More Saudis to Claim Asylum in Britain

After yesterday's announcement that a Saudi princess had been granted asylum in Britain after having an affair and a love child with a British man, the government have made public ten more cases in which Saudi women have been granted asylum due to widespread human rights abuses:

Ministers are considering asylum applications for 10 Saudi Arabian nationals who claim they are at risk of persecution if they are forced to return to the Middle Eastern kingdom, it emerged last night.

The new cases were made public after The Independent revealed the plight of a Saudi princess who was granted asylum in Britain after she had an illegitimate child with a British man.

The young woman, who has also been granted anonymity by the courts, won her claim for asylum after she told a court that she faced execution if her husband found out about her adultery and she was forced to return to Saudi Arabia.

Immigration and asylum experts said last night that asylum cases from women fleeing the kingdom were very rare. But Keith Vaz, chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, said of the case: "This is the kind of person that our asylum laws are designed to protect. A woman and her unborn child should under no circumstances be sent back to a country where it is likely that they will be harmed. I welcome the decision made in this case."

New figures released by the Home Office also showed that a further 15 Saudis were refused asylum by the Government last year. There are no details about the sex of each of the applicants nor for the number of asylum applications received this year.

Mr Vaz called for more information to be made public about claims from Saudi Arabia. He said: "This is a country with a questionable human rights record. It is important to make clear the number of people who are fleeing similar treatment."

The princess's case is one of a small number of claims for asylum brought by citizens of Saudi Arabia which are not openly acknowledged by either government. British diplomats believe that to do so would in effect highlight the persecution of women in Saudi Arabia, which would be viewed as open criticism of the House of Saud and lead to embarrassing publicity for both governments.

The woman, who comes from a very wealthy Saudi family, says she met her English boyfriend – who is not a Muslim – during a visit to London. They struck up a relationship after he gave her his telephone number in a department store. She became pregnant the following year and worried that her elderly husband – a member of the royal family of Saudi Arabia – had become suspicious of her behaviour, she persuaded him to let her visit the UK again to give birth in secret. She feared for her life if she returned to Saudi Arabia.

She persuaded the court that if she returned to the kingdom she would be subject to capital punishment under Sharia law – specifically flogging and stoning to death. She was also worried about the possibility of an honour killing. Since she fled Saudi Arabia, her family and her husband's family have broken off contact with her.

The woman has been granted permanent leave to remain in the UK after the Immigration and Asylum Tribunal allowed her appeal. Keith Best, of the Immigration Advisory Service, said that Saudi nationals who were in genuine fear of persecution had the right to claim asylum in the United Kingdom. He explained: "They may also be able to claim if they were subjected to degrading and inhumane treatment. I can see why these cases can be difficult for Britain when one considers the relationship with the Saudi royal family and the many military contracts."

Pure cowardice and hypocrisy from Keith Vaz and the British government.

If we are obliged to take these people, then we are obliged to publicly criticise their government and declare that the way they run their country is unacceptable.

But, of course,we prefer the middle ground - sucking up to Islam and Sharia here, sucking up to the House of Saud, then pretending that allowing a few privileged Saudi women to live here constitutes helping fight oppression.

Pathetic.

Inside a British Sharia Court

The Mail on Sunday has an article which looks at the workings of a Sharia court in Britain.

It's a bit too neutral and careful for a supposedly Right-of-centre newspaper, but it is still worth a read, if not only for a glimpse of how the establishment see no problem with current developments, and just how immigration is transforming Britain before our very eyes.

In a shabby converted sweetshop in Leyton, East London, a group of burka-clad Muslim women sit in a waiting room. They have an appointment with Dr Suhaib Hasan at his twice-weekly surgery.

The women look worried. There is no talking in the airless reception area - the only sound is a fan purring quietly in the corner as temperatures outside exceed 80F.

Inside, the atmosphere is just as stifling. There are no magazines, television or other diversions. The beige walls are bare except for a flow-chart depicting the process of securing a Muslim divorce, and a picture of Mecca.

This is no GP's surgery or Citizens Advice Bureau. Within these non-descript walls lies the nerve centre of sharia law in Britain, the headquarters of the Islamic Sharia Council, which oversees the growing number of Muslim courts operating in Britain.

For the first time, the Islamic Sharia Council has granted access to a newspaper to observe the entire sharia legal process in Britain. Over several weeks, I was allowed to witness the filing of complaints, individual testimony hearings and the monthly meeting of imams, or judges, where rulings are handed down.

Sharia has been operating here, in parallel to the British legal system, since 1982. Work includes issuing fatwas - religious rulings on matters ranging from why Islam considers homosexuality a sin to why two women are equivalent to one male witness in an Islamic court.

The Islamic Sharia Council also rules on individual cases, primarily in matters of Muslim personal or civil law: divorce, marriage, inheritance and settlement of dowry payments are the most common.

However, in the course of my investigation, I discovered how sharia is being used informally within the Muslim community to tackle crime such as gang fights or stabbings, bypassing police and the British court system.

A few hardline leaders would like it to be taken even further. One told me that Britain should adopt sharia punishments such as stoning and the chopping off of hands to reduce violent crime.

There are 12 councils or courts operating in Britain under Dr Hasan's group, based in London, Birmingham, Manchester, Rotherham and Bradford. Scores more imams dispense justice through their own mosques.

A study last week by the thinktank Civitas claimed that there could be as many as 85 sharia courts in Britain, although Dr Hasan says most of these are not formal courts. But it is certainly a growing network.

In his courts, support staff interview plaintiffs and compile a case study. Judgments are delivered by senior imams at closed monthly meetings and are sent in writing to the concerned parties. Up to 7,000 cases have been handled so far.

The Islamic Sharia Council is listed as a charity but people seeking a divorce, or talaq, must fill in a form and pay a fee. For a man it is £100; for women, it is £250 because the imams say it takes more work to process a woman's application as her word has to be corroborated.

The literal meaning of sharia is 'source of water in the desert', meaning the source of all spiritual life for Muslims. This is not just a code of law, but a way of life.

In sharia-based societies, such as Saudi Arabia or the old Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, crimes against society are punished by beheadings, stoning to death and amputations. Women are kept in purdah and limited to child-rearing and caring for the home.

All Western influences, from alcohol, music, television and movies, are banned. It is a rigid prescription for Islamic life that seeks its guidance from the days of the Prophet in the 7th Century.

In Britain, sharia courts are permitted to rule only in civil cases, such as divorce and financial disputes. Until last year, these rulings depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims. But now, due to a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996, they are enforceable by county and high courts.

