"About two-thirds of Muslim marriages are not being registered under the Marriages Act, which is illegal"

More on British sharia courts.

"About two-thirds of Muslim marriages are not being registered under the Marriages Act, which is illegal," said Neil Addison, a barrister specialising in the law on religion. "A woman with such a marriage would have no choice but to go to a sharia tribunal … But it's not the way arbitration is supposed to work."

MacEoin said: "By demanding marriage under Muslim law, the divorce is determined by the man saying 'I divorce you' three times. Divorce under Islamic law also affects the wife's entitlement to alimony, custody of children, and who keeps the family house. These will all be decided by sharia law and will be discriminatory towards the woman in all cases."...

Many Muslim lawyers have compared the operation of sharia courts to the Jewish beth din, which also operate as arbitration tribunals under UK law, a comparison which is questioned by the report.

The report disputes the comparison. "These courts are not operating within the same disciplines as the beth din", said Addison. "The beth din acknowledge that 'the law of the land is the law.' and a rabbi cannot perform a synagogue marriage ceremony unless a registrar is present to simultaneously register the marriage under English law."

"Imams and mosques are performing marriage ceremonies that are not registered under English law," Addison added. "They are the only religion that are doing it … Hindus and Sikhs have registered their temples under the Marriages Act."

No Revolution For Iranian Women

Mrs. Mousavi's legacy

In the last week or so I've written a lot about the "Revolutionary Hero" Mir Hossein Mousavi, whose "revolution" in Iran would in fact entail not much in the way of change at all.

However, it seems that the problems do not end with Mousavi - his wife is just as bad. Zahra Rahnavard, according to University of Connecticut Professor Kazem Kazerounian, "was key in enforcing the strict Islamic dress code (Hejab) on women. She had a major role in forming 'Gasht-e Khaharan-e Zeinab', the female street police units that harass women to enforce 'Islamic behavior.'” You can see some footage of these fascist "police" in action here.

Rahnavard was also the author of a book entitled "The Beauty of Concealment and the Concealment of Beauty", which can be read online here. Below are a couple of highlights.

First of all, the insistence on the wearing of the hijab, presented as a "beautiful" act:

Today most of the young women and girls, who have adopted hejab in toto and have been completely enamoured by it, have reached the truth that concealment in entirety is beautiful.

Then there is the support for Khomeini and Islamic theocracy:

In fact, however, (under the illuminating and guiding leadership of Imam Khomeini), millions of common womenfolk have returned to their divine nature, to the dignity of their own Self, and under the loving patronage and protection of the Islamic Republic of Iran we are advancing towards preparing the ground for new legislation, so that on the basis of the Islamic laws and precepts suitable laws may be framed for this period of time for the rights and true worth of the womenfolk in order that all the oppressed women of the world may come to realize that the only way of their deliverance is the path of Islam and not the Capitalist, humanist or Communist ideologies, and that the only guarantee for materializing this objective is the Islamic revolution.

And then, of course, there is the anti-Western hate-preaching:

You, bloodsucking Oppressors...My hejab which is by itself now an Islam personified says that it will crush you. It tells you that it is an avowed enemy of you, the ruling regimes, you the corrupt politicians, you the chosen of the strong, you Pharoahs, Croesuses, imperialists, and (their) stooges. It warns you that in this world you shall be punished by the weak masses and on the Day of Judgement shall be subjected to eternal torture of Hell.

I picture Islam with my hejab, give it a positive form. I revolt against you. With my Islam, my hejab, and my struggle every day I bring closer the death of you, of your class and of your system...

Recently, some on the Right have stated a willingness to forgive the Mousavi family their past sins, accompanied by speculation that if he was to come to power now, he would jettison oppressive sharia laws and genuinely stand for "justice" and "equality". There have been some signs of hope from the "reformers" - for example, people shouting "Death to the Islamic Republic!" - but I still see no reason to accept that there is any kind of organised, Westernising reform in the offing right now.

Britain Has 85 Sharia Courts

Would YOU trust them with your wife?

It's even worse than we feared.

At least 85 Islamic sharia courts are operating in Britain, a study claimed yesterday.

The astonishing figure is 17 times higher than previously accepted...

However, they operate behind doors that are closed to independent observers and their decisions are likely to be unfair to women and backed by intimidation, a report by independent think-tank Civitas said.

How have we let it get to this point?

Mr [Denis] MacEoin said: 'Among the rulings we find some that advise illegal actions and others that transgress human rights standards as applied by British courts.'

