Tell it to the Muslims, dearie.

At the end of the day the godless secular humanist lack of values will result in this barbaric harsh religion taking dominance in many places. Most have rejected Christianity which brought more dignity to woman than any other philosophy and religion. The further we have moved from Christian values the more degenerate we have become. Secularism just leads girls to become sluts or men haters. Women are now viewed largely as sex objects thanks to the triumph of secular thinking. Obama has already given his nod in Pakistan (talk about double standards) to Sharia law. The only good I see coming from Sharia law is that the number of murdered unborn babies will decrease. The rest will be horrendous for anyone who enjoys freedom. I pray Britain and Australia turn back to the God who prospered them so richly in times past.

There is so little substance to this piece, it is tempting to dismiss it as just another whack-a-mozzie rant. But I will try hard to avoid doing that.

The leap from Sayyid Qutb to Al-Zawahri to our very own door-kicking Sheik is just a little tenuous. Although it cannot be denied that al-Hilali's outbursts indicate a similar ultra-mysogynist tendency.

The connection is presumably intended to indicate a world-wide conspiracy. Unfortunately, given the happy Sheik's latest shenanigans, we can all clearly see what we are dealing with.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25208451-5013404,00.html

Not a particularly convincing international conspiracist, I would suggest. Certainly not to be taken seriously.

What else?

The "Sharia Law in UK" story is once again dragged out for us to shriek about. It was extensively covered in this forum last year, when it was pointed out that the mechanism was simply an arbitration tribunal, whose resolution required the agreement of both parties.

And that...

"Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

I am sure that there was a similar outcry a hundred years ago, that Beth Din courts represented the thin end of the legal wedge, and that all men in the UK would in short order be wandering about with broad-brimmed black hats and those long curly sideburn thingies.

So what are we left with?

Ah yes.

"Let me be clear, I am not anti-Muslim or anti-immigration."

Sounds remarkably like "I'm not a racist, but..."

Absolutely.

Theodore Dalrymple, in "Our culture - what's left of it" notes that, in his experience, young men converting to Islam express little knowledge of, or interest in, for example, such tenets of Islamic faith as dietary restrictions or zakat, but they are very interested in, and passionate about, how Islam lets them assert control over women.

Christianity fares little better - certainly not when some of the fundamental pillars of Christian belief, the Ten Commandments, expressly state that women are property, or the Bible approvingly speaks of sexual slavery and mass rape.

Oh, and thank you, runner, for another example of how religion - any religion - poisons everything.

Well yes everything in this article resonates because we have enjoyed the benefits of a secular and egalitarian democracy and any threat to that is understandably unwelcome.

Sharia Law along with the more fundamentalist Christian sects do not sit well in Western Democracies because they do not fit in with acceptable norms of social justice and equality.

runner
I wonder if you really understand what it is you write half the time. For starters your rant against secular humanists is misplaced. It is secularism that allows you to preach your views openly in a free society. You would not be able to do that living in Iran or Afghanistan.

Secondly, every Christian I know is a secular humanist - the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

I think the key point this article tries to make is an important one. However, the context it's portrayed in risks distracting people from the central issue.

Starting with a highly contestable statement that "feminism died two decades ago" and framing most of the article around 'Islamic law' as though this is a consistent single entity, invites people to launch into debates or attacks on Islam or feminism / humanism.

The first few comments here demonstrate the point:

1 a dig at Islam,

2 an attack on "godless secular humanists" and an assertion that "christian values" "brought more dignity to woman" (sic) "than any other philosophy" (presumably including feminism).

3 An effort to clarify / correct some of the criticisms of Islam.

4 a general dig at all religions

But to me the central point of the article is the fact that "men still try to make women feel obligated to fulfil men’s sexual needs".

This core message risks being lost in yet another slanging match about Islam and religion.

Contrary to portrayals in the populist press, "Sharia law" does not automatcally mean thieves having their hands chopped off or adulterers and fornicators being stoned to death in a public square.

Using a term like "Islamic law" is as vague as using a term like "Christian law" or "western law". There may be a common philosophical underpinning, but the content, interpretation and implementation of it can vary hugely from one country or culture to another. Christian and western laws and societies have many examples where women have been subjugated to men in sexual and other arenas.

Focusing on the most extreme examples of Islamic practices while ignoring deeper aspects of the issue just leads people towards a debate about Islam - which in Australia usually means people from all sides talking a lot about something they know very little about.

The key issue is women still face many circumstances where they are at worst forced, or at best strongly encouraged, to be obligated to fulfil men's sexual needs and desires, both inside a marriage and without.

runner reading your posts I always come to thinking that god hasn't treated you kindly. You seem so angry when one would think your faith would be uplifting for you.

'But to me the central point of the article is the fact that "men still try to make women feel obligated to fulfil men’s sexual needs".'

I don't see what's wrong with that! I try to fulfil my partners sexual needs, in fact since we are a partnership, and a team, and I have committed myself to our happiness togerther, I do feel obligated to fulfil her needs. I know she feels the same about me too.

What kind of screwed up relationship is it when on partner sees this as a problem?

Houellebecq

I think a debate about what might be wrong with a man trying to make a woman (or women in general) feel obligated to fulfil his sexual needs is what needs to occur. (Which is why going off on tangents about Islam or religion won't help much.)

When you say you don't see what's wrong with it, i suspect a lot of it comes down to how people interpret what words like "obligated" and "needs" mean. "needs" is often portrayed as being synonymous with "wants" or "appetite", while "obligated" is often portrayed as synonymous with "required".

I'd probably have worded the original sentence in the article a bit differently myself, but I was quoting directly from it as I saw it as the core point which was at risk of quickly becoming obscured being another flamewar about religion / 'godless' humanism, etc.

It is one thing to work out in a partnership how best each person can support and assist in meeting each other's needs. It is another for one of them to feel it is their duty to have to continually perform a role of relieving another person's sexual desires or 'needs'.

What a strange response from Leigh.

This topic is arguably one of the most important issues facing the entire world, and not just Western countries.

I read somewhere just yesterday that moves are being made (or already have been) in UN forums etc to make any criticism of Islam anywhere in the world a criminal offense.

If you expect anyone to "fufil your needs" for happiness, satisfaction or anything else you are placing an impossible demand on them, and you will sooner or later become dissatisfied in all sorts of ways with that persons (in)capacity to "fulfil your needs".

And thus begin to abuse that person.

In fact I would call such a demand a form of abuse in and of itself.

It's the intellectual depredations of a morally homely spineless elite that has allowed the antediluvian Sharia law to invade and ensconce itself in the land of Shakespeare.

http://kotzabasis11.wordpress.com

Actually, Andrew Bartlett, I was less having a dig at religion generally, than pointing out that there are those who are drawn to religion largely as means of control.

