Muslim law reaches Britain

So says the Daily Express, who must have been kicking themselves that they got the story a full day after the Telegraph. No matter, they still put it on their front page.

Islamic law does indeed exist in many forms in this country. I'm married under it, have a bank account arranged under its principles, and I eat meat slaughtered according to it. Panic stations everybody. Now.

The Express speaks of local religious 'courts' sitting and giving rulings on civil matters (the reports mention a Somali court ruling on a criminal matter, but it sounded like it had no relationship with shariah). When people go through other forms of arbitration rather than take legal action, it's called settling out of court. When Muslims do it, it's called a two-tier legal system that is threatening the very fabric of our society.

I have to say that I've never actually heard of such courts sitting in the official form that these reports indicate. I have though heard of imams being called in to deal with family disputes, divorces etc and giving an opinion which is then taken on board. If both parties are happy with that, then I can't see what the problem is.

The newspaper articles stemmed from a BBC Radio Four's Law in Action programme. That episode also mentioned Jewish law courts. Astoundingly, the Express and Telegraph omitted to mention that, concentrating on the Muslim angle - anyone still think they don't have an agenda? The Telegraph piece was written by Joshua Rozenberg, not exactly someone unfamiliar with Judaism to pass over any mention of it so easily. His wife, Melanie Phillips, would have to write another book, Londonrael.

Comments

[Martin]

Whoa there, Hoss!

"The newspaper articles stemmed from a BBC Radio Four's Law in Action programme. That episode also mentioned Jewish law courts. Astoundingly, the Express and Telegraph omitted to mention that, concentrating on the Muslim angle - anyone still think they don't have an agenda? The Telegraph piece was written by Joshua Rozenberg, not exactly someone unfamiliar with Judaism to pass over any mention of it so easily. His wife, Melanie Phillips, would have to write another book, Londonrael. "

As Jonathan Watson would say - shockeroonie, Ozzie!

"Joshua Rozenberg, not exactly someone unfamiliar with Judaism to pass over any mention of it so easily. His wife, Melanie Phillips, would have to write another book, Londonrael"

Rozenberg might have had an Irish granny called Philomena Assumpta Rose of Lima McMahon for all you know.

How do you know that Rozenberg didn't include a reference to Jews' use of the Beth Din system in his original copy, which was removed by his editors?

And what makes you assume - not 'have cause to believe' or 'have proof that', but 'assume' - that Rozenberg shares his wife's views on anything?

They might have argued violently about her book over the toothpaste in the morning. Poor old Rozenberg might have had to forego, ahem, the old slap 'n tickle while his missus's energies were focussed elsewhere.

For all you know, he might hate that book with a passion...

Rozenberg might be a secular Jew who suffers from a deep crisis of faith. What proof do you have that he's a Jew at all?

For all you know, he might even be considering converting to Islam.

You seem to have a bad dose of the old stinky thinky about Jews, O Muslim bigot, careless (or unethical) journalist,
apologist for kidnapping, borderline inciter of perversion of the course of justice and rising star of the SNP, peace be with you.

I can see that I might to have to add 'anti-Semite' to your list of descriptions.

And perhaps one of the reasons Phillips hasn't written a book called 'Londonreal' is because British Jews haven't blown up busses on Tavistock Square, picketed cathedrals shouting 'Death to the Pope!' or perpetrated suicide bombings in Israel.

British Muslims have done all of the above.

Hmm, I see something of a pattern emerging...

It couldn't have something to do with...Islam?

Could it?

Let the readers decide.

Now, on to other matters...

The High Court in Lahore really, really stuck it to the Christophobic, Scotophobic jihadist and humble follower of Tablighi Jamaat Sajad Ahmed Rana, didn't they?

And not one cheep out of you about it so far. Crikey, there's a coincidence.

Just as well for you that Islam prohibits participation in games of chance, because if your track record at backing the wrong horse is anything to go by you'd be making William Hills' shareholders very, very happy bunnies.

Mind you, there was old Bashir Maan on TV, looking like he'd been stuffed and was rolling on castors, pontificating about how this wasn't what Misbah wanted, as if he had a lifetime's experience of working in family law.

