From Magna Carta to Sharia Law – Britain’s Decline

Before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, few us knew anything about Islam, and no one had heard of sharia law. A couple of years ago even, it seemed unimaginable that Britain would adopt Islamic law.
 
We have sunk further and quicker than we thought possible. Today we learned that sharia courts (which have operated illegally in Britain until now) are being re-classed as tribunal hearings, making their judgments legally binding. According to the Daily Express, “new powers have been given to tribunals in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.” According to the Daily Mail, this “[…] new network of courts […] agree[s] to be bound by traditional sharia law, and under the 1996 Arbitration Act the court's decisions can then be enforced by the county courts or the High Court.”
 
It is almost unbelievable that this should occur in a modern, democratic, Western country, and, moreover, under a government that claims to be liberal, and to care about the right of women and homosexuals among others. But, tracing the actions of the pro-Islamic Labour Party, and of modern liberalism more generally, it should have been predictable. Modern liberalism is not a force for human rights and equality (though it still uses these terms where they can be of use in breaking down British tradition); it is a selfish urge for freedom for one’s own self – others be damned. Multiculturalism frees the liberal from the demands of ‘culture.’ Mass immigration frees him from the need to know his history. Invoking the Inquisition of three hundred years ago frees him from having to confront the reality of Islamic fundamentalism. The establishment of sharia law no doubt frees him from holding any position whatsoever.
 
I have pointed out before, that the Labour government has colluded with extremist Muslims, even employing a Holocaust denier as an advisor on Muslim affairs. Ken Livingstone, the former Left-wing Mayor of London, has also openly embraced Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a man who believes that wives can be beaten into submission, that homosexuals should be executed, and pregnant Israeli women should be murdered. The UK’s Left-wing Respect Coalition Party asserts that opposition to radical Islam is “the new racism,” and this dangerous sentiment is now received wisdom among those closer to the center of the political spectrum. But Islam is neither a race nor ethnicity, but a religion, and one that has Asian, Black, and White followers. A 2006 UK government report entitled ‘Young Muslims and Extremism,’ notes that a significant number of White Britons were being drawn into Islamic terrorism, and we have seen a few example of White Muslim jihadis since then.
 
The sharia courts operating in Britain, will hear and pass legally binding judgment on cases involving divorce, financial disputes, and even domestic violence. But, it will not end there. According to the Daily Mail, sharia court officials have said, that they hope, “[…] to take over growing numbers of 'smaller' criminal cases in future,” and extremist clerics have already asserted their aims to establish sharia law for everyone in Britain. Only yesterday, the Sun newspaper showed a video of radical clerics announcing plans to take over Britain:
It may be by pure conversion that Britain will become an Islamic state. We may never need to conquer it from the outside.

This, among other similar pronouncements, was made at a rally billed as a debate on whether the West had “learned the lessons” of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Apparently, we have not.
 
Sharia law regards women as inferior to men, and non-Muslims as inferior to Muslims, and it demands the execution of homosexuals. Sharia courts in Britain have already tried cases in domestic violence, and have issued no punishments beyond requiring the abuser get mentoring from Muslim elders and to attend anger management classes. In my opinion, this is an entirely unacceptable judgment for those who inflict violence on women. According to the Daily Mail, again:

In one recent inheritance dispute in Nuneaton, a Muslim man's estate was spit was between three daughters and two sons with each son receiving twice as much as each daughter – in keeping with sharia law.

The establishment of sharia law in Britain, even on a minor scale, not only undermines British law and culture of equality ‘under the law,’ with cases judged by a jury of one’s peers, but is implicitly menacing to people of all non-Muslim religions, atheists, conservatives, women, homosexuals, and people of all racial and ethnic backgrounds.
 
Conservatives and Christians have criticized the so-called “gay lifestyle,” and liberals have always furiously denounced those conservatives and Christians for saying this. But liberals are those who have remained utterly silent when extremist Muslim clerics have called for the execution of homosexuals or the beating of women. The liberal establishment generally, and the Labour government in particular, has betrayed their professed belief in human rights and equality, and are ushering in extremism and intolerance. If their proposed new Bill of Rights for the UK goes ahead as planned, extremist Muslims may have yet another advantage, as it is proposed that religious minorities will be given additional rights, thus possibly reinforcing sharia.
 
Whatever their difference, the people of Britain must form a broad coalition to oppose such extremism. The homosexual man or woman, the Hindu, Sikh, and atheist, have as much to lose as the White British Christian.



Some Very Good Answers

To armor

Would you kindly mail me on wirebiz@tiscali.co.uk

Thanks.

Jews and Brittany

KO said: "By contrast, Jews have been present in Europe from ancient times. If you try to get rid of Jews, you are mutilating your own body politic."

In France, many of the Jews are recent arrivals from North Africa (1962). We are not in a position to get rid of them, but it is time we began to protest against their omnipresence in the media. I don't know what is your theory about the importance of the Jews in the body politic. I live in Brittany, where we do not have a "body politic" of our own. We do elect politicians, but they are mainly decorative and coopted by the French political system. There has never been a French tradition of democracy as there was in the United States. The French "body politic" has always been antagonistic to the French population, in the same way that Jewish organizations are antagonistic to European identity. Obviously, the absence of democracy was even worse in Brittany, Alsace and other places, where people are not French and do not have any political influence. In those places, Paris has been deliberately destroying our languages, and the policy continues to this day. Surprisingly, there has been little popular resistance. People have accepted the destruction of their language and nation in the same way they now accept to be displaced by third-world immigrants. In Brittany, we do not have any independent political life, and we cannot listen to a Breton point of view on the radio or television. A few local radio stations do programs in Breton but I can only hear them on the internet. What we have is the big French stations airing their programs from Paris. Well, my experience is that Radio-France-Culture, which is the most completely Jewish state-owned radio-station in France, is more anti-Breton than any other station. They do not usually mention Brittany, but if they do, we can count on them to be even more hostile than any French minister of education to the idea of teaching Breton language in schools. I think they are simply anti-white, which explains why they have recently become anti-Russian. So, if the Jews disappeared from the french body politic, I wouldn't miss them. And I don't need the rest of the french body politic either.

"The predominant liberalism of Jews"
/ "not a reason to distinguish Jews in any other way"

The Jews are very different from the rest of us whether or not they are liberal. Let's take anti-Russian propaganda. It seems to be entirely a Jewish thing. I don't think European/American leftists are usually anti-Russian.

Moderate

Armor: I do not believe in a moderate Islam. I am not a Jew and I think neo-cons are idiots. I suggest you go somewhere else with your nonsense.

Charles the Hammer

Hey guys,
Help me out here. I have a squidoo site dedicated to Charles (The Hammer) Martell, there's a thought provoking youtube vid on there. Would be nice to get some hits. I'm not selling anything on there apart form two books from Amazon.
Cheers
Charles the Hammer

Jews prefer the MultiCult to an English England.

First, let’s scotch the notion of the Islamification of Britain. There are no more than 3 million Muslims out of an inevitably “diverse” population of over 60 million. Britain isn’t France or Holland. Native Britons will not be delivered to their fate through the process of social Islamification, or through a specifically Moslem demographic explosion.Rather, native Britons, and most especially my own English people, are drifting towards near extinction through what I have termed the Four Horsemen of the European Apocalypse: political marginalisation, local displacement, national dispossession and deracination.Second, the causes of this genocide (and, yes, it meets the terms for genocide as set out under Article 2 of the Geneva Convention of 1948) are the same in Britain as everywhere else, principally the nature of hyper-individualism, the interests of the power elites and Jewish ethno-aggression - probably in that order. Moslems are passive beneficiaries. They are tools, not politically or metapolitically significant in themselves.  If a nationalist mindset existed they could be easily dispensed with.But it's precise that which the liberal and power elites and the Jewish political actors and ideologists desire to avoid.Let the Moslems have their law.  Don't object to it.  On the contrary, let us encourage Moslems' profound incapacity to join with us, for assimilation - and the deracination and self-estrangement it would visit upon us - is the fervent desire of liberal and Jew alike. Balkanise, balkanise, balkanise.  The MultiCult must be destroyed, and with it the ambitions of all those who desire our submersion in the seas of the Third World.

@onecent

I believe you are correct, France is undoubtedly a goner. Holland may have a chance…
On second thought, Holland is quite probably a goner too.

@ Atlanticist911

You are most welcome. My greatest concern is that I, as an American, have a much greater love for Britain than a significant percentage of the current British population does. Keep a stiff upper lip, and may God save Britain as well as the Queen.
 

Thanks, BollekeBoy

Two of my personal favourites are the hymn "Jerusalem" and "I Vow To Thee My Country", both  available on Youtube.

I disagree, KO

"....time spent responding to Armor's views, but it is worthwhile."

Not really. A lot of time has been spent responding to Armor over the time I've posted here and he/she always defaults to racism and anti-semitism. So who's being educated?

It keeps Armor around and legitimatizes Armor's behavior. There is a sociopathic quality to Armor as with most racists and anti-semitics. In my professional life most of us have learned that engaging sociopaths is futile.

That Fjordman a respected writer whose articles are here and at Gates of Vienna agrees says something.

To Armor

Jews and Moslems are differently situated. Moslems are mostly recent immigrants and a decision can be made to stop accepting, and encourage the departure of, all alien and hostile peoples. By contrast, Jews have been present in Europe from ancient times. If you try to get rid of Jews, you are mutilating your own body politic. The Germans were really insane to allow themselves to be talked into hurting themselves so badly! No need for us to hurt ourselves by ejecting those who have been joined to us for so long.

The predominant liberalism of Jews would be a good reason not to permit a numerous Jewish immigration (not that any is threatened) but it is not a reason to distinguish Jews in any other way. Nothing else you say about Jews requires any kind of legal or social disability, though you should certainly be able to voice your opinions and test them in open debate.

Moslems, on the other hand, should not be permitted to create organizations to further their anti-Western, anti-Christian, and anti-Jewish programs. Islam is hostile to Western societies by definition, the definition including that Western societies are not Moslem and would cease to be Western societies if they became Moslem.

Antisemitism 2

Thanks for your concern below, Onecent, about time spent responding to Armor's views, but it is worthwhile. That is because our dominant liberal culture, in which everyone alive today in the West has been indoctrinated, totally denies basic realities about race and ethnicity as a way of promoting a utopian, left-liberal vision of society. A person who is fed left-liberal propaganda all his life may latch on to ideas about race and ethnicity that are wrong, but that at least deal with basic realities of race and ethnicity that the dominant culture denies or suppresses. The motivation for latching on to wrong ideas can be either a passion for truth--the desire for some verbal or philosophical representation of reality that is more accurate than liberal lies--or aggrievement at injustice, in particular the injustice inflicted on peoples through immigration policy (which Armor refers to as "race replacement") or racial favoritism supposedly intended to compensate past injustice.

Thomas Sowell is a great writer on race and ethnicity and has several excellent books on the different proclivities of races and ethnicities all over the world. Such proclivities, documented by extensive research, make nonsense of the liberal fantasy of equal results, equal representation in all occupations, and equal participation in government and the economy, for all.

Wrong ideas about race and ethnicity represent a failure of culture and a failure of conservative leadership. Conservative leaders would rather pretend to be liberal egalitarians than expressly recognize that races and ethnicities are real things that have a determining effect on peoples' behavior. They are frequently liberals in many respects.

The liberal view is that any differentiation of races and ethnicities, except to correct injustice on the way to the left-liberal utopia, is racist and/or antisemitic. That excludes so much of the truth of reality that it cannot be accepted by intelligent people. In reality, races and ethnicities exist and it is possible to make well- or ill-informed generalizations about them. Is anything less than wholehearted cheerleading for Jews "antisemitism"? Is any observation regarding undesirable traits of immigrant groups like West Africans, North Africans, or Mexicans "racism"? If so, I submit there is good racism and bad racism, good antisemitism and bad antisemitism.

Bad racism and bad antisemitism would be in evidence if a statement is inaccurate, or intended to unjustly scapegoat a people or individual for the actions of others, or is used to avoid evaluating someone on his individual merits where such an individual evaluation is appropriate, or if someone only wants to know and say the bad about people rather than the good. Good racism or good antisemitism would be based on fact or experience, subject to testing against other sources, fair in its application or non-application to individuals, and open to acknowledging positive as well as negative traits of groups.

Someone who strives for truth and justice will seek to drop bad antisemitism and bad racism from his character and speech. If he adheres to good racism and good antisemitism (which may coexist with a healthy dose of philosemitism) based on experience and information and subject to testing, and is willing to see the positive as well as the negative features of races and ethnicities, and does not deprive people of the right to be treated individually in appropriate circumstances (e.g., a job interview), he will be able to add valuable information to policy discussions and to other discussions related to an infinite variety of personal or collective decisions--unless he is a victim of liberal outrage that tries to crush any truth that impedes the march to utopia.

anti-Semitism

Fjordman: "Armor's rabidly anti-Semitic comments"
1cent: "a vile racist and antisemitic."

A new definition of "racist" and "antisemite":
a racist antisemite is someone who claims that Jews are not greater friends of Europe than Arabs.

Fjordman and 1cent are clearly not racist. They think that Muslims are scum, while Jews, who are our greatest friends, are actually more European than the Europeans.

What I find surprising is the contrast between your virulent anti-muslimism and your hypersensitivity to any criticism of the Jews. I could understand a desire to minimize the Jewish problem, but you actually deny the West has any Jewish problem at all!

KO wrote: "you are lumping all Jews together with liberal Jews, and identifying liberal misdeeds with Jewish misdeeds. Liberal Jews, like liberal Gentiles, make common cause with Moslems against the native population by promoting immigration, appeasement, multiculturalism..."

Maybe so, but as you say yourself, "many Jews are liberal". In fact, most Jews are pro-immigration Jewish ethnocentrists, while most Europeans are anti-immigration. It doesn't matter that a few "Jewish conservatives" may be opposed to immigration. If the media was not controlled by a small minority that supports race replacement, I think immigration from the third-world would soon stop. That small minority seems to be Jewish-led, which is why we hear so much about Jews in the media.

When you mention "western civilization" and say that "Jews and Moslems are different", somehow you lump all Westerners together, all Jews together, and all Muslims together. We know there are always exceptions, but it it all right to make generalizations.

In the case of Muslims, you could make a distinction between peaceful Muslim citizens and Muslim agitators. But the neocons will tell us that moderate islam does not exist anyway. (If you google "moderate islam does not exist", you arrive at Jewish neocon websites). The neocons would rather lump all muslims together. For example, they don't care about the obvious difference between Black African Muslims and Arab/Middle-Eastern Muslims. I think they are wrong. Black Muslims usually do not wear burqas, do not practice honor killings, and are not very interested in committing islamic terrorism. The damage done to Europe by African immigration has nothing to do with islam.

In the case of Jews, the distinction between liberals and conservatives does not matter to me, as I think both sides mainly comprise ethnocentrists who support the replacement of Europeans. This is especially true of "neo-conservatives". The labels "liberal" and "conservative" can not mean the same thing for Jews and non-Jews. The first priority of a European conservative should be to conserve European people. But the Jews are not us. For example, I have a preference for non-Jews, while Jews have a preference for the Jews. Jews are very interested in what happens in Israel, while I'm fed up of hearing about Israel and Palestine. A European will support "multiculturalism" out of nihilism and a wish to destroy his own people. A Jew will support "multiculturalism" as a way to preserve his community. It isn't the same perspective at all. Concerning immigration, why should the Jews care about saving our European genes? I don't care about their genes and they don't care about mine. When they say that "western civilization" must be saved, the participation of Europeans is not required. Even if you can find a few Jews who will disapprove of immigration from Africa, they will not feel about it as strongly as I do, and they will still support immigration of Jews from Iraq, Georgia, and other lands.

I object

I strongly object to banning anyone, especially someone like Armor. 

Armor is no fool, compared with most, although he is very wrong in some of his opinions.  On the other hand, he has been able to give reasonably accurate descriptions of certain situations around the world.  The problem lies with his judgment and his 'values', and that problem is linked to a certain blindness to presented arguments.   But, I think, in that he is not different from most Europeans, and certainly not from most non-Europeans in the world.  

Thank you, Fjordman

Thank you, Fjordman, I'm sick seeing every thread degraded by Armor's and a few other's blatant racism and anti-Semitism.

When I criticize Islam/Muslims it's from a position of hating the ideology and not the ethnicity of its adherents.

It's time that BJ's redeem their brand by banning the outright racists and anti-Semitics.

@Bollekeboy

I hope the Brits can reverse the rot too. Leaving the EU must be accomplished in order to do this. I think many in the British public agree. And, Ireland has made it easier for them if they ever get a referendum vote. Fortunately Labour will be out, but, Cameron is no Thatcher. If the BNP picks up a surprisingly larger number of votes that will keep the Conservatives from backsliding.

Reading the comments on British newspaper sites gives one hope. Those that respond are overwhelmingly furious at the demise of their country.

France and Holland in my opinion are goners.

new brittany

GOODNESS GRACIOUS ME!

RULE BRITTANIA

The decline of once great European nations into the future EUrabia is very sad indeed.  However, the decline of Britain, the mother country of all the Anglosphere, is heart-breaking in a way that is impossible to describe with mere words. I pray that the British people will rouse themselves and take back their country. Britain has a most glorious past, and I am holding out hope for her future.
 
RULE BRITTANIA!
 
http://www.cix.co.uk/~lumpkin/rulebrit.mp3

Bad Comments

I have to agree: Armor's rabidly anti-Semitic comments undermine the credibility of this website.

KO, Armor doesn't deserve a response

Ko, you are really wasting minutes in your life that you will never get back in responding to Armor who has demonstrated over and over again that he/she is a vile racist and antisemitic.

Why he/she isn't banned from BJ's is a mystery to me. This isn't a free speech issue, it's about decency and decorum on a serious website. I suspect that many who pass through here read Armor in the comments and refuse to join in any discussion here. It's not helping BJ's message.

Jews and Moslems 2

I don't think the Jews belong to the same "civilization" as me.

Not all Jews, true, but Western Jews do. Some of them probably have the same outlook on almost all topics. Of course, many Jews are liberal so they do not have the same outlook, but they have the characteristic outlook of many liberal people in our civilization. I would agree that Eastern and African Jews are fairly remote from Western civilization, even more so than Eastern and African Christians.

What makes European civilization European is our European genes, not any cultural influence from the Middle-East.

The continuity of Western civilization from generation to generation is a matter of both genes and culture. You can't separate them. It is a matter of debate at what point a racial or cultural mixture changes the character of the people.

Preposterous!

Au contraire. From Day 1 of the Christian era, the debate was whether Christians had to follow Jewish law. Paul and Peter created the West by bringing Christianity to the Gentiles without requiring them to follow Jewish law. When an Eastern bishop burned down a synagogue, the orthodox Christian emperor, Theodosius, required him to pay for it. Archbishop Ambrose condemned this lenience. The modern West is descended from the Christianized barbarians and the Christianized Romans. Among ourselves and with the Jews we have been debating our interrelationships, as stated above, from Day 1.

The current Moslem invasion is the result of an invitation extended by the West, and the Jews are largely responsible for that invitation.

I thought French and the British politicians opened their doors to Moslems to get cheap labor and to maintain beneficial relationships with the former colonies, thus maintaining the prestige of having once been colonial powers. Jews had little to do with such policies except insofar as Jews are part of the liberal elite that sees immigration as a means of fastening totalitarian government on native European populations and destroying their sovereignty and traditional culture.

I see Jews and Muslims as allies against Europeans, except that the Muslims are politically passive.

Again, you are lumping all Jews together with liberal Jews, and identifying liberal misdeeds with Jewish misdeeds. Liberal Jews, like liberal Gentiles, make common cause with Moslems against the native population by promoting immigration, appeasement, multiculturalism, white guilt, socialism, pornography, atheism, nihilism, and anything else they believe will promote the cherished destruction of the traditional Western order in favor of the managed utopia (really the Clockwork Orange) of liberal fantasy.

Jews and Moslems

"Jews and Moslems are different. Jews are part of European civilization"

I don't think the Jews belong to the same "civilization" as me. They certainly do not have the same outlook. Many Jews have mixed ancestry. Many of them are partly European. But their influence can only make western civilization LESS European. Many other Jews have no European ancestry at all.

"European civilization, which is built in part on the Christian modification of Hebrew revelation"

What makes European civilization European is our European genes, not any cultural influence from the Middle-East.

"are an essential part of the West"

like the Gypsies!

"The terms on which Jews have participated in Western society have varied and have been a matter of debate, but that debate itself is fundamental to Western culture."

preposterous!

"Moslems have a religious obligation to invade and dominate non-Moslems."

The current Moslem invasion is the result of an invitation extended by the West, and the Jews are largely responsible for that invitation. It has nothing to do with previous invasions of Europe by Turks and Arabs.

"They have been doing that for 1400 years."

And European nations have been expelling Jews for centuries and centuries. But the Jews kept coming back.

"It is ridiculous to say that Jews and Moslems should be treated the same. Jews are our fellow citizens. Moslems are hostile foreigners."

I see Jews and Muslims as allies against Europeans, except that the Muslims are politically passive. They are being used. They have not organized immigration to Europe, they have never tried to debase European culture by making the promotion of contemporary art, they are not interested in phony intellectual debates, they have never tried to impersonate European conservatives, they have never bothered to make a defense of "multiculturalism", they have not seized control of the media and do not force me to listen to anti-European propaganda 24/7.

Liberal universalism is not the solution

Liberal thinking will not save the West.  It is liberal thinking to apply universalist principles at the wrong level of existence.  By universalism, I mean treating everyone (and everything) the same.  But people (and things) are different. 

Jews and Moslems are different.  Jews are part of European civilization, which is built in part on the Christian modification of Hebrew revelation.  Jews were dispersed by the Romans on more than one occasion, and traveled throughout the West on their own impetus, and are an essential part of the West.  The terms on which Jews have participated in Western society have varied and have been a matter of debate, but that debate itself is fundamental to Western culture.

Moslems are completely different.  Islam is an anti-Christian, anti-Jewish revelation originating on the outskirts of the Christian Roman empire, which inspired its adherents to invade and dominate their Jewish and Christian neighbors.   Moslems have a religious obligation to invade and dominate non-Moslems.  They have been doing that for 1400 years.   There is no place for accommodation with Islam in Western countries because Islam is by its essence antagonistic to the West.

It is ridiculous to say that Jews and Moslems should be treated the same.  Jews are our fellow citizens.  Moslems are hostile foreigners.  They can become fellow citizens if they submit to common laws and really renounce the core Islamic belief in the right and destiny of Moslems to dominate non-Moslems, but no Moslem who wants to establish a sharia court really wants to be a fellow citizen.

A sound conservative view will draw a distinction between Jews and Moslems.  Thus, Jews should be permitted to establish separate courts where parties may voluntarily agree to have monetary disputes arbitrated under a specific law.  Jewish law is not hostile to Western law and has a 2000-year history of being applicable in Jewish communities in Western countries.  However, criminal law and family law should remain the monopoly of sovereign Western states.  At most, a settlement facilitated by a mediator applying Jewish law in a family law context could be ratified in a public court.  There is no place for "choice of law" in the criminal law context.

Islamic law has a 1400-year history of being an instrument of domination of non-Moslems who have the misfortune to be conquered by Moslems.   It is a pillar of a religion which is hostile to the West, Western peoples, and Western cultures.  All Western governments should determine that it is against public policy to permit the application of Islamic law to any matter, even with the apparent consent of the parties.   If people want to have their disputes decided by Islamic law, let them go to Saudi Arabia.

The West needs to recover its understanding of its own unique culture.  It needs to develop and defend it.  It must not evacuate it to the point there is nothing left but an "equals sign" (=) that can be placed between any two persons or things.  Every person and every thing must be treated according to what it is, not according to some gnostic delusion that everything is the same.  Westerners need to defend the West.  That means making no accommodation to an inherently anti-Western religion or the laws or other institutions of that religion.  Accepting Islamic law because all laws are laws and all cultures are cultures is suicidal.  It would be like saying milk and strychnine are both liquids, so we can drink both equally.

Should not be allowed for ANY religion.....

Is the implementation of Jewish law as a principle equally dangerous in undermining our legal system?
Or not?
Should it be allowed (regarding family issues many similarities exist between the jewish and muslim system) for Jews but not for Muslims? For Hindus?
I'd be very interested in some or your reactions.

REPLY: Absolutely not. They should not be allowed as part of the mainstream, or as separate from what's already on the books. All that does is promote groupism. A country should be united under that countrys laws. With no special treatements for particular groups, be they a religious group, or ethnic group, or a racial group. And if that particular group doesn't like it, then they should leave that country. Hypothetically speaking, lets say a Muslim in the UK is accused of beating his wife(wives). He now has the option of taking his case to a sharia court. A court with laws that favor the wife beating husband. He goes to that court, and probably receives a slap on the wrist as punishment. Should he not be tried under the laws of the UK as well? Because the alleged crime took place on UK soil? The same should apply for other faiths. You live in a country, you abide by the laws of the land no matter how you worship.

The Liberal Elites often cry the blues when it comes to "separation of church and state." Where are they when it comes to this situation in the UK? No where to be found. Just like they are no where to be found when it comes to treatment of women by the islamic faith, as mentioned by someone else on here. Again, the silence is deafening.

Call me a kook theorist, but I really do believe it's all part of a combined effort between Islam and the Polticial Left to slowly but surely dismantle western civilization, and what it stands for. And the liberal elites are opening the door wider every day in allowing this to happen.

Jewish law?

Apart from the risk of bearded extremist imams like Qaradawi gaining ground by these sharia-law regulations, I would like to ask for your opinions on similar law regulations for the orthodox Jewish community, something which the big ultraorthodox communities in Antwerp, London and Paris very often already practice on an informal scale within their own circles, and would love to see regulated and implemented officially. Ritual slaughter inside the EU is discussed on the same basis for muslims, jews, and sikhs, and is already an active example of religious law bypassing the existing legal system in many countries.
Is the implementation of Jewish law as a principle equally dangerous in undermining our legal system?
Or not?
Should it be allowed (regarding family issues many similarities exist between the jewish and muslim system) for Jews but not for Muslims? For Hindus?
I'd be very interested in some or your reactions.

the first purpose of sharia law is

to provide cover and protection to an Islamic culture within another culture.   That community, protected, nourished, and supported by the Sharia legal system, can then move to infiltrate and convert what the main culture refuses to defend and protect.   

It can also engage in a democratic system to special interest bidding to reserve areas, funds, and institutions as its own. The main legal and cultural body, once it accepts sharia law as its own law, must also accept its rulings, its supporting culture, its gender differences, its inflexible intolerance.

Legally and culturally, it will a wonderful "invasion of the bodysnatchers" moment, so long as you live in another place.  This is, of course, the middle ages all over again.   And the Left, blinded by whatever universalist principles they think hold sway, blind to decades of Communism, will not acknowledge the end of its own principles by sharia, just as it never acknowledge the work of Communism during that time.

Where are the west's feminists?

But liberals are those who have remained utterly silent when extremist Muslim clerics have called for the execution of homosexuals or the beating of women.

Indeed. Where's the outrage from western feminists over the treatment of women under Islam? Their silence is deafening. A half a billion women living under macho male bondage and not a word of indignation. Drinking the Koolaid of the left and the left's MSM both the feminists and their gay rights counterparts denounce Christianity as more dangerous. How stupid is that?  Keeping abortion on demand, denouncing white males and the nuclear family is where their energy is spent. They are disgusting.
 
We will never beat back militant Islam unless we stop the lunacy of their left/socialist collaborators. Every election in the west counts. Every denounciation of the left's MSM counts.  Time is running out, folks.
 
 

Total Disbelief.....

I weep for not so Great Britian. Churchill must be bouncing off the sides of his casket with this news.  I just finished watching the film "Obsession."  It was a real eye opener, and with this move, the UK will be opening the doors to allowing the jihadis to run rampent. Their Sharia will excuse their actions. Given them an inch, and they will just want more. Is this what Britain wants? To have two separate societies with two separate sets of laws?  If I were a citizen, I would write to my MP immediately expressing outrage over this. When will Britian and Europe learn?  When it's too late. And that will be when they will come running to the US for help. I hope I am not around to see it.

Liberal opposition to Islam

Thanks to Mr. Millar for his sobering news.  I look forward to his developing a conservative, non-liberal analysis of the incompatibility of Islam with Western societies.  His emphasis on the rights of women and homosexuals seems aimed to provoke liberal opposition to Islamization, which would be more appropriate to a mainstream newspaper than TBJ. 

Conservatives wish to preserve and nurture the "ordered liberty" of their own nations and civilization.   Islamic societies have preyed on Western nations for 1400 years.   To make a place for anything related to Islam in a Western society without explaining how it is possible to tolerate Islam's anti-Western, anti-Christian, and anti-Jewish religious tenets creates an appearance of betrayal.  

Islam may be great in its way, but it belongs in Saudi Arabia.