To reiterate, in the particular case of Dalrymple's comments on young men converting to Islam, he noted that they overwhelmingly seemed uninterested in those aspects of the religion that might demand most of one personally. What they were really seemed interested in was being able to exercise control specifically over women.

Which bears directly on what you see as the central point of the article - "that 'men still try to make women feel obligated to fulfil men’s sexual needs'", does it not?

I think the main point is there should be no other law than the law of the land. This way all citizens are treated the same and if there are deficiencies they can be changed and all citizens benefit. The problem with the introduction of Sharia law for domestic purposes is it will not be satisfied at stopping with that. It will want to intrude into the commercial sphere and disputes will then arise as to what law should be applicable and the citizen will not be certain of the outcome as precedent is not involved. Islam and democracy are incompatible, there are no Islamic democracies. Democracy interferes with the hierarchical nature of Islam.

As a 'democracy' we already have enough problems with conservative factions of the Christian religion attempting to control women's bodies (attempting to ban RU486 & stopping funding to family clinics that provide access to abortion), the infiltration of Sharia law would be a further step back into the dark ages for humanity.

Separation of church and state, end tax exemption and promote freedom from religion.

That's an extremely charitable attitude, Andrew, but I don't believe it has legs.

>>But to me the central point of the article is the fact that "men still try to make women feel obligated to fulfil men’s sexual needs"<<

The title is "Islamic law and women", not "what is wrong with men'.

Despite the feeble attempt at a disclaimer, the article encourages exactly the response it is now getting.

Preceded by the section heading "A step by step invasion", the author introduced the following progression:

1. The UN supports "reporting anyone who dares to speak out against Sharia law"

Then, just in case we were in any doubt,

2. "Sharia law requires women to be stoned to death for adultery and young men to be hanged for being gay"

And for good measure:

3. "Sharia law has become part of the law of the land in Britain".

This clearly delivers the message that Sharia Law, a regime that requires women to be stoned to death for adultery, is now incorporated into British law, with the full sanction of the United Nations.

Hardly surprising then, that it elicits responses like this one from Themistocles:

>>It's the intellectual depredations of a morally homely spineless elite that has allowed the antediluvian Sharia law to invade and ensconce itself in the land of Shakespeare.<<

Say what you like about the obscurity of the thought processes involved and the pretentiousness of its delivery, this is straight out of the whack-a-mozzie handbook.

It echoes precisely the tone of the article.

The "morally homely spineless elite" (homely? fascinating) is obviously the United Nations. The expression "antediluvian Sharia law" is an appropriately censorious shorthand for all that stoning and stuff. While the concept that it has "invade[d] and ensconce[d] itself in the land of Shakespeare" is headily emotive, and exquisitely inaccurate.

So Andrew, I know you were trying to be gentlemanly and courteous to the lady, but I think she really meant what she said.

She might even believe her disclaimer, "Let me be clear, I am not anti-Muslim or anti-immigration".

I don't.

The author has summarised 14 centres of legal tradition by reference to the statements of a Sydney imam, a Melbourne preacher and an Egyptian journalist from the mid-twentieth century.

Can I summarise the Common Law tradition using the words of an Andreew Bolt columnist, a rant from Danny Nalliah and a South African judge from the mid-twentieth century supporting the legal basis for apartheid?

I think the author should stick to psychotherapy. Analysing and understanding comparative law and legal traditions just isn't her game.

"Tell it to the Muslims, dearie."

Leigh, sweetie, which Muslims should she tell? The ones who, like me, completely oppose the operation of the death penalty anywhere, including (and especially) Muslim-majority states?

It seems, Leigh honey, that you have not yet come to terms with the fact that not all Muslims support Taliban-style law.

With the pope lecturing the Aids-ravaged people of Africa to cast out their condoms, Sharia Law is starting to look downright progressive.

Pericles,

I don’t think the author deserves all the condescension you are pouring on her. Her writing style in this essay and others she has written for OLO is to make intuitive connections between wide-ranging and seemingly disparate issues – with the common factor in this case being the socio-political control of women’s sexuality.

It’s a style that we linear-thinking Westerners are not used to, having conducted many hundreds of years of intellectual discourse perched precariously astride the twin pedestals of logic and objectivity – both of which are in their own way illusory and unreliable.

Intuitive reasoning has for too long been suppressed, ridiculed and marginalised as ‘women’s thinking’. Certainly, the author has been a little overambitious but the fact that she has inspired a number of interesting and diverse comments so far indicates that she is onto something important.

Rather than making it worse with our nasty rhetoric, surely us Christians can force ourselves to tone down a bit towards the Musims.

Rather than reminding them how much males and females get on in the West owing to the niceness of our Christian religion, it is a fact that many of our laws stem from Hellenistic folklore rather than from Christian teachings.

Furthermore, it has been said that the gentleness and compassion of Christianity was really only first
expressed by the young Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, much of it lost when the Roman emperor Constantine took over during the Eighth Century.

It has been said by modern philosophers in fact, that the miracle of modern sport might be one way of developing fairness among the Muslims, as it has among ourselves.

It is certainly on the sporting field where apologies are part of the game, with none of us Westerners declaring
that it was us who invented most of the sports we now play.

Finally, a bit of vocally Sharing the Blame between us and Islamics would do more good than harm, also.

Cheers, BB.

SJF, that's not what the pope said at all.

And Pericles states "this clearly delivers the message that Sharia.....women stoned to death is now incorporated into British Law, with the full sanction of the UN". Not if you also read the line "in matters of divorce, finances and domestic violence" it doesn't.

It is not unreasonable to argue that all citizens in a nation are subject to the same laws, and that justice is delivered on this basis. It's a shame that the author did not stick to this line of argument. A good case can be made for the rejection of SL in Britain on this point alone. As Irfan points out whose version Of Sharia are we talking about?

So,the English have been trying to commit cultural suicide for years?
As an Australian of Irish origins(140 years back)I say ,good luck with that you pommy scum.

Australia has some pretence at being a secular democracy.There is no place for sharia law in this country or any other form of religious idiocy.

To moslems,or any other form of immigrant vermin, I have a little advice - shut up, fit in, or clear out - preferably the latter.

It is true that many more women today barely resemble women today,using the image of the past. They drink swear drug-up dress to tease and express a blatant sexual power and profane the image of woman as it existed.
This is abhorrent to many and much regretted BUT it is an outcome that has been created out of the secular freedom of our democracies and that is more important than preserving any feminine inage men would like to have preserved.It is really a matter of letting women decide what they want to do with their bodies and spiritualities, how to use their freedoms and how to fulfil themselves.
As a man yes, I do think they have gone too far but they arent made to serve me or males like me so we need to get a life and get on with it. Women might regret the way we men have developed i our exploitive or condescending ways and our cravings to dominate and control them.
Let's be quite fair about it.
As for what Muslims may think about it .... wel, they havent yet got to thinking about it. Thinking about it doesnt sit easy with them.
They say Muslim women love it that way. Bully for them, I say. Who is a slave who loves his slavery? No longer a slave.

socratease

In the last part of last year there appeared an article in OLO by Keysar Trad, titled 'In Defence of Muslims' dated friday 28-11-08
This is the link

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8216

This relates to an article in the Age newspaper about a report, commissioned by our government, by the Vistorian Islamic Womens Council.

The Age article quotes some extracts from the report which states that some Islamic women are having problems after our Family Court has granted them a divorce. The former husbands are turning up at the womens home and demanding husbands sexual rights, as they are not divorced according to their religion. Sorry, I do not have a link to the Age article.

Kateo was one poster that contributed some usefull information about the report.

The Government still has that report and has yet to release it or make comment about it.

It is important as it may show how some muslims view and act in relation to Islamic law and our law, in our society.

I will make inquiries, via my local MP, in regards to when the report will be released.

Ban all the religions.
Oh and somebody ban runner :P

Muslims feel right at home in Australia today because since 1952, Menzies introduced Sharia law into Australia by cutting the head off the High Court. As with all dictators from Pontius Pilate to Mugabe, he had to have a neutered and ineffective High Court, even if he was prohibited from doing so, by S 77(i) Constitution.

We have a resident Imam in every Magistrates Court, and resident Imams in all civil cases throughout Australia even though in some States they say you can have a jury trial. In these States the Imam is a public servant called a Registrar or Deputy Registrar who decides who can come to the Mosque.

Islam and the Roman Catholic Church have more in common than the Protestant Christian churches and the Roman Catholics. Both are oppressive to women, and both are male dominated. Both hate people reading the Holy Bible for themselves, and the real sin for the English in the eyes of Rome, was in printing and making the Holy Bible freely available to an educated public.

They compounded that sin, in the eyes of Rome, when they adopted the Gospels as their Constitution, in the Coronation Oath 1688 after a Roman Catholic fifth columnist King did a runner. The Roman Catholic Christianity and Islam both have roots in the Pauline scripture, and one of the influences on Mohammed was a Christian wife.

Islam is better than communism. Roman Catholicism was a rebel religion in Ireland, until the English left, and now is barely tolerated. Men and women are created equal in the eyes of Almighty God and a careful reading of the Gospels clearly shows this. If every Moslem or other criminal had to face a Christian jury, instead of an Imam appointed by the State, and face the punishment provided by Almighty God in the Magna Carta both in sentencing and adjudication of guilt, they would have to accept Christian Commonwealth authority..

An Imam and an elected dictatorship are absolutely at odds with Christianity and membership of the Commonwealth. While Judges and Parliaments set sentencing, prisons will remain a boom industry.

I think that the formal recognition of any aspect of Sharia Law in Australia would have negative consequences, both for those who availed themselves of it - particularly women - and for the wider society. However, I think this poorly-written article confuses the issue, by conflating it with claims about the misogyny of the more extreme forms of Islam.

If, as Andrew Bartlett suggests, the author's central point concerns the purported fact that "men still try to make women feel obligated to fulfil men’s sexual needs", then it is obscured in a mish-mash of Islamophobic dog-whistles and unsubstantiated 70s feminist dogma.

While such a claim is arguable, I think that contemporary Western societies have by and large moved beyond such stereotypical sexual patriarchy - directly because of widespread acceptance of the claims of second-wave feminism. I agree with those who have suggested above that we have moved to a general expectation in our relationships that men and women are responsible for fulfilling their partners' needs. Yes, misogyny still exists under the aegis of various religious, sporting and other patriarchal minority groups, but I think they are increasingly the exceptions to the norm.

If the author wanted to make the point that aspects of Sharia Law (and indeed fundamentalist religious belief of any description) are incompatible with the advances in gender equity that Western societies have experienced over the past 30 years or so, she could have done so far more successfully if she'd avoided the Islamophobic dog-whistles.

I was going to read this... but I had to stop after the first sweeping generalization.

Better luck next time.

I think this article is spot on. Women in Australia should be afraid of the gradual rise of Islamic extremism. As the women in the United Kingdom are realizing, Sharia law is totally unacceptable to most women. If it were not for the moral bankruptcy of a political system that went bad after World War II, and introduced the elements of Islam into the administration of justice, the English would not be having a problem with Islam and would insist all subjects owed allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second.

Allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second requires acceptance of the Holy Bible and the Gospels of Jesus Christ. It requires universal acceptance that a court is a branch of the Anglican Church, because Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second is head of that Church and the Presbyterian Church as well. The confluence of Roman Catholic ideas about women as chattels, and similar Islamic ideas, that resulted after Roman Catholic believers were admitted back into English public life, have found their expression in the Family Court, and one person Star Chambers formed by Judges and Magistrates throughout the United Kingdom and Australia.

The roots of the Anglican Church are Roman Catholic. Consequently in 2009, the Archbishop of Sydney will not allow female vicars. We think this comes out of Pauline scripture more than the Gospels, and is a position not adopted by the Pentecostal Churches. The hullabaloo about the separation of Church and State this emotional debate raises, is best fixed by not allowing a Priest of any description, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Muslim or State appointed to call together any court unless the Christian addiction to justice is satisfied by separating the power to judge from the power to act administratively.

The Peace of Christ was freely available in Australia until 1952, by having a Federal Supreme Court that anyone could access called the High Court, which like every other Supreme Court in all of the States, should have remained a Court of Judicature; So also the family court. Men, women and children are abused under Islam and in Star Chambers

The type of Sharia Law the author is referring to is the one expounded by Muhammed (May Allah Bless His Immaculate Soul!). Things like allowing sex with 9 year old girls, multiple wives, wife beating and so fourth. Things that are a bit of a concern.

palimpsest

Yes, I did use dramatic licence with the Pope's actual wording re condoms, which I believe were: 'AIDS cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems.’

However, he was still using fundamentalist Church morality to interfere with a serious medical issue. More people having protected sex (even with the risk of condom damage) is still much safer than fewer people having unprotected sex.

Irfan,
Do you like men? Calling me “sweetie” and “honey” certainly puts you right outside Islamic law, does it not? Islam is even more disdainful and intolerant of homosexuality than I am.

Chris James is a female. I am a male, hence the “dearie”. A bit condescending and chauvinist, I admit. But then I have always been a bit of a chauvinistic male. Ask my wife.

You have often asked me ‘which’ Muslims I talk about. I ask, what sort of a Muslim are you? One asking for a fatwa by using such endearing terms to one of the same sex?

