Four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced into parts of the country, a survey reveals today.

The ICM opinion poll also indicates that a fifth have sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July 7, killing 52 people, although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity.

Nearly two thirds thought the video images shown last week of British troops beating Iraqi youths were symptomatic of a wider problem in Iraq. Half did not think the soldiers would be "appropriately punished".

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.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/02/19/ixportaltop.html

Sharia law is not appropriate in ANY land. It is barbaric and should be crushed without mercy.

Sharia law is not appropriate in ANY land. It is barbaric and should be crushed without mercy.

I am sure the obligatory circumcision of women will go down really well!

Hell no!

Women are property in Islam which makes me wonder why leftists so love to see Islam beating Democracy!

I already started this thread :o

why is this a surprise to anyone? you encourage mass islamic third world immigration and let the welfare scum soak up the benefits, while hypocritically saying 'radical islam' is on the rise.

liberals act like the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing, and it's seriously getting old.

http://www.bnp.org.uk/images/newsarchive9/fins_mosque.jpg


'The day is coming when British Muslims form a state within a state' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia219.xml)

I am convinced that Islam will eventually be outlawed in most western nations.

Ontario already outlawed Sharia law and the Howard admin. is increasingly speaking out against it. france outlawed the headscarf. This will continue to the point where much of Islam is outlawed.

Eventually Mosques and importation of islamic material will be illegal.

This will HAVE to happen or the west will just be overwhelmed.

I am convinced that Islam will eventually be outlawed in most western nations.

Ontario already outlawed Sharia law and the Howard admin. is increasingly speaking out against it. france outlawed the headscarf. This will continue to the point where much of Islam is outlawed.

Eventually Mosques and importation of islamic material will be illegal.

This will HAVE to happen or the west will just be overwhelmed.that's a meaningless statement if you refuse to address immigration for "diversity's" sake.

shaira law is against the constitution. it will never happen.

shaira law is against the constitution. it will never happen.and blowing up subways and trains is against the law :nice:

that's a meaningless statement if you refuse to address immigration for "diversity's" sake.

Who the hell was talking about that?

Who the hell was talking about that?it's time to talk about it

Don't see how it has anything to do with the subject, though.

shaira law is against the constitution. it will never happen.

What does the constitution of the Netherlands say about the procedures for amendment?

I am convinced that Islam will eventually be outlawed in most western nations.

Ontario already outlawed Sharia law and the Howard admin. is increasingly speaking out against it. france outlawed the headscarf. This will continue to the point where much of Islam is outlawed.

Eventually Mosques and importation of islamic material will be illegal.

This will HAVE to happen or the west will just be overwhelmed.

thats bull, the islamic religion should not be banned, no religion should be banned, the thing about the koran is that it can be interpreted is so many different ways,some interpreit it as a hate filled violence igniting book, other see it as a peace oriented book. The sharia law follows VERY tradiditonal, fundimentalist mindset, muslims in britain should follow british law, if they want muslim laws, then let them elect muslim leaders. If we bann Islam we should bann ALL religions.

Don't see how it has anything to do with the subject, though.you don't see how importing muslim populations is contributing to the islamicization of western society?

http://static.flickr.com/4/4638443_3bfba350f1_m.jpg

thats bull

No it isn't.

, the islamic religion should not be banned, no religion should be banned,

Yes it should.

the thing about the koran is that it can be interpreted is so many different ways,some interpreit it as a hate filled violence igniting book, other see it as a peace oriented book.

The underlying principle of jihad is consistent amongst all of forms of the cult.

muslims in britain should follow british law,

They should have to follow it. They should be punished to the full extent of the law if they don't.

if they want muslim laws, then let them elect muslim leaders.

You don't seem to understand that is primary issue underlying the problem. The West should never, ever be forced to change its progressive, freedom loving ways just because some invaders procreate more than the natives of the West and out number them over time.

If we bann Islam we should bann ALL religions.

Why?

"Bann"[sic] all religions?

No other religion is a death cult like Islam is! Only a nihilistic leftist would automatically run straight for the slippery slope like that. Only a person without morals would equate a death cult like Islam to the other major religions.

Is that it, Rager? Do you imagine that there is no "wrong' and no "right"? That ALL religions, ALL human interaction is EXACTLY the same as all OTHER human interaction? Is every culture as "good" as every other culture?

If so, you are a PEFECT example of what is wrong with many in the west. A nihilism that equates all behavior to the same LOW level. YOU are just as dangerous as the Jihadists. Because YOU would open all doors to ALLOW them to homicide-bomb us all to smithereens.

Congratulations collaborator, way to go facilitator, good going useful idiot.

Muslims collectively have become a weapon of mass destruction.

What does the constitution of the Netherlands say about the procedures for amendment? 2 seperate gouv.'s have to aprove it. basically it takes 8 years for a constitutional change. and for a sharia law to be instated youd need a few 100 changes, Id say.

The idea of not allowing women to drive holds a certain appeal to me. :p
(kidding, kidding!)

The idea of not allowing women to drive holds a certain appeal to me. :p
(kidding, kidding!)- Do they actually have that outside of Saudi Arabia? :hmm:

I am sure the obligatory circumcision of women will go down really well!- That's not really islamic, though. In fact, as I've heard the Koran forbids mutilation, including even tattoos and piercings

- Do they actually have that outside of Saudi Arabia? :hmm:

- That's not really islamic, though. In fact, as I've heard the Koran forbids mutilation, including even tattoos and piercingsthey say the koran forbids a lot of things, and yet here we are in a police state worried about fundies blowing us up any minute.

Why don't the Brits throw these guys out of their country?

There is nothing wrong with the system of law that the English use. It is what our laws are based on and the USA is the most just country in the world. Not perfect but still the best.

Sharia is shi-ite

and for a sharia law to be instated youd need a few 100 changes, Id say.

You'd need one major change - that the laws made by special courts in certain cities are not subject to the consitution of the Netherlands. That's the only change need be made.

"Bann"[sic] all religions?

No other religion is a death cult like Islam is! Only a nihilistic leftist would automatically run straight for the slippery slope like that. Only a person without morals would equate a death cult like Islam to the other major religions.

Is that it, Rager? Do you imagine that there is no "wrong' and no "right"? That ALL religions, ALL human interaction is EXACTLY the same as all OTHER human interaction? Is every culture as "good" as every other culture?

If so, you are a PEFECT example of what is wrong with many in the west. A nihilism that equates all behavior to the same LOW level. YOU are just as dangerous as the Jihadists. Because YOU would open all doors to ALLOW them to homicide-bomb us all to smithereens.

Congratulations collaborator, way to go facilitator, good going useful idiot.

OMFG, those extremist muslims that wanna go blow them selfs up can be compaired to the KKK and christianity, should we bann chiristianity because the KKK is christian?
i dont simpathsize with the terrorist, they are insane and completly EXPLOIt the koran and twist its words so that they can claim that the koran is giving them permission to behead westeners, If i took the quote from the bible Matthew 10:45," I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." and went around killing all the "enemys" of god would it be justified? no!..
and thats what many extremist muslims are doinghttp://answering-islam.org.uk/BibleCom/mt10-34.html
its a dangerous thing, and must be stoped but banning an entire culture is a facist ideal, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Muslims collectively have become a weapon of mass destruction.
YEa, and the christians werent during the crusaids?
or colonization?
WE ARE ALL DANGEROUS, all religions will help bring the downfall of humanity
do u beleve that most mulims would agree in dropping a nuke in the US?
NO!, its that the media is depicting all muslims as war loving,suicide bombers, and its complete bullshit.

if u check, you will see that i voted strongly against the implementation of the sharia law, i DONT simpathize with extreamist.

You'd need one major change - that the laws made by special courts in certain cities are not subject to the consitution of the Netherlands. That's the only change need be made.
noone is gonna give that permission, ever. theyll have to drag every single change through one by one. you cant have 2 constitutions in one country.

the cities are almost majority muslim anyway. it's only a matter of time. the left has betrayed everyone.

YEa, and the christians werent during the crusaids?
or colonization?
WE ARE ALL DANGEROUS, all religions will help bring the downfall of humanity
do u beleve that most mulims would agree in dropping a nuke in the US?
NO!, its that the media is depicting all muslims as war loving,suicide bombers, and its complete bullshit.please die

Lol!!!

goddammit...this pics not changing

new pic

YEa, and the christians werent during the crusaids?
or colonization?
WE ARE ALL DANGEROUS, all religions will help bring the downfall of humanity
do u beleve that most mulims would agree in dropping a nuke in the US?
NO!, its that the media is depicting all muslims as war loving,suicide bombers, and its complete bullshit.


I'm so sick of the crusades being brought up over and over.

Yes, the crusades were bad in many ways, but, they also helped to save Europe from Muslim invaders at one point.

But let's focus on the here and now. No Crusaders have even been alive for many centuries, and not a sigle living human is in any way responsible for what occured during that period in history, good or bad. That was a different time, and the Earth was populated with people who were completely ignorant of many things that we now know.

The terrorist element in todays world can't use that excuse. They are alive. They know what they're doing, they use relatively sophisticated technology in many cases, they have specific goals, and many are willing to die to see them come to fruition. the comparison to the crusades is completely irrelevant.

the vikings!!111

YEa, and the christians werent during the crusaids?
or colonization?
WE ARE ALL DANGEROUS, all religions will help bring the downfall of humanity
do u beleve that most mulims would agree in dropping a nuke in the US?
NO!, its that the media is depicting all muslims as war loving,suicide bombers, and its complete bullshit.

If you weren't such a terror apologist you'd realize that your "history" is about 1,000 years or more out of date. But, then, that would make your hate-the-west principles all wrong if you did that! And we KNOW you can't do that!

I'm so sick of the crusades being brought up over and over.

Yes, the crusades were bad in many ways, but, they also helped to save Europe from Muslim invaders at one point.

But let's focus on the here and now. No Crusaders have even been alive for many centuries, and not a sigle living human is in any way responsible for what occured during that period in history, good or bad. That was a different time, and the Earth was populated with people who were completely ignorant of many things that we now know.

The terrorist element in todays world can't use that excuse. They are alive. They know what they're doing, they use relatively sophisticated technology in many cases, they have specific goals, and many are willing to die to see them come to fruition. the comparison to the crusades is completely irrelevant. it just shows some of the ignorant here, that humans are all the same, and christians have not been any better in history then muslims.
and for a lot fo muslims, history is an important part of their anger. not just the crusades, but more so, the colonisation and complete disregard of teh middle east by the west. up untill this day, the west hasnt given up tehir control over the middle east, is even strenghening it.
if you want to understand anything thats happening today, youre gonna have to recognise this fact. you cant just take a cut in history and blow away anything you dont find relevant.

and christians have not been any better in history then muslims.

Wrong. Christians have ushered in the era of liberty and freedom. Muslims are oppressive murderers are now and always HAVE been.

this relativism nonsense is getting old. fortunately, the next arab muslim terrorist attack will blow that argument out of the water for good and all.

- That's not really islamic, though. In fact, as I've heard the Koran forbids mutilation, including even tattoos and piercings

It may be argued that it is mandatory, according to Shafii law, an often used interpretation of Sharia.
In Egypt the practice dates back even to the the time of the Pharaohs and it is sadly performed by people of different religious backgrounds. In discussions about this topic, Muslims usually insist that this practice is a cultural issue, and it is not religiously mandated by Islam.

The following quotation is taken from Reliance of the Traveller, Revised edition, amana publications, Beltsville, 1997. The title page informs us that this book is

The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law ‘Umdat al-Salik
by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 769/1368) in Arabic with
Facing English Text, Commentary, and Appendices
Edited and Translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller


In this book, in the section titled "THE BODY", we find on page 59 the following entry:

e4.3 Circumcision is obligatory (O: for both men and women. For men it consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar. Bazr) of the clitoris (n: not the clitoris itself, as some mistakenly assert). (A: Hanbalis hold that circumcision of women is not obligatory but sunna, while Hanafis consider it a mere courtesy to the husband.)"


The above used abbreviations mean:

A: ... comment by Sheikh 'Abd al-Wakil Durubi
Ar. Arabic
n: ... remark by the translator
O: ... excerpt from the commentary of Sheikh 'Umar Barakat

However what the Arabic actually says is:

Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female)
by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male,
but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the clitoris
(this is called HufaaD). {bold emphasis ours**

The Arabic word bazr does not mean "prepuce of the clitoris", it means the clitoris itself (cf. the entry in the Arabic-English Dictionary). The deceptive translation by Nuh Hah Mim Keller, made for Western consumption, obscures the Shafi’i law, given by ‘Umdat al-Salik, that circumcision of girls by excision of the clitoris is mandatory. This particular form of female circumcision is widely practiced in Egypt, where the Shafi’i school of Sunni law is followed.
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Sharia/fem_circumcision.html


The Abbasids encouraged legal scholars to debate the Sharia vigorously. One group held that only the divinely inspired Koran and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad should make up the Sharia. A rival group, however, argued that the Sharia should also include the reasoned opinions of qualified legal scholars. Different legal systems began to develop in different provinces.

