Creeping sharia takes a big step

Thomas Lifson
Britain's most senior judge has endorsed the use of sharia law in the UK. The UK Daily Mail reports:

The most senior judge in England yesterday gave his blessing to the use of sharia law to resolve disputes among Muslims.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said that Islamic legal principles could be employed to deal with family and marital arguments and to regulate finance.

He declared: 'Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law.'

I wonder if the good judge considers children capable of giving or withholding consent? How about women, who have been brought up to believe they are incompetent to oppose their husband's will?

Like a good dhimmi, the chief judge knows his place, and made his remarks not in some courtroom, but in a mosque.

For the moment at least, he has a few limits on sharia. According to the article, he said that:

legal equality must be respected and that rulings incompatible with English law should never be enforceable. [....]

Severe physical punishment - he mentioned stoning, flogging or amputating hands - is 'out of the question' in Britain, he added.

But the game with sharia is a long term struggle. You start by making demands, and getting kufrs to go along. Muslim sales clerks  must be allowed to not handle pork products at supermarket checkout stands; Muslim taxi drivers must be allowed to reject passengers carrying wine or spirits, or with dogs. Each time the infodels capitualtae, one more goal is achieved.

Fortunate for Americans that we no longer (as of this date 232 years ago) have to obey the will of British courts, at least as long as certain Supreme Court justices fail to get their way on the applicability of foreign judicial standards in our system of justice.

Hat tip: David Paulin
Britain's most senior judge has endorsed the use of sharia law in the UK. The UK Daily Mail reports:

The most senior judge in England yesterday gave his blessing to the use of sharia law to resolve disputes among Muslims.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said that Islamic legal principles could be employed to deal with family and marital arguments and to regulate finance.

He declared: 'Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law.'

I wonder if the good judge considers children capable of giving or withholding consent? How about women, who have been brought up to believe they are incompetent to oppose their husband's will?

Like a good dhimmi, the chief judge knows his place, and made his remarks not in some courtroom, but in a mosque.

For the moment at least, he has a few limits on sharia. According to the article, he said that:

legal equality must be respected and that rulings incompatible with English law should never be enforceable. [....]

Severe physical punishment - he mentioned stoning, flogging or amputating hands - is 'out of the question' in Britain, he added.

But the game with sharia is a long term struggle. You start by making demands, and getting kufrs to go along. Muslim sales clerks  must be allowed to not handle pork products at supermarket checkout stands; Muslim taxi drivers must be allowed to reject passengers carrying wine or spirits, or with dogs. Each time the infodels capitualtae, one more goal is achieved.

Fortunate for Americans that we no longer (as of this date 232 years ago) have to obey the will of British courts, at least as long as certain Supreme Court justices fail to get their way on the applicability of foreign judicial standards in our system of justice.

Hat tip: David Paulin