"Marry a Muslim or you die!"

[chanel]

The brother of a Harry Potter star was jailed for six months today for a "prolonged and nasty" attack in which she was beaten and branded a "slag" for dating a non-Muslim.

Afshan Azad, 21, who played Padma Patil, a classmate of the teenage wizard, in the blockbuster Hollywood films based on JK Rowling's children's books, feared for her life during the three-hour ordeal, Manchester Crown Court heard.

She was punched, dragged around by her hair and strangled by her brother Ashraf Azad, 28, who threatened to kill her after he caught her talking on the phone to her Hindu boyfriend on May 21 last year, the court was told.

During the row at the family home in Longsight, Manchester, which also involved her mother and father, she was branded a "slag" and a "prostitute" and told: "Marry a Muslim or you die!"

"She realised she would have to leave and felt she could not live any longer in that environment," Mr Vardon said.

"She was genuinely fearing for her life."

The assault left Miss Azad with swelling, grazes and bruises around her eyes, face, left ear, forehead and forearms.

Both her father and brother were originally charged with making threats to kill her and her brother was also charged with assault.

Instead of both going on trial, at a hearing last month the prosecution agreed to accept a plea of guilty to assault from her brother, and both men were formally found not guilty of making threats to kill.

Her father accepted being bound over to keep the peace for 12 months in the sum of £500.

During the last hearing, lawyers said attempts to get the victim to come to court to give evidence against her father and brother had been unsuccessful and Miss Azad would not attend voluntarily.

Brother jailed for attacking Harry Potter star - Europe, World News - Independent.ie

Battered victim pleads for leniency because she is afraid for her life. This is what is known as "Sharia Law".

 

[California Girl]

The brother blames his violence on alcohol. I thought Muslims don't drink alcohol. So, generally speaking, Muslims are no more 'holy' than the rest of us. Color me shocked.

And.... I don't think it has anything to do with Sharia Law.... it's a cultural thing, not a religious thing.

 

[chanel]

I disagree CG. I realize honor killings may be cultural, but if you read the whole article, the father and brother were originally let go by the court with an order to "maintain the peace". It seems to me that the judge was considering Sharia when he gave out such a lenient sentence.

Both her father and brother were originally charged with making threats to kill her and her brother was also charged with assault.

Instead of both going on trial, at a hearing last month the prosecution agreed to accept a plea of guilty to assault from her brother, and both men were formally found not guilty of making threats to kill.

Her father accepted being bound over to keep the peace for 12 months in the sum of £500

.

And this is my major fear of Sharia. People claim "It only affects Muslims" and "We have laws against DV". Well, I happen to care what happens to Muslim girls. Victims are afraid to speak up. Period.

 

[California Girl]

I disagree CG. I realize honor killings may be cultural, but if you read the whole article, the father and brother were originally let go by the court with an order to "maintain the peace". It seems to me that the judge was considering Sharia when he gave out such a lenient sentence.

Both her father and brother were originally charged with making threats to kill her and her brother was also charged with assault.

Instead of both going on trial, at a hearing last month the prosecution agreed to accept a plea of guilty to assault from her brother, and both men were formally found not guilty of making threats to kill.

Her father accepted being bound over to keep the peace for 12 months in the sum of £500

.

And this is my major fear of Sharia. People claim "It only affects Muslims" and "We have laws against DV". Well, I happen to care what happens to Muslim girls. Victims are afraid to speak up. Period.

Where do you get the judge considering Sharia from anything in the article?

 

[Tank]

I'm just glad America only has the nice Muslims.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Yeah ,well we all know alcohol induced death threats and beatings are minor and practically excusable as long as the victim is intimidated into not testifying . They are never acted on.

You understand that if a woman refuses to accept and abide by sharia court rulings she will be ostracized and abused by the only community she knows.


Sharia law’s civil code is arbitrary and discriminatory against women and children in particular. With the rise in the acceptance of Sharia courts, discrimination is being further institutionalised with some UK law firms additionally offering clients advice on Sharia law and the use of collaborative law.

Sharia law is practiced in Britain primarily by Sharia Councils and Muslims Arbitration Tribunals. Both operate on religious principles and are harmful to women although Muslim Arbitration Tribunals are wrongly regarded as being of more concern because they operate as tribunals under the Arbitration Act 1996, making their rulings binding in law.

Sharia Councils, on the other hand, claim to mediate on family issues but in practice often this differs little from arbitration: they frequently ask those appearing before them to sign an agreement to abide by their decisions; they call themselves courts, and the presiding imams, judges. Their decisions are then imposed and regarded as having the weight of legal judgements.


There is neither control over the appointment of “judges” in Sharia Councils or Tribunals nor an independent mechanism for monitoring them. Clients often do not have access to legal advice and representation. The proceedings are not recorded, nor are there any searchable legal judgements, nor any real right of appeal.

Sharia law cannot be compared to secular legal systems because it is considered sacred law that cannot be challenged. There is no scope to look at the interests of the individuals involved, as required by UK family law.

These legal processes ignore both common law and due process, far less Human Rights, and provide little protection and safety for women in violent situations.


There is a general assumption that those who attend Sharia courts do so voluntarily and that unfair decisions can be challenged in a British court. Many of the principles of Sharia law are contrary to British law and public policy, and would in theory therefore be unlikely to be upheld in a British court. In reality, however, women are often pressured by their families into going to these courts and adhering to unfair decisions, and may lack knowledge of English and their rights under British law. Moreover, refusal to settle a dispute in a Sharia court can give rise to threats and intimidation, or at best being ostracised

http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/New-Report-Sharia-Law-in-Britain.pdf

 

[Ravi]

I disagree CG. I realize honor killings may be cultural, but if you read the whole article, the father and brother were originally let go by the court with an order to "maintain the peace". It seems to me that the judge was considering Sharia when he gave out such a lenient sentence.

Both her father and brother were originally charged with making threats to kill her and her brother was also charged with assault.

Instead of both going on trial, at a hearing last month the prosecution agreed to accept a plea of guilty to assault from her brother, and both men were formally found not guilty of making threats to kill.

Her father accepted being bound over to keep the peace for 12 months in the sum of £500

.

And this is my major fear of Sharia. People claim "It only affects Muslims" and "We have laws against DV". Well, I happen to care what happens to Muslim girls. Victims are afraid to speak up. Period.

If this case was ruled by Sharia law there would have been no punishment at all. Your link shows that the brother was found guilty of assault and the father was fined.

What a family...fucked in the head.

 

[mudwhistle]

The brother blames his violence on alcohol. I thought Muslims don't drink alcohol. So, generally speaking, Muslims are no more 'holy' than the rest of us. Color me shocked.

And.... I don't think it has anything to do with Sharia Law.... it's a cultural thing, not a religious thing.

It's bigotry, plain and simple.

Bet some on the left will defend this.

 

[California Girl]

Yeah ,well we all know alcohol induced death threats and beatings are minor and practically excusable as long as the victim is intimidated into not testifying . They are never acted on.

You understand that if a woman refuses to accept and abide by sharia court rulings she will be ostracized and abused by the only community she knows.


Sharia law’s civil code is arbitrary and discriminatory against women and children in particular. With the rise in the acceptance of Sharia courts, discrimination is being further institutionalised with some UK law firms additionally offering clients advice on Sharia law and the use of collaborative law.

Sharia law is practiced in Britain primarily by Sharia Councils and Muslims Arbitration Tribunals. Both operate on religious principles and are harmful to women although Muslim Arbitration Tribunals are wrongly regarded as being of more concern because they operate as tribunals under the Arbitration Act 1996, making their rulings binding in law.

Sharia Councils, on the other hand, claim to mediate on family issues but in practice often this differs little from arbitration: they frequently ask those appearing before them to sign an agreement to abide by their decisions; they call themselves courts, and the presiding imams, judges. Their decisions are then imposed and regarded as having the weight of legal judgements.


There is neither control over the appointment of “judges” in Sharia Councils or Tribunals nor an independent mechanism for monitoring them. Clients often do not have access to legal advice and representation. The proceedings are not recorded, nor are there any searchable legal judgements, nor any real right of appeal.

Sharia law cannot be compared to secular legal systems because it is considered sacred law that cannot be challenged. There is no scope to look at the interests of the individuals involved, as required by UK family law.

These legal processes ignore both common law and due process, far less Human Rights, and provide little protection and safety for women in violent situations.


There is a general assumption that those who attend Sharia courts do so voluntarily and that unfair decisions can be challenged in a British court. Many of the principles of Sharia law are contrary to British law and public policy, and would in theory therefore be unlikely to be upheld in a British court. In reality, however, women are often pressured by their families into going to these courts and adhering to unfair decisions, and may lack knowledge of English and their rights under British law. Moreover, refusal to settle a dispute in a Sharia court can give rise to threats and intimidation, or at best being ostracised

http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/New-Report-Sharia-Law-in-Britain.pdf

Try to get your head around this. Sharia law had nothing to do with this particular case. It falls under British law on Domestic Violence. In British DV law, they recognize that sometimes the victim is, for a variety of reasons, not willing to testify in court. That makes no difference, the prosecution goes ahead without the victim.

This case was based on British law, not Sharia. Sharia only applies in domestic or business situations. And then, only if both parties agree. It is not applicable in criminal cases. This was a criminal case, because domestic violence is illegal in Britain.

 

[California Girl]

The brother blames his violence on alcohol. I thought Muslims don't drink alcohol. So, generally speaking, Muslims are no more 'holy' than the rest of us. Color me shocked.

And.... I don't think it has anything to do with Sharia Law.... it's a cultural thing, not a religious thing.

It bigotry, plain and simple.

Actually, it is domestic violence. Sharia law had nothing to do with the case or the sentence. The sentence was in line with the sentencing guidelines applicable in Britain. Not rocket science, and nothing to do with the religion of the participants.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Clearly illegal and harshly punished

 

[California Girl]

Clearly illegal and harshly punished

And clearly nothing to do with Sharia Law. If you have an issue with British sentencing, that's fine.... but... fact remains... this case has jack shit to do with Sharia.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Clearly illegal and harshly punished

And clearly nothing to do with Sharia Law. If you have an issue with British sentencing, that's fine.... but... fact remains... this case has jack shit to do with Sharia.

And you know this how?

 

[Ropey]

Clearly illegal and harshly punished

And clearly nothing to do with Sharia Law. If you have an issue with British sentencing, that's fine.... but... fact remains... this case has jack shit to do with Sharia.

I agree. A simple criminal case and dealt with criminally.

Clearly illegal and harshly punished

And clearly nothing to do with Sharia Law. If you have an issue with British sentencing, that's fine.... but... fact remains... this case has jack shit to do with Sharia.

And you know this how?

Had it been dealt with by Sharia law, then there would be no conviction. Had this same case been tried in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc. etc. The outcome under Sharia would be vastly different.

 

[California Girl]

Clearly illegal and harshly punished

And clearly nothing to do with Sharia Law. If you have an issue with British sentencing, that's fine.... but... fact remains... this case has jack shit to do with Sharia.

And you know this how?

Well, firstly, because it falls outside the remit of Sharia Law in the UK. The boundaries are quite clear. Muslims are allowed to use Sharia Law for business and domestic disputes. For example, a business contract or divorce. Sharia Law does not apply in criminal cases. This was a criminal case, brought by the Crown Prosecution Service (basically the DA in the UK). In criminal law, victims of DV are not required to testify in court if they are afraid or do not want to.

Previously, without the victim's testimony, there would be no prosecution. The law was changed in recognition of the difficulties faced by the victims.

Again, this is nothing to do with Sharia law.

 

[California Girl]

The family originate in Bangladesh. It's cultural. Not religious.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Clearly illegal and harshly punished

And clearly nothing to do with Sharia Law. If you have an issue with British sentencing, that's fine.... but... fact remains... this case has jack shit to do with Sharia.

I agree. A simple criminal case and dealt with criminally.

And clearly nothing to do with Sharia Law. If you have an issue with British sentencing, that's fine.... but... fact remains... this case has jack shit to do with Sharia.

And you know this how?

Had it been dealt with by Sharia law, then there would be no conviction. Had this same case been tried in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc. etc. The outcome under Sharia would be vastly different.

Its a pretty light sentence ,no restraining orders. No worries .
She will be brought to heel .

 

[mudwhistle]

The brother blames his violence on alcohol. I thought Muslims don't drink alcohol. So, generally speaking, Muslims are no more 'holy' than the rest of us. Color me shocked.

And.... I don't think it has anything to do with Sharia Law.... it's a cultural thing, not a religious thing.

It bigotry, plain and simple.

Actually, it is domestic violence. Sharia law had nothing to do with the case or the sentence. The sentence was in line with the sentencing guidelines applicable in Britain. Not rocket science, and nothing to do with the religion of the participants.

I didn't state what law was broken. I merely sited the motive. They tend to use their religion as a motive, but in fact it's pure bigotry

 

[California Girl]

And clearly nothing to do with Sharia Law. If you have an issue with British sentencing, that's fine.... but... fact remains... this case has jack shit to do with Sharia.

I agree. A simple criminal case and dealt with criminally.

And you know this how?

Had it been dealt with by Sharia law, then there would be no conviction. Had this same case been tried in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc. etc. The outcome under Sharia would be vastly different.

Its a pretty light sentence ,no restraining orders. No worries .
She will be brought to heel .

If the victim wants a restraining order, she is perfectly able to apply for - and will be given - the order. It is her decision, not the courts. Perhaps she would prefer to work things out with her family - if so, that is nobody's business but hers.

Again, it's got nothing to do with Sharia Law.

 

[California Girl]

It bigotry, plain and simple.

Actually, it is domestic violence. Sharia law had nothing to do with the case or the sentence. The sentence was in line with the sentencing guidelines applicable in Britain. Not rocket science, and nothing to do with the religion of the participants.

I didn't state what law was broken. I merely sited the motive.

Sure, her family are bigots. But it's not yet illegal to be a bigot in the UK. I suspect, eventually, it will be. But the OP claims Sharia.... it isn't.