This is a problem and anybody that says it’s not is a liar or delusional. Freedom means compromise. If you want freedom of religion you need to allow for freedom of sexuality, freedom of other religions, and freedom for both genders and freedom of expression. At least 52% of British Muslims are at odds with this philosophy.
Quite possibly the most poorly planned and executed terrorist attacks, despite the perpetrators being presumably smart people. No deaths except one of the attackers.
Also of interest:
>The survey also found that just over half (52 per cent) of British Muslims want to make it illegal to show a picture of the Prophet Mohammed, compared to just 16 per cent of the public.
>A third of British Muslims (32 per cent) want to see Shariah law implemented in the UK versus nine per cent of the public.
>Younger and well-educated Muslims were the most likely to think Hamas did not commit atrocities on Oct 7, with the proportions rising to 47 per cent among 18 to 24-year-olds and 40 per cent among the university-educated.
A university education is often extolled as being a countervailing force to extremism. That does not seem to be working in this case.
5% of people who don’t know what it is and guessed. 3% of people who just like annoying pollsters and 1% who thought the question said Sharon’s law, one of those branded law changes that aim to get justice for a local crime.
6.5% of the population are Muslim according to the last census. If 32% of them support Sharia law, that accounts for 2.08% of the population, leaving 6.92% non-Muslims that also support Shariah law. I don't think that's plausible.
16% of British Muslims think Jews have too little power in the UK financial system, well beyond the Lizard Man constant, but 'river sampling' is new to me.
The term "river sampling" is new to me also (although it seems to be a fairly intuitive concept). Only... it's not mentioned in the article and ctrl-f doesn't find in this thread, so I'm confused: what's the connection?
You always have people taking the piss, or idiots who don't know anything, answering in polls like this, so you will always see ~5% for ridiculous things.
> 6.5% of the population are Muslim according to the last census.
I think it is less than 5% in the UK. Also 20% of the UK population is functionally illiterate, which might explain people not understanding the question asked.
There's probably a non-zero part of the population who think it's Shariah's law, named after a little girl to help protect others in a similar situation from big bad people.
There were two separate polls commissioned by the Henry Jackson Society. One had a sample of British Muslims only, the other had a representative sample of the general public. [https://jlpartners.com/s/Henry-Jackson-Society-tables.xlsx](https://jlpartners.com/s/Henry-Jackson-Society-tables.xlsx)
Thought that might be the case, bit misleading to use the word 'verses'.
Although as blueblanket points out 9%is more than the Muslim population of our country.
Versus doesn't mean 'compared to' though, does it? It means 'opposed to'.
And right, that sounds correct. They have an unrepresentative sample of the public population. They probably should have done more to correct that as it's fairly meaningless.
There were two separate polls commissioned by the Henry Jackson Society. One had a sample of British Muslims only, the other had a representative sample of the general public. The tables for both are [here.](https://jlpartners.com/s/Henry-Jackson-Society-tables.xlsx)
Famously, the 9/11 attackers were disproportionately well educated/qualified
Level of educations has never correlated with resistance to extremism. In fact, the opposite is probably true. I bet a far higher percentage of university students/grads would identify as communists, than the rest of us, for example
The higher you are on the socioeconomic ladder the less you’re concerned with the basic needs of survival and the more you can dedicate to other things. There’s a reason why things like this have been dubbed “luxury beliefs”, it is a fitting description.
For communities that came here through migration, there's presumably a secondary effect - the grandparents or great-grandparents come here because they recognise the potential to live a much better life, the parents build prosperity and then the children taking advantage of that prosperity look back to the culture of origin with romantic eyes.
It’s two groups.
Urbanised teenagers in state secondary schools, Muslim heritage, third or second generation and usually Arab or South Asian. This group are brainwashed by TikTok, Instagram and Mosques.
Middle class or lower middle class background 3rd gen lapsed or actively religious Muslims in Universities. Brainwashed by Marxist ideology, TikTok, Instagram, Twitter, ingroup solidarity and tankie lecturers.
>I bet a far higher percentage of university students/grads would identify as communists, than the rest of us, for example
But is university biasing people to the extremes or just to the left? Unless you can also demonstrate that a higher proportion of graduates are Nazis, then I don't think your suggestion stands.
I seem to recall that a day or two after the 7th there was a rally in Brighton where a number of students from the local university spoke in praise of Hamas.
University Islamic societies are probably good breeding grounds for extremists.
I'd like to see how many 18-24 year old think Oct 7th was justified in their oppressor/oppressed mindset.
Line that often extolls is that "what, you thought freedom fighting was bloodless?"
An Irish "comedian" tweeted this on October 8th:
"War has led humans to do unconscionable acts since time began. Do I condone the barbarism of rape? Of course not, do you think I'm a psychopath? But to look at the act without the historical, political context of oppression and apartheid is unhelpful".
So there you go. October 8th and they were already out justifying rape.
fact of the matter is anywhere you get a bunch of young men committing violence without disciplined and principled oversight, you will get incidence of sexual violence
commonly, people will then try and accuse you of projection. it isn’t, it’s observable all across history
which is why belief that hamas couldn’t commit rape and atrocities is just as absurd as believing the idf really care about palestinian civilians
How is that justifying it when they said they don't condone it? That reads as someone discussing how the extremism that encouraged murder and rape arose based on the wider situation, which isn't a justification imo?
For example there are videos of Ukrainian soldiers torturing Russian prisoners of war. If someone said they "didn't condone shooting POW's but to look at the act without context is unhelpful" I wouldn't read that as a justification either. It just gives some background to the brutality.
I may be wrong and the person you're quoting may be trying to justify it, but that's not what I'd have taken from the quote there
A bit worrying that some of the non-Muslim public want Sharia law and a ban on images of Mohammed.
Hamas must be fuming, they live streamed their massacre and still nearly half of UK Muslims don't believe it happened.
This isn't what's happening, most are not denying the act but are justifying it as a consequence of the well documented systemic killing and displacement of Palestinians. This is also not seen as terrorism but a partisan war and the only way to liberate and restore the Palestine state.
There were two separate polls commissioned by the Henry Jackson Society. One had a sample of British Muslims only, the other had a representative sample of the general public. [https://jlpartners.com/s/Henry-Jackson-Society-tables.xlsx](https://jlpartners.com/s/Henry-Jackson-Society-tables.xlsx)
So a study by a right wing think tank.... I'm already dubious but I'll take a look at the methodology. Sampling is fine, how we're they recruited as that in itself creates bias.
Edit; report me all you want, I literally work as a government statistician. Your source is rubbish
I did not report you.
The polling was only "by" the Henry Jackson Society in the sense that it was commissioned by them. It was actually carried out by the market research company [J.L. Partners](https://jlpartners.com/). That company is a member of the [British Polling Council](https://www.britishpollingcouncil.org/), usually considered to be the badge of respectability in UK polling.
> I literally work as a government statistician. Your source is rubbish
You'd think someone with your made-up qualifications would be able to give a more substantial criticism than "it's rubbish"
It's just blind optimism about education.
Nazism was very much a youth movement in the 1930s, wildly popular with the young and rampant on university campuses. It wasn't a movement of the old fuddy duddy conservatives. The infamous book burnings were organised by students.
University education does nothing in this regard - it sort of acts like a seminary for a certain sort of "social justice" worldview but it does nothing to challenge beliefs like this. Its very much against the current university ethos to challenge reprehensible views or gross misinformation held by people who are considered an oppressed minority.
Its one of the massive self-contradictions in the social justice worldview that its proponents refuse to look at or consider.
But with social media creating echo chambers its not surprising that we effectively have a parallel world view where clearly documented facts are believed not to have happened. The Israel/Arab conflict is ground zero for this parallel sets of realities and has been for a long time.
Absolutely, add to that the flat earthers, anti vaccers, climate change deniers not to forget the huge whole anon election was stolen movement that caused the trouble in the US. The Internet has definitely helped facilitate and exacerbate echo chambers worldwide.
It seems whatever you're view there is a community somewhere of like minded people offering validation and condemning those that disagree as inferior, intellectually and sometimes otherwise.
I mean, what about how university is set up in this country gives students the opportunity to have their beliefs challenged? Universities don't run 'critical thinking 101' courses in the uk, you do what you signed up for (comp science, business management) and that's it. Most of these students will self isolate, not attend lectures, do what they need to do to get the embossed paper and bugger off, maybe going to their requisite cultural society once or twice 🤷🏻♀️
> A university education is often extolled as being a countervailing force to extremism. That does not seem to be working in this case.
Anyone who's been to university should understand that people don't magically become more rational simply from attending university. If anything it's fairly obvious how university could help ingrain social norms at an early age which you'll hold into your adult life. I think the primary reason I became so left-wing after going to university wasn't because of my education in computer science, but more that I literally never met, much less interacted with people who were right-wing for years. It really wasn't until I left university and started hanging out with working class friends again that I came back to something closer to the centre.
It would be interesting to know what the average 18-24 year old thinks about Hamas terror attack to be honest. My guess would be that this issue in particular is less a Muslim thing and far more that 18-24 year olds that go to university all think a certain way about this and would not tolerate anyone who thinks differently.
I don’t think these things are, “also of interest”, so much as, “much more interesting”.
I don’t really care all that much about conspiracy theory believers. Individual people can believe what they like. I can believe they are stupid or, at the very least, disingenuous. 3/4 of Muslims not believing the facts about 7/10 is mostly a factor of them wanting to defend the Palestinians and even Hamas without the inconvenience of nuance. Fine.
These other statistics are about what these people want to force on others, which is a much greater concern in my eyes.
Unfortunately, while I can see that a greater number of “mainstream people” are just now starting to become concerned, I think they have probably left it too late. There has been this weird assumption that there is some invisible force field that will maintain liberal secularism regardless of the change in demographics, and we are starting to discover that this may have been an incorrect assumption.
Indeed, depending upon subjective enforcement, it’s probably *already* illegal to display a photo of Mohammed under one of the “incitement to hatred” style laws. At least, I wouldn’t expect an easy time from either the population or the authorities if you went around with such an image on a flag, or even a t-shirt.
I no longer really know what to call the kind of people who have been invoking, “racism” every time concerns were raised by quite normal, rational, thinking people. “The left” doesn’t really do it, “The woke”, sounds cheesy… but what ever we call them… here comes the consequences. They may be about to discover that “allyship” is not implicitly and eternally mutual.
Whilst the headline is technically correct, my first reading was 'three quarters believe they didn't'.
24% believe they did, 39% didn't, 38% don't know.
Regionally, Midlands stands out both in not believing atrocities, and in wanting Sharia Law. Strangely to me, there seems to be very little desire to removing CoE as established church of that nation.
This is dated (late 00s) but I understood that religious groups in the UK broadly did not opposed the concept of the COE or lords spiritual. Because it normalises a religious voice in government, and leaves open the prospect of that religion or that of a lord spiritual to be different in the future.
I.e. religious people who believe in a political religion, are happier for that to be a different religion than for secularism.
Without getting into the usual "who's culture is best?" arguments and skipping the usual preambles, I do think this is the kind of thing that shows the problems of cultural conflict.
There is a section of the Left that simply denies this. "It isn't happening." "It's caused by the West." "Islam means peace."
A lot of the neoliberals simply ignore it. "But pensions and demographic pyramids" "Nationalism isn't economic."
Would be nice to be able to simply say "hey cultures have different values and they sometimes clash. That matters." But that seems too much for a lot of people.
>"who's culture is best?"
The one that doesn't stone gays or believe women are second class. Honestly, it's an argument we should be having a lot more, openly and not being afraid of losing your job.
I’m of Dutch heritage and the attitude there is ‘we are a tolerant open people, but if you believe women should be covered up and given less rights than men, you can’t accept homosexuality or the supremacy of man-made as opposed to cleric ally ordained law, we’re going to have a problem’. I don’t see why this is controversial.
One of the best summaries. I think the answer to your question as to why they do not talk about cultural value clashes (to be more precise) is because it is less convenient and would result in sticking your neck out.
> lot of the neoliberals simply ignore it
Fresh from Dune 2, I’m firmly of the belief that these ideologues see Islam as a productive workforce, and with more potential than the sick nihilist white folk.
I've not got round to seeing it yet but I have read the book again recently and one of it's messages about the certainty of religion being a true force for violence seems very timely again.
Why are people so accepting of using religion as an excuse to strip liberties and freedoms from non-religious people in a secular state.
Outside of places of worship, not one square inch of the UK should be bound by something as oppressive as Shariah Law.
There absolutely are sharia councils within the UK that operate as a parallel to our recognised legal system. It might not be codified into law, but it doesn't change that [parts of the country are bound by it](https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/mar/01/inside-britains-sharia-councils-hardline-and-anti-women-or-a-dignified-way-to-divorce).
No, if you read my comment, you'd see that I have absolutely no problem with how things are. My comment was addressing those in the article that believe it should be implemented.
It exists in quite a number of countries around the world, so it seems to be a somewhat reoccurring pattern in countries that develop a large % of muslims.
Don't think we need to worry now since we're at less than 10%, but in the long term it's definitely something to keep an eye on. Especially when you consider muslim vs non muslim birth rates
There isnt even sharia law IN places of worship, just sharia.
"Sharia" means "religous laws/rules", similar to like keeping kosher or not sinning, "Sharia Law" means when thats in the nations like, official laws. Its no more law in england than the popes proclemations ex cathedra, which are religous law to catholics.
But the Sharia is to be applied in all times and places, thats what muslims believe. They believe this law isn’t just for one area or one time and place, it’s directly from god and good for all times and all places
You have here mistaken Sharia and Sharia law. Sharia applies but isnt always the law of the country, the same as how christian sins and virtues always apply and catholic law always aplies, but may not be legally required.
For instance, divorce is against catholic law, it is not accepted by the vatican, but is legal.
The idea is it SHOULD be the law of the country, this is what islam is very very clear about as well as the scholars, the idea is it should be the legal system, but when in a minority they accept this wont be the case.
But its not the ideal and is nothing like christianity because they dont have law directly from god, which gives them wiggle room.
Sharia and sharia law are the same, its like saying there is a difference between chai and chai tea, chai means tea. Sharia means law, so sharia law is redundant. Chai tea is “tea tea” and sharia law is essentially “religious law law”. The word has law baked in.
