Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

mattyrm wrote: ...and its the exact same thing, these women do not have a choice!

Where are you getting this from?

It's been pointed out in this thread again and again and again that both parties have to opt for this course, and the decisions are not legally binding.

LordofHats wrote:

It is the same thing as agreeing to go on Judge Judy.

I think Sebster brings up a good point. We are missing a prime opportunity for some high quality television here! Judge Mahmud has potential in the prime time line up

I actually find some of the comments here very entertaining. There was a time, say a thousand years or so ago, that muslim courts were some of the fairest you could find in the world. Also, I feel it important to point out that not all Muslims have the same interpretation of Sharia. In the Abbasid dynasty there were four different court systems for four different Sharia interpretations, plus the Catholic, Orthodox, and Jewish courts. In Islamic history, the idea of multiple legal systems coexisting isn't that far fetched of a concept (whether or not that cultural history is at play here I don't know). One shouldn't automatically assume a muslim conspiracy to take over the legal system, especially when that isn't what is happening.

Who gives a about a thousand years ago? This is now. 2011, its the new black.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:

Melissia wrote:

sebster wrote:Again... civil courts dealing with civil matters such as property damage and breaches of contract. Both parties have to agree. If you could please just read that and accept it, you would quickly see your worry about the rights of women makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense when you view Sharia as a corrupt piece of sexist, homophobic gak like I do.

I don't believe for an instant that they'll faithfully apply Sharia law to ONLY civil acts.

People are legally only permitted to use Sharia and Judaic courts for civil arbitration. If a crime happens the police and the regular courts are in play and the Sharia and Judaic courts aren't even involved.

Child custody, marriage and dating, employment, literally everything besides criminal actions fall under civil. Everything the average person is involved with is civil, not criminal activities. So yea it matters a hell of a lot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:

Amaya wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

Amaya wrote:When was the last time radical Jewish terrorists assaulted or bombed anyone? When was the last time Jews have practice honour killings? The systematic abuse of women? Killed apostates?

You are functionally blaming all Muslims for the actions of some. Some Jews have done nasty things too. And some Christians. And some Pagans. Etc.

No, I'm pointing out that Judaism (outside of Israel) does not have the history of violence that Islam does.

This comment seems lacking in knowledge of, well, history. As Reds8n pointed out.

Sharia law (and possibly traditional Judaic law, for that matter) may include things you or I disapprove of, and we may dislike many aspects of the cultures from which they spring. But English law doesn't allow them to be used for anything but civil & contract situations, and then only by mutual consent.

However one you agree to binding arbitration, then the British courts must enforce the finding of that arbitration. If the woman gets sucked into a Sharia (or rabbinical court-thats equally stupid) then a follow on real court has to enforce that binding arbitration. She could lose her children from such nonsense.

Frazzled wrote:
However one you agree to binding arbitration, then the British courts must enforce the finding of that arbitration. If the woman gets sucked into a Sharia (or rabbinical court-thats equally stupid) then a follow on real court has to enforce that binding arbitration. She could lose her children from such nonsense.

Face. Palm.

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/6724

This interesting piece sheds some light on the whole issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would also draw your attention to this highly relevant paper on the Beth Din courts.

http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/files/1236789702_1.pdf, in particular the following paragraph from page 9.


Safeguards under the Arbitration Act
The 1996 Arbitration Act contains many safeguards:


Arbitration must be voluntary for both parties

Arbitration must be impartial

Civil courts retain the right to overturn an arbitration award

Arbitration is limited to civil cases

Beth Din courts and decisions are very clearly overruled and limited by general English law. I see no inherent problem with Sharia courts operating under the same principles.

They may retain right, but rarely are arbitrations overturned, thats the whole point.

Maybe most arbitrations are fair.

I don't think the court system needs to have every single case overturned five times on its way to the House of Lords.

That benefits no-one except for lawy... hang on!

Kilkrazy wrote:Maybe most arbitrations are fair.

**** especially in this instance. Melissia's argument is made real in arbitrations. By the act of its existence its unfair to women and non-adults.

I don't think the court system needs to have every single case overturned five times on its way to the House of Lords.

**** But that kind of blows out your argument doesn't it...

No.

Kilkrazy wrote:No.

I just noticed your avatar has a beard. Excellent.

This story is six months old and drummed up by the daily fail in their weekly rant.

To clarify:

In order to use a sharia court, both parties must agree to be arbitrated between. And to stick to that arbitration. The arbitration in question may be overturned by the civil authorities. The arbitration has no power over criminal affairs. The arbitration may not prescribe settlements that violate British law. There is already a precedent with regards to the Jewish courts.

Some people worry that intimidation might be used in the case of female rights. To that, the answer is
a) Intimidation is illegal under British criminal law. The woman in question is well within her rights at that point to make her way to the nearest police station, report the intimidation and her fears, and be placed in a safe location. The intimidator should then then be arrested under criminal law. The sharia judgment will not be valid, as she will not be agreeing to it.
In other words, this is a non-issue. There is no legal ability to force women into sharia judgment unless they want to go. If they are being intimidated, they may report that, as they may report it for any kind of intimidation from anyone, anywhere in the country, in any affair.

b) If the woman in question is that easy to intimidate, and will not report it, she wouldn't bother agreeing to a sharia court, the other party would just intimidate her in order to get the desired outcome straight of the bat. A middleman would be unnecessary.

To conclude, its no different from me asking bob to decide between bill and me as to whether baked beans are better cold or hot. At the end of the day, I can still refuse to accept his validity whichever way he decides, and do things my own way.

Ketara wrote:
This story is six months old and drummed up by the daily fail in their weekly rant.

Could be worse, a lot worse... http://nosleeptilbrooklands.blogspot.com/2011/01/true-story-of-daily-mail-lies-guest.html?spref=fb

The comparison to the Jewish arbitration is a false one.

Jewish people have successfully integrated into the greater community of the nation, currently, most Islamic people are struggling to do this due to several reasons, including:

The British sense of morality is based around Judeo-Christian ideology. That sense of morality has shaped our laws and social outlook. Many of the practices of Islamic peoples can be said to be at odds with that.

The current hostilities between 'western nations' and nations with Islamic populations is viewed by many muslims as a holy conflict and that the western nations, including Britain, are the enemies of their faith. In return, muslims are now viewed with hostility by an increasing number of the populace. That mistrust has not afflicted the Jewish community for a fair few years.

The issue of misogyny will not go away. The laws of Islam are fundamentally geared to the rights of men at the expense of the rights of women, you can all argue about the actual intention of the Prophet's writings, but that IS how it is, not just for muslim women in the middle east, but for muslim women living in the UK. I know, I lived in a community up until recently with a very high proportion of Somalian muslims and even my Pakistani friend, a lapsed muslim himself, commented that 'they don't treat their women well at all'.

Do you think that a woman under pressure from her spouse, her spouse's family and her own family, will have fair treatment in these courts?

Do you think that these courts will always tow the line on not becoming involved in criminal procedings? What happens when something is a crime in the eyes of the British Courts but not under Sharia? When the divorce sought by a woman due to the violence she has suffered is insisted on going to these courts first by his and her family.

This move further cloaks the muslim community's activities in the greater populace and further fuels notions of isolation, ghettoisation and alienation within the greater community of Britain.

It is little wonder it is met with scepticism and mistrust and serves only to isolate the muslim community further, raise frustrations and endanger women's lives.

reds8n wrote:

Ketara wrote:
This story is six months old and drummed up by the daily fail in their weekly rant.

Could be worse, a lot worse... http://nosleeptilbrooklands.blogspot.com/2011/01/true-story-of-daily-mail-lies-guest.html?spref=fb

Scary thing is, I think I read that article.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:The comparison to the Jewish arbitration is a false one.

Jewish people have successfully integrated into the greater community of the nation,

Only out of a fear of persecution. A good hundred years ago, all those little laws defending ethnic minorities didn't exist, and most of them were fleeing the various pogroms of Europe. Integrating was a means of survival and necessity, not free choice.

currently, most Islamic people are struggling to do this

You speak to all of them?

due to several reasons, including:

The British sense of morality is based around Judeo-Christian ideology. That sense of morality has shaped our laws and social outlook. Many of the practices of Islamic peoples can be said to be at odds with that.

