Saturday, September 26, 2009

Muslim women oppose Sharia councils in Britain

Meet Dr Suhaib Hasan. He is one of the UK’s Sharia judges. He reminds us that Sharia means ‘the Islamic Law’ – ‘how to live according to the Muslim teachings’, to which he has devoted his life. He says: “I am a judge with the Islamic Sharia Council, which was set up in 1982 to guide the UK community on Islamic-related matters. All its scholars and judges are graduates of the Islamic universities throughout Muslim lands, or graduates from dar al uloom, the private institutions that teach Islam in India and Pakistan.”

He has lived in the UK since 1976. As a judge (qazi), he rules on legal issues that affect the daily lives of British Muslims, especially in the realms of finance, inheritance and divorce (which, he says, now constitutes the overwhelming majority of his work).

He says: “Normally the woman comes to us. This is for one simple reason: under British law both the man and woman have to apply to the court for a divorce. Under the Islamic system, the man may end the marriage if he thinks it right. It is preferable he does this in front of two witnesses, then it is a simple exercise to say: ‘I divorce you.’ The only thing we must ascertain is that he has given the dower (dowry) to the woman. This is a marriage gift from bridegroom to bride. Unless he has paid it, the man cannot get a divorce.

“When a woman applies, the process is called a khula divorce. If the husband agrees, the matter is settled, but if not, we invite both for an interview, and we do emphasise reconciliation. If she is seeking the divorce, she has to return the dower to him, if not, no divorce.”

Issues of custody raise particular problems, but (unlike English law), the Sharia stipulates that male children are permitted to choose between their mother or father at the age of seven. For female children, the age is 14 (when Islam deems them to be ‘responsible’).

Dr Hasan says he would like two further Sharia principles to be incorporated into ‘British law’: The first is the dower. The second is for the 12 existing Sharia councils to be recognised as mediation bodies and for the British courts to ‘enforce their decisions’. He reasons that this ‘would ease the pressure on the British legal system (because) at least one section of the community would be taking a little of the burden upon itself’.

Quite so, Dr Hasan. But what of Muslim women who are not content with your ability to ‘enforce’ rulings in which women are manifestly not treated as equal to me?

A very brave Muslim woman, Kavita Ramdya , has written in response:

Sir, I shudder to think of the repercussions for Muslim women if British law recognises decisions made by Sharia councils. Sharia law dictates that when a woman requests a divorce and the husband disagrees, the judge will “emphasise reconciliation” and “she has to return the dower to him”, whereas a man can divorce his wife by simply repeating “I divorce you” in front of two witnesses.

Muslim women who seek divorce are subjected to an interview process, pressured to remain married and risk losing quite possibly their only financial wealth by being forced to return their dower.

In the past, it was critical that individuals marry and remain married in order to preserve the safety and stability of a clan, tribe, family fortune, or even an alliance between countries.

Since then, marriage has evolved. It is now the primary method with which to pursue happiness and fulfilment. Muslim women in Britain are cognisant of the fact that they have the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness.

For Sharia judges to question a woman’s motives for divorce and pressure her socially and financially to remain in an unfulfilling and possibly dangerous marriage is antiquated at best and deadly at worst. Decisions made by Sharia councils have no room in British law.

The former Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir Ali, has warned us of the regressive nature of Sharia law and its irreconcilability to the English system of jurispridence. One wonders whether the Archbishop of Canterbury would agree with Dr Hasan or Kavita Ramdya.

Who now has the ultimate authority to adjudicate between them?


Blogger Red Kite said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 September 2009 at 09:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree, if there is more than 'one' law, then what are the choices here? Is it the Federation of Planets law, or The Jedi Council, or a mix of the two?

26 September 2009 at 09:58  
Anonymous Brian E. said...

Reconciliation and arbitration has always been allowed by British Law, and is generally enforceable. It is frequently used in the case of commercial disputes. But, in such matters, both parties must agree in advance to the process without pressure and also both parties must agree on the arbitrator.
Clearly in the case of these Sharia divorces, this is not so. It is unlikely that any woman would agree to the process, and nor would she be likely to agree to the the appointment of a Sharia judge as arbitrator.
Maybe the Sharia process does work for other types of dispute, but clearly not in the case of divorce.

26 September 2009 at 10:21  
Anonymous Maturecheese said...

I think that if Muslims want to practise Sharia law then they should either not come here or move to an Islamic Country where they can do so legitimately. If they want to come to this country, which as far as I can tell is still Christian, then they should observe this country s laws, which have taken centuries to evolve and have been copied worldwide.

26 September 2009 at 10:42  
Blogger Red Kite said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 September 2009 at 11:11  
Anonymous the recusant said...

See RELIGION LAW BLOG for a fascinating explanation of exactly how the Marriage Act is being flaunted by mosques and why.

26 September 2009 at 11:22  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Sharia law has no place here. Take it back where it belongs - the Dark Ages.

26 September 2009 at 11:22  
Blogger Christian said...

We Christians do not acutally allow devorce at all so I suppose this is a bit of a case of the kettle calling the pot black.

26 September 2009 at 11:30  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

As a lawyer my interest is in how Sharia Judges can be Human Rights Act compliant is there are and cannot be any woman ( or Gay ) Sharia Judge? Can some other more talented lawyer than me, walk me through the logic of how this can be accommodated within the EU and British legal structures?

26 September 2009 at 11:44  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Law is the authority, and it is the authority that Islam seeks to take away. If you don not believe me then hear it from the horses mouth so to speak...HERE

26 September 2009 at 11:53  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Can I just point out that it has nothing to do with this "being a christian" country.

I am an atheist but I still abide by (no I don't murder people and eat babies and yes I do have morals) this country's laws.

I find it just as distasteful that someone would come here and want to change the laws of this country (where they had decided to move to for whatever reason) to the laws of the country they had left.

If you move to another country you should be prepared to work towards integration with that country's ways, you should not seek to change the ways of the country to match your previous way of life.

For example, if I decided to move to a non English speaking country like Japan for instance, I would be making damn sure before I touched down on their soil that I could communicate enough in the country's language in order to get by.

So once again I don't feel this a religious issue, I feel that if someone wants to move to this country and integrate themselves into society then that is a beneficial thing, the moment they seek to change the country to suit themselves then they should be asked to leave.

26 September 2009 at 12:12  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I do not know if His Grace and communicants are aware of a number of protests that have been taking place recently in Birmingham and Luton by a group calling themselves the English Defence League (EDL), but it is relevant to what is going on in the UK with regards to Sharia Law. The EDL are a sudden and strange formation of people who's main protest seems to be against Islamic extremism. They claim to be a multi cultural non racist group.

Most of the protests have ended in violence of some kind, but fault cannot be easily pinned onto any one particular group, except maybe the idiot government who has created this environment in the first place.

My main point is highly relevant to the topic and which is the dangerous and arrogant attitude that does exist in the Islamic community with regards to Sharia Law. The Link below is a video which shows the response to both the EDL and also the socialist group UAF from the Islamic fundamentalist point of view. The disturbing part of this for me is that I can well imagine the attraction this sort of extreme and fundamental material will be generating amongst ordinary Islamic youth.

I would like to point out that I have nothing to do with any protest group, but I am watching the events unfold with great interest and concern non the less.

Anjem Choudary broadcasts to the EDL

26 September 2009 at 12:14  
Anonymous Anglophile said...

Easy.. integrate or leave or be
ordered to leave!

26 September 2009 at 12:16  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

With respect to Dr Nazir-Ali, it isn’t just Islamic law that is regressive and irreconcilable to the English way of life, it is Islam itself. It is extraordinary to me that a religion that treats women in such an appalling manner continues to be tolerated, and for Rowan Williams to encourage the spread of Islamic law is beyond belief.

Albeit that His Grace’s headline says that Muslim women oppose Sharia, many Muslim women accept their divinely ordained subordinate status; when their holy book tells them that Allah has made men superior to women, how can they do otherwise?

As for Dr Hasan’s altruistic offer to ease the pressure on the British legal system, no one should believe a word of it. The only hope of justice for Muslim women is within the British system. For the rest of us, the only hope of living in a country at ease with itself is to rid Britain of Islam.

•Johnny Rottenborough•

26 September 2009 at 12:18  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kavita Ramdya has written

'In the past, it was critical that individuals marry and remain married in order to preserve the safety and stability of a clan, tribe, family fortune, or even an alliance between countries.

Since then, marriage has evolved. It is now the primary method with which to pursue happiness and fulfilment.'

I don't doubt her bravery and agree there should be equality of men and women before the law but I do questions this statement!! Maybe the 'in the past' high view of the importance of solid marriages to society was a good idea!!


26 September 2009 at 13:14  
Blogger English Viking said...

Who cares what a bunch of moon-worshiping foreigners want? Tell them where to go, and quickly, before they become too strong. To allow a parallel judicial system to take root is the pre-cursor to that parallel system taking precedence and finally to superseding English Law altogether. Resist or Die. It's that simple.

26 September 2009 at 13:53  
Anonymous As sane as a headless Gecko said...

"Resist or Die"

I like this, it has a Nietzschean feel to it. The philosopher was struck by a mental disease in the year 1889 and had to lead the rest of his life as an invalid. However his handicap did not deter him from his philosophical beliefs. Pain and suffering are an integral part of our life as is pleasure and happiness. People like Nietzsche believed that if one had the courage to withstand pain, then he or she could win any battle in life.

"Did you ever say yes to a pleasure? Oh my friends, then you also said yes to all pain. All things are linked, entwined, in love with one another." "What does not kill me makes me stronger."
Friedrich Nietzsche

26 September 2009 at 14:45  
Blogger UKViewer said...

I believe that Sharia Law is incompatible with the Law of England.

It has no place in the UK and should not be permitted.

Sharia Tribunals should be banned and all of those who preside should be charged with impersonating a Judge (if there is such an offence).

As an afterthought, perhaps some of the English Judges should also be charged with that offence, given the liberal way they administer justice at the moment.

26 September 2009 at 15:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have discovered a new anti mariage faith which I am going to join and claim my new ring.

Join the National Mariage Boycot.

All Muslims are welcome.

26 September 2009 at 17:25  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Which school of Sharia do these people follow?
Who grants them their certificates?

Seems very odd to me.

Will they require full or only partial mutilation/destruction of female genitalia? on the NHS of course.

There are four main schools of Sharia law:

Hanbali: This is the most conservative school of Shari'a. It is used in Saudi Arabia and some states in Northern Nigeria. (mostly followed by wahhabies)
Hanifi: This is the most liberal school, and is relatively open to modern ideas (liberal and modern being relative terms, modern equates to around 100AD or earlier).
Maliki: This is based on the practices of the people of Medina during Muhammad's lifetime. (well not actually practiced in Medinha anymore, wahhabies rule ther now)
Shafi'i: This is a conservative school that emphasizes on the opinions of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad (very illiberal and repressive).

There are other schools as well.

26 September 2009 at 17:58  
Anonymous non mouse said...

How can we join the EDL?
As for mozzies offering to accommodate any of us, or broadcasting to any of us ... just where do they get off? This is not their land. They have no business here if they can't respect and support it.

And the same goes for euros and the eussr.

26 September 2009 at 17:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Found this, seems one of Obama's nominees sees no reason why Sharia can't apply in the US.

Has the man never heard of the Constitution of the USofA?

Not sure how he balances homosexual marriage being forced on Californians and implementing Sharia, strange person.

26 September 2009 at 18:08  
Anonymous not a machine said...

How true , sorry but we have crafted our laws over many centuries , bound to be trouble bringing one law in for a seperate religous group .

another labour error waiting to fail.

26 September 2009 at 18:39  
Blogger Wyrdtimes said...

English law for England
English taxes for England
Home rule for England

26 September 2009 at 18:58  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The English have hitherto been remarkably tolerant of Islam. The question is : why?

Could someone explain to me why we should put up with this disgusting and barbarous religion and its disgusting and barbarous followers?

Brian, follower of Deornoth

PS Apologies to Cranmer if this isn't the sort of comment he wants on his website. But decent people are sick of political correctness being rammed down their throats and until some respect is shown to the English matters will only deteriorate.

26 September 2009 at 19:27  
Anonymous Yokel said...

Red Kite wrote: "If you want to get rid of your wife, then what is there to stop you from 'converting' to Islam for a week or two?"

Nothing, except that it needn't be a week or two, it would be the rest of your life. OK, it could be a week or two. Remember that the penalty for apostasy (leaving Islam) as implemented by these same judges is death.

If they tell you otherwise, chalk it up as taqiyya.

26 September 2009 at 19:29  
Anonymous Yokel said...

Your Grace, can I be the only one who has chuckled with a little toilet humour about the Arabic word for judge? Maybe your congregants are all too polite to remark upon the word in public.

26 September 2009 at 19:33  
Anonymous Cellotape Fetish said...

"Talaxian soup weddings"

Are they the ones you storm out of when you find out the seating arrangements are a bit dodgy? I hate them, they are so yesterday!

26 September 2009 at 19:51  
Blogger moorlandhunter said...

We should never allow our country to have these fake courts or any other courts doling out any edicts of any law that is not British. They are courts of the dark ages not for a modern multicultural society such as ours.
Unfortunately we already have these backward thinking, narrow minded, female hating panels in our country but they should be stopped asap and any incidence of them being set up should see the practitioners up in REAL courts on charges of running illegal kangaroo courts so that these fake courts can never be able to dispense any kind of ‘justice’

26 September 2009 at 20:03  
Anonymous Theoden said...

Where is the horse and the rider,
where is the horn that was blowing?
They have passed like rain on the mountains;
like wind in the meadows.
The days have gone down in the west, behind the hills,
into shadow.
How did it come to this

26 September 2009 at 21:48  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Yokel (19:33)—The Arabic for ‘the judge’ is القاضي which is more correctly transliterated as ‘al qadi’. The ‘d’ is pronounced with the tongue touching the lower teeth. I’m afraid it rather spoils the joke!

26 September 2009 at 22:14  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Your Grace

Did you know that if you are a Muslim you can have a temporary wife.

The website discusses mut'a or temporary marriage

quoting from the web-page

"Mut'a is considered a kind of 'rental' because in general a man's basic aim in this kind of marriage is the sexual enjoyment of a woman, and in return for his enjoyment the woman receives a certain amount of money or property".

You and I would call that prostitution.

However, the in a learned discussion, it is recommended that a Muslim man conclude a temporary marriage only with a chaste Muslim woman.

So we have the concept of a one shot prostitute.

This is so hilarious, I wonder whether a Carry on team should be reformed to produce "Carry on Islam"

26 September 2009 at 22:28  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

It would be nice if this country was still arguing from a position of moral authority. It is not.

We have institutionalized racism and sexism at all levels of civil society. Represented by rampant Identity politics. Along with the state sanctioned feminism, at the deliberate cost of men. Leaving young males especially, hopelessly defending themselves, humiliated and demeaned in very much the same way, and for the exact same reason that southern slave owners used to humiliate young virile black men in front of their own women folk. Socialism/state induced slavery, is in fact still doing this to black and Asian men, and will continue to do so, if these later day plantation owners, can possibly get away with it.

What is worse, our society is in free fall, with family life in particular, closest to the bottom of the abyss.

It is now so very hard to see what we Europeans can teach the world, that it is in the worlds general interests to learn.

