And this from Dhimmi Jack! Of course, he gets himself off the hook by explaining to Muslims that "the arguments against creating a parallel system of Sharia law in Britain were 'overwhelming.'" Read: "It's not my fault!" Still, he did say the right thing; good for you, Jack.
"Jack Straw: Muslim courts will ALWAYS remain subservient to English law," by James Slack for the Daily Mail, October 30:
Muslim courts will always remain 'subservient' to English law, Jack Straw declared last night.In a speech to an Islamic conference, the Justice Secretary said the arguments against creating a parallel system of Sharia law in Britain were 'overwhelming'.
His remarks come less than a week after one of his junior ministers, Bridget Prentice, appeared to clear Islamic courts to deal with family and divorce disputes, including how a Muslim couple divide their money and property and who gets the children.
Mr Straw said that - while courts could consider a Sharia ruling - they would make their own judgments on the welfare of the children.
Mr Straw, who is also Lord Chancellor, added: 'It is ultimately up to the court to decide whether the agreement complies with English law. No court will endorse an agreement which conflicts with English law.'
In the strongest passage of last night's speech, he continued: 'There is nothing whatever in English law that prevents people abiding by Sharia principles if they wish to, provided they do not come into conflict with English law.
'There is no question about that. But English law will always remain supreme, and religious councils subservient to it.'
Mr Straw earlier told the audience that 'many dreadful things have been done in the name of mainstream religions. Barbaric practices such as stoning have been – quite wrongly – justified by reference to Islam, for instance'.
[...]But he added: 'Crucially, any member of a religious community – or indeed, any other community – has the right to refer to an English court, particularly if they feel pressured or coerced to resolve an issue in a way in which they feel uncomfortable.'...
Nice in theory, hard to implement in practice -- especially for already subservient, broken women, terrified of questioning their men, let alone dragging them before infidel courts to reassess a sharia court ruling.
Tell that to Mrs. Sana. I'm sure she stands zero chance of losing her kids simply because of the presence of Sharia in Britain. Just like she had the choice of marrying whoever she wanted, whenever she wanted, for love. Just like she has every right to change her religion.
Why should Sharia "law" be allowed in any civilized nation?
It is not "law" in that Sharia allows for the different treatment of individuals accorded to their sex, whether they are free or someone's slave and if they believe in Islam or not.
Muslims may "want" to be ruled by Sharia law, but since it victimizes Muslims as well as infidels it should never be allowed in any society that practices equality before the Law.
'There is no question about that. But English law will always remain supreme, and religious councils subservient to it.'
Always is a long, long time...In virtual reality, Islam continues it's climb to the top...
Does anyone know why Muslims want to live in Western countries?
It can't be to avoid Sharia law because they've brought it with them.
It can't be the attractions of the Western way of life because they're constantly moaning about how decadent it is.
It can't be for the booze because alcohol is banned in Islam.
It can't be for the attractions of Christianity because the vast majority have no intention of converting from Islam.
It can't be due to a desire to learn English/French/German/Italian/Spanish/Danish/Swedish etc. because they still converse in their native tongues.
It can't be due to a desire to mingle with infidels because Muslims usually live in ghettos.
It can't be for warmer weather because all Islamic countries are in the tropics.
It can't be for work because so many of them sponge off the state.
It can't be to dress like Westerners because most of them dress as they did back home.
Hmmm ... well, could it be that they're programmed to spread Islam and subjugate non-believers? Perish the thought!
Muslims may "want" to be ruled by Sharia law, but since it victimizes Muslims as well as infidels it should never be allowed in any society that practices equality before the Law. - Posted by: tanstaafl
Equality before the law dates back to Roman law, as does presumed innocense. Britain is an inheritor of Roman law, however imperfect it was then, and now, where all free individuals are treated equally before the law. Islam's sharia 'laws' are a giant step backwards to primitive pre-Roman times, where inequality as to gender or slave status, or religion dominates. So if Britain wants to court sharia, they must be prepared to go back to very ancient barbaric times predating their rule under Roman laws. For Britain to bring back what it abolished two centuries ago, slavery, is not a progressive development. Islam's enslaving sharia must submit to modern laws regardless of what their clerics think or do if it is to coexist, however imperfectly, with the rest of world civilization. But they will try to impose their primitive barbarism in any way they can, because they do not understand that our man-made laws are superior to their 'allah-mohammedan-cult' superstitions 'laws'.
