1 Aqtab Siddiqi: "It operates on a low budget, it operates on a very small timescale and the process and the laws of evidence are far more lenient..."
 
Sounds like a carefully worded description of a lynch-mob.
 

2 Correct me if I'm reading this wrong - it seems that the police arrested those responsible, but witnesses and the victim showed little interest in pressing charges (and, presumably, providing statements), thus leading to the release on bail of the suspects. At which point, a totally non-official bunch of elders got together, and hashed out an arrangement with *no legal footing whatsoever*, which could not possibly have been pursued in a UK court. A gentleman's agreement, if you will.
 
The UK has no 'religious courts legal authority', nor will it ever have. Get your facts straight. As for Bluto's ridiculous assertion that what is effectively an out-of-court settlement poses a 'direct threat to [British] sovereignty' - get a grip. This is pure hyperbole.

I'm not in any way speaking up in favour of what occurred. I certainly do not believe in this 'legal pluralism' nonsense - I've no time for minorities trying to create their own encampments within our borders. But this particular story is a non-event.

3

Sharia law could come to the U.S. Some form of it may already be here!

Parties, muslim or otherwise, could agree to submit to Sharia law in civil matters where state and federal law does not otherwise exempt such by statute or case law. They could mutually agree as to the Rules of Evidence to be used (or agree to none at all), who will arbitrate the case, and the degree of weight given to the testimony of a witness i.e. greater weight accorded to the testimony of witnesses who are Muslim with less weight given to women and/or infidels.

This is something the mutually agreed parties could legally do now in civil cases in accordance with Sharia law, subject to state and federal law and governed thereby.

It's called arbitration. Parties can mutually agree to enter into binding arbitration, mutually choose the arbitrator or tribunal to hear the case, and mutually agree on the particular body of law, i.e. statutes and case law, to be applied.

See also: [Link: www.mediate.com...]

You've probably have entered into arbitration agreements and perhaps don't even realize it, i.e. a clause in a credit card application and/or their associated "terms of use" addendum, which become effective usually upon your first use of the credit card where arbitration, in lieu of the Courts, is agreed upon and/or you are deemed to have consented to arbitration by said use, and said arbritration case will be determined under the laws of a designated state like Delaware. Most states, if not all, allow for mutually agreed upon arbitration that will be binding in the Courts upon the parties with few exceptions and/or conditions.

As the BBC article stated: "This is because under English law people may devise their own way to settle a dispute before an agreed third party." Unless a statute states otherwise, we in America operate under English common law.

However, keep in mind that parties can NOT agree to arbitrate criminal cases. The article is correct when it stated: "What they mustn't do - and this must never happen - is to stray into the field of criminal matters. That simply would never be acceptable."

In a criminal cases, the victim is not a party that can agree to arbitration. The STATE or FEDS are the aggrieved party not the victim. And it goes without saying, that the accused does not have a right to arbitration in a criminal matter.

As to remedies in those cases eligible for arbitration, i.e., like contract disputes, Muslims need to realize that the prevailing party is not entitled to a severed head, limb, and/or beating for the losing partys failure to abide by a term in a contract like a default on payment. Such act and/or remedy would be deemed a crime.

4 If anyone other is feeling guilty about anything I will be sitting magistrate in the Buddhist court in Manhattan.
For those out of staters we will be offering a fly-in fly-out service at all 3 of the major metropolitan airports.
A bit of professional advertisement here....                                    STAY AWAY FROM THE CATHOLIC COURTS

5 This is being blown out of proportion. What we are talking about is people privately settling disputes out of court, except instead of doing it in someones house over coffee they are doing it with a religious leader of some sort present - that's all! Arbitration has been going on for centuries, no-one is claiming that these courts have or should have ANY legal power or be mandatory in ANY way what-so-ever - you either take them or leave them.

The problem is that while we waste time on stupid non-issues like this, there is a very REAL and growing risk of hostile take-over and implementation of actual sick laws and punishments such as blasphemy law, stoning and amputation - these real threats are being ignored while we piss around with century-old arbitration crap and veil-banning.

6 John Ryan: You little prick. You were doing well, then you had to bring someone elses religion into it.

7 Muslim arbitration has allowed women to be treated like chattel in Canada. It's even gone so far as to allow forced clitoral mutilation and beatings.


Why couldn't it happen in Britain? The Brits are even further left than the Canucks, and islam already has an Empire within British borders.


Joe, can you fly the Union Jack wherever you want, and wear a t-shirt with a pig on it wherever you want? Just curious.

8 Bargholz - all I can say is that the media, the bits you over the pond get to hear, are vastly out of touch with feelings on the ground. Don't beleive the hype.

9 Oh,. and in answer to your question - yes, I can fly the Union Jack wherever I please, and I can wear a pig on my chest if I so choose. As for the Cross of St George - England, not Britain - well, the lefties frown upon that...

10 This is being blown out of proportion.

Women have virtually no rights under sharia law, but no big deal says the Leftwing multi-cultist.  Liberalism is a mental disorder.

11 Apparently the concept of equality before the law means jack with this talk of sharia courts in the west.  I wonder how those of african descent, who fought for so long for it, will feel about this growing trend when it starts rearing its head more often here in the States.

Johnny Knox, if they (muslims, leftists, take it how you want) follow their normal pattern, once they get civil courts they'll start in on wanting their own criminal courts.  You're already starting to see it in some parts of the states with language-specific courts, so why wouldn't they push for ethnic or religious specific courts as well?

12 Joe:


You guys with your feet on the ground better take control of your country back from the cretins who are running it before it's too late.


I see the same thing happening to us here. Things like Pelosi and the San Fran contingent gaining power, while a candy-assed freshman Congressman gets lippy with the President, are good indications of how much power the left has wrested from normal folk.

13 I saw this link at a previous thread.
Its suppossed to be a Lebonese girl, and the guy who left it was saying 'this is what they want to kill'

Well, Sharia kills this ...

http://ikbis.com/beirut%20girl/shot/1300

Sharia kills all that is good about that link.
Sharia is poison to the water of freedom.

Frankly, the adoption of any Sharia court in the USA must constitute a direct attack on American soil. Whatever soil such a court occupies, will be in enemy hands while that court remains. it should be the obvious duty of any citizen who loves his Constitution, and honors the founding fathers, to strike against such an abomination on US soil.

Is that 'felonious' enough for everyone?

USA all the way!

14

It won't happen. The inhuman barbarity of sharia law is a documented fact. Much as they might bleat about low-level shit such as community arbitration, even the left would get nervous about implementing sharia as an alternative legal path.

15 Nice to see you Joe Public.

I think you have a lot of good points. I would only be concerned that Sharia is actually advancing itself in subtle ways. Some 'arbitration' has allowed women and children to be abused even in non-muslim families.

I have seen slippery slope legal precedents take hold in parts of Montana, where out of state enviromental groups negotiate with federal agancies, and the people of the state I live in get bypassed. Just as one example.

Sharia is way more dangerous, and I think it is correct of us to watch what legal decisions are reached based on faith courts.

I would rather see a provision for hardship ruling system dealing with religious belief, in a regular secular court. A secular court could provide a layer of protection to family members who do not want a Sharia style decision, but are pressured by family, and community. The court provides a scapegoat for the victim to shift blame to.

I don't know, its complicated, and I just want to see thright thing done.

Guard those flags and the pigs as well

USA all the way!