State multiculturalism has failed, says David Cameron

And it was narrated that ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Umar said: I heard the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “Be different from the mushrikeen: let your beards grow and trim your moustaches

The reason Muhammad decreed that Muslim men must wear that style of beard was so that Muslims could identify themselves from the enemy; the enemy being everyone who was not (is not) a Muslim.

How (dis)integrating is that!!
 
And it was narrated that ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Umar said: I heard the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “Be different from the mushrikeen: let your beards grow and trim your moustaches The reason Muhammad decreed that Muslim men must wear that style of beard was so that Muslims could identify themselves from the enemy; the enemy being everyone who was not (is not) a Muslim. How (dis)integrating is that!!

Have you not read this:
τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ;1411024 said:
Jewish men having beards have it for other reasons, be they simply "to look Jewish"

post # 68..

It isn't 'dis(integrating) it is distinguishing!
people want to keep their own identity-- and that is admirable indeed.. if you don't like it don't have Muslim friends, or Jewish friends, or sikh friends or any kind of people who are distinguished in their own way.. with attitude like yours and comprehension like yours, you're best suited the company of chavs like the cleaning lady who used newspaper to wipe her ass..


good luck to you!
 
τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ;1411444 said:


It isn't 'dis(integrating) it is distinguishing!
people want to keep their own identity-- and that is admirable indeed.. if you don't like it don't have Muslim friends, or Jewish friends, or sikh friends or any kind of people who are distinguished in their own way.. with attitude like yours and comprehension like yours, you're best suited the company of chavs like the cleaning lady who used newspaper to wipe her ass..
good luck to you!

It is commonly quite easy to anticipate the responses to my posts but I do live in hope that some of you will put a little thought and research into their response.

If insulting me brings you some comfort or pleasure I really don’t mind but what does puzzle me is that you don’t seem to realise how that portrays you. Can you not see that by responding to structured evidenced argument with childish insults makes you look to be, at best, devoid of an intelligent response and at worse stupid. I know you are better than that; do yourself a favour and try to progress your view with a logical, structured evidenced argument.
 
The Christian-Muslim Forum made the following response to the Prime Minister's Speech:

Response to the Prime Minister's speech at the Munich Security Conference from the Presidents of the Christian Muslim Forum:

1. As Presidents of the Christian Muslim Forum we utterly condemn incitement to, and acts of, violence, and support attempts to get to the root of the issues we face together. Our vision is of the UK as an open, inclusive, tolerant society built on strong shared values, supported by Christians and Muslims.

2. However, we are concerned that talking of ‘British values’ can encourage far right groups, who are now using the Prime Minister’s comments in their communications. It can also incorrectly imply that Muslims do not share ‘British values’.

3. We need a national conversation about integration and what an integrated society looks like. As an organisation we promote this conversation locally and nationally, producing a leaflet on Local Friendship. Conversations must involve face to face meeting; lack of dialogue on common values and ‘extremism’ is part of the problem. We have been creating these conversations over the last five years with religious leaders, teachers, women, young people and academics. One major barrier is repeated negative comments about the Muslim community, which encourage segregation and parallel living.

4. We fully recognise the need for Christian and Muslim leaders to condemn violent extremism and seek ways to overcome it, including analysis of the issues and underlying causes.

5. We encourage Christian and Muslim leaders to engage with Government to build a more confident and mature society with a much clearer understanding of our shared values, their roots and everyone’s place within that society.


Rt Revd Dr Richard Cheetham (Co-Chair), Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra (Acting Co-Chair), Dr Nicholas Wood, Shaykh Abbas Ismail, Rt Revd Paul Hendricks, Rt Revd Donnett Thomas
http://www.christianmuslimforum.org...ether/news/response-to-prime-ministers-speech
 
It is commonly quite easy to anticipate the responses to my posts but I do live in hope that some of you will put a little thought and research into their response.

