Dear Reader,
I am pleased to announce a mobile-phone version
of the MEF's websites, designed specifically for handheld devices (iPhone,
Blackberry, Palm, etc.).
You will not need a special URL to access the
mobile version of each site; it loads automatically when using your
web-enabled smart-phones. (In the unlikely event that the regular website
comes up, click on the link "Go to Mobile Site" in the upper right corner
of the page.)
The URLs of the MEF's websites are as
follows:
Middle East Forum: http://www.meforum.org
Campus
Watch: http://www.campus-watch.org
Islamist
Watch: http://www.islamist-watch.org
Legal
Project: http://www.legal-project.org
Daniel
Pipes: http://www.danielpipes.org
Suggestions to improve our websites are
welcome.
Keeping up with technology is costly, which
prompts me to point out that our work at the Middle East Forum, a 501(c)3
non-profit, is made possible only through your donations.
Sending funds
securely, either online by credit card or via other methods, is easier
than ever at https://www.meforum.org/participation/
Sincerely,
Raymond Ibrahim
Associate
Director
Middle East Forum
Why Shariah Must Be Opposedby Daniel Pipes
National
Post
August 5, 2009 http://www.meforum.org/pipes/7493/why-shariah-must-be-opposed
Those of us who argue against Shariah are
sometimes asked why Islamic law poses a problem when modern Western
societies long ago accommodated Halakha, or Jewish law. In fact, this was
one of the main talking points of those who argued that Shariah should
become an accepted part of dispute
resolution in Ontario in 2005.
The answer is easy: a fundamental difference
separates the two. Islam is a missionizing religion, Judaism is not.
Islamists aspire to apply Islamic law to everyone, while observant Jews
seek only to live by Jewish law themselves.
Two very recent examples from the United
Kingdom demonstrate the innate imperialism of Islamic law.
Picture of the Queens
Care Centre from the outside. |
The first
concerns Queens
Care Centre, an old-age home and day-care provider for the elderly in
the coal town of Maltby, 40 miles east of Manchester. At present,
according to the Daily
Telegraph, not one of its 37 staff or 40 residents is Muslim.
Although the home's
management asserts a respect for its residents' "religious and
cultural beliefs," QCC's owner since 1994, Zulfikar Ali Khan, on his own
decided this year to switch the home's meat purchases to a halal
butcher.
His stealthy decision meant pensioners at QCC
could no longer eat their bacon and eggs, bangers
and mash, ham sandwiches, bacon sandwiches, pork
pies, bacon
butties, or sausage
rolls. The switch prompted widespread anger. The relative of one
resident called it "a disgrace. The old people who are in the home and in
their final years deserve better. … [I]t's shocking that they should be
deprived of the food they like on the whim of this man." A staff member
opined that it's "quite wrong that someone should impose their religious
and cultural beliefs on others like this."
Assistant Chief Constable
Jackie Roberts of the Avon and Somerset police force models the
hijab for non-Muslims. |
Queried about his
decision, Khan, lamely replied he ordered halal meat for the sake of
(nonexistent) Muslim staff. Then he backtracked: "We will be ordering all
types of meat" and went so far as to agree that religious beliefs should
not be imposed on others. His retreat did not convince one former QCC
staffer, who suspected that Khan "intended to serve only halal meat at the
home but has had to think again because of the row."
A second example of imposing Shariah on
non-Muslims comes from southeast England. The Avon
and Somerset police force patrols the cities of Bristol and Bath as
well as surrounding areas has just issued hijabs to female officers. The
hijabs, distributed at the initiative of two Muslim groups and costing £13
apiece, come complete with the constabulary's emblem.
Now, issuing hijabs
as part of uniforms in Great Britain is nothing new – the London
police led the way in 2001, followed by other police forces, at least one
fire brigade, and even the furniture chain Ikea. What sets the Avon and
Somerset hijabs apart from these others is their being intended not just
for pious Muslim female staff but also for non-Muslim staff, in particular
for their use upon entering mosques.
[Rashad Azami of the Bath Islamic Society finds
it "highly pleasing" that the constabulary took this step. One of the
seven non-Muslim officers to receive a hijab of her very own, Assistant
Chief Constable Jackie Roberts, calls it "a very positive addition to the
uniform and one which I'm sure will be a welcome item for many of our
officers."
[Dhimmitude is the term Bat Ye'or
coined to describe subservience to Shariah by non-Muslims. Assistant Chief
Constable Roberts' enthusiasm for the hijab might be called "advanced
dhimmitude."]
"Hijab
bullies" (as David J. Rusin of Islamist Watch calls them) who coerce
non-Muslim females to cover up are just one stripe of Islamist imposing
Shar'i ways on the West. Other Islamists focus on impeding the uncensored
discussion of such topics as Muhammad
and the Koran or Islamist
institutions or terrorist
financing; still others exert to bring taxpayer-funded schools,
hospitals,
and jails
into conformity with Islamic law, not to speak of taxi
cabs and municipal swimming
pools. Their efforts don't always succeed but in the aggregate, they
are rapidly shifting the premises of Western, and especially British,
life.
Returning to pork: both Islam and Judaism
abominate the flesh of pigs, so this prohibition offers a direct and
revealing comparison of the two religions. Simply put, Jews accept that
non-Jews eat pork but Muslims take offense and try to impede pork
consumption. That, in brief, explains why Western accommodations to
Halakha have no relevance for dealing with Shariah. And why Shariah as
public policy must be opposed.
Related
Topics: Islamic law
(Shari'a), Muslims in the West Daniel Pipes | 
Send
Comment
RSS
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment