Britain adopts Sharia law. Is this true?

[Strike For The South]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,422661,00.html

I can't bring my self to believe this. A western nation can't be allowing courts based on religon

[ICantSpellDawg]

I had heard about this a while ago. I can't get my head around how they are going to implement this without sacrificing some aspect of equality between the sexes. Here is an article from the times just in case people claim that Fox isn't a real news source Link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece)

As an aside: Strike - you've spelled Sharia wrong to start with. It was going to be hard enough not to get into a 6 page dispute between everyone and Tribesman about whether or not anyone knows what Sharia actually is (except for Tribesman). I think our forum has hit its yearly quota of laughing smileys - any more will simply put us over the top in terms of bandwidth.

I urge everyone to read this wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia) stressing what Sharia is and what it is not - in order to prepare us for what is to come.

[JAG]

~:rolleyes:

[Big_John]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:



:blank2:



edit: seriously, though.. why can't i find any news about this beyond fauxnews.com? wikinews is blank, bbc is blank.. what's going on?

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Months ago the Archbishop of Canterbury suggested that Islamic and Jewish laws be adopted pertaining to civic cases within the respective communities. He was bombarded to silence by the hordes of organised unreligion zealots. Probably a smartfox came up with the old news and flushed it out again to stir the air.
.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I posted a times london article

[Big_John]

I posted a times london articlethe times is the source for the fauxnews story, i already saw that (they are both newscorp anyway). and i was familiar with the row over the AB of C's words a couple months ago or w/e. but why isn't there anything on wikinews or reuters? seems like someone else would at least repeat the newscorp story... news lag?

[Adrian II]

I posted a times london articleThe article also says what these courts really are:


Under the act*, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.Arbitration by consent of the parties is a normal procedure, for instance among Jews in the UK. British jewish courts, so-called Beth Din, are in use every day.

* The 1996 Arbitration Act (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1996/ukpga_19960023_en_1) under which such courts operate.

[ICantSpellDawg]

the times is the source for the fauxnews story, i already saw that (they are both newscorp anyway). and i was familiar with the row over the AB of C's words a couple months ago or w/e. but why isn't there anything on wikinews or reuters? seems like someone else would at least repeat the newscorp story... news lag?

As much as it might hurt people to admit - Fox News doesn't tend to report lies. They might report stories with a bias, but the facts are always there.

I understand your point, Adrian - They elaborated on that point in the Times article. Do you believe that this is a good idea? It is arbitration of civil cases now, but the Times article quoted one of the people involved as saying that it would deal more and more with criminal cases. Women may go along with this, but couldn't the laws be viewed as unconscionable if they consistently side with males over females? The law is supposed to provide some equality that might not be inherent to the society in question.

[Big_John]

Arbitration by consent of the partiesi assumed as much. thanks for the link.

[Big_John]

As much as it might hurt people to admit - Fox News doesn't tend to report lies. They might report stories with a bias, but the facts are always there.

I understand your point, Adrian - They elaborated on that point in the Times article. Do you believe that this is a good idea?
newscorp is a travesty and a joke. but that's beside the point. i'm assuming that the story is true, but wondering why no one besides newscorp seems to care.

[ICantSpellDawg]

newscorp is a travesty and a joke. but that's beside the point. i'm assuming that the story is true, but wondering why no one besides newscorp seems to care.

Like I said - Newscorp has a different agenda than other news organizations. They do different blackouts in coverage and accentuate different occurrences. If this is true and you can't find it anywhere else - doesn't it make you slightly thankful that newscorp exists? I am thankful when left leaning news sites present facts that are blacked out by other mainstream news organizations.

[Big_John]

If this is true and you can't find it anywhere else - doesn't it make you slightly thankful that newscorp exists?only if the 'news' is important. not sure about this story yet. and the catch 22 of it is, if it's really important, a reputable news agency will pick it up. :wink:

[ICantSpellDawg]

only if the 'news' is important. not sure about this story yet. and the catch 22 of it is, if it's really important, a reputable news agency will pick it up. :wink:

Not always. I like Fox news and other Newscorp branches. I also like coverage that I am ideologically opposed to.

[Big_John]

Not always. I like Fox news and other Newscorp branches. I also like coverage that I am ideologically opposed to.
i'm ideologically opposed to all news coverage.

[ICantSpellDawg]

i'm ideologically opposed to all news coverage.

So what is your major gripe with Fox? Do you find that they lie and make up facts?

[Big_John]

So what is your major gripe with Fox?platinum blondes.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The article also says what these courts really are:


Under the act*, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.Arbitration by consent of the parties is a normal procedure, for instance among Jews in the UK. British jewish courts, so-called Beth Din, are in use every day.

* The 1996 Arbitration Act (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1996/ukpga_19960023_en_1) under which such courts operate.

You don't think certain classes of people might not be pressured to agree to a Sharia court for abitration?

CR

[KarlXII]

1. It's a Faux News article about Islam
2. It's a Faux News article about Britain
3. It's a Faux News article

[CountArach]

edit: seriously, though.. why can't i find any news about this beyond fauxnews.com? wikinews is blank, bbc is blank.. what's going on?
Is that a serious question?

[KarlXII]

You don't think certain classes of people might not be pressured to agree to a Sharia court for abitration?

CR

Britain is not Iran.....

[Big_John]

Britain is not Iran.....not yet.











dum DUM DUM!!

[KarlXII]

PEOPLE WHO READ THIS...
Also read these stories:
Suspect Held in Firebomb Attack at Home of Spanish Princess
[2008-09-15]
38 visitors also liked this.
Green Group: Arctic Melt Makes Climate Talks Urgent
[2008-09-15]
27 visitors also liked this.
Report: Satan Worshippers Killed, Ate 4 Teens in Russia
[2008-09-15]
3408 visitors also liked this.
Anglican Reverend: We Owe Darwin an Apology
[2008-09-15]
858 visitors also liked this.
Early Whale Used Hind Legs to Swim

Has Faux News gone Commie? :help:

[Big_John]

Has Faux News gone Commie? :help:are you implying a connection between communism and propaganda? pull the other one.

[InsaneApache]

Britain is not Iran.....

There has been cases of moslem women being told how to vote by the head (male) of the family in the city I live in. So some would undoubtably be pressured to abide by the 'courts' decision.

[KarlXII]

There has been cases of moslem women being told how to vote by the head (male) of the family in the city I live in. So some would undoubtably be pressured to abide by the 'courts' decision.

Of course there is pressure. But it's a free society, they have the option to choose not to, and they know it.

[Tribesman]

There has been cases of moslem women being told how to vote by the head (male) of the family in the city I live in.
So ? I told my wife how to vote on the last trip to the polling booth ....not that it worked though because she is English and couldn't vote in that referendum .:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

This isn't a lie.

Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2957428/Sharia-law-courts-operating-in-Britain.html)

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think that the Telegraph is NewsCorp as well - so it doesn't count as news just yet. Everybody knows that news doesn't happen unless CNN, BBC or Al Jazeera carries the story.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I think that the Telegraph is NewsCorp as well - so it doesn't count as news just yet. Everybody knows that news doesn't happen unless CNN, BBC or Al Jazeera carries the story.

Only the Australian Daily Telegraph is NewsCorp, according to Wiki.

EDIT: Right now, on the first page of Google, I see the Times, Daily Mail, and Sun carrying it.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Only the Australian Daily Telegraph is NewsCorp, according to Wiki.

EDIT: Right now, on the first page of Google, I see the Times, Daily Mail, and Sun carrying it.

Ah - ok, so I guess this event has happened.

[Crazed Rabbit]

1. It's a Faux News article about Islam
2. It's a Faux News article about Britain
3. It's a Faux News article

Can you not read links?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece


Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts
Abul Taher

ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

It's pathetic the extent people will deny FoxNews. Sure, its not a great source, but acting as though it makes things up out of thin air is bewildering.


Of course there is pressure. But it's a free society, they have the option to choose not to, and they know it.

Forced marriages are a problem, if small. Women are forced into marriages. Are you saying they could not then be forced into accepting these courts?

Do you really think that won't be a problem?


Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.

The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.

CR

[Tribesman]

This isn't a lie.




Ah - ok, so I guess this event has happened.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
What is wrong with you people ?
Have you no memories at all ?
This is the third time in as many months that this "new" story has been discussed on this forum .
Bloody hell EA even gave a pretty full legal discourse on the law , its origins , development and use in Britain throughout the last century and beyond .

[ICantSpellDawg]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
What is wrong with you people ?
Have you no memories at all ?
This is the third time in as many months that this "new" story has been discussed on this forum .
Bloody hell EA even gave a pretty full legal discourse on the law , its origins , development and use in Britain throughout the last century and beyond .

No no no.
I have a memory that this was in the process of happening and had been happening for certain Jewish citizens for some time. I want to know the status of every crack in the dam. This is akin to a solid breach that is deep and lasting. Before it was just a likely threat based on what we already knew.

I don't stop reading about the financial crisis, even though it has been going on for some time now. Every major development is of interest to me. A parallel legal system that stresses inequality in a major Western nation is of the utmost interest to me.

[Tribesman]

Can you not read links?

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

oh and just in case you forgot the rulings of arbitration courts are binding in law as long as they are not in contravention of the law:yes: just like they always have been .

[Tribesman]

No no no.
I have a memory that this was in the process of happening and had been happening for certain Jewish citizens for some time.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
In the process of happening ??????
Don't you mean that the long estalished legal process is recently being talked about in the media :yes:

[ICantSpellDawg]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

oh and just in case you forgot the rulings of arbitration courts are binding in law as long as they are not in contravention of the law:yes: just like they always have been .

They've provided an example of male heirs getting double what the females received. That is acceptable to you? You want to see Women pressured by their insular social groups to accept 20% of what they would have gotten in a western court?

I thought conservatives were the ones who wanted to subjugate women and impose arbitrary authority on everyone?

[ICantSpellDawg]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
In the process of happening ??????
Don't you mean that the long estalished legal process is recently being talked about in the media :yes:

Islamic courts are new arrivals - they have not been around for hundreds of years in the UK. This is a new occurrence.

Tax loopholes have been open for a long time which small percentages of people take advantage of. If larger populations of people began to take advantage of the same laws the system may not have been intended for that. If the trend seemed to be endless, maybe the tax code would need to be reformed, but reform could only happen through the awareness of the drivers of it.

But I'm sure that you wouldn't be concerned with Christian courts which the law would be expected to enforce.

[naut]

I am so amazingly glad I don't live in the UK anymore.

[Crazed Rabbit]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.



So what? I read that.

In my very first post in this thread:

You don't think certain classes of people might not be pressured to agree to a Sharia court for abitration?

Good grief, this is a pathetic level of trolling from you tribesy.

CR

[Tribesman]

They've provided an example of male heirs getting double what the females received.
Wow that terrible isn't it , I would have gone for the traditional western custom where the eldest male gets everything:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[KarlXII]

Aren't there Jewish courts in Britain?

[ICantSpellDawg]

So what? I read that.
Good grief, this is a pathetic level of trolling from you tribesy.

CR

C'mon. I think Tribesman does us more of a favor than you know. He creates devils advocate positions that are witty but aren't all that defensible. The very fact that he counters reasonable conservative argument with callousness may lead to more conservative converts than it does converts to his own side.

It seems as though his side in argument is more interesting, but fundamentally weaker once Tribesman enters into the fray.

[Tribesman]

Aren't there Jewish courts in Britain?
Yes but certain classes of Jewish people wouldn't be pressured into agreeing to the arbitration so its different .

[ICantSpellDawg]

Wow that terrible isn't it , I would have gone for the traditional western custom where the eldest male gets everything:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Is that default law? If a man dies without a will, does the eldest get everything? Not anymore.

I don't necessarily disagree with cultural modules on top of a bare bones British legal system. However, I think it is an important discussion for the British electorate to have and that my listed concerns are legitimate

[Tribesman]

Is that default law? If a man dies without a will, does the eldest get everything? Not anymore.

Blimey and you call yourself a conservative , whatever happened to your upholding traditions of the good old days ?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Blimey and you call yourself a conservative , whatever happened to your upholding traditions of the good old days ?

We all pick and choose what values we hold dear enough to conserve. I'm the eldest son, but I prefer the law that suggests a clean and even break when it comes to free parent loot. I'm sure that my 4 siblings would appreciate that sentiment.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

We all pick and choose what values we hold dear enough to conserve. I'm the eldest son, but I prefer the law that suggests a clean and even break when it comes to free parent loot. I'm sure that my 4 siblings would appreciate that sentiment.

I'd have to agree with you on this.

I'm an only child. :laugh4:

[HoreTore]

There has been cases of moslem women being told how to vote by the head (male) of the family in the city I live in.

I've forced my father, mother and two ex-girlfriends into voting. The big deal being....?

[Strike For The South]

I've forced my father, mother and two ex-girlfriends into voting. The big deal being....?

FACIST!

[KarlXII]

Yes but certain classes of Jewish people wouldn't be pressured into agreeing to the arbitration so its different .

You know this how? How does a Muslim court differentiate with a Jewish court in terms of people being pressured into one?

[Incongruous]

I've forced my father, mother and two ex-girlfriends into voting. The big deal being....?

Uhuh...

Either you read IA wrong or you are just being selective in your understanding of what he said.

Now what IA reported seems to be a simple case of domestic issues or violence. You could have just pointed that out instead of trying to score points by writing crap.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
It's glad to learn that Rev. Rowan Williams's proposal has finally been realised. :2thumbsup: Thanks for the links! :yes:
.

[Fragony]

Ah, news from England? It's almost becomming comical.

[JR-]

Has Faux News gone Commie? :help:

quit. spamming. discussions.

[JR-]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,422661,00.html

I can't bring my self to believe this. A western nation can't be allowing courts based on religon

Britain has had Jewish Beth-Din(?) arbitration courts for donkeys years.

And we just invented a Brit-Approved(tm) Islamic marriage contract that doesn't involve stoning adulterous brides or leaving them penniless.

We are subverting militant islamism from within! :skull:

[Big_John]

Yes but Jewish people aren't muslims so its different .fixed it for you.

[KrooK]

Heh
Great Britain back into Medieval :) And you already have your own campaign :)

[Mikeus Caesar]

PEOPLE WHO READ THIS...
Also read these stories:
Jude Law Visits Afghanistan to Promote Peace
Green Group: Arctic Melt Makes Climate Talks Urgent
Suspect Held in Firebomb Attack at Home of Spanish Princess
Report: Satan Worshippers Killed, Ate 4 Teens in Russia
Anglican Reverend: We Owe Darwin an Apology


~:rolleyes:

[PBI]

So let me get this straight.

The law says that you are allowed to choose any arbitration method you like, literally anything at all including appeals to the Jedi council, so long as the judgement doesn't contradict any established British laws.

But because some people are choosing Sharia courts I'm supposed to be outraged?

:coffeenews:

Exactly what solution do the outrage crowd propose? Make the law state "any arbitration method you want, except for Sharia"?

Oh, and EMFM, the Times and Sun are both Newscorp (or at least Murdoch owned). The Mail makes both of those look like a bunch of tree-hugging lefties and will happily reprint any story so long as it's about Muslims. Until it appears on the BBC I don't buy it.

[InsaneApache]

Until it appears on the BBC I don't buy it.

:laugh4: Priceless.

[Banquo's Ghost]

So let me get this straight.

The law says that you are allowed to choose any arbitration method you like, literally anything at all including appeals to the Jedi council, so long as the judgement doesn't contradict any established British laws.

But because some people are choosing Sharia courts I'm supposed to be outraged?

There is actually a story behind this headline, and it is not particularly about Muslim Shari'a but about informed consent.

The arbitration panels are, as noted, not different than other special interest panels. However, it is extremely difficult to ensure that all participants - especially the women - are making the decision to allow jurisdiction freely. It is undeniable that Muslim traditionalists see women as subservient to men and it would be quite hard for a woman to refuse the arbitration of the Shari'a based panel without a very serious impact on her community and family life. It is also undeniable that many Muslim women respect Shari'a as a model for their conduct.

The hard part is differentiating between the two and the spectrum in between. Just expressing consent for arbitration is not enough.

My view is that no religious communities should have any extra privileges in the justice system. This includes removing bishops from the Lords, blasphemy laws and disestablishing the Church of England. All the Abrahamic religions discriminate against women in some manner, and none of them have a place in modern legal practice at any level whatsoever.

[Big_John]

Oh, and EMFM, the Times and Sun are both Newscorp (or at least Murdoch owned).honestly, i have no reason not to believe the story. i mean, yeah, newscorp is a sad, sad joke. but this is such a non-story, that it being slow to pop up elsewhere isn't any kind of contraindication, imo.

[JR-]

Oh, and EMFM, the Times and Sun are both Newscorp (or at least Murdoch owned). The Mail makes both of those look like a bunch of tree-hugging lefties and will happily reprint any story so long as it's about Muslims. Until it appears on the BBC I don't buy it.

while i loath the republican Murdoch i consider the BBC to be equally biased in its lefty-liberal* way.

i will believe it when it is shown in both left and right wing press.





*of the greenpeace-accredited and tofu-nibbling variety.

[PBI]

Yes, that was actually my point.

I simply take issue with the implied assertion that it is only the left-leaning media that carries bias.

[Fragony]

Until it appears on the BBC I don't buy it.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

By the way, bravo http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/2967374/England-is-most-crowded-country-in-Europe.html

[ICantSpellDawg]

There is actually a story behind this headline, and it is not particularly about Muslim Shari'a but about informed consent.

The arbitration panels are, as noted, not different than other special interest panels. However, it is extremely difficult to ensure that all participants - especially the women - are making the decision to allow jurisdiction freely. It is undeniable that Muslim traditionalists see women as subservient to men and it would be quite hard for a woman to refuse the arbitration of the Shari'a based panel without a very serious impact on her community and family life. It is also undeniable that many Muslim women respect Shari'a as a model for their conduct.

The hard part is differentiating between the two and the spectrum in between. Just expressing consent for arbitration is not enough.

My view is that no religious communities should have any extra privileges in the justice system. This includes removing bishops from the Lords, blasphemy laws and disestablishing the Church of England. All the Abrahamic religions discriminate against women in some manner, and none of them have a place in modern legal practice at any level whatsoever.

I've got to agree. Religion is great, but it should never be enforced by secular law even as a modular system.

[HoreTore]

I've got to agree. Religion is great, but it should never be enforced by secular law even as a modular system.

I don't really see this system as "law". I see it like what my mother did when I argued with my younger brother as a kid.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't really see this system as "law". I see it like what my mother did when I argued with my younger brother as a kid.

That could be a good example actually.

but it wasn't enforceable by law, right? I don't mind the civil cases all that much. What I do mind is that they are talking about hearing criminal cases. In no way was my mother able to say "go to your room for 2 years for killing that man" - the law stepped in. If she found marijuana she could punish me - If the police found marijuana they could punish me.

We'll see. As it is now it isn't the end of the world at all - but you have to be careful. Things can get out of control, Islam is a much more formidable opponent to the system than the British Jews were.

Think of it like spilling a bucket of water in your home vs leaving the window open in a hurricane. The other side says "Its just water! The bucket didn't mess much up, did it?"

[Fragony]

Think of it like spilling a bucket of water in your home vs leaving the window open in a hurricane. The other side says "Its just water! The bucket didn't mess much up, did it?"

Well said. And again we are arguing about what's so wrong with it, not quite so much really when taken as an isolated event. I wonder when muslims in England will be excused from paying taxes, it is against their religion after. 5 years or so.

[Kralizec]

As said, this isn't different from other cases arbritration based on mutual consent. Except that these cases are based on inherently discriminatory ethics, and we're left to assume that the one's on the short end of the stick gave their consent freely under no duress.

I'm pretty sure that the bit about meddling with criminal law is bullox. Some crimes like domestic violence can't really be prosecuted if the victim doesn't chose to report it. If the victim of sexual harassment decides to accept a mediated compromise by the community's old fart elder where he says that the "other party" will have to pay $10 and promise not to do it again, it's still partly the victims fault for going along with such retarded customs instead of going to the police.

In short: this sort of thing has been possible for a long time, of course it's incredibly unfair to women but unless there's reason to assume that a particular woman was forced into accepting arbritration we'll just have to accept that it's their decision to be treated as second class members of their community.

[Fragony]

I'm pretty sure that the bit about meddling with criminal law is bullox.

It's England. Agree with the rest though.

[Louis VI the Fat]

We have this same 'Shock! Sharia in Britain!' - thread every three months in the Backroom.

Tribes is right - EA gave a good legal explanation in a previous installment of this 'news'. I remember it well. Adrian summarised it on page one. The more interesting aspect to me is the Rabbit / IA / Ghost concern: what of matters of consent, especially of women?

Sharia law does not consider all it's subjects as equals. It is distinctly biased towards some. This inequality is also prevalent amongst those who (try to) live by tribal / Islamic customs, the very people most likely to arbitrate their cases in accordance with Sharia law. And whose unequality is notable in their lives. Stories abound of semi-illiterate Islamic women, confined to their households by their husbands, brothers and cousins. They are not, and this is the crux, well versed enough in the British legal system to understand the consequences. There is a clear and present danger that the British legal system will be made an instrument of inequality of her majesty's subjects before the law and an instrument of subjugation of those deemed lesser subjects by unequal law systems.


So I say this is a Trojan Horse. Under the guise of legal freedom and self-determination, inequality before the law, and less legal freedom and self-determination are smuggled into the British legal system.
Too much respect for Islamic or other non-western sensitivities leads to a perpetuation of backwardness, of a lesser social status and to a lack of integration of minorities.

[Goofball]

Of course there is pressure. But it's a free society, they have the option to choose not to, and they know it.

Classic head in the sand attitude. If you had any idea what life was like for women in a traditional, conservative, muslim household, you would realize what crap that statement is.

I'm appalled by the responses of my fellow lefties in this thread. Allowing sharia judges to make binding enforcable rulings based on Islamic law is a huge step backward for women's rights. If this story had been identical except that it was about some kind of kangaroo Christian court making rulings, you'd all be screaming your bloody heads off.

So, instead of petty bickering about the validity of the news source, (which is simply a cowardly way of avoiding the true issue), why can't the left just step up to the plate and answer the true question here: Do you or don't you think it's a good idea to allow a bunch of bearded old men to make rulings in law based on a bunch of misogynistic ideas from centuries ago?

[InsaneApache]

Well said. And again we are arguing about what's so wrong with it, not quite so much really when taken as an isolated event. I wonder when muslims in England will be excused from paying taxes, it is against their religion after. 5 years or so.

I'm sorry mate but I reckon charlie might be gobbing off here. Why? Well to coin a phrase; it's just bollox.

Go have a lie down and put a damp tea-towel on your head. :whip:


There is a clear and present danger that the British legal system will be made an instrument of inequality of her majesty's subjects before the law and an instrument of subjugation of those deemed lesser subjects by unequal law systems.

I'm sorry Louis but I skimmed through your post, shame on me. This is indeed my concern in a nutshell. As you noted in another place, ethnicity trumps sexism. A shame on us all freethinkers.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Classic head in the sand attitude. If you had any idea what life was like for women in a traditional, conservative, muslim household, you would realize what crap that statement is.

I'm appalled by the responses of my fellow lefties in this thread. Allowing sharia judges to make binding enforcable rulings based on Islamic law is a huge step backward for women's rights. If this story had been identical except that it was about some kind of kangaroo Christian court making rulings, you'd all be screaming your bloody heads off.

So, instead of petty bickering about the validity of the news source, (which is simply a cowardly way of avoiding the true issue), why can't the left just step up to the plate and answer the true question here: Do you or don't you think it's a good idea to allow a bunch of bearded old men to make rulings in law based on a bunch of misogynistic ideas from centuries ago?


Glad to have you on board!

[Rhyfelwyr]

Make that two lefties on board. I don't see how women could possibly aviod pressure to settle disputes in a Sharia court, even when they will clearly be prejudiced against.

Islam isn't the demon terrorist religion the right makes it out to be, but it certaintly isn't the peaceful hippie religion the left portrays it as either. As always its somewhere in-between. But equality in the eyes of the law should never be compromised.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I agree. Equality is based loosely on Judeo-Christianity, but the bible itself does not contain "equality between the sexes" by modern standards. I would reject any governmental judicial system that contained inequality between the sexes as its hallmark.