Osama, do you know where Bashir Maan obtained his LL.B.? Or where he qualified? Or how much experience of practicing family law he has?

My guess is that the answer to all three of those questions is 'None of the above'.

So why didn't he just shut up?

[Ted]

Martin, like you, I feel that people like Mohammed Sarwar and Bashir Maan have a lot of explaining to do. A little humility from both wouldn't go amiss. I think Osama showed an error of judgement in jumping so quickly to Mr Rana's defence - I thought so at the time and I hate to have been proved right.

The judge in Pakistan appears to have Mr Rana's number -

The father of tug-of-love British schoolgirl Molly Campbell has been accused of not being an "upright, fair and honest man".

Judge Nisar ruled that although Misbah wanted to live in Pakistan she was a Scottish resident and under the jurisdiction of Scotland's courts.

In his summary Judge Nisar noted that Mr Rana had previously acknowledged the authority of Edinburgh's Court of Session.

He said: "He has removed the child and is guilty of showing disrespect and violating court orders, which is tantamount to fraud."

[Yakoub/Julaybib]

And this morning, what was on the front page of the Express. Well, if its not us Muslims its gotta be... yes, you guessed it, Lady Diana! The Express' favourite woman of all time. Who died alongside the man she loved, a Muslim...

[Ted]

"Who died alongside the man she loved, a Muslim..."

Drivel. Read Tom Bower's book on Fayed - they'd known each other for about six weeks, the press were informed by the Phoney Pharaoh that they were on holiday (hence the holiday snaps) and Dodi was already engaged to another bird!

[joe90]

Ted
I hope you are not trying to imply that a Royal Princess of the British Royal House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha
(changed during WWI to 'Windsor' for obvious reaons - same with Lord Mountbatten's quick surname change)
is a slapper!

Years ago you could have been taken out and shot for less!

As for
I thought so at the time and I hate to have been proved right.
- believe me Ted, I know exactly how you feel - as I also happen to know you are an ever so 'umble a Uriah Heep -
A little humility from both wouldn't go amiss

Who else, but a humble servant of the Crown, would keep their intellectual equipment so well hidden and so well out of sight -
- those royal biographies must be a real strain!

[Martin]

On no, Ted!

Watch out!

We're done for!

Joe90, the Glasgow Palestine Human Rights Campaign's killer hamster, has escaped from his cage and is on the loose!

He's got a copy of Enid Marshall's 'General Principles of Scots Law'!

Run! Hide!

[abdiel]

Salaamun Alaykum Osama,

This reminds me of a similar situation in Canada, where Sharia courts in the province of Ontario vied for official recognition of their arbitration as binding. The movement eventually failed due to a variety of pressures, not least of which being an opposition within the Muslim community itself on the grounds that particular minorities might be exposed to decisions that wouldn't necessarily be favorable to them due to community pressures, which is understandable, I guess, at least for the timebeing. At the time, however, there were certain shrill voices that campaigned against the movement for very different reasons, echoed in the Daily Express (which, apparently, bills itself as "The World's Greatest Newspaper"):

"[S]haria law is gaining an increasing foothold in our society.

The hardline Islamic law allows people to be stoned to death, beheaded or have their limbs amputated."

It's indeed funny how neither the Telegraph nor the Daily Express mention that Jewish courts also operate in Britain, as they do in Ontario: both Jewish and Catholic arbitration is available on a voluntary basis to those who which to pursue it as an alternative to civil court. However, I was concerned to read in all three reports about the prospect of third-party decisions being rendered in criminal matters, whatever the source of those decisions may be.

Thank you, though, for posting this.

--A

[Yusuf Smith]

As-Salaamu 'alaikum,

The courts are not dealing with criminal law at all but with civil law - that is, the compensation people have to pay as a result of infringing someone's rights. They cannot dish out penalties such as flogging, execution and imprisonment.

The arbitration system that was proposed in Ontario was very similar to ours, and opposition came from secularists, from a well-known group of modernist Uncle Toms and from Iranian communists.

[abdiel]

Wasalaam br. Yusuf,

I understand that the British arbitration system is reserved exclusively for civil decisions, not criminal, but the articles spoke about a case coming under a Somali tribunal of some description that involved Somali teenagers attacking a Somali victim that occurred outside the arbitration process, or so it would seem. Osama says above he doesn't think it has to do with the Sharia system, and he's probably right; the Daily Express was trying to capitalize on that by repeatedly mentioning hudood laws as if these things were on the verge of implementation on the streets of London and Birmingham. It's nonetheless concerning to me that at least certain crimes under certain circumstances, particularly crimes involving violence, aren't handled in the public sphere.

Incidentally, I don't think it's fair to say that the only Muslim opponents to Sharia in Ontario were "modernist Uncle Toms." The debate was more nuanced than that, and concerns about Sharia's application came from a broader spectrum of Muslims than just a single group, and for a variety of reasons, some of which I thought held water and some of which didn't. However, my point was just that some of the controversy surrounding Sharia was reasoned, and some was absolute nonsense in a similar vein to what the Daily Express just published.

[GayJihadi]

The Telegraph article comes on the back of another Telegraph rant by a Jew (Janet Daley) who wrote about the threat from Muslims.

There's a whole load of Jewish writers out there who have an animus against Muslims, and this is because of their allegiance to Israel.

http://gayjihadi.blogspot.com/2006/11/jewish-rant-in-telegraph.html

[DrM]

Hey Marty,
Hows that solicitation racket of yours coming along? Your post is the world's greatest proof of reincarnation, no one could get that dumb in just one lifetime.

[Martin]

Look who's popped up now!

It's DrM, Twiki to Osama Saeed's Buck Rogers, come to help the Muslim bigot and rising star of the SNP out of another hole he's dug for himself!

'Ok Osama chubbalubbanucka (whistling sound) let's slag off the kuffar by throwing around insults and not answering questions!'

[Osama]

Abdiel, I was under the impression that the result of the campaign to have voluntary shariah courts for civil matters in Ontario was that all courts for other faiths were also banned to avoid this happening.

Will post something up seperately about the Misbah case in due course.

[John Palubiski]

The arbitration system that was proposed in Ontario was very similar to ours, and opposition came from secularists, from a well-known group of modernist Uncle Toms and from Iranian communists.

And the "gentle" peace-loving moderates who supported the introduction of sharia arbitration promptly threatened the lives of those *Uncle Toms* and *Iranian communists*.

Individuals so quick to threaten their co-religionists, so devoid of self-controle and rationality; those individuals should never be allowed to put their Bronze-Age ideas into action.

And speaking of *Uncle Toms*, Yosuf, what's the term for for twitchy, slavish, butt-kissing reverts?

[abdiel]

Osama, you're essentially right: Dalton McGuinty, the premier of Ontario, proposed and passed legislation that stated only Ontario Family Law or similar laws of an alternative Canadian jurisdiction (ie, another province) could be used in binding arbitration, which meant that other Faith-based arbitration panels like Beit Din and others would no longer be recognised under the act; that guides a subsequent clause that says only arbitrators from recognised organizations can operate under the act, with some specific guidelines on prerequisite training etc.

[DrM]

Marty, hows that solicitation coming along? Shot up any pakis lately? If the Godfather trilogy is anything to go by...you're like Fredo trying to lead the family. Palubiski, how areGriffin and the BNP fascists doing? You're getting dumber with each post.

[Martin]

DrM,

We've been round this block before -

http://www.osamasaeed.org/osama/2006/11/jack_straw_driv.html

Neither Osama nor yourself came through that exercise with flying colours.

[DrM]

What are blithering about Marty? You get shot every time you post your racist drivel. Your farcical attempt at imitating a solicitor had me rolling though. Do yourself and everyone else a favor, take a fatal overdose of your medication.

[joe90]

There are many areas of 'British' life governed by systems of law and arbitration that take on some of the characteristics of a court of law.

Industrial tribunals are one huge area - and I believe, in Scotland for instance, they can intervene in case of non-Catholic teachers being employed in Scottish Catholic schools.

