Posted tagged ‘Sharia law and females’

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries

UK: How Much More Abuse of Children Do We Permit?

September 17, 2017

UK: How Much More Abuse of Children Do We Permit? Gatestone Institute, Khadija Khan, September 17, 2017

In 2014, an inquiry by Ofsted, the body that regulates schools in England, to inspect the teachings of Muslim private schools, emerged with findings that are devastating. According to Ofsted, some children were unable to understand the difference between Sharia Law and British Law, and sounded more committed to religious teachings than to British laws.

***************************

How is it that we never see demands for legislation to ban dragging young girls into a system of misogynistic beliefs?

The West accepts pampering these extremists in the name of freedom of expression when these extremists themselves do not believe in any such freedom.

Female genital mutilation (FGM), despite having been banned since 1985, takes place in the UK every hour. This criminal behavior is made possible only by the British authorities’ indifference.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who is also chairman of Transport for London (TfL), has issued a belated apology for depicting — in an advertisement launched by the Children’s Traffic Club London (created by TfL to promote traffic safety) — a small girl in a headscarf as representative of a Muslim minor. In Islam, headscarves are not usually worn until a girl has reach puberty. The Independent reported: “TfL apologised for any offence caused and said the images will be removed from the campaign. London Mayor Sadiq Khan, chair of TfL, also apologised for the campaign”.

The apology, however, sounds more like just lip service: none of the British authorities has bothered to notice the escalating trend of making Muslim baby girls wear a veil.

It took a campaign advertisement to make them realize how a headscarf, the hijab, a symbol of modesty, might be abusive to the minor girls by seemingly sexualizing them at an early age.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan issued a belated apology for depicting — in a public-service ad — a small girl in a headscarf as representative of a Muslim minor. (Image source: Transport for London, Richard Heathcote/Getty Images)

Muslim parents of these baby girls, as well as the schools run by Muslims, are mainly responsible for the increase in the frequency of veils for increasing younger girls, even though to may, the requirement is nothing short of a child abuse.

The reaction of British authorities to this controversial practice was in the general mode of, “We cannot endorse this nonsense, but if you want to carry on discriminating against your girls in the name of your belief system, we will not stop you”.

The current and growing trend of concealing even baby girls in the name of a religion, and then indoctrinating them, needs more than just an apology — both from the government and the so-called left-wing fringe. It is precisely their decades-long pattern of accommodating these extremist Muslims that has led to such degenerate behavior.

It is the height of irony — and a low state of affairs — that even government authorities have fallen prey to the propaganda of extremists who are now covering even their infant girls with a headscarf — and selling that practice as a symbol of modesty.

The civilized world should dread the day when burqa-clad girls and women will take over representing Muslim women. It is this attire that represents the coercive ideology that aims to subjugate women through and violence and threats of violence.

What is fortunate is that a traffic awareness campaign gone wrong exposed the plight of these girls: Islamic schools, run by the fundamentalists under the shadow of apologetic British authorities, had encouraged hiding them.

Heartbreakingly, so many people, often well-intended, seem carried away by the pro-veil campaigns of these Muslim extremists. They not only market their demands to conceal women as a symbol of modesty; they also brainwash young girls that those who do not wear these burqas or hijabs have a baser character.

In the West, where people are allowed to wear what they wish, putting a woman behind a veil looks like anything but “modesty”. It looks more like coercion, control and domination.

“It’s like a cage. I wish men could also be trapped like this so that they would understand how much we suffer,” said a woman in Afghanistan.

The extremists who hide girls are robbing them of their childhood.

How is it that we never see demands for legislation to ban dragging young girls into a system of misogynistic beliefs?

The West accepts pampering these extremists in the name of freedom of expression, when these extremists themselves do not believe in any such freedom. Many in the West, in fact, have been trying to knock down the humane laws of the civilized world to have them with the restrictive Islamic laws of Shariah.

Muslim private schools in Britain are increasingly inspired by the Islamist ideology, which promotes beating women; killing homosexuals, apostates and blasphemers; discouraging any kind of interaction with non-Muslims; eradicating Jews and spewing hatred against people of other faiths.

In 2014, an inquiry by Ofsted, the body that regulates schools in England, to inspect the teachings of Muslim private schools, emerged with findings that are devastating. According to Ofsted, some children were unable to understand the difference between Sharia Law and British Law, and sounded more committed to religious teachings than to British laws.

That extremists get away with such manipulations seems directly connected to the lack of any legal means to curb extremist practices by conservative Muslims. Objectionable behavior is simply ignored. A British court in 2016, for instance, ruled that Ofsted was “erroneous” in viewing the segregation of boys and girls in an Islamic school as discriminatory.

Female genital mutilation, despite having been banned since 1985, takes place in the UK every hour. This criminal behavior is made possible only by the British authorities’ indifference.

Just calling some practices illegal clearly does not deter anyone, unless it is followed by tough action and harsh sentences against those who violate the law.

Official, willfully-blind, political correctness is causing irreparable damage to those girls. They are being simultaneously sexualized and ranked as sub-human by these pseudo-religious and cultural practices.

Mayor Sadiq Khan did the right thing by apologizing for the misguided ad campaign — the same way he earned respect from Londoners by supporting equality for LGBTQ community.

Now we please need him to support tough legislation to ban discrimination against Muslim children under the excuse or religious beliefs — even if that could mean offending some of his friends.

Khadija Khan is a Pakistani journalist and commentator, currently based in Germany.

Categories: Formerly Great Britain, Islam - submission, Islam and girls, Sharia law and females
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Europe’s Cities Absorb Sharia Law

August 2, 2017

Europe’s Cities Absorb Sharia Law, Gatestone Institute, Giulio Meotti, August 2, 2017

London Mayor Sadiq Khan banned advertisements that promote “unrealistic expectations of women’s body image and health”. Now Berlin is planning to ban images in which women are portrayed as “beautiful but weak, hysterical, dumb, crazy, naive, or ruled by their emotions”. Tagesspiegel‘s Harald Martenstein said the policy “could have been adopted from the Taliban manifesto”.

The irony is that this wave of morality and “virtue” is coming from cities governed by uninhibited leftist politicians, who for years campaigned for sexual liberation. It is now a “feminist” talking point to advocate sharia policy.

To paraphrase the American writer Daniel Greenfield, the irony of women celebrating their own suppression is both heartbreaking and stupefying.

Within days after the Islamic State conquered the city of Sirte in Libya two years ago, enormous billboards appeared in the Islamist stronghold warning women they must wear baggy robes that cover their entire bodies, and no perfume. These “sharia stipulations for hijab” included wearing dense material and a robe that does not “resemble the attire of unbelievers”.

Two years later, Europe’s three most important cities — London, Paris and Berlin — are adopting the same sharia trend.

Paris has said au revoir to “sexist” ads on public billboards. The Paris city council announced its ban after the Socialist Mayor Anne Hidalgo said the move meant that Paris was “leading the way” in the fight against sexism. London Mayor Sadiq Khan also banned advertisements that promote “unrealistic expectations of women’s body image and health”. Now Berlin is planning to ban images in which women are portrayed as “beautiful but weak, hysterical, dumb, crazy, naive, or ruled by their emotions”. Der Tagesspiegel‘s Harald Martenstein said the policy “could have been adopted from the Taliban manifesto”.

The irony is that this wave of morality and “virtue” is coming from cities governed by uninhibited leftist politicians, who for years campaigned for sexual liberation.

There is a reason for this grotesque campaign banning these images. These cities host significant Muslim populations; and politicians — the same who frantically are enacting mandatory multiculturalism — want to please “Islam”. It is now a “feminist” talking point to advocate sharia policy, as does Linda Sarsour. The result is that, today, few feminists dare to criticize Islam.

It is happening everywhere. Dutch municipalities are “advising” their employees to not wear mini-skirts. There are women-only hours at Swedish swimming pools. German schools are sending letters to parents asking children to avoid wearing “revealing clothes”.

The first to suggest calling for a ban on posters or advertisements that “reduce women or men to sexual objects” was German Justice Minister Heiko Maas, a Social Democrat.

“To demand the veiling of women or taming of men,” said Free Democratic Party leader Christian Lindner, “is something known among radical Islamic religious leaders, but not from the German minister of justice.”

In 1969, Germany was overwhelmed by a debate on introducing into schools the “Sexualkundeatlas”, an “atlas” of sexual science. Now the effort is to desexualize German society. The newspaper Die Welt commented:

“Thanks to Justice Minister Heiko Maas we finally know why on New Year’s Eve, at Cologne Central Station, about a thousand women were victims of sexual violence: because of sexist advertising. Too many eroticized models, too much naked skin on our billboards, too many erotic mouths, too many miniskirts in fashion magazines, too many wiggling rear-ends and chubby breasts in television spots. It is another step in the direction of a ‘submission'”.

Instead of nipples and buttocks, Die Welt concludes, “should we urge the use of burqa or veil, as Mrs. Erdogan does?”

The same German élites who suggest banning “sexist” billboards censored the crude details of the mass sexual assaults in Cologne. Meanwhile, a liberal Berlin mosque, which banned burqas and opened its door to gays and to unveiled women, is now under police protection after threats from Muslim supremacists.

Europe’s élites have adopted a double standard: they are proud to host an exhibit of a Christian crucifix submerged in urine, but quickly capitulate to Muslim demands to censor cartoons of the Islamic Prophet Mohammed. The Italian authorities went to great efforts to spare Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani a view of nudity on ancient sculptures in the Capitoline Museums of Rome.

The Western public appears fascinated by Islamic veils. Ismail Sacranie, a founder of Modestly Active, the manufacturer that designs burkinis, told the New York Times that 35% of their clients are non-Muslim. Aheda Zanetti, a Lebanese woman living in Australia who invented the burkini, claims that 40% of her sales are to non-Muslim women. The Western public, which has been romanticizing Islam, is apparently absorbing the pieties of Islamic law. The Spectator called it “a new puritanism” and “why some feminists make common cause with Islam”.

To paraphrase the American writer Daniel Greenfield, the irony of women celebrating their own suppression is both heartbreaking and stupefying.

Europe might soon have to apologize to the Mayor of Cologne, Henriette Reker. She was criticized — denounced — for advising women to keep “at an arm’s length” from strangers to avoid sexual harassment.

If the West keeps on betraying the democratic value of individual freedom on which Western civilization is based, Islamic fundamentalists, like those who imposed burqas on Libyan women, will start imposing them on Western women. They may even begin with those feminist élites who first created the sexual revolution to emancipate women in the 1960s, and who are now infatuated with an obscurantist garment that hides women in a portable prison.

