Thread: UK: Islamic law versus secular law in Britain

O.k. This is fairly long. However, it really hits home when immigrants demand "rights" which are in direct conflict with the laws of the country they CHOSE to make their home. It also decries "MULTICULTURISM" which destroys the host country.

Britain has had a long struggle to ensure that there is one law for all, where all are equal under law. It is less than a century that women have been allowed the right to vote and be a participant in the political process. Britain's legal system is far from perfect and still contains archaic laws which in the hands of unscrupulous campaigners can create injustice.
In 1944 a spiritualist, Helen Duncan was tried under a 1735 witchcraft act and imprisoned for nine months, In 1977, anti-libertarian campaigner Mary Whitehouse mounted a prosecution under the Blasphemy Act of 1697, which had last been invoked in 1921. As a result, editor Denis Lemon was given a nine month suspended jail sentence and a heavy fine.

Britain's legal system is far from perfect, but it is formed under, and open to amendments by, national democratic process. People who may disagree with Britain's laws usually accept the principle of the rule of law, and the mechanisms by which such law is both founded and implemented. Most people, that is, except for a proportion of Britain's Muslims. Muslims only comprise 3 percent of the total populaton, and thus do not feel they can change the system without invoking "special minority status".

Last year, the Muslim Council for Britain effectively influenced the government to introduce laws to protect their religion from criticism. They had failed in getting Blair's government to amend the 1697 Blasphemy Act to incorporate Islam, but were compensated with a bill, the "Incitement to Religious Hatred Act". This actually passed through the lower house of parliament (the Commons), but was finally emasculated by the upper house (the Lords) on October 25.

Despite failing to see this law implemented on their terms, the unelected Muslim Council of Britain has still managed to affect Britain's legislation. For two years, the government had planned to outlaw forced marriages, but on June this year, the Home Office announced it abandoned its plans, following opposition from the Muslim Council of Britain.

In February this year, a poll was carried out by ICM, and this showed that 40% of Muslims wanted Sharia Law. Sharia, or Islamic Law, involves no democracy, and in its history, implementation and resistance to amendment, it is totally alien to British Law.

In Canada, the province of Ontario narrowly avoided introducing Sharia Law in September last year. Following international and national protests, the proposal to introduce sharia to issues of family law was dropped. It had been introduced following campaigning by an Islamist lawyer, Syed Mumtaz Ali, who in 1995 had said: "Do you want to govern yourself by the personal law of your own religion, or do you prefer governance by secular Canadian family law? If you choose the latter, then you cannot claim that you believe in Islam as a religion and a complete code of actualized life by a Prophet who you believe to be a mercy to all."

Following a proposal by a former attorney, Marion Boyd, the Ontario premier, Dalton McGuinty, had avoided the issue for nearly a year but, faced with losing his own popularity, he announced on September 11 that: "There will be one law for all Ontarians." He said he would move to scrap any faith based tribunals from being allowed to influence issues of divorce and family arbitration. Since 1991, Jews and Catholics had been allowed to have their faith considered in such cases in the province.

The issue of Islamic family law (issues of divorce, marriage and child custody) causes problems even when implemented in supposedly "Muslim" countries such as Malaysia. On December 25 last year, Malaysia passed a bill, the Islamic Family Law (Federal Territories) Bill 2005. This made polygamy more easy for a man, and under Section 107A allowed a man to freeze the assets of a wife or former wife. Under Section 23(9)(b), it allowed a man to seize property belonging to existing wives if he was planning a divorce or adding a new wife to his collection. The bill was widely condemned as discriminatory against women.

If Sharia Law only concerns issues of family law, it is allowed under Islam for a man to marry a woman who is not a Muslim, even though it is forbidden for a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim man. And here, where an inter-faith marriage has taken place, sharia law shows no mercy to the woman who is not "of the faith".

Even in Saudi Arabia the issue of Sharia law, when applied to families, discriminates against women and children. A woman in Saudi Arabia, where all laws are said to comply with Sharia, is allowed custody of a child only until that child reaches the age of seven. Then, the father has a right of custody, which supersedes any rights of the mother. In Saudi Arabia, people are beheaded every week, but a father who kills his child is not eligible for the death penalty. Issues of domestic abuse are not factored in to Saudi family law, allowing in some instances children to be handed to abusive fathers, and sometimes killed.

In countries which are not Muslim, suggestions to introduce Sharia Law usually only suggest that it should be introduced to deal with issues of family law. In western countries, most Muslims would rather be judged under Western law for issues of theft or rape. The traditional punishment for theft under Islamic law is amputation. And this act is brutal, as shown in the extremely graphic video which can be downloaded "http://apostatesofislam.com/media/video/handcutting_video_islam_200kbps.wmv" target = "a">HERE (Warning - explicit violence).

Similarly, the Islamic punishment for "zina" - illegal intercourse, including adultery - is horrific. Men are buried up to their waists in earth, and women up to their breasts, and then they are pelted with small stones until dead. Another extremely graphic video, depicting people being stoned to death, can be viewed "http://www.apostatesofislam.com/media/stoning.htm" target = "st">HERE (Warning - explicit violence).

Muslims who try to introduce the subject of implementation of Sharia Law in Western nations always emphasize that they are only trying to introduce 'family" law, because no sane Western public would countenance such barbaric punishments as stoning or amputation. But even to suggest introducing Islamic "family law" to a nation is an insult to the countries in which these mainly migrant Muslims have chosen to inhabit.

When Muslim leaders arrive from other countries (few Muslim leaders in Britain were born here) they know the laws are secular, and are part and parcel of the democratic system. Yet they seek to introduce laws based on a pre-Medieval Arab system, where bloodshed was rife, and democracy and women's rights were non-existent.

The ICM poll in February, which showed that 40% of Britain's Muslims wanted Sharia Law did not even differentiate between Islamic family law, and the whole package of Sharia. The result shocked the UK public. Muslim leaders made little or no comment on the findings. The respondents to the poll who wished for Sharia Law only wanted it in "predominantly Muslim areas". Those who opposed introduction of Sharia Law to "predominantly Muslim areas" were of a similar number - 41%. 91% of respondents said they were loyal to Britain, but by supporting the implementation of an alien and undemocratic legal system, one wonders what they really meant by "loyalty".

On August 15 this year, Britain's communities minister, Ruth Kelly, hosted a meeting of Muslim leaders. This meeting was held following the publication of a statement, which had appeared in organs of the national press on Saturday, August 12. The letter, signed by numerous Muslim groups and organizations, including three Muslim members of parliament, had hinted that Muslim terrorism in Britain was influenced by Britain's foreign policy.

It stated: "It is our view that current British government policy risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad."

Ruth Kelly had convened the meeting to state that both the government and the Muslim community needed to do more to "take on the terrorist and extremist elements that are sometimes found within it, not just in the Muslim community, but elsewhere as well." What emerged from the meeting that was any different from other conferences was a demand from one of the Muslim delegates for Sharia Law to be introduced to Britain. Worse, the delegate argued dishonestly that if British Muslims were allowed Sharia Law, then the threat of terrorism on British soil would vanish.

The delegate was Dr Syed Aziz Pasha, head of the Union of Muslim Organisations of the UK & Ireland (pictured). Media outlets which had reported on the conference, such as the Independent, the Khaleej Times and the BBC quoted Pasha selectively, carefully avoiding his call for Sharia. The Guardian ignored his statement altogether.

Pasha said: "In Scotland, they have a separate law. It doesn't mean they are not part of the UK. We are asking for Islamic law which covers marriage and family life. We are willing to co-operate but there should be a partnership. They should understand our problems then we will understand their problems."

Pasha, like many British Muslim leaders, has never been a committed "partner" in the war on terror. On April 18 he condemned the Terrorism Act 2006 shortly after it was finalized. He said then: "The Government is spending more time on anti terror legislation and is taking away Muslims' civil liberties and freedom." Pasha had claimed the anti-terror legislation targeted Muslims, and said its clause outlawing the glorification of terrorism would prevent Muslims from speaking about jihad.

Despite his refusal to accept British mores, Pasha was given an award by the Muslim Council of Britain in May this year, for his "invaluable services to Muslims". He was described by the MCB's then leader, Iqbal Sacranie, as a "towering figure" who had "dedication and commitment to the Muslim community".

The issue of Sharia Law in Britain has been perceived until this week as no more than a "pipe dream" of Islamists who seek to impose their religion upon the state. Very few people have taken it seriously.

One person who has warned of the threat of Sharia Law in Britain is Dr Patrick Sookhdeo. In March, he said that he had been canvassing opinions of British Muslim clerics about their opinions on the cartoons of Mohammed, which had caused world-wide riots, in which 50 people had been killed.

He said: "They think they have won the debate. They believe that the British Government has capitulated to them, because it feared the consequences if it did not. The cartoons, you see, have not been published in this country, and the Government has been very critical of those countries in which they were published. To many of the Islamic clerics, that's a clear victory."

"It's confirmation of what they believe to be a familiar pattern: if spokesmen for British Muslims threaten what they call 'adverse consequences' - violence to the rest of us - then the British Government will cave in. I think it is a very dangerous precedent."

Then, in an interview with journalist Alasdair Palmer, he said that "in a decade, you will see parts of English cities which are controlled by Muslim clerics and which follow, not the common law, but aspects of Muslim sharia law. It is already starting to happen - and unless the Government changes the way it treats the so-called leaders of the Islamic community, it will continue."

Dr Sookhdeo, who is now an Anglican cleric, knows about the Islamic mindset, as he was born in 1947 into a Muslim family in Guyana. He was sent to an Islamic madrassa there when he was four. He lectures on radical Islam to NATO and in 1989 he founded the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity, and runs the Barnabus Fund, which supports Christians under persecution, particularly in Islamic societies. He opposes faith-based schools as they are "a block to integration".

He said in Australia in 2004: "The problem with Islam is greater than most in the West realise. One of the strengths of the West is the development of liberal societies based on pluralism. The difficulty with classical Islam is that, ultimately, it does not accept pluralism in that form."

In his book Islam in Britain, Dr Sookhdeo said that an "alternative parallel unofficial legal system" was operating in the Muslim community on a voluntary, unofficial basis.

In March, he said that the government should reverse its policies of multiculturalism and assert the "secular basis of British law and society. That is a non-negotiable condition of being here." He added: "If the Government does not do all of those things then I fear for the future, because Islamic communities within Britain will form a state within a state. Religion will occupy an ever-larger place in our collective political life. And, speaking as a religious man myself, I fear that outcome."

Dr Sookhdeo's prediction of Sharia Law, imposed by Muslim clerics upon their communities in defiance of Britain's secular law, is becoming a reality already.

On Wednesday November 29, the Telegraph reported on a statement which had been made by Aydarus Yusuf on a BBC radio program, Law in Action. Yusuf, a 29-year old Somali-born youth worker, who has lived in Britain for 15 years, had said: "Us Somalis, wherever we are in the world, we have our own law. It's not Islamic, it's not religious - it's just a cultural thing."

He convenes an unofficial Somali court, or "gar" in south-east London. He presided over this kangaroo court when it dealt with a "trial" of a group of young men who were accused of stabbing a Somali.

He said: "When the suspects were released on bail by the police, we got the witnesses and families together for a hearing. The accused men admitted their guilt and apologised. Their fathers and uncles agreed compensation."

Dr Prakash Shah, of London's Queen Mary University supports such courts, saying: "Tribunals like the Somali court could be more effective than the formal legal system in maintaining social harmony."

Mohammed Shahid Raza, an Islamic scholar, said that having a pluralist legal system, including sharia, has a British precedent. He stated: "When Britain was ruling India, there was a separate legal code for Muslims, organised and regulated by British experts of law."

Already Sharia councils exist in Britain. One woman, Ayesha Begum, said that she applied to the Muslim Law Shariah Council in west London to get an "Islamic divorce". She said: "I had obtained a divorce in the secular courts - but my husband refused to divorce me Islamically. In English law I was seen as a single woman but by Islamic law I was still married to him."

Faisal Aqtab Siddiqi, a commercial law barrister and head of the Hijaz College Islamic University near Nuneaton in Warwickshire says that he has sat as an adjudicator in "Islamically resolved" contractual disputes.

He states: "Because we follow the same process as any case of arbitration, our decisions are binding in English law. Unless our decisions are unreasonable, they are recognised by the High Court."

Siddiqi told the Telegraph that his court had advantages: "It operates on a low budget, it operates on very small timescales and the process and the laws of evidence are far more lenient and it's less awesome an environment than the English courts."

Like Dr Sookhdeo, Siddiqi predicts that within a decade there will be a network of Islamic courts in the UK, within a decade.

Reactions to the "Law in Action" report caused the BBC to publish an "explanation", saying that although the Somali court, or "gar" deals with Muslim plaintiffs and defendants, it is not a "Sharia" court, nor is it legally recognized. However, it states that one of the sharia councils it contacted, Mahkamah Council of Jurists, settles civil law disputes on matters such as contract and negligence. The BBC said "Its decisions are recognised as enforceable in English law as long as they are reasonable."

But reactions to the notion of any form of alternative justice to the secular law which is originated by the people we vote for have been fierce. The Daily Express quotes from public figures who are outraged. The Tory spokesman for homeland security, Patrick Mercer, said: "This is complete nonsense. If you want to live under sharia law you should go to a country where it holds sway."

Dr Patrick Sookhdeo stated: "The Government has not been straight about this. It has its own sharia advisers and it has already introduced measures that are compliant with sharia law. Muslim communities are creating their own infrastructure based on sharia law. A Muslim community can now function within its own society on every level."

The Rev Keith Osmund-Smith, of the Heart of England Baptist Association, claimed: "It is almost like a stealthy change in the law and I'm very very much against it."

83-year old Dr Mohammed Naseem is chairman of Birmingham Central Mosque, He is seen by a moderate for his banning Hizb-ut Tahrir from his mosque, but on July 27 last year, he had made some bizarre claims at a public meeting, such as saying that Muslims "all over the world have never heard of an organisation called al-Qa'eda". Naseem also suggested that the DNA of the four perpetrators of the bombings of 7 July, which killed 52 people, had got there "accidentally".

When consulted this week about the issue of alternative Sharia Law being enforced in Britain, Naseem said: "Sharia law states that you respect the law of the land and therefore it cannot be enforced in this country."

Naseem is not being entirely honest. The respect for law of the land only holds when Muslims are in a minority. Once Muslims make up half of a population, it is Islamically acceptable for them to call for the entire country to be subject to Sharia Law.

A spokesperson from the UK Department for Communities and Local Government stated: "Sharia law will not be introduced to the whole or any part of the UK. We are absolutely clear that existing British law applies to everyone."

Adrian Morgan is a British based writer and artist who has written for Western Resistance since its inception. He has previously contributed to various publications, including the Guardian and

I know several Scots and they are not too happy with any of this.