This story from Britain is not brand new. It was published last Thursday, but between the attack on Tommy Robinson and the intervention of
Christmas Winterval, I wasn’t able to give it the attention it deserved when it was fresh.
Over the last several years we’ve heard a lot about the 85+ sharia courts in Britain. Apologists for the parallel judicial system reassure us that the sharia courts never hand down decisions that are in any way a violation of British law. Muslims insist that their system is analogous to the Jewish halacha system of mediation, and is thus no threat to secular jurisprudence. If we are to believe their reassurances, sharia courts adjudicate nothing more controversial than arcane details concerning inheritance and child custody, that sort of thing.
But sharia is more than that. A lot more. As Muslims never tire of reminding us, Islam is not just a religion; it’s an “entire way of life”.
For example, from the authoritative source on Sunni Islamic law ’Umdat al-salik wa ’uddat al-nasik, or The reliance of the traveller and tools of the worshipper — commonly referred to as Reliance of the Traveller when cited in English — we learn this useful information (from Book O, “Justice”):
o1.2 The following are not subject to retaliation:
[…] (2) a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim; […] (4) a father or mother (or their fathers of mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring; …
This is the legal basis under sharia for what are commonly known as “honor killings”. When a child — usually a daughter — dishonors the family, her parents customarily feel bound to kill her, and sharia specifies that Islamic law permits no punishment for such killings.
What makes the following case unusual is that a British court of law anticipated traditional Muslim practice, and forced a baby to be put up for adoption to prevent what “the judge rightly regarded the risk of physical harm” to the child, her mother, her grandmother, and her mother’s siblings. This is a blatant deferral to the most violent aspects of sharia law.
According to The Daily Mail:
A baby born to a Muslim mother after an affair must be adopted to prevent the child becoming the victim of an honour killing, the Court of Appeal ruled today.
The baby’s mother, who is not married, was so ‘terrified’ of how her family would react that after becoming pregnant she ran away from home.
She then concealed her pregnancy by wearing loose clothes and travelling to the other side of town for her antenatal care.
As soon as the baby — known only as Q — was born the mother gave her up for adoption.
Upholding a High Court decision, three judges ruled that Q’s father could not have his daughter to live with him because of the risk the baby’s maternal grandfather would track her down.
Instead, Q, who is now a year old, will be adopted.
Under normal circumstances, a family court would prefer to place a child in the care of a natural parent, if that parent is capable of raising the child properly. This is what one would expect if
white people persons of British background were involved. But the rules are different for Muslims.
The baby’s maternal grandmother had told police that if her husband found out about the child ‘he would consider himself honour-bound to kill the child, the mother, the grandmother herself and the grandmother’s other children’.
Today Lord Justice Munby, Lady Justice Black and Lord Justice Kitchin said in a joint ruling that the child was at risk if she was not adopted.
Just think about what the justices are doing here: they are anticipating violent, murderous behavior on the part of Muslim relatives, and their reaction is not to warn the likely perpetrators that they will experience the full righteous fury of retributive British justice.
No, they are giving the would-be murderers exactly what they want, the preservation of their honor. A child will be forced into adoption to prevent her grandfather from experiencing shame:
They said if the grandfather discovered the affair ‘it would be a matter of intense almost unimaginable shame to him and his family’.
The baby’s father — a married man known as F — had launched an appeal against the decision made by Mrs Justice Parker in the High Court last July.
She found there would be ‘a very significant risk of two and two being put together’ if the child went to live with its father because the baby was quite obviously not his wife’s child.
The justices foresee criminal — homicidal — behavior on the part of the grandfather, and their response is to force an infant into adoption rather than deal with the customary behavior of Muslims, which they seem to accept as beyond their control, if not actually normal:
The appeal court judges ruled: ‘In the particular circumstances of this case, the judge rightly regarded the risk of physical harm to Q and M (her mother) as being of major importance.’
The court heard that although both the baby’s mother and father were Muslim, there was a ‘profound cultural difference’ between them.
Upholding Mrs Justice Parker’s decision to make an adoption order, the appeal judges said: ‘The mother’s evidence, supported as it was by her actions, and the evidence of (the father) and an experienced police officer, drove the judge to conclude that refusal of the order would carry with it a significant risk of physical harm.
‘In our judgment this conclusion cannot be criticised.’
Yes, I know that adoption may turn out just fine for the child, and that adoptive parents can be just as loving and nurturing as biological parents.
But that’s not the point. The point is that a British court anticipated murder and adjusted its decision accordingly, seemingly without blinking an eye.
This is complete, unabashed sharia. The British judicial system is not beating around the bush anymore: it is acting as the enforcer of a full-blown Islamic state.
Hat tip: Gaia.