Creeping Sharia - It's not just a bumper sticker

[logical4u]

Well I must congratulate you for answering the questions. And just for the record: I do NOT support Sharia Courts in the U.S. for the same reasons it has been opposed in Britain and Canada. It is un-American to have two sets of laws.

Are you also opposed to the Jewish Halacha Arbitration Courts already functioning in the US? What about Christian Mediation Services? What about the Native American Tribal courts? Are all those religious and culturally based non-judicial arbitration processes un-American as well? Why this fear of allowing muslims to do what we already allow other religions to do?

Mooslims aren't allowed to have what these other religions/groups have. Let's make this clear right now.

That is very clear. Compare any islam-based nation to one where the majority of the population is Christian or Jewish. They are "kept" in absolute misery.

 

[logical4u]

We already know where you stand Kalam. Thanks for sharing.

It's not a matter of where I stand; it's a matter of what's true and what isn't. There is nothing in Shari'ah that allows women to be forced into unwanted marriages - if this occurs, Shari'ah has been implemented improperly. There is also nothing in Shari'ah about custody being automatically granted to the father. In fact, I just read a piece written by an exponent of Hanbali jurisprudence (generally the strictest and most repressive of the four schools) who explained that custody is most likely to be given to mothers. You are posting information without bothering to verify that it's true because it suits your political agenda.

So Kalam, is this woman an Islamophobe?

I can't find enough information about her to draw serious conclusions. Do we even know if she's a practicing Muslim?

That is THE problem; Shari'sh implementation, there is no appeal, no way to fix it. You are stuck with the yahoos in charge.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Women are treated worse than cattle in most Muslim Nations. I'm always surprised that Liberal Women in this country who are usually out screeching about everything,are so silent when it comes to Sharia Law and how women are treated in the Muslim World. Shame on them.

 

[logical4u]

nice dodge... the fact is, we already have several systems in America that decide civil cases on the basis of something other than our constitution. this faux outrage at the possibility of muslims doing so also is nothing but bigotry.

Dodge? I said emphatically that they should be abolished - if they treat women as second class citizens. Do they?

Glad to know you only support the Constitution when it agrees with your world view. Isn't that the left's argument for supporting the Ground Zero mosque?

Three quick points:

one... these other systems have been in place for years, yet you yahoos on the right try to make it seem like muslims wishing to do what other religions do is some never before heard of outrage... some never before contemplated violation of our consitition... and that is just plain not true. Why aren't you upset about there being two sets of laws when it is Jews or Christians or Native Americans using them? Why is it only when muslims wish to use their religious ethos as a basis for voluntarily resolving civil issues that you become so indignant?

two... we are talking about CIVIL cases that arise between adult muslims. This would have NOTHING to do with non-muslims... and each one would have to affirmatively agree to allow the muslim clerics to adjudicate their case. If either one preferred to go through the normal civil courts system then the case must go there.

three... muslim women in America have WAY more rights than muslim women living in the middle east. They would know they have the right to have their cases heard by normal civil courts. Muslim women in the middle east have no such right. If American muslim women chose to allow themselves to be subjegated, that is not the fault of the muslim clerics, anymore than it is the fault of OUR civil courts system if a Christian or Jewish woman refuses to leave an abusive relationship. Regardless, I can see how a devout muslim women might feel more comfortable having her spiritual leaders who more fully understand her culture and her faith adjudicating her civil issues than putting it in the hands of non-muslims. And again...if she does NOT feel that way, she can always opt for the civil courts system.

Substitute "muslim woman" for moonie or scientologist. Then try the conversation again.

 

[mattskramer]

LOL. Islamic law will not replace current American law.


"All you "sky is falling" people - let me know when we execute adulterers.

I won't hold my breath.

 

[logical4u]

Three quick points:

one... these other systems have been in place for years, yet you yahoos on the right try to make it seem like muslims wishing to do what other religions do is some never before heard of outrage... some never before contemplated violation of our consitition... and that is just plain not true. Why aren't you upset about there being two sets of laws when it is Jews or Christians or Native Americans using them? Why is it only when muslims wish to use their religious ethos as a basis for voluntarily resolving civil issues that you become so indignant?

two... we are talking about CIVIL cases that arise between adult muslims. This would have NOTHING to do with non-muslims... and each one would have to affirmatively agree to allow the muslim clerics to adjudicate their case. If either one preferred to go through the normal civil courts system then the case must go there.

three... muslim women in America have WAY more rights than muslim women living in the middle east. They would know they have the right to have their cases heard by normal civil courts. Muslim women in the middle east have no such right. If American muslim women chose to allow themselves to be subjegated, that is not the fault of the muslim clerics, anymore than it is the fault of OUR civil courts system if a Christian or Jewish woman refuses to leave an abusive relationship. Regardless, I can see how a devout muslim women might feel more comfortable having her spiritual leaders who more fully understand her culture and her faith adjudicating her civil issues than putting it in the hands of non-muslims. And again...if she does NOT feel that way, she can always opt for the civil courts system.

1. I was unaware of a dual court system until I started researching this. As I said, it is un-American. And the report I posted on the U.K. system shows it is clearly misogynistic.

2. I know full well it is about Muslims only. Why would anyone support an inferior "civil system" for legal Americans? Do you understand "family law"? Domestic violence, arranged marriages, adultery, custody, incest... Do you understand "battered wife syndrome"?

3. I am not talking about the Middle East. If you had read the thread, I mentioned England and Canada. Prob. our closest allies. Saying that a woman can "opt out" is bullshit.

We cannot and should not allow it. And arguing in favor an inferior legal system in the name of "tolerance" and "freedom of religion" is nothing short of segregation. Shame on you.

How many lefties have argued that military courts for ENEMY COMBATANTS is un-American? Our own president wanted to try KSM in NYC. Yet religious courts for innocent U.S. citizens is perfectly fine. Get a fucking grip. The writing is on the wall.

This thread has gone from "not gonna happen" to "not likely" to "why not?". Creeping sharia is not a bumper sticker.

We have separation of church and state in this country. And that includes our court system. Hello????

you need to gain some degree of understanding of the difference between voluntary civil non-judicial arbitration and criminal justice. Until you do, we'll continue to talk past one another.

No one is suggesting that anyone give up any rights, so knock off the indignant pompous "shame on you" crap...mmmkay?.

As I said, we already have a long history of non-judicial arbitration for civil cases that include the Jewish Halacha Arbitration Courts Christian Mediation Services, and Native American Tribal courts. None of them violate the separation of church and state. sorry

Do those "courts" work within the framework of our laws? Do they ignore the laws of this country in favor of their own, or are they formed to do "mediation", where it really isn't necessary to go to court, but, this is one step closer (offers more legal approach, and therefore more binding) to having an issue resolved (it saves court costs and justice system time)?

 

[logical4u]

three... muslim women in America have WAY more rights than muslim women living in the middle east. They would know they have the right to have their cases heard by normal civil courts. Muslim women in the middle east have no such right. If American muslim women chose to allow themselves to be subjegated, that is not the fault of the muslim clerics, anymore than it is the fault of OUR civil courts system if a Christian or Jewish woman refuses to leave an abusive relationship. Regardless, I can see how a devout muslim women might feel more comfortable having her spiritual leaders who more fully understand her culture and her faith adjudicating her civil issues than putting it in the hands of non-muslims. And again...if she does NOT feel that way, she can always opt for the civil courts system.

Not realistic there, maineman. In beheading, throat slitting and stoning religion world, they drag a "woman oppressive culture" around with them, and many of the women are culturally coerced into compliance with the insanity of the believers.

When a religion is obviously insane and totally evil, such as Islam is, there is no substance behind the assumption that those subjugated by it will in some way defy the oppressive culture with any semblance of consistency in all cases. 'Taint gonna happen. There are women who will chose to die rather than defy their culture.

muslims don't do that in America because it is against the law. If islamic clerics were allowed to arbitrate civil issues between willing muslim participants, there would be no beheading and throat slitting decided upon by those civil arbitrators. That is pure foolishness.

If "muslims don't do that in America", why are there more reports about "honor killings" .... in America?

 

[bodecea]

Yes. We should take away the vote from people we disagree with.

Back to topic: The leading opposition to Sharia in Canada were Muslim women. Canada got it right.

A staunch crusader against the new law is social activist Homa Arjomand who fled Iran in 1989 with her husband and two toddlers after being tipped off that her life was in danger. She has set up an International Campaign Against Setting Up Sharia Court in Canada which has already been signed up by thousands of women. The petition states that the proposed Sharia tribunals are anti-freedom, anti-women, misogynist, anti-modernist and racist. It calls for religion to be declared the private affair of the individual and complete separation of religion from education for children under age 16 as well as prohibition of inhuman religious ceremonies and practice of religion that is incompatible with people’s civil rights and liberties.

The petition states, “We believe that all people who live in Canada are citizens with equal rights and should live according to same social laws and norms. We do not divide society into cultural, religious, national and racial majorities and minorities. We stand for equal and universal laws and freedoms for all humanity, which should embrace all, irrespective of sex, race, ethnicity.”

Arjomand cites a case to bring home the fact that Muslim law and secular law can be at odds. “I have a client in Toronto,” she states, “who was taken out of school by her parents at the age of 15 and was pushed to marry a 29 year old man under the Sharia law. According to the eyes of the Sharia they are married but according to the Canadian legal system they are not. At the age of 16 this young pregnant girl is going through separation because of abuse (verbal, mental, financial and sexual). In a secular court, the fact that she was forced to marry at a young age is considered a crime and her husband will be charged for assault and child abuse. As for her parents, they too will be charged…..however, in the eyes of the Sharia tribunal no crime has taken place and the matter is civil and can be resolved.”

She also cited another case where a Pakistani Canadian lady banker used to give all her salary to her husband and had to ask him for money even to buy a cup of coffee. She wanted to keep just $50 per month for her needs but the husband refused. They took the matter to an elder who decreed that because the wife had disobeyed her husband he could stop having sexual relations with her and could take another “temporary” wife to satisfy his needs. The woman now wants a divorce but is devastated because according to Sharia the custody of the children goes to the father.

Sharia Law: A Canadian Controversy

Freedom of religion?

Funny, the same people that have absolutely no problems with this type of system being openly brought into this country under the guise of "building bridges" have a fit about a Christian standing in a homosexual community yelling "repent".

Been to Castro? They do it all the time. We put up with it.

 

[bodecea]

Not realistic there, maineman. In beheading, throat slitting and stoning religion world, they drag a "woman oppressive culture" around with them, and many of the women are culturally coerced into compliance with the insanity of the believers.

When a religion is obviously insane and totally evil, such as Islam is, there is no substance behind the assumption that those subjugated by it will in some way defy the oppressive culture with any semblance of consistency in all cases. 'Taint gonna happen. There are women who will chose to die rather than defy their culture.

muslims don't do that in America because it is against the law. If islamic clerics were allowed to arbitrate civil issues between willing muslim participants, there would be no beheading and throat slitting decided upon by those civil arbitrators. That is pure foolishness.

If "muslims don't do that in America", why are there more reports about "honor killings" .... in America?

We know why.

And...what is the % of homicides that are muslim "honor killings" as opposed to spousal or child killings of a none muslim type....or homicides in general?

 

[Kalam]

That is THE problem; Shari'sh implementation, there is no appeal, no way to fix it. You are stuck with the yahoos in charge.

According to what?

Narrated Ibn 'Umar: The 'Prophet said, "It is obligatory for one to listen to and obey unless these orders involve one's disobedience. If an act of disobedience is imposed, he should neither listen to nor obey it." - Sahih Bukhari, Jihad, no. 203​

 

[Dr Grump]

If "muslims don't do that in America", why are there more reports about "honor killings" .... in America?

1) Links
2) What happens to those who carry out suck killings in America?

 

[maineman]

Not realistic there, maineman. In beheading, throat slitting and stoning religion world, they drag a "woman oppressive culture" around with them, and many of the women are culturally coerced into compliance with the insanity of the believers.

When a religion is obviously insane and totally evil, such as Islam is, there is no substance behind the assumption that those subjugated by it will in some way defy the oppressive culture with any semblance of consistency in all cases. 'Taint gonna happen. There are women who will chose to die rather than defy their culture.

muslims don't do that in America because it is against the law. If islamic clerics were allowed to arbitrate civil issues between willing muslim participants, there would be no beheading and throat slitting decided upon by those civil arbitrators. That is pure foolishness.

If "muslims don't do that in America", why are there more reports about "honor killings" .... in America?

there certainly aren't any that are sanctioned by any court or tribunal, and certainly none that are do not fall under the fuil force of our criminal justice system.... nor would any such "honor killings" escape that force if muslim clerics were allowed to adjudicate civil issues between muslims who voluntarily agreed to allow those clerics to adjudicate their cases.

 

[Dr Grump]

It's all alarmist pap....

 

[uscitizen]

Aww I thought this was about some kind of annoying vine.

 

[Dr Grump]

Aww I thought this was about some kind of annoying vine.

I like the German accent....

 

[chanel]

CALGARY - The Calgary mother who killed her teenage daughter by strangling her with a scarf more than three years ago will not have to spend a day in jail, a judge ruled on Thursday.

