That said referring to people as leeches and being allowed to get away with it is hardly constructive debate and dialogue.

Most Muslims don’t like the MCB. Most Muslims and dare I say most people in the UK have a certain sympathy with the plight of the Palestinians including I would say a sizable part of the Jewish community itself. I think a certain accomodation should be made or an acknowledgement to allow the communities to get over this mess. Essentially it is harming community relations and I think both sides need to reach a compromise as it is in the best interest of all. Government cannot dictate community relations and it has backfired spectacularly and polarised what was rapidly becomming very positive Jewish Muslim outreach. It hasn’t killed it and in myview it is taking off again.

That being said it is a bit rich for Jagdeep to be allowed without comment or rebuke to call people leeches. Others are not allowed so much leeway if they don’t toe the website line. Just because he is part of the in-crowd this is simply unacceptable xenophobia going unchecked. It is this type of attitude that leads people to say that they want protection by law.

Lets not forget that the Sikhs killed a democratically elected leader. Ran an army within a state. Carry Militaristic material as part of faith. Have an unusually high number of state funded Sikh schools compared to size of population. So to hurl accusations and say they love people doesn’t ring true. In fact it does a great disservice to the Sikh community at large.

Do Sikh Lobby Groups attend ceremonies in remembrance of those killed in partition, or even remembrance of the Prime Minister of India whom they murdered? No they lobby for Sikh interest and that is their job.

The job of the MCB is to lobby for Muslim interest – they may do it badly but that is the role they take.

Lets get real the whole point of a lobby group is to lobby for the interests of its own community or cause.

Is a petrol company likely to lobby for the removal of fossil based fuel from mass use? No that is what environmental groups do.

Lobbying is increasingly coming into politics and frankly the electorate don’t like it. Confidence in politicians has plumetted. Also lets be frank Tony Blair was an extremely divisive figure and anyone who thinks he will bring peace to the Middle East is sadly mistaken. Much of the community issues which are here are the fault of Blair and his inaction.

Indeed it is worth noting that the two leaders in the Middle East – Israeli and Palestinian are meeting without Blair, Rice or the West involved and making some progress. Blair will be there when some type of framework or agreement is announced but he will have done jack to get them there.

Indeed I see encouraging signs of more Jewish Muslim dialogue with the opening of the centre in Cambridge so bridges are being built.

That said there is a chance for both sides to agree but it won’t happen if the likes of Jagdeep continue to poison the atmosphere.

Maybe a fair compromise is that the MCB attend for x years after which the Holocaust Memorial Day issue some wording to the effect that the day recognises the issues facing the Palestinian people. That is it simple. Hopefully by then they’ll be heading towards peace anyway.

It isn’t an issue that can’t be reolved it is just being made one. For crying out loud Politicians and Papers in Israel itself even right wing ones recognise this. In addition some Holocaust speakers speak for the Palestinians. So it isn’t an unsurmountable issue. It is just that views have been polarised by Govt interference and whipping up by people.

The more the media, politicians and the likes of Jagdeep interfere and whip up nasty opinions then the more polarised views become. Instead they should be encouraged to meet and resolve issues.

If not Holocaust Memorial Day then maybe the MCB can fund a Palestinian Day and the Jewish Community can attend.

Plenty of compromise ideas but it needs outside agitators to stop spreading venom.

The British Libraries Sacred Exhibition showed that the communties can work together on positive projects as they attended in large numbers in some cases together. SO lets encourage that and not stir up trouble.

I am afraid that is going to be a red rag to a bull. The environment for a rational discussion on that topic does not exist – not yet and for a long time to come.

He may have a point there Jagdeep.

In terms of religous law a secular court cannot prescribe divorce to people who follow their religion. It doesn’t carry religous weight.

- Can anyone parse the logic of the two assertions
-above?
Within Islam all Muslims will aspire to a Caliphate to rule over them. However a Caliphate carries many obligations and one is to provide justice for all – Muslim and non-Muslim. It isn’t that hard to see that most of the Muslim world is in a bit of a mess thus Muslim Scholars say that the first priority is a return to purer Islam. Thus the Caliphate is not a priority as people have little grounding their faith that they can run a Caliphate. Thus the priority is to teach people about the faith. Make sense?

-No Sikh or Hindu cleric calls for or would ever call for
-religious law to be incorporated into British society,
-nor do any British Sikhs or Hindus call for any codes of
-their religions to be introduced in place of British law
-in any context. The very idea is demented.
Quite frankly you talk bollocks and don’t live in the real world. Your claims are nonsense. If Hindu or Sikh religous law is not incorporated into British Law then why do Sikhs have an exemption from wearing Motorcycle helmets that is a change to British law isn’t it? British law demands anyone who rides a motorycle wear a suitable helmet for protection but there is an exemtion for Sikhs.

Do Sikh Policeman wear standard Police helmets as mandated by Police Standards – no thye wear their turban.

The Sikh ceremonial sword – there is a movement to carry it at all times even at work. I know the Sikhs at my work placed asked for this which is in violation of British Law and the carrying of a weapon but certain waivers exist for Sikhs.

I could go on but you’ll never accept it as you hate is one dimensional.

As regards Hindus, British Law allows Hindus to throw ashes into certain rivers, which is an exception to British Law for Hindus.

So your hate is now exposed as is the nonsense.

-It’s with freaks who
I distinctly recall Ms. Newton stating that personnal attacks are not allowed and yet without any interefence you are allowed to attack me personally. So one rule of freedom of speech for mates of editors and one rule for others.

-Only to one as paranoid as you.
It is you who is paranoid as we have seen with your inaccurate statements.

I meant to say “because”. Typo, folks.

Right. So beyond this rhetoric above, what “religious obligations” EXACTLY are going to be fulfilled by having the Sharia in the UK? No vague assertions like the one above; concrete examples please (your gurdwara and mandhir example giving marriage licenses is not a very good one but you don’t say what exactly is being thwarted by 1) the UK judicial system and 2)what the Sharia would fulfill in the place of said UK judicial system’s failure).

-”As regards Caliphate then yes kids don’t know enough about it but equally it is part of their faith.”

-”However a caliphite must be able to provide justice for all – Muslims and non-Muslims and thus Muslims are in no state to implement such a system.”

Can anyone parse the logic of the two assertions above?

Hindu and Sikh clerics hardly fair better with power over British Hindus and Sikhs but hey why let an opportunity to attack Muslims go by.

No Sikh or Hindu cleric calls for or would ever call for religious law to be incorporated into British society, nor do any British Sikhs or Hindus call for any codes of their religions to be introduced in place of British law in any context. The very idea is demented.

More hate filled attacks.

Not hate, love. My stance on this is full of love. It’s with freaks who use Jewish pseudonyms to rant about Jewish conspiracies that I ascribe hate and mental incontinence.

Not quite the straigthforward answer it first appears.

Only to one as paranoid as you.

In the case of divorce for example, marriage etc.

With respect Mr. Hundal in your own faith a wedding may not be seen as complete until the religous ceremony is undertaken and hence Temples are able to now issue marriage licences as are mosques, gurdwara’s, synagogues etc.

As regards Caliphate then yes kids don’t know enough about it but equally it is part of their faith. However a caliphite must be able to provide justice for all – Muslims and non-Muslims and thus Muslims are in no state to implement such a system.

If you want to destroy their argument the argue with liek for like, why argue with ill-educated kids go and discuss with a scholar that woudl be a proper debate.

At the end of the day Mr. Hundal what you fail to realise is that religous law provides on the whole guidance and aims for fairness and equality its application can be as bad a secular law or as good.

Laws are made to be generally fair but man is suseptible to twist them. By always implying religous law is bad and secular law is good is poor debate.

Law depends upon justice and fair application.

To me it’s a bit like the Caliphate. I see young kids who don’t know jack about their religion arguing for it because it gives them a sense of identity. Fair enough, but when I destroy your arguments please don’t cry ‘Islamophobic’. I’m equally opposed to the Sikh Rehat Maryada being introduced as law or Khalistan.

Morgoth says:
means they want a special mortgage, for example, then tough titty – they can go without.

This is the problem with you Morgoth – speaking without thinking. If HSBC want to offer Islamic mortgages to cater for a market, that’s up to them not you.

Not quite the straigthforward answer it first appears.

- One legal system for all, end of story.
Yes so when he asked about Rabbinical Law why answer about male clerics and British Muslims. More hate filled attacks.

What do you propose to do about Rabinnical Law, as practised here and now?

And do you not think about what you do or how you act with other people, whether close to you, associates or otherwise in light of your faith (and culture)? Subconciously?

“Refresh, ’submit’ to sharia? We need less submission, and less rope being given to clerics and religious leaders on the whole.”

Submit as widely used when it comes to seeking opinion or advice. As in submit to arbitration.

If the Sharia is as interpreted by you folks (egalitarian, nice, giving rights to everyone etc,), then why not be happy with just the UK judicial system? Like, what is so fundamentally different and attractive about having the Sharia option? So far, the reasons given are:

1. Western stereotypes of Islam and the Sharia (personally, I’m not disagreeing– as I’ve stated earlier- with the fact that there ARE stereotypes and painting of Islam as regressive, etc) as well as messed up interpretations of the Sharia corrupt the REAL sharia and its meanings and practices

2. Sharia gives Muslims a sense of identity.

None of the two for me are enough reasons, and I’m doubly lost as to how resorting to the Sharia restore a sense of “Muslim dignity” and give substance to a “Muslim identity”….

Its a voluntary act to submit to sharia edicts here in the UK. In other words people are trying to live their lives within the constraints of their faith and looking for guidance where worldly matters matter.

So there is no pressure to change the law. But simply a statement that (some) muslims choose to abide by Sharia as some jews by rabbinical law.

However, if the great british public see merits, in general and in particular in certain ways of doing things, then it would get taken up and enacted. It doesn’t have to be labelled muslim or jewish or whatever.

As Jagdeep points out, it seems to have had something going for it a rural community in Nigeria.

For me the biggest weakness was the fact that no ‘powerful’ people submitted themselves to its jurisdiction. That is a topic that seriously needs addressing and Natty made a passing reference to it.