Sharia, again
The Times reports:
A female Muslim councillor has been subjected to a hate campaign by Muslim men in her ward, leaving her unable to visit some of the streets that she represents.
Hasina Khan, 38, the only Muslim councillor in Chorley, Lancashire, said that she had suffered a barrage of threatening phone calls, verbal abuse and insulting graffiti because the men objected her public role.
Mrs Khan, a mother of three, said: “I’ve had to totally change the way I go about my job. I used to do ward walks all the time, but now there are some streets I can’t even walk down.”
The hate campaign began when she put herself forward as a Labour candidate three years ago. “It is just a few members of the community who think I should be at home with a veil over my face, although if other people choose to do that, then I respect their choice,” she said.
“However, I feel that if it was a male Asian councillor then he would be treated as a hero. Because I am a woman I get the opposite treatment. They can’t understand my mainstream views and those of ‘live and let live’ and how the British culture should be respected … It has been extremely hard for me and my family and if it wasn’t for my British constituents, I don’t think I would have been able to get through it.”
Terry Brown, the Mayor of Chorley, who represents the same ward as Mrs Khan, said: “Because she’s a female Asian woman their view is that she should be at home producing babies.
“It’s a shame. She’s a well-respected member of the community and … an exceptionally talented woman.” …
Mrs Khan, who blames the smear campaign on a small minority of Muslim men, said that she would not give into the threats. “This has gone on for too long and I will not sit back and let it happen any more … Nobody should have to go through this, especially an Asian Muslim woman, as Islam is very protective and fair with women. It isn’t just about me any more - it is about thousands of other women who are being held down by people who refuse to wake up to the reality that it is the 21st century.”
Dukandar Idris, the imam of Chorley’s Dawat ul Islam mosque, said that Mrs Khan should have taken her grievances to the mosque’s elders, rather than speaking out. He also questioned some of her claims: “Which streets can’t she walk down?”
He said that, as imam, he could not forbid Muslim women from standing for election, but he would be entitled to forbid his wife. “Because this is Britain, you cannot tell anyone what to do. I can tell my wife, but cannot tell other women, ‘You cannot do this and that’,” he said.
The imam of the Dawat ul Islam mosque knows that “because this is Britain”, he cannot tell other women what to do. Instead, he favours a system of domestic, communal conflict resolution, administered by the “mosque’s elders”.
He is not alone.
The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips gave a speech at the London Muslim Centre last night. The London Muslim Centre is the base of a south Asian clerical fascist party called Jamaat-e-Islami. Jamaat is weak in Bangladesh, because it perpetrated horrendous war crimes during that country’s War of Liberation. However, through the Young Muslim Organisation, it has had more success in recruiting in the East End.
In his speech, the Lord Chief Justice stressed that Britain was not about to see “sharia courts” applying draconian criminal punishments “such as flogging, stoning, cutting off hands, or killing” to British Muslims. Neither would sharia be able to effect divorce.
However, like the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chief Justice supported the right of “individuals to opt to resolve certain disputes under their own choice of jurisdiction”.
I strongly defend the right of individuals, both to live their lives according to any religious or non religious code they choose. I also support the right of parties to arms’ length commercial disputes electing arbitration as an alternative to litigation. It is no concern of mine, or of the state, if people decide that they will not eat pork. Likewise, if two businessmen formally agree that they will be bound by the ruling of a religious authority on some contractual matter, they should be held to that procedure.
However, the LCJ and the ABC appear to be going further than that. Lord Philips appears to have said that:
[I]t was not “very radical to advocate embracing Sharia in the context of family disputes, for example. Our system already goes a long way towards accommodating the Archbishop’s suggestion.”
The problem with allowing a religious code, and sharia in particular, to be used as the basis of solving “family disputes” is clear. First, the law itself systematically discriminates against women. Secondly, the people who will be doing the “deciding” will be misogynists: “mosque elders” and people with the mindset of Dukandar Idris.
At the moment, Mr Idris knows full well that he has no power to force women like Councillor Khan to obey religious cultural norms. Were he and his ilk given the power to arbitrate in “family disputes”, some women would voluntarily agree to be bound by his decision.
Others will be subject to threats, both social and physical, to take their “family disputes” to these men. English law would criminalise any threat of violence against a woman who refused to submit to the jurisdiction of sharia-based arbitration in “family disputes”: although whether such matters would be policed effectively is another question. However, others will be subject to a more subtle pressure. They will face potential estrangement from their family and community. They will be treated as traitors to their faith. Their morality will be questioned. In short, with the exception of certain rather brave women, like Councillor Khan, most will be bullied into accepting the judgement of the “elders”.
I do not think that it will always be this way. Women in Britain achieved formal legal equality only recently. The struggle for social and economic equality still has some way to go. Yet many of the most important battles have been won. They were won by women like Councillor Khan, and by other progressives.
This is why I am proud to belong to the Labour Party: a party whose members include Councillor Hasina Khan and Mayor Terry Brown.
It is also why I am depressed to belong to a profession whose members include Lord Phillips, who last night attended an cultural centre run by a theocratic fascist party, appeared to endorse the use of sharia in “family disputes” and apparently had not a word to say about the position of women who are likely to be bullied into institutionalised gender discrimination.
Comments
| 4 July 2008, 10:20 am |
It is indeed an utter scandal - and reason to call for his immediate resignation - that Lord Phillips gave his speech at the London base of the Jamaat-i-Islami.
The Jamaat not only collaborated with the mudering Pakistani army during the Bangladeshi war of national liberation, but had some influence in re-introducing Islam as the basis of the country’s constitution, and continues to be an active player in the land’s politics (in alliance with the BNP). It has violently clashed with secularists and the Awami League, and promotes the religious cleansing of Hindus from Bangladesh, with clear links to killings and even more bigoted murderers. And, of course there is its connections with its Pakistani brother organisation, cheer-leader of dictatorship.
Arguments that somehow the genocide in Bangladesh is ‘old news’ (like the Shoah one supposes), and that the British branch is somehow of a different nature to the parent, are no doubt ready to be marshelled by Islamophiles. I wonder if there are similar arguments to excuse the British BNP to be
His Lordship should go: *now*.
| 4 July 2008, 10:35 am |
He said that, as imam, he could not forbid Muslim women from standing for election, but he would be entitled to forbid his wife. “Because this is Britain, you cannot tell anyone what to do. I can tell my wife, but cannot tell other women, ‘You cannot do this and that’,” he said.
No, you can’t, you Stone Age throwback cunt.
| 4 July 2008, 10:38 am |
It shows poor judgment, (his supposed area of competence) that he should be so easily duped. I was once smitten by his rakish looks when I watched him presiding in court a few years ago before he was CJ.
| 4 July 2008, 10:45 am |
The woman in question says:
“Nobody should have to go through this, especially an Asian Muslim woman, as Islam is very protective and fair with women”.
So long as she labours under that dangerous delusion, she will never be emancipated from the disgusting treatment she receives.
| 4 July 2008, 10:50 am |
If people within particular communities want to use “laws” particular to those cultures to resolve disputes then I have no problem with that, as long as they don’t contravene British law. Except of course they are really a “‘gentleman’s agreement” . If they aren’t then that means that a separate legal system is being proposed that runs parallel to existing law. This is entirely unacceptable. So we are back , (with the Archbishop of Canterbury),to square one. What exactly is being proposed here?
And what exactly does Ms Khan mean by “if it wasn’t for her British constituents”…..(yes I know what she means, but what does it imply?…)
| 4 July 2008, 11:01 am |
If a dispute arises under a Sharia agreement, and finds itself being adjudicated in a British court….?
| 4 July 2008, 11:08 am |
Personally I can not see how you can build a legal system or mediation on a discriminatory legal system, one that discriminates against women and against non-Muslims. Its as basic as that, OK so he is talking about using it to mediate between Muslims, but as Sharia is discriminatory the first time it happens someone should take offence and sue whoever did it under the discrimination laws…
| 4 July 2008, 11:19 am |
Silly, silly, silly little people. Can’t you see the grand old men know better than us common folk? Now just calm down and see that jumped-up German corporal for what he is - a useful bullwark against the Bolsheviks - and leave the thinking to your betters.
Sorry, I think I slipped centuries for a moment.
| 4 July 2008, 11:27 am |
Andrew,
According to Kevin Ovenden, Jamaat e Islaami are “left leaning”.
I wonder how many Jamaat war criminals are around the organisation in Britain?
Remember this is an organisation responsible, with others, for the largest number of Muslim deaths last century, and the biggest campaign of mass rape against Muslim women.
Not a place for delicately balancing the scales of justice.
| 4 July 2008, 11:40 am |
Tim, I suppose there is a lot of wishful thinking at work regarding the Jamaat (and similar groups), by liberal multi-culturalists ever-anxious to ‘understand’ Islamism, and those who think it is some kind of ‘objective’ anti-imperialist force, or product of the injustice of Western-led globalisation.
