| 0 |
Subject: Britain's Slow Death By Sharia?
Posted by: Boxman
- [337352111] Tue, Jul 08, 2008, 13:51
Thoughts?
Surrender!
Surrender!
By Cal Thomas
So this is how it ends: not with a bang, but a whimper.
The most senior judge in England has declared that Islamic legal principles in Sharia law may be used within Muslim communities in Britain to settle marital arguments and regulate finance. Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said, "Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law."
In his speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips said Muslims in Britain could use Islamic legal principles as long as punishments - and divorce rulings - comply with English law. Sharia law does not comply with English law. It is a law unto itself.
And so the English who gave us the Magna Carta in 1215, William Blackstone and the foundation of American law are slowly succumbing to the dictates of intolerant Islam and sowing seeds of their own destruction.
The Iranian and Kurdish Women's Rights Organization (IKWRO), an umbrella group of activists who work in Muslim countries to liberate women from the dark side of this oppressive force, according to Womensphere.wordpress.com, identifies Sharia family law as the fundamental basis for discrimination against women in the Muslim world, including communities in the United Kingdom.
Here are just some of the "benefits" British Muslim women can look forward to if Sharia law replaces English law: The Muslim woman cannot marry without parental approval, worsening the problem of forced marriage; marriages can be conducted without the presence of a bride, as long as the guardian consents, creating a climate for underage and early marriage; Muslim women may only marry Muslim men.
It gets worse. A Muslim man can divorce his wife by repudiating her; they have no obligation to support a former wife, or her children after the divorce; women are prohibited from divorcing husbands without his consent; abuse is not grounds for a woman to end a marriage; in matters of inheritance, sons are entitled to twice as much of an estate as daughters.
Divorced women must remain single. If they remarry they can lose custody of their children. There is no similar requirement for a man. Child custody often reverts to the father at a preset age, even if the father has been abusive.
It is impossible to reconcile this antiquated "law" with English law, so what could Lord Phillips mean when he says that Sharia law can be used in Muslim communities as long as such laws comply with English law? This will mean English law must become subordinate to Sharia law. This is Dhimmitude, an Islamic system of religious apartheid begun in the 7th century that forces all other religions and cultures to accept an inferior status once Muslims become the majority.
Maryland's Court of Appeals recently denied a Sharia divorce to a Pakistani man. The man's wife of 20 years had filed for divorce. To circumvent having to share their $2 million estate and other marital assets, he went to the Pakistani embassy and applied for an Islamic divorce. The man wanted to invoke what is known as talaq, in which the husband says, "I divorce you" three times and it's done.
The Maryland court said, "If we were to affirm the use of talaq, controlled as it is by the husband, a wife, a resident of this state, would never be able to consummate a divorce action filed by her in which she seeks a division of marital property" and the talaq "directly deprives the wife of the due process she is entitled to when she initiates divorce litigation. The lack and deprivation of due process is itself contrary to (Maryland's) public policy."
British Muslims who wish to live under Sharia law might have stayed in the countries from which they came - or return to them. But their objective appears to be domination of England, not assimilation. This also seems to be the goal for Muslims in other countries with large and growing Muslim populations.
There is no due process under Sharia law. Lord Phillips has signed the death warrant for his nation if his opinion becomes the law of England. It's one thing to fight a war and lose it. It's quite another to willingly surrender without a struggle. |
| 1 | DWetzel at work
ID: 278201415
Tue, Jul 08, 2008, 14:45
|
Interesting.
To my mind, there's a logical leap that he takes in this article that isn't accurate.
"Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law" does not seem to mean the same thing as Sharia law "replacing" English law. (He tries it again here: "It is impossible to reconcile this antiquated "law" with English law, so what could Lord Phillips mean when he says that Sharia law can be used in Muslim communities as long as such laws comply with English law? This will mean English law must become subordinate to Sharia law.")
No, it doesn't. It means that, within the subset of what is acceptable within British law (whatever those laws might say), if it's not contradicted by British law, the parties can do whatever they want. It's directly contradicted by his own sentence at the start of paragraph two: "In his speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips said Muslims in Britain could use Islamic legal principles as long as punishments - and divorce rulings - comply with English law." (Emphasis mine) That says what it says--no more (as Thomas seems to want), no less.
This is no different than virtually any contractual arrangement (which may or may not be how Britain treats marriages--no idea) here or elsewhere. Is it? It doesn't mean, for instance, that in Britain that the Muslim woman can be forced into marriage in Britain--because, by the judge's own words--"THE PARTIES CAN AGREE..." If she hasn't agreed, then, well, end of discussion! (Now, this brings up various "did she really agree" arguments, I suppose).
|
| 2 | nerveclinic
ID: 5047110
Tue, Jul 08, 2008, 16:03
|
So the ruling states...
"Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law."
Well if both parties agree, what's the problem if it's there religion and it's their contract?
Then the ruling says..."Muslims in Britain could use Islamic legal principles as long as punishments - and divorce rulings - comply with English law."
The article retorts..."Sharia law does not comply with English law. It is a law unto itself."
Ah well then, according to the ruling, those portions that don't comply, wouldn't be allowed since they "have to comply with British law".
Did I misread something?
This paragraph is completely speculative and illogical...
It is impossible to reconcile this antiquated "law" with English law, so what could Lord Phillips mean when he says that Sharia law can be used in Muslim communities as long as such laws comply with English law? This will mean English law must become subordinate to Sharia law.
UMM if the ruling said "must comply with British law" what is unclear?
This guy is really using poor logic and isn't providing any evidence that the points he is making have any basis in reality. On the contrary, the only evidence he provides "must comply with English law." seems to refute the very premise he is making.
The article jumps to all sorts of conclusions without providing any evidence that can be substituted.
Can we assume a bias here?
|
| 3 | Perm Dude
ID: 3365087
Tue, Jul 08, 2008, 16:28
|
Sounds like contract law. So long as the parties agree to the terms, I don't see too much of a problem with this.
|
| 4 | biliruben
ID: 52561217
Tue, Jul 08, 2008, 16:30
|
Dude's posting at Town Hall. Logic has no place there.
As soon as I read the portion Nerve italicized, I said to myself "Zoinks!?!" and realized I'd just wasted a minute or two of my ever-shorter life.
|
| 5 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Jul 08, 2008, 16:35
|
indeed....
It is impossible to reconcile this antiquated "law" with English law, so what could Lord Phillips mean when he says that Sharia law can be used in Muslim communities as long as such laws comply with English law? This will mean English law must become subordinate to Sharia law.
ummmm no, it means Sharia Law must become subordinate to English Law.
|
| 6 | Frick
ID: 23117516
Tue, Jul 08, 2008, 16:41
|
OK, either we all of the same reading comprehension problem or the author does.
Is this guy the British equivalent to an Ann Coultier?
|
| 7 | Perm Dude
ID: 3365087
Tue, Jul 08, 2008, 16:43
|
It's Cal Thomas--same vein.
|
| 8 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Tue, Jul 08, 2008, 16:46
|
Here's what caught my eye in the article, Lord Phillips said Muslims in Britain could use Islamic legal principles as long as punishments - and divorce rulings - comply with English law.
A contract is more than "punishments and divorce rulings". There are other stipulations in a contract like services provided, fees, etc.
Is British law then not applicable in those facets of the contract?
|
| 9 | WiddleAvi
ID: 323531619
Tue, Jul 08, 2008, 16:47
|
Jews have a court system called the Beit Din. If 2 jewish people go to a Beit Din instead of US court then they agree to abide by it's decision.
The question is are they going to a religous court first and not happy with the result ? I know with my kids at home the rule is if they ask one parent something they have to abide but that answer. You cannot go to the other parent hoping for a different answer.
|
| 10 | Balrog
Dude
ID: 02856618
Tue, Jul 08, 2008, 16:51
|
Yeah this is no difference than going on Judge Judy. Judge Judy does not trump local laws unless the people involved agree to do so. Then she's the boss. This does not mean that Judge Judy is trying to subvert the American justice system.
|
| 11 | biliruben
ID: 52561217
Tue, Jul 08, 2008, 16:54
|
Hey Box -
Could you give an example which might warrant concern? I'm having trouble seeing what you're getting at.
|
| 12 | bibA
ID: 27620715
Tue, Jul 08, 2008, 17:05
|
Lord Phillips has signed the death warrant for his nation if his opinion becomes the law of England
Maybe Box is concerned that England, the US greatest ally, has possibly had its death warrant signed.
|
| 13 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Tue, Jul 08, 2008, 17:11
|
Could you give an example which might warrant concern? I'm having trouble seeing what you're getting at.
What I'm getting at is the general concept that it appears (granted I'm no lawyer) that even though the punishment sections are ultimately covered by British law that the services provided and fees are not.
In theory (again I'm no lawyer) a contract could be made with terms that are against British law but within Sharia law and the British courts would have no authority.(?)
|
| 14 | biliruben
ID: 52561217
Tue, Jul 08, 2008, 17:21
|
Sorry. I'm still not getting it. A Sharia, what, "court?" assigns usurious fees to one party while deciding a judgment, and these fees are too high, but the British Court can't intervene to lower the fee?
That doesn't sound like a death warrant. There must be a more, um, lethal example you can provide.
|
| 15 | Balrog
Dude
ID: 02856618
Tue, Jul 08, 2008, 17:22
|
The only things enforceable in a contract are the punishments. (I learned that on Judge Judy!) There are usually punishments for any breach including not providing contracted services or not paying fees. If there are no punishments, then those portions of the contract are meaningless anyway.
|
| 16 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Tue, Jul 08, 2008, 17:26
|
I'm leaving the salt mines so here's a quick one.
There must be a more, um, lethal example you can provide.
Let's say the services provided are "behead the infidel".
|
| 17 | biliruben
ID: 52561217
Tue, Jul 08, 2008, 17:27
|
Heh heeeeow! Good one.
That must be a reward, not a punishment.
|
| 18 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923
Tue, Jul 08, 2008, 17:30
|
Contract Law remedies aren't punitve, they're restorative, generally - so I don't know what "punishments" you're talking about - there aren't punitive damages in contract law as a rule - that's a tort theory
Regarding the piece having parties who have a binding arbitration remedy as part of their contract - which is what the British jurist seems to indicate that this is similar to, is hardly earth shattering. Big deal.
I suspect, however, that a lot of these "contracts" and Sharia Court remedies will be contrary to British public policy and not be enforced in British Courts. Again -no big deal.
|
| 19 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Tue, Jul 08, 2008, 18:20
|
That must be a reward, not a punishment.
It's a reward to the guy who gets his contract fulfilled when he signs a "vendor" to do that to someone else.
|
| 20 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Jul 08, 2008, 18:39
|
maybe I'm missing something, but isnt murder pretty much contrary to English Law and thus the Sharia Law here would NOT comply with English Law and thus would NOT be applicable?
|
| 21 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Tue, Jul 08, 2008, 18:49
|
maybe I'm missing something
I could be too. That's why this passage from the article gives me pause so I posted it.
It SEEMS that the stipulations that are NOT punishment or divorce ruling related are not subject to British law.
Lord Phillips said Muslims in Britain could use Islamic legal principles as long as punishments - and divorce rulings - comply with English law.
|
| 22 | biliruben
ID: 52561217
Tue, Jul 08, 2008, 18:51
|
Since MBJ is the only one that seems to understand this, and he says NBD, I'll go with his judgment.
|
| 23 | Boldwin
ID: 406201020
Thu, Jul 10, 2008, 21:56
|
Perhaps someone can dig up a country that already has parallel track legal systems like this and see how they actually work out the details wherein the devil doth lie.
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|