1. Comment #204129 by Nova on July 4, 2008 at 8:06 am

NO! This logic is upside down. If you don't like our countrie's laws then go away - we didn't force you to come here.

Other Comments by Nova

2. Comment #204142 by Lemniscate on July 4, 2008 at 8:28 am

"Dr Williams suggested that sharia could play a role in "aspects of marital law, the regulation of financial transactions and authorised structures of mediation and conflict resolution"."

So they want to give Islam legal sanction for its misogyny?

We're bending over backwards to inculcate a culture where religious beliefs go unchallenged and different religious groups are shielded from each other.

On the surface, it looks like a victory for tolerance, but I doubt these steps towards legislation of sharia law are going to encourage integration, and I doubt it will placate the support for a more complete sharia law.

Other Comments by Lemniscate

3. Comment #204144 by j.mills on July 4, 2008 at 8:31 am

As I understand it, voluntary mediation under Sharia law already exists and so long as it IS voluntary and doesn't conflict with the REAL law, it seems no more objectionable than going to counselling or arbitration.

That seems to be all that Lord Phillips and Rowan Williams mean, and if so, rather than it going too far, I'm wondering why they bothered opening their mouths and causing a storm in a teacup. The obvious backlash to their comments means they've probably done more harm than good.

Incidentally, Nova, many British Muslims were born here - probably most by now. They're as entitled as any other citizen to seek a change in the law, and since they generally AREN'T seeking that and represent only about 4% of the UK population anyway, it's not going to happen. Islam may present stuff to worry about, but this isn't it.

Other Comments by j.mills

4. Comment #204149 by Layla Nasreddin on July 4, 2008 at 8:38 am

It's that supposedly "voluntary" bit that concerns me. What's to prevent the cleric to declare that any women who fail to submit to shari'ah arbitration are "not good Muslims" or something? Imagine the pressure from families and the community to conform!

Oh, and "Inayat Bunglawala from the Muslim Council of Britain told BBC News that sharia law applied only to civil matters". ONLY civil matters...I believe a lot of Muslim women might take exception! There's a reason why some of the biggest opponents of shari'ah tribunals (which would "only" affect "civil matters") in Canada were Muslim women!

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

5. Comment #204150 by marv78rpm on July 4, 2008 at 8:39 am

"Severe physical punishments such as flogging, stoning and the cutting off of hands would not be acceptable, he said."

Not yet, anyway. Just give the theocrats a bit of time to work their magic.

Other Comments by marv78rpm

6. Comment #204152 by hungarianelephant on July 4, 2008 at 8:40 am

3. Comment #204144 by j.mills on July 4, 2008 at 8:31 am

As I understand it, voluntary mediation under Sharia law already exists and so long as it IS voluntary and doesn't conflict with the REAL law, it seems no more objectionable than going to counselling or arbitration.

Exactly.

In the form Lord Phillips is suggesting, it's approximately as threatening as the rules of the American Arbitration Association.

In fact he well knows that sharia is already up and running for a significant number of financial disputes. London is making a significant amount of money from Islamic financial instruments. If people want to conduct their affairs according to such stupid rules, I don't see why we shouldn't allow them. When the government starts forcing institutions to provide a "sharia certificate", then I'll start to be concerned.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

7. Comment #204154 by Broicher on July 4, 2008 at 8:41 am

... so if one of you English people would like to emigrate, I could house one of you for some time until you found another country.

Other Comments by Broicher

8. Comment #204158 by Prankster on July 4, 2008 at 8:47 am

Inayat Bunglawala says it quite clearly in that "There is no parallel legal system. This system cannot override English common law system at all."

As I understand it this type of law is not law as such more like a framework or code for dispute settling or arbitration- I hardly think an English judge is going to try a thief in court by using sharia principles and then ordering the thief to have his hands cut off-it just wouldn't work over here.

The ones seeking a change in the law are not wholly representative of the muslim population.

Education about this law needs to be put on the political agenda rather than scaremongering in the likes of the rightwing press. Aspects of Islam intrigue, fascinate and appall me all at once, but the imposition of sharia doesn't, as it can never happen.

Other Comments by Prankster

9. Comment #204161 by irate_atheist on July 4, 2008 at 9:00 am

Much as I admire Lord Phillips, I agree with those who say he should not have put any fuel on the fire in this case.

Thin edge of the wedge stuff, as far as I'm concerned. IANAL but this may - possibly - lead to some dubious practices as outlined by Layla. There is nothing 'voluntary' about a forced marriage, and we know that these happen.

Dangerous to speak in support of it, dangerous indeed. Especially when the statment comes from such a - and quite rightly so - respected individual.

On another more upbeat note, below is a link to a book written by one of his daughters. It takes a somewhat whimsical view of religion.

The link

Go on - buy a copy - you know you want to.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

10. Comment #204162 by dhudson0001 on July 4, 2008 at 9:01 am

Anyone care to guess how Muslims would react to cherry-picking Sharia law? This really is going badly...

Other Comments by dhudson0001

11. Comment #204163 by Nova on July 4, 2008 at 9:04 am

j.mills:

Incidentally, Nova, many British Muslims were born here - probably most by now. They're as entitled as any other citizen to seek a change in the law, and since they generally AREN'T seeking that and represent only about 4% of the UK population anyway, it's not going to happen. Islam may present stuff to worry about, but this isn't it.

I understand some were born here, but in comparison to the native legal system and culture what they want enforced is still very young in this country, I wasn't so much referring to the people as the system they bring which is relatively new. Though it isn't true most Muslims were born here, only some were, quite a lot have come through immigration and if we keep going as we are then much more are to come that way - the number of British born Muslims is actually going down fast. In response to your reassurance they can't succeed because they comprise such a small amount of the population: 1. They have the support of many liberals on a campaign for they ideology of multiculturalism - I am usually a Guardian/Independent reader but it is true you generally have to pick up the usually odious Telegraph/Daily Mail to get the stories of Muslim Mischief. 2. They are very organized and within there communities there is no democracy so they can easily organize there point of view. As Richard Dawkins has pointed out so called "community leaders" speak on there behalf, he rhetorically asked who elected them.

Other Comments by Nova

12. Comment #204166 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 4, 2008 at 9:10 am

hungarianelephant and others: get real. Do you really think it will stop there? Do you think for even a second that they will not enforce the full horrors of hudud punishments? Hell, we already have the horrors of honor killings and the murders of dissdents and apostates, not to mention genital mutilation.

And so the slide towards Eurabia continues, with the enlightened progressives only interested in greasing that slide.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

13. Comment #204167 by Layla Nasreddin on July 4, 2008 at 9:11 am

Oh, and one more point: shari'ah law as defined by WHOM? Saudi clerics? Pakistani mullahs? Iraqi ayatollahs? Liberal reformers? Shari'ah law isn't just one, immutable "thing," contrary to what a lot of people (including Muslim clerics) think. You have to decide what kind of law, and the interpretation of that law varies -- just read the numerous contradictory fatwas from muftis on any number of subjects! And who decides? Probably the (unelected) male leaders of the community...

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

14. Comment #204168 by hungarianelephant on July 4, 2008 at 9:13 am

11. Comment #204163 by Nova on July 4, 2008 at 9:04 am

Though it isn't true most Muslims were born here, only some were, quite a lot have come through immigration and if we keep going as we are then much more are to come that way - the number of British born Muslims is actually going down fast.

Do you have any evidence to back that up? I'm aware that there is significant immigration in the form of Pakistani brides being brought in (because the British born girls start getting uppity and demanding to be treated as human beings), and also some recent Somali immigration, but that is the first I've heard of immigrants making up a majority of Muslims. Nor can I quite see how the number of British born Muslims is going down. Emigration? Dying faster than they breed?

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

15. Comment #204172 by hungarianelephant on July 4, 2008 at 9:19 am

12. Comment #204166 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 4, 2008 at 9:10 am

hungarianelephant and others: get real. Do you really think it will stop there? Do you think for even a second that they will not enforce the full horrors of hudud punishments? Hell, we already have the horrors of honor killings and the murders of dissdents and apostates, not to mention genital mutilation.

No, the demands won't stop there. But I'd be interested to hear by precisely what mechanism sharia financial or marital tribunals will be able to extend their jurisdiction into the criminal law. That seems about as likely as an AAA arbitrator ordering the extraordinary rendition of the plaintiff.

I trust I have been as vociferous here as anyone else in saying that British criminal law should be properly applied to kidnap, rape, wounding and murder which passes as "culture" in some Muslim communities. But it's also important to pick our fights. Arguing about whether some payment constitutes "interest" is hardly a productive use of our time.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

16. Comment #204175 by irate_atheist on July 4, 2008 at 9:32 am

15. Comment #204172 by hungarianelephant -

Arguing about whether some payment constitutes "interest" is hardly a productive use of our time.

Pointing out how obviously stupid such a thing as 'Sharia banking' is, however, is not a bad idea.

Show 'em up for the dumbasses they are.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

17. Comment #204176 by Border Collie on July 4, 2008 at 9:48 am

You Brits have lost your f'ing minds!

Other Comments by Border Collie

18. Comment #204177 by hungarianelephant on July 4, 2008 at 9:53 am

irate - Indeed. I can see the slogans now.

Banking, only sharia

Fluent in Islamic finance

The world's parochial bank

Because sharia's complicated enough

Get a little Xtra help from Allah

The bank that likes to say "Allahu Akhbar"

Edit: Your money's safe with us (inshallah)

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

19. Comment #204178 by gcdavis on July 4, 2008 at 9:55 am

Severe physical punishments such as flogging, stoning and the cutting off of hands would not be acceptable, he said.

Not be acceptable! I should bloody well hope not! This man is the most senior Judge in the UK and he makes comments that are incredibly naive as well as downright dangerous.

Two people can of course make any agreement between themselves as long as it is legal, but to include a religiously based codicil in that agreement is not acceptable in a secular society. Islam is a nasty religion for all the reasons that have been discussed endlessly. To give in to any of its "demands" is crazy, quite the opposite is required, it must be reined back and its adherents reminded on every occasion that their religion, indeed any religion can only be tolerated if is totally subservient to British law and custom.

Other Comments by gcdavis

20. Comment #204179 by hungarianelephant on July 4, 2008 at 9:55 am

In other news, a High Court judge decides that Pringles are not potato crisps:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7490346.stm

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

21. Comment #204186 by lozzer on July 4, 2008 at 10:34 am

No wonder everyone here seems to be voting for the right wing nowadays.

Other Comments by lozzer

22. Comment #204188 by Corona Dave on July 4, 2008 at 10:39 am

>Severe physical punishments such as flogging, stoning and the cutting off of hands would not be acceptable, he said.

and what of other, 'not severe', physical punishments such as punching and kicking?

Other Comments by Corona Dave

23. Comment #204195 by Philip1978 on July 4, 2008 at 11:16 am

Sharia Law?

I don't usually come across with this tone but I am quite sure they can fuck off if they want Sharia law in this country.

I have nothing but contempt for a law that allows for men to rape and beat women with impunity and for even the slightest act of what is deemed disobedience, the killing of apostates and those who do not adhere to the law. I have heard disgusting stories that quite frankly make me near to tears for what has happened to people living under sharia law.

We have laws in this country, we have a justice system, I hate to sound all pompous but if I was in Islamabad I would have to follow certain rules and regulations, if you come to the UK are you not subject to the laws of this land? Having those laws changed just so a small minority of religious lunatics can beat the crap out of their women does not seem like the way forward and I will not endorse it.

Other Comments by Philip1978

24. Comment #204199 by mrjonno on July 4, 2008 at 11:30 am

More right wing drivel.

