Harry’s Place

A Left that has to debate this is a sick Left indeed.

please can I suggest, for a change, that there is a bit of strong moderation on this thread, before the usual suspects (JP, Morgoth, Field, Alcuin) just use it as an excuse to attack Muslims, in general and ride their pet hobby horses.

This is a long term agenda, it is something that all progressive people should be aware of, and it is something that thoughtful politicians should build a consensus on across parties, so that in the long term, whether the government is headed by the Conservatives or Labour, there can be unity of purpose and intent on this issue.

It’s hard to see a scenario where the Left would pass on the opportunity to denounce their opponents as racists.

Moslem women should have the same rights as all other British women. It should not be possible for Moslem self annointed leaders to subject them to some form of sharia “arbitration court” which renders them subject to a repressive set of religious laws, which may conflict with the principles of civil and criminal law.

I have no doubt the male proponents of this will screech religious or racial discrimination if crossed.

Is there a Moslem MP, or a female MP, (I think the opposition would be most persuasive coming from either of these groups) who is prepared to take up the cause of Moslem women over this?

Indeed where is committed feminist Harriet Harman?

Mrs Ben

please can I suggest, for a change, that there is a bit of strong moderation on this thread, before the usual suspects (JP, Morgoth, Field, Alcuin) just use it as an excuse to attack Muslims, in general and ride their pet hobby horses.

The “usual suspects” have been making some of the same arguments that are made in the post above, modernity.

Best article I’ve read to date on the subject.

Very helpful and clear.

While I sympathise with the point of view set out by the authors, I find it difficult to take on board this assertion:

” all sentient non-Islamist Muslim women are horrified by the long-term consequences of ceding power to sharia-ist men. ”

If that is the case, the ladies have kept remarkably quiet about it. Polls are showing that among the young, the support for sharia is high, and increasing rapidly.

What they say they want, is not the point.

It’s what they are prepared to publicly stand up for, that counts.

I’m not going to the barricades for them. They will have to shift for themselves.

Mesquito - you are being unfair. These views are the very basis of left progressive politics in this country. You only have to look over the HP archives to see that there are many forces within govt that are trying to promote the right view. Look at the way the govt withdrew from the Islam Expo. A positive moment for the Labour Party. There are plenty of forces in the party who take exactly this view, and it is a great shame that we are to lose office at the point when this trend is coming to a culmination.

It is quite wrong, as so many here seek to do, it seems, in their hysterical and ultra-right manner, to paste the Labour Party with the tag of pro-Islamism. Anyone who seeks to do this fails quite graphically and fundamentally to understand what progressive politics, and what Labour politics, is about.

But that is perhaps to be expected. The people who take this view have nothing to say about wider aspects of social concern, so why should they understand the desire to liberate people from this as well as other sources of inequality? It is a never-ending source of irony that a blog which seeks to promote precisely this sort of centre-left thinking - and *is* this sort of centre-left thinking - is constantly inundated by right wing buffoons.

A great shame. They do the cause they proffess to support no good at all.

Insane. You get a bunch of Muslim haters with Muslim names (and suggesting ex-Muslims be taken as guides!) to be your Uncle Toms and skew the debate. Who exactly do these non entities, Gina Khan and Paul Sikander (how many Muslims do you know called Paul) represent?

You use of the catch all term “Islamist” is absurd- these courts have nothing to do with politics . Is marriage and divorce a political act? If so why are Judaicist Beth Din courts allowed to function

This is simply a function of one extreme section of the Jewish community which HP is a part of- to deny British Muslims the same rights that British Jews have

Thank you for this article. It shimes with much that I hav ebeen saying on creeping Sharia.

I hope you have all gone and signed the Downing Street petition against Sharia Law.

I never intended my blog, (which was set up to support Tony Blair and is now a kind of ongoing shrine to the man) to focus so much on this issue. But my time online had shown me that THIS is the most pressing issue of our time and must be tackled SOON. I have also realised that none of our main parties is even thinking about it, although I know they all know and worry about it.

Their fear of this is to do, imho, with watching the electoral arithmetic.

Shameful approach.

Multiculturalism may have worked for some (mainly Christian) immigrants a couple of decades ago when the Tories started the ball rolling, but it is clearly NOT working now. Blair attempted to raise the issue in the year or two before he left, with some input from Jack Straw. Since then - very little, except more concessions to Islamic groups.

WRONG decision.

Can’t imagine it will be too long before the Dhimmi Award is handed to the British Government - of whichever shade.

“I’m not going to the barricades for them. They will have to shift for themselves.”

In as far as anyone is “going to the barricades”, which is not much, I believe that those of us in more fortunate positions with voices that can be heard should indeed “go to the barricades”. Those who believe that we have no duty of care for our fellow citizens need not trouble themselves, I suppose.

“How the courts are viewed by the Muslim community? How are they viewed by Women?

“Most Muslims go about their daily life without thinking about such things, because their most pressing concerns are to feed their families.”

Hilarious - yeah roll up British Muslims worry about kids starving.

The proof of the pudding and all that - if Muslims are interested in sharia courts they will use them -if not they wont. Its like the mosque no one forces Muslims to go but they do

Mrs ben
“Moslem women should have the same rights as all other British women.”

You have so much ignorance/contempt that you cant even spell the name properly

Methinks the courts’ll be very popular and so youll have to think of other ways of stopping the free market

Ben:

It is quite wrong, as so many here seek to do, it seems, in their hysterical and ultra-right manner, to paste the Labour Party with the tag of pro-Islamism. Anyone who seeks to do this fails quite graphically and fundamentally to understand what progressive politics, and what Labour politics, is about.

My point was that, when a Left party — especially one which is out of power — is given the chance to either a) stand up for it’s universalist values, or b) smear the opposition as racist for defending universalist values, it will almost always choose “b”.

I have yet to hear the views of major politicians on this issue. Are they so self-absorbed by the problems of GB or the credit crunch that an issue that gets more intractable by the day, and will have very long term consequences is left to pass by default? The Cameroons have been very quiet, no doubt enjoying the shadenfreude of watching GB self destruct.

It could transpire that these retrograde courts cause a stronger reaction that will settle the matter in favour of progress, but it will require a reaction from within the Muslim community that we have never seen before. The law of unintended consequences is sometimes favourable, as for example the devolution policy of New Labour, which has come to bite it in the arse.

“A brilliant Barrister who has written to Muslim newspapers about Muslim marriages, Neil Addison, has already shown how Muslim practice is out of step with every other religious community in Britain”

Mr Addison, like HP, seems a confused little bunny

In the link given he says Muslim marraige should be part of the law

I suggest that, before we start talking about using sharia courts as a form of mediation, the Government should ensure that all Muslim marriages are carried out in accordance with the Marriage Act. If women then wanted to use sharia arbitration, that would be their free choice, unlike the present situation, where they really have no choice at all.

Under section 75 of the Marriage Act, it is a criminal offence for anyone to solemnise a marriage that is not legal under the Act.

So imams and mosques are breaking the law by performing unlawful marriage ceremonies. Since Sikhs, Hindus, Jews and Catholics have happily accommodated religious marriage ceremonies to the requirements of British law, the failure of mosques to do the same seems completely unjustifiable.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/07/11/nosplit/dt1101.xml#head6

Yet here he calls his own ideas “creeping sharia”
talking of the liberal Muslim marraige contract

“The new contract, drafted by the Muslim Institute, launching at the City Circle, would provide women with written proof of their marriage under Islamic law.
But discrimination barrister Neil Addison says it would mean shariah law by the ‘back door.’
‘With government members approving it, it gives pseudo-legitimacy to Islamic marriage and to shariah by the back door, without giving any real reason why this contract is necessary and what’s wrong with civil marriage.”

http://www.theasiannews.co.uk/news/s/1061862_muslim_marriage_contract_revolutionary_for_uk_women

“My point was that, when a Left party — especially one which is out of power — is given the chance to either a) stand up for it’s universalist values, or b) smear the opposition as racist for defending universalist values, it will almost always choose “b”.”

Re being out of power - we shall see quite soon in the UK, shan’t we? It is a concern I have too, and indeed formed a part of the comment I made above which I deleted. There are plenty of people who will try to keep the legacy of sense alive within the party, however. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t regard you as an example of this sort of high-octane insanity, but your comment acted as a very substantial hook.

I wonder, by the way, why someone with the moniker “HPBNP” expects anyone to read, let alone reply to, his squawks.

HPBNP

To be frank with you, if helping out Muslim women to avoid the sort of intellectual caliginosity and social oppression you represent means disbanding the Beth Dins of the world, I’ll be the first Jew to support their disbanding.

how many Muslims do you know called Paul

What? So a real muslim couldn’t be called Paul?

Where in the Koran or Hadiths has this been decreed?

I’d also support their disbanding: as a matter of principle.

I would regard disbandiing as a high priority if - instead of merely refusing to allow women to divorce their husbands - they also encouraged beaten wives to withdraw complaints to the police, or deprived women of equal inheritance rights.

The question is asked:

Sharia courts: What should our response be?

Anything that increases the power of Imams and Mullahs over Muslim women and men, and embeds their judgment and power, must be denied.

Sounds good if you say it fast, but I don’t see how the “power of Imams and Mullahs over Muslim women and men” can be prevented without resorting to measures that liberal progressives would no doubt find extremely distasteful. And if what Monty says is true:

Polls are showing that among the young, the support for sharia is high, and increasing rapidly.

What the hell can you do about it? Is it possible to legislate against kooky religious beliefs without infringing on peoples rights?

Modernity has got more than a little nerve hasn’t he/she.

Remember the banner!

You might not want to hear it - but in this case it is true. You face a determined enemy numbered in the millions working within a larger society numbered in the billions. These people want to kill you, quite literally, as long as you do not submit completely to their demands, and even if you do submit completely that is no guarantee of safety. In other words you face a Nazi-like threat. It is of that order.

It is pleasing to see a main post on this site which doesn’t trim too much on the issue of what are we going to do faced with this threat. Others before us willed into being a large Muslim minority in this country.

It is now for us to decide how we (and that “we” probably includes something like 30-50% of the Muslim population who hate being ruled by Shariah) respond.

There are some good ideas being brought out into the fresh air here.

Meanwhile by way of demonstrating just how forceful the pro-Shariah campaign is, have a read of this utter nonsense from the Beeb:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7631388.stm

Essentially the article contradicts the promise of the headline and offers no real link whatsoever between English common law and Shariah. But that’s not going to stop them spinning this for all its worth as part of the general softening up process that’s being conducted by estbalishment worthies: Archbishop, Lord Chancellor and now the BBC - traitors all.

Anyone who has studied anything about the history of our common law knows it has Saxon roots, then overlaid with French feudalism.

And another thing Modernity…

We in the Anti-Shariah camp don’t need to have a unified world view, all we need to be agreed on is that we are determined to stop Shariah in its tracks: that’s what unites us Catholics, Unitarians, Feminists, Anglicans, Gays, Lesbians, Pagans, Hindus, Transexuals, Polytheists, Atheists, Secularists, Israelis, Deists, Spaniards, Dancers, Democrats, Jews, Musicians, Artists, Social Drinkers, Scientists, Borrowers and Lenders, Sports Fans…We all know that Shariah wants to eliminate us, our beliefs and our activities.

