| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Any attempt at monitoring, protection, record-keeping or other oversight would be immediately seized upon as Islamophobic, racist (though they never say which race), colonialist, and just earth-shatteringly gauche.
"Britain Grapples With Role for Islamic Justice," by Elaine Sciolino for the New York Times, November 19:
LONDON — The woman in black wanted an Islamic divorce. She told the religious judge that her husband hit her, cursed her and wanted her dead.
But her husband was opposed, and the Islamic scholar adjudicating the case seemed determined to keep the couple together. So, sensing defeat, she brought our her secret weapon: her father.
In walked a bearded man in long robes who described his son-in-law as a hot-tempered man who had duped his daughter, evaded the police and humiliated his family.
The judge promptly reversed himself and recommended divorce.
This is Islamic justice, British style. Despite a raucous national debate over the limits of religious tolerance and the pre-eminence of British law, the tenets of Shariah, or Islamic law, are increasingly being applied to everyday life in cities across the country.
The Church of England has its own ecclesiastical courts. British Jews have had their own “beth din” courts for more than a century.
That comparison is common, but shallow. Neither the Anglican nor Jewish systems compare to the total legal and political system that sharia is. As such, there is no assurance of how much sharia will ever be "enough" sharia, short of the whole package.
But ever since the archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, called in February for aspects of Islamic Shariah to be embraced alongside the traditional legal system, the government has been grappling with a public furor over the issue, assuaging critics while trying to reassure a wary and at times disaffected Muslim population that its traditions have a place in British society.
Boxed between the two, the government has taken a stance both cautious and confusing, a sign of how volatile almost any discussion of the role of Britain’s nearly two million Muslims can become.
“There is nothing whatever in English law that prevents people abiding by Shariah principles if they wish to, provided they do not come into conflict with English law,” the justice minister, Jack Straw, said last month. But he added that British law would “always remain supreme,” and that “regardless of religious belief, we are all equal before the law.”
Practically speaking, that's a moot point when the "alternative" enshrines inequality before the law, and people choose it (or are made to submit to it) in place of British law and its guarantees.
Conservatives and liberals alike — many of them unaware that the Islamic courts had been functioning at all, much less for years — have repeatedly denounced the courts as poor substitutes for British jurisprudence.
They argue that the Islamic tribunals’ proceedings are secretive, with no accountability and no standards for judges’ training or decisions.
Critics also point to cases of domestic violence in which Islamic scholars have tried to keep marriages together by ordering husbands to take classes in anger management, leaving the wives so intimidated that they have withdrawn their complaints from the police.
“They’re hostages to fortune,” said Parvin Ali, founding director of the Fatima Women’s Network, a women’s help group based in Leicester. Speaking of the courts, she said, “There is no outside monitoring, no protection, no records kept, no guarantee that justice will prevail.” [...]
Read it all.
Posted by Marisol at November 20, 2008 12:07 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Sharia courts are essentially kangaroo courts. Not justice, but oppression of the weak by the strong, especially women. Why would Britain, who gave us the Magna Carta and trial by jury of peers, want such a petty court system of injustice in their land? Makes no sense.
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 20, 2008 12:38 AM
In walked a bearded man in long robes who described his son-in-law as a hot-tempered man who had duped his daughter, evaded the police and humiliated his family. The judge promptly reversed himself and recommended divorce.I'm still not getting - how did the daughter win on just this basis? Did her father have clout as being more Islamic than the son-in-law? That's the only thing I can imagine that would have enabled her to win.
Great new innovation for the Ummah Kaliphate.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at November 20, 2008 2:15 AM
It's not surprising that Beth Din courts are always mentioned in articles about sharia ones in Britain, as an example of how religious courts are nothing new on British soil. However, as the author of the NYTimes article has pointed out, both parties to a divorce have to agree to split up to get a stamp of approval from a rabbinical court. That's certainly not the case when it comes to divorce rulings issued by sharia courts. If one wants to justify sharia courts by mentioning a precedent set by other religious tribunals, the inquisition would provide a much more similar example. And it's obvious that there aren't any such tribunals still open in the world.
As for Jack Straw's statement that British secular courts will always remain supreme, an issue on which Hugh brilliantly blasted that fool in one of his previous columns, I guess it's just a matter of time until such courts bestow upon themselves the right to start banning the sale of alcohol, pork, CDs and DVDs deemed "haram" in predominantly muslim neighborhoods. After that, it wouldn't be surprising if their next step consisted of preventing young girls from attending secular schools (where they might learn more than cleaning, cooking and reading Mein Qurampf.)
And eventually, if they feel bold and empowered enough to demand that sharia start meting out its traditional punishments against those accused of adultery and homosexuality (as if the latter were a crime), they'll certainly go for it. After all, despite the efforts of a few Brits such as Pat Condell to raise public awareness on the issue, it seems that their warnings are mostly falling on deaf ears. Or perhaps most of Britain's politicians have simply chosen to ignore any demands from their constituents that could be deemed offensive to muslims.
Posted by: Proud_Kafir7908 at November 20, 2008 2:29 AM
“There is no outside monitoring, no protection, no records kept, no guarantee that justice will prevail.”
Isn't that the point?
I thought that's what sharia means.
Posted by: joeblough at November 20, 2008 4:23 AM
Sharia courts and Jewish Battei-Din (pl)
Once again the "Saria court = Beth Din" comparison is made without a review of the basic facts.
Before a Beth Din will hear a divorce case in the UK, Jewish couples must first divorce in the secular courts. After that they bring the settlement documents from the secular court to the Beth Din. Only then will Beth Din even look at the case. A Jewish bill of divorce, known as a Get is then issued. The Get is recognised by all Jewish authorities around the world should either party choose to remarry abroad, but the secular settlement remains the legal basis for the divorce.
This is not a problem for Jews, as most Jews are law abiding and see the benefit (for tax, national insurance and inheritance rights, if nothing else) in registering their marriage with the state, even if they were married abroad.
This does not seem to be the situation with Muslims though. An article in my local paper recently stated that 90% of the Mosques in my area (which has a 30% Muslim population) are not registered with the State for marriages. They still perform sharia weddings, but they are not recognised by the authorities - the Muslims don't care though, these marriages are recognised in the Muslim community and that's all that matters to them. Furthermore, they don't recognise secular/state authority to influence sharia, so why should they care.
The bottomline is that these sharia courts serve a culture that is completely separate and parallel to the state. A state within a state, if you like. The majority of divorce cases seen in the sharia courts aren't even married as far as British law is concerned.
Posted by: Tziona at November 20, 2008 7:33 AM
From the article -
“We do not want to give the impression that Muslims are an isolated community seeking a separate legal system in this country,” said Shahid Raza, who adjudicates disputes from an Islamic center in the West London suburb of Ealing.
“We are not asking for criminal Shariah law — chopping of hands or stoning to death,” he continued.
Well, not yet.............
at November 20, 2008 8:00 AM
Why should you obey the law? Because, if you don't like it, you can change it. You're free to argue with your fellow citizens, and persuade them to vote for different MPs next time who will change the law. The authority of the law comes precisely from its mutability.
Two things follow. First, the same law must apply to everyone. No buts. Imagine when Parliament is debating a change to the divorce laws. What should a Muslim MP do in such a debate if he is exempted from such laws applying to him personally?
Second, the debate about what laws we need must be rational - that is, it must make sense to everyone, even those who do not share your religious beliefs.
Sharia is absolutely incompatible with all of the above.
Posted by: georgesdelatour at November 20, 2008 8:25 AM
Mark my words, and mark them well.
Sharia will come to Britain to stay, especially what has been happening the last few days in Britain
We have sharia law in parts of the country, we have millions of illegal immigrants imported in by default by this government yet the English cannot support a legal national party without being discriminated and persecuted for their legal political beliefs.
There is a witch hunt against the only party that opposes Sharia and Islam by the socialists and communists and unions who are opening up the doors for Islamic law.
Tarique Ghaffur, Scotland Yard’s senior most Asian police officer has alleged that the elite police force has behaved in a discriminatory manner with him and claimed one million pound damages. He has filed a suit against the Yard for discriminating against him on the basis of his race, religion and age. He has said that senior Asian and black officers have to work in a ‘hostile’ and ‘poisonous’ atmosphere.
Now Ghaffur belongs to a religion that plainly states, "So obey not the disbelievers, but strive against them herewith with a great endeavour." 25:52
Here with have a member of a proven murderous cult who was able to rise Assistant Commissioner (AC),which is the third highest rank in London's Metropolitan Police, with a salary of $360,000
Yet
A police force today started an investigation "as a matter of urgency" into claims that a serving officer is a member of an anti-islamic Party.
The allegations emerged after the publication of a list the anti-islamic parties supporters on an internet blog.
Merseyside police confirmed today that they have launched a probe after allegations were made against a male officer.
A spokesman said: "We are very clear - membership of the anti-islamic party is totally incompatible with the duties and values of the police service and Merseyside Police. We will not accept a police officer or police staff being a member of said party.
"Meanwhile, as a matter of urgency, we have immediately started an investigation into all aspects of this case. We will be keeping an open mind until all of the facts have been established."
The matter has also been referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
Officers are banned from joining or promoting the an anti-islamic party because it would damage race relations, according to the Association of Chief Police Officers.
at November 20, 2008 10:43 AM
So what if a muslims commits a violent crime against another muslim and both parties "agree" (Ha!) to go to a sharia court rather than the police?
Some money changes hands and the guilty party has no criminal conviction (so still can get entry to USA) and no DNA or other evidence is kept.
If next time he violently attacks a Non-muslim, it will be so much harder for the police to track him down without any knowledge of the previous attack.
Thank you ZaNU Labour.
Posted by: Celsius at November 20, 2008 1:25 PM
In walked a bearded man in long robes who described his son-in-law as a hot-tempered man who had duped his daughter, evaded the police and humiliated his family.
The judge promptly reversed himself and recommended divorce.
...................
What if this woman's father had been a clean-shaven businessman, instead, just concerned for his daughter's welfare? What if no male relative appeared at all? Or worse--what if this "bearded man in long robes" was of the opinion that his daughter should stay in her marriage to a man who hit her, cursed her and wanted her dead?
Would the judge then have had any occasion to reverse himself? Likely not.
The only reason this woman got her divorce was that a male guardian, considered more powerful or more "Islamic" than her violent husband, wished it.
Posted by: gravenimage at November 20, 2008 1:31 PM
"Islamic justice, British style"
More accurately, this is: "Mohammad's 7th century version of Arab tribal justice, taking place in 21st century Britain."
It is also cultural genocide wrought on actual British people by "Islamic" bigots invited in by quisling kapo-like British politicians and inhuman corporatists.
By ignoring cultural genocide, or calling it multicultural, I could say oxymoronic, incongreous things like:
"Nazi justice, Tibetan style" or "War is Peace" or "Navajo rugs done in Irish style" or "Chinese food cooked French style".
Posted by: Max Publius at November 20, 2008 4:26 PM
The "anti-Islamic party" referred to by Infidelk9 in his posting above is, of course, the BNP. It is dishonest of him to omit the name of this avowedly racist party with strong fascist antecedents. My view is that such a party hinders our country's resistance to Islamic pressures because it is so easy to identify any critics of Mohammedanism with such a disreputable outfit.
A reminder to any readers from the UK who have not yet done that they should sign the petition at the government Number10 site:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/shariastop/
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Stop Sharia Law from being binding in law under arbitration tribunals rules"
Apparently there was another earlier petition - people who signed that should sign this one also.
Posted by: wallyUK at November 20, 2008 5:10 PM
All of this prejudgemt of than new legal system by all of you racist. First give it time to proof itself.
Posted by: DefenderofIslam at November 20, 2008 5:38 PM
From the article:
"Conservatives and liberals alike — many of them unaware that the Islamic courts had been functioning at all, much less for years — have repeatedly denounced the courts as poor substitutes for British jurisprudence.
"They argue {perfectly truthfully - dda} that the Islamic tribunals’ proceedings are secretive, with no accountability and no standards for judges’ training or decisions."
And again, this time from a Muslim woman:
“They’re {the women who are made to use these 'courts' - dda} hostages to fortune,” said Parvin Ali, founding director of the Fatima Women’s Network, a women’s help group based in Leicester.
"Speaking of the courts, she said, “There is no outside monitoring, no protection, no records kept, no guarantee that justice will prevail.”
Got that, everyone? 'Secretive. No accountability. No standards.
'No outside monitoring. No records kept. No guarantee that justice will prevail'.
Now - hands up everyone here at jihadwatch who could have predicted this, 100%.
Furthermore, the article contains one more little piquant detail, buried in the bottom-most paragraphs. I'm surprised that the NYT let it slither through, because it is very telling - not about sharia, but about other aspects of Islam.
Here it is:
"A Pakistan-born 33-year-old mother of five explained that her husband would beat her and her children. “He threatens to kill us,” she said, as her daughter translated from Urdu. “He calls me a Jew and an infidel.” Dr. Hasan told her to immediately get police protection and request an Islamic divorce."
Hmm. Did you catch that? "He threatens to kill us. *He calls me a Jew and an infidel*" (!!!).
I wonder whether it was the death threats, or the use of the worst and ultimate insult (calling his wife a 'Jew' and 'an infidel') that put the husband beyond the pale?
Are you listening, NYT readers? The worst imaginable insult a Muslim man can heap upon his wife, right up there with death threats, or worse than a death threat, is to call her a 'Jew', or a 'kafir'.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at November 20, 2008 7:17 PM
DefenderofIslam
Your name can be expanded to:
MurderousClinicallyDeludedSyncophantOfDeadGenocidalMeglomaniacFounderOfViolentIdeologyBasedOnHisNarsacisticRantings
Posted by: Max Publius at November 20, 2008 8:35 PM
"“We do not want to give the impression that Muslims are an isolated community seeking a separate legal system in this country,” said Shahid Raza, who adjudicates disputes from an Islamic center in the West London suburb of Ealing."
Yet that is exactly what they are doing. Since they refuse to assimilate to the immediate western culture they live in, all they have is their own little Islamic community, shunted off from the rest of the world.
It makes me wonder why they even bother living in the western world if they continue to live as a separate tribe, which is exactly what they are, anyways. They'd be happier living in Riyadh.
Posted by: abad at November 20, 2008 11:39 PM
Posted by: wallyUK
The "anti-Islamic party" referred to by Infidelk9 in his posting above is, of course, the BNP. It is dishonest of him to omit the name of this avowedly racist party with strong fascist antecedents.
Dishonest
No more dishonest than a fisherman putting a worm on a hook
And you took the bait.
You can call me dishonest, yet you wish to ignore the gravity of what has happened, and what can happen in the near future. Now the Antifah vigilantes have can have a field day.
I'm not sure many here understand the second world war. It was not some crusade against racism. Great Britian fought to preserve democracy and its empire. We fought as much to keep our African, Asian and other colonies under white supremacy as to defeat facism. The reinvention of the second world war as a war against racism (anti-semitism) only emerged towards the end when the horrors of the concentration and extermination camps became public, while the government kept quite, so as not to annoy the Arabs in Palistine
You and the present government are pretty scary
Many died so as to defend democracy, so where is the democracy now
People are entitled to their own personal views and for you to ignore or even encourage a witch hunt against BNP supporters, lowers yourself to the worst of their kind.
I'd wager the vast majority of these BNP members are just fed up with the immigration/housing/job policies of the this present fascist government
Thought crime and joining legal parties should not mean loss of job or childish or adult witch hunts.
Wat we see is a serious breach of privacy, which you blatantly ignore, would you ignore a breach of privacy of the people who sign the petition you linked to, would you ignore the breach of privacy if this site was hacked
Any breach of privacy is a bad thing and ignoring one and condemning you risk showing yourself up as a hypocrite
Posted by: InfidelK9 at November 21, 2008 8:15 AM
InfidelK9: I agree, people do not understand WW2, and they do not realize what is at stake, or the nature of war. They do not understand how desperately vulnerable we have made ourselves.
Max publius above spoke of "cultural genocide", but he could more accurately have said "cultural suicide", and even then he would have been off the mark. Multiculturalism was always going to be just a stage before competing groups, or indeed passive groups, gave way to a new dominant force. The dominant force is the one we here are trying to resist. But it is not just our "culture" which is disappearing, our very lives are at stake.
I have always asked, about "multiculturalism", why would a people INVITE into their country, to live on an equal basis, immigrants who have a revenge mentality and believe revenge is justified against their hosts? I would include not only Muslims in this category, but Chinese; and I have met some pretty angry Indians, too. If you talk to almost any immigrant from a non-Western country, after a while he will express some anti-white sentiments.
For my generation, with its obsessive anti-war, pro-tolerance, history-killing, fantasy-soaked way of running their countries, to bequeath such trouble and ignominy to their offspring is a disgrace of the first order.
Unfortunately, if it takes the BNP to reverse the damage, then so be it. The party can be reformed after the dirty work has been done.
Posted by: PG at November 21, 2008 5:27 PM
Yes there is an eminent danger that people doesn't not realise yet. Every thing show that the current government work hard to empower muslims, and their organisations. Helping them for the numerouse conversions to Islam in the City University of London and every where.
There is alot to say...its just unbeliveable what it happening...and the sad futur if this suicidaire race to the darkness is not stopped at time.
About the groups you cited, it is important to know that ex-muslims are not against whith, they have really different individual peronalities and culture. And thats what make them rejecting this religion. Infortunatly every one is against them, and particulary the government who deon't give any protection to ex-muslims who are treatened of death, or even intimideated in dally life or have to hide their mind and thir secularism, while they are supposed to be living in a democratic country.
Government take muslims seriously but not ex-musims. Muslims can criticise any thing they want and always claiming more right and practising an intelligent infiltration every where in the UK, to be able to becom the majority in UK government some day. Ex-muslims are treated as racists if they criticise islam and even risk been sued by justice. Muslims can criticise the unbeliver but the unbeliever has no right to cricise muslims.
at November 21, 2008 8:15 PM
'Johanna' - you sound as though you are speaking from bitter experience.
If you are indeed an ex-Muslim, an apostate, you are among friends here. Another person who posts here occasionally, one 'Bosch Fawstin', is an apostate from Islam.
Feel free to share your insights and warnings and as much of your own story as you feel safe doing.
New non-Muslim visitors to this site need to hear the testimony of those who have left Islam.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at November 22, 2008 4:40 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.)