Examples set out in his study include a ruling that no Muslim woman may marry a non-Muslim man unless he converts to Islam and that any children of a woman who does should be taken from her until she marries a Muslim.

Further rulings, according to the report, approve polygamous marriage and enforce a woman's duty to have sex with her husband on his demand.

All of this is, indeed, part of sharia, and is not disputed by any major school of thought, so all the while sharia courts remain in this country, these are the rulings that will be enforced.

The report added: 'The fact that so many sharia rulings in Britain relate to cases concerning divorce and custody of children is of particular concern, as women are not equal in sharia law, and sharia contains no specific commitment to the best interests of the child that is fundamental to family law in the UK.

'Under sharia, a male child belongs to the father after the age of seven, regardless of circumstances.'

It said: 'Sharia courts operating in Britain may be handing down rulings that are inappropriate to this country because they are linked to elements in Islamic law that are seriously out of step with trends in Western legislation.'

Very true. And I must say, it's excellent to hear someone in the mainstream referring to just sharia and Islamic law - not "extremists" or "a strict form of sharia law". This is sharia, and that must be recognised if we are to assert the superiority of our own values over it.

The sharia courts in the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal are recognised as courts under the Arbitration Act. This law, which covers Jewish Beth Din courts, gives legal powers to a tribunal if all parties involved accept its authority.

The comparison to Jewish Beth Din courts is deceitful because Jewish law is applied in a much more circumscribed manner, and at its height Jewish law only ever applies to Jews. Islamic law, on the other hand, applies to EVERYONE, and there is no easy separation of the parts which deal with "family" law from the parts that involve murdering apostates and other grizzly things. And the record shows that whenever sharia is implemented to any extent anywhere - such as in Swat Valley, Pakistan - this is always followed by calls for more. To allow ANY part of sharia law into Britain is to play into the hands of the significant minority of British Muslims who want ALL of it here, including, for example, Anjem Choudary and his gang of fanatics, as well as the 40% of British Muslims who want to replace the British legal system with sharia.

Jews are well-behaved in comparison.

Philip Davies, Tory MP for Shipley, said: 'Everyone should be deeply concerned about the extent of these courts.

'They do entrench division in society, and do nothing to entrench integration or community cohesion. It leads to a segregated society.

'There should be one law, and that should be British law. We can't have a situation where people can choose which system of law they follow and which they do not.

'We can't have a situation where people choose the system of law which they feel gives them the best outcome. Everyone should equal under one law.'

I'm glad you think so, Mr. Davies.

But here comes the whining:

The Muslim Council in Britain condemned the study for ' stirring up hatred'.

A Muslim's favourite word: "hatred". Often it applies to an imaginary "Islamophobia" displayed on the part of infidels. But just as often it applies to Muslim attitudes towards those same infidels.

A spokesman said: 'Sharia councils are perfectly legitimate. There is no evidence they are intimidating or discriminatory against women. The system is purely voluntary so if people don't like it they can go elsewhere.'

I am sure the evidence to the contrary will be forthcoming.

Jihadist Website Discusses Eating the Flesh of Infidels

From MEMRI.

"If we are forced to eat Americans, let's make them into a gunpowder-flavored kabsa with some hors d'oeuvres made of apostates."

But of course, "the slaughtering needs to be according to the shari'a".

It's almost as if Islam is not a Religion of Peace.

More on Mousavi the "Reformer"

Mullah Lite

Here's a statement attributed to the "reformist" Iranian Presidential candidate Mousavi. Note in particular this admission: "We are not up against our sacred regime and its legal structures; this structure guards our Independence, Freedom, and Islamic Republic. We are up against the deviations and deceptions and we want to reform them; a reformation that returns us to the pure principles of the Islamic Revolution."

Reform! Change!

Next, here's an interview with Mousavi on al-Jazeera in which he is asked about the Iranian Mullahs' avowals to "wipe Israel off the map". He replies:

Right from the beginning, I objected to that phrase. We believe in the sovereignty of the people. Look at what happened in South Africa and Rhodesia. People voted and changed the system. The only way out is to refer to the true inhabitants of Palestine.

Note that he doesn't repudiate the Mullahs' intentions - he only objects to the way they phrased them. And he repeats the standard Islamic jihadist line that Muslims are the "true inhabitants of Palestine", despite the centuries of Jewish and pre-Jewish habitation of that land, and despite the fact that Islam has no direct religious claim to Jerusalem at all.

Allahu akbar!

Finally, here are the details on Mousavi's involvement in the 1983 Beirut massacre against the US embassy and Marine Corps.

