That is precisely what is at stake, and it is encouraging to see an editorial of this nature in a major newspaper. "Sharia-UK: Brits head toward Islamic law," by John O'Sullivan for the New York Post, September 18 (thanks to Awake):
Is Britain heading straight for disaster?" George Bernard Shaw once began a BBC radio talk. "That is a question I can easily answer. Britain is not heading straight for anything." The reply works for the question: "Is Britain heading straight for sharia law?" It's heading that way - but by a winding path.
News reports this week have given a much stronger impression. They allege that sharia got a legal OK from the government and is already being enforced. A Muslim college in the English Midlands supposedly runs a sharia court that has so far decided more than 100 civil disputes.
In fact, that "court" made its rulings legally binding by a clever dodge: being accepted as a "voluntary arbitration tribunal."
Under British law, any two people can agree to take their dispute to such a tribunal rather than to court; the tribunal's decision is then binding on them. It can even be enforced by the official courts and the police.
Faisal Aqtab Siddiqi, a commercial-law barrister, had the bright idea of establishing a sharia court as the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal. He acknowledges that it so far only handles civil cases such as divorces and inheritance disputes, since British society isn't ready for such innovations as public floggings and hand-choppings. But these are early days.
The story generated appropriate outrage. Some came from liberal Muslim women: Writing in the Independent, Yasmin Alibi-Brown points out that many immigrants left home to get away from sharia to a country like Britain, where all are equal before the law. Non-Muslim Brits probably feel at least as indignant.
But this outrage may be misplaced - or at least premature: It's not at all clear just how legal the sharia tribunal really is. Dominic Grieve, the Tory Party's legal spokesman and a top lawyer, flatly denies that sharia could be legal in Britain.
Yes, arbitration tribunals can settle some disputes and have their judgments enforced. But they must act within the principles of English law: They can't forbid girls to attend mixed classes in school or award sons the bulk of inheritances merely because the parties agreed in advance to accept the verdict - any more than a regular court can enforce a voluntary contract of slavery or prostitution.
So, while the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal may like to think it's a sharia court, its judgments have legal force only insofar as they conform to the law of the land. Unfortunately, that is far from settling the matter.
The police have reportedly been enforcing the sharia court's questionable judgments even though they lack legal force - for example, they've stopped questioning women who've accused their husbands of domestic violence once the tribunal has "settled" the case.
That is contrary to usual police practice and arguably illegal, too. It also ignores the well-documented reality that Muslim women sometimes suffer immense social pressure - up to and including murder, a k a "honor killings" - to make them bend to male authority, forced marriage and beatings. Their legal consent to sharia judgments can't be presumed without serious investigation.
But the police sometimes break their own rules in such cases out of a desire to avoid appearing "Islamophobic" and to deal with Muslim communities through unelected "community leaders." Yet these leaders are often extreme figures. Thus, by degrees, sharia becomes effective law, even though it's actually illegal. [...]
And if sharia is to apply to marriage law, then law in Britain will inevitably discriminate between the sexes in favor of men. There goes equality before the law.
These arguments reflect a wider set of illogical beliefs held by British (and to a lesser extent American) political elites: that there's no real problem with immigration or multiculturalism - and any concerns are either xenophobic or paranoid; that immigrant groups will soon assimilate to British tolerance even if official multiculturalism is persuading them to remain secluded in ghettoes (or, in the case of women, in purdah).
It would be comic - if it didn't threaten the integrity of an Anglo-American legal system that has probably given ordinary citizens greater access to justice and fairness than any other system in the decreasingly civilized world.
So how long before these courts have the right to stone muslim gays to death?
When the Western System of Law tries to give everybody Justice on an equal footing, then why in the hell do Muslims need their stupid tribal backward barbaric Sharia?
If they don't like the West, then they are welcome to leave and allow the rest of us to live in peaceful coexistence.
There should only be one law for everyone, one law only, that in itself allows us to identify ourselves as a nation. When we start having seperate laws for each group, then there is no concept of nation or nationality.
Islam is a virus, a cancer, a disease that has be bent on destroying civilised people of both the West and the East.
God help us.
Ayo Gorkhali
I'm glad that somebody's recognizing the illegality of this in the MSM, and they're even mentioning the word 'Sharia' and briefly discussing what all it entails, since Americans are so ignorant about it. Americans will in this way become aware of the evils of Islam and how real the threat is. Most folks don't know that these Dark-Age misogynist courts have been operating in Canada for some time. It will be out of shame that these courts are dissolved. If Pat Condell's not the only Brit who still has any concept of shame, that is. I wish the article had discussed the fact that Sharia criminal law has been enforced through back-alley tribunals in England for some time, by for instance, settling murder cases with 'blood' money. Then Americans would really understand the reality of the situation.
And to think that our civil judicial system is based on British Common Law.
'...any two people can agree to take their dispute to such a tribunal rather than to court; the tribunal's decision is then binding on them.'
Yes, I can just imagine how the shrouded wife of a good Muslim would 'agree' to a sharia court.
There's barely been a mention of this in the MSM in Britain. A search on the BBC news website for 'Sharia' brings up articles from July on the comments of the Archbishop of Canterbury and Lord Chief Justice, and much older news.
The most recent result is a guide to a programme called:
"Sharia and England: a common law?"
"the fundamentals of English contract law could all be derived from Islamic legal institutions, according to British Muslim Navid Akhtar. Can this really be true?"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/law_in_action/7619333.stm
So news about Sharia gaining a foothold in Britain is ignored, and they plan to broadcast a programme about the Islamic roots of British law. That's real commitment to the agenda.
