It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"How supportive, if at all, would you be of the official introduction of Shari'ah Law into British law for Muslims in Britain?"
Very supportive - 21%
Fairly supportive - 19%"
The headline conveniently drops the clause "for Muslims", and in 2008 the clause was buried from the article completely. 2010's reporting is fractionally better, but still implies a black & white debate when in reality the question accomodates a range of views - what does "fairly supportive" mean, for example?
But the biggest and clearest misrepresentation is the claim that "one third of British Muslims students say it's acceptable to kill for Islam." This is such a blatant distortion that it's hard to explain how journalists could twist the results of the poll in such a perverse way by accident. The actual question asked was:
"Is it ever justifiable to kill in the name of religion?"
Yes, in order to preserve and promote that religion - 4%
Yes, but only if that religion is under attack - 28%
32% said that it was acceptable to kill in the name of a religion - not Islam, any religion. Of those, 87.5% said "only in self-defense", while the tiny remainder said yes to an answer that includes the confusing conflation "preserve and promote". I'm curious to know what percentage of Christians would give similar answers, and what proportion of human beings in general if we substitute "religion" for "philosophy" or "way of life".
In fact Kenneth Ballen at the Christian Science Monitor tackled this point quite neatly in 2007, in his article on "the myth of Muslim support for terror," pointing to opinion polls that showed, for example, that:
"...only 46 percent of Americans think that 'bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians' are "never justified," while 24 percent believe these attacks are 'often or sometimes justified.'"
You could report that as "54% of Americans think it's fine to kill civilians in the name of capitalism!" but then you would be as stupid as the ubiquitous anonymousity who lurks under the name "Daily Mail Reporter".
Curiously, more positive results were ignored both then and now. 89% of those surveyed said women should be treated equally, with only 5% disagreeing, only 25% had an issue with homosexuality, nearly 80% said it was possibly to be equally Muslim and British, 92% had a range of friends across cultural boundaries, and nearly 80% had respect for Jews (with only 7% expressing disrespect), while a similar number respected Atheists. More than 70% said they were more liberal than their parents.
Originally posted by tiger5
reply to post by Lucifer84
Well the Jews already have this it is called the Beth Din Courts. THey are for Jews only and both parties must elect to use the beth Din. I have no problem and have no dog in that race. Of course it must operate in a manner that is lawful in the UK but I have "no dog in that race".
As a Jew I have to say that this is wrong too and should not be allowed in the UK period.
One law for all or we have a separated and compartmentalised nation.
Why should a Jew not go in front of a British judge if a crime has been commited? Why shouldnt a Muslim, Sikh, Hindu Buddist, alpha centuri presbetarian?
Im sick and tired of minority groups bleating their little causes.
One law for all.
Dont like it?
Piss off and dont slam the door on the way out!
Originally posted by tiger5
reply to post by Nephi1337
Well you have my respect for your spiritual journey. I wish more people would do some spiritual enquiry. Perhaps in time your family will realise that you do not kill people or am planning a bombing or hae not lost your mind. In short I hope they realise that your are still essentially you.