Posted on 07/08/2008 3:47:00 AM PDT by Kaslin
So this is how it ends: not with a bang, but a whimper.
The most senior judge in England has declared that Islamic legal principles in Sharia law may be used within Muslim communities in Britain to settle marital arguments and regulate finance. Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said, "Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law."
In his speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips said Muslims in Britain could use Islamic legal principles as long as punishments - and divorce rulings - comply with English law. Sharia law does not comply with English law. It is a law unto itself.
And so the English who gave us the Magna Carta in 1215, William Blackstone and the foundation of American law are slowly succumbing to the dictates of intolerant Islam and sowing seeds of their own destruction.
The Iranian and Kurdish Women's Rights Organization (IKWRO), an umbrella group of activists who work in Muslim countries to liberate women from the dark side of this oppressive force, according to Womensphere.wordpress.com, identifies Sharia family law as the fundamental basis for discrimination against women in the Muslim world, including communities in the United Kingdom.
Here are just some of the "benefits" British Muslim women can look forward to if Sharia law replaces English law: The Muslim woman cannot marry without parental approval, worsening the problem of forced marriage; marriages can be conducted without the presence of a bride, as long as the guardian consents, creating a climate for underage and early marriage; Muslim women may only marry Muslim men.
It gets worse. A Muslim man can divorce his wife by repudiating her; they have no obligation to support a former wife, or her children after the divorce; women are prohibited from divorcing husbands without his consent; abuse is not grounds for a woman to end a marriage; in matters of inheritance, sons are entitled to twice as much of an estate as daughters.
Divorced women must remain single. If they remarry they can lose custody of their children. There is no similar requirement for a man. Child custody often reverts to the father at a preset age, even if the father has been abusive.
It is impossible to reconcile this antiquated "law" with English law, so what could Lord Phillips mean when he says that Sharia law can be used in Muslim communities as long as such laws comply with English law? This will mean English law must become subordinate to Sharia law. This is Dhimmitude, an Islamic system of religious apartheid begun in the 7th century that forces all other religions and cultures to accept an inferior status once Muslims become the majority.
Maryland's Court of Appeals recently denied a Sharia divorce to a Pakistani man. The man's wife of 20 years had filed for divorce. To circumvent having to share their $2 million estate and other marital assets, he went to the Pakistani embassy and applied for an Islamic divorce. The man wanted to invoke what is known as talaq, in which the husband says, "I divorce you" three times and it's done.
The Maryland court said, "If we were to affirm the use of talaq, controlled as it is by the husband, a wife, a resident of this state, would never be able to consummate a divorce action filed by her in which she seeks a division of marital property" and the talaq "directly deprives the wife of the due process she is entitled to when she initiates divorce litigation. The lack and deprivation of due process is itself contrary to (Maryland's) public policy."
British Muslims who wish to live under Sharia law might have stayed in the countries from which they came - or return to them. But their objective appears to be domination of England, not assimilation. This also seems to be the goal for Muslims in other countries with large and growing Muslim populations.
There is no due process under Sharia law. Lord Phillips has signed the death warrant for his nation if his opinion becomes the law of England. It's one thing to fight a war and lose it. It's quite another to willingly surrender without a struggle.
"There is no due process under Sharia law. Lord Phillips has signed the death warrant for his nation if his opinion becomes the law of England. It's one thing to fight a war and lose it. It's quite another to willingly surrender without a struggle."
Coming soon to Detroit, Philadelphia, LA, and maybe even your town!
(In his speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips said Muslims in Britain could use Islamic legal principles as long as punishments - and divorce rulings - comply with English law. Sharia law does not comply with English law. It is a law unto itself)
In essecense this socialist judge tries to have his cake and eat it too and in the end really says nothing. Since Sharia Law trumps all law in the minds of these people and in no way is equal or fair or moral or right then it can not comply with existing English law. More to the point if it did then why use it and not the Englsih law?
I agree — you’re correct.
Why stop there?
Why not allow those within muslim communities to be defended from discrimination and maltreatment by foreign armies operating on British soil?
Shahada-boy Phillips sez: “A furore muslimnorum libera nos domine!”
Obviously, this judge is a very poorly educated man and not very intelligent, for he has overlooked the inconvenient and bleak reality that if you allow Muslims ‘in their community’ to base contracts on ‘other than English law’, you consequently allow them to enforce and exact punishment for breaking those contracts on ‘other than English law’.
More fallout from moral relatavism and multiculturalism.
Yes, lots of times the nobility are poorly educated.
inconvenient and bleak reality that if you allow Muslims ‘in their community’ to base contracts on ‘other than English law’, you consequently allow them to enforce and exact punishment for breaking those contracts on ‘other than English law’.
Not necessarily. This situation often arises in the United States when parties will contract to have the law of one state govern the contract and then sue to enforce the contract in another state. It isn't uncommon to apply the substantive law of the contract state and apply the remedies of the enforcing state, particularly if the enforcing state finds the remedies of the contract state to violate its public policy.
There is NO justice in Sharia law.
Vote Barack Obama - and you will see similar offerings in this nation.
The article concerns England.
If the English judge has found sufficient precedent to allow contracts to be based on other than English law, then another English judge may very well find sufficient precedence to allow fines, fees, or other punishment for breaking those contracts based on ‘other than English law.’
My point was that case law begins a slippery slope and loses touch with the foundation of jurisprudence.
In America, this has resulted in the USSC citing European laws and social mores in ruling on constitutional issues.
Leviticus 18
Exhortation to Obedience and Life
18:1 The Lord spoke to Moses: 18:2 “Speak to the Israelites and tell them, ‘I am the Lord your God! 18:3 You must not do as they do in the land of Egypt where you have been living,1 and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan into which I am about to bring you;2 you must not walk in their statutes. 18:4 You must observe my regulations and you must be sure to walk in my statutes. I am the Lord your God. 18:5 So you must keep6 my statutes and my regulations; anyone who does so will live by keeping them. I am the Lord.
“So this is how it ends: not with a bang, but a whimper. “
I see someone listens to Michael Savage. He just said this not too long ago. Perhaps a month or two ago.
England is dead, they were defeated from within without firing a shot. if this is not a wakeup call for the USA then i don’t know what will be. they are here and they are doing the same thing. they are winning the war from within and have not fired a shot. how much more are we going to stand for before we do something to stop them from winning here?
...The article concerns England.....
...The article concerns the country formerly known as England...
The Chinese should just surround their pathetic little nation with gunboats and dictate terms of surrender. They have nothing left but banks that lend to African despots, out of control street crime, the world’s worst cuisine, and periodontal disease.
A couple of responses: first, your situation seems unlikely, given our experience in the United States on contracting for substantive law outside a jurisdiction.
Second, so what? Shouldn't I have the right to contract for whatever I darn well please? Isn't an unfettered right to contract at the heart of liberty?
DUH ! !
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.