Is anyone surprised? Sharia discriminates against women, and so what are Sharia courts expected to do? They implement Qur’anic injunctions sanctioning wife-beating (Qur’an 4:34), devaluing of women’s testimony (Qur’an 2:282) and inheritance rights (Qur’an 4:11), and allowance for polygamy (Qur’an 4:3), as well as prohibitions against women venturing out in public with everything covered except her face and hands, as per Muhammad’s injunction (Abu Dawud 4092), and much more. And the British authorities are surprised to find misogyny in Sharia courts?
In any case, the report recommends that Sharia courts not be closed. ““Th[e] demand [for Sharia councils] will not end if the sharia councils are banned and closed down and could lead to councils going ‘underground’, making it even harder to ensure good practice and the prospect of discriminatory practices and greater financial costs more likely and harder to detect.” It is too late for Britain.
“Bombshell: UK Govt Review into Sharia Admits Systemic Discrimination Against Women, Unknown Number of ‘Councils’, Forced Marriage Victim Made to Appear with Abusers,” by Raheem Kassam, Breitbart, February 5, 2018:
A controversial review into the state of Sharia law in the United Kingdom and the bodies administering it has revealed the British government to be unaware of exactly how many of the Islamic law councils are operating in the country, an admission of systemic discrimination against women, including the victim of forced marriage being asked to appear alongside her family, with an “inappropriate” adoption of civil legal terms used.
The document — entitled ‘The independent review into the application of sharia law in England and Wales’ — was criticised for taking a theological approach to the issue after Islamic theologian Mona Siddique OBE, as well as Imam Qari Muhammad Asim MBE and Imam Sayed Ali Abbas Razawi, were appointed to the panel and advisory board. Other members included Sam Momtaz QC, Anne-Marie Hutchinson OBE QC (Hon), and Sir Mark Hedley DL.
Described as having an “inappropriate theological approach” by women’s rights groups, the report recommends the recognition of Islamic marriage in civil law, and vice versa, so that Muslim women do not necessarily feel their only option for divorce is through Sharia councils. The sole focus of the report appears to be divorce, despite an admission that a smaller amount of Shariah councils’ works are not in this area.
The report stunningly admits:
The exact number of sharia councils operating in England and Wales is unknown. Academic and anecdotal estimates vary from 30 to 85. The review has identified 10 councils operating with an online presence. The sharia councils identified by the review were mostly in urban centres with significant Muslim populations, such as London, Birmingham, Bradford and Dewsbury.
The investigators also concede they were not actually privy to any Sharia council processes and did not witness their active work:
The review panel did not observe first hand either the councils’ process for obtaining information from the individuals seeking their assistance or the decision-making process used by the councils.
There was — as the report’s methodology states — a public call for evidence on July 4th, 2016, with closed, oral evidence sessions with users of Sharia councils, women’s rights groups, academics, and lawyers, as well as other interested parties.
One of the primary recommendations of the investigation is the idea of “linking Islamic marriage to civil marriage” to ensure “that a greater number of women will have the full protection afforded to them in family law and they will face less discriminatory practices. This will be a positive move aimed at giving women maximum rights should the marriage end in divorce”.
This would require alterations to the Marriage Act 1949 and the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, “to ensure that civil marriages are conducted before or at the same time as the Islamic marriage ceremony, bringing Islamic marriage in line with Christian and Jewish marriage in the eyes of the law”.
Despite numerous admissions that men have an upper hand in Sharia councils, the report concludes the system should not only remain in place, but should be self-regulated by imams:
It could invite, encourage or even urge sharia councils to adopt a system of uniform self-regulation.
The state could provide a system of regulation for sharia councils to adopt and then to self-regulate.
It could impose such a system and provide an enforcement agency similar to OFSTED. However, proportionality is not the only issue. Just as the state does not confer legitimacy on the Beth Din or on Catholic tribunals by seeking to regulate them, the state may be reluctant to regulate sharia councils. That raises a dilemma: either the state withholds further intervention or it risks intervention being perceived as conferring legitimacy upon sharia councils and thereby creating a parallel legal system.
Despite the difficulties, we have concluded that intervention/regulation carries more advantage than no intervention.
Men are revealed to have an advantage in Sharia councils because of the ease of routes to divorce offered to them ahead of women. The report appears to want to ease this problem, rather than eradicate it, and lend the legitimacy of the British state to Sharia law.
Men seeking an Islamic divorce have the option of ‘talaq’, a form of unilateral divorce that they can issue themselves. Women do not have this option, unless inserted as a term in the marriage contract (which varies from school to school) and therefore have to seek a ‘khula’ or ‘faskh’ from a sharia council.
The review also heard evidence “that in some instances, during khula divorces, women were asked to make some financial concessions to their husband in order to secure the divorce”.
Rather than a condemnation of such practices, the review seeks to create “a body by the state with a code of practice for sharia councils to accept and implement. This body would include both sharia council panel members and specialist family lawyers. This body could go on to monitor and audit compliance of the code of practice.”
The report also contains an unassailable admission — historically rejected or even ridiculed by left-wing politicians and campaigners — that “[t]he primary and underlying principle of sharia councils is the application of sharia law”, and that this is indeed taking place in Britain, and to an extent that the government is unaware.
The most well established sharia councils in England and Wales have been in existence since the 1980s. Anecdotal evidence indicates that the numbers of sharia councils in England and Wales has increased in the last 10 years.
The review also wrestles with the idea of [in effect giving] a quasi-legal status to the councils:
Such regulation will indeed endorse and add legitimacy to the perception of the existence of a parallel legal system whilst the outcomes of the sharia council processes in terms of religious divorces have no standing in civil law.
Another problem arising from such an endorsement is the fact the review revealed a misinterpretation of British law:
The sharia councils that were visited all had a very loose definition of mediation. In all cases there appeared to be confusion between mediation and what is in effect reconciliation counselling. All councils visited within the context of the review made provision for reconciliation counselling at the commencement of the process. The reconciliation was invariably described as ‘mediation’ when it is clearly not.
Save for one individual, the review found that those conducting the mediation at sharia councils have not received mainstream training from the recognised mediation organisations, nor was there any evidence of accreditation. The sharia councils appear to use the term mediation in a much looser sense than that of the highly trained and accredited mediators practicing in family law.
