Search This Blog

Tuesday, 30 June 2009

The shame of sharia

Sharia is a truly hideous legal system. I’ve just read an article by Denis MacEoin, the man we quoted in yesterday’s post on the subject of this scummy, shady system, in which he looks in one long detailed paragraph at how shitty sharia is to Muslim women.

Read the entire article, but this is the paragraph:

If couples do not marry according to UK civil law (and I have seen a fatwa ruling that they need not register their marriage with the British authorities), there may be serious consequences in the event of divorce; in the custody of children (which always goes against the woman); with respect to alimony (a man does not have to pay any, except for the children) and with regard to rights to a share in the family home (which a woman does not have). During the marriage, a man may coerce his wife to have sex, (though wives do not have that right); a husband may confine his wife to their home; if one or the other partner abandons Islam, (the marriage is declared null and void). It is considered wrong to reject polygamy. If a woman wishes to divorce her husband, it is made dependent on obtaining her husband's permission and the agreement of a sharia court. A woman may not marry a non-Muslim and a man may marry only a Jewish or Christian woman. Legal adoption is prohibited, but if a child has been adopted, he or she may not inherit from the adoptive parents. The Leyton-based Islamic Shariah Council has issued rulings including one that forbids a woman of any age to marry without a male "guardian"; another that says a man only has to intend to divorce for it to be valid; one that insists that a polygamous marriage must be maintained even in the UK (Islamic Shariah Council); and another that excuses a man from making alimony payments after divorce.

But will our tenth-rate politicians listen to this kind of caution. Nope. As long as there are Muslim votes and they can continue to adhere to political correctness, they don’t give a gopher’s gonads for the rights of women, because they’re Muslim women, and they know that Muslim women are not as likely to kick up a fuss as non-Muslim women, who, generally, are not the chattels of men, to be used and abused by them as the men see fit.


Anonymous said...


I like the way that this site states that it is a liberal and free thinking site that stands up for peoples rights. Then i read a rant about Islamic law by someone who has no idea what it is about. The person you quote has got almost all of his information wrong. If you're so free thinking then why didn't you check these "facts" out for yourself and look at what the Qur'an and relevant documents actually say. This is a reactionary piece at best and at worse an article dedicated to the spread of misinformation about the Islamic faith. It is true that Islam, like most religions, states that homosexuality is a sin. You should focus your anger on that fact, but you shouldn't write a piece about women that is simply not true just because your angry.

You need to be able to identify what the difference is between Islam as a religion and certain Arab cultures whose misogynistic way's they masquerade as Islamic.

I'll give you an example of the inaccuracies of this piece, women do NOT have to have permission to get divorced under the Sharia.

There are a lot more, if you want the information sources for them i will happy to provide, just post a comment.

You feel that Islam victimises you. Your doing the exact same thing to Muslims just because they don't agree with your way of life. Is that right?

Andy Armitage said...

Hi, Anonymous. Interesting response, and it's good to debate. Thank you. The guy I quoted actually had a lot of hyperlinks in his piece, one citing each claim. They could be wrong, of course, and we were just quoting him. He can stand or fall by what he says. However, if you'd like to write something, I'd be happy to guest-post it for you (that is, as a main posting, not just a comment). We'd need a name and a sort of "handle" (perhaps you're a blogger, a writer, a teacher, an imam, a scholar, whatever, based in wherever, which doesn't need to be precise). How does that sound?