Osama bin Laden has threatened terror attacks on France for banning of the face veil, while Islamic extremists in Britain are threatening to kill women who do not wear a head scarf. From the stealth Jihad perpetrated by the Muslim Brotherhood to violent Jihad, Islamists have and continue to impose Sharia law on Western soil, becoming increasingly emboldened. Note Bin Laden’s warning to France:
If you unjustly thought that it is your right to prevent free Muslim women from wearing the face veil, is it not our right to expel your invading men and cut their necks?”
Three years ago, Islamic law was officially adopted in Britain to oversee Muslim civil cases in Sharia courts which have continued to multiply, while Canada (in the province of Ontario) narrowly escaped it. Here’s how it almost happened, but failed: In 1991, Ontario changed its Arbitration Act to include faith-based arbitration to settle family disputes, such as divorce, inheritance and custody issues, outside the court system. CAIR-CAN was pleased and in 2004, released a statement that this was “a form of accommodating the needs of religious minorities within a multicultural society”.
Shortly after, the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice pushed the envelope by stating that it wanted this faith-based arbitration based on “Sharia Law.” The proposal was met with stiff resistance from women’s groups and the Muslim Canadian Congress, which put an end to this drive. The congress argued:
[S]haria is flawed because it does not view women as equal and therefore cannot provide equal justice to all parties in a dispute especially on issues of divorce, child custody and division of property.
Going back to Britain and how Sharia succeeded, Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi–who ran the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal in Britain–explained how he took advantage of a certain clause in the 1996 Arbitration Act. Under the act, Sharia courts and arbitration tribunals were in essence interchangeable, thus the rulings of the latter are binding in law and can be enforced by both county and high courts.
Only 7 months earlier Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, paved the way for Islamists when he said that “adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.” He reasoned that the UK has to “face up to the fact that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.” He concluded that adopting Sharia law in the UK seemed unavoidable. Yet other church leaders and politicians expressed valid concern that this would mark the beginning of a “parallel legal system.” And it did as these courts also settled cases involving domestic violence–a crossover into the realm of criminal law. Women are, of course, regarded as inferiors under Sharia law, so it’s no secret how women fare in such cases.
France is facing upheaval as Muslims rail against the enactment of the veil ban for a so-called violation of their religious
rights, and sympathizers need only look at what has happened to Britain in its laxness toward the dangers of creeping Islamism. Since Sharia law slipped through the back door in Britain, Islamists have become more emboldened and are threatening women with death for not wearing the veil.
Several years ago we saw Islamic supremacist thugs target women who weren’t wearing hijab in Iraq. Now this Sharia intimidation has come to London.