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."
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.
An Islam that denounces theocracy as part of it's central tenet.
Prospects for such scenarios seem bleak however.
Actually, trade "sane" for civilized.
The proper response is to persecute them viciously. A sane nation will preserve its borders and culture and destroy invaders that don't assimilate.
By definition a Muslim believes in jihad whether the violent al quaeda kind or a type similar to the Brezhnevian incrementalism policy.
Read your little green book - Koran. It's all there.
Got it?
If they wish Sharia the Brits should consider buying all of those demanding it a one way ticket to their nation so the desire for Sharia is met.
Britain doesn't need Muslims at all. Their presence is at the expense of British natives, something this so-called conservative has chosen to collaborate with.
BINGO BUMP!
Sounds like the peaceful moslims need have the burdizzo used again.
Another thing done to young Muslim girls who seem to be too friendly with boys in Britain and other Western nations is to have clitorechtomies performed by unscrupulous Muslim doctors either in country or somewhere in the ME.
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.