That old Sharia law again

The BBC report that

"Several Sudanese women have been flogged as a punishment for dressing "indecently", according to a local journalist who was arrested with them."

And then follows the usual story of sharia law in practice:

"Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein, who says she is facing 40 lashes, said she and 12 other women wearing trousers were arrested in a restaurant in the capital, Khartoum.

She told the BBC several of the women had pleaded guilty to the charges and had 10 lashes immediately.

Khartoum, unlike South Sudan, is governed by Sharia law.

Several of those punished were from the mainly Christian and animist south, Ms Hussein said.

Non-Muslims are not supposed to be subject to Islamic law, even in Khartoum and other parts of the mainly Muslim north. "

So even though Islamic Sharia Law is not menat to apply to non-Muslims, it is being applied to them. Now do you feel safe when the Archbishop of Canterbury says that Sharia Law is "unavoidable", when Lord Phillips, The Lord Chief Justice says that there was no reason sharia law's principles could not be used in mediation and when Stephen Hockman QC the former chairman of the Bar Council said that:

"legal reforms to incorporate Islamic principles are inevitable. He warned that 'otherwise we will find there is a very significant section of our society which is increasingly alienated, with very dangerous results. '"

The key word in Stephen Hockman's speech is "inevitable" and is similar to Rowan Williams' "unavoidable". Why is it seen as inevitable by certain sections of this Country's establishment? Do these "experts" not realise that Sharia law is the only system of law that many Muslims want to live under. Sharia law is not an add-on to an existing legal system, it is a complete set of laws for living one's life. Sharia law admits to no higher law, for religious Muslims it is THE LAW.

Many Muslims have rather disingenuously compared their demands for Sharia law to that of Jews in England who have Beth Din courts. The comparison is largely spurious; Beth Din courts bow to the law of the land, no Beth Din court can make a decision that is at variance with UK law. Muslims see Sharia Law as superior to man-made law and the aim of many is to replace Britsih law with Sharia law. As Mohammed Abdul Bari, the head of the Muslim Council of Britain, has said:

"I believe I speak for a vast majority of Muslims when I say that we do not want separate Courts or parallel legal system. What we do want is a judiciary that is sensitive to our divine laws on personal relationships and family matters. Judges involved in family matters need to have knowledge of our rights and obligations as Muslims in Sharia law."

It confuses me that many establishment figures in this country seems so eager to incorporate a legal system when the European Court for Human Rights have argued "sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy" and that:

"The Court considers that sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it. […] It is difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverges from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervenes in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts."

So why is our "establishment" so keen to cosy up to Islam? More to follow on this matter.