher than another and marriage across certain boundaries is prohibited. While the community may deem it too dangerous or too much trouble to defy these laws openly, Muslims are required to obey their religion as much as possible because “there is no obedience to the creation in defiance of the Creator”.

“In reply to Judy’s comment, I have never heard of serious attempts to get Muslim criminal law introduced in the UK”

Pure Taqiyya. We know you’re not stupid. You will proceed salami style – one slice at a time.

“I am aware that Muslim men refusing to divorce wives is a problem, but whether they are likely to take a second wife and leave the first wife chained, or just refuse to end the marriage, or (in some cases) simply take a second religious wife, I do not know. If there is a law which refuses a secular divorce where a religious marriage has not been ended, many Muslims would support extending it to Muslim religious marriages although I’m sure some men would grumble.”

Pure Taqiyya. If on weak ground, obfuscate and obscure, the better to advance your cause.

“As for rape in marriage or the requirement of four witnesses to prove rape, these are common subjects of misconception; see here for the first topic and here for the second. The important thing is that the law of Pakistan or some other Muslim country today does not necessarily represent the Shari’a; often these systems appear to have been formed deliberately to oppose the West or “westernised” Muslims.”

Let’s not talk about current Muslim practice. Let’s talk about the practice of the man known as the Prophet, who is held to be a perfect example by your religion . He married and had sexual intercourse with a nine year old and also married within 48 hours the wife of a tribal leader he had just had killed. He also insisted on marrying the wife of a close relative because he fancied her. Are these examples of “perfect behaviour”?

“Regarding polygamy and the supremacy of secular law: there is a difference of opinion on this. There is no dispute that anti-social behaviour and obvious lawbreaking or rebellion is forbidden, particularly where it may draw negative attention on the Muslim community; the difference is as to whether breaking the law per se is a sin, i.e. whether such acts as cycling through a red light is a sin if it is against the law. In the west, there is a substantial minority of Muslims who have engaged in polygamy without registering the marriages with the state, and the common justification is that such marriages are not illegal but just not recognised. There are Muslims who oppose this, saying that the second wife has no protection for her property or other rights, would get nothing if the husband died intestate, and is dishonoured by being regarded as a mistress in the eyes of the law. However, since there has been no attempt to prosecute Muslims in any English-speaking country, even since 9/11, even when many of those involved live in places like northern Virginia where Muslims were being prosecuted for terrorist speech and ‘training’ offences and even when Mormons were being prosecuted for polygamy (admittedly, they went to much greater extremes and claimed benefits), many Muslims have come to regard polygamy as safe. However, needless to say, a lot of Muslim women will not tolerate it for themselves, as a perusal of Muslim matrimonial websites will demonstrate.”

More Taqiyya. What are you saying? Polygamy is right or it is wrong?
There ain’t no middle ground here.

“The problem with religious laws accepting the supremacy of secular laws is that secular laws can be exceedingly tyrannical, such as when you have a Communist atheist state which demands that Muslims (or any religious people) not pray, or not teach their children their religion, or you may have a feudal kingdom in which the king can pick any girl he likes and she and her family cannot say no (e.g. Swaziland). You also get countries where one section of the population is deemed higher than another and marriage across certain boundaries is prohibited. While the community may deem it too dangerous or too much trouble to defy these laws openly, Muslims are required to obey their religion as much as possible because “there is no obedience to the creation in defiance of the Creator”. ”

No sensible person denies the right to act on conscience – and take the consequences. This is just even more Taqiyya. The question is what IS your conscience on these matters. Nazis had a conscientious objection to accepting blood from a Jew and no good Nazi ever would. Just because they were acting on conscience doesn’t make it right.
There are Mennonites who have a conscientious objection to all state law and help themselves to groceries at the store. Doesn’t make their behaviour right. The question for you is do you want to undermine and eventually destroy our democratic system and replace it with Shariah and a Caliph? The answer, if you are a fully committed and sincere Muslim, following the traditional schools of thought and the teachings of the vast majority of clerics, is obviously YES.

Harry’s Place. Top Islamist Website!!!

Shariah Baby Bond ®
Find out more about the only Shariah compliant CTF account
http://www.thechildrensmutual.co.uk

Quran Tutor Online
Can’t Drive Kids to the Mosque! Live 1 to 1 Tutoring. Free Trial.
http://www.QuranReading.com

I believe Google Ad’s analyses the content and sends appropriate ads to the site. Its an interesting barometer of what gets discussed here.

Now they’re attacking the Jews of Stamford Hill at the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/15/religion.communities

Why? What has this community ever done in any harm to anyone?

Apparently the question is “Should they be forced to integrate?”. They are 40,000 now. Do we wait until they are 100,000 (offensive references to the number of children they produce)?

Someone ought to tell this author that a community of 1.8m who have 62 convictions for terrorism since March 2007 (Home Office stats) is something to worry about.

Apologies for slight off-topic but this is something we should all be disgusted by and which Harry’s Place might want to cover. Go David!!!

The question for you is do you want to undermine and eventually destroy our democratic system and replace it with Shariah and a Caliph? The answer, if you are a fully committed and sincere Muslim, following the traditional schools of thought and the teachings of the vast majority of clerics, is obviously YES.

I disagree.

It isn’t for you, field, to tell Yusuf what a “fully committed and sincere Muslim” ought to be believing.

That said, Yusuf rarely answers these questions in a straightforward and clear manner, even when asked them courteously. Again, there’s no reason why he should answer a “when did you stop beating your wife” type question.

However, I would very much like to know whether Yusuf has converted to the type of Islam which (a) provides a sense of spiritual transcendence to the life of the believer or (b) whether he has also bought in to the notion that god wants Muslims to establish a state which impliments a particular legal system. Were the answer (b), I would like to know exactly what political goals Yusuf would like to see achieved. I don’t think that’s a particularly impudent question; because, after all, he is posting his comments on a political blog, which consists largely of people telling each other how they thing the world ought to be run.

Haredis in Stamford Hill – who are my neighbours – are singularly inoffensive. The most anti-social thing they do is, occasionally, to deface posters showing women in bras. (Until the yiddish graffiti appeared, I thought it was lesbian separatists who were to blame).

The only real concern about Haredis and social cohesion is to ensure that children are equipped for life outside a closed Haredi community, if they choose to leave it. I worry that people brought up in such a community might find it difficult to exist outside it. Nevertheless, people do leave Haredi sects, and seem to make a success outside them. I know a couple of ex-Haredi women. One is a barrister, and the other is a law professor.

I think that the responsibility to support people who are trapped within a closed community falls on us all, individually and collectively. This is something which the State should be directing resources to.

By contrast, I don’t think that the State should spend a penny of meeting the ’special needs’ of people, whose needs arise from the fact that they have chosen to life a lifestyle, which they cannot resource themselves.

Yusuf Smith, the more you talk about (your) Islam, the more revolting it seems to be. I simply can’t fathom out how any sane, rational, educated person could possibly want to convert to your current choice of faith and life-style. Are you for real or merely an Islamophobe trying to put people off Islam?

David, I lived near the Haredis for a number of years and my area was Springfield Park, Cazenove Road, Clapton Common and Oldhill Street.

Unless we impose a global kibbutz system then I guess they have a right to procreate and guide their children in what they believe is best. Yes, I looked on the young children and wondered if they would ever experience the joys of White Hart Lane but these children had an existence within a society that extended internationally from USA, Europe and Israel. In fact they might live a quite privelieged life in some respects. They were also a feeder system for creating Rabbis and that has a benefit for all Jewish Community.

I was sure that some would be attracted away and that this random selection of life choices would sort itself out. Let’s support “Haredi Jews leaving the Sect” but in what way does anyone think these peaceful people who impose nothing and ask for nothing should be helped to integrate when they are doing nicely thank you?

It would be great if you saw fit to make this a thread because it does have the interesting contrast between the Govt desire to impose integration to solve the problem of Islamist radicalisation and yet here is an example of a religious group to whom it need not apply.

Thanks for your feedback!

BTW – I should have used the word “Frummers”!

There are undoubtably benefits to people living in any close, supportive community. It does, however, strike me as a limited life to lead. As long as people are equipped to leave and choose another lifestyle, what they do is none of my business. The Haredim of N16 do not provide wonderful opportunities for women, but girls appear to be well educated, and acheive high scores in their examinations: and as I’ve said, I know two ex Haredi women (both from Satmar backgrounds) who have achieved amazing things.

My concerns with closed communities are limited to ensuring that they are not destructive of autonomy. In particular, there’s a heightened danger of abuse occuring, and remaining undetected or remedied, in communities which are closed and essentially self-reliant.

@modernity
“do you think it is wise to give an opportunity for some of the local headbangers to rant against Muslims (Orwell, Field, just wait for JP)?”£
Rant means
“# harangue: a loud bombastic declamation expressed with strong emotion ”
I don’t think I have ever done that. I just want there to be less chance of my wife being blown up on tube by Muslims. Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2 = 4. If the chance of terrorism with 1.8 Muslims is x then 5% more is 1.05 x – I think the original George Orwell wrote something like that :)

Oh, and I’m really looking forward to Vanessa Engle’s upcoming documentary, which is about the local Satmar’s efforts to look after and rehabilitate a drug dealing Hassid.

Muslims are there own worst enemies.
Until relatively recently we used to think of them as just plain daft;despite their propensity to carry out “honour killings”or beat up their wives.
The rest of it such as the belief that an old desert fleabag had visitations from the angel Gabriel with messages from Allah is just absurd.
However the actions of a certain minority with the apparent acquiesence of the majority indicate that they might become a dangerous and barbarous minority.
They should be denied any privileges whatsoever and their proseletysing agenda discouraged.

David T:I saw a news report a couple of weeks back deploring the fact that some local authorities in France have done exactly what you complained about here; namely created Muslim men only swimming sessions at public pools.

Completely OT: What did you think of Lady Renouf’s response to your column in the JC?

Maven and Modernity:

Perhaps the focus on the Muslim community in the UK arises from events like 7/7 and religious leaders like Hook Hamza and is really confined to the portion of the Muslim community that are either actively involved in or advocating the introduction of behaviours that are inimicable to the social fabric of the UK, and not the Muslim community at large. There are nuts among the other faiths, Abrahamic in inspiration or not, but they don’t appear to pose the same threats to peace and order.

Yusuf Smith:

‘If there is a law which refuses a secular divorce where a religious marriage has not been ended, many Muslims would support extending it to Muslim religious marriages although I’m sure some men would grumble.’

Interesting point. Your ignorance and naivety rather staggers me though. This is a non-issue.

I don’t think Muslim ‘religious marriages’ carry any weight whatsoever in British law. The couple are simply co-habiting.

Perhaps you can clarify?

I believe that Muslims who undertake religious marriages are strongly advised to get married legally in a registrar’s office as well. This is so that both spouses can benefit from the protection of British law as regards pension rights, social security rights and other legal rights, like child custody if there is ever a divorce, inheritance, etc. I believe it is the case that most actually do?

However many non-Muslim UK citizens are also co-habiting these days.

So there are new laws that compensate co-habiting couples and give them some rights if the relationship breaks up.

I would assume that if a ‘religious’ marriage breaks down the ex-’wife’ would have whatever rights a former non-Muslim female co-habitee would have.

As to men refusing divorce’s to wives in religious marriages, what’s to argue? The couple were never married to begin with. The wife is perfectly free to leave whenever she likes, and she will have the same rights as any other former co-habitee to the property, children, etc.

BTW, re Christian ‘religious marriages’, the couple have to retreat to the vestry at some point during the ceremony to sign the civil legal paperwork. This is what actually marries them, not the religious service.

Interesting point. Your ignorance and naivety rather staggers me though. This is a non-issue.

Perhaps you can clarify?

What authority do you have to call me naive and ignorant? I’m sure you know the Muslim community inside out, but since you don’t give a proper name or a link, like many of the ranting idiots on this site, I have no way of finding out.

It’s true that religious marriages have no weight in British law, and that Muslims do indeed have secular marriages as well. What percentage do not bother to register their marriages I don’t know, but I do know that, in many mosques, you cannot get a religious marriage unless you have a secular one as well.

The point is that the community “establishment” do not encourage unofficial religious marriages, but of course there are some Muslims who insist on contracting them. No, it is not advantageous for the woman, but some women will go ahead despite being advised otherwise, possibly because she does not know the law or because she is an enthusiastic convert determined to “follow the Sunnah” regardless.

The point is that refusing a secular marriage to a man with a “chained” wife from a religious marriage, for anyone who does want the advantages of a secular marriage, would discourage men from treating their wives this way.

My understanding is that it is general amongst British muslims to have a mosque wedding followed, more or less promptly, byu a registry office wedding. This isn’t seen as terribly different from having a mosque wedding and registering it at the Court, as they do in Pakistan.

I don’t claim to know these things inside out, but the friend who told me about it does have a higher degree in modern muslim societies. I usually assume that she knows what she’s talking about.

Modernity –

Would you accuse me of hateful, headbanging ranting if I gave vent to my loathing of Nazism or Communism?

Islam shares many features with those totalitarian movements:

It is the vision of one man. It believes in the absolute rule of one strong man – the Caliph. It lays claim to the whole of individual life. It believes in limitless territorial expansion through war. It raises up one nation or race above all others (in this case the Arabs). It has a system of cruel punishments to enforce belief and conformity. It has a hatred of the outsider – the Kufr, and (something it shares with Nazism and Stalinism) a particular hatred of Jews. It is anti-democratic. Its system of law is made by unelected officials. It has a genocidal policy – in fact in this case towards the bulk of humanity (i.e. polytheists). It holds in undue reverence a single book (like Mein Kampf and Das Kapital). Like Nazism (but not Communism, at least in theory) it wishes to see a subordinate role for women. Like totalitarian regimes it has a system of second class citizenship for a section of the populace – for Dhimmis (like Jews and other non-Aryans under Nazism and like counter revolutionaries under Communism). It sponsors terrorism. It encourages fanaticism (Jihadism).

The only real difference is that Islam has a strong traditional religious belief in an after life and a supreme deity.

The above are the orthodox beliefs as STILL taught in the main schools of Islam.

Please don’t tell me that ordinary Muslims don’t share these beliefs. When huge numbers of Muslims (the majority in many countries) have supported Al Queda’s campaign of mass murder against the West it is perfectly reasonable to assume that most Muslims share all or a large part of this orthodoxy.

Thanks Yusuf, you’ve confirmed what I understood, that the Muslim community is pretty ’sorted’ re British law on marriage, and sharia. They understand the difference between religious marriage and civil marriage, and have no objection to the latter. Afterall, not much different from filling in a harmless form for getting your road tax.

So to return to the thread about ’sharia’, since British Muslims seem to understand the difference I don’t see what is wrong with those who are especially religious seeking religiously based advice (for that’s all it is) on tricky life matters. The advice they get they don’t have to follow; it’s simply a matter of choice and conscience.

So there is no need to go beefing up ’sharia courts’ as the Archbish proposed; and no need to fear them either, since British Muslims appear to be aware that they have more civil and legal rights in marriage under UK law than under ’sharia’.

I didn’t understand you here:

‘The point is that refusing a secular marriage to a man with a “chained” wife from a religious marriage, for anyone who does want the advantages of a secular marriage, would discourage men from treating their wives this way.’

Do you mean a prospective wife refusing a secular marriage an already ‘married’ man?

Why would any free woman want to marry a man who already had a wife, ‘religiously’ married, or not? I would have thought there wouldn’t be many takers for a man already encumbered elsewhere…

“So to return to the thread about ’sharia’, since British Muslims seem to understand the difference I don’t see what is wrong with those who are especially religious seeking religiously based advice (for that’s all it is) on tricky life matters. The advice they get they don’t have to follow; it’s simply a matter of choice and conscience.”

Not sure whether you are being naive or disingenuous Dervorgilla.

Surely you can see that Shariah (i.e. its judges, practitioners and adherents) does NOT accept that it is subsidiary to British law. It sees itself as a rival to and superior to British law, not as an adjunct.

Moreover in what sense can a 21 year old girl (I won’t call her a woman, because she’s not allowed to be a woman), how is she to submit “voluntarily” to Shariah if she has never been allowed out except in the company of her husband or male relatives. The idea of voluntary acceptance of ethical advice only makes sense in a free society where people are free to choose their religion. Shariah, with its condemnation of and severe punishments for apostasy, opposes freedom of religion.

Shariah has to be met full on and defeated.

Shariah courts should not be allowed to sit in the UK and any attempt to circulate or enforce their judgments should be subject to severe penalties under our law.

The reason I was close to leaving these discussion at 8:57 on the 15th, was that I thought people like field had been defeated by various people’s arguments and had given up.

Its quite ridiculous to neatly summarise the thinking of the sectarian fringe and claim that is the Islam followed by millions. That is exactly the pitch of that sectarian fringe towards muslims and is why they’ve been chucked out of loads of mosques. Respect has also been seen off in mosques where they used to be influential.

It has parallels with the wee frees denoucing the Kirk of Scotland for not being Calvinist or strict enough.

Oh, and Karl Marx was not a follower of Vladimir Lenin or Leon Trotsky.

It has parallels with the wee frees denoucing the Kirk of Scotland for not being Calvinist or strict enough.

No, it is simply pointing out what Islam is, not what wooly-headed Guardian-reading apologists think it is.

As for Yusuf Smith, like all monotheists, the man is a dangerous brain-dead mentally-retarded idiot. He needs a greeat deal of mental help.

The statement that Shariah law should be implemented is meaningless. As so many posters have more than ably demonstrated, sharia cannot be defined as a systemmatic or workable system of law. The only country I know that implements sharia law is Saudia Arabia, so if these mullahs want to introduce sharia then let them start with the ‘dar-es’salaam’ ie Muslim lands. Doesn’t it just prove that sharia as a legal system is not workable? Marko Attila Hoare should pop up now to inform us that the Ottoman Empire had a wonderful legal system, I wish he would, it would be instructive to know how the Ottomans dealt with applying Muslim legal principles. As for the marriage question: I don’t know how widespread it is but some Muslims do practice religious marriage which is not religiously sanctioned. In Islam there is a concept of ‘temporary’ marriage where a man marries a woman for a shosrt while. In fact, there was a murder case in Birmingham recently where a man’s temporary wife murdered his pregnant, legal wife because she was jealous. Egypt has passes a law against marriages between partners of more than 25 years to stop wealthy, old men from the Gulf States marrying poor, peasant girls temporarily. (Although, after the marriage is over, the girl is given a (for them) large sum of money, so maybe it wasn’t such a bad thing!).

Do you mean a prospective wife refusing a secular marriage an already ‘married’ man?

No, I mean the state refusing to grant them a marriage.

Why would any free woman want to marry a man who already had a wife, ‘religiously’ married, or not? I would have thought there wouldn’t be many takers for a man already encumbered elsewhere…

I don’t know. It is a hypothetical situation, although some women are willing to enter polygamous marriages, particularly if they understand the first marriage as dead in the water.

Typing error: I meant ’some Muslims do practice relgious marriage that is not secularly, legally sanctioned..’

I don’t know. It is a hypothetical situation, although some women are willing to enter polygamous marriages, particularly if they understand the first marriage as dead in the water.

Yes, but that would be committing a criminal offence.

Morgoth, how rude (to various people not just myself!). Should I presume you include Sikhs in your denuncuation of monotheists?

Does your view of monotheists include a belief that the consensus of expert theological and historical opinion is that Jews, Christians and Muslims are all children of Abraham?

Sue R

“Doesn’t it just prove that sharia as a legal system is not workable?”

No it doesn’t. This is an example of what I call the Feasibility Fallacy. People used to say the same of the Soviet system and the Nazi system. It’ll never work. Of course both systems did work. The fact that both in the end were effectively defeated or outclassed by their democratic enemies doesn’t mean they weren’t feasible social systems.

Of course some totalitarian systems are literally unworkable. That was probably true of the Khmer Rouge system (although even that was essentially defeated by an external enemy, not an internal one).

The essentials of the Sharia system are agreed by all Muslim authorities: that the laws and rulings should follow the Koran (which is literally true) and the well attested Hadith, and that the custom and practice of Shariah established over the centuries should be followed.
There are key points agreed by all Shariah judges: that Muslims and non-Muslims are to be treated differently; that the purpose of Shariah is to advance the cause of Islam; that there are two lands (the land of Islam and the land of war); that women are treated differently from men, with women having an inferior status.

Confusion arises because in practice states with majority Muslim populations have made compromises with other legal influences: Roman law, colonial law, socialist ideology, nationalism and human rights legislation.

But Muslim clerics don’t really have huge differences of intepretation (although they will all fight their corner as clerics the world over do on matters theological).

Alan Ji –

Here are my comments on your post:

“The reason I was close to leaving these discussion at 8:57 on the 15th, was that I thought people like field had been defeated by various people’s arguments and had given up.”

Not sure where you got that idea.

“Its quite ridiculous to neatly summarise the thinking of the sectarian fringe and claim that is the Islam followed by millions. That is exactly the pitch of that sectarian fringe towards muslims and is why they’ve been chucked out of loads of mosques. Respect has also been seen off in mosques where they used to be influential.”

This non-argument is always brought up. If you look at what I actually write you will see I am always careful to distinguish between how Muslims behave and what the ideology of Islam says. However, to pretend there is no connection between the two is to live in a dream world.

Further, if people were really to follow your advice we would never say anything about any religion – at least, not on a blog. We would all go away and write 2,000 page tomes in a doomed attempt to reflect the multifarious reality. Because of course, the reality is that Islam is complex with different currents and schools and many different societies bearing the marks of various influences, whether it be the animism of Indonesia, the Christianity of Lebanon, or the democratic norms of Western Europe. However, within that vast complexity there is I think a quite remarkable unity. The schisms of Islam are more about power than ideology. Not surprising of course when you realise it is essentially the product of one man’s vision which he was able to make a reality because he possessed political power. The template was set and has governed everything that has followed.

I think it is for you to explain why in Islam we see such huge numbers of people supporting an obvious and odious mass murderer like Osama bin Laden.

Your analysis struggles to explain that I would suggest.

Whereas my analysis – that Islam has at its heart a violent cultish and hateful ideology which it is difficult for ordinary Muslims to break free from – goes a long way to explaining support for him. Of course, there are other factors: resentment towards colonialism being one and anti-Americanism (not unique to Islam) being another. But it is hard to see a figure like OBL ever getting any purchase on the Muslim psyche were there not so much that resonates in the Koran and the Hadith. OBL’s claim to be implementing Islam is in fact very plausible.

“It has parallels with the wee frees denoucing the Kirk of Scotland for not being Calvinist or strict enough.”

You are trying to make it sound a trivial dispute of ideas. Of course, the reality is this is a naked struggle for power. OBL claims legitimacy and there is as I say much that backs his claim to legitimacy.

“Oh, and Karl Marx was not a follower of Vladimir Lenin or Leon Trotsky.”

What you on about matey? Marx, Lenin and Trotsky were all firmly in the same tradition. The idea that Marx would have condemned Lenin is highly dubious.

The most dangerous aspect (for me) of Islam is the idea that the Quran is the infallible word of God, inerrant, and for all time.

If Muslims could come round to accepting that there are elements of human construction (as Fatima Mernissi has challenged the hadith ‘He who leaves his affairs in the hands of a woman will never prosper) then there is hope.

The fact that (from what Yusuf confirms) most UK Muslims register civil marriages is hope.

Spelled out, this means they recognise the kufr government.

“The fact that (from what Yusuf confirms) most UK Muslims register civil marriages is hope.”

I’m sorry – this is completely irrelevant. They need to register for all sorts of reasons – social housing, benefits etc and, most importantly, right of entry for the spouse from overseas.

‘I’m sorry – this is completely irrelevant. They need to register for all sorts of reasons – social housing, benefits etc and, most importantly, right of entry for the spouse from overseas.’

No, it is hope. It is creeping secularisation. We just have to stand firm and not give in to attempts to extend sharia beyond the private sphere where it belongs in a pluralist society.

As I have pointed out several times, those who most want to extend sharia beyond the private voluntary realm are not the Siddiqis but the Rowan Williams and the Hazel Blears.

Devorgilla –

I hope you’re right. Sadly, though, I don’t think you are. The Rowan Williamses of this world are responding to the unrelenting pressure come from within the Islamic community.

Field: I didn’t think you’d given up your views, just given up expressing them here. Thank you for setting them out in a more reasoned way.

I don’t think detailed study of anybody’s faith or world view is necessary to explain some opinions they express. The social psychology of bounded perception is well known. So is people attaching more importance to what they are against than what they are in favour of.

The USA has not been implicated in any reactionary coup since the fall of the Soviet Union or since Ronald Reagan left the White House. Loads of people really haven’t noticed this change or attached any importance to it.

So they are unwilling to accept that they or people of the same nationality are responsible for their ills, blame America because America is rich and powerful, and don’t get their brains in gear before noticing the simplest and most vocal critics of America.

Who needs any explainations more elaborate than that?

Marx wasn’t a Leninist. In his lifetime what the German Socialdemocrats meant by “revolution” was establishing a democracy in place of the German Empire, and using it for very far reaching reforms. That is why Lenin was so keen to denounce Karl Kautsky.

“Marx wasn’t a Leninist. In his lifetime what the German Socialdemocrats meant by “revolution” was establishing a democracy in place of the German Empire, and using it for very far reaching reforms. That is why Lenin was so keen to denounce Karl Kautsky.”

That’s a questionable interpretation. There are plenty of examples of Marx’s disdain for democracy. Why not read the Communist Manifesto again with its call for the subjection of the rural population to military discipline. Hmmm – wonder where the Khmer ROuge got their ideas eh?

field, you are so relentlessly pessimisitic as to be comical. But seriously for a moment, you seem resigned to the fact that the UK will one day be an Islamic state. Have I got that right? Is that what you believe?

Field: you’re overinterpreting my 8:12 post and glossing over some gaps that were deliberate.

I’m not sure I have a copy of the “Communist Manifesto” although I recall reading it once. When I made that post I was looking at my copy of “The Road to Power [Der Weg zur Macht]” by Karl Kautsky, new translation published in New Jersey in 1996.

Note that this is some years after the deaths of Antony Crosland and Clement Attlee.

I put it back on the shelf next to “How to be a Minister” by Gerald Kaufman.

I really like your site

Herman –

I don’t think I’m pessimistic. If I was I wouldn’t bother, would I?

It seems to me that peering into the future one can see a number of scenarios. One scenario is that Muslims punch way above their weight due to communal voting and hold the balance of power in Parliament. In a democracy that can be hugely important. If that is combined with a complete relaxation of immigration control we could see remarkable changes.

Who would have thought that in the space of 50 years the UK could go from being essentially a homogenous society, not unlike Japan now, to one where 25% of new primary school children do not have English as a first language. That’s a pretty significant change. So we shouldn’t underestimate the extent to which countries can change. It’s not just demographics, ideas change as well. Can anyone seriously believe that the youth of today would be capable of suffering the dangers and privations of war such as World War 2? People now place their own personal comfort way above the demands of their society – not necessarily a bad thing. But this is why I think we could see the phenomenon of Kufr-flight becoming a huge outward migration if ever it looks like Islam is gaining influence here. Once we’ve got prayer calls blaring from loudspeakers, don’t be surprised to see this pick up (think I’m joking – a Mosque in Oxford is already trying to push that one through).

But there are alternative scenarios. One is that the non-Muslim secular population, polite up till now, become thoroughly fed up with appeasing Islam and other religions and demand that politicians defend secular democracy. If that happens sooner rather than later then Britain can be made safe from Islam.

Because the historical forces are not all acting in one direction. Islam is under pressure – big pressure – from the demands of modernism: science, technology, human rights, feminism. It’s not dissimilar to the situation of the Catholic Church in countries like Italy, Ireland and Poland. 60 years ago the Church seemed incredibly powerful. Now, its power is utterly reduced in those countries. Catholic ideology was strong, but eventually the demands of modern society got the better of it.

O Field, you do conflate different things together. The Catholic Church may be less strong in Ireland [or TheIrieland!], but hardly in Poland. That’s a country that produces priests for export.

A mosque in Oxford has been accused of seeking to send out the call to prayer from a loudspeaker, but it ain’t true. Only the East London Central Mosque in Whitechapel does that. It is in a busy and noisy main road, and was the centre of a funeral for a victim of the 7 July London bombings.

Have you never come across a muslim feminist? One I know is inviting me to Charles Darwin’s house this weekend. A good starting point might be the muslim tradition that marriage is a civil contract.

As for the balance of power in the UK Parliament, there are currently 4 muslims in Parliament, all Labour, all male and all Pakistani. Female Labour Muslim candidates for the next general election include 1 Bangladeshi and 1 Cypriot, both of whom were candidates in 2005.

Alan Ji –

You say:

“A mosque in Oxford has been accused of seeking to send out the call to prayer from a loudspeaker, but it ain’t true.”

Ain’t true? How do you explain this then:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1575506/Loudspeaker-plan-re-ignites-‘call-to-prayer’-row.html

I’m happy to take an apology for the imputation of falsehood.

As for Poland, perhaps I shouldn’t have Poland as a transformed state but it is well on the way. I think from what I have read that the power of the Church is declining. However, even if I’m wrong on that it is immaterial. The decline in the power of the Church in Ireland and Italy is clear and I am simply putting that forward as an example of how a religion which once appeared invulnerable can quickly decline. Something similar could happen with Islam.

Field, I think you and I are now the only ones reading this post.

Just in case there are any others, I seached “Oxford Mosque” on the Telegraph website when your link didn’t work. I found a few articles in January and February 2008, since then nothing fo rover three months.

There clearly was no Planning Apppliation then. One comment was about making a Planning Application once building work was finished. I suppose that may happen, but I wouldn’t be surprised if its never heard of again.

Meanwhile, I get traffic announcements from Local radio interruptiong Radio 4 in my car. I know of several mosques that use the same technology to broadcast the call to prayer. Very effective in reaching those that choose to receive it, and no disturbance to anyone else.