Surprise surprise!


by Al-Hack
13th June, 2006 at 9:24 am    

Own up. Who was actually surprised the two brothers from Forest Gate were let go without charge?

Police have defended the raid and said inquiries are ongoing.

Officers are continuing their search for chemical materials elsewhere after finding nothing at the house in Lansdown Road, Forest Gate, since the operation on 2 June.

While Melanie Phillips is desperately trying to cover her tracks, Sir Ian Blair’s competence is being questioned for the 1044th time. In the last 10 days. The Guardian has some helpful stats showing why if you’d bet on the pair being terrorists then you would have been cleaned out:

According to the Home Office, up to 30 September 2005, 895 people have been arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000; of those 23 have been convicted of terrorism offences.

To those baying for blood, everyone is a potential terrorist. Better lock ‘em all up just in case. Even when…

Mrs Mohammed said: “They strip-searched my son Jamie, who was 14, and patted down my daughter, who has special needs. She had been scribbling on a piece of junk mail, and it was just squiggles, and they found it and said it was Arabic code. We had a DIY bag with hammers and stuff in it and they said that was bombmaking equipment.”

Who trains these people? Saudi Arabians?


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Civil liberties






123 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Indigo Jo Blogs

    Quotes from Forest Gate brothers…

    BBC NEWS | UK | In quotes: Terror raid brothers Abdul Kahar: As soon as I turn around I just see an orange spark and a big bang. At that time I flew into the wall. As I flew into……




  1. Kismet Hardy — on 13th June, 2006 at 10:24 am  

    What was it that shitbag columnist from the sun said: ‘I’d rather they went down hard on every lead gleaned from intelligence, innocent or otherwise, than they didn’t act on it at all.’

    We’re in big shit

  2. j0nz — on 13th June, 2006 at 10:24 am  

    I found a great article that I have re-posted

    So whose fault is it really that innocent Muslim men are being arrested?

    Never heard of Muriel Gray before but she talks sense.

  3. sonia — on 13th June, 2006 at 10:53 am  

    Does she? Sounds like she makes assumptions about the ‘Muslim Community’ like everyone else. when she says “So why do Muslims not take to the streets in furious demonstrations, not against the British police but against the psychotic killers that have made innocent Muslims the subject of police suspicion and non-Muslims afraid of their fellow citizens? ”

    there have been plenty of voices condemning the terroris. i do resent the following:

    ” The bad answer would be that they don’t demonstrate because the core aim of the terrorists, that of bringing about an Islamic Britain, is one shared by a majority of Muslims,” – well!

    excuse me? similar logic to thinking ‘so all the mothers at home with their kids who didn’t go out to demonstrate against x y z every single day are in favour of x y z.’ or the reason there is so much political apathy in britain and no one votes is because everyone is against democracy.

    And then – the other point -the terrorists want to bring about an Islamic Britain – well do they? if they did – then they’ve done the one thing that will ensure that will never happen! in any case the other point – the majority of muslims want an Islamic Britain – is pure and utter hogwash. if people Really wanted to live in an islamic state they’d all be sitting in Saudi and Pakistan not here.

    the problem clearly with this Muriel woman is she’s treating ‘Muslims’ as if they’re some funny community that she doesn’t understand the dynamics of. the bottom line is that the dynamics aren’t any different to the wider community. the ‘argument’ you hear from some islamic-y types about ‘oh the whole continent of america must be evil because they haven’t gone and done anything about Bush, so they must all be against us’ is another example of this kind of not very reflexive thought.

  4. j0nz — on 13th June, 2006 at 11:03 am  

    Try reading her whole article, which includes about her anger at the British incorrectly imprisoning Irish people.

    Sonia, the problem is 300 Muslims protested at the arrests.

    How many protested after 7th July?

    if people Really wanted to live in an islamic state they’d all be sitting in Saudi and Pakistan not here.

    Really? Don’t you think a goal of the Jihadists is to convert the whole world to Islam? It is permitted to live in Dar Al-Harb if you are they are there to further the cause of Islam.

    Following of from this logic, 40% of British Muslims want Sharia law in Britain. Surely if they want an Islamic state, these 40% would move to Saudi?!

  5. leon — on 13th June, 2006 at 11:12 am  

    @Jonz, I’m not sure about all this “Muslims must condemn terrorism” louder and more frequently than everyone else. I remember growing up in the 80s with the IRA bombings and I don’t remember anyone demanding the Irish community condemn the terrorism more loudly/visibly than anyone else…

    Btw where are you getting this 40% you’re bandying about?

  6. j0nz — on 13th June, 2006 at 11:13 am  

    What I am saying in #4 is what message does it send to the ordinary non-Muslim community, i.e. the one’s not too interested in politics, when we have no protests from Muslims after a terror attack, and 300 Muslims protest at a possibly unavoidable terror raid?

    We are asking for your (the Muslim communities) help and assistance and it is not forthcoming.

  7. j0nz — on 13th June, 2006 at 11:18 am  
  8. leon — on 13th June, 2006 at 11:20 am  

    Unavoidable terror raid? I think that remains to be seen. In my view there are serious questions regarding the use of intelligence in this country (all the way from the use to “justify” the Iraq invasion through the Stockwell shooting to this latest act of incompetence by the police and MI5).

    Again, where are you getting this 40% figure you mention in post 4?

  9. leon — on 13th June, 2006 at 11:21 am  

    Oh right, that one…

    “Half of the 500 people surveyed said relations between white Britons and Muslims were getting worse. Only just over half thought the conviction of the cleric Abu Hamza for incitement to murder and race hatred was fair.”

    500 poeple? Representative sample then…

  10. j0nz — on 13th June, 2006 at 11:27 am  

    500 poeple? Representative sample then…

    Good point. It could be more like 60%. Even at 20% it is still shocking. I’d be shocked if 20% of the UK wanted to implement National Socialism.

  11. leon — on 13th June, 2006 at 11:45 am  

    I was actually being sarcastic.;P

  12. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 13th June, 2006 at 12:12 pm  

    if people Really wanted to live in an islamic state they’d all be sitting in Saudi and Pakistan not here.

    Not so. I understand that Saudi and Pakistan are not considered to be ‘true’ or ‘pure’ Islamic states and thus an abhoration of true Islam. Ask Izzy, he would like to live under Shiria Law, but no such suitable Islamic state that implements the Shiria in its entirety exists today.

    Besides people tend to continue to live where they were born, as that is where your family and friends are.

    Also some loons believe that: “Allah owns the world and England is part of the world, England belongs to Allah.”. Therefore they wish to drag the mountain to Mohammad.

    For those on this list that wonder what feeds the Jihad Watch mindset, check out this piece. It is that sort of BS that makes me (and j0nz) angry and scared.

    Cheers,

    TFI

  13. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 13th June, 2006 at 12:15 pm  

    Don’t forget kidz when visiting JW don’t read the comments section, unless you are a Red Neck.

  14. Refresh — on 13th June, 2006 at 12:31 pm  

    TFI

    I have no idea what this group is expecting to achieve. Omar Bakri I saw as a showman. A coward to boot, as is that other one.

    It seemed always to be the case that should C4 or News24 (amongst others) want comment they would turn to these deadheads.

    I recall one such interview where Omar Bakri basically said the reason his fellow participant (an MP I think) was opposing his view was because he was a Jew. The prompt reply was that he wasn’t Jewish.

    This is the level of debate we get from these cretins. All bluster and no substance. And in the meantime enough BS to damage us all.
    Why? I don’t think I’ll ever understand. Perhaps whilst they keep being called in by the media, they just can’t help themselves.

  15. Kismet Hardy — on 13th June, 2006 at 12:46 pm  

    How long before the government get together with endemol to dumb down suspected terrorist raids?

    Imagine. There are 250 cops breakingour neighbours have been beaten, your special needs daughter harrassed for her squiggles being seen as arabic code, your son is shot and your other son gets the blame, you’re in tears when Cilla Black pops out and shrieks: surprise, surprise

    Bring back Jeremy Beadle

  16. Sid — on 13th June, 2006 at 12:47 pm  

    j0nz

    Perhaps the greater Muslim “community” doesn’t feel particuarly culpable for the the terror attacks on 7/7. Ordinary Mulsims were after all victims of that terror too. As they are in other parts of the Muslim world where Islamic fanaticism is prevalent.

    The question is, should “indigenous” Brits such as yourself feel culpable for the fact that there is a massive increase in the popularity of the BNP?

    I agree that Muslims should speak out more against Muslim fundamentalism. We on PP do regulalry, as you well know. I haven’t seen you or Muriel Gray get too hot underthe collar about the BNP.

  17. El Cid — on 13th June, 2006 at 1:06 pm  

    I think the right response IS to be surprised. Yes, my hand is up. I’m surprised.
    Because how could they get it so wrong?
    By they, I don’t mean plod — I feel they had no choice. I mean the “intelligence services”.
    Maybe Mr. Reid should redirect his “not fit for purpose” line.

  18. El Cid — on 13th June, 2006 at 1:07 pm  

    Deep down, though, I am still clinging to the hope that there’s stuff we don’t know and that there were good reasons for taking no chances. What else can I do?

  19. Anthea — on 13th June, 2006 at 1:14 pm  

    #12 – I do think that it’s insulting, but all (bar worshipping Allah) of the “muslim values” as with the principal morals of any other religion, and even to society (regardless of how these morals are actually executed). Besides, it’s ridiculous for us to be overreacting the message of the poster. The message itself is ridiculous as those “muslim values” apply to every society and religion, including in Britain. So do the “British values” apply to every other society (even in predominately muslim populated countries!!).

    It seems that perhaps people like yourself are overreacting to the act of sticking the poster up more than rationally and rhetorically thinking about the message itself.

  20. Arif — on 13th June, 2006 at 1:19 pm  

    I don’t see what is going to be gained from an “us and them” mutual condemnation. Muslims can decide that there is a war against them by the west and by being suitably selective they can make a very compelling case. Non-Muslims can decide that Muslims are out to impose global sharia by war and deception and can also build up a case by selecting evidence.

    So we are scared of each other and I think we bolster our own identities by playing up those fears. It may be a step forward that some on each side is inviting the other side to show good intentions. But if we make it a precondition of trust that other people share our own fears and do something to remove them, nothing will change.

    Yes JW, your fears are real and worth addressing. So are the fears of others. Other people may misunderstand you, they may decide your fears are selective because they are based on an evil agenda, and that unless you prove otherwise you should be fair game for a holy warrior or crusader. And they are wrong. And if you do that in return, you would be wrong.

    It is very human to have selective fears and to be hostile to those who cause those fears, and sensitive to evidence that any stranger might possibly be an enemy. The police and Muslims are in this situation together, while attempting a dialogue, they are also raiding and demonstrating against those they fear.

    It doesn’t seem that hard to resolve this situation through confidence building steps (a bit of talking, identifying common goals and helping each other meet their goals). At this stage there is still enough will for people to do that, as long as we ignore those people who crank up those fears and want us scared enough to do whatever we are told by them.

  21. Anthea — on 13th June, 2006 at 1:21 pm  

    I do think that the people who did protest BEFORE the results of the case were known should not have done so. Just heard on the news that they’re now going to be doing a community protest, which is fair and fine.

    The sister was one of those who called for the earlier protest (I may be wrong, do correct me), which she should not have done. Instead of doing it then, because she knew her brothers would be innocent, then she should have waited until they were cleared, as she should have known they would be. There’s no way the police would plant evidence, so why not wait for your brothers’ innocense to come through? To say the police were acting as racist bigots in this case before even finding out that the brothers would be released is damaging to the “muslim community”. They’re not helping themselves.

    Who is actually representative of British muslims? MCB? Respect? Imams? No, but who and how else are you going to get muslims (especially independent ones) to speak out? Actually, it’s one thing to speak out against muslim fundamentalism, it’s another to apologise for their acts (ie. 7th July) where muslims are just as likely to be victims as anyone else (as Sid said). I agree they need to speak out against fundamentalism, but “community leaders” (especially Bangladeshi ones) ie. old men who are disengaged with a highly young population of muslims and don’t understand the British ways of the youths (ironic that), don’t represent them either.
    Ironic because the majority of the non-muslim British public seem to think they’re not patriotic, whereas community leaders think the kids are too white/British.

    Journalists and people like yourself are asking for both, and muslims probably feel that they don’t owe both.

  22. contrarymary — on 13th June, 2006 at 1:26 pm  

    J0nz – your line is so tedious and offensive, especially in light of yet more damning evidence that muslims are being needlessly victimised in this ‘war on terror’.
    I might add that I am not muslim. just because a tiny minority (there are 2billion muslims in this world) of extreme people that claim faith to a certain religion are hell bent on terrorism, does not mean that the everyone who is muslim can be spoken about as a homogenous whole.
    were all catholics tarred as IRA in the 1980s.
    are all all catholic priests considered paedophiles? (I realise this is a red rag to a bull – Kismet)
    you seem fixated on a specific idea – muslims are terrorists and want to islamisize (if that’s a word), the western world.

    anyway at least someone in government is speaking sense, Gordon Brown of all people, and I’d love to know your thoughts on this Jonz

    http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1877044.html?menu=

  23. leon — on 13th June, 2006 at 1:28 pm  
  24. Jackson — on 13th June, 2006 at 1:42 pm  

    just because a tiny minority (there are 2billion muslims in this world)

    Are there 2 billion muslims in the world? Every time I hear it there seems to be an increase in the Muslim population —- wow

  25. Jackson — on 13th June, 2006 at 1:49 pm  

    Yeah – what a joke, who could ever believe Muslim fundamentalists exist! it must be a conspiracy! No way could Muslim fundamentalists carry out acts of suicide bombing so deranged are they with hatred and intolerance. Mohammad Siddiques suicide video message was computer manipulated by Jews too.

    Ostriches—-here is a hole in the ground. Stick your heads back in it please.

  26. Jackson — on 13th June, 2006 at 2:03 pm  

    No evidence apart from their body parts and photographs from CCTV?

    What is the mean level of dementia amongst certain people of the populace that they are so in denial about the existence of murderous Islamist extremism amongst British Muslims? What will it take to get out of that denial? having your family blown up by a group of ‘nice lads’ from Bradford? Although thinking of it, even that wouldnt be enough to get the denialists to remove their heads from each others backsides.

  27. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 13th June, 2006 at 2:16 pm  

    It seems that perhaps people like yourself are overreacting to the act of sticking the poster up more than rationally and rhetorically thinking about the message itself.

    Firstly I was unaware that I had overacted by bringing this link to the board. Secondarily I think that you are completely misunderstanding who the message is targeted at. You might read it and think rationally, others might not. Couple this stance with the MCB quote:

    “His aim, he says, will be to encourage Britain to adopt more Muslim ways, as well as to encourage Muslims to be good British citizens. He thinks that non-Muslim Britons would benefit from having arranged marriages and espousing stronger family values; they would also do well to stop drinking and gambling and to follow many of the teachings of Islam.”

    To which Leon commented: So, the MCB, under Bari, are going to play right into the hands of the BNP and those who fear a creeping Islamic state in the UK…great.

    Which completely misses the point that he doing so by pandering to those that DO wish for an Islamic state in the UK..great.

    There appears to be a concerted campaign of radicalization is happening in the Muslim camp, which to me it appears to be a power grab by organizations like the MCB, Respect etc. This price of this power grab is increased power to the Islamists.

    Refresh: This is the level of debate we get from these cretins. All bluster and no substance. And in the meantime enough BS to damage us all. Why? I don’t think I’ll ever understand. Perhaps whilst they keep being called in by the media, they just can’t help themselves.

    I completely agree, but when you want to discuss why the 7/7 attack happened you HAVE to drag these muppets in to defend the indefensible.

    Better we give them a platform and you and I stand side by side throwing eggs at them together rather trying to mute them and pretend these ideas aren’t out there.

    Arif: I don’t see what is going to be gained from an “us and them” mutual condemnation. Muslims can decide that there is a war against them by the west and by being suitably selective they can make a very compelling case. Non-Muslims can decide that Muslims are out to impose global sharia by war and deception and can also build up a case by selecting evidence.

    Good post and good point. Its the ‘which side of the fence thing’ again. You can build these arguments on either side. The only opinion that makes me really spitting cross is when I read “the time for talking is over, now it the time for action” as that is fighting talk and I don’t care which side of the table said it.

    The best way for us to reduce this fear is to communicate about makes us different and what makes us the same. Communication generally reduces fear.

    Sid: I agree that Muslims should speak out more against Muslim fundamentalism. We on PP do regulalry, as you well know.

    This is the major reason why I read this site, it restores my faith in humanity after reading to much JW.

    I’ve known and been friends with many Asians through my life, and I really don’t see them being represented by the “community leaders” or “religious leaders” at all.

    If we want to turn this radicalization around we need the 2nd and 3rd generation to be a lot more vocal and take these ‘leaders’ down a peg or an entire ladder. Go PP!

    Cheers,

    TFI

  28. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 13th June, 2006 at 2:21 pm  

    Damnit Kismet Hardy you got there first. I declare this page Loony bashing!

    Hey ZionistTroll go outside into the sun and turn to stone.

    I’m looking forward to the point where he / she pretends to be someone else and claim that ZT is “intelligent”, what a hoot that was last time.

  29. Jackson — on 13th June, 2006 at 2:29 pm  

    The Friendly Infidel and all others debating the issue of extremist Muslims interviewed so often in the media….

    ….does anybody remember a couple of weeks before 7/7 the BBC broadcasted a prime time documentary on a Saturday evening on BBC2 which was meant to give a platform to ‘British Muslim grievances’? Well in amidst the usual litany of everything was a smiling and outwardly sane and civilized Muslim woman from Slough saying with a straight face how she felt that 9/11 was a good thing and how underneath it all lots of Muslims in the UK see Bin Laden in a positive light. This was posited as some kind of thing that the rest of the country should ponder on with a certain amount of guilt and shame, as if it says something about how beastly and ‘jahil’ our society is to have smiling middle class Pakistani women in Slough praising Bin Laden and yet offering herself as a moderate.

    Now, I read some message boards, and the overwhelming response was that the programme was a good thing because it allowed Muslims to articulate their ‘grievances’ (that word again! Grievances in Slough!) and so let people ‘understand’ Muslims. But I really don’t think some people appreciate what kind of understanding people get from opinions such as that. At the very minimum it suggests an almost complete absence of critical self awareness, and a detachment from basic realities and conceptions of the overwhelming majority of Britain. The smiling face of the Pakistani woman in Slough explaining how Muslims felt enervated after 9/11 was one of the first things I thought of after July 7th —- and it explains alot too.

  30. Sunny — on 13th June, 2006 at 2:32 pm  

    Please ignore the troll, he is being banned and deleted. I’m sick of these conspiracy theory nuts now, they bore me to death.

  31. Kismet Hardy — on 13th June, 2006 at 2:33 pm  

    Personally, I think Fitness First were behind all of this.

    The CIA passsed on details of known Islamists (well ones that visited Pakistan at least twice in one year) to the General Manager (whose grandfather denies the holocaust but I haven’t found the connection…yet).

    The GM contacted all four ‘suspects’ and offered them the chance of a lifetime. Either lifetime membership in a crap gym in Luton, or membership with all mod cons in a four trendy spots in London for a year.

    So, they all took in the one in Luton and decided it was indeed crap, whereupon they were driven by the GM’s personal chauffeur (who dressed in black and looked a bit like Will Smith) to four seperate locations in London.

    The CIA followed and the rest, as they say, is hysteria.

    You can’t prove me wrong

  32. Sunny — on 13th June, 2006 at 2:34 pm  

    I think Arif was on the money once again.

  33. Kismet Hardy — on 13th June, 2006 at 2:36 pm  

    Oh don’t delete me. I have plenty more.

    Have you heard the one about how Madam Tussauds exists to secretly take DNA from celebrities to ensure in the future the world will exist only of famous people?

    They’re cloning Kylie’s heaving buttocks as we speak

  34. Refresh — on 13th June, 2006 at 2:39 pm  

    I am with you there Sunny. Well actually Arif.

  35. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 13th June, 2006 at 2:41 pm  

    I think Arif was on the money once again.

    He often is.

    Loon mode: on

    Kismet!!! you are right my brother, you can see the truth as well!! Although it wasn’t the CIA that followed it was MFI!!! Those basteads aren’t happy with invading my front room and filling it with furniture, but they want to be Zionist and RULE THE WORLD!!!

    Loon mode: off

    Sorry you all had to see that.

    TFI

  36. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 13th June, 2006 at 2:42 pm  

    They’re cloning Kylie’s heaving buttocks as we speak

    There is a god.

  37. Fatwadodger — on 13th June, 2006 at 3:02 pm  

    Jonz – Muriel Gray, like most other right-wing commentators is taking the easy route on this issue by generalising. That’s the problem with her analysis.

    Yes of course there were 300 people out demonstrating on the street against the Forest Gate arrests – as Sonia rightly pointed out this is a tiny percentage of the Muslim population.

    Just as you get a small number of white people coming out in support of the BNP et al.

    In fact, looney fringe weirdos who want an Islamic Caliphate/pure Aryan state and have nothing better to do with their time are by far the most active when it comes to any kind of protest. It takes something huge (like the Iraq war) to move the rest of us into action.

    “What I am saying in #4 is what message does it send to the ordinary non-Muslim community, i.e. the one’s not too interested in politics, when we have no protests from Muslims after a terror attack, and 300 Muslims protest at a possibly unavoidable terror raid?

    We are asking for your (the Muslim communities) help and assistance and it is not forthcoming.”

    I get what you’re saying but you’re wrong. Firstly, there have actually been protests against the terror attacks, both here and in the US. Secondly, I don’t think this really proves anything. Most Muslims I know are with the rest of the public on this issue – they realise that the police have a job to do and are frankly as happy to see the nutters locked up as anyone else. But of course like most right-minded people they are concerned when mistakes are made and innocent people are shot.

    And you say that the majority of the population ‘ordinary non-Muslims’ are not interested in politics. Although I think you’ll find that Muslims overall probably do care more about politics, most of my ‘normal’ Muslim friends – the one’s with relationships, lives, jobs etc, just can’t be bothered with it – it’s too stressful and too full of weirdos, so they’re hardly likely to launch counter-protests are they?

    Also, the imam at my mosque actually advises against taking part in street protests. The mosques policy is not to get involved in street demonstrations – mainly because most of the people at my mosque are of Pakistani origin and have seen what can happen in protests there. Also because it stops people from getting involved in protests where flag burning etc takes place. The policy is basically to keep your head down, be grateful that you’re living here and have the opportunity to make a living and not make a fuss. Every single person I have ever met, at my mosque at least, is as upset and angry about the July bombings as anyone – probably more, because they are tarred with the same brush as the nutters.

    Re: the Islamic state thing – yes, there are some who believe in that but most of them want it in a non-violent way. You might think that’s odd and I know I don’t agree with their views (they tend to preach) but that doesn’t necessarily make them dangerous people, just odd. There are however loads who would be absolutely terrified at thought of an Islamic state – remember, a lot of Muslims in this country have come to get away from regimes in Iran, Saudi, Pakistan etc.

    My dad’s been in trouble with the fundamentalists in Pakistan (he’s a writer) and although he would consider himself a Muslim he’s not been afraid to criticise those things that he thinks are wrong about establishment Islam. When he sees the gov consulting with ‘community leaders’ (who he regards as right-wing fanatics) – the same ones who go on about how angry and upset Muslims are and to expect a ‘Muslim backlash’ he despairs. My family came here to get away from all that crap – they can handle racism through legitimate means without making veiled threats.

    Anyway, I digress. The point is that I don’t know any Muslim who would want to live in an Islamic state, and they certainly wouldn’t want Britain to be one.

    Also, read this http://www.voice-online.co.uk/content.php?show=8757

  38. Kismet Hardy — on 13th June, 2006 at 3:06 pm  

    I’m getting a T-shirt printed with the slogan

    Fuck my religion

    It works on so many levels

    It could be: It doesn’t matter whether I’m a muslim or not

    Or it could be: I love my religion so much I want to fuck it

    Or even: I despise the religion that’s been burdened upon me

    Or perhaps: I don’t have a girlfriend at the mo

    Who will buy my t-shirt?

  39. Kulvinder — on 13th June, 2006 at 3:07 pm  

    The sister was one of those who called for the earlier protest (I may be wrong, do correct me), which she should not have done. Instead of doing it then, because she knew her brothers would be innocent, then she should have waited until they were cleared, as she should have known they would be. There’s no way the police would plant evidence, so why not wait for your brothers’ innocense to come through? To say the police were acting as racist bigots in this case before even finding out that the brothers would be released is damaging to the “muslim community”. They’re not helping themselves.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six

    amusingly the police often complain about the amount of paper work they’re required to do, fill in forms in triplicate etc, the tabloids are happy to join in on the side of the good ‘ol copper only trying to do his job whilst forgetting why those procedures were initially put in place.

    I agree with Arif, although i fail to see why wrong for the family to protest whenever they wish.

