Main Forums > Politics
Archbishop of Canterbury suggests Islamic Law in the UK...
seeker_two:
He does realize that, under Sharia law,he's a dead man. Right?......
Sergeant Bob:
It's a different culture over there. Some things which seem outrageous to us are completely normal to a lot of people in England.
When I tell my British and Australian friends I have 5 guns, they act like it's an arsenal and ask why I need so many guns. They think nothing of having to having to register pellet (IIRC) guns and having to belong to a club to own them.
BridgeWalker:
--- Quote ---Iain, no rational person can believe that this "law within the law" and "country within the country" can possibly result in anything good, especially when the host and the invader cultures are so different in critical ways. Do not blame us for seeing what this really is - a bloody awful idea.
Y'know, as much as I disagree with the successful Islamic invasion/takeover of Europe that is underway, I have to disagree with this statement. We live with systems of laws within laws. It's called Federal law and state law. We also have communities that practice their own law, including Jews. My father resolved several business and contract issues through a beis din (aka beit din). Catholics follow Canon Law (well, sometimes) which is usually a personal, devotional thing, but does affect interaction between people as well, although less so in the current era than historically, partly because Christianity is at least a major source of our current culture and law.
Historically speaking, before geographic nation-states, people followed the rule of their tribe or clan or family. Interactions between them affected far fewer disputes; most disputes arise among people who are in close contact with each other: hence family courts and probate courts, a *huge* proportion of the work American courts of various kinds perform.
I don't see why the British gov't should be involved though. If Muslims want to follow Sharia law among themselves, that is fine. Jews do it, and have done it, for centuries. Muslims may be more accustomed to living in theocracies of their own faith, and so are familiar with gov't-imposed Sharia law, but they should just learn to adapt and set up their own courts. And their law would have to operate within the bounds of British law.
Headless Thompson Gunner:
I don't have much problems with Muslims agreeing to solve their problems in their own way, provided they stay nonviolent. Same as anyone else. Nothing wrong with them forming, say, some sort of Muslim arbitration system that Muslims could go to to resolve civil matters according to the guidelines of Sharia.
It doesn't sound like that's what they want to do, though. I sounds like they want two separate sets of laws, for two separate classes of people.
That can't possibly end well.
Bigjake:
--- Quote --- don't expect many will attempt to understand what he is saying, they'll only hear 'sharia' (and 'muslim') and expose their own prejudices.
It seems what he is suggesting is only a slight expansion of a system that already exists. The issues involved would be limited, and there are already courts dealing with religious and civil matters, such as the London Beth Din. Them be Jews by the way.
I'm pretty sure Beth Din doesn't regularly sentence women to death by beheading or stoning for moronic, 8th century offences...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version