Britain Adopts Islamic Law
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
The video and link are still working. This is not an ADT issue but a sharia law issue.The ADT strawman was brought here by YOU.
I just visited Wiki on a suspicion and read about sharia law. The description describes it as a system of legal theory and jurisprudence developed fairly recently. The description then goes on to describe Islamic law as something different.
It seems Sharia is a framework for law Islamic or otherwise. I think the Brits have made a huge blunder in their race to be accommodating.
Sharia, whatever it may be, is absolutely no replacement for common law. Sharia is not Islamic law but a framework for a legal system. Scary sh!t!
It seems Sharia is a framework for law Islamic or otherwise. I think the Brits have made a huge blunder in their race to be accommodating.
Sharia, whatever it may be, is absolutely no replacement for common law. Sharia is not Islamic law but a framework for a legal system. Scary sh!t!
well, considering that it's not being used as a replacement for common law, I'd say I have to agree, and wonder what that has to do with the way it IS being applied.
No, apparently not everyone knows. There seem to be an awful lot of people who've not bothered to read critically into the issue and are instead taking it all at face value. 'Muslims have taken over the legal system... run for your lives!!!'
That's it.
There is no reason Islamic law couldn't be enforced "voluntarily" under the system of common law. I don't see any reason at all to bring in a new system unless the intent is to replace the old system. That is scary because common law is very carefully balanced to apply the law in a uniform and fair manner; something sharia law definitely isn't.
explain how it could replace common law given the framework it has to operate within.
considering that both parties have to agree to its ruling, it has no sway over criminal law, it has no power to circumvent existing human rights.... I find it a bit alarmist and irrational for people to think that the civil application of sharia could possibly replace common law somehow.
You don't understand how having a system within a system could jeopardize one of the systems?
England is a democracy and therefore, for the most part, follows the will of the people. As one legal system begins to become more popular it will replace the other.
Before long England could have the same legal system as Iran!
That doesn't seem problematic to you?
OK, 1, Seriously, SHARIA IS NOT BEING BROUGHT IN, ITS BEEN PART OF THE BRITISH LEGAL SYSTEM FOR AGES. Dispute resolution can use ANY guidelines both parties agree to.
That means Sharia, that means farting contests, that means ANYTHING two parties both agree to.
2. Commonlaw is not carefully balanced at all, that is the direct opposite of what commonlaw is.
Commonlaw is a system whereby a judge makes up any damn ruling he happens to feel like, along with any punishment he happens to feel like
Until either the government makes a law (statute law) or a higher ranking judge makes a new ruling. ITs a british system of class based law, its really as archaic and stupid as Sharia law if not more so.
Carefully balanced law is Civic Code, also known as Roman Law or Napoleonic Law.
Its used in Quebec and Louisianna, as well as anyplace that wasn't once a british colony (or Britain itself obviously).
It is a vastly superior, carefully balanced legal system used by most of the world.
We do not have that.
Well, technically, we already have a system within a system. With other sub-systems in the civil system. And then we have courts within courts for the criminal system. So, no, I don't really see how having a sharia subsystem within the civil system of law is going to put common law at risk, even through 'popularity'. Goodness knows that not all legal decisions are made based on popularity. Canadian law certainly doesn't run on popularity and the availability of abortions is proof of that. That law was passed when the majority of Canadians were opposed to it. And to the best of my knowledge, British law is not much different.
I agree with your assesement but in the context of my statement what I meant is that common law is meant to balance out the powers of government (the king). IMO it does a good job or at least better than sharia.
If the Brit's want to turn England into Iran they can go ahead. I think it's foolish though, but to each their own.
You know what?
I don't care for laws and dictates anyway. The whole legal system is tyranny and needs to be torn apart.
I don't care what kind of laws people want - they're fools for wanting them.
So if you and Karrie want to be Muslims go ahead. You might be happier moving to Iran?
I thought you were better than this. You know I wouldn't subject myself to Sharia law. If you can't counter the arguments, say so. But grasping at straws makes you look less intelligent than simply saying you're fearful would.
I'm not grasping at straws and I couldn't care less what I look like.
I have no argument against peoples short sightedness. I could explain how time works and democracies and that things change with time and that legal systems change etc... but why bother?
The other thing about democracies is that people get what they deserve.
You might not subject yourself to sharia law but your future anscestores will. I can't help you figure that out.
Sharia law isn't that old Zzarchov.
The common law system has similarities to older ME systems but that isn't the same as being the same.
I think your grasping at straws.
Lets not forget that 'sharia law' is heavily favoured towards the men. They are using it to lessen penalties for domestic violence. It is not voluntary for the women. That is wrong. It will be used to take property rights away fom women. Sharia law and islam itself should not be allowed into modern society. OMG,yes,I say that both belong in the 7th century. Unfortunately ,our tolerant governments are allowing islamic creep into our societies,a little at a time. I think that all those who screech when minorities are dealt with unfairly,should be shrieking at the top of their lungs against this theft of human rights by a 'religion' that denies basic rights to half the population. Being tolerant does not mean you have to be tolerant of evil.
