Great. I am all for this.

And now we can adopt my personal law, "Mavooboo" which states that anything that doesn't have a law specifically penalizing will be allow under the new law and you will be penalized if you don't obey it.

Sirs... you have no idea of what you're doing to your society. Or...maybe you do. You are anarchists.

People work out hanshake deals, which is fine, but do NOT set up a separate legal system in your country. Otherwise Pandoras box will stay opened.

Posted by: Mekoots at July 3, 2008 6:44 PM

Idiot alert!

and what rights would this most senior, sorry most senile judge have under sharia as a non Muslim: precisely none.

He joins the arch buffoon of Cantebury in top running for international Dhimwit of the year. We are going to be spoilt for candidates to vote for even without Livingstone. Will soon have to have subcategories for the various fields, law, religion, politics...

Perhaps they could all get together and go on a fact finding trip to an real Islamic country. Probably not, they would probably get on the wrong plane to the wrong country, that's if they could actually find the airport!

Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, a Muslim told me, so it must be true (NOT).

Posted by: James at July 3, 2008 7:04 PM

His remarks were unwise and unnecessary. However, we need more information about the full speech. See this post for why.

Posted by: Britvic at July 3, 2008 7:31 PM

Another enlightened progressive. Who's gonna save us from these idiots?

Here, dowunder, we also have a Judge Kirby, a practicing homosexual, who is real chummy with Muhammedans.

This Supreme-Court judge Kirby seems to be dumb enough to believe that he can use Muhammedans to further the homosexual agenda. He, a privileged member of the establishment, high in an ivory tower, believes that he is somehow persecuted or disadvantaged because he is a homo...

One almost wishes that he would have to live (or rather hang) under a Taliban regime. (For stupidity, not his sexual preferences. Who cares?)

Take a look, here:

http://sheikyermami.com/2008/06/25/homo-kirby-chirpy-chirpy/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at July 3, 2008 7:35 PM

This is SICK. What is WRONG with these people?????????????????

Posted by: Madame Vengier at July 3, 2008 8:07 PM

Somebody, please, send this idiot Joseph Schacht's "Introduction to Islamic Law".

NO aspect of sharia should be tolerated in Britain, ever. Here is some of what Nonie Darwish has to say about what Sharia, and in particular, what she calls 'family sharia':

"Islamic law – Sharia – that terrorists are fighting to impose upon the world, would create a global state of gender apartheid.

"Under criminal Sharia, punishment could be flogging, stoning, beheading and amputation of limbs. Cruel and unusual punishment by Western and humane standards.

"Leaving Islam is punishable by death. If the State fails to kill an apostate, his death is guaranteed at the hands of a street mob.

"That makes Islam more than a religion; it is a one party state; and also an elaborate legal system, called Sharia, that can put you to death if you leave Islam. Sharia must guarantee there is no defection from the Berlin Wall of the Muslim State.

"Amazingly, the majority of Muslim countries don’t practice criminal Sharia because they cannot stomach it.

- NOW - let's bring the next bit, especially, to this idiot dhimmi Lord Phillips' attention:

"I have lived under Family Sharia for 30 years of my life {says Nonie}.

'This is practiced in all Muslim countries; it allows only men the right to an easy divorce, having up to 4 wives, allows wife beating, half the inheritance of a man to a woman and her testimony in court is only half valid. {Lord Phillips, Chief Justice of England - do you REALLY want to permit a situation where Muslim fathers leave daughters a pittance compared to their brothers, in conformity with sharia; where, in any financial or marital dispute, the woman's voice is given half the weight of the man's?}.

'She is respected only when she shields her body, face and even her identity.

'As many as seventy-five percent of women in Pakistani prison are behind bars for the crime of having been raped. Sharia codified into permanent Law a 7th century Arabian Peninsula tribal culture for every Muslim in any culture forever.

'Under Sharia, the Muslim Khalifa or Amir, meaning leader, is exempt from being punished under Sharia.

' Islamic Sharia law is a dictator’s dream handed to him by Allah.

