Posted on 02/08/2008 9:02:51 AM PST by pitinkie
If all the parties concerned are consenting, and it doesn’t violate English law. There’s nothing to stop a group of people following whichever micky-mouse code they choose to submit themselves to.
I think the issue is if it’s made official and legally binding were it becomes a problem, frankly, I can’t see that happening, despite Beardy’s recent comments....
Filed under, “see how much better you’ll feel under our heel”
You’re kidding?
Of course it violates English Law. If someone was stabbed then the ENGLISH courts cannot be usurped in the administration of justice. The English Court is the law of the land and no other court is recognized.
Sharia cannot supersede statutory law in a Democracy. So, the application of force to carry out judgments must be reserved to civil authorities.
And, I’ll oppose Islamicisation of society generally.
However, arbitration by mutually acceptable arbitrators is a feature of many social and economic relationships.
Insofar as they do not usurp civil authority, do not use force to carry out judgments, and any party may refer the matter to civil courts at their discretion, I don’t have a problem with that.
Reducing the burden on civil courts through that sort of arbitration should remain legal.
As soon as a Sharia court steps over a civil law bright line, the courts members themselves should be convicted and imprisoned.
If everyone can keep their feet on the right side of the lines, this could work out.
And, before I’m accused of Islamophilia, I’ll state that I’m a MEMRI contributor, AIPAC member, etc. I’m highly referenceable as opposed to Islamofascism.
If the position above can be shown to be wrong, please show me.
< donning flame retardant suit>
OBTW - Stabbing is an Assault, defined in criminal law, and cannot be subject to Sharia courts. Such infractions have criminal courts that must adjudicate the matter.
“Of course it violates English Law. If someone was stabbed then the ENGLISH courts cannot be usurped in the administration of justice. The English Court is the law of the land and no other court is recognized.”
English courts are evidently too busy jailing grandmas for pointing bb guns at hoodlums who are vandalizing her home.
Aye....therein lies the rub.
Very interesting. Very clever. Legal jihad.
See my prior post above. A Muslim CANNOT reject Sharia law and not be considered an apostate, for which the penalty is DEATH
***If the position above can be shown to be wrong, please show me.***
Simple. They make up their own laws.
Even a Catholic orphanage in the UK was NOT allowed to refuse to give children to gay couples, and has had to go out of business after about 100 years of providing loving homes to needy children. If they can’t make up their own laws based on religion, why should the Islamists be allowed to?
In Ontario, Canada even such a mild eager to please Premier Dalton McGuinty, has (so far and touch wood) declared no sharia law. The price has been heavy. This seems to eliminate Jewish separate judicial hearings.
I understand to my consternation sharia law may have got to Texas. I just Googled it.
Ah, my ten pin bowling league starts shortly. Back at 1pm PST.
Nobody objects to Muslims officiating at marriages and divorces or in personal conflict arbitration.
It becomes a problem when 1) they adjudicate criminal matters in a manner that is not compatible with civil law; and 2) they attempt to apply these laws on the general public.
UK already has Sharia courts.
What’s the uproar about?
maybe the Stone’s “Under My Thumb” was a song about Dhimmitude.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.