Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: ZetaNine on July 03, 2008, 04:26:15 PM
-
Kiss it goodbye my british friends..........this is OFFICIALLY the beginning of the end for you.
this idiot paints with a pretty wide brush.......I hope he truly understands sharia law...and what kind of a pandora's box he's opened.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/07/03/article-0-01D69EEE00000578-749_233x381.jpg)
The most senior judge in England tonight gave his blessing to the use of sharia law to resolve disputes among Muslims.
Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said that Islamic legal principles could be employed to deal with family and marital arguments and to regulate finance.
He declared: 'It is possible in this country for those who are entering into a contractual agreement to agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law.'
In his speech in an East London mosque Lord Phillips signalled approval of sharia principles as a means of settling disputes so long as no punishments that conflict with the established law are involved***, and as long as divorces are made to comply with the civil law.
***for now, anyway
.
-
Here's the question:
Sharia law as WRITTEN, or Sharia law as interpreted by the radicals?
There's a HUGE difference between the two. I've read parts of the actual Sharia laws, and as written is in truth SIGNIFICANTLY more moderate-- AND gives a lot more powers, protections and freedom to women--than the extremist interpretation used by the Taliban and other ultra-conservative/radical Islamic governments.
-
Here's the question:
Sharia law as WRITTEN, or Sharia law as interpreted by the radicals?
considering he's caving into people.......and not text.......I'm sure the radicals will bastardize this situation as well.....and then the country.
-
welcome to the 12th century
-
oops i meant to type 21st :P
-
You do realise no law or ammendment to existing legislation has been passed or tabled? And this is his opinion?
Lord Phillips said: "There is no reason why sharia principles, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution.
"It must be recognised, however, that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales."
But severe physical punishments such as flogging, stoning and the cutting off of hands would not be acceptable, he said.
He added: "There can be no question of such courts sitting in this country, or such sanctions being applied here.
"So far as the law is concerned, those who live in this country are governed by English and Welsh law and subject to the jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts."
I know how much the facts might rain on your little apoplectic parade, but hey that's life!
-
INBTL
-
You do realise no law or ammendment to existing legislation has been passed or tabled? And this is his opinion?
Lord Phillips said: "There is no reason why sharia principles, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution.
"It must be recognised, however, that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales."
But severe physical punishments such as flogging, stoning and the cutting off of hands would not be acceptable, he said.
He added: "There can be no question of such courts sitting in this country, or such sanctions being applied here.
"So far as the law is concerned, those who live in this country are governed by English and Welsh law and subject to the jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts."
I know how much the facts might rain on your little apoplectic parade, but hey that's life!
"just his opinion".........yeah......the most senior judge in England.
recognize this as what it is.........the opening of the door.......
or
continue to ignore it.......
YOU SIR.........are part of the problem.
Meet your NEW Neville Chamberlain...
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/07/03/article-0-01D69EEE00000578-749_233x381.jpg)
-
You do realise no law or ammendment to existing legislation has been passed or tabled? And this is his opinion?
Lord Phillips said: "There is no reason why sharia principles, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution.
"It must be recognised, however, that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales."
But severe physical punishments such as flogging, stoning and the cutting off of hands would not be acceptable, he said.
He added: "There can be no question of such courts sitting in this country, or such sanctions being applied here.
"So far as the law is concerned, those who live in this country are governed by English and Welsh law and subject to the jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts."
I know how much the facts might rain on your little apoplectic parade, but hey that's life!
I'm confused. Don't judges earn thier living forcing their OPINIONS on the masses?
-
Here are the top ten reasons why sharia or Islamic law is bad for all societies, as written by a contributor to americanthinker.com. The link brings you to the reasons... with detailed commentary for each one. So... if that comes to pass... when it comes down to #3 listed below, what happens then? That entire country submits to sharia? It's all fun & games until your hands get cut off!
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/top_ten_reasons_why_sharia_is.html
10. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.
9. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.
8. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye.
7. Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off.
6. Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated.
5. Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed.
4. Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.
3. Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non—Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself.
2. Islam orders apostates to be killed.
1. Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad.
-
this comes as no surprise to me. I have posted often on this and other BBS that it would only be a matter of time before islum conquers europe.
-
Not much sympathy from my camp for the UK in this matter. Last I recall, the UK has been championing loopy leftwing ideas for many years. Since the UK citizens have no guns left to resist with, I suggest polish up the pitchforks and ready the torches.
-
He declared: 'It is possible in this country for those who are entering into a contractual agreement to agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law.'
In his speech in an East London mosque Lord Phillips signalled approval of sharia principles as a means of settling disputes so long as no punishments that conflict with the established law are involved***, and as long as divorces are made to comply with the civil law.
Did you not read it properly? As long as the details are under contract and it abides by English Law, then it is fine... I don't see how that is any different from any other legally binding document?
-
Did you not read it properly? As long as the details are under contract and it abides by English Law, then it is fine... I don't see how that is any different from any other legally binding document?
It's not nearly has fun if you don't wave your hands about, run in circles, and scream.
Play along.
-
The judge is simply stating the law. Any agreement between people can be arbitrated under any religious or legal code they like. If they want a Jedi council to decide where the fence between their property should be placed, then that's up to them. Of course, they still need to get the authorities to register the boundary changes.
That's been the way things operate in this country for centuries. Jewish courts have a long history in Britain, and I believe there are some operating in the US as well. Of course, they don't have any real power, they can't hand out punishment unless both parties agree, and even then physical punishment would be against criminal law.
I don't see how you can stop voluntary Sharia courts in a free country. People have the right to settle disputes between themselves in any way they like, as long as it's peaceful.
-
Dowding and Nashwan: you are both making the mistake of presenting facts and arguing logically - neither of these hold any weight with most of the denizens on this BBS. They have already made up their minds and just latch onto anything they think agrees with them. The best way to make a counter argument to them is to do exactly as they do:
Jews in the UK have have the option to settle disputes under Jewish Law? OMG JEWS ARE TAKING OVER YUROP!
See how easy that was? I didn't even need to engage my brain once.
-
It's not nearly has fun if you don't wave your hands about, run in circles, and scream. Play along.
Come ON! :)
-
Dowding and Nashwan: you are both making the mistake of presenting facts and arguing logically - neither of these hold any weight with most of the denizens on this BBS. They have already made up their minds and just latch onto anything they think agrees with them. The best way to make a counter argument to them is to do exactly as they do:
Jews in the UK have have the option to settle disputes under Jewish Law? OMG JEWS ARE TAKING OVER YUROP!
See how easy that was? I didn't even need to engage my brain once.
jewish law?
