Saturday, July 30, 2011

Islamic Supremacists Taking Over England

Islamic Supremacist Jammaal Uddin puts up a notice forbidding certain kinds of activities as proscribed by Islam

The notice that Islamic Sharia Law is in effect in England.
Wherever Muslims have taken over.

Story here.


Literally.  Bit by bit.  This is what's known as CREEPING SHARIA.

And the non-Muslim Dhimmis are just letting it happen.



balbulican said...

Wow. And those stickers actually create a "Sharia Law" Zone? That's amazing!!

balbulican said...

Hey, you took off moderation! Good man.

Canadian Sentinel said...

For now. Best behavior still expected.

Sarcasm expected, too, as I see above.

But sarcasm doesn't change the facts.

The state there isn't doing anything to stop the apparent enforcement of Sharia Law.

Imagine if it was Canon Law enforced by agents of the Vatican, and the state refused to even investigate.

What's different?

Canadian Sentinel said...

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along. The government won't let anything bad happen, after all... right?

MikeAdamson said...

It's an interesting story alright but I don't see how this describes what your headline alleges. Who is subject to the "laws" and how are the "laws" enforced? My understanding is that the shariah courts are a sort of alternative dispute mechanism and that the parties have to agree to giving the court jurisdiction.

Perhaps you see this as part of a slippery slope rather than an immediate and specific problem?

Canadian Sentinel said...

Indeed. "Taking Over" does indicate a slippery slope.

Those who have been investigating what's been and is going on vis a vis Islamists who want to spread Sharia Law, we know that it's already happening, bit by bit.

The evidence is undeniable. The government refuses to care, refuses to consider that there is illegal, unconstitutional, alternative law being enforced within the national borders.

"Alternative" judicial systems and laws are unconstitutional. No one group is allowed to make its own laws unless it's like, say, an incorporated municipality, and Islam is not anything of the sort.

Further, what of separation of religion and state? Surely "progressives" and "moderates" as well as most conservatives have a problem with any religion asserting itself as the law of the land anywhere in the Free World.

Why aren't leftists/progressives worried about this? Do they want people to have stuff imposed on them, their constitutional and human rights violated just because of where they might find themselves in the city? Just because some religious extremists insist that they can impose, etc?

What about gays and women and non-Muslims? How will they be treated? What about Muslims? Are they not equal under the constitution and law, and will the government allow them to be imposed upon, perhaps stoned, beheaded, forced to wear burkas, have limbs cut off, beheaded, honor-killed, what?

See what I mean? Fearmongering? Well, what about the leftists/progressives who scream about "Christians in government who want to impose/take rights away"? Why worry about Christians but not Muslims?

Anyone who doesn't understand what I'm saying... I won't take them seriously, because it's clear that there is a problem in England as well as other places in the Free World.

It's bad enough that the Islamic World is as it is. We don't want it here, too!

Canadian Sentinel said...

And I do believe I'm detecting Dhimmitude within this comments thread.

Surely no one wants Islamic Sharia Law to be imposed and enforced on them?

Time for some folks to give their faces a good slap so they can see reality. Many folks automatically enter denial on cue, especially where Islam/Muslims are concerned. It's fascinating, this phychiatric phenomenon...

MikeAdamson said...

I don't want to submit to shariah law and so I won't. I assume most people in Britain feel the same way and so unless shariah law becomes the law of the land and enforceable on everybody then I don't think I have too much to worry about.

If one doesn't want to be governed shariah style then one doesn't agree to be subject to its jurisdiction. If one is "forced" to submit to the court by virtue of one's religion then one has to decide whether that religion is right for them.

I don't see much difference between this case and a case of a school or a church that bans alcohol or dancing. If you want to be in the group then you have to follow the rules and if you don't like the rules then try to change them or find another group.

Canadian Sentinel said...

Question: Is it allowable under the British Constitution to have religious orders impose laws that have not been made by an elected secular legislature, such laws in lieu of the real laws of the land?

If not, then it must be stopped. But it isn't being.

And it's wrong to compare a school/church to an entire geographical area within a city. These Islamists are taking over the public places, the streets, with offensive notices that they will enforce fascist doctrines there.

In a world where crosses and the Ten Commandments are removed from public evidence, we're seeing Islamic law being imposed in geographical areas in non-Islamic lands.

