Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gyal)
    The so called 'Islamists' twist the scriptures in the way which they think it's right; only because they hate the western people which are portrayed as 'evil' in the middle east and pakistan/afghanistan.
    They are not Muslims. Suicide is not Islamic, neither is killing innocent people.
    I assume you're a Muslim..

    Islamists generally means a Muslim who believes in the political ideology of Islam. As a Muslim, you should really question your faith if you do not believe this or any other branch of the religion..
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dream Weaver)
    It's not gonna happen, the Muslim population is no where near the majority. Without a majority of muslims in this country who all want it, it'll never be adopted here.
    They don't need to be. The Archbishop of Canterbury said it was inevitable that we would allow some Sharia law to be practiced in the UK. If we allow Sharia to operate under the Arbitration Act on a supposedly voluntary basis we have already abandoned the single legal system of this country.

    Islamists are clever, they want us to accept Sharia compliant loans (which of course is nonsense, create a complex financial product so the interest payments are not obvious, and have a cleric who doesn't have a hope of understanding the complex product certify it hallal in return for being paid a lot to sit on a Sharia Finance Advisory Board) first as they are clearly voluntary investments. Then they want to push us to accept Sharia family law on a supposedly voluntary basis (even though many Fresh-Off-the-Boat women who don't even speak English will not understand that they have recourse to secular English courts or be able to access them; and even though the principles of Islamic law are indisputably unequal towards women, explicitely governed by the Quranic verses that give them smaller inheritances and half the voice of a man in court testimony).

    There already are Sharia courts operating in the UK, and they have not been put out of business, so you are wrong.

    And in other countries they do not require a majority to Islamise the laws of the country - look at countries where Muslims make up more than 20% of the population, but not a majority and you will see the impact they can have. In the UK and many other countries Muslims are one of the fastest growing demographics it will not take them long to get there, and to form majorities in specific electoral constituencies. A lot of younger Muslims in the UK, when polled by the left-of-centre pro-multiculturalism Guardian, reveal attitudes that are far more influenced by the Islamist perspective than their parents.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    ...
    I meant overall, in the long run. There is no way Britain will become a shariah nation. I just will not happen. Despite what they are trying to get in, it wont work.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dream Weaver)
    I meant overall, in the long run. There is no way Britain will become a shariah nation. I just will not happen. Despite what they are trying to get in, it wont work.
    Overall, in the long run, it will depend on demography and the development of political thought amongst British Muslims. And you don't address the issue of incorporating Sharia law in certain areas, you're just saying we won't become Saudi Arabia or even Pakistan. It isn't an all or nothing question, its one of degrees, even within the Islamic world its one of degrees where the Sharia is concerned.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thomas...)
    Oh, that can't be true, hopefully.
    Also what are your views on Islam for UK organisations?
    The statistic is something I heard off my Islamic Studies teacher in school (a non Muslim).
    I do not agree with these organisations, but of course, they do have some support
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What place do English laws have in other countries?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    They don't need to be. The Archbishop of Canterbury said it was inevitable that we would allow some Sharia law to be practiced in the UK. If we allow Sharia to operate under the Arbitration Act on a supposedly voluntary basis we have already abandoned the single legal system of this country.
    No we haven't. People can agree settlements to a dispute in any way they see fit - that's not creating a separate legal system. Indeed, the only religious courts which could be in any way said to do that - and it'd be very tenuous to argue this point - are the Canon law courts of the Church of England and the Sessions of the Church of Scotland.

    even though many Fresh-Off-the-Boat women who don't even speak English will not understand that they have recourse to secular English courts or be able to access them; and even though the principles of Islamic law are indisputably unequal towards women, explicitely governed by the Quranic verses that give them smaller inheritances and half the voice of a man in court testimony).
    Just because the Qu'ran says something doesn't mean it's incorporated in the workings of an Islamic tribunal. We've got a broadly Judeo-Christian legal system, it doesn't mean we try to incorporate everything in the Bible into it, or adopt literal interpretations of what is there. The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal organisation explicitly state that their rulings will not discriminate on race or sex - and if they did, that would be cause for their rulings to be ignored by the state's courts.