Pei .........it's appeasement........and eventual capitulation. taking the legal matters and RIGHTS of your own citizens out of your courts and into the dark hidden shadows of sharia jurisdiction ...whether in full accordance with your own laws...or not....is in fact...a fatal mistake.
q- are these people given an attorney to defend themself?
amazing how the brits cry about how we treat non-citizens at gitmo......yet they permit the same for their own citizens..... in country.
-
jewish law?
Google "Beth Din". From the BBC:
Jewish courts are in daily use in Britain, and have been for centuries.
British Jews, particularly the orthodox, will frequently turn to their own religious courts, the Beth Din, to resolve civil disputes, covering issues as diverse as business and divorce.
"There's no compulsion", the registrar of the London Beth Din, David Frei, said. "We can't drag people in off the streets."
Both sides in a dispute must be Jewish, obviously, and must have agreed to have their case heard by the Beth Din. Once that has happened, its eventual decision is binding. English law states that any third party can be agreed by two sides to arbitrate in a dispute, and in this case the institutional third party is the Beth Din.
The Beth Din also takes care of a multitude of Jewish community affairs, many of which never give rise to any dispute: the dates of the Sabbath, kosher certification of caterers and bakers, medical ethics for Jewish patients and religious conversions. But it is in the areas of divorce and litigation that the Beth Din acts as a court in the western sense.
Divorce, in Jewish law, takes place when a document called a Get, written out by a scribe in Aramaic and ancient Hebrew, is handed by the husband to the wife. It is not legal the other way round, but that does not mean that men have it all their own way.
Both sides must agree, and the wife has to accept the document if she wishes the divorce to proceed. This need not always be in person, and a court official can stand in for the husband as a legal proxy in particularly fraught cases.
Jewish litigation is more varied, but a typical dispute might relate to a partnership, a Jewish school, a Jewish charity or a transaction between two businessmen.
The court can hear cases concerning quite large companies, but they must always be privately owned, in that both parties must be Jewish in order to accept the authority of the Beth Din.
The service provided by the Beth Din is best described as binding civil arbitration, and they do not seek to replace the state's civil courts.
"If one side does not accept the authority of the Beth Din, concerning divorce or any dispute, we cannot act", David Frei clarifies.
"And in the case of divorce, the parties must still obtain a civil divorce alongside the religious one."
All criminal matters are reserved for the UK's state courts, and there is no appetite for change.
Pei .........it's appeasement........and eventual capitulation.
No, it's called freedom, and I'd be very surprised if the US didn't have it as well.
Imagine I have a dispute with my neighbour. Say he built a tall fence, and it's blocking the light from my living room.
I could take him to a traditional court. I pay a lawyer, he pays a lawyer, a judge sits down and listens to the argument, then decides whether the fence stays or goes. It takes a long time, and costs a lot of money.
Alternatively, we could go to arbitration. That arbitrator can be anyone we agree on. It can be a friend, a solicitor, a priest, a rabbi, an imam, a doctor, a Jedi knight, a druid, a white witch, the manager of the local McDonald's, etc, etc.
Should we now pass a law that says anyone can arbitrate but a Muslim?
taking the legal matters and RIGHTS of your own citizens out of your courts and into the dark hidden shadows of sharia jurisdiction .
No, that's not what's happening. This is a literally beneath the court system. Look up arbitration on Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration
q- are these people given an attorney to defend themself?
Up to them. Note that arbitration, which is all these sharia "courts" offer, is purely voluntary, and all parties have to agree. The decisions can be challenged in a proper court, although judges will usually support the arbitration process if it's conducted in a fair and serious manner.
amazing how the brits cry about how we treat non-citizens at gitmo......yet they permit the same for their own citizens..... in country.
What, you mean we permit people to resolve disputes in a mutually agreeable way? So, incidentally, does the US: http://www.bethdin.org/services.htm
As a rabbinic court, the Beth Din of America is qualified to address Jewish communal and personal needs in the following areas:
<snip>
Rulings That Are Binding
Because the Beth Din conducts its cases in a manner consistent with the requirements of secular arbitration law, its rulings are legally binding and enforceable in the secular court system.
There is nothing whatsoever to stop sharia courts operating in America in exactly the same way they do in the UK. In fact, I suspect they already are, and it's just the sort of prejudices that show up so regularly on this board that stops them advertising the fact.
-
this is not civil arbitration my friend.......... and this is no visit to the local jewish matchmaker........I don't think you understand what you're dealing with....
by the way........the term is "zabla"
-
edit
-
It is exactly civil arbitration, no more, no less.
I don't think you understand what you're dealing with
I won't be dealing with it at all, as I'm not a Muslim, and have no intention of entering into arbitration under sharia law. But those who chose to do so will know what they are getting in to, and if they feel aggrieved by the process can resort to an appeal to a proper court under English law.
-
The Lord Chief Justice told his audience at the East London Muslim Centre in Whitechapel that severe physical punishments such as flogging, stoning and cutting off hands would not be acceptable.
Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips
He said: "There can be no question of such courts sitting in this country, or such sanctions being applied here.
"So far as the law is concerned, those who live in this country are governed by English and Welsh law and subject to the jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts."
On the ways sharia could play a role he said: "There is no reason why sharia principles, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution.
"It must be recognised, however, that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales."
The judge said the Archbishop of Canterbury had been misunderstood when it was reported earlier this year that he said British Muslims could be governed by sharia law.
Dr Rowan Williams suggested that sharia could be used in "aspects of marital law, the regulation of financial transactions and authorised structures of mediation and conflict resolution".
-
Good Lord you people are clinging to crap I KNOW you don't even believe.......I will say it once more....this is the opening of a Pandora's box for your country...this octopus has plans.....and tentacles that you just don't understand....
-
Go away, or we will batter you with common sense based on the facts for a fourth time.
-
sharia law, "peace in our time" :rofl
the arabs have a saying about letting the camel put his head inside the tent.
-
Not sure about the following, for real or ......
Sharia in America
By Ayesha Ahmed
Omar M. Ahmad founder of CAIR said:"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant" he said. "The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America , and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth," he said.
Americans should give a serious thought to CAIR's agenda.. If Islam and sharia is adopted in America , It will be great. .
Muslims are right. Non of the existing Islamic countries are truly Islamic, that is why they don't progress and most of them are poor, corrupt and miserable. We must implement 100% sharia and sunna to get full benefits of Islam. Inshallah we will try to do it in USA to make it the first real Muslim country after the days of rightly guided khalifas Consider the following advantages:
- America can go to jihad against non Muslim countries. It will bring immense wealth in booty and millions of captured women. Canada and Mexico can be easy targets and are conveniently located for easy assault and hauling of booty.
