Quote:Food
Application of halal (Arabic for ‘permissable’) dietary laws across London would free us at a stroke from our addiction to junk food, and the general adoption of a south Asian diet rich in fruit juice, rice and vegetables with occasional mutton or chicken would have a drastic effect on obesity, hyperactivity, attention deficit disorders and associated public health problems. As curry is already Londoners’ and the nation’s favourite food (see our Brick Lane food feature), it would be a relatively easy process to encourage the adoption of such a diet. Not eating would be important as well. The annual fasting month of Ramadan instils self-discipline, courtesy and social cohesion. And Londoners would benefit philosophically and physically from even a short period when we weren’t constantly ramming food into our mouths.
I love curry, but once in a while I also like a juicy Hungry Jacks hamburger, and I'm not overweight. It's about
choice. None of these fast foods would have become so popular if people didn't demand them. The old English fish and chips isn't exactly healthy either, but it's old, traditional, and very enjoyable. Alternatively, we could force everyone on to the most healthy diet and have something like a Pritikin Take Away. No arguments there, that would thin us all out in a matter of weeks. We could also make it legislation to outlaw Red Rooster and Maccas because it's dangerous to our health. That way we could have a thin and depressed society. We would all live to 120, but where would be some of the simple life-enjoyments that we all now demand?
As long as all of the suggested dietary laws apply only to Muslims, I have no problem with that. But if it's going to encroach upon my freedom of choice, I'll fight it tooth and nail.
Quote:Inter-faith relations
In an Islamic London, Christians and Jews – with their allegiance to the Bible and the Talmud – would be protected as ‘peoples of the book’. Hindus and Sikhs manage to live alongside a large Muslim population in India, so why not here? Although England has a long tradition of religious bigotry against, for instance, Roman Catholics, it is reasonable to assume that under the guiding hand of Islam a civilised accommodation could be made among faith groups in London. This welcoming stance already exists in the capital in the form of the City Circle (see Yahya Birt interview), which encourages inter-faith dialogue and open discussion.
Why under the "guiding hand of Islam"? You've already mentioned laws against inciting religious hatred. There are also laws against inciting prejudice or hatred against people because of their sexuality. Will Islam protect Gay people against prejudice? Or should we leave that jurisprudence to a
secular state, which would fairly apply laws for
all citizens, not just religions? Religious or theocratic states don't work for the benefit of all, they work for the benefit of their guiding philosophies and beliefs, which exclude some. Will atheism eventually be outlawed as well? Heck, we went through this two centuries ago! We are long past the burning of heretics and books. We don't need any modern Inquisitions, and we need far more than just "inter-faith" dialogue, ALL must be included in any dialogue which concerns the future of our society.
Forum
Pages: 