    As for Muriel Grey (never heard of her before) apart from the usual ‘muslims never condemn terrorism’ and ‘they’re trying to take over’ she doesn’t really say anything interesting. To be perfectly honest i utterly discount her opinion, she is apparently Scottish, 20% of scottish people don’t wish to be British, so really why should i care what they think, omglol counter logic.

  40. Sid — on 13th June, 2006 at 3:13 pm  

    I always have time for Fatwadodger. Great comment #37.

  41. Sid — on 13th June, 2006 at 3:27 pm  

    Wasn’t Muriel Gray famous for taking over Paula Yates on the 80s Channel 4 yoot music show? She was crap then…

  42. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 13th June, 2006 at 3:36 pm  

    #37 very good.

    Re: the Islamic state thing – yes, there are some who believe in that but most of them want it in a non-violent way.

    As far as I understand the more “religious” you are the more you wish for the Islamic state, i.e. these concepts go hand in hand. Equally it is these beliefs, plus the sense of global misjustice that fuels the home grown Jihad.

    On the subject of airing Muslim concerns, did anyone catch “Shiria TV” while it was on channel 4?

    #38 very funny.

    On the back, “Fuck YOUR religion” or a warning: “this T-shirt aims to offend”

    Cheers,

    TFI

  43. Pocahontas — on 13th June, 2006 at 3:41 pm  

    Sharia TV was full of nutters. I happpened upon it once (or shall I say, it happened to me) and I was amazed to see people holding the idea of Sharia state to such esteem.

    For someone who comes from one of those, the appeal is admittedly a lot less.

  44. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 13th June, 2006 at 3:52 pm  

    I was amazed to see people holding the idea of Sharia state to such esteem.

    There’s the rub.

  45. sonia — on 13th June, 2006 at 3:55 pm  

    jOnz – i’m sorry – but your tone is constantly discriminatory – look at your language – ->

    ” what message does it send to the ordinary non-Muslim community”

    –ordinary??

    hello? look i spend a lot of my time writing about human rights – universal global human rights and the importance of peace. is it my fault that people out there don’t realize that means i’m against terrorism? and sorry but from where i’m sitting, i’m far more of a humanist than those people who support War out there. so let’s not try gassing about oh no one really knows that muslims aren’t against terrorism. why the hell should anyone assume a whole disparate bunch of people think the same way. that’s your loss if you insist on such prejudices.

  46. sonia — on 13th June, 2006 at 3:57 pm  

    Bottom Line Jonz – I don’t share your us vs. them attitude. Please don’t imply that if people don’t share that attitude they’re somehow ‘condoning terrorism’.

  47. Pocahontas — on 13th June, 2006 at 3:58 pm  

    The rub being the fact that a lot of Muslim-bashers see that as proof of all Muslims being the same and gagging for the utopia that is an Islamic state.

  48. sonia — on 13th June, 2006 at 3:59 pm  

    “I was amazed to see people holding the idea of Sharia state to such esteem.”

    yeah probably cos they’ve no idea with regards to ‘implementation’ and don’t live in a sharia state¬!

  49. Sid — on 13th June, 2006 at 3:59 pm  

    As far as I understand the more “religious” you are the more you wish for the Islamic state, i.e. these concepts go hand in hand. Equally it is these beliefs, plus the sense of global misjustice that fuels the home grown Jihad.

    Thats wrong, straight off the bat. The Islamic State is a concept that is pushed exclusively by Hizbut Tahrir. And they are a fringe even by their own admission. As for the grievances of Jihadis, they exist without calls for a State. Although most jihadism is borne of geo-political issues that involve existing nation states not an Islamic state.

  50. sonia — on 13th June, 2006 at 4:01 pm  

    hey? so some people may be deluded enough to think they want to live in an islamic state – that still has got nothing to do with imagining all Muslims are ‘the same’. until and unless we get out of this generalizing people into one category because they may have one attribute or two or three in common we’re never going anywhere. clearly!

  51. sonia — on 13th June, 2006 at 4:04 pm  

    Good point sid. as far as i’ve been able to make out – vast majority of muslim’s ive ever met are strongly anti-sharia. there are a few strange people i’ve met over here who aren’t so anti-sharia because they have no idea what they’re actually talking about, and are mostly paying lip-service to ‘community’. usually nothing to do with any political ideals.

  52. Pocahontas — on 13th June, 2006 at 4:04 pm  

    That was the point I was trying to make Sonia, Just cos there are some deluded nutcases out there does by no means imply that those views are shared by all.

  53. Don — on 13th June, 2006 at 4:04 pm  

    I saw a couple of episodes of Sharia TV. On one some nice young gay moslems and on the other some moslem guys in a pop group were trying to put a case for being accepted, but every answer was a stony-faced ‘It is forbidden.’

    ‘But even if I only sing about virtuous…’
    ‘It is forbidden’
    ‘Even if I dedicate …’
    ‘It is forbidden’
    ‘What if..’
    ‘Forbidden.’
    ‘But…’
    ‘Forbidden.’

    It got sort of predictable after a while.

    However, on the matter of whatever percentage of moslems wanting sharia; would that be wanted ‘community’ courts to settle domestic disputes? I oppose those strongly for reasons we have all covered here before, but that is not quite the same as wanting an Islamist State.

  54. sonia — on 13th June, 2006 at 4:06 pm  

    yah fatwadodger’s said it very nicely thanx.

  55. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 13th June, 2006 at 4:07 pm  

    Thats wrong, straight off the bat.

    In that case would you directly link in the desire for a Islamic state to be synonymous with extremism?

  56. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 13th June, 2006 at 4:10 pm  

    but that is not quite the same as wanting an Islamist State.

    But it is the same as wishing for Islamist Rule.

  57. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 13th June, 2006 at 4:11 pm  

    Good point sid. as far as i’ve been able to make out – vast majority of muslim’s ive ever met are strongly anti-sharia. there are a few strange people i’ve met over here who aren’t so anti-sharia because they have no idea what they’re actually talking about, and are mostly paying lip-service to ‘community’. usually nothing to do with any political ideals.

    Come on Izzy, I know you are reading. You put her straight about this.

  58. sonia — on 13th June, 2006 at 4:17 pm  

    you know sometimes i think – people are always complaining ‘minorities’ see themselvs in one group. even for those people who may be in the minority in some way and don’t view themselves in some abstract group, boy do people try hard to shove you into it.

    Arif’s #20 is spot on. it’s dangerous of all this shoving some people into one group and seeing yourself on the other side. all it ever does is lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy, and potentially lead to more violence.

  59. Jai — on 13th June, 2006 at 4:18 pm  

    =>”but that is not quite the same as wanting an Islamist State.”

    Not in the sense of wanting Islamic rule over the entire British population, but it does involve a parallel legal system which Muslims within the UK would be subject to. So it essentially involves a “state within a state”.

    =>”In that case would you directly link in the desire for a Islamic state to be synonymous with extremism?”

    I guess it would depend on the person’s reasons for desiring an Islamic state in the UK and the methods they would be prepared to utilise in order to achieve it.

  60. Arif — on 13th June, 2006 at 4:24 pm  

    I think it is misleading to say Sharia means either an Islamic State or Islamic rule. People can interpret it in those ways, but there is also the possibility of having Islamic laws only for those who want to be judged by them – Shariah courts for Muslims only.

    I’m not saying that would be a good thing to do in the UK, but it just happens to be the way I have understood it to work – as only being applicable to Muslims. Even then, I am not sure that the ulema really have a consensus on legal interpretations and I doubt I would find their rulings more just than the UK legal system. However Sharia courts may be more accessible (for example requiring less money and formality) which might explain some of their popularity, especially in countries where secular judicial systems fail to bring recognisable justice.

  61. Sid — on 13th June, 2006 at 4:24 pm  

    I guess it would depend on the person’s reasons for desiring an Islamic state in the UK and the methods they would be prepared to utilise in order to achieve it.

    Which credible Muslim org is willing to use extermism in order to implement an Islamic statelet in the UK Jai?

  62. sonia — on 13th June, 2006 at 4:28 pm  

    “Not in the sense of wanting Islamic rule over the entire British population, but it does involve a parallel legal system which Muslims within the UK would be subject to. So it essentially involves a “state within a state”

    i’m interested ( yes i am ) in how the hell anyone would anyone go around implementing such a crazy idea. if anyone tries to subject me to some such crazy-ass ‘state within a state’ they’ll have a bit of trouble. :-) i mean what are people going to do – say oi we know you’re muslim – so we have power over you? fine then i say i’m not muslim. then what are they going to say? oh and if i say i am a muslim but it ain’t nothing to do with you mate, thanks i don’t need no intermediaries what are they going to say then? sorry but we own the club and what we say goes.

    erm..hmm.. luckily im sure it would never work, and i can’t imagine which silly people thought it would.

  63. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 13th June, 2006 at 4:29 pm  

    I guess it would depend on the person’s reasons for desiring an Islamic state in the UK and the methods they would be prepared to utilise in order to achieve it.

    OK, lets have a look at some examples:

    a) Someone that dreams at night, to themselves, about the UK being an Islamic state.

    b) Someone that dreams by day about the UK being an Islamic state.

    c) Someone that dreams by day about the UK being an Islamic state and evalgazes about its benefits

    d) Someone that dreams by day about the UK being an Islamic state and preaches about its benefits

    e) Someone that dreams by day about the UK being an Islamic state and attempts to build one via the democratic system.

    f) Someone that dreams by day about the UK being an Islamic state and attempts to build one via a violent Jihad.

    Which of these someones represent extremists? Which someones represent a 5th column? Which someones are a danger to the British State and legal system?

    Cheers,

    TFI

  64. Jackson — on 13th June, 2006 at 4:34 pm  

    Arif said:

    ———>I think it is misleading to say Sharia means either an Islamic State or Islamic rule. People can interpret it in those ways, but there is also the possibility of having Islamic laws onl

  65. Jackson — on 13th June, 2006 at 4:35 pm  

    I don’t know what happened but my message was cut in half. Here it is again: Arif, I don’t know if you support such a demand, or even if you realise the full implications of a demand to set up ipso facto a ghettoised legal system that would contribute to a separatist tendency and what kind of backlash would follow for the effective setting up of a sub-judiciary within a state through the consideration of sharia courts. Sure, this may not be a call to fly the flag of Islam from 10 Downing Street, but I’m sure you appreciate what such a system would in effect be? Even if there is a ‘demand’ for only that amongst some Muslims is alarming in and of itself.

  66. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 13th June, 2006 at 4:41 pm  

    erm..hmm.. luckily im sure it would never work, and i can’t imagine which silly people thought it would.

    Putting aside the size of the survey or the precise ratio over a wider group.

    From http://www.theasiannews.co.uk

    “The special poll based on a survey of 500 British Muslims found that a clear majority want Islamic law introduced into this country in civil cases relating to their own community. Some 61 per cent wanted Islamic courts – operating on sharia principles – “so long as the penalties did not contravene British law”.

    Sonia, it might suprise you that those that wish for this sort thing generally don’t hang out on the internet debating with you in English.

    Cheers,

    TFI

  67. Arif — on 13th June, 2006 at 4:49 pm  

    Jackson, it is alarming for me as a Muslim because I would be more likely to be judged by it than a non-Muslim, unless both parties must agree to take the matter to a sharia court. It should be less alarming for non-Muslims as they ought not be judged by Sharia, but I would not trust the more zealous Muslims to go with me on this nowadays.

    In a number of countries there are parallel Sharia courts, usually dealing with civil rather than criminal matters. In Somalia now it seems there is a grassroots and business community demand for Sharia law, there must be some reason that people lose faith in secular courts. I don’t think parallel courts necessarily lead to disaster, but I personally would not trust a Sharia court unless I saw it develop in a humanistic way.

  68. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 13th June, 2006 at 4:52 pm  

    Sonia, more calls for a Sharia Court

    BTW Arif, your comments about runnings costs was an interesting insight to their popularity.

    Can we agree that Muslims women have the most to fear from these courts?

  69. mirax — on 13th June, 2006 at 4:54 pm  

    >>if people Really wanted to live in an islamic state they’d all be sitting in Saudi and Pakistan not here.

    Even in overwhelmingly muslim majority countries, full sharia/hudood is not so warmly embraced- it is normally imposed by dictat or by revolution.

    But it IS true that very few muslims speak out AGAINST sharia/hudood. Someone like Tariq Ramadan dares only to go so far as to call for a moratorium on capital/corporal punishments in hudood rather than a full repudiation. Then again the vocal fundies are quite rhapsodical about the wonders of sharia/hudood ordinances (refer to our own onsite enthusiast of stoning, Bikhair). This is what creates the erroneous impression of many European commentators of the “Islamic Menace” – they read some rhetoric and take it for the full truth, having little interaction with mainstream muslims.

    It must be borne in mind that the frontline battle against religious extremists and sharia fetishists is being fought not in the west but in “muslim” countries by other, much saner muslims. The west is safe, fellas!
    I live amidst 220 million muslims – and I still feel safe enough. But fundamentalist,political Islam is definitely a *potent* and as yet, potential, threat to my security and freedom.

  70. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 13th June, 2006 at 4:56 pm  

    So in response to the question:

    erm..hmm.. luckily im sure it would never work, and i can’t imagine which silly people thought it would.

    We have:

    I don’t think parallel courts necessarily lead to disaster, but I personally would not trust a Sharia court unless I saw it develop in a humanistic way.

    So there we are Sonia, Arif is a silly person that thinks that it could work.

    Cheers,

    TFI

  71. sonia — on 13th June, 2006 at 4:58 pm  

    Really? well why do you think that! obviously there are some folks out there who aren’t debating with me in english, but the only people i’ve ever come across who’ve expressed support in theory for the idea of an islamic state spoke English and were at university. NOw i could if i were in a generalizing enough mood and that sort of person say now that must mean all British Asian Muslims at university are…

    :-)

    in any case, seriously TFI – these few people i met who espoused support for an islamic state had zero clue as to what they were paying lip service to. and they were the sort of people who were shocked when i decided to challenge this H-u-T speaker person who stood up and said all sorts of dreadful things. point is it turned out none of them were even listening! to them it was all just well i’d better show some interest in this because this is ‘my identity’. Huh!?

  72. sonia — on 13th June, 2006 at 5:05 pm  

    well Arif said that parallel courts won’t lead to disaster – that’s quite different. sure you can have a parallel court – there won’t be any disaster – because the point is over whom the parallel court has jurisdiction. Key issue there. Who will this parallel court have jurisdiction over? Now if a group of people say me me me – then fine -let them have their court. that wouldn’t be disastrous for the rest of us – why would it. my point is that it would be silly for people to imagine that sorting out this jurisdiction business would be simple.

  73. Arif — on 13th June, 2006 at 5:06 pm  

    TFI, I think a lot of people would have a lot to fear from Sharia courts if they use very traditional interpretations and if they are given jurisdiction over criminal matters. Especially women, ex-Muslims and sexual minorities.

    But I am aware that this is an opinion based on prejudice rather than experience. It may be that Sharia can be more subtle, have more potential for rapid progressive development and can more easily transcend local cultural mores than I realise, so I do not close my mind to it.

  74. sonia — on 13th June, 2006 at 5:07 pm  

    the whole issue of religious authority + state was so that the religious authority could have jurisdiction over everyone in said state. that’s why separation of religious authority from state authority was so crucial.

  75. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 13th June, 2006 at 5:07 pm  

    Sonia, same here. BUT the idea appears to be on the up. The last thing we want is people to take note and say “This chap from HuT is right!” just like we don’t want people listening and saying “This chap from the BNP is right!”.

    But seriously Sonia, you are very VERY unlikely to met someone that does believe in these things as they have zero interest in talking to you, or me.

    Cheers,

    TFI

  76. Jackson — on 13th June, 2006 at 5:16 pm  

    Arif you said —->It should be less alarming for non-Muslims as they ought not be judged by Sharia, but I would not trust the more zealous Muslims to go with me on this nowadays

  77. Jackson — on 13th June, 2006 at 5:18 pm  

    Once again my message did not send! Here it is: I believe it would and should be alarming for all people in this society for the simple reason that it would set apart Muslims from mainstream Britain and lead to observations that they are a community seeking separation and special favours. It would make Britain an unequal society because Muslims would have the right to find recourse to laws and arbitation not available to Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs. It would effectively say that Muslims have special rights and cause a massive rift and backlash as well as striking at the heart of everything that we stand for as a secular country governed by parliament and subject equally to laws of the judiciary. It would bolster the extremists and disadvantage already vulnerable people ie Muslim women facing sharia strictures. The very articulation of such a demand is outrageous. That is why it is of concern to everyone, not just Muslims.

  78. mirax — on 13th June, 2006 at 5:20 pm  

    To get back on track, only 23 convictions out of over 800 arrested is shocking really. Is it not possible to get some sort of judicial review of why exactly this is so? Not only are too many innocent people getting thier lives disrupted (and maybe, traumatised) but the state agencies are wasting a huge amount of time and resources really- pissing in the wind when the threat is real and credible.

  79. sonia — on 13th June, 2006 at 5:24 pm  

    well TFI you may be right. my challenging the HuT guys ended when they decided they couldn’t ‘deal’ with me and said things like yah you ain’t a ‘real Sister’ – whatever the hell that meant! :-) and ‘you ain’t dressed properly’ and we shouldn’t be talking to you.

    :-)

    Arif – it isn’t necessarily prejudiced to be afraid of Sharia Courts. at the end of the day, who’s interpreting divine law ( assuming you believe it was divine) humans that’s who and we have evidence of more than a few centuries that humans err. Assuming that humans are going to carry out ‘divine’ guidance with no error is simply being rather naive and wishing for the best. Yes you can hope for the best but it sounds pretty silly thing to do in this instance. After all – what is anyone going to get out of this court that they’re not getting under current laws? some kind of protection that they’re not getting currently? Seems like to me its the nasty punishing vengeful sort of folks who want the sharia courts – so that they can punish people for things they can’t be punished for now! Well that’s my opinion anyway. What i don’t get is how they get away with the religious banner – all this wanting to punish people seems like ‘wanting to step into God’s shoes’.. aren’t they getting too big for their boots.

  80. sonia — on 13th June, 2006 at 5:27 pm  

    Well in any case there’s nothing to worry about. Obviously! ( and thank goodness for that ) I can’t see how they can work out who these alleged courts would have jurisdiction over and who they wouldn’t. ( and i haven’t heard anything from anyone making any suggestions..)

  81. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 13th June, 2006 at 5:34 pm  

    Sonia, the only way to make it work is to make it voluntery. You’ve done something, do you want it to decide by the UK courts or the Sharia courts?

    Lets say a women wants to get divorced, will her family insist that she use the Sharia court or face shaming the family? If one party wants the Sharia and another doesn’t do you default to UK or Sharia. To default to the UK system is to say that it is more fair than the Shiria, not likely to be a popular stance.

    BTW I would have loved to be a fly on the wall for your HuT debate :)

    Cheers,

    TFI

  82. Don — on 13th June, 2006 at 6:01 pm  

    Sharia courts – or indeed any faith based legal system – are anathema to any democratic system and will serve only to isolate ‘communities ‘ and place massive further pressure on people within those communities who are evolving their lives.

    (By the way, could we take the quotation marks as read whenever I use the word community?)

    I don’t know much about Somalia except what I read in the Guardian, but I would guess people there are keen on any legal system, given what they are enduring, and have little or no knowledge of the alternatives.

    There was an attempt to introduce Sharia courts in Canada a while back which was defeated, but at the same time the Canadians abolished an existing system of Jewish courts in the interests of equity. And a good thing too.

    There may be superficial attractions for some; My brother-in-law hasn’t paid back the twenty grand he owes me, but a British court will mean lawyers, a judge who has no knowledge of how money moves around families, the tax man will be watching etc. But I am less open minded than Arif. The idea that only those who consent will be bound by the decisions is spurious, given the unequal power structure. It is more than likely to be a way of legitimising patriarchal, traditional authority. as for the wider implications, Jackson has summed them up pretty well.

    My point at #53 was simply that what people were actually in favour of was probably rather different to what they were seen as being in favour of.

    Mirax,

    23 covictions out of 800 is about 3%. Regrettably, that’s not too far out of whack with the UK system. Rape convictions are at around 5%, violent crime acoss the board at less than 10%.

    http://news.excite.co.uk/politics/6146

    Given the particular difficulties of terrorism offences, I’m afraid that’s par for the course. When they reach 90% I’ll be seriously worried.

  83. sonia — on 13th June, 2006 at 6:05 pm  

    TFI – heh heh – yes indeedy! i once met some person on a train and it turned out they knew me from my rants at the h-u-t thingie. god back then i didn’t even know who the nutters were.

    yes well if it’s ‘voluntary’ then it’s fine for those of us who don’t want to volunteer ourselves! but having your ‘family’ decide for you doesn’t sound very voluntary to me. in any case with things like divorce i can’t see what difference it would make if you went via a sharia court or a normal one. p.s. where’s the ‘shame’ coming from – in choosing the wrong court ;-) or getting divorced. methinks that by that stage families will have expressed all their disapproval..

  84. mirax — on 13th June, 2006 at 6:10 pm  

    >>In a number of countries there are parallel Sharia courts, usually dealing with civil rather than criminal matters.

    Actually this is a feature of the British commonwealth, from Africa to Asia.

    >> In Somalia now it seems there is a grassroots and business community demand for Sharia law, there must be some reason that people lose faith in secular courts.

    that’s cause Somalia has suffered total meltdown in recent years and has no functioning government, let alone anything approaching secular courts. Like with the Taliban in afghanistan, the islamists with the guns, bring slightly little more order than the other, more unpredictable, crazies with the guns.

    >>Jackson, it is alarming for me as a Muslim because I would be more likely to be judged by it than a non-Muslim, unless both parties must agree to take the matter to a sharia court.

    You may have that choice if there was a western parallel religious adjudication system in place as was recently proposed (and defeated) in Canada.You will not have the choice to opt out in many of the countries that have the parallel system.You are muslim even if you/your family say that you aren’t. Check out the situation in Malaysia for example.

    >>It should be less alarming for non-Muslims as they ought not be judged by Sharia, but I would not trust the more zealous Muslims to go with me on this nowadays.

    In Nigeria and in Malaysia where certain states turned full sharia, non-muslims were *always* alarmed, though the mullahs tried to reassure them on this point. They were right to be alarmed- when the buses, supermarkets, concert venues, hotel pools get segregated, do you not think that non-muslims got affected? When you have religious police on patrol, do you not think that non-muslim couples holding hands in public get rounded up?

    >> I don’t think parallel courts necessarily lead to disaster,

    No, not disaster but they do institutionalise sexual inequality in terms of inheritance, child custody, divorce and maintenance laws. Islam was ahead of the west 1400 years ago as far as gender equality was concerned, but this is unfortunately not the case today.

    >>but I personally would not trust a Sharia court unless I saw it develop in a humanistic way.

    Fair enough, for you. I have trouble with any religion-based law creeping into the public sphere, its ‘humanistic’ tendency is quite irrelevant to the fact it is first and foremost predicated on the authority of an imaginary and unaccountable higher being and thus its ‘immutability’ is a given.

    I appreciate many of your posts, Ariff – they are really very balanced and consistently temperate..no mean achievement here on PP ;-)

  85. Kulvinder — on 13th June, 2006 at 6:16 pm  

    Sharia can already be implemented in the UK, and iirc already is. There really isn’t any difference between accepting it as a set of conditions binding individuals and any other contract (as long as both parties consent). It can’t override ‘British law’ but you can live according to it and ask for arbitation when needed.

  86. sonia — on 13th June, 2006 at 6:24 pm  

    “Sharia can already be implemented in the UK, and iirc already is.”

    iirc what’s that?

  87. sonia — on 13th June, 2006 at 6:25 pm  

    ok i get the iirc – where’s it been implemented then? as long as no-one’s springing out of the bushes ready to punish me for who knows what..

  88. mirax — on 13th June, 2006 at 6:42 pm  

    mainly related to finance, Sonia though there was a call for de facto recognition of polygamy and revision of tax on inheritance according to this report :

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1415741,00.html

  89. mirax — on 13th June, 2006 at 6:54 pm  

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/special/islam/3198285.stm

    Somemore stuff – very interesting. I didn’t know that there was a Sharia Council in the UK who’d annul forced marriages as void.

  90. mirax — on 13th June, 2006 at 6:57 pm  

    http://www.islamic-sharia.co.uk/index.html

    And here they are.Mainly dealing with muslim women who want to divorce their husbands ;-)

  91. Anthea — on 13th June, 2006 at 7:16 pm  

    Birmingham six – yes, but I have a little faith in the police. The amount of effort they’re putting into PR and giving journalists the heads up when raids occur before they’re even mid way through them tells me that they’re not going to try and tell us lies about their findings, especially after the de Menezes case.

  92. Anthea — on 13th June, 2006 at 7:25 pm  

    I watched Sharia TV but I found one episode about the headscarf & hijab quite interesting. Not long before that though, there was a documentary on channel 4 (I think it was that channel) where they discussed the very issue. To our susprise, despite the majority of the muslims & university lecturers on the documentary being 99% men, a majority of them were saying it’s not compulsary to wear a headscarf or hijab.

    It shows that, with any issue, be it sharia law, courts or anything else, it is the people who have the largest voice and power who will control the effects of the issue. That goes for any government and some of the situations in Africa & Asia with militias and etc. Any governing body can appear to have fair disciplines, but it is how it is executed and who by that will overall determine the effects. A sharia court could be as equal as possible on issues raised here, in writing, but execution will never simply follow in the same way because of the type of men asking for it and would be governing it.

  93. Kulvinder — on 13th June, 2006 at 7:34 pm  

    The amount of effort they’re putting into PR and giving journalists the heads up when raids occur before they’re even mid way through them tells me that they’re not going to try and tell us lies about their findings, especially after the de Menezes case.

    Im unsure how the police attitude could have changed in less than a year, especially as some apparently tried to pevert the course of justice and tamper with the evidence of the de menezes case (i doubt anything will come if it though…)

  94. Bikhair aka Taqiyyah — on 13th June, 2006 at 7:37 pm  

    The Friendly Infidel,

    “His aim, he says, will be to encourage Britain to adopt more Muslim ways, as well as to encourage Muslims to be good British citizens. He thinks that non-Muslim Britons would benefit from having arranged marriages and espousing stronger family values; they would also do well to stop drinking and gambling and to follow many of the teachings of Islam.”

    I think your response to the above was superficial, completely superficial. I believe there is a differences between Muslims wanting thier values to influence the people around them socially rather than legally. Can you make that distinction?

    If you lived in the USA, as I do, there is a strong, powerful, wealthy, influential movement of conservatives Christians who want to keep homosexuals from being married and to reverse the legality of Roe vs. Wade which protects a womens right to an abortion. These same people, like our president are in high political office and their values, their religious values are well known. However if a secular person argued that they were trying to create some Christian theocratic state they would be laughed at because the idea is ridiculous.

    Besides everything in that paragraph written by some Muslim politician is quite similar to the criticism many people have in my country about decadent Europe. Perhaps if you would go back to your traditional values you would be having children and wouldnt have to import these funny looking strange smelling foriegn people. Think about it.

    Muslims are taught, assuming they have a good teacher, that their actions are a dawah- a call to Islam. We either call toward Islam with our values and manners or will call away from Islam. If you have a problem with Muslims influencing Britian, make a Berlin wall and put them there. Some place on the coast so those Muslim children can go swimming.

  95. Bikhair aka Taqiyyah — on 13th June, 2006 at 7:41 pm  

    The Friendly Infidel,

    The worst thing about you is that you are stupid and transparent. For Sunny’s sake, I will not revert back to my harsh tone with people like you but had it been a few months ago, you would be outta here with your tail between your legs.

  96. Anthea — on 13th June, 2006 at 7:54 pm  

    The shooting itself reminds me of the chapter ‘Seven seconds in the Bronx’ in Malcolm Gladwell’s ‘Blink’.

  97. j0nz — on 13th June, 2006 at 8:07 pm  

    TFI you have been warned by “Stone them” Bikhair

  98. Bikhair aka Taqiyyah — on 13th June, 2006 at 8:46 pm  

    jOnz,

    Go change your tampon.

  99. mirax — on 13th June, 2006 at 10:07 pm  

    #95, Bikki likes you and is just flirting, TFI.She does like to flutter her eyelashes prettily.

    So if if Bari wants to influence the non-muslims to have arranged marriages, stop drinking, drugging and whoring away, then it is presumably fair go for non-muslims to actively influence muslims into throwing away their overpious, dull lifestyles, exchange the niqabs for string bikinis and embrace all the freedoms of the west?

    >>If you have a problem with Muslims influencing Britian, make a Berlin wall and put them there

    Funny how Faisal Bodi wrote (with his sensitivity!) on CiF just last week that many muslims voluntarily ghettoise themselves to escape the pernicious corrupting influence of dysfunctional amoral Britain. Who’s doing what to whom?

  100. Refresh — on 13th June, 2006 at 11:32 pm  

    [Wrongly posted on another thread]

    Mirax, Bikhair makes a very valid point.

    Society (any society) is not a fixture. Fashion and cultural mores change. There is a false premise that we as a society for example have accepted homosexuality and it has been always thus. It has not.

    Influences come from all directions. The biggest of course is television (or shall we say media).

    We will be influenced and we have the opportunity to influence. Whether its types of food we eat; commodities available in Tescos; music we used to listen to and what we listen to now. All these are up for grab.

    On alcohol, on smoking, on pornography, on marriage, etc you name it things are changing. And yet we seem to believe that we are holding onto something that has been there from the stone age (poetic license).

    This is also true in just about every other country.

    The battle is quite serious, it will decide how we will view our own bodies (and of course someone else’s and in what pose), it will also determine whether we want our pre-packed salad washed in spring-water or grow our own. It will decide whether our kids will despise the young girl who does not have a ‘playboy’ rucksack.

    So when we talk about defending values there are plenty of issues that will need to be settled. However primacy will be placed on whether our economy is strong enough for us to even think about these things. And hey you know we elect people to deal with those issues – and in the final analysis if they deem it worthwhile to rely on child labour to dig for cobalt so we can have our mobile phone upgraded every 14 months; then you know what? We will accept it.

    Now – for all those crusaders for democracy and freedom and all those seeking Sharia – understand what both of you actually promise, but never deliver.

    The primary function in both cases is economic, eradicating poverty, advancing knowledge and spreading justice peace and harmony – if you do not see that then – you can all piss off.

    Carpet bombing for peace ain’t it; stoning for adultery isn’t it either.

    I might just come to accept stoning of the elite for their corruption; and hanging for war criminals.

    But I don’t believe in corporal or the death penalty.

    Bikhair – good post.

  101. Refresh — on 13th June, 2006 at 11:33 pm  

    Mirax, does it make any more sense over here than over there?

  102. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 13th June, 2006 at 11:38 pm  

    I think your response to the above was superficial, completely superficial. I believe there is a differences between Muslims wanting thier values to influence the people around them socially rather than legally. Can you make that distinction?

    I would go as far as to say that I was “flippent”. The things he spoke off aren’t limited to Islamic values. It might shock you know, but my parents told me to avoid drinking, gambling and whores; and all without Islamic teachings (shock, horror!).

    I’d go on more but Mirax has showed how you put the oxy in moron*

    However if a secular person argued that they were trying to create some Christian theocratic state they would be laughed at because the idea is ridiculous.

    Why would I laugh at that? With Roe v Wade, Intelligent Design, putting in religious right wing Judges in power and using of the word “Crusade”, I think that you are band on the money. I’m not laughing. I think that is exactly what is happening out there. The religious right are trying to obtain more power and become the law.

    Perhaps if you would go back to your traditional values you would be having children and wouldnt have to import these funny looking strange smelling foriegn people. Think about it.

    Derr I thunk about it and you know what? I think that you are right. We ought be encouraging our European populations to have more kids. Unfortunately it appears to be part of being a wealther nation, we have less kids. For instance check out the birth stats in Japan.

    One thing I will take issue with is your referal to “strange and smelling foriegn people”, it is quite unfair as many of our foriengers know how to wash.

    The worst thing about you is that you are stupid and transparent. For Sunny’s sake, I will not revert back to my harsh tone with people like you but had it been a few months ago, you would be outta here with your tail between your legs.

    You are just SO cute when you are worked up!

    Are you just angry with me because I thought you were a man? Arrogant, agressive, over masculine … can you see how I made that mistake?

    Please don’t moderate your lanuage for me, Sunny or anyone else. We have freedom of speech and I’m not asking you to respect me, please let loose, turn on the CAPS key if it helps.

    Cheers,

    TFI
    * OK, this doesn’t quite fit the defination of oxymoron but I liked the word play

  103. mirax — on 14th June, 2006 at 12:12 am  

    No it does not make sense. I’ll tell you why.

    >>Society (any society) is not a fixture. Fashion and cultural mores change. There is a false premise that we as a society for example have accepted homosexuality and it has been always thus. It has not.
    Influences come from all directions.

    Absolutely not in dispute. It is actually religious fundies like Dr Bari/the christian coalition et al who are uncomfortable about change and who’d like to keep to immutable god-given bits of “wisdom” (re homosexuality is a disease)and force others into a moral straitjacket. Biks’ with her comment about europeans following ‘traditional’ values and having lots of babies =so sweet ;-) =is more in need of your admonishment, I believe. Anyone who takes a single ancient book as their sole/primary manual for life in the 21st century is REALLY in need of your truisms.

    >>We will be influenced and we have the opportunity to influence. Whether its types of food we eat; commodities available in Tescos; music we used to listen to and what we listen to now. All these are up for grab.

    Absolutely my point. You cannot sequester yourself from influence and you have the perfect right to articulate (not force) your own POV.

    >>On alcohol, on smoking, on pornography, on marriage, etc you name it things are changing. And yet we seem to believe that we are holding onto something that has been there from the stone age (poetic license).

    Damn, I am sure that *is* news to some people. Not me.

    >>The battle is quite serious, it will decide how we will view our own bodies (and of course someone else’s and in what pose), it will also determine whether we want our pre-packed salad washed in spring-water or grow our own. It will decide whether our kids will despise the young girl who does not have a ‘playboy’ rucksack.

    This is where you lost me. What battle? Between moral absolutists and progressive liberals? Capitalists and marxists?

    >>So when we talk about defending values there are plenty of issues that will need to be settled. However primacy will be placed on whether our economy is strong enough for us to even think about these things. And hey you know we elect people to deal with those issues – and in the final analysis if they deem it worthwhile to rely on child labour to dig for cobalt so we can have our mobile phone upgraded every 14 months; then you know what? We will accept it.

    Our values are contingent on economic strength and our elected elite – both of which don’t give a damn about ethics anyway and, in the final analysis, neither do we, greedy spineless consumers?

    Uh…like what is the whole fucking point of this conversation or any conversation on values then?

    >>Now – for all those crusaders for democracy and freedom and all those seeking Sharia – understand what both of you actually promise, but never deliver.

    Um, er right. What about the 99% of humanity that DON”T fall so neatly into this polarities, Refresh?

    >>The primary function in both cases is economic, eradicating poverty, advancing knowledge and spreading justice peace and harmony – if you do not see that then – you can all piss off.

    Really seriously lost again.You are addressing the neocon crusaders and the jihadi sharia fetishists?

    >>Carpet bombing for peace ain’t it; stoning for adultery isn’t it either.

    Am somewhat relieved though still mystified.

    >>I might just come to accept stoning of the elite for their corruption; and hanging for war criminals.
    But I don’t believe in corporal or the death penalty.

    Your two statements are contradictory but you know that.

    >>Bikhair – good post.

    Not this one. She did good in telling off Faisal Bodi on CiF though- told him to take a hijrah/hike ;-)

  104. Refresh — on 14th June, 2006 at 7:24 am  

    Well that is a shame.

    I was hoping for a shift towards discussion of economics, away from your normal diet.

  105. justforfun — on 14th June, 2006 at 10:01 am  

    Arif – Thank you for your post and it is good to read the discussion that followed.

    ” think it is misleading to say Sharia means either an Islamic State or Islamic rule. People can interpret it in those ways, but there is also the possibility of having Islamic laws only for those who want to be judged by them – Shariah courts for Muslims only.

    I’m not saying that would be a good thing to do in the UK, but it just happens to be the way I have understood it to work – as only being applicable to Muslims. Even then, I am not sure that the ulema really have a consensus on legal interpretations and I doubt I would find their rulings more just than the UK legal system. However Sharia courts may be more accessible (for example requiring less money and formality) which might explain some of their popularity, especially in countries where secular judicial systems fail to bring recognisable justice.

    Arif – I think you have put your finger on the long term debate and where the future lies in 20,30 50 ,100 years . Parallel legal systems, of whatever sort within a state have been introduced for perfectly good reasons in the past(thinking of India as an example), but the past is the past, and they sould not play a part in the future, if one believes that one is born free. Parallel legal systems just allow your relatives and “community leaders” to keep their hooks into you when you have the legal right to break free and be your own person.

    India’s middle class is growing and their wealth and education is allowing some to break free of their rigid communities in terms of caste, religion etc etc. This will only accelerate over time, and India will in the next 50 years have to re-evaluate its whole legal structure to accomadate this demand from society. Its legal codes will become more secular and seperate laws for different relifious groups will slowly be swept away. Amazing to think that there are people in the UK who want to go the otherway. However if you beleive a child born to a community is the pocession of the community then you will I think be argueing for the opposite.

    Justforfun

  106. sonia — on 14th June, 2006 at 10:55 am  

    Anthea – #92 very well said! mirax – thanx for the links.

  107. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 14th June, 2006 at 11:21 am  

    Hey Indigo, whats with that odd icon next to your name? It looks like some sort of wireless symbol …

  108. sonia — on 14th June, 2006 at 11:41 am  

    rss feed..

  109. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 14th June, 2006 at 11:43 am  

    Indigo Jo Blogs is an RSS feed?

  110. sonia — on 14th June, 2006 at 11:44 am  

    “If you lived in the USA, as I do, there is a strong, powerful, wealthy, influential movement of conservatives Christians who want to keep homosexuals from being married and to reverse the legality of Roe vs. Wade which protects a womens right to an abortion. These same people, like our president are in high political office and their values, their religious values are well known. However if a secular person argued that they were trying to create some Christian theocratic state they would be laughed at because the idea is ridiculous.”

    well it’s certainly true there are powerful forces at work trying to overturn roe vs. wade – all those conservative judges elected by conservative politicians, goodness. i also think there are lots of people out there highlighting this sort of thing as examples of christian fundamentalism. i’m also sure some people do laugh at them when they say that.

  111. sonia — on 14th June, 2006 at 12:10 pm  

    you asked about the symbol! look at the bottom right hand site of your browser..

  112. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 14th June, 2006 at 2:46 pm  

    you asked about the symbol! look at the bottom right hand site of your browser..

    Using IE

  113. sonia — on 14th June, 2006 at 4:24 pm  

    god you still use IE? :-) Firefox is the way forward man

  114. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 14th June, 2006 at 5:31 pm  

    Hey! my post got chopped!

  115. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 14th June, 2006 at 5:42 pm  

    fanboy: on
    Firefox? Pah! I say PAH!

    I’m a Opera man.

    All the good ideas in Firefox where nicked from Opera.

    The integrated RSS newsfeeds, email, IRC and gestures are just great.

    There is no better browser.

    fanboy: off

    Sorry you had to see that. Please, for god sake, don’t mention the xbox 360.

    TFI

  116. Kulvinder — on 14th June, 2006 at 6:45 pm  

    /\ I endorse everything this man said about opera. It really is the mutt’s nuts.

  117. Refresh — on 14th June, 2006 at 10:43 pm  

    Yes – Opera is fantastic – using v9 beta; anybody have problems posting to PP from it?

  118. Refresh — on 14th June, 2006 at 10:44 pm  

    It worked. Now that is odd. Usually I have to switch to IE to actually post.

  119. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 15th June, 2006 at 12:25 am  

    Hey, we’ve formed a mini club! It just goes to show that we chatting classes think alike when push comes to browser.

    I’ve no problems posting to PP, although on blogs it sometimes screws up on italics, not on PP mind.

    I tried 9 beta, but it didn’t like my backlog of email and kept dying so I dumped it.

    My only issue at the moment is that since I put Vista Beta 2 on my PC, the email directory has moved around and I cannot figure how to configure Opera to read from the new directory.

    Fabulous bit of kit, I even paid money for it …

    TFI

  120. Kulvinder — on 15th June, 2006 at 6:29 am  

    Was the video imbed problem sorted out with v9beta?

  121. Andrew Milner — on 15th June, 2006 at 8:18 am  

    The thing that really got me rolling in the aisles was the question: “Are you a member of the Ku Klux Klan?” The KK (Keystone Kops) were asking a Muslim. I knew cops were thick, but …They’ll be asking Blacks next. Almost as good as asking the actors in “The Road to Guantanamo” movie, who would I go to for surface-to-air missiles in Tipton? Have you tried the BNP, hear they do a nice line in Stinger missiles. Have the Brit Police lost the plot, or is this the trailer for Theatre of the Absurd?

  122. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 15th June, 2006 at 12:25 pm  

    Have the Brit Police lost the plot, or is this the trailer for Theatre of the Absurd?

    Its just process, they have a list of extremist groups and they have to run throught them. This is no different than me ticking the “I’ve never committed a war crime” when I pass through US customs.

    You’ll note that the police are meant to have said at the time that it was ridiculous but they had to ask. I bet they asked them if they were a member of ETA, just as ridiculous but the boys most likely wouldn’t know who they were.

    TFI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.