But, in suspending the sentence of Aset Magomadova and placing her on probation for three years, Court of Queen's Bench Justice Sal LoVecchio said the penalty can still meet the ends of justice.

"At first blush (a suspended sentence) may sound like a get out of jail free card. It is not," emphasized the judge.

"The court has said the act in question does not merit a period of incarceration. What the court has done is reserved or to use the word of the statute, 'suspended' judgment on that point for a period of time on conditions. If the conditions are satisfied, then the individual will not be sentenced. If they are breached, the individual will be brought back to the court to be dealt with further."

Magomadova, 40, a refugee from the wartorn country of Chechnya, was originally charged with second-degree murder for killing her daughter Aminat, 14, on Feb. 26, 2007, at their Calgary home.

But LoVecchio deemed she did not intend to kill her, even though such an act required at least 2 1/2 minutes of continuous strangulation to cause death, and convicted her last October of the lesser included offence of manslaughter.

"The judge considered all the factors and it was a very lengthy decision," said Hepner. "He considered the background, psychological and psychiatric background. What else can a judge do in arriving at a proper decision?"

LoVecchio said he wrestled with dynamics of the family in reaching his conclusions.

Read more: Calgary mom who strangled daughter gets suspended sentence

Honor killings are against Canadian Law as well. Well, kinda.

 

[maineman]

CALGARY - The Calgary mother who killed her teenage daughter by strangling her with a scarf more than three years ago will not have to spend a day in jail, a judge ruled on Thursday.

But, in suspending the sentence of Aset Magomadova and placing her on probation for three years, Court of Queen's Bench Justice Sal LoVecchio said the penalty can still meet the ends of justice.

"At first blush (a suspended sentence) may sound like a get out of jail free card. It is not," emphasized the judge.

"The court has said the act in question does not merit a period of incarceration. What the court has done is reserved or to use the word of the statute, 'suspended' judgment on that point for a period of time on conditions. If the conditions are satisfied, then the individual will not be sentenced. If they are breached, the individual will be brought back to the court to be dealt with further."

Magomadova, 40, a refugee from the wartorn country of Chechnya, was originally charged with second-degree murder for killing her daughter Aminat, 14, on Feb. 26, 2007, at their Calgary home.

But LoVecchio deemed she did not intend to kill her, even though such an act required at least 2 1/2 minutes of continuous strangulation to cause death, and convicted her last October of the lesser included offence of manslaughter.

"The judge considered all the factors and it was a very lengthy decision," said Hepner. "He considered the background, psychological and psychiatric background. What else can a judge do in arriving at a proper decision?"

LoVecchio said he wrestled with dynamics of the family in reaching his conclusions.

Read more: Calgary mom who strangled daughter gets suspended sentence

Honor killings are against Canadian Law as well. Well, kinda.

as adjudicated by Iman Sal LoVecchio, noted muslim cleric and Sharia proponent! Gosh... LoVecchio sounds kind of ITALIAN to me! Imagine that!

 

[hipeter924]

I think I will say it again. Europe is a mess. It's filled with Fascists, Socialists and Islamists all competing against each other for political power. Probably Britain is going to turn Fascist state or Islamic Theocracy or a bit of both.

At least in the US (and many other parts of the west) when socialists, fascists and Muslims violate the constitution to the point its so blatantly obvious (that even someone with the brain of Michael Moore/Insert liberal worship icon here could notice) they can be stopped.

But while we are on the subject I like the additional extras of Sharia law.

Sharia law UK: Mail on Sunday gets exclusive access to a British Muslim court

By Edna Fernandes
Last updated at 9:57 PM on 4th July 2009

• Comments (19)
• Add to My Stories

In a shabby converted sweetshop in Leyton, East London, a group of burka-clad Muslim women sit in a waiting room. They have an appointment with Dr Suhaib Hasan at his twice-weekly surgery.
The women look worried. There is no talking in the airless reception area - the only sound is a fan purring quietly in the corner as temperatures outside exceed 80F.
Inside, the atmosphere is just as stifling. There are no magazines, television or other diversions. The beige walls are bare except for a flow-chart depicting the process of securing a Muslim divorce, and a picture of Mecca.