According to Bob Pitt and his fellow Islamophiles the Jamaat, notably in the East London Mosque, are open to ‘left-leaning’ ideas. The reference I made to those who say that the War for National Liberation, and the attempt by the Pak army and its allies (such as the Jamaat) to drown the fighters for independence in blood was “long ago” and “largely forgotten” (i.e. not worthy of comment) by younger generations of the (predominatly Sylhetti) Bangladeshis in East London (and, incidentally round where I live there is evidence of this as well) This is quite clear on their part. Pitt has explictly said this, and one sees the same argument being wheeled out on the comment boxes on the Socialist Unity site. The ‘real’ issue according to them, is to mobilise all the ‘Muslim’ communtiy against injustice, regardless of their ideological background. Elements of Sharia ‘law’, in this veiw, if part of English law, would help unite these folk with a wider fight for justice for minorities. The past is gone: the present is, er, now.
I would say that this is about the most obscene apology for historical amnesia regarding mass murder that I have ever seen.
| 4 July 2008, 11:51 am |
The Imam’s views are certainly pretty stone age, but those who think Sharia may assist to provide alternative dispute resolution pathways are not talking about changing the general law as to who is allowed to stand for election to their local council. Likewise if Councillor Khan is subject to harrassment as she goes about her work for her constituents, then this is a serious criminal matter and the police should deal with it. Nothing in this story has anything to do with Sharia.
I did, however, love the Mayor’s description of Cllr. Khan as a “female Asian woman”. He must be a Victoria Wood fan.
| 4 July 2008, 11:52 am |
Muslims feel like ‘Jews of Europe’
Britain’s first Muslim minister has attacked the growing culture of hostility against Muslims in the United Kingdom, saying that many feel targeted like “the Jews of Europe”.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/muslims-feel-like-jews-of-europe-859978.html
| 4 July 2008, 11:59 am |
The “Jews of Europe” - what a ridiculous statement. It doesn’t even make sense. The persecuted Jews were the “Jews of Europe”. The Holocaust was not carried out in South America. And they’re not longer being persecuted here anyway.
What an utterly retarded statement.
And that’s not even getting on to the vulgarity of a comparison with hundreds of years of Europe-wide persecution and ghettoisation culminating in the worst atrocity ever committed by mankind - the annihilation of a third of world Jewry, 6 million, in the Holocaust.
Yeah, because some Danish newspapers print a few silly cartoons and the BNP manages to get a couple of seats in Oldham, it’s just like that.
What a twat. He should lose his job.
| 4 July 2008, 12:01 pm |
ChrisC
I have no objection at all to any religious or private code being used in commercial disputes.
However, I’m not sure exactly where you stand.
Would you be in favour of establishing a system for arbitrating in legal disputes within the family, operated by religious institutions in accordance with sharia?
| 4 July 2008, 12:18 pm |
On the Today programme on Radio 4 they had Bungle and a lawyer (might have been Phillips himself) talking about the comments made the previous night by Lord Phillips.
Phillips gave as an example where British law has accommodated Jewish law in the matter of divorce. When an orthodox Jewish man and his wife get divorced, the man must give his wife a ‘Get’; without this document she cannot remarry in Jewish law (though the man can, and she can marry via the civil route). British courts have moved to remove this disparity by not granting a civil divorce until the Get has been issued.
So… this example is probably wholly inappropriate. Here civil law has been used to prevent inequality under religious law. Surely the fear about sharia law gaining status in the UK is that the inequitable sharia law will be used to by-pass more equitable civil law?
| 4 July 2008, 12:30 pm |
What I fear will happen is this.
Some form of sharia based binding mediation will be introduced in family cases. It will be administered by religious misogynists, applying a code which discriminates against women. Stories of profound injustice will end up in The Times.
There will then be a huge hoo-hah. The fuss will result in an even more intense spotlight being focussed on Muslim communities, which will be disruptive of social cohesion.
| 4 July 2008, 12:33 pm |
by not granting a civil divorce until the Get has been issued: and this will only apply, afair if the couple have a (civil law) pre-nup agreeing to this condition.
| 4 July 2008, 12:35 pm |
David, in response to your question, I’m not entirely sure where I stand. I’m not fortunate enough to see this as a simple issue on which to opine.
“Would you be in favour of establishing a system for arbitrating in legal disputes within the family, operated by religious institutions in accordance with sharia?”
In principle I’m not sure this would be any more offensive than “arbitrating in legal disputes within the family” using counsellors from Relate, for example. Of course, to be acceptable any alternative dispute resolution system, whether formal or informal, (outside of contractually agreed arrangements in commercial cases) can only be voluntary, i.e. either party would have be free to withdraw at any time and take their case to the regular courts.
