England's Top Judge Bows to Sharia Law - XDTalk Forums - Your HS2000/SA-XD Information Source!

**PackerfanXD** · 07-08-2008, 06:52 PM

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Surrender!

Surrender!
By Cal Thomas

So this is how it ends: not with a bang, but a whimper.

The most senior judge in England has declared that Islamic legal principles in Sharia law may be used within Muslim communities in Britain to settle marital arguments and regulate finance. Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said, "Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law."

In his speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips said Muslims in Britain could use Islamic legal principles as long as punishments -- and divorce rulings -- comply with English law. Sharia law does not comply with English law. It is a law unto itself.

And so the English who gave us the Magna Carta in 1215, William Blackstone and the foundation of American law are slowly succumbing to the dictates of intolerant Islam and sowing seeds of their own destruction.

The Iranian and Kurdish Women's Rights Organization (IKWRO), an umbrella group of activists who work in Muslim countries to liberate women from the dark side of this oppressive force, according to Womensphere.wordpress.com, identifies Sharia family law as the fundamental basis for discrimination against women in the Muslim world, including communities in the United Kingdom.

Here are just some of the "benefits" British Muslim women can look forward to if Sharia law replaces English law: The Muslim woman cannot marry without parental approval, worsening the problem of forced marriage; marriages can be conducted without the presence of a bride, as long as the guardian consents, creating a climate for underage and early marriage; Muslim women may only marry Muslim men.

It gets worse. A Muslim man can divorce his wife by repudiating her; they have no obligation to support a former wife, or her children after the divorce; women are prohibited from divorcing husbands without his consent; abuse is not grounds for a woman to end a marriage; in matters of inheritance, sons are entitled to twice as much of an estate as daughters.

Divorced women must remain single. If they remarry they can lose custody of their children. There is no similar requirement for a man. Child custody often reverts to the father at a preset age, even if the father has been abusive.

It is impossible to reconcile this antiquated "law" with English law, so what could Lord Phillips mean when he says that Sharia law can be used in Muslim communities as long as such laws comply with English law? This will mean English law must become subordinate to Sharia law. This is Dhimmitude, an Islamic system of religious apartheid begun in the 7th century that forces all other religions and cultures to accept an inferior status once Muslims become the majority.

Maryland's Court of Appeals recently denied a Sharia divorce to a Pakistani man. The man's wife of 20 years had filed for divorce. To circumvent having to share their $2 million estate and other marital assets, he went to the Pakistani embassy and applied for an Islamic divorce. The man wanted to invoke what is known as talaq, in which the husband says, "I divorce you" three times and it's done.

The Maryland court said, "If we were to affirm the use of talaq, controlled as it is by the husband, a wife, a resident of this state, would never be able to consummate a divorce action filed by her in which she seeks a division of marital property" and the talaq "directly deprives the wife of the due process she is entitled to when she initiates divorce litigation. The lack and deprivation of due process is itself contrary to (Maryland's) public policy."

British Muslims who wish to live under Sharia law might have stayed in the countries from which they came -- or return to them. But their objective appears to be domination of England, not assimilation. This also seems to be the goal for Muslims in other countries with large and growing Muslim populations.

There is no due process under Sharia law. Lord Phillips has signed the death warrant for his nation if his opinion becomes the law of England. It's one thing to fight a war and lose it. It's quite another to willingly surrender without a struggle.

CalThomas@tribune.com

RIP UK.

**BOFH** · 07-08-2008, 06:57 PM

Here is a pic of the judge...nice getup

Nothing like a guy in a wig and a dress to sell out your country to the RoP.

**Cannibul** · 07-08-2008, 08:15 PM

Contrast that with this article.

FOXNews.com - Case Dismissed: UK Chief Justice Lays Down Law on Sharia - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News

**PackerfanXD** · 07-08-2008, 08:17 PM

Yours is dated July 4th. Mine is from today. Which is right?

**Cannibul** · 07-08-2008, 08:52 PM

Look at it this way. The article I linked to was reported the same in several news sources. Your article comes from an opinion site.

And I seem to recall that the speech at the Mosque was earlier this year.

Ok. It appears that he gave the speech at the Mosque on the 3rd of July.

Sharia law SHOULD be used in Britain, says UK's top judge | Mail Online

That link has an article about it. And actually I can see where he is coming from there. As long as Sharia law doesn't come into conflict with English law then let them use it.

I would actually prefer that they be told assimilate or leave. But of course we know that's not going to happen in today's climate.

**PackerfanXD** · 07-08-2008, 08:55 PM

I concede defeat.

**Cannibul** · 07-08-2008, 08:57 PM

One question about your sig?

Why should we free them? They broke the law. They covered up a shooting. That's against the law.

**PackerfanXD** · 07-09-2008, 04:43 AM

Because I believe the testimony of two BP agents over the testimony of a drug dealer.

