Non-Muslims would you?

Original post by mariachi

and why should shariah law in particular receive an official recognition ?

Not just Sharia law but any person that chooses to adhere to a religious faith.

in my view, it should stay a private matter, just like it is for, say, the code of ethics of the British Association of Social Workers, https://www.basw.co.uk/codeofethics/ or the code of ethics and conduct by the British Psychologycal Society http://www.bps.org.uk/system/files/documents/code_of_ethics_and_conduct.pdf etc etc

The issue is that in a position where the state is encroaching further into our lives, it is very difficult to cleave the public from the private.

And whilst I acknowledge that it would indeed be similar to the structure of many organisations that are specific to their fields, the distinction here remains that many religious people feel that their codes of conduct, and personal governance is not strictly limited to when they clock out at work, at university or any number of bodies to which they may belong to.

Like how these organisations have a framework, a proper structure governing and giving effect to their codes, the same is not present for religious groups.

by the way, there is not one Shariah law only : there are many (arguable how many, exactly)

I do not know how many there are, but my point is that we should allow people to largely self-govern themselves, provided that such arrangements are entered into voluntarily and do not contravene principles inherently present in the British legal system.

Original post by mariachi

unfortunately, using such a convoluted writing style does not do your arguments any favoursbest

Any tips on how I can make my writing clearer for people who are struggling to understand?

Reply 122

Original post by TheArtofProtest

Any tips on how I can make my writing clearer for people who are struggling to understand?

Stop using a thesaurus and write like you talk instead of trying to give your 'arguments' credence by wording your posts as pretentiously as possible.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 123

Original post by Hydeman

Stop using a thesaurus and write like you talk instead of trying to give your 'arguments' credence by wording your posts as pretentiously as possible.

I'm not using a thesaurus. I write similar to how I speak, as do most people.

Reply 124

Original post by TheArtofProtest

I'm not using a thesaurus.

You're abnormally bad at lying, so it's probably in your interest not to do so.

Reply 125

King7

6

Original post by Armastan

No. For everyone to get fair judgement, we should all go through the same courts and justice system.. Especially if the victim of a crime being "dealt with" in a sharia court isn't Muslim and vice versa.
Non-Muslims outnumber Muslims in the UK so it makes sense for everyone to use the current system. You don't see Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and so on setting up their own courts specifically for people of their respective religion to use.

But in Golders Green, London, there is a Jewish "police force" called the Shomrim, and they are called before the police is to deal with matters. Why don't we mention this and try getting rid of this? The British Police must be called first, similar to your statement that Muslims should go through English courts.

Reply 126

Original post by King7

But in Golders Green, London, there is a Jewish "police force" called the Shomrim, and they are called before the police is to deal with matters.
Why don't we mention this and try getting rid of this?

That's a good point. It should be dismantled, in my view. I suspect that a minority of people would ignore this because they think that they would be accused of being anti-Semites. :beard:

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 127

safiyyah98

8

Original post by mariachi

you mean, instead of cutting off thieves' entire hand, just a few fingers ?

that would be great

Mate thats not part of Sharia law, thats just something Saudi Arabia do, just cuz they do it, doesn't make it islamic, like a lot of other laws they have....they aren't Islamic e.g women aren't allowed to drive or go out without a man....thats complete and utter bull **** and not part of islam at all. Don't get the two mixed up.

Reply 128

uberteknik

21

Original post by King7

But in Golders Green, London, there is a Jewish "police force" called the Shomrim, and they are called before the police is to deal with matters. Why don't we mention this and try getting rid of this? The British Police must be called first, similar to your statement that Muslims should go through English courts.

The police are very wary of any 'supplementary' group patrolling the streets.

It smacks of vigilantism (however else the Jewish community likes to portray it) and is yet another barrier to integration by promoting segregation, mistrust and masking true crime as defined by British law.

It also sets a potentially dangerous precedent for other groups to jump on the bandwagon and use it to intimidate minorities (or worse) within their community. i.e. it's wide open to abuse.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 129

Original post by safiyyah98

Mate thats not part of Sharia law, thats just something Saudi Arabia do, just cuz they do it, doesn't make it islamic, like a lot of other laws they have....they aren't Islamic e.g women aren't allowed to drive or go out without a man....thats complete and utter bull **** and not part of islam at all. Don't get the two mixed up.

You're making a very disingenuous point here. While it is true that Islam has little to say about whether women should be allowed to drive motorised vehicles that weren't invented for over a thousand years after Muhammad's time, that doesn't mean that everything else that Saudi Arabia does is a corruption of the 'true' Islam.

Muhammad himself sanctioned the cutting off of thieves' hands. Don't try to pretend that that's just some loony interpretation by a rogue sect. :tongue:

Reply 130

Original post by Hydeman

Prove this fact, instead of asserting it. Preferably without talking b------t.

You mentioned "Equality before the law" and made reference to the "5% of people who want special treatment". These two statements don't follow for "equality before the law" is principally understood to be in regards to the due process (i.e: addressing procedures) and not in regards to substantive decisions that a court may reach.

That is why when most people talk about "equality before the law", they are mostly in relation to the rights afforded to them in criminal cases (and not civil disputes which is what we are concentrating on here), or in contrast, the rights not afforded to certain people who are suspected with committing heinous crimes.

As for your unwitting and rash comment about "tyranny of the majority" vis-a-vis democracy and human rights, it has unfortunately presented a very simplistic view an issue which is quite complex.

First of, you assume that we are a fully fledged democracy in the sense that everyone is contributing to the governance of our country. Electoral turnout has proven that to be demonstrably false. Since the 1950's, where turnout was around 85%, the % of people participating in GE dropped to 60%, at the turn of the century and it is now risen to around 65%.

In actual numbers, our electorate (i.e: those on the electoral register) grew by 13 million people in 65 years (between 1950-2015) yet only 2 million more people bothered to to vote.

However, the 30 million people that voted are making decisions for 64 million people, hardly "tyranny of the majority".

Secondly, and due to how our "democratic" system works, which runs contrary to the Athenian notion of democracy, is based on party politics.

We vote for a party, not people who would work together to steer the country in the right direction, but parties who are partisan and look out for their own interests and deviate repeatedly from the basis that they were elected upon.

37% of eligible voters voted for the Conservatives, representing 11 million people in the UK. These 11 million people have now decided that the Conservative Party should implement policies and dictate to the remaining 53 million in the UK.

Hardly "tyranny of the majority".

Furthermore, can one not argue the fear of "tyranny of the majority" is exactly why we shouldn't have "equality before the law" in the sense that some groups require more protection (i.e: special treatment) than others?

The concept of how to govern (i.e: democracy) has literally nothing to do with the concept of human rights though I do admit, it is a conflation that many people make.

Also, it's quite interesting to note how you have qualified "tyranny of the majority" to anything other than Human Rights because in their manifesto, which will be followed if we vote to leave the EU, the Tories have promised to create a Bill of Rights which many suspect will not be at all similar to the current HR provisions that we have in place and which ironically, only a minority be said to support such a policy.

No argument in favour of Sharia courts has been presented on this thread that hasn't already been challenged. Make one on the back of evidence, or don't expect further reply to your babble.

What have I stated that requires the need to provide evidence?

Original post by Hydeman

You're abnormally bad at lying, so it's probably in your interest not to do so.

If I was to be pedantic, I would, like you have above, requested evidence but such trivial issues only seek to detract from the discussion, and I'd wager that the thread will neither be concerned, nor enriched by such trifles.

Reply 131

Original post by King7

But in Golders Green, London, there is a Jewish "police force" called the Shomrim, and they are called before the police is to deal with matters. Why don't we mention this and try getting rid of this? The British Police must be called first, similar to your statement that Muslims should go through English courts.

The Shomrim and the Hatzola (Jewish equivalent paramedics) serve not only the Jewish community, but also the wider community.