The rumours of Britain's demise implicit in this editorial are somewhat premature. The fight has not been joined by the people yet.
The moslem mafia who are promoting the idea of sharia in the UK, and their useful idiots within the elite class that rule us, have not so far squared up to the public to sort out the issue once and for all, and I do not relish their chances of victory once they do.
The only truly British political party openly willing to do anything about this nonsense is quietly growing support in many quarters, and things will be decidedly different once that support gains enough momentum to propel them into a position where their views can be aired openly without the usual protests from the left.
It is merely a matter of timing.
These words of Wordsworth well describe the situation in Britain today:
Milton! thou should'st be living at this hour:
England hath need of thee: she is a fen
Of stagnant waters: altar, sword and pen,
Fireside, the heroic wealth of hall and bower,
Have forfeited their ancient English dower
Of inward happiness. We are selfish men;
Oh! raise us up, return to us again;
And give us manners, virtue, freedom, power.
OT, but this needs to be known to JW watchers, especially those in NYC.
Pam Geller has blogged today that:
'The American Friends Service Committee, Mennonite Central Committee, Quaker United Nations Office, Religions for Peace, World Council of Churches – United Nations Liaison Office are having an Iftar – a dinner to break the Ramadan fast—with "religious leaders" and AHMADINEJAD next week, THURSDAY, SEPT. 25 at 6pm in New York.'
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/09/american-women.html
Barf.
And the very idea that Ahmedinejad travels freely to our soil makes my blood boil.
Please protest this, if you can.
Please note, Canada does not have sharia courts. An attempt made in Ontario several years ago to establish sharia tribunals was scrapped, due primarily to protests led by muslim women.
Another setback for Muslim women born into the trap of Islam, who for a fleeting moment, thought they had found refuge in the West.
O'Sullivan's point is clear. It is a slippery slope. Give into Shari'ah even a little bit, and eventually it will be the prevailing law of the in lieu of a bloody insurrection.
idiotboy wrote:
"The only truly British political party openly willing to do anything about this nonsense is quietly growing support...".
What party are you referring to "idiotboy", the BNP or would you rather not say?
I do not know anything about Quakers except they seem to be on the wrong side of things every time I hear of them.
Here is the original invitation:
(from Atlas' site)
An invitation to an international dialogue between religious leaders and political figures:
"Has not one God created us?"
The significance of religious contributions to peace
It is an honor to invite you to participate with religious, cultural, and political leaders in a conversation about the role of religions in tackling global challenges and building peaceful societies at an Iftar – a dinner to break the Ramadan fast.
In the presence of
§ His Excellency Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran
With contributions from
§ His Excellency Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann, President of the General Assembly of the United Nations
§ His Excellency the Rev. Kjell Bondevik, former Prime Minister of Norway and President of the Oslo Center for Peace and Human Rights
§ and distinguished religious leaders
This conversation is the fourth in a series of high-level bridge-building and reconciliation efforts that have helped to build mutual understanding between our peoples, nations and religious traditions. It is our hope that as religious and political leaders, this communal meal and exchange of views will enable us to explore faith perspectives for dealing with global issues such as poverty, war and prejudice while deepening mutual understanding.
The dinner will be at the Grand Hyatt Hotel, 109 East 42nd Street, New York, N.Y., on Thursday, September 25, 2008, beginning with evening prayers from several religious traditions. Please arrive by 6:00 pm to clear security. Following dinner and presentations, the moderator will open the floor for comments and discussion.
Please note, entrance to this event is by limited invitation only. Some members of the media have been invited to cover the event.
RSVP by e-mail to sept25@us.mcc.org no later than Monday, September 15, 2008, confirming you interest in participation and sending us your mailing address. After confirmation of your participation, we will send a card explaining procedures for entry to the event.
The Sponsoring Committee welcomes your participation and appreciates the cooperation of the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations in co-hosting this event.
Anne F. Downey
New York State Director
Concerned Women for America
- The nation's largest public policy women's organization -
P.O. Box 97, North Boston NY 14110
Ph 716-359-3226
The other six wives were most likely too young to speak given Islam AND Mohammed's track record...
interestinconundrum
that 'dinner invitation' makes me want to puke.
Who are 'Concerned Women For America'??? If they're putting about an ad for a dinner with the Holocaust-denier and venomous anti-Semite Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, they need to be looked into!
Every person who attends that dinner should have to run the gauntlet of a vast throng of Christians and Jews dressed in black and reciting Tehillim (Psalms).
Every American non-Muslim (and every other non-Muslim) who attends that dinner, should be sent a copy of Andrew Bostom's article, "Genocidal Shiite Jew-Hatred".
Let them know, loud and clear, that by attending this dinner they are deliberately choosing to identify themselves with, and lend prestige and credibility to, a man who is busy planning to carry out a second Shoah.
its the old story you give them a inch and they will take a mile or in GB's a centimeter and they will take a kilometer ;just look at the rullings there getting most which would not be leagle under gb law . ie they want to live under sharia law let them go back to what ever muslim hell hole there from
Considering its vital impotance - we conceeded surprisingly quickly.
Enjoy your Islam.
@ islamisnotfor me, I was wrong when I said above that there are Sharia courts in Canada, although they have been and are continuing to be proposed. What I meant to write was that Sharia civil law has been practiced in Canada since 1991, per a provinical law similar to the one in Britain which allowed for Sharia arbitration.