If you're getting similar responses from multiple people, perhaps the fault then lies with your queries rather than the response to them?
If insulting me brings you some comfort or pleasure I really don’t mind but what does puzzle me is that you don’t seem to realise how that portrays you.
I should care as to how I am being perceived by an ill read ape? I wonder what next!
Can you not see that by responding to structured evidenced argument with childish insults makes you look to be, at best, devoid of an intelligent response and at worse stupid. I know you are better than that; do yourself a favour and try to progress your view with a logical, structured evidenced argument.
No I can't see that, and certainly your pedestrian, repetitive queries shouldn't be dignified with a response all together, if I didn't find the concept of humiliating you so relaxing and virtually appealing! .. but I am surprised that an ape of your stature can formulate an intelligent thought outside of the usual echolalia that we've seen time and again from you.. perhaps you're indeed on the verge of evolving?

all the best
 
Last edited:
How (dis)integrating is that!!


There is a difference between integration and assimilate. What you desire is the latter...

Integration said:
integration [ínti gráysh'n]
n

1. equal access for all: the process of opening a group, community, place, or organization to all, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or social class

2. acceptance into community: the process of becoming an accepted member of a group or community

assimilate said:
assimilate [ə símmi layt]
(3rd person present singular assimilates, present participle assimilating, past and past participle assimilated)
v

1. vti social sciences integrate: to integrate somebody into a larger group, so that differences are minimized or eliminated, or become integrated in this way

[15th century. < Latin assimilat- , past participle of assimilare 'make the same' < similis 'like']

-assimilable [ə símmiləb'l], , adj
-assimilator, , n
-assimilatory [ə símmilətəri, ə símmi láytəri], , adj

^ Definitions from the Microsoft word dictionary...
 
Salaam

Looks like PM Cameron going to take a hardline approach to create a so called 'British' Islam. An Islam that will serve the needs of the British State.

Oh dear, do they never learn from history? :hmm:

PM wins row with Nick Clegg over crackdown on Muslim extremists

Counter-terrorism review insists groups must reflect British mainstream values to get funds


David Cameron will emerge as the victor from a bitter cabinet battle over multiculturalism this week as the government unveils a hardline approach to tackling Islamist extremism.

Home Office sources say that Cameron has quashed Nick Clegg's argument for a more tolerant attitude to Muslim groups by insisting on a strategy centred upon the notion that violent extremism is incubated within the ideology of non-violent extremism. The shift in approach will be outlined when the government's counter-terrorism strategy is unveiled by the home secretary, Theresa May, on Tuesday. Central to the Prevent strategy is a broader definition of extremism that will be extended beyond groups condoning violence to those considered non-violent but whose views, such as the advocacy of sharia law, fail to "reflect British mainstream values".

A Home Office source said: "There will be a direct challenge to these [non-violent] groups."

The Prevent review has been delayed for five months because of disagreements within the coalition cabinet. In his view that engaging with non-violent extremists can be used as a bulwark against violent extremists, Clegg has been joined by the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, the Tory chairman, Baroness Warsi, and others including Charles Farr, the head of the office of security and extremism. They argue it is crucial to maintain a distinction between violent and non-violent extremism and that it is necessary to engage rather than alienate.

Warsi, who sits on the cabinet subcommittee dealing with integration, is understood to disagree strongly with the new direction of Prevent but has been dissuaded from publicly criticising the strategy.

Among those supporting the prime minister on a crackdown on Muslim groups was the education secretary, Michael Gove, and Lord Carlile, who is in charge of the Prevent review. Ostensibly the strategy echoes Cameron's contentious speech to an international counter-terrorism conference in Munich last February when he suggested that "state multiculturalism" had failed. During the speech the Tory leader categorised those who espoused an ideology of Islamic extremism alongside those who supported violence. He said: "Move along the spectrum, and you find people who may reject violence, but who accept various parts of the extremist world view, including real hostility towards western democracy and liberal values."

A Home Office source said: "When a prime minister states something so unequivocally, it is unlikely they will be allowed to deviate from that." The strategy will warn Muslim groups that they will only receive public funding under certain conditions. Groups would be allocated funding on short-term projects but only after proving they do not promote or support extremist views. "Under the old Prevent strategy we sprayed a lot of cash willy-nilly and the new strategy is opposed to that," said the source.

Haras Rafiq, director of Centri, a counter-extremism consultancy, welcomed the strategy, but said the main challenge was implementation. "They need to build a criteria to establish which organisation they fund has extremist views, which one doesn't, and ensure extremist groups do not receive funding from other pots." One group, the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board, which has links to the hardline Muslim Association of Britain, received £250,000 in the year up to April but has already had its annual public funding withdrawn, the Observer has learned.

