Diana West, guest blogging for Michelle Malkin, comments on recent calls for Sharia in Britain:
In the wake of the Airplane Plot, the same story reported that Ruth Kelly, who is something official called the Secretary of State for Communities (sounds squishy), met yesterday with British Muslim leaders. They called on the government to sanction sharia for British Muslims in matters of family law and marriage as a means of preventing Muslims from becoming what are rather quaintly known as "extremists." Of course, if sharia isn't extreme, what is?So here we are. Britain narrowly averts another 9/11 that was to have been caused by British Muslim terrorists, and British Muslim leaders take the opportuity to press forward a political agenda (ending GB-US cooperation abroad, and urging the adoption of sharia at home) that could only please the terrorists. What happens next will tell us how deeply into dhimmitude Great Britain really is.
Ruth Kelly should have asked this guy why he wanted to stone women and cut off hands and feet. Then she should turn around and advise him that Britain is living in the 21st century and stoning women and cutting off appendages is barbaric.
Actually it is a very good idea. Anything that further separates and isolates the Muslim population from normal citizens is good. That is why the West should encourage, rather than discourage open manifestations of traditional Islam. Muslims should not be allowed to disguise themselves as regular, normal citizens.
NO WAY..SEND THEM BACK TO THEIR SHARIA PARADISES!
Why should the West have to make ANY concessions? Tell tem if they don't like our laws and customs to take their ball and GO HOME.
george rem
You said it.
If Muslims want to segregate themselves, that is fine by us. Why? Because in the end it is not just sharria they want but a state to put it into legal effect. That is the goal, as it is in Kashmir, Thailand, Phillipines, Nigeria, Bosnia etc. It has always been so, and we will find this out in the fullness of time.
I really doint think that Muslims will ever get a state in the UK. They are long on talk but when push really comes to shove, they will be out of here, as this time they wont have the US Airforce bombing Britain, as was the case in Kosovo and Bosnia.
But really all it takes to bring this Jihad nonsense to a full stop is to start deporting illegal aliens, particularly illegal Muslims. Then foillowed by Muslims who do not have citizenship.
All perfectly legal and doable, and will have such a jarring impact on the Ummah that they will fall at our feet.
The big problem I see with them having their sharia, is, it isn't fair. Take a look at the guys doing honor killings. They would get off scot free or nearly anyway. At least with our laws, the killer gets years or death.
The guy that gets his feet or hands cut off, would automatically get on welfare. (I know, most are anyway)
Do we actually want women stoned in our countries? What about the marriage age? Don't we want pedophiles to go to jail?
We know for sure they wouldn't condemn a terrorist.
If muslims want these atrocities, they can go back to the outhouse they came from.
Can't imagine public stonings in Hyde Park or sharia mandated amputations in Trafalgar Square. Still, as the math folks say...given sufficient time... Perhaps the Anglo-Islamic advocates of sharia have in mind something like sharia-lite, where instead of a good floggin' or stoning, the Imam gives the guilty party a stern tongue lashing. What part of sharia are they willing to leave out?
Didn't Canada try this for a while? I believe that they did and have abandoned it.
Creeping Islamism at its most nauseous:
THEY called on the government to sanction sharia for British Muslims. At first the Brits will reject this notion and next the bombings will start. Then the Brits will cave in.
Second, THEY will demand an autonomous portion of the island. The Brits will refuse, then the bombings will start. Then the Brits will cave in. Then Liverpool will become part dal al Islam, or whatever one calls it.
Third: THEY will demand that Parlaiment bring the entire UK under Sharia. The Brits will refuse, then the bombings will start. Next Britian is Anglistan.
Whazzat? You say this is a crazy course of events. Just wait.
I'm thinking that george rem might be onto something.
They want a state within a state, then give it to them.
They can have their walled off compound, away from the filthy infidels, they can have their sharia, their amputations and all the advantages of Allah.
However....
No welfare, as they are not a part of the welfare state.
No concessions, no political correctness (which they don't want unless it makes them look good).
No healthcare, as they are not contributing to the commonweal.
If they want to build mosques, then they can build them. In their compounds.
If they want to sit around watching Al-Jazeera all day, let them. In their state-within-a-state.
If they want to breed like rabbits, well, I hope they can find some way to feed them. Mind you, given the high level of marrying and breeding amongst family members, it'll be a shame if the rate of congenital abnormalities increases. It will also be a shame when they can't get the doctors they need to visit them in their slums.
Freeze all internet access, as it's an infidel invention.
And make sure they carry their id cards at all time. If aren't, then take them back to their cesspit. Any muslim outside their camps be deported to the islamic paradise of their choice. If they want to bleat about human rights and the possibility of being killed in said paradise, then they need to show an understanding of what human rights are. Start with renouncing sharia, abuse of children, amputations, wifebeating, murdering those who disagree with them.