    There already are Sharia courts operating in the UK, and they have not been put out of business, so you are wrong.
    Well, they're only "courts" in the way that Judge Judy's television programme is a "court".

    Broadly, I support the work of the MAT. Before its creation, many Muslims simply sought out the opinion of their Imam or mosque to solve disputes, which was often applied in a haphazard fashion. The MAT at least formalises structure and has very clear practices to ensure fairness.

    Whether they're constituted as formal arbitration tribunals or not, people always have and always will rely on religious leaders to settle disputes between people of their faith, particularly where religious issues apply. That's a good thing, as far as I'm concerned.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    No we haven't. People can agree settlements to a dispute in any way they see fit - that's not creating a separate legal system. Indeed, the only religious courts which could be in any way said to do that - and it'd be very tenuous to argue this point - are the Canon law courts of the Church of England and the Sessions of the Church of Scotland.
    No, they ought not to be allowed to settle a dispute in a formalised context which is prejudicial to either party. I also think that arbitration should be confined to commercial dispute resolution, where it is less likely to be prejudicial. I would not outlaw mediation to achieve divorce settlements, but divorce is a matter for our legal system only and the mediation should take place on the basis of our legal system and the likely outcome of the case were it taken to an English court. By operating under the guise of volutary arbitration Sharia family law is creeping in and operating within de facto Sharia family courts where the parties concerned (especially vunerable women who do not speak English, have recently arrived from overseas, have never integrated with broader society and who may even be unaware that there are alternatives and that they have recourse to the English legal system and that the rulings of such courts have no actual force of law) are likely to be prejudicially affected by the legal basis of their rulings.

    (Original post by L i b)
    Just because the Qu'ran says something doesn't mean it's incorporated in the workings of an Islamic tribunal. We've got a broadly Judeo-Christian legal system, it doesn't mean we try to incorporate everything in the Bible into it, or adopt literal interpretations of what is there. The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal organisation explicitly state that their rulings will not discriminate on race or sex - and if they did, that would be cause for their rulings to be ignored by the state's courts.
    I think that is a stunningly naive. What is in the Quran has a huge role in determining the basis of Sharia law, in its specifics and in its principals, whichever interpretation you care to look at. The Quran provides very specific instructions on the precise details of how marriage, divorce and inheritance ought take place. The level of detail as regards different fractions for inheritance by different relations is unlike anything in the New or Old Testament. Islam places a far greater emphasis on the literal truth of its God-dictated text than Christianity does, and the nature of our texts is different too (I would be happy to have a very long discussion of these differences and their signficance).

    But I think you ought to first read about Sharia, the consensus positions of the four main Sunni Sharia schools on a variety of issues would I am sure shock you as you seem to display so little understanding of the basis on which these rulings are to be reached. Certain Islamist organisations have a knack for telling the authorities and the public what they want to hear. But Sharia already exists as a large body of law for you to peruse, and if you examine it you cannot fail to conclude that it does not embody gender equality, it is quite explicitely discriminatory as theorised and as practiced within the Muslim world without any reference to the more extreme examples of certain countries which are particularly objectionable.

    So we can encourage Islamic scholars in the UK to construct a new nice and cuddly version of Sharia, but it is unlikely to depart in its principals from the explicit instructions in the Quran, and such a Sharia-lite system will still be based upon an ethos which does not favour gender equality, as we would understand it, in matters of family law.

    (Original post by L i b)
    Well, they're only "courts" in the way that Judge Judy's television programme is a "court".
    Not really. The issue is how they will be percieved and how they will function and the knowledge of the participants. If they function as courts and people accept their rulings as courts they are de facto courts, especially when, unlike the Judge Judy example where participants clearly know that the judgements do not carry the force of law and that they have recourse to real courts, there are many women who will be vunerable and unaware that they have any choice in the matter. A woman from Pakistan, where she is familiar with the legal system there (which incidentally under Sharia inspired principals often imprisons women for their admission of infidelity when they accuse a man of rape without the requisite number of male witnessess), who does not speak English and lives in an area full of recently arrived immigrants, may not even have the slightest concept that there is a secular English legal system to which she may appeal which would protect a set of rights she has under English law of which she has no concept.

