Snop's Commentary: What has come of Britain and the riches of its hard fought place among the leading lights of the world?
-
First it was Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, principle leader of Church of England--now it is Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips--head of the judiciary of England and Wales. Both are ready, willing and able to open the door to Sharia Law.-but why? It is incomprehensible to imagine that Britain will be better off under a dual legal code system.
-
First it was Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, principle leader of Church of England--now it is Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips--head of the judiciary of England and Wales. Both are ready, willing and able to open the door to Sharia Law.-but why? It is incomprehensible to imagine that Britain will be better off under a dual legal code system.
.
by Cal Thomas
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
So this is how it ends: not with a bang, but a whimper.
The most senior judge in England has declared that Islamic legal principles in Shariah law may be used within Muslim communities in Britain to settle marital arguments and regulate finance. Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said, "Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law."
In his speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips said Muslims in Britain could use Islamic legal principles as long as punishments - and divorce rulings - comply with English law. Shariah law does not comply with English law. It is a law unto itself.
And so the English who gave us the Magna Carta in 1215, William Blackstone and the foundation of American law are slowly succumbing to the dictates of intolerant Islam and sowing seeds of their own destruction.
The Iranian and Kurdish Women's Rights Organization (IKWRO), an umbrella group of activists who work in Muslim countries to liberate women from the dark side of this oppressive force, according to Womensphere.wordpress.com, identifies Shariah family law as the fundamental basis for discrimination against women in the Muslim world, including communities in the United Kingdom.
Here are just some of the "benefits" British Muslim women can look forward to if Shariah law replaces English law: The Muslim woman cannot marry without parental approval, worsening the problem of forced marriage; marriages can be conducted without the presence of a bride, as long as the guardian consents, creating a climate for underage and early marriage; Muslim women may only marry Muslim men.
It gets worse. A Muslim man can divorce his wife by repudiating her; he has no obligation to support a former wife, or her children after the divorce; women are prohibited from divorcing a husband without his consent; abuse is not grounds for a woman to end a marriage; in matters of inheritance, sons are entitled to twice as much of an estate as daughters.
Divorced women must remain single. If they remarry, they can lose custody of their children. There is no similar requirement for a man. Child custody often reverts to the father at a preset age, even if the father has been abusive.
It is impossible to reconcile this antiquated "law" with English law, so what could Lord Phillips mean when he says Shariah law can be used in Muslim communities so long as such laws comply with English law? This will mean English law must become subordinate to Shariah law. This is Dhimmitude, an Islamic system of religious apartheid begun in the seventh century that forces all other religions and cultures to accept an inferior status once Muslims become the majority.
Maryland's Court of Appeals recently denied a Shariah divorce to a Pakistani man. The man's wife of 20 years had filed for divorce. To circumvent having to share their $2 million estate and other marital assets, he went to the Pakistani Embassy and applied for an Islamic divorce. The man wanted to invoke what is known as talaq, in which the husband says, "I divorce you" three times and it's done.
The Maryland court said, "If we were to affirm the use of talaq, controlled as it is by the husband, a wife, a resident of this state, would never be able to consummate a divorce action filed by her in which she seeks a division of marital property" and the talaq "directly deprives the wife of the due process she is entitled to when she initiates divorce litigation. The lack and deprivation of due process is itself contrary to [Maryland's] public policy."
British Muslims who wish to live under Shariah law might have stayed in the countries from which they came - or return to them. But their objective appears to be domination of England, not assimilation. This also seems to be the goal for Muslims in other countries with large and growing Muslim populations.
There is no due process under Shariah law. Lord Phillips has signed the death warrant for his nation if his opinion becomes the law of England. It's one thing to fight a war and lose it. It's quite another to willingly surrender without a struggle.
Cal Thomas is a nationally syndicated columnist.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
So this is how it ends: not with a bang, but a whimper.
The most senior judge in England has declared that Islamic legal principles in Shariah law may be used within Muslim communities in Britain to settle marital arguments and regulate finance. Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said, "Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law."
In his speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips said Muslims in Britain could use Islamic legal principles as long as punishments - and divorce rulings - comply with English law. Shariah law does not comply with English law. It is a law unto itself.
And so the English who gave us the Magna Carta in 1215, William Blackstone and the foundation of American law are slowly succumbing to the dictates of intolerant Islam and sowing seeds of their own destruction.
The Iranian and Kurdish Women's Rights Organization (IKWRO), an umbrella group of activists who work in Muslim countries to liberate women from the dark side of this oppressive force, according to Womensphere.wordpress.com, identifies Shariah family law as the fundamental basis for discrimination against women in the Muslim world, including communities in the United Kingdom.
Here are just some of the "benefits" British Muslim women can look forward to if Shariah law replaces English law: The Muslim woman cannot marry without parental approval, worsening the problem of forced marriage; marriages can be conducted without the presence of a bride, as long as the guardian consents, creating a climate for underage and early marriage; Muslim women may only marry Muslim men.
It gets worse. A Muslim man can divorce his wife by repudiating her; he has no obligation to support a former wife, or her children after the divorce; women are prohibited from divorcing a husband without his consent; abuse is not grounds for a woman to end a marriage; in matters of inheritance, sons are entitled to twice as much of an estate as daughters.
Divorced women must remain single. If they remarry, they can lose custody of their children. There is no similar requirement for a man. Child custody often reverts to the father at a preset age, even if the father has been abusive.
It is impossible to reconcile this antiquated "law" with English law, so what could Lord Phillips mean when he says Shariah law can be used in Muslim communities so long as such laws comply with English law? This will mean English law must become subordinate to Shariah law. This is Dhimmitude, an Islamic system of religious apartheid begun in the seventh century that forces all other religions and cultures to accept an inferior status once Muslims become the majority.
Maryland's Court of Appeals recently denied a Shariah divorce to a Pakistani man. The man's wife of 20 years had filed for divorce. To circumvent having to share their $2 million estate and other marital assets, he went to the Pakistani Embassy and applied for an Islamic divorce. The man wanted to invoke what is known as talaq, in which the husband says, "I divorce you" three times and it's done.
The Maryland court said, "If we were to affirm the use of talaq, controlled as it is by the husband, a wife, a resident of this state, would never be able to consummate a divorce action filed by her in which she seeks a division of marital property" and the talaq "directly deprives the wife of the due process she is entitled to when she initiates divorce litigation. The lack and deprivation of due process is itself contrary to [Maryland's] public policy."
British Muslims who wish to live under Shariah law might have stayed in the countries from which they came - or return to them. But their objective appears to be domination of England, not assimilation. This also seems to be the goal for Muslims in other countries with large and growing Muslim populations.
There is no due process under Shariah law. Lord Phillips has signed the death warrant for his nation if his opinion becomes the law of England. It's one thing to fight a war and lose it. It's quite another to willingly surrender without a struggle.
Cal Thomas is a nationally syndicated columnist.
Posts
