The Muslims who want to resolve their disputes by traditional Islamic means. A cursory search brought up that it is an "alternative form of dispute resolution" for Muslims who don't want to deal with British courts. Since it appears to operate within the British legal system, and is unable to issue rulings contrary to British law I fail to see the problem.
you kidding?
They are all in bed at the moment this side of the sea.
Just wait for it to kick off when they see this thread.
The potential problem is that it appears to be unaccountable, and although it is going to be argued that justice will be universally applied because it is according to the Quran, there is still the possibility of interpretations differing.
If people wish to settle disputes out of court with the Mosque acting as an intermediary I don't see a problem.
However it potentially means that there could be a section of society who will not recognise the secular legal system or at least as secondary to Shariah Law.
Overall it is not a helpful state of affairs imho I'm off before the inevitable cyclone whips this thread to a phobic phrenzy.
Because they don't have a penis and therefor are lesser in the eyes of Sharia law? Because Sharia law is hideously homophobic? Because Sharia law is a backwards, biased, corrupt, unfair piece of gak that makes the US legal system look almost saintly?
I am wholeheartedly against a religious court applying pressures and judgements not in keeping with the beliefs of the majority of the nation's populace.
I think the spread of these courts could well represent a threat to women within these communities finding justice according to the British notion of it and instead having misogynistic and prejudiced rulings from these courts.
I also think this further encourages the ghettoisation of the Islamic community within the UK, instead of the integration they claim to want.
It also sends a message that this group believe themselves above or beyond the courts of the crown, they are wrong in that. All citizens of the state should acquiesce to and abide by the state judiciary system.
No exceptions. This is not integration, this is quite the reverse and should be immediately quelled.
During my time with Social Services Child Protection, we had cause on several occasions to deal with members of the Jehovah's Witnesses community, I learnt that due to the way in which JW communities were governed and overseen by 'Elders', children making allegations to those Elders were encouraged and coerced to remain silent, sent back to the families where the abuse was taking place and the Elders covering over evidence and refusing and blocking outside agencies like the police or social services. Closed subcultures like these hide many wrongs and must be subject to the law of the land, not self regulation. It is still widely believed in child protection circles that the Watchtower HQ maintains a database of all allegations reported to them by the Elders that is massive in comparison to what has been reported to outside agencies.
Become part of the nation, abide by it's judgement and moral code or leave it. Don't create a miniature nation within it. Bring your cultural heritage to the table and join in, don't go behind locked doors and conduct your business in secret, that road simply leads to further mistrust and conflict.
It strikes me those calling for these Sharia Courts have no interest in joining the greater community of the nation and if so, frankly, should seek a nation more in keeping with their beliefs. Why are our courts not sufficient if they intend to remain within our laws?
The idea is good on paper but is critically flawed. Its not full sharia law, just an allowance for sharia interpretation of comm on law. This means, so long as both parties agree in a civic dispute cases can be tried with sharia Law taken into account. however this only accounts for civil disputes so the punishment aspect of Sharia Law cannot be applied and a Sharia ruling must be agree upon by both parties in advance.
Why is this a bad idea?
1. Some communities have been asking for Sharia law since the 1980's at first it was laughed at, now they have it, but not what they want. The opinion of the hardline Moslem community is that the UK is weak doctrinally and can be taken over by the strong. Ask long enough and persistent enough and you will get what you want, by and large they are correct due to politically correct pandering.
The indication here is that this application of Sharia Law is only a step towards what hardline Moslems are actually after, so giving in to this has actually achieved nothing but given hope that the Uk can indeed be an Islamic state.
Frankly the pandering is unhealthy, extremists take advantage of political correctness but actually have a strong contempt for the politically correct, after all these extra rights and liberties and woolyness is quite anathema to them in actuality.
2. This leads to the second point, the politically correct while willing to bend the knee on the grounds of ethnic diversity are willing to completely ignore the well proven fact that such diversity is often at the expense of true liberty. Case is point being postal votes. Postal votes made a mockery of our democracy, in some subcultures the man of ther house votes, the woman does what she is told. postal voters are very often used to rob women of some communities, particularly those of Asian cultural origin of the vote.
Are we a democracy or are we not. Postal voting has to be got rid of unless required by need, such as for people who are unable to attend a polling station.
Why is this relevant? Because the same mentality that tells Moselm women in the UK that the pater familias votes, they dont is the same reasoning that enforces women to accept a Sharia Law court when it is evidently not in their interest to do so.
Again politically correct pandering is actually mutually exclusive with true equality, Sharia Law is grossly sexist, were it not favourable under one dogma, it would be rightfully discarded as contrary to the civil liberties of this nation. Try telling that to the new left though.
3. Sharia Law based precedents in common law are still precedents in common law, and the whole principle of the English legal system is that the need for a constitution is replaced by a living legal legacy going back centuries. Thus the English legal system can grow and adapt as it is based on common precedent rather than any single primary bill of statute, and is thus inherently stable. Adding a grossly unfair legal standpoint into the common legal system thus contaminates the legal system. Either that or Sharia Law rulings must be exempt from influencing common law, which makes the courts that apply them inherently toothless and sets a bad precedent in itself by which courts can be excluded from building a body of common law.
It's rather misleading to claim Sharia law to be politically correct....
I actually consider Sharia law to be the epitome of politically incorrect laws. Far, far worse than any of the extremist conservative laws in many of the southern states to be sure.
Hrm. If I converted to islam, then turned lesbian and moved to a state with gay marriage to marry a non-islamic woman and adopted children there, would that be insulting enough to Islamic laws, or would I need to add more things to it?
Hrm. If I converted to islam, then turned lesbian and moved to a state with gay marriage to marry a non-islamic woman and adopted children there, would that be insulting enough to Islamic laws, or would I need to add more things to it?
You could marry a female Muslim and then make some doodles of the Prophet.
Hrm. If I converted to islam, then turned lesbian and moved to a state with gay marriage to marry a non-islamic woman and adopted children there, would that be insulting enough to Islamic laws, or would I need to add more things to it?
You could marry a female Muslim and then make some doodles of the Prophet.
Surfing with a picture of the American flag on his shirt.
You want to talk about two sets of laws you talk about Australia, where tribal justice is accepted by courts as a replacement for court punishment. It applies for criminal and civil matters, and consists largely of 'you glassed a dude in the tribe and shouldn't have so we're going to spear you in the leg'.
Meanwhile, you guys are freaking out over two parties agreeing to arbitration in a civil matter. When there has been the right to do so under Jewish law for over a century. I can't help but think this has a lot to do with the word Muslim and a lot less to do with the facts of the case.
Melissia wrote:Because they don't have a penis and therefor are lesser in the eyes of Sharia law? Because Sharia law is hideously homophobic? Because Sharia law is a backwards, biased, corrupt, unfair piece of gak that makes the US legal system look almost saintly?
Umm, the Sharia courts have their power granted under the Arbitration Act, which is for private parties in a civil dispute, where both parties agree to arbitration. It's for civil matters, like contract disputes and torts of negligence. Any and all protections granted by the state in criminal matters, including gender and sexual preference protections, are entirely unchanged.
We've had Judaic contract law courts in the UK for some decades. The Islamic contract law courts are the same idea. All contracts made have to obey English law. Where is the problem?
There are plenty of Christians complaining that the English law is too secular and anti-Christian, while some other Christians boast that English law is based on Christian principles.
Another bunch of people are complaining that English law is too influenced by European law, or by judges.
Yes, that is LEGALLY what is allowed. Which matters about as much as the brown stuff my cat just shat into his litterbox.
Sharia, being the corrupt piece of gak that it is, is being used for more than just that. A good example being a case in New Jersey (of course) where a man raped his wife and then used Sharia law to try and defend it. The court agreed because their religion states a woman can't refuse her husband sex.
Because they don't have a penis and therefor are lesser in the eyes of Sharia law? Because Sharia law is hideously homophobic? Because Sharia law is a backwards, biased, corrupt, unfair piece of gak that makes the US legal system look almost saintly?
Right, so you're yapping just because you like the noise. Try actually knowing something about the topic being discussed before getting all hot under the collar about it.
And just saw your above post. Yeah, try and get a handle on what the actual conversation is about before going off on a tear over it.
And dismissing Sharia Law out of hand as something to not being worried about it is a serious mistake. We need to move away from any form of religious influences on law making simply because certain religions have a tendency to be intolerant of those outside of their religion. Essentially, you should be free to practice your religion as long as it doesn't harm anyone.
Melissia wrote:Yes, that is LEGALLY what is allowed. Which matters about as much as the brown stuff my cat just shat into his litterbox.
Sharia, being the corrupt piece of gak that it is, is being used for more than just that. A good example being a case in New Jersey (of course) where a man raped his wife and then used Sharia law to try and defend it. The court agreed because their religion states a woman can't refuse her husband sex.
No, that's not what happened. The New Jersey case case was for a restraining order, to be issued while the criminal case continued. The judge found that the man had acted as he thought reasonable given their marriage at the time, and dismissed the need for a restraining order given they were by this time divorced. The criminal proceedings continued anyway. At no point in the case was sharia law mentioned by anyone involved. That's a complete fantasy invented by people wanting to be outraged.
If you keep reading right wing scare mongering junk press, you will keep being lied to. I recommend you stop reading that junk.
Meanwhile, in the UK we're talking about private arbitration, that can apply if both parties agree, and this is only for civil matters. So you're complaints really just do not make any sense.
Melissia wrote:Yes, that is LEGALLY what is allowed. Which matters about as much as the brown stuff my cat just shat into his litterbox.
Sharia, being the corrupt piece of gak that it is, is being used for more than just that. A good example being a case in New Jersey (of course) where a man raped his wife and then used Sharia law to try and defend it. The court agreed because their religion states a woman can't refuse her husband sex.
Maybe that is part of US law? It was only 1994 when the UK revoked perpetual consent to sex within marriage.
And dismissing Sharia Law out of hand as something to not being worried about it is a serious mistake. We need to move away from any form of religious influences on law making simply because certain religions have a tendency to be intolerant of those outside of their religion. Essentially, you should be free to practice your religion as long as it doesn't harm anyone.
The name I can find associated with it is "S.D. v. M.J.R. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.)"
sebster wrote:Meanwhile, in the UK we're talking about private arbitration, that can apply if both parties agree
... something which can be and is achieved through intimidation.
The mafia also got people to agree to private arbitration.
It's from FOX news, so you can be sure there's no liberal bias. It was a request for a restraining order to be granted while the case was underway, and the judge says it wasn't needed because he was acting at the time as he thought a husband could, and given he was no longer her husband there was no reason to think he'd act like that anymore.
I don't agree with the decision, but the actual case has nothing to do with the flip out we've seen among the right wing fringe of the internet.
And dismissing Sharia Law out of hand as something to not being worried about it is a serious mistake. We need to move away from any form of religious influences on law making simply because certain religions have a tendency to be intolerant of those outside of their religion. Essentially, you should be free to practice your religion as long as it doesn't harm anyone.
But that's the thing, Sharia courts are just a part of their religion and aren't harming anyone. It is a form of private arbitration, that two parties can agree to to solve their civil dispute. If either party doesn't want to, or it's a criminal matter Sharia courts can't touch it. It is the same thing as agreeing to go on Judge Judy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:... something which can be and is achieved through intimidation.
The mafia also got people to agree to private arbitration.
But, again, only in a civil matter, not in a criminal matter. And if we're willing to consider the problems with agreement to arbitration being coerced, then it would be far simpler for the coercing party to coerce the victim into dropping the case entirely.
"They were wed in Morocco in an arranged marriage on July 31, 2008, when plaintiff was seventeen years old. The parties did not know each other prior to the marriage." (Cultural diversity or outdated barbarism? I choose the latter.)
It goes on to describe the assaults. The defendant raped his wife multiple times and starved her.
Here is the judge's ruling:
"This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited."
"[T]his is a case where there is no history of domestic violence. In fact, they have been — they were together for only three months. Then the bad patch was three weeks, and then another week. And then — and then, the record indicates that this defendant has filed for a divorce, he got divorced in — with the Imam, but the record indicates that he has filed for divorce in Morocco. This plaintiff has answered that complaint in Morocco. Divorce proceedings will occur in Morocco.
The defendant has indicated that he is finished with the marriage. The parties are living separate and apart now. This defendant's visa expires in July, I believe. "
"In this particular case, this court does not believe that a final restraining order is necessary under the circumstances. There's no need for the parties to be associated with one another. They are divorced now. They don't live together. They don't have to be together. . . .
[T]his was a situation of a short-term marriage, a very brief period of physical assault by the defendant against the plaintiff and it's now a situation where the parties don't live together, won't be living together and won't have a need to be in contact with one another.
Under those circumstances, the court finds that a final restraining order is not necessary to prevent another act of domestic violence. The Court will not enter a final restraining order."
Plaintiff appealed and a higher court overturned the original ruling.
Now, how the hell did we get to the point where rape is justifiable under any circumstances? We're living in the 21st century, not the 19th.
Kilkrazy wrote:Are you saying that Italians and Islamic people are more likely to intimidate witnesses, than are other ethnic/religious groups?
Of course not. Not all mobsters were Italian.
I oppose all instances of religious law being forced upon others. In this day and age, muslims tend to be the most fervent in doing so, on pain of death. Not the only ones, just the ones that, at the moment, tend to be most violent about it. What with their religion condoning the murder of anyone who converts from Islam. I also think the Christian Inquisition was a horrible, horrible thing, but that's not going on anymore for the most part.
Personally, I think it's a bad idea, and religion should never be an aspect of the law. What's so bad about the existing system? Why do people NEED the Sharia system?
However, if they can make it work without any major incidents I guess it could work.
Ediin wrote:Personally, I think it's a bad idea, and religion should never be an aspect of the law. What's so bad about the existing system? Why do people NEED the Sharia system?
However, if they can make it work without any major incidents I guess it could work.
If I understand correctly the UK judicial system is cumbersome in the same manner as the US judicial system. The desire for Sharia law stems from the refusal of Muslims to intergrate into Western societies.
Ediin wrote:Personally, I think it's a bad idea, and religion should never be an aspect of the law. What's so bad about the existing system? Why do people NEED the Sharia system?
However, if they can make it work without any major incidents I guess it could work.
If I understand correctly the UK judicial system is cumbersome in the same manner as the US judicial system. The desire for Sharia law stems from the refusal of Muslims to intergrate into Western societies.
Which is bad. These conservative Muslims have got the privilege of being allowed to live in England. They should change themselves, not the system.
It is the same thing as agreeing to go on Judge Judy.
I think Sebster brings up a good point. We are missing a prime opportunity for some high quality television here! Judge Mahmud has potential in the prime time line up
I actually find some of the comments here very entertaining. There was a time, say a thousand years or so ago, that muslim courts were some of the fairest you could find in the world. Also, I feel it important to point out that not all Muslims have the same interpretation of Sharia. In the Abbasid dynasty there were four different court systems for four different Sharia interpretations, plus the Catholic, Orthodox, and Jewish courts. In Islamic history, the idea of multiple legal systems coexisting isn't that far fetched of a concept (whether or not that cultural history is at play here I don't know). One shouldn't automatically assume a muslim conspiracy to take over the legal system, especially when that isn't what is happening.
Amaya wrote:Now, how the hell did we get to the point where rape is justifiable under any circumstances? We're living in the 21st century, not the 19th.
As I've pointed out several times, including in a response directly to you, the ruling made no comment on the rape, that case was going ahead. This was a seperate matter, on whether the ex-husband posed an on-going threat to his wife to justify a restraining order. He felt that as the husband had only acted as he did because felt it was his right as the husband, and that he was no longer the husband he was not going to act like that any more.
Again, and please don't make me repeat it anymore, at no point did any court consider rape acceptable or legal in anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ediin wrote:Personally, I think it's a bad idea, and religion should never be an aspect of the law. What's so bad about the existing system? Why do people NEED the Sharia system?
However, if they can make it work without any major incidents I guess it could work.
You understand that parties agree to enter into private arbitration all the time? Do you know that's what Judge Judy is?
People have a private dispute, and rather than wait for it to drag through small claims or any other civil court, instead they agree to private arbitration. It's just that instead of going to an secular arbitrator they can agree to go to a Sharia court, if they choose.
The Sharia and Judaic courts are only for civil matters, not criminal. And just like civil arbitration (which we have here in the US too; including even TV show arbitration like Judge Judy), they're only by mutual consent.
If one party could coerce or intimidate the other into using a Sharia court, they could just as easily coerce or intimidate the other into dropping the suit if there were no such court.
I don't condone racism or sexism, but I don't see much to be scared of here.
It is the same thing as agreeing to go on Judge Judy.
I think Sebster brings up a good point. We are missing a prime opportunity for some high quality television here! Judge Mahmud has potential in the prime time line up
I actually find some of the comments here very entertaining. There was a time, say a thousand years or so ago, that muslim courts were some of the fairest you could find in the world. Also, I feel it important to point out that not all Muslims have the same interpretation of Sharia. In the Abbasid dynasty there were four different court systems for four different Sharia interpretations, plus the Catholic, Orthodox, and Jewish courts. In Islamic history, the idea of multiple legal systems coexisting isn't that far fetched of a concept (whether or not that cultural history is at play here I don't know). One shouldn't automatically assume a muslim conspiracy to take over the legal system, especially when that isn't what is happening.
It's difficult to say how fair those courts were, but in some ways they were superior to the system in Europe.
However, it is no longer a thousand or so years ago, and we live in a world where the rights of everyone are considered important. This have never been the case for Islam. Non Muslims and women have always been second class citizens under their laws.
I might be coming off as Islamophobic, but it's more the case that I am an advocate of equal rights for both genders (IE, a feminist) and an advocate for LGBT rights. Although Islam does not do it exclusively, it certainly tramples on both these rights more regularly than Christianity or Judaism in this day and age.
I also oppose the Christian argument against gay marriage too (a subject which comes up with disturbing frequency here, but then it might just be that I live in Texas and there's probably several closet homosexuals in office here who are trying to hide behind vitriolic speech), but that's a rant for another topic.
Amaya wrote:If I understand correctly the UK judicial system is cumbersome in the same manner as the US judicial system. The desire for Sharia law stems from the refusal of Muslims to intergrate into Western societies.
That's the kind of stuff people on the fringes are inventing, based on a misunderstanding of private arbitration, and a desire to find things about Muslims to be afraid about.
Do you feel it is a problem that people privately agree to have their issues sorted out by Judge Judy?
... I do... but then I have a problem with any time someone uses theatrics to make a mockery of the court system, whether it happens on daytime television or in a quiet unknown case. Not because of the arbitration issue.
Amaya wrote:If I understand correctly the UK judicial system is cumbersome in the same manner as the US judicial system. The desire for Sharia law stems from the refusal of Muslims to intergrate into Western societies.
That's the kind of stuff people on the fringes are inventing, based on a misunderstanding of private arbitration, and a desire to find things about Muslims to be afraid about.
Do you feel it is a problem that people privately agree to have their issues sorted out by Judge Judy?
So we're going to pretend that LBGT, women, and non Muslims are not considered second class or out and out immoral in the eyes of Sharia law.
It doesn't matter if only Muslims are the ones being affected by these rulings now.
The issue is that Muslims are in democratic, European nations passing down rulings that run contrary to the accepted laws of that nation.
Amaya wrote:It's difficult to say how fair those courts were, but in some ways they were superior to the system in Europe.
However, it is no longer a thousand or so years ago, and we live in a world where the rights of everyone are considered important. This have never been the case for Islam. Non Muslims and women have always been second class citizens under their laws.
Again... civil courts dealing with civil matters such as property damage and breaches of contract. Both parties have to agree. If you could please just read that and accept it, you would quickly see your worry about the rights of women makes no sense.
Amaya wrote:It's difficult to say how fair those courts were, but in some ways they were superior to the system in Europe.
However, it is no longer a thousand or so years ago, and we live in a world where the rights of everyone are considered important. This have never been the case for Islam. Non Muslims and women have always been second class citizens under their laws.
Again... civil courts dealing with civil matters such as property damage and breaches of contract. Both parties have to agree. If you could please just read that and accept it, you would quickly see your worry about the rights of women makes no sense.
Even those these rulings have been passed by Sharia courts in England:
"that no Muslim woman may marry a non-Muslim man unless he converts to Islam and that any children of a woman who does should be taken from her until she marries a Muslim"
approval of "polygamous marriage"
"a male child belongs to the father after the age of seven, regardless of circumstances"
Amaya wrote:It's difficult to say how fair those courts were, but in some ways they were superior to the system in Europe.
However, it is no longer a thousand or so years ago, and we live in a world where the rights of everyone are considered important. This have never been the case for Islam. Non Muslims and women have always been second class citizens under their laws.
Again... civil courts dealing with civil matters such as property damage and breaches of contract. Both parties have to agree. If you could please just read that and accept it, you would quickly see your worry about the rights of women makes no sense.
Amaya wrote:However, it is no longer a thousand or so years ago, and we live in a world where the rights of everyone are considered important. This have never been the case for Islam. Non Muslims and women have always been second class citizens under their laws.
Some Christians actually got some pretty sweet perks under the Ottomans
Jews and CHristians had it pretty smooth at various points in Islamic history. One shouldn't equate being treated differently with being treated unequally, which can happen, but there are some areas where'd I'd say Christians actually had one up on Muslims. They didn't have to pay taxes Then again the Ottomans never were very good with money
sebster wrote:Again... civil courts dealing with civil matters such as property damage and breaches of contract. Both parties have to agree. If you could please just read that and accept it, you would quickly see your worry about the rights of women makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense when you view Sharia as a corrupt piece of sexist, homophobic gak like I do.
I don't believe for an instant that they'll faithfully apply Sharia law to ONLY civil acts.
Melissia wrote:I might be coming off as Islamophobic, but it's more the case that I am an advocate of equal rights for both genders (IE, a feminist) and an advocate for LGBT rights. Although Islam does not do it exclusively, it certainly tramples on both these rights more regularly than Christianity or Judaism in this day and age.
I also oppose the Christian argument against gay marriage too (a subject which comes up with disturbing frequency here, but then it might just be that I live in Texas and there's probably several closet homosexuals in office here who are trying to hide behind vitriolic speech), but that's a rant for another topic.
I suspect I've called and bothered as many or more Senators and Congresspeople on issues of women's rights and LBGT rights as anyone on here. But I think you're picking the wrong thing to get outraged about. There are enough of real issues to worry about, like the snowjob Breitbart's trying to pull to screw over Planned Parenthood right now, or Stupak on Steroids, or the garbage about only "forcible" rape counting as rape in the lovely "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act".
sebster wrote:Again... civil courts dealing with civil matters such as property damage and breaches of contract. Both parties have to agree. If you could please just read that and accept it, you would quickly see your worry about the rights of women makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense when you view Sharia as a corrupt piece of sexist, homophobic gak like I do.
I don't believe for an instant that they'll faithfully apply Sharia law to ONLY civil acts.
People are legally only permitted to use Sharia and Judaic courts for civil arbitration. If a crime happens the police and the regular courts are in play and the Sharia and Judaic courts aren't even involved.
Amaya wrote:So we're going to pretend that LBGT, women, and non Muslims are not considered second class or out and out immoral in the eyes of Sharia law.
Oh feth me I'm going to have to write it again. This is incredible.
"People have a private dispute, and rather than wait for it to drag through small claims or any other civil court, instead they agree to private arbitration. It's just that instead of going to an secular arbitrator they can agree to go to a Sharia court, if they choose."
They can also agree to go on Judge Judy. Do you understand now?
It doesn't matter if only Muslims are the ones being affected by these rulings now.
The issue is that Muslims are in democratic, European nations passing down rulings that run contrary to the accepted laws of that nation.
Does it bother you that Judge Judy can pass rules that run contrary to the accepted laws of the nation?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:I might be coming off as Islamophobic, but it's more the case that I am an advocate of equal rights for both genders (IE, a feminist) and an advocate for LGBT rights. Although Islam does not do it exclusively, it certainly tramples on both these rights more regularly than Christianity or Judaism in this day and age.
I also oppose the Christian argument against gay marriage too (a subject which comes up with disturbing frequency here, but then it might just be that I live in Texas and there's probably several closet homosexuals in office here who are trying to hide behind vitriolic speech), but that's a rant for another topic.
Oh, there is a huge problem with gender equality within Islam. There's even more hostility towards homosexuality.
But those things aren't impacted by Sharia law. Well, except Family Courts, which are civil and that is a problem, and where an ex-husband might coerce his former wife to accept a Sharia ruling. I'd agree that in matters of Family Law Sharia shouldn't apply.
Mannahnin wrote:People are legally only permitted to use Sharia and Judaic courts for civil arbitration. If a crime happens the police and the regular courts are in play and the Sharia and Judaic courts aren't even involved.
Assuming they report it in the first place instead of using social intimidation to force the victim and offender to use a Sharia court, thus hiding the criminal offense from the eyes of the law.
Mannahnin wrote:People are legally only permitted to use Sharia and Judaic courts for civil arbitration. If a crime happens the police and the regular courts are in play and the Sharia and Judaic courts aren't even involved.
Assuming they report it in the first place instead of using social intimidation to force the victim and offender to use a Sharia court, thus hiding the criminal offense from the eyes of the law.
Like they do with Honor Killings where no one will testify?
sebster wrote:But those things aren't impacted by Sharia law.
Oh yes they are. Sharia law is the very thing that is used to justify the state-sponsored murder of homosexuals in Islamic countries, amongst other things.
Amaya wrote:@Sebster. Why are you ignoring the rulings?
What rulings? Are you worried about precedent, or something? Are you as worried about Judge Judy's rulings, because she has as much power to set precedent as a Sharia court.
Like they do with Honor Killings where no one will testify?
That would be criminal matter, and have nothing to do with Sharia Law.
Amaya wrote:It's difficult to say how fair those courts were, but in some ways they were superior to the system in Europe.
However, it is no longer a thousand or so years ago, and we live in a world where the rights of everyone are considered important. This have never been the case for Islam. Non Muslims and women have always been second class citizens under their laws.
Again... civil courts dealing with civil matters such as property damage and breaches of contract. Both parties have to agree. If you could please just read that and accept it, you would quickly see your worry about the rights of women makes no sense.
Even those these rulings have been passed by Sharia courts in England:
"that no Muslim woman may marry a non-Muslim man unless he converts to Islam and that any children of a woman who does should be taken from her until she marries a Muslim"
approval of "polygamous marriage"
"a male child belongs to the father after the age of seven, regardless of circumstances"
sebster wrote:But those things aren't impacted by Sharia law.
Oh yes they are. Sharia law is the very thing that is used to justify the state-sponsored murder of homosexuals in Islamic countries, amongst other things.
Yes, but we're talking about Sharia law as applied in Western countries. Where it is limited to purely civil matters, and does not and cannot impact upon the legal protections of anyone regardless of sexual preference or gender.
You want to talk about Sharia law as practised in different Islamic countries? Go right ahead, I'd be happy to point out the extensive list of letter writing campaigns I've been a part of to various Islamic countries to stop instances of abuse tehy justified under Islamic law (some even work, albeit rarely).
But that's got nothing to do with the scope of Sharia law as practised in the UK. It can't be made clearer. It only applies to civil matters, and only if both parties agree. Talking about Sharia law in Saudi Arabia or anywhere else in relation to it is a complete nonsense.
sebster wrote:That would be criminal matter, and have nothing to do with Sharia Law.
Sure it does, because it is condoned by Sharia law.
Just because it's a criminal matter doesn't mean anything if the community that uses the Sharia court believes that court takes precedence over the official criminal courts of the country.
Amaya, neither of those sounds anything like a ruling from a court of civil arbitration. You seem to be conflating two different things. Would you kindly provide a link/a reference to the think you're talking about, so we can see if it has anything to do with the use of Sharia courts in England?
Melissia wrote:
sebster wrote:That would be criminal matter, and have nothing to do with Sharia Law.
Sure it does, because it is condoned by Sharia law.
Just because it's a criminal matter doesn't mean anything if the community that uses the Sharia court believes that court takes precedence over the official criminal courts of the country.
If the community conceals a murder, the justification they use for doing so has nothing to do with the law of the land. English law doesn't condone or sanction such a conspiracy in any way.
Amaya wrote:Even those these rulings have been passed by Sharia courts in England:
"that no Muslim woman may marry a non-Muslim man unless he converts to Islam and that any children of a woman who does should be taken from her until she marries a Muslim"
approval of "polygamous marriage"
"a male child belongs to the father after the age of seven, regardless of circumstances"
Now think about what would happen if Judge Judy declared the same thing? It means those things would apply to those parties who agreed to arbitration in her courtroom, and nowhere else.
That polygamous marriage that Judge Judy agreed to would have no weight in the greater legal system. The issue of the child is important, as I noted, because the Sharia courts can decide on matters of family law. That's the first point anyone's made that verges on actual content.
Mannahnin wrote:If the community conceals a murder, the justification they use for doing so has nothing to do with the law of the land. English law doesn't condone or sanction such a conspiracy in any way.
Maybe, but that wouldn't stop it from happening because it is condoned by Sharia law.
Melissia wrote:It makes perfect sense when you view Sharia as a corrupt piece of sexist, homophobic gak like I do.
I don't believe for an instant that they'll faithfully apply Sharia law to ONLY civil acts.
Only if you think all Sharia law is equal in scope and authority. Which is a very silly thing to believe, even given the way the issue is deliberately poorly descrived in the media. But when people have explained to multiple times in this thread the exact limit and scope of Sharia law in the UK, it is simply incredible to consider the two the same.
You can believe or not that they'd settle for only civil acts, but it's a nonsense fear. It's like being scared that the regular small claims court might say someone not only has to replace the broken window, but be sentenced to a year in prison. Even if they wanted to, it's absolutely physically beyond the court to do such a thing, and worrying about it would need an incredible level of ignorance about the legal system.
Mannahnin wrote:If the community conceals a murder, the justification they use for doing so has nothing to do with the law of the land. English law doesn't condone or sanction such a conspiracy in any way.
Maybe, but that wouldn't stop it from happening because it is condoned by Sharia law.
Okay, but please understand that the fear you're describing now is a fear that PEOPLE WILL BREAK THE LAW; not a fear that the law in England is broken and dumb, which is the original concept of this thread.
Mannahnin wrote:If the community conceals a murder, the justification they use for doing so has nothing to do with the law of the land. English law doesn't condone or sanction such a conspiracy in any way.
Maybe, but that wouldn't stop it from happening because it is condoned by Sharia law.
Okay, but please understand that the fear you're describing now is a fear that PEOPLE WILL BREAK THE LAW; not a fear that the law in England is broken and dumb, which is the original concept of this thread.
No, I'm discussing my hatred for Sharia law no matter how it is applied, and the various negative impacts it has on society. I don't deign to claim to comprehend UK law... I can only say I have a marginal comprehension of US law, and even then only just enough to know how to sue someone (IE, I took a business law class)
When was the last time radical Jewish terrorists assaulted or bombed anyone? When was the last time Jews have practice honour killings? The systematic abuse of women? Killed apostates?
Kilkrazy wrote:All contracts made have to obey English law.
Not entirely correct: both parties to the contract must agree which law governs the contract at the time it is drawn up - this is most commonly English law in Britain.
Melissia wrote:
sebster wrote:Meanwhile, in the UK we're talking about private arbitration, that can apply if both parties agree
... something which can be and is achieved through intimidation.
The mafia also got people to agree to private arbitration.
And such intimidation violates statute law.
As mentioned Sharia courts in the UK can only act as arbitrators, so any judgements handed down by those courts only have effect while both parties agree to them - they are not legally enforceable.
Mannahnin wrote:If the community conceals a murder, the justification they use for doing so has nothing to do with the law of the land. English law doesn't condone or sanction such a conspiracy in any way.
Maybe, but that wouldn't stop it from happening because it is condoned by Sharia law.
Let's not cloud the issue:
- conealing a murder may done by people who do not follow Sharia;
- followers of Sharia may not conceal a murder.
I have to say Melissia, the vast majority of the time I agree with your opinions and enjoy reading your posts, but a couple of your responses in this thread are worthy of a Daily Mail journalist.
Amaya wrote:When was the last time radical Jewish terrorists assaulted or bombed anyone? When was the last time Jews have practice honour killings? The systematic abuse of women? Killed apostates?
You are functionally blaming all Muslims for the actions of some. Some Jews have done nasty things too. And some Christians. And some Pagans. Etc.
Amaya wrote:When was the last time radical Jewish terrorists assaulted or bombed anyone? When was the last time Jews have practice honour killings? The systematic abuse of women? Killed apostates?
You are functionally blaming all Muslims for the actions of some. Some Jews have done nasty things too. And some Christians. And some Pagans. Etc.
No, I'm pointing out that Judaism (outside of Israel) does not have the history of violence that Islam does.
Amaya wrote:When was the last time radical Jewish terrorists assaulted or bombed anyone? When was the last time Jews have practice honour killings? The systematic abuse of women? Killed apostates?
You are functionally blaming all Muslims for the actions of some. Some Jews have done nasty things too. And some Christians. And some Pagans. Etc.
No, I'm pointing out that Judaism (outside of Israel) does not have the history of violence that Islam does.
This comment seems lacking in knowledge of, well, history. As Reds8n pointed out.
Sharia law (and possibly traditional Judaic law, for that matter) may include things you or I disapprove of, and we may dislike many aspects of the cultures from which they spring. But English law doesn't allow them to be used for anything but civil & contract situations, and then only by mutual consent.
Only women who get forced into it by their father or husband will have to go. So its a great idea!
Look, this had occured simply because religion gets too much damn respect, started by another Religious zealot, Tony "all opinions are equally valid" Blair.
Look at the reasonable people on dakka who think this is a good idea, almost all of them! It's simply because people are swallowing the lie of political correctness.
Islam is inherently homophobic, inherently bigoted towards those that do not follow said belief system, inherently misogynistic and at obvious polar opposition with reason.
The Koran is right there for you all to read. Go do it then come back and tell me anything I have written is wrong.
They will drag us back into the dark if we allow them to censor us as effectively as they are doing. And an anti blasphemy law mandated by the united nations?! Gimme a fething break.
How anyone can advocate human rights whilst sticking up for these barbarous actions is beyond me. It's an oxymoron.
Islam is anti gay, anti independence, anti women and anti freedom, and their ridiculous misogynistic courts have no place in any western nation. It truly boggles my mind that we harp on so much about freedom and human rights whilst allowing the practitioners of Islam to treat women like rats.
Political correctness gone mad.
And before the Muslim enablers like KK, seb, emp et al start trying to paint this as merely the rantings of a somewhat biased veteran, ask yourself this, are distinguished scholars like Dan Dennet and Sam Harris war crazed idiots as well? Because I think we are in complete agreement on this issue.
Sharia law has no place in any nation that truly values equality and human rights. It really is that obvious to anyone that doesn't swallow the current PC dogma and applies some common sense to the problem.
And don't give me the "what about their right to choose" bs either. You might as well say a rapist gas the rights to choose to rape, because the women in the UK have no choice, just like they don't choose to visit an "uncle" In Bradford and have their genitals mutilated.
Melissia wrote:I am not the one that has to believe that. Only the ones that are using it have to believe that.
It could be you, Santa Claus and the Pope, it doesn't matter. The plain reality of the situation is that criminal matters cannot be heard by a sharia court. Pretending otherwise is making a proactive effort to be stupid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:No, I'm discussing my hatred for Sharia law no matter how it is applied, and the various negative impacts it has on society. I don't deign to claim to comprehend UK law... I can only say I have a marginal comprehension of US law, and even then only just enough to know how to sue someone (IE, I took a business law class)
No you're expressing your hatred of Sharia law as applied in some countries, in the context of Sharia law as it applies in England, and you're doing your absolute best to ignore that they're two completely different things, with entirely different levels of scope and authority.
And when we explain this to you, over and over, you keep pretending it isn't true. Stop that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:When was the last time radical Jewish terrorists assaulted or bombed anyone? When was the last time Jews have practice honour killings? The systematic abuse of women? Killed apostates?
So because a minority of muslims have committed terrible acts, the vast majority shouldn't be allowed to engage with each other privately in resolving private matters on their own terms?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:Melissa gets it.
Only women who get forced into it by their father or husband will have to go. So its a great idea!
No, Melissia opposes Sharia law as it exists in the middle east. She has demonstrated so little understanding of the practice as it exists in the UK, and so little willingness to try and understand it's pretty safe to say she's incapable of opposing UK Sharia law.
Islam is inherently homophobic, inherently bigoted towards those that do not follow said belief system, inherently misogynistic and at obvious polar opposition with reason.
I've pointed out the problems with sexism and homophobia in Islam in this thread. I've then tried to explain the extent to which those issues are reflected in Sharia law.
The Koran is right there for you all to read. Go do it then come back and tell me anything I have written is wrong.
What you've written is true, but only because it's plain to see in many Islamic societies. It's much, much harder to make such a case from reading the Koran.
They will drag us back into the dark if we allow them to censor us as effectively as they are doing.
That's why you stop regressive laws where they exist. And don't waste time on misreading laws that do no such thing.
Do I think Islamic culture has anything at all to offer the United Kingdom in the 21st century?
'No', is the short answer, so I can hardly be called a 'muslim-enabler'. This is an important consideration, because I actually agree with sebster et al. on this issue - it's really been blown out of all proportion. That's not to defend or condone Sharia Law - in fact, as with any religion, I would actually be quite happy to see Islam completely stamped out everywhere.
But I don't see private religious courts settling civil issues along religious lines as a threat to my country as long as the rulings made don't contravene UK law. Also, the parties involved are well within their rights to opt out of using Sharia courts and use real ones instead. Whatever. If they want to live in the middle ages, I say let 'em.
Once again I must present the example of the Beth Din courts. (For the third damn time, apparently ignored by people who are obsessed with this Sharia issue.)
They are funded by the orthodox community.
They haven't led to any "legitimacy" of orthodox Jewish law in the UK, whatever that means. Except for things like kosher labelling of food products -- is that bad?
Jewish people who don't want to go to the Beth Din court, don't go.
Kilkrazy wrote:"legitimacy"... whatever that means.
By allowing these people to practice a form Shariah Law, you're saying it's OK. That's all I have to say.
Kilkrazy wrote:Jewish people who don't want to go to the Beth Din court, don't go.
Women haven't commonly enjoyed respect or autonomy amongst the more feverish followers of Islam. The people that use these courts will be those that follow the Qur'an more zealously. Fathers, Uncles and Brothers making decisions for Women on their behalf at these courts. Sounds good doesn't it. The issues may be minor, but that's not the point.
Kilkrazy wrote:Once again I must present the example of the Beth Din courts. (For the third damn time, apparently ignored by people who are obsessed with this Sharia issue.)
They are funded by the orthodox community.
They haven't led to any "legitimacy" of orthodox Jewish law in the UK, whatever that means. Except for things like kosher labelling of food products -- is that bad?
Jewish people who don't want to go to the Beth Din court, don't go.
Where's the problem?
Precisely this.
Mattyrm, I don't agree with any homophobic, misogynistic or otherwise bigoted viewpoints of Sharia or Islam - but as said many times, any judgements of those courts are not legally enforceable in the UK. No party is bound by their judgement.
This is a case of, "I don't like what you have to say, but I'll defend your right to say it." Tolerance, innit?
because they have something called the British legal system, which is light years beyond both the US legal system and Sharia "women are property who cares?" legal codes.
To be fair Kk I am sure I would disagree with the Jewish system as well, I just know less about it.
Alb, it affects me not a jot either mate, but does that mean we shouldnt care? It doesn't affect me if people go gay bashing either (except for weekends), but I think it should anger us, and its the exact same thing, these women do not have a choice!
People getting treated awfully doesn't affect me a jot in general, cos I'm rock and nobody treats me badly personally, but I genuinely do feel bad for other people who are getting mistreated! Isn't that a motivation?
And dismissing Sharia Law out of hand as something to not being worried about it is a serious mistake. We need to move away from any form of religious influences on law making simply because certain religions have a tendency to be intolerant of those outside of their religion. Essentially, you should be free to practice your religion as long as it doesn't harm anyone.
Oh wow, you just stated the intent of the First Amendment better than Jefferson. Well played sir!
mattyrm wrote: ...and its the exact same thing, these women do not have a choice!
Where are you getting this from?
It's been pointed out in this thread again and again and again that both parties have to opt for this course, and the decisions are not legally binding.
It is the same thing as agreeing to go on Judge Judy.
I think Sebster brings up a good point. We are missing a prime opportunity for some high quality television here! Judge Mahmud has potential in the prime time line up
I actually find some of the comments here very entertaining. There was a time, say a thousand years or so ago, that muslim courts were some of the fairest you could find in the world. Also, I feel it important to point out that not all Muslims have the same interpretation of Sharia. In the Abbasid dynasty there were four different court systems for four different Sharia interpretations, plus the Catholic, Orthodox, and Jewish courts. In Islamic history, the idea of multiple legal systems coexisting isn't that far fetched of a concept (whether or not that cultural history is at play here I don't know). One shouldn't automatically assume a muslim conspiracy to take over the legal system, especially when that isn't what is happening.
Who gives a about a thousand years ago? This is now. 2011, its the new black.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote:
Melissia wrote:
sebster wrote:Again... civil courts dealing with civil matters such as property damage and breaches of contract. Both parties have to agree. If you could please just read that and accept it, you would quickly see your worry about the rights of women makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense when you view Sharia as a corrupt piece of sexist, homophobic gak like I do.
I don't believe for an instant that they'll faithfully apply Sharia law to ONLY civil acts.
People are legally only permitted to use Sharia and Judaic courts for civil arbitration. If a crime happens the police and the regular courts are in play and the Sharia and Judaic courts aren't even involved.
Child custody, marriage and dating, employment, literally everything besides criminal actions fall under civil. Everything the average person is involved with is civil, not criminal activities. So yea it matters a hell of a lot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote:
Amaya wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
Amaya wrote:When was the last time radical Jewish terrorists assaulted or bombed anyone? When was the last time Jews have practice honour killings? The systematic abuse of women? Killed apostates?
You are functionally blaming all Muslims for the actions of some. Some Jews have done nasty things too. And some Christians. And some Pagans. Etc.
No, I'm pointing out that Judaism (outside of Israel) does not have the history of violence that Islam does.
This comment seems lacking in knowledge of, well, history. As Reds8n pointed out.
Sharia law (and possibly traditional Judaic law, for that matter) may include things you or I disapprove of, and we may dislike many aspects of the cultures from which they spring. But English law doesn't allow them to be used for anything but civil & contract situations, and then only by mutual consent.
However one you agree to binding arbitration, then the British courts must enforce the finding of that arbitration. If the woman gets sucked into a Sharia (or rabbinical court-thats equally stupid) then a follow on real court has to enforce that binding arbitration. She could lose her children from such nonsense.
Frazzled wrote:
However one you agree to binding arbitration, then the British courts must enforce the finding of that arbitration. If the woman gets sucked into a Sharia (or rabbinical court-thats equally stupid) then a follow on real court has to enforce that binding arbitration. She could lose her children from such nonsense.
Safeguards under the Arbitration Act
The 1996 Arbitration Act contains many safeguards:
Arbitration must be voluntary for both parties
Arbitration must be impartial
Civil courts retain the right to overturn an arbitration award
Arbitration is limited to civil cases
Beth Din courts and decisions are very clearly overruled and limited by general English law. I see no inherent problem with Sharia courts operating under the same principles.
This story is six months old and drummed up by the daily fail in their weekly rant.
To clarify:
In order to use a sharia court, both parties must agree to be arbitrated between. And to stick to that arbitration. The arbitration in question may be overturned by the civil authorities. The arbitration has no power over criminal affairs. The arbitration may not prescribe settlements that violate British law. There is already a precedent with regards to the Jewish courts.
Some people worry that intimidation might be used in the case of female rights. To that, the answer is
a) Intimidation is illegal under British criminal law. The woman in question is well within her rights at that point to make her way to the nearest police station, report the intimidation and her fears, and be placed in a safe location. The intimidator should then then be arrested under criminal law. The sharia judgment will not be valid, as she will not be agreeing to it.
In other words, this is a non-issue. There is no legal ability to force women into sharia judgment unless they want to go. If they are being intimidated, they may report that, as they may report it for any kind of intimidation from anyone, anywhere in the country, in any affair.
b) If the woman in question is that easy to intimidate, and will not report it, she wouldn't bother agreeing to a sharia court, the other party would just intimidate her in order to get the desired outcome straight of the bat. A middleman would be unnecessary.
To conclude, its no different from me asking bob to decide between bill and me as to whether baked beans are better cold or hot. At the end of the day, I can still refuse to accept his validity whichever way he decides, and do things my own way.
The comparison to the Jewish arbitration is a false one.
Jewish people have successfully integrated into the greater community of the nation, currently, most Islamic people are struggling to do this due to several reasons, including:
The British sense of morality is based around Judeo-Christian ideology. That sense of morality has shaped our laws and social outlook. Many of the practices of Islamic peoples can be said to be at odds with that.
The current hostilities between 'western nations' and nations with Islamic populations is viewed by many muslims as a holy conflict and that the western nations, including Britain, are the enemies of their faith. In return, muslims are now viewed with hostility by an increasing number of the populace. That mistrust has not afflicted the Jewish community for a fair few years.
The issue of misogyny will not go away. The laws of Islam are fundamentally geared to the rights of men at the expense of the rights of women, you can all argue about the actual intention of the Prophet's writings, but that IS how it is, not just for muslim women in the middle east, but for muslim women living in the UK. I know, I lived in a community up until recently with a very high proportion of Somalian muslims and even my Pakistani friend, a lapsed muslim himself, commented that 'they don't treat their women well at all'.
Do you think that a woman under pressure from her spouse, her spouse's family and her own family, will have fair treatment in these courts?
Do you think that these courts will always tow the line on not becoming involved in criminal procedings? What happens when something is a crime in the eyes of the British Courts but not under Sharia? When the divorce sought by a woman due to the violence she has suffered is insisted on going to these courts first by his and her family.
This move further cloaks the muslim community's activities in the greater populace and further fuels notions of isolation, ghettoisation and alienation within the greater community of Britain.
It is little wonder it is met with scepticism and mistrust and serves only to isolate the muslim community further, raise frustrations and endanger women's lives.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:The comparison to the Jewish arbitration is a false one.
Jewish people have successfully integrated into the greater community of the nation,
Only out of a fear of persecution. A good hundred years ago, all those little laws defending ethnic minorities didn't exist, and most of them were fleeing the various pogroms of Europe. Integrating was a means of survival and necessity, not free choice.
currently, most Islamic people are struggling to do this
You speak to all of them?
due to several reasons, including:
The British sense of morality is based around Judeo-Christian ideology. That sense of morality has shaped our laws and social outlook. Many of the practices of Islamic peoples can be said to be at odds with that.
Islam, Judaism, and christianity are all descended from roughly the same roots if it comes down to it. Womens rights are relatively new thing, christianity and judaism both have misogynistic aspects. People just highlight those of Islam because of the misogynistic arabic states that exist in other countries today. However, they are neither here nor there, as sharia law is not prevalent in the UK.
The current hostilities between 'western nations' and nations with Islamic populations is viewed by many muslims
Wow. You really must know them all on a personal level then.
as a holy conflict and that the western nations, including Britain, are the enemies of their faith. In return, muslims are now viewed with hostility by an increasing number of the populace. That mistrust has not afflicted the Jewish community for a fair few years.
Actually, anti-semitic attacks on Jews and synagogues have been on the rise for quite some time now. The BNP and the rest the nationalistic thugs aren't any keener on Jews than they are arabs.
The issue of misogyny will not go away. The laws of Islam are fundamentally geared to the rights of men at the expense of the rights of women, you can all argue about the actual intention of the Prophet's writings, but that IS how it is, not just for muslim women in the middle east, but for muslim women living in the UK. I know, I lived in a community up until recently with a very high proportion of Somalian muslims and even my Pakistani friend, a lapsed muslim himself, commented that 'they don't treat their women well at all'.
Sure. But sharia law is not prevalent in the UK. As stated already, by me a few posts earlier, a woman being treated badly can walk down to the police station. These inpromptu 'sharia courts' are separate from that. If you regard misogny of women in islamic culture as a problem, these inpromptu courts are a symptom, not a cause. If intimidated women aren't reporting their circumstances, its the fault of their societies, not these courts, which can incidentally provide excellent arbitration between people who want it.
Do you think that a woman under pressure from her spouse, her spouse's family and her own family, will have fair treatment in these courts?
I doubt a woman under 'pressure' of this variety would ever reach a sharia court. She'd be told to shut up and make a sandwich, so to speak.
Do you think that these courts will always tow the line on not becoming involved in criminal procedings?
Does society in general ever toe in the line? How many people go over the speed limit every day?
Regardless of which, its irrelevant. If they break the law, they're as open to proescution as anyone else, and their judgments have no legal binding.
What happens when something is a crime in the eyes of the British Courts but not under Sharia?
Then the person in question gets prosecuted.
When the divorce sought by a woman due to the violence she has suffered is insisted on going to these courts first by his and her family.
If a woman is under the kind of pressure that makes her fear for her life, and she is acceding to it, is she really going to be trying to get a divorce? Really? If she's the subject of violent treatment already, she'll either be at the police office under protection, or she'll be doing as she's told. The husband won't ask in between punches whether or she would prefer to use a sharia court for their divorce. He'll tell her she has no right for divorce and keep hitting her.
Irrelevant anyway, as divorces still have to pass through the british legal system as well as the sharia/beth din courts. Sharia courts can proclaim divorces all they like, they have no legal sway. It's in one of the links up above.
This move further cloaks the muslim community's activities in the greater populace and further fuels notions of isolation, ghettoisation and alienation within the greater community of Britain.
Only if you read the daily fail and oppose people being capable of maintaining their own ethnic identity. If I want bob to arbitrate between me and bill, because bob is a rabbi, thirty years older than us, and probably much wiser, what right have you to tell me I'm not allowed to?
It is little wonder it is met with scepticism and mistrust and serves only to isolate the muslim community further, raise frustrations and endanger women's lives.
No.
It's a xenophobic reaction to a culture attempting to maintain some of their own values in a legal and non-binding way.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:The comparison to the Jewish arbitration is a false one.
Jewish people have successfully integrated into the greater community of the nation, currently, most Islamic people are struggling to do this due to several reasons, including:
The British sense of morality is based around Judeo-Christian ideology. That sense of morality has shaped our laws and social outlook. Many of the practices of Islamic peoples can be said to be at odds with that.
The current hostilities between 'western nations' and nations with Islamic populations is viewed by many muslims as a holy conflict and that the western nations, including Britain, are the enemies of their faith. In return, muslims are now viewed with hostility by an increasing number of the populace. That mistrust has not afflicted the Jewish community for a fair few years.
The issue of misogyny will not go away. The laws of Islam are fundamentally geared to the rights of men at the expense of the rights of women, you can all argue about the actual intention of the Prophet's writings, but that IS how it is, not just for muslim women in the middle east, but for muslim women living in the UK. I know, I lived in a community up until recently with a very high proportion of Somalian muslims and even my Pakistani friend, a lapsed muslim himself, commented that 'they don't treat their women well at all'.
Do you think that a woman under pressure from her spouse, her spouse's family and her own family, will have fair treatment in these courts?
Do you think that these courts will always tow the line on not becoming involved in criminal procedings? What happens when something is a crime in the eyes of the British Courts but not under Sharia? When the divorce sought by a woman due to the violence she has suffered is insisted on going to these courts first by his and her family.
This move further cloaks the muslim community's activities in the greater populace and further fuels notions of isolation, ghettoisation and alienation within the greater community of Britain.
It is little wonder it is met with scepticism and mistrust and serves only to isolate the muslim community further, raise frustrations and endanger women's lives.
British law is based on Judaeo-Christian traditions which are misogynistic.
It is less than 100 years since women were given the vote.
It is about 60 years since British people were marching in support of fascists to get Jews expelled from the country.
It is less than 40 years since women were given (in theory) equal rights to pay and conditions in employment, which still have not been achieved.
mattyrm wrote:To be fair Kk I am sure I would disagree with the Jewish system as well, I just know less about it.
Alb, it affects me not a jot either mate, but does that mean we shouldnt care? It doesn't affect me if people go gay bashing either (except for weekends), but I think it should anger us, and its the exact same thing, these women do not have a choice!
People getting treated awfully doesn't affect me a jot in general, cos I'm rock and nobody treats me badly personally, but I genuinely do feel bad for other people who are getting mistreated! Isn't that a motivation?
I would counter with the fact that I've already admitted that I find their culture distasteful, abhorrent even - but I'm at pains to point out that that doesn't mean I see Sharia Law as a threat to the supremacy of British Law. Think about it - what set of circumstances would have to occur before we would all be living under Islamic law in this country?
It will never, ever, ever happen. So let's stop worrying about it. EU legislation is the greater worry to me.
As long as both parties submit themselves to Sharia courts voluntarily, then I really don't give a gak what those people get up to. I'm happy living here in the 21st century, man.
Yes, for Judaeo-Christian based laws. As time goes on, most Judeo-Christian based countries have moved away from the misogyny of the bible and the torah, towards a more equal secular view.
Not for Sharia law. Things have only gotten worse for countries using Sharia law, in comparison to the golden age of Islamic enlightenment when Islamic countries were bastions of scientific study and social innovation-- they've taken many leaps backwards.
1. British law is based on Judaeo-Christian traditions which are misogynistic.
2. It is less than 100 years since women were given the vote.
3. It is about 60 years since British people were marching in support of fascists to get Jews expelled from the country.
4. It is less than 40 years since women were given (in theory) equal rights to pay and conditions in employment, which still have not been achieved.
5. Things have improved.
1. Based on and then evolved. Also, compare Thou Shalt Not Kill with this:
Every year in the United Kingdom (UK), officials estimate that at least a dozen women are victims of honor killings, almost exclusively within Asian and Middle Eastern families.[22] Often cases cannot be resolved due to the unwillingness of family, relatives and communities to testify. A 2006 BBC poll for the Asian network in the UK found that one in ten of the 500 young Asians polled said that they could condone the murder of someone who dishonored their family.[23] In the UK, in December 2005, Nazir Afzal, Director, west London, of Britain's Crown Prosecution Service, stated that the United Kingdom has seen "at least a dozen honour killings" between 2004 and 2005.
2. But they do now have the vote, some however, say in the muslim community, are not allowed by their peers and spouses, to use it.
3. Some were marching, we readily identified them as fascist, that terrible lesson was learnt at a high cost, yet we are terrified to confront this religious fascism for fear of the racism label.
4. But we continue to work towards it and have made progress. However within the UK there remain, say in the muslim community, women who are not even permitted, by those around them, the right to go and work or seek education.
If I understand your argument correctly, your proposed solution to the problem of integrating Muslims is to deny them the integration opportunities that have been given to other successfully integrated minorities.
Amaya wrote:When was the last time radical Jewish terrorists assaulted or bombed anyone? When was the last time Jews have practice honour killings? The systematic abuse of women? Killed apostates?
Pretty sure it was the last time Tottenham played Arsenal.
mattyrm wrote: ...and its the exact same thing, these women do not have a choice!
Where are you getting this from?
It's been pointed out in this thread again and again and again that both parties have to opt for this course, and the decisions are not legally binding.
Seriously mate, this is an old story, and i read alot about it when it was first raised, I am a member of Mariam Namazies "one law for all campaign" and I have been for several years.
I will listen to the thousands of actual Muslim women that get affected by this stuff, and you can stick your fingers in your ears and insist "again and again and again" that its fine because both parties "opt" for this course and pretend its not happening because your a spousal abuse enabler.
Its fine mate, each to their own, but I really must insist that you dont convince yourself I am just making this stuff up, because I absolutely am not.
Kilkrazy wrote:your proposed solution to the problem of integrating Muslims is to deny them the integration opportunities that have been given to other successfully integrated minorities.
When they're using it to fight integration and oppress their own people, yes.
It's a xenophobic reaction to a culture attempting to maintain some of their own values in a legal and non-binding way.
Really? Really?!
I suggest you read accounts of actual British Muslim women.
Honestly, i genuinely cannot believe how so many otherwise intelligent people are able to be hoodwinked so easily by the Muslim community simply because they have been conditioned by the left leaning PC establishment that any form of criticism at all of Islam is "xenophobic racism"
Seriously, it disturbs me.
Here, if even the Guardian can criticize Muslim practices, can you left leaning PC apologists not even bring yourself to let out a tiny amount of discontent?
Kilkrazy wrote:If I understand your argument correctly, your proposed solution to the problem of integrating Muslims is to deny them the integration opportunities that have been given to other successfully integrated minorities.
Would that be correct?
How is a religious and exclusive court of their own an 'integration opportunity'?
That's like saying having a tv in your bedroom is a great way to get out and meet people.
