International reaction was almost uniformly negative last week when news broke that Britain had officially granted Muslim Sharia courts permission to rule on everything from divorce to domestic violence. After all, in its strictest form, Sharia law requires the stoning of women accused of adultery, and the execution of converts from Islam, among other draconian punishments for offences that aren’t even considered crimes in the West. In the U.K. and abroad, pundits and politicians denounced Britain’s capitulation, but only one elected official responded with a daring proposal aimed at preventing Sharia law from gaining such a foothold in America.
That that politician was Rep. Tom Tancredo won’t surprise observers of American politics. The Colorado congressman has long been an outspoken critic of the unofficial “open-borders” policy that encourages millions of undocumented immigrants – including would-be terrorists – to enter the U.S. each year. During his short-lived presidential campaign in 2007, Tancredo repeatedly raised the immigration issue during televised debates. He also aired a provocative television ad in which he promised to “stop all visas to nations that sponsor terrorism and [to] arrest and deport any alien who preaches violence and hatred.”
The ad earned Tancredo scorn on the Left and also on some parts of the Right. Undaunted, he has now proposed a “Jihad Prevention Act” that “would bar the entry of foreign nationals who advocate Sharia law [and] make the advocacy of Sharia law by radical Muslims already in the United States a deportable offense.” In his official announcement on September 18, Tancredo observed: “This is a case where truth is truly stranger than fiction. Today the British people are learning a hard lesson about the consequences of massive, unrestricted immigration.”
“When you have an immigration policy that allows for the importation of millions of radical Muslims,” he explained, “you are also importing their radical ideology – an ideology that is fundamentally hostile to the foundations of western democracy – such as gender equality, pluralism, and individual liberty. The best way to safeguard America against the importation of the destructive effects of this poisonous ideology is to prevent its purveyors from coming here in the first place.”
Tancredo hopes his bill will spur public debate, and “send a clear message that the only law we recognize here in America is the U.S. Constitution and the laws passed by our democratically elected representatives…If you aren’t comfortable with that concept, you aren’t welcome in the United States.”
So far, reaction to the “Jihad Prevention Act” has been muted on both sides, possibly because the media is providing wall-to-wall election coverage. Nonetheless, some prominent supporters have emerged. Having advocated similar measures in the past, the group Muslims Against Sharia praised Tancredo’s initiative. So did scholar Andrew Bostom, author of The Legacy of Jihad. Bostom hailed Tancredo’s “sane approach,” adding, “Thank goodness for Congressman Tancredo’s courage and clarity on this pressing matter!”
Tancredo also has an ally in columnist and author Diana West. In books like The Death of the Grown Up and in her syndicated columns, West has chronicled what she considers the decline of Western civilization, brought on by everything from a perpetually adolescent popular culture to radical Islam. “What I like about this proposed legislation,” West said in an email interview, “is its clear, direct focus on Islamic law (Sharia).” Focusing on Sharia, West believes, is the “only way to grapple successfully with the repressive overlay of Islam on a society--understanding it as a function of law, and not religion.” She points out that Tancredo’s “bill allows us to see clearly through to the heart of the matter: the danger that unchecked Islamic immigration will bring about a constituency for Islamic law, leading to disastrous changes to our legal system.”
To be sure, West does have some reservations about the bill. “I'm not sure how he proposes to determine which Muslim immigrants advocate Islamic law and which do not,” she said. “I would prefer to see a general restriction on Islamic immigration to prevent the build-up of a demographic that wills Sharia. Moreover, West notes that this session of Congress is nearly over. Even if Tancredo’s bill were “brought to a vote this week, I sadly doubt it will be passed.” Still another problem is that there is scant enthusiasm in Congress for passing such a bill. With the notable exception of Rep. Sue Myrick, a Republican from North Carolina, the political class has failed even to address the conflicts between Islamic law and Western values – let alone to draft legislation to thwart the spread of Sharia in the U.S.
