"Marry a Muslim or you die!"

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.

If it was illegal to be a bigot almost everyone would be in prison. However the level of bigotry is greater in this case. Threatening death just because you hate people of other religions or races is a bit extreme.

Reminds me of some cracker at TRANE where I used to work. Gossup gets around I'm married to an African-American and he states openly he would rather kill his kids then allow them to date or marry Blacks. I see no difference in that case and this one.
 
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.

If it was illegal to be a bigot almost everyone would be in prison. However the level of bigotry is greater in this case. Threatening death just because you hate people of other religions or races is a bit extreme.

Reminds me of some cracker at TRANE where I used to work. Gossup gets around I'm married to an African-American and he states openly he would rather kill his kids then allow them to date or marry Blacks. I see no difference in that case and this one.

Still not illegal. And he didn't beat one of his kids for dating a black person. If he had, I suspect he would have been arrested and prosecuted. Just like happened in the OP's case.
 
z-192.jpg
 
Vardon said that despite time-consuming attempts to find Afshan, she couldn't be located. However, he insisted that she was safe and that her absence wasn't evidence of foul play. The lawyer added that he has been in regular contact with her through a legal firm.

Harry Potter Actress Afshan Azad Refuses to Testify Against Family

She's in hiding and didn't want to testify. I guess jail time and a restraining order just wasn't good enough. But she really loves them. :confused:
 
However, after contacting police on May 22, Afshan "made it plain" to officers that she didn't want any action taken against her family, as it would put her in "genuine danger." She later attempted to retract her statement and suggested she had misunderstood her father, who speaks with a strong Bengali accent. She made it clear that she didn't want to give evidence against her brother or father, saying, "I love them dearly."

Vardon said that despite time-consuming attempts to find Afshan, she couldn't be located. However, he insisted that she was safe and that her absence wasn't evidence of foul play. The lawyer added that he has been in regular contact with her through a legal firm.

I hope she is fine.
 
Vardon said that despite time-consuming attempts to find Afshan, she couldn't be located. However, he insisted that she was safe and that her absence wasn't evidence of foul play. The lawyer added that he has been in regular contact with her through a legal firm.

Harry Potter Actress Afshan Azad Refuses to Testify Against Family

She's in hiding and didn't want to testify. I guess jail time and a restraining order just wasn't good enough. But she really loves them. :confused:

Case still wasn't jack shit to do with Sharia.
 
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.

It may not be sharia compliant , but it is definitely sharia friendly.
It will only be a crime to be against Islam in the UK ,other types of bigotry will still be legal.
 
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.

It may not be sharia compliant , but it is definitely sharia friendly.
It will only be a crime to be against Islam in the UK ,other types of bigotry will still be legal.

That's an opinion that can be backed up with anecdotal evidence.
 
Your opinion. If father had said "Marry a white guy" it would be racial. If he said "Marry a Bangladesh or an English guy" it would be cultural. But that's not what he said, is it?

This story has gotten a bit of press because the victim is a movie star. Makes you wonder how many other victims get no press at all. Can't offend the Muslims. Even when it has NOTHINg do with religion.
 
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.

It may not be sharia compliant , but it is definitely sharia friendly.
It will only be a crime to be against Islam in the UK ,other types of bigotry will still be legal.

That's an opinion that can be backed up with anecdotal evidence.

The evidence is the crimes went virtually unpunished.
 
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.

This right here. Never mind the fact Chanel is judging a whole religion of over 1.5 billion people based on one fucked up family. I doubt Chanel would like that very much if someone judged all Christians based on the Phelps Family.
 
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.


This was a smart modern girl. Good for her, she took the case to the British law system. If she had taken this to a shaira "court" nothing would have happened to the brother. Most likely they would have agreed with what the borther did to his sister.

 
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.


This was a smart modern girl. Good for her, she took the case to the British law system. If she had taken this to a shaira "court" nothing would have happened to the brother. Most likely they would have agreed with what the borther did to his sister.


Actually, she didn't necessarily 'take the case to the British' legal system. She, in all likelihood, called the police, the police investigated and passed the file to the Crown Prosecution Service. She did not testify. Therefore, the case proceeded without the victim, as is standard in the British system, for DV cases. She could not have taken the case to a Sharia Court in the UK. This is a criminal prosecution. It is dealt with by the CPS... no other court has jurisdiction.
 
CG is absolutely right. The sentencing had nothing whatsoever to do with Sharia law. As for the soft sentence, that is a reflection of sentencing in general. Our judiciary is overloaded with bleeding heart liberalists who are incapable of making the punishment fit the crime!

Incidentally, honour crimes are not limited to muslims. They are just as prevalent among Hindus. They have nothing to do with religion and everytrhing to do with culture.
 
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.


This was a smart modern girl. Good for her, she took the case to the British law system. If she had taken this to a shaira "court" nothing would have happened to the brother. Most likely they would have agreed with what the borther did to his sister.


Actually, she didn't necessarily 'take the case to the British' legal system. She, in all likelihood, called the police, the police investigated and passed the file to the Crown Prosecution Service. She did not testify. Therefore, the case proceeded without the victim, as is standard in the British system, for DV cases. She could not have taken the case to a Sharia Court in the UK. This is a criminal prosecution. It is dealt with by the CPS... no other court has jurisdiction.

In calling the police she put all of this into the British legal system.

From what i understand, (i may be wrong) there would have been pressure on her not to call the "police" and to put the complaint in from of the shaira "courts" Thus keeping it all away from normal "law" and out of the "British legal system"
 
CG is absolutely right. The sentencing had nothing whatsoever to do with Sharia law. As for the soft sentence, that is a reflection of sentencing in general. Our judiciary is overloaded with bleeding heart liberalists who are incapable of making the punishment fit the crime!

Incidentally, honour crimes are not limited to muslims. They are just as prevalent among Hindus. They have nothing to do with religion and everytrhing to do with culture.

Horrrah! I don't know why it is so hard to understand the difference between civil and criminal law.

And, I agree regarding your Criminal Protection Society .... oops, I mean Crown Prosecution Service! :lol:
 

Forum List

Back
Top