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.

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.

sebster wrote:Only if you think all Sharia law is equal in scope and authority.

I am not the one that has to believe that. Only the ones that are using it have to believe that.

Melissia wrote:

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:

Melissia wrote:

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)

Amaya wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

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.

Are you saying that Italians and Islamic people are more likely to intimidate witnesses, than are other ethnic/religious groups?

Hey, good job putting words in someone's mouth and implying something that they didn't come close to suggesting.

Hey, good job putting words in someone's mouth and implying something that they didn't come close to suggesting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is a very old story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7233040.stm

I suggest that everyone should read the BBC report, do a bit of research, and come back with sensible reasons for why Jewish law should be abolished.

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.

Amaya wrote:When was the last time radical Jewish terrorists assaulted or bombed anyone?

That would largely depend upon whom you ask perhaps yes ?

something which can be and is achieved through intimidation.

as opposed to the rest of human interactions of course... ?

Melissia wrote:

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.

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.

I just think its a double standard.

Amaya wrote:
No, I'm pointing out that Judaism (outside of Israel) does not have the history of violence that Islam does.

hmm... I'm pretty certain that, for example, the Old Testament details lots and lots of wars and the like fought by the Jewish people.

And of course.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun

Critics of the Irgun have seen it as a terrorist organization. It was legally classified as such by the new State of Israel in 1948

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.

Melissa gets it.

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.

mattyrm wrote: started by another Religious zealot, Tony "all opinions are equally valid" Blair..

How is this anything to do with Tony Blair ?

One country, one judiciary system. Any attempt at setting different laws depending on people's origins or beliefs won't end well...

There isn't a separate Jewish judiciary system.

The Beth Din courts have been operating for decades without problems, because they operate under the umbrella of English Law.

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.

Political correctness gone mad.

Are swans causing cancer?

mattyrm wrote:Melissa gets it.

No she doesn't. She really, really doesn't.

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.

It affects me not a jot.

Hyenajoe wrote:One country, one judiciary system. Any attempt at setting different laws depending on people's origins or beliefs won't end well...

Judge Judy must be stopped!

If they want to solve issues that don't need to go to court then let them, and let them fund it.

If it does cost anything to the taxpayer, then I think it's a terrible idea.

The only negative issue here is that it gives Shariah law somewhat of a legitimacy within Britain.

I wonder how many muslim women will 'agree' with these rulings...

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?

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?

Bookwrack wrote:

Amaya wrote:Who thought this was a good idea?

Why would anyone think this was a bad idea?

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.

1) Women aren't property

2) Sharia law is no less advanced than any legal system based on religion.

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?

Amaya wrote:What's the name of the case?

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!