"Sadiq Khan, whose comments will have added impact because he is a Muslim himself, has also warned that the growing number of tribunals based on Islamic codes could entrench discrimination against women." Uh, yeah.
"Muslims rebuffed over sharia courts," by Jonathan Oliver for the Times, October 12 (thanks to Neil):
Gordon Brown's new minister for race relations has attacked sharia courts, insisting that the Muslim community in Britain is not “advanced” enough to have its own legal system.Sadiq Khan, whose comments will have added impact because he is a Muslim himself, has also warned that the growing number of tribunals based on Islamic codes could entrench discrimination against women.
Khan, who became minister for community cohesion in the government reshuffle this month, said: “The burden is on those who want to open up these courts to persuade us why they should do it.”
These courts are already open, no?
His comments contrast with those of figures such as Lord Phillips, the lord chief justice, who said in July that Islamic law could be used to settle marital and financial disputes.Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has said the establishment of sharia courts in the future “seems unavoidable” in Britain. [...]
The Sunday Times last month revealed that the government had quietly sanctioned a network of sharia judges, empowering them to issue legally binding rulings on disputes including finance, divorce, inheritance and domestic violence.
Supporters of sharia courts point to the “beth din” courts long used by the Jewish community to resolve family disputes. However, Khan said sharia courts could not be compared with the beth din.
“I have seen good examples of Jewish courts,” he said. “I would be very concerned about sharia courts applying in the UK. I don’t think there is that level of sophistication that there is in Jewish law.
“Jewish law has a long history. There are not the same areas of concern that there are with sharia law. At some stage in the future I do not rule out the possibility that the Muslim diaspora in this country may be advanced enough. But now is not the right time.”...
He also "Demanded an increase in benefits for immigrants with larger families."
WTF??? So people who have never contributed anything towards the social security system should get preferential treatment over those that have?
And he "Demanded" this?
"At some stage in the future I do not rule out the possibility that the Muslim diaspora in this country may be advanced enough. But now is not the right time.”
"Advanced enough"??
This can only be code for "Maybe we should wait until we're at least 10% of the population",
Sharia "law" is just a bad, bad idea for those of us who still live in civilized societies.
The whole concept of law is complicated enough--when one considers the need for lawyers, judges and courts to decipher the myriad civil and criminal laws in the books, that to add yet another set (sharia) into mix can only complicate things further.
What benefit could any free society gain from having separate sets of rules for one group of people to another? How can anyone be guaranteed equality under the law when there are different laws for different people?
Sadiq Khan should be regarded with suspicion, unallayed and unalloyed, for the general tenor of his remarks, which is essentially to push for the seeming "integration" of Muslims into a non-Muslim society, but not for any changes in Muslim doctrine that would make that "integration" merely a case of burrowing deep within, and then up within, "the system" so as to, slowly but surely, increase Muslim power. His statement may be seized on by those who want to show that there are "good" and "trustworthy" Muslims speaking out against the imposition of Shari'a, but the real meaning he offers is: It's Too Early Yet, Don't Scare the Horses.
His comparison of Shari'a courts with the Beth Din courts, in which the Shari'a courts are made to suffer by the comparison, should not impress. For his argument is based not on the differences between Jewish and Muslim family law, nor on the far greater differences between the actual position of women in present-day Jewish and Muslim societies (see Israel, passim) but rather on an appeal to Time of Arrival in Great Britain.
He essentially makes the appeal that the problem with Islam, or with Shari'a courts, is simply that Muslims have not been in Great Britain long enough to become more sophisticated. What does this mean? The Shari'a has been around for more than a thousand years, derived by Muslim jurisconsults from the Qur'an and Sunnah. How does the length of time Muslims, bearing with them the Shari'a, have been in this or that place have to do with the immutable Holy Law of Islam?
