Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Shari'a Law Comes To The UK?

According to a November 29, 2006 article in the London Telegraph, Shari'a law, based on the Koran and the Hadith, is becoming an alterate source of justice in some parts of Britain. According to a recent show on BBC 4 Radio, an unofficial Somali "court" recently rendered a decision in a stabbing case in southeast London. According to the article,
Mr Yusuf [a youth worker from Somalia] told the programme he felt more bound by the traditional law of his birth than by the laws of his adopted country. "Us Somalis, wherever we are in the world, we have our own law," he said. "It's not sharia, it's not religious — it's just a cultural thing."
In the UK, shari'a law is not binding. Yet.

Meanwhile, some in the UK see the use of shari'a law as a good measure:
Some lawyers welcomed the advance of what has become known as "legal pluralism".
"Legal pluralism" - multiculturalism as applied to the legal system?

The article also states the following:
Dr Prakash Shah, a senior lecturer in law at Queen Mary University of London, said such tribunals "could be more effective than the formal legal system"....
Read the entire article in the Telegraph HERE.

[Hat-tip to Nanc for providing me the link to the above story]

54 Comments:

At 11/29/2006 8:22 AM, Blogger Raven said...

Whats going on in Britain?? are those people nuts or what? Have they given up? Surrendered? Seems like it!!

 
At 11/29/2006 8:27 AM, Blogger The Merry Widow said...

CRAPPE!

tmw

 
At 11/29/2006 8:57 AM, Blogger Ogre said...

I keep saying it: France and Spain are already muslim countries. England is all but there now. The Muslims are winning all over the world. They seriously want to conquer the world and Europe is all but lost. Once Europe is gone, they will focus more of their energies on the US (even more than they already are).

 
At 11/29/2006 9:21 AM, Blogger Steve Harkonnen said...

From my understanding, Sharia law wouldn't apply to non-Muslims.

However, if it ever did apply to me, that is when I become militant.

 
At 11/29/2006 9:36 AM, Blogger WomanHonorThyself said...

Ogre is right...nothing to add...moving right along..they shall sow what they reap and so shall we!

 
At 11/29/2006 9:44 AM, Blogger Storm said...

Steve Harkonnen said...
From my understanding, Sharia law wouldn't apply to non-Muslims.

However, if it ever did apply to me, that is when I become militant.

11/29/2006 9:21 AM

No Steve it does not apply to you what does it that you will convert or you will die

 
At 11/29/2006 9:49 AM, Blogger Brooke said...

But Steve... This opens up a HUGE can of worms, IMO.

What if you were to 'wrong' a Muslim in a civil fashion, and the British courts ordered told you to go to the arbitrary Sharia courts and abide by their decision? It won't be long before that happens.

And what of women, who have less rights than an animal under Sharia law? How will they ever be able to get to a regular court if they wish?

This is the very definition of the "slippery slope."

 
At 11/29/2006 10:41 AM, Anonymous Seth said...

So a Muslim, in a Muslim neighborhood, gets arrested for some minor shoplifting offense, maybe some kid steals a candy bar, and they send him to Sharia court. Does this mean the Brits will simply stand by and endorse his being sentenced to hand amputation? Things are sure bound to get interesting over there.

 
At 11/29/2006 11:26 AM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Very well reasoned, seth. It's clear from the article that there will be body parts lopped off presently (even though that practice is hardly universal in muslim countries).

It is also possible to read the article and take away a couple of other points.

1. It is a cultural and not a religious issue.

2. There is considered opinion that the courts are effective in maintaining order.

So the concern that this marks the demise of British case law is premature.

 
At 11/29/2006 11:29 AM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Odd that Brooke didn't read the quote that states this is a cultural concern and the method Somalis prefer amongst themselves. A non Somali isn't a player in this.

It is cultural. Many practices that you ascribe to islam are in fact cultural practices. Ethiopian jews practice female circumcision but you don't condemn Judaism for the practice, do you?

 
At 11/29/2006 11:45 AM, Blogger Brooke said...

So we should allow each sub-culture within a country to practice their own law? That is a recipe for disaster and you know it!

Odd that Ducky calls Sharia law cultural and not religious, as it is based on and steeped in Islamic creed.

Odder still, that Ducky fails to mention that even things that should have been settled in a criminal court have been allowed to be adjudicated in a Sharia court. From the article:

Mr Yusuf said a group of Somali youths were arrested on suspicion of stabbing another Somali teenager. The victim's family told the police it would be settled out of court and the suspects were released on bail.

