That is, if you listen to Muselmanic agit-props like Â Musleh Faradhi who are given a forum at the Grunard or at the Islam-infested BBC.
The Islam-propaganda Â machine is cranked into high gear: New Statesman’s Senior Editor Mehdi Hasan sounds almost hysterical as he accuses British Lawmakers of “being obsessed with sharia law”, a clear case of projection according to the Mohammedan playbook.
If you care to read it, keep this in mind:
“Sharia bill is based on a false premise”
What could possibly be misunderstood about a law that approves of female genital mutilation;Â the restriction of non-Muslim religious practice;Â the devaluing of a non-Muslim’s life as compared to that of a Muslim;Â the brutalizing of women;Â the forbidding of music; and, of course,Â jihad and Islamic supremacism?
The question:Â Should religious law be curbed?
Lady Cox is wrong to assume that anyone other than the criminal courts of England and Wales, and the law of England and Wales, has or claims to have legal jurisdiction over criminal matters (whether or not they are family related) and criminal law.
What does this bill do? The short answer is that it moves us backwards.
The way forward for Musleh is Islam, of course.
Why? Because it starts with a false premise. Sharia tribunals do not seek, or have power, to impose decisions over and above the existing law of the land.
Muslims are religiously obliged to replace the ‘man-made’ laws of the kafirs with the ‘divine’ laws of Allah, the sharia, which then apply to all. The existing law of the land must be done away with as soon as Muslims have the numbers and the power.
These tribunals only deal with the very narrow issues of marriage and divorce: they do not deal with any issues surrounding domestic violence or criminal activity. Moreover, they have no enforcement powers, therefore any sharia ruling is seen as advice, since there is no power (nor the seeking of any power) of enforcement.
Its all about power, Musleh, is it not?
“These tribunals only deal with the very narrow issues of marriage and divorce.” Very narrow issues?
Fairly broad and fundamental issues in any civilised, secular and democratic society.
That women who come to this country with little or no English and are then discriminated against by their own husbands or relatives has nothing to do with sharia, but rather with traditions and culture. This should not be used as a stick with which to beat sharia councils.
No. Can’t use a stick to beat the sharia councils. Lets give them a stick to beat women instead. Â And why would we want anyone in the country come to this country with little or no English? For cultural enrichment?
Note Â also that no Islamic headbanger can ever make a case without pointing at the Jews:
Just as any Jewish woman who wishes to be free from the religious ties to her husband would approach theÂ Beth Din, likewise many Muslim women want religious points answered in their potential separations. What can possibly be wrong allowing these women to have answers to their religious questions?
Jewish courts do not rule on the basis of a law that Jews are laboring to impose upon the whole of British society. Sharia courts are.
Sharia remains one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented terms in the west. The Islamic legal code is only a part of the sharia. Technically, sharia embodies theology, law and ethics. So Muslims, simply by virtue of giving in charity, looking after their families or assisting their neighbours, are actually following “sharia”.
Only a Muslim can understand Islam. Yawn!
So, is there any conflict between sharia and the British justice system? As the lord chief justiceÂ said in 2008:
“There is no reason why sharia principles, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution [with the understanding] … that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales.”
If I only had a dollar for every clueless judge, priest or politician! I could take all our readers out to dinner.
A common argument one often hears is that sharia and western laws are incompatible â€“ as if the whole nation is being asked to choose one or the other wholesale. According to Muslim jurists, sharia has five overarching universal goals: the preservation of religious freedom, of life, of intellect, of property and of lineage. These universal principles are in fact compatible with most justice systems.
There is noÂ religious freedom for unbelievers under the sharia. Property, lineage and intellect? Musleh makes it up as he goes along, hoping you are ignorant of what Islam really has in store for you.
Sharia teaches Muslims that they are religiously bound by the contracts they enter into and are morally obliged to fulfil them. In other words, sharia tells Muslims that they, as legal citizens of the UK, are bound to abide by and respect the laws here because that is the social “contract” that they have consciously entered into by virtue of residing here.
Not. Muslims generally don’t respect the laws of the kafirs and are obliged to replace them with the sharia. In fact Muhammad himself said that no contract or promise given to a kufar is worth anything and that it can be broken anytime.
Now Musleh invokes the freedom of religion canard:
This presumes, by the way, that freedom of religion exists so that Muslims are not prevented from carrying out their basic religious duties. Therefore, paradoxically and in contradiction to the common myth, instead of conflict we have a situation where Muslims are actually more faithful to sharia when they are abiding by the laws of the land they reside in. Even many Muslims, as well as non-Muslims, remain ignorant of this crucial fact.
Today, many high street banks are already offering a range of sharia-compliant finance and mortgage products. Is this contradictory to the British justice system?
Of course it is. Last time I checked it was a total flop. Besides, its used to finance the jihad, so why is it not totally forbidden?
Sharia articulates very clear rights and duties of both husband and wife. There are more responsibilities both financial and social on the husband than there are on the wife.
What is clear when the women is illiterate and nothing more than chattel? Â The husband can do what he wants.
Women have a right to their husbands’ income in as far as it is the husband’s duty under Islamic law to financially provide for the whole family’s needs. A woman has the option of working, but the income she attains is solely her property and her husband or other family members have no right over it.
Yeah. Show me the money! As long as Muslims insist to bring illiterate, underage females into our countries as breeding stock for the jihad, they are hardly employable. They will be a constant burden to the taxpayers of the host country.
It is also a fact that most users of sharia tribunal services are women. It is a well-known fact that many Muslim women have successfully, legitimately and speedily ended an Islamic marriage due to husbands not fulfilling their rights or for other reasons. How else will they seek separation in such cases?
By getting a divorce through the courts.
The blanket claim that women’s witness is worth half that of men totally misses the complexities of Islamic law. In some limited areas of Islamic law, two female witnesses are required where one male witness will suffice. However, there are other areas where one female witness is sufficient. This issue would not affect most of the issues and cases dealt with by the sharia courts.
Gosh, so it is onlyÂ some areas in which a woman is worth half as much as a man but not all. Well that’s all right then.
These courts are totally based on voluntary participation and every man and woman has recourse to ordinary British law. Thus ask the question: does this bill do more harm than good? The answer surely must be yes.
You might find the answer here: Sharia Law or One Law for All?
So what’s really happening here?
The Center for Security Policy’s report, Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases evaluates 50 Appellate Court cases from 23 states that involve conflicts between Shariah (Islamic law) and American state law.
And once Muslims have power, what do they do?
Muslim leaders in Kenya have called on the government to introduce the death penalty for homosexuals and to boycott their businesses, media reports said Monday.
“Death is the only punishment prescribed by Islam for such people…”