Law of land or GTFO. Don't like the country, then leave, I intend to and I am english for generations...
Sharia (Islamic Law) in Great Britain
- Thread starter werepossum
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The only special rights a religious group should have that's any different than that of their host country is to have meals served without food they deem offensive. If they're promised meals daily by their employer.
In the US military, every meal is guaranteed to Jews and Muslims to have a Kosher/Halal alternative.
They get the same special attention Vegans get. That's pretty much all the leeway you can give those idiots without offending science, reason, and nature.
Edit: On another note, why does everyone scream foul over Chinese human rights violations when what they do is secular and within their sovereign borders (sorry Tibet) but when a religious group has a far more grievous track record, everyone is supposed to be 'hands off and fair'. It's because we're all taught that God is great but commies are the devil from right off the bat. Unfortunately, the former is a more dangerous leader to take orders from, as no deity can be held accountable for reason.
In the US military, every meal is guaranteed to Jews and Muslims to have a Kosher/Halal alternative.
They get the same special attention Vegans get. That's pretty much all the leeway you can give those idiots without offending science, reason, and nature.
Edit: On another note, why does everyone scream foul over Chinese human rights violations when what they do is secular and within their sovereign borders (sorry Tibet) but when a religious group has a far more grievous track record, everyone is supposed to be 'hands off and fair'. It's because we're all taught that God is great but commies are the devil from right off the bat. Unfortunately, the former is a more dangerous leader to take orders from, as no deity can be held accountable for reason.
Wow check out all the border line racism on this thread. Yes it is racist to claim someones culture is wrong and your cultrue is supeior to theirs. I do belive thats the defention of racism, as race also includes that perosns cultrual belifes.
As far as I understand it this only works if both partys agree to it, the woman can still use common law if she wants to.
I'm pretty sure these types of scarmongering and thinly vailed racsit remarks were around in germany in the 1930s but leveled against another minority, the Jews, and look what happend there.
As far as I understand it this only works if both partys agree to it, the woman can still use common law if she wants to.
I'm pretty sure these types of scarmongering and thinly vailed racsit remarks were around in germany in the 1930s but leveled against another minority, the Jews, and look what happend there.
Last I checked, the Jews in Germany weren't trying to convert the world and kill the apostates. That was one religion vs. another one, and all at the hands of a very sadistic man. Islam's foe in the modern world is enlightenment, reason, and secularism. Those are 3 virtue's I'll champion any day on any battlefield.FSAB post=18.71605.732817 said:
To say racist? For one, not every Muslim is an Arab. Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world. I think they're Asian. It's a battle of beliefs, not skin color.
IMO religion is only allowed to exist in the modern world because in civilized countries, IT has to adapt to modern times. If it doesn't, it's held to a high degree of scrutiny, and more than likely will fade over time. If that offends you, and the big science vs. religion war ever breaks out... I'd advise not to line up on the wrong side of the snap.
Culture=/=race. Race, by way of the geography and the static nature of most human populations will become entwined with culture, but they are not the same thing. To say that you have a problem with Islam's teachings and cultural practices is not necessarily to say you have a problem with Arabs, or North Africans, or Asians, or, for example, Americans or Brits who have converted to Islam. It also does not mean you think Arabs or North Africans are inferior because of their race, which is what racism is.FSAB post=18.71605.732817 said:
This forum has had its fair share of attacks on Christianity and a whole range of Western beliefs, especially American ones. Is that racist just because Christianity is typically associated with white Europeans, and the largest and most prominent race in America is white?
Racism: Racism, by its simplest definition, is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
To add to my last post and the above poster (Saskwach)
I don't know if I'm right, but I'm probably close or at least not too far off, but I'd wager there are more Black + Asian Muslims in the world than Arabs.
I don't know if I'm right, but I'm probably close or at least not too far off, but I'd wager there are more Black + Asian Muslims in the world than Arabs.
probably right since Indonesia and Pakistan are the two largest muslim countries plus china has a large muslim population.Ixus Illwrath post=18.71605.732854 said:
Nope, and you've failed on that level to a degree of infamy already.FSAB post=18.71605.732888 said:
Edit: to add to my last post about choosing. If you think I have any hatred towards a little girl who believes in the tenants of Islam because if she doesn't, she'll get beaten to a bloody pulp by her own father, you'd be wrong. That's why I have an aggressive stance against that system.
Well its because China is a state whereas Islam is a religion with an overarching authority structure. So the action of one Muslim doesn't define all of them, I've know many Muslims and they all have different intepretation, some are devout some are lapsed some only follow the food and drink rules and many shades inbetween. Smearing them all with the same brush as some homogenus group with one voice is like saying all catholics are anti semitic murdering, paedophiles.Ixus Illwrath post=18.71605.732749 said:
For the most part, this isn't really "circumventing" the law, as some of you have put it, any more than just choosing not to go to court is. I think the legal issues are no worse than the ones associated with standard arbitration clauses.
The social issues are more important, however, and more difficult to dismiss. The introduction of such measures implies that Muslim communities are little island isolated from the mainstream. However, if that's the case, it means that people who are a part of those communities are vulnerable to a high degree of coercion, making a Sharia court "voluntary" only on paper.
That coercion is an argument that others here have raised. I think it's missing some context, though. If every British Muslim was happy to go to the standard courts, nobody would be talking about such a measure in the first place; placing an official seal of approval upon Sharia-based arbitration is an attempt to offer an alternate legal forum chiefly for people who would avoid the standard one. As such, the contention that Sharia places an abused woman at a disadvantage must be weighed against the likelihood that, without access to a forum of religious law, she simply would not seek any kind of legal redress. From a practical perspective, sending someone to a flawed or biased court is still better than no legal access at all. (The question of whether a person might willingly but unknowingly place herself at a disadvantage by agreeing to Sharia arbitration is another matter.)
It's important to note that Sharia isn't just a kind of "Ten Commandments," either. It's a much bigger and squishier system. While the Qur'an is (supposedly) immutable, a lot more goes into Sharia than just the words of the Qur'an. (And you'll find that Muslims don't do everything the book says, just like Jews and Christians don't follow all of their Bibles.) Ancillary writings, a long tradition of scholarly debate, and "common sense" all figure into Sharia. Some folks in Turkey were getting ready to gut half of the hadith on the grounds that it's outdated or just plain wrong-headed. Perhaps Britain's culture will infiltrate Sharia law (at least in Britain) rather than the other way around?
Note also that Islamic law is very widespread. Just as common law must coexist with civil law in order to facilitate international business, globalization is leading to a greater need to reconcile these European traditions of jurisprudence with religious law.
Overall, I think this kind of measure will help many more people than it hurts. Even though I think that the pragmatic thing is to go ahead and do it and that's what the government should do, I'd still personally oppose the measure on moral grounds.
My biggest hope is that at least the same kinds of provisions that limit arbitration clauses will apply, and that they will be exercised if needed. That way, Sharia law will serve those who need it but, if it is used to propagate iniquity in Britain, as some here fear it might be, the system can be taken to task.
-- Alex
The social issues are more important, however, and more difficult to dismiss. The introduction of such measures implies that Muslim communities are little island isolated from the mainstream. However, if that's the case, it means that people who are a part of those communities are vulnerable to a high degree of coercion, making a Sharia court "voluntary" only on paper.
That coercion is an argument that others here have raised. I think it's missing some context, though. If every British Muslim was happy to go to the standard courts, nobody would be talking about such a measure in the first place; placing an official seal of approval upon Sharia-based arbitration is an attempt to offer an alternate legal forum chiefly for people who would avoid the standard one. As such, the contention that Sharia places an abused woman at a disadvantage must be weighed against the likelihood that, without access to a forum of religious law, she simply would not seek any kind of legal redress. From a practical perspective, sending someone to a flawed or biased court is still better than no legal access at all. (The question of whether a person might willingly but unknowingly place herself at a disadvantage by agreeing to Sharia arbitration is another matter.)
It's important to note that Sharia isn't just a kind of "Ten Commandments," either. It's a much bigger and squishier system. While the Qur'an is (supposedly) immutable, a lot more goes into Sharia than just the words of the Qur'an. (And you'll find that Muslims don't do everything the book says, just like Jews and Christians don't follow all of their Bibles.) Ancillary writings, a long tradition of scholarly debate, and "common sense" all figure into Sharia. Some folks in Turkey were getting ready to gut half of the hadith on the grounds that it's outdated or just plain wrong-headed. Perhaps Britain's culture will infiltrate Sharia law (at least in Britain) rather than the other way around?
Note also that Islamic law is very widespread. Just as common law must coexist with civil law in order to facilitate international business, globalization is leading to a greater need to reconcile these European traditions of jurisprudence with religious law.
Overall, I think this kind of measure will help many more people than it hurts. Even though I think that the pragmatic thing is to go ahead and do it and that's what the government should do, I'd still personally oppose the measure on moral grounds.
My biggest hope is that at least the same kinds of provisions that limit arbitration clauses will apply, and that they will be exercised if needed. That way, Sharia law will serve those who need it but, if it is used to propagate iniquity in Britain, as some here fear it might be, the system can be taken to task.
-- Alex
I'm not, race is not just skin colour but creed as well, any way you slice it its predigist and your giving into your fear and hatred of something uknown to you. Mabey you need to reveiw why your belifs, or more likely come up with week excuses why your not racist, something along the lines of "i'm not racist i'm just carefull" "its political corectness gone mad" or the big one "i'm not racist I have black friends".Saskwach post=18.71605.732875 said:
Well said, but the said religion has piss-poor diplomacy, and the representatives of it on a global scale, when faced with human rights questions, either dance around the subject or outright admit how much they'd love to convert the world by force and enslave the women while making non-believers their over-taxed servants.Capt_Jack_Doicy post=18.71605.732895 said:
My parents are Catholic, but they believe in the Big Bang, and that condoms are fine, and that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs as long as it doesn't interfere with their fellow man... and yes, there are Catholic terrorists in places like N. Ireland. But it's been hundreds of years since the Pope has called holy war against anyone.
Christianity and Judaism have 'grown up' in a sense, and are much more compatible in a forward thinking world. A very large, very influential, and very vocal number of Muslim believers are still in the same state of mind they were in 1000 years ago when the crusades were actually happening.
I'm surprised it took you so long, to fulfill Godwin's. Shall we address it anyways? actually the seperating out of a people into a distinct community was a key facet of nazi policy that why the few protection the nazis offered jews prior to the holocaust was the displaying of the "jewish colours".FSAB post=18.71605.732817 said: