View Full Version : Wow. England's top judge OKs the use of Sharia Law
Its no longer a theory that England and most of Europe is headed in this direction. Its now reality.
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.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031611/Sharia-law-SHOULD-used-Britain-says-UKs-judge.html
*waits for Dayve to pop in and tell us this along with everything else happening to change the very culture of England isn't a big deal*
Shameless
07-03-2008, 06:53 PM
Umm,
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.
Sorry, what's wrong with this?
Umm,
Sorry, what's wrong with this?
Are you kidding? Its a recognition by the state that British law is unsuitable for Muslims. On any level whatseover, giving a foot in the door for Islamic religious law is a surrender by England to Islamic law.
From the article
The signal of approval for voluntary sharia tribunals brought protests from lawyers who fear that in some Islamic communities women do not have a full and equal say and that they could be disadvantaged in supposedly voluntary sharia arrangements.
Barrister and human rights specialist John Cooper said: 'There should be one law by which everyone is held to account.
'I have considerable concerns that well-crafted and carefully designed laws in this country, drawn up to protect both parties including the weak and vulnerable party in matrimonial break-ups could be compromised.
'I have concerns over a system of law that may cause one party to be disadvantaged.'
ThoughtCriminal
07-03-2008, 06:56 PM
So the precedent is set... It's only going to get worse from there. Unbelievable... If they want Sharia law, then go to a fucking country that practices it! When you immigrate to another country, you abide by their laws and customs not the other way around... This Judge is a textbook asshat.
Are you kidding? Its a recognition by the state that British law is unsuitable for Muslims. On any level whatseover, giving a foot in the door for Islamic religious law is a surrender by England to Islamic law.
[/i]
If Sharia law was meant to over-ride British law, Lord Phillips would not have noted that "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." It looks like nothing more than using religious law for arbitration where it does not conflict with civil law.
If Sharia law was meant to over-ride British law, Lord Phillips would not have noted that "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." It looks like nothing more than using religious law for arbitration where it does not conflict with civil law.
And once again I point you to the article
The signal of approval for voluntary sharia tribunals brought protests from lawyers who fear that in some Islamic communities women do not have a full and equal say and that they could be disadvantaged in supposedly voluntary sharia arrangements.
Barrister and human rights specialist John Cooper said: 'There should be one law by which everyone is held to account.
'I have considerable concerns that well-crafted and carefully designed laws in this country, drawn up to protect both parties including the weak and vulnerable party in matrimonial break-ups could be compromised.
'I have concerns over a system of law that may cause one party to be disadvantaged.'
Its the perverbial foot in the door singling out Islam on any level saying that English law is unsuitable for them is surrendering to that religous law.
And once again I point you to the article
The signal of approval for voluntary sharia tribunals brought protests from lawyers who fear that in some Islamic communities women do not have a full and equal say and that they could be disadvantaged in supposedly voluntary sharia arrangements.
Barrister and human rights specialist John Cooper said: 'There should be one law by which everyone is held to account.
'I have considerable concerns that well-crafted and carefully designed laws in this country, drawn up to protect both parties including the weak and vulnerable party in matrimonial break-ups could be compromised.
'I have concerns over a system of law that may cause one party to be disadvantaged.'
We can keep tossing quotes at each other all night, at least until I have to leave for work, but Lord Phillips was quite clear on where voluntary following of Sharia law would end where civil law would be supreme. This would not be a blanket 'Sharia law for all things.' All it is is arbitration using Sharia law.
We can keep tossing quotes at each other all night, at least until I have to leave for work, but Lord Phillips was quite clear on where voluntary following of Sharia law would end where civil law would be supreme. This would not be a blanket 'Sharia law for all things.' All it is is arbitration using Sharia law.
Its the perverbial foot in the door singling out Islam on any level saying that English law is unsuitable for them is surrendering to that religous law.
kazuri
07-03-2008, 07:11 PM
It does not say its unsuitable for them, hence the article saying WITHIN THE LAW.
Its the perverbial foot in the door singling out Islam on any level saying that English law is unsuitable for them is surrendering to that religous law.
How is allowing for people who agree to allow for arbitration under Sharia law where it does not conflict with civil law come anywhere close to being called surrendering to religious law? Only the wildest thought could come to that conclusion.
QKUMBA
07-03-2008, 07:24 PM
As ive pointed out in other threads, the Daily Mail has a tendency to blow things out of proportion.
Risking inflaming that controversy again [Archbishop of Canterbury's comments about Sharia], Lord Phillips has said that Muslims in Britain should be able to use Sharia to decide financial and marital disputes.
The judge did add that only the criminal courts should have the power to decide when a crime has been committed and when to impose punishment.
In other words, it is no different to how other religions, notably the christian faith, are already treated in specific aspects of financial and marital disputes.
Currently in UK law, for instance, a christian man could file for an annulment or a divorce based on his partner breaking their wedding vows. This also has implications for the division of property in a divorce.
All Lord Phillips is suggesting is that we offer the same level of legal acknowledgement to certain aspects of muslim faith that we already do for christians.
No biggy really.
UsUcEggs
07-03-2008, 07:28 PM
This is about how Islamic marriage can be established in Britain, correct?
I don't really see this fundamentally changing anything with regards to laws that would actually effect others in their daily lives.
On a scale of 1 -10 for spin, I give your article a 12.
It does not say its unsuitable for them, hence the article saying WITHIN THE LAW.
It can't be within the law when it isn't even the law!
This is about how Islamic marriage can be established in Britain, correct?
I don't really see this fundamentally changing anything with regards to laws that would actually effect others in their daily lives.
On a scale of 1 -10 for spin, I give your article a 12.
And on a scale 1-10 for not seeing the big picture, I give you a -2
If this isn't a big deal why give it to Islam in the first place?
Dude I'm a progressive democrat and I'm agreeing with the majority here by saying that this is a foot in the door for muslim fundamentalists to start throwing their weight around. The UK has a serious problem with this and America will be next.
Look at how much leeway the christian right has in the US when it comes to opressing others. Dunkin Donuts terrorist scarf anyone?
Using a religious law for voluntary arbitration and people seeing a scarf and crying about terrorists are two different things. It is not a foot in the door. It could have been any set of rules, but Sharia law was named because it is more than likely going to be the preferred set of rules desired by a Muslim. There is no conspiracy here. It. is. voluntary. Say it with me, it is voluntary, and it cannot override civil law.
On a side note, I had never heard of the Dunkin Donuts scarf thing until you brought it up and it makes me cry inside that people actually interpreted it to mean "anti-American political correctness" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/28/dunkin-donuts-pulls-ad-fe_n_103859.html)
"anti-American political correctness"
Using a religious law for voluntary arbitration and people seeing a scarf and crying about terrorists are two different things. It is not a foot in the door. It could have been any set of rules, but Sharia law was named because it is more than likely going to be the preferred set of rules desired by a Muslim. There is no conspiracy here. It. is. voluntary. Say it with me, it is voluntary, and it cannot override civil law.
On a side note, I had never heard of the Dunkin Donuts scarf thing until you brought it up and it makes me cry inside that people actually interpreted it to mean "anti-American political correctness" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/28/dunkin-donuts-pulls-ad-fe_n_103859.html)
It is absolutely a foot in the door because it is the state proclaiming Muslims cannot fully function under British law.
For all the people in here who hate religion so much its incredible how little you care about this infrindgement of religion into state law.
QKUMBA
07-03-2008, 07:42 PM
It is absolutely a foot in the door because it is the state proclaiming Muslims cannot fully function under British law.
For all the people in here who hate religion so much its incredible how little you care about this infrindgement of religion into state law.
Its not state law, its civil law.
:wave:
Resurrection
07-03-2008, 07:44 PM
It is absolutely a foot in the door because it is the state proclaiming Muslims cannot fully function under British law.
For all the people in here who hate religion so much its incredible how little you care about this infrindgement of religion into state law.
2nd point is quite good. I can only speak as an American, but anything that goes into religious turf shouldn't be found in a gov't text, but I wonder how many would be singing a different tune if it was christianity instead of islam.
It is absolutely a foot in the door because it is the state proclaiming Muslims cannot fully function under British law.
For all the people in here who hate religion so much its incredible how little you care about this infrindgement of religion into state law.
No, it does not, not at all. It is an alternative when two groups both agree voluntarily to use Sharia law, for whatever reason. It has nothing to do with anyone's ability. That is your interpretation, based on who knows what.
And there is no infringement, because, yet again, it does not override civil law.
Its not state law, its civil law.
:wave:
Which is state law. Who do you think passes civil law?
No, it does not, not at all. It is an alternative when two groups both agree voluntarily to use Sharia law, for whatever reason. It has nothing to do with anyone's ability. That is your interpretation, based on who knows what.
And there is no infringement, because, yet again, it does not override civil law.
Just wait.
It is a recognition by the state of England that Muslims need special laws to govern their people. It doesn't matter how benign it is right now, its a priviliage NO other religion is afforded in British law.
It is a recognition by the state of England that Muslims need special laws to govern their people. It doesn't matter how benign it is right now, its a priviliage NO other religion is afforded in British law.
Need or desire? And the complacency/non-desire/whatever of other religious groups should not be the measure for Muslims if they do desire a strictly voluntary means of arbitration which does not override civil law.
modogthemonkey
07-03-2008, 09:14 PM
Ahhhh The daily mail up it old tricks. I cant believe people lap this shit up.
Anyway I'm off to watch fox news
Ahhhh The daily mail up it old tricks. I cant believe people lap this shit up.
Anyway I'm off to watch fox news
I'd love to see your proof that what they said didn't happen.
MurdocUSA
07-03-2008, 09:35 PM
How about we just rename the U.K. Islam’s bitch?
its only divorce court, stop bitching
the only people it effects is the man and woman who agree to the conditions of the marriage.
ChristopherM
07-04-2008, 03:38 AM
No, it does not, not at all. It is an alternative when two groups both agree voluntarily to use Sharia law, for whatever reason. It has nothing to do with anyone's ability. That is your interpretation, based on who knows what.
And there is no infringement, because, yet again, it does not override civil law.
Did you ever think that Muslim women will be pressured into accepting this by their ruling husbands?
Do you know that at least 40% of the Muslim in the U.K. want Sharia Law? If this happens, this is big victory for them and just the first step towards all out Sharia. Then Muslims will say the law applies to everyone. As Sharia is for all, even non-Muslims. The people of the U.K. need to toughen up and stop catering to Muslims or they are going to lose their country. It is that simple. Here is a good example.
http://islaminaction08.blogspot.com/2008/06/no-bible-zone-uk.html
Henkie
07-04-2008, 04:05 AM
Since I'm not joining the "zOMG!!1! Teh Ev1L MUslms r takingz overrrr!"-bandwagon, this'll probably be ignored, but I'll make the point none the less.
This is not scary. It is already being done. It has been done for decades, if not longer. Only instead of Muslims, it was Jews. And granted, it's not fashionable to bash or discriminate Jews anymore, but technically it'd be quite a blow against the principle of non-discrimination not to allow this. Also, we're talking about cases where non-Muslims are not involved. Furthermore, I want to point out that if somebody says "Same sex marriages should be banned because it's wrong according to the Bible" some people might disagree, but nobody is talking about Christians taking over, or Christians being unable to live under basic English legal principles, like non-discrimination.
ThoughtCriminal
07-04-2008, 04:42 AM
Since I'm not joining the "zOMG!!1! Teh Ev1L MUslms r takingz overrrr!"-bandwagon, this'll probably be ignored, but I'll make the point none the less.
This is not scary. It is already being done. It has been done for decades, if not longer. Only instead of Muslims, it was Jews. And granted, it's not fashionable to bash or discriminate Jews anymore, but technically it'd be quite a blow against the principle of non-discrimination not to allow this. Also, we're talking about cases where non-Muslims are not involved. Furthermore, I want to point out that if somebody says "Same sex marriages should be banned because it's wrong according to the Bible" some people might disagree, but nobody is talking about Christians taking over, or Christians being unable to live under basic English legal principles, like non-discrimination.
What do you mean nobody is talking about Christians trying to take over? Christians trying to legislate their beliefs is a constant topic of concern, It's discussed quite frequently.
So women indoctrinated into misogynistic religion, now get to also look forward to a system of law that views them as unequal by default, and you're cool with that?
What can we expect next year? Xenu arbitration Court for Scientologists?
Henkie
07-04-2008, 05:01 AM
What do you mean nobody is talking about Christians trying to take over? Christians trying to legislate their beliefs is a constant topic of concern, It's discussed quite frequently.
Lots of people publicly disagree with Christians, yes, yet nobody discusses it in nearly the same manner as they'd do with Muslims. Not with the same fear, the same same intensity or with the same kind of arguments.
So women indoctrinated into misogynistic religion, now get to also look forward to a system of law that views them as unequal by default, and you're cool with that?
Surprisingly enough, especially in cases of marriage, the Sharia is not nearly as sexist as people might think. A lot of the inequality is in "seperate but equal"-kind of interpretations, where the "equal" part is debatable (nice example is the the clothing laws, they're based on the commandment to dress modestly, which goes for both men and women, they supposedly get a seperate but equal dress-code, but in practice a lot of countries with a Sharia law enforce a standard that's much harder on women and almost non-existant for men). This is the part that is the English are not taking over. Also, technically women get a choice. All people involved have to agree to it, and in a country where there's all kinds of possibilities to move away from your family and get some independence, women can make that choice relatively easy.
What can we expect next year? Xenu arbitration Court for Scientologists?
I'm pretty sure Scientoligists don't have anything of a well-defined legal tradition, so it won't work, but in principle I really couldn't care less because it doesn't affect anybody who isn't a scientologist to begin with.
So women indoctrinated into misogynistic religion, now get to also look forward to a system of law that views them as unequal by default, and you're cool with that?
Did you ever think that Muslim women will be pressured into accepting this by their ruling husbands?
so now we're just trying to protect muslim women from themselves
if they choose to live that lifestyle let them
modogthemonkey
07-04-2008, 08:48 AM
How about we just rename the U.K. Islam’s bitch?
How about we rename The U.S. Israel's bitch.
QKUMBA
07-04-2008, 09:40 AM
Which is state law. Who do you think passes civil law?
Civil law is used to resolve civil disputes.
For instance, a person who doesn't prune their trees, blocking the sunlight of their neighbour, isn't breaking the law... they couldn't be arrested for it. But their neighbour could still challenge them in a civil court.
That is why there is criminal courts for criminal law and civil courts for civil law.
As the Lord Chief Justice has said, this will not have any implications on UK criminal law. This is about muslims being able to live their married lives in accordance with their religious beliefs.
"My wife drank a small glass of wine" - perfectly acceptable if you and your wife are christian, but if you're muslim, for whom alcohol is forbidden, it could and should be grounds for divorce.
Just wait.
It is a recognition by the state of England that Muslims need special laws to govern their people. It doesn't matter how benign it is right now, its a privilege NO other religion is afforded in British law.
bahahaha, you obviously haven't bothered to read my original post.
The same privilege IS afforded to other religions in Britain, namely christianity, in divorce disputes - which is exactly what this issue is all about.
Anyway, here is a link to the video of Lord Chief Justice explaining his views on Sharia... This is what the story in the OP is based on.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7488960.stm
Storm. In. A. Teacup.
Mojoe77
07-04-2008, 11:46 AM
Its no longer a theory that England and most of Europe is headed in this direction. Its now reality.
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.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031611/Sharia-law-SHOULD-used-Britain-says-UKs-judge.html
*waits for Dayve to pop in and tell us this along with everything else happening to change the very culture of England isn't a big deal*
Hey, screw assimilation and Western values! Like i've said before: by the time the Brits realize what's going on, it's going to be too late. Say good bye to Britain as we know (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2242340/Muslims-in-Britain-should-be-able-to-live-under-Sharia-law%2C-says-top-judge.html) it.
I'm amazed that people actually have no problem with this. /thread
Dayve
07-04-2008, 11:56 AM
The Daily hate mail making a mountain out of a shit hill once again. Why am i not susprised?
QKUMBA
07-04-2008, 12:18 PM
Hey, screw assimilation and Western values! Like i've said before: by the time the Brits realize what's going on, it's going to be too late. Say good bye to Britain as we know (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2242340/Muslims-in-Britain-should-be-able-to-live-under-Sharia-law%2C-says-top-judge.html) it.
I'm amazed that people actually have no problem with this. /thread
So... you know something us brits don't?
Please tell oh wise one.
And did you actually watch the video of Britains top judge speaking about Sharia? or are you claiming to know more than him?
How about we rename The U.S. Israel's bitch.
The difference would be we don't agree Jewish law is necessary to be put along side our state law like your country does with Sharia.
Civil law is used to resolve civil disputes.
For instance, a person who doesn't prune their trees, blocking the sunlight of their neighbour, isn't breaking the law... they couldn't be arrested for it. But their neighbour could still challenge them in a civil court.
That is why there is criminal courts for criminal law and civil courts for civil law.
As the Lord Chief Justice has said, this will not have any implications on UK criminal law. This is about muslims being able to live their married lives in accordance with their religious beliefs.
"My wife drank a small glass of wine" - perfectly acceptable if you and your wife are christian, but if you're muslim, for whom alcohol is forbidden, it could and should be grounds for divorce.
I ask you again, who passes civil law if it isn't the state? Your arguement that civil law isn't state law is not accurate when its the state that has to pass civil laws in the first place.
bahahaha, you obviously haven't bothered to read my original post.
The same privilege IS afforded to other religions in Britain, namely christianity, in divorce disputes - which is exactly what this issue is all about.
Anyway, here is a link to the video of Lord Chief Justice explaining his views on Sharia... This is what the story in the OP is based on.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7488960.stm
Storm. In. A. Teacup.
And you didn't bother to read Sharia Law. It goes FAR beyond divorce.
What you fail to understand is that Sharia law isn't like Jewish, Buddist or Christian law. It has aspects for ALL levels of society, far beyond divorce. You let it get a foothold and they will argue to broaden it and given the lack of backbone in your government to confront it, they will win.
The Daily hate mail making a mountain out of a shit hill once again. Why am i not susprised?
*waits for Dayve to pop in and tell us this along with everything else happening to change the very culture of England isn't a big deal*
Thanks for making my OP statement reality.
Henkie
07-04-2008, 01:16 PM
The difference would be we don't agree Jewish law is necessary to be put along side our state law like your country does with Sharia.
It is agreed upon in the UK. Does that make the UK Israel's bitch? If so, there's some pimp-fighting to be done...
And you didn't bother to read Sharia Law. It goes FAR beyond divorce.
But those extra bits won't be implemented into the English legal system. That's not what anybody is suggesting, and therefore it is irrelevant to this debate.
Dayve
07-04-2008, 01:17 PM
It really isn't. Even if the law was changed to allow muslims to live under Sharia law in their own communities here in Britain, i still wouldn't give a damn.
Only when myself, and people like me, ie... white English people of English culture and heritage are forced to conform to and abide by Sharia law, will there be a problem. Then i will make a fuss, then i will give a shit.
Personally, if one muslim in the UK wants to behead another because he slept with his daughter outside of marriage, fucking let them. If a muslim man wants to marry 365 muslim women, one for every day of the year, i don't give a shit, because it doesn't affect me and nobody is being forced to do anything they don't want to do.
It's no big deal, just go on with your sad little lives, arguing about politics as if you actually make a difference or as if anybody in the world actually cares what bias you conform to, i don't care.
It really isn't. Even if the law was changed to allow muslims to live under Sharia law in their own communities here in Britain, i still wouldn't give a damn.
Only when myself, and people like me, ie... white English people of English culture and heritage are forced to conform to and abide by Sharia law, will there be a problem. Then i will make a fuss, then i will give a shit.
Personally, if one muslim in the UK wants to behead another because he slept with his daughter outside of marriage, fucking let them. If a muslim man wants to marry 365 muslim women, one for every day of the year, i don't give a shit, because it doesn't affect me and nobody is being forced to do anything they don't want to do.
It's no big deal, just go on with your sad little lives, arguing about politics as if you actually make a difference or as if anybody in the world actually cares what bias you conform to, i don't care.
Well said, Dayve.
halloo
07-04-2008, 02:21 PM
yup, england is going downhill. instead to limit their immigration policies to high skilled workers only, they do the opposite, they make it hard for high skilled workers and easy for these muslims refugees that have like 10 kids and live on welfare their whole fuckin' life, oh , and they never integrate into the society.
the citizens should start protesting or this country is gonna be in some deep shit in a couple of decades.
QKUMBA
07-04-2008, 04:02 PM
blah blah blah
in other words, no... you didnt bother to watch the speech given by the Lord Chief Justice. The speech which started this whole debate. And the same speech where he explicitly states that any change in religious or civil law would have to be within the framework of existing UK law... i.e. the law in the UK won't change - muslim men still wont be able to behead their adulterous wives, even if Sharia law says they can... because murder is illegal.
Anyway, you clearly don't know as much about UK law as the UK's top judge, so stop spouting irrelevant nonsense and go watch the video of what he actually said.
Al Paccioli
07-04-2008, 04:10 PM
OP just had a healthy serving of facepalm.jpg
Mmm-mmm-mmm!
FugginBastid
07-04-2008, 05:02 PM
Hmmmm...
If British courts are bound to uphold the terms of shari’a contracts, how exactly are they not then de facto shari’a courts? They are required to understand shari’a jurisprudence and the body of shari’a law regarding any contractual arrangements before the court, no?
Grab some popcorn.
Henkie
07-04-2008, 06:40 PM
Hmmmm...
If British courts are bound to uphold the terms of shari’a contracts, how exactly are they not then de facto shari’a courts? They are required to understand shari’a jurisprudence and the body of shari’a law regarding any contractual arrangements before the court, no?
Grab some popcorn.
Because you define these things in advance. You have one or two experts make these "sharia-approved"-contracts and stuff, and translate it into "normal" terms. And in cases of severe doubt you can always call in a religious scholar to clarify.
Hmmmm...
If British courts are bound to uphold the terms of shari’a contracts, how exactly are they not then de facto shari’a courts? They are required to understand shari’a jurisprudence and the body of shari’a law regarding any contractual arrangements before the court, no?
Grab some popcorn.
The key word there is "contract." Whether you use Sharia law or the rulebook for Dungeons and Dragons, if you willfully enter a legally binding contract, the source of the terms pretty much becomes irrelevant.
FugginBastid
07-04-2008, 06:58 PM
The key word there is "contract." Whether you use Sharia law or the rulebook for Dungeons and Dragons, if you willfully enter a legally binding contract, the source of the terms pretty much becomes irrelevant.
Sounds to me like tons of red tape and absolute confusion, with tons of PC. Oh, and did I mention the Slippery Slope?
Henkie
07-04-2008, 07:01 PM
Sounds to me like tons of red take and absolute confusion, with tons of PC. Oh, and did I mention the Slippery Slope?
How does it add any extra red tape? And I think I may have said this before, but 'slippery slope' arguments are inherently a sign of weakness, saying that you can't find something wrong with what you're argueing against, so you just find something wrong with something totally different.
Sounds to me like tons of red take and absolute confusion, with tons of PC. Oh, and did I mention the Slippery Slope?
It's not a slippery slope at all, unless you can explain how both parties agreeing to mutually-acceptable terms can somehow morph into Sharia law being imposed on unwilling folks.
in other words, no... you didnt bother to watch the speech given by the Lord Chief Justice. The speech which started this whole debate. And the same speech where he explicitly states that any change in religious or civil law would have to be within the framework of existing UK law... i.e. the law in the UK won't change - muslim men still wont be able to behead their adulterous wives, even if Sharia law says they can... because murder is illegal.
Anyway, you clearly don't know as much about UK law as the UK's top judge, so stop spouting irrelevant nonsense and go watch the video of what he actually said.
Since you obviously haven't read Sharia law it is pointless to debate you.
The mere presence of Sharia law in matters of marriage for example denies the rights of a woman.
Marriage:
* The woman in a marriage requires the permission of a guardian. This prevents a couple from contracting a marriage without parental approval and only worsens the problem of forced marriage.
* Marriages can be conducted without the presence of the potential bride, as long as the guardian consents.
* Under age and early marriage
* Muslim women may only marry Muslim men.
Divorce:
* Men can divorce simply by repudiation.
* Men have no obligations to support their former wife or her children after divorce.
* Women cannot be divorced without the consent of their husband.
* Abuse is not valid grounds for a woman to end a marriage.
Inheritance:
* Sons will inherit twice as much as daughters.
Child custody:
* Women who remarry lose custody of their children, so a divorced woman is forced to remain single or give up being a mother.
* Child custody often reverts to the father at a preset age, even if the father is abusive.
Islam is already used to justify and excuse the sufferings of women subjected to domestic violence, forced marriage, “honour” killings, forced child-bearing and endless drudgery. Rowan Williams does not appreciate that these women, already suffering the most in society, will loose their rights to marry divorce and raise their children with the same rights as other British women.
Please, read about Sharia before replying.
http://womensphere.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/sharia-law-is-reactionary-and-extremely-discriminatory-against-women/
It is agreed upon in the UK. Does that make the UK Israel's bitch? If so, there's some pimp-fighting to be done...
Please read what was said about Sharia law as a whole and the differences between it and other major religions.
But those extra bits won't be implemented into the English legal system. That's not what anybody is suggesting, and therefore it is irrelevant to this debate.
Of course it is. They now have their foot in the door. Acceptance of Sharia at any level gives them that.
Please read Sharia and explain to us all what aspects can be accepted and are being accepted that do not conflict with English law. I'm interested to see this.
Another thread just started where children were given detention for not praying to Allah in a classroom no less.
If you can't see what is going on here, you are simply refusing to do so.
It's not a slippery slope at all, unless you can explain how both parties agreeing to mutually-acceptable terms can somehow morph into Sharia law being imposed on unwilling folks.
Read the thread on children in the UK given detention for not praying to Allah in a classroom.
You can only deny the truth for so long.
I can't wait to see what happens when they stone some gay teenager or a girl who was raped.
Henkie
07-05-2008, 06:45 AM
While I'm pretty sure a lot of the things wra mentions differ heavily in different interpretations of the Sharia, it doesn't essentially matter. It is always a choice for all people involved not to accept the Sharia. If you want to marry without your parents approval, or marry a non-Muslim, you just do it the old-fashioned way. And ofcourse there is the potential of parental pressure, but that'd be there even if there was no sharia.
As such, it loses all it's ability to pressure anybody into doing anything, except for things he agrees to do in the first place.
Edit: btw, wra, the difference between the Sharia and Jewish law you make is utter nonsense. Traditional Jewish law also concerns all aspects of life, like a very specific and strict dress-code, complicated laws on food, etc. And there is no real concept of traditional Christian law, because Christianity, because the legal tradition in Christian countries has always been heavily influenced by Roman law and certain Germanic laws.
While I'm pretty sure a lot of the things wra mentions differ heavily in different interpretations of the Sharia, it doesn't essentially matter. It is always a choice for all people involved not to accept the Sharia. If you want to marry without your parents approval, or marry a non-Muslim, you just do it the old-fashioned way. And ofcourse there is the potential of parental pressure, but that'd be there even if there was no sharia.
As such, it loses all it's ability to pressure anybody into doing anything, except for things he agrees to do in the first place.
Edit: btw, wra, the difference between the Sharia and Jewish law you make is utter nonsense. Traditional Jewish law also concerns all aspects of life, like a very specific and strict dress-code, complicated laws on food, etc. And there is no real concept of traditional Christian law, because Christianity, because the legal tradition in Christian countries has always been heavily influenced by Roman law and certain Germanic laws.
Since you are unwilling to even quote from Sharia law or Jewish law to make your case, there is no point in debating you.
I'm simply not going to take your word for it Henkie.
Henkie
07-05-2008, 11:04 AM
Since you are unwilling to even quote from Sharia law or Jewish law to make your case, there is no point in debating you.
I'm simply not going to take your word for it Henkie.
I did give examples. Haven't you ever heard of Kosher food? That's traditional Jewish law. Have you ever seen the Jewish men with the beards, curly-thingies and big hats? That's traditional Jewish law (although in a relatively modern interpretation), those are the examples I gave. There's more of those things (although these are the better known examples). Are you just unfamiliar with them, or do you not consider it Jewish law? Because the lack of a Jewish Theocracy over the last centuries doesn't make it any less of a law.
QKUMBA
07-05-2008, 11:48 AM
blah blah blah again
The reason i told you to go watch the video of the lord chief justice's speech is because he addressed the very issues you keep banging on about.
As he pointed out, sharia law, and its implementation, is different depending on which arab state you visit.
He also pointed out that only portions of sharia law which do not contravene existing UK law would be used...
so, all these bullet points you listed WOULDN'T be applicable because they dont comply to UK law.
Marriage:
* The woman in a marriage requires the permission of a guardian. This prevents a couple from contracting a marriage without parental approval and only worsens the problem of forced marriage. (there is nothing stopping 2 muslim love birds from getting a non-muslim wedding if their parents wont agree to it. Look up Gretna Green on wiki)
* Marriages can be conducted without the presence of the potential bride, as long as the guardian consents. (In uk law, all marriages conclude with both partners signing a declaration of marriage - if one isnt there, they cant sign it and the marriage is void)
* Under age and early marriage (Illegal)
* Muslim women may only marry Muslim men. (if a muslim woman wants to marry a non-muslim man, sharia law would not be applicable because as the lord chief justice said - sharia law would only be used in DISPUTES between muslim couples)
Divorce:
* Men can divorce simply by repudiation. (Marriage in the UK is a legally binding contract, you cant simply deny your marriage exists)
* Men have no obligations to support their former wife or her children after divorce. (Not within UK law. All fathers must pay maintenance to their ex wives - or the other way round depending on who has custody of the kids)
* Women cannot be divorced without the consent of their husband. (see below)
* Abuse is not valid grounds for a woman to end a marriage. (Not within UK law - Abuse is grounds for any divorce in UK law, plus a custodial sentence for the violent party. This is also why the above "consent" point is irrelevant)
Child custody:
* Women who remarry lose custody of their children, so a divorced woman is forced to remain single or give up being a mother. (In UK law, Child custody is decided on the basis of suitability and circumstance, although in these issues, women hold more rights than men)
* Child custody often reverts to the father at a preset age, even if the father is abusive. (see above, violent father would equal no custody of the kids... for the father)
In otherwords, the vast majority of what you stated wouldn't be applicable because it isn't within existing UK law. This is why the L.C.J. said that only parts of Sharia law would be suitable under UK law... but you wouldnt know that because you haven't watched the video of what he said.
The reason i told you to go watch the video of the lord chief justice's speech is because he addressed the very issues you keep banging on about.
As he pointed out, sharia law, and its implementation, is different depending on which arab state you visit.
He also pointed out that only portions of sharia law which do not contravene existing UK law would be used...
so, all these bullet points you listed WOULDN'T be applicable because they dont comply to UK law.
Marriage:
* The woman in a marriage requires the permission of a guardian. This prevents a couple from contracting a marriage without parental approval and only worsens the problem of forced marriage. (there is nothing stopping 2 muslim love birds from getting a non-muslim wedding if their parents wont agree to it. Look up Gretna Green on wiki)
* Marriages can be conducted without the presence of the potential bride, as long as the guardian consents. (In uk law, all marriages conclude with both partners signing a declaration of marriage - if one isnt there, they cant sign it and the marriage is void)
* Under age and early marriage (Illegal)
* Muslim women may only marry Muslim men. (if a muslim woman wants to marry a non-muslim man, sharia law would not be applicable because as the lord chief justice said - sharia law would only be used in DISPUTES between muslim couples)
Divorce:
* Men can divorce simply by repudiation. (Marriage in the UK is a legally binding contract, you cant simply deny your marriage exists)
* Men have no obligations to support their former wife or her children after divorce. (Not within UK law. All fathers must pay maintenance to their ex wives - or the other way round depending on who has custody of the kids)
* Women cannot be divorced without the consent of their husband. (see below)
* Abuse is not valid grounds for a woman to end a marriage. (Not within UK law - Abuse is grounds for any divorce in UK law, plus a custodial sentence for the violent party. This is also why the above "consent" point is irrelevant)
Child custody:
* Women who remarry lose custody of their children, so a divorced woman is forced to remain single or give up being a mother. (In UK law, Child custody is decided on the basis of suitability and circumstance, although in these issues, women hold more rights than men)
* Child custody often reverts to the father at a preset age, even if the father is abusive. (see above, violent father would equal no custody of the kids... for the father)
In otherwords, the vast majority of what you stated wouldn't be applicable because it isn't within existing UK law. This is why the L.C.J. said that only parts of Sharia law would be suitable under UK law... but you wouldnt know that because you haven't watched the video of what he said.
Please read Sharia and explain to us all what aspects can be accepted and are being accepted that do not conflict with English law. I'm interested to see this.
I did give examples. Haven't you ever heard of Kosher food? That's traditional Jewish law. Have you ever seen the Jewish men with the beards, curly-thingies and big hats? That's traditional Jewish law (although in a relatively modern interpretation), those are the examples I gave. There's more of those things (although these are the better known examples). Are you just unfamiliar with them, or do you not consider it Jewish law? Because the lack of a Jewish Theocracy over the last centuries doesn't make it any less of a law.
I'll say it again, you quoted nothing in Sharia that doesn't conflict with English law.
Until you can do that, the rest is just spin.
QKUMBA
07-05-2008, 02:07 PM
Please read Sharia and explain to us all what aspects can be accepted and are being accepted that do not conflict with English law. I'm interested to see this.
I'll say it again, you quoted nothing in Sharia that doesn't conflict with English law.
Until you can do that, the rest is just spin.
The two main ones, as pointed out by the lord chief justice, are the abstinence from alcohol (drinking alcohol is legal) and not making money from money (i.e. charging interest - which, again, is perfectly legal).
Henkie
07-05-2008, 02:09 PM
You say:
Since you are unwilling to even quote from Sharia law or Jewish law to make your case, there is no point in debating you.
I give relevant examples of Jewish laws.
You respond:
I'll say it again, you quoted nothing in Sharia that doesn't conflict with English law.
Until you can do that, the rest is just spin.
I seriously can't keep up with every single demand you make if you bloody well keep changing them!
Anyways, are you seriously claiming there is not a single bit of Sharia law that can be implemented without clashing with English law?
The two main ones, as pointed out by the lord chief justice, are the abstinence from alcohol (drinking alcohol is legal) and not making money from money (i.e. charging interest - which, again, is perfectly legal).
Nothing else right? Nothing else would be accecptable.
If that were true then why does the article state:
Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said that Islamic legal principles could be employed to deal with family and marital arguments and to regulate finance.
What laws of Sharia are compatable with English law when it comes to family and martial arguements?
This is what prompted me to ask you to actually read Sharia law. It is completely one sided and sexist when it comes to family and martial disputes so how on God's green earth could ANY aspect be considered and it not conflict with English law?
Please read it and cite your examples.
Solaris
07-05-2008, 02:11 PM
Please read Sharia and explain to us all what aspects can be accepted and are being accepted that do not conflict with English law. I'm interested to see this.
I'll say it again, you quoted nothing in Sharia that doesn't conflict with English law.
Until you can do that, the rest is just spin.
What's the point? It's obvious.
If Sharia Law says you can legally kill a spouse for adultery, for example, then this obviously would not be adopted into British law, because murder is illegal.
I think it'd be a mainly tiresome exercise to go through both bodies of law (Sharia and British) and find where they can co exist and where they cannot. That is for the British government to decide.
But it is pertinent to state that many examples given of Sharia Law which have been brought up are the most extreme, and would not be adopted, surely.
What's the point? It's obvious.
If Sharia Law says you can legally kill a spouse for adultery, for example, then this obviously would not be adopted into British law, because murder is illegal.
I think it'd be a mainly tiresome exercise to go through both bodies of law (Sharia and British) and find where they can co exist and where they cannot. That is for the British government to decide.
But it is pertinent to state that many examples given of Sharia Law which have been brought up are the most extreme, and would not be adopted, surely.
The entire point is the explanation of where Sharia law would be accepted is literally impossible to implement without breaking English law.
I am trying to get you all to understand that the entire premise is flawed and it is the lack of specificity that proves this judge and your archbishop have obviously not thought out their blind acceptance of Sharia law.
Claiming it can be used for marriage disputes alone proves they have not read Sharia law.
This is nothing more than capituation to Islam and it is proven by the judge's very own words he has no idea what Sharia law actually says.
Just accept the law becuase the Muslims want it and to hell with the specifics.
Solaris
07-05-2008, 02:25 PM
So you're saying that there is literally not one point in Sharia Law that could be adopted? Otherwise it is not flawed.
