People used to think Hitler was no threat to the world..Complacency is very very dangerous.......When considering numbers what people quite simply ignor are the number of illegals in the country that will swell the supposed minority into something far more dangerous in the medium long term......

You mention violence would happen.It has happened has it not and will as time goes on become more and more a serous possibility.........The clash of cultures that are poles apart can only end in civil war sooner or later.......

I spotted today's Godwin's and claim my prize!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Are illegals allowed to vote? I would have thought the answer would be no!

Yes On Hitler
if they knew his vision
he would have been killed
by a spy.

Well they admire a Paedophile so no.

Marriage and consummation of marriage at an early age was a common practice in bedouin society in those days. bearing mind in mind it was 620 AD. The followers of Islam will claim that the consummation of the marriage was not carried out by actual intercourse but a form of foreplay.

If you want to shout about underage marriage go check out our own Good King Richard (II) and his marriage to Isabelle of France , oldest daughter of King Charles VI, was not quite seven years old when she married Richard II as his second wife in 1396. After his death 3 years later she was then ordered by King Henry IV to marry his son (the future Henry V), she refused. That was some 770 years later.

They married when she was 6 and had sex at 9. Richard was just a king of England, Muhammed is the founder of the fastest growing religion.

http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content...4/15561547.jpg

New Labour funds them
on ch4 now

sorry i will NEVER be a muslim

Me neither me knees will flare up with all that bloody kneeling.

Yeah Just a King of England, Isabelle was daughter of King Charles VI, he was just the king of France. So thats two of the most powerful leaders in the known world at the time. In those days marriages between royalty would have been sanctioned by the church.

So thats basically christianity agreeing with Richard marrying a child too. 750+ years after old Mohammed, religious leader of initially a few bedouin tribes followed a common practice among his people. And married a young girl in order to confirm she was a virgin and as such pure and worthy of bearing his line.

Social customs and beliefs change through time, wasnt so long ago slavery was ok and small children worked in factories.

Might have been ok then, but why should we accept them and what they got upto now?

Then there is no need to insult their prophet and their religion (if you want to class it as that), for customs and beliefs that have changed, I am not saying you should respect it, just dont denigrate it out of context. There are more than enough things you can rip into a lot of mainstream muslim belief for.

We have to accept them because if we dont they will call us racist and Gordon and Company will stick up for them.

Well their prophet and religion should be insulted. But women still get treated badly even in the UK and people don't say anything cos of 'respect'. And it's not insulting it's just the truth.

Will give you that one, no arguement on their treatment of women. I did say there were a lot of other things people can rip into them for.

Yeah man, did you see that doc on Sharia courts in the UK? Not good.

Yeah but as soon as you start saying no they cant do that, they pull out the race/religion card.

Sharia Law can work in house as it were, where its principles are used to solve purely muslim problems in business or religious matters for example, it should not be used for any of the Hadd offenses(where the punishment is amputations stonings etc).

It clashes with modern western law in many ways particularly that it favours men in disputes, in divorce etc. However Sharia rulings have no legal basis in UK law and if a person felt they werent being treated equally then they can apply for resolution in the UK courts.

It does not nor should ever be allowed to over rule the law of the land, of whichever country it is allowed to be practiced. For example it allows polygamy, who wants that? Just think of all the extra mother in laws.

In countries that do go by Sharia Law you very rarely hear of men being stoned to death for adultery, at least not as often as you hear of women undergoing that barbaric punishment. Now I know that is the punishment for married people and the punishemnt for singles is 100 lashes. Could it be that ALL Muslim men are most honorable and honest and would NEVER EVER do anything like that, it practically says so in the Qu'ran, at least it implies that. That is why it is necessary to beat a wayward wife sometimes. After all, if it weren't for women's existence, men wouldn't desire them in the first place.

And anyone who hides behind it in the UK having commited a Hadd punishment or even being involved in such a trial should be punished to the fullest extent of the law as having complicity in any offences.

If they want to live in a country that is under total Sharia Law, then perhaps they should start phoning BA or similar and finding flight details.

Yeah man, but alot are citizens of the UK. It's easy to say 'let the muslims get on with it' But the wife never has a choice of which court it goes too. And they are too scared to do anything cos of the backlash they'd get from both families. Some muslim women have it tough over here, cos if they don't comply they'd just get sent to pakistan or wherever and basically married off. I mean, they have progressed but it still goes on. Our goverment should not allow though courts to exist and you know it.

Admitted the wife may be ostracised by her family and the muslim community at large, however that is her decision, she can expect to be treated as equal in any civil UK court.

Of course it still goes on, forced or arranged marriage and for some it always will, however they at least do have the option to opt out now, which is more than they would have if resident in some other countries.

The family either collectively or its head took a decision to reside in the UK, that means complying with its laws and customs as well as receiving asylum/residency, when seeking rights they also receive responsibilities. One of these responsibilities is to comply with the UK laws of the land. Included in those laws are those covering sexual equality.

It may sound harsh but some would consider it a case of tough love.

Unfortunately you cant say all Sharia matters should be dealt with in a UK court as a precedent has already been set in UK by the acceptance of the Beth Din, the Jewish religious courts over the last few hundred years.

Yeah, I just remembered about the Jewish courts. And yeah, it's just sad to see we open courts purely based on religious laws, no matter what religion

The thing about Sharia is its difference in standards through the Muslim religion, women are only required to dress modestly, they dont have to be burka covered, its all down to local traditional interpretation.

Similarly if its applied properly ALL people are equal, there should be no disdain of women or non muslims, (dare i say it Infidels), pmsl. In theory if you are a muslim you stay a muslim if you leave the faith, you are guilty od apostacy and can be executed.

What really gets me though is why half of the disenchanted listen to the mullahs and Imans in the UK. They claim benefits etc and as such its a very grey area, if you are in need there is nothing wrong with accepting charity, however one of the pillars of the Islam faith is that God has made it obligatory to support oneself and those one is responsible for. So how can Hookie and his ilk claim all those benefits and then have the gall to teach their version of the faith. And why do those taken in by him and his like actually listen to them in the first place.

That is what it is man. And why they always play the race card. It's pretty sickening to see women wearing burkas over here. It has nothing to do with Islam lol But yeah, if we even talk about this stuff we get called racist and that. People go on about all the Abrahamic being bad, which they are but Islam is by far the worst. They have shown that through violence, and to their own people as well!!

Yep thats true. However Islam like Judaism and Christianity is also a son of Abraham. Shame they all cant find the common ground instead of the differences. World would be a far better place.

Would be better if none existed at all.

Wouldnt like to make a comment either way on that, one thing is for certain, without it the world would be a totally different place.

It's sad today though religion is still able to control alot of weak minded people

Thats one way of looking at it, however a lot of religious people would take umbrage at that. Nothing wrong with a belief in the meaning of life. So long as you dont follow blindly.

But isn't it weird that some are good only cos of the fear of God? And then they say Atheists have no morals?

A valid point in some cases however, in a lot of religions, you dont need to fear god, you transgress(sin), you ask for forgiveness, you attone, you are as good as new.

It could be said Atheists are only good because of the fear of the law of the land.

Yeah I guess so. But like we always see extreme examples of religious people abusing their powers such as Jonestown and The Branch Davidians. Sort of covers up what actually goes on.

There are fundis and nutters in all walks of life. Sects do attract the gullible, the weak and the easily led.

Yep, but some attract loads.

Wasnt it an atheist led the Jonestown lot?

And the Waco seige, lots of outside observers have stated the overuse of force by the FBI and ATF etc. I recall Bill Hicks and some of his entourage claiming witness to it.

Nah it was Jim Jones the preacher. Yeah, the FBI ****ed up with the Waco thing. Was really no need for it at all.

Yeah but didnt Jones state a few times he was an atheist and a socialist, after the press got on his case. He was more interested in a communist(as in socialist as opposed to communal) paradise than a religious one.

Well we know he was not religious. He liked the power. But in the end, it was not even him killed them all, it was his own followers that gave the drink to the babies. Pretty crazy eh, such control of those people.

Did it not have something to do with the murder of a senator or congressman and some of his followers who wanted to go back home to the US?

Well they did that TV report over there. And it was all peacful until they all tried to leave and they all got shot at on the runway.

Must admit whenever i have been unarmed or outgunned, I have tended to so what the other people with guns have said.

When have you come across a situation with guns?

Worked with and without them many times in the forces and since in a security role.