political commentator * author * publisher * bookseller * radio presenter * blogger * Conservative candidate * former lobbyist * Jack Russell owner * West Ham United fanatic * Email iain AT iaindale DOT com
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
The Real Consequences of Sharia Law
If you ever had doubts about the wickedness and unfairnesses of certain elements of Sharia Law, Danny Finkelstein should allay them for you, HERE. The day we ever allow any of this in this country will mark the end of Britain as we know it.
That isn't a post about problems with Sharia Law or issues using it here. It is an article about the issues with the Malay legal system. I really wish everyone had made this amount of fuss over the European Arrest Warrant and its imposition of the Napoleonic code upon us.
Nothing that is said about Sharia by the Archbishop, parliamentarians, journalists or bloggers will make an iota of difference to the practice of Sharia law in the UK today or any day. Why? Because none of the people involved read our newspapers, watch our news programmes or are likely to drop-in on a Conservative or any other blog. And there's the rub, as the Brummie bard once said.
Canvas, you are becoming irritating with your predictable raving lefty comments. You are not saying anything illuminating, anything clever, or anything that hasn't been said 80 million times before.
Sharia banking - ridiculous though it is - is not imposed on anyone. It's a business choice. In many islamic countries, sharia banking exists alongside normal banking. It's for people who like to pretend that they're not paying or receiving interest on loans, and for banks that know the terminology to say, "No, of course you're not, dear."
It's time to put our feet down, demand secular liberal democracy and assert ourselves against political Islam, Christianity and all other cults. These fuckers have really gone too far, and hopefully we'll get the mother and father of all backlashes.
Canvas: listen up. Sharia banking merely takes into account the Koranic belief against usuary. It means you cant technically just lend someone money and then go and take their house, cattle, wife and sell them into slavery if they cant repay. So under Sharia law the lender has to take on some of the risk. Firstly, under modern financial theory this is a given anyway - the Modigliani-Miller theory. In reality it is just a different way of distributing the risk. For a plc company there is no difference. If I invest in a plc company (say northern crock) I have no recourse to take their children or cattle into servitude. Islamic finance is just a different way of doing the same thing that avoids an obvious reference to "interest". In practice it is all the same. It actually seems like a fair way of doing banking in some ways. It would involve removing the idea of a limited liability company. After the recent banking debacle we could, as shareholders, legally take back the assets of bankers who made so much money during the sub-prime mess. In practice they would find another way to protect their wealth.
Verity, Personally, I don't find your comments very 'clever' either - especially because the only way you can express 'disagreement' is through personal abuse. That is a real bore.
Why is OK to pick and choose bits of 'Sharia law' in the UK? That is a valid point to make.
People should all be nice to each other, and the world will be a better place. Everyone can have their cake and eat it. That's worth a standing ovation, doncha think.
Verity said "you are becoming irritating with your predictable raving lefty comments. You are not saying anything illuminating, anything clever, or anything that hasn't been said 80 million times before."
sounds more like you actually big V. What with the raving and lack of anything illuminating to say etc.
Sharia should be opposed for its imposition of theocracy over democracy, its abuse of human rights, its institutionalized discrimination, its denial of human dignity and for the severity of its punishments. NO to Political Islam, YES to Human Rights. This is well worth a glance: http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/
Unfortunately Verity stoops to insulting people as well as mis-informing them. Sharia investments do not seek to "make money out of money" (aka "usury"). They also avoid pornography, alcohol, and gambling-related investments. Rather like SRI. Not to be sniffed at , and the intelligent among us would surely accepts, or any-one with a desire to learn something fo rtaht matter, that hypocrisy is not the same as dealing with people you don't agree with!
On the other hand, I suggest we scroll through Verity's poisonous rubbish for fear that it might just rot the brain.
Verity - again wrong re Sharia banking - some (but not all) forms of Sharia banking share the risks and rewards arising from transactions between the bank and the customer in quite a different way from a straight lending/deposit transaction.
The other feature of Sharia banking is that the banks are often able to use it to get a better rate of return than would otherwise be the case.
Profit from a successful business is not "interest"
Capital appreciation is not "interest"
All the above can be Sharia-compliant, which allows many moderate, intelligent, modern people to make investments, have banking facilities, and buy their own property to live in.
Your most churlish contributor , Iain, knnown as "Verity", has had education from me on this site before - will she ever take anything in?
The consequences of sharia(which is not a uniform code)in Britain is that Halal butchers are exempt from the legal requirement to stun animals first before slaughter.
Canvas - I'm not trying to be 'clever'. I am trying to persuade a bunch of people who know nothing about islam or sharia that it is not a good idea to let it get a toehold in a liberal democracy. The reason for this is, being liberal, we really don't like stamping out things we don't agree with. In other words, our tolerance is used against us.
I'm not interested one way or another whether a bunch of people I don't know and have nothing to do with my life think I'm clever or not.
Troll Patarol 4:20. May I direct you to Iain's home page and suggest you click on Rules?
Tory Boys - Yes, I'm aware of that. I didn't want to bore people because sharia banking is the least of our worries. We have to concentrate on discrediting the thinking of Archbishop Moonbat before it takes root in the febrile minds of Gordon Brown and NuLab.
James - "Your most churlish contributor , Iain, knnown as "Verity", has had education from me on this site before". Incorrect. I never noticed, but obviously, whatever thinking you tried to impose was found faulty and was rejected.
Another blogger already has dibs on the name Cassandra, but that is what I feel like on this thread.
Tony Kennick is wrong, the same problems exist in many Mohamedan countries, sharia always attempts to trump all other rules, and apostasy is often punishable by death too. Islamic clergy still views itself as the direct competition to government.
Sharia are the rules of 'law' that misogynistic bigots would like to impose on us all in general, and specifically onto their women, with the specific aim of keeping them in their place.
Another thing to consider is how many men who have divorce issues will 'discover' Islam and it's easy way of divorcing without responsibilities but all the rights for the male?
As for Sharia in banking -- well, you can stick a label to anything, and as stands, sharia banking is a con which ends up costing the investor dearly, due to the high costs of administering and the restrictive choice of investment opportunities. In other words, no usury for the punter, but a nice fat cut for the provider -- as is usual with all those things, sharia banking is a tax on stupidity.
As for tolerating sharia courts in this country -- well, I cannot believe that no law has been made that outlaws kangaroo courts that do not have a government licence to practice. Take note that those courts not only intimidate women into giving up their rights they have, but also that those courts deal with violent offenders, without informing the police that a crime has taken place, thus depriving justice of the chance to protect society by jailing the criminal.
I think the judiciary is playing with fire by not jealously guarding their monopoly.
Ps.: if you guys want to hiss at Verity, I believe she has a blog where you guys can play king of the sandcastle amongst yourselfs.
Sharia is a barbaric system, a fusion of Islamic religion with political ideals. Sharia banking is afairly minor affair in the Islamic world. Only 1.71 million out of the total of 176.88 million Muslims in Indonesia use Sharia banks in making transactions and investment, while most of the rest still use conventional banks.
On the other hand, Islamic banks around the world are also suspected of carrying out financial transactions for al-Qaeda and other internationally operating terrorist networks.
"Only 1.71 million out of the total of 176.88 million Muslims in Indonesia use Sharia banks"
Doesn't this perhaps suggest that not everyone in Moslem countries feels that they have to follow Sharia contrary what some of the latter day crusaders on this blog might want us to believe.
Still laughing at the thought of Verity standing up for liberal democracy.
The wierdest thing about you Verity is you actually say a lot of really, really interesting things but then if someone disagrees with you, you panic and instead of arguing you abuse them. Not sure why? Why not just make your point and have a laugh?
Your points are invariably well made - your personal abuse detracts - a bit more humour would help - its only a blog love.
Cinnamon - Thanks for that lucid contribution. There is a complacency around here that will serve our country ill.
islam creeps in a tiny, mincing step at a time. These people are long-term. They're serving their diety, and when they pop their sandals, their children and grandchildren will take over the task of the conquest of Britain and the West. For allah.