Palmguy · 07-09-2008, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannibul

Why should we free them? They broke the law. They covered up a shooting. That's against the law.

The drug smuggler that was shot broke the law (multiple laws; drug trafficking, border violations,etc)...why was he set free to continue to commit his crimes?

**Cannibul** · 07-09-2008, 06:16 AM

You US Justice system at work. Happens all the time. And when sworn Federal Agents break the law and cover up a shooting they are going to get burned.

And you can not deny that shots were fired and the shooting was covered up. And that's what got them thrown in prison.

07-08-2008, 06:52 PM	#1
PackerfanXD XDTalk 5K Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Ground zero of the invasion Posts: 6,910 Blog Entries: 1	England's Top Judge Bows to Sharia Law RealClearPolitics - Articles - Surrender! Surrender! By Cal Thomas So this is how it ends: not with a bang, but a whimper. The most senior judge in England has declared that Islamic legal principles in Sharia law may be used within Muslim communities in Britain to settle marital arguments and regulate finance. Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said, "Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law." In his speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips said Muslims in Britain could use Islamic legal principles as long as punishments -- and divorce rulings -- comply with English law. Sharia law does not comply with English law. It is a law unto itself. And so the English who gave us the Magna Carta in 1215, William Blackstone and the foundation of American law are slowly succumbing to the dictates of intolerant Islam and sowing seeds of their own destruction. The Iranian and Kurdish Women's Rights Organization (IKWRO), an umbrella group of activists who work in Muslim countries to liberate women from the dark side of this oppressive force, according to Womensphere.wordpress.com, identifies Sharia family law as the fundamental basis for discrimination against women in the Muslim world, including communities in the United Kingdom. Here are just some of the "benefits" British Muslim women can look forward to if Sharia law replaces English law: The Muslim woman cannot marry without parental approval, worsening the problem of forced marriage; marriages can be conducted without the presence of a bride, as long as the guardian consents, creating a climate for underage and early marriage; Muslim women may only marry Muslim men. It gets worse. A Muslim man can divorce his wife by repudiating her; they have no obligation to support a former wife, or her children after the divorce; women are prohibited from divorcing husbands without his consent; abuse is not grounds for a woman to end a marriage; in matters of inheritance, sons are entitled to twice as much of an estate as daughters. Divorced women must remain single. If they remarry they can lose custody of their children. There is no similar requirement for a man. Child custody often reverts to the father at a preset age, even if the father has been abusive. It is impossible to reconcile this antiquated "law" with English law, so what could Lord Phillips mean when he says that Sharia law can be used in Muslim communities as long as such laws comply with English law? This will mean English law must become subordinate to Sharia law. This is Dhimmitude, an Islamic system of religious apartheid begun in the 7th century that forces all other religions and cultures to accept an inferior status once Muslims become the majority. Maryland's Court of Appeals recently denied a Sharia divorce to a Pakistani man. The man's wife of 20 years had filed for divorce. To circumvent having to share their $2 million estate and other marital assets, he went to the Pakistani embassy and applied for an Islamic divorce. The man wanted to invoke what is known as talaq, in which the husband says, "I divorce you" three times and it's done. The Maryland court said, "If we were to affirm the use of talaq, controlled as it is by the husband, a wife, a resident of this state, would never be able to consummate a divorce action filed by her in which she seeks a division of marital property" and the talaq "directly deprives the wife of the due process she is entitled to when she initiates divorce litigation. The lack and deprivation of due process is itself contrary to (Maryland's) public policy." British Muslims who wish to live under Sharia law might have stayed in the countries from which they came -- or return to them. But their objective appears to be domination of England, not assimilation. This also seems to be the goal for Muslims in other countries with large and growing Muslim populations. There is no due process under Sharia law. Lord Phillips has signed the death warrant for his nation if his opinion becomes the law of England. It's one thing to fight a war and lose it. It's quite another to willingly surrender without a struggle. CalThomas@tribune.com RIP UK. __________________ An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject. -Author unknown.

07-08-2008, 08:17 PM	#4
PackerfanXD XDTalk 5K Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Ground zero of the invasion Posts: 6,910 Blog Entries: 1	Yours is dated July 4th. Mine is from today. Which is right? __________________ An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject. -Author unknown.

07-08-2008, 08:55 PM	#6
PackerfanXD XDTalk 5K Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Ground zero of the invasion Posts: 6,910 Blog Entries: 1	I concede defeat. __________________ An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject. -Author unknown.

07-09-2008, 04:43 AM	#8
PackerfanXD XDTalk 5K Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Ground zero of the invasion Posts: 6,910 Blog Entries: 1	Because I believe the testimony of two BP agents over the testimony of a drug dealer. __________________ An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject. -Author unknown.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-08-2008, 06:57 PM	#2
BOFH XDTalk 100 Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 272	Here is a pic of the judge...nice getup Nothing like a guy in a wig and a dress to sell out your country to the RoP.