If the West keeps betraying the democratic value of individual freedom, Islamic fundamentalists, like those who imposed burqas on Libyan women, will do the same to Western women. (Photo by Alexander Hassenstein/Getty Images)

 

Categories: "Feminists", Islam and females, Islamisation of Europe, Sharia law and females
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

ISIS Burns 19 Yazidi Girls to Death in Cages for Refusing Sex Slavery

June 13, 2017

ISIS Burns 19 Yazidi Girls to Death in Cages for Refusing Sex Slavery, Front Page Magazine,  Joseph Klein, June 13, 2017

(But as any fool knows, The Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam. — DM)

Don’t count on an American feminist march.

ISIS is Sharia-compliant in the most literal sense. Its fighters are following the example of Muhammad himself, the warrior prophet of Islam who captured slaves in battle and had sex with them. As the prophet was entitled to take advantage of such fruits of battle according to the Koran, so ISIS believes its fighters are entitled as well. Thus, these savages thought nothing of burning 19 Yazidi girls to death in iron cages after the girls had the temerity to resist having sex with their captors. This atrocity was said by local activists to have taken place recently in the Iraqi city of Mosul, which has currently become a battlefield between ISIS fighters and anti-ISIS coalition forces. An eyewitness reported that the burnings took place in front of hundreds of people.

“O Prophet!” the Koran (33:50) instructs Muhammad, in the “words” of Allah, “Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you have paid their Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage), and those whom your right hand possesses – whom Allah has given to you.” The latter bounty from Allah refers to the females taken captive in battle and enslaved.

In an article entitled “ISIS Enshrines a Theology of Rape,” the New York Times reported on the religious sources ISIS fighters have used to justify their rapes of their female slaves. They believe that having sex with their infidel slaves, including with young girls, actually brings them closer to Allah. Indeed, they would pray before and after they raped their victims.

Islamist apologists and so-called “scholars” have sought to refute any interpretation of the Koran that could possibly lend support today for slavery and sexual exploitation of female captives. However, Prophet Muhammad’s own actions and words, which are called “Sunnah” and are part of Sharia law along with the Koran itself, belie such revisionist readings.

Cole Bunzel, a scholar of Islamic theology at Princeton University, is cited in the New York Times article for offering his counterpoint to the revisionists. He appears to believe that ISIS is simply scraping away all the layers of modernist interpretations to return to Islam in its purest original form: “There is a great deal of scripture that sanctions slavery. You can argue that it is no longer relevant and has fallen into abeyance. ISIS would argue that these institutions need to be revived, because that is what the Prophet and his companions did.”

While not manifesting itself yet in the United States in overt support of sexual enslavement of women, Sharia law is creeping into the United States.  Islamic prayers are being held in some public schools, in clear violation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause that has been used to bar Judeo-Christian prayers in the public schools. And in a shocking preview of what may lie ahead for the influence of Sharia law in U.S. courts, a trial court judge in New Jersey refused to issue a restraining order against a Muslim husband who allegedly raped his wife. The trial judge accepted the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant had engaged in sexual relations with the plaintiff against her expressed wishes. However, the judge concluded that the husband lacked criminal intent in this case because “he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.” Fortunately, wiser heads prevailed in the case on appeal and the plaintiff was ultimately granted a restraining order, while the defendant husband was convicted of rape. However, the fact that a judge in the United States could for one moment even consider, let alone rule, that a defendant should be exempted from the operation of a statute intended to protect women against sexual abuse because of his Muslim beliefs is disturbing, to say the least. The tendency of some judges, including some Supreme Court justices, to look at foreign law for guidance in rendering their decisions adds to the concern.

Too many self-proclaimed feminists in the United States have failed to express outrage at the oppression of women that is sanctioned under Sharia law. Instead, they have embraced an ardent defender of Sharia law, Linda Sarsour, who was chosen to serve as a national co-chair of the Women’s March on Washington last January protesting President Trump. She tweeted several years ago that “shariah law is reasonable and once u read into the details it makes a lot of sense. People just know the basics.” As someone wisely asked rhetorically, in reminding Sarsour of her Sharia tweet the day after the Women’s March on Washington, “basics like mutilating people…beating wives… killing apostates…killing rape victims…did i miss anything?”

The Yazidi sex slaves have learned the grisly details of Sharia law in operation the hard way. They have suffered the most barbaric forms of sexual violence at the hands of their masters, who have credibly argued that they are simply following in the footsteps of Prophet Mohammad and complying with Sharia law in its purest, most literal form.

Categories: Islam and females, Islamic State, Mohammad and females, Sharia law and females
Tags: , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Pro-Sharia feminist’s views defy reality

June 7, 2017

Pro-Sharia feminist’s views defy reality, Rebel Media via YouTube, June 3, 2017

(Warning: “Islamophobic” content. — DM)

 

Categories: Feminists, Sharia law and females
Tags: ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Sharia Down Under

May 29, 2017

Sharia Down Under, Gatestone Institute, Judith Bergman, May 29, 2017

Recently, Australia adopted stricter vetting rules for immigrants to avoid admitting those who harbor hostile Islamic views. Evidently, this measure comes several decades too late: Those who harbor hostile Islamic views were let in a long time ago. Now, what will Australia do about those who are there?

***********************************

Sharia law, the president at the time of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils ludicrously argued, far from discriminating against women, “guarantees women’s rights that are not recognised in mainstream Australian courts”.

The Australian Federal Police investigated 69 incidents of forced or under-age marriage in the 2015-16 financial year, up from 33 the previous year. While there are no official numbers, it is estimated that there are 83,000 women and girls in Australia who may have been subjected to female genital mutilation (FGM).

