[quote]lixy wrote:
Mind your verbiage, kid.[/quote]
Oh, and no thanks, fake.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sifu, you can defend your use of the term “paki” as much as you want. Even if it is acceptable in Britain, this is not a British board. People from all over the world use this site.
I respectfully ask that you all just drop it and the term isn’t used again.[/quote]
That was two days ago I have moved on. The only ones who haven’t are the resident muslims who have come out of the woodwork.
I wasn’t going to use the word again and incur the wrath of the Mods. But now that you have asked so politely I will most definately refrain.
[quote]Nikiforos wrote:
ninearms wrote:
You forgot all the stuff they don’t put on there…You know, the stuff about their widely known links with Combat 18, RedWatch, the National Front, the Klan…
Party membership is restricted to whites. They want to revoke citizenship rights from all non European whites and turn them into “permanent guests”. The party was founded by fascists.[/quote]
I did not see that in there manifesto. Recently they have been getting Jamaicans join and vote for them because they dhimmi’s either.
[quote]ninearms wrote:
Never, ever, ever is the projection. Muslims have been in the UK since the 1800s, and still only make up 3% of the population.[/quote]
That is not what the muslims say. Ten years ago the government said there were 1.5 million, today they say there is still 1.5 million. Despite over a decade of unrestricted immigration and a very high birthrate amongst muslims. Mohammad by the way is the second most popular name given to baby boys in Britain now.
But if you don’t want to take my word how about members of the muslim council.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[…] Sorry, I think your laws are failing. “We’ve got our own laws, but go ahead and set up courts subservient women will be pressured (no, outright intimidated) into obeying.”
With the DV rates (including honor killings) of some of these Islamic home countries, shut down the Sharia courts.[/quote]
And you get the evidence for the above from … where? I’ve spent a good part of today hanging out on the the Home Office’s and British Crime Survey’s and the Women’s Aid websites trying to find links between religious affiliation and domestic violence;
or anything that ascerts your implication that this especially is a muslim problem. Guess what - I’ve been unsuccessful.
And yes, the laws are failing - two women in Britain are killed per week by their (ex-)partners, and rape convictions are down to 3% in spite of overwhelming evidence that only a minimal percentage of rape allegations are false.
Yes, our laws are failing - but you don’t have the evidence to blame that on a small minority of the population.
So far in this thread we have clarified that: sharia based civil arbitration has the backing of the law and one of our most influential christian leaders.
It’s a copy of the practice of jewish civil arbitration services who’ve been in place for about 100 years - and they seem to help religious communities to regulate their affairs without having to resort to the court system; but not in parallel or against it.
When crimes occur, the police and CPS must act - even when a complaint has been pulled back. And there seems to be no evidence that: Britain is in any form being taken over by its muslim minority; there is any significant higher incidence of domestic violence (which is a criminal not a civil matter) within the muslim communities in Britain as a whole.
So, as so often: this thread is based on a lack of evidence, a sensational news story by a (conservative) newspaper and the collective negative emotions against islam which has been permeating the political forum for some time. That makes it the only thing that should be shut down here.
Makkun
[quote]
So, as so often: this thread is based on a lack of evidence, a sensational news story by a (conservative) newspaper and the collective negative emotions against islam which has been permeating the political forum for some time. That makes it the only thing that should be shut down here.[/quote]
As is usual for a liberal, he calls for the silencing of any speech he disagrees with.
We’ve provided ample rationale for our problems with Islam from Islamic texts themselves, and the history of Islamic jihad over the past 1.5 millenia.
I’ve mentioned Surah 9 numerous times on this thread and the various sword verses included in that Surah that provide the moral authority for Muslims to go out on various violent confrontations with nonbelievers, as we have already seen numerous times in the UK. You, like the ostrich, have chosen to ignore the danger.
The fact that a story is from a “conservative” newspaper does not make it any more or less true than if it came from a “liberal” newspaper, other than whether or not the “facts” contained in a particular story line up with reality.
The issue of the Archdhimmi of Canterbury’s support for this is really a non-issue, as Nazir Ali and several of the other clergy of the CoE have roundly condemned him, as have the majority of CoE parishioners.
Your ignorance of shari’ah makes your defense of it all the more astounding. It calls for the amputation of arms and legs on opposite sides of the body, stoning of adulterers (Mohammed himself ordered the stoning of adulterers), death for homosexuality (an issue for which you seem to have an obvious hard-on, pun intended),
and various other sanctions and regulations for non-believers, as well as child marriage, and the testimony of women being 1/4 that of a man, preventing her from bringing a rape charge against a man. What part of shari’ah are you happy to see enforced?
Cool, you’re looking at rape and DV stats…
Which, of course, depends on these crimes actually being reported…
…Which is the problem with Sharia, and the intimidated women living under it.
Here, Makkun, why don’t you actually try to understand Islamic law before opening your ass and farting out your own breathtakingly ignorant opinions:
[quote]lixy wrote:
red bull wrote:
It’s ‘bollocks’ btw. I’m surprised you fucked up that piece of vintage slang twice - I thought you were supposed to be an authority on Britain and the British.
Twice? Think again. I pointed that out on a thread about the same topic.
lixy wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Bullocks.
If you’re gonna use British words in an attempt to increase your “UK politics expert” cred, at least learn to spell them correctly. [/quote]
Actually the word can be spelled, bullocks, bollocks, bollox. Whilst the spelling with an O is more common you can also you the spelling with a U. I know because I asked my Mum.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Now, I don’t agree at all with shipping present citizens anywhere. However, immigration needs to be tightened up, and applicants screened alot better.
Am I wrong or does the UK have tighter immigration procedures (and more hermetic borders) than the US?
Look, bitter people, neo-Nazis and the far-right might scream their lungs out, but the fact of the matter is that immigration is a driving force of the economy in the UK.
And seeing how the place is mostly a plutocracy, big corps. and other business lobbies tend to have more weight than Jack-six-pack who needs someone to blame 'cause he was laid off.
And just in case you didn’t know, immigration is getting “tightened up”.
No woman should feel pressured, by a Sharia mad community, into dropping DV complaints.
And you feel inclined to share this gem because…? Did you seriously think anyone here is going to support pressuring a victim into withdrawing a complaint?
Or, feeling like the best she can expect is to see her husband counseled by his fellow religious fanatics.
???
Or, automatically receiving much less inheritance than her brothers.
I oppose that as well. But if it’s a voluntary thing, I see absolutely no problem with it. In Islamic civil matters, the father and/or brother(s) are expected to provide for the woman (which is not as easy, what with the orgy of consumerism societies are plunged into).
And when she gets married, her husband can’t claim a dime of what she’s got. And should one of her kids die, she’s legally the first who can claim the inheritance.
If a woman thinks she’s better served by that system, who the heck are you to deny her that freedom?
Shut down the Sharia courts.
See, it’s crap like this that make you come off as yet-another-PRCalDude/Sifu.
Sharia courts in Britain, just like every other arbitration court system, have the British legislature backing them. And there is no way (NO WAY!) you can shut down sharia courts without repelling the arbitration act first.
Mind your verbiage, kid.[/quote]
I’m glad you brought up the Nazis. Here’s the Mufti of Jerusalem meeting with some of them.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
[…] As is usual for a liberal, he calls for the silencing of any speech he disagrees with.[/quote]
You’re so goofy sometimes.
[quote]We’ve provided ample rationale for our problems with Islam from Islamic texts themselves, and the history of Islamic jihad over the past 1.5 millenia.
I’ve mentioned Surah 9 numerous times on this thread and the various sword verses included in that Surah that provide the moral authority for Muslims to go out on various violent confrontations with nonbelievers, as we have already seen numerous times in the UK. You, like the ostrich, have chosen to ignore the danger.[/quote]
I think I’ve made my views wrt religions pretty clear - they are all wrong in my personal view. That includes Islam, Bahai, Shinto. Reading the bible (Mosaic laws, OT) got me pretty scared though back in the days - may have turned me away from this specific form of fantasy literature.
In order to prove what you ascert, you would have to find evidence that in the UK islamic religious motivated violence is significantly higher than from other religious groups - and you would have an argument.
So far you’re taking an old book, quote all negatives you can find in it, combine that with a simplified view of complex socio-political issues and voila: Islam is the devil.
True. That’s why I put ‘conservative’ in brackets.
And delightfully misquoted, and misinterpreted. Doesn’t change it - it’s in accordance with the UK’s arbitration laws, it seems to work for the Muslims as well as it works for the Jewish community. Who am I to interfere?
[quote]Your ignorance of shari’ah makes your defense of it all the more astounding. It calls for the amputation of arms and legs on opposite sides of the body, stoning of adulterers (Mohammed himself ordered the stoning of adulterers), death for homosexuality (an issue for which you seem to have an obvious hard-on, pun intended),
and various other sanctions and regulations for non-believers, as well as child marriage, and the testimony of women being 1/4 that of a man, preventing her from bringing a rape charge against a man. What part of shari’ah are you happy to see enforced?[/quote]
The above practices all are in contravention of British law - so none of them can be enforced. And if, the authorities can and do step in. You are constructing a scenario that isn’t there. Lack of facts doesn’t deter - that’s why this thread is a bit of a non-starter.
Makkun
PS: Oh, and nice gay putdown - puts me in my place.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Well, I doubt the demographic trends will change. What’s the projection for muslims to become the majority?
I’m not really sure if any statistician worth his/her salt will try to make such a shot-in-the-dark projection. Seeing how huge the differences in absolute terms is between Muslims and Christians in the UK.
And it is not ethnicity or some other inheritable trait we’re talking about here. It’s religion, a personal choice people make. In a society where 1/3 up to 44% of people claim no religious affiliation, it strikes me as odd that anyone entertains the idea that Muslims would ever become a majority in the UK. Particularly now that the EU is reaching a cruising speed.[/quote]
You are in top form today Habibi. Accurate statistics cannot be had for the UK because the labour government has not been forthcoming with data. A big part of the reason is they just threw the borders open and take in anyone who can make it Britain so they don’t really know who is in the country now.
Besides London which has a massive population of muslims there are towns in the north that have %90-95 muslim populations.
Religion is not much of a personal choice when someone is raised in it. Especially when the holy book says that anyone leaving the religion should be killed.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cool, you’re looking at rape and DV stats…
Which, of course, depends on these crimes actually being reported…
…Which is the problem with Sharia, and the intimidated women living under it.[/quote]
So, you assume that because women are part of an islamic community, they generally don’t report crimes against them - and hence there’s no statistical evidence.
And this lack of evidence then allows you to paint whatever picture suits your personal view. Cool system - can’t argue with it (literally), as it’s completely evidence and argument resistant; as based on beliefs rather than facts. I have nothing to say to that as that blocks any possibility for debate. Well played.
Makkun
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Here, Makkun, why don’t you actually try to understand Islamic law before opening your ass and farting out your own breathtakingly ignorant opinions:
http://www.amazon.com/Reliance-Traveller-Classic-Islamic-Al-Salik/dp/0915957728[/quote]
What does that prove - another book full atrocities based on fantasy? You really don’t read my posts: my argument is based on the fact that British law overules all that crap.
You may not want to recognise that - but so far you have not proven (or even attempted to) that these things are being practiced (or allowed) in Britain. Bring me facts that these atrocities you describe are being practised in Britain and that the state doesn’t intervene - and you would have an argument.
At the moment, you’re just resorting to gay and scatological jibes. Facts and arguments would be better.
Makkun
[quote]I think I’ve made my views wrt religions pretty clear - they are all wrong in my personal view. That includes Islam, Bahai, Shinto. Reading the bible (Mosaic laws, OT) got me pretty scared though back in the days - may have turned me away from this specific form of fantasy literature.
[/quote]
Fascinating. What does this have to do with anything?
[quote]
In order to prove what you ascert, you would have to find evidence that in the UK islamic religious motivated violence is significantly higher than from other religious groups - and you would have an argument.
So far you’re taking an old book, quote all negatives you can find in it, combine that with a simplified view of complex socio-political issues and voila: Islam is the devil.[/quote]
No, I’m talking about the specific commands towards warring against non-believers as understood by the Four Schools and Shi’a clerics.
All of them are unanimous on the topic of jihad. Just read the Islamic law manual I linked. No, no, no. You couldn’t bother to do that. You need NuLabour crime statistics to tell you what to think.
Aside from that, there is no public confidence in government crime statistics:
http://www.crimestoppers-uk.org/media-centre/crime-in-the-news/june-2008--crime-in-the-news/public-has-lost-faith-in-crime-statistics but I have yet to see that the government even keeps track of the category you mentioned.
But that must mean there isn’t a problem, right? Can you find a category along the lines of “religiously motivated crime” studied by the Home Office?
So the British government is going to monitor these courts despite the fact that they’ve been falling all over themselves to avoid offending Moslem sensibilities? You’re dreaming. The Muslims will keep pushing the envelope further and further, as they have been doing since they first arrived.
It’s bizarre to watch someone who’s obsessed with defending the homosexual agenda on one thread defend the Muslim agenda on another. Truly bizarre.
This must be what its like seeing a frog boiled alive in a beaker.
[quote]ninearms wrote:
I think you’ll find you’re wrong on that count. It’s the second most popular boy’s name, after Jack. That itself reveals nothing other than the fact that muslim parents tend to call boys Mohammed (or whatever of the 13 other variations of the name they pick), whereas non-muslims choose a much wider variety of names.
If you really want to talk numbers you could always mention the roughly 350,000 baby boys that weren’t called Mohammed in 2007…[/quote]
But it is a glimpse of a future where the most common name for British fathers will be mohammad.
Right now over %20 percent of newborn babies are born to immigrant mothers. There is a massive shift in the demographics of Britain underway.
Something which liberals are very defensive about and quick to play down because they know that a critical mass will be reached and passed before it becomes blatantly obvious that the tipping point has been reached.
[quote]makkun wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Here, Makkun, why don’t you actually try to understand Islamic law before opening your ass and farting out your own breathtakingly ignorant opinions:
What does that prove - another book full atrocities based on fantasy? You really don’t read my posts: my argument is based on the fact that British law overules all that crap.
Makkun[/quote]
It overrules it only when it is willing to overrule it. The British have no will to do so.
Here’s something about the unreliability of knife crime statistics in the UK, but let’s go ahead and trust whatever religiously-motivated crime statistics the UK government provides, if, in fact, they actually provide any:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1546085/The-vagaries-of-UK-knife-crime-statistics.html
[quote]makkun wrote:
OK - was I dreaming (or having a nightmare) earlier when I checked this thread during the day, and saw a massive BNP copy/paste job by Sifu from the BNP site - or has that been mod-erased as well? If so - well done.
Makkun[/quote]
The mods removed it. I guess they don’t like the idea of leaving the EU or staying out of the Euro.
[quote]red bull wrote:
But you’re here to quibble about a term used on an American internet forum that most of us here thought was nothing more than a contraction of the term “Pakistani.”…
Quibbling? Is that what you call it - over a racial slur? Man you are such a dick.
I have an idea. ‘Spic’ is short for Hispanic. And ‘chink’ is a contraction of Chinese, well kind of…why don’t we start using those words too and then pretend we had no idea they were offensive.
No idea? Yeah right. You take the piss out of American bodybuilders…
[/quote]
My mother is part Spanish and I have relatives who are Chinese. So thank you for your input.