Western Resistance

« Italy: Woman Dies In Muslim Honor Killing | | UK: Passport Pic Of Five Year Old "Offensive to Muslims" »

August 15, 2006

UK: Muslim Tells Minister He Wants Sharia Law

Earlier today, the Communities minister, Ruth Kelly, held the first of a few scheduled meetings with Muslim "leaders", and according to reports in the BBC, Khaleej Times and Guardian, there were sharp words exchanged on both sides.

Kelly stated: "There is a battle of hearts and minds to be won within the Muslim community," and spoke of the need for government to work with the Muslim community (there are, actually, several communities) "to take on the terrorist and extremist elements that are sometimes found within it, not just in the Muslim community, but elsewhere as well."

"We have all got to step up to the challenge. We have got to work together. Yes, the Muslim community has got to do more, yes we as government have got more to do," she said.

Haras Rafiq, the moderate leader of the newly formed Sufi Muslim Council asked for government help to tackle extremism. His group has the support of 300 mosques in the Midlands and north of England, and he is someone who may be a far better Muslim representative than the politicised extremists at the Muslim Council for Britain. Rafiq gave an honest comment, saying: "The first thing that we need to do as a community is admit there is a problem. It is like being an alcoholic - we need to stand up and say these things and have an open and honest debate."

Another genuine moderate, Khalid Mahmood, the Muslim MP for Perry Barr in Birmingham, had refused to sign the letter which was placed in various newspapers on Saturday. He said at the meeting: "It is just an attempt to raise their own individual profiles so they can ... appease some of the more radical elements of Islam."

The anti-semitic former supporter of bin Laden, Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain argued that Saturday's letter, which has been heavily criticised by non-Muslims in government and the media (apart from the BBC) said it had signatures from a "wide cross section" of the Muslim representatives, and that it was looking to make a "sensible" assessment of whether foreign policy was enhancing or damaging national security.

The criticism the letter received was over the way in which it came over as a threat of more terrorism unless the government let its policies abroad be dictated by Muslims at home.

Bunglawala claimed there was an "acceptance" that extremism existed within "a small section of the community". He said: "The question is what you do to deal with it? We think the responsibility lies on both sides - the communities and the government."

As his organisation supports extremism, and certainly supports Hamas, perhaps Bunglawala's perception of extremism are different to others.

Dr Syed Aziz Pasha, of the Union of Muslim Organisations of the UK & Ireland, said: "We are willing to cooperate but there should be a partnership. They should understand our problems then we will understand their problems."

So far, fairly mundane, and likely to achieve absolutely nothing, apart from a few halal buffets in the future at Westminster.

But what is totally bizarre is the news from the Independent, which states that Pasha had asked for a little more than co-operation.

Pasha has asked for the recognition of holidays for Muslim festivals, which is fairly normal. CAIR have been badgering school boards in the United States for such things since they were first active, even though it would be strange for a school in a non-Muslim area to be celebrating Eid or Mohammed's birthday. Muslims make up less than 3% of the population of Britain.

But Pasha has gone further, far further, asking for special Islamic laws which would apply to Muslims only. He argued that he was not seeking sharia law for criminal offences, but he was wanting to see that Islamic family law could be applied.

The seditious little toad (pictured) said: "In Scotland, they have a separate law. It doesn't mean they are not part of the UK. We are asking for Islamic law which covers marriage and family life. We are willing to co-operate but there should be a partnership. They should understand our problems then we will understand their problems."

Now the BBC quoted part of that statement, the last sentence, as did the Khaleej Times, but NEITHER mentioned his request to introduce sharia law. Too much of a hot potato perhaps? The Guardian's report ignored Pasha altogether.

What does it mean? "We are asking for Islamic law which covers marriage and family life."

In practice at its most basic level, it would mean that in issues of divorce, there would be more rights for the father than the mother over what happened to children. In September last year, there were plans to introduce sharia law into Ontario. Women's groups and others protested around the world, and eventually the plan was thrown out, vilified for its sexism and the threat it posed to existing legislation regarding issues such as child custody and divorce.

Even in a Muslim country, Malaysia, the introduction of an Islamic Family Law Bill caused consternation in December, and was temporarily put on ice in January because of the controversy it invoked.

Malaysia already has sharia courts, but the Family Law Bill would have allowed husbands to freeze the assets of wives and children in divorce cases. This bill openly discriminated against women, and made it easier for husbands to engage in polygamy, which in Islamic Family Law is legal.

It is an absolute disgrace and an affront to Britain's democratic processes, which have been reached over centuries of debate and social evolution, to suddenly expect one class of people to have special laws of their own. And people like Pasha who demand this were not even born in this country.

I believe that his comments have been ignored or downplayed because they would be taken as the last straw, the final proof, for some people in Britain, that Muslims have no place in our society, if they cannot accept our laws as they are.

In cases where a Muslim man marries a non-Muslim woman, what would be the result? Would Pasha want polygamy legal under this arrangement?

And who is Dr Syed Aziz Pasha anyway?

Pasha was given an award in May by the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and the London Islamic Cultural Centre (ICC), for his "invaluable services to Muslims". Pasha was described by Iqbal Sacranie as a "towering figure", who had inspired him by his "dedication and commitment to the Muslim community". Apparently Pasha is said to support unity in the Muslim community. Unity under sharia, perhaps?

In May, Robert Spencer at Jihadwatch and Charles at Little Green Footballs noted that Pasha had complained about the new antiterrorism laws. He had said on 18 April about the clause in the bill which outlawed glorification of terrorism: "The Government is spending more time on anti terror legislation and is taking away Muslims' civil liberties and freedom." LGF quoted an article from the Muslim News which stated: "But Pasha said anti terror legislation was targeted at the Muslims and the new addition of glorification would prevent them from speaking about jihad as this would be considered as terrorism."

What civil liberties and rights were being taken away? The right to praise terrorism? Lord help us, if this idiot is allowed to influence government policy.

Dr Syed Aziz Pasha is a very sick bunny indeed, and I hope he appears more in public and shows how a "towering figure" really thinks when it comes to issues of terrorism.

Pasha, Bunglawala, Bari, Sacranie, and the pro-terrorists in the Muslim Association of Britain are worse than Islamofascists. They are the Islamic Mafia.

Posted by Giraldus Cambrensis at August 15, 2006 12:18 AM

Comments

Posted by: beachhutman at August 15, 2006 1:38 PM

Post a comment