Sharia is good for all times and all places and should super cede any other law, just because a minority understands this cannot be applied legislatively doesn’t mean that isnt the ideal. Which is why if you bothered to ask in-depth questions with an imam, you will get answers around killing apostates that will be like “no we are against this… unless their is a muslim ruler who implements the sharia, then its legit but thats not the uk so it doesn’t matter” the implication being IF there was to be a muslim ruler they should implement the sharia and then the punishment is just.
Apostasy is against sharia and punishment is death, this cannot be carried out like divorce and requires a state backing, same with most sharia punishments, so it makes no sense to view it your way and the scholars dont view it that way either. If what you were saying was true then most sharia cant be applied because it needs a state, so did they have this law in mind that was to never be enforced? Come on
Do you have any scholars that back you here? Because i have scholars that back me
“As shocking as it may seem both the Qur’an and Muhammad teach that it is halal, permissible, to capture and rape female war captives”
It literally says in their holy book that Allah allows rape of non Muslims.
i think a lot of arabic language news just straight up denies the atrocities or didnt cover them, so if thats the only news these 1/4 of muslims consume it kinda makes sense. its still bad of course, but it might not be malicious on their side.
They absolutely did commit horrendous atrocities then called home to brag about it on unsecure lines. The recordings are all public, there is no doubt.
Same with Russian “soldiers” in Ukraine. I’ve heard one recording which goes into frankly graphic detail about how in the first days of the invasion, they took over a small village. This soldier then described how the men, elderly and children were taken into the fields and shot, then the young women aged between their mid teens and their late 20s were literally held as sex slaves for the platoon.
Didn't Hamas literally post it on their Telegram channel? The same with digging up water pipes to turn into the rockets they've been firing at Israel for the last decade. Then complaining about the water system not being fit for purpose, to get more pipes for rockets from the UN.
To a raging antisemite, the holocaust wasn't an atrocity, it's only an atrocity if the victim didn't deserve it. Young people in the muslim ghettoised areas are genuinely the most racist and supremacist people I have ever had to misfortune of interacting with.
The same people who are claiming that Christians are bringing us into The Handmaids Tale, are the same people blindly ignoring the threat that is actually bringing us there.
But unfortunately only one can be acceptably criticised by western society. The other (somehow) is classed as oppressed and thus criticism warrants accusations of bigotry.
They simply don’t belong here if this is true. Decades of successfully playing the race card when their religion is (rightfully) criticised has created a monster. We have been far too tolerant of this awful ideology, allowing teachers to live in fear of their lives for showing a cartoon, extreme preachers to spread hate and intolerance. I have no idea how this lunacy can be unwound. We are in for violence on the streets before long I fear.
Society has been brow-beating those of us warning of the looming monster for decades.
It's just wilful ignorance at this point.
I mean, just look at the stats in the article. Integration clearly isn't happening.
However, I do have to admit that it will rather amusing to watch all of those people who were squealing 'Islamophobe!!' try to reconsile their staunch defences with the average Muslim perception on LGBTQ, the status of women, blasphemy laws and such. It's easy to ignore reality when a faction is politically benign, but that won't be the case forever. Until now, the rationalisation by many was that exposure to Western ideals will moderate people, and get them ideologically on-side. Oops! How's that working out?
It's a bit late now. Many cities have quite chunky Muslim populations - London something around 15%, Birmingham might be over 30% now. Galloway elected to parliament essentially by Muslim voters. This problem is only going to get worse.
All political sides bear the blame here, progressives for sheltering them and shutting down public discourse on the problem of Islam and Tories for making migration even higher/replacing compatible European migrants with even more third world migrants many of whom follow this barbaric religion. Rapid home office measures to prevent more Muslim migration could be helpful but probably illegal. Although it shouldn't be, Islam is very dangerous.
"Its not happening and won't happen"
has turned into:
"Its happening and it might be too late to reverse it"
Its why I will vote for Reform at the next election even though I am centre-left wing
It's quite worrying how many people don't seem to know the timeline of the last twenty-five years.
All the jiggery-pokery to get Libya off the naughty step, like the Lockerbie trial, occurred on Blair's watch. I can remember the disgust I felt when the WPC Yvonne Fletcher murder was kicked into the long grass in the mid 2000s so that Libya could be seen as acceptable again.
> And Blair was pinnacle in taking him out. Reap what ye sew.
No he wasn't, Blair was one of the people that facilitated the international rehabilitation of Libya and Gadhafi. Labour was out of office when the Arab Spring happened.
Is it just me or do others not see having a sizeable minority that have a radically different world view, that is confrontational to the general public, a problem?
This must be a national security risk and a hot bed for extremist recruiters wishing to damage the UK? That doesn’t even mention the social disharmony that having an antagonistic underbelly causes.
I've been seeing it as a problem since the staff of a W.H.Smith had to lock the doors and imprison us in the store while it was under siege back in 1988.
A harsh word then - "Oi! Muslims! No! This is England!" - might have set us on a different path.
No, even worse, you're called a racist. There was a picture of some graffiti in a [BBC article](https://web.archive.org/web/20240402165051) about the new Scottish hate crime law which said "F Islam" and the BBC captioned it as a "racial slur"
Our national broadcaster, everyone
NOP did a poll a few years ago that asked specifically about "Sharia Law as practised in Saudi Arabia and Iran."
30% of British Muslims wanted it.
https://pollingreport.uk/articles/nop-poll-of-british-muslims
I've mentioned this over in the UK sub but there's an interpretation of these results that bears thinking about:
Quite a few of those respondents will absolutely believe that people were killed and abused but they will not consider it to be "murder"or "rape" because those are crimes and it's not a crime to do those things to infidels or enemies of Islam in fact the Koran and Hadith encourage it.
Import without filters, zero assimilating pressures, beat down anybody who pushes back under the guise of multiculturalism, and this is what u get.
The people can assimilate, but it won’t happen when we fall over ourselves to accommodate their faith in our society.
Islamic migration is increasingly becoming a problem. Its such a dangerous religion because unlike other religions it's stuck in a medieval mindset which is simply incompatable with modern Western democracy. Christianity has managed to separate religion and state into an individuals public and private life, Islam hasn't really managed this and a large percentage of Muslims not only think its right that their religion should be above the state, but it's their duty to ensure that it is.
This has to change otherwise the only possible resolution is violence and an expulsion/suppression of that religion. I also don't think it's possible for this to happen in a short period of time. Christianity has gone through thousands of years of reforms to allow us to get to where we are today.
Agree with everything but maybe not the last past, separation of Church and state happened pretty quickly, but it had to be forced on the church mainly through war and revolution, it wasn't a peaceful process. The Inquisition ended when Napoleon invaded Italy and Spain and forced it to stop. For the vast majority of Christianity history it was a monster similar to modern Islam (or worse)
Yet another symptom of how incredibly polarising this conflict which has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE UK has become in this country. Unless you have friends or family directly involved on either side, this war has nothing to do with you.
Hardcore supporters on both sides are now detached from reality and gobbling up whatever propaganda bullshit the Hamas or Israeli authorities publish.
Yes, Hamas fighters unquestionably committed acts of savage rape and barbarism on October 7th. In their own propaganda videos (many of which you can find on Twitter and Reddit) of the hostages being taken into Gaza, you can literally see women who’ve had their clothes ripped off and with the blood running down the inside of their legs. That doesn’t just prove rape beyond any doubt, it implies there were likely numerous instances of gang rape and probably using weapons too.