Denounce Mohammed as the damaged and flawed man he was, and acknoledge that perhaps, just perhaps, he might not have been the ideal to live up to.
Make sure that the jizya stops and the dhimmitude is thrown off for something more worthwhile and robust. Like a genuinely free democratic society.
I have lost compassion for those who claim that islam has been hijacked yet are too spineless or too ignorant to deal with the perpetrators.
You want to live in the free world, then accept and support its freedoms.
If you want sharia or some other totalitarian ideology to fit in with your issues, fark off to the sandbox and play with your little cowardly mates.
L.Drummond.
ps. Hope this isn't too inflammatory, but I've reached the end of my patience with this idiocy.
L Drummond : They want a state within a state, then give it to them.
They already have some 50 odd muslim states. I see no reason why Britain or any state in the West, or anywhere else, be given to them, as yet one more experiment to test the viability of Islam. Its been tried in 50 countries and it doesnt work.
And BTW, that wasnt an inflammatory post at all - quite the contrary. Keep em coming.
A state in a state is what they are after. Give it to them and then they will want a bigger state and then we have a UK which we can not trust. They have been a good ally it will be a shame to lose them.
This is what our friend Inayat has to say on the subject of the sharia demand, that the mere reporting of it is inciting hatred:
Ruth Kelly had a series of meetings on Monday morning with different groups of British Muslims. Only one person - raised the issue of personal Shari'ah law and I don't recall anyone supporting his views at all. The Daily Mail's front page story was - not untypically - a disgrace and seemed a deliberate attempt to incite hatred.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/inayat_bunglawala/2006/08/countering_extremism.html
Only one person - raised the issue of personal Shari'ah law and I don't recall anyone supporting his views at all.
Read older posts, many imams have called for it. USA, Canada, UK, everywhere else. It doesn't matter if it was only one this time. Plenty of sharia to go around.
Ronin
It was Inayat what said that, not moi!
I understood that Silvester. I just posted that as clarification. Some of our newer posters haven’t been around long enough to realize the call for sharia is a very old one and will never end. I should have been more clear, sorry.
Give them a state within a state? It sure as heck hasn't worked for Israel.
Let's keep in mind at all times the end goal of Islam: The imposition of Islam on all - civilization eliminated.
Give them nothing.
"Give them sharia in some controlled areas where there's check points to monitor who goes in and out, so we would have totally muslim free zones."
That might work if they could be contained in those controlled areas. History show they can not.
Actually it is a very good idea. Anything that further separates and isolates the Muslim population from normal citizens is good. That is why the West should encourage, rather than discourage open manifestations of traditional Islam. Muslims should not be allowed to disguise themselves as regular, normal citizens.
Posted by: george_rem at August 15, 2006 06:49 PM
and
I am starting to think george_rem is right. Give them sharia in some controlled areas where there's check points to monitor who goes in and out, so we would have totally muslim free zones.
Posted by: gorniak at August 15, 2006 07:01 PM
Careful, people. This could give them safe haven for "honour killings" of women who "act out sexually. Women are extremely vulnerable in Islam.
By the way, we had a similar proposal in Canada, in the province of Ontario, about a year or two ago. (Maybe some readers remember this - I don't know if it was ever posted here because I'm new to the Jihadwatch and Dhimmiwatch pages).
A very influential Islamic organization, the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, described as a pro-faith (pro-Islamic) organization, STRENUOUSLY opposed the idea, calling it inappropriate in Canada among other things and being generally very critical and outspoken about it. (The plan was scrapped, although at heavy cost to other faith communities: Canon Law had been used in Ontario for years, but now Catholics can no longer have their marriage cases resolved by Church tribunals and the same thing happened to Jewish courts that had exercised jurisdiction in these types of cases. Now no religious law is allowed as a basis for arbiration).
The position of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women is significant for two reasons:
1. It suggests just how awful Sharia is (or can be), even though the proponents of the proposal argued that sharia has many different forms all over the world and is always formulated on the basis of the cultural context of the country or region in question and adapts itself to varying conditions.
2. It indicates that there really just might be such a creature as the one we often refer as the "moderate" Muslim i.e. one who can think for himself/herself (or am I hoping against hope?)
Pelayo:
I missed your posting before doing my two previous ones above. No, it was never implemented here, only studied in Ontario by a commission for a few months, but the issue was very noisy and heated.
Several other newspapers reported the same thing, including the Independent. And the "one person" who raised the issue was Dr. Syed Aziz Pasha, secretary general of the Union of Muslim Organisations of the UK and Ireland; not some obscure ordinary citizen.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1219289.ece
Give them nothing but a one-way ticket back to the crapistans they came from. For God's sake, people, this is tantamount to giving away the lands that generations of Brittish soldiers have fought and died for.
You know what the old saying is,"Once you pay Danegeld you never get rid of the Dane" it goes for moslems in spades.
There is NO such animal as a "moderate moslem" there is only Taqiya and other forms of disembling to fool the kaffir. Beleive nothing they say, trust nothing they do.
Death to Islam, and
their mediot stooges!
Duty, Honor, Country
(in THAT order)
Rowane
I think the posters who suggested that a Shariah zone be created within the UK were being somewhat facetious, but the objectors are right: remember that Muslims have always sought their own enclaves in countries where they started as a minority before they took over. Think about separatist movements in the Phillipines, South Thailand, India, Palestine, Eritrea, Cyprus, Bosnia, Kosovo, et al, or think about Indonesia, where Muslims were previously present only in Java and Sumatra, but have now spread like a tumor to Borneo, Sulawesi, Lombok, West Irian, et al. If any portion of the UK is given to Muslims for a Shariah state, it will not only become one more Islamic state, but will be a permanent threat to the non-Islamic portions of Britain, whatever they are. For a template, think India-Pakistan or Israel-PA. Even being nice won't do it - think of India-Bangladesh in that case.
What defines a country is the extent to which the law of that country extends, where the laws of Holland and Germany end, defines the boarder of those two countries it is the same with the U.S.A. and Mexico. They want Shari law let them have Shari law. Define certain Areas where Shari law can be implemented, perhaps the odd town Bradford Blackburn a large part of Birmingham the East End of London, perhaps. Get all the people who want Shari law to to apply to the Government the Government then has a long list of all the people who want it. When the law comes into force recognise these areas as the Islamic republics of Bradford Blackburn Birmingham and East London the people who wanted this them become citizens of these areas . As these are now independent countries with no connection with the E.U. We have no obligation to pay welfare. They are on there own. This would save millions of pounds which could then be used to set up boarders and custom posts. It has the added effect that you can isolate mullahs to specific areas. They then have to communicate by phone etc easier for surveillance The possibilities are endless. They want to go to Mecca. No problem when they travel to the local airport which is in the U.K. As soon as they go through the passport checks a nice stamp undesirable alien in there new passport means that they cannot fly back to the U.K. A nice trip to Pakistan same procedure. It would not take long to drain the puss out of these ulcers. It would also act as a deterrent to any other muslim living in the U.K. From trying any funny business.
Ruth Kelly used to be a Guardian journalist. ruth Kelly is now MP for Bolton-West. Her majority in 2001 was 5000 or 13.4%; in 2005 it was 2000 or 5%.
A significant proportion of her voters are Muslim, from Pakistan, and their votes are 'delivered' by local worthies whose respect and loyalty must be earned.
There are many Labour seats where Muslim votes carry the fate of the incumbent.
Labour instrumentalised the local Muslim 'Block Captain' in its Tammany Hall politics, the Conservatives just ignored them. Now the issue is simply that they may live on Bolton's streets but the do not live in Bolton's streets - they live in satellite TV which makes Chechnya, Beirut, Pakistan their daily reality. They are not part of British society but are colonists looking out of a different window with no reference to an old mill town in the North-West.
That is the problem - the creation of parallel societies much as Americans built forts in Indian territory until the West was won.
Ruth Kelly used to be a Guardian journalist. ruth Kelly is now MP for Bolton-West. Her majority in 2001 was 5000 or 13.4%; in 2005 it was 2000 or 5%.
A significant proportion of her voters are Muslim, from Pakistan, and their votes are 'delivered' by local worthies whose respect and loyalty must be earned.
There are many Labour seats where Muslim votes carry the fate of the incumbent.
Labour instrumentalised the local Muslim 'Block Captain' in its Tammany Hall politics, the Conservatives just ignored them. Now the issue is simply that they may live on Bolton's streets but the do not live in Bolton's streets - they live in satellite TV which makes Chechnya, Beirut, Pakistan their daily reality. They are not part of British society but are colonists looking out of a different window with no reference to an old mill town in the North-West.
That is the problem - the creation of parallel societies much as Americans built forts in Indian territory until the West was won.
Ruth Kelly used to be a Guardian journalist. ruth Kelly is now MP for Bolton-West. Her majority in 2001 was 5000 or 13.4%; in 2005 it was 2000 or 5%.
A significant proportion of her voters are Muslim, from Pakistan, and their votes are 'delivered' by local worthies whose respect and loyalty must be earned.
There are many Labour seats where Muslim votes carry the fate of the incumbent.
Labour instrumentalised the local Muslim 'Block Captain' in its Tammany Hall politics, the Conservatives just ignored them. Now the issue is simply that they may live on Bolton's streets but the do not live in Bolton's streets - they live in satellite TV which makes Chechnya, Beirut, Pakistan their daily reality. They are not part of British society but are colonists looking out of a different window with no reference to an old mill town in the North-West.