Well sorry, Mad Muslims, we have no intention of laying down and allowing Shariah “Law” to trample all over our rights.

“The proof of the pudding and all that - if Muslims are interested in sharia courts they will use them -if not they wont. Its like the mosque no one forces Muslims to go but they do”

Are you seriously suggesting that, even in rare instances, there is no risk of a muslim women being coerced into using a court where she will not be treated as being equal to a muslim man ?

who is this HPBNP, and what does his acronym stand for?

Incidently mate “moslem” is an accepted (if uncommon) spelling, whereas “wont” as in “The proof of the pudding and all that - if Muslims are interested in sharia courts they will use them -if not they wont.” is a poor replacement for “won’t”………people in glass houses blah blah

Oniad To be frank with you, if helping out Muslim women to avoid the sort of intellectual caliginosity and social oppression you represent means disbanding the Beth Dins of the world, I’ll be the first Jew to support their disbanding.

I want to be the second.

Boogski What the hell can you do about it? Is it possible to legislate against kooky religious beliefs without infringing on peoples rights?

Perhaps a free one way ticket to a Sharia state of their choice while leaving their passport behind. That seems very liberal.

The most dutiful word I ever heard
The most dutiful sound in the world in a single word
Sharia
They just passed a law called Sharia
And suddenly that word
has got everyone stirred
Sharia
I just broke a law called Sharia
And suddenly I found
my head was on the ground
Sharia
The most frightening word
I ever heard
Sharia

who is this HPBNP, and what does his acronym stand for?

It’s a new bank.

Field@3:03am

I don’t how you feel about my views, but your last several posts on a variety of subjects makes me wonder if we are not long lost blood brothers–philosophically speaking.

Sorry to have sullied your reputation Field–I should have thought before I hit the send bar. Besides, there’s always tomorrow, another topic, and time for us to to violently disagree and thus regain your luster.

David T said:

I’d also support their disbanding: as a matter of principle.

Then it doesn’t make sense that you would:

- tolerate wholly private religious courts, only to the extent that they do not undermine equality between the sexes

I think the only sensible and fair thing to do would be to disband ALL religious courts. Now who’s with me?

PPS: I am old and beyond redemption, but there’s still time for you
to flee from my philosophical embrace.

Hey, Boogski, pick me! Pick me!

David T

“I’d also support their disbanding: as a matter of principle.”

That would be your Muslim hating principles

“I would regard disbandiing as a high priority if - instead of merely refusing to allow women to divorce their husbands - they also encouraged beaten wives to withdraw complaints to the police, or deprived women of equal inheritance rights.”

Funny you dont do the same for the Agunot. It is impossible to control non-legally binding agreements reached by individuals in private.
————————————————–
field

“We in the Anti-Shariah camp don’t need to have a unified world view, all we need to be agreed on is that we are determined to stop Shariah in its tracks: that’s what unites us Catholics, Unitarians, Feminists, Anglicans, Gays, Lesbians, Pagans, Hindus, Transexuals, Polytheists, Atheists, Secularists, Israelis, Deists, Spaniards, Dancers, Democrats, Jews, Musicians, Artists, Social Drinkers, Scientists, Borrowers and Lenders, Sports Fans…We all know that Shariah wants to eliminate us, our beliefs and our activities.
Well sorry, Mad Muslims, we have no intention of laying down and allowing Shariah “Law” to trample all over our rights.”

You forgot Serbian rapists and Hinduvata fascists. How could you be so forgetful? And for someone who believes Sharia in voluntary courts, is going to trample of their rights or become law for non-Muslims in the UK, to be calling others mad is pretty comical

Apparently Muslims are “mad” for having their own arbitartion systems without British law. That would mean you are calling Jews whove had such a system for decades mad as well. Isnt that anti-semitic?

==================
Mike

“who is this HPBNP, and what does his acronym stand for?

It’s a new bank.”

Yep a bank that likes to say “yes” to hatred of Muslims
——————————————-
Sandra Iqbal

“What? So a real muslim couldn’t be called Paul?
“Where in the Koran or Hadiths has this been decreed?”

You right. A Muslim would be named after the man considered by Islam to have destroyed the montheistic message of Jesus and introduced the paganism of the trinity.

Maybe a Jew could be named Baal

—————–
pete woodhouse

“Incidently mate “moslem” is an accepted (if uncommon) spelling, ”

No it isnt. Its consider offensive by and isnt accepted by Muslims.

———————————————————-
claphammer

“Oniad To be frank with you, if helping out Muslim women to avoid the sort of intellectual caliginosity and social oppression you represent means disbanding the Beth Dins of the world, I’ll be the first Jew to support their disbanding.
I want to be the second.”

Its bizarre that you never called for the disbanding of the Beth Din, those dens of misoygny and putrid intellectual and social opression, which institutionally discriminates against Jewish women but now call for it in defence of Muslim women. Seems your hatred of Muslims is greater even that your hatred of Jewish women!

“Boogski What the hell can you do about it? Is it possible to legislate against kooky religious beliefs without infringing on peoples rights?”

“Perhaps a free one way ticket to a Sharia state of their choice while leaving their passport behind. That seems very liberal.”

Gee I wonder how a Jewish person would feel if a law was passed that any Jew who uses Beth Din court is stripped of his British passport and expelled from the UK? Would you call that liberal

Hey, Boogski, pick me! Pick me!

You kidding? You’re my hero, homey! :D

Just to say the fact you chose Gina Khan is a sign of desperation. She has had a tough life but has decided to retaliate against the whole Muslim community. She is clearly not mentally stable/ not all there. Anyone who reads her interview here can see that:

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/article1354063.ece

Its scare mongering of the highest order

She also wants to ban the veil. She just a Muslim hater picked up by the zionist media to push for curtailing of Muslim civil liberties.

“Above all it is not Judaism that is in crisis, in conflict with democracies, or a threat to Muslims and non-Muslims worldwide. Islam has been brought to a crisis, and the Sharia law legal system is a major issue that cannot be resolved. It is ongoing and problematic.”

Ah what is the solution to “the Muslim problem”

This just regurgitatates the far right notion that Islam is a threat to the West and democracy, to argue for unequal and discriminatory treatment of Muslims vis a vis other communities (in this case the Jews). It pretty much states that Muslims cant have these rights because the West is at war with Islam, (while of course deriding any such claims from Muslims).

HPBNP Nazi garbage.

HPBNP,

Tell it to Joe.

Joe Mamma! :D

She also wants to ban the veil. She just a Muslim hater picked up by the zionist media to push for curtailing of Muslim civil liberties.

Interesting.

What are Muslim civil liberties HPBNP?????

Its bizarre that you never called for the disbanding of the Beth Din, those dens of misoygny and putrid intellectual and social opression, which institutionally discriminates against Jewish women but now call for it in defence of Muslim women. Seems your hatred of Muslims is greater even that your hatred of Jewish women!

I’m glad you see it that way HPBNP.

Do you see it that way for Sharia courts too?

One thing’s for sure. The CiF deflector shields have failed.

Intruder alert! :D

I have no problems with the existence of Sharia Courts in the UK. I can hardly be said to be an appeaser of Muslims. I think they need to operate within the confines of British law - so they should not be performing or recognising illegal marriages, nor covering up crimes contrary to British laws.

But I don’t see why two people should not choose to settle their differences as they see fit with an adjudicator of their own choice.

Now maybe Muslimas are being pressured into accepting such Courts, but that is their problem. They need to find some spine.

And above all, it has the advantage of allowing Muslims, and especially Muslimas, to see precisely what Sharia is. Muslimas can bleat about how Muhammed supported women’s rights because they have no experience. It is all theoretically. But once Courts start issuing verdicts, they will see for themselves - and choose.

“But sarge, we already did shariah courts last week! How about teaching us how to spot a terrorist at the airport using a mirror, pair of tweezers and a mango seed”

(with deference to Python)

Good article. Summary:- “Shariah Courts are a political lever for Islamists who ultimately want to create a Muslim track in society rather than an integrated track. Shariah Law is male dominated and might seem to be unfavourable to women. Bunglawala is on the bandwagon because he can also have a pop at Jews and the Beth Din. Resisting Shariah Law is seen as an anti-Muslim thing that the Islamists use to prove that we are anti-Islamist.

Do I get the Gold/Yellow Star?

The argument about Beth Din was thrashed out last week. I expect field to now wade in. Beth Din has been in UK for 100 years and the fabric of UK society didn’t collapse or feel there was a separate law system that divided the nation or which prevented the seamless integration of Jews into UK society.

Nope. Beth Din must go. Just who the fuck do you think you are?

“You have so much ignorance/contempt that you cant even spell the name properly”

HPBNP is so fucking ignorant he doesn’t realise that “Moslem” is just as correct a spelling as “Muslim”. In Iran and India “Muslim” pronounced “Moslem”, and the Brits no doubt brought back that spelling during their colonial stint in India. Do you know anything at all about Islam or Muslim culture, HPBNP? No, I didn’t fucking think you did.

As for the name “Paul”, since there are Muslims even today named “Chingiz”, despite the fact that Chingiz Khan and his followers did more damage to the Muslim world than any other person ever, what’s wrong with the name Paul? It’s a Greek/Latin name, taken over by a former Christian persecutor called Shaul: the latter wasn’t the first to use it nor the last.

You ignorant wanker. Get a basic education before criticise people here.

There should be no court with any power operating outside the formal legal system. No self-appointed system of clergy should be allowed to make legally binding decisions on citizens’ lives. Their role should be limited to advising the faithful on religious requirements, which the faithful can accept or dismiss.

I don’t know much about Beth Din, but if it has the powers to make legally binding decisions then these must be stripped, regardless of the fact that the Jewish community has posed no problems to society. This is not a security issue, it is about the principle of having a single legal system that is ultimately accountable to the people and it is also about equality before the law.

If Jewish, Christian or Muslim scholars want to state their attitude towards abortion, personal finance, homosexuality, marriage, etc, then they should be able to do so, but these views should not be binding on Jews, Christians or Muslims and everyone has a right to criticise them.

What Dan said. The foolishness needs to stop.

“Apparently Muslims are “mad” for having their own arbitartion systems without British law. That would mean you are calling Jews whove had such a system for decades mad as well. Isnt that anti-semitic?”

HPBNP apparently belongs to the Ahmadnejhad school of social sciences and irrational hatred: should anyone criticises Islam, let’s go for the Jews!

What sets HPBNP apart from Ahmadnejhad, however, is his apparent wildcard… If anyone thinks I’m being anti-semitic, I’ll just tell them I’m a Jew… just like that neo-Nazi with the fake name “Israel Shamir”.

The UK could establish a royal commission of enquiry with leading legal experts, constitutional experts, academics, human rights experts and theologians. The commission should be set a well defined mandate of determining whether sharia law is compatible with the Common Law of this country, with european law and with our international obligations under various treaties, especially the core covenants of the UN system.

If the commission determines that elements of sharia are compatible with our laws, then we shoud accept that.
If, however, the commission determines that sharia is not compatible with UK legal norms then the government should firmly shut down any formal and informal sharia courts in the UK.
There will be outcry, there will be resistance, there may even be terrorism.
Personally, I judge that this will be preferable in the short term to the potential for a civil war in several decades time. And a state with two systems of law, two systems of values that are mutually incompatible could be heading for major civil unrest and even conflict.

You right. A Muslim would be named after the man considered by Islam to have destroyed the montheistic message of Jesus and introduced the paganism of the trinity.

So could you perhaps just point out where in the Koran or Hadiths has the usage of the name by a Muslim been banned?

Or did you just make it up?

And yes, the Beth Din should also be disbanded, and the Church of England should be disestablished.

There should be no institutional privileges and separate laws for any religion in this country; neither Islam, nor Judaism, and in a much changed UK, not even Christianity.

Here’s a thought:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7631388.stm

I think it worth saying, incidentally, that some (although certainly not all) of the more objectional features of sharia were also present in the English legal system within the last 100 years.

The difference is that the common law and statute were generally not said to be divinely authored: and so were easier to amend. Which is not to say that sharia couldn’t develop: just that it wouldn’t do so in a transparent and democratic way.
That is one of the things that is problematic about it. (The others include (b) that a system of separate and unequal laws for certain citizens is unacceptable in a liberal democracy and (c) the fact that the greatest impetus for sharia courts comes from extremely radical Islamists, who see it as part of the struggle for separatism and the creation of a theocratic Caliphate.)

But, remember, it was only within the last 20 years that the courts decided that, as a matter of law, it was possible for a husband to rape his wife.

See? You fuckers were Muslims and didn’t even know it. :D

Suffolk Booy - “The UK could establish a royal commission of enquiry with leading legal experts, constitutional experts, academics, human rights experts and theologians. The commission should be set a well defined mandate of determining whether sharia law is compatible with the Common Law of this country, with european law and with our international obligations under various treaties, especially the core covenants of the UN system.”

Hmmm. I can ask my girlfriend nicely if she would mind nailing my testicles to a plank of wood. She might, for all I know, agree. Now such an act is usually illegal in the United Kingdom. Certainly the Common Law has a few things to say about assault. I am sure that European law and the UN’s conventions might have a few things to say about people who nail other people’s testicles to planks of wood.

But if I enjoy it and my girlfriend is willing to do it, why can’t I? Do we really need a Commission to investigate the practice? Wouldn’t it be better to say what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is their business?

Now if that applies to testicles and nails (or bottoms and whips or whatever takes your fancy really) why doesn’t it apply to Sharia? You mean I can’t dress up as a Qadi and have my girlfriend flogged if she decides she is into that sort of thing?

I really think there should be no concession to polygamy in the tax or benefits system but the problem is children. We will end up paying for their large families, even if we don’t directly pay for the extra spouses. Mr T, I know women only got the vote 100 years ago in Britain, but as far as I know, we have always been equal in law. The same goes for incomers into a country. The Somerset decision in the 17th century that ruled that no man can be enslaved on British soil (just don’t ask about the colonies!), and as far as I know, ‘honour’ killing has never been a British custom. Yes, men do kill women for reasons of sexual jealousy or control, but it has never been divinely sanctioned. It’s not happening in a vacuum is it though? If there is an Islamacist military coup in Pakistan, it will effect the mOslems in this country and strengthen the reactionaries. But, personally, I think the Islamic world is falling apart. They are sall so busy killing each other they haven’t got time for anything else. Whether MOslems in this country want to stand on the sidelines and cheer them on, that’s up to them, but at the end of the day they will find that is a dead–end, a destructive one at that. One has to believe that not all Moslems are that stupid, or maybe Harry’s Place=Nazi Party (to give him/her his full name). Interestingly, testament videos by bomb mules talk about mosque elders who are keener on decorating their semi-detached houses or complaining about East Enders or Home and Away.

Per Judge Petiti in the ECHR case of Laskey Jaggard and Brown:

“The protection of private life means the protection of a person’s intimacy and dignity, not the protection of his baseness or the promotion of criminal immoralism.”

(My view: rubbish)

To keep people like HPBNP happy, HP should run a semi-regular series entitled “Dem Krazy Jews!”, featuring stories such as this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSTRE48M7DI20080923?feedType=RSS&feedName=oddlyEnoughNews&rpc=69

Yet Tzipi Livni, asked by Israel’s president on Monday to form a government following Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s resignation, remains largely faceless when it comes to her country’s powerful ultra-Orthodox Jews, or haredim.

Citing concerns for feminine modesty, the ultra-Orthodox refuse to publish images of women in their newspapers — a core source of information as the reclusive community generally shuns the television, Internet and most radio stations.

The wackiness could be emphasised by using the Comic Sans font.

P.

please can I suggest, for a change, that there is a bit of strong moderation on this thread, before the usual suspects (JP, Morgoth, Field, Alcuin) just use it as an excuse to attack Muslims, in general and ride their pet hobby horses.

I don’t have to say any more than what the article said. What they said. With bells on. And your fake piousness is shameful, Modernity.

I’ve just consulted my Ladybird Book of Legal History, and I believe the reason that one is not considered to have consented to assaults is that in the Middle Ages, one’s body/person was deemed to be the property of the King and was needed for wars against the French. The offenses of ‘maiming and mayhem’ were established in this period, as an injured man could not serve in an army. Anyway, the point about sharia is that it’s not just personal law, it’s about disposing of assets. I have noticed that one reads in the paper about marriages between very wealthy Moslim men who divorce their wives and leave them with no money at all and the women are forced to apply for benefit. Under Islamic law it is no doubt perfectly legal, but to my Euroepan eyes it is an abuse of the benefit system. I wonder why the women don’t go to British civil law to reach a settlement.

@ So Much For Subtlety

I bet dinner parties at your place are unforgettable.

The article seems thorougly moderate and sensible.

David T-

“I think it worth saying, incidentally, that some (although certainly not all) of the more objectional features of sharia were also present in the English legal system within the last 100 years.”

Um yes. However we changed these features because we thought they were immoral- and we still do. The point about Sharia courts is that they reverse this procedure and reintroduce immoral and unjust features back into our society.

Now I know that you don’t like Sharia courts but I do wonder what the purpose of that last argument is?

After a long discussion about the rights and wrongs of the situation we decided to change the law. What matters is what we think now, not 20 years ago. Practical morality moves on and given a (reasonably) rational debate we came to a logical conclusion.

Now we have a group of Islamists who want to get exemption from the moral and legal consensus and may use your argument to exploit feelings of guilt. We have no reason to feel guilty- we had a debate and changed the law. What we did was right and what the Islamists are trying to do is wrong. If they want to change the law then they should try to persuade the rest of us that we are wrong.

The point is precisely the one you’re making.

Nope. Beth Din must go. Just who the fuck do you think you are?

Boogski, the views of anti-semites don’t count when discussing Jewish issues. As a slug you will have no difficulty crwaling back under the stone from which you came. As to who I am. I am someone with the IQ of a galaxy and who is far superior in every way to anti-semitic slugs like you. I have a nauseating high opinion of myself but many tens of years of experience show me that such an opinion is justified. I am arrogant, again with experiental evidence of it being well-placed. I’d eat you for breakfast, lunch and tea in any debate, on any subject, except your speacialist subject of anti-semitic slugs of the 19th and 20th Century.

I am also a WUM with a pythonesque sense of humour.

Thank You for asking. I don’t often pay slugs the compliment of responding.

LOL!!

I don’t know much about Beth Din, but if it has the powers to make legally binding decisions then these must be stripped

Relax, they don’t.

I don’t know much about Beth Din, but if it has the powers to make legally binding decisions then these must be stripped, regardless of the fact that the Jewish community has posed no problems to society

Beth Din make it clear that any ruling is subservient to UK Law and is not legally binding. I would guess that a ruling would be legally accepted by any or all Judaic courts but that is of no concern to anyone but Jews.

This just regurgitatates the far right notion that Islam is a threat to the West and democracy, to argue for unequal and discriminatory treatment of Muslims vis a vis other communities (in this case the Jews). It pretty much states that Muslims cant have these rights because the West is at war with Islam, (while of course deriding any such claims from Muslims).

-HPBNP, I’d like to move to Saudi Arabia and establish my own synagogue and Beth Din in Medina. Can you advise if this is possible?

My view on religious courts:

- the state shouldn’t ordinarily stand in the way of private agreements, and should enforce them if they take the form of arbitration in a neutral field (e.g. business dealings between equal parties).

- no religious court should have the sanction of law in family law matters

- to the extent that a religious court attempts to enforce a judgement that offends against the law or human rights principles, it should be treated as a criminal organisation and shut down.

Well sorry, Mad Muslims, we have no intention of laying down and allowing Shariah “Law” to trample all over our rights.

So field, do you acknowledge that the existence of the Beth Din has NOT trampled over the rights of people in the UK?

I don’t actually think that a Shariah out even tramples over the rights of people in this country except Muslims who might fall foul of a Shariah ruling. Well, if they agreed to be subjected to a Shariah Ruling then they can hardly be said to cling exclusively to their rights under UK Law.

However, it is the responsibility of UK Law and Government to ensure that a Shariah Court system is not used to deny people their natural rights under UK Law and is not seen as a seperatist wedge when the Govt keeps making noises about integration.

Do you ALSo acknowledge that the Govt is NOT making “integration” noises about Jews integrating but they are about Muslims. Hence you cannot put Shariah Courts on equal status as the Beth Din because no-one in the Govt, or country believes the Beth Din is any threat. They have had 100 years to express such a fear and it has not been expressed and not surfaced - except as an argument made by Muslims as to why there should be Shariah courts because its not fair!

The acceptance of shari’ah law by Moslems (there is such a term, trust me) is one thing, but it is not that which is actually being discussed here. The point surely is this: Do non Moslems accept shari’ah’s rulings on their lives and behaviour? I do not. I doubt I ever will. If I meet someone who believes in a flat earth or refuses to countenance stem cell research I might respect their right to so believe; but I do not want those beliefs to form national policy (though they might inform it, if only in the cautionary sense). I can afford to be relaxed about this because in no shape or form can shari’ah be said to be even close to forming UK national policy, though many apparently, and irrationally, believe this to be the case.

Shari’ah offers one way for some Moslems to hang on to a separate identity, needful for immigrants, which is at once both sharply and well defined. The counter-veiling concept of multiculturalism, itself the chiefly project of white middle class atheists, insists (because of a deficit of imagination) that such differences as exist between discrete ethnic communities (a concept vital to the project) are not important. What counts is human rights, a series of universal judgements once so memorably satirised by reference to the ethos of the television show “Star Trek”; we are all Judeo-Christian rationalists now. No we are not. Moslems took only those parts of multiculturalism that had utility for them: The right it apparently conferred on communities to retain the vital characteristics of Moslem life which shari’ah (and I would contend, tribal) custom demands. but whose precepts run against the tenets of modernist society: Women are not equal with men and never can be; homosexuality is wrong, indeed, criminal. Education must be proscribed. Politics are unnecessary because of the Qur’an in which all of law and governance is to be found. And so on in detail. Embracing this code are those for whom their life in the west is an essential continuation of custom and tradition, and a larger, one may say rejectionist, group compromised mostly of young second and third generation Pakistani’s, who, despite having been born and educated in the west feel western society has rejected them and gives in return no viable alternative identity which has the weight of reality about it.