-Since slavery will be allowed government can open slave markets to sell it's 20% share of the captured women.
-Captured women/slave-girls can provide affordable domestic help for house wives and clean enjoyable sex for their husbands.
-Enslaved men can be used as farm labor and factory workers at a much lower cost than unionized labor.
-Unemployed men from the prohibited non Islamic businesses like TV, Photography, computers, mortgage companies, music industry etc can be hired as religious police for the Ministry of Prevention of Vice and Promotion of Virtues . They can be used to beat up women violating burqa laws, arrest men with undersize beards and whip the non religious types found loitering at prayer times.
-Since men will be allowed four wives and unlimited number of slave girls, population boom will result in making the fastest growing religion grow even faster.
-All non muslims will live under dhimmi rules and pay heavy Jizya. Budget deficits will be a thing of the past.
Stoning of adulterers, whipping of alcohol drinkers, cutting of hands and feet of thieves and beheadings of apostates can be carried out after Juma prayers on Fridays in the local stadium. Gate charge for this gory and exciting weekly spectacle can generate a lot of revenue.
-Unemployed male gynecologists can be hired to carry out circumcisions of new male converts.
-Female circumcision can be made mandatory to promote piety and holiness and discourage lewdness among women.
-Marriage age for girls can be lowered to 6 years. That will reduce the burden of support of large poorer families and also promote a sunna, the tradition set by the holy prophet (peace be up on him).
-Whole Ramadan will be declared as public holidays so that every one can pray and recite the Quran.. Why work in the only month in which all ibadah and Quran recitals are worth 70 times the normal sawab (reward)?.
-Shia Muslims on temporary out of town business assignments will be able to do a temporary marriage (Muta) and enjoy home comfort outside of home.
-Since menstruation is a disease according to Quran all menstruating women will be given time off to rest in bed during their periods.
-All toilet seats in the public rest rooms will be reoriented so that one does not defecate facing Mecca .
-All public toilets will have buckets of stones instead of toilet tissues for claiming after defecation as a movement to implement sunna in the country.
-Separate bins along roadside will be placed to drop bones and dried animal feces for jins to snack on.
-Spiraling medical costs can be brought down by the following two prong approaches:
-Imams can be placed in the clinics to recite Quranic ayas (verses) and blow on the patients and pray for them . Their fee will be a fraction of what doctor's charge.
- All pharmacies will be required to dispense black cumin, honey, Indian incense and camel urine as cure for all diseases as recommended by the holy prophet (pbuh). The cost will be a fraction of today's medicines.
-Spiralling prison costs will come down due to the following:
-All men serving time for the crime of rape will be freed if four male witnesses had not testified in the trial. Even if four male witnesses had testified, the criminal will be freed under insanity provision , since only mentally insane will rape in front of four witnesses.
-All men serving sentences for beating wives will be freed as under new American sharia law wife beating will be allowed.
-All thieves will be freed after cutting their hands and feet.
-All pedophiles will be freed as sex with children will not be against law any more.
-All slayers of unbelievers will be freed if they converted to Islam.
All these result in savings and prosperity and happiness for all. InshaAllah!
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/AyeshaAhmed41220.htm
-
Schoolboys punished with detention for refusing to kneel in class and pray to Allah:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031784/Schoolboys-punished-detention-refusing-kneel-pray-Allah.html
-
Not sure about the following, for real or ......
Struggling to see the relevance of what you have posted, MiloMorai. It's a tongue-in-cheek article. But if it was taken to be serious, the agenda of extremists or fundamentalists of any religion don't have anything to do with Lord Phillips' comments. All of the points in your quote are contrary to UK law.
Schoolboys punished with detention for refusing to kneel in class and pray to Allah.
Seems a strange story written in a right-wing sensationalist rag. I'd like to see the full story behind the headline. It doesn't mention the religion or ethnicity of the supply teacher - I find that strange. Surely that would make a better story if he/she was Asian?
-
Not so hard to understand. One foot in the door leads to another foot in the door and then another and then another and ..........
-
Your article is meant to be taken as a joke. Are you seriously suggesting that it is a manifesto for Sharia law? :lol
-
Hatred and intolerance should be met with......................... .... acceptance and understanding? :lol
I can't be bothered getting the war-drums out now. It is my opinion, though, that Islam should not be met with understanding as it will give none in return and seeks dominance, not equality.
-
Sharia law is an incorrect locution. It should just be Sharia, I see the Telegraph corrected their headline.
As far as the issue goes, it is a small thing for the time being. Time will tell if it turns into a big thing in the face of declining and aging native European populations relative to the immigrant community. It is not a huge reach to assume that Muslims will push for more if they have the political wherewithal to pull it off.
-
Why is this old man wearing dirty carpet on his head? :huh
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/07/03/article-0-01D69EEE00000578-749_233x381.jpg)
-
Why is this old man wearing dirty carpet on his head? :huh
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/07/03/article-0-01D69EEE00000578-749_233x381.jpg)
he is english.
-
Why is this old man wearing dirty carpet on his head? :huh
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/07/03/article-0-01D69EEE00000578-749_233x381.jpg)
In England not many of us can afford carpets. Those that can, show their wealth of carpet in extravagent ways, be it attaching it round the neck like a superman cape, attaching it to your front so you can see it and admire it at all times, or in this case - wearing it on the head. What a fine specimen of carpet it is too, he must be exceedingly wealthy.
-
Sharia law is an incorrect locution. It should just be Sharia, I see the Telegraph corrected their headline.
As far as the issue goes, it is a small thing for the time being. Time will tell if it turns into a big thing in the face of declining and aging native European populations relative to the immigrant community. It is not a huge reach to assume that Muslims will push for more if they have the political wherewithal to pull it off.
read the entire thread. our brit pals are not big fans of forward thinking....
-
Waaaaaaaaaaaa waaaaaaaaaaaaa
All i have to say, but it sais it all :lol
-
read the entire thread. our brit pals are not big fans of forward thinking....
How is it possible to stop if it stays within English Law?
-
butterin ell...how is this so hard to understand for our US brothers from the land of the Free, Land of the brave, ninja fighters for Democracy etc etc? The acceptance of allowing alternative dispute resolution epitomises all of the values you seem to hold so dear...unless of course its only for certain 'types' of individual?
We may be passive in the UK but dear Cod, we're passionately indifferent to religious orthodoxy since about the 1700's.
-
Two points:
1. There's nothing more crazy in so-called sharia law than what you might find in the old testament. The American news media whips up fear about what radicals do with it because it makes a good story.
