Monday, September 08, 2008

UK Islamic school says ‘extreme punishments’ are on the way

Cranmer is not surprised to hear that the Hijaz Islamic College in Nuneaton, Warwickshire - which teaches Islamic studies and Islamic law alongside a secular education of GCSEs and A Levels - is running Shari’a law court. It is, after all, precisely what the Archbishop of Canterbury deemed ‘unavoidable’, and what the Lord Chief Justice positively welcomes.

The ‘Muslim Arbitration Tribunal’ (the acronym for which, as far as many Muslim women are concerned, might as well be prefixed with ‘DOOR’) is reported to have already dispensed more than 100 Shar’ia judgements to resolve civil disputes between Muslims across the UK. One inheritance dispute between three sisters and their two brothers resulted in the men being granted double their sisters’ inheritance, but, under Islamic law, this was deemed ‘fair’.

Of course, these women dare not challenge such rulings for fear of bringing dishonour on the family name. They will be acutely aware of tragic consequences which have befallen many Asian women who have been deemed to have done so.

The court presently operates ‘in tandem’ with the British legal system, but it is certainly aware that there is room for development in this area. Whilst being interviewed about the barbarism usually associated with the term ‘Shari’a’ - beheadings, public floggings and hands being chopped off - Faisal Aqtab Siddiqi, the college Head, said: ‘British society was not ready for such punishments’.

Not ready?

It is not for this learned gentleman and school principal a matter of amending the Shari’a code, or of eradicating the depraved torture and inhumanity of the extreme punishments, but of agitating for the UK to submit to the supreme law of Allah. According to the school’s website: ‘Hijaz is re-designing the basis of Islamic education that was historically the strength of Muslims, which has now been lost to sub-standard or subservient forms of education and thinking’. Mr Siddiqi is quoted as saying that ‘if society became more “civilised” then those who broke the law should expect to receive the highest degree of punishment’.

So there you have it. The Head of this Muslim school, who also sits in judgement within the jurisdiction of its court, is of the opinion that beheadings, public floggings and hands being chopped off are an expression of greater civility. Is this really what his students are being taught?

Cranmer is even more concerned to learn that, unlike the informal Shari’a courts which have operated within the context of local mosques for years, the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal has ‘binding legal status’. Mr Siddiqi triumphantly declares: “We can therefore, for the first time, offer the Muslim community a real and true opportunity to settle disputes in accordance with Islamic sacred law with the knowledge that the outcome as determined by the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal will be binding and enforceable.”

This is apparently because ‘decisions challenged by the losing party will be upheld by a county court bailiff or high court sheriff. The Nuneaton-based tribunal cannot force anyone to come within its jurisdication. But once someone agrees to settle a dispute at the tribunal, he or she is bound in English law to abide by the court’s decision’.

However, this appears to be predicated on the court’s decisions being ‘reasonable’.

Well, thank God for that.

Cranmer awaits the day when what is deemed ‘reasonable’ is itself a matter of political contention, for doubtless the Western and British notions, which have been informed and honed through centuries of Christian theology and spirituality, are ‘substandard’. Rather like defining the common good, such principles are mutable, and politicians are prone to bend with the strongest wind. Ultimately, as Mr Siddiqi points out, they are ‘subservient’.

Mr Siddiqi’s ‘not ready’ ought to be a reminder to all that liberties which are not rigorously defended are incrementally eradicated.


Anonymous len said...

Totally barbaric!, but these muslims are only following what the Koran tells them to do!

8 September 2008 at 07:47  
Blogger Johnny Guitar said...

“So there you have it. The Head of this Muslim school, who also sits in judgement within the jurisdiction of its court, is of the opinion that beheadings, public floggings and hands being chopped off are an expression of greater civility.”

I don't see what the problem is. Peter Hitchens says this sort of thing every week. Not too sure about public flogging myself. I don't care what they get up to behind closed doors but there's no need for them to flaunt their flogging.

8 September 2008 at 09:10  
Blogger Jomo said...

The Government seems intent on allowing the creation of a "state within a state" with all the long term consequences and risks involved.

Sadly the opposition shows little sign of wanting to do much about it either, presumably because of its fear of the "community's" reaction.

It looks like the country is walking blindfolded into a catastrophe of its own making where there are only two possible outcomes-the first continual appeasement until eventual surrender, the second civil war preceding by internment and another operation motorman.

History suggests that living in peace with the religion of peace is the most unlikely third way.

8 September 2008 at 10:21  
Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

The writing is on the wall. Time to show the Muslims the door.

8 September 2008 at 12:40  
Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

"I don't see what the problem is"

"To change the perception of reality of every american to such an extent that despite an abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interests of defending themselves."

8 September 2008 at 12:52  
Blogger mckenzie said...

Its all very shocking. It brings the very worse out in me, it really does. I love this great nation and it grieves me to visualize the future. There really is a fucking limit.

8 September 2008 at 14:27  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Was it really necessary to put a picture of decapitated heads at the top of the post without any warning?

8 September 2008 at 15:32  
Anonymous Non-Mouse 2 said...

Better than finding them on our doorsteps without any warning?

But warning us...

8 September 2008 at 17:32  
Blogger Jenny said...

Of course, whether you get the 'choice' to submit to this court may well depend on your position in the household, rather than your free will....

8 September 2008 at 19:31  
Anonymous tomorrow belongs to mo said...


"Minister rejects migrant cap plan. The government has rejected demands for strict limits on the number of workers from outside the European Economic Area allowed to settle in Britain. Immigration Minister Liam Byrne said a new points system based on skills and labour shortages was a better policy. He was responding to an all-party group of MPs' call for "balanced migration," and 4-year limits for foreign workers. The group says Britain will not be able to cope with the estimated 7m rise in migrants forecasted by 2031. Former Labour minister Frank Field and former Conservative minister MP Nicholas Soames are chairing the Cross-Party Group on Balanced Migration. "

To admit that uncontrolled immigration is wrong now, would be to admit that uncontrolled immigration was also wrong in the past. This is something that the LibLabCon dare not acknowledge, for it would publicly reveal them as long-term nation-wrecking traitors

9 September 2008 at 00:06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course, whether you get the 'choice' to submit to this court may well depend on your position in the household, rather than your free will....


Why would anyone of their own free will submit to a court that they judge is likely to give them a verdict that is not as good for them as not doing so?

Surly anyone that would do so would either be a certifiably insane fool or not at all doing so by their own free will.

What should truly shock people is that the feminist movement do not have the slightest intention of defending these individuals human rights.

The reason why the feminist movement is not going to do so, is the following.

The feminist movement was set up and financed by the establishment for these reasons and these reason only.

1. To increase direct and indirect government revenue by forcing more middle class women into the payed workforce.

2. To undermine the traditional strong cohesive family unit so it can be more easily destroyed or manipulated in other additional ways.

3. To further enable the state to brainwash children at an ever more early age.

This has now been achieved so the feminist movement is now terminally starved of funds, direction and publicity.

It is highly unlikely that the feminist movement will do anything to redress the cruel unfairness of this situation. As our ruling elites have long since planned that the Muslim community is to cause as much chaos and social division as humanly possible. If they fail to live up to expectations they will surly be given a helping hand.

Evidence for this is in the words of the establishments representative on earth the ABof C.

Who, unless I am very much mistaken, is a Druid and therefore a high masonic and even more highly destructive NWO establishment selected maniac.

I KNOW what masons believe because, I am very proud to say, I am one myself. As were my entire male ancestry going back as far as both sides of my family tree takes me. There is nothing wrong with wanting world piece, the betterment of self and believing in the existence and profound power of a creator.

However the very much higher orders methods of achieving world piece shock me to my core, not to say frighten me to death.


9 September 2008 at 00:17  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry that should read World Peace.

9 September 2008 at 00:20  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Atlas, You haven't taken your tablet again.The reason feminists are relatively silent about the oppression of Muslim women is because their belief that white people commenting on how people of a different colour live, is racist. This trumps any concern they may have for the plight of Muslim women. The fact that from the very beginning of Muslim travelers visiting Christian countries their accounts of what they saw include expressions of disgust at, and contempt for, the respect and deference that they saw men pay to women. Feminists would rather gloss over this, preferring to spout twaddle about how the hijab liberates women from the tyranny of the male gaze.

9 September 2008 at 05:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Read Oriana Fallaci. She was in Manhattan in self imposed exile from Islamicised Italy when the planes struck.

'The Rage and the Pride' is a diatribe against the Islamification of Europe by immigration and massive birth rate, and a lament for the end of Western civilisation by the end of this century if we don't work out how to reverse the trend.

It is interesting that some atheists (I should respectfully say former atheist in her case since Ms Fallaci has sadly passed on) seem to be more aware of what is going on that many Christians, and of what we stand to lose. Theodore Dalrymple is another.

However, the paramount need to bash Christianity and assert that all religions are the same (all equally hogwash) and of course mispplaced post-colonial guilt prevents the ruling liberal-left elite saying much about al taquiya, hudnah and impending dhimmitude let alone first cousin arranged marriages. Im my city the routine practice of bringing over brides and husbands for English born Muslims from Pakistan and Somalia continues to swell numbers while also preventing integration since of course the mother tongue is first language.

What a nasty surprise is coming when we finaly wake up. what did George Orwell (homage to Catalonia) say about England on his return from the Spanish civil war in 1936...'...all dreaming the deep, deep sleep of England, from which I fear we will never awake until we are jerked out of it by the roar of bombs.'

God is a God of justice, which sometimes involves vengeance, but also has a sense of humour. I suspect that He is allowing the Islamification of Britain as a physical answer to the inntellectual elite who worked so hard to destroy the Christianity which gave birth to our western civilisation, in the fanciful hope that vanquished 'religion' would be replaced by something better called 'reason'. What is happening instead is that good religion is being displaced by bad religion. How long before saying that is illegal?

We have been warned. All religions are not the same.


9 September 2008 at 17:27  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just remembered a short poem by Hilaire Belloc

'The Pacifist'

"Pale Ebenezer thought it wrong to fight

But roaring Bill (who killed him) thought it right."

9 September 2008 at 17:36  
Anonymous len said...

Dissenter, I think you might have hit the nail in the head!
The backsliding jews went to babylon as captives,I believe babylon has now come to us!
If we reject the God of the bible (Jahweh) then I think we get by default mans religion (in whatever form) which seems intent on building a hell on earth.

9 September 2008 at 17:46  
Anonymous r. bite-mcfry said...

Ultimately, there are only two ways it can go, either the Kuffars implement a final solution to the Muslim problem, or the Muslims implement a final solution to the Kuffar problem.

It's a race against time as to which occurs first.

9 September 2008 at 23:45  
Blogger Citizen Warrior said...

This must be fought. It is an outrage, and one of a continuing stream of Muslim encroachments on civil liberties.

Let us reach out to those who don't know about the larger goals of jihad and the sneaky methods they use, and educate them in a way they don't reject. This is urgent business for all of us.

14 September 2008 at 17:46  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Johnny Guitar said..
"...I don't care what they get up to behind closed doors but ...."!
I'm sorry Johnny, you are wrong.
Sharia is a fundamental part of the problem, even behind closed doors.
In English law, men, women and everyone else(children for example, or immigrants even without legal status in the UK) are absolutely equal under the law.
But under Sharia, women are absolutely NOT free, anywhere.
A muslim woman is subject to all males in her family including male children older than 16 years.
In Sharia courts a woman's word is of lesser value than a man's.
So the old adage that "..if it's behind closed doors it doesn't concern us..." is, in all conscience, not valid in this case.

6 June 2011 at 21:09  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older