And the resident muslims can paint their picture of Islam here.

What a good idea Sprint. Let's see what Britain's Time Out Magazine had to say about this issue.


Quote:

http://www.timeout.com/london/features/2993.html Is London's future Islamic? Posted: Tue Jun 5 2007 It’s the capital’s fastest growing religion, based on noble traditions and compassionate principles, yet Islam can still be tainted by mistrust and misunderstanding. Here Time Out argues that an Islamic London would be a better place The noise from the expectant crowd hushed to a murmur as an open-backed lorry that had driven slowly up the Mall – known since the Islamic revolution of 2021 as The Way of the Martyrs – nudged its way through the thousands gathered in Mohammad Sidique Khan Square. On the lorry, two masked guards held a young man, black hood over his head; a quiver running through the material suggested he knew what was coming. The lorry halted by the plinth that had once held Marc Quinn’s sculpture ‘Alison Lapper Pregnant’ – long since removed as an insult to decency – and was now the place of public execution. A rope noose attached to a wire cable hung from a mechanised hoist. The main doors of what had been the National Gallery flung open and an Imam walked down the steps of the new Institute of Islamic Jurisprudence, opened only a week before by Sultan Charles, Prince of Islam and protector of the faithful in England. The official executioner placed a stepladder against the plinth. The lorry pulled up and the young man was pushed out, then forced up the ladder. The noose was forced over the condemned man’s head. The crowd chanted ‘Allahu akbar’ (God is greater than everything).The hoist driver put his finger on a green button … Okay, not really – that’s a hysterical, right-wing nightmare of a future Muslim London: where an cruel alien creed is forced on a liberal city. A society where women are second-class citizens, same sex relationships a crime and Sharia law enforces terrible public disfigurement and death. But the reality is a long, long way from this dark vision. For a start, Islam is not an alien religion to London. At the end of World War I the city sat at the heart of an Empire that had 160 million Muslim subjects, 80 million in India alone. London was the largest Islamic capital in the world. Forty years later and the end of the Empire, unrest and war and poverty in south Asia had lead to mass immigration to the mother country and London became a Muslim capital in another sense. According to the 2001 census there are 607,083 Muslims living in London (310,477 men and 296,606 women). The majority of Muslims live in the east of the city and, by 2012, the Muslim Council of Britain estimates that the Muslim population of Tower Hamlets, Newham, Waltham Forest and Hackney will be 250,000. There are plans afoot (though no formal application has yet been submitted) to build the UKs biggest mosque – capable of welcoming 40,000 worshippers – near the 2012 Olympic site, a move which has prompted predictable outrage from some quarters. Consequently, Muslim disillionment with a reactionary and often ill-informed press is at an all time high. But rather than fear the inevitable changes this will bring to London, or buy in to a racist representation of all Muslims as terrorists, we should recognise both what Islam has given this city already, and the advantages it would bring across a wide range of areas in the future. Public health On the surface, Islamic health doesn’t look good: the 2001 census showed that 24 per cent of Muslim women and 21 per cent of Muslim men suffered long-term illness and disability. But these are factors of social conditions rather than religion. In fact, Islam offers Londoners potential health benefits: the Muslim act of prayer is designed to keep worshippers fit, their joints supple and, at five times a day, their stomachs trim. The regular washing of the feet and hands required before prayers promotes public hygiene and would reduce the transmission of superbugs in London’s hospitals. Alcohol is haram, or forbidden, to Muslims. As London is above the national average for alcohol-related deaths in males, with 17.6 per 100,000 people (Camden has 31.6 per 100,000 males), turning all the city’s pubs into juice bars would have a massive positive effect on public health. Forbid alcohol throughout the country, and you’d avoid many of the 22,000 alcohol-related deaths and the £7.3 billion national bill for alcohol-related crime and disorder each year. Ecology ‘The world is green and beautiful,’ said the prophet Muhammad, ‘and Allah has appointed you his guardian over it.’ The Islamic concept of halifa or trusteeship obliges Muslims to look after the natural world and Muhammad was one of the first ever environmentalists, advocating hima – areas where wildlife and forestry are protected. So we could expect more public parks under Islam, but halifa also applies to recycling: in 2006, 12,000 Muslims attended a series of sermons at the East London Mosque explaining the theological evidence for a link between behaving in an environmentally sustainable way and the Islamic faith.

Quote:

Continued... Education Presently, Muslim students perform less well than non-Muslim students. In inner London, 37 per cent of 16 to 24-year-old Muslims have no qualifications (the figure for the general population of the same age and location is 25 per cent). When it comes to university education the picture is equally gloomy: 16 to 24-year-old Muslims are half as likely to have degree level or above qualification than other inner London young people. Again, social factors rather than religion have led to this state of affairs. Young Muslims in London are often of south Asian origin and therefore more likely to live in households where English is not the first language, more likely to encounter racism (both intentional and unintentional) during their education, and more likely to suffer from poverty and bad housing conditions. But Tahir Alam, education spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain, claims Muslim children do better in their own faith schools than in the mainstream state sector: ‘Muslim schools have their own distinct ethos. They use the children’s faith and heritage as primary motivators to provide the backdrop for their education and behaviour. This ethos is consistent with the messages that children are getting at home, so it is a very coherent operation between the home and the school.’ If Islam became the dominant religion in London the same ethos could be applied to schooling across swathes of underprivileged and deprived areas of the city. This could have a revolutionary effect on educational achievement and, perhaps just as importantly, general levels of discipline and self-respect among London’s young people. While controversy rages over faith schools, there are 37 Muslim schools in London. As of 2004, only five were state schools, but there is growing pressure to bring more into the state sector which, according to Alam, will ‘help raise achievement for many sectors of the Muslim community. Many private Muslim schools are under-resourced and if they can be brought into the state sector this valuable experience can be extended to more children.’ Food Application of halal (Arabic for ‘permissable’) dietary laws across London would free us at a stroke from our addiction to junk food, and the general adoption of a south Asian diet rich in fruit juice, rice and vegetables with occasional mutton or chicken would have a drastic effect on obesity, hyperactivity, attention deficit disorders and associated public health problems. As curry is already Londoners’ and the nation’s favourite food (see our Brick Lane food feature), it would be a relatively easy process to encourage the adoption of such a diet. Not eating would be important as well. The annual fasting month of Ramadan instils self-discipline, courtesy and social cohesion. And Londoners would benefit philosophically and physically from even a short period when we weren’t constantly ramming food into our mouths. Inter-faith relations In an Islamic London, Christians and Jews – with their allegiance to the Bible and the Talmud – would be protected as ‘peoples of the book’. Hindus and Sikhs manage to live alongside a large Muslim population in India, so why not here? Although England has a long tradition of religious bigotry against, for instance, Roman Catholics, it is reasonable to assume that under the guiding hand of Islam a civilised accommodation could be made among faith groups in London. This welcoming stance already exists in the capital in the form of the City Circle (see Yahya Birt interview), which encourages inter-faith dialogue and open discussion. Arts Some of the finest art in London is already Islamic. The Jameel Gallery at the V&A houses ‘ceramics, textiles, carpets, metalwork, glass and woodwork, which date from the great days of the Islamic caliphate of the eighth and ninth century’ up until the turn of the last century. Or take a free daily tour of the Addis Gallery of Islamic art (at the British Museum). London-based Nasser David Khalili, an Iranian-born Jew, has amassed what is considered to be the world’s largest private collection of Islamic art. Islamic influences have also flourished in other areas of the arts, with novelists, comedians (Birmingham-born Shazia Mirza was an instant hit on the London circuit), and music (from rappers Mecca2Medina on, to the less in-your-face Yusuf Islam). Social justice Each Muslim is obliged to pay zakat, a welfare tax of 2.5 per cent of annual income, that is distributed to the poor and the needy. If the working population of London, 5.2 million, was predominantly Muslim this would produce approximately £3.2bn each year. More importantly, everyone would be obliged to consider those Londoners who haven’t shared their good fortune. London would become a little less cruel. Race relations Under Islam all ethnicities are equal. Once you have submitted to Allah you are a Muslim – it doesn’t matter what colour you are. End of story. Michael Hodges, Tue Jun 5

But Malik Shakur, how realistic is this vision? For example, in the UAE and in Saudi Arabia, there's terrible racism against SE Asian domestic workers, and yet they're majority Muslim countries. Clearly, adopting Islam is not the end of the story.

Blasko wrote on Jul 21^st, 2008 at 9:02pm:

But Malik Shakur, how realistic is this vision? For example, in the UAE and in Saudi Arabia, there's terrible racism against SE Asian domestic workers, and yet they're majority Muslim countries. Clearly, adopting Islam is not the end of the story.

Of course just being Muslim is not the end of the story, I agree. One can't be Muslim by only name they have to actually follow the religion, Islam forbids such racism and I agree completely that it occurs in huge numbers in the Mid East, but that is because of Arab tribalism and culturalism and not due to Islam.

Islam forbids such behaviour and the reason for it occuring in the Middle East is actually because of the lack of Islamic practice and instead the acceptance of pre Islamic tribalism.

Oh, also tell Blasko that islam does not exist anywhere .
it's just a fanciful dream set by some warlord that fanatics want to follow and seize everyone else into.

the vast majority of approximations of islam are countries that are very undesirable to live in, are sexist, oppressive, poor, have no freedom of speech or elections.

Quote:

ut Malik Shakur, how realistic is this vision? For example, in the UAE and in Saudi Arabia, there's terrible racism against SE Asian domestic workers,

This racism is a rather recent occurence.

It simply didn't exist prior to about 50-100 years ago.

When the British came in an setup those gulf states (which never existed previously) they brought backward bediouns out of the desert and overnight turned them into kings. And now they are some of the richest countries in the world (this is not a co-incidence) everywhere on the map you see tiny little nations in the gulf that are based around a single city, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar etc. you'll find large oil deposits. Strange that isn't it? The oil just happened to be under the places that the British created little nations in...

And with the sudden and immense wealth came a sense of superiority over others. They are just as racist against poor Egyptians who go there for work btw.

Anyway Islam strictly forbids racism, and if you take an objective look at Islam, not at post-Islamic practises in gulf states, you'll find this is indeed the case.  Those people engaged in that racism are obviously not practising Muslims.

Yes I know sprint you're going to complain that we blame everything on the West, but if you just read a little history, you might actually find there's something to it.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 21^st, 2008 at 10:31pm:

It simply didn't exist prior to about 50-100 years ago.

Christian and Muslim fundamentalists all seem to want to go back to the past. That is a dream that cannot be fulfilled. JWH wanted to bring Oz back to 50s which cannot happen. The world has moved on. Christianity has moved on (look at how outdated the Catholic faith is). The ideal Muslim society (and the ideal western society - the other sister thread) is unachievable. We make do with what we have and try to improve little by little. Wholesale changes can never happen and will not work. Humans by nature do not like change. That is why change is always gradual.

It easy to say "I want world peace" but we know that world is a myth.

Quote:

Wholesale changes can never happen and will not work. Humans by nature do not like change. That is why change is always gradual.

History begs to differ.

Islam transformed humanity virtually overnight, it was no gradual process.

The Arabs went from being desert dwelling nomads who had very little morals and culture, to being the greatest civilisdation ever to walk on the earth in mere matter of years. Within a very short time they had reached the atlantic and proclaimed "If we knew there was land beyond you with people to take islam to, then we'd walk into you", and then onto the borders of France. and in the east to the borders of China.

Look at Jengeez Khan and his hordes, overnight, largest empire ever to exist.

There is gradual change and there is sudden change, both have existed all throughout our history, you may wish for change to be gradual from now on, so you can keep up with it, but that's not human nature...

back to the topic.