On Friday, Fatty Irbuckle suggested that Sayyid Qutb was just an "Egyptian journalist from the mid-twentieth century" and compared his influence to that of Andrew Bolt. That's a bit like saying that Adolf Hitler was just a guy with a moustache and suggesting that he had no more influence on world history than cricketer Merv Hughes ... who also had a moustache. Perhaps someone could feed Irbuckle the pages of Geraldine Brooks' "Nine Parts of Desire" so he could gain at least some understanding of the parlous position of women in the world's leading Islamic societies. Or does he want to keep up his pretence that what goes on in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia have got nothing to do with Islam and Muslims?

*Men still try to make women feel obligated to fulfil men’s sexual needs and this is best achieved by regulating women’s sexuality.*

It seems to me that the author is confusing the use of Sharia law,
(as claimed by the so called Allah), with what Bertina Arnt is
saying, which is quite different.

Never mind God, the question arises that if a woman marries a guy,
does she have any obligation to fulfill his sexual needs?

If the author thinks not, then why do these women bother to get
married in the first place? Why do they protest, if he wanders
elsewhere?

Or perhaps men should change their ideas and only go to work, to
provide resources to feed the family, when they happen to feel like
it.

What Arnt is suggesting is that if more women understood the world
just a little bit from a male perspective, that might not be a bad
thing. I happen to agree with her.

Pericles

You argue the point well.

I thought I'd have a go at reframing the discussion into something more constructive, but on further reflection - and seeing the further comments - I'd say you are correct.

Yabby

‘What Arnt is suggesting is that if more women understood the world just a little bit from a male perspective, that might not be a bad thing. I happen to agree with her.’

EXCUSE me??

Women live their ENTIRE lives from cradle to grave viewing the world from a male perspective – sexual and otherwise! Our history, our art, our social values, our morals, our media, our sport, our cinema, our literature, our surnames, and virtually anything else you care to mention, is skewed to the male viewpoint.

I have found overwhelmingly, through direct and indirect experience, that it’s men who are profoundly ignorant of female sexuality and eroticism. This is because men simply do not have the life experience of fitting themselves to women’s lives to that all-pervasive degree that women are conditioned to fit themselves to men’s lives.

Living one’s entire life in a society whose sexual norms are viewed through the male gaze, any woman would have to be a complete vegetable to remain ignorant of male sexuality. Women have little choice but to become well versed on men’s erotic fantasies via Hollywood, literature, art, pornography, and the thousands of ‘adult’ magazines that proliferate throughout suburban newsagents. By contrast, the culture actively encourages men to distance themselves from women’s romantic fantasy and eroticism via a well-worn repertoire of put downs and trivializations.

I often suspect that it’s this socially enforced male ignorance of the emotional, romantic, erotic world of women that is behind the sad statistic that more than 80% of marital separations are initiated by the wife.

"I often suspect that it’s this socially enforced male ignorance of the emotional, romantic, erotic world of women that is behind the sad statistic that more than 80% of marital separations are initiated by the wife."

Whew, more twists than a corkscrew to end up there!

For the next instalment could you explain how men are also responsible for the remaining 20% of divorces, because doubtless in your world they would be.

Surely you don't believe that any of that tripe is convincing for men or women?

No wonder young women run screaming from feminists.

*Women live their ENTIRE lives from cradle to grave viewing the world from a male perspective*

SJF, if that was the case, then it might have dawned on those
women that most blokes will do one hell of a lot for them, if
they get a bit of nookie occasionally.

Instead, we have this demonstration of feminist power by SOME women, not all, they control
things, by saying no. Fair enough, they control things, don't
be amazed if men wander elsewhere.

Sheesh, a few minutes on your back is not that hard darling, after
all, he goes to work all day, whilst you can drink cups of tea
with your friends, or go shopping etc.

"Sheesh, a few minutes on your back is not that hard darling, after
all, he goes to work all day, whilst you can drink cups of tea
with your friends, or go shopping etc."

That must be one of the most sexist things you have ever said Yabby but I don't really believe you mean it, if you want to stir that is one thing but you are usually much more adept at debate than stooping to this level.

I don't think this is what Bettina Arndt quite had in mind.

Wafa Sultan, Arab-American psychiatrist and ex-muslima, sums up the status of women in Islam in the linked video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ough-e6ThWE

I don’t think the aim of Sharia Law is to subjugate women – the aim of Sharia Law is to enforce Islam upon society. One of Islam’s beliefs is that women should be subjugated to men and you cannot pick and choose which beliefs you will accept and which you will reject if you want to remain a Muslim. It is the same for Christianity – you have to accept the whole package unless you do some amazing mental gymnastics to convince yourself that any behaviour which is inconsistent with the creed is acceptable.

Religious people put up with some extraordinary injustices and perpetrate them as well just so that they can ‘enjoy’ some of the other ‘benefits’ that they think will accrue to them by remaining members of their group. It is pointless trying to fight for the rights of
Muslim women when many of them do not want those rights. They themselves see such freedom as a threat to the benefits they gain from religion. They suppress their anger and their fear on a daily basis because their greater fear is to live without religion.

The issue here is not patriarchy or feminism or gender politics but the insidious nature of religion and the way it makes otherwise rational people do totally irrational things. Suppressing fear and anger is never a good thing and it leads to all kinds of extreme outbursts like suicide bombings and the stoning of women. Islam in its extreme forms is responsible for reprehensible crimes against human rights but only some of these are directed at Muslim women.

We should oppose any law or any behaviour that seeks to impose Islam or any other religion upon a society. If Islam takes hold in the west it will not only mean the end of freedom for women’s sexuality but the end of a great many other freedoms as well. We should do everything we can to prevent the whole package.

Coincidentally, I happen to be reading “Shari‘ah Law An Introduction” by Professor Dr Mohammed Hashim Kamali .

Dr K is no Osama, he’s what most would term a mainstream-moderate. Here’s a collage of his insights:

--There are “at least seven different schools of (Islamic) jurisprudence …(but) there is only one Shari‘ah”

--“The clear & specific injunctions of the Qur’an and Sunnah constitute the core of Shari ‘ah…there is little room for interpretation over self-evident aspect of the Shari‘ah”

--Examples of such specific injunctions... “The Quran specifies punishment for four offences, namely theft, adultery, slanderous accusation and highway robber…'As for theft, male or female, cut off their hands as retribution for their deed and exemplary punishment from God’....’As for the woman and the man guilty of adultery , flog each of them one hundred lashes. Let not compassion move you away in their case of carrying our Gods law’ …’And those who accuse chase women and fail to produce four witnesses, flog them eighty lashes and accept not their testimony ever after, for they are transgressors’ …’(highway robbery) for this offence the text prescribes three-fold punishment which consists of crucifixion , mutation of limbs and banishment’”

-- Dr K argues that “these punishments are not fixed and mandatory because the prescribed punishment is immediately followed by a forgiveness if the offender repents –though it seems, if there is no repentance such punishment is OK. His main gripe is that current Islamic societies enforce such punishments whatever the state of the offenders conscience .