Wow. This is one of the few times I have ever heard anyone say that Islam is in any way subservient to anything.
Muslims will not like this.
If Sharia Courts are not an alternative to regular English Law, why allow them in the first place?
Jack Straw can say this will "never" happen and sit back on his woolsack -- yes, so can he, and so could any man who happened to be Lord Chancellor, but will this "never" really "never" happen? If the number of adherents of Islam in the United Kingdom steadily increases, as it has all over the lands of Western Europe. then of course, inexorably, the Shari'a will be applied, and a weakened and diminished non-Muslim population unable to put up resistance.
This should not be hard to grasp. Demography turns out to be, in this respect as in so many others, destiny. It is up to the intelligent Infidels to grasp this in time, instead of remaining complacent, and even taking heart from such a remark as that made by Jack Straw. They can quietly come to the conclusion that they have no obligation to turn their country into something it was not meant to be, because in a fit of colossal absentmindedness or criminal negligence (choose one), they allowed into their lands those who carried undeclared in the ir mental baggage not only an alien but a permanently hostile creed, and one whose effects can be seen in any of the lands where Islam dominates, and Muslims rule.
Westerners, including the citizens of the United Kingdom, have both a right and a duty to defend the civilizational legacy that they inherited, onethat could not have for one minute been created under Islam. This is what they inherited. This is what, however ungrateful they may at present appear to be, they have to learn about, comprehend the circumstances of its creation over time, and why it is worth preserving. Even if they cannot add their mite, and few can, they can at least prevent others from gnawing away at it, causing it to crumble, or even, as with the Bamiyan Buddhas, blowing it all up.
Guy Fawkes Day approaches,.
I have noted on many occasions previously that it presents a golden opportunity for freedom-minded citizens of the island of Britain, (English particularly, but in this extremity Scots and Welsh would surely want to join in) to express their view of the Mohammedan invasion and of the jihad and sharia-minded Muslims who fully intend to overthrow the three kingdoms and replace English common law with the Unlaw, the spiritual and social and political Nothingness that is sharia.
This fifth of November, wherever you are still allowed to make bonfires, make a great big one.
Stand round it, with the Union Jack, and the flags of England, Scotland, and Wales, and of any other free non-Muslim lands that you may care to display, and read aloud, for example, the Magna Carta. Read aloud, perhaps, a list of names - names of the great jurists and statesmen and political philosophers of the past, and of people such as William Wilberforce who campaigned against slavery. Then read aloud the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; nail it to a tree.
Then read aloud the vile 'Cairo Declaration of Human Rights [sic] in Islam', which subordinates all human rights to the horrors of sharia, and which is totally silent about slavery (since slavery is permitted by sharia); and when you've finished, declare 'No to Sharia!' 'No to Slavery!', shred the damned thing and throw it into the fire to burn. Depending on where you are, and how many spying eyes there are around, an effigy of Mahomet, or of Osama bin Laden, or of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or of the horrible Abu Qatada, could go into the fire back-to-back with the Guy.
"Muslim courts will always remain 'subservient' to English law, Jack Straw declared last night."
Is that a case of a non-Muslim practicing al-Taqqiya???
Addendum to the above: the full texts of both the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' and the 'Cairo Declaration', may be conveniently found on this very website, all ready to copy and print.
Just go to the following thread on jihadwatch from August this year
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022450.php
and scroll down in the comments field to find a re-posting by Hugh of a discussion of those two texts that originally appeared on Ali Sina's faithfreedom site, accompanied by the full text of both.
A Persian apostate, Reza Afshari, did, I am informed, a very good job of contrasting and comparing the two, in order to expose the full horror of the Cairo declaration.
Furthermore, on this site, there has often appeared a convenient little summary of just some of the things that sharia prescribes and permits. Here is one version, as posted by 'Mentat'. I have annotated, in brackets { } thus, in a few places.
"What is Sharia law?
http://boston.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/21475
"Here are some examples of Shariah law,
1. Offensive, military jihad against non-Muslims is a communal, religious obligation;
2. A person who is ignorant about Islamic legal opinion must follow the legal opinion of a scholar;
3. The penalty for a Muslim apostate (someone who no longer believes in or no longer follows the tenets of Islam) is death;
4. When slaughtering animals for food, a knife must be used to cut the windpipe and gullet;
5. A woman is only eligible to receive half the inheritance of a man;
6. Marriage may be forced on virgins by their father or father’s father {Note: under sharia, marriage to prepubescent girls is permitted, because of the eternal model of Mohammed's marriage to six year old Aisha; a girl as young as nine may be subjected to conjugal relations, since Mohammed took Aisha to his bed when she turned nine}
7. A non-Arab man may not marry an Arab woman;
8. A woman must seek permission from her husband to leave the house;
9. A Muslim man cannot marry a woman who is a Zoroastrian, an idol worshipper, an apostate from Islam or a woman with one parent who is Jewish or Christian, with the other being Zoroastrian; a Muslim woman cannot marry anyone but a Muslim;
10. A free Muslim man may marry up to four women;
11. Retaliation is obligatory in most cases when someone is deliberately murdered
except when a Muslim kills a non-Muslim, a Jew or a Christian kills a Muslim apostate or a father or mother kill their offspring;
12. Non-Muslim subjects (Ahl al-Dhimma) of a Muslim state are subject to a series of discriminatory laws – “dhimmitude” {Note: for example, dhimmis are forbidden to bear or use arms; they are forbidden to defend themselves either verbally or physically if insulted or assaulted by a Muslim; and Christian dhimmis cannot publicly display a cross or Bible, nor pray or sing hymns in public lest Muslims overhear it, nor are they allowed to ring church bells; Jewish dhimmis cannot sound the shofar - dda}.
13. The penalty for fornication or sodomy is being stoned to death;
14. The penalty for an initial theft is amputation of the right hand. Subsequent thefts are penalized by further amputations of feet and hand;
15. A non-Muslim cannot testify against a Muslim in court
a person who is “without respectability” cannot give legal testimony;
a woman’s legal testimony is only given half the legal weight of a man’s (and is only acceptable in cases involving property);
to legally prove fornication or sodomy requires 4 male witnesses who actually saw the act;
16. The establishment and continuation of the Islamic Caliphate (by force, if necessary) is a communal obligation;
17. Sodomites and Lesbians must be killed;
18. Laughing too much is forbidden {Note: for example, the Ayatollah Khomeini said, "There is no fun in Islam" }.
19. Musical instruments are unlawful
20. Creating pictures of animate life is forbidden
21. Female circumcision, which includes the excision of the clitoris, is obligatory {Correction: it is obligatory according to one of the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence, the Shafi'i school, which prevails in Egypt}
22. Slavery is permitted;
23. People may be bribed to convert to Islam;
24. Beating a rebellious wife is permissible {Note: as per Qur'an 4: 34 }
and,
25. Lying is permissible in a time of war (or jihad)."
- Posted by: Mentat at November 7, 2006 1:22 PM
Another poster, D. C. Watson included further remarks on sharia, on another occasion:
"And a few more remarks on Islamic law - SHARIAH
Punishments include imprisonment, flogging, amputation, and execution by beheading, public stoning, hanging, or firing squad.
Punishment for thievery is amputation of the right hand.
Multiple amputations are carried out for the crime of highway robbery.
