Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Surrender!


Cal Thomas

So this is how it ends: not with a bang, but a whimper.

The most senior judge in England has declared that Islamic legal principles in Sharia law may be used within Muslim communities in Britain to settle marital arguments and regulate finance. Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said, "Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law." In his speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips said Muslims in Britain could use Islamic legal principles as long as punishments - and divorce rulings - comply with English law. Sharia law does not comply with English law. It is a law unto itself.

And so the English who gave us the Magna Carta in 1215, William Blackstone and the foundation of American law are slowly succumbing to the dictates of intolerant Islam and sowing seeds of their own destruction.

The Iranian and Kurdish Women's Rights Organization (IKWRO), an umbrella group of activists who work in Muslim countries to liberate women from the dark side of this oppressive force, according to Womensphere.wordpress.com, identifies Sharia family law as the fundamental basis for discrimination against women in the Muslim world, including communities in the United Kingdom.

Here are just some of the "benefits" British Muslim women can look forward to if Sharia law replaces English law: The Muslim woman cannot marry without parental approval, worsening the problem of forced marriage; marriages can be conducted without the presence of a bride, as long as the guardian consents, creating a climate for underage and early marriage; Muslim women may only marry Muslim men.

It gets worse. A Muslim man can divorce his wife by repudiating her; they have no obligation to support a former wife, or her children after the divorce; women are prohibited from divorcing husbands without his consent; abuse is not grounds for a woman to end a marriage; in matters of inheritance, sons are entitled to twice as much of an estate as daughters.

Divorced women must remain single. If they remarry they can lose custody of their children. There is no similar requirement for a man. Child custody often reverts to the father at a preset age, even if the father has been abusive.

It is impossible to reconcile this antiquated "law" with English law, so what could Lord Phillips mean when he says that Sharia law can be used in Muslim communities as long as such laws comply with English law? This will mean English law must become subordinate to Sharia law. This is Dhimmitude, an Islamic system of religious apartheid begun in the 7th century that forces all other religions and cultures to accept an inferior status once Muslims become the majority.

Maryland's Court of Appeals recently denied a Sharia divorce to a Pakistani man. The man's wife of 20 years had filed for divorce. To circumvent having to share their $2 million estate and other marital assets, he went to the Pakistani embassy and applied for an Islamic divorce. The man wanted to invoke what is known as talaq, in which the husband says, "I divorce you" three times and it's done.

The Maryland court said, "If we were to affirm the use of talaq, controlled as it is by the husband, a wife, a resident of this state, would never be able to consummate a divorce action filed by her in which she seeks a division of marital property" and the talaq "directly deprives the wife of the due process she is entitled to when she initiates divorce litigation. The lack and deprivation of due process is itself contrary to (Maryland's) public policy."

British Muslims who wish to live under Sharia law might have stayed in the countries from which they came - or return to them. But their objective appears to be domination of England, not assimilation. This also seems to be the goal for Muslims in other countries with large and growing Muslim populations.

There is no due process under Sharia law. Lord Phillips has signed the death warrant for his nation if his opinion becomes the law of England. It's one thing to fight a war and lose it. It's quite another to willingly surrender without a struggle.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

hello Doc, apologies for posting this in the comments section here, but I could not find another way to send you this article, which I thought you would find of interest. It is a translation from the original Dutch. Kind regards.

Trouwe magazine interview, 1977
Zuhair Mohsen puts his trust in Syria
We are Palestinians just for a political objective
By James Dorsey

“He is our leader. Many thousands, just like me, believe in him.” This is said by one of the 5 bodyguards of Zuhair Mohsen, leader of the pro-Syrian Palestine guerilla organisation, Al Saika.
Mohsen, who also heads the military operations branch of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, the PLO, and is also a member of the executive committee of the PLO was in Cairo for a meeting of the Palestine National Council.
In spite of the trust his followers put in him and his important position inside the movement (“if I don't urge people to make a decision, they won't) he may not have been totally at ease in Cairo. He was not very cordially treated by his Palestinian friends during the council meetings in Cairo.

Mohsen and his Palestinian guerilla fighters belong politically to the governing Baath party in Syria. Within the PLO he protects Syrian interests. Many within the Palestinian
resistance did not forget the events that took place during the Lebanese civil war when Syrian forces turned against the alliance of the Palestinians and the Lebanese left.
Several clashes occurred there between Al Saika and the largest Palestinian guerilla organisation, Al Fatah.
During that civil war there were repeated rumours that the Damascus regime wished to see PLO leader Yasser Arafat replaced by Mohsen.

AVERSION
In spite of the apparent unity at that Palestine congress between Saika and most other Palestinian groups, many Palestinian leaders did not bother to hide their aversion to Al Saika. A clear sign of strained internal relations appeared when, immediately after the murder of left Lebanese leader Kamal Jumbalatt, the Fatah representative in Cairo, Rihbi Awad, shouted that "the murderers are among us" while pointing in the direction of Mohsen and his followers.

The causes of the differences of opinion within the Palestinian movement have deeper
roots than the war in Lebanon.
In the Ba’athist concept of Arab nationalism, Mohsen stands in fact closer to the “no concession” supporters - a group he describes as romanticists and fascists - than to the ideological program of the Fatah group.

"We believe that first of all the Palestinians should cooperate with Syria and only then with other Arab nations. Only Syria can play an effective role in the conflict against Israel. We cannot operate out of Egypt. Syria is for the Palestinians the most important base, since the beginning of the struggle against the Zionist invaders in 1918."

NOT A PEOPLE
Mohsen's attitude is not so amazing. Listening to his political and ideological views
one cannot suppress the feeling that perhaps much less has changed in the Arabic world
than previously thought. According to Mohsen there is no such thing as a distinct Palestinian people.
"There is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese.
We are part of one nation, the Arab nation. I myself have relatives with Palestinian, Lebanese, Jordanian and Syrian citizenship. We are one people. Just for political reasons
we endorse our Palestinian identity. This is because it is in the national Arab interest to stimulate the existence of Palestinians as opposed to Zionism. Yes, the creation of a distinct Palestinian identity had only tactical reasons. The creation of a Palestinian state is a new means to continue the fight for Arab unity and against Israel.”

The logic of Mohsen is actually quite simple: "Because Golda Meir states that there is no
such thing as a Palestinian people, I say that there is a Palestinian people, different from Jordan."

STRATEGY
Mohsen's strategy, too, is quite simple: “A separate Palestinian entity should protect the
national interests inside the then remaining occupied territories. The Jordanian government cannot speak in name of the Palestinians in Israel, Lebanon or Syria.
Jordan is a country with defined borders. It cannot, for instance, make a claim on
Haifa or Jaffa, while I have rights on Haifa, Jaffa, Jerusalem and Beer-Sheva.
Jordan has jurisdiction only over Jordanians and Palestinians living in Jordan.
A Palestinian state would be entitled to represent all Palestinians in the Arab world
and elsewhere. Once we obtain all our rights in all of Palestine, we should not delay for
one moment the unification of Jordan and Palestine.”

AGREEMENT
Mohsen's analysis of the function of the existence of a Palestinian people is not the
only political tie-in he has with the official Israeli position. One of the Israeli arguments
for retaining the in 1967 occupied territories, is the concept of secure and defensible borders. In spite of the fact that the Arab countries, in their media war against Israel, consistently brush aside this concept, it was in fact the idea of secure borders that
lay at the bottom of Mohsen's defence of Syrian intervention in the Lebanese civil war.
"The Syrians only intervened in Lebanon to stop the hostilities. That was the only purpose of Syria and it succeeded in being accepted as an honest broker by all Lebanese parties. Syria was of the opinion that a renewed war in Lebanon would endanger Syrian
security".

GS Don Morris, Ph.D./Chana Givon said...

Thank you-now posted on Docstalk