Sharia taking hold in the UK

[Katheryn]

But if someone commits a crime against them, they will be free to take it to court, right?

From what I understand Sharia would only be used for matters nobody is willing to take to court.

What both women's groups said is that women are vulnerable in that they (especially the new arrivals from Islamic countries) do not understand their new rights, nor do they understand how to exercise them.

Under Sharia, a girl's parents may accept for her until she is married. All single women are under their parent's rule or under their father's rule (or brother or uncle, or on down until the reach the next male relative).

 

[EdwardTking]

But if someone commits a crime against them, they will be free to take it to court, right?

What? Take it to a white man's infidel court. That is betraying Islam,
and warrants an honour killing. And the Islamic women know it and fear.

 

[warpus]

What both women's groups said is that women are vulnerable in that they (especially the new arrivals from Islamic countries) do not understand their new rights, nor do they understand how to exercise them.

Under Sharia, a girl's parents may accept for her until she is married. All single women are under their parent's rule or under their father's rule (or brother or uncle, or on down until the reach the next male relative).

So educate the women, then, if that's the problem.

Sounds to me like this would be a problem even without Sharia.

 

[Katheryn]

It's not apostasy for a woman to reject Sharia, for the same reason why it's not apostasy for a woman to speak in church. Sigh.

You didn't read the article from the Council of Canadian Muslim Women.

It says the opposite.

The Muslim women said that this is EXACTLY what the guy in charge of the Islamic Court said. He said it was apostasy for any woman to not agree to accept this Islamic Court's Sharia law.

Go read it!

 

[El_Machinae]

What? Take it to a white man's infidel court. That is betraying Islam,
and warrants an honour killing. And the Islamic women know it and fear.

There's no point being overly prejudicial. Domestic violence is a huge impedence to access to justice, all over the place

And public shame has been an impedence, too.
It's disgusting, and the best response is improving access to legal resources. (which is hella tough)

 

[Adamb0mb]

The Muslim women in England are saying, "NO"

then whats the problem? They are free to have their legal matters addressed by the official UK courts.

They are also free to persuade other muslim women to do the same.

If anyone murders these women, that criminal act will be taken up by the official UK courts regardless of the desires of the accused.

 

[Katheryn]

This type of arrangement would also come under the Sharia Islamic Court:

http://www.islamfortoday.com/polygamy1.htm

Samira's story Samira came from a poor family in Pakistan. A marriage was arranged for her with a much older man in the UK. Shortly after her arrival, her husband died. Ejaz, a rich businessman, whose wife was ill and infertile offered to make her his second wife, and married her in a Muslim ceremony at a London mosque. She moved into the home that Ejaz shared with his first wife. Samira had two children from Ejaz but his first wife became jealous and eventually threw her out with her two children.

Samira's story...
Her compatriots treated her contemptuously and called her a loose woman. In their eyes she was a shamed woman with two failed marriages. No family would want to be associated with her, and certainly no other man would marry her again.

Ejaz stopped paying maintenance for Samira and her children. Within her community Samira was treated as a single woman with two illegitimate children. In western society this generally no longer carries a stigma, but in the Asian community where values are more conservative, life can be made impossible.

Samira has no access to the courts to demand payment for herself as a legal wife, neither is she able to obtain maintenance for the children and rights of inheritance for them.

What the Muslim Parliament says:

According to Nushaba Hussein, Samira's case highlights the vulnerability of women in polygamous marriages and making it legal would give leave them less open to abuse.

'It does happen that Islam's very strict conditions for polygamy are occasionally abused. These men would like to keep subsequent marriages clandestine so that women can't do anything if the they choose to renege on their duties, or leave them,' ...

'They are reduced to nothing more than mistresses, which in Islamic society is very shameful. They don't have a right to inheritance, which is a problem when husbands die intestate. I know of cases where the husband has provided a wife and his children with a house but not made a will, and it has been taken away from them once he has died, leaving them homeless'

The Muslim Parliament's call for recognition of polygamous marriages has been met with a mix of criticism and silence:

Church of England

'Polygamy doesn't fit in with the Christian idea of marriage,' said a spokesman for the Church of England. 'It may be a cultural practise in some parts of the world, but many cultures used to practise slavery but that doesn't make it right.'

The Women's Institute

The WI, usually quick to comment on social issues involving women and children, refused to comment, saying it was not a policy issue that had been discussed by its members.

And it appears that the women's groups are silent.

Now, here you have a very vulnerable young woman, evidently a poor young girl, sold to an old man, and brought over from Pakistan.

Now this young woman's old husband dies, and the Muslim community marries her to another man in a blatantly illegal ceremony. She thinks she has protection with the new marriage, but obviously was deceived and is tossed out with her two children, who are then abandoned by her pseudo-husband.

Why was she married in a London mosque? Why were the mosque holy men willing to marry this girl and then betray her trust? Why should those of us who are civic minded allow this to go on? And why would we think that these same men are willing to help her in an Islamic court?

I got that from an Islamic UK website that is pushing polygamy.

What I don't get is why is it that the same men who married this girl, who tied these two together, don't go to the man and demand he support his second wife and children?

 

[El_Machinae]

I give up ...

 

[EdwardTking]

This type of arrangement would also come under the Sharia Islamic Court:

http://www.islamfortoday.com/polygamy1.htm

Great source! Polygamy and polyandry, and if we add in gay marriage
and consider all the combinations, and logical developments, then it
would completely destroy the meaning of the english word 'marriage'.

Maybe that is what these agendas are about.

The liberal lawyers will root for it, it could make them so much money.

 

[Katheryn]

I give up ...

Now, why would you do that?

This is an actual, real situation. It is not hypothetical.

This is a Muslim woman, I mean girl!, exactly what we are discussing. A new immigrant, unfamiliar with the laws. There is polygamy in Pakistan, and it is OK in her religion, so why shouldn't she accept the idea of being a second wife?

She is married in a mosque by legally licensed clerics.

But then, oops!

Evidently she was brought to a Sharia court and it WOULD NOT PROTECT HER. Sorry, I know I am not supposed to shout. It's from being around those who are HARD OF HEARING.

Anyhoo, this MP, who is Muslim, is advocating English laws be changed to include polygamy because girls like this poor Pakistani immigrant are not protected by their religion and their community.

That way, if there were English secular laws allowing polygamy, a woman would be protected against being thrown out in the street penniless, with two children to feed.

She cannot get help from the community because they have turned their back on her. Why? Because she was illegally married by a trusted cleric in a mosque, in a big and important mosque in London.

Nice. No help from the Islamic Court, we see. And needing protection from the Muslim community who has turned against her for TRUSTING THEM!

I certainly hate to see any more Semira's ripped off like this. It is unconscionable! It is immoral! It is disgusting!

My stomach is churning. I need a Pepto Bismal. I think I'm getting an ulcer.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

You'll probably notice that I've not replied to you Katheryn. That's simply because I've already addressed each point you raise twice now and quite frankly I'm rather fatigued. Read my earlier posts if you want answers.

I might have missed your 'proof', you're hard to follow because of your ... vigourous ... posting style. It seems to me that the kids are out on bail.
That said, they're being tried in youth court, no? I'm not sure that you have much experience with the youth justice system, but it strives to seek community-related remedial solutions. It is not surprising that an out-of-court compromise is being sought and allowed; I've seen probably a half-dozen similar incidents in Canada in the last three years (where the Crown drops the matter, because of remedial efforts by the accused).

Bloody Bingo! Thanks El.

I know it's difficult but hopefully by 100 pages of this nonsense perhaps people will realise that the Civil and Criminal hearings are completely seperate no matter how the article attempts to show them as being interlinked.

I would put this in capital letters seperated with hyphens but I don't want to trample upon other brilliant posts.

Anyway, your incessant ranting is about something which most people agree on anyway - Sharia Law is unfair to women. We all know that. Big deal. It's a brand of Islamic Law that you've failed to prove we should be bothered about though. It isn't being imposed on us, it isn't infiltrating our lands and so why should we care about it? It's law in Islamic countries and that's up to them. Just as you don't want them dictating their laws to us, I'll be extending them the same courtesy.

Point number 2

So educate the women, then, if that's the problem.

Sounds to me like this would be a problem even without Sharia.

And Finally

These three paragraphs were all this thread ever needed.

 

[Bad Player]

Yes, well I can tell you are males.

The introduction of Sharia law is, for a woman, a huge step backward in social progress. Really nice for guys, though, imagine being able to choose which chick you get for the night. You have four to choose from!

Maybe they could use this as a selling point for their religion!


('course it's not so good for the other 3 guys who get no woman... )


EDIT: You and your feminist ideals! Equality of the sexes!

 

[El_Machinae]

In Canadian Law, I (as a married man) can sleep with whomever I want too. It's a Red Herring. There is no legal proscription against sleeping around. Even if I don't sleep around, my wife has full power to divorce me.
All religions puts pressure on people to not divorce; but in Canadian Law, they can. Some religions put pressure on people to not remarry after divorce, but they still can

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

In Canadian Law, I (as a married man) can sleep with whomever I want too. It's a Red Herring. There is no legal proscription against sleeping around. Even if I don't sleep around, my wife has full power to divorce me.
All religions puts pressure on people to not divorce; but in Canadian Law, they can. Some religions put pressure on people to not remarry after divorce, but they still can

Not only that, but if Canadian Law is akin to English Law it's a "non-fault" hearing. The Court doesn't look into everyone's dirty little secrets to find out who's fault the divorce was. They merely ensure that there is a valid divorce, and if so they look at the potential earnings of each person, their combined and individual assets and they get the dividing stick out.

 

[El_Machinae]

Not only that, but if Canadian Law is akin to English Law it's a "non-fault" hearing. The Court doesn't look into everyone's dirty little secrets to find out who's fault the divorce was. They merely ensure that there is a valid divorce, and if so they look at the potential earnings of each person, their combined and individual assets and they get the dividing stick out.

Yeah, we have 'no fault' divorce too.
You know, the House of Lords has not been cited in a Canadian court case in some time; but we're still awfully similar. We got rid of the "n" and "hyphen", though, to save ink. "non-fault" -> "no fault".
Don't worry, we're keeping the 'u' in colour.

 

[aneeshm]

England should learn a lesson from her former colony, India, who tried this strategy, and is now paying for it.

To keep Muslims leaders quiet, a concession was given to Muslims at the time of independence: that they will have a separate personal law system, where matters relating to alimony, marriage, divorce, inheritance, and other such personal things will be decided by either Muslim law, or common law (if the person chooses to exercise that option).

It has led to travesties of justice. We have husbands having the "right" to divorce their wives by simply saying "talaq" thrice. We have wives who have no right to alimony. We have a woman who is raped by her father-in-law being told by Muslim lawmakers that her former husband is now forbidden to her, and that she has to become the wife of her rapist. We have Muslim children being told that to sing the national song is against their religion. And the carnage and dismemberment of the unity of the country continues unchecked.....

 

[El_Machinae]

It won't happen in Britian, though.
The only separate 'personal law system' will be an unofficial one; it will never carry the weight of law. All contracts will be judged according to the national law. People will have the freedom to partake of illegal contracts, but no illegal contract will withstand legal scrutiny.

To make a parallel, in Canada I am fully allowed to enter into a debt that carries 50% interest. I can legally enter it, and legally pay it. However, if I forfeit the contract (not pay the interest), the courts will not force me to if I am then sued. They will force me to pay legal interest rates.

(Now, this is a bad example, because the loan agent will have committed a crime by lending me the money at those rates, and committed a crime by receiving payment at those rates).

 

[mdwh]

I think that is incorrect because the victims have to press charges.

So, if a woman is attacked, she can be ignored because in Sharia, there needs to be FOUR eyewitnesses to the attack.

If this is allowed, it is a severe set-back for justice in the West. If someone attacks someone else with a deadly weapon, they should go into the regular criminal system, not allow young boys to get off, with their 'clan' paying off the victim. That is a system that doesn't work - we do better in our own justice system.

But the problem is not that "Sharia is allowed", the problem is that (a) a woman refuses to press charges, and (b) the police refuse to prosecute unless someone presses charges.

Just because I set up some phoney court which requires ten eye witnesses and a monkey to declare guilt shouldn't have any effect on the legal system. And if it does, it's the legal system which needs sorting.

I'm pretty sure that pressing charges is not a legal requirement, just that police tend not to prosecute if they don't.