Or perhaps this:

Faizul Aqtab Siddiqi, a barrister and principal of Hijaz College Islamic University, near Nuneaton, Warwicks, said this type of court had advantages for Muslims. "It operates on a low budget, it operates on very small timescales and the process and the laws of evidence are far more lenient and it's less awesome an environment than the English courts," he said.

Mr Siddiqi predicted that there would be a formal network of Muslim courts within a decade.

 
At 11/29/2006 12:44 PM, Blogger Storm said...

Do not chastise Duncy too harshly he is only blindly following the lead of his masters.

Liberals will frame this is as a cultural issue one where we, the close minded, should show our tolerance and ability to nuance the depper issues.

The problem is this is not about a cultural issu. It is about one group decided how to police itself within the construct of another culture. The result is the weakening and ultimately the desctruction of the host culture....not unlike a virus or a cancer....

If you want to practive Sharia law go to a country with Sharia law as its basis.

The other tact of liberals is to downplay the significance "So the concern that this marks the demise of British case law is premature." This is the don't worry be happy concept. Nevermind that Sharia law would never been accpeted if those wishes to replace British Law with Sharia law tried to get its tenets passed in the legislature rather the goal is to circumvent those processes and gently lead the people to shankle themselves. BTW if you sit there thinking this will never happen here..think again.

 
At 11/29/2006 1:04 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Next thing you know storm will be telling us that this sort of cultural justic isn't found in immigrant Chinese communities and maybe she didn't see The Godfather?

What is important to notice is the use of the word "sharia" is what brings out the hysterical righties and, unfortunately their bigotry.

The furor here is over the word "sharia" and as a result you are unable to take a reasoned perspective.

 
At 11/29/2006 1:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Next thing you know storm will be telling us that this sort of cultural justic isn't found in immigrant Chinese communities and maybe she didn't see The Godfather?"

Ducky, the Godfather is a movie (fiction), and "cultural justice" isn't legal anyway, nor should it be.

The only thing "Sharia" brings out is whack job Muslims. When it comes to that, a reasoned perspective is an alarmed one.

 
At 11/29/2006 1:20 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

The Godfather is fiction? Thanks Brooke, I didn't know. Anyway, I'm sure you don't consider the Sicilian experience in America fiction.
It's not happening in Russian communities either, I suppose. Seems that muslim communities in America are very prosperous and well behaved.

Anyway, this is human nature and immigrant cultures evolve through this stage. As a great man once said "There's only what is, what ought to be is a freakin' lie".

 
At 11/29/2006 2:19 PM, Blogger Brooke said...

So we're to take the "Sicilian" mafioso as just a cultural thing, and that somehow makes Sharia law OK?

Geez, Ducky... And what exactly does that have to do with the good behavior of Muslim communities in America?

What we must ask is when Muslims will be willing to evolve. Wahhibism is a willful rejection of civil rights for women and any non-Muslims, and Sharia is rooted in it. Immigrant groups are so catered to in recent history that they have lost all desire to assimilate.

This sort of push for special, individual laws should be discouraged, not submitted to.

 
At 11/29/2006 2:46 PM, Blogger nanc said...

if he could only hear himself quacking...

 
At 11/29/2006 2:49 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

You made the conflation of muslim and wahabi quickly enough. Hardly identical but they are in your mind. Your assertion that sharia is rooted in wahabism is absolute nonsense. Did you get that from Pipes or off jihadwatch?

Now lets back track. The case given in this piece was an assault. It was resolved in the neighborhood to the satisfaction of the parties involved. This isn't radical and it isn't an example of the movement to make you wear a veil. Get a grip and you really will feel better.

 
At 11/29/2006 3:33 PM, Blogger Brooke said...

Ducky, wahhibism is a sect of Islam that primarily uses Sharia law.

I said nothing about veils, and I feel fine. Try to stay on track, rather than resort to ad hominem.

True, the plaintiff did not press charges, but it could be argued that a violent assault which was not a simple round of fisticuffs, but rather a stabbing should be handled by the rightful courts. It was, after all. ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON.

 
At 11/29/2006 3:39 PM, Blogger Mark said...

Were I to declare myself Lunah (the female moon god), and were I to declare that my religion, Lunatic, to be the perfection of all religion for man for all time. Further, were I to declare my religion to be an Abrahamic religion, would I get it accepted, would I find that British law would recognize me? NO! Certainly not! I would be ridiculed. So why are we recognizing this 1400 year-old, lunar cult?

Recognizing Islam is equally ridiculous! Ban their Shari'ah laws, ban their Shari'ah courts!

By the way, Steve: You need to get militant BEFORE Shari'ah law starts being applied to you, the infidel; otherwise, it will be too late!

 
At 11/29/2006 3:57 PM, Blogger American Crusader said...