    (Original post by L i b)
    Broadly, I support the work of the MAT. Before its creation, many Muslims simply sought out the opinion of their Imam or mosque to solve disputes, which was often applied in a haphazard fashion. The MAT at least formalises structure and has very clear practices to ensure fairness.
    If there was, as I maintain, something wrong with such judgements before, institutionalising and legitimising them is surely the antithesis of fairness.

    (Original post by L i b)
    Whether they're constituted as formal arbitration tribunals or not, people always have and always will rely on religious leaders to settle disputes between people of their faith, particularly where religious issues apply. That's a good thing, as far as I'm concerned.
    I do not agree that this is always a good thing. I might not even agree that it is ever a good thing. Certainly not in areas of family law where judgements on inheritance, domestic violence and abuse, custody of children and divorce are concerned. In such areas even a restrained and mollified form of Sharia could be hugely prejudicial to the women concerned.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liverpool's Number 9)
    What place do English laws have in other countries?
    The common law has been bequeathed to a whole host of our former colonies, and though many of them have now built up a large body of their own law and precedent, some still retain a right of appeal to a court in the UK and some still hold UK precedents as of some value when determining legal cases in their country. This is not something we should be ashamed off, its one of the enlightened things to set against the various wicked acts of empire.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't know why I got neg repped. I'd like one of those to answer why they did it tbh.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Religion should always be separated from state. Why should we tweak our legal system purely to suit those who think that their religious law is superior to actual law?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    They don't need to be. The Archbishop of Canterbury said it was inevitable that we would allow some Sharia law to be practiced in the UK. If we allow Sharia to operate under the Arbitration Act on a supposedly voluntary basis we have already abandoned the single legal system of this country.

    Islamists are clever, they want us to accept Sharia compliant loans (which of course is nonsense, create a complex financial product so the interest payments are not obvious, and have a cleric who doesn't have a hope of understanding the complex product certify it hallal in return for being paid a lot to sit on a Sharia Finance Advisory Board) first as they are clearly voluntary investments. Then they want to push us to accept Sharia family law on a supposedly voluntary basis (even though many Fresh-Off-the-Boat women who don't even speak English will not understand that they have recourse to secular English courts or be able to access them; and even though the principles of Islamic law are indisputably unequal towards women, explicitely governed by the Quranic verses that give them smaller inheritances and half the voice of a man in court testimony).

    There already are Sharia courts operating in the UK, and they have not been put out of business, so you are wrong.

    And in other countries they do not require a majority to Islamise the laws of the country - look at countries where Muslims make up more than 20% of the population, but not a majority and you will see the impact they can have. In the UK and many other countries Muslims are one of the fastest growing demographics it will not take them long to get there, and to form majorities in specific electoral constituencies. A lot of younger Muslims in the UK, when polled by the left-of-centre pro-multiculturalism Guardian, reveal attitudes that are far more influenced by the Islamist perspective than their parents.
    1) The Archbishop of Canterbury said that there should be provisions being made to accommodate Sharia law in terms of financial agreements and divorce. This is the same as the Jewish Beth Din which operates as a separate court for Orthodox Jews. He did not mean the negative connotations of Sharia Law such as amputation and capital punishment, but more of a civil role in courts.

    2) No one is forcing you to take out sharia compliant loans. Many other financial institutions offer a service which does not not even accommodate a Muslim's beliefs.

    3) "Inheritance Law and Rights of women are unfair (testimonies)" - pray tell me, how are they "unfair"?

    4) There are already Jewish Beth Din Courts operating in the country, why does the media and everyone else focus on them?

    5) Islamise the laws of a country? - Are you silly? Most of the laws and other things to do with the law have been developed by the Muslims. So basically, you are already living in a country whose laws have been/had been derived from religious texts.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You guys can't seriously expect this to happen. -_- Why don't we focus on implementing Shari'ah law in Muslim countries first?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bishy786)
    1) The Archbishop of Canterbury said that there should be provisions being made to accommodate Sharia law in terms of financial agreements and divorce. This is the same as the Jewish Beth Din which operates as a separate court for Orthodox Jews. He did not mean the negative connotations of Sharia Law such as amputation and capital punishment, but more of a civil role in courts.
    I do not agree with him, there was huge public outcry against his proposals, and I do not agree with the existence of the Beth Din courts either.

