Judge: Sharia law SHOULD be used in Britain

[TheWesDude]

tbh, i wouldnt have any problem with it. the jews do it now. you dont complain about them do you?

Fuck no. Fuck that judge.

someone obviously failed reading comprehension in 3rd grade. go back, read it again. if you still dont understand what he is saying, give up and ignore the topic.

No Brittan isn't likely going to be hanging gays. Not any time soon. It's still a step in that direction.

no its not. hell, you do realize that they are practicing saharia law NOW dont you?

so: i am very much against applying any sharia law, and be it in the smallest imaginable instance. thats a dangerous slippery slope there.

technically, there is nothing to stop them from doing exactly what they want to do without the parts they cannot.

If a law only applies to one section of society regardless of how large or small I'd feel it to be a form of discrimination which intentional or not would pretty much create another schism for people to hate each other over.

I'm totally against it.

then you dont understand what they are asking for.


just to reiterate from the article...

they would not be able to do anything that violates the laws of britian or wales. their laws would basically have the same consideration as a contract. if parts of the contract violate the law, a judge can throw out the whole contract or the parts that violate the laws.

there isnt anything preventing them from doing what they wish now as if it were a contract, they just want some form of official recognition that what they are doing.

read the article again people.

 

[Ah-Teen]

In a democratic society it is detrimental to grant laws to a specific sub-society, no matter how huge the minority may be. That is, if it touches on the fundamental laws the majority of people in the society live by. It only fuels alienation, discrimination and feelings of inequality and leads to an even more shattered society. That doesn't mean it is not happening, just that it shouldn't IMO.

You mean separate isn't equal?!!!! OH MY GOD! LYNCH HIM BEFORE HE SPREADS HIS LIES!

Maybe this is why I hate sharia law.

You really dig the word bigotry, huh? So I assume you are against death sentences in general?

Yes I do dig that word. And no, my religion doesn't condemn killing nor is there benefit to letting someone sit in prison until they croak.

I am however against hanging people 'cause they like taking it up the ass from another guy.

I don't really get the position towards this, either. Care to elaborate, Ah-Teen?

I don't want any country to begin instituting religious laws at any level. I don't want the religious laws we in the US have now. I don't want anyone else to live under religious laws in the future.

That said there should also be no law inhibiting religious activities.

I can only vote for my country, but I can share my opinion.

Anything in that direction. Muslims do not need it to practice their religion. It is not needed to be used.

Wow this is a dumb argument.

'Hey it's not necessary so now they shouldn't be allowed to do this!!!!'
What?

It's not a part of their religion Sander. Would you like to point out where exactly it is written in the Qur'an women should wear a headscarf or a burka? I can, in the unwritten sharia law.

They do not need, and many of the muslims I live around would not want this.

If Muslims want the Sharia Law, please go to Muslim Countries. This is the west. We like our separation between religion and state.

More and more, I begin to think that there ins't enough space for westerns and muslims in the same planet...

I have more than enough Muslim friends... including some very very religious Muslims who left their countries because of this particular bullshit.

I might also point out that as far as I've been told, the US is the only western country to specify, albeit awkwardly, that there should be a separation.

 

[maximaz]

When I click on a thread that has something to do with Islam, I already expect extremely negative anti-Islamic posts that have less and less to do with the actual topic and more with insulting whatever pro islamic message there was by people who know close to nothing about it.

All I had to do was type in the word 'fuck' in the search on the first page to find out if this was one of those threads and wasn't worth posting in. Sure enough, it was found and a execution pic followed. It's seriously pathetic and pointless. Threads like these are all about something very different than common sense. Hopefully, this rant prevented at least one potential brainfart of a post here.

Salam

 

[Kahgan]

Christian law is so much better. Oh whait, it isn't, its just the same thing, except it's had a chance to adapt (somewhat) to modern society...

 

[Sander]

Some people should follow some reading comprehension courses here, yeesh. Read the article again, people. Muslims don't get to execute gays now.

Also, by the way, in most interpretations of Sharia by Western Muslims gays don't get executed either.

The ignorance of people in this thread, and the complete failure to even read the original article is astounding.

i personally think that the sharia is no law at all. at least not in a western sense. y'know, ive grown fond of our infidel western ways, namely the separation of secular and religious 'law'. so... applying a law that lacks ONE fundamental basis makes this at least a very questionable gesture.

This is false.
The seperation of church and state is not the same as not basing laws on religious morals. Hell, basically all of our laws are based on Christian morals so what the hell are you on about anyway?

The only thing the seperation of church and state means, is that the state will give equal rights to all religions, and that churches will not have direct say in governmental affairs.

This doesn't mean that just because some random religion adheres to one principle it's impossible for that point to ever be incorporated into a law.

I am however against hanging people 'cause they like taking it up the ass from another guy.

Most Muslims are as well.
Moreover, introducing Sharia as this judge proposed has absolutely nothing to do with hanging gays. Seriously.

I don't want any country to begin instituting religious laws at any level.

Should've emigrated to the USSR when it existed, then. And even that had laws based on religion. All laws are based on morality in one way or another. In most Western societies, this is a Judeo-Christian morality, coupled with some more modern additions to this (equality of everyone, for instance). In other societies, this source is the Muslim religion.

It's not a part of their religion Sander. Would you like to point out where exactly it is written in the Qur'an women should wear a headscarf or a burka? I can, in the unwritten sharia law.

They do not need, and many of the muslims I live around would not want this.

What part of 'opt-in' don't you understand, Ah-Teen? No one is forced to abide by these laws. If there are muslims that do not agree with Sharia, then they don't opt-in.

 

[horse]

i absolutely agree that the base of our laws are christian. so, i would really like to know on what basis the caricatures of mohamed were prosecuted. or, say, under which law salman rushdies fatwa was issued. what i was trying to point out is the basic difference between how, say, blasphemy is handled.


edit: i am reading right now a bit about those laws. as is suspected, it allows interpretations and is, of course handled differently by different religious groups. naturally, we only see the top of the iceberg - the vast majority of muslims appears to be neither extremistic nor fundamentalistic. so, a fatwa seems to be only binding for certain muslim groups. as i am not exactly an expertologist on those laws, i will try to find out which of these laws are applicable in western civilizations. id be happy if some of you guys enlighten me in that regard.

 

[Ah-Teen]

Some people should follow some reading comprehension courses here, yeesh. Read the article again, people. Muslims don't get to execute gays now.

Also, by the way, in most interpretations of Sharia by Western Muslims gays don't get executed either.

The ignorance of people in this thread, and the complete failure to even read the original article is astounding.

Yes, spout out the ignorance claim anytime someone says something that could possibly be construed to be racist in any way.

No shit they aren't going to hang gays. That isn't what anyone said, that is so blatantly obvious I don't know why you are saying that it wont.

The problem is, this isn't a religious law. It's law based solely on interpretations of religion, and that shouldn't be used.

Please stop using the reading comprehension insult. I won't lower myself to that level, I'd hope to not deal with those who do.

I am however against hanging people 'cause they like taking it up the ass from another guy.

Most Muslims are as well.
Moreover, introducing Sharia as this judge proposed has absolutely nothing to do with hanging gays. Seriously.

Your taking things out of context. This comment of mine had nothing to do with the judge but had to do with Iranians.

Who do hang gays. Seriously.

I don't want any country to begin instituting religious laws at any level.

Should've emigrated to the USSR when it existed, then. And even that had laws based on religion. All laws are based on morality in one way or another. In most Western societies, this is a Judeo-Christian morality, coupled with some more modern additions to this (equality of everyone, for instance). In other societies, this source is the Muslim religion.

Maybe I shouldn't have left out that big tangent on this very subject.

There will always be bias toward religious laws from a certain sect. People will always be influenced by their sect. That is perfectly fine. But when people make laws solely based on religion, or a legal code of any level based on the decisions of religious leaders, that goes too far for me.

If they want a back room court, thats fine by me. So long as they have to go through official government channels to get official things done.

It's not a part of their religion Sander. Would you like to point out where exactly it is written in the Qur'an women should wear a headscarf or a burka? I can, in the unwritten sharia law.

They do not need, and many of the muslims I live around would not want this.

What part of 'opt-in' don't you understand, Ah-Teen? No one is forced to abide by these laws. If there are muslims that do not agree with Sharia, then they don't opt-in.

If they want a back room court, thats fine by me. So long as they have to go through official government channels to get official things done.

They want to hold court on whether or not a soul is pure or whether a marriage is valid. Thats fine by me. But in no way should that be seen as a final judgment by the law of the land.

When I click on a thread that has something to do with Islam, I already expect extremely negative anti-Islamic posts that have less and less to do with the actual topic and more with insulting whatever pro islamic message there was by people who know close to nothing about it.

What has been said that is anti-islamic? Maybe one post which was promptly shot down.

Please READ before posting.

 

[Sander]

Yes, spout out the ignorance claim anytime someone says something that could possibly be construed to be racist in any way.

No shit they aren't going to hang gays. That isn't what anyone said, that is so blatantly obvious I don't know why you are saying that it wont.

Because basically the second thing you touted around here was a picture of people being hanged along with a comment about gays.
So either you were trolling and trying to derail this thread, or you're now trolling. Take your pick.

[quote"Ah-Teen"]
The problem is, this isn't a religious law. It's law based solely on interpretations of religion, and that shouldn't be used.[/quote]
This....doesn't make any sense.
All religion is an interpretation in the first place. Secondly, I don't see how the fact that it's "an interpretation" is relevant at all. It's basically an opt-in contract.

Maybe I shouldn't have left out that big tangent on this very subject.

There will always be bias toward religious laws from a certain sect. People will always be influenced by their sect. That is perfectly fine. But when people make laws solely based on religion, or a legal code of any level based on the decisions of religious leaders, that goes too far for me.

This statement is mind-boggling.
Okay, so suppose the pope says 'condoms should be banned'. In Italy, every one's a Roman-Catholic and a majority are hence in favor of banning condoms. So they ban condoms. And here's the kicker: *that's exactly how all laws come into existence*.

The fact that some religious person claims something should be done does not invalidate that position just because he's religious.

If they want a back room court, thats fine by me. So long as they have to go through official government channels to get official things done.

Yeah, and you wonder why I think people should follow reading comprehension classes.
This *is* what they want.

They want to hold court on whether or not a soul is pure or whether a marriage is valid. Thats fine by me. But in no way should that be seen as a final judgment by the law of the land.

Seriously, if you don't want to be insulted for failing to comprehend what is written, then don't fail to comprehend what is written. Did you even glance at this article?

 

[Ah-Teen]

Yes, spout out the ignorance claim anytime someone says something that could possibly be construed to be racist in any way.

No shit they aren't going to hang gays. That isn't what anyone said, that is so blatantly obvious I don't know why you are saying that it wont.

Because basically the second thing you touted around here was a picture of people being hanged along with a comment about gays.
So either you were trolling and trying to derail this thread, or you're now trolling. Take your pick.

SO I'm trolling now? Dude, give it a rest. Hanging gays has nothing to do with the topic. I posted that picture because I don't like sharia law because of how it has been used in other countries. I probably shouldn't have posted it at all. But I was pissed.

The problem is, this isn't a religious law. It's law based solely on interpretations of religion, and that shouldn't be used.

This....doesn't make any sense.
All religion is an interpretation in the first place. Secondly, I don't see how the fact that it's "an interpretation" is relevant at all. It's basically an opt-in contract.

Law based on a few people's views of religion is bad.

Maybe I shouldn't have left out that big tangent on this very subject.

There will always be bias toward religious laws from a certain sect. People will always be influenced by their sect. That is perfectly fine. But when people make laws solely based on religion, or a legal code of any level based on the decisions of religious leaders, that goes too far for me.

This statement is mind-boggling.
Okay, so suppose the pope says 'condoms should be banned'. In Italy, every one's a Roman-Catholic and a majority are hence in favor of banning condoms. So they ban condoms. And here's the kicker: *that's exactly how all laws come into existence*.

The fact that some religious person claims something should be done does not invalidate that position just because he's religious.

Then they live in a theocracy. Which I am opposed to. Let me ask you this. In reality, if the pope said that. How many people would actually care enough?

In the us with the gay marriage BS, a whole lot of people supported Bush. Most republicans still liked the fucker. Yet he still only got 30% of the vote for the amendment. I might add Obama was one of the one's voting for it but thats not an issue here.

People may follow their religious leaders, and they will always be colored by their religious beliefs. But they won't vote for ass tarded things all at once.

You can't ever 100% take religion out. I did say it should but I know it's not possible. Religion should be minimized in law making in every way possible.

If they want a back room court, thats fine by me. So long as they have to go through official government channels to get official things done.

Yeah, and you wonder why I think people should follow reading comprehension classes.
This *is* what they want.

So what your saying, is they now have permission to hold these back room court. But nothing really changed? I'm sorry, maybe I read that wrong.

Maybe I'd like to get this judge to say I have permission to have sex in doors.

I can comprehend this just fine. It allows these courts to make judgments so long as they comply with the laws of Brittan.

The problem is that it is making judgments which are now, because of the lord's approval, recognized.

If they want to resolve the issue before hand in these courts, thats fine. If they want to bring their judgment into a legal court, and then officially settle it. Thats fine.

If they make a judgment and then it goes straight to practice, that is not fine.

They want to hold court on whether or not a soul is pure or whether a marriage is valid. Thats fine by me. But in no way should that be seen as a final judgment by the law of the land.

Seriously, if you don't want to be insulted for failing to comprehend what is written, then don't fail to comprehend what is written. Did you even glance at this article?

This is just an insult, keep it with the topic.

 

[Sander]

Then they live in a theocracy

No, they live in a democracy. The fact that the people let themselves be guided by religion does not make it a theocracy at all. It'd only be a democracy if there is a state religion that has direct inlfuence.

Please research the principle of seperation of church and state some more before you continue on this completely misguided rant.

In the us with the gay marriage BS, a whole lot of people supported Bush. Most republicans still liked the fucker. Yet he still only got 30% of the vote for the amendment. I might add Obama was one of the one's voting for it but thats not an issue here.

People may follow their religious leaders, and they will always be colored by their religious beliefs. But they won't vote for ass tarded things all at once.

It's a hypothetical example.
And yes, people mass vote for ass-tarded things all the fucking time. But that's not a relevant point here. Whether or not a position is backed by religion or not is *irrelevant* for the law.

You can't ever 100% take religion out. I did say it should but I know it's not possible. Religion should be minimized in law making in every way possible.

Why?
Because you dislike religion?
Here's the point: the source of a belief is irrelevant. You make all the point of the source of the belief instead of the belief itself.

Separation of church and state is *not* about taking personal beliefs out of the law. It is about not favoring any religion and it is about denying religion official, direct governmental influence. That is *it*.

So what your saying, is they now have permission to hold these back room court. But nothing really changed? I'm sorry, maybe I read that wrong.

Maybe I'd like to get this judge to say I have permission to have sex in doors.

I can comprehend this just fine. It allows these courts to make judgments so long as they comply with the laws of Brittan.

The problem is that it is making judgments which are now, because of the lord's approval, recognized.

If they want to resolve the issue before hand in these courts, thats fine. If they want to bring their judgment into a legal court, and then officially settle it. Thats fine.

If they make a judgment and then it goes straight to practice, that is not fine.

Seriously, read the bloody article for once.

They do not get to make decisions that oppose British law. They get to decide on small 'family' disputes between people that agree beforehand to be judged by Sharia law. Sharia law is still subordinate to British law.

Again: basic.reading.comprehension.

 

[Wooz]

Right. Now that you kids are done, let me remind you the subject of your quarrel is a single judge's opinion.

 

[Brother None]

Right. Now that you kids are done, let me remind you the subject of your quarrel is a single judge's opinion.

A single judge?

The Lord Chief Justice is the highest legal authority in the British judiciary system.

Not that he set precedent by saying this is the way he'd like it to be. But y'know...just sayin'.

 

[Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude]

Seriously, read the bloody article for once.

They do not get to make decisions that oppose British law. They get to decide on small 'family' disputes between people that agree beforehand to be judged by Sharia law. Sharia law is still subordinate to British law.

Again: basic.reading.comprehension.

I'm pretty sure we all read the article.

People are assed up about this because Sharia law preaches hate; plain and simple. It doesn't fucking matter whether said portions of it are "opt-in" or not, it has no place in civilized nations regardless of it being "subordinate to British law".

The wording is shady at best. What does it all mean? Does it mean if a woman is brutally raped, the family can work out a sheep/goat payment plan with the rapist's family?

Do you honestly think this type of shit is actually beneficial to a country?

 

[Wooz]

A single judge?

The Lord Chief Justice is the highest legal authority in the British judiciary system.

Sho', you're right about that.

However, the fact that he's the lord master of whatever doesn't mean the man's the last word in the legislative-approving process. Last I heard, there was a house of Commons and a house of Lords to get through in order to pass a law.

 

[Sander]

I'm pretty sure we all read the article.

People are assed up about this because Sharia law preaches hate; plain and simple. It doesn't fucking matter whether said portions of it are "opt-in" or not, it has no place in civilized nations regardless of it being "subordinate to British law".

It preaches hate does it? Sharia is nothing more than a law based on muslim beliefs. Sharia doesn't preach anything, Islam preaches something. And if you look at almost all Western muslims, it isn't hate.

Moreover, if anything, this means you get to ban Islam, not Sharia.

The wording is shady at best. What does it all mean? Does it mean if a woman is brutally raped, the family can work out a sheep/goat payment plan with the rapist's family?

Do you honestly think this type of shit is actually beneficial to a country?

Ehm, what? Something like rape does not fall under small family disputes.

And what wording? This is a judge's opinion, it isn't a ruling.

 

[xdarkyrex]

my only complaint about this going into effect is the idea that it involves forcing people to classify themselves as "muslim" or "non-muslim" in a legal sense, which creates legal class seperation in a rather arbitrary and slippery-slopish kind of way. bad trend to start.

 

[KingAlex]

my only complaint about this going into effect is the idea that it involves forcing people to classify themselves as "muslim" or "non-muslim" in a legal sense, which creates legal class seperation in a rather arbitrary and slippery-slopish kind of way. bad trend to start.

I would agree on this. Why introduce new laws when there allredy are laws in place that work well?

Mind, I do not care about religion, but in terms of pure law.

 

[BOS Man]

Dude, it's supposed to be a decision to settle family disputes and other minor quarrels.

My understanding of the situation says this is true, but you do know what that means, right? I believe that Muslim men in Britain can now marry multiple wives and beat them whenever they want without repercussions. They can also preach hate speech about Jews, homosexuals, or any other infidels they don't like. I don't think they will be allowed to legally murder women for showing their ankles but they now legally have to wear burkas. And don't think it will stop here; That's the thing about these fanatics: You give them one inch and they're going to expect a mile. They won't be happy until the Koran is law.

The British are slowly giving up their culture bit by bit to foreigners. This is like if in 1066 they just let the Normans walk right in. Their culture was destroyed and replaced, how long do you think before it happens again? You gotta show some balls in this, Britain. What would Churchill say if he saw you roll over like this?

Here's how it should work: You move to a country and you speak their language, respect their customs and obey their laws. The radical Muslims just think that everyone should adhere to their culture and don't understand the meaning of tolerance, while using that very word to hide behind their rape of the British people.

I am liberal myself, and I understand the British are doing this in the name of respecting other cultures, itself a liberal cause. What I don't understand is how enforcing laws so conservative that they belong in medieval times is considered liberal.

This man gets it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM2dC1iWzww

 

[Sander]

My understanding of the situation says this is true, but you do know what that means, right? I believe that Muslim men in Britain can now marry multiple wives and beat them whenever they want without repercussions.

No, they can't. They cannot legally marry multiple women, and they can't physically assault people either.
If not because this judge's opinion isn't law, then because that isn't what the opinion was about either.

Here's how it should work: You move to a country and you speak their language, respect their customs and obey their laws. The radical Muslims just think that everyone should adhere to their culture and don't understand the meaning of tolerance, while using that very word to hide behind their rape of the British people.

Ehm, no, Muslims don't expect others to live as they do. They don't expect Christians to come to mosque, and I think theyd be insulted if Christians did.
They want to live their lives according to their own culture as much as possible. This is very different from forcing others to live the same way.

 

[BOS Man]

No, they can't. They cannot legally marry multiple women, and they can't physically assault people either.
If not because this judge's opinion isn't law, then because that isn't what the opinion was about either.

I'm willing to believe that may be true since I am just repeating what I heard, but...

Ehm, no, Muslims don't expect others to live as they do. They don't expect Christians to come to mosque, and I think theyd be insulted if Christians did.
They want to live their lives according to their own culture as much as possible. This is very different from forcing others to live the same way.

Tell that to the people of Denmark who weathered through death threats, riots, embassy bombings, and embargoes when someone outside their religion and outside of their country broke their law. Tell that to the Christian teacher who was almost beheaded when she allowed her Muslim class to name a teddy bear Mohammad. Or the writer who went into hiding for almost a decade when a fatwa was called on him for saying some unflattering things about Islam (his name escapes me at the moment). The liberal side of me really wants to believe you, but the logical side of me has seen too much insanity from these extremists to believe what you're telling me. Notice I said extremists; I realize that not all Muslims drink the Kool-Aid. There is tolerance, and then there is common sense. These Muslims expect tolerance from the rest of the world when they show none themselves.