Whether it’s gays or women, the first and primary victims of the medieval “law” they call sharia are Muslims.
As this story in The Australian points out – citing the UK and Canada – sharia threatens all that Muslim women activists have fought for.
“Many aspects of these laws are unpalatable to a society that has enforced equal rights for divorce, custody, inheritance and court testimony, and criminalised polygamy and forced, under-age marriage,” says the writer, Ada Lichter.
“Moreover, the experience with sharia in Britain and Canada is cautionary. It is estimated thousands of British Muslim men have taken advantage of a loophole in the law against bigamy to avoid official registration and seal polygamous marriages in mosque ceremonies.”
She goes on to quote a British think tank: “According to a report by British think tank Civitas in 2009, some rulings of sharia courts or tribunals advised illegal actions and others were incompatible with British law. Try these: polygamous marriage (two to four wives) is considered legal; there is no requirement to register a marriage according to the law of the country; a woman cannot marry without the presence (and permission) of a male guardian; a woman may not leave her home without her husband’s consent; a woman may not retain custody of her child after seven (for a boy) or nine (for a girl); and ‘severe punishments for homosexuals’ are recommended.”
We know not all Muslims wish to impose these barbarisms, but the fact that enough do, and that many of those are vocal and become self-appointed “community leaders” and often have the ear of government and other authorities, is worrying.
No comments:
Post a Comment
We welcome lively and challenging comments. However, please try to stay on topic, be polite and do not use abusive, racist or sexist language, and do not incite your readers to violence or other antisocial behaviour, or your comment will be deleted. This isn't censorship: it's a case of staying within the bounds of decency and having an eye to the law, although we realise the law will be different in different countries.
We do not bar anonymous comments at the moment, but we would prefer that those commenting play fair and use their name or at least a regular nom de plume. It does show a confidence in your convictions. We know, too, that it's easy to use a false name and be effectively anonymous, but, again, we appeal to your sense of good practice. Even a wacky nom de plume is better, since at least readers will come to know that contributor and maybe remember her or his previous comments.
Blatant commercial advertising will be removed.
Comments should not be construed as necessarily the policy or opinion of the Pink Triangle Trust.
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.