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, which has spent the past four years probing numerous religious organizations, has made no inquiries into Islam. The commission has held 6,500 one-on-one private interview sessions with survivors or witnesses making allegations of child sexual abuse within institutions, but only three sessions in relation to Islamic institutions.

What legacy did Australia’s former Grand Mufti, Sheikh Taj Din al-Hilali — named “Muslim Man of the Year” in 2005 and the country’s most senior, longest-serving (1988-2007) Muslim cleric — leave behind?

In 1988, when Hilali was imam of the largest mosque in Australia, he gave a speech at Sydney University in which he described Jews as the cause of all wars and the existential enemy of humanity.

In July 2006, he called the Holocaust a “Zionist lie” and referred to Israel as a “cancer”.

In October 2006 — insinuating that the long prison sentences handed to Sydney’s Lebanese gang-rapists for attacking young teenage girls in the year 2000, were unfair — he compared Australian women who do not wear the Islamic veil to meat left uncovered in the streets and then eaten by cats. During his long career, Hilali also praised suicide bombers as heroes and called the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States “God′s work against oppressors” and “the work of 100 percent American gangs”.

At the time, Hilali’s principal adviser and spokesperson, Keysar Trad, wrote, “The criminal dregs of white society colonised this country and… the descendants of these criminal dregs tell us that they are better than us.” Trad subsequently served as president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils — the national umbrella organization, which represents Australian Muslims at national and international level — from July 2016 until May 2017.

According to Australian senator Cory Bernardi:

“In 2009, the New South Wales Supreme Court found that Mr. Trad ‘incites people to commit acts of violence’, ‘incites people to have racist attitudes’ and is a ‘dangerous and disgraceful individual’… When talking about the gang rape of young women in Sydney by a group of Lebanese men… Mr. Trad … described these types of perpetrators as ‘stupid young boys’… Mr. Trad did not condemn Sheikh Hilali’s disgraceful comments about women being ‘uncovered meat’ in a speech about rape. Instead Mr. Trad chose to defend that speech and the sheikh’s comments”.

In February, Trad told Sky News presenter Andrew Bolt that an angry husband can beat his wife as “a last resort” but should only use his fists against her once he sees that “counselling” — chocolate and flowers, according to Trad — does not work.

Trad also called for the introduction of polygamy in Australia. He said that taking a second wife was “an alternative to divorce”, as, “in our religion, god hates divorce”.

Recently, in May 2017, after an emergency election, Rateb Jneid replaced Trad as president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils.

Since 2011, Ibrahim Abu Mohamed, who does not speak English and relies on translators, has been the Grand Mufti of Australia. In 1995, before moving to the West, Abu Mohamed wrote:

“The West does not bring to us any good, all they bring are their diseases, their designs and their shortcomings… They insist to impose on us their corrupt values, and their philosophy and mannerism, the very things which brought disease, fear, crime and stress to them, the very things which severed ties and broke relationships.”

According to the Daily Telegraph:

The Grand Mufti’s views were also laid bare… with the release of details of a book he wrote saying non-Muslims wanted their women to walk around ‘exposed as a piece of sweet pastry … ­devoured by the eyes of men'”.

In December 2012, Abu Mohamed led an Australian delegation of Muslim scholars to the Gaza Strip, where they met senior Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh. Abu Mohamed told local news agencies:

“I am pleased to stand on the land of jihad to learn from its sons and I have the honor to be among the people of Gaza, where the weakness always becomes strength, the few becomes many and the humiliation turns into pride”.

In 2013, Grand Mufti Abu Mohamed visited sheikh Yusuf al-Qara­dawi, spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, in Qatar. Qaradawi advocates suicide bombings; has urged the world’s Muslims to fight in Syria and has said that killing people who leave Islam is essential, as Islam would otherwise disappear.

After the Paris attacks in November 2015, Abu Mohamed implied that the ISIS atrocities were partly caused by “Islamophobia”, saying:

“It is… imperative that all causative factors such as racism, Islamophobia, curtailing freedoms through securitisation, duplicitous foreign policies and military intervention must be comprehensively addressed.”

With Muslim leaders such as former Grand Mufti Hilali, former president of the Association of Muslim Councils, Kayser Trad, and current Grand Mufti Ibrahim Abu Mohamed, it should hardly come as a surprise that sharia — and indeed jihad — have made significant inroads in Australia. In 2011, the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils sent a submission to the Federal Parliament’s Committee on Multicultural Affairs, asking for Muslims to be able to marry, divorce and conduct financial transactions under the principles of sharia law. Sharia law, the president at the time of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils ludicrously argued, far from discriminating against women, “guarantees women’s rights that are not recognised in mainstream Australian courts”.

Although polygamy is illegal in Australia, a study in 2011 found that, “Valid Muslim polygynist marriages, lawfully entered into overseas, are recognized, with second and third wives and their children able to claim welfare and other benefits”. When former Prime Minister Tony Abbott called for action after learning about the issue, he was told that it would cost more to pay the wives the single parent benefit. Centrelink, the Australian authority responsible for welfare and other benefits, said that it did not hold data based on polygamous relationships or religion, and that Islamic marriages are not registered. The problem of unregistered Islamic marriages and social welfare fraud is a familiar issue in Europe.

Last year, a 14-year-old Melbourne girl was forced to marry Mohammad Shakir, 34, in a ceremony at a Victoria mosque. In March, Shakir pleaded guilty to a criminal charge of forced-marriage. Ibrahim Omerdic, the Melbourne imam who performed the Islamic wedding ceremony, is also due to appear in court on criminal charges.

Muslim Australian girls, some allegedly as young as nine, have also been taken overseas, or are being threatened with it, and forced to become child brides. A nine-year-old girl reported that she would be taken to Afghanistan to marry, while others were told they would be forced to marry cousins of their parents when they turned 13. In 2012, a 16-year old refugee girl from Afghanistan was flown to Pakistan for a “family holiday” and forced to marry a man she had never met.

The Australian Federal Police investigated 69 incidents of forced or under-age marriage in the 2015-16 financial year, up from 33 the previous year. In the 2013-14 financial year, only 11 cases were investigated. Government agencies are said to consider the figure of 69 potential recent cases the tip of the iceberg, with many girls “too fearful to contact police”. A government child-welfare hotline has received more than 70 calls for help in the past two years, mainly from concerned teachers, counsellors and school principals. Forced marriage was criminalized in March 2013 in Australia. However, the law is not retroactive and marriages entered into prior to the law are beyond the authorities’ jurisdiction, meaning those girls are almost certainly lost.

Female genital mutilation (FGM) is another Islamic practice that has recently come to public notice in Australia. In March 2016, three people, among them the mother and a Muslim cleric, were sentenced in Sydney for their role in the female genital mutilation of two seven-year-old sisters. While there are no official numbers, it is estimated that there are 83,000 women and girls in Australia who may have been subjected to FGM. 1,100 girls are born every year to women who may have had FGM, which means that their daughters are also at risk of being subject to FGM.

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, which has spent the past four years probing numerous religious organizations, including Catholics, Anglicans, Pentecostals, Jews, Jehovah’s Witnesses and obscure cults numbering a negligible amount of members, such as new age ashrams, has made no inquiries into Islam. The commission has held 6,500 one-on-one private interview sessions with survivors or witnesses making allegations of child sexual abuse within institutions, but only three sessions in relation to Islamic institutions.

Four Islamic terrorist attacks, including the Lindt Café siege in Sydney in December 2014, in which the manager and a mother of three were killed, have taken place in Australia. Eleven attacks have been foiled, including planned public beheadings. This statistic does not include the January 2017 car-ramming in Melbourne. The driver, Dimitrious Gargasoulas, murdered six people, including children, and wounded 20 others, when he plowed his car into pedestrians. Even though a witness claimed that Gargasoulas was shouting “Allahu Akbar”, police refused to treat the event as a terrorist attack and even allegedly told a reporter to remove her interview with the witness from the internet. Gargasoulas had apparently converted to Islam prior to the attack and told the judge in a subsequent court hearing, “Your Honour, did you know the Muslim faith is the correct faith according to the whole world?”

Recently, Australia adopted stricter vetting rules for immigrants to avoid admitting those who harbor hostile Islamic views. Evidently, this measure comes several decades too late: Those who harbor hostile Islamic views were let in a long time ago. Now, what will Australia do about those who are there?

A mosque minaret in Sydney, Australia. (Photo by Cole Bennetts/Getty Images)

 

Categories: Australia, Islam and females, Islam and human rights, Islam and Jews, Islam in Australia, Islamic immigration, Islamic integration, Islamisation of Australia, Islamist objectives, Islamophobia, Sharia law, Sharia law and females
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Chris Christie Vetoes Ban on Underage Marriages

May 14, 2017

Chris Christie Vetoes Ban on Underage Marriages, PJ Media, Michael Walsh, May 14, 2017

AP Photo/Julio Cortez)

Islamic religious customs have no place in western society, and especially not in American society. But there are a lot of Muslims in New Jersey.

***********************************

Creeping shariah creeps ever closer:

A high profile Republican governor has declined to sign into law, a measure that would have made his state the first to ban child marriagewithout exception.  Chris Christie, the governor of New Jersey and someone who has been a staunch supporter of Donald Trump, said such a ban would conflict with religious customs. He did not specify what religions he was referring to.

Reuters said underage marriage is widespread in the US, where about 170,000 children were wed between 2000 and 2010 in 38 of the 50 states where data was available. Although age 18 is the minimum for marriage in most of the nation, every state has legal loopholes allowing children to wed. The New Jersey bill would have prohibited any marriage of children under age 18.

Politico has more:

Gov. Chris Christie on Thursday conditionally vetoed a bill ( A3091) that would have banned outright all marriages for minors in New Jersey. Instead, the governor proposed putting more restrictions on New Jersey’s current law, which allows 16- and 17-year-olds to obtain marriage licenses with parental consent, and grants them to those under 16 with a family court judge’s permission.

“I agree that protecting the well-being, dignity, and freedom of minors is vital, but the severe bar this bill creates is not necessary to address the concerns voiced by the bill’s proponents and does not comport with the sensibilities and, in some cases, the religious customs, of the people of this State,” Christie said in his veto message.

The top sponsor of the measure was Republican Assemblywoman Nancy Munoz, who said at a committee hearing last year that she introduced it bill after hearing “compelling” stories of minors forced into marriages for religious reasons. The bill passed the Assembly and Senate with overwhelming support.

Islamic religious customs have no place in western society, and especially not in American society. But there are a lot of Muslims in New Jersey.

In case you’re wondering, Christie is term-limited out of office this year.

Categories: Child marriage, Chris Christie, New Jersey, Sharia law and females
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Sharia-Advocate Sarsour to Give Graduation Address at CUNY

April 23, 2017

Sharia-Advocate Sarsour to Give Graduation Address at CUNY, Clarion Project, Meira Svirsky, April 23, 2017

(Caution: “Islamophobic” article. — DM)

Linda Sarsour speaks at a “Women for Syria” rally in NY. (Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Pro-sharia activist Linda Sarsour was chosen to give the commencement speech by a division of CUNY, (City University of New York).

CUNY is part of the public university system of New York City, and the largest urban university in the United States.

Sarsour was selected chosen to give the address to CUNY’s Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy at their June 1 ceremony. Sarsour was recently arrested in New York for blocking traffic along with other protesters outside the Trump International Hotel in New York City. She had been warned several times by police officers before being removed for disorderly conduct.

Sarsour was one of the main organizers of the Women’s March on Washington following U.S. President Donald Trump’s inauguration.

Her “credentials” include:

“sharia law is reasonable and once u read into the details itmakes a lot of sense. People just know the basics.”

“Sharia law is misunderstood & has been pushed as some evil Muslim agenda.”

“If you are still paying interest than Sharia Law hasn’t taken over America. #justsaying.”

“You’ll know when you’re living under Sharia Law if suddenly all your loans & credit cards become interest free. Sound nice, doesn’t it?”

  • Belittling the lack of women’s rights in Saudi Arabia. Sarsour tweeted:

“10 weeks of PAID maternity leave in Saudi Arabia. Yes PAID. And ur worrying about women driving. Puts us to shame.”

  • Belittling other activists who stand against sharia law. Sarsour tweeted: “Brigette Gabriel=Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She’s asking 4 an a$$ whippin’. I wish I could take their vaginas away – they don’t deserve to be women.”
  • Activist in campaign to discredit Clarion Project’s film Honor Diaries, which showcases the struggle of nine women’s-rights activists, some Muslim some not, as they campaign against honor violence and female genital mutilation.
  • Supporter of the Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) anti-Israel movement

Categories: Academia and Islamists, Academia and the left, BDS, Islamists in America, Linda Sarsour, Sharia law, Sharia law and females
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Sharia Councils and Sexual Abuse in Britain

April 14, 2017

Sharia Councils and Sexual Abuse in Britain, Gatestone Institute, Khadija Khan, April 14, 2017

As bad as this is, there is an even darker side to the story: Under sharia law, the second husband is under no obligation to give his wife a quick divorce – allowing him to keep her as his virtual sex slave for as long as he wishes.

If one asks how all of this jibes with British law, the answer is that it does not.

The UK-based NGO, Muslim Women’s Network, penned an open letter — with 100 signatories — to the British government and Home Affairs Select Committee demanding that the Sharia Council be investigated to determine whether its practices adhere to British law. In response, the Sharia Council declared the letter to be “Islamophobic” and accused the Muslim Women’s Network of being an anti-Muslim organization.

It is British law, not sharia, law that protects Muslim individuals and couples, as it does any other citizen. Contrary to what apologists for this travesty say, the plight of Muslim women should be treated as an issue of human rights.

 

The most recent scandal surrounding the sexual exploitation of Muslim women by Islamic religious leaders in the UK is yet further proof of the way in which Britain is turning a blind eye to horrific practices going on right under its nose.

A BBC investigation into “halala” — a ritual enabling a divorced Muslim woman to remarry her husband by first wedding someone else, consummating the union, and then being divorced by him — revealed that imams in Britain are not only encouraging this, but profiting financially from it. This depravity has led to many such women being held hostage, literally and figuratively, to men paid to become their second husbands.

This ritual, which is considered a misinterpretation of Islamic sharia law even by extremist Shi’ites and Saudi-style Salafists, is practiced by certain Islamic sects, such as Hanafis, Barelvis and Deobandis. When a husband repeats the Arabic word for divorce — talaq — three times to his wife, these sects consider a Muslim marriage null and void. For such a woman to be allowed to return to the husband who banished her, she must first marry someone else — and have sex with him — before the second husband divorces her.

These divorce rites, despite the laws of the land, are common in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and other Asian countries, where a majority of the people belong to the Hanafi, Barelvi or Deobandi sects. Nevertheless, local seminaries, mosques and online services openly advertise and promote halala with impunity; it is accepted by society and rarely monitored by state authorities.

In Britain, halala has emerged as a booming business, with websites and social media sites offering to provide women with second husbands for exorbitant sums of money. As bad as this is, there is an even darker side to the story: Under sharia law, the second husband is under no obligation to give his wife a quick divorce — allowing him to keep her as his virtual sex slave for as long as he wishes.

One Muslim woman, who changed her mind about going through with halala after looking into the process, told the BBC that she knew others who did undergo the process, and ended up being sexually abused for months by the second husbands paid to marry them. According to a report in The Guardian, the Sharia Council of Britain says it deals with hundreds of divorce cases annually.

This infamous council is indirectly responsible for what essentially has become a rape pandemic, since it does nothing to stop or refute halala. In fact, it declares that the practice is completely legal under sharia law. The only caveat, the council states, is that the imams presiding over it are not following the proper guidelines, according to which the second marriage and divorce should not be premeditated, but rather happen naturally.

If one asks how all of this jibes with British law, the answer is that it does not. But young Muslims in the UK are discouraged by their communities from marrying through the British system, and are told to have imams perform their weddings and sharia councils register their marriages. Couples who comply end up being at the mercy of Islamic authorities in family matters, including divorce.

