Posted on 03/08/2009 5:53:49 AM PDT by forkinsocket
(Mar. 2) - - Pakistan recently gave in to the pressure of Islamist militants. Indeed to buy off peace, Pakistani authorities allowed the imposition of Sharia (Islamic law) in the Swat valley.
How long the cease-fire Swill last is anyone's guess. But Pakistan has allowed a precedent that could extend to other provinces; in fact the Swat valley is only about 100 miles away from Islamabad, the capital.
But Sharia is not just making inroads in Pakistan but actually creeping in the West - particularly in Europe.
One area especially touched by this phenomenon is the judicial system in Europe. Two recent cases in Italy and France are particularly troublesome. First, in Italy, three members of a Brescia-based Maghrebi family (father, mother and eldest son) were accused of beating up and sequestering their daughter/sister Fatima because she wanted to live a "Western" life.
In the first trial, the three were sentenced for sequestration and bad treatment. The court acknowledged that the teenager was "brutally beaten up" for having "dated" a non-Muslim and in general for "living a life not conforming with the culture" of her family. But on appeal, the family was acquitted because the court deemed that the young woman was beaten up for "her own good." The Bologna public prosecutor's office then disputed the acquittal of the three accused parties, but the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed it and ruled in favor of the charged parties.
Interestingly two Italian political leaders on the opposite side of the political spectrum, Isabella Bertolini, vice president of the MPs of the right-wing party Forza Italia, and Barbara Pollastrini, a post-communist former minister agreed to condemn the Supreme Court decision: "This verdict writes one of the darkest pages of history of the law in our country."
Isabella Bertolini was upset that the court "allied itself with radical Islam" and Barbara Pollastrini is pushing for parliament to pass as soon as possible a law condemning violence against women: "Now more than ever, it is urgent to defend the rights of a large number of immigrant women victims of an intolerable patriarchal culture."
Muslim women were quick to denounce the supreme court's decision. Among them, Souad Sbai, president of the Organization of Moroccan Women in Italy.
She said, "It is a shame, this verdict is worthy of an Arab country where the Sharia would be in vigor. In the name of multiculturalism and respect of traditions, the judges apply two kinds of rules: one for the Italians and one for the immigrants. A Catholic father that would have acted this way would have been severely sentenced."
According to her organization, recently at least nine Muslim women have been killed in Italy by one of their close relatives. The number of young girls forced to wear the hijab "as early as eight or 12" is on the rise as is the number of female teenagers fleeing home and "lots of them are looking to flee to France."
But France might not be the panacea either. Indeed in one very publicized case, last June, a French judge ruled in favor of a Muslim man who wanted the annulment of his marriage because his wife turned out not to be a virgin. What this decision amounted to was the endorsement of the repudiation concept.
This decision triggered a huge outcry from politicians, and various organizations. In November, a French court of appeal overturned the decision. Interestingly, a large majority of French Muslims, about 80 percent are very secular and totally reject any kind of Sharia law being implemented in the homeland of human rights.
But the United Kingdom is a different story, indeed there close to 40 percent of young Muslims are in favor of Sharia law being implemented in Britain. The idea seems to be also making headway among non-Muslims. So, last year, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, gave his support for the courts in Britain, saying that the legal recognition of them "seems unavoidable." He added, the United Kingdom has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.
Williams argued that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion. For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt within a Sharia court.
But contrary to what Williams advanced, Sadiq Khan, a British Muslim MP said that Sharia courts would discourage Muslims from developing links with other cultural and ethnic groups. He feared also that women could be "abused" by Sharia courts, which may give unequal bargaining power to the sexes.
In Switzerland, echoing Williams, Christian Giordano, an anthropology professor at the Fribourg university wrote that a special jurisdiction for Muslims could be envisioned in Switzerland. He added that including elements from Islamic law could allow to better manage the multiculturalism issue. Other occurrences of Sharia law taking precedence over the law of the country have been reported: For example, in Denmark, some imams have allegedly sentenced delinquent Muslims, hence bypassing Denmark's judicial system.
Islamists, much to the detriment of the majority of Muslims in Europe seem to be making headway in Europe in pushing Sharia law into the judicial system.
Maybe this has a silver lining right here.
A couple of good beatings to hillary, nancy, and barbara might do a world of good.
I’ll give points to the website for creative use of apostrophes.
So much for liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
islam is a religion of deep and abiding savagery. Unless non-muslims man up, muslims will stain the planet with their blood.
pretty sketchy sources to be considered “news”
I’ll give points to the website for creative use of apostrophes.
I remember reading about a push to simply do away with apostrophes in the U.S. because most people have no idea how they’re used...
The days of Muslim armies marching in and conquering countries is over. Today they send in their so called conservative or tame Muslims and they mix in with the populace, A little later they stat bringing in the radicals to stir up the once tame Muslims. Then they start using the laws of the country they are in, against that country. Later still they start demanding Sharia law. It is at this point that the real battle begins and if the country they now occupy is weak enough and filled with enough peace loving idiots, that country is doomed.
Probably not much an be done to reverse the Apostate Apostrophe Catastrophe now. It’s so widespread that people are copying the mistake, thinking it’s correct. Borders Books, Starbucks, even Herrods of London do it wrong, so people look upon these as authoritative, and copy the error.
From Wikipedia: “The Court of Cassation was reorganized by royal decree number 12 on 30 January 1941, supplanting the previous court provided by the former Italian Civil Code in 1865. The need for this kind of court in Europe became apparent with the Ancient regime’s difficulties in maintaining both uniformity of interpretation and supremacy of the central laws against local privileges and rights. This kind of court first appeared during the French revolution. The original French court were initially much more like a legislative body than a judicial one. During his conquests, Napoleon greatly influenced Italian legal theory, and the Court of Cassation was formed using many imported French ideas.”
But then is it not true that in Canada the same Sarah Law is being given primary judgments and if so when will or has it crossed the boarder?
Enough of the Rhianna threads. Oh wait.
“I’ll give points to the website for creative use of apostrophes.”
If you are referring to the tittle, they are single and double quotes, not apostrophes. In Europe and UK, the order of single and double quotes is frequently the opposite of ours.
Hank
Good description. Pretty much just how a virus works to take over healthy cells.
Actually, this article is too short on facts to be considered reliable. For instance, how old is “Fatima,” the daughter who was sequestered by her family for “dating” non-Muslims? And what does “dating” mean in this context? And how did they “sequester” her?
If a Christian family’s minor daughter went out with a drunken lout and publicly misbehaved, the parents would have a right to try to straighten their daughter out and ground her for a while.
I’m not defending either Sharia Law or Muslims in general, but the culture in Italy is notoriously broken in recent years, and you can’t blame a traditional family for not wanting their daughter to get mixed up in la vita dolce. Part of the problem is that Muslims and Europe don’t mix very well.
Or, who knows? Maybe she’s 23 years old. Maybe she just went on a prom date with a nice boy who’s not Muslim. We’re short of facts here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.