Britain's Sharia Councils ...

[Drummond]

Here's one for Jafar !!

Aired last night, on a BBC domestic channel (and it'll be aired again on BBC-2 in a couple of days ..) .. an undercover investigation undertaken by the BBC into the conduct of Sharia councils in the UK ...

... Full marks to the BBC for taking this on !

I watched the last 10 minutes or so of the original broadcast, and I'll be personally recording this in its entirety when it's re-aired. But what I viewed, then, makes it clear that (a) Sharia councils are operating almost as a direct challenge to UK legal process, (b) they're relying on Muslim reverence for their 'authority' in order to set their judgments as transcending, in Muslim eyes, those which British courts would reach, and (c) .. surprise, surprise, their judgments are discriminatory against women.

Little of this will come as any surprise to many who post here, myself included. Nevertheless, the BBC's efforts underscore and affirm what we have been asserting is true of Islam's discriminatory arrogance - and its sheer abusiveness. Normally, the BBC is more 'politically correct' than this, so this is something of a departure for them. A welcome one.

A report in a regional British newspaper (Yorkshire) ... followed by a link to the YouTube video showing the aired BBC programme ... these are offered below.

JAFAR - YOUR COMMENTS ARE INVITED !

http://yorkshiretimes.co.uk/article/Sharia-Councils-Investigated


This week, an undercover investigation into the Secrets of Britain's Sharia Councils will be aired on the BBC. The documentary highlights the experiences of women who have been the victims of domestic abuse and applied for divorce through Sharia councils.

Two of the women featured in the programme are from Yorkshire. Ayesha from Dewsbury is one of them, and claims that her husband physically abused her, even when she was pregnant. He had also been imprisoned for violent behaviour.

However, the Sharia council in Dewsbury advised Ayesha to meet with her husband to try to save their marriage. The advice ignored court injunctions which Ayesha and her children hold against her husband due to his abuse.

When a specialist barrister became involved in Ayesha's case, the Dewsbury Sharia council eventually agreed to see Ayesha on her own. It took two years for her divorce to be granted by the council, by which time her husband had re-married in Pakistan.

Sonia in Leeds suffered similar abuse, and was shocked when Leyton Islamic Sharia Council advised her to talk to her family rather than the police. Councillors also told Sonia to ask her husband whether the violence had been caused by her own actions.

Ayesha, Sonia and other women like them say that it is not Sharia law which is at fault, but the way in which the Sharia councils interpret it. The councils are an increasing concern in Britain, and according to Nazir Afzal, Chief Crown Prosecutor for the North West, some are "putting women at risk."

The stories of the women featured in the investigation are even more alarming in light of February's news that the High Court had referred a Jewish couple seeking divorce to Beth Din, the Jewish council. This is the first time a British court had referred a divorce case to a religious council, and many are worried that it will set a precedent.

A spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain said "if it leads to the eventual acceptance of Sharia court divorces, then Muslims will be very encouraged."

Tonight's programme will undoubtedly add fuel to an already fiery debate about the influence of Sharia councils in British society.

Watch the programme (it lasts for approx 30 minutes). Jafar, would you care to tell us that this is all 'un-Islamic' ??


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlLRCvEud6Q

[aboutime]

Here's one for Jafar !!

Aired last night, on a BBC domestic channel (and it'll be aired again on BBC-2 in a couple of days ..) .. an undercover investigation undertaken by the BBC into the conduct of Sharia councils in the UK ...

... Full marks to the BBC for taking this on !

I watched the last 10 minutes or so of the original broadcast, and I'll be personally recording this in its entirety when it's re-aired. But what I viewed, then, makes it clear that (a) Sharia councils are operating almost as a direct challenge to UK legal process, (b) they're relying on Muslim reverence for their 'authority' in order to set their judgments as transcending, in Muslim eyes, those which British courts would reach, and (c) .. surprise, surprise, their judgments are discriminatory against women.

