Sharia law to be enforced in section of the U.K.?

aligator_am

Saw this earlier, sounds like crazy stuff, also, is that Paul Scholes with a beard?

And yeah, I know, it's from the Daily Star, a bastion of superb journalism.
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/200213/Sharia-law-hits-the-UK/

HARDCORE Islamists have vowed to ban booze and mixing between the sexes in new Sharia law enforcement zones across the UK.

The move will see specific areas flooded with thousands of stickers saying “no gambling”, “no music or concerts”, “no porn or prostitution” and “no drugs or smoking”.


The posters declare: “You are entering a Sharia controlled zone – Islamic rules enforced.”


The radicals will kick off their controlled zones in the London borough of Waltham Forest later this month.


They also claim their hardline rules will be policed by thousands of “Sharia cops” on the streets.


Preacher Anjem Choudary has called the scheme an alternative to government attempts to combat violent extremism under the Prevent strategy.


Last night the former al-Muhajiroun and Islam4UK leader warned: “The Prevent strategy introduced by Theresa May is going to be countered in the next couple of weeks beginning in Waltham Forest where there will be a Sharia- controlled zone sticker campaign.


“This will mean this is an area where the Muslim community will not tolerate drugs, alcohol, pornography, gambling, usury, free mixing between the sexes – the fruits if you like of Western civilisation.


“This will be a very heavy leafleting campaign aimed at both the Muslim and non-Muslim community in terms of what the Sharia means economically, socially and politically.


“Waltham Forest, including Walthamstow and Leyton, will also be targeted with a march.


“We want to run the area as a Sharia-controlled zone and really to put the seeds down for an Islamic Emirate in the long term.


“We want to create an area where Muslims can live together, make transactions with each other, and interact between themselves rather than with the wider community.”


The ex-lawyer added: “There are 25 areas around the country which the Government has earmarked as areas where violent extremism is a problem.


“We are going to go to all these same areas and implement our own Sharia-controlled zones.


“This is the best way for dealing with drunkenness and loutishness, prostitution and the sort of thug life attitude you get in British cities.


“We live among the non-Muslims but we have to distinguish ourselves from them.”


In May we told how Choudary had announced plans to set up teams of Islamic “Guardian Angels” to help implement Sharia law across the UK. He reckoned the “Sharia cops” would do a better job of policing Muslim areas than traditional officers.


Choudary said: “We now have hundreds if not thousands of people up and down the country willing to go out and patrol the streets for us and a print run of between 10,000 and 50,000 stickers ready for distribution.”


Last night Jamaal Uddin, 17, was pictured putting up Sharia controlled zone stickers in Walthamstow.


The Muslims Against Crusades member, who said he “embraced Islam” 11 months ago said: “Allah has told us alcohol, drugs, pornography, music and concerts are all forbidden under Islam.


“That is why it is our duty to go out and spread his word among Muslims and the wider community.”

strokemyclover

Clicked on the link - when did Scholesy grow a pair of tits?

KeithAFC

Sounds like nonsense.

craggles

How are newspapers like this allowed to publish that ****

Mickeroo

No porn, prostitution, gambling or drugs?? Can they even legally do that?

RichieC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=winu_C_X5mw

galwayrush

****e law...

chopperbyrne

So basically a bunch of religious nuts will try to use their own laws in some places and will have vigilantes out in force to make sure everyone complies, regardless of their own religious beliefs.

This will only end in violence and sectarianism. Probably inspire muslim extremist to commit acts of terrorism in the UK too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

Chuck Stone

I'd happily knock the shit out of those people if they tried to impose that crap on me and mine.

ejmaztec

It's probably a BNP ruse, hoping that many immigrants will leave the country.

Yeah, but the real police will just come along to put a stop to it, I would hope.

aligator_am

strokemyclover wrote: »

Clicked on the link - when did Scholesy grow a pair of tits?

That's odd, I copied the link from the page with the article on it but when I click link from here some wan appears with her artillery out.

Kevin Duffy

craggles wrote: »

How are newspapers like this allowed to publish that ****

If it's actually happening, rightly or wrongly, why wouldn't they publish the story?

aligator_am

Looks like they've taken down the page from their site.

