Sharia vs Jewish Law
November 3, 2008 sheikyermami	3 Comments
*  Here we have a few articles combined about creeping sharia, completely ignored by pandering, clueless Westerners who eagerly hasten to defend anything that contradicts their misguided  concept of "tolerance & diversity" as an attack on race or xenophobia. These reality-resistant supporters will be in for a rude awakening if things continue as they do:
Public flogging in Indonesia's Aceh province
 Why Western advocates of 'tolerance & diversity' are wrong:
* To understand the basics about what's at stake here please read this:
[1] The telos or purpose of Shariah is submission. Shariah seeks to establish that Allah is the divine lawgiver and that no other law may properly exist but Allah's law.
[2] Shariah seeks to achieve this goal through persuasion and other non-violent means.  But when necessary and under certain prescribed circumstances the use of force and even full-scale war to achieve the dominance of Shariah worldwide is not only permissible, but obligatory. The use of force or war is termed Jihad.
 [3] The goal of Shariah is to achieve submission to Allah's law by converting or conquering the entire world and the methodology to achieve this end (by persuasion, by force and subjugation, or by murder) is extant doctrine and valid law by virtue of a universal consensus among the authoritative Shariah scholars throughout Islamic history.
More by David Yerushalmi
* There's a sucker born every minute: Britain's establishment seems to be filled with people who don't understand what they're talking about:
Lord Bingham: 'no reason' to exclude Sharia
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the former senior judge in England and Wales
Frances Gibb, Legal Editor/Times Online
Bar Conference 2008: Too many solicitors are no good in court, say barristers |Conservatives warn against 'politically correct' prosecutions | Law could become the preserve of privileged few once more | How healthy is the Bar? Times Law Panel give their views | Is the Bar becoming a two-tier profession?
Muslim communities should have the right to decide their own disputes provided they are subject to our laws, one of Britain's most senior legal figures has said.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, who has recently stepped down as senior law lord, said he could see "no reason" why a devout Muslim, provided he or she was "acting voluntarily and without coercion", should not choose to submit a family dispute to a Muslim cleric.
That would be no different from a Jewish family submitting their dispute to be decided by a Rabbi or a Christian to a Church of England to an Anglican priest or marriage counsellor, he said.
But Lord Bingham, addressing the annual Bar Conference in London, made clear that there could be "no question" of any decision not being subject to the law of the country; nor of those involved forfeiting their rights to go to a court of law, he said.
He also emphasised that any such decision to have a dispute handled in this way as is already happening with Sharia councils in certain communities would have to be entirely voluntary.
Lord Bingham, who was making his first intervention on the controversial topic of the place of Sharia within the English legal system, said later that if a decision made within a local community came before the courts for approval, judges would have to ascertain – as they did in many cases – that the parties had not been put under pressure.
Last week Bridget Prentice, a Justice Minister, said that people who had disputes decided under Sharia law had the option of having them brought before judges to be ratified.
Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, later made clear in a separate speech that there was no question that Sharia rulings were subject to UK laws and could not take precedence.
Lord Bingham said that it was encumbent in an increasingly diverse and multi-racital society that the "legal system should operate in an inclusive way and that everyone should feel it belongs to them".
Diversity in Britain had always existed and any notion of it as a "pure-bred, monoglot, homogeneous society" could be dismissed as fantasy, he said.
But four changes had occured in recent decades: first, those coming from abroad to settle in the UK in the past half century vastly outnumbered previous groups of immigrants.
Second, they came from societies — particularly the Indian subcontinent, Caribbean and East Afria — "more different from our own than those from which most previous immigrants have come" and in very substantial numbers, which were concentrated in certain places.
The third factor was a tendency to recognise that even groups that had always been part of our society had specific rights, such as women and children, he said.
Finally there was much greater protection given to minority rights by international conventions and the right response to diverse interests of minorities as a matter of international obligation, he said.
What was the right legal response, he asked?
Lord Bingham rejected the "full-blooded assimilation" approach with minorities required to conform to the customsm, religion or language of the majority.
But equally unacceptable was an approach that gave minorities "an unfettered right to indulge their own customary, cultural or religious practices no matter how offensive these might be to the traditions of the majority".
"We would not be willing to tolerate the binding of women's feet . . . however important this may have once been to Chinese cultural tradition."
The appropriate legal response must lie between the two extremes, he said — a policy described as "cultural pluralism within limits".
"In other words, membesr of minority communities should be permitted and encouraged to follow their own cultural, religious, linguistic and customary traditions up to, but not beyond, the point at which some significant majority value is jeopardised."
* This moonbat judge has his (Muhammedan) fans already:
Thanks Mr Lord Bingham of Cornhill, we appreciate your fair and balanced view on this sensitive subject. I think that majority of Muslims (like me) will agree with your proposal. Thank you sir!
Mohammed, London, UK
Fitzgerald: Jack Straw is a fool
"Muslim courts will always remain 'subservient' to English law, Jack Straw declared last night." — from this news article
Jack Straw can say this will "never" happen and sit back on his woolsack — yes, so can he, and so could any man who happened to be Lord Chancellor, but will this "never" really "never" happen? If the number of adherents of Islam in the United Kingdom steadily increases, as it has all over the lands of Western Europe, then of course, inexorably, the Shari'a will be applied, and a weakened and diminished non-Muslim population will be unable to put up resistance.
This should not be hard to grasp. Demography turns out to be, in this respect as in so many others, destiny. It is up to the intelligent Infidels to grasp this in time, instead of remaining complacent and even taking heart from such a remark as that made by Jack Straw. They can quietly come to the conclusion that they have no obligation to turn their country into something it was not meant to be, because in a fit of colossal absentmindedness or criminal negligence (choose one), they allowed into their lands those who carried undeclared in their mental baggage not only an alien but a permanently hostile creed, and one whose effects can be seen in any of the lands where Islam dominates and Muslims rule.
Westerners, including the citizens of the United Kingdom, have both a right and a duty to defend the civilizational legacy that they inherited, one that could not have for one minute been created under Islam. This is what they inherited. This is what, however ungrateful they may at present appear to be, they have to learn about, and comprehend the circumstances of its creation over time, and why it is worth preserving. Even if they cannot add their mite, and few can, they can at least prevent others from gnawing away at it, causing it to crumble, or even, as with the Bamiyan Buddhas, blowing it all up.
For a sampling of what historians think of Jack Straw, consult an article entitled "Your view of history is bunk, academics tell Jack Straw" by Michael Paterson. Straw is quoted as saying that "a lot of the problems that we are having to deal with now – I have to deal with now – are a consequence of our colonial past."
Straw on the Subcontinent: "India-Pakistan – we made some quite serious mistakes. We were complacent with what happened in Kashmir, the boundaries weren't published until two days after independence. The consequences are still there."
Straw on Afghanistan: "We played less than a glorious role over a century and a half."
Straw on the Arab-Israeli conflict: Britain's role was "not entirely an honourable one".
Note Straw's remark that Britain's role in the Israeli-Arab conflict was "not entirely an honourable one." Jack Straw is not here referring to the British administration of Mandatory Palestine, which was entirely intent on betraying the solemn commitments that Great Britain had made to the League of Nations in order to become the Mandatory power, and was in fact bent on not fulfilling the League of Nations' promise to create the Jewish National Home. The only exceptions in Mandatory Palestine itself (there was Wyndham Deedes in London) were Orde Wingate (expelled from Palestine because he actually believed in helping the Jews learn how to defend themselves from Arab attack), and earlier, Col. Richard Meinertzhagen (see the "Diary" of Meinertzhagen).
No, what the ill-informed Jack Straw is referring to is the nonsensical and baseless Arab insistence that certain promises were made to them that the British betrayed. This is completely false. The Hussein-Macmahon correspondence, which was thoroughly studied by Elie Kedourie, shows exactly what "promise" was made by the British — none. The "promise" made by MacMahon 1) could not bind the British government, and the Arabs understood this perfectly; and what is more important, 2) explicitly excluded the territory of what became Mandatory Palestine from its purview — as MacMahon kept insisting and finally, fed up with Arab misstatements, set out clearly in a letter to the London Times in late July 1937. This can all be found in Elie Kedourie's article on the MacMahon-Hussein correspondence (see the collection of articles "Islam in the Modern World").
Straw is a former National Union of Students leader. He does not know the history of Great Britain. He only knows the standard caricature history of the Empire, and of figures such as Palmerston. Somehow the Foreign Office has kept him from reading Kedourie and J. B. Kelly both. If he did, he would save himself from a great deal of error.
And if he studied Islam, what is actually in the texts, and what every great Western historian of Islam has written about it (he can find a sample of it in the forthcoming "The Legacy of Jihad"), he might change his tune. But he won't because he will not study, will not learn. Don't confuse the Jack Straws of this world with history.
Idiots rule. Straw is a fool. Historians know it. Visitors to Jihad Watch know it. When will enough people in England know it?
The Trouble with Shariah
Same thing in Australia:
Homo Kirby Chirpy Chirpy
Hello Justice Kirby: Anybody Home?
UK: "Sharia law SHOULD be used in Britain," says UK's top judge
* It must be something they put in the water over there…
Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips has a friend downunder
Update: Another Bishop backs Sharia law in UKÂ
*   Beware of  "Men of Faith"
Does Britain have space for Sharia law?
Islam is real threat to church, says Synod member
Muslims 'to outnumber traditional churchgoers'
Sharia law 'would undermine British society'
Archbishop Williams sparks Sharia law row
Previous PostTariq Ramadan says "war on terror" is a "bellicose and arrogant slogan"Next PostIran: "Death to America, Death to the Jews.."
3 thoughts on "Sharia vs Jewish Law"
ciccio says:
Ontario, Canada had the same push for sharia, the same excuse – the Jews have it, so it is discrimination. The government agreed with the sharia lobby and they abolished discrimination.
They banned all religious courts. No, the Jews did not riot in the streets, nor did they have vast protest marches. They knew well enough what sharia meant and were willing to pay the price of freedom.
kaw says:
Thanks Ciccio – the Jewish people are an honorable people. Sadly, there is no evidence that suggests muslims are of the same cut.
Due to inpluarism i don't think shariah law should be apart of the english legal system, as they would contridict each other and ultimatly contridict the legal system. As shariah law is so diverse compared to the english law this would be a major issue in the sense that in english law nobody is above the law, however in shariah law god is above the law.