2. British orthodox jews already settle their disputes according to their own laws; this is not a new concept.
-
This reactionary attitude of "OMFG WE'RE CAVING IN TO THE JIHAD!!!1!!!!111!!1!" is actually part of the problem. This decision is only acknowledging that British Muslims have the same rights and freedoms to apply their beliefs to secular disputes that Christians and Jews already do. It's a secular ruling protecting their own freedom of religion WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE LAW.
And I guarantee this much: if you help the moderate Muslims feel less marginalized from Western society, you're going to take a LOT of power away from the extremists. Then one day you'll turn around, and they'll be no more serious a threat than the cracker-jack extreme conservative Evangelicals and the Southern Baptists. ;-)
-
How is it possible to stop if it stays within English Law?
english law will look nothing like is does now...in just a few more years....for reasons best known to you already.
-
Well, it's really our own fault. If we had not been caught up with our own comfortabilities and actually crated a positive population growth then there would have been no need to source labour from immigrants. The huge influx from currently overpopulated muslim counties would not have occurred.
It's like the Beatles said... All you need is Love! Get to it and breed the heathens back out of existence!
-
Any minute now Zeta's going to start calling to just start dropping nukes on the Middle East.
The West has been no better than the Muslims in developing this whole situation. In fact, you can arguably make the case that this little series of wars we called the Crusades are the single biggest factor in today's hostility between the Middle East and the West. Not because of the actions of the Muslims, but the knee-jerk OMFG WE LOST THE HOLY LAND reaction of the CHURCH IN ROME.
The Muslims were actually MORE tolerant of the other religions during all the times they held Jerusalem. Under Muslim rule Christians and Jews were freely allowed access to their places of worship and the city itself, but God forbid someone other than the Church be actually running the place. Once the Crusaders took over Muslims AND Jews were banned from living within the city, and the Muslims were actually denied access to their holy sites.
However the West LOVES to spin Crusades history (Kingdom of Heaven was one of the few movies I've ever seen on the Crusades that portrayed the Muslims sympathetically, and even then, Scott REALLY put the rose-colored glasses on when depicting the Christians. Baldwin IV was of the same mind as Lusignan, however HE was actually smart enough to realize he didn't have the military power to provoke Saladin into open war). I know in my history classes growing up the Muslim invaders were always painted as the "bad guys," when the worst atrocities were actually committed by--gasp--the Christians.
-
english law will look nothing like is does now...in just a few more years....for reasons best known to you already
Can you explain the reasons to me, please?
-
Can you explain the reasons to me, please?
rapid muslim acclimation into britain followed by rapidly sweeping waves of islamic fundamentalism ...
did you learn nothing from this wake up call? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4677209.stm
-
read the entire thread. our brit pals are not big fans of forward thinking....
Reading the thread ? I've just done it.
My conclusion is perhaps our British friends are no good at forward thinking but it's obvious you are pretty mediocre at understanding.
-
Reading the thread ? I've just done it.
My conclusion is perhaps our British friends are no good at forward thinking but it's obvious you are pretty mediocre at understanding.
your thinking is flawed as well.
their only point pertains to the protections they are afforded under current british law...which I see as changing radically and quickly as the muslim population there becomes larger...and they are subsequently acclimated into the electorate .....whereby islamic fundamentalism spreads soon thereafter.
THAT is the issue ........and the one not being addressed here by our worthy brit friends.
that is the issue they cannot somehow grasp....or refuse to.....as evidenced by the sheer public shock that the subway bombers there were actual brit citizens...and not terror cells that were snuck in from somewhere else.
I do not want to see britian go down like that...and in many ways....mostly pacifism and political correctness....I think they already are. their government is selling them out...I worry about our friends the brits.....they have become very fat and happy....far to "live and let live" for their own good when it comes to domestic issues. lets we forget.......they used to rule the world....
-
which I see as changing radically and quickly as the muslim population there becomes larger
And your evidence to support this? Not one single law has changed here - only the affirmation of existing ones. Where is the change in the law you are crying about?
I worry about our friends the brits.....they have become very fat and happy....far to "live and let live" for their own good when it comes to domestic issues. lets we forget.......they used to rule the world....
We didn't lose the Empire by becoming 'soft'. We lost it on the battlefields of WW1 and WW2, when the accumulated wealth of three centuries of empire was used to secure freedom from tyranny. We lost it when indigenous populations sought to control their own destiny - just like US did in 1776. Don't try and twist history to suit your prejudiced agenda, where 'Muslim = Bad' in all circumstances.
So don't worry my friend. Have a nice day now! :D
-
your thinking is flawed as well.
their only point pertains to the protections they are afforded under current british law...which I see as changing radically and quickly as the muslim population there becomes larger...and they are subsequently acclimated into the electorate
I think the US experience with Hispanic immigration is colouring your perceptions. Islamic immigration to Britain isn't on anything like the same scale. Even after the Labour government's decade long experiment with mass immigration, Muslims make up about 3.3% of the UK population.
-
your thinking is flawed as well.
their only point pertains to the protections they are afforded under current british law...which I see as changing radically and quickly as the muslim population there becomes larger...and they are subsequently acclimated into the electorate .....whereby islamic fundamentalism spreads soon thereafter.
THAT is the issue ........and the one not being addressed here by our worthy brit friends.
that is the issue they cannot somehow grasp....or refuse to.....as evidenced by the sheer public shock that the subway bombers there were actual brit citizens...and not terror cells that were snuck in from somewhere else.
I do not want to see britian go down like that...and in many ways....mostly pacifism and political correctness....I think they already are. their government is selling them out...I worry about our friends the brits.....they have become very fat and happy....far to "live and let live" for their own good when it comes to domestic issues. lets we forget.......they used to rule the world....
And if the law change and became islamic because it's the will of the brits of the future what can you do except shut up ?
My guess is you will speak Spanish long before before the British start to apply Sharia as in Iran.
-
que? :D
-
then............we agree.
-
then............we agree.
That you're an overzealous and misinformed reactionary, yes.
-
That you're an overzealous and misinformed reactionary, yes.
sometimes the truth aint hip......but don't look to me to sugarcoat anything....
they have big problems over there with this issue........and I can tell you that it will only get worse........and not better.
misinformed? link please.
reactionary? the polar opposite........ proactive and concerned, perhaps.
and now for your moment of zen............ they all agree with me....they just don't want to admit it here.
-
How about "One Law For All People"
... don't like it ? Go back to Israel or Iran.
:rock
-
How about "One Law For All People"
Slamfire,
The point that our resident sandwich-board-wearing "The End is at Hand" loony friend Zeta is missing or deliberately choosing to ignore, is that's EXACTLY what this decision AFFIRMS. It's not a new law. It's a recognition of the EXISTING LAW that LIKE CHRISTIANS AND JEWS (funny how this detail keeps getting dropped) Muslims have the right to seek arbitration based on their own faith: ONE LAW FOR ALL PEOPLE, that a method of arbitration CANNOT BE DENIED on grounds of faith--ANY faith--so long as both people are in agreement and that the results remain within the confines of English Law. The broken record has been skipping back to the key point of this over and over, and he doesn't seem to be hearing it.
