Can you actually post without babbling or comparing anything to the US? my god you are either obsessed of have penis envy.CameronPoe wrote:
"...mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution". Same as the Jewish courts they have over there in the UK.
PS The Iraqi constitution, the one supervised by the US, states that all law must come from Sharia.
Or he's pointing out that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...............
Essentially he's just stating the obvious.
Except it would be binding under British law insofar as any contract is binding under British law.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
They don't.deeznutz1245 wrote:
My question is this: if it is a contractual agrement other than British law, how would either party expect it to be governed by British law when one or both parties faults?
As long as punishments don't contravene British law, then I don't really see any problem with this - it's like having a gentleman's agreement - it's not legally binding, but is informally binding - only in this case, any agreement entered into under Sharia law wouldn't be binding by British law, but may be by Sharia law.
Essentially he's just stating the obvious.
Last edited by ZombieVampire! (2008-07-04 07:21:45)
Poe actually made a good point ya know.usmarine2 wrote:
Can you actually post without babbling or comparing anything to the US? my god you are either obsessed of have penis envy.CameronPoe wrote:
"...mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution". Same as the Jewish courts they have over there in the UK.
PS The Iraqi constitution, the one supervised by the US, states that all law must come from Sharia.
that not the point. also, that is iraq, not england.ATG wrote:
Poe actually made a good point ya know.usmarine2 wrote:
Can you actually post without babbling or comparing anything to the US? my god you are either obsessed of have penis envy.CameronPoe wrote:
"...mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution". Same as the Jewish courts they have over there in the UK.
PS The Iraqi constitution, the one supervised by the US, states that all law must come from Sharia.
So, whether he makes sense is irrelevant, he should stop picking on the US?
lol....nobody from any country can throw stones. fact. again, not the point as usual, but it just demonstrates the useless existence of this section.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Or he's pointing out that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...............
Assuming you side with your country, perhaps.usmarine2 wrote:
lol....nobody from any country can throw stones. fact. again, not the point as usual, but it just demonstrates the useless existence of this section.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Or he's pointing out that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...............
or just talk about the OP maybe? for a change? maybe? for once? Not Iraq and the US since it has NOTHING to do with the story.ZombieVampire! wrote:
So, whether he makes sense is irrelevant, he should stop picking on the US?
But it's always the same fucking point.ATG wrote:
Poe actually made a good point ya know.usmarine2 wrote:
Can you actually post without babbling or comparing anything to the US? my god you are either obsessed of have penis envy.CameronPoe wrote:
"...mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution". Same as the Jewish courts they have over there in the UK.
PS The Iraqi constitution, the one supervised by the US, states that all law must come from Sharia.
Malloy must go
Did they play a football match?
Or maybe it does given that the OP is criticising Britain for a percieved bending to the will of Sharia law, and he was comparing it to another situation involving Sharia law.usmarine2 wrote:
or just talk about the OP maybe? for a change? maybe? for once? Not Iraq and the US since it has NOTHING to do with the story.ZombieVampire! wrote:
So, whether he makes sense is irrelevant, he should stop picking on the US?
sharia law where sharia law is the norm, the ME. not england. sorry, his point is not even close to being a point.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Or maybe it does given that the OP is criticising Britain for a percieved bending to the will of Sharia law, and he was comparing it to another situation involving Sharia law.usmarine2 wrote:
or just talk about the OP maybe? for a change? maybe? for once? Not Iraq and the US since it has NOTHING to do with the story.ZombieVampire! wrote:
So, whether he makes sense is irrelevant, he should stop picking on the US?
The fact that you think it's a bad point doesn't change it, and you're ignoring the fact that a Western power had a big influence over those who chose to use Sharia law.usmarine2 wrote:
sharia law where sharia law is the norm, the ME. not england. sorry, his point is not even close to being a point.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Or maybe it does given that the OP is criticising Britain for a percieved bending to the will of Sharia law, and he was comparing it to another situation involving Sharia law.usmarine2 wrote:
or just talk about the OP maybe? for a change? maybe? for once? Not Iraq and the US since it has NOTHING to do with the story.
once again, has nothing to do with the OP. you just want to play the compare game around here, or discuss the story?
Except that I've demonstrating it does, because both involve the attitude of Western governments towards Sharia law.
No, that is not the point of the OP or the story. You are just drawing that conclusion so you can talk about the US and iraq, thus diverting from the actual story as usual.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Except that I've demonstrating it does, because both involve the attitude of Western governments towards Sharia law.
Fight Fight Fight!!!
bubs and marine always lighten the mood in DST.
bubs and marine always lighten the mood in DST.
Last edited by Vilham (2008-07-04 07:57:24)
Actually, I'm not talking about the US or Iraq. And the point of the OP is the attitude of a Western government in relation to Sharia law.usmarine2 wrote:
No, that is not the point of the OP or the story. You are just drawing that conclusion so you can talk about the US and iraq, thus diverting from the actual story as usual.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Except that I've demonstrating it does, because both involve the attitude of Western governments towards Sharia law.
Or isn't it? How would you describe it?
The point of the OP is why the Brits are letting islam dictate their laws.ZombieVampire! wrote:
And the point of the OP is the attitude of a Western government in relation to Sharia law.
Or isn't it? How would you describe it?
The OP has yet to establish that the Brits are letting Islam dictate their laws, and CamPoe was bringing up another situation in which a non-Islamic government viewed Sharia law as acceptable.
Apparently we let Jews do their Beth Din shit here, so tbh, If they're allowed to do their shit...
The right way forward would be to ban all sorts of religious ruling. And to be fair to that judge, he wasn't talking about outright Sharia law and all that
The right way forward would be to ban all sorts of religious ruling. And to be fair to that judge, he wasn't talking about outright Sharia law and all that
well if you read the story, they dont seem to mention Iraq of the US. Wonder why?ZombieVampire! wrote:
The OP has yet to establish that the Brits are letting Islam dictate their laws, and CamPoe was bringing up another situation in which a non-Islamic government viewed Sharia law as acceptable.
Becasue they were reporting news, not doing an opinion piece on the wider implications.
Or, perhaps, they didn't think it relevant. Doesn't make them right.
Or, perhaps, they didn't think it relevant. Doesn't make them right.
Amazingly, I agree with you.B.Schuss wrote:
I don't know what the big deal is. As the Lord Chief Justice said, as long as people enter into that contract voluntarily, what's the problem. No one is forcing them to follow sharia law if they don't want to.
Less amazingly, I also agree with you.Pubic wrote:
Sharia can go fuck itself.
Mek-Stizzle wrote:
The right way forward would be to ban all sorts of religious ruling.
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.