Good point

Submitted by Sadhasiv (United States), Aug 30, 2006 at 11:20

1. When muslims demanded a separate nation for their religion, why did not all of them go there when they got it (Partition)?
2. Also, why did some of the very ones who didn't go there demand from the original country that they should be governed by a different set of laws than that of the land they were in? This case, a (Delhi) muslim decided to skyve on his obligation to support his 65-year-old ex-wife whom he divorced after a 40-year marriage. He complained to a (not even Indian origin, his name proving it--Bukhari) mullah about it who pressured the government to allow this different set of laws overruling a very sensible judge who would not allow the miscreant to skyve so easily. Noticeably, Bukhari and his ilk still did not want to go to Pakistan when they had already had the freedom to do so for 40 years!

Basically, those who migrate to a country (or even go there to work temporarily) should be prepared to abide by the laws of the land; those who wish to become citizens should especially have such intentions--not those of changing or manipulating laws to their own convenience.

Canada has already taken many steps towards its own destruction by giving in to such demands (based on its policy of "multiculturalism"--of course, this was a divide-and-continue-misrule policy concocted by Trudeau). I only pray that the UK will not follow Canada's errors!

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".