T Nation

Britan Adopts Sharia Law

[quote]Makavali wrote:
What utter shit. If you want Sharia law, stay in whatever god-forsaken hell hole you crawled out of instead of forcing your beliefs on others.[/quote]

What part of “voluntary arbitration” did you interpret as “forcing your beliefs on others”?

Moreover, out of the 57 countries that make up the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference), 5 have a criminal and civil code based on their interpretation of religious texts. Among those 5, no two countries agree on what Sharia is supposed to be either.

As for the “god-forsaken hell hole you crawled out of”, what do you do with 2nd, 3rd, 4th generations? How do you deal with the Jacks that decided to convert to Islam? Isn’t it discriminatory to deny Muslims the flexibility offered by common law while Beth Din courts operate routinely?

What exactly does “pretty soon” represent in your view?

I totally agree with that. But isn’t closing up arbitration courts an assault on freedom. How can choice not be a good thing in this case?

And I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the association between the church and the state of England is quite evident to anyone that pays any attention. To cite only the most famous case, Helen Duncan was prosecuted and sentenced under the Witchcraft Act as late as 1944. Heck, a couple of month back, a teacher in Florida was accused of “wizardry” and fired after he performed a sleight of hand trick in class. But let’s stick to the Brits.

And if you pay even the slightest attention to the crowd riled up about this in Britain, you’ll realize that most echoed argument against these courts is the so-called “Judeo-Christian heritage”. Seriously, pay attention.

[quote]lixy wrote:
What part of “voluntary arbitration” did you interpret as “forcing your beliefs on others”?[/quote]

Give it time.

I’m not surprised. The only people I know that seem to be able to integrate into a western society are the ones who consider themselves agnostic with Islamic leanings.

Ship 'em off to another country. But only if they insist they must be subject to Sharia law.

Very. Hence my constant assertions that law must have no religious influences.

Within my lifetime. Which scares me, because MY children will have to live in the aftermath of such stupidity.

Because I very much doubt choice is given to women in these matters.

[quote]And I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the association between the church and the state of England is quite evident to anyone that pays any attention.

To cite only the most famous case, Helen Duncan was prosecuted and sentenced under the Witchcraft Act as late as 1944. Heck, a couple of month back, a teacher in Florida was accused of “wizardry” and fired after he performed a sleight of hand trick in class. But let’s stick to the Brits.[/quote]

And you should know by now that I dislike any religion that pokes its nose into politics. I don’t limit myself into Islam, if some Christian do-gooder tries to force stupidity into law and I feel it has no relevance or could hurt society, I’ll verbally abuse them too.

If some assfuck Hindu decided something like Sati should be enforced and legal, then I’d probably be first in line to shoot him.

I am only aware of two of the Ten that are part of British (and NZ) law.

Thou Shalt Not Kill
Thou Shalt Not Steal

Even adultery is not a punishable crime.

While laws did come from a Judeo-Christian background, the “heritage” you speak of has been watered down a LOT. Religion is not needed to enforce morality. We’re in 2008 now, I’d like to think Church and State can be separated.

[quote]Makavali wrote:
[i]There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.

Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.

The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.

Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.[/i]

What utter shit. If you want Sharia law, stay in whatever god-forsaken hell hole you crawled out of instead of forcing your beliefs on others.

Just wait, pretty soon Common Law will be abolished and Britain will become an Islamic State. The law governing the people should be free of religious interference. Holy freaking shit.[/quote]

And I am sure, the women in the story above, were completely free to choose this form of “justice”.

Look out for the Union Crescent.

[quote]Molotov_Coktease wrote:
I don’t understand. Why is England ‘assimilating’ in their own country? Should it not be the other way around? I don’t feel given the circumstances that it would be an overreaction to say this is a dangerous slippery slope. This is an example I think of the most prevalent impotence of Europe.

[/quote]

It how they get themselves into trouble time and time again trough out history. They ignore problems and pacify dangerous people until it’s too late. Just look at both world wars, they started with encroachment.

[quote]orion wrote:

The question is, what laws are their decisions based upon? In a lot of cases it is based on law systems that are not used in the states the courts reside in, especially in trade disputes.

Then the sharia is a system of laws, whether you like it or not.

[/quote]

And you too, will soon be a bitch to the Crescent.

The idea that the UK will soon become an Islamic state just gave me the lulz. Seriously, get a grip.

The idea of deporting muslims “back to where they came from” gave me even bigger lulz. Where would this be? The Greek island of Muslimos? The former Soviet republic of Islamistan?

[quote]Sifu wrote:
I am being realistic when I say that worshipping a man who tortured, raped, murdered and kept slaves is worshipping evil. [/quote]

Yeah, you’re right. The actions of Yahweh were pretty damn righteous and wholesome. Oh wait…rape, genocide, infanticide, child prostitution, ethnic cleansing and slavery are good things, right?

[quote]ninearms wrote:
The idea that the UK will soon become an Islamic state just gave me the lulz. Seriously, get a grip. [/quote]

Your attitude reminds me of how people in Germany in the 1920’s used to laugh at the nazi’s and think they were never going to be a problem.

What is coming is not a laughing matter. Britain is heading for big problems with the muslims and the people in power are not doing aything to try and avert the catastrophie that is coming. While people like you are in denial.

The role of women in islam is they are a hole for shitting out babies. These Sharia courts will prove an invaluable tool in keeping muslim women in that role.

When muslim women are having 12 -15 babies to the average English womans 1.5 there is a real threat to the British way of life that needs to be faced up to. With such a high birth rate 2 million could become 15 million in a generation.

At that point it would only take the next generation a birth rate of 8 children per woman to put the muslims at parity with the English.

I am sure you will try and act like this is a joke but what I am describing is the same strategy the Palestinians have been using against the Israelis. They are out breeding the Jews and they don’t even the wonderful British benefits system to support them in their endeavor.

Back in the 1920’s when Lebanon was created the idea was it would be a Christian country in the middle east. Back then Christians were accounted for more than two thirds of the population, now they are the minority. Again this drastic change in demographics was accomplished without the aid of the British benefits system.

If Britain is not to end up like Lebanon the time to do something about this is now, not in a generation or two when it is so blatantly obvious that only a fool cannot see that they are in a position to become the majority. [quote]

The idea of deporting muslims “back to where they came from” gave me even bigger lulz. Where would this be? The Greek island of Muslimos? The former Soviet republic of Islamistan? [/quote]

The idea of taking in as many muslims as they can has certainly not made the British any more popular in the muslim world than if they refused them.

You see my point, the ones that are born there can’t be gotten rid of. They are a menace to society that the British people now have to suffer with.

You attitude that this matter is some kind of a joke shows just how deeply in denial you are. The Salafists in East London aren’t a joke, this is not a game and they are not playing around. Those bombs on 7/7 were real bombs, they weren’t gag bombs that poked out a stick with a flag that said “bang!”. [quote]

Sifu wrote:
I am being realistic when I say that worshipping a man who tortured, raped, murdered and kept slaves is worshipping evil.

Yeah, you’re right. The actions of Yahweh were pretty damn righteous and wholesome. Oh wait…rape, genocide, infanticide, child prostitution, ethnic cleansing and slavery are good things, right?
[/quote]

The actions of Yahweh? You are going to have to explain that one.

You don’t even know who Yahweh is?

Jehovah. What is your point?

Well I assume you also want to inter/deport Christians and Jews seeing as they’re also worshippers of someone who commits or condones the aforementioned atrocities.

[quote]ninearms wrote:
Well I assume you also want to inter/deport Christians and Jews seeing as they’re also worshippers of someone who commits or condones the aforementioned atrocities.[/quote]

Jesus never behaved like mohammad. As a role model for Christians he set a real good example. Mohammad is a terrible role model. Bin Laden and his followers are not doing anything that is inconsistant with the example set by mohammad.

It amazes me how you British liberals can be so much in denial about islam. Everywhere in the world where muslims have gone and encountered other religions they have resorted to violence as a means of expressing their hatred of all that is not islam. Islam has a history of militancy and bigotry that starts with mohammad and continues to this day. The koran holy book gives detailed instructions on how to go to war with the nonbelievers. It also gives detailed instructions on how to lie to nonbelivers so they will lower their guard. I can see you are one who has bought into their lies.

“If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst.”

Stuff like that?

Is that a quote from Jesus?

I thought he was against stoning people to death.

That is old testament. The Jews may have their issues but they are not seeking to take over entire countries and force their religion on others.

If you read the news on a regular basis you will see that there is not a week that goes by where a muslims terrorist does not set a bomb off somewhere killing a bunch of people who are merely going about their lives. Just this week there was a series of bombs set off in India by Muslims.

Your attempts to rationalize muslim bad behaviour by attacking other religions that are not behaving like muslims is ridiculous and childish. You are trying to change the subject by blaming others who are not engaged in the same behaviour. Those diversionary tactics are weak and they are not going to work here.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
That is old testament. The Jews may have their issues but they are not seeking to take over entire countries and force their religion on others.

If you read the news on a regular basis you will see that there is not a week that goes by where a muslims terrorist does not set a bomb off somewhere killing a bunch of people who are merely going about their lives. Just this week there was a series of bombs set off in India by Muslims.

Your attempts to rationalize muslim bad behaviour by attacking other religions that are not behaving like muslims is ridiculous and childish. You are trying to change the subject by blaming others who are not engaged in the same behaviour. Those diversionary tactics are weak and they are not going to work here.

[/quote]

Christ…

Whether it’s the Old or New Testament is irrelevant - it’s the same God, committing, inciting, or endorsing the very actions that lead you to call all muslims evil.

Once you start deporting/imprisoning people based on the behaviour of whatever fictional character from the world of literature they structure their beliefs around you’re on very sketchy ground and not really any different from those deluded fools that want to destroy the infidels. Plus you’d have to imprison or deport pretty much every person on the planet who follows an Abrahamic religion, not just muslims.

The real problem is not extremists, but “moderates” (of whatever religious persuasion) and the unwarranted respect that is automatically given to whatever false delusions they subscribe to, no matter how ridiculous.

This is blowing this way out of proportion (surprise?)Slippery slope fallacy.

As someone who studies the law, I suggest anyone who is outraged by this to look up “Alternative dispute resolution” and understand its full extent.

There is no authority or power being given to the Muslims, other than the whole “slippery slope” argument fallacy.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
This is all because the Jews used their influence to set up Beth Din courts. It set the legal precedent for a religion based parrallel legal system.

These sharia courts are not just arbitration courts either, they have been ruling on serious criminal cases. [/quote]

Where did you hear about that?

“In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.”

Assuming you’re referring to this. The key thing here is that women chose to withdraw their police complaints. However to call this a serious criminal case is intellectually dishonest.

It’s like saying that me deciding not to take someone to court for hitting me is “Imposing Greek Law on London” or some such. The women have that freedom of choise ANYWAY during alternative dispute resolution which has been fully encouraged since the Woolf reforms. You can make a claim for this being a bad influence on Muslim communities etc, but the UK has definitely NOT given them the powers to rule bindingly on criminal cases.

At that point, no matter what, the police will not look further into it.

[quote]Nikiforos wrote:
This is blowing this way out of proportion (surprise?)Slippery slope fallacy.

As someone who studies the law, I suggest anyone who is outraged by this to look up “Alternative dispute resolution” and understand its full extent.

There is no authority or power being given to the Muslims, other than the whole “slippery slope” argument fallacy.[/quote]

The adoption of Sharia Law into Common Law is a problem, but keep hiding your head in the sand if you want to. It will affect you sooner than me.

Maybe Britain needs Sharia to take the burden off the regular court system. The Labour Party has created 3,600 new criminal offences since 1997.