Other minorities have integrated into British society or are so small in number they are easily overlooked; some are even Moslem, such as Turkish or Kurdish people. The numerous Chinese are nearly invisible and feature rarely on British television, even roaming street interviews. Why have some immigrants achieved the balancing act – preserving a sense of identity – and yet settled into “the British Way of Life” without demanding separate parliaments, schools, universities or laws? The question begs to be answered.

Holy shit, Maven. You just gave me an erection. :D

Is it a possible that a Muslim could be called Muhammad and when he becomes a Christian changes his name to Paul?
Obviously this would confuse some people - but hopefully they will be able to understand this explanation.

The most dutiful word I ever heard
The most dutiful sound in the world in a single word
Sharia
They just passed a law called Sharia
And suddenly that word
has got everyone stirred
Sharia ………………..

Stevie Wonder also did a homage to Shariah

My Shariah Law
Pretty little miss I pretend to adore
I’ll get you into court then I’ll get more
Your word is worth less than mine!
La La La - La La La……

Holy shit, Maven. You just gave me an erection. :D

Yes, now climb to the top. Put that rope thing over your neck and jump! I think you will find that cures it.

I find abuse to be so therapeutic.

I think this one is a better response and might inspire a few of the sisters enjoying Sharia right now:

You dont have to take this crap
You dont have to sit back and relax
You can actually try changing it
I know we’ve always been taught to rely
Upon those in authority -
But you never know until you try
How things just might be -
If we came together so strongly

Are you gonna try to make this work
Or spend your days down in the dirt
You see things can change -
Yes and walls can come tumbling down!
(Style Council)

“Moslems took only those parts of multiculturalism that had utility for them”

Some may have picked and chosen. That is certainly not so of all.

This is a point you make later, so I’m just picking you up on this phrase.

I find abuse to be so therapeutic.

You’re lucky I have to go to work, woman.

Paul Moloney - Citing concerns for feminine modesty, the ultra-Orthodox refuse to publish images of women in their newspapers — a core source of information as the reclusive community generally shuns the television, Internet and most radio stations.

The basic problem here is that their rabbis do not want them to ‘waste semen’ so a picture of our soon-to-be new PM in the newspaper, could cause some of these otherwise paragons of Haredic virtue, to disappear into the loo and ‘beat their meat’.

“Paul Moloney - Citing concerns for feminine modesty, the ultra-Orthodox refuse to publish images of women in their newspapers — a core source of information as the reclusive community generally shuns the television, Internet and most radio stations.

The basic problem here is that their rabbis do not want them to ‘waste semen’ so a picture of our soon-to-be new PM in the newspaper, could cause some of these otherwise paragons of Haredic virtue, to disappear into the loo and ‘beat their meat’.”

It may or may not interest you to know that many Haredi newspapers do indeed feature women.

Secondly the reason why some don’t is not the puerile reason you give. It is simply because some newspapers aim for a wide haredi audience, and some hareidi groups, mainly among the hassidim, think that just picturing a lady is a breach of modesty.

Many Haredi books also feature images of women.

Please try not to misrepresent an entire subset of the Jewish people. Haredi orthodoxy is not monolithic.

Graham

I know that piece of rubbish will start to be referenced as evidence.

i already referred to this.

English common Law is not descended directly from Roman Law as the Anglo-Saxons did not absorb Romano-British culture like franco-Gaul but replaced it.

Customary tribal Germanic law has much in common with common law traditions of jury (trible assembly of free men), adversarial combat to settle a dispute etc etc.

The missing link is visi-gothic law not Sharia. Visi-gothic law was in use in Spain until the middle ages.

The Visi-gothic kingdoms were in Spain, North Africa and Sicily.

The visi-gothic post roman states of North Africa and the western mediteranean were replaced by Normans and/or Muslims of the Maghreb.

The Maliki Madhab, or school of Muslim jurisprudence (quite divergent from those further East) is the one associated with the Muslim Arab/berber Kingdoms of the Maghreb and Al Andalous.

Shared common Ancestors in the process of cultural diffusion is most likely explicable for the rather few vague features in common between the English common Law and Sharia.

Independent innovation and convergence or parallelism in similar social and environmental conditions also produces features that seem shared but have no common ancestry.

The early appearance of the English common Law (not replaced by the Normans) became intricately woven with ecclesiastical law at the ‘Inns of Court’ , its seperation into non-ecclesiastical civil law and its overlayering with Royal prerogative legislation and privy councillar law making well before a legislative power of parliament was created also places it in a context similar to Sharia law.

I just needed to nail this little canard of Islamo-centrism before we start adopting legal historical theories more worthy of Thor Heyerdal than serious scholarship.

What next the Muslim Tamil Rosicrucian Easter Island legal codices?

“The basic problem here is that their rabbis do not want them to ‘waste semen’ so a picture of our soon-to-be new PM in the newspaper, could cause some of these otherwise paragons of Haredic virtue, to disappear into the loo and ‘beat their meat’.””

hahahaha

YossiUK - Please try not to misrepresent an entire subset of the Jewish people. Haredi orthodoxy is not monolithic.

I agree yossi. But I think that you will agree that the trend within the Haredi othodoxy generally is to treat women as ‘less’ than men.

The visi-gothic post roman states of North Africa and the western mediteranean were replaced by Normans and/or Muslims of the Maghreb.

-I assume your forgetting about Justinian’s reconquest of North Africa in the 6th C? (North Africa was Byzantine administered for about 150+ years until the Arab conquest)

“I agree yossi. But I think that you will agree that the trend within the Haredi othodoxy generally is to treat women as ‘less’ than men.”

Not at all. Haredi orthodoxy and Jewish Orthodoxy in general does not view women as less than men. It views women as different to men. (different obligations, roles etc.)

In many ways women are seen as even being more elevated than men.

There is of course a gap between modern day attitudes towards women, and the attitudes of both men and women in orthodox Jewish circles.

A Salafi might say the same thing.

Pretty much agree with this piece, a minor gripe is the willful and irritating as fuck use of the words ‘reactionary’ and ‘progressive’, both flashing - almost compulsory - beacons of Lefty speak.

“A Salafi might say the same thing.”

Yes thank you DavidT, a Salafi might say the same thing.

I can only hope you see a difference.

In many ways women are seen as even being more elevated than men.

-well you can’t be Jewish unless your women are, true?

“-well you can’t be Jewish unless your women are, true?”

Well other than conversion.

But yes, a man, no matter how pious he is, no matter if he is the most observant Jew in the world, his kids are not Jewish unless the mother of those children is herself Jewish.

I meant to type “well you can’t be “born” Jewish unless…”
- wish I had checked the post more carefully…

incidentally, a point of difference from the Salafi’s if I’m correct?

I see that Modernity wants to muzzle dissenting voices. Charming. The very epitome of progressive thought, that, innit?
This attitude is exactly why we now have reactionary, Stone Age ‘Islamic religious courts’ (in reality, political tools of social repression) in this country: for years, any attempt to debate this creeping subversion of Western values has been shouted down with the demagogic cry of ‘racism’.

Indeed where is committed feminist Harriet Harman?

Ah, yes, but race trumps gender …

“I have noticed that one reads in the paper about marriages between very wealthy Moslim men who divorce their wives and leave them with no money at all and the women are forced to apply for benefit. Under Islamic law it is no doubt perfectly legal, but to my Euroepan eyes it is an abuse of the benefit system.”

Women who voluntarily allow themselves to be deprived of alimony, should also be banned from claiming any benefits.

If they have children, no sharia judgement should be enforceable, as children can’t give consent to sharia procedures. So husband’s assets should be confiscated to support the children.

For similar reasons, sharia judges should have no power to adjudicate on child custody, or intestacy.

The state has a duty to act in the best interests of children. But grown women have to stand on their own two feet, instead of waiting for someone else to come and save them from their own spinelessness.

How about if we ban all mediators who are known to discriminatory rules, such as ones that favor men over women.

It may or may not interest you to know that many Haredi newspapers do indeed feature women.

I read Hamodia. No ladies in there, apart from watercolour impressions of a rebbetzin or two to accompany their articles. There are instead many photographs of identical bearded men at various social events. I haven’t read the latest edition so I’m not sure if they have included a photo of Israel’s new PM.

Not at all. Haredi orthodoxy and Jewish Orthodoxy in general does not view women as less than men. It views women as different to men. (different obligations, roles etc.)

It may claim not to but if I had the option, I’d be a Haredi man. They always look like they’re having a whale of a time. Being a Haredi woman looks like a lot of bloody hard work.

It is quite wrong, as so many here seek to do, it seems, in their hysterical and ultra-right manner, to paste the Labour Party with the tag of pro-Islamism. Anyone who seeks to do this fails quite graphically and fundamentally to understand what progressive politics, and what Labour politics, is about

Pure demagoguery. ‘Labour’ is saying in essence: We are progressive - after all, we have said so, and we are honourable men (and you know we are honourable men because we said so), therefore it follows that we are progressive (sic), therefore now we can do these anti-progressive things like sucking up to repressive clerics, here and worldwide, because we are progressive already.

We see this elsewhere, in many places, e.g. in Harpic Harridan’s discriminatory attitude towards men. And of course, in senior ‘Labour’ politicians embracing tyrants and other terrorists and mass-murderers in the Islamic and non-Islamic world.

Haredi orthodoxy and Jewish Orthodoxy in general does not view women as less than men. It views women as different to men. (different obligations, roles etc.)

This is a self-serving myth. The stronger the orthodoxy - and there are subtle shades here by the cartload - the stronger the prohibition on women to pursue certain professions. Hardly a definition of ‘not less than men’.

But yes, a man, no matter how pious he is, no matter if he is the most observant Jew in the world, his kids are not Jewish unless the mother of those children is herself Jewish.

Well, yes, according to the self-appointed mullahs of orthodoxy. This is not necessarily the case in the Liberal Jewish tradition.

But yes, a man, no matter how pious he is, no matter if he is the most observant Jew in the world, his kids are not Jewish unless the mother of those children is herself Jewish.

The origin of that is not in women’s importance or traditional reverence for women. It is because a mother can be sure that a child is her own, but a father can never be 100% certain.

This might have worked well in a Bronze Age pastoral/nomadic culture where women were treated as disposable wombs because they were quite likely to either die in childbirth or have their children die in infancy, but we have DNA tests and low maternal and infant mortality now. The matrilineal requirement is no longer necessary.

I can afford to be relaxed about this because in no shape or form can shari’ah be said to be even close to forming UK national policy, though many apparently, and irrationally, believe this to be the case.