Viva La Revolution!

On Banning the Burqa

"The veil restricts women. It stops them achieving their full potential in all areas of their life, and it stops them communicating. It sends out a clear message: 'I do not want to be part of your society.'"

Saira Khan (a contestant on The Apprentice, apparently), a British Muslim woman herself, has written a piece in the Daily Mail today, endorsing French President Sarkozy's recent call for the burqa to be banned in Western countries. The following are extracts from the article, accompanied by my own comments and analysis.

In London, I see an increasing number of young girls, aged four and five, being made to wear the hijab to school.

Which, of course, explodes the myth that Muslim women only ever choose to wear the burqa, and are never coerced into it.

Shockingly, the Dickensian bone disease rickets has reemerged in the British Muslim community because women are not getting enough vital vitamin D from sunlight because they are being consigned to life under a shroud.

Indeed. Here is more information.

Thanks to fundamentalist Muslims and 'hate' preachers working in Britain, the veiling of women is suddenly all-pervasive and promoted as a basic religious right. We are led to believe that we must live with this in the name of 'tolerance'.

And yet, as a British Muslim woman, I abhor the practice and am calling on the Government to follow the lead of French President Nicolas Sarkozy and ban the burkha in our country.

The veil is simply a tool of oppression which is being used to alienate and control women under the guise of religious freedom.

It is telling that only a Muslim can get away with saying something like this is a British newspaper (although don't be surprised if the Muslim "outrage" comes pouring in soon). Such is the stultifying and damaging effect of political correctness and multiculturalism.

I have read the Koran. Nowhere in the Koran does it state that a woman's face and body must be covered in a layer of heavy black cloth. Instead, Muslim women should dress modestly, covering their arms and legs.

Actually, Qur'an 24:31 says: "And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women's nakedness."

This verse is not very specific about what should be covered, but contrary to Ms. Khan's claim, nowhere does it rule out a full-body covering.

So what should be covered? Muhammad made this clear in a hadith: “Asma, daughter of Abu Bakr, entered upon the Apostle of Allah wearing thin clothes. The Apostle of Allah turned his attention from her. He said: O Asma, when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this, and he pointed to her face and hands.” (Abu Dawud b.32, no.4092)

In another tradition, a woman with a veil over her face came to see Muhammad, looking for her son, who had been killed in battle. Muhammad asked her: “You have come here asking for your son while veiling your face?” She responded: “If I am afflicted with the loss of my son, I shall not suffer the loss of my modesty.” Pleased, Muhammad told her: “You will get the reward of two martyrs for your son,” because “the People of the Book have killed him.” (Abu Dawud b.14, no.2482)

The classic Qur'an comentary called the Tafsir al-Jalalayn agrees that verse 31 means that when in public women should cover “all that is other than the face and the hands.” The modern scholar Said Ramadan al-Buti also states confidently that “Muslim teachers unanimously agreed in every generation that the woman should cover all her body except her hands and face, that is without any make up, from strangers.”

So covering the entire head and body is a requirement for Muslim women. Then again, other scholars mandate full face covering, as well. The Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyya, often referred to by Muslims as the Sheikh al-Islam, or learned elder of Islam, says: "Allah commands women to let the jilbab come down (over their faces) so that they will be known (as respectable women) and not be annoyed or disturbed...‘Ubaydah al-Salmani and others stated that the women used to wear the jilbab coming down from the top of their heads in such a manner that nothing could be seen except their eyes, so that they could see where they were going. It was proven in [the hadith] that the woman in ihram [making the pilgrimage] is forbidden to wear the niqab and gloves. This is what proves that the niqab and gloves were known among women who were not in ihram. This implies that they covered their faces and hands.”

Finally, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the founder of the Hanbali school of jurisprudence, believed that "every part of a woman is awrah, even her nails. It was narrated in the hadith, ‘The woman is awrah,' This includes all of the woman." Awrah refers to the parts of the body that are not meant to be exposed in public.

The veil restricts women. It stops them achieving their full potential in all areas of their life, and it stops them communicating. It sends out a clear message: 'I do not want to be part of your society.'

Good point.

Every time the burkha is debated, Muslim fundamentalists bring out all these women who say: 'It's my choice to wear this.'

Perhaps so - but what pressures have been brought to bear on them? The reality, surely, is that a lot of women are not free to choose.

Another fair point, although it is difficult to gauge how many British women are truly forced into wearing the veil. But we do know that sometimes Muslims make even non-Muslim women wear the headscarf. That's out in the open, so imagine what goes on in private.