It doesn't worry you at all?

Don't know if it's worth it to try to get liberals to worry about Islamic supremacists as much as they worry about having a devout Christian as President or Prime Minister. Seems they want to have it both ways so as to adhere to political correctness and stay in good social graces.

MikeAdamson said...

Is it allowable under the British Constitution to have religious orders impose laws that have not been made by an elected secular legislature, such laws in lieu of the real laws of the land?

Religious orders can impose laws or rules or whatever on their own members so long as they don't contravene the law of the land. Obviously they can't impose them on non-members but there's nothing stopping them from posting signs declaring their rules as far as I speech and all that. If the notices threaten harm or promote hatred then the issue may be different but that doesn't appear to be the case.

glacierman said...

Mike, try letting your daughter or wife walk down the street dressed "immodestly" as set by those who are standing in the doorways outside a mosque, and you drinking a beer while smoking a fag, and you will soon find out who holds the law and fear for your physical safety of your life. Then you will know what it means to follow "sharia law".

The police in France, for the most part, don't go into the Muslim neighbourhoods for fear of their lives, you are more naive than I thought.

Are you a willful idiot? or do you really believe you won't have to obey their laws? This is a cultural war and they have you on their side...traitor?

Canadian Sentinel said...

Glacierman is correct.

We're talking about the REAL WORLD... not the theoretical world the "progressives" believe there is around them.

glacierman said...

Mike, the fear factor is not the intent of my post.

Would you take on the attributes of said Muslims in order to stay alive? That is what a lot of the hardline Muslim countries are doing. Which countries in the world are currently at war and what percentage of them are Muslims fighting non-Muslims? I know not one which is not the Muslims trying to force their religious system on the country which they are trying to overtake.

It is only a matter of time before they start throwing their weight around just like they do in France. Not a very nice place to be during day, let alone after dark. It is not fear but safety. England is not far behind the French, the burning of neighbourhoods should start in 3..2...1..

Canadian Sentinel said...

Oops... error in the sentence above... scratch one of the "are not"s

Canadian Sentinel said...

Hey... so stickers saying "Canon Law will be enforced in this area of the city... This is a Christian values only zone" stickers would be ok to post all over the place?

Oh, don't worry. It's just stickers. And forget that there's holy men in robes telling people in those areas of the city that they can't be gay, can't have abortions and stuff...

Canadian Sentinel said...

Yup... replace Muslim/Islam with Christian/Christianity and see if guys like Mike and Balbulican will say it's silly to fearmonger about "Christians taking over or wanting to do so". ;)

Canadian Sentinel said...

So it's silly and crazy for the Left and the media to scream about "scary Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann" while ignoring the spread of Sharia Law, "honor" killings right here at home, hate-and-violence preaching, Saudi funded Mosques, Madrassas, etc...

balbulican said...

By the way, does anyone think that weird dork posting the stickers looks like a cartoon leprechaun?

balbulican said...

"And the non-Muslim Dhimmis are just letting it happen."

Do you mean, the members of the community reference in your article who think the whole thing is an insulting joke, who removed the stickers the next day, and who are collaborating with the police in reviewing CCTV footage to bust the vandalists?

balbulican said...

Glacierman, I'd be interested in hearing what you think Canada should do with its Muslim citizens in this "war" you claim we're in. Please be as specific as possible.

MikeAdamson said...

Some Christians do advocate the implementation of their religious values as law just as some Muslims obviously are. When the effort to impose religious values on citizens takes the form of illegal activity e.g. intimidation, assault, murder, etc. then the State is obligated to enforce the Criminal code. If an anti-abortion group wants to declare abortion free zones in Canadian neighbourhoods and posts stickers to that effect then more power to them. If the Muslims posting stickers use illegal means to enforce their values on others then the State has to enforce the law.

It's the hyperbole and angst that prompts me to comment. You're well within your rights to express concern about the preaching of values with which you disagree but to conclude that England now has shariah law zones because some stickers say so is over the top IMO.

glacierman said...

Good Morning Balb! Great 1st of August to ya!

As per your question: Canada? As a legal argument? Constitutional? We the People? Not quite sure what you are asking me to expound on as it is now becomes personal opinion. It is not rooted in laws of the land as I do not belong to the Bar, so that may be a little deep and out of my league.

The short answer is to love them, and show them that the standard of the Judeo-Christian society by which our nation has been founded on is about liberty, compassion and forgiveness.

You being a Catholic know the power of prayer, and we should engage in the fight which is in the heavenlies, praying wisdom for our leaders, strength for our nation, and that we have our eyes and ears open to hear God's voice on how to love our neighbours as ourselves.

Your turn!

∞ ≠ ø said...

Oh mirth!

Add this too.

Canadian Sentinel said...

I mean if you're not Catholic/Christian, then Breivik cannot be either. One must necessarily be a believer to qualify for the label in truth. So to call Breivik a Christian is as much a falsehood as calling you a Catholic.

balbulican said...

Wrong. I don't call myself a Catholic or a Christian. I call myself an atheist.

Breivik call himself a Christian. I understand your need to reject that. I suggest you google and read the definition of what's called the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy.

I was especially amused by your citation of his "Darwinist" beliefs as evidence of his non Christianity. You do know that the Catholic Church accepts the accuracy of Darwinism, don't you?

glacierman said...

Balb, if you had read a little of Breivik's manifesto, you would see that he was a Darwinist in his life far more than a Christian.

By the way, sorry for calling you a Catholic, was going from memory and thought that you were a RC. But you calling yourself an atheist makes far more sense.

That being said, as an atheist that now puts you into parasite territory. This makes far more sense as to your comments here on this blog, in your baiting techniques and not being able to make any clear distinctions as to the differences between being a Christian and Muslim as to which set of moral and cultural standards by which you are willing to live.

Both hosts have redeeming value and your survival instincts being what they are, will attach and morph into whatever will keep you alive.

Good luck with that if you think the Mulsims won't have something to say about what you believe. Won't be long before the featured photo will be of you putting up stickers on lightposts in order to keep your head attached to your torso.

balbulican said...

"Balb, if you had read a little of Breivik's manifesto, you would see that he was a Darwinist in his life far more than a Christian."

You missed the point . Being a Darwinist and being a Christian are not mutually exclusive. Sorry.

The rest of your comment doesn't merit response.

balbulican said...

"if you had read a little of Breivik's manifesto, you would see that he was a Darwinist in his life far more than a Christian."

Glacierman, I don't have the time or the stomach to read 1500 pages of a Muslim hating, feminist hating mass murderer's theories of the universe. I did, however, just do a text search for the terms Christ and Darwin. May I suggest you do the same? It may disabuse you of your quaint notion.

glacierman said...

Balb, by not acknowledging your parasitic nature does not change the fact. Doing the ostrich seems unbecoming of you. I thought that might be something you would love to refute.

You live by the comfortable standards and morals around you that is why you don't want to respond? Wont' bite the hand that feeds?

As per Breiviks statements that he was a Christian, you would find that he was a cultural Christian, not one believing in the need for a personal relationship with God/Jesus/Holy Spirit, thinking that to be too out there for him. Just because he said he was one, does not make him one, but that subtlety would be lost on you. He, like you, acknowledges and lives by the benefits of the Judeo-Christian society, such as the freedom of speech and association. Would this not be one of your motto's: "When in Rome, do as the Romans"?

balbulican said...

Glacierman, your smug platitudes bore me. Sorry. Come back when you have something substantive to say.

Canadian Sentinel said...

Glacierman has made excellent points, Balbulican. Why squirm and run away?

I know. Because I'm your target and you rudely, conveniently ignore others' questions to you, dismissing them like a typical elitist prog.

Tch. ;)

balbulican said...

Gosh, I'm sorry, Scenty. I read Glacierman's two comments. The first one was a string of weak insults without much wit, and without a question in it.

You've obviously got a more nuanced approach to communication. All I saw was smarmy posturing from a self-satisfied prat, but I stand ready to be corrected: what, precisely, was the point you felt deserved a response?

glacierman said...

Balb, are you a cultural parasite, living off your host, absorbing and living by the norms from those around you and adapting to them as you have use of them?

Direct enough?

balbulican said...

Gee, glacierman - that's what passes in your world for a "discussion question"?

Sorry, fella - sounds like a peevish but not very clever troll trying to pick a fight.

But since you ask, the answer is no.

Direct enough?