Abu and malik - you both continually, obsessivelyand rantingly go off topic.


malik - would you use your own words, not cut and pasting please.

you say islam will ban alcohol. currently muslims in london are the least educated and most disabled.
cleaning our feet and hands and praying will fix everyones ills ???
should not the muslims be a shining example then ?
It is already a western health nornm to clean hands.
doing anythign physical (not just praying ) will benefit everyone.

carry on ON TOPIC

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 8:50am:

back to the topic. Abu and malik - you both continually, obsessivelyand rantingly go off topic. malik - would you use your own words, not cut and pasting please. you say islam will ban alcohol. currently muslims in london are the least educated and most disabled. cleaning our feet and hands and praying will fix everyones ills ??? should not the muslims be a shining example then ? It is already a western health nornm to clean hands. doing anythign physical (not just praying ) will benefit everyone. carry on ON TOPIC

You brought this  thread off topic, you're asking for an Ideal Islamic Society and then after I gave you what it ideally would look like and you started ranting on about states in the Middle East when we've made it clear that there is currently no Islamic State. It just shows you create these threads in an attempt to incite hatred in Islam, now you're just having a cry about it because I put an article written by a non Muslim featured in a popular UK magazine.  

Sprint you denounce anything Muslims say about the issue as Muslim propaganda anyway.

So I put an article written by a non-Muslim in a popular British publication.

Yes the Islamic State would ban Muslims from consuming alcohol, I'm not sure about Christians and Jews though. That would probably be up to their rules, but certainly anyone caught drinking and driving or being drunk in public streets would be put into a prison cell for the night, and the drink drivers in particular would get the whipping they deserve.

Yes, prayer would make everyone fitter. Look at even the situation of people in Australia, we are now the fattest country. People here aren't getting any fitter and we don't put an emphasis on trying to fix the problem, this issue is going to cost us billions of dollars in the future in medical costs.

And in regards to people washing their hands and feet before prayer? Sadly most people don't even wash their hands after they go to the toilet because they believe that considering that they didn't actually pee on their hands they shouldn't have to. Which is rediculous. So people are more susceptable to getting ill because of such unclean practices. What's the harm in washing your hands and feet at least 5 times a day? Do you have a problem with cleanliness?

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 1:14am:

Quote: Wholesale changes can never happen and will not work. Humans by nature do not like change. That is why change is always gradual. History begs to differ. Islam transformed humanity virtually overnight, it was no gradual process. The Arabs went from being desert dwelling nomads who had very little morals and culture, to being the greatest civilisdation ever to walk on the earth in mere matter of years. Within a very short time they had reached the atlantic and proclaimed "If we knew there was land beyond you with people to take islam to, then we'd walk into you", and then onto the borders of France. and in the east to the borders of China. Look at Jengeez Khan and his hordes, overnight, largest empire ever to exist. There is gradual change and there is sudden change, both have existed all throughout our history, you may wish for change to be gradual from now on, so you can keep up with it, but that's not human nature...

Exactly - history. The old world was cruel, harsh and essentially lawless. Survival of the fittests applies to both men and beast. The modern world is a lot different. Human nature is not adapted to rapid change. Take Palestine - land was suddenly taken away from them to create Israel and they have been invaded and occupied. A sudden change they cannot accept and have been fighting against it ever since. Take the US, they have been attacked on their home soil and their psyche has been reeling ever since.

Wholesale expansion via conquest cannot happen in this modern age. The era of Augustus Caesar, Alexander the Great, Wiliam the Conquerer, Genghis Khan, Atilla the Hun, Charlemagne the Great, The Monguls, Napolean Bonaparte is over.

In today's modern world that does not - can not happen anymore. The US invaded Iraq and look what happened - the world was polarised with the majority rallying against the coalition. The US is still feeling the effects of worldwide condemnation - if not from govts then definitely from the world citizens.

If by mentioning Genghis Khan you wish your ideal Islamic world to rapidly evolve out of the ashes of war and invasion then you are dreaming.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 9:03am:

What's the harm in washing your hands and feet at least 5 times a day? Do you have a problem with cleanliness?

Paradise for those with obsessive compulsive disorder behaviour.

;)

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 9:03am:

Yes the Islamic State would ban Muslims from consuming alcohol, I'm not sure about Christians and Jews though. That would probably be up to their rules, but certainly anyone caught drinking and driving or being drunk in public streets would be put into a prison cell for the night, and the drink drivers in particular would get the whipping they deserve.

Are you saying being over a legal alcohol limit whilst driving or having any alcohol at all?



Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 9:03am:

Yes, prayer would make everyone fitter. Look at even the situation of people in Australia, we are now the fattest country. People here aren't getting any fitter and we don't put an emphasis on trying to fix the problem, this issue is going to cost us billions of dollars in the future in medical costs.

I've read somewhere (I can't remember where) that Oz is near the bottom of some world ranking of Western nations which rates the spirituality of their citizens - where the respondants do not rate their religion or beliefs having a large influence in their daily lives.

malik - So, either slcohol would be banned, or drink drivers whipped ?
Is that publically ?

Will everyone be forced to be muslims ?
If not, then the idea of obsessively washing feet and hands to stop diseases does not apply.
(Most people wear things called shoes nowadays anyway.)
people also have basins they can already wash their hands in, but not feet.

If we are not forced to be muslims, the supposed health benefits by kneeling and trying to stay awake will not apply.

Okay, not really – that’s a hysterical, right-wing nightmare of a future Muslim London

Actually, the kid would have been stoned to death, not strung up, right Mailk and Abu?

This racism is a rather recent occurence.

It simply didn't exist prior to about 50-100 years ago.

Is that because there weren't any SE Asian domestic workers? Or because there were slaves instead? It's not racist to treat someone different if they are a slave, right?

People here aren't getting any fitter and we don't put an emphasis on trying to fix the problem

Yes we do.

First a comment on this part of the Time Out article:


Quote:

Alcohol is haram, or forbidden, to Muslims. As London is above the national average for alcohol-related deaths in males, with 17.6 per 100,000 people (Camden has 31.6 per 100,000 males), turning all the city’s pubs into juice bars would have a massive positive effect on public health. Forbid alcohol throughout the country, and you’d avoid many of the 22,000 alcohol-related deaths and the £7.3 billion national bill for alcohol-related crime and disorder each year.

Forbid alcohol throughout the country? What about smoking? Many of the Muslims I know smoke, because I don't believe this is forbidden in Islam (?). In Australia tobacco kills nearly 20,000 every year. Alcohol kills nearly 3,000. Will smoking be banned too? How will Muslims addicted to the evil weed react upon learning that the one vice many of them cherish (since they can't drink alcohol) will be outlawed?

If we're all getting too fat, will MacDonalds, Hungry Jacks, Red Rooster, and all fast food stores of like nature be closed down? To me this smacks of a police state. Sure we have problems with obesity and alcohol-related crimes (I deal with the latter every night I work), but does any society really want to go down this radical pathway of controlling behaviour to this extent?

More from Time Out


Quote:

Public health On the surface, Islamic health doesn’t look good: the 2001 census showed that 24 per cent of Muslim women and 21 per cent of Muslim men suffered long-term illness and disability. But these are factors of social conditions rather than religion. In fact, Islam offers Londoners potential health benefits: the Muslim act of prayer is designed to keep worshippers fit, their joints supple and, at five times a day, their stomachs trim. The regular washing of the feet and hands required before prayers promotes public hygiene and would reduce the transmission of superbugs in London’s hospitals.

I see nothing wrong with this, as long as people can choose whether they want to observe these laws or not.


Quote:

Ecology ‘The world is green and beautiful,’ said the prophet Muhammad, ‘and Allah has appointed you his guardian over it.’ The Islamic concept of halifa or trusteeship obliges Muslims to look after the natural world and Muhammad was one of the first ever environmentalists, advocating hima – areas where wildlife and forestry are protected. So we could expect more public parks under Islam, but halifa also applies to recycling: in 2006, 12,000 Muslims attended a series of sermons at the East London Mosque explaining the theological evidence for a link between behaving in an environmentally sustainable way and the Islamic faith.

Nothing wrong with this either, as long as its not enforced. The Greens do enough of that enforcement already, without even bringing God into it.

Quote:

Food Application of halal (Arabic for ‘permissable’) dietary laws across London would free us at a stroke from our addiction to junk food, and the general adoption of a south Asian diet rich in fruit juice, rice and vegetables with occasional mutton or chicken would have a drastic effect on obesity, hyperactivity, attention deficit disorders and associated public health problems. As curry is already Londoners’ and the nation’s favourite food (see our Brick Lane food feature), it would be a relatively easy process to encourage the adoption of such a diet. Not eating would be important as well. The annual fasting month of Ramadan instils self-discipline, courtesy and social cohesion. And Londoners would benefit philosophically and physically from even a short period when we weren’t constantly ramming food into our mouths.

I love curry, but once in a while I also like a juicy Hungry Jacks hamburger, and I'm not overweight. It's about choice. None of these fast foods would have become so popular if people didn't demand them. The old English fish and chips isn't exactly healthy either, but it's old, traditional, and very enjoyable. Alternatively, we could force everyone on to the most healthy diet and have something like a Pritikin Take Away. No arguments there, that would thin us all out in a matter of weeks. We could also make it legislation to outlaw Red Rooster and Maccas because it's dangerous to our health. That way we could have a thin and depressed society. We would all live to 120, but where would be some of the simple life-enjoyments that we all now demand?

As long as all of the suggested dietary laws apply only to Muslims, I have no problem with that. But if it's going to encroach upon my freedom of choice, I'll fight it tooth and nail.


Quote:

Inter-faith relations In an Islamic London, Christians and Jews – with their allegiance to the Bible and the Talmud – would be protected as ‘peoples of the book’. Hindus and Sikhs manage to live alongside a large Muslim population in India, so why not here? Although England has a long tradition of religious bigotry against, for instance, Roman Catholics, it is reasonable to assume that under the guiding hand of Islam a civilised accommodation could be made among faith groups in London. This welcoming stance already exists in the capital in the form of the City Circle (see Yahya Birt interview), which encourages inter-faith dialogue and open discussion.

Why under the "guiding hand of Islam"? You've already mentioned laws against inciting religious hatred. There are also laws against inciting prejudice or hatred against people because of their sexuality. Will Islam protect Gay people against prejudice? Or should we leave that jurisprudence to a secular state, which would fairly apply laws for all citizens, not just religions? Religious or theocratic states don't work for the benefit of all, they work for the benefit of their guiding philosophies and beliefs, which exclude some. Will atheism eventually be outlawed as well? Heck, we went through this two centuries ago! We are long past the burning of heretics and books. We don't need any modern Inquisitions, and we need far more than just "inter-faith" dialogue, ALL must be included in any dialogue which concerns the future of our society.

I see nothing wrong with this, as long as people can choose whether they want to observe these laws or not.

If that were the case they wouldn't be laws would they?

freediver wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2008 at 9:59am:

I see nothing wrong with this, as long as people can choose whether they want to observe these laws or not. If that were the case they wouldn't be laws would they?

Referring to Islamic laws. Perhaps I wasn't clear. If I want to become a Muslim, I'll agree to observe those laws, but they should not be imposed on society as a whole, which is being suggested in the article.

Could anyone read Malik's paste, of the fantasy Islamic world, and not wonder where the pixies and elves fit in?
They don't drink, but if they come up with those sorts of fantasies when sober, that is probably a good thing.

Do muslims have a hell?
Because if they want to ban the rest of us having booze then I think that may be it.
What a bunch of spoilsport wowsers.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2008 at 11:07pm:

Because if they want to ban the rest of us having booze then I think that may be it. What a bunch of spoilsport wowsers.

Interestingly, did you know that the US outlawed Alcohol in the 1920s, up till the 30s? It was known as prohibition.

Al-Gharib wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2008 at 11:30pm:

mozzaok wrote on Jul 23rd, 2008 at 11:07pm: Because if they want to ban the rest of us having booze then I think that may be it. What a bunch of spoilsport wowsers. Interestingly, did you know that the US outlawed Alcohol in the 1920s, up till the 30s? It was known as prohibition.

It was a failure. Many social problems have been attributed to the Prohibition era. A profitable and violent black market for alcohol flourished. Racketeering happened when powerful gangs corrupted law enforcement agencies. The cost of enforcing Prohibition was high, and the lack of tax revenues on alcohol affected government coffers. When repeal of Prohibition occurred in 1933, organized crime lost nearly all of its black market alcohol profits.

The Americans learned from their mistake.

Al-Gharib wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2008 at 11:30pm:

mozzaok wrote on Jul 23rd, 2008 at 11:07pm: Because if they want to ban the rest of us having booze then I think that may be it. What a bunch of spoilsport wowsers. Interestingly, did you know that the US outlawed Alcohol in the 1920s, up till the 30s? It was known as prohibition.

And a little historical insight of which you may not have been aware, Al. Utah (a US state teeming with teetotal Mormons) was one of the six states which broke the voting deadlock overturning Prohibition. Although officially advised their leaders to vote to retain Prohibition, they thumbed their nose at this advice, realising that all Prohibition was doing was fostering criminal elements. We know there are problems, but they can't be solved with threats nor curtailing basic freedoms.

One thing we've learned from history is that trying to control people en masse never works. It didn't work in Germany, and it didn't work in Russia. The whole idea of democracy is government of the people, by the people, and for the people, even if it doesn't always work. It was Churchill who said that democracy is the worst form of government, all the others excepted.

There are also some uncanny ironies in this general debate. From what I gather, posters who would not normally support Sprint in all of his anti-Muslim views, are now rallying to support his right to free speech. Posters who would not normally care much to comment on Sprint's posts, are now reading them. What you're doing is having the very opposite effect of your intentions. To put it in a nutshell, it's like trying to put out a fire with kerosene.    

Ray_A wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 11:27am:

There are also some uncanny ironies in this general debate. From what I gather, posters who would not normally support Sprint in all of his anti-Muslim views, are now rallying to support his right to free speech. Posters who would not normally care much to comment on Sprint's posts, are now reading them. What you're doing is having the very opposite effect of your intentions. To put it in a nutshell, it's like trying to put out a fire with kerosene.

Spot on!
:)

It would be fair to say that an "ideal" Islamic state would be one which has no contact with the wider world.

Pommy Bastard wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 2:36pm:

It would be fair to say that an "ideal" Islamic state would be one which has no contact with the wider world.

Not true at all, the Islamic state always had contact with the wider world and had very good trade relations with many nations.

Is there a link I can go to for what you consider an ideal Caliphate (based on history examples) - not the London example.

:)

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 5:38pm:

Pommy Bastard wrote on Jul 24th, 2008 at 2:36pm: It would be fair to say that an "ideal" Islamic state would be one which has no contact with the wider world. Not true at all, the Islamic state always had contact with the wider world and had very good trade relations with many nations.

But would an "ideal" Islamic state want to face the corrupting influences of the rest of the world, and would it not have a desire to convert others?

Pommy Bastard wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 6:49pm:

But would an "ideal" Islamic state want to face the corrupting influences of the rest of the world, and would it not have a desire to convert others?

If there was an Islamic state of course we'd preach to non Muslims, we are obligated by God to do so, but this would be a part of the diplomacy of the state and not something we're going to force other nations to take on. If they accept Islam then that's good for them. If not then that's fine, it's not our business. In addition to that Islam encourages establishing friendly and peaceful ties with non Islamic states and also encourages trade between the nations.

The only time when this would not be forbidden is if the non-Muslims attack the Islamic state, then it's war. But in the absence of war there could only be benefits in establishing good relations with other nations.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 26^th, 2008 at 12:23am:

If there was an Islamic state of course we'd preach to non Muslims, we are obligated by God to do so, but this would be a part of the diplomacy of the state and not something we're going to force other nations to take on.

Thank you for that. However, any state which is under duress to preach the tenets of its beliefs to others will never be at peace with itself, and therefore cannot be ideal.

The only time when this would not be forbidden is if the non-Muslims attack the Islamic state, then it's war.

How do you distinguish this from the typical 'tit for tat' exchanges and arms races that traditionally lead to war?

freediver wrote on Jul 28^th, 2008 at 8:01pm:

The only time when this would not be forbidden is if the non-Muslims attack the Islamic state, then it's war. How do you distinguish this from the typical 'tit for tat' exchanges and arms races that traditionally lead to war?

Diplomacy is diplomacy FD, the choice to go to war is not an easy one.. It should be the last resort in any state's ability to resolve problems and that is the Islamic stance. Look at how patient we were with the Pagan Quraish or how patient we were with the Crusaders.

War isn't good.. It IS necessary sometimes sadly but only as a last resort.