Little of this will come as any surprise to many who post here, myself included. Nevertheless, the BBC's efforts underscore and affirm what we have been asserting is true of Islam's discriminatory arrogance - and its sheer abusiveness. Normally, the BBC is more 'politically correct' than this, so this is something of a departure for them. A welcome one.

A report in a regional British newspaper (Yorkshire) ... followed by a link to the YouTube video showing the aired BBC programme ... these are offered below.

JAFAR - YOUR COMMENTS ARE INVITED !

http://yorkshiretimes.co.uk/article/Sharia-Councils-Investigated



Watch the programme (it lasts for approx 30 minutes). Jafar, would you care to tell us that this is all 'un-Islamic' ??


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlLRCvEud6Q


Sir Drummond. Thank you for reporting this.
Makes one wonder when, and where our MSM wussies might discover the same kinds of Sharia councils operating
openly in U.S. Cities across the nation.
But then. Since the Obama admin. has instructed HIS MSM sheep NOT to report negatively about Terror Threats that DO NOT EXIST. I wonder if our quickly growing, uneducated public will take notice, or even care????

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. Thank you for reporting this.
Makes one wonder when, and where our MSM wussies might discover the same kinds of Sharia councils operating
openly in U.S. Cities across the nation.
But then. Since the Obama admin. has instructed HIS MSM sheep NOT to report negatively about Terror Threats that DO NOT EXIST. I wonder if our quickly growing, uneducated public will take notice, or even care????

I expect, and especially given Obama's attitude and political agenda, that what you'll get will be a sub-culture developing, where more and more such councils are set up, considering themselves not only above the law, but actually having THE 'RIGHT' to be.

Our 'own' Anjem Choudary is thoroughly candid about all this (he's my 'favourite' Muslim, because, from him, you'll never get any bullsh*t .. he's honest about Islam and its objectives, and he'll not try to hide anything about it for the sake of image). He considers Sharia councils to be reaching judgments in accordance with Islam, which he says transcends 'man-made' law. He wants laws and systems which act in opposition to Sharia Law swept aside .. done away with entirely, and for this to happen GLOBALLY.

He is a Sharia judge himself ... when he's not giving pro-Al Q speeches and interviews to the media, that is ...

I don't care what propaganda they put out to suggest respect for indigenous law .. the truth is that their judgments not only act, on occasions, in contempt of civil law, but that they trade on the slavish obedience Muslims have to their ill-conceived 'authority'. Obama, I'm sure, will ignore the emergence of this phenomenon in the US, until such time as the sub-culture is too rooted in American life to be combatted.

In the video, there's a reference to one of our Governments (Labour: Socialist) 'giving up' efforts to investigate Sharia councils. I think this was partly because they really couldn't be bothered to find the sub-culture it represented objectionable .. and because they wanted to appease Muslims so much that they dared not probe too vigorously.

Your own Lefties will doubtless follow suit, if allowed to.

[NightTrain]

Although I agree with you, Drummond, that the liberals in this country would love to uphold that Islamic crap just because it's contrary to most Americans, they've built their case on separation of Church and State.

I don't see any backsliding here that wouldn't damage what they've done so far against this Christian Nation and what our Forefathers envisioned for us - unless there is a prejudice issue they can work into their argument.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/54644


<tbody>
Baroness Cox: Courts backing polygamy and discriminating against womenUK bill moves to limit power of Sharia Courts
<tbody>
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/54644

