The Home Secretary, Theresa May, said: “A number of women have reportedly been victims of what appear to be discriminatory decisions taken by sharia councils, and that is a significant concern.” What did these fools (May and her cohorts) expect? There is no way that the Sharia courts in the UK could ever not discriminate against women. Why? Because it’s in the Qur’an:
“Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them.” — Qur’an 4:34
The Qur’an likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: “Your women are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth as you will” (2:223).
It declares that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man: “Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as you choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her” (2:282).
It allows men to marry up to four wives, and have sex with slave girls also: “If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if you fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly, then only one, or one that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice” (4:3).
It rules that a son’s inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter: “Allah directs you as regards your children’s inheritance: to the male, a portion equal to that of two females” (4:11).
It allows for marriage to pre-pubescent girls, stipulating that Islamic divorce procedures “shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated” (65:4).
Islamic law stipulates that a man’s prayer is annulled if a dog or a woman passes in front of him as he is praying. “Narrated ‘Aisha: The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, “Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman (if they pass in front of the praying people).” I said, ‘You have made us (i.e. women) dogs.’ I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in my bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I would slip away. for I disliked to face him.” (Sahih Bukhari 1.9.490)
Another hadith depicts Muhammad saying that the majority of the inhabitants of hell are women:
“I looked into Paradise and I saw that the majority of its people were the poor. And I looked into Hell and I saw that the majority of its people are women.” Sahih Bukhari 3241; Sahih Muslim 2737)
When asked about this, he explained:
“I was shown Hell and I have never seen anything more terrifying than it. And I saw that the majority of its people are women.” They said, “Why, O Messenger of Allah?” He said, “Because of their ingratitude (kufr).” It was said, “Are they ungrateful to Allah?” He said, “They are ungrateful to their companions (husbands) and ungrateful for good treatment. If you are kind to one of them for a lifetime then she sees one (undesirable) thing in you, she will say, ‘I have never had anything good from you.’” (Sahih Bukhari 1052)
And in another hadith:
The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) went out to the musalla (prayer place) on the day of Eid al-Adha or Eid al-Fitr. He passed by the women and said, ‘O women! Give charity, for I have seen that you form the majority of the people of Hell.’ They asked, ‘Why is that, O Messenger of Allah?’ He replied, ‘You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religious commitment than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.’ The women asked, ‘O Messenger of Allah, what is deficient in our intelligence and religious commitment?’ He said, ‘Is not the testimony of two women equal to the testimony of one man?’ They said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Is it not true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is the deficiency in her religious commitment.’” (Sahih Bukhari 304)
“Sharia courts in UK face Government inquiry over treatment of women,” by Oliver Wright, Independent, May 26, 2016:
The Government is to launch an investigation into whether sharia courts operating in the UK discriminate against women – legitimising forced marriages and issuing unfair divorce settlements.
The Home Office said it would examine claims that sharia courts – or councils – may be working in a “discriminatory and unacceptable way”, seeking to legitimise forced marriage and issuing divorces that are unfair to women, contrary to the teachings of Islam. However, it will also seek out examples of best practice among sharia councils.
The Home Office inquiry, which is part of the Government’s counter-extremism strategy, will be led by Professor Mona Siddiqui, an expert in Islamic studies, and include family law barrister Sam Momtaz, retired high court judge Sir Mark Hedley and specialist family lawyer Anne Marie Hutchinson.
An estimated 30 sharia councils exist in the UK, giving Islamic divorce certificates and advice on other aspects of religious law. They have garnered fierce criticism, particularly for their treatment of women seeking religious divorces, who make up the core clientele.
Sharia is the Islamic legal system, derived from the Koran and the rulings of Islamic scholars, known as fatwas. As well as providing a code for living – including prayers, fasting and donations to the poor – sharia in some countries such as Saudi Arabia also lays down punishments as extreme as cutting off a hand or death by stoning for adultery.
Two religious and theological experts – Imam Sayed Ali Abbas Razawi and Imam Qari Asim – will advise the Government panel on detailed religious and theological issues. It is due to report next year….
The Home Secretary, Theresa May, said that many British people followed religious codes and practices, and benefit a great deal from the guidance they offer, but there was the potential for abuse of such systems.
“A number of women have reportedly been victims of what appear to be discriminatory decisions taken by sharia councils, and that is a significant concern,” she said.
“There is only one rule of law in our country, which provides rights and security for every citizen.
“This review will help us better understand whether, and the extent to which, sharia is being misused or exploited, and make recommendations to the Government on how to address this.”

linnte says
“Truth will OUT” is a common British saying. Let’s hope the truth is outted and Britons react!
jayell says
The Truth has been there all the time! It’s just a question of how many idiots in ‘high places’ will continue to turn a blind eye to the debacle that’s being played out in front of their eyes, day in, day out, with their heads either in the sand or floating up in cloud-cuckoo-land.
Mark Swan says
You Got It jayell
Bob says
Our Westminster politicos will all turn an official blind eye, as they do over the whole threat of Islam to our culture – Islam has one aim, to subject the UK to shari’a law!
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
AS IF: Now that the terrorist Khan has been elected ‘Lord Mayor of London’, this is anything but preposterous window dressing.
This is GAR-BAJ. This is a lie.
linnte says
Gar bag? Well, I think it will out! But it will be probably too late to change things. Britain is screwed with Khan as mayor. He will be the next PM for sure.
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
Oh God Linnte. Do you think so?
God forbid.
linnte says
There’s no place to go but up! That’s what I mean by hopefully Brits will figure out the truth in time. I guess I haven’t been making much sense. Don’t feel very well right now. I don’t know how long a Mayoral term is, but ten bucks says he runs for PM in the next election. This whole British over throw of Government by Muslims has me rattled! It’s like the people of Britain are happily tossing out my culture! Arrrrgghhh!
Hoping you are well Kathy!
Nigel GFF says
It is a fairly well composed photograph. The 3 monkeys: Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.
These 3 learned gents pawing over the case notes. All is to be fairly weighed in the balance. Statements from plaintiff and defendant. Statements from witnesses, in fact statements from all parties concerned. Nothing to upset the scales of justice here. With the koran front and center and those handy tissues to dab away those tears of joy.
Gosh, don’t it just give you a warm glow.
Anne Smith says
Unlikely that the truth will out. This is just another whitewash to calm down the British natives who are getting a bit restless over the Muslim ascendancy in Britain. Mrs May and her useless Home Office can play at King Canute all they like, the Muslims are running roughshod over our laws, Holding public meetings exhorting all and sundry to break the law of the land and enforce Sharia, preaching sedition in the mosques and the British “Tolerance” kindly smiles on.
Well it’s really no wonder when you see that the Government Minister in charge of Counter Terrorism is one “Lord” Tariq Ahmed, a former Conservative candidate who failed to get himself elected and was booted up into the House of Lords, where he is in charge of overseeing the antics of his co-religionists. You really couldn’t make it up.
linnte says
It is so DEPRESSING! There is NO SOLUTION to Islamisation of our countries!
Paula says
She’s appointed Islamic ‘experts’ who are going to tell her what she wants to hear: that men and women are equal in Islam, that Mohammed was some kind of revolutionary proto-feminist who just adored go-getting, powerful women, and that Islam is a religion of peace which saved European culture. The inquiry is going to issue a call for evidence so when that is issued, I hope that the public waste no time in telling them what a total whitewash this is.
Mark Swan says
That Is Pretty Much It Paula
Custos Custodum says
An old political adage has it that you should never ask for a report unless you know what it will say.
Theresa May’s civil servants have undoubtedly already reached an understanding with senior Muslims about minor adjustments to the Sharia system.
In a few months, when the rented experts report back, some minor adjustments to Sharia practice will be feted in the government media as “bringing Sharia into the 21st century,” encouraging that sticky new virtue, “community cohesion,” etc.
Judi says
This “enquiry” will cost thousands of pounds of taxpayers money, take years, and in the end absolutely nothing will change, it never does.
WorkingClassPost says
This is not starting out well.
‘…understand… sharia is being misused or exploited’.
It should be about whether people are being exploited, not sharia. So they’re setting off with a handy pot of whitewash – just in case…
PRCS says
1. “seeking to legitimise forced marriage and issuing divorces that are unfair to women, contrary to the teachings of Islam.”
Really? No chapter and verse to back that up? Are readers just expected to believe what they read?
2. The ongoing, constant belief by the uninformed that compliance with Islam’s texts constitutes “extremism”.
That idiocy will continue until Muslims residing in the West are challenged with specific, relevant passages from Qur’an and asked to either state where on the planet its barbaric punishments are morally acceptable to them OR to renounce and denounce them.
What’s more likely? That they would disagree with “Allah” and say such punishments are O.K. in country X but not country Y, or that they will toe the line?
Marty says
Islam is totally inappropriate in any developed country from Japan to the UK.
The more devout the mohammedan the greater the cognitive dissonance.
Muslim terrorists don’t just need Western technology, they need mobile phones
designed & manufactured in Israel.
The cars they drive are not made, still less designed, in mohammedan lands.
Apart from the very dangerous Iran, most muslim countries could not build
a Citroen 2CV from a kit.
In Scotland, mohammedans, often very strong politically, are making great
headway in understanding Western ways.
“A businessman who went on a 7,000 mile ‘rape tour’ of Britain’s universities
targeting women rendered helpless by cheap Freshers’ Week drink promotions
was jailed for 12 years today.
Tahir Nazir from Glasgow used university events to sneak into UK student halls
and homes in the hope of targeting drunk undergraduates”
This is what happens when these savages acquire cars, even though they are lousy drivers
& disproportionally involved in accidents.
PRCS says
You and I know it’s inappropriate.
But the point of my post is to put Muslims in the West in the position of either blaspheming themselves by picking and choosing where Islam’s “divine” punishments are morally acceptable to them, or by refusing to denounce/renounce them at all.
Westman says
These kangaroo courts for women have been operating in the UK for 34 years and NOW the government suspects that women are being robbed and deprived of children?
And the obscene requirement that a woman, who has been kept from earning money, while enslaved as the domestic servant and sex-on-demand provider, asking for divorce, therefore having no money, must pay the marriage dowery to the husband for the divorce to be recognized by the Sharia Council – is this the bottom line about the true character of Allah and his courts?
These judges “are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward(by Islamic norms?), but are within full of dead men’s bones and of all uncleanness” – when it concerns women.
FuturePresident says
What did those fools expect. If I was in charge Sharia would be eradicated. If we are to be truly equal laws that discriminate gender and other religions must be wiped out and forgotten.
The British better conduct this investigation thoroughly and fix this.
Nigel GFF says
“There is only one rule of law in our country, which provides rights and security for every citizen.”
Call me daft Ms. May, but wouldn’t that make Sharia Councils outlaw.
Perhaps Rowan Williams (formerly Archbishop of Canterbury) could be appointed as an expert.
JW ran a couple of posts back in Feb’ 2008.
Ok, I’ll say it. Define an expert.
It used to be a drip under pressure.
Mark Swan says
Good One Nigel
Carolyne says
Rowan Williams once said that Sharia is inevitable in England. He is an idiot.
I went to a Christmas Service in Canterbury once where he was officiating. He was preening that silly beard like a peacock. Then he and a group of unidentified people started marching down the isle, in a door, out a door, in a door, out a door, etc. His male followers were wearing wigs and the female followers were chatting to each other as they went along. I have no idea what they were doing or why they were doing this, but it was ridiculous and I got out of there at the first opportunity when they went out another door.
If this was an example of the ritual of the Church of England, I can see why it is being overwhelmed by Islam.
Abinavam Narayanan Rajaram says
Sharia law is the most regressive law in the world. To appease the Muslims and to ensure their vote banks, in the 1980s when Rajiv Gandhi was prime Minister of India, despite his having a massive mandate of 400 MPs, went headlong into making amendments in the constitution itself that Sharia is the only applicable law to Muslim women. The woman in question, Shah Banu, was awarded maintenance by the Supreme Court’s verdict against her estranged husband who casually dispensed with her by a triple Talaq (declaration of divorce by husband). The enraged Muslim community in quite a large numbers, say 10000s, went to the street denouncing the verdict of the Supreme Court of India. Fearing the loss of Muslim votes Rajiv Gandhi hastened to amend even the constitution overnight. This is the shameful pattern of rulers, almost all over the world. Be humane, be democratic, be liberal, be considerate, be good–be everything that is conceivably and justifiably civilized, but never allow any law be it Sharia or any crazy thing that would overpower the law of the land. Muslims, in general, albeit in a very subdued manner, have no respect whatsoever to the law of the land where they live in, or the land which sustains their livelihood!
Michael says
The muslim disrespect for the rule of law is hardly “subdued”. Random stabbings, bombings, rape gangs, beheadings, mass shootings are not very subtle.
Westman says
The society of professional journalists is responsible for much of the confusionbabout Sharia.
From their diversity stylebook, created in CA by the Journalism Department at San Francisco State University:
“What is Shariah?
Shariah is the way or path that Muslims follow to achieve God’s will on Earth. It requires Muslims to live righteously, to protect and expand their community and to establish a just society. Shariah describes the ideal relationship between people and God and in their interactions with each other. Shariah’s principles come from the Quran, the hadith and other considerations, depending on the sect. ”
Did you detect anywhere in this definition that this is a system of jurisprudence? It’s no wonder that world leaders are so ignorant about Sharia Law. These Califonia Kumbaya “diversity freaks” have co-opted not only the narrative, but also the truth in order not to offend the professional Muslims of CA; some that may teach at San Francisco State – a hippie haven of the 60s.
This current migration to Europe is not your father’s migration, it is not the elite. I think we can be certain that there are operating Sharia Courts in no-go areas of which the Home Office has no knowledge nor will it.
common sense says
“Two Imams will advise the British govt”- British submission. RIP Brits.
Home Inquiry office, person A and the British Govt, person B will try to figure out how to fix X. By taxing person C that everyone forgot about. Person X pays for everything that person A and Person B don’t. Person C will be made to pay they way for X ( Sharia law and worthless Muslims) in blood and money. Person B will tell person C what is good for him regarding the problem of X because person A will contrive and provide the narrative, input and overall view for person B to disseminate to person C.
Socialist country- RIP
common sense says
Should “person C pays for everything that person A and person B don’t.” (Need edit function)
Westman says
“Two Imams will advise the British govt”
Isn’t that similar to having Joseph Goebbels give advice about “peace in our time”?
Bob says
If the UK government accepts the ‘advice’ of the imams, the government must be solid granite from the neck upwards!!
Mirren10 says
Well, I suppose, better late than never.
But, as others have noted, this situation has been going on for over 35 years. Now, all of a sudden, that pusillanimous bitch, May, has finally noticed.
Wellington says
Hi, Mirren. Hope you are doing well.
You know, the Theresa Mays of this world, specifically this type in the West, are such a danger to the best of what mankind has produced precisely because they keep making excuses for the worst which mankind has produced. And the occasional dawning on such people like Theresa May that this worst, which they have supported and which they have made tons of excuses for, may actually be doing something wrong would be comical if it weren’t so bloody tragic. The sin upon the heads of such lesser human beings forever.
I can only imagine with pleasure what wonderful insults Winston Churchill would come up with about such a harmful mediocrity as May were the Great Man still here (though he’d probably be arrested for stating his views on Islam since Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron et al. have decided to eviscerate liberty in Britain by way of the pathetic excuse of outlawing so-called hate speech).
Take care, my friend, in this warped and goofy world we live in, where true liberty is on the defensive most everywhere, courtesy of fools like May and Obama (who co-sponsored a UN resolution with Egypt supporting the criminalization of criticism of religion), traditional authoritarianism as evinced by Putin and the Chinese and, of course, by the worst religion of all time, a religion which truly hates freedom and which survives by way of fear and not reason.
Anne Smith says
Only because she is hoping it will get her a bit of kudos from the voters and help her overweening ambition, as if Cameron loses the EU vote he will be on the way out and she will be desperate to become the Prime Minister.
God help us all.
linnte says
Anne, when does a new PM get voted on?
El Cid says
It is essential that the US state and federal governments pass laws explicitly upholding US law over Sharia.
“Death of a thousand cuts….”
Charli Main says
Theresa May, said: “A number of women have reportedly been victims of what appear to be discriminatory decisions taken by sharia councils, and that is a significant concern.”
All the reports will be found to be baseless, and Sharia courts to be in the forefront of championing women´s rights and women´s equality.
Theresa May will then triumphfully announce, in the House of Commons, that Islam is a religion of love, peace and charity and how lucky we are to be the recipients of all the “enormous” contributions Muslims make to British society.
Mark Swan says
Why Sure
salim says
Teresa May also said: “Britain benefited greatly from sharia courts” ..!
That woman lost the plot many years ago.
Bob says
She hasn’t just “lost the plot” – like the rest of our Westminster politicos, Mrs. May is terrified of muslim riots in the streets, & in particular the ‘no-go’ areas of our cities…so it’s appeasement all the way!
Carolyne says
And IMO most Western politicians, including the US, looooove that Saudi Oil money.
Mark Swan says
Yep
William says
“This review will help us better understand whether, and the extent to which, sharia is being misused or exploited, and make recommendations to the Government on how to address this.”
If I replace the word sharia with the word arsenic, what other recommendation could the government make after their review other than to ban it? Would they recommend that arsenic not be misused and consequently come up with guidelines for its proper use? Is it possible to make the use of arsenic acceptable? Arsenic is arsenic. There aren’t different kinds. There aren’t poisonous and non-poisonous ones. So any recommendation other than banning it would be permission for suicide, or maybe for murder.
Angemon says
A governmental investigation into a subject with a clear goal in mind (see how sharia is being “misued” or “exploited”)? And using muslim clerics as advisers? Gee, I feel reassured already – how could such an enterprise possibly go wrong?…
There’ll be a lot of hub-hub for a time, and they might even conclude that in some instances forced marriages were legitimized or women were discriminated against (and, of course, they’ll claim that they were going against islamic law and have the clerics promise never to do so again), but in the end it’ll all blow over and business will eventually go back to normal.
Jay Boo says
What a contrast:
A very clean room.
Hints of modernity.
Three very dirty old men.
Ritualistic savagery.
Champ says
Woman leaves islam after reading the quran for herself!
https://youtu.be/8xmGTwWrams
Jay Boo says
Champ, That video should be on a Sixty Minutes TV show episode.
Somali Muslims should realize that they are remnants of Muhamad’s legacy of promoting Islam’s Mecca slave caravan trade.
Champ says
Good idea, Jay Boo …her testimony is *very* eye-opening!
Edgar Allen says
May 26, 2016 – SYRIAN MUSLIM “Too sick to Work” with wife and 8 children has been given approval to bring over 12 more kids and another 2 wives.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/674203/sick-work-migrant-bring-12-MORE-children-2-MORE-wives-Europe-Denmark-Syria
Following the criticism directed towards him, the Syrian migrant insisted he is still too sick to work.
Al Hasan told local media: “I don’t only have psychological problems, but also physical [problems]. I have a pain in my back and legs.”
The migrant also said the pain was so overwhelming that he could not learn Danish yet.
The anger comes after it was revealed FIVE SYRIAN MIGRANTS ARE SUING THE DANISH GOVERNMENT AND FOREIGN MINISTER OVER A STRICT NEW ASYLUM POLICY.
IT STATED THAT FAMILY REUNIFICATION FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS WOULD TAKE UP-TO THREE YEARS, PROMPTING THE SYRIANS TO CLAIM IT WAS BREACHING THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS.
linnte says
Even if Britain set Shari’a Courts straight and took away their ability to affect change, but still allowed Muslims to seek “advice” from them, who is going to MONITOR these courts to make sure they don’t slink back to the old modus operandi?
jewdog says
Isn’t this a bit like telling fish that they’re all wet, that dogs need to stop barking after 10pm, that cocodiles exhibit anti-social behavior when they eat people and that pigs have to clean up their act. Or like insisting that the British government get a grip on reality.
Joe98 says
If the muslim women complain to the English courts then sharia decisions might be overturned.
I encourage muslim women to complain.
If they don’t complain then they get what they deserve. I finding of discrimination will make no difference.
.
.
David, Thailand says
No surprise that the UK gov are surprised by this stunning reality.
gravenimage says
UK Sharia courts face government inquiry over “discriminatory” treatment of women
…………………………..
You can’t have Sharia courts that *aren’t* discriminatory. Good that British authorities have noticed that these courts are unequal–but disturbing that they apparently haven’t noticed that they cannot be anything but.
killerjools says
It’s a bit of a whitewash really. There is no shred of independence. It is chaired by a muslim and has muslim legal experts as advisors. That’s not how an inquiry operates!
We don’t know yet what the terms of reference are. But it’s easy to guess that they will exclude considerable types of evidence which are unfavourable to muslims’ desired outcomes.
It is likely to have mostly favourable findings which will then be claimed by muslims to legitimise their sharia courts and their function.
Rufolino says
And the other day Khan, the new Mayor of London, told Donald Trump, “There is no conflict between mainstream Islam and liberal, western values.” Was he joking ??
aDhimmiSaysWhat? says
SADDIQ KHAN!!! What say you?!
Ralph says
That the UK would permit a parallel system of law, let alone a barbaric system of law is deeply unfortunate.
David says
I just don’t know, at this point, if England as we remember it, can yet survive.
Unless EVERY LAST ONE of the pagan, savage, Satan worshipping muslims are rounded up and deported back to their own desert hell holes, there isn’t much of a chance.
Perhaps fully walled enclosures, such as Muslim RESERVATIONS would help, but only untill the transportation can be arranged back to Camel-feces-aStan.
Lizzy says
The UK Govt. are terrified of criticising islam. They are terrified of the inevitable backlash which would follow any criticism. They are terrified of losing Islamic votes.
We, the British, are given no consideration at all. We are nothing compared to the hold that islamics have over the Govt. to which many pledged their support in elections.
The UK Govt. are held at knifepoint by islamics.
R Cole says
Under UK Labour – when these sharia courts came into being – any proper discussion of Islamic practise or examination of Islamic text was seen as ‘racism’.
Then after the Muslims get their courts and the horrendous rulings came to light – you had the Guardian and others on the Left saying – these sharia courts were not doing Islamic law right!!
Now under the Conservatives – and concerns over these sharia courts dubious rulings mount – they will kinda take a look at them and attempt to kinda tinker around the edges to limit the Islamic courts’ powers.
Believing is seeing!!
The one good thing from this little nudge – is that the idea that these sharia arbitration courts will in the near future – rival the law courts of the land – has had a setback.
::
Innocuous Sharia Courts
I could imagine – when Egypt was majority Christian – they too thought what’s the harm in Muslims having their own religious courts. Now the Copts live under those same Islamic laws – as Egypt’s constitution says that no law can contradict the sharia. Where the concern is now that Muslim women are being disadvantaged under sharia law – in a free country – if these laws were able to gain legitimacy or acceptance – then the concern would shift to the non-Muslim being disadvantaged.
In Egypt the court has the power to forcibly convert Copts to Islam. And the courts can exercise control over who the Christian can marry. There are also other sharia based laws which state no Christian can be head of state or head the Egyptian army.
It is more evidence that Muslims are not simply not integrating – but are building a separate social and legal system – an independent state – that will one day look to challenge the laws and norms of the country they have been allowed to freely immigrate to.