Wahta brilliant

article by Sarah Palin! The FN increased their number of voters in the second round and trippled their number of councillors. France swung to the right as the hapless leftists were FORCED to vote for the centre right to keep the FN out. Their share of the regions dropped from 12 to 5!!!!!!!!!!!! BwhahahahahahahahahahahaPalin comments on matters. This is a brilliant and accurate summary of the situation. Frankly there cannot be  more stupid, politically correct, brainwashed bunch on halfwits than the leftists. Their moronic views are mind boggling.

I have a political crush, but one I couldn’t vote for today – because she ran for office in France.

Marion Maréchal-Le Pen is the new deserved “It Girl” of French politics and a clear voice of courage and common sense in a country and continent in need of both.

In 2012, she earned the distinction of being France’s youngest elected Member of Parliament. Last week she handily won the first round of a race for the leadership of a large important region in southeastern France that’s home to the beautiful port city of Marseilles. Unfortunately, she lost the run-off election today because the two establishment Parties joined forces to defeat her.(45% of vote)

But despite today’s tough losses, Marion and her aunt Marine Le Pen, the leader of the National Front (FN) Party, have established themselves and their supporters as a force to be reckoned with in France’s 2017 presidential race, in which Marine is sure to be a contender with her talented niece right behind her. (Biggest party in France!!!!)

For some time now, I’ve admired the bold style of Marine Le Pen, who wrestled control of the leadership of her populist party in order to purge it of any trace of anti-Semitism, which it had unfortunately been tainted with in the past. But I’m especially impressed with the courage of her young niece who is a devout Catholic and unapologetically pro-life – not an easy thing for a politician to be in a country that’s aggressively secular.

More importantly, young Marion Maréchal-Le Pen is unashamed to champion France’s Judeo-Christian identity and heritage as something worth preserving and fighting for. She publicly proclaims it, setting an example for even American politicians to be so bold. With France (and indeed all of Europe) caught up in an existential crisis against radical Islam, these are the sentiments they need in their leadership.

The Charlie Hebdo attacks last January and the Paris attacks last month were a tragic wake up call for France. The forces of civilization are engaged in a great war against the Death Cult that is radical Islam. This year the conflict reached the shores of France, which has become the Western Front of this Great War, thanks in part to the migrant crisis overwhelming the European Union.

Was anyone surprised that the mastermind of the Paris attacks entered the country by posing as a Syrian “refugee”? The Islamic State bragged that they were going to exploit Europe’s open borders! Is this not the clearest warning to politically correct pundits and politicians in our own homeland who think we can filter the nefarious out from the future flood of young, strong, able-bodied immigrants claiming “refugee” status? It is common sense to encourage these young men to stay and fight for their countries and families during this time made tumultuous in part by our utter lack of border security and vetting processes.

The migrant crisis has made a mockery of any idea of national sovereignty. The EU’s open border policy means that all of Europe is now forced to bear the burden of Germany’s insane decision to welcome in those untold millions of mostly fighting age young Muslim men who have zero interest in assimilating to secular western values, as heretofore mentioned.

To this, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen declares that France is not an Islamic land, but Muslims are welcome to become French citizens “only on condition that they bend to the customs and the way of life that Greek, Roman and 16 centuries of Christianity fashioned.”

What she’s saying should not be controversial. It’s common sense. The western values enjoyed by every French citizen regardless of their religion are necessarily rooted in those 16 Christian centuries. Our understanding of human rights and human dignity comes from the Judeo-Christian worldview that shaped modern Europe. If you transplant to your shores a foreign population that’s hostile to the very things your country stands for, you won’t have a country for very long. This is the hard truth. You can’t maintain a peaceful liberal democracy with people who want to impose Sharia law on you. (THE CRUX OF THE MATTER)

But for some reason saying this out loud is considered “hate speech” or xenophobia in Europe. They can even press criminal charges against you for it!

We see members of a Death Cult gun down Parisians in a café and concert hall, slaughter cartoonists at their desks, shoot up a Jewish market, sell women and girls into sexual slavery, stone gays to death, crucify and behead Christians, and declare their intention to infiltrate and destroy western countries. But the Left reserves its harshest criticism not for the murderous Death Cult, but for any leader offering commonsense solutions to curtail the terrorists’ ability to wage war on the innocent.

The Left wraps itself in political correctness and multiculturalism like a suicide vest. They’d rather blow up the whole country than admit the stupidity of thinking a nation can remain the same after inviting in millions of people who despise its values. (ALAS THE HATTERS ON THE LEFT CANT SEE THIS)

I guess it’s not surprising really. The Left in Europe and America has always had a self-destructive hatred for the things that make a country great and worth living in: free markets, free speech, a civil society grounded in Judeo-Christian values, a strong national defense, and sovereign borders. They’re constantly attacking every one of these things. That’s undeniable.

But their dangerous ideology is being “mugged by reality.” People are waking up. Young Marion Maréchal-Le Pen built her electoral win last week by going to the rural small business owners – the average French citizens who have been ignored by their elite politicians and have had enough.

We see the same thing happening here in America. Call it the rise of the populists. Pundits are already seeing the similarities between Marion and Marine Le Pen, Donald Trump, and 

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)97%. All are non-establishment candidates taking on corrupt, entrenched, and detached political elites who are more interested in preserving their own power than in defending their countries.

It’s time to wake up, America. Nowhere in Europe or America is safe from this Great War against the Death Cult. San Bernardino wasn’t a one-off phenomenon. ISIS is already here. According to a House Homeland Security report, over 250 people in the U.S. have attempted to join ISIS (that we know about), and 82 have been caught in ISIS plots. Meanwhile, the FBI has nearly 1,000 open cases involving ISIS that we know of.

We don’t have a handle on this situation now, but our insane politicians want to import more so-called “refugees.” Forgive me if I’m a little skeptical about the refugee part. We just learned that ISIS is forging fake Syrian passports, and we already know that two of the Paris attackers entered Europe posing as refugees. We have no way to vet anyone coming to our country. This is why we need to seal the borders.

And we need to be bold enough to speak candidly about the need for those coming here to assimilate to our values, as immigrants have always done in the past.

Our country isn’t 16 centuries old, but our Founders were under the influence of 2,000 years of Judeo-Christian thought and time-tested truths when they drafted our Constitution. We would do well to remember that our Constitution is incompatible with Sharia, and anyone who wants to live under Sharia should settle elsewhere.

When Marion Maréchal-Le Pen speaks of France’s 16 centuries of Judeo-Christian history and heritage, her rhetoric isn’t about “hate” or xenophobia. It’s about love – that deep love of country we call patriotism.

Mark Twain believed patriotism was personified in the story of a young French woman who “found a great nation lying in chains, helpless and hopeless” and led it “from victory to victory” until it was free. “With Joan of Arc love of country was more than a sentiment – it was a passion,” Twain wrote. “She was Patriotism embodied.”

As Marion faces the political battles ahead, I wouldn’t be surprised if she says a prayer to France’s Patron Saint, for Marion is a reminder of her – Joan of Arc.

NOW THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT THE SLANDEROUS LEFTISTS CALL FASCHISTS, NAZIS ETC ETC. These stupid people have no clue whatsoever and are putting Europe and the USA in great danger.

The ray of light is that their stupidity is being recognised and folk are waking up in both Europe And the United States.

Lastly how democratics is all this. In the UK UKIP I read has 1 member in parliament but some 4 million votes! One thing is for sure the FN will give these guys blazes in the regional councils! GO FN and save France! G O TRUMP AND SAVE THE USA

We know doing jihad against the infidels is a requirement of the koran for all muslims. We know the koran teaches muslims that they must not be friends with infidels and we also know that the koran allows muslims to lie to infidels.Now given all that the strategy of the leftists is to get imagined moderate muslims to fight the battle with us against radicalised muslims!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  a more crazy solution can hardly be imagined.
We have had thousands of muslims departing to join up with ISIS - even young girls etc. How many cases have there been where family or neighbours have given the alarm.Can one reasonably suppose muslims will rat on muslims fullfilling the reqiurements of the koran? Can you really believe those who say they are peaceful when you know firstly that the koran requires them to do jihad and that they have free reign to lie to you and cannot be your friend?
Also given the goal of Islam is world domination and placing all under sharia law why would any muslim take steps to avoid overthrowing a non muslim regime. The USA if called the great Satan. Now these muslims come to the states and suddenly they are going to enlisted to fight ISIS etc etc.
The lunacy of the left is breathtaking and will lead to head taking.   

 In a scurrulous attempt to discredit Trump (I refer not to calling him a Hitler or a fascists - claims that refelct so badly on unhinged morons on the left) some hapless leftists say Trump inherited his money. They argue if Trump had invested it wisely he would only be some 500 million dollars below where he is now.These loonies forget Trump lost his money (1 billion dollars) and then got back up and made 11 billion dollars. Oh the terrible envy of some very small men.
Bwahahhahahahahahahahahahaha these leftist are such easy picking due to their rank stupidity.

Beenis. Again, I will say I don't like Islam ans I think the world would be better off without it. But, check this out... Look at the USA and how, wince the war on terror began, their constitutional rights have been eroded. Do you know, any American can now be chucked in prison indefinitely, without any recourse to legal assistance and the authorities do not even have to explain to anyone why they have imprisoned the person. Go and read about PRISM also, and watch some interviews with Edward Snowden. Yes, your basic right to privacy...IT DOES NOT EXIST ANYMORE. Remind you of any previous regime? Now France. Their president has been pushing for more power to be handed to the corporate controlled EU since tue beginning. Did you know France were warned prior to and ON THE DAY of thr attacks by Iraq and by Syria that the city of Paris was going to be attacked. How are Iraq and Syria able to know this but NATO and it's allies not? So, Beeno. Nobody is disagreeing with you about Islam being a blight on the world. The problem is that they are not the only problem. Another problem, andnpossibly a bigger one, is politicians who want to rapidly move the west into a far right state of mind, one in which people will give up more and more of their basic rights so as to "be kept safe". Do you really think we will be better off with less.human rights? I really don't. Look, we can do an experiment for you if you like. Tell me if you agree with the idea of PRISM. Don't go and read all about the pros and cons. Just tell me what your gut says. Don't go all wonky and start preaching. Let's try to have a normal conversation. Ok?

Baboon-ou, no-one's claiming that F*ckface von Clownstick (aka Donald Trump) would be worth a bit less than he is now if he'd simply invested the money that Daddy gave him, we're saying he'd be worth a heck of a lot more! Billions more!

Wehe . . . the blithering idiot who wrote a book called "the art of the deal" made so many bad deals that he couldn't even keep up with inflation!

LMAO!

As for using the words "Sarah Palin" and "brilliant" in the same sentence . . . pfffffffffhahahahahahahaha!

Wouldn't it be hilarious if Palin becomes von Clownstick's running partner for the election? (Assuming the Republicans are stupid enough to nominate him!)

 Frot plum I see you are making some progress. You assumption that people like Le Pen and Trump want to simply take away liberties is fallacious and silly. Obviously when you are at war some liberties need cutailing. When has this not been the case.YES I THING CURTAILMENT OF LIBERTIES MUST TKAE PLACE IF THE THREAT WARRANTS IT. OUR FREEDOMS CAN BE USED AGAINST US. DONT BE SO NAIVE
The folk really against fredom and liberties are the politically correct who want thought oppossed to the own to be criminalised - the lableeing of Trump as a facist , a hitler - ditto Le Pen is a total disgace!. Freedom must be guarded but there are times when the can be curtailed. The sealing of the USA borders to muslims is a good example. Nobody is disagreeing with you about Islam being a blight on the world. SOME POLITICALLY CORRCT TWITS IN THE UK SAY THEY ARE PROUD OF THEIR MUSLIMS BUT THE JOKE IS TAHT THEY LEAVE ALL THESE GUYS IN CALAIS AND DONT LET THEM IN. THEY ARE SIMPLY LIEING.I have no problem that the left is cutailing freemdms to suit their own agenda. Their brain washing media is disgusting. They cant even report accrutaely whata guy actually says.
We are heading to a totalitarian one world order headed up by anti Christ. Beheading of opposition will be the order of the day - see Revelations - the means by which anti Christ executes his opponents.So yes tryrants will always try to curtail liberties. However taking steps to curtail islam might involve the curtailment of certain liberties but is a price that has to be payed. Eg countries imposing border controls in E urope - and the states. 

 Ex Breitbart

Amongst the celebrations by the mainstream media and political establishment, you would be forgiven for thinking that the Front National crashed horrendously during today’s second round of French regional elections. Nothing could be further from the truth.

While it will sting that Marine Le Pen’s party didn’t manage to pick up any regional seats, a lot of this is down to the political establishment’s games over the past few weeks, where they’ve formed unofficial coalitions, stood down candidates for each other, and rolled out religious and community figures to effectively threaten voters with a view of what a Front National France would look like.

Sound familiar? British (and some American) readers will see the parallels between the UK Independence Party’s (UKIP) performance at the last General Election, and the Front National’s performance today. (I’m always asked to be careful comparing these two parties – so bear in mind there are some differences).

UKIP achieved 4 million votes at the General Election, and walked away with just one, very independent, Member of Parliament.

The Front National have so far garnered 6.5 million votes (they’re still counting as I write this) and are believed not to have won a single seat.

France 24 rightly observes – though it buries the fact in its live blog – that the party “has already beaten its previous record of votes, set at the 2012 presidential election”, adding: “It may have lost this election, but it picked up a whopping 6.45 million votes (and they’re still counting)”.

No doubt the British and international newspapers will rejoice in the morning: “Front National trounced” etc etc – in fact the BBC is predictably already at it.

But Marine Le Pen was right to point out that it will be very difficult to stop her party at this point.

With a base of 6.5 million to build on, she has as much to look forward to as Nigel Farage does – with an EU referendum on the cards, and a UKIP membership base that is actually growing (you heard it here first).

 Sahria law as it operates in the UK. Can a kaffir [non-Muslim] come in and judge Islamic matters?” It is very clear they want their Sharia law to dominate

• Farage: 'No-go zones' for non-Muslims in French cities

Sharia in the UK: The courts in the shadow of British law offering rough justice for Muslim womenAround 30 sharia councils exist in the UK, giving Islamic divorce certificates and advice on other aspects of religious law

• Senay Boztas 
• Friday 4 December 2015

5KAn estimated 30 sharia councils exist today in the UK Getty

Inside drab terraced housing, with a plentiful supply of tea and biscuits, a parallel British legal system is in operation.

This is the view of Machteld Zee, a Dutch researcher who gained unprecedented access to sharia courts in London and Birmingham that she believes conduct their work “in the shadow of the law”.

Ms Zee, who describes herself as “an atheist – like 70 per cent of the Dutch” – decided that the topic of her law PhD at Leiden University would be on how legal systems in different states interact with religion. 

The 31-year-old from Gorinchem in the Netherlands was looking for a case study for her thesis, and heard about the sharia system in Britain. 

An estimated 30 sharia councils exist today in the UK, giving Islamic divorce certificates and advice on other aspects of religious law. They have garnered fierce criticism, particularly for their treatment of women seeking religious divorces, who make up the core clientele. 

READ MORE

Sharia courts in Britain 'locking women into marital captivity'

Sharia law is the Islamic legal system, derived from the Koran and the rulings of Islamic scholars, known as fatwas. As well as providing a code for living – including prayers, fasting and donations to the poor – sharia also lays down punishments as extreme as cutting off a hand or death by stoning for adultery. 

Critics of sharia law – such as Ms Zee, after conducting her research – say it downgrades women and is incompatible with European human rights legislation. Men need only say the word to have a religious divorce (uttering “I divorce you” three times), but women need the sanction of clerics. Without it, they risk being called adulterers if they do remarry. 

The Islamic Sharia Council premises in Leyton, east London

In 2013, the Dutch academic began writing to all of the sharia councils in Britain she could find contact details for. 

“I sent emails but heard nothing back. Then a professor at King’s College London, who has a different view of the councils, gave me some contacts,” she tells The Independent. To her surprise, she was extended two invitations after offering assurances that she wasn’t a journalist. 

For two days in early July that year, Ms Zee presented herself at the unremarkable terraced building in Leyton, east London, that houses the Islamic Sharia Council. Some women were veiled; others wore lipstick. But what almost all these visitors to the council had in common was that they were there to ask for a religious divorce from their husbands. 

She sat in a room with desk, chairs and tea and a supply of biscuits – for the judges (known as qadis) at least.

Sharia in the UK

One case Zee witnessed, at the Islamic Sharia Council in London, involved a married couple with children, who asked if the woman’s first civil divorce was recognised religiously. It included the following exchange:

Qadi: “You as a Muslim female, you should have known that you need a Muslim judge or an Islamic court or council for a divorce. Who told you that it was enough?”

Wife: “My friends and family. The UK divorce does not count as anything?” 

Qadi: “It is going to be a difficult case. We are going to ask our scholars to give you the answers... Marriage is an act of worship”.

Husband: “But I thought Muslims in a non-Muslim country need to abide by the laws of the land of the country they live in?”

Qadi: “A secular judge does not do religious divorces.  We have Islam. Secular courts do not have Islamic laws.  Can a kaffir [non-Muslim] come in and judge Islamic matters?”

“The judges were very friendly,” she says. “We chatted between cases. The problem is not that they were mean but the foundation of their judice acts in a system of sharia Islamic law, in which the principle focus is making women dependent on their husbands and clerics.

“One judge said: ‘Under Islam, we should reconcile marriages even if there is violence’. They don’t care. It was shocking: they would have you cling to a marriage. 

“There are also unfair custody statements. The woman has no idea this is a religious institution and she should go to a secular court [for her children’s interests] – and once she finds out, a British judge won’t switch parents after a few months.

“But in 2001, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that sharia law is incompatible with liberal democracy.”

Her book Choosing Sharia? is based on the 15 hours of cases that she saw at the council in London and another at Birmingham Central Mosque Sharia Council, alongside her extensive research into sharia law and other reports on sharia councils. She also investigated the Jewish Beth Din religious court, where she interviewed two judges. 

Ms Zee’s analysis is blistering: these courts all treat women as less than equal and are incompatible with human rights law. 

“I don’t say that you should ban sharia courts,” she says. “The ‘market’ for these councils, of women asking for a religious divorce, can be diverted to civil and criminal courts, where you can press charges, as happens in Holland.”

In her book, she describes in detail seven cases that she witnessed at the London council, each in front of one Islamic judge. In between cases, she says a qadi tells her they have 600 to 800 cases a year involving “divorce-seeking women who are on the receiving end of violence or maltreatment”. She goes on: “He tells me: ‘As long as marriage is sacred, reconciliation is our job’. Although, he tells me, reconciliation is mostly not successful, but sometimes it is.” Ms Zee describes cases including a female qadi-in-training seeing a young woman who has been visiting the Islamic Sharia Council for two years desperately seeking a religious divorce.

The woman has brought a solicitor with her. She says she was dissuaded from a civil marriage by her mother-in-law, and her husband refuses to co-operate until she has paid back her dowry of £10,000 worth of gold. But the woman claims she cannot return the dowry as her mother-in-law took it away again immediately after the wedding. She also claims that her husband took out a loan on her name the day they got married, further complicating her financial position.

The judge asks if she is sexually active, saying the husband has alleged that she is committing adultery. The woman denies this, and asks why – prior to a previous hearing – she was told on the phone that she was not allowed to bring anyone with her: no solicitor, friend, or family. 

“She says that consequently, there was a hearing consisting of two male qadis interrogating her alone for quite some time about her sexual activities, in detail,” writes Ms Zee. “She had found that very uncomfortable and unprofessional. [The qadi] says it should not have happened and that she will look into it.”

READ MORE

• Sharia-compliant savings and bank accounts rocket in popularity across
• 'Sharia compliant' sex shop to open in Mecca
• British Muslim father feared to be travelling to Syria with family is
• Farage: 'No-go zones' for non-Muslims in French cities
• Law Society withdraws controversial guidance on Sharia-compliant wills

After some more questions, the woman is told she need not come again to court and will hear “soon” whether her request for a divorce will be granted. “She looks as if she is ready to burst out in tears,” Ms Zee writes.

A separate case, in front of a young qadi in a white robe, is deemed another matter for “further investigation” after a couple present themselves to say that the wife’s first marriage had a civil but not a religious divorce (see panel).

Later, a woman married to a 50-year-old man asked if the qadi could intervene to stop her husband’s verbal and physical abuse. Ms Zee recounts: “She says: ‘He oppressed me to the maximum, he is violent, [and] physically treats me like a dog’. She wears a headscarf on his request. With ‘every little thing’ he threatens to divorce her. He is abusive both verbally and physically. She says he might have 10 wives for all she knows. He is currently in Tunisia. [The qadi] laughs a bit: ‘Why did you marry such a person?’”

In another case, a husband and wife and the qadi switch into another language to discuss their relations at one point. Ms Zee recounts: “After a short while, they switch back to English. [The judge] tells the man that he needs to swear on the Koran not to mistreat her any more. This case has been going on for four years. The man agrees to meet the conditions. The marriage is saved.”

But Ms Zee did witness some cases in London where the wife was successful in her appeal for a divorce. One woman – who was on one of multiple visits – said she had not seen her husband in four years after he moved abroad and refused to proceed with divorce, saying he wanted back his gold dowry. “She tells [the judge] she left the gold in his house when she left him. He is not stable, he is big-headed, arrogant and drinks alcohol. The reason he does not want to pronounce the talaq [assert his right to divorce her] is for revenge, she says. Now she has to pay him again, she does not have the money and she has a job, so she does not have any time for these procedures.”

Dutch researcher Machteld Zee, who gained access to the courts

The qadi announced the divorce, saying she did not have to return the dowry. 

But when another woman asked for a religious divorce (in addition to ongoing civil proceedings) of a husband she had not seen in four years, and to whom she had given back an £8,000 dowry, plus an extra £30,000, Ms Zee writes that the qadi responded: “Debt is not a cause for divorce. You should help him. Why don’t you pay him more?” The academic writes that the judge then tried to persuade her to accept a polygamous marriage rather than pursue a religious divorce.

Last night Khola Hasan, a scholar at the Islamic Sharia Council who has worked there for six years, rejected Ms Zee’s allegations:  “We are there for a reason, and people come to us,” she said. “We show them sympathy, we certainly don’t condone domestic violence or force women to go back: we are there to get women out of religious marriages.”

She described the allegations of bias towards men as “absolute rubbish”, saying: “The disputes are between a man and a woman and they are given equal weight. For anyone to claim men have more weight is a lie.” She said the council may consider legal action. 

The council does have a prominent banner on its website saying “Stop Domestic Violence” and leading to a webpage which says: “In an emergency always call 999.”

Ms Zee’s experience in the Birmingham council was far more positive. There were three judges per case, plus an administrator on hand to write out divorce certificates. The four cases she writes about in her book all ended in success for the women, who recounted tales of husbands who physically abused them or got them into debt, and issued religious divorces. 

She spoke to the qadis in Birmingham about her experiences in London. “I told them about the Islamic Sharia Council case where the qadi told a couple that kaffirs cannot rule on Islamic matters and that the woman’s civil divorce means nothing under Islam. They seemed to be appalled. ‘We totally disagree. We cannot have two laws. This is totally wrong. We live as British citizens and accept the law of the land.’”

The Birmingham Central Mosque did not respond to emails and phone calls.

Ms Zee is still critical of the entire sharia system, which comes under fierce attack in her 193-page book. She believes that the cases – by allowing men to delay proceedings – can end up locking women in “marital captivity”. She also claims that the councils are doing nothing to report domestic violence.

Zee will launch her book at an event organised by libertarian think-tank, the Henry Jackson Society, in the Houses of Parliament on 12 January. She is calling on the British government to introduce new laws to help women access the criminal and civil courts for religious divorce, as in the Netherlands, where in 2010 Dutch-Pakistani woman Shirin Musa won a precedent-setting civil case. 

 There, a judge imposed damages upon Ms Musa’s husband for each day of non-compliance with the court’s ruling that he had to release her from the religious marriage. He instantly did, and in 2013 “marital captivity” became a criminal offence.

Some campaigners feel even more strongly than Ms Zee. On Thursday 10 December, the International Day of Human Rights, groups including One Law For All will deliver a petition of more than 200 signatories to 10 Downing Street calling for the government “to dismantle parallel legal systems.”

They say that with cuts to legal aid and funding for women’s groups, vulnerable women – who might be taking their first steps away from an abusive relationship – are even more likely to go to sharia councils where those like Iranian Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation’s Diana Nammi believe: “The whole system is stacked against women”.

Supporters of multiculturalism are reluctant to criticise sharia law, says Ms Zee.  But should this legal system operating “in the shadow of the law” be banned? “No,” she reflects. 

“It can’t be done. If you had three men in a living room, they could call themselves a sharia council.”