Graham I hope you start educating yourself and read a bit ok just read and open your mind. If you have any more misconceptions just tell me I can help you.

Even the Electric Monk wouldn't believe you, drpanjsheri.

Sholto,
Thanks for these articles on Islam and addressing the misinformation and misconceptions around Islam.

I'm enjoying learning from your articles and many others are too.
The condemnation that NS is getting from certain quarters for running your pieces is shameful.

The disparaging comments at yourself, the absolute hatred aimed at Muslims is shameful coming from people who claim the so called moral high ground of living in a civilised society.

Just as not all Muslims are fundamentalists, not all the readers of NS are bigoted detractors.

Lou, I don't think we need yet more racism in this thread. Byrne's critics can be defined as bigoted (scream, scream, shut the conversation down) only if you take the Osama Bin Laden line that 'true' Muslims have to be anti-Western/secular.

I'd love to see you dismiss Faisal as such a bigot!

What are you going to post as next?

and at Harry's Place, where comments have risen to such levels of insight that one begins: "And Sholto? Who calls their son Sholto, FFS? Why not Bilbo, or Frodo? So he probably inherited the plonker genes."

And some of us pointed out that your name was Irish and exactly what it meant but you have chosen to say nothing about that in your attack on our website. As you are able to weight your misrepresentations to such a level there's no reason to trust what you say about anything really is there?

Poor stuff.

The New Statesman used to have tough minded writers who were usually cleverer and better informed than their readers. Now it has mush heads who are stupider and more ignorant than their readers, going by the comments under this post. It's particularly idiotic to quote comments from a blog to demonstrate the poor arguments of your opposition. If you have any intellectual honesty, you answer the best counter arguments, not the worst.

Can we have a post on how the Roman Catholic church should enforce its own rules when dealing with its own paedophile priests, without reference to the law of the land. Opposing that would of course be anti-Papist bigotry and Catholic bashing.

@ drpanjsheri,

You asked people to read the Quoran.

Yeah, I did 20 times and have also read the hadiths compiled by Ishaq as recompiled by Hisham, Tabari, Bukhari and Muslim?

Guess what I found? Horror of horror, Mohammad is a false prophet.

Mohammad was a paedophile, a murderer, a brigand, a conman, a 20 percenter and anyone of the 6 billions on earth could make a better profit.

AND DRPANJSHERI, I found out too that Khadijah founded Islam, not our old Mo.

SO DRPANJSHERI read your Quoran, hadiths and REAL history, geography and science - Allah got that wrong too.

@Lou, Faisal is implacably opposed to Byrne's orientalist claptrap and represents the thrust of the opposition. Yes, there are drive-by nutters but you lumped all of Byrne's critics (so, by extension, Faisal) with them.

As Graham II said of Byrne, you are using them as get-out-of-gaol-free cards. Why should we trust anything you say?

Sholto Bynres says: “the majority of commenters prove my point by focusing on the most extreme forms of sharia -- which as I have said, many Muslims feel to be perversions -- and concluding that that's all it is”

Errr, No. Most commentators are well informed on how Sharia is unfolding here in the UK. You apparently are not.

I suggest you acquaint yourself with:

Dr Suhaib Hasan, a leading judge of the Islamic Sharia Council, “Under the Islamic system, the man may end the marriage if he thinks it right. It is preferable he does this in front of two witnesses, then it is a simple exercise to say: ‘I divorce you.’ The only thing we must ascertain is that he has given the dower (dowry) to the woman. This is a marriage gift from bridegroom to bride.”

Faisal Siddiqi, founder and chairman of Muslim Arbitration Tribunal’s (MAT) governing council criticised the British media for its obsession with beheadings and other extreme punishments. “They constitute only 10% of sharia.” he says. (which is a great relief!)

And for an explanation of why the evidence of a woman is worth less than that of a man see the Islamic Sharia Council (a UK website)

You are entitled to your perverse opinions, but try to get your facts right please.

So, honestly, I will happily be patient and await Mr Byrnes's argument that Malaysia with Sharia law is somehow a better place to live for Malaysians of all races and religions, than a secular Malaysia where people, to paraphrase Martin Luther King, are not judged by the colour of their prayer book, but the content of their character.

'Yes, there are drive-by nutters but you lumped all of Byrne's critics (so, by extension, Faisal) with them'

There you go again, telling me what I think. Read my posts again. I've already passed comment on what I thought of Faisal's comments and that it was good intelligent debate on the matter. I made it perfectly clear that I was critiquing the Islamaphobic comments of which there have been plenty of.

There's a wider debate to be held here but you criticising me based on your misconceived idea of what I stand for isn't condusive to good debate is it.

Take things out of context if you must and continue to do so despite my explanation if you must but if anyone is shutting down debate, it is not me.

I'm sick of these comments. I have been called a racist, a homophope a lover of extremists and an anti semite. Non of which I am, in fact you couldn't be more wrong. It's bordering on libellous. Some NS commenters only welcome any comments if you agree with them. And if you don't then you get unfounded criticisms and character assassinations.

You clearly know nothing about me and once again, you read into comments what you want to see rather than what is there in black and white.

