Sharia Law in London

I find myself in an unusual position in that I'm agreeing with the Daily Mail, a newspaper I'm often at odds with. I read their article about radical Muslim preachers placing the London district of Waltham Forest under Sharia law. These radicals and their younger male followers are reportedly on local patrols, reminding people of their manifesto outlined in the flyer above.

While totally unenforceable and completely irrelevant legally it still represents a growing concern. While the Daily Mail dislikes this because of its stance on immigration and nationalism, I am alarmed simply because these "laws" are based on an immoral theological foundation.

Sharia is distinctly resonant of Old Testament morality: the stoning of adulterers, degradation of women and suppression of free speech. While some moral laws proposed are almost admirable, like the condemnation of murder, others are largely unnecessary in a 21st century city. Take for example the banning of alcohol and gambling. Sure, they cause problems, but not enough to merit their removal from society! People really enjoy them and rarely with negative consequences.

They even outlaw porn because some 5th century madman said it was bad. I can't understand it. I think Stephen Fry puts it well, "sex is fun, it's jolly and people enjoy it. It's a lot like food in that respect. The only people who are obsessed with food are the anorexic and the morbidly obese. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is religion in a nutshell." Provided it's safe (sharia condemns contraception, especially on the part of the female) and consenting, sex is perfectly ok.

I should note that these hate-mongers are a minority. The majority of Muslims in targeted areas don't condone the extremists' actions.

I'm surprised people like this go so public, I echo the thoughts of the Daily Mail journalist when I fear an attack like the one in Norway from these people on the city.

Norway shootings and religious belief

I'm sure you're aware of the recent Norway terrorist attacks, one in Oslo and the other at a youth camp on the island of Utoya. It's a tragic thing, and in my view it highlights the dangers of religious belief.

The attacks were carried out by Anders Breivik, a far-left anti-Islam extremist who sought to remove multiculturalism and Islam from Europe to keep it "Christian."

The attacks were intended to raise awareness of his beliefs, not as a direct offense against immigrants in Norway. He thought such an action would only cause the public to sympathise for them. In regards to the civilian wounded and dead, he says it was a "necessary atrocity". His motivations are very disturbing, outlined in his manifesto. I've only read summaries of it, it would take days to go over it all.

It includes instructions on how to arm yourself for anti-Islamic violence in gruesome detail, as well as his militant views against feminism, homosexuality, atheism, political correctness (which he claims is a variant of Marxism) and Islam. There's even a section on how his new world would work, from government to agriculture.

Anders attacked the camp because it was owned by the Norwegian Labour Party, which he disdained for its liberal policies on immigration. His lawyers are pleading clinical insanity because his views and actions are so non-sensical.

I find this disturbing primarily because of how he was motivated; his religious belief. Granted, it was not totally a theological thing, there were political grievances too. But my point is that without religion he wouldn't have so readily threatened by the peaceful "Islamisation" of Europe. No atheist has ever threatened to fly planes into skyscrapers or shoot up schools. A godless rational mind would resort to political activism (of the non-militant kind!) at most.

And many right-wing Christian media have been decrying the Christian motivation, such as Conservapedia and Bill O'Reilly etc.

Which is of course ridiculous. He was certainly a Christian, Bill. His manifesto includes a section of Christian templars he venerates, including Vlad the Impaler.

The point to take from this is that all irrational religious belief is dangerous, even moderate belief. It can act as a gateway to extremism. Usually this is the case for Islam but Anders shows it can happen in Christianity as well.