Is it crazy week and no-one told me?

After the creationism debacle I commented on earlier, have a look at this Channel 4 documentary aired in February 2007:
Divorce Sharia Style

I could have made comments all the way through but I'll restrict myself to my first thought.
Part 1 - 3min:18sec - Maulana Abu Sayeed

"We are representatives of the words of god. We interpret the words of god"

Three points and then I will move on:

1. Why do your 'interpretations' always sound as if you make them up?
2. If your god is omnipresent, omnipowerful, omnicogniscent and omnibenevolent, why are you even needed? Surely such a god could impart his directives in a fair and just way directly to those involved. Cut out the middle man.
3. If not 2), then who are you to interpret the mind of a god? See 1)

Earlier this year, in the wake of Archbishop Rowan Williams' backing of the introduction of sharia law in Britain, The Grauniad reported:

Gordon Brown's spokesman insisted British law would be based on British values and that sharia law would present no justification for acting against national law.

"Our general position is that sharia law cannot be used as a justification for committing breaches of English law, nor should the principles of sharia law be included in a civil court for resolving contractual disputes.

"If there are specific instances like stamp duty, where changes can be made in a way that's consistent with British law and British values, in a way to accommodate the values of fundamental Muslims, that is something the government would look at."

The Conservative peer and shadow minister for community cohesion and social action, Sayeeda Warsi was also critical:

"We must ensure that people of all backgrounds and religions are treated equally before the law."

"Freedom under the law allows respect for some religious practices. But let's be absolutely clear: all British citizens must be subject to British laws developed through parliament and the courts."

That sounds pretty clear. So where did this come from and why did I first hear of it via an American blog?

Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts

ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases. The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.(emphasis mine)

What if both parties don't agree? As was clear in the video, if one side happens to be female their rights are much diminished. Also I find the phrase 'taken advantage of' to be most telling.

Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said:

“If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so.”

But it gets worse

Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.

The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.

And you consider this a good thing Siddiqi? Every woman in the UK should be horrified at this, and any man with a sense of justice.

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.

So these low-life thugs were allowed a second chance to terrorise their wives when they should have been imprisoned. That is unjust.

Go back to April this year, from a Telegraph report Dr Suhaib Hasan pontificates:

"If sharia law is implemented, then you can turn this country into a haven of peace because once a thief's hand is cut off nobody is going to steal," he says.

"Once, just only once, if an adulterer is stoned nobody is going to commit this crime at all.

"We want to offer it to the British society. If they accept it, it is for their good and if they don't accept it they'll need more and more prisons."

It's not more prisons that are needed Dr Hasan, it is more mental institutions where dangerous people like yourself can be treated for their delusions. These backward notions of justice are not welcome. I wouldn't trust someone like you to flip a burger let alone make legal pronouncements. Flogging and dismembering people into submission is morally wrong. It belongs hundreds of years in the past, not in the 21^st century.

Time and again this weak-willed government is pissing away the rights of us all in this country. I can't see Pat Condell being very happy about this.

What can I say? Not much. What can we do? Very little, so I leave you with Ceiling Cat.