A Muslim scholar noted that Muhammad spend 13 years preaching but to no avail. However, after setting up of the Islamic state in Medinah, and using force, beheadings, etc Islam became an instant success.

The success of Islam hinges upon the Islamic concept of the Kingdom of Allah on earth. The Kingdom of Allah is realised through the Shari’ah laws. Halal foods, Islamic banking, family issues laws( which discriminates against women), etc contribute towards the oppressive nature of Islam.

http://www.ikwro.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=266&Itemid=26

In secular Singapore, a Muslim principal of a primary school mandated a HALAL-FOOD-ONLY rule in the school.
The school has only 20% Muslim, 80% non-Muslims. It was stated in forums that non-Muslim children had to ‘smuggle’ ham sandwiches, pork buns into school. Checks were made. Any non-halal food found was confiscated. When parents complained, the government quickly reversed the policy and apologised.

http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2008/yax-838.htm

Bboy states (Friday, 15 February 2008 11:14:11 AM):
"The notion that Dr Rowan Williams advocated incorporating Sharia Law into the UK, represents a nadir in both misdirected citizen outrage and irresponsible journalism."

Bboy is obviously not aware that the words were spoken by the Archbishop in a RADIO INTERVIEW on the BBC in England, which was heard by many people, among them my sister. The telephone lines to the BBC went red-hot with outrage at the end of the programme. The ARCHBISHOP OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH has subsequently tried to back-pedal, obviously, but to no avail, because people "HEARD" what he said.

Just shows how SOME people will go to any length, EVEN TO DENYING THE TRUTH, to defend the indefensible.

Re that Singapore school and halal food issue.

There can be considered another dimension to this: the non-Islamic kids didn't have to eat non-halal food, but if the Islamic kids ate, then in the opinion of Islamic scholars, they would be jeopardising their salvation:

Okay you say - big deal:

In many Australian schools, and probably in lots of other places, sandwiches and other foodstuffs containing peanut butter, peanuts, peanut oil and other nut products are banned, because of the risk of these foods causing massive and potentially fatal or crippling allergic reactions in maybe 5 to 10% of the kids at those schools. Children swap food, they are not able to recognise the difference between dangerous and not dangerous.

Kids get along very well without peanuts in their school lunches and snacks, other kids can get along very well with foods that do not contain non-halal items.

Was anyone actually harmed by the banning of non-halal foods? Or was this just a beat up?

If you are going to start criticising Islam (and there is a lot to be contentious about) do it for something more than the issue of halal foods.

Hamlet, what a load of bollocks!

There's a big difference between actual danger and supposed danger, based on the delusional ramblings of some seventh century SO CALLED "PROPHET"!!

The point is that these people, the Muslims, want to impose their religious mores on the rest of the Earth's population. I think they should be opposed ON PRINCIPLE.

"Was anyone actually harmed by the banning of non-halal foods?"

Yes, the rights of the non-Muslims to eat the foods of their choice. The school is a secular school and so no one religion should be favoured over another.

In fact, no harm comes to a Muslim if they were to eat pork or a ham sandwich. It is only because their minds are held captive by Islamic teachings that such-and-such a thing is unclean, and if they were to do it they would end up in hell.

This "halal-foods" case goes beyond dietary concerns, rather it shows how a Muslim in authority forces Islam on non-Muslims to observe the Islamic ideology.

Islam is an ideology that is steep in ancient superstitions with a long list of prohibitions. It was spread through the use of violence, coercion and deceit. Muslims are mentally imprisoned by the doctrines and practices of Islam. Frequently finding excuses for their irrational behaviour and never truly able to cope with the demands of modernity.

Pakístan was founded on the Islamic ideal, yet almost all of her prime ministers (Mohd. Ali Jinnah, Ali Bhutto, Zia-ul-haq, Ms. Bhutto, Pervez Musharraf, Nawar Sharif) went to Christian mission schools. Surely, if Muslims are to follow the Islamic ideology their mentality would not go further than the 7th century CE camel riders.

Maybe when we are talking about bad laws we could consider two that the Israeli High court have just deemed to be legal.

1. the murder of anyone that Shin Bet deems to be a threat with no interference from pesky lawyers and judiciary.

2. the starvation of 1.5 million Palestinians because a few people fire rockets.

Perhaps the lunar right want more laws like these from 'civ'lised' people?