-
Slamfire,
The point that our resident sandwich-board-wearing "The End is at Hand" loony friend Zeta is missing or deliberately choosing to ignore, is that's EXACTLY what this decision AFFIRMS. It's not a new law. It's a recognition of the EXISTING LAW that LIKE CHRISTIANS AND JEWS (funny how this detail keeps getting dropped) Muslims have the right to seek arbitration based on their own faith: ONE LAW FOR ALL PEOPLE, that a method of arbitration CANNOT BE DENIED on grounds of faith--ANY faith--so long as both people are in agreement and that the results remain within the confines of English Law. The broken record has been skipping back to the key point of this over and over, and he doesn't seem to be hearing it.
sleep well.....
-
If it's ok for parties to voluntarily settle matters according to Sharia law so long as none of Britian's laws are violated in the process why was it necessary for this judge to pronounce it ok?
-
Iron,
I think ZetaNine's reaction should be sufficient explanation. Unfortunately, while the LARGEST percentage of the world's population isn't clueless and paranoid, the LOUDEST certainly is.
-
Iron,
I think ZetaNine's reaction should be sufficient explanation. Unfortunately, while the LARGEST percentage of the world's population isn't clueless and paranoid, the LOUDEST certainly is.
get back to me when young girls are put on trial with no representation in back room sharia "courts" .........
I'm quite sure there will be no problem finding a happy medium between your current laws...and their currents laws.... :uhoh
10. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.
9. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.
8. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye.
7. Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off.
6. Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated.
5. Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed.
4. Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.
3. Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non—Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself.
2. Islam orders apostates to be killed
1. Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad
-
edit
-
Slamfire,
The point that our resident sandwich-board-wearing "The End is at Hand" loony friend Zeta is missing or deliberately choosing to ignore, is that's EXACTLY what this decision AFFIRMS. It's not a new law. It's a recognition of the EXISTING LAW that LIKE CHRISTIANS AND JEWS (funny how this detail keeps getting dropped) Muslims have the right to seek arbitration based on their own faith: ONE LAW FOR ALL PEOPLE, that a method of arbitration CANNOT BE DENIED on grounds of faith--ANY faith--so long as both people are in agreement and that the results remain within the confines of English Law. The broken record has been skipping back to the key point of this over and over, and he doesn't seem to be hearing it.
Sorry, but I don't think Christians, Jews or Muslims should have their own laws. One Law For All. Love it or leave it, baby.
-
I certainly have no problem with a group of people voluntarily adhering to their own set of laws so long as they do not conflict with the laws of their nation/state. Not really different than obeying the rules of your favorite lodge/club. I still wonder why this judge found it necessary to even mention sharia law unless it was to both appease and constrain those participants.
-
get back to me when young girls are put on trial with no representation in back room sharia "courts" .........
I'm quite sure there will be no problem finding a happy medium between your current laws...and their currents laws.... :uhoh
10. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.
9. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.
8. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye.
7. Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off.
6. Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated.
5. Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed.
4. Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.
3. Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non—Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself.
2. Islam orders apostates to be killed
1. Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad
Of the ten points ,can you list the ones currently authorized by British law ?
-
I think Zeta has some issues with muslims in geneal. :lol
-
Of the ten points ,can you list the ones currently authorized by British law ?
Oh Oh Oh!
5 and 9? But only in Northampton :devil
-
I still wonder why this judge found it necessary to even mention sharia law unless it was to both appease and constrain those participants.
His audience were Muslims at a community centre I think. I guess he was trying to reduce the alienation many British Muslims must feel. Like someone said, keep the moderates on side and you reduce the ground the extremists can recruit from.
-
Islamic law states that no female virgin can be executed for a capital offense..So she is ordered raped and then executed.
-
Sorry, but I don't think Christians, Jews or Muslims should have their own laws. One Law For All. Love it or leave it, baby.
Slamfire,
I'll say this again: THERE IS ONLY ONE LAW. He is only making it clear that this ONE EXISTING LAW--which ALREADY applies to Christians and Jews--goes for Muslims as well, which alarmists like Zeta seem all too happy to take offense to.
-
If it's ok for parties to voluntarily settle matters according to Sharia law so long as none of Britian's laws are violated in the process why was it necessary for this judge to pronounce it ok?
As Dowding said, he was making a speech to a group of Muslims. This wasn't a court ruling.
As to what he actually said, read the Times and you get a totally different impression to the one the Daily Mail and Zeta Nine are presenting:
Britain's most senior judge declared last night that there was no place for Sharia courts in this country and insisted that all residents were governed by the laws of England and Wales.
The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, told an audience of several hundred at the London Muslim Centre in Whitechapel that those who chose to live in England and Wales had to accept the laws as they found them.
“There is no question of such [Sharia] courts sitting in this country or such sanctions being applied here.
“So far as the law is concerned, those who live in this country are governed by English and Welsh law and subject to the jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts,” he said.
But Lord Phillips, in one of his last speeches before retiring as Lord Chief Justice to become senior law lord in autumn, defended Sharia principles.
A Muslim was free to practise his or her own faith and live his or her life in accordance with those principles, yet not be in conflict with the law.
People's view of Sharia was often coloured by extremists who “invoke it, perversely, to justify terrorist atrocities such as suicide bombing”.
It was not Sharia, but sanctions imposed in some Muslim countries - such as flogging, stoning, cutting off hands, or killing - that would conflict with our laws. “There can be no question of such sanctions being applied to or by any Muslim who lives within this jurisdiction,” he said.
Muslim men and women were entitled to be treated the same way as all others, but there was another side to that coin.
“Those who come to live in this country and benefit from the rights enjoyed by all who live here also necessarily come under the same obligations that the law imposes on all who live here.”
Lord Phillips also used his speech to defend the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, who created a furore in February when he seemed to suggest that Muslims could be governed in respect of some disputes by Sharia.
The comments were made at a lecture that Lord Phillips had chaired. He said that the Archbishop's lecture had been profound and “one not readily understood on a single listening”. He had certainly not suggested that Muslims might be governed by their own system of Sharia. Rather the Archbishop had suggested that it might be possible for individuals to opt to resolve certain disputes under their own choice of jurisdiction.
And it was not “very radical to advocate embracing Sharia in the context of family disputes, for example. Our system already goes a long way towards accommodating the Archbishop's suggestion.” People were free to choose a system of mediation or arbitration for the resolution of their disputes - whether Sharia or any other religious code.
Any sanctions or failure to comply with the agreed terms of any mediation would, however, be drawn from the laws of England and Wales. Divorce could therefore be effected only in accordance with the civil law of this country.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article4265549.ece
Sorry, but I don't think Christians, Jews or Muslims should have their own laws. One Law For All.
They don't. There is one legal system in England and Wales, and it operates under English law.
Those who, in this country, are in dispute as to their respective rights are free to subject that dispute to the mediation of a chosen person, or to agree that the dispute shall be resolved by a chosen arbitrator or arbitrators. There is no reason why principles of Sharia Law, or any other religious code should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution. It must be recognised, however, that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of the mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales.
From the full text of the speech http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/speeches/lcj_equality_before_the_law_030708.pdf
-
Really, you British appeasers obviously agree with ZetaNine... the words you've typed read differently, but if one chooses not to read them it's pretty obvious you're on board with what he's saying.
Now, on to an action plan. Round the Muslims up immediately and put them into concentration camps. Exterminate them quickly and quietly. If you don't do this, if you continue to allow them to practice their religion, you're nothing more than appeasers and will be subject to the will of radical Sharia law because it will be adopted as the law of Britain within 3 years.
GIT-R-DONE!
-
lol SOB. :D
However, there is a flaw in your plan. It relies upon a working railway infrastructure with trains that run on time. There is no such thing in Britain.
Back to ze drawing board...
-
Of the ten points ,can you list the ones currently authorized by British law ?
I find this logic similar to someone hurling a baseball at your head at 95mph and you asking......."can you show me a bruise yet?"
(http://pro.corbis.com/images/42-18048947.jpg?size=572&uid=%7B466C23F7-FB15-4B3B-AA8A-1ED9339D3C4C%7D)
-
GIT-R-DONE!
"radical Sharia law" is already being practiced in some very large countries.......not just a few scattered kooks here and there. wake up and smell the public stonings.....
-
If a faction (however tiny) ever combines Islam with communist doctrine, I know some people on this board who will blow a brain blood vessel or two...
-
It would be carnage of biblical proportions around here. Which is ironic given the 'end of days' rhetoric people like to wheel out. :D
-
As Sir Winston Churchill once noted, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping that it will eat him last.”
-
If a faction (however tiny) ever combines Islam with communist doctrine, I know some people on this board who will blow a brain blood vessel or two...
But giving the posts usually made by those person ... I would be very surprised if any brain damage can be noticed (or any change in behaviour)
-
But giving the posts usually made by those person ... I would be very surprised if any brain damage can be noticed (or any change in behaviour)
surrender noted.
-
surrender noted.
So clever and witty !
-
Says Chicken Little as he runs around screaming "The sky is falling!"
-
I'm looking for where this judge said that Sharia law SHOULD be used in Britain.
Can't find it.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
I'm looking for where this judge said that Sharia law SHOULD be used in Britain.
Can't find it.
-- Todd/Leviathn
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2242340/Muslims-in-Britain-should-be-able-to-live-under-Sharia-law,-says-top-judge.html
I'm here to help................
-
So clever and witty !
Thank you sir........the HIGH road is the road for me.
-
latest news from UK.
UK police bomb sniffing dogs are now required to wear booties on their paws when entering muslim homes or mosques. Dogs are "unclean" to muslims.
<click> slowly the wheel turns.
-
Boys punished with detention for refusing to pray to Allah
6:15 pm Eastern
© 2008 London Daily Mail
Two seventh-grade boys were given detention and their classmates forced to miss their scheduled refreshment break when the pair refused to kneel and pray to Allah during a religious studies class.
Outraged parents called the punishment of the boys for not wanting to take part in the practical demonstration at Alsager High School near Stoke-on-Trent, UK, of how Muslims' worship Allah a breach of their human rights.
"This isn't right, it's taking things too far," parent Sharon Luinen told the London Daily Mail.
"I understand that they have to learn about other religions. I can live with that, but it is taking it a step too far to be punished because they wouldn't join in Muslim prayer. Making them pray to Allah, who isn't who they worship, is wrong and what got me is that they were told they were being disrespectful.
"I don't want this to look as if I have a problem with the school because I am generally very happy with it."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
(http://www.foxnews.com/images/387883/4_61_070108_Puppy.jpg)
Ad Featuring Popular Police Pup Sparks Anger in Scottish Muslim Communities
Tuesday , July 01, 2008
Muslims in the Scottish district of Tayside are outraged by the appearance of a wide-eyed, 6-week-old puppy on postcards distributed by the local police force, according to the Daily Mail.
Postcards showing police dog-in-training Rebel, a German shepherd born in early December, are causing a furor among the region’s Muslims who believe dogs are "ritually unclean," the Daily Mail reports.
The cute cards were meant to notify locals of a new telephone number for non-emergency phone calls but instead have become a flashpoint for a clash of cultures. Shopkeepers are refusing to display the offending ad and a Dundee city councilor is calling for an investigation.
"My concern was that it's not welcomed by all communities, with the dog on the cards," said Dundee councilor Mohammed Asif, according to the report.
The Tayside police force said the police puppy, the force’s "newest recruit," was not intended to cause offense.
"His incredible worldwide popularity — he has attracted record visitor numbers to our Web site — led us to believe Rebel could play a starring role in the promotion of our non-emergency number," said a police spokesperson.
-
Point 1: The school is probably going to face legal action for that.
Point 2: No one says the postcards or advertisements displaying the puppy MUST be used and that, should they choose, store owners can opt for a different method.
Point 3: Guaranteed you can find the exact same situations regarding ANY race or religion, in ANY Western nation, (hell, 40 years since the Civil Rights Movement, and much of the same White and Black racial tensions STILL remain in the US). Any suggestion that these cases are restricted solely to Muslims is slanted, and just more evidence of your own ignorance, short-sightedness and prejudice.
-
Point 1: The school is probably going to face legal action for that.
Point 2: No one says the postcards or advertisements displaying the puppy MUST be used and that, should they choose, store owners can opt for a different method.
Point 3: Guaranteed you can find the exact same situations regarding ANY race or religion, in ANY Western nation, (hell, 40 years since the Civil Rights Movement, and much of the same White and Black racial tensions STILL remain in the US). Any suggestion that these cases are restricted solely to Muslims is slanted, and just more evidence of your own ignorance, short-sightedness and prejudice.
...and the beat goes on.............
-
Actually, you're the only one who's posted no conclusive and accurate argument in support of this position. Just a rambling series of misread and misinterpreted articles that have been quite thoroughly debunked (whether deliberately, or out of sheer panic-induced ignorance) and flippant one-liners that you think are sufficient to say "THAT'll show him," until another hole is opened in the sieve that's draining the legitimacy of your case, forcing you to dredge up some other misinformed argument that's no more solid or convincing than any of the others.
-
Actually, you're the only one who's posted no conclusive and accurate argument in support of this position. Just a rambling series of misread and misinterpreted articles that have been quite thoroughly debunked (whether deliberately, or out of sheer panic-induced ignorance) and flippant one-liners that you think are sufficient to say "THAT'll show him," until another hole is opened in the sieve that's draining the legitimacy of your case, forcing you to dredge up some other misinformed argument that's no more solid or convincing than any of the others.
actually......I'm presenting factual news stories........and you and your pals are showing how well conditioned you all are at explaining things away in an almost automatic..well trained manner. this is not only astounding.........it's sad. don't hate me.......I'm just the messenger.
The HIGH ROAD.......it's more than just a way of life.....
-
pure factual ?
No way ,even the thread tittle was misleading as noted by dmf !
-
pure factual ?
No way ,even the thread tittle was misleading as noted by dmf !
selective reading skills? take your semantics argument to the london telegraph .....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2242340/Muslims-in-Britain-should-be-able-to-live-under-Sharia-law,-says-top-judge.html
-
I think its funny, many of our laws/values and English laws/values have roots in the sharia.
Examples:
"The Waqf in Islamic law, which developed during the 7th-9th centuries, bears a notable resemblance to the trusts in the English trust law.For example, every Waqf was required to have a waqif (founder), mutawillis (trustee), qadi (judge) and beneficiaries.Under both a Waqf and a trust, "property is reserved, and its usufruct appropriated, for the benefit of specific individuals, or for a general charitable purpose; the corpus becomes inalienable; estates for life in favor of successive beneficiaries can be created" and "without regard to the law of inheritance or the rights of the heirs; and continuity is secured by the successive appointment of trustees or mutawillis." The trust law developed in England at the time of the Crusades, during the 12th and 13th centuries, was introduced by Crusaders who may have been influenced by the Waqf institutions they came across in the Middle East. The introduction of the trust, or "use" was primarily motivated by the need to avoid medieval inheritance taxes. By transferring legal title to a third party, there was no need to pay feudal dues on the death of the father. In those times, it was common for an underage child to lose many of his rights to his feudal overlord if he succeeded before he came of age.
The precursor to the English jury trial was the Lafif trial in classical Maliki jurisprudence, which was developed between the 8th and 11th centuries in North Africa and Islamic Sicily, and shares a number of similarities with the later jury trials in English common law. Like the English jury, the Islamic Lafif was a body of twelve members drawn from the neighbourhood and sworn to tell the truth, who were bound to give a unanimous verdict, about matters "which they had personally seen or heard, binding on the judge, to settle the truth concerning facts in a case, between ordinary people, and obtained as of right by the plaintiff." The only characteristic of the English jury which the Islamic Lafif lacked was the "judicial writ directing the jury to be summoned and directing the bailiff to hear its recognition." According to Professor John Makdisi, "no other institution in any legal institution studied to date shares all of these characteristics with the English jury." It is thus likely that the concept of the Lafif may have been introduced to England by the Normans and then evolved into the modern English jury.
The earliest known prohibition of illegal drugs occurred under Islamic law, which prohibited the use of Hashish, a preparation of cannabis, as a recreational drug. Classical jurists in medieval Islamic jurisprudence, however, accepted the use of the Hashish drug for medicinal and therapeutic purposes, and agreed that its "medical use, even if it leads to mental derangement, remains exempt" from punishment. In the 14th century, the Islamic jurist Az-Zarkashi spoke of "the permissibility of its use for medical purposes if it is established that it is beneficial."According to Mary Lynn Mathre, with "this legal distinction between the intoxicant and the medical uses of cannabis, medieval Muslim theologians were far ahead of present-day American law."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
-
Speaking of selective reading....
Topic of the Article: Muslims in Britain should be able to live under Sharia
Topic of the Thread: Sharia law SHOULD be used in Britain
These titles have two ENTIRELY different interpretations. The London Times title is somewhat more neutral, though would have been better presented as something like, "Justice affirms English Law rules, but Muslims should be able to apply Sharia to civil life." Either way, if I had read the subject the first time I would have interpreted it no differently than saying Jews or Christians in Britain should be able to live by the Ten Commandments.
Your subject is inflamatory, and immediately suggests drastic social upheaval and that Lord Phillips is advocating Islamic theocracy in the UK.
This has led to a case of selective HEARING, in which you've repeatedly disregarded the 90% of this thread which proves your statements to be reactionary, probably prejudiced, and DEFINITELY paranoid. The other 10% has been you posting more garbage which doesn't do anything except further confirm to me that which I stated previously in this same paragraph.
-
I think its funny, many of our laws/values and English laws/values have roots in the sharia.
Examples:
"The Waqf in Islamic law, which developed during the 7th-9th centuries, bears a notable resemblance to the trusts in the English trust law.For example, every Waqf was required to have a waqif (founder), mutawillis (trustee), qadi (judge) and beneficiaries.Under both a Waqf and a trust, "property is reserved, and its usufruct appropriated, for the benefit of specific individuals, or for a general charitable purpose; the corpus becomes inalienable; estates for life in favor of successive beneficiaries can be created" and "without regard to the law of inheritance or the rights of the heirs; and continuity is secured by the successive appointment of trustees or mutawillis." The trust law developed in England at the time of the Crusades, during the 12th and 13th centuries, was introduced by Crusaders who may have been influenced by the Waqf institutions they came across in the Middle East. The introduction of the trust, or "use" was primarily motivated by the need to avoid medieval inheritance taxes. By transferring legal title to a third party, there was no need to pay feudal dues on the death of the father. In those times, it was common for an underage child to lose many of his rights to his feudal overlord if he succeeded before he came of age.
The precursor to the English jury trial was the Lafif trial in classical Maliki jurisprudence, which was developed between the 8th and 11th centuries in North Africa and Islamic Sicily, and shares a number of similarities with the later jury trials in English common law. Like the English jury, the Islamic Lafif was a body of twelve members drawn from the neighbourhood and sworn to tell the truth, who were bound to give a unanimous verdict, about matters "which they had personally seen or heard, binding on the judge, to settle the truth concerning facts in a case, between ordinary people, and obtained as of right by the plaintiff." The only characteristic of the English jury which the Islamic Lafif lacked was the "judicial writ directing the jury to be summoned and directing the bailiff to hear its recognition." According to Professor John Makdisi, "no other institution in any legal institution studied to date shares all of these characteristics with the English jury." It is thus likely that the concept of the Lafif may have been introduced to England by the Normans and then evolved into the modern English jury.
The earliest known prohibition of illegal drugs occurred under Islamic law, which prohibited the use of Hashish, a preparation of cannabis, as a recreational drug. Classical jurists in medieval Islamic jurisprudence, however, accepted the use of the Hashish drug for medicinal and therapeutic purposes, and agreed that its "medical use, even if it leads to mental derangement, remains exempt" from punishment. In the 14th century, the Islamic jurist Az-Zarkashi spoke of "the permissibility of its use for medical purposes if it is established that it is beneficial."According to Mary Lynn Mathre, with "this legal distinction between the intoxicant and the medical uses of cannabis, medieval Muslim theologians were far ahead of present-day American law."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
interesting read........but purely opinion and conjecture....from Wikipedia no less. "Crusaders who may have been influenced by the Waqf institutions"
"medieval Muslim theologians were far ahead of present-day American law"......... I won't even glorify that with a response.
-
Speaking of selective reading....
Topic of the Article: Muslims in Britain should be able to live under Sharia
Topic of the Thread: Sharia law SHOULD be used in Britain
These titles have two ENTIRELY different interpretations. The London Times title is somewhat more neutral, though would have been better presented as something like, "Justice affirms English Law rules, but Muslims should be able to apply Sharia to civil life." Either way, if I had read the subject the first time I would have interpreted it no differently than saying Jews or Christians in Britain should be able to live by the Ten Commandments.
Your subject is inflamatory, and immediately suggests drastic social upheaval and that Lord Phillips is advocating Islamic theocracy in the UK.
This has led to a case of selective HEARING, in which you've repeatedly disregarded the 90% of this thread which proves your statements to be reactionary, probably prejudiced, and DEFINITELY paranoid. The other 10% has been you posting more garbage which doesn't do anything except further confirm to me that which I stated previously in this same paragraph.
again with the "should" semantics game......this is weak. it's said three different ways by the end of the first paragraph......take your pic......or take it to the telegraph.
you're bingo ammo
-
"medieval Muslim theologians were far ahead of present-day American law"......... I won't even glorify that with a response.
Probably because you don't have one that wouldn't completely undermine your prejudiced and ill-constructed arguments.
...or take it to the telegraph.
Why not actually READ the article, not just the subject? From the same story you linked:
"There is already scope in English law for some communities to use their own religious codes to resolve disputes. Orthodox Jews can use the Beth Din rabbinical courts to decide on matters including divorce."
Why no hostile thread about "Beth Din SHOULD be used in Britain?"
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2242340/Muslims-in-Britain-should-be-able-to-live-under-Sharia-law,-says-top-judge.html
I'm here to help................
No, that article says that the judge thinks that Muslims should BE ABLE to live under Sharia Law where it does not conflict with British law.
There's a big difference between SHOULD BE ABLE and SHOULD. One suggests choice while the other does not. Can you understand the difference?
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Probably because you don't have one that wouldn't completely undermine your prejudiced and ill-constructed arguments.
Why not actually READ the article, not just the subject? From the same story you linked:
"There is already scope in English law for some communities to use their own religious codes to resolve disputes. Orthodox Jews can use the Beth Din rabbinical courts to decide on matters including divorce."
Why no hostile thread about "Beth Din SHOULD be used in Britain?"
"hostile thread"?
look .....you would not still be here in my thread if you were not trying so hard to make a face saving exit of some kind........I ignored the comments directed to me......rather than the topic at hand.......but I don't play the "go off in another direction" game well......and you seem to dig that a lot....so much so that you're repeating your posts in earlier pages now.
short and sweet........Britain as you know it...... is doomed....... that cracking sound you hear is the last remnants of a backbone your country used to have.......which is now snapping due to bending over so far to accomodate........ you cannot please all the people........all the time......and the fact that you are trying to......will be your end. like I said........that saddens me......you were once a great and powerful ally of ours......and we will miss you. good luck in the future........but I honestly see things unraveling for you in another 4 to 5 years......
(http://www.nerf-herders-anonymous.net/images/SirAlecGuinness_Bridge_Nicholson.jpg)
aptly quoting sir alec guiness in the bridge on the river kwai...you will one day soon be repeating his words.... ""My God, What have I done?"
I wish you well.......the last word is yours....
-
So you have nothing to say about the quote regarding Orthodox Jews using Beth Din the same way Muslims would use Sharia? It's NO different from what Lord Phillips is saying, excepting the religious identity of the party involved.
That you have no response to that other than those who disagree with you are only in the thread to "save face" only proves the point that what you take exception to is NOT the use of religion to resolve disputes without involving the English court system, but that it's about MUSLIMS using their religion to do so; a right as the article notes is already being exercised by Christians and Jews.
-
Saxman isn't british, Zeta.
-
Observation Skill Check: Fail
You'd have thought he'd have noticed my "Babe-on-the-Bat" avatar. :D
-
They don't. There is one legal system in England and Wales, and it operates under English law.
Ok - so is it the case that the Regular Courts are NOT BOUND by decisions reached in Sharia Court ?
If so, then I have no problem with it.
BTW In other western countries, it is often the case that Regular Courts ARE bound by decisions reached in Sharia Court (ie: certain provinces in Canada).
-
Slamfire,
No, the courts are not bound to support the decision reach by Sharia. If the party does not accept the decisionor believes they have reason to challenge, they can then take it to legal arbitration.
The whole point is Lord Phillips is confirming that:
A) British Law is the supreme law of the land
and
B) Citizens of Britain have the right to seek whatever arbitration in marriage, contracts, or other civil or financial disagreements outside the courts they choose. However the decisions/punishments/etc. of these arbiters must still abide by British Law. This isn't even a change TO the law, but the affirmation of the one already on the books (hence, why Orthodox Jews may ALREADY use the Beth Din for arbitration, in a similar manner to that which can be exercised by Muslims via Sharia)
-
Slamfire,
No, the courts are not bound to support the decision reach by Sharia. If the party does not accept the decisionor believes they have reason to challenge, they can then take it to legal arbitration.
The whole point is Lord Phillips is confirming that:
A) British Law is the supreme law of the land
and
B) Citizens of Britain have the right to seek whatever arbitration in marriage, contracts, or other civil or financial disagreements outside the courts they choose. However the decisions/punishments/etc. of these arbiters must still abide by British Law. This isn't even a change TO the law, but the affirmation of the one already on the books (hence, why Orthodox Jews may ALREADY use the Beth Din for arbitration, in a similar manner to that which can be exercised by Muslims via Sharia)
Thanks for clearing that up Saxman :salute