Turn on thread page Beta

Shariah Law in UK watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PendulumBoB)
    How long did it take you to google that?

    But really, just because the Jewish law does not treat women quite as it should it doesn't give others the right to also treat women badly. Furthermore we don't have Jews trying to set up their courts in this country so why should anyone else? The judicial system must be secular and no whingy Muslim, Christian, Jew or anyone else should threaten that.
    Your having a laugh ain't you.

    If you think Jewish courts do not operate in the UK, then think again. They were here in the 19th Century and set up in the 1930's or thereabouts. They enforce the same strict laws as mentioned in the previous post.

    You do realize the origins of English common law (Judiciary) was created by the Normans which were influenced by Sharia law that was in Sicily?

    So your already basically implementing Sharia law into your "secular" judiciary.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bishy786)
    Your having a laugh ain't you.

    If you think Jewish courts do not operate in the UK, then think again. They were here in the 19th Century and set up in the 1930's or thereabouts. They enforce the same strict laws as mentioned in the previous post.

    You do realize the origins of English common law (Judiciary) was created by the Normans which were influenced by Sharia law that was in Sicily?

    So your already basically implementing Sharia law into your "secular" judiciary.
    Yes there are issues within the Jewish Beth Dins trapping women in marriages true but I was never justifying Jewish courts anyway so why did you feel the need to bring up the subject.

    If we are already implementing Sharia law then why are there prominent members of the Islamic community asking for it to be intergrated into UK common law?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hopefully this should expose how discriminatory and totalitarian these 'tribunals' really are:

    http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/wp-co...in-Britain.pdf

    Personally I think anyone advocating Sharia Law in Great Britain should be investigated for treason.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PendulumBoB)
    Yes there are issues within the Jewish Beth Dins trapping women in marriages true but I was never justifying Jewish courts anyway so why did you feel the need to bring up the subject.

    If we are already implementing Sharia law then why are there prominent members of the Islamic community asking for it to be intergrated into UK common law?
    You were subjugating the rights of women in your OP. You pointed out differences between the English Legal system and how women were treated in Islam. I refuted your claims, backed up with evidence and showed you a more dangerous court that is operating in the UK which is more harsher to women than the Sharia courts.

    But you were against the implementation of Sharia law courts in Britain. I was merely pointing out that there were no differences between the Beth Din courts and Sharia law courts. Indeed it can be said that Beth Din courts are more detrimental to society and English Judicial law than the implementation of sharia courts.

    The "prominent members of the Islamic community" do not know anything and should go back to educating themselves. And by they way, these "prominent" people only speak for a very tiny minority. Just because the media highlights it all the time and goes to them for inflammatory comments, it does not mean that they speak for the majority.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bishy786)
    1) Wouldn't Britain be an undemocratic state if we had to follow the laws and directives of the EU as any elected prime-minister cannot dare to disobey the EU otherwise we will get fined and chucked out which would be detrimental to our economy? Britain is undemocratic as it follows the EU which undermines the democratic framework.

    Hypothetically speaking, what if the citizens of a country do not want elections? Would you still try to impose democracy on them?

    2) The Normans (regarded by some as the same as Vikings) and the Anglo Saxons both came into contact with Islamic ideologies and law approximately 100-300 years before the establishment of English common law by the Normans who were duly influenced by Islam in Sicily.

    Jury Trial - There are many problems with this and it has been ridiculed in many former colonies. It can be biased, intimidating and costly. Let's look at why it was created.

    "For years the need for jury trials has been brought into question. In the year 1215, when the Magna Carta granted trial by jury, it was an age when almost everyone spent their entire life in one village. It made the jury trial process manageable. Almost every person in the community had skills that did not exceed ten professions or occupations. Almost every person knew everyone else and knew how their friends and families could be accommodated within that community. If terror and organized crime existed at all it was at the government level and had to be tolerated at best.

    Today’s society has become much more complex than the era in which the jury trial process was first created. We are much more mobile, far more communicative and of course far deadlier than at any time in history. How can we expect to be assured that jury trials are free from intimidation in this day and age?"

    3) Rights, in this context, means the position of Women in era that they were living in.

    To surmise, the women under Jesus's rule enjoyed the same privileges as the woman in Islam did "several centuries earlier". I find that almost impossible to believe because the Bible does not talk about Rights women can enjoy and what they are forbidden from doing.

    If Christianity raises "morality to the level of intent", wouldn't you say that the Qur'an is a complete system of life as it addresses the ethical problems and the law of God hand in hand.

    The New Testament did not "Replace" Judaic law as you claim. In the previous post, I showed evidence that Jesus said himself that he came to ENFORCE Judaic law, not Abolish it. If you do not pay attention to what the Bible actually says, then this is a pointless conversation.
    1) Yes the EU can make things less democratic, its a very mixed bag, we do elect MEPs as well as being represented by our elected government who negotiate within the EU framework. It can dilute democracy, I think if it became I federal Euro-State then it would become more democratic, not that I want this, I would rather more powers were returned to the nation states.

    2) They are not the same Normans. Different branches of Normans went to different places. The Normans in turn were a branch of Vikings who had come to Normandy in France, other Vikings founded Russia. The links between the different branches are tenuous and if you want to argue that they were the decisive origin of the English common law as against everything I have argued and presented you will have to provide some actual hard evidence for this assertion.

    More importantly you are trashing the jury trial, one of the defining features of the common law and our legal system.

    3) You are either unable to understand what I have said previously - which appears increasingly likely with each post, or you are deliberately not taking it on board.

    i. Rights is not the way to compare the attitudes of the two faiths to gender. As Islam is a legalistic system, and Christianity is not, there is little that can be analytically called a right in Christian theology. So you are just attempting to skew the debate rather than engaging with the substance of which views of women are more enlightened.

    ii. Christian ethics are about intention, not simply about actions, so I do not agree that Islam is more complete as an ethical system, only that it is more elaborate as a legalistic system, which is why it is less ethical and more problematic when it comes into contact with other full blown legal systems.

    iii. I have explained the role of scripture in Christianity, but you have ignored what I said, and persist in seeing things through an Islamic and textually literal framework. Jesus did and said many other things in the Bible which changed the existing Jewish law, this is an incontrovertible fact. You can interpret the verse you cite as (a) a reassurance designed to attract Jewish followers and convince them that he was the Messiah and/or (b) an assertion that his reforms, while changing specific laws, are in fulfilment of a broader divine law that was ordained to come at this time.

    The difference is that I will state that the Bible contains contradictions, whereas I am guessing you will never admit this regarding the Quran, but the Quran contains contradictions too I just don't want to spend hours arguing with you about that because it would be pointless, if you show a literalist a contradiction they always interpret things in an attempt to resolve it even whilst claiming that they are a literalist and do not engage in interpretation. Its unavoidable that the Bible has contradictions if you do not acknowledge the theological precedence given in Christianity to the New Testament. But even within the New Testament there are contradictions. But while to you that probably disproves the validity of the whole text (if you believe so you a moron), its not a problem within the Christian theological framework. Only idiotic Christians are literalists. Christians do not have to believe that the Bible was dictated word for word by God, as most Muslims believe of the Quran. It is written by man, more than one man, with divine inspiration. As a library of books by multiple authors, selected from amongst other gospels by Church authorities, and translated numerous times, it is bound to have contradictions. The difference is, we do not have adopt a simple-minded literalist approach, we have a theological framework for interpreting the text. Literalism is a weakness that leads to an end to human progress. Catholics believe that divine revelation continues through God's Church and that scripture was never meant to be singularly authoritative, as it is only by virtue of the Church that specific gospels were chosen for Christian worship. The Protestants held otherwise and upheld the Bible as a paramount source of authority, but though Martin Luther felt he had discovered the one and only truth, Protestantism did more than anything else to open up scripture to lay interpretation and did not result in literalism.

    I have a feeling that this is all going over your head and that you will simply repeat, 'what rights', 'you're contradicting the Bible', 'if the Bible has contradictions Christianity must be wrong'. If so, end of conversation, these are simple minded points that could be put forth by a child, though only a particular stupid child. If you cannot or do not want to understand that is your own weakness and you can stew in ignorance.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    1) Yes the EU can make things less democratic, its a very mixed bag, we do elect MEPs as well as being represented by our elected government who negotiate within the EU framework. It can dilute democracy, I think if it became I federal Euro-State then it would become more democratic, not that I want this, I would rather more powers were returned to the nation states.

    2) They are not the same Normans. Different branches of Normans went to different places. The Normans in turn were a branch of Vikings who had come to Normandy in France, other Vikings founded Russia. The links between the different branches are tenuous and if you want to argue that they were the decisive origin of the English common law as against everything I have argued and presented you will have to provide some actual hard evidence for this assertion.

    More importantly you are trashing the jury trial, one of the defining features of the common law and our legal system.

    3) You are either unable to understand what I have said previously - which appears increasingly likely with each post, or you are deliberately not taking it on board.

    i. Rights is not the way to compare the attitudes of the two faiths to gender. As Islam is a legalistic system, and Christianity is not, there is little that can be analytically called a right in Christian theology. So you are just attempting to skew the debate rather than engaging with the substance of which views of women are more enlightened.

    ii. Christian ethics are about intention, not simply about actions, so I do not agree that Islam is more complete as an ethical system, only that it is more elaborate as a legalistic system, which is why it is less ethical and more problematic when it comes into contact with other full blown legal systems.

    iii. I have explained the role of scripture in Christianity, but you have ignored what I said, and persist in seeing things through an Islamic and textually literal framework. Jesus did and said many other things in the Bible which changed the existing Jewish law, this is an incontrovertible fact. You can interpret the verse you cite as (a) a reassurance designed to attract Jewish followers and convince them that he was the Messiah and/or (b) an assertion that his reforms, while changing specific laws, are in fulfilment of a broader divine law that was ordained to come at this time.

    The difference is that I will state that the Bible contains contradictions, whereas I am guessing you will never admit this regarding the Quran, but the Quran contains contradictions too I just don't want to spend hours arguing with you about that because it would be pointless, if you show a literalist a contradiction they always interpret things in an attempt to resolve it even whilst claiming that they are a literalist and do not engage in interpretation. Its unavoidable that the Bible has contradictions if you do not acknowledge the theological precedence given in Christianity to the New Testament. But even within the New Testament there are contradictions. But while to you that probably disproves the validity of the whole text (if you believe so you a moron), its not a problem within the Christian theological framework. Only idiotic Christians are literalists. Christians do not have to believe that the Bible was dictated word for word by God, as most Muslims believe of the Quran. It is written by man, more than one man, with divine inspiration. As a library of books by multiple authors, selected from amongst other gospels by Church authorities, and translated numerous times, it is bound to have contradictions. The difference is, we do not have adopt a simple-minded literalist approach, we have a theological framework for interpreting the text. Literalism is a weakness that leads to an end to human progress. Catholics believe that divine revelation continues through God's Church and that scripture was never meant to be singularly authoritative, as it is only by virtue of the Church that specific gospels were chosen for Christian worship. The Protestants held otherwise and upheld the Bible as a paramount source of authority, but though Martin Luther felt he had discovered the one and only truth, Protestantism did more than anything else to open up scripture to lay interpretation and did not result in literalism.

    I have a feeling that this is all going over your head and that you will simply repeat, 'what rights', 'you're contradicting the Bible', 'if the Bible has contradictions Christianity must be wrong'. If so, end of conversation, these are simple minded points that could be put forth by a child, though only a particular stupid child. If you cannot or do not want to understand that is your own weakness and you can stew in ignorance.
    1) EU - Yeah, that's all very well but "Hypothetically speaking, what if the citizens of a country do not want elections? Would you still try to impose democracy on them?"

    2) But jury trials do not work. Why you keep going on about Jury trial? It only accounts for like 2-5% of all criminal cases. It is very costly to maintain, emotions get in the way and Justice cannot be dispensed properly. It was only relevant when small communities lived in a village and there was no intimidation. That is why in Italy, they abolished the trial by Jury for the aforementioned reasons.

    3)

    i) Right's/views = same thing. How does Christianity perceive women? You said, in you last post, that Christianity viewed women more favorably than Islam did. Now where is your evidence or proof?

    ii) Islam is also about ethics, it looks at the intentions of a person before he does something and further, it looks at his actions as well. e.g: You can have the intention to do a good deed to another person but even if you do not succeed, you will still get the reward for it because you have the intention.

    iii) I can not admit that the Qur'an contains contradictions because it does not. If you show me a contradiction, then I will believe it. That is the difference between the Bible and the Qur'an. In your own words, you claim the church authorities "SELECTED" various gospels. Why did they not include everything? If it was truly a divine inspiration, then why are there contradictions?

    I'm sorry if I come across as a bit aggressive but I am simply frustrated that I cannot counter argue your points. This is because you use long words which swirl around in my head floating randomly. For future posts, could we stick to smaller and more manageable chunks that can make sense in my brain .
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phantom_X)
    Unfortunately i have no audio on my computer right now, but on the last point;

    I saw on the EDL fbook page everyone applauding france for banning the burka and saying they should do it in england too. Surely this is a flawed analogy- France banned the burka under notions of enforcing secularism ( a contradiction within itself but thats a different issue) which fundamentally detaches religion from state.

    In England, there is not such a system because religion is still associated with the state, thus, the burka ban (as long as there is religious precedence behind it) would be contradictory unless there was a separation from the Church of England and all ecclesiastical institutions associated with it. Otherwise, that is an outright attack from one religion to another.

    secondly, most mosques are privately made anyway, so the state cannot outrightly ban them without significant evidence showing that they are a danger to society. Now despite what tommy robinson and his gang of highly intellectual, well educated and completely rational minions believe, most extremists are not harboured in mosques, but rather, in more private locations where the mainstream of muslim society (who the extremists also see as kaffir), dont have a go at them/rat to the police. Thats why its so difficult for mosques to condemn extremists- because the imams rarely even know where they are.

    so by saying 'no more mosques' your group wants to stop normal muslims praying (of whom on numerous occasions they apparently have no problem with them, ie. that is total **** and you know it) in order to 'catch the extremists'.......see how this is flawed ?

    I agree that no religious institutions, mosques included, should be funded by the state, and that islamic extremism should be harboured. But your group, while possibly well intentioned, spends most of its time getting pissed, disrupting normal communities and scaring off muslims who really have no intention of bombing anything or scarificing non-beleivers......and you wonder why no muslims beyond edl abdul want to join your club ?
    I don't follow facebook because it doesn't represent EDL and there are to many racists on there, I much prefer our forum.

    No we don't want to stop muslims praying, but there are too many mosques and many, like the east London mosque are run by extremists, as numerious channel 4 docs show.
    It feels to us like an invasion and the prime minister of Turkey has actualy said so.

    Covering your face does not fit in with our culture and that's why it should be banned and in the 21st century women should be free and muslim men should learn to live with their women being free agents.

    I would say that mostly England is secular and until recently we, the English, had put religion in it's place, now it's rearing it's ugly head again.

    Some EDL like a drink, as do most English people but only a minority of EDL are drunk on a demo.
    Disrupting communities, what communities, most muslims segregate them selves and take over whole towns, such as Tower Hamlets and they become no go areas, look at the rise in attacks on Jewish and gay people there.
    What about the attacks on Amardi muslims in Wembley, an Amardi muslim came to our forum because he googled to see if there were any good things said about them on the net and the only place he could find was the EDL forum.

    Unlike other groups who have intergrated, muslims have not and it is time they did.

    Arthur.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Islam's dumb and oppressive to women

    "HER EYEBROWS SHOWING, KILL THE WHORE!"
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arthur2)
    I don't follow facebook because it doesn't represent EDL and there are to many racists on there, I much prefer our forum.

    No we don't want to stop muslims praying, but there are too many mosques and many, like the east London mosque are run by extremists, as numerious channel 4 docs show.
    It feels to us like an invasion and the prime minister of Turkey has actualy said so.

    Covering your face does not fit in with our culture and that's why it should be banned and in the 21st century women should be free and muslim men should learn to live with their women being free agents.

    I would say that mostly England is secular and until recently we, the English, had put religion in it's place, now it's rearing it's ugly head again.

    Some EDL like a drink, as do most English people but only a minority of EDL are drunk on a demo.
    Disrupting communities, what communities, most muslims segregate them selves and take over whole towns, such as Tower Hamlets and they become no go areas, look at the rise in attacks on Jewish and gay people there.
    What about the attacks on Amardi muslims in Wembley, an Amardi muslim came to our forum because he googled to see if there were any good things said about them on the net and the only place he could find was the EDL forum.

    Unlike other groups who have intergrated, muslims have not and it is time they did.

    Arthur.
    Fair enough on the EDL facebook group. Everytime i go on there I feel like humanity deserves to end.

    But im still confused on the mosque issue. I agree there are some serious problems with east london mosque, and in areas like tower hamlets. But when i say disrupting communities, I MEAN communities in places like Dudley.

    As for the Burka, bear this in mind- i dont like it. HOWEVER, i have met women who do prefer it, and they SHOULD theoretically have the freedom to do that. My point was that France banned the burka under the idea of secularism, which is not formally evident in Britain, hence there lies a particular contradiction in terms of aims. This reaction ofc only occured because with a conversation with edl members i had just a few weeks ago, they applauded the Church of England and an English institution to stand as a bastion against Islam....which also seems rather contradictory.

    and yes, many muslims are persecuted by others- in particular shias and ahamdis. But perhaps rather than your leadership deciding to denounce the entirety of Islam as evil/corrupted/anti-western, they should perhaps see where the real problems lie- ie. with a minority of very militant muslims who basically laugh at the EDL whenever they march for cause of their ineffectiveness at kerbing extremism.

    again, im not doubting the intentions of the EDL, nor am i denying that Islam has problems- what i am critiquing is the execution of the EDL's practices, which, under the current leadership of buffoons, will basically be self defeating.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phantom_X)
    Fair enough on the EDL facebook group. Everytime i go on there I feel like humanity deserves to end.

