Nu stiu cum vor reusi englezii sa evite islamizarea treptata. Azi un deget, miine doua, poimiine toata mina. Singura rezistenta serioasa o vad din partea oamenilor de rind. Citesc de ani buni presa engleza si nu imi aduc aminte de reactii asa de numeroase si exasperate.

NO, NO, NO. A hundred times NO!
Bad as things are in the UK, to integrate sharia law is the thin end of the wedge. What has sharia law managed to do about Islamist extremists? Only encourage them as far as I can see.
We should ENFORCE the laws we already have, that is, excluding the stupid unenforceable laws which have been introduced by this inept government.

Posted by John, Bremerhaven on January 21, 2008 3:00 PM

I advocate introducing death by stoning for all offences, including parking on a double yellow line and speeding. I bet that nobody would ever infringe the traffic laws again, to the benefit of all. Plus, we could get rid of all criminal lawyers overnight (trials would be unnecessary, because a policeman’s word would have three times the weight of that of an ordinary citizen). Who said we cannot learn from Islamic law?

Posted by Thomas on January 21, 2008 2:53 PM

If the government let them do, the Queen will soon have to wear a burka!
What if the West would say ‘We want to offer Christian law to Saudi Arabia’?

Posted by Max on January 21, 2008 2:48 PM

This is the rocky rocky road to becoming an Islamic
State. It may sound innocuous but there is a plan
and aim for an Islamization of western culture. This
should be resisted at all costs.

Posted by John Stewart on January 21, 2008 3:12 PM

This is Britain and the law here is our law. If these people are not content with following and adhering to our law (which coincidentally has been forged through hundreds of years ) then they should leave. It is time the normal honest personin the street stand up for out country before it is too late!

Posted by David on January 21, 2008 4:20 PM

Accepting the validity of sharia is the thin end of a very large wedge. Integration is absolutely essential if we ever to live together comfortably, and allowing the creeping introduction of sharia merely reinforces the sense that Muslims are living parallel, separate lives. Now it’s just “personal law”, but what would be asked to accept further down the line? The only law that is valid in England is English law, and that should be the end of it.

Posted by David Pritchard on January 21, 2008 4:28 PM

The problem is not that anyone would seriously think of introducing some shari’a laws, such as stoning for adultery. It is a question of how far shari’a law may stray into areas otherwise regulated by the state. Some Muslim men in the UK take second wives, and I have seen texts advocating this, even though it’s in contravention of UK law. That might be one level of concern, since it would create a two-tier system. Laws concerning hijab would, if ontroduced, allow strict familiies to impose on their daughters Islamic customs that might otherwise be challenged. I have also seen a text in which it is argued that it’s permissible for a man to marry off his daughters even if she is under age. That would not be passed for the UK: but a general approval of personal shari’a law might lead to some fathers doing it. A yet more difficult area would probably be renewed calls for a novel law of blasphemy which would allow Muslims to take books and films to court on that charge. But the decision as to what constitutes blasphemy for Muslims would not reside with a UK court or even parliament, but with a Muslim body like al-Azhar or even an individual shaykh versed in fiqh, like Yusuf al-Qaradhawi, who has a large following here and who issaues fatwas on all shari’a-related matters. In other words, we could expect some areas to slip gradually out of the hands of the secular state and into those, first, of Muslims, and then any other religion that felt it could elevate its rulings above those of society at large. This would surely lead to greater and greater breakdown of social cohesion and allow Muslims to ghettoize themselves and their behaviour.

Posted by Dr Denis MacEoin on January 21, 2008 2:31 PM

Comentarii ale cititorilor la articolul din Daily Telegraph:
‘We want to offer sharia law to Britain’

- thanks, Sfinx

Iti raspunde un musulman.

Women in Islam — Abul Kasem

Poftim si adresa lui de e-mail: abul88 at hotmail.com
Te rog sa-i scrii si sa-i corectezi intelegerea complet gresita.

Pe de alta parte, te anunt ca femeile din societatile islamice traiesc in viata reala, nu intre paginile Coranului. Iar in viata reala o duc foarte prost. Mult mai prost decit femeile din Europa, America de Sud si Nord, Orientul Indepartat sau Australia. Iti ofer citeva argumente pe care se sprijina afirmatiile mele din articol. Daca mai vrei, iti mai dau. Argumente din realitate, cu femei in carne si oase. Te invit sa privesti clipurile video si sa citesti materialele. Absolut totul este spus sau scris de musulmani care traiesc in lumea islamica. N-am adresele lor de e-mail, in caz ca doresti sa corectezi si intelegerea lor gresita, dar ceva imi spune ca oricum nu te-ar lua in serios.

India, 24 septembrie 2007
Muslim Women in India Seek Secular Justice

Arabia Saudita, 19 mai 2006
Saudi Author Zaynab Hifni Talks about Women, Sex, and Taboos in Saudi Society

Zaynab Hifni: Rest assured that… Let me go back to our religious heritage, or rather, our religious law. ‘Aisha would sit with the men, and the Prophet Muhammad would say: You can learn half of the religion from her.

Interviewer: That hadith is unreliable.

Zaynab Hifni: An unreliable hadith?! I believe in that hadith, because it appeared in the collection of Al-Bukhari or of Al-Muslim, I think.

Interviewer: If it had, it would not be considered an unreliable.

Zaynab Hifni: I think it appeared in one of the two.

Interviewer: OK, but this is an unreliable hadith that did not appear in either source.

Zaynab Hifni: Let me tell you something. Our problem is that everything in of women we consider an unreliable hadith, whereas any hadith that favors men – like the one that says, “Women are lacking brains and faith” – is considered a 100 percent reliable hadith. Why? Because it harms women. This doesn’t make sense.

Interviu luat scriitoarei saudite Zaynab Hifni. Zaynab Hifni traieste in Londra.

Kuweit, 11 noiembrie 2007
Kuwaiti Politicians Debate Why Women Were Not Elected to Parliament

In my opinion, a large part, if not the majority, of society believes – and even considers this to be part of its faith and religion – that women should not hold governing positions. A fatwa on this was issued by the Kuwaiti Ministry of Religious Endowment, and by the Al-Azhar University in 1952, as well as fatwas in many other countries. Things that are described sometimes as social or religious heritage are facts in which we believe. We consider this to be for the benefit of the woman and the family. The Prophet sent male governors, judges, and ambassadors, but he never sent women, only men, even though the most perfect women lived in his time – ‘Aisha, the Prophet’s companions, and Fatima. The Prophet never… On the contrary, the Prophet said: “A woman’s prayer at home is better than in my mosque.”

Ahmad Baqer, parlamentar kuweitian

Liban, 9 septembrie 2007
Saudi Cleric Muhammad Al-’Arifi Explains Wife Beating in Islam to Young Muslims in a Ramadhan Show

Beating in the face is forbidden, even when it comes to animals. When a person is beating an animal… Even if you want your camel or donkey to start walking, you are not allowed to beat it in the face. If this is true for animals, it is all the more true when it comes to humans. So beatings should be light and not in the face. Some religious scholars say: “He should beat her with a toothpick.” I happen to have a toothpick with me. A man who is angry with his wife because she doesn’t get it… If he says to her: “Watch out, the child has fallen next to the stove,” or: “Move the child away from the electrical socket,” and she says: “I am busy” – then he beats her with a toothpick or something like it. He doesn’t beat her with a bottle of water, a plate, or a knife. This is forbidden. The scholars said he should beat her with a toothpick. Check out how gentle the toothpick used for beating is. This shows you that the purpose is not to inflict pain. When you beat an animal, you intend to cause it pain so it will obey you, because an animal would not understand if you said: “Oh camel, come on, start moving.” The camel does not understand such things, unless you beat it. A donkey understands nothing but beatings, but a woman, a man, a child, and so on, are generally more affected by emotions than by other things. If you beat her with a toothpick, or if you beat her lightly with your hand, and so on, it is meant to convey: “Woman, it has gone too far. I can’t bear it anymore.” If he beats her, the beatings must be light and must not make her face ugly. He must beat her where it will not leave marks. He should not beat her on the hand… He should beat her in some places where it will not cause any damage. He should not beat her like he would beat an animal or a child – slapping them right and left. Unfortunately, many husbands beat their wives only when they get mad, and when they start beating, it as if they are punching a wall – they beat with their hands, right and left, and sometimes use their feet. Brother, it is a human being you are beating. This is forbidden. He must not do this.

Muhammad Al-’Arifi, cleric saudit

Egipt, 5 iulie 2007
Female Circumcision Debated on Egyptian TV

Despite this surge of the hijab and of religious clothing, the state of moral values in Egypt is at its worst, and women are harassed in the streets, even if they wear the hijab or the niqab.
……
What kind of man is sexually aroused by a little bit of hair and needs to be protected? The Mufti of Australia said that a woman who does not wear the hijab is like a piece of abandoned meat, and that cats should not be blamed if they sink their teeth into it. I say to him: No, this is a disgrace. I’m not an abandoned piece of meat, and men are not hungry cats.
……
The hijab of our times – which is prevalent in Egypt – does not just erase the girl’s mind, but also her humanity. It erases the humanity of the girl by viewing her as merely ‘awra [parts of the body that must remain covered], and the cause of all disasters and calamities, and by believing that having her wear this all-encompassing tent is what the religion is all about.

Bahija Hussein, jurnalista egipteana

Despre obiceiul casatoriilor temporare – sau de placere – larg raspindite in Orientul Mijlociu (misyar pentru sunni si mut’ah pentru shia).
Pleasure Marriages in Sunni and Shi’ite Islam

Bahrain, 21 decembrie 2005
Bahraini Women’s Rights Activist Ghada Jamshir Attacks Islamic Clerics for Fatwas Authorizing Sexual Abuse of Children

Ghada Jamshir: “Does the Islamic Shari’a authorize mut’ah marriages? Does the Islamic Shari’a authorize mut’ah according to the following classification: ‘Pleasure from sexual contact with her thighs.’ They have: ‘Pleasure from sexual touching,’ ‘pleasure from sexual contact with her breasts.’ ‘Pleasure from a little girl.’ Do you know what ‘pleasure from a little girl’ means? It means that they derive sexual pleasure from a girl aged two, three, or four.”

Interviewerr: “Let’s not go into details…”

Ghada Jamshir: “Let me tell you what ‘pleasure from sexual contact with her thighs’ means…”

Interviewer: “Don’t give me the details…”

Ghada Jamshir: “This is a violation of children’s rights! This constitutes sexual assault of the girl. What does ‘pleasure from sexual contact with her thighs’ mean? It means deriving sexual pleasure from an infant. How old is an infant? One year, a year and a half, a few months?

“Is it conceivable for a grown man to have sex with an infant girl? And you people tell me that the Islamic Shari’a authorizes this? Forget about the mut’ah. Let’s talk about misyar. What do misyar marriages mean? You said that I’m a Sunni and that’s why I’m attacking the Shiites. No!”

Interviewer: “Some people claim that.”

Ghada Jamshir: “No, no. What does the misyar marriage mean? A man marries a woman from another town, and goes to her once a month. He ‘visits’ her. He calls her his ‘wife.’”

Interviewer: “Not necessarily once a month. He might go there every day.”

Ghada Jamshir: “Brother Turki, this kind of marriage, this kind of behavior, diminishes the woman’s honor as a human being.”

PS
Femeile nu pot avea un statut mai inferior. Inferior ajunge. Din cind in cind e bine sa consulti si un manual de romana.

Distreaza-te, e gratis:
http://patrupedbun.net/barbati-si-femei-in-iran/.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhim.....005159.php
http://memritv.org/subject/en/79.htm
http://www.terrorismawareness......-in-islam/