| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Sharia courts are now operating in Britain, and what's the big deal? They're just private, voluntary arbitration tribunals, like similar arbitration panels for Jews and Catholics.
In "Britain Adopts Sharia" in Chronicles, September 16, Serge Trifkovic explains what's wrong with that analogy:
Muslim activists point out that allegedly simiral Jewish family courts (Bet Din) and Catholic marriage tribunals have existed in Britain for many years, but there is a major difference: such courts explicitly claim jurisdiction only over their believers, whereas according to orthodox Islamic teaching shari’a is the only legitimate law in the world, with universal jurisdiction over Muslims and non-Muslims alike. To a devout Muslim the incorporation of shari’a into British law is by no means the end of the affair. It is merely a major milestone on the road that cannot stop short of subjecting all Britons, regardless of faith, to the strictures of Allah’s commandment and Muhammad’s example.
And he also reports that Islamic law is already taking precedence over British law:
...Shari’a courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire, with two more courts planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh. A visibly pleased Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, explains that he had taken advantage of a clause in the British Arbitration Act of 1996, which classifies sharia courts as “arbitration tribunals” whose rulings are binding in law once both parties in a dispute agree to accept its authority. It goes without saying that battered Muslim wives and disinherited Muslim daughters will “freely choose” the authority of shari’a courts rather than face various unpleasant and potentially fatal consequences of not conforming to the “community’s” rules and preferences.What this means in practice was evident from a recent inheritance dispute in the Midlands, when the Nuneaton shari’a court divided the estate of a Muslim father between three daughters and two sons. The “judges” gave the sons twice as much as the daughters—perfectly in accordance with sharia, of course, but contrary to any regular British court, which would have given the daughters equal shares. In six cases of domestic violence quoted by Siddiqi, the “judges” ordered the husbands to take “anger management” classes and “mentoring from community elders” (such as imams and shari’a judges). In each case, the battered women subsequently withdrew the complaints and the police stopped their investigations. It should be noted that under normal British law those six cases could have been prosecuted as criminal, rather than “family” cases....
Posted by Robert at September 17, 2008 1:02 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Perhaps I should comment of British law, but why is this kind of arbitration being used to settle criminal complaints?
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 17, 2008 1:32 PM
This is a problem for Brits to deal with.
It's nothing anyone on this side of the pond can help them with.
It should be a warning for those on the other side of the Channel: is this what you want your laws to be?
Posted by: PMK at September 17, 2008 1:54 PM
Jerry-
The simple answer is this: there wasn't a criminal case to answer.
The police were investigating but (and this is where you do have to speculate) the complainants withdrew all charges. Once a charge has been withdrawn, there is no crime to investigate therefore the police were powerless to do anything other than commit the affair to record and leave it at that.
Again, speculate as to why these women did drop their complaints.
Posted by: Wishbone at September 17, 2008 1:58 PM
PMK-
As per my reply to Jerry, this is all above board in any nation whose laws permit the possibility for any complainant to withdraw a criminal or civil charge by right.
As for the civil law aspect of the arbitration process, again: no different in any country whose laws permit such.
Not sure about where you live, but if you have such laws then your warning is too late: They are already there, waiting to be exploited in just such a manner.
As I say though, you could only guess as to why these women decided to withdraw their charges to remove the case from criminal jurisdiction.
Posted by: Wishbone at September 17, 2008 2:04 PM
i think a lot of british people who now wished they had a 2nd amendment or something like it. cuz they're gonna need it.
Posted by: theygottago at September 17, 2008 2:47 PM
Man, I bet my English ancestors are rolling around in their graves now. This is all so ridiculous.
Posted by: carolina_conservative at September 17, 2008 2:51 PM
It obvious that any Muslim who wants his case tried in proper British court will be under tremendous pressure, financial pressure and threat of ostracism
This creates new jobs for Sharia judges. This creates new pressure on moderate Muslims to cave in and submit to Sharia. Many Muslims sought refuge in UK to get away from Sharia
Posted by: dennisw at September 17, 2008 2:52 PM
Aside from the obvious unfairness (a rape victim needing 4 male muslim witnesses of good character etc), there's also the danger that rapists will remain unknown to the police (no DNA taken, everything swept under the carpet with a few quid bunged to the parents etc), so if he does rape again, an Infidel this time, the police will have a far harder job catching him.
Oh, and also, currently if you have a conviction, you'll need a visa to enter the USA. Presumably, these sharia courts will be outside UK law and so anyone "convicted" under them will still be able to nip on a plane to the USA.
Posted by: Celsius at September 17, 2008 3:43 PM
Well then, good luck with that England. I wonder when the first hand/head will be chopped off. I just can't wait for the pendulum to swing back; it must be at the apex of the insanity side now?
Posted by: Winged_Hussar at September 17, 2008 3:58 PM
This article by Serge Trifkovic goes on for a good bit beyond what is excerpted in the post above. It's quite good, read it all.
Posted by: Richard at September 17, 2008 4:13 PM
Wish Bone,
Battered women here in the US are free to file criminal complaints and they will be responded to.
There are many reasons women refuse to call the police and report an abusive family member or spouse. Some have been killed by their husbands after they dropped the complaint. The difference between Western law and Sharia courts is that Western law doesn't allow the husband to escape punishment for killing his wife. She could have had an affair and it still doesn't excuse him from committing murder or assault.
"battered Muslim wives and disinherited Muslim daughters will “freely choose” the authority of shari’a courts rather than face various unpleasant and potentially fatal consequences of not conforming to the “community’s” rules and preferences."
These are battered women. They aren't free.
We can all turn our backs on the Muslim community, but since sharia applies to all of US, and not just to Muslims, it's a dangerous move. Do non-Muslim women think they will have better treatment in the courts if Sharia is given precedence? What about these Christian girls who were abducted and "converted" to Islam?
Did you see the story about the teenager in Pakistan who had been abducted? She "chose" to stay with the man she married - the man who abducted her. You think she was free to choose?
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75437
Human rights lawyers working on behalf of a 10-year-old Christian girl reportedly kidnapped by Muslims who then claimed to have custody because she "converted" to Islam have won a startling ruling for her to be returned to her parents.
However, the judge said the girl's 13-year-old sister could "choose" either to be with her alleged kidnapper, a Muslim who said he "married" her, or her parents, and she chose the kidnapper, according to a report from Compass Direct.
at September 17, 2008 4:20 PM
Wishbone,
Why isn't the government of Britain protecting these women's rights? By allowing a separate judicial court to operate it is washing its hands. These women have as much right to equal protection under the law as any non-Muslim woman.
at September 17, 2008 4:24 PM
A similar situation was narrowly averted in Ontario, Canada a few years back. The outcry included the voices of Iranian women who knew what sharia was all about and wanted no part of it in their new country.
So one wonders whether the voices of immigrant and 2nd generation women in the UK are really being heard in this matter. One wonders if their outcries might not give courage to those non-Moslems who are already busy self-censoring, keeping their mouths shut, for fear of appearing intolerant...or worse...simply for fear itself.
Posted by: Chatillon at September 17, 2008 4:27 PM
Laws need someone to enforce them. Sharia Law will soon bring Sharia Police. Its only a matter of time before this comes to America
Posted by: Balrog at September 17, 2008 5:14 PM
UK: Sharia law superceding British law
When in doubt,
don't scream and shout,
don't think about,
just go shariah!
at September 17, 2008 6:20 PM
Posted by dennisw : Many Muslims sought refuge in UK to get away from Sharia.
Hoping against hope, that they will seek another shelter.
at September 17, 2008 6:38 PM
Never intending to limit jurisdiction to domestic relations and inheritance cases, criminal cases are already anticipated according to this Video report (sources linked in text below):
In August 2007, sharia courts began passing judgements.
Two more courts are being planned for Edinburgh and Glasgow.
Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, chairman of the governing counsel of the tribunal anticipates the courts will be handling a number of smaller criminal cases in coming years as more muslim clients approach them.
"All we're doing is regulating community affairs in these cases" said Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi.Posted by: miira
at September 17, 2008 7:25 PM
I've said it before, I'll say it again: to all British Jihadwatchers and resisters.
The Fifth of November is Guy Fawkes Day: a day to remember and celebrate the defeat of Treason, the saving of the Houses of Parliament and all that they represent.
It is the perfect day on which to engage in morale-building for the resistance to the jihad (both to combat jihad and stealth jihad).
Make a huge bonfire. Burn in it, back to back with the 'Old Guy', an effigy of Mohammed, turban and beard and all. (Jews might like to throw in other effigies - e.g. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hassan Nasrallah and Ismail Haniyeh, all of whom are right up there with Hitler in their genocidal hatred of Jews).
Have handy a paper with the text of the so-called 'Pact of Omar' (original template of all the horrible 'rules for dhimmis' that Islam imposes on non-Muslims under their boot) - read it and, as you read it, to each clause shout 'LAN ASTASLEM!!', and at the end, toss the thing into the fire.
Read out the dreadful 'Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam' and point out all the ways it contradicts the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' - in particular, its failure to condemn slavery, and the fact that its exaltation of sharia above all other principles, means that it tacitly permits and prescribes the killing of those who leave Islam, and of those who 'blaspheme' Islam - thus totally denying freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. Then: throw the printout of the 'Cairo Declaration' into the bonfire, to burn. Shout 'No to Slavery! No to the Slave System of Islam!'
Jews and Christians: recite the Ten Commandments. Read out the important provisions of Magna Carta. Have someone read out the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Read what a few of the 'greats' had to say about Islam - pithy paragraphs from Voltaire, de Tocqueville, David Hume, Winston Churchill, John Quincy Adams, G K Chesterton - all handily to be found at this site by a little googling. (There are lots of others).
Toast the Queen in wine or beer or whiskey - all forbidden under Sharia - and sing 'God Save the Queen'.
Toast all who are resisting Islam or who are warning, or have warned, against it - e.g. Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, Canon Patrick Sookhdeo, Mr Robert Spencer, Mme Bat Yeor, Kurt Westergaard of 'Mohammed Turban-Bomb' cartoon fame, Robert Redeker, Geert Wilders, the late Oriana Fallaci, the late Jacques Ellul, the late G K Chesterton, A Special Toast to all apostates - e.g. Ali Sina, Ibn Warraq, Magdi Cristiano Allam, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Taslima Nasreen, Wafa Sultan, Nonie Darwish. There would have to be others in the UK, that I do not know about.
Drink "Confusion to all Jihadists!'
Christians may choose to sing Blake's 'Jerusalem!', or Chesterton's 'O God of Earth and Altar'. If there are Irish and Catholics present, I suggest St Patrick's Breastplate.
Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists who are participating may contribute prayers, songs, or chants as appropriate.
Let off fireworks ad libitum.
And film the whole thing and post it on the internet.
at September 17, 2008 11:06 PM
PMK-
Murder is dealt with no differently here but, as I said, in DV cases where the complaint is dropped, the police are powerless to do anything because it has been moved beyond the remit of criminal law.
I wonder when the womens rights groups are going to kick up a stink?
Posted by: Wishbone at September 18, 2008 1:43 AM
And to think, the Labour Party said "WE'D NEVER HAVE SHARIA LAW IN THE UK"
Arghhhhh
Posted by: herself at September 18, 2008 5:31 AM
Don't worry, folks.
Just keep voting for the same "mainstream" political parties - who have yet to do anything to discourage the spread of Sharia or Islamification in general (in fact, they've encouraged it) - and things will miraculously all come out right in the end.
You see, these political parties are just teasing us at the moment and any day now they'll suddenly announce that they're taking the necessary action.
Nothing to worry about.
/sarcasm
Posted by: watling at September 18, 2008 6:10 AM
DP111:
Posted by dennisw : Many Muslims sought refuge in UK to get away from Sharia.
I don't think so. Most UK Muslims are from the Indian sub-continent, particularly Pakistan and Bangladesh. What they prefer about the UK is the fact that our infrastructure works. When you turn the tap on clean water comes out; when you flick a light switch the light comes on; when you go to the supermarket the shelves are fully stocked with affordable food.
Most importantly, if you haven't got a job and can't afford to pay rent your local council will give you benefits and free accommodation - even if you praise Osama bin Laden publicly and call for the downfall of western civilisation. If you can't speak English the council will provide free classes for you and if you can't be bothered learning English then all official documents are translated for you at no cost to yourself.
Not only that but officialdom tells you at every opportunity that you're a victim and that if you're finding it hard to compete in the jobs market then it's due to racism against you.
The icing on the cake is that you are not required to embrace local culture but you can continue where you left off in your country of origin.
Hoping against hope, that they will seek another shelter.
Why should they when they've never had it so good here?
Posted by: watling at September 18, 2008 7:49 AM
Watling wrote: Why should they when they've never had it so good here?
Quite. That is why I wrote,"Hoping against hope".
But there is another way, and it is in progress.
Posted by: DP111 at September 18, 2008 9:31 AM
I have no problem with Sharia Law in the Britain. Britain is a Muslim state, if not today in a decade or two. So what's the point in delaying the Sharia Law a decade or two vs. having it today? It is all the same.
Posted by: American at September 18, 2008 11:38 AM
American-
Either you actually believe that, or you're talking crap.
Either way, woefully ignorant; the only difference being willingness to be so.
Posted by: Wishbone at September 18, 2008 2:05 PM
Wishbone,
I won't presume to speak for American but I can almost see what he is saying. If the people of Britain allow it to go Islamic, then there is nothing anyone else can do.
DV cases are dropped all the time, for a lot of reasons. The question is: why would the British government allow the sharia court to handle it in the first place? It's a criminal matter. These women deserve the same protections of the law that non-Muslim women (currently) get.
That they withdrew their complaint need not have stopped the government.
Here is the difference:
It should be noted that under normal British law those six cases could have been prosecuted as criminal, rather than “family” cases....
Those cases could have been prosecuted criminally. You don't need family members to file a complaint. The state can file charges. Think of an honor killing. It's a crime against society as well as against the woman. The state doesn't need a family member to file charges. The family member cannot prevent the prosecution.
at September 18, 2008 3:54 PM
SHARIA LAW is so wrong for all humanity.
If they try to have that c r a p in the US there will be a lot of hell to pay.
SHARIA LAW is vulgar, disgusting, stupid and BS.
No sane woman would accept such stupidity.
I am so amazed that the women in Briton are not going to war with their government on allowing this disgrace to humanity to be allowed in their country.
Every mosque in The US would be gone if this insanity was brought to the US.
Muslims are crazy brainless non-humans. Why would any government allow it to be invaded by this massive mental illness?
Posted by: tavuka at September 20, 2008 11:30 AM
Muslim women need to castrate their male babies at birth to put an end to the Muslim insanity.
Posted by: tavuka at September 20, 2008 11:42 AM
tavuka - I agree with you that sharia is monstrous. It contravenes practically every clause of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
But your other remarks - e.g. the sweeping dismissal of all Muslims as 'crazy brainless non-humans' - are pushing the boundary of what is considered acceptable discourse on this comments floor.
And to propose that Muslim women should castrate their baby boys, is simply offensive, contributing nothing practical to this discussion.
The problem with the Ummah is not that Muslims do not have brains; it is what has happened to those brains in the course of an Islamic upbringing/ brainwashing.
We must always bear in mind that the damage is not 100 % irreversible; the programming is not final, the case is not totally hopeless, the sickness is not utterly incurable.
Otherwise there would be no clear-headed apostates, such as Wafa Sultan or Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Patrick Sookhdeo, desperately trying to warn the kafir of the danger. There would be no Persian Christians, converts from Islam, men and women in their 30s, 40s, 50s, getting arrested for apostasising, and steadfastly prepared to face torture and death rather than renounce the human-friendly faith that they have found.
Unlike Tolkien's orcs, who though originating from elves that had been corrupted and destroyed, could not be restored, the Islamic 'orcs' CAN, sometimes, be turned back into 'elves'.
I believe that the resolute maintenance of an Islam-free, sharia-free zone, fiercely defended against all jihadi encroachments, is probably the best thing that can be done for the longterm good of those humans who are currently imprisoned within the Ummah - because, should any wish to defect, they would have somewhere safe to run to. (All such defectors from the Ummah would, of course, be subject to the same sort of wary checking that defectors from Soviet Russia or Mao's China were subjected to...).
The other 'prong' of the kafir response should be to pour into the ummah, 24/7, by modern technological means, persuasive presentations of alternative mental programming - google 'Father Zakaria Botros' for a good example of what I mean.
Sadly, within countries like Britain or Italy at present, because of the gutlessness or cluelessness of the authorities and the presence of large Mohammedan colonies, thousands of defectors from Islam, whether atheists like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or Christians like Magdi Cristiano Allam, live in daily peril of assassination, harassed and threatened by some among the Muslims who live within those supposedly 'free' countries.
Even worse: the warnings of these defectors seem to be getting a poor hearing among those in our governments. How many people listened when Ayaan Hirsi Ali declared emphatically that Islamic schools should not be permitted in non-Muslim countries? (Why did she say that? - well, because she knew from personal experience - Saudi Arabia - exactly what was being taught in such schools!).
It was Canon Sookhdeo, once a Muslim, now a Christian, who has written books for British Christians entitled, for example, 'Islam in Britain' (warning soberly of the white-anting of British institutions such as universities) and 'Power, Faith and Territory' (Islam as geopolitical cult).
The tragedy of Political Islam, the real horror of it, considered as a mental program or meme, is that in teaching pious jihad-minded Muslims to view and treat us non-Muslims as if we were subhuman, 'the worst of beings', it warps the humanity of Muslims.
Still: I would never dare to call even the most violent jihadi a non-human. I would call him a corrupted human, a human being who has become an agent or servant of an evil organisation and ideology (that is, I would view him exactly as I view Kim Jung Il, or as I view a member of the Yakuza, of the Triads, of Pol Pot, or as I would describe a member of the now defunct Thuggee cult).
I would prefer that he repent, and live. But if he chooses to make war, then there is nothing for it: he has to be stopped, by overwhelming force, in the name of humanity.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 21, 2008 6:36 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)