Is the future Muslim?

[Lonnie]

Okay, I know its the Daily Mail, but this is a question that must be in everyones head, and it worries me, bacause if it happens, and I think it will in my lifetime, it'll be Sharia Law we'll be under.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles /news/news.html?in_article_id=452815&in_page_i d=1770

[Lonnie]

oneeyedvic, yes of course that headline is sensationalist, its meant to be, they want to sell the paper, as to me believing it, again, yes, those have been my views for a few years,

Sharia now have their own courts, and practicioners of this vile sect are mainly accountable only to those, this country is slowly becoming divided, and its gathering pace.

For believing this, you can call me gullible or anything else you want, but I have heard them calling for the overthrow of our goverment, to replace it with Sharia, it'll be a bit of time yet, and I also believe that it will be preceded by mayhem and bloodshed.

That should keep you happy for a bit.

infundibulum, thats an excellent reply, and I apologise unreservedly for misunderstanding parts of your answers.

[Oneeyedvic]

Lonnie: "yes of course that headline is sensationalist, its meant to be... ...as to me believing it, again, yes, those have been my views for a few years "

Sensationalist: "someone who uses exaggerated or lurid material in order to gain public attention"

Now you state that you know the claims are exaggerated but you believe them regardless!

I think I would have more respect for you if you were gullible.

And to answer your statement - no it doesn't keep me happy. I enjoy discussing events with people who are rational and open to different view points. By believing something that you admit to be an exaggeration can hardly be deemed rational.

[Lonnie]

oneeyedvic, can you point out to me where I said the claims were exaggerated?, I don't think i've used that expression in the whole of the thread. I did agree that they were sensationolised, thats the papers job,but thats two different things.

[maxximus]

i think you should refer to vic's definition of sensationalist and i think infundibulum's statement ' they seek to distract you methinks' is correct and i completely agree with both of them.

[NJOK]

The immigration debate always makes me laugh.

We've had it with the Irish, blacks, Pakistanis, and now Muslims and Eastern Europeans. There will always be an immigration debate because people need to target their disappointment (often at their own failings or their rubbish lives) towards someone else. We can't accept responsibility for our own short-comings.

There was a study in Hungary in March. Two thirds of the interviewees demanded absolutely no asylum for Piresans, accused them of being spongers, and agreed they should be sent home immediately.

It goes without saying that the country of Piresa is fictional.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/21/piresa n_immigrants/

Really, if there were no Eastern Europeans or Muslims in the world, the Daily Mail crew would find someone else to target. As they have done from the year dot.

The immigration problem is a frame of mind.

And remember - EVERYTHING WAS BETTER IN THE OLDEN DAYS.

[Lonnie]

NJOK, whose talking about immigration?, certainly not me, the post was never about immigration, others brought it in, I think some people should read the initial post, and stick to it.

[NJOK]

Okay, let's stick to the original question then.

No, we won't be under Sharia law in your lifetime. In fact we probably never will.

And that's simple mathematics.

[NJOK]

Piresan Law is a distinct possibility though.

And a terrifying one.

[sp1814]

Dammit - a great big immigration debate and I missed it.

I feel like I've gotten to a house party when all the good booze has gone and were down to the Campari Cinzano.

[anotheoldgit]

And remember - EVERYTHING WAS BETTER IN THE OLDEN DAYS.

You could not be more correct, I know I was there.

I ask you not what did the Romans do for us? but what have the influx of immigrants since the late 50s done for us in this country? Taking into account all the problems we now have due to our politicians ever increasing need to create a multi-cultural state, would we have had a better standard of living, less violent crime, a lesser threat of terrorism, better standards for our health service and education.

I am not saying we should conduct a non-immigrantion policy, but we should be more selective in who we allow in. To continue with the present lax immigration policy, can and will, only bring even further problems, or have we already left it too late?

[NJOK]

Better standard of living? Really?

An example. In the 1950s and beyond, Britain famously had the worst cuisine in the world. The very worst. It was all boiled veg and over-cooked meat devoid of flavour because we were suspicious of herbs and spices and sauces other than gravy.

Now, London is probably the restaurant capital of the world and we happily wolf down Thai food, Indian curries, Moroccan tagines. I had a lovely meal at a Lebanese restaurant the other night. Our appreciation and enjoyment of much nicer food is a direct result of multiculturalism.

Still, you can't beat corned beef hash.

[naomi24]

Fender, I couldn't get into that website, but here's the Panorama web page for anyone who's interested.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama /6631541.stm

I did watch the programme.

[anotheoldgit]

Better standard of living really? --- Yes compaired with most of the world at that time.

Britain famously had the worst cuisine in the world.--- By who's judgement? This was a time when most families could cook. good wholesome British food, each region having their own speciallitys. This was not junk food but healthy recipes that had been passed down from mother to daughter over many years. These dishes had no need for loads of spices to cover up their true taste. We do not want any of that 'foreign muck' was the general opinion at the time, and still is in some households. Each to his or her own though, perhaps this is just one more factor of our ancient culture we are quickly losing due to multi-culturalism.

I do not think an occasional a night out to an Indian/Thai/Moroccan/Chinese or even Japanese restaurant (don't these serve un-cooked fish)? can in anyway balance all the disadvantages attached to multi-culturalism that we are now forced to endure.

[NJOK]

That's right. Those crazy Japanese! It's called sashimi. Do you like it?

[NJOK]

By the way, I love the fact that you use the phrase 'each to his or her own' in a message complaining about multi-culturalism.

So not each to his or her own then?

[ruby27]

Lonnie
Hasn�t it been shown conclusively by previous postings that there are not sufficient numbers of Muslims to bring Sharia Law in, and that even if the current population were to start procreating on a massive scale it would still not work out as there would still be more non Muslims and Muslims who were anti Sharia Law

Anotheoldgit in response to your comment. If the NHS had not actively recruited staff from oversees it would have not been able to provide necessary services. In this country we do not produce sufficiently qualified medical staff. How would a non functioning NHS be an improvement on our current situation?

[Lonnie]

ruby27,
Your absolutely correct, I wasn't talking about now, my estimation, which I think I put in earlier, is ten to fifteen years, of course, it could be longer, but my point is, I think it will happen, but thats me, everyone is entitled to their views.

NJOK,
Thats your view, and your welcome to it, I won't knock it.

[Oneeyedvic]

"Your absolutely correct, I wasn't talking about now, my estimation, which I think I put in earlier, is ten to fifteen years, of course, it could be longer, but my point is, I think it will happen, "

So proportionally there are currently not even 1/2 Million Muslims who want Sharia Law. Lets (for sake of argument believe that all these people are entitled to vote)

There are currently 44 Million people in the UK who are entitled to vote.

So to get a majority in an election, all the Muslims will in 10-15 years have to have 5 children each who are all immediately entiteled to vote. This will make 2.5 Million Muslims. Whoops still not enough. So these 2.5 Million all have 5 children. Now there are 12.5 Million Muslims in the country. Hmm still not enough for a majority.

Do you think your "argument" falls down yet, or do you still think it likely that a small proportion of Muslims can vote in a political party who are willing to adopt Sharia Law?