Making their case: At an Islamic centre in East London, Sheik Haitham Al-Haddad talks to two women about divorce issues

This is no GP's surgery or Citizens Advice Bureau. Within these non-descript walls lies the nerve centre of sharia law in Britain, the headquarters of the Islamic Sharia Council, which oversees the growing number of Muslim courts operating in Britain.
For the first time, the Islamic Sharia Council has granted access to a newspaper to observe the entire sharia legal process in Britain. Over several weeks, I was allowed to witness the filing of complaints, individual testimony hearings and the monthly meeting of imams, or judges, where rulings are handed down.
Sharia has been operating here, in parallel to the British legal system, since 1982. Work includes issuing fatwas - religious rulings on matters ranging from why Islam considers homosexuality a sin to why two women are equivalent to one male witness in an Islamic court.
The Islamic Sharia Council also rules on individual cases, primarily in matters of Muslim personal or civil law: divorce, marriage, inheritance and settlement of dowry payments are the most common.
However, in the course of my investigation, I discovered how sharia is being used informally within the Muslim community to tackle crime such as gang fights or stabbings, bypassing police and the British court system.
A few hardline leaders would like it to be taken even further. One told me that Britain should adopt sharia punishments such as stoning and the chopping off of hands to reduce violent crime.
There are 12 councils or courts operating in Britain under Dr Hasan's group, based in London, Birmingham, Manchester, Rotherham and Bradford. Scores more imams dispense justice through their own mosques.
A study last week by the thinktank Civitas claimed that there could be as many as 85 sharia courts in Britain, although Dr Hasan says most of these are not formal courts. But it is certainly a growing network.
In his courts, support staff interview plaintiffs and compile a case study. Judgments are delivered by senior imams at closed monthly meetings and are sent in writing to the concerned parties. Up to 7,000 cases have been handled so far.
The Islamic Sharia Council is listed as a charity but people seeking a divorce, or talaq, must fill in a form and pay a fee. For a man it is £100; for women, it is £250 because the imams say it takes more work to process a woman's application as her word has to be corroborated.
The literal meaning of sharia is 'source of water in the desert', meaning the source of all spiritual life for Muslims. This is not just a code of law, but a way of life.

Local justice: The Islamic Sharia Council is based in a converted sweetshop in Leyton, East London

In sharia-based societies, such as Saudi Arabia or the old Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, crimes against society are punished by beheadings, stoning to death and amputations. Women are kept in purdah and limited to child-rearing and caring for the home.
All Western influences, from alcohol, music, television and movies, are banned. It is a rigid prescription for Islamic life that seeks its guidance from the days of the Prophet in the 7th Century.
In Britain, sharia courts are permitted to rule only in civil cases, such as divorce and financial disputes. Until last year, these rulings depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims. But now, due to a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996, they are enforceable by county and high courts.
Sharia courts are classified in the same way as arbitration tribunals - with rulings binding in law provided both parties in the dispute agree to give them the power to rule on their case.
However, a Muslim couple must still be divorced in the British courts for it to recognised under British law. The same provision in the Arbitration Act applies to Jewish Beth Din courts, which resolve similar civil cases.
Dr Hasan is the man who introduced sharia courts to Britain almost 30 years ago.
The softly spoken, grey-bearded scholar was born in Pakistan, studied in Saudi Arabia and worked in East Africa before moving to Britain in the Sixties. He is the Secretary of the Islamic Sharia Council of Britain and a member of the senior panel of imams who sit once a month at Regent's Park Mosque in London.
In Leyton, the imam calls the women into his office to begin a private session to gather evidence. The setting is modest yet its proceedings have all the gravity of a British courtroom - and most cases are conducting in English.
Under Muslim law, a man can divorce his wife simply by uttering the word 'talaq', yet a woman cannot be granted a divorce without the consent of her husband or winning a dissolution of the marriage from the imam. Even if the couple are divorced under British law, they remain married under Islam until divorced under the religious law, too.
Dr Hasan believes that far from trampling on women's rights, the Islamic Sharia Council is empowering Muslim women in Britain, giving them a way out of abusive and violent marriage.
Sitting behind a plywood desk, flanked by shelves of books on Islamic law and copies of the Koran, Dr Hasan hears evidence from an Afghan woman called Ameena (her name has been changed for her protection). She claims her husband is violent towards her and their five children, and she wants a divorce.
Ameena, 35, is backed by the testimony of two social workers, one of whom is Muslim, from a women's refuge.

