"Otherwise we will find that there is a significant section of our society which is increasingly alienated, with very dangerous results."
Let's follow the logic here: Hockman must believe there are elements of sharia that are compatible with British law, and either those can be compartmentalized and separated from those that aren't, or there exists a "true" and more moderate sharia where those elements are less of an issue.
However, he does acknowledge that there is at least a Tiny Minority of Extremists that does threaten the United Kingdom. Then, from whom is Britain made safer by implementing a supposedly de-fanged sharia? If it's the "extremists," he is ultimately calling for negotiating with terrorists and giving in to blackmail. If it is the Vast Majority of Moderates whom he's afraid of alienating with "very dangerous results," he is simply underlining how flimsy a construct "moderation" generally is: How "moderate" is someone who can be so easily persuaded to violence, especially when it should be well understood that living in Britain entails living under Britain's laws?
"Sharia law should be introduced into legal system, says leading barrister," by John Swaine for the Telegraph, November 26:
Stephen Hockman QC, a former chairman of the Bar Council, reportedly suggested that a group of MPs and legal figures should be convened to plan how elements of the Muslim religious-legal code could be introduced.
After speaking at an event organised by the website Islam4UK at the National Liberal Club, Whitehall, Mr Hockman reportedly told The Daily Express: “Given our substantial Muslim population, it is vital that we look at ways to integrate Muslim culture into our traditions. Otherwise we will find that there is a significant section of our society which is increasingly alienated, with very dangerous results.
“There should perhaps be a standing committee comprising Parliamentarians, lawyers and religious leaders to consider how this could be achieved and what legal changes might be framed.”
Sharia law has been criticised for its prevention of some rights for women. Mr Hockman reportedly conceded: “The position of women is one area where the emphasis is, to the say the least, rather different.”
He reportedly added that the incorporation of Sharia could improve relations between faith groups and boost the country’s security.
He said: “I am also sometimes confronted by those who point out that there are elements within the Muslim community who pose a threat to our very security. My answer is not to dispute them but to suggest that it is for those of us forming part of the majority community to address such problems.”
There must be something in the water over there that's turning all these Englishmen into mad dogs.
BOOT THEM OUT!!! If they can't accept the law and the customs, then they've gotta go. It's that simple. Immigrants must be expected to (a) assimilate, and do it on their own; no special programs, no welfare, just make it happen, (b) contribute to society, if only monetarily, rather than parasitize it, and (c) respect the laws and the customs. If any immigrant is unable to do all of those things par excellence within 6 months, that immigrant should never, ever be granted citizenship. Ever. Shouldn't even be able to stay after six moths, let alone bring his whole inbred family. You don't change the country to suit the immigrants. You don't change a damn thing. They accept it or leave. And you especially don't change your country when it's a fantastic country like Britain and the immigrants in question are of the most vile, intolerant, regressive, mean, racist, sexist, liberty-hating, disrepectful, dangerous, supremacist, entitled sort and have absolutely nothing, NOTHING to offer but a less safe, more expensive, nearly inhabitable society. What is wrong with England?
This is called "throwing the weakest to the wolves."
I thought this through the other day. I lived in England for a significant period of time recently, and had some exposure to some of the more privileged residents.
Most refuse to think about Islam. It's regarded as poor behavior to even bring it up, when there's Posh Spice and her clothing to worry about.
But here's the deal. The non-Muslim sharia proponents really do believe that a separate society for Muslims is a good thing. In their view the Muslims are inferiors in the class system of England, and can police themselves, as inferiors in England have done since the dawn of time. Who gives a damn if muslim females are beaten, honor-killed, or forcibly married, or molested at age 8? They are not "us." The servant classes will work it out amongst themselves.
This is Hockman's paradigm. He's just too damn limited by his own privileged Englishness to see how it will play out in the end, even with Mumbai in flames and his own countrymen held hostage, raped, and shot in the Taj. Even with his own countrywomen mutilated, brutalized, intimidated and killed to ululations of "Allah Akbar." He can't see it. Period. And he wants you to not see it too.
"After speaking at an event organised by the website Islam4UK at the National Liberal Club, Whitehall, Mr Hockman reportedly told The Daily Express: “Given our substantial Muslim population, it is vital that we look at ways to integrate Muslim culture into our traditions. Otherwise we will find that there is a significant section of our society which is increasingly alienated, with very dangerous results."
Everything and everyone that is associated with Islam4UK will go down the crapper according to me. This is just Anjem Choudary speaking through an idiot barrister who doesn't know better.
Substantial Muslim population he says?! They are less than 1.7 (2,7%) million compared to the other 59 million REAL British and proper immigrants that wants to develop their country forward, away from religious stupidity. The Muslims will be powerless without these idiots that helps them to establish an antidemocratic system. It must punishable by law to work towards that goal.
What the hell is this!!!
Substantial Muslim population he says?! They are less than 1.7 (2,7%) million compared to the other 59 million REAL British and proper immigrants that wants to develop their country forward, away from religious stupidity.
SW if you believe that I have a bridge I would like to sell you. x5 you might be getting closet to the actual number.
As for the quisling barrister in the article the words lamppost and rope spring to mind.
closet = closer
km...
So the CIA figures I presented of 1.7 million Muslim in Britain is false? Can you show me indisputable facts that these figures does not apply?
You get the lamppost and I will provide the rope.
"He reportedly added that the incorporation of Sharia could improve relations between faith groups and boost the country’s security."
Boost the country's security? Not even when a sultan or a caliph eventually shows up at 10 Downing Street with a Prime Minister's head in his hands could Britain under sharia ever have the kind of security Mr Dhimmi Hockman is talking about.
Or does he really think that muslims of different sects will get along really well once the flag of the Umma is flying over the Prime-Minister's home?
By the way, the smugness and that air of self-righteousness on Dhimmi Hockman's face in the picture featured in the article are simply sickening.
SW I am not saying you have quoted the figures wrong, I am saying in my own humble opinion that the figures themselves are unreliable.
The last census in the UK was 2001, we have had 7 years of Nulabor rule and their open borders since. You just need to walk round any large English city London, Birmingham, or any of the Northern cities to know those figures are a fop put out to keep the locals calm as their country and heritage is stolen from under them.
Accurate figures are hard to come by, but indicators like most popular names for new borns, demographics in the class room, the info is out there if you dig around.
“Given our substantial Muslim population, it is vital that we look at ways to integrate Muslim culture into our traditions."
-- from the article above, quoting Stephen Hockman QC
There is no way to "integate Muslim culture" -- which consists of the habit of mental submission, inshallah-fatalism, cruelty to non-Muslims and all women, severe and permanent constraints on the possibilities for artistic expression, discouragement, and even punishment, for the exercise of free and skeptical inquiry, and complete indifference to, or rather hostility to, the solicitousness for individual liberties that is the hallmark, the pride, of Great Britain. Or at least it was.
I have just three questions for Stephen Hockman QC:
1) Have you actually read, and assimilated, the Qur'an, the Hadith, the Sira?
2) Have you actually read, understood, and assimilated, the works by such Western scholars of Islam as C. Snouck Hurgronjue, Arthur Jeffery, Joseph Schacht or does your knowledge come from elsewhere, possibly plucked out of the air?
3) Have you ever had Arab or Muslim clients in the past, and do you now, or will you in the future, have such clients, and would you please disclose the sums received, or the retainer now received, from such clients, and also estimate what you are now receiving from groups or individuals who may be working to remove obstacles in Great Britain to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam?
No further questions, M'Lud.
He took silk and then, at long last, leave of his senses. And we, who have not taken leave of our senses, because of the incredible suggestion, made with such bland self-assurance by Stephen Hockman, QC, have taken sick. Let's not make it, shall we, a sickness unto death?
John Swaine is idiot.
He's actually advocating changing the rule of British law. Isn't that a disbarrable offense?
John Swaine should visit Saudi and advocate for changing that system and see what THAT position gets him over there.
John Swaine is the reporter. Stephen Hockman is the QC with the curious belief that Islam, that is the Shari'a, and the laws and customs of England, are not in flat contradiction.
The old "we have to fight alienation" excuse. This would only increase alienation instead. If Muslims want to whine about alienation, the door is not locked!
Noboby understand how the CIA come up with those inaccurate number. Than CIA man once told me they goes by what saterile picture show then of the clother people wear it they look like they have muslim look they are muslim. They look to see it woman are wearing the clothesing Saudic woman wear when outside the house. They once where ready to print in they fact book that Vaction City in Rome was 100% muslim as they went by the Hijab the nun wore untril someone who was cathority notice this error.
Sharia law has been criticised for its prevention of some rights for women. Mr Hockman reportedly conceded: “The position of women is one area where the emphasis is, to the say the least, rather different.”
...................
Weasely bastard. I am sickened at the cheap price the dishonorable Mr. Hockman is willing to sell the hard won rights of women like my English aunt, cousins, and their children.
Note to "Defender of Islam"--no one here believes your absurd story about "saterile" pictures and nuns in "hijab".
Defender Against Islam
GravenImage
I commend you for even trying to parse that nonsense. I just read his posts looking for him to refer to Hugh as "Huge," which always gives me a chuckle. He's a shining example of the quality of "Islamist scool." I realize that he's probably all of 13, but it's more than safe to say that he won't, nor could he ever, even aspire to get a GED. I hope he has fun defending Islam when he's cleaning up infidel vomit and garbage at stadiums after baseball games.
GravenImage I pity your supurity. First the image from satilite where very poor so mistake where common. In WW2 the English have no antiaircraft guns to defend the cannel from air attack so they make wooden one, so one day the germany sent over some bomber than they drop bombs that floated in the water they where wooden bombs. Many of muslim woman in where I live do not wear the Hijab as it is they choise expect when they goto than Islamist event.Even today images of earth from space cannot replace human asset on the ground. There is than christian sect that have it woman dress alot like saudi woman do wearing than Hijab. Also unless you know anything about religion it is easy to confuse nun and what wear with muslim woman and what they wear,the person who study the picture believe muslim
woman wear crosses.
The reason why the germany didnot bomb the canal was they want to captive then impact not destory, like near the end of the war we didnot bomb bridge over the Rhine river as we want to captive one not damage.
Defender of Islam - We've been dissing the English but there's no need to butcher the English language as well.
With dhimmis like Hockman, there seems to be no need for the Jihad.
I think I prefer the clear thinking of Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester, back when the idea of recognising 'elements' of sharia was first mooted in the UK.
This is part of what I wrote about Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, in an article for my church's parish magazine:
QUOTE - "Bishop Michael’s public expression of concern that Christian life, work and witness within the UK is encountering open hostility in some heavily-Islamised districts - that, as the newspapers put it, certain areas of Britain with many Muslim residents are becoming ‘no go zones’ for Christians (or, indeed, for any non-Muslim) – triggered much controversy.
"Indeed, he has received death threats from some within the UK Muslim community.
"He has commented publicly on two other major issues – the ‘A Common Word’ letter from certain Muslim scholars, to Christian leaders;
"and the Archbishop of Canterbury’s recent remarks on sharia law in Britain.
"It is worth stating his position on both of those.
"As regards ‘A Common Word’, The Times reported:
'The first reaction to the letter, from the Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, a leading Anglican expert on Islam, appeared to be critical.
'Dr Nazir-Ali, who was born in Pakistan, welcomed the Muslim scholars' desire for a dialogue, but said that the appeal was based on the Muslim belief in the oneness of God.
"What I would say to that is that Christians uphold belief in one God vigorously but our understanding of the oneness of God is not the Muslim understanding," he told The Times.
' "We believe in God as source from whom everything is brought into being. Jesus is God's word and presence for us but is also human."
'He added: "One partner cannot dictate the terms on which dialogue must be conducted. This document seems to be on the verge of doing that."... {Note: this observation, about the Muslim insistence on 'dictating terms', applies to much more than theological discussions...dda}.
"As regards the Archbishop of Canterbury’s allusion to the possibility that aspects of sharia (Islamic law) might be permitted in Britain,
"the Evening Standard on 9.2.2008 reported as follows:
'The most damaging attack came from the Pakistan-born Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali.
'He said it would be "simply impossible" to bring sharia law into British law "without fundamentally affecting its integrity".
'Sharia "would be in tension with the English legal tradition on questions like monogamy, provisions for divorce, the rights of women, custody of children, laws of inheritance and of evidence.
"This is not to mention the relation of freedom of belief and of expression to provisions for blasphemy and apostasy."...END QUOTE.
Let's repeat that last bit, shall we?
"Sharia would be in tension with the English legal tradition on questions like
monogamy
provisions for divorce
the rights of women
custody of children
laws of inheritance and of evidence.
This is not to mention the relation of freedom of belief, and of expression, to provisons for blasphemy and apostasy."
The good Bishop was born in Pakistan to parents who had converted from Islam to Christianity. He originally left Pakistan for the UK because, I gather, his work as priest and at the helm of the Church Missionary Society had made Pakistan too dangerous a place for him.
Now he is in danger in the UK for challenging Muslim hegemony (he has also gotten into hot water for 'calling' the Muslims on their pursuit of domination whilst they claim to be 'oppressed'; and he is on record as stating that the full face veil should be banned because of the security risk.
I think Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali understands Sharia and its ramifications much, much better than Stephen Hockman, QC.
Where is the person who will explain to Stephen Hockman, QC, over and over, the full implications of each of those points of 'tension', as identified by the Bishop, between sharia and the English legal tradition?
Tanstaafi the CIA does very supid thing like the bay
of pig invadion of Cuba took the cake.When the CIA took they supid plan Ike he threw then out of the office. Kenndry was supid enought to fall to they supid plan. My Intelligence department est of muslim worldwide is between 1.75 to 1.99 billion. By about 2025 muslim will make up 30% of the world population
and christian will make up about 25%. The western world try in the 19th century and in 1900 the muslim population was reduce to 250 million and this is why they called Islam the fastest growing religion in the world. It have over 108 year increase it number by 700%.
DefenderofIslam wrote:
GravenImage I pity your supurity.
.....................
I'll have you know I come by my supurity naturally.
No one believes your rot about absurd methods of the study of demographics. Your ludicrous story about the British attempting to scare off German bombers with wooden anti-aircraft guns (and the Germans then countering with wooden bombs) is simply inchoherent.
If you are attempting to make a case for the adoption of Shari'ah law by the British by showing your logical acumen--well--you're falling a bit short.