I used that link as it was the only one I found which published the full article.

For some reason the link I posted previously wont work; but I can access the page directly.

Here is the link again

If it still wont work, Google "Graeme Barker A tale of two deserts: contrasting desertification histories on Rome’s desert frontiers" and you'll find it.

Now that you and your beloved Dr French/Warner have been proven wrong on this, you call it a side issue!

As has been said before, for most of that time both Christians and Jews were allowed to live and practice their religions freely.

Only after payment of jizya. You may or may not have good historical knowledge in a general sense but your religious history sucks donkey dicks. Unlike now where you can pretty much believe what you wish and likely get to pay no tax on making money out of it, in those times you had to pay tax TO make money out of it.

Where did you get this idea from because I can't think of anything of note written in the last 20 years that would give you this impression.

I tried to click your link but got nothing but a html page, from which I managed to glean it referenced a page on the King Saud University website.

Worked for me.

Although you state that child marriage and FGM are illegal in the UK - can you give me any details of any prosecution?

I refer you to Simple1's post above.

As for underage marriage in the UK, it's impossible.

No registry office or other licensed marriage registrar in the UK will marry someone under 16; it's illegal. So if someone does carry out a 'marriage' in the UK when one of the couple is under age, it is not a legal marriage and a crime.

Agreed with the fact that this is a crime, but I ask again - how many prosecutions have been made, and how many have been successful?

This crime, along with the abuse of FGM, seems to be overlooked by the authorities. Why? In my opinion, with no hard facts to support it, it seems that the relevant authorities are turning a blind eye to these serious child-abuse crimes because prosecution may offend the immigrant populations that carry out the crimes. These crimes are utterly offensive to any civilised person and are intolerable in such a society. Why are such crimes not pursued with utmost rigour?

An interesting article on female genital mutilation from the Royal College of Nursing.

It is not clear when and where FGM first started but it is known to have existed over two thousand years ago (El Dareer, 1982), and has been found in Egyptian mummies from 2000 BC. It is well documented that FGM was practised in Britain, Canada and the USA in the 18th century to prevent masturbation, cure hysteria and some psychiatric conditions (Ng, 2000).

...........

FGM is often erroneously linked to Islam and is practised in some communities where Islam predominates. Some Muslims consider that Islam demands the practice to ensure spiritual purity, although many Islamic scholars disagree with this stating that FGM is not mentioned in the Qur’an. However, it is clearly a ritual practice that predates the Prophet Mohammed and the Islamic religion. FGM transcends religious, racial and social boundaries (Webb, 1995). A minority of followers of other faiths, Christians, animists and Jews practise it (Maurad and Hassenein, 1994).

Female genital mutilation is a terrible crime; I hope no one here would deny that. But to lay the blame purely on Islam is utterly incorrect; as shown it is a cultural practice, not a religious one and pre dates Islam, and Christianity, by thousands of years.

It may well be that FGM predates all the Abrahamic religions and was practiced in Europe in past centuries. I do not dispute this.

The East African and sub-Saharan African states that have populations that still carry out such repulsive practices are mainly Muslim in nature, but this does not mean that mainstream Islam supports the practice. I am not concerned with the origins of this savagery - I am concerned that it should be utterly stamped out among residents in the UK and, hopefully, the rest of Europe.

The authorities in the UK have a chance here to show that they have the welfare of all their female citizens / residents at heart. This is not a religious issue, it is a question of simple humanity.

You didn't read Simple 1's post where he dealt with this, then?

It is difficult for the authorities to act without a complaint and/or information from victims and/or other informants.

From Female genital mutilation: A family speaks out against the abuse

It is a secret, hidden business, seen by those who adhere to it as a rite of passage, by those who oppose it as a means of oppression, and by lawmakers as illegal.

FGM has been a criminal offence in the UK since 1985.

But to date, no-one in Britain has been prosecuted for it, despite reports that it is on the rise.

Part of the problem is getting girls or young women to give evidence against their parents.

There is also a lack of real knowledge about how prevalent it is and where it is taking place - and this is hampering social services and the police in the collection of evidence.

It is obvious to all, except those blinded by ignorant prejudice, that the lack of prosecutions and other action in the UK has a lot to do with laziness, even incompetence, by the authorities and very little to do with not wanting to 'upset' certain cultural groups.

As has been said before, for most of that time both Christians and Jews were allowed to live and practice their religions freely.

Only after payment of jizya.

You neglet to mention, probably because you knowledge is lacking, that payment of jizya by a non Muslim meant that they were exempt from milttary service and also exempt from paying the zakat taxes obligatory to Muslim citizens.

I wonder which was preferable to the Jews; living under Muslims and paying jizya, or living under Christians and being persecuted and murdered?

You may or may not have good historical knowledge in a general sense but your religious history sucks donkey dicks. Unlike now where you can pretty much believe what you wish and likely get to pay no tax on making money out of it, in those times you had to pay tax TO make money out of it.

Where did you get this idea from because I can't think of anything of note written in the last 20 years that would give you this impression.

Were you drunk when you wrote this? It makes absolutely no sense!

I used that link as it was the only one I found which published the full article.

For some reason the link I posted previously wont work; but I can access the page directly.

If it still wont work, Google "Graeme Barker A tale of two deserts: contrasting desertification histories on Rome’s desert frontiers" and you'll find it.

Now that you and your beloved Dr French/Warner have been proven wrong on this, you call it a side issue!

Feel free to have the last word a I have no time for this at the moment.

You neglet to mention, probably because you knowledge is lacking, that payment of jizya by a non Muslim meant that they were exempt from milttary service and also exempt from paying the zakat taxes obligatory to Muslim citizens.

Specifically 'probably because your knowledge is lacking'

I didn't bother to mention something that is not relevant to the actual point being made. I also didn't mention the cost of a loaf of bread for the same reason.

As has been said before, for most of that time both Christians and Jews were allowed to live and practice their religions freely.

Only after payment of jizya.

The requirement of payment of jizya shows that the claim that Christians and Jews were allowed to live and practice freely is false. Introducing such things as military exemption does nothing to address the argument and clouds the issue.

You neglet to mention, probably because you knowledge is lacking, that payment of jizya by a non Muslim meant that they were exempt from milttary service and also exempt from paying the zakat taxes obligatory to Muslim citizens.

Specifically 'probably because your knowledge is lacking'

I didn't bother to mention something that is not relevant to the actual point being made. I also didn't mention the cost of a loaf of bread for the same reason.

As has been said before, for most of that time both Christians and Jews were allowed to live and practice their religions freely.

Only after payment of jizya.

The requirement of payment of jizya shows that the claim that Christians and Jews were allowed to live and practice freely is false. Introducing such things as military exemption does nothing to address the argument and clouds the issue.

finally someone with personal experience. please tell us more about this era, e.g. cost of beer, bar fines, jumma roast, visa runs, gardening services...

An interesting article on female genital mutilation from the Royal College of Nursing.

It is not clear when and where FGM first started but it is known to have existed over two thousand years ago (El Dareer, 1982), and has been found in Egyptian mummies from 2000 BC. It is well documented that FGM was practised in Britain, Canada and the USA in the 18th century to prevent masturbation, cure hysteria and some psychiatric conditions (Ng, 2000).

...........

FGM is often erroneously linked to Islam and is practised in some communities where Islam predominates. Some Muslims consider that Islam demands the practice to ensure spiritual purity, although many Islamic scholars disagree with this stating that FGM is not mentioned in the Qur’an. However, it is clearly a ritual practice that predates the Prophet Mohammed and the Islamic religion. FGM transcends religious, racial and social boundaries (Webb, 1995). A minority of followers of other faiths, Christians, animists and Jews practise it (Maurad and Hassenein, 1994).

Female genital mutilation is a terrible crime; I hope no one here would deny that. But to lay the blame purely on Islam is utterly incorrect; as shown it is a cultural practice, not a religious one and pre dates Islam, and Christianity, by thousands of years.

why argue with ignorants? female genital mutilation was carried out in many African areas millennia before prophet Mohamed used to copy and paste half of the Qr'an from the Old Testament.

it was the done thing in many Nigerian states when i lived/worked there and is done to this very day by a big percentage of Coptic Christians in Egypt.

notmyself,

Both Muslims and non Muslims paid tax.

Muslims paid zakat, non Muslims paid jizya.

But I see you have ignored the most important point: unlike non Christians in most Christian countries, non Muslims in most Muslim countries were allowed to live and practice their religion.

This is what I meant by live and practice their religion freely; i.e. without restriction.

If you were a Jew living at that time, which would you prefer: living under Muslims and paying jizya, or living under Christians and being persecuted and murdered?

Both Muslims and non Muslims paid tax.

Muslims paid zakat, non Muslims paid jizya.

You do know that zakat is not a tax right? It a charitable donation given willingly, only the wealthy were/are required to pay it and there is no punishment for not paying it.

But I see you have ignored the most important point: unlike non Christians in most Christian countries, non Muslims in most Muslim countries were allowed to live and practice their religion.

This is what I meant by live and practice their religion freely; i.e. without restriction.

It is not free 'freely' if a tax has to be paid in order to do so.

Imagine: Room only.... 500 Baht. Same room but with free breakfast.... 600 Baht. I'm arguing that the breakfast is not free, you pay 100 Baht for it.

Both Muslims and non Muslims paid tax.

Muslims paid zakat, non Muslims paid jizya.

You do know that zakat is not a tax right? It a charitable donation given willingly, only the wealthy were/are required to pay it and there is no punishment for not paying it.

But I see you have ignored the most important point: unlike non Christians in most Christian countries, non Muslims in most Muslim countries were allowed to live and practice their religion.

This is what I meant by live and practice their religion freely; i.e. without restriction.

It is not free 'freely' if a tax has to be paid in order to do so.

Imagine: Room only.... 500 Baht. Same room but with free breakfast.... 600 Baht. I'm arguing that the breakfast is not free, you pay 100 Baht for it.

In Saudi Arabia companies have to pay Zakat as well.

notmyself,

Zakat may not be a legal obligation; but it is a religious one which is obligatory to all who are able to do so; the amount paid depending upon what one can afford.

The same as tithes paid by Christians; although these days most Christians ignore their obligation, and I suspect many Muslims do, too.

You still seem to be unaware of the definition of the word 'freely.'

It is an adverb and means, in this context, "not under the control of another; as one wishes."

I see that for a second time you have ignored the all important question. I will ask it once more.

If you were a Jew living at that time, which would you prefer: living under Muslims and paying jizya, or living under Christians and being persecuted and murdered?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/wholelife-jail-terms-loom-for-lee-rigby-killers-adebolajo-and-adebowale-who-will-be-sentenced-next-week-9136721.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/wholelife-jail-terms-loom-for-lee-rigby-killers-adebolajo-and-adebowale-who-will-be-sentenced-next-week-9136721.html

The article quoted above is reporting on the expectation (now confirmed) that whole-life tarriffs are legal in England. Therefore the fuss about the ECHR rulings is over, at least in this respect.

Personally, I could never see a problem in this particular form of sentencing, unless it was accompanied by a ruling that there would never be a right of appeal. In English law there has always been a right of appeal unless specifically denied, thus a whole-life sentence could be appeled after 20 or 25 years and thus reviewed with new evidence (of, say, exemplary conduct / terminal illness / modification of law / etc.) and the sentence reviewed.

(I am open to correction on any of this, not being an expert in criminal law)

I still say 'Hang 'em high' however.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/wholelife-jail-terms-loom-for-lee-rigby-killers-adebolajo-and-adebowale-who-will-be-sentenced-next-week-9136721.html

The article quoted above is reporting on the expectation (now confirmed) that whole-life tarriffs are legal in England. Therefore the fuss about the ECHR rulings is over, at least in this respect.

Personally, I could never see a problem in this particular form of sentencing, unless it was accompanied by a ruling that there would never be a right of appeal. In English law there has always been a right of appeal unless specifically denied, thus a whole-life sentence could be appeled after 20 or 25 years and thus reviewed with new evidence (of, say, exemplary conduct / terminal illness / modification of law / etc.) and the sentence reviewed.

(I am open to correction on any of this, not being an expert in criminal law)

I still say 'Hang 'em high' however.

In instances like this I agree 100%

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/wholelife-jail-terms-loom-for-lee-rigby-killers-adebolajo-and-adebowale-who-will-be-sentenced-next-week-9136721.html

The article quoted above is reporting on the expectation (now confirmed) that whole-life tarriffs are legal in England. Therefore the fuss about the ECHR rulings is over, at least in this respect.

Personally, I could never see a problem in this particular form of sentencing, unless it was accompanied by a ruling that there would never be a right of appeal. In English law there has always been a right of appeal unless specifically denied, thus a whole-life sentence could be appeled after 20 or 25 years and thus reviewed with new evidence (of, say, exemplary conduct / terminal illness / modification of law / etc.) and the sentence reviewed.

(I am open to correction on any of this, not being an expert in criminal law)

I still say 'Hang 'em high' however.

In instances like this I agree 100%

It is obvious to all, except those blinded by ignorant prejudice, that the lack of prosecutions and other action in the UK has a lot to do with laziness, even incompetence, by the very little to do with not wanting to 'upset' certain cultural groups and very little to do with not wanting to 'upset' certain cultural groups.

You speak for us all? So I'm blinded by ignorant prejudice if I believe it's entirely to do with not wanting to upset certain cultural groups? Passing it off as laziness or incompetence is laughable.

You have repeated the word 'prejudice' so often in your posts, you sound like the lefties in the UK who scream 'racism' at any criticism of ethnic minorities or Muslims. It's a great way to silence dissenting opinions.

I also believe Islam is incompatible with western cultural values as shown by numerous shocking events such as 7/7, Sharia patrols, the numerous grooming cases, the reaction to the Danish cartoons etc. etc. the list goes on and on. And now Lee Rigby.

And personally I've had it to here with Muslim apologists.

Suzuki GSX-R1000 L3 182 hp in-line 4 Superbike

One will die behind bars. The other will be an old fart when he gets out.

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/court-chaos-as-rigby-killers-jailed

One will die behind bars. The other will be an old fart when he gets out.

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/court-chaos-as-rigby-killers-jailed

Not many are still alive after 45 years in the slammer.

I'm not sure I agree with a sentence such as minimum 45 years or indeed life. Don't see that anything can be gained on either side.

One will die behind bars. The other will be an old fart when he gets out.

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/court-chaos-as-rigby-killers-jailed

Not many are still alive after 45 years in the slammer.

I'm not sure I agree with a sentence such as minimum 45 years or indeed life. Don't see that anything can be gained on either side.

They will eat a lot better than many pensioners, whose only crime was to grow old.

One will die behind bars. The other will be an old fart when he gets out.

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/court-chaos-as-rigby-killers-jailed

Not many are still alive after 45 years in the slammer.

I'm not sure I agree with a sentence such as minimum 45 years or indeed life. Don't see that anything can be gained on either side.

They will eat a lot better than many pensioners, whose only crime was to grow old.

It's a tough subject. You have seen my posts and know that I am at least willing to give reasons but on this I am not sure what to do nor what society should do. I'm leaning on the side of death if the person admits guilt in the knowledge it will result in death. In that way it is wished for euthanasia which I have no objection to.

[edit]Another topic perhaps.

It is obvious to all, except those blinded by ignorant prejudice, that the lack of prosecutions and other action in the UK has a lot to do with laziness, even incompetence, by the very little to do with not wanting to 'upset' certain cultural groups and very little to do with not wanting to 'upset' certain cultural groups.

You speak for us all? So I'm blinded by ignorant prejudice if I believe it's entirely to do with not wanting to upset certain cultural groups? Passing it off as laziness or incompetence is laughable.