That is the problem - the creation of parallel societies much as Americans built forts in Indian territory until the West was won.
sorry for multiples - server seemed to hang
Stevan L
Thank you for the most significant post I have seen on this matter. Inayat Bunglawala is a regular "talking head" on the British media and I shall watch him more closely in future.
Still one has to respect cunning and Guardian readers will have been completely taken in because they never read anything else.
Voyager
Just seen your post -100% correct and true of all Muslim areas in Britain.
On the BBC last night Labour peer Lord Ahmed stated that "Hezbollah and Hamas are not terrorists but freedom fighters against occupation".
The fact that this man received a peerage just shows how far the Labour party have become hostages to the Muslim vote.
It is the "encouragement" of terrorism in the past for example those [Jenny Tonge and Cherie Blair] who stated that "they understood the Palestinians or would become a suicide bomber" that has caused the problem.
Britain won't become an Islamic state in one stage, but by the gradual introduction of sharia law and other pro-Islamic actions. It will be similar to the Kerensky government which preceeded the full Bolshelvik takeover.
The general population will probably accept it because they are scared of the bombers, scared being thought racist, really worried about having their petrol rationed, and don't want their cosy lives disrupted by hard decisions.
They are also being bombarded with daily newscasts about how evil Israel, America and George Bush are, while for instance Darfur and the recent deaths of children in Sri Lanka are virtually ignored.
"Give them nothing but a one-way ticket back to the crapistans they came from. For God's sake, people, this is tantamount to giving away the lands that generations of Brittish soldiers have fought and died for.
You know what the old saying is,"Once you pay Danegeld you never get rid of the Dane" it goes for moslems in spades."
Absolutely right!
There is nothing stopping any two parties in disagreement (e.g. about a divorce settlement) to go to a counsellor or religious leader for advice. If the two parties can agree that way without resorting to the courts, fine. The outcome could be along the lines of sharia, catholicism, judiasm whatever - as long as no UK laws are broken and nobody is forced into an unwanted outcome.
But this need not and should not be implemented in law, giving some people different sets of rights from others.
And those who seriously want to live under full sharia: please emigrate to one of the crapistans where it is in full glory!!
"Give them nothing but a one-way ticket back to the crapistans they came from. For God's sake, people, this is tantamount to giving away the lands that generations of Brittish soldiers have fought and died for.
You know what the old saying is,"Once you pay Danegeld you never get rid of the Dane" it goes for moslems in spades."
Absolutely right!
There is nothing stopping any two parties in disagreement (e.g. about a divorce settlement) to go to a counsellor or religious leader for advice. If the two parties can agree that way without resorting to the courts, fine. The outcome could be along the lines of sharia, catholicism, judiasm whatever - as long as no UK laws are broken and nobody is forced into an unwanted outcome.
But this need not and should not be implemented in law, giving some people different sets of rights from others.
And those who seriously want to live under full sharia: please emigrate to one of the crapistans where it is in full glory!!
BREAKING NEWS
There has been a suspicious rise in sales of DELL laptops.
Store owners throughout the UK have noted a large percentage increase in sales of Dell Laptops over the last couple of days.
Mark Ridley of PC World in Birmingham said "we definately have noticed an increase of sales of Dell Laptops which runs contrary to expectations considering the recent reports. We are also baffled by the specific request that they contain Sony batteries."
When asked about the buyers he noted that they were "of Middle Eastern appearance".
More Soon
If they can have Sharia law we should have Crusades, no, if they have Sharia law we WILL have Crusades whether they like them or not.
If they can have Sharia law we should have Crusades, no, if they have Sharia law we WILL have Crusades whether they like them or not.
Posted by: IceDragon at August 16, 2006 06:13 AM
If we don't give it to them, they'll be violent because we're marginalizing them. If we give it to them they'll be violent because Sharia punishes infidels, sinners and heretics.
Unfortunately, the next cruades may have to come whether we give them Sharia or not.
Either way, its time to start cracking down.
And then when their areas will be terror, murder, misery, and death we can say "well weren't you saying islam is the cure for all disease?"
Posted by: gorniak at August 16, 2006 01:08 PM
I see your point entirely, Gorniak. But their areas are already terror, murder, misery and death.
Lets just get on with the business of pushing back.
"their areas are already terror, murder, misery and death".
For that matter, as you reminded me yesterday on another page of this forum, so are most or all of the countries they live in.
Far from being deterrents to them, they welcome terror, murder, misery and death, in fact they live for them.
"so are most or all of the countries they live in".
I meant Islamic countries of course, for now, although they're doing their best to make it true of the entire world.