When Islam is the majority religious group in the UK...

Do you agree, to serve the majority religious group that they are allowed to have Islamic teachings inscribed into law?

Surely a sensible person would say yes as this is only fair

If the majority of people in Britain decided that anyone who self-identifies as a Nickelback fan should be summarily executed, should it be passed into law? Or if the majority of people agreed that every single person should have twice as much holiday leave as they currently do?

Just because a majority of people hold an opinion, it doesn't make that opinion right and it certainly doesn't give the right to enforce that opinion on those who disagree.

Reply 41

Anonymous #2

Original post by Arsenal96123

Islamophobia at its best, reported

Do you really think that you can spout whatever crap you like without people responding to you with their OWN opinions? You can't report people for using their right to free speech - I know Islam isn't very much into the whole free speech concept but guess what, the UK is. DEAL with it.

Here's the issue with people like you. You are either a troll, a muslim who very much wants Islam to take over western countries or a radical left wing nutjob who has forgotten that the freedoms he has is a result of the western, liberal country he lives in. Something that wouldn't exist were this a 'Muslim run' country.

There are Muslim countries in the world. Countries ruled by Sharia law, which is what you're suggesting be written into the UK law. Those countries often treat women terribly, they are behind economically, they are still using punishments that belong 2000 years ago and frankly, no westernised person would ever want to live there. Who would want that way of life here? WHY do YOU want that here? In fact, if you do so want that, why don't you move to a Muslim country with Sharia law?? Why not accept that this country is the way it is, integrate into a western way of life and ENJOY the perks that come with living in the 21st century?

Islamaphobia is a generic word. It doesn't really mean anything. The bottom line is, if you pick a problem in Islam and Muslim culture, people like you bring out the word 'Islamaphobe'. But all it really means is you can't handle a different opinion, or a conflicting idea, or an intelligent point of view. All it means is that you want to eradicate the right to speak freely, honestly, and critically. That is your problem, nobody else's.

Also. You say ''the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few''. Dude. Muslims are a MINORITY. THEY ARE the few. Non-muslims are the majority - the many.

And here's what I say to the majority of other people who I have seen post on this thread. Thankyou. Seriously. I see absolutely deluded anti-west crap spouted every day on various social media and news sites but to read what so many others have said has uplifted me. There are loads of people like us, who are fighting for our right to free speech, our way of life, our freedoms and fighting against oppression. Keep speaking out against people like OP, don't let them win. He's deluded, and he's got an agenda.

Let's go forwards, not backwards. Progression, not regression. Ultimately, the goal (in my point of view) is for western countries to not be religious on a wide scale. But until that point comes, we certainly don't need to go back a few thousand years and start cutting people's hands off and stoning women for cheating.

You gonna report this too? YOU should be reported. Anybody like you who seeks to oppress free speech, freedom and spread your hateful, diseased agenda.

Reply 42

emilyjc17

13

Original post by Daniel9998

A lil bit too far

Nope. It isn't.

Reply 43

emilyjc17

13

Original post by Arsenal96123

He has a reputation for being a fascist and racist so don't be surprised. Some of us are just more tolerant

Are you serious? You're the most fascist one here. You're fascist against anyone who doesn't have a plan of world-islamic-domination and every time someone says something that conflicts with your backward ideas you threaten to report them. You are intolerant. You are fascist. You are ignorant. Everything you say is so self-contradictory it is a joke.

Reply 44

Daniel9998

15

Original post by emilyjc17

Nope. It isn't.

ok? different people have different opinions

Reply 45

Daniel9998

15

Original post by emilyjc17

Are you serious? You're the most fascist one here. You're fascist against anyone who doesn't have a plan of world-islamic-domination and every time someone says something that conflicts with your backward ideas you threaten to report them. You are intolerant. You are fascist. You are ignorant. Everything you say is so self-contradictory it is a joke.

I agree with this though

Reply 46

emilyjc17

13

Original post by Daniel9998

ok? different people have different opinions

Will you please inform OP of that fact?

Reply 47

A$aprocky

2

Original post by Arsenal96123

Thats your opinion, but if it does you agree that Islamic values should become law?

No. islamic values are bs. They're just wrong.

Take the fact that your holy prophet mohammed shagged a 9 year old, should that be legal?

We cant accept paedophiles like mohammed in society

Reply 48

Daniel9998

15

Original post by emilyjc17

Will you please inform OP of that fact?

Nah no point, I dont think he has the mental capability to understand

Reply 49

Anonymous #3

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/un-dozens-of-rohingya-muslims-massacred-by-buddhists-in-rakhine-burma/
have a nice read.

Reply 50

mariachi

18

Original post by Anonymous

There are Muslim countries in the world. Countries ruled by Sharia law, which is what you're suggesting be written into the UK law. Those countries often treat women terribly, they are behind economically, they are still using punishments that belong 2000 years ago and frankly, no westernised person would ever want to live there. Who would want that way of life here? WHY do YOU want that here?

good questions. No person in his right mind, and IMHO not even most UK Muslims, would want to live in such a State. Of course, some Muslims will say "those countries are not implementing true shariah"...

However, we were discussing a slightly different issue : in a democracy, can the majority do what it wants, or is there a limit where the "oppressed" minority has the right to rebel ? where exactly is that limit ?

Original post by Anonymous

Islamaphobia is a generic word. It doesn't really mean anything. The bottom line is, if you pick a problem in Islam and Muslim culture, people like you bring out the word 'Islamaphobe'. But all it really means is you can't handle a different opinion, or a conflicting idea, or an intelligent point of view. All it means is that you want to eradicate the right to speak freely, honestly, and critically. That is your problem, nobody else's.

true

what I find interesting is that, when in a difficult position, Islamists accuse opponents not only of being "Islamophobes", but also "fascists" and "racists". In my view, they do that in order to try and obtain some solidarity from the political left : and, unfortunately, they quite often succeed

I always located myself on the left of the political spectrum, so I wonder how long this kind of nonsense can continue, before the true "fascists" are identified

best

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 51

SMEGGGY

21

Original post by Arsenal96123

Do you agree, to serve the majority religious group that they are allowed to have Islamic teachings inscribed into law?

Surely a sensible person would say yes as this is only fair

Law of this country? Don't be so absurd. No other law than the law of the country for ALL

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 52

Anonymous #3

Allot of the things being said in this thread is beyond stupid. The ignorance is so overwhelming, i never though people could spew so much crap at once. If you're going to share your opinions and 'debate' have some common sense and research your facts.The very fact that you use generalized arguments that have no ground such as 'Islam has backward ideologies' ect just shows that your narrow mind has been corrupted by the media that only feeds negative things about Islam. Let me ask you a questions if you really thought that ALL THE 1.3 billion Muslims in the world are really as atrocious as you make them look that the world would be the same? Think before you speak people.THINK.

Reply 53

Sciatic

11

So what did the Buddhists do to the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka? They absolutely decimated them through violence. They were the first to totally destroyed a terrorist group without giving any chance of the group to clone itself, and that too a group that introduced the ideology of suicide bombing to the terrorist world. That they did because they accepted #violence as part of the solution.

Many were the Kings of Sri Lanka who were the custodians of Theravada Buddhism and they did command armies to defend the state religion. You cannot assume that a person who supports violence as a means to peace as being anti-Buddha, because Buddhism itself was protected by the sword. But you can call a person anti-Buddha if he or she disrespects other religions and people because the enlightened one did not allow it.

Reply 54

Sciatic

11

Original post by Arsenal96123

Do you agree, to serve the majority religious group that they are allowed to have Islamic teachings inscribed into law?

Surely a sensible person would say yes as this is only fair

This is what I think is the crucial problem that lies in the very foundation of a democratic state that also claims to be for a certain race/culture etc. We can take the example of Britain and what it means to be British or England and what it means to be English. This extends it to what makes a nation state - should we go by geographical borders or couple that with allegiances to a monarch or to a head of state of a republic or should we go by race/culture. Is England only for the English, like France is for the French, and Spain for the Spanish, and Israel for the Jewish. This is the European model of the nation state and clearly this is incompatible with democracy and Democratic principles. This is why it is absolutely important for the UK to protects its monarchy, and for the other European states to do likewise because what makes a person English or British is nothing, nothing, nothing but a oath of allegiance to obey the rule of the land and the monarch. If democracy is the rule of the land then the principles of the majority would be the established principles. If immigration is allowed and if birthrates of the minority is higher than the majority then yes there will come a time when being British would be not like being British of today. This is what lies in the core of the fear of the far-right and the Islamaphobes. Democracy would lead to the utter destruction of the nation-state identity, or rather subject it to constant change. The far right knows that democracy is gonna bust their identity and culture. Democracy if not checked and controlled would utterly destroy the concept of European nation States because the people who introduce these concepts will realise that they themselves are now slowly but surely being minorilise.

In recent tweets the outspoken security chief of Dubai suggested that a one-state solution is the best for the Palestinians. The Palestinians should form a coalition with the Jewish state and benefit from their technological advances and what not. They should give up their land to the Jewish state. But the catch is this - give or take 75 or 100 years and the Arabs would become the majority of the Jewish state and you know what happens in a democracy. I find this to be a fascinating idea - an idea that would totally destroyed the Zionist project, but at the same time the Zionists are not fools are they.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 55

Reformed

14

Original post by Sciatic

This is what I think is the crucial problem that lies in the very foundation of a democratic state that also claims to be for a certain race/culture etc. We can take the example of Britain and what it means to be British or England and what it means to be English. This extends it to what makes a nation state - should we go by geographical borders or couple that with allegiances to a monarch or to a head of state of a republic or should we go by race/culture. Is England only for the English, like France is for the French, and Spain for the Spanish, and Israel for the Jewish. This is the European model of the nation state and clearly this is incompatible with democracy and Democratic principles. This is why it is absolutely important for the UK to protects its monarchy, and for the other European states to do likewise because what makes a person English or British is nothing, nothing, nothing but a oath of allegiance to obey the rule of the land and the monarch. If democracy is the rule of the land then the principles of the majority would be the established principles. If immigration is allowed and if birthrates of the minority is higher than the majority then yes there will come a time when being British would be not like being British of today. This is what lies in the core of the fear of the far-right and the Islamaphobes. Democracy would lead to the utter destruction of the nation-state identity, or rather subject it to constant change. The far right knows that democracy is gonna bust their identity and culture. Democracy if not checked and controlled would utterly destroy the concept of European nation States because the people who introduce these concepts will realise that they themselves are now slowly but surely being minorilise.

In recent tweets the outspoken security chief of Dubai suggested that a one-state solution is the best for the Palestinians. The Palestinians should form a coalition with the Jewish state and benefit from their technological advances and what not. They should give up their land to the Jewish state. But the catch is this - give or take 75 or 100 years and the Arabs would become the majority of the Jewish state and you know what happens in a democracy. I find this to be a fascinating idea - an idea that would totally destroyed the Zionist project, but at the same time the Zionists are not fools are they.