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: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   
I dont think I mentioned a Muslim country or did I say the word country of Muslim I just said fathers in some nations......R you trying to tell me the country of Islam DOES NOT EXIST YOU LIAR YOU!!!!!!!!!(sarcasm ended)

[edit on 3-7-2008 by mybigunit]




posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


Obviously you don't understand the issue.

This isn't the Government getting involved at all. The religious courts are run by their own churches/temples/synagogues/Mosques, not the Government. So your worry about the Government getting involved is unfounded.

The Government gets involved with marriage because of the legal need for it. The Government's involvement in marriage is merely for the registration and a NON-RELIGIOUS basis for marriage.

Many people don't want to be subject to religious law, so there is a need for civil law governing such things.

That civil Law is the overriding law over any religion. Even if you get married in a Mosque, you must still register that with the secular authorities and if you get divorced, you won't be bound by religious Law, but the Law of the Land.

That is why Government gets involved.

Really, your argument makes no sense.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by mybigunit
 



The Government gets involved with marriage because of the legal need for it. The Government's involvement in marriage is merely for the registration and a NON-RELIGIOUS basis for marriage.

That is why Government gets involved.

Really, your argument makes no sense.


Non religious except for in America where for example gays cant marry because of religious reasons. Marriage IS a religious issue that is why I am for Civil Unions. If you want to Marry or whatever other religions call it then feel free to do so but the government shouldnt be in that business. To say the government is only into it for registration is pretty crazy considering they handle everything about the marriage from taxes to who gets what in the divorce. Civil Unions they would be doing the same but just without the religious wording like marriage which is I feel for a man and a woman but who is the government to say that is right or wrong.

As far as my argument doesnt make any sense I feel it does. My argument is simple government should not be involved in anything religion and that is ANY religion I dont care what it is. If you disagree with that then we will have to just agree to disagree but to say my argument doesnt make sense just doesnt make sense at all its a pretty easy argument.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mybigunit
As far as my argument doesnt make any sense I feel it does. My argument is simple government should not be involved in anything religion and that is ANY religion I dont care what it is. If you disagree with that then we will have to just agree to disagree but to say my argument doesnt make sense just doesnt make sense at all its a pretty easy argument.


Well thats my point. The Government isn't involved in this religious court thing and never was, so quite where you get that idea from is beyond me.

Marriage isn't just a religious thing either. I'm not into God-Bothering, but I'd still like to make my G/F my wife one day. I resent some religious person telling me I can't be "married" but instead I am in a "civil union" because it's a religious thing.

A marriage is a Union between a man and a woman. Has been since the dawn of time. What particular god you bother has changed, but the fundamental basis of a union between a man and a woman remains the same.

Anyhoo, thats not really the issue here. Your banging on about how the Government should butt out of this, but they never were "in" it! And also, you seem to want to compare the US to the UK.

WE'RE NOT THE SAME!!!

Basically, what they are saying is by all means set up a religious court, but people have to agree to attend and it cannot contravene the law of the land. So in essence, you and me could set up our own little court to decide things, as long as we both agree to it and don't break the Law. It also cannot be legally binding.

So, at the end of the day, it's all a bit pointless and only there for show.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Yeah we may be banging over nothing but in regards to making your g/f your wife you can be married out side of the government ran marriages its just done outside of the government. You register into a civil union and then do your own religious ceremony. Keep in mind it wasnt until recent the government got into the marriage business it was always done outside of the beedy eyes of the government and the records were kept in the family bible.

UK and US different NO WAY!!!!



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by burdman30ott6


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)


WRONG WRONG WRONG. Oh "The Daily Mail" is involved. Hello wakey wakey, the most appalling tabloid in Britain today.

Nobody (except tabloids like the devious Daily Mail) has said that UK Law is subservient or will be to Sharia law. What they are saying is that Sharia law can be used in civil cases NB civil cases NOT GOING TO COURT to resolve disputes. This is allowed under UK law. If you are a member of the Yellow Furry Loony Woonies and you have a Yellow Furry Loony Woony council then they can arbitrate in a civil dispute.

This is pure unadulterated muck raking by the Daily Mail and shame on those falling for it.....again (well somebody keeps buying the trashy paper!)



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 03:40 AM
link   
I knew what this was as soon as I saw it was from the mail - a pathetic attempt to bolster falling sales figures by scaremongering and pandering to the extreme right.

I really don't think I need to address the issues again, they have been more than adequately covered by Infinite and Stumason.

[edit on 4/7/2008 by budski]


SR

posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by malcr

Originally posted by burdman30ott6


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)


WRONG WRONG WRONG. Oh "The Daily Mail" is involved. Hello wakey wakey, the most appalling tabloid in Britain today.

