Comments (61)

I love to hear Brits criticize the U.S. generally, and people like President Bush specifically, for being too religious. Apparently, we are also a very sexist and racist bunch as well.

In the meantime, the U.K. is being systematically infultrated by religious extremists who want to fundamentally change the landscape of British life away from secularism. Sharia law is a prime example of this. Your government is on the verge of officially sanctioning hatred towards women and homosexuals in partiular- two groups you allege to care about.

To all you liberal Brits, get your own house in order before you start telling us how to run ours.

No case for sharia law in west the only soultuon is mass deportation of Muslims out of europe or put them in camps like the japs in www2

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the West. The amount of people who have embraced Islam as their way of life has grown with increasing speed since 9-11, since Islam has been in the news and people have become increasingly curious about it.

For all those people out there who still have confusion about Islam, or those who have NEVER even picked up up a translation of the Quran or any other legitimate literature about Islam, please see any of the websites to get some true information about this religion:

www.learnaboutislam.org (you can get a FREE copy of the Quran)

http://www.islam-guide.com (this is a website created from a popular booklet explaining Islam in simple and brief terms)

http://islamworld.net/docs/true.html (written by a former christian)

People who commit treason like the scum who wrote this articale should be put in camps like the jap in ww2

Joan said:
“As a woman I am shocked that none of the women's organization (specifically NOW) ever speak out against Islam. Islamists try to intimidate with threats to make people not speak out.”

The most outspoken critics of Islam and its treatment of women are ex-Muslim women. The names that come to mind are Wafa Sultan, Nonie Darwish and Ayan Hirsi. Irshad Manji claims to be still a Muslim yet she is among the harshest of Islam‘s critics especially as regards to treatment of women. Some of their writings can be read on their websites.
As for NOW and other women organizations, they seem to be intimidated

Post Global shouldn't have let this piece with sole aim of propagating religious fundamentalism be posted on the site.

Frank suggests:
“If Sheikh Hassan wants so badly to live in a country where Sharia is the law, let him go to Saudi Arabia or some other backward* place.”

He could only go back to his country of origin if he had not forfeited his citizenship.
He could not immigrate to any other Muslim country because no Muslim country would accept any immigrants, Muslim or otherwise. Some of those Muslim countries who need foreign workers, such as Saudi Arabia and other oil rich emirates, give those foreign workers a residence permit, but deports them as soon as their contracts are terminated.

And suppose a Muslim woman who is also a Crown Subject decides that she does not want to be subject to sharia law for purposes of marriage or divorce, what then?

As for the rest of that poop about adopting Sharia for criminal law, I can only say I am getting very tired of watching the WaPo play the troll.

Voicing opposition to the legal sanction of Shariah law simply because it derives from Islam is not simply ugly, it misses the larger, more convincing argument against it. Once a democracy allows one population to be governed by a separate code of laws, the door is opened to any group claiming they too should be entitled to live by a different legal code. The consequences would effectively end legal equality among citizens.

The basic problem is that Seriat is "sold" as "divine", when it is not. Yes, it is *partly* based on the Qu'ran, BUT BY ENLARGE it is as worldly as it gets -- based on hadiths (false and real), tradition and interpretations. Therefore, even if you are a Muslim (i.e. believe the Qu'ran is God's revelations to men), Seriat remains "diluted", even corrupted, by *men* (worldy, non-divine beings, certainly far from infallible). Note, when we say men, we are also talking about men that lived hundreds of years ago.

So, why still follow it? If you need to follow God's "will", then you can follow the Qu'ran, BUT THEN you will have infinitely more room to decide on a variety of details, ranging from divorce to democracy.

Seriat is man-made and as all other man-made creations is imperfect and must be left open to change, including being abolished.

Why cling to something men created centuries ago and affront God with a statement like "Seriat is divine"?

Anonymous wrote:

"After reading all this debate over relative morality and the contrast of legal systems, I'm reminded of a famous story about Richard Wellesley, the first Governor-General of India. ..... So go and build your pyres, and next to each we will build a gallows. Then you may practice your tradition, and we will practice ours."

This is a correct fact. I have heard it from my elders too. And this Wellesley was right on the money. Banning the "sati" at that time was the correct thing to do, ending this barbaric practice.

In Islam something like that has to happen. Unfortunately, Richard Wellesley's home country is now a sinking boat saddled with politically correct leftist liberals who are confused between their pension and prostate. That's why Shariah is coming there taking advantage of this confusion. Shame indeed !

Men should welcome the introduction of Sharia standards for estate settlements, divorce and child custody. It grants men superior standing in every way. Women get reduced quotients and cannot testify against men unless endorsed by a male, and a woman's word is worth only half that of a man. A women who defies male relatives and tries to defend her rights in secular courts can be proclaimed an adultress or apostate and be duly stoned.

Hassasin writes:
“Please kindly provide me with credible sources that speak harshly of the Prophet & Islam, and I will gladly take them into consideration. If they are well educated, then I will sincerely read their works. If I am wrong, bring your proof & show me.”

Why do we need highly educated people to explain the Quran? Why would Allah make it so difficult to understand that we need a highly trained “interpreters”? Arabic is my mother tongue and I understand the Quran and the Hadith very well for the most part and I simply do not like most of what is in them. The most credible witness to the inappropriateness of that cult’s teachings to the modern world is the texts of your scriptures and the actions of your prophet and those who are emulating him

Mr. Fairweather, are you serious? Why would this even be a subject for debate. If the Muslims who have moved abroad and into secular nations cannot live under the law of the land then they are welcome to leave. This is not a conservative attitude that I express. This is reason, common sense and a refusal to degrade the accomplishments of Western culture by submitting to archaical minds. The rule of law and the notions of secular democracies and republican values and Enlightenment ideas will not be subject to an atavistic version of Islam. But then, the governments of the United States as well as the United Kingdom are working diligently to bring about an emerging totalitarian state that would fit nicely with the Sharia mind-set.

