Share this page:

Sharia Law

Interested or active in politics, discuss here.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
AJtothemax
Casual Member
Casual Member
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon 20 Nov, 2006 8:37 pm
Location: U.K

Sharia Law

#1 Post by AJtothemax »

This hurt to read.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... doors.html

It's getting worse and I'm fed up of it. British Law is British Law. You can't have two different types of justice in this country. This system will push people too far soon and when that time comes, I only hope those that actually live as a British national should live, are not caught up inside it all when it kicks off. Why do we stand for this?

What the hell are we mean't to do? Young people everywhere are now starting to wake up to this issue, maybe that's why the BNP and other parties are gaining momentum because people feel they have no where else to turn. I've never voted BNP and I don't think I ever will because I think they hide something more sinister underneath their 'patriotism'. Call me what you want, I know whats fact and I've seen how bad this is getting with my own eyes and heard it with my own ears.

If you ignore this, wait until it comes to your town, your streets and bangs on your door. If you've never experienced this then you may have trouble seeing my pont of view. It's not racisum or stirring up hate. It's talking about real issues that are very worrying. Who can we blame? Ourselves really because we didn't make enough noise when the warning signs were there. It's all compounded by the fact that the Labour Party (which by the way, is a party for the working class people) has seriously f*cked this country by allowing it to happen and I hope they fall very far down on the next election.
AJ

"First with your head and then with your heart. Don't stop."

Advertise your company or services here and contact us today!

dwarfy
Casual Member
Casual Member
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed 23 Nov, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: somerset

#2 Post by dwarfy »

From the daily mail...........enough said.

Media reporting off the muslim community is incredibly miss-leading, often unfound and largely Boll**** to be quite frank. Dont take everything you read for granted AJ, as in doing so you are playing directly into the hands of those cretins at the likes of the BNP. This form of reporting is extremely volatile in its nature and manipulatively slants its readers views.

The muslim community are placed in a very nasty position because of it. I ask you this, if you were to walk out of your house now and see a group of muslims, what would be on your mind? Would you treat them as normal or having just read that article would your view be one of caution and distrust? The BNP are 'racist' opportunists who are using the current 'racial' climate and the countries recession to fester their views and gain support.

I live almost next door to my towns mosque, I have no problem with it, talk to many of the local muslims who use it and find all of them to be friendly. At first they were not so easy to talk to, and to be honest i can see why as the majority of people i see around here usually totally ignore them, possibly due to the kind of reporting seen in rags like the daily mail.

One thing people should remember is that such one dimenional media reporting has led to great evil in the past. How was the German nation made to believe that the jews were responsible for their nations downfall??

Wholley

#3 Post by Wholley »

The Daily Snail is interested in one thing.
Selling newspapers.
My opinion(and it's just mine)Sharia Law has no basis in British Law and should not have so.
Shame you guy's have no constitution which guarantees the right of the majority over the minority
For those who can be bothered,
Here tis'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

User avatar
_Mark_
Familiar Member
Familiar Member
Posts: 214
Joined: Thu 18 Dec, 2008 10:20 am
Location: probably with your missus

#4 Post by _Mark_ »

dwarfy wrote:The BNP are 'racist' opportunists who are using the current 'racial' climate and the countries recession to fester their views and gain support.

I live almost next door to my towns mosque, I have no problem with it, talk to many of the local muslims who use it and find all of them to be friendly. At first they were not so easy to talk to, and to be honest i can see why as the majority of people i see around here usually totally ignore them, possibly due to the kind of reporting seen in rags like the daily mail.

One thing people should remember is that such one dimenional media reporting has led to great evil in the past. How was the German nation made to believe that the jews were responsible for their nations downfall??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PlCQYwbpt8

Pilgrim Norway
Cult Member
Cult Member
Posts: 1101
Joined: Wed 17 Apr, 2002 9:49 am
Location: Årnes, Norway

#5 Post by Pilgrim Norway »

Posted here without bias or contempt -

-------

History --- how soon we forget!

The speech below was written in 1899!

Winston Churchill saw it coming

The attached short speech of Winston Churchill, delivered by him in 1899 when he was a young soldier and journalist. It probably sets out the current views of many but expressed in the wonderful Churchillian turn of phrase and use of the English language, of which he was a past master. Sir Winston Churchill was, without doubt, one of the greatest men of the late 19th and 20th centuries. He was a brave young soldier, a brilliant journalist, an extraordinary politician and statesman, a great war leader and Prime Minister, to whom the Western world must be forever in his debt. He was a prophet in his own time. He died on 24 January 1965, at the grand old age of 90 and, after a lifetime of service to his country, was accorded a State funeral.

HERE IS THE SPEECH:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world .

Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome. "

Sir Winston Churchill

(The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50
Trog
45 Recce yomper

[url=http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/forums/groupcp.php?g=397][img]http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/forums/images/usergroups/listener.gif[/img][/url]

cosicanEDL
New Member
New Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue 16 Mar, 2010 3:37 pm

Re: Sharia Law

#6 Post by cosicanEDL »

*) From ‘The Legacy of September 11th’, by Dr. Mohammad Naseem, the Dawn, Issue No. 167 (the Newsletter of Birmingham Central Mosque) - My Webpagehttp://www.centralmosque.org.uk/PDF-downloads/ ... 2011th.pdf

Contents:
i) Introduction
ii) Muslims are Not Sorry For 9/11
iii) So Who Did Done It?
iv) Engagement With Muslims?


Introduction

Dr. Mohammad Naseem is quite a well known Muslim in England. He is the chairman of Birmingham Central Mosque and the home affairs spokesman for the Islamic Party of Britain. (Dr. Naseem’s being a member of an ‘Islamic' political party tells you all you need to know about him.) In addition, Naseem stood as a candidate for Respect in 2005 and since that time has been actively involved in the Stop the War Coalition.

Naseem once said that Tony Blair was ‘like Hitler’ and that the British state was a ‘police state’. Tony Blair was like Hitler because he took measures to find Islamic terrorists and stop Islamic terrorism. The British state was a ‘police state’ because it took measures to find Islamic terrorists and stop Islamic terrorism. More recently, and closer to home, Naseem encouraged young Muslim yobs to ‘vent their feelings’ at an English Defence League demonstration in Birmingham last year.

Muslims are Not Sorry For 9/11

It is strange that a piece entitled ‘The Legacy of September 11th’ should include not a single word of Muslim culpability. Neither does it contain a single word which even attempts to distance 'moderate' Muslims from the 9/11 terrorists. Well, it would be hard to distance yourself from the Muslim terrorists who didn’t, in fact, carry out 9/11. There is simply no need for Muslims, or Dr. Naseem himself, to say sorry or express regret. Muslims simply didn’t do it. Full stop. There is no need for any distancing, or any sorrow, or any regret. Instead it is the American state, or Europe, or Israel, which should be sorry. It, or they, did it.

Now we know that it was the Americans that did it, or Europe, or Israel, it should be no surprise to read Dr. Naseem expressing his shock about just ‘how far people with power would go to achieve their desired goal’. That goal was the creation of the ‘perception of an external threat’ in order to unite the US or Europe… Or to get the oil and gas from the former Soviet Union… Or to create a Greater Israel which would be controlled and run by the ‘Christian extremists’ who have ‘dreamt of Christ’s return after the establishment of an extended Israel’.

It is strange that a Muslim extremist like Dr. Naseem should deride ‘Christian extremists’ in this piece. You would think that Naseem would admire the extreme beliefs and actions of the American evangelicals. (I presume that it is the evangelicals that he is referring to.) Shouldn’t Naseem admire Christians who take their religion and their holy books seriously? Shouldn’t he admire those Christians who are prepared to fight to the death for Christianity and its political and geographical expansion? Except, of course, these are the wrong extremes. These are the wrong holy books. Naseem is talking about the wrong religion. Thus, since we are not talking about Islamic extremism; then of course Naseem is against every example of non-Islamic extremism. Islamic extremism; yes: Christian extremism; no.

So Who Did Done It?

According to Naseem, it wasn’t Muslim terrorists who carried out 9/11. (Naseem’s article is on 9/11, but I may as well tell you here and now that Naseem didn’t think that Muslims were responsible for the London bombings of 2005 either.) Firstly, Naseem claims that it was the American state that carried out the terrorist attacks. Naseem does not say that this is a fact. However, the whole purpose of this little piece is to say that it was the Americans themselves, or the Europeans, or the Israelis, and not Muslims, who were responsible for 9/11.

Why did the American state commit this atrocity on its own people? Naseem says that it was because it wanted to create ‘the perception of an external threat’. And what better way to do this than ‘through a terrorist outrage’ committed by Muslims? He cites various sources as proof, or evidence, that this was so.

Firstly Naseem states that this ‘external threat’ was primarily needed for ‘political union’. However, the first two passages he quotes are from Europe. One is from the European Commission of 1996 and the other is from Romano Prodi.

After citing these two passages, which are supposed to display the desire for ‘political union’ (within Europe, not America), Naseem then cites a passage which says, or hints at, that 9/11 was all about the gas and oil in the former Soviet Union. That is a sudden and somewhat unrelated shift of potential suspects if ever there was one.

Naseem then changes his mind yet again. This time he offers a kind of theological and historical reason for America’s act of self-terrorism. Naseem now hints at the possibility that America wants to create an ‘extended Israel’. All this is very vague. But his use of the words ‘cross Atlantic…. desire for control’ suggests that Naseem also thinks that Europe is in on this attempt to create a ‘greater Israel’. Thus Europe were also involved in 9/11.

Of course Dr. Naseem can’t be too explicit about all these things because he doesn’t want the media to get a hold of his mad conspiracy theories (there is more than one in his article). That doesn’t matter. His fellow Muslims, at Birmingham Central Mosque and elsewhere, will know exactly what he is really talking about. But to state these accusations explicitly would be an act of political suicide. It would go down very badly in terms of negative publicity, something which Dr. Naseem has already had his fair share of. That’s why this piece is so vague. He is being very careful not to be too explicit and too, well, Islamic. In other words, he is using the Lesser Taqiyya rather than the Greater Taqiyya. That is, Naseem hints and implies that his conspiracy theories are factual, rather than states that they are. There are no outright lies. These are sweet words of dissimulation.

If the Americans did it, or the Europeans, or the Israelis, this means that Muslims did not do it. Again, he uses hint and innuendo rather than statement to put his conspiracy theories across. He doesn’t out rightly say that the Muslims who flew the aeroplanes did not fly the planes on their own, instead he asks his Muslim readers to think about the feasibility of ‘a few unknowns who after 14 hours of flight training became so skilful that they could accomplish an aerial feat of such precision’. Naseem implied answer to this is simple. These Muslims couldn’t have done it, considering this dearth of expertise.

If these Muslims didn’t do it (or didn’t do it on their own), then why does Naseem then go on to hint (again) at the fact that these very same Muslims, the ones who didn’t do it, couldn’t have been controlled by al-Qaeda or Bin Laden anyway – even if they did do it. This is Naseem’s position now:

Those Muslim men didn’t do it. But if they did, they couldn’t have been controlled by al-Qaeda and bin Laden.

This is a little like another popular Muslim riposte:

Muslims didn’t commit 9/11. But if they did, then America had it coming and deserved it.

It is also like an older Muslim favourite, this time about the Jews:

Hitler didn’t kill six million Jews. But if he did, then the Jews deserved it.

Naseem tells us why bin Laden couldn’t have planned and then controlled the 9/11 attacks.

Bin Laden lives most of the time in a cave in Afghanistan. At least that’s what most of us believe. It is what Naseem believes as well. However, the difference is that most people (or most non-Muslims) think that bin Laden could control at least some global acts of terrorism from his cave. Naseem, on the contrary, thinks that this would be impossible. He says that the main problem for bin Laden will be his lack of electricity. Without electricity bin Laden would not be ‘able to control a world wide organisation’. (What about generators and other such things?)

So to recap. Dr. Naseem believes that Muslims did not carry out the 9/11 attacks. America, or Europe, or Israel, did. He then argues that even if these Muslims did do it (on their own), they couldn’t have been working for bin Laden because he has no electricity.

From this lack-of-electricity scenario, it is but a small step to state, or hint (again), that one must be ‘extremely naïve’ to believe ‘that Al-Qaeda is a threat to the world’. Apart from bin Laden’s lack of electricity, Naseem also believes that Al-Qaeda can’t be the threat infidels claim it to be because this group has ‘never approached’ Naseem himself or any other Muslim he knows. Not only that, Naseem and other Muslims had ‘never heard of ’ Al-Qaeda before 9/11.

Engagement With the Muslim Community?

There is a lot of talk, from Naseem and other Muslim leaders, about the need for the Government to fully engage with Muslims and Islamic organisations. This is strange. What kind of engagement could there be between Muslims and a Government which Naseem himself says ‘is not concerned with morality or principles’. That is not a reference to a particular political party, or to a particular Governmental institution, or to a particular policy. This is what Naseem thinks of the whole British state – from head to toe. Why would Muslims, or Naseem himself, what to engage or debate with a ‘political establishment [which] is not concerned with morality and principles’? Wouldn’t Naseem and other Muslims be contaminated by our immoral and unprincipled Government and state? (Remember here that Dr. Naseem is an actvist within the Islamic Party of Britain.)

Naseem thinks the British state is immoral and unprincipled because it is an infidel state and government. By Muslim definition, the Government simply must be unprincipled and immoral because it is without Islamic principles and without Islamic morality. It is the infidel status of the Government that really gets to Naseem. Thus, quite frankly, it must be the case that Dr. Naseem could never genuinely deal with any non-Muslim individual or institution, from the local council to the media. But he often does!

gunner75
Megastar Member
Megastar Member
Posts: 809
Joined: Tue 02 Sep, 2003 1:47 pm
Location: leeds

Re: Sharia Law

#7 Post by gunner75 »

Dont panic. it will never happen.
'Every man an Emperor'

go_the_paras
New Member
New Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed 25 Aug, 2010 6:41 am

Re: Sharia Law

#8 Post by go_the_paras »

AJtothemax wrote:This hurt to read.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... doors.html

It's getting worse and I'm fed up of it. British Law is British Law. You can't have two different types of justice in this country. This system will push people too far soon and when that time comes, I only hope those that actually live as a British national should live, are not caught up inside it all when it kicks off. Why do we stand for this?

(snip)
I agree - I completely agree. It really concerns me to see this happening (and I say that from all the way down here in New Zealand).

I have just started a thread on exactly this area - how to prevent the subversion / sedition of governments ( I apologise if this is a cross-post ).
Anyway, here is the thread -
http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/forums/ ... 66&t=40457

I mean yeah - what on earth are the options if the government of your country is either deliberately (or ignorantly) ignoring the dangers like this?

I am now looking at the Wikipedia definition of "treason". Among other things, it says -
Wikipedia wrote:
Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]."


The problem with this definition is that it refers to a "foreign government" - not an ideological cult, which is what Islam really is. I believe existing laws are woefully inadequate to cope with the situation that the West now faces. They are very much framed in terms in "foreign governments", not followers of an international hate-ideology like Islam.

I personally believe that by their recent actions (such as allowing sharia courts in the UK, and allowing the Ground Zero mosque in the US), the governing ministers of the UK (and the government of the US as well) are acting so as to (at the very least) "seriously injure the host nation". Is that not "treason"? If it is not, then what is it? Subversion, maybe?
It *must* be subversion at the very least, surely.
- go_the_paras

User avatar
MSI64
Celebrity Member
Celebrity Member
Posts: 699
Joined: Thu 27 Nov, 2008 11:41 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Sharia Law

#9 Post by MSI64 »

And the Jewish community have had the same sort of system for years, but no one is seen shouting the odds!!!
Its the Daily Mail (Daily Hate)

Sharia law covers disputes and financial matters amongst the Muslim community.
The Muslims are todays whipping boys please dont believe the hype.
We are not living in a muslim state, they are not taking over. We are never going to be be heading people in your local football stadium.

Oh and the ground zero Mosque you talk about is five yes five blocks away from ground zero. And even if it wasnt why shouldnt it be bulit at ground zero??? did no muslims die at ground zero????
Courage which goes against military expediency is stupidity, or, if it is insisted upon by a commander, irresponsibility."

"So long as one isn't carrying one's head under one's arm, things aren't too bad."

Erwin Rommel (Desert Fox)

nudrat
New Member
New Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri 09 Jan, 2015 5:13 am

Re: Sharia Law

#10 Post by nudrat »

It may be a no vote but is any one going to pay any heed to it or are they going to just go ahead with the dam treaty. Now once they have cut back on the EU funding that goes to Ireland some thing £3 million per day which works out at about pound per person per day. Now once the aid has been cut back and Ireland begins to hurt and they ask them again what do you think the answer will be ???????
Get ccnp guide demos for test king and ccnp switch 300-115 official certification guide - pass-4sure with 100% success guaranteed. Our high quality security study guide pdf prepares you well before appearing in the final exams of selftestengine gmat.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests