sharia law in UK??

Sharia law in UK?

  • Total voters
    12
  • Poll closed .
L

lucifers angel

same shit, differant day!!
Registered Senior Member
I was really disgusted to hear this on the news today, and after thinking about it for a while i have decided to post it here:

The Archbishop of Canterbury has said that it is “unavoidable” that some aspects of Sharia law will be brought into the UK.

Speaking to the BBC ahead of a speech on Thursday evening, Dr Rowan Williams said the UK had to “face up to the fact” that some citizens do not feel represented in the British legal system.

He argued that aspects of family law could be dealt with in a Sharia court.

Dr Williams said: “Certain provision of Sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law; so it’s not as if we’re bringing in an alien and rival system; we already have in this country a number of situations in which the internal law of religious communities is recognised by the law of the land as justified conscientious objections in certain circumstances in providing certain kinds of social relations.”

He insisted he was not advocating wholesale adoption of Sharia law in the UK, but insisted the British legal system could include safeguards that allow for appeals to be made.

He added: “Nobody in their right mind, I think, would want to see in this country a kind of inhumanity that sometimes appears to be associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states [with] the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well.”


--------------------------

personaly i think if this was introduced into the UK legal system then there will be war on our streets and i will carry a gun, because when will the laws be enforced, who will enforce them? and for what?

-----------------------

a bit of me thinks if, muslims want to come and live in thsi country then they should live with our lawas and not try and change them, because if this was introduced how long will it be before someone is getting they're hands cut of for stealing??

----------------------------------------

your views?
 
hang on, haven't we had a similar thread under 'Religion' ?

(sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=77370)
 
I'd love to see anyone who thinks it is a GOOD idea.

Then deport them some place where Sharia is the law already.

lucifers angel said:
He added: “Nobody in their right mind, I think, would want to see in this country a kind of inhumanity that sometimes appears to be associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states [with] the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well.”
Click to expand...

I suppose this phrase is technically true -- i.e. quarter (or more?) of British Muslims are not in their right mind.
 
Technically, you can mediate disputes by any third party you wish. It would free the legal system from some of the burden. In the US, you can settle out of court using any standards that both parties agree with.
 
spidergoat said:
Technically, you can mediate disputes by any third party you wish. It would free the legal system from some of the burden. In the US, you can settle out of court using any standards that both parties agree with.
Click to expand...

Yes , but sharia would be binding on Muslims. There's a big difference between that and informl discussions which are optional
 
But in the instance we are talking about it would be binding on Muslims because cases would be settled under sharia LAW. Opting out would not be an option
 
In the UK (or US for that matter), that would not be legal. You should always be able to bring your case before the formal judicial procedure.
 
Bad idea. Sharia Law itself is a bad set of laws.

However, the man makes good points. There are some aspect of Sharia law that can make Britain more conservative, and I, for one, don't want to see Britain turned into some liberal gay haven, with drug dealers and idiotic youth like has happened to America. Sharia Law, although extreme, can be adopted (some of the aspects) and can help prevent that hell.
 
Spider there is no reason it shouldnt be. As long as both parties chose to bring the case before that court who cares how the rulings are made if both partys are happy to submit to them. I couldnt care less if the court rules that the house goes to the man when the civil courts would say the house goes to the woman. As long as there both happy to take the matter to this court and there is a right of apeal then thats fine
 
Both parties must voluntarily agree to abide by the decision. It cannot supercede the laws of the land however. It could only be as binding as any other contract, which depends on a regular court for enforcement. In other words, if you don't like the result, and don't abide by the decision, your opponent would have to sue you in regular court.
 
The reason why their society does not work out so nicely is because of their laws. If they want to live in a society with such laws, let them go back to where they came from. Whoever wishes to incorporate foreign laws merely to feel more at home should be deported presto.
 
Unfortunately, I have to say no on this one. Sharia law whilst true to Islam, Does not look favourably apon athiests and other religions. I'm quite happy with the way law works in western society. People may criticise me, but It's a hell of a lot better than getting stoned to death.

:D..I'm selfish..I know.
 
I'd be interested to know what aspects of sharia law the archbishop considers unavoidable in UK law.

Challenger78 said:
Unfortunately, I have to say no on this one. Sharia law whilst true to Islam, Does not look favourably apon athiests and other religions. I'm quite happy with the way law works in western society. People may criticise me, but It's a hell of a lot better than getting stoned to death.

:D..I'm selfish..I know.
Click to expand...


You really should not encourage the nonsense. Most people are clueless enough as it is. :bugeye:
 
challager they are not talking about imposing it apon people but alowing them to have the option if they dont want to take it to civil courts. How is that wrong? we already have tradional law courts, jewish courts, the childrens court and tribunals of all stripes for dealing with things where civil courts are concidered to be an impediment to justice if people WISH to take things to them. Thats the point, its about giving people a choice rather than forcing them to use civil courts if they dont want to use them
 
Asguard said:
challager they are not talking about imposing it apon people but alowing them to have the option if they dont want to take it to civil courts. How is that wrong? we already have tradional law courts, jewish courts, the childrens court and tribunals of all stripes for dealing with things where civil courts are concidered to be an impediment to justice if people WISH to take things to them. Thats the point, its about giving people a choice rather than forcing them to use civil courts if they dont want to use them
Click to expand...

Oh. Right. Sorry. :shrug::eek:
I thought it the poll question was imposing it on the UK.. Damn One way polls.
If both parties agree, then hey, why not ?
 
Challenger78 said:
If both parties agree, then hey, why not ?
Click to expand...
Because large portion of "one party" is coerced into "agreeing" through violence up to and including death :

Europe in the House of War

That makes a lurid lie out of Williams' bland assertion that adherence to sharia "assumes the voluntary consent or submission of the believer":

Sharia depends for its legitimacy not on any human decision, not on votes or preferences, but on the conviction that it represents the mind of God ... while such universal claims are not open for re-negotiation, they also assume the voluntary consent or submission of the believer, the free decision to be and to continue a member of the umma.
Click to expand...
Williams was lying. His authority in matters of sharia is Ramadan, whom the Department of Homeland Security prevented from accepting an American university appointment. Ramadan set off a scandal In 2003 when he refused to condemn violence against women (calling instead for a "moratorium," that is, a temporary cessation) precisely because Islamic law sanctions such violence. The Westernized Ramadan will twist himself into a pretzel rather than disagree with Islamic jurisprudence.

Six million Frenchmen watched Ramadan defend the stoning of women for the crime of adultery in a televised debate with the present President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, then the Interior Minister. As quoted by Paul Berman in The New Republic of June 4, 2007, the transcript reads as follows, Ramadan refuses outright to say that he is against stoning adulteresses:
Sarkozy: A moratorium ... Mr Ramadan, are you serious?

Ramadan: Wait, let me finish.

Sarkozy: A moratorium, that is to say, we should, for a while, hold back from stoning women?

Ramadan: No, no, wait ... What does a moratorium mean? A moratorium would mean that we absolutely end the application of all of those penalties, in order to have a true debate. And my position is that if we arrive at a consensus among Muslims, it will necessarily end. But you cannot, you know, when you are in a community ... Today on television, I can please the French people who are watching by saying, "Me, my own position." But my own position doesn't count. What matters is to bring about an evolution in Muslim mentalities, Mr Sarkozy. It's necessary that you understand ...

Sarkozy: But, Mr Ramadan ...

Ramadan: Let me finish.

Sarkozy: Just one point. I understand you, but Muslims are human beings who live in 2003 in France, since we are speaking about the French community, and you have just said something particularly incredible, which is that the stoning of women, yes, the stoning is a bit shocking, but we should simply declare a moratorium, and then we are going to think about it in order to decide if it is good ... But that's monstrous - to stone a woman because she is an adulterer! It's necessary to condemn it!

Ramadan: Mr Sarkozy, listen well to what I am saying. What I say, my own position, is that the law is not applicable - that's clear. But today, I speak to Muslims around the world and I take part, even in the United States, in the Muslim world ... You should have a pedagogical posture that makes people discuss things. You can decide all by yourself to be a progressive in the communities. That's too easy. Today my position is, that is to say, "We should stop."

Sarkozy: Mr Ramadan, if it is regressive not to want to stone women, I avow that I am a regressive.
Click to expand...
 
Has Sarkozy disavowed the beheading of women in the French Revolution? Does he consider it a national shame?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top