By David C. Jennings

</tbody>


</tbody>
According to ‘The Independent’ - On International Women’s Day, in March, a huge demonstration in London, backed by feminists, supporters of gay rights and others – including a substantial number of Muslims – marched under a banner saying: “No Sharia and faith-based laws – one law for all.” They claimed that the supposedly voluntary nature of the courts is a sham, because many Muslim women are pressured into accepting their rulings, and that Sharia courts dispense cheap injustice.
Denis MacEoin, author of the Civitas report, argues: “Women are not equal in Sharia law, and Sharia contains no specific commitment to the best interests of the child that is fundamental to family law in the UK. Under Sharia, a male child belongs to the father after the age of seven, regardless of circumstances.” The Muslim Council of Britain responds to this by saying that this kind of talk is “scaremongering”.
Everyone, including devout Muslims, should have the right to settle personal disputes in front of the tribunal of their choice and it is not unreasonable to see that many Muslim women feel the need for a cleric’s reassurance that they can break a forced marriage. However Sharia law does not recognise women’s equality, or gay rights, or religious freedom; and though participation is supposed to be voluntary, women in particular are likely to be pressured into accepting a verdict of an arbitration they have been forced into.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Islam will never give up its total domination of women! And that fact will put light on its total intolerance and hatred for all that does not bow down to its savagery, slavery and promotion of murder..-Tyr

[Drummond]

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/54644


<tbody>
Baroness Cox: Courts backing polygamy and discriminating against women

UK bill moves to limit power of Sharia Courts


<tbody>
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/54644
By David C. Jennings

</tbody>


</tbody>
According to ‘The Independent’ - On International Women’s Day, in March, a huge demonstration in London, backed by feminists, supporters of gay rights and others – including a substantial number of Muslims – marched under a banner saying: “No Sharia and faith-based laws – one law for all.” They claimed that the supposedly voluntary nature of the courts is a sham, because many Muslim women are pressured into accepting their rulings, and that Sharia courts dispense cheap injustice.
Denis MacEoin, author of the Civitas report, argues: “Women are not equal in Sharia law, and Sharia contains no specific commitment to the best interests of the child that is fundamental to family law in the UK. Under Sharia, a male child belongs to the father after the age of seven, regardless of circumstances.” The Muslim Council of Britain responds to this by saying that this kind of talk is “scaremongering”.
Everyone, including devout Muslims, should have the right to settle personal disputes in front of the tribunal of their choice and it is not unreasonable to see that many Muslim women feel the need for a cleric’s reassurance that they can break a forced marriage. However Sharia law does not recognise women’s equality, or gay rights, or religious freedom; and though participation is supposed to be voluntary, women in particular are likely to be pressured into accepting a verdict of an arbitration they have been forced into.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Islam will never give up its total domination of women! And that fact will put light on its total intolerance and hatred for all that does not bow down to its savagery, slavery and promotion of murder..-Tyr
:clap::clap::clap:

Exactly.

Sharia Law is, when applied, highly discriminatory against women, as the video illustrated. And these courts play on a mixture of ignorance and slavish obedience to unbending pronouncements and keep their brand of tyranny in place. The result is one of systematic suffering.

But still, 'never mind'. Jafar will no doubt offer us his own brand of sanitisation to dismiss what we can all see to be TRUE.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Although I agree with you, Drummond, that the liberals in this country would love to uphold that Islamic crap just because it's contrary to most Americans, they've built their case on separation of Church and State.

I don't see any backsliding here that wouldn't damage what they've done so far against this Christian Nation and what our Forefathers envisioned for us - unless there is a prejudice issue they can work into their argument.

Yet the leftist/liberals only seem to defend one religion above all the rest and that is Islam. Why? Common goals. Destruction of our power , our freedom and our Constitution.

They both believe firmly in the old saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." And each thinks its using the other until it destroys our way of life, seizes power and only then it will destroy its convenient ally.
Problem is should they succeed in destroying us the lib/leftists will be crushed like a bug by the Islamists.
Both need to be recognized for the true aNd deadly enemies they are to us IMHO.-TYR

[jafar00]

Watch the programme (it lasts for approx 30 minutes). Jafar, would you care to tell us that this is all 'un-Islamic' ??


It seems to me to be a failure of Britain more than anything.

"Nobody knows how many Sharia courts there are in Britain", says the report.

Don't Sharia Courts need to be registered to operate? Can any Tom, Dick or Imran just set one up without any oversight?

BTW, my first marriage was in a Mosque in France. The Imam was registered and had a license to perform Islamic marriages in France. Long story short, by mutual consent we divorced after a 3 month waiting period. Conversely, our civil divorce according to French law cost me 3000 euros, and took 2 years.

Perhaps Britain needs to bring these little kanagaroo courts under a central authority where their operation can be monitored and properly trained judges can be appointed to them instead of any old guy from Pakistan with a beard and no job.

[Marcus Aurelius]

It seems to me to be a failure of Britain more than anything.

"Nobody knows how many Sharia courts there are in Britain", says the report.

Don't Sharia Courts need to be registered to operate? Can any Tom, Dick or Imran just set one up without any oversight?

BTW, my first marriage was in a Mosque in France. The Imam was registered and had a license to perform Islamic marriages in France. Long story short, by mutual consent we divorced after a 3 month waiting period. Conversely, our civil divorce according to French law cost me 3000 euros, and took 2 years.

Perhaps Britain needs to bring these little kanagaroo courts under a central authority where their operation can be monitored and properly trained judges can be appointed to them instead of any old guy from Pakistan with a beard and no job.

Glad you agree that Sharia Courts are kangaroo courts.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Glad you agree that Sharia Courts are kangaroo courts.

^^^^^^ Damn, you beat me to it.. :laugh:--Tyr

Just wait until they get more control in Britain and we'll get to see the hanging of gays, cutting off of fingertips, hands and feet, stonings , acid burnings etc.. All ordered by a properly trained Sharia judge not just any old guy with a beard and no job. ;)

[Drummond]

It seems to me to be a failure of Britain more than anything.

THAT, Jafar, is a most interesting comment ! Because, you see, I agree with you.

Why do I agree ? Simple. Courtesy of Left-wing propagandising, undertaken over a very extended period of Labour Government rule, it was drummed into us all that it was our duty as good and decent citizens to respect the ways and beliefs of minorities. This, over time, changed to a climate whereby to act against groups possessing different belief systems, if these came from abroad, could be regarded as 'racist'. Thus .. your Muslim pals, Jafar, made demand after demand of our society, always working towards 'terraforming' us into versions of what THEY wanted.

Muslims came over here, in droves, taking advantage of minimal border control (... since to be stringent might have itself generated accusations of racism !!). They did NOT integrate .. instead choosing to create pocket societies conforming to their cultural systems. Pressure groups lobbied for greater deferences. Mosques sprang up in all sorts of places. There are areas of London, Birmingham, Manchester, Burnley, Leicester, where a British-born citizen can and will feel like a stranger in his own land.

But, Jafar, I shouldn't have to tell you any of this, since you've spent an extended time in Britain yourself. You must know YOURSELF that my description is accurate.

So, your 'failure of Britain' comment is actually reasonable. Labour in particular bent over backwards to defer to minorities, and to instill the climate which said that if you DIDN'T do this, you may be brandable as racist !

All of this leads me to one central point, which is this: OF COURSE it's possible for Muslim 'courts' to set up shop just as they choose. Because, had our authorities insisted upon official accountability, some pressure group or other (maybe the Muslim Council of Great Britain, which IS an officially recognised body) would've cried 'RACIST !!' and started a furore over it.


"Nobody knows how many Sharia courts there are in Britain", says the report.

... and in fact, they don't. Until fairly recently, only FIVE were officially known about. Investigations since then have produced an estimate of 85 of them. But, there could be many more.


Don't Sharia Courts need to be registered to operate? Can any Tom, Dick or Imran just set one up without any oversight?

That's my understanding, Jafar. Yes. The authorities may not approve of this going on ... but a substantial attempt at crackdowns would doubtless create cries of 'Islamophobic' and maybe prompt civil unrest.

Labour tried to conduct its own investigations, just to get a picture of what the true state of affairs was. THEY RECEIVED NON-COOPERATION FROM THE MUSLIM COMMUNITIES, AND SO THEY GAVE UP THEIR ATTEMPTS.


BTW, my first marriage was in a Mosque in France. The Imam was registered and had a license to perform Islamic marriages in France.

.... and right THERE, you see a fundamental difference. In the UK, Muslim marriages (and as the video confirmed) have NO legal standing, whereas, evidently, in France they do .. so, given this, how could British authorities provide licenses to perform marriages that our laws couldn't recognise the validity of ??


Long story short, by mutual consent we divorced after a 3 month waiting period. Conversely, our civil divorce according to French law cost me 3000 euros, and took 2 years.

Same difference. Had you gone through a Muslim marriage in the UK, and JUST a Muslim marriage, it wouldn't have been legally recognised. Therefore, there could be no question of legal recognition of any 'divorce', either. What you describe for French law isn't possible in the UK.


Perhaps Britain needs to bring these little kanagaroo courts under a central authority where their operation can be monitored and properly trained judges can be appointed to them instead of any old guy from Pakistan with a beard and no job.

Calling many, even most, of these courts 'Kangaroo' courts is thoroughly reasonable ... from my viewpoint. But, WHY is it from YOURS ?? Muslims here press for their existence, and once in operation, communities show their rulings deference !!!

... But, you see, here's the thing ....

The video I posted concentrates on the Islamic court situated in Leyton, east London. This particular court is one of the most well-established ones in the UK today (indeed, it was one of the first to be set up in England). The video makes it clear that official recognition of the existence of that one IS established. It also describes the fact that Muslim cases from across most of the UK receive consideration there.

The video is highly critical of the rulings emanating out of Leyton. But, this is one of the most 'official' ones there is !!!

So, Jafar, if you're going to recognise the 'sanctity' of Sharia Law judgments, you SHOULD be AGREEING with Leyton, and what their judges are getting up to. Because, Jafar, whether you like it or not, Leyton court is particularly 'mainstream' here ....

Your attempts to distance Islam from their interpretations of Islam should NOT be happening, Jafar .. not unless you're going overboard in your latest attempts to sanitise Islam.

Now, check this out ...

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/islamic-sharia-law-courts-operating-241340


TWENTY-two secret Islamic courts are issuing rulings under strict sharia law in the Midlands, the Sunday Mercury can reveal.

The courts sit in mosques and community centres, with self-styled Muslim scholars offering judgements – referred to as fatwas – online.

Their rulings include statements condemning homosexuals to harsh beatings and ordering a wife to have sex with her husband “even if she is busy in the kitchen” at the time.

Experts from thinktank Civitas, who have compiled a report on sharia law in the UK, say it is impossible to find out what goes on in the closed courts and fear there could be more of them operating in secret.

The tribunals usually settle financial or family disputes according to Islamic principals, but judgements published online by self-styled Muslim scholars based in the Midlands have offered illegal advice.

These include rulings that men can coerce their wives to have sex with them, that husbands can ban their wives from leaving the marital home, and warnings that Muslims must not join the police.

Decisions made by religious tribunals are legally binding and can be enforced in county courts and the high court if both parties have agreed to be ruled by sharia.

Civitas director Dr David Green last night called for an immediate end to the recognition of Islamic courts by British law.

He said: “The reality is that for many Muslims, sharia courts are in practice part of an institutionalised atmosphere of intimidation, backed by the ultimate sanction of a death threat.”

Previous research had suggested there were only two sharia courts in the Midlands – one in Birmingham and one in Warwickshire.

The Sunday Mercury revealed that a Muslim Arbitration Tribunal was operating the UK’s first official sharia court at Hijaz College Islamic University in Nuneaton last year.

Now the shock report by Civitas has revealed the existence of 85 sharia courts across the country.

More than a quarter of these are based in the Midlands, with eight sitting in Birmingham, while Stoke-on-Trent, Worcester, Burton-on-Trent, Derby, Walsall, Wolverhampton and Leicester also have sharia tribunals.

Islamic studies expert Denis Maceoin, who compiled the report, said there could be more Muslim tribunals operating without the government’s knowledge.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020391/Probe-secretive-Sharia-law-courts-scrapped-Muslim-leaders-close-ranks.html


Ministers have abandoned an inquiry into the rise of secretive Sharia councils that deal in Islamic justice – because the Muslim courts refused to help.

The failure of the Ministry of Justice probe has generated new fears among politicians and pressure groups about the increasing influence of Sharia courts.

They are worried the courts' decisions may run against the law of the land, particularly in divorce settlements for women.

The scrapping of the inquiry comes in a week when Islamic extremists have launched a campaign to declare 'Sharia-controlled zones' across Britain.

Hate preacher Anjem Choudary has claimed responsibility for the scheme, which has so far seen posters put on lampposts in several London boroughs declaring that within the 'zones' there should be 'no gambling', 'no music or concerts', 'no porn or prostitution', 'no drugs or smoking' and 'no alcohol'.

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/deborah-weiss/gender-equality-in-sharia-courts/


.... Sharia Courts have operated informally in Britain for quite some time. However, in 2007 Sheik Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi discovered a clause in the Arbitration Act which rightly made him realize Sharia Courts could be classified as arbitration tribunals. Subsequently, he began heading up the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal to oversee the Sharia Courts. Once classified as arbitration tribunals, the British government began enforcing Sharia judgments with the full force of law.

According to a report by the Civitas think tank in England, as of two years ago there were approximately 85 Sharia Courts operating in Britain. The Arbitration Act of 1996 permits tribunals to rule on financial and property issues. However, the report asserted that many of the Sharia Courts exceeded permissible jurisdictional boundaries by advising on matters of marriage, divorce, child custody and domestic violence. By law, family and criminal matters are not arbitrable. This illegal expansion of jurisdiction has been dubbed “jurisdiction creep.”

The arbitral rulings and advisory opinions issued by Sharia Courts mandate the disparate treatment of women. Under Sharia law, a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s, she is awarded half the inheritance of her male counterparts, custody laws grossly shortshrift women, and property laws provide unequal rights based on gender.

http://www.lawyerssecularsociety.org/default.asp?sectid=394


Sharia Councils exist and have done so for a long time in the UK. These councils give religious rulings (fatwas) on all aspects of Islamic law and also deal with religious divorces (www.islamic-sharia.org (http://www.islamic-sharia.org)). These bodies are not public bodies and so are unlikely to be caught by the Human Rights Act 1998 in so far as they provide religious teaching. However they may be a public body if they are providing a public service such as an arbitration service. Sharia Councils decide on religious divorce. The problem in terms of protection of women's rights is that many women believe that they are divorced or not divorced according to the decisions of the councils and are unaware of their legal rights. There is evidence suggesting that women are being forced to ‘sign away’ their family law rights in the civil courts in order to obtain a religious divorce. Any such agreement would not be legally binding. However due to the fact that the women are unlikely to challenge the agreement in a court, steps need to be taken to prevent Sharia Councils from executing such agreements.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/85+Sharia+courts+operational+in+Britain:+Probe.-a0202585603


London, June 29: At least 85 Islamic Sharia courts are currently operational across the UK, a new probe has revealed.

The Westminster-based think-tank Civitas found that Muslim clerics have been handing out hundreds of Sharia judgments - known as fatwas - through mosques around the country.

The probe raises serious concerns about a spreading secretive network, which in future can intensify calls for the Sharia to be recognized by the British legal establishment.

"It is a challenge to what we believe to be the rights and freedoms of the individual, to our concept of a legal system based on what Parliament enacts and to the right of all to live in a society as free as possible from ethnic-religious division," The Daily Express quoted the report's author, Denis MacEoin, as saying.

Earlier, it was estimated that only five Sharia courts were operating in Britain in London, Manchester, Bradford, Birmingham and Nuneaton.

But informed sources within Muslim communities told MacEoin that the figure was at least 85. He said the courts are concentrated in urban areas with high Muslim populations, such as the West Midlands.

According to his research, rulings carried out included: Banning women from marrying non-Muslims, approving a man marrying up to four wives, depriving non-Muslim relatives of inheritance, denying divorced women property rights, banning women from leaving home without husband's consent and severe punishment for homosexuals.

MacEoin opines that Islamic rulings were incompatible with human rights and British tradition and called for Sharia courts to be excluded from recognition under arbitration laws.

"Sharia courts are, in practice, part of an institutionalised atmosphere of intimidation, backed by the ultimate sanction of a death threat," said David Green, director of Civitas.

So, OK, Jafar. Try sanitising all THAT lot !!!!

[jafar00]

That's my understanding, Jafar. Yes. The authorities may not approve of this going on ... but a substantial attempt at crackdowns would doubtless create cries of 'Islamophobic' and maybe prompt civil unrest.


So, Jafar, if you're going to recognise the 'sanctity' of Sharia Law judgments, you SHOULD be AGREEING with Leyton, and what their judges are getting up to. Because, Jafar, whether you like it or not, Leyton court is particularly 'mainstream' here ....

If you don't have a central authority controlling them, you have anarchy. I notice they are all pretty much Pakistani courts. Pakistan is under Taliban control in parts. I shudder to think of the consequences of that style of so called Islam (Taliban law is not Islam) taking hold outside of their little tribal areas back home.

[Marcus Aurelius]

If you don't have a central authority controlling them, you have anarchy. I notice they are all pretty much Pakistani courts. Pakistan is under Taliban control in parts. I shudder to think of the consequences of that style of so called Islam (Taliban law is not Islam) taking hold outside of their little tribal areas back home.

So... you claim to want to follow Sharia Law... the Taliban claims to follow Sharia Law... yet you claim the Taliban follows their own law, not Sharia.

Translation: They are not 'really' Islamic.

Got it:rolleyes:

[aboutime]

So... you claim to want to follow Sharia Law... the Taliban claims to follow Sharia Law... yet you claim the Taliban follows their own law, not Sharia.

Translation: They are not 'really' Islamic.

Got it:rolleyes:



Marcus. How bout we all, just cut to the chase, and disclose jafar's real last name? "OBAMA".

[Drummond]

If you don't have a central authority controlling them, you have anarchy.

What you REALLY have, Jafar, is Muslims exploiting the UK's laxness to the hilt.

This is all part of the climate which our own Lefties created. They instilled into people the idea that one must defer to Islamic demands wherever accommodation of them is possible, and that failure to adopt this thinking was 'intolerant'. In such a climate, anything less than autonomous freedoms would've been met with suspicion (.. or displays of it, anyway ..). Attempts at State control from a State system not itself Islamic would not, I'm sure, have been anything your Muslim pals would've quietly accepted.

I'm sure you are well aware that I'm right about this.


I notice they are all pretty much Pakistani courts.

Really ? What did I miss, then ? Kindly show me what your basis for saying this actually is.

You might include in your reply an explanation of how it is you have a better idea of the nature of these courts than our own authorities do ... knowing, as it appears that you do, what is true of both known and UNknown courts .....


Pakistan is under Taliban control in parts. I shudder to think of the consequences of that style of so called Islam (Taliban law is not Islam) taking hold outside of their little tribal areas back home.

Marcus has already answered you. Besides ... if Taliban law 'is not Islam', as you put it, how come they wanted Pakistan to adopt Islamic laws ????

See ....

http://www.aaj.tv/2012/12/taliban-wants-pakistan-to-adopt-islamic-laws/


PESHAWAR: The Pakistani Taliban have outlined conditions for a ceasefire, including the adoption of Islamic law, a spokesman said Friday.

The conditions, confirmed by spokesman Ihsanullah Ihsan in a phone call to Reuters, also said Pakistan should rewrite its laws and constitution according to Islamic law.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aHPK0NVAcQug&refer=india


April 14 (Bloomberg) -- A pro-Taliban group pledged peace in Pakistan’s northwestern Swat Valley after President Asif Ali Zardari approved Islamic law in the area under an accord the U.S. says undermines the fight against terrorism in the region.


“We guarantee peace, we guarantee that the Taliban will accept the writ of the government,” Rizwanullah Farooq, the son of pro-Taliban leader Sufi Muhammad, said in a phone interview from Swat today. “We got what we wanted.”


Zardari approved the so-called Nizam-i-Adal, or Justice System, regulation last night hours after lawmakers approved a resolution to introduce Islamic law in Swat. Under a peace accord reached in February, the government accepted the demand of pro-Taliban militants for Islamic law in return for ending two years of fighting in the valley.


Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, has said he is “troubled” by the accord in Swat, where militants have burned schools, banned education for girls and beheaded government officials. President Barack Obama said last month the U.S. will increase aid to Pakistan in exchange for security forces there cracking down on terrorists in tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.


“I have questions about handing over a large division of the province to non-state actors,” said Sherry Rehman, former information minister and a lawmaker from the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party. “Now who will guarantee freedom and basic human rights there?”


Muttahida Qaumi Movement, a Karachi-based party, which is part of the ruling coalition, didn’t vote in favor of Islamic law yesterday and walked out of the Parliament house in protest. The group has 25 positions in the 342-seat lower house.


Taliban militants, led by Maulana Fazlullah, have fought the army to replace government rule with Islamic law in Swat, a formerly popular tourist valley northwest of the capital, Islamabad. Fazlullah is the son-in-law of Sufi Muhammad, who negotiated the February peace accord.


The Taliban tightened their control of the region after a truce collapsed last July.


The Qazi, or Islamic judge, “will issue all decrees,” Farooq said today. The Taliban have pledged to accept the orders of the Qazi, he said. The regulation provides for Islamic law in Swat courts.

Never mind, Jafar. Perhaps the Taliban were just kidding, after all, like the notorious jokesters we all know them to be ... ?

[aboutime]

What you REALLY have, Jafar, is Muslims exploiting the UK's laxness to the hilt.

This is all part of the climate which our own Lefties created. They instilled into people the idea that one must defer to Islamic demands wherever accommodation of them is possible, and that failure to adopt this thinking was 'intolerant'. In such a climate, anything less than autonomous freedoms would've been met with suspicion (.. or displays of it, anyway ..). Attempts at State control from a State system not itself Islamic would not, I'm sure, have been anything your Muslim pals would've quietly accepted.

I'm sure you are well aware that I'm right about this.



Really ? What did I miss, then ? Kindly show me what your basis for saying this actually is.

You might include in your reply an explanation of how it is you have a better idea of the nature of these courts than our own authorities do ... knowing, as it appears that you do, what is true of both known and UNknown courts .....



Marcus has already answered you. Besides ... if Taliban law 'is not Islam', as you put it, how come they wanted Pakistan to adopt Islamic laws ????

See ....

http://www.aaj.tv/2012/12/taliban-wants-pakistan-to-adopt-islamic-laws/



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aHPK0NVAcQug&refer=india



Never mind, Jafar. Perhaps the Taliban were just kidding, after all, like the notorious jokesters we all know them to be ... ?


Sir Drummond. The bottom line...according to jafar's line above is. Unless HAMAS is in control. Anarchy is what jafar Wants.

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. The bottom line...according to jafar's line above is. Unless HAMAS is in control. Anarchy is what jafar Wants.

Next thing you know, they'll start demanding that we fire some of our own missiles at Israel ...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Next thing you know, they'll start demanding that we fire some of our own missiles at Israel ...

Likely a strong hint and a bit of cover is all that obama needs on that. He already has the desire...--Tyr