And he is way off in his history as well, in his sly attempt to link the position of the inoffensive Jews with the deeply-disturbing and permanently threatening Muslim population. He claims, for example, that Muslims have only been around for 50 years, whereas Jews arrived "500 years ago." He's wrong. Jews have been in the British Isles for far longer -- so long, in fact, that the Jewish community, having been soaked by assorted nobles (see Simon de Montfort) and kings, and assailed by the usual primitives, managed to endure expulsion more than 700 years ago, in 1297.
Note, too, how Sadiq Khan, Muslim cabinet minister, smuggles in, under the guise of heroically opposing Shari'a courts -- actually makes some impossible demands, including still more money for those huge Muslim families that settle deep within Great Britain, and take every advantage, exploit every conceivable oportunity, to soak the British Infidel state, and its long-suffering taxpayers?
Note below what he slyly and sinisterly inserts:
"In a wide-ranging interview on race and immigration, Khan, 38, the Labour MP for Tooting, south London, also: Warned that an economic downturn could fuel ethnic tensions. Demanded an increase in benefits for immigrants with larger families. Admitted that government anti-terror laws had caused “problems” in race relations. Called on public bodies to cut translation services to encourage immigrants to learn English. "
"Warned that an economic downturn could fuel ethnic tensions. Demanded an increase in benefits for immigrants with larger families."
What immigrant families have "larger families"? The Hindus? The Chinese? We know to whom he is referring. The staggering cost to the Infidel nation-state, of every single Muslim immigrant (one commentator has calculated a figure of about $100,000, to the taxpayer, per Muslim immigrant), a cost that includes unemployment benefits for those who, without skills, and with an attitude comprised partly of inshallah-fatalism and partly of a deep and unshakeable belief that as Muslims they are superior and are owed a living -- a Jizyah -- from the benighted Infidels who happen, for now, to temporarily rule over the land known as Great Britain but which, like all other parts of this giddy globe, belongs to Allah, and to his people, the Muslims, the Community of Muslims, the umma. And then there is the terrific cost of schooling -- beginning with language lessons -- the Muslim immigrants, whose very presence, whose hostility, makes so many schools, all over Western Europe, so difficult for teachers and for the state. There is the free or heavily subsidized housing, into which Muslim immigrants have a habit of moving dozens of relatives, against all codes. There is the much higher crime rate, and rate of incarceration, of Muslims, as compared to non-Muslims, including non-Muslim immigrants, all over Western Europe. And finally, there is the terrific, and growing cost, of monitoring thousands of already-identified potential Muslmi terrorists, of monitoring mosques that have been repeatedly found to be centers of indoctrination in hysterical hate toward Infidels, beginning but not ending with Hindus and Jews, and to also be places where literature of hate, along with false papers, weapons, and even explosives, have been discovered, in raid after raid across Europe, and of monitoring the wider Muslim communiity as the sea in which the terrorists swim, and that gives them every kind of moral and financial and political support, and has not once offered any kind of complete and unfeigned and heartfelt denunication of those who promote Jihad through violent means. Rather, those who romote Jihad through non-violent means are deeply impressed by their fellow Muslims who dare to put their lives on the line, and do even more. Any half-hearted, weasel-worded (using, undefined, the word "innocents" for example) denunciation, obviously done only to impress those Infidels still willing to be fooled, will not do.
And Sadiq Khan will not do, even if the reports on what will undoubtedly be misleadingly reported as his "oppositon to Shari'a courts in Great Britain" will allow some miscomprehending Infidels to take brief, and baseless, and thus very cold comfort indeed.
The primary reason Jewish courts can function within a non-Jewish legal system is quite simply the Jewish (diasporic) concept of "Dina D'Malcuta Dina" which translated from Aramaic (the language of the Talmud) means The Law of the Land is the Law. Thus, where there is a conflict between Jewish law and the law of the host nation, Jewish law defers to national law. Of course there have been times in Judaism long sojourn in foreign lands where this has been problematic, but as a general rule it has served the Jews well, both in Christendom and the Dar al-Islam.
To the best of my knowledge, and I'm willing to be enlightened here, Islam has too little experience of being a minority in hostile lands to have come up with such a principle. Perhaps this is what Khan is referring to, and is hoping some Mullah or Imam will issue a fatwa in imitation of this Jewish prinicple, as is generally the case when anyone suggests that the Jews have it right and the Muslims have it wrong. If there is one thing Muslims really, really hate it is being outdone by "the Jooz"[tm]. Not that a fatwa imitating this principle would mean much at this stage, as it would obviously be only a temptory fatwa to be struck down as soon as the Muslim presence was strong enough to force sharia courts on the infidel nations.
Hugh's right. Go back to sleep infidels. No need to examine what Sharia means or that the whole purpose of Islam is its installation and the subjuation of non-Sharia, just legal systems. Just keep the jizya flowing or who know what could happen? The people who never attempted to get jobs because in following Perv Mo they live their entire lives as parasites might find it even harder to not try to get jobs and might be even less self-sufficient than the tapeworms already are. Poverty causes terrorism. Muslims, who abide by a creed that only fit a 7th-century Bedouin culture which was 3000 years behind the rest of the world, aren't 'advanced' enough, but they will be in time. Snore.
He also "Demanded an increase in benefits for immigrants with larger families."
WTF??? So people who have never contributed anything towards the social security system should get preferential treatment over those that have?
And he "Demanded" this?
Posted by: Celsius at October 12, 2008 8:21 AM
Welcome to America where people who have never contributed anything toward society, people who have been life long recipients of Welfare and who do not pay and have never paid taxes, will be getting a 'tax break' should Barack Hussein Obama become our next president. In other words, those on the life long dole will get a check from Barak. Courtesy of people like me and my family who work their fannies off (oh, did I say "Fannie Mae"?) to pay their bills.
Screw people who get up at 4:30 am and work their fingers to the bone until they get boney fingers. Let's give it to the rats on the dole. They deserve rewards. Right? Socialism is coming to America. I'm moving to Australia.
/puke.
When I worked in Corporate Security for one of the "Big 5" Canadian banks, there came across my desk the case of a man from Pakistan, in his '60, who arrived with no papers and 62 cents in his pocket.
He would promptly receive, at taxpayers' expense, a place to live, medical care, benefits, and an immigration lawyer to plead his case.
My father left England in 1956 and brought my mother, my sister and me to Canada. He had a job waiting when he arrived and worked hard all his life, a respectable and productive citizen.
What the hell has happened in the last 50 years?
How have we come to this?
Anyone from the UK should sign the current petition at the No10 website:
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Stop Sharia Law from being binding in law under arbitration tribunals rules.
Submitted by Dawn Hamilton – Deadline to sign up by: 01 January 2009 – Signatures: 2,653 [to date]"
at:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/shariastop/
"(More details from petition creator:
sharia law can be enforced in this country by the county and high courts. This is allowed under rules of arbitration when both parties in the dispute agree to give the tribunal (in this case a sharia court) the power to rule on the case. We state that this should be stopped, as sharia law is totally contrary to western values of fair and equal justice for all.)"
Some people may have signed an earlier,more general petition against sharia in the UK but should also sign this one.
Here are the two phrases Mr Fitzgerald highlighted, out of the discourse of Sadiq Khan:
"Warned that an economic downturn could fuel ethnic tensions."
" Demanded an increase in benefits for immigrants with larger families."
This is nothing other than a Mafia-style threat from Mr Khan.
It translates as follows: MORE JIZYA OR ELSE! in other words: "You filthy najis dhimmis better pay us Muslims more money, NOW, YESTERDAY, CASH ON THE NAIL, or we start with the riots and the suicide assassins."
And - given the appalling history of Muslim treatment of non-Muslims and of non-Arabs, especially blacks and Indians - it is beyond parody that Britain should appoint a MUSLIM as 'Minister for Race Relations". Fox, henhouse, anyone?