Deceptive bras

The Mail reports that:

"A hardline Islamist group in Somalia has begun publicly whipping women for wearing bras that they claim violate Islam as they are 'deceptive'.

The insurgent group Al Shabaab has sent gunmen into the streets of Mogadishu to round up any women who appear to have a firm bust, residents claimed yesterday.

The women are then inspected to see if the firmness is natural, or if it is the result of wearing a bra.

If they are found wearing a bra, they are ordered to remove it and shake their breasts, residents said."

Sharia law in action, still sanguine about 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. '"?

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.

Sharia Law in action

This video is from the Swat area of Pakistan, but rest assured this is what many want to see as our future in the UK. Any comments from Lord Phillips, Rowan Williams or Stephen Hockman?

Sharia law in action

Could Lord Phillips, Rowan Williams and Stephen Hockman please note the following from the BBC:

"The dusty streets of Kismayo in Somalia echoed to the sound of a vehicle with loud speakers summoning residents to a new form of public "entertainment" earlier this month.

People were being invited to see a man have his hand chopped off in a public park in the city.

The young man, Mohamed Omar Ismail, had been found guilty of stealing goods from another man's house.

That afternoon, hundreds of local people flocked to Freedom Park in order to see the amputation.

After a long wait, Mr Ismail was brought out in front the people and an official started to read out the court decision from piece of paper.

Clothes theft

"The Islamic Sharia court of Kismayo district confirms that Mohamed Omar Ismail has been found guilty of stealing," the official announced.

"Mr Ismail stole 10 pairs of trousers, 10 shirts, 8 other items and a bag. The value all the items are estimated to be $90."

The official quoted a chapter from the Koran known as Surah Maida, verse 38, which is about stealing and relevant punishment.

He said that the verse decreed that punishment for stealing was that the right hand of the thief should be cut off.

A local journalist who witnessed the events unfold saw a shocked looking Mr Ismail brought into the park.

His right hand was held up to the crowds.

It was then laid on a table and severed immediately and without ceremony at the wrist.

The eyewitness told of his horror as the bloody body part was dangled by its index finger in front of the crowd to prove that punishment had been meted out. "

Still think we should incorporate parts of Sharia law into British law?

Why I am so annoyed by Lord Phillips speech

Lord Chief Justice Phillips gave his speech about accommadating Sharia Law into UK law whilst standing in the London Muslim Centre. As Melanie Phillips (as far as I am aware - no relation) points out:

"This centre shares the ideology of Jamaat e Islami, an extremist Islamist organisation which aims to Islamise the state and follows the teachings of Maulana al Maududi, who believed that the Jews worshipped Satan. The dignatory who opened the Centre a few years ago was one Sheikh Abdur-Rahman al-Sudais, who has in the past called the Jews ‘calf-worshippers, prophet-murderers, prophecy-deniers... the scum of the human race whom Allah cursed and turned into apes and pigs.. these are the Jews, a continuous lineage of meanness, cunning, obstinacy, tyranny, licentiousness, evil and corruption’."

For some strange reason I find this sort of language rather offensive, why does nobody seem to care?

Sharia Law in the UK

The establishment love-in with Sharia Law continued apace. Following from the Archbishop of Canterbury in February we have had two more examples in the last week. First Lord Chief Justice - Lord Phillips, the most senior judge in England and Wales, said there was no reason sharia law's principles could not be used in mediation and then 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", it is the same word that Rowan Williams used in his February speech. 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.

Lord Chief Justice Phillips seems confused, he seems to suggest that Sharia Law could be used for dispute resolution within communities, indeed it could. Any community can use any forum for informal dispute resolution if it wishes, this is nothing to do with the law of the land. The point is that if one party wants recourse to "the law" then it is national law that is used.

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."

I am not happy that any community in the UK can govern itself separately from the rest and have a "legal system" that institutionalises inequality. I believe it is the case that Sharia Law requires, before a punishment can be administered, that a crime be witnessed either by two men, or, if only one man can be found, one man and two women. I also believe that Men have the right of unilateral divorce. A divorce is effective when the man tells his wife that he is divorcing her.

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.""

Many ask why our "establishment" seems so keen to cosy up to Islam, this is a question that I shall return to.