Mickeroo

aligator_am wrote: »

Looks like they've taken down the page from their site.

They must have saw this thread and known we were on to them.

Kevin Duffy

aligator_am wrote: »

That's odd, I copied the link from the page with the article on it but when I click link from here some wan appears with her artillery out.

It linked to the right article up to 5 mins ago. I can only imagine the rage any interested Muslims are flying into when they view it now.

LondonIrish90

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah, but the real police will just come along to put a stop to it, I would hope.

This is London and the Metropolitan Police, should this sort of situation actually arise they would probably be brought in to make sure no natives reacted to the new vigilante groups.

Looks like the article has been taken down for the time being anyway.

Kensington

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'd happily knock the shit out of those people if they tried to impose that crap on me and mine.

The PC nutjobs would have a field day branding you a racist though!

Mickeroo

AS soon as I saw yerman's pic i thought of Four Lions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVz9_uxogcE

Capt'n Midnight

I'm guessing that this sort of vigilantism is against sharia law.

randylonghorn

Sounds pretty crazy, and pretty illegal, if there's any truth to it.

Also sounds like it's the brainchild of one fanatical convert, rather than in any way mainstream or representative:

The Muslims Against Crusades member, who said he “embraced Islam” 11 months ago ...

dpe

First rule of...anything really. Don't believe anything written in a British tabloid.

Logical Fallacy

Sure your man used to love the ****ing booze.

Gotta hate it when people quit and get all preachy about it.

Ro: maaan!

Kensington wrote: »

The PC nutjobs would have a field day branding you a racist though!

There's a difference between knocking the **** out of someone for trying to impose a way of life onto you, and declaring that you'd happily knock the **** out of someone for doing something of the sort as soon as the topic is raised on a thread. Especially when it's probably a bull**** story about something that will not happen, and applies to a suburb of a city in country that the poster doesn't live in. Unless he does live there. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ where he lives .

Just to point out, I don't have any problem with Chuck Stone or what he said. Just defending pc nutjobs.

pragmatic1

I see nothing but trouble ahead for the auld UK if they dont take serious measures for stuff like this. Funnily enough the Archbishop of Canterbury was in favour of adopting some aspects of sharia law a few years ago.

Chuck Stone

Kensington wrote: »

The PC nutjobs would have a field day branding you a racist though!

They can say what they like.

I just think we need to be a little less tolerant of these cretins who want to roll back hundreds of years of progress.

7sr2z3fely84g5

We might have the angelus banned if happens here :pac:

Overheal

chopperbyrne wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

Most sadly overused youtube snippet ever.

LondonIrish90

pragmatic1 wrote: »

I see nothing but trouble ahead for the auld UK if they dont take serious measures for stuff like this. Funnily enough the Archbishop of Canterbury was in favour of adopting some aspects of sharia law a few years ago.

The most unfortunate thing is that Britain has seen how ethnic tensions have risen so dramatically in France and yet seem very happy to amble along the same path. As has already been said, a divided, sectarian society awaits. And I don't mean just Britain, but much of Europe. Germany, Britain, Denmark, Holland, Belgium etc arent far behind the French. I've said it before and been derided, but my views don't change!

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Overheal wrote: »

Most sadly overused youtube snippet ever.

Its only recently that it seems to have taken over. Shame, its a great Simpsons moment.

jimthemental

Kaleb Scarce Carrot wrote: »

We might have the angelus banned if happens here :pac:

Shouldn't be on anyway, fúcking ring a bell at home if you want to. I want the news at 6 on the dot.

Biggins

This has been known to be going on for some time OP.
I read about this years ago - and since then Panorama has gone and done a documentary about it concerning one area of London.

Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts
September 14, 2008

Here is an old article from The Times (England)
(...before one member jumps down my throat for inserting a Times article)

ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

Siddiqi said: “We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are.”

The disclosure that Muslim courts have legal powers in Britain comes seven months after Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was pilloried for suggesting that the establishment of sharia in the future “seems unavoidable” in Britain.

In July, the head of the judiciary, the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, further stoked controversy when he said that sharia could be used to settle marital and financial disputes.

In fact, Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours.

It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.

Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of “smaller” criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. “All we are doing is regulating community affairs in these cases,” said Siddiqi, chairman of the governing council of the tribunal.

Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.

Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the beginnings of a “parallel legal system” based on sharia for some British Muslims.

Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: “If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so.”

Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: “I think it’s appalling. I don’t think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state.”

There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.

Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.

The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.

Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.

Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.”

Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece

Also see The Guardian: http://tinyurl.com/5hass4 - Sharia law is spreading as authority wanes

A British judge even said it should be used!
See: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031611/Sharia-law-SHOULD-used-Britain-says-UKs-judge.html

Its been well reported by a lot of papers and media:
* http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1687576.ece
* http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7232661.stm
* http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3522
* http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/sep/08091708

dlofnep

Choudary is just a muppet. Sharia law is archaic.

wes

Biggins wrote: »

This has been known to be going on for some time OP.
I read about this years ago - and since then Panorama has gone and done a documentary about it concerning one area of London.

What your saying is hardly the same as what was being claimed in the original article (which has been removed, probably because it was a load of crap).

Also, the courts you describe are no different than the Beth Din, which has existed for over a 100 years. Arbitration courts being used by Religious groups in the UK is nothing new at all. I fail to see why such courts, which have existed in the UK for over a 100 years is now a issue, when Muslims start doing the same thing.

Cookie_Monster

So can we have muslim exclusion zones too, where no muslims are ever allowed go and sex and drinking and debauchery are on open display on the street 24/7

Fratton Fred

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

So can we have muslim exclusion zones too, where no muslims are ever allowed go and sex and drinking and debauchery are on open display on the street 24/7

Isn't it called Temple Bar?

Siuin

wes wrote: »

Also, the courts you describe are no different than the Beth Din, which has existed for over a 100 years.

In fairness, a Beth Din's primary activities are largely limited to deciding what foods are kosher, taking care of birth, marriage, divorce and death rites and dealing with potential converts to Judaism.

Where will the boundaries be for courts imposing Shariah law? Will they still be able to cut off limbs, stone adulterers and execute homosexuals and apostates like their enlightened Middle Eastern counterparts?

wes

Siuin wrote: »

In fairness, a Beth Din's primary activities are largely limited to deciding what foods are kosher, taking care of birth, marriage, divorce and death rites and dealing with potential converts to Judaism.

You will find that the official sharia arbitration courts, will do very much the same.

Siuin wrote: »

Where will the boundaries be for courts imposing Shariah law? Will they still be able to cut off limbs, stone adulterers and execute homosexuals and apostates like their enlightened Middle Eastern counterparts?

There under the exact same rules as the Beth Din.......... I have no idea where you are pull any of this stuff from exactly. All of those things you describe are illegal, under UK law, and the arbitration courts cannot not violate UK law. Again, there no different than the Beth Din.

Siuin

wes wrote: »

There under the exact same rules as the Beth Din.......... I have no idea where you are pull any of this stuff from exactly. All of those things you describe are illegal, under UK law, and the arbitration courts cannot not violate UK law. Again, there no different than the Beth Din.

Judaism may have the same archaic laws in its texts, but you won't find *ANY* Beth Din carrying out the cruel and disgusting practices outlined in Shariah law anywhere- even in Israel. If an Islamic court was to disregard these practices, I would not care whether they were set up or not, but unfortunately extremist vigilantes aren't going to draw a line.

If these people want Shariah law so badly, they can move to one of the dozens of countries which already impose it. It's easy to find them- they're pretty high up on Amnesty International's list of human rights abusers

wes

Siuin wrote: »

Judaism may have the same archaic laws in its texts, but you won't find *ANY* Beth Din carrying out the cruel and disgusting practices outlined in Shariah law anywhere- even in Israel. If an Islamic court was to disregard these practices, I would not care whether they were set up or not, but unfortunately extremist vigilantes aren't going to draw a line.

What are you talking about exactly? The article posted by the OP has been removed, and I have been talking about the official arbitration courts, which do not carry out any of the punishments you describe. They are bound by UK law, so unless you can show me where these official arbitration courts have done any of things against UK law, and have been allowed to do so, then your argument make no sense at all, and you seem to be deliberately having a different conversation that has no bearing on what I was talking about.

The arbitration courts are separate from the vigilante (according to comments, it was one guy, but we can't check as the article was removed, probably due to it being bull****). These are 2 separate things. The arbitration courts are legal, the other is not. I find it hard to believe, you can't tell the difference between the 2.

Siuin wrote: »

If these people want Shariah law so badly, they can move to one of the dozens of countries which already impose it. It's easy to find them- they're pretty high up on Amnesty International's list of human rights abusers

I see no reason why Muslims can't do the same as Jews (and other groups) have done with the Beth Din. The law has existed for over a century. The people using it, haven't made any demands, there just using whats already there.

Also, any kind of violations against UK law by so called vigilantes, have nothing to do with such Arbitration courts, and I am sure they would be tossed in a jail if they tried anything. Again, seeing as the article (from a notoriously unreliable British tabloids) has been removed, I doubt what was described existed in the first place, especially considering the removal.

Siuin

wes wrote: »

What are you talking about exactly? The article posted by the OP has been removed, and I have been talking about the official arbitration courts, which do not carry out any of the punishments you describe. They are bound by UK law, so unless you can show me where these official arbitration courts have done any of things against UK law, and have been allowed to do so, then your argument make no sense at all, and you seem to be deliberately having a different conversation that has no bearing on what I was talking about.

The arbitration courts are separate from the vigilante (according to comments, it was one guy, but we can't check as the article was removed, probably due to it being bull****). These are 2 separate things. The arbitration courts are legal, the other is not. I find it hard to believe, you can't tell the difference between the 2.



I see no reason why Muslims can't do the same as Jews (and other groups) have done with the Beth Din. The law has existed for over a century. The people using it, haven't made any demands, there just using whats already there.

Also, any kind of violations against UK law by so called vigilantes, have nothing to do with such Arbitration courts, and I am sure they would be tossed in a jail if they tried anything.

Arbitration or not arbitration, these courts will still be inkeeping with archaic Islamic practices- will a woman's testimony still be only worth half that of a man's? Will the husband be justified in striking his wife, so long as it doesn't leave a mark? Will children be automatically surrendered to their father in the case of divorce? Will women have to endure a long and difficult process in order to seek a divorce, while her husband can simply send a text? Jewish courts are far from perfect, particularly in regards to a woman attaining a get, but I see nothing positive in introducing a Shariah-based court in Britain. Unless it is an *extremely* diluted and limited version, where the punishment of apostates, those who insult Muhammad, gays and other 'sexual deviants' etc are not under its jurisdiction

wes

Siuin wrote: »

Arbitration or not arbitration, these courts will still be inkeeping with archaic Islamic practices- will a woman's testimony still be only worth half that of a man's? Will the husband be justified in striking his wife, so long as it doesn't leave a mark? Will children be automatically surrendered to their father in the case of divorce? Will women have to endure a long and difficult process in order to seek a divorce, while her husband can simply send a text?

Jewish courts are far from perfect, particularly in regards to a woman attaining a get, but I see nothing positive in introducing a Shariah-based court in Britain. Unless it is an *extremely* diluted and limited version, where the punishment of apostates, those who insult Muhammad, gays and other 'sexual deviants' etc are not under its jurisdiction

Again, what part of they cannot violate UK law, do you not understand exactly? Sorry, but you are on one hell of rant, where you have chosen to ignore the basic fact that the official arbitration courts of both the Sharia and Beth Din, cannot violate UK law. So your questions have already been answered, when you asked them earlier, and received the same answer earlier. FFS, I even said they are bound by UK law, in the post you quoted. Your questions are answered in the post you quoted for goodness sake.

It seems clear that no matter what I say, you are intent on ignoring it, and repeating the same thing over and over again. So have fun with your rant, where you ignore anything and everything being said, when it suits you. I won't waste my time anymore, unless you can show me, where the official arbitration courts are allowed to violate UK law, unless you can show this, then your argument is a lot of nonsense.

Siuin

wes wrote: »

Again, what part of they cannot violate UK law, do you not understand exactly? Sorry, but you are on one hell of rant, where you have chosen to ignore the basic fact that the official arbitration courts of both the Sharia and Beth Din, cannot violate UK law. So your questions have already been answered, when you asked them earlier, and received the same answer earlier.

It seems clear that no matter what I say, you are intent on ignoring it, and repeating the same thing over and over again. So have fun with that.

If these Shariah courts cannot violate UK law, then I can hardly see how they can remain true to Islamic doctrine at all- basically, it would need to be UK law with an Iman in charge- a pointless exercise, really.

wes

Siuin wrote: »

If these Shariah courts cannot violate UK law, then I can hardly see how they can remain true to Islamic doctrine at all- basically, it would need to be UK law with an Iman in charge- a pointless exercise, really.

Arbitration courts of all sorts, tend to free up courts from minor disputes. So not really pointless. As for staying true to Islamic doctrine, those involved seem to think they are doing that, and staying with in UK law. So I fail to see any issue there.

Siuin

wes wrote: »

Arbitration courts of all sorts, tend to free up courts from minor disputes. So not really pointless. As for staying true to Islamic doctrine, those involved seem to think they are doing that, and staying with in UK law. So I fail to see any issue there.

It is impossible to stay true to all the teachings of Islam and conditions of Shariah law without going against basic human rights and laws guaranteeing equality enshrined in the legal systems of Western democracies. Some more progressive and liberal Muslims may, by all means, divert from Islamic practices under the pretense that they 'seem to think' they are staying true to Islamic doctrine. But we cannot kid ourselves that this is *truly* Shariah law in practice

wes

Siuin wrote: »

But we cannot kid ourselves that this is *truly* Shariah law in practice

I think it funny that you seem to think you are the one who get to decide what is and isn't proper Shariah. Are you now going to tell us which is the right version of the various Religions around the world? Surely, those who are practicing there Religions get to decide what is and isn't the correct version.

There are plenty of Islamic sects, with different versions of Sharia, so I think saying one type is correct is rather silly.

Steodonn

Siuin wrote: »

It is impossible to stay true to all the teachings of Islam and conditions of Shariah law without going against basic human rights and laws guaranteeing equality enshrined in the legal systems of Western democracies. Some more progressive and liberal Muslims may, by all means, divert from Islamic practices under the pretense that they 'seem to think' they are staying true to Islamic doctrine. But we cannot kid ourselves that this is *truly* Shariah law in practice

Its not true sharia but its the most they will get in the UK. As has been said they are pretty much the same as the Jewish courts.

Siuin

wes wrote: »

I think it funny that you seem to think you are the one who get to decide what is and isn't proper Shariah. Are you now going to tell us which is the right version of the various Religions around the world? Surely, those who are practicing there Religions get to decide what is and isn't the correct version.

It is made abundantly clear on the Koran what is correct and what is unacceptable in Islam. I simply find it funny that anyone could possibly think that such backwards teachings could ever be in line with the ideals of a free and democratic nation.

wes

Siuin wrote: »

It is made abundantly clear on the Koran what is correct and what is unacceptable in Islam. I simply find it funny that anyone could possibly think that such backwards teachings could ever be in line with the ideals of a free and democratic nation.

Again, I find it funny that you are ignoring the existence of differing Islamic sects, and as such claiming there is one true version of sharia. If the people involved think its proper enough, then I see no reason to say otherwise, as its none of my business either way.

eth0_

I live in the borough beside Waltham Forest and I have seen lots of 'muslims against crusades' stickers and posters in Leyton in Waltham Forest. However, it's still a very small % of Muslims who follow the extremist beliefs of M.A.C, and it's not the most muslim-filled area of London - there's a large Irish population there too.

How exactly to they propose to enforce this law? They can't, and the police will arrest them if they try to.

Siuin

Steodonn wrote: »

Its not true sharia but its the most they will get in the UK. As has been said they are pretty much the same as the Jewish courts.

True, thankfully Muslims won't be able to impose the barbaric Shariah law present in many Muslim-dominated countries. The main difference is that Jewish courts, even when they are in a/the Jewish state, will not decide to lop off hands and heads when they're given wider authority.

wes wrote: »

Again, I find it funny that you are ignoring the existence of differing Islamic sects, and as such claiming there is one true version of sharia.

So do you suggest that there be sunni, shi'a, sufi etc etc courts too? Because right across the Muslim world, these people appear to be kicking the sh!t out of each other, so where does one gather their teachings?