Another area grey area is Military Tribunals, which can find soldiers not guilty of horrendous crimes, as happened a few years ago, in a case of a British squaddie charged with rape and murder whilst serving in Germany. The on-going cases involving British squaddies behaviour in Iraq and Aghanistan is a good example.

Also there are the many professional bodies that regulate their particular professional specialism and govern every aspect of their accredited members.

Speaking of professional standards of conduct in public life,
Martin, which Professional Code of Ethics do you subscribe to, or did (I'm not quite sure about your employment status) ?

I take it you are an accredited and fully paid up member (or were) of a professional body that represents and governs solicitors, which one?

I can't think of any British legal professional body, or any of its members, that slag off 'Human Rights' as you have done. The British Government is legally bound by domestic human rights legislation and also international human rights legislation. Which solicitors body disagrees with 'Human Rights' or doesn't mind any of its members bringing them into disrepute in a public forum?

If you don't want your Human Rights then fine - don't complain if you get beaten up, intimadted, your property stolen or people throw you out of your home and take it over - all these are human rights violation which you seem quite happy to see happen to yourself. I can't imagine the reast of society without them. Obviously people like you can, which reminds me of a few ugly regimes.

That is quite a career path you have there Martin, from small claims solicitor (and it is a very small claim indeed) to being the judge of matters -
- I can't think of any 'solicitor' who would act and behave like you, as you have done in these comments of yours.

As you know, as you are the legal type, impersonating a solicitor is a crime - it probably states this in your Solicitor's Professional Code of Ethics somewhere.

[Martin]

DrM's suggestion that I commit suicide notwithstanding, those readers actually interested enough to find out what both he and 'Joe90', a duo who should go on stage under the name 'Twiki and His Killer Hamster', are talking about sould read the undernoted thread's 'Comments' section -

http://www.osamasaeed.org/osama/2006/11/jack_straw_driv.html

The answers to any and all questions readers might have concerning their references to solicitors, codes of ethics, medications and why DrM should be asking me the disgusting and defamatory question 'Shot up any pakis lately?' (his words,not mine)are contained therein.

[John Palubiski]

Abdiel, the very fact that sharia campaigners in Ontario reacted to their defeat by threatening not only the Muslim pro-secular opposition, but also their children speaks volumes.

People ready to engage in such vile tactics should not only be marginalised and silences, they should also, perhaps, be deported.

Dr M. I'd like to respond to you, but can't.

How does one address an individual who immediately thinks that any criticism whatsoever of CERTAIN Islamists is *Far Right*?

What do you want? Threads chock-full of dreamy, "green-tinted" lullabies every single time?

[Ted]

I make no claims about the morality of Diana. I merely refer readers to the facts as unearthed by renowned award-winning investigative journalist Tom Bower before spouting things they may have read in the Daily Express.

"those royal biographies must be a real strain!"

I've never read one. Your ability to misrepresent, slyly omit and deliberately falsify is, as ever, unsurpassed.

[joe90]

Simple enough questions to answer I would have thought -

- What is your Professional Code of Ethics as a 'solicitor', and where can I find them on the internet, or at least a reference to them?

What professional body of solicitors share your views and don't agree, or have serious and grave issues, with 'human rights'?

Why so coy Martin - I can't see any reason for the huffing and puffing unless you are hiding something (which is very unethical for a solicitor to act duplicitiously - not a good selling point for potential clients either, I would have thought)?

[Martin]

Joe90,

Peace be with you, O Killer Hamster of the Glasgow Palestine Human Rights Campaign.

Clicketh upon the link which I have posteth, for verily ye have a hamster's memory; and therein shall your recollections be refreshed and your arguments answered.

[DrM]

Marty, you are so tightly wound I'm surprised your head hasn't popped like the zit that it is. Thanks for the links, I needed the laugh. There are two requirements to being a smartass, glad to see you've got the last part down o teflon solicitor general. LOL!
Palubiski, your idiocy continues to defy new heights, there was no sharia initiative in Ontario. It was non-obligatory religious arbitration afforded to all religious groups. Homeless communists like Tarek Fatah and the usual suspects tried to make a name for themselves through fear mongering. Get a clue, you ignorant cretin. Keep typing though. Maybe, someday, you'll randomly type something semi-intelligent.