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.

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.

I just gotta say this.

yeenoghu wrote:

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

Ask a Palestinian.

ZING!

sebster wrote:

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.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I just gotta say this.

yeenoghu wrote:

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

Ask a Palestinian.

ZING!

Beat me to it!

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.

Who is doing that? What are you talking about?

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.

LordofHats wrote:

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.

And we looked dashing doing it as well.

Amaya wrote:

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.

Edit: fixing quotes

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.

Thank you.

SilverMK2 wrote:

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.

LordofHats wrote:

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.

I wanna meet your old man kk, whats his story?

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.

yeenoghu wrote: We call them Cults.

Would you call Hasidic Jews a member of a cult? They are very insular and stand outside of the mainstream culture where they live.