Unless we are more vigilant.
Cinnamon - I don't have a blog, no.
Stan Bull - The good thing about Indonesia is, it is not an islamic republic, despite having the largest muslim population in the world. Their country motto is 'pancasila' - "From many, one" or something like that. They are really quite relaxed.
Tory Boys: "Doesn't this perhaps suggest that not everyone in Moslem countries feels that they have to follow Sharia contrary what some of the latter day crusaders on this blog might want us to believe."
The opposite.
As you'll have seen in my post above, Indonesia is not a moslem country.
Dissapointing that comments turned into a general discussion of sharia rather than addressing the particular issues raised in the Times article which in many ways are unique to Malaysia.
The point is that a country that could have been an ethnic and religious tinderbox (55-60% muslim with large Chinese and other minorities) has been largely stable and economically succesfull since independence. This is partly due to a (sadly rare) gradual and well planned handover by the British authorities but also to a willingness by Malaysians on all sides to compromise. The Chinese acept the positive discrimination towards the Brama Putra (Malays and other indeginous peoples) in return for economic and religious freedoms. It's not perfect, far from it. but the alternatives... (Pakistan? Burma? Indonesia?) are far worse. Malaysia deserves credit for what it has achieved not blame for what it has not. Honestly, this country was dealing with rapid developement while trying to assimilate am immigrant population that was 40% of the total. Truth is they've done pretty well.
The credit for Malaysia being the stable, civilised society that it is belongs to one man, and that is Tun Dr Mahathir Mohammad - a forward looking genius.
Malaysia's Indians and Chinese have been there for a couple of hundred years. In fact, far from coping with modernity with an influx of new people, the island of Singapore was kicked out in (I think without looking it up) 1960, so that cut a huge swathe of Chinese off.
Mahathir to a great extent copied Lee Kuan Yew (and seldom has there been anyone more worthy of copying in the history of the human race) and they didn't get along particularly well, but they were both pragmatists and they cooperated). Anyway,, the races live well together.
But remember, the indigenes were the islamics and the incomers over the last two centuries were from two very smart civilisations, Indians and Chinese. So they brought a lot to the table.
Mahathir is an Indian, but he hates it being mentioned.
It's Eumenides: eu = well, good men, from menos = spirit, disposition -ides, suffix = sons/daughters of, race of
Can be translated as 'the kindly ones'. An apotropaic euphemism for the Erinyes (= Furies), the three avenging goddesses Tisiphone, Megaera and Alecto, who punish those guilty of hubris. They should be visible in Westminster soon. If you see them, be very polite.
Verity mentioned Mahathir. I believe -- and maybe she could confirm -- that there is a Malaysian law prohibiting anyone from trying to convert anyone else to another religion. A wise measure worth copying.
Going back to the sharia banking point, you could always do sharia banking in the UK. The problem was that the taxation could be a bit funny. So the government said "you know that margin that looks a bit like interest, well, we're going to tax it like it was interest, but nowhere in the legislation are we going to use the words interest, sharia or muslim".
hey cool big V., you've managed to contain your vitiperatude and make your points in a reasonable and non-personal way. Guess you've passed the first step of the program. Big hug. :-) TPx
Verity 10:35 Dr Mahathir is half Indian half Malay.He could never have been a member of UMNO if he wasn't a Malay. Many of the Malays in Peninsular Malaysia are descendants of migrants from what is now Indonesia.
Lakelander - That is an interesting observation. You are right. Ten years ago, people in Britain, save various profs and those in the Camel Corps, had never heard of sharia. Today, they've heard of it. Projecting ten years forward.... The phrase Bud. Nip. Now. In. floats to mind ...
Tachybaptus - I don't know whether there is such a law. In one way, I wouldn't be surprised. From the opposing view, though, how would "attempting to convert someone" be defined? Saying, "Why don't you come with us to church on Sunday and see what goes on, if you're curious" might be defined, by a malicious person, as "an attempt to convert me".
