Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: WOW! Britain's top judge declares it is OKAY to use Muslim law (from the Koran) « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28681
Offline
#15 : July 03, 2008, 11:07:18 PM

Its great reading the opinions of idiots that for the most part have no clue what they are talking about.

This is where oma and Java bust open the door and say...

"Hello!" (Lenny and Squiggy)
 
Kidding.


filmfx66

**
Rookie

Posts : 65
Offline
#16 : July 04, 2008, 11:03:16 AM

So did anyone read the story or just the Headline and freak out?

First off, the headline is Wrong.

Quote
Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said that Islamic legal principles could be employed to deal with family and marital arguments and to regulate finance.

Could if both parties agree is a hell of a lot different than SHOULD

Also, the judgement he made in Britian has been going on in the US for close to a century.  According to the Uniform Business Code (that 49 out of 50 states follow) a contract can be based on any legal system as long as both parties agree.  If you write a contract which states "any disputes will be settled according to Sharia and by a Sharia court", and the other party agrees, that is a binding contract in the US.

Once again, Mountain from a tiny mole hill.

Sharia law applied in Texas

Minnesota Court upholds Islamic law for dispute resolution






I did not quote the judge directly. I did read the article, hence the posting at all. The fact that the top judge in the UK is even entertaining the idea was enough for me. The fact that he said it could is tantamount to saying it is OKAy (at least in my understanding of the english language)

Don't split hairs and lose the meaning of the article and the post.

filmfx66

**
Rookie

Posts : 65
Offline
#17 : July 04, 2008, 11:06:06 AM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031611/Sharia-law-SHOULD-used-Britain-says-UKs-judge.html

Unreal. And you wonder why people like me do NOT want us to follow in the footsteps of Europe and the UK.

Why? Are you Muslim?

Are you ignorant?
Is my username evolver?

Well with questions like "are you a muslim" as if that were even relevant to the comments by this judge people can wonder about your mental limitations. Honestly, why even make that comment? You know it has zero to do with the point being made yet you do it anyway. Why? Is it the attention you hoped to get? What exactly?
Interesting. Have I offended you?

Not at all. I just am curious as to the mindset of someone like you. You had nothing to add to the conversation but you still chimed in with a question with zero context. Those types of comments are common on BB because everyone is anonymous and they feel they can say anything because nobody really knows who they are. Usually I ignore them but sometimes, as in this case, I decided to pose the question to you as to why you even bothered to make the comment. What did you hope to gain?

I mean if you have no problem with muslim law being used in state law in Britain then why not just say that and state your reasons why you feel that way?
Why did ask you that? You said you didn't want the US to follow in the footsteps of the UK, without making it clear whether or not that was in regards to this situation, hence my question. You seem to think I was antagonizing you in some way.


You are  right. I said I did not want the US following in the UK's footsteps, posted an article to read in the same thread, but neither of the two were supposed to be taken together. I was actually talking about the UKs love of warm beer.  I  should of been more clear.  [banghead]

alldaway

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 36754
Offline
#18 : July 04, 2008, 11:47:04 AM

Its great reading the opinions of idiots that for the most part have no clue what they are talking about.

You owe me a diet cola.   :P

Yeah it definately is fun.

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#19 : July 04, 2008, 02:04:09 PM

So did anyone read the story or just the Headline and freak out?

First off, the headline is Wrong.

Quote
Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said that Islamic legal principles could be employed to deal with family and marital arguments and to regulate finance.

Could if both parties agree is a hell of a lot different than SHOULD

Also, the judgement he made in Britian has been going on in the US for close to a century. �According to the Uniform Business Code (that 49 out of 50 states follow) a contract can be based on any legal system as long as both parties agree. �If you write a contract which states "any disputes will be settled according to Sharia and by a Sharia court", and the other party agrees, that is a binding contract in the US.

Once again, Mountain from a tiny mole hill.

Sharia law applied in Texas

Minnesota Court upholds Islamic law for dispute resolution

I did not quote the judge directly. I did read the article, hence the posting at all.

Sorry, I was referring to the Article's author.  The Headline of the article is: "Sharia law SHOULD be used in Britain, says UK's top judge".  Which is completely different that what the Judge was quoted in the article as saying.  He said, "Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law."

The headline is a typical example of piss-poor journalism that over-exaggerates facts (or just makes them up, see Dr. Stroud) just to generate ratings/sales.


The fact that the top judge in the UK is even entertaining the idea was enough for me. The fact that he said it could is tantamount to saying it is OKAy (at least in my understanding of the english language)

Don't split hairs and lose the meaning of the article and the post.

That fact is that he only reiterated a long standing practice in BOTH the US and the UK. 

If you look at a more reasonable and grounded article on the same subject by the BBC "Sharia law 'could have UK role'

and read the last paragraph:

Quote
He said: "I think it's important to clarify that English common law already allows us to go to mediation to whichever third party we wish. "So that is why you have sharia council, that is why you have Jewish courts. It is a truly voluntary arrangement.

"There is no parallel legal system. This system cannot override English common law system at all."


This is not new news.  The SCoUS has already ruled on related matters as far back as 1939, 1970, 1986, and in 2004.  And the US Federal Arbitration Act has allowed what the British judge said for quite a while and been upheald by the Supreme Court.


JavaBuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28661
Offline
#20 : July 05, 2008, 02:33:25 AM

I really don't care what england does and I don't know the details of what this would entail.   I notice that he did mention that they can use sharia law as long as the punishment is within the legal realm of british law.    However, I'm not sure what differnce would result from this ruling.

I was in Pakistan a couple of weeks ago and having a discussion with one of the finance staff for the oil company I was consulting with.   He was about to be married and the topic of divorce came up.   I asked him what would happen if she decided to divorce him in a few years, would she be entitled to 50% of his wealth?   He said it is not her right to divorce because in Pakistan only the man can divorce the woman - the woman does not have that right to request a divorce.    I asked him what if the man were to beat his wife, she still couldn't ask for a divorce?   His reply was that many times men struggle at work, with finances or other things in life.   That their frustrations were sometimes taken out on their wives because she is the one in the home for them to vent on.   But that even if the man beats her every day, she does not have the right to request a divorce or to file any criminal charges against her husband.   

I would guess those things mentioned by the guy in Pakistan are sharia law, but I'm not sure how they would apply in england with this new ruling.



Guest
#21 : July 05, 2008, 12:22:08 PM

So did anyone read the story or just the Headline and freak out?

First off, the headline is Wrong.

Quote
Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said that Islamic legal principles could be employed to deal with family and marital arguments and to regulate finance.

Could if both parties agree is a hell of a lot different than SHOULD

Also, the judgement he made in Britian has been going on in the US for close to a century.  According to the Uniform Business Code (that 49 out of 50 states follow) a contract can be based on any legal system as long as both parties agree.  If you write a contract which states "any disputes will be settled according to Sharia and by a Sharia court", and the other party agrees, that is a binding contract in the US.

Once again, Mountain from a tiny mole hill.

Sharia law applied in Texas

Minnesota Court upholds Islamic law for dispute resolution

The problem is these supposedly "voluntary" contracts often aren't.  Just like the Burka.  When the woman is forced, by outright coercion, or family pressure, into that "voluntary" contract, she's screwed.  And the judges comments about "flogging should never be allowed" display a frightening lack of insight, especially on the part of a public official.  Once the door is opened, the other stuff will follow.

And while contracts may be written and held to the laws of any particular country (I'll defer to you on that, I don't know), you still can't just give up your civil rights by a contract, it would never be enforceable.  And that's what Sharia would amount to for a great many women.



John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#22 : July 05, 2008, 01:47:13 PM

So did anyone read the story or just the Headline and freak out?

First off, the headline is Wrong.

Quote
Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said that Islamic legal principles could be employed to deal with family and marital arguments and to regulate finance.

Could if both parties agree is a hell of a lot different than SHOULD

Also, the judgement he made in Britian has been going on in the US for close to a century. According to the Uniform Business Code (that 49 out of 50 states follow) a contract can be based on any legal system as long as both parties agree. If you write a contract which states "any disputes will be settled according to Sharia and by a Sharia court", and the other party agrees, that is a binding contract in the US.

Once again, Mountain from a tiny mole hill.

Sharia law applied in Texas

Minnesota Court upholds Islamic law for dispute resolution

The problem is these supposedly "voluntary" contracts often aren't. Just like the Burka. When the woman is forced, by outright coercion, or family pressure, into that "voluntary" contract, she's screwed. And the judges comments about "flogging should never be allowed" display a frightening lack of insight, especially on the part of a public official. Once the door is opened, the other stuff will follow.

And while contracts may be written and held to the laws of any particular country (I'll defer to you on that, I don't know), you still can't just give up your civil rights by a contract, it would never be enforceable. And that's what Sharia would amount to for a great many women.





Per the BBC article: "Lord Phillips, the most senior judge in England and Wales, said there was no reason sharia law's principles could not be used in mediation.

However, he said this would still be subject to the "jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts".


leeroybuc93

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 4413
Offline
#23 : July 05, 2008, 05:53:13 PM

So did anyone read the story or just the Headline and freak out?

First off, the headline is Wrong.

Quote
Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said that Islamic legal principles could be employed to deal with family and marital arguments and to regulate finance.

Could if both parties agree is a hell of a lot different than SHOULD

Also, the judgement he made in Britian has been going on in the US for close to a century. According to the Uniform Business Code (that 49 out of 50 states follow) a contract can be based on any legal system as long as both parties agree. If you write a contract which states "any disputes will be settled according to Sharia and by a Sharia court", and the other party agrees, that is a binding contract in the US.

Once again, Mountain from a tiny mole hill.

Sharia law applied in Texas

Minnesota Court upholds Islamic law for dispute resolution

The problem is these supposedly "voluntary" contracts often aren't. Just like the Burka. When the woman is forced, by outright coercion, or family pressure, into that "voluntary" contract, she's screwed. And the judges comments about "flogging should never be allowed" display a frightening lack of insight, especially on the part of a public official. Once the door is opened, the other stuff will follow.

And while contracts may be written and held to the laws of any particular country (I'll defer to you on that, I don't know), you still can't just give up your civil rights by a contract, it would never be enforceable. And that's what Sharia would amount to for a great many women.




You took the words out of my mouth.  I have absolutely no problem with this in a vacuum.  However, Muslim women are not always given the "choice" they choose.  If a woman were to legitimately enter into this sort of deal then that's fine with me.  It's the ones who are forced into it that I worry about. 

JasonOfthetower

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 6665
Offline
#24 : July 05, 2008, 08:23:39 PM

Its great reading the opinions of idiots that for the most part have no clue what they are talking about.

You owe me a diet cola. :P

Yeah it definately is fun.

Sorry, I know this has nothing to do with anything, but I just visited the Brian Griese you are mighty site....that shiz is funny!


JavaBuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28661
Offline
#25 : July 07, 2008, 11:37:50 AM

Sorry, I know this has nothing to do with anything, but I just visited the Brian Griese you are mighty site....that shiz is funny!

Have you seen this one?

http://jasonofthe.tower.youaremighty.com/

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#26 : July 07, 2008, 11:44:40 AM

Sorry, I know this has nothing to do with anything, but I just visited the Brian Griese you are mighty site....that shiz is funny!

Have you seen this one?

http://jasonofthe.tower.youaremighty.com/

Neither holds a candle to this one!


Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31379
Offline
#27 : July 07, 2008, 11:49:25 AM

Neither holds a candle to this one!

LMAO.


olafberserker

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 21198
Offline
#28 : July 07, 2008, 12:04:09 PM

You guys are starting to piss me off.  I have to open every thread now regardless of how little interest I have in the supposed topic just to see if any funny crap has been posted in it that has absolutely no relation. 

JavaBuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28661
Offline
#29 : July 07, 2008, 12:09:57 PM

I think Sharia law also is quite harsh against gays.   I know for sure sodomy is punishable by imprisonment.    I'm surprised Joe is for this sharia law, but also for gay marriage.   Seems a drastic contradiction to me.
Page: 1 2 3
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: WOW! Britain's top judge declares it is OKAY to use Muslim law (from the Koran) « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools