Lord Phillips the most senior judge;
in both England and Wales,
Has said Sharia law could play a part
if our legal system fails.
My faith in the English judiciary has
been turned over, it's almost dead,
Has the old become an Imam,orjust gone
completely soft in his aged head ?
Sharia law is absolute and de rigeur in
all of the islamic lands,
But subject to extreme interpretions
by some subversive firebrands.
In England if moslem pratice islam they
have an absolute freedom of choice,
However written into our British laws
would not be a cause to rejoice.
England has already lost many of it's
original traditional democratic rights,
Such remarks from the most senior in
the judiciary; public outcry ignites.
I never found any harm in adopting something from someone else if it can do you good.
But then again, thats only my opinion!
Does Sharia law do anyone good? I really think people need to read these ten parts of Sharia law before just saying "oh, if its good for them than great..."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/ … ia_is.html
Look prior to islam the arab and persian people were some of the only greatest contributers to human knowledge. After islam came to be they became locked into the middle ages and still wallow in antiquated beliefs and customs. islam ruined them and I doubt they will ever recover.
...then how do you explain the Muslim-ruled, extremely successful and long-lasting Ottoman Empire?
Maybe...but I'm a guy, and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't make me one bit happy!
I don't think contributed anything like advances in upper level math that came out of the middle ages. I'm referring to advances in technology and learning.
There were great centres of learning all over the Middle East. The entire Renaissance was built upon the knowledge of Islamic scholars - maths, philosophy, medicine, physics, geography - it was a Golden Age for knowledge, whilst Europe was still stuck in superstition and fear. Wikipedia has a reasonable entry about this:
I will happily concede that things went a little downhill after 1500 - the Taliban are not exactly known for their contribution to world knowledge!
To the OP - you are over-reacting a little. The suggestion was in issues of marriage and mediation. English and Welsh law would still take precedence over Sharia. Everybody is welcome to use laws pertaining to their particular religion, but they do not override the laws of the land.
EDIT: Sorry, Madame X - you beat me to the second part of the reply!
I agree. You see, this is the 21st century and any outmoded law that a group of misguided fanatics which to FORCE upon a perfectly democratic and modern system is what I call insanity. It's like inviting the Inquisition rules back or the Puritan laws back - this is crazy. Whether we like it or not, this is the 21st century. Let's get REAL. Let's make a better world if we can without having to contrain or FORCE the "medieval" laws... please!
people defend Sharia courts operating in Britain by saying that they are only used by people who choose to go to them and can't enforce anything on people who don't choose to go to them. But the problem is that many muslim women will feel a great deal of social pressure to use these Sharia courts and to opt out of British law, even though they know that as women these courts will discriminate against them.
As Sharia courts are open about the fact that they discriminate in favour of men, and as sexual discrimination is against the law in Britain, I can't see how you can defend a system which effectively makes breaking the law a legal requirement.
It all comes down to jurisdiction - again. Sharia law could never take precedence in the UK if the UK didn't let it.
I guess a lot of it is similar to the Catholic Churches stand on not allowing female priests. Many Christian denominations view women as less than men.
A religious law should never replace a civil one.
Catholicism is centuries ahead of Islam in rights for women - but they are still losing followers for their stance on female priests. I don't think there is any real comparison of the two in today's society.
I agree with that, but still, as I said, some Christian churches expect women to always give into the man. Islam does not have a lock on bad treatment of women... To me, Sharia law is what happens when you allow religions to dictate a country's laws.
No, they don't have a lock on it - they're just the worst perpetrators of it.
It is a tough one - on the one hand you have Saudi Arabia, not my favourite country, and the Taliban. On the other, many of the Gulf States have made great strides in promoting gender equality, especially in education and employment. I think that much of it is a work in progress - many Islamic nations are very young proto-democracies and do need some time to grow and develop.
Even 25 - 30 years ago, Greece was extremely chauvinistic - a woman's place is in the home and all that. The new generation is nothing like that, thankfully. I hope that the young generations in Islamic countries can follow the same path - even in Iran, they are agitating for change
Agreed, although I would not like to see the Catholic Church 'forced' to accept women as priests (much as I personally do not agree).
Such things are always a grey area
DID YOU KNOW WHO INVENTED ( ALGABRA ) IT WAS GABER BEN HAYAN
HE WAS A MOSLIM . WITHOUT IT WE WOULD HAVE NO COMPUTER TODAY
DID YOU KNOW THAT EARLY MOSLIMS DEVELOPED THE THE SCIENCE OF PSYCHOLOGY WHILE IN EUROPE PEOPLE WITH SUCH A PROBLEM WERE PUT JAIL . DID YOU KNOW THAT WHEN THE MONGHUL INVADED BAGDAD THEY TOOK ALL THE BOOKS IN THE BIGGEST LIBRARY IN THE WORLD THEN , AND DUMP IT IN THE REIVER TO CROSS OVER IT ???
I think that it is ridiculous that Christian sects, sponsored by colony hungry elites in Europe, reached far and wide across the planet, permanently altering the course of cultures world wide, and then use fear to point the finger at Islam.....
When Islam reached Armenia, where my family resided until the late 19th century, there was no push or prod, no sword or violence to force conversion to Islam. Following the model left by Cyrus of Persia, as a subject people the Armenians would have to pay tributes, but otherwise they were largely left to their own devices...
The Ottomans did not try to alter the religious path of their Christian and Jewish subjects.....in fact, when Spain ejected its Jewish population in 1492, the Ottoman Empire was the only state to give them a place to migrate to.....
As long as taxes were paid, and as long as there was no fuss against the state there was largely no problem....
Catholic conquerors of Mexico toppled temples, killed priests, burned books, stole artifacts, and then erected churches on top of the ruins of the former indigenous religious structures...
Americans set up schools like Carslile Indian School, compelling by physical and mental abuse their "students' conversion to Protestant Christianity and the giving up of their native languages....of course...at this point native Americans were placed on the first American welfare system...the reservation...and forced, through the withholding of rations amongst other things, them to give up their children..
So then they could receive an "education."
While the Ottomans are responsible for the Armenian Genocide, it is actually the subversive actions of American and European Christian missionaries within the boundaries of the Empire.
My own family had to deal with these acts, and when looking at the larger political-economic dealing going on in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (focusing on the lands held by the Ottoman Empire)the installment of "Western" Christian sects and special rules to protect the wealth that would be generated would lead to the dissolution of the state....
It is my hope that, at some point, the"identifying with the aggressor" mentality that many people perpetuate in their words and actions towards Muslims can back off, and buzzwords like "Islam" and "Sharia Law" can be more fully analyzed and comprehended.
by andrew savage4 years ago
What are the aspects of the two modes of practical law that make one incompatible with the other?
by Onusonus5 years ago
The governor of Kansas just signed a bill that prevents foreign laws (including Sharia law) from being enforced in US courts. opponents to the law say that it singles out Muslims despite the fact that "sharia...
by weholdthesetruths7 years ago
Whatever the social or anti-social implications of his actions, Terry Jones was making a statement protected as free speech, absolutely protected as free speech. Certainly, had he chosen to burn the flag, instead...
by skyfire7 years ago
You really needs to see this if you think Islam is tolerant or gives any freedom.http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cairo_Dec … s_in_IslamNow if anyone wants to say that out of X population count there can't be large...
by Susie Lehto7 months ago
There should not have been a need at all for Senate Bill 97 in the United States. The House voted 56-44 to prohibit sharia law. I'd like the names of the block heads who voted against that bill, they should...
by Jimbo'daNimbo5 years ago
Here's the story:http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/27/obama … ado-court/Oops! Another chink in the armor huh?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.