Muslim Sharia courts in Great Britain have now been given actual ruling powers in civil cases in what is really a parallel legal system operating with the consent of British government.

In what is truly a shocking and ill-advised precedent, the British government has very quietly sanctioned ruling-court powers for sharia judges in London, Birmingham, Bradford, Manchester, Nuneaton, with plans for similar courts in Glasgow and Edinburgh.

A muslim sheik, Faiz-uh-Aqtab Siddiqi, has admittedly taken advantage of a loophole in the Arbitration Act of 1996 to further the Islamic agenda. Under that act, the sharia courts have now been classified as arbitration tribunals, with the rulings of these tribunals binding in law. The types of cases allowed in these courts range from divorce, financial disputes, and domestic violence.

Siddiqi said, “We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are.”

Perhaps the British brought this upon themselves. After all, they didn’t object when the Archbishop of Canterbury last year called sharia law “unavoidable” and suggested that the country pursue a "constructive accommodation" with Muslim practices. Nor did they make much of the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips’ comment that sharia could indeed be used to settle marital and financial disputes. With friends like these paving the way for Muslim law, how can the Muslims fail at implementing even more of their extremist laws through the mechanisms of the British state, which, by the way, is supposed to be Anglican.

So far over 100 cases have gone through the tribunal, with six cases of domestic violence being settled — not very good odds, but they’re just getting started.

Domestic violence has a different connotation for Islamists than for the Western world, as the Koran states that woman can be beaten, since Allah created women as the property of men:

Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his.” (Tabari IX:113)

With beliefs like this, Islamic men would always get the better of the deal in an Islamic court. And so far that’s exactly what has happened. Real British law has been superseded when Islamic men accused of physically abusing their wives are sent to anger management classes rather than facing jail time. Can you imagine what their wives must suffer when they get back home? Siddiqi believes that saving these marriages is a good thing — why, so the wife can have a second, third, and fourth chance of being beaten and abused?

Once these sharia courts really get going, will the religion of honor killings become so bold as to institute or implement traditional punishments like stoning and dismemberment?  And will they then seek to further assert their authority by meting out punishments to Christians?

And lest you think it’s just Great Britain and several other countries of Europe such as France, the Netherlands, and Norway that are experiencing this shift in toleration for, and protection under the laws of the land for Muslim extremism, you might take a look at the United States.

Remember Harvard University when it bowed to the women-only gym hours imposed by the Muslims? And how about the imam in Des Moines, Iowa, who opened the 2008 legislative session, calling on Allah to “give us victory over those who disbelieve?” 

Travelers through the airport in Minneapolis, Minnesota, know too well the taxi cab drivers who inquired if they were carrying any alcohol, a violation of Islamic law, and refused them transport. Over the past five years, 5,4000 passengers were turned away by Muslim cab drivers — three-quarters of the 900 cabbies there are Muslim — for carrying alcohol, or because they traveled with their pets — seen as unclean by Muslims. The Minnesota Muslim American Society then had the effrontery to offer a compromise measure calling for the color-coding of cabs that would not transport anyone with alcohol or pets. That proposal was turned down by the airport commission. But in an attempt to minimize the blow, and to keep Muslims from being "offended," airport commission spokesman Patrick Hogan whimpered, “It’s not a case of good guys versus bad guys. It’s simply individuals who want to do right by their religion.”

What it is about is the furthering of Islamic supremacy — to the detriment of American society — and the constant undermining of American law through cultural jihad. The philosophy put forth in a document that was introduced as evidence by the U.S. Justice Department at the Holy Land Foundation trial in Texas in 2007 and loosely called the Ikhwan’s (Brotherhood’s) Plan for North America says:

The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a “Civilization-Jihadist” process with all that the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” their miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all religions.

In the name of tolerance, generous Americans and others in the Western world have been making attempts to accomodate Muslim traditions. Unfortunately, they do so at great risk, because radical elements in the Muslim world are eager to take advantage of that generosity in order to push a jihadist agenda that threatens to undermine the free traditions that have been so long in the making.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments