Islamic Law Officially Adopted In Britain

[No Limit]

Has anyone actually read sharia law? I haven't, but I wonder if it really is that bad.

I personally haven't. But I would guess it's probably pretty bad. You can look at countries such as Saudi Arabia for proof.

 

[CptStern]

get used to it No Limit,, election is right around the corner, expect old members dropping by to put in their 2 cents ..since most of the members that left the politics section were right wing conservatives we can expect more of that

 

[Tyguy]

those darn conservatives and their guns

 

[CptStern]

Abortions for some, tiny American flags for others!

 

[Some_God]

How many muslims rioted? This is again what people like you do. You take a small group of assholes and then apply what they did across the board. People riot over soccer games in europe, I guess that must tell you something about ALL europeans? Right?

Why do you chose to label me as something I am not? I can claim that people who share your passive attitude towards certain issues have caused your political leaders to bow down and appease the "small groups of assholes", but that wouldn't be nice.

How was what you posted "interesting"? It is a pack of alarmist propaganda. I guess if I start posting 9/11 conspiracy theories or how the earth was created 4,000 years ago I don't actually subscribe to it, I just find it interesting?

Yes! Isn't it nice to look at other peoples views and opinions without calling people names? If it bothers you so much, can you find an article on the subject that isn't alarmist propaganda? Then I'll have a chance to see both sides of the coin.

 

[No Limit]

Why do you chose to label me as something I am not? I can claim that people who share your passive attitude towards certain issues have caused your political leaders to bow down and appease the "small groups of assholes", but that wouldn't be nice.

I labelled you something that you are not? How so?

Yes! Isn't it nice to look at other peoples views and opinions without calling people names? If it bothers you so much, can you find an article on the subject that isn't alarmist propaganda? Then I'll have a chance to see both sides of the coin.

I didn't call you any names. I called what you posted alarmist propaganda (which it is). If that upsets you on a personal level you might not be well suited for the politics board. What article do you want me to find? You claimed in your OP that Britain officially adopted Sharia law, an outright lie. There are no articles that back up this claim you made, that's exactly my point.

 

[Some_God]

I didn't make the claim, I copied what I read in the article. No need for the "people like you" comments you keep throwing around.

 

[No Limit]

The article made no such claim. This is the headline of the article you posted:

Revealed: UK?s first official sharia courts

This is your thread title:

Islamic Law Officially Adopted In Britain

Not quite the same is it? I'm not trying to be a dick, but what you posted is flat out false. As long as you can own up to that it's cool, I just can't stand people that try to spin their way out of a lie/distortion.

Actually on edit looks like I just made an ass out of myself. You did copy and paste from inside the article. But that doesn't change the fact that this statement is flat out false. Either way my bad.

 

[jverne]

wait...so how is an arbitrary sharia court any better? i think that British law covers most if not all civil disputes, why do we need an arbiter?

this is bullshit, and Britain is slowly nearing my "nuke as soon as possible" list of countries.

 

[No Limit]

wait...so how is an arbitrary sharia court any better? i think that British law covers most if not all civil disputes, why do we need an arbiter?

this is bullshit, and Britain is slowly nearing my "nuke as soon as possible" list of countries.

It's not any better, you are missing the point. If both parties want to agree to have a sharia court preside over their case they can. They are in no way forced to do this. This concept is nothing new as many here have already pointed out.

 

[99.vikram]

I dont see what the big deal is. It be like me and another person deciding that Judge Judy would preside over our dispute. So what?

Except the sharia rulings would have the full backing of the state's legal system. This is beyond disturbing.

 

[No Limit]

Except the sharia rulings would have the full backing of the state's legal system. This is beyond disturbing.

Again, how is that distubing? Both parties first have to agree to have a sharia court preside over their case. And again, see above. This is nothing new.

 

[99.vikram]

Again, how is that distubing? Both parties first have to agree to have a sharia court preside over their case. And again, see above. This is nothing new.

Within close knit communities, there is a lot of social pressure to stick to their own system of doing things. Sharia would be optional only in name.

And what happens when an imam rules that a divorce is legal because the husband said talaq thrice? The cops will have to enforce it.

A parallel legal system will permanently separate the muslim community from mainstream society. It's pretty much how it is around here.

 

[nurizeko]

about the not posting the anti-islamic cartoon:


the media is supposed to report the news ..not create it

Yeah, its also ideally meant to be impartial.

 

[Kadayi]

this is bullshit, and Britain is slowly nearing my "nuke as soon as possible" list of countries.

Because mass murder is the height of reason.

 

[Ennui]

I agree with No Limit in every capacity in this thread. Way to be super alarmist over something that doesn't warrant it. If both parties must agree to participate, what's the problem? Like No Limit said, it's not that different from Judge Judy or Judge Joe Brown - we know it's a farce, but who gives a shit if both parties agree to make it one?

If Muslims want to be presided over by Islamic law in civil cases, let them. You guys act like Britain is about to start executing infidels en masse.

 

[Nid Banikeri]

This is so dam retarded.

If we went to a muslim country and demanded that us Brits get our own set of laws where women are treated...fairly....then a jihad would probably be declared upon us of some sorts, because woman being treated as equals there would just be completely inhumane.
However some muslims move to our country, decide they don't like our laws, and decide to push for their own set of laws. What do British politicians do..................LOLOLOLOLOL :dozey:

Only using the women thing as an example, I know theirs obviously many other laws involved within it. But honestly, it's ridiculous, I couldn't care less what ethnicity they are, if you live in our country, then you live by our laws. How the hell does giving a minority their own set of laws within a country help break down barriers between ethnic groups.

It really doesn't matter whether both parties choose to use this system. Why were British laws made if some groups can just choose to use another system which favours them?Might aswell just give them their own bloody state in the UK.

Hmm...sound pretty nationalistic, but I'm not some UKIP twat or anything, I just really do not understand how the government has given into this.

Can I've my own set of laws please? Pretty please?

 

[Solaris]

This is so dam retarded.

If we went to a muslim country and demanded that us Brits get our own set of laws where women are treated...fairly....then a jihad would probably be declared upon us of some sorts, because woman being treated as equals there would just be completely inhumane.
However some muslims move to our country, decide they don't like our laws, and decide to push for their own set of laws. What do British politicians do..................LOLOLOLOLOL :dozey:

Only using the women thing as an example, I know theirs obviously many other laws involved within it. But honestly, it's ridiculous, I couldn't care less what ethnicity they are, if you live in our country, then you live by our laws. How the hell does giving a minority their own set of laws within a country help break down barriers between ethnic groups.

It really doesn't matter whether both parties choose to use this system. Why were British laws made if some groups can just choose to use another system which favours them?Might aswell just give them their own bloody state in the UK.

Hmm...sound pretty nationalistic, but I'm not some UKIP twat or anything, I just really do not understand how the government has given into this.

Can I've my own set of laws please? Pretty please?

They do live by our own laws ffs. It is in civil disputes where the law is not concrete that they can sort things out themselves if they wish, as can anybody.

 

[VirusType2]

I don't think everyone here knows what a civil dispute is. I'm not even sure I know exactly what it is. These are things like marriage, divorce, property disputes, etc. as far as I know.

So It's OK that two Christians may get married in a church of Christ, but for Muslims to wish to marry or divorce their traditional way is absurd? I don't think so.

There is no harm. They aren't getting off easy. If there are punishments for a crime, for example adultery, then I'm willing to bet that in a Muslim run court their punishment will be just as - if not much more severe.


I think that a lot of people are making hasty judgments without understanding what this decision really means. Or maybe I am, if so, please, let me know.


Jverne. This is your example of a stupid judge, taken from your signature:

Quote:
Originally Posted by stupid Russian judge
"If we had no sexual harassment we would have no children,"

And this is your comment:

this is bullshit, and Britain is slowly nearing my "nuke as soon as possible" list of countries.

/facepalm

You know, if you were to say this about .. oh, I don't know, Iran for example, you would be facepalmed out of the thread.

But it's okay to say stupid shit like this as long as they aren't the underdog?

Don't get me wrong, I don't take you serious, but well, you might think it shows your complete disgust of the decision here, but I think it shows your lack of understanding of it. Also it shows you think you know better than a bunch of people in government that are dealing with a very serious issue in a way that they think is best. Maybe you don't understand the implications?

You know, Muslims might be a minority, but that doesn't make them insignificant by any means. Do you pay attention to the news.

Not that I care, but I'm wondering where you even live anyway. You've got a 'holier than thou' attitude about quite a few countries.

 

[smwScott]

Ah look! Ignorance! First of all, America does plan to introduce ID cards. Security Cameras? You mean the ones that America doesn't have right?.

The third one is just stupid and plain wrong.

On the other hand, its because of things like this (on top of our pathetic, worthless, corrupt and spineless politicians, the PC brigade and the ludicrous taxes) that I am leaving this country the first opportunity I can.

ID Cards in the US are not mandatory (or even as invasive), that's quite a big difference.

With regards to the surveillance issue, in the article you linked they describe 73 cameras being used in Washington while 12,000 are used in Toronto (wish they had figures for England). Use of CCTV Surveillance is growing in the US, but is still mainly used for traffic enforcement and usually placed only in busy, high-traffic intersections. I personally disagree with this and feel that it leads down a very dangerous road ... but to compare it to the situation England is in now is ridiculous. You guys are a worst case scenario of what could happen...

As far as censorship I was referring to the government ratings board ability to refuse classification to media, in effect banning it. I will admit that I am somewhat ignorant on this issue but I believe that if something is refused classification then it can't be legally sold. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm right ... how is that not censorship? Even if I am wrong having a government body having such a large say in media is very troublesome.

A little bit more on topic ... I think most of us were aware that the court was voluntary and only applied to civil matters, I even referenced that in my first post. The point is that it can and is enforced under the British legal system, which is where the problem arises. Stern said that we have similar courts here in the US, but I was unaware that they were sanctioned by the state. If so then that is unacceptable as well.

 

[Tyguy]

I agree with No Limit in every capacity in this thread. Way to be super alarmist over something that doesn't warrant it. If both parties must agree to participate, what's the problem? Like No Limit said, it's not that different from Judge Judy or Judge Joe Brown - we know it's a farce, but who gives a shit if both parties agree to make it one?

If Muslims want to be presided over by Islamic law in civil cases, let them. You guys act like Britain is about to start executing infidels en masse.

It's a double edged sword for islamic women. They can either ignore sharia law and lose the respect of other islamics, or they can agree to it and be at an automatic disadvantage.

Basically, a fair trial for women is the subtle proclamation that their faith is imperfect.

 

[No Limit]

It's a double edged sword for islamic women. They can either ignore sharia law and lose the respect of other islamics, or they can agree to it and be at an automatic disadvantage.

Basically, a fair trial for women is the subtle proclamation that their faith is imperfect.

So the way I understand it you want to take away their freedom...umm...to protect their freedom? If a women wants to live under sharia law it is their choice, as dumb as that choice might be. You can blame it on pressure if you want, you might even be right in some cases. But the fact remains as long as you have a free country these women have a right to make this choice.

 

[Solaris]

wait...so how is an arbitrary sharia court any better? i think that British law covers most if not all civil disputes, why do we need an arbiter?

this is bullshit, and Britain is slowly nearing my "nuke as soon as possible" list of countries.

**** you.

In Britian we have a society based around free values and respect. We look after each other, we have a welfare state. We're happy to pay our taxes to help single mothers raise their children, get free healthcare for all and provide a top notch education for all children.

In our country, we have sensible political debates, where overt patriotism and flashing lights like in USA rallies are frowned upoun. I love so many things about this country and the fact that people can apoint arbitrators is not wrong at all.

You act as if these courts can send people to prison or something, they cannot.

I for one am proud to be a British citizen.

 

[Tyguy]

So the way I understand it you want to take away their freedom...umm...to protect their freedom? If a women wants to live under sharia law it is their choice, as dumb as that choice might be. You can blame it on pressure if you want, you might even be right in some cases. But the fact remains as long as you have a free country these women have a right to make this choice.

no, of course I dont want to take away their freedom. Im just thinking that there's going to be some sort of complacent persuasion for muslim women to choose the sharia system.

 

[Kadayi]

**** you.

In Britian we have a society based around free values and respect. We look after each other, we have a welfare state. We're happy to pay our taxes to help single mothers raise their children, get free healthcare for all and provide a top notch education for all children.

In our country, we have sensible political debates, where overt patriotism and flashing lights like in USA rallies are frowned upoun. I love so many things about this country and the fact that people can apoint arbitrators is not wrong at all.

You act as if these courts can send people to prison or something, they cannot.

I for one am proud to be a British citizen.

Seconded.

 

[No Limit]

no, of course I dont want to take away their freedom. Im just thinking that there's going to be some sort of complacent persuasion for muslim women to choose the sharia system.

Unfortunately that's already the case and it will be that way for a long time. This court really doesn't have much to do with that, that's just the fact of life. There are millions of abused women that stay with their spouse. I can't for the life of me understand why but that's just the world we live in. But trying to limit freedoms to protect these people is a slippery slope.

I also want to make it clear that I'm not really supporting this idea of an alternative court for domestic disputes in any religious situation, I think it's idiotic. But this really doesn't make my give a shit meter go off, I could careless. My biggest problem here is the alarmist tone of the media in this regard.

 

[Kadayi]

Unfortunately that's already the case and it will be that way for a long time. This court really doesn't have much to do with that, that's just the fact of life. There are millions of abused women that stay with their spouse. I can't for the life of me understand why but that's just the world we live in.

It's Beauty and the Beast syndrome. Guy can be a complete animal but if he shows a glimmer of charm or remorse some women will believe they can change him. Golden rule of life, don't bring your daughters up reading fairy tales with dubious moral undertones to them. Children are easily influenced, esp when young

 

[VirusType2]

I think they feel they are worthless and nothing without them (the abuser) and are lost without them. They will put up with it until they are abused enough to learn to hate the abuser, and that's when they finally leave.