Another terrorist attack

[Kreeshsheesh]

Priest has been murdered. Apparently IS had threatened to target churches in France.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36892785

formal good post and as a lasped catholic and someone whose mother thought she was devout with a large catholic family in no way do I feel personally defensive by what you have just written. I do not feel your attacking Catholics or Catholicism. You are talking about a cancer and a crisis within it.

Perhaps I feel like this is partly due to the fact we can talk about it, without that being mis interpreted as a heinous personal attack? We can and do make fun of our religions....we make all sorts of films about them, ridicule them, draw silly things and as you say Formal, some people may pen some letters and object but nothing more.

I may feel however incredibly defensive if that was how I was taught to react.

As for the law, this is why I think the imam I have mentioned is an interesting case.

We know that past hate preachers have inspired KILLERS.

Whilst I can understand the need in the Muslim community to separate isis and other groups from Islam, I cannot understand the reluctance to openly debate when it is mainly Muslim teenagers/ young men being radicalised. The French lad was 19, son of a teacher and so warped he took part in an horrific act. I would be screaming from the rooftops if sick bastards tried to radicalise my children and if it meant ripping apart my religion then so be it.

Re sharia law, I don't have an issue as long as it stays within the law and people can chose to stay up of it (both men and women)

That's interesting, so can I ask how you feel about amputation for theft, lashing for adultery and death for apostasy, all of which - admittedly with caveats - are mandated in sharia?

I'm aware, by the way, of various assurances that in the UK it's only ever intended to be applied to such things as family disputes, marriage, property rights, etc., but my point is this: if once widely alllowed with precedents set, how can we be sure that it would stay restricted to the less unacceptable bits?

Formal the thing to remeber is that all that questioning from the Catholic Church wouldn't have happened 50 years ago. I'm not even sure it would have happened 15~20 years ago.
Because at the time the Catholic Church was still seen as 'above all these things' and as a body 'that couldn't be put into question'.

So maybe the next question to ask is why did that situation change? What did we do and what can we learn from that to see a similar change in other religions?

puzzled did you read the rest of my post?

I DID say that I was OK AS LONG AS whatever was done was WITHIN the law, which clearly amputation isn't

I'm aware, by the way, of various assurances that in the UK it's only ever intended to be applied to such things as family disputes, marriage, property rights, etc., but my point is this: if once widely alllowed with precedents set, how can we be sure that it would stay restricted to the less unacceptable bits?

Because it's about the freedom to apply sharia law within the space that's left by English law. So English law gives a lot of freedom on some things such as to how you organise e.g. your will or the arrangements for your children or property on divorce. Individuals are free to make those arrangements on whatever basis that they want within the limits of the law. So if I want to organise my will by drawing names out of a hat and my neighbour wants to do it according to sharia law then we are both free to do that (subject to claims under the Inheritance Act) under English law.

Clearly English law does not leave space to lash people for adultery or amputate for theft so there is no room for sharia law to operate.

Re sharia law, I don't have an issue as long as it stays within the law and people can chose to stay up of it (both men and women)

The problem being that such 'courts' are not really a choice in some communities. And the judgements tend to be biased against certain groups (women.) So not a free choice, compulsion and biased judgements. Not good.

Yes that's an important issue Fomalhaut and also that if people only marry according to religious law then there is nothing that the ordinary courts can do in relation to granting divorce or redistributing property. That can mean that the sharia council is the only place to go.

Of course I read it Mammouth, and I certainly wasn't implying that you would agree with the less palatable aspects - my point, as I said, was the precedent involved in allowing sharia to operate in the UK at all

Gini is correct that, within the framework of UK law, some aspects of sharia may be permissible. However I worry about the message which acceptance sends out, and whether it can be more widely interpreted as "Don't like our laws? Fine - then feel free to adopt an alternative one"

This is what Nahla Mahmoud (2013; www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2013/02/here-is-why-sharia-law-has-no-place-in-britain-or-elsewhere) says:

"...but here in Britain there are now 85 Sharia councils implementing Sharia law on the streets of London, Birmingham, Bradford and elsewhere. It is important for me to clarify what I mean by Sharia. To be precise, I am discussing the laws and legislation which are already in practice in the UK and abroad, not theoretical or utopian ideas that only exist in the minds of those who defend and are usually in favour of Sharia [...] I strongly oppose Sharia law as well as any other religious based laws because I deeply believe in secular, humanist values which put each human being on an equal basis with every other individual. International human rights are a testament to that principle and stand directly opposed to the discriminatory practices enshrined in and justified by Sharia law".

She ends her article with, "We must each strongly and unequivocally demand one equal law for everyone – both in the UK and abroad".

Personally, I can't believe that we are at the point of having to demand one law for all in modern Britain.

To step away from the Islam/Muslim blaming, is it not true that the terrorism is being done in the name of Allah? For this is what they shout. And, are Imams not the servants (sorry don't know the proper terminology) on earth of Allah? So, should they not raise up, as a one, globally, and say 'not in our name'? I understand ordinary people may fear reprisals but surely not religious leaders? If their religion is being defiled, why are they silent?

'Whilst I can understand the need in the Muslim community to separate isis and other groups from Islam, I cannot understand the reluctance to openly debate when it is mainly Muslim teenagers/ young men being radicalised. The French lad was 19, son of a teacher and so warped he took part in an horrific act. I would be screaming from the rooftops if sick bastards tried to radicalise my children and if it meant ripping apart my religion then so be it.'

Bluebolt Nail on the head there! This is something I can't get my head around either.

I can't believe that we are at the point of having to demand one law for all in modern Britain

Quite

The problem being that such 'courts' are not really a choice in some communities. And the judgements tend to be biased against certain groups (women.) So not a free choice, compulsion and biased judgements. Not good

please don't forget we have women being bought (sp) over from Pakistan etc who do not speak English, they come from a country with very different legal system and have no idea about UK law. They are then subjected to sharia courts. They have no voice, no power and no language.

So, should they not raise up, as a one, globally, and say 'not in our name'? I understand ordinary people may fear reprisals but surely not religious leaders?

Interesting point.

I completely understand that ordinary peaceful Muslims want to distance themselves from these terrorist groups. However it is completely naive to say that there is no connection to the religion when the ideology of these groups is based on Islam. The association is there every time they commit one of these awful acts and shout Islamic phrases.

Why is unacceptable to question and discuss the darker elements of Islam and it's preachers that help to promote hate and intolerance? Why are people called bigots for daring to doing so when it's perfectly acceptable to discuss other religions without being labelled as such?

well...there is tumble weed over the Imam I have mentioned isnt there.

I was hoping someone in the know, in the loop would give some info....Zilch.

It's very unsettling isn't it madmen that you simply cannot get any reasoned responses to those types of questions. It says it all for me.

Unfortunately, madmen, it was only to be expected

The argument ISIS and other groups are not Muslim or real Muslims has got us nowhere but more Muslims are joining these groups so something in the ideology that is attracting some Muslims

Surely understanding why so many are pulled to this ideology is a better way of trying to move forward

I noticed that allthemadmen.

The religion discourages independent thought and requires followers to do as bid. The rule book is followed literally. If you are unable to think for yourself, how do you know which parts to ignore and which to obey?

My own theory was that second generation immigrants struggle between following the religion of their parents while being brought up in a western society. If they feel restricted by their parents culture and then restricted by ecomonic or social factors, then its segregation and segregation again. Most humans want to beling to a group so they are drawn to other disaffected persons. But my theory falls down after this because why do they then go back to the very rules that made them feel restricted? And why the wish to kill? And why are there terrorists in the middle eastern countries, without the schism of westernisation?

With other religions we are able to question, discuss and disagree with and even mock many of the beliefs and teaching of that faith. We can even do this in faith schools, in church and with religious leaders without fear of causing huge offence or being called blasphemous. I don't know of any priest, vicar or rabbi that has issued anything similar to a fatwa against a writer or similar person that has offended their religion.

The problem is that it can't stand up to scrutiny though; I think it's very concerning that adherents cannot or will not answer simple questions about their belief system.

I don't know of any priest, vicar or rabbi that has issued anything similar to a fatwa against a writer or similar person that has offended their religion.

No I cant think of one either.

Its frightening.