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.

 

Moslems now demand full Sharia Law (UK)

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


I'm not going to fall out with you on it. Will agree to disagree.

I wish you well with your campaign for a free england. If you get what you want I will get what I want.




posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Ok ok...just a couple of points if you're going to rant on about our oil industry...
...productions from the North Sea started in 1969....that's 4 decades, and even although there is a theory that "the oil is running out", the energy industry technology that has been developed along with the expertise generated here, is very easily transferrable to other energy manufacturing systems, so even if the oils industry slides, we will still be in business. We are a nation of creators and inventors....I won't bore you with the list!
....so we will be just fine, thank you.

And by "we", I mean anyone who chooses to live and work here, show loyalty, and call themselves Scottish, whether Muslim, Pagan, Hindu, even Church of England...whatever....nearly everyone here has no problem with that, in my experience.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 


Fair do's. I may have led the charge in defence of England a little too zealously
. I have no issue with Scotland, just those who want to bash England.

Personally, I'd like an English Parliament within a strong Union, I dont want total seperation. Our two lands have done well together over the years, despite what some may say.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by bigyin
 


Fair do's. I may have led the charge in defence of England a little too zealously
. I have no issue with Scotland, just those who want to bash England.

Personally, I'd like an English Parliament within a strong Union, I dont want total seperation. Our two lands have done well together over the years, despite what some may say.


Agreed.

Basically we need to re-introduce common sense back into the system.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by caitlinfae
Apparently we all inhabit the same island....


Which is something that's always lost on me. England, Scotland, Wales and even Cornwall all sharing what is a relatively small island in the middle of a freezing Northern waters. I don't understand why everyone is so divisive.



Cait (born in a Roman city well well south of the Tyne, but definitely absolutely Scottish, and Celtic...not Anglo Saxon....
)


Or maybe I do, it's because of things like this. Culturally, you're not 'celtic' because it refers to a culture that existed the best part of 2000 years ago. Anything after that is based on the weird romanticism that swept most of Europe from the late 18th C. onwards.

Also, genetically, it's more than likely that you've got a very similar make-up as the people you're claiming are 'Anglo-Saxons' than not.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Sharia Law is simply am age old legal system just like our own. Anti-Islamic folks on here go crazy about this kind of stuff.

A part of the Islamic way of things is eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. In the US if you kill someone you get your life taken away by the state. whether literally taken away or a life behind bars with no liberty.

The laws of the west are based on a handful of ancient legal systems and parts of the law are identical to sharia systems.

Stop being so scared of muslims! It's ridiculous, the liberties we have given up as a people so that our government can save us from Islam is terrifying.

Be more afraid of your state leaders than of a pocketful of loud muslims.

Allah akhbar muhammed jihad,


Did you duck and cover as you read that sentence, the boogeyman is here



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jimmy1880
Sharia Law is simply am age old legal system just like our own. Anti-Islamic folks on here go crazy about this kind of stuff.

A part of the Islamic way of things is eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. In the US if you kill someone you get your life taken away by the state. whether literally taken away or a life behind bars with no liberty.

The laws of the west are based on a handful of ancient legal systems and parts of the law are identical to sharia systems.

Stop being so scared of muslims! It's ridiculous, the liberties we have given up as a people so that our government can save us from Islam is terrifying.

Be more afraid of your state leaders than of a pocketful of loud muslims.

Allah akhbar muhammed jihad,


Did you duck and cover as you read that sentence, the boogeyman is here



If it's so much the same what all the fuss about then ?



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Jimmy1880
 


There is a great difference between killing someone and locking them up for the rest of their life. Personally i would rather die then spend my life in prisonm and i say that as someone who has faced death. Sharia law however does not lead to a lower crime rate, in fact it seems to lead to a higher one. The same can be said for the USA. The states with the death penalty seems to have higher rates of the worst crimes.

I guess criminals think that if they're going to be caught they may as well commit the worst crimes they can. I only hope that the concealed carry permit will laed to some scumbags getting shot. Often though it seems innocent people get shot!



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jimmy1880
Sharia Law is simply am age old legal system just like our own. Anti-Islamic folks on here go crazy about this kind of stuff.

A part of the Islamic way of things is eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. In the US if you kill someone you get your life taken away by the state. whether literally taken away or a life behind bars with no liberty.


That's great and all, but this thread is about Sharia in the UK, not the US. With all due respect, a lot of people in the UK already view the American justice system as being similar to Sharia anyway in this respect. The thread about Khristian Oliver highlights the differences between the UK and the US.


The laws of the west are based on a handful of ancient legal systems and parts of the law are identical to sharia systems.


I wonder why it doesn't work the other way then? Do you go posting on Islamic boards telling Muslims that the British Law is not the bogeyman? If "the laws of the west" are identical, why the # do they want Shariah law anyway then? It's obviously different enough for them to want it instead of what's currently on offer.

Your post doesn't really make much sense, I'm afraid. Also, I'd be interested in knowing what parts of British law are actually identical to Shariah as you state.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Merriman Weir]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

I wonder why it doesn't work the other way then? Do you go posting on Islamic boards telling Muslims that the British Law is not the bogeyman? If "the laws of the west" are identical, why the # do they want Shariah law anyway then? It's obviously different enough for them to want it instead of what's currently on offer.

Your post doesn't really make much sense, I'm afraid. Also, I'd be interested in knowing what parts of British law are actually identical to Shariah as you state.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Merriman Weir]


I never said the two legal systems were identical!

Muslims are currently a minority being pushed into a corner and like anything when threatened will do anything for survival, Blair and Brown made sure that we are terrified of the dreaded muslim.

I do not need to go on Islamic websites to tell them that English law is the Bogeyman! Images from Guantanimo bay and the general Xenaphobia projected towards muslims is enough to tell tell them that the western governments hate them.

Islam is meerley beeing used as Communism was being used the decades previously. It a thing that the government says you should fear because a fearfull public is an obiedient one.

As for the comparisons between our law and sharia law please read the post below:



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Comparisons between Sharia Law and English common law

Since the publication of legal scholar John Makdisi's The Islamic Origins of the Common Law in the North Carolina Law Review in 1999, there has been controversy over whether English common law was inspired by Islamic law. It has been suggested by several scholars such as Professor John Makdisi, Jamila Hussain and Lawrence Rosenthat several fundamental English common law institutions may have been derived or adapted from similar legal institutions in Islamic law and jurisprudence, and introduced to England after the Norman conquest of England by the Normans, who conquered and inherited the Islamic legal administration of the Emirate of Sicily (see Arab-Norman culture), and "through the close connection between the Norman kingdoms of Roger II in Sicily — ruling over a conquered Islamic administration — and Henry II in England", as well as by Crusaders during the Crusades. The connection with Norman law in Normandy may be real, but it should be remembered that common law owes a great deal to Anglo-Saxon traditions and forms, and in its current form represents an interplay between the two systems.

According to Makdisi, the "royal English contract protected by the action of debt is identified with the Islamic Aqd, the English assize of novel disseisin is identified with the Islamic Istihqaq, and the English jury is identified with the Islamic Lafif" in classical Maliki jurisprudence. The Islamic Hawala institution also influenced the development of the agency institution in English common law. Other English legal institutions such as "the scholastic method, the license to teach," the "law schools known as Inns of Court in England and Madrasas in Islam" may have also originated from Islamic law. These influences have led Makdisi to suggest that Islamic law may have laid the foundations for "the common law as an integrated whole".

The Waqf in Islamic law, which developed during the 7th-9th centuries, bears a notable resemblance to the trusts in the English trust law. For example, every Waqf was required to have a waqif (founder), mutawillis (trustee), qadi (judge) and beneficiaries. Under both a Waqf and a trust, "property is reserved, and its usufruct appropriated, for the benefit of specific individuals, or for a general charitable purpose; the corpus becomes inalienable; estates for life in favor of successive beneficiaries cannot be created" and "without regard to the law of inheritance or the rights of the heirs; and continuity is secured by the successive appointment of trustees or mutawillis." The trust law developed in England at the time of the Crusades, during the 12th and 13th centuries, was introduced by Crusaders who may have been influenced by the Waqf institutions they came across in the Middle East. Dr. Paul Brand also notes parallels between the Waqf and the trusts used to establish Merton College by Walter de Merton, who had connections with the Knights Templar. Brand also points out, however, that the Knights Templar were primarily concerned with fighting the Muslims rather than learning from them, making it less likely that they had knowledge of Muslim legal institutions. The introduction of the trust, or "use" was primarily motivated by the need to avoid medieval inheritance taxes. By transferring legal title to a third party, there was no need to pay feudal dues on the death of the father. In those times, it was common for an underage child to lose many of his rights to his feudal overlord if he succeeded before he came of age.