After reading all this debate over relative morality and the contrast of legal systems, I'm reminded of a famous story about Richard Wellesley, the first Governor-General of India. When the British Raj discovered the Indian custom of Suttee (sic?) - the practice of burning a dead man's still-living wife alive on his funeral pyre to spare her family the expense of continuing to support her, they promptly banned it. Shortly afterwards, a deputation of village leaders arrived and requested an audience to protest this "suppression of their long-standing and honorable tradition." The Governor-General heard them out, and then responded thus:

"In your country it is the custom, when a man dies, to fling his wife onto her husband's funeral pyre. This is your tradition. In the British Empire, we have traditions as well. One of these is that when men conspire to burn alive an innocent woman, we hang those men by the neck until they are dead. So go and build your pyres, and next to each we will build a gallows. Then you may practice your tradition, and we will practice ours."

Some behaviors are so vile and foul that no amount of tradition or history can justify them. They can and must be resisted, and whenever possible, stamped out.

Why is it since 9-11 the Muslims don't seem to say anything against Islam but have become more assertive of their belief and laws? They aren't trying to assimilate at all but seem to be pushing their religion down our throats. This should be proof to all men and women of any free country that Islamists intend to absorb our culture by slowing and carefully inserting their Islamic beliefs into our governmental system. As I woman I am shocked that none of the women's organization (specifically NOW) ever speak out against Islam. Islamists try to intimidate with threats to make people not speak out. I think after the murder of the man in Holland that some editors and others are afraid to speak out or publish articles/movies against Islam. They won't admit to the intimidation but it is there. People need to wake up to the migration and slow indoctrination of what Islam is doing, in a non-violent way. 9-11 should have been a wake-up call but people bought into the notation that it was just radical Islamists. It isn't just the radical Islamists that don't give women any rights. It is the "regular" everyday Islamists. Notice the woman had no say in the video nor does she anywhere else under Islam. Women are just considered no better than slaves. I can't stand Islam and its backward, ignorant teachings. Wake up women and the rest of the free world.

Hassassin:

Don't jump on Apostate. Your comment "...do not fully understand and respect Islam use poor tricks in order to fool the uneducated population" because much of the islamic populace is illiterate except when it comes to the memorization of that filthy violence laden book.

Look at what your people did to North Africa, die by the sword or convert. Your dogma still strangles The Balkans.

Religion is a damnation brought about by humans and islam is the worst of all.

Assimilate or go home. Sharia "law" is repugnant to civilized people. (Actually, many other aspects of islam itself are repugnant to civilized people, too.)

If you want to live in the 7th century, you can simply return to the islamic paradise of your birth. Why did you come to the West in the first place?

mohammed is only a "prophet" for believers. For the rest of us he was just a manipulative pedophile.

billm

To Anonymous:

I have two things to say to your uninformed babble. First, the UK is very much a secular Western society. UK law is secular and it is free of any overt religious influence. Islamic shariah is a barbaric code of "law" that has no place in a modern secular society.

Second, in response to your grammatical incorrect "England is not the EUROPE!" , the UK is a European country and its social development parallels that of the continent. The struggle for human rights and gender equality in Europe, and this includes the UK no matter how uneducated you are about the matter, has finally produced a society that is equitable for most practical purposes. The facts that some crazed Islamists want to throw away all these hard-won freedoms is deplorable. What is even more deplorable is that the UK is even allowing these zealots to air their degenerate views. Anybody who wants shariah law should be deported to a place where it is practiced. If you cannot live under secular law, do not immigrate into our countries.

Hassasin asks:
“Please kindly provide me with credible sources that speak harshly of the Prophet & Islam, and I will gladly take them into consideration.”

Here are four authors with their respective links.
1. Robert Spencer, the author of a book called “Mohammad”
http://jihadwatch.org/spencer/

2. Ali Sina , the author of a book called “Understanding Mohammad.”
www.faithfreedom.org/book.htm

3. Irshad Mangi the author of “What is wrong with Islam”
http://islam-and-democracy.blogspot.com/

4. Ayan Hirsi Ali, the author of “Infidel”
http://www.aei.org/scholars/scholarID.117/scholar.asp

If Sheikh Hassan wants so badly to live in a country where Sharia is the law, let him go to Saudi Arabia or some other backward*ss place.

Dear UK

Until you disestablish the church and declare through word and deed that you will never accept anything but a uniform secular legal code, you'll be dealing with this issue.

Good luck, chaps. You'll need it.

Hassassin wrote:

"Islam wants to take over the world(any substantive & pragmatic way of life and belief system that has existed historically fundamentally requires some inherent arrogant idea that 'we are the best' or 'our way is true' but that DOES NOT MEAN Islam does not respect other belief systems & allows for humans to come to their own conclusions using God's provided free will), ..."

Again, typical Islamist babble to confuse others. The ploy is typical: whenever anyone points out negatives about Islam, the faithful defendant quickly states that one of the following has happened which results in rejection of the opposing view. These, glossing over the archived WP blogs of Muslim responses in various threads, are as follows:

1. The critic is a non-Muslim and hence does not understand Islamic tenets.

2. Quran is written in Arabic and because no one (except the Prophet) could comprehend the true message of the Quran, all English translations are inaccurate because these were compiled by non-Muslims. So, the critic of these sources is misled and hence is presenting unobjective critic of Islam.

