Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

That's bandying a mite...

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:

Kilkrazy wrote:http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/6724

This interesting piece sheds some light on the whole issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would also draw your attention to this highly relevant paper on the Beth Din courts.

http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/files/1236789702_1.pdf, in particular the following paragraph from page 9.


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.

These are legitimate concerns, however I feel they can be addressed by the composition and operation of the Sharia courts.

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.

Does the UK also have Brannigan's Law?

Amaya wrote:

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.

Ahtman wrote:Does the UK also have Brannigan's Law?

Brannigan's Law is like Brannigan's love: hard and fast.

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.

Bam.

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).

Very well said.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, ignore Muslim incursions into Spain and the Byzantine Empire.

Amaya wrote:Once again, when have Jews been an invasive force?

Ask a Palestinian.

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?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yeenoghu wrote:Ask a Palestinian.

I really, really wish I'd thought of this answer.

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?




Yep, absolute support.

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?"

sebster wrote:

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:/facepalm

Muslims invaded Spain and the Byzantine Empire. Stop being so obtuse.

Yes, but what in sweet moogly googly has that got to do with some guy being given a visa to go work in the UK?

Germans invaded most of Europe, and they did it just last century, does that mean Germans who receive visas to work in France or Poland are invaders?

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.

Who described a Muslim getting a visa as an invasion?

You're making stuff up.