Old Bailey

Muslim who objected to jury service because his ‘religion forbids it’ ordered to serve by Old Bailey judge

A devout Muslim who claimed he should be let off jury service because his religion ‘forbids’ it has been forced to serve it by a judge.

The unnamed man wrote to the Old Bailey, asking to be excused because he felt unable to ‘sit in judgement of others’.

He wrote: ‘As a Muslim I believe you shouldn’t judge anyone and can’t come to any decision regarding another person.

‘I could not take the responsibility of judging a person innocent or guilty.

‘I believe we are judged after our death and I would hate to think an innocent person would suffer because of the evidence and my decision.’

  • Hard Little Machine

    Why bother. He’s just going to sit there allah akbaring.

    • tom_billesley

      He’ll discount by 50% any testimony from women.

  • J. C.

    A Muzzie who doesn’t want to judge anyone?!?!?! That’s all those goatf*ckers do!!! He’s just cranky because there’s not going to be any hand and/or head chopping involved…

  • CodexCoder

    The future juror has not read the Quran. He got the judgement after death part, but missed the rest.

  • roccolore

    ‘As a Muslim I believe you shouldn’t judge anyone and can’t come to any decision regarding another person’ So what does he have to say about Anjem Choudary?

  • Gary

    Funny how islam never forbids bilking welfare .

    • dance…dancetotheradio

      Smile of the day!

  • AlanUK

    I used to think in a similar way to this man but IMO he has missed the point.
    The jury are there to see if the Crown Prosecution Service has made the case “beyond reasonable doubt” (although that phrase is no longer used by the Judge during his instruction to the jury in England). I was there to weigh the evidence – not to pass judgment on the accused. In the case that we had to assess, the prosecution did NOT establish their case to our satisfaction.
    Did the accused use a knife and cause bleeding to the “victim”? YES. Indeed, he admits it.
    He claims it was self defence. The prosecution had to demonstrate that the circumstances of the case were such that a reasonable man would not have acted as the accused did. Did they do so? NO.
    The accused leaves court in the same state as he arrived – as a man innocent of the charges.

  • Nad

    First, it’s against his religion/Islam to settle amongst the disbelievers, the prophet forbade this and migration was compulsory, a Muslim can only live with a Muslim community – this is their individual responsibility, this is what a individual is accountable for, he’s not accountable how the rulers are. (there are numerous authentic hadiths on this).
    Point two, In Islam their is no obedience to the creation in disobedience to the Creator. There will be no excuse for this Muslim if they don’t migrate.
    Applying the Islamic law is compulsory, so living in a non-Muslim country where man made secular law is imposed on everyone (man made laws that change on a daily basis) is in disobedience to God, it must be clear that you cannot practice your religion and you must migrate. Example of Islamic law in case of murder is there is a saving of life – the victim’s family can decide for the state to impose the death penalty or punishment or they can forgive and even accept blood money but in secular law the law changed, one day is electric chair, next day lethal injection etc. In Islamic caliphates from prophet’s time to Otman empire last caliphate to date, Christians and Jews were permitted to have their own law courts though they were free to use Islamic courts as well, however in “democracies” secular law is imposed on everyone and you cannot practice your religious laws whether in marriage or inheritance etc – example, you can fornicate but you can’t marry!!!!
    Anyway bottom line, there is no point saying you are not permitted to eat the nuts in the chocolates when you are not permitted to eat chocalates at all. .