בס"ד
I. "Sharia4Belgium" and "Islam4UK"
Brussels, Belgium is the "capital of Europe", home to the European Parliament - the seat of a pluralistic, multi-cultural European Democracy.
But the man speaking at the very beginning of the above video, Abu Fariz of "Sharia4Belgium", a Belgian resident, says, "Democracy has nothing to do with Islam. Democracy is the people deciding what laws they want to implement, and for us, the law has already been made, created by Allah..."(paraphrased translation from French to English by ISRAELrealNATION)
Fouad Belkacem of "Sharia4Belgium" and "MuslimRise" follows, "How can you obligate someone to vote...? They are speaking among themselves; they are not speaking about Muslim people. This does not concern Muslim people. We Muslims, we say that Allah and the Sharia Law is the only thing that can be obeyed, the only thing that can be followed. How can I care what Sarkozy or Obama says or does...?" (paraphrased translation from French to English by ISRAELrealNATION)
Finally, the third and last man featured in the video, unidentified, says, "The people here [in Europe] want us to leave. G-d found this country for us, and we say, 'You...you get ready to move. We are here to stay. Islam is here to stay. By the will of G-d, we are going to conquer this country, by the will of G-d are going to make of Belgium an Islamic state, and by the will of G-d, we are going to leave from Belgium to liberate the lands over there [other countries in Europe, other Western countries, the non-Muslim countries of the larger Middle East and Asia]...and we are not going to do this politely. G-d gave us the truth. He gave us Islam. And why should we ask someone to have this Islam?' " (paraphrased translation from French to English by ISRAELrealNATION)
In Britain, the followers of Anjem Choudry, a former British Solicitor and the Founder of "Islam4UK", a group which was proscribed in the United Kingdom under its anti-terrorism laws on 14 January 2010, want to turn Buckingham Palace into a mosque and to declare Sharia Law the "law of the land". They would, indeed, like to see Her Royal Highness convert to Islam.
II. "That filming has to stop, we are Muslims..."
The Muslim woman who demands not to be filmed while protesting on a public sidewalk in Britain at the end of the video shared above seems like a very wealthy, very well-educated Muslim woman - a person of privilege. You can tell by the way she is dressed, as well as by her behaviour. She looks and seems as if she is someone among the ranks of those sponsoring the activities being filmed...
Her request, and the way in which the British Bobby responded to it, is the most telling segment of this video about what is happening in Britain today - a sign of what is to come, of what is already happening, all across Europe. It is an expression of "creeping Sharia" - the desire to impose the rule of Sharia Law in Europe, in the West, in the World, over time.
"Creeping Sharia" is the most powerful weapon of radical Islam, for it moves silently, virtually invisible to the eye, as its hold takes root. The same applies to any radicalized religious expression, including radical expressions of Jewish Law (Halakha).
The reinforcement of the rule of secular law as an affirmation of universally shared cultural norms in Britain is the only way to combat the inevitable pressures of change in demography in the UK. But here, the EU and Britain have made some key mistakes, as well - the most important being the imposition of the application and enforcement of Sharia Law in secular British Courts, which breaks the traditional barrier between the public and the private, church and state, in a way which is extremely damaging for the fight against Islamic Jihad, as well as the fight against extremist ideologies, generally.[1]
The way in which the Bobby responded to the above-mentioned woman's request to turn off the camera, by requiring those filming on a public sidewalk to turn off the camera, demonstrates that British law enforcement, representative of what is happening at the level of the British Courts, is pressured to defend, in a public space, not the rule of secular British Law, but the religious and cultural norms of Sharia Law in the name of respect for diversity and freedom of religion.
What the British Bobby defended here was not British Law. Sharia law is literally "creeping" into the secular normative culture of the UK.
Just as religious Jews would request that they not be filmed within their synagogue on Shabbat, religious Muslims may request that they not be filmed within their Mosque during their time of worship...but the streets of Britain are a public space, and there is no such right to privacy, particularly in the case of an event which is intended to attract public attention, when the filming does not focus exclusively (and unreasonably so) on the activities of any one individual without their consent, whether explicit or implied...
Just as a religious Jew may submit a dispute to a Beit Din in Britain, rather than a secular British Court, so may a religious Muslim submit a legal dispute to a Muslim Sharia Court, privately.[2] But religious law in Britain should not be applied or enforced by secular courts, in any case. The preservation of the traditional separation between church and state is the frontline, the brightline, in maintaining a peaceful co-existence among peoples and beliefs in a pluralistic, multi-cultural society. The preservation of the traditional separation between church and state is the frontline, the brightline, in the fight against "creeping Sharia" as a weapon of Islamic Jihad.
Now that this line has been crossed in the EU and in Britain, however, it will be very, very difficult to correct.
III. Echoes of the "Matam", and Echoes of the "Matam" under Radical Islamic Jihad
In Islam, "Matam", the ritual beating of the chest, has traditionally been considered both as a symbol of mourning and a symbol of commitment to fight one's deemed oppressors.
This is the style of Matam that is largely being performed in the streets across Britain today, and it is from Pakistan:
As Jews, we also beat the chest, though in a different manner, in order to show sorrow or mourning for atonement, particularly when we say the Amidah and on Yom Kippur (during the "Vidui").[4] And so, there is something about the tradition of the beating of the chest in order to demonstrate sorrow or mourning which is uniquely Middle Eastern, as well. For Middle Eastern people and in Middle Eastern religious culture, the beating of the chest holds a deeply symbolic, positive, spiritual meaning, whatever one's religion.
In contemporary radical Islam, however, the longstanding tradition of "Matam" has sadly taken on another dimension, as a cry to "battle" within a terrorist ideology, as a show of commitment to radicalized notions of the concept of Jihad...
Thus, some streets of Birmingham, of Newport, of London, are not only beginning to look like a distortion of Mecca, they are beginning to live like a distortion of Mecca, and to impose this distortion not only upon those who have not chosen Islam, upon those who are not Muslim, but also upon those Muslims who seek to preserve the truth and integrity of their faith. [3]
This distortion of Mecca is not at peace, but at war, on an ideologically and spiritually immoral plane. Thus, on occasion (meaning, in some instances), the beating of the "Matam" at Marble Arch does not represent the pure meaning of the "Matam", but rather a distorted and hollow derivative of the "Matam" inciting to terrorist ideology and global radicalized Islamic Jihad:
in which radical Islamists make Matam at London's Marble Arch, is no longer available online.
We have now included a direct link to a similar video (for which embedding is disabled)
treating the same theme. ]
Note that, in some segments of the above-cited video documenting a pro-Hezbollah protest held during the 33rd Arbaeen Procession at London's Marble Arch, one can hear people making "Matam" in the background.
Aberrations of Sharia Law and Islamic ritual are being used by radical Islamists as a weapon invisible to the naked eye, and we must begin to pay attention. We must wake up to the echoes of distortions of the "Matam" in the streets, the echoes of radical Islamic Jihad, the echoes of "creeping Sharia", before it is too late...
IV. The Syrian Courts
According to Halakha (Jewish Law), under certain specific circumstances and within certain specific paradigms, the decisions of secular courts may hold legal weight in disputes between Jews, as well as in disputes between Jews and Gentiles. Such is inferred from the mention of the "Syrian courts" in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 23a):
"...[T]he Talmud ([Sanhedrin] 23a) legitimizes the 'courts of Syria', which consist of laymen who, having been accepted by the public, judge according to local law and common sense..." [5]
Thus, within Torah Judaism, under certain specific circumstances, there exists a defined - and limited - openness to secular courts and the "law of the land" (the "land" in which a Jew lives in exile, in Diaspora), particularly as the Jewish Diaspora, including those Jews who live today within the contemporary State of Israel, still remains in a state of of physical and spiritual exile. The breadth of this openness to secular courts and the "law of the land" is relative, and varies according to the determination of the the situation in which the Jewish parties find themselves (for example, Jewish parties living in a Jewish Law jurisdiction in which no Beit Din (Jewish religious court) has been established or is seated may be permitted to have their case heard before a secular court), as well as according to different interpretations and understandings of Jewish Law within the different streams of Judaism. [6]
From an Orthodox Jewish perspective, resort to secular courts by Jewish parties is more likely to be deemed permissible where "the lay court is constituted 'for the sake of heaven' and the good of the community, existing only in the absence of Torah scholars[,] or where the difference between them and the Torah scholars is not qualitatively significant." [7] Given that secular courts in the Western world are largely based upon norms extending from the Judeo-Christian tradition, the incidence in which the difference between the reasoning or decision of a Beit Din and a British (or European) secular court is not "qualitatively significant" is understandably higher than such would be for a Sharia court. [8]
Thus, in certain respects, Batei Din (Jewish religious courts) have a relationship to secular courts in the West (or secular courts founded upon Western legal thought and principles based in Judeo-Christian norms, wherever they are located in the world) which is fundamentally different in character to the relationship that Sharia courts have with secular courts in the West (or secular courts founded upon Western legal thought and principles based in Judeo-Christian norms, wherever they are located in the world). Although both Halakha and Sharia firmly establish the religious court as the court of law within Jewish and Muslim communities, respectively, Torah scholarship acknowledges that there are instances in which legal decisions handed down by laypersons applying local law in secular, Gentile courts can and should be respected.
Although there are certainly instances recorded in which Muslim parties have sought justice before Jewish judges sitting in Batei Din, the resort of Muslim parties to secular courts within religious Islamic practice has a much narrower window than it does within Jewish religious observance. The general dynamic within Sharia law, and even more so within radicalized interpretations of Sharia law, is to do away with the need for the secular court by encouraging greater resort to Sharia courts, even in cases between non-Muslim parties. [as documented in Footnote 2, below]
Although Halakha also generally dictates that Jewish parties must resort to Batei Din, Jewish religious courts, the legitimate existence of secular courts is legally acknowledged and accepted by Torah scholarship. Halakha - even in radicalized forms which also pose problems in respect of extremist, radical and terrorist ideology - normatively and customarily does not seek to completely replace secular courts with Jewish religious courts. Halakha rather seeks to ensure that Jewish religious courts may exist freely in parallel with secular courts while remaining completely separate from them, given the fact that there are instances in which a Jewish religious court might deem it appropriate for a case involving a Jewish party, or Jewish parties, to be heard before a secular court, rather than a Beit Din.
Perhaps the establishment of a similar understanding and relationship between Sharia courts and secular courts - not only within the United Kingdom, but also within the West and within the larger world, generally - would decrease the negative influence of extremist, radical and terrorist thought and ideology within Islam upon Sharia law and Western secular society. Such reform would specifically address the dynamic of "creeping Sharia" within radical expressions of Islam.
~ Ruth Rachel Anderson-Avraham, ISRAELRealNATION,
9 August 2010, 29 Av 5770
[1] See Hickley, Matthew, "Islamic Sharia Courts in Britain are now 'Legally Binding' ", The Daily Mail Online, 15 September 2008.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1055764/Islamic-sharia-courts-Britain-legally-binding.html
[2] At least eighty-five (85) Muslim Arbitration Tribunals (MAT's, British Sharia Courts) have, indeed, been legally established in Britain, bringing the substantive conflicts between Islamic Sharia Law, as it is applied today, and particularly under the influence of radical Islam, and universally accepted legal principles and norms of British Law, of Western Law, of International Law to light on British soil.
Even the exclusive jurisdiction of the application of Sharia Law to Sharia Courts in Britain would not resolve the substantive issues posed by Sharia Law, the deep clash between Sharia Law, as it is applied by Sharia Courts today, and universally accepted British, European, Western, International social, cultural and legal norms, though such might delay the impact of "creeping Sharia" on the public-at-large as radical Islamists pursue Jihad. For example, the cutting off of the hand as punishment for stealing, stoning to death as punishment for adultery are imposed under Sharia Law in the contemporary radical Islamic world - punishments which are inhumane, in clear violation of fundamental human rights, in clear violation of universally accepted international legal norms and principles.
From within the Muslim world, the call for reform of Islamic Sharia Law is being made.
Nevertheless, in Britain today, the numbers of non-Muslims that are voluntarily choosing to have their disputes resolved before Sharia Courts is increasing. This, alone, is proof of the tremendous impact of "creeping Sharia" on social and cultural norms.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/03/uk-15-increase-in-non-muslims-use-of-sharia-courts.html
[3] Take, for example, the case of Muslim bus drivers in the UK refusing to let guide dogs for the blind on board:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/uk-muslim-bus-drivers-refuse-to-allow-guide-dogs-for-blind-on-board.html
[4] In Judaism, however, mourning upon the death of a loved one is expressed not by the beating of the chest, but by the tearing of the clothing - "Keriyah".
[5] See Ariel, Rav Yaacov, "Secular Courts in the State of Israel". Jewish Law. Ed. Evan Kusnitz. Ira Kasdan, Esq. Reprinted with the permission of the Zomet Institute (Alon Shvut, Gush Etzion).
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/SecularCourts.html
[6] Idem at Section B.
Although the contemporary State of Israel exists today, it does not yet exist at the level of the full physical and spiritual restoration of Erets Israel ("The Land of Israel"), as defined within the Torah. Thus, even those Jews living within the State of Israel today are still living within a state of spiritual exile, the degree of which is less severe than those Jews still living within Diaspora today.
[7] "In the latter case, there exists the need for the acquiescence of the Torah scholars, cf. Kli Yakar, Ex. 21." Idem at Section E.
[8] Idem at Section E.
© 2009-2010 (Original Publication)
ISRAELrealNATION / Ruth Rachel Anderson-Avraham
© 2009-2017 (Second Edition)
ISRAELrealNATION / Ruth Rachel Anderson-Avraham
No comments:
Post a Comment