You say "40% of British Muslims are in favour of Sharia law."

Really? Are you saying that 40% of British Muslims want to impose Sharia law in the UK? If so, where is your evidence?

Or are you talking about the percentage of British Muslims who use Sharia law to settle civil disputes? Something British Jews have been doing for well over 100 years with Beth Din. If so, what's wrong with that? As long as, like Jews with Beth Din, they accept that the decisions of these courts are unenforceable under any UK law.

The East London Mosque did have a problem with radical speakers, including anti gays, in the past.

Peter Tatchell said in 2011

“We welcome the East London Mosque’s assurance that it will not give a platform to anti-gay speakers in the future. We urge them to establish a regular, permanent dialogue with LGBTI organisations, including Muslim ones, to foster solidarity between the LGBTI and Muslim communities and to combat both homophobia and anti-Muslim prejudice.

But if the mosque is still allowing anti gays, or any other prejudiced group, to speak on it's premises, this does not invalidate it's condemnation of Choudrey.

That Choudrey says vigilante patrols "deserve a pat on the back" does not mean that other Muslims agree with him. As I have shown; the vast majority don't.

You seem to be under the impression that I am defending Choudrey; read what I have posted again and you will see that I am doing the opposite!

It was you who raised the Nazis, not I. As I said; a desperate ploy on your behalf.

In one post, and one post only, of the Swedish rape case topic I did say that "As a student of twentieth century history; such rants are depressingly familiar." The interpretation you seem to have put on that remark says far more about you than it does me.

I did not know you are Jewish, as far as I am aware this is the first post of yours that I have read where you mention it. But being Jewish is no excuse for being a racist bigot.

Unfortunately, all religions attract their fair share of the mentally ill, extremist hate preachers, violent fanatics etc.; even Judaism.

The 40% figure comes from the Telegraph back in 2006, I'm pretty sure that the rate of immigration since then has increased this figure.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html

Incidentally, anyone who cares to look can find that the claim that Sharia is simply used to settle domestic disputes is delusional and claiming any equivalence in it's intended scope to Jewish law is laughable. Equally risible is your assertion that tactical fibbing on one issue by the East London Mosque does not have any bearing on the credibility of their statement condemning Choudary. As it happens the likes of Choudary must be an embarrassment to slow incremental jihaddists, in the same way as Al Qaeda are to the Muslim brotherhood, given the opportunity their aims are one and the same. Of course Choudary is condemned as he is doing a first rate job of giving the game away.

Finally, Islam is not a race. I could of course respond to your usual ad hominem bile in kind, but I won't lower myself to your level.

Have you read your Telegraph link?

Half of the 500 people surveyed..............

500 out of a population of 2.5 million; a real representative sample; not.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of Sharia courts, and their discrimination against women is certainly wrong, they have absolutely no legal jurisdiction. Compliance with their rulings cannot be enforced. In effect, like Beth Din, they are legally a voluntary arbitration and mediation service.

Sharia and the English legal system: the Government’s view from Law & Religion in the UK.

When she (the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, Helen Grant) said that “… sharia law has no jurisdiction under the law of England and Wales and the courts do not recognise it” she was correct in the sense that in none of the three jurisdictions (England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland) does the courts recognise as law rulings made by tribunals of voluntary organisations. However, there is no reason in law why parties in a dispute should not agree under the terms of the Arbitration Act 1996 or the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010 to accept and be bound by the ruling of a sharia tribunal, just as parties sometimes agree to accept and be bound by the ruling of a beth din – and if they do so, the English courts will enforce that ruling.

You can be as pedantic over the literal meaning of the word 'racist' as you like; bigotry is still bigotry. It is you who continuously spouts lies and bile; not I.

The simple fact is that the overwhelming majority of British Muslims want nothing to do with Choudrey and his ilk. They are ordinary, law abiding citizens who just want to live their lives and practice their religion in freedom.

@7by7

it is futile to discuss the paint stroke of an old master or the clours of a sunset with a blind person.

and as futile is to discuss Islam, Muslims and related topics with a person who wears blinkers made of bias and pure hatred.

It rook the jury 90 mins to come up with a guilty of murder. What took them that long?

It rook the jury 90 mins to come up with a guilty of murder. What took them that long?

The fact that they were at the trial and heard all the evidence whereas you weren't at the trial and heard none?

It rook the jury 90 mins to come up with a guilty of murder. What took them that long?

Probably the quickest verdict of 2013.

They've got to get out of the court, go to the jury room, turn on the coffee machine, visit the loo, ask for some cupcakes to go with the coffee, have a chat, go to the loo again (the coffee was good - they had a second cup) and then find out the procedure for returning a verdict. Quick vote, unanimous, back to court - takes all of 90 minutes.

It rook the jury 90 mins to come up with a guilty of murder. What took them that long?

The fact that they were at the trial and heard all the evidence whereas you weren't at the trial and heard none?

All the world saw the bloody evidence

Mosha, we have a system of trial by jury in this country, and that means the jury should base their decision only on the evidence presented to them in court during the trial.

To help them in this the judge will sum up the evidence and may issue certain instructions. I haven't seen the judge's summing up instructions to the jury in this case so don't know what they were told to consider; have you?

What happens inside the jury room is confidential, no one who was not there will ever know what the jury discussed and how they reached their decision.

It may have been "We all know they're guilty, but can't go back too soon. Let's wait a bit and have some tea and biscuits."

As I have said to you before; we live in a civilised society based upon the rule of law. Every person accused of a crime is entitled to a trial by jury. Even if there is overwhelming evidence against them; as in this case.

You may not care for that, but if we deny basic rights to any accused then we are no better than those who use terrorism in attempts to achieve their aims.

And they use your last paragraph against us

Maybe, but I for one would rather risk that than have the government and law enforcement agencies ignore the rights of the accused.

Apart from the moral implications, as I've already said we tried that in the 1970's. Result: massive propaganda coup for the Provos.

Still, it's ironic how some who hold due process, freedom of speech, rights of women, protection of gay rights and religious freedom so dear in their own backyard hide behind moral relativism to excuse all of these elsewhere. Then to top it all being an enthusiastic advocate of mass immigration from the most intolerant places on earth whilst condemning those who complain as intolerant.

Our laws reflect the values of our society if enough people with different values arrive then in time so do our laws, but by then it will it be too late, thanks to deluded progressive ideologues.

Steely Dan,

Please show me any post which either

• excuses human rights abuse by any country or regime or ideology, or
• advocates mass, uncontrolled immigration from anywhere.

Maybe, but I for one would rather risk that than have the government and law enforcement agencies ignore the rights of the accused.

Apart from the moral implications, as I've already said we tried that in the 1970's. Result: massive propaganda coup for the Provos.

I am afraid the use of Diplock courts are still alive and kicking in the UK, that is, trial by jury is suspended.

Maybe, but I for one would rather risk that than have the government and law enforcement agencies ignore the rights of the accused.

Apart from the moral implications, as I've already said we tried that in the 1970's. Result: massive propaganda coup for the Provos.

I am afraid the use of Diplock courts are still alive and kicking in the UK, that is, trial by jury is suspended.

And a happy new year to Munster folk....

Diplock Courts are an unfortunate reminder that the legacy of the "Troubles" remains in that intimidation by paramilitaries on both sides of the divide remains an issue.

Of course the Republic has a perfect legal system and all judicial appointments are purely on merit without any political consideration....

Still, it's ironic how some who hold due process, freedom of speech, rights of women, protection of gay rights and religious freedom so dear in their own backyard hide behind moral relativism to excuse all of these elsewhere. Then to top it all being an enthusiastic advocate of mass immigration from the most intolerant places on earth whilst condemning those who complain as intolerant. Our laws reflect the values of our society if enough people with different values arrive then in time so do our laws, but by then it will it be too late, thanks to deluded progressive ideologues.

Watch out you don't go down the slippery slope argument there old chap.

I agree with 'Our laws reflect the values of our society if enough people with different values arrive then in time so do our laws' but this has been going on for ages, countless tribes and peoples have gone from history at the hands of another. Many others are documented so we can look back at their mistakes, victories.

The problem as I see it is while much of the world is coming around after 1000's of years of religious morphine induced haze, other parts are in a coma. Slowly we as a species are dragging ourselves out of the squalid tenement of fear and superstition so people should ask why that is. Not why they should drag themselves out but why squalid.

In a general sense we do things that affect our lives for the benefit of it... somewhere safe, somewhere warm to sleep, that kind of thing..... So you are stuck in the middle of nowhere in Alaska. You know that the entire region has a ban on hunting. Do you...

A. Starve yourself to death.

B. Break the rules for your own survival.

People need to grow the **** *** and understand that it is not Muslim's who are against free society, it is Islam.

People need to grow the **** *** and understand that it is not Muslim's who are against free society, it is Islam.

Islam is not the problem.

The problem is that certain extremist and terrorist groups use a perverted form of Islam as an excuse for their atrocities.

Fortunately, the vast majority of Muslims see through the lies.

The problem is also that the ignorant believe the propaganda of these extremist groups and so blame all Muslims. This leads the ignorant onto the path of hate and discrimination against all Muslims so that they end up doing the terrorist's recruitment for them.

Fortunately, the vast majority of non Muslims see through the lies.

The real problem is not with Muslims, nor even with Islamic fundamentalists. It is with the enormous pressure that an ever-growing world population exerts.

At the dawn of agriculture, about 8000 B.C., the population of the world was approximately 5 million. Over the 8,000-year period up to 1 A.D. it grew to 200 million (some estimate 300 million or even 600, suggesting how imprecise population estimates of early historical periods can be), with a growth rate of under 0.05% per year.

A tremendous change occurred with the industrial revolution: whereas it had taken all of human history until around 1800 for world population to reach one billion, the second billion was achieved in only 130 years (1930), the third billion in less than 30 years (1959), the fourth billion in 15 years (1974), and the fifth billion in only 13 years (1987).

• During the 20th century alone, the population in the world has grown from 1.65 billion to 6 billion.
• In 1970, there were roughly half as many people in the world as there are now.

This expansion has not produced many more innovators who can advance the knowledge of finding food and water, heat and enrgy in general. It has given us many more poor to feed, many more poor who are subject to many illnesses due to malnutrition, insanitary conditions, lack of education and so on.

The 'humanitarian' approach has been to support this 5 billion strong underclass, thinking that the provision of food, water, sanitation, hospitals and so on will also make them fit to be citizens of the world. This is wrong. It would be much better to eliminate them and allow the educated and healthy top ten percent to survive in a civilised society.

The reason that Muslims get blamed for many of the world's troubles is that, as the last major religion to capture people's imagination, it - as had earlier religions - appealed to the underclasses. And in the case of Islam they have broadly remained the underclass, excepting only the oil-rich areas. So really it is not a case of fighting Islam, it is a case of fighting, and eliminating, the poor. Not by raising them to a less-poor status (that could never happen - it would just drag all of us down into poverty to try to distribute the world's resources evenly), but by literally eliminating four-fifths of the world's population and then controlling the breeding of the remainder.

People need to grow the **** *** and understand that it is not Muslim's who are against free society, it is Islam.

Islam is not the problem.

The problem is that certain extremist and terrorist groups use a perverted form of Islam as an excuse for their atrocities.

This line of argument often gets banded about so let's take a little look at it....

Perverted: Hmmm. I don't see on what basis you can say that a group such as the Taliban follow a perverted form of Islam in the same way that it cannot be said that Creationists follow a perverted form of Christianity. They are both, as it were, being true to their holy texts.

Extremist: Hmmm again. In what way? Because their numbers are small? Imagine two chefs.. One follows the recipe and method for cooking a roast chicken as per his cook book while the other chef boils it for 20 minutes, deep fries it for 20 minutes then spit roasts it for an hour. Which one of these two chefs would be considered the extreme or radicle chef?

People need to grow the **** *** and understand that it is not Muslim's who are against free society, it is Islam.

Islam is not the problem.

The problem is that certain extremist and terrorist groups use a perverted form of Islam as an excuse for their atrocities.

Fortunately, the vast majority of Muslims see through the lies.

The problem is also that the ignorant believe the propaganda of these extremist groups and so blame all Muslims. This leads the ignorant onto the path of hate and discrimination against all Muslims so that they end up doing the terrorist's recruitment for them.

Fortunately, the vast majority of non Muslims see through the lies.

The dishonest conflation of criticism of Islam with a blanket vilification of all Muslims is just an intellectually dishonest ploy to divert scrutiny from Islam. Whenever there is an atrocity committed by Islamist extremists we get the usual pro-forma condemnations and claims the actions of the guilty are against Islamic teachings. The trouble is the extremists often quote the Quran or Hadiths chapter and verse as justification for their actions.

We do stand at an interesting point in time now, similar to the scene in the Wizard of Oz where the line 'Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain' appears. The trouble is people are noticing and starting to speak up, HRH Prince Charles being the latest. Islam does have a problem, it amounts to having a totalitarian death cult lurking within it and needs a reformation very badly indeed, but worryingly there is no guarantee that such a reformation is even possible.

I see the voice of reason has returned to this topic.

Any chance of an answer to this?

Steely Dan,

Please show me any post which either

• excuses human rights abuse by any country or regime or ideology, or
• advocates mass, uncontrolled immigration from anywhere.

Maybe, but I for one would rather risk that than have the government and law enforcement agencies ignore the rights of the accused.

Apart from the moral implications, as I've already said we tried that in the 1970's. Result: massive propaganda coup for the Provos.

I am afraid the use of Diplock courts are still alive and kicking in the UK, that is, trial by jury is suspended.

And a happy new year to Munster folk....

Diplock Courts are an unfortunate reminder that the legacy of the "Troubles" remains in that intimidation by paramilitaries on both sides of the divide remains an issue.

Of course the Republic has a perfect legal system and all judicial appointments are purely on merit without any political consideration....

DC's are not the sole jurisdiction of Irish judicial expedience

Imagine two chefs.. One follows the recipe and method for cooking a roast chicken as per his cook book while the other chef boils it for 20 minutes, deep fries it for 20 minutes then spit roasts it for an hour. Which one of these two chefs would be considered the extreme or radicle chef?

One might suggest that both are using discretion and freedom of expression, each might have their own devotees, however if one then steals the others chicken and resolutely hangs on to it, even after continual debate, animal rights issues and attack, whilst the other brings in his buddies, breaks the chicken into little parts and uses the wishbone as an offensive weapon.

Freedom of expression, or extreme radical postering...................................

Bytheway happy N.Y Folly

Imagine two chefs.. One follows the recipe and method for cooking a roast chicken as per his cook book while the other chef boils it for 20 minutes, deep fries it for 20 minutes then spit roasts it for an hour. Which one of these two chefs would be considered the extreme or radicle chef?

One might suggest that both are using discretion and freedom of expression, each might have their own devotees, however if one then steals the others chicken and resolutely hangs on to it, even after continual debate, animal rights issues and attack, whilst the other brings in his buddies, breaks the chicken into little parts and uses the wishbone as an offensive weapon.

Freedom of expression, or extreme radical postering...................................

Bytheway happy N.Y Folly

One might suggest that both are using discretion and freedom of expression

One may suggest anything one wishes to but that does not influence its value as to being true.

I would be very interested to hear your views on freedom of expression but it would derail the thread. Better to continue in the other place perhaps?

[Edit] Bloody idiot I am, thought I was posting in the general section!

The real problem is not with Muslims, nor even with Islamic fundamentalists. It is with the enormous pressure that an ever-growing world population exerts.

At the dawn of agriculture, about 8000 B.C., the population of the world was approximately 5 million. Over the 8,000-year period up to 1 A.D. it grew to 200 million (some estimate 300 million or even 600, suggesting how imprecise population estimates of early historical periods can be), with a growth rate of under 0.05% per year.

A tremendous change occurred with the industrial revolution: whereas it had taken all of human history until around 1800 for world population to reach one billion, the second billion was achieved in only 130 years (1930), the third billion in less than 30 years (1959), the fourth billion in 15 years (1974), and the fifth billion in only 13 years (1987).

• During the 20th century alone, the population in the world has grown from 1.65 billion to 6 billion.
• In 1970, there were roughly half as many people in the world as there are now.

This expansion has not produced many more innovators who can advance the knowledge of finding food and water, heat and enrgy in general. It has given us many more poor to feed, many more poor who are subject to many illnesses due to malnutrition, insanitary conditions, lack of education and so on.

The 'humanitarian' approach has been to support this 5 billion strong underclass, thinking that the provision of food, water, sanitation, hospitals and so on will also make them fit to be citizens of the world. This is wrong. It would be much better to eliminate them and allow the educated and healthy top ten percent to survive in a civilised society.

The reason that Muslims get blamed for many of the world's troubles is that, as the last major religion to capture people's imagination, it - as had earlier religions - appealed to the underclasses. And in the case of Islam they have broadly remained the underclass, excepting only the oil-rich areas. So really it is not a case of fighting Islam, it is a case of fighting, and eliminating, the poor. Not by raising them to a less-poor status (that could never happen - it would just drag all of us down into poverty to try to distribute the world's resources evenly), but by literally eliminating four-fifths of the world's population and then controlling the breeding of the remainder.

Sorry but this is Malthus taken to the level of utter drivel..

Can you produce any evidence to support your extraordinary claims?

Exponential population growth is a thing of the past. Growth rates are slowing dramatically and contrary to your eugenics-style approach, the proportion of people living in absolute poverty is reducing. Mercifully the world does not need people such as yourself "controlling the breeding of the remainder". Grown adults are quite capable of making rational decisions, given the ability to do so.

Hopefully this is all some belated New Year wind-up, if not, you might want to avoid walking past a mirror for sometime...

In the meantime for those of a less brutal, deterministic mindset, have a watch of these:

http://www.gapminder.org/videos/ted-us-state-department/

http://www.gapminder.org/videos/hans-rosling-ted-talk-2007-seemingly-impossible-is-possible/

Sorry but this is Malthus taken to the level of utter drivel..

Can you produce any evidence to support your extraordinary claims?

Exponential population growth is a thing of the past. Growth rates are slowing dramatically and contrary to your eugenics-style approach, the proportion of people living in absolute poverty is reducing. Mercifully the world does not need people such as yourself "controlling the breeding of the remainder". Grown adults are quite capable of making rational decisions, given the ability to do so.

Hopefully this is all some belated New Year wind-up, if not, you might want to avoid walking past a mirror for sometime...

In the meantime for those of a less brutal, deterministic mindset, have a watch of these:

http://www.gapminder.org/videos/ted-us-state-department/

http://www.gapminder.org/videos/hans-rosling-ted-talk-2007-seemingly-impossible-is-possible/

Hans Rosling and his 'Gapminder' web-site are but one facet of a problem with a thousand other faces. This sword-swallowing doctor's claim to fame is his 'discovery' that insufficiently processed cassava is poisonous. When I was working in Nigeria one of the girls told me this within days of my arrival in Port Harcourt. Every female knew this, as they do all the cooking. And Rosling got his PhD for this?

And his patented software for massaging statistics is any better? I refer you to the old saw about lies, damned lies and statistics.

And yes, the rate of population growth is slowing down. Is this due to the entire human race 'wiseing-up' or because the rising rates of disease and hunger are outstripping the abilities of the liberal bleeding-hearts to keep all these burdensome underclass alive?

My figures are correct, as far as I can validate them. My interpretations are my own, but the extreme solution proposed may very well become the only solution if we do not introduce some form of population control very soon.

But this should be a separate discussion, not something tacked on to the tail of a thread about the shameful assassination of a serving soldier by two malcontents who had no right to be in the UK.

I see the voice of reason has returned to this topic.

Any chance of an answer to this?

Steely Dan,

Please show me any post which either

• excuses human rights abuse by any country or regime or ideology, or
  
• advocates mass, uncontrolled immigration from anywhere.
  

What's up, hurt feelings from captain ad-hominem?

Why don't you show me any post of mine that vilifies all Muslims, as oppose to criticism of some aspects of Islam, or individuals trampling on the human rights of others. I could point you at many posts of mine where I clearly make the distinction, but I guess you need to keep the lie simple and keep repeating it.

Perhaps you would also care to give an example of any UK Church, Synagogue, Hindu or Sikh temple that has had a problem with radical speakers inciting violence? incidentally it was the speeches of a U.S based Imam that influenced Lee Rigby's murderers.

You have accused me in this and other topics of excusing human rights abuses and supporting mass immigration.

I asked you for evidence of this; you have failed to produce it.

This is because it doesn't exist and you are attempting to divert people away from your hate fuelled lies.

There are many posts where you blame Islam and Islamic teachings for terrorism; your previous being a prime example.

Your continued use of the thesaurus to insert big words may confuse the stupid into thinking you know what you are talking about; but anyone with an IQ in double figures or above can tell it's all <deleted> driven by your hatred of Islam. (See. I can use childish insults, too.)

UK Christian leader using speeches to incite hatred and violence as well as supporting terrorism? Ever heard of Ian Paisley, Senior and Junior, for example?

But this should be a separate discussion, not something tacked on to the tail of a thread about the shameful assassination of a serving soldier by two malcontents who had no right to be in the UK.

Both were born in the UK.

Both are British citizens.

So how do you figure that they had no right to be in the UK?

Because they were born Christian and converted to Islam?

Because they're black?

Because you are ignorant of the facts?

(Sit back, await post from Steely Dan or similar accusing me of defending murderers.)

Sorry but this is Malthus taken to the level of utter drivel..

Can you produce any evidence to support your extraordinary claims?

Exponential population growth is a thing of the past. Growth rates are slowing dramatically and contrary to your eugenics-style approach, the proportion of people living in absolute poverty is reducing. Mercifully the world does not need people such as yourself "controlling the breeding of the remainder". Grown adults are quite capable of making rational decisions, given the ability to do so.

Hopefully this is all some belated New Year wind-up, if not, you might want to avoid walking past a mirror for sometime...

In the meantime for those of a less brutal, deterministic mindset, have a watch of these:

http://www.gapminder.org/videos/ted-us-state-department/

http://www.gapminder.org/videos/hans-rosling-ted-talk-2007-seemingly-impossible-is-possible/

Hans Rosling and his 'Gapminder' web-site are but one facet of a problem with a thousand other faces. This sword-swallowing doctor's claim to fame is his 'discovery' that insufficiently processed cassava is poisonous. When I was working in Nigeria one of the girls told me this within days of my arrival in Port Harcourt. Every female knew this, as they do all the cooking. And Rosling got his PhD for this?

And his patented software for massaging statistics is any better? I refer you to the old saw about lies, damned lies and statistics.

And yes, the rate of population growth is slowing down. Is this due to the entire human race 'wiseing-up' or because the rising rates of disease and hunger are outstripping the abilities of the liberal bleeding-hearts to keep all these burdensome underclass alive?

My figures are correct, as far as I can validate them. My interpretations are my own, but the extreme solution proposed may very well become the only solution if we do not introduce some form of population control very soon.

But this should be a separate discussion, not something tacked on to the tail of a thread about the shameful assassination of a serving soldier by two malcontents who had no right to be in the UK.

Pathetic and sad....

You have accused me in this and other topics of excusing human rights abuses and supporting mass immigration.

I asked you for evidence of this; you have failed to produce it.

This is because it doesn't exist and you are attempting to divert people away from your hate fuelled lies.

There are many posts where you blame Islam and Islamic teachings for terrorism; your previous being a prime example.

Your continued use of the thesaurus to insert big words may confuse the stupid into thinking you know what you are talking about; but anyone with an IQ in double figures or above can tell it's all <deleted> driven by your hatred of Islam. (See. I can use childish insults, too.)

UK Christian leader using speeches to incite hatred and violence as well as supporting terrorism? Ever heard of Ian Paisley, Senior and Junior, for example?

No post demonstrating my vilification of all Muslims then? The words of the late great Christopher Hitchens spring to mind.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

In the spirit of quid pro quo you are free to likewise; Recently Thames water removed a lump of fat from a London sewer the size of a double decker bus, encrusted with used sanitary towels and other such horrors, the thought of dredging through your bile I view with similar distaste so will pass on your kind invitation.