A woman is supposed to obey her husband, says the law. Failure to do so could, in fact should, incur corporal punishment, adds the same law.
No, not the British law, silly. British men are supposed to close their eyes to acts of gross spousal disobedience. If they refuse to do so and dare to raise a hand against a wife and mother, they’ll end up in the nick faster than you can say ‘misogyny’, ‘domestic violence’ and ‘hate crime’.
However, there exists another legal system that doesn’t prohibit violence against women. In fact, it actively encourages it. It’s called sharia law, and it’s unequivocal on the subject:
“So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them.” (K 4:34)
Scourging is more than just a little slap, in case you’re wondering. It involves using a whip or a lash, which is guaranteed to teach a wayward wife a lesson she’ll remember until she transgresses again. At that point she’ll be ready to receive another chastisement.
You may think this sort of thing has no place in a country ruled by English Common Law, and I agree with you. But Secretary of State for Justice Sarah Sackman doesn’t.
When asked in the Commons last autumn whether she recognised sharia law and sharia courts in the United Kingdom, Miss Sackman replied:
“Sharia law forms no part of the law of England and Wales, but where people choose to put themselves before those councils – in common with Christian, Jewish and other courts of faith – that is part of religious tolerance which is an important British value.”
Ah, tolerance, that civilisational Dignitas clinic of England. Yes, dear, tolerance is lovely. All God’s children love tolerance to distraction, but some of us put a limit on it.
For example, my tolerance doesn’t extend to killing homosexuals, amputating thieves’ hands, killing or whipping adulterers, marrying more than one woman at a time, genital mutilation, treating women as merely spittoons for one’s secretions – why, I’m so intolerant that I even disapprove of scourging one’s wife, and Penelope can testify to that.
What I do approve of is equality before the law, meaning the one and only law that ought to be recognised as such in the United Kingdom: English Common Law. Since Miss Sackman is a lawyer by trade, and a KC to boot, she ought to be familiar with the concept.
As a Jewish woman, she must also be aware of some other Muslim practices that ought to put her tolerance to a test, but evidently don’t.
A week ago, four Jewish community ambulances were set alight and blown up in Golders Green, a Jewish area of London. Since the men arrested for the crime bear names like Hamza Iqbal, Rehan Khan and Judex Atshatshi, something tells me they aren’t Methodists.
Then the other day two Jewish men were stabbed in the same neighbourhood, and the suspect in that crime is identified as a 45-year-old Somali who emigrated to England as a child. It’s good to see that people can uphold their ancestral customs even after a lifetime in Britain.
There exist enough Koranic suras to justify such behaviour, and I’m sure a sharia court would acquit those arsonists and stabbers. Should British courts follow suit, Miss Sackman? To prove their religious tolerance?
Miss Sackman, who should abhor sharia law as a Jewish woman, a Briton and a Westerner, thinks it’s compatible with British values. This presents yet another opportunity for me to gloat, as I do every time a woke Leftie struggles with a conflict of pieties. Ideology usually comes out ahead of all other loyalties, religious, ethnic or moral.
How a Jew can belong to the Labour Party, whose key figures are virulent anti-Semites and whose rank and file are predominantly pro-Hamas, escapes me. But I suppose once that compromise has been made, feeling well-disposed towards sharia law isn’t that daring a leap.
However, as a connoisseuse of legal nitty-gritty, Miss Sackman may be able to find a way of reconciling certain provisions of sharia law with the law she swore to uphold. Such a task is beyond me, but then I’m neither a lawyer nor a government minister.
Take matters matrimonial for example. Some 85 sharia courts are operating in Britain, and all of them officiate Islamic marriages. However, unlike Christian and Jewish marriages, many of these, some two-thirds as a matter of fact, aren’t registered with the state.
That means a woman wed in that fashion isn’t recognised as married in English law. Should her husband die, divorce her or simply walk out, she has no legal protection. The same goes for her hubby-wubby acquiring a couple of new wives, what with sharia law permitting up to four.
In fact, a British mobile phone app for Muslims seeking to draw up Islamic wills asks users “How many wives do you have?”, listing options from one to four. Also, the app informs them helpfully that, according to sharia law, daughters get half as much inheritance as sons. I’ve heard of primogeniture, but this strikes me as unfair.
How does our tolerant Miss Sackman propose to negotiate her way around such provisions of sharia law? And oh, by the way, she piqued my curiosity by mentioning “Christian courts”. Could she please direct me to one? Is it located somewhere near the Strand, next to the Inns of Court?
Canon law has had no legal force in Britain since about 1860, and that Catholic system had held out longer than any Anglican equivalents. But then that was before tolerance was raised to the highest moral and legal virtue.
Judging by the government’s reaction to attacks on Jews, our courts not only aren’t Christian, but they’ve lost all touch with their ancient Christian antecedents. Just compare their reaction to the terrorism in Golders Green with their response to the 2024 Stockport attacks, when Muslims were on the receiving end.
Those suspected (as opposed to found guilty) of inciting violence were quickly arrested and held without bail. When tried and found guilty, they were sentenced to long prison terms.
By contrast, the criminals who blew up those Jewish ambulances are now out on bail, awaiting trial and a clement punishment, if any. I for one am not surprised: if the woman holding one of the top legal posts in the country preaches tolerance to sharia law, it’s clear where the sympathies of our governing luvvies lie.
A two-tier legal system of parallel courts can’t be allowed to exist: sharia laws and courts must be abolished in Britain with immediate effect. In general, we must recognise that, though Islam started out as a Christian heresy, it has since developed its own civilisation, one incompatible with ours — as in totally.
Muslims living in Britain must be welcome to live according to their own ethos, but only as long as it doesn’t come in conflict with ours. When it does, it must be stamped out if British civilisation, what’s left of it, is to continue to exist in Britain. Doing so would be an attempt at survival, not a sign of intolerance. And not even a Labour cabinet can repeal the law of self-preservation.
For anything even remotely resembling this scenario to come true, we must get rid of the government in which openly subversive individuals like Miss Sackman hold top positions. And she herself ought to be forcibly divorced from her husband and married to a Somali living by sharia law. I wonder how long her tolerance will last.
Islam is incompatible with our civilization. Very easy to understand. Governments across the western world are kowtowing and bending over backward not to offend. They are only hastening our (and their) demise. Why? Is it, as Jimmy Carr has stated (and was quoted here back in March), “They could kill me”? Do they think when Islam supplants Christendom they will be given a caliphate? Not bloody likely. Even less so for a Jewish woman, dear Sarah. She was MP for Golders Green. Those were her people who were attacked. How far is the Secretary of State for Justice willing to go in fulfilling her remit? Not far, I’d reckon.
The double standards for Christians/Jews and all others is obvious and disturbing. I have yet to hear of a lawsuit brought against a Muslim baker for not baking a cake for a sodomite couple. Why is that? There must be more to it than the desire to bring down Christian culture.