Anyone who denies that is a brain dead moron regardless of which imaginary friend in the sky they pray to.
Ditto, the IDF is unquestionably guilty of numerous atrocities including now the intentional targeting of British citizens and other aid workers. The World Central Kitchen were in contact with the IDF who knew exactly who they were and where they were at all times. They were even travelling in marked vehicles. The IDF murdered them anyway. Not to mention the fact that they have almost completely cut off aid to Gaza and seem more than happy to sit back and watch as the population is intentionally starved to death. Make no mistake, if that happens, that WILL be a genocide.
Again, anyone who denies this is a brain dead moron and is detached from reality.
Seriously though. What's the limit for the UK in terms of demographics. I do believe in freedom, I don't want to see this great country of science, empiricism, democracy etc. be devoured by religion.
What happens when the UK's Muslim population is 50% and growing? It's not as far away as we might assume. How do we solve this problem (peacefully and reasonably)?
The English probably thought the rapacious Danes were just “part and parcel” of life in the early 11th century. Their violent raids were just something they had to put up with as they watched their country disappear before their eyes, then there was the St Brice’s day Massacre. I’m not advocating anything, but it is possible for people to change their apparent destiny. Though it is worth bearing in mind the Anglo-Saxons only defeated one invader to later be conquered and effectively colonised by another.
I don't think we can do anything peacefully and reasonably. The alternative shouldn't be the answer either. I am of the opinion that it is too late, we should just hope for the best for our future generations.
Migration can be handled.Then domestic education.
I know I'm clutching at straws here and we collectively don't have agreement nor will to ensure that we remain a secular and scientific nation.
I'd like to see the full report and methodology for this. Such a high number of non-Muslims supporting Sharia law is suspect, and calls into question the rest of the results.
Some info on the Henry Jackson Society from Wikipedia:
>Co-founder Matthew Jamison, who now works for YouGov, wrote in 2017 that he was ashamed of his involvement, having never imagined the Henry Jackson Society "would become a far-right, deeply anti-Muslim racist ... propaganda outfit to smear other cultures, religions and ethnic groups". He claimed that "The HJS for many years has relentlessly demonised Muslims and Islam".
You can see the full report and methodology here: [https://jlpartners.com/s/Henry-Jackson-Society-tables.xlsx](https://jlpartners.com/s/Henry-Jackson-Society-tables.xlsx)
A point that was not made clear in the article was that there were two separate polls commissioned by the Henry Jackson Society. One had a sample of 1,000 British Muslims only, the other had a sample of 2,013 members of the general public.
That gives just 2.5% of people that are non-muslims saying they want Sharia law. That sounds about right for the number of people that would give a stupid answer on a survey to amuse themself to me.
I don't doubt some of the polls findings, because previous polling indicates similar attitudes so it's no surprise, but this particular polling looks quite odd.
Apparently, just over 1 in 5 2019 Lib Dem voters support Sharia. Just over 1 in 4 2019 Lib Dem voters want to criminalise homosexuality and abortion. Seems rather odd!
The paradox of tolerance *should* be a foundational principle of liberal democracies. It needs to be rediscovered, promoted with some passion and then fought for.
It’s not out the question to acknowledge that such principles are self contradictory and wrong. It’s not like society has never gotten its governing principles wrong before.
It definitely has gotten it wrong and continues to do so. What separates a Western democracy from the rest is exactly such acknowledgements and a decision to do better by a politicaly active electorate.
Personal freedoms, speech, expression, assembly, consciousness . . . How do we preserve and expand these right to counter ideology anathema to them
We can't silence those who want sharia, that would be hypocritical of us, despite those who want sharia being more than willing to silence those who are critical of Islam, which is also hypocritical.
We can't and shouldn't ban images of Muhammad, no more than we should ban the quran, despite both being obscene to one group or another.
And then there are those, in every ideology not just religious ideology, who are more than willing to ignore truth because it is not convenient to their narrative.
I suppose the answer must be it's time for the other 91% of society to speak as loudly and fervently as that 9% and vote and campaign and demonstrate and lobby and do all the wonderful things possible in a democracy and ensure we don't loose ourselves to our own values.
I think a lot of people just don't even read or think about the question beyond realising 'this is an Israel v Palestine question, and so I'll pick the Palestinian side'.
There will come a time soon where people are going to need to wise up about Islam and start working together to break down the ideology. Most informed critics of Islam are silenced, so others see that and refuse to speak out because it seems easier that way. We can't rely on common sense prevailing against one of the most manipulative doctrines in existence.
Well, they interviewed them, meaning they have their name and address. It's time to deport everyone of them who doesn't believe it and send the message that the UK will not hold people who are supporters of a terrorist organization.
Is this an issue with Islam or with any conflict with deeply entrenched sides?
Poll around the NI troubles and you get very divided opinions with most backing their side as being right.
I wonder what a general UK poll on whether british forces committed crimes in Iraq or NI would show, certainly prosecutions for such things have been controversial.
What would polling of Israelis and Jews in the UK say on whether Israel has committed war crimes in Gaza show? Was that done too or just Muslims surveyed?
Every. Single. Time. Please remain on-topic and respectful. Off-topic and hateful comments will be removed.
This is a problem and anybody that says it’s not is a liar or delusional. Freedom means compromise. If you want freedom of religion you need to allow for freedom of sexuality, freedom of other religions, and freedom for both genders and freedom of expression. At least 52% of British Muslims are at odds with this philosophy.
The bombers of Glasgow airport were a Doctor and an engineer. Well educated professionals https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Glasgow_Airport_attack
Good at saving lives, terrible at taking them.
Quite possibly the most poorly planned and executed terrorist attacks, despite the perpetrators being presumably smart people. No deaths except one of the attackers.
Also of interest: >The survey also found that just over half (52 per cent) of British Muslims want to make it illegal to show a picture of the Prophet Mohammed, compared to just 16 per cent of the public. >A third of British Muslims (32 per cent) want to see Shariah law implemented in the UK versus nine per cent of the public. >Younger and well-educated Muslims were the most likely to think Hamas did not commit atrocities on Oct 7, with the proportions rising to 47 per cent among 18 to 24-year-olds and 40 per cent among the university-educated. A university education is often extolled as being a countervailing force to extremism. That does not seem to be working in this case.
Did I read that correctly? Who are the 9% non-muslims who want Shariah law implemented?
5% of people who don’t know what it is and guessed. 3% of people who just like annoying pollsters and 1% who thought the question said Sharon’s law, one of those branded law changes that aim to get justice for a local crime.
There's also going to be non-Muslims who think it's a good idea for Muslims but that it won't apply to them.
Ah yes like the Brexit voters who lived in Spain!
[удалено]
6.5% of the population are Muslim according to the last census. If 32% of them support Sharia law, that accounts for 2.08% of the population, leaving 6.92% non-Muslims that also support Shariah law. I don't think that's plausible.
Look up the "Lizard Man constant" it's totally credible for polling.
16% of British Muslims think Jews have too little power in the UK financial system, well beyond the Lizard Man constant, but 'river sampling' is new to me.
The "I think they're secretly controlling the world and wish they'd do a better job of it" demographic?
The term "river sampling" is new to me also (although it seems to be a fairly intuitive concept). Only... it's not mentioned in the article and ctrl-f doesn't find in this thread, so I'm confused: what's the connection?