[Big_John]

so we will focus on one aspect of sharia law (inequity amongst male and female parties)? so what is the problem here, that the act that allows sharia arbitration or the pre-existing social inequity in certain fundamentalist muslim relationships?

what would repealing this act (specifically for sharia) actually accomplish?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Oh, and EMFM, the Times and Sun are both Newscorp (or at least Murdoch owned). The Mail makes both of those look like a bunch of tree-hugging lefties and will happily reprint any story so long as it's about Muslims. Until it appears on the BBC I don't buy it.

What, you missed the Telegraph link?

[Fragony]

I'm sorry mate but I reckon charlie might be gobbing off here. Why? Well to coin a phrase; it's just bollox.

Go have a lie down and put a damp tea-towel on your head. :whip:


That was perfectly fine bait :wall:

[LittleGrizzly]

Im getting a strange sense of deja vu... i think i have been here in this discussion several times in the last few months....

Firstly can we try and getting over the big scary title and concentrate on the facts rather than some scary soundbites the Mail has been giving out... this will in actual fact affect very few people, and those it would affect would choose to be affected by it, your average daily mail reader wouldn't even now anythings changed (maybe apart from a few attention grabbing headlines...)

Secondly it seems a bit unfair that we for example allow jewish courts in the same manner so why not muslims ?

thirdly we would possibly be better off doing away with courts linked to religion and the like but if some religious figure can sort out some petty dispute between members of his religion without having to go through the expense of a regular court i can see the advantages...

Would it save taxpayers money or just the people in a dispute or both ?

because if its saving taxpayer money and frees up our judges ect. for more important work it is hard to see it as a bad thing...

[Goofball]

so we will focus on one aspect of sharia law (inequity amongst male and female parties)? so what is the problem here, that the act that allows sharia arbitration or the pre-existing social inequity in certain fundamentalist muslim relationships?

what would repealing this act (specifically for sharia) actually accomplish?

Sorry, but I'm afraid in this context we have to focus on that aspect of sharia law, as that is what these kangaroo courts are mainly being used for: civil matters involving disputes between males and females (i.e. divorce, inheritance, domestic abuse).

If you think that those are not areas in which women need some protection, then I don't really know where else to go with this discussion.

[Goofball]

Im getting a strange sense of deja vu... i think i have been here in this discussion several times in the last few months....

Firstly can we try and getting over the big scary title and concentrate on the facts rather than some scary soundbites the Mail has been giving out... this will in actual fact affect very few people, and those it would affect would choose to be affected by it, your average daily mail reader wouldn't even now anythings changed (maybe apart from a few attention grabbing headlines...)

That's what the lefties seem to be willfully ignoring here: muslim women being subjected to sharia "justice" have no choice in the matter, even though it might look like they are submitting to it voluntarily.



Secondly it seems a bit unfair that we for example allow jewish courts in the same manner so why not muslims ?

I think that should also be stopped. I wasn't aware that that was happening until now.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That's what the lefties seem to be willfully ignoring here: muslim women being subjected to sharia "justice" have no choice in the matter, even though it might look like they are submitting to it voluntarily.




I think that should also be stopped. I wasn't aware that that was happening until now.


Those courts may have been functioning for 100 years in the U.K., but women couldn't vote 100 years ago. Maybe they were wrong in letting these courts operate for this long, maybe it's time for a change before it gets out of control?

[Big_John]

Sorry, but I'm afraid in this context we have to focus on that aspect of sharia law, as that is what these kangaroo courts are mainly being used for: civil matters involving disputes between males and females (i.e. divorce, inheritance, domestic abuse).

If you think that those are not areas in which women need some protection, then I don't really know where else to go with this discussion.ok, so without these courts, justice will be restored?

[KarlXII]

ok, so without these courts, justice will be restored?

And what of the Jewish courts already in place?

[Goofball]

ok, so without these courts, justice will be restored?

Without these courts, muslim women would stand in from of British secular judges, where they are equal under the law.

[Big_John]

And what of the Jewish courts already in place?jews are cool. they aren't muslim.

[Big_John]

Without these courts, muslim women would stand in from of British secular judges, where they are equal under the law.
ah, ok. so these women who are so cowed under by the oppressive males that dominate their society will be walking into the magistrates office to file for divorce, get their child support, sue for battery and rape, etc?

[Goofball]

And what of the Jewish courts already in place?

I refer you to my earlier post in this thread, #84.

[Rhyfelwyr]

ah, ok. so these women who are so cowed under by the oppressive males that dominate their society will be walking into the magistrates office to file for divorce, get their child support, sue for battery and rape, etc?

And how will bringing the same prejudice into the law help?

[KarlXII]

And how will bringing the same prejudice into the law help?

Isn't prejudice always present in the law?

[Goofball]

Isn't prejudice always present in the law?

Sure, but can you show me a statute in British law that says "In matters of inheritance, female children are entitled to a share 50% smaller than that of their brothers?"

[KarlXII]

Sure, but can you show me a statute in British law that says "In matters of inheritance, female children are entitled to a share 50% smaller than that of their brothers?"

Can you also show me where this is present in Muslim law?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Isn't prejudice always present in the law?

Yes but this is systematically implementing it deliberately.

[Big_John]

And how will bringing the same prejudice into the law help?

who said it will?

i think all religion needs to be abolished from law. i hope one day humanity will evolve beyond the need for religion entirely. however, much of the outrage about this issue is simple bigotry. some of that bigotry is riding on the concern for muslim women train, but that doesn't diminish it.

yeah, women are repressed in certain muslim households and whatnot. we know. i don't see how this arbitration act is really going to exacerbate that situation, though. the problem is the society, not this act, which will provide religious arbitration to muslims in a nation that already provides such to other religious groups. if you are going to do it, do it right.

[Goofball]

Can you also show me where this is present in Muslim law?

Dude, read the article that is the subject of this thread:


Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.
The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.

[KarlXII]

Dude, read the article that is the subject of this thread:

OH NOES. THE JUDGES MADE AN UNFAIR RULING, DAMN ISLAM, DAMN IT TO HELL!

[Strike For The South]

OH NOES. THE JUDGES MADE AN UNFAIR RULING, DAMN ISLAM, DAMN IT TO HELL!

This has nothing to do with Islam. I find it weird that a western nation is even allowing religious courts to make decisions on their soil. Any religion.

[Crazed Rabbit]

so we will focus on one aspect of sharia law (inequity amongst male and female parties)? so what is the problem here, that the act that allows sharia arbitration or the pre-existing social inequity in certain fundamentalist muslim relationships?

what would repealing this act (specifically for sharia) actually accomplish?

That Sharia court decisions would not have the force of law behind them. This is making the situation worse.

CR

[KarlXII]

This has nothing to do with Islam. I find it weird that a western nation is even allowing religious courts to make decisions on their soil. Any religion.

I wholeheartedly agree.

[Strike For The South]

I wholeheartedly agree.

Then why are you defending them?

[KarlXII]

Then why are you defending them?

When did I ever announce my support, or defend them?

If you mean the "SHARIA COURTS R BAD BECUZ A JUDGE RULED SEXIST", I'm simply pointing out this was an unfair ruling, yes, but to say every ruling a Sharia court will make will be this is like saying putting a black man on death row means every black man convicted is going to the chair.

[Strike For The South]

When did I ever announce my support, or defend them?

If you mean the "SHARIA COURTS R BAD BECUZ A JUDGE RULED SEXIST", I'm simply pointing out this was an unfair ruling, yes, but to say every ruling a Sharia court will make will be this is like saying putting a black man on death row means every black man convicted is going to the chair.

Sharia law is unfair, you know the rules in Saudi Arabia right?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Strike - the lefties defend them because they're minorities.

Only a very few lefties will criticize minorities. They are by nature against the majority, and since that thought has formed in the west, it's always the white, Christian man who is wrong. Minorities are oppressed; they can't be wrong.


yeah, women are repressed in certain muslim households and whatnot. we know. i don't see how this arbitration act is really going to exacerbate that situation, though. the problem is the society, not this act, which will provide religious arbitration to muslims in a nation that already provides such to other religious groups. if you are going to do it, do it right.

This cements the results of that misogyny and oppression into law. The other religious courts (the Jewish ones) don't have this problem. If the hardliners forming vigilante groups in Jerusalem were around, it would be an issue, but they are not, so it isn't.


Secondly it seems a bit unfair that we for example allow jewish courts in the same manner so why not muslims ?

Just because there are other religious courts doesn't mean it should be okay for any religious courts to operate.

Why? Listen carefully, because this might be hard for some lefties:
Not all religions are equal. Some are morally worse than others. You cannot live forever in a wishy-washy world of moral relativism and treat unequals as though they are equal.

We are giving another tool to misogynistic oppressors to force their will on their victims. We are allowing their bigotry to take root in a greater area of society, and putting the weight of a western country's justice system behind it. How anyone can defend that is beyond me.

CR

[KarlXII]

Sharia law is unfair, you know the rules in Saudi Arabia right?

Yes I do.

I found something of interest. A Qadi, Sharia judge, cannot discriminate based off race, sex, religion, culture etc.

So this technically means the basis of the ruling of the inheritence was in violation of that. Interesting?

[Strike For The South]

Yes I do.

I found something of interest. A Qadi, Sharia judge, cannot discriminate based off race, sex, religion, culture etc.

So this technically means the basis of the ruling of the inheritence was in violation of that. Interesting?

....If you really think thats how these things work. Im no longer speaking to you

[Fragony]

OH NOES. THE JUDGES MADE AN UNFAIR RULING, DAMN ISLAM, DAMN IT TO HELL!

Interesting, classical case.

[KarlXII]

....If you really think thats how these things work. Im no longer speaking to you

I'm not saying that's how it works. I'm saying that's how it's supposed to work.

Argh!

My opinion: Abolish the courts, Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, it doesn't matter. Religious courts have no place in Western law.

[Strike For The South]

I'm not saying that's how it works. I'm saying that's how it's supposed to work.
.

Theories are great aren't they!

[ICantSpellDawg]

My opinion: Abolish the courts, Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, it doesn't matter. Religious courts have no place in Western law.

Exactly!!! Bravo SwedishFish. Welcome to the world of the mentally living! 1 legal standard - all equal before the law.

Religious courts can exist, but they can't have any governmental legal authority.

[AlexanderSextus]

Theories are great aren't they!

:laugh4: yeah, they are huh!! like that one, oh... what was it again, oh yeah COMMUNISM. Such a good theory. :sweatdrop:

[KarlXII]

Exactly!!! Bravo SwedishFish. Welcome to the world of the mentally living! 1 legal standard - all equal before the law.

I find it strange you would think I would support any religious court.

[KarlXII]

:laugh4: yeah, they are huh!! like that one, oh... what was it again, oh yeah COMMUNISM. Such a good theory. :sweatdrop:

Communism and Islam go hand in hand, right ~:dizzy:?

Next time, in AlexanderSextus's world:

"Homosexuality and Islam, the hidden truth!"

[Fragony]

Communism and Islam go hand in hand, right ~:dizzy:?

Yep, it's the import-proletariat that needs to liberated from the oppression that is living in a free society. Not being allowed to take 5 breaks for prayer, not getting a job because you insist on wearing raditional islamic ware and refuse to shake women's hand? Was it for this the clay grew tall?

O.P.P.R.E.S.S.I.O.N.

[Tribesman]

This is funny .

Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.
Nope , if these daughters had gone to a normal British court and applied for an equal share they may have got an equal share , or if these children had made no submission to the courts on how to share the estate they would have got an equal share .
So since some people here want to take an example and go "its so unfair !!!!!" ...what are the details of this case ? what is the nature of the estate , what is the status of the children , has the mother predeceased her husband or has she waived her right to the entire estate ?
Inheritance laws eh ? children get equal shares don't they :yes: unless ...oh there is lots of unless isn't there , lots of different provisions and possible agreements .
Next thing is someone is going to suggest that a woman always gets 50% of the family holdings in a divorce case because that is the law so that is what happens .

That is what is funny about this , so many people going "look at this case" yet none has looked at it at all apart from some news reports on the verdict .

But anyway our honestly muslim loving non racist who doesn't have a problem with immigrants has thrown another doozy into the topic .

. Not being allowed to take 5 breaks for prayer
Wow Frag you really make them Muslims work long hours over there don't ya:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Fragony]

Ah there bees ze manifestation of ze leftist blind spot in ze flesh, epic faillure is yours once again.

By the way, did I already tell you I have muslim friends, look at my profile if you don't believe me, Hi Mouz qui pasa! :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[InsaneApache]

Concerning the unequal treatment meted out in these so called 'courts'. This isn't just a Moslem thing. There is a very similar attitude in southern Europe. I've just got back from visiting my dad, who regulars will know, lives in Greece. There the attitude shown to the sons is vastly different from that shown to the daughters.

Also it might be as well to remember that the same attitudes were prevelent in the west until comparitavely recently. It's only about 80 years since women got the vote in the UK and the US. That, in conjuction with two world wars, has changed the perception of women a lot.

This came after a long struggle for universal suffrage, which in itself came about after universal education. That is the key. Education.

[Tribesman]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
By the way, did I already tell you I have muslim friends
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:an absolute classic . A reworking of the old "I ain't a racist I have a black friend" , which is normally followed by .....a racist rant .
Well done frag you really are a laugh a minute .

[Fragony]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:an absolute classic . A reworking of the old "I ain't a racist I have a black friend" , which is normally followed by .....a racist rant .
Well done frag you really are a laugh a minute .

It's so much fun to make a classic out of a classic, nice catch Tribes, well done :yes:

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Hey Tribes, be a good commie and don't bully my favourite fasco! ~:pat:
.

[HoreTore]

Religious courts can exist, but they can't have any governmental legal authority.

I'm agreeing with a republican... Satan must be throwing snowballs.

[Fragony]

.
Hey Tribes, be a good commie and don't bully my favourite fasco! ~:pat:
.

You tell him Mouz, Tribes is so mean lately I am afraid he is radicalising. And Tribes if you think Mouz just called me a windbag, he would never he's a muslim to even assume he would fills me with disgust.

Who so serious?

[Husar]

Can anyone tell me whether I should find this good or bad please? Someone nice preferably.
Thanks in advance.

The other question I have is, if those courts are basically as undiscriminating and otherwise similar to western courts, why are they needed in the first place?

[HoreTore]

The other question I have is, if those courts are basically as undiscriminating and otherwise similar to western courts, why are they needed in the first place?

They're not, they're in the "well, it's nice to have"-category. Kinda like decorative candles and such. No useful function, but they're kinda nice...

[Goofball]

When did I ever announce my support, or defend them?

If you mean the "SHARIA COURTS R BAD BECUZ A JUDGE RULED SEXIST", I'm simply pointing out this was an unfair ruling, yes, but to say every ruling a Sharia court will make will be this is like saying putting a black man on death row means every black man convicted is going to the chair.

That is so absolutely full of crap. I said nothing even resembling "SHARIA COURTS R BAD BECUZ A JUDGE RULED SEXIST," that is just a less than clever strawman you are using because by willfully ignoring my real argument, you do not have to admit that your original, ill thought out position on this matter might in fact be incorrect. Absolutely childish.

My point has been that Sharia inherently and systemically favors men over women. It is not a matter of a single judge making a bad ruling, as you seem to believe. It is about a judge making a correct ruling according to Sharia, which is inherently unfair to women.

Check this out:

http://www.islam101.com/sociology/inheritance.htm

I'll highlight some bits for you:


As we shall see the Quran does not expressly state the share of the male agnate relatives as such, although it does enact that the share of the male is twice that of a female. The Sunni jurists take the view that the intention of the Quranic injunctions was not to completely replace the old customary agnatic system entirely but merely to modify it with the objective of improving the position of female relatives. The Sunni Islamic law of inheritance is therefore, an amalgamation of the Quranic law superimposed upon the old customary law to form a complete and cohesive system. The rights of the asaba were recognised by the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) himself. Abdullah ibn Abbas (RA) reported that the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) said, "Give the Faraid (the shares of the inheritance that are prescribed in the Quran) to those who are entitled to receive it. Then whatever remains, should be given to the closest male relative of the deceased." (Sahih al-Bukhari)
The Shia jurists on the contrary took the view that since the old agnatic customary system had not been endorsed by the Quran it must be rejected and completely replaced by the new Quranic law.
By specifying clear cut entitlement and specific shares of female relatives, Islam not only elevated the position of women but simultaneously safeguarded their social and economic interests as long ago as 1400 years. The Quran contains only three verses [4:11, 4:12 and 4:176] which give specific details of inheritance shares. Using the information in these verses together with the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) as well as methods of juristic reasoning, the Muslims jurists have expounded the laws of inheritance in such meticulous detail that large volumes of work have been written on this subject.
"Allah commands you regarding your children. For the male a share equivalent to that of two females. " [Quran 4:11]
This first principle which the Quran lays down refers to males and females of equal degree and class. This means that a son inherits a share equivalent to that of two daughters, a full (germane) brother inherits twice as much as a full sister, a son’s son inherits twice as much as a son’s daughter and so on. This principle is however, not universally applicable as we shall see later in verse 4:12, the descendants of the mother notably the uterine brother and uterine sister inherit equally as do their descendants.
"If (there are) women (daughters) more than two, then for them two thirds of the inheritance; and if there is only one then it is half." [Quran 4:11]
Women in this context refers to daughters. The Quran gives the daughter a specific share. In legal terminology the daughter is referred to as a Quranic heir or sharer (ashab al-faraid). The Quran mentions nine such obligatory sharers as we shall see later. Muslims jurists have added a further three by the juristic method of qiyas (analogy). So in Islamic jurisprudence there are a total of twelve relations who inherit as sharers.
If there are any sons the share of the daughter(s) is no longer fixed because the share of the daughter is determined by the principle that a son inherits twice as much as a daughter. In the absence of any daughters this rule is applicable to agnatic granddaughters (son's daughters). The agnatic granddaughter has been made a Quranic heir (sharer) by Muslim jurists by analogy.


But none of that probably matters because I finally figured out what I'm dealing with here. I'm ashamed that it took me so long, after having seen you dance from position to position I should have realized it long ago:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/artfuldodger.htm

I'm done with you.

[KarlXII]

But none of that probably matters because I finally figured out what I'm dealing with here. I'm ashamed that it took me so long, after having seen you dance from position to position I should have realized it long ago

Do I need to call a whambulance?

[Rhyfelwyr]

That site Goofball linked do deserves a thread here. Which category would you put other Backroomers in?

[Goofball]

Do I need to call a whambulance?

Typical of the quality of your contributions so far.

[KarlXII]

Typical of the quality of your contributions so far.

Oh please. :laugh4:

I honestly didn't know the Quran said, "Allah commands you regarding your children. For the male a share equivalent to that of two females. "

Thanks for acquiring that information for my knowledge. Happy now? :juggle2:

[Big_John]

That site Goofball linked do deserves a thread here. Which category would you put other Backroomers in?

i'm pretty sure it's had one (at least). probably in the frontroom.

[Strike For The South]

Oh please. :laugh4:

I honestly didn't know the Quran said, "Allah commands you regarding your children. For the male a share equivalent to that of two females. "

Thanks for acquiring that information for my knowledge. Happy now? :juggle2:

Is there something you dont understand here? Do we need pictures? I know you hate the establishment being the cool rebellious guy you are but you have to understand why Sharia law is bad everywhere right? and why religious courts should not be allowed anywhere right? Or are you just to cool for the establishment dude?

[Fragony]

Oh please. :laugh4:

I honestly didn't know the Quran said, "Allah commands you regarding your children. For the male a share equivalent to that of two females. "

Thanks for acquiring that information for my knowledge. Happy now? :juggle2:

This one cannot be helped

[KarlXII]

Is there something you dont understand here? Do we need pictures? I know you hate the establishment being the cool rebellious guy you are but you have to understand why Sharia law is bad everywhere right? and why religious courts should not be allowed anywhere right? Or are you just to cool for the establishment dude?

Show me again where I supported the Sharia courts......

[Strike For The South]

Show me again where I supported the Sharia courts......



If you mean the "SHARIA COURTS R BAD BECUZ A JUDGE RULED SEXIST", I'm simply pointing out this was an unfair ruling, yes, but to say every ruling a Sharia court will make will be this is like saying putting a black man on death row means every black man convicted is going to the chair.


They shouldn't have the power to make decisions so its a moot point. Why are you arguing with us then?

[HoreTore]

Strike - the lefties defend them because they're minorities.

Only a very few lefties will criticize minorities. They are by nature against the majority, and since that thought has formed in the west, it's always the white, Christian man who is wrong. Minorities are oppressed; they can't be wrong.

Nonsense CR, chistians are a minority here, and I openly attack them almost whenever the opportunity presents itself!

:beam:

[KarlXII]

They shouldn't have the power to make decisions so its a moot point. Why are you arguing with us then?

I'm arguing with, what I thought before I was properly informed, an "EVIL MUSLIM COURT RULING" statement. I never once stated I supported Sharia courts, hell, I have supported the abolishing of them.

[Fragony]

I'm arguing with, what I thought before I was properly informed, an "EVIL MUSLIM COURT RULING" statement. I never once stated I supported Sharia courts, hell, I have supported the abolishing of them.

Rather late I might say, I guess even -moral outrage- needs a day of, no?

[KarlXII]

Rather late I might say, I guess even -moral outrage- needs a day of, no?

Fine then, I admit it. I support Sharia courts. I support Stalinism, Gulags, Comrade Lenin, Comrade Bin Ladin, and am against the evil West! Are you pleased?

[Fragony]

Fine then, I admit it. I support Sharia courts. I support Stalinism, Gulags, Comrade Lenin, Comrade Bin Ladin, and am against the evil West! Are you pleased?

Not in the slightest, there we have you diving under that shell again, but sadly for you are wasting you sarcasm on privileges that aren't yours anymore. Didn't you notice?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Nonsense CR, chistians are a minority here, and I openly attack them almost whenever the opportunity presents itself!

:beam:

They were the majority, which makes it okay. Do you do the same to any other religion?

CR

[KarlXII]

Not in the slightest, there we have you diving under that shell again, but sadly for you are wasting you sarcasm on privileges that aren't yours anymore. Didn't you notice?

:laugh4:

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
https://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb259/soliussymbiosus/DontFeedTheTroll.jpg
.

[Tribesman]

Nice highlight there Goof

The Sunni jurists take the view that the intention of the Quranic injunctions was not to completely replace the old customary agnatic system entirely but merely to modify it with the objective of improving the position of female relatives. The Sunni Islamic law of inheritance is therefore, an amalgamation of the Quranic law superimposed upon the old customary law to form a complete and cohesive system.
So the sharia law sorta replaced the law that said the uncles get first claim based on their age, then the sons based on their age , then any nephews and made it so that females get a shout at the money too .
Wow that was so far ahead of the civilised western laws wasn't it , laws that we had until recently (OK apart from the US as they never adopted that part of common law from Europe) So all we have to do is wait for them to have another enlightenment and leapfrog ahead of the west again .:2thumbsup:

[HoreTore]

They were the majority, which makes it okay. Do you do the same to any other religion?

Indeed I do. But not close to as much though, as I have a LOT more knowledge about christianity. Also, they're more annoying than other religions.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Indeed I do. But not close to as much though, as I have a LOT more knowledge about christianity. Also, they're more annoying than other religions.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/atheist.htm

[PBI]

OK, so far I've got two things from this thread.

*A lot of people don't like the idea of Sharia arbitration courts.

*Anyone who disagrees them will be insulted until they back down.

That's a lovely sentiment, but just on a whim I propose we discuss what people think should be done?

Do we amend the current law so that people have the right to agree on any arbitration method they want so long as it isn't Sharia?

Do we abolish the law entirely and instead insist that all disputes be handled by the normal court system? In which case, would people be prepared to accept the massive hike in their taxes to pay for all the extra bureaucracy?

How is this kind of thing handled in other countries? Does it work well?

Do you think the most pragmatic solution is simply to repeatedly tell anyone who disagrees with you that they are idiots?

Or alternatively, we could simply continue the frankly quite ugly hectoring and increasingly nasty and personal attacks on anyone who questions the received wisdom until this thread gets locked like it always does.

[KarlXII]

Personally, I believe the only reason a Sharia court would be used is when both parties mutually agree to bring it to the court. However, there is nothing wrong with how law is handled by the courts already implemented. A religious court would only be used by very religious people, if they thought they needed to do so.

[Meneldil]

I find it somewhat weird that the lefty crowd supports this kind of court, or at least, turn it into a 'non-issue'.

We all know what's going to happen with that. Sharia makes a specific distinction between Male and Female, and women rights are simply going to be scoffed at.

Saying that "they know what it means and can simply use the regular system" is simply stupid as hell.

So yeah, firstly, no-religious court should be allowed in a modern country.
Secondly, of all the religious courts that could be created, a muslim one based on the Sariah law is probably the worst that could happen.

[JR-]

Britain has managed fine with Beth Din arbitration courts for donkeys years.

We now have an non-backward british islamic marriage contract, that can be fairly arbitrated on.

We'll manage, the only thing that worries me is that our oh-so-islamically-sensitive labour Gov't will continue to tolerate abuses that are not tolerated among other segments of british society*, but i worry less now that even the thickest ex-marxists remaining in Gov't have begun to turn the page on multi-culti/self-hating**.






* leading to further divisive tension with the rest of UK society.
** different expressions of the same ideological deficiency.

[Husar]

Indeed I do. But not close to as much though, as I have a LOT more knowledge about christianity. Also, they're more annoying than other religions.

They're probably more annoying to you because so many live around you or would you be less annoyed living in Saudi Arabia? :inquisitive:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Islam is the new trendy thing for the [liberal] left. I wonder what will replace it once it goes out of fashion?

[HoreTore]

They're probably more annoying to you because so many live around you or would you be less annoyed living in Saudi Arabia? :inquisitive:

:2thumbsup:

Mostly it's the missionaries though. I don't need some idiot telling me I'm going to hell for the sin of drinking when I'm drunk at 04.00 on a saturday night. I've never had a muslim, jew, hindu, sikh or whatever annoy me like that. In fact, I've never had anyone from any religion other than christianity try to push their beliefs on me.

[Kralizec]

OK, so far I've got two things from this thread.

*A lot of people don't like the idea of Sharia arbitration courts.

*Anyone who disagrees them will be insulted until they back down.

That's a lovely sentiment, but just on a whim I propose we discuss what people think should be done?

Do we amend the current law so that people have the right to agree on any arbitration method they want so long as it isn't Sharia?

Do we abolish the law entirely and instead insist that all disputes be handled by the normal court system? In which case, would people be prepared to accept the massive hike in their taxes to pay for all the extra bureaucracy?

How is this kind of thing handled in other countries? Does it work well?

Do you think the most pragmatic solution is simply to repeatedly tell anyone who disagrees with you that they are idiots?

Or alternatively, we could simply continue the frankly quite ugly hectoring and increasingly nasty and personal attacks on anyone who questions the received wisdom until this thread gets locked like it always does.


Nope. I believe that the majority of muslim women chose to keep their religion voluntarily and thus accept the second class position awarded to them. Once you accept that it follows that they can set up arbitration acording to their own standards like anyone else. I greatly dislike it, but it's none of "our" business unless muslim women decide not to put up with this crap and get threatened or harassed.

I'm more troubled by the reflex attitude some leftists have to defend Islamic practices as such.

[PBI]

I'm more troubled by the reflex attitude some leftists have to defend Islamic practices as such.

Actually I suspect it is more a reflex attitude to oppose those on the right who give a strong impression of simply seizing upon any pretext whatsoever to condemn Islam. Many of these people seem quite happy to drag religion into the law in other threads, for instance insisting that aborting a week-old foetus should be outlawed due to their belief that it has a soul, or insisting that any marriage not carried out under religious auspices be stripped of all meaning and reduced to the status of a tawdry business transaction.

It is an obvious double standard, yet any attempt to point this out is interpreted as expressing support for the subjugation of women, followed by several pages of depressingly unironic "Why do you hate freedom?" type anti-left ranting. Strangely enough many lefties find these accusations deeply offensive not to mention blatantly hypocritical and the ensuing flamewar results in nothing but bitterness and the thread being closed, only to pop up again a few months later with the thinnest of disguises the next time people want to indulge their favourite hobby of beating up straw lefties.

[InsaneApache]

Oh I dunno. As a wise Frenchman* once wrote, "Racism trumps sexism everytime".

There are those on the left that seek to defend the 'culteralism' of the south asians in Britain today. By doing so they are complicit in reinforcing the mysoginism inherant in that culture.

It's interesting to watch the contortions as they attempt to square the circle.

*With regards to Louis.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Mostly it's the missionaries though. I don't need some idiot telling me I'm going to hell for the sin of drinking when I'm drunk at 04.00 on a saturday night. I've never had a muslim, jew, hindu, sikh or whatever annoy me like that. In fact, I've never had anyone from any religion other than christianity try to push their beliefs on me.

Don't you have Hare Krishnas in Norway? I'll have to tell our local lot.

[HoreTore]

Don't you have Hare Krishnas in Norway? I'll have to tell our local lot.

Actually never encountered any :smash:

I think the light outside my door attracts jehovas witnesses though...

[Strike For The South]

:2thumbsup:

Mostly it's the missionaries though. I don't need some idiot telling me I'm going to hell for the sin of drinking when I'm drunk at 04.00 on a saturday night. I've never had a muslim, jew, hindu, sikh or whatever annoy me like that. In fact, I've never had anyone from any religion other than christianity try to push their beliefs on me.

drinking is not a sin

[Tribesman]

Islam is the new trendy thing for the [liberal] left. I wonder what will replace it once it goes out of fashion?

Really ?I thought Muslims were the new Jews for the right wingers and nationalists to moan about

[HoreTore]

drinking is not a sin

Try telling them that ~;)

[Rhyfelwyr]

Really ?I thought Muslims were the new Jews for the right wingers and nationalists to moan about

Yes they seem to be that as well. :shrug:

[Fragony]

Really ?I thought Muslims were the new Jews for the right wingers and nationalists to moan about

Maybe you should just stop trying because you aren't equiped to get it, without the rabid islamphilea of the multicult there wouldn't be a problem, but to make the knights in the holy order of the sacred condemnation understand that, an exercise in futility absolute faith is a strange thing :juggle2:

But I keep trying anyway.

[Big_John]

Actually I suspect it is more a reflex attitude to oppose those on the right who give a strong impression of simply seizing upon any pretext whatsoever to condemn Islam. Many of these people seem quite happy to drag religion into the law in other threads, for instance insisting that aborting a week-old foetus should be outlawed due to their belief that it has a soul, or insisting that any marriage not carried out under religious auspices be stripped of all meaning and reduced to the status of a tawdry business transaction.

It is an obvious double standard, yet any attempt to point this out is interpreted as expressing support for the subjugation of women, followed by several pages of depressingly unironic "Why do you hate freedom?" type anti-left ranting. Strangely enough many lefties find these accusations deeply offensive not to mention blatantly hypocritical and the ensuing flamewar results in nothing but bitterness and the thread being closed, only to pop up again a few months later with the thinnest of disguises the next time people want to indulge their favourite hobby of beating up straw lefties.
so, when did you come to hate freedom, exactly?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I always knew you were a communist PBI!

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Many of these people seem quite happy to drag religion into the law in other threads, for instance insisting that aborting a week-old foetus should be outlawed due to their belief that it has a soul

:inquisitive:

I'm against abortion, and I don't seem to recall ever bringing religion into the argument.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Many of these people seem quite happy to drag religion into the law in other threads, for instance insisting that aborting a week-old foetus should be outlawed due to their belief that it has a soul

Find me a post on abortion where a conservative poster uses the word "soul" in their argument.
In fact, I never read religious arguments regarding abortion on this forum. This is a perpetual fallacy, that people against abortion can't possibly have a logical or practical philosophical opposition to it. In spite of constant and obvious proofs that they can and do have legitimate concerns, we hear the same banter about "ignorant religious zealots that want the pope to write our laws". People see through the act, you might as well drop it, at least on these forums.

[HoreTore]

In fact, I never read religious arguments regarding abortion on this forum.

Does "A Catholic Case Against Obama" ring any bells...?

[Strike For The South]

Actually I suspect it is more a reflex attitude to oppose those on the right who give a strong impression of simply seizing upon any pretext whatsoever to condemn Islam. Many of these people seem quite happy to drag religion into the law in other threads, for instance insisting that aborting a week-old foetus should be outlawed due to their belief that it has a soul, or insisting that any marriage not carried out under religious auspices be stripped of all meaning and reduced to the status of a tawdry business transaction.

It is an obvious double standard, yet any attempt to point this out is interpreted as expressing support for the subjugation of women, followed by several pages of depressingly unironic "Why do you hate freedom?" type anti-left ranting. Strangely enough many lefties find these accusations deeply offensive not to mention blatantly hypocritical and the ensuing flamewar results in nothing but bitterness and the thread being closed, only to pop up again a few months later with the thinnest of disguises the next time people want to indulge their favourite hobby of beating up straw lefties.

You do realize you are doing the exact same thing you are railing against right? Did you even read the thread? "Any religion" does not = Islam. And the fact that Sharia law is discriminatory against women does not reflect upon islam on a whole and it especially does not apply to individual adherents of it.

[Fragony]

At the same time in that other country, of course I am talking about Sweden;

http://www.thelocal.se/14390/20080917/

sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo dirty, love humanity screw the people :thumbsdown:

[HoreTore]

At the same time in that other country, of course I am talking about Sweden;

http://www.thelocal.se/14390/20080917/

sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo dirty, love humanity screw the people :thumbsdown:

What, Fragony? You DON'T like it when immigration is halted? :inquisitive:

This is a sad thing indeed. Instead of focusing on letting people in, we focus on how we can shut them out. This is what happens when you do it like that. There are cases like this every day now, and it is due to the anti-immigration whining of the right.

And don't think this is some kind of political vendetta from the left frags, it's the right who are in charge and who are kicking her out, and it is they who tightened the rules so she is denied access.

[Fragony]

Political correctness is in charge in Sweden doesn't really matter who is in the government, whack. What is the right in sweden would be somewhere around the centre here by the way. Keep the losers kick out the potential :thumbsdown:

[HoreTore]

Political correctness is in charge in Sweden doesn't really matter who is in the government, whack. What is the right in sweden would be somewhere around the centre here by the way. Keep the losers kick out the potential :thumbsdown:

Right..............

Run along and play now, Frags.

[Fragony]

The Swedish Migration Board (Migrationsverket) estimates that 37,000 labour(lol) migrants from countries outside the European Union (EU) will seek work permits in Sweden next year.

The new regulations will do away with the strict labour market tests currently required for anyone outside the EU seeking an employment visa in Sweden.

The 37,000 people expected to enter under the new rules includes not only those seeking work permits, but also their families and relatives.

After the change, employers themselves will be able to determine if they wish to hire someone.

Meanwhile; http://www.thelocal.se/14388/20080917/


Yes Horetore.

Sweden.

[HoreTore]

The Swedish Migration Board (Migrationsverket) estimates that 37,000 labour(lol) migrants from countries outside the European Union (EU) will seek work permits in Sweden next year.

The new regulations will do away with the strict labour market tests currently required for anyone outside the EU seeking an employment visa in Sweden.

After the change, employers themselves will be able to determine if they wish to hire someone.


Yes Horetore.

Yes, this is a wish from the conservatives, Frags... Cheap labour = higher profits.

Has nothing to do with the asylum politics though.

[Fragony]

Ya, but of course. As I said, doesn't matter, all living the dream

[JR-]

Really ?I thought Muslims were the new Jews for the right wingers and nationalists to moan about

oddly enough, in my thirty odd years of experience it has always been left-wingers that have moaned about jews.

[HoreTore]

Ya, but of course. As I said, doesn't matter, all living the dream

Yes, that is true, what you said doesn't matter, since you backed up one claim by bringing up a completely different issue ~;)

[HoreTore]

oddly enough, in my thirty odd years of experience it has always been left-wingers that have moaned about jews.

Don't confuse "jews" with "the right-wing israeli government". They're right-wingers, we're obligated to moan about them.

[Fragony]

Yes, that is true, what you said doesn't matter, since you backed up one claim by bringing up a completely different issue ~;)

Closing the backdoor only to open up the gate, bravo. Sweden is like the Netherlands 20 years ago, it makes all the same mistakes in the same repressive climate of political correctness. Opium for the elite, most swedes I know don't support this. Not a single one in fact.

[HoreTore]

Like almost every other issue, bringing in plenty of cheap labour is about money, not "political correctness". But hey, if you want to live in your own world, that's all fine by me. ~:)

[Fragony]

Like almost every other issue, bringing in plenty of cheap labour is about money, not "political correctness". But hey, if you want to live in your own world, that's all fine by me. ~:)

'The 37,000 people expected to enter under the new rules includes not only those seeking work permits, but also their families and relatives.'

'After the change, employers themselves will be able to determine if they wish to hire someone.'

:juggle2:

[Tribesman]

oddly enough, in my thirty odd years of experience it has always been left-wingers that have moaned about jews.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: Hore answers that nonsense well .
Moaning about Israel ..... a wide poloitical spectrum of democratic countries and parties throughout the western world .
Moaning about Jews ...crazy right wingers and nationalists
Though I might as well add that apart from the Harding/Cox vote the majority of Jewish voters have always voted for the american left .

[Rhyfelwyr]

Though I might as well add that apart from the Harding/Cox vote the majority of Jewish voters have always voted for the american left .

Part of Trotsky's global Jewish communist conspiracy of course. :clown:

[KukriKhan]

After 7 pages, I just couldn't take it anymore. I changed the thread title to Britain adopts Sharia law. Is this true?.

and wonder if the discussion will ever return to topic.

In the US, I point out, at city, county, state and national levels, "arbitration panels" are used frequently to resolve civil and minor (non-felony) criminal disputes, to save the money and trouble attendant to formal court proceedings. This has been so for at least the past 50 years here, and those panels often rely on interest (read: religious) groups to do the task for cheap. Their judgments and procedures are administratively reviewed by a court, for compliance with law. I myself got divorced in Tampa, Florida using an abritrator, who was, incidentally, some kinda Southern Baptist minister. He opened and closed his 'proceedings' with a prayer.

So, did Hillsboro County, Florida adopt Southern Baptist law? No. It accepted the free services of a volunteer minister to arbitrate and resolve a (hopefully) minor legal concern, to which Deborah and I both had consented. Two weeks later, I got the notarized Review of Dissolution of Marriage Proceedings, signed by some Judge I'd never met face-to-face.

(note: I got screwed in that settlement, BTW; it seemed like the right thing to do at the time.)

I also point to all those "People's Court" TV shows here in the US, where the litigants agree to have their dispute arbitrated by a non-sworn Judge, in return for 15 minutes of TV face time.

In summary: Sharia standards? Maybe. But they've got a built-in review process to prevent abuse, just like we do. And it's worked for years with the Jewish 'courts'.

No prob, sez I.

[Big_John]

great calamity! our mods have become thrall to the indelible seduction of misogyny! :end:

[Husar]

Kukri, you just proved that Americans are a bunch of bible-thumping religionists, that southern baptists go to hell, that your judges are blind to what's going on and that people get screwed in divorces, I don't see how that is positive in any way. :sweatdrop:

[JR-]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: Hore answers that nonsense well .
Moaning about Israel ..... a wide poloitical spectrum of democratic countries and parties throughout the western world .
Moaning about Jews ...crazy right wingers and nationalists
Though I might as well add that apart from the Harding/Cox vote the majority of Jewish voters have always voted for the american left .

Horetore doesn't answer; "that nonsense well"

Horetore raises a valid point in question, to which i can answer that i do not confuse the two.

In my experience the very large majority of whingeing about jews has come from the left.

BTW, does adding a boat load of :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: to every comment add greater gravitas or some moral weight to the core of your 'retort'?

[InsaneApache]

You should have gone to see judge Judy mate. :laugh4:

I think that there s concern about how fair sharia courts are to women. They appear to have a built in prejudice against them. I live in a city that is roughly 1/4 to 1/3 occupied by south Asian moslems (the currys are delicious BTW :2thumbsup:) and I have known and worked with both males and females of south asian descent.

As I posted earlier on in this thread, there are differences in the way that the lads and lasses are treated. I made the comparison with the Greeks I know on Corfu.

Now one of the problems inherent in the shaia system proposed/introduced is the free and willing bit. It would take a very strong willed girl to go against her father or husband if he insisted on resolving any disputes using the sharia courts. There doesn't have to be any threats of violence or anything so blatent. The cultural pressure of itself would be more than enough to force compliance. I'll give an example of my own personal experience.

Many years ago I knew a young lass from one of my suppliers. All my suppliers were Asians and I got on very well with them, often blagging a curry after I had completed a deal. This young girl was about 22 years old or so and I might add one hell of a looker. My wife and I befriended her and she often came to our house for a chat and a meal. One day she turned up with a lad. An Asian lad. She asked us not to tell her brother, who was one of our suppliers, that she was with this young man. We asked her why and she told us that she would be killed if her brother found out that she was seeing her beau.

I simply did not believe it. I had known her brother, in a business capacity, for about 5 years at that time. She became very agitated and pleaded with us not to say anything. We agreed. She had been promised to a cousin in her tribal village and if her family had found out, well, she feared for her life.

A few months later when we went to buy some stock, we went to her brothers showroom and she wasn't there. Her brother said that she had gone 'home' to marry her cousin. She was as westernized as you can get. Educated, articulate and intelligent. She obviously didn't want to marry her cousin but was compelled to by family and cultural circumstance.

You might say what has this got to do with the thread topic. I tell this tale to show that women from these backgrounds have little say in where they go, who with and what they do. Given this pressure I seriously doubt that there would be anything approaching free and willing participation for the female respondants in a sharia court.

[KukriKhan]

Thanks, InsaneApache, I think I see now: the second-class citizenship of women within that system (presumeably) prevents the 'free and willing' consent necessary (and that I was afforded, in my own example) for democratic justice to be done.

What a pickle that presents, then, eh? How to allow one group to participate in the arbitration system, while disallowing another?

[Fragony]

Allowing is giving it ligitimacy. We must be completily immune to cultural sensetivities and customs.

[Tribesman]

BTW, does adding a boat load of to every comment add greater gravitas or some moral weight to the core of your 'retort'?

What it does is save the use of a lot of words that could be taken as insulting . The more :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: it gets the more ridiculous I think the quote is , when it gets to the whole really big pile of laughing smilies it means that the quote must have been written by a brainless idiot who hasn't the faintest idea what they are on about and most probably doesn't even understand what they have written .

[Fragony]

The more :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: it gets the more ridiculous

Incidently that is how I feel we should deal with the situation InsaneApache described, redicule the *bleep* out of them and their ancient ways, shred it to tiny little bits untill they grow numb, and up to the point where they start enjoying it. So very impolite to think something is rediculous while pretending to respect it.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Haha Fragony I'm still ahead of you, I got four :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: in another thread IIRC.

[Fragony]

Ha I must have enough to support a small town by now when you add them up. Generous he is indeed.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Haha Fragony I'm still ahead of you, I got four :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: in another thread IIRC.

I think that I've literally gotten over 100 in a single thread. I wear it as a badge that I'm doing something right.

CR is beating us all.

[JR-]

What it does is save the use of a lot of words that could be taken as insulting . The more :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: it gets the more ridiculous I think the quote is , when it gets to the whole really big pile of laughing smilies it means that the quote must have been written by a brainless idiot who hasn't the faintest idea what they are on about and most probably doesn't even understand what they have written .

ah, there i was thinking it might be an artful way of dissuading the casual reader from actually assessing the worth of your response by implying such a magnificent and overwhelmingly retort........?

[Rhyfelwyr]

What it does is save the use of a lot of words that could be taken as insulting . The more :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: it gets the more ridiculous I think the quote is , when it gets to the whole really big pile of laughing smilies it means that the quote must have been written by a brainless idiot who hasn't the faintest idea what they are on about and most probably doesn't even understand what they have written .

:inquisitive::inquisitive::inquisitive:And so by displaying the perceived stupidity of others posts through a rating system of laughing smilies how do you think you are acutally contributing anything yourself?:inquisitive::inquisitive::inquisitive:

[Viking]

[...]

Aaaaanyway, I think IA is onto something. :yes:

[Fragony]

Into something, it's called reality geez.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Thanks, InsaneApache, I think I see now: the second-class citizenship of women within that system (presumeably) prevents the 'free and willing' consent necessary (and that I was afforded, in my own example) for democratic justice to be done.

What a pickle that presents, then, eh? How to allow one group to participate in the arbitration system, while disallowing another?

I agree that IA provides a vivid example of the problem with Sharia law courts. As for deciding what extra-legal arbitration systems to allow, it seems to me there are three options:
1)Disallow everything.
2)Allow some, but discriminate based on what sort of religious law and culture would be fully compatible with the country's justice system.
3)Allow everything because you're too scared or politically correct to stand up to any minority interest group.

Britain seems to be doing 3), I'd say it should use option 2).


when it gets to the whole really big pile of laughing smilies it means that the quote must have been written by a brainless idiot who hasn't the faintest idea what they are on about and most probably doesn't even understand what they have written .

Ironic, then, that the excess of smilies is closely associated with yourself.


Haha Fragony I'm still ahead of you, I got four in another thread IIRC.

It's funnest when he unloads a bunch of the laughing smilies, then you reply, and then you never see him discuss that topic ever again. :2thumbsup:

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

You might say what has this got to do with the thread topic. Lovely post. And it has got everything to do with what we're dealing with here.

I don't know many Asians ('South Asians' in US English). But it all sounds so very familiar to the situation with Maghreb immigrants. I work with a woman from Morocco. As westernised as can be. Bloody hot to boot. I even had the privilige of seeing her on the beach - which still gives me plenty of uneasy nights. :sweatdrop:

Then, seemingly out of the blue, one day she announced she was getting married. To whom? Her cousin straight from the Rif mountains. As backward as can be. I think he's semi-literate. Not that I've ever seen him, the poor girl is living two lives, trying to keep them strictly separate. The one thing she has going for herself, is that she still works. The ridiculous sod at home is not capable of providing for himself or her, so she gets to do it for him.

Her life is not a disaster. She's not hopelessly abused or controlled. She still wears tight jeans and make-up to work. (Proudly sharing my creepy sexist side here :shame:) But how she's not getting schizophrenic is beyond me. How can you live in two worlds like this, with separate circles of friends, contradictory values?
She can't settle in either world. There are things she doesn't share. I never hear about her home, I don't know if she's got a happy marriage, I wasn't invited to the wedding - none of us were - which besides was a traditional one in Morocco. We didn't even know about it until it happened.

The tragedy perpetuates itself. If she ever gets children, her husband will probably insist on marrying them off to yet more relatives from his village. Probably have been promised to them already. And the nonsense starts all over again.


It's not a British example, and Asians are not Africans, but the problems are to a fair extent universal. We could ask about Turks in Germany and the situation would be eerily similar (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12812607/) again. The one in my example is smart and strong-willed enough to stand up to any hypothetical Sharia arbitration. Integrated well-enough to know her rghts and her way to real courts. What is striking, is that she still ended up in a marriage with her cousin, whose education is seemingly limited to learning to drive mule-carts. What if she was the semi-literate immigrant? What, of women, or men, who are not capable of standing up for themselves?

Would Sharia arbitration be at all meaningful for these people? No, I think not. And if that is too patronising or discriminating, why not stop thinking about it from a Muslim perspective, and think of it from a British perspective. Is this sort of arbitration - shock! - meaningful for Britain? No, I think not. Sharia has no place in Britain. To make a horribly racist, elitist and imperialist comment: common law and equality for the UK! Equality before the law for all British!


Asians in Britian - I enjoyed this nice little gem: Bend it like Beckham (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286499/). No Big Drama, just an upbeat movie about a teen girl stuck between family and the UK.

[JR-]

good post, tend to agree.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Oh, tribesy, you're so cute. :2thumbsup::laugh4:

Anyways, Louis puts forth another good argument against sharia courts. But the supporters seem to have changed their minds or run off already.

CR

[Tribesman]

Anyways, Louis puts forth another good argument against sharia courts. But the supporters seem to have changed their minds or run off already.
No he doesn't , because he mentions common law , the common law is actually worse for the women ...they have bugger all claim , its traditional :idea2:
Conservative values and all that :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:, like the "christian" churches who in their marriage ceromony proclaim that the womans role in married life is to stay at home and raise the chidlren ...kinda like them eagle forums eh .:yes:

[InsaneApache]

C'mon Tribes you can do better than that mate. You had a minute dig at an excellent post by Louis and then forget to refute his assertions.

Whilst you're about it, you're welcome to deconstruct mine as well.

[HoreTore]

Britain seems to be doing 3), I'd say it should use option 2).

Uhm..... They are doing #2, since the proposed system is fully compatible with the current legal system....

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well come on Tuff you have shown that you know **** all about Afghanistan or Pakistan (or Iraq), your knowledge of the coilition is on an equally retarded basis , you havn't even got a clue what you own militaries views on the topic are and you resort to crazy xenophobic shite as a comeback , if that ain't lauughable then I don't know what is .

Excellent.
Does anyone else agree with this characterization?



Would Sharia arbitration be at all meaningful for these people? No, I think not. And if that is too patronising or discriminating, why not stop thinking about it from a Muslim perspective, and think of it from a British perspective. Is this sort of arbitration - shock! - meaningful for Britain? No, I think not. Sharia has no place in Britain. To make a horribly racist, elitist and imperialist comment: common law and equality for the UK! Equality before the law for all British!


Good Post.

[Banquo's Ghost]

There are some excellent posts in this thread, but a great deal of pointless provocation as well.

Please can we build on the former and cut the latter out. There is no need to respond to trolling.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

[JR-]

article from Bishop Nazir Ali describing some of the problems with Sharia arbitration in similar vein to that mentioned by IA:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/09/21/do2103.xml

[Tribesman]

C'mon Tribes you can do better than that mate. You had a minute dig at an excellent post by Louis and then forget to refute his assertions.

Well can you see the problem with his assertions ?
Is this sort of arbitration meaningful for the British ?
Does it give equality before the law for all British ?
The arbitration process is a long established element of British civil law so it does suggest that it is meaningful doesn't it .
Since anyone can choose to go to arbitration and decide what the nature of that process is (as long as it doesn't contradict British law) then it does give equality doesn't it .
Unless of course you want to change the law so that it is that anyone can use it unless they are British muslims and any form of reference is acceptable in that process as long as it isn't sharia .
So are you to change the law to remove the choice of some people , or are you to abolish the process entirely so that you clog up the court system with every trivial dispute imaginable ?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well can you see the problem with his assertions ?
Is this sort of arbitration meaningful for the British ?
Does it give equality before the law for all British ?
The arbitration process is a long established element of British civil law so it does suggest that it is meaningful doesn't it .
Since anyone can choose to go to arbitration and decide what the nature of that process is (as long as it doesn't contradict British law) then it does give equality doesn't it .
Unless of course you want to change the law so that it is that anyone can use it unless they are British muslims and any form of reference is acceptable in that process as long as it isn't sharia .
So are you to change the law to remove the choice of some people , or are you to abolish the process entirely so that you clog up the court system with every trivial dispute imaginable ?


We were saying that the courts based on Jewish law might need to be dissolved as well. Just because there has been a law on the books for 100 years doesn't mean it should stay around. The law sounds like a throwback to when people didn't see Jews or Muslims as British - they do now, so they should invite them to help construct laws that are fair and can be accepted by all in a singular society.

If the courts were simply Muslim run British courts that would be one thing, but the fact that they have a track record of finding disproportionately in favor of males over females and are looking to take on criminal cases should be a sign that something has broken. I don't see how people can say that there is equality when in a regular British court a boy would get 50% and a girl would get 50%, but in the Islamic courts you are likely to find 75/25 splits.

[Tribesman]

The law sounds like a throwback to when people didn't see Jews or Muslims as British
The legal provision has nothing whasoever to do with religion or ethnicity , it allows for any two parties to seek legal redress on their own agreed terms without the need for a full court hearing .


the fact that they have a track record of finding disproportionately in favor of males over females
Do they ?
In the single case mentioned in this topic from which you get your "track record" what are the details ?
Was there any other provisions for the daughters in their lives ?
What was the nature of the estate ?
Did any of the children contribute to the estate ?


and are looking to take on criminal cases should be a sign that something has broken.
There is no provision at all for criminal cases to be taken through this method .


I don't see how people can say that there is equality when in a regular British court a boy would get 50% and a girl would get 50%
No they wouldn't , they would only get equal shares if the judgement based on the nature of the case ruled that an equal share was appropriate .

[Louis VI the Fat]

Well can you see the problem with his assertions ?
Is this sort of arbitration meaningful for the British ?
Does it give equality before the law for all British ?
The arbitration process is a long established element of British civil law so it does suggest that it is meaningful doesn't it .
Since anyone can choose to go to arbitration and decide what the nature of that process is (as long as it doesn't contradict British law) then it does give equality doesn't it .You know, Tribes, in previous eras leftist criticism of the law led to gems such Anatole France's (http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/afrance.htm):
'The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread'.*

In other words, what may look like equality before the law, can be a very deceptive instrument of inequality. This was once the level of leftist criticism.

Nowadays, what is the contribution of the left to questions of the multi-cultural society? Ridicule, blind spots and tired repeats of conditioned anti-racist reflexes. While the continuing drama unfolds.



The left is dead. Fragony is Europe's greatest philospher.


* In full: "Autre motif d’orgueuil, que d’ tre citoyen! Cela consiste pour les pauvres soutenir et conserver les riches dans leur puissance et leur oisivit. Ils y doivent travailler devant la majestueuse galit des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain."

[Tribesman]

Its simple Louis , the main thrust against the people using the arbitration method for civil disputes rather than the criminal courts is that some people might be pressured by other parties into accepting things that they don't really want to accept . Yet since that can also apply under the criminal courts its bollox isn't it .

But lets explore further some hypotheticals on this "track record" example if it was under the judgement of a regular court rather than an arbitration panel .
Say perhaps that the estate consisted of two textile works , the sons are the managers of the factories , can they claim under the law a greater share of the estate due to their contributions ?
Since this case involves Muslims what if the daughters had been in arranged marriages where the father had paid a dowry to ensure their financial future , does that mean that their entitlement to an equal share on the remaining estate is compromised under the law ?

So while you berate others "blind spots" you havn't really looked at or thought about the topic at all have you

[ICantSpellDawg]

So while you berate others "blind spots" you havn't really looked at or thought about the topic at all have you

Of course he hasn't. Nobody has except for you.



Do they ?
In the single case mentioned in this topic from which you get your "track record" what are the details ?
Was there any other provisions for the daughters in their lives ?
What was the nature of the estate ?
Did any of the children contribute to the estate ?


I don't know. Do you?

[Tribesman]

I don't know. Do you?
Exactly ,yet you claimed without any notion of the details of the case or any understanding of the laws that a court would award equal shares .
It shows that you havn't looked at or thought about the topic at all , and on top of that you claim that a single incident of which you know no details constitutes a "track record" .

[ICantSpellDawg]

Exactly ,yet you claimed without any notion of the details of the case or any understanding of the laws that a court would award equal shares .
It shows that you havn't looked at or thought about the topic at all , and on top of that you claim that a single incident of which you know no details constitutes a "track record" .

Technically it constitutes a record. There are other stories which make the issue worth reading about, such as a domestic violence whitewash and charge retraction by more than one woman. As there is very little out about it aside from condemnation, I think it is fair and reasonable to clamor for more information. You know little about it yourself, aside from that "the UK has had religious tribunals for around 100 years" and "tribunals are viable way to try civil cases as long as the rulings are in accordance with civil law." I agree with those sentiments, but I don't think that they illuminate the nature of these tribunals. I am interested for more information.

Instead of helping to bring that to us as an enlightened person with an encyclopedic knowledge of everything, you condemn us as weak minded fools and criticize us with your self righteousness and egotism. I'm sorry if I "haven't looked at or thought about the topic at all". It is clear, through my numerous posts on the topic that I haven't thought about this at all. Call me a fool if you must, but what is discussing the topic if not thinking about it?

[Tribesman]

There are other stories which make the issue worth reading about, such as a domestic violence whitewash and charge retraction by more than one woman.
Which happens in cases across the spectrum when they are brought through the criminal system rather than the arbitration one ...so your point was ?
Thats just another example of you not thinking about the topic isn't it .
In the event of someone retracting in a criminal case concerning domestic violence what is the outcome ?
Is the only course of action open legally to charge the alledged victim with wasting police time thus criminalising the victim ?
Since the main thrust throughout this topic has been the pressuring of people in relation to their course of action how does changing it from a civil case to a criminal one eliminate that ?
It doesn't does it , its just window dressing .

[Louis VI the Fat]

Its simple Louis , the main thrust against the people using the arbitration method for civil disputes rather than the criminal courts is that some people might be pressured by other parties into accepting things that they don't really want to accept . Yet since that can also apply under the criminal courts its bollox isn't it .The main thrust is worry over an inherently inequal law system settling disputes that are consequently sanctioned by the British State. And of vulnerable people being pressured into these courts of arbitration.
And indeed, there are similar mechanisms at work that prevent women from seeking access to British criminal courts. However, just why this then should lead to less protection instead of more protection is utterly beyond me.

Surprise me, and show me a study that shows that Islamic women, especially the more vulnerable and least integrated, would be less shy to go to a Sharia tribunal than a British court in the case of domestic violence. Or something like that. This would gave me food for thought, since this would pose a practical dillema.
Short of that, I think I'll label it needless relativism.

Actually, no. I think I'll label it 'selling out of British subjects to satisfy unremitting leftist urge to feel moral superiority over their racist compatriots'. I'm going to take all your comments in this thread, write them on a postcard, and send it to a battered Muslim woman in a woman's shelter. I'm sure she'll love how you showed the nationalists and racists and stood up for her rights. She must be enthralled that the failure of standard criminal law to protect her leads leftist Britain to the conclusion that we might as well subject her daughters to Sharia courts then.




But lets explore further some hypotheticals on this "track record" example if it was under the judgement of a regular court rather than an arbitration panel .
Say perhaps that the estate consisted of two textile works , the sons are the managers of the factories , can they claim under the law a greater share of the estate due to their contributions ?
Since this case involves Muslims what if the daughters had been in arranged marriages where the father had paid a dowry to ensure their financial future , does that mean that their entitlement to an equal share on the remaining estate is compromised under the law ?I'm sure you googled yourself one fine inheritance case. I am not sure which one and I am also not sure I want to find out and dicuss it into infinite detail.

Below is what I am talking about, and why I think the introduction of Sharia arbitration is a Pandora's box. Six cases of Sharia dipsute settlement:

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations. Apart from my (quite deliberatly mind-blowingly irritating :whip:) mantra about the uselesness of the left, another mantra of mine is that anti-racism beats anti-sexism every single time. Well here above you have it. Rights of Muslims at the expense of rights of women. I for one would not be prepared to subject British subjects to this.

I'm fed up with our shelters exploding with abused immigrant women while people persist in singing the praise of the multi-cultural richness (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/849029.stm) of our society.

[Fragony]

I love it when Luigi cultures multi's :2thumbsup:

[Goofball]

In the US, I point out, at city, county, state and national levels, "arbitration panels" are used frequently to resolve civil and minor (non-felony) criminal disputes, to save the money and trouble attendant to formal court proceedings. This has been so for at least the past 50 years here, and those panels often rely on interest (read: religious) groups to do the task for cheap. Their judgments and procedures are administratively reviewed by a court, for compliance with law. I myself got divorced in Tampa, Florida using an abritrator, who was, incidentally, some kinda Southern Baptist minister. He opened and closed his 'proceedings' with a prayer.

So, did Hillsboro County, Florida adopt Southern Baptist law? No. It accepted the free services of a volunteer minister to arbitrate and resolve a (hopefully) minor legal concern, to which Deborah and I both had consented. Two weeks later, I got the notarized Review of Dissolution of Marriage Proceedings, signed by some Judge I'd never met face-to-face.

We are talking about two very different things here Kukri. Did your arbitrator refer to the Old Testament for guidance and make his decision accordingly based on biblical dogma and tradition? I think the answer is probably "no."

Please see my earlier posts on this matter. These "arbitrators" in Britain are making decisions based on Sharia Law which has a bias against women built right into it.

Guys, I grew up in Saudi Arabia. Lived there full time from the time I was nine until I was about 14, then I came back only for summers and holidays until I was about 20. I have seen firsthand what life is like for women in traditional Muslim households. If any of you think that women "choosing" to be bound by the rulings of a Sharia court are really "choosing," then let me assure you, you are labouring under a massive self-deception.

[Tribesman]

Nice link Louis , what about this one....http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/670142.stm .....doesn't that suggest that you are too narrow in your focus .
Anyway removing the arbitration process will have absolutely no impact at all , all it will do is make some headline writers feel better about themselves and find a new bogeyman to write about .
You skirt the issue entirely , like if you take this from Goof.....
If any of you think that women "choosing" to be bound by the rulings of a Sharia court are really "choosing," then let me assure you, you are labouring under a massive self-deception. ...how will the removal of the arbitration process make any difference whatsoever to the womens ability to "choose" without being pressured ?

I'm going to take all your comments in this thread, write them on a postcard, and send it to a battered Muslim woman in a woman's shelter.
Good , and are you going to send the same postcard to a battered non-muslim woman in a shelter who was intimidated into not pressing criminal charges ?

[Goofball]

Anyway removing the arbitration process will have absolutely no impact at all , all it will do is make some headline writers feel better about themselves and find a new bogeyman to write about .
You skirt the issue entirely , like if you take this from Goof........how will the removal of the arbitration process make any difference whatsoever to the womens ability to "choose" without being pressured ?

Stop calling it "arbitration." That's the first step in understanding this issue. It is not "arbitration." An arbitrator is non-biased, and that is simply not the case here.

Once you get that through your head, the answer to the rest of your questions will become clear. You're a smart guy, except when you are deliberately deceiving yourself, as you are quite plainly doing in this case.

[Tribesman]

Stop calling it "arbitration."
But it is arbitration , the selected terms of reference for the arbitration process are only a tiny part of the topic .
But you are a smart guy Goof answer this ....how will the removal of the arbitration process make any difference whatsoever to the womens ability to "choose" without being pressured ?
Now you might take Boatengs ideas from that BBC article as a model on how to get round the pressure issue , but how would they work ?

[ICantSpellDawg]

But it is arbitration , the selected terms of reference for the arbitration process are only a tiny part of the topic .
But you are a smart guy Goof answer this ....how will the removal of the arbitration process make any difference whatsoever to the womens ability to "choose" without being pressured ?
Now you might take Boatengs ideas from that BBC article as a model on how to get round the pressure issue , but how would they work ?


There would be a less loaded deck. On the one hand you would have pressure from your friends and relatives - but you would be able to escape the pressure in the law. Here you have all that pressure plus the added pressure of the court pretending to be the law - you stand no chance. This is effectively the state giving up on Muslims; letting the wolves have free range of the sheep - and they will push for what they consider "small criminal cases" next.

Nip it at the bud - get rid of all religious arbitration courts. They can have courts run predominately by Jews, Muslims or Christians - but they can't be based on a different legal code - unless they have no legal authority. If people come to the U.K. and refuse to live under the law of the land when they have their own say in it - there is no place for them.

[Husar]

I'm not going to believe any of you, you all have a track record of being wrong, well, technically anyway. :sweatdrop:

I still don't see the ideological point for religious courts in a secular system but then I guess it frees up a lot of money for politicians to raise their own wages or catch them criminals who feed pigeons so it's probably a good thing overall. :2thumbsup:

[Papewaio]

But it is arbitration , the selected terms of reference for the arbitration process are only a tiny part of the topic .
But you are a smart guy Goof answer this ....how will the removal of the arbitration process make any difference whatsoever to the womens ability to "choose" without being pressured ?
Now you might take Boatengs ideas from that BBC article as a model on how to get round the pressure issue , but how would they work ?

Because on one hand they will be pressured by their community to go through the Muslim arbitration. Peer pressure is a wonderful thing, not. Being secular country and have all the rules, regulations, arbitration and laws apply to all regardless of faith, gender or wealth or admit that there is something wrong when you have to have different processes based on religion, ethnic background or culture.

On the other hand having an arbitration panel can help communicate the wider community standards with useful internal cultural values. If the arbitration panel helps integrate it can be a very good thing.

Where initiatives like this can fail is when they are put above the law, or more likely when it is assumed that one size fits all approach. Islam has many different versions and these are viewed through different cultural prisms. Imagine Catholics being put through a Christian arbitration panel of Mormons... things could get convoluted...

[LittleGrizzly]

I demand seperate atheist arbiration panels!!

[Tribesman]

This is effectively the state giving up on Muslims; letting the wolves have free range of the sheep - and they will push for what they consider "small criminal cases" next.

Scare stories Tuff , there is no provision whatsoever for the arbitration process to deal with criminal cases , and there is no way at all that any such attempt would make it through the houses .

If people come to the U.K. and refuse to live under the law of the land when they have their own say in it - there is no place for them.
It is the law of the land , what you want is to change the law of the land . Why should British people lose their long established right to choose to go to arbitration ?

They can have courts run predominately by Jews, Muslims or Christians - but they can't be based on a different legal code - unless they have no legal authority.
You really don't understand the nature of this law do you .

[ICantSpellDawg]

What I really don't understand is why they have to call it Sharia. If it has little to nothing to do with Sharia, why can't they call it an Islamic tribunal or something? Muslims acting as intermediaries is not a problem - helping sub-cultures to better understand a faceless and in some ways foreign legal system is a good thing.

[Fragony]

Scare stories Tuff , there is no provision whatsoever for the arbitration process to deal with criminal cases , and there is no way at all that any such attempt would make it through the houses .

No that is quite the natural development, and officials will be thrilled to have these sharia courts aid them when dealing with the problematic muslim youths they can't get a grip on. And you will once again say what's the problem.

[Tribesman]

What I really don't understand is why they have to call it Sharia.
What exactly is sharia law Tuff ?


No that is quite the natural development
It is the natural development for someone whose "mind" convinces them that the Muslims are out to get them and are going to take over the world Frag , it is not a a natural development for British law or the parliamentary system in Britain , if it were then there would have been the Christian and Jewish arbitration courts taking over the criminal cases already .

[Fragony]

It is the natural development for someone whose "mind" convinces them that the Muslims are out to get them and are going to take over the world Frag , it is not a a natural development for British law or the parliamentary system in Britain , if it were then there would have been the Christian and Jewish arbitration courts taking over the criminal cases already .

Why would these be convenient?

Luigi describes it well. "Ridicule, blind spots and tired repeats of conditioned anti-racist reflexes."

sounds familiar?

[Husar]

What exactly is sharia law Tuff ?

Certainly not the british law, or is it? :inquisitive:

[HoreTore]

Certainly not the british law, or is it? :inquisitive:

clicky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Influence_on_English_common_law)

[Fragony]

In the end all can be traced back to the Code of Hammurabi :juggle2:

[Husar]

clicky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Influence_on_English_common_law)

Interesting.
So basically english law is derived from religious laws and thus not secular, a reason to be worried?
Is that why women still get paid less for doing the same job?

I'm also rather sure that a lot of people critisized the Taliban for applying sharia law in Afghanistan, so basically that is not true then? Either they didn't use sharia law, which apparently is just a guidance for how to look at laws and not a code of law itself anyway, or we were all wrong and stupid or we were all mislead or we're all living in theocracies and have to invade ourselves next, I'm a bit confused now. :dizzy2:

No, i never studied Sharia or Islam before anyone asks but I demand to get some black and white now, those shades of grey are pretty annoying, ok?!

[Louis VI the Fat]

Interesting.
So basically english law is derived from religious laws and thus not secular, a reason to be worried?No. That is a poor wiki article. Very few aspects of English common law can be traced to Islamic influence.

The author does not understand Western legal history very well, of either common or civil law. In fact, I'd label it misleading.

I am not well versed enough in Islamic legal history to make the same statement about the article's treatment of Islamic law, but I would say that, in wiki-terminology, the 'neutrality' of the article can be disputed.

[Tribesman]

So basically english law is derived from religious laws and thus not secular, a reason to be worried?

Well if you go back to that telegraph article they moan about religious law being used in England , then praise the English law being based on Jewish and Christian law ...kinda funny ain't it .
As for England being a secular country , the head of state is the head of the church and the house of lords contains all the top anglican bishops and the chief rabbi .:inquisitive:

[Husar]

Well if you go back to that telegraph article they moan about religious law being used in England , then praise the English law being based on Jewish and Christian law ...kinda funny ain't it .
As for England being a secular country , the head of state is the head of the church and the house of lords contains all the top anglican bishops and the chief rabbi .:inquisitive:

Oh snape, that explains a lot then. :sweatdrop:
Stupid me thought that enlightenment had reached the island by now but they probably kept it out like rabies. ~;)

[Crazed Rabbit]

Nice link Louis , what about this one....http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/670142.stm .....doesn't that suggest that you are too narrow in your focus .
Anyway removing the arbitration process will have absolutely no impact at all , all it will do is make some headline writers feel better about themselves and find a new bogeyman to write about .
You skirt the issue entirely , like if you take this from Goof........how will the removal of the arbitration process make any difference whatsoever to the womens ability to "choose" without being pressured ?


If you're talking about removing the Sharia 'arbitration' courts, it seems it would have a very important effect:
The judges would not be Islamic clerics making rulings based on Islamic law.

As a continuation of Louis' anti-racism coming before anti-sexism, here's an article (http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/behind-the-veil-lives-a-thriving-muslim-sexuality/2008/08/29/1219516734637.html)by a hardcore feminist defending oppression of Muslim women:

When Americans were being prepared for the invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban were demonised for denying cosmetics and hair colour to women; when the Taliban were overthrown, Western writers often noted that women had taken off their scarves.

But are we in the West radically misinterpreting Muslim sexual mores, particularly the meaning to many Muslim women of being veiled or wearing the chador? And are we blind to our own markers of the oppression and control of women?
...
I experienced it myself. I put on a shalwar kameez and a headscarf in Morocco for a trip to the bazaar. Yes, some of the warmth I encountered was probably from the novelty of seeing a Westerner so clothed; but, as I moved about the market - the curve of my breasts covered, the shape of my legs obscured, my long hair not flying about me - I felt a novel sense of calm and serenity. I felt, yes, in certain ways, free.

CR

[Incongruous]

From that excerpt I can see where she is coming from, I find a similar sense of calm and self contentment when it is a very cold day and I have an excuse to wear multiple layers of thick woolen clothing. It simply means you do not have to be so self-conscious, because who is gonna notice any outline in that concoction of clothing?

[Tribesman]

If you're talking about removing the Sharia 'arbitration' courts, it seems it would have a very important effect:
The judges would not be Islamic clerics making rulings based on Islamic law.

So you want it to be that British subjects can choose absolutely any method of abritration they want as long as it is in accordance with British law apart from one method ?
yep , that makes sense:dizzy2:

[Fragony]

http://townhall.com/columnists/DianaWest/2008/09/18/we_are_losing_europe_to_islam

"According to press reports this week, the British government has quietly, cravenly elevated five Sharia courts to the level of tribunal hearings, thus making their rulings legally binding."

This actually true?

[Tribesman]

This actually true?
Nope , it just a case of rather sloppy journalism playing on sensationalising a non-story .
Like....

and several cases of domestic violence in which husbands were acquitted and wives' charges were dropped.
....an arbitration panel cannot aquit because that is not what it does , even if it were a criminal court there could not be such a move .
Nice to see people using townhall.com though , I miss the laugh now that Gawain isn't around .

[InsaneApache]

thus making their rulings legally binding.


Nope , it just a case of rather sloppy journalism playing on sensationalising a non-story .

Hang on a minute. Didn't you say earlier in the thread that decisions made by the Sharia 'courts' are legally binding if both parties agree to this peculiar form of arbitration? :inquisitive:

[Tribesman]

Hang on a minute. Didn't you say earlier in the thread that decisions made by the Sharia 'courts' are legally binding if both parties agree to this peculiar form of arbitration?
Yes indeedydo .
But look what was written Idaho

we can look to England, where, it pains me to write, Sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. According to press reports this week, the British government has quietly, cravenly elevated five Sharia courts to the level of tribunal hearings, thus making their rulings legally binding.

Were they already part of the legal system for over 100 years ? yes
Did they quietly and cravenly elevate them ? Nope .
Are the rulings of any arbitration process legally binding as long as they don't contradict the law of the land and they are entered into by consent of both parties ? yes
Like I said , a complete non-story , highly sensationalised and in the case of that particular article terribly sloppy journalism

[InsaneApache]

Blimey, someone in Browns government who talks sense. Who da thunk it!


Gordon Brown's new minister for race relations has attacked sharia courts, insisting that the Muslim community in Britain is not “advanced” enough to have its own legal system.

Sadiq Khan, whose comments will have added impact because he is a Muslim himself, has also warned that the growing number of tribunals based on Islamic codes could entrench discrimination against women.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4926612.ece

Not just sense but realistic as well...


Khan said he was aware such blunt criticism of his own community would lead to controversy, but he insisted: “Mass migration [among Asian Muslims] started 30 years ago. Jewish migration started 500 years ago.

No one will take any notice though, the guys obviously way 'off message'. Good for him. :2thumbsup: