Watching Britain Lose Its Freedom

Today’s U.K. Mail Online posted an article about the introduction of Sharia Law into the British legal system.

The article reports:

Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, an organisation that campaigns for strict separation of the state from religious institutions and equality of religion before the law, says the move is a backwards step that undermines British justice.

He said: ‘The UK has the most comprehensive equality laws in the world, yet the Law Society seems determined to undermine this by giving approval to a system that relegates women, non-Muslim and children born out of wedlock to second class citizenship.

‘Instead of running scared at any mention of sharia, politicians of all parties should face these issues square on and insist on the primacy of democratically-determined human rights-compliant law.

‘Laws determined by Parliament should prevail over centuries-old theocratic laws. We should have One Law for All, not allowing any law to operate which disadvantages any sections of the community.’

Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch points out some of the problems with Sharia Law:

Under ground-breaking guidance, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether.

The documents, which would be recognised by Britain’s courts, will also prevent children born out of wedlock – and even those who have been adopted – from being counted as legitimate heirs.

Anyone married in a church, or in a civil ceremony, could be excluded from succession under Sharia principles, which recognise only Muslim weddings for inheritance purposes.

…Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said: “This guidance marks a further stage in the British legal establishment’s undermining of democratically determined human rights-compliant law in favour of religious law from another era and another culture. British equality law is more comprehensive in scope and remedies than any elsewhere in the world. Instead of protecting it, The Law Society seems determined to sacrifice the progress made in the last 500 years.”

Lady Cox said: “Everyone has freedom to make their own will and everyone has freedom to let those wills reflect their religious beliefs. But to have an organisation such as The Law Society seeming to promote or encourage a policy which is inherently gender discriminatory in a way which will have very serious implications for women and possibly for children is a matter of deep concern.”

This is a serious step toward undermining the freedom of the citizens of Britain. Sharia Law includes such things as executing people for converting to Christianity and stoning rape victims. If the British embrace part of Sharia Law, will they be able to avoid having to live with all of the law.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Results Of Sharia Law

Sharia Law is the justice system of Islam. It discriminates against women in the way it regards the testimony of a man versus the testimony of a man, and it allows for honor killing–the murder of a family member for improper behavior. Sharia Law does not allow religious freedom and treats non -Islamic members of society (if it allows them to live) as second-class citizens. It prohibits Bibles, crosses and Christian literature. It also preaches anti-Semitism. It is the law of the land in Saudi Arabia, and soon may be the law of the land in Egypt.

One of the uglier sides of Sharia Law has recently come to light in Saudi Arabia. The Washington Examiner reported on Sunday that Fayhan al-Ghamdi, an Islamic cleric who killed his five-year-old daughter because he suspected that she was not a virgin, has been released from prison.

The article reports:

Saudi media reports say Fayhan al-Ghamdi, a frequent guest on Islamic TV programs, was arrested in November on charges of killing the girl. The reports said he questioned the child’s virginity.

Saudi media say he was freed last week after serving a short prison term and agreeing to pay $50,000 in “blood money” to avoid a possible death sentence.

That is the face of Sharia Law.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Democracy As We Know It Has Ended In Egypt Before It Even Began

Democracy in some countries means one election one time and no further voting. In Egypt it took three elections–one for the President and two for the constitution. The Australian reported today that the second vote on the constitution in Egypt will cement the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim Brotherhood issued a statement saying:

“The Egyptian people continue their march towards finalising the construction of a democratic modern state, after turning the page on oppression,” the Brotherhood’s political arm, the Freedom and Justice Party, said in a statement.

This will mean the end of the Coptic Christians in Egypt. They will no longer have the freedom to worship that they previously enjoyed.

The article reports:

Rights groups say the charter limits the freedoms of religious minorities and women, while giving the military too much power.

Mr Morsi had to split the voting over two successive Saturdays after more than half of Egypt’s judges said they would not supervise the polling stations.

We will now be watching Egypt become an Islamist state similar to Iran. Sharia Law will eventually be instituted. This does not bode well for peace in the Middle East.

Enhanced by Zemanta

An Interesting Development In Egypt

Fox News is reporting today that the Islamist parliament in Egypt has been dissolved by Judges appointed by Hosni Mubarak. The Judges have ruled that Mubarak’s former prime minister can run in the runoff election this weekend. A victory by the former prime minister would allow the military and the remnants of the old regime to stay in power.

The article reports:

The rulings effectively erase the tenuous progress from the past year’s troubled transition, leaving Egypt with no parliament and concentrating rule even more firmly in the hands of the military generals who took power after Mubarak’s ouster. The fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, which stands to lose the most from the rulings, called the moves a coup and vowed to rally the street against the ruling military and former prime minister Ahmed Shafiq, the presidential candidate seen by critics as a favorite of the generals and a symbol of Mubarak’s autocratic rule.

In the past (as in after the assassination of Anwar Sadat) when an Egyptian leader was removed from power, the top person in the military simply took over. There was some belief that when Hosni Mubarak was removed from power, the country would transition to a democracy. That does not seem to be happening. The elections that gave the Muslim Brotherhood a majority were legal, but the danger is that the history of the Muslim Brotherhood is one election to declare democracy and no elections after that. If the Muslim Brotherhood gains full control of Egypt, there will be no freedom for the Egyptians. Sharia Law (the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood) is incompatible with freedom and democracy.

The article further reports:

The dissolution of parliament now raises the possibility the military council could appoint the panel, a step that would fuel accusations that it is hijacking the process.

The legal adviser of the Freedom and Justice Party, the Brotherhood’s political arm, said the court rulings were “political,” lamenting the outgoing legislature as the country’s “only legitimate and elected body.”

“They are hoping to hand it over to Ahmed Shafiq and make him the only legal authority in the absence of parliament. The people will not accept this and we will isolate the toppled regime,” Mukhtar el-Ashry said in a posting on the party’s website.

A moderate Islamist and a former presidential candidate, Abdel-Moneim Abolfotoh, said the rulings amounted to a “coup” and warned that the youth, pro-democracy groups that engineered the uprising that toppled Mubarak last year would protest the court’s rulings.

A military take-over of Egypt is unfortunate for those who wish to see freedom and democracy in Egypt; however, the election of the Muslim Brotherhood to the presidency and the majority of the parliament will also mean the end of freedom and democracy. There really is no good choice for the Egyptian people.

 
 

 

 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Acceptable Assualt and Battery ?

Andrew McCarthy posted a story at National Review Online today about some recent events in Australia.  A 25-year-old Moroccan named Canan Kokden was assaulted, abducted and nearly killed by her brother-in-law, Ismail Belghar, a 36-year old Muslim. The reason for the assault–she had taken her older sister, Belghar’s wife, to the beach without his permission. Things got worse when Mrs. Belghar’s shoulders showed signs of sunburn–indicating that she had therefore “displayed her body.”

The article reports:

In the usual endearing family way, Belghar telephoned his sister-in-law to convey that he was a tad rankled: “You s**t, how dare you take my wife to the beach!” Afterwards, happening upon Ms. Kokden at a shopping mall in New South Wales, he angrily confronted her, slapped her face, and dragged her to the railing of an over-ground parking lot. As he seemed ready to hurl her to the traffic below, her brother (Kokden’s chaperone at the mall) finally stirred himself to intervene, tackling the assailant. Belghar was charged with attempted murder, among other crimes.

As night follows day, Belghar’s defense counsel argued that his client could not get a fair trial because Australians are too Islamophobic: Once informed about the nature of the allegations and the fact that he is a Muslim, jurors would surely leap to the crazy, bigoted conclusion that Belghar was probably guilty of this “honor beating” — which, in fact, he was. Just as he was, precisely, motivated by his Islamic beliefs.

That is what Sharia Law looks like. Notice that Ms. Kokden was at the shopping mall with her chaperone–thank goodness–that is the only reason she is alive today! The article points out that Mr. Belghar has not adapted to the culture of Australia–he is still functioning under the rules of the country (and religion) of his country of origin. The question is, “How accommodating should western countries be to Sharia Law?” I guess part of the answer to that may depend on whether you are a man or a woman!

