Sharia law approved in Britain

[TashaN]

None of the Muslim-populated nations would allow separate religious laws (Sharia or not) in their own countries, so I don't see why any non-Muslim country should grant special privileges to Muslims or any other religious groups.

Under Shariah law, seprate religious laws is a must to give freedom to religious people to judge based on their own divine law. The same was being applied in the Caliph times in the past. This is not something new to us.

You see, the problem is, people are being blind by democracy, thinking it's perfect, but it's not, because it doesn't give me the right to practice my own religion in proper way. So, what Britain did is very brave and honorable. I thank them and respect them for that, for they have given the same right for Jews before us.

 

[England my lionheart]

Under Shariah law, seprate religious laws is a must to give freedom to religious people to judge based on their own divine law. The same was being applied in the Caliph times in the past. This is not something new to us.

You see, the problem is, people are being blind by democracy, thinking it's perfect, but it's not, because it doesn't give me the right to practice my own religion in proper way. So, what Britain did is very brave and honorable. I thank them and respect them for that, for they have given the same right for Jews before us.

Law+religion=trouble Law+politics+religion=catastrophe

 

[England my lionheart]

We don't need any religious laws in this country Islamic or Jewish,its taken us hundreds of years to get religion and politics seperate,why would anyone want an archaic backward 7th century law.

 

[England my lionheart]

Under Shariah law, seprate religious laws is a must to give freedom to religious people to judge based on their own divine law. The same was being applied in the Caliph times in the past. This is not something new to us.

You see, the problem is, people are being blind by democracy, thinking it's perfect, but it's not, because it doesn't give me the right to practice my own religion in proper way. So, what Britain did is very brave and honorable. I thank them and respect them for that, for they have given the same right for Jews before us.

How much religious freedom is there in Saudi,ermmmmm lets see errrrr well theres mmmm well none

 

[TashaN]

We don't need any religious laws in this country Islamic or Jewish,its taken us hundreds of years to get religion and politics seperate,why would anyone want an archaic backward 7th century law.

What about freedom of choice?

 

[TashaN]

How much religious freedom is there in Saudi,ermmmmm lets see errrrr well theres mmmm well none

I'm not a Saudi, i just live there. I'm impressed with what the UK did and i thank them for that. Of course, saudi arabia doesn't have such freedom.

 

[England my lionheart]

I'm not a Saudi, i just live there. I'm impressed with what the UK did and i thank them for that. Of course, saudi arabia doesn't have such freedom.

You actually live in a 7th century backwater by choice? i am sorry for you

 

[England my lionheart]

I'm not a Saudi, i just live there. I'm impressed with what the UK did and i thank them for that. Of course, saudi arabia doesn't have such freedom.

I think you are misinformed as there is only one law in Britain thank goodness,we could'nt cope with all the limbs :help:

 

[gnostic]

You see, the problem is, people are being blind by democracy, thinking it's perfect, but it's not, because it doesn't give me the right to practice my own religion in proper way. So, what Britain did is very brave and honorable. I thank them and respect them for that, for they have given the same right for Jews before us.

For one thing I don't believe in perfection.

Nothing.

Not government (including democracy). Not civilization. Not society. Not man. Not woman. Not law (including justice). Not religion. Not prophet. Not Messiah. Not God (and not Satan).

Even nature is not perfect. The sun is not perfect. The earth is not perfect. Mountain is not perfect. Etc, etc, etc.

Perfection is illusion, and really depends on one's perspective or feeling.

Just because I say absolute everything is not perfect, doesn't mean that there is no beauty in this world.

I am not blind at all. I have never believe that democracy was ever perfect. But if you ask me would l like country run by monarchy, aristocracy, military dictatorship, fascism, communism, theocracy, anarchy, or whatever, then I would prefer democracy, because at least people have the chance to vote for the other party, in the hope we have large enough.

And just because I prefer democracy, doesn't mean I can trust politicians or political leaders, just as I don't trust kings, dictators, chieftains, or even prophets and clerics.

Past and present religious leaders can be just as bad, corrupted or biased as any king or politician.

Believed or not, I preferred death sentences for murderers, rapists and pedophiles, but it must done through administering law/justice and proper procedure must take place. What I disagree with maiming and torturing convicted.

I don't think adulterers should be punished or executed. It is morally wrong, I would agree, but I don't think adultery is a criminal offence. Your Abrahamic laws (Jewish and Islamic) believed that adultery should either be lashed or stoned. If one party commit adultery and should the other party decide to divorce, then the custody of the children (if they have any), and the larger part of the property (estate or finacial).

Under Shariah law, seprate religious laws is a must to give freedom to religious people to judge based on their own divine law. The same was being applied in the Caliph times in the past. This is not something new to us.

And if the Shariah law goes in direct opposition to the law of the land? What then?

Let's say we allow Shariah law in say Australia, as example.

Shariah law treats adultery as criminal offence, but secular law don't. If people administering law punish the offender with lashing or capital punishment, then it would be in clear violation in Australian law. The accuser, prosecutor and judge or cleric would have been guilty of breaking Australian law.

Divinity and divine matter very little to me.

 

[kai]

Brtitain has not allowed Sharia Law anywhere. it has within its legal framework the opportunity for people to go to Arbitration thats what the "sharia" courts are and the Jewish Beth Din. they are Arbitration, and certainly do not handle criminal cases.

 

[England my lionheart]

What about freedom of choice?

As i have explained to you this is a secular country and civil law is fair for everyone regardless of race,religion or gendre,Sharia law would be in conflict with civil law.
However you are quite within your rights to settle a divorce etc out of court but any criminal offence must be tried by the judical system we have in place.
As Gnostic has stated our Democracy is nowhere near perfect but Sharia law is a 7th century creaking archaic sysem that is responsible for some of the worse crimes against Humanity.

 

[TashaN]

You actually live in a 7th century backwater by choice? i am sorry for you

Thank you.

As i have explained to you this is a secular country and civil law is fair for everyone regardless of race,religion or gendre,Sharia law would be in conflict with civil law.
However you are quite within your rights to settle a divorce etc out of court but any criminal offence must be tried by the judical system we have in place.
As Gnostic has stated our Democracy is nowhere near perfect but Sharia law is a 7th century creaking archaic sysem that is responsible for some of the worse crimes against Humanity.

You are imagining alot of things.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We don't need any religious laws in this country Islamic or Jewish,its taken us hundreds of years to get religion and politics seperate,why would anyone want an archaic backward 7th century law.

Religion and politics are not separate in the UK. You still have religious representatives in the House of Lords and legal prohibitions against your head of state being Catholic, for crying out loud!

 

[TashaN]

And if the Shariah law goes in direct opposition to the law of the land? What then?

Let's say we allow Shariah law in say Australia, as example.

If you are talking about Shariah in the UK then you better check kai's posts to know how they gonna make it.

 

[England my lionheart]

Religion and politics are not separate in the UK. You still have religious representatives in the House of Lords and legal prohibitions against your head of state being Catholic, for crying out loud!

Crying out loud the Queen is Church of England and the House of Lords is a place old people go to sleep Neither Law or Government is administered via religion thank goodness.

 

[England my lionheart]

If you are talking about Shariah in the UK then you better check kai's posts to know how they gonna make it.

Arbitration is something anybody can do whatever your religion but you cannot administer criminal Law

 

[darkendless]

And if the Shariah law goes in direct opposition to the law of the land? What then?

Let's say we allow Shariah law in say Australia, as example.

I'd like to see them try. Australia does not take well to anyone watering down the culture with laws that apply to a minority.
I don't see the need for any civil matter to be a matter of religion. If yoiu live in the country you accept it for what it is.

 

[emiliano]

I'd like to see them try. Australia does not take well to anyone watering down the culture with laws that apply to a minority.
I don't see the need for any civil matter to be a matter of religion. If yoiu live in the country you accept it for what it is.

What a pleasant surprise it was to see you posting this. We debated this in another thread and I told yo that “ In Australia we don’t obey minorities, no matter how noisy they are“, I see that you finally got it. Thing are defined and applied according with the majority will, if this is presented and is the majority will that they have this right, that is the way it will be, it will only be presented for popular consultation if there is interest in the subject, it seem that you have come to understand this, congratulations.

 

[emiliano]

You actually live in a 7th century backwater by choice? i am sorry for you

It’s funny that you said that, considering that your governance system is a Monarchy, so is our and I must say that works quite well and to the satisfaction of the majority of Australians.

 

[Elessar]

Crying out loud the Queen is Church of England and the House of Lords is a place old people go to sleep Neither Law or Government is administered via religion thank goodness.

That all and every Person and Persons that then were or afterwards should be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or should professe the Popish Religion or marry a Papist should be excluded and are by that Act made for ever incapable to inherit possess or enjoy the Crown and Government of this Realm and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging

William III & Mary II, 1700 & 1701: An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject (cited as Act of Settlement 1701). Parliament of England

and that the Continuance and Preservation of the said United Church, as the established Church of England and Ireland, shall be deemed and taken to be an essential and fundamental Part of the Union

George III, 1800: An Act for the union of Great Britain and Ireland (cited as Act of Union 1800). Parliament of Great Britain; Parliament of Ireland

Both of these provisions, as I understand it, are in full effect in the United Kingdom, meaning that not only is the Church of England still the official religion, but that Catholics, and those married to Catholics, are barred from the throne.