ISLAMOPHOBIA: Anti Muslim Racism
Entries from February 3, 2008 - February 9, 2008
Common sense from the FT on 'sharia law'
The Archbishop of Canterbury's comments have triggered widespread confusion about the current status of the Islamic legal system.
In Britain, Muslims can already choose to have disputes settled privately under Sharia law. The government also recognises some Sharia-compliant investment and banking products, such as mortgages, and allows meat to be slaughtered according to strict Islamic practices.
The government has not, however, authorised the establishment of formal Sharia courts to deal with criminal law proceedings
Under the Archbishop's proposals, Muslim groups would be expected to follow the precedent set by Beth Din, the Jewish court, which legally arbitrates marital and financial disputes between Orthodox Jews.
Family lawyers said this might mean establishment of local Sharia councils, which could deal with Muslim marriages and divorces, among other civil matters. It would not allow for the creation of a "parallel" legal system.
Financial Times, 9 February 2008
See also Clare Dyer in the Guardian and Deborah Orr in the Independent.
And Salma Yaqoob, as reported in the Birmingham Mail. Also Yahya Birt.
Martin Sullivan
'My sentence was reduced to beheading'
Sandy Mitchell has terrifying first-hand experience of being on the wrong side of sharia law. Mr Mitchell, 52, was falsely accused of being involved in a car bombing in Saudi Arabia in 2000 when he was working there as an anaesthetic technician. He was held in prison for three years and tortured until he eventually signed a confession, which he later had to read out on Saudi television.
A sharia court sentenced him to having his head partially severed, followed by public crucifixion. The sentence was later reduced to beheading, before the Saudi authorities finally conceded that al-Qa'eda terrorists had planted the bomb and let Mr Mitchell return home to Halifax, West Yorks.
Yesterday he accused the Archbishop of Canterbury of "betraying" Christians with his comments on Islamic law. He said Dr Rowan Williams clearly had "absolutely no concept of what sharia law is", because if he did, "he wouldn't have made such a foolish statement".
Mr Mitchell, a practising Christian, added: "I would like to see Dr Williams apologise to the people he is supposed to represent – the Christians in this country. His job is to serve the Christian community, and most of the Christian community will feel offended and betrayed by his comments. Sharia law is completely incompatible with a civilised society and I'm sure if Dr Williams had time to study it properly he wouldn't have been so stupid as to make the statements he has."
'Muslim courts are here already' shock
"Sharia law is operating in secret in many British towns and cities, the Daily Express can reveal. Muslim communities are being ruled with a rod of iron in clear defiance of the British legal system. Panels of Islamic scholars sit in mosques, converted living rooms and even a former pub to issue fatwas, or rulings.
"The revelation that they have decided thousands of cases over the last 25 years comes after the Archbishop of Canterbury provoked condemnation by calling for an 'accommodation' with the Islamic legal code. Dr Rowan Williams said parts of civil law could be dealt with under the sharia system – but some communities have already gone much further. The Daily Express has uncovered a catalogue of evidence that sharia courts are acting independently of British law."
Daily Express, 9 February 2008
And over at the Daily Mail Amanda Platell writes: " So has old Wispy Beard finally lost his marbles? Adopt Sharia law that so vilely oppresses women, subverting, in the process, hundreds of years of British justice? Yes, it's nonsense. And dangerous nonsense, too. But by highlighting this issue, Dr Rowan Williams may have done us all a service by jolting us into realising just how far Britain has already gone towards integrating Sharia law. Did you realise, before his speech on Thursday, that Sharia courts already exist in this country to decide issues as fundamental to our society as divorce? ... I certainly didn't. So, ironically, perhaps Dr Williams should be applauded for highlighting this creeping Islamisation of parts of Britain."
Update: At the Independent on Sunday, Joan Smith weighs in with "British women are already suffering from Islamic law".
'We need a thoughtful discourse, not hysterical discord' says MCB
The Muslim Council of Britain is grateful for the thoughtful intervention of the Archbishop of Canterbury on the discussion of the place of Islam and Muslims in Britain today. The MCB observes, with some sadness, the hysterical misrepresentations of his speech which serves only to drive a wedge between British people.
"The Archbishop is not advocating implementation of the Islamic penal system in Britain. His recommendation is confined to the civil system of Shariah Law and that only in accordance with English law and agreeable to established notions of human rights", said Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, Secretary General of the MCB.
British Muslims are not calling for creation of different legal systems, nor is the Archbishop. We do not wish to see a parallel system or a separate system of judiciary for Muslims. The Archbishop sought in his speech to explore the possibilities of an accommodation between English law and some aspects of Islamic personal law.
British Muslims would wish to seek parity with other faiths in particular the followers of the Jewish faith in the United Kingdom in facilitating choices for those who wish, as Muslims, for their personal relationships to be governed by a Shariah civil code. This legitimate aspiration requires full discussion in an atmosphere of understanding and tolerance. It is worthy of note that already enshrined in English law are provisions for Islamic Shariah compliant finance which have become very popular and now enable billions of pounds of fresh investment to come into the UK.
"Our common mission to live in cohesion and harmony is better served when men of conscience and authority speak out for justice and equal opportunity. Silence is much more likely to engender prejudice, injustice and inequality. On the issue of giving individuals choice of law but only in private and personal matters, we call, as does the Archbishop, for a mature debate in an environment that reflects mutual respect." said Dr Bari.
Undermining civil liberties at home
Members of the Muslim American community have come under concerted and intense attacks by neo-conservative organizations because they have expressed concerns about the dire conditions of Palestinians under Israeli occupation, says Louay Safi.
Archbishop 'gives heart to Muslim terrorists plotting our destruction'
The Archbishop of Canterbury sparked outrage today by saying the introduction of Sharia law in Britain is inevitable. In an explosive outburst Dr Rowan Williams, the country’s top Anglican, said there should be one set of rules for Muslims – and another for everyone else.
He maintained it was WRONG for followers of Islam to be forced to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty". Instead he said the country must "face the fact" that some Muslims do not relate to the law in Britain.
The 57-year-old insisted we accept aspects of Sharia law with a "constructive accommodation" in areas like marriage so Muslim women would not have to use British divorce courts. He added: "It seems unavoidable."
Dr Williams' extraordinary claim is a huge propaganda coup for extremists plotting to end centuries of the British way of life. And it was roundly condemned from all quarters last night.
Paul Dadge, famously pictured helping masked 7/7 victim Davina Turrell, 24, was left stunned. The 31-year-old former fireman, of Cannock, Staffs, said: "The Archbishop’s remarks are unhelpful. I am proud to be British and find the idea that Sharia law would ever become part of British law incredible."
Mary Burke, 50 – who survived the King’s Cross bomb on July 7 2005 – said: "Britain is a Christian country and should stay a Christian country. I don't want Islamic law here and I believe most of the British public agree with me."
And the Sun's leader opines: "It's easy to dismiss Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams as a silly old goat. In fact he's a dangerous threat to our nation. He says the adoption in Britain of parts of Islamic Sharia law is 'unavoidable'. If he believes that, he is unfit for his job....He also gives heart to Muslim terrorists plotting our destruction. They will see his foolish ramblings as a sign that our resolve against extremism is weakening."
'Muslim laws must come to Britain'
The Archbishop of Canterbury was accused of surrendering to Muslim extremists last night by calling for Islamic sharia law to rule in parts of Britain.
Dr Rowan Williams claimed incorporating aspects of the Muslim legal system into UK law was now "unavoidable" and "appropriate" and said believers should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".
The Church of England’s most senior cleric also backed demands for Islamic courts to settle divorces and other disputes between Muslims living in Britain.
But his remarks sparked a storm of protest. Sharia law has been used to justify stoning, beheadings and other brutal punishments in many Muslim countries. In extreme cases, Islamic courts have even put people to death for converting to Christianity.
Tory MP Mark Pritchard called the Archbishop’s remarks naive and shocking. "He may want to run up the white flag of surrender over Lambeth Palace, but there are many who do not."
Mike Judge, of the Christian Institute, said: "The fact that we all obey the same law, whatever our religion, is an important principle of the British way of life." And Stephen Green, national director of Christian Voice said: "This is a Christian country with Christian laws. If Muslims want to live under sharia law then they are free to emigrate to a country where sharia law is already in operation."
Imaan opposes ban on Qaradawi
Imaan, the LGBT Muslim support group, joins those in the Muslim community who are concerned at the Home Office decision to ban Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi. The Home Office is reported to have refused a visa for medical treatment on the grounds that: "the UK will not tolerate the presence of those who seek to justify any acts of terrorist violence or express views that could foster inter-community violence."
Archbishop backs sharia law for British Muslims
The Archbishop of Canterbury sparked controversy today when he said the introduction of sharia law for British Muslims was "unavoidable". Rowan Williams told BBC Radio 4's World at One that Muslims should be able to choose whether to have matters such as marital disputes dealt with under sharia law or the British legal system. His comments were strongly criticised by the National Secular Society but welcomed by the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), which stressed it did not back the introduction of sharia criminal law. Williams said his proposal would only work if sharia law was properly understood, rather than seen through the eyes of biased media reports.
See also BBC News, 7 February 2008
Meanwhile, over at Harry's Place, the inimitable David Toube calls for Williams to be sacked! "Isn't there something particularly pathetic", he asks, "about a Bishop in a church which – in theory – exists to evangelise, shilling on behalf of the theocratic politics of another religion, which wishes to write their version of 'god's will' into law?"
Damian Thompson agrees: "Williams is lending his support to the establishment of a non-Christian theocracy in Britain. The Church of England must think seriously about his suitability for the ancient office he occupies. And then get rid of him."
At Dhimmi Watch, Robert Spencer is appalled: "Rowan Williams has utterly forgotten, if he ever knew, that the idea of 'one law for everybody' was one of the great achievements of Judeo-Christian civilization.... I wonder if Rowan Williams is aware that if Muslims ever came to power in Britain, they themselves would enforce one law for everybody – a law that would reduce him to dhimmitude."
Over at Stormfront the fascists take much the same line.
And if "the idea of 'one law for everybody' was one of the great achievements of Judeo-Christian civilization", how does Spencer explain the existence of Beth Din courts?
For the Archbishop's actual views, see here
Veil to be banned on Dutch buses?
"De Volkskrant has the latest on the continuing political saga of whether, and to what extent, burqas should be banned in the Netherlands. Despite the fact that there's only a limited number of women wearing this type of garment, the issue keeps stirring up strong political sentiments.
"Earlier, the cabinet agreed that burqas would be banned for government workers and at schools. On Friday, the government is expected to announce that burqas will also be banned from public transport. And for those of you cynical enough to believe that all of this has anything to do with Islamophobia, the ban, if introduced, will also apply to balaclavas and crash helmets."