Sharia doesn't affect common law rights

Mark Twain pointed out that it’s not what you don’t know that’s dangerous, it’s what you are certain is true but which ain’t that is. Which is something of a problem if those insisting upon knowing things which aren’t true are those who rule us.

Well, obviously, MPs are going to be know nothing careerists but we might hope for better from the House of Lords. Except, well:

Baroness Flather was the first Asian woman appointed to the House of Lords

Hmm, a career as a TEFL teacher and then local politician led to this elevation. An education in the law seems not to be among her accomplishments:

All British women have rights under common law, but when women enter into Sharia marriages those rights are sharply curtailed. Their husbands may feel emboldened to turn them and their children out of the home without reason or assistance. Some abusive men, when asked why they are no longer looking after their wives, say the government will take care of them. Men are able to exchange one wife for another and put the onus on the benefits system to care for their families.

Well, no. Entering into a voluntary contract is not a curtailment of rights, it’s an exercise of them. It’s a contract, you know?

But there’s something much more important behind this. All of what is described there is exactly the same as shacking up with someone. Whether you have a contract with the person you shack up with or not. Common law rights apply unless there is that – voluntary – contract. And common law rights in Britain concerning property and living together are pretty meagre. For we’ve a system designed to cover them, something called legal marriage.

Sharia marriage or not doesn’t change the necessity of, for example, child support. It also most certainly doesn’t change the ability to dispose of one mother of children for another. What’s being missed here, the thing being claimed which is not true, is that Sharia marriage law is any different from all other arrangements which are not that legal marriage.

Ignorance of the subject under discussion isn’t likely to be a good basis for law making, is it?

Support Continental Telegraph Donate

33 COMMENTS

  1. A contract can award rights which are superior to those which arise from statute or common law. A contract term which purports to reduce statute or common law rights is void. In England, the Law of England is paramount.

  2. I suspect that the problem area is of women who are married under Sharia law but not registered as such under common law.
    Such women will indeed have the same rights as women living with a man but with no contract, but no more.
    The problem comes from entering a contract under Sharia and blythely assuming that that is the same as a contract before a registrar.

  3. Tim’s excerpt sounds as though Lady Flather was supporting the Muslim state of affairs, and it is clear from the intro that she is not: “Ministers announced plans…to force Muslim couples …to register their marriage in law. This must be applauded as a step towards safeguarding the rights of women and children.”

    Tim’s point is valid that Muslim “marriage” is significantly less faithful to individual rights than is shacking up and relying on common law. The continuing pursuit of “diversity” is foolhardy, and any dream of assimilation is impossible.

    • Shaking up contains roughly no protections for women at all – beyond child support. Even Sharia offers more than that.

      Force Muslims to register their marriages? What are they going to do if they do not? Charge them with adultery? Seriously – have these half wits thought about the problem they are trying to create?

      The problem is that presence of Muslims in Britain. And the problem will not go away until all the migrants go away. All of them.

      In the meantime I think the Muslims are right. Christians should start to refuse to register their marriages with the government. Let it be a matter of canon law. The state is not a fair and impartial umpire. It cannot be trusted.

    • Spike re assimilation. There are two fundamentally approaches to looking at the state’s rights over the individual. The first is collectivism, which says to hell with individual rights, we are going to tell you to do what we think best. The second is libertarianism, which says that the individual is paramount, and the state cannot force the individual to surrender rights for the common good or even for the individual’s own good. As soon as the state starts forcing people to do something, you know they’re up to no good. I would like to think that as a reasonable person you would choose libertarianism.

      From that we can conclude that the state shouldn’t force immigrants to assimilate. At the same time, the state shouldn’t force the original population to accept them. Yes I know that HMG isn’t forcing immigrants to do anything, but plenty of people think that they should.

      For a clearer exposition than I am able to provide, read Christopher Snowdon’s Killjoys, available as a free download: https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Killjoys-final-PDF.pdf (or be a gentleman and get a paid copy at Amazon.)

        • Even in short compass NiV you demonstrate a level of fuckwitery so profound that there must be a place waiting for you in Agent COB’s Cabinet of Curiousities.

          Minister of Scientistico Bullshit perhaps with special responsibility for the timely delivery of Nuclear Fusion by 2255. Which is very nearly 11 o’clock.

        • To the point, NiV, interaction between Westerners and Muslims frequently becomes something more serious and deadly than a diversity of belief if vehicles and/or pressure cookers are handy. And Sharia and the Law of England do not mix – except by geographic partition and recognition of “no-go zones” in central cities.

          • Yep. We in Britain have about 2.7 million Muslims living in our country, and over the past 16 years they have managed to kill a little under 100 people in terrorist incidents. That’s an average of about 6 murders per year. About two victims per million Muslims.

            As elite Jihadist warriors individually devoted to wholesale slaughter of the infidels, so that the rivers run with blood, they’re not exactly in the Mons/Ypres league of effectiveness, are they?

            We have, and have always had “no-go” areas in all our cities, and not just because of the Muslims. Poverty is associated with crime, and if prosperous looking white folk play tourist in Harlem, they’re going to get mugged. There’s nothing ideological about that.

            About 96% of British Muslims have no particular sympathy for the Jihadists and the fundy beards. Strictly speaking, according to the rules, they’re not really Muslim. But they can’t exactly say that, what with that carrying a death penalty, so they pretend. The 96% are assimilating nicely, and busily ‘corrupting’ the religion of the rest of them.

            Which is precisely why Sharia law absolutely forbids Muslims to reside permanently in non-Muslim countries, because of that corrupting effect!

            The only way to beat them is to convert them, and we can only do that through close social contact. People learn their moral values from having to fit in and get along with neighbours. If you want to teach a kid to be a good person, you put them in the middle of a society full of good people, who expect them to be good too. It’s never 100% successful, but it works most of the time. If you want them to learn to be hostile and violent, hating outsiders, constantly at war with their enemies and intent on purging them, you drop them into the middle of a society of hostile and violent enemies who think that way.

            Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Because sooner or later that’s what they’ll learn from you.

          • Poverty is associated with crime, and if prosperous looking white folk play tourist in Harlem, they’re going to get mugged. There’s nothing ideological about that.

            Well that is not true. We know from people like Eldridge Cleaver that some people specifically like raping White women as a political act. We can look at the figures and see that while Blacks like to murder other Blacks for other crimes they appear to seek out Whites or at least non-Blacks. So there is a clear political agenda.

            The only way to beat them is to convert them, and we can only do that through close social contact.

            There is no evidence of this working. They are converting us and we are dying out. There is no reason for a health social community to adopt the values of a dying one.

            Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Because sooner or later that’s what they’ll learn from you.

            We have tried that for 50 years. It has failed. We have been gutless and rightly that has caused others to despise us.

          • Poverty is associated with crime, and if prosperous looking white folk play tourist in Harlem, they’re going to get mugged. There’s nothing ideological about that.

            Well that is not true. We know from people like Eldridge Cleaver that some people specifically like raping White women as a political act.

            You really don’t understand the meaning of the word “associated” or you’re being a f*ckwit for a better reason? People like doing all sorts of things for political reasons. The vast bulk of crime is not political like that, and we all know that.

            I don’t actually have very much truck with the “crime is caused by poverty” argument, because most poor people are law-abiding and some rich people are crims. But there is an association as a matter of fact.

            A more valid counter-argument than “I know an extreme case that invalidates your general rule” is to examine the association. Isn’t it more likely that the lazy and criminal are poor, rather than poverty causing criminality?

          • Chester Draws: Apparently the Reply buttons go away if replies are sufficiently nested. In this case, please take care to specify whom you are calling a fuckwit. We are in near-universal agreement that correlation is not causation. And probably majority agreement that NiV is here to signal his virtue and not to argue coherently.

          • “I don’t actually have very much truck with the “crime is caused by poverty” argument, because most poor people are law-abiding and some rich people are crims. But there is an association as a matter of fact.”

            I agree – the association of crime with the poor is like the association of terrorism with Muslims. There’s a connection, but the vast majority of the poor are not criminal, the vast majority of Muslims are not Jihadists, and it’s wrong to treat them *all* as if they were. I’ve no problem with dealing appropriately with the small subset who are.

            “Isn’t it more likely that the lazy and criminal are poor, rather than poverty causing criminality?”