In these circumstances the only residual objections I can see are (1) arguably Sharia takes a position on certain issues, such as equality of the sexes, that is inconsistent with the generally accepted attitudes of our society and I’m not happy for particular communities to believe they are entitled to “opt out” of these, and (2) some Moslem communities remain somewhat closed and insular so considerable pressure could be placed on individuals not to use their opt out rights and look to the general law for protection (although I suspect this is true anyway, Sharia courts or no Sharia courts).
| 4 July 2008, 12:44 pm |
ChrisC
That is exactly where I stand too.
I’d add a third issue, which is that the sort of people who become Sharia arbitrators are unlikely to be like “counsellors from Relate”, and more like the Imam in the piece above, who thought it was appropriate to dictate to his wife what she could and couldn’t do.
| 4 July 2008, 12:54 pm |
Oh FFS, the religion of peace is at it again… Men with small dicks scared to death a woman has an opinion and wants to be part of her community.
As for Sharia, argue all you want but it isn’t about justice. It’s about misogyny, and every time its proponents open their mouths we all take a step backwards to embracing a stone-age desert culture.
| 4 July 2008, 1:00 pm |
Some interesting comments from a number of apparent Muslims attached to that Times article. I suspect they are all from the same person
| 4 July 2008, 1:33 pm |
Hah, guess who’s right on cue to praise Lord Philips’s comments to the sky? I give you 3 guesses.
| 4 July 2008, 1:38 pm |
No, someone we haven’t heard from for a while
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/04/islam.religion
| 4 July 2008, 1:56 pm |
More MBollocks.
| 4 July 2008, 2:00 pm |
Although Bungle has been on Today this morning.
| 4 July 2008, 2:09 pm |
there is another story in todays times which has somewhat worrying implications. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4265571.ece
the judge here ruled that the child of a convert had no right to entry to a jewish faith school. His comment that- “jewish status cannot be determined by secular courts” neither can it be determined it seems by the individuals own belief or conscience, instead deciding who is a jew, or a muslim or a catholic is the province of those faiths own religious leaders and courts- no matter how loudly one proclaims ones conversion or atheism if the mullahs, the cardinals or the rabbis decide that you are still of the faith then thats who you are.
theres no escape from Sharia law even for atheists.
| 4 July 2008, 2:15 pm |
Darren
Yeah, I agree. That’s a disgrace.
There are two solutions
1. Let people decide whether they’re muslims or jews or catholics themselves.
2. Shut down the sectarian schools.
In my ideal world, if they won’t accept (1), then the only solution left is (2).
I’ll probably blog this later… over the w/e
| 4 July 2008, 2:18 pm |
A couple of years ago ttwo daughters from the Hindu Pathak family of ‘Pataks Pickles’ (a multimillion pound concern)defied Hindu tradition and sued for a share of their father’s inheritance in the High Court. They won. So, mega-bucks trumps religiousity. I suppose the problem is that most Muslims won’t have oodles of cash and something simple like participating in the surrounding society is what is at stake. There was the case in Salford of a Pakistani man who killed his entire family rather than have his wife to leave him. Conflicts like this will only grow because there is more interaction with the surrounding society and the men with beards can’t stand losing power. Or ‘honour’ as they like to style it.
| 4 July 2008, 2:28 pm |
“Because this is Britain, you cannot tell anyone what to do. I can tell my wife, but cannot tell other women,
Your LCJ is playing with fire.
The more extremist views such as sharia ‘jurisprudence’ are legitimised, the greater the room for complimentary extremists, such as the BNP, to expand their support.
Every time you accomodate the islamist Far Right, there is a corresponding upsurge in support for the european Far Right.
Your LCJ is a very incompetant individual.
Nobody should have to go through this, especially an Asian Muslim woman, as Islam is very protective and fair with women.Ms Khan
Such idiotic apologetics suggest that Ms Khan is quite unable (unwilling?) to connect the dots (all of one or two) standing between the threats she’s recieved, the abuses she’s endured and the islamic culture of misogyny that generates such threats and such abuses.
And do you know what?
By refusing to make those obvious connections, and by continuing to behave ( and speak) as a soumises, Ms Khan becomes a major part of the probleme.
I cannot sympathise with her, and indeed why should I?
She has done nothing to attack, denounce or challenge the sources, the inspiration, the core cultural/religious misogyny of which she’s a ‘victim’.
Why whine about always having to mop the floor when you consistenly refuse to fix the leak?
| 4 July 2008, 2:40 pm |
Bungle?
