UK JUDGE: "Sharia law SHOULD be used in Britain"

[Dowding]

Your article is meant to be taken as a joke. Are you seriously suggesting that it is a manifesto for Sharia law? 

[Xasthur]

Hatred and intolerance should be met with......................... .... acceptance and understanding? 

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.

[Casca]

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.

[GRUNHERZ]

Why is this old man wearing dirty carpet on his head? 

[john9001]

Why is this old man wearing dirty carpet on his head? 

(Image removed from quote.)

he is english.

[Furball]

Why is this old man wearing dirty carpet on his head? 

(Image removed from quote.)

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.

[ZetaNine]

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....

[Nilsen]

Waaaaaaaaaaaa waaaaaaaaaaaaa


All i have to say, but it sais it all   

[Furball]

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?

[Trikky]

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.

[Anaxogoras]

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.

[Saxman]

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. ;-)

[ZetaNine]

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.

[SD67]

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!

[Saxman]

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.