Two faces of sharia law: In a room in the Regent's Park Mosque, senior sharia judges calmly deliberate recent cases brought to their council

'He beats me and the children, he doesn't give us our rights, he doesn't love me or the children and he is not interested in me and the children,' she says, also citing her husband's 'mental behaviour'.
The couple had entered an arranged marriage in the sand-blown city of Kandahar and came to Britain as refugees from war. Some years later the marriage faltered.
Dr Hasan's sparely written notes set out the extent of the marital misery: 'He beat her. Then he asked her to massage his shoulders and legs. When she said no, he beat her.
'One time her nose was broken and an operation was carried out. Another day, because of the beating, there was a miscarriage.'
Ameena's evidence is corroborated by statements from one of her daughters. The teenager said that as well as hitting her mother and the children, the father, who is in his 40s, forced her into an arranged marriage in Pakistan. She wants her marriage dissolved, too.
So far Ameena's husband has refused to grant her a divorce, accusing her and his daughter of being 'not mentally fit'.
Dr Hasan decides the case, which has been going on since 2008, is sufficiently serious to merit the consideration of the monthly meeting of senior judges at Regent's Park Mosque. Now Ameena's future lies in their hands.
Later that week, seven imams gather in a sparsely furnished committee room in the shadows of the mosque's magnificent golden dome. Seated around a rectangular table set with mineral water, a bowl of fruit and a box of Fox's luxury biscuits, they go through the various cases.
To the casual observer, it may appear like a rather dry committee meeting. But these men are in effect running a legal system that critics fear could fragment the legal framework in Britain. Laws that once ruled supreme in Kabul are now being enforced in cities across Britain.
It becomes clear that Ameena's story of violence, abandonment and difficulty in securing an Islamic divorce is not isolated. Several other cases during the meeting detail claims of 'terrifying abuse', including one where a gun was placed against a woman's head, and another husband who tried to strangle his wife and children.
If the husband has disputed his wife's word, the court demands her account is corroborated by other witnesses - preferably male. If the wife refuses to agree to give the husband access to their children, even in cases of possible child abuse, the divorce is stalled until that issue is resolved.
In another case, the imams agree a husband has treated the wife badly, beating her and their children and leaving them without support once he had been granted legal status to remain in Britain.

Two faces of sharia law: Controversial Muslim leader Sarfraz Sarwar has a more militant approach - amputations for thieves and the stoning of women for under-age sex

'He ran away and left the family, and the children began to hate the father,' says one of the imams. The man signed a petition for a civil divorce but had so far refused to allow a divorce under Islam.
The imams discuss the division of assets between the couple, including any dowry jewellery. They also decide to contact the husband one last time - if he fails to respond, he risks a dissolution.
Ameena's case is then raised. It is decided that her husband will be given another opportunity to respond. If all efforts to reconcile fail, then the marriage might be dissolved, but it is unclear who will care for the children. Under Islamic law, a child over seven usually goes to the father unless he agrees otherwise.
Ameena's fate remains in limbo. The following week I accompany Dr Hasan into enemy territory: he has been asked to speak to a group of female students in East London about sharia. The audience is made up of educated, articulate feminists, both Muslim and non-Muslim.
He tells them his organisation is concerned simply with implementing sharia law in Muslim personal legal cases and that 90 per cent of the clients are women seeking a divorce. The women nod.
Then he explains that sharia is about preserving the dignity, health and honour of the individuals. The nodding continues.
Confident, Dr Hasan tells them that in every part of the world, there can be only one authority.
'In Britain, the ultimate authority is the Prime Minister. In an army, it is the commander-in-chief. On the bus, it is the bus driver. And in the house, the smallest unit of society, sharia says authority must be with the man to maintain the house.
'The woman's duties are much harsher. Biologically, she differs,' he says. Her duties lie with the cleaning and childcare.
The mood turns black as Dr Hasan continues that under Islam, the woman is seen as someone who needs the protection of a man. In matters of divorce, the right of ending a marriage lies with the man because 'women have emotions, whereas a man thinks first before he speaks'.
At this, one white woman berates Dr Hasan. 'If you had said these things about a Jew or a black person, it would be totally unacceptable. Yet you think it is OK to say women are inferior. I cannot listen to this without making a stand.'
Another woman, an African professor, adds: 'In my house, my husband and I look after each other. It is an equal partnership. I don't need anyone to protect me.' Applause ripples through the audience.
'The law is like curry - the different elements help improve the flavour'


An hour later, Dr Hasan emerges from the meeting - he has been attacked verbally but physically he is unscathed. As we walk together, he tells me that virtually all the imams in the UK are trained either in madrassas or religious schools in India and Pakistan, or are graduates of Islamic universities, such as Al-Azhar in Egypt.
Dr Hasan insists their work is not an attempt to bypass the British legal system and says the Islamic Sharia Council does not seek to extend its powers beyond divorce, marriage, dowry and inheritance cases.
'Muslim personal law can be accommodated within the British legal system. In the divorce process, if the British courts recognise Muslim divorce then there would be no need for us to apply for a divorce through the UK system.'
He refuses to accept that there is an inherent conflict between sharia and British law in areas such as equality for women and human rights.
'The problem with the feminist movement is they don't listen to the other side,' he observes gravely, stroking his beard.
I ask if he believes sharia is the best code of law. 'People say it's harsh, but we say it's a deterrent. In Saudi Arabia very few hands are cut. People will not commit the crime as they know the punishment is so horrible, unlike the UK system where people are jailed and the prison system does not work.
'But we cannot ask for sharia in Britain for criminal cases,' he concludes. 'For that to take place, the State needs to support sharia and I recognise Britain does not.'
Despite the feminists' fury, Dr Hasan is a relative moderate on the subject. Some hardliners want Islamic law to be extended to all criminal cases, tackling problems ranging from knife crime to robbery and under-age sex.
One such figure is Sarfraz Sarwar, leader of the Basildon Islamic Centre in Essex. His views have attracted controversy - his mosque was torched three times and eventually destroyed, and his home has also been attacked.
He tells me the windows of his living room are smashed every six months but the police have never caught the perpetrators. He now leaves the windows permanently broken in defiance.
Mr Sarwar insists sharia should be adopted to address rising crime in Britain. 'The British legal system is fair, but it's also very sweet for criminals,' he tells me.
'Sharia is the ultimate deterrent. If you commit a crime and you're punished by sharia, you won't commit it again. But if we praise anything from Islam, people jump down our throat.'
When I suggest that many people in Britain would find some of sharia's provisions extreme and difficult to accept, he agrees. 'We need to adapt sharia for British law. We could use some of the more moderate measures.'
Such as? 'Child abuse, under-age sex, teenage pregnancy, for example.'
I ask what the penalty would be for under-age sex. 'You won't like it. But sharia says if they're caught doing it, you stone the woman.'
Mr Sarwar's other suggestion is to adapt the 'three strikes' policy on crime. Instead of being jailed on the third conviction, a criminal could face having a hand chopped off.
'That would fit in with the way of life here. I'm not being extreme. This has to be used in moderation, for serious crimes, not petty robbery. In this country, people get away with murder.'
He refuses to accept the notion that values of human rights are enshrined in the British way of life.
'In Victorian days they applied sharia. They held people in stocks - there were public floggings, hangings. Why not go back to it? What's the big beef now? Too many goody-two-shoes talking about human rights.'
Mr Sarwar adds that the violence and intimidation he has faced will not silence him. 'I am not a sheep. I am a British Muslim. I pay my taxes, I obey the law.
'People break my windows but I say to you, why can't we mix and match? Take the best from both worlds. The law is like a curry. Different elements improve the flavour. Why not help improve the law of this country with elements of sharia?'
In some ways, I learned that this is happening already. The Somali community in Britain has long relied on the sharia principle of mediation and arbitration in criminal cases.
Saynab Muhamad, leader of the Somali Family Support Centre and one of the few prominent females in the Somali community, tells me how sharia law was used to resolve the case of knife attacks among teenagers a few years ago.
The family of one victim and the attacker came together under Somali elders and an informal hearing decided that the victim should be compensated by the attacker, who in turn was forgiven for the crime. The police were not involved and the matter was settled amicably.
In Somali Muslim culture, after a conflict or a crime is committed, a hearing is held. The judge, or quadis, will act as arbitrator, rectify the crime and reconcile-the two sides.
'In Somalia, the victim would forgive and then be compensated with camels, say 100 camels,' says Saynab.
'Here it would be with money. Sharia is embedded in our society and it has worked well to tackle problems here, too.'
She believes this way of getting community elders involved and taking direct control is more effective than simply relying on the courts, and if the British police wished to attend the hearings, they would be welcome.
For her, this is an example of how the sharia way has been adapted successfully to the British way of life. But critics remain unconvinced and see it as the route to a two-tier legal system, pointing out that under sharia, the law is heavily rigged against women.
Last week, Keith Porteous Wood, director of campaign group One Law For All and the National Secular Society, raised the issue with European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, in Brussels.
Hitting out at the use of Muslim arbitration tribunals, he said: 'Women are particularly vulnerable as they're forced to submit to these tribunals and Islamic law treats women less favourably than men.
'It's essential that it is one law for all in every country and that the law is democratically established and human rights compliant. Sharia fails that test.'
The subject of sharia is personal and capable of arousing deep passions in the community - inextricably linked, as it is, with Muslim identity and sense of honour.
Despite criticism from those in the West, the extent to which many British Muslim women rely on sharia courts became clear to me. Without them they would remain trapped in abusive or violent marriages.
For these women, sharia is not an instrument of oppression, but a route to freedom.
The women I met were unwilling to talk directly about their cases. Apart from divorce being deeply personal, a failed marriage is often seen a source of shame in their communities - though the idea of bypassing sharia and seeking a divorce solely in the British courts would bring far more disgrace to a family's social standing.
Equality before the law for all, regardless of sex, race or religion, is one of Britain's enduring principles. Women's and gay rights are now firmly enshrined in our law - a law that has evolved over centuries to reflect the pluralist democracy Britain has become.
But sharia is a law still rooted in the 7th Century; it sees modernity as the path to an immoral society.
While sharia gives Muslim women a chance to escape unhappy marriages, it fails to grant them equal status - they are considered inferior to men as witnesses, they have unequal status in divorce and custody of the children, and abuse by the husband is not directly tackled by the courts.
All these things go against the equality of British law.
As I prepare to leave Leyton, office staff are cheering on Andy Murray at Wimbledon, a scene being played out across the country. Meanwhile, in a back room, Sheik Haitham Al-Haddad, one of the most senior imams in Britain, is once more contemplating the fundamental split between religion and state.
'There is a conflict between these two sets of values,' he concedes. ' Muslims believe our values are best. The non-Islamic British believe theirs are better. But at the end of the day, understand this: Muslims are never going to give up certain principles, even if they are in conflict. That is a fact.'
Sharia law in Britain is here to stay and perhaps even spread. But it's a perilous tightrope we tread - the line between multicultural tolerance and protecting the rights of the individual.
• Edna Fernandes is author of Holy Warriors, published by Portobello Books at £8.99. To order your copy at £8.99 inc p&p, call The Review Bookstore on 0845 155 0713. Edna Fernandes - Journalist, Author on religion, politics, foreign affairs