Hardly ‘many’, and certainly they can be dismissed if they think it forms it now or is close to it.
But rational thinking should include planning for the future, wouldn’t you agree? Do you really think we should never object until the moment when it does form national policy, and not a second sooner? I suggest the time to worry is now, not when it’s too late.

Like Saul, I’ll hold YossiUK’s robe while he stones MrsTrellis…

Mrs Trellis:
Certainly. But when have priests ever relinquished power or agreed to share the rules that underpin it, without intense struggle?

Sorry, change the rules, not share the rules (well, power-sharing may come into it, that may be why I wrote it like that).

Then I’ll stick burning matches into your sandals, Oniad.

:P

OMG - BBC at its worst!

“Is English Law related to Muslim Law?”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7631388.stm

Anything to crawl up the Islamists arse!

For some scholars, a historical connection to Islam is a “missing link” that explains why English common law is so different from classical Roman legal systems that hold sway across much of the rest of Europe.

Oh what Bollocks!!!

Larkers
“Why have some immigrants achieved the balancing act – preserving a sense of identity – and yet settled into “the British Way of Life” without demanding separate parliaments, schools, universities or laws? The question begs to be answered.”

My usual answer to that is “sex and friendship”. Chinese women have the highest rate of “marrying out” of any immigrant group with significant numbers of chinese men doing the same. There is no taboo against being friends with non- Chinese people.

This is not to say that Chinese people, whether recent immigrants or otherwise are not insular and groupish. They can be, and often to the point of racism. However, the younger generation sees merit in the culture around them- they grew up here, went to school with non-chinese children and don’t fear it or feel alienated. Furthermore they look at the older generation and see a culture that has stopped at the point when that generation immigrated to this country.

Bluntly, there is a process of assimilation going on here.

For muslim South Asians there is a similar process of assimilation but it has been partially reversed by an extreme religious ideology, imported from Saudi Arabia, that preaches apartness and hatred of non-muslims.

OMG - BBC at its worst!

“Is English Law related to Muslim Law?”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7631388.stm

Anything to crawl up the Islamists arse!

For some scholars, a historical connection to Islam is a “missing link” that explains why English common law is so different from classical Roman legal systems that hold sway across much of the rest of Europe.

Oh what Bollocks!!!

“Is English Law related to Muslim Law?”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7631388.stm

(posting erratic!)

“Is English Law related to Muslim Law?”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7631388.stm

Is there a problem with posting?

“Is English Law related to Muslim Law?”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7631388.stm

Something strange is happening with posts not making it

I think I’ve worked it out - for the benefit of anyone else. If you post a url with “BBC” in it then there seems to be a dump-to-Garbage filter.

Is this deliberate or a bug? (In community interest!)

MrsTrellis 12:46: Judaism wasn’t matrilineal in biblical times.

HPBNP

Reading your first comment, when you describe them as ‘Uncle Toms’, kind of just proves what the authors say in their article, that sharia supporters “paint Muslim opponents of sharia as being in some way traitorous or complicit in mainstream society’s discrimination against Islam.” They nailed you to the dartboard fair and square, didn’t they?

As for the reason why they have the names of Paul and Gina, I guess it could be one of several reasons. Those could be their nicknames, they could be from a mixed race background, or most likely of all in my opinion, they could be using pseudonyms in order to write anonymously, and so avoid the persecution, death threats, and physical and emotional intimidation and ostracism that arises when an individual from a Muslim background criticises aspects of Islamic orthodoxy or politics. Judging by the frothing-at-the-mouth hysteria and hostility of your responses, I don’t think he made the wrong choice (assuming it is a pseudonym)

please can I suggest, for a change, that there is a bit of strong moderation on this thread, before the usual suspects (JP, Morgoth, Field, Alcuin) just use it as an excuse to attack Muslims, in general and ride their pet hobby horses.

Am wearing a cravat, sitting up straight and am well mannered, Mother Superior!

If our resident fascist has penis envy for Beth Din tribunals, then perhaps they should be disbanded.

When this issue came up in Ontario Province the decades old Jewish and Catholic tribunals were abolished.

It shut the sharia shuckers up, but was, in a certain sense, unfair to both Jews and Catholics, both of whom had availed themselves of their tribunals for years, all within the scope of secular law and with no negative impact on the larger society.

Sharia ‘law’ codes, its ‘jurisprudence’ is without prudence. It is a backward, tribal, honour/shame systeme that perpetuates primitive neolithic customs and that reinforces sociopathic and demopathic characteristics (arrested psycho-sexual maturity) in misfit, HPBNP-type males.

To be fair and honest, though, sharia DOES make sense, just so long as you’re an irretrievably tumescent, appetite-driven, tent-dweller.

With tendancies towards wife-beating.

How’s that for front-parlour manners!

Many years ago I read The Indestructible Jews by Max Dimont, in which he attributed anything of importance in civilisation to the Jews, including the English adverserial trial and jury system. His seminal Jews God and History is regarded as inaccurate and unreliable, so no reason to rely on this assertion either.

Graham and metta, I listened vaguely to the radio 4 programme on the roots of Muslim law in Sicily yesterday, and the Muslim lawyer presenter went further than saying the link was unproven; afair he regretfully concluded there was no such link. You can listen again if so minded.

mrs trellis I would be surprised if they had even water colours of rebbetzins in Hamodiah. I once saw a children’s story in it where the heroine was a little girl who was unpopular at school and never invited to parties, until the other girls found out she was a wizz artist who painted lovely pictures of rebbes. (Interesting they don’t take the graven image thing as literallly as Muslims) There was a water colour illustration of the story meant to show her with another little girl, captioned accordingly. The illustration however was unambiguously of 2 little boys with peyot and kippot.

Trying to change anything as entrenched in Judaism as matrilinealism is like trying to get rid of the Archers on Radio 4. It’s not so much that anyone likes it or thinks it’s a good idea, but the thing’s been around so long that everyone’s kind of gotten attached to it. Anyone who’s not so keen is, of course, free to switch off when it comes on.

Ami, perhaps I misinterpreted the watercolour washes as an image of someone in that case. It accompanied a nice homily by a rebbetzin - I forget the topic but it must have been on something that interests rebbetzins.

And yes, I think I read that story too, unless they frequently publish very similar stories. I didn’t notice any peyot or kippot, and Mr Trellis and I speculated for a while on whether or not they were little girls or boys.

How odd, though, to grow up and not see yourself represented in any of the books or magazines you read.

Just give them enough rope.

Here’s a thought:

Have read the BBC article, Graham, and can only say that european culture owes nothing to the Islamic world.

Islam has no ‘purpose’, historical or otherwise; it is an unwanted, useless and impolite intrusion of the néant.

And I’m being kind.

When you begin to investigate all of these hyperbolic claims, you soon realise there’s no ‘there’ there.

John,
Canada seems generally to be right at the front of appeasement ;-(

Much if not most of that science was lifted from India etc.

John,
Canada seems generally to be right at the front of appeasement ;-(

Both Québec and Ontario told their respective sharia hogs to go take a loud oink.

They are still applying lipstick to their bruises.

And we really need a prevue button.

YossiUK - Not at all. Haredi orthodoxy and Jewish Orthodoxy in general does not view women as less than men. It views women as different to men. (different obligations, roles etc.)

That kind of argument is used to justify the discriminations inherent in Islam Yossi.

That does not of itself make your statement incorrect but, women are excluded from the ‘priesthood’. In orthodoxy and further right. There are no female rabbis - only men.

Women are not allowed in any circumstances to take another husband while men are allowed to take another wife if certain conditions are met. (A little known abomination that has taken place in Israel.)

Some senior and OLD (very),rabbis have taken young wifes Yossi. Not ‘Aisha young’ but 30 years old when they themselves have been between 70 and death. This is an abomination of itself Yossi. I have never heard of any old Haredi woman taking a 30 year old husband. (perhaps you have and I would be interested to hear about it.

So you see, your statement ‘It views women as different to men.’ seeks to blur serious abominations inherent in orthodoxy and even more to the Jewish religious right.

My understanding is that as the Arabs/Muslims conquered people they took over their knowledge and claimed it as their own. The idea is to completely obliterate pre-Islamic societies. I read an article by an Armenian scientist where he said that most of the astronomical discoveries credited to the Arabs were actually done by Armenians. Once the Muslims had murdered all the Armenian elite, their society stagnated. This whole thing about having to work within Islam is ridiculous. Last week in the paper I read a report that some clerics are claiming that astrophysics and nuclear physics are foreshadowed in the Koran. If they can’t show that Allah or Mohammed invented it first, they are not allowed to involve themselves in it. How limiting is that!

For reasons which elude me, Britain (the government) seems dedicated to promoting the most exclusionary aspects of Muslim culture, especially Sharia (but also, for example, the exclusive use of pools for Muslim men). Is that part of community cohesion? You’d think Muslims were like 40% of the population for all the bowing and scraping the government does. This b&s extends to non-government entities, like a cemetery which forbids non-Muslims to be buried on Saturday. Basically, it seems like many people in positions of power in Britain are dedicated to turning England into Pakistan. Is Pakistan that much worth emulating?

Oniad

A good attention to historic detail

I was not forgetting as much as overlooking. I have several historical atlases that help me avoid such mistakes by getting hung up on details.

Sicily is a bit of a red herring in that BBC article as the source of Sharia into the Uk via the monastic orders of the Middle Temple.

It is really a popular religious conspiracy novel format.

The Vandals and the Goths and the Muslim invaders of Sicily did not have complete control for long (Byyzantium held on during the Alghabid rule) and the Normans introduced a feudal nobility over a still largely Roman/Byzantine structure.

Iit was basically the Roman/Byzantine Empire and its system of laws and administration that the Arab conquest took over and found itself in possession of diverse lands with a more or less unified system of governance ready made.

We see from this that the Muslim conquest of these lands led to a fusion of Arab customary law together with precepts from the Koran developed within regions of the Roman Empire where it found and fused with legal elements already well articulated to produce the synthesis called Sharia.

Unlike the rather vague ‘Da Vinci’ Code fantasies of the English Common Law descending from Sharia we have some actual evidence from the complete iberian Visigothic Code (Forum judicum);

———————

‘The legal and political events of the Visigothic domination are written in the annals of its ecclesiastical councils, which designate the chief events of every reign.

These were of three kinds, national, provincial, diocesan.

Of the national councils there were nineteen in all; one of which was held in the fifth century, two in the sixth, and sixteen in the seventh; all, after the sixth council, being held at Toledo, which gave to that venerable city vast and permanent prestige and influence in the affairs of the hierarchy and the kingdom.

The national councils assembled at the order of the king, who also presided over them; and this prerogative, strange to say, was assumed and exercised, without remonstrance from Christian prelates, by the emirs of Moorish Spain.

So there is an uncomfortable truth here for those who think that the problem of Sharia can be dodged or accomodated by giving it a lower level in the English legal hierachy, a problem that can be resolved with commissions and inquiries and judicial reasonableness.

How relevant is Beth Din courts in Britain, a system introduced in another time. What seems to be the biggest issue is about divorces and its implications for future religious adherence. In practice a minority is orthodox and most divorce and remarry despite if there is a Get or not. There is estimated to be 270000 (2005) Jews in Britain (340000 1990), 94000 families attend synagogues, about 57% of these are orthodox.

Very few if any threats of violence and bloodshed and other forms of repressive bullying are heard of against those who follow Jewish religious dogma. One in two is marring someone that is not a Jew. Beth Dins are hardly an issue in the Sharia matter that is completely different to its size, context and impact on society.

lasse - Beth Dins are hardly an issue in the Sharia matter that is completely different to its size, context and impact on society.

OK. I’ll shut up.

There are no female rabbis - only men: Well, not quite correct:
Haviva Ner David, whom I have heard and whose book I have, was made an Orthodox rabbi in 2006. Kind of. Sort of.

http://jwablog.jwa.org/node/23

“against those who follow”
against those who /not/ follow

So there is an uncomfortable truth here for those who think that the problem of Sharia can be dodged or accomodated by giving it a lower level in the English legal hierachy, a problem that can be resolved with commissions and inquiries and judicial reasonableness.

>Sharia is a social and political statement of the ideal, normative, relations of an ideal and idealised Muslim community, its proponents seek, whether stridently or quieteistly , to challenge the legal and political consesus of the British polity, to persue segregationist, communalist ends.

>Any commission is a political decision and will be a hostage to fortune of the Islamist lobby, who will demand that Muslim legal scholars (who by definition already perceive Sharia as desirable acceptable and legitimate) are represented on any commission and that its terms of reference reflect the concerns of the ‘Muslim Community’ (i.e those who already practice in Sharia based dispute resolution agreements).

>Any finding other than one agreeable to Sharia’s more ‘moderate’ proponents will be dismissed as anti-Muslim.

>In terms of legal compatibilities of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunals and English law (by way of the arbitration act) there are obviousy many points of potential conflict that simply have not yet been tested in litigation.

>A casual glance at the claims the MAT makes for its relevance and the judgements already handed down show that findings of the MAT already go far beyond the right to make a private agreement, enforced by agreed arbitration, that in contract law allows a party to a contract to make a bad bargain against their economic interests.

>MAT rulings in civil and family law , I would argue, exceed the capacity of an individual to freely consent to an inequality that does not exist in English law.

>These judgements must be tested and struck down if they prove to be unlawful.

>in addition the nature of the casual rules of evidence allowable in tribunals and the extent of tribunal inquisitorial powers of direction relating to evidence and the procedural rules, arguably, contravene legal rules governing the adjudication of the same matters (eg Divorce) when before the English civil courts.

>Furthermore, the Commission of the European Court of Human Rights has already ruled that Sharia law is not compatible with the rights and freedoms of the convention on Human rights and the obligations on the states as high contracting parties to the Convention as members of the Council of Europe.

This is another ultimate political fact where the political basis of law is made clear, which is why states simply do not flout the ECHR, it is not simply Law, in the sense of a code and Judges it is the ultimate political fact of law which is the decision made politically by a state to be bound by its highest agreements, for a government not to place itself above the law of its own highest sovereign body.

>This constitutional and political crisis engineered by Islamists cannot be dodged. It can be ignored and kicked into touch by successive Governments afraid of the reality of communalism, the appearance of the Muslim voting block, created by such movements as the campaign for Sharia.

>The legal conflicts that are now being created almost daily will simply expand exponentially before they inevitably surface in the civil courts. There such conflicts of laws will continue to expand taking up more judicial time and resources until major conflicts will dominate the media with predictable negative consequences.

>Almost certainly there will be violent and gory consequences for some women of the male biased inertia over action in domestic violence cases coming before Sharia tribunals, where a ‘ticking off’ of a man of an assault will be based on a casual approach to evidence and a failure to investigate or prosecute on the part of the Police, the resulting crime will shock and outrage opinion in Britain.

>All these things are perfectly and horribly predictable.

>Islamists in this country have profited enormously from the opportunity of the manipulation of Muslim perceptions of their place in society as a result of the virtual Iraq war and Palestine conflict of the media actually taking place far away from real misery and hardship that an ethnically and culturally distinct Muslim people are actually suffering.

That such unscrupulous hypocritical people have had a ‘good war’ while protesting its horror is offensive enough, that they should be rewarded with a policy granting them the power of increasing social segregation and a communalist perversion of a democracy that has taken the sufferings of so many and the energies of centuries of reformers in Britain, is an attack on democracy itself.

That such a cynical disregard for equality before the law should have been fostered within the Labour Party, the greatest social reform movement in British history in its longest period of government is nothing short of an abomination.

Would I go to the ‘barricades’ for the rights of people who I insist have the same rights and entitlements as any other British person , even though some of these people demand to be treated unequally before the law?

It is a very strange formulation and the bizareness of it is clear when we realise that in demanding to be subject to the divine law of Sharia not the secular law of England and Wales, proponents of Sharia have declared a refusal of British sovereignty and a refusal to be a citizen at a fundamental legal level.

Yet these same Islamist advocates demand the application of the sovereign power of parliament to demand an exemption from British sovereignty in the communal enclaves they wish to inhabit and demand from the sovereign power of the state protection for the communalist Bantustans that they seek to establish in legal oppositon to the personal laws and customs of their neighbours.

Would I go to the ‘barricades’ to demand an end to the segregated communities that some who wish to be subject to the relative power of the walled ghetto want to live behind?

Where the hell would you even put the barricades let alone know who stood on each side and why?

The question is properly not would I fight for the principal of equality for my neighbour who may not want or ask for my help, but why should I continue to to be bound by the laws of a state so undemocratic that by fiat it considers itself able to introduce legal segregation without the mandate of the settled will of the people?

You see Islamists, aided and abetted by undemocratic, elitist, patrician, sections of the legal and political establishment picked this zone of conflict not Islamophobes.

I am afraid my position is one of resignation, or rather a refusal to fight for a form of equality that I had spent quite a chunk of my life fighting for in developing countries, a fight that I had considered one by the struggles of previous generations of reformers fighting for democracy in this country.

Emigration is my preferred option right now because I really haven’t got the patience any longer to campaign against unecessary, wilfully, cynically or negligently inflicted social and political wounds, that once caused will be ineradicable other than by conditions caused by catastrophic war and total civil and political collapse.

I am trying not to be hyperbolic, but I feel this foolhardy slippage into segregation is a great social ill.

Worse than that however is that the Machiavelian means by which the insertion of Sharia domestic and personal law into the legal system of this country has been achieved shows an absolute disregard for the principles of Parliamentary sovereignty and representative democracy, breathtaking in its arrogance and scope.

The new establishment synthesis of old patrician cluby deal making combined with a government media management strategy of spin is deeply depressing, though those who consider it a purely New Labour policy are likely to be disapointed under the Tories, it is exactly a continuation of the ‘engagement’ with Muslim communities started by the Tories in the wake of the Rushdie affair.

If anything a future Tory administration would be more likely to continue with ‘orthodox’ ( ie unexamined and non controversial because they seem self evidently to be so) MCB type insitutional patronage because ’twas ever thus’.

The management by spin of Sharia’s formal recognition is as condescending as it is obvious, little ‘controversies’ like the Archbishops ‘gaffe’ drawing the sting by relying on the British desire for compromise and conflict avoidance at all cost that can be relied upon to triumph unless startled into reaction by sudden fast movements by characters that they expect to see on CCTV or MTV but not at the village fate.

The government has relied on the Mail and the Telegraph to play the opposition before quietly introducing a reasonable compromise that should upset no-one because it is really arbitration you see, a concept easily understandable to anyone in the City!

I am really over a government and an establishment that can do this, that can so happily tear up the enlightenment just to keep a few ‘troublesome natives’ happy, under the guise of community engagement and cultural sensitivity.

I am fed up with an ‘intelligentsia’ that considers this reasonable and progressive, that cares more about salon society attitudes than the equal rights and needs of all citizens.

I am bored with with the connivance of supposed progressives and the stupid reactions that accuse intelligent criticisms of the perils of communalism of being racist or anti-blah blah blah.

I simply will not end my days being called an Islamophobe and racist and reactionary because of a fundamental and unshakeable conviction in the necessity of the preservation of certain hard won concessions to the Enlightenment.

Now who will give me a passport?

Do they still hand those out to attractive countres or must I apply?

Will those who keep trying to equivalence Beth Din with a Shariah Court and who keep arguing about the Judaic laws please remember that when you imagine “Jews” in your discussion you are referencing nearly 100% of Jews in ancient Israel times and 20% of modern Jews. You seem to keep propogating the stereotype of Jews=Topol rather than Jews=David T (for exmple).

Beth Din has an arbitration role in one or two cases a week, I would guess, whereas each Shariah Court will probably rule on 10-20 cases a week each (tell me if that is an unfair estimate).

Beth Din means something to maybe 30,000 Jews in the UK. Shariah Law means something to maybe 500,000 Muslims (approx 35% of UK population at a guess). It might be as many as 1m.

So tell us who has the greatest effect on UK Law and the crumbling of society. Unfair you say? All Religions are equal you say?

No! Judaism is the faith followed by the ethnic and racial group called Jews. Islam is a religion that encompases any race or ethnicity. Hence it doesn’t have a mono-culture or single exclusive set of people who are genetically related. There is a phrase “according to the custom, tradition and practice of The Jews”. There is no single “custom, tradition and practice” for Muslims who are Arab, Asian, African and Caucasian. The custom and practice of Muslims in Saudi Arabia isn’t the same as Turkey or Bangla Desh.

In this turbulent time one come to think of Nixons Democratic treasury secretary John Connally, “The dollar is our currency, but it’s your problem”.

Emigration is my preferred option right now because I really haven’t got the patience any longer to campaign against unecessary, wilfully, cynically or negligently inflicted social and political wounds, that once caused will be ineradicable other than by conditions caused by catastrophic war and total civil and political collapse.

I am trying not to be hyperbolic, but I feel this foolhardy slippage into segregation is a great social ill.

I agree with you, but remain optimistic that this push will be countered and that the sharia advocates will be stopped dead.

Islamist claims of persecution, especially when aided and abetted by their far-left allies, should always be met by ridicule on the part of politicians in ALL western countries

Islamist complaints, aided and abetted by their far-left allies, that Muslims are ‘the new Jews’ should be greeted likewise.

Islamist penetration of state and municipal structures, especially when aided and abetted by their far-left allies, should be assessed and where found rooted out.

It should be made clear to Islamists that the time for accommodations has passed, and that any new demands will be immediately and thoroughly rejected.

A catalogue or compendium of the more outrageous and hate-filled rants by community leaders, leaders such as Inyat B, should be drawn-up for quick and easy reference and those leaders complaining the loudest about discrimination and “hate” confronted with those statements at every turn.

The hatred needs to be exposed.

Those Islamists who complain of such procedures and who are not citizens of the western countires in which they presently live should be strongly encouraged to leave, and to take their wives and offspring with them.