The Muslim attempt to bring Sharia Law into the legal systems of western countries is called “cultural jihad.” Sharia Law is incompatible with true democracy (it does not allow for religious freedom for anyone or personal freedom for women). There have been a number of attempts to impose Sharia Law in America, please read the entire article at the National Review to see how these cases were handled.

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Is Not Something America Should Be Supporting In Any Way

Chief Justice Shinwani from the Supreme Court ...

Image via Wikipedia

I probably would not qualify as a feminist by today’s standards. I believe women should be able to do any job they are qualified for and should be paid equally for their work, but the current definition of feminism has left that concept far behind. However, I have very strong ideas about how women should be treated. Some of those ideas come from spending part of my childhood in the American south, where chivalry and manners can still be found. Thus, I was very disturbed when I read the following article.

The Toronto Star posted an article today about recent comments by President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan.

The article reports:

In remarks made Tuesday, Karzai backed a “code of conduct” written by the Ulema Council of 150 leading Muslim clerics. It could dramatically restrict women’s daily lives and threaten a return to the dark days of Taliban rule.

“Men are fundamental and women are secondary,” the council said in its statement released last week, and later published on Karzai’s own website.

…It says women should not travel without a male guardian or mingle with men in public places such as schools, offices or markets. It also allows wife-beating in the case of a “sharia-compliant” reason, although it rejects forced marriage and the bartering of women to settle disputes.

In Kabul, Karzai said that the council had not put “any limitations” on women, and that it was only stating “the sharia law of all Muslims and all Afghans.” But some Muslim scholars have disputed the clerics’ strict interpretation.

This was what Afghanistan was like under the Taliban. I remember the joy when people took out their radios and danced when the American troops arrived. Have the people of Afghanistan forgotten their own recent past?

The article further reports:

Before the 2001 invasion, Afghan women were confined to their homes and forced to wear burkas. Girls were not allowed to go to school, and females could not get medical attention from male doctors.

Since then women have made large strides, returning to work and school, starting businesses and taking part in the political process. But their lives are frequently at risk, and have become more difficult as security has frayed in recent months.

“Sixty-five per cent of the population is under the age of 25, and young women are not prepared to take it any more,” says Toronto author and journalist Sally Armstrong, who has written on Afghan women’s rights. “They are brave, and they march in the street. The message is ‘Karzai must go.’”

Karzai has been backtracking on women’s rights in recent years, as Western countries began to roll up their military operations. By 2014, most will have left the country, although they have pledged to continue support for its development.

President Karzai is hedging his bets because foreign forces are leaving his country, and he is faced with making friends with the Taliban or being literally left hanging. The mistake made early in our dealings with Afghanistan was allowing Sharia Law to be written into the country’s constitution. Until their constitution changes, Afghanistan will never truly be a free country.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Losing Our Focus In The Koran Burning Case

CNS News posted an article today stating that Jan Kubis, head of the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) and secretary-general Ban Ki-moon’s special representative in Afghanistan, has said that the U. S. troops who accidentally burned the Koran should be disciplined. Note that the Koran was accidentally burned.

As Andrew McCarthy pointed out on February 25 (rightwinggranny.com):

The facts are that the Korans were seized at a jail because jihadists imprisoned there were using them not for prayer but to communicate incendiary messages. The soldiers dispatched to burn refuse from the jail were not the officials who had seized the books, had no idea they were burning Korans, and tried desperately to retrieve the books when the situation was brought to their attention.

This is a false issue. Where are the Muslim apologies when they burn Bibles (which they routinely do in Muslim-ruled countries)? To punish these soldiers would be to put Sharia Law above the U. S. Constitution, which they are sworn to defend. Is that really what we want to do?

The article at CNS News points out:

“It was natural that after such a grave mistake we saw expressions on the side of the people of Afghanistan, how they reject this desecration of holy Qur’an,” Kubis said. “We were very glad to notice that the majority of the demonstrations – and they are legitimate and expressions of rejection of this desecration – were peaceful.”

He also criticized the deadly violence, which he said was provoked by “irresponsible elements,” but made no call for the perpetrators to be brought to trial.

So, let me understand this, the soldiers who accidentally burned the Korans that the Muslims had defaced should be punished, but the Afghans who murdered people in cold blood should not be punished? Seems a little one way to me.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

We Are Not Hearing The Whole Story

Today Reuters posted a story about the Christmas day shooting near Dallas, Texas. The story details how Aziz Yazdanpanah, who was estranged from his wife and teenage daughters, killed his family and other relatives that were visiting his family. Yazdanpanah showed up in a Santa suit and started shooting.

Why am I posting this article? Because Reuters and the mainstream press are not telling the entire story.

The Blaze posted a few more details of the story:

In addressing the “honor killing” potential, Jihad Watch quotes Nona Yazdanpanah’s (Yazdanpanah’s daughter) friend, Lacie Reed. The young girl was quoted as saying, “She (Nona) would come to school crying and telling us her dad was crazy. He wouldn’t let her wear certain things. He was always taking her phone away, checking her call history and checking her text messages.”

Reed went on to say that Nona couldn’t date until she was “a certain age” and that she wasn‘t allowed to date anyone outside of the family’s race or religion. In addition to these details, Jihad Watch also claims that Yazdanpanah had installed cameras around the family’s home in an effort to monitor the activities that were going on.

These quotes, in themselves, are not enough to definitively call the murder-suicide an “honor killing.” That being said, the information, should it be true, does cause some questions to emerge.

So far, the Grapevine Police Department has been tight-lipped about the details surrounding the case, so any and all theories regarding motive will have to wait for definitive answering.

We never really have encountered a situation with this many victims that were shot and killed,” Sgt. Roger Eberling said. “We’re still trying to uncover the background here. This is the worst homicide we’ve ever had.”

Under Sharia Law, it is appropriate to kill family members whose behavior has brought shame to the family. That applies to women who have divorced their husbands and wives and daughters who have been westernized. When you consider the fact that the Fort Hood Massacre was declared ‘workplace violence,’ you begin to wonder how honest authorities are being about the source of these murders.

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Looks Innocent But It Isn’t

CBN News reported today on U.N. Resolution 16/18, a U.N. Resolution supported by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The resolution sounds very practical until you examine it closely. The resolution seeks to limit freedom of speech when dealing with Islam.

The Center for Security Policy reports:

The Obama administration started down this ill-advised road by cosponsoring in 2009 an OIC-drafted resolution in the UN Human Rights Council that condemned “defamation of religion” – read, Islam.  That initiative helped advance the Islamists’ twelve-year campaign to “prohibit and criminalize” such defamation in accordance with the “blasphemy laws” that are part of the totalitarian doctrine they call shariah.

Then, as more and more of the Free World began awakening to the danger posed by such efforts to compel them to submit to shariah, Team Obama helped engineer a new document at the Human Rights Council.  Adopted in March, Resolution 16/18 focused, instead of banning defamation, on getting the world’s nations to combat “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization, and  discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons based on religion or belief.”  

The countries in the OIC that are sponsoring this are countries where a person can be put to death for converting to Christianity or encouraging anyone else to become a Christian. Do we really believe that they are for preventing discrimination based on religion?

The article at CBN reports:

Sekulow (Jordan Sekulow, director of policy and international operations for the American Center for Law and Justice) says his organization is fighting to keep the resolution from becoming adopted because it could backfire and be broadly misinterpreted country by country.

“Just the building of churches … having a cross outside your door can be inciting violence,” Sekulow explained.

“So if you let them define these definitions when there is no problem coming from the minority faiths, this is somehow going to ‘green light’ their suppression,” he added.   

We need to remember that freedom of religion is not a right in many countries around the world. Letting a group of countries where freedom of religion does not exist pass a law about religious discrimination is simply not smart–the intentions of those countries may be very different than the intentions of the countries in the world where all faiths are welcome.

Enhanced by Zemanta

What Sharia Law Really Means

News24 reported yesterday that Gulnaz, an Afghan woman who had been jailed when she reported that she had been raped (yes, you read that right), has been pardoned and set free. She was jailed for adultery because she had been raped. She is now in hiding with her daughter, who was conceived in the rape.

An article in the U.K. Telegraph reported on Wednesday:

Violence against women in Afghanistan appears to be increasing rather than decreasing, despite billions of dollars of international aid which has poured into the country during the decade-long war.

The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission logged 1,026 cases of violence against women in the second quarter of 2011 compared with 2,700 cases for the whole of 2010.

Some 87 per cent of Afghan women report having experienced physical, sexual or psychological violence or forced marriage, according to figures quoted in an October report by the charity Oxfam.

Last month, the United Nations said that a landmark law aiming to protect women against violence in Afghanistan had only been used to prosecute just over 100 cases since being enacted two years ago.

This is the legacy of the Taliban-enforced Sharia Law. We have already had honor killings in America by Muslim men. We need to make sure that Sharia Law does not creep into our legal system. 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Islam Is Not A Religion Of Peace (Or Freedom)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OTkJdjVLkrQ/SKWm8L4-srI/AAAAAAAAANg/KVSrkw5vycg/s400/behead+those+who+say+islam+is+violent.jpg

The sign above says is all. Townhall.com posted the above picture at the bottom of an article detailing plans to execute Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani if he refuses to renounce his Christian faith.

An article posted at CBN.com today explains the details:

“As far as we understand, he will be asked again if he wishes to recant,” CSW (Christianity Solidarity Worldwide) press officer Kiri Kankhwende said. “Should he refuse, we understand that he will be facing an execution.”

The article further explains:

“This whole situation, the charges against him and the punishment he’s facing, are illegal — not only by the Iranian Constitution but the international treaties to which Iran is a party to,” Kankhwende said.

The thing that we in America need to realize very quickly is that Islam is neither a religion of peace or a religion of freedom. Under Sharia Law, it is a capital offense to convert to Islam to Christianity. That is not freedom of religion.

The article at Townhall.com points out:

The 11th branch of Iran’s Gilan Provincial Court has determined that Pastor Nadarkhani has Islamic ancestry and therefore must recant his faith in Jesus Christ. Iran’s supreme court had previously ruled that the trial court must determine if Pastor Youcef had been a Muslim before converting to Christianity.

Sharia Law (Islamic Law) and democracy are not compatible. There is an aspect of Islam that is not religious–it is political. In America we have freedom of religion–we do not have freedom to undermine our democracy. That is why any attempt to integrate Sharia Law into American law needs to be turned back forcefully.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

What Have We Done In Libya ?

The Foundry at Heritage.org posted a draft of the proposed constitution of the new government in Libya.

Article I of the General Provisions states:

Libya is an independent Democratic State wherein the people are the source of authorities. The city of Tripoli shall be the capital of the State. Islam is the Religion of the State and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia). Arabic is its official language while preserving the linguistic and cultural rights of all components of the Libyan society. The State shall guarantee for non-Moslems the freedom of practising religious rights and shall guarantee respect for their systems of personal status.

There is a problem with this paragraph. Sharia Law demands the death penalty for anyone who converts from Muslim to Christianity. Sharia Law demands that non-Muslims convert to Islam or do not have full rights as citizens. Sharia Law does not allow for freedom of religion.

Article 6 includes the sentence:

Libyans are brothers and their official relationship shall be based on law rather than tribal, proud or personal loyalty. Libyans shall be equal before the law. They shall enjoy equal civil and political rights, shall have the same opportunities, and be subject to the same public duties and obligations, without discrimination due to religion, belief, race, language, wealth, kinship or political opinions or social status.

The State shall guarantee for woman all opportunities which shall allow her to participate entirely and actively in political, economic and social spheres.

The above two paragraphs are in total contradiction to Sharia Law. As I said, this is a draft of the proposed constitution. Other than the Sharia Law part, it looks really good. The problem is that the Sharia Law part may override all the other parts and turn the country into another Iran.


Enhanced by Zemanta