Also, when is the last time you saw the Jewish community doing this in central London?
Kilkrazy wrote:If I understand your argument correctly, your proposed solution to the problem of integrating Muslims is to deny them the integration opportunities that have been given to other successfully integrated minorities.
Would that be correct?
How is a religious and exclusive court of their own an 'integration opportunity'?
That's like saying having a tv in your bedroom is a great way to get out and meet people.
Also, when is the last time you saw the Jewish community doing this in central London?
To be fair MGS the jewish community is hardly integrated into the UK. I'm Jewish by my mother and I have never met another Jewish person living in the north of England in my life. The Jewish people I do know live in concentrated Jewish communities in north london and essex. My three best friends at Uni were born within miles of each other and grew up together, yet one didn't go to school with the other two as they went to a Jewish school as most do in their area.
In contrast to that I know muslim families living in the middle of white streets up here and although i'm not arguing muslims are integrated into the UK, I think they're ahead of the Jewish community which is almost secular by nature. The difference is most Jews have white faces.
Kilkrazy wrote:I think when people say "integrate" they sometimes mean "gone native".
The Jewish population of the UK is surprisingly small, and a lot are not strictly Orthodox.
Consequently there is a tendency for Jewish people to marry out of the faith.
On the contrary, most Jews I know want to find that 'nice jewish girl' and have a strong sense of being jewish even though they don't follow religion. Of course many don't but then I know many white/asian couples too.
No, I mean actual social integration, which is the movement of minority groups into the mainstream. Sharia law is inherently opposed to integration to begin with.
whatwhat wrote:
To be fair MGS the jewish community is hardly integrated into the UK. I'm Jewish by my mother and I have never met another Jewish person living in the north of England in my life. The Jewish people I do know live in concentrated Jewish communities in north london and essex. My three best friends at Uni were born within miles of each other and grew up together, yet one didn't go to school with the other two as they went to a Jewish school as most do in their area.
Hmmm, not entirely what I was driving at. I guess I mean that there is no basic divide there for someone Jewish. 'Most sensible folks' from the anglo-saxon white majority won't immediately throw up their mental barriers or suddenly find themselves walking on social eggshells when talking to a Jewish person nowadays, which is a fairly amazing thing given how prejudices did exist within living memory.
Also, the couple of Jews that I know conduct their Jewish affairs along quite private lines, you don't know someone is Jewish, or practising actively in the faith, unless you enquire.
My philosophy is basically that of Bill and Ted, be excellent to one another... I welcome anyone who wants to sit and break bread and do no harm, to come to the table and enjoy themselves, we will be enriched by their culture and viewpoint. I don't get that from active fundamental Islam any more than I get it from active fundamental Christianity. They want to come to the table and tell me how to break the bread, when to eat it and beat me up if I don't do it right, despite it being my bread, they want no part in my culture or my viewpoint and want me to follow theirs 'or else'.
That is a form of fascism I have never encountered from Jewish people I've met, who largely want to keep their religion quiet and have a nice day and be productive.
That the Jewish community have a civil court of their own to manage matters outside of crimes seems entirely reasonable, they are not actively trying to assimilate the country, not aggressively marching through the streets, not burning poppies, not screaming for authors to be put to death, not murdering their own daughters for seeking to integrate into the society they live in or indeed, engaging or condoning acts of terror or sedition.
So I don't mind when Jewish people in my country want a civil court of their own, I hear no rhetoric from their religious leaders about overthrowing the way of life in my country.
whatwhat wrote:
To be fair MGS the jewish community is hardly integrated into the UK. I'm Jewish by my mother and I have never met another Jewish person living in the north of England in my life. The Jewish people I do know live in concentrated Jewish communities in north london and essex. My three best friends at Uni were born within miles of each other and grew up together, yet one didn't go to school with the other two as they went to a Jewish school as most do in their area.
Hmmm, not entirely what I was driving at. I guess I mean that there is no basic divide there for someone Jewish. 'Most sensible folks' from the anglo-saxon white majority won't immediately throw up their mental barriers or suddenly find themselves walking on social eggshells when talking to a Jewish person nowadays, which is a fairly amazing thing given how prejudices did exist within living memory.
Also, the couple of Jews that I know conduct their Jewish affairs along quite private lines, you don't know someone is Jewish, or practising actively in the faith, unless you enquire.
My philosophy is basically that of Bill and Ted, be excellent to one another... I welcome anyone who wants to sit and break bread and do no harm, to come to the table and enjoy themselves, we will be enriched by their culture and viewpoint. I don't get that from active fundamental Islam any more than I get it from active fundamental Christianity. They want to come to the table and tell me how to break the bread, when to eat it and beat me up if I don't do it right, despite it being my bread, they want no part in my culture or my viewpoint and want me to follow theirs 'or else'.
That is a form of fascism I have never encountered from Jewish people I've met, who largely want to keep their religion quiet and have a nice day and be productive.
That the Jewish community have a civil court of their own to manage matters outside of crimes seems entirely reasonable, they are not actively trying to assimilate the country, not aggressively marching through the streets, not burning poppies, not screaming for authors to be put to death, not murdering their own daughters for seeking to integrate into the society they live in or indeed, engaging or condoning acts of terror or sedition.
So I don't mind when Jewish people in my country want a civil court of their own, I hear no rhetoric from their religious leaders about overthrowing the way of life in my country.
That's a fairly ignorant view of the muslim community to my mind. most muslims I know are easy to talk to, don't burn poppies and prefer to talk to me about cricket and football than their religion which they keep to themselves. The most they do to expose their religion is order a j20 when the rest of us are ordering pints. You're judging the majority by a minority. TBH your viewpoint sounds like it's coming from a person whose main knowledge of British Muslims comes from BBC News rather than any actual contact with them.
whatwhat wrote:
That's a fairly ignorant view of the muslim community to my mind. most muslims I know are easy to talk to, don't burn poppies and prefer to talk to me about cricket and football than their religion which they keep to themselves. The most they do to expose their religion is order a j20 when the rest of us are ordering pints. You're judging the majority by a minority. TBH your viewpoint sounds like it's coming from a person whose main knowledge of British Muslims comes from BBC News rather than any actual contact with them.
I have a friend who's father is from Pakistan and identifies himself as a 'lapsed muslim' as he drinks like a fish and enjoys a very active social calendar, I regularly socialised with muslim colleagues at work for years... I have spent the last 5(ish) years living in an area of Bristol with a very high percentage of muslim residents, of them, predominantly Somalian.
What my friend and I have agreed upon, is that whilst it is a fact that the violent and aggressive protesting/poppy burning types are a minority, they are on the increase and mostly made from the younger muslims. The trending of the muslim population does seem to be moving into a more aggressive stance and isolating rather than integrating.
Also we agree upon the continued oppression of women within the various muslim nationality minorities within the UK. It exists and whilst you may have gone with a muslim girl to the pub and she had a j2o, there will be many who are not permitted that indulgence by family and or spouse.
By saying 'most muslims I know', you already show that these are not radical muslims, these are people happy to even enter a pub or be around people who drink alcohol, so you are talking from your experience of a proportion of the demographic.
What we have also discussed is that whilst a great many are not out on the streets demonstrating and calling for the downfall of the west and so on, the vast majority do not openly condemn those groups either, as to be seen to do so would be siding with the outsider rather than your brother.
And so the radicalism and hatred are allowed to flourish due to the unwillingness of the moderate amongst the islamic community to speak out. This causes the whole to trend further and further into the extremism.
I have a mate who isn't a Muslim either, his parents are though. Does that make you one? Just because your parents decided you should be one?
He supports my local team, drinks, and fell out with his parents because he refused an arranged marriage. All British people who go "oh yeah my Muslim mate is sound" are deluding yourselves into thinking that the son or daughter of a Muslim will always be a Muslim. This is not correct.
Now, my non Muslim son of Muslim mate, he always tells me ridiculous stories about his "conspiracy theory, Bush blew up the twin towers Jew menace" parents believe some crazy stuff.
They ARE Muslim.
You find me a 5 prayers a day, strict orthodox Muslim who is fully accepting of equality for all, who loves to be pals with us infidels, who doesn't hate Jews and gays and beer swigging white boys and scantily clad women, and you have found a very rare man indeed.
It's a xenophobic reaction to a culture attempting to maintain some of their own values in a legal and non-binding way.
Really? Really?!
I suggest you read accounts of actual British Muslim women.
Honestly, i genuinely cannot believe how so many otherwise intelligent people are able to be hoodwinked so easily by the Muslim community simply because they have been conditioned by the left leaning PC establishment that any form of criticism at all of Islam is "xenophobic racism"
Seriously, it disturbs me.
Here, if even the Guardian can criticize Muslim practices, can you left leaning PC apologists not even bring yourself to let out a tiny amount of discontent?
Please remove your crass projections about me from your mind. I'm actually a fairly right wing sort of person. Believe it or not, I'm Jewish, not particularly pro-arab, and have had relatives killed by missiles in Israel.
So don't tell me I've been 'conditioned' just because I disagree with you on something. It's insulting.
What I tend to find is that for every 'left leaning apologist', there's a person screaming about how the muslims are out to get us all, and how they're being 'oppressed' because they bravely dare to voice their 'un-PC' views. It's rubbish, and just places you on the opposing end of the spectrum, making you as narrow minded as the PC ones you wail about. It's how the BNP gets its votes.
The simple fact is that if you are prepared to grant the right to arbitration to Jewish people, you must also be prepared to grant this right to Muslim people. And any other ethnic group or religion who wants it. Otherwise it IS xenophobic discrimination. You are willingly classing people who exercise their freedom of belief as second class citizens, by denying them rights that are granted to other legitimate citizens. There is no middle ground here. Either everyone has it, or nobody has it. Otherwise it is discrimination of the most crass kind.
It's not denying there is a societal problem with the radicalisation of young muslims, and indeed even with their integration into society. However, would you solve this by denying them their fundamental human rights? Do you honestly think that by making them inferior citizens to everyone else by making certain things illegal for muslims is going to de-radicalize them? That intolerance on our part will beget tolerance on theirs?
I'm neither left-leaning, nor conditioned. I'm just fully aware of how precarious human rights are, and how fast they can be taken away. And once you start removing rights from one ethnic group, how long is it before that precedent is applied to another? Its the top of a very slippery slope, and one I would not go down.
The only motivation one can have for removing rights from a specific race or ethnic group of people is one of xenophobic hatred of the basest level. I would like to think that such a thing would be below people raised in a free and democratic society, but too often am I proved wrong. Thankfully though, most of society agrees with me, and that's why we don't have pogroms here in England anymore.
It's a xenophobic reaction to a culture attempting to maintain some of their own values in a legal and non-binding way.
So don't tell me I've been 'conditioned' just because I disagree with you on something. It's insulting.
Ok Ketara, you have been posting here for ages, and I was never under the impression that you were a radical PC type in general, however lets get down to brass tacks here.
Is it wrong of me to take that view of you when you state as above?
That people who disagree with Sharia courts (for clearly and glaringly obvious reasons) are being Xenophobic?
What else am i going to think!?
People dont disagree with Sharia courts because they are Xenophobic, and stating that is far more insulting then me thinking you are being a bit PC. They disagree with them because they are fething unfair!
Are the thousands and thousands of people involved in the "One law for all" campaign Xenophobic?
Oh and of course regarding the rest of your post, I agree with much of what you said, If it isnt glaringly obvious by now, i have a distaste for almost all Religious pracitices, and Jewish customs would get no special treatment in that respect either.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:By saying 'most muslims I know', you already show that these are not radical muslims, these are people happy to even enter a pub or be around people who drink alcohol, so you are talking from your experience of a proportion of the demographic.
Sorry but that's just dumb. 'You all seem to be alright but thats because I haven't met the bad ones yet' isn't good logic. You can't judge people by anything but your own experiences of them, that's all I'm doing. It's not as if I've only met one or two muslims in my life time, much like yourself and the jewish couple, I've met hundreds of them. I play in a cricket with them. I have lived with them. Your idea that they are all turning to radicalism has no grounds and contrary to what you just said there are plenty who speak out against those that do.
mattyrm wrote:You find me a 5 prayers a day, strict orthodox Muslim who is fully accepting of equality for all, who loves to be pals with us infidels, who doesn't hate Jews and gays and beer swigging white boys and scantily clad women, and you have found a very rare man indeed
I could tell you about quite a few actually. But then you wouldn't believe that what with being a biggot and all.
Ok Ketara, you have been posting here for ages, and I was never under the impression that you were a radical PC type in general, however lets get down to brass tacks here.
Is it wrong of me to take that view of you when you state as above?
That people who disagree with Sharia courts (for clearly and glaringly obvious reasons) are being Xenophobic?
Xenophobic:- A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples.
I would say that to tell people of a specific ethnic group that they may not arbitrate between themselves IS xenophobic. The only reasons I have heard so far are that there are some concerns that women may be oppressed by the system, however, as I have already addressed that issue, and do not believe it valid, xenophobia is the only conclusion I have left to reach. You say these reasons are 'clear and glaringly obvious' as to why muslims must be treated as second class citizens in this regard, but I have yet to hear a single well laid out, rational, and justified argument as to why removing rights from a specific ethnic group is necessary for the good of the nation.
People dont disagree with Sharia courts because they are Xenophobic, and stating that is far more insulting then me thinking you are being a bit PC. They disagree with them because they are fething unfair!
Really? Even though they aren't legally binding?
As for xenophobia, I'm not using it as an insult. Rather a description. I'm not trying to play the racist card here (it annoys me when the aforementioned PC types do that). But the argument against sharia courts for arbitration so far seems to be, 'They don't want to all be 100% British citizens! They want their own beliefs to play a part in how they are judged, and that is thoroughly un-British, against integration, and....uhhhh....could be potentially bad for women!'.
This desire to not fully integrate, and retain some of their own culture seems to be the main repellant here. As such, I would say wanting to force them to integrate more comes as a result of xenophobia. That is to say, fear or contempt of that which is foreign (or un-british).
Are the thousands and thousands of people involved in the "One law for all" campaign Xenophobic?
I do not know this campaign? Elaboration please?
Oh and of course regarding the rest of your post, I agree with much of what you said, If it isnt glaringly obvious by now, i have a distaste for almost all Religious pracitices, and Jewish customs would get no special treatment in that respect either.
That's fine. If your view is that arbitration by people according to their religious beliefs should be illegal, then that's your own belief, and I respect that. The Law should be painted with a broad brush, or not at all in my eyes. My point was simply to distinguish that according a certain privilige to one group of citizens, and not to another, is blatant discrimination, and in this case, seems to be motivated by xenophobia.
Xenophobia suggests a fear of race. I think what's being described here is potential Theophobia, which I might be suffering from. But then it's a bit like arachnophobia, in certain cases it can be justified as a logical fear.
I'll let these gents show my fear for the United Kingdom.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Xenophobia suggests a fear of race. I think what's being described here is potential Theophobia, which I might be suffering from. But then it's a bit like arachnophobia, in certain cases it can be justified as a logical fear.
Well you certainly seem to be assigning all this fear to a particular race.
Yeah its the exact same with me mate, It is also commonly refered to as racism, but how it is racism? You get white Muslims.
Im not racist, im Religiousist. I think you can follow your Religion, but it should have absolutely ZERO influence on public policy. Science and common sense CAN show us the way forward and determine human values. And yes, Ive read The Moral Landscape.
I know that Islam is a grave threat to Europe. I know it from what I believe is a coldly logical perspective.
The Islamic Empire preserved the knowledge of the Greeks. Theocratic imbeciles rose to power and the Muslim world fell into a dark age it has never rose from, being eclipsed by their European counterparts. And I am pretty sure that they (Muslims) are currently going through the enlightenment. Look at all the unrest in the world. Many many young Muslims know how we live, and they want a piece of the pie. But we need to sort our fething lives out if we dont want it all to go to gak, we need to ensure we dont allow the censorship to carry on, we need to be vocal with our criticisms. And Ketara is basically living proof of what we are doing wrong. If we make people believe that any and all criticism of Islam is Xenophobia and bigotry, we are going to wind up in some serious gak.
Im of the opinion that in 50 years time (if we dont get wiped out by the lunatics in the meantime) Islam will have gone the same way as Christianity. It will be far less influential in the lives of most people than it did in years gone by. America is waking up too, Scientific rationalism and Secularism is on the rise, people are getting more information than ever before, and logic is replacing superstition.
I hope so anyway, but I think many young muslims are waking up to the facts, and that is that you can respect your traditions and Religion and culture without dogmatically following an ancient desert scribbling to the letter and acting like a tit because of it.
Its a new enlightenment. We had one, why shouldnt they?
mattyrm wrote: Ketara is basically living proof of what we are doing wrong. If we make people believe that any and all criticism of Islam is Xenophobia and bigotry, we are going to wind up in some serious gak.
I don't believe criticism of islam is xenophobia and bigotry.
I do believe recommending we strip away fundamental rights from a specific ethnic group for no as of yet adequately explained reason is xenophobia though.
Frazzled wrote:Who gives a about a thousand years ago? This is now. 2011, its the new black.
It was merely a statement of something I found funny. Not an argument for or against. The time stream has a habit of taking things and turning them on their head if you give it a century or two to work its magic, which is always entertaining.
Ketara wrote:Should I post loads of vids of the Westboro Baptist Church and co, and explain that's why we should start discriminating against christians?
Come on MGS, you can do better than that.
I don't know I think he's on to something, look at all these videos. Practising Muslims talking up killing and violence and what not.
Ketara wrote:Should I post loads of vids of the Westboro Baptist Church and co, and explain that's why we should start discriminating against christians?
Come on MGS, you can do better than that.
I find their fascism equally repellent, however there are only four or five people in the WBC though, not the thousands we see on marches in the UK calling for the beheading of a cartoonist or author. The vast majority of Christians are very verbal on disagreeing with the WBC stance.
Most Christians in the UK seem to be more interested in being overly optimistic and cheerful, have coffee morning bring and buy sales for funds for the church roof or want to wave a tambourine around their heads. They seem to, for the vast majority, be very clear on doing the nice bits that Christ talked about. Fine, keep the noise down, don't try to convert me too much (I know you're obligated to try a bit...) and we'll get on fine.
When certain amongst them do the nasty bits, there are lots of other Christians ready to chastised those ones and remind them of the other bits of the bible that don't correspond to the nasty bit being used for particular agenda.
When these mosques are being radicalised, when the marches down the streets call for bloodshed and spout hatred and bile against the nation within whom those people live and towards the rest of it's citizens who they expect to then tolerate this, it is simply too much.
Why are the modest muslims not railing against this behaviour? Why do we not see counter protests from muslims calling for peace and integration? What actions are the modests taking within muslim communities to curtail the runaway train of extremism?
Very little it seems.
And again, coming back to the point I raised some time ago, we still then, after being confronted with the open vitriol and hatred and violence, are confronted with that other side to muslim faith, the denigration of women. Official figures put the number of women killed through honour killings at a dozen a year. That's a dozen women killed via 'sanctioned' means within their religion by their own families. Women are still forced to leave education, forced to remain at home, forced to marry without consent.
These practises are no longer tolerated within the greater community but seem to hit the blind spot for human rights groups in the UK because of the fear of criticising them leading to allegations of racism.
whatwhat wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Xenophobia suggests a fear of race. I think what's being described here is potential Theophobia, which I might be suffering from. But then it's a bit like arachnophobia, in certain cases it can be justified as a logical fear.
Well you certainly seem to be assigning all this fear to a particular race.
Which race is that? I don't like the Islamic religion's current treatment of women and it's open violent rhetoric and protests or it's seeking to overthrow and replace the current system with it's own theocracy.
I have been with Unite Against Fascism on marches and in collision against the National Front in open hostility because I absolutely believe in the rights and freedoms of people regardless of their skin colour, heritage or cultural beliefs. I have always believed in the rights of individuals to enjoy freedom to have their own faith and belief.
But the more I have seen of Islam, the more I have become convinced that it's hard line is nothing more than fascism masquerading as a religion and that it is as much an enemy of the freedoms I believe in as Nazism was.
As a member of the liberal left, I actually find this guy's comments ring very true for me.
Ugh.. yeah, Zidane nutted him because he said "son of a French Algerian Terrorist whore"
If that super honest Italian chap said it, then it must be true.
And I dont wish to point it out, but individuals are not in most of MGS videos, because individuals arent scary.
Thousands of the bastards chasing the coppers, thats kinda scary. And its clearly indictive of a problem, no matter how many photos you post in an attempt to cheapen his point.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Xenophobia suggests a fear of race. I think what's being described here is potential Theophobia, which I might be suffering from. But then it's a bit like arachnophobia, in certain cases it can be justified as a logical fear.
Well you certainly seem to be assigning all this fear to a particular race.
Which race is that?
Religion then. Xenophobia isn't just limited to race.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:Ugh.. yeah, Zidane nutted him because he said "son of a French Algerian Terrorist whore"
If that super honest Italian chap said it, then it must be true.
And I dont wish to point it out, but individuals are not in most of MGS videos, because individuals arent scary.
Thousands of the bastards chasing the coppers, thats kinda scary. And its clearly indictive of a problem, no matter how many photos you post in an attempt to cheapen his point.
Yeah man I know.
Look thousands of them! And they are mocking you Mattyrm. They're calling your mother a whore.
Ketara wrote:Should I post loads of vids of the Westboro Baptist Church and co, and explain that's why we should start discriminating against christians?
Come on MGS, you can do better than that.
I find their fascism equally repellent, however there are only four or five people in the WBC though, not the thousands we see on marches in the UK calling for the beheading of a cartoonist or author. The vast majority of Christians are very verbal on disagreeing with the WBC stance.
Most Christians in the UK seem to be more interested in being overly optimistic and cheerful, have coffee morning bring and buy sales for funds for the church roof or want to wave a tambourine around their heads. They seem to, for the vast majority, be very clear on doing the nice bits that Christ talked about. Fine, keep the noise down, don't try to convert me too much (I know you're obligated to try a bit...) and we'll get on fine.
When certain amongst them do the nasty bits, there are lots of other Christians ready to chastised those ones and remind them of the other bits of the bible that don't correspond to the nasty bit being used for particular agenda.
When these mosques are being radicalised, when the marches down the streets call for bloodshed and spout hatred and bile against the nation within whom those people live and towards the rest of it's citizens who they expect to then tolerate this, it is simply too much.
Why are the modest muslims not railing against this behaviour? Why do we not see counter protests from muslims calling for peace and integration? What actions are the modests taking within muslim communities to curtail the runaway train of extremism?
Very little it seems.
And again, coming back to the point I raised some time ago, we still then, after being confronted with the open vitriol and hatred and violence, are confronted with that other side to muslim faith, the denigration of women. Official figures put the number of women killed through honour killings at a dozen a year. That's a dozen women killed via 'sanctioned' means within their religion by their own families. Women are still forced to leave education, forced to remain at home, forced to marry without consent.
These practises are no longer tolerated within the greater community but seem to hit the blind spot for human rights groups in the UK because of the fear of criticising them leading to allegations of racism.
MGS, I never said xenophobia or racism was a bad thing.
As said, you believe Islam is a front for facism and repression of people. Surely it would be okay by western morals to be opposed(or racist towards) to such a thing? Racism isn't the dirty word the PC brigade have tried to turn it into(at least, not in my context).
However, what it ultimately comes down to is this. Do you believe facists should be given less than their more democratic counterparts? Do you believe that removing the rights of an entire ethnic group and discriminating against them is a feasible way of removing their intolerance, and conditioning them to think like you?
By removing their ability to arbitrate between themselves, whilst allowing others to retain it, is xenophobic, pure and simple. This sin't to say you don't have reason for that xenophobia, or even that xenophobia is a bad thing! I'm not judging here. I'm just dealing with this particular situation, not the widespread across the country one of integration. As I said in my first response to you, any misogny that might stem out of these courts, however limited, is a symptom of a problem, not a cause. Attacking the symptom in a way such as stripping them of their rights, is, in my book, undemocratic, against the values this country stands for, and just as alien and repressive as those you're trying to remove.
'I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.'
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Xenophobia suggests a fear of race. I think what's being described here is potential Theophobia, which I might be suffering from. But then it's a bit like arachnophobia, in certain cases it can be justified as a logical fear.
Well you certainly seem to be assigning all this fear to a particular race.
Which race is that?
Religion then. Xenophobia isn't just limited to race.
It's theophobia if in the context of religion and I remind you again, what I am against is that religion.
If that's agreed, then happily, I am happy to be understood to have a problem with the current behaviour of islam within the contexts of subjugation of women, willingness to engage in violence and the aggressive need or compulsion to assimilate via any means, other cultures or religions.
Because I happen to like women, homosexuals, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, Atheists, Agnostics, the physically disabled and a whole range of other people listed as undesirables by Islam and wish them to live in a nation where they are treated as equal citizens with the chance to be valued voices at the table. I would like to like muslims, I cannot abide by their belief system however whilst it supports subjugation where I support equality and mutual respect.
If people wish to join the nation to contribute and bring their culture and wisdom to be shared then everything possible should be done to make them welcome.
I will not discriminate on any ground other than the need of the other person to discriminate.
MGS, I never said xenophobia or racism was a bad thing.
I do, people who prejudice based on skin colour or perceived heritage are bastards.
Ketara wrote:
As said, you believe Islam is a front for facism and repression of people. Surely it would be okay by western morals to be opposed(or racist towards) to such a thing? Racism isn't the dirty word the PC brigade have tried to turn it into(at least, not in my context).
Racism is a dirty word. I do not like racist people.
Ketara wrote:
However, what it ultimately comes down to is this. Do you believe facists should be given less than their more democratic counterparts? Do you believe that removing the rights of an entire ethnic group and discriminating against them is a feasible way of removing their intolerance, and conditioning them to think like you?
By removing their ability to arbitrate between themselves, whilst allowing others to retain it, is xenophobic, pure and simple. This sin't to say you don't have reason for that xenophobia, or even that xenophobia is a bad thing! I'm not judging here. I'm just dealing with this particular situation, not the widespread across the country one of integration. As I said in my first response to you, any misogny that might stem out of these courts, however limited, is a symptom of a problem, not a cause. Attacking the symptom in a way such as stripping them of their rights, is, in my book, undemocratic, against the values this country stands for, and just as alien and repressive as those you're trying to remove.
'I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.'
Do I believe fascists should be given less chance to express the methods of their fascism within society or within their own subculture?
Yes.
"Do you believe that removing the rights of an entire ethnic group and discriminating against them is a feasible way of removing their intolerance, and conditioning them to think like you?"
No, you are using the term ethnic group, which I ascribe to people who identify themselves as belonging to a race or cultural heritage, Islam is a worldwide religion, I have as much problem with it and it's application in Indonesia as I do with it in Libya, I have no problem with an Indonesian nor a Libyan. Do you understand what I'm getting at here?
Facilitating subcultural courts that will promote misogyny and intolerance within them, under the noble ideal of being tolerant to that religion, promotes the ideals it stands for, those ideals remain at odds with the democratic process and mindset of the population of the country and should be avoided.
Muslims being the latest foreign arrivals on British and US shores are taking the brunt of normal xenophobia, borne previously by the Irish, Italians, Jews, Catholics, Germans, Huguenots, Pakistanis, Indians, Bangladeshis, and who knows what other ethnic groups.
The Poles came in for a fair bit of stick in the early 00s, in the UK.
Clearly the prejudice against Muslims is exacerbated by events of the past decade.
Do I believe fascists should be given less chance to express the methods of their fascism within society or within their own subculture?
Yes.
So you believe people with a differing political viewpoint to yours should have their ability to express it curbed? Interesting thing for a liberal to say....
"Do you believe that removing the rights of an entire ethnic group and discriminating against them is a feasible way of removing their intolerance, and conditioning them to think like you?"
No, you are using the term ethnic group, which I ascribe to people who identify themselves as belonging to a race or cultural heritage, Islam is a worldwide religion, I have as much problem with it and it's application in Indonesia as I do with it in Libya, I have no problem with an Indonesian nor a Libyan. Do you understand what I'm getting at here?
Okay. Let me rephrase.
"Do you believe that removing the rights of an entire group of people exercising their right to freedom of worship and discriminating against them is a feasible way of removing their intolerance, and conditioning them to think like you?"
Facilitating subcultural courts that will promote misogyny and intolerance within them, under the noble ideal of being tolerant to that religion, promotes the ideals it stands for, those ideals remain at odds with the democratic process and mindset of the population of the country and should be avoided.
You have yet to demonstrate proof as to how an arbitration system promotes misogny and intolerance.
Muslims being the latest foreign arrivals on British and US shores are taking the brunt of normal xenophobia, borne previously by the Irish, Italians, Jews, Catholics, Germans, Huguenots, Pakistanis, Indians, Bangladeshis, and who knows what other ethnic groups.
The Poles came in for a fair bit of stick in the early 00s, in the UK.
Clearly the prejudice against Muslims is exacerbated by events of the past decade.
Do women living in Islamic communities/households enjoy the same level of personal freedom and freedom from domestic violence, proportionally, as women in non-Islamic communities/households?
I would be interested to see the figures, as the beating of your wife is condoned in the Qur'an in several sections.
It remains a crime in the UK however and therefore the religion condones criminal activity, activity that is being carried out in the UK as we speak.
This is not a racist prejudice, it is an ideological one.
Some do and others don't. That's why we see these honour killings. Liberated modern young Islamic women act in a modern, liberated way, and annoy their misogynistic fathers.
Christianity and Judaism included and inculcated similar mysogynistic customs as well, and still do in backwards people's minds. As for Honor Killings being unique, how many places have or had exemptions or reductions in sentence for murdering one's spouse if you caught them in adultury? What percentage of regular Americans if you asked them 20 years ago, or 50 years ago, or even today would say they condone or understand such a killing? Same basic idea.
I think Kilkrazy nailed it before when he likened the xenophobia directed toward muslims to the xenophobia directed at other waves of immigrants in the past. A nice cafe downtown in my city has a sad painting on the wall of a young, red-headed woman in the US in the late 1800s, at the door of a shop bearing a sign saying "No Blacks, No Irish."
Obviously the political climate of the last 10-20 years has made things worse in terms of non-Muslims' perceptions of Muslims and vice-versa. Some young, dissatisfied Muslim men do stupid things and riot in the street just like young, dissatisfied men of many cultures have done for years uncounted.
Do I believe fascists should be given less chance to express the methods of their fascism within society or within their own subculture?
Yes.
So you believe people with a differing political viewpoint to yours should have their ability to express it curbed? Interesting thing for a liberal to say....
I believe those who would threaten my liberal and social freedom of expression and identify themselves as enemies of that should be treated as enemies. I believe those of extreme political and most especially religious ideology that advocate subjugation and persecution should themselves be limited in their ability to tout such hate. I have, after many years and much soul searching, abandoned my own principal that everyone can be free to express everything and find myself far more in the 'treat everyone with respect and dignity or find yourself losing yours' mentality.
Ketara wrote:
"Do you believe that removing the rights of an entire ethnic group and discriminating against them is a feasible way of removing their intolerance, and conditioning them to think like you?"
No, you are using the term ethnic group, which I ascribe to people who identify themselves as belonging to a race or cultural heritage, Islam is a worldwide religion, I have as much problem with it and it's application in Indonesia as I do with it in Libya, I have no problem with an Indonesian nor a Libyan. Do you understand what I'm getting at here?
Okay. Let me rephrase.
"Do you believe that removing the rights of an entire group of people exercising their right to freedom of worship and discriminating against them is a feasible way of removing their intolerance, and conditioning them to think like you?"
I have never once spoken on their freedom to worship. You are ascribing a whole line of argument I've not travelled down to me.
What I am saying is that a religious group should not be granted authority to self govern within the greater auspices of the law. All should be treated fairly and equally. On that technical basis, the Jews should no more have the right to privately self govern than the Islamics, however the Jews aren't marching through the streets calling for beheadings and the subjugation of the nation's freedom to their religion under threat of violence, are they...
Why are we taking steps to stop the castration of little African girls in the UK? Because it is against our ideals of personal freedom and our repulsion against subjugation and more importantly because it's a very small group doing it... If there were as many folks castrating their little girls as there are muslims then perhaps we'd be nodding sagely at those calling it an outrage and explaining to them that they are racists for thinking it untoward. "Yeah, I go drinking with a bloke who's cut off his daughter's bits and he's a lovely guy really, you have to get to know them"... no, it's against the moral ideology of the nation. The oppression of women within the muslim community is entirely the same thing.
A Dozen murders a year in the UK on average for honour killings, those killings are carried out by the families of the victim, moreover A 2006 BBC poll for the Asian network in the UK found that one in ten of the 500 young Asians polled said that they could condone the murder of someone who dishonoured their family - that is not in keeping with the wider population's belief system. It must be altered.
If the removal of the rights to abuse another under the religion are removed, all I can think is that it is a good thing. I don't even see it as 'removal of rights' but instead 'equal treatment as a citizen of the United Kingdom' to choose your own spouse, pursue an education and career and dress as you wish to.
Ketara wrote:
Facilitating subcultural courts that will promote misogyny and intolerance within them, under the noble ideal of being tolerant to that religion, promotes the ideals it stands for, those ideals remain at odds with the democratic process and mindset of the population of the country and should be avoided.
You have yet to demonstrate proof as to how an arbitration system promotes misogny and intolerance.
It is an arbitration system built on the basis of a religion that promotes misogyny and intolerance, that's fairly simple to me.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
What I am saying is that a religious group should not be granted authority to self govern within the greater auspices of the law.
That is not the basis of the concept.
If you oppose it, however, it must be noted that much of English law is technically operated under the auspices of the Church of England.
The Church of England has absolutely no effective governance of the law of the nation, whereas many Islamic nations are directly governed or very strongly influenced by the religious leadership.
I also understand the basis of the concept as it's currently being presented, I did state several posts back that it will be the extension of the powers of the tribunal court and the race for more that will see increased powers along with the islamic population's sudden wish to take everything to this court, regardless of it's judiciary auspices.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I believe those who would threaten my liberal and social freedom of expression and identify themselves as enemies of that should be treated as enemies. I believe those of extreme political and most especially religious ideology that advocate subjugation and persecution should themselves be limited in their ability to tout such hate. I have, after many years and much soul searching, abandoned my own principal that everyone can be free to express everything and find myself far more in the 'treat everyone with respect and dignity or find yourself losing yours' mentality.
Interesting. But I can see where you're coming from here.
I have never once spoken on their freedom to worship. You are ascribing a whole line of argument I've not travelled down to me.
No, but you are affecting their right to decide arbitration based upon their religion. You have already stated that you are not against muslims for their ethnicity, but for their practicing of Islam. Therefore because they choose to express their right to freedom of worship in a way you do not approve of (the practicing of Islam), you are in favour of removing their right to arbitrate themselves under British law in the same way as the Jews.
Kind of like how christians used to tell Jews that if they converted, and didn't practice their heretical religion, they would be allowed to practice normal trades, own land, employ workers, etc. Because they were Jews, they were persecuted for it by lacking certain rights that other people possessed.
What I am saying is that a religious group should not be granted authority to self govern within the greater auspices of the law. All should be treated fairly and equally. On that technical basis, the Jews should no more have the right to privately self govern than the Islamics, however the Jews aren't marching through the streets calling for beheadings and the subjugation of the nation's freedom to their religion under threat of violence, are they...
Either you're in favour of it, or you're not. Anything less is discriminating against people based on their expressing their right to free worship.
Why are we taking steps to stop the castration of little African girls in the UK? Because it is against our ideals of personal freedom and our repulsion against subjugation and more importantly because it's a very small group doing it... If there were as many folks castrating their little girls as there are muslims then perhaps we'd be nodding sagely at those calling it an outrage and explaining to them that they are racists for thinking it untoward. "Yeah, I go drinking with a bloke who's cut off his daughter's bits and he's a lovely guy really, you have to get to know them"... no, it's against the moral ideology of the nation. The oppression of women within the muslim community is entirely the same thing.
Which has nothing to do with whether people should allow some other people to arbitrate between them on a disagreement. And everything to do with your personal dislike to of Islam. (whether ideologically motivated or not)
If the removal of the rights to abuse another under the religion are removed, all I can think is that it is a good thing. I don't even see it as 'removal of rights' but instead 'equal treatment as a citizen of the United Kingdom' to choose your own spouse, pursue an education and career and dress as you wish to.
It's not the right to abuse. Things such as divorce actually have to go through the british legal system, as already pointed out several times. These courts are more to dow ith civil affairs such as settling business agreements and suchlike. They have nothing to do with the divorce of women, which still has to be legally cleared in a British Civil court.
Facilitating subcultural courts that will promote misogyny and intolerance within them, under the noble ideal of being tolerant to that religion, promotes the ideals it stands for, those ideals remain at odds with the democratic process and mindset of the population of the country and should be avoided.
I fail to see how allowing people to settle their own disputes in their preferred manner is anti-democratic. If anything, its the reverse.
It is an arbitration system built on the basis of a religion that promotes misogyny and intolerance, that's fairly simple to me.
And that, my friend, is where I finally understand you and your position. You see the courts as an extension of something warped and twisted, the symptoms of which must be suppressed. Whilst I still disagree with you(that the courts are bad thing, not necessarily on the matter of Islam itself) , I finally understand your position.
Fair enough. There's nothing I can say to you to tell you that these Islamic arbitration courts have nothing wrong with them, because in your view, their problem is that they're Islamic. I can hardly deny that charge, can I?
There are 24 bishops with seats in parliament. The parliament rules in the name of the Queen, who is the head of the Church of England. You can't legally get married in any church except a Church of England church.
Yes, it's bandying a mite, but it's also true at base. The reason you are so het up about the Sharia thing is partly because UK law and society has become pretty effectively secularised despite the CofE influence.
If you really want to understand the concept you should check the following points:
Safeguards under the Arbitration Act
The 1996 Arbitration Act contains many safeguards:
Arbitration must be voluntary for both parties
Arbitration must be impartial
Civil courts retain the right to overturn an arbitration award
Arbitration is limited to civil cases
Beth Din courts and decisions are very clearly overruled and limited by general English law. I see no inherent problem with Sharia courts operating under the same principles.
Let me rephrase it. (and yes ketara, you have nailed it, they aren't a bad thing because they are a court, they are a bad thing because they are a court run according to the rules of a religion that is at odds with modern western democracy).
The customs and practises promoted in the religion of Islam are anathema to the ideals of democracy and equality to which the United Kingdom strives.
Therefore the facilitation of this religion to any amount of self governance over and above that afforded to any other citizen of the United Kingdom is an affront and the result of 'positive discrimination' allowing this misogynistic and prejudicial religion far greater powers than it should be allowed. This also foreshadows and enables the further encroachment of this religion's influence and ability to self regulate in the future.
Kilkrazy, thank you for reiterating your post.
I would point out some factors here, for example:
*arbitration must be voluntary for both sides, does that cover the woman or the woman's family in Sharia law?
*arbitration must be impartial, yet Islam is not impartial according to gender.
*civil courts retain the right to overturn an arbitration award. Only if the woman involved wishes to anger her own family. Who among the Islamic population will want to go 'over Allah's head' and go to the western court after a Sharia court has ruled?
*Arbitration is limited to civil cases. For now and how much authority the court will begin to overreach claiming a higher authority, remains to be seen.
You say that Beth Din courts are overruled, limited etc and no problems and can see no problems with Sharia functioning in the same way. All I can say to that is that I do not see the Sharia rending unto Caesar what is Caesar's in quite the same way. They will believe their Sharia court is the higher authority as it is directly governed by interpretation of the words of Islam, not the laws of infidels.
I believe the objections you raise to Islam are or were all also present in other major monotheistic religions in the not-distant past, and in the present, in their less-enlightened members.
I recognize that Islam has a unique position in relation to Western culture at the moment, but I don't think one can fairly tar the majority of its adherents with the negative characterizations upon which the objection to voluntary use of Sharia courts for civil matters is based.
Melissia wrote:No, I mean actual social integration, which is the movement of minority groups into the mainstream. Sharia law is inherently opposed to integration to begin with.
Why is half this thread ignoring the fact that Islam considers itself inherently superior to all other cultures/religions?
LordofHats wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Who gives a about a thousand years ago? This is now. 2011, its the new black.
It was merely a statement of something I found funny. Not an argument for or against. The time stream has a habit of taking things and turning them on their head if you give it a century or two to work its magic, which is always entertaining.
Ironically, I think Muslims have grown more radical in the past 50 years than they ever were before.
Kilkrazy wrote:
Clearly the prejudice against Muslims is exacerbated by events of the past decade.
Try the past 40 years.
Kilkrazy wrote:Some do and others don't. That's why we see these honour killings. Liberated modern young Islamic women act in a modern, liberated way, and annoy their misogynistic fathers.
Is that also why we see thousand strong riots calling for the beheading of anyone who offends them? You can't draw Muhammed, but you can put a cross in urine.
Kilkrazy wrote:These are legitimate concerns, however I feel they can be addressed by the composition and operation of the Sharia courts.
I think the Islamic religion seems to pay lip service to appeasing the liberal western requirements and then goes back to doing what it does behind closed doors. I think whatever composition and operational requirements were implemented, they would be ignored or manoeuvred around once the courts are established.
Mannahnin wrote:I believe the objections you raise to Islam are or were all also present in other major monotheistic religions in the not-distant past, and in the present, in their less-enlightened members.
I recognize that Islam has a unique position in relation to Western culture at the moment, but I don't think one can fairly tar the majority of its adherents with the negative characterizations upon which the objection to voluntary use of Sharia courts for civil matters is based.
You're quite right, this was a problem for the other monotheistic religions, they have moved on, Islam on the other hand seems to be defiantly moving backwards through time, deevolving right into the dark ages.
I believe it's unique position has placed it's adherents in Western countries under a spotlight and what's being uncovered is that they have carried many of the poor behaviours the entire time, behind closed doors. That domestic violence is in a minority of homes is highly likely, that suppression of women by men in many other forms however is rife throughout the religion is clear to be seen. From the covering dress to the denial of further education to forced marriage to beatings to honour killings. Suppression of women is endemic to the religion it's self in varying degrees and a court that espouses that is not a court fit for adjudication in the Western world.
Melissia wrote:No, I mean actual social integration, which is the movement of minority groups into the mainstream. Sharia law is inherently opposed to integration to begin with.
Why is half this thread ignoring the fact that Islam considers itself inherently superior to all other cultures/religions?
Islam doesn't have a mind. It can't consider anything. People consider things. Are you suggesting that every single one of the billion plus Muslims in the world has exactly the same thinking?
At various times Jews, Christians, Japanese and Americans have considered their culture/religion superior to all others. Even British!
It is what I might call a view that is lacking in nuance, when examining complex social and political issues.
Amaya wrote:Why is half this thread ignoring the fact that Islam considers itself inherently superior to all other cultures/religions?
And you don't consider your tolerant cultural outlook superior to an intolerant one?
I do find it odd though how many people are confusing the Islamic religion with the Islamic culture in this thread. Honor Killing has no religious basis in the Quran nor is it explicitly part of Sharia. It's a cultural practice, not a strictly religious one.
Ironically, I think Muslims have grown more radical in the past 50 years than they ever were before.
Make that a century or so. I've explained in other threads that the Islamic world is currently encountering a cultural crisis, where long standing cultural outlooks are becoming increasingly incompatible with changes in the world. Everything we've been seeing going on in the Middle East for a long time now is an extension of this conflict as some Muslims move to modernize, while others try to hold on or return to earlier time periods.
The religion is not as incompatible with the modern world as a lot of people think it is. The Quran is a very short book. It's not even half the contents of the New Testament. A lot of the problems most people have with Islam are more part of the culture around it than the religion itself, but of course Islam is misogynic, and that has enabled honor killing, but honor killing itself (simply as an example) isn't part of Islamic religion if all we do is examine the Quran and Hadith(s).
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Ahtman wrote:Does the UK also have Brannigan's Law?
Brannigan's Law is like Brannigan's love: hard and fast.
LordofHats wrote:
Make that a century or so. I've explained in other threads that the Islamic world is currently encountering a cultural crisis, where long standing cultural outlooks are becoming increasingly incompatible with changes in the world. Everything we've been seeing going on in the Middle East for a long time now is an extension of this conflict as some Muslims move to modernize, while others try to hold on or return to earlier time periods.
The religion is not as incompatible with the modern world as a lot of people think it is. The Quran is a very short book. It's not even half the contents of the New Testament. A lot of the problems most people have with Islam are more part of the culture around it than the religion itself, but of course Islam is misogynic, and that has enabled honor killing, but honor killing itself (simply as an example) isn't part of Islamic religion if all we do is examine the Quran and Hadith(s).
Medium of Death wrote:By allowing these people to practice a form Shariah Law, you're saying it's OK. That's all I have to say.
That's just silly. Are you actually suggesting we live in a world where people can say 'well, that thing where two private muslim fellows could agree to have their civil issue privately arbitrated so maybe the whole thing isn't so bad, let's embrace it all. I think Mrs Jervis over the road has been sleeping around, lets start gathering some stones.'
You know how you can take a fish out of the sea, cook it and eat it and think it was delicious, and not conclude that you should start drinking the whole ocean? It's the same thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:The British sense of morality is based around Judeo-Christian ideology. That sense of morality has shaped our laws and social outlook. Many of the practices of Islamic peoples can be said to be at odds with that.
We only add the Judeo bit in there to make ourselves look impartial and like we're not trumpeting Christianity. Thing is, orthodox Judaism is as alien from modern secular society as orthodox Islam.
And it isn't as though society has spent a lot of time complaining about Jews weren't integrating into society. Yet they weren't granted courts capable of making private rulings while hostility was at a peak, and nothing bad came of it.
Do you think that a woman under pressure from her spouse, her spouse's family and her own family, will have fair treatment in these courts?
I agree that Sharia courts should not be extended to matters of Family law. Not just because of the gender inequality, but because secular courts quite rightly consider the rights of children first and foremost, and Sharia courts do not.
Do you think that these courts will always tow the line on not becoming involved in criminal procedings?
Yes, because this is a matter that is entirely beyond their influence. I fear they will start ruling on criminal matters to the exact extent that I fear the Small Claims court will rule on criminal matters.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Yes, for Judaeo-Christian based laws. As time goes on, most Judeo-Christian based countries have moved away from the misogyny of the bible and the torah, towards a more equal secular view.
Which has nothing to do with any kind of magical property within Christian or Jewish teachings, and everything to do with education being given to the entire population.
whatwhat wrote:That's a fairly ignorant view of the muslim community to my mind. most muslims I know are easy to talk to, don't burn poppies and prefer to talk to me about cricket and football than their religion which they keep to themselves. The most they do to expose their religion is order a j20 when the rest of us are ordering pints. You're judging the majority by a minority. TBH your viewpoint sounds like it's coming from a person whose main knowledge of British Muslims comes from BBC News rather than any actual contact with them.
Yeah, very much this. Every Muslim I've ever met has been a decent person, who's company I've enjoyed. I can watch the news and read reports and see there are general problems in Islamic culture, but that doesn't really change that the average Muslim, like the average whoever else, is just a decent bloke that wants to earn enough to get buy, then spend some time with his mates complaining about how bad his team did on the weekend.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:Make that a century or so. I've explained in other threads that the Islamic world is currently encountering a cultural crisis, where long standing cultural outlooks are becoming increasingly incompatible with changes in the world. Everything we've been seeing going on in the Middle East for a long time now is an extension of this conflict as some Muslims move to modernize, while others try to hold on or return to earlier time periods.
The religion is not as incompatible with the modern world as a lot of people think it is. The Quran is a very short book. It's not even half the contents of the New Testament. A lot of the problems most people have with Islam are more part of the culture around it than the religion itself, but of course Islam is misogynic, and that has enabled honor killing, but honor killing itself (simply as an example) isn't part of Islamic religion if all we do is examine the Quran and Hadith(s).
Well said.
It's also worth pointing out that many people prone to worrying about Islam see the violence as a point of strength in the faith, fearing that such violence might be used against the West, who are typically seen as too tolerant to resist. What they miss is that the violence is Islam is not a sign of strength but a sign of weakness. It's the result of a collapsing social order, and a means of protest against their own weak governments.
Bombings and terrorism are the result of weakness.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:Once again, when have Jews been an invasive force?
There is a history of Islamic invasions into Europe and the more recent attacks by radical Islamic terrorists dating back to the 1970s.
Are you claiming that current Islamic migration to the UK is an invasion? Invasions don't normally require visas, you know.
Slightly off topic but how do all the holy books of Islam work together and relate to each other in importance? I'm pretty sure the Koran isn't the only one. [waits for free holy book information]
Amaya wrote:Yes, ignore Muslim incursions into Spain and the Byzantine Empire.
No but seriously, a muslim guy puts a request for a visa in, the UK immigration office looks this over, approves it and the guy flies over. How do you invade someone when you're asking their permission to enter?
And yet there are even Israelis who publicly decry there goverment's policies. It's always easy to judge Israel's actions when you have the benefit of ocean protecting you.
Amaya wrote:And yet there are even Israelis who publicly decry there goverment's policies. It's always easy to judge Israel's actions when you have the benefit of ocean protecting you.
The fact that "Muslim" and "Israeli" are not comparable categories aside, there are no Muslims that disagree with government policies?
Amaya wrote:And yet there are even Israelis who publicly decry there goverment's policies. It's always easy to judge Israel's actions when you have the benefit of ocean protecting you.
Answer the question;
"No but seriously, a muslim guy puts a request for a visa in, the UK immigration office looks this over, approves it and the guy flies over. How do you invade someone when you're asking their permission to enter?"
Amaya wrote:And yet there are even Israelis who publicly decry there goverment's policies. It's always easy to judge Israel's actions when you have the benefit of ocean protecting you.
Answer the question;
"No but seriously, a muslim guy puts a request for a visa in, the UK immigration office looks this over, approves it and the guy flies over. How do you invade someone when you're asking their permission to enter?"
/facepalm
Muslims invaded Spain and the Byzantine Empire. Stop being so obtuse.
Amaya wrote:Once again, when have Jews been an invasive force?
If you believe the Bible to be historically valid, then they invade the Palestinian region oh so long ago, and kicked out the Canaanites and the Philistines. The Jews were at the heart of at least two violent revolts in the Roman Empire, and there were Jewish groups that committed their own terrorist attacks back when Britain ran the Palestinian region in the 20's and 30's.
There is a history of Islamic invasions into Europe
Christians have a history of invading the Middle East. By that should we infer that me immigrating to Jordan is the start of a new crusade? Cause I gotta tell ya. That be awesome. I'm bringing the Knights Templar, we're going retro.
@Sebster, I don't think you even know what you're trying to talk about anymore.
I was comparing Jews and Muslims, not Jews and Christians. For all intents and purposes, Christians conquered the majority of the world in the 19th century.
The difference is once Christian nations are hardly Christian anymore and they have this weird tendency to tolerate LBGT and respect for women.
Muslim nations have yet to take that same step and many (if not the majority) of the Muslim immigrants retain that same attitude wherever they go. Of course you can find Muslims who aren't radicals, but several posters are acting as though there are no Muslim radicals who want Sharia law in the nations they immigrate to.
Amaya wrote:@Sebster, I don't think you even know what you're trying to talk about anymore.
I know exactly what I'm trying to explain to you. Thanks.
I was comparing Jews and Muslims, not Jews and Christians. For all intents and purposes, Christians conquered the majority of the world in the 19th century.
And despite that history of invasion, when a Christian migrates to another country, he is not described as being an invader. Because mentioning invasion in the context of a guy who is granted permission to migrate to a country is crazy.
This is also true of a Muslim granted a visa to go and live in the UK.
Of course you can find Muslims who aren't radicals, but several posters are acting as though there are no Muslim radicals who want Sharia law in the nations they immigrate to.
Yes, there are. But we don't care, because they have a snowballs hope in hell of getting actual, fully fledged Sharia law in place. Thinking otherwise is utterly ridiculous. You owe it to us, and to yourself, to think about things and reject those that are utterly ridiculous. Please do this now, please accept that the idea of fully fledged sharia law being put in place in the UK is ridiculous, and then we can move on and discuss the actual realities of what sharia law in the UK is.
Because there is a real and interesting conversation to be had there. And when we focus on the real issues it represents (it's involvement in family law) we stand a chance of actually moving forward, and maybe even playing a part in resolving the issue. But as long as we talk nonsense about invasion and full implementation of sharia law in the UK then that cannot happen.
Amaya wrote:Of course you can find Muslims who aren't radicals, but several posters are acting as though there are no Muslim radicals who want Sharia law in the nations they immigrate to.
No, they're acting as though they don't care.
Recall, many people have values that aren't yours.
Amaya wrote:Who described a Muslim getting a visa as an invasion?
You're making stuff up.
Why are you talking about invasion at all? We're talking about people who legally emigrated to the UK, and who have now set up their own courts to arbitrate private civil matters. What the feth have centuries old invasions got to do with that?
And again, there is a real and important conversation to be had on what the real limits of sharia law in the UK should be. You're doing your absolute best to prevent that conversation from happening. Please stop that, and start talking about real things.
Amaya wrote:Who described a Muslim getting a visa as an invasion?
You're making stuff up.
Why are you talking about invasion at all? We're talking about people who legally emigrated to the UK, and who have now set up their own courts to arbitrate private civil matters. What the feth have centuries old invasions got to do with that?
And again, there is a real and important conversation to be had on what the real limits of sharia law in the UK should be. You're doing your absolute best to prevent that conversation from happening. Please stop that, and start talking about real things.
Someone compared the Sharia tribunal courts to Jewish courts. I made the simple point that Judaism has never been a threat to Europe whereas Islam has, to the point where Islam controlled parts of Europe and Crusades were launched in order to drive them out. You conveniently ignored that and start babbling about how visas are not invasion. At no point in the conversation did anyone attest that Muslim immigration was akin to invasion.
The issue is should Sharia law be allowed? I don't think any special arbritation courts should be allowed and certainly not any religious ones. Especially in the case of Sharia law because it is significantly different to accepted Western standards.
You have yet to address the fact that women can be forced by relatives to abide by the court since women are subserviant to men according to Islam.
You ignore the fact that the very revival of Sharia law is the product of Islamism, which seeks to drive out Western influences.
You ignore that there is very a real Muslim issue in Europe. Many of them do not integrate. They live in conclaves that police dare not enter. They have proven to be extremely hostile to any slight against their religion. Or have we forgotten the van Gogh incident so soon? They have proven to be willing to practice honor killings and hide the criminals from the authorities.
There are over 600,000 Muslims in London alone. A cursory search shows that 4 of the men behind the 2005 London bombings had lived in England since the early 90s.
Saying that all Muslims are out to kill and murder us is silly. Saying that there are no radical Muslims living in Europe and America, who will not integrate, have no love for the country the live in, and could be potentially violent is equally silly.
And attempting to compare radical Muslims and their actions to those of radical Christians and Jews (with the exception of Israel) is asinine.
Amaya wrote:Someone compared the Sharia tribunal courts to Jewish courts. I made the simple point that Judaism has never been a threat to Europe whereas Islam has, to the point where Islam controlled parts of Europe and Crusades were launched in order to drive them out. You conveniently ignored that and start babbling about how visas are not invasion. At no point in the conversation did anyone attest that Muslim immigration was akin to invasion.
And I'll make the point again, "Why are you talking about invasion at all? We're talking about people who legally emigrated to the UK, and who have now set up their own courts to arbitrate private civil matters. What the feth have centuries old invasions got to do with that?"
Seriously, what the feth do the events of centuries ago have to do with some guy who just moved here on a visa? Are the movements of British citizens to Australia similarly considered in terms of their, not only invasion but actual occupation of the island? Or is that complete nonsense given, you know, how individuals today are not responsible for the actions of their ancestors?
So why, in the name of all that is holy, would invasion be mentioned at all?
You have yet to address the fact that women can be forced by relatives to abide by the court since women are subserviant to men according to Islam.
fething quit that right fething now. I've been trying to shift this conversation towards that one specific topic since page two. That hasn't been able to happen because people like you have been babbling complete nonsense about invasion and how Sharia law operates in other countries.
You ignore the fact that the very revival of Sharia law is the product of Islamism, which seeks to drive out Western influences.
No, that's just you prattling nonsense. Sharia law in the UK begins and ends with courts that offer arbitration in civil matters to parties who mutually accept such arbitration. Anything else remains it's own issue.
You ignore that there is very a real Muslim issue in Europe.
No, I don't ignore it. I look at it in the context of what it is, where it exists, and how best to deal with it. You look at it all as one great thing, where anything muslim must be opposed because it is muslim.
Your approach is twaddle, and makes managing a decent response to indvidual elements impossible. Worse, it actually hampers the efforts of those us looking to deal with the problematic elements.
As an example, if you say sharia courts are a problem, then start prattling on about invasion and the muslim problem, you'll get a fringe agreeing with you, a whole lot of folk backing away from the argument as quickly as possible, and you'll get nothing but resistance from the muslim community. On the other hand, if you say that you recognise that sharia courts are entirely appropriate for private individuals who agree to such private arbitration, but do not believe they're acceptable for matters of family law because those matters involve children who did not and cannot consent to have the matter resolved there, then you will likely build a movement to take the family law outside of sharia courts.
Saying that all Muslims are out to kill and murder us is silly. Saying that there are no radical Muslims living in Europe and America, who will not integrate, have no love for the country the live in, and could be potentially violent is equally silly.
No-one is saying there are no radical muslims. Where are you getting that from?
And attempting to compare radical Muslims and their actions to those of radical Christians and Jews (with the exception of Israel) is asinine.
Amaya wrote: I made the simple point that Judaism has never been a threat to Europe whereas Islam has, to the point where Islam controlled parts of Europe and Crusades were launched in order to drive them out.
To quote a previous poster:
Amaya wrote:it is no longer a thousand or so years ago
The idea that we should limit the rights of modern Islamic groups because the Ottomans invaded Europe in the 15th century is absurd. That we should restrict their rights because certain groups pose a current threat is equally absurd. They're not all terrorists, and denying them the same rights as everyone else doesn't in anyway assist in their cultural integration, but rather will likely lead to increased radicalism. If you don't want someone to be your enemy it usually helps not to treat them like one.
Especially in the case of Sharia law because it is significantly different to accepted Western standards.
You're again confusing the culture with Sharia. Sharia is an interpretive concept. It doesn't have to be at odds with western standards if the interpreters don't make it so. Even so. The unescapable aspects of Sharia are no more unusual than the tenets of Christianity. Like I said. There really isn't all that much content in the Quran, and Hadiths are easy to quibble over. It's really not that different. EDIT: Hell it becomes even easier if you ignore Hadiths, which critically are questionable as to their origin and validity. Even their acceptance as part of Sharia is more a cultural reflection than a religious tenet.
You ignore the fact that the very revival of Sharia law is the product of Islamism, which seeks to drive out Western influences.
Your confusing the culture and the religion again. No where in the Quran does it say "drive out western influences." The Anti-Western sentiment in Islam is relatively new, and a product of the Islamic cultural crisis mostly pronounced in the fringe radical groups. It isn't inherent to Sharia.
Amaya wrote: I made the simple point that Judaism has never been a threat to Europe whereas Islam has, to the point where Islam controlled parts of Europe and Crusades were launched in order to drive them out.
To quote a previous poster:
Amaya wrote:it is no longer a thousand or so years ago
Dammit, now that's two answers in this thread I really wish I'd made.
Amaya wrote:Yes, ignore Muslim incursions into Spain and the Byzantine Empire.
The Byzantine Empire?!?!? Are you really suggesting that its fall 600 years ago is relevant to this discussion?! fething hell, Europeans have invaded the Americas since then. I don't know your ethnicity, but if you're of European descent you have absolutely no right to get on your high horse. Britain, France, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands controlled most of the world between them, at some point, if you want to look back in history. And we all know the gak we did to Africa and its citizens.
Mate, you just brought up an 'argument' older than your country. In the words of internet kids: fail.
I think we did good by the Africans, it was jolly splendid of us to introduce the damned savages to Jesus, thus allowing their immortal souls to be saved.
You have yet to address the fact that women can be forced by relatives to abide by the court since women are subserviant to men according to Islam.
Why do people keep saying this?
Ketara wrote:
Some people worry that intimidation might be used in the case of female rights. To that, the answer is
a) Intimidation is illegal under British criminal law. The woman in question is well within her rights at that point to make her way to the nearest police station, report the intimidation and her fears, and be placed in a safe location. The intimidator should then then be arrested under criminal law. The sharia judgment will not be valid, as she will not be agreeing to it.
In other words, this is a non-issue. There is no legal ability to force women into sharia judgment unless they want to go. If they are being intimidated, they may report that, as they may report it for any kind of intimidation from anyone, anywhere in the country, in any affair.
b) If the woman in question is that easy to intimidate, and will not report it, she wouldn't bother agreeing to a sharia court, the other party would just intimidate her in order to get the desired outcome straight of the bat. A middleman would be unnecessary.
Ketara wrote:Sure. But sharia law is not prevalent in the UK. As stated already, by me a few posts earlier, a woman being treated badly can walk down to the police station. These inpromptu 'sharia courts' are separate from that. If you regard misogny of women in islamic culture as a problem, these inpromptu courts are a symptom, not a cause. If intimidated women aren't reporting their circumstances, its the fault of their societies, not these courts, which can incidentally provide excellent arbitration between people who want it.
Ketara wrote:If a woman is under the kind of pressure that makes her fear for her life, and she is acceding to it, is she really going to be trying to get a divorce? Really? If she's the subject of violent treatment already, she'll either be at the police office under protection, or she'll be doing as she's told. The husband won't ask in between punches whether or she would prefer to use a sharia court for their divorce. He'll tell her she has no right for divorce and keep hitting her.
Irrelevant anyway, as divorces still have to pass through the british legal system as well as the sharia/beth din courts. Sharia courts can proclaim divorces all they like, they have no legal sway. It's in one of the links up above.
Ketara wrote:It's not the right to abuse. Things such as divorce actually have to go through the british legal system, as already pointed out several times. These courts are more to dow ith civil affairs such as settling business agreements and suchlike. They have nothing to do with the divorce of women, which still has to be legally cleared in a British Civil court.
Can people stop propagating this now? It's starting to irritate me.
I think the point is valid... in a culture that promotes female subservience to male dominance, will women be sufficiently protected from "forcefull" or "pressured" adherance to these "courts"?
Like others on this thread, I have known my fair share of Muslims (both very lapsed and relatively straight laced of both sexes), as well as having lived in several Islamic countries and at times I have been quite stunned at just how differently men and women are treated, and how the women often just accept it as their lot in life.
Amaya wrote:Yes, ignore Muslim incursions into Spain and the Byzantine Empire.
Yes, ignore Christian incursions into Europe, Spain, the Byzantine Empire, the Middle East, North Africa, South America, North America and most of the world if you want to examine history properly.
SilverMK2 wrote:I think the point is valid... in a culture that promotes female subservience to male dominance, will women be sufficiently protected from "forcefull" or "pressured" adherance to these "courts"?
Like others on this thread, I have known my fair share of Muslims (both very lapsed and relatively straight laced of both sexes), as well as having lived in several Islamic countries and at times I have been quite stunned at just how differently men and women are treated, and how the women often just accept it as their lot in life.
If the women in question were so weak willed and susceptible to intimidation whilst being in the courts, they'd be doing as they were told, not using the sharia courts. They are also not bound to do as the sharia court rules, unless they want to. The judgments are not legally binding in that way. The sharia courts do not have influence in the civil affairs that could perceived as resulting in misogynistic judgments (aka divorce), and absolutely no jurisdiction over criminal affairs.
Ketara wrote:If the women in question were so weak willed and susceptible to intimidation whilst being in the courts, they'd be doing as they were told, not using the sharia courts. They are also not bound to do as the sharia court rules, unless they want to.
Somewhat of a True Scotsman there I feel.
Truely meek women will do everything they are asked and so the only women who would be atetnding these courts will be ones who are strong enough to say "STFU!" if they attend and don't agree with the ruling? But what about if a man perceives a slight (or takes a woman to one of these “courts” for whatever reason) even if your “perfectly meek Muslim woman” has not actually done anything wrong? What if a “strong and independent Muslim woman” has threats implied against her family, or her family’s honour, etc, and so feels obliged to not only attend but also abide by what is decided?
The excellent thing about secular arbitration is that it is about a fair a system as you can get that attempts (in most cases) to do right by everyone (or at least the more innocent party).
The judgments are not legally binding in that way. The sharia courts do not have influence in the civil affairs that could perceived as resulting in misogynistic judgments (aka divorce), and absolutely no jurisdiction over criminal affairs.
Yes, I gather this point, however, you seem to be missing mine somewhat.
Truely meek women will do everything they are asked and so the only women who would be atetnding these courts will be ones who are strong enough to say "STFU!" if they attend and don't agree with the ruling? But what about if a man perceives a slight (or takes a woman to one of these “courts” for whatever reason) even if your “perfectly meek Muslim woman” has not actually done anything wrong?
A woman cannot be 'taken' to one of these courts unless she agrees. That's the entire basis, its voluntary. And if the woman in question were the type to meekly be 'taken' to one of these arbitration courts, do as she's 'told' and abide by its rulings, then is that necessarily a flaw in the court system, or that of Islamic society as a rule of thumb?
What if a “strong and independent Muslim woman” has threats implied against her family, or her family’s honour, etc, and so feels obliged to not only attend but also abide by what is decided?
Threats are illegal in the UK, a criminal affair, and may be reported to the police as such. You may say that this would not stop misogny from happening, but the truth is that intimidation for results in court is not limited solely to aspects of Islamic society, and has just as much potential to occur in a British civil court. The courts themselves in this regard act no more as enablers than do the regular courts.
The excellent thing about secular arbitration is that it is about a fair a system as you can get that attempts (in most cases) to do right by everyone (or at least the more innocent party).
Note here: I am not denying the possibility that some misogynistic judgments may be passed down. But rather that the concept of the courts being flawed in this regard is not so, and that the problem stems from hardline Islamists, not the concepts or legality of the courts themselves. I am also arguing that any kind of misogny in these sharia courts is ultimately limited by its non-binding nature, and that any sort of intimidation to accept a badc ruling has just as much potential to occur under the standard civil court system.
The assumption that a Sharia court will automatically take the part of the men is not borne out by what we know from Beth Din and Sharia jurisprudence.
It could well be the fact that weak willed women will want to take their case to a Sharia court because they will get a better hearing than just being bullied in their houses.
If this is so, the availability of Sharia courts will actually be an enabler for women rather than a source of repression.
Ketara wrote:is that necessarily a flaw in the court system, or that of Islamic society as a rule of thumb?
The point being that at a secular hearing, she would be more likely to be protected than at a religious hearing.
Threats are illegal in the UK, a criminal affair, and may be reported to the police as such. You may say that this would not stop misogny from happening, but the truth is that intimidation for results in court is not limited solely to aspects of Islamic society, and has just as much potential to occur in a British civil court. The courts themselves in this regard act no more as enablers than do the regular courts.
Indeed, however, I was not referring to traditional threats of violence etc, but the more subtle threat upon social positioning. Somewhat similar, I would think, to the threat of excommunication - no physical harm is offered, and arguably, nothing actually happens; however it is a very real threat to someone who believes in the same way the treat of a family losing (for want of a better word) honour and thereby their position within the often tightly knit Islamic communities.
I think you would have difficulty taking that kind of threat to the police.
Note here: I am not denying the possibility that some misogynistic judgments may be passed down. But rather that the concept of the courts being flawed in this regard is not so, and that the problem stems from hardline Islamists, not the concepts or legality of the courts themselves. I am also arguing that any kind of misogny in these sharia courts is ultimately limited by its non-binding nature, and that any sort of intimidation to accept a badc ruling has just as much potential to occur under the standard civil court system.
And I am saying that from my personal experience of having lived in 2 Islamic countries, having visited a boat load more (some multiple times), having gone out with a relatively strict Muslim girl for about 3 years and having had a number of Muslim friends of both sexes and varying degrees of religious laxity that I would not trust the ability of these courts to neutrally settle matters and protect the interests of those involved (especially parties brought before it which are being abused or subdugated) over their secular counterparts.
I'm of the opinion that if Islam ceased it's misogyny and gave a fair deal to women, spoke out against and acted to counter protest against it's radical elements and took real steps to integrate, then I would have no problem with it's right to a civil court in the UK and would be content to welcome muslims back to the table. The United Kingdom has always thrived on it's integration of other cultures. As a Celt, one of the eldest cultures living in the UK, I believe in welcoming all who come to join and participate and contribute and respect.
However, whilst the current increase of radicalisation in mosques in the UK continues, whilst there are Islamic protests like the one I posted a while back in this thread, whilst the Islamic hard liners do not request but instead demand preferential treatment, whilst the religion continues to quietly condone or turn a blind eye to the suffering and persecution and murder of women and treat them as second class citizens, whilst it continues to openly call for the execution of homosexuals or critics of it's tenets... Then it should be treated as the backward, medieval cult it's acting like and be denied it's freedom in a modern western democracy. That most definitely includes the denial of a self regulating court system. Is that prejudicial? Yep. Why? Because the religion is prejudicial and undemocratic. Why? Because the UK is a democratic nation that strives for fairness and equality for all and if you don't want to play by those rules, then you excuse yourself from their rewards.
Amaya wrote:@Sebster, I don't think you even know what you're trying to talk about anymore.
I was comparing Jews and Muslims, not Jews and Christians. For all intents and purposes, Christians conquered the majority of the world in the 19th century. The difference is once Christian nations are hardly Christian anymore and they have this weird tendency to tolerate LBGT and respect for women.
Muslim nations have yet to take that same step and many (if not the majority) of the Muslim immigrants retain that same attitude wherever they go. Of course you can find Muslims who aren't radicals, but several posters are acting as though there are no Muslim radicals who want Sharia law in the nations they immigrate to.
Kilkrazy wrote:
Amaya wrote:Yes, ignore Muslim incursions into Spain and the Byzantine Empire.
Yes, ignore Christian incursions into Europe, Spain, the Byzantine Empire, the Middle East, North Africa, South America, North America and most of the world if you want to examine history properly.
It would help if you read the posts.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:I'm of the opinion that if Islam ceased it's misogyny and gave a fair deal to women, spoke out against and acted to counter protest against it's radical elements and took real steps to integrate, then I would have no problem with it's right to a civil court in the UK and would be content to welcome muslims back to the table. The United Kingdom has always thrived on it's integration of other cultures. As a Celt, one of the eldest cultures living in the UK, I believe in welcoming all who come to join and participate and contribute and respect.
However, whilst the current increase of radicalisation in mosques in the UK continues, whilst there are Islamic protests like the one I posted a while back in this thread, whilst the Islamic hard liners do not request but instead demand preferential treatment, whilst the religion continues to quietly condone or turn a blind eye to the suffering and persecution and murder of women and treat them as second class citizens, whilst it continues to openly call for the execution of homosexuals or critics of it's tenets... Then it should be treated as the backward, medieval cult it's acting like and be denied it's freedom in a modern western democracy. That most definitely includes the denial of a self regulating court system. Is that prejudicial? Yep. Why? Because the religion is prejudicial and undemocratic. Why? Because the UK is a democratic nation that strives for fairness and equality for all and if you don't want to play by those rules, then you excuse yourself from their rewards.
Ketara wrote:is that necessarily a flaw in the court system, or that of Islamic society as a rule of thumb?
The point being that at a secular hearing, she would be more likely to be protected than at a religious hearing.
Threats are illegal in the UK, a criminal affair, and may be reported to the police as such. You may say that this would not stop misogny from happening, but the truth is that intimidation for results in court is not limited solely to aspects of Islamic society, and has just as much potential to occur in a British civil court. The courts themselves in this regard act no more as enablers than do the regular courts.
Indeed, however, I was not referring to traditional threats of violence etc, but the more subtle threat upon social positioning. Somewhat similar, I would think, to the threat of excommunication - no physical harm is offered, and arguably, nothing actually happens; however it is a very real threat to someone who believes in the same way the treat of a family losing (for want of a better word) honour and thereby their position within the often tightly knit Islamic communities.
I think you would have difficulty taking that kind of threat to the police.
Note here: I am not denying the possibility that some misogynistic judgments may be passed down. But rather that the concept of the courts being flawed in this regard is not so, and that the problem stems from hardline Islamists, not the concepts or legality of the courts themselves. I am also arguing that any kind of misogny in these sharia courts is ultimately limited by its non-binding nature, and that any sort of intimidation to accept a badc ruling has just as much potential to occur under the standard civil court system.
And I am saying that from my personal experience of having lived in 2 Islamic countries, having visited a boat load more (some multiple times), having gone out with a relatively strict Muslim girl for about 3 years and having had a number of Muslim friends of both sexes and varying degrees of religious laxity that I would not trust the ability of these courts to neutrally settle matters and protect the interests of those involved (especially parties brought before it which are being abused or subdugated) over their secular counterparts.
My father hates Arabs, based on his personal experience.
However it is not a good basis for examining issues of social reform.
Kilkrazy wrote:My father hates Arabs, based on his personal experience.
However it is not a good basis for examining issues of social reform.
Based on my personal experience I don't hate anyone, nor does my personal experience constitute the sole force behind my beliefs (although one can say that personal experience is the only force behind anything a person thinks or does).
My personal experience is simply another brick of information that forms a part of the executioner's wall of social reform
Kilkrazy wrote:If this is so, the availability of Sharia courts will actually be an enabler for women rather than a source of repression.
Historically speaking, Sharia courts have a history of shielding women, as whether certain posters believe it not, women actually are given a fair bit of rights under Islamic law. It may not be on par with modern western societies anymore in some ways, but they are there.
Kilkrazy wrote:If this is so, the availability of Sharia courts will actually be an enabler for women rather than a source of repression.
Historically speaking, Sharia courts have a history of shielding women, as whether certain posters believe it not, women actually are given a fair bit of rights under Islamic law. It may not be on par with modern western societies anymore in some ways, but they are there and any Sharia following muslim who isn't in a fundamentalist militant group tends to recognize these rights are given in the Quran.
As I've read in the Qur'an, it is less about equality and rights and more about, if read from a certain angle, a woman is less an object or property to be beaten and do all the gak jobs and more an object or property to be 'hidden away from the world in a guilded cage and told she's special as long as she doesn't answer back or demand or make any decisions, bless her...'
Either way is still unacceptable in a western democracy, just one way has (potentially) fewer bruises.
I've been following along as best I can for a while now but not really chimed in my thoughts about this whole issue. In the U.S.A., we have groups of people who section themselves off from the rest of society, follow and enforce their own rules, and usually, though not always, have some kind of religious bent as their rationale.
We call them Cults. Some of them are more public eye than others, and the difference between a Cult and a Religion is who you ask. Certain Megachurches, wierd polygamist Mormon communities, Amish, Scientologists, Kool-Aid drinkers, (Packers Fans?), the Rainbow Family, certain self-styled "secret society" Fraternities, Branch Davidians, the Manson Family, Westborough, the list could go on and on.
All of these groups have their own culture of dichotomy of "US and THE REST OF SOCIETY" and they have their own rules of conduct and ways of enforcing them. Often, punishment for not playing along with the rest of the group is ostracization, but there is an overtone of secrecy that implies other punishments are not publicly known exist.
The FBI actively investigates these groups, trying to catch them in the act of breaking the law, the REAL law, not the random assortment of delusions handed to them in a vision by a purple unicorn or whatever passes for a prophet (again depends on who you ask, religious or delusional?).
While they are tolerated in the sense that I am perfectly within my rights to build a shrine to a hamster and refuse to associate with anyone who does not believe that he is all powerful, and obey the will of the hamster, yeah I can do that. My choice to act like an antisocial nutbag if I want. The moment my hamster worship breaks the LAW, it is no longer tolerated by the state. If my hamster demands that women must be beaten on a nightly basis if they don't obey my every whim, or that all children are to have their left hand cut off if they lie, then the FBI steps in and takes my crazy ass to jail.
The only real difference between a Cult and a Religion is a semantic one, but on the surface, the difference can be seen as bottom line membership numbers. Just as organized crime can be called "gang related" if you aren't Italian, or "Mob" if you are, but it's all just "organized crime" underneath. How many people have to bow down at my hamster shrine for me to be an official religion and not a cult? 10? 100? 1000? What if I only have 999, can I buy a homeless guy a bottle of Vodka if he comes to church so I can be official?
It's easy to say "well you can leave this culture if you want", but religion is brainwashing. ALL religions are brainwashing, whether they are benevolent or not. When your entire life has been surrounded by the rules of a subculture, its difficult to see anything else as a possibility. So leaving is not seen as an option.
The difference between sharia law and these cults is that it's already plainly and simply against the law of the land to do an honor killing, they don't hide the fact and not talk about it existing, like most wierdo groups in cults do in their inbred little isolated communities, its WRITTEN RIGHT THERE! there it is! right there in their rules! That would make the FBI's job a lot easier if it was over here. The point being, you can believe whatever wackjob gak you want, but the moment your beliefs are directly against the law of the land, they are criminal activities just waiting to happen. Again, make the FBI's job a heckuvalot easier if you put a sign on your front door that says "I can murder people when you aren't looking". They'll just make sure they're looking so they can catch you in the act.
Sounds like my mates granddad. He was an Ex-indian army officer, very posh and would wave his sword cane about at the slightest provcation before ordering another Gin off of the nearest punkawhalla. Oldies can get set in theri ways!
Funny old geezer almost a characture in an embarrasing dangerous sort of way.
Why can't the moslems just sort it all with a hand shake and a few pints in the pub like everyone else......nowwaitajoshdarnminute.....................?
MeanGreenStompa wrote:As I've read in the Qur'an, it is less about equality and rights and more about, if read from a certain angle, a woman is less an object or property to be beaten and do all the gak jobs and more an object or property to be 'hidden away from the world in a guilded cage and told she's special as long as she doesn't answer back or demand or make any decisions, bless her...'
Either way is still unacceptable in a western democracy, just one way has (potentially) fewer bruises.
You obviously haven't read the Quran then
O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should you treat them with harshness that you may take away part of the dower you have given them – except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary, live with them according to the norms [of the society]. If you take a dislike to them it may be that you dislike a thing, and Allah brings about through it a great deal of good. ~ Qu'ran 4:19
Basically, you can't be mean to your wife even if you don't like her.
I never said they were equal. I said they are given some rights and they are. They are allowed to own property married/unmarried, and inherit property. Property rights for women as of the 7th century is pretty ground breaking. Originally, it was considered good for Muslim women to be educated, and they were supposed to be the most respected member of the family by children.
Once again I say, a poster is combining aspects of the culture around Islam and Islam itself together. They are not the same thing. A lot of bad stuff happens to women in Islam because of cultural norms that can exist within the context of Islam and exist in the traditions of Middle Eastern society, but are not themselves part of the religious texts. Some of them didn't even exist when Islam first spread. Some of them are in direct conflict with the Quran or are misapplied.
mattyrm wrote:I wanna meet your old man kk, whats his story?
He was in the RAF in the 1950s and was stationed in all sorts of places such as Gibraltar, Egypt, Aden (now called the Yemen) and Ceylon (now called Sri Lanka).
He formed a low opinion of arabs based on his observations of their behaviour at that time.
SilverMK2 wrote:I think the point is valid... in a culture that promotes female subservience to male dominance, will women be sufficiently protected from "forcefull" or "pressured" adherance to these "courts"?
No, of course not. But then women aren't currently protected from any other court either. We're not going to let that gender run wild, killing who they please, so why should we care if other won't let them wear mini skirts, or bend it like Beckham?
SilverMK2 wrote:I think the point is valid... in a culture that promotes female subservience to male dominance, will women be sufficiently protected from "forcefull" or "pressured" adherance to these "courts"?
No, of course not. But then women aren't currently protected from any other court either. We're not going to let that gender run wild, killing who they please, so why should we care if other won't let them wear mini skirts, or bend it like Beckham?
SilverMK2 wrote:I think the point is valid... in a culture that promotes female subservience to male dominance, will women be sufficiently protected from "forcefull" or "pressured" adherance to these "courts"?
No, of course not. But then women aren't currently protected from any other court either. We're not going to let that gender run wild, killing who they please, so why should we care if other won't let them wear mini skirts, or bend it like Beckham?
MeanGreenStompa wrote:As I've read in the Qur'an, it is less about equality and rights and more about, if read from a certain angle, a woman is less an object or property to be beaten and do all the gak jobs and more an object or property to be 'hidden away from the world in a guilded cage and told she's special as long as she doesn't answer back or demand or make any decisions, bless her...'
Either way is still unacceptable in a western democracy, just one way has (potentially) fewer bruises.
You obviously haven't read the Quran then
O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should you treat them with harshness that you may take away part of the dower you have given them – except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary, live with them according to the norms [of the society]. If you take a dislike to them it may be that you dislike a thing, and Allah brings about through it a great deal of good. ~ Qu'ran 4:19
Basically, you can't be mean to your wife even if you don't like her.
I stated I have read the Qur'an, an English interpretation thereof, in order to fully understand how I felt on matters pertaining to that faith as my rising dislike of the religion was, I felt at the time, at odds with my beliefs as a liberal and tolerant person. Admittedly that was about 7 years ago, but I was clear on what I read. Like many (not mentioning any names...) holy books, it contradicts it's self in several sections, but it does, in it's interpretations I read, clearly indicate that you should beat the wife if she's being a pain in the ass.
Some counter quotes for you btw.
4:34 Husbands should take full care of their wives, with [the bounties] God has given to some more than others and with what they spend out of their own money. Righteous wives are devout and guard what God would have them guard in the husbands’ absence. If you fear high-handedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great.
4:35 Surely it is better to remind the wife of her duty, or sulk for a while, or even strike her lightly, and then bring in arbiters who could, if all attempts at reconciliation fail, rule in favor of divorce
2:222 They ask you about menstruation: Say, it is harmful; you shall avoid sexual intercourse with the women during menstruation; do not approach them until they are rid of it... Your women are the bearers of your seed. Thus, you may enjoy this privilege however you like, so long as you maintain righteousness. You shall observe God, and know that you will meet Him. Give good news to the believers.
2:228 And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them. Allah is Mighty, Wise.
2.223 Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will.
Amaya wrote:
Why should we care about women's rights?
Rights to do what?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Like many (not mentioning any names...) holy books, it contradicts it's self in several sections, but it does, in it's interpretations I read, clearly indicate that you should beat the wife if she's being a pain in the ass.
The funny thing about languages is that they rarely subject themselves to exact translations. This is especially true of English translations of Arabic.
For example, this is another translation of 4:34:
4:34: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
...and another...
4:34: Men are overseers over women because Allah has given the one more strength than the other and because men are required to spend their wealth for the maintenance of women. Honorable women are, therefore, devoutly obedient and guard in the husband’s absence what Allah requires them to guard (their husband’s property and their own honor). As to those women from whom you fear disobedience, first admonish them, then refuse to share your bed with them, and then, if necessary, beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further actions against them and do not make excuses to punish them. Allah is Supremely Great and is aware of your actions.
the sume of the collective translations is that women should be beaten when necessary, which is a rather subjective matter. After all, no one would deny that a woman should be beaten in the event that she is trying to kill another.
There are a few thing you should keep in mind is that all of these bad things we hear about happening in Muslim countries seem to be from the Middle East. Since when was that the golden standard of Islam? Only about 20% of all Muslims are Arabic IIRC, so I think it stands to reason that they are not representative of the entire religion.
Also, I thought that four out of the five most populous Muslim countries in the world had elected Female heads of state?
I really don't buy into the whole "Islam will kill us all!" stuff. I have done research, and have come to my own conclusion that it really isn't bad at all. I think that a lot of the problems with it are more cultural than religious, and even then most of those have only happened in recent years.
I'm not saying that bad things have been done by Muslims, but I don't think that gives me the right to judge all of them for it.
People never criticize Buddhism because of violence that has been caused by some of it's members, even thought it has, unfortunately happened in the past. Seem like a double standard to me. Granted, Buddhists probably haven't killed as much people as Muslims have, but its the same basic concept. Their religion said to never kill, and they did anyway.
Mike Noble wrote:There are a few thing you should keep in mind is that all of these bad things we hear about happening in Muslim countries seem to be from the Middle East. Since when was that the golden standard of Islam? Only about 20% of all Muslims are Arabic IIRC, so I think it stands to reason that they are not representative of the entire religion.
Also, I thought that four out of the five most populous Muslim countries in the world had elected Female heads of state?
I really don't buy into the whole "Islam will kill us all!" stuff. I have done research, and have come to my own conclusion that it really isn't bad at all. I think that a lot of the problems with it are more cultural than religious, and even then most of those have only happened in recent years. I'm not saying that bad things have been done by Muslims, but I don't think that gives me the right to judge all of them for it.
People never criticize Buddhism because of violence that has been caused by some of it's members, even thought it has, unfortunately happened in the past. Seem like a double standard to me. Granted, Buddhists probably haven't killed as much people as Muslims have, but its the same basic concept. Their religion said to never kill, and they did anyway.
That's the result of Islamism which has grown due to their percieved failure of Arab nationalism.
dogma wrote:
Amaya wrote:
Why should we care about women's rights?
Rights to do what?
Whatever they chose to do in accordance with the nation's laws.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Like many (not mentioning any names...) holy books, it contradicts it's self in several sections, but it does, in it's interpretations I read, clearly indicate that you should beat the wife if she's being a pain in the ass.
The funny thing about languages is that they rarely subject themselves to exact translations. This is especially true of English translations of Arabic.
For example, this is another translation of 4:34:
4:34: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
...and another...
4:34: Men are overseers over women because Allah has given the one more strength than the other and because men are required to spend their wealth for the maintenance of women. Honorable women are, therefore, devoutly obedient and guard in the husband’s absence what Allah requires them to guard (their husband’s property and their own honor). As to those women from whom you fear disobedience, first admonish them, then refuse to share your bed with them, and then, if necessary, beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further actions against them and do not make excuses to punish them. Allah is Supremely Great and is aware of your actions.
the sume of the collective translations is that women should be beaten when necessary, which is a rather subjective matter. After all, no one would deny that a woman should be beaten in the event that she is trying to kill another.
It's fairly likely, to a non-believer like me, that any book as old and as interpreted as the holy books of several of the major religions will have undergone several translations and that the likelihood of deviation from the original intended meaning, intentional or not, is highly likely.
I note however in both the alternative interpretations you provided, that the advice remains 'beat your woman' in the case of disobedience or a refusal to obey instruction and therefore both interpretations continue to support my case that the religion is not suited for integration into a modern western society as it's directly instructs men to harm women.
If you can find the interpretation that says 'only beat up a woman when she's trying to take your face off with the hedge strimmer' and I'll relent...
Dogma brings up a good point. Translations issues abound in the Old Testament. Not surprising they may be present in Arabic. I hadn't considered that. I am not familiar enough with Islamic theology to really go into verse by verse examination, especially when Sunni and Shia have two different collections of Hadith that effect the outcome.
There are a few thing you should keep in mind is that all of these bad things we hear about happening in Muslim countries seem to be from the Middle East. Since when was that the golden standard of Islam? Only about 20% of all Muslims are Arabic IIRC, so I think it stands to reason that they are not representative of the entire religion.
I think it's because if you look at demographics, most Muslims moving to Europe (at least France, the UK, and Spain) are coming from the Middle East and North Africa. The UK I think has some Bangladesh immigrants, but for the most part, the Middle East dominates the discussion because most people in Europe who are immigrating are coming from that region.
Amaya wrote:
Whatever they chose to do in accordance with the nation's laws.
So why is it a problem that certain nations do not, legally, allow their women to leave the house unaccompanied?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I note however in both the alternative interpretations you provided, that the advice remains 'beat your woman' in the case of disobedience or a refusal to obey instruction and therefore both interpretations continue to support my case that the religion is not suited for integration into a modern western society as it's directly instructs men to harm women.
No, one of them speaks of scourging women, which doesn't necessarily mean "beat", or anything relating to physical harm at all.
In any case, modern, Western society still features a significant gap between the status of men and women, so I fail to see how there is a categorical gap. After all, the book in question is not being so specific as you claim. It tells men to, minimally, excoriate women when necessary, but doesn't really explain what brings about that necessity. You're inserting that meaning due to your own emotionally compromised status.
Either way, you might want men and women to be equal, but evidently your views are not reflected in the reality of the world; glass ceiling and all.
What's the point of calling it a court, if actually upholding its laws would be against the real Law? May as well call it a "Sharia Discussion Group" for all I care. If it cannot uphold ALL of its laws then it is not a law at all. You can't have a legal system where only SOME of the laws are enforcable.
If you post nits, you must expect them to be picked.
If the judgement is unenforceable by the law, it will be unenforceable.
If it is enforceable by the law, then it will be enforceable.
You see how your comment only makes any sense if you have made the prejudicial decision that a Sharia court could not possibly come up with a sensible, enforceable judgement.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I note however in both the alternative interpretations you provided, that the advice remains 'beat your woman' in the case of disobedience or a refusal to obey instruction and therefore both interpretations continue to support my case that the religion is not suited for integration into a modern western society as it's directly instructs men to harm women.
No, one of them speaks of scourging women, which doesn't necessarily mean "beat", or anything relating to physical harm at all.
But can certainly mean and include as a verb, the stripping of skin from flesh or the severe whipping of a person, the term in relation to verbal admonishment has only been adopted in recent centuries.
dogma wrote:
In any case, modern, Western society still features a significant gap between the status of men and women, so I fail to see how there is a categorical gap. After all, the book in question is not being so specific as you claim. It tells men to, minimally, excoriate women when necessary, but doesn't really explain what brings about that necessity. You're inserting that meaning due to your own emotionally compromised status.
Either way, you might want men and women to be equal, but evidently your views are not reflected in the reality of the world; glass ceiling and all.
Western society is moving towards breaking that gap, it recognises that gap as wrong. It does not allow men to excoriate women and does not openly condone the superiority of one gender over another.
And it is very clear on the matter of physical violence and it's stance is diametrically opposed to that touted in the Qur'an.
A glass ceiling in the workplace is very different to open and encouraged subjugation. And it is glass because it is not supposed to exist and when uncovered, steps are taken to remove it.
Your comparison to continued Western gender issues is flimsy.
LordofHats wrote:Dogma brings up a good point. Translations issues abound in the Old Testament. Not surprising they may be present in Arabic. I hadn't considered that. I am not familiar enough with Islamic theology to really go into verse by verse examination, especially when Sunni and Shia have two different collections of Hadith that effect the outcome.
There are a few thing you should keep in mind is that all of these bad things we hear about happening in Muslim countries seem to be from the Middle East. Since when was that the golden standard of Islam? Only about 20% of all Muslims are Arabic IIRC, so I think it stands to reason that they are not representative of the entire religion.
I think it's because if you look at demographics, most Muslims moving to Europe (at least France, the UK, and Spain) are coming from the Middle East and North Africa. The UK I think has some Bangladesh immigrants, but for the most part, the Middle East dominates the discussion because most people in Europe who are immigrating are coming from that region.
Well that makes sense then, I was really just pointing out that some posters here seem to be painting all Muslims with the same brush here.
As for translations, obviously that's the case, but their are two other things you need to remember. First of all, some of the quotes you see from religious texts are taken out of context, but more importantly, are often misinterpreted. Their are many parts in the Bible that seem to advocate violence, when really they do not.
Regardless, it would be wise to consider the lost in translations that may occur in them.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
But can certainly mean and include as a verb, the stripping of skin from flesh or the severe whipping of a person, the term in relation to verbal admonishment has only been adopted in recent centuries.
Thankfully the Koran has only been recently translated into English in any sort of mass, so recent versus archaic usages of words need not be a concern.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Western society is moving towards breaking that gap, it recognises that gap as wrong. It does not allow men to excoriate women and does not openly condone the superiority of one gender over another.
No, you recognize that as wrong. If Western society recognized (to the extent that a society can recognize anything) it as wrong, there would be no glass ceiling.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
And it is very clear on the matter of physical violence and it's stance is diametrically opposed to that touted in the Qur'an.
Diametric opposition requires a categorical conflict, and Western society (parts of it anyway) accepts violence when it is perpetrated in self-defense, so there is no categorical conflict.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
A glass ceiling in the workplace is very different to open and encouraged subjugation. And it is glass because it is not supposed to exist and when uncovered, steps are taken to remove it.
Again, if that were true it wouldn't exist. The people that create the glass ceiling are still Western.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Your comparison to continued Western gender issues is flimsy.
And your understanding of the Koran is juvenile. You want a certain conclusion where there does not exist evidence to derive one.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
But can certainly mean and include as a verb, the stripping of skin from flesh or the severe whipping of a person, the term in relation to verbal admonishment has only been adopted in recent centuries.
Thankfully the Koran has only been recently translated into English in any sort of mass, so recent versus archaic usages of words need not be a concern.
Regardless, the word scourge has a range of severity from verbal chastisement to flaying someone alive, given that 2 of the 3 interpretations say beat and the third says scourge, we can at the least take the word to mean 'do harm'.
dogma wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Western society is moving towards breaking that gap, it recognises that gap as wrong. It does not allow men to excoriate women and does not openly condone the superiority of one gender over another.
No, you recognize that as wrong. If Western society recognized (to the extent that a society can recognize anything) it as wrong, there would be no glass ceiling.
It is espoused in our media and laws as wrong. I'd call that sociological recognition. We are encouraged to avoid it. The Qur'an touts it.
dogma wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
And it is very clear on the matter of physical violence and it's stance is diametrically opposed to that touted in the Qur'an.
Diametric opposition requires a categorical conflict, and Western society (parts of it anyway) accepts violence when it is perpetrated in self-defense, so there is no categorical conflict.
Allow me to rephrase to Domestic Violence, violence against your spouse, violence against women. That is not considered acceptable behaviour in Western nations. Again, it is condoned in the Qur'an.
dogma wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
A glass ceiling in the workplace is very different to open and encouraged subjugation. And it is glass because it is not supposed to exist and when uncovered, steps are taken to remove it.
Again, if that were true it wouldn't exist. The people that create the glass ceiling are still Western.
Those people act according to individual bias and prejudice, they are breaking or exploiting the system. The laws and media and mass consensus of Western nations is one of equality for both genders. The Islamic religion sanctifies and endorses bias and prejudice against women. It's set out in writing.
dogma wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Your comparison to continued Western gender issues is flimsy.
And your understanding of the Koran is juvenile. You want a certain conclusion where there does not exist evidence to derive one.
It is set out clearly in the book, it is rife within the households of those following the religion. You are seeking to excuse the religion's stance based on comparisons to behaviours in the West that are not condoned by the mass consensus of the western citizens. Furthermore your claims of my juvenile understanding are rich indeed when you've just compared the glass ceiling for women in careers to domestic violence and claimed a similarity a'la 'well, noone's perfect'...
That a man might beat his wife in the Western household is true, but it is a crime, whereas in Islam, it can be claimed to be the direct will and instruction of God. That is a fundamental disconnect with being able to hold a court on civil matters in a Western nation.
As to my reaching a conclusion, many millions of muslims have done the very same, perhaps their understanding is as juvenile as mine is, according to your judgement. Men are advised to beat their wives according to the word of God as written in the Qur'an by their holy men and religious teachers.
If something were 'clearly set out' in the book there wouldn't be different sects of Islam as well as different subsets within those sects. There would be no disagreement on anything.
Ahtman wrote:If something were 'clearly set out' in the book there wouldn't be different sects of Islam as well as different subsets within those sects. There would be no disagreement on anything.
I didn't claim everything was, only the bits on treating women as second class human beings.
I don't give a flying feth what they do in their countries. The issue arises when they come into western countries and attempt to hold onto their radical idealogy.
It would help if you would some effort to defend your line of argument, even in the loosest fashion.
So I'll ask again, what have people migrating legally to the UK got to do with invasions that happened centuries ago?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yeenoghu wrote:IThe only real difference between a Cult and a Religion is a semantic one, but on the surface, the difference can be seen as bottom line membership numbers.
Nah, there's real and important differences. A cult will dominate the lives of its members, generally to an unsustainable or self-destructive level, generally under the leadership of a single person. That is to say, even if there's no more than a dozen members, if they live more or less healthy lives with decent levels of contact with society then it isn't really a cult. On the other hand, you can have 200,000 members but if they close themselves off, follow the directions of dear leader absolutely, and find the requirements of their faith spinning them to self destruction then it is a cult.
It's easy to say "well you can leave this culture if you want", but religion is brainwashing. ALL religions are brainwashing, whether they are benevolent or not.
Nah, brainwashing has a real and specific meaning, requiring the breaking down of a person entirely then rebuilding them with a new belief system. Under your definition above any effort to teach someone something would be brainwashing, and the word would cease to have any meaning.
The difference between sharia law and these cults is that it's already plainly and simply against the law of the land to do an honor killing, they don't hide the fact and not talk about it existing, like most wierdo groups in cults do in their inbred little isolated communities, its WRITTEN RIGHT THERE!
No, seriously, we're talking about Sharia courts in the UK, which have no means to rule on any criminal matter. Honour killings and the like are part of Islamic culture in some places, but really, really don't have a place in this conversation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:I think it's because if you look at demographics, most Muslims moving to Europe (at least France, the UK, and Spain) are coming from the Middle East and North Africa. The UK I think has some Bangladesh immigrants, but for the most part, the Middle East dominates the discussion because most people in Europe who are immigrating are coming from that region.
I'm not sure that's really the case. Most Islamic migrants to Australia are coming from Indonesia and India and similar places, but the idea of Islam here is still dominated by what is, ultimately, a stereotypical Arabic image.
I don't really know why, at a guess I'd say that we've never really bothered to look at Islam in our media. But we had started forming an idea of what an Arab was, and one of the things we understood about them was they they were Islamic. So when Islam became a more important thing in the minds of people in the West, we took what we already knew, Arabs are Islamic, and turned that into Muslims are Arabs.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Regardless, the word scourge has a range of severity from verbal chastisement to flaying someone alive, given that 2 of the 3 interpretations say beat and the third says scourge, we can at the least take the word to mean 'do harm'.
No we can't, and this made evident by the dozens, and there are dozens, of interpretations that state things like "hit without doing harm", or "spank".
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
It is espoused in our media and laws as wrong. I'd call that sociological recognition. We are encouraged to avoid it. The Qur'an touts it.
Maybe in the UK, and certainly in the United States, but in both places there is still an obvious glass ceiling. Clearly certain people don't agree with the legislation that's in place, otherwise women would all make just as much as equally qualified men, given this obvious disconnection that our society has absorbed I see no reason that we couldn't also absorb any disconnection that arises from a particular interpretation of the Koran.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Allow me to rephrase to Domestic Violence, violence against your spouse, violence against women. That is not considered acceptable behaviour in Western nations. Again, it is condoned in the Qur'an.
That entirely depends on how its interpreted, just as in any other holy book. You're choosing to focus on the most negative interpretation, for whatever reason.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Those people act according to individual bias and prejudice, they are breaking or exploiting the system. The laws and media and mass consensus of Western nations is one of equality for both genders. The Islamic religion sanctifies and endorses bias and prejudice against women. It's set out in writing.
Again, as others have said, Islam cannot sanctify anything as it is not an agent. Its members can, however, act according to individual biases and prejudices just like those Western individuals that support the glass ceiling.
Its also important to remember that the passage of legislation doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the will of the people, but the will of those people who exert the most influence over the legislatures. Simply because a law exists, or the media says something, does not indicate that the majority of people agree with it.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
It is set out clearly in the book, it is rife within the households of those following the religion. You are seeking to excuse the religion's stance based on comparisons to behaviours in the West that are not condoned by the mass consensus of the western citizens. Furthermore your claims of my juvenile understanding are rich indeed when you've just compared the glass ceiling for women in careers to domestic violence and claimed a similarity a'la 'well, noone's perfect'...
No, I'm simply not passing judgment. I don't claim to know what is correct, I merely know what I prefer, and I make no attempt to extrapolate the former from the latter except where forced.
In any case, nothing is clearly set out in the Koran anymore than anything is clearly set out in the Bible. Indeed, for English speakers the Koran is probably far less reliable because of how difficult it is to translate Arabic to English.
Again, you're choosing to hinge your opinion on one particular reading of the Koran for reasons of which I'm not certain.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:Oh, Dogma.
I don't give a flying feth what they do in their countries. The issue arises when they come into western countries and attempt to hold onto their radical idealogy.
There you go with that us and them nonsense. They're not aliens you know.
Either way, why do you care about what happens in England? Why draw the line at Western, instead of at American, or Human?
And just why should I care what they do in their countries? How would exactly would that be enforced? You can't simply walk in there and change it overnight.
@Sebster: There's no point talking you when you're unable to accept that the problem is not essentialy Islam, but radical Muslims, who are predominately Arabic. The revived interest in establishing Sharia law both in Muslim nations is directly linked to Islamism. For whatever reason, the fact that there are radical Arab Muslims living in Europe escapes you. Yes, I dislike Islam, I dislike Christianity for that matter, and any religion or culture that actively seeks to convert and control others. As I've said again and again, Christianity and Judaism very rarely actively seek that, unlike Islamism.
I also think its wrong for Western nations to attempt to impose their ideals upon other nations. I think America interfers far too often in Middle Eastern affairs and I think invading Iraq was a mistake especially when we like to buddy up to dictators in Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Muslims have lived in Europe for a long time and it is only in the last 20 years, primarily the last decade, that there has been an increased demand for Sharia law in certain areas.
Why do I care what happens in Europe? America considers Europe, particulary England and France, to be allies.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Regardless, the word scourge has a range of severity from verbal chastisement to flaying someone alive, given that 2 of the 3 interpretations say beat and the third says scourge, we can at the least take the word to mean 'do harm'.
No we can't, and this made evident by the dozens, and there are dozens, of interpretations that state things like "hit without doing harm", or "spank".
That 'hit lightly' or 'spank' are somehow ok in your opinion is bizarre, that you should be defending the finite lines of physically abusing a spouse is boggling. And as I read the interpretations, it reads 'doesn't leave a mark' rather than 'doesn't do harm'.
dogma wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
It is espoused in our media and laws as wrong. I'd call that sociological recognition. We are encouraged to avoid it. The Qur'an touts it.
Maybe in the UK, and certainly in the United States, but in both places there is still an obvious glass ceiling. Clearly certain people don't agree with the legislation that's in place, otherwise women would all make just as much as equally qualified men, given this obvious disconnection that our society has absorbed I see no reason that we couldn't also absorb any disconnection that arises from a particular interpretation of the Koran.
Again, the glass ceiling to advancing your career is a different thing to religiously sanctioned domestic violence. You keep raising this comparison, it's like comparing the occasional breaking of speed laws whilst driving to intentionally mounting the sidewalk and mowing someone over because the traffic police suggested it might relieve your road rage.
Whether individuals choose to ignore the legislation, they can be called on it and charged and punished, what I have been talking about is that the Islamic religion sanctions physical harm to women and their treatment as second class citizens. This difference should be painfully obvious.
dogma wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Allow me to rephrase to Domestic Violence, violence against your spouse, violence against women. That is not considered acceptable behaviour in Western nations. Again, it is condoned in the Qur'an.
That entirely depends on how its interpreted, just as in any other holy book. You're choosing to focus on the most negative interpretation, for whatever reason.
Because that interpretation is currently the interpretation used by muslim people across the world. Islam is geared to the notions of a two tier system with women in a secondary role, if you do not accept that, this discussion can go no further and we'll have to 'agree to disagree' because that's as clear as hell to me, and again, is conducted in that fashion across the islamic world.
dogma wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Those people act according to individual bias and prejudice, they are breaking or exploiting the system. The laws and media and mass consensus of Western nations is one of equality for both genders. The Islamic religion sanctifies and endorses bias and prejudice against women. It's set out in writing.
Again, as others have said, Islam cannot sanctify anything as it is not an agent. Its members can, however, act according to individual biases and prejudices just like those Western individuals that support the glass ceiling.
Its also important to remember that the passage of legislation doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the will of the people, but the will of those people who exert the most influence over the legislatures. Simply because a law exists, or the media says something, does not indicate that the majority of people agree with it.
No, again, the religion, it's holy texts and it's holy men promote the two tier system and mysogeny. That is practices across the muslim world, women are subjugated. Individuals with these prejudices are supported in Islamic circles, they are ostracised and penalised by Western circles.
dogma wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
It is set out clearly in the book, it is rife within the households of those following the religion. You are seeking to excuse the religion's stance based on comparisons to behaviours in the West that are not condoned by the mass consensus of the western citizens. Furthermore your claims of my juvenile understanding are rich indeed when you've just compared the glass ceiling for women in careers to domestic violence and claimed a similarity a'la 'well, noone's perfect'...
No, I'm simply not passing judgment. I don't claim to know what is correct, I merely know what I prefer, and I make no attempt to extrapolate the former from the latter except where forced.
In any case, nothing is clearly set out in the Koran anymore than anything is clearly set out in the Bible. Indeed, for English speakers the Koran is probably far less reliable because of how difficult it is to translate Arabic to English.
So, looking at how it is followed by those who speak the language, how are the rights and treatment of women in arabic speaking nations? How are the rights and treatments of non-arabic speaking islamic nations? How are the rights and treatments of women in islamic communities in the west?
Reports indicate not good, I've certainly encountered women on the run from these communities in the past from several sources. They do not paint a good picture of how the Qur'an is being interpreted and their injuries attest to how 'scourge' is viewed. Point of note, electrical cabling seems a favourite weapon but some husbands and fathers have learnt about the wisdom of cold wet towels not leaving a bruise.
I know what I prefer as well, I prefer to deal with anyone who wishes to promote peaceable and cultured exchange and do not subjugate half their population based on a gender prejudice.
dogma wrote:
Again, you're choosing to hinge your opinion on one particular reading of the Koran for reasons of which I'm not certain.
I'm choosing to hinge my opinion on the popular interpretation of the rulings of the Qur'ran as it's being applied and terming the implementation the religion. You are choosing to argue that the words in the book are not evil per say, you are looking for escape in minutiae, you have just tried to argue that scourge isn't a bad word when 2 interpretations are 'beat' and one is 'scourge' and a sizeable number of muslims are choosing to read it as beat.
This isn't a RAW argument about the interpretation of the word into English, the issue is are women worse off in terms of choice, freedom and chance of physical or psychological violence in the Western world if they are born and raised into an islamic family, I'm strongly of the belief that they are, proportionately.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
That 'hit lightly' or 'spank' are somehow ok in your opinion is bizarre, that you should be defending the finite lines of physically abusing a spouse is boggling. And as I read the interpretations, it reads 'doesn't leave a mark' rather than 'doesn't do harm'.
Yes, that exists as well. As I said, there are dozens of interpretations.
In any case, I'm not defending anything, I'm explaining to you that your opinion of the matter is based on a very simplistic understanding of Koranic text, and Islam as a whole.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Again, the glass ceiling to advancing your career is a different thing to religiously sanctioned domestic violence. You keep raising this comparison, it's like comparing the occasional breaking of speed laws whilst driving to intentionally mounting the sidewalk and mowing someone over because the traffic police suggested it might relieve your road rage.
Whether individuals choose to ignore the legislation, they can be called on it and charged and punished, what I have been talking about is that the Islamic religion sanctions physical harm to women and their treatment as second class citizens. This difference should be painfully obvious.
No, you've been talking about how those supposed sanctions make Islam incompatible with your conception of Western values. My point is that there are lots of Western citizens whose values are also incompatible with the conception you have advanced. As you have said, we, currently and in most cases, will find and punish people that break the legal prohibitions that we have put in place to protect a certain class of citizens. There is no reason that we cannot do the same thing to Muslims that insist on practicing a "barbaric" form of Sharia. The fact that such people might be punished does not indicate that Islam is not compatible with your set of values, it simply indicates that there will be a conflict that the state must arbitrate, just like any other.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Because that interpretation is currently the interpretation used by muslim people across the world. Islam is geared to the notions of a two tier system with women in a secondary role, if you do not accept that, this discussion can go no further and we'll have to 'agree to disagree' because that's as clear as hell to me, and again, is conducted in that fashion across the islamic world.
See, that's just wrong, and plainly illustrates why you're having a problem understanding Islam.
There is a massive amount of variance in the practice of Islam, possibly more than any other religion due to the geographic spread of the faith. What is considered good practice by a Saudi Arabian will have very little in common with the same normative conceptions of an Indonesian.
It is true that the practices you describe are practiced by many Muslims, but there are also many far more moderate Muslims that tend to be largely ignored by Western media because they don't make for good television.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
No, again, the religion, it's holy texts and it's holy men promote the two tier system and mysogeny. That is practices across the muslim world, women are subjugated. Individuals with these prejudices are supported in Islamic circles, they are ostracised and penalised by Western circles.
You really do love your tautological descriptions, don't you?
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
So, looking at how it is followed by those who speak the language, how are the rights and treatment of women in arabic speaking nations? How are the rights and treatments of non-arabic speaking islamic nations? How are the rights and treatments of women in islamic communities in the west?
Unfortunately that is not sufficient to indicate that Islam is the problematic variable. Note that many non-Islamic nations that are given to similar levels of development also feature poor treatment of women.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I'm choosing to hinge my opinion on the popular interpretation of the rulings of the Qur'ran as it's being applied and terming the implementation the religion.
See, that's another problem. You're not hinging your opinion on what is popular in the "Muslim world", you're hinging your opinion on what a large amount of Western media tells you is popular in the "Muslim world" where "Muslim world" is basically just code for "Middle East".
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
You are choosing to argue that the words in the book are not evil per say, you are looking for escape in minutiae, you have just tried to argue that scourge isn't a bad word when 2 interpretations are 'beat' and one is 'scourge' and a sizeable number of muslims are choosing to read it as beat.
No, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm not making a qualitative argument at all. I am, again, merely explaining to you what the words you're discussing actually mean outside your own judgment of the matter.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
This isn't a RAW argument about the interpretation of the word into English, the issue is are women worse off in terms of choice, freedom and chance of physical or psychological violence in the Western world if they are born and raised into an islamic family, I'm strongly of the belief that they are, proportionately.
No, the issue is whether or not those women are worse off because of Islam, and if Islam is therefore something that cannot be integrated into Western culture. This is an argument that requires a careful regard for any sort of necessity that follows from the translation, and subsequent interpretation of Koranic text.
Amaya wrote:@Sebster: There's no point talking you when you're unable to accept that the problem is not essentialy Islam, but radical Muslims, who are predominately Arabic.
What? When have I at any time suggested there isn't a problem with radical Islam. And what does that have to do with Islam being problematic because of events that occurred hundreds of years ago? You're not making any sense.
The revived interest in establishing Sharia law both in Muslim nations is directly linked to Islamism.
No, it's linked to immigrants wanting to retain some part of their own culture in their new country. This is no different to the Jewish courts that have existed there for a hundred years - do you think the Jewish courts rose out of increase Jewish fanaticism a hundred years ago?
The difference is that we worry about the Islamic courts and not the Jewish courts because of the freakout over Islam that grew in the last decade.
For whatever reason, the fact that there are radical Arab Muslims living in Europe escapes you.
No, it doesn't, I am entirely aware of the issue. I am just able to understand that issue has nothing to do with Sharia courts in the UK.
Yes, I dislike Islam, I dislike Christianity for that matter, and any religion or culture that actively seeks to convert and control others.
Great. But what has that got to do with sharia courts in the UK?
All you've done above is repeat the mistake you've made throughout this thread; you keep claiming Islam is bad (adjusted to elements of Islam in the new version, it doesn't matter). The problem is that this is irrelevant - we're talking about Sharia law as it is applied in the UK, and to actually make the case that Sharia law in the UK is bad, you need to actually explain what elements of Sharia courts as they exist are actually causing a problem.
Instead you've offered vague descriptions of the general rise of extremism in Islam and tried to accuse us of being unaware of that issue. Now, stop for a second and think, and then try and explain what is actually wrong with the idea of private individuals agreeing to resolve civil matters through their own traditional legal systems?
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
That 'hit lightly' or 'spank' are somehow ok in your opinion is bizarre, that you should be defending the finite lines of physically abusing a spouse is boggling. And as I read the interpretations, it reads 'doesn't leave a mark' rather than 'doesn't do harm'.
Yes, that exists as well. As I said, there are dozens of interpretations.
In any case, I'm not defending anything, I'm explaining to you that your opinion of the matter is based on a very simplistic understanding of Koranic text, and Islam as a whole.
One can only come to conclusions based on the evidence presented and researched. You continue to claim I have a limited understanding and therefore am incorrect in reaching my conclusion but you're not offering anything solid to counter it. In regards to it's simplistic nature, that is how the words in the book are being interpreted and acted upon within the muslim communities and nations. Can other conclusions be reached, probably, are they being reached, doesn't appear (from the evidence) that this is the case in daily muslim life for a great many.
dogma wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Again, the glass ceiling to advancing your career is a different thing to religiously sanctioned domestic violence. You keep raising this comparison, it's like comparing the occasional breaking of speed laws whilst driving to intentionally mounting the sidewalk and mowing someone over because the traffic police suggested it might relieve your road rage.
Whether individuals choose to ignore the legislation, they can be called on it and charged and punished, what I have been talking about is that the Islamic religion sanctions physical harm to women and their treatment as second class citizens. This difference should be painfully obvious.
No, you've been talking about how those supposed sanctions make Islam incompatible with your conception of Western values. My point is that there are lots of Western citizens whose values are also incompatible with the conception you have advanced. As you have said, we, currently and in most cases, will find and punish people that break the legal prohibitions that we have put in place to protect a certain class of citizens. There is no reason that we cannot do the same thing to Muslims that insist on practicing a "barbaric" form of Sharia. The fact that such people might be punished does not indicate that Islam is not compatible with your set of values, it simply indicates that there will be a conflict that the state must arbitrate, just like any other.
So you're now suggesting that the muslim community will only operate these Sharia courts according to how they are informed by western infidels they should be applied? Now who's demonstrating their lack of understanding of Islam.
What happens when the outside western community starts 'interfering' with the Sharia court's adjudications? Further accusations of racism and accusations that the Sharia courts are being undermined.
We do punish those who break our laws, what happens when the Sharia being practised does that? When the court it's self is guilty of breaking the laws of the land. Who will report that? What happens when you allow a court that is answerable to God only to be put on trial by a state judiciary? Further escalation of religious anger and further division.
We will reap the whirlwind. This court is going to lead to further division, not integration.
dogma wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Because that interpretation is currently the interpretation used by muslim people across the world. Islam is geared to the notions of a two tier system with women in a secondary role, if you do not accept that, this discussion can go no further and we'll have to 'agree to disagree' because that's as clear as hell to me, and again, is conducted in that fashion across the islamic world.
See, that's just wrong, and plainly illustrates why you're having a problem understanding Islam.
There is a massive amount of variance in the practice of Islam, possibly more than any other religion due to the geographic spread of the faith. What is considered good practice by a Saudi Arabian will have very little in common with the same normative conceptions of an Indonesian.
It is true that the practices you describe are practiced by many Muslims, but there are also many far more moderate Muslims that tend to be largely ignored by Western media because they don't make for good television.
You're right, there is a good deal of variation, there is a good deal of variation within countries, regions and families. But that you think any nation governed by or made up of citizens who follow Islam treats it's women as equals of men, I would like to know which.
You keep saying 'you have a problem understanding it' or 'you're plain wrong' and offer nothing to counter it but your own opinion that things are different in different countries, that's understood by me, but different does not equate to 'not wrong'.
Find me the nation of Islamists with entirely fair and equal law and treatment for women.
There are non-Islamic countries and cultures that do not treat women well, there are those that do. Now find me one Islamic nation that treats women well, where they have equality that is equal to the equality we enjoy in the West.
I am not a total idiot, I do understand the 'degrees of separation' between the various Islamic nations according to originating tribal and social customs, but that they all have a prejudice against women and that that prejudice is grounded in the religion they follow seems fairly self evident.
dogma wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
No, again, the religion, it's holy texts and it's holy men promote the two tier system and mysogeny. That is practices across the muslim world, women are subjugated. Individuals with these prejudices are supported in Islamic circles, they are ostracised and penalised by Western circles.
You really do love your tautological descriptions, don't you?
Thank you for your observation. I hope it doesn't offend you. I confess, I had to look up 'tautological' and the definition I read basically said repetitive, so sorry if I'm basically saying the same thing in a variety of different and swanky shirts, but we are, unfortunately repeating drawn lines in the sand from different angles, you challenge my stance that Islam is sexist and encourages violence against women and I keep saying yes, but here, it's still sexist and women are still suffering violence in it's name and justified by it's religious leaders in Sharia courts, religious media and elsewhere.
(but thanks for the new word, always a plus to increase the vocab.)
dogma wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
So, looking at how it is followed by those who speak the language, how are the rights and treatment of women in arabic speaking nations? How are the rights and treatments of non-arabic speaking islamic nations? How are the rights and treatments of women in islamic communities in the west?
Unfortunately that is not sufficient to indicate that Islam is the problematic variable. Note that many non-Islamic nations that are given to similar levels of development also feature poor treatment of women.
So, we can agree that those countries that follow Islam in their native tongue treat women poorly according to our western viewpoint. Further, as I said above, those other Islamic nations, who do not speak arabic as a native tongue but follow Islam, have a record of treating women poorly. Further, as I've shown in interpretations of the Qur'an, there are texts that (according to the majority of interpretations put forward...) clearly state the woman is a second class individual, that violence against her can be met out. Further, that this interpretation is agreed upon and acted upon in many Islamic nations with several languages.
Is that still not sufficient to identify the religion as the issue? Perhaps not for you, for me, it is and I hold an opinion of that religion based upon it, one that prohibits my support for that religion's right to self adjudicate within a western nation without directly acting against the principles that western nation claims to uphold.
dogma wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I'm choosing to hinge my opinion on the popular interpretation of the rulings of the Qur'ran as it's being applied and terming the implementation the religion.
See, that's another problem. You're not hinging your opinion on what is popular in the "Muslim world", you're hinging your opinion on what a large amount of Western media tells you is popular in the "Muslim world" where "Muslim world" is basically just code for "Middle East".
Again, that is a part of the evidence presented, I have also experienced the testimony of the victims of violence in Islam. You are, I think, clouded by American media bias for the middle east, British media is a little more cosmopolitan in it's definition. (from my experience of both).
dogma wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
You are choosing to argue that the words in the book are not evil per say, you are looking for escape in minutiae, you have just tried to argue that scourge isn't a bad word when 2 interpretations are 'beat' and one is 'scourge' and a sizeable number of muslims are choosing to read it as beat.
No, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm not making a qualitative argument at all. I am, again, merely explaining to you what the words you're discussing actually mean outside your own judgment of the matter.
I guess I'm thinking along a scientific evidence conclusion here, 2 confirmed negative connotations and 1 variable negative connotation still gives me the confirmed negative confirmation. If 1 connotation had been a positive instead of a negative, I might have been willing to go back and reexamine in far more detail, but the variable reinforced the 2 negatives, not countered them.
And of course we're in the realms of my judgements given that you are challenging them, it's just that what you presented as a challenge did not counter.
dogma wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
This isn't a RAW argument about the interpretation of the word into English, the issue is are women worse off in terms of choice, freedom and chance of physical or psychological violence in the Western world if they are born and raised into an islamic family, I'm strongly of the belief that they are, proportionately.
No, the issue is whether or not those women are worse off because of Islam, and if Islam is therefore something that cannot be integrated into Western culture. This is an argument that requires a careful regard for any sort of necessity that follows from the translation, and subsequent interpretation of Koranic text.
For the reasons stated above, I believe that Islam is the unifying glue across all those nations and that it is the common underlying factor for a disparate, geographically and culturally diverse group of nations that have a record of abuses of women's rights.
Consider this for a moment, let's drop the book containing the wording and then imagine the religious leaders continued to advise the men across the muslim world to hit women and suppress them, does the religion suddenly find it's self exonerated? I think the fact the book contains the wording is a damning thing, but with or without it and your point on interpretation, the Religion as an entity across it's geographical boundaries, is still guilty of the crimes I've charged it with here given the diverse nature of it's constituent cultures.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Interestingly this was just linked to me by my wife. Just including it for it's timing.
SKYNEWS wrote:
Four people have been arrested in Bangladesh after a young girl was whipped to death for allegedly having an affair with a married man.
Rural scene in Bangladesh
Police say cases such as these are most common in remote areas
The suspects, including an Islamic cleric, are accused of issuing a fatwa for 14-year-old Mosammet Hena to receive 100 lashes.
This was despite her insistence she had been raped by the man, believed to be her cousin, and did not consent to an affair or physical contact of any kind.
She collapsed after receiving 70 of the lashes from a bamboo cane. She was taken to hospital unconscious but died shortly afterwards.
The public beating occurred in a south west village in the district of Shariatpur, approximately 35 miles from the capital of Dhaka.
The district's chief of police, Shahidur Rahman, said incidents such as these usually occurred in remote areas.
He added the 40-year-old man involved was also sentenced to 100 lashes but has since fled the village. "We are hunting for him," Rahman said.
Fatwas are illegal in Bangladesh, but Islamic clerics are often found presiding over courts that use Sharia law.
Action Aid Bangladesh has demanded exemplary punishment for those responsible for Hena's death, and called on the government to do more to stop crimes like this from happening again.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
So you're now suggesting that the muslim community will only operate these Sharia courts according to how they are informed by western infidels they should be applied? Now who's demonstrating their lack of understanding of Islam.
Nope, not what I said.
I said that Western authorities will impose their will upon Sharia courts because they have the power to do so, and that this will have a generational effect on the character of Muslim immigrants. Sure, there will be oppression and suffering with respect to many Muslim women as well, but the beautiful thing about human life is that its really very insignificant on case by case basis when there are ~6.7 billion other examples of it.
Regardless of what you believe about Islam there are still going to be ~1.7 billion people that rather like the faith. These people must either be accommodated, or forcibly "convinced" to be fond of something else. One requires the suffering of a few, the other requires the suffering of ~1.7 billion people; the choice is obvious.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
What happens when the outside western community starts 'interfering' with the Sharia court's adjudications? Further accusations of racism and accusations that the Sharia courts are being undermined.
So? You're already claiming that Islam is inferior, so why do you care at all that Sharia is being undermined, or that the Muslim "race" is being treated as lesser? It seems like you're openly saying that you have disdain for Islam, but don't really want to recognize that fact, or be told as much by others.
Its really quite hilarious.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
We do punish those who break our laws, what happens when the Sharia being practised does that? When the court it's self is guilty of breaking the laws of the land. Who will report that? What happens when you allow a court that is answerable to God only to be put on trial by a state judiciary? Further escalation of religious anger and further division.
We will reap the whirlwind. This court is going to lead to further division, not integration.
As I said above, you don't really have a choice. Either you let the courts do some part of their thing, and presume that it will ease tensions, or you don't let it have any say at all and thereby guarantee that the "whirlwind" will be reaped.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
You're right, there is a good deal of variation, there is a good deal of variation within countries, regions and families. But that you think any nation governed by or made up of citizens who follow Islam treats it's women as equals of men, I would like to know which.
There are maybe 5 nations on Earth that treat women as the equals of men, so that's not really a huge issue.
Hell, its debatable as to whether or not women should be regarded as the equals of men, or, for that matter, whether men should be regarded as the equals of women.
You're not going to hire that 100-pound girl to carry cinder blocks for you.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
You keep saying 'you have a problem understanding it' or 'you're plain wrong' and offer nothing to counter it but your own opinion that things are different in different countries, that's understood by me, but different does not equate to 'not wrong'.
What it really comes down to is the fact that I'm not arguing from a moralistic position because, quite honestly, I simply don't care about anything in that sense. I'm a self-admitted amoral being, and find those people that take umbrage to the behavior of others, as you've been doing, to be hilarious curiosities.
Anyway, I'm tired of this. You've already misunderstood my argument, willfully or otherwise, 3 times. There is no point in speaking to you.
Ah, so several pages of me being polite for you to just be rude and argue the toss.
Fair enough, there is no point in my answering your points, baseless as they are.
Human beings taking umbrage at the actions of other human beings is, I think, entirely human.
Congratulations, you have successfully trolled me. The oppressed and abused women of Islam would doubtlessly offer their own commentary to your amusement, I suspect.
sebster wrote:The difference is that we worry about the Islamic courts and not the Jewish courts because of the freakout over Islam that grew in the last decade.
No, I'm fairly certain the difference is that Sharia law is corrupt, oppressive, and hostile to outsiders, as well as the culture surrounding it disliking anything secular-- including secular laws that make the country what it is.
Melissia wrote:No, I'm fairly certain the difference is that Sharia law is corrupt, oppressive, and hostile to outsiders, as well as the culture surrounding it disliking anything secular-- including secular laws that make the country what it is.
That depends entirely on the particular form of Sharia being considered. There are 8 dominant schools of jurisprudence, and quite a few less important ones; with 5 of the critical schools not being particularly reprehensible from a Western perspective.
Melissia wrote:No, I'm fairly certain the difference is that Sharia law is corrupt, oppressive, and hostile to outsiders, as well as the culture surrounding it disliking anything secular-- including secular laws that make the country what it is.
That depends entirely on the particular form of Sharia being considered. There are 8 dominant schools of jurisprudence, and quite a few less important ones; with 5 of the critical schools not being particularly reprehensible from a Western perspective.
If the law is sexist, then it is reprehensible to me.
Islam as practiced in the modern world is very sexist, and Sharia law is based off of these modern practices.
Christianity is also inherently sexist, but it doesn't show quite as blatantly in practice in the modern world because people prefer to interpret it figuratively rather than literally. This is all liable to change, but I oppose it regardless of its source.
Melissia wrote:Islam as practiced in the modern world is very sexist, and Sharia law is based off of these modern practices.
You don't really have very many practitioners of Islam in the modern world (Comparatively). Most of them are in the third world. The ones in the modern world tend to be the more liberal ones who allow women to wear nice slacks and get mannicures
Fair enough. Change the term 'sexist' to 'misogynistic'.
And I'm curious as to whether there is actually a method of concrete proof or evidence Dogma would accept, and how he would expect such proof to be obtained.
By modern I meant specifically "in modern times", not first world countries. Islamic countries might have been far ahead of the game when it comes to social advancement in the medieval period, but every single one of them in the modern age are lagging behind.
Ketara wrote:
What quantity of Islam (nations, people, etc) would you personally require to be sexist before you judged Islam itself to sexist?
It isn't a matter of quantity, but causality.
Where there exist Muslim nations that are not demonstrably more sexist than equivalent states there is no reason to conclude that Islam is what causes people to behave in a sexist manner.
For example, if all Muslim nations were notably more sexist than all non-Muslim nations that are if similar levels of development I would be willing to admit that Islam was the most likely cause for the discrepancy. As it is, we have Indonesia, Kazakhstan, and other nations exhibiting behavior that is significantly better than Liberia, China, and Russia.
14 year old girl, beaten to death in the name of Sharia. Lovely stuff, i am very pleased that such common sense is being imported to the UK.
In other related news, a new report has been published over at http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/ and can be read in full there, but heres the highlights.
-----------------
Based on an 8 March 2010 Seminar on Sharia Law, research, interviews, and One Law for All case files, the report has identified a number of problem areas:
- Sharia law’s civil code is arbitrary and discriminatory against women and children in particular. With the rise in the acceptance of Sharia courts, discrimination is being further institutionalised with some UK law firms additionally offering clients advice on Sharia law and the use of collaborative law.
- Sharia law is practiced in Britain primarily by Sharia Councils and Muslims Arbitration Tribunals. Both operate on religious principles and are harmful to women although Muslim Arbitration Tribunals are wrongly regarded as being of more concern because they operate as tribunals under the Arbitration Act 1996, making their rulings binding in law.
- Sharia Councils, on the other hand, claim to mediate on family issues but in practice often this differs little from arbitration: they frequently ask those appearing before them to sign an agreement to abide by their decisions; they call themselves courts, and the presiding imams, judges. Their decisions are then imposed and regarded as having the weight of legal judgements.
- There is neither control over the appointment of “judges” in Sharia Councils or Tribunals nor an independent mechanism for monitoring them. Clients often do not have access to legal advice and representation. The proceedings are not recorded, nor are there any searchable legal judgements, nor any real right of appeal.
- Sharia law cannot be compared to secular legal systems because it is considered sacred law that cannot be challenged. There is no scope to look at the interests of the individuals involved, as required by UK family law.
- These legal processes ignore both common law and due process, far less Human Rights, and provide little protection and safety for women in violent situations.
- There is a general assumption that those who attend Sharia courts do so voluntarily and that unfair decisions can be challenged in a British court. Many of the principles of Sharia law are contrary to British law and public policy, and would in theory therefore be unlikely to be upheld in a British court. In reality, however, women are often pressured by their families into going to these courts and adhering to unfair decisions, and may lack knowledge of English and their rights under British law. Moreover, refusal to settle a dispute in a Sharia court can give rise to threats and intimidation, or at best being ostracised. According to Maryam Namazie, spokesperson of the One Law for All Campaign and an author of the report, “The existence of a parallel legal system that is denying a large section of the British population their fundamental human rights is scandalous. Our findings show that it is essential to abolish all religious courts in the UK. Their very existence and legitimisation puts pressure on vulnerable women not to assert their civil rights in a British court. As long as Sharia Councils and Tribunals are allowed to continue to make rulings on issues of family law, women will be pressured into accepting decisions which are prejudicial to them and their children.”
The report recommends that Sharia courts be closed on the grounds that they work against rather than for equality, and are incompatible with human rights. Recommendations include:
1. Initiating a Human Rights challenge to Muslim Arbitration Tribunals and/or Sharia Councils
2. Amending the Arbitration Act under which the Muslim Arbitration Tribunals operate in a similar way to which the Canadian equivalent of the Arbitration Act was amended in 2005 to exclude religious arbitration
3. Launching a major and nationwide helpline and information campaign to inform people of their rights under British law
4. Proposing legislation under the EU Citizens Rights Initiative to address the issue EU-wide, and
5. Strengthening secularism and the separation of religion from the state, the judicial system and education, in order to more fully protect citizenship rights.
Ketara wrote:
What quantity of Islam (nations, people, etc) would you personally require to be sexist before you judged Islam itself to sexist?
It isn't a matter of quantity, but causality.
Where there exist Muslim nations that are not demonstrably more sexist than equivalent states there is no reason to conclude that Islam is what causes people to behave in a sexist manner.
For example, if all Muslim nations were notably more sexist than all non-Muslim nations that are if similar levels of development I would be willing to admit that Islam was the most likely cause for the discrepancy. As it is, we have Indonesia, Kazakhstan, and other nations exhibiting behavior that is significantly better than Liberia, China, and Russia.
But those states could be affected by factors other than Islam than promote misogny. As such, the lack of Islam prevalent in their misogny does not necessarily indicate that Islam is not inherently misognyistic, rather that there may be other factors (religions, cultural affectations, etc) that are also inherently misognystic.
It is not beyond the realms of possibility or casuality for one state to be inherently misognystic due to adherence to a misogynstic religion, and the other state to be inherently misogynstic due to adherence to a misogynstic political creed for example. The state that is misogynistic due to political creed would not owe its misogny to Islam, yet its lack of Islam and the prevalence of misogny does not prove Islam not to be inherently misogynistic, any more than the existence of Islam and misogny in the other proves their political creed to not be inherently misognyistic due to the lack of that political creed there.
Note that I am not referencing any political creed in particular here, rather making a demonstration that other such factors could exist.
As such, by using your approach, it would still be perfectly feasible to see Islam as being inherently misogynistic, as long as one recognizes other factors as being even more inherently more misogynistic than they.
Also, if quantity is irrelevant, (as you seem to imply, feel free to ignore this point if that's wrong), then if every muslim person in the world claimed to think beating women into submission was a good idea, but there were no Muslim run states, than surely Islam would still not be recognised as being misogynistic?
I'm not approaching this out of any desire to see Islam ruled one way or the next (as can be seen by my earlier posts in this topic), but I find your logic to be a little....unpersuasive here?
Ketara wrote:
But those states could be affected by factors other than Islam than promote misogny. As such, the lack of Islam prevalent in their misogny does not necessarily indicate that Islam is not inherently misognyistic, rather that there may be other factors (religions, cultural affectations, etc) that are also inherently misognystic.
Of course, but that's why I said "most likely" and not "necessarily certain" cause of the discrepancy in levels of misogyny.
Ketara wrote:
Also, if quantity is irrelevant, (as you seem to imply, feel free to ignore this point if that's wrong), then if every muslim person in the world claimed to think beating women into submission was a good idea, but there were no Muslim run states, than surely Islam would still not be recognised as being misogynistic?
I didn't mean to imply that quantity is irrelevant, but that causality is the most important issue. Quantity can be used to establish causality, but they aren't necessarily connected.
Note also that I'm not claiming that my example is the only way to establish that Islam is somehow the cause of misogyny, but that it is one way of doing so.
Ketara wrote:
But those states could be affected by factors other than Islam than promote misogny. As such, the lack of Islam prevalent in their misogny does not necessarily indicate that Islam is not inherently misognyistic, rather that there may be other factors (religions, cultural affectations, etc) that are also inherently misognystic.
Of course, but that's why I said "most likely" and not "necessarily certain" cause of the discrepancy in levels of misogyny.
The original quote of yours was:
For example, if all Muslim nations were notably more sexist than all non-Muslim nations that are if similar levels of development I would be willing to admit that Islam was the most likely cause for the discrepancy. As it is, we have Indonesia, Kazakhstan, and other nations exhibiting behavior that is significantly better than Liberia, China, and Russia.
when I asked:
What quantity of Islam (nations, people, etc) would you personally require to be misogynistic before you judged Islam itself to sexist?
Surely one does not need to prove then, that all misogynistic states are Islamic, but rather establish a trend that all Islamic states appear to be misogynistic? Even if not necessarily the only and specific cause, it can still be a tremendous factor, and one difficult to write off to coincidence.
If the only evidence you will accept to prove Islam to be misogynistic, is for EVERY misogynistic state( or even a large quantity of them) to be Islamic, then you seem to be failing to ascribe the capacity for misogynism to arise from other sources or factors, which is a definite possibility.
Not only that, even if we insert the term 'necessarily certain' in your quote to derive the following:
For example, if all Muslim nations were notably more sexist than all non-Muslim nations that are if similar levels of development I would be willing to admit that Islam was the necessarily certain cause for the discrepancy. As it is, we have Indonesia, Kazakhstan, and other nations exhibiting behavior that is significantly better than Liberia, China, and Russia.
the problem still stands. From this quote here, still, the only evidence you say you will accept for Islam to be proven misogynistic, is for all misogynistic states (or at least, the most misogynistic) to be Islamic. Which strikes me as patently absurd.
Ketara wrote:
Surely one does not need to prove then, that all misogynistic states are Islamic, but rather establish a trend that all Islamic states appear to be misogynistic? Even if not necessarily the only and specific cause, it can still be a tremendous factor, and one difficult to write off to coincidence.
The crux of my test is the discrepancy between Islamic states of a given level of development, and non-Islamic states of the same level of development. Simply looking at Islamic states alone is not sufficient to isolate Islam as a causal variable.
Ketara wrote:
If the only evidence you will accept to prove Islam to be misogynistic, is for EVERY misogynistic state( or even a large quantity of them) to be Islamic, then you seem to be failing to ascribe the capacity for misogynism to arise from other sources or factors, which is a definite possibility.
Yes, I'm doing that by design. I'm only interested in whether or not Islam is necessarily, and causally, misogynistic. Simply proving that is can be misogynistic is trivial as everything can be misogynistic; even feminism.
Ketara wrote:
the problem still stands. From this quote here, still, the only evidence you say you will accept for Islam to be proven misogynistic, is for all misogynistic states (or at least, the most misogynistic) to be Islamic. Which strikes me as patently absurd.
No, you're misreading. The test has nothing at all to do with all sexist nations being Muslim. The key variable is the degree of sexism present in Muslim nations relative to the degree of sexism in non-Muslim nations. It is a comparative test.
Ketara wrote:
Surely one does not need to prove then, that all misogynistic states are Islamic, but rather establish a trend that all Islamic states appear to be misogynistic? Even if not necessarily the only and specific cause, it can still be a tremendous factor, and one difficult to write off to coincidence.
The crux of my test is the discrepancy between Islamic states of a given level of development, and non-Islamic states of the same level of development. Simply looking at Islamic states alone is not sufficient to isolate Islam as a causal variable.
But if your only method of reasoning is that 'whilst other misogynistic states are not islamic, islam cannot be misogynistic', you are still denying the possibility of it being a factor of misogny, whether casually, or inherently.
Ketara wrote:
the problem still stands. From this quote here, still, the only evidence you say you will accept for Islam to be proven misogynistic, is for all misogynistic states (or at least, the most misogynistic) to be Islamic. Which strikes me as patently absurd.
No, you're misreading. The test has nothing at all to do with all sexist nations being Muslim. The key variable is the degree of sexism present in Muslim nations relative to the degree of sexism in non-Muslim nations. It is a comparative test.
It is a comparative test, but its lack of taking into account of other variables, I believe, makes it deeply flawed for the reasons already stated. You claim I am misreading, but possibly you are miscommunicating? I am reading your sentences in a strictly grammatical sense here, perhaps if you re-define, it will enable your point to come across more clearly?
Dogma wrote:
Ketara wrote:
If the only evidence you will accept to prove Islam to be misogynistic, is for EVERY misogynistic state( or even a large quantity of them) to be Islamic, then you seem to be failing to ascribe the capacity for misogynism to arise from other sources or factors, which is a definite possibility.
Yes, I'm doing that by design. I'm only interested in whether or not Islam is necessarily, and causally, misogynistic. Simply proving that is can be misogynistic is trivial as everything can be misogynistic; even feminism.
In that case, I think we need to break this down a bit further here, as my question is running the words 'inherently' and 'casually' together.
What evidence would you require to have Islam itself proved to be inherently misogynistic?
And what evidence would you require for Islam itself to be proved to be casually misogynistic (that adherence to Islam in turn causes misogynistic acts, or a misogynistic frame of mind).
Ketara wrote:
But if your only method of reasoning is that 'whilst other misogynistic states are not islamic, islam cannot be misogynistic', you are still denying the possibility of it being a factor of misogny, whether casually, or inherently.
But that isn't my method of reasoning. You're indicating that I'm talking about categorical differences when I'm talking about degrees of misogyny.
Remember, there is no (or perhaps there are very few) non-misogynistic nation on Earth.
Ketara wrote:
It is a comparative test, but its lack of taking into account of other variables, I believe, makes it deeply flawed for the reasons already stated. You claim I am misreading, but possibly you are miscommunicating? I am reading your sentences in a strictly grammatical sense here, perhaps if you re-define, it will enable your point to come across more clearly?
Again, it accounts for other variables by eliminating them. The point is to determine whether or not Islam, the religion not the culture or associated set of qualities, makes people misogynistic.
Allowing for other variables to have a causal effect would invalidate the test of whether or not Islam is inherently misogynistic.
You're inferring things from my words that I am not writing.
Ketara wrote:
In that case, I think we need to break this down a bit further here, as my question is running the words 'inherently' and 'casually' together.
What evidence would you require to have Islam itself proved to be inherently misogynistic?
And what evidence would you require for Islam itself to be proved to be casually misogynistic (that adherence to Islam in turn causes misogynistic acts, or a misogynistic frame of mind).
The test I have outlined, all Islamic states are more misogynistic than non-Islamic states of similar development, would provide a strong body of evidence to indicate that Islam is inherently misogynistic.
It is most likely impossible to prove that Islam is causally misogynistic, but a test that would allow for that would be a statistically comprehensive survey of people that converted to Islam; noting whether or not they became misogynistic..
Ketara wrote:
It is a comparative test, but its lack of taking into account of other variables, I believe, makes it deeply flawed for the reasons already stated. You claim I am misreading, but possibly you are miscommunicating? I am reading your sentences in a strictly grammatical sense here, perhaps if you re-define, it will enable your point to come across more clearly?
Dogma wrote: Again, it accounts for other variables by eliminating them. The point is to determine whether or not Islam, the religion not the culture or associated set of qualities, makes people misogynistic.
Allowing for other variables to have a causal effect would invalidate the test of whether or not Islam is inherently misogynistic.
You're inferring things from my words that I am not writing.
But then to perfectly frank, what is the point of using states as a standard of measurement? If you fail to take into account factors in other nations that can be causative of misogny, in what way is even including other nations as a your requirement for 'evidence' even meaningful?
Dogma wrote:
Ketara wrote:
In that case, I think we need to break this down a bit further here, as my question is running the words 'inherently' and 'casually' together.
What evidence would you require to have Islam itself proved to be inherently misogynistic?
And what evidence would you require for Islam itself to be proved to be casually misogynistic (that adherence to Islam in turn causes misogynistic acts, or a misogynistic frame of mind).
The test I have outlined, all Islamic states are more misogynistic than non-Islamic states of similar development, would provide a strong body of evidence to indicate that Islam is inherently misogynistic.
It is most likely impossible to prove that Islam is causally misogynistic, but a test that would allow for that would be a statistically comprehensive survey of people that converted to Islam; noting whether or not they became misogynistic..
I'm sorry, I genuinely believe your requirement for evidence deeply flawed from several angles. By eliminating all other variables from your comparisons, you render them meaningless as things to compare to.
Also
all Islamic states are more misogynistic than non-Islamic states of similar development
strikes me as flawed, because you require them to be 'more misogynistic'. If we recognise that there are degrees of misogynism, as you yourself have stated, then why should Islam have to be 'more' misognistic than other misogynistic states in order to count as being misogynistic by Western standards? For example, assuming the western moral standard, Let us say an Islamic man beats his wife for cheating, and a Chinese man shoots her. The fact the Chinese man is more misogynistic does not prove the Islam not to be misogynistic, rather just that the people in China are moreso.
Melissia wrote:No, I'm fairly certain the difference is that Sharia law is corrupt, oppressive, and hostile to outsiders, as well as the culture surrounding it disliking anything secular-- including secular laws that make the country what it is.
You continue to pretend that Sharia law as it exists in the UK is the same as Sharia law as it exists elsewhere in the world. You've had it explained to you a dozen times or more in this thread that isn't true.
At this point we're left with you repeating constantly something that you know is not true.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:14 year old girl, beaten to death in the name of Sharia. Lovely stuff, i am very pleased that such common sense is being imported to the UK.
You've established that Sharia law is an oppressive law in many places around the world. Well done, you've successfully proven something no-one was arguing against.
Again (and likely again and again...) Sharia law as it exists in the UK is not the same thing as Sharia law practiced in other places around the world. It is an extremely restriced version, with powers to only rule on civil matters where both parties agreed to arbitration. This is a thing that has been pointed out in this thread dozens of times.
- Sharia Councils, on the other hand, claim to mediate on family issues but in practice often this differs little from arbitration: they frequently ask those appearing before them to sign an agreement to abide by their decisions; they call themselves courts, and the presiding imams, judges. Their decisions are then imposed and regarded as having the weight of legal judgements.
Yes, the involvement of Sharia courts in family affairs is a problem, and one that we could have been discussing in this thread, if only people had accepted the basic and well documented limits of Sharia courts in the UK and stopped complaining about things that have nothing to do with Sharia as it exists in the UK.
sebster wrote:
Again (and likely again and again...) Sharia law as it exists in the UK is not the same thing as Sharia law practiced in other places around the world. It is an extremely restriced version, with powers to only rule on civil matters where both parties agreed to arbitration. This is a thing that has been pointed out in this thread dozens of times.
Yet and for the time being.
It remains a new thing to the United Kingdom and so people (fairly logically) refer to it's application in other countries to see how it's working elsewhere. Many of us do not like what we see.
As has also been repeated in this thread, the application of pressure from a person's family or peers could well force them to use this court instead of a standard civil court for arbitration and given the views of many that the Sharia court's bias is against certain groups, they will receive less justice or impartiality.
It also remains extremely likely that muslim lobbying groups living within the UK will push for the Sharia court to have extension of it's power. The fear of some is that once something is established, that is to say, gains a foothold, it's encroachment is easier than an immediate push for powers.
It remains a new thing to the United Kingdom and so people (fairly logically) refer to it's application in other countries to see how it's working elsewhere. Many of us do not like what we see.
But there is no sensible series of steps to get from Sharia law as it exists in the UK to Sharia law as it exists elsewhere in the world. It exists as part of the UK's statute on arbitration, and it cannot suddenly expand outside of that to become anything like Sharia law as it exists in other countries. Being afraid of that Sharia becoming anything more than a court of arbitration for civil matters is being afraid of a thing that can't happen.
As has also been repeated in this thread, the application of pressure from a person's family or peers could well force them to use this court instead of a standard civil court for arbitration and given the views of many that the Sharia court's bias is against certain groups, they will receive less justice or impartiality.
This is really an issue for Family Law, as I really don't see coercion being a likely factor in a businessman agreeing to have his contract dispute taken to a Sharia court. But when a marriage breaks down, it seems likely that a Muslim woman might be coerced by friends and family to resolve the matter in a Sharia court.
Not that the rights of the woman are, in my mind, the biggest issue in Sharia courts resolving disputrs over marriage breakups. The bigger issue is children. because those children didn't agree to Sharia arbitration (and they can't, being under 18). Yet the move to a Sharia courtcould result in them surrending some of their rights, because under secular Family Law the courts are required first and foremost to consider the rights of the child, but under Sharia courts several things are considered before the welfare of the child.
At which point I thuink the sensible conclusion is to start considering how you might stop Sharia law from having any implementation in Family Law. This is a fairly difficult issue, you can ban arbitration from having any religious element but exactly where does religion start and end? What if a legally qualified Imam set up a nominally secular court of arbitration... would he be stopped?
The better approach, to my mind, is to focus on having all Family Law matters resolved through normal courts, not through arbitration. At which point you're looking at Sharia courts that really do consist of nothing more than people having an option to voluntarily agree to use this form of arbitration to settle contract disputes and property damage claims, and is that a problem for anyone?
The complicating factor is the role secular arbitration plays in Family Law - how important is it in achieving fast outcomes for parties, and how important is it in reducing the workload on the Family Court?
sebster wrote:You continue to pretend that Sharia law as it exists in the UK is the same as Sharia law as it exists elsewhere in the world.
You continue to pretend that it isn't.
Considering a third of all Muslim students in the UK believe that it's okay to kill in the name of Islam, I don't think you'll have any problem finding Muslims firmly convinced that Allah's law (Sharia) supersedes man's law (civil and legal).
It remains a new thing to the United Kingdom and so people (fairly logically) refer to it's application in other countries to see how it's working elsewhere. Many of us do not like what we see.
But there is no sensible series of steps to get from Sharia law as it exists in the UK to Sharia law as it exists elsewhere in the world. It exists as part of the UK's statute on arbitration, and it cannot suddenly expand outside of that to become anything like Sharia law as it exists in other countries. Being afraid of that Sharia becoming anything more than a court of arbitration for civil matters is being afraid of a thing that can't happen.
Key word here, for me as someone concerned by this, is 'suddenly'. I don't imagine it's going to be sudden, but I am of the belief that now we have gone in binary terms from no sharia court to a sharia court, that court's expansion of portfolio and power is inevitable and that halting it or slowing it will be met at any point with further aggression and pressure from the lobbying groups of Islam (ie loudest = most extreme/hardline).
Melissia wrote:You continue to pretend that it isn't.
Considering a third of all Muslim students in the UK believe that it's okay to kill in the name of Islam, I don't think you'll have any problem finding Muslims firmly convinced that Allah's law (Sharia) supersedes man's law (civil and legal).
That's all just nonsense. I can't say it any more clearly, at some point you're going to have to open up and start thinking about things other people are telling you. Sharia law as practiced in the UK is a real thing, with real world powers and limitations. These powers are not defined, controlled, or influenced in any way by what random people might believe.
You need to go and read and find out what Sharia law in the UK actually means, what it can and can't do, and most importantly you need to learn about what laws underpin the idea of private arbitration, and how those laws mean that a private court of arbitration can't become anything other than what it is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Key word here, for me as someone concerned by this, is 'suddenly'. I don't imagine it's going to be sudden, but I am of the belief that now we have gone in binary terms from no sharia court to a sharia court, that court's expansion of portfolio and power is inevitable and that halting it or slowing it will be met at any point with further aggression and pressure from the lobbying groups of Islam (ie loudest = most extreme/hardline).
Either slowly or suddenly, it doesn't matter, expansion is not inevitable, it's impossible. You would need to completely rewrite the Arbitration Act, and completely redefine the idea of arbitration along the way in order to have a private court of arbitration rule along any other than private, civil matters.
Worrying that this Sharia court will suddenly aquire new powers and beginning ruling over people as a new legal body is as sensible as worrying Judge Judy will.
fething seriously, there are real issues with Sharia law and how it interacts with Family Law. Those problems are going to continue and there's never going to be an effective effort at seperating Sharia law from family law in the UK as long as people get distracted by these fantasy problems. We shouldn't be on page 9 of this thread and still explaining over and over again that a private court of arbitration cannot develop powers outside of those granted by the Arbitration Act.
sebster wrote:You continue to pretend that Sharia law as it exists in the UK is the same as Sharia law as it exists elsewhere in the world.
You continue to pretend that it isn't.
Considering a third of all Muslim students in the UK believe that it's okay to kill in the name of Islam, I don't think you'll have any problem finding Muslims firmly convinced that Allah's law (Sharia) supersedes man's law (civil and legal).
He refuses to accept that the Muslims who pushed for Sharia law in England are the kin to the same radicals who have been launching terrorist attacks. The majority of Muslim immigrants to England are Arab. The London Subway bombers were essentially refugees who had grown up England, but never developed love for the country and were willing to kill hundreds in the name of Allah. I have no idea why they would allow Sharia courts to open in the following years.
Melissia wrote:A law's effectiveness is only as good as the population's willingness to enforce it.
Yes, that's an important principle when talking the unwillingness of a court to enforce laws on the books. In the context of your fear that private court of arbitration might somehow go and claim greater powers than those provided to it by the Arbitration Act it makes no sense.
Now, seriously, go and read and find out what Sharia law in the UK actually means, what it can and can't do. Go and learn something and stop wasting your time here posting little nonsense replies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:He refuses to accept that the Muslims who pushed for Sharia law in England are the kin to the same radicals who have been launching terrorist attacks. The majority of Muslim immigrants to England are Arab. The London Subway bombers were essentially refugees who had grown up England, but never developed love for the country and were willing to kill hundreds in the name of Allah. I have no idea why they would allow Sharia courts to open in the following years.
You keep phrasing this in terms of vague terror threats, as if setting up courts of arbitration are somehow tied to every other issue relating to Islam. The end result is that you end up with this kind of reflexive 'they must be stopped!' attitude, and whatever it is they must be stopped from doing is whatever they happen to be doing right now.
You try as hard as possible to consider the actual thing in question, and effectively do little more than keep repeating 'it's Islamic and there are bad Islamic things in the world'. It's an incredibly stupid way of looking at an issue.
Instead, stop and think for a second. Think about how, with or without private courts of arbitration, there will be Islamic terror, and women in Islamic communities will not be treated equally. Once those two obvious things have been properly acknowldeged, you realise how despite their existance, the presence of a private Islamic court of arbitration doesn't actually change them, one way or the other. Think about that, and then realise that your argument in this thread has made absolutely no sense in any way shape or form.
Accept that, and then go and read about the issue, think about it for a while, and try to form a viewpoint that makes some damn sense.
sebster wrote:In the context of your fear blah biddy blee
Claiming that my hatred of Sharia law no matter where it is applied is fear is paramount to trolling. No, I oppose it whether or not it will effect me directly on principle because of its misogynistic, homophobic, and xenophobic nature. Even if I was given a Farseer-esque glimpse the future and I knew nothing bad came out of it, I would still oppose Sharia law.
If you wish to continue claiming that I am "afraid", frankly, I would say that you're amusingly naive. A Muslim immigrant community with their own community-based court of elders isn't going to suddenly forget about all parts of Sharia law that apply to what we call criminal cases. And sure as hell these elders aren't going to give up their power over their community and the people in it just because what happened crossed the line into criminal behavior.
The culture of one's native country, its laws, its customs, etc., collectively is something that is not easily forgotten by immigrants. Texans have learned that well enough-- even with a relatively similar culture, there were still striking differences in attitude towards laws, bribery, and crime in general. Nevermind the differences between Western and Islamic culture, collectively (nevermind the nuances between the various western and islamic cultures)...
Yeah Seb I really cant agree with your premise here, the document at onelawforall.org seemed to be extrememly thorough and pretty clear to me, and i trust the source, its hardly a right wing organisation.
I really dont believe that because it is Sharia in the UK, it is vastly different to Sharia elsewhere in the world.
The report concluded overwhelmingly that the whole system is at polar opposites with British common and civil law, and the human rights laws that we are supposed to care so much about.
Ketara wrote:
But then to perfectly frank, what is the point of using states as a standard of measurement? If you fail to take into account factors in other nations that can be causative of misogny, in what way is even including other nations as a your requirement for 'evidence' even meaningful?
When you test for the effect of X in a given population you create a control group that is identical to the test group save for the absence of X. The nations that are not Islamic are the control group, the Islamic nations are the test group. The point here is to demonstrate that states that are predominantly Islamic display a greater degree of misogyny than states that are otherwise as close to identical as can be expected.
This is the only way to establish causality in research. It is an incredibly difficult thing to do. It is supposed to be an incredibly difficult thing to do. There are weaknesses in this method when it is applied to social disciplines. Weaknesses primarily related to the massive number of variables, but it is better to be uncertain than wrong.
Ketara wrote:
I'm sorry, I genuinely believe your requirement for evidence deeply flawed from several angles. By eliminating all other variables from your comparisons, you render them meaningless as things to compare to.
No, that's wrong. You don't test specific variables by including other ones. You clearly do not understand test methodology.
Ketara wrote:
Also
all Islamic states are more misogynistic than non-Islamic states of similar development
strikes me as flawed, because you require them to be 'more misogynistic'. If we recognise that there are degrees of misogynism, as you yourself have stated, then why should Islam have to be 'more' misognistic than other misogynistic states in order to count as being misogynistic by Western standards? For example, assuming the western moral standard, Let us say an Islamic man beats his wife for cheating, and a Chinese man shoots her. The fact the Chinese man is more misogynistic does not prove the Islam not to be misogynistic, rather just that the people in China are moreso.
Good God man, this isn't that complicated. The argument began over whether or not Islam was incompatible with Western values because it was somehow biased towards misogyny. I pointed out that Western values are often quite tolerant of misogyny, having once been largely based on it. Indeed, as I've said, every culture in the world is misogynistic in the sense that they all exhibit such behavior even if not en masse. As such, it is not enough to say that Islam is misogynistic, and therefore incompatible with Western values, because such an argument would imply that Western values themselves are incompatible with Western values. As such, in order to demonstrate that Islam was so misogynistic as to be incompatible with Western values one would have to demonstrate that it was more misogynistic than other states that are not Islamic that have no such issues.
Again, the point is to test whether or not Islam causes misogyny, which is another way of claiming that Islam is misogynistic, to a degree that is beyond the extent to which Western values, or other values, cause misogyny. Simply saying that X causes misogyny is irrelevant, because literally anything can, and has, caused misogyny.
Melissia wrote:Claiming that my hatred of Sharia law no matter where it is applied is fear is paramount to trolling. No, I oppose it whether or not it will effect me directly on principle because of its misogynistic, homophobic, and xenophobic nature.
So that's your new effort, now? I point out that your last post made no sense in the context of this thread , and so your pick out the word 'fear' and try to spin that into some kind of rant.
First up, yes it's fear. Being concerned about a possible future event is a fear by any sensible definition. Fear, of course, can be perfectly sensible, if there's something to be fearful of.
Second up, stop playing these silly games to avoid debating the actual point - there is no way that a private court can expand from it's powers as defined in the Arbitration Act to start hearing criminal matters.
Even if I was given a Farseer-esque glimpse the future and I knew nothing bad came out of it, I would still oppose Sharia law.
But here's the thing that's become really obvious and really sad over the course of this thread - you have no understanding of what Sharia law is in the UK, and you have no interest in learning what it is.
And it really is sad that you have so little interest in learning what the actual powers and limitations of Sharia courts in the UK are. I mean, we're all ignorant about something and that's okay, but to actually choose to reject more knowledge, to simply stop listening when someone describes how a thing actually works, because you like the incorrect version in your head... well, it's sad.
I'm not sure why you've done this. I suspect you really, really like championing gender and gay equality. This is a noble thing, but I wonder if the issue here is that you really like championing the cause more than anything else... so you feel good when rant against Sharia law in the UK, and ultimately feeling good ranting against something else is what it's all about.
If Sharia law in the UK doesn't effect gender and gay equality in the UK, well that'd stop you feeling good doing all that ranting, so instead you just ignore that, and keep on ranting. So I point it out again, and you ignore it again, and repeat over and over and over...
Well stop it, take your good intentions and self-satisfaction off to some place where you might actually impact gender and gay rights, and stop playing make believe with real world situations. All you're doing is fething up any effort to actually reform Sharia courts.
A Muslim immigrant community with their own community-based court of elders isn't going to suddenly forget about all parts of Sharia law that apply to what we call criminal cases.
No, as I explained earlier that's silly. Their powers aren't based on what they'd like them to be, they're based on specific limitations placed in the Arbitration Act, based on the very real and unversally acknowledged difference between civil and criminal law. If you had any understanding of the law on any level you'd know this, if you have no such understanding you need to go away and learn something.
And sure as hell these elders aren't going to give up their power over their community and the people in it just because what happened crossed the line into criminal behavior.
These courts cannot rule on civil matters. The distinction is clear, and widely known, and the processes for criminal matters reaching a court are utterly different to civil matters. Your concern here makes no sense.
The culture of one's native country, its laws, its customs, etc., collectively is something that is not easily forgotten by immigrants. Texans have learned that well enough-- even with a relatively similar culture, there were still striking differences in attitude towards laws, bribery, and crime in general. Nevermind the differences between Western and Islamic culture, collectively (nevermind the nuances between the various western and islamic cultures)...
Yes, there are differences. These differences do not in any way, shape or form change the plain letter of the law. A criminal matter is a matter for the state to prosecute, which is does through criminal courts. A civil matter is a matter for the individual to pursue, through civil courts or through arbitration, if both parties agree.
Worrying that this court would suddenly start hearing criminal matters makes no sense, and would be equivalent to worrying that a Family Court might suddenly decide to ignore the scope of it's authority and start conducting trials for treason.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Yet and for the time being.
It remains a new thing to the United Kingdom and so people (fairly logically) refer to it's application in other countries to see how it's working elsewhere. Many of us do not like what we see.
No, that's not logical. It would be logical (well, rational) to look at the thing in question. After all, not all Sharia courts are the same.
The stance you're espousing is tantamount to looking at other black people because you're not familiar with the black man that moved in next door. Its not racism, but its very, very close.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
As has also been repeated in this thread, the application of pressure from a person's family or peers could well force them to use this court instead of a standard civil court for arbitration and given the views of many that the Sharia court's bias is against certain groups, they will receive less justice or impartiality.
Most courts are biased against thieves, but who will weep for them?
Claiming that bias is bad where a court is concerned is really, really foolish. All courts are biased because they have to be, judgment requires it.
Amaya wrote:A vague terror threat? How many thousands have been killed by terrorists?
There is, of course, a real terror threat from Islam. But that threat has no relation to Sharia courts, which is why the threat you've presented it as in this thread has remained very vague. If there was any connection, even a plausible future connection, between Sharia courts and Islamic terror you would have given that but there isn't, so instead you kept it all at a very vague level.
I really love how you say "Oh, well, hey guys, bad things will exist in Islam no matter what we do."
That doesn't mean you endorse it and allow it into your country.
I didn't say that, I didn't say anything that sounded anything like that, and you know I didn't.
I said that Islamic terror and gender equality in Islam will not be affected whether Sharia courts exist in the UK or not. As such, campaigning against Sharia courts on the grounds that there is Islamic terror in the world is stupid.
Because you did your very best to get confused by the first time, I'll expand that by pointing out there are lots of things we can do to combat Islamic terrorism. We do many of those things, and we could do many more. Allowing or banning Sharia courts in the UK is not one of those things.
Now, please, show some intellectual honesty and address the actual argument I have made.
Melissia wrote:
Considering a third of all Muslim students in the UK believe that it's okay to kill in the name of Islam, I don't think you'll have any problem finding Muslims firmly convinced that Allah's law (Sharia) supersedes man's law (civil and legal).
So?
Do you really think that banning Sharia will make these Muslims less willing to kill in the name of Allah?
Do you really think that these Muslims that believe that Sharia supersedes national law will care that its banned?
mattyrm wrote:Yeah Seb I really cant agree with your premise here, the document at onelawforall.org seemed to be extrememly thorough and pretty clear to me, and i trust the source, its hardly a right wing organisation.
The issue isn't that it's coming from a right wing organisation, or even that it's wrong. I agree that there are problems with Sharia courts. The issue is simply that we need to argue based on what the Sharia courts in the UK actually are, not on what Sharia law is in another country, or on what Sharia could become if we pretended that courts didn't have clearly coded limitations to their scope and authority.
I really dont believe that because it is Sharia in the UK, it is vastly different to Sharia elsewhere in the world.
Nah, they're not different because one is in the UK, they're difference because the scope and powers of each court is entirely different. In Iran the Sharia courts have the scope to rule on criminal matters and give punishments, and parties including government can bring actions against individuals without their consent. In the UK they're limited to civil matters, and only if both parties agree to use them to resolve the issue.
The report concluded overwhelmingly that the whole system is at polar opposites with British common and civil law, and the human rights laws that we are supposed to care so much about.
But here's the thing, if two private individuals agree to have a civil matter resolved in whatever manner they decide, who fething cares what standard they choose? They could agree to an arm wrestle for all I care.
Matters of family law, where children are involved and a closed community could likely coerce one party into arbitration are an entirely different matter, though.
It remains a new thing to the United Kingdom and so people (fairly logically) refer to it's application in other countries to see how it's working elsewhere. Many of us do not like what we see.
But there is no sensible series of steps to get from Sharia law as it exists in the UK to Sharia law as it exists elsewhere in the world. It exists as part of the UK's statute on arbitration, and it cannot suddenly expand outside of that to become anything like Sharia law as it exists in other countries. Being afraid of that Sharia becoming anything more than a court of arbitration for civil matters is being afraid of a thing that can't happen.
Key word here, for me as someone concerned by this, is 'suddenly'. I don't imagine it's going to be sudden, but I am of the belief that now we have gone in binary terms from no sharia court to a sharia court, that court's expansion of portfolio and power is inevitable and that halting it or slowing it will be met at any point with further aggression and pressure from the lobbying groups of Islam (ie loudest = most extreme/hardline).
'Not going to be sudden' is an understatement - English Law dates back over 700 years to Magna Carta and forms the basis of many legal systems around the world; do you really think a bit of 'lobbying' is going to change that? Can you imagine how many instruments would have to be repealed for it to even be compatible, including the Murder Act if they were going to legalise honour killings.
Melissia wrote:
sebster wrote:You continue to pretend that Sharia law as it exists in the UK is the same as Sharia law as it exists elsewhere in the world.
You continue to pretend that it isn't.
OK Melissia, from your position in Texas, can you please give explain how Sharia 'Law' (read: arbitration) in the UK is identical to Sharia Law in countries governed by it? If you can't back up statements then it's no more than school-playground-style "No! You're a poo-poo head!" comments, adding nothing to the debate and reducing your credibility.
Tell you what, I live between Leeds and Bradford, so I'm probably better placed to observe the effects of Sharia in the UK than you are.
Melissia wrote:Considering a third of all Muslim students in the UK believe that it's okay to kill in the name of Islam, I don't think you'll have any problem finding Muslims firmly convinced that Allah's law (Sharia) supersedes man's law (civil and legal).
For the fiftieth time in the thread: So what?! Murder is illegal in the UK, just because a few people think it should be allowed doesn't mean it will be, and if they try it then they will be tried for it. 70% of UK citizens believe paedophiles should be executed, and 82% think Raoul Moat was innocent.* Jade Goody thought Norfolk was a country all on its own,** what people think isn't going to affect what is.
Wow. Some peoples rudeness to other peoples knowledge (or lack thereof) screams of superiority issues, and a screen to hide behind whilst inflicting the world with thier self aggrandisement.
Take a chill pill out there - and stop attacks.
And as far as the OP goes - No. Not a good idea.
As soon as religion(any) enters legal systems (whether it be civil etc) it is cause for SERIOUS concern.
akira5665 wrote:
Take a chill pill out there - and stop attacks.
Please. And this includes "subtle" put downs and digs about other posters intelligence, understanding, amount of opposable thumbs, naivety and so on. Much obliged.
Amaya wrote:A vague terror threat? How many thousands have been killed by terrorists?
There is, of course, a real terror threat from Islam. But that threat has no relation to Sharia courts, which is why the threat you've presented it as in this thread has remained very vague. If there was any connection, even a plausible future connection, between Sharia courts and Islamic terror you would have given that but there isn't, so instead you kept it all at a very vague level.
More people tend to be killed by little things like wars and invasions, famine, homelessness and starvation as well as abortion* than terrorism.
*that depends on your view if its a person obviously
Phototoxin wrote:More people tend to be killed by little things like wars and invasions, famine, homelessness and starvation as well as abortion* than terrorism.
*that depends on your view if its a person obviously
I wanted to ask if anyone was familiar with the manin New York who beheaded his wife, after a court order, he did so because of it being an "Honor killing" and was okay by sharia law? he found out the hard way that is not a good excuse or allowed by NY law. But this should be mentioned as it does relate to this discussion based on the points I brought up.
I am sorry, but anyone who wants to have a set of laws that allows them to commit murder just because they felt their honor was besmirched by perceived infidelity instead of "moving on" and dealing with it just because it is some part of their religion deserves to be locked away and have their head examined.
I fully understand what you people are trying to claim about "Sharia law in the UK". As the mod said, stop trying to claim that I don't. Oh yes, I understand what you're getting at when you use that term.
I also couldn't care less.
Because I firmly believe that there is no effective difference, as it is incredibly obvious that they are willing to enforce the FULL extent of Sharia law, not just what what is supposed to be enforced. These are religious nutjobs we're talking about. In the US, we have to fight religious nutjobs tooth and nail to make sure they don't enforce the full force of Christian law so that we can maintain our current level of freedoms. They're bonkers for Jesus, or bonkers for Mohammad, and they want you to be too, feth civil rights and everything it stands for unless it is supported by their chosen holy book.
The thing is, I don't think anyone here is trying to claim that Sharia Law is a Good Thing, or something to be supported - merely that the amount of hysteria on the subject is largely unwarranted.
I think religious courts are an awful, medieval concept and should be stamped out because they are culturally harmful - that's my personal view on the matter. But I love my country, and being British I accept that people should have the freedom to make stupid religious choices, within reason. That's their right under UK law.
Do I think that Orthodox Jewish women should wear wigs outside of the home and have a separate downstairs bathroom for when they're menstruating? No, that's stupid. It's their right, though. Just as, no matter how much I disagree with it, it is the right of Muslims to use a separate system for civil arbitration, or Islamic banking services, should they choose to. I would rather that wasn't the case, because I think it harms proper integration, but it isn't a threat to British society at all.
They are a minority. They are here because we allow them to be. We could crush them all tomorrow if we decided to, but we are a civilised country, and that means tolerating some outside practices even if we do find those practices repellent on occasion.
Albatross wrote:But I love my country, and being British I accept that people should have the freedom to make stupid religious choices, within reason. That's their right under UK law.
That does not mean the UK has to endorse their religious beliefs.
Albatross wrote:But I love my country, and being British I accept that people should have the freedom to make stupid religious choices, within reason. That's their right under UK law.
That does not mean the UK has to endorse their religious beliefs.
Do you consider letting a person practice their religion in accordance with UK law an endorsement? Would you rather we just burned copies of the Koran?
Albatross wrote:But I love my country, and being British I accept that people should have the freedom to make stupid religious choices, within reason. That's their right under UK law.
That does not mean the UK has to endorse their religious beliefs.
Do you consider letting a person practice their religion in accordance with UK law an endorsement? Would you rather we just burned copies of the Koran?
I consider the act of condoning Sharia law courts an endorsement.
I don't know if I worded it properly, but there you go, I think it's a very bad idea. One could also point towards cults in the US where they use their own law system, which is legal for civil matters, but then they use that insularity the system provides to hide anything illegal going on so that they can use their law to cover criminal matters too.
Albatross wrote:But I love my country, and being British I accept that people should have the freedom to make stupid religious choices, within reason. That's their right under UK law.
That does not mean the UK has to endorse their religious beliefs.
Do you consider letting a person practice their religion in accordance with UK law an endorsement? Would you rather we just burned copies of the Koran?
I consider the act of condoning Sharia law courts an endorsement.
I don't know if I worded it properly, but there you go, I think it's a very bad idea. One could also point towards cults in the US where they use their own law system, which is legal for civil matters, but then they use that insularity the system provides to hide anything illegal going on so that they can use their law to cover criminal matters too.
If I give the someone the freedom to do something, and they use that freedom to do something bad, am I endorsing that bad thing?
I don't know the answer to that question. It's more complex than that, as was the post you are responding to (which I probably didn't word right to begin with).
Albatross wrote:But I love my country, and being British I accept that people should have the freedom to make stupid religious choices, within reason. That's their right under UK law.
That does not mean the UK has to endorse their religious beliefs.
Do you consider letting a person practice their religion in accordance with UK law an endorsement? Would you rather we just burned copies of the Koran?
I consider the act of condoning Sharia law courts an endorsement.
I don't know if I worded it properly, but there you go, I think it's a very bad idea. One could also point towards cults in the US where they use their own law system, which is legal for civil matters, but then they use that insularity the system provides to hide anything illegal going on so that they can use their law to cover criminal matters too.
If I give the someone the freedom to do something, and they use that freedom to do something bad, am I endorsing that bad thing?
So you're ok with different groups in the UK not being bound by the UK legal system?
about a thousand years ago? This is now. 2011, its the new black. 