--Then there this “The state in Islamic law is under obligation to comply with Shari‘ah . Hence when the state issues a command that violates the Shari‘ah , the citizen is no longer under duty to obey that command”

Now, I’m sure that Shari‘ah as envisaged for the UK will not entail some of these harsher aspects.
Afterall (some will quip) , the existence of Jewish courts + harsh mosaic laws hasn't produced uncivil outcomes.

But, then, I haven’t heard wellsprings of modern-Judaism issuing fatwas against foreign authors or, cartoonists or, justify honour killings… (!)

shocking that fundamental female deceit not been sussed out by any poster...allow me to explain...and recommend all women stop reading the rest...

article starts with 'big-lie' of "Feminism died more than two decades ago but still the backlash against women continues."...and leads on with carefully worded 'catch-phrases' intermixed with general ramblings of women and sharia...currently seems the biggest threat as viewed by females as a organized group to their power/authority to control/avoiding_accountability...aka sisterhood...is sharia...

few examples...open any newspaper...fritzel(man) the monster, daughter(female) poor victim(yet to find a report explaining this bizzare event without propaganda)...to senseless government money hand-out(still waiting on someone with knowledge to how much easy-money dished out monthly to women under banner of 'family'(possessing children)...abortions laws stripping men of all rights to their child...and on...and its worldwide...eg pelosi(yeah us congress speaker)...elected by women and men...but acts with usual biased feminist tribalism to create 'office of women&girls' in white house...those in the know whom tried to get through govt office like attorney_general and prevented by...yes aggressive women-groups and their dogs...many times, with office on some top-floor with elevator access restricted etc(while trying to get my child some care_relationship with her father)...

and on...and on...all pointing to organized women-group influence now acting at world-wide level, at all levels of home/society/government/parliament/judiciary...to shift privilege to 'their' side and reciprocally reducing men&children...so the big lie is 'feminism is dead'...when events say its never been stronger/powerful/influential...

I think we as a society have a duty to ourselves and at society level to recognize the existence/workings of this power through all layers society...and expose its aims/acts/methods everywhere...then we have some chance of maintaining a sustainable balance in society albeit with some permanent care/precautions/monitoring...for currently we are behaving like its organized-methodological-aggression does not exist anywhere to societies distress...

sam
Ps~guys anyone ever overheard women-group planning/organizing to achieve some of their notable unbalancved victories?...me neither...man they must be working like spies...

Pericles

In your cognitive ignorance you don't realise that by using the 'clever' allegory of "whack-a-mozzie" you turn Muslims into 'vermin' and hence 'stupidly' condemn yourself, under Sharia law, to death by stoning.

http://xanga.com/kotza

While SS has a few vaguely valid points above(I was a single dad of three, and battled the system for years to get what single-mums got out-of-hand)I can't agree, it's a cry of pain, not reasoning, I think.
Let's face it, we can't possibly speak with any authority on how Islamic women feel or think about their situation. We can express our opinions on our own perspective, inevitably faulty, by definition. But since there are so many cultural and historical influences on the way ANY religion is followed, or laws enforced, anywhere, it would seem pointless to discuss what the Law actually says or means, it's beyond our scope.
The big liberator for women everywhere would appear to be Education, even the most ignorant Taliban knows this, and it's demonstrably what lead to so many changes in our own society.
Until or unless the situation changes in that area, nothing much else will, that's my opinion anyway.

Women in Australia are already subject to a type of Islamic Law. At the Family Court they have no part to play in proceedings and it is a Mullah directed by the Parliament who inflicts pain on them or their hapless former husbands. In an Australian court women should have an opportunity to participate fully in public affairs, since they got recognised as equals after seeking and getting the vote.

The right to vote also meant the right to participate in jury trials, but the male and female chauvinists who demanded and got the Family Law Act 1975 have never had the opportunity to participate in a truly Australian court. It has been pure Atheist or Islam since its inception. Any court without a jury is either atheist, Islamic or Jewish.

In a true democracy with proper Republican Government as taught in the Holy Bible, and adopted by the English after 1688, the right to vote was not compulsory, but the duty to serve on a jury was. Women should always have the right to vote, and serve in every court, as equals to men.

The Holy Bible has been the great liberator of women under Protestant Christian Constitutions. Jesus Christ loved women as part of mankind, and His teachings are that they are equal in every way to men, just different. When the English adopted the New Testament Gospels as their Constitution, then Islamic style Courts should have become impossible.

However lawyers generally are dishonest and although a Family Court Judge, by S 26 Family Law Act 1975 must first take the same Oath of Allegiance as a member of Parliament, not one of them has ever admitted that to be an Australian court, as opposed to an Islamic one, they have to include both men and women as judges in the process.

Einfeld was jailed this week for dishonesty. How long must we wait for the justices of the family and federal courts, to start constituting Australian courts again. We do not need de-facto Islamic or Jewish Courts that exclude both men and women from their deliberations

I think you pretty well nailed it, CJ

>>If the author wanted to make the point that aspects of Sharia Law (and indeed fundamentalist religious belief of any description) are incompatible with the advances in gender equity that Western societies have experienced over the past 30 years or so, she could have done so far more successfully if she'd avoided the Islamophobic dog-whistles.<<

I sometimes feel as though I am some kind of Canute on this thread, pointing out in vain that when the islamophobic tide comes, there just ain't no stopping it.

The ignorance almost seems to be willful. How else can you explain the deliberate misreading of the use of community values in a civil tribunal, as the implementation of an entire legal system?

Bassam's comment is fairly typical.

>>The type of Sharia Law the author is referring to is the one expounded by Muhammed (May Allah Bless His Immaculate Soul!). Things like allowing sex with 9 year old girls, multiple wives, wife beating and so fourth.<<

Of course, it would be churlish to spoil such an exciting story with facts. But this form of intentional scaremongering is dangerous, in that it fosters a permanent culture of knee-jerk vilification. If were to continue to follow this path, we would lose every claim to reasonable thought processes, and ultimately create our very own Australian Kristallnacht.

Themistocles takes a different tack.

>>Pericles In your cognitive ignorance you don't realise that by using the 'clever' allegory of "whack-a-mozzie" you turn Muslims into 'vermin' and hence 'stupidly' condemn yourself, under Sharia law, to death by stoning.<<

His reasoning is clearly too sophisticated for mere mortals to follow, but it does demonstrate standard response #2 to being outed as an islamophobe, cannily recalling the writer's argumentation as a six year-old.

"Well derrrrr, if I'm ugly, then you are too, so there and no returns."

>>I thought I'd have a go at reframing the discussion into something more constructive...<<

Once the dogs are loosed, Andrew, I'm afraid they just keep on yapping.

Abuse of Women in Islam 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtX3mTdJ9Lk&feature=related

The trouble with Sharia law is that is fundamentally flawed. It assumes that;

1. God exists
2. We can know and understand with certainity the actions and commands of the Prophet.

Well, we cannot know whether God exists. This is an impossibility. What's more, all the evidence suggests that the Universe is devoid of a 'personal God'.