Sharia law UK... How Islam is dispensing its own justice side-by-side with British courts | Mail Online

 

[chanel]

CALGARY - The Calgary mother who killed her teenage daughter by strangling her with a scarf more than three years ago will not have to spend a day in jail, a judge ruled on Thursday.

But, in suspending the sentence of Aset Magomadova and placing her on probation for three years, Court of Queen's Bench Justice Sal LoVecchio said the penalty can still meet the ends of justice.

"At first blush (a suspended sentence) may sound like a get out of jail free card. It is not," emphasized the judge.

"The court has said the act in question does not merit a period of incarceration. What the court has done is reserved or to use the word of the statute, 'suspended' judgment on that point for a period of time on conditions. If the conditions are satisfied, then the individual will not be sentenced. If they are breached, the individual will be brought back to the court to be dealt with further."

Magomadova, 40, a refugee from the wartorn country of Chechnya, was originally charged with second-degree murder for killing her daughter Aminat, 14, on Feb. 26, 2007, at their Calgary home.

But LoVecchio deemed she did not intend to kill her, even though such an act required at least 2 1/2 minutes of continuous strangulation to cause death, and convicted her last October of the lesser included offence of manslaughter.

"The judge considered all the factors and it was a very lengthy decision," said Hepner. "He considered the background, psychological and psychiatric background. What else can a judge do in arriving at a proper decision?"

LoVecchio said he wrestled with dynamics of the family in reaching his conclusions.

Read more: Calgary mom who strangled daughter gets suspended sentence

Honor killings are against Canadian Law as well. Well, kinda.

as adjudicated by Iman Sal LoVecchio, noted muslim cleric and Sharia proponent! Gosh... LoVecchio sounds kind of ITALIAN to me! Imagine that!

Yes. He probably is. And I believe the judge in NJ was Jewish. The point is that "Muslim traditions and sensibilities" are often in conflict with western values - for better or worse. That is why we need one system for all.

 

[Queen]

If there is one thing I have learned in 45 years, is never underestimate the power of leftist guilt, and it's desire to comfort it.
Sharia courts in America?
It would in no way surprise me.

You're out of your fucking mind.

Liberals are the only ones fighting to defend the constitution these days.

It's the right who wants to dismantle our laws and take up new ones to punish Mexicans and others who aren't white Christian males.

"You're out of your fucking mind"...
You have been dying to say that for years..hope it satisfied that urge for you as much as I am not impressed by it.

That's funny. You have a much bigger sense of self importance than reality delegates.

It's going to be fun playing with you here.