"Polygamy has a devastating effect on family dynamics, husband/wife relationship and women relationships. {NOTA BENE, CHIEF JUSTICE PHILLIPS}

"Many Moslem men only have one wife, but the damage to wife/husband relationship has already been done in the Muslim marriage contract itself; where a man does not pledge loyalty to his wife and the wife cannot expect his loyalty. {NOTA BENE}

"The marriage contract has 3 more spaces to be filled out by other women if the man wishes.

"That is why a good Muslim woman must accept her destiny under Sharia Law for one simple reason, challenging Allah’s Law is like challenging Allah himself."

Chief Justice, Lord Phillips: THAT is 'sharia'. It is totalitarian, it is inhuman, it is all of one piece, and it is a blatant, terrible, continual abuse and flat denial of everything we have slowly, painfully come to recognise as human rights. It has no place in England nor in any other country of what we used to call 'the free world'. No part of sharia should be recognised. Keep it out.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at July 3, 2008 9:24 PM

This judge is exhibit 1: kapo, dhimmi, quisling. If he wants to divide Britain and have tribal justice, then maybe he should have a dose of it himself, as a malignant cancer within his own tribe, the indigenous British.
http://www.bravenewsworld.blogspot.com

Posted by: Max Publius at July 3, 2008 10:13 PM

Britvic wrote:

His remarks were unwise and unnecessary. However, we need more information about the full speech. See this post for why.
..........................

Britvic, I read the article you linked to, and I didn't see anything that I found truly mitigating. *Of course*, Lord Philips makes it clear that he is not thinking of allowing stoning or the cutting off of hands. At this point, even the most craven dhimmi in the West is not thinking of such things.

But even the less gaudy aspects of Shari'ah are extremely ugly--divorce, inheritance, child custody and other elements of "family law", the codified opression of women, disallowing apostacy and Muslim women marrying Infidels.

The camel's nose under the tent--first Shari'ah would only apply to Muslims, and only if both parties agreed, then there would be increased pressure for all Muslims to accept such jurisdiction, then Shari'ah would apply--first in a limited way--to Infidels living in Muslim-majority areas. You would begin to see an establishment of Muslim norms of "modesty", and a prohibition of music and art, and a banning of Infidels having any authority over Muslims.

Why, we might not find actual pressure to impose the bloodier aspects of Shari'ah for . . .decades!

If you want to see the ugly--and predictable--progression, look at the history of Nigeria. A few decades ago they had British-derived law, now they are stoning rape victims to death. This is a warning to all who can read it. Shari'ah is never "limited" for long.

Posted by: gravenimage at July 3, 2008 11:09 PM

Stupid miserable spineless weakling Brits.

Just admit that you no longer are in control of your own country. Admit that you are Dhimmis, tear down your churches and pay the jizya.

I am proud that the US kicked your foolish butts out of this country, otherwise we would be subjected to this stupidity and the stuff that is going on in Canada.

How appropriate for this to happen on the 4th of July.

Posted by: Kuffar at July 4, 2008 12:05 AM

I simply cannot believe I just read that headline!

Good God! These people in the UK have gone INSANE.

Posted by: darcy at July 4, 2008 12:21 AM

Since our British cousins/friends have forgotten their roots, let me give them a reminder:

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Good night. And bless you all.

Posted by: boneshack at July 4, 2008 12:45 AM

Instead of jumping up and down, we should be seriously looking at the legal position this judge is coming from: he's talking about contracts between people, which according to him can be based on anything they like, including sharia.

Well, to the avg person this might sound almost reasonable. Instead of getting angry, we should be pointing out how sharia differs from any reasonable and legally acceptable grounds for a contract.

Law expertise, anyone?

Posted by: Lili at July 4, 2008 12:50 AM

The amusing thing is that British courts will not acknowledge or recognize a marital pre-nup signed in the US if a divorce happens in the UK... special treatment for muslims, anyone?

Posted by: Obelisk1 at July 4, 2008 1:13 AM

The truth is muslims have become so powerful the British state is afraid of them and as it dare not challenge the introduction of shira if must find a way of coming to terms with it.