Also, early Islamic 'history' is woeful as far as accuracy is concerned. Creating laws based on early biographical data of
Mohammed is therefore a futile waste of time.

In conclusion - to construct a judicial code for society based on Islamic theology and 'history' is delusional.

Pericles quoted CJ –

>>If the author wanted to make the point that aspects of Sharia Law (and indeed fundamentalist religious belief of any description) are incompatible with the advances in gender equity that Western societies have experienced over the past 30 years or so, she could have done so far more successfully if she'd avoided the Islamophobic dog-whistles.<<

If that was the only point of the article then why bother? To say that Sharia law disagrees with western attitudes to women is to state the complete obvious. Surely the author had more in mind than this. She is trying to draw attention to how our values and freedoms can be undermined by small increments and before we know it we have lost everything that generations have fought for. She seems to be urging vigilance in rejecting these first incursions so that it does not get out of hand. Her concern seems to be primarily about the freedoms of women but it is not difficult to see that many other rights are also at stake.

The fact that some posters react hysterically rather than rationally does not invalidate the argument of the author. Any attempt, no matter how small, to change the law based on religion rather than reason should be swiftly dealt with. Many societies in the past have been destroyed by their apathy and appeasement. People should be suspicious and should react vigorously whenever religious groups seek to restrict the freedoms of anyone who is not a voluntary member of their group. Islam or any other religion has nothing to offer an enlightened society and as soon as it’s adherents make the first attempt to impose itself on us we should react.

Pericles writes

'I sometimes feel as though I am some kind of Canute on this thread, pointing out in vain that when the islamophobic tide comes, there just ain't no stopping it.The ignorance almost seems to be willful. '

More to the point the denial from the likes of yourself and CJ is just as obvious as the Greens denial in the part of bad policy contributing greatly to bush fires. You have obviously not visited Holland or England or Spain France and if you have, your eyes must have been blinded by your ideology leading to denial.

SJF,

I get all sorts of fun out of reading your posts.

'... logic and objectivity – both of which are in their own way illusory and unreliable. '

I had about 10 responses to that, but gave up because I couldn't choose. Although I see what you mean, and I have read the book Blink by Malcolm Gladwell and thought it was quite good. I do tire of this 'women can be just as loigical as men', but then, 'woman are more intuitive'. I mean which is it. Women are just better alround aren't they.

'Women have little choice but to become well versed on men’s erotic fantasies via Hollywood, literature, art, pornography, and the thousands of ‘adult’ magazines that proliferate throughout suburban newsagents.'

I'm actually not sure these things are very representative of men at all. They should be, but I really would question it even if only based on my own taste in things. Maybe you're making the mistake of thinking because it's out there it's representive. Maybe it's a case analogous to men thinking they know about women by reading Cosmo. Incidently, I'm sure you've read Nancy Friday? I found that affirmation of my long held beliefs of women's sexuality. But again, 'women aren't like men, we don't fantasize about rape and beastiality and paedophilia, we're pure little virtuous ones', but then 'stop repressing our sexuality, we're just imaginitive and dirty (in a nice liberated way) as men.

'...well-worn repertoire of put downs and trivializations.'
Examples?

'... behind the sad statistic that more than 80% of marital separations are initiated by the wife.'
Na. I reckon it's men are too lazy to fill out the forms. Really.

Pericles

If what I say is due to ignorance, then there is nothing to worry about. I'm just another ignorant "islamophobe". But if what I say is true about Muhammed's criminal life, then obviously people are going to be concerned about Sharia Law, which is based on Muhammed's message (agenda).

You regularly accuse people of "whacking a mozzie", "scaremongering" or "Islamophobia" which is fairly typical of someone trying to stiffle discussion. But that's ok, whilst we do not have Sharia Law in Australia, you are entitled to your opinion.

We should respect all people, but that does not mean we cannot question and criticize their beliefs, especially when those people wish to impose deranged beliefs on others.

There's no question that any versions of Sharia Law that I've seen render women as subordinate to men - which is one of the reasons that I oppose its formal recognition within our legal system. On the other hand, Christian Canon Law does much the same (albeit somewhat more moderately), as undoubtedly do the internal 'laws' observed by devout followers of most, if not all, religions.

And it's not as if Christian churches don't attempt to influence secular laws on the basis of their own ecclesiastical laws, is it?

I think that Sharia Law should be afforded exactly the same status in our system as Canon Law and other religious rules and regulations. That is, as long as people want to remain members of these religious organisations then they are free to follow the dictates prescribed by them. However, such jurisdiction must be voluntarily accepted by parties to it, and extends only so far is it is consistent with the law of the land.

Religious jurisdiction should never impinge upon the rights and obligations lawfully afforded to individuals who are not followers of that religion, or who have ceased to follow religions - or who simply wish to disregard the rules of their religion for whatever reason.

See, there's no need to get all hysterical and Islamophobic about it, is there?

'The author has summarised 14 centres of legal tradition by reference to the statements of a Sydney imam, a Melbourne preacher and an Egyptian journalist from the mid-twentieth century.

Can I summarise the Common Law tradition using the words of an Andreew Bolt columnist, a rant from Danny Nalliah and a South African judge from the mid-twentieth century supporting the legal basis for apartheid?

I think the author should stick to psychotherapy. Analysing and understanding comparative law and legal traditions just isn't her game.'

I should point out that Common law is far superior to Sharia law because it doesn't second guess what Mohammed was doing 1400 years ago. Indeed, the constant revisionism of the Prophet's biographical material is just absurd due to the fact that it is nothing short of legend and fiction.

Put simply, the idea that Sharia Law can enter the public sphere via real and actual legislation is an insult to the intelligence and integrity of non-Muslims who prefer to keep religion at arms length. Not because it is necessarily bad as such, but because it's ridiculous.

Why not institute 'The Law of the Super Flying Spaghetti Monster' or 'The Law of the Great Doo Doo in the Sky'? After all, it makes about as much sense.

The problem is not with Islam, it's with extremism in any faith because they all boil down to being hostile to women. In India this year, right wing Hindutva activists were attacking women in the streets, saying they should be home cooking for their husbands; conservative Christians are always trying to silence women; Ultra-Orthodox Jews see women as second class to men; even orthodox Buddhists demote women. Each faith insists women are equal in the eyes of God but socially/culturally, patriarchy rules for orthodox men.

Fortunately, all these faiths have women - and supportive men - who are countering this repression in the name of their faith, including Islam. It is important to give these women - and men - a voice too, so that the media does not get away with damning a whole faith through the words of a small minority of extremists. Both Jesus and Muhammad elevated women in their time and the struggle goes on in our own time.

*Indeed, the constant revisionism of the Prophet's biographical material is just absurd due to the fact that it is nothing short of legend and fiction.*

TR, the big difference is that in the West today, you are free to
say that kind of thing with impunity. If you said the same in many
Islamic countries, they could well string you up from the nearest
tree.

Hundreds of years ago, our society was no different. People like me
would have been burnt at the stake, by the Catholic Church. Luckily
they can't do that anymore:)

The clergy still have a huge say in many Islamic countries and
any criticism is considered to be blasphemy, for which there is
a death penalty. So people can't really express their views as
we can.

Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam, considers the Koran as its
constitution and the extremist Wahabi Islam, which is promoted
by Saudi petrodollars, promotes the same thing.

So Islam is openly political, wheras in the West, religion is
largely being reduced to no more then a lifestyle choice.

Islamic countries have yet to undergo the revolution that the
West went through, where we have freedom of religion and to
some extent freedom from religion.

I detest the idea that an idea can rule. Hence I like the comment on the common law, but it occurs to me that there is some "faith" type faith in that comment. If the intent of the "faith in common law' is to reassure, on my life experience (isn't the random sample of one a true human trait?) the common law is only a couple of paces behind the religious nutter and I'm still worried.

As an ex military person I understand violence better than religion. Hence I see the "war on terror" as an oxymoron. There is but one solution if we wish to make war on a common noun, we give up war? For a "war" to exist we need both a polity and real estate. If we are to make war on the home (real estate) of the terrorist and his polity (Islam) all we need do is to nuke Mecca.

Till then we will be terrorised, and women will suffer with their oppressive men, but less oppressive men than those that need the nuke?

Yep, it's "you're either with us or agin' us" at every turn. No room for doubt, or grey areas. Must be comforting to be so certain, eh?

Being Muslim or Christian or Jewish is as much about societal norms as it is about which particular version of one particular God you worship.

No-one will insist that Christians light candles on a Friday evening, or eat halal food, simply because there are parts of our community who practice such things.

But by the same token, if these communities have their own forms of rituals, then surely it is perfectly reasonable to allow them to follow them.

Clearly not for some. Here's Bassam.

>>...that does not mean we cannot question and criticize their beliefs, especially when those people wish to impose deranged beliefs on others.<<

The "imposition of deranged beliefs" contemplated in the article ("Sharia law has become part of the law of the land in Britain") turns out to be nothing more than voluntary participation in a civil arbitration process.

More along the lines of observing Seder or Eid, than cutting off people's hands.

But no matter - it is merely part of the slippery slope, we are reliably informed by phanto.

>>[The author] is trying to draw attention to how our values and freedoms can be undermined by small increments and before we know it we have lost everything that generations have fought for<<

Good, dramatic stuff.

I thought those "generations" had fought for... our freedom.

Apparently, according to phanto, it is the opposite. Or at least, "only the freedoms that I allow you to have".

As usual, runner takes no prisoners.

>>You have obviously not visited Holland or England or Spain France and if you have, your eyes must have been blinded by your ideology leading to denial.<<

I have been there quite recently, runner, so I must have been "blinded by my ideology".

What ideology might that be, do you think?

Tolerance? Live-and-let-live? A profound dislike for religious hypocrisy?

Take your pick.

Pedr Fardd, the only difference betweens "extremists" and "moderates", in any religion, is that the extremists are simply the ones who actually believe everything their religion tells them, to the letter.

A Christian who doesn't advocate beating, stoning and death, for any number of transgressions, from blasphemy to simply eating the wrong kind of food, isn't so much enlightened as they choose to conveniently ignore some of the more unpleasant "truths" of their faith.

An extremist just takes their religion more seriously.

Clownfish writes

'A Christian who doesn't advocate beating, stoning and death, for any number of transgressions, from blasphemy to simply eating the wrong kind of food, isn't so much enlightened as they choose to conveniently ignore some of the more unpleasant "truths" of their faith.'

Your ignorance knows no bound and that is giving you the benefit of the doubt. Please learn the difference between the laws of Judaism and the golden laws of Christ. Then again I suspect you deliberately want to misrepresent something you show an ignorance of.

hey two minute man, a decent cuppa takes 5 mins your an embarrassment to nature, and told the world on the web .... so proud...not

Obviously, runner, you are reading a different Bible to the one I have (the Authorized Version, if you must know).

Did not the rabbi Yeshua Ben Joseph (you can call him Jesus, if you prefer) say, "Think not that I am come to destroy the Torah"?

I can also assume, then, that you have no complaint with homosexuality, as the New Testament, which you clearly prefer to the Old, is spectacularly silent on the subject?

"No stronger retrograde force (than Islam) exists in the world."
...Winston Churchill

I was once of the opinion that what happened to women under sharia was none of our business but their's andtheir's alone as long as it does not break any of our laws.

BUT

it is a crime to assault women and to rape women EVEN IF it is a wife who is raped.Rape is criminal assault.

BUT

It is statutary rape to have intercourse with a minor even if she is said to be "consensual".

What happens if a Muslim women takes refuge in a women's shelter and her husband finds out where it is and turns up demanding sex because it is his conjugal right. They can only be divorced by sharia law so that any divorce granted by our secular law is unenforceable?

socratease

Once again, most people continue to confuse religion with culture.

The biggest Muslim nation in the world is Indonesia and they were so oppressive they apparently forced a woman to become their President and didn't allow her to wear a burkha.

The fundamentalist states held up as some sort of overall indicator represent a very small minority of the global whole.

It's a bit like saying that all Christians shun technology, wear black and ride around in horse-drawn carriages because of the Amish.

When are we going to get back to those good-ole Biblical values - like stoning people to death for working on the Sabbath?

I find it incredible that supposedly well educated and intelligent individuals of both sexes can exhibit such a monumental lack of understanding of the philosophical underpins of our civilized society. This lack of understanding manifests itself whenever we have a debate on Christianity, Islam or Atheism. Opinions fly from one end of the internet to the other, but essentially the very basis of good government is poorly understood.

Good government is a word used to qualify all decisions made in the Parliament of the Commonwealth. Good government and God government are synonymous. We get or are supposed to get God government because Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second has sworn allegiance to Almighty God and He governs through the system taught by Jesus Christ two thousand years ago.

While my understanding of the Qu’ran is nowhere as extensive as my knowledge of the Holy Bible both Books have a basis in the Old Testament but the New Testament is a radical departure from the Old Testament, while it appears Islam is not. In the New Testament God is accountable to the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit loves men and women equally. Under Islam I have been led to believe that God is not accountable to anyone, and they find it incredible that God would allow his son to be crucified.

The Crucifixion and resurrection are central to the belief that there is a Holy Spirit. The separation of God’s powers to govern and judge are taught in the New Testament and these fundamental principals of Good Government were adopted by the English in 1297 as written law, in the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta is the legislative enactment of the passage of Matthew 18 Verses 15-20.

The Holy Spirit is the real ruler of the World in the eyes of Christians, and it does not discriminate. The only unforgivable sin in the New Testament is to deny the Holy Spirit. That is called blasphemy. By having a Queen sworn to serve Almighty God and all Justices and juries sworn to allegiance to Her, we are supposed to have Christian government.

I find it incredible that an apparently well educated and intelligent individual can exhibit such a monumental lack of understanding of the development of our secular society. The joke is that Peter's endless babbling is ultimately a plea for Western societies to return to their theocratic roots, which isn't ultimately all that far from what I understand to be the object of those nutters who want to impose Sharia Law on them.

Fortunately, neither outcome is very likely.

PTB has completely missed the point.

The queen is only a titular head of state, and has no hand in the running of the country.

God government is very seldom good government, which is why the church and state are separate and we live in a secular society.

The oppression suffered under sharia law is similar to that metered out by the church controlled societies of the dark ages.

The issue is not that islam is bad, but that sharia law is a descent into the dark ages of unfettered religious control.

You have to feel either contempt or pity for PTB. The trouble is his tripe clutters up this discussion.

socratease

"I looked into Hell and I saw that the majority of its people are women"
...Muhammad
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/21457

"If there is a hell Muhammad is the one who is burning there"
...Ali Sina
http://www.islam-watch.org/AliSina/Smashing-the-Fear-of-Allah.htm

My 2 cents worth:

It would have been better to read about the dialogue/ integration and debate with the Australian Muslims community on these issues. The article as I read it lacks substance and can be interpreted as another justification for stereo typing and divisiveness.

Peace,

Don’t I wish that some of the individuals who denigrate my ideas would offer a viable alternative. I know they say that over half the population has an IQ below 100 and half are above that. The knockers either are mockers or display a monumental lack of background knowledge that make their opinion of no benefit to sensible discussion.

Where have the clever generation gone? Clever people look at the evidence, weigh it against their existing known facts and add or subtract from what they already know before making a comment. Too many times I have had people say I am mad, drunk or otherwise indisposed, when I can assure you that posting comments is like driving a car, and best done after engaging an unfuddled and unintoxicated brain.

Unintoxicated means not carrying any toxic substances or thoughts in that space that separates the ears, and perhaps the most toxic thought that can infest an otherwise normal brain is prejudice. Prejudice is a feature of Islam, of Jewish thought and of many Christians indoctrinated since birth that there is a way to the mind of Almighty God through intermediaries.

This was considered so toxic a thought as to warrant death. It is not a monopoly view held only by people of the Islamic faith. The current world crisis between Islam and Christianity, exhibited in a shooting war in Iraq and Afghanistan is the result of an over affection for prejudices. The situation in Zimbabwe is the result of prejudice holding that white is bad and one black tribe is right.

Christianity is a template for good government. A single Judge, Islamic, Jewish or atheist as in what passes for a secular society but is in reality an atheist one, does not make for good government. One God makes a country function successfully.

A society has to have a winnowing floor. The winnowing floor is a superior authority to which an aggrieved individual can appeal. In Islam it is the Qu’ran, the Jews have the Torah, and Christians have the Holy Bible. In this case ignorance is a toxic societal poison

"One God makes a country function properly"
You're joking,arent you,Peter The Believer In Fairy Tales?

In the past century one-God crusading countries have taken Christian nations to many wars.Want me to name just some? OK

World War 1, World War 11, The Korean War, the Vietman War, Iraq,Afghanistan.

If we count Islamic countries they have a mandate from Allah to create the Third Caliphate in the world. They are at war all over the world confronting the heretics who worship false gods.

Where haveall the intelligent people gone? you ask. You arent counting yourself amongst them,surely,PTB?

socratease

Any country can function properly if it unites behind a common cause. The monotheisms have worked in the past, not because of some deity, but because of the 'social glue' they impart.

I'm now waiting for a Western society to loudly declare itself atheist and humanist as a means to defining its culture. These are two intellectual points that any country can rally behind. The spin-offs would be more universities, colleges, museums, music halls, and art galleries. These things would replace the delusional edifices like churches, mosques and temples.

The UK is just around the corner from becoming an Islamic State where Sharia Law will rule the land, women and girls will be beaten and kill for each rape and molestation. Oh yes, haven't the lefties down well here.

That's a gross exaggeration Spider. The UK is no where near becoming an Islamic state with Sharia law. ALL of the available statistics show that traditional religion is in steep decline and that less than 10% of the population attend churches, mosques, temples etc regularly. What's more, the logic of the atheist message appears to be is sinking in. Atheism is now a country wide intellectual and cultural force.

The only reason that Britain FEELS more Islamic is because try-hard fundamentalists shout the loudest. Also, overseas Islamic missionary groups pour millions of pounds into Britain to build Islamic infrastructure and brainwash more people. All that the UK government has to do is to prophibit religious foreign capital from entering the country. This, atheist lobby groups are currently insisting upon.

What a vivid imagination you have, Spider

>>The UK is just around the corner from becoming an Islamic State where Sharia Law will rule the land, women and girls will be beaten and kill for each rape and molestation<<

Less than 4% of the population of the UK follow Islam.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/uk_2.shtml

That's four in every hundred people.

Not even enough for serious scaremongering, I'd suggest.

Spider: << The UK is just around the corner from becoming an Islamic State where Sharia Law will rule the land, women and girls will be beaten and kill for each rape and molestation. >>

In other words, yap yap arf arf.

See what I meant about dog-whistling?

hi all, I will try to be concise as I can be...so please no notes
to not understanding...grin

okay writing this because my RESPECT for Islam, and learning about it have had another blow

I spend many hours and much time studying abusive behaviour

1. where in the Koran does it say that women have to have sex every 4 days if they are married

2. where in the Koran does it say that women have to ASK before they leave the house, that is, if they have one of course

I dont know much, but know a little of a syrian/suni muslim family
this was interesting and much understanding swapped over a period of time

my respect for Islam is just not there now, whipping, aciding eyes and faces, and generally the severe LACK OF RESPECT for women

women who bring children into the world, and are the essence of family

no wonder women are doing their best NOT to get married, not to have children and to move to other countries any way they can

no food, no marriage, no children.... go on strike, albeit a quiet
one....

all women.... that should get their attention ....

its totally unbelievable that if Islam wants some respect
then they are NEVER going to get it

with those made up laws.....

wear jeans and a shirt...no one will know what religion you are
nor would they care

if governments want respect, then RESPECT for women, and children,
and family come first

ABUSES of intimidation, verbal, physical, and so on , have no place
in government

religions in this century, on the whole are not respected,
due to their GREED and lack of decency, and understanding

religion cannot TAKE over CHOICES..... and democracy brings
responsibility, and a lot of it

JHH
artis