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.

Not being a lawyer I don't know the answer to this, but the article seems to say that they are simply providing guidelines for writing wills up in that fashion. It says things like "it advises" or "it suggests", rather than "this changes the law so that it is Sharia. The article even goes so far as to say

Currently, Sharia principles are not formally addressed by or included in Britain’s laws

But not being a lawyer (British or otherwise), the 'advises' and 'suggests' could be just as good as 'orders', but I'd assume not, since (according to wiki, bless it) the The Law Society only concerns certain lawyers, and primarily provides services and support to practising and training solicitors as well as serving as a sounding board for law reform. It doesn't decide the reform, it's just a society that stuff gets bounced off of.

So, going off that, I don't think that its accurate that this is evidence of Sharia law becoming enshrined in a nation's existing laws.

 motyak wrote:
Not being a lawyer I don't know the answer to this, but the article seems to say that they are simply providing guidelines for writing wills up in that fashion. It says things like "it advises" or "it suggests", rather than "this changes the law so that it is Sharia. The article even goes so far as to say

Currently, Sharia principles are not formally addressed by or included in Britain’s laws

But not being a lawyer (British or otherwise), the 'advises' and 'suggests' could be just as good as 'orders', but I'd assume not, since (according to wiki, bless it) the The Law Society only concerns certain lawyers, and primarily provides services and support to practising and training solicitors as well as serving as a sounding board for law reform. It doesn't decide the reform, it's just a society that stuff gets bounced off of.

So, going off that, I don't think that its accurate that this is evidence of Sharia law becoming enshrined in a nation's existing laws.

Note however that the article states: "Baroness Cox, a cross-bench peer leading a Parliamentary campaign to protect women from religiously sanctioned discrimination, including from unofficial Sharia courts in Britain, said it was a “deeply disturbing” development and pledged to raise it with ministers."

From that quote we can see how there are unoffical sharia courts.

There have been aspects of Jewish law operating in the UK for decades. They essentially have to operate within the context of contract law and the existing law. The sharia law idea is the same thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let's be clear, though, unofficial courts are not official.

The Law Society threw that Sharia nonsense out and apologised a few months after that news broke.

Swedish politics is pathetic. Absolutely no democratic process being carried out by the new union of parties, diametrically opposed, to shut out SD that people did vote for.

This is what career politicians look like. They don't give a feth, they just want to keep their jobs.

Absolutely disgusting, Sweden.

Translated article.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.metro.se%2Fnyheter%2Fstatsvetare-sa-paverkar-uppgorelsen-svensk-politik%2FEVHnlA!oUXjRMvxZyL2%2F&edit-text=&act=url

Yeah, what a disgrace, striking deals so that the country continues to function! Boo! Hiss!

I really don't see much of an issue. Sharia law is not law. Period. If you live in a country, this country's laws are absolutely binding. Any Sharia "law" is about as much as a law as everyone having to wear pink panties every Saturday.

 Medium of Death wrote:
The Law Society threw that Sharia nonsense out and apologised a few months after that news broke.

Swedish politics is pathetic. Absolutely no democratic process being carried out by the new union of parties, diametrically opposed, to shut out SD that people did vote for.

This is what career politicians look like. They don't give a feth, they just want to keep their jobs.

Absolutely disgusting, Sweden.

Translated article.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.metro.se%2Fnyheter%2Fstatsvetare-sa-paverkar-uppgorelsen-svensk-politik%2FEVHnlA!oUXjRMvxZyL2%2F&edit-text=&act=url

Didn't one swedish school also ban the swedish flag as "racist"? Also, unoffical courts can affect the lives of people as much as offical ones can.

I don't see how you expect official courts to moderate unofficial courts unless they operate outside the national law.

For instance, if you agree to an arbitration process under sharia law -- an unofficial court, if you will -- you are bound by the result unless it violates some aspect of the national law.

I feel unconformable with the idea of any subset of "Laws" governing peoples lives outside of the official Law. It's open to abuse.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Yeah, what a disgrace, striking deals so that the country continues to function! Boo! Hiss!

If your completely happy with the way it functions then that's fine. If you want any kind of change then not so much.