For persons convicted of less serious crimes, such as alcohol related offenses or being alone in the company of an unrelated person of the opposite sex, the offenders are punished by being flogged with a cane.
Adultery is punishable by public stoning.
In Shari'ah court, a man's testimony equals that of two women. Crimes against Muslims receive harsher penalties than crimes against non-Muslims.
In Shari'ah law, Muslim women are prohibited from marrying non-Muslims. But Muslim men are permitted to marry Christians and Jews, as well as Muslims.
Religious tolerance: If a Muslim strays from Islam they must, in accordance with Islamic laws, be prosecuted, taken into custody by force and be called on to repent. If necessary, his or her return to Islam is to be "helped along" with torture..."
- Posted by: DCWatson at April 10, 2007 8:25 AM
There's a lot more, but this is quite enough to give people an idea of what sharia is, what it permits and prescribes.
"Muslim courts will ALWAYS remain subservient to English law"
Why? Because Jack Straw said so?
Let's revisit what the Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, said on the topic of sharia and English law, earlier this year.
As reported in The Evening Standard on 9.2.2008, the Bishop pointed out what he politely called the 'tension' between sharia and English common law,
"The most damaging attack came from the Pakistan-born Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali.
"He said it would be "simply impossible" to bring sharia law into British law "without fundamentally affecting its integrity".
"Sharia 'would be in tension with the English legal tradition on questions like monogamy, provisions for divorce, the rights of women, custody of children, laws of inheritance and of evidence'.
"'This is not to mention the relation of freedom of belief and of expression to provisions for blasphemy and apostasy." END CITATION.
The Bishop's phrase 'in tension with' is very polite. He could have said: 'sharia would be utterly inimical to the English legal tradition'.
The irony is so perfect.
Jack Straw:
Afgahni Constitution, which Jack Straw's soldiers fought and died to establish:
Iraqi Constitution, which Jack Straw's soldiers fought and died to establish:
Good point, kamala, about the reversal in Afghanistan.
Sharia is an abomination in the West in general, but if one, for the sake of argument, concedes Straw's point then the question is left: How does one police Sharia's compliance with British Law? The only remedy I can envision is a regulatory body whose sole purpose is to vet the consistency of "Sharia court" decisions with British Law. It requires a law firmly and explicitly placing British law in position of superior authority over any "sharia decisions".
I can hear the voices here already objecting to such a situation, and I would object to it as well. For one, it means that an official British institution would have to be mandated by an act of parliament to make judgements about the propriety of these sharia courts -- a religion-approving body, something we've worked centuries to eliminate in the west, and a clear violation of separation of mosque and state.
But I raise the possibility to point out what should be obvious: the Islamists would never agree to such a thing. Sharia subservient (and permanently so) to secular government under the Law of the Land? No way. Any right-thinking sharia advocate would take their toys and go home, "well, if that's the way you kuffar want it we'll just go back to back-alley sharia. There's no way infidels are going to control sharia."
So, Jack, while I disagree with your thoughts on the matter, if this is what the government is going to do, then for heaven's sake DO it -- don't just TALK about it. I'd like to see how the sharia advocates do in response to a demand that sharia be enshrined in law as inferior and subject only to secular rule.
I have been reading my way steadily through the dhimmiwatch archives.
In those archives I came across something from two years ago, headlined "UK Muslim MPs renew 'change your foreign policy or we'll blow you up' warning":
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/012683.php
It's worth reading - especially the second news item added by 'silvester' in which the Muslim demand was, in essence, not 'change your foreign policy or we'll blow you up' but 'let us have sharia or we'll blow you up':
"Not only are they trying to blackmail us into changing foreign policy, they are using their 'victimisation' and 'alienation' and not-so-veiled threats of terrorism to try and get sharia onto the UK statute books:
'Let us adopt Islamic family law to curb extremists, Muslims tell Kelly -
'Muslim leaders have urged Ruth Kelly, the Secretary of State for Communities, to support Islamic family law in Britain to stop youths joining Islamic extremists {note: and they’ve got it – 2008 – sharia ‘family law’ tribunals…dda}.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1219289.ece
- Posted by: Silvester at August 15, 2006 12:23 PM
Then look at the posting by 'fred', towards the end of the discussion.
In the context of the current state of play in the UK vis a vis sharia, it's scarey.
"Always" in spineless leftist dhimmi parlance is about six months.
http://www.bravenewsworld.blogspot.com
Dumbledore's Army,
I'm going to put that list you provided to good use, after the election.
Of course, he gets himself off the hook by explaining to Muslims that "the arguments against creating a parallel system of Sharia law in Britain were 'overwhelming.' Of course, he gets himself off the hook by explaining to Muslims that "the arguments against creating a parallel system of Sharia law in Britain were 'overwhelming.'"
Shari'a law is not static. It creeps and infiltrates.
dumbledoresarmy...thank you for all your contributions...You must be a speed reader...
I skim read a lot, which is not always desirable,
some of these topics require full attention.
Prior to accepting Sharia, or even recommending it, kufr officials and religious authorities should be required to read, 'Reliance of the Traveler', or some other truthful Sharia accounts as listed in your posts above.
If they are fully aware of the scope, depth and entanglements of Sharia, and still advocate for it, we can question their motivations, and even their sanity...'Sharia?...Are you NUTS????'
Always on Watch,
If only Jack Straw meant "always" as you properly define it. We'd have nothing to worry about then.
It's funny how so many Muslims in the West cry for Sharia law, but how many Muslims in prison for theft or burglary would really like to see it applied?
Always on watch
It's not my list, strictly speaking: the chief thanks are due to 'mentat' and the redoubtable D C Watson.
All I did was add a few (very few) clarifying remarks based on things I've learned around here and from my own wider reading.
If one explores Mr Spencer's 'Blogging the Qur'an', one can find the Qur'anic references for quite a few of the 'rules' that appear on that list. Ideally, each item on the list should be referenced from the original sources.
One might want to add, to the list given by Mentat, the Muslim belief (based on the Sunnah - the example of Mohammed, as provided by certain actions and sayings depicted in the Sira and Hadith) that dogs are ritually unclean, which gives rise to the rule that dogs cannot and must not be kept as pets although they may - rather grudgingly - be permitted to be kept for hunting and to guard the herd.
That Muslim prohibition against pet dogs - which has produced, in many times and places, a totally irrational fear of dogs, and multiple instances of cruelty practised upon dogs, for example, Muslim truck drivers who will go out of their way to run over a stray dog that they see on or beside the road - is yet another of the bizarreries of Islam that place it in opposition to just about every other human society on the planet.
One has to hammer it into the heads of dog-loving non-Muslim Brits, French, Australians, Aboriginal Australians, Native Americans, etc., that...Muslims are taught, by their religion, to hate dogs. Muslims are not supposed to keep pet dogs. Sharia-compliant Muslims believe that no-one - *no-one* - should be allowed to have a dog as a pet.
Tell people about Mary Boyce's observations of Muslim children deliberately, vindictively, spitefully torturing to death the revered pet dogs of the Zoroastrian dhimmi community in Persia.
And tell people: jihad-minded sharia-minded Muslims fully intend to impose this ban on pet dogs, plus all the other insanities of sharia, upon the whole of humanity, by hook or by crook.
I wonder: has anyone told the Queen of England that if Islam took over Britain completely, her beloved corgis would all most likely be killed out of hand?
In a posting above, I linked the flagging, by 'silvester', of a news report to do with Muslim demands that they be allowed to practise 'family sharia' in the UK.
A little later, the news report 'silvester' had initially flagged in the comments field, was given its own thread, and triggered a full-scale discussion which is well worth reading, in the light of what has now happened, two years down the track.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/012713.php
Mr Spencer headlined it: 'UK Muslims: give us sharia, special holidays, - or else'.
'Or else more of us will become jihadists...'.
Read it, and the comments; then reread today's article.
Brrrr.