We have tacit acceptance of polygamy for years and now muslims in Britain are quite open about it. One educated muslim I know of took time of to marry his forth wife last year and his attitude to his colleagues was “I know only one of them is legal but……”.

The first thing the present government did on taking office – within days if I remember – was to pay off the muslim vote by lifting all restrictions on overseas marriages. Now 60% of muslims in Britain bring in a partner from Pakistan or Bangladesh so statistically 2 of his “wives” were illegal immigrants. Don’t hold you breath waiting for him to be prosecuted.

Home Secretary Jack Straw who coincidentally has a large muslim constituency declared regulation of muslim overseas marriages was “racist and discriminatory”.

Posted by: Fred at July 4, 2008 2:48 AM

From the article:

Lord Phillips has said that Muslims in Britain should be able to use Sharia to decide financial and marital disputes.

The issue, as I see it, is twofold:

1. It sets up a two-tiered system of justice.

2. If those issues are already addressed and governed by man-made secular laws, then such courts are unnecessary and irrelevant.

Posted by: PRCS at July 4, 2008 2:53 AM

We all live in Sharia submarine
Sharia submarine
Sharia submarine

We all live in Sharia submarine
Sharia submarine
Sharia submarine

Posted by: dennisw at July 4, 2008 5:27 AM

I think many people here have not really read carefully what was written.

First it is quite true that when entering a contract you can make it subject to the laws of some other jurisdiction. I am not sure that the situation is different in the US. So if you wanted to make a contract subject to the laws of Saudi Arabia, you could.

But he also states "It must be recognized however that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of the mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales."

So if one party does not comply with a decision based on the foreign jursidiction's laws, it then becomes subject to the laws of England and Wales, and decisions will only be enforceable if they comply with English law.

Isn't this talking about sharia law in the same way that the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights talks about human rights? It gives with one hand and takes away with the other?

I do agree, however, that is was an unnecessary and possibly foolish thing to say, as it gives the wrong signal to those who do wish to implement sharia law. We don't want to get their hopes up.

Posted by: kgordon at July 4, 2008 7:09 AM

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the Lord Chief Justice,

This top "judge" is right. Muslims should be able to live under Sharia, But nor in the UK.

Give any Muslim a free one-way ticket to a Sharia compliant country of their choice.

Posted by: Dsinc at July 4, 2008 7:59 AM

WOWjust simplely wow out of all the curtailing knee between the leg american no gonad politicians being truthful here none ever hung my jaw slack this is a judge in britain wow what can you say to this i mean wow the guy should be in a mental ward what happened to the brits have they gone insane.

Posted by: spcbat at July 4, 2008 8:10 AM

Camel...nose...tent...

Posted by: Eastview at July 4, 2008 9:06 AM

Muslims in Britain should be able to live according to Sharia law, the country's most senior judge has said.

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the Lord Chief Justice, strongly backed Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, over his suggestion earlier this year that aspects of Sharia law should be adopted in Britain.

Start looking for the money trail! Whose payroll is this judge on??

Posted by: witness at July 4, 2008 9:57 AM

None of this crap was going on BEFORE 9/11.

None. Zero.

What is it about the tragedy of September 11, 2001, that triggered all of this appeasing and kowtowing and turning a blind eye and excusing and ignoring and apologizing and denying concerning Mohammedans?

WHAT? Can someone please let me in on the "Why?" here?

Posted by: darcy at July 4, 2008 10:03 AM

Carl Goldberg, PhD

An excellent letter; hope to see it printed.

Here's a well written comment from the Telegraph article "Does Britain have space for Sharia?"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/yourview/2243045/Does-Britain-have-space-for-Sharia.html

33. Posted by Laysa hunaka mustaqbalan fi Britaniya lil'Islami on July 04, 2008 08:06 AM

Unsurprisingly, the commments here are overwhelmingly negative. I should imagine that, if a poll were conducted, the vast majority of non-Muslims in Britain would vote against the recognition of any form of shari'ah law, even in 'civil' matters.

Ostensibly, what the Lord Chief Justice says about Shari'ah comprising more than just barbaric punishments such as lapidation, flogging and amputation, is correct. Moreover, this truly horrific, spiteful and altogether inhumane punition is also sanctioned in the Old Testament.

However, neither our society nor our personal relationships are subject to such prehistoric chastisement. There are no adjudgements in shari'ah law that provide a more objectively just resolution to civil or criminal infringements than our own English system of common law.

The admission that the Rabbinical Beth Din courts do already operate in civil matters governing the lives of some observant Orthodox Jews who choose to recognise them is well known, and is a cunning non sequitur; a ruse; a sleight of hand dealt by the Lord Justice.

Jewish halakhic law can provide significant problems for Jewesses wishing to obtain a get divorce, but is principally concerned in the UK with maintaining dietary kashrut laws for restaurants, ritual slaughter and food manufacture. A tiny fraction of the London Beth Din's time is devoted to marriage and contractual matters. Moreover, observant Orthodox Jews, although a growing phenomenon in the UK's relatively small Jewish community, make up a very small number of UK citizens. There are probably 50,000 Orthodox in a Jewish population of just 300,000.

Judaism, unlike Islam, is neither a proseltysing religion nor an exclusivist religiotic. Jews believe that the righteous of all nations can attain spiritual fulfilment in the afterlife.
For the Chief Justice to berate those who supposedly misunderstand shari'ah law's remit is to be hypocritical. Even if he had been studying Islamic jurisprudence around the clock for the past ten years, he clearly doesn't understand the implications of his tacit acceptance of its primacy in some personal matters.

Shari'ah law, unlike English common law, requires the unquestioned and unflinching belief in its origins, remit and edicts. ALL Muslims are required to subscribe to it according to their belief in the Islamic creed. One cannot question, mitigate or sideline a decision. There are no appeal courts, higher courts or lawyers. All matters are decided by the Qadi, and his judgement is final.

What public figures like the Archbishop and Lord Phillips have done, is to send a powerful signal of acceptance to those wishing further concessions; their statements attest to their agreement with shari'ah's precepts. Regardless of their benevolent intentions, their irresponsible comments are unwelcome and display a fundamental ignorance of the goals of Islam.

Shari'ah courts already operate in this country, arrogantly oblivious to non-Muslims. They carry a powerful message of non-conformity, which like attempts to build bigger, more grandiose mosques and broadcast the a'dhaan, memorialise a distinct communal sectarianism that is plainly at odds with the establishment's desire for a multicultural society based on pluralism.

The only way that Britain can live together harmoniously is to ensure future generations are educated together, play together, marry each other and share in a similar vision.

Islam will never allow this; it will never bend or conform. Many Muslims already live out their lives with little or no contact with other communities, and they're not by any means the only ones. Private, parent-run Islamist schools are already being run in many areas of the country. Young Muslim girls are coerced into marrying from the same ethnic group; the same village in some cases. A an increasingly intolerant separate society is created that shares not of the indigenous population's aspirations or values.

It can be no coincidence that, earlier this week, a new fatwa was issued by the Islamic Shari'ah Council (of Leyton!):
http://www.islamic-sharia.org/worship/deeming-shariah-islamic-law-as-incompetent-2.html

'Leaving any part of Quran or changing it is going against the consensus of entire Muslim nation.

The mufti details various Islamic sources, including the barabaric primitivist Ibn Taymiyyah as to why Shar'ah law, in its entirety, should be obeyed; why an Islamic state is the proper host for shari'ah law.

Alas, by importing the sectarian tensions of the sub-continent, and multiplying them by a factor of ten, our betters have sown the seeds for their and our own oblivion.

The most sickening irony is that once muftis begin to implement more and more components of shari'ah law, they shall do [so] in the mistaken belief that it is 'divinely' inspired. Quite the contrary, what with the various injunctions of the Qur'an being so imperfect and imprecise, a distinctly human element has crafted, and continues to craft the major procedures and principles. The 'ahadeeth' of the Muhammad bin Abdullah, which were mostly invented during the Abbasid caliphate, allowed jurists to give the 'sunnah' a distinctly human flavour.

Some key questions to ask Muslims (and indeed our resident 'experts' Archbishop Williams and Lord Phillips) are:

-why are some parts of the Qur'an and Sunnah 'abrogated'? How do they, in some cases, abrogate each other?

-where is the 'verse' on the lapidation?

- would an omnipotent 'god' abrogate his 'preserved tablet'?

These are all worrying questions for Muslims, who believe in the divine origins of the Shari'ah, should answer. Let us hope that more of them, and our establishment, lend them a critical examination.

Posted by: PRCS at July 4, 2008 11:16 AM

Darcy: Granting your basic premise that things really started to turn to crap after 9-11, it's because the 9-11 attacks made them feel victorious and empowered. Gave the bastards quite a psychological boost. Consider 9-11 and Madrid and London 7-7 and Glasgow and they, the Muslims, are all still here and still allowed to go about their business of ruining western civilization with impunity, and now, thanks to this idiot judge, with encouragement. Obviously we are impotent and that just gives them another boost, and so it goes and goes.

Posted by: MerryMaven at July 4, 2008 11:22 AM

If a Mainstream Muslim dad indulges in daughter-slaughter, and it pisses his wife off, would that fall under the heading of a "marital dispute?"

Posted by: Abscedere at July 4, 2008 11:31 AM

The judge speaks coolly of not allowing stonings and amputations, but how will he keep them out once the principle that Sharia can be applied in Britain is accepted?

He is not in favor of amputations? Install Sharia and watch for one footed muslims hopping around town.
Sharia light always morphs into Sharia heavy...
Clandestine Sharia courts will see to it.

Not to bright your lordship...

Posted by: duh_swami at July 4, 2008 11:40 AM

Actually they have been attacking us long before 9/11
http://factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000367.html
Only since 9/11 the spotlight has been totally on them.

Posted by: Ladywolfnl at July 4, 2008 1:21 PM

"His remarks were unwise and unnecessary" - Britvic

Yes, exactly. Whatever he intended to mean, they were unwise and unnecessary, and he should have been fully aware of how they would be used.
Just as no responsible person in public life should ever say anything which could be taken as incitement to murder, so no responsible person in public life should ever say anything which could be taken as encouraging the introduction of Sharia.
Sharia will have blood, sooner rather than later, and it must be resisted at all costs.
But, for starters, just say "No!".

Posted by: M Al-Content at July 4, 2008 3:37 PM

"Actually they have been attacking us long before 9/11"

Exactly. Does anyone really think this all just started 7 years ago?

Try 1,400 years ago...

Posted by: Madame Vengier at July 4, 2008 8:52 PM

He is a cultural marxist. In his frame of reference, culture and custom are an illusion, its power and money that counts. So, if there are cultures that want to adjudicate behavior, whether it be Islam, Christian, secular, or whatever, it doesn't matter, the adjudication isn't over the things of important, power and money.

Christians, Muslims, Jews, even secularists, hold that the frame of reference, the culture, is all. The "Culture of Life", living the Jewish life, submitting to Allah. For cultures, its the money and power which are the illusion; it comes, it goes, and where money and power lands isn't even in the hands of the possessor.

Posted by: pashley1411 at July 5, 2008 12:53 AM

Melenie Philips takes this idiot apart, read it all here; shttp://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/816511/what-part-of-theocracy-does-this-man-not-understand.thtml

Posted by: Fred at July 5, 2008 1:33 AM

BTW the best bit;

"Admitting that he knew little about sharia law, Lord Phillips said he had taken advice in Oman"

Oman! That beacon of progress and freedom!

Posted by: Fred at July 5, 2008 1:48 AM

The judge should be sacked for expressing a political opinion.

Posted by: LondonBorn&Bred at July 7, 2008 4:08 AM

The Islamisation of Britain continues. Helped by the islamised judiciary, islamised police and islamised government.

Traitors.

Posted by: DaveMate at July 8, 2008 4:54 AM