Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism & Islam:
Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat:
This is absolutely true - I've seen this whole
> phenomenon from the absolute minority to the majority - the behavior of whole Muslim race has been summed up.
This is an excellent analysis and makes one think!
Awareness is important and simply forwarding to your other friends is educational.
Please read and reflect!
> Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.
> When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.
Here's how it works.
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given
country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority,and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:
> United States--Muslim 0.6%
> Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
> Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
> China -- Muslim 1.8%
> Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
> Norway -- Muslim 1.8%*
>
> *At 2% to 5%,
> they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and
> disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the
> jails and among street
> gangs. This is happening in:
>
> Denmark -- Muslim 2%
> Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
> United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
> Spain -- Muslim 4%
> Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%* *
>
> From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in
> proportion to their
> percentage of the population. For example, they will push
> for the introduction
> of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby
> securing food preparation
> jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on
> supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply.
This is occurring in:
>
> France -- Muslim 8%
> Philippines -- Muslim 5%
> Sweden -- Muslim 5%
> Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
> The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
> Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%
>
> At this point, they will work to get the
> ruling government to allow them to
> rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the
> Islamic Law. The
> ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over
> the entire world.* *
>
>
> When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to
> increase
> lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions.
> In Paris ,
> we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action
> offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as
> in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films
> about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily,particularly in Muslim sections in:
> Guyana -- Muslim 10%
> India -- Muslim 13.4%
> Israel -- Muslim 16%
> Kenya -- Muslim 10%
> Russia -- Muslim 15%* *
>
> After reaching 20%, nations can expect
> hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia
> formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of
> Christian churches and
> Jewish synagogues, such as in:
>
> Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%* *
>
> At 40%,
> nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror
> attacks,
> and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:
>
> Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
> Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
> Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%*
>
> From 60%, nations experience unfettered
> persecution of non-believers of all
> other religions (including non-conforming Muslims),
> sporadic ethnic cleansing
> (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the
> tax
> placed on
> infidels, such as in:
>
> Albania -- Muslim 70%
> Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
> Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
> Sudan -- Muslim 70%* *
>
> After 80%, expect
> daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run
> ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations
> drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as
> has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:
>
> Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
> Egypt -- Muslim 90%
> Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
> Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
> Iran -- Muslim 98%
> Iraq -- Muslim 97%
> Jordan -- Muslim 92%
> Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
> Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
>
> Palestine -- Muslim 99%
> Syria -- Muslim 90%
> Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
> Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
> United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%* *
>
> 100%
> will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the
> Islamic House of
> Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because
> everybody is a Muslim, the
> Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only
> word, such as in:
>
>
> Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
> Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
> Somalia -- Muslim 100%
> Yemen -- Muslim 100%
>
> Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these
> 100% states the most
> radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy
> their blood lust by
> killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
>
>
> 'Before I was nine I had learned the basic
> canon of Arab life. It was me
> against my brother; me and my brother against our father;
> my family against my
> cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe
> against the world,
> and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris,
> 'The
> Haj'
>
> It is important to understand that in some countries, with
> well under 100%
> Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim
> populations live in
> ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within
> which they live by
> Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these
> ghettos. There are no national
> courts nor schools nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In
> such situations,
> Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The
> children attend
> madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate
> with an infidel is a
> crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of
> certain nations,
> Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the
> national average would
> indicate.
Showing posts with label Sharia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sharia. Show all posts
Monday, August 23, 2010
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Taliban impose Jazia on Sikhs in Pakistan
Sikhs living in Pakistan’s Orakzai Agency have reportedly paid Rs 20 million as “jazia” to the Taliban, a tax previously levied by Mughal rulers on non-Muslims to exempt them from military service and protect their person in the sub-continent.
The Daily Times, a Pakistani newspaper, reported on Thursday that “detained” Sikh leader Sardar Saiwang Singh was released by the Taliban, who also vacated the community’s houses occupied by them.
They also announced protection for the Sikh community, saying no one would harm them after they paid “jazia”. Sikhs who had left the agency would now return and resume their business in the Agency, which is part of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in north-western Pakistan, the paper added.
“The Taliban don’t have a state, so they can’t impose jazia,” Lucknow-based historian Salim Kidwai told the HT.
The Mughal ruler, Akbar, abolished jazia on his subjects, which was re-imposed by Aurangzeb in the 17th century.
In Amritsar, the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) secretary Dilmegh Singh quoted the Pakistan Sikh Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (PSGPC) president Bishen Singh as saying that more than 200 Sikhs and Hindus had taken shelter in gurdwaras in Nankan Sahib and Peshawar.
Meanwhile, SGPC president Avtar Singh Makkar wrote to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Yusuf Raza Gilani to ensure the security of Sikhs and Hindus in the trouble-torn country.
The Daily Times, a Pakistani newspaper, reported on Thursday that “detained” Sikh leader Sardar Saiwang Singh was released by the Taliban, who also vacated the community’s houses occupied by them.
They also announced protection for the Sikh community, saying no one would harm them after they paid “jazia”. Sikhs who had left the agency would now return and resume their business in the Agency, which is part of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in north-western Pakistan, the paper added.
“The Taliban don’t have a state, so they can’t impose jazia,” Lucknow-based historian Salim Kidwai told the HT.
The Mughal ruler, Akbar, abolished jazia on his subjects, which was re-imposed by Aurangzeb in the 17th century.
In Amritsar, the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) secretary Dilmegh Singh quoted the Pakistan Sikh Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (PSGPC) president Bishen Singh as saying that more than 200 Sikhs and Hindus had taken shelter in gurdwaras in Nankan Sahib and Peshawar.
Meanwhile, SGPC president Avtar Singh Makkar wrote to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Yusuf Raza Gilani to ensure the security of Sikhs and Hindus in the trouble-torn country.
Pakistan: an imploding nation
On the ideological plane, the idea of Pakistan has ceased to be meaningful; it is a failed state led by a reckless elite who could not care less.
Dire warnings about the fate of Pakistan have become daily fare now. The country’s Afghan border frayed a while ago. Now the Al Qaeda and Taliban insurgents have taken the war to its heart: Swat yesterday, Buner today, will Islamabad fall too?
Possibly in one to six months, if David Kilcullen is to be believed. Kilcullen is an adviser to David Petraeus, commander of the US Central Command that oversees operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He made those controversial remarks to the Washington Post in March. He explained the rationale of his statement in an interview to Mint on Wednesday.
Pakistan is today a nation without a political gyroscope. Its political leadership is at war with itself and its army thinks India is top enemy while the Taliban steadily inch towards territorial control. In fact, its army elite is inclined in favour of the Taliban. When the radicals do take over the reins in Islamabad, it would be a unique example of a nation handing over the levers of state power to non-state actors.
This is not a vision of doom. On the ideological plane, the idea of Pakistan has ceased to be meaningful. It never was a promised land for the Muslims of South Asia. The first blow came with the secession of Bangladesh. Then came the Baloch and Sindhi insurgencies. Finally, by the time the last Soviet tanks moved out of Afghanistan in 1989, it was well on its way to turning into a powder keg of feuding ethnic groups, competing regionalisms and a heady brew of medieval Islam. Twenty years later, it is a failed state led by a reckless elite who could not care less.
The question that India and Indians need to address is: What is to be done? Any Indian help is certain to be construed as a conspiracy to dismember the country. That path should be avoided. Apart from practical arrangements (for example, occupying certain territories in a pre-emptive fashion so that the Taliban do not threaten India), there should be efforts at thinking about envisioning alternative political futures for Pakistan. Should there be a confederation of states such as Balochistan, Sindh and Punjab? Should the North-West Frontier Province and the tribal areas be merged into a greater Afghanistan? Or should the present territories remain with all powers to the states and residuary powers with a weak centre? These are questions that cannot be ignored any longer.
Can Pakistan remain a viable nation state? Tell us your views !
Dire warnings about the fate of Pakistan have become daily fare now. The country’s Afghan border frayed a while ago. Now the Al Qaeda and Taliban insurgents have taken the war to its heart: Swat yesterday, Buner today, will Islamabad fall too?
Possibly in one to six months, if David Kilcullen is to be believed. Kilcullen is an adviser to David Petraeus, commander of the US Central Command that oversees operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He made those controversial remarks to the Washington Post in March. He explained the rationale of his statement in an interview to Mint on Wednesday.
Pakistan is today a nation without a political gyroscope. Its political leadership is at war with itself and its army thinks India is top enemy while the Taliban steadily inch towards territorial control. In fact, its army elite is inclined in favour of the Taliban. When the radicals do take over the reins in Islamabad, it would be a unique example of a nation handing over the levers of state power to non-state actors.
This is not a vision of doom. On the ideological plane, the idea of Pakistan has ceased to be meaningful. It never was a promised land for the Muslims of South Asia. The first blow came with the secession of Bangladesh. Then came the Baloch and Sindhi insurgencies. Finally, by the time the last Soviet tanks moved out of Afghanistan in 1989, it was well on its way to turning into a powder keg of feuding ethnic groups, competing regionalisms and a heady brew of medieval Islam. Twenty years later, it is a failed state led by a reckless elite who could not care less.
The question that India and Indians need to address is: What is to be done? Any Indian help is certain to be construed as a conspiracy to dismember the country. That path should be avoided. Apart from practical arrangements (for example, occupying certain territories in a pre-emptive fashion so that the Taliban do not threaten India), there should be efforts at thinking about envisioning alternative political futures for Pakistan. Should there be a confederation of states such as Balochistan, Sindh and Punjab? Should the North-West Frontier Province and the tribal areas be merged into a greater Afghanistan? Or should the present territories remain with all powers to the states and residuary powers with a weak centre? These are questions that cannot be ignored any longer.
Can Pakistan remain a viable nation state? Tell us your views !
Sunday, March 1, 2009
To stem terror in Pakistan, US looks beyond military
Washington is seeking to build the Pakistani state and its economy as a way to wean the country from Islamic extremism.
By Howard LaFranchi | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitorfrom the March 2, 2009 edition
Reporter Howard LaFranchi discusses how the US might be able to leverage financial aid to Pakistan into better results on the ground in the war against the Taliban.
Washington - In an admission that its dependence on the Pakistani military has yielded few results against the Taliban, the United States is now seeking to change its relationship with Pakistan – the world's sole Muslim nuclear power and home of Al Qaeda's leadership.
President Barack Obama's first budget, released last week, proposes significant increases in nonmilitary aid to Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan. In addition, two influential senators are expected to file legislation in the coming days that would triple nonmilitary US aid to Pakistan to $1.5 billion a year and include $5 billion to stave off an imminent economic crisis.
The shift is part of an increasing awareness within the Beltway of Pakistan's precarious position – beset by economic collapse, political weakness, and a spreading insurgency – and that more than military operations will be needed to build a stable state capable of beating back Islamic extremism in the long term.
"If we fail, we face a truly frightening prospect: terrorist sanctuary, economic meltdown, and spiraling radicalism, all in a nation with 170 million inhabitants and a full arsenal of nuclear weapons," said Sen. John Kerry (D) of Massachusetts last week, while releasing a report about Pakistan.
Along with Sen. Richard Lugar (R) of Indiana, Senator Kerry is a key supporter of the expected new legislation on Pakistan. It mirrors a plan that Vice President Joe Biden proposed last year when he was still a senator. Then, as now, it is a thinly veiled criticism of the Bush administration's Pakistan policy, which focused aid and relations on ousted military leader Gen. Pervez Musharraf.
Pentagon on board
Last week, Pentagon officials emerged from a meeting in Washington with Pakistan's Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ashfaq Kayani to say they supported a more "comprehensive" strategy for US relations with Pakistan – albeit one that encompassed smarter and more effective military assistance. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sounded a similar note when she met with Pakistani and Afghan officials last week.
She announced that trilateral US-Afghanistan-Pakistan talks will become a regular feature of the Obama administration's plan for region. It further points to the Obama administration's desire to look beyond the military alone for solutions to the conflict spanning the Afghan-Pakistan border – an area he and others consider the epicenter of global terrorism.
Transforming the US-Pakistani relationship from a personal relationship with a military leader to a long-term relationship with an elected Pakistani government will require patience, says James Dobbins, a South Asia analyst at RAND Corp., a security consultancy in Arlington, Va.
"This transformation won't change the relationship with [Pakistan] as quickly as we'd like," he says. "But both the increase in aid and a new direction are necessary for the stability of Afghanistan and critical for Pakistan itself."
The change in direction comes as the Obama administration gets its first taste of the complexities of Pakistan. The president's special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke, offered unvarnished words for Pakistan's recent decision to bow to Taliban demands and cede a strategically important swatch of the nation to Islamic law. Mr. Holbrooke said the accord leaves the Swat Valley – not far from the Pakistani capital of Islamabad – in the hands of "murderers, thugs, and militants."
The Swat Valley accord has been met with deep skepticism among analysts, who note that such attempts to win over a moderate part of the militancy by working with it have only given extremists time and space to regroup.
"The history of these deals does not lead to a great deal of optimism," says Shuja Nawaz, director of Atlantic Council's South Asia Center in Washington.
The accord does not mean the Pakistani leadership is giving up the fight, says Mr. Nawaz. It is part of General Kayani's mission to secure better equipment like helicopters, detection devices, and night-vision goggles to take on "the hard-core militants," he adds.
But it does reflect a desire to separate moderate Islamists from the hardened jihadists, Nawaz says.
Pakistan vs. Iraq
The design mirrors counterinsurgency strategy the US employed with the Sunni population as part of the "surge" of troops in Iraq. Despite that basic similarity, however, the differences in the two cases are stark, says Mr. Dobbins, the RAND analyst.
"We never agreed to the application of sharia [Islamic] law in Sunni areas," he says, "and we insisted those areas had to remain integrated into the Iraqi state and under Iraqi law."
Nawaz warns that Pakistan could face economic collapse this year, and he says the kind of emergency financial aid Senator Kerry is proposing is needed fast. But he says that the longer-term need is for broader trade – in textiles, for example – among the US, Europe, and Pakistan. That will create jobs and stabilize Pakistani society, he says. Such a transformation in relations with Pakistan won't be easy, he adds, at a time of rising Western unemployment.
Friday, July 4, 2008
UK Muslims should live under Sharia: Chief Justice
Friday July 4 2008 09:54 IST
Christopher Hope and James Kirkup
LONDON: Muslims in Britain should be able to live according to Sharia law, the country's most senior judge has said.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the Lord Chief Justice, strongly backed Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, over his suggestion earlier this year that aspects of Sharia law should be adopted in Britain.
The archbishop's remarks sparked a national debate and led to calls for his resignation.
Risking inflaming that controversy again, Lord Phillips has said that Muslims in Britain should be able to use Sharia to decide financial and marital disputes.
The judge did add that only the criminal courts should have the power to decide when a crime has been committed and when to impose punishment.
But his suggestion that different religious groups should run their affairs according to different rules sparked warnings that community cohesion could be undermined.
In a speech at the East London Muslim Centre in east London, Lord Phillips said it was "not very radical" for Dr Williams to argue that Sharia law can be used to help govern issues like family disputes and the sale of financial products.
Lord Phillips said: "It is possible in this country for those who are entering into a contractual agreement to agree that the agreement shall be governed by law other than English law."
Therefore, he said, he could see no reason why Sharia law should not be used to settle disputes in this country.
He said: "There is no reason why principles of Sharia law, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution."
He added: "It must be recognized however that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of the mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales."
Sharia law suffered from "widespread misunderstanding" in Britain, Lord Phillips said.
"Part of the misconception about Sharia law is the belief that Sharia is only about mandating sanctions such as flogging, stoning, the cutting off of hands or death for those fail to comply with the law," he said.
"In some countries the courts interpret Sharia law as calling for severe physical punishment. There can be no question of such courts sitting in this country, or such sanctions being applied here."
The judge said Dr Williams had been misunderstood when it was reported in February that he said British Muslims could be governed by Sharia law.
Lord Phillips said that the archbishop was saying only that "it was possible for individuals voluntarily to conduct their lives in accordance with Sharia principles without this being in conflict with the rights guaranteed by our law".
There is already scope in English law for some communities to use their own religious codes to resolve disputes. Orthodox Jews can use the Beth Din rabbinical courts to decide on matters including divorce.
However some critics say that women marrying under Sharia law do not have the same rights as in English law, and could lead to them being treated as second class citizens as far as divorce settlements, custody of children and inheritance go.
Muslim and Christian politicians expressed fears that at a time of heightened tensions, encouraging Muslims to live by their own distinct rules could make it harder for different communities to integrate.
Khalid Mahmood, Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Bar and a practising Muslim, said that allowing Sharia law in parts of the UK would be divisive.
He said: "This would create a two-tier society. It is highly retrograde. It will segregate and alienate the Muslim community from the rest of British society.
"The majority of British Muslims want to live only under British law and they would reject anything that means they are treated differently.
"What Lord Phillips and the archbishop are discussing is something that is completely outside their area of understanding."
Philip Davies, the Conservative MP for Shipley, said Lord Phillips' suggestion was "totally unacceptable."
He said: "It is very unhelpful for community cohesion. This is the sort of thing that builds up tensions in areas like mine, in places like Bradford. Sharia law has got no place in any shape or form in British law."
Andrew Selous, a Tory MP and chairman of the all-party Christians in Parliament group, said calls like those made by Lord Phillips and the archbishop were "worrying."
He said: "As far as people of all faiths are concerned, it is important that we are all equal under one United Kingdom law. It will lead to more community tensions rather than less."
Lord Ahmed, a Labour peer and practicing Muslim, said there was a "big debate" among British Muslims about whether and how Sharia should apply in the UK.
He said: "There is a risk that this would make it harder for communities to integrate -- we all need to do more to integrate, and mainstream society has to do more as well."
"We should have one law for everyone in the UK, but there may be very rare occasions when exceptions have to be made, like for marriage, divorce and food."
A Muslim lawyer said that raising the prospect of allowing people to live under Sharia law in Britain would "alarm" people.
Mahmud Al Rashid, spokesman from the Association of Muslim Lawyers, said: "There is massive misunderstanding about what Sharia is. It is not a single law."
A spokesman for Dr Williams said: "We welcome the speech given by the Lord Chief Justice as a positive and constructive contribution to this important and ongoing debate."
Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster and leader of Britain's Catholics, said that people should live under the laws of the UK.
His spokesman said: "As the Cardinal has consistently said and indeed said earlier this year, was that Britons should abide by and be subject to the law of the land."
Downing Street said the Government's position on the issue of Sharia law had been made clear at the time of the controversy over the Archbishop's speech.
"We think that British law should be based on British values and determined by the British Parliament," the Prime Minister's spokesman said.
Baroness Warsi, the Conservative shadow minister for community cohesion, backed the judge.
She said: “The Lord Chief Justice's speech is a very clear and unifying speech for our communities in Britain.
”I specifically endorse the points made by Lord Phillips that with equality of rights come responsibilities. It is absolutely essential that everyone in this country is treated equally by the law but it is important that everyone is equally subject to it, and that the same laws apply equally to everyone.”
Christopher Hope and James Kirkup
LONDON: Muslims in Britain should be able to live according to Sharia law, the country's most senior judge has said.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the Lord Chief Justice, strongly backed Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, over his suggestion earlier this year that aspects of Sharia law should be adopted in Britain.
The archbishop's remarks sparked a national debate and led to calls for his resignation.
Risking inflaming that controversy again, Lord Phillips has said that Muslims in Britain should be able to use Sharia to decide financial and marital disputes.
The judge did add that only the criminal courts should have the power to decide when a crime has been committed and when to impose punishment.
But his suggestion that different religious groups should run their affairs according to different rules sparked warnings that community cohesion could be undermined.
In a speech at the East London Muslim Centre in east London, Lord Phillips said it was "not very radical" for Dr Williams to argue that Sharia law can be used to help govern issues like family disputes and the sale of financial products.
Lord Phillips said: "It is possible in this country for those who are entering into a contractual agreement to agree that the agreement shall be governed by law other than English law."
Therefore, he said, he could see no reason why Sharia law should not be used to settle disputes in this country.
He said: "There is no reason why principles of Sharia law, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution."
He added: "It must be recognized however that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of the mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales."
Sharia law suffered from "widespread misunderstanding" in Britain, Lord Phillips said.
"Part of the misconception about Sharia law is the belief that Sharia is only about mandating sanctions such as flogging, stoning, the cutting off of hands or death for those fail to comply with the law," he said.
"In some countries the courts interpret Sharia law as calling for severe physical punishment. There can be no question of such courts sitting in this country, or such sanctions being applied here."
The judge said Dr Williams had been misunderstood when it was reported in February that he said British Muslims could be governed by Sharia law.
Lord Phillips said that the archbishop was saying only that "it was possible for individuals voluntarily to conduct their lives in accordance with Sharia principles without this being in conflict with the rights guaranteed by our law".
There is already scope in English law for some communities to use their own religious codes to resolve disputes. Orthodox Jews can use the Beth Din rabbinical courts to decide on matters including divorce.
However some critics say that women marrying under Sharia law do not have the same rights as in English law, and could lead to them being treated as second class citizens as far as divorce settlements, custody of children and inheritance go.
Muslim and Christian politicians expressed fears that at a time of heightened tensions, encouraging Muslims to live by their own distinct rules could make it harder for different communities to integrate.
Khalid Mahmood, Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Bar and a practising Muslim, said that allowing Sharia law in parts of the UK would be divisive.
He said: "This would create a two-tier society. It is highly retrograde. It will segregate and alienate the Muslim community from the rest of British society.
"The majority of British Muslims want to live only under British law and they would reject anything that means they are treated differently.
"What Lord Phillips and the archbishop are discussing is something that is completely outside their area of understanding."
Philip Davies, the Conservative MP for Shipley, said Lord Phillips' suggestion was "totally unacceptable."
He said: "It is very unhelpful for community cohesion. This is the sort of thing that builds up tensions in areas like mine, in places like Bradford. Sharia law has got no place in any shape or form in British law."
Andrew Selous, a Tory MP and chairman of the all-party Christians in Parliament group, said calls like those made by Lord Phillips and the archbishop were "worrying."
He said: "As far as people of all faiths are concerned, it is important that we are all equal under one United Kingdom law. It will lead to more community tensions rather than less."
Lord Ahmed, a Labour peer and practicing Muslim, said there was a "big debate" among British Muslims about whether and how Sharia should apply in the UK.
He said: "There is a risk that this would make it harder for communities to integrate -- we all need to do more to integrate, and mainstream society has to do more as well."
"We should have one law for everyone in the UK, but there may be very rare occasions when exceptions have to be made, like for marriage, divorce and food."
A Muslim lawyer said that raising the prospect of allowing people to live under Sharia law in Britain would "alarm" people.
Mahmud Al Rashid, spokesman from the Association of Muslim Lawyers, said: "There is massive misunderstanding about what Sharia is. It is not a single law."
A spokesman for Dr Williams said: "We welcome the speech given by the Lord Chief Justice as a positive and constructive contribution to this important and ongoing debate."
Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster and leader of Britain's Catholics, said that people should live under the laws of the UK.
His spokesman said: "As the Cardinal has consistently said and indeed said earlier this year, was that Britons should abide by and be subject to the law of the land."
Downing Street said the Government's position on the issue of Sharia law had been made clear at the time of the controversy over the Archbishop's speech.
"We think that British law should be based on British values and determined by the British Parliament," the Prime Minister's spokesman said.
Baroness Warsi, the Conservative shadow minister for community cohesion, backed the judge.
She said: “The Lord Chief Justice's speech is a very clear and unifying speech for our communities in Britain.
”I specifically endorse the points made by Lord Phillips that with equality of rights come responsibilities. It is absolutely essential that everyone in this country is treated equally by the law but it is important that everyone is equally subject to it, and that the same laws apply equally to everyone.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
