SOLO-UK Press Release: Stop the Madness of Islamapartheid!

Marcus's picture
Submitted by Marcus on Fri, 2008-07-04 09:12

SOLO-UK Press Release: Stop the Madness of Islamapartheid!

July 5, 2008

Creeping Islamapartheid must be stopped in its tracks now, says SOLO-UK spokesman Dr. Marcus Bachler.

He's referring to reports that the Lord Chief Justice has defended the "right" of Muslims in Britain to live according to Sharia law.

"I stand corrected," says Dr. Bachler. "I thought at the time similar separatist lunacy was being voiced by the Archbishop of Canterbury he was standing in an asylum of his own building. Supposedly even the Muslim Council of Britain did not support his view. However, today it is reported that Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the Lord Chief Justice, supports him. Baroness Warsi, the Conservative shadow minister for community cohesion, also backs the judge.

"Lord Phillips is quoted from a speech he gave to the East London Muslim Centre: 'There is no reason why principles of Sharia law, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution.' According to the article, he means that Muslims in Britain should be able to use Sharia to decide financial and marital disputes.

"This is a scary development, whereby Muslims are being encouraged by wealthy bleeding-heart liberals to embrace their religion and carry on treating their women like cattle and distinguish themselves legally and culturally from everyone else.

"I hope this nonsense will be shouted down again as it was after Rowan Williams's speech. There are already encouraging signs, as the Daily Telegraph reports: 'Khalid Mahmood, Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Bar and a practising Muslim, said that allowing Sharia law in parts of the UK would be divisive. He said: "This would create a two-tier society. It is highly retrograde. It will segregate and alienate the Muslim community from the rest of British society. The majority of British Muslims want to live only under British law and they would reject anything that means they are treated differently. What Lord Phillips and the Archbishop are discussing is something that is completely outside their area of understanding."'

"Indeed! Time for the bleeding-heart liberals, like the unelected Rowan Williams, Lord Phillips and Baroness Warsi, revelling in a delusion of self-importance, to start sorting out their own warped anti-life philosophy for a change, instead of constantly sticking their noses into everyone else's," Dr. Bachler concludes.

Marcus Bachler: marcusbachler@yahoo.co.uk

SOLO: SOLOPassion.com


( categories: )

Oh please!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

As long as it is private and between consenting adults, what's the problem?

None whatsoever as far as I'm concerned. I hope the fuckwitted vermin flog, amputate and stone each other to death, privately and consensually, as expeditiously as possible. The sooner the better. The law should have nothing to say about it. But there should be only one law.

Shocking brown-nosing of extremists in the UK!

Marcus's picture

Daily Telegraph

Is cosying up to Muslim extremists the best way to defeat terrorism?
By Charles Moore
05/07/2008

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, was nice about sharia this week. It is not "only about mandating sanctions such as stoning, flogging, the cutting off of hands and death to those who do not comply with the law", he said. And the provisions of sharia "do not include the repression of women".

Lord Phillips admitted that he did not claim "special expertise" in the field, but he had been to see some sharia chaps in Oman and they had seemed very civilised.

Anyway, his main point was that sharia might be useful here in mediating disputes about things such as marriage.

Well, it is surely true that the customary practices of various religions can be effective ways to reach agreement. Where these are compatible with wider law, as they are in the case of Jewish religious courts, they should be valued.

And it is true that sharia is not "only" about nasty punishments. But such punishments are indeed part of sharia (40 lashes for drinking alcohol is a widely accepted tariff, for example; 100 lashes for fornication), even if they are not always applied. Lord Phillips also did not mention that sharia upholds polygamy for men, prescribes a lower compensation for injury to a Muslim woman or a non-believer than to a Muslim man, and gives less value to their testimony in court. A little bit of repression of women there, Lord Phillips?

Sharia also traditionally insists on a second-class status of citizenship for Jews and Christians. All four main schools of sharia say that the penalty for apostasy - abandoning the faith - is death.

Lord Phillips was speaking at the London Muslim Centre, which is part of the East London Mosque. Dr Mohammed Abdul Bari, the head of the Muslim Council of Britain, introduced him. Dr Bari said that British judges must be "sensitive to our divine laws on personal relationships and family matters". How sensitive? Up to four wives at once allowed?

He also quoted from the Koran to show the importance of justice in Islam. I looked up the two quotations. The first appears in a chapter called "Women", which says things like: "The male shall inherit twice as much as a female". The bit about judging with fairness appears just after the following: "Those that deny Our revelations will burn with fire." The second quotation, also about judging with fairness, comes in a passage about how Jews who believe the wrong things must be punished.

Of course, you could find some blood-curdling things in Jewish and Christian scriptures, but the difference for our society today is that neither Jews nor Christians are trying to establish a state based on the political implementation of their religion. Islamists are.

It is this question of context that bedevils the way Britain tries to handle the problems of Muslim extremism. I wonder, for example, how much the Lord Chief Justice knew about his venue.

The East London Mosque is considered respectable. But if you read Ed Husain's remarkable book The Islamist, about how he embraced extremism and later rejected it, you find that it was the East London Mosque that helped him learn to hate the West. On Saturday evenings, he would listen to talks at the mosque along these lines, often inspired by the dead Islamist writer Abul Alah Mawdudi. Mawdudi incited the creation of a wholly Islamic society by "organised struggle, sparing neither life nor property for this purpose". Many leading figures in the Muslim Council of Britain are admirers of Mawdudi.

There is a similar problem with the Government's efforts against terrorism. A huge programme called Contest, with a subset called Prevent, is supposed to address the hearts and minds of young Muslims. If you read its latest strategy document, you find that its definition of "shared values" has little idea of Britishness. Its section on "grievances" implies that the root causes of extremism are Britain's own racism, inequality or foreign policy. Its proposed "structures" to prevent violent extremism are a cat's cradle of interdepartmental confusion.

If you can cut through the jungle of jargon, you find "a risk-based preventing violent extremism action plan". This risk is never explained, but it seems to mean that the groups promised the money to wean the young off violent extremism will often be pretty extremist themselves.

And so it proves. The Mosques and Imams Advisory Board, which tries to keep mosques free of baddies, includes representation of the Muslim Association of Britain, which is a British arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the oldest Islamist organisations in the world. To help purge violent extremism from universities, a new organisation has emerged called Campusalam. At its launch, it gave a platform to three Muslim Brotherhood men. Mawdudi supporters have also got state money to revise the teaching of Islam in British universities.

Later this month, Labour may well lose the by-election in Glasgow East to the Scottish National Party. Nearby, in Glasgow Central, the SNP candidate is Osama Saeed. Mr Saeed is now the adviser on Islamic matters for Alex Salmond, the First Minister. "Scotland can be the hub for the Muslim world," he says. As part of the Scottish Contest programme, he offers young Muslims "alternatives" to al-Qa'eda material on the internet. This is how he proposes to do it: "When people talk about deradicalisation, the last thing you want to do is say you must be against terrorism." At various times, Mr Saeed has told Western countries that they must change their foreign policy to avoid being blown up, praised "martyrdom operations" (suicide bombing) and called on Scottish Muslims to act "in defiance" of police inquiries about terrorism. He is the Scottish spokesman of the Muslim Brotherhood.

There is a theory behind all this. It is a sort of bastard child of the Northern Ireland peace process. It says that the West is "morally crippled" by its behaviour towards Muslims. It must reach out to all those Islamist extremists who are not actually personally involved in blowing anyone up and recognise, in the words of one of its proponents, Alistair Crooke, that Islamism is "founded on rehabilitated human values". Then it must empower them. Only they, backed with our money, the theory goes, will be able to deliver the terrorists.

Next week, a big exhibition at Olympia called Islam Expo, with stalls from delightful governments like Sudan and Iran, will give a platform to this grand coalition of Islamists under the banner of "Understanding Political Islam". And a minister, Shahid Malik, will appear on television for the anniversary of July 7, 2005 (when Muslim extremists murdered British people of all religions), to say that Muslims are "under siege like the Jews" under the Nazis.

So the solution to extremism is that extremists become the official representatives of Islam in this country. Islamist mosques, organisations and spokesmen will be treated as the true voice of Muslims (and woe betide those Muslims who disagree). Then we shall get a lot more sharia than Lord Phillips has bargained for.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opi...

Minister for community cohesion

Marcus's picture

Yes, James they are just shadowing the Government's minister. Tony Blair brought in all that touchy-feely managerial bullshit speak. The Government loves to use such terms as "social exclusion", "social deprivation" and "social inequality".

Unfortunately, gone are the days of the previous Tory leader, Michael Howard, who appointed a spokesman on deregulation (a post without a counterpart in the government).

Phil, are you referring to contracts?

If you have two consenting adults, and one says that their dispute should be resolved under Sharia - and the other says it shouldn't then what do you do?

Then you would uphold common British law, wouldn't you? So what's the point of trying to introduce Sharia as a second system of law?

Consenting adults

Phil Howison's picture

As long as it is private and between consenting adults, what's the problem?

What about the principals of common law?

Sandi's picture

But the idiot did not have to weigh in with his - "some principles of Sharia law should be adopted"

Yes Marcus (sigh) you are right. I have just read the Telegraph version and it gets worse.

"There is no reason why principles of sharia, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution."

Sharia suffered from "widespread misunderstanding" in Britain, Lord Phillips said.

"Community Cohesion"?!

James S. Valliant's picture

This is serious -- the bleedin' Lord Chief Justice?!

Still more disturbing than Lady Warsi's position -- she is a Muslim -- is her office: "Conservative shadow minister for community cohesion"(!)

(Great Zeus!)

Fires ignition

Marcus's picture

"It was not Sharia, but sanctions imposed in some Muslim countries - such as flogging, stoning, cutting off hands, or killing - that would conflict with our laws. “There can be no question of such sanctions being applied to or by any Muslim who lives within this jurisdiction,” he said.

Oh, thank you. How kind!

http://business.timesonline.co...

"He declared: 'Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law.'

How? I agree to be your slave, for instance?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

"But Massoud Shadjareh, chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, said mediation under sharia law could save the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds as it would avoid parties having to go to court."

You mean getting a Mullah instead of a trial? Yes, much cheaper!

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/...

Sandi...

Marcus's picture

...not sure if I agree with you there.

OK, the media are probably trying to inflame the public, that's what they do, that's how they sell news and make money.

But the idiot did not have to weigh in with his - "some principles of Sharia law should be adopted" shit. I can't stand sanctimonious assholes like him!

Edit: A sanctimonious cowardly asshole. It turns out Lord Philips gave that speech as he is about to retire.

Ok rage vented

Sandi's picture

Well not really (My rage is beyond the time that I have to express the words that I need to list).

At any rate, I am now making a concentrated effort to place reason in the top slot.

"Britain's most senior judge reopened one of the most highly charged debates in Britain last night when he said he was willing to see sharia law operate in the country, so long as it did not conflict with the laws of England and Wales, or lead to the imposition of severe physical punishments.

OK, he is saying that sharia is basically not going to happen because sharia is/will be in conflict to British laws.

Perhaps these words are in fact a nicely directed back-hander to islamists.

Also, the press are well adept at pushing the right buttons to inflame the British people. Hence spinning the spin for the right cycle more conducive to selling newspapers.

What is encouraging are the type of buttons that are being pushed for a start. This leads me to recognise that the Brit's are waking up and relish such headlines as do a great deal of bloggers.

Is it possible that the Chief Justice is sending out a very clear message to islamists that they are pushing shit up hill if they think for one minute that Sharia has a place in Britian?

Whatever the message, the Chief Justice should say what he thinks and mean what he says (Ok, moi is guilty as charged because methinks that I am responsible for the same ilk but for goodness sake, NOT in the same league).

"Who is John Galt?"

Common Law is Challenged by the grand poohbah

Sandi's picture

Phillips also suggested sharia principles should be applied to marriage arrangements.

Sharia Principals to marriage

* Marriage: Islamic marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. In the broadest of terms, the husband pledges to support his wife in exchange for her obedience, Brown says. Women can demand certain rights by writing them into the marriage contract, but the man is the head of the family, and traditionally, a wife may not act against her husband's wishes. (The Quran permits men to use physical force against disobedient wives in some circumstances, Powers says.) Traditional practices still have significant impact on modern law: in Yemen and other nations, a woman cannot work if her husband expressly forbids it. In Syria, a wife can work without her husband's consent, if she renounces her claim on him for financial support. Undersharia, a Muslim woman cannot be married legally to a non-Muslim man, but a Muslim man can be married to a non-Muslim woman. Marriages can traditionally take place at young ages--in Iran, the age of consent is 13 for females and 15 for males, and younger with a court's permission. In Yemen, the minimum marriage age is 15.

* Divorce: Under sharia, the husband has the unilateral right to divorce his wife without cause. He can accomplish this by uttering the phrase "I divorce you" three times over the course of three months. If he does divorce her, he must pay her a sum of money agreed to before the wedding in the marriage contract and permit her to keep her dowry, Powers says. Classicalsharia lays out very limited conditions under which a woman can divorce a man--he must be infertile at the time of marriage; insane; or have leprosy or another contagious skin disease. Most Islamic nations, including Egypt and Iran, now allow women to sue for divorce for many other reasons, including the failure to provide financial support.

* Polygamy: The Quran gives men the right to have up to four wives. There are some traditional limitations: a man must treat all co-wives equitably, provide them with separate dwellings, and acknowledge in a marriage contract his other spouses, if any. A woman cannot forbid the practice, but can insist on a divorce if her husband takes a second wife. Polygamy remains on the books in most Islamic countries, but some countries limit it through legislation. It is banned in Tunisia and Turkey, though reportedly it is still practiced in some areas of Turkey.

* Custody: In a divorce, the children traditionally belong to the father, but the mother has the right to care for them while they are young, Powers says. The age at which a mother loses custody differs from nation to nation. In Iran, the mother's custody ends at seven for boys and girls; in Pakistan, it's seven for boys and puberty for girls. Many nations, however, allow courts to extend the mother's custody if it is deemed in the child's interest.

* Inheritance: Mothers, wives, and daughters are guaranteed an inheritance in the case of a man's death. In the seventh century A.D., when the law was developed, this was a major step forward for women, Powers says. However, sharia also dictates that men inherit twice the share of women because, traditionally, men were responsible for women (you mean to say that the law has not been changed or updated to date 2008)?

++++

According to "The Sharia Council" , based at Regents Park Mosque in London - Senior Judge and Secretary of the Council, Sheikh Hassan, says: ‘We know that if Sharia laws are implemented then you can change this country into a haven of peace. Because once a thief’s hand is cut off, nobody is going to steal. If only once an adulterer is stoned, nobody is going to commit this crime at all. There would be no rapist[s] at all. This is why we say that, yes, we want to offer it to the British society"

"Who is John Galt?"

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.