Apparently the abject collapse of Britain's sovereignty includes the failure to study and learn from its own history.

Henry II, a reformer king if ever there was one, recognized that the parallel church-court system had to go -- as the church courts had become "a safe haven for criminals of varying degree and ability, for one in fifty of the English population qualified as clerics. Henry wished to transfer sentencing in such cases to the royal courts, as church courts merely demoted clerics to laymen." (http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon26.html)

The attempted reform ended up, unfortunately, as a lethal controversy for cleric Thomas Beckett, but the soon-to-be-saint won in the end through the Compromise of Avranches that Henry was forced to sign. Except for a few crimes, those so inclined of the clergy went on their merry criminal ways, free of such irritations as equal punishment.

Ironically, one of those few excepted crimes was high treason -- a crime the British might want to examine more closely for many people involved in this sharia-law affair.

Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at September 15, 2008 11:43 PM

I USED TO want to travel to the UK, but I no longer have any desire to go there. The British have clearly lost their minds.

I used to admire them in many ways. How sad........it feels like losing a friend.

Posted by: OMGNowWhat at September 15, 2008 11:57 PM

WHAT is going to happen when the tabloids do a bit of sleuthing and discover that some eight or nine year old Muslim girl has been wedded - and bedded - by her 45 year old Muslim husband, and that she has been beaten and abused, and that she is trying to escape and get a divorce, and the sharia court is refusing to grant it?

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 16, 2008 12:42 AM

We will probably see riots and burnings of union jack and banners like "behead those who insult islam" once again.

Posted by: Robin_Shadowes at September 16, 2008 1:17 AM

Stick a fork in the UK and turn it over.

It's done.

Posted by: joeblough at September 16, 2008 1:19 AM

It is like losing a friend. More soccer thug,less ninny.

Posted by: prole_feed at September 16, 2008 1:24 AM

Melanie Phillipes has an excellent article on this to be found at http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2084146/no-longer-one-law-for-all.thtml#comments.

Key quote is "But there’s nothing new here at all. The rulings of the sharia courts, which have been in existence for years, have always been enforceable under the Arbitration Acts, as is all dispute resolution. They have not suddenly been given the force of law. In that respect, the story seems to be overheated and misleading."

She does however go on to point out the dangers inherent in these separatist tendencies and in the fact that they seem to be trying to act in areas where they have no jurisdiction.

May I add that neither these sharia tribunals (nor any arbitration panels) are Courts in the strict sense. To describe themselves as such seems misleading to me and is, doubtless, a sign of their organisers' real intentions.

Posted by: philiph at September 16, 2008 2:42 AM

Indeed, Sharia should be illegal in the West as it is contrary to natural law.

In the West, the criteria of legality should be natural law: all human beings egal before the law, protection of life, respect of the freedom of every person by every person, ...

Posted by: Coaltaxopeuh at September 16, 2008 2:43 AM

Pretending that these sharia tribunals are not "real," or that reports of their effect are "overheated,"is irrational. Mssrs. Bunglawala and his crowing cohort are boasting that they are now disposing of domestic violence cases and intend to expand their criminal-law purview. They make these statements without any fear of criticism or correction from anyone.

"Domestic violence" describes women who are being beaten to a pulp by their husbands. That's a crime. Or at least it was for everyone -- now it's not for Muslim males. When the Koran encourages punching the daylights out of your wife for "feared" disobedience, how on earth is she going to say no to "arbitration" for the last pulverizing she got?

Where the hell are the real cops? Don't they give a damn? Where I live, a beaten woman doesn't get to withdraw a complaint -- from experience, we know that the violence just escalates, and escalates, until someone is dead, so the state takes over.

I once got into a lot of trouble for pointing out the tea-sipping passivity of certain Brits (well, maybe there was a delicately arched eyebrow, or a carefully-lukewarm opinion piece here and there) over the honor-killing and forced marriage of girls. Apparently the passivity extends now to generalized woman-beating. After 7/7, after the mosque exposes, after this -- what will it take?

Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at September 16, 2008 3:13 AM

So will rape cases be dealt with by these courts?

Oh, silly me. There's no such thing as rape under Sharia. Well not with the 4 male muslim witnesses (of good character) requirement.

Posted by: Celsius at September 16, 2008 3:13 AM

Just wait until infidels begin to be tried in SHari'a courts!..

Posted by: pulsar182 at September 16, 2008 5:45 AM

In one of his essays Bernard Lewis mentions a Turkish ambassador to England in the late 18th C explaining in a despatch to the sultan what parliament is: that the King of England, having rejected the divine law, is reduced to making up laws himself.
A non-Muslim criminal breaking the law sees himself as committing an illegal act: a Muslim carrying out an act that complies with sharia but breaks British law sees himself as ignoring a mickey mouse / toytown law and obeying the real, deity-approved thing. Although imams issue advice to Muslims that they obey the laws of the country in which they live, anyone acquainted with Muslim teaching would know that this is a temporary, conditional teaching produced by necessity not conviction.
The result is that, if the government cannot enforce its writ and Muslims can getaway with flouting British law they will often do so. Polygamy, often it would seem under the pretence of importing dependent sister-in-laws, would not appear to be unusual. A TV documentary about Muslims converting to Christianity in Bradford several months ago showed that these people are subject to vandalism, harassment and threats, making them have to keep their place of worship a secret - actions clearly illegal under UK law.

Where these courts becomes truly sinister is in the fact that traditionally, in Islam, if the government does not enforce a fatwa then it is open to any Muslim to see to its execution by violence if necessary. The government, unless it can impose a draconian control by the police on the behaviour of people in these communities (and in the area of apostate harassment, it does not even seem to have tried), will have effectively withdrawn its writ from these neighborhoods and allowed a separate sovereignty to set itself up.

Posted by: wallyUK at September 16, 2008 5:55 AM

Britain is finished.

Posted by: US_infidel at September 16, 2008 7:04 AM

'...obey not the disbelievers and hypocrites...'
(Al-Ahzab - 'The Clans')33:1

Devout muslims can never be subordinate to any other legal system other than Sharia Law.

This serious challenge to the British Constitution appears to have slipped through Parliament without any proper discussion or debate about the implications. The legislation was clearly intended to create a means for private individuals to settle their legal difficulties without recourse to expensive litigation. It is being used for an entirely different purpose.

Since Sharia Law encompasses every aspect of life, it makes Islam a political movement as much as a 'relgious' faith. The legislation sets up an established religion in competition with the Church of England. The position of the Monarchy is compromised.

The Queen's apparent reluctance (or inability) to veto this legislation gives me serious cause to consider the advantages of republicanism.

Posted by: LondonBorn&Bred at September 16, 2008 8:02 AM

Defender of the realm is quite correct, so far the people of Britain have had no chance to speak on the islamisation of our nation.

This chance will come before too long, and I genuinely fear for those that have come to live in Britain under previous administrations, especially those immigrants who have no association with, or are even antagonistic toward the Religion of Peace, but who might nevertheless suffer due to their ethnicity.

It is not clear when the tipping point will occur, but the sort of nonsense espoused by the Arch Druid and the mainstream political parties is having a profound effect on the voting instincts of the British public.

In my own town, where in previous years the electorate would vote for Michael Jackson's pet chimpanzee if it wore a Labour Party rosette, we now have two BNP councillors in local government.

Change, and not necessarily the sort of change wanted by Senator Obama in the USA, is coming.

Posted by: idiotboy at September 16, 2008 9:26 AM

Video report:

Sharia courts have been operating in Britain to rule on disputes between Muslims for more than a year

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 16, 2008 9:47 AM

I have a hard time sympathizing with Western muslim women, especially converts. Unlike in islamic societies where a woman can expect cruel punishments, or even execution, for rejecting the sharia's unfair treatment, Western muslimahs choose their fate.

Granted, some would still face a danger from the more radical males among them, but they do have certain protections and freedoms that women in islamic countries will never have.

To muslim women: If you converted to islam, you deserve whatever the sharia gives you.

Posted by: DJM at September 16, 2008 10:12 AM

Barring some unforseeable miraculous awakening, this is coming soon to a neighborhood near you in the U.S.A.

Is not the majority of the population in Dearborn, MI, now Muslim? We have several enclaves within the U.S. that are populated by large numbers of the followers of Muhammad.

We shall see, as events unfold.

Who would have thought twenty years ago that the UK would someday recognize Sharia Court decisions as binding and enforceable?

Next will be a push for criminal sanctions to include floggings, then amputations, then beheadings and stonings - or do I completely misunderstand my Islam lessons?

Where can the UK possibly now draw the line at what powers the Sharia Courts will have? The Muslims will incrementally demand absolute power for their Courts.

Posted by: INFIDELATLARGE at September 16, 2008 11:13 AM

Sorry, defender of the realm,
I disagree that your country is not finished. I take that back, not quite yet. Perhaps with many like you, you will be overturn the tide of stealth
jihad and sharia law that is currently
drowning England and Europe. Combating islam, in ANY form is our only option. obumma proposes to "talk" to the muslims and islamofacists to help them better understand our position. They will cut off his ears and stuff them. There is no reasoning, islam will only be satisfied when they own it all, and they would still argue and kill each other. Again, to my last breath will I fight this plaguish cult known as islam. Where I live in the USA islam is seen as pretty harmless but I
know better that,and it is my mission to let as many know about the evils and pitfalls of islam.

Posted by: PatriotUSA at September 16, 2008 11:53 AM

dumbledoresarmy

"WHAT is going to happen when the tabloids do a bit of sleuthing and discover that some eight or nine year old Muslim girl has been wedded - and bedded - by her 45 year old Muslim husband"

I would guess - Absolutly nothing.

Consider the recent case of 65-year-old former pop star Gary Glitter. The British MSM pursued him around the world on his release from a 2-year jail sentence in Vietnam for underage sex. Meanwhile the problem of "Asians" picking up underage kuffur girls in the North of England has become so serious even the BBC mentions occasionally.

But nobody ever does anything except ask "Community Leaders" to get them to stop.

Posted by: Fred at September 16, 2008 12:51 PM

The irony here is that Sharia courts reflect a smug British-colonial-era arrogance, where the establishment sees itself as a kind of ‘white man’s burden’ to help their ‘disadvantaged brown’ subjects adjust to Britain’s superior culture by allowing them to form their own courts. This kind of subtle supremacist indulgence betrays a sense of superiority, which unfortunately may come back and bite them, since the brown population will not condescend to being submissively obedient to the law of the land. Their goal, totally in opposition of modern separation of church (mosque) and state (realm), is to gain enough traction to make their Sharia laws superior, on both moral and legal grounds, to the laws of the realm, since Islamists see their laws as superior to ours. The irony is that the superiority complex of one is viewed as an inferiority complex in the other, and vice versa. However, all this can be reversed easily by simply disallowing Sharia ‘Arbitration’ courts from having any power in contested cases. Anyone of any group can agree to arbitration on any grounds as a private matter, but when it comes to breaking the law of the realm, these arbitrated cases have no valid power to enforce any kind of agreements between parties, if one or the other party is truly aggrieved. They are not running reverse Sharia-colonial-era courts within the realm, though on the surface it appears they are doing so. Or they think they do, each side mildly arrogant of the other. This is mere supremacist indulgence, from both sides, which in the end will back fire on both of them. There can only be one law of the land. Sharia law cannot be binding legally.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at September 16, 2008 12:55 PM

A house divided against itself cannot stand.

Britain will have another civil war eventually to settle the issues here. The western supporters will win, of course, but at a huge cost in souls and sterling. It will probably start way sooner than one might expect and will be a very one. God save the Queen. You have my prayers.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at September 16, 2008 1:16 PM

A very nasty war, that is.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at September 16, 2008 1:18 PM

Careful, Defender of The Realm. Advocating the British Party Which Must Not Be Named can get you in big trouble in these parts.

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at September 16, 2008 1:32 PM

We can now see why the Archbishop and Lord Chancellor both made the statements about the introduction of shiria law earlier this year. The government knew the muslims were going to go ahead and set up these courts anyway and lacking the political will to stop them they had no choice but to give their approval.

They had to pre-empt the storm of public protests by raising that storm so it would die down by the time the courts started. They had no choice but to make it look like a good idea by getting their surrender in first.

Posted by: Fred at September 16, 2008 4:49 PM

What. The. Merry. Hell. are they DOING over there?

Posted by: carpediadem at September 16, 2008 11:08 PM

Idiot boy makes a lot of sense. We are now seeing the rise of the BNP. At the mayoral election a BNP member was voted into the London assembly, something we have not seen before and something the media hasn't seen fit to cover in any detail.

But to allow sharia to be enshrined in British law is the height of ignorance and arrogance and merely proves that the Islamists are at the very heart of our current Labour government.

Perhaps this WILL be the tipping point. Perhaps people will now realise that unless they fight back they are going to have their culture and their way of life wiped out. We can but hope. Sadly, having seen the "bit-by-bit" approach of the Islamists the British people will just ignore it.

Posted by: DaveMate at September 17, 2008 1:27 PM

To put it quiet bluntly our leaders have lost there marbles, and like leaders all over the world they are short term thinkers. They have only a short time at the trough and they want there snout in as long as possible, and they don't want to be disturbed. They have not sense of duty or pride.
You must also remember that we have a first past the post voting system and in many marginal constituencies the Muslim vote is crucial to either of the parties getting into power. They in fact hold the balance of power, is it any wonder they get pampered.
The British working class and the lower middle class are and have always been very patriotic. It was these people who fought and died on the Somme and on D Day. I can assure you they are very pissed off, but it doesn't make a blind bit of difference who they vote for because all three of the parties will be sucking up too the muslims to get into power, this makes the Brits seem as if they are sucking up too the Muslims.
I forget who it was that said that the BNP get more hits on there website than all the other political parties put together on there website. This is correct they get 51% of all the hits. They are also having difficulty gearing up to cope with all the new applications for membership. This is a marginal party remember they have no representation in parliament, and less than 100 in local government.
They have regularly been polling between 10% and 40% in many of the local election, it gets dismissed by the powers that be, as a protest vote blah,, blah blah. I personally don't think so, a mining village in Yorkshire where I come from voted in a BNP councilor. The village has always voted in a labor councilor for as long as I can remember. These people were the stormtroopers of the left and were starved back to work in the Miner's strike in the 80s. For these people to vote for a so called Neo-Fasist party, as it is sometimes called by its opponents, then something is seriously wrong. There is a sea change going on in the native British population. The contempt for the leaders and establishment is palpable.
Now let me explain why the views of the normal Brit is not been listened too, as I said earlier we have a first past the post system, in the 60s the liberals were in the same boat as the BNP they were regularly polling somewhere in the region of 20% of the votes in a general election and only getting 4 seat in the House of commons out of 650, these liberals could safely be ignored by the big two parties. Once you start getting between 20% and 30% the number of seats grows almost exponentially. The same is happening to the BNP they are in the same position as the liberals were in the 60s and having a fairly large population there is a lot of inertia to overcome to change direction. The way things are going it is difficult to predict whether the BNP will get over the 20% barrier or if they will have enough money or an organization to accomplish it in in the next General election, in 2010, but they will certainly be there in 2014. The interesting thing is that when thing happen in Britain they tend to happen with a speed that confounds our enemies. The Britain of 1939 under Chamberlain was a different beast than the Britain under Churchill in 1940
A few people have predicted a civil war, I tend to agree with you We have had at least 5 that I can recall from the history of Britain, the last two in the 1640s were particularly bloody. Lucky is the land that is not only a nation but also a state. When you have two nation existing in one state then you are asking for trouble, Belgium is a good example of this,a the Walloons and the Fleming have always been in dispute since the founding of the country in 1839, this doesn't necessarily lead to blood shed. Unfortunately Yugoslavia did. Apart from being intellectually wrong, Multiculturalism has allowed mini nations to grow inside Britain, with the blessing and support of the state. One is particularly toxic, supported by Saudi oil money and all of the present political parties who want to remain, or gain power. This will in the not too distant future lead to a civil war. It will happen not when they make up 50% of the population but when the percentage of youngsters between 20 and 30 of both nations will be about equal, and that can happen very quickly perhaps around 2020-25.
Who will win? I don't know. Victory usually goes to the side with the deepest purse. We Brits are a proud lot and we don't like to admit that we were broke and would most likely had to make a humiliating peace with Germany, if America had not come up with Lend lease, we fought the last 3 years on credit. By the way America we paid off the last installment of our war debt 2 years ago. I think the only Allie that did.
What will happen this time, I think it will be a close run thing, America is broke we are broke, if we are forced to fight a civil war, it will have to be fought on credit and I see no way we will be able to do that, energy is also the most important thing in war apart from money to pay for it. In the second world war apart from oil to run the tanks and transport with, most of the industry was driven by coal, and that we owned. When you have to import oil to run you industry to produce the sinews of war from the enemy you are fighting, then to put it in simple terms you are f**ked.
I have thought long and deep over the future of my country and I am very pessimistic, my contempt for my politicians is profound. What really worries me though is my son, my only son who is 16 wants to joint the British Army, this Sunday I am taking him to a short orientation course. There are nearly 50 years between us, I had him very late and I don't want to lose him. The thought of him having to fight in the streets which I grew up in, to defend his country fills me with dread and contempt for the anal orifices that have brought this about.

Posted by: Holger Dansker at September 17, 2008 7:06 PM

Holger Dansker -

how clued up is your son about Islam? Has he read Mr Spencer's 'PIG to Islam and the Crusades', or 'Onward Muslim Soldiers' or 'Islam Unveiled'? I think those are probably the easiest for a smart 16 year old to understand; and to quietly share with other army-minded lads.

Teach him about Charles Martel and Pelayo and Jean de Valette and Jan Sobieski; teach him about Orde Wingate who helped teach the nascent IDF in Israel how to fight against Muslims and win. Tell him to find and team up with any Sikhs he may encounter - because - *they know* about Islam.

Track down, if you can, a copy of Churchill's "The Malakand Field Force" and the unexpurgated 1899 edition of "The River Wars" - the young Winston Churchill's account of what it was like to fight jihadists in the field.

If he goes into the army already knowing how Muslims make war - especially the "war is deceit" bit, how they use feigned friendship, lying, dissimulation, infiltration, sabotage, treachery, and 'splitting the camp'; and if he has a good grasp of the fact that if Muslims call for a 'treaty' or hudna, it probably means they feel weak, so if at all possible, go in in force and hit 'em harder - then he'll have some potentially life-saving knowledge, and may be able to help other recruits get their heads straight.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 18, 2008 12:27 AM

G K Chesterton:

"O God of earth and altar,
bow down and hear our cry.
Our earthly rulers falter,
our people drift and die;
the walls of gold entomb us,
the swords of scorn divide,
take not thy thunder from us
but take away our pride.

From all that terror teaches,
from lies of tongue and pen,
from all the easy speeches,
that comfort cruel men,
from sale and profanation
of honour and the sword,
from sleep and from damnation,
deliver us, good Lord.

Tie in a living tether
the prince and priest and thrall,
Bind all our lives together,
smite us and save us all.
In ire and exultation
aflame with faith, and free,
lift up a living nation,
a single sword to thee."

It seems to me that Chesterton's plea to be delivered "from all that terror teaches/ from lies of tongue and pen" and "from sale and profanation/ of honour and the sword,/ from sleep and from damnation" are more apposite today than at any time since they were written.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 18, 2008 12:40 AM

dumbledoresarmy

Of intrest?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NHMt_emhqw4

Posted by: Fred at September 18, 2008 8:26 AM

Good one, Fred. I just watched it.

My maiden name is Irish, and Mum's mother was the daughter of a Dane and a German, but I also have Scots ancestors - my mother's father was Scottish (both parents from Glasgow) and so was my father's mother (a tiny dark Scotswoman with the gift of the Second Sight, born in Crianlarich). I was very close to my Scots grandmother and grew up hearing Scots folk songs, the pipes, and stories of the Macdonalds and the Campbells.

Of course the video you posted only gets it half right - the *real* Mohammedan danger to Scotland comes from those Mohammedan colonies that are entrenched within Scotland herself, not from the Muslims in Mesopotamia or Afghanistan.

Sharia creep is the danger that the Scots have to wake up to, fast.

However: the story at the start of the video has a moral that should apply in the streets of Glasgow and Edinburgh and Aberdeen, just as much as in the wilds of Afghanistan. When Muslim thugs encounter a determined and courageous onslaught from no-nonsense kafir, they often collapse (like any bully).

And that principle - the best defence is a good offence, that is, a determined assault against all Muslim thuggery, whingeing, whining, and aggressive demands - will have to be applied in the courtroom, the factory floor, the town hall and the schoolyard, just as much as in the battlefield. City and county councils will need just as much resolution to say NO, and keep on saying NO, to demands for mosques and islamic schools, as the Highlanders did when they made the decision to fix bayonets and charge.

No new mosques, no minarets. No 'call to prayer'. No hijab or burqa in any public place. Closure of all mosques found to be associated with anything illegal or seditious.

This business of 'recognising' Sharia can be reversed. Don't resign yourselves, in Scotland, in Wales, or in England.

In fact, so many aspects of sharia directly contradict all the basic principles of English - or of Scottish - common law and practice, that the practising of those aspects should be grounds for immediate deportation (and removal of citizenship, if the culprit is a 'citizen').

A few possible examples. Killing, or threatening to kill someone for 'apostasy' or 'blasphemy' - OUT. Killing, or threatening to kill, a female Muslim, for the 'crime' of dating an Infidel, or marrying him, or for perceived 'immorality'/ un-Islamic dress/ etc: OUT with the whole family (the lady if alive and willing to publicly renounce Islam, can stay). Wife-beating, FGM, forced marriage, under-age marriage, polygamy - OUT. Plotting or inciting to jihad - OUT (and mosque attended by such persons, closed). Muslims identified as doing malicious damage to non-Muslim places of worship, and/or carrying out attacks upon ordinary non-Muslims, and upon any official representative of the non-Muslim polity (such as police, ambulance officers, fire brigade) in order to keep them out of Muslim-claimed territory - OUT.

I suspect the Mohammedan population of the UK would start to shrink pretty dramatically if such actions were consistently taken.

In the end, those Mohammedans who refuse to sincerely adopt either a non-Islamic faith, or atheism, will have to be removed from Britain, or they will destroy it.

The Highland Clearances were a crying shame.

But a modern-day Clearance that removed Mohammedans from Scotland would save Scotland, and Scottish culture, and all the treasures of Scottish monuments and history and art and literature and music - not only for the indigenous Scots but for all those other people who unlike the Mohammedans are quite happy, given proper encouragement, to assimilate to Scottish ways, but are currently suffering from Mohammedan bullying quite as much as the Scots.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 18, 2008 11:39 PM

Last, but not least.

Judging from the posted article, Dominic Grieve and Douglas Murray appear to be saying the right thing - back them up!

They should be receiving a tsunami of letters, emails and phone calls of commendation and support.

Every time a public figure - church leader, journalist, politician, judge, police officer, academic, *anybody* - does or says what, from a counter-jihad point of view, is the right thing, UK resisters of jihad and sharia should shower that person with approval.

It is much, much easier for humans to be courageous if they know they are not alone.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 18, 2008 11:44 PM