Sharia Law Recognized By British High Court In ‘Landmark Ruling’

Sharia law has been recognised by the British High Court for the first time after a judge made a "landmark ruling".

 The judge heard that the Pakistani couple, Mrs Akhtar and her businessman husband Mohammed Shabaz Khan, had lived in London, Birmingham and Dubai. They had taken part in a sharia law ceremony at a restaurant in Southall, west London, nearly 20 years ago. Mrs Akhtar said the ceremony was conducted by an imam before about 150 guests.

What does this precedent mean for sharia law in Britain?

 In the high-profile case in the High Court, Mrs Akhtar and her businessman husband Mohammed Shabaz Khan were deemed to have a valid marriage. The court’s recognition of sharia law means Nasreen Akhtar will be free to bring her case to the divorce court and claim her share of the assets of her marriage.

 The case will have significant implications for women who marry under sharia law but not UK law and could give them the right to divorce their husbands and split the assets related to the union, as well as securing a divorce more easily.

 More widely, the ruling provides support to Islamic extremists trying to claim parts of the country as their own fiefdoms, subject to their own arbitrary laws.

Sharia police patrolling European streets, enforcing strict Islamic law, including the banning of alcohol.

 There are thought to be at least 100 sharia law courts operating throughout the UK, dispensing Islamic justice outside the remit of the British legal system. “Sharia-controlled zones” have sprung up around the country, with “sharia religious police” patrolling streets to enforce the local population obey the radical Islamic law.

Abu Izzadeen, an Islamic extremist, declares a sharia law zone in a north London suburb.

 Express reports: When Canadian liberals tried to make rulings in sharia courts legally binding in 2004 the idea was quickly abandoned after protests from Muslim women. They said the very reason they had come to Canada was to escape sharia law in their homelands.

 The same is true in Britain — those who have most to fear from sharia law are not white, Christian families but Muslims themselves, especially women.

 Yet it has been left to a crossbencher in the House of Lords, Baroness Cox, to table a Private Members’ Bill on sharia law which would make it an offence, punishable by up to five years in jail, for sharia courts to misrepresent their powers or pressurise anyone into accepting their judgments.

 If the Government does not like Baroness Cox’s law it should pass its own legislation. When Parliament passed the 1996 Arbitration Act it did not envisage that Islamicists would use it to establish a system of sharia courts and there is no reason why it cannot be revised to exclude them.

 The alternative as we have seen this week is for the Government to sit back while extremists try to claim parts of the country as their own fiefdoms, subject to their own arbitrary laws.

It is a disgrace that a country so outwardly committed to human rights should allow this to happen.

Views: 16

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Another glitch mode by the British.




Political Cartoons by Tom Stiglich

Political Cartoons by Pat Cross


ALERT --> Florida Democrats Urged Voters To Submit Absentee Ballots After Election Day Using Altered Forms


 Florida Democrats urged voters to submit absentee ballots after Election Day, using an official form that had been altered to make it look like they were doing so within the legal deadline, hoping a judge would later allow the votes.

That attempt to add Democratic votes, which critics say is possible election fraud, was reported Thursday morning by Ana Ceballos of the Naples Daily News, who notes the scheme has already been reported to federal prosecutors.

Ceballos reported:

A day after Florida’s election left top state races too close to call, a Democratic party leader directed staffers and volunteers to share altered election forms with voters to fix signature problems on absentee ballots after the state’s deadline.

The altered forms surfaced in Broward, Santa Rosa, Citrus and Okaloosa counties and were reported to federal prosecutors to review for possible election fraud as Florida counties complete a required recount in three top races.

But an email obtained by the USA TODAY NETWORK-Florida shows that Florida Democrats were organizing a broader statewide effort beyond those counties to give voters the altered forms to fix improper absentee ballots after the Nov. 5 deadline. Democratic party leaders provided staffers with copies of a form, known as a “cure affidavit,” that had been modified to include an inaccurate Nov. 8 deadline.

One Palm Beach Democrat said in an interview the idea was to have voters fix and submit as many absentee ballots as possible with the altered forms in hopes of later including them in vote totals if a judge ruled such ballots were allowed.

Election Day was November 6.

A decision Thursday by federal judge Mark Walker, a Barack Obama appointee, will allow voters to correct mismatched signatures on mailed-in and provisional ballots until Saturday. Republicans have appealed.

Republicans are already crying foul over Democrats’ efforts to overturn GOP victories in the races for governor and U.S. Senate by suing local election authorities to include votes that were improperly cast (or not cast).

Election officials in Broward County and Palm Beach County failed to comply with state laws and court orders regarding the counting and reporting of outstanding ballots, leading to speculation about efforts to tamper with the results.

Democrats have countered by claiming that Republicans do not want every vote to be counted.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service