Sharia CANNOT Coexist in Western Law


John R. Houk

© February 9, 2018

An email sent by Maryam Namazie via the organization One Law for All addresses how the British government is handling the existence of Sharia courts in the United Kingdom (UK). As of this writing I’m have difficulty connecting with the website. Either http://onelawforall.org.uk/ is having server problems or there might be some kind of IP blocking involved. But the organization’s Facebook page is still up and here is some info from their Facebook About Page:

 

No Religious Laws
One Secular Law for All
Rights are for People not Beliefs

One Law for All was launched in 2008 to campaign against Sharia and religious laws in Britain and around the world. Sharia law is arbitrary and discriminatory against women and children in particular and works against equality, citizenship and secularism.

Under its family code, Sharia law treats the testimony of women as being worth half of that of a man, child custody is decided in favour of fathers regardless of the circumstances, women do not have the unilateral right to divorce as men do and violence against women is endorsed. Under its criminal code, there are over 100 offences punishable by death, including apostasy, homosexuality and adultery. Sharia courts in Britain decide on both civil and criminal matters.

Proponents argue Sharia law is a matter of choice; however, many women are pressured into using these courts. Moreover, violence and discrimination are not legitimate choices.

Whilst the far-Right blames ‘Muslim immigration’ for the implementation of Sharia law, it is READ THE REST

 

One Law for All’s apparent primary purpose is fighting the legitimization of Sharia Law in the UK as a tacit coexistent rule of law. In reality though the organization is Left Wing and is not friendly to any religious faith. This means they would not promote a Christian heritage in the UK.

 

Namazie politically is a Communist. As to religion she is an ex-Muslim atheist from Iran living in the UK. Since I am Christian, I don’t have a problem with Namazie’s virulent anti-Islam stand, BUT she is a militant atheist in which Christianity is on her hate-list too.

 

Nonetheless, Namazie and I are on the same page when it comes to Islam.

 

Namazie is concerned that the UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd has not gone far enough pertaining to rejecting Sharia courts as equal to the British rule of law. As an American, accepting anti-Western (and in the case of the USA – anti-Constitution) Sharia is in my belief must be anathema in our society and rule of law.

 

Here is the Executive Summary Home Secretary Rudd presented to Parliament (the whole pdf is 48 pages):

 

The independent review into the application of sharia law in England and Wales

Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Command of Her Majesty

February 2018

 

Executive summary

 

In May 2016 the independent review into the application of sharia law in England and Wales was tasked with understanding whether, and the extent to which, sharia law is being misused or applied in a way that is incompatible with the law within sharia councils.

 

Sharia is an all encompassing term which includes not only law in the western sense of the word but religious observances such as fasting and prayer, ritual practices such as halal slaughter, and worship in general. Sharia is written jurisprudence and law developed on the basis of a diversity of opinions among jurists in the classical period of Islam. While many aspects of sharia have been modified or modernised in most Muslim countries, in the area of personal law, especially marriage and divorce, many Muslim societies still observe rulings of classical jurisprudence. The word sharia is used in diverse ways by Muslims and this leads to varying degrees of understanding and application.

 

This review was set up to focus exclusively on the work of sharia councils in England and Wales and not to look at sharia practices in general. These councils call themselves sharia councils because they deal with aspects of Islamic law. The review has collected written and oral evidence from a wide range of sources. These include a public call for evidence issued by the review Chair Professor Mona Siddiqui, and oral evidence sessions with users of sharia councils, women’s rights groups, academics and lawyers, as well as other key stakeholders.

 

There is no clear definition of what constitutes a sharia council. Sharia councils vary in size and make up. There is also no accurate statistic on the number of sharia councils, with estimates in England and Wales varying from 30 to 85. To the best of our knowledge, there are no sharia councils in Scotland. For the purposes of this review we are defining sharia councils as a voluntary local association of scholars who see themselves or are seen by their communities as authorised to offer advice to Muslims principally in the field of religious marriage and divorce.

 

Sharia councils have no legal status and no legal binding authority under civil law. Whilst sharia is a source of guidance for many Muslims, sharia councils have no legal jurisdiction in England and Wales. Thus if any decisions or recommendations are made by a sharia council that are inconsistent with domestic law (including equality policies such as the Equality Act 2010) domestic law will prevail. Sharia councils will be acting illegally should they seek to exclude domestic law. Although they claim no binding legal authority, they do in fact act in a decision-making capacity when dealing with Islamic divorce.