We need leaders capable of calling the Islamist bluff.

When faced with the stark option of remaining and benefiting from The West’s prosperity or returning to whatever poverty-stricken, human rights hell-hole they heil from, these thoroughly useless, islamist males will choose The West and The West’s comforts, and will even insert the pacifier themselves.

The Islamist leadership in most western countires is composed of utter hypocrites, boy/men, who will push Islam and who will push for sharia, but only in as much as those offensives present no threat to their lifestyles, income or welfare cheque.

Nonetheless, the need for fast-track deportation procedures could still come in handy for those who squawk and balk.

The Islamist mindset is utterly authoritarian, and as such will only respect, respond and conform to those rules and regulations which are themselves strongly authoritarian in both tone and substance.

Finally, if you’re called a ‘crusader’ or ‘zionist’ by far-right Islamist malcontents, or any of their far-left allies, take it as a compliment and respond with a hearty and enthusiastic “why thank-you!”.

John P. Finally, if you’re called a ‘crusader’ or ‘zionist’ by far-right Islamist malcontents, or any of their far-left allies, take it as a compliment and respond with a hearty and enthusiastic “why thank-you!”.

Yes.

Very funny.

But in my case, it’s true.

Mettaculture, you are the only one whom i have read so far who seems to really understand what a travesty has been wrought upon the law and the social fabric of the UK. Every word you wrote, I agree with wholeheartedly.

mirax Mettaculture, you are the only one whom i have read so far who seems to really understand what a travesty has been wrought upon the law and the social fabric of the UK. Every word you wrote, I agree with wholeheartedly.

Kud be.

But it was rather long.

Wasn’t it????

I have a problem with attention span and I don’t grace you with my presence to be lectured to.

“Emigration is my preferred option right now because I really haven’t got the patience any longer to campaign against unecessary, wilfully, cynically or negligently inflicted social and political wounds, that once caused will be ineradicable other than by conditions caused by catastrophic war and total civil and political collapse.”

Oh God, not one of you lot - please leave the country.

Since when has your life been affected by Islamists? The main problems affecting ordinary people are the cost of living, job insecurity, healthcare, education, etc. These are reasons for seeking a better quality of life elsewhere, not some paranoia about Islamists leading the country into civil war and turning Britain into an Islamic state - something which isn’t going to happen, just as Irish republican terrorism has not led to the unification of Ireland.

All right HPBNP here it is again: “Muslim women should have the same rights as all other British women.”

How do you square that with things like forced marriages, polygamy etc

These are reasons for seeking a better quality of life elsewhere, not some paranoia about Islamists leading the country into civil war and turning Britain into an Islamic state - something which isn’t going to happen, just as Irish republican terrorism has not led to the unification of Ireland.

When parallel legal systems and parallel societies are given the green light by a country’s gov’t, then that country is in serious trouble.

For the moment these islets of Islam are small and relatively unimportant, but like a grease stain on those brown-paper, french-fry bags, those islets will rapidly expand.

And many Islamists in The West make absolutely no secret of their desire to have Islam dominate, so I fail to understand your relaxed attitude and skepticism with regards to Mettaculture’s views.

You’d think Muslims were like 40% of the population for all the bowing and scraping the government does. Seymour Paine.

Yes but the Muslim vote is a significant factor in some constituencies e.g. Jack Straw’s…..and more so since the introduction of postal voting

John P.

I am afraid you don’t know how England is now governed almost entirely by a system of patronage to rival regency England.

A little insight into the extent of the actual convergence between economic liberalism and political liberalism of the most Whiggish kind can be found by looking at the programme for November’s conference of the Bar for England and Wales

Titled fabulously; (for they must of course be really aspects of each other)

Multinationalism and Multiculturalism –
Tomorrow’s World?

http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/news/BarConference2008/

We find that the current concerns of the Bar have been shoe horned into this theme, while no doubt a range of opinions will be held but not aired we cannot expect a vigorous impassioned debate.

This is the Bar we are talking about, a conservative guild within a conservative profession. Topics for conference are not controversial things to be discussed that are deeply problematic that have no easy resolution.

The Bar like the ballet is also a permanent popularity contest of who is in, who is going up and who is going down, so conference serves two functions;

1 to simply reassure its members that it does actually exist and operate in their own professional interes at least so that they feel like celebrities to themselves.

2. To have a commercial angle to showcase where the money lies, likely growth areas within the differing practice specialisms and what’s ‘real hot’ right now in terms of money or at least fame and glamour.

So for the various areas of law at this years conference we have multi-cultural topics such as;

>Pro Bono in a Multinational, Multicultural World

>Multinationalism and Multiculturalism – the
Bar making a Difference

> English and Religious Law: Synergy or
Conflict?
A discussion examining the relationship between English
Law and that which occurs in various religious courts and
tribunals.

>Human Trafficking: Slavery in the 21st
Century

>JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS

>Hate Crime
“The violence of intolerance and bigotry, intended to hurt
and intimidate someone because of their race, ethnicity,
national origin, religion, sexual orientation and disability.”
Is this definition still current? Have attempts to protect
minorities failed?

>“Equity Reflects Core Values which Transcend
Cultural Differences”
Are the values which underpin the principles of equity
really universal or do they remain tinged by the attitude
of the 19th century imperialist? Join the debate!

>Interview and Selection: Minefield or
Opportunity?

> Religion and Belief – What is it all About?
Moderators
Catherine Casserley Cloisters; Chair, Discrimination Law
Association
Daphne Romney Cloisters; Chair, Employment Law Bar
Association
Speakers
Robin Allen QCCloisters
Maqbool Javaid Solicitor and Human Rights Advocate;
former Head of Liltigation at the CRE
Hanne Stinson Executive Director, British Humanist
Association
John Wadham Commission for Equality and Human
Rights
Organised by the Employment Law Bar Association and
the Discrimination Law Association

OPEN FORUM DEBATE
in association with The Times

Multiculturalism, the Rule of Law and Judicial
Activism

The commercial bars theme is always a bit of a bell weather of current conditions.

When the English Bar held a joint conference with the American bar Association for instance it was at the time of the internationalisation of American law firms buying into London based firms for the EU and beyond.

So this whole new jurisdiction opening up is pretty important and spectacularly billed and worth quoting to show the prestigiousness of the establishment names engaging in at least one kind of high profile islamic law as an aspect of arbitration.;

CONCURRENT SPECIALIST SESSIONS
1 The Commercial Bar on the International Field
– the New Courts and Arbitration Centres in
the Gulf
An interactive discussion with specialists of the new
Courts and Arbitration Centres in the Gulf.
Moderator
Ali Malek QC3 Verulam Buildings; Chairman, COMBAR
Participants
Professor William Ballantyne Serle Court Chambers;
Visiting Professor of Arab Laws, University of London
(SOAS)
Mr Justice William Blair Chairman, Qatar Financial
Centre Regulatory Tribunal
Michael Brindle QC Fountain Court Chambers;
Chairman, Bar Council International Committee
Malik Dahlan Principal, Institution Quraysh
Barbara Dohmann QC Blackstone Chambers;
Commercial Judge of the Civil and Commercial Court at
the Qatar Financial Centre
Sir Anthony Evans Chief Justice in the Dubai
International Financial Centre Court; former Lord Justice
of Appeal
David Grief Senior Clerk, Essex Court Chambers
Sir Philip Otton Civil and Commercial Courts Judge in
the Qatar Financial Centre; former Lord Justice of Appeal
Organised by the Commercial Bar Association
Sponsored by HSBC

What is astonishing really about this conference is the lack of a coherent foundation for it.

If this debate had been held by the legal profession 20 years ago, before legal universalism in Human rights morphed into seperate and seperatist community rights it would have been progressive.

Now even the terms of the debates are reactionary as there is no sense of any theoretical grasp that religious legal pluralism is anything other than a common sense and non contentious aspect of an unproblematised multi-culturalism.

Most Barristers are rather apolitical (which means small c conservative) but what is certain is that most of them do not know the difference between Islam and Islamism and they are not going to learn the distinction at this conference, in fact the very vague though well meaning terms of the supposed debates will militate against any well argued, well informed principled opposition to the specifics of Sharia and islamic jurisprudence will only be seen as racism and anti-muslim bigotry.

The very basic, and patronising, multiculturalism 101 approach that the sessions take and hence assume in their audience who are (correctly no doubt) thought to be hugely ignorant of the relationship between law, society, politics and culture but in need of a few Continuing Professional Development points, ensures that the’ reasonable common ground consensus among lawyers that Sharia, like the Bermuda triangle, in the song by of Barry Manilow;

‘ain’t so bad’;

‘at least once you realise that very clever lawyers can be Muslim too, and its not all about stonings and beheadings but lots of ordinary things that you or I might think of as law too, I mean it all depends on what you call Sharia doesn’t it ‘ (accompanied by knowing lawyers smirk suggesting depths and complexity to the topic forever beyond mere mortals to comprehend);

will be the guaranteed outcome.

I do wish people wouldn’t post whole lectures on the subject. I would guess that few people read them. Keep it snappy. Mors Sun than Telegraph, Guardian or Times would be useful for debate ratrher than treat this like pseuds corner.

Honestly, well argued and crafted comments probably get wasted by boredom.

John P.

I am afraid you don’t know how England is now governed almost entirely by a system of patronage to rival regency England.

Well if you think this legal gabfest is bad, just take a look at the link below:

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/17216

Dan

‘Oh God, not one of you lot - please leave the country.

Since when has your life been affected by Islamists?’

Lots of times over several years, sometimes quite dramatically if you would also include affected to include being threatened with guns and knives but only once with a (really big) bomb when some Jihadis tried to blow me to fucking smithereens in Yemen.

So you might say having been exposed to Islamism in some rather direct ways I rather dislike its violent hate filled ideology.

Serious consideration of emigration is not because I believe that my door will be kicked in and my children carried off by evil Turks sporting a huge moustache and an equally large grin, but because of the ignorance of people like you who don’t understand why a country that no longer cares in protecting its citizens with a guarantee of equal treatment before the law is an existential threat to everything that I hold most dear.

It is clearly a principle you do not understand, the understanding of principles.

Now tell me how the lives of British Islamists have actually been directly affected by Israel or Iraq.

Maven

In your endless reiterative, screeds on the Beth Din, you have bested anyone else’s contribution to the subject of Sharia in terms both of the number of words expressed and their signal irrelevance to the subject.

It’s all about money, isn’t it. The Oil=producing Muslims have oodles of it, and so our ‘leaders’ suck up to them. As far as social policy in the Uk goes, I just see it becoming more and more lawless. A lot of these people come from countries where life is cheap, and Islam doesn’t appear to encourage the development of a conscience or of a sense of social obligation. It appears to me to be the ultimate ‘privatised’ religion, purely existential only interested in gathering advantages in this world. However, one doesn’t know how it will change under the influence of living in a modern, urban country. Only today in the paper it said that a mosque up North would allow a blind man to bring his guide dog onto the mosque premises: not into the actual prayer room, but into a special side room. A fatwa had to be issued to allow this. It really is a stultifying religion.

mettaculture - Now tell me how the lives of British Islamists have actually been directly affected by Israel or Iraq.

Oh!

That post woz much better.

Thank you.

It’s not as if we’re not on the same side.

Maven is on your side too.

I think.

Now tell me how the lives of British Islamists have actually been directly affected by Israel or Iraq.

Great response! I’d like to know too.

Only today in the paper it said that a mosque up North would allow a blind man to bring his guide dog onto the mosque premises: not into the actual prayer room, but into a special side room. A fatwa had to be issued to allow this. It really is a stultifying religion.

Well the ‘faith’ basically demands that one suspend one’s will and then hand the job of personnal responsability over to a cleric.

Is was reported that convert Taliban John Walker would ask clerics not just about how high he should hold his hands when praying, but also about how loud in what what tone of voice those prayers were to be recited.

He was completely helpless and totally dependant on others, on clerics, when it came to making even banal personnal choices.

The “ordinary people” that Dan writes about are very obviously not from a Muslim background, and you know what? That is the most depressing thing about the typical “White Liberal” response to these developments (even here, with all the drivelling on about a handful of irrelevant haredim). Even when domestic violence is referred to - not to mention unequal inheritance rights and many other less dramatic, but pervasive misogynist norms - it is as if these cases were abstract, theoretical…. Worst case scenarios, maybe? I mean, it’s nice to know that there are so many cosmopolitan British people who have grown up in a lovely egalitarian environment, but if you have actually experienced the kind of society which “soft jihadists” are trying to recreate here, you would understand the visceral revulsion some people feel when they consider the govt’s willingness to appease such right-wing authoritarians.

I rather agree with Mirax re Mettaculture’s soliloquy because I get the impression that he’s done enough work with activists in so-called developing countries to know all about the consequences of endorsing communalism. He probably has good reason to be just as melodramatically discouraged as he wants to be.

Anyway, perhaps I only socialise with freaks, but the fact remains that none of the Bangladeshi or Pakistani-born people I’ve met here came to britain in order to be ruled by the behnchod jamaat-e-islaami, you know?

A number of the comments to this blog assume that Muslim women exercise the same amount of freedom within their own homes and social group that non-Muslims do. Furthermore, that British feminists would be willing to argue for them and their rights under Western law.

In a rather famous case Cherie Blair argued successfully that a young Muslim girl should be allowed to wear an even more modest (and restrictive) outfit than already provided for in her school’s uniform policy. The school was a public school, and predominantly Muslim. While the case was being ajudicated, she stayed out of school entirely rather than violate her own sense of modesty, or go to another school. Ultimately the high court agreed with Ms. Blair that the girl’s religious freedom was being infringed, and forced the school to accept her covering.

If you think that a contrived EU treaty should trump the local control of a British school, all well and good, except that her head of household was her brother, someone who was known to have become radicalized. During this time period, Miss Begum became an orphan, and was entirely at the mercy of her brother’s ultra-fundamentalist views. It was he who drove this suit: the family was Bangladeshi, and had no cultural history of adopting the head-to-toe covering that was at odds with their entire community. Nevertheless, there was Britain’s preeminent feminist lawyer arguing for this girl’s subjugation.

Case reported in the papers tonight of a Shia cleric who ‘forced’ two minors to flagellate themselves with a whip that had knife-blades attached to its fronds to celebrate the Shia festival of Ashura. The cleric was handed a suspended sentence. Interesting to see whether it happens again next year. To be fair, it should be pointed out that the committee of the mosque where it happened had ruled that minors should not use the ‘adult’ version, but only the ‘junior’ version. If, the man had had the full support of his mosque, I wonder if this case would have been brought.

When I saw this post I asked myself the question, How long before some creep uses that insulting, vile term “uncle tom” about the person who posted it. Not long at all -nine comments in (24 September 2008, 1:05 am). It’s hideously predictable - there’s only one line you can take if you are from a particular race or religion, otherwise you are a race traitor.

It is one of those handy terms (along with “Ziocon”) which shows the user up as a disgusting bigot.

You seem to keep propogating the stereotype of Jews=Topol rather than Jews=David T

Chaim Topol is an actor, and I believe he is secular. I think you mean one of the characters he played … ;-)

John P:
What about the Canadian ‘human rights commissions’, aka star chambers?

mettaculture: to add to your gloom (which I completely appreciate- there are some things some of us hold dear which supersede the cost of living) how about this series of lectures on Islam and English Law at Temple Church in Middle Temple (for the non lawyers, yes the Da Vinci code church) as part of the 2008 Temple Festival:
http://www.temple2008.org/pgeIslam0907.html
http://www.temple2008.org/pageIslam21Oct.html

“Now tell me how the lives of British Islamists have actually been directly affected by Israel or Iraq.

Great response! I’d like to know too.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/may/01/israel5

Canada’s human rights commissions are a problem for sure, but they are overreaching now and i predict are going to face a backlash soon that will force governments to put them out of business or — better yet — force them to return to their original mandate of going after true racists (i.e. people who deny services, employment because of race, color, religion, etc.). The latest HRC outrage involves the Canadian Human Rights Commission (there are provincial ones as well) whereby an individual is being “charged” (not the right word) for saying he liked visible minorities and had no problem with them. Only in Canada eh, pity. This too will pass, Canadians by and large are very moderate and sensible.

Was doing some research for my doctorate and stumble over an old friend of the site (First comment)

http://www.maktabah.net/store/Products/ViewProductDetails.aspx?ProductID=27482&ID=0

ps. I’ll be buggered if i’ll pay money for the pdf. Sod him and his little hat

I certainly hope you are right, vildechaye, but this incident with charging someone for saying that does not bode well, imo … ;-(

Lots of people have been predicting a backlash in the UK also. Maybe it’ll happen. Maybe not in our lifetimes. Who knows?

All absolutely spot on. Labour hide behind the facade of multiculturalism to let this outrageous erosion of British law go unchallenged. I am waiting for a group of MPs from any party to turn round and say this is not acceptable, but unfortunately they’re all too scared of upsetting the Islamists.

http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com

But if I enjoy it and my girlfriend is willing to do it, why can’t I? Do we really need a Commission to investigate the practice? Wouldn’t it be better to say what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is their business?

No. You may not lawfully consent to an illegal act. If I invite you to fight me, and you accept, both of us are guilty of assault.

There was a case in the UK of a bunch of guys who met to perform sado-masochistic tortures on each other. They were put on trial and convicted.

John P:
What about the Canadian ‘human rights commissions’, aka star chambers

Actually, a wonderful acquaintence of mine, a certain Miss K. Shaidle, was hauled before one ( by offended islamists) and she is still being hounded.

Canada’s human “rights” commissions are a disgrace, and even their name misleading because they engage in censorship showtrials, and thereby abuse human rights.

Canada was once a great nation, but is now largely run by a tin-pot collection of liberal twits.

I would VERY much appreciate being annexed by The States, if only for the reason that such annexation would mean the end of the our ‘national’ broadcaster, the CBC.

Of course, there’d be drawbacks. We’d no longer be graced by visits from Her Majesty.

Then again, her successor talks to plants, and we DO have to think of the future, don’t we?

Then again, her successor talks to plants, and we DO have to think of the future, don’t we?

-and to think that one of his successors thinks its OK to dress up as a Nazi at parties…

Ami

There is a lot of it about ‘its so hot right now’ I missed the July special I will go to the October one.

As Israel is the new apartheid state so Muslims become the new ‘black’ victims of it in the imaginary of a certain kind of leftist who must have an apartheid must have boycotts and must have victims that they can support in order to feel secure in the world.

It is a question of identity and some leftists cannot live without a paradigmaticaly horrible oppression that all reasonable people knew was wrong, hence the need to find the new Apartheid.

There is a depressing pattern to these debates on religious freedom and the law, apart from the fact that the code is so obviously all about Islam as the existence of other religious demands has not exercised the legal establishments mind for a couple of centuries.

The pattern is always the same the panel consists of

a) a Muslim academic or legal activist.

b) a prominent lawyer or jurist with an impressive track record in human rights law (but little to non existent knowledge of Sharia)

c) a jurist or academic often from international law and politics departments or institutions.

The ‘debates’ premise is ALWAYS one of combating Islamophobia, Demonising Muslims, The Clash of Civilisations, Guantanomo/Abu Grhaib/rendition/ GazaAmerican/Israeli illegal unilateralism etc etc

a) is either a moderate or a radical, but as the debate is never about what (almost always) he says b) and C) are then obliged to state how they think there is a lot of demonising of Muslims going on in some quarters and how that is a bad thing.

What I have not seen yet is a Muslim femminist opponent of Sharia or victims of Islamist violence speak, or even a critical legal appraisal of the complexities of introducing religious protection that can obviously conflict with other anti-discrimination law.

Of course and actual critical legal approach to Sharia law is way beyond the capacities or inclinations of any of these speakers.

I say this having the most tremendous respect for Albie Sachs and Edward Fitzgerald (with whom I mini pupilled and worked alongside on a few occaisions).

Edward Fitzgerald is a very decent gentle man with an incredible strength of mind and character and he will defend the indifensible because that must be done in a democracy, but in a proper forum of law.

He should not be taken out of court and set up this way in the furtherence of an Islamist agenda, because whether they know it or not that is currently what the legal elite are doing.

any canadian advocating annexation to the states should simply emigrate there. what a dumbass

oh forgot to mention: good riddance!

I assume the debate on this page is well and truly over, but in case any one has the type of personality that means they enjoy reading all the posts days after they were written, I must correct some of the views expressed above.
Hamodia does not feature any pictures of women or girls. This is because Hamodia caters for the entire Orthodox community which includes groups who are view any depiction of a woman in a newspaper as being immodest. To say that girls and women are damaged by this policy is laughable. Firstly Hamodia has a huge staff of women who contribute immensely to the success and content of the newspaper. Secondly frum Women have images of women plainly visible in hundreds of books, published in English Yiddish and Hebrew.

The comment that said that Haredi women’s lives are hard, is I’m sure not familiar with the overwhelming numbers of frum women, who rejoice in their lives and enjoy them immensely. From a religious point of view, a man’s life is harder as he has many more obligations he has to fulfil each day.

I happen to believe that women, equal to men, have free will, and a mind capable of deciding the best way to live. Many women have opted for to observe our timeless and Holy Torah, and show a greater degree of piety that our menfolk.

Clearly the average reader of Harry’s place, views the word and the role of women and men, very differently from your average observant Jew, by all means agree to disagree, but don’t patronise the women of my community, or denigrate the men of my community.

As for the matrilineal descent being because of some “historical” reason, please, these arguments have been around for 200 years since the reformers tried to do away with most of Judaism in order to be appreciated by the local non-Jewish population. These arguments were refuted then, by the brilliant Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, and have been refuted subsequently ever since.

The issue of matrilineal descent is not the opinion of the “mullahs” of Orthodoxy, but is in fact the position laid down in the Torah, and detailed in the Talmud. Liberal Judaism might have done away with this, but then they have done away with most of Judaism.