QKUMBA
07-05-2008, 02:27 PM
Nothing else right? Nothing else would be accecptable.
If that were true then why does the article state:
Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said that Islamic legal principles could be employed to deal with family and marital arguments and to regulate finance.
What laws of Sharia are compatable with English law when it comes to family and martial arguements?
This is what prompted me to ask you to actually read Sharia law. It is completely one sided and sexist when it comes to family and martial disputes so how on God's green earth could ANY aspect be considered and it not conflict with English law?
Please read it and cite your examples.
"In terms of religious obligations, such as certain elements of prayer, payment of zakat, observance of the Ramadan fast and pilgrimage, women are treated no differently from men. There are, however, some exceptions made in the case of prayers and fasting (such as for pregnancy). They are also forbidden to perform salat (prayer) during menstruation."
It is perfectly legal in the UK to follow these beliefs of not. But currently, for instance, a wife could not divorce her husband through the civil court system because he refused to observe the Ramadan fast. What is being proposed would fix that and bring it into line with how we already treat other religions.
So you're saying that there is literally not one point in Sharia Law that could be adopted? Otherwise it is not flawed.
For marriage conflicts? No. Not one. Because the very law favors the man which in itself is sexist. And the very notion that it is suggested it CAN be used proves they do not understand it.
"In terms of religious obligations, such as certain elements of prayer, payment of zakat, observance of the Ramadan fast and pilgrimage, women are treated no differently from men. There are, however, some exceptions made in the case of prayers and fasting (such as for pregnancy). They are also forbidden to perform salat (prayer) during menstruation."
It is perfectly legal in the UK to follow these beliefs of not. But currently, for instance, a wife could not divorce her husband through the civil court system because he refused to observe the Ramadan fast. What is being proposed would fix that and bring it into line with how we already treat other religions.
That is a summary of the law not the law itself. Cite Sharia not a paraphase passage of Sharia.
You say:
I give relevant examples of Jewish laws.
You respond:
I seriously can't keep up with every single demand you make if you bloody well keep changing them!
From my very first reply to you I asked for examples in sharia law.
Please read what was said about Sharia law as a whole and the differences between it and other major religions.
Please read Sharia and explain to us all what aspects can be accepted and are being accepted that do not conflict with English law. I'm interested to see this.
You were asked from the get go. If you have a problem then it is with your own memory because it was asked from you from the beginning and its still being asked.
Anyways, are you seriously claiming there is not a single bit of Sharia law that can be implemented without clashing with English law?
With marriage and family disputes as what they claimed it would work for?
No, none.
Go ahead for the third time and cite the Sharia law that proves you right.
QKUMBA
07-05-2008, 02:51 PM
That is a summary of the law not the law itself. Cite Sharia not a paraphase passage of Sharia.
What difference does it make... and why is it any different from your bullet point summary?
Anyway, here are a few i found in a few minutes.
It is obligatory for a man to give bride wealth (gifts) to the woman he marries -- "Do not marry unless you give your wife something that is her right."
A woman who wishes to be divorced usually needs the consent of her husband. However, most schools allow her to obtain a divorce without her husband's consent if she can show the judge that her husband is impotent. If the husband consents she does not have to pay back the dower
A divorced woman of reproductive age must wait four months and ten days before marrying again to ensure that she is not pregnant. Her ex-husband should support her financially during this period.
In the sphere of hygiene, it includes:
* Clipping the moustache
* Shaving the pubic hair
* Removing underarm hair
* Cutting nails
* Circumcising the male offspring
* Cleaning the nostrils, the mouth, and the teeth and
* Cleaning the body after urination and defecation
Also, this gives a good run down of this specific issue.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7234870.stm
...And here's a piece about how similar Jewish civil courts have been in use in the UK for centuries.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7233040.stm
What difference does it make... and why is it any different from your bullet point summary?
What difference does it make? Try all the difference. Its the difference between theory and reality.
Anyway, here are a few i found in a few minutes.
It is obligatory for a man to give bride wealth (gifts) to the woman he marries -- "Do not marry unless you give your wife something that is her right."
That has nothing to do with marriage disputes as I stated.
A woman who wishes to be divorced usually needs the consent of her husband. However, most schools allow her to obtain a divorce without her husband's consent if she can show the judge that her husband is impotent. If the husband consents she does not have to pay back the dower
Right there. The only way to divorce a husband by Sharia is if the husband is impotent or get his consent. That right there does against British law unless you have rewritten it.
A divorced woman of reproductive age must wait four months and ten days before marrying again to ensure that she is not pregnant. Her ex-husband should support her financially during this period.
In the sphere of hygiene, it includes:
* Clipping the moustache
* Shaving the pubic hair
* Removing underarm hair
* Cutting nails
* Circumcising the male offspring
* Cleaning the nostrils, the mouth, and the teeth and
* Cleaning the body after urination and defecation
[/LIST]
You just made my point for me again. No British law requires any time between remarriage after a divorce.
Also, this gives a good run down of this specific issue.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7234870.stm
In that entire article there is only one area where they even mention Sharia and British law
But what about incorporating Sharia into British law?
In two important areas British law has incorporated religious legal considerations. British food regulations allow meat to be slaughtered according to Jewish and Islamic practices - a touchstone issue for both communities.
Secondly, the Treasury has approved Sharia-compliant financial products such as mortgages and investments. Islam forbids interest on the basis that it is money unjustly earned. These products are said by supporters to meet the needs of modern life in a way that fits the faith.
Nothing here supports using Sharia to resolve family or marriage disputes which is exactly what that judge claimed would be covered.
...And here's a piece about how similar Jewish civil courts have been in use in the UK for centuries.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7233040.stm
And nothing there was cited that conflicted with British law.
Sharia as you have already demonstrated does conflict with British law when it comes to the specific areas the judge said it would be implemented.
GhostJang
07-05-2008, 03:43 PM
Jesus Christ. Is it really that hard to understand and accept that these laws cannot conflict with English law?
Really? How can you even argue over it?
QKUMBA
07-05-2008, 06:10 PM
What difference does it make? Try all the difference. Its the difference between theory and reality.
No, its the difference between the truth and a summary of the truth.
That has nothing to do with marriage disputes as I stated.It would be part of a marriage dispute if the husband didn't pay her the bride wealth. In current UK law there is no way a woman could file for divorce based on her husbands refusal to give her "brides wealth".
Right there. The only way to divorce a husband by Sharia is if the husband is impotent or get his consent. That right there does against British law unless you have rewritten it. Again, there is nothing stopping a muslim woman seeking a divorce through the regular divorce courts.
You just made my point for me again. No British law requires any time between remarriage after a divorce. Exactly, that doesn't make it illegal OR put it in conflict with UK law though... because NO BRITISH LAW exists for that subject.
In that entire article there is only one area where they even mention Sharia and British law
But what about incorporating Sharia into British law?
In two important areas British law has incorporated religious legal considerations. British food regulations allow meat to be slaughtered according to Jewish and Islamic practices - a touchstone issue for both communities.
Secondly, the Treasury has approved Sharia-compliant financial products such as mortgages and investments. Islam forbids interest on the basis that it is money unjustly earned. These products are said by supporters to meet the needs of modern life in a way that fits the faith.
Nothing here supports using Sharia to resolve family or marriage disputes which is exactly what that judge claimed would be covered.
And nothing there was cited that conflicted with British law.
Sharia as you have already demonstrated does conflict with British law when it comes to the specific areas the judge said it would be implemented.
Such as...?
Jesus Christ. Is it really that hard to understand and accept that these laws cannot conflict with English law?
Really? How can you even argue over it?
Um yeah when you can't produce a single one that fits the criteria laid out by the judge. Specifically to resolve family disputes and marriage issues.
Feel free to take a stab at it if you are so sure of yourself.
No, its the difference between the truth and a summary of the truth.
Sorry, the summary of truth isn't the truth.
It would be part of a marriage dispute if the husband didn't pay her the bride wealth. In current UK law there is no way a woman could file for divorce based on her husbands refusal to give her "brides wealth".
marriage dispute was the criteria set forth by the judge.
Again, there is nothing stopping a muslim woman seeking a divorce through the regular divorce courts.
Accept the fact that the judge stated specifically that Sharia law could supercede British law.
He declared: 'Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law.
Exactly, that doesn't make it illegal OR put it in conflict with UK law though... because NO BRITISH LAW exists for that subject.
Are you kidding? If no law exists prohibiting marriage after ANY period of time and Sharia MANDATES you cannot get married for 4 months you think that isn't a conflict?
Such as...?
I just spelled it out for you again.
From your 2 examples alone. The only way to get out of a marriage according to Sharia, the man has to accept it or be ruled impotent. British law has no requriement for an ending in marriage.
Sharia requires a woman to wait for 4 months before remarrying but English law does not limit a woman to ANY time period to remarry hence the conflict of law.
My God, how are you missing this?
rordy
07-06-2008, 12:27 AM
All this is is the legal recongnition of a choice. Step in the door to what? more tolerence? oh noes!
All this is is the legal recongnition of a choice. Step in the door to what? more tolerence? oh noes!
If you call tolerance Sharia law superceding English law then yes.
ChristopherM
07-06-2008, 02:27 AM
Umm,
Sorry, what's wrong with this?
Because it opens the door for more aspects of Sharia to be allowed. It is impossible for Sharia and laws like our to coexist in the same country. They are very opposite. Also Muslims say that Sharia is for all. So as their numbers and power goes up, they will scream freedom of religion and say that Sharia is for all. Non-Muslims and women have little rights under Sharia. It is a door best left closed. If they want to live under Sharia, let them move to Islamic countries. They do not belong in the West then.
Um yeah when you can't produce a single one that fits the criteria laid out by the judge. Specifically to resolve family disputes and marriage issues.
Feel free to take a stab at it if you are so sure of yourself.
Say I'm an English Catholic, and I marry an English woman. We live together for about a year, and all of a sudden I find out she does not actually believe in God. She is an atheist, and she doesn't want to raise our kids Catholic. This is a big problem for me, as I am "obligated" to raise my kids within the Catholic faith. I file for divorce and annulment, citing the fact that I would not be able to raise my children Catholic.
This does not mean the law is a Catholic law. The courts are saying that religious justifications for such things as divorces or certain business transactions can be justified through religious necessity stemming from the Muslim faith. They aren't turning British law into Sharia law. No children will be stoned to death for having sex, for instance.
Beating your head against the wall in this discussion will not make you right.
^see, personally i dont see any excuse for the example above. if you marry someone you better damn well know what their religion is, otherwise you havent even properly gotten to know them.
but say both parties agree to a certain religious code of conduct for marriage. there shouldn't be any problem with that, if you dont agree with it then dont agree to it.
Say I'm an English Catholic, and I marry an English woman. We live together for about a year, and all of a sudden I find out she does not actually believe in God. She is an atheist, and she doesn't want to raise our kids Catholic. This is a big problem for me, as I am "obligated" to raise my kids within the Catholic faith. I file for divorce and annulment, citing the fact that I would not be able to raise my children Catholic.
This does not mean the law is a Catholic law. The courts are saying that religious justifications for such things as divorces or certain business transactions can be justified through religious necessity stemming from the Muslim faith. They aren't turning British law into Sharia law. No children will be stoned to death for having sex, for instance.
Beating your head against the wall in this discussion will not make you right.
And not fully processing the gravity of the situation doesn't make you right either.
I'll keep it simple for you.
Sharia law mandates a 4 month wait between remarriage. If English law is to be replaced with Sharia or what they call "other" than English law, that is a violation of English law right there. That one instance shows Sharia law and English law when it comes to marriage disputes are not compatible yet that is exactly the situation where your top judge claimed Sharia law could be used.
Henkie
07-06-2008, 05:56 PM
Let's take the waiting period of 4 months as an example. Is there a law in England that says you can't wait for 4 months? As far as I know, there isn't. People choosing to live by a rule that says they do have to wait for 4 months are therefore not breaking any English rule, so there is no conflict between English law and Sharia law. They're not the same, but the one rule doesn't require breaking the other.
Now, there is an English law that forbids stoning people to death, so when people choose to live by a rule that requires them to possibly stone somebody to death, there is a conflict. In those conflicts English laws trump other rules, so nobody will be allowed to stone anybody to death.
And not fully processing the gravity of the situation doesn't make you right either.
And if deception is involved to defraud the husband?
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.