Due to its often unethical practices conducted in the name of religious law, the Sharia Council has come under scrutiny a number of times. Last November, for instance, the UK-based NGO, Muslim Women’s Network, penned an open letter — with 100 signatories — to the British government and Home Affairs Select Committee demanding that the Sharia Council be investigated to determine whether its practices adhere to British law.

In response, the Sharia Council declared the letter to be “Islamophobic” and accused the Muslim Women’s Network of being an anti-Muslim organization. In addition, Labour MP Naz Shah jumped to the defense of the Sharia Council, rejecting the idea of an inquiry, on the grounds that shutting down such councils could mean that more women would be stuck in abusive marriages.

While acknowledging that these councils could be used as a tool to deny women their rights, Shah said that they also serve as valuable arbitrators in marital disputes.

Her claims are totally baseless. It is British law, not sharia, law that protects Muslim individuals and couples, as it does any other citizen.

Haitham al-Haddad is a British shari’a council judge, and sits on the board of advisors for the Islamic Sharia Council. Regarding the handling of domestic violence cases, he stated in an interview, “A man should not be questioned why he hit his wife, because this is something between them. Leave them alone. They can sort their matters among themselves.” (Image source: Channel 4 News video screenshot)

Had the British government addressed Sharia Council malpractice when it was first revealed, we would not be facing this pandemic today. Contrary to what apologists for this travesty say, the plight of Muslim women should be treated as an issue of human rights.

It is time for the British government to wake up and take a tough stand on such unethical, and probably illegal, system. And the sooner the better, lest the whole sharia council system go “underground” and out of reach to protect thousands of women from abuse.

Categories: Britain and Islamists, Britain and Sharia law, British law, Sharia courts, Sharia law and females
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Terrorist-tied co-chairman of Women’s March relies on the stupidity of liberal American females to push Sharia

January 23, 2017

Terrorist-tied co-chairman of Women’s March relies on the stupidity of liberal American females to push Sharia, American Thinker, M. Catharine Evans, January 23, 2017

(Oh well. H/t Vermont Loon Watch

camels

— DM)

Linda Sarsour, the radical Muslim activist who helped organize the national Woman’s March this past Saturday, is a ‘nasty’ interloper hoping to spread the oppression of Sharia Law to American women. In her speech, she told the crowd, Muslims have been victimized and are suffering under American government oppression.

How mind-bendingly ludicrous. Logically, Sarsour should be there to criticize Islam which treats girls and women as non-human slaves with absolutely no rights. Instead, her speech was anti-American, anti-Trump and anti-Israel which I suspect was the whole agenda behind the well-organized, well-funded marches across the country.

Sarsour, the executive director of the Arab American Association of New York(AAANY), set up shop selling the myth of Islamophobia soon after 9/11. She is a hijab-wearing pro-Hamas Islamic supremacist with an in-your-face attitude. In 2004, she admitted in a Columbia University publication that her brother-in-law was serving a 12-year sentence in Israel after being accused of Hamas-related activities.  Sarsour also stated she herself had been questioned by authorities in the U.S. and that her Palestinian husband, who had been  here for seven years, faced deportation hearings. No wonder she was honored by the Obama White House as a “champion of change.”

In a 2008 interview with Tyra Banks about people’s reaction to traditional Muslim clothing, Sarsour responded:

 I’m so sick and tired of the ignorance in this country, the fear…If you’re afraid some Muslim guy’s going to bomb the plane, take the damn bus.(video)

Like her infidel sisters at the DC March, Sarsour likes using the ‘F’ word.  In her 2011 YouTube performance of the “Hijabi Monologues, ” Sarsour takes a page out of Al Sharpton’s playbook. She claims she suffered all kinds of anti-Muslim abuse growing up in Brooklyn. It makes her “angry and tired” when people ask her where she’s from.

“Do you not see me?… I’m tired…My name is Linda…F**k you, what the f**k is your problem asshole, where the f**k are you from?”

At 17, Sarsour wed in an arranged marriage but this kind of anti-feminist Muslim patriarchal oppression of women hearkening back to the 7th century doesn’t seem to present any problem for the marchers. Men marrying little girls, genital mutilation, stoning, and denial of human rights are simply ‘cultural differences.’ For the dimwitted Madonnas and Judds out there, Sarsour represents diversity, not subversive assimilation into a feminist movement for the express purpose of enslaving them under Sharia as well.

Sarsour’s ties to far-left groups and individuals, in addition to terrorist organizations, helps her attract all sorts of radicals to her cause. She hangs out with communist Harry Belafonte, referring to him as Mr. B, Black Lives Matter activists, Mustafa Abdullah, an organizer with the St. Louis chapter of the ACLU and others. Her connections enabled Sarsour to be effective in helping to halt NYPD’s surveillance of mosques. Her latest act, getting hundreds of thousands of stupid American females to show up with vagina hats to protest a new President who promises to crack down on Islamic radicals like herself. At the same time she was working the crowd, tying repressive hijabs on their heads.

It was quite a victory for the America-hating Sarsour.

Categories: Islamists in America, Linda Sarsour, Sharia law and females, Trump inauguration, Women's march
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Why the UK’s Sharia Courts Should Be Banned

December 20, 2016

Why the UK’s Sharia Courts Should Be Banned, Investigative Project on Terrorism, Abigail R. Esman, December 20, 2016

(Please see also, Sharia Councils: Taking Liberties. – DM)

1920

They are married off at 15 to men they’ve never met, men who may beat and rape them, or who do not permit them to leave the house. Or they marry out of love, only to learn their new husband has another wife, or plans to take one.  And so they seek counsel – and escape – not through lawyers and the traditional courts, but through sharia councils, and not in Kabul or Islamabad, but in Manchester and London.

Now officials in the United Kingdom are questioning whether such councils violate secular laws and discriminate against the women who come to them for help.  While still Home Secretary last March, before she became Prime Minister, Theresa May initiated the first of an ongoing series of investigations into Britain’s so-called “sharia courts.”

Subsequent hearings have brought the issues into the public eye, but so far they have failed to provide any real resolution. Some sharia court opponents contend that they force women to remain in abusive marriages, or deprive them of their legal rights regarding division of property and other matters. In contrast, some proponents insist that too many Muslim women would be forced to stay in abusive relationships if these tribunals were shut down.

“If I went to an English court, [my ex-husband] would say ‘where is their right to decide about my life?'” one Muslim woman told the BBC. “Now he can’t say anything because the decision has been made using sharia law, and we all believe in that.”

Moreover, an estimated 30 to 40 percent of British Muslim marriages are religious, not civil – a fact which in itself deprives these wives of many of their legal marital rights. Such marriages can be dissolved only through the tribunals.

But opponents, such as Iranian-born activist Maryam Namazie, argue that the tribunals, “are linked to the rise of the Islamist movement.” Others echo her views, such as Women and Sharia Law author and Zurich University Professor Elham Manea, who claims that the first such councils were established by Islamist groups.

There is some validity to this claim: the first British sharia council was established in 1982 by the Islamic Sharia Council, a Luton-based organization currently led by controversial imam Suhaib Hasan. Among Hasan’s many claims to fame are his lectures, available on YouTube, which he says “expose” the Jewish conspiracy to destroy Christians.

Moreover, while the official count of the councils in the UK is set at 32, think tank Civitas has estimated the real number at 85, suggesting that many operate in the shadows. How conservative or how westernized they may be in their mediations is impossible to know. Of the councils that are officially recognized, most are affiliated with mosques. Others hold connections to the Islamic Sharia Council, which also offers counseling “in accordance with the Holy Qur’an and authentic sunnah,” and “anger management” sessions that teach clients to “deal with the situation in a way that is most pleasing to Allah.”

According to France 24, 90 percent of the cases before Britain’s sharia tribunals involve divorce. But Algerian activist Marieme Hellie Lucas told Namazie in an interview, “The ‘laws’ used by so called ‘sharia courts’ are not [even] religiously inspired. They are just the choice that fundamentalists implement between contradictory (even antagonistic) customs, mores, and conservative religious interpretations.”

In fact, Lucas says, “”fundamentalists are the ones who create, sometimes ex-nihilo [from nothing], the dilemma ‘faith vs. women’s rights,’ while many progressive theologians state that they see no contradiction.” Hence, Lucas maintains, allowing such tribunals comes down to favoring “the Muslim fundamentalist extreme-right agenda to the detriment of universal rights.”

Additionally, UK sharia expert Denis MacEoin has found many of the tribunals’ rulings “advise illegal actions and others that transgress human rights standards as they are applied by British courts.”

Women who have had experience with UK sharia tribunals echo concerns raised by MacEoin and Lucas.

For example, one widow told the Independent that subsequent to her husband’s death, her sons had insisted she sell her home and give the money to them. A sharia tribunal had evidently told them that “in English law, I own the house I live in, but this is not the way in Islam.” Despairing, she added, “what is this new Islam that can threaten to take the roof from the head of an old woman like me?”

And in a four-year investigation of British sharia councils, human rights activist Elham Manea “found clerics that ignored marital rape, condoned wife beating, and believed girls of 12 or 13 were old enough to marry,” the Independent reports.  No wonder, then, that MEP Baroness Sheela Flather, in written testimony to a Parliamentary panel investigating the tribunals, argued that laws that apply “to white people [should] apply to everyone. “It is racism,” she declared, if they do not.

Despite these facts, many continue to maintain that banning these tribunals could do as much harm as good. Rather, they advocate oversight and reform of the existing councils to ensure that they reflect and administer equal rights under secular laws. “Though some scholars argue that a civil divorce should count as an Islamic one, this hasn’t been widely accepted yet within the Muslim communities,” Muslim Women’s Network UK director Shaista Gohir told VICE news recently.

But herein lies the core of the problem. Indulging those who do not accept the authority of civil over religious law does nothing to help integrate those who espouse such beliefs. Instead, this approach extends a kind of exceptionalism to Muslims, especially fundamentalist Muslims, permitting them to exist outside of civil law, while lending support to radical beliefs that the laws of the land do not apply to them: only sharia does.

True, as Namazie has observed, “Abolishing Sharia courts and parallel legal systems will not solve all the problems at hand; criminalising FGM or domestic violence has not ended them either. It will however make very clear what is acceptable and what is not and will underline a commitment to gender equality.”

Which is why allowing the oppression of Muslim women in our communities to continue is not protecting Muslim rights, or even Muslim identity. Therefore, banning these sharia “courts” is necessary. If we do not demand equality for women and the respect for one secular, civil law in our society for all, who will?

Categories: Britain and Sharia law, Sharia courts, Sharia law, Sharia law and females, Sharia law and German law
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries