Printable View
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...5NMpQ&refer=ukQuote:
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the most senior priest in the Church of England, was urged to resign after he advocated introducing Islamic rules to the U.K.'s legal system, the Daily Telegraph reported.
Big deal, the Jews already have it, so what is the problem?
EDIT: For those with no knowledge of the British legal system :)
You are doubtless familiar with civil cases that are "settled out of court"? Well it is much the same sort of thing without lining the pockets of lawyers and other reptiles.
There are a number of arbitration bodies that one can have recourse to, provided that all parties concerned agree to be bound by their rulings. These will generally be upheld by the actual court that is responsible, without the need for a hearing.
Examples are usually employment disputes, damages, compensation, arguments concerning professional services and fees and so on.
In the case of marital and family matters, the Jews have their own "court", so it is not unreasonable that the Moslems have the same. Remember all parties need to consent or the case has to come before a British court.
These external bodies and their "rulings" are totally subordinate to British Law at all times. They tend to be much quicker, and in most cases, cheaper.
Darn you Nihil! I was suitably upset by the story when I read it yesterday on another site. It never mentioned any of the points that you bring up that make it seem more reasonable. The article I read seemed to imply that the Archbishop was advocating a wholesale conversion to Sharia law by Britain. Now I will have to find out something else to be aggravated about.
Hi isildur,
An article from Australia on the same subject. And this one is a Moslem community leader saying that it would need work to define Sharia law in the first place.
http://www.snpx.com/cgi-bin/news55.c...57027332?-2622
:)
and...Quote:
"It needs to be clarified and put down clearly on paper how it would run because everyone walking around has a different understanding of what Sharia means," Mr Soliman told AAP.
Quote:
"It would have to be accepted by the wider community, as well as the Muslim community, because there has been quite a lot of injustice happening in recent times under the name of Sharia," he said.
A dead girl is in no position to give or withhold consent.Quote:
Remember all parties need to consent
Not relevant, as consent is required, and murder is prohibited under secular, criminal law, which is that of the host nation.Quote:
A dead girl is in no position to give or withhold consent.
In such a case I personally believe that Sharia law should certainly apply............... I would do it myself with a blunt chainsaw :xbones:
All that is being discussed here, is domestic and business stuff, which is civil law. We are talking about tribunals, not kangaroo courts, and they can only recommend, not judge.
The real problem is that there is no clear definition or agreement as to what Sharia law actually is. If you look at the Taliban they certainly made it up as they went along. There are no reliable precedents either. For that reason, I don't see it ever happening, as you won't get Sunnis and Shiites to agree the basic ground rules.
Just take a look at what is going on in Iraq............ it isn't the Iraqis and Allies killing each other, it is Moslems killing Moslems. just the same as happened in the Iran-Iraq war under Saddam.
:)
On a side note, the ABC certainly has a wonderful composure and speaking voice.
It seems that the Archbishop was speaking in hypotheticals and being very tolerant of the Sharia law. In a historical sense, Sharia law has no place in justice systems that practice proper jurisprudence. The Taliban and the current incarnations of Sunni/Shia don't enter into the discussion, as they don't/can't modify Sharia law. They merely follow it. Steal = hands severed. Aldultery = buried and stoned to death. Alcoholism = hanged and so on and so on.
While I don't think that the Archbishop is advocating Sharia law, he certainly isn't condemning it, as he probably should. There must be an ulterior motive behind his words...making peace somehow? I really am lost on this one.
O
Religion and Politics make strange bed-fellows ;)
Religion is the main reason certain parts of this world are completely screwed up, IMHO. Most youths of today don't seem to go in for the whole religion thing, so with a bit of luck 50 years from now there won't be any such thing as religion - therefore nothing to argue, fight or murder people about.
Imagine :D John Lennon for those under 25 ;)