While she was home secretary, Theresa May set up an independent inquiry into the operation of Islamic law in the UK as administered by Sharia courts or councils. One witness due to appear before the inquiry was Professor Elham Manea of Zurich university. She is a widely respected expert on Sharia, a Muslim and a campaigner for women’s rights. A few days ago, however, she decided not to give evidence after all.
Brought to London by the Brussels-based European Foundation for Democracy, she said she believed the inquiry would whitewash Sharia. Instead of investigating whether Sharia courts undermined justice and human rights, the inquiry’s terms of reference suggested a prior objective to expand the reach of Islamic law in Muslim communities with a few cosmetic tweaks.
Sharia, she said, was intrinsically fundamentalist and oppressive. “The issue for the inquiry is best practice in Islamic law. But you can’t have best practice of bad law.” [Melanie Phillips, 453 comments]
[TOP RATED COMMENT 196 votes] Melanie Phillips at her absolute best – making a clear distinction between the probity of Jewish religious communities with their respect for the modern law of the land, and the cosseted mediaevalism of Sharia.
[2ND 190] If what Ms Phillips writes is correct, then there is indeed a problem. It is Sharia law that is the problem not the application of ‘best practice’ within it.
[3RD 183] I cannot understand why the British Government tolerates any parallel laws in Britain.
If Ms Phillips is correct the government will face unanswerable questions in the near future. If the government does not know what is going on then they should act quickly, get to the bottom of these enquiries, establish root cause and take action to prevent illegal discrimination.
[4TH 122] Hope you’re reading this Theresa!
[5TH 101] This problem has been staring Europe in the face for three decades or more and the entire continent is in danger of being ruled by Sharia law some time in the next thirty years. Mark Greenwood, where exactly among Jewish and Christian principles does “British Muslim woman “could be treated as a minor, who could be married off as a child, and beaten by her husband, and that would be considered acceptable”.”
[6TH 93] Once upon a time there was immigration. The presumption was that those who joined our society did so on the assumption and presumption that they would assimilate and be accommodated into our way of life.
Then along came the word multiculturalism. Where it came from no-one seems to know.
The assumption of multiculturalism is entirely the opposite of assimilation into the host society.
The premise of multiculturalism is to enshrine in law the rights of other ethnicities, to protect and preserve their own ethnic and religious identities.
Here , in essence is the fatal flaw.
Without any numerical limits to multiculturalism and multi-faithism we have endorsed our own eventual demise as the host.
In a democracy, Parliament becomes the will of the majority. If the majority population outside of parliament becomes a community of diverse ethnicities with no allegiance or loyalty to the values and norms of the host nation, then surely as night follows day, we will have erased our own culture through a process of natural denudation and demographic attrition.
We in effect have allowed a multitude of other nations to colonise our small Island, not only with absolute impunity, but with open arms.
The only word that springs to mind is, Lemmings.
[7TH 90] Sharia and English law are simply incompatible, because they are underpinned by fundamentally different worldviews, history, and priorities. Ban Sharia now or reap the terrible consequences, first for Muslim women, and then for everyone else. [The Times (£)] Read more