You have repeated the word 'prejudice' so often in your posts, you sound like the lefties in the UK who scream 'racism' at any criticism of ethnic minorities or Muslims. It's a great way to silence dissenting opinions.

I also believe Islam is incompatible with western cultural values as shown by numerous shocking events such as 7/7, Sharia patrols, the numerous grooming cases, the reaction to the Danish cartoons etc. etc. the list goes on and on. And now Lee Rigby.

And personally I've had it to here with Muslim apologists.

Suzuki GSX-R1000 L3 182 hp in-line 4 Superbike

Your posts shows that you are indeed, blinded by ignorant prejudice.

7/7? Terrorism act; condemned by the vast majority of UK Muslims.

Sharia patrols? Illegal vigilantism, condemned by the vast majority of UK Muslims.

Grooming? Illegal and condemned by the vast Majority of UK Muslims. Do some research, as well; most guilty of this crime are not Muslims!

The list of your ignorant prejudice goes on and on.

You call me a 'Muslim apologist' because I defend the basic freedom of religion enjoyed by all in the UK since we stopped burning Catholics at the stake; maybe you'd like a return to those days?

But if you read my posts in this and other similar topics you will see that I have never acted as an 'apologist' for the murderers of Lee Rigby nor anyone else involved in terrorism or any other crime; regardless of their religion.

You are blinded by ignorant prejudice; and only you can educate yourself out of that.

One will die behind bars. The other will be an old fart when he gets out.

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/court-chaos-as-rigby-killers-jailed

If he gets out.

He hasn't received a 45 year sentence, he's received a life sentence with a minimum term of 45 years; which means he will be eligible to apply for parole after 45 years.

Apply for; but not guaranteed to get.

Lee Rigby's family say they are happy with he sentences; and that is good enough for me.

It is obvious to all, except those blinded by ignorant prejudice, that the lack of prosecutions and other action in the UK has a lot to do with laziness, even incompetence, by the very little to do with not wanting to 'upset' certain cultural groups and very little to do with not wanting to 'upset' certain cultural groups.

You speak for us all? So I'm blinded by ignorant prejudice if I believe it's entirely to do with not wanting to upset certain cultural groups? Passing it off as laziness or incompetence is laughable.

You have repeated the word 'prejudice' so often in your posts, you sound like the lefties in the UK who scream 'racism' at any criticism of ethnic minorities or Muslims. It's a great way to silence dissenting opinions.

I also believe Islam is incompatible with western cultural values as shown by numerous shocking events such as 7/7, Sharia patrols, the numerous grooming cases, the reaction to the Danish cartoons etc. etc. the list goes on and on. And now Lee Rigby.

And personally I've had it to here with Muslim apologists.

Suzuki GSX-R1000 L3 182 hp in-line 4 Superbike

I wish you luck on this one, but it's futile debating with the apologistas, a bit like catching eels in a barrel of oil. Which in a nutshell is why I have decided to stop replying to them. Here is a rare bit of realism from a British Muslim, all the better when dealing with the inevitable squeals of Islamophobia.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4186/islamophobia-uk

If you look at the London Tube Bombing of 7/7; the Madrid Train Bombing; two attacks on the World Trade Center; the murders of Lee Rigby, Theo Van Gogh, Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, Ilan Halimi, and countless other attack and threats, how can we honestly expect people not to be "Islamophobic"? It would appear we have no one to blame but ourselves.

If we Muslims are actually opposed to these Islamist hate preachers, why are we failing to take a unanimous public stance against them, to disown and isolate them from our community?

P.S Keep spreading the word to those who are open to reason though, we are winning, a YouGov poll found 66% of people surveyed expected a clash of civilizations between British Muslims an white Britons. Finally the latest Dutch opinion polls show Geert Wilder's PVV party has more support than any other Dutch party. Of course Holland is even further in the cultural enrichment mire than the UK, which is why more people there are finally smelling the coffee.

Grooming? Illegal and condemned by the vast Majority of UK Muslims. Do some research, as well; most guilty of this crime are not Muslims!

Take your head out of the sand.

http://m.bbc.com/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-23079649

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/may/08/men-guilty-abusing-girls-rochdale

It is obvious to all, except those blinded by ignorant prejudice, that the lack of prosecutions and other action in the UK has a lot to do with laziness, even incompetence, by the very little to do with not wanting to 'upset' certain cultural groups and very little to do with not wanting to 'upset' certain cultural groups.

You speak for us all? So I'm blinded by ignorant prejudice if I believe it's entirely to do with not wanting to upset certain cultural groups? Passing it off as laziness or incompetence is laughable.

You have repeated the word 'prejudice' so often in your posts, you sound like the lefties in the UK who scream 'racism' at any criticism of ethnic minorities or Muslims. It's a great way to silence dissenting opinions.

I also believe Islam is incompatible with western cultural values as shown by numerous shocking events such as 7/7, Sharia patrols, the numerous grooming cases, the reaction to the Danish cartoons etc. etc. the list goes on and on. And now Lee Rigby.

And personally I've had it to here with Muslim apologists.

Suzuki GSX-R1000 L3 182 hp in-line 4 Superbike

I wish you luck on this one, but it's futile debating with the apologistas, a bit like catching eels in a barrel of oil. Which in a nutshell is why I have decided to stop replying to them. Here is a rare bit of realism from a British Muslim, all the better when dealing with the inevitable squeals of Islamophobia.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4186/islamophobia-uk

If you look at the London Tube Bombing of 7/7; the Madrid Train Bombing; two attacks on the World Trade Center; the murders of Lee Rigby, Theo Van Gogh, Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, Ilan Halimi, and countless other attack and threats, how can we honestly expect people not to be "Islamophobic"? It would appear we have no one to blame but ourselves.

If we Muslims are actually opposed to these Islamist hate preachers, why are we failing to take a unanimous public stance against them, to disown and isolate them from our community?

P.S Keep spreading the word to those who are open to reason though, we are winning, a YouGov poll found 66% of people surveyed expected a clash of civilizations between British Muslims an white Britons. Finally the latest Dutch opinion polls show Geert Wilder's PVV party has more support than any other Dutch party. Of course Holland is even further in the cultural enrichment mire than the UK, which is why more people there are finally smelling the coffee.

Interesting how you take the one stat from the May 2013 YouGov poll concerning your beloved "Clash of Civilizations".

For more context and a few paradoxes a viewing of more responses to that survey are in the link below. Interesting how opinions are driven by age and political affiliation.

http://www.brin.ac.uk/news/2013/islamophobia-post-woolwich/

Grooming? Illegal and condemned by the vast Majority of UK Muslims. Do some research, as well; most guilty of this crime are not Muslims!

Take your head out of the sand.

http://m.bbc.com/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-23079649

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/may/08/men-guilty-abusing-girls-Rochdale

Oh dear; it appears proper research is beyond your capabilities.

From the NSPCC What do we know about the perpetrators?

Perpetrators classified as ‘White’ formed the largest group, and those loosely recorded as ‘Asian’ formed the second largest group. Perpetrators from various other ethnic groups were also recorded. (Berelowitz et al, 2012).

No doubt you will now say that some white people are Muslim; to which I respond that not every Asian is Muslim.

Also, your two links do not mention these men's religion; you assume they are Muslim because of their names. Is everyone named O'Riley a Catholic?

How about a man named Waǧīh Ṣubḥī Bāqī Sulaymān? Must be Muslim with a name like that!

Wrong, he is better known by his title, Pope Tawadros II of Alexandria; the head of the Coptic (Christian) church in Egypt.

Of course, the right wing press did make great play of the men being Muslim, but they tend to ignore the cases where the perpetrators are not Muslim; such cases don't fit their agenda.

No mention, of course, of whether or not the men are practising Muslims.

The men who commit this appalling crime do so because they are evil, not because of their religion, if they have one. I wonder how long it's been since the men in your two links entered a mosque; probably as long ago as the last time Robert Jackson entered a church!