Sharia in the UK?

The Arch-freakin’-Bishop of Canterbury* is saying that sharia law in the UK is inevitable? Holy-effin’-moly! Where’s your convictions man? I’m nearly (but not quite) struck speechless.

In one breath the Archbishop says

Nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that has sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states: the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women,”

Well, yes, I would certainly agree with that. But then he goes on to say:

“But there are ways of looking at marital disputes, for example, which provide an alternative to the divorce courts as we understand them.”

Arrrrgggggggghhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Sorry I couldn’t come up with something more eloquent, but I did say I was nearly struck dumb with the stupidity of it all.)

Doesn’t he get it? Doesn’t he understand? Enforcing sharia based decisions in matters of family law – and especially in matters of divorce – is exactly what underlines the barbaric attitudes to women.

There’s nothing to stop two parties coming to an agreement based on sharia and abiding by it under current UK law. Women – in case of separation, do you want to hand over custody of your children? Do you want to have a “mosque-based” marriage in which you have no rights when it comes to property? Hey, fine by me. Do what you want.

But no way, no how should British courts be enforcing such decisions or routing women of Muslim origin into sharia based civil court hearings. That’s what a tandem system of sharia law for Muslims would mean.

It’s wrong.

Equality before the law. One law for everyone. We may not always get it, but we must always , always aspire to it.

_________
*head honcho bishop in the Church of England

UPDATE: At Harry’s Place, just as one would have expected there’s a discussion about this. They call for the sacking of the Archbishop and the disestablishment of the Church of England. No need. When the head of the CoE calls for sharia law – the church done been disestablished.

With friends (and MPs) like these…

There’s a big furore here over the potential bugging of a conversation between an MP and his friend and constituent. This MP happens to be my MP. This constituent lives within easy walking distance from my house. That is he lives there when he’s not in jail – on terror charges.

Sadiq Khan is at the center of a controversy about whether his jailhouse conversation with Babar Ahmad should have been taped without his knowledge. Doubtless, all of Mr Ahmad’s conversations are bugged (except probably privileged conversations with his lawyer) – given that he is, in fact, a terror suspect awaiting extradition to America. It’s all so very complicated why he’s to stand trial in the US and not in the UK. But what appears to not be in dispute is that the man helped raise money for the Taliban.

He raised money for them, but this wasn’t a crime in the UK at the time he was doing it because the Taliban wasn’t a proscribed organisation at the time. Not that we didn’t know they were nasty pre-9/11, just that they weren’t outlawed.

From the Washington Post:

In late 1996, while a 22-year-o.ld undergraduate at Imperial College in London, Ahmad launched a Web site dedicated to promoting Islamic fighters in Bosnia, Chechnya and Afghanistan, according to U.S. federal prosecutors. Dubbed Azzam.com, in honor of Abdullah Azzam, a Palestinian who served as bin Laden’s spiritual mentor, the Web site rapidly became a prominent and influential English-language platform for Islamic militants.

…snip…

“It was the very first real al Qaeda Web site,” said Evan Kohlmann, a New York-based terrorism researcher who has tracked Azzam.com since the late 1990s. “It taught an entire generation about jihad. Even in its nascency, it was professional. It wasn’t technically sophisticated, but it was professional looking, definitely more professional than any other jihadi Web sites out there.”

…snip…

According to a U.S. indictment filed in October, Ahmad used Azzam.com to
solicit donations for Chechen rebels and the Taliban, and arranged for the
training and transportation of Islamic fighters. Among the specific charges is
one alleging that Azzam.com posted messages in early 2001 containing specific
instructions for supporters to deliver cash payments of up to $20,000 to
Taliban officials in Pakistan

And I blogged about this two and a half years ago (post has links to US extradition request).

-0-

Now, Sadiq Khan, MP feels aggrieved because there is an established convention that MPs’ conversations won’t be bugged. I guess I can understand that, though it was Mr Ahmad and not Mr Khan who was the explicit subject of surveillance.

But in news story after news story Babar Ahmad is listed as both a constituent and a friend. They did grow up in the same area, so childhood friends they may be – and I’m sure we all had playmates who turned out not as well as might be hoped. But Mr Khan should consider whether he really wants friends like Mr Ahmad. And Tooting constituents should consider whether we want an MP with friends like that.

with Friends like these

Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) is what I would describe as a radical Islamist group. To put this in perspective a fundamentalist Muslim I know thought they were a dangerous cult. This group is proscribed in a number of European countries, but not the UK.

I would guess that many of the members of HT in the UK are of a Pakistani origin. I don’t know what the ethnic breakdown is, but I’d guess there are enough that they feel they it’s legitimate for them to turn their organisational attention to the situation in Pakistan.

And it’s no surprise what they feel the right solution is for Pakistan – more Islam. Sharia law – the whole thing – the establishment of the Caliphate or Khilafah. That’s what a brochure I found on the street in my neighborhood says anyway:

And here’s the text:

Since its inception in 1947, Pakistan has been tormented by failed dictators and political parties.

The US and UK, constantly meddling in the affairs of Pakistan, are desperate to save their only hope in the region, General Pervez Musharraf, by working to ally him with failed politicians such as Benezir Bhutto. They have thus brought about an alliance between the most treacherous leader and the most corrupt politician in Pakistan’s history.

Pakistan is in need for anew type of leadership which look after the needs of the people according to the Quran and Sunnah, and implements a system which is truly representative and that has an independent judiciary: the Khilafat State.

Hizb ut-Tahrir, Britain has organised a conference to artculate the need for a new leadership and new system for Pakistan – an alternative to the failed leadership and systems of the past 60 years.

It doesn’t really disturb me that HT is calling for a Caliphate state. Yep, that’s what they want – what they’ve always wanted for all countries, not just Pakistan. What does disturb me is that Friends House – the home of the peace loving Quakers in Central London is hosting this conference. Why oh why oh why are they providing a venue for a group which would give all Christians and all women second class citizenship or worse.

For many years of my childhood we attended Quaker (Friends) meetings. I’m pretty sure that Quakerism is incompatible with the establishment of a global Caliphate. I’m pretty sure that message of tolerance and forgiveness that I learned in First Day school are not in line with the harsh, biased justice of Sharia.

With friends like these….

Ikea and recommended reading

Oriana Fallaci’s novel Inshallah

I think this version is in Swedish. We saw this today. What else can you find on an Ikea flat pack bookcase?

This is important

Alan Johnson’s address to a Labour Party Conference Fringe event.

Ignore the jibber jabber like:

First, having the will and the resolution to promote that order and that society as non-negotiable normative ends. So enough with the apologetics for them and the self-hatred for us.

Just try to wade through it. This is the stuff wherein liberals (in the American leftist sense) and classical liberals need to get their act together and fight not just violence of extremist Islamism, but the ideas, too. You know, the old hearts and minds thing.

Gone native

Now we all know that the situation in the Levant has been hot for a long time. No matter what side you come down on, it seems like everybody has a side. Personally, I plumped for Israel ages ago. It’s not something I think much about. I don’t discuss it much, because it’s one of those things that I’m not likely to change my mind about. No, in fact, I won’t change my mind. I guess it’s tribal.

I could go on about the Palestinians this, the Israelis that, but if you have an entrenched position on the matter I’m not likely to change your mind either.

Suffice to say, little that the Palestinians do surprises me much. The photos of the wee kids holding some pretty heft weaponry and just waiting for the day that their martyrdom dream comes true is sickening but doesn’t really work me up.

But this video from Palestinian children’s tv showing a man in a bee suit abusing cats and lions in the Gaza zoo just floors me.

And there you go, I’ve gone British. They’re abusing animals now. I may just have to write a strongly worded letter.

______

HT: Harry’s Place

More on the Undercover Mosque

This article pretty much exactly encapsulates my opinion on the matter:

Andrew Anthony’s Comment is Free article: When did the police start collaring television?

Channel 4’s controversial documentary Undercover Mosque was great investigative journalism. That the CPS thought it incited racial hatred beggars belief

To recap: Channel 4 commissioned a documentary on extremist preachers working in the UK and supported by Saudi Arabia. Preachers with some extremely unpleasant views. The documentary focused on a mosque in Birmingham. West Midlands Police (headquartered in Birmingham) investigated the preachers – when the couldn’t find enough evidence for a crime of incitement, they turned on the programme makers.

That radical preachers hold radical (and repugnant) views, is sadly, nothing new. That those holding extremist views are often embraced by the UK government and are given positions of responsibility – encouraging “community cohesion” is laughable if weren’t so disturbing. That the police are going after journalists for exposing them, practically acting as religious enforcers for Wahabism is terrifying.

Fresh outrage

The Muslim “community” is up in arms again. Just metaphorically this time. There’s fresh outrage over a documentary – Undercover Mosque, which aired in January on the UK’s Channel 4.

The documentary is largely based on secret filming by a undercover reporter at Birmingham’s Green Lane mosque. It shows that some Muslim preachers are spewing hate. Hate for homosexuals, hate for Jews and Christians, and at the very least disrespect for women. (We are “deficient” – fathers should beat daughters who don’t don the hijab from around ten.) This same mosque claims to be working toward “community cohesion” – i.e. multicultural understanding, blah, blah, blah. But as the program shows, really a number of preachers are Saudi trained, Saudi subsidised and supported.

This was supposed to be a shocking expose. I missed it when it first came out in January. But I watched it this morning (See it here on YouTube) Can’t say that I found anything terribly shocking. Religious fundamentalists hold abhorrent, archaic views. Duh. I didn’t need to go to years of Church of Christ Bible study to work that one out. Some religious fundamentalists hold particularly militant and violent views (some of these preachers were filmed saying that Muslims should bide their time, wait for the right moment for the big jihad and establish the UK branch of the Islamic Caliphate – I’m paraphrasing). Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war.

I do understand that folks living with their heads in a kind of soft, fuzzy, lefty la-la multi-culti land might have found this shocking. “What – you mean evil isn’t an exclusively Western attribute?” Ha. I have to admit that while I don’t find the revelations particularly shocking, I do find them disturbing. I don’t want to live under Sharia law.

The outrage though – from some of those filmed – was that their comments were taken out of context. I doubt it. Sure, the documentary makers picked out the most inflammatory statements, but the statements were made. It would be like the highlights of a sermon being taped in your local church, but editing out the prayer list and information about next Sunday’s potluck.

And those filmed were given a right of reply.

-0-

Here’s the outrageous bit.

Following the documentary, the police investigated. They may have investigated some of the nasty things that folks said. You can watch the show and judge for yourself, but only a few things sounded to me like they might have been direct incitement to violence – the rest were just deeply unpleasant. And yes, they might well fall foul of “stirring up hatred” – which is against the law. I don’t believe that should be against the law – stirring up an emotion. So we’ll let that pass without further discussion.

But the police also investigated the program makers:

After investigating 56 hours of footage, West Midlands Police said that it had been advised by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the broadcaster for stirring up racial hatred, but that selective editing had helped to create an impression of Muslim hatred.

And from the Metro:

Confirming that police had now made a formal complaint to broadcasting regulator Ofcom, Assistant Chief Constable Anil Patani said: “The priority for West Midlands Police has been to investigate the documentary and its making with as much rigour as the extremism the programme sought to portray.”

Stop just a moment and let that sink in. Someone spews hate. You film it. You do some necessary editing. It’s got to fit into an hour less commercials. You broadcast. It could certainly be argued that it’s in the public interest to broadcast this material. Some of the people filmed have advised or are associated with those who advise the government on community cohesion. It’s in the public interest to understand just what kind of community they’re hoping to cohere.

And then you get investigated by the police. Rigorously. For stirring up racial hatred.

And what lesson is in that? Investigate unpleasant elements in the Muslim community, get investigated yourself.

reflections on the terror attacks

I think the really interesting thing about the latest terrorist attacks in Britain is what it might have been. Most of the alleged participants are doctors, medical students or somehow connected with the National Health Service. Dumbass terrists. They could have really terrified people by slowly and steadily killing patients – or killing a bunch of patients over a two week period and then going out in some kind of blaze of glory. Holy moly. The NHS would collapse. Any vestige of “commuity cohesion” would collapse. Folks would be quite hesitant to entrust their wee kids to the good Dr Mohammed Ibrahim – even though Mo has a beer on a Saturday (when he’s not on call) and despises the whole terror thing and wants to live a quiet life.

Asians are perhaps overrepresented on the General Practitioner rolls and I could quite see the untrusting white, black and Asian populations being accused of racism, Islamaphobia or sectarianism when they refuse to get a jab from the brown doctor.

-0-

Normally my initial reaction to any kind of terror plot is “How is this going to inconvenience me?” I changed my whole vacation plans last year because I didn’t want the hassle of airport security and the whole liquids ban thing. I avoided the plane and took the cross-channel ferry. I’m not afraid of dying – after all the numbers are really still in my favor. I don’t know anyone who’s died in al Qaeda action – but the Vol-in-Law lost two cousins in a ferry disaster. And despite growing up in Belfast, he didn’t know anyone who was killed in terror attack. So ferries 3, terror 0 in our book* – but we still took the boat.

This summer I’m not really planning on flying anywhere – and I’m not really that bothered by the inconvenience of my visiting relatives. But one thing does trouble me; the plot centered on Calor gas – the canisters used for bbq grills and patio heaters and such like. Is there likely to be increased security around propane** and propane accessories? Am I going to have trouble getting a refill on my near empty cannister of gas? Should the sun ever come out, should there be a break in the clouds, a moment of bbq weather will I be left gasless?

-0-

Over at Harry’s Place, they’re hopeful that a new, more sensible, dialogue is emerging:

Something else has changed in the past week and it is certainly not just
the result of a few articles from ex-Islamists and sensible mainstream British
Muslims. After the failed bombings in London and Glasgow there has been much
less of the ‘we had it coming’ apologist claptrap in the media reaction and a
much greater willingness to accept that Islamist terrorists mean what they say
and are what they are.

Maybe. But at the same time British polticians and leftist commentators are discussing these latest terror attempts without mentioning the words Muslim, Islamist or sometimes even terrorist. We all know that not all Muslims are terrorists. We know that already. But let us face up to what Islamism really is.
____________
*one of the cousin’s fiance was also killed – and he did know someone who was permanently disabled by an IRA bomb

**actually most bbq gas in this country is the inferior, but safer, butane

Growing up with fundamentalism

Anglofille had a post about the tolerance of (Islamic) religious fundamentalism by some of Britain’s leading politicians. I’ve been meaning to comment on it – but I’ve been quite distracted. All I can think about is baby, baby, baby – why are you so late?

I guess I’d like to say that I broadly agree with her points in the main post and in the comments section – so do go read it. But I’d like to add additional nuances to the argument, but sadly all I can think about is baby, baby, baby – why are you so late? (With the occasional, I feel really uncomfortable and moody thrown in – see I don’t have a one-track mind).

Here’s some of what she wrote:

I’ve been shocked to read about how Tony Blair and London Mayor Ken Livingstone have embraced certain Islamic fundamentalists here in the UK, men who have expressed vile and disgusting views. Under normal circumstances, I imagine that Livingstone would condemn a person who, for example, was a raging homophobe. [And if the person were Jewish, he may even call them a Nazi.] But apparently if you’re an Islamic fundamentalist, you can trample all over the liberal values these politicians supposedly hold dear. How is this possible? The mind boggles.

I’m not so certain about Tony Blair – although top people on the left have certainly accepted Saudi-funded, Wahabi-style, politicised fundamentalism with abhorrent views of women and homosexuals as the “mainstream” Islam. Ken Livingstone is certainly guilty of literally and figuratively embracing the leaders of Islamist movements – like Yusef al Qaradawi – a most nasty chap by almost any account.

Maybe Blair and Livingstone don’t have much experience of fundamentalism in their own lives and don’t understand how it operates. They associate it with “foreign” people and tolerate it on their home turf because they don’t want to appear racist, perhaps.

Racism is seen by opinion formers here as “the worst thing in the world”* and in order to get the same protection and promotion as the anti-racist agenda – some Muslims have quite pointedly played up the race element of Islam. (Anyone can be a Muslim, but it so happens that most Muslims in the UK have their ethnic origins in the Indian sub-continent.)

But I think we are getting into seriously dangerous territory when we associate thought, behaviour and belief (religion) with race. If we can’t discriminate against people because of the way they behave, then we’ve lost our standards. After all, Sharia (Islamic law) is essentially a discriminatory framework based on religion and behaviour (fair enough, though I disagree with it) and gender (not so fair). If I can’t say to the fundamentalist/literalist Muslim as well as to the fundamentalist/literalist Christian “I think you’re wrong about evolution – and this wrongness leads me to doubt your approach to other scientific matters,” then there’s something not right.

Anglofille then writes of her own experience:

As an American and someone who knows a thing or two about religious fundamentalism, I worry about the threat religious extremists pose to British society. I see it as a very real and dangerous threat

I think she touches on an important point. I don’t think it applies to Tony Blair or Ken Livingstone who are men of the world. I think Livingstone embraces Islamism as part of his cynical Trotskyite self-loathing and destructivist tendencies (just as he embraces Chavez and Castro to the cost of London taxpayers).

But I do think it applies to vast swathes of London upper-middle class policy makers and opinion formers and the mass who form “general public opinion”. Their experience with church and religion has been cursory at best (at worst?). They have no idea what it’s like to live in a community dominated by one prevailing and strongly religious world view. Well, I’ll tell you what it’s like as someone who grew up in the buckle of the Bible belt. If you’re a natural non-conformist – it sucks. It’s oppressive**. And that’s exactly the kind of world that Qaradawi and political Islamists want us to live in.

Trouble on the left?
I consider myself something close to a classical liberal. And oddly this makes me pretty right-wing in the UK. But there is a movement on the left which recognises the danger of extremism.

I’ve written a little about that here – when I still had brain.

________
* I agree that racism is bad and harmful and ill-informed, but I’m not sure it deserves the “cause of all evil” status that it seems to have in UK society.
** Yet at the same time, religion can support good behavior and vital social structures and provide a comforting and useful moral framework. Go figure.