Nobody (except tabloids like the devious Daily Mail) has said that UK Law is subservient or will be to Sharia law. What they are saying is that Sharia law can be used in civil cases NB civil cases NOT GOING TO COURT to resolve disputes. This is allowed under UK law. If you are a member of the Yellow Furry Loony Woonies and you have a Yellow Furry Loony Woony council then they can arbitrate in a civil dispute.

This is pure unadulterated muck raking by the Daily Mail and shame on those falling for it.....again (well somebody keeps buying the trashy paper!)



Actually there's no smoke without fire let's all remember the ICM poll and more recently the Sky New's poll of 47% of polled muslims wanting to implement Shariah Law in the UK many months ago. To say muslims are only 3% of the UK population so far then that is a worrying sign.

We simply do not see enough people condemning and putting the issue to bed within the muslim community. Yet there's no shortage of the muslim community to pass remarks and condemn the USA and UK for their flaws.

www.telegraph.co.uk...



[edit on 4-7-2008 by SR]



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
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+)



I love it, great write-up.

I'm getting sick of hearing about the things Mohammed didn't like. Booze, puppies, naked chicks - these are all things I have a great fondness for.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   
A link to the latest news.
HERE




Britain's most senior judge declared last night that there was no place for Sharia courts in this country and insisted that all residents were governed by the laws of England and Wales.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Nothing wrong with picking and choosing good parts of it. stop fear mongering.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Unfortunately the questions has been raised and not unlike a wave it will batter against the rock until it finally erodes.

I hear Canada is offering job opportunities to the British, ta ta


P.S. Jibbs - Your avatar rocks.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 05:20 AM
link   
This is ridiculous.

If they wish to be a part of our nation, they should follow our rules and way of life. If they dont like it they should go back to where they can follow whatever they want.

You know if we tried to bring our rules, human rights or way of life into there country's we would probably be stricken down and locked away.



[edit on 5-7-2008 by Proto]

[edit on 5-7-2008 by Proto]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Proto
 


curious have u even Read the whole topic before replying or just the OP?


SR

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by mOOmOO
Nothing wrong with picking and choosing good parts of it. stop fear mongering.


Not when it contravenes with how a country is run. Or do you enjoy to see groups of people being persecuted for the sake of another group of people??

[edit on 5-7-2008 by SR]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 08:29 AM
link   
So if some Cleric issues a Fatwa - English Muslims can obey it?

I guess they could kill us infidels and say "They were only following orders" and the PC nanny state federal governess would roll over and let him have his war with dear old England... He has a right to self-defense you know.

I can see it now "Muslim Slaughters Dogs - Defers to Koran's Sharia Law"

"Man Cuts off Daughters Clitoris - Cites Sharia Law, Defers to Koran"

"Man Breaks off sounding Rod in Penis - At least he didn't violate the Sharia"

"Muslim Kills promiscuous Daughter - Cites The Sharia, Clerics Concur"

"Englishman Force crazy Muslim Man to leave country - England Rejoices"



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by SR
 


explain how it would prosicute others?
when it clearly says it would be only those people that choose to use it
and even then its only for civil disputes,

or is that part just a blur?

reply to post by doctormcauley
 


1. why would we slaughter dogs? and where did you read that, i would really like to know.

2. man cust off daughters clitirus? that has nothing to do with sharia law or islam. its done mostly in africa for some reason or another.

3. surrounding rod? you mean circumsition, whats that to do with sharia law?
this is also practiced in jewdisum.

4. muslim kills daughter? you even read the article? or know anything about honor killings or even read past topics and posts stating how its commited not by muslims only.

5. or englishman tells lord justice to leave as Muslim man didnt come up with the idea


in future read through a topic and when you want to make points back them up with facts and not random BS



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by bodrul
 


You Sir are utterly incoherent.

You may want to check you keyboard - compare it with another; your keys seem to be mixed up.

I highly doubt you type like this by accident, surely you are taking the piss?

In any case, please edit and rephrase your post so that we may all have the pleasure of understanding your impotent points.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   
This is the UK. UK law applies. I'd like to see you go to Iran and try and force your Christian beliefs on them. Let's see how far you get.


If these people like their ways of life so much - go live a country that has them, instead of trying to force my country to change its ways to accommodate.

I've got no problem with people having whatever religions they have or living their lives a certain way, but when you start chnging the way my country operates, that's where I draw the line.

Want Sharia Law? Go to a Muslim country that has them.

[edit on 5-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 11:40 AM
link   



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]


The Daily Mail published this article about Islamophobia yesterday.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

I'm doubtful this makes them the eater of Muslim babies some people claim. but personally I'm in agreement with the article. Muslims have become an easy target these days.

Then again challenging, or raising concerns does not automatically equate to persecution in all cases. No one's above criticism.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join