During the Munich speech Cameron said it was "nonsense" to fund groups with extremist elements, adding: "Would you allow far-right groups a share of public funds if they promise to help you lure young white men away from fascist terrorism? Of course not." The strategy, however, will shy away from naming groups, effectively dismissing speculation that the initiative will proscribe non-violent, extremist Islamist groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir, a step which Cameron has publicly supported but which legal sources advise is not possible. The Conservative manifesto named Hizb ut-Tahrir as a group it wanted to proscribe; in 2009 the then shadow home secretary, Chris Grayling, promised to "immediately ban" the group if the Tories were elected.

The strategy to be unveiled this week will explain that the issue of funding groups that promote community cohesion will be left to the Department for Communities and Local Government. Sources say that under the previous system community groups had to apply for support from counter-terrorism funding, which succeeded only in stigmatising them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/04/pm-nick-clegg-muslim-extremists
 
I read that last post and then went and checked the figures for the Islamic population of the UK.

From Wikipedia:

The vast majority of Muslims in the UK live in England and Wales: of 1,591,000 Muslims recorded at the 2001 Census, 1,536,015 were living in England and Wales, where they form 3% of the population; 42,557 were living in Scotland, forming 0.84% of the population; and 1,943 were living in Northern Ireland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_Kingdom

Only 3% of the population and they're freaking out this much?
 
Salaam

Looks like PM Cameron going to take a hardline approach to create a so called 'British' Islam.

:sl:

He can keep on dreaming.

David Cameron will emerge as the victor from a bitter cabinet battle over multiculturalism this week as the government unveils a hardline approach to tackling Islamist extremism.

It would be helpful if they could explain what "Islamist extremism" means.

Home Office sources say that Cameron has quashed Nick Clegg's argument for a more tolerant attitude to Muslim groups by insisting on a strategy centred upon the notion that violent extremism is incubated within the ideology of non-violent extremism.

This is what Nick Clegg and David Cameron wanted. To disagree on certain issues for the next election.

Central to the Prevent strategy is a broader definition of extremism that will be extended beyond groups condoning violence to those considered non-violent but whose views, such as the advocacy of sharia law, fail to "reflect British mainstream values".

What are mainstream British values? Parts of the Sharia law are already implemented in the UK, but in accordance with British law.

Warsi, who sits on the cabinet subcommittee dealing with integration, is understood to disagree strongly with the new direction of Prevent but has been dissuaded from publicly criticising the strategy.

The strategy will warn Muslim groups that they will only receive public funding under certain conditions.

Then Muslims should not rely on public funding. The Muslim community needs to get organised and gather private donations.

David Cameron is another typical politician. Someone who cannot resolve real difficult problems like unemployment, alcohol related crime and teenage pregnancy and focuses on trivial issues.
 
Salaam

Oh, it gets better and better, they really are ramping up the pressure. . . . . .

Universities 'complacent' over Islamic radicals, Theresa May warns

The Home Secretary has criticised universities for their “complacency” in tackling Muslim extremism as she prepares to publish the Government’s updated strategy for countering Islamic radicalism.


Theresa May told The Daily Telegraph that universities were not taking the issue of radicalisation seriously enough and that it was too easy for Muslim extremists to form groups on campuses “without anyone knowing”. She also said the Government would cut funding to any Islamic group that espoused extremist views, and set out the “key British values” to which those seeking support must subscribe. It is understood that about 20 groups are already losing their funding. Mrs May made her comments ahead of the publication this week of the updated version of the Prevent counter-terrorism strategy.

“I think for too long there’s been complacency around universities,” she said. “I don’t think they have been sufficiently willing to recognise what can be happening on their campuses and the radicalisation that can take place. I think there is more that universities can do.”
Mrs May said universities had to “send very clear messages” and “ask themselves some questions about what happens on their campuses”. She also criticised the Federation of Student Islamic Societies for not challenging extremism sufficiently. “They need to be prepared to stand up and say that organisations that are extreme or support extremism or have extremist speakers should not be part of their grouping,” Mrs May said.

Her remarks follow comments made by Nicola Dandridge, the head of Universities UK, which represents vice-chancellors, claiming there was no evidence that extremist speakers at university encouraged violence. As part of the Prevent strategy, the Government will define as extremists anyone who “does not subscribe to human rights, equality before the law, democracy and full participation in society”, including those who “promote or implicitly tolerate the killing of British soldiers”.

Mrs May said: “We are looking at a set of values we believe we have here in the UK and those people opposed to those values are people who the Government won’t be funding or engaging with.” It is understood that the strategy will also name 25 boroughs that are most at risk from Islamist extremism, including areas of London, Birmingham, Leeds, Bradford and Manchester. There will also be a move to limit access to extremist websites from public buildings, particularly schools and public libraries.

Details of partnerships with YouTube and AOL to try to tackle extremism online, using lessons learned from anti-paedophile policing will be made public. As well as fighting violent extremism, the Government will tackle extremist philosophies in general, including groups that can act as a “stepping stone” to terrorism. “There’s an ideology out there that we need to challenge and when we first came in as a government one of the things we were very clear about here at the Home Office was we needed to look at extremism, not just violent extremism,” Mrs May said.

As a result of Prevent’s review of government support, about 20 out of 1,800 organisations that received funding over the past three years, will have their cash withdrawn. “It’s a result of a close look at the values of the organisations themselves,” Mrs May said. “There’s more that we will be doing because it is very clear that we are going to be much more focused on effective monitoring and the effectiveness of groups and making sure that they are having an outcome.

“This isn’t just about giving money to groups and the number of people they deal with, it’s about a proper outcome.” The strategy will also seek to counter radical Right-wing terrorists following a rise in the threat from such extremists. “We should not just look at one particular type of terrorism but look at violent extremism and terrorism more widely as well,” Mrs May said. The Home Secretary said the Prime Minister gave “a very clear message” in a speech in Munich in February when he spoke of the failure of multiculturalism. “We are putting into play what comes out of that Munich speech,” she said.

The Government will produce two strategies, with the second “integration strategy” to be published by the Department for Communities and Local Government later in the year. “In the past the brand of Prevent has become slightly tainted and we want to separate those strands of community cohesion,” Mrs May said. Prevent has been criticised in some quarters as a means to spy on the Muslim community, but Mrs May said: “I don’t see anything wrong with identifying people who are vulnerable to being taken down a certain route, who could become a threat to members of the public.

“We need to encourage people to be willing to identify vulnerable individuals. Most people recognise the value of using all the tools available to prevent terrorist activity and encourage people to actively talk to the police. “Everyone who has an interest in being part of British society should recognise that we are all in this together.” The strategy will also incorporate the Prime Minister’s pet project, the Big Society, promoting the idea of mobilising the “silent majority” of Muslims.

“Sending clear messages about our values is part of the information we want to put out,” said Mrs May.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-over-Islamic-radicals-Theresa-May-warns.html
 
Salaam Looks like PM Cameron going to take a hardline approach to create a so called 'British' Islam. An Islam that will serve the needs of the British State. Oh dear, do they never learn from history? PM wins row with Nick Clegg over crackdown on Muslim extremists Counter-terrorism review insists groups must reflect British mainstream values to get funds



:sl:

This news actually make me LOL. It clearly shows and is evidence that the so-called "democratic" and "free" western countries are mere hypocrites.
Where's Trumble when you need him?
 
Like I said, 3% of their population and they're going nuts over an "Islamic Invasion".
 
This news actually make me LOL. It clearly shows and is evidence that the so-called "democratic" and "free" western countries are mere hypocrites.
Where's Trumble when you need him?

While it's always nice to be wanted, I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere for someone to defend Cameron and (particularly) Clegg from any charges of hypocrisy!!

Needless to say, though, it 'clearly shows' nothing of the sort. People can be hypocrites, countries cannot.
 
Last edited:
Salaam

Two interesting response.


PREVENT: Cameron admits defeat by forcing Muslims to convert to liberal values

Ahead of the launch of the government’s revised PREVENT strategy, it has been widely reported that it will link violent extremism with Islamic beliefs – which in themselves have no link to violence but simply contradict secular liberal values. The British government is now openly exhibiting totalitarian tendencies, forcing Muslims to subscribe to a monolithic set of government approved values.

The fact that they are resorting to this aggressive approach is an admission that they have completely failed to convince Muslims through argument and discussion.

Commenting on the PREVENT review, Taji Mustafa, media representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Britain said: “This policy has nothing to do with security. It is about forcing a set of values on a community simply because their beliefs do not conform to secular liberal norms, and is proof that liberals can be supremacist.”

“After bombing Afghanistan and Pakistan, does Mr Cameron still expect people to believe in the Blairite delusion that it is Islamic beliefs that are the cause of security threats to the UK? Most serious observers have abandoned this discredited world view, which continues to be propagated by some politicians, and self-serving think tanks and academics whose funding relies on such nonsense.”

“This Conservative-Liberal government has decided to display an open hostility to Islam – threatening to cut funding to some groups – in order to impose Cameron’s definition of ‘British’ values, and coercing Muslims to leave any Islamic values that the government labels ‘extremist’. It is worth recalling that the Blair-Brown government’s definition of ‘extremism’ included a belief in the Islamic Caliphate system of governance in the Muslim world; Islamic values in relation to intimate relations between men and women; and views on resistance to Western occupation in the Muslim world.”

“Our message to the Muslim community is: let the government keep their funding and let us keep our Islamic values. PREVENT funding has been largely rejected by the Muslim community who look at those who took it with suspicion so this ‘withdrawal’ is unlikely to affect many. This community built thousands of mosques, businesses, and schools largely without government funding. It was through initiative, hard work and most of all the help of Allah (swt). No amount of government funding will compensate for us abandoning our Islamic principles and values.”

“Our community would be doing a great injustice to itself and destroying decades of hard work if it did what Cameron and his government ask of us: to put loyalty to him above loyalty to the wider Muslim Ummah; to feel happy and proud when he orders British troops to kill Muslims in colonial wars; to accept his version of sexual morality as the norm; and to remain silent when oppression of the Ummah conflicts with British foreign policy interests.”

“At a time when people in the West are seriously questioning the capitalist economic system, the West’s destructive colonial exploits around the world, the sexualisation of youth culture, the breakdown of family life, and the rise of disrespect and antisocial behaviour, does Mr Cameron seriously expect Muslims – in Britain or elsewhere – not to look to Islam for answers that would best suit their community and indeed the wider world?”

“For years, governments in the Middle East that had accepted British and American money in order to curb the rise of Islamic values and secure Western interests are now reaping the response from their oppressed and exploited people. Now, it seems Mr Cameron hopes to bring this discredited colonial approach to Muslim communities within Britain.”

“The Muslim community should reject such proposals to compromise our Islamic values as a condition of citizenship and instead work hard to preserve and uphold Islamic values, and engage with the people in the wider society based upon these noble values.”

http://www.hizb.org.uk/current-affa...-forcing-muslims-to-convert-to-liberal-values
 
Salaam

The campaign to secularise Islam continues. . . . .

Bill limiting sharia law is motivated by 'concern for Muslim women'

Lady Cox, the proposer, says aim is to prevent discrimination against Muslim women and 'jurisdiction creep' in Islamic tribunals


Islamic courts would be forced to acknowledge the primacy of English law under a bill being introduced in the House of Lords.

The bill, proposed by Lady Cox and backed by women's rights groups and the National Secular Society, was drawn up because of "deep concerns" that Muslim women are suffering discrimination within closed sharia law councils.

The Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill will introduce an offence carrying a five-year jail sentence for anyone falsely claiming or implying that sharia courts or councils have legal jurisdiction over family or criminal law. The bill, which will apply to all arbitration tribunals if passed, aims to tackle discrimination, which its supporters say is inherent in the courts, by banning the sharia practice of giving woman's testimony only half the weight of men's.

Cox said: "Equality under the law is a core value of British justice. My bill seeks to preserve that standard"

In a similar way to Jewish Beth Din courts, sharia tribunals can make verdicts in cases involving financial and property issues which, under the 1996 Arbitration Act, are enforceable by county courts or the high court.

The tribunals should only be deciding civil disputes but two years ago the think-tank Civitas claimed sharia courts, some 85 of which operate in Birmingham, London, Bradford and Manchester, had crossed the proper limits of their jurisdiction and were regularly giving illegal advice on marriage and divorce.

Cox said they are increasingly ruling on family and criminal cases, including child custody and domestic violence. Jurisdiction "creep" had caused considerable suffering among women compelled to return to abusive husbands, or to give up children and property.

Diana Nammi, of the Iranian and Kurdish Women's Rights Organisation, said: "Women and children are very vulnerable members of the community and under sharia law they become invisible. Women and children are the most vulnerable in minority communities where religion tradition and culture has become the identity taking precedence over the human rights and women's rights that are protected under civil, UK law."

The bill requires public bodies to inform women they have fewer legal rights if their marriage is unrecognised in English law. Cox said she had found "considerable evidence" of women, some of whom are brought to Britain speaking little English and kept ignorant of their legal rights, suffering domestic violence or unequal access to divorce, due to discriminatory decisions made. "We cannot continue to condone this situation. Many women say: 'We came to this country to escape these practices only to find the situation is worse here.' "

Cox said she would be asking the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, who caused a row last year when he said a recognised role for sharia law seemed unavoidable, to back her bill. She said: "By appearing to condone this inherent discrimination system which is causing real suffering to women, he has failed to recognise that suffering. He is appearing to forward the acceptability and validity of Sharia law in this country."

Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said: "Laws should not impinge on religious freedoms, nor should courts judge on theological matters. By the same token, democratically determined and human rights compliant law must take precedence over the law of any religion."

Aina Khan, a solicitor who advises on sharia law, said: "It is good in parts. I would like to see best practice in sharia councils, like in the Beth Din model and I would like some legislation. I don't want somebody opening up a sharia board in their front room. Of course sex discrimination laws must apply. But there are some alarmist tones in the bill. Where she goes wrong is assuming that some sort of misogyny and discrimination goes on. Eighty per cent of its users are women."

Khurshid Drabu, adviser on constitutional affairs to the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "Bills of this kind don't help anybody. They don't appear to understand that we live in a free country where people can make free choices. Yet again, it appears to be a total misunderstanding of the concept that underpins these arbitration councils. Sharia councils operate under consent. If there is a woman who suffers as a result of a decision by one of these councils a woman is free to go to the British courts."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/jun/08/sharia-bill-lords-muslim-women
 
Salaam

The campaign to secularise Islam continues. . . . .

Salaam,

It will be interesting to see how this ends.


Bill limiting sharia law is motivated by 'concern for Muslim women'

I find that hard to believe.

Lady Cox, the proposer, says aim is to prevent discrimination against Muslim women and 'jurisdiction creep' in Islamic tribunals

This is the same women who supports Dutch MP Gilbert.

Islamic courts would be forced to acknowledge the primacy of English law under a bill being introduced in the House of Lords.

What planet is she from? Does she understand the British legal system?

These Islamic Tribunals are ADR (alternative dispute resolution). This means to resolve disputes outside of the traditional courts (e.g.County Court). It is encouraged for people to resolve disputes by themselves to save time and money and the Judge will not consider your claim if you have not tried to resolve the dispute without considering ADR.

These Tribunals already comply with existing legislation. For example, Muslim Arbitration Tribunal complies with the Arbitration Act 1996.


The bill, proposed by Lady Cox and backed by women's rights groups and the National Secular Society, was drawn up because of "deep concerns" that Muslim women are suffering discrimination within closed sharia law councils.

I want to know the name of these women's rights groups and what evidence they have that Muslim women are suffering discrimination.

The Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill will introduce an offence carrying a five-year jail sentence for anyone falsely claiming or implying that sharia courts or councils have legal jurisdiction over family or criminal law.

....What? How is this going to be implemented?

The bill, which will apply to all arbitration tribunals if passed, aims to tackle discrimination, which its supporters say is inherent in the courts, by banning the sharia practice of giving woman's testimony only half the weight of men's.

I will be VERY surprised if this bill is passed. This is rubbish.

The tribunals should only be deciding civil disputes but two years ago the think-tank Civitas claimed sharia courts, some 85 of which operate in Birmingham, London, Bradford and Manchester, had crossed the proper limits of their jurisdiction and were regularly giving illegal advice on marriage and divorce.

What happened then? Did they cross the limits for their jurisdiction?
 
Salaam

Thanks for the reply brother and I more or less agree with your objections. Ill reply eventually on what I think is going what the government is trying to do is to manipulate Muslims into assimilation. Thats what I think

Heres another very interesting article on this subject, lessons to be learned from history.

Kulturkampf (Culture War)

Kladderadatsch_1875_-_Zwischen_Berlin_und_Rom.png


The German term About this sound Kulturkampf (help·info) (literally, "culture struggle") refers to German policies in relation to secularity and the influence of the Roman Catholic Church, enacted from 1871 to 1878 by the Prime Minister of Prussia, Otto von Bismarck. The Kulturkampf did not extend to the other German states such as Bavaria.

The Catholic Church comprised one third of the population of Prussia. In the newly founded German Empire, Bismarck sought to appeal to liberals and Protestants by reducing the political and social influence of the Catholic Church.

Priests and bishops who resisted the Kulturkampf were arrested or removed from their positions. By the height of anti-Catholic legislation, half of the Prussian bishops were in prison or in exile, a quarter of the parishes had no priest, half the monks and nuns had left Prussia, a third of the monasteries and convents were closed, 1800 parish priests were imprisoned or exiled, and thousands of laypeople were imprisoned for helping the priests.

Bismark's program backfired, as it energized the Catholics to become a political force in the Centre party. With a new pope willing to negotiate, and with the loss of the anti-Catholic Liberals on other issues, Bismarck dropped the Kulturkampf. Bismarck then gained the Centre party support on most policy positions, especially his attacks against Socialism.

Long term results

Nearly all German bishops, clergy, and laymen rejected the legality of the new laws, and were defiant in the face of heavier and heavier penalties and imprisonments in closed by Bismarck's government by 1876, all the Prussian bishops were imprisoned or in exile, and a third of the Catholic parishes were without a priest. In the face of systematic defiance, the Bismarck government increased the penalties and its attacks, and were challenged in 1875 when a papal encyclical declared the whole ecclesiastical legislation of Prussia was invalid, and threatened to excommunicate any Catholic who obeyed. There was no violence, but the Catholics mobilized their support, set up numerous civic organizations, raised money to pay fines, and rallied behind their church and the Center Party. The government had set up a capital old-Catholic Church, which attracted only a few thousand members.

Bismarck realized his Kulturkampf was a failure when secular and socialist elements used the opportunity to attack all religion. In the long run, the most significant result was the mobilization of the Catholic voters, and their insistence on protecting their church. In the elections of 1874, the Center party doubled its popular vote, and became the second-largest party in the national parliament—and remained a powerful force for the next 60 years, so that after Bismarck it became difficult to form a government without their support.

Origin and character of the Kulturkampf

In the decades before the Kulturkampf began, the 1850s and 1860s, there existed extensive and entrenched anti-Jesuit paranoia, anti-Catholicism, anti-monasticism and anti-clericalism. Since 1848, the German states saw a resurgence of Catholic monastic life and a growth in the number of monasteries and convents.[22] German liberals monitored and tabulated a dramatic rise in the numbers and types of monasteries, convents and clerical religious, a fact which made for convenient propaganda, the monastic life being cast as the epitome of a backward Catholic medievalism.

Prussian authorities were particularly suspect of the spread of monastic life east and west into the Polish and French ethnic areas. The Diocese of Cologne, for example, saw a tenfold increase of monks and nuns between 1850 and 1872, and other areas saw similar increases.

A wave of anti-Catholicism and anti-Catholic propaganda accompanied the Kulturkampf, accompanied by “outright hatred” by the liberals who considered Catholics the enemy of the modern German nation. The Kulturkampf was not, however, a spontaneous popular occurrence, but “a campaign against the Catholic Church conducted through the law, with the police and bureaucracy as its principal agents”, the legality of which gave it its “sinister character”:

Clergy arrested, humiliated, and marched through the streets by the police; house searches conducted by the police looking for evidence of disloyalty; the Catholic press suppressed; the civil service cleansed of Catholics; the Army used to disperse a Catholic crowd gathered to witness the appearance of the Virgin; nuns and monks and clergy fleeing the country; official support for popular harassment and intimidation of Catholics.

No one however was killed and few were injured, as Bismarck did not seek to extinguish Catholicism in his land, but rather sought to assimilate the Polish peasants and saw international Catholicism as an enemy of the "still fragile German Reich".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulturkampf

Edit:

I know its a serious situation but heres some light relief,

This is what the establishment want to turn Muslims into


The horror :skeleton:
 
Last edited:

Similar Threads

Back
Top