And behind the closed doors of some Muslim houses, countless young women are told to wear the hijab and the veil. These are the girls who are hidden away, they are not allowed to go to university or choose who they marry. In many cases, they are kept down by the threat of violence.

All of this is a product of Muslim cultural norms, derived from the Qur'an and Islamic law, and there is plenty of evidence that many Muslims are bringing such attitudes with them into Britain. The latter ("the threat of violence") derives directly from Qur'an 4:34: "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all). (Qur'an 4:34) The word "lightly" in there, by the way, is not in the original Arabic, but was added by the translator, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, to make the verse seem more palatable to Western eyes.

Precisely because it is impossible to distinguish between the woman who is choosing to wear a burkha and the girl who has been forced to cover herself and live behind a veil, I believe it should be banned.

I am in agreement.

Two years ago, I wore a burkha for the first time for a television programme. It was the most horrid experience. It restricted the way I walked, what I saw, and how I interacted with the world.

It took away my personality. I felt alienated and like a freak. It was hot and uncomfortable, and I was unable to see behind me, exchange a smile with people, or shake hands.

Does this mean that if Muslim women choose to wear this oppressive garb, they are masochistic? It would appear that way. They have certainly been indoctrinated by a culture that denies them the freedom to express their sexuality, and they have come to believe that they deserve to be denied this freedom.

My message to those Muslims who want to live in a Talibanised society, and turn their face against Britain, is this: 'If you don't like living here and don't want to integrate, then what the hell are you doing here? Why don't you just go and live in an Islamic country?'

Amen. I have come to suspect that part of the reason is because many (but by no means all) Muslims have come to Britain with the express intention not of assimilating, but of imposing Islamic laws and customs on their host country. Islam, after all, is not a religion that allows for compromise.

Obama's Feeble Grip On Iran and Reality

A couple of interesting opinion pieces in the media today on the Iran situation, particularly focusing on Borat Obama's feeble-handed and feeble-minded response to it.

First, Wes Pruden in the Washington Times:

So only a churl would rain on the parade of the brave and the bold, but a realist can see the limits of the romantic view of what's going on inside Iran. The most important of the losing candidates, Mir Hossein Mousavi, was no doubt cheated of many votes - maybe enough to have been cheated out of the presidency. But as sad as that is, the greater danger for America and the West is that the boiling rage in the streets will divert attention from what's most crucial, most urgent and most important. Stopping the Iranian bomb, not correcting theft of an election, is what counts most...

The rage in Tehran's streets suggests that time may be running out for a brutal regime, but that same clock is ticking for Barack Obama and what to do about the Iranian bomb. A reprise of the Cairo speech won't work; the Muslims are masters of endless, empty rhetoric themselves, and know how to figure the discount on words. The consequences of taking out the Iranian nuclear works, or enabling Israel to do it for him, would be awful, exceeded only by the consequences of allowing the mullahs in Tehran to get their bomb. Then everybody in Arabia would want one. The Saudis would buy one from Pakistan; certain intelligence sources say a deal is already in the works to deliver it once an Iranian bomb is in place. If the Shi'ites have a bomb, it's only logical, as logic is measured in that miserable corner of the world, for the Sunnis to get one. Every thuggish eighth-century theocracy must be fully armed.

The implications are frightening and easily measured, even by a timid White House. Mutually assured destruction kept the Cold War confrontation between Washington and Moscow in check, with one or two close calls, because both East and West had something to lose. The prospect of Sunnis and Shi'ites shooting it out with nuclear weapons, with nothing to lose but each other, is not a happy one. Dealing with it will require something with more firepower than a teleprompter.

And then Christopher Hitchens at Slate (via FrontPage):

Want to take a noninterventionist position? All right, then, take a noninterventionist position. This would mean not referring to Khamenei in fawning tones as the supreme leader and not calling Iran itself by the tyrannical title of "the Islamic republic." But be aware that nothing will stop the theocrats from slandering you for interfering anyway. Also try to bear in mind that one day you will have to face the young Iranian democrats who risked their all in the battle and explain to them just what you were doing when they were being beaten and gassed. (Hint: Don't make your sole reference to Iranian dictatorship an allusion to a British-organized coup in 1953; the mullahs think that it proves their main point, and this generation has more immediate enemies to confront.)...

Coexistence with a nuclearized, fascistic theocracy in Iran is impossible even in the short run. The mullahs understand this with perfect clarity. Why can't we?