I'm off for a better class of debate elsewhere. Wave your bigoted flags to your hearts content and stamp on anyone who dares to tell you that you are bigoted. (Bigoted - utterly intolerant of a belief, creed or culture that differs from one's own)

@Sarah sorry I meant compare it with other laws and religions.

Stoning and amputations are not extreme aspects of Sharia law - they are part of its penal code. Its civil code is what is being practiced in Britain. Of course civil aspects of Sharia law are not the same as its penal code but the sexism behind them is the same. In its civil code, women's testimony is worth half that of a man's; she doesn't have the right to unilateral divorce, girls get half the inheritance of boys and child custody is given to the father at a preset age irrespective of the welfare of the child. The civil aspects of sharia law are some of the cornerstones of women's oppression in Islamic states.

One Law for All is having a rally on 20 June against Sharia and religious laws and we will be publishing a report on the same day entitled: Sharia Law in Britain: A Threat to One Law for All and Equal Rights. For more info on rally and report, go to: http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/

Like ASK I spent many years in the UAE. For western expats it is indeed a relatively crime-free paradise, though I suspect this has more to do with the basic honesty and decency of the south asian expat workers who make up the bulk of the population than with the workings of shariah.

During my time there I did witness at first hand the workings of the legal system. I was impressed by some features - the importance accorded to victims of crime and their involvement in the judicial process, for instance. Certainly something we in the west could learn from.

Overwhelmingly, however, I was repelled by the absence of any notion of equality before the law. Rules of evidence and the rights of suspects seem to be repeatedly trumped by considerations of race and gender, while having the right connections ensures virtual immunity.

Of course such inequalities exist in western legal systems too, but at least they can be questioned, investigated and sometimes even rectified. In a closed society such as the UAE one’s only recourse is to be grateful for being near the top of a highly stratified social pyramid.

Sharia Law in England and EC? Good. When do we start? But before that we need to rewrite ALL our science text books, re-educate ourselves in Islamic Science, reprogramme the earth and the universe for Allah, that's right, Allah said in the Quoaran, every word, every dot of it that:

1. The earth is flat;
2. The sun revolves around the earth;
3. The sun set on the lake on earth;
4. Allah threw down the mountain to keep the earth from shaking;
5. Cow's milk comes from the excrement and the blood of the cow's abdomen;
6. Man is made from clay;
7. Man is made from congealed blood;
8. Honey comes from bees' abdomen;
All animals and flying things form communities like humans
9. Allah created seven earths etc. etc.

So SHOLTO, are you ready for that? There's plenty more where that come from.

By the way - any form of Islamic law that is accepted in a country, regardless of how innocuous it may seem, is just a leak in the dyke that keeps back the flood of medieval barbarism.

"The NS is about looking outwards into the world, and a system of law that in some form or other is favoured by millions ought to be a legitimate subject for discussion."

And it just so happens that the millions of people who follow Islam live in the most despotic, undeveloped countries. This is not a co-incidence. If you base you system, to a greater or lesser extent on the ramblings from a 7th century book, you will find it difficult to adapt to technological change. You try to control social change (especially the role of women) and gain a deserved reputation as being misogynisitc, sex obsessed puritancial fascists.

"...focusing on the most extreme forms of sharia..." Fine, not every Muslim country actually permits amputation, stoning to death for adultery, killing apostates, but even in the more "enlightened" ones I really wouldn't want to be gay, a woman, a religious convert or have teddy bears named after prophets.

"It's almost as though some of them actually want there to be a bloody and cataclysmic clash of civilisations". When Muslim citizens in the West hate us that much for allowing women to walk around without a shroud or "insulting" their religion, that they blow us up on trains, then I don't think the clash is our fault. I refuse to drop my own sincerely held beliefs in secularism, democracy and sexual equality as a means of try to appease a group who cannot be appeased. And the real trouble is, the more we learn about Islam, the more we understand it, the more obvious it becomes that it is a religion - a complete way of life as many followers say - that this religion is incompatible with secular democracy. There already is a clash of civilisations. Unreformed Islam is in its violent death throws, because it is static and brittle. You should really understand Sholto, that other societies, which are dynamic and fluid, will always defeat something in stasis. The worst answer is for appeasers to negotiate away our hard won fight for tolerence and rationalism to placate a group who are at present incapable of accepting any compromise.

Sholto, if Saudi Arabia has a bit of an extreme form of Sharia, then maybe you should use Somalia as an example of enlightened thinking suitable for the 21st century...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/10307512.stm

Ban everything. No joy, pleaseure, music, sport.

You've made me rethink Islam. Its even worse than I originally thought.

Oh, and don't call me ignorant of the subject. I wrote a university dissertation on Islam in Europe over 15 years ago, worrying that the Left had problems reconciling an intolerant religion with their liberalism. And even my undergraduate writing was better than Sholto's

Sholto - you are a disgrace to your profession and to this once-admirable magazine.

the majority of commenters prove my point by focusing on the most extreme forms of sharia - which as I have said, many Muslims feel to be perversions - and concluding that that's all it is. They don't seem to be remotely open to the possibility that it could vary in any way.

You haven't said one word to show us that it does vary in any way - and you have ignored all the questions about it. You seem to expect us to read you saying "It's not that bad, really it's not" and just say "Oh, well in that case, fine then! Bring on the nice sharia!"

Where is the other kind of sharia? Tell us exactly where it is and what its laws are and how it works and how the people subject to it like it. Tell us something! Something real - not just your pious wishes.

Have you paid any attention at all to the real worries and fears of people who have lived under sharia? You certainly haven't in this thread or the one that precedes it. Does it not worry you that women, in particular, are terrified of sharia? Are you really too frivolous and callous to give a damn about that?

These two posts are appalling.

MTMA - thank you for your kind comment - much appreciated.

Faisal - would you like to tell me where exactly I say that sharia is beneficial and worthy of support? I don't do so at any point.

Ophelia - please calm down. "We refuse to submit": we may disagree but I don't doubt your intelligence. You aren't seriously among those who think Europe is in danger of becoming "Eurabia"? So, unless you're planning on going to live in a country where sharia operates, the question of your "submitting" doesn't come into it. Not that you shouldn't be concerned about places where it does, but that's a different point.

It won't be until after the weekend, but I shall certainly try to address at least some of the queries raised with such, er, admirable restraint.

Good night, and as Dave Allen used to say "may your God go with you" (and I write that on the assumption that Allen would have had plenty of sympathy for those who thought no such mysterious entity was able to accompany them).

Sholto, we refuse to submit to a state of affairs in which in some places people are subject to reactionary theocratic laws that have very harsh consequences for women. I have friends in places where sharia is in force as well as in places where that could happen. I refuse to submit to that situation. I'm a universalist about human rights.

I refuse to submit to the situation you are apparently arguing for (and if you're not, please explain what you *are* arguing for), in which some parts of the world get to have liberal secular laws made by legislators who are accountable to the population, and other parts of the world get to have illiberal religious laws made by a putative prophet in the 8th century.

I don't mean anything violent by that, of course, I just mean I refuse to say "ok" and give in and accept it and go along with it. I mean I refuse.

So no, my concern about the places where sharia operates is not a different point, it's the same point.

Sholto,

You have written an article called "Misconceptions and fears about sharia" in which you say that one of the misconceptions of Sharia is that it has to be all hudud and that this engenders fear amongst Westerners.

You're right, but many Easterners who actually have to live within sharia are also fearful of it. Not least Malaysians who live in fear of complete adoption of hudud laws into “syariah” law.

But there are many laws which are non-hudud which are pretty objectionable too, which your "Shariah is not hudud" thesis fails to address.

Two of these I have already brought to your attention. On both occasions you have chosen very carefully to ignore my question. So I shall ask again:

Can you explain why you are arguing in favour of (non-hudud) shariah laws such as these in particular:

1) Muslim daughters must inherit only half of that due to a son, as prescribed by this Quranic verse:
2) The witness of a woman is equal half that of a man.

Sholto - nice try at trying to tell me what I think, but I'm afraid you're completely wide of the mark. My primary concern is not what happens in those countries that have hadd punishments. My primary concern is with Muslim family law. Marital rape is extremely high amongst Muslim women. Could you possibly tell me which countries which derive their family law from sharia criminalise marital rape? (The answer, FYI, is none.)

Obviously I find the idea of stoning and amputations upsetting and distasteful: I know that in terms of impact this doesn't come anywhere near to the subordination of women under family laws derived from sharia.

As part of your appeal for understanding, could you possibly try to understand the why Syrians prevented the extension of sharia principles into family law: http://www.womensenews.org/print/8158.

Oh, Malaysia's sharia is cool, is it?

In Malaysia I was drinking magaritas with some Muslim friends. The religious police went past, swinging their canes. I was a bit worried, my companions being Muslims and all, but none of the guys I was drinking with were worried. They were men, and wearing suits.
The religious police in Malaysia mostly only attack women and the poor, you see. Glad to see Sholto thinks that's all lovely. At least it's not in Saudi, huh?

By the way, the religious courts won't let you stop being a Muslim, in Malaysia, so you have sharia applied to you whether you like it or not. Too bad for them, eh, Sholto?

And why was Sholto citing Mahathir as an authority and exemplar? Mahathir, the deranged hater of Jews and homosexuals, who locked up his former deputy on trumped up sodomy charges once Anwar got interested in the reform movement?

There's self-revelation, and there's self-shredding credibility suicide. Sholto's love affair with theocratic fascism is the latter, and a notable step in the transformation of the formerly leftwing Staggers into the Daily Heil. "Hurrah for the Mullahs", eh, Sholto?

As I stated days ago, the New Statesman will lose readers because of Sholto, shame on you. Another apologist for religious intolerance. Sharia cannot and never will be tolerated by any sane person. Sholto even implied I only receive news from the western media, another insult. I think Sholto is a cowardly little man who it seem hates women and I certainly wouldn't buy him a pint. There are plenty of questions by readers (Faisal in particular) lets see if the clown can answer them. Perhaps Sholto is so open minded his brain have fallen out.