His ungraceful Grace
The Rt. Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali, bishop of Rochester, has claimed that Islamists have made some parts of Britain ‘no-go’ areas for non-Muslims:
“On the one hand, the British were losing confidence in the Christian vision which underlay most of the achievements and values of the culture and, on the other, they sought to accommodate the newer arrivals on the basis of a novel philosophy of “multiculturalism”.
This required that people should be facilitated in living as separate communities, continuing to communicate in their own languages and having minimum need for building healthy relationships with the majority.
Alongside these developments, there has been a worldwide resurgence of the ideology of Islamic extremism. One of the results of this has been to further alienate the young from the nation in which they were growing up and also to turn already separate communities into “no-go” areas where adherence to this ideology has become a mark of acceptability.
Those of a different faith or race may find it difficult to live or work there because of hostility to them. In many ways, this is but the other side of the coin to far-Right intimidation. Attempts have been made to impose an “Islamic” character on certain areas, for example, by insisting on artificial amplification for the Adhan, the call to prayer.”
Nick Clegg, Inayat Bunglawala and William Hague all condemned his comments. Nazir-Ali, a Pakistani-born convert to Christianity Christian, is rapidly cementing his place as the Sun’s favourite Christian, with the paper even commenting that he could not be racist because he was born in Pakistan. I do not think he is a racist either, but it is unclear what good he was trying to achieve by his comments. Making vague allusions to these ‘no-go’ areas without naming them merely casts suspicion over all Muslims.
We already know that some areas do experience tension, but it is hardly one-sided. Rather than generalise and smear, the solution is to work on the specific problems affecting each area. His Grace should stay away from scaremongering in the future.
His Grace should stay away from scaremongering in the future.
Are you a member of his flock?
El Cid:
No, but with so many bishops in the Lords it is worth keeping an eye on them. I am now convinced by the Cromwellian stance; kick them out of the Lords. Apart from the Archbishop of York, I cannot think of one bishop who I respect.
But he’s entitled to his opinion, no?
He is entilted to his opinions, and I am entilted to criticise them.
But he’s entitled to his opinion, no?
Yes. But he’s not entitled to tell lies. And that’s what he’s done.
everyone is entitled to an opinion, but as someone in the public eye, with at least some “influence” and media attention, he should back up his “opinion” with real examples, especially when talking about an already emotive subject..
As Dawkins recently said, faiths have more to fear from each other than atheists. Looks like this is a broadside along those lines…
Sunny
You don’t actually say so, but I assume that you mean that there are no such “no-go” areas. If this correct? The reason I ask is that I vaguely remember seeing a TV report on this some years back, the specific allegation of which was that there were indeed such areas.
You say that:”Rather than generalise and smear, the solution is to work on the specific problems affecting each area.”
If it is the case that there are areas which are effectively off-limits to non-moslems then presumably you would be OK with Bishop N-A saying so, because it would be a case of stating the problem as a prelude to dealing with it? As far as I can see, your specific objection (and reasonable IMHO) objection to the Bishop is that he has not identified the areas he is talking about?
Sunny didn’t write this post….
Not that its of great importance but a small correction to your article.
You stated “Nazir-Ali, a Pakistani-born convert to Christianity…….”
It was actually Michael Nazir-Ali’s father who converted to Christianity, whereas he himself was born into the faith.
I’m interested to know where these areas are. In the past few weeks we have had the brutal racially motivated killings of two young Asian men of Muslim backgrounds.
Two teenagers have been charged with the murder of a young Muslim described by his school and family as a perfect pupil and a model son.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3065806.ece
Asaf Mahmood Ahmed, 28, suffered serious head injuries after being assaulted and found at the back of a Labour Club in Bolton, Greater Manchester, on Friday night.
Mr Ahmed had left his house in Broomfield Road, Bolton, and was on his way to shops before being attacked.
“We are treating this a racist incident because of language and comments that were overheard by witnesses at and immediately after the incident which led them to believe this was a racist incident.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=paRacial_Sun_15_victim_named_Nightlead&show_article=1
William Hauge the ex conservative leader came on Sky News to discuss what he said. He agreed the cultural separation is an issue but said that the Bishop was factually wrong about the “areas” and he had seen no such thing.
Sofia, agreed.
Rumbold, my only point was that your tone suggested that he did not have that right.
a, whatever.
Leon, hmmm, I’m not sure. As a convert, his grace’s life would be in danger in some islamic states.
Anyway, one interesting thing I’ve noticed since this broke is the position of the imams. In their responses to the bishop’s criticism over the vocal calling to faith over speakers, they are careful to refer to Britain as a non-denominational state, which is not strictly true. They clearly see Islam and Christianity as being on a par in the UK, hence their references to bell ringing. If they can make some noise, then so can we. And I’m sure many atheists would agree. Let’s call it a short-term marriage of convenience and an extension of the PC/Christmas debate.
However, it would be churlish and false to pretend that the UK doesn’t have a christian heritage.
mk1 .. thanks for the clarification. OK, so he’s the son of a convert. I dunno whether that would be a mitigating factor in an islamic kangaroo court in Waziristan, but it might just be.
And the likelihood of him visiting those Islamic states is…? Either way the guys drastically raised his profile and probably impressed some of this superiors and flock with his comments.
Sure but what about the present? Isn’t this guy voicing a fear of a ‘Christian past, Islamic future’?
Leon, maybe he is.
But most people in this country still describe themselves as Christian. You may well question what that exactly means but that doesn’t mean it’s not true.
I don’t think he’s saying these things to impress his superiors. His views are conservative even for a priest. Most of the ones I’ve heard have always talked about more inter-faith tolerance.
I think Nazir-Ali is deeply concerned about the increasingly less Christian nature of society here and the plight of Christians in Pakistan, letting those fears affect his judgement.
I think he’s entitled to his views but he should back them up with more evidence.
There aren’t that many – 26 out of 736 members – so I don’t think they wield a considerable amount of power.
Funny that Inayat Bunglawala and William Hague are on the same side opposing Nazir-Ali’s views!
It’d be interesting to hear what they really think and say behind closed doors.
You got figures for that? Is the number rising or falling? Stuff feathers up your backside does not make you a chicken (to quote Tyler Durden)…
I liked your borrowed chicken gag, very funny, but…
According to the 2001 census there are 37.3 million people in England and Wales who state their religion as Christian.
As Batman used to say, Ka-powwwwWWWW!!!
I am sorry to say this guy too wants to play the communalist card. Obviously something in South Asian blood.
El Cid,
37.3 out of 60 mill is not a huge majority. Break it down even further, how many of them regularly attend mass? Compare that figure, proportionally, to Muslims attending prayer.
You can then see the fear, much like some political parties they’re losing members and without that they’ve no platform (irrelevant of how much Christian history there may be…).
I reckon it wont be long before it can reasonably argued that the average Imam has more credibility in terms of bums on carpets than the average Priest in terms of bums on pews…
(don’t get me wrong El Cid, I’m just in a provocative mood today, not laying into you or anything
)
what i also don’t like is his apparent tone..where its these young muslim extremists who are allegedly creating the no go areas…again..integration is A TWO WAY STREET
I don’t see why. Monotheist religions have far more in common than with atheism. There is no compromise between people with faith and atheists.
Mk1:
Thanks for the correction.
Bishop Hill:
If there are such areas, why doesn’t the bishop name them, rather than just allude to them? Imagine if a senior Muslim cleric said there were ‘no-go’ areas for Muslims because of extremist Christians. Would it be right for him to just leave it there, and cast the shadow of doubt over all Christians?
That is my main objection, but I would also expect him to provide specific details about each area, such as how widespread the problem is, where did he get his information from, what is the cause of this tension and so forth. Obviously, if such areas exist, they are a problem.
Not sure I understand, but are you saying that Muslim extremists want to integrate, but are not allowed to?
no..i meant that he said that this non integration is because of these so called muslim extremists..who are leading other young men towards non integration…why is it always left to the “other” to integrate, when this is “discussed” in the media..if there is to be any meaningful discussion on integration, uncomfortable issues need to be faced on all sides..
Technically, the good bishop hasn’t told any lies. He’s just failed to produce any evidence of “no-go” Muslim areas caused as a result of religiousity. He’s also failed to address whether “no-go areas” in white areas may also be caused by over-zealous Chuch of Englanders! Of course he won’t be able to produce such evidence because social exclusion is not a factor of religion at all. However, its fashionable to blame all of Britian’s social malaise on muslims, so welcome to the bandwagon, a reactionary bishop bewailing the parlous state of his faith and the near total depletion of church congregations.
As far as I know there aren’t any extremist Christian groups in Britain. If there are they don’t have a high profile. There are racist groups but they are not the same as extremist Christian groups. Politics in this country is very secular, to the extent that in recent times the government has introduced laws that go blatantly against the church (civil partnership for gay couples, etc), so you are unlikely to see the kind of communal mobilisation you see in the sub-continent.
I think history will show Nazir-Ali’s little outburst will be just another little whimper in the long slow decline of Christianity in what used to a staunchly Christian country.
Tut tut Leon. How you describe people is superior to how people describe themselves, as I anticipated in #16. C’mon! Is that really what you want?
It is a slippery Stalinist slope that you are in danger of embarking on.
I’m also disappointed that you seem to be less not equally cynical towards those who might describe themselves as Moslem. You could at least be equally anti-organised religion. After all, a cynic in the current climate might reasonably be expected to see a political angle to this religious calling.
I don’t wish to be mean, but such double standards have no defence and give liberal politics a bad name.
Finally, let’s just look at the maths again:
37 million out of 52 million (England and Wales) is more than 70 percent, or enough to get you a grade A. That is a big majority (and one that may have risen in the last 10 years, given inward European migration).
It’s pointless denying that.
To do so would be like that knight in that Monty Python movie who, having had his arms and legs chopped off, cries out: “Come back and fight. It’s only a flesh wound”
so what?
Morgoth, give it a rest.
You’re lapsing into stupid mode.
yeh well you obviously haven’t heard of context..as for banning all saudi males..totally stereotypical and pathetic..instead of focussing on the discussion you go off on a tangent..
I agree with El Cid.
he has another mode?
And your inability to see beyond large swathes of humanity brushed in one single religious denomination as the synthesis of all your ignorant, boorish, small-town, paranoia is NOT juvenile? Here from us PP regulars, you get exactly what you deserve mate, and then some. If you want your hand held, go elsewhere.
Well, it’s complicated to say the least. I don’t have a seriously structured approach atheism, in fact have been moving away from the term for a good while now (I’m just being lazy with it’s use today).
I do know that a many attacks (both literal and word based) on Muslims are thinly veiled racism dressed up in the usual anti religious or other religions thing. Hence my slight sympathy for their plight despite my godless ways. Ironic really…but in a sense not.
The majority of Muslims in this country aren’t white. The majority of Christians are. That’s something worth keeping in mind while engaging in this debate I find….
Leon, by Martin Amis rules, both you and I are “Muslims” and are worthy of being detained. But then so is the Right Rev Michael Nazir-Ali.
Well this is the problem created by extremists on both sides (Islamists and Neo Cons), you’re drawn into this idiotic us or them situation and the natural complixeties of human life and behaviour are dismissed without much thought.
Notice to both sides: we’re not all unthinking bloody robots!
Leon, thanks for the honesty. NOW I see where you are coming from.
As is perhaps clear, the problem with such an approach is that it risks unintentionally alienating others and can mislead.
Sure, hence the explanation but as I point to above part of the misunderstanding is a result of the conditions (or to be pompous ‘debased intellectual environment’) we express a view or opinion within…
So politically it’s not a very good strategy?
Isn’t it more the case the bishop somewhat naively created a hostage to fortune with his no go remark. I suspect his point was that there may be no go areas for christian evangelists, rather than barricades on the streets etc? Certainly i recently saw news of christian converts having to take extraordinary precautions to worship due to local hostility.
No he wants a he re-affirmation of Britain’s Christian roots:
In other words, Christianity above other religions - the inverse of what’s happening in his motherland. I think that’s a bit extreme.
He wants a Jamaati-Christianity in the UK!
There was a time a few years back when non-muslim religious speakers at speakers corner used to regularly receive threats of violence, or worse. As a result of which the police significantly stepped up their presence in the area.
Ravi #24
‘Monotheist religions have far more in common than with atheism. ‘ Very true, but isn’t it often the case that where similar belief systems differ on details, then the real venom kicks in?
‘There is no compromise between people with faith and atheists.’ Again, very true and a good reason for atheists to be wary of the faithful. All the faithful have to fear from non-theists is the occasional polemical publication or withering remark.
A Church of England bishop “extreme”? That’s absurd.
And the fact he wants a re-affirmation of Britain’s Christian roots — well, what do we expect? I mean really?
OK, so he should back his no-go area claims. We’re all (mostly) agreed on that. Is he guilty of jumping on moslem-bashing bandwagon? Yes, unless he can be more specific.
I suppose in the future there could be ‘no-go’ areas for non-Muslims. Birminham is expected to have a majority non-white population in 20 years time and it also has an increasing number of Saudi sponsored mosques.
Well, at times no but you know things could change…
On the bell-ringing/ Adhan thing I have found both to be soothing and pleasant, as long as one is a good distance from the source. Up close both can be maddening.
At the moment, on a crisp winter’s morning while walking the dog, it is delightful to hear the chimes from the distant village church drift across the air. Living a hundred yards from a church with a team of enthusiastic campanologists is a minority taste at best and has been known to result in outbreaks of rural violence.
Similarly, watching the sun set over the minarets of a small harbour town is greatly enhanced by the distant but insistent call to prayer. Finding that the house you have leased is between two mosques who seem to have decided to compete as to who has the most kick-ass amplifiers is a nightmare.
I think the answer to that one lies in planning permission. I suspect that both new churches and new mosques would meet exactly the same objections to noise, particularly in urban areas.
Rather like faith schools. The one’s we have we are stuck with; sometimes for better, sometimes for worse.
But we don’t need new ones and should object strongly.
punctuation error.
Good post Don.
Personally I was surprised to “hear” that the amplified Muslim call to prayer now competes with church bells, so to speak. Is this true or an urban myth? Also, in other non-Muslim majority countries, like India for example with its 100m-plus Muslims, or France with its 10 per cent, is it miked-up? Do church bells ring in Pakistan or Egypt?
There are housing estates all over Britain that are “no go areas” due to their high crime rate.
Some of these “no go areas” are inhibited by muslims, many more, I suspect are inhabited by chavs.
What these places have in common is that they are all “dumps”.
Fortunately, the income levels of the average Sunday Telegraph reader (the paper in which the bishop made his comments), are such that they need never set foot in any of these areas.
What the bishop SHOULD have done is highlighted the problem of “religious police”. Unfortunately, the RP do not just exist in Saudi Arabia - but also on Britain’s campuses - where girls of Muslim background often get intimidated into wearing Islamic dress.
This would have been a much worthier cause for the bishop to highlight - because he could have provided specific examples - and “named and shamed” institutions which were not doing enough to protect those who wish to exercise freedom to lead a secular life.
Looking at all those depressing comments on the Telegraph blog we have to remember we are talking about the fears of many who can be described as MIDDLE ENGLANDERS. There are many many middle englanders who have genuine fears about islamism and immigration and we would be churlish to ignore that. I spend 2 weekends a month in sussex, as a black londoner many of the people I meet I would tend to describe as socially liberal. Many of these people are pissed off about hunting, the new labour emphasis on urban affairs and immigration. Many are at pains to emphasise their liberal credentials, and one thing that strikes me is their fear of Islamism. The worst thing we as liberal metropolitans is to igonore what I would call the majority
Rumbold
Firstly my apologies for ascribing your posting to Sunny.
I came across this g which supports Bishop N-A’s claim of a drive to create no-go areas.
“The worst thing we as liberal metropolitans is to igonore what I would call the majority”
Heh-heh, well I’m not sure about that - liberal metropolitans have cheerfully ignored the majority view, from immigration to hanging, for the past 50 years.
But in the same way the Gershon “reforms” of the civil service which GB initiated in 1997 are coming to roost - now where did I post that CD? - so too is the complacency of policy makers from 1950 onwards.
Isn’t the truth immigration has been a major success story for the UK? Racial harmony has, comparatively, prevailed and on the whole we have done the British thing - muddled through.
However we are beginning to pay for our complacency: the we’ll all rub along together, erm religion? CofE but i do love a curry, is challenged by a proselytising faith like Islam. Islam is loud and proud and doesn’t tug its forelock to the clear superiority of British values (what they? well you’re not supposed to ask, isn’t it self evident?!). Our leaders were so bloody sure of the clear superiority of British culture, and so bloody ignorant of any other, that they didn’t consider the implications of… competition. Now that was true racism for you.
They also seemed to forget, as many Picklers here do, that this is not a secular society. It is a Christian country, and I mean that literally. Heavens, what other country has a head of state who is also the head of their church other than Iran? Where else does the Prime Minister appoint the bishops? What other country pours so much of (my) tax money in to religious schools? You want a secular country move to FRANCE. The bishop is lambasted in the (liberal) media but I agree with other posters this is not the view of the majority - they may not go to church but neither do they have much time for sophism: by Christianity they mean their culture.
I expect that in the absence of any other ideas (like France, America, or for that matter Iran) the principal policy will be to muddle through in the English manner, although I think this also smacks of complacency: I suspect things could turn quite nasty quite quickly.
Boyo,
I was agreeing with much of your post at 66, but this grated somewhat:
Do you really think so? Church attendance is at an all time low. The Head of State, the Queen, gets her authority from some schism down to Henry the Eighth or summat and the appointment of bishops to the House of Lords is done under advisement. We have the trappings of a religious state, but they seem to me to be historical by-products and not really germane to who we are nowadays.
Boyo & Douglas Clark,
“They also seemed to forget, as many Picklers here do, that this is not a secular society. It is a Christian country, and I mean that literally. Heavens, what other country has a head of state who is also the head of their church other than Iran?”
Is that why Christopher Hitchens skipped off to America?
Well I disagree, as I said - “they may not go to church but neither do they have much time for sophism: by Christianity they mean their culture.”
A number of ideas co-exist. We are a secular society (no, this is the liberal line without any constitutional proof, like I said we’re not France, not even the US). We are under threat from Muslims (no, we are under threat from ourselves, or at least a rudderless, venal elite which can only, seemingly, stir the soup and add salt for taste).
Cash, or consumerism, is the only thing that keeps our society from real crisis - what else could the Labour materialists replace socialism with? But this is not enough.
My concern is, if they don’t come up with a new idea (a new sense of hope for our society - idea as in ideal) then someone else will, and I think it could look an awful lot like fascism. And I’m not talking Islamic.
Boyo or should I call you boyakka (dont worry we were using that one 20 years ago)
Liberal metropolitans have cheerfully ignored the majority view, from immigration to hanging, for the past 50 years.
Damn! I always thought that Britain/England would become a fascist tyranny if we implemented true democracy, the will of the people.
According to the 2001 census there are 37.3 million people in England and Wales who state their religion as Christian.
According to that census, there are also 390,127 who state their religion as Jedi.
They must take their ‘light side’ philosophy really seriously, as you very rarely hear of any drive-by light-saberings.
Soru, that’s an amusing truth under the category “No religion”:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293
‘This category included agnostics, atheists, heathens and those who wrote Jedi Knight.’
My people, the time has come!
Gibs:
“…Britain’s campuses - where girls of Muslim background often get intimidated into wearing Islamic dress.”
Please provide evidence for this if you can, which you wont for it is a a fallaciousness argument.
This is trumped by ignorant people who have no idea of the social dynamics of Muslim communities in Britain, and wish to impose a simplistic, pre-determined narrative upon certain sections of society.
The great irony is that many Muslim’s, both male and female, whilst at University face opposition from friends and family for their greater religious observance in the shape of wearing the hijab or in sporting a beard. This is something i myself witnesses as a youth, along with many, many others. However, in one sense this is inevitable, for people will make different lifestyle choices, through the process of robust debate and a lot of soul searching.
Nazir Ali isn’t worth paying much attention to… he is The Sun and Daily Mail’s favourite tool.
And Morgoth the Stupid is back!
But now sadly deleted…
Sunny:
And Morgoth the Stupid is back!
But now sadly deleted…
Lol! Morgan Freeman playing God did not have that much power, the trolls will strike back…………
Well, I suppose His Rightness was on the rota for this weeks installment of “Muslim Controversy to keep in the media”. I don’t see what ppl are surprised about, honestly.
Today on Cif…this is what Andrew Brown thinks..
“It is certainly true that some Muslims do want to see their areas run as ghettos or enclaves under sharia law - I have been told this by a Leeds MP who was approached by a group of his constituents with exactly that request”
I really love it when journalists don’t name names..and also don’t qualify their use of terminology…what part of sharia? in personal law..civil? criminal? financial?
Again, like the word “jihad” only the narrow, rather misleading definition of sharia is alluded to yet never really explained, forget about what sharia really may encompass…pisses me right off
You are right, of course. But the bottom line is that there is a perception that a lot of Muslims do want separate laws - no matter whether they are benign or only subject to specific parts of the Law - and that is just plain wrong. That pisses me from the start.
But now sadly deleted…
Which sums up Sunny in a nutshell - he deletes anything he disagrees with.
Ravi, marriage ceremonies come under shariah..does that mean if i want a muslim marriage i am in some way being unreasonable. Funerals, banking etc some of which are under personal law are things that I would want done specifically according to my own traditions..they do not infringe upon anyone and can work within existing legal systems. In fact mainstream banks have picked up on this and are providing islamic banking…is this unreasonable? is this fanatical jihadist bankers trying to undermine the Christian British way of life…puhleez…nazir ali needs to focus on the other denominators such as poverty and education that may play a part…instead of being a daily mail mouth piece
Sofia, I understand that there are certain aspects of family law that you would want conducted under Sharia Law - marriage, divorce etc. But what about inheritance of property under Sharia Law? Are you aware that a daughter can inherit only half of the inheritance due to a son, by Sharia decree? Let’s say, for the purposes of illustration, a couple have a son and a daughter. After the death of their parents, they are due the following share:
son - 50% as per his due and 25% of the other half of his sister’s = 75%
daughter - 25% as per her due.
Is that something you think is fair? Would you accept that willingly and unquestioningly?
Because the large proportion of Muslims completely ignore this “sacred” law. And rightly so. So they do their own thing - which is to formally apply secular law, and split everything down the middle to pass on to their children, irrespective of their sex. And they’ve been doing it for so long that they forget the details of Sharia laws of inheritance. And that’s even before we get to the law for the quorum of witnesses required to prosecute rape.
The law for rape..don’t even get me started..has been misinterpreted..
also inheritance law must also take into account traditional muslim societal structures…if it doesn’t then yes it does become unfair.
Eg. TRADITIONALLY - a muslim woman’s earnings/inheritance etc is her own..to spend no even on her children..a muslim man must spend for his family, including any dependent parents/siblings. Many muslim women don’t even know what their husband’s financial and domestic duties are towards them and if I mentioned them, no doubt I’d get some bloke on here saying i’ve made it all up…
Again, if this traditional structure is not adhered to, then what’s the point in adhering to inheritance laws, as the outcome of the latter one is very much dependent on the former.
Again, if this traditional structure is not adhered to, then what’s the point in adhering to inheritance laws, as the outcome of the latter one is very much dependent on the former.
Because even if all traditional laws were applied, the laws of inheritance are unfair and unworkable, as can be seen in their application in muslim-majority societies,
or rather their non-application. Some “sacred” laws should be turfed out at the earliest instance.
and again..my original point was not about inflicting shariah in total on the british muslim masses..rather about some informed debate with some set parameters..not headline making bullshit from the nazir alis of this world. There is no point in having certain aspects of shariah if the population is not willing/ready for it..therefore the debate is a non starter as it is…other aspects have happily co-existed for as long as muslims have been in this country..that includes marriage, death, birth, financial, food, customs..hardly a cause for alarm..
Sid..i disagree with you…they are not unfair if a man has to do all the providing under a traditional structure.
and muslim majority states are hardly bastions of islam…again..this is about ppl being ready for it..not the other way round
I am not sure I understand your point: religious cerimonies are obviously permitted - it does not clash with secular laws whatsoever. And your business with a private company is your own.
So, I guess the noise must be with existing secular laws that clash with shariah law, right? As a citizen you have the right - as a politician or an activist - to work for laws to be changed that you find unfair. But the idea that you want separate laws according to religion sounds too divisive and tribal. Again, most people follow religious rituals for marriage, death, birth - not just Muslims - so if secular laws are good for religious non-muslims, then it should for muslims as well. Right?
I guess my question stems from ignorance: what do Muslims want to do that are not allowed by British Law?
Sofia,
It won’t happen to the extent you want because:
1. Its a slippery slope
2. You will never convince the majority of Brits that Islam isn’t an oppressive mysogynists charter
3. We are not going to introduce a set of laws that makes a section of British female citizens second class in their own country. It just feels like going back 400 + years rather then embracing a new century.
And more to the point, why should British Muslims get special, divisive treatment like that?
Why do you want to Balkanise the Country?
Do you have any idea how actually quite terrifying many Brits find that idea? That Northern Ireland writ large could come to the mainland but with reactionary islam vs the rest…….
Sid..i disagree with you…they are not unfair if a man has to do all the providing under a traditional structure.
The societies in which men provided for everything are shown to developmentally challenged, since they have failed to include women into the workforce. If “sacred” laws are used to keep women out of the workforce, that’s even more reason to avoid Sharia implementation. MOst muslim-majority states haven’t had the stomach to implement full Sharia except Saudi Arabia, and rightly so.
“MOst muslim-majority states haven’t had the stomach to implement full Sharia except Saudi Arabia, and rightly so”
Yes, quite, because its medieval martial judicial opinions and belongs in history books not on the statute books…….
tch..again you didn’t actually read what i wrote..i can’t be arsed with that…
saudi does not have full sharia
tch we already get special treatment..na na na na na na…i got married twice..yippee…and guess wat..i can get an islamic bank account..whoopee doo…ugh this “discussion” once again gets stupid because ppl don’t read properly
You’re adding to my point. No country has found it fit to apply full sharia in the modern world. Even herheaded Muslim-posturing ones like Iran and Pakistan. They turn pragmatic at the last instance and realise that some of the laws, inheritance for instance, are simply inappliable except for a small society of ardent followers living in 7th century Yathrib.
Well looks like Nazir-Ali got what he wanted. Instead of him being put on the spot to justify his ill-founded comments, we are discussing laws of inheritance, and all things Sharia.
For me Nazir-Ali has nothing of substance to say, other than declare that he feels his is a losing battle as everything is loaded against him - right here in a christian land. And he is using communalist tactics to stir the ‘natives’ against muslims. His whole article is ironic. He seems to be careful in NOT making it muslim v. christian; its everyone against the muslims. The man is a coward.
I was much more impressed by his colleagues who clearly are not happy with him.
Ah, missed post 79……..
[wipes egg from face, shuffles feet somewhat uncomfortably]
If you had been making the point I thought you were then my points would have been valid though. But you weren’t.
I am somewhat stunned by this:
“they are not unfair if a man has to do all the providing under a traditional structure”
If we are talking about inheriting from a widows perspective then she faces the same household costs
and is legaly and socially disadvantaged by islamic society from working and inheriting. Not good at all. Witness the absolutely horrifying conditions that widows under the Taliban faced, as an example.
From a daughters perspective it is also rubbish but thats on the basis that men and women are absolutely equal but I appreciate that in 7th century tribal arabia this was not a common position. Now, however, this being the 21st Century can’t we all agree on gender equality throughout the law and just move on?
Isn’t it more a matter of things, currently allowed, they want to forbid themselves from doing?
you lot make me laugh…i’ve made my point and you disagree..end of…i’m not going to repeat my point for the likes of macauliffe…
just for you macauliffe..yes i love the taliban..and i want to be oppressed..not drive a car/bus/rickshaw..(because it’s against islam..)…etc etc etc…
Macaullife @ 93, Saudia Arabia attempts to applies Sharia law on its citizens, while maintaining different standards for the elite of the country. It also violates human rights and Islamic fundamentals in many of its actions as a government. This arguably makes it un-Islamic.
I suspect that most Brits think that Saudi Law = Sharia Law for muslims everywhere. This is not the case.
LOL Sofia, love your comments.
Whilst the example that Macauliffe chooses is far more then what Sofia was suggesting, I think the slippery slope argument applies. It is the end results that deeply trouble many Brits.
Whilst I appreciate you don’t want to engage in the debate regarding our hyperbole ridden examples, can you not see why Non Muslims (and indeed many Muslims) worry and fear such a slope?
Muzumdar, Sufis are orthodox Muslims into love, poetry and tantric sex for the worship of g!d. Don’t anyone tell you otherwise.
tch..yes i can see where ppl would fear it..absolutely and of course it needs to be discussed..but not in some sort of whipped up hysteria…
Sid:
“MOst muslim-majority states haven’t had the stomach to implement full Sharia except Saudi Arabia, and rightly so.”
Not sure what you mean by ‘full’ shariah…throughout the history of Islam, there has been ‘laxity’ with application in certain areas, met with a rediscovery, and then laxity again. You mentioned 7th Century Yathrib, and yes this was the Islamic model set up. However Islam developed organically, where the beliefs and values were adopted, internalized and applied individually by the believers, before being applied at a community level, i.e. sacred law with regards to inheritance, penal law etc.
The current situation in most Muslim countries is one of laxity, brought about through centuries of decline. To impose shariah from top-down has never been the method of any of the Prophets in the Qur’an, hence Muslims work individually to organise their lives within the confines of sacred law, allowing room for different interpretation within the realm of jurisprudence.
With regards to inheritance, I would concur with Sofia that it makes sense, great sense actually when you look at traditional society, where men had to shoulder the financial burden, and that sacred law took this into account. We must bear in mind that the concept of female inheritance did not exist in most of the world…in England, during the Middle Ages, there were even cases of men actually leaving their own wives as inheritance!!!
Actually, this would be a good point to investigate, why did Islam give women the right to inheritance, a good amount of wealth actually, when there was no need to do so, when their was no women’s liberation movement, and actually nothing really to gain politically, for in a tribal, war like society women had little influence. For a believer this demonstrates that Justice comes from the divine and is not subject to carefully considered, political calculations.
The question of whether such laws should be followed now, well at present it is possible for parents to completely omit all their children or some from their inheritance, hence for Muslims to adopt this model, voluntarily should not be a problem, both legally and politically.
I would disagree with Sofia with the point of reinterpreting the laws of inheritance in light of modern society however, for, according to my understanding these are fixed, subject to alteration due to mitigating circumstances perhaps, but not to be changed as an ideal. In fact, a departure from the ‘traditional model’ and I say this in the widest possible sense, will itself cause wider social problems, which, if i go into, would classify me as being right-wing in the political spectrum.
However as i have mentioned, i don’t see a problem with something like this being adopted voluntarily by people. People do, from all persuasion, both religion and non-religious choose to organise their lives in particular ways, that is the inevitable part of living in liberal society.
As for having parallel laws, i don’t believe it will be a slippery slope, for we all have to abide by the law of the land, and if any aspect conflicts with sacred law, then it is agreed, in the main, amongst the major schools of jurisprudence that Muslims’ should obey the law of the land.
As for having parallel laws, i don’t believe it will be a slippery slope, for we all have to abide by the law of the land, and if any aspect conflicts with sacred law, then it is agreed, in the main, amongst the major schools of jurisprudence that Muslims’ should obey the law of the land.
Jumping Jehosophat! In the 21st fecking century, where we’ve been to the moon and back, and where we’re on the verge of curing cancer, and we can build machines that think, are you still arguing over even the slightest permissibility or impermissibility of something written and practisec by a bunch of backwards desert flat-earth illiterates thousands of years ago? Read some Hitchens or Dawkins and grow up!
Sorry if I seem dense, but I share Ravi’s puzzlement over what exactly a moslem might want to do which is not already perfectly legal under the existing system.
Saqib there are many aspects of islamic practice that have been kept on hold (for want of a better phrase) when the situation of a particular society was such that it would be better to do so. I did not say do away with it..just that to practice it in modern muslim societies would be unjust..as the family structure etc is very different and the men no longer “look after” the family. Where this is still the case and inheritance is divided in good faith and used in good faith then that is fine..but each case should be looked at individually…again a complex matter that cannot just be discussed here.
Don…well some rather over sexed men might want to get married more than once…
Ahhh Morgoth, it must sting to know those ‘backwards desert flat-earth illiterates’ were at least twice as smart as you, Dawkins and Hitchens put together…
*sigh*
Don,
I was going to respond to Ravi. But seeing we have been here numerous times felt it not quite worthwhile - not because of Ravi’s question, but because we have strayed from the topic.
The answer is nothing in particular. And I think Saqib alludes to it.
Moron:
“Read some Hitchens or Dawkins and grow up!”
I already have mate!
Thank you. You know if you ever do attain the ability to have a calm, rational discussion with me, you might even convince me the errors of my ways…why don’t you try.
Are you serious?
well they’d have to be seriously rich oversexed men…
I would disagree with Sofia with the point of reinterpreting the laws of inheritance in light of modern society however, for, according to my understanding these are fixed, subject to alteration due to mitigating circumstances perhaps, but not to be changed as an ideal. In fact, a departure from the ‘traditional model’ and I say this in the widest possible sense, will itself cause wider social problems, which, if i go into, would classify me as being right-wing in the political spectrum.
Yes, this is why wholesale rejection of certain sections of Sharia law on family matters (Inheritance, Adoption etc) has been the path of least resistance but also the most sucessful one. As opposed to adoption of Ijtihad to bring these aws up to currency.
Let me make an obvious point here: I am obliged to follow the law of the land, because I reside in this country and second because if I do break the law, there is a penalty.
How does that work for parallel laws? Do I need to follow them because my religion is X? What would be the penalty if I don’t follow them? This is what makes me uneasy to support laws that apply only to some people.
It is far better to have mistresses, sofia… and it is legal.
Sofia:
“I did not say do away with it..just that to practice it in modern muslim societies would be unjust..as the family structure etc is very different and the men no longer “look after” the family.”
I take your point sister, and that is why i did use the phrase on ‘mitigating circumstances’ for, to take your description of ‘put on hold’ and enhancing it with the jurisprudence principles of maslaha (greater benefit) and Mufsida (greater harm)it could be argued rationally that this is a better course of action, under certain, mitigating circumstances. I wouldn’t say it is ‘unjust’ however sister, for to apply it in Muslim societies, it actually does guarantee that females will still get a substantial amount, whereas in secular societies, parents can, and actually do at times exclude some of their children, which i would personally say is morally wrong (not unjust), though some others would dismiss it as personal choice (Still others like Johann Hari would have it most of it taxed, as ‘we haven’t earn’t it http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/johann_hari/article3043766.ece)
I would agree that the premises underpinning this debate are quite sophisticated (Islam sophisticated, nah…get away from it) and it would not be worth going into all the details here. However, what i did want to demonstrate, is that in pushing for something which is ostensibly better, the end result could be worse in a wider context. Well that, and also reading more of “Moron’s” highly urbane, articulate responses.
Thank you. You know if you ever do attain the ability to have a calm, rational discussion with me, you might even convince me the errors of my ways…why don’t you try.
I’m not interested in calm rational discussions with the mentally ill, i.e. religious, especially given the death and destruction wrought by your ilk all in the name of your imaginary friends.
Bishop Hill:
Thanks for that. I don’t think that it does support the bishop’s claims though, as it merely says that in the 1990s some older Muslims in Bradford wanted to recreate South Asian culture and laws there (with only a small mention of the younger generation). As far as I can tell, the bishop is implying something different, which is that Islamists and their followers have created ‘no-go’ areas for non-Muslims.
Ahhh Morgoth, it must sting to know those ‘backwards desert flat-earth illiterates’ were at least twice as smart as you, Dawkins and Hitchens put together…
Twice as smart? They thought the sun hid in a puddle overnight, and that Pi was equal to Three!
valid point Ravi..and if people were able to debate this openly and coherrently then this could be explored. However this is based on the assumption that the muslim communities are organised enough to do so, and also what interpretation they are following..it’s too easy to leave this debate to the intellectuals whoever they are..with no real influence at grass roots which is where the problems usually arise…
“Don…well some rather over sexed men might want to get married more than once…”
Is there anything to stop that now? You could not register the second marriage under British law, but I can’t think what there is to stop a man co-habiting with two or more women and going through a ceremony to make that religiously valid. After all, only CofE ceremonies combine legal marriage with the ceremonial of acknowledging one’s union in the presence of one’s peers.
Any more than there is anything to stop a bunch of wiccan wierdos prancing sky-clad three times around the rowan tree widdershins and declaring a group marriage of any configuration whatever.
As long as there is no coercion or deception I don’t think it would be a matter for the law. I could be wrong, of course, but if the parties concerned did not consider registering under secular law to be a necessary part of marriage, where would the problem lie?
Ravi:
“Do I need to follow them because my religion is X? What would be the penalty if I don’t follow them? This is what makes me uneasy to support laws that apply only to some people.”
There would be no penalty, if my wife, God Forbid committed adultery I wouldn’t be standing outside the Magistrates, gathering stones and pebbles to carry out divine ordinances. Sacred law is between the believer and her Creator.
To be honest, I don’t understand the concept of parallel law myself actually, for there can only be one law of the land that we all abide by. Everything else is custom, which people should have recourse to in personal matters so long as both parties agree, and it does not contravene any laws of the land. This can cover matters such as marriage, divorce disputes, financial matters.
Make it 3 times smarter, then.
Moron:
“I’m not interested in calm rational discussions with the mentally ill….”
Simple solution, stop looking into the mirror! Then you can meet other people who are not so ill.
gosh, y’all love BoreGoth the Moron as much as I do.
Sid:
“tantric sex for the worship of g!d’
Please explain more??? Okay maybe not on this forum as we may digress, may be on your blog.
Thank you Saqib and Sofia for clarifying these points. I do appreciate that.
Don…it is up to ppl to live their lives the way they want as long as they don’t break the law..so technically a muslim man could marry 4 times and not break the law here…however, this is a total abuse of the spirit of Islam..as marriage is as much about contractual obligations as it is about companionship etc etc…therefore there is no honour in being a “wife in hiding”…
‘Twice as smart? They thought the sun hid in a puddle overnight, and that Pi was equal to Three!’
Aren’t you confusing intelligence with access to knowledge provided by generations of others? Just a quibble, as I actually agree that the dead hand of ancient texts must have no power to compel the living.
Laws must be fallible, imperfect and contingent. The alternative of perfect and immutable law is too hideous to contemplate. We’re still evolving and our institutions must be able to develop with us, not lock us into a strait-jacket.
Divine law, like Divine Right, is an idea whose time has passed. Claim, if it makes you happy, that you have special knowledge of the will of your own supernatural being. But that claim gives you no right to compel or constrain others.
Sofia,
Thanks. But (again I’m quibbling) surely the contactual obligations can be met through legal contract (inheritance, property, children etc.) and the marriage would not be ‘hidden’ from those to whom it mattered if a public ceremony were performed.
Would I be right in thinking that a moslem marriage ceremony would mean that the couple were married in every way meaningful to those concerned and that the secular registration of the marriage under UK law would be a mere formality?
We’re still evolving and our institutions must be able to develop with us, not lock us into a strait-jacket.
Very true. It’s difficult to ensure complete political correctness all the time but at least we live in a relatively peaceful and tolerant society.
Nazir-Ali is displaying his tribal sympathies but aren’t we all guilty of the same thing? There were a number of prominent people who stood up and criticised Nazir-Ali. Thank God for civil society. The secular institutions here are quite strong and we should be grateful for that. I wish I could say the same thing for other places around the world but I can’t.
“…well some rather over sexed men might want to get married more than once”
Well…i think they would argue they are actually ‘undersexed’ if anything.
‘the parties concerned did not consider registering under secular law to be a necessary part of marriage, where would the problem lie?’
Who gets custody of the kids following a divorce?
I don’t think you can, as the law stands, handle it by simple contract law, as I don’t think you can set up any legally binding contract on sexual matters without falling foul of anti-prostitution laws.
There’s an ultra-libertarian view that says people should be able to sign any contracts they choose. Down that road lies slavery contracts, televised death-matches, and so on - frankly, give me the Taliban anyday…
Morgoth -
“Twice as smart? They thought the sun hid in a puddle overnight, and that Pi was equal to Three!”
I think you will find these desert dwellers were the first to work out how to navigate by the stars. As for Pi I suspect the vast majority of mankind wouldn’t have known it existed, let alone it was 3 or thereabouts. To be fair the ancient world knew it to be a bit more than 3. The Egyptians and Babylonians knew about it, the question surely is when did your predecessors realise the value of it.
I do think you are now just making things up. I am seriously wondering whether you have any expertise in astrophysics or just pointed to a website and claimed it was all your work. Otherwise you could not possibly be making the sort of claims that you do.
I am afraid I am forced to call you a fraud in addition to fascism and psychopathy.
Correct me where you can.
Refresh:
I am suspicious about that website being Moron’s, for he claimed in a thread (which was unceremoniously closed before i could reply) to me that ‘i speak my mind’ and ‘i call a spade a spade’, if that is the case, why does he hide his identity on PP, and not use his real name?
I always have more respect for people who put themselves up for who they really are, than those who hide behind the ‘burkhas’of deception.
Saqib, what are the implications of Morgoth passing himself off as someone else?
If he was impersonating someone else, would he be breaking any laws? Can you libel someone by expressing views on their behalf - without license?
This could look really interesting.
Saqib:
“I always have more respect for people who put themselves up for who they really are, than those who hide behind the ‘burkhas’ of deception.”
Um, I wear a “burkha of deception” by not using my real name when I blog…
I do think you are now just making things up. I am seriously wondering whether you have any expertise in astrophysics or just pointed to a website and claimed it was all your work. Otherwise you could not possibly be making the sort of claims that you do.
Mohammed thought the Sun hid in a muddy-pool overnight. And the Old Testament is replete with references to Pi being exactly 3.
I am afraid I am forced to call you a fraud in addition to fascism and psychopathy.
You can think what you want, “Refresh”. An anonymous liberal who has displayed all the cognitive power of a rotting avocado calling me a “fraud” and a “fascist”? Oh, how terrifying!
I am happy, for those of good faith, to supply documentary evidence to say, Rumbold, that I am the author of the Supernova Remnants FAQ and that I am indeed a smart motherfucker. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, “Refresh”.
what are the implications of Morgoth passing himself off as someone else?
In my case, it would be schizophrenia.
Pickled Politics, to a certain extent, relies on a degree of trust between its commentators. In this spirit then, I have no reason to doubt that Morgoth is the author of ‘Supernova Remnants FAQ’. Plenty of people, including myself, disagree with him on a number of issues, but that does not make him unintelligent. I think that unless someone has evidence that it was not Morgoth who wrote it, we should move on.
Saqib:
As Desi has pointed out, there are plenty of people who write under assumed names. This only matters if one person writing under an assumed name criticises another for writing under an assumed name.
#112: ‘It is far better to have mistresses, sofia… and it is legal.’
Not under Islamic law:
‘Islamic law prescribe stoning as the punishment for adultery committed by a married person, while the punishment for unmarried adulterer is one hundred lashes or being exiled for 12 months. The source for the punishment of an unmarried adulterer is the Qur’an, while the sources for the punishment of the married adulterer is found in the ahadith. [1]‘
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zina_%28Arabic%29
#76: ‘The law for rape..don’t even get me started..has been misinterpreted..’
Sofia, could not agree with you more. However, what’s your take on the above, regarding adultery? My sympathies are with the ‘women of the night’. Most religions, I am sure, are just as strict. I think the above only applies to Muslims though, in which case thank god ! Who knows how many lashes and years of exile some of us would have clocked up !
It is very difficult not to acknowledge his intelligence. And there is plenty of evidence for it here on PP. The fact that he is able to return to his PC time and again to pass comments (however unintelligent) is an obvious one. But by now its probably a sign of learnt behaviour.
You see that is the problem, a supposedly intelligent and sentient being that accepts and acknowledges very little beyond himself.
So Morgoth, explain how the desert dwellers developed the art of navigation? Explain also why Pi was even being thought about in ancient times?
You see Morgoth, the $500,000 spent by the taxpayer on educating you is pointless since you have no sense of knowledge how its created, pooled and built on.
As for the Supernova FAQ, please provide the supposed evidence to Rumbold. I do not accept your comments here reflect the ’superior intelligence’ of a SuperNova FAQ trainspotter*. Not any more.
Apologies to genuine trainspotters everywhere.
Rumbold:
“Pickled Politics, to a certain extent, relies on a degree of trust between its commentators. In this spirit then, I have no reason to doubt that Morgoth is the author of ‘Supernova Remnants FAQ’. Plenty of people, including myself, disagree with him on a number of issues, but that does not make him unintelligent. I think that unless someone has evidence that it was not Morgoth who wrote it, we should move on.”
True…but most of us are also aware that there are people, one person in particular, who posts using different pseudonyms, resulting as it did in an entire thread being closed - this was the unfortunate result of such actions.
I am sure most people here want to have a genuine debate and are willing and able to engage in robust debate. Therefore for as long as Morgoth hides, in my view, the less credibility he/she has in my eyes. But that is only my opinion.
Desi Italiana:
Well not quite, as you do have a blog where you do articulate your views.
The substantive point which i was alluding to, about deception, is that the most disruptive people here, who kill debate through having threads closed, hide, as they themselves would not want to be associated with their own outlandish and arrogant views.
But by now its probably a sign of learnt behaviour.
Actually, its because I love winding up pavlovian liberals such as yourself.
So Morgoth, explain how the desert dwellers developed the art of navigation? Explain also why Pi was even being thought about in ancient times?
That’s a strawman and does not address the point in hand - which is that in the 21st century, there are large swathes of people who insist that 7th century mythologies are superior to modern science. I personally have family members who insist that mental illness is caused by….demons.
And if you really want to know about the development of navigation, its touched upon in depth in the excellent Cambridge History Of Astronomy series by Michael Hoskin. Anything by Anthony Aveni is also highly recommended (but stay clear of pseudoscientific gibberish like Hancock or Bauval). And for Rumbold, “An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics” is extremely highly recommended.
Refresh:
“Saqib, what are the implications of Morgoth passing himself off as someone else?
If he was impersonating someone else, would he be breaking any laws? Can you libel someone by expressing views on their behalf - without license?”
Well, I think Jeremy Clarkson has found to his cost what it is alla bout.
It is a very good point, if someone used my work and identity in this way I would definitely consult the authorities, as it would be identity theft.
Saqib:
But Morgoth does not change identities too much (though he did first appear on this site as ‘Bleh’, before revealing himself to be the Morgoth of Harry’s Place).
He is not really hiding- how would it help if you knew his real name? I write under a pseudonym, and I feel that I can have plently of discussions with people with needing to know their details.
Morgoth:
Thanks for the link- I shall read it in full when I have a bit more time.
Are we approaching the end of the CountDown theme that signifies the moment BoreGoth plays the race card and shrilly proves the Godwins Law yet?