Jihad-Friendly in New York City
March 16, 2008, 09:55 PM
A+
|
a-
Print Friendly and PDF
The hits just keep on coming from the New York Times. Today's swill describes how immigrant Muslims in a small Spanish town are suffering because they don't have a proper mosque [Spain’s Many Muslims Face Dearth of Mosques]

In Lleida, located in northern Spain, the make-do prayer hall's Islamic congregation has exploded from 50 to 1,000 in just five years, but they want a real mosque and make it snappy. However, the cultural stresses on the town's citizens are intense.

"The tension has grown as the numbers have grown," Ms. Roig?© said. "They've set up shops, butchers, long-distance call centers and restaurants." These businesses, catering to Muslim immigrants, line the surrounding streets.

She added: "They are radicals, fundamentalists. They don't want to integrate."

Muslim leaders, however, say the lack of proper mosques is one barrier to integration. And Spanish authorities and Muslim leaders say the potential for extremism would be easier to monitor at fewer, larger mosques than at the 600 or so prayer halls scattered throughout the country.

Ri-i-i-ght — better architecture will prevent those impressionable boys from embracing jihad. Al Times accepts that ludicrous idea with no question and marches along to more appeasement journalism.

The weekly magazine continues in the same vein with a puff piece about Islamic law: Why Sharia?

In some sense, the outrage about according a degree of official status to Shariah in a Western country should come as no surprise. No legal system has ever had worse press. To many, the word "Shariah" conjures horrors of hands cut off, adulterers stoned and women oppressed. By contrast, who today remembers that the much-loved English common law called for execution as punishment for hundreds of crimes, including theft of any object worth five shillings or more? How many know that until the 18th century, the laws of most European countries authorized torture as an official component of the criminal-justice system? As for sexism, the common law long denied married women any property rights or indeed legal personality apart from their husbands. When the British applied their law to Muslims in place of Shariah, as they did in some colonies, the result was to strip married women of the property that Islamic law had always granted them — hardly progress toward equality of the sexes.

In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world.

Of course the difference is that the bad old days of English law are long past, while the horrors of sharia continue daily. Men are executed for being accused of homosexuality, women are murdered in honor killings for the smallest social infractions and public beheadings continue in places like Saudi Arabia. In addition, alleged sorcery is also frowned upon in The Kingdom (Saudis Cracking Down on Witchcraft) and slavery is accepted and practiced in several Islamic nations.

Another swell job, New York Times, in defending Islam's 8th-century brutality and denigrating western progress in law and justice!