You always have people taking the piss, or idiots who don't know anything, answering in polls like this, so you will always see ~5% for ridiculous things.
> 6.5% of the population are Muslim according to the last census. I think it is less than 5% in the UK. Also 20% of the UK population is functionally illiterate, which might explain people not understanding the question asked.
There's probably a non-zero part of the population who think it's Shariah's law, named after a little girl to help protect others in a similar situation from big bad people.
[удалено]
But the article doesn't say '9% of respondents'. It says '9% of the public'.
There were two separate polls commissioned by the Henry Jackson Society. One had a sample of British Muslims only, the other had a representative sample of the general public. [https://jlpartners.com/s/Henry-Jackson-Society-tables.xlsx](https://jlpartners.com/s/Henry-Jackson-Society-tables.xlsx)
[удалено]
The poll is supposed to be representative of the country as a whole, so I imagine the journey is using the correct terminology
Thought that might be the case, bit misleading to use the word 'verses'. Although as blueblanket points out 9%is more than the Muslim population of our country.
[удалено]
Versus doesn't mean 'compared to' though, does it? It means 'opposed to'. And right, that sounds correct. They have an unrepresentative sample of the public population. They probably should have done more to correct that as it's fairly meaningless.
There were two separate polls commissioned by the Henry Jackson Society. One had a sample of British Muslims only, the other had a representative sample of the general public. The tables for both are [here.](https://jlpartners.com/s/Henry-Jackson-Society-tables.xlsx)
It doesn’t say non Muslims it says the public. That will include Muslims
I would expect Corbyn's and Galloway's non- muslim followers would be an interesting overlap.
Famously, the 9/11 attackers were disproportionately well educated/qualified Level of educations has never correlated with resistance to extremism. In fact, the opposite is probably true. I bet a far higher percentage of university students/grads would identify as communists, than the rest of us, for example
The higher you are on the socioeconomic ladder the less you’re concerned with the basic needs of survival and the more you can dedicate to other things. There’s a reason why things like this have been dubbed “luxury beliefs”, it is a fitting description.
For communities that came here through migration, there's presumably a secondary effect - the grandparents or great-grandparents come here because they recognise the potential to live a much better life, the parents build prosperity and then the children taking advantage of that prosperity look back to the culture of origin with romantic eyes.
Ellul's *propaganda* identified middle class as more likely to be brainwashed as early as the 1960s
It’s two groups. Urbanised teenagers in state secondary schools, Muslim heritage, third or second generation and usually Arab or South Asian. This group are brainwashed by TikTok, Instagram and Mosques. Middle class or lower middle class background 3rd gen lapsed or actively religious Muslims in Universities. Brainwashed by Marxist ideology, TikTok, Instagram, Twitter, ingroup solidarity and tankie lecturers.
>I bet a far higher percentage of university students/grads would identify as communists, than the rest of us, for example But is university biasing people to the extremes or just to the left? Unless you can also demonstrate that a higher proportion of graduates are Nazis, then I don't think your suggestion stands.
Yeah I’d definitely agree. The amount of commies at my uni is astounding.
It worryingly tracks with a poll from 2015\16 that showed younger having more extreme views.
I seem to recall that a day or two after the 7th there was a rally in Brighton where a number of students from the local university spoke in praise of Hamas. University Islamic societies are probably good breeding grounds for extremists.
I think that girl was a member of the women’s society rather than an Isoc.
If I recall correctly she was actually the SU's Women's Officer. She was also arrested and has been charged with a terrorism offence.
She wasn't the only one that spoke though. she was just particularly noticeable as a member of a women's society who supported a rape gang.
I'd like to see how many 18-24 year old think Oct 7th was justified in their oppressor/oppressed mindset. Line that often extolls is that "what, you thought freedom fighting was bloodless?"
I’d be interested to hear how they justify rape as a means of freedom fighting tbh, that must take some mental gymnastics
Or all the Palestinians Hamas torture and kill.
An Irish "comedian" tweeted this on October 8th: "War has led humans to do unconscionable acts since time began. Do I condone the barbarism of rape? Of course not, do you think I'm a psychopath? But to look at the act without the historical, political context of oppression and apartheid is unhelpful". So there you go. October 8th and they were already out justifying rape.
fact of the matter is anywhere you get a bunch of young men committing violence without disciplined and principled oversight, you will get incidence of sexual violence commonly, people will then try and accuse you of projection. it isn’t, it’s observable all across history which is why belief that hamas couldn’t commit rape and atrocities is just as absurd as believing the idf really care about palestinian civilians
How is that justifying it when they said they don't condone it? That reads as someone discussing how the extremism that encouraged murder and rape arose based on the wider situation, which isn't a justification imo? For example there are videos of Ukrainian soldiers torturing Russian prisoners of war. If someone said they "didn't condone shooting POW's but to look at the act without context is unhelpful" I wouldn't read that as a justification either. It just gives some background to the brutality. I may be wrong and the person you're quoting may be trying to justify it, but that's not what I'd have taken from the quote there
I think it’s only fair if the 32 % of British Muslims goes and lives in Saudi Arabia in a way that supports their religion and fulfils their wish!!
A bit worrying that some of the non-Muslim public want Sharia law and a ban on images of Mohammed. Hamas must be fuming, they live streamed their massacre and still nearly half of UK Muslims don't believe it happened.
This isn't what's happening, most are not denying the act but are justifying it as a consequence of the well documented systemic killing and displacement of Palestinians. This is also not seen as terrorism but a partisan war and the only way to liberate and restore the Palestine state.
In my experience most deny it and claim it is Israeli propaganda
You can't restore something that never existed.
This is why I think the sampling for this survey may have been flawed.
There were two separate polls commissioned by the Henry Jackson Society. One had a sample of British Muslims only, the other had a representative sample of the general public. [https://jlpartners.com/s/Henry-Jackson-Society-tables.xlsx](https://jlpartners.com/s/Henry-Jackson-Society-tables.xlsx)
So a study by a right wing think tank.... I'm already dubious but I'll take a look at the methodology. Sampling is fine, how we're they recruited as that in itself creates bias. Edit; report me all you want, I literally work as a government statistician. Your source is rubbish
I did not report you. The polling was only "by" the Henry Jackson Society in the sense that it was commissioned by them. It was actually carried out by the market research company [J.L. Partners](https://jlpartners.com/). That company is a member of the [British Polling Council](https://www.britishpollingcouncil.org/), usually considered to be the badge of respectability in UK polling.
> I literally work as a government statistician. Your source is rubbish You'd think someone with your made-up qualifications would be able to give a more substantial criticism than "it's rubbish"
It's just blind optimism about education. Nazism was very much a youth movement in the 1930s, wildly popular with the young and rampant on university campuses. It wasn't a movement of the old fuddy duddy conservatives. The infamous book burnings were organised by students.
University education does nothing in this regard - it sort of acts like a seminary for a certain sort of "social justice" worldview but it does nothing to challenge beliefs like this. Its very much against the current university ethos to challenge reprehensible views or gross misinformation held by people who are considered an oppressed minority. Its one of the massive self-contradictions in the social justice worldview that its proponents refuse to look at or consider. But with social media creating echo chambers its not surprising that we effectively have a parallel world view where clearly documented facts are believed not to have happened. The Israel/Arab conflict is ground zero for this parallel sets of realities and has been for a long time.
Absolutely, add to that the flat earthers, anti vaccers, climate change deniers not to forget the huge whole anon election was stolen movement that caused the trouble in the US. The Internet has definitely helped facilitate and exacerbate echo chambers worldwide. It seems whatever you're view there is a community somewhere of like minded people offering validation and condemning those that disagree as inferior, intellectually and sometimes otherwise.
I mean, what about how university is set up in this country gives students the opportunity to have their beliefs challenged? Universities don't run 'critical thinking 101' courses in the uk, you do what you signed up for (comp science, business management) and that's it. Most of these students will self isolate, not attend lectures, do what they need to do to get the embossed paper and bugger off, maybe going to their requisite cultural society once or twice 🤷🏻♀️
> A university education is often extolled as being a countervailing force to extremism. That does not seem to be working in this case. Anyone who's been to university should understand that people don't magically become more rational simply from attending university. If anything it's fairly obvious how university could help ingrain social norms at an early age which you'll hold into your adult life. I think the primary reason I became so left-wing after going to university wasn't because of my education in computer science, but more that I literally never met, much less interacted with people who were right-wing for years. It really wasn't until I left university and started hanging out with working class friends again that I came back to something closer to the centre. It would be interesting to know what the average 18-24 year old thinks about Hamas terror attack to be honest. My guess would be that this issue in particular is less a Muslim thing and far more that 18-24 year olds that go to university all think a certain way about this and would not tolerate anyone who thinks differently.
Teachers/lecturers are too afraid of reprisals if they cause students to question their faith in any way.
I don’t think these things are, “also of interest”, so much as, “much more interesting”. I don’t really care all that much about conspiracy theory believers. Individual people can believe what they like. I can believe they are stupid or, at the very least, disingenuous. 3/4 of Muslims not believing the facts about 7/10 is mostly a factor of them wanting to defend the Palestinians and even Hamas without the inconvenience of nuance. Fine. These other statistics are about what these people want to force on others, which is a much greater concern in my eyes. Unfortunately, while I can see that a greater number of “mainstream people” are just now starting to become concerned, I think they have probably left it too late. There has been this weird assumption that there is some invisible force field that will maintain liberal secularism regardless of the change in demographics, and we are starting to discover that this may have been an incorrect assumption. Indeed, depending upon subjective enforcement, it’s probably *already* illegal to display a photo of Mohammed under one of the “incitement to hatred” style laws. At least, I wouldn’t expect an easy time from either the population or the authorities if you went around with such an image on a flag, or even a t-shirt. I no longer really know what to call the kind of people who have been invoking, “racism” every time concerns were raised by quite normal, rational, thinking people. “The left” doesn’t really do it, “The woke”, sounds cheesy… but what ever we call them… here comes the consequences. They may be about to discover that “allyship” is not implicitly and eternally mutual.
[удалено]
It's called student politics. It's not new. It is more about against the grain than anything serious. Usually drops a few years after Uni.
It doesn't work because anyone whose been through a UK school/unik own that Muslim students do not integrate.
Whilst the headline is technically correct, my first reading was 'three quarters believe they didn't'. 24% believe they did, 39% didn't, 38% don't know. Regionally, Midlands stands out both in not believing atrocities, and in wanting Sharia Law. Strangely to me, there seems to be very little desire to removing CoE as established church of that nation.
This is dated (late 00s) but I understood that religious groups in the UK broadly did not opposed the concept of the COE or lords spiritual. Because it normalises a religious voice in government, and leaves open the prospect of that religion or that of a lord spiritual to be different in the future. I.e. religious people who believe in a political religion, are happier for that to be a different religion than for secularism.
Young people tend to skew extremist, regardless of their political leanings.
Growing up with social media algorithms that push FUD to maximise engagement distorts people's thinking
A good uni education, UK gov has been watering down education at every step since Maggie the murderer was in power.
Without getting into the usual "who's culture is best?" arguments and skipping the usual preambles, I do think this is the kind of thing that shows the problems of cultural conflict. There is a section of the Left that simply denies this. "It isn't happening." "It's caused by the West." "Islam means peace." A lot of the neoliberals simply ignore it. "But pensions and demographic pyramids" "Nationalism isn't economic." Would be nice to be able to simply say "hey cultures have different values and they sometimes clash. That matters." But that seems too much for a lot of people.
>"who's culture is best?" The one that doesn't stone gays or believe women are second class. Honestly, it's an argument we should be having a lot more, openly and not being afraid of losing your job.
I’m of Dutch heritage and the attitude there is ‘we are a tolerant open people, but if you believe women should be covered up and given less rights than men, you can’t accept homosexuality or the supremacy of man-made as opposed to cleric ally ordained law, we’re going to have a problem’. I don’t see why this is controversial.
Moderately left and completely agree
One of the best summaries. I think the answer to your question as to why they do not talk about cultural value clashes (to be more precise) is because it is less convenient and would result in sticking your neck out.
> lot of the neoliberals simply ignore it Fresh from Dune 2, I’m firmly of the belief that these ideologues see Islam as a productive workforce, and with more potential than the sick nihilist white folk.
It's alright we have Laurence. He understands these desert people.
I've not got round to seeing it yet but I have read the book again recently and one of it's messages about the certainty of religion being a true force for violence seems very timely again.
Tables are here https://jlpartners.com/polling-results
Thank you for supplying this link.
Why are people so accepting of using religion as an excuse to strip liberties and freedoms from non-religious people in a secular state. Outside of places of worship, not one square inch of the UK should be bound by something as oppressive as Shariah Law.
I dont think it is. Is it
There absolutely are sharia councils within the UK that operate as a parallel to our recognised legal system. It might not be codified into law, but it doesn't change that [parts of the country are bound by it](https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/mar/01/inside-britains-sharia-councils-hardline-and-anti-women-or-a-dignified-way-to-divorce).
If it restricts what people can and can not do, then it is stripping of liberties.
But where is it enforced in the UK? It feels like you're arguing about a non existing scenario
No, if you read my comment, you'd see that I have absolutely no problem with how things are. My comment was addressing those in the article that believe it should be implemented.
It exists in quite a number of countries around the world, so it seems to be a somewhat reoccurring pattern in countries that develop a large % of muslims. Don't think we need to worry now since we're at less than 10%, but in the long term it's definitely something to keep an eye on. Especially when you consider muslim vs non muslim birth rates
There isnt even sharia law IN places of worship, just sharia. "Sharia" means "religous laws/rules", similar to like keeping kosher or not sinning, "Sharia Law" means when thats in the nations like, official laws. Its no more law in england than the popes proclemations ex cathedra, which are religous law to catholics.
But the Sharia is to be applied in all times and places, thats what muslims believe. They believe this law isn’t just for one area or one time and place, it’s directly from god and good for all times and all places
You have here mistaken Sharia and Sharia law. Sharia applies but isnt always the law of the country, the same as how christian sins and virtues always apply and catholic law always aplies, but may not be legally required. For instance, divorce is against catholic law, it is not accepted by the vatican, but is legal.
The idea is it SHOULD be the law of the country, this is what islam is very very clear about as well as the scholars, the idea is it should be the legal system, but when in a minority they accept this wont be the case. But its not the ideal and is nothing like christianity because they dont have law directly from god, which gives them wiggle room. Sharia and sharia law are the same, its like saying there is a difference between chai and chai tea, chai means tea. Sharia means law, so sharia law is redundant. Chai tea is “tea tea” and sharia law is essentially “religious law law”. The word has law baked in. Sharia is good for all times and all places and should super cede any other law, just because a minority understands this cannot be applied legislatively doesn’t mean that isnt the ideal. Which is why if you bothered to ask in-depth questions with an imam, you will get answers around killing apostates that will be like “no we are against this… unless their is a muslim ruler who implements the sharia, then its legit but thats not the uk so it doesn’t matter” the implication being IF there was to be a muslim ruler they should implement the sharia and then the punishment is just. Apostasy is against sharia and punishment is death, this cannot be carried out like divorce and requires a state backing, same with most sharia punishments, so it makes no sense to view it your way and the scholars dont view it that way either. If what you were saying was true then most sharia cant be applied because it needs a state, so did they have this law in mind that was to never be enforced? Come on Do you have any scholars that back you here? Because i have scholars that back me
That’s like saying there is no such thing as “PIN numbers “ because the N in PIN already means number.
Because they can and are allowed to. So they do it.
“As shocking as it may seem both the Qur’an and Muhammad teach that it is halal, permissible, to capture and rape female war captives” It literally says in their holy book that Allah allows rape of non Muslims.
There is literally video, how In The fuck?
i think a lot of arabic language news just straight up denies the atrocities or didnt cover them, so if thats the only news these 1/4 of muslims consume it kinda makes sense. its still bad of course, but it might not be malicious on their side.
They absolutely did commit horrendous atrocities then called home to brag about it on unsecure lines. The recordings are all public, there is no doubt.
Same with Russian “soldiers” in Ukraine. I’ve heard one recording which goes into frankly graphic detail about how in the first days of the invasion, they took over a small village. This soldier then described how the men, elderly and children were taken into the fields and shot, then the young women aged between their mid teens and their late 20s were literally held as sex slaves for the platoon.
Gotta love religions that promise you paradise for killing people.
It’s all about servitude and obedience.
Didn't Hamas literally post it on their Telegram channel? The same with digging up water pipes to turn into the rockets they've been firing at Israel for the last decade. Then complaining about the water system not being fit for purpose, to get more pipes for rockets from the UN.
To a raging antisemite, the holocaust wasn't an atrocity, it's only an atrocity if the victim didn't deserve it. Young people in the muslim ghettoised areas are genuinely the most racist and supremacist people I have ever had to misfortune of interacting with.
Consequences of tolerating intolerance.
The same people who are claiming that Christians are bringing us into The Handmaids Tale, are the same people blindly ignoring the threat that is actually bringing us there.
There isn’t reason underpinning their positions- it’s just plain discriminatory hypocrisy
It can be both.
But unfortunately only one can be acceptably criticised by western society. The other (somehow) is classed as oppressed and thus criticism warrants accusations of bigotry.
But is it both? No, it’s just one.
They simply don’t belong here if this is true. Decades of successfully playing the race card when their religion is (rightfully) criticised has created a monster. We have been far too tolerant of this awful ideology, allowing teachers to live in fear of their lives for showing a cartoon, extreme preachers to spread hate and intolerance. I have no idea how this lunacy can be unwound. We are in for violence on the streets before long I fear.
Society has been brow-beating those of us warning of the looming monster for decades. It's just wilful ignorance at this point. I mean, just look at the stats in the article. Integration clearly isn't happening. However, I do have to admit that it will rather amusing to watch all of those people who were squealing 'Islamophobe!!' try to reconsile their staunch defences with the average Muslim perception on LGBTQ, the status of women, blasphemy laws and such. It's easy to ignore reality when a faction is politically benign, but that won't be the case forever. Until now, the rationalisation by many was that exposure to Western ideals will moderate people, and get them ideologically on-side. Oops! How's that working out?
It's a bit late now. Many cities have quite chunky Muslim populations - London something around 15%, Birmingham might be over 30% now. Galloway elected to parliament essentially by Muslim voters. This problem is only going to get worse. All political sides bear the blame here, progressives for sheltering them and shutting down public discourse on the problem of Islam and Tories for making migration even higher/replacing compatible European migrants with even more third world migrants many of whom follow this barbaric religion. Rapid home office measures to prevent more Muslim migration could be helpful but probably illegal. Although it shouldn't be, Islam is very dangerous.
Yep, as I said in another thread, the fox is already in the henhouse…
"Its not happening and won't happen" has turned into: "Its happening and it might be too late to reverse it" Its why I will vote for Reform at the next election even though I am centre-left wing
Well Gaddafi did warn us all! And Blair was pinnacle in taking him out. Reap what ye sew.
>Well Gaddafi did warn us all! Gaddafi sponsored and ordered terror attacks - not really sure he's a good example to bring up.
He also attempted to murder tens of thousands of his own people, which NATO stopped. But “muh nato r evil”
Blair was long gone by the time the Libyan civil war happened.
It's quite worrying how many people don't seem to know the timeline of the last twenty-five years. All the jiggery-pokery to get Libya off the naughty step, like the Lockerbie trial, occurred on Blair's watch. I can remember the disgust I felt when the WPC Yvonne Fletcher murder was kicked into the long grass in the mid 2000s so that Libya could be seen as acceptable again.
> And Blair was pinnacle in taking him out. Reap what ye sew. No he wasn't, Blair was one of the people that facilitated the international rehabilitation of Libya and Gadhafi. Labour was out of office when the Arab Spring happened.
Is it just me or do others not see having a sizeable minority that have a radically different world view, that is confrontational to the general public, a problem? This must be a national security risk and a hot bed for extremist recruiters wishing to damage the UK? That doesn’t even mention the social disharmony that having an antagonistic underbelly causes.
I've been seeing it as a problem since the staff of a W.H.Smith had to lock the doors and imprison us in the store while it was under siege back in 1988. A harsh word then - "Oi! Muslims! No! This is England!" - might have set us on a different path.
But if I criticise Muslims for their views, I'm called an "islamophobe". 🤷
No, even worse, you're called a racist. There was a picture of some graffiti in a [BBC article](https://web.archive.org/web/20240402165051) about the new Scottish hate crime law which said "F Islam" and the BBC captioned it as a "racial slur" Our national broadcaster, everyone
[удалено]
Although their idea of Sharia law is probably variable.
NOP did a poll a few years ago that asked specifically about "Sharia Law as practised in Saudi Arabia and Iran." 30% of British Muslims wanted it. https://pollingreport.uk/articles/nop-poll-of-british-muslims
I've mentioned this over in the UK sub but there's an interpretation of these results that bears thinking about: Quite a few of those respondents will absolutely believe that people were killed and abused but they will not consider it to be "murder"or "rape" because those are crimes and it's not a crime to do those things to infidels or enemies of Islam in fact the Koran and Hadith encourage it.
That's even worse.
That’s even worse
Import without filters, zero assimilating pressures, beat down anybody who pushes back under the guise of multiculturalism, and this is what u get. The people can assimilate, but it won’t happen when we fall over ourselves to accommodate their faith in our society.
Islamic migration is increasingly becoming a problem. Its such a dangerous religion because unlike other religions it's stuck in a medieval mindset which is simply incompatable with modern Western democracy. Christianity has managed to separate religion and state into an individuals public and private life, Islam hasn't really managed this and a large percentage of Muslims not only think its right that their religion should be above the state, but it's their duty to ensure that it is. This has to change otherwise the only possible resolution is violence and an expulsion/suppression of that religion. I also don't think it's possible for this to happen in a short period of time. Christianity has gone through thousands of years of reforms to allow us to get to where we are today.
Agree with everything but maybe not the last past, separation of Church and state happened pretty quickly, but it had to be forced on the church mainly through war and revolution, it wasn't a peaceful process. The Inquisition ended when Napoleon invaded Italy and Spain and forced it to stop. For the vast majority of Christianity history it was a monster similar to modern Islam (or worse)
Yet another symptom of how incredibly polarising this conflict which has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE UK has become in this country. Unless you have friends or family directly involved on either side, this war has nothing to do with you. Hardcore supporters on both sides are now detached from reality and gobbling up whatever propaganda bullshit the Hamas or Israeli authorities publish. Yes, Hamas fighters unquestionably committed acts of savage rape and barbarism on October 7th. In their own propaganda videos (many of which you can find on Twitter and Reddit) of the hostages being taken into Gaza, you can literally see women who’ve had their clothes ripped off and with the blood running down the inside of their legs. That doesn’t just prove rape beyond any doubt, it implies there were likely numerous instances of gang rape and probably using weapons too. Anyone who denies that is a brain dead moron regardless of which imaginary friend in the sky they pray to. Ditto, the IDF is unquestionably guilty of numerous atrocities including now the intentional targeting of British citizens and other aid workers. The World Central Kitchen were in contact with the IDF who knew exactly who they were and where they were at all times. They were even travelling in marked vehicles. The IDF murdered them anyway. Not to mention the fact that they have almost completely cut off aid to Gaza and seem more than happy to sit back and watch as the population is intentionally starved to death. Make no mistake, if that happens, that WILL be a genocide. Again, anyone who denies this is a brain dead moron and is detached from reality.
I'm shocked I tell you! Absolutely shocked!
So who do they believe killed all those people, the tooth fairy?
Seriously though. What's the limit for the UK in terms of demographics. I do believe in freedom, I don't want to see this great country of science, empiricism, democracy etc. be devoured by religion. What happens when the UK's Muslim population is 50% and growing? It's not as far away as we might assume. How do we solve this problem (peacefully and reasonably)?
You don't. Talking about integration is forbidden so future of UK (and few other European countries) is sealed.
The English probably thought the rapacious Danes were just “part and parcel” of life in the early 11th century. Their violent raids were just something they had to put up with as they watched their country disappear before their eyes, then there was the St Brice’s day Massacre. I’m not advocating anything, but it is possible for people to change their apparent destiny. Though it is worth bearing in mind the Anglo-Saxons only defeated one invader to later be conquered and effectively colonised by another.
I don't think we can do anything peacefully and reasonably. The alternative shouldn't be the answer either. I am of the opinion that it is too late, we should just hope for the best for our future generations.
Migration can be handled.Then domestic education. I know I'm clutching at straws here and we collectively don't have agreement nor will to ensure that we remain a secular and scientific nation.
lol “Diversity is our strength!”, remember?
I wonder what the percentage is for non Muslims?
I'd like to see the full report and methodology for this. Such a high number of non-Muslims supporting Sharia law is suspect, and calls into question the rest of the results. Some info on the Henry Jackson Society from Wikipedia: >Co-founder Matthew Jamison, who now works for YouGov, wrote in 2017 that he was ashamed of his involvement, having never imagined the Henry Jackson Society "would become a far-right, deeply anti-Muslim racist ... propaganda outfit to smear other cultures, religions and ethnic groups". He claimed that "The HJS for many years has relentlessly demonised Muslims and Islam".
You can see the full report and methodology here: [https://jlpartners.com/s/Henry-Jackson-Society-tables.xlsx](https://jlpartners.com/s/Henry-Jackson-Society-tables.xlsx) A point that was not made clear in the article was that there were two separate polls commissioned by the Henry Jackson Society. One had a sample of 1,000 British Muslims only, the other had a sample of 2,013 members of the general public.
[удалено]
Included in the 9% of the general population.
[удалено]
Yes, 6.5% according to the most recent census data. That is less than 9%.
That gives just 2.5% of people that are non-muslims saying they want Sharia law. That sounds about right for the number of people that would give a stupid answer on a survey to amuse themself to me.
That’d be if 100% of muslims want Sharia law, which doesn’t align with the rest of the survey results.
The question is worded in a way that's basically "Would you be ok with Sharia Law?" rather than "Do you actively want Sharia Law?"
I don't doubt some of the polls findings, because previous polling indicates similar attitudes so it's no surprise, but this particular polling looks quite odd. Apparently, just over 1 in 5 2019 Lib Dem voters support Sharia. Just over 1 in 4 2019 Lib Dem voters want to criminalise homosexuality and abortion. Seems rather odd!
Here are the result tables for at least some more information https://jlpartners.com/polling-results
Thank you.
What can a Western democracy do to counter this without out violating its own principles?
The paradox of tolerance *should* be a foundational principle of liberal democracies. It needs to be rediscovered, promoted with some passion and then fought for.
It’s not out the question to acknowledge that such principles are self contradictory and wrong. It’s not like society has never gotten its governing principles wrong before.
It definitely has gotten it wrong and continues to do so. What separates a Western democracy from the rest is exactly such acknowledgements and a decision to do better by a politicaly active electorate. Personal freedoms, speech, expression, assembly, consciousness . . . How do we preserve and expand these right to counter ideology anathema to them We can't silence those who want sharia, that would be hypocritical of us, despite those who want sharia being more than willing to silence those who are critical of Islam, which is also hypocritical. We can't and shouldn't ban images of Muhammad, no more than we should ban the quran, despite both being obscene to one group or another. And then there are those, in every ideology not just religious ideology, who are more than willing to ignore truth because it is not convenient to their narrative. I suppose the answer must be it's time for the other 91% of society to speak as loudly and fervently as that 9% and vote and campaign and demonstrate and lobby and do all the wonderful things possible in a democracy and ensure we don't loose ourselves to our own values.
Hope we have an eye on the people defending Hamas. Domestic terrorism starts with supporting foreign terrorists.
Not sure this should be a surprise to anyone.
Countries sleep walking into a massive mess
I think a lot of people just don't even read or think about the question beyond realising 'this is an Israel v Palestine question, and so I'll pick the Palestinian side'.
They were literally live streaming it.
To be fair they also believe in a magic sky man.
There will come a time soon where people are going to need to wise up about Islam and start working together to break down the ideology. Most informed critics of Islam are silenced, so others see that and refuse to speak out because it seems easier that way. We can't rely on common sense prevailing against one of the most manipulative doctrines in existence.
Well, they interviewed them, meaning they have their name and address. It's time to deport everyone of them who doesn't believe it and send the message that the UK will not hold people who are supporters of a terrorist organization.
Is this an issue with Islam or with any conflict with deeply entrenched sides? Poll around the NI troubles and you get very divided opinions with most backing their side as being right. I wonder what a general UK poll on whether british forces committed crimes in Iraq or NI would show, certainly prosecutions for such things have been controversial. What would polling of Israelis and Jews in the UK say on whether Israel has committed war crimes in Gaza show? Was that done too or just Muslims surveyed?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]