Well I meant Madeleine Bunting, but double-whammy now…
(Although CiF is broken at time of typing.)
| 4 July 2008, 2:46 pm |
It has been extremely hard for me and my family and if it wasn’t for my British constituents, I don’t think I would have been able to get through it.
So her tormentors are not British?….hmmmm, why do I rather suspect there’s a good chance that they are? Did she mean ‘indigenous’ or ‘native’ or ‘non-muslim’…..my have we got our PC knickers in a twist!
Maybe the UK needs a word like for this, like the term used in Malaysia Bumiputra!
| 4 July 2008, 2:47 pm |
Best comment on the Bunting piece -
Good of you not to list how women’s rights might be affected, that would just stir up informed debate
| 4 July 2008, 2:48 pm |
It has been extremely hard for me and my family and if it wasn’t for my British constituents, I don’t think I would have been able to get through it.
So her tormentors are not British?….hmmmm, why do I rather suspect there’s a good chance that they are? Did she mean ‘indigenous’ or ‘native’ or ‘non-muslim’…..my have we got our PC knickers in a twist!
Maybe the UK needs a word for ’son of the soil’, like the term used in Malaysia Bumiputra!
| 4 July 2008, 2:55 pm |
Shariah is totally wrong because Islam is totally evil.
It is that simple.
| 4 July 2008, 3:03 pm |
What I simply don’t understand is how so many women are for the Sharia, and what nutcase they are, to be supporting Jamaat-e-Islami, who are a bunch of chauvinists. To this day, I haven’t seen or known a single female leader in Jamaat politics, be it in Bangladesh, Pakistan or Britain.
The Bangladeshis have conveniently forgotten the war crimes perpetrated by the Jamaatis (someone from the post-71 generation was kind enough to recently inform me that Nizami was not a war criminal — Nizami is the leader of the Bangladeshi wing Jamaat-e-Islami), but how can women shoot themselves in the foot by supporting these backwarded, often polygamous, neanderthals? I just don’t get it.
| 4 July 2008, 3:05 pm |
They shoot themselves in the foot because they don’t want their menfolk shooting them in the head.
| 4 July 2008, 3:59 pm |
Well they shouldn’t and I don’t mind telling them that.
| 4 July 2008, 4:10 pm |
“Because this is Britain, you cannot tell anyone what to do. I can tell my wife, but cannot tell other women,’
Actually he can tell his wife but she is under no legal obligation to accede to his views.
However, if Lord Head-in-the-clouds gets his way, sharia may make her.
So he thinks he has that right becuase he runs his life under Sharia now. The Lord wants to confirm him in this slavery.
| 4 July 2008, 4:44 pm |
Kobial, my mate Anwar hasn’t forgotten the war crimes of the Jamaat and the Pak army: one of his earliest memories is of their military coming into town. The Bangladeshi Islamicist right is over-represented in this country: many Bengalis, justly proud of the culture, (some say they are the French of the East), would never leave their land. Many of Anwar’s branch of the Huqs did though. Menaced by the military and the Islamicists with death that is.
Course to Lord Law Muck and the multi-culturalists like BUnting the lives of these brown secualrists, Hindus and leftists, means little. Life is abundant in the East, and they don’t place the same value on it…….
Placards now ready: Sack Lord Muck Phillips!
Getting those placardsLord Muck
| 4 July 2008, 5:21 pm |
This is an excellent post, DT.
I find it extraordinary that so many lawyers are entirely lacking in any understanding of wider social issues and forces outwith the technicalities of the profession. Just goes to show you can’t legislate for common sense, and that some presumably very clever people have some very substantial blind spots.
| 4 July 2008, 5:31 pm |
If the muslims, or any other religious group, wish to implement their own form of arbitration, then let them. It’s already legal to do so. It need have no impact on English Common law, and m’Lud should shut up.
They already have that which they profess to want.
Which means of course, they really want much more than they profess.
They actually want their voluntary judgements to be backed up by the state, with all the hazards of disposession, and loss of liberty, which only the state may legally impose. They want US to persecute councillor Khan for them. The horrible old men in the mosque just issue a kind of docket thing to have some hapless woman horsewhipped, and the state enforces it for them.
The poor bearded lions are most cordially welcome to feck off.
Family law involves children. Children are unable to give informed consent to religious arbitration, and the state owes them a duty of care. So cross out family law, they can’t have any influence on that.
Criminal law is the sole responsibility of parliament, so they can’t have any influence on that.
Consumer transactions, banking and finance are covered by existing laws, such as the unfair contract terms act, so they can’t have any influence on that.
We need to make it crystal clear, that anything outside of the bounds of English Law, is not, and never will be, enforced by the courts.
| 4 July 2008, 5:51 pm |
“Let people decide whether they’re muslims or jews or catholics themselves.”
Er..Isn’t that a bit nonsensical?
Why should I be the sole judge of whether or not I’m Jewish, any more than I am the sole judge of whether or not I’m Serbian, or overweight, or a member of the Labour Party?
| 4 July 2008, 5:52 pm |
Very good post.
“Were he and his ilk given the power to arbitrate in “family disputes”, some women would voluntarily agree to be bound by his decision.”
It’s back to the debate about diminished autonomy isn’t it. It’s the same debate which rages around Big Brother - if you consent to go under somebody’s authority, what is it ok or not ok for them to decide for you.
Difference is that Big Brother participants are not suffering from diminished autonomy before they enter the house.
Muslim women and girls in families which adhere to sharia are entirely dependent on the interpretation of sharia held by the men of the house. This is no good at all.
| 4 July 2008, 6:04 pm |
—A couple of years ago ttwo daughters from the Hindu Pathak family of ‘Pataks Pickles’ (a multimillion pound concern)defied Hindu tradition and sued for a share of their father’s inheritance in the High Court. They won. So, mega-bucks trumps religiousity.—
No, British law is prime over a fellow who tries to pull a fast one over a contested family will by invoking spurious claims about Hindu inheritance traditions. Nothing to do with religiosity.
| 4 July 2008, 6:10 pm |
I think David’s misgivings are right. Whilst there is no standard ’sharia’ and some versions might be better than others; and some people might (theoretically) interpret sharia more liberally than others, the point is, it is not the progressive element of the Muslim community that is pressing for sharia. Therefore it will become the preserve of reactionaries. It will gradually strengthen its grip over vulnerable persons, mainly women. It is a discriminatory system (even if women like Mrs Khan want to believe the myths that it isn’t).
That means that as a voluntary code and arbitration system the only thing I might be happy with is if it sorts out problems between male business partners.
| 4 July 2008, 7:23 pm |
I know Parliament is soveriegn, but my point is that observant Hindus are prepared to go against their religious traditions when large amounts (or even small amounts)of wonga are involved. Not that that makes them bad people, just British citizens claiming the protection of the law.
| 4 July 2008, 7:41 pm |
Also I would say this to the Orthodox Jews:
Knock it off. If you want to operate a nasty misogynist system of arbitration, go ahead. Orthodox women should never have expected English Law to get involved in their private religious domain. Doing so has been harmful to English law.
If any religious court has made any inroads into the law of the land, it has to stop. If you, through your religion or any other lifestyle choice, commit yourself to a disadvantageous contract, then you should be made to live with the results. Nobody forced you to sign.
Any woman who signs a marriage contract, that says he can divorce and re-marry, but she can’t, is a complete blimmin dork.
| 4 July 2008, 7:58 pm |
Sue R
The point I was making is that there really isn’t the same impulse to manifest divine laws of traditions or privelige them over secular British law amongst Hindus in the UK as there is amongst Muslims. That isn’t just because large amounts of money are involved, that goes for everything. I meant to say that it shows that the sharia creep is different to other religious issues, different in substance and degree. There was no pained pleading and outcry from Hindu temples about that ruling.
In short, Islam is different from other faiths and the demands for accomodation it makes are different too. Even in the Jewish community where some religious laws are strictly adhered to by certain sects, there is no wider impulse to privilege Jewish holy law over secular law, even amongst the conservative religious patriarchs. Other minority religious groups don’t have a legalistic tension between their own ‘law’ and secular society, they don’t view them so starkly in opposition, and they don’t view it as an affront to them that their religions are situated under the umbrella of British common law.
Islam has a problem with this to a degree that other religions don’t. This tension manifests itself in victimhood, feelings of being persecuted, that kind of thing, when it is nothing of the sort.
You can say what about things like the Jewish eruv or orthodox arbitrations, or the Sikh turban. But these are more exceptions that prove the rule. It’s a question of degree and consitency, a question of direct will to overpower, circumvent, preserve religious power, and viewing common law as a conspiracy of domination against revealed rules. That even though there may be partial analogies, in truth, Islam is different in the demands it makes, Islamist dogma (as separate from the religion) is unique in the issues it brings about.
That’s what I meant to say, should have been more clear.
| 4 July 2008, 8:40 pm |
Sorry, but we need to return to a single, clear, absolute legal system without exemptions. Anything else is a poisoned chalice.
Everyone, or no-one, has to be identifiable in the public domain.
Everyone, or no-one, has to wear a crash helmet on a motorbike.
Everyone, or no-one, who is not sick or disabled, receives only a personal, non-postal, vote.
No-one is eligible to claim social security benefits for more than one spouse and their offspring.
Any parent of a sexually mutilated child to be placed on the sex offenders register for life. They should have stopped it.
Also: mandatory dismissal and prison sentence for any police officer who discloses the whereabouts of an individual, without his or her written permission, to any third party.
All of these things, and many more, should be obvious. Without them, we have no clean legitimacy.
| 4 July 2008, 8:53 pm |
DEPRESSING
if our muslim sisters who live in Britain are denied the possibility of enjoying equality regardless of their origins, religion or gender
then how will it ever be possible for our muslim sisters who live in countries who do not offer the possibilities that Britain does to fight for their freedom???
and if it is so, if sharia stars getting recognition in Europe as a legitimate way to settle disputes, who can garantee me that in the future I will be protected from my own group of origin of conservative catholics who think I am a sinner destined to burn in hell just because of my black cat and my mini-skirts??? (not to mention the red bikini)
this is an offense to the legacy of the brave sufragists and other women’s rights activists.
| 5 July 2008, 12:00 am |
Let’s be clear:
We already have a law allowing Shariah Courts to decide divorce issues. The same law had special provision for Jewish religious courts to decide divorce cases (even if one member of the couple had since apostasised from Judaism). All that has happened is that the lawerly and religious elite haven’t yet summoned enough courage to apply the law (it’s entirely up to the courts whether they do).
It’s an outrageous piece of legislation and shoudl be removed from the courts immediately.
It should also be made illegal for husbands to require their wives to stay at home or obey them in any manner whatsoever.
| 5 July 2008, 1:48 am |
and if it is so, if sharia stars getting recognition in Europe as a legitimate way to settle disputes, who can garantee me that in the future I will be protected from my own group of origin of conservative catholics who think I am a sinner destined to burn in hell just because of my black cat and my mini-skirts??? (not to mention the red bikini)
What on earth are you talking about?
There is no equivalence between Catholics, as conservative as they may be, and islamo clerical fascists, no matter how “liberal” they may appear.
They are plenty of bikinnis being worn….millions of them actually…. on beaches in majority Catholic countries all over the godamned world.
You do a disservice to your muslim ’sisters’ by equating the horrific life-threatening conditions they are sometimes forced to live under…conditions said to be dicatated by god… and the plight of a handful of Catholics who may happen to come from strick families and who are subjected to restrictions that are quite arbitrary in nature, and not religiously sanctioned.
Catholic Church doesn’t issue fatwas be they for honour killings, FGM, bikinnis….or the best way to get to hell.
Please! Grow up!
| 5 July 2008, 12:57 pm |
Ah yes, the Jamaat-i-Islami…Nor is its claim to fame only genocide. Its gender politics are fascinating, quite fascinating. From http://www.jamaat.org/islam/WomanDress.html
“It is therefore required for a Muslim woman when she goes out to wear a dress that covers her from head to foot and does not reveal the figure. According to some scholars only the hands and face should be left uncovered, while according to some others the face should also be covered. There are therefore two opinions on this matter.
The onus of modest behaviour however falls not only on women. The injunctions of the Qur’an are directed to men and women alike. Allah says:
“Tell believers to avert their glances and to guard their private parts; that is purer for them. Allah is Informed about anything they do. Tell believing women to avert their glances and guard their private parts and not to display their charms except what (normally) appears of them. They should draw their coverings over their bosoms and not show their charms except to their husbands . . . .” (24:30-31).
Role Differentiation
One of the other practices aimed at strengthening the home and minimising promiscuity is that of the seclusion of women. The verses of the Qur’an on which those who practise it and base their custom, say:
“O wives of the Prophet you are not like any other women. If you would keep your duty, be not soft in speech, lest he whose heart contains malice may thereby be encouraged. Employ suitable speech. Stay in your houses and do not dress to display your finery in the way they dressed during the time of primitive ignorance; and keep up prayer, and give welfare due and obey Allah and His Messenger; for Allah desires only to remove from you abomination (of vanity since you are) the household (of the Prophet) and to purify you by a perfect purification” (The Qur’an 33:32-33).
Literally these verses are addressed only to the wives of the Prophet and some authorities maintain that it applies only to them. Other theologians and legists however interpret it by implication to apply to all Muslim women, and this opinion is widely accepted in a number of Muslim countries where women generally stay at home, coming out only for some over-riding reason.
Some of the people who agree with this may nevertheless take into account the other verses of the Qur’~ n exhorting women to cover themselves when they go out, and urging both men and women to lower their gaze and behave modestly in the presence of the opposite sex–implying that women could go out on their legitimate business. They may also consider the necessity of some Muslim women going out to study and practice certain occupations, such as medicine, nursing and teaching at all levels, which for Muslim women and girls ought to be done by fellow women.”
You could now try a little thought-experiment. For ‘women’ substitute ‘blacks’ or ‘Jews’. If animal rights are your bag, you could substitute ‘chimpanzees’ or ‘chickens’. Don’t you get quite upset about the notion of battery hens never seeing the sky?
| 5 July 2008, 1:43 pm |
All these legal figures coming out in support of the beardie weirdie Archbishop and saying we should allow sharia for things like domestic disputes….but of course with safeguards that this will not involve any discrimation against women. What planet do they inhabit?
| 5 July 2008, 2:53 pm |
“Jamaat is weak in Bangladesh, because it perpetrated horrendous war crimes during that country’s War of Liberation.”
Yes, Jamaat-e-Islaami are an extremist organisation. Yes, they are in favour of Shari’ah law in the UK. But, this assertion that they committed war crimes in the ‘71 war is frankly balderdash. Do you have any proof of these atrocities? Why tarnish an otherwise excellent post with frankly libellous propaganda? Islam undermines itself well enough; it doesn’t need any support Mr Gulob Jam. next you’ll be telling us that Maulvi Bazaaris are being forced to marry Bishnatis…
| 5 July 2008, 5:27 pm |
Being from the southern interior of the US it’s hard for me to visualize that a Muslims man,(or men-gang) could have the idea that they could harm an elected official regardless of sex or race. I know we’ve had our problems with race but it still makes my blood boil when I hear such things.
If they cannot stand to live with English law why are they there. If Sharia law belongs anywhere it belongs in the part of the world where they keep women in servitude and kill those who are not of their faith or denomination.
As far as Iraq and Afghanistan is concerned it seems a fine place to adopt the Israeli practice of grading any house flat that harbors gunmen shooting at the troops. Why do they need houses, they’re not civilized anyway.
I’m just a good ol’ Southern boy.
Jim Lawrence in Tennessee.
| 5 July 2008, 6:38 pm |
I’m just home from attending the national Labour Link Forum of UNISON. Amongst other matters, I chipped in a few words of a housing officers experience of dealing with Domestic Violence cases.
“Hasina Khan, 38, the only Muslim councillor in Chorley, Lancashire, said that she had suffered a barrage of threatening phone calls, verbal abuse and insulting graffiti because the men objected her public role.”
Donlt talk to the media, do
1) talk to the Police and the ‘phone provider
2) photograph the graffiti
3) indentify the perpetrators of the harassment
4) and then sort ‘em out.
| 5 July 2008, 9:57 pm |
I think that this judge is just trying to avoid work and hassle.
It reminds of the Judge who said “The whole point of the Children’s Act is to avoid making orders.”
Its time we started to accept what the judiciary really is - just another branch of the civil service.
| 5 July 2008, 10:32 pm |
Jim - There are a number of Muslims in the UK who are from rural Pakistan and have very traditional Muslim views about the role of women. Then there Muslims, born here, who have adopted a severe saudi style version of their religion and regard it as their religious duty to convert everyone else.
Then there are the liberals who have passed laws to make it illegal to discriminate against someone on the grounds of race or religion. Then there are the police and the authorities who do not really understand the great tidal wave of this legislation which the Labour government has passed, along with laws to prevent terrorism and misinterpret them.
Then there are the lawyers and the Head of the Church of England who have decided, for reasons which remain unclear, that we should allow the more extreme Muslims to opt out of some of our laws where these conflict with Muslim law or sharia.
And then from time to time a daft bureaucrat takes it upon him or herslef to offer a concession to the fundamentalists, or indeed responds cravenly to a daft grievance aired by a fundamentalism in fear of being labelled racist.
Then there is the press forever stirring up storms in teacups.
Moderate Muslims must despair yes, but many will not speak out against their fellow fundamentalists because of the deep rooted view in Islam that to be a passionate advocate of Islam is to be desired, even if it can lead into strange and sometimes violent byways.
| 6 July 2008, 1:04 am |
“Catholic Church doesn’t issue fatwas be they for honour killings, FGM, bikinnis….or the best way to get to hell.”
You know they would do if they could get away with it.
Sad, sad, and shame on LCJ. His mistake is to see sharia as a legal system (it is not a comprehensive legal code; not comparable to statute law) and also to use the word ‘jurisdiction’. This is word which suggests force. Sharia should not ever be forced in Britain. If it is suffered at all it must be clear that this is as a voluntary code.