Metal Reviews

Oh for god's sake.

No, it is not true. No, British courts do not recognise Sharia law. The only people that think the "Muslims are taking over" are:

a) Christian nutters who think they have a right to determine what religion Britain has to define itself as.

b) Liberal atheist nutters who think building a mosque counts as "cultural appeasement".

c) Bedroom-dwelling black metal listeners who have been aurally ingesting slightly too much Nokturnal Mortum.

d) Americans who have been watching too much Glenn Beck.

All of whom I have no time for.

Steve; please take what these people say with a bucket of salt.

I'll tell you what IS true though. Any individual incidents of tensions betwen immigrant Muslims and white people, are leapt upon and exploited in the press in a way that would NEVER be accepted in the case of other religious groups.

The British legal system makes accomodations for Talmudic law? It does, but this is not a problem for the media.
The British legal system makes accomodations for Christian law? Well duh.
Someone with very little power suggests that the British legal system might make allowances for Sharia practices in financial affairs? ITS APPEASEMENT GET THE MUSLIMS OUT.

What rio said.

KILL YOUR GODS MOTHERFUCKERS.

Muslims are allowed to have their own courts under Sharia law though, no? I'm sure I read a report on that. Anyway, my opinion is that legal systems should not cater to any sort of religious ideology, Muslim, Jew or whatever.
The problem is with the expansionist values that lie at the core of the Muslim ideology. Taking what the Koran, the Hadith, and the religious leaders in Islam are actually saying at face value would make any sort of mosque seem like appeasement and capitulation.
And what about the fuckwit calling Muslim suicide bombers "anti-muslim terrorists"? Same person who stopped Geert Wilders from entering, no?

They don't have their own courts. Islamic arbitration committees have started emerging under existing arbitration law. No law has been changed to allow them. It seems to me that it is far more likely that the law, if it does change, would be to legislate to bring them under control, not to give them more freedom. (Particularly on an issue such as marriage which is sensitive).

They handle mediation in financial and divorce cases largely; no stonings or hand severings here, I'm sorry to disappoint any rubberneckers. They certainly don't have the capacity to overule existing British law, and I can't imagine that they ever will.

As I said, we already have allowances for Jewish customs. You don't think any religious groups should have these facilities; fair enough. But the way in which Muslim practices are singled out as a subject for hysteria and hatred is, IMO, more of a problem than the fact that these things exist. Again, bear in mind "Shariah" could mean executing a woman for getting raped, but in this case what it generally means is financial dealings such as the receipt of interest etc.




Nonsense, how many Muslims do you meet in day to day life that try to convert you, or try to subsume you into their culture?

Look, as a white European, what would you think if you met a Muslim, or an Asian, or an African who was suspicious of you because of the "expansionist values" that your civilisation has "at its core"? (And I'm sure you will agree that white Europeans have done far more expanding in the past 100 years than Muslims have). You'd think that was stupid, right?



I don't actually know what you're referring to here.

Agreed on the first bit, it is a bit exaggerated.

Btw, I meet a lot of Muslims (as well as Christians, Mormons, etc) who try and convince me of the infallibility and truth of their religion. Of course, this is because I go out of my way to find opposing religious opinions to mine, but still. I have many female friends who have been mistreated by Muslim guys as well, for example. It's just not an ideology that should be granted even the minimum level of appeasement. The feminists in my country, for example, actively campaign against the construction of minarets because it would be "a physical testament to a sexist ideology".

Oh, and that last bit was referring to your bitch of a home secretary, Jacqui Smith.[/quote]

Many feminists, alas, are ridiculous creatures these days.

I have nothing but sympathy and admiration for feminists and in fact would consider myself a "male feminist" if ɪ didnʼt think that sounded ridiculous. ʙut attacking the building of minarets is strategically bad and unconstructive.

Honestly, how does that help oppressed Muslim sisters? It's a totally regressive way of attempting to do so. They are trying to help them by hurling abuse at a central element of their identity? When they are already living in a xenophobic environment in which that element is mercilessly scrutinised and treated with suspicion? These feminists should be focusinɡ on the autonomy of the Muslim woman, not makinɡ futile biɡotted ɡestures aɡainst ɪslam itself.

Agreed completely.

I am a card-carrying male feminist. Feminism has fallen into the trap of all mainstream leftist politics. It focuses on the minuscule details of individuals lives rather than the broad sweeping oppression within our world's ideologies.

I consider myself a feminist as well.
As for the opposing of minarets, I'm sure they don't do only that, but when the issue comes up in politics, the feminists declare that to be their position.

Why be vocal about minarets? Speak out against make up and beauty standards in the West or challenge polygamy and abuse in the Middle East. Why advocate against Islam when patriarchy in the East goes so much more beyond that? Islam in its conception protected women, why not recognize that Arab culture has warped Islam's teaching.

Because a) it doesn't matter what it was originally, and b) I'm not really sure if Islam did in fact protect women initially. Minarets would increase the presence of the Muslim population here, something they don't want.

So it's really more xenophobia than feminism?

Totally unconstructive, and dependent on an unquestioning Islam=oppression stereotype.

Let's say a Muslim woman is in an religiously constricting environment; for example, maybe she is forced to wear a veil outside of the house against her will by her husband. What is the support she is offered by the feminist movement? "Sorry, but we don't want your sort in our country"?

By the way, I've linked to Mark Steel's (Trotskyist standup) articles in this thread before, but this is a good one about the way Muslims are portrayed in the UK media.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 62898.html



...

No, it's not xenophobia. I chose my words appropriately. No one cares how many muslims there are, but they don't want a strong muslim presence in society, because they don't want muslim values.

Nobody cares how many Muslims there are, but they don't want there to be a lot of Muslims?

The difference is between how big the muslim population is and how large its impact on society is.

I'm sorry, but the Muslims where I live (Manchester, where a little place called Oldham is) are very quiet and keep to themselves. I've said it once, I'll say it again, the racism me and mine have suffered has been from whites. Not once did a Muslim ever act hostile to me in my time in Manchester. Wait, there was one, but I trod on his toe in a queue, so that was my fault.

article on Portugal in The Economist:
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/d ... d=13578952

It does matter what it once was. When you're looking for what causes misogyny in the East, you have to realize Islam wasn't naturally anti-female. Arab culture perverted it and even if you eliminate Islam, the culture will remain misogynistic. Muhammad practiced polygamy to prevent these women from being forced to live on the streets; Arab families used to leave female babies in the desert since they were considered worthless (ie:dowries and what not.).