I would say that the police officer’s objections were on IMmoral grounds.

I don’t share your amusement.

Given that most london police are probably christians: what about if they refused to protect a mosque against rioters “on moral grounds”?

Fashion Mujahid is spot on.

More importantly, it had nothing to do with “moral grounds”. Please do some fact checking, zeeshan.

wasalam

Further thoughts:

It appears that the “moral grounds” constitute “objection to israel’s bombing of lebanon. It’s not like they’re being required to eat pork, is it?

If they refuse to guard the israeli embassy, what else can they refuse to defend? The housing complex for israeli staff? Israelis in the street? Jews?

Or how about if the christian majority police refuse to guard, for example, the afghan embassy because of executing an apostate – or the lebanese embassy because of rockets being fired from its territory into israel?

How can a police force function if it’s allowed to pick and choose what/who it protects?

Salam Zeeshan,

>> If you’ve enlisted and been sent to Iraq or Afghanistan

Wonder no more: I was deployed to Afghanistan and had and continue to have no qualms about engaging Talibs in combat or any duties contributing to the demise of the Taliban. I did so on the grounds that such people initiated the oppression of people based on religion and once they have chosen violence, and they certainly did so of thier own free will, they have forefieted thier safety. No amount of rationalizations should cloud our judgment: such people can only be stopped by force; yes, violence. We must not become thier pawns by accepting Islamic fraternity (why never soirority?) or excusing them because one may beleive Western hegemony to be a greater threat. We are loosing our religion to them, so unless you’re prepared to bow down to them and not to God, by all means continue to excuse them.

- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.

Yo, Omar, did you get my email? I’m leaving town in about 15 hours, so hit me up.

Since the Israeli ambassador to England was wounded
in an assassination attempt, I hardly think there is no danger there, esp given the times.

Imagine your proper indignation if Israel refused
to allow Brit muslims to guard them.

Public service positions demand a blind eye to service

If that’s too much find another job.
The service rendered is to Britain, not the embassy or
conuslate guarded

I have to agree with the majority of opinions posted here. Cops cannot decide who they will or will not protect. Even leaving aside the moral issues, on a practical level it would be open season on Muslims. The officer should not even have made the request, frankly, and disgraced himself by doing so; but further the request should NOT have been granted.

Also, I want to note; I look forward to the day when Muslims spend 1/500th the outrage on murderous and corrupt Muslim regimes as they spend on Israel. I don’t see that happening any time soon though.

OK, apparently the officer was worried about what might happen to his family back home if it got out that he was protecting an Israeli embassy, which is very different from deciding not to protect the "Yahud". I'd be OK with a police officer refusing an assignment that would put his family at unneccessary risk, if there was someone who could do so without endangering his own family. His family didn't sign up for the job; he did. That said, Muslims need to stop the Jew-bashing, right now. The fact that he would need to worry about the safety of his family if he decided to protect an embassy thousands of miles away says something about the behavior of Muslims that disturbs me.

Thabet, Zeeshan reported on the article, and there is value in it, despite 

the inaccuracies. Why, if you were so interested in accuracy, did you not

submit the correction? 

<BBC and CNN generally don’t think it’s worth reporting until writers or journalists actually gets murdered or sent into exile. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

I’m not saying it odesn’t happen, but anyone being honest with themselves will not dispute that Muslims as a whole would rather ignore the problems in their own houses and blame everything on (not nessiscarily in this order) America, Israel, The Kafirun, or in many cases just “The Jews”. Saddam Hussein killed more Muslims in any given decade in power than Israel has since its inception, and yet he is viewed as something of a hero by many. Saudi Arabia is more oppressive, wasteful, and cruel than Israel has been even at its worst. The Iranian ayatollahs issue fatawat that state that grown men can fuck little girls and a Jew converting to Christianity in a Muslim country is subject to the death penalty. Maybe in the Muslim world things are different (though I have my doubts) but here, among both the immigrant and revert communities, Anti-Jewish sentiment thinly disguised as anti-Zionist sentiment seems to me the order of the day. Not that the American Jewish community isn’t every bit as bad towards Muslims, but this is a seperate issue.

Now, if his family’s safety was at issue, that I can understand, although my own mom, a law enforcement agent, has not stepped down her own duties after threats from the Hell’s Angels, among others. But that is no longer a “Conscientious” objection then, and the point of the article is moot, yes?