In Canada, the loudest protest against using sharia law came from Muslim women.
I'm willing to bet that most Islamic women in Britain will also fight against its implementation.
To me, even allowing sharia law to settle civil disputes between Muslims is the first step to their ultimate goal which is to impose sharia law on all.

 
At 11/29/2006 4:42 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Brooke, sharia preceeds wahabism by centuries and therefore can hardly be rooted in it.

I will also point out to merican Crusader that laws to ban scaves and veils are becoming common in Europe and if you want to use that to demonstrate that sharia is entrenching itself then have at it.

Back to the article, an assault was settled by a neighborhood tribunal. Rather than utterly ridiculous paranoia about Britain abandoning its case law you might want to ask useful questions.

For instance ... is it to the police and general courts benefit to have matters handled this way for less serious infractions in immigrant communities?

Does it limit the application of a law in more serious cases?

Does it lessen the immigrant communities respect for British law. Increase their confidence that Britain isn't hostile? Or is it a wash?

I will submit that you have supplanted honest discourse with paranoid nonsense.

 
At 11/29/2006 4:50 PM, Blogger Brooke said...

Ducky, perhaps Sharia law predates Wahhabism, but they use it today.

You have ignored the question at hand: Should we allow every sub-culture within a country to have a separate legal system?

Frankly, I could care less if the immigrant communities like British law. The bottom line is that they have chosen to immigrate to Britain. If they didn't expect that they should have to follow British law, then they should never have left a country which functions under Sharia law.

 
At 11/29/2006 4:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ducky

When and where do I go to stone Marxists? Since you are in favor of Shariah you should live under it. Where is Elmer with my bag of rocks?

 
At 11/29/2006 5:21 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Brooke, I'm really not trying to be obstinate. I just think it is more helpful to argue from facts. Wahabism didn't come into existence until the early twentieth century and they do NOT practice a specific form of muslim jurisprudence.

The term sharia isn't particularly specific and quite frankly is more an instrument of western paranoia than anything else.

As far as them coming from a country which practices shari'a...could you explain which mazhab they follow and demonstrate that you understand at least the basics and aren't simply becoming hysterical.

Drama queens have surfaced at times on AOW's board.

 
At 11/29/2006 5:51 PM, Blogger Brooke said...

Sharia is a term not used for merely propaganda. It is used by Muslims, as well.

As for which mazhab these Somalian Muslims follow... I couldn't say for certain, as the article in question doesn't say. If I had to hazard a guess, though, I would say they are likely Sunni Muslims, which means they probably fall into one of these four categories:

Hanafi (founded by Abu Hanifa)
Maliki (founded by Malik ibn Anas)
Shafi'i (founded by Muhammad ibn Idris ash-Shafi`i)
Hanbali (founded by Ahmad bin Hanbal)

As for drama queens, I haven't seen a one. Care to name any?

 
At 11/29/2006 6:24 PM, Blogger nanc said...

ODL - brooke? he's still upset that we haven't invited him to join the drama queen club - he cannot get past it, hard as he tries - think i'll call him sarah "plucky" heartburn!

 
At 11/29/2006 8:15 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 11/29/2006 9:13 PM, Blogger The Merry Widow said...

I'm back, where do I audition? Can I send my daughter? She does a really great Fay Wray!

tmw

 
At 11/29/2006 9:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ducky lets see. Islam removes the offending organ. Thus an accolyte of class genocide would be subject to a labotomy under Sharia.

 
At 11/30/2006 12:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My fear is what happens there will eventually happen here. I just found out tonight Ellison gets to swear in on a koran.
I am sad for the U.K. and Europe and cannot believe something like this is happening in my lifetime.
Things do seem to keep speeding up also. We look like we are losing in Iraq and yet the jihadists are gaining all over the globe not only through violence but through intimidation. I hope we do not lose our will.

 
At 11/30/2006 6:36 AM, Blogger The Merry Widow said...

Beaker- The lobotomy would be without anesthesia, sterile conditions, and would not take place in a hospital with doctors, nurses, recovery room or surgical instruments. They'd use rocks and there would be no blood transfusions! It would be messy and the patient usually dies!
Good morning, G*D bless and Maranatha!

tmw

 
At 11/30/2006 8:44 AM, Blogger benning said...

I'm sure we can expect the Libs to begin the campaign for the same thing here in the USA. "After all, only North Korea, South Africa, and the United States don't have parallel Shari'a Courts. How backward."

 
At 11/30/2006 9:09 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

TMW

You will have to repost that on my Ducky spoof. The Passion of the Poultry
or why a Marxist idiot loves Sharia.

