Turn on thread page Beta

''Shariah Law coming to Britain OMGG'' watch

    Offline

    15
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I think he's referring to the Wikipedia article that MathematicsKiller quoted in post #13.

    He suggested that the Shari'a punishment for "stealing a loaf of bread" is amputation of the hands, and quoted this article to support his point.

    Although he clearly didn't read what he quoted, since it says that you do not lose your hands if the theft is due to hunger, necessity or duress, and that you do not lose your hands unless the item you've stolen is worth more than the minimum amount (one dinar; much more than the value of a loaf of bread).
    i.e. His own article disproved his point.


    Your post (#17) seemed to suggest that the hands are cut off if the thief is reliant upon stealing to survive; when according to the article, the opposite is true.

    No, those are the people whose hands you don't cut off.




    The minimum level is actually one dinar, and it's worth about £100 today.

    The claim is not that the average car costs about £100, the claim is that stealing a car from someone's garage is an example of a crime which would get your hands cut off (because the car is probably worth more than £100).

    Although you're right; even if the person stole an HDTV, or an iPhone, or an item of jewellery worth more than £100 etc. and they satisfied all the other conditions mentioned in the article, the punishment would still apply.

    http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.a...95&CATE=12
    Hello tazarooni89
    Cutting of the hand of a theif is a bit harsh in any case glad you agree lol
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ussumane)
    I hope you are not trying to say there are no black Muslims...

    But yh I dont see nothing wrong with your OP, don't know why they neg rep you.
    Course Im not
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MathematicsKiller)
    Wikipedia says otherwise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Justice

    Several requirements are in place for the amputation of hands, they are:
    There must have been criminal intent to take private (not common) property.
    The theft must not have been the product of hunger, necessity, or duress.
    The goods stolen must: be over a minimum value, not haraam, and not owned by the thief's family.
    Goods must have been taken from custody (i.e. not in a public place).
    There must be reliable witnesses
    I'm not sure if taking a loaf of bread counts as taking it from a public place, because it would more than likely (I'd assume) be in a shop.. Regardless of that, a loaf of bread is what, 70p (quite a small value if you ask me)? And would clearly be a product of hunger, as the thing you quoted itself says. So your quote hardly backs up your claim.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MathematicsKiller)
    Wikipedia says otherwise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Justice
    :rofl: This is just too funny.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I think he's referring to the Wikipedia article that MathematicsKiller quoted in post #13.

    He suggested that the Shari'a punishment for "stealing a loaf of bread" is amputation of the hands, and quoted this article to support his point.

    Although he clearly didn't read what he quoted, since it says that you do not lose your hands if the theft is due to hunger, necessity or duress, and that you do not lose your hands unless the item you've stolen is worth more than the minimum amount (one dinar; much more than the value of a loaf of bread).
    i.e. His own article disproved his point.


    Your post (#17) seemed to suggest that the hands are cut off if the thief is reliant upon stealing to survive; when according to the article, the opposite is true.

    No, those are the people whose hands you don't cut off.




    The minimum level is actually one dinar, and it's worth about £100 today.

    The claim is not that the average car costs about £100, the claim is that stealing a car from someone's garage is an example of a crime which would get your hands cut off (because the car is probably worth more than £100).

    Although you're right; even if the person stole an HDTV, or an iPhone, or an item of jewellery worth more than £100 etc. and they satisfied all the other conditions mentioned in the article, the punishment would still apply.

    http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.a...D=1895&CATE=12
    Ok. I can see the reason for such a punishment during the time Mohammed was alive. Just like the death penalty. However we now have prisons in which to imprison these people and keep ourselves and our possessions safe. The Quaran and the Haddith not allowing us in our modern society to use alternate more humane punishments appears to be a massive flaw. It seems highly odd to me that an iphone is of equal worth to a hand in the Muslim faith but there we go.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Ok. I can see the reason for such a punishment during the time Mohammed was alive. Just like the death penalty. However we now have prisons in which to imprison these people and keep ourselves and our possessions safe. The Quaran and the Haddith not allowing us in our modern society to use alternate more humane punishments appears to be a massive flaw. It seems highly odd to me that an iphone is of equal worth to a hand in the Muslim faith but there we go.
    An iphone is not of equal worth to a hand in the Muslim faith. A hand is worth so much more than an iphone that hopefully any thief who was planning to steal one will eventually decide that he doesn't want to trade his precious hand for it.
    The whole point is to stop people stealing. In order to do this, the thing you take away from the thief as punishment should be worth significantly more than the thing he stole in the first place. The thief should never get a "good deal" a a result of stealing.


    It may not be a very nice punishment, but luckily it doesn't need to be administered very often at all, since theft rates in Islamic countries are so low as a result of it.


    Anyway, my original point was simply to correct the misconception about "Having your hands cut off for stealing a loaf of bread".
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    So? They came under the influence of a non-British born Muslim, that doesn't mean they weren't second and third generation, does it? That means we are no safer from second or third generation Muslims than we are first generation Muslims. How does your holy book define a Muslim land? I thought it was pretty cut and shut that anywhere that had Muslims living in it for a substantial amount of time automatically became a Muslim land, and that it was a good Muslims duty to campaign and fight for such things. The surveys which you call biased take a sample from every age and gender evenly across Britain, they are capable of predicting within one or two points the entire make up of our parliament before elections, so the idea that they are biased is a laughable excuse. You do realise that just because something disagrees with your extremely biased perception of the world does not make it instantly biased in itself, don't you?

    ''I thought it was pretty cut and shut that anywhere that had Muslims living in it for a substantial amount of time automatically became a Muslim land, and that it was a good Muslims duty to campaign and fight for such things'' - Proof?

    and oh of course they would take un-biased samples, do you really think Muslim youth who have a higher crime rate than any other religious group would agree with Shariah law, the cutting off of hands?

    Either way, like I said, you make your damn laws, we don't care as long as they don't destroy our freedom to practice - which we are allowed right?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Google: 7/7 bombers. Nuff said?

    Derp.
    One of them was a convert
    Three were radicalised by terrorist preachers

    Say No More
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blueray)
    HERE ARE THE FACTS
    All the above is just based on certain opinions.

    1) Not all Muslims are extremists.
    2) Shariah law should not be imposed here.
    3) The only people that are "imposing" it are the extremists.
    4) We should try to live in peace with one another and promote community cohesion.

    Regards
    Blueray
    Thank you for summarising my post into 4 points
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXxiKillxXx)
    One of them was a convert. Three were radicalised by terrorist preachers
    So?.. Visas etc? (Nope), homegrown baby!

    Also do you really think t'was 1st gen Muslims that facilitated the creation of these shady, quietly sanctioned Sharia courts?

    I'm sure the spirit of what you're saying is bang on and I do sympathise with moderate/modern members of the Muslim community when it comes to being 'villanized' but as time goes by whilst I see the vast majority integrating with the secular world around them, I also see a fringe becoming more and more isolated/intolerant of their host nation/it's values
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dzeh)
    **** off
    Wasteman
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    So?.. Visas etc? (Nope), homegrown baby!
    Homegrown by foreign influences who were taught in terrorist cells across the world. Thats why I said in my first post that if they were to be removed, the problem will be solved
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXxiKillxXx)
    Why am I being negged? for speaking truth
    Probably this;

    (Original post by xXxiKillxXx)
    PS: I am Muslim who agrees with Shariah law in our own countries,
    Shariah shouldn't be anywhere.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    So?.. Visas etc? (Nope), homegrown baby!

    Also do you really think t'was 1st gen Muslims that facilitated the creation of these shady, quietly sanctioned Sharia courts?
    I think it was non UK residents who promoted and funded them,
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gofre)
    Probably this;



    Shariah shouldn't be anywhere.
    Its none of the non-muslim's business to tell us what to do in our own countries, although they are already doing that but like I said in your countries; its your choice, no one is forcing it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXxiKillxXx)
    I can see some ignorant users of TSR are continually posting threads about Shariah law, how muslims want to implement it and how the Muslim birth rate is a danger to Britain.

    Have you never noticed that the second generation Muslims (so those born in the UK to parents from abroad) are much more socially acclimatised to the UK culture? So therefore a large majority would not agree with Shariah Law and are less strict in following their religion.

    the ONLY people who would be passionate in their support for Shariah law are those Muslims who are on temporary visas here and have been schooled in Islamic schools all over the world. OR this new wave of black muslim converts who come from criminal backgrounds.

    PS: I am Muslim who agrees with Shariah law in our own countries, I don't give two damns about what law there is here, thats up to you British people to decide.
    Don't know why you're being negged, you're absolutely right.

    For some people, it's just any excuse to have a go at Muslims, even if it involves spreading silly rumours. You are so right about second generation Muslims, but people are just ignorant and think anyone with brown skin is some sort of evil force than plans to overthrow the country. Shariah Law will NEVER come to Britain, we are not and never will be a Muslim country, anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXxiKillxXx)
    Its none of the non-muslim's business to tell us what to do in our own countries, although they are already doing that but like I said in your countries; its your choice, no one is forcing it.
    If people are being executed for such archaic reasoning as adultery or apostasy, then it should be our business in my opinion.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXxiKillxXx)
    Homegrown by foreign influences who were taught in terrorist cells across the world. Thats why I said in my first post that if they were to be removed, the problem will be solved
    We live in a global age my friend, your point concerned the relative innocence/non threatening nature (to our culture/values/laws) of non-1st gen Muslims, mine highlighted the fact that non-1st gen Muslims are just as susceptible to hardline positions, and in some cases more likely to adopt them - as they get to experience Western culture more roundly and in some cases found it to be abhorent, hence have the capacity to react against it

    Who's going to 'remove' extremist Islam? West has shown it's incapable of doing it (without shooting anything that moves/dropping 'the bomb') e.g. in Afghanistan, authorities in the East are unwilling (and in some senses who can blame them?).. haven't really thought this one through have we
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ppl speak of things they have no knowledge. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXxiKillxXx)
    Wasteman
    Barbarian.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 16, 2011
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

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.