People should be aware that in a civil dispute people can use any set of rules that is agreed by the 2 people involved and that does not go against the law of the land

Yes that does include the Koran

It can also include a pasta eating competion in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or who can balance the God Delusion on their head for as long as possible

Other Comments by mrjonno

25. Comment #204203 by DalaiDrivel on July 4, 2008 at 11:43 am

"Severe physical punishments such as flogging, stoning and the cutting off of hands would not be acceptable, he said."

Ah well, wait until the misogynist arbitrator or court attendee declares it is "my religion" that necessitates such punishment.

At least then we could see the true friction between religious justification and liberal norms and ideals.

And we could throw the whole rotten and superstition enterprise out the door.

And what of that quote, anyway? Parochial as my point of view may be, I have always regarded flogging, honour executions, stoning and amputations were some of the charming hallmarks of Sharia that distinguished it from civilised judicial systems.

Outlawing these practices seems like attempting to make friends with the school bully- give him a second chance to be a gentleman. It's more appeasement I think to Sharia and Muslims keen for Muslim influence in various liberal democracies around the world than a proper neutering of it.

Carte blanche. Benefit of the doubt.

The bully will weasel his way back unto his old self. Sharia proponents may well make religious justification for atrocities...

Or as marv78rpm said, wait until we "give the theocrats time to work their magic."

Magic indeed. But I don't think any spell-casting will be necessary. The spell in question of course, we have cast over ourselves, and theocrats need only wait until we are too tolerant, too small, and too timid to mount any objection.

Like the bully's true nature, it continues to be depressing, yet concerning, how willingly people ignore or forgive the true nature of the Abrahamic God and his accompanying legal systems.

Does it really ever occur to people that there actually is such thing as a disqualifying aspect to either? Perhaps a few (quite a few) really, but...

It is another example amongst many of the general public's, religious and not, comfort with superstition.

In public dialogue of true superstition (horoscopes and paranormal events), even when scientific first-instance disqualification is warranted, people overlook the various snags and embrace the more palatable considerations ("but there was this ONE line in the horoscope that matched my day"; "I can't think of a way he could conjure what he did, therefore he really must have done it!") out of this comfort.

By the way, I'm reading a chapter on public credulity in matters of this sort in "Unweaving the Rainbow." It's brilliant, and though I love the hard science of previous chapters, I admit I am finding metaphysical debunking more absorbing... You just know RD wants to hit the issue hard!

In any event, try treating a religious proposition like a scientific hypothesis. The first findings to falsify it, discard it in its entirety.

RD has been saying for ages how harmful credulity is. He only becomes ever righter with time.

My final word is, that in an inncocent-until-proven-guilty system already in place, Sharia is most certainly guilty-until-proven-innocent. But then we shouldn't allow it to prove its innocence because the risks are too great, the motivations and underlying metaphysics too morbid.

Sharia has already flogged, stoned, decapitated, honour-killed, and amputated. Begone with it now. Yes, now.

We won't lose anything by keeping limbs and losing a bit of our love affair with superstition.

Like always.

...............

mrjonno,

Careful there. I hold the monopoly on drivel! :D

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

26. Comment #204208 by Nairb on July 4, 2008 at 11:50 am

Its important to read the last 3 paragraphs.

While this "seems" nutty at first they are only talking about mediation not law.
Anybody can be a mediator so long as both parties agree to the mediator.

The legal system is interested in mediators because it allows the legal system to focus on applying justice.
Today everywhere the legal systems are overrun with silly claims and disputes that should be resolved before coming to court.

That doesnt stop anyone changing their mind and going to court afterwards.


3 last paragraphs
=================
Inayat Bunglawala from the Muslim Council of Britain told BBC News that sharia law applied only to civil matters.

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."

Other Comments by Nairb

27. Comment #204212 by Nairb on July 4, 2008 at 11:57 am

On the other hand I think its time to put some rules and regulations around Mediation and the people acting as mediators.

If Sharia "law" wants to be used as a basis in mediation then it should be British Sharia law

....meaning no 7th century crap.

Other Comments by Nairb

28. Comment #204214 by Vinelectric on July 4, 2008 at 11:59 am

Which Sharia Law? The Hanabli, Shafi'i, Maliki, Saudi-Wahhabi....etc

Shariah law can mean anything. The second Caliph of Islam (Umar ibn al Khattab) was even reported to suspend amputations in times of famine. The contradicting literature makes it a hopeless case to say for sure what punishment applies to any given situation to any two Muslims' satisfaction.

The best thing though would be the non-conforming immigrants being told: "Surprise Surprise, we've got Sharia for you here too, bitches"

Oh bummer!

In fact, given the choice, I bet you most of those religious heads would opt to go for English law instead.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

29. Comment #204215 by Mitchell Gilks on July 4, 2008 at 12:01 pm

I don't see anything particularly objectionable in this artical. There are a few things I don't like the sound of, and a few other things I think are stupid. Though I'm not confident that I could construct a convincing argument against them from this angle.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

30. Comment #204216 by robotaholic on July 4, 2008 at 12:03 pm

How can people talk so casually about cutting off hands or genitals? - FUCK Islam

Other Comments by robotaholic

31. Comment #204218 by Vinelectric on July 4, 2008 at 12:08 pm

Border Collie, Nova.

Don't expect the British to give their laws up for Sharia. Calm down and read the articles again.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

32. Comment #204219 by Vinelectric on July 4, 2008 at 12:10 pm

robotaholic

How can people talk so casually about cutting off hands or genitals

You mean from a historical perspective? Well humans used to cannibalise, cauterise, enslave and scarifice each other.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

33. Comment #204223 by ricky173 on July 4, 2008 at 12:29 pm

Comment #204199 by mrjonno on July 4, 2008 at 11:30 am

More right wing drivel.

People should be aware that in a civil dispute people can use any set of rules that is agreed by the 2 people involved and that does not go against the law of the land

Yes that does include the Koran

It can also include a pasta eating competion in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or who can balance the God Delusion on their head for as long as possible

Mrjonno, I sympathise somewhat with your comment above, but only in so far as I think that comments like "If you don't like our countrie's laws then go away - we didn't force you to come here" don't add anything to an enlightened debate.

Where you and I part company, however, is that I find it appalling that a man of such standing can advocate using a set of misogynistic, homophobic and violent rules to mediate any dispute in the UK. Would it be "right wing drivel" to criticise Lord Phillips if he said in public forum that it was acceptable to use a BNP representative to mediate between a couple of racist Neo-Nazis?

Unfortunately such "tolerance" is widespread among the politically correct left of the UK and is in my opinion left wing drivel.

Remember "Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice"

Other Comments by ricky173

34. Comment #204226 by prettygoodformonkeys on July 4, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Wiki:

"...under the common law a man/woman can do as they please as long as they do not violate another man, woman or child's natural rights, or breach any oaths contracts or agreements he/she has entered into with them. From a common law perspective, natural rights are so numerous that they cannot be listed specifically and thus can only be listed in three general categories, namely: the 'right to life, liberty and property'. Under these general categories come such rights as the natural right to keep and bear arms for defense; for if one has the right to life then one logically has the right to protect that life. It is also important to realise that governments do not grant natural rights, as these unalienable rights are inherent in every man/woman, and thus all men/women are naturally sovereign and have natural authority over and above their government (theoretically) --- provided they have not somehow forfeited any of their natural rights by some legal mechanism."

Not being a Brit, am I right in assuming that any arbitration, even by Sharia, has to fit this basic mold?

Or would 'legal mechanism' include muslim wedding vows, where the woman has forfeited her rights?

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

35. Comment #204227 by Styrer- on July 4, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Have I misunderstood something here?

The Lord Chief Justice, whose position as highest legal authority for England and Wales burdens him with upholding and championing the hard-won laws of these lands, with ensuring that mediation be conducted under the aegis of these very laws, is now saying 'well, there may be a better way. For some people. You know, for Muslims'?

What a fucking disgrace.

Quite how this man can be endorsing even the slightest part of this morally bankrupt, female-fearing, female-hating, human-demeaning cult's practices and holding them up for OFFICIAL inclusion in the UK's legal system is utterly beyond me.

For how much fucking longer must we really be forced to go along with this multi-cultural, appeasing and destructive bullshit at the hands of head-in-the-clouds theorists like Phillips and Williams? Theorists who know fuck all about the disgusting realities of issues they are determined to spout about, in arrogant ignorance of the horrendous implications of their words?

It's been long enough. No more.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

36. Comment #204228 by Donald on July 4, 2008 at 12:43 pm

Lord Phillips said: "There is no reason why sharia principles, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution.

(My emphasis added) Ok, but this is open to misreading. Was he careless, or deliberately trying to be ambiguous? The two readings I have in mind are (a):

Lord Phillips said: "There is no reason why some sharia principles, or some principles from any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution.

and (b):

Lord Phillips said: "There is no reason why any sharia principles, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution.

(a) is ok, although I wish he had expanded it to (c):

"There is no reason why some sharia principles, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution, provided the principles in question do not conflict with any UK or EU laws, such as human rights legislation, for example.

version (b) seems to be so obviously unacceptable to western thinking, that we might think (a) does not need to be expanded into version (c). But I wonder if, to many Muslim ears, the original quote from Lord Phillips will be read (subconsciously perhaps) as version (b).

Other Comments by Donald

37. Comment #204230 by Rachel Holmes on July 4, 2008 at 12:55 pm

hungarianelephant and mrjonno are absolutely right: this is talking about mediation, which is itself subject to English law. People can choose whatever means of settling disputes they like. Jewish people often use a Jewish Beth Din to settle their disputes. This would be a Muslim equivalent.

And yes, if racist BNP types want to settle a dispute by asking the biggest thug among them to give his verdict, why not? The fact that Lord Phillips would never say this indicates how pointless and misguided his statement was, though.

If mediators/arbitrators impose a sanction that is contrary to English law (such as a beating), they'll be subject to being found out and prosecuted like any one else.

The only issue I have with the idea of Sharia-based dispute resolution is that it's impossible to believe that participation will always be entirely voluntary. Which is quite a big reservation.

Other Comments by Rachel Holmes

38. Comment #204232 by prettygoodformonkeys on July 4, 2008 at 1:07 pm

Rachel Holmes

if racist BNP types want to settle a dispute by asking the biggest thug among them to give his verdict, why not?

Because of the power it gives to thugs?

If mediators/arbitrators impose a sanction that is contrary to English law (such as a beating), they'll be subject to being found out and prosecuted like any one else.

So why not use the law of your land to begin with?

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

39. Comment #204233 by Styrer- on July 4, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Comment #204230 by Rachel Holmes on July 4, 2008 at 12:55 pm

You unerringly put your finger on one of the most important reasons why this type of gobshite 'announcement' is despicable in its import.

But the most important one which you omit is, I submit, that any movement of propitiation towards Muslims - even the merest nod - fails utterly to address the problem at the heart of all this - Islam itself - which will not be perceived as being properly 'respected' until its adherents have been able to enforce the whole damn lot of its inhuman tenets on all of its victims: Muslim, apostate and infidel alike.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

40. Comment #204235 by padster1976 on July 4, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Yep, that's one more step towards integration!

Other Comments by padster1976

41. Comment #204236 by mordacious1 on July 4, 2008 at 1:13 pm

Quite a slippery slope this is. I think living in a country where Shariah law is acceptable would be...oh wait...it's Independence Day...Thank FSM.

Other Comments by mordacious1

42. Comment #204237 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 4, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Styrer, you said it.

There is no way to appease Islam. There is no way to do right by it. Don't even try. You're an Infidel, a kafir - something lower than an animal. Believing you can make nice to it is to be trapped like those Jews in Art Spiegelman's Maus who believe they can appease the Nazis. It's a terrible, tragic error.

But we're all jews now.

----------------------
UPDATE: I am not surprised that Vin is once again spreading nonsense and misinformation - and, if he really is a former Muslim, actually lying.

Shariah law can mean anything

No, it cannot. No school of Shariah overrides the Qur'an or Hadith. No school recognises Infidels as equal to Muslims. And no school demands anything other than death for apostasy.

This is the reason for my fury at the likes of Vin. Spreading this kind of disinformation and deceit is terribly dangerous.

Sorry, Vin, but some of us proud kafirs are capable of actually reading for ourselves what Islam teaches, and what the Shariah means.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

43. Comment #204243 by Rational_G on July 4, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Fuck Sharia law.

Other Comments by Rational_G

44. Comment #204246 by Dinah on July 4, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Introducing any form of Sharia law into this country, however limited, would increase hostility towards Muslims and further alienate them from the mainstream community. The only people who would benefit would be the extremists who once Sharia law was deemed acceptable would demand further concessions. Religious law has no place in a modern Western democracy and should be resisted at all costs for the sake of every citizen.

Other Comments by Dinah

45. Comment #204249 by Dinah on July 4, 2008 at 2:00 pm

Re: Comment #204167 by Layla Nasreddin

And who decides? Probably the (unelected) male leaders of the community

Who exactly does, or will, pass judgement in Sharia courts in the UK? If only men are appointed isn't that breaking discrimination laws? Or is it exempt from discrimination laws because it's a religious court?

Other Comments by Dinah

46. Comment #204250 by exorcist on July 4, 2008 at 2:02 pm

I don't care what you excuse might be - if you are British, don't write a fuck this and fuck that post on the RD website - save your criticisms for your local newspaper, your local politician or even your T-shirt. Living in a highly secular country, where the role of religion has been diminished to an obscure white noise, I may not fully understand the British situation. But damn it, if the country that always has been a critical player in promoting science and culture in Europe allows a judge to promote superstitious ridiculousness and violence, shame on you. Rise up and speak out! Today! Do yourself and your children a favour and do something right now... please!

I'm sorry if my word seem harsh, but I've completely had it with these idiots... I guess many of you are familiar with how I feel..

Other Comments by exorcist

47. Comment #204252 by Dinah on July 4, 2008 at 2:14 pm

There is a good blog about this in the Telegraph Online by Damian Thompson http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/damian_thompson/blog/2008/07/04/sharia_is_a_danger_to_us_all

Other Comments by Dinah

48. Comment #204255 by D'Arcy on July 4, 2008 at 2:19 pm

I read the article in The Times and, I, not being an expert in jurisprudence, felt the judge's ruling had some basis in fact. The higher court judges would be much happier deciding legal issues like Pringles v potato crisps than issues like shall Ali be allowed to divorce his wife by saying it 3 times.

The higher courts are the equivalent of the priests. They have "special" knowledge of jurisprudence and the special earthly powers that come therewith. Most people can't afford to take any legal action, let alone action in the High court.

Other Comments by D'Arcy

49. Comment #204256 by Rachel Holmes on July 4, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Look at this in context. Of the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of disputes with legal implications that almost certainly arise in the UK every year, the vast majority will be settled informally. Without even instructing lawyers or other mediation/arbitration specialists.

Of those that result in formal proceedings, only a tiny proportion will end up being decided by a court.

Within the framework of the law, people are entitled to use whatever methods of dispute resolution they like.

I don't like the idea of giving authority to thugs, or imams. I find Islam to be despicable, from what I know of it (I've read the Qur'an in translation and selected parts of the hadith.)

But here, the authority is being given by the parties to the dispute, not the State. What's the alternative? Do you really want a situation where people are only allowed to settle disputes by instructing qualified solicitors/going to court? Boon for the legal profession; bit of a bugger for everyone else.

Basically, I think it was politically dumb of Lord Phillips to say this, because he was not giving any quarter to Muslims that was not aready available to everyone. I can't help wondering why he said it.

Other Comments by Rachel Holmes

50. Comment #204261 by Skeptacy on July 4, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Nauseating...I look forward to Pat COndells take on this absurd suggestion.

Other Comments by Skeptacy