It's so much fun to make a classic out of a classic, nice catch Tribes, well done :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Printable View
It's so much fun to make a classic out of a classic, nice catch Tribes, well done :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
.
Hey Tribes, be a good commie and don't bully my favourite fasco! ~:pat:
.
I'm agreeing with a republican... Satan must be throwing snowballs.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre
Who so serious?
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?
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedishFish
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:
Quote:
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/war...tfuldodger.htm
I'm done with you.
Do I need to call a whambulance?Quote:
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
That site Goofball linked do deserves a thread here. Which category would you put other Backroomers in?
Typical of the quality of your contributions so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedishFish
Oh please. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
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:
i'm pretty sure it's had one (at least). probably in the frontroom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedishFish
This one cannot be helpedQuote:
Originally Posted by SwedishFish
Show me again where I supported the Sharia courts......Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedishFish
Quote:
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?
Nonsense CR, chistians are a minority here, and I openly attack them almost whenever the opportunity presents itself!Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
:beam:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Rather late I might say, I guess even -moral outrage- needs a day of, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedishFish
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedishFish
They were the majority, which makes it okay. Do you do the same to any other religion?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
CR
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
.
Nice highlight there Goof
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 .Quote:
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.
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war...tm/atheist.htmQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
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.
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.
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.