It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sharia law SHOULD be used in Britain, says UK's top judge

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Sharia law SHOULD be used in Britain, says UK's top judge


www.dailymail.co.uk

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.'
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   
That last quoted paragraph basically seems to me to be a UK judge saying "England's sovreignity takes a backseat to the interests of parties from another nation." THIS is why you never sign away any part of your sovreignity to join an organization like the EU. Once you initially give up your national identity and rule of your own country to one entity, it makes it just that much more likely you'll be giving it up again to another group. So who will be the next group in the UK to recieve their own little nation or culture of origin within the government system?

www.dailymail.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   
No he did not. Read what he said.



But there is no possibility of sharia courts sitting in the UK, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers added

"It must be recognised, however, that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales." i.e English and Welsh law runs the land.

"So far as the law is concerned, those who live in this country are governed by English and Welsh law and subject to the jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts." meaing; no one is above the law.


Did you know, Jewish law is accepted and used in the UK in terms of domestic problems and mediation?. In terms of marriage and divorce, Islamic reference would be used to separate and void the marriage.

The High Court has even used Christianity as a means of mediation too when dealing with faith schools. Either you take religion out of mediation or the State stops being bais to one group.

The right wing Daily Mail knows mediation is giving to Jews and other religious groups in the United Kingdom, but the paper seems to be bashing muslims lately. It was the Poles a few months back.


[edit on 3-7-2008 by infinite]



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


OK, so how does this work, exactly? Do the courts only use the religious law for matters of contract dispute and civil cases, and reserve the Welsh law for criminal cases and matters between two different belief systems that have not agreed upon a different set of laws in a contract beforehand?



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Hmmmm....

Me thinks he is going to be in for a bit of a poo-storm, after what the Arch-Bishop went through.

There is precedent though, as we allow Jewish religious courts. They do have to abide by Civil Law though so rulings cannot be made that contravene the Law of the Land.

I see no reason why Muslims who agree to be bound by Sharia cannot have family disputes and the like heard in a Sharia court.

However, if one of the parties refuses to be heard in a Sharia court, they should not be forced too.

What I don't want to see is them trying to usurp English Law and trump Sharia as their only Law they should follow.

Also, this has fudge all to do with the EU, so I really don't see the point of your rant.

Oh, I thought I would point out that we are in fact a Theocracy anyway, just for giggles....



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


If the Court reckons mediation is the best method then it will use it. However, failure to met the mediation means the English and Welsh Law will decide.

For example; let us say a couple are up for divorce. The Court might rule that an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and a mediation (agreement) will decide who gets what, etc without the Court making a decision. However, if the couple cannot agree then the Court will rule against a mediation and resort to the "law of the land".

Mediation can be anything, but the Court found it would be easier to give Muslims the right of Jews and allow religion as a form of mediation when dealing with civil cases.

However, when it comes to criminal cases - religion is thrown out the window. Everyone is treated the same.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Let it also be said that people cannot be forced to abide by a religious code.

So, for example, Little Mo is accused by his father, Big Mo, of drinking alcohol. Now, obviously, this is against Islamic Law.

However, in the UK a person has freedom to choose to do what they want, so Big Mo has no right to attempt to drag his son in front of a Sharia court, unless Little Mo agrees.

Even then, the ruling would not be legally binding. And Big mo has no hope of enforcing a "no alcohol" policy through the Civil Courts as it is not illegal for him to drink (assuming he is 18+)



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


i was just about to bring that topic up (even searched and found it :lol


my reply on it
www.abovetopsecret.com...

link to the thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...

its the whole Arch-Bishop scenario again.

the tabloids will get a hold of this, turn it into something larger then it is
example Muslims want to impliment sharia law on every aspect on life,
and leave out that its just about personal issues.

the sun will post a page 3 with a burka on and claim thats what muslims want to turn England into.

no one seems to show that the people that bring on these changes arent even Muslim. sheesh



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
its the whole Arch-Bishop scenario again.

the tabloids will get a hold of this, turn it into something larger then it is
example Muslims want to impliment sharia law on every aspect on life,
and leave out that its just about personal issues.

You better pray that you are correct because it seems like incrementalism to me. First it's for personal issues, then it's for criminal issues and off you go.....I hope this is not the beginning of the end for the British way of life.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


It's absolutely absurd to think it would ever get like that. At the most, they would be allowed the same rights to hold a religious court as Jews, but even then, they cannot override the law of the land, nor can they force people to abide by them.

No need to be so alarmist.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   
They mean in regards to moral religious ethical things not when it breaches the laws of the UK.I can not see UK's top judge a master of laws recommending stonings beheadings etc.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Being_From_Earth
 


Exactly.

This only applies to people who first agree to be held to account by a religious court and even then, the rulings cannot breach UK law.

As infinite said above, if anyone commits a crime, then religion is out of the window and your treated the same.

This is just for civil disputes, not criminal law.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
This only applies to people who first agree to be held to account by a religious court and even then, the rulings cannot breach UK law.

Well, I hope you are correct and it's not incrementalism because sometimes religious and criminal activities can get blurred. I mean what happens when something they do which is allowed because of their religious beliefs conflicts with criminal law. The lines can get blurred.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


Then they commit a crime and are dealt with. It's really quite simple.

You cannot use a religious excuse to commit a crime, end of.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Very slippery slope here. If you want to start this then lets use the Christian religion for banking issues and get rid of interest.
Or these honor killings are we going to have to let the fathers who kill their daughters in these honor killings. Government should not be in the business of anything religion including marriage. Im for civil unions but marriage is a religious issue and our government should not be apart of it. To slippery bad decision on this judges part.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


A couple of points about your post need to be addressed.

Firstly, no one is forced into taking out loans with interest, so it cannot be construed that the Christian ethic of banning usury should be enforced. Want to avoid paying interest if your a Christian? Don't take out credit. Simple. No sin is committed.

Secondly, should someone "honour kill" anyone, then they will be tried for murder. Several high profile cases have already been through the courts in the UK of exactly that and the perpetrators got a lot of prison time.

It only seems a slippery slope to people who are desperate to find something to worry about and cry about those "evil Muslims".

Fact of the matter is that there already are religious courts in the UK for other faiths, which are non-binding and only deal with family matters where both parties consent. That is all that is being discussed here. These courts do not and will not have the power to override the Law of the Land.

How difficult is it to understand?



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


honor killings doesnt have anything to do with Islam

so why bring that in?

honor killing is done by Hindus,Sihik and granted muslims
who believe their so called honor has been shamed.
nothing religous just some nuts who believe in killing their kids brings back their family honor.

murder is murder.

sorry to derail the topic just had to address that



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by mybigunit
 


A couple of points about your post need to be addressed.

Firstly, no one is forced into taking out loans with interest, so it cannot be construed that the Christian ethic of banning usury should be enforced. Want to avoid paying interest if your a Christian? Don't take out credit. Simple. No sin is committed.

Secondly, should someone "honour kill" anyone, then they will be tried for murder. Several high profile cases have already been through the courts in the UK of exactly that and the perpetrators got a lot of prison time.

It only seems a slippery slope to people who are desperate to find something to worry about and cry about those "evil Muslims".

Fact of the matter is that there already are religious courts in the UK for other faiths, which are non-binding and only deal with family matters where both parties consent. That is all that is being discussed here. These courts do not and will not have the power to override the Law of the Land.

How difficult is it to understand?


Ummm I dont think I said anywhere about evil Muslims in fact I said government needs to be out religion PERIOD. Even marriages government shouldnt be in that business. Its a personal issue and the government shouldnt be in the business of regulating or legislating religious issues and thats for ALL religions not just Muslim. Hey if there is courts like you said above that are non binding and does not control the law for all then hey more power to you but to nationalize ANY religious deals is a slippery slope and should be avoided.

How hard was THAT to understand?



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
reply to post by mybigunit
 


honor killings doesnt have anything to do with Islam

so why bring that in?

honor killing is done by Hindus,Sihik and granted muslims
who believe their so called honor has been shamed.
nothing religous just some nuts who believe in killing their kids brings back their family honor.

murder is murder.

sorry to derail the topic just had to address that


And I totally agree but in some nations fathers get away with crap like that and my point which IS valid for this thread because one day it will be used for marriages the next for honor killings or other sick things but the muslim religion or any other religion for that matter. Religion and courts should not mix like I stated right above. This isnt a diss on Islam by all means.

BTW I like the Boycott Israeli goods pic
I signed up for that a long time ago glad others are waking up. (Oh Damn here come the anti semite comments now I see them coming)



[edit on 3-7-2008 by mybigunit]



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


this isnt some muslim country

for some small matters of marrige and property disputes its perfect.

and there is no way people in this country would allow such thing
and nor would we the muslims that live here, we have to abide by the laws of the country and thats how it will stay.




top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join