Sharia’s Silent Invasion

It’s been discovered that Sharia law is now being recognized officially in England.  Very quietly, the government has set up five Sharia courts in London, Birmingham, Bradford, Manchester and Nuneaton.  Two more are being set up as I type in Glasgow and Edinburgh.  All this after the Archbishop of Canterbury was harshly ridiculed for making the remark that it was “inevitable” that Sharia law would eventually be recognized as valid in the United Kingdom.

A well-known Muslim named Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi found a loophole in Britain’s 1996 Aribitration Act.  In short, the act states that as long as both parties involved in a dispute agree to it, anyone legally recognized can settle the dispute.  Without the knowledge of the citizens of Britain, Sharia courts now exist and have full legal powers.  Realize that with this comes Sharia punishments, including rape victims being flogged, men being allowed to divorce their wives by simply saying “I divorce you” three times, and women not being allowed to own property or be educated if their husbands so choose.  England has made a grave error in allowing one sect of society to have its own laws.

Jewish courts operate under the same principal in England, but they only have power over civil disputes.  If the Sharia courts would be run this way, it might be acceptable; however, even the parties in the Jewish courts have to have more binding documentation valid in British court.  Siddiqi was proud to announce that Sharia courts will handle criminal cases as well, even though one government agent stated that for the Sharia court to do so would be “unlawful.”

It’s one thing to have separate arbitration groups overseen by the courts; it’s another to grant full rights to entirely different courts, especially those run by religion.  Jewish, Christian, Muslim or otherwise–none should be granted final power in any case over the law of the land.  This kind of garbage is what made it possible for the British government to confiscate all civilian-owned firearms and ban any and all civilian use of guns.

Rowan Williams (the Archbishop) was right; it was only a matter of time.  I, for one, never believed it would happen so soon.  Those who think we should care what Europeans think of us need to take a good, long look at things like this and reconsider whether it’s really that important.


4 thoughts on “Sharia’s Silent Invasion

  1. Watch Out! Precedents and easements of laws could lead to the death of our own Madam Justice by the “thousand cuts”.
    This action in the UK is an example of a nation being scared out of its sovereignty. And though, in terms of marriae and family law, many religious trubunals, rota and councils have been addressed, this is exceeding that exception on purely cultural norms, not laws – the English Common Law (a guiding principle of our own codas).
    Ironically, I made mention of this in a recent screed (lengthy) when I cite the symbiosis of crime with terrorism and the white-collar/white-thawb crime . Mixed with parochial and provincial venality and corruption, up to and through a local FBI office, one can see easements in law can lead to dangereous precendents.
    Even if a case gets to court, it’s enough to get a finger’s-grip of legitimacy.
    Enough precedents lead to quite a tome of laws – think Koran. Sharia.
    Watch for the cuts and scratches on various spots on the surface, and you’ll find an infection metasticizing.
    Watch your local judiciary while you at it.

  2. “This action in the UK is an example of a nation being scared out of its sovereignty.”

    Strikes me as more of a case of inclusion gone overboard. Inclusion is not always a good thing. Too much inclusion dilutes, not enhances. An example, The Girl Scouts start admitting grown women, then grown men, and finally young boys. If that happened in the name of inclusion then the Girl Scouts would not be anything close to what they are now. The Girl Scouts would morph into a totally different organization.

    Some things are fine, great and outstanding the way they are. They don’t need to be changed. The UK should take note of that.

  3. Two days after my screed, “The Boston Globe” and Jihad watch provide info: on the Boston Mosque.
    The legal documents cite it as a “cultural center”. But the incestuously corrupt Political Caliphate of Boston didn’t care about tax dollars for a religious institution. Now, the calls to prayer (remember I mentioned precendents – used a Michigan standard).
    I wonder how they’ll stand regarding the Commonwealth’s “Open Meeting Laws”.
    Again, my friends, watch for precedents.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s