“I feel betrayed by Britain. I came here to get away from this and the situation is worse here than in the country I escaped from.” She has every reason to feel betrayed. Instead of insisting that Muslims in Britain renounce polygamy (sanctioned by Qur’an 4:3), the beating of disobedient women (sanctioned by Qur’an 4:34), and the inequality in inheritance rights (sanctioned by Qur’an 4:11), the self-deluded dhimmis allowed all these things and more to be brought into the country, and normalized via the Sharia courts.
Britannic Death Watch Update: “British Muslim women abused under Sharia courts – report,” Christian Institute, March 27, 2015 (thanks to Block Ness):
A Peer is calling for a judge-led inquiry into Sharia courts, in a revealing new report on discrimination against Muslim women across Britain.
In the report, Baroness Cox also outlines the provisions of her Private Members’ Bill, which would curb the growth of quasi-legal systems such as Sharia courts, in England and Wales.
She is seeking to re-introduce the Bill in the next session of Parliament.
AbuseHer report, published by conservative think-tank The Bow Group, refers to Sharia court policies on inheritance, polygamy, access to divorce and domestic violence that have adversely affected British Muslim women.
The report includes testimonies from women who have been subjected to various forms of abuse, including one woman who said: “I feel betrayed by Britain. I came here to get away from this and the situation is worse here than in the country I escaped from”.
According to the report, many Muslim women can be left unaware of their legal rights or feel under pressure not to seek professional help that could bring ‘shame’ or ‘dishonour’ on their families or communities.
‘Coercion’Baroness Cox said: “We cannot continue with the present situation where vulnerable women are suffering from coercion, intimidation or unfairness.”
She welcomed Theresa May’s commitment to conduct an “independent review” of Sharia courts, but warned “it is imperative that such measures are not so broadly defined that they catch innocent behaviour or impact on people’s religious liberties”.
Instead, she is calling for an independent judge-led inquiry into Sharia courts….
SteveInSC says
The trouble with trying to rein in the abuse of Muslim women while trying to avoid infringing on Muslim religious freedom is that it’s impossible. Islam sanctions treatment of women that the average Westerner would describe as abuse. Therefore, Islamic and Western values are irreconcilable on this point. Many Islamic values are irreconcilable with Western values – beheading, chopping off hands, stoning, no freedom of speech or conscience all come to mind. Therefore, there are only two possible solutions to this situation. 1) the Muslims renounce all these things (i.e., Sharia) in order to gain citizenship/residency in any Western country or 2) the Western countries renounce Western Civilization itself and accept the imposition of Sharia Law in their own countries. It’s pretty obvious which direction Western governments are headed. Eventually, there will be civil war in most Western countries when the non-Muslim people decide they’re tired of their governments selling them out. The question is, which side will the governments come down on.
Stand Fast in the Liberty says
She feels betrayed by Britain? How about putting the blame where it belongs? On your oppressive, satanic cult of a religion!
john spielman says
islam and sharia law is responsible for most of the misery and terror in the muslim dominant counties BUT the ruling elites of western democracies are responsible for the misery it causes in the west!
TheBuffster says
Stand Fast, I think it’s pretty clear that she doesn’t agree with Sharia law. She’s absolutely right to feel betrayed by Britain, if she expected it to be a haven of equal rights under the law, where she’s be free from Sharia law at last, but finds that Britain is appeasing the demand for Sharia courts.
Not everyone who could be affected by Sharia family courts is a full-on believing Muslim. If you’re married to a Muslim and he or you want a divorce, how easy would it be to get that divorce under mainstream law if your husband and everyone in your family insists on going by Sharia law? If Britain allows that parallel system, that “choice”, what happens when one party to a divorce doesn’t want to go by Sharia? Does mainstream law trump Sharia?
If the UK allows a religious group to become so insular that dissenters get trapped in the web of family coercion, and subjects that dissenter to religious laws with which she disagrees, she is completely justified in being disappointed in a country that has betrayed its respect for individual rights in favour of “group rights” or “cultural rights”.
Parousia says
Yeah. She really should blame Britain. She left her country to seek refuge in Britain but she found that the British even allow what she thought she was running from. They have set aside their own laws just to please some people.
The blame here is on Britain 100%. I am with her on this one.
JamesonRocks says
But wait, I thought these moozies liked all that sharia law BS. Feeling betrayed? Try looking in the mirror…
Caroline says
She has the likes of Harriett Harman to thank for this. Left wing politician and feminist whose party flooded Britain with followers of the ROP. Cultural diversity and enrichment and all that. They managed to turn a blind eye to the ‘interesting’ cultural practices they were also importing. I hate lefties, they are the new Nazis and have a lot in common with their Islamist friends.
Old African lady with no teeth says
85 courts in Britain, Why? What is wrong with the British law? Why can’t everyone use the British law? I am sure one of the big problem is the clueless leftist who are obsess about warm welcoming different cultures and religions. When people immigrate to a country they should respect the law of their new country, they should not import their laws which didn’t work in their lands. I can’t belief they allow this things in Britain they don’t even allow some parts in North Africa where majority of people are Muslims.
Lucretius says
“According to the report, many Muslim women can be left unaware of their legal rights or feel under pressure not to seek professional help that could bring ‘shame’ or ‘dishonour’ on their families or communities.”
It seems to me that under freedom of religion, as well as freedom of association/dissociation, this “pressure” is beyond the scope of governmental relief. Freedom to shun, excommunicate, and shame those who do not wish to comply with religious law, as long as it does not involve harassment or violence, is part and parcel of religious freedom. Muslim women are just going to have make an effort to seek the knowledge of their rights and develop the backbone to resist such pressure. If the authorities were genuinely concerned to further human freedom, they would stop with the “islamophobia” smears and let criticism be freely spoken. But they’re not.
Alice says
The baroness speaks with forked tongue…
ECAW says
Nope, Baroness Cox is a good egg:
http://www.shariawatch.org.uk/articles/support-baroness-cox#.VRvK_o7LAt1
Apart from that it, “in February 2009, Cox courted controversy when she and UKIP peer Lord Pearson invited Dutch Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders to show the anti-radical-Islam film Fitna before the House of Lords. However, Wilders was prevented from entering the UK on the instructions of Labour Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. In response, Cox and Pearson accused the Government of appeasing militant Islam”
katnis says
The US can learn a few lessons from the UK. This is why the recent decision in Irving, Texas was so important.
Mayor Beth Van Duyne said that it is important to recognize the constitution and unite behind U.S. and Texas laws.“Respect them, obey them, embrace them,” said the mayor.
As for the woman in the article who said she came to the UK to “get away from this [oppression]…” She needs to leave her “religion.” Leaving her country of birth won’t do it. Take a stand, lady!
– See more at: http://www.libertynews.com/2015/03/boooom-texas-mayor-to-whiny-sharia-lovin-muslims-respect-our-laws-obey-them-embrace-them-video/#sthash.v31Ce3o1.dpuf
ECAW says
Unfortunately, taking a stand would likely have painful, and possibly lethal, consequences.
I knew a teacher of English as a foreign language in England who said some of the women in the classes, newly arrived from Pakistan, were so diminished they could barely speak and were barely there. They would be totally in the power of their husbands economically and socially, not to mention as regards their kids.
dumbledoresarmy says
And yet, per miraculum, some *do* manage to leave.
Google “Hannah Shah”, “The Imam’s Daughter”.
And there are others…there is, apparently, a whole sort of ‘underground railroad’ composed of apostates, both men and women, most of them converts to Christianity, who have had to leave their families of origin, leave their neighbourhoods, move to other parts of the UK, live under assumed names. There was a newspaper article about it, discussed here, some years ago. I’ll post the link tomorrow, or an extract from the copy I made, if the link has broken.
Similar underground networks of apostates exist in France and Italy: Magdi Cristiano Allam, a “high profile” apostate, called them, in Italy, “the church of the catacombs”. (An Italian poster, here, years ago, said that there were enough of them that the Catholic church in Italy, which has spent centuries mostly baptising babies, had found itself having to dust off the liturgy of baptism for adult catechumens. And that only priests in little villages know just how many Mohammeds are now Giovannis, and Fatimas and Aishas have become Marias…).
Pray for them!
ECAW says
Thanks for that interesting information but you spoiled it at the end with:
“Pray for them!”
I would never do anything so ridiculous (despite Lynne Mctaggart’s not very convincing experiments).
Godwin says
Shame on UK with so many Sharia courts. Malaysia, a former British colony, had a British-style Parliament which had formulated constitutional Laws, which reigns supreme over Sharia laws. The Islamist party, Pas, has a tough time introducing Hudud, a part of Sharia laws in the state of Kelantan. So far it has not succeeded.
RICHTHOFEN says
There are muslim judges in the British legal system, one of which, allegedly, is head of the sharia kangaroo courts – so corruption and collusion are endemic. I wish the noble Lady well, but I fear that she will run across insurmountable walls of obfuscatuon, silence and sabotage
DJM says
I just can’t feel any sympathy for a woman who embraces Islam and then complains about being treated the way the quran dictates she should be treated. If she doesn’t like being treated that way, she should reject the ideology that condones it.
Godwin says
U are dead wrong ! She was born into Islam , not her choice.
TheBuffster says
DJM, I think you’re missing certain crucial human realities in your judgment of “anyone who embraces Islam”. First of all, you don’t know how much of Islam this woman embraces or whether she still embraces it at all. She could be going through the process of questioning. She could be an atheist now, for all we know. But if she’s in a Muslim family, or even more difficult, married to a Muslim man, with children, she’s in a heart-wrenching situation.
She really does need a firm, solid British kind of law to defend her rights.
Go over to a Muslim apostates site, like Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, and read the various accounts of what it’s like to start to doubt the religion you were born into. What it’s like to love your mom and dad, who have been good to you, and to know the trauma it will cause them if you tell them you no longer believe, and to know that they may feel obliged to cut off from you. Even if you believe they would never do you physical harm, to be cut off from a family you care about – it’s a very hard choice to make.
You’ll see, also, that an awful lot of these ex-Muslims had never even read the Koran or the hadith, and quite a few apostasized after finally getting around to reading them, because their religion wasn’t what they had been led to believe it was by family. Some describe families that aren’t very devout and haven’t cut them off, or the mother is devastated, but the father is okay with it… a wide range of experience and of knowledge or ignorance of the actual, text-based religion.
There’s one girl whose brother and sister have both left Islam, openly. She’s always been the “good” kid, the devout one. The hijab-wearing, prayer-saying one. But now she’s come to the end of a progression of doubts. She no longer even believes in a god. And yet she’s still wearing hijab and going through the motions of being a Muslim because she loves her mother and can’t bear to be the last straw that crushes her. The girl is *forcing* herself to do things she no longer believes in, and it’s a terrible burden on her to act against her true self. The truth has got to come out eventually, but she’s not ready to inflict the pain yet.
These apostates have no reason to sugar-coat anything in their accounts. But the more you read, the more clearly you’ll see how varied Muslim attitudes are regarding their religion, how common it is for people who have lost their faith to be walking around in Muslim dress, from hijab with western tee shirt and jeans to niqab with abaya, because they aren’t ready to break their parents’ hearts, to be kicked out of the family, or beaten up, or something. (Most don’t seem to have had to fear physical retaliation.)
Many of the newer people on the site are still “in the closet”, yearning to live openly and honesty as unbelievers.
You can’t read the accounts of these people without understanding the internal struggle these former Muslims have to go through on their way to full liberation, and how hard the choices are that they have to make.
Who knows how many people who are counted as “Muslim” in the census are already ex-Muslims, and how many are in the process of moving in that direction.
Human beings don’t just drop a religion. It’s a slow process. All the connections in the mind have to be examined. Personal consequences have to be faced and weighed and struggled with.
To not have sympathy with someone who you think, because she still calls herself Muslim, or is still in a Muslim marriage, embraces Islam is to fail to understand how religion and family and doubts and personal philosophical evolution works in real life. The woman could be an apostate or on her way there, who married a Muslim when she was a Muslim. Now that she no longer believes, how does she get out of that marriage without losing custody of her children? How does she protect her children from being raised in a religion she now considers wrong? (Or maybe she was never truly a Muslim, but forced into marriage by her family in her home country, so looking forward to going to Britain and getting a decent divorce, only to find Britain appeasing the religion that oppresses her?) If the British government abandons her to Sharia law and her community standards, it truly does betray her and the principles Britain is supposed to uphold for every person fortunate enough to reach its shores.
I feel deep sympathy for all of these people who suffer with these difficult situations. The law should make it easier for them, not harder.
Kepha says
Sharia courts were introduced by a bunch of clueless Leftards who felt they just haaaaad to prove how “open-mined”, “tolerant”, “liberal”, and “multi-cultural” they were. Some in the States would also have Sharia provisions worm their way into our legal culture–as witness a case in NJ a number of years back where some Leftist dolt of a female judgette ordered a woman seeking a divorce to go back to her husbans–since they were Moroccan immigrants and Sharia would apply.
PRCS says
I remember that.
Here’s but one article concerning that situation.
http://dailysignal.com/2010/09/02/the-real-impact-of-sharia-law-in-america/
Of note:
“he husband told his wife, “You must do whatever I tell you to do. I want to hurt your flesh” and “this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you.” ”
“The defendant’s Imam testified that a wife must comply with her husband’s sexual demands and he refused to answer whether, under Islamic law, a husband must stop his sexual advances on his wife if she says “no.”
Just disgusting.
Uncle Vladdi says
Islam is inherently a form of SEDITION – because it never agreed with the Christian notion of separating secular (road-paving, taxation) and religious realms (render unto Caesar) and went with “Render The World Unto Muhammad!”
So it doesn’t believe in national sovereignty, preferring global theocracy (‘ummah’) ruled by the Caliphate government!
Islam is ONLY a crime syndicate, and the only “religious” part in it’s where they say: “God told us to commit these crimes!
Muslims are never national citizens; they regard all national sovereignties as temporary, man-made false idols which must all be eventually destroyed and replaced with the one-world global muslim Ummah, to be ruled by their theocratic caliphate, and their duty is to wage offensive war to extort, enslave, and murder all the non-muslims. Terrorism is an inherent, not an incidental, nor in any way a “radical,” component of islam.
NO MUSLIMS ARE “PATRIOTS” OR NATIONALISTS OF ANY KIND!
No self-determined muslim believes in any sovereign national governments nor countries at all, ever!
Sharia is allegedly the perfect law of allah, based directly on the Qur’an!
So it always applies to all humans everywhere!
SO WHO NEEDS ANY – EVEN “ELECTED” – MAN-MADE GOVERNMENTS TO CREATE LAWS WHICH DIFFER FROM SHARIA?!
Recall the Ayatollah Khomeini’s words during his 1980 speech in Qom, the Shi’ite spiritual hub:
“We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land burn. I say let this land [Iran] go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.”
So, since islam is a subversive anti-national and anti-legal entity, why on earth are any of its “muslim” members ever afforded any legal standing to promote their criminal treasonous sedition, before any of our courts of law?!
…
Islam’s Sharia is either compatable with our Western, morality-based law (in which case it is superfluous) or it is not (in which case it is illegal).
There is only one universally accepted version of sharia crime (‘law’) and that is the original, Haneefite version as recorded in The Hedaya and used by the Ottoman Empire to rule all of islam for centuries; all moslems in all their countries are very aware of its simple might-makes-right and us-versus-them tenets and strictures.
There is really only one Qur’an, one islam, and one sharia.
And since islam is inherently against ALL sovereign national countries (which it regards as only temporary man-made false idols, to be eventually destroyed and replaced by the global muslim Ummah, ruled by their theocratic Caliphate government) because since the Qur’an and subsequent sharia elaborations embody “god’s” perfect laws which are to apply to all mankind everywhere, why would anyone ever need any merely human legislators (even ‘democratically elected’ ones)?!
So, since islam is a subversive anti-national and anti-legal entity, why on earth are any of its “muslim” members ever afforded any legal standing to promote their criminal treasonous sedition, before any of our courts of law?!
Allowing foreign (sharia “law”) courts to exist in your country is to enable those foreign governments to govern in your country; it’s obviously TREASON.
Zomby Poet says
Where are the feminists when we need them?
1) Female genital mutilation
2) Punishing rape victims
3) Honor killing
4) Strapping bombs to children
5) Sexually enslaving women
6) Murdering homosexuals
7) Child marriage
8) Domestic Violence
9) Disciplining or Punishing Wives