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.