Muslim Policemans Protest (Merged)

[DanCanovas]

http://skynews.typepad.com/my_weblog..._policema.html

I wonder what would happen to me if I said, sorry Im a christian I dont want to serve outside a Muslim embassy. Id be sacked on the spot without question.

[DanCanovas]

i think there will be civil war in this country before my days are up.

[STEED]

Snowsub spotted that one and posted it here http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=98972

Just go down the thread.

[Skybird]

Motivations for this and the wounded-soldier-being-threatend-incident(other thread) of course do not arise from Quran and Hadith, but must be regarded as pervertions and absuing Muslim faith only. Because Islam teaches tolerance, equality, peace.

Over 30% of muslims in Britain have been found by a recent representative poll to be in open support for implementing the Sharia in Britain. Amongst the young ones, the quote is even higher.

I wonder when people will start to realize that such things are directly linked to the teachings of this ideology and the situational, historical contexts in which these techings had been created. Only saying that all this is not one's own interpretation of Quran simply means highly selectivly picking some pieces of text from the quran and ignoring all the many other highly critical ones. that way, the ignorration and selective blindness of socalled moderate muslims are directly assisting the cause of jihadd, even if they are not aware of that. Becasue they produce the excuse that prevents to check and examine Qurans scriptures, and muhammad. until today they are taken literally and untested - and this is a desaster all mankind is suffering from. They need to learn and understand that the Quran is man-made, and not infallible, and they need to understand that Muhammad also was just a man, with many human flaws, and that he was far from infallible, too, and was running his own selfish private agenda.

This demand has been brought up by almost all those critics who in recent years came under threats of Muslim murders, or had been killed, or had to flee Europe. It is very important that Europeans as well as the rest of non-Muslim mankind start to tell Muslim tough truths and leave no doubt that this demand for-self-analysis and it's uncompromised implementation is non-negotiable. Simply kicking them out of europe will not be enough, for the Islamic influence will continue to try to subjugate all world. we should not allow them to avoid this business time and again by bedning ourselves and create situation that alloow them not to confront the content of their ideology. If they see that ahppening, they conclude that their teaching is right and the others will give up - why should they raise doubts about themselves, then...???

[micky1up]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Motivations for this and the wounded-soldier-being-threatend-incident(other thread) of course do not arise from Quran and Hadith, but must be regarded as pervertions and absuing Muslim faith only. Because Islam teaches tolerance, equality, peace.

Over 30% of muslims in Britain have been found by a recent representative poll to be in open support for implementing the Sharia in Britain. Amongst the young ones, the quote is even higher.

I wonder when people will start to realize that such things are directly linked to the teachings of this ideology and the situational, historical contexts in which these techings had been created. Only saying that all this is not one's own interpretation of Quran simply means highly selectivly picking some pieces of text from the quran and ignoring all the many other highly critical ones. that way, the ignorration and selective blindness of socalled moderate muslims are directly assisting the cause of jihadd, even if they are not aware of that. Becasue they produce the excuse that prevents to check and examine Qurans scriptures, and muhammad. until today they are taken literally and untested - and this is a desaster all mankind is suffering from. They need to learn and understand that the Quran is man-made, and not infallible, and they need to understand that Muhammad also was just a man, with many human flaws, and that he was far from infallible, too, and was running his own selfish private agenda.

This demand has been brought up by almost all those critics who in recent years came under threats of Muslim murders, or had been killed, or had to flee Europe. It is very important that Europeans as well as the rest of non-Muslim mankind start to tell Muslim tough truths and leave no doubt that this demand for-self-analysis and it's uncompromised implementation is non-negotiable. Simply kicking them out of europe will not be enough, for the Islamic influence will continue to try to subjugate all world. we should not allow them to avoid this business time and again by bedning ourselves and create situation that alloow them not to confront the content of their ideology. If they see that ahppening, they conclude that their teaching is right and the others will give up - why should they raise doubts about themselves, then...???

yes islam preaches tolerance and peace but unfortunately not many seem to practice it

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by micky1up

yes islam preaches tolerance and peace

But of course!

[Skybird]

"yes islam preaches tolerance and peace but unfortunately not many seem to practice it."

Because tolerance in Islam means discrimination of others, and peace in Islam means a peace deriving from undisputed dominance of Islam and wiping out of other faiths, cultures, beliefs, so that islam's dominance cannot be challenged by anyone: ergo, there is peace.

I think it should not be tolerated that this man is boycotting to obey his orders. But now that it is known what his attitude towards Israel is - would it be a good service to force him to protecxt the embassy? Would you trust him under that circumstances? By the behavior he displayed I think there can only be one clean solution: fire him from his job as a police officer. Police service is not the same like distributing newspapers, or selling ice. Personnell servin in such important duties must have a reputation that is beyond any doubts and questions. Amnd with regard to this man, this is no longer the case. Next time he maybe will reject to protect people who get beaten up on the streets, because they come from a country where a certain event raised muslim anger and caused offended feelings again. unacceptable.

It has often, but only silently, almost ashamed, being said that the "integration" of peopole from other cultures comes at the price that habits from their places of origin find their way into the jobs they are doing. It is an open secret that there are serious concerns about higher corruption amongst police officers from certain Arabian countries, for example, becaseu there "bakshish", small monetarian gifts, are rule of the day and accepted part of social interaction. you do not get a permission to raise a house, without giving a bakshish to the deciding bureaucratic representative. You don'T get the police searhcing for your stolen bike, if you do not bribe the officers. In many countries it simply works like this.There is no reason to assume that all of a sudden people coming from these countries all of a sudden give up what they have known so far, even more so when in many wetsern countires, especially Germany, the demands on them to integrate into their new cultural surrounding are tame and lame. Ergo: If they serve in according positions, they may see nothing bad in being corrupt and accepting briberies, and would even not call it that way.

In this thread's example, the man in question also acts according to his cultural origin, and ignores the cultural context he is expected to serve as an officer.

But I have no doubt that the British again will not hesitate to withdraw from the challenge of these implications. Wird schon irgendwie alles gut werden, nur ruhig Blut...

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Skybird

But I have no doubt that the British again will not hesitate to withdraw from the challenge of these implications.

This just in.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Motivations for this and the wounded-soldier-being-threatend-incident(other thread) of course do not arise from Quran and Hadith, but must be regarded as pervertions and absuing Muslim faith only. Because Islam teaches tolerance, equality, peace.

*shrug* where's the problem? Embassies are treated as, for all intents and purposes, part and property of the state they belong to, thus in guarding the Israeli embassy he would in effect be guarding the state of Israel... and given his stated reason for not wanting to do that, why should he? If it were me I wouldn't either, and I'm not a Muslim. But as usual you ascribe the actions, even the peaceful, non-violent kinds such as this one which you attack them for not doing, of one individual Muslim to the entire Muslim population and their religion... which is stereotyping, but here you are going off about "tolerance, equality, peace" - where is your tolerance and respect for someone who doesn't share your unconditional support of Israel and their chosen non-violent method of protest?

You seem to want it both ways here, as usual, on this issue. Would your reaction, or anyone else's, be the same if say a British Jew refused to guard the Iranian embassy? Somehow I doubt it.

[snowsub]

And what about all those innocent people who are walking by that embassy??????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????

I suppose they peserve it?
(collateral damage??)

The law protect everyone, not just the ones you want.

[Skybird]

Police meanwhile has tried to explain the issue as concerns of the officer in question regarding his family - if he would be filmed on tV, his family may be hurt. If that is so, he is susceptible to blackmail. the question then is if such a person, no matter his faith and ideological background, can be accepted to vital public services and security duties. My answer is: No.

Or he has been withdrawn from service at the embassy for his superiors did not trust him when wokring there. That would mean he is not trustworthy in his job. Again the question then is if such a person, no matter his faith and ideological background, can be accepted to vital public services and security duties. My answer is: No.

Or he sees fulfilling his duties -and part of that duty is to guard an ebassy if he is ordered to - as a violation of his ideological background or faith. then his faith/ideology collides witzh the non-negotioable demands of his job to which he must fully comply. If he can'T or won't do that, it is to be asked if he could be accepted in vital public services and security duties. My answer is: no. If you are in the policy or military, you are not entering a democracy, but a hierarchy that bases on the principle of orders, and obeying orders. If in a battle during war, or a critical security event, or processes of decision making, the obeying of orders is left to the individual, you have two results: a.) you have no trustworthy police and military institutions anymore, you are unable to react with speed if every order will be discussed or will get decided by majoirty decision of offciers on the street/in the field; you will never know if your orders will be carried out, or ignored, or if subordinates even turn against you; and b.) you violate the principle of separating law making (politics), law-interpreting (courts) and law-enforcing (police). what Scandium accepts in his posting above is that the police officers in the future will no longer depend on the law and the obeying of orders, but instead make their own laws that replaces their legal obligations and dsuties. And that is totally unacceptable. Police is not free to decide if it wants to enforce this or that aspect of a given law - it has to stick to the law, without discussion. The luxury of choosing situation when to do it and when not - a polcie officer never has. Police-officers do not interpret the law - they enforce it. If they have a problem with that, they have to leave service.

so, no matter what the scenario is and how you look at it: I always come to the conclusion that leaving this man in police service is unacceptable. He either do his job fully and uncompromisingly, or he doesn't. In military and police, there is no in-between. You are either a a cop, or you are not.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by snowsub

And what about all those innocent people who are walking by that embassy??????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????

I suppose they peserve it?
(collateral damage??)

The law protect everyone, not just the ones you want.

That about sums things up for all of the innocent Lebanese civilians killed by the IDF - "collateral damage". Only nobody gave a damn because they're Arabs, of course, and mostly Muslim as well; so instead you get outraged over a hypothetical and one man's moral/political decision not to protect the embassy and outlaw regime it represents, whose IDF was founded on a network of Israeli terrorist cells that amalgated to form the then newly created "Israeli Defence Forces" and which routinely flaunts international laws.

Then there is the matter of the Israelis celebrating, while they were recently bombing Lebanon to rubble, the anniversary of the Israeli terrorist bombing of the King David hotel which killed scores of British nationals. So no, I don't blame him; and no, the law does not protect everyone, and it is not about "everyone" but the embassy itself and what it represents.

This guy made a political/moral decision and that is all there is to it. You and I make them all of the time as well, though I doubt anyone's ever used your religion as a basis for attacking the ethical decisions you've made, have they? And there is the difference. And again, I wouldn't do it and I'm a Christian, which is kind of hard to square with the "logic" running throughout this thread seeing as how this guy's choice was so obviously because he's "Muslim" and therefore typical, while I am not Muslim... but that's the problem with stereotyping and trying to put everyone into neat little categories because they happen to be Muslim, or American, or German. Its just nonsense. People to need to grow up, get out more and try broadening their little circle of friends beyond those of the same race/religion... maybe then we'd see some sanity in the world. The intolerant crap and stereotyping from various posters in threads like this and Jihad are just two sides of the same coin and only serves to pour fuel on the fire.

[TteFAboB]

Mr. Scandium,

You accuse posters of this thread of stereotyping Muslims, but you stereotype Israelis.

Then you state you are a Christian, I thought you were a Bhuddist or agnostic, and accuse posters of having a problematic logic. If this Muslim policemen worked as a firefighter and if you were trapped inside a building on fire and he decided to peacefully protest by not going inside the building as he'd have to enter and walk through a Jewish shop at the first floor, you wouldn't be here today. Your logic does not apply to yourself - Muslim workers can protest, but if they did so while you were in need of their service you would die.

The Muslim policemen has no way of telling who's inside that Embassy, British Muslims, British citizens, British Christians, foreign Muslims. He has no way of telling, he does not know it and cannot know it. On what ground does he base his political/moral decision then? On his ignorance of facts? On facade, on the surface, on the cover of the book? Not all Israelis are members of the Army and there are Israeli socialists calling for the end of Israel, should they suffer too? Because they were born in Israel they should accept the stereotyping in the name of the greater cause. What about the Arabs and Muslims with Israeli citizenship? Damned for meddling with the enemy.

Ignorance has not affected his decision, nor it affects yours:

People to need to grow up, get out more and try broadening their little circle of friends beyond those of the same race/religion... maybe then we'd see some sanity in the world

How can you tell that this is the truth? I failed to discover your religion, I thought you were a Bhuddist or rejected all Christian churches, now you prove me wrong, and you want to convince me you know the circle of friends of the posters on this thread?

I suggest every poster here proves scandium wrong if that's the case. My circle of friends includes Arab immigrants, African descendants, Japanese and Korean immigrants and "Native Americans". I am myself a member of all "races": Indoeuropean, Asiatic and African. If having friends of all races or having mixed blood yourself puts one at an advantage, I await for your description, as I do not know it, before calling the advantage to myself.

Anyway, I don't think a world where policemen decide if they want to work or not, protesting on political/moral decisions based on the ignorance of facts, would be a world of sanity.

[NEON DEON]

It is a police officer’s duty to enforce the law. There can be no deviation from that.

What I am failing to see here is why there is an issue against Alexander Basha in the first place.

“Britain's top policeman has launched an urgent review into the decision to excuse a Muslim police officer from guarding London's Israeli Embassy on moral grounds.”

The Officer was excused from duty by his superiors. The officer did not refuse the duty he was excused.

“Britain's top policeman has launched an urgent review into the decision to excuse a Muslim police officer from guarding London's Israeli Embassy on moral grounds.”

It is the decision being reviewed here not the officer.

“But the Association of Muslim Police said it was a "welfare" matter- the officer had Christian and Muslim relatives in Lebanon and was concerned for his safety.” ***

Is that statement true? Does the supervisor involved confirm that?

If so, then why would the officer’s supervisor not excuse him if someone else was available to do the job?

*** I believe the quote should read “was concerned for their safety” as opposed to his safety. It does not follow with the rest of the content in the quote. I have written to sky news to ask for clarification.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by TteFAboB

Mr. Scandium,

You accuse posters of this thread of stereotyping Muslims, but you stereotype Israelis.

Then you state you are a Christian, I thought you were a Bhuddist or agnostic, and accuse posters of having a problematic logic. If this Muslim policemen worked as a firefighter and if you were trapped inside a building on fire and he decided to peacefully protest by not going inside the building as he'd have to enter and walk through a Jewish shop at the first floor, you wouldn't be here today. Your logic does not apply to yourself - Muslim workers can protest, but if they did so while you were in need of their service you would die.

Silly hypothetical. He refused to guard the embassy. Full Stop.

Obviously someone else was posted in his place so the function is still being performed.

And policemen are confronted with moral/ethical choices all the time; it is why they may let one speeder off with a warning but ticket another, etc.