The authors add:
The creation of state endorsed regulation sends the message that certain groups have separate and distinct needs and further that sharia councils are an appropriate forum for resolution of their family law disputes. In short it would perpetuate the myth of separateness of certain groups. The acceptance of the premise that sharia councils only deal with, engage in or touch upon the dissolution of the religious marriage aspect of the dispute is naïve and unrealistic. In any family law or relationship dispute the issues are multi-faceted. Ancillary outcomes which arise out of the ‘mediation and other functions’ that sharia councils undoubtedly perform may be given legitimacy. Those functions where they deal with dowry forfeiture (or return) financial remedies, arrangements for children and issues regarding future behaviour and conduct will impact on the civil rights of those to whom they relate.
While the report praised some “good practice” in the Sharia councils, these are arguably overshadowed by the “bad practice” revelations.
Examples of “good practice” according to the authors included:
- reporting of family violence and child protection issues to the police;
- women unable to pay fees have them lowered/no payment taken;
- religious divorce granted as formality upon civil divorce;
- councils’ signposting to civil remedies, such as civil courts for child arrangements;
- little evidence of women being asked to reconcile relationships rather than obtain divorce;
- councils declining to deal with any ancillary issues and referring users to civil courts;
- in practically every case where a woman was seeking divorce, a divorce was granted;
- some councils had women panel members;
- some councils said they have safeguarding policies in relation to children and domestic violence.
Evidence of bad practice however included:
- inappropriate and unnecessary questioning in regards to personal relationship matters;
- a forced marriage victim was asked to attend the sharia council at the same time as her family;
- insistence on any form of mediation as a necessary preliminary;
- women being invited to make concessions to their husbands in order to secure a divorce (men are never asked to make these concessions). For example in khula agreements, husbands may demand excessive financial concessions from the wife;
- lengthy process so that while divorces are very rarely refused they can be drawn out;
- inconsistency across council decisions and processes;
- no safeguarding policies and/or the recognition for the need of safeguarding policies;
- no clear signposting to the legal options available for civil divorce;
- even with a decree absolute a religious divorce is not always a straightforward process and the council will consider all the evidence again;
- adopting civil legal terms inappropriately, leading to confusion for applicants over the legality of council decisions;
- very few women as panel members;
- panel members sitting on sharia councils who have only recently moved to the UK, and who do not have the required language skills and/or wider understanding of UK society;
- varying and conflicting interpretations of Islamic law which may lead to inconsistencies.
Addressing the calls to ban Sharia in the UK, the authors note (emphasis added): “Th[e] demand [for Sharia councils] will not end if the sharia councils are banned and closed down and could lead to councils going ‘underground’, making it even harder to ensure good practice and the prospect of discriminatory practices and greater financial costs more likely and harder to detect. It could also result in women needing to travel overseas to obtain divorces, putting themselves at further risk. We consider the closure of sharia councils is not a viable option. However, given the recommendations also proposed in this report include the registration of all Islamic marriages as well as awareness campaigns it is hoped that the demand for religious divorces from sharia councils will gradually reduce over time.”…
bear says
…what a shocker…..islam is evil, pure and simple….
Andy says
The Truth About the UK
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNE1AzUWYiM
Tjhawk says
No $h;+ ???
Really ????
Whaaaaaaat. ?????
StellaSaidSo says
http://www.shariawatch.org.uk/
mortimer says
They are basically trying to argue between ‘GOOD’ forms of Nazism and ‘BAD’ forms of Nazism.
Islamic MISOGYNY is all based on SHARIA law: it is divided into two parts: 1) DOCTRINE and 2)APPLICATION.
The DOCTRINE of misogynistic Sharia NEVER changes. However, the APPLICATION of Sharia comes in a VARIETY of styles from ‘we don’t apply the adult breast-feeding rule’ all the way to HONOR KILLING and APOSTATE MURDER with NO PUNISHMENT for the murderers.
Islamic DOCTRINE is about 95% the same or more in most ‘schools’ of Sharia. The APPLICATION of Sharia is either LAX, LAZY, FLIPPANT, INCONSISTENT or it is RIGOROUS, INTENSE and SEVERE!
Wellington says
Fine and apt post, mortimer. And very much tending to validate the contention that the judgment of any belief system should ultimately be based on its doctrine, not its application, something I have argued the case for for several years here at JW.
gravenimage says
Agreed–good post, Mortimer.
Andy says
When are the indigenous peoples of Great Britain going to take a stand against Islam, Have you all been brainwashed with political correctness or afraid of being called a racist???
Something very strange going on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFwuyKB8_PQ
Andy says
Being British
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tURpZzS8lWU
Andy says
Leftist Protesters CONFRONTS Smart conservative speaker, watch how he responds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ewWz2L7IiM
StellaSaidSo says
JRM will be the next UK PM.
Westman says
When I was just a little girl,
I asked my Mulla,
What will I be?
Will I be pretty?
Will I be rich?
Here’s what he said to me:
Yea, Zurfah, Zurfah,
Whatever we say, will be.
Your future is ours, you see,
it’s Sharee, Sharee.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
“Sharee”, not “Sharia”? Apparently yes: the doorway of this organization (see above) reads
ISLAMIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF GB SHAREE COUNCIL.
Maybe these Sharee councils have an advertising campaign with a catchy theme song too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uybtn6ebG0I
gravenimage says
Grimly amusing, Westman.
Wellington says
Seconded.
CRUSADER says
INSPIRING!
So….now…how about this set of lyrics?:
“PLEASE COME TO RAQQA” ~
Please come to Raqqa for the springtime
I’m stayin’ here with some ikhwan and these al’iikhwa got lotsa room
You can sell your hijabs on the sidewalk
By a masjid here I hope to be workin’ soon
Please come to Raqqa ?
She said “No, would you come home to me!!!”
And she said, “Hey ramblin’ mujahid won’t ya settle down
Raqqa ain’t your kinda town
There ain’t no mijad and there ain’t nobody like me
I’m the number one fan of the rajul from Amalek”
Please come to Aleppo with the snowfall
We’ll move up into the mountains so far that we can’t be found
Echo ” ‘iinaa ahbuk min kulin qalbiin ” down the canyon
And then lie awake at night till they come back around
Please come to Aleppo
She said “no, sibi, would you come home to me”
And she said, “Hey ramblin’ mujahid won’t ya settle down
Aleppo ain’t your kinda town
There ain’t no mijad and there ain’t nobody like me
I’m the number one fan of the rajul from Amalek”
Now this Jihadi ‘s world goes ’round and ’round
And I doubt that it’s ever gonna stop
The Crusaders keep putting me to ground
And all that I ain’t got
I still need to lean to
Somebody I can sing to
Please come to Hollywood to live in Jannah
Kalifornia life alone is just too hard to build a khilāfah
I live in a manzil that looks out over the ocean
And there’s some stars that fell from the crescent moon sky
Livin’ it up in Jannah
Please come to Hollywood
She just said “no, Hollywood is haraam, won’t you come home to me?”
And she said, “Hey ramblin’ mujahid won’t ya settle down
Hollywood ain’t your kinda town
There ain’t no mijad and there ain’t nobody like me
Allah, Allah, I’m the number one fan of the rajul from Amalek”
“I’m the number one fan of the rajul from Amalek ”
….
==========================================
*** “Please Come To Boston” – 1974 song (HD Stereo!)
(….”Ramblin’ Boy settle down….Number One Fan of the Man from Tennessee”….lyrics)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2k2F78LgdI
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
http://barenakedislam.com/2018/02/04/excellent-austria-wants-to-put-muslim-migrants-in-internment-style-camps-where-there-will-be-curfews/
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
http://barenakedislam.com/2018/02/04/yay-finland-sending-back-muslim-fake-refugees-who-would-rather-die-than-have-to-get-a-job-and-assimilate-with-western-culture/
gravenimage says
Good for Finland!
Ray Jarman says
The French have a term, laïcité, which should be introduced into British law and maybe needs to be reintroduced into the French Napoleonic Code of Law. These sharia councils violate the moral fibre of British law and should not be tolerated under any circumstance. There should be laws for everyone rather than different ones for each sub-culture (I use the word culture very loosely here). Western Europe and the UK need new leaders who will kick any and all subhuman groups that burden the legitimate citizens like an incubus. The latitudinarian tendencies of governments on both sides of the Atlantic are destroying the very foundation of our souls.
Alighieri’s beautiful words could bring new meaning to the civilized world if only it would heed the warning: Paradiso, Canto XX: “When he who illumines all the world descends/So far, departing from our hemisphere,/That day on all sides vanishes and ends,/The heaven, which he alone before lit clear,/With myriad light all kindled at one flame/Immediately begins to reappear.” Our nations can learn much from our predecessors and maybe not commit the same acts of insanity that many before us performed.
gravenimage says
Ray, we don’t need to change our laws–we just need to start enforcing them.
Anne Smith says
Absolutely right gravenimage.
However the British Police now have other,more pressing concerns, such as scanning Facebook to make sure no-one is being nasty to Muslims, or painting their toenails to signify their concern about modern day slavery.
I just do not understand what has happened to Britain, once famed for its common sense and rational approach. I can only blame the emergence of the sinister organisation Common Purpose which is helping to undermine almost every facet of our lives.
gravenimage says
Crazy but true, Anne. Police are overwhelmed with the Muslim crime wave and escalating threat of terrorism, yet are using their manpower to go after those who oppose Jihad.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
warning contains expletives:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDnRYNq-WU4
Voytek Gagalka says
And this is how sharia is “compatible with democracy,” as per recent statement made by our local “expert” on peacefulness of Islam, the Right (dis)Honorable PM Trudeau. Somebody should supply him that review, though of course he will dismiss it as yet another example of “Islamophobia.”
mariam rove says
No surprise here at all. m
Kay says
A nightmare coming true
Champ says
A must-watch video for EVERYONE!
It’s only 8 minutes long, and Nonie Darwish, an ex-muslim, gives an excellent comparison between islam & Christianity …
And beginning at the 5:00 minute mark, Nonie explains ‘family values’ within islam and *why* women are HATED:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRjYe_9CEOM
Champ says
And beginning at the 5:00 minute mark, Nonie explains ‘family values’ within islam and *why* women are HATED
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But please watch the entire video–it’s loaded with *key* differences between islam & Christianity and why islam is NOT a “religion of peace.”
gravenimage says
Thanks for the link, Champ.
I had a chance to hear Nonie Darwish at UC Berkeley several years ago. Excellent stuff. She is a very brave Anti-Jihadist.
Champ says
You’re welcome, Graven. Oh, I would love to hear Nonie speak in person–you were very fortunate!
gravenimage says
It was crazy, Champ. She barely had a chance to speak, given all the screaming fascist “protestors”. Still, I’m very glad I went.
That was also when I ran into a friend I knew from animal rescue, and found out that he was an Anti-Jihadist, which I was very glad to learn. I knew he was a good person, but had never discussed Islam with him, and thought he was probably as clueless as most people. I was thrilled to learn otherwise.
Champ says
Graven, the bullying and hatred that courageous truth-tellers must tolerate is unconscionable. Shame on those attempting to silence her and the truth.
gravenimage says
UK government review of Sharia courts reveals systemic discrimination against women
……………………………
I’m shocked, shocked…oh, wait…no, I’m not.
I’m only shocked that British authorities would actually look into them.
My being glad about this only lasted until reaching this line:
In any case, the report recommends that Sharia courts not be closed. ““Th[e] demand [for Sharia councils] will not end if the sharia councils are banned and closed down and could lead to councils going ‘underground’, making it even harder to ensure good practice and the prospect of discriminatory practices and greater financial costs more likely and harder to detect.”
……………………………
So–what is Britain going to to do to ensure good practice? No indictation of this, at all.
And so, these discriminatory Islamic courts will continue, with the full support of the Infidel authorities. All this will do is embolden Muslims; how could it not?
CRUSADER says
Gomer Pyle, USMC:
“Surprise Surprise Surprise”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TnkJ8_BmSI
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
Mr Spencer, according to correct interpretations of the Quranic verses and Hadiths, sharia is not oppresssive to any segment of society.muslim women cherish It to safeguard decency and diginity, not lead beast way of life as prevailing in the West.
MFritz says
Fake account, fake postings! Don’t feed the troll!
gravenimage says
MFritz, I know you have said this before, even after I showed you Ibrahim itace muhammed’s Facebook page.
I’m not sure why you think barbaric pious Muslims don’t exist. I’m afraid all too many of them do.
StellaSaidSo says
GI, MFitz is not claiming that barbaric pious Muslims don’t exist. He is claiming that Ibrahim is a troll. The fact that a poster has a FB page does not mean that he/she is not a troll. Personally, I think Ibrahim is a genuine lunatic Mohammedan, but I am inclined to agree with MFitz that he should be ignored.
Wellington says
I’m with you, gravenimage. Moreover, and even assuming Ibrahim is a fake as opposed to a true Muslim, he is either way nefarious and to never respond to malevolence is as bad as always responding to malevolence. MFritz and others just can’t seem to grasp this.
gravenimage says
Stella, Ibrahim itace muhammed is definitely a troll–but I doubt he is merely posing as a Muslim. And sure, anyone can have a fake Facebook page–but his is replete with ranting in the local Nigerian language:
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100008365110176&ref=br_rs
I doubt that a Nigerian Christian or animist would pose as a Muslim to troll Western Anti-Jihadists–and I doubt that a Western troll would be able to post in the local language.
Ray Jarman says
Graven, Having lived in Nigeria for more than three years, I have met some really stupid people there but for the most part, Nigerians are probably the most intelligent of Africans. I was told by several black people of South Africa that they resented the Nigerians and when I ask why, they said that the Nigerians thought they were better than anyone else. This Ibrahim may just work at the American Consulate in Lagos or most likely at the American Embassy in Abuja or maybe even the British High Commission in Abuja since a large number of Hausa live and work in the area.
gravenimage says
I must agree, Wellington. If no one responds to ugliness like that from Ibrahim itace muhammed, then some readers here–especially those who are new–might assume that we will not stand up to oppose it.
Even worse is when he is spewing Taqiyya, which new readers may not recognize as false.
StellaSaidSo says
GI, please read my post again, as you have clearly misunderstood it. I did not say that Ibrahim is ‘posing as a Muslim’, or that he is a troll. I said – as I have said previously – that I think he is ‘a genuine lunatic Mohammedan’. I am inclined to agree with MFritz that Ibrahim should be ignored, as no argument ever penetrates his thick skull, but ridicule is also an appropriate response. I don’t think even the newest JW reader would fail to recognise that Ibrahim is a moronic, deluded fool.
BTW, assuming he has been truthful in relating his personal details, Ibrahim is not Nigerian. He is an Arab, born of Arab parents, living in Nigeria.
gravenimage says
Ray, I sure as hell hope that they vicious Ibrahim itace muhammed is not working for any Western body. If he is as he presents himself, though, I doubt he could keep his ravening hatred of the Kuffar to himself. That might be a bit much even for the dhimmis.
Ray Jarman says
Let me tell you of one incident that happened to my wife at the US Embassy Abuja. She was working in a position established to provide small grants to rural localities for things such as wells, small business startups (one was a group of ladies who created a plant to process peanut oil), enhancing schools in rural areas without means, etc., and during a meeting at the Political Councilor’s office at local employee in the section refused to shake my wife’s hand. I was outraged and went to express my complete dissatisfaction with this employee with John Campbell, the Ambassador. He said that muslims don’t shake hands with women, I reminded him that this is the American Embassy and he asked me to leave his office or he would have me posted back to Foggy Bottom. Unfortunately, the Ibrahim types of pigs do work in our embassies. This the type of misrepresentation of American moral standards of which Rex Tillerson will rid the State Department must take place.
gravenimage says
The appalling Ibrahim itace muhammed wrote:
Mr Spencer, according to correct interpretations of the Quranic verses and Hadiths, sharia is not oppresssive to any segment of society.muslim women cherish It to safeguard decency and diginity, not lead beast way of life as prevailing in the West.
………………………
Ibrahim itace muhammed is saying that Muslim women “cherish” being forcibly married off as children, being beaten by their husbands, being summarily divorced, and being “Honor Killed”. *Ugh*.
Indiana Tom says
Sounds like an Islamic fun time. Yipee!
Indiana Tom says
.muslim women cherish It
Yeah, Anni Cyrus was most certainly thrilled with it.
Jayell says
‘Any segment’ of WHOSE society, Mr. Muhammed? Because, according to the holy writings of your beloved religion of sweetness, light and universal love, those of us who aren’t terribly impressed with your Prophet don’t quite qualify for equal consideration under your laws, and that sounds just a little oppressive to me. Unless, of course, your own Prophet hadn’t quite got the hang of his own religion, which wouldn’t be surprising since he seemed to be making it up as he went along, to judge by all those abrogations. Now, let’s have a sensible reply, because we’d all like to see how all those nasty, oppressive statements about unbelievers and women that appear in black and white in your holy books are incorrect. And I don’t think you’ve ever replied to any of my other posts. What a pity!
Champ says
“ibrahim itace muhammed” wrote:
Mr Spencer, according to correct interpretations of the Quranic verses and Hadiths, sharia is not oppresssive to any segment of society.muslim women cherish It to safeguard decency and diginity, not lead beast way of life as prevailing in the West.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Once again the mohammedan imbecile shares his bold-faced lies about sharia with us …
The ugly truth about sharia is what people need to know:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F22DMKVVjn8
gravenimage says
Champ, thanks for posting this–Wafa Sultan is a brave Anti-Jihadist.
Here is my Heroes Against Jihad tribute to her:
http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/gravenimageartist/media/bWVkaWFJZDoyMDQyNDAyNA==/?ref=1
Champ says
Graven, what a *wonderful* tribute to such a courageous and intelligent woman! And thank you for using and sharing your artistic talent! 🙂
CRUSADER says
Graven Image of Brigitte Gabriel , an artistic homage to Counter Jihad
http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/gravenimageartist/media/bWVkaWFJZDoyMTExNTk3OQ==/?ref=1
Graven Image has this remark by the incomparable Brigitte Gabriel (ACT for America)
written on the art piece, part of “Heroes Against Jihad” presentation:
” Even after 9/11 there are those who say that we must engage our terrorist enemies, that we must address their grievances. Their grievance is our freedom of religion. Their grievance is our freedom of speech. Their grievance is our democratic process … (Islamic religious authorities and terrorist leaders repeatedly state that they will destroy the United States and Western civilization, and replace it with the only true religion: Islam. Unless we take them at their word, and defend ourselves, they will succeed….)”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Brigitte Gabriel’s Duke University Speech
Brigitte GabrielWe gather here today to share information and knowledge. Intelligence is not merely cold hard data about numerical strength or armament or disposition of military forces. The most important element of intelligence has to be understanding the mindset and intention of the enemy. The West has been wallowing in a state of ignorance and denial for thirty years as Muslim extremists have perpetrated evil against innocent victims in the name of Allah.
I was ten years old when my home exploded around me, burying me under the rubble and leaving me to drink my blood to survive, as the perpetrators shouted, “Allah Akbar!” My only crime was that I was a Christian living in a Christian town. At 10 years old, I learned the meaning of the word “infidel.”
I had a crash course in survival. Not in the Girl Scouts, but in a bomb shelter where I lived for seven years in pitch darkness, freezing cold, drinking stale water and eating grass to live. At the age of 13, I dressed in my burial clothes going to bed at night, waiting to be slaughtered. By the age of 20, I had buried most of my friends — killed by Muslims. We were not Americans living in New York, or Britons in London. We were Arab Christians living in Lebanon.
As a victim of Islamic terror, I was amazed when I saw Americans waking up on September 12, 2001, and asking themselves, “Why do they hate us?” The psychoanalyst experts were coming up with all sort of excuses as to what did we do to offend the Muslim World. But if America and the West were paying attention to the Middle East, they would not have had to ask the question. Simply put, they hate us because we are defined in their eyes by one simple word: “infidels.”
Under the banner of Islam “la, ilaha illa Allah, muhammad rasoulu Allah” (None is god except Allah; Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah), they murdered Jewish children in Israel, massacred Christians in Lebanon, killed Copts in Egypt, Assyrians in Syria, Hindus in India, and expelled almost 900,000 Jews from Muslim lands. We Middle Eastern infidels paid the price then. Now infidels worldwide are paying the price for indifference and shortsightedness.
Tolerating evil is a crime. Appeasing murderers doesn’t buy protection. It earns one disrespect and loathing in the enemy’s eyes. Yet apathy is the weapon by which the West is committing suicide. Political correctness forms the shackles around our ankles, by which Islamists are leading us to our demise.
America and the West are doomed to failure in this war unless they stand up and identify the real enemy: Islam. You hear about Cahaba and Salafi Islam as the only extreme form of Islam. All the other Muslims, supposedly, are wonderful moderates. Closer to the truth are the pictures of the irrational eruption of violence in reaction to the cartoons of Mohammed printed by a Danish newspaper. From burning embassies, to calls to butcher those who mock Islam, to warnings that the West be prepared for another holocaust, those pictures have given us a glimpse into the real face of the enemy. News pictures and video of these events represent a canvas of hate decorated by different nationalities who share one common ideology of hate, bigotry and intolerance derived from one source: authentic Islam. An Islam that is awakening from centuries of slumber to re-ignite its wrath against the infidel and dominate the world. An Islam which has declared “Intifada” on the West.
America and the West can no longer afford to lay in their lazy state of overweight ignorance. The consequences of this mental disease are starting to attack the body; and if they don’t take the necessary steps now to control it, death will be knocking soon. If you want to understand the nature of the enemy we face, visualize a tapestry of snakes. They slither and they hiss, and they would eat each other alive, but they will unite in a hideous mass to achieve their common goal of imposing Islam on the world.
This is the ugly face of the enemy we are fighting. We are fighting a powerful ideology that is capable of altering basic human instincts. An ideology that can turn a mother into a launching pad of death. A perfect example is a recently elected Hamas official in the Palestinian Territories who raves in heavenly joy about sending her three sons to death and offering the ones who are still alive for the cause. It is an ideology that is capable of offering highly educated individuals such as doctors and lawyers far more joy in attaining death than any respect and stature life in society is ever capable of giving them.
The United States has been a prime target for radical Islamic hatred and terror. Every Friday, mosques in the Middle East ring with shrill prayers and monotonous chants calling death, destruction and damnation down on America and its people. The radical Islamist deeds have been as vile as their words. Since the Iran hostage crisis, more than three thousand Americans have died in a terror campaign almost unprecedented in its calculated cruelty along with thousands of other citizens worldwide. Even the Nazis did not turn their own children into human bombs, and then rejoice at their deaths as well as the deaths of their victims. This intentional, indiscriminate and wholesale murder of innocent American citizens is justified and glorified in the name of Islam.
America cannot effectively defend itself in this war unless and until the American people understand the nature of the enemy that we face. Even after 9/11 there are those who say that we must engage our terrorist enemies, that we must address their grievances. Their grievance is our freedom of religion. Their grievance is our freedom of speech. Their grievance is our democratic process where the rule of law comes from the voices of many, not that of just one prophet. It is the respect we instill in our children towards all religions. It is the equality we grant each other as human beings, sharing a planet and striving to make the world a better place for all humanity. Their grievance is the kindness and respect a man shows a woman, the justice we practice as equals under the law, and the mercy we grant our enemy. Their grievances cannot be answered by an apology for who or what we are.
Our mediocre attitude of not confronting Islamic forces of bigotry and hatred, wherever they raised their ugly heads in the last 30 years, has empowered and strengthened our enemy to launch a full scale attack on the very freedoms we cherish in their effort to impose their values and way of life on our civilization.
If we don’t wake up and challenge our Muslim community to take action against the terrorists within it, if we don’t believe in ourselves as Americans and in the standards we should hold every patriotic American to, we are going to pay a price for our delusion. For the sake of our children and our country, we must wake up and take action. In the face of a torrent of hateful invective and terrorist murder, America’s learning curve since the Iran hostage crisis is so shallow that it is almost flat. The longer we lay supine, the more difficult it will be to stand erect.
http://www.tedmontgomery.com/remarks/10.7-12/BrigitteGabriel/speech.html
gravenimage says
Thank you, Champ and CRUSADER.
CRUSADER, thanks for reposting my tribute to Brigitte Gabriel, as well as that long quote from her. She is another heroine of the Counter Jihad.
I hope everyone here reads her books–very important work.
Ray Jarman says
+++1
CRUSADER says
Oh, is Mr Irritates at it again?
How unusual of him! LOL (Loser OnLine)
Champ says
Woe to people like “ibrahim itace muhammed” …
“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” — Isaiah 5:20
Eur says
Hahahhahahahahahahahahaha
MFritz says
Well known fact for 1400 years. UK government will do nothing about it and every criticism will still be considered “islamophobia” and persecuted by the police.
Indiana Tom says
Is anyone surprised? Sharia discriminates against women,…and the sky is blue.
Jayell says
So the UK Government has just noticed the rampant institutional misogyny in Sharia courts. Now, what about the rampant institutional misandry in its own courts?
Anne Smith says
No, Theresa May knows about it and has done since she was Minister in charge of the home Office. She instigated this investigation just before she left the Home Office as a way of whitewashing the harm of Sharia courts and the despicable way they treat women as fourth rate members of society. People who complained about a parallel system of law being set up were supposed to be lulled into a false sense of security by this investigation.
Not surprisingly the investigation is chaired by a Muslim woman and not by a British Judge or barrister who would be rather more conversant with British.
In no country should there be two separate sets of laws depending on what your religion is and certainly not in Britain which has, for hundreds of years, led the way in guarding people’s rights and dignity.
It seems that Theresa May loves Muslims, for those who doubt this just take a look at her message to them. Sadly there is no corresponding message to Sikhs, Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQslqJZ4qQ
StellaSaidSo says
+1
gravenimage says
I didn’t know that this investigation was chaired by a Muslim woman, Anne–but it does not surprise me.
sidney penny says
What did they expect?
What happened to one law for everyone? Does anyone believe in it?
Why do Muslims want and have they own laws? e.g. India, Britain
Muslims in India do not want a common civil code that applies to everyone. Why?
Phil Copson says
“invite, encourage, or even urge them to self-regulate…”
What a simply splendid idea – I don’t think. Translation: “We know that you’re going to do whatever the hell you want regardless of anything that we say, so why don’t you just get on and do it? All we ask is that you don’t tell us about it, because we really don’t want to know…..”
After all, this “self-regulation” system works so well elsewhere, doesn’t it ? –
“Oh hi, Mr Rouhani – we were wondering if you’ve got any nuclear weapons at all ?”
“What, me ? Of course I haven’t – the very idea!”
“Well, would you mind checking, just to be sure?”
“Oh, ok – seeing as it’s you, Barack – give me a minute would you?…..nope, I had a good look
and I definitely can’t see any.”
“Oh thanks Mr Rouhani, sorry to have bothered you – would you like another pallet of money while I’m here?”
StellaSaidSo says
+1
WorkingClassPost says
Sorry, Phil, but the idea of a muslim self-regulating conjures a picture which is just too disturbing for me at this time of night.
Jayell says
Maybe it’s not just a question of them self-regulating, it’s more that they then think they can start regulating everyone else.
gravenimage says
Spot on, Jayell.
CRUSADER says
The women of a Sultan’s harem walked a tightrope between power and servitude.
But what was their daily life like inside their gilded cage?
http://historycollection.co/surprising-daily-life-sultans-harem-revealed/
A harem is, on a basic level, a place where women are kept to prevent them from interacting with the wider world.
The idea has existed across a wide variety of times and cultures, from the Ancient Persians to the Byzantines. However, the figure most closely associated with the harem in the popular imagination has to be the Ottoman Sultan, who often kept hundreds of wives and concubines secluded within the palace walls. But when we focus on the Sultan, we forget about the women themselves. So, what was life really like for a woman living in the Sultan’s harem?
To understand what life in a harem was like, we need to look at the history of the idea. We need to understand what purpose it was supposed to serve and why it was so entrenched in the culture of the Ottoman Empire’s elite. In fact, it may surprise you to learn that the Ottomans didn’t invent the harem. The practice of secluding wives and female relatives away from the public gaze goes back much farther and has been a feature of many cultures, all the way back to the ancient Assyrians. And while we think of a harem as containing multiple wives and concubines, this wasn’t always the case.
It’s important to remember that all of these cultures were very patriarchal. Women were largely viewed as the property of their husbands. And women were also status symbols. The idea that a woman shouldn’t be seen in public was common in these societies, but most women had to work, which required leaving the house. For rulers, having a harem served two purposes: 1) It prevented women from behaving “immodestly,” which would have affected her husband’s reputation, and 2) It proved that he was so rich that he could afford to keep his wife in the house.
The practice of keeping a harem was introduced to the Turkish people, who later founded the Ottoman Empire, by Arab Caliphates, who introduced Islam to them as well. Islam places a high value on sexual purity and modesty, which meant that the practice of keeping wives and relatives separate from the rest of society had a religious justification for the Ottomans. Under the Ottomans, the harem evolved from being a place to keep women in seclusion to function almost as a royal household. In addition to wives and concubines, the Sultans often raised their male children until the age of 12 in the harem.
While we think of the Harem as a place where the Sultan kept an ever-growing stable of women to satisfy his baser urges, the truth is much more complex. The harem of a Sultan served a variety of functions and the women who lived there often ended up wielding significant power in their own right. But it would be a mistake to imagine the harem as a source of female empowerment, just as it would be a mistake to imagine it as the personal brothel of the Sultan. So, what was daily life in the harem really like?
There were really two different types of women in the Sultan’s harem, the wives and relatives of a sultan, and then, the slaves. The experience one had in the harem on a daily basis largely depended on which group one belonged to. By far, the largest group was made up of slaves. Slavery was extremely common in the Ottoman Empire and slaves were largely drawn from non-Islamic societies on the fringes of the Empire like the Balkans, Caucasus, and Africa. Thus, while the Sultan had wives he married for the usual purposes of forging alliances and continuing his dynasty, he also had a significant number of enslaved concubines.
Enslaved women in the harem were known as “jariyahs,” and were typically brought to the harem at a young age. Once a jariyah entered the harem, they usually chose a new name for themselves, severing their links to their past life. For the most part, the early years of their lives were focused on education. The girls were given daily lessons in everything from dancing to basic math. In fact, the education provided to the girls in the harem was much better than that which most women in the Ottoman Empire received.
But above all, the girls were expected to learn manners and courtly traditions. They were judged on how well-mannered they were and girls who were often disobedient were usually banned from the harem and married off to a commoner. On the other hand, girls who excelled in their studies were taken to serve in the palace. Some were assigned to work on basic tasks like helping to cook or washing clothes. But the most clever and talented girls were given positions of significant importance, like helping to manage the household accounts or helping to run the palace’s daily operations.
The most beautiful and well-mannered girls were often brought to meet the Sultan. It’s a common misconception that every girl in the harem had sex with the Sultan. The truth is that most girls never even spoke to the ruler. However, the Sultan would occasionally choose women from the harem to share his bed. And once they did, they became an official part of the Sultan’s household and were moved to live with the Sultan’s wives and relatives. In the apartments of the Sultan’s family, the girls would help raise any children they had with the Sultan along with their half-siblings.
The relatives of the Sultan lived in something that could be described as a “gilded cage.” They were provided with nice clothes and good food and had a standard of life that was much higher than the average inhabitant of the Ottoman Empire. But they were still rarely allowed to leave the harem. When and if they were ever permitted to go outside the palace was determined by the Valide Sultan, the mother of the reigning Sultan. The Valide Sultan was in charge of the harem, and she had the literal power of life and death over the women inside.
The Valide Sultan was in charge of the eunuchs who guarded the harem. The Ottomans adopted the practice of keeping eunuchs, or castrated slaves, from the Byzantines. Part of the reason the Ottomans preferred eunuchs when choosing guards because there was little chance of them forming romantic relationships with the women in the harem. But eunuchs were also incapable of fathering children and the Sultans assumed that men who couldn’t have a dynasty of their own would be more likely to give their total allegiance to their master. The eunuchs in the harem served as advisors, military commanders, and if necessary, executioners.
Of course, the politics of the royal court were constantly shifting. And the women of the harem were often able to gain significant influence in the Empire. The Valide Sultan, in particular, was a position with a great deal of authority. As the mother of the Sultan, she often served as regent if a Sultan came to power at a young age. And many were reluctant to surrender that influence when the Sultan came of age. The Valide Sultan controlled much of the royal families wealth and often had the allegiance of the palace eunuchs as well, which meant she had considerable power if she chose to exercise it.
Even women in the harem who were slaves could become major players in the politics of the Empire. The Sultan was the final authority on all matters, so anyone who held significant influence over him could become very powerful. Young or weak-willed Sultans were often effectively controlled by favored concubines or the Valide Sultan. And the Sultan often gave women from his harem in marriage to nobles he wanted to curry favor with, which meant that the women of the harem formed networks of influence across the Empire. But that influence could also be dangerous.
While generally speaking the women in the harem were safe from violence, there was always the chance that the Sultan or his mother would execute those who displeased them. Usually, this was because they took part in a political power struggle and lost. But this wasn’t always the case. The Sultan Ibrahim the Mad famously ordered hundreds of his concubines drowned in the Bosphorus Strait in a fit of paranoia. And it wasn’t just the women at risk. The Sultan’s sons were raised in the harem and when he died, his successor would often have his younger siblings strangled to eliminate threats to his rule.
And that’s probably the best way to think of the harem. It was a place where women were effectively imprisoned and lived at the whim of the Sultan. While sexual servitude wasn’t really the major element of their lives as we usually imagine it was, it was always a possibility. And while women could, and did, use their position in the harem to wield more power than most women, they were still part of a society where women were rarely given any power as a whole.
The women in the harem walked this tightrope between power and servitude their entire lives.
Wellington says
Confirming yet again, CRUSADER, that one of the two last groups of people on the planet who should willingly embrace Islam are women. The other group are blacks because of Islam’s dismal record on the matter of black slavery (far worse than that of the West’s, which was certainly bad enough) and respecting both of which records Islam has not in the least apologized for.
This is why when I see a female Muslim or a black Muslim, and assuming such people have not been forced into “Muslimhood,” I look at them and wonder what the eff they are thinking, what they really know about Islam, for that matter, what they really know about themselves.
In a special “dual category” of stupidity is the black female Muslim. Such a person is probably beyond redemption, but then best to look at every Muslim this way and then those of Mo’s followers who eventually leave Islam are bonuses to the cause of mankind since Islam and what is best for mankind are polar opposites and one knows this or should know it.
CRUSADER says
Are you referring to “raisin heads” ?
For some Nation of Islam really had an appeal to American blacks.
Interestingly the SPLC traces NoI as a hate group….
gravenimage says
CRUSADER, the Sultan also periodically had most of the women in his Harem drowned in the Bosphorus. Ugly, ugly stuff.
CRUSADER says
Life of the many is cheap to those who rule from on high over the masses, it would seem….
gravenimage says
It certainly is in Islam, CRUSADER.
Cheer Bear Girl says
They import the most anti woman culture into their country. The rapes and subjugation of women haven’t clued them in yet.
Matthieu Baudin says
The Sharia Courts are in essence a type of experimental apartheid about which the British People should feel utterly ashamed.
Anne Smith says
Most of us do, but our politicians led by Theresa May seem quite proud of them.
StellaSaidSo says
One politician who wants all sharia courts in UK closed down is Anne Marie Waters, leader of FOR BRITAIN.
https://www.forbritain.uk/
gravenimage says
Yes–good for her!
Ewanda says
The members of the panel and the advisory board could easily have attended any Sharia courts and should have. All they would need to do is wear full Burkas and descend on the court as a group. Why didn’t they?
Experiencing the sex act is completely different for women than it is for men. Just like someone who gives an injection compared to someone who receives the injection. There is an element of working up to accepting the intrusion. What do you think courting is all about?
No matter how it is depicted, women in Islam never get to fulfill their potential that God gifted them with talents and abilities that go to waste. Rape is rape and women are nothing more than chattels.
Islam is laughing at the British and anyone else who thinks that Sharia courts would ever really entertain
a sharing or modifying of their 1400 years of perfecting their system. It has survived all efforts to show how barbaric it is.
You realize we are making no progress in stemming the relentless march of “Islamic Self- Determination”
I believe that in another posting I asked if anyone knew how to get in touch with the organization that puts on the DOHA DEBATES and to ask them to debate whether the world can endure anymore damage that 1400 years of Islamic Self-Determination has inflicted on it. We need more International publicity that reaches more of the public with the facts….. and in a hurry.
gravenimage says
Ewanda, here is contact information for the Doha Debates:
https://thedohadebates.com/pages/indexcc8b.html?p=3361
Given that this is the government of Qatar, I very much doubt that they are going to ask any questions that might end up critical of Islam.
The whole thing has always seemed like an exercize in cynicism to me. In the past, they have found a museum curator who argued for censorship of the arts and a Jewish leader who argued against minority rights in Muslim countries.
Ewanda says
Thank you for taking the time to provide that information. I was not prepared for the fact that those debates were sponsored by “the other side”. I was hoping that a neutral party who came up with debate topics would take up the challenge. Maybe that will happen but probably not through supporters of Islamic Ideology.
MFritz says
On a second note:
“unaware of exactly how many of the Islamic law councils are operating in the country”
The worst aspect of this whole issue really is the fact that the UK government doesn’t even know HOW MANY of these “courts” exist.
So there’s already a “parallel” justice system up and running in a democratic state! Inconceivable.
It would be bad enough if some ethnicity’s “special status” was tolerated in this way. But sharia isn’t about “different” people, races and countries, it’s ONLY about belonging to an ideology. And this ideology is hostile towards science, culture, modern society and especially democracy IN EVERY SINGLE ASPECT.
You may as well allow organised crime to have their own set of rules enforced, because they (basically) also belong to a different “ideology”.
And the UK government isn’t going to do a thing about it. The enemy of democracy has won. Churchill is spinning in his grave and the whole country has suffered a roll back before the Magna Carta. With worse things to come!
Anne Smith says
This is so true and the few brave souls in education who are trying to do something about stopping this nonsense are receiving no help from the Ministry of Education, which folds like a wet towel in the face of any Muslim opposition.
The brave and very well respected headmistress, Neena Lall, who tried to ban the hijab for four year old children in her school has been reviled by Muslims from all over Britain and forced to back track under a torrent of emails and abuse. Where was the Government? In hiding, it never said a word. She was attacked by a Labour Councillor called Salim Mulla who actually lived 250 miles away, nothing to do with this school at all but part of his campaign to Islamise schools. He is a member of MEND, the Muslim pressure group.
Possibly the fact that Miss Lall is a Hindu might have helped to stoke his rage and fury.
Miss Lall has been left to hang out and dry by this apology for a Government.
gravenimage says
As I recall, this headteacher only got support from a single MP.
And this is Britain’s finest public school. How long will this be the case, with its policy being manipulated by threatening Mohammedans?
Champ says
In keeping with mohammad’s disdain for women, there’s a level of hell primarily reserved for ladies. Not many women are going to make it into Paradise, unless you are one of the virgins. Although, at a 72:1 ratio, I’m not sure how that works. Unfortunate for the muslim female, hell is primarily for women.
gravenimage says
Yes–Muhammed said that most of those in hell were women–because they were too vain or supposedly not grateful enough to their husbands.
But Muslim men raping and slaughtering innocent people is what gets then into Paradise. What a sick creed Islam is.
Charles T Lawson says
If the UK POLICE think they will be anyway treated differently to the Common people then think again ,IF YOU TO DO NOT BOW DOWN TO ALLAH YOUR HEAD WILL STILL ROLL LIKE THE REST OF UK .
Politicianophobia says
When I was 16 years old, I had a high school teacher who loved to put the pointer between girls breasts and say “There are two points about that sweater I really like”. I convinced 20 girls we should go to the guidance counsellor. The day of our appointment, all 20 backed out, saying they were afraid he would find out they complained and fail them. I was the only girl at the meeting. My point is, people talk but are always afraid of something. Weeks after I complained about the old pig, he ask me to leave his class, when I got to the door he told me to sit down, when I went to sit down he told me to get out, after 5 get outs, I finally said no I was not going to sit down, I was going to the office to tell the principal how crazy he is. When the principal and I got back to the classroom, the old, pig was being taken away in a straight jacket. Maybe people should stand up and tell the politicians they are not going to take it anymore. Geeeez, people say if you write a letter to the editor you have to sign your name and “they” will get you. Does it ever end, or are there too many cowards? I understand how Hitler got away with it.
gravenimage says
Fine post, Politicianophobia. Good for you for standing up. This is something we all need to do.
Ray Jarman says
Politicianophobia, You make some excellent points but I keep pointing out that Hitler did not win the election 1933. He was appointed by Von Hindenburg and after Hitler used the Brown Shirts and other Nazi thugs, it was too late and elections were a farce. I agree that people have to take a stand.
LeftisruiningCanada says
Great post
Mmmuk1 says
Seriously, what practical way is there of convincing Prime minister May that Islam is a clear and present danger to Britain.
Words condemning Islam are all very well but something concrete should be done to deal with Muslim ideology.
Any ideas?
gravenimage says
Expose Islam. End further Muslim invasion of the West. Work on deporting Muslims who have already infiltrated the West, beginning with the worst Jihadists. Investigate the families, associates, and Mosques of all Jihadists, hopefully leading to another round of deportations and Mosque closures.
Politicianophobia says
March in large numbers, with signs telling people, about Shari’ah law, Under Shari’ah, FGM, 4 wives, ok to beat women and on and on. Demand politicians to be patriots or step down. No more migrants. There is strength in numbers, stand up and be counted. The people are not the cowards–the politicians are. People of Britain need to read No Go Zones by Raheem Kassam. He is a man of courage.
gravenimage says
Yes.
Politicianophobia says
Read Gatestone Institute today there is a fine article by a fellow Canadian, a man of courage, he talks about CBC and what a lot of traitors there are in Canada. Fight back. GI the world needs more women like you–I bow to you dear lady.
Ray Jarman says
You are right about Gatestone. Its articles are always informative and in detail and maybe more political. You may try Stratfor.com as it is an excellent source of information with little to no political bias; it consists of ex-CIA and other information collectors and analysts.
LeftisruiningCanada says
Yes, that was a good article.
Basically, the State funded CBC is as up to it’s neck in islam as the State is at the moment.
not good, at all.
Politicianophobia says
Ray, Thank you for the info.