            Actually, I suspect most crime is caused by drugs prohibition. And a lot of the rest by some people having a different risk-benefit trade-off to others. But that’s another story. My main point was that no-go areas (such as they are – it’s not nearly as dangerous as US cities) are nothing unusual, and not particularly Muslim-specific. Sharia is actually rather stricter than we are on most crimes.

            “And probably majority agreement that NiV is here to signal his virtue and not to argue coherently.”

            Then the majority would be wrong! 🙂

  4. Judges have already eroded the common and statutory law by granting marital-like rights to women simply shacking up with a man, as you point out

    The question is, will the Judges do the same, or enforce a sharia contract as a simple contract, when the Muslim man, or his coreligionists, may shoot, knife or bomb the judge or his or her family. Unhappily, the question pretty much answers itself.

  5. “Ignorance of the subject under discussion isn’t likely to be a good basis for law making, is it?”
    It is if you’re aim is to have sharia marriage provide equal benefits under the law. Because you can guarantee they’ll want all the rights they want under English law. Whilst keeping all the rights they want under sharia law. Cake & eat it.

  6. If you choose to engage in a Sharia marriage, then you get the rights granted by Sharia law. It’s a contract, and verbal contracts are binding, irrespective of whether a registrar is present. If you don’t like Sharia, don’t be a Muslim.

    The problem here, I think, is not so much ignorance of British law, but of Sharia law. Because Sharia does indeed include an obligation to pay child support. See al Misri’s Umdat as Salik, sections m11.10-12 and m12.1-4.

    • I bet Sharia does not include an obligation to pay child support. Because when a child reaches a certain age they go to the father.

      However Islam does have some property associated with marriage. But calling that child support is to misuse the term and can only be done if someone’s intent is to deceive.

    • “If you don’t like Shariah don’t be a Muslim”!!!!
      NiV: there is nothing optional about being a Muslim on pain of ostracism, persecution and death which also applies to any children born of a relationship with a RoPer irrespective of shariah sanction or not and irrespective of whether said RoPer is devout or nominal. Shariah also confers rights of custody to the father of all sons once they are two years old and daughters from seven. I am closely acquainted with the mother of two daughters from a relationship with a human rights lawyer of Muslim background but with no discernible religious beliefs. He was very keen to claim his shariah “rights” backed by death threats when they separated due to his promising giving his nephew first refusal on his infant daughter as a bride. Twenty five years, two countries later, they still lead a cautious existence.
      As for it being the equivalent of shacking up, Islam is so onesided only men can walk out of a relationship, women will be coerced by their families into staying to be abused.
      The only way to tolerate Muslims in a western society is to continually protect the law of the land from shariah encroachment and to repeatedly unmask the abuses shariah sanctions.

      • “NiV: there is nothing optional about being a Muslim on pain of ostracism, persecution and death which also applies to any children born of a relationship with a RoPer irrespective of shariah sanction or not and irrespective of whether said RoPer is devout or nominal.”

        Agreed. Which is why I’d prefer not to tar them all with the same brush. Most Western Muslims are not Muslims.

        “Shariah also confers rights of custody to the father of all sons once they are two years old and daughters from seven.”

        No it doesn’t. Although it wouldn’t surprise me if the father had said so.

        Under Sharia, a non-Muslim parent (of either sex) cannot have custody of a Muslim child at any age. And a mother cannot have custody after she remarries, although the next in line in order of precedence would be her mother. Apart from that, the mother has priority over the father until seven. If both parents are Muslim, then at age seven the child themselves can choose which parent they wish to have custody.

        My sympathies regarding your friend and her family. There are a few options for getting out of forced marriage under Sharia, although they all have severe disadvantages. Possibly the easiest/safest is that a non-virgin cannot be married against her will. And it’s possible to escape the penalty for fornication is you claim you didn’t know it was forbidden, not being raised among Muslims. That might be tricky, though, and I’d not want to trust the typical Sharia court to see it that way.

        On questions of Sharia law, there’s no better Western source than Al Misri’s Umdat as Salik. It’s endorsed as orthodox and authoritative by a variety of Islamic legal experts, including the Al Azhar University Theology Department.
        (You want section m13 for child custody rules.) It’s a bit pricy for casual interest, but I’d strongly recommend it to anyone who wants to argue about Islam seriously, as opposed to relying on the just-making-shit-up school of Sharia law, which is what most people seem to do.

        (And of course one person I lent it to spent the next two hours gurgling with laughter every couple of minutes and insisted on quoting aloud the more amusing bits out of it. Some people find it far more entertaining than you’d expect from a legal textbook! It’s probably not so funny if you have direct experience of it, though.)

        https://www.amazon.com/Reliance-Traveller-Classic-Islamic-Al-Salik/dp/0915957728/

        “The only way to tolerate Muslims in a western society is to continually protect the law of the land from shariah encroachment and to repeatedly unmask the abuses shariah sanctions.”

        Agreed! The only bits I would outlaw are the ones where one person compels a non-Muslim against their will. If people choose to sign up to Sharia voluntarily, or parts of it, that’s their right. (80% of it is fairly harmless ritual, or similar to Western law.) But I would declare that there is no compulsion in religion, that such is incompatible with living in the West, and if anyone chooses to leave Islam, the rules no longer apply. Ostracism, sure. But no harm.

        And I agree that accurately explaining what Islam and Sharia actually mean – “unmasking” it – and criticising it where appropriate, are absolutely essential. They’re free to believe as they choose. We’re free to say what we think of it. But one of the most essential parts of this – if our efforts are not to be discredited and thus neutralised – is that all the criticisms be *accurate*. Which is why I argue for citing actual Islamic law backed up by authoritative and orthodox Islamic sources, rather than Daily Mail hysteria and internet neo-Nazi racists. (Whether they’re accurate or not, nobody will believe you if you cite them as your source.)

        • Suggestion: go and live in an actual Muslim society or ghetto and see how they do things. Examine “integrated” cultural Muslims and see what assumptions and values have travelled with them. You have diddly squat real experience and just quote things you’ve read.

          • The only *actual* Muslim societies nowadays are ones like ISIS and Boko Haram. And everyone knows what they’re like.

  7. Tim W–How is it on Contins here that NiV can peddle his crap and have the thread end with no further chance to reply to his garbage directly underneath. The above at 12.34 is the second time he has done so. The old blog–in strict chrono order– was far better.

    NiV: Since I’m here Oh great Jihadi squelcher and Master of Friendly Persuasion, the fact that suicide-kills are not that popular even with nutters is hardly another of your peer-reviewed miracles. Rape, abuse and sodomising little boys at swimming pools etc are vastly more popular however. And far from being in the process of Westernisation most of our dear imported friends are merely breeding and waiting for their ever-rising numbers to put the takeover thro’.

    The fact that Londinistan is now a permanent ZaNu shithole–probably forever unless votes are removed— is only one clue out of many as to who is being taken over by who. Outside of your Fantasy Island bullshit.

  8. Niv looks at 1400 years of the history of islam and the estimated 500 million deaths caused by the same ( 200 million in india alone) and daily stories of rape gangs , genital mutilation etc and comes to the conclusion we have nothing to worry about. the fact is the hundred deaths Niv so blithely dismisses as being unimportant would not have occurred if we hadn’t imported these pieces of shit. . Each of these lives lost was important to that person and their friends and family. the only consolation is that when the goatfuckers outbreed us into a minority the first on the list for the great purge will be niv and the assorted freaks he so vehemently supports. niv is a cunt on a worse level than even captain potato.

  9. Poverty is associated with crime, and if prosperous looking white folk play tourist in Harlem, they’re going to get mugged.

    Not these days: Harlem has organic supermarkets on the street corners these days. When I was there 18 months ago, I stayed in a $2m house.

  10. 2.7m Muslims? Back in 2001 maybe.
    The 2011 census reveals 4.4m UK muslims (70% increase since 2001) and an estimate of 7.8m for 2018.

    Do you see the pattern here? Simple mathematics states that this country will be Islamic before the century is out.

    This has a name: conquest.

  11. @gamecock: what makes you think NiV would want to pretend to be a woman under shariah when all the incentives are to be male. The current panto of tranniedom is driven by identity politics, giving him a leg up in the victim stakes, peculiar only to the tailend of a once great culture.