| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
The UK's logic seems to be that, since both parties are willing to abide by the decision of a third part, in this case, the sharia court, and all parties concerned are doing so willingly, then it's legal. But, as this report points out, what of those veiled Muslim women in Britain who know no English, don't know their rights as citizens of Britain, and simply do what their men -- fathers, husbands, brothers -- tell them to do, that is, let a sharia court decide? Are they truly "free" in the matter?
"British bishop: questions remain on Sharia," by Toby Cohen for Religious Intelligence, September 28:
Sharia law has been applied to British citizens in arbitration tribunals around the country since August 2007, but crucial questions need to be asked, says the Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali.
The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal has take advantage of Section 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996 which allows individuals to nominate any third party to settle their argument. It says: “The parties should be free to agree how their disputes are resolved, subject only to such safeguards as are necessary in the public interest”.In the Telegraph, Dr Nazir-Ali asked how we could be certain the parties had submitted to the rule of the arbitration tribunals willingly, particularly in the case of women. He said: “Both in terms of submission to a tribunal and in accepting its decisions, are women genuinely free, or is it possible that there are elements of coercion?”
The bishop also questioned how the rulings themselves could be reconciled with British law, based on such different values. In the cases of alimony, division of estate and marriage, he points out stark differences between Sharia law and that of the land which supposedly now supports it...
Posted by Raymond at September 28, 2008 12:23 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
There is a women’s rights group that is has been very vocal on this issue for years. A while ago I remember watching a program (I forget what it was now) where this very issue was discussed and it was made very clear in the program (they have numerous years worth of study data) that a lot of Muslim women have no idea of their rights in this country.
One law for all is the only way as far as I am concerned. We all accept the law of the country we are in and if we don't like something we use the democratic process to attempt a change. That way the change will be transparent to all...
Regards
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 28, 2008 12:33 PM
Who enforces Sharia rulings not complied with?
What are the punishments? Muslims have no jails of their own in the UK, so what if the sharia offense requires incarceration or physical punishment?
Is the UK prison system suppose to house sharia criminals? Will they now have to build muslim prisons in Britain?
How long can the appeasing kufrs afford sharia?
Will it start out 'sharia lite' and end up sharia heavy?
Will apostates, or gays, or adulterers, ever be executed by the British gov in behalf of sharia?
Will the government share its 'right to kill its citizens' with muslims?
I don't know, but it seems to be heading in that direction.
Support Tancredo's anti-sharia proposals. It may not get anywhere, but there is no excuse for not trying...
Posted by: duh_swami at September 28, 2008 12:51 PM
I met a staffer of Kennedy and boy are they brain washed. The left is foolish to say the least. After seven years they keep speaking about not associating what a few Muslims do to the rest of the other Muslims. I told her simply you are wrong and that yes the burden does fall on all Muslims and that non Muslims are already paying a price for Islam and Sharia and this brainwashed nonsense that is being taught to these foolish staffers.
Posted by: savsiv at September 28, 2008 1:00 PM
Good for Dr. Nazir-Ali. This was exactly the argument put forth in Canada, when some bright bulb in provincial government thought introducing sharia courts in the province of Ontario would be a good idea.
Muslim women were the strongest protesters against the proposal, because they were concerned that many new islamic female immigrants to Canada do not know the language, do not understand their rights (and you can bet their husbands won't enlighten them) and therefore did not have the information required to make an informed decision. Due primarily to muslim women speaking out against sharia law, the proposal to introduce such tribunals in Canada was quickly scrapped.
Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at September 28, 2008 1:19 PM
I would say that these people migrated to England where Engilsh law is the rule of the land. If they want Shariah, let them return to thier orgins.
Posted by: DeadRecknoning at September 28, 2008 3:52 PM
One thing I missed in all this commotion is any evidence that there has actually been any coercion in these matters. Can you provide any?
Posted by: Monte Gardner at September 28, 2008 6:19 PM
"One thing I missed in all this commotion is any evidence that there has actually been any coercion in these matters. Can you provide any?"
Start with the Koran, 4:34. Allah orders Muslim males to beat their wives if they "fear disobedience."
Then poke around a bit on the Web to see what you can find about the Koranically-justified abuse of women. For example, a governmental group in Pakistan found that 90% of Pakistani Muslim females have been repeatedly beaten by their husbands.
Now find discussions of Muslim systemic shame-hiding and face-saving. You'll see that Muslim "communities" in the West are primarily concerned with hiding internal abuse from the "kaffir." For example,
http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2008/09/denmark-internal-justice-in-muslim.html. There's a nice quote from Brigitte Gabriel about this very issue that I can't find right now.
Now think about how this information might affect a woman involved in a dispute that her husband wishes to take to a sharia "court." First, her husband is completely entitled to beat her if she resists his command -- that's "disobedience," and Allah instructs violent discipline in such a case. Second, her community will pressure her to comply, in order to hide the "shame" of the dispute from the kaffir.
The result is institutional, systematized coercion. It is part of the Muslim view of women as silent, obedient, easily-disposable sexual chattel, and it is basic and ineradicable as long as Islam exists.
Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at September 29, 2008 12:44 AM
"One thing I missed in all this commotion is any evidence that there has actually been any coercion in these matters. Can you provide any?"
Posted by: Monte Gardner
Give me a break.
Read the excellent post by Marwan'sDaughter above. Read it again. Convinced yet?
Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at September 29, 2008 7:36 AM
Islam thrives on intimidation, bullying, forced conversions, death for apostates
So of course women and other reluctant parties will be pressured and threatened to submit to bullsh!t Sharia courts
Mohamed's like was one of intimidation on the nice end of the spectrum. On the other end of the spectrum it was bloody conquest and assassination
Posted by: dennisw at September 29, 2008 11:50 AM
Marwan'sDaughter, great post.
Posted by: Xeno at September 29, 2008 1:51 PM
"I would say that these people migrated to England where Engilsh law is the rule of the land. If they want Shariah, let them return to thier orgins."
As an Indian, I vehemently agree with you. Why migrate to a country you don't like the laws of??? Especially scary is this idea of a separate legal system for a part of the population - the worst thing for a society's cohesion. India suffers badly from this problem of separate laws and if England has any sense, they will do what the Canadians did and not budge on a common law for all.
at September 29, 2008 3:07 PM
And make no mistake about it: These parallel courts are going to be used to curtail the rights of powerless Muslims (especially women, girls and moderates). This is what happens in Inda under the Muslim Law Board system, which Muslim women are trying desperately to reform/eliminate. These courts can have zero female representation and you can guess why this affects women negatively.
Posted by: Arjun08 at September 29, 2008 3:11 PM
Ok, we have
- generalizations about Islam, check
- troubling verses from the Koran, check
- Crystal-Ball forecasts that they will be used without consent, check
- Actual on-the-ground evidence of coercion, still missing.
In the meantime, if a Muslim women is stupid enough to voluntarily sign up to have her divorce or inheritance judged under a misogynistic, barbaric system, she is well within her rights to do do.
I do think that dealing with cases of domestic violence is over the line. That is a criminal matter and should be judged by a (real) criminal court.
Posted by: Monte Gardner at September 30, 2008 10:51 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(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.)