Going back to Britain and how Sharia succeeded, Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi–who ran the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal in Britain–explained how he took advantage of a certain clause in the 1996 Arbitration Act. Under the act, Sharia courts and arbitration tribunals were in essence interchangeable, thus the rulings of the latter are binding in law and can be enforced by both county and high courts.
Only 7 months earlier Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, paved the way for Islamists when he said that “adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.” He reasoned that the UK has to “face up to the fact that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.” He concluded that adopting Sharia law in the UK seemed unavoidable. Yet other church leaders and politicians expressed valid concern that this would mark the beginning of a “parallel legal system.” And it did as these courts also settled cases involving domestic violence–a crossover into the realm of criminal law. Women are, of course, regarded as inferiors under Sharia law, so it’s no secret how women fare in such cases.
France is facing upheaval as Muslims rail against the enactment of the veil ban for a so-called violation of their religious
rights, and sympathizers need only look at what has happened to Britain in its laxness toward the dangers of creeping Islamism. Since Sharia law slipped through the back door in Britain, Islamists have become more emboldened and are threatening women with death for not wearing the veil.
These troubling headlines are pointing to how violent and stealth Jihad are conjoined twins. So much for the social cohesion envisioned by Rowan Williams years ago.