Europe may soon prove a model in this regard – the unhappy case of Britain notwithstanding. This December, Israel’s Dr. Arieh Eldad, a former member of the Israeli Knesset, will host the Facing Jihad Summit in Jerusalem. The summit seeks to bring together “European lawmakers who are united in their shared belief that Islam today poses a serious threat to Western civilization.” The idea is to create an alliance of politicians who can workshop legislation to prevent creeping Islamization, which they can then bring back to their home countries and create a voting block in the EU parliament. The attending parliamentarians will be joined by experts on radical Islam such as Daniel Pipes and Bat Ye’or, but bigotry will not be tolerated: Eldad emphasizes that the summit will bar “neo-Nazis and racist parties” like the British National Party. “Seven countries will be represented so far,” Eldad told FrontPage.
And what of America? Eldad thought it likely that at least a few Capitol Hill politicians would attend the jihad summit. If so, Tom Tancredo might be an ideal delegate.
Sharia in Britain threatens "the integrity of an Anglo-American legal system that has probably given ordinary citizens greater access to justice and fairness than any other system"
That is precisely what is at stake, and it is encouraging to see an editorial of this nature in a major newspaper. "Sharia-UK: Brits head toward Islamic law," by John O'Sullivan for the New York Post, September 18 (thanks to Awake):
Is Britain heading straight for disaster?" George Bernard Shaw once began a BBC radio talk. "That is a question I can easily answer. Britain is not heading straight for anything." The reply works for the question: "Is Britain heading straight for sharia law?" It's heading that way - but by a winding path.
News reports this week have given a much stronger impression. They allege that sharia got a legal OK from the government and is already being enforced. A Muslim college in the English Midlands supposedly runs a sharia court that has so far decided more than 100 civil disputes.
In fact, that "court" made its rulings legally binding by a clever dodge: being accepted as a "voluntary arbitration tribunal."
Under British law, any two people can agree to take their dispute to such a tribunal rather than to court; the tribunal's decision is then binding on them. It can even be enforced by the official courts and the police.
Faisal Aqtab Siddiqi, a commercial-law barrister, had the bright idea of establishing a sharia court as the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal. He acknowledges that it so far only handles civil cases such as divorces and inheritance disputes, since British society isn't ready for such innovations as public floggings and hand-choppings. But these are early days.
The story generated appropriate outrage. Some came from liberal Muslim women: Writing in the Independent, Yasmin Alibi-Brown points out that many immigrants left home to get away from sharia to a country like Britain, where all are equal before the law. Non-Muslim Brits probably feel at least as indignant.
But this outrage may be misplaced - or at least premature: It's not at all clear just how legal the sharia tribunal really is. Dominic Grieve, the Tory Party's legal spokesman and a top lawyer, flatly denies that sharia could be legal in Britain.
Yes, arbitration tribunals can settle some disputes and have their judgments enforced. But they must act within the principles of English law: They can't forbid girls to attend mixed classes in school or award sons the bulk of inheritances merely because the parties agreed in advance to accept the verdict - any more than a regular court can enforce a voluntary contract of slavery or prostitution.
So, while the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal may like to think it's a sharia court, its judgments have legal force only insofar as they conform to the law of the land. Unfortunately, that is far from settling the matter.
The police have reportedly been enforcing the sharia court's questionable judgments even though they lack legal force - for example, they've stopped questioning women who've accused their husbands of domestic violence once the tribunal has "settled" the case.
That is contrary to usual police practice and arguably illegal, too. It also ignores the well-documented reality that Muslim women sometimes suffer immense social pressure - up to and including murder, a k a "honor killings" - to make them bend to male authority, forced marriage and beatings. Their legal consent to sharia judgments can't be presumed without serious investigation.
But the police sometimes break their own rules in such cases out of a desire to avoid appearing "Islamophobic" and to deal with Muslim communities through unelected "community leaders." Yet these leaders are often extreme figures. Thus, by degrees, sharia becomes effective law, even though it's actually illegal. [...]
And if sharia is to apply to marriage law, then law in Britain will inevitably discriminate between the sexes in favor of men. There goes equality before the law.
These arguments reflect a wider set of illogical beliefs held by British (and to a lesser extent American) political elites: that there's no real problem with immigration or multiculturalism - and any concerns are either xenophobic or paranoid; that immigrant groups will soon assimilate to British tolerance even if official multiculturalism is persuading them to remain secluded in ghettoes (or, in the case of women, in purdah).
It would be comic - if it didn't threaten the integrity of an Anglo-American legal system that has probably given ordinary citizens greater access to justice and fairness than any other system in the decreasingly civilized world.
UK: Family barred from holding burial on Saturday because they aren't Muslim
Still more reasonable accommodation in Absurd Britannia: "Family barred from burying their dead stepfather on a Saturday... because he isn't a Muslim," from the Daily Mail, September 24 (thanks to Dave):
A council has barred a grieving family from burying their stepfather on a Saturday - because he was not Muslim.Harold 'Charlie' Lemaire died last week aged 75 from pneumonia. His stepdaughter, Jean Maltby, wanted the funeral to be held this Saturday so family who live outside the city could attend.
The retired steel worker's stepson Stephen lives in Dorset while other members of his family live as far away as the Isle of Man.
But when her funeral director called Sheffield's City Road Cemetery to arrange a memorial service followed by burial, he was told the funeral would not be allowed on a Saturday because the family was not Muslim.
The city's council confirmed it does not offer funerals at the weekend except to Muslims, in line with the rules of the Islamic faith that the dead must be buried as soon as possible.
Ms Maltby said today she felt it was unfair to offer weekend funerals to one religion and not to others.
'It should be one rule for everyone - and I don't think the people of Sheffield realise the council has made this decision,' she said.
'It goes against the council's policy of equal rights. They are making a service available to one sector of the community and not another.'...
Yep. And you're going to be seeing a great deal more of that, too.
London: Toilets for 2012 Olympics to face away from Mecca so as not to offend Muslims
Reasonable accommodation marches on.
"London's Olympic Park toilets to turn away from Mecca out of respect for Islamic law," from the Daily Mail, September 24 (thanks to Simone):
Toilet facilities are being built at London's Olympic Park so Muslims will not have to face Mecca while sitting on the loo.The Olympic Delivery Authority has said it wants to produce an ideal venue for people of all cultures, faiths, ages and abilities for the 2012 Games and beyond.
The Islamic religion prohibits Muslims from facing the Kiblah - the direction of prayer - when they visit the lavatory.
An ODA spokeswoman confirmed that a 'percentage of general toilets would not face Mecca' out of sensitivity.
She could not say how many toilets would turn away from the East.
Also as part of the design, special washing facilities will be linked to Islamic prayer rooms....
Netherlands: Christian schools closing for Islamic festival
Reasonable accommodation. "Christian Schools Closing for Islamic Festival," from NIS News, September 23 (thanks to Fjordman):
AMSTERDAM, 23/09/08 - At least two Amsterdam secondary schools with a Christian basis are to close during the Sugar Feast to accede to their Muslim pupils. Various other schools are also doing so, Reformatorisch Dagblad newspaper reported yesterday.The Calvijn met Junior College in Amsterdam and the Huygens College, also in the capital, are both closing for the Sugar Feast. The Islamic festival marks the end of the Ramadan month of fasting and falls on or around 1 October this year.
The Calvijn met Junior College is closing for two days, and the Huygens College for one. Both are VMBO schools - the lowest level of secondary education - and although they are Christian, their pupils are virtually all immigrants.
The Party for Freedom (PVV) wants clarification from Education Minister Ronald Plasterk in the Lower House today. "This really cannot be allowed," in the view of PVV MP Martin Bosma. "The Netherlands is no Muslim country and will never become one either. We must never give in to the pressure of this ideology, which wants to take over the Netherlands bit by bit."...
Yep.
Posts