Perhaps it is time that we started listening to Muslims instead of laughing at, or in other ways insulting them, or their way of life.

We must ask ourselves.

If being British male of female was so very wonderful, why do we BOTH spend so much time complaining about the place, while becoming ever more frustrated, and rapidly impoverished in all respects?

Muslim women have the same rights as we all do, and more choices then non-Muslim women. If they don't like their reality they have the choice of trusting the state to look after their interests and that of their children, or they can trust an Islamic court to do so.

An Islamic court I can not answer to or for.

However if they choose to trust the state to look after said interests, they will find the same reality there, as will the rest of US, sooner or later. Which is that the STATE can not protect our common interests, even if it truly wanted to, which as we all have surly worked out by now, the state has not ever even seriously attempted so to do.

The role of the state is to make things as bad as possible, in order to justify more taxation/slavery. Then it makes perfectly sure that however much money it taxes/steals. it messes up big time, and wastes as much as they can get away with, by making things even worse. The state then has an excuse to come back for even more taxation/deliberately created slavery, in order to 'make it better' next time, and the awful self defeating nightmare go's on and on.

Meantime the people that actually do all the work, consume all of the things they themselves have produced, never get a chance to make things better for themselves and their co-habitants, because every spare bit of cash is now being spent on barely feeding the kids, while paying interest to banksters, to borrow back their own governments money. Incidentally from a bank that their own government supposedly owns.

While we seek to lecture Muslim people on the benefits of Corporatist STATE SANCTIONED DEBT SLAVERY, teenage motherhood, smoking bans, corrupt politicians, a controlled media, and self-apparent imperialist warmongering.

26 September 2009 at 23:12  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

27 September 2009 at 01:56  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How many women Qadis are there? Do devout muslims living in the UK accept the laws of this country and judgements given by female judges?

M. Marprelate

27 September 2009 at 08:44  
Blogger ZZMike said...

Yokel: "Nothing, except that it needn't be a week or two, it would be the rest of your life. OK, it could be a week or two. Remember that the penalty for apostasy (leaving Islam) as implemented by these same judges is death."

This is another case of "asymmetric ideology": Nikah al-Mut‘ah.

This is a mechanism by which a Muslim man "marries" a woman for a short period of time, after which the marriage simply dissolves - no divorce is involved, and each is free to marry again.

Though as usual, the woman must wait three or four months.

(I just now got to Ultramontane's comment, on the same subject.)

Atlas Shrugged: "What is worse, our society is in free fall, with family life in particular, closest to the bottom of the abyss."

Here's part of the answer:

If children are taught that patriotism is wrong, Britain's very identity is at stake

"For the past 1,000 years, [patriotism] has given the people of these islands the strength and courage to repel invaders and defeat the enemies of liberty.

Is it not extraordinary that such affection for your country should now be considered so objectionable that children should be told it is positively dangerous?"

It is because you (Englishmen, though probably not readers of this excellent blog) have abandoned your heritage, abandoned your values, and for all practical purposes, abandoned your country, that it has abandoned you.

("While we seek to lecture Muslim people on the benefits of Corporatist STATE SANCTIONED DEBT SLAVERY, teenage motherhood, smoking bans, corrupt politicians, a controlled media, and self-apparent imperialist warmongering."

Do try to come up with a complete sentence. Other than that, you get full marks for quoting from the Marxist playbook.)

27 September 2009 at 08:46  
Anonymous Yokel said...

@Johnny Rottenborough: Thanks for the reality, but it was fun while it lasted!

@ZZMike re patriotism: What will it take for the greater British public to realise that "our" leaders have a self appointed task to destroy British identity in order that we be subsumed into a state called Europe. Therefore this teaching that patriotism is wrong is not an error. It is deliberate. It is necessary (in their view) to achieve the ends, and we live in an age where the ends always justify the means. Rather like the times of the Judges of the Bible.

