Chief Justice of England: It’s shari’a time
posted at 6:25 pm on July 3, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Lord Phillips said: “It is possible in this country for those who are entering into a contractual agreement to agree that the agreement shall be governed by law other than English law.”
Therefore, he said, he could see no reason why Sharia law should not be used to settle disputes in this country.
He said: “There is no reason why principles of Sharia law, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution.”
He added: “It must be recognized however that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of the mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales.”…
“In some countries the courts interpret Sharia law as calling for severe physical punishment. There can be no question of such courts sitting in this country, or such sanctions being applied here.”
Sound familiar?
He’s talking about shari’a arrangements for traditional matters of contract law, like financial or family matters. I touched on this last month in the post about the French marriage that was annulled because the wife wasn’t a virgin. Look at the end of any contract you’ve ever signed and you’ll likely see a clause saying something like, “In the event of a dispute that requires arbitration, the law of Jurisdiction X shall govern.” Phillips is talking about using the Koran as a substitute for Jurisdiction X. Or maybe not even that: Any one of us could of course write a will that tracks the Koranic guidelines for inheritance just because we like how those guidelines work. No need to so much as mention the Koran, Islam, or shari’a by name.
The catch, though, is that even under common law there’s no absolute freedom of contract. You can’t, for instance, sign a binding contract to sell illegal drugs; it’ll be voided as being against public policy. Presumably so would any financial or family arrangement under a shari’a contract that led to, say, women being treated as property — although given the lengths to which the UK seems willing to go to honor multicultural values, who knows anymore? The most interesting thing about the Telegraph piece are the quotes from prominent Muslims opposing the idea, which is in line with my suspicions from the other day about how limited Muslim opposition really was to that dopey police ad with the puppy. Yet again we find a “well meaning” British liberal encouraging separatism and it falls to Muslim community leaders to take him aside and have a word about assimilation. Exit quotation from a Muslim Labour MP: “What Lord Phillips and the archbishop are discussing is something that is completely outside their area of understanding.”
Update: Forget about shari’a courts, though, adds Phillips. Whew!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
The U.K. will be an Islamic Republic within 30 yrs.
ThePrez on July 3, 2008 at 6:27 PM
If we`re lucky and not a full-blown Gaza terro-state.
ThePrez on July 3, 2008 at 6:28 PM
My granda was prescient after all…. he always said no good would come of the British…. this was after he left Ireland, of course.
MNDavenotPC on July 3, 2008 at 6:28 PM
Man, this is just not good.
What about sovereignty? Rule of law, crap like that!
dc84123 on July 3, 2008 at 6:28 PM
Cafeteria Sharia!
It’s got a ring to it.
I wonder if the “Asians” in the UK would agree to it?
aquaviva on July 3, 2008 at 6:31 PM
I thought parliament made law and the courts applied them?
If a muslim has a dispute with a non-muslim whose law trumps?
Beto Ochoa on July 3, 2008 at 6:31 PM
With Prince Charles promising to call himself Defender of the Faiths, the infiltration of shari’a in every level of British society is complete.
Damian G. on July 3, 2008 at 6:32 PM
It’s almost there and it won’t take 30 more years at the rate the Brits are submitting…
Liberty or Death on July 3, 2008 at 6:34 PM
Eh, I suppose if it’s just for mediation, etc. Who cares if it’s sharia, a coin flip, or eeny meeny miny moe? I think I can get my head around where he is coming from. My gut, on the other hand, is screaming “NOOOO!!!”
trubble on July 3, 2008 at 6:34 PM
Well, let’s pray (pun not intended) that this holds true.
Damian G. on July 3, 2008 at 6:36 PM
It would be like all of the 30 or so countrys that were once not controlled by Muslims but are now. Once Muslims have enough fire power they dictate everything. The popular vote is of no consequence. Society is ruled by the spilling of blood.
JonRoss on July 3, 2008 at 6:38 PM
Those wigs crack me up…whenever I see them wearing them I think of the trial scene in Pink Floyd’s The Wall..the magistrate is basically an azz with a wig on it and legs.
I guess a wig is fitting since it seems the Brits have flipped their wigs when it comes to their fast approaching complete submittal to Islam…nice knowing ya chaps…good luck cause you’ll need it!
Liberty or Death on July 3, 2008 at 6:39 PM
30 days?
LegendHasIt on July 3, 2008 at 6:40 PM
Democracy. Not such a great idea after all. (easy to overthrow)
faraway on July 3, 2008 at 6:40 PM
Yeah, that’s pretty much my feeling, after AP’s explanation of exactly what this judge means. I think if they grant this, however, they should get extra-strict when it comes to prosecuting Muslims for actual crimes, or at least as strict as they are with everyone else. No light sentences for “honor” violence because it is “just a cultural difference.” If they’re going to let them decide marriage contracts, then they have to agree to live even more within the confines of English law in every other regard.
jimmy the notable on July 3, 2008 at 6:43 PM
So Suadi Arabia is introducing Judeo-Christian law?
tarpon on July 3, 2008 at 6:45 PM
I got a two point essay for you Chief Justice. No make that three because I will use the “!”
- The Cat
MirCat on July 3, 2008 at 6:46 PM
Don’t let Ginsburg, Breyer and Souter see this.
whitetop on July 3, 2008 at 6:47 PM
Bye Bye UK. I hope we are smarter than that but I feel change coming.
Les in NC on July 3, 2008 at 6:50 PM
And we should give thanks to God that we celebrate Independence (from Britian) tomorrow!
ich dien on July 3, 2008 at 6:51 PM
I always had a dream of one day visiting England.
And this douche, with just a few words, demolished any hope of me ever going there. I could handle the laws about self-defense. I could handle the speech restrictions. This is the last nail in the coffin. Roast in hell, you bitch of Muhammed.
MadisonConservative on July 3, 2008 at 6:55 PM
Same strategy as liberals/progressives/socialists. Do anything to gain power then maintain it until no one can say no anymore. This is the battle that is currently being waged in the US. (amnesty for illegal immigrants, banning handguns, court mandated elections/laws). If not for one or two votes on the Supreme Court, Al Gore would be president and handguns would be illegal in your home. How many more Elians and Wacos would we have for anyone who opposes the Democrat leaders? We might start looking more like Zimbabwe before long.
jerseyman on July 3, 2008 at 6:59 PM
Imagine there’s no Islam
It’s hard but you can try
No suicide hijackers coming down at us
Above us only sky
Imagine all those people
Still alive today…..
Imagine there’s no Islamic countries
It’s hard but you can try
No Mohammad for them to kill or die for
And no Imams too
Imagine all the Christians, Jews and Infidels
Living life without them…
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday even the dhimmi judges will join us
And the non-Islamic world will be as one
Imagine no Burkhas
I wonder if you can
No need for Medina or Meca
A brotherhood of non-Islamic woman and man
Imagine all the people
Living without Sharia…
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday even the dhimmi judges will join us
And the non-Islamic world will be as one
MB4 on July 3, 2008 at 7:05 PM
This may be true, but considering the alternatives it is the best there is. Democracies are particularly vulnerable in the first few years (Russia, Germany, China to mention a few democracies that turned totalitarian in short order). A democracy needs a stong-willed people and some protection (luck, God, or external allies) to survive the initial vulnerable period as we are watching first hand in Iraq. The US was fortunate to have a a big ocean to protect her but even so it took a few years to get to the Constitution and a George Washington to set an example of peaceful transition of power to make it work.
jerseyman on July 3, 2008 at 7:09 PM
I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ’s heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it is meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.
- Pope Urban II
MB4 on July 3, 2008 at 7:10 PM
An email between two parties can form the basis of a contract here in California… where is the outcry over that. The Lord Justice makes a valid point. It’s not a submission to Sharia Law at all but rather it is a clarification that would probably pass muster in most US courts. Written contracts or letters of intention are broadly defined in most states.
Those spouting on about Britain becoming a Caliphate need to get out and get some fresh air. Or enjoy a vacation to London. It’s still really nice there despite the prices.
lexhamfox on July 3, 2008 at 7:14 PM
Now remember, we can’t all sign this with an X.
Coronagold on July 3, 2008 at 7:18 PM
If British courts are bound to uphold the terms of shari’a contracts, how exactly are they not then de facto shari’a courts? They are required to understand shari’a jurisprudence and the body of shari’a law regarding any contractual arrangements before the court.
If it walks like a duck…
spmat on July 3, 2008 at 7:18 PM
Have any Muslims ever asked Prince Charles to defend their faith? And if they had, wouldn’t still be up to parliment to give him the title?
snaggletoothie on July 3, 2008 at 7:18 PM
It’ll all be decided long before then. Either it’ll be an Islamic Republic in five to ten years or it won’t be.
Remember the Muslims have a religious duty to conquer through bloodshed. They can barely contain themselves as it is!
aengus on July 3, 2008 at 7:27 PM
This my comment from the Headlines:
Thats a small, irrelevant misconception about Sharia.
The massive, life-or-death misconception about Sharia is that it can be implemented in part - piecemeal.
Muslims believe the sharia is literal the word of Allah therefore the law about throwing homosexuals off cliffs is as important, no more no less, than sharia divorce proceedings or the prohibitions against usury.
A very slim majority going by opinion polls and thats assuming the respondents are telling the truth.
If I were a Muslim jihadi living in Britain I’d be worried that the dhimmi class - judges, social workers, politicians - are pushing too far, too fast at the risk of creating resistance.
aengus on July 3, 2008 at 7:12 PM
aengus on July 3, 2008 at 7:28 PM
I can hear the little girls screams already as they hold them down to butcher their privates.
TheSitRep on July 3, 2008 at 7:35 PM
Except that contracts under shari’a need not be explicit in their terms, nor do they have to meet British standards. There’s more than a thousand years of contract law under shari’a that British courts would be required to uphold if this comes to pass.
spmat on July 3, 2008 at 7:35 PM
A non-muslim shouldn’t agree to having disputes settled in that way and probably won’t. If you don’t like the terms, don’t sign the agreement.
DrSteve on July 3, 2008 at 8:14 PM
I wonder what Madona thinks of all this………
………… actually, I really don’t.
Seven Percent Solution on July 3, 2008 at 8:25 PM
Fixed.
aengus on July 3, 2008 at 8:27 PM
Why is he dressed like Santa Clause?
Maxx on July 3, 2008 at 8:30 PM
Londonistan, indeed.
WisCon on July 3, 2008 at 8:57 PM
This guys been snorting the powder from his wig to long.
After all nationalism is such a horrid thing, unless you bring it with you.
I’m sure the British people stand up and demand that their own laws will be upheld, they have all those constitutional amendments that let them do that…oh wait.
Speakup on July 3, 2008 at 9:20 PM
Outrageous. Off with his head!
wepeople on July 3, 2008 at 9:33 PM
A little Shari’a never hurt anybody.
(Problem is, though, that there is no such thing as a little Shari’a Law, just as there is no such thing as a camel’s nose under the tent not ending up turning into an entire dromedary in your lap.)
profitsbeard on July 3, 2008 at 9:35 PM
I think you’re missing the point.
The advantage of the British Constitution was always that it was unwritten and so it couldn’t be challenged and dismembered by lawyers.
The advantage of the US Constitution is that its writers virtually set it in stone with no ambiguity so that it could not be misinterpreted by lawyers.
When liberals get a hold of a society they can and will tear it to pieces.
The fact that something happens to be written down rather than silently understood is not a real protection because the words of a document can be twisted to mean the opposite of what they actually mean.
aengus on July 3, 2008 at 9:52 PM
Eugene Volokh had a good post on this subject a few months ago:
The Archbishop of Canterbury and Sharia Law
Scrutineer on July 3, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Islam is a powerful and relentless portable theocratic state. Watching every major institution crumble rather than make any sort of stand for Enlghtenment values has become an intellectual death march.
Beagle on July 3, 2008 at 10:49 PM
I wish somebody would film a short video for YouTube showing a muslim cleric telling Bush to convert and submit the country to islam, or else. Then Dubya and the Secret Service all pull out guns and push the cleric and his buddies to the edge of a well.
The mullah says “This is madness!”
Dubya says “THIS IS AMERICA!” then kicks him down the well.
Tony737 on July 4, 2008 at 12:03 AM
The British judges always looked like clowns…now they sound like clowns, too!!
landlines on July 4, 2008 at 2:14 AM
The weight of the wig is truly flattening the scalp.
Kini on July 4, 2008 at 2:22 AM
The end of a once great empire.
Johan Klaus on July 4, 2008 at 2:53 AM
Today at the superstore I saw a talking puppy toy. Press the paw and it sings
“This little puppy goes to market
This little puppy stays home
This little puppy has a biscuit
This little puppy has none”
They changed the famous nursery rhyme from ‘piggy’ to ‘puppy’, and changed ‘roast beef’ to ‘a biscuit’
thus placating muslims and vegetarians at the expense of our cultural memories
I wanted to behead the puppy toy in culturally sensitive islamic style protest against the perversion of my traditions
Terrorism has payed off big time
entagor on July 4, 2008 at 2:57 AM
Actually, what the Chief Justice suggests is racist.
Think about it: He believes that some people were born with Sharia DNA in them which they can´t even shake off after immigrating to the UK.
That´s the irony of the British Left. They believe they are distancing themselves from Britain´s colonial past, whereas in fact they treat Muslim immigrants as aliens who shall be put to a different (read: lower) standard.
Niko on July 4, 2008 at 5:11 AM
They still wear those freaking WIGS over there?
The English - they are a funny lot!
jake-the-goose on July 4, 2008 at 7:40 AM
The simple truth is that the radicals in the colonies who declared independence from these twits were basically the forefathers of today’s conservatives, decrying the ham-handed government nannies of London.
The Brit-libs are just a few decades ahead of our own dipshit liberals, and have been for two hundred years. They are the role models of the Democrat party.
Jaibones on July 4, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Any takers on bets for the MUSLIM takeover of ENGLAND??? 10 years 15, 20, or 50 years??? I don’t think it will take 50, my guess is 15, the way they are going today. I hope the US of A is paying real close attention to this development from a high ranking JURIST in GREAT BRITAIN…
pueblo1032 on July 4, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Apparently it has to get worse before it gets better.
Akzed on July 4, 2008 at 1:59 PM
This English judge is a complete fool. This is how far along we are, folks. Common sense and reason are being washed away. How many times have any of you read newspapers or watched news programs astonished at the ignorance of the leadership’s viewpoints? I scratch my head every day, astonished that politicians/professors/judges are so incredibly ignorant of the realities of our world.
Diana West wrote a fantastic book called, “Death of The Grown-up: How America’s Arrested Development is Bringing Down Western Civilization.”
In it, she lays out an indisputable case showing that the farther America strayed from the Biblical principles we were founded on, the more juvenile, unwilling and unable we became in addressing anything of substance. The second half of her book shows that while America has become more addicted to the trivial things in life, Islam has gone IN THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE DIRECTION! They have become more adult, more willing to address problems head-on. She posits that we are ripe for take-over by the Jihadis because of our juvenile mindset. I highly recommend this book.
Another book well worth reading is, “Londonistan,” written by Melanie Phillips.
Ms. Phillips shows the reader how England became a Dhimmi state. Lays out the entire process (which did not take long at all!). Her central point is striking: The only reason Muslims have become as influential and a “protected class” in England is because England removed the foundation it was built on. That foundation was the Judeo-Christian ethic. Therefore, with no foundation, new builders came in and built A NEW FOUNDATION.
Luke 6:49 But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great. KJV
England refused to “heareth” and will now do the bidding of their new slave masters—Islam.
Skidd on July 4, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Skidd,
Londinistan is a load of bollocks. So is most of your tripe. The kind of contract that the Lord Justice is talking about would be viable in most US courts as a form of contract yet you would not accuse the US Courts of being supine to Muslim sensibilities.
You say the UK is a Dhimmi state. If that is the case then why is the UK fighting in both Afghanistan and Iraq? Britain’s foundation of law is the magna carta and the majority of priciples are based not on Judeo-Christian legal model butrather Norman and Saxon models…. that why they juries are so important in British Common law… find a jury in the old testament. How many laws from the Old Testament (not the ten but the couple dozen throughout) which are still codified and viable today. Britain and the British will never be slaves despite your ignorant froth. Yes… the professors, judges, and leaders have brains… you are the ignorant one.
lexhamfox on July 4, 2008 at 6:10 PM
Hi, sir. I wonder if it’s possible to debate anything without getting angry and vetting out personal attacks? So many angry people on this site….
Do you understand what the Magna Carta is? Have you ever read it? Do you know it’s history and the history of it’s time? Have you ever wondered why it was needed?
The Magna Carta had direct Christian influence in it’s reasons for creating it. It was penned to hold the kings to the very laws that they held other people to. It reminded the kings that though they were top-dog down here, in the grand scheme of things, they were not TOP DOG. God is.
Don’t believe me? Here is what it says in the number 1 postion in the Magna Carta:
1. In the first place we have granted to God,
The number one position. See it? It’s God.
Skidd on July 4, 2008 at 7:22 PM
“There is no reason why principles of Sharia law, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution.” Unless you believe in the separation of church and state. In this case it would be the Mosque of another country dictating UK law.
This is a great example of what generations of bad food and inbreeding does to a mind. That applies to the sharia fans too.
Christine on July 5, 2008 at 3:05 PM