Sunday, February 17, 2008

Iranian-Canadian Activist: Say No to Sharia

Have you ever noticed that the promoters of sharia in the West are always well-heeled Western liberals, people who have never actually had to endure the rigors of Islamic law?

The Archbishop of Cant, for all his pious endorsement of “social cohesion” under sharia, has never once had to suffer the tender mercies of Islamic jurisprudence.

And whenever you see a Muslim woman trotted out before the cameras and microphones to extol the benefits of sharia, there’s always some male relative standing right next to her while she joyfully spreads her message of Islamic wonderfulness.

Not all women who have experienced Islam feel this way. And some of those who have escaped its clutches have a different story to tell.

Homa Arjomand, a native of Iran, is one such woman. According to AKI:

Islam: Canadian activist slams faith-based courts

Islamic courts must be ruled out in Britain and other Western countries if the democratic rights of all their citizens are to be safeguarded, Iranian born activist Homa Arjomand, told Adnkronos International (AKI).

Homa Arjomand spearheaded a successful campaign to end faith-based arbitration in Canada.

She strongly disagreed with remarks made earlier in February by the head of the Anglican Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, who claimed that Islamic (Sharia) courts in Britain seemed “inevitable” and could aid “social cohesion”.

Arjomand told AKI that adopting Sharia courts, promoting Islamic schools and Islamic centres would be giving in to political Islam.

She said such courts would deny immigrant women equality with men and increase discrimination towards them, as well as the religious and racial segregation of minorities.

“It is the state’s duty to look after the well-being of all citizens, including women and children from so-called Islamic communities,” said Arjomand, who is a secular Muslim.
- - - - - - - - -
The failed experience of faith-based courts in Canada , where Arjomand lives, demonstrated the need for a single legal system that treats all individuals equally, she said.

“No rights should be taken away due to cultural sensitivity — we need to draw a line and say so when religious law compromises women’s rights,” said Arjomand.

Not if we’re the Archdhimmi of Canterbury, we don’t. Social cohesion comes first for us. Who are we to judge, anyway?

She is against multiculturalism and cultural relativity, which further divides society into cultural and religious groups, and “leaves people at the mercy of their own culture.”

There is a political agenda behind Williams’ remarks,” Arjomand argued. “It is this: allow the Islamists some freedom and segregate them from us.”

Yes, that’s the nasty little secret behind Dr. Williams’ approval of sharia: “brown” people don’t really need the rights and freedoms we enjoy. They can’t handle them, anyway, so the autocratic authority of their imams should keep them in line.

“The leaders of political Islam see their numbers growing and the problem of isolation,” she said. “They see youths being drawn to imams. They see the terror attacks in various countries. They are trying to get a greater share of power in the West.”

[…]

…Arjomand disputed that democratic rights could be guaranteed under Sharia law. “In Islam, there is no civil/criminal distinction,” she stressed. Islam sanctions extreme punishments such as amputation of limbs, stoning to death and flogging.

Islamic law is in opposition to established British legal traditions on many issues, including monogamy, divorce, the rights of women and custody of children, she said.

Death by stoning is the penalty for women who commit adultery, while Muslim men may enjoy multiple marriages, Arjomand pointed out. Under Sharia law, a Muslim may also divorce his wife by merely repudiating her three times, and gets custody of their children.

Moreover, Arjomand pointed out, in family disputes there is no right of appeal against a Sharia court’s decision and Muslim women are face discrimination areas such as inheritance and pension rights as well as divorce.

Divorced women from the Pakistani community in Canada have been sent back to family members in Pakistan and separated from their children, she said.

“No Muslim women want to go through faith-based arbitration,” she stressed.

Muslim women are collectively equivalent to a battered wife. First you have to get her away from her abuser to a place where she feels safe. Then she has to undergo intensive counseling to overcome the effects of years of conditioning. And, even after all that, she may never recover a normal and sane perspective about her abusive husband.

It would take generations of enforcement of the social norms of the West on immigrants before any Muslim woman could reliably offer an opinion on what she really wants.

And, of course, the sharia-advocators want to prevent that from ever happening.


Hat tip: C. Cantoni.

5 comments:

Laine said...

That's a keen insight on the Baron's part, that Muslim women may be like battered wives (battered by Islam and sharia) though of course there's reason to believe that actual emotional and physical battering at the hands of their husbands also occurs and at a higher rate than in the non-Muslim population.

I've sometimes thought they're collectively victims of Stockholm syndrome, where the hostages (to Islam) come to identify with the hostage taker.

But can we excuse the feminine half of the ummah completely? What about those who do nothing to prevent the honor killings of their daughters, or even worse, lure them home for that purpose? or the female suicide bombers? or the Muslim women chattering on the Internet about how they want to marry only a devout man who will fight jihad against their host (Western) country?

Karla Homolka in Canada was wrongly portrayed as a battered wife when in reality she was an active participant with her husband in the rape and murder of several young girls.

In the case of Muslim women, cowed victim or co-jihadist, what is behind the veil?

David said...

It's like anything else. General comments can be made about the situation, which may be inherently correct. However, for each...they will have to be taken on a case by case basis to ensure they are as they seem.

That's all there is to it, really.

Paul Green said...

"No rights should be taken away due to cultural sensitivity - we need to draw a line and say so when religious law compromises women's rights."

Hear! Hear!

Torquemada said...

The Archbishop of Cant, for all his pious endorsement of “social cohesion” under sharia, has never once had to suffer the tender mercies of Islamic jurisprudence.

The problem of Europe and the West is not Islamic sharia, but the demise of Western sharia, i.e. religion, religious law and social cohesion which is dependent on it. That is why Islam will win. We see modernity and secularism as progress, when in fact they have sealed our doom. Anti-culture cannot effectively oppose culture, absence of religion cannot resist religion. But don't take my word for it - just watch this century unfold.

Homophobic Horse said...

"There is a political agenda behind Williams’ remarks,” Arjomand argued. “It is this: allow the Islamists some freedom and segregate them from us.

Yes, that’s the nasty little secret behind Dr. Williams’ approval of sharia: “brown” people don’t really need the rights and freedoms we enjoy. They can’t handle them, anyway, so the autocratic authority of their imams should keep them in line."


No, no, no. Who-whom can yield false postives. This is one of them.