Wake Up Englang! Imam in Wales deported, Mosque protests, situation ambiguous: Sharia law, Hafiz Majeed Al-Nasar, Pakistan, Arab Spring, Anjem Choudary, David Davies, free speech/ Britain has 85 sharia courts: The astonishing spread of the Islamic justice behind closed doors
 |
Britain has 85 sharia courts |
Newport is close to the English border and is Wales’s third largest city after Cardiff and Swansea. It has a population of c. 150,000 mostly Caucasian (90%) with about 6% of Asian origin. It also has 2000 practising Muslims at 7 city mosques: 5 Sunni and 2 Shia. The town is in the process of re-generation and subsequently is a less-affluent area with a lot of affordable if not desirable housing.
There has been a battle for the hearts of the mostly non-radicalized Muslim believers as more extreme forces from Cardiff, only 10 miles to the south-west, began infiltrating the city starting in 2011 and leafleting existing mosques.
Bangladesh-born Sheik Ullah told the BBC when it started “They said on the leaflet you don’t have to vote, voting is forbidden. That’s not right. They said because there is no Sharia law in this country, they can commit crimes. That’s wrong. The Koran says you have to obey the law of the land and that’s that and all about it. The police were called and the police told them to go because they were not welcome.”
The deported Imam said he was told that his visa to work in the UK was cancelled by his employer, the Jamia Mosque. He said from Pakistan “I was shocked and I was very upset, I didn’t know what happened. All of my family were very worried.”
Manzoor Ahmad of the interim committee of the mosque, which is involved in operating some of its functions but does not operate it, joined the protest yesterday and said protesters would like the imam to be reinstated. So far the mosque has not commented on the record
It is not clear if the deportation is connected to attempts to radicalize some of the younger members. The reality that there is division amongst the membership, with some protesting the decision of the mosque while the organization itself sanctioned the deportation. This in turn suggests there is significant difference of opinion and that individual members may support a more aggressive tone. Indeed Ahmad may very well have been very involved in recruiting Al-Nasar, with the leadership later deciding he was too extreme. Certainly online video at Blip.TV show Ahmad being confrontational with the Mosque leadership.
In December 2011 Ahmad obtained an injunction against a Conservative Welsh Assembly Member, Mohammad Asghar, claiming he interfered with mosque prayers. Following the successful move to gain an injunction Ahmad said “We have decided to make the management of the mosques more democratic, transparent and accountable. In a sense, this is our version of the Arab Spring. Mosques have been run by small groups of men who were not properly accountable to worshippers. We don’t think that is appropriate any more, and hundreds of people signed a petition calling for elections. Last Friday, Mr. Asghar made a speech in the mosque in which he opposed the moves towards democracy and said that the elections should not take place. We believe it is hypocritical of Mr. Asghar to oppose elections in the mosques, given that he was only able to become an AM as the result of a democratic election.”
What’s not clear in his statement is who ‘we’ is. Despite Ahmad’s democratic claims one has to wonder if he is challenging the general direction of the mosque. His Arab Spring assertion sounds like a move to wrest control by whatever means necessary. Mosques in Newport had been working together (Newport Prevent Delivery Group) on a joint Home Office strategy to combat radicalization with sermons conducted city-wide in an orchestrated way. Is Ahmad’s attempted takeover part of a wider strategy to stop that and change course?
Tensions are high in the area with certainty. A white Newport shopkeeper was forced by police on Wednesday to remove a T-shirt from his shop window because they felt it “could be seen to be inciting racial hatred.”
The black T-shirt said in yellow lettering “Obey our laws, respect our beliefs or get out of our country”. But following a complaint from a member of the public, police came to his store and threatened to arrest him unless he removed it from sight.
Matthew Taylor, owner of Taylor’s clothes, said “I had a visit from two CSOs (community support officers) because it has been reported by someone who felt it was offensive. “It’s not meant to be offensive. I didn’t produce it to be offensive. It’s what I believe. At the end of the day if you don’t like the way a country is run and don’t like our beliefs then go somewhere else, don’t go killing people. I don’t care if you Welsh, Scottish, English, go somewhere else if you don’t like it.”
A spokeswoman for Gwent County police confirmed: “We did have a call from a member of the public. We visited the shop and asked him (Taylor) to remove it (the T-shirt) as it could be seen to be inciting racial hatred.” Police did not offer up an explanation as to how it was inciting racial hatred other than it seems it was just their judgment.
The Chairman of the Welsh affairs select committee, David Davies MP, in a typical politicians attempt to be all things to all men said: “I think the police are well aware of that (the current heightened tensions between communities) and I can see their point of view. It’s a very sensitive time. But I can see this guy’s point of view and the statement he is making. You should not be in this country if you are not prepared to obey the laws. I think the vast majority of people in this country of all races would agree with that. So I don’t think it is a racist matter at but I can see the police’s point of view.”
Deciphering that extreme dose of political correctness boils down to this! Regardless of whether or not you are right about something if is going to inflame a situation with a minority, no matter how small and how unpopular, then your right to free speech is temporarily suspended.
It is astonishing reading the Twitter feed of the chief British advocate for Islamic hate, Anjem Choudary. For example on May 31st: 1)“(Home Secretary) Theresa May & some media want to stop ‘hatred’ but daily anti-Islam/Shariah hatred comes from the UK regime & it’s own media.” And 2) “No one’s ever killed anyone whilst a member of Al-Muhajiroun, however millions have been killed under the orders of Cameron!”
This man accuses the Home Secretary of hatred and the Prime Minister of murder. Yet Choudary is in hiding under police protection while a South Wales shopkeeper is threatened with arrest for making a T-shirt with a political statement that most people agree with.
Manzoor Ahmad it seems is going to push forward his agenda and claim religious discrimination any time he is opposed. Matthew Taylor is going to say what most people think and will immediately be gagged. Imam’s such as Hafiz Majeed Al-Nasar will continue to be imported as vying Islamic groups seek to assert their version of Allah’s will for Britain. Meanwhile David Davies and other MP’s like him will continue to try to understand and accommodate everybody’s point of view whilst ignoring the forest fire that is burning behind them.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/55604?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=48b0407e86-Call_to_Champions&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d8f503f036-48b0407e86-297703129
Britain has 85 sharia courts: The astonishing spread of the Islamic justice behind closed doors
It least 85 Islamic sharia courts are operating in Britain, a study claimed yesterday. The astonishing figure is 17 times higher than previously accepted.The tribunals, working mainly from mosques, settle financial and family disputes according to religious principles. They lay down judgments which can be given full legal status if approved in national law courts.
Disputes: Islamic leaders rule on disagreements
Commentators on the influence of sharia law often count only the five courts in London, Manchester, Bradford, Birmingham and Nuneaton that are run by the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, a body whose rulings are enforced through the state courts under the 1996 Arbitration Act.
But the study by academic and Islamic specialist Denis MacEoin estimates there are at least 85 working tribunals.
The spread of sharia law has become increasingly controversial since its role was backed last year by Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams and Lord Phillips, the Lord Chief Justice who stepped down last October.
Dr Williams said a recognised role for sharia law seemed 'unavoidable' and Lord Phillips said there was no reason why decisions made on sharia principles should not be recognised by the national courts.
But the Civitas report said the principles on which sharia courts work are indicated by the fatwas - religious decrees - set out on websites run by British mosques.
Controversial comments: Dr Rowan Williams said a recognised role for sharia law seemed 'unavoidable'
Examples set out in his study include a ruling that no Muslim woman may marry a non-Muslim man unless he converts to Islam and that any children of a woman who does should be taken from her until she marries a Muslim.
Further rulings, according to the report, approve polygamous marriage and enforce a woman's duty to have sex with her husband on his demand.
The report added: 'The fact that so many sharia rulings in Britain relate to cases concerning divorce and custody of children is of particular concern, as women are not equal in sharia law, and sharia contains no specific commitment to the best interests of the child that is fundamental to family law in the UK.
'Under sharia, a male child belongs to the father after the age of seven, regardless of circumstances.'
It said: 'Sharia courts operating in Britain may be handing down rulings that are inappropriate to this country because they are linked to elements in Islamic law that are seriously out of step with trends in Western legislation.'
The study pointed out that the House of Lords ruled in a child custody case last year that the sharia rules on the matter were 'arbitrary and discriminatory'.
And a 2003 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg said it was '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.'
However last year Justice Minister Bridget Prentice told MPs that 'if, in a family dispute ...the parties to a judgment in a sharia council wish to have this recognised by English authorities, they are at liberty to draft a consent order embodying the terms of the agreement and submit it to an English court.
'This allows judges to scrutinise it to ensure it complies with English legal tenets.'
Decisions from sharia tribunals can be presented to a family court judge for approval with no more detail than is necessary to complete a two page
form. The sharia courts in the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal are recognised as courts under the Arbitration Act. This law, which covers Jewish Beth Din courts, gives legal powers to a tribunal if all parties involved accept its authority.
Its director Dr David Green said: 'The reality is that for many Muslims, sharia courts are in practice part of an institutionalised atmosphere of intimidation, backed by the ultimate sanction of a death threat.'
The Muslim Council in Britain condemned the study for ' stirring up hatred'.
A spokesman said: 'Sharia councils are perfectly legitimate. There is no evidence they are intimidating or discriminatory against women. The system is purely voluntary so if people don't like it they can go elsewhere.'
Patrick Mercer, Tory MP for Newark and chairman of the Commons counter-terrorism sub committee, said: 'We have an established law of the land and a judiciary. Anything that operates otside that system must be viewed with great caution.
'If crimes are going unreported to police, this will erode the authority of those who have to enforce our law. In a sovereign state there must be one law, and one law only.'
Philip Davies, Tory MP for Shipley, said: 'Everyone should be deeply concerned about the extent of these courts.
'They do entrench division in society, and do nothing to entrench integration or community cohesion. It leads to a segregated society.
'There should be one law, and that should be British law. We can't have a situation where people can choose which system of law they follow and which they do not.
'We can't have a situation where people choose the system of law which they feel gives them the best outcome. Everyone should equal under one law.'
Veteran Tory Lord Tebbit provoked anger among Muslims earlier this month by comparing Islamic sharia courts to gangsters.
He likened the tribunals to the 'system of arbitration of disputes that was run by the Kray brothers'.
Lord Tebbit told the Lords: 'Are you not aware that there is extreme pressure put upon vulnerable women to go through a form of arbitration that results in them being virtually precluded from access to British law?'
Warning that women could be shut out from the protection of the law, he asked Justice Minister Lord Bach: 'That is a difficult matter, I know, but how do you think we can help those who are put in that position?'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196165/Britain-85-sharia-courts-The-astonishing-spread-Islamic-justice-closed-doors.html#ixzz2VArF87gw
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Comments
Post a Comment