 
At 11/30/2006 9:39 AM, Blogger American Crusader said...

ducky...you are very adept at taking simple statements to the extreme.
There is a big difference between scarves that cover one's head and veils that completely cover one's face.
Second of all, it's my understanding that sharia is only been used to settle civil disputes...not criminal. Therefore no one will get their hands cut off or any other body parts.
You cannot separate sharia from Islam, sharia law is based on Islamic principles...religious not cultural.
In Canada, as I already stated, Islamic women were the loudest critics of using sharia to settle even civil disputes as women do not have the same rights as men. Mohammed/Allah has stated in the Koran that women are the property of their husbands or fathers.
This is religious...not cultural.

Female circumcision is cultural...that point I will give you, it is mostly practiced in a few north African countries but can be found throughout Islamic countries.

 
At 11/30/2006 1:12 PM, Blogger cube said...

This is a huge mistake. Huge. Appeasement of these monsters will only embolden them.

 
At 11/30/2006 3:15 PM, Blogger Brooke said...

I'll bet this is the part where Ducky waits a few days and then comes back to snipe the thread. LOL!

 
At 11/30/2006 3:58 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

American Crusader, if it isn't cultural then why is female dress so widely different with the most extreme being Saudi Arabia.

We focus on conflicts with laws about scarves in france and Holland but the same laws are beining introduced in Morocco and Tunisia.

Practices vary widely.

If a British court sees merit in accepting the petition to have this dispute settled by an islamic tribunal it may well be that it feels that is best for all involved.

As far as criminal law and shari'a, I suspect most on this thread believe that stoning for adultery and decapitation are universal aspects of Islamic justice.

No, they aren't. Filemovement featured an iranian film 5 or 6 months ago that looked at the death penalty as practiced in iran. I would say it was a good deal more common sense and merciful than what goes on in Texas and I would not consider Texas an example of western practice.

 
At 11/30/2006 8:49 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Crusader,
You cannot separate sharia from Islam, sharia law is based on Islamic principles...

That's the problem--in a nutshell. All the protests to the contrary don't change the connection between Islam and shari'a law.

 
At 11/30/2006 8:52 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Cube,
This is a huge mistake. Huge. Appeasement of these monsters will only embolden them.

Yes, it is appeasement. Furthermore, it gives some Muslims the idea that Allah's will is being fulfilled as the decadent West concedes.

As Anonymous said, My fear is what happens there will eventually happen here.

Is that being overly dramatic? I don't think so.

 
At 11/30/2006 9:02 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

If every divergent group gets to set up its own legal system, would there be any end to legal pluralism? How many separate groups would have their own systems? And when those systems come into conflict, which system would be the final authority?

Constant accommodation leads to lack of unity, IMO--culturally, socially, legally, etc.

In some ways, the questions I posed above were answered in favor of our Constitution over the weak Articles of Confederation. I see some parallels there.

 
At 11/30/2006 9:14 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

At 11/29/2006 8:15 PM, Mr. Ducky said...

This post has been removed by the author.


Interesting that the comment was deleted. Before I knew of the deletion, I had starred the comment to discuss. I suppose that, in the interest of fair play, I won't now put the comment up for discussion. **sigh**

 
At 11/30/2006 9:23 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Mark,
Were I to declare myself Lunah (the female moon god), and were I to declare that my religion, Lunatic, to be the perfection of all religion for man for all time. Further, were I to declare my religion to be an Abrahamic religion, would I get it accepted, would I find that British law would recognize me? NO! Certainly not!...So why are we recognizing this 1400 year-old, lunar cult?

Because cuddling up with Islam is the new fashion. Maybe it's a fascination with "all things Araby," as Patai said decades ago. Certainly, dating back to the Romantic Period the West has been fascinated with "Araby," the exotic.

The West wants Islam to be something it isn't and will never be--compatible with Western civilization.

Thank you for your excellent comment! You've shown in a vivid way the insanity of allowing shari'a law a toehold in the West.

 
At 11/30/2006 9:28 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Storm,
Do not chastise Duncy too harshly he is only blindly following the lead of his masters.

You're right there. Disciples follow their master.

 
At 12/01/2006 7:24 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Nanc,
sarah "plucky" heartburn

 
At 12/01/2006 7:27 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Brooke,
I finally got around to clicking on that link to the interview. Aha! The fellow from the Islamic Thinkers Society. Quite something, huh?

 
At 12/01/2006 1:13 PM, Blogger kuhnkat said...

Brooke,

Little Che Sucky the Fascist Greenie MORON is not obstinate, he is STUPID!!!

Sucky, would you, in all of your genius, leftard educated greatness, and perfection explain to us how you separate religion from culture where the religion IS the culture??

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I would argue that minor issues such as, what happens when this prior offender, who is only known to the local Imams, moves to another area and starts his offending again?? Do the Imams call up his old town and ask for his record? There are serious problems ANY time there are multiple authority paths!!

This is an issue with immigants already. Making this a problem between neighborhoods is NOT an improvement. And NO, the solution is NOT to have sharia'a authorities work with the OFFICIAL law enforcement and Judicial systems.

The problem is that the Imams teach their people that Western values, ideas... are against Islam and therefore are ignored and abused by the Muslims. Making a separate system of law for them only cements this idea that the west is inferior and can be taunted, ignored, and brutalised!!!

If you want to move to a country, you can accede to their laws and customs or you can fight them. Islam is only interested in fighting and SUBDUING all other cultures.

Sucky the TRAITOR is only interested in destroying the WEST.

Sucky, do you lack female companionship due to your personal hygiene or you general STUPIDITY?!?!?!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 
At 12/01/2006 3:23 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Religion is the culture? That's one theory I suppose.

Kuhncat, every time you think it weakens the nation.

 
At 12/01/2006 10:46 PM, Blogger Storm said...

"Next thing you know storm will be telling us that this sort of cultural justic isn't found in immigrant Chinese communities and maybe she didn't see The Godfather?"

Ducky I am a male.

More importantly the Gofather would refer to Italian immigrants not Chinese. In both cases these practices did take place, the difference is the government did not sanction the persons involved to practive their own laws. In fact, Elliot Ness pursued and ultimatley arrested Al Capone.

 
At 12/01/2006 10:59 PM, Blogger Storm said...

As for the rest,

Ducky

The applicant of force to adhere to the agreements in a given society to coerce all of its members can all be decided by its members collectively otherwise it is not legal. In others words we all agree sexual assaulting a female is wrong and we all agree by collective debate as to the punishment. We do not agree to a minority opinion and we do not agree as those in Pakinstan that x numbers of witnesses must be present or otherwise the event is adultery.

These agreements and punishments do change over time but we in this society do not as a rule with to practice Sharia law.

Ducky the essential problem with your statement is multifaceted but springs from the same problem...in the past we required immigrants to learn our language and our legal system.

Now we do not force people to learn English and perhaps in the future we will let whole communities choose their own legal codes....

There are undoubtedly those in this forum who say it can not happen here. Ask your grandparents if they ever thought you would have to press 1 for English............

 
At 12/01/2006 10:59 PM, Blogger Storm said...

As for the rest,

Ducky

The applicant of force to adhere to the agreements in a given society to coerce all of its members can all be decided by its members collectively otherwise it is not legal. In others words we all agree sexual assaulting a female is wrong and we all agree by collective debate as to the punishment. We do not agree to a minority opinion and we do not agree as those in Pakinstan that x numbers of witnesses must be present or otherwise the event is adultery.

These agreements and punishments do change over time but we in this society do not as a rule with to practice Sharia law.

Ducky the essential problem with your statement is multifaceted but springs from the same problem...in the past we required immigrants to learn our language and our legal system.

Now we do not force people to learn English and perhaps in the future we will let whole communities choose their own legal codes....

There are undoubtedly those in this forum who say it can not happen here. Ask your grandparents if they ever thought you would have to press 1 for English............

 
At 12/02/2006 7:05 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Storm,
Ask your grandparents if they ever thought you would have to press 1 for English.

I don't have to go back even that far. And every time I hear "press XXX for espanol," I launch--particularly from a tax-funded voice menu!

Little incentive is provided to encourage immigrants to learn English. Meanwhile, the rest of the population has to know some Spanish just to order breakfast at Mickey D's.

 
At 12/02/2006 7:14 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

KuhnKat,
Islam = both religion and culture. In Islam, all aspects of life are proscribed and prescribed.

Yet Duck insists that Christians are marching in lockstep. Go to any Islamic country, and you'll really see lockstep!

Making a separate system of law for them only cements this idea that the west is inferior and can be taunted, ignored, and brutalised!!!

Exactly!

The meaning of the word "immigration" has been perverted. Immigrants are supposed to accede to the legal system in their new countries. But Muslims don't. Therein lies the problem. We have a 5th column undermining the very fabric of Western civilization, and the left is right in there rooting for same.

 
At 12/02/2006 6:03 PM, Blogger kuhnkat said...

Little Che Suck the Fascist Greenie Weenie expounds:

"Kuhncat, every time you think it weakens the nation."

MY nation or YOUR nation??

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You Traitorous MORON!!!!

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home