The following story is from DanielPipes.org :
Why Shariah Must Be Opposed
by Daniel Pipes National Post August 5, 2009
http://www.danielpipes.org/7493/why-shariah-must-be-opposed
Those of us who argue against Shariah are sometimes asked why Islamic law poses a problem when modern Western societies long ago accommodated Halakha, or Jewish law. In fact, this was one of the main talking points of those who argued that Shariah should become an accepted part of dispute resolution in Ontario in 2005.
The answer is easy: a fundamental difference separates the two. Islam is a missionizing religion, Judaism is not. Islamists aspire to apply Islamic law to everyone, while observant Jews seek only to live by Jewish law themselves.
Two very recent examples from the United Kingdom demonstrate the innate imperialism of Islamic law.
Picture of the Queens Care Centre from the outside. |
His stealthy decision meant pensioners at QCC could no longer eat their bacon and eggs, bangers and mash, ham sandwiches, bacon sandwiches, pork pies, bacon butties, or sausage rolls. The switch prompted widespread anger. The relative of one resident called it "a disgrace. The old people who are in the home and in their final years deserve better. … [I]t's shocking that they should be deprived of the food they like on the whim of this man." A staff member opined that it's "quite wrong that someone should impose their religious and cultural beliefs on others like this."
Assistant Chief Constable Jackie Roberts of the Avon and Somerset police force models the hijab for non-Muslims. |
A second example of imposing Shariah on non-Muslims comes from southwest England. The Avon and Somerset police force patrols the cities of Bristol and Bath as well as surrounding areas has just issued hijabs to female officers. The hijabs, distributed at the initiative of two Muslim groups and costing £13 apiece, come complete with the constabulary's emblem.
Now, issuing hijabs as part of uniforms in Great Britain is nothing new – the London police led the way in 2001, followed by other police forces, at least one fire brigade, and even the furniture chain Ikea. What sets the Avon and Somerset hijabs apart from these others is their being intended not just for pious Muslim female staff but also for non-Muslim staff, in particular for their use upon entering mosques.
[Rashad Azami of the Bath Islamic Society finds it "highly pleasing" that the constabulary took this step. One of the seven non-Muslim officers to receive a hijab of her very own, Assistant Chief Constable Jackie Roberts, calls it "a very positive addition to the uniform and one which I'm sure will be a welcome item for many of our officers."
[Dhimmitude is the term Bat Ye'or coined to describe subservience to Shariah by non-Muslims. Assistant Chief Constable Roberts' enthusiasm for the hijab might be called "advanced dhimmitude."]
"Hijab bullies" (as David J. Rusin of Islamist Watch calls them) who coerce non-Muslim females to cover up are just one stripe of Islamist imposing Shar'i ways on the West. Other Islamists focus on impeding the uncensored discussion of such topics as Muhammad and the Koran or Islamist institutions or terrorist financing; still others exert to bring taxpayer-funded schools, hospitals, and jails into conformity with Islamic law, not to speak of taxi cabs and municipal swimming pools. Their efforts don't always succeed but in the aggregate, they are rapidly shifting the premises of Western, and especially British, life.
Returning to pork: both Islam and Judaism abominate the flesh of pigs, so this prohibition offers a direct and revealing comparison of the two religions. Simply put, Jews accept that non-Jews eat pork but Muslims take offense and try to impede pork consumption. That, in brief, explains why Western accommodations to Halakha have no relevance for dealing with Shariah. And why Shariah as public policy must be opposed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aug. 5, 2009 update: Yesterday's Daily Mail offers a coda to the hijabs for non-Muslim British policewomen; how about niqabs for non-Muslim British policewomen?
Three female police officers were ordered to dress up as Muslim women for the day just to see what it felt like. They wore traditional burkhas [DP: sic] as part of a scheme designed to help police interact better with the Islamic community. … The officers, Sergeant Deb Leonard, Sergeant Deb Pickering and Police Community Support Officer Helen Turner, all from Sheffield, were accompanied by four Muslim women to help them learn more about the Islamic faith on a tour of the city. …
A spokesman for the force said the exercise, called "In Your Shoes Day," was designed to help officers interact better with the Muslim community across Sheffield. "This exercise is just one of many activities South Yorkshire Police have planned with communities and ethnic minority leaders to secure strong relationships, celebrate diversity and encourage integration, working towards a safer, closer society," she added. But she said there were no plans to extend the scheme for officers to dress up as members of other minority communities. …
Sergeant Leonard said the experience had given her a greater appreciation of how Muslim women feel when they walk out in public in "clothing appropriate to their beliefs."
Sergeant Deb Leonard (left), PCSO Helen Turner and Sergeant Deb Pickering in, respectively, niqab, hijab, and niqab. |
Aug. 10, 2009 update: David J. Rusin, cited above, uses these same two examples to draw a dfferent conclusion at "Western Dhimmitude: Voluntary vs. Involuntary."
4 comments:
This post stinks as much as it's Zionist author and it's Zionist poster
And the comment by W stinks as much as the islamic apologist and author of the moronic comment does.
Great to see the tolerance of the IslamoFascist morons on display in public for all to scrutinze.
Gar
Just a little anti-semetic, I'd say.
You're lucky though, Norm. You didn't get blasted with the 'F' bomb as I did yesterday by one identifying himself as "MuslimsAgainstSharia."
Funny thing, his avatar included a 'peace symbol,' also known as the footprint of the American chicken.
They want us to model ourselves after a bunch of tyrannts we got rid of back in the 1800s. They want us to model our health care system after that countries. They want us to give up our our guns just like our British, Austrailian, Japanese, etc. friends. This won't happen, just like S%$&@ law will never fly in this country. We will put these people down one way or another...their choice.
Post a Comment