Sharia courts are classified in the same way as arbitration tribunals - with rulings binding in law provided both parties in the dispute agree to give them the power to rule on their case.

However, a Muslim couple must still be divorced in the British courts for it to recognised under British law. The same provision in the Arbitration Act applies to Jewish Beth Din courts, which resolve similar civil cases.

Dr Hasan is the man who introduced sharia courts to Britain almost 30 years ago.

The softly spoken, grey-bearded scholar was born in Pakistan, studied in Saudi Arabia and worked in East Africa before moving to Britain in the Sixties. He is the Secretary of the Islamic Sharia Council of Britain and a member of the senior panel of imams who sit once a month at Regent's Park Mosque in London.

In Leyton, the imam calls the women into his office to begin a private session to gather evidence. The setting is modest yet its proceedings have all the gravity of a British courtroom - and most cases are conducting in English.

Under Muslim law, a man can divorce his wife simply by uttering the word 'talaq', yet a woman cannot be granted a divorce without the consent of her husband or winning a dissolution of the marriage from the imam. Even if the couple are divorced under British law, they remain married under Islam until divorced under the religious law, too.

Dr Hasan believes that far from trampling on women's rights, the Islamic Sharia Council is empowering Muslim women in Britain, giving them a way out of abusive and violent marriage.

Sitting behind a plywood desk, flanked by shelves of books on Islamic law and copies of the Koran, Dr Hasan hears evidence from an Afghan woman called Ameena (her name has been changed for her protection). She claims her husband is violent towards her and their five children, and she wants a divorce.

Ameena, 35, is backed by the testimony of two social workers, one of whom is Muslim, from a women's refuge.

'He beats me and the children, he doesn't give us our rights, he doesn't love me or the children and he is not interested in me and the children,' she says, also citing her husband's 'mental behaviour'.

The couple had entered an arranged marriage in the sand-blown city of Kandahar and came to Britain as refugees from war. Some years later the marriage faltered.

Dr Hasan's sparely written notes set out the extent of the marital misery: 'He beat her. Then he asked her to massage his shoulders and legs. When she said no, he beat her.

'One time her nose was broken and an operation was carried out. Another day, because of the beating, there was a miscarriage.'

Ameena's evidence is corroborated by statements from one of her daughters. The teenager said that as well as hitting her mother and the children, the father, who is in his 40s, forced her into an arranged marriage in Pakistan. She wants her marriage dissolved, too.

So far Ameena's husband has refused to grant her a divorce, accusing her and his daughter of being 'not mentally fit'.

Dr Hasan decides the case, which has been going on since 2008, is sufficiently serious to merit the consideration of the monthly meeting of senior judges at Regent's Park Mosque. Now Ameena's future lies in their hands.

Later that week, seven imams gather in a sparsely furnished committee room in the shadows of the mosque's magnificent golden dome. Seated around a rectangular table set with mineral water, a bowl of fruit and a box of Fox's luxury biscuits, they go through the various cases.

To the casual observer, it may appear like a rather dry committee meeting. But these men are in effect running a legal system that critics fear could fragment the legal framework in Britain. Laws that once ruled supreme in Kabul are now being enforced in cities across Britain.

It becomes clear that Ameena's story of violence, abandonment and difficulty in securing an Islamic divorce is not isolated. Several other cases during the meeting detail claims of 'terrifying abuse', including one where a gun was placed against a woman's head, and another husband who tried to strangle his wife and children.

If the husband has disputed his wife's word, the court demands her account is corroborated by other witnesses - preferably male. If the wife refuses to agree to give the husband access to their children, even in cases of possible child abuse, the divorce is stalled until that issue is resolved.

In another case, the imams agree a husband has treated the wife badly, beating her and their children and leaving them without support once he had been granted legal status to remain in Britain.

'He ran away and left the family, and the children began to hate the father,' says one of the imams. The man signed a petition for a civil divorce but had so far refused to allow a divorce under Islam.

The imams discuss the division of assets between the couple, including any dowry jewellery. They also decide to contact the husband one last time - if he fails to respond, he risks a dissolution.

Ameena's case is then raised. It is decided that her husband will be given another opportunity to respond. If all efforts to reconcile fail, then the marriage might be dissolved, but it is unclear who will care for the children. Under Islamic law, a child over seven usually goes to the father unless he agrees otherwise.

Ameena's fate remains in limbo. The following week I accompany Dr Hasan into enemy territory: he has been asked to speak to a group of female students in East London about sharia. The audience is made up of educated, articulate feminists, both Muslim and non-Muslim.

He tells them his organisation is concerned simply with implementing sharia law in Muslim personal legal cases and that 90 per cent of the clients are women seeking a divorce. The women nod.

Then he explains that sharia is about preserving the dignity, health and honour of the individuals. The nodding continues.

Confident, Dr Hasan tells them that in every part of the world, there can be only one authority.

'In Britain, the ultimate authority is the Prime Minister. In an army, it is the commander-in-chief. On the bus, it is the bus driver. And in the house, the smallest unit of society, sharia says authority must be with the man to maintain the house.

'The woman's duties are much harsher. Biologically, she differs,' he says. Her duties lie with the cleaning and childcare.

The mood turns black as Dr Hasan continues that under Islam, the woman is seen as someone who needs the protection of a man. In matters of divorce, the right of ending a marriage lies with the man because 'women have emotions, whereas a man thinks first before he speaks'.

At this, one white woman berates Dr Hasan. 'If you had said these things about a Jew or a black person, it would be totally unacceptable. Yet you think it is OK to say women are inferior. I cannot listen to this without making a stand.'

Another woman, an African professor, adds: 'In my house, my husband and I look after each other. It is an equal partnership. I don't need anyone to protect me.' Applause ripples through the audience.

An hour later, Dr Hasan emerges from the meeting - he has been attacked verbally but physically he is unscathed. As we walk together, he tells me that virtually all the imams in the UK are trained either in madrassas or religious schools in India and Pakistan, or are graduates of Islamic universities, such as Al-Azhar in Egypt.

Dr Hasan insists their work is not an attempt to bypass the British legal system and says the Islamic Sharia Council does not seek to extend its powers beyond divorce, marriage, dowry and inheritance cases.

'Muslim personal law can be accommodated within the British legal system. In the divorce process, if the British courts recognise Muslim divorce then there would be no need for us to apply for a divorce through the UK system.'

He refuses to accept that there is an inherent conflict between sharia and British law in areas such as equality for women and human rights.

'The problem with the feminist movement is they don't listen to the other side,' he observes gravely, stroking his beard.

I ask if he believes sharia is the best code of law. 'People say it's harsh, but we say it's a deterrent. In Saudi Arabia very few hands are cut. People will not commit the crime as they know the punishment is so horrible, unlike the UK system where people are jailed and the prison system does not work.

'But we cannot ask for sharia in Britain for criminal cases,' he concludes. 'For that to take place, the State needs to support sharia and I recognise Britain does not.'

Despite the feminists' fury, Dr Hasan is a relative moderate on the subject. Some hardliners want Islamic law to be extended to all criminal cases, tackling problems ranging from knife crime to robbery and under-age sex.

One such figure is Sarfraz Sarwar, leader of the Basildon Islamic Centre in Essex. His views have attracted controversy - his mosque was torched three times and eventually destroyed, and his home has also been attacked.

He tells me the windows of his living room are smashed every six months but the police have never caught the perpetrators. He now leaves the windows permanently broken in defiance.

Mr Sarwar insists sharia should be adopted to address rising crime in Britain. 'The British legal system is fair, but it's also very sweet for criminals,' he tells me.

'Sharia is the ultimate deterrent. If you commit a crime and you're punished by sharia, you won't commit it again. But if we praise anything from Islam, people jump down our throat.'

When I suggest that many people in Britain would find some of sharia's provisions extreme and difficult to accept, he agrees. 'We need to adapt sharia for British law. We could use some of the more moderate measures.'

Such as? 'Child abuse, under-age sex, teenage pregnancy, for example.'

I ask what the penalty would be for under-age sex. 'You won't like it. But sharia says if they're caught doing it, you stone the woman.'

Mr Sarwar's other suggestion is to adapt the 'three strikes' policy on crime. Instead of being jailed on the third conviction, a criminal could face having a hand chopped off.

'That would fit in with the way of life here. I'm not being extreme. This has to be used in moderation, for serious crimes, not petty robbery. In this country, people get away with murder.'

He refuses to accept the notion that values of human rights are enshrined in the British way of life.

'In Victorian days they applied sharia. They held people in stocks - there were public floggings, hangings. Why not go back to it? What's the big beef now? Too many goody-two-shoes talking about human rights.'

Mr Sarwar adds that the violence and intimidation he has faced will not silence him. 'I am not a sheep. I am a British Muslim. I pay my taxes, I obey the law.

'People break my windows but I say to you, why can't we mix and match? Take the best from both worlds. The law is like a curry. Different elements improve the flavour. Why not help improve the law of this country with elements of sharia?'

In some ways, I learned that this is happening already. The Somali community in Britain has long relied on the sharia principle of mediation and arbitration in criminal cases.

Saynab Muhamad, leader of the Somali Family Support Centre and one of the few prominent females in the Somali community, tells me how sharia law was used to resolve the case of knife attacks among teenagers a few years ago.

The family of one victim and the attacker came together under Somali elders and an informal hearing decided that the victim should be compensated by the attacker, who in turn was forgiven for the crime. The police were not involved and the matter was settled amicably.

In Somali Muslim culture, after a conflict or a crime is committed, a hearing is held. The judge, or quadis, will act as arbitrator, rectify the crime and reconcile-the two sides.

'In Somalia, the victim would forgive and then be compensated with camels, say 100 camels,' says Saynab.

'Here it would be with money. Sharia is embedded in our society and it has worked well to tackle problems here, too.'

She believes this way of getting community elders involved and taking direct control is more effective than simply relying on the courts, and if the British police wished to attend the hearings, they would be welcome.

For her, this is an example of how the sharia way has been adapted successfully to the British way of life. But critics remain unconvinced and see it as the route to a two-tier legal system, pointing out that under sharia, the law is heavily rigged against women.

Last week, Keith Porteous Wood, director of campaign group One Law For All and the National Secular Society, raised the issue with European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, in Brussels.

Hitting out at the use of Muslim arbitration tribunals, he said: 'Women are particularly vulnerable as they're forced to submit to these tribunals and Islamic law treats women less favourably than men.

'It's essential that it is one law for all in every country and that the law is democratically established and human rights compliant. Sharia fails that test.'

The subject of sharia is personal and capable of arousing deep passions in the community - inextricably linked, as it is, with Muslim identity and sense of honour.

Despite criticism from those in the West, the extent to which many British Muslim women rely on sharia courts became clear to me. Without them they would remain trapped in abusive or violent marriages.

For these women, sharia is not an instrument of oppression, but a route to freedom.

The women I met were unwilling to talk directly about their cases. Apart from divorce being deeply personal, a failed marriage is often seen a source of shame in their communities - though the idea of bypassing sharia and seeking a divorce solely in the British courts would bring far more disgrace to a family's social standing.

Equality before the law for all, regardless of sex, race or religion, is one of Britain's enduring principles. Women's and gay rights are now firmly enshrined in our law - a law that has evolved over centuries to reflect the pluralist democracy Britain has become.

But sharia is a law still rooted in the 7th Century; it sees modernity as the path to an immoral society.

While sharia gives Muslim women a chance to escape unhappy marriages, it fails to grant them equal status - they are considered inferior to men as witnesses, they have unequal status in divorce and custody of the children, and abuse by the husband is not directly tackled by the courts.

All these things go against the equality of British law.

As I prepare to leave Leyton, office staff are cheering on Andy Murray at Wimbledon, a scene being played out across the country. Meanwhile, in a back room, Sheik Haitham Al-Haddad, one of the most senior imams in Britain, is once more contemplating the fundamental split between religion and state.

'There is a conflict between these two sets of values,' he concedes. ' Muslims believe our values are best. The non-Islamic British believe theirs are better. But at the end of the day, understand this: Muslims are never going to give up certain principles, even if they are in conflict. That is a fact.'

Sharia law in Britain is here to stay and perhaps even spread. But it's a perilous tightrope we tread - the line between multicultural tolerance and protecting the right

85 Sharia Courts Operate in Britain

An article which should be astounding - but isn't. The Telegraph reports findings by the think-tank Civitas which estimate at least 85 sharia courts and tribunals are already in operation in Britain.

The Muslim Council of Britain termed the report 'scaremongering' - the cleric doesn't have a gavel in his hand, he's not a judge, so to call these gatherings 'courts' is apparently ludicrous.

Whatever the case, this creeping acceptance of different legal principles needs to be nipped in the bud - fast.

From The Telegraph:

Some decisions of Islamic tribunals are already considered legally binding and could theoretically be enforced in civil courts in England and Wales.

Other officially recognised bodies can agree to grant Muslim "divorces" as part of a parallel system of religious law in Britain.

"This whole business is creeping up on us without anyone really noticing," said Dr David Green, director of Civitas.

The existence of a network of five court-like sharia bodies in London, Bradford, Birmingham, Coventry and Manchester, expanding to other cities under the umbrella of the Muslim Arbitration Tribual (MAT) has already been widely reported.

But Civitas estimates that the real number of Islamic "courts" operating in Britain is at least 85, as a result of scores of unofficial courts sitting in mosques in which imams make judgments on day-to-day disputes.

It argued that they are unlikely to treat women as equals and could even be against human rights law.

The organisation called for a change in the law to stop the decisions of such bodies being legally enforceable.

The MAT, which deals primarily with disputes between business partners or mosques, says that as a legally constituted arbitration body under the 1996 Arbitration Act, its decisions could be enforced in county courts.

That claim has yet to be challenged in a test case but a similar status for Jewish tribunals is already long established.

Another organisation, the Islamic Sharia Council, has a panel of seven judges based in London, dealing largely with divorce and issuing "fatwas" on issues such as how to bring up children.

Mufti Abdul Kadir Barkatulla, one of its judges, said that the organisation had been operating peacefully alongside the civil courts for 25 years without any major problems.

He also confirmed that dozens of informal sharia bodies sit across the country.

"Every imam, if they are qualified can have a hearings and make decisions according to sharia," he said.

Inayat Bunglawala, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "To term them sharia courts is ridiculous, it's just scaremongering."

Qamar Bhatti, a member of the governing body of the MAT, said: "We don't have a court, it's an arbitration, we don't have a judge sitting with a gavel in his hand but that's the image that this report is creating."

What if Norway Had a Muslim Majority?

This is the question which was asked by the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet.

Readers could vote for which statement they agreed with the most:

Hege Storhaug (Sharia will take over)

or

Nazneen Khan-Østrem (nothing will necessarily change).

Some Norwegians (and "Norwegians") feel that the demography debate is in itself racist, and do not wish to participate such a thing.

Many feel that they fear a 'Right-wing backlash' against Muslims and immigrants far more than they fear Sharia law. Educated Norwegians have evidently expressed a desire to leave Norway should immigration-restriction parties come to power.

Some feel that the debate is pointless, and that Muslims will never be a statistical majority.

That doesn't really matter; trends in Oslo suggest it will be a Muslim majority city at some point in the near future.

My own experiences of Britain, Germany and the Netherlands have shown that Muslims do not need to be anywhere near an actual numerical majority for the problems to start; the agitation for Sharia and special concessions, ghettos, no-go zones, racist attacks, preying on infidel women - all of this and more goes on in places where Muslims are a comparatively small minority of the population.

Active secession movements require a slightly larger Muslim population than any European country can currently muster; but the Muslim insistence on realigning foreign policy towards the Muslim world is already very much underway.

All of this aside, the Left and Muslim side of the debate completely ignores the fact that Norway, as a sovereign nation, has the right to restrict immigration in any way it chooses.

Here is the full report on Norway from the excellent Islam in Europe:

The following is a summary of the various opinions, provided by Dagbladet. The original article links to more extensive responses.

Everybody was asked three identical questions:
1. Do you think cities in Noway might have a Muslim majority in the future? If so, how long would it take?
2. What are the most important things you think can change if Norway or areas in Norway have a Muslim majority?
3. What do you think of the Islam-debate in Norwegian society?


This week Norway Statistics came out with new forecasts which estimate the population in Norway to be 6.9 million in 2060. Immigration is the most important reason for the increase. SBB doesn't work meanwhile with forecasts by ethnic or religious group. Several debaters in the Islam debate fear that Muslims will become a majority in various cities in Norway within a decade. It is the higher birthrate among the minorities and continued high immigration which can lead to that. Some speak of "Eurabia" and point to immigrant-stuffed cities such as Rotterdam and Marseilles with their problems. Will Belgistan be next, or maybe the Moorish emirate of Iberia?

Opponents call this a conspiracy theory, an expression of "Islamophobia". Muslims are so different, they claim, fundamentalists are a long way from everybody else, those we speak of have barely been born and we can't suppose that they're be orthodox religious when they grow up.

Will Norway have a Muslim majority? We asked various central debaters to answer the question, and their opinions differ greatly.

Columnist Mohammad Usman Rana thinks the discussion on a Muslim majority is based on myths and prejudices, and adds that Norway in 2060 will have between 4-11% Muslims. He's supported by Islam-researcher Anne Sofie Roald who points out that Muslims are a small minority in Norway, and will continue to be so. Aslak Nore also doubts a Muslim majority.

Spokesperson Hege Storhaug of the HRS think-tank says that they conducted estimates for Oslo. She thinks the capital will have a Muslim majority in 40-50 years. Author Bruce Bawer agrees with her that this will happen, but doesn't know when. Document.no debater Hans Rustad is also most concerned about Oslo.

Yousuf Gilani, a politician for the Liberal Party thinks there can be a Muslim majority in Norwegian cities, just like Abid Q. Raja, but it doesn't worry them. College lecturer Nazneen Khan Østrem rejects the entire presentation of the problem as ridiculous. Associate professor Berit S. Thorbjørnsrud thinks that it's science fiction, and Shoaib Sultan, general secretary in the Islamic Council, agrees.

What will happen in Norway if we have a Muslim majority? Here are the answers of our debaters:

"Islam is in constant development, in 50 years Islam and Norwegian-Muslims will be as much Muslims as today's Christians are in Norway," says Yousuf Gilani, who thinks most Norwegians will just notice more halal food in the shop and more variation in skin color.

Gilani is concerned more about the rise of what he calls the right-wing radical forces which go on the offensive against Muslims.

"The feedback I get from the educated elite in Norway among the minority is that many consider moving from Norway, if there will a lot more right-wing radicalization of the country. This trend appears to be more real in Norway now than what we've experienced in the past."
-----------
"The increase will happen in especially two places: Indre Oslo Øst and Øvre Romerike. Indre Oslo Øst will likely become a ghetto-culture. I assume that a high portion will be Muslims. Elementary schools in Oslo have 39% students of immigrant background. The portion of Muslims is probably high, but how high, I haven't seen any numbers for it, and I believe they aren't available," says Hans Rustad.

If the authorities don't do anything with this development, Rustad believes we'll have a segregated society.

"Then people will see changes in residence patterns, such that those who do not like to live under group pressure from other, move. This will include individual Muslims and other immigrants."
-----------
Aslak Nore, will will publish a book about immigration in the fall, cites social-researcher Erik Kaufmann of Harvard, who discussed what can happen with an increasing Muslim population ('Eurabia?: the Foreign Policy Implications of West Europe's Religious Composition in 2025 and Beyond' (PDF)). He sees two possible outcomes.

"One is violent riots of the type one has seen in England and France. The other is pressure on foreign policy, to prevent support for Israel. Here Norway got a taste during the trouble in January. This appears rather likely. On the long term, Kaufmann is concerned with the day that conserviative right-wing parties in Europe begin to woo Muslims, on religious grounds. The day conservatism will go from being national to becoming a "moral majority". This happened to a high degree in the USA in the latter half of the 20th century. It can also happen in Europe in a few decades. Then it won't be fun to be a homosexual or a religion critic."
-----------
Nazneen Khan Østrem says that a Muslims majority in one city will not necessarily change anything as few Muslims are fanatic Islamists.

"The question carries with it an underlying premise that Muslims represent other values and want a different legal system. This doesn't add up at all. The majority of Muslims in Norway are like most Norwegian. It's time to take this in and stop with scaremongering," says Nazneen Khan Østrem.
-----------
"Just in Oslo we presumably have more than 20 different Muslim communities, which means that Muslims can't be described as one group with a determined goal. Therefore one can't predict the significance of Muslims for political, social or cultural change," says Berit S. Thorbjørnsrud.
-----------
Abid Raja, Liberal Party politician and much more, thinks the question smells of fear of Muslims, but is concerned by preventing the development of parallel societies, expectations that Sharia will be introduced in Norway, ghettos and internal justice if we don't make an effort at integration in the problem areas.
-----------
It's not sharia and FGM that Mohammad Usman Rana fears, but violence against Muslims. He says it can have serious, and in one case - deadly, consequences for Muslims:

"A Norwegian-Muslim father of small children was killed in Nord-Norge in 2008 by a man who had for a while declared a wish "to kill a Muslim". The female head of the Muslim Student Society, Bushra Ishaq, received threats on her mobile phone in the wake of the police hijab debate. Not least, the Equality and Discrimination Ombudsman Beate Gangås reports that it's worse to be a Muslim in Norway in this debate climate. Gangås points for example to reports she got of Muslim children being harassed in the school yard, harassment in the workplace and a Muslim who didn't get to be appraiser due to his faith. We can't have that in Norway. The value of disagreement and debate is priceless, but if the debate becomes so tough and polarized that a vulnerable minority experiences increased discrimination and people creates breeding ground for segregation, then the value of such a debate is wiped out."
-----------
"The European Council has just recently points out that the Norwegian debate is characterized by generalizations and has typical undertones of racism and xenophobia. This I've personally experiences as a debater when I was 'hung' as an Islamist, extremist and fundamentalist in the winter's Islam debate based on my defending standpoint of the right to wear a hijab," says Bushra Ishaq, who says that though she's a Muslims, going to the mountains on Easter and Christmas pudding delight her greatly as all other Norwegians.
-----------
Hege Storhaug sees a future clash with a Muslim majority:

"Then Norway will be subdued by sharia and Muslims will be, per Sharia, the rulers, and other religious groups will get dhimmi-status, that's to say they will have fewer and different legal rights and will have to pay a special tax. Will also have then a religious-fascist and gender-fascist society. Already today 40% of young British Muslims ages 16-24 want a Sharia-led UK. If such anti-democratic forces, who are enemies of the freedom we hold so highly, win over among Europe's strongly increasing young Muslim population, then it's obvious which way Europe's going."
-----------
Anne Sofie Roald believes Muslims in Norway will have a typical "Norwegian" attitude to Islam: equality, democracy and tolerance.

"If Muslims, contrary to all expectation, should become a majority, it's important to understand that most Muslims are so-called 'secular' Muslims who don't practice Islam. Among those who practice, many have a private religious perspective where Islam is practices in the private sphere in the same as many Christians in Norway.
-----------
"One word: Sharia law. And even if there isn't yet a Muslim majority, there are also many in power positions in the country who are keen to sacrifice important freedoms in order to gratify the Sharia-supporters. There was for example frightening to see how many big names agreed with Dag Solstad's repulsive statements on freedom. This is just the beginning," says Bruce Bawer.
----------
Freelancer and debater Ali Esbati thinks the demography discussion is racist, and doesn't want to participate in such a debate.

Dutch Vicar Declares Christians Face 'Submission & Persecution'

A Dutch vicar called H.G. Koekkoek has said in a book that Dutch people should not be surprised if they have to live under Sharia law within 25 years.

Koekkoek, who has studied the Koran in detail, thinks that demographically it is too late for the ethnic Dutch and they, especially practicing Christians and Jews, have a bleak future:

"Within 25 years Islamists are expected to be in the majority in the Netherlands. And whoever is in the majority, has the power, also in a democracy," he says. "Introducing sharia everywhere is a goal of Islam. What remains to the Christians is submitting to Islam or persecution."

Here is the full story from Islam in Europe:

For ethnic Dutch it's a frankly shocking opinion, but pastor H.G. Koekkoek dares to say it: we should not be surprised if within 25 years sharia, Islamic law, will be introduced in the Netherlands.

This is rather what the baptist pastor from Alphen (aan den Rijn) says. It all appears in his recently published book "Mohammed, Islam, the Koran and the Bible" ('Mohammed, de islam, de Koran en de Bijbel'). The rather boring title hides an explosive cargo. "But my book is certainly not meant to insult, I write with a lot of respect about Islam and about Mohammed, who I think is an honest man," he says.

Dominee Koekkoek (70) studied the Koran in detail. He decided to write the book after a series of study evenings on this subject. "People came from all over the country for that. The subject of Islam attracts many. There is fear of Islam and of Muslims. That is on the basis of slogans that we hear, without knowing what Islam is. And also the government knows nothing about it," he says.

"My goal is to tell what Islam is. Simply, put the facts side by side, look at what are our points of contact. Because there are such. Judaism is the oldest religion; Christianity originated from it. But we actually don't know that also Islam originated from Judaism and Christianity. Therefore the God of Islam and the same as that of the Jews and the Christians. So there are more points of contact, but there are also clear points of difference. And I'm not going to avoid that in my book. I name the pretty things, but also the dangerous sides of Islam."

According to the clergyman, the Jewish religion is not missionary, aimed at spreading. "Christianity is, and that was done with the sword. Islam is also missionary. The missionary urge in Islam differs however, that is aimed at the entire world. It is clearly the goal by means of Jihad - the holy war - to bring the whole world under Islam, if need be by strong means."

Koekkoek doesn't give any opinion about that in his book. "I draw attention, and whoever draws attention asks a question that he doesn't answer. The reader answers the question."

The Alphen resident says he wants to teach his readers understanding of Islam. "Islamists are people like us. Many live in peace with Jews and Christians and are respectable people. Some things in Islam are really essentially different. Why do Muslims call our women whores? In Islamic doctrine people are brought up very solidly and it's normal that women cover themselves. If these people come to our world and see those women with naked legs than in their eyes they are immoral. You can try to have understanding for that."

Koekkoek also doesn't believe that Muslims in the Netherlands will in the end let go of the base of their belief. "The Jews were already 2,500 years out of Israel, but their they always kept to their religious customs," he says. "That will also happen with Islam, the mosques ensure that. It's about the doctrine. And that says: we are in war with the Netherlands, because that is not an Islamic state."

The Islamic part of our population is increasing rapidly, he says. "Now already half of all babies have Islamic parents. The forecast is that in about fifteen years, half of the population will consist of Muslims. Presently they'll be in the majority, with all the consequences of it. That could be political and religious consequences. Christians run the chance of becoming second-class citizens who could choose from two things: persecution of submission," says pastor Koekkoek, who's been a pastor for 40 years in the Triomfatorkapel.

He draws a somber future for Christians in the Netherlands. He says he hopes it won't turn out like that, but that he only outlines what can happen. He says he fears that it can't be stopped anymore.

It is not the first book of his published by his association Het Licht des Levens, but it is the first that attracts so much attention. "Hundreds of books in one week. I've never yet gone through that. It does show how much ethnic Dutch are engaged with Islam."

Well, either that or how frightened they are about the future - the ones who haven't already voted with their feet, in any case.

Lord Tebbit Calls Sharia 'the Law of Gangsters'

Staunch Tory Norman Tebbit has made a speech to the House of Lords which likens Sharia law to the system of arbitration which gangsters the Kray twins once enforced on the streets of East London.

Tebbit said:

'Are you not aware that there is extreme pressure put upon vulnerable women to go through a form of arbitration that results in them being virtually precluded from access to British law?'

He was backed by several Lords. including Lord Pearson of Rannoch who issued the invitation to Geert Wilders which led to the latter being banned from the country.

His speech came after ministers confirmed the role of Sharia courts in certain civil matters, claiming that certain Orthodox Jewish communities in Britain have similar autonomy on some matters:

Last autumn, ministers confirmed that sharia tribunals may deal with family and divorce disputes among Muslims, and that sharia decisions need only the briefest scrutiny in a law court to win full legal effect.

Five sharia courts currently operate mediation systems approved under the 1996 Arbitration Act.

Their decisions on divorce, money and children can be approved by a family court if they are submitted to a judge for approval.

There was predictable anger and cries of 'ignorance' from Muslims:

Inayat Bunglawala, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: 'We can only wonder whether Lord Tebbit has ever set foot in a sharia council to see what they actually do before making such a baseless and ignorant comparison with the workings of the Kray brothers.

'Both Muslim sharia councils and Orthodox Jewish Beth Din courts exist to try and help resolve civil disputes amongst individuals through a voluntary process of arbitration. They are entirely legal and have to operate firmly within the law.'

Sharia law is perhaps one of the most primitive and barbaric legal codes which man has ever conceived of.

It has no place in a modern, civilised society, and it certainly has no place in a non-Muslim country.

This country needs as many people to stand up and say so as possible.

Celebrity Lives Sharia Style

Hat tip: Gates of Vienna

I never saw the 'Celebrity Lives Sharia Style' programme when it was first broadcast, but I can confirm that this is an actual BBC production for a modern British audience.

The premise of the programme is:

What would happen if you took high profile celebrity marriages, divorces and legal wrangles and settled them under Sharia law? The answers are rather surprising. Madonna might not have ended up paying Guy Ritchie anything. Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills might have done better to consider an Islamic-style marriage contract, where the norm is to agree a settlement figure before marriage.

Just over a year since the Archbishop of Canterbury made his provocative comments on Sharia law, Ajmal Masroor, a leading British Muslim and London imam, enlists the help of legal and Islamic commentators to explore the pros and cons of accommodating some parts of Sharia to the settling of civil disputes amongst British Muslims.

This programme sends a chill down my spine. It might seem innocent and almost amusing - but that's the point.

They are trying to dress up Sharia law, one of the most primitive and barbaric legal systems on earth, by giving it a little glitz and glamour, associating it with celebrities and their lives.

In modern Britain and America, there's almost nothing you can't sell on the back of somebody else's fame.

At Gates of Vienna, a Dutchman published an open letter he sent to the BBC and the programme's host after watching this programme. I would recommend reading it.

I have to ask myself, 'what is the BBC's agenda with this programme?'

They claim that they're responding to a topical issue, trying to make Islam and Muslims seem less exotic and mysterious and more mainstream - but is it just that?

This is appeasement. Not just of Islam, but the multiculturalist agenda in general. Pick the best bits, dress it up a little, make it sound not only palatable - but inevitable. You see, the host, Ajmal Masroor, just so happens to be a Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate for the Bethnal Green and Bow constituency (currently held by George Galloway).

His profile and CV are very interesting - do click on the link and find out more. Apparently one of the main reasons you should vote for Ajmal - and it's the only line printed in bold - is because the Lib Dems have never had a candidate from 'an ethnic minority background' before.

So, in other words, he's a professional Muslim, and when it suits him a professional 'non-white' man.

The fact he's a prominent Muslim and prayer-leader is clearly supposed to help his case. His site says:

'I now want the chance to continue this work as a Liberal Democrat on the London Assembly. I believe my experiences give me a unique ability to relate to London’s marginalised individuals and reconnect them with the mainstream.

A vote for Ajmal is a vote for a vibrant, cohesive and forward-looking London.'

When he talks about 'marginalised' individuals, I very much doubt he's talking about the people like my Grandparents who now feel like strangers in their own city.

As for 'vibrant' - would that be vibrant as in Lahore, or more like Kabul?

The fact that our taxes in the form of the BBC licence fee are actually paying to push this man's political, religious and yes, ethnic agenda makes me fee physically sick.

But then, perhaps anyone taken in by a programme like this and a shyster like this pretty much deserves whatever they get; they'll get the 'vibrant' city they so desire, but they might be surprised at just what that word is a code for.

Watch 'Celebrity Lives Sharia Style' below (I would not recommend it after eating):

There's a part at the end where Masroor coos to his baby son:

"When you grow up, there'll be no need for a Sharia wedding certificate and a civil one - they'll be combined."

Absolutely shameless propaganda.

One Law for All

I am grateful to regular contributor Derius, who yesterday attended the 'One Law for All' anti-Sharia demonstration in Trafalgar Square.

Here is his report on the march, the speakers and the day's other events (with thanks to Aeneas for the pictures and full credit for all the following information to Derius):

One Law for All Anti Sharia Rally

It is a sad day when, in one of the countries where the enlightenment began, and where some of history’s most prominent philosophers were born, it becomes necessary to protest against the introduction of Sharia Law. That, unfortunately, is the position we now find ourselves in.

Due to thirty years of mass immigration policies, combined with a constant desire by our Government to appease the adherents of Political Islam, there is now a very significant movement by groups such as the Muslim Council of Britain to introduce Sharia Law into tribunals in this country. These groups label any attempts to oppose them as “Islamophobic” and “racist”.

These events cannot be allowed to continue. Maryam Namazie, who has quite correctly identified the problem, has set up the One Law for All campaign to stop this worrying development. Her statement is simple and to the point: “This is your chance to voice your opposition to sharia law and all religious-based tribunals in Britain and elsewhere, demand one secular law and full citizenship rights, demand an end to cultural relativism and racism, and defend universal rights.”

The rally began in Trafalgar Square at 3.30pm. The turnout was from 200-300 initially, to listen to a variety of speakers, a number of whom had fled oppressive Islamic regimes and come to live in Britain. They now find themselves up against the same retrograde forces in this country, who appear to be supported by not only the British Government, but by other prominent figures such as the Archbishop of Canterbury, all under the banner of “celebrating diversity”.

After the speakers had finished, there was a march to Holborn. Observing the reactions of onlookers was positive, as a number waved or shouted approval. A dozen or so people, once seeing the march, also joined in. The atmosphere was relaxed, and trouble free; a stark contrast to some of the incidents at the recent pro Palestinian rallies.

Once we arrived at Conway Hall, a public meeting was held. The speakers included Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, chair of British Muslims for Secular Democracy; Naser Khader, founder of Democratic Muslims; Gina Khan of One Law for All; the writer Kenan Malik; Maryam herself; Fariborz Pooya of Iranian Secular Society and chair of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and Carla Revere, chair of the Lawyers’ Secular Society.

The legal situation regarding Sharia courts in Britain was discussed in depth. As is usually the case with legal matters, the issue is far from straightforward. However, the general thrust is that under the current legal system, Sharia tribunals are voluntary, and nobody can be legally forced to have arbitration within them. However, once an individual does agree to such arbitration, then it is very difficult for the decision to be subsequently overturned in the courts. This presents two problems. The first is that some people may be forced to agree with the arbitration of such tribunals through community or family pressure. The second is that some people may not be aware that they have the legal right to refuse to go to such tribunals in the first place. Therefore, the solution proposed is that rulings of such Sharia tribunals should never be recognised in the courts, and their decisions are never legally binding. This means that any injustices created by the Sharia tribunals can always be overturned.

The only main disappointment with the meeting was a seeming unwillingness to discuss how Political Islam is actually derived, namely through the texts of the Qur’an, Hadith and Sira. A better understanding of the nature of the threat would be very beneficial in defeating it. Regardless though, this is certainly a worthy cause and should be widely supported.

I estimate the total number of people present at least one of the three events (rally, march and public meeting) was about 500. There were many people who were at the rally but not the public meeting, and vice versa, so only a rough approximation can be given.

It is a bitter disappointment that such a campaign is now needed in 21st Century Britain, caused by what only can be described as criminal negligence by our Government. I wonder whether Harriet Harman would like to have her family affairs arbitrated by a Sharia court. I suspect not, but then hypocrisy is something New Labour seem to excel at these days.

Keep the Difference: Women & Sharia

A few days ago, whilst doing some research, I stumbled across an old interview with the British actress Roxanne Pallett (pictured below left). She starred in the soap opera 'Emmerdale' as farmer's wife Jo Sugden, and last year was heavily involved in a storyline about domestic violence in which her character's husband, mentally scarred by prison and troubled by various debts on their farm, subjected her to a campaign of violence, humiliation and psychological abuse.

I don't watch this programme myself, but I found a few of these episodes online, and they're genuinely harrowing in parts. Apparently they were also harrowing to film, because Miss Pallett was so moved she became an ambassador for Refuge, a charity set up to help women and their children flee abusive men. An admirable cause, surely. Domestic violence has become something of a cause celebre for celebrities and the fashionable, but obviously the charity is doing good work and providing a necessary service.

However, as my English History lecturer used to say; compare and contrast. On the same day I found Miss Pallett's interview, I found this video on 'Atlas Shrugs'. In it, a Muslim cleric goes into some detail about how to 'tame' a disobedient wife; beating a woman is apparently perfectly acceptable under Sharia law, as long as you stick to certain rules. You mustn't make her bleed, you mustn't bruise her, and you mustn't hit her face or 'sensitive areas'. Is this because Allah is most merciful?

Well, no. According to the sheik in the video, it's because hurting her in such a way might spoil your sexual pleasure, which, by the way, is your right whether you're currently even speaking to her or not, and regardless of her feelings on the matter. Because refusing sex on demand actually, er, counts as a form of disobedience.

I did a quick search on YouTube, and there are actually quite a lot of these videos, from various Imams, experts and religious authorities. Most of them have been found and translated by the fantastic MEMRI organisation, and they go into varying degrees of detail about just what rights a husband has according to Sharia law.

It's interesting to note that, according to the first video, there are various steps a Muslim husband can take to keep his wife in check, with violence generally being a last resort. However, all of them, as outlined by the sheik in question and countless others, tick most of the boxes on Refuge's 'Recognising Abuse: My partner doesn't hit me, am I still being abused?' section.
So in other words, this holy man is urging his audience to start a campaign of abuse against their wives should they err from the strict path Islamic law sets out for them. They should be ignored, isolated, humiliated, made vulnerable, and finally, if still they won't submit, beaten.

The Refuge website has much hand-wringing detail about how many women are actually abused each year, how many are estimated to be abused but remain silent, and how pretty much all men are potential abusers, so it's best to be safe and always be on the look out for the signs. However, one thing that is (in my opinion, at least) noticeably absent from their site is any mention of Sharia law, or other traditional or religious guidelines that stipulate 'domestic abuse' should be part of a couple's normal repartee.

Also absent is the fact that many, including the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lord Chancellor, have toyed with the idea of allowing facets of Sharia law to operate here in Britain.
The only nod to this at all is the section for 'helping women and children from a multicultural background'.

Am I alone in finding this unusual? This is a system of laws which normalises abuse, general ill treatment and second class status for women, actually being propagated by two men in high positions who should know much better - yet the usual suspects are silent. I somehow think that if Rowan Williams wanted to make divorce harder, or remove the advantages women have in custody battles over children, the good people at 'Refuge' would have an opinion.

I have a friend who has recently qualified to be a barrister for the Crown Prosecution Service. He is also a practicing Christian in the Church of England. Recently, during a friendly debate, he stated unequivocally that he supported Rowan Williams' call for 'aspects of'' Sharia to be normalised alongside British law. This is a man who thinks that executing a convicted murderer is unbearably barbaric.

Like the Archbishop, he is intelligent enough to know better. No matter what I quoted from the Koran, the Hadith and random Muslim clerics, nothing I said could convince him this was a bad idea. After all, he said, these people need tolerance and understanding, and having their own 'community courts' for civil matters might help them along.

Or... not. How is removing them further from the mainstream going to help them along? Help them with what, in any case? Apart from importing customs that should have died out with the 9th Century, of course.

The stock answer is that all of Sharia's more repugnant aspects would be left behind, and we would have a streamlined version, free from all the Middle Ages nonsense. But is that realistic? Some Muslims are openly calling for their own sovereignty, and this is the tip of the iceberg. A victory here will not satisfy them, but embolden them, whilst forcing into hiding or silence the more moderate and sensible members of their community (generally educated women), who actually came here to be free, to be like us, not recreate Mogadishu in the middle of Southall.

One of the best things about Britain is that everyone is equal before the law, but if Sharia were to occur here, it would only be a matter of time before a Muslim tried under British law went before the European Court of Human Rights, demanding that as he can have a Sharia divorce he can have a Sharia trial (bear in mind that under strict Sharia, transgressions are ranked not in terms of the seriousness of the act, but who it was committed against; Muslim men are at the top, then Muslim women, then Dhimmis etc).

I've also heard the argument that it's already happening, so making it official is a mere formality. That something is happening does not automatically make it right; there will always be murder, but that's no justification for legalising it. There is no excuse for operating a secondary legal system, even for civil cases; if a Muslim is desperate to live under Sharia, they can't be too enamoured with Britain in the first place, and they have options, such as finding a country which operates their preferred legal system and moving there.

I think this entire debate is what has been termed 'soft Jihad', a probe, as it were, to test our resolve. There was a similar one several years ago in which some prominent British Muslims demanded we accept polygamous marriages as legal (only for them, naturlich). But this issue isn't, as some claim, a triviality about mortgages or divorce; there could well be terrible consequences, and I've seen them first hand.

After university, I spent 9 months teaching English at a school in northern Germany. The school in question was a Berufschule, and catered for people of all ages, but usually ranging from 14 - 24. Many of the classes were made up of individuals primarily of Turkish, Arab or Kurdish descent, as well as recent immigrants from such places. There were many striking things about teaching in those conditions, but the one that came to my attention the most was attitudes to women.

Because it was a 'technical school' specialising in woodwork, women were very much in the minority among the pupils (the ratio was generally something like 22-3 males to females per class). However, the teachers were overwhelmingly women. When the female teachers attempted to control a class, there was outrage. It apparently offended the male pride of these individuals that a woman might dare challenge them. On one such occasion, a 26 year old Turkish man spent almost an entire period ranting at a middle-aged female teacher about how he was going to find and rape her daughter, simply because she'd asked him to stop talking sharply. There were no sanctions, and the lady shrugged it off afterwards.

'It's their culture', she said.

On another occasion, an older Turkish male who had been harassing a Kurdish female of around 17 by verbally abusing her and ruining her work, finally went too far and broke her wrist. This was simply noted in the 'Klassenbuch', alongside trivialities such as people talking and not sitting up straight, whilst she was sent off to a clinic. Again, the general consensus among the teachers was 'it's their culture'.

But before his abuse, she had been bright and outgoing, eager to learn just for the sake of it, as well as with the goal of making something of herself and becoming a paediatrician. As it went on, she became withdrawn, lost all confidence and interest, and began to see school as the others did, a pointless waste of time, a sort of daytime holding pen.

Hopefully you can see just how dangerous this 'it's their culture' nonsense is already. Does it really need to be written into law, formally or informally?

I will provide one more example of how Islamic ideology can be dangerous to women, although frankly I could sit here writing indefinitely.

This Times article was published in 2007. Please do read it if you get a chance, then have a vigorous wash. It concerns gangs of Asian pimps preying on underage white girls, grooming them, then forcing them to take drugs and sell themselves. You see, the paper correctly identifies the problem, that the police and a Channel 4 documentary makers refused to face up to out of fear; there is a recognisable element here. But it has little to do with 'Asians', and everything to do with Muslim Pakistanis. Sikh girls are preyed on by similar gangs both in the UK and India, and Sikhs too are 'Asians', a generic term for people from the Indian sub-continent in British vernacular. As the link states, it has little to do with colour, and everything to do with Muslim men seducing the 'kuffar'.

The article is deeply disturbing; first it's a travesty that this is occurring at all, but more so that it took the girls' mothers to make a stand, as the authorities were too afraid of being accused of racism.

Now, this is a problem with some, and not all Muslims are responsible, that much should be obvious. But having read that article, I do see a pattern, just as when I read about an Australian Imam mocking Australian girls gang-raped by Muslim Lebanese, or the 'guide to humane wife beating' videos. I see certain Muslims throughout the Western and Muslim worlds trying to enforce a supremacist ideology on us, at the expense of our own freedoms. I see groups of immigrants who the police are afraid to question, but seem to think that us, their erstwhile hosts and our sisters and daughters are little better than cattle or playthings for their amusement.

This is not Islamism; this is Sharia, which is a world view as well as a legal system. The supremacist beliefs and chauvinism responsible for all the above actions are inherent in it, and the belief that even non-believers should submit (or be treated as if they have). We should all be aware of the dangers if it ever gets any sort of a legal foothold, because too many are acting as if we're beaten already. But given what's at stake, can we afford to be? We should be preventing any Muslim who feels that women or Westerners are inferior from living here, not giving into their medieval legal code.

Otherwise, where will it end? 'It's just their culture, give them their rights'. But what about our rights, or the rights of Muslims who have fled such oppressive laws? Are we second class citizens already?