Which reminds me that Jesus likened the End of the Age to the times of the Judges. Then of course there is Daniel's reporting of the ten kings that will arise, but not for long before they cede their power to one. Anyone watching the UN?

27 September 2009 at 09:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Get behind the One Law For All campaign.
Theres an event on 21 November well worth a visit and a donation unless people want to live under shria law that is.

27 September 2009 at 20:18  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Islam is NOT the religion of peace, it is "The Religion of Violence".

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country/region/city they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

Nation % Muslim
United States 1.0%
Australia 1.5%
Italy 1.5%
Norway 1.8%
Canada 1.9%
China 2.0%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:

Nation % Muslim
Denmark 2.0%
United Kingdom 2.7%
Germany 3.7%
Spain 4.0%
Thailand 4.6%

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. (United States).

Nation % Muslim
Switzerland 4.3%
Philippines 5.0%
Sweden 5.0%
The Netherlands 5.5%
Trinida and Tabago 5.8%
France 8.0%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris –car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam - Mohammed cartoons).

Nation % Muslim
Guyana 10.0%
India 13.4%
Israel 16.0%
Kenya 10.0%
Russia 15.0%

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:

Nation % Muslim
Ethiopia 32.8%

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:

Nation % Muslim
Bosnia 40.0%
Chad 50.1%
Lebanon 59.7%

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:

Nation % Muslim
Albania 70.0%
Malaysia 60.4%
Qatar 77.5%
Sudan 70.0%

After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:

Nation % Muslim
Bangladesh 83.0%
Egypt 90.0%
Gaza 98.7%
Indonesia 86.1%
Iran 98.0%
Iraq 97.0%
Jordan 92.0%
Morocco 98.7%
Pakistan 97.0%
Syria 90.0%
Tajikistan 90.0%
Turkey 99.8%
United Arab Emirates 96.0%

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' — the Islamic House of Peace — there's supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:

Nation % Muslim
Yemen 99.9%
Afghanistan 100.0%
Saudi Arabia 100.0%
Somalia 100.0%

Of course, that's not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.


27 September 2009 at 20:18  
Blogger Bertie_Bert said...

Sharia law in UK has been made legal a while ago.

ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

see also..

Anjem Choudary sharia courts Britain.
Russian TV report about sharia courts in UK.

27 September 2009 at 20:34  
Anonymous Stephen Gash said...

SIOE has been fighting this for two and a half years.

The 11th September Harrow mosque demo was forced to be halted because of Muslims and self-styled anti-fascists threatening violence.

There will be a second Harrow mosque demo. Either people care about the threat of sharia and are willing to do something about it - or they don't and make excuses for inaction.

28 September 2009 at 00:28  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr Suhaib Hasan is a really sneaky guy.

He is not satisfied with what the Islamic Courts in Britain have so far achieved.

Nooo, he now suggested capital punishments (recent article in the "Times").

The is called creeping Sharia;)

28 September 2009 at 20:27  
Blogger Carl Gardner, Head of Legal said...

I agree completely with Kavita Ramdya: sharia clearly discriminates against women.

I can just about accept the existence of sharia councils if they stick to regulating religious matters only. I'm not keen in principle on the idea of the state's deciding who is and is not married in the eyes of Islam, or of Christianity for that matter. Though I will say this: if over the next couple of decades religions continue to flout the values of the secular society that guarantees their freedom by systematically discriminating against women and homosexuals in their internal affairs, then people like me, and wider society generally, may well gradually become more willing to intervene in those affairs. We would not now permit the kind of racist church that once operated in South Africa - and nor should we. That may seem an insulting parallel to religious people, but outside religions, it may well increasingly seem an accurate one.

But the vital point is that the state certainly must not recognise sharia courts as in any way determining whether anyone is married in law, or enforce or recognise their rulings to any extent. And of all areas of law, it's most important to ensure this doesn't happen in family law.

To do so would be outrageous, and it's astonishing that the Archbishop of Canterbury was silly enough to recommend it. I'm not the sort of blogger who readily resorts to personal insults, but that intervention lowered my (admittedly not high before then) respect for Williams. I can't help thinking his attitude to Islam shows he's an unprincipled fool.

What was even more outrageous, given that tomorrow he'll be president of our Supreme Court, is that Lord Phillips defended Williams's bonkers suggestion.

The good news is: the Human Rights Act would prevent this nonsense.

30 September 2009 at 14:53  
Blogger ibrahimali said...

Assalamu Alaikum,


I am a messenger of God in accordance with the holy Quranic verse 28:59. It is my bounden duties to protect all the communities in the world.

Now¸ a film under the name and style of innocence of Muslim has been published by Google and Youtube against prophet mohamed and Muslims which is creating trouble between Islam and Christians brother hoods in he world which is against the holy Quranic verses 5:82¸ 20:129 and 130 and as such no Muslim can harm Christians.

The Christians and Jewish can go through the Quranic verse 7:157 on the basis of holy Torah and Bible wherein prophet Mohamed has been mentioned as prophet¸ after Jesus¸ but the same fact was not followed by the two communities of Jewish and Christians in the world and accordingly Jewish and Christians are divided into various group till a Day of Resurrection according to the Quranic verses 5:13 and 14.

God has also created palestine to create trouble to jewish till a Day of resurrection in accordance with Quranic verses 7:163 and 167.

We conducted a survey and research that why Christians and Muslims are not
cooperating with each other in the world? We found the following

1. Christians are well educated and research scholars to research each
and every issue brought to them, but unfortunately Satan occupying not
to apply their mind to analyse that how Jesus was killed and crucified
when God has given him five favours and one out of it is he brought
forth dead.

2. Jews are not accepting our prophet Jesus that they tried to kill
Jesus, but Christians are following Jews and depend upon their advice.

3. Christians fail to realise Matthew 14:23 and Quranic verse 5:14 and
9:31 that and when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a
mountain apart to pray. If Jesus is God or a part of God then why did
he pray?

4. Christians are not interpreting Matthew 27:11-14 to mean that Jesus
wanted to die on the cross for the redemption of mankind and for the
forgiveness of their sins. If so, then why did he ask to turn away
that cup from him? Why did hr cry out while on the cross?

5. Muslims are accepting Jesus as prophet and his mother Mary, but
Jews disbelief and uttering against Mary, a grave false charge (that
she had committed illegal sexual intercourse).

6. Muslims believe that Jesus was not killed and crucified by the Jews
as revealed in the holy Quran verse 4:157 and 158.

7. Most of Muslims in the world are not educated and innocent. Some
leaders and organisations are misleading young Muslims to fight with
other communities as Jihad which is not recognised in the Quranic
verses 5:32, 22:40, 45:14 and they are termed as perverts in
accordance with Quranic verse 2:99.

8.Christians failed to interpret Quranic verse 4:157
57:27 and 28 and 61:6 read with John 14:15-16,15:26-27,16:5-8,read
with Matthew 10:16.

I am a follower of Christian and islam according to quranic verse 57:28.God invite all my Christians brotherhood in the world to follow Christian and islam.Kindly read Quranic verse 57:27and 28 which are available in Quranic English Translation website.All are requested to follow me in the interest of world peace solutions and unity in the world among all of you as iam a messenger of God in according to quranic verse 28:59.

I am a messenger of God to notice the above said facts to United States of America and others in the world in accordance with the Quranic verse 4:83 that I am fearing that world is not peaceful in these hard days.

In the circumstance stated above, I prayed for peace and unity in the world and requesting the USA may be asked all the researchers in the world to research the Bible verses and Quranic verses stated above in the light of the messages posted in the website www.goldenduas.comin the interest of public peace and unity among all communities in the world.

I request early solutions

Your Success,

U. Ibrahim Ali

31 October 2012 at 16:29  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older