I recommend:
Posted on 08/16/2006 8:07:17 AM PDT by conservativecorner
British Muslim leaders meeting with government representatives to discuss ways of combating extremism are calling for the establishment of Islamic law (shari'a) to govern Muslims' family life.
"We told her if you give us religious rights, we will be in a better position to convince [Muslim] young people that they are being treated equally along with other citizens," said Syed Aziz Pasha, secretary general of the Union of Muslim Organizations of the U.K. and Ireland.
Pasha was among some 30 Muslim leaders, described as moderates, who met with Ruth Kelly, the minister responsible for communities, amid raging debate in the country over what to do about the terror threat.
The government is appealing to Muslim figures to work harder to prevent extremist views from taking root in their communities, particularly among young people.
The campaign was accelerated after the July 2005 London bombings, and given new urgency in recent days after police discovered what they said was a conspiracy to blow up U.S.-bound aircraft, killing thousands of air passengers and crew.
As of Tuesday, police were holding 24 suspects, all reported to be Muslims.
Pasha stressed that he was calling for the introduction of shari'a codes covering marriage and family life, and not for criminal offenses.
Shari'a is controversial because it provides for punishments including limb amputation for theft and death for apostasy. The legal code is applied in varying degrees in countries including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan and Indonesia.
Shari'a in family affairs deals with issues such as dowry, inheritance and sharing of assets. In some traditions it also allows men to beat wives who refuse to obey them and won't submit to non-physical admonition, and to end a marriage by declaring "I divorce you" three times.
Pasha said Muslim leaders were ready to cooperate with the government, but wanted a partnership."They should understand our problems then we will understand their problems."
Other Muslim leaders, however, disagreed. Khalid Mahmood, one of four Muslim lawmakers in the House of Commons, said shari'a could not apply in Britain because it was not an Islamic state.
An ICM poll of British Muslims earlier this year found 40 percent of respondents supported the introduction of shari'a in predominantly Muslim areas of Britain, while 41 percent were opposed to the idea.
About 2.7 percent of Britain's 60 million people are Muslims. In another opinion survey of Muslims this year, by polling company NOP, 22 percent of respondents agreed that the London bombings, which killed 52 people, were justified because of Britain's foreign policies. Among Muslims aged under 45, the figure rose to 31 percent.
Exposure of the airline bomb plot led to the introduction of unprecedented security measures at British airports, causing major disruption.
Media reports say the government is considering introducing a system of "profiling," to ensure security staff focus attention on those considered more likely to be suspect -- because of behavior or ethnic/religious background -- and so ease congestion at airports over the longer term. The government has not confirmed the reports.
Muslim Council of Britain General Secretary Muhammad Abdul Bari said the proposal could have the effect of discouraging Muslims from cooperating with police. If profiling was based on race or religion, it would be wrong, he told Sky News.
In another meeting this week, Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott met with Muslim lawmakers who earlier had put their names to an open letter saying the government's foreign policies were providing "ammunition to extremists."
The letter, whose signatories included representatives of all major mainstream Muslim organizations, sparked a strong backlash from ministers, who said foreign policy could not be dictated by terrorists.
Heritage Foundation scholar Nile Gardiner called the letter a wake-up call to the government.
"It shatters any illusions that the government's policy of engagement with leading 'moderate' Muslim groups since the 2005 London bombings has reaped any benefits," he said in a memo.
Gardiner urged the British government to "reject the message of appeasement" and for inquiries to be made into links between leading Muslim groups and radical organizations and individuals.
"Britain needs a new generation of Muslim leaders who are untainted by association with, or sympathy for, Islamic extremism and who are proud of their British identity," he said.
"They must be willing to condemn terrorism unequivocally and help root out extremists from Muslim communities."
It's so strange how the MSM don't report this. /sarcasm
Separate, but superior.
Not.
We hear there are some robberies around here. We would like to offer you some reasonably priced insurance. I think we can make the problem go away.
This is known as extortion. Round them up, charge them and try them.
If this poll is to be believed, I fear for Britain and the west.
I understand that recent polling of British muslims indicates that about of third of them support the London subway bombings of last year *and* that almost half of them applaud 9/11.
This is exactly the problem with western govt's looking to legitimize "moderate muslims". The reality is that they end up bolstering fundamentalists from Saudi Arabia or Pakistan who are willing to say "be fundamentalist, but don't kill people... for now"
I recommend:
If only the US would stop strip-searching Caucasian grannies and look for the bombers instead of the bombs.
*head asplodes from the contradiction*
}:-)4
Off-topic: I had no idea that Britain's population was that high. For whatever reason, I thought it was half that, or less. 60 million is a lot of people for those islands.
We need to get all the Muslims out of America before we have the same problems as England.
Soem may call me bigoted. I no longer care.
and women getting their hands cut off for wearing fingernail polish. ugh.
It's interesting to watch how Islam works. When the Muslims in a non-Islamic nation are threatened by Muslim interlopers, the so-called moderates come forward and claim the only way to save the non-Islamic culture is to impose more Islamic culture (huh). Otherwise the so-called moderates who are supposidly working for the benefit of the non-Islamic host claim the extremists will be enflamed and more violence will be the only possible outcome.
That any civilized nation would even consider such a proposal by a bunch of terrorist thugs indicates the degree to which we've lost sight of western ideals.
Daniel Pipes warned us about this in his book "Militant Islam Reaches America".
He said that Muslims would try to do eaxctly this.
My greatest fear is that there's some judge out there (over here or in the UK) who say "Golly Yes! You Muslims certainly cannot be expected to abide by our Euro-centric laws and rules."
Then the brown fecal matter is really going start hitting the fan!
"British Muslim leaders meeting with government representatives to discuss ways of combating extremism are calling for the establishment of Islamic law (shari'a) to govern Muslims' family life."
The correct response would have been instant deportation of these "moderates".
Correction: In the above post it should have read "When the hosts in a non-Islamic nation" not "When the Muslims in a non-Islamic nation".
Sorry, the way it presently reads makes no sense.
And the west obliges, and nothing changes.
Shouldn't that be Imammodium?
Other examples would include independance for former colonies which were in no way ready. We may not have had sharia law, but we had no-go zones and the myth that "street smarts" somehow was as good as grauating from college.
I think that a lot now think that excessive self-determination has turned into the blind leading the blind. However, in Iraq, bush is taking the approach that the blind need seeing-eye-dogs.
If you don't read one other article today, please read this one:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5764
Just three beheadings a year is all we ask. You wouldn't believe how oppressive your kaffir females are to us.
We need to get all the Muslims out of America before we have the same problems as England.
I agree with your post #14.
Islam should be declared an illegal political party and then deport all of its members.
If you want Sharia law, go home.
Suicide Watch Bump.
I don't care if you refer to yourself as a bigot;
I do care for your cavalier disregard of the religion clause in the 1st amendment.
Narrow your cry for expulsion to the minority of Muslims who advocate violent Jihad and our legal system and I will forgive you.
The western mind will never comprehend the muslim mind. These guys flocked out of a 3rd world shithole to the UK and now want to turn their refuge into a 3rd world shithole.
What you fail to understand is that by being a Muslim, you advocate violent Jihad. Not different from being a Soviet agent, really, and we expelled those all the time.
You've already been enlightened by post #35.
Here's an idea. You wish to live under Sharia Law? Live in Iran or Pakistan. Otherwise, GO POUND SAND.
Let me add to 35 because it is apparent that someone like yourself who defends the indefensible by calling another person who disagrees a bigot needs as much clarification as possible:
Muslims reject wholesale the idea and implementation of a dominant secular law; instead they seek the forced establishment of a pan-Islamist state under the control and supervision of Sharia.
Muslims view the democratic practices of egalitarianism, individual rights, and free exercise of religion (other than their own) as a direct threat to their belief system, and they are intent on employing violence against the West for the foreseeable future.
GOT IT?!
I understand that they are protected from the Government in their beliefs by the 1st, but if this nonsense and violence from the Muslim religion continues much longer it will not be the American Government the Muslim must fear, it will be an outraged American populace.
Any religion that preaches and promotes forced conversion, murder, and mayhem against unbelievers is the path to heaven for it's adherants becomes fair game as far as many of us are concerned....which is why we have the Second Amendment.
As for your inaccurate comparison of Islam to the USSR, not all Russians were Soviet agent; as a matter of fact, if it was not for the will of the Russian people {enabled by Ronald.R} the USSR would still be around.
I snuffed it out in post #40
It is the responsibility of the alleged majority in the Muslim community to expel this so-called minority from their midst.
If they don't take out their own garbage, it piles up into a huge stinking mountain, and others will have to remove it for them.
Not me, poster # 14 called himself a bigot.
While you are accurate in describing the political and moral thoughts of a minority of Muslims, you are incorrect in assigning them to every Muslim in our Republic.
It's too bad more Muslims don't speak up and clear this up for you. It's a PR problem they have brought upon themselves.
and btw: you GOT IT emphasis at the end only emphasizes to me that you indeed don't "get it".
concur
Nice sequitur
You like to change the argument when you are wrong. I purposely did not use the word "Russian" in my post. I said "Soviet". I also purposely did not use the word "Communist" because it was technically possible to be a communist or a marxist and believe that the state would whither away peacefully. But a Leninist believed that the people had to help the process, and that is a distinction that merited all avowed Leninists from being allowed to emigrate to this country. Leninists who were born here were allowed to believe whatever tripe they wanted, but if they acted on their beliefs, by, for example, taking part in an organization that actively worked for the overthrow of the government, they could be criminally punished under our laws and the Constitution. Unfortunately, too little of that was done over the decades, and the practice of proscribing that type of behavior has become less common.
But it is legal, and it would also be legal to proscribe membership in an organization that advocates the violent overthrow of our government to be replaced with a theocratic dictatorship, even if that organization calls itself a religion.
My father was born a Muslim in a Muslim land. I know many more Muslims than you, my dhimmi friend. The only Muslim that is a good citizen is not a good Muslim.
When a “religion’s” tenets include killing all of the infidels (yourself included) and imposing their own laws in place of our own, then I say that particular “religion” should no longer receive 1st amendment protection but rather condemnation and expulsion
(Shouldn't that be Imammodium?)
That's good! Never thought of that!
Narrow your cry for expulsion to the minority of Muslims who advocate violent Jihad and our legal system and I will forgive you.
I don't discriminate against Islam as a religion. If someone wants to set up a religion that's just like Islam but without the call to Jihad, I would say live and let live.
But as others have pointed out, Islam is also a political system. Nobody has the right to assemble a violent group within the United States. The moderate Muslims have not come forward in large numbers to reject the violent ones, so the whole group must be considered violent. We don't have the knowledge and means to separate the two groups.
If we deport the millions of Muslims in this country, I'm sure we're going to lose some good citizens. But we don't deport those Muslims, we're going to have Civil War in this country in the next 50 years. You make the call.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.