I see no reason to get rid of people who are performing an essential public service, giving up their own time to do so, and especially in light of the struggles the police forces of this country face due to budget cuts which has resulted in a lot of crimes not being investigated, or even attended to.

We should move to a more decentralised policing system where police and patrol officers are drawn from the local community, much like the pre-WW2 days.

Reply 132

The Epicurean

17

Original post by TheArtofProtest

I'm not using a thesaurus. I write similar to how I speak, as do most people.

Really? Can I see some evidence to support that most people speak similar to how they write, specifically in reference to vocabulary usage? From what I understand, written language generally tends to have a far greater usage of vocabulary than spoken language. Based on the data in this paper I have linked, if we were to measure ones vocabulary by the amount of rare words used per 1000 words, then written works tend to show a far greater vocabulary than used in spoken language. For example, this paper states that a newspaper uses on average 68.3 rare words per 1000 compared to the average of 17.3 rare words per 1000 words used by college graduates in speech.

http://www.csun.edu/~krowlands/Content/Academic_Resources/Reading/Useful%20Articles/Cunningham-What%20Reading%20Does%20for%20the%20Mind.pdf

Reply 133

Original post by uberteknik

The police are very wary of any 'supplementary' group patrolling the streets.

It smacks of vigilantism (however else the Jewish community likes to portray it) and is yet another barrier to integration by promoting segregation, mistrust and masking true crime as defined by British law.

It also sets a potentially dangerous precedent for other groups to jump on the bandwagon and use it to intimidate minorities (or worse) within their community. i.e. it's wide open to abuse.

It's a community group that would serve anyone regardless of faith. It just so happens that the Jewish community saw a need for it and stepped in to plug the gap.

In light of the budget cuts and attacks on the public sector by the current Tory government, it's pleasing to note that the community has come together and made arrangements so that their neighborhoods remain safe, especially given the fact that the police have indicated that they may not attend routine burglary reports, much less investigate them.

Reply 134

mariachi

18

ViewsFromSi6

Imagine a less stricter version of sharia law be implanted. (...) Would you be happy?

mariachi

you mean, instead of cutting off thieves' entire hand, just a few fingers ?

that would be great

Original post by safiyyah98

Mate thats not part of Sharia law, thats just something Saudi Arabia do, just cuz they do it, doesn't make it islamic, like a lot of other laws they have....they aren't Islamic e.g women aren't allowed to drive or go out without a man....thats complete and utter bull **** and not part of islam at all. Don't get the two mixed up.

“[As for] the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands in recompense for what they earned [i.e. committed] as a deterrent [punishment] from Allah. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.” [Quran 5:38]

Perhaps you are reading a different Quran ?

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 135

uberteknik

21

Original post by TheArtofProtest

................it's pleasing to note that the community has come together and made arrangements so that their neighborhoods remain safe.................

Would you be happy for say the BNP to organise a patrolling group to keep the streets of Bradford safe regardless of faith and for them to use the same arguments to justify their existence?

Reply 136

Original post by uberteknik

Would you be happy for say the BNP to organise a patrolling group to keep the streets of Bradford safe regardless of faith and for them to use the same arguments to justify their existence?

If it was a local community group, devoid of any BNP propaganda, working for the community, then I wouldn't object.

It wouldn't be a BNP group, it would be a community group.

Furthermore, I'd urge you to resist falling back on personal preconceived notions about my ethnicity/religion and location in an effort to rebut my view because I can assure you that you are wrong on both counts.

Reply 137

uberteknik

21

Original post by TheArtofProtest

Furthermore, I'd urge you to resist falling back on personal preconceived notions about my ethnicity/religion and location in an effort to rebut my view because I can assure you that you are wrong on both counts.

I did not make any assumptions about your ethnicity or religion; you planted that preconception all on your own. I used Bradford and the BNP as an example of a highly volatile mix and why precedents can be set however well meaning (but misguided) the intent - and nothing else.

Reply 138