 

Common misconceptions around sharia councils often perpetuate owing to the use of incorrect terms such as referring to them as ‘courts’ rather than councils or to their members as ‘judges’.

 

These terms are used both in media articles but also on occasion by the sharia councils themselves. It is important to note that sharia councils are not courts and they should not refer to their members as judges. It is this misrepresentation of sharia councils as courts that leads to public misconceptions over the primacy of sharia over domestic law and concerns of a parallel legal system. The recommendations included in this report, such as changes to marriage law, are designed to promote equality between religions in ways that should challenge misconceptions of a parallel legal system and encourage integration.

 

In collecting its evidence the review looked to examine why sharia councils exist, who uses them and for what reasons. The evidence heard by this review indicates that the vast majority, in fact nearly all people using sharia councils, are women. In most of these cases (our evidence indicates over 90%) the women are visiting the council seeking an Islamic divorce. In attempting to understand what motivates women to use sharia councils the review found that there are many reasons why Muslim women seek an Islamic divorce. A key finding was that a significant number of Muslim couples fail to civilly register their religious marriages and therefore some Muslim women have no option of obtaining a civil divorce.

 

The review sought to understand what occurs at the sharia council and whether and to what extent the practices are discriminatory. The evidence collected by the review indicated a range of practices occurring in the sharia councils. The review found evidence of good practice but also clear evidence of bad practice. Furthermore, there is unanimous agreement among the sharia councils themselves that discriminatory practices do occur in some instances within the councils in England and Wales.

 

From the very beginning, the review panel established the principle that recommendations would be based collectively on the evidence it received rather than the personal opinions of the panel members. While there was broad and respectful consensus on most issues, this report also reflects the particular area where there was a level of disagreement.

 

It should also be noted at the outset that those proposing a ban on sharia councils provide no counter proposal or any solution for anyone seeking a religious divorce. It is clear from all the evidence that sharia councils are fulfilling a need in some Muslim communities. There is a demand for religious divorce and this is currently being answered by the sharia councils.

 

This demand will not end if the sharia councils are banned and closed down and could lead to councils going ‘underground’, making it even harder to ensure good practice and the prospect of discriminatory practices and greater financial costs more likely and harder to detect. It could also result in women needing to travel overseas to obtain divorces, putting themselves at further risk.

 

We consider the closure of sharia councils is not a viable option. However, given the recommendations also proposed in this report include the registration of all Islamic marriages as well as awareness campaigns it is hoped that the demand for religious divorces from sharia councils will gradually reduce over time. These key recommendations address the issue of current discriminatory practices identified within the sharia councils.

 

Here is One Law for All’s response.

 

JRH 2/9/18

Please Support NCCR

*********************

The Independent Review on Sharia

Sharia Laws are part of the extremist threat and not a solution

 

Sent from Maryam Namazie

Sent 2/7/18 5:35 PM

Via http://onelawforall.org.uk/ [My browser timed out connection]

 

Read this email online. [My browser timed out connection]

 

One Law for All rejects sharia review pdf

 

Rt Hon Amber Rudd MP
Secretary of State
Home Office
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF

 

6th February 2018

 

Dear Right Hon Amber Rudd, MP,

 

The Independent Review on Sharia: Sharia Laws are part of the extremist threat and not a solution

 

As black and minority women and human rights campaigners, we voice our dismay at the outcome of the independent review on Sharia laws commissioned by the government in 2016. Although the government has rejected formal recognition (through regulation), the way has been left open for the Sharia courts to continue to exist in a no-man’s land where they continue to produce discriminatory parallel laws while posing as an acceptable alternative dispute mechanism. Now they will be strengthened by a review that has endorsed their existence.

 

At the outset, we feared a whitewash but what we have seen is worse. The review is superficial, narrow and secretive; and completely lacks credibility. We protested when the Home Office appointed a theologian to lead the review and two Imams as advisers. How absurd that the Home Office now claims that the review ‘was not tasked with considering theological issues, for example whether Islam and Sharia law treat women in an unequal way’. Why then appoint three people whose only qualification for the job was their status as religious scholars?

 

Any review that is based on interviewing only eight women and a handful of organisations; and that provoked a boycott from most of the organisations that deal with women adversely affected by religious laws, cannot be considered legitimate. Demands for the acceptance of Sharia laws to govern family matters are part of a wider fundamentalist and ultra conservative goal to normalise profoundly misogynist values in the law and other public spaces. Our front-line experience has found clear evidence that both the intent and the process of the Sharia courts is abusive and discriminatory; that the Sharia bodies are run by organisations with links to extremist organisations; and promote the full range of fundamentalist goals such as strict gender segregation, imposition of hijabs and other dress codes, homophobia, bigotry and discrimination against non-Muslims and Muslim dissenters, blasphemy laws and attacks on apostates.

 

Our research also shows that they do refer to ‘courts’ and ‘Judges’, because of a clear intention of establishing themselves as a parallel law which ‘good Muslims’ must adhere to. The review suggests that that they are ‘Councils’ only and thus sanitises them.

 

In order to arrive at its conclusions, the reviewers conducted no investigation and ignored evidence that would have undermined their conclusions. They ignored the wider political fundamentalist drive to undermine human rights. They also ignored a considerable body of evidence submitted to the Home Affairs Select Committee in Parliament by members of our coalition and others. For instance, Maryam Namazie submitted two statements in evidence which contained details of statements made by Islamic law ‘Judges’, that exposed their wider political agenda. Knowing that hate speech and discriminatory speech is regularly erased from websites once it has been exposed, she had taken screenshots of their statements. She stated in conclusion, ‘despite all efforts to package Sharia’s civil code as mundane, its imposition represents a concerted attempt by Islamists to gain further influence in Britain’. If the reviewers did not wish to draw on our submissions, they could have applied some diligence and researched it themselves. Why did they not do so?

 

The coalition also gathered detailed testimony from many women. Unlike the reviewers, we did not ask for evidence solely from women who had experience of sharia courts, although we met and interviewed many who had tried to get a divorce under ‘sharia law’, were deeply traumatised by the experience and experienced further violence and abuse of their rights. We also published and put in evidence to parliament, a devastating letter signed by over 300 abused and marginalised women from all religious backgrounds expressing their fear of being controlled by religious laws.

 

Sweeping statements are made about the “choice” that Muslim women make to approach such councils without giving any consideration to the highly constrained religious context in which that “choice” is made. The review is utterly silent on the crucial concept of ‘zina’ (sex outside marriage), the grave sin punishable by death in many Muslim countries. It is fear of ‘zina’ which compels many women, even those with civil divorces to seek an Islamic divorce. Procedural changes in sharia councils will not diminish their role in spreading this concept; to which they provide the only ‘solution’. That is why use of Sharia bodies is increasing. Evidence before the Home Affairs Select Committee makes clear that fundamentalists insist that a civil divorce cannot be final. Yet earlier generations of women had civil marriage (as well as a Muslim marriage contract) and were satisfied with a civil divorce. Increased religious bullying is a major reason for women’s recourse to sharia, not simply their ‘conscience’. Indeed, the form of Sharia which the theologians of the panel have failed to challenge is much more regressive than Muslim personal laws in Muslim majority countries.

 

Unlike the review, we have shown that women cannot engage with Sharia Councils or the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal in relation to their divorce without this also impacting on their rights and freedoms in other areas. Our research shows that Sharia Courts/ Councils deal with more than divorce – they impose ‘mediation’, promote polygamy and child marriage, and interfere with child custody and criminal proceedings in relation to domestic violence. The review made no serious attempt to investigate these issues.

 

The review stands in direct contrast to the devastating observations made by Dame Louise Casey in her report in 2016 “women in some communities are facing a double onslaught of gender inequality, combined with religious, cultural and social barriers preventing them from accessing even their basic rights as British residents.”

 

A forensic examination of the operation of Sharia in Britain lays bare what fundamentalists do to achieve their goals, not merely what they think. We do not accuse them simply of ‘thought crimes’ but of promoting crimes and human rights violations.

 

The review is a botched attempt at consultation established with flawed terms of reference and an explicit disregard for gender discrimination. The government and the reviewers have failed the women most affected and ignored the concerns of rights advocates.

 

We will be providing a more detailed submission. Meanwhile, we call on you, as Home Secretary, to ensure that none of the recommendations contained in the review are implemented without consultation with those advocates who are able to make clear connections with extremism, fundamentalism and inequality. The government has, so far, failed in its duty to make an equality impact assessment, which it needs to do with the full weight of evidence before it. Continued indifference to the government’s duty to respect, protect and fulfil human rights will leave us in no doubt that there is no change to the social contract in which women’s rights are traded off as part of a process of appeasement of fundamentalists and extremists.

 

We look forward to your response.

 

Sincerely,

 

Gita Sahgal and Yasmin Rehman, Co-Directors, Centre for Secular Space
Pragna Patel, Director, Southall Black Sisters
Diana Nammi, Executive Director, Iranian Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation
Houzan Mahmoud, Culture Project
Sadia Hameed, Spokesperson, Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Rumana Hashem, Human Rights Advocate
Nasreen Rehman, Human Rights Advocate
Gina Khan, Spokesperson, One Law for All
Maryam Namazie, Spokesperson, One Law for All

 

For more information, please contact Gita Sahgal at 07972 715090 or email onelawforall@gmail.com.

____________________

Sharia CANNOT Coexist in Western Law

John R. Houk

© February 9, 2018

____________________

The Independent Review on Sharia

 

One Law for All No Sharia Campaign (pdf manifesto)

 

One Belief that should Unite Left & Right


John R. Houk

© October 5, 2017

 

I am on the email list of ex-Muslim Maryam Namazie. She resides in the UK. I don’t often cross post info from Ms. Namazie because she not only an ex-Muslim, I get the impression she is anti-religion in general representing the values of Leftist Secular Humanism.

Her views on Islam are notable as to exposing the reality of Islamic theopolitical ideology. Since I believe and follow the values of Biblical Christianity. I am quite certain this would rub Ms. Namazie to a sense of unpleasantness toward me.

 

Nevertheless, this particular email alerts about the existence of International Blasphemy Day. That’s a big finger point to how Islam treats those who have disagreed with Sharia Law. If you violate Sharia particularly as to relating to their moon deity Allah, Muhammad or departing away from Islam; is a violation that labels you a blasphemer worthy of death.

 

Although the day was initiated over the insane Muslim response to cartooning Muhammad in Danish news periodicals such as Jyllands-Posten, the day has been managed by atheist Secular Humanists against all religions. This means Christians are as much a target for ridicule as Muslims. The major difference being Christians don’t go out on murderous rampages as a Muslim would offended over an ascertained blasphemy.

 

Here is a bit of a bio from Maryam Namazie’s webpage:

 

Maryam Namazie is a political activist, campaigner and blogger.

 

She is the Spokesperson for Fitnah – Movement for Women’s Liberation, Equal Rights NowOne Law for All Campaign against Sharia Law in Britain and the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain. She hosts a weekly television programme in Persian and English called Bread and Roses broadcast in Iran and the Middle East via New Channel TV.

 

She is on the International Advisory Board of the Raif Badawi Foundation for Freedom; Humanist Laureate at the International Academy of Humanism, Central Committee member of the Worker-communist Party of Iran; National Secular Society Honorary Associate; Honorary Associate of Rationalist International; Emeritus Member of the Secular Humanist League of Brazil; a Patron of London Black Atheists and Pink Triangle Trust and a member of the International Advisory Board of Feminist Dissent.

 

The Islamic regime of Iran’s media outlets has called Namazie immoral and corrupt and did an ‘exposé’ on her entitled ‘Meet this anti-religion woman‘.

 

Maryam was a character in DV8 Physical Theatre’s Can We Talk About This?, which deals with freedom of speech, censorship and Islam.

 

She was awarded Atheist of the Year by Kazimierz Lyszczynski (2014); Journalist of the Year at the Dods Women in Public Life Awards (2013); selected one of the top 45 women of the year by Elle magazine Quebec (2007); one of 2006’s most intriguing people by DNA, awarded the National Secular Society’s Secularist of the Year Award (2005); selected ‘Iranian of the Year’ by Iranian.com readers (1997 and 1998); International Rescue Committee medal recipient (1988); and received the Julia B. Friedman Humanitarian Award (1987).

 

In the past few years, she has (Biography; MaryamNamazie.com; © 2015)

 

Except relating to Islam, Namazie is the kind of person that wants to transform the world into a Secular Humanist Marxist utopia. This translates into a despotic dictatorship where people are told how to live for the good of State principles and ideologies.

 

In the name of Multiculturalism, the global Left is brainwashing people into accepting Islam as an equal ideology in society because the Leftist elite are fully aware Islam will destroy the West’s heritage built upon the foundation of Greek, Roman, Judaism and Christian influences that has developed into a society of humanity which individual Liberty.

 

The Freedom that Liberty provides individuals drives both Islamic and Leftist ideologues nuts. Thus both ideologies are watching their backs due to their differences while advantage is being taken place Biblical Western Values.

 

The ideologues of the Left appear clueless of Islamic history and the 270 million people murdered since a guy named Muhammad synthesized religious ideologies to form a monotheistic death-cult that initially enriched Islamic prophet with personal wealth, sex slaves and brutal despotism to all those opposed to him.

 

To be honest the globe’s Marxist Left has done their share of murders in the name of forming a fake utopia. The Left’s heinous murders covered up from their populace knowing the revulsion it would cause. Islam could care less about a non-Muslim’s revulsion of the slaughter of people in the name of Allah/Muhammad.

 

It is my opinion Leftist-Marxists will lose to rabid Muslim culture of death because they brain wash devoted followers. Marxists are only capable of brainwashing a few disciples that will oppress the majority of humanity. The majority would eventually overthrow the despots as history has shown.

 

Unfortunately, the Muslim brainwashing tact turns the majority into the minority who become helpless servants of Islam. If you look at history, the Middle East and North Africa were Christians. After the Muslim conquest, oppression caused the majority to grow weary and transform to the darkside of theopolitical Islam for a better life for the sake of families. Islam actually became a viable choice.

 

Marxism has little interest – no matter what a Communist might tell you – to transform the hearts and minds into a global community. Rather Marxism relies on controlling society through promoting fear inside the community. Meaning no one really knows who is an authentic friend or foe.

 

As a simple matter of choice, the global Left should adopt an anti-Islam paradigm for the fear of Muslim rulers wiping the memory Marxism as they did to Christianity in the Middle East and North Africa.

 

JRH 10/5/17

Please Support NCCR

**************

The Future Belongs to Blasphemers

 

Sent By Maryam Namazie

Email Sent 10/5/2017 1:28 AM

Sent Via One Law For All

 

International Blasphemy Day has just past. Watch this inspiring video made by ex-Muslims in various countries: The Future Belongs to Blasphemers.

 

[Blog Editor: below is the video from the above link but not embed in the email.]

 

VIDEO: The Future Belongs to the Blasphemers – a Message from Ex-Muslims

 

Posted by Nano GoleSorkh

Published on Sep 30, 2017

 

Also see the world’s first group bodypaint captured by both ground and drone in solidarity with ex-Muslims.

 

[Blog Editor: Here is the “bodypaint” video from the above link. I don’t really get the body paint thing. My guess, it has something to with Secular Humanist ex-Muslims.]

 

VIDEO: Bodypainting in Solidarity with Ex-Muslims and CEMB

 

Posted by Nano GoleSorkh

Published on Sep 30, 2017

 

Created as a finale to the groundbreaking International Conference on Freedom of Conscience and Expression, the largest gathering of ex-Muslims in history, this is the world’s first group bodypaint captured by both ground and drone. Conceived by award-winning bodypainter Victoria Gugenheim in support of and solidarity with ex-Muslims and the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB).

 

www.ex-muslim.org.uk

www.secularconference.com

www.gugenheim.co.uk

 

SUPPORT BREAD AND READ THE REST

 

Some will ask why we must celebrate blasphemy when it is “hurtful” and “offends”.

 

The answer is simple:

 

Because people can be killed for blaspheming and human life is more important than hurt sensibilities and offence.

 

As the Jordanian atheist, Mohammed Al Khadra said at the largest gathering of ex-Muslims in history, “Where are your priorities? While we die, you are all thinking about Islamophobia?

 

Islamophobia is a political term used to scaremonger people into silence; it imposes de facto blasphemy and apostasy laws where none exist. Where such laws exist, there are no accusations of “Islamophobia” but rather imprisonment, persecution and execution.

 

Another speaker at the July conference, Zineb El Rhazoui, who survived the attack on Charlie Hebdo because she was back in Morocco says “the right to blasphemy [marks] the boundary between barbarism and civilisation.”

 

As the new edition of CEMB’s publication: “The Political and Legal Status of Apostates in Islam” shows, it is especially dangerous for ex-Muslims living under Sharia.

 

CEMB is organising a protest at the Pakistani and Iranian embassies in London on 10 November to highlight a number of cases facing the death penalty such as that of Sina Dehghan, Soheil Arabi and Ayaz Nizami.

 

We are also campaigning for activists like Iraqi atheist Karrar Al Afsoor who has fled to Greece where he is being detained in awful conditions.

 

Despite the targeted persecution and slaughter of freethinkers, though, it is we who are still being blamed for the threats we receive and even when we are murdered – like the woman whose rape is blamed on the length of her skirt.

 

We are outrageously even compared to Nazis for marching for LGBT and ex-Muslim rights at Pride in London by “progressives” who prefer to side with Islam and Islamism than with dissenters. (As an aside, Pride in London is still deciding whether to allow CEMB back at Pride next year given complaints(!) by the homophobic East London Mosque. CEMB has called on Pride to do the right thing.)

 

Spokesperson Maryam Namazie exposed the hypocrisy, double standards and racism of lower expectations at the 40th convention of the Freedom from Religion Foundation when she accepted the Freedom from Religious Fundamentalism award.

 

Thankfully, there are many who continue to support our work and the right to freedom of conscience and expression. This support has meant a great deal to us and enabled us to continue the important work we do.

 

Please continue to support us via donations (no matter how small), volunteering your skills (we especially need help with film editing and graphic design), as well as attending our protests and events. Sadia Hameed and Maryam are speaking at a number of events in Belgrade, Cambridge, Koln, Massachusetts, Melbourne, Nottingham, Pennsylvania and Rome.

 

In London, at our monthly meet-ups, we have everything from an ex-Muslim art workshop to “coming out parties” for ex-Muslims who decide to go public.

 

We hope you can join us at some of our events, including our 10 December End-Year event with food, drinks, speeches, music and dancing. Get your tickets to join us as soon as you can.

 

By the way, Deeyah Khan’s film, Islam’s Nonbelievers, [Blog Editor: I am posting this 46-minute document about UK ex-Muslims at the end of this cross post] which was about the work of CEMB and the situation of ex-Muslims in Britain and internationally has been shortlisted for the Asi an Media Awards in Investigative Journalism.

 

Thanks again for your support.

 

Looking forward to hearing from you or seeing you at some of our events.

 

Warmest wishes,

Maryam Namazie
Sadia Hameed
Spokespersons
CEMB
BM Box 1919
London, WC1N 3XX
United Kingdom
exmuslimcouncil@gmail.com
ex-muslim.org.uk

++++++++

VIDEO: Exposure: Islam’s Non Believers (2016)

 

Posted by Abdullah Begg

Published on Oct 23, 2016

 

Documentary focusing on Ex-Muslims in Britain and the discrimination they can face.

_________________

One Belief that should Unite Left & Right

John R. Houk

© October 5, 2017

_______________

The Future Belongs to Blasphemers

 

Campaign against Sharia law in Britain

 

Join our facebook page

 

Declaration

 

We, the undersigned individuals and organisations, call on the UK government to bring an end to the use and institutionalisation of Sharia and all religious laws and to guarantee equal citizenship rights for all.

 

Sharia law is discriminatory

 

Sharia Councils and Muslim Arbitration Tribunals are discriminatory, particularly against women and children, and in violation of universal human rights.

 

Sharia law is unfair and unjust in civil matters

 

Proponents argue that the implementation of Sharia is justified when limited to civil matters, such as child custody, divorce and inheritance. In fact, it is civil matters that are one of the main cornerstones of the subjugation of and discrimination against women and children. Under Sharia law a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s; a woman’s marriage contract is between her male guardian and her husband. A man can have four wives and divorce his wife by simple repudiation, whereas a woman must give reasons, some of which are extremely difficult to prove. Child custody reverts to the father at a preset age, even if the father is abusive; women who remarry lose custody of their children; and sons are entitled to inherit twice the share of daughters.

 

The voluntary nature of Sharia courts is a sham

 

Proponents argue that those who choose to make use of Sharia courts and tribunals do so voluntarily and that according to the Arbitration Act parties are free to agree upon how their disputes are resolved. In reality, many of those dealt with by Sharia courts are from the most marginalised segments of society with little or no knowledge of their rights under British law. Many, particularly women, are pressured into going to these courts and abiding by their decisions. More importantly, those who fail to make use of Sharia law or seek to opt out will be made to feel guilty and can be treated as apostates and outcasts.

 

Even if READ THE REST

 

Islam must be scrutinised


Islam- The Untold Story

Is it not interesting that terrorism trumps Free Speech in Europe? The British television Channel 4 televised a documentary by Tom Holland “Islam: The Untold Story”. Channel 4 was preparing to show an encore of the documentary when the Islamic threats began pouring in. The threat of terrorism proved too much for Channel 4 for they pulled the encore presentation of the documentary.

 

Here is the email that notified me how Islam is warping European culture with dhimmitude to Islamic Supremacy.

 

JRH 9/19/12

Please Support NCCR

*******************************

Islam must be scrutinised

 

By Maryam Namazie

Sent: September 14, 2012 10:12 AM

Sent by: Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB)

 

Dear friend

 

The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain would like to make public its support for Tom Holland’s Channel 4 documentary ‘Islam: The Untold Story’ (http://www.channel4.com/programmes/islam-the-untold-story/4od). We are indignant to learn that due to threats made on Holland, Channel 4 has cancelled a repeat screening of the historical inquiry into the origins of Islam similar to the kind of inquiry that has been applied to other religions and histories in Britain for many years.

 

The threats and concerted attempt to stigmatise the documentary and its producers by attacking its credibility and even legitimacy as a field of inquiry is nothing less than an attempt to impose a blasphemy taboo by stealth and coercion against programming that scrutinises Islam.

 

Caving in to the coercive pressure of Islamists will have catastrophic effects on free inquiry and expression where it pertains to Islam. It would not only further silence academic, historical and theological scrutiny of Islam but would also have the chilling effect of exerting added pressure on Muslims and ex-Muslims who wish to dissent from and question Islam.

 

CEMB spokesperson Maryam Namazie says:

 

“Here’s my question to Channel 4: what about the threats on our lives for being apostates, ex-Muslims, atheists, freethinkers, secularists, 21st century human beings?

 

“What part of our thoughts, lives, and bodies do you recommend we cancel to appease the Islamists?

 

“If only there was such an ‘easy’ ‘solution’ for those who are languishing under Islam’s rules.

 

“You may accept censorship and cowardly silence in the face of Islamist threats and intimidation but we cannot afford to do so. And we never will.”

 

The CEMB urges you to view the documentary

 

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dm8xKh8eQqU [SlantRight Editor: Unfortunately not available in the USA] or http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=578_1347455615&comments=1) and write to Channel 4 and Ofcom (contact information below) calling for a repeat screening.

 

LiveLeak VIDEO: Islam: The Untold Story

 

We look forward to your support.

 

NOTES:

 

1.  If you’d like to donate to our work, please send a cheque made payable to CEMB to BM Box 1919, London WC1N 3XX, UK or give via Worldpay or Paypal: http://ex-muslim.org.uk/donate/.

 

2. If you’d like to join a new coffee morning for ex-Muslim women, please email the CEMB at exmuslimcouncil@gmail.com.

 

3. See Maryam Namazie’s speech at the 5th anniversary celebration of the CEMB: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uQrBA9Gyeg&feature=player_embedded.

 

4. Join the active CEMB forum: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/

 

5. Addresses for Channel 4 and Ofcom:

 

Lord Burns, Channel 4 Chairperson, Channel 4 Television Corporation, 124 Horseferry Road, London SW1P 2TX

 

Avi Grewal, Programme Coordinator, Arts & Religion, agrewal@channel4.co.uk

 

Mark Raphael, Emma Cooper, Lina Prestwood, Anna Miralis, Commissioning Editors, Documentaries,  KHall@channel4.co.uk

 

Ed Richards, Chief Executive of Ofcom, Riverside House, 2a Southwark Bridge Road, London SE1 9HA, ofcomnews@ofcom.org.uk

 

6. For further information contact:

 

Maryam Namazie

Spokesperson Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain

___________________

CEMB Manifesto:

 

We, non-believers, atheists, and ex-Muslims, are establishing or joining the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain to insist that no one be pigeonholed as Muslims with culturally relative rights nor deemed to be represented by regressive Islamic organisations and ‘Muslim community leaders’.

 

Those of us who have come forward with our names and photographs represent countless others who are unable or unwilling to do so because of the threats faced by those considered ‘apostates’ – punishable by death in countries under Islamic law.

 

By doing so, we are breaking the taboo that comes with renouncing Islam but also taking a stand for reason, universal rights and values, and secularism.

 

Whilst religion or the lack thereof is a private affair, the increasing intervention of and devastation caused by religion and particularly Islam in contemporary society has necessitated our public renunciation and declaration. We represent a READ THE REST

 

Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain

BM Box 1919

London WC1N 3XX

telephone: +44(0)7719166731

e-mail: ex-muslimcouncil@googlemail.com

website: www.ex-muslim.org.uk