The precursor to the English jury trial was the Lafif trial in classical Maliki jurisprudence, which was developed between the 8th and 11th centuries in North Africa and Islamic Sicily, and shares a number of similarities with the later jury trials in English common law. Like the English jury, the Islamic Lafif was a body of twelve members drawn from the neighbourhood and sworn to tell the truth, who were bound to give a unanimous verdict, about matters "which they had personally seen or heard, binding on the judge, to settle the truth concerning facts in a case, between ordinary people, and obtained as of right by the plaintiff." The only characteristic of the English jury which the Islamic Lafif lacked was the "judicial writ directing the jury to be summoned and directing the bailiff to hear its recognition." According to Professor John Makdisi, "no other institution in any legal institution studied to date shares all of these characteristics with the English jury." It is thus likely that the concept of the Lafif may have been introduced to England by the Normans and then evolved into the modern English jury.However, the hearing of trials before a body of citizens may have existed in courts before the Norman conquest.

The precursor to the English assize of novel disseisin was the Islamic Istihqaq, an action "for the recovery of usurped land", in contrast to the previous Roman law which "emphasized possession in resolving such disputes." The "assize of novel disseisin broke with this tradition and emphasized ownership, as is found in the Islamic law of Istihqaq." Islamic law also introduced the notion of allowing an accused suspect or defendant to have an agent or lawyer, known as a wakil, handle his/her defense. This was in contrast to early English common law, which "used lawyers to prosecute but the accused were left to handle their defense themselves." The English Parliament did not allow those accused of treason the right to retain lawyers until 1695, and for those accused of other felonies until 1836.

Islamic jurists formulated early contract laws which introduced the application of formal rationality, legal rationality, legal logic (see Logic in Islamic philosophy) and legal reasoning in the use of contracts. Islamic jurists also introduced the concepts of rece

Thanks to wikipedia contributors



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Personally I do not give any credence to these protests.. but my fear is that this government will take these voices seriously and negotiate with them.

There are already many splits in this country.. *if* they took that root it will only drive the wedges that already exist deeper.. and cause untold problems.

For me and locally, every time things like this happen, there is talk of setting up the Witan again and breaking the Norman Yoke. Even now the local Bishphoric is leading the charge on setting up the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans which gives every appearance of splitting the CoE..

We still burn effigies of the pope here, while the Gov/H&S/Police/Catholics try to get it banned/stopped.. (well they have tried and failed since 1847) So even today the Marian persecutions are still in the forefront of peoples minds as to what violence can be done in the name of religion..

Edit: Removed repeated word.

[edit on 17/10/09 by thoughtsfull]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Jimmy1880
 


Perhaps you would like to make a comparison between Anglo-Saxon Dooms and Islamic Laws.. Anglo-Saxon Dooms

Edit to fix link

[edit on 17/10/09 by thoughtsfull]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by thoughtsfull
reply to post by Jimmy1880
 


Perhaps you would like to make a comparison between Anglo-Saxon Dooms and Islamic Laws.. Anglo-Saxon Dooms

Edit to fix link

[edit on 17/10/09 by thoughtsfull]


Thanks for the clicky, very interesting read



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Jimmy1880
 


No Probs, but if you then move in the Norman era, you will see a huge change in the laws e.g



It was decreed there that if a Frenchman shall charge an Englishman with perjury or murder or theft or homicide or "ran", as the English call open rapine which cannot be denied, the Englishman may defend himself, as he shall prefer, either by the ordeal of hot iron or by wager of battle. But if the Englishman be infirm, let him find another who will take his place. If one of them shall be vanquished, he shall pay a fine of 40 shillings to the king. If an Englishman shall charge a Frenchman and be unwilling to prove his accusation either by ordeal or by wager of battle, I will, nevertheless, that the Frenchman shall acquit himself by a valid oath.


So if an Frenchman accuses an Englishman, the Englishman he has to prove his point in "might is right" where as is the situation is reversed all a Frenchman has to do to acquit himself is with a valid oath.. Hence some, like myself beleive in the Norman Yoke

It took centuries to push back those types of laws, and regain some of the ground taken.. the Magna Carta was one of those steps, and when you look at some of the language used in some of the charters, they refer to the ancient customs and laws, these refer to pre-Norman laws, therefore to some people like myself there is a fear that the imposition of Sharia will be a similar step in the wrong direction.

In a similar way, locally we still burn effigies of the pope for the 17 local martyrs who were burnt at the stake for no reason.. none of them were tried, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.. How can anyone view religious laws as good when they are imposed in that context.

Tho some other local people were taken to London, tried and burnt alive for reading Bibles in English... (such was the crime) but again if you take that in the Anglo-Saxon context, bibles where translated and written in English from the 7th Century.. the Laws of Alfred the Great where in English and were based on the 10 commandments, but the Normans reversed that and it took another 500 years to get the bible back into English.. at a cost of many lives, and I for one would not like to revisit that type of upheaval.

If Sharia was imposed, how would I understand what is written since it is not in my native language.. The same was true with Normans French/Latin laws/Church services, how would the poor Anglo-Saxon understand.

But if you look at the dooms some quite modern, e.g women able to divorce their husbands and be entitled to 50% of everything they both owed, so how long did it take women to regain that right after the Normans reduced Women to the level of a serf? what is it, about 900 years.. Where I live on the South Coast, the Norman invasion and the following rule is not always seen as something good. Neither will marches or demands to see Sharia imposed on the UK be seen as anything other than someone trying to turn the clock back.



[edit on 17/10/09 by thoughtsfull]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Jimmy1880
 


Common law originated before the Norman conquest it started with local courts. Then Henry II developed the practice of sending judges from his own central court to hear the various disputes throughout the country. His judges would resolve disputes on an ad hoc basis according to what they interpreted the customs to be. The king's judges would then return to London and often discuss their cases and the decisions they made with the other judges. These decisions would be recorded and filed. In time, a rule, known as stare decisis (also commonly known as precedent) developed, which is where a judge would be bound to follow the decision of an earlier judge; he was required to adopt the earlier judge's interpretation of the law and apply the same principles promulgated by that earlier judge if the two cases had similar facts to one another. By this system of precedent, decisions 'stuck' and became rigid, and so the pre-Norman system of disparate local customs was replaced by an elaborate and consistent system of law that was common throughout the whole country, hence the name, "common law."

You could argue similarities but then you could argue similatries in abrhamic law as well no mater what culture you are certain things are just considered wrong.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jimmy1880
Muslims are currently a minority being pushed into a corner and like anything when threatened will do anything for survival, Blair and Brown made sure that we are terrified of the dreaded muslim.


The problem is, as with another post on another thread, you seem insistent on painting this idea that Muslims are only being defensive and on the back foot because of the way they are being treated by others. I'm not convinced this actually makes sense as a motivator for radicalisation, simply because the behavioural outcome is also the same when they're not this 'vulnerable minority' that you want to describe. I suppose the Ottoman Empire was a minority merely standing their corner?

[edit on 18-10-2009 by Merriman Weir]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Jimmy1880
 


"Sharia Law is simply am age old legal system just like our own. Anti-Islamic folks on here go crazy about this kind of stuff.

A part of the Islamic way of things is eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. In the US if you kill someone you get your life taken away by the state. whether literally taken away or a life behind bars with no liberty.

The laws of the west are based on a handful of ancient legal systems and parts of the law are identical to sharia systems."



That's not entirely true. One is supposed to find justice in such a system. How can there be justice when women are treated as second class citizens?
Could you stand to see your mother or sister treated the way Sharia law treats women? Example: woman gets raped, Sharia law determines woman is guilty, man goes free. where is the justice?

Women not allowed to own property, women not allowed to drive cars. even a cursory look at the way women are treated under sharia law is reason enough to never allow this kind of insanity to pollute any civiliation.


[edit on 18-10-2009 by useless eaters]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
Or maybe I do, it's because of things like this. Culturally, you're not 'celtic' because it refers to a culture that existed the best part of 2000 years ago. Anything after that is based on the weird romanticism that swept most of Europe from the late 18th C. onwards.

Also, genetically, it's more than likely that you've got a very similar make-up as the people you're claiming are 'Anglo-Saxons' than not.



Firstly, that last comment of mine wasn't meant to be taken just *too* seriously, and absolutely not worth a whole ranty reply about it. Please pay attention to the emoticons in future....they hold clues. And you're missing the point I was trying to make. Totally missing the point.

Secondly, you know nothing about by genetic make up and never will. You can't comment, however generally. We are trying to discuss the implications of Sharia in the UK, and not our own historical and ancestral roots. We need to be looking forward to our shared future, and not backwards to other conflicts, other histories, and other cultures. To me, the only thing more important than where we are now, is where we will be tomorrow. We have to consider that above everything.

Thirdly....ignore engaged...been meaning to do this for a while, and I feel so much better now.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by caitlinfae]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by useless eaters
 


You make a valid point if laws are not fair to all and treat all equally then they have no reason to be in existence. The point of any laws is equal protection so since Sharia law does not grant this to woman id have to stay that the UK condoning this would be a mistake that would rip there culture apart.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join