Apparently, British law includes a clause whereby we all look the other way when a Muslim man "repeatedly" beats his wife and threatens to kill her.
From the Telegraph:
In judgment: a Sharia divorce hearing in Birmingham
After being beaten repeatedly by her husband – who had also threatened to kill her – Jameela turned to her local Sharia council in a desperate bid for a way out of her marriage. Today she discovers the verdict. Playing nervously with her hands, the young mother-of-three listens as the panel of judges discuss whether they should grant her a divorce.
The council meets once a month at the Birmingham Central Mosque. Many of the cases relate to divorce and involve the husbands and wives entering the room separately to make their appeals.
In an airless room in the bowels of the mosque, Jameela is asked to explain why she wants a divorce. She replies that her husband spends most of his time with his second wife – Islamic law allows men to have up to four wives – but complains he is abusive whenever he returns to her home.
Across the desk, Dr Mohammed Naseem, chair of the mosque’s Sharia council, sits alongside Talha Bokhari, a white-robed imam, and Amra Bone, the only woman sitting on an Islamic court in this country.
While a husband is not required to go through official channels to gain a divorce – being able to achieve this merely by uttering the word “talaq” – Islamic law requires that the wife must persuade the judges to grant her a dissolution.
Although the judges appear sympathetic, they are concerned about the rights of the father, as Islamic law says he is still responsible for his children’s education. “For the sake of the children, you must keep up the façade of cordial relations,” says Dr Naseem. “The worst thing that can happen to a child is to see the father and mother quarrelling.”
Jameela is one of hundreds of Muslims applying to Islamic courts every week for a ruling on family and financial issues. While these courts may be the cornerstone of many of Britain’s Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities, there are growing concerns that they are creating a parallel legal system – and one that is developing completely unchecked.
Michael Nazir-Ali, the former Bishop of Rochester who was born in Pakistan, was accused of scaremongering after he said, in this newspaper three years ago, that parts of the country were being turned into “no-go” areas for non-Muslims. “To understand the impact of Sharia law you have to look at other countries,” he says. “At its heart it has basic inequalities between Muslims and non-Muslims, and between men and women.”
Last month, Islamic extremists put up posters in the London boroughs of Waltham Forest, Tower Hamlets and Newham, warning residents that they were entering a “Sharia-controlled zone” where Islamic rules were enforced and gambling, alcohol and music was banned. The posters were later removed by police.
Alan Craig, a former Newham councillor who has lived in the area for 30 years, says: “I can no longer walk to my local shops and find anywhere to buy conventional, non-halal meat. Posters at bus stops of swimwear models are spray-painted over with a burka. The pavements are crowded with women wearing not just the face-veil, but black gloves to hide their hands.”
He recalls that last September, staff at a local primary school assured Muslim parents that they would ensure their children observed Ramadan by refusing them food and drink, even though Britain was in the middle of a heatwave. “I was stunned. This is where we’ve got ourselves to. Secular authorities policing Ramadan for Muslim parents.”
It is only a few minutes’ walk from Newham to Leyton, home to the headquarters of the Islamic Sharia Council, a body set up in 1982 that oversees about a dozen Sharia courts across the country. It is estmated that there are as many as 85 Sharia courts in Britain. One of the judges who sits on the Leyton council, Dr Suhaib Hasan, wants Britain to introduce the penal law where women are stoned for committing adultery, and robbers have their hands amputated.
The contrast between this and the council at Birmingham Central Mosque reflects how the interpretation of Sharia – which unlike Western law has never been codified – can differ markedly between communities.
Based on the Koran and the Sunnah, the two main Islamic texts that deal with how Muslims should lead their lives, Sharia covers everything from diet and hygiene to bigger issues such as crime and relationships.
In an attempt to counter the proliferation of these courts, a Bill has been tabled in the House of Lords by Baroness Cox calling for Sharia courts to be outlawed where they conflict with the British legal system.
Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Lord Phillips, the former Lord Chief Justice, argued in 2008 that Sharia courts should be used to resolve disputes among Muslims. But since then, according to Baroness Cox, the problem has become more entrenched.
“My Bill seeks to stop parallel legal, or quasi-legal, systems taking root in our nation,” she says. “There is widespread concern that some tribunals applying Sharia are going well beyond their legal remit, and some rulings are being misrepresented as having the force of UK law. Cases of criminal law and family law are matters reserved for the English courts alone.
“I hope the Bill gets through, as I believe it is vital for securing the rights of women in this country.”
Family disputes – like Jameela’s – are common. After listening to Jameela’s husband, who agrees to the divorce, the judges grant her wish – but advise Jameela that if she remarries she should have the union officially registered.
Indeed, like many Muslim women in Britain today, Jameela had an Islamic marriage – or nikah – in a mosque, yet has not had it recognised in British law, leaving her in a much weaker legal position with regards to property and the custody of her children. This lack of regulation is one of the many areas that concern campaigners.
“Muslim women who have a poor grasp of English or are unaware of their legal rights are likely to believe whatever their Sharia court tells them,” says Baroness Cox.