So, my guess, no. There is no such law. (Also, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot, wouldn't they, as it's the duty of every muslim to convert people to islam and Malaysia's an Islamic Republic.)
Regarding these ghastly muslim ghettoes in England, when Singapore was kicked out of the Malay Federation, Lee Kuan Yew had to build an entire country from scratch - and this was with, in those days, an uneducated population of Chinese, Indians and Malays. As the island of Singapore was then almost completely agragrian, he built public housing. He took careful note of the proportion of each race living in Singapore and mandated that public housing be assigned on that basis.
So Malays who had never lived anywhere but in their own kampongs were suddenly stuck in with Chinese and Indians on the same floor. They hated it! As did the Indians and especially the Chinese. But if they wanted a dwelling, that was what they got.
You might think it was heavy handed and very dictatorially Chinese, but these people were forced to rub along. It was a start. And it worked. They grew used to each other in the same blocks of flats and they grew used to each other at work. And they became a nation. From nothing. An island covered in jungle. LKY was determined: no ghettoes. His point was, if you couldn't afford your own housing, you were going to go with the national programme.
Labour has not taken charge of aggressively religioned immigrants from a primitive society for two reasons. One, obviously, is votes for malign individuals like Jack Straw & Co. The other is fear. Gordon Brown is frit, which is why he cannot make a decision about anything.
Blair's acceptance of this festering was for a different, destructive purpose. But Brown is frit.
Anonymong at 10:24PM, I can assure you that whatever my reasons for posting here may be, you're not one of them. And don't patronise young people, it just makes you sound bitter. It's not like the majority of people in their 40s and 50s are intellectual giants.
Also, I will have a job within a few weeks, I'm just going through a bad patch. I can assure you I've paid far more in tax than I've ever got back.
From Verity. (Something's happened to the Comment form and you can't write your name any more unless you're registered.)
Manfarang - I didn't know Mahathir was half Malay. But you are right, of course. Otherwise he couldn't have been in UMNO.
I'm not sure that you're right about some Bhumis being descendants of Indonesians. They don't look alike. Malaysian and Indonesian, though, are the same language ...
The "Verity" of 4:59 is a fake. Silly and illiterate.
Manfarang - Not quite. Yes, the Malaysian government was actively recruiting Indonesian workers because the language is all but identical and, of course, so is the religion. Unlike the Thais who gamble and get involved in violent gambling debts and knifings, and who drink heavily, they have an inclination to be law-abiding. As you apparently know.
But it is not a migration, because they are not allowed to bring their wives and children. In fact, reading the NST, I think the Malaysian government is beginning to shed them. (I could be wrong; it's an impression I picked up.)
I note that you haven't been registered as a blogger for very long.
Given time, you will realise that there is a difference between genuinely nasty insults and subtle-as-a-sledgehammer wind-ups like the one I hurled at you.
Sorry - I never meant to cause offence - I was only joking. I have nothing against earnest young people like you. Honest.
Now cheer up or I'll install a Mosquito on my next posting.
Fake Verity 4.59 pm - if you're going to convince anyone that you are the real Verity, can I suggest that you acquire a command of English punctuation beyond year 2 of Primary Schools?
Hint: the real Verity knows when to use a semi-colon.
47 comments:
That isn't a post about problems with Sharia Law or issues using it here. It is an article about the issues with the Malay legal system.
I really wish everyone had made this amount of fuss over the European Arrest Warrant and its imposition of the Napoleonic code upon us.
Stories like this are common but swept under the rug by the media.
You might also be interested in how Christians get treated in a moslem country.
Well, why is it OK for the UK to have Sharia banking? That recognises Sharia law. Oh yeah - if money is involved - then it's OK?
Shocking hypocrisy...
Nothing that is said about Sharia by the Archbishop, parliamentarians, journalists or bloggers will make an iota of difference to the practice of Sharia law in the UK today or any day. Why? Because none of the people involved read our newspapers, watch our news programmes or are likely to drop-in on a Conservative or any other blog. And there's the rub, as the Brummie bard once said.
Canvas, you are becoming irritating with your predictable raving lefty comments. You are not saying anything illuminating, anything clever, or anything that hasn't been said 80 million times before.
Sharia banking - ridiculous though it is - is not imposed on anyone. It's a business choice. In many islamic countries, sharia banking exists alongside normal banking. It's for people who like to pretend that they're not paying or receiving interest on loans, and for banks that know the terminology to say, "No, of course you're not, dear."
It's time to put our feet down, demand secular liberal democracy and assert ourselves against political Islam, Christianity and all other cults. These fuckers have really gone too far, and hopefully we'll get the mother and father of all backlashes.
http://hh-asquith.blogspot.com/2008/02/ill-just-say-it-outright-i-am-dismayed.html
A positive assertion of unbelief.
Canvas: listen up. Sharia banking merely takes into account the Koranic belief against usuary. It means you cant technically just lend someone money and then go and take their house, cattle, wife and sell them into slavery if they cant repay. So under Sharia law the lender has to take on some of the risk. Firstly, under modern financial theory this is a given anyway - the Modigliani-Miller theory. In reality it is just a different way of distributing the risk. For a plc company there is no difference. If I invest in a plc company (say northern crock) I have no recourse to take their children or cattle into servitude. Islamic finance is just a different way of doing the same thing that avoids an obvious reference to "interest". In practice it is all the same. It actually seems like a fair way of doing banking in some ways. It would involve removing the idea of a limited liability company. After the recent banking debacle we could, as shareholders, legally take back the assets of bankers who made so much money during the sub-prime mess. In practice they would find another way to protect their wealth.
Verity, Personally, I don't find your comments very 'clever' either - especially because the only way you can express 'disagreement' is through personal abuse. That is a real bore.
Why is OK to pick and choose bits of 'Sharia law' in the UK? That is a valid point to make.
Archbishop of Canterbury is a luvvie.
People should all be nice to each other, and the world will be a better place. Everyone can have their cake and eat it. That's worth a standing ovation, doncha think.
Verity said
"you are becoming irritating with your predictable raving lefty comments. You are not saying anything illuminating, anything clever, or anything that hasn't been said 80 million times before."
sounds more like you actually big V. What with the raving and lack of anything illuminating to say etc.
Sharia should be opposed for its imposition of theocracy over democracy, its abuse of human rights, its institutionalized discrimination, its denial of human dignity and for the severity of its punishments.
NO to Political Islam, YES to Human Rights.
This is well worth a glance:
http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/
Unfortunately Verity stoops to insulting people as well as mis-informing them. Sharia investments do not seek to "make money out of money" (aka "usury"). They also avoid pornography, alcohol, and gambling-related investments. Rather like SRI. Not to be sniffed at , and the intelligent among us would surely accepts, or any-one with a desire to learn something fo rtaht matter, that hypocrisy is not the same as dealing with people you don't agree with!
On the other hand, I suggest we scroll through Verity's poisonous rubbish for fear that it might just rot the brain.
Verity - again wrong re Sharia banking - some (but not all) forms of Sharia banking share the risks and rewards arising from transactions between the bank and the customer in quite a different way from a straight lending/deposit transaction.
The other feature of Sharia banking is that the banks are often able to use it to get a better rate of return than would otherwise be the case.
More education...
Rental yield is not "interest"
Profit from a successful business is not "interest"
Capital appreciation is not "interest"
All the above can be Sharia-compliant, which allows many moderate, intelligent, modern people to make investments, have banking facilities, and buy their own property to live in.
Your most churlish contributor , Iain, knnown as "Verity", has had education from me on this site before - will she ever take anything in?
The consequences of sharia(which is not a uniform code)in Britain is that Halal butchers are exempt
from the legal requirement to stun animals first before slaughter.
yak40 3:24
So,are you going to join up with the Phalangists?
Canvas - I'm not trying to be 'clever'. I am trying to persuade a bunch of people who know nothing about islam or sharia that it is not a good idea to let it get a toehold in a liberal democracy. The reason for this is, being liberal, we really don't like stamping out things we don't agree with. In other words, our tolerance is used against us.
I'm not interested one way or another whether a bunch of people I don't know and have nothing to do with my life think I'm clever or not.
Troll Patarol 4:20. May I direct you to Iain's home page and suggest you click on Rules?
Tory Boys - Yes, I'm aware of that. I didn't want to bore people because sharia banking is the least of our worries. We have to concentrate on discrediting the thinking of Archbishop Moonbat before it takes root in the febrile minds of Gordon Brown and NuLab.
James - "Your most churlish contributor , Iain, knnown as "Verity", has had education from me on this site before". Incorrect. I never noticed, but obviously, whatever thinking you tried to impose was found faulty and was rejected.
Another blogger already has dibs on the name Cassandra, but that is what I feel like on this thread.
Tony Kennick is wrong, the same problems exist in many Mohamedan countries, sharia always attempts to trump all other rules, and apostasy is often punishable by death too. Islamic clergy still views itself as the direct competition to government.
Sharia are the rules of 'law' that misogynistic bigots would like to impose on us all in general, and specifically onto their women, with the specific aim of keeping them in their place.
Another thing to consider is how many men who have divorce issues will 'discover' Islam and it's easy way of divorcing without responsibilities but all the rights for the male?
As for Sharia in banking -- well, you can stick a label to anything, and as stands, sharia banking is a con which ends up costing the investor dearly, due to the high costs of administering and the restrictive choice of investment opportunities. In other words, no usury for the punter, but a nice fat cut for the provider -- as is usual with all those things, sharia banking is a tax on stupidity.
As for tolerating sharia courts in this country -- well, I cannot believe that no law has been made that outlaws kangaroo courts that do not have a government licence to practice. Take note that those courts not only intimidate women into giving up their rights they have, but also that those courts deal with violent offenders, without informing the police that a crime has taken place, thus depriving justice of the chance to protect society by jailing the criminal.
I think the judiciary is playing with fire by not jealously guarding their monopoly.
Ps.: if you guys want to hiss at Verity, I believe she has a blog where you guys can play king of the sandcastle amongst yourselfs.
verity is a big softie really :)
Sharia is a barbaric system, a fusion of Islamic religion with political ideals. Sharia banking is afairly minor affair in the Islamic world. Only 1.71 million out of the total of 176.88 million Muslims in Indonesia use Sharia banks in making transactions and investment, while most of the rest still use conventional banks.
On the other hand, Islamic banks around the world are also suspected of carrying out financial transactions for al-Qaeda and other internationally operating terrorist networks.
But I thought you Tory guys hate Britain as we know it?
"Only 1.71 million out of the total of 176.88 million Muslims in Indonesia use Sharia banks"
Doesn't this perhaps suggest that not everyone in Moslem countries feels that they have to follow Sharia contrary what some of the latter day crusaders on this blog might want us to believe.
Still laughing at the thought of Verity standing up for liberal democracy.
The wierdest thing about you Verity is you actually say a lot of really, really interesting things but then if someone disagrees with you, you panic and instead of arguing you abuse them. Not sure why? Why not just make your point and have a laugh?
Your points are invariably well made - your personal abuse detracts - a bit more humour would help - its only a blog love.
Cinnamon - Thanks for that lucid contribution. There is a complacency around here that will serve our country ill.
islam creeps in a tiny, mincing step at a time. These people are long-term. They're serving their diety, and when they pop their sandals, their children and grandchildren will take over the task of the conquest of Britain and the West. For allah.
Unless we are more vigilant.
Cinnamon - I don't have a blog, no.
Stan Bull - The good thing about Indonesia is, it is not an islamic republic, despite having the largest muslim population in the world. Their country motto is 'pancasila' - "From many, one" or something like that. They are really quite relaxed.
Might I suggest starting a facebook group along the lines of "Verity for PM"?
Yes, its members can be as ageing, embittered, poorly educated and generally incoherent as Jeremy Clarkson fans! Hoho!
Tory Boys: "Doesn't this perhaps suggest that not everyone in Moslem countries feels that they have to follow Sharia contrary what some of the latter day crusaders on this blog might want us to believe."
The opposite.
As you'll have seen in my post above, Indonesia is not a moslem country.
Troll Patarol 4:20. May I direct you to Iain's home page and suggest you click on Rules?
Rules? your rules love - get over yourself. My sock puppets are at least amusing:
the Green lantern
le Green Spam
4x4 the people
night ; x
i guess i will also profess to "Cicero" and that timeless joke about Greek tailoring "euridides, eumenedes".
you meant to say "euripides, eumenedes"
its still funny 2500 yrs later
Dissapointing that comments turned into a general discussion of sharia rather than addressing the particular issues raised in the Times article which in many ways are unique to Malaysia.
The point is that a country that could have been an ethnic and religious tinderbox (55-60% muslim with large Chinese and other minorities) has been largely stable and economically succesfull since independence. This is partly due to a (sadly rare) gradual and well planned handover by the British authorities but also to a willingness by Malaysians on all sides to compromise. The Chinese acept the positive discrimination towards the Brama Putra (Malays and other indeginous peoples) in return for economic and religious freedoms. It's not perfect, far from it. but the alternatives... (Pakistan? Burma? Indonesia?) are far worse.
Malaysia deserves credit for what it has achieved not blame for what it has not. Honestly, this country was dealing with rapid developement while trying to assimilate am immigrant population that was 40% of the total. Truth is they've done pretty well.
Asquith
Age 22
Occupation: "On Benefits"
Just what are you doing hanging around on a blog like this?
Most of us are as old as your parents and it's hard to imagine that anyone really gives a damn what your opinion is about anything.
Run along now and find yourself an occupation which includes contributing some taxes.
Ash - Bhumiputeras. Bhumis for short.
The credit for Malaysia being the stable, civilised society that it is belongs to one man, and that is Tun Dr Mahathir Mohammad - a forward looking genius.
Malaysia's Indians and Chinese have been there for a couple of hundred years. In fact, far from coping with modernity with an influx of new people, the island of Singapore was kicked out in (I think without looking it up) 1960, so that cut a huge swathe of Chinese off.
Mahathir to a great extent copied Lee Kuan Yew (and seldom has there been anyone more worthy of copying in the history of the human race) and they didn't get along particularly well, but they were both pragmatists and they cooperated). Anyway,, the races live well together.
But remember, the indigenes were the islamics and the incomers over the last two centuries were from two very smart civilisations, Indians and Chinese. So they brought a lot to the table.
Mahathir is an Indian, but he hates it being mentioned.
Surfacing briefly for another bit of pedantry:
Anon 7.51 said 'eumenedes'.
It's Eumenides:
eu = well, good
men, from menos = spirit, disposition
-ides, suffix = sons/daughters of, race of
Can be translated as 'the kindly ones'. An apotropaic euphemism for the Erinyes (= Furies), the three avenging goddesses Tisiphone, Megaera and Alecto, who punish those guilty of hubris. They should be visible in Westminster soon. If you see them, be very polite.
tachybuptas
respect
Verity mentioned Mahathir. I believe -- and maybe she could confirm -- that there is a Malaysian law prohibiting anyone from trying to convert anyone else to another religion. A wise measure worth copying.
Going back to the sharia banking point, you could always do sharia banking in the UK. The problem was that the taxation could be a bit funny. So the government said "you know that margin that looks a bit like interest, well, we're going to tax it like it was interest, but nowhere in the legislation are we going to use the words interest, sharia or muslim".
hey cool big V., you've managed to contain your vitiperatude and make your points in a reasonable and non-personal way. Guess you've passed the first step of the program. Big hug. :-) TPx
Verity 10:35
Dr Mahathir is half Indian half Malay.He could never have been a member of UMNO if he wasn't a Malay.
Many of the Malays in Peninsular Malaysia are descendants of migrants from what is now Indonesia.
Lakelander - That is an interesting observation. You are right. Ten years ago, people in Britain, save various profs and those in the Camel Corps, had never heard of sharia. Today, they've heard of it. Projecting ten years forward.... The phrase Bud. Nip. Now. In. floats to mind ...
Tachybaptus - I don't know whether there is such a law. In one way, I wouldn't be surprised. From the opposing view, though, how would "attempting to convert someone" be defined? Saying, "Why don't you come with us to church on Sunday and see what goes on, if you're curious" might be defined, by a malicious person, as "an attempt to convert me".
So, my guess, no. There is no such law. (Also, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot, wouldn't they, as it's the duty of every muslim to convert people to islam and Malaysia's an Islamic Republic.)
Regarding these ghastly muslim ghettoes in England, when Singapore was kicked out of the Malay Federation, Lee Kuan Yew had to build an entire country from scratch - and this was with, in those days, an uneducated population of Chinese, Indians and Malays. As the island of Singapore was then almost completely agragrian, he built public housing. He took careful note of the proportion of each race living in Singapore and mandated that public housing be assigned on that basis.
So Malays who had never lived anywhere but in their own kampongs were suddenly stuck in with Chinese and Indians on the same floor. They hated it! As did the Indians and especially the Chinese. But if they wanted a dwelling, that was what they got.
You might think it was heavy handed and very dictatorially Chinese, but these people were forced to rub along. It was a start. And it worked. They grew used to each other in the same blocks of flats and they grew used to each other at work. And they became a nation. From nothing. An island covered in jungle. LKY was determined: no ghettoes. His point was, if you couldn't afford your own housing, you were going to go with the national programme.
Labour has not taken charge of aggressively religioned immigrants from a primitive society for two reasons. One, obviously, is votes for malign individuals like Jack Straw & Co. The other is fear. Gordon Brown is frit, which is why he cannot make a decision about anything.
Blair's acceptance of this festering was for a different, destructive purpose. But Brown is frit.
Anonymong at 10:24PM, I can assure you that whatever my reasons for posting here may be, you're not one of them. And don't patronise young people, it just makes you sound bitter. It's not like the majority of people in their 40s and 50s are intellectual giants.
Also, I will have a job within a few weeks, I'm just going through a bad patch. I can assure you I've paid far more in tax than I've ever got back.
From Verity.
(Something's happened to the Comment form and you can't write your name any more unless you're registered.)
Manfarang - I didn't know Mahathir was half Malay. But you are right, of course. Otherwise he couldn't have been in UMNO.
I'm not sure that you're right about some Bhumis being descendants of Indonesians. They don't look alike. Malaysian and Indonesian, though, are the same language ...
I hate nearly everything haven't you noticed
The migration is in fact continuing,Indonesian migrants drawn by the strong Malaysian economy.
The "Verity" of 4:59 is a fake. Silly and illiterate.
Manfarang - Not quite. Yes, the Malaysian government was actively recruiting Indonesian workers because the language is all but identical and, of course, so is the religion. Unlike the Thais who gamble and get involved in violent gambling debts and knifings, and who drink heavily, they have an inclination to be law-abiding. As you apparently know.
But it is not a migration, because they are not allowed to bring their wives and children. In fact, reading the NST, I think the Malaysian government is beginning to shed them. (I could be wrong; it's an impression I picked up.)
Asquith...
I'm "Anonymong at 10.24 pm".
I note that you haven't been registered as a blogger for very long.
Given time, you will realise that there is a difference between genuinely nasty insults and subtle-as-a-sledgehammer wind-ups like the one I hurled at you.
Sorry - I never meant to cause offence - I was only joking. I have nothing against earnest young people like you. Honest.
Now cheer up or I'll install a Mosquito on my next posting.
Fake Verity 4.59 pm - if you're going to convince anyone that you are the real Verity, can I suggest that you acquire a command of English punctuation beyond year 2 of Primary Schools?
Hint: the real Verity knows when to use a semi-colon.
Post a Comment