    (Original post by Bishy786)
    2) No one is forcing you to take out sharia compliant loans. Many other financial institutions offer a service which does not not even accommodate a Muslim's beliefs.
    Which is exactly why I have pointed out this is the easiest way for Islamists to seek to normalise Sharia in the UK. The fact that Sharia compliant loans are nonsense from an Islamic perspective is besides the point to Islamists it seems. There is no such thing as an interest free private loan with no payment whatsoever for the priveledge of taking out the loan, unless it is some kind of charity. All they are doing is creating complex financial products that hide the interest payments and paying clerics with no understanding of finance to sit on Sharia finance boards for fat sallaries and certify these ridiculous products. Its a fraud on ordinary Muslims, but hey, if they can get any Sharia into the UK its fine by the Islamists.

    (Original post by Bishy786)
    3) "Inheritance Law and Rights of women are unfair (testimonies)" - pray tell me, how are they "unfair"?
    The principals of Sharia with regards to women come from Sura 4, which is focused on women. I invite anyone who who thinks that Islam encourages gender equality to read this Sura, it will not take them long, and even if they just read one or two pages of it they will understand. I am quoting the Yusufali translation, but can provide other translations if you prefer.

    "If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice."
    (Verse 2)

    Polygamy ok if you treat your wives equally, marrying one of your slave women for additional wives is also an option as you do not have to treat them equally with your free-born wife.

    In Verses 11 and 12 we have the details of how males inherit more than females (both as children and as spouses): "Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half. For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased Left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a sixth. (The distribution in all cases ('s) after the payment of legacies and debts. Ye know not whether your parents or your children are nearest to you in benefit. These are settled portions ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-knowing, Al-wise.
    In what your wives leave, your share is a half, if they leave no child; but if they leave a child, ye get a fourth; after payment of legacies and debts. In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, if ye leave no child; but if ye leave a child, they get an eighth; after payment of legacies and debts. If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question, has left neither ascendants nor descendants, but has left a brother or a sister, each one of the two gets a sixth; but if more than two, they share in a third; after payment of legacies and debts; so that no loss is caused (to any one). Thus is it ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-knowing, Most Forbearing."

    Verse 34:
    "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all)."

    And from Sura 2, Verse 282: "...get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her."

    Also because of the application of verses 24:4 and 24:13 women are often required in countries where Sharia is applied, as in Pakistan, to provide four male witnesses if they have been raped (an almost impossible task, and large numbers of women in Pakistan are in prison because they could not prove the allegation but in making it have admitted to adultery).

    Verse 2:223 also establishes that there is no such thing as martial rape from a Quranic perspective as wives must make themselves sexually available to their husbands.

    These versus have a strong role in shaping Sharia legal principals that are not in accord with our notion of gender equality.

    (Original post by Bishy786)
    4) There are already Jewish Beth Din Courts operating in the country, why does the media and everyone else focus on them?
    I do not agree with the Beth Din courts, we should abolish them. But the concerns about vunerable women unaware of there legal rights and unable to speak English are less persuasive in the Jewish case, as Jews are a far more educated, literate, integrated and English speaking community than Muslims in the UK. Still we should scrap the Beth Din Courts as soon as possible, which is something I have always said since I first heard of them.

    (Original post by Bishy786)
    5) Islamise the laws of a country? - Are you silly? Most of the laws and other things to do with the law have been developed by the Muslims. So basically, you are already living in a country whose laws have been/had been derived from religious texts.
    The origins of the English common law has nothing to with Muslims whatsoever, and only someone entirely ignorant could assert that it does. I would guess that you are an Islamist as you believe ridiculous things you have been told without question. Are you an Islamist or would you denounce the likes of Sayyid Qutb, Syed Abul A'ala Maududi, and Hasan al-Banna?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diety)
    :eek: I'm not even going to start on how ignorant and offensive that is :mad:
    The truth hurts, eh?

    Maybe we should ban everything critical of Islam so you aren't ever offended again.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    I do not agree with him, there was huge public outcry against his proposals, and I do not agree with the existence of the Beth Din courts either.



    Which is exactly why I have pointed out this is the easiest way for Islamists to seek to normalise Sharia in the UK. The fact that Sharia compliant loans are nonsense from an Islamic perspective is besides the point to Islamists it seems. There is no such thing as an interest free private loan with no payment whatsoever for the priveledge of taking out the loan, unless it is some kind of charity. All they are doing is creating complex financial products that hide the interest payments and paying clerics with no understanding of finance to sit on Sharia finance boards for fat sallaries and certify these ridiculous products. Its a fraud on ordinary Muslims, but hey, if they can get any Sharia into the UK its fine by the Islamists.



    The principals of Sharia with regards to women come from Sura 4, which is focused on women. I invite anyone who who thinks that Islam encourages gender equality to read this Sura, it will not take them long, and even if they just read one or two pages of it they will understand. I am quoting the Yusufali translation, but can provide other translations if you prefer.

    "If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice."
    (Verse 2)

    Polygamy ok if you treat your wives equally, marrying one of your slave women for additional wives is also an option as you do not have to treat them equally with your free-born wife.

    In Verses 11 and 12 we have the details of how males inherit more than females (both as children and as spouses): "Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half. For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased Left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a sixth. (The distribution in all cases ('s) after the payment of legacies and debts. Ye know not whether your parents or your children are nearest to you in benefit. These are settled portions ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-knowing, Al-wise.
    In what your wives leave, your share is a half, if they leave no child; but if they leave a child, ye get a fourth; after payment of legacies and debts. In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, if ye leave no child; but if ye leave a child, they get an eighth; after payment of legacies and debts. If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question, has left neither ascendants nor descendants, but has left a brother or a sister, each one of the two gets a sixth; but if more than two, they share in a third; after payment of legacies and debts; so that no loss is caused (to any one). Thus is it ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-knowing, Most Forbearing."

    Verse 34:
    "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all)."

    And from Sura 2, Verse 282: "...get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her."

    Also because of the application of verses 24:4 and 24:13 women are often required in countries where Sharia is applied, as in Pakistan, to provide four male witnesses if they have been raped (an almost impossible task, and large numbers of women in Pakistan are in prison because they could not prove the allegation but in making it have admitted to adultery).

    Verse 2:223 also establishes that there is no such thing as martial rape from a Quranic perspective as wives must make themselves sexually available to their husbands.

    These versus have a strong role in shaping Sharia legal principals that are not in accord with our notion of gender equality.



    I do not agree with the Beth Din courts, we should abolish them. But the concerns about vunerable women unaware of there legal rights and unable to speak English are less persuasive in the Jewish case, as Jews are a far more educated, literate, integrated and English speaking community than Muslims in the UK. Still we should scrap the Beth Din Courts as soon as possible, which is something I have always said since I first heard of them.



    The origins of the English common law has nothing to with Muslims whatsoever, and only someone entirely ignorant could assert that it does. I would guess that you are an Islamist as you believe ridiculous things you have been told without question. Are you an Islamist or would you denounce the likes of Sayyid Qutb, Syed Abul A'ala Maududi, and Hasan al-Banna?
    !) Sharia compliant loans - I admit that I am ignorant of this concept. However, the interest payable and the receiving of interest is totally forbidden but I do not know how the Sharia compliant loans work. My uncle, who wanted to buy a house, instead of going to the bank and getting a mortgage, he asked his friends and his community if he could borrow the money to purchase the house. They did so and he duly bought the house with his own savings and borrowed funds. Within 3-5 years, he had paid off the debt. If he had taken out a mortgage, he still would be paying it off now with added on interest. Now, this type of lending is permissible within the Islamic faith and most people, except the banks would have no problem with it because the client is paying back less.

    2) Polygamy - The idea/notion is ridiculous according to the so called civilized countries of the world. To be honest, it is rarely practiced because it's so damn hard to treat two women equally. However, the idea behind that is that Muslim women are protected and cared for. What will happen to all the young widows whose husbands have been killed in the war. It is a means of provision as long as both women are happy with the arrangements. Muslims are not allowed to marry more than one wife is they are not financially stable and there are also some other conditions. Without meeting those conditions, a man cannot marry another woman.

    3) Inheritance - First look at Verse 34 (In Bold) and see if that answers your questions. A Woman is not demeaned in Islam through inheritance. Her every provision is provided for. Whatever she wants, she will get provided that it is financially and morally acceptable. Men are supposed to be the bread winners of the family so they can care for their womenfolk. A Muslim woman should not have to work, but can so if she wishes to. From a very young age, a Muslim girl is cared for financially by her family (husband and brothers etc). If and when she gets married, her responsibility is passed onto her husband who will provide her with whatever she needs. In the event of a divorce, her responsibility is transferred back to her family. In every stage of life, she is cared for and looked after.
    ****It's also worth mentioning that Islam established women's rights far earlier than any secular state/country********

    4) Testimony - The context in which verse 282 was revealed was for financial matters (coincidentally left out ). The verse is related to financial matters and contracts. As one can surmise, a financial agreement will have other implications attached if the parties disagree, that is why the requirement for witnesses are required. Now onto women's testimony. As Allah says in that verse, it is only a precaution because if "one of the women errs, the other can remind her". Pretty self explanatory.

    THE TESTIMONY IN RAPE: This pretty much sums it up:

    During the time of the Prophet (saw) punishment was inflicted on the rapist on the solitary evidence of the woman who was raped by him. Wa'il ibn Hujr reports of an incident when a woman was raped. Later, when some people came by, she identified and accused the man of raping her. They seized him and brought him to Allah's messenger, who said to the woman, "Go away, for Allâh has forgiven you," but of the man who had raped her, he said, "Stone him to death." (Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud)

    During the time when Umar (raa) was the Khalifah, a woman accused his son Abu Shahmah of raping her; she brought the infant borne of this incident with her to the mosque and publicly spoke about what had happened. Umar (raa) asked his son who acknowledged committing the crime and was duly punished right there and then. There was no punishment given to the woman. (Rauf)

    5) Maybe you should do your research, English Criminal law was bought over by the Normans in 1066 when they invaded. This, in turn, was influenced heavily by Islamic Law when the Normans conquered the Emirate of Sicily.

    As quoted by Wikipedia: "A significant influence on Norman law came from Islamic law and jurisprudence after the Normans had conquered the Emirate of Sicily and inherited its Islamic legal administration. According to one hypothesis, the Normans introduced a number of Norman and Islamic legal concepts to England after the Norman conquest of England and may have laid the foundations for English common law."

    By the way, I was not just talking about law. I was talking about the Prisons, the treasury amongst other things. Most of it was adopted from the Muslims.

    If you do not believe me, then read about it, and if you do not want to read about your own country's history, then remain ignorant. And if you want to remain ignorant, then do not disrespect and insult someone when they are knowledgeable about a subject.

    For future reference, please do not call me an Islamist as I am not one. In fact in Islam, there are no titles given such as moderate extremist etc. Your either a Muslim or not.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    So much complacency in this thread.

    People don't feel remotely under threat from the imposition of Sharia law, despite the growing influence of Islam in institutions and communities. At least some of the things going on should be ringing loud alarm bells.

    "Couldn't happen here" will eventually be "didn't think it could happen here".
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    LOL do you seriously think that sharia law will be introduced in the UK?

    What a joke!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wucker)
    The truth hurts, eh?

    Maybe we should ban everything critical of Islam so you aren't ever offended again.
    The comment you made was not an intelligent criticism (which I, by the way, don't mind at all) but had the sole purpose to offend and provoke Muslims
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diety)
    The comment you made was not an intelligent criticism (which I, by the way, don't mind at all) but had the sole purpose to offend and provoke Muslims
    Well, it was a joke.

    Although that is probably banned under Britain's hate speech laws, after all, some people were offended.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,240

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.