3. The critic is quoting (Muslim) sources true, but these scholars are extremists/radical and hence do not represent the majority of the peaceful contentions that Islam offers.

Well, these are the typical verbiage. Hassassin is just a clone of such defendants (of Islam). Hassassin is fully right stating that Islam wants to take over the world. And, whether Islam likes it or not, it is the innate right of other non-Muslim cultures/civilizations to resist and retaliate against such "takeover" even if it is sanctioned by Allah. 1400 years ago, Allah probably stood by Prophet's side and helped hiom to win his bloody conquests. Not anymore. Yes, we see terrorists like Osama bin Laden and his coward murderous ilk who can only decapitate innocent bystanders to make a political point and hence score on behalf of Islam. But, such barbaric view of "world takeover" will and shall be resisted to the last non-Muslim.

And again Hassassin wrote:

"... its a violent religion because some verses in the Quran talk about fighting(the Holy Prophet(pbuh) lived in a hostile Arabia that was ruled by greedy, corrupt, power-hungry leaders that broke treaties and used terror to gain leverage, many Quranic verses were provided for the Prohpet to help deal with these circumstances..."

Well that, in my view, is garbage. Prophet was just going around and insulting the then existing religious practices in Quraysh tribe. No one would appreciate insults about his/her personal beliefs and systems. Such acts infuriated the Quraysh tribe and they wanted this person exiled or killed. Yes, Prophet had to flee (Yathrib) and later returned with slaughter - as he had promised the Meccans. Anyone would be offended and retaliate against insults. That is just human. Did not Prophet retaliate against those who had exiled him and his friends ? Did he not have Asma-bint-Marwan killed ? Did he not have Abu Afak (104 year old Jewish man) killed in his sleep ? Did he not have Ka'ab bin Ashraf killed ? What was the crime of these persons ? Just that they opposed the Prophet, did not accept Islam and more importantly ridiculed him and his teachings. Did not Prophet do the same with the existing practices ? The difference is that after 12 years of peaceful preachings, when he saw he could NOT progress with his teachings and open call to embrade Islam, he resorted to violence. So, violence was finally the only way by which Prophet had made progress with preaching Islam. The brutality of the slaughters struck fear into the hearts of other tribes and they came and converted. Ibn Ishaq had compiled a biography in 800 A.D. (earliest bipgraphy of Prophet) where he gloats of how scared the people were of Islamic march and rapidly converted. That was indeed by the Sword. Without the sword (and modern day suicide bombings) Islam is just of no importance.

And again:

"..and still remain a peace loving Muslim), Islam converts everyone by way of the sword (how can you explain the conversion rate in the USA post 9/11? There are no swords here. People were confused about what would cause a person to fly planes into buildings(supposedly) so the intelligent section of America picked up books, read, and came to the conclusion that Islam was NOT teaching violence. In fact, most of these so-called 'violent Islamists' are acting as a response politically. ( ie Israel, Palestine)...."

You are finally right. Americans are the most gullible lot. Many have converted because they wanted to "check out" Islam; unfortunately once they "checked in" they cannot check out again. That would be apostacy and is punishable by death according all schools of Islamic jurisprudence. I agree that American gullibility and leftist encouragements are swelling ranks of Islam. This phenomenon is unfortunate, and unless some checks are made, the future of USA is like UK: Sharia Law replacing the US Constituition.

Finally again:

"If you want to bash Islam, do not use those who do not have the right to speak on its behalf in order to cut it down. It makes your arguments very weak. We shall lose the positive effects of debate & discussion if you cannot find reliable & educated sources."

Well, we are not bashing Islam yet. We are just trying to sort the credibilities. You have stated that Maudoodi and Qutb are not qualified because of their academic backgrounds. Well, how about someone who has a PhD from Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, in Islamic Studies ? That person is the blind sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman. Is he also not a proper source ? (Even though Rahman has a PhD in the field of Islam and hence is academically most qualified to exert authority on Islam.)

Sharia as a system of law and order? The words of the false prophet Al-Bukhari pervade everything. His words in the Quran and Haddith should be seen in a modern light that is expressed in the DSM-IV ( Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition) and suggesting that a system of physical coercion was intended by Allah for human spiritual benefit is an Al-Bukhari contradiction of His revelations to people. Allah does not speak Arabic and the Angel Jibral communicates with anyone it wants anytime it wants. Sharia in a society is meaningless once a society achieves a general awareness of Creation and the more precise the awareness, such as in the DSM-IV, the better humanity is.

Note human awareness: Diagnostic criteria for 301.4 Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder

A pervasive pattern of preoccupation with orderliness, perfectionism, and mental and interpersonal control, at the expense of flexibility, openness, and efficiency, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the following:
1. is preoccupied with details, rules, lists, order, organization, or schedules to the extent that the major point of the activity is lost
2. shows perfectionism that interferes with task completion (e.g., is unable to complete a project because his or her own overly strict standards are not met)
3. is excessively devoted to work and productivity to the exclusion of leisure activities and friendships (not accounted for by obvious economic necessity)
4. is over conscientious, scrupulous, and inflexible about matters of morality, ethics, or values (not accounted for by cultural or religious identification)
5. is unable to discard worn-out or worthless objects even when they have no sentimental value
6. is reluctant to delegate tasks or to work with others unless they submit to exactly his or her way of doing things
7. adopts a miserly spending style toward both self and others; money is viewed as something to be hoarded for future catastrophes
8. shows rigidity and stubbornness

NEO:
Wow. That a Western secular nation is actually considering the incorporation of a religious code into its law is alarming. Europe has come a long way in ensuring that the human rights of all its citizens are not violated.---------

1: England was Never secular!
2: England is not the EUROPE!

"i welcome Islamisation of England!"

--As you look around this green and pleasant land, with its wealth and prosperity, --

lost me right here..

"However as you make England over in your image, and give power to a small ruling theocratic elite who will brook no dissent to their interpretations, you will find yourself living in Iran, or Saudi, or..."

Or England and British Kingdom..

"Thinking people recognized the flaws in communism in the 1800's, but it had to be lived out to its logical conclusions in Russia and Maoist China before people would believe it is a bankrupt system of beliefs."

you lost the point.. try again..

"Do we need to repeat history, to live out the logical conclusions of Islamists and watch a great nation wither under its spell?"

What a great nation? are you meaning this bunch of "eurosceptic" monkeys who will destroy own land just to show how "great" they are?

"Or will people of resolve stand with the hard won lessons from history and stay the course of a civil society with rule of law. "

you lost your point again..

STEVEH WRITES,

"Hassassin is typical of the Islamist view: only 'right educated' scholars can interpret the Quran (read: those that agree with our Islamist interpretation); others are taking things 'out of context' (because they don't agree with our interpretation); they 'cherry-pick' quotes of famous people that support their interpretation (and ignore the vast majority of conflicting opinions); they are self-referencing and play to their own crowd, rejecting and dismissing other genuine and informed opinions, legitimate debate and objections; they dogmatically repeat that only their ideology will save mankind, there is no alternative (uh... I think not).

This is all disingenuous. Please.

In reality, this is a power play with Islamists masking their ambitions by hiding behind God's authority. We've seen this played out in history before, and rarely is it good.

Again, the only reason they are given the time of day is because they are willing to bully, threaten and spread fear through violence and the killing of innocents (and dissemble by saying God told them to do it).

Bullying is never defeated by accommodation."

It is ironic that in fact YOU hold the typical Islamaphobe view: Islam wants to take over the world(any substantive & pragmatic way of life and belief system that has existed historically fundamentally requires some inherent arrogant idea that 'we are the best' or 'our way is true' but that DOES NOT MEAN Islam does not respect other belief systems & allows for humans to come to their own conclusions using God's provided free will), its a violent religion because some verses in the Quran talk about fighting(the Holy Prophet(pbuh) lived in a hostile Arabia that was ruled by greedy, corrupt, power-hungry leaders that broke treaties and used terror to gain leverage, many Quranic verses were provided for the Prohpet to help deal with these circumstances and still remain a peace loving Muslim), Islam converts everyone by way of the sword (how can you explain the conversion rate in the USA post 9/11? There are no swords here. People were confused about what would cause a person to fly planes into buildings(supposedly) so the intelligent section of America picked up books, read, and came to the conclusion that Islam was NOT teaching violence. In fact, most of these so-called 'violent Islamists' are acting as a response politically. ( ie Israel, Palestine)
In fact, it is actually the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka that have the largest number of suicide bombings in hisotry... and they just so happen to be an ATHEISTIC group. What a violent religion Atheism must be :) .

Please kindly provide me with credible sources that speak harshly of the Prophet & Islam, and I will gladly take them into consideration. If they are well educated, then I will sincerely read their works. If I am wrong, bring your proof & show me. Btw, so there was perhaps a problem w/George Bernard SHaw... but Michael Hart & Ghandi are not credible enough?

I think if you listen to the same scholars that I (and the majority of true Muslims) follow, you will see a much different approach then that of the so-called educated scholars you keep mentioning. Let's take a closer look at them shall we?

Sayyid Maududi (sometimes called Moulana or Sheikh)
Maulana Maududi was home-schooled before attending Madrasah Furqaniyah, a high school that combined Western education with traditional Islamic education. He attended college at Darul Uloom in Hyderabad but withdrew when his father became terminally ill. He knew enough Arabic, Persian, English, and his native tongue Urdu to continue his studies independently.
So, a man who does not complete college education is now considered an expert in Islamic theology & Quranic interpreation? Interesting... that must mean that any college drop out in this country is equipped to write a thesis on the true nature of Atheism & describe its completely bigooted view of religions, especially Islam.

Sayyid Qutb:
In Cairo, he completed his high school education and enrolled in the teachers’ college, Darul Oloom, in 1929. In 1939 he qualified as an Arabic-Language teacher and received a Bachelor of Arts degree then joined the ministry of education. Very soon (about six years), he left his ministry job as a teacher and devoted his time to freelance writing. Another non-expert claiming to speak about Islam and somehow he is given credibility by the anti-Islam individuals.

Why is it so hard to use credible sources of Islamic Studies? How about reading lectures, books, and articles by Ayatullah Fadlallah of Lebanon or Hasnain Rajibali of the US? If you want to bash Islam, do not use those who do not have the right to speak on its behalf in order to cut it down. It makes your arguments very weak. We shall lose the positive effects of debate & discussion if you cannot find reliable & educated sources.

Thank you for your time.

apostate,it is very dangerous to take verses of the quran from their context.this is misleading.the ayah you quoted talks about the unbelievers at the time of the prophet when islam toke the upper hand.what do you expect from earlier muslims to have done while seeing the unbelievers break their accords and pledges.surely,the holy quran mentioned morethan once that nobody is forced to cnvert to islam by any way or any means.islam,contrary to what many believe,does not give the right to any muslim to kill,harm,frighten,or even insult anybody for being different in religon.the big problem with the west is generalising.all muslims,in the eye of the western,are binladens.america and britain gave themselves the right to invade two muslim countries,killing innocent people,making millions homeless,destroying their economy and giving their ally,israel,the green light to kill lebanese and palestinians because the idea that all muslims are terorrests.ofcours,muslims shoud not care whether britain adopt sharia or not.instead,they have to care about sharia being adopted in muslem societies first.again,islam needs to be well-understood. abu_alhool72@yahoo.com

"i welcome Islamisation of England!"

I'm sure this is true. As you look around this green and pleasant land, with its wealth and prosperity, its civil society and rule of law, your pulse must quicken... 'This could all be ours'.

However as you make England over in your image, and give power to a small ruling theocratic elite who will brook no dissent to their interpretations, you will find yourself living in Iran, or Saudi, or...

Thinking people recognized the flaws in communism in the 1800's, but it had to be lived out to its logical conclusions in Russia and Maoist China before people would believe it is a bankrupt system of beliefs.

Do we need to repeat history, to live out the logical conclusions of Islamists and watch a great nation wither under its spell? Or will people of resolve stand with the hard won lessons from history and stay the course of a civil society with rule of law.

Wow. That a Western secular nation is actually considering the incorporation of a religious code into its law is alarming. Europe has come a long way in ensuring that the human rights of all its citizens are not violated. The elimination of the death penalty, and other cruel an unusual punishments, and the enshrinement of gender equality are some of the hallmarks of European law.

Islamic Shariah law is a barbaric Stone Age system of law that is incompatible with modern secular societies. Its penal system, which, as the author states, includes flogging and amputation, is a barbaric throwback to a medieval mindset. This deplorable system of barbaric laws also includes flogging and stoning to death as punishment for adultery.

What is wrong with the UK? How could you possibly accept even the discussion of including this system of laws that is more suited to animals than humans? Even their marriage laws are barbaric and misogynist. Allowing polygamy and giving men the right to divorce their wives with just one word without recourse to law is disgusting. Their custody laws are even worse and their inheritance laws are deplorable. In fact, every single edict of shariah law contradicts the modern ideas of gender equality and human rights.

When a people immigrate to a country, they should abide by the laws of the land. The UK should never give these barbaric laws a chance of ruining centuries of progress. If people want shariah law, let them move back to Saudi Arabia, Iran or some other country where Shariah is the law of the land. It is no surprise that these countries are some of the worse violators of human rights. Their reliance on Shariah law ensures that they will violate every single human right that the secular west fought for. Let us hope that Europe wakes up to the threat of Islamization before it is too late.

i welcome Islamisation of England!

Even after Britain banned EU and declarated it to useless crap they just deserve a best alternative ever!

Hassassin is typical of the Islamist view: only 'right educated' scholars can interpret the Quran (read: those that agree with our Islamist interpretation); others are taking things 'out of context' (because they don't agree with our interpretation); they 'cherry-pick' quotes of famous people that support their interpretation (and ignore the vast majority of conflicting opinions); they are self-referencing and play to their own crowd, rejecting and dismissing other genuine and informed opinions, legitimate debate and objections; they dogmatically repeat that only their ideology will save mankind, there is no alternative (uh... I think not).

This is all disingenuous. Please.

In reality, this is a power play with Islamists masking their ambitions by hiding behind God's authority. We've seen this played out in history before, and rarely is it good.

Again, the only reason they are given the time of day is because they are willing to bully, threaten and spread fear through violence and the killing of innocents (and dissemble by saying God told them to do it).

Bullying is never defeated by accommodation.

Hassassin wrote:

"I'm almost positive you are not a Quranic scholar, therefore, you may not fully comprehend the complexities of the Quran. Some verses are to be taken literally, while others have a more allegorical & timeless meaning. Those who have hijacked Islam do so by assuming that all verses are not to be interpreted by TRUE EDUCATED scholars, but instead are to be read & used in their literal sense... "

And who're you ? A true Quranic scholar whose credentials excel that of Maulana Maudoodi or Sayyid Qutb ? Or is this the cheap ploy: to defend the primordial tribalism innate within Islam at any cost ?

And George Bernard Shaw had also praised Adolf Hitler and Stalin. Does that absolve Hilter of the crimes he committed ?

There are other scholars who have expressed most repugnant comments about Islam. So, why those repugnant commnets be rejected, and only what is favorable to Islam be accepted ?

I'm a believer Muslim. Sharia and Sharia Law are poles apart. The word Sharia literally means path on sand created by animals walking to flowing water, Metaphorically it means path to peace and salvation; practically it means Moral Code, Ethical Guidance.

It has been politicalized and is established with the essence of State-Law. Sharia law is not a benign law-system - it is the malignant instigation of creating global theocracy. It is created by political power-play and patriarchy and is the most cunning cultural conspiracy of human history. It is against justice, women, non-Muslims and often violates the Quran.

I am in it since decades - see two exaples:-

1. Witness for a husband is not a condition to divorce his wife - Codified Islamic Law# 344, Vol 1. Now open the Quran - Chapter Twalak verse 1 -2 - keeping two witnesses is a must for a divorece.

2. There are punishments of flogging, stoning to death, amputing limbs etc for drinking, theft, murder, adultery etc. See law# 914 C of Codified Islamic Law Vol 3 - Head of an Islamic State cannot be chargerd in court for these crimes. The same law is there in and page 188 of Hanafi Law Hedaya.

Sad that Europeanization of Islam is not the question anymore, Islamization of Europe seems our destiny. The stunnig success of Sharia-ists is developing a spectacular and cunning mechanism - you cannot stop them even if you know their strategy and goal.

Hasan Mahmud
hasan.mahmud@hotmail.com

I used the cliche 'taken out of context' argument because it still holds true. I'm almost positive you are not a Quranic scholar, therefore, you may not fully comprehend the complexities of the Quran. Some verses are to be taken literally, while others have a more allegorical & timeless meaning. Those who have hijacked Islam do so by assuming that all verses are not to be interpreted by TRUE EDUCATED scholars, but instead are to be read & used in their literal sense... (not unlike certain sects of Christians, Jews, etc...)
Many scholars (non-Muslims included) have written about how Christians & Jews were treated more justly under the Islamic Empire than any other time in history. They were given a protected status and left to govern their own affairs. You say the Jizya (protection tax) is unjust? Well, have you heard of any type of federal government that does not tax its states/nations and requires them to pay for the federal government that supersedes & protects them when they are under attack? How do you think the state governments in this country work?????

Michael Hart has chosen the Holy Prophet as the Most Influential Man in history not because Islam is a barbaric religion.

Or how about GEORGE BERNARD SHAW:

George Bernard Shaw said about him:
"He must be called the Savior of Humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it much needed peace and happiness."

MAHATMA GANDHI:

"I wanted to know the best of one who holds today's undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind....I became more than convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle”

Please be aware. I do not seek to convert anyone. Religion is a personal choice and may not be for everyone. God judges everyone according to their circumstances and their abilities. It is not for us to decide. If Islam was this incredibly barbaric, violent religion, then why are only a handful of so-called Muslims actually taking part in violence? Why aren't the over 1 billion Muslims actively going out & slaughtering in the name of Allah? Islam is the fastest growing religion because intelligent people are captivated by its message. No one is running around with swords to the necks of the masses.

I am sure there is a way we can come to a mutual understanding without using harsh rhetoric & insults. Through positive conversations, we shall all benefit, myself included.

Adolf Hitler had a "encouraging" meeting with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem before his Auschwitz pogrom against the Jewish community. (That Mufti might have told how Prophet Muhammad treated the Jewish community of Banu Quraizya.) The rest is history.

(This is not a fabrication: this was reported by Newsweek magazine some time ago. Washington Post might have this in its archives.)

Hassassin conclusively wrote (in response to Apostate):

"Islam is too beautiful a religion to be attacked in such a childish & irresponsible manner. Logic, reasoning, and common sense are all children of Islam."

Not Islam is a barbaric religion. The West must get out of its proverbial slumber regarding its foolish attitude towards Islam.

Apostate quoted the very surah that preaches domination over the world of non-Muslims (including Christians and Jews and of course pagans - who are Hindus/Buddhists etc.)

To that end, Islam makes the following assertions about itself and its desire:

YUSUFALI: "If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good). " [Quran (003:085)].

Islam makes no secret that all other paths of worship are false and hence (by the unstated implication) needs to be corrected. This is to say that all others (non-Muslims) have an obligation to convert to Islam. This is the basic agenda. No intellectual argument, no debate nothng and no respect for human rights. It's Allah's will and that's it. This attitude, that is essentially tribal, is obsolete in a western society where individual freedoms are important.

What would happen to non-Muslims in the probable situation of being captured by Muslims in their onward march against unclean, un-Islamic world ? The well-known traditional scholars of Islam (not the pro-American ones like Khaled Abou El-Fadl of UCLA), who have a major following in Muslim countries, like Maulana Sayyid Abul Ala Maudoodi, interprets the opposition of non-Muslims to reject Islam (or refusal to accept Islam) as being equivalent to "waging war against Allah's message". In that sense, Maulana Maudoodi in his book JIHAD IN ISLAM, argues that since Islam must establish itself as superior over all other paths, and at the same time remain kind in sparing the unarmed non-Muslims must give them (non-Muslims) the following choice of paying Jiziya (for protection). The protection is from Muslims who might be otherwise qualified to harass/kill a non-Muslim if even after repeated active persuasion that non-Muslim rejects Islam. The Jiziya tax is simply a protection tax paid by dhimmis in an Islamic State (which means Shariah laws are invoked). The justification for this discriminatory tax is to assert the inferior status of non-Muslims simply because of their religion. The Quran sanctions this explicitly:

YUSUFALI: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." [Quran(009:029)].

Of course Muslims (like Hassassin) can only be expected to recycle the cliche "taken out of context", but that's just to hide the barbaric nature of Islam.

Someone adds the following two verses to the one I quoted earlier to “disprove” my “allegation” that their religion promotes terrorism.

..”.then if they repent & keep up prayer & pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."
next verse (9:5)
" And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know.”

All what those two verses command is that if a pagans surrenders, to give him a chance to convert, which is supposedly the reason behind initiating the conflict. The question is why fight those “idolaters” in the first place? This is terrorism when you compel someone and by the force of arms to embrace your ideology.Got it?

So, I posted here earlier when the video was not working. Now having seen the video, I retract the bit about the sheik being a nutter. He seems quite since, and that is quite alarming to me.

As a test, have you in the UK gone so far over that suggesting you may be headed for dhimmitude is speech to be removed and suppressed?

Suggesting that Islam depoliticize itself before establishing a beachhead in England will never fly, so it seems you lot are in for a most interesting experiment.

When Islamists can accept the same level of free speech that Christians endure in western liberal society, then I will accept Islam as a religion and not as a triumphalist ideology. Even unto rudeness, can that be said?

Apostate writes,
"
But when the forbidden months
Are past, then fight and slay
The Pagans wherever ye find them
And seize them, beleaguer them
And lie in wait for them,
In every stratagem (of war). (Quran 9:5)

If this is not terrorism , I don't know what is? Your relgion books are teeming with such gems."

