wobbles,

Ed Husain and Maajid Nawaz were former activists in the radical Islamist party Hizb ut-Tahrir.

They do not purport to "speak on behalf of the rest of everybody else".

Their report states that:

"The ideology of non-violent Islamists is broadly the same as that of violent Islamists; they disagree only on tactics.

"These are a selection of the various groups and institutions active in the UK which are broadly sympathetic to Islamism. Whilst only a small proportion will agree with al-Qaida's tactics, many will agree with their overall goal of creating a single 'Islamic state' which would bring together all Muslims around the world under a single government and then impose on them a single interpretation of sharia as state law."

Your logic is somewhat wobbly.

Yep, that old furphy, Proxy. I suspected that was where you were coming from.

>>Sharia law has been implemented in the UK since the early 1980s by Sharia Councils and since 2007 by Muslim Arbitration Tribunals.<<

You do realize, don't you, that this is substantially different to this:

>[in the UK] Shariah Law is already an inescapable, state-sanctioned reality... The small minority of Muslims in UK have effectively implemented Shariah Law.<<

They have not, Proxy.

There are Sharia tribunals in the UK, that work in in the same way - and with the same limitation on their legal powers - as the Beth Din tribunals have done for many years, for the Jewish community.

But of course, to say "there are administrative tribunals that assess civil cases under Sharia (or Jewish) law" is less inflammatory than pretending that UK law is now subservient to Sharia, isn't it.

Just as "there are 751 areas nominated by the French government for additional financial assistance" is far less inflammatory than describing them as "no go" areas.

Citing other - clearly biased - opinions to support your own - clearly biased - opinion doesn't magically turn them into a reality, Proxy.

I know, facts are boring, and don't help your scaremongering.

But do give them a try sometime, why don't you.

Yikes Pericles... you are as bad as the BBC :) you think that by changing vocabulary you can change reality.

The 'special assistance' is diplomatic code for:

"There is great unrest and social dislocation in these Muslim/migrant areas which are prone to violence and mayhem, we believe this is attritubable to a lack of opportunity and resources..so.. we will 'fix' it by throwing money at them"

I could (if I had the time or motivation) show you chapter and verse from the police report post UK race riots which pretty much outlined just about every syllable of what I said above. That's WHY I said it... because it's true.

There is an unmistakable pattern in your offerings. That pattern is:

"Never call something as it really is...specially if doing so is likely to annoy those being spoken about"

This is where you 'incitement/fear/loathing' stuff comes from.

But the fundamental issue you continually avoid is "reality" :)

I've just done a very informative comparative study of the rise of the black power movement and examined

1/-ELijah Mohammad (Muslim-Advocates violence)
2/-Malcolm X (Muslim- Advocates violence)
3/-Stokley Charmichael (closely connected to Nation of Islam- fine with violence)

4/-Dr Martin Luther King Jr (Christian- NON-violence)

(I've not yet included Lois Farahkan)

You would see 'reality' in those listed people.

1-3 speak invariably about hate and revolution against 'whitey'

4 (King) speaks of NON violence.

This same theme expressed by the Muslims (1-3) is also in perfect harmony with the Quran. King, is in harmony with the teaching and example of Christ.

That's very funny, Boaz.

>>you think that by changing vocabulary you can change reality. The 'special assistance' is diplomatic code for...<<

Errrr, exactly who is "changing vocabulary" here?

Who, pray tell, is claiming that "special assistance" - which, if you had followed the links I gave you earlier, you would see is quite specifically a bunch of initiatives to help the poor and unemployed - means something different entirely?

You're merely parroting your mate Danial Pipes, aren't you Boaz. You have no more knowledge or understanding of the situation in France than the chair you are sitting on.

As it happens I found myself two of the "no-go" areas mentioned, just recently. The fact that I didn't realize this until I read the list, should tell you something.

>>I could (if I had the time or motivation) show you chapter and verse from the police report post UK race riots which pretty much outlined just about every syllable of what I said above. That's WHY I said it... because it's true.<<

Once again, you are talking out of the back of your head.

My own insight into this comes from a niece, working with the Met. in this very area - race relations and the police. So I am well placed to describe your assertion - "because it's true" - as hollow as your understanding of the politics of Barking.

Remember Barking?

Stick to trying to understand the suburbs of Melbourne, Boaz, and stop pretending to insights into foreign places that you have never visited, and which will forever remain a mystery to you.

Pericles,
Your multicultural relativism compels you to draw an equivalence between Jewish law and Sharia law where there is none.
Try actually reading the link:
http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/New-Report-Sharia-Law-in-Britain.pdf
Giving just one example:
Sharia law permits a man to beat his wife.
The reality of the situation is that the adjudication of domestic violence disputes will be resolved at the Sharia level because it is held to be superior to English law and, furthermore, the woman dare not risk the community ostracism resulting from her appealing to the British system.
To declare that this won't happen because Sharia law is de jure subject to English law is to bury one's head in the sand.

The Cantle Report... read it and weep Pericles.

http://www.oldham.gov.uk/cantle-review-final-report.pdf

Try page 31 for a start.

And 'ere' ya go Perilous..

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2001/12/11/Burnleytaskforce.pdf

try 2.2 'Why did it happen'.....

[Deleted for abuse]

(I'm trying to be both true and entertaining here.. don't get yourself in too much of a knot ok)

Your fatal flaw in debating with me is that you always assume (wrongly) that my opinions are just that.. *mine*.. there is usually quite a bit of reading of original sources in what I say.. and this includes my comments "Islamic"