It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Britain has 85 sharia courts: The astonishing spread of the Islamic justice behind closed doors

page: 15
24
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by symmetricAvenger
reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist
 

sad thing is religion just like money is a form of control i think we can both agree on that

Agreed.... it was implemented years ago so generation after generation would fall right into the trap

yeah i know i wrote em


but who is the doing the controlling?

All i'm pointing out is that some Muslims maybe not all do not like being controlled either via their religion or whatever

that is my point and its not some nutty shake / cleric in England mate

we have parliament...


We do have parliament and yes they make decisions for all of us but it's only because we as a people never protest for long enough




posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
many years ago a law was passed in uk to say that if you drove a motorised bike by law you had to wear a crash helmet,

a gentleman who wore a turban appeared in court for breaking this law. the law was changed so as not to force those that wore turbans to obey, why did they not make bigger helmets for those with turbans?

and there is talk that women that wear burkahs may have to remove them,
a child was told to remove her cross at a christian school and yet muslim girls were allowed to wear their religous bangles.

when a mixture of peoples,cultures,religions,laws,ethics clash there are always problems.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by symmetricAvenger
 





but making religion some kinda target based on invalid information as you rightly pointed out is a joke...


symmetricAvenger you hit the nail on the head. What is flabbergasting is that the information is so bent out of shape and then you get these outlandish debates. I actually think they are talking about something not related to Islam.

What puzzles me is that people fail to ask why now. Why this sudden upsurge of targeting Muslims that have nothing to do with 9/11 or Israel. It is like every and all Americans being help personally responsible for the actions of Israel because there are connections between the American tax payer and Israeli militarism.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist
 


well mate if they want to make sharia law REAL law in the uk ill be standing next to you saying GO @#¬' your self




hehe trust me mate i hate religion



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by masonwatcher
 


yep


spot on my friend.. glad to have you on my friend list mate.




posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


no but you are confusing the REAL laws with a voluntary system? that is overseen by the laws that the united kingdom has passed?

They work within the LAW not above it mate...

its a scare tactic to dived you

You know.. the governments need a face to pin the EVIL guys face on

it just so happens this time around its Muslims aka osama bin laden and co

be for that it was socialism then commies....

china- edited..

jeezz.. its so pointless.. the law of this land does not and will not accept sharia law in any form other than to accommodate Divorce...

as was pointed out by many and better than me "grammer wise"


you had the information given to you in many posts so why keep trying to say the MUSLIMS ARE COMING TO TAKE OVER...

when the basic facts are they are not

i do not understand your argument.. and at least laura made it about womens rights.. thats another topic...human rights and so forth.. you know the thing we signed up to ?

edited

[edit on 4-7-2009 by symmetricAvenger]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Cythraul
 
So not govt stats then: a Guardian article from 2004 based on stats from 2001 & a Times article based on stats "collated for The Times". Before getting into those stats tho, I take issue with your interpretation of them.

  • If 33% of muslims are under 16 & you're saying 1M out of 2.4M are under 19, that's 42% which strikes me as a bit high. But Only half are female (actually 48% but lets not complicate).
  • It may well be that Pakistani & Bangladeshi women have larger families, but many muslims were born here & necessarily, these future generations mainly will be, so it's likely that their birthrate will drop simply because this is what happens in wealthy societies. If you want kids to have all the advantages you can provide, you have less of them & better healthcare means more survive.

The Office of National Statistics (ONS) puts the UK population @60.975 million. So say 61M, of which 2.4M are muslim, which is 3.93%, say 4% & allow for illegals. ONS puts all working age @62% & of those 52% are under 40yrs. Thus we can say that the childbearing population of the UK is 61M x 62% x 52% / 2 = 9.83 million.
ONS stats show that women aged 30-34 have the highest fertility rate & the mean age of giving birth to be 29.3yrs & rising, thus it's misleading to focus on the youngest age group. ONS also puts the UK Total Fertility Rate (TFR) @1.9 children/woman so 1.9 x 9.83M projects 18.68M UK births in total.
Let's disregard that ONS stats say only 15% of mothers were not born in the UK & take your aggregate of 4.3 kids/muslim mother @face value: 9.83M x 4% = 0.39M muslim mothers x 4.3 kids each = 1.68M muslim kids. Subtract that from UK births: 18.68M - 1.68M = 17M non-muslim kids born to the 96% of other mothers: 9.83M x 96% = 9.44M

(Continued below)



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 
(continued from above)
So 9.44M non-muslim women of childbearing age. If they really had a fertility rate of 1.3 kids each that would equate to: 9.44M x 1.3 = 12.27M kids. Added to the muslim kids: 12.27M + 1.68M = 13.95M
But we've already worked out that based on the ONS TFR of 1.9 there should be a total of 18.68M kids. That's a shortfall of 4.73M or 25.32%! Actually, as we saw above the stats project 17M kids born to 9.44M non-muslim mothers: 17M / 9.44M = 1.8 kids/non-muslim woman.
This correlates to the ONS TFR of 1.79 for mothers born in the UK (which includes muslims).
This is problematic, but let's just go with a simple 3 generation projection:
Muslims
0.39M x 4.3 = 1.68M half female = 0.84M x 4.3 = 3.61M / 2 = 1.8M x 4.3 = 7.74 million muslims in total.
Non-Muslims
9.44 x 1.79 (ONS figure) = 16.9M / 2 = 8.45M x 1.79 = 15.13M / 2 = 7.57M x 1.79 = 13.55 million total non-muslims.
So in 3 generations, muslims will give birth to 57.12% of the population. But bear in mind that there'll still be plenty of the previous generations still alive. We will not be overrun by islam. True, a lot of those non-muslims will not be white anglo-saxons, but hey, this is about shari'ah not skin colour, or being Eastern-European in origin, right?



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   
what the guy above me said

nice stats
stared both



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 
Ok, that's his experience. As I've said, I live in an area of @least 50% muslim families. I haven't said here yet that my partner is a teacher, although to be fair, the school she teaches in has only a small amount of muslims. But it's been our experience that they cause less trouble than many other groups, especially poor anglo-saxons. The group of kids my partner has most trouble with is from military families, which seems kind of counter-intuitive, given the disciplined home environment, but it seems they let rip @school.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 


hi there..off topic i just noticed yur sig

www.abovetopsecret.com...

read that



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Actually symmetricAvenger, I quite like the French. They certainly know how to bring the place to a standstill when they've got a grievance with their govt,
Also, I'm leaning towards believing we should ban the burqa, especially in schools. It's both a symbol & means of female oppression. It's not even like most muslims use it. In fact, a lot of British muslim women dont even bother with the hijab except on special occasions.
I think that with a couple more generations of secure lifestyle under their belts & the example of our long established muslim communities, most UK muslims will be like most UK christians: only interested in religion for births, deaths & marriages.
Unless we make them insecure by being unreasonable.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 


yeah i think your right but banning stuff kinda bans people who want to ware it?i mean even if 1% like it just being faith based then i think its not doing any harm to me in any way.

I think a woman on question time made a good point tho,that for teaching i think that full on head gear is bad people like to read lips i know it sounds funny but its better in a way..say some realy good educated muslim wants to ware it doing something but shes good at it but loves her faith?

how can we resolve that.. i dunno maybe its public sector or private that will play its role. so i do agree on that part

but banning it say at home or going the shop thats abit far for me.. i think everyone within reason and fairness should have the right too practice any faith they wish long as they are not hurting anyone or making others feel intimidated in some way ..

that i hope will be bettered under UK law



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by symmetricAvenger
 
Yeah I see your point & star! But I do wonder if any women wearing such extreme religous garb might not be hurting the cause of all women. You said yourself that women still dont get paid as much as men. Sexism isn't completely dead yet. What sort of message are we sending to allow such oppression?
I frankly dont care if some women choose it, that doesn't mean they're not brainwashed.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 


that mate i can not answer its way to complex lol i just think we need to listen to people more

i think thats our problem we dont listen to each other

we are all in this together :/

we are all going to some god of some kind or maybe not?

point is we are here...i think we should work as a team and get of this rock asap



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 


Bunken Drum which Muslims and non-Muslim women are you referring to in your calculations?

Strikes me as if you are making this all up in your head. If you are attempting to conduct statistical forecast, shouldn't you research the data on a country by country basis and have regard for socio-economic factors? You will of course need to cite the sources of your data.

If you merely want to generalise according to your prejudices, your convoluted comment is a waste of your efforts.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by masonwatcher
 


Or you could just visit Bradford


Titanic, deckchairs, rearranging.



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
I take issue with your interpretation of them.

While some of your assertions and calculations are fair, I too take issue with some of them.


Originally posted by Bunken Drum
  • If 33% of muslims are under 16 & you're saying 1M out of 2.4M are under 19, that's 42% which strikes me as a bit high. But Only half are female (actually 48% but lets not complicate).

  • If 33% of Muslims are under 16, it's actually very conservative to estimate that 42% are under 19. And saying only half are female is an invalid point as all of my calculations took this into account already. When we say the birthrate for Pakistanis is 4.7 per female, we're saying that it's 4.7 per couple. I believe the replacement rate is calculated at 2.1 per woman/couple and thus 4.3 is more than double the replacement rate, whilst 1.3 is just over half.


    Originally posted by Bunken Drum
    ONS stats show that women aged 30-34 have the highest fertility rate & the mean age of giving birth to be 29.3yrs & rising, thus it's misleading to focus on the youngest age group.

    No it's not. To say Muslims have an average of 4.3 children per couple does not equate to saying that only the youngest group has 4.3. It means that in her entire life, that woman will still have had at least 4.3. Besides, the same age range was used for non-muslims, so it's proportionate and that's what's key.


    Originally posted by Bunken Drum
    ONS also puts the UK Total Fertility Rate (TFR) @1.9 children/woman so 1.9 x 9.83M projects 18.68M UK births in total.

    1.9 as an average of the entire UK. That "1.9" is not ethnic specific and takes into account the 4.7 by Pakistani mothers and 3.9 by Bangladeshi mothers. The birth rate for indigenous Britons is closer to 1.3.


    Originally posted by Bunken Drum
    So 9.44M non-muslim women of childbearing age. If they really had a fertility rate of 1.3 kids each that would equate to: 9.44M x 1.3 = 12.27M kids. Added to the muslim kids: 12.27M + 1.68M = 13.95M

    My figures state 15M under 16s, which isn't far off from 13.95. Additionally, you're not taking into account that the birth rate of other, non-muslim minorities is somewhere between 1.3 and 4.3. This would likely explain any discrepancy. Mothers of African and Eastern European origin, I strongly suspect, have a birth rate significantly higher than the 1.3 by indigenous mothers, but probably a little less than the 4.3 by Muslim mothers.


    Originally posted by Bunken Drum
    But we've already worked out that based on the ONS TFR of 1.9 there should be a total of 18.68M kids. That's a shortfall of 4.73M or 25.32%! Actually, as we saw above the stats project 17M kids born to 9.44M non-muslim mothers: 17M / 9.44M = 1.8 kids/non-muslim woman.

    See last answer. Official statistics I showed were from 2007 whereas birthrates by ethnic group are more current.


    Originally posted by Bunken Drum
    This correlates to the ONS TFR of 1.79 for mothers born in the UK (which includes muslims).

    Exactly. Due to the number of UK-born Muslim mothers, this figure of 1.79 for both UK-born Muslim and indigenous mothers confirms my 1.3 for indigenous mothers.


    Originally posted by Bunken Drum
    0.39M x 4.3 = 1.68M half female = 0.84M x 4.3 = 3.61M / 2 = 1.8M x 4.3 = 7.74 million muslims in total.

    No, you didn't just calculate 7.74 million muslims total, you calculated 7.74 female muslims. And again, you can do the same to my calculations for indigenous British mothers and arrive at the same conclusion. It's the ratio that matters, not the precise figures and the ratio is the same whether we only count females for both, or count males and females for both.


    Originally posted by Bunken Drum
    So in 3 generations, muslims will give birth to 57.12% of the population. But bear in mind that there'll still be plenty of the previous generations still alive. We will not be overrun by islam.

    Yes, there will be plenty of the previous generation alive but they do not represent the future. When the entirety of the previous generation have passed on, the UK will be - by your own estimations - 57.12% Muslim, a majority.


    Originally posted by Bunken Drum
    True, a lot of those non-muslims will not be white anglo-saxons, but hey, this is about shari'ah not skin colour, or being Eastern-European in origin, right?

    Right.



    posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 06:59 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Retseh
    reply to post by masonwatcher
     


    Or you could just visit Bradford


    Titanic, deckchairs, rearranging.


    Ahh, yes Bradford. That old whipping horse for the standard racist. My understanding is that a social fissure has developed between poor working class Yorkshire men and poor working class second and third generation Pakistanis born and breed up North.

    The thing is these Yorkshire Pakistanis have become better Yorkshire men than the paler skinned versions. These Pakistani Brits play better cricket, the are harder than Yorkshire hardmen, they have become better mobbers than the indigenous bullies, and they don't take any crap from anyone.

    Religion has got nothing to it. It is about how to best deal with bigots and how to share their medicine with them.

    Bradford


    [edit on 083131p://am3115 by masonwatcher]



    posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 08:25 AM
    link   
    reply to post by masonwatcher
     


    Ahh, yes Bradford. That old whipping horse for the standard racist.

    hahah

    its so easy to spot


    Oh look they are taking over bradford!! watch out... LOL




    top topics



     
    24
    << 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

    log in

    join