In an attempt to reconcile the rival groups, a brilliant legal scholar named Shafii systematized and developed what were called the "roots of the law."

i bet oki voted for strongly agree

That's not really islamic, though...let's stop listening to the rhetoric for the moment and look at reality. we shall know them by their fruits.

I am liberal and I don't think Sharia belongs in the West, nor do I support conditions that result in such a situation. I also notice that many extreme social conservatives have more in common with the Muslims than the liberals they constantly bash. When they discuss Muslims, they'll claim we're better because of our liberty and such. When they discuss liberals, they bitch about all the same stuff Muslims oppose - gays, feminists, secularism, sexual liberalism, etc. No thanks to the White or Brown Taliban.

I am liberal and I don't think Sharia belongs in the West, nor do I support conditions that result in such a situation. I also notice that many extreme social conservatives have more in common with the Muslims than the liberals they constantly bash. When they discuss Muslims, they'll claim we're better because of our liberty and such. When they discuss liberals, they bitch about all the same stuff Muslims oppose - gays, feminists, secularism, sexual liberalism, etc. No thanks to the White or Brown Taliban.we must work together to defeat the towelhead

we must work together to defeat the towelhead

I don't fear them where I am.

I also notice that many extreme social conservatives have more in common with the Muslims than the liberals they constantly bash.

Your nihilism strikes again.

This is patent nonsense. Maybe superficially what you said it might SEEM true. But only the most ridiculously extreme fundie Christian would agree with the methods of the radical Muslims if those methods were used for Christianity instead of Islam. And the numbers of those types of hard-core Christian is so small as to make counting it a waste of time, whereas the number of hard-core types in Islam makes majorities instead of minorities.

You are stuck with leftist garbage between your ears instead of a brain if you imagine that Christian fundies are "Just as bad and dangerous" as a radical Islamist.

It is this kind of stupid "everything is relative" thinking that the left mires itself in making all of the left utterly immoral.

Could Mobile be a bot? Just toss out and stir together random cliches against "leftists" and you get a Mobile post.

You've basically just agreed that it's a difference of METHOD, not goals. Many social conservatives can't stand the idea of sexual liberalism or women abandoning traditional roles, but most are civilized enough to not demand stoning about it like they used to. The Muslims, alas, are still in the dark ages mentality.

My tactical sense is a little better than egalitarians. Sure, rabid Christianity of the type that some activists want isn't much different than Islam, but that doesn't mean I have to accept Islam. That would be like saying that just because the Hells Angels aren't exactly angels, that one should support an influx of Maras.

I'm so sick of the crusades being brought up over and over.

Yes, the crusades were bad in many ways, but, they also helped to save Europe from Muslim invaders at one point.

But let's focus on the here and now. No Crusaders have even been alive for many centuries, and not a sigle living human is in any way responsible for what occured during that period in history, good or bad. That was a different time, and the Earth was populated with people who were completely ignorant of many things that we now know.

The terrorist element in todays world can't use that excuse. They are alive. They know what they're doing, they use relatively sophisticated technology in many cases, they have specific goals, and many are willing to die to see them come to fruition. the comparison to the crusades is completely irrelevant.

I brought up the crusaids to remind you how badly religion could be interpreted
I DONNOT FEEL SIMPATHY FOR ANY TERRORIST!
FU*K YOU!

pple are saying that mainstream mulims are all sucide bombers and thats complete bull, There are many groups such as Al queda and the taliban that twist the words of the koran to fit there own needs...such as many have done with the bible

Wrong. Christians have ushered in the era of liberty and freedom. Muslims are oppressive murderers are now and always HAVE been. you mean when they liberated south america, by destroying an intire civilisation? you should read a bit about what people have done in teh name of christianity.

i bet oki voted for strongly agree you loose, as allways.

Eddy

You've basically just agreed that it's a difference of METHOD, not goals

Wrong again (but you must be used to being wrong).

It is about AMOUNT. As in: the AMOUNT of Christians who believe as the radical Muslims do is SO small as to nearly be unmeasurable. The views of such radical Christians is tiny, unimportant, and COMPLETELY unrepresentative of Christianity as a whole. Whereas radical Islam finds itself having a MAJORITY of its believers agreeing with the radical interpretation of the religion.

So, your nihilism comes in that you take a tiny, tiny number of radical Christians and OVER PRIORITIZE the fact that they merely exist and EXPLODE their numbers so that you can feel justified in comparing them to the radical Muslims.

Your prosaic propensity toward moral equivalence is disgusting and not very intelligent... but it IS typical of most programed leftists.

Mobile, so you're basically trying to tell me that Christians who dislike sexual liberalism, feminism, and secularism and would prefer a traditional society rooted in Biblical ideas are very rare?

Dude, you just aren't GETTING it.

Fist off, of COURSE they are rare. But the POINT is by comparisson with those in Islam who want such an extreme world view the Christian side of the same coin can be thought not to even EXIST! So, your fixation on the supposed radical Christians is absurd and a waste of time!

I am SURE you may know some of these hardcore Christians. But, just because YOU know some does NOT mean that ALL Christians are as extreme, nor does it even mean a great number are.

The WHOLE Western world is mostly Christian and such a radical view is practically non-existent. Compare that to Islam and you get the opposite.

So, like I said, your nihilistic penchant for game saying that "there are radical Christians too" when ever radical Islam is discussed is counter productive and practically inures the radical Muslims of their crimes!

THIS makes you a terror apologist.

Ok, so I'm a terror apologist because I believe that hard right Christians who dislike sexual liberalism, feminism, and secularism and would prefer a traditional society rooted in Biblical ideas are NOT very rare. Nevermind that I have stated that they differ in method from most Islamists since Christians have become more civilized and are balanced by the post-enlightenment character of Western society. Nevermind that my pointing out the similarity in goal is not meant in any way to excuse Islamists, whom I would outright oppose if they began gaining legal strength where I live. Yes, there are many Islamists who are taking up war by ballot box instead of bomb. What grounds would the hard right social conservative right have to oppose that tactic, since they're asking for many of the same things?

I suppose this is a shining example of anti-leftist "logic."

ye shall know them by their fruits.

decapitations, bombings, daily threats, real world reality >> pointless leftist philosophizing

Sharia law is not appropriate in ANY land. It is barbaric and should be crushed without mercy.

You dont even know what it is.


I am sure the obligatory circumcision of women will go down really well!

It says nothing about that.

Women are property in Islam

No they are not.

you don't see how importing muslim populations is contributing to the islamicization of western society?

No,


The underlying principle of jihad is consistent amongst all of forms of the cult.

You dont even know what it is.


It may be argued that it is mandatory, according to Shafii law, an often used interpretation of Sharia.

Going to an anti Islamic website does not help, you said it was in the shariah law, it is not.

Shariah law can not be on any country where there are less Muslims then non Muslims. so it will never be in the west.

There is no difference from you anti islamic and the Nazis that where anti sematic.
You dont know Islam you dont know what it says.

Do Christian fundamentalists want laws based on religion?
Yes.
So do Muslim fundamentalists.

Do Christian fundamentalists want cultural norms determined by religion?
Yes.
So do Muslim fundamentalists.

No big difference.

Do Christian fundamentalists want laws based on religion?
Yes.
So do Muslim fundamentalists.

Do Christian fundamentalists want cultural norms determined by religion?
Yes.
So do Muslim fundamentalists.

No big difference.

Do both groups mandate execution for disrespecting the religion? BIG difference.

Some Islamists promote domination via ballot box instead of bomb. On what grounds do social conservative Christians oppose them?

The liberals who see no problem with a mass influx of very traditionally religious monotheists are quite misguided. They readily acknowledge that social conservative Christians are adversaries, yet support the political rise of another group that will vote against everything liberals stand for. I don't support blatant cruelty or deporting every Muslim, but I do think liberals should show a little more discrimination in the future regarding the arrival of new peoples, stop pandering just because they're foreigners, and work to water down and assimilate the people already there.

As for the hard right social conservatives, I don't see what their real objections are as long as the Islamists try to vote and lobby their agenda through instead of bombing. They're in the same bed regarding social issues.

The Liberals' major problem is that a small lunatic fringe drives an agenda based purely on Anger and Hatred. Such extreme emotions blind them to the logical consequences of supporting people and causes merely because they are contrary to those supported by the people they hate.

For all their hysteria about Bush implementing a police state - they would be among the first to be incarcerated or executed by an Islamic Totalitarian regime (or any Totalitarian regime, for that matter).

They're in the same bed regarding social issues

No...no they AREN'T in "the same bed" at all! Just because there are a FEW similarities does NOT mean they are one and the same in opinion!

List all the huge differences between hard right social conservatives and Islamists who want to push their agenda by voting.

Do both groups mandate execution for disrespecting the religion? BIG difference.


There's no telling what Christians would do if they had the laws in their hands, is there? The reason religious people don't call for executions is because the West has too many moderates and can stop them.