Apparently, there's been a sharia court sitting for several months at the Hijaz College Islamic University in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. It's said to be the UK's first Islamic sharia court.
This tribunal – which calls itself the Muslim Arbitration Council – "operates alongside the British legal system" and has "binding legal status". There may be things wrong with the British legal system (as there are with any legal system), but it's what our legislators have put in place for Britain, and we, using an admittedly flawed electoral system, have put those legislators in place, using the limited democracy successive governments allow us to have.
Further legal arrangements should be decided by our elected representatives, not a bunch of deluded, Allah-soaked superstitionists who think their imported, religiously inspired legal system should sit in addition to, and have "binding legal status" alongside, the one that is legally in place in the country they've chosen to live in.
But this is more evidence of the sinister creeping Islamisation that the great and the good in the UK are allowing to slither over and around us. They won't be happy till it's too late to stop it, and, as if from a Kafkaesque nightmare, they'll wake up one morning to find they're ruled by Islamist politicians and adjudicated over by an Islamist judiciary.
Recently, Britain's Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, said there was no reason why sharia law could not be used for contractual agreements and marital disputes. Well, there's no reason, presumably, my lord, why any two parties shouldn't thrash out an agreement over just about anything, provided that decision didn't then obviate the need for the law to step in (if it were a situation that would normally involve it).
I mean, if you and I agree that you won't park your ugly, gas-guzzling people carrier outside my house, but it took a couple of neighbours to help us decide on that agreement, there's no harm in that. So was there any need for such a pronouncement? Is it not just a form of arbitration, of which there are many in the UK?
Ah, but this is sharia? So where does sharia differ from British law? What is wrong with arbitration panels and County Courts already in existence under civil law? Perhaps the clue is here, where the paper says:
But in some Muslim countries punishments handed out under the legal system have included beheadings, public floggings and thieves’ hands being chopped off.
Faisal Aqtab Siddiqi, a commercial law barrister and head of Hijaz College, who has sat in judgment at a number of the tribunals, said British society was not ready for such punishments.
But he added that if society became more "civilised" then those who broke the law should expect to receive the highest degree of punishment [my emphasis].
Is that what he would prefer, then? That Britain should become "civilised" and start to separate people from their limbs?
If the paper has reported him faithfully (and it is a trashy tabloid, don't forget, but presumably it knows its representation of him can be challenged), then this man is a dangerous and deranged idiot, and ought to be prosecuted for inciting violence. For that's what his sentiments look like.
If he's telling fellow Muslims (and he is a "scholar", let us not forget, and will command respect) that it would be "civilised" to use "the highest degree of punishment", and he feels that those punishments should include decapitation, amputations and floggings, there's something seriously wrong with a country that allows the head of one of its educational institutions (albeit one many of whose teachings are based on uncivilised seventh-century thinking) to hold such views and express them publicly with his official hat on.
And this is someone who is part of the ideology that is pushing for an end to criticism of the Muslim "faith" within the UN. He and his cranky kind, his fellow sharia-ists, can call, it seems, for people to be flogged and have their heads amputated, but they don't want us to criticise their disturbing, wacky, menacing, sinister worldview.
Perhaps it's the college that ought to lose its head.
2 comments:
From http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/34658
"Consider which of these statements best reflects your own view:
a) Britain would be a better country if there were more Muslims living here.
b) There is the right number of Muslims in Britain to serve the country’s interests.
c) It would be preferable if Britain did not have a large Muslim population at all.
Got an answer yet? I bet it wasn’t A.
A profit-and-loss account of the impact of Islam on Britain will quickly demonstrate why.
On an economic level, the impact of Britain’s Muslims is massively negative. Research shows Muslim communities are typified by heavy levels of welfare dependency and low levels of wealth creation.
A report last year by the Left-wing Institute for Public Policy Research found that fewer than half of adults from four of the biggest Muslim groups here – Somalis, Bangladeshis, Turks and Pakistanis – are in employment.
And because of the high number of children in their families they also tend to be heavy users of expensive public services such as the NHS.
On a wider cultural basis, the impact of Islam on this country is also strongly negative in the eyes of the public.
Islam has repressed women in a way Britain has not tolerated for hundreds of years. Forced marriage, honour killing, female genital mutilation, enforced wearing of the veil – all are abominations present within British Muslim communities.
The repression of womenfolk has also led some Muslim men to view vulnerable young women from outside the faith as sub-human sexual fodder fit only to be used and abused. Freedom of speech has also been curtailed thanks to the sabre-rattling of angry Muslims. Not since the “fatwah” declared upon Salman Rushdie, forcing him into hiding, have even our most outspoken public figures felt free to fully express themselves.
Muslim urban ghettos have also reintroduced electoral fraud as a regular feature of British political life.
Other wider freedoms for the individual have had to be drastically curtailed in order to facilitate the fight against homegrown Islamist terrorism. The police and security services have been given all manner of sweeping new powers.
Over the weekend, Government minister Phil Woolas spoke of another repellent cultural practice prevalent among Muslims from Pakistan – the marrying of first cousins and an ensuing epidemic of health problems.
According to Labour MP Ann Cryer, more than 80 per cent of Pakistanis living in her Keighley constituency marry someone living in Pakistan, often a cousin. This facilitates “chain migration” by allowing more Pakistanis to come to Britain to live. It also prevents meaningful integration.
Yet the reaction to Mr Woolas from British Muslims has been hostile and paranoid. One representative group, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, called for the minister to be sacked, accusing him of the catch-all sin of “Islamophobia”.
I have just recently started a blog to document concessions the West is making to Islam. Each one is usually rather small, but when you add them up, the effect is startling. I've just started the blog last week, and I am labeling them by country. Guess which country has the most entrees so far? Britain.
If there are stories you'd like to see added to the collection, send them to me and I'll post them: citizenwarriorgeneral@gmail.com. The blog is ad-free and I'm using it as a resource for all of us who want to help make the point to our less-educated-about-jihad friends and readers that Jihadis are gaining ground WITH OUR PERMISSION! Here's the new blog:
http://concess.blogspot.com
Post a Comment