Though the Sharia council in Birmingham is relatively liberal in its interpretation of the Koran, others are more fundamental in applying Islamic law, which gives the testimony of a woman only half the weight of that of a man.
“Sharia courts are utterly opposed to equal rights and they discriminate against women,” says Jim Fitzpatrick, the Labour MP for Poplar and Canning Town, an area with a population now dominated by Bangladeshi Muslims.
Fitzpatrick recently chaired a debate in the House of Commons on Sharia. “I’m concerned that they are creating a cultural stranglehold over their communities and leading to the Islamification of our society,” he says.
Amra Bone, the first woman in Britain to serve at a Sharia court, is playing a small role in attempting to counteract that image. Quietly spoken and dressed in a grey jacket with her head covered in a hijab, she hopes to change the face of Islam in this country, challenging the traditional roles expected of women.
Yet many Muslims would find her presence on the council of Birmingham’s central mosque unacceptable. In the vast majority of mosques in Britain, women are not allowed to step foot within their walls, let alone make rulings based on Islamic law.
“Most mosques would not allow a woman to be on its Sharia council,” she says. “But it’s a liberating experience to be involved in breaking the shackles of tradition and the slavery of men.”
The married mother-of-four believes her appointment represents a significant step in giving Muslim women a voice. “Sharia law can be discriminatory towards women, but they seem reassured when they see me sitting behind the desk.”
In most schools of Islamic teaching, women would not be allowed such a position of authority, but Amra was asked to become a member of the council after she impressed Dr Naseem with her knowledge of Sharia law.
Although there are no specific qualifications required to be appointed to a council, Amra has a masters degree in Islamic studies from Birmingham University, and is now a part-time lecturer at Warwick University.
Sharia courts have been accused of exploiting women by favouring men in their decisions, potentially leaving wives trapped in abusive marriages. Opponents also point to a ruling in an inheritance dispute that saw each of the brothers given twice the amount received by the sisters, in line with Islamic inheritance law.
These are issues Amra is keen to address. “Sharia courts in Britain were initially set up to help women because they wouldn’t – or couldn’t – go to the civil courts. Sharia courts therefore offered the only way for them to get on with their lives. The Koran gives you principles, but you don’t have to take everything literally. You have to interpret it and apply it to the community you live in, and for us, that means treating men and women equally.”
Given that Islamic men from a fundamentalist background, particularly from Saudi Arabia, will not allow their wives to leave their homes without their permission, she is aware that her championing of greater equality will alarm the custodians of Islam’s patriarchal system.
“I hope that I’m helping to break the long-held view that women aren’t capable of leadership roles. Muslim women have been restricted in what they can and can’t do. I hope that my presence on the council gives them hope that they can live a fulfilled life.”
Yet campaigners hope to see all Sharia courts outlawed from this country. Although the courts currently have no jurisdiction in Britain, the Islamic Sharia Council makes clear that its ultimate goal is to have their laws recognised.
It says on its website: “Though the Council is not yet legally recognised by the authorities in the UK, the fact that it is already established, and is gradually gaining ground among the Muslim community… are all preparatory steps towards the final goal of gaining the confidence of the host community in the soundness of the Islamic legal system.”
Certain decisions made under Sharia are already enforceable in British courts through the 1996 Arbitration Act, which allows any form of agreement as long as both parties concur on the terms at the outset. This legal standing does not apply to the informal Sharia councils – but does apply to the Muslim arbitration tribunals that rule on commercial and civil disputes, a fact that is raising fears that they could begin to supplant the British court system.
Set up in 2007 by Sheikh Faiz Siddiqi, a qualified commercial barrister, there are now seven Muslim arbitration tribunals across the country.
They are becoming popular with non-Muslims, too – who, Siddiqi claims, have made up around 15 per cent of their cases so far this year, compared to five per cent in 2009. “People see that they’re efficient, cheap and informal and we get to a decision in a much more stress-free manner.”
In 2009, a non-Muslim took his Muslim business partner to a tribunal, arguing that they had an oral agreement over the profits
in their car company. He was awarded £48,000 after the tribunal ruled that the Muslim partner had acted in a way that suggested a deal had been struck.
Earlier this year, another non-Muslim also found success by taking a dispute to the tribunal. He had been thrown out of his flat by his Muslim landlord after being accused of breaching the terms of his lease. The tribunal ruled that he had been treated unfairly and should be allowed to return to his property.
Sheikh Siddiqi says non-Muslims are using the tribunal system because they appreciate the weight that rulings under Sharia law carry in the Islamic world.
“People are finding that the negative images evoked in the past about Sharia law being draconian are not accurate,” he says. “Instead they’re seeing that our tribunals are a cheaper and quicker method of resolving disagreement, and they’re coming away with rulings that are fair.”
Indeed, Siddiqi even claims that much of English contract law has been inspired by Islamic contract law. “There are strong similarities between the two. Those who say that Sharia law conflicts with English law don’t know what they’re talking about. In England, criminal law is going towards Islamic law in terms of restorative justice, looking to have the victim compensated by the perpetrator. That’s exactly what we’ve been doing for 1,400 years.”
But Bishop Nazir-Ali says the argument that there is common ground and compatibility between Sharia and English law gives a misleading impression.
“The problem with Sharia law being used in tribunals is that it compromises the tradition of equality for all under the law,” he says. “It threatens the fundamental values that underpin our society.”
Jameela is one of hundreds of Muslims applying to Islamic courts every week for a ruling on family and financial issues. While these courts may be the cornerstone of many of Britain’s Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities, there are growing concerns that they are creating a parallel legal system – and one that is developing completely unchecked.
Michael Nazir-Ali, the former Bishop of Rochester who was born in Pakistan, was accused of scaremongering after he said, in this newspaper three years ago, that parts of the country were being turned into “no-go” areas for non-Muslims. “To understand the impact of Sharia law you have to look at other countries,” he says. “At its heart it has basic inequalities between Muslims and non-Muslims, and between men and women.”
Last month, Islamic extremists put up posters in the London boroughs of Waltham Forest, Tower Hamlets and Newham, warning residents that they were entering a “Sharia-controlled zone” where Islamic rules were enforced and gambling, alcohol and music was banned. The posters were later removed by police.
Alan Craig, a former Newham councillor who has lived in the area for 30 years, says: “I can no longer walk to my local shops and find anywhere to buy conventional, non-halal meat. Posters at bus stops of swimwear models are spray-painted over with a burka. The pavements are crowded with women wearing not just the face-veil, but black gloves to hide their hands.”
He recalls that last September, staff at a local primary school assured Muslim parents that they would ensure their children observed Ramadan by refusing them food and drink, even though Britain was in the middle of a heatwave. “I was stunned. This is where we’ve got ourselves to. Secular authorities policing Ramadan for Muslim parents.”
It is only a few minutes’ walk from Newham to Leyton, home to the headquarters of the Islamic Sharia Council, a body set up in 1982 that oversees about a dozen Sharia courts across the country. It is estmated that there are as many as 85 Sharia courts in Britain. One of the judges who sits on the Leyton council, Dr Suhaib Hasan, wants Britain to introduce the penal law where women are stoned for committing adultery, and robbers have their hands amputated.
The contrast between this and the council at Birmingham Central Mosque reflects how the interpretation of Sharia – which unlike Western law has never been codified – can differ markedly between communities.
Based on the Koran and the Sunnah, the two main Islamic texts that deal with how Muslims should lead their lives, Sharia covers everything from diet and hygiene to bigger issues such as crime and relationships.
In an attempt to counter the proliferation of these courts, a Bill has been tabled in the House of Lords by Baroness Cox calling for Sharia courts to be outlawed where they conflict with the British legal system.
Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Lord Phillips, the former Lord Chief Justice, argued in 2008 that Sharia courts should be used to resolve disputes among Muslims. But since then, according to Baroness Cox, the problem has become more entrenched.
“My Bill seeks to stop parallel legal, or quasi-legal, systems taking root in our nation,” she says. “There is widespread concern that some tribunals applying Sharia are going well beyond their legal remit, and some rulings are being misrepresented as having the force of UK law. Cases of criminal law and family law are matters reserved for the English courts alone.
“I hope the Bill gets through, as I believe it is vital for securing the rights of women in this country.”
Family disputes – like Jameela’s – are common. After listening to Jameela’s husband, who agrees to the divorce, the judges grant her wish – but advise Jameela that if she remarries she should have the union officially registered.
Indeed, like many Muslim women in Britain today, Jameela had an Islamic marriage – or nikah – in a mosque, yet has not had it recognised in British law, leaving her in a much weaker legal position with regards to property and the custody of her children. This lack of regulation is one of the many areas that concern campaigners.
“Muslim women who have a poor grasp of English or are unaware of their legal rights are likely to believe whatever their Sharia court tells them,” says Baroness Cox.
Though the Sharia council in Birmingham is relatively liberal in its interpretation of the Koran, others are more fundamental in applying Islamic law, which gives the testimony of a woman only half the weight of that of a man.
“Sharia courts are utterly opposed to equal rights and they discriminate against women,” says Jim Fitzpatrick, the Labour MP for Poplar and Canning Town, an area with a population now dominated by Bangladeshi Muslims.
Fitzpatrick recently chaired a debate in the House of Commons on Sharia. “I’m concerned that they are creating a cultural stranglehold over their communities and leading to the Islamification of our society,” he says.
Amra Bone, the first woman in Britain to serve at a Sharia court, is playing a small role in attempting to counteract that image. Quietly spoken and dressed in a grey jacket with her head covered in a hijab, she hopes to change the face of Islam in this country, challenging the traditional roles expected of women.
Yet many Muslims would find her presence on the council of Birmingham’s central mosque unacceptable. In the vast majority of mosques in Britain, women are not allowed to step foot within their walls, let alone make rulings based on Islamic law.
“Most mosques would not allow a woman to be on its Sharia council,” she says. “But it’s a liberating experience to be involved in breaking the shackles of tradition and the slavery of men.”
The married mother-of-four believes her appointment represents a significant step in giving Muslim women a voice. “Sharia law can be discriminatory towards women, but they seem reassured when they see me sitting behind the desk.”
In most schools of Islamic teaching, women would not be allowed such a position of authority, but Amra was asked to become a member of the council after she impressed Dr Naseem with her knowledge of Sharia law.
Although there are no specific qualifications required to be appointed to a council, Amra has a masters degree in Islamic studies from Birmingham University, and is now a part-time lecturer at Warwick University.
Sharia courts have been accused of exploiting women by favouring men in their decisions, potentially leaving wives trapped in abusive marriages. Opponents also point to a ruling in an inheritance dispute that saw each of the brothers given twice the amount received by the sisters, in line with Islamic inheritance law.
These are issues Amra is keen to address. “Sharia courts in Britain were initially set up to help women because they wouldn’t – or couldn’t – go to the civil courts. Sharia courts therefore offered the only way for them to get on with their lives. The Koran gives you principles, but you don’t have to take everything literally. You have to interpret it and apply it to the community you live in, and for us, that means treating men and women equally.”
Given that Islamic men from a fundamentalist background, particularly from Saudi Arabia, will not allow their wives to leave their homes without their permission, she is aware that her championing of greater equality will alarm the custodians of Islam’s patriarchal system.
“I hope that I’m helping to break the long-held view that women aren’t capable of leadership roles. Muslim women have been restricted in what they can and can’t do. I hope that my presence on the council gives them hope that they can live a fulfilled life.”
Yet campaigners hope to see all Sharia courts outlawed from this country. Although the courts currently have no jurisdiction in Britain, the Islamic Sharia Council makes clear that its ultimate goal is to have their laws recognised.
It says on its website: “Though the Council is not yet legally recognised by the authorities in the UK, the fact that it is already established, and is gradually gaining ground among the Muslim community… are all preparatory steps towards the final goal of gaining the confidence of the host community in the soundness of the Islamic legal system.”
Certain decisions made under Sharia are already enforceable in British courts through the 1996 Arbitration Act, which allows any form of agreement as long as both parties concur on the terms at the outset. This legal standing does not apply to the informal Sharia councils – but does apply to the Muslim arbitration tribunals that rule on commercial and civil disputes, a fact that is raising fears that they could begin to supplant the British court system.
Set up in 2007 by Sheikh Faiz Siddiqi, a qualified commercial barrister, there are now seven Muslim arbitration tribunals across the country.
They are becoming popular with non-Muslims, too – who, Siddiqi claims, have made up around 15 per cent of their cases so far this year, compared to five per cent in 2009. “People see that they’re efficient, cheap and informal and we get to a decision in a much more stress-free manner.”
In 2009, a non-Muslim took his Muslim business partner to a tribunal, arguing that they had an oral agreement over the profits
in their car company. He was awarded £48,000 after the tribunal ruled that the Muslim partner had acted in a way that suggested a deal had been struck.
Earlier this year, another non-Muslim also found success by taking a dispute to the tribunal. He had been thrown out of his flat by his Muslim landlord after being accused of breaching the terms of his lease. The tribunal ruled that he had been treated unfairly and should be allowed to return to his property.
Sheikh Siddiqi says non-Muslims are using the tribunal system because they appreciate the weight that rulings under Sharia law carry in the Islamic world.
“People are finding that the negative images evoked in the past about Sharia law being draconian are not accurate,” he says. “Instead they’re seeing that our tribunals are a cheaper and quicker method of resolving disagreement, and they’re coming away with rulings that are fair.”
Indeed, Siddiqi even claims that much of English contract law has been inspired by Islamic contract law. “There are strong similarities between the two. Those who say that Sharia law conflicts with English law don’t know what they’re talking about. In England, criminal law is going towards Islamic law in terms of restorative justice, looking to have the victim compensated by the perpetrator. That’s exactly what we’ve been doing for 1,400 years.”
But Bishop Nazir-Ali says the argument that there is common ground and compatibility between Sharia and English law gives a misleading impression.
“The problem with Sharia law being used in tribunals is that it compromises the tradition of equality for all under the law,” he says. “It threatens the fundamental values that underpin our society.”
35 comments:
Pastorius,
The idea that they are under the thumb of British law is absurd. They have already made an unreasonable except to their laws when it comes to Muslims, and the more supportive of Sharia law a Muslim is, in general, the less respect they will have for laws not based on it. What do they expect?
They shouldn't just outlaw them when they conflict with British law, they should just outlaw them period. Why should the government recognize special courts for people of a certain faith to begin with? Plus if Islamic law did not conflict with British law, in any way, why would religious Muslims want these special courts in the first place? The desire for one law for all people in the country, regardless of religion is not based on bigotry, or a desire to discriminate. To the contrary, it will prevent stuff like this. It will also send a message to pro sharia Muslims, that people in the west will not tolerate attempts to make their countries into Saudi Arabia.
By the way, Damien Charles CQ really needs to do his homework, instead of just assuming everything involving these courts is fine and dandy, and doesn't conflict with people's rights or dignity.
Damian said:
"They shouldn't just outlaw them when they conflict with British law, they should just outlaw them period. Why should the government recognize special courts for people of a certain faith to begin with?"
Does this include the Jewish Laws (Beth Din) that Jews have been allowed in England for centuries?
Perhaps you can now see the problem? You can't outlaw one without the other.
Ray Boyd,
But do Jews have special courts that are recognized by the state in Briton, that enforce Jewish law? I'm not saying we shouldn't allow Jews to follow their religious rules, but why should the state enforce them in any way?
Beth Din has been recognised for centuries but it deals only with certain civil matters i.e. money etc.
I am sure you will see the problem, you cannot ban sharia law - even though in it's entirety it is evil, without banning Beth Din - not in the same league.
There would be accusations of discrimination. This is something of a mess that our ancestors got us into.
Ray Boyd,
I still don't see the problem unless Jews have had special courts in Briton for centuries. In this case I wasn't calling for outright banning of sharia law, just for forbidding sharia courts. Do Jews have special tribunals in Briton or not?
By the way, here's Smiling Skeptic on Canada's experience with the issue of Sharia law and religious tribunals. What he has to say is pretty interesting.
Sharia and the West
Yes, I said already. That's what Beth Din is, a Jewish court.
Ray Boyd,
Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying. I didn't realize that Beth Din is a type of Jewish court. You may have a point than unfortunately.
Damien,
I do my homework. I wish people would rather not jump to conclussions, talk about things that frankly they have neither experience in or knowledge and stop assuming what is in the press is always accurate and not with some form of tabloid pitch. I should add, that blogs such as this one blames the MSM as being baised when it does not agree with them and yet will then use it when they think it does.
Facts. The Sharia Tribunals in the UK (and France) must follow the laws of the country, it cannot be in conflict with them.
AS I SAID PREVIOUSLY, they do use (and abuse) the principle of "full party agreement" which basically means if the parties involved agree to the judgement/decision then so be it, that happens all the time everywhere in every community. HOWEVER, as long as it is not against existing laws.
The item by the telegraph shows abuse, the woman could have avoided the Sharia Tribunal and gone to a civil court and the outcome would have been different. What it shows is the power of the community. That also happens amongst other communities, not only Muslims. The Sikh community has a tribunal and local councils in hamlets that have a strong religious element will use local council decisions to do similar.
I note that the reference that the guy has more than one wife, that is illegal and that depending on who was the first wife, the government and State will recognise only the first one as being a "spouse" but interestingly, could force the guy to be legally responsible for both.
A last comment. It is Pastorius who said that the Sharia Tribunals is under the thumb of the court structure, I in fact did not AND I said that I did not support or agree with the decision to allow them. Pastorius seems to either read badly or perhaps wishes what people said. I suggest he actually "quotes" people instead of getting it wrong.
Damien Charles QC,
Well, here's the problem, even through they are not allowed to violate the laws the land, they are. Also, I don't think the Telegraph is a tabloid.
Amra Bone, the first woman in Britain to serve at a Sharia court, is playing a small role in attempting to counteract that image.
taqyia
Sharia law can be discriminatory towards women, but they seem reassured when they see me sitting behind the desk.
taqyia
Sheikh Siddiqi says non-Muslims are using the tribunal system because they appreciate the weight that rulings under Sharia law carry in the Islamic world.
taqyia
the Islamic Sharia Council makes clear that its ultimate goal is to have their laws recognised.
islam should go back where it came from.
taqyia
Instead they’re seeing that our tribunals are a cheaper and quicker method of resolving disagreement, and they’re coming away with rulings that are fair.
taqyia
Siddiqi even claims that much of English contract law has been inspired by Islamic contract law.
taqyia
In England, criminal law is going towards Islamic law in terms of restorative justice, looking to have the victim compensated by the perpetrator. That’s exactly what we’ve been doing for 1,400 years.
islam sucks
Damien,
the issue is that when you have collective agreements between groups there is not much that can be done. Any one of the parties involved can go to a Civil or Crown Court and get a hearing that way and in fact many do, we only hear about these cases - thus not really reflecting the community, situation or legal realities.
Another point is that this, from my perspective, is certainly a method of abusing the system in many ways. One of which is that it gives a strong support for the clerical/theological hierachy whom I personally dispise. For example, they talk about the "rights of the Husband under Sharia, inheritance etc, but yet a court say in Morocco, Tunisia or Indonesia would tell the cleric to go jump in the nearest ablution fountain because in fact they have a modern secular Family Legal structure akin to our own.
A last comment no the Telegraph is technically not a Tabloid but their journalists and editor seem to be unaware of it!
Obviously the power of being anonymous gives people the ability to rant on about what they do not know. Taqiya is actually a word used more on the internet by non-Muslim self-proclaime anti-jihadists than actually by any Muslim. Most Muslims do not even know of the word unless they studies theology and they class it as examples of history.
Also, it should be pointed out that the basis of "English Law" which even has influenced US Law has some of its origins in Norman Law which is based on Frankish Law which is a carbon copy of Moorish or Andalous Jurispudence, IE Islamic.
Of course all the above has origins in Greek and Roman laws.
Just so we get our facts straight and avoid mindless dribble and outbursts like above.
The "coercion factor" in any religious community's legal system is a worry. That poor woman would probably be ostracized by her community if she went to a "secular" court. Women really do get "second class" treatment from these sharia courts. Wives can't easily divorce husbands but husbands can easily dump wives. The favorable outcomes for non-Muslims as stated is just a ploy to increase the attractiveness of these courts with the wider infidel community. I say "one legal system only for everyone."
Anonymous,
I agree. Having parallel legal systems ("as long as they fall within the guide lines of already established law") is dangerous. But, it is also like playing house for children. It is false. It is lame. It is stupid.
So, it is either stupid or it is dangerous, but it is never necessary, reasonable, or productive.
Anonymous,
Unfortunately Misogyny is still a problem, especially when it comes to religious people. However, that's not the only thing to worry about when it comes to these sharia courts.
Also, it should be pointed out that the basis of "English Law" which even has influenced US Law has some of its origins in Norman Law which is based on Frankish Law which is a carbon copy of Moorish or Andalous Jurispudence, IE Islamic.
bullshit.
islamic crap «law» is arabic bronze age goat herders «law».
Moorish or Andalous Jurispudence
BULLSHIT! BASTARD INVADERS!
The favorable outcomes for non-Muslims as stated is just a ploy to increase the attractiveness of these courts with the wider infidel community.
exactly. non muslims can't testify against muslims, etc.
Obviously the power of being anonymous gives people the ability to rant on about what they do not know.
«charles»
you should be ashamed to sign damien and making a mess.
some non muslims have made business with muslims in islamic countries, they were stolen and were told it's useless to take it to a sharia «court».
A few comments to this thread were in the spam folder. I just published them.
Europe's Muslim Lobby
by Soeren Kern
Europeans often fantasize about America's so-called Jewish lobby, which they claim has a chokehold over American finance, media and politics and is responsible for all manner of conspiratorial evil. But few Europeans like to talk about the growing influence of Europe's Muslim lobby, a conglomeration of hundreds of Muslim political and religious organizations -- many of which are media-savvy mouthpieces for militant Islam that openly pursue anti-European, anti-Western and anti-Semitic agendas and often receive financial support from Islamic fundamentalist countries like Saudi Arabia.
In a Europe where Islam is the fastest-growing religion, and where the number of Muslims has tripled over the past 30 years, Europe's Muslim lobby is becoming increasingly assertive and skilled at pressuring European policy-makers into implementing countless pro-Islamic policies, especially ones that institutionalize Islamic Sharia law. Muslim lobby groups are, in fact, transforming European society in ways unimaginable only a few years ago; critics say their ultimate goal is nothing less than the Islamification of Europe.
Some of the most effective Muslim lobby groups are located in Britain, home to one of the largest Muslim communities in Europe, and include organizations such as the Muslim Council of Britain [MCB], Britain's largest Muslim umbrella body with around 500 affiliated national, regional and local organizations, mosques, charities and schools. It recently pressured the British government into adopting Islamic law and giving Sharia courts full powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.
The British government has quietly sanctioned the powers for Sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence. Whereas previously, the rulings of Sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims, rulings issued by a network of five Sharia courts are now enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court. Sharia courts with these powers have been set up in Birmingham, Bradford, London and Manchester and the network's headquarters are located in Nuneaton, Warwickshire; and two more courts are being planned for Edinburgh and Glasgow.
Overall, at least 85 Islamic Sharia courts are now operating in Britain, almost 20 times as many as previously believed. A study by the Civitas think tank found that scores of unofficial tribunals and councils regularly apply Islamic law to resolve domestic, marital and business disputes, many operating in mosques. The study warns of a "creeping" acceptance of Sharia principles in British law.)
»»
»»
Although the MCB, which represents half of the country's 3 million Muslims, presents itself as the moderate face of Islam in Britain, the group has its origins in the extreme orthodox politics of Pakistan. The MCB and some of its affiliates sympathize with, and have links to, conservative Islamist movements in the Muslim world, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood and Pakistan's Jamaat-e-Islami, a radical party committed to the establishment of an Islamic state in Pakistan ruled by Sharia law.
Far from promoting moderate Islam, the MCB's real objective, critics say, is to help Muslims in Britain become more radical in their beliefs.
Among other positions, the MCB believes death is the appropriate penalty for apostasy and homosexuality. The group recently endorsed a pro-Hamas declaration that calls for Jihad against Jews and Israel, and condones attacks on British troops. The MCB also regularly makes headlines for boycotting Holocaust Memorial Day ceremonies in Britain; it is also campaigning for the establishment of an alternative Genocide Memorial Day that will "incorporate similar tragedies."
Another Muslim group, the Muslim Public Affairs Committee of the United Kingdom (MPACUK), has the outspoken aim of mobilizing Muslim voters to affect the outcome of British elections. During the general elections in 2010, MPACUK was pivotal in de-seating six members of parliament (MPs) who were perceived as being not sufficiently pro-Muslim.
During the 2005 general elections, MPACUK launched a smear campaign against Labour Party MP Lorna Fitzsimons. MPACUK distributed a leaflet claiming that Fitzsimons had done nothing to help the Palestinians because she was Jewish. Another leaflet said: "Lorna Fitzsimons is an ardent Zionist and a member of the most powerful anti-Muslim lobby in the world, the Israel lobby."
Fitzsimons is not in fact Jewish, and MPACUK later withdrew the leaflet. But MPACUK did succeed in unseating Fitzsimons; ever since then, many British MPs have been bending over backwards to appease Muslim voters.
MPACUK recently worked with Britain's Channel 4 television to produce a documentary titled "Operation Muslim Vote." With the aim of pressing for a larger participation of Muslims in British politics, the documentary tells the story of two MPACUK activists who head to northern England to take on the safe seats of several "pro-Zionist war mongering MPs."
MPACUK's website says its work is defined by the core principle of anti-Zionism: "MPACUK opposes the racist political ideology of Zionism and aims to counter the influence of the Zionist lobby. Openly available evidence demonstrates a Zionist agenda to dominate the Middle East and push a 'clash of civilisations' between Islam and 'The West'. We therefore believe that anti-Zionism is a strategic priority to counter the greatest and most urgent threat facing the Ummah [the Muslim Diaspora]."
»»»
»»»
Its website also says Muslims in Britain should be pro-actively engaged in mainstream media and politics as the most effective way to "reviving the fard (obligation) of Jihad."
Muslim lobby groups have also pressed the British government to enact the Racial and Religious Hatred Act, which creates a new crime: intentionally stirring up religious hatred against people on religious grounds. Predictably, the new law has established new limits on free speech in a country where the politically correct elite routinely seek to silence public discussion about the escalating problem of Muslim immigration.
The growing power of Europe's Muslim lobby was most recently demonstrated by the European Union's decision in mid-December to quietly abandon a new measure that would have required halal (religiously approved for Muslims) meat products to carry a label to help non-Muslim consumers identify their origins. With the exponential growth of Europe's Muslim population, thousands of tons of religiously slaughtered halal meat is now entering the general food chain, where it is being unwittingly consumed by the non-Muslim population.
By bowing to Muslim pressure groups -- such as the World Halal Forum Europe and the Halal Monitoring Committee -- and dropping the halal labelling requirement, the EU is effectively establishing Sharia law as normative for Europe's meat industry. The halal controversy, in which Muslim lobby groups are seeking to impose the requirements of Islam, not just on their own people, but also on the rest of society, illustrates how the rise of Islam is influencing the daily lives of hundreds of millions of non-Muslim Europeans.
In France, which has the second-largest Muslim population on the continent after Germany, several Muslim lobby groups are vying to represent the country's estimated 4.1 million Muslims. The French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM) serves as the official interlocutor with the French state in the regulation of Muslim religious activities, and as such it is the de facto representative of all French Muslims before the national government. The other main Muslim lobby groups are the Rally for French Muslims (RMF),backed by Morocco, and the Union of French Islamic Organisations (UOIF), close to the Muslim Brotherhood.
»»»»
»»»»»
In Germany, home to Europe's largest Muslim population in absolute terms, the powerful Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs (DITIB), itself a branch of the Turkish government's religious affairs authority, has succeeded in persuading the city of Cologne to approve the construction of a new mega mosque. The futuristic mosque will hold up to 4,000 worshippers, and will have a large dome and two 55-meter (180 feet) minarets, each as tall as 18-story office towers. The 4,500-square-meter (48,000-square-foot) mosque, which has a price tag of €20 million ($26 million), is being financed by donations from more than 800 Muslim groups inside and outside Germany. Critics of the project say the mosque is a deliberate effort to spoil Cologne's skyline by taking attention away from the city's Gothic cathedral, a globally famous Christian landmark.
In recent months, Muslim lobby groups have also persuaded the German government to adapt Germany's secular education system so that it caters to Islamic preferences. The German Education Ministry has, for example, agreed to fund Islamic studies at several state universities to train Muslim prayer leaders and religion teachers. Germany's Education Minister, Annette Schavan, says: "We want as many imams as possible to be educated in Germany. Imams are bridge builders between their congregations and the communities in which their mosques stand." She states further that Germany would need 2,000 imams and teachers if all 16 states offered Islam courses.
Elsewhere in Germany, in the state of Rhineland-Palatinate, Muslim lobby groups are working with the Culture Ministry to design Islam-friendly classes for public schools. The new guidelines recommend cancelling all school trips during the month of Ramadan; taking into account the sensitivities of Muslims when planning internships and school events; and assigning less schoolwork during Ramadan because fasting could lead to loss of performance and concentration among Muslim students.
In the German state of Lower Saxony, the German Muslim Central Council is urging the Education Ministry to include Islam in its schools' core curriculum as part of a politically correct initiative to counter growing anti-Islam sentiments in the country. In Berlin, the Ministry for Education, Science and Research recently published a guide called "Islam and School," which gives teachers practical advice on how to avoid offending Muslim students.
In Scandinavia, the Muslim Council of Sweden, an umbrella organization of Islamic groups in the country, is pressuring the Swedish government to implement special legislation for Muslims in Sweden. The demands include: the right to specific Islamic holidays; special public financing for the building of mosques; a demand that all divorces between Muslim couples be approved by an Imam; and that Imams should be allowed to teach Islam in public schools.
»»»»»»
»»»»»»»
As Europe's Muslim population grows, Muslim lobby groups are also exerting significant influence on European policy in the Middle East, resulting in a notable hardening of official European attitudes toward Israel. Several European countries, for instance, eager to maintain good relations with local Muslim communities, are laying the political groundwork for the EU to recognize a Palestinian state, possibly as early as October 2011,even if negotiations for a permanent settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority are not concluded -- a total abrogation of the UN's signed Oslo accords.
In December 2009, the EU adopted a resolution that for the first time explicitly calls for Jerusalem to become the future capital of a Palestinian state. The move not only reflects the EU's efforts to prejudge the outcome of issues reserved for permanent status negotiations, but in December 2010, an influential group of former EU leaders and officials published a letter urging the EU to implement sanctions against Israel.
Europe has also been "ground zero" for a series of anti-Israel lawsuits which exploit the legal principle of universal jurisdiction in order to harass current and former Israeli political and military leaders, with the twin aims of tying Israel's hands against Palestinian terror and delegitimizing the Jewish state. Such "lawfare" is often aided and abetted by Muslim lobby groups in Europe by means of financial and logistical support.
The steady demonization of Israel by European officialdom is also affecting the European street, where the line between valid criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism is becoming dangerously blurred. A survey conducted by the University of Bielefeld, for example, shows that more than 50% of Germans equate Israel's policies toward the Palestinians with Nazi treatment of the Jews, and that 68% of Germans say that Israel is waging a "war of extermination" against the Palestinian people. In terms of Europe as a whole, an official EU poll shows that the majority of Europeans regard Israel as the greatest threat to world peace.
Another report commissioned by the EU's Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (now called the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights) found that Muslim immigrants are largely responsible for the sharp increase in anti-Semitic violence in Europe.
Predictably, Muslim lobby groups pressured the EU into preventing that report from being released to the general public.
http://www.hudson-ny.org/1817/europe-muslim-lobby
"As Europe's Muslim population grows, Muslim lobby groups are also exerting significant influence on European policy in the Middle East, resulting in a notable hardening of official European attitudes toward Israel".
This argument does not actually stick and perhaps some of the motives for writing the item in the first place comes from this particular comment.
The European Muslim community is not really growing any faster than that of the rest of the population and in some places birth-rates are decreasing.
It is strange how population is used as a scare tactic when pushed as it is done and if anything there is avoidance of the full context. For example, when you have immigrants, there is a next generation and so forth. Many of the population changes in social behaviour, birth rates and even levels of piety. There is also a large inter-marriage element which may but also may not follow the faith. Turks in Germany and in The Netherlands of the second and later generations have in fact a lower-birth rate than the national average.
Thus, there is even a question regarding the actual growth of the total Muslim population short of "arriving immigrants" and in most cases, governments have been keen recently on limiting them.
Oh, the European viewpoint on Israel has been arround for a while, they do not have a large Jewish or Israeli lobby element as in the US, that is the reason, pure and simple.
Monday, August 15, 2011 2:03:00 AM
Taqiyya
Great vocablulary there Anon. Can you try now a much easier one, such as "I" or "you"? How many flashcards does the nice lady show you at the centre?
Mum jailed for six months– for wearing pair of looted shorts
(Judge Khalid Qureshi)
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1455638_mum-jailed-for-six-months-for-wearing-pair-of-looted-shorts-
But many islamic thugs are released...islam screws non muslims. Wake up!
Anon,
Two points
1. Get a name, it is not difficult and then you may merit responses.
2. Waking up requires opening not just your eyes but your ears and your brain - read something called context.
i didn't find halal, it must be haram,
for you:
http://www.thebrandonstore.com/Images/blog-images/finger.jpg
islamic scumbag raped a norwegian girl on the steps of the norwegian parliament, next to the masonry building. the islamic scumbag was released.
islam is scumbag
dhimmis are scumbags
crap islamic culture:
http://vladtepesblog.com/?p=36550#more-36550
Post a Comment