'Our Culture Is Better'

[WeaponOfMassInstruction]

the statement still stands because you will never find any western country in which sharia overwhelms the progression of hedonism and the western progressive liberalism of President Obama

Great Britain has embraces liberalism/socialism to a far greater degree than have we and yet Muslim law's influence on the native British Common Law is expanding as the Muslim population expands. Western-style liberalism (hedonism) isn;t acting as any sort of bulwark against the encroachment of sharia.

If Sharia is imposed, its only imposed on muslims.

just as Jews are governed by Jewish courts in Great Britain.

non-muslims in muslim countries are not governed by sharia

England has several Muslims among its members of Parliament. More than one of them has openly said that his goal is to replace corresponding British Common Law with sharia over time as the Muslim population grows and the native British population shrinks. Note that he is NOT saying that sharia would be only for Muslims; he's calling for ALL Britons to eventually recognize sharia law as the supreme law of the land. And he is using the best liberal tradition- the ballot box- to achieve his goal.

It would be impossible to allow honor killings in western countries when several muslim countries have made honor killing illegal and punishable by imprisonment or death.....

While you are correct in saying that honor killings are rare, you are missing the point.

At present, Britain recognizes sharia law on a very limited basis- such as in the realm of marriage law. But honor killings are a part of Muslim 'marriage law' and is practiced, if rarely, by radical sects of Islam. But there are radical sects of Islam already present not only in Britain but in pretty much all European countries as well. What is to stop them from expanding the influence of sharia via the ballot box (and a healthy dose of intimidation of 'moderates') possibly one day to recognize that honor killings are permissible?

The answer: nothing at all except the will of the non-Muslims and 'moderate' Muslims.

You stated that many Muslim countries have officially outlawed honor killings. OK...so where do the estimated 5000 honor killings take place?

In muslim dominated countries, the non-muslim populations are not governed by Sharia so I do not see why muslims in western countries would want to impose sharia on non-muslims.

Sharia only governs muslims

For example, in Malaysia, a non-muslim girl can wear the skimpiest shorts in states governed by sharia

Again, the British Muslim MP I spoke of isn't advocating sharia for just Muslims; he's advocating that it replace British Common Law and that everyone who lives in a Muslim Britain live under its strictures. This is the overwhelming danger in allowing virtually unlimited immigration while not demanding assimilation.

[WeaponOfMassInstruction]

Weaps, It is amazing how you can continue to get things half-way right. Read Kelo v. New London again. The Supreme Court actually ruled in favor of "States Rights" in this case. They deferred to the Legislative Process, the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. Isn't that what they are supposed to do? Not be Legislators? Not be Activists? Or is only when they don't agree with you?

Jim Rutledge

p.s. I happen to think the seizure of land by The City of New London was horrible, and my state (Missouri) and others have taken constitutional steps to prevent such seizures. So it seems to be an issue left to the States. What's so bad with that?

Because in this instance the Constitution already defines under what circumstances eminent domain may be justifiably implemented. State law may not override the United States Constitution and in this case I think it has.

Did the people vote on Kelo? No. They did vote for their legislators who used their judgement to violate the Constitution, but the people did not have a direct voice in the process.

As for the steps your state and others have taken....you do know that they are completely meaningless, don't you? Because of the Kelo decision, SCOTUS has ruled that there really are no restrictions on the use of eminent domain- or at least none that are against the Federal Constitution. And no state law can trump the Constitution. So how can a state law that restricts eminent domain be Constitutional?

[pubjohn47]

England has several Muslims among its members of Parliament. More than one of them has openly said that his goal is to replace corresponding British Common Law with sharia over time as the Muslim population grows and the native British population shrinks. Note that he is NOT saying that sharia would be only for Muslims; he's calling for ALL Britons to eventually recognize sharia law as the supreme law of the land. And he is using the best liberal tradition- the ballot box- to achieve his goal.

What aspects of sharia do the MPs want to impose on the general public ?

I am all for anti-abortion and anti-pornography laws, if that is what they want to impose.

And because a minority of muslim MPs want to impose sharia, does not mean its going to get done, when the recent history of the imposition of sharia in muslim dominated countries only applies to muslims.

You cannot get a non-muslim girl in many muslim countries to abandon wearing her skimpy shorts and start wearing conservative clothing and if it cannot be done in a muslim country, it surely cannot be done in western countries

It would be impossible to allow honor killings in western countries when several muslim countries have made honor killing illegal and punishable by imprisonment or death.....

While you are correct in saying that honor killings are rare, you are missing the point.

At present, Britain recognizes sharia law on a very limited basis- such as in the realm of marriage law.

But honor killings are a part of Muslim 'marriage law' and is practiced, if rarely, by radical sects of Islam. But there are radical sects of Islam already present not only in Britain but in pretty much all European countries as well. What is to stop them from expanding the influence of sharia via the ballot box (and a healthy dose of intimidation of 'moderates') possibly one day to recognize that honor killings are permissible?

The answer: nothing at all except the will of the non-Muslims and 'moderate' Muslims.

Even radical sects do honor their women, just as Osama Bin Laden honored one of his wives by letting her leave Afghanistan because she could not take the harsh living conditions

Radical sects within islam are in the minority and will stay in the minority, just as Al-Qaeda is in the minority in the Al-Anbar province of Iraq even though their recruiting propaganda is very effective and if Al-Qaeda is in the minority in a war zone, it surely is a minority in peaceful Europe

You stated that many Muslim countries have officially outlawed honor killings. OK...so where do the estimated 5000 honor killings take place?

The 5000 figure is a world wide figure but compared to the 5000 world wide honor killings, just in the US alone, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner in the year 2000.

ref : http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ipv01.htm

World wide figures of western women killed by jealous boyfriends or husbands is probably at least ten to a hundred times that figure of 1247

So honor killings is a cruel and tragic aspect of muslim societies, just as homicidal crimes of passion against women due to jealous boyfriends or husbands are a cruel and tragic aspect of western societies

[WeaponOfMassInstruction]

What aspects of sharia do the MPs want to impose on the general public ?

ALL aspects. He wants to totally replace British Common Law with Muslim sha'ria.

I am all for anti-abortion and anti-pornography laws, if that is what they want to impose.

It does not take the imposition of sha'ria to achieve this.

And because a minority of muslim MPs want to impose sharia, does not mean its going to get done, when the recent history of the imposition of sharia in muslim dominated countries only applies to muslims.

Again, you are missing the point here completely.

This particular radical Muslim MP was elected by voters who knew full well who and what they were voting for when they elected this man. He ran on a platform of getting rid of centuries of British Common Law and replacing it with Muslim sha'ria law- and not just for Muslims but for EVERYONE in his district. Now I readily concede that, at present, his district is majority Muslim. But it is not entirely Muslim and he makes no apologies for not taking into account the wishes of 'infidels' among his constituents.

Steyn also writes about non-Muslim women who have decided to wear the head scarf- and, in some cases, the entire burka- because Muslim males have intimidated them into doing so. While this is not required by law- at least not yet- why should these women feel compelled to dress in a manner almost certainly not consistent with their own traditions and upbringing? Muslims need to learn a universal truth: you do not have the right to not be offended now and again.

You cannot get a non-muslim girl in many muslim countries to abandon wearing her skimpy shorts and start wearing conservative clothing and if it cannot be done in a muslim country, it surely cannot be done in western countries

Oh I think a few honor killings of these 'decadent infodels'- for that is what they are seen as by these radical Islamists- will take care of any such 'rebellion'.

Pub- women in Western countries are dressing as Muslim women in order to avoid being intimidated by Muslim men. While I have some sympathy for the women who are trying to 'buck the system' in majority Muslim countries, I have a great deal more sympathy for the women in minority Muslim countries- you know, like England- who are being forced to change their habits in order to avoid the unwanted attention of Muslim males who- apparently- cannot control themselves.

Even radical sects do honor their women, just as Osama Bin Laden honored one of his wives by letting her leave Afghanistan because she could not take the harsh living conditions

Radical sects within islam are in the minority and will stay in the minority, just as Al-Qaeda is in the minority in the Al-Anbar province of Iraq even though their recruiting propaganda is very effective and if Al-Qaeda is in the minority in a war zone, it surely is a minority in peaceful Europe

I actually agree with your second comment there.

It's too bad the majority sit silently by while the minority run things.

So honor killings is a cruel and tragic aspect of muslim societies, just as homicidal crimes of passion against women due to jealous boyfriends or husbands are a cruel and tragic aspect of western societies

The difference is that I know of no religious justification among Christians or Jews for such "homicidal crimes of passion". I do know of exactly that sort of justification within Islam (or at least some interpretations of Islam).

[pubjohn47]

What aspects of sharia do the MPs want to impose on the general public ?

ALL aspects. He wants to totally replace British Common Law with Muslim sha'ria.

I am all for anti-abortion and anti-pornography laws, if that is what they want to impose.

It does not take the imposition of sha'ria to achieve this.

Can you list the sharia laws that are proposed by the MPs you do not agree with and those you agree with ?

Steyn also writes about non-Muslim women who have decided to wear the head scarf- and, in some cases, the entire burka- because Muslim males have intimidated them into doing so.

Isn't Steyn's observations anecdotal ?

He might have come across a few paranoid women covering themselves but i am sure its the exception rather than the rule.

As for muslim women being conservative in their clothing and behavior, I notice something quite unique in the middle east.

Thousands of years of conservatism among muslim women has created some very unique micro evolution facial features.

There seems to be a difference between the facial features of muslim women in the middle east compared to non-muslim women in the middle east.

i notice that the facial features of muslim women look much more innocent than non-muslim women (eg secular jews).

Many of the muslim women , even in food starved Gaza, look like "angels" (its pretty remarkable what thousands of years of conservatism can do to a person's facial features ( micro evolution at work )

Even radical sects do honor their women, just as Osama Bin Laden honored one of his wives by letting her leave Afghanistan because she could not take the harsh living conditions

Radical sects within islam are in the minority and will stay in the minority, just as Al-Qaeda is in the minority in the Al-Anbar province of Iraq even though their recruiting propaganda is very effective and if Al-Qaeda is in the minority in a war zone, it surely is a minority in peaceful Europe

I actually agree with your second comment there.

It's too bad the majority sit silently by while the minority run things.

The majority in the Al-Anbar province of Iraq did not just take it lying down; they rebelled against Al-Qaeda and its interpretation of islam.

So if it gets really bad in Europe, I am sure the majority muslims will rebel against the radicals

So honor killings is a cruel and tragic aspect of muslim societies, just as homicidal crimes of passion against women due to jealous boyfriends or husbands are a cruel and tragic aspect of western societies

The difference is that I know of no religious justification among Christians or Jews for such "homicidal crimes of passion". I do know of exactly that sort of justification within Islam (or at least some interpretations of Islam).

In some countries, notably France, crimes of passion (due to murders committed by jealous boyfriends or husbands) was a valid defense during murder cases during the 19th century.

the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (2002) reported that some non-muslim countries such as Brazil, Guatemala, Israel, Peru and Venezuela have partial or complete defenses regarding honor killings

ref : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing

Also, Old Testament Jewish Mosaic code does sanction the stoning of adulterers.

In the New Testament, an adulteress was brought to Jesus to see whether he would sanction the stoning death of the adulteress but Jesus said (paraphrasing here ) that all men have sinned and thereby Jesus set her free.

Honor killings are not sanctioned in the Koran and I could not find any hadith that sanctions honor killings either, unless we are talking about adultery where the punishment follows the Old Testament.

Chapter 24 of the Qur'an, explicitly instructs believers to whip those found guilty of adultery and does not talk about stoning.

Muslim countries such as Azerbaijan, Djibouti, Mozambique, and Turkmenistan have formally abandoned execution as the penalty for all crimes, including adultery and other sex "crimes."

Muslim countries such as Albania, Bosnia, and Turkey still retain the death penalty on the books, but do not perform it in practice. Turkey is expected to formally abandon it in the near future.

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the Sudan, and some of the northern states of Nigeria practice a very strict form of Sharia law. So do the states controlled by the Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS) party in Malaysia.

Few Muslim countries still sentence people to death by stoning. "Two people were stoned to death in Iran last year. A man was stoned for raping and killing his daughter in 2000 in Yemen. In Afghanistan, under the Taliban, adulterous couples were often killed together.

ref : http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_adul2.htm


All other reasons for honor killing (other than adultery) is a cultural rather than a religious cruelty in some muslim and other societies who do not see women as equal to men

but the statistics still show that crimes of passion against women in western countries is by far the more serious problem than honor killings in muslim societies since most muslim women pride themselves in being virgins on their wedding night

[TerryAnne]

PJ...do you know ANYTHING about real Islam? As in...the Koran is totally up for grabs in interpretation?!? Who cares what it says...your mullah tells you what it really says anyway.

[pubjohn47]

PJ...do you know ANYTHING about real Islam? As in...the Koran is totally up for grabs in interpretation?!? Who cares what it says...your mullah tells you what it really says anyway.

That is true,

and that is why muslims have been always disunited ever since Muhammad died, because there are "101" mullahs interpreting the Koran their way

[pubjohn47]

Here is another example of the disunity even within the radical muslim community :

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20081215/wl_csm/ojihadspat


Muslims have been disunited ever since Muhammad died

so there is no way Al-Qaeda can ever hope to achieve any kind of Caliphate in the muslim world.

The theocracies in Gaza and Iran are pretty much concerned with internal politics then trying to create a world wide empire as the US government has done

[Jim Rutledge]

PJ...do you know ANYTHING about real Islam? As in...the Koran is totally up for grabs in interpretation?!? Who cares what it says...your mullah tells you what it really says anyway.

So, let us change the context:

TA . . . . do you know ANYTHING about real Christianity? As in . . . the New Testament is totally up for grabs in interpretation?!?
Who cares what it says . . . your priest, reverend, minister, tells you what it really says anyway.

Jim Rutledge

[Cap'n Billy]

I see Mr. Rutledge is still imagining some sort of cultural equivalence between Christianity and Islam. Pay attention to him or to your own eyes, your choice. Here's the latest from Mr. Wilders, who won't shut up I'm glad to say: Facing Jihad

The government of any country who doesn't want its citizenry to bow to Mecca 5 times a day and experience the other delights of dhimmitude would do well to heed his warning, but I'm sure it will fall on deaf ears.

[pubjohn47]

The government of any country who doesn't want its citizenry to bow to Mecca 5 times a day and experience the other delights of dhimmitude would do well to heed his warning, but I'm sure it will fall on deaf ears.

The governments of muslim countries do not require non-muslims to bow to Mecca and non-muslims have rights in muslim countries.

The solution is not Steyn's approach of being an alarmist but rather President Reagan's approach when President Reagan co-opted those in the middle east, including Saddam Hussein in the 80s

[Jim Rutledge]

I see Mr. Rutledge is still imagining some sort of cultural equivalence between Christianity and Islam.

Yes that is precisely what I am imagining. They are both fundamentally evil. Maybe one more evil than the other, but both fundamentally evil.

Jim Rutledge

[Jeffreydan]

Jim, you've inspired me; I'll be sure to tell members of every Christian & Catholic church within my reach that they oughtta be ashamed of themselves for all the charity work and other help for the downtrodden they perform year after year. Not to mention their reprehensible advice to parishioners to show kindness and generosity to others. Those fundamentally evil Christian people are going to get what they deserve.

[Jim Rutledge]

Jim, you've inspired me; I'll be sure to tell members of every Christian & Catholic church within my reach that they oughtta be ashamed of themselves for all the charity work and other help for the downtrodden they perform year after year.

JeffD, not even close to the point. I am an atheist. I am a member of my local Unitarian-Universalist church. I (and my fellow congregants) contribute a significant amount of our income to "charity work & help for the downtrodden". That contribution and commitment has been one of the most defining aspects of the U-U church.

Jim Rutledge

[pubjohn47]

Jim, you've inspired me; I'll be sure to tell members of every Christian & Catholic church within my reach that they oughtta be ashamed of themselves for all the charity work and other help for the downtrodden they perform year after year. Not to mention their reprehensible advice to parishioners to show kindness and generosity to others. Those fundamentally evil Christian people are going to get what they deserve.

Its not the charity that people complain about;

its some Christian churches supporting the war that does not conform to Jesus asking Jews and his followers to be peacemakers and in being peacemakers we will be called children of God