Reader comments are listed below. Comments are currently closed and new comments are no longer being accepted.
Sharia Law simply is one of many BAD parts of the religion of terrorism. If they truly want to peacefully co-exist with all of us "apostates" who either don't worship a "supreme being" or worship a different one, let them begin NOW to "out" the radical terror-preaching imams, "out" the radical terror-preaching mosques and "out" the radicals and terrorists attending the same mosques the supposedly peaceful ones attend.
Western nations shouldn't have religious legal systems. Period. The "strong social pressure" the "voluntary" religious legal systems employ is exactly why. There is no way a Muslim woman is going to get a fair shake in the Sharia system against male relatives.
To my knowledge, the SISTERS of the deceased, who contest the last will and testament of the husband of the woman who wishes to have the will upheld, are ALSO WOMEN .
What is the point of your post re treatment of WOMEN under Sharia law?
Or might it be possible you didn't read the article but perhaps only its title? In any case, there is no "excellent news" yet, because the case has not been resolved yet.
Just curious how your mind works. :)
In business, it is quite common for the parties to agree to submit their case to foreign law and arbitration by some mutually recognized body. Such arbitration awards can then be normally executed by the legal system, as long as they don't run counter to public policy ("ordre public"); but they are not recognized "if a court feels that enforcement of the arbitral award 'would violate the forum state's most basic notions of morality and justice' (US Supreme Court)." See here: http://www.arbitration-icca.org/media/0/12277202358270/bckstiegel_public...
I would think, the same rules should apply also regarding the use of Sharia in Western countries. If consenting adults wish to submit their case to arbitration by some religious council, they should be free to do so; but in order to be valid, the resulting decision must be in accordance with Western fundamental norms, such as equality of the sexes.
My initial thought is the doctrine of "ordre public" in business law may still be bound and limited by the law of the jurisdiction where a case emanates in matters of family law and law of wills & trusts, so that the case reported in the article will still have to "clear" the messy commingling of religious law and secular law in Greece.
Tsipras makes a good move. Hope his action will prevail, somehow .
< muslimcanadian.blogspot.com/2010/09/problem-of-individual-muslim-and.html >.
Just to explain, in a way that Erasmus does not explain (so that we can all be clear). Western civilisation has, for more than 1,000 years, developed via a system of laws enacted by national governments, legal rulings based upon tests against that framework and (broadly) a Judeo-Christian cultaure of equality and fairness based on the accepted view of “the people” (with changes usually adopted following a democratic vote).
The upshot of all this is that in the West we have, by and large, a society that agrees to live by these tried and tested laws and systems; in this way, we not only know what we can expect from our fellow men and women in terms of responsibility and behaviour but we also have a vast shared acceptance of the consequences - and, indeed, penalties - when these legal, societal and cultural bonds are not adhered to. We all agree to live by these rules.
But not Muslims. And I am not referring to fanatical Muslims. I am talking about the everyday, soccer-playing next door neighbor, your daughter’s mate from school, the lovely couple who run the corner store. They accept NONE of it. Yes, they are coming along for the ride until there are enough Muslim MPs to change the law. But there is not one single Muslim who will accept anything less than the eventual adoption of Sharia law in the UK (and Europe).
No one should be surprised by this. Sharia law and Islam are inseparable. But Sharia law and Western civilisation are anethema to one another. Western law and culture is based on precedent and widespread custom and practice as well as democratic mandate. Sharia law is based on religious belief.
Look, for my money, all religion - any belief that there is some all powerful being with its own set of rules - is a mental health problem. People who believe this weird crap need support and counselling.
But one thing is for sure. Western society and Sharia law are like matter and antimatter. The two cannot coexist side by side. I have worked in Muslim countries and had many Muslim friends. Sometimes people say to me that they do not like or trust Muslims which is ridiculous because, apart from the mental health problem, people are different and those professing the Muslim faith come in all flavours. But when you sit and talk with these Islamophobes you find out that they not actually against the religion - it is Sharia that is the sticking point.
No one has faced up to this issue yet and, indeed, the BBC has armies of editors all briefed to keep discussions about Sharia away from TV, radio and internet programming. But of all the current political passions - Brexit vs. Remain, Left against Right, Capitalism against Socialism, Warmists vs. Sceptics - it is Sharia that will bring blood spilling onto the streets and, ultimately, the potential for civil war in the UK.
Excellent news. There is nothing more barbaric than Sharia Law. However, I will argue, it is a longstanding Civilized law that calls for recognizing or implementing an individual’s religious principles, including Islamic principles. The law must provide for freedom of contract and disposition of property at death. Muslims (like Christians, Jews, and the irreligious) can, therefore, write contracts and wills to implement their understanding of their religious obligations. British/ American law (for example) provides for arbitration with parties’ consent. Muslims can use this to route their disputes to Muslim tribunals, just like Christians, Jews and the irreligious often route their disputes to private arbitrators of their choice. However, I will exclude any muslin female to be subject to any aspect of sharia law directly or indirectly. Clearly, the muslin's men are forcing and abusing women and they are imposing them marriage, mutilations and burkas. Muslin women must be excluded from any effect of sharia law.
all parties need to consent to sharia law but if one doesnt consent then the greek civil law applies. The woman did not consent but the highest tribunal tells her the greek civil law does not apply as a muslim.
Crazy thank go the european court of human rights exist.
greece has the lower average IQ in the European Union along with portugal and Ireland..Strangely enough there are the 3 countries that economically crashed.
>>> greece has the lower average IQ in the European Union along with portugal and Ireland
Could you please provide a legitimate source for this piece of information?
Good - anything, any area, any country, any people, that thinks sharia law is compatible with normal living, needs to be nuked. They are an abysmal apology for human beings.
antimuslim is not whoever asks those who visit to respect the laws of the land.
We in Greece do not forbid them to pray ,or force them to change religion,we just ask that everyone respects what we ,the citizens agreed upon with our laws through the democratic process(law making parliament ).
Antimuslims are those who hunt down minorities and blame them for the one or the other problem in society.Sonmething Greece doesnt do.
Greece only asks ALL religious idiots to respect the same common law.Or else go to a place they feel more confortable doing their perverted things and present them as religion...(paedophilia for example).And in this respect India has a long way to go to be called civilised,having still casts and all...Yes?
Very interesting article indeed, SR. Takes a lot of mulling over. Thanks for posting the link.
I would like to point out the hypocrisy of the economist here. If I am to draw a parallel to India's Triple Talak and the economists biased view- if Greece was India then India would have been drawn out as anti Muslim. But since Greece is European - its not.
maybe the economist should swap the authors and check for itself the inherent biases it is propagating, willfully or not.
So... anyone should be free to take their dispute to a Muslim tribunal, unless a woman is involved? So women, by definition, can't make that choice? That's a curious way to enforce gender equality.
The principle of the validity of ANY legal transaction is that has not been done under duress. Women in muslin society are treated as third class person and subject to abuses and coercion. For that simple reason, they must be subject ONLY to non-religious laws.
How's life in Russia going for you? Enjoying the judo-christian (find it quite funny that people don't realize that Islam is also an evolution of those 2) values of your leader who would rather pay trolls to try and spread hatred in the west than reform his country and provide a better future for his people?
If you still in 2017 dont know why the crisis hit the 3 countries you mentioned,you really dont know a lot about it.....
It was basically all done to save the franco-german bankers,the thieves, the corrupt capitalists that we should be asking to hang today instead of trying to blame the victims..
unless you work for some banksters ,in which case it all makes sense...
As for trying to prove IQ causal relationship with economy ,it just exhibits your IQ ...(less than 0 apparently)
But it clearly does here since MINORS are involved. Parents consenting to marriage of their 11 year old daughter should be prosecuted for pimping. Furthermore, even in business not all cases can be submitted to a parallel structure (e.g. compounding a felony). Last, having parallel structures and hence parallel powers undermines democracy and the rule of law. What if the local mafia don becomes the parallel structure?
>>> But there is not one single Muslim who will accept anything less than the eventual adoption of Sharia law in the UK (and Europe).
Please provide a legitimate source for this assertion. Without it, your comment appears unhinged.