I just recently came across a video showing a group of hooded Muslims, or 'Sharia Police' walking around in area's taking alcohol of people and telling women to cover up. Some footage shows a cyclist after being in an accident and they blame it on the fact he isn't following the Muslim way of life. 

I think this is completely wrong and screwed up but I want to see your opinions.

And more so has anyone every heard of something like this even been attempted in the USA?

This is the link anyway: Muslim Police

Views: 379

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Don't think it is a fake. Read about this in the paper here in India today, plus read something similar - posters in muslim areas declaring them sharia zones in the UK, a few months ago. I think the two things might be connected.

There are no Sharia Police in the UK.  Sharia courts are allowed to make judgements, as are Jewish courts, but those courts are self-funded and voluntary.  They cannot mete out punishments that exceed British Law.  This is not being "attempted" in the UK.

At the least fake, these are just kids mucking about but it would be quite intimidating. 

If it's filmed where I suspect it is these guys are taking quite a risk, it is a highly multi-cultural area but there are many right-wing people there.  This type of activity is really stupid as it may well cause a streetfight cum riot.

Sorry, I should have clarified before that these are a vigilante group. They have no authority!  

Muslim Council response on the vigilantes:


There may not be any officially sanctioned Sharia Police, but if these guys are running around intimidating people into complying with Sharia, then they are de facto Sharia police--an alternative government has been created.  It will only be worse once they start collecting "taxes."

How did sharia law first get instituted where it holds sway now?  In many areas, a bunch of thugs began enforcing it, and ultimately there were enough muslims in the area that whatever the "official" government was, it faded into irrelevance.  In other places it was through conquest.  This is conquest from within, if it is allowed to proceed unchecked.

The legitimate government has to put a stop to this, or it ceases to be the government in those areas.


You are trying to blow this out of proportion.

Criminal activity occurs in the UK.  These guys are "enforcing" what they perceive to be Sharia law without a legal permit to enforce law and that constitutes harrassment.  There are laws to deal with their activity.  The people who were harrassed should have made a complaint to the police.  If these guys stated they were police then the law would be that they had impersonated a policeman.

For years Jewish courts have been allowed to pass judgements on people who agree to be bound by the sentence imposed by the Jewish court.  Tony Blair allowed similar courts to be set up for Muslims.  These courts are self-funded and can only impose sentences on people who allow it.  Anyone can refuse a sentence, hence they are largely used for things like religious and marriage issues. Anything that is a crime under British Law will be tried in a British court.

The courst have no jurisdiction over you or I, and there is no legal taxation by any group other than the UK govt.

If you bother to check the response link by the British Council of Muslims, this is agreed by them.  The video shows young men breaking UK law and acting against the law they are pretending to uphold.  As serious and threatening as their actions are they are really along the lines of intimidating pranksters than representing any kind of "conquest".

Given that the UK population is 97% non-Muslim, any imposition of Sharia will a long time coming.  By that time, it is most likely, as with other immigration issues in the past, their children or their children's children will be fully assimilated.

I read that Muslims in England outnumber Jews, Hindus and all other minority groups put together. Plus they are supposed to be breeding  faster than any group. If this is true then an imposition of Sharia may come sooner rather than later.  

Don't think that's true, Logicallunatic.  Wiki has a breakdown here.

Sorry Logicallunatic but "breeding" is a term I reserve (and I believe is fairly commonly reserved) for controlling the genetic traits of animal off-spring.  To use the term for human families is dehumanising at least but I would consider it conflagratory.

Muslims, christians, Wiccans, Norse mythologists, Australian Aboriginal Dream Time believers, etc., etc. are all humans so empathy is appropriate, dehumanisation is not.  Your source is likely to be the BNP (British National Party ...or substitute National for Nazi to get a better idea of their politics) or EDL (English Defence League), and I have heard exactly that terminology used by Mr Griffin, head of the BNP. 

A more accurate and sensitive way to describe what appears from these sources to be the case (if it were the case) would be to say that average UK Muslim families have a tendency to be larger than average UK families of other religions, or no religion.  From my experience in the UK, this is rubbish.  Muslims that I know do not have particularly large families.

Looking back, all my grandparents came from families with 5 or more children.  My grandfather on my mum's side had 8 siblings, ie. his parents had 9 kids. 

You could make the argument that the reason for large families in the past was the high infant mortality but I'm sure religion (e.g. no contraception allowed) and traditional male/female roles also played a part.  Affordability would also be a nice argument to make but it wasn't true for my grandfather's family. 

Immigrant families, coming from geographical areas where infant mortality is high, religion is more ingrained, life is more family centric (male/female roles more diverged) are likely to have larger families.  The lack of necessity for these large families takes a generation or two to be comprehended or become part of the immigrant community's societal norm. 

I like the way you say UK 'religion' families, naming them first as British, and secondly as a religious subset.  That, for me, is very definitive.

My mum was from a ten-sibling family.  My father's mother died very young so there were only three of them, but his father was one of seven siblings.  It was at my dad's insistence that I "only" have two siblings, I think my mum would have liked armfuls of us too.

I have some really good Muslim friends.  I also have some very close Hindu friends, and several Jewish friends too. I also have a whole lot of 'nones' as friends.  Probably a few Christians amongst the people I know, but they don't make much of a show of it so I'd be guessing - and I wouldn't have a clue as to their denomination.  They are all Brits, however, that is what they (and I) have in common. 

Certainly family size is pretty standard between the different religions, not least because contraception is freely available to everyone.  The pill became available during the 1960's in Europe, and that may explain why families are smaller nowadays.

And of course some religions just don't allow contraception, irrespective of its availability.  Catholicism as the prime example, but Islam too.

I've got friends from all backgrounds.  My Dad's family were German Lutheran immigrants to the UK in the late 1800s, and my Mum's, English and Scottish.  All my family have had respect for other cultures and respect for individuals.  It remains absolutely someone's own choice if they wish to accept some imaginary alien being's existence or not...clearly not for me.  That doesn't mean to say that it is acceptable to belittle one group over another.  No one religion is any more right than any other.  Factually though, it is probable that more killings have been perpetrated by people claiming to act so in the name of christianity than any other religion, certainly far more than perpetrated by anyone in the name of Islam.
  Islamic terrorism of course is a fairly raw subject, but 15 or 20 years ago, Brits at least would have equated terrorism with Irish nationalism....Islamic terrorism would barely have been in the mind at all outside of the Middle-East at any rate.

Sorry Logicallunatic but "breeding" is a term I reserve (and I believe is fairly commonly reserved) for controlling the genetic traits of animal off-spring.  To use the term for human families is dehumanising at least but I would consider it conflagratory.

Aw come down off your PC high horse would you please. It's just a word which can apply to any group, race or religion. And no, my source wasn't the BNP, a racist group that I despise. Why would you automatically assume that? Do you think anyone who uses the word 'breeding' in a context other than genetics is getting their sources from the BNP? Try to take a deep breath and think in future before you jump to false conclusions. 


© 2015   Created by umar.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service