Find me a home (now focusing on biblical Israel & the talmud)

Sharia law in a secular country should be no means be allowed. It's a shame for UK, period.

You would have guessed they would have learnt their lesson after offering shelter to all the muslim terrorist plaguing europe ten years ago, but it looks like no :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

All three.

---

Which one tastes the best?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

The point is that it isn't reasonable, it isn't overblown. Not only has Sharia actually been introduced, but about the problems with it...let's just say so much for caring about women's rights from [certain viewpoints in the political spectrum that are on the other side of my own]...

---

Louis nailed it for the hypocritical left last year. Race/Religion trumps gender everytime.

We should all be ashamed at this.

Not only has Sharia actually been introduced, but about the problems with it...let's just say so much for caring about women's rights from

They still have to wrok within British Law, British law doesn't allow discrimination...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

That's clearly not what I've been told about Vancouver, and I'm quite surprise that the idea of assimilationalism would even be mentioned in Canada.
If it's anything like Toronto and Ontario, then it's 100% multiculturalism with everyone doing is stuff in his own community. I'll be visiting Vancouver soon, can't wait to see how it is by myself :)

---

He doesn't mean reeeeeeeeealy northern California. He means Alberta or Manitoba, maybe Saskatchewan. Although with how much of a polluted cesspit Alberta is turning into, all the money in the world wouldn't get me to live there. Plus Ralph Klien is a douch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Sharia law in a secular country should be no means be allowed. It's a shame for UK, period.

You would have guessed they would have learnt their lesson after offering shelter to all the muslim terrorist plaguing europe ten years ago, but it looks like no :no:

---

Firstly, the United Kingdom is not a secular country. The head of state is also the head of the Church of England, and bishops sit in the legislature (House of Lords).

Second, we addressed EMFM's point last year in a long thread. The Sharia tribunals deal with parties that both agree to the arbitration and there have been exactly similar tribunals for the Jewish faith for many years.

I'm interested to know why there hasn't been a equivalent wave of outrage and pessimism at the recent brazen attempt by the Roman Catholics to subvert the fabric of state, by insidiously persuading the Prime Minister to overturn the Act of Settlement and thus allow papists to marry into the monarchy without affecting their right of succession. And they have terrorists, not to mention they breed faster and there's increasing numbers of 'em.

Now that's an alien religion's power grab.

:bounce:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Firstly, the United Kingdom is not a secular country. The head of state is also the head of the Church of England, and bishops sit in the legislature (House of Lords).

Second, we addressed EMFM's point last year in a long thread. The Sharia tribunals deal with parties that both agree to the arbitration and there have been exactly similar tribunals for the Jewish faith for many years.

I'm interested to know why there hasn't been a equivalent wave of outrage and pessimism at the recent brazen attempt by the Roman Catholics to subvert the fabric of state, by insidiously persuading the Prime Minister to overturn the Act of Settlement and thus allow papists to marry into the monarchy without affecting their right of succession. And they have terrorists, not to mention they breed faster and there's increasing numbers of 'em.

Now that's an alien religion's power grab.

:bounce:

---

Yes, uh... I'll have the cake please.


And if you didn't bring enough, I suppose I'll have to go with the chicken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Second, we addressed EMFM's point last year in a long thread. The Sharia tribunals deal with parties that both agree to the arbitration and there have been exactly similar tribunals for the Jewish faith for many years.

---

No, you did not address it. Two things were not:

A) The Jewish faith is not quite the same. For example, find me this in the Jewish faith: "GOD decrees a will for the benefit of your children; the male gets twice the share of the female." [4:11]
B) Discrimination against women, as pointed out above, leaves the result that women can be forced into this court instead of a secular court, in some or even many cases with disastrous consequences on their finances, family, or personal lives.

Quote:

---

I'm interested to know why there hasn't been a equivalent wave of outrage and pessimism at the recent brazen attempt by the Roman Catholics to subvert the fabric of state, by insidiously persuading the Prime Minister to overturn the Act of Settlement and thus allow papists to marry into the monarchy without affecting their right of succession. And they have terrorists, not to mention they breed faster and there's increasing numbers of 'em.

---

A) We have terrorists? :inquisitive:
B) Many Catholics, including myself and a priest who writes for the National Post, are against the move for various reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Firstly, the United Kingdom is not a secular country. The head of state is also the head of the Church of England, and bishops sit in the legislature (House of Lords).

Second, we addressed EMFM's point last year in a long thread. The Sharia tribunals deal with parties that both agree to the arbitration and there have been exactly similar tribunals for the Jewish faith for many years.

I'm interested to know why there hasn't been a equivalent wave of outrage and pessimism at the recent brazen attempt by the Roman Catholics to subvert the fabric of state, by insidiously persuading the Prime Minister to overturn the Act of Settlement and thus allow papists to marry into the monarchy without affecting their right of succession. And they have terrorists, not to mention they breed faster and there's increasing numbers of 'em.

Now that's an alien religion's power grab.

:bounce:

---

Although I can see the worry about female Muslims being coerced into these tribunals by their male family memebers, and thus cheated out of their parents inheritnence. I do not see that as the driving force behind this dissaproval of the courts, rather I reckon it to be tribalism, the waving of women's right (in general) is nothing more than a stick for certain sectors of society to dash about, in the hope of stiring anti-muslim sentiment.

This of coarse does not dissavow the genuine fear that some women are going to get a bad turn of it in these courts. What should happen, though I doubt it will, is a very open and very public discourse on the Muslim faith and its role, if there is one, in Britain. Muslims must be able to acceot this scrutiny in order to assuage the widespread dislike and fear of thier community. But likewise those who appose them must be able to stop frothing at the mouth for a while and certain news outlets must stop printing sensationalist pap.

If this was allowed to happen, then we may be able to judge these courts with a more informed view?

Oh and BTW, I am so pleased that the one tru and universal Church has reclaimed England, once again may we all take communion togther whilst listening to the mass in Latin and giving a large tithe of national wealth yearly to the Holy See.

I can't see the overturning of the Act of Settlement to be a good thing - it will only cause problems, and I say this as a Catholic. There are also members of the clergy who appear to be opposed to this. The only way the Act of Settlement can be overturned is if the monarch ceases to be the head of, or involved in, the Church of England.

If that happens, His Royal Highness The Duke of Bavaria, by the Grace of God, for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, etc.

Quote:

---

"GOD decrees a will for the benefit of your children; the male gets twice the share of the female." [4:11]

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Still peddling the same old :daisy: eh Mars , such a hard one to explain isn't it .
Unless of course you put it in context like how its talking about bequests to children , bequests they will recieve on reaching adulthood , at the time when they are able to get married , you know when the female recieves money and the male has to pay money . So the equivalent in Jewish law according to "God" would be the bit about doling out the dosh according to the needs of the recipients.:idea2:
Still I suppose both are better than the old traditional "christian" primogenture crap where all that matters to scoop the jackpot is that you are the eldest male...like Britain still has with the monarchy

Quote:

---

Discrimination against women

---

Would that be like the "modesty guard" who beat the hell out of Jewish women in Israel for violating their religious law?

WB Tribes. :surrender2: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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

---

Hello sailor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Unless of course you put it in context like how its talking about bequests to children , bequests they will recieve on reaching adulthood , at the time when they are able to get married , you know when the female recieves money and the male has to pay money .

---

I've honestly read this three times trying to get any sense out of it, so I'll just go with what I presume you're trying to say.

Quote:

---

If No Will Is Left*

[4:11] GOD decrees a will for the benefit of your children; the male gets twice the share of the female*.

---

It is quite clear Tribes. You can locate the whole verse for yourself if you wish.

Quote:

---

So the equivalent in Jewish law according to "God" would be the bit about doling out the dosh according to the needs of the recipients.

---

Which doesn't specifically discriminate against women. :idea2:

Quote:

---

Still I suppose both are better than the old traditional "christian" primogenture crap where all that matters to scoop the jackpot is that you are the eldest male...like Britain still has with the monarchy

---

Which, of course, still happens to the average Christian family...:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Would that be like the "modesty guard" who beat the hell out of Jewish women in Israel for violating their religious law?

---

Yes, the modesty guard which has been prosecuted in Israel unlike, say, in Jordan where honour killings are completely legal.

EDIT: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::lau gh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

It is quite clear Tribes. You can locate the whole verse for yourself if you wish.

---

What part of "context" is it that you don't understand?
It ain't hard ......read 4 not just part of 4

Quote:

---

Which doesn't specifically discriminate against women

---

:dizzy2: Would you like a breakdown of which of the 613 laws discriminate against women ?

Quote:

---

Which, of course, still happens to the average Christian family

---

Well bugger me sideways I coud have sworn you mentioned the laws of succesion and the "christian" church .

See what I mean mods, same old :daisy: again and again with the same old :daisy: that spew out the same crap again and again about Muslims just as they used to about the Jews.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

See what I mean mods, same old :daisy: again and again with the same old :daisy: that spew out the same crap again and again about Muslims just as they used to about the Jews.

---

Right, this is idiotic. I shouldn't have bothered at all, but hey, you keep with the insults. I've read the entire part four, I know what it is about. Thanks.

:wall: Just stay at home Fragony. Your country may have problems, but at least they are your problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Firstly, the United Kingdom is not a secular country. The head of state is also the head of the Church of England, and bishops sit in the legislature (House of Lords).

---

Right, if we are to follow this line of thinking, France and Turkey are the only two european secular countries. Now, despite not being secular countries, most western european states kind of stated that civil law > religious law.
If you personnally think that it's okay to accept Sharia law in a democratic, progressive, liberal country, well then, let's agree to disagree ;)

Thanks for pointing out my error though, I too often tend to think that secularism is widely spread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Second, we addressed EMFM's point last year in a long thread. The Sharia tribunals deal with parties that both agree to the arbitration and there have been exactly similar tribunals for the Jewish faith for many years.

I'm interested to know why there hasn't been a equivalent wave of outrage and pessimism at the recent brazen attempt by the Roman Catholics to subvert the fabric of state, by insidiously persuading the Prime Minister to overturn the Act of Settlement and thus allow papists to marry into the monarchy without affecting their right of succession. And they have terrorists, not to mention they breed faster and there's increasing numbers of 'em.

---

I don't really care about what religion we're talking about. People can practice their damn religion in private. Letting them use some outdated fairy tale book to make their own law should be a big no.

Oh, and cut the Royal family members' heads, or send them into exile. Monarchy ought to disappear with religion. Primogenitur is, as Tribesman pointed out, nothing but crap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Would you like a breakdown of which of the 613 laws discriminate against women ?

---

please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

please.

---

I'm not sure if this is what Tribesman is talking about, but it deals with the issue of legal descrimination in Israel all the same.

Quite interesting.

http://newhumanist.org.uk/511

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Right, if we are to follow this line of thinking, France and Turkey are the only two european secular countries. Now, despite not being secular countries, most western european states kind of stated that civil law > religious law.
If you personnally think that it's okay to accept Sharia law in a democratic, progressive, liberal country, well then, let's agree to disagree ;)

Thanks for pointing out my error though, I too often tend to think that secularism is widely spread.

---

Many western countries may well have "kind of stated" that position, but the fact remains that many also have religious provisions. Shari'a is merely a system and theory of law derived from philosophies of the Islamic religion. The fact that it is subverted in some countries into an abomination does not, of itself, prove the system wrong. Legal systems throughout the world are so subverted.

I can make a fairly strong case, for example, that the death penalty in the United States, is not only barbaric in its implementation, but tends to discriminate significantly and unfairly against coloured people. Does that render the entire legal system and philosophy of the United States similarly cruel and worthy of disdain? Or by extension, the system and philosophy of the United Kingdom, from which the former structure derives?

Tribunals using Shari'a structure are available to appellants if both parties agree. These tribunals do not over-ride the statutory rights of the participants. I agree that there are concerns about ensuring women (for example) participate in a full and equal manner - but one could voice these same concerns about the conduct of rape cases, where the odds in the UK are heavily stacked in the defendant's favour. Imperfections do not invalidate the whole proceeding, and I maintain we wouldn't be having these conversations if it wasn't for "teh Muslims R eval" prejudices. There is no indication that such inclusions to an already religion-infested system signal the End of Civilisation.

Personally, I don't think there should be any religious influence in modern jurisprudence, or indeed any public life, but until the UK embraces secularism, it seems only fair that citizens of religions other than Anglican can play too.

We all know that the position of islamic women is extremely vulnerable, calling it mutual agreement is way of, the state should protect them against the archaic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Personally, I don't think there should be any religious influence in modern jurisprudence, or indeed any public life, but until the UK embraces secularism, it seems only fair that citizens of religions other than Anglican can play too.

---

Plus the Church of England has a habit of involving itself in the business of other established churches. I'm still raging at the 1712 Patronage Act, it undid all the good work of 1690. :furious3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

I'm not sure if this is what Tribesman is talking about, but it deals with the issue of legal descrimination in Israel all the same.

Quite interesting.

http://http://newhumanist.org.uk/511

---

no, i think that was exactly what he was talking about.
my challenge to tribsey is for him to tell me which of the 613 mitzvot discriminate against women, and i will prove him wrong.
here- ive even given a link where you can read all of them.

btw your link doesnt work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

btw your link doesnt work.

---

Does it work now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

Does it work now?

---

nope.

Odd, it works for me.

The link takes you to a page asking did you mean 'bla bla bla' click that and it takes you there...

Link seems to have Http:// wrote in twice... is that why it isn't working ?

still, no cigar.

This should work...

http://newhumanist.org.uk/511