U.N.B.E.L.I.E.V.A.B.L.E

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
The British are weaker than the French. I can never imagine this happening in America. I really feel sorry for female Muslims in Britain.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7232661.stm

Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable".


Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.

For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.

He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".

'Sensational reporting'

In an exclusive interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, ahead of a lecture to lawyers in London on Monday, Dr Williams argues this relies on Sharia law being better understood.

At the moment, he says "sensational reporting of opinion polls" clouds the issue.

He stresses that "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well".

But Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts - I think that's a bit of a danger".

"There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law."

'Other loyalties'

Dr Williams added: "What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people's religious consciences."

"We don't either want a situation where, because there's no way of legally monitoring what communities do... people do what they like in private in such a way that that becomes another way of intensifying oppression inside a community."

The issue of whether Catholic adoption agencies would be forced to accept gay parents under equality laws showed the potential for legal confusion, he said.

"That principle that there is only one law for everybody is an important pillar of our social identity as a western democracy," he said.

"But I think it is a misunderstanding to suppose that means people don't have other affiliations, other loyalties which shape and dictate how they behave in society and that the law needs to take some account of that."

'Custom and community'

Dr Williams noted that Orthodox Jewish courts already operated, and that the law accommodated the anti-abortion views of some Christians.

"The whole idea that there are perfectly proper ways the law of the land pays respect to custom and community, that's already there," he said.

People may legally devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed third party as long as both sides agree to the process.

Muslim Sharia courts and the Jewish Beth Din which already exist in the UK come into this category.

The country's main Beth Din at Finchley in north London oversees a wide range of cases including divorce settlements, contractual rows between traders and tenancy disputes.

Dr Williams' comments are likely to fuel the debate over multiculturalism in the UK.

Last month, the Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, said some places in the UK were no-go areas for non-Muslims.

Dr Williams said it was "not at all the case that we have absolute social exclusion".

 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Ah, hell. This is especially bad news to those of us in Canada, since we seem to be headed down the same route (only time delayed by a couple of years).
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,461
4
81
It's a 3rd party intermediary. If a victim is stupid enough to go to a Shariah court vs a real court...so be it.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: Nitemare
It's a 3rd party intermediary. If a victim is stupid enough to go to a Shariah court vs a real court...so be it.

What about minors? What about the mentally ill? What about the gullible? There should never be multiple laws for multiple citizens. If the minority don't like it, they can either leave or convince the majority to change the law. A staggered judicial system is a terrible idea.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Of course, what's funny is that perhaps most of those who protest the loudest about any consideration for THAT religion, are the same who are fighting for adding consideration for the Christian religion in court.

I'll withhold judgement until I see more. It's not *necessarily* a bad thing to let couples choose another forum for marital issues, for example; in our courts we've increased options for drug rehab, for pre-nups, etc., recognizing that some flexibility can be useful.

Why shouldn't they be able to have their marriages fit more closely with their religious beliefs? I mean, we exclude gays from marriage entirely in 49 states to fit religious beliefs as the primary reason, andyet our outrage is how they want to handle divorces?

That doesn't mean carte blanche - the society still says what's allowed and not, just as it says what's ok in a pre-nup and not ok.
 

AnitaPeterson

Diamond Member
Apr 24, 2001
6,026
558
126
Originally posted by: yllus
Ah, hell. This is especially bad news to those of us in Canada, since we seem to be headed down the same route (only time delayed by a couple of years).

If that actually happens, I'm moving to Eastern Europe!
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Craig234
Of course, what's funny is that perhaps most of those who protest the loudest about any consideration for THAT religion, are the same who are fighting for adding consideration for the Christian religion in court.

I'll withhold judgement until I see more. It's not *necessarily* a bad thing to let couples choose another forum for marital issues, for example; in our courts we've increased options for drug rehab, for pre-nups, etc., recognizing that some flexibility can be useful.

Why shouldn't they be able to have their marriages fit more closely with their religious beliefs? I mean, we exclude gays from marriage entirely in 49 states to fit religious beliefs as the primary reason, andyet our outrage is how they want to handle divorces?

That doesn't mean carte blanche - the society still says what's allowed and not, just as it says what's ok in a pre-nup and not ok.

You think they'll stop once allowed to hear divorce? They'll expand to enforcing arranged marriages. A little bit of Sharia is like a little bit pregnant.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Craig234
Of course, what's funny is that perhaps most of those who protest the loudest about any consideration for THAT religion, are the same who are fighting for adding consideration for the Christian religion in court.

I'll withhold judgement until I see more. It's not *necessarily* a bad thing to let couples choose another forum for marital issues, for example; in our courts we've increased options for drug rehab, for pre-nups, etc., recognizing that some flexibility can be useful.

Why shouldn't they be able to have their marriages fit more closely with their religious beliefs? I mean, we exclude gays from marriage entirely in 49 states to fit religious beliefs as the primary reason, andyet our outrage is how they want to handle divorces?

That doesn't mean carte blanche - the society still says what's allowed and not, just as it says what's ok in a pre-nup and not ok.

You think they'll stop once allowed to hear divorce? They'll expand to enforcing arranged marriages. A little bit of Sharia is like a little bit pregnant.

:laugh:
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Craig234
Of course, what's funny is that perhaps most of those who protest the loudest about any consideration for THAT religion, are the same who are fighting for adding consideration for the Christian religion in court.

I'll withhold judgement until I see more. It's not *necessarily* a bad thing to let couples choose another forum for marital issues, for example; in our courts we've increased options for drug rehab, for pre-nups, etc., recognizing that some flexibility can be useful.

Why shouldn't they be able to have their marriages fit more closely with their religious beliefs? I mean, we exclude gays from marriage entirely in 49 states to fit religious beliefs as the primary reason, andyet our outrage is how they want to handle divorces?

That doesn't mean carte blanche - the society still says what's allowed and not, just as it says what's ok in a pre-nup and not ok.

You think they'll stop once allowed to hear divorce? They'll expand to enforcing arranged marriages. A little bit of Sharia is like a little bit pregnant.

And your post is like the dictionary definition of slippery slope.

No, they won't stop asking for more. Yes, the government can say 'yes' or 'no'.

Consider what you're saying, how illogical it is when applied to the same type of situation on other issues.

"No, we should not allow drug rehab as an alternative to jail. All criminals have problems or they wouldn't be criminals - allow it for drugs and then all jail will be replaced by 'rehab'".

You're a sensible guy, why don't you look at the specific issue and not use slippery slopes? You do seem to have quite a bit of hostility towards Muslims on these issues.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,901
10,233
136
Originally posted by: Dari
The British are weaker than the French. I can never imagine this happening in America. I really feel sorry for female Muslims in Britain.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7232661.stm

Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable".

Opposing this, we will be called bigots, xenophobes, Islamophobes, as the liberals preach ?tolerance? of the Islamic Supremacist encroachment into western civilization. Yet for all the bloodshed in Afghanistan and Iraq, WTF have WE conservatives done to stop this? Not a god damn thing.

The ?war on terror? begins at home. It should also be called the War on Islamic Supremacy. Because that is exactly what we should be fighting, especially within our own civilization.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
So, do all of you arguing that Mulsims shouldn't be allowed their arange their own courts for civil matters, also take issue with the fact that Jews are allowed their own civil courts? Or do you all not feel that Muslims should have the same rights as Jews?
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
Well this seems to be the way that White run countries are heading. Minority Rule. The pansy asses in power don't want to upset the minority and will bend over backwards to accomidate them and screw everyone else in the process. Why are politicians so stupid and short sighted?
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
WTF??? arent countries suppose to unite people? having laws for each religion within is beyond stupid. lets start having baptist laws, lutheran laws... all this would do is diivide england more so than it is already. pretty soon the isle of england will be back to independant kingdoms.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
So, do all of you arguing that Mulsims shouldn't be allowed their arange their own courts for civil matters, also take issue with the fact that Jews are allowed their own civil courts? Or do you all not feel that Muslims should have the same rights as Jews?

none of them should! period.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
The ?war on terror? begins at home. It should also be called the War on Islamic Supremacy. Because that is exactly what we should be fighting, especially within our own civilization.

QFT. :thumbsup:
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
So, do all of you arguing that Mulsims shouldn't be allowed their arange their own courts for civil matters, also take issue with the fact that Jews are allowed their own civil courts? Or do you all not feel that Muslims should have the same rights as Jews?

Contextually, if Jews were blowing up places in London or sympathizing in sizeable numbers with those who did, and then petitioned for their own courts, I'd have to wonder if they'd be accomodated.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,901
10,233
136
Originally posted by: Craig234
Of course, what's funny is that perhaps most of those who protest the loudest about any consideration for THAT religion, are the same who are fighting for adding consideration for the Christian religion in court.

Take your equality argument and go to hell Craig.

Oh, and I'd like to remind everyone. Craig's argument here is the shining example of what I have said before.

Biggest attack in Iraq since the surge.
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Just remember, we?re told they do this out of poverty and/or cultural differences. We?re told that we?re no better than this, so we can?t condemn them for it. Apparently Christians also send suicide bombers to markets, I?d just like to know when our liberals belittle western civilization as equal to this barbarism, where are their examples to cite that we commit such horrors?

Blowing up the innocent at the marketplace is routine in the Muslim world. Yet how are we ever going to confront this ? if we do not SO MUCH as call it by name? How are we ever going to prevent the cancer from spreading here to our homeland as we invite its host in with open arms?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Craig234
Of course, what's funny is that perhaps most of those who protest the loudest about any consideration for THAT religion, are the same who are fighting for adding consideration for the Christian religion in court.

Take your equality argument and go to hell Craig.

Jaskalas, with that post, I ask you not to read my posts or post to me again. You are too ill-mannered for me to want to have anything to do with you.
 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
I read this earlier and wondered if it would appear. Let us get some things straight FIRST


Dr Williams noted that Orthodox Jewish courts already operated
, and that the law accommodated the anti-abortion views of some Christians.

"The whole idea that there are perfectly proper ways the law of the land pays respect to custom and community, that's already there," he said.

People may legally devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed third party as long as both sides agree to the process.

Muslim Sharia courts and the Jewish Beth Din which already exist in the UK come into this category.

The country's main Beth Din at Finchley in north London oversees a wide range of cases including divorce settlements, contractual rows between traders and tenancy disputes.

There are already established Jewish Courts. To allow those to continue while bitch at muslims is ludicrous. If we allow some religious groups to get their own courts, then they all should have to right if they can mobilize for it. Otherwise this is favoritism of religious organizations by the government.

SECONDLY...They need to establish this carefully and properly. Otherwise what will happen is what I would call "culture Sharia". This is NOT actual Sharia law. I would classify is as a potpourri of the culture from which a specific group that people came from (Ie: Pakistanis doing things they way their culture does it), hadiths talking about life 1300 years ago in Arabia (ie: the way people lived long ago...you'd be surprised how stupid people can be and believe that growing a beard gets you "points" for heaven...rather than the fact that the Prophet Mohammed was a human like us and probably also styled his beard occasionally like we do. And the great part is it almost never came directly from Prophet Mohammad himself...it came from a person who knows a person who knows a person who heard his hairdresser say that he once said something...of course this is what happens when the earliest attempt to write what he said occurred about 200 years after he died) , and just the conservative style of people TODAY who have a natural reaction against what parts of society have become.

In MOST cases there is barely a SMIDGE of actual religious basis for MANY Sharia Laws.

A good example is how I often hear cited that divorce is possible, in "sharia law" for a man to say "Bitch I divorce you" thrice for it to be considered legal.
This is a GROSS misunderstanding of the actual process - which IMPLORES getting counciling first (whether through families or speaking to an imam), and then TRYING to fix things, and then giving a period to time (scale of months) to ensure that this is really what a person wants, etc. It has to be positive that reconciliation is not possible. There needs to be an ensured way for the man or women to survive, and take care for the children if they exist, etc. etc. It isn't this super chauvinist means that we see which is.... pure culture. IMO I see it as a nice alternative to the "fvck the guy over and give it to the women" type of process that seems to almost encourage people to divorce that we have.

Its like a slave owner converting his slaves to Christianity and then taking sound bites about loyalty and twisting it in his own method. This has what happened to Sharia Law in 99% of the cases.

I can really look at a development of something like this as VERY positive and VERY forward if Sharia is implemented VERY carefully with the understanding that laws need to adapt to times. It could serve as a model for what sharia is really about - rather than stupid rules where some HAVE no basis in religion (the most ironic thing is that Islam actually FORBIDS marriage against one's will!) , one that can develop with an understanding of the world around us and show that being "modern" and "progressive" is compatible and ideal with Islamic thought...and indeed it was in the past! Islam just has to fight off that culture that tries to pass itself off as religion

But knowing how the Brits are seemingly dealing with most things - they'll fuck it up and let "cultural Sharia" come into play

Of course I know everyone will ignore this, and instead (waiting for Jakalas, N00b, et al) use it as another chance to bash Islam about a legal system that is barely representative. Muslim's biggest enemies are those who claim they are Muslims - both the Quran and Moonbeam said this so it must be true ;)
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,901
10,233
136
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Craig234
Of course, what's funny is that perhaps most of those who protest the loudest about any consideration for THAT religion, are the same who are fighting for adding consideration for the Christian religion in court.

Take your equality argument and go to hell Craig.

Jaskalas, with that post, I ask you not to read my posts or post to me again. You are too ill-mannered for me to want to have anything to do with you.

The equality argument is employed as a division to pry our eyes away from our opponents. Why do you always defend them with that? Why do you always undermine those of us who oppose them?

I do not take that treachery lightly.