What Islam, the US and China need is their own Roy Jenkins.

Though of course, not every Briton is happy to live within the permissive society.

Go to hell, you mystic fundamentalist jerk! Allah Akbar.....Boo!

I dont have to judge Islam but I do.

Sharia has no examples you can give me, so how can you make claims of its success.

I hear the same arguments for so many Utopian states that only ever have a distorted historical reference. The only sharia we see are never held up as examples to be admired but they are sharia.

I can see its value for certain domestic issues but not criminal.

Who is this Roy Jenkin ?

I asked why are you judging Islam on the actions of Saudi Arabia?



I gave you an example. The Hijaz.



What's utopian about what I'm saying? I've told you that what you consider to be shariah is not shariah. What countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran tell you is shariah is not in fact shariah. This isn't really that complicated. Why would you insist that it is shariah, when the majority will tell you it isn't?


You're entitled to your opinion but most Muslims would disagree.

Who is this Roy Jenkin ?

You can change the law but you cant change religious dogma. Faith and law are not good bed fellows.

Im judging Islamic government by the examples we see. I judge sharia by the examples that we see. How else can I make a informed judgement.

When looking at any form of government or law you must look at the discrepancies that the extremist might use to abuse its use. When you avoid democracy and give a law that can be interpreted in the extreme you eventual end up with what we see as examples.

Iran, not exactly a democracy but what freedom it did have, has been abused by clerics who desire power more than freedom. Turkey realised its failings and came to the painful decision to maintain a secular state.

You tell me who you would trust to give absolute power of law and justice to, without the benefit of being able to change them? You dream of a Utopian state made for moderate men who entrust their future into corruptible men. It will never be, Im sorry but you cant trust your fellow man.

Go to hell, you mystic fundamentalist jerk! Allah Akbar.....Boo!

:perplexed: I read afew months ago about this British scientist who was forced to take hormons against his gay tendencies. He started growing breasts and was so embarressed he stopped teaching at University.

It was literally an enigma to me how this could happen... Have plans to go to Manchester soon. He should be on the English bank-notes instead of a needle manufactorer.

You could make an informed decision by actually studying what shariah is.

I agree. But you're assuming shariah=no democracy. Which doesn't surprise me because you have no real idea of what shariah is.

You've mentioned Turkey again when it is obvious you've never studied Turkish history. The Turkish people never came to a decision about anything; rather they were forced to adopt the ways of the Westerner with no say in the matter. Please read up about it before you claim they did a great thing. If you think that forcing secularism onto a peasant population was a good thing, then it's not worth talking to you.

This is embarrasing, although not surprising. No, I would not trust absolute power of law and justice to a people who could not be held accountable for their decisions. I like democracy, and so does Islam. I don't dream of a Utopian state where people entrust their future on corruptible men. Where would you get such a ridiculous notion from? Oh wait... Saudi Arabia?

You bang on about how the concept of shariah is nothing more than a utopian dream. But you don't even know what it is. If you look at Islamic history you can see that it did work, and it can work because it's not that complicated.

I agree that faith and law should be kept seperate (after all, many of Jenkins' most vociferous opponents were churchmen), but I disagree that you can't change religious dogma - it happens all the time.

How can you change a dogma that has been sanctified by scripture.

The 'how' varies from place to place and time to time, though I think it can be done. And not every item of religious dogma is santicified by scripture.

Even those that are can be altered though - look at the current debate amongst the Anglican community on homosexuality and church membership/leadership, which could go either way, but shows an apparent change is possible.

As an Islamic example I'd point towards sufism, which has a very different take to many matters than the fundamentalist shariah you seem to want us to take as representing the whole.

I think you mean Alan Turing, breaker of the enigma code who probably saved many lives as a result.

He didn't just stop teaching - he killed himself.

But that was before Roy Jenkins' reforms of the relevent laws.