    But im still confused on the mosque issue. I agree there are some serious problems with east london mosque, and in areas like tower hamlets. But when i say disrupting communities, I MEAN communities in places like Dudley.

    As for the Burka, bear this in mind- i dont like it. HOWEVER, i have met women who do prefer it, and they SHOULD theoretically have the freedom to do that. My point was that France banned the burka under the idea of secularism, which is not formally evident in Britain, hence there lies a particular contradiction in terms of aims. This reaction ofc only occured because with a conversation with edl members i had just a few weeks ago, they applauded the Church of England and an English institution to stand as a bastion against Islam....which also seems rather contradictory.

    and yes, many muslims are persecuted by others- in particular shias and ahamdis. But perhaps rather than your leadership deciding to denounce the entirety of Islam as evil/corrupted/anti-western, they should perhaps see where the real problems lie- ie. with a minority of very militant muslims who basically laugh at the EDL whenever they march for cause of their ineffectiveness at kerbing extremism.

    again, im not doubting the intentions of the EDL, nor am i denying that Islam has problems- what i am critiquing is the execution of the EDL's practices, which, under the current leadership of buffoons, will basically be self defeating.
    You have to have some understanding about the reasons for the existence of the EDL, first, our leaders are not smooth talking politicians, they are just people, off the streets, who felt enough was enough and decided to fight back, once upon a time the people who make up the EDL were the backbone of the working class and they had the unions and the Labour party to represent them.
    Now the unions are made up of the middle class public sector "workers" and they regard the working classes with utter contempt. This of course was reflected in the labour party because of the connection between the labour party and the unions.

    This has left a whole swath of people sidelined and without a voice, their opinions regarded with contempt, if they complained about immigration they were racist, if they said British jobs for British people, they were xenophobic, little Englanders. This also applied to the EU, which is why there has never been a referendom.

    Labours policy was to pay them to not work, this so that they could say that they were lazy and refused to work and that allowed them to bring in some 3 or more million immigrents to replace them. You hear it often, immigrants do the work that the brits won't do, but that's all very well, but where is the training to do this work, it mostly does not exist because education has been dumbed down, no more technical schools or collages that produced our engineers, plumbers, carpenters etc etc.
    Just for example, they brought in laws that stopped people from DIY, so how many can wire a plug.

    So now we see many of our towns and cities full of people who are quite simply alien to our way of life, this sudden change is not a good thing and people do not like it and what's more to the point, we were not asked.
    We were told to respect a culture which performed FMG on children, that regarded women as second class citizens, which dressed in a bizare manner, which would hang gays, that wanted our democracy to be replaced etc etc.

    The other week an Iman talked about evolution in an east London mosque and he now is under threat, where are all the moderates defending him, no where.
    In Tower Hamlets a woman was told if she did not wear a scarf she would be killed, where are your moderates defending her, no where.
    Where are the moderate muslims decrying the postal voting scam in Tower Hamlets to elect a major. A reporter was beaten up because he was investigating 18 muslims living in a 2 bed council flat who had registered for postal voting, did the honest muslims there decry that, no.

    I look at places like Pakistan, Egypt,and other countries that are more or less Islamic and I see violence, murder, like the Italian in Gaza, like other hostages, killed in such a brutal way and I think, is this coming here to England?

    I know there are muslims who don't agree with the Islamist and you really do need to step up to the line to defend the freedom that my ancesters fought for and maybe you have to spill some blood defending it.
    I know that there are many many good muslims in this country, decent people, but you are allowing the bad ones to dictate to you. To tarnish you with the nasty image.

    Phantom, you strike me as a reasonable bloke, we have had a few conversations on here as I used to post as Arthur11 but I had to reregister because my email changed.
    I am not being condescending if I say I wish all Muslims were like you, because then we could talk and sort these things out.

    Cheers, Arthur.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Presumably anyone reading these posts lives in the UK. As UK citizens, it is time to make a choice between:

    The imposition of Sharia law on the UK- looking backwards to an imperfect 7th century Bedouin desert culture. Religious laws set in stone for all eternity, that dictate the superiority of men and the inferiority of women.

    21st century UK laws = an imperfect western society working a gradual, sometimes difficult path towards mutual respect and gender equality.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Google all of the countries that are ruled, either totally or partially, by Sharia law, and decide if you think that the UK should be included in the list.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Lol what a unnecessary thread, shariah law isn't and will never be an official law in the UK.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
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.