Islam, Judaism, and christianity are all descended from roughly the same roots if it comes down to it. Womens rights are relatively new thing, christianity and judaism both have misogynistic aspects. People just highlight those of Islam because of the misogynistic arabic states that exist in other countries today. However, they are neither here nor there, as sharia law is not prevalent in the UK.

The current hostilities between 'western nations' and nations with Islamic populations is viewed by many muslims

Wow. You really must know them all on a personal level then.

as a holy conflict and that the western nations, including Britain, are the enemies of their faith. In return, muslims are now viewed with hostility by an increasing number of the populace. That mistrust has not afflicted the Jewish community for a fair few years.

Actually, anti-semitic attacks on Jews and synagogues have been on the rise for quite some time now. The BNP and the rest the nationalistic thugs aren't any keener on Jews than they are arabs.

The issue of misogyny will not go away. The laws of Islam are fundamentally geared to the rights of men at the expense of the rights of women, you can all argue about the actual intention of the Prophet's writings, but that IS how it is, not just for muslim women in the middle east, but for muslim women living in the UK. I know, I lived in a community up until recently with a very high proportion of Somalian muslims and even my Pakistani friend, a lapsed muslim himself, commented that 'they don't treat their women well at all'.

Sure. But sharia law is not prevalent in the UK. As stated already, by me a few posts earlier, a woman being treated badly can walk down to the police station. These inpromptu 'sharia courts' are separate from that. If you regard misogny of women in islamic culture as a problem, these inpromptu courts are a symptom, not a cause. If intimidated women aren't reporting their circumstances, its the fault of their societies, not these courts, which can incidentally provide excellent arbitration between people who want it.

Do you think that a woman under pressure from her spouse, her spouse's family and her own family, will have fair treatment in these courts?

I doubt a woman under 'pressure' of this variety would ever reach a sharia court. She'd be told to shut up and make a sandwich, so to speak.

Do you think that these courts will always tow the line on not becoming involved in criminal procedings?

Does society in general ever toe in the line? How many people go over the speed limit every day?

Regardless of which, its irrelevant. If they break the law, they're as open to proescution as anyone else, and their judgments have no legal binding.

What happens when something is a crime in the eyes of the British Courts but not under Sharia?

Then the person in question gets prosecuted.

When the divorce sought by a woman due to the violence she has suffered is insisted on going to these courts first by his and her family.

If a woman is under the kind of pressure that makes her fear for her life, and she is acceding to it, is she really going to be trying to get a divorce? Really? If she's the subject of violent treatment already, she'll either be at the police office under protection, or she'll be doing as she's told. The husband won't ask in between punches whether or she would prefer to use a sharia court for their divorce. He'll tell her she has no right for divorce and keep hitting her.

Irrelevant anyway, as divorces still have to pass through the british legal system as well as the sharia/beth din courts. Sharia courts can proclaim divorces all they like, they have no legal sway. It's in one of the links up above.

This move further cloaks the muslim community's activities in the greater populace and further fuels notions of isolation, ghettoisation and alienation within the greater community of Britain.

Only if you read the daily fail and oppose people being capable of maintaining their own ethnic identity. If I want bob to arbitrate between me and bill, because bob is a rabbi, thirty years older than us, and probably much wiser, what right have you to tell me I'm not allowed to?

It is little wonder it is met with scepticism and mistrust and serves only to isolate the muslim community further, raise frustrations and endanger women's lives.

No.

It's a xenophobic reaction to a culture attempting to maintain some of their own values in a legal and non-binding way.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:The comparison to the Jewish arbitration is a false one.

Jewish people have successfully integrated into the greater community of the nation, currently, most Islamic people are struggling to do this due to several reasons, including:

The British sense of morality is based around Judeo-Christian ideology. That sense of morality has shaped our laws and social outlook. Many of the practices of Islamic peoples can be said to be at odds with that.

The current hostilities between 'western nations' and nations with Islamic populations is viewed by many muslims as a holy conflict and that the western nations, including Britain, are the enemies of their faith. In return, muslims are now viewed with hostility by an increasing number of the populace. That mistrust has not afflicted the Jewish community for a fair few years.

The issue of misogyny will not go away. The laws of Islam are fundamentally geared to the rights of men at the expense of the rights of women, you can all argue about the actual intention of the Prophet's writings, but that IS how it is, not just for muslim women in the middle east, but for muslim women living in the UK. I know, I lived in a community up until recently with a very high proportion of Somalian muslims and even my Pakistani friend, a lapsed muslim himself, commented that 'they don't treat their women well at all'.

Do you think that a woman under pressure from her spouse, her spouse's family and her own family, will have fair treatment in these courts?

Do you think that these courts will always tow the line on not becoming involved in criminal procedings? What happens when something is a crime in the eyes of the British Courts but not under Sharia? When the divorce sought by a woman due to the violence she has suffered is insisted on going to these courts first by his and her family.

This move further cloaks the muslim community's activities in the greater populace and further fuels notions of isolation, ghettoisation and alienation within the greater community of Britain.

It is little wonder it is met with scepticism and mistrust and serves only to isolate the muslim community further, raise frustrations and endanger women's lives.

British law is based on Judaeo-Christian traditions which are misogynistic.

It is less than 100 years since women were given the vote.

It is about 60 years since British people were marching in support of fascists to get Jews expelled from the country.

It is less than 40 years since women were given (in theory) equal rights to pay and conditions in employment, which still have not been achieved.

Things have improved.

mattyrm wrote:To be fair Kk I am sure I would disagree with the Jewish system as well, I just know less about it.

Alb, it affects me not a jot either mate, but does that mean we shouldnt care? It doesn't affect me if people go gay bashing either (except for weekends), but I think it should anger us, and its the exact same thing, these women do not have a choice!

People getting treated awfully doesn't affect me a jot in general, cos I'm rock and nobody treats me badly personally, but I genuinely do feel bad for other people who are getting mistreated! Isn't that a motivation?

I would counter with the fact that I've already admitted that I find their culture distasteful, abhorrent even - but I'm at pains to point out that that doesn't mean I see Sharia Law as a threat to the supremacy of British Law. Think about it - what set of circumstances would have to occur before we would all be living under Islamic law in this country?

It will never, ever, ever happen. So let's stop worrying about it. EU legislation is the greater worry to me.

As long as both parties submit themselves to Sharia courts voluntarily, then I really don't give a gak what those people get up to. I'm happy living here in the 21st century, man.


That's the price of freedom.

Kilkrazy wrote:Things have improved.

Yes, for Judaeo-Christian based laws. As time goes on, most Judeo-Christian based countries have moved away from the misogyny of the bible and the torah, towards a more equal secular view.

Not for Sharia law. Things have only gotten worse for countries using Sharia law, in comparison to the golden age of Islamic enlightenment when Islamic countries were bastions of scientific study and social innovation-- they've taken many leaps backwards.

Kilkrazy wrote:

1. British law is based on Judaeo-Christian traditions which are misogynistic.

2. It is less than 100 years since women were given the vote.

3. It is about 60 years since British people were marching in support of fascists to get Jews expelled from the country.

4. It is less than 40 years since women were given (in theory) equal rights to pay and conditions in employment, which still have not been achieved.

5. Things have improved.

1. Based on and then evolved. Also, compare Thou Shalt Not Kill with this:

Every year in the United Kingdom (UK), officials estimate that at least a dozen women are victims of honor killings, almost exclusively within Asian and Middle Eastern families.[22] Often cases cannot be resolved due to the unwillingness of family, relatives and communities to testify. A 2006 BBC poll for the Asian network in the UK found that one in ten of the 500 young Asians polled said that they could condone the murder of someone who dishonored their family.[23] In the UK, in December 2005, Nazir Afzal, Director, west London, of Britain's Crown Prosecution Service, stated that the United Kingdom has seen "at least a dozen honour killings" between 2004 and 2005.

2. But they do now have the vote, some however, say in the muslim community, are not allowed by their peers and spouses, to use it.

3. Some were marching, we readily identified them as fascist, that terrible lesson was learnt at a high cost, yet we are terrified to confront this religious fascism for fear of the racism label.

4. But we continue to work towards it and have made progress. However within the UK there remain, say in the muslim community, women who are not even permitted, by those around them, the right to go and work or seek education.

5. Not for everyone, see above.

If I understand your argument correctly, your proposed solution to the problem of integrating Muslims is to deny them the integration opportunities that have been given to other successfully integrated minorities.

Would that be correct?

Amaya wrote:When was the last time radical Jewish terrorists assaulted or bombed anyone? When was the last time Jews have practice honour killings? The systematic abuse of women? Killed apostates?

Pretty sure it was the last time Tottenham played Arsenal.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

mattyrm wrote: ...and its the exact same thing, these women do not have a choice!

Where are you getting this from?

It's been pointed out in this thread again and again and again that both parties have to opt for this course, and the decisions are not legally binding.

Where am I getting this from? Here.

http://www.maryamnamazie.com

Seriously mate, this is an old story, and i read alot about it when it was first raised, I am a member of Mariam Namazies "one law for all campaign" and I have been for several years.

I will listen to the thousands of actual Muslim women that get affected by this stuff, and you can stick your fingers in your ears and insist "again and again and again" that its fine because both parties "opt" for this course and pretend its not happening because your a spousal abuse enabler.

Its fine mate, each to their own, but I really must insist that you dont convince yourself I am just making this stuff up, because I absolutely am not.

Kilkrazy wrote:your proposed solution to the problem of integrating Muslims is to deny them the integration opportunities that have been given to other successfully integrated minorities.

When they're using it to fight integration and oppress their own people, yes.

Ketara wrote:

No.

It's a xenophobic reaction to a culture attempting to maintain some of their own values in a legal and non-binding way.

Really? Really?!

I suggest you read accounts of actual British Muslim women.

Honestly, i genuinely cannot believe how so many otherwise intelligent people are able to be hoodwinked so easily by the Muslim community simply because they have been conditioned by the left leaning PC establishment that any form of criticism at all of Islam is "xenophobic racism"

Seriously, it disturbs me.

Here, if even the Guardian can criticize Muslim practices, can you left leaning PC apologists not even bring yourself to let out a tiny amount of discontent?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jul/25/female-circumcision-children-british-law

Kilkrazy wrote:If I understand your argument correctly, your proposed solution to the problem of integrating Muslims is to deny them the integration opportunities that have been given to other successfully integrated minorities.

Would that be correct?

How is a religious and exclusive court of their own an 'integration opportunity'?

That's like saying having a tv in your bedroom is a great way to get out and meet people.

Also, when is the last time you saw the Jewish community doing this in central London?

Dont put anymore stuff like that on MGS, it causes a burning fire to blaze in my heart that only 15 pints can quench.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:If I understand your argument correctly, your proposed solution to the problem of integrating Muslims is to deny them the integration opportunities that have been given to other successfully integrated minorities.

Would that be correct?

How is a religious and exclusive court of their own an 'integration opportunity'?

That's like saying having a tv in your bedroom is a great way to get out and meet people.

Also, when is the last time you saw the Jewish community doing this in central London?

To be fair MGS the jewish community is hardly integrated into the UK. I'm Jewish by my mother and I have never met another Jewish person living in the north of England in my life. The Jewish people I do know live in concentrated Jewish communities in north london and essex. My three best friends at Uni were born within miles of each other and grew up together, yet one didn't go to school with the other two as they went to a Jewish school as most do in their area.

In contrast to that I know muslim families living in the middle of white streets up here and although i'm not arguing muslims are integrated into the UK, I think they're ahead of the Jewish community which is almost secular by nature. The difference is most Jews have white faces.

I think when people say "integrate" they sometimes mean "gone native".

The Jewish population of the UK is surprisingly small, and a lot are not strictly Orthodox.

Consequently there is a tendency for Jewish people to marry out of the faith.

Kilkrazy wrote:I think when people say "integrate" they sometimes mean "gone native".

The Jewish population of the UK is surprisingly small, and a lot are not strictly Orthodox.

Consequently there is a tendency for Jewish people to marry out of the faith.

On the contrary, most Jews I know want to find that 'nice jewish girl' and have a strong sense of being jewish even though they don't follow religion. Of course many don't but then I know many white/asian couples too.

No, I mean actual social integration, which is the movement of minority groups into the mainstream. Sharia law is inherently opposed to integration to begin with.

whatwhat wrote:
To be fair MGS the jewish community is hardly integrated into the UK. I'm Jewish by my mother and I have never met another Jewish person living in the north of England in my life. The Jewish people I do know live in concentrated Jewish communities in north london and essex. My three best friends at Uni were born within miles of each other and grew up together, yet one didn't go to school with the other two as they went to a Jewish school as most do in their area.

Hmmm, not entirely what I was driving at. I guess I mean that there is no basic divide there for someone Jewish. 'Most sensible folks' from the anglo-saxon white majority won't immediately throw up their mental barriers or suddenly find themselves walking on social eggshells when talking to a Jewish person nowadays, which is a fairly amazing thing given how prejudices did exist within living memory.

Also, the couple of Jews that I know conduct their Jewish affairs along quite private lines, you don't know someone is Jewish, or practising actively in the faith, unless you enquire.

My philosophy is basically that of Bill and Ted, be excellent to one another... I welcome anyone who wants to sit and break bread and do no harm, to come to the table and enjoy themselves, we will be enriched by their culture and viewpoint. I don't get that from active fundamental Islam any more than I get it from active fundamental Christianity. They want to come to the table and tell me how to break the bread, when to eat it and beat me up if I don't do it right, despite it being my bread, they want no part in my culture or my viewpoint and want me to follow theirs 'or else'.

That is a form of fascism I have never encountered from Jewish people I've met, who largely want to keep their religion quiet and have a nice day and be productive.

That the Jewish community have a civil court of their own to manage matters outside of crimes seems entirely reasonable, they are not actively trying to assimilate the country, not aggressively marching through the streets, not burning poppies, not screaming for authors to be put to death, not murdering their own daughters for seeking to integrate into the society they live in or indeed, engaging or condoning acts of terror or sedition.

So I don't mind when Jewish people in my country want a civil court of their own, I hear no rhetoric from their religious leaders about overthrowing the way of life in my country.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
To be fair MGS the jewish community is hardly integrated into the UK. I'm Jewish by my mother and I have never met another Jewish person living in the north of England in my life. The Jewish people I do know live in concentrated Jewish communities in north london and essex. My three best friends at Uni were born within miles of each other and grew up together, yet one didn't go to school with the other two as they went to a Jewish school as most do in their area.

Hmmm, not entirely what I was driving at. I guess I mean that there is no basic divide there for someone Jewish. 'Most sensible folks' from the anglo-saxon white majority won't immediately throw up their mental barriers or suddenly find themselves walking on social eggshells when talking to a Jewish person nowadays, which is a fairly amazing thing given how prejudices did exist within living memory.

Also, the couple of Jews that I know conduct their Jewish affairs along quite private lines, you don't know someone is Jewish, or practising actively in the faith, unless you enquire.

My philosophy is basically that of Bill and Ted, be excellent to one another... I welcome anyone who wants to sit and break bread and do no harm, to come to the table and enjoy themselves, we will be enriched by their culture and viewpoint. I don't get that from active fundamental Islam any more than I get it from active fundamental Christianity. They want to come to the table and tell me how to break the bread, when to eat it and beat me up if I don't do it right, despite it being my bread, they want no part in my culture or my viewpoint and want me to follow theirs 'or else'.

That is a form of fascism I have never encountered from Jewish people I've met, who largely want to keep their religion quiet and have a nice day and be productive.

That the Jewish community have a civil court of their own to manage matters outside of crimes seems entirely reasonable, they are not actively trying to assimilate the country, not aggressively marching through the streets, not burning poppies, not screaming for authors to be put to death, not murdering their own daughters for seeking to integrate into the society they live in or indeed, engaging or condoning acts of terror or sedition.

So I don't mind when Jewish people in my country want a civil court of their own, I hear no rhetoric from their religious leaders about overthrowing the way of life in my country.

That's a fairly ignorant view of the muslim community to my mind. most muslims I know are easy to talk to, don't burn poppies and prefer to talk to me about cricket and football than their religion which they keep to themselves. The most they do to expose their religion is order a j20 when the rest of us are ordering pints. You're judging the majority by a minority. TBH your viewpoint sounds like it's coming from a person whose main knowledge of British Muslims comes from BBC News rather than any actual contact with them.