As usual, those who do not fully understand and respect Islam use poor tricks in order to fool the uneducated population. It was very convenient of you, and the others like you, to quote PART of one passage... but leave out the information before and after.

the passage continued...
"...then if they repent & keep up prayer & pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."
next verse (9:5)
" And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know."

Terrorism?... no, far from it. Only a true man of peace would offer others this type of safety. Most modern armies frequently involved in such conflicts (i.e. The US & Israel), do not seem to offer others such protections.

Islam is too beautiful a religion to be attacked in such a childish & irresponsible manner. Logic, reasoning, and common sense are all children of Islam.

Muslims have a personal agenda in the West ; convert it to Islam. The aim is more personal and earthly than saving souls. They believe that when that happens they will rule over those lands very much like the early Muslims had done in 7th and 8th Century when the few nomads of Arabia appointed themselves Caliphs and Viziers of the lands of the Byzantine and Persian Empires. It is not farfetched for someone like Bin Laden, for example, to dream of having the North American continent as a personal estate. They argue that men of much smaller stature (mis)ruled civilized empires in the past. They mistake the western man’s simple heartedness and straightforward ways as a sign of gullibility, and behave accordingly. They are now preaching about the “justice” and “peace” of their Sharia laws to make it palatable to the West. In the past they did not bother with such tactics; they simply conquered people and forced them to submit to their dominance. The end game is for those disenfranchised people from failed societies to dominate the world starting with the West.

It's sad that this is even up for discussion. The heart of Christian Anglincanism is debating accepting Sharia "law"....

How sad. Most Muslim countries don't let Christians worship, have Bibles or..in Saudi Arabia, even enter certain cities. Having any rights and being treated fairly by them....you've got to be kidding!

The Islamo-Fascists must laugh at the weakness of the West's resolve. America must wake up before such Sharia dumb-talk comes this way. Islam is our mortal enemy. We must respond to it and resist it. Not surrender to it.

1) The plight of the world today is a result of the predominant ideology: capitalism. Global warming, food crises, starvation, global slavery, drug trade, wars, environmental devastation, mass poverty for billions, gross disparities in wealth are ALL BECAUSE OF THE WESTERN RUN CAPITALISM WORLD ORDER.
2) No where on earth fulfills the minimal requirements of being representative of Islam. Thus, no nation or society represents the implementation of Islam. Not Saudia, Pakistan, Sudan, no where. And there hasn't been such a state for decades. There are only Muslim peoples living in societies with concoctions and hybridizations of various laws.
3)The Muslim world also is part of the CAPITALIST WORLD ORDER, only Muslims are ruled by authoritarian regimes protected by the Western powers rather than secular democracies.
4)These Muslim regimes unjustly practice Shariah and mispresent its spirit, its dynamism, its progressive nature for mankind. Instead, these regimes use Shariah to repress their people. They choose to implement criminal law from Shariah, but force the people to practice capitalist economics. The regimes pick and choose which laws to implement for Shariah yet hold themselves above the LAW!!!!!!! This is the TRUE TYRANNY, the Shariah is not tyranny.
5) Muslim societies, or communities, CANNNOT PARTIALLY IMPLEMENT SHARIAH. They cannot force a people to practice interest/riba/usury and predatory financing and then punish them with hadd/Shariah punishment!!!! This is a big injustice. And its an injustice on the ignorant people who only know how to think with their bowels and are ignorant of Islam and the world.
6)This Shariah scholar may mean well, but he is fooled by the trappings of British accomodationism.

This is insane. This sharia law is nothings but musings of a monomaniacal, blathering idiot. Why should Britain make this big concession for some 2 to 3% of the population. If these muslims cannot live under the same rule of law, why dont they go back to their islamic paradises. Ask them if any of these islamic paradises - such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Yemen - countenance secular law for their non-muslim residents. I chose the word residents instead of citizens, for good reason. because citizenship is limited to native born only - besides there aren't long queues of immigrants (muslim or non-muslim)waiting to immigrate to these paradises. If sharia is important to these bigots, then why did they migrate to Britain, they should have stayed in their native lands. No they are just as materialistic as the next guy. However, they want to carry their 7th century bigotry to wherever they go. I had enough of this utter imbecility.

Yes, StevenH said it all. No comment needed.

Inherent in the driving greed of those money and power seekers who will destroy the world by draining the blood from it, and poison its body, waters and air, if they are allowed their way; and those who would condemn the human world to bloody wars of spiritual conquest and bondage, lies the devil.

Mankind has the seeds of its extermination, as well as world destruction, in its propensities for both spiritual and material conquest.

For this reason a pluralistic nation cannot allow itself to be controlled by either the interests of money or religion.

Steveh,

you correctly said it....

What is the issue here? Orthodox Jews can follow kosher laws, Muslims can follow halal, Catholics can annul their marriages through church tribunals, etc. So individuals are not being barred from following their religious laws in the UK (or US/Canada, whose legal systems derived from English law). Is the issue that Muslims (particularly women) are being abused in their communities by the unenforceable and uneven application of their Quranic rights? So if more transparency in the application of sharia law was instituted they would not be so exploited? Or is the issue replacing the common law with religious laws so community leaders can control their members more thoroughly? This is what happened when the British went to India. It resulted in increasing control and abuse of women in all the religious communities (Catholic, Hindu, Muslim, etc.). The whole Sharia law in Britain debate seems to have muddied all these issues.

Khaled - I have lived many years in Muslim societies, have had many Muslim friends, have had deep discussions with Imams and have studied the Quran and Hadiths. I have found a good number of Muslims who are both noble and desire to please God. And while I respect these people, I look around at the societies they live in and see them, sadly, constrained, exploited and suppressed by what can only be called a 'medieval' ideology which does not have the depth and weight to engage the modern world - much less be a replacement for modern civil society with rule of law. For the Islamists to avoid complete ideological bankruptcy, they must now rely on the bullying, intimidation and fear that are characteristic of them. And... sadly, Muslims across the spectrum have implicitly allowed Islamists to hijack and reduce the definition of Islam today to violence rationalized by 'defense of Islam' rather than see if it can truly hold its own in the modern marketplace of ideas.

I would hate to see the British buckle under the demand that there should be two sets of laws in the land. Sharia law is not a legal set of laws, but a religious instrument of laws.
The British have evolved from excessive punishments and violence towards felons into a truly humanist form of punishment (for the most part) which runs counter to the demands of Sharia, in spite of all the Imans talk about it being strictly for settling disputes of divorce, etc.
If the examples of Sharia are what we have seen in Muslim countries, every civilized society should stand strong against allowing it to get its nose under the tent.

There goes the empire...

Khaled writes:
“please read, study and reflect about Islam then you may understand it. Also you may know that real Islam is far away from terrorism.”

But when the forbidden months
Are past, then fight and slay
The Pagans wherever ye find them
And seize them, beleaguer them
And lie in wait for them,
In every stratagem (of war). (Quran 9:5)

If this is not terrorism , I don't know what is? Your relgion books are teeming with such gems.

i think the west will take much time to know the real islam.until this time comes they will not stop hating islam.but when they deeply understand it they will recognise that islam is the best notion the world has ever known.please read,study and reflect about islam then you may understand it.also you may know that real islam is far away from terrorism.

STEVEH - Yup, you got it. It seems to me that fundamentalist Islamism brings very little to the table. Even totalitarian Communism worked better, and that hasn't worked out very well.

Any system can run for a while on enthusiasm & self-interest, as long as there are victims to plunder. But at some point, easily-plunderable victims become in short supply, and you gotta be able to create something worth having, and "good stuff in the next life" only works as long as folks accept the premise that THIS life has to be crappy. When they start seeing regular evidence that this life doesn't have to be so crappy, they'll inevitably demand to have some of that good stuff (Now!), whether through system change or plunder. Either way, change is going to happen.

Just read respected historian Fukuyama's recent article on modern autocrats, 'They can only go so far', where he dismisses Islamist ideology like this as 'Medieval', attracting mostly the disenfranchised. Or, in my opinion, those blinded by self-interest and agendas (Islam will take over the world - and we will be the rulers!). The world waits for Islam to demonstrate a better society that is as compelling to the human heart and mind when given a choice and freedom of movement. I see no significant move of people clamoring to join Islamic societies. In fact, the main leverage Islam has in the world today is intimidation, bullying and fear. If not for the threat that Islamists are willing to kill innocents by violence, and exploit democracies by demographics, they would be ignored.

it is lame to justify introducing sharia in Britain for 'personal matters'. What is personal is at odds with basic Western or rather human expectations. Take marriage! one, two etc..which runs against the British laws! Take also being a witness in a sharia court. would the British legal profession accept that a judge should listen to two women witness for each man witness? take also inheritance! would the legal profession and values accept that a girl would receive half as much as her brother when dividing an inheritance!

I say keep sharia out. the human rights gains are too precious to adulterate with Sharia.

This is really ridiculous. Here myths are taken as truths. To assume some heresay reports of God advising a human being on what to do or not to do as a basis of modern law is too much. Law cannot be a static one. When the world changes the laws also will have to change. One cannot stick to what was suitable to deal with the day to day life of some thousand five hundred years ago. Those who cling to such ideas are nothing but obscurantists and have no place in a modern world. If an archbishop or somebody in such high position say that we should adopt some old laws then God Almighty save the country and human kind.
What is the relavance if a Sharia chief recommends that sharia should be adopted in England. Why not then convert every one in the world to islam. Then problem of terrorism will be solved once for all. England is too soft on these fanatics.

I could not get the video to play. The main reason why Muslims wish the West would adopt the Sharia is not because they believe it is from Allah. Off course some ignorant ones do, but there are more earthly reasons. One is to maintain their dominance over their wives and children , but another one, which is as important to them, is to discourage their coreligionists from leaving Islam. The apostacy laws of the Sharia guarantees that. To them the label “Muslim” is a badge of identity and they find a psychological solace in the size of that community. That is why they never tire in throwing the number 1.3 billion in our faces.

Edward J. Cunningham - It's cute and popular to say that the British "don't have a written Constitution", but it's also a bit silly. I don't suppose that you think that their rights are supported strictly by oral agreements between discreet gentlemen with stiff upper lips?

As to sharia, either it IS the law, or it isn't. I don't think that (in the strictly traditional view) humans have much to do with it. Obviously, it isn't the law.

The British do not have a written Constitution like us Americans, but most of the same essential rights that Americans enjoy are enshrined in British law. Is somebody seriously suggesting that these rights be revoked so that...

British subjects who convert from Islam to another religion or abandon religion altogher should be put to death.

Ditto to any British subject who blasphemes against Islam.

All those careful laws that have been carefully crafted over the course of centuries over how to treat criminals should be thrown out in favor of more enlightened punishments like cutting off the hand, stoning, and beheading.

I'm sure more experts can go on about what else sharia entails, but you get the idea. The author has it backward. The West does not need sharia. NOBODY needs sharia. Sharia needs to be abolished---EVERYWHERE.

This is insane.