MJBP...I just listened to that religion report... the part about

"Undercover Mosque...the return."

You can clearly hear the woman Islamic teacher spelling out the Islamic law for 'apostasy'.. in the most moderate mosque in the UK...

KILL HIM! and she refers to the Sharia law.

Now.. there is no context issue.. no 'selection and emphasis' issue.. it is the words, clearly uttered, unmistakably intended to convey a specific meaning:

"if you become apostate from Islam.. you must be KILLED"

The POLICE (just like Pericles CJ morgan..Bugsy and others) claimed it as a selected beat up etc.. and it COST them $100,000 in damages for their trouble.

I reallllly get upset when I hear such things being said in 'back rooms' of MAJOR (the most major there is) mosques (Regents Park) which are claimed to be moderate.

But all I've done here.. is state the facts.. and added my own feeling. "I get upset"....

The best thing for people to do is listen to the program themselves and make up their own minds.
Let's hope their 'minds' are not like those of the politically correct (but practically moronic) police who look at a duck and see a cat.

Horus makes the other point.. Sharia is NOT fair.. NOT even handed.. NOT just... it gives MORE to men than to women.. Fractelle.. where are you and others when we need some female opinion and..(God help us) some support!

You don't even need to have a faith position to be vehemently critical of Sharia..all you need is a sense of justice.

Any legal system which permits women to be beaten by their husbands by LAW.... and old men to marry little kids.. is abominable.

Dear Fractelle,

Thank You for your kind words and support.

I'm over my dummy spit. And I apologise
for it. I guess the right buttons were
pushed and I reacted. (Not well.)
I have no one to blame but myself. But
at least I've learned a lesson out of all of it.
Stay calm and don't react. Everyone is entitled
to their opinion.

Anyway, I won't be taking a break until next week.
Then I'll be gone for about ten days. I've decided
to go interstate (up North). It's what I need
right now. I've had a lot on my plate recently
on the home front. Anyway, Thanks again.
And Lots of love to you too, dear heart.

Polycarp,

Thanks to you as well for your lovely words.
They meant a great deal.

Steven,

Apologies for all this on your thread...

I agree with you concerning Sharia Law.
Privately, its not a concept I'm happy
with. Especially when you know that men
rule under their system. How equitable
would the law really be, as far as women
are concerned? And, what woman would be
brace enough to challenge her husband?

No, I think let's stick with the system of
one law for everyone. I'd vote for that.

Foxy,
I hope you'll have a wonderful break and be back all refreshed and relaxed.

Here I am, Polycarp,
seriously, from what I know about the Sharia law, it discriminates against women at best and at worst it's misogynistic.
For a start, in Sharia law a woman counts as half a man in giving evidence in a court of law.

Why would a civilised country let religion trump women's rights and basic human rights?

I doubt that both parties would voluntarily opt to answer to sharia law.
Did you steal something? What would you prefer, some community work perhaps, or your hand chopped off?
And would an adulterer really choose to be stoned?

Oh and of course the UK will have to re-introduce the death penalty for those who opt-in.

When will Western countries learn that immigration and multiculturalism are a threat to the existing culture, traditions and way of life of the host society?

American pundit Lawrence Auster put it well:

"... let us imagine a scenario in which a Western cultural group say a large population of Italian Catholics moved en masse into a non-Western country say in the Moslem Mideast and demanded that the host society drop all public observance of its majority religion and redefine itself as a multicultural state. When the Moslems react in fear and outrage, the Catholics answer "What are you so uptight about, brothers? In challenging Islam's past exclusionary practices, we're not threatening your religion and way of life, we're enriching them." Of course, as even the multiculturalists would admit in this hypothetical instance (since in this scenario it is a non-Western, rather than a Western, culture that is being threatened), such "enrichment" would change Islam into something totally unacceptable to the Moslem majority. By the same logic, if the U.S. Congress were required to conduct all its proceedings in Chinese or Spanish alongside English, that would obviously not "enrich" America's political tradition, but radically disrupt and change it. To say that a majority culture must "include" alien traditions in order to prove its own moral legitimacy is to say that the majority culture, as a majority culture, has no right to exist."

http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc1403/article_1227.shtml

Oh I do love multiculturalism, which provides a lot of variety and interest to an otherwise somewhat bland society.
Many different ethnicities and cultures enrich the country, I think.

That's just my opinion.

It's just that we need the same laws for everyone or we'll live in a jungle, and we need to protect everyone's basic human rights.
Religion should not interfere in secular laws, if laws need to change they need to be changed the proper way- not just let them be overruled by religious laws or rules.

The Western societies have already been there, done that- the chopping off hands, the stoning, hanging, flogging etc.
We decided that these rules and laws were not very civilised, that we could do better, and our laws evolved (although some need to be updated and progress).
Why would we want to regress and reintroduce these draconian laws again?

Celivia wrote: "Oh I do love multiculturalism, which provides a lot of variety and interest to an otherwise somewhat bland society."

True, the social dysfunction and intractable ethnic divisions generated by the squeezing together of totally unrelated peoples into an urban environment does provide a sort of "variety" and "interest"—but it is a sort "variety" and "interest" that most people flee if they can, which explains the middle-class exodus from areas with high concentrations of immigrants, a trend which can seen in any major Western city with a large immigrant population, from Los Angeles to London to Sydney.

"Many different ethnicities and cultures enrich the country, I think."

In that case, countries like South Africa and Brazil must be inordinately better places to live than, say, Sweden or Japan.

"It's just that we need the same laws for everyone or we'll live in a jungle, and we need to protect everyone's basic human rights."

But the laws of a society are determined by that particular society's cultural and moral values. Yet, in a "multicultural society", you have several different cultural groups inhabiting the space area, with each group having different, often conflicting values and morals. So, that begs the question: how would a truly "multicultural" society ever be able to reconcile competing values and morals into a single set of non-culturally specific laws?