News3 mins ago
Sharia law 'could have UK role'
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Haggisdj. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The United Kingdom consists of four Christian countries, such being England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The law of each of these countries is firmly based on Christian principles and practices; punishments for crimes are defined by the United Kingdom Parliament of which the Head of State (in our case, the reigning Monarch) gives sanction. This has been the way of life here since the Magna Carta and long may it be so. Sharia law may be useful for followers of the Islamic tradition but it must never extend or encroach into my way of life.
There is no story here.
All that was said was that Sharia MIGHT be useful for some mediation amongst individuals that agree to that, but the basis of English law must stand.
It's a non story, non event dragged up by the likes of the Daily Mail/ Express to panic us all into buying their rags full of xenophobic waffle.
No-one's imposing sharia law here, so stop buying into their right wing claptrap, most Muslims are very pleasant, very peaceful individuals, you sadly only hear about the lunatic contingent which is present in all religions.
All that was said was that Sharia MIGHT be useful for some mediation amongst individuals that agree to that, but the basis of English law must stand.
It's a non story, non event dragged up by the likes of the Daily Mail/ Express to panic us all into buying their rags full of xenophobic waffle.
No-one's imposing sharia law here, so stop buying into their right wing claptrap, most Muslims are very pleasant, very peaceful individuals, you sadly only hear about the lunatic contingent which is present in all religions.
-- answer removed --
Keyplus, Little by little, bit by bit, ever so slowly, People, Non Muslims as well as Muslims will realise that there is only one way to a desirable and peaceful life and that is by accepting the law of the creator. There is no other way.
And you wonder why people on AB become suspicious of you? Your inane prattle does nothing whatsoever for the majority of the ordinary Muslim people in Britain who want to go about their daily lives and live in peace, and it does nothing to enhance cultural relations between them and the indigenous population. People like you create nothing but disharmony. But perhaps you don't care about that, eh? It seems not.
To go back to the original issue, no Sharia Law should not have a role in the UK. Everyone must be equal in the eyes of the law, and everyone must abide by one law - the law of the land. There can be no exceptions.
And you wonder why people on AB become suspicious of you? Your inane prattle does nothing whatsoever for the majority of the ordinary Muslim people in Britain who want to go about their daily lives and live in peace, and it does nothing to enhance cultural relations between them and the indigenous population. People like you create nothing but disharmony. But perhaps you don't care about that, eh? It seems not.
To go back to the original issue, no Sharia Law should not have a role in the UK. Everyone must be equal in the eyes of the law, and everyone must abide by one law - the law of the land. There can be no exceptions.
Naomi - Again what did you find offending in that. And trust me your this stunt that I am not giving good impression and all this and that is not going to make me say "Oh yes I am a very good Muslim and it is ok if you drink, and Islam does not care if you have children without marriage and homosexuality and so on because that is my personal life and my religion is separate from that". However if I start doing that then I am sure I would be hailed as an ideal Muslim on AB.
Trust you? I've told you before, I'd rather trust a killer shark.
You tell everyone here that little by little, everso slowly, bit by bit, they will eventually accept your way of life, and you ask me what's offensive in that? The simple fact is they don't want your way of life. Perhaps its time you went to bed to have a nice quiet think about it. With a bit of luck stark reality may suddenly hit you.
You tell everyone here that little by little, everso slowly, bit by bit, they will eventually accept your way of life, and you ask me what's offensive in that? The simple fact is they don't want your way of life. Perhaps its time you went to bed to have a nice quiet think about it. With a bit of luck stark reality may suddenly hit you.
From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7233040.stm
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.
From the original posters link:
Lord Phillips, the most senior judge in England and Wales, said there was no reason sharia law's principles could not be used in mediation.
However, he said this would still be subject to the "jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts".
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.
From the original posters link:
Lord Phillips, the most senior judge in England and Wales, said there was no reason sharia law's principles could not be used in mediation.
However, he said this would still be subject to the "jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts".
From your link:
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.
If Sharia Law works under the same principles, there is no problem, but it cannot be accepted by the state as having equal legal authority as English law.
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.
If Sharia Law works under the same principles, there is no problem, but it cannot be accepted by the state as having equal legal authority as English law.
From the original poster's link
Inayat Bunglawala from the Muslim Council of Britain told BBC News that sharia law applied only to civil matters.
He said: "I think it's important to clarify that English common law already allows us to go to mediation to whichever third party we wish. "So that is why you have sharia council, that is why you have Jewish courts. It is a truly voluntary arrangement.
"There is no parallel legal system. This system cannot override English common law system at all."
That is all that they are asking for.
Maybe we can agree on this one ;-)
Inayat Bunglawala from the Muslim Council of Britain told BBC News that sharia law applied only to civil matters.
He said: "I think it's important to clarify that English common law already allows us to go to mediation to whichever third party we wish. "So that is why you have sharia council, that is why you have Jewish courts. It is a truly voluntary arrangement.
"There is no parallel legal system. This system cannot override English common law system at all."
That is all that they are asking for.
Maybe we can agree on this one ;-)
Yes, at the moment that is all the moderates are asking, but it's rather odd that they are asking at all since Sharia courts, operating on a similar basis to the Beth Din courts, already exist in this country, and have done for a very long time. However, that aside, the less moderate are asking far more, and there are several aspects of Sharia Law that must be very seriously considered before any decision is taken, not least, its treatment of women, and whether or not it could be reconciled with the Human Rights Act.
Taking over is central to the Islamist faith. These people have been sent here with that goal.
The extremeists know that by persecuting the moderates they can gain refugee status in Western countries so that international Law demands they be allowed in. It serves double pupose by aiding extremism in the countries where it is entrenched and seeding it in others. This is a conscious strategy.
It only requires a small number of extremists posing as the persecuted to set and light the fuse firstly by encouraging conflict and then preaching hatred in the dramatic manner so familiar to the despots throughout history.
The Koran allows Muslims to lie and misrepresent themselves even to the point of denying their faith if necessary so long as it aids the spread of Islam. The end philosophy justifies the means.
They generally breed like rabbits and stomp on secular eductaion. One day Great Britian will regrent this invasion monumentally. It may take a century but there will be a place for Sharia Law one day.
Better get used to it because we are obliged by law to accept it without offering an alternative view. Several of the posts here could be used to lay charges of religious vilification such is the entrenchment of the Islamists and their partners in Abrahamic philosophy, the Christians. Why else do you think out governement has aided the quest?
The extremeists know that by persecuting the moderates they can gain refugee status in Western countries so that international Law demands they be allowed in. It serves double pupose by aiding extremism in the countries where it is entrenched and seeding it in others. This is a conscious strategy.
It only requires a small number of extremists posing as the persecuted to set and light the fuse firstly by encouraging conflict and then preaching hatred in the dramatic manner so familiar to the despots throughout history.
The Koran allows Muslims to lie and misrepresent themselves even to the point of denying their faith if necessary so long as it aids the spread of Islam. The end philosophy justifies the means.
They generally breed like rabbits and stomp on secular eductaion. One day Great Britian will regrent this invasion monumentally. It may take a century but there will be a place for Sharia Law one day.
Better get used to it because we are obliged by law to accept it without offering an alternative view. Several of the posts here could be used to lay charges of religious vilification such is the entrenchment of the Islamists and their partners in Abrahamic philosophy, the Christians. Why else do you think out governement has aided the quest?
naomi - again the Beth Din does not treat women equally: 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.
If both parties agree though, is it a problem?
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.
If both parties agree though, is it a problem?
The extremeists know that by persecuting the moderates they can gain refugee status in Western countries so that international Law demands they be allowed in. It serves double pupose by aiding extremism in the countries where it is entrenched and seeding it in others. This is a conscious strategy.
Do you have any links that I can read about this?
Several of the posts here could be used to lay charges of religious vilification such is the entrenchment of the Islamists and their partners in Abrahamic philosophy, the Christians. Why else do you think out governement has aided the quest?
So the Islamics, Jews and Christians are actually partners. Wow.
Do you have any links that I can read about this?
Several of the posts here could be used to lay charges of religious vilification such is the entrenchment of the Islamists and their partners in Abrahamic philosophy, the Christians. Why else do you think out governement has aided the quest?
So the Islamics, Jews and Christians are actually partners. Wow.
Vic, I know that - but two wrongs don't make a right.
And if both sides agree, yes it is a problem inasmuch as a divorce granted by a religious court is not legally binding. Couples are are still obliged to obtain a divorce under civil law in order to change their legal status.
I'm not sure I understand your argument here, Vic. It appears you advocate the increased use of religious courts even though they subjugate women, and that rather surprises me.
And if both sides agree, yes it is a problem inasmuch as a divorce granted by a religious court is not legally binding. Couples are are still obliged to obtain a divorce under civil law in order to change their legal status.
I'm not sure I understand your argument here, Vic. It appears you advocate the increased use of religious courts even though they subjugate women, and that rather surprises me.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.