Enjoy your boundless immigration, violent crime & rising rape statistics in your brave new democracy.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
For instance, if you agree to an arbitration process under sharia law -- an unofficial court, if you will -- you are bound by the result unless it violates some aspect of the national law.

And this is very, very bad. It allows communities to pressure vulnerable individuals into submission. This should not be tolerated.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't see how you expect official courts to moderate unofficial courts unless they operate outside the national law.

For instance, if you agree to an arbitration process under sharia law -- an unofficial court, if you will -- you are bound by the result unless it violates some aspect of the national law.

So, gender equality laws then?

 Medium of Death wrote:
I feel unconformable with the idea of any subset of "Laws" governing peoples lives outside of the official Law. It's open to abuse.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Yeah, what a disgrace, striking deals so that the country continues to function! Boo! Hiss!

If your completely happy with the way it functions then that's fine. If you want any kind of change then not so much.

Enjoy your boundless immigration, violent crime & rising rape statistics in your brave new democracy.

Source on the increasing rapes thingie that isn't easily explainable by increased reporting? Or are you just poking to bash immigration?

Honestly, it's a deal between the only two realistic government candidates to make sure that a minority government (which is more of a rule than an exception in Sweden) can function without letting the far right dictate the terms. You can call it dictatorial or undemocratic all you want, that doesn't make it so.

 Medium of Death wrote:
I feel unconformable with the idea of any subset of "Laws" governing peoples lives outside of the official Law. It's open to abuse.

...
.

You are opposed then to the Football Association, the Magic Circle, and other such organisations that sit in judgement and may levy penalties on their members.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


For instance, if you agree to an arbitration process under sharia law -- an unofficial court, if you will -- you are bound by the result unless it violates some aspect of the national law.

You are "bound" to this as in "Yeah, I'm with it.". A Sharia "verdict" has as much bearing as the promise of a 4 year old to not steal candies again. You cannot decide to "leave" a nation's law, but you can always leave a club or any other institution. If any club, religion or anything passes a "verdict" that opposes national law or human rights etc. then it is illegal and must be persecuted by the law with full force.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
I feel unconformable with the idea of any subset of "Laws" governing peoples lives outside of the official Law. It's open to abuse.

...
.

You are opposed then to the Football Association, the Magic Circle, and other such organisations that sit in judgement and may levy penalties on their members.

That's a bit of a disingenuous example is it not? People join these organisation through payment surely?

How is a Religion the same as these things in the Law? When the FA or Magical circle becomes a religion that lays down moral codes to adhere to in every element of life you might have a point.

Arbitration =/= law.

If two people agree to arbitration according to Jedi Code then they can arbitrate by Jedi Code, that doesn't mean that the country follows Jedi law.

 d-usa wrote:
Arbitration =/= law.

If two people agree to arbitration according to Jedi Code then they can arbitrate by Jedi Code, that doesn't mean that the country follows Jedi law.

...and on top of that, if one dude somehow decides to stop playing Jedi, the other one has nothing in his hands to exercise force upon the sith former playmate.

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
I feel unconformable with the idea of any subset of "Laws" governing peoples lives outside of the official Law. It's open to abuse.

...
.

You are opposed then to the Football Association, the Magic Circle, and other such organisations that sit in judgement and may levy penalties on their members.

That's a bit of a disingenuous example is it not? People join these organisation through payment surely?

How is a Religion the same as these things in the Law? When the FA or Magical circle becomes a religion that lays down moral codes to adhere to in every element of life you might have a point.

Not at all disingenuous. People voluntarily agree to abide by some unofficial "legal" process. If the verdict goes against them and they refuse to comply, the national law can then be used to compel them, usually through contract law in the UK, or by arbitration tribunal processes.

This is how the Jewish law has been implemented in the UK for decades. It is the way too that various civil disputes such as divorce and small claims actions can be decided out of court, but enforced by the court.

People join and pay money to religions as well as football clubs. Though actually in the case of a football club, the player is paid, so your objection is not sustainable on those grounds.

Exactly. It's the difference between forcing someone to abide by Sharia Law and two people voluntarily agreeing to reach a decision that follows Sharia Law and having that agreement encoded via non-Sharia laws.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
This is how the Jewish law has been implemented in the UK for decades. It is the way too that various civil disputes such as divorce and small claims actions can be decided out of court, but enforced by the court.

It is terrible and it should be changed.

 d-usa wrote:
Exactly. It's the difference between forcing someone to abide by Sharia Law and two people voluntarily agreeing to reach a decision that follows Sharia Law and having that agreement encoded via non-Sharia laws.

Except in practice all it does is force vulnerable people to abide by sharia law or face the hostility of their whole community. Not just their husband/wife (husband generally, Sharia court rarely benefit women over men) but their whole family, and often many of their friend. Awesome, is it not?


Here is one website campaigning against Sharia court that is affiliated with ex-muslim apostates, rather than right-wing xenophobes:
http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/

 Medium of Death wrote:

Please explain to me how the differing countries that comprise Europe do not have different cultures?

I never said otherwise, but you did:

...I think the culture of Europe should be respected...

What is the "...culture of Europe..."?

 dogma wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

Please explain to me how the differing countries that comprise Europe do not have different cultures?

I never said otherwise, but you did:

...I think the culture of Europe should be respected...

What is the "...culture of Europe..."?

You know Dogma, your stupid little word games get really old. Everyone here knows what he meant. So what if he forgot to put an S at the end of culture. I don't know what makes you want to do stuff like this all the time, but it detracts from the overall conversation, and does nothing to contribute. All you succeed in doing is annoying other people.

This is an internet forum. We are conveying thoughts through typing. The occasional typo will occur. This isn't some lecture hall in Yale where the great academics of society will debate each other. There is no need to treat it as such.

 djones520 wrote:

You know Dogma, your stupid little word games get really old. Everyone here knows what he meant.

It is almost like I'm trying to understand the positions of people that aren't like me.

 djones520 wrote:

So what if he forgot to put an S at the end of culture. I don't know what makes you want to do stuff like this all the time, but it detracts from the overall conversation, and does nothing to contribute. All you succeed in doing is annoying other people.

You're putting words in his mouth.

 Hordini wrote:
They can assert their beliefs and laws as much as they want, that isn't going to ever give them any legal standing, especially not in the US. All the crap about Muslims trying to bring Sharia law to the US is conspiracy theory fear tactics.

The "Religion of Truth" (Islam) must prevail, by force if necessary, over all other religions. 9:33

They assert that they have freedom of religion in the US. Then when what they want to do conflicts with anything they claim descrimination and persecution.

Allah says that you must keep fighting until there is no more persecution and everyone on earth is a Muslim. Then you can stop killing people. 2:193a

Do not obey disbelievers. 3:149

Don't believe anyone who is not a Muslim. 3:73

Sam Harris wrote:I invite [those] who haven't read the Quran to simple read the book. Take out a highlighter and highlight those lines that counsel the believer to despise infidels, and you will find a book that is just covered with highlighter.--

Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers. 2:98

Allah has revealed "clear tokens." Only evil people are disbelievers. 2:99

The Jews and Christians know damn well that the Muslims are right, so they try to make Muslims disbelievers because they envy the truth that they know the Muslims have. 2:109

Disbelievers are losers. 2:121

Those who disbelieve in the Quran, for whatever reason, are cursed by Allah, the angels, and men combined. So every good Muslim must join Allah and the angels in cursing nonbelievers. 2:161

"Those who disbelieve [are] Deaf, dumb, blind, therefore they have no sense." 2:171

Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kil them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2

War is ordained by Allah, and all Muslims must be willing to fight, whether they like it or not. 2:216

It's you and your religion against them and theirs. They won't stop fighting until they make you a "renegade from your religion" and if they succeed in that so you die in disbelief, Allah will burn you forever in the Fire. 2:217

"The disbelievers, they are the wrong-doers." 2:254

Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. 3:28


Why does Allah like Muslims so much? Because they are the best people on earth, they behave themselves, forbid indecency, and believe in Allah. Allah loves people who believe in him. (Most Non-muslims are "evil-livers.") 3:110

Don't be friends with non-Muslims. They all hate you and want to ruin you. 3:118

The disbelievers are an open enemy to you. 4:101

Do not choose disbelievers as friends. 4:144

Those who make war with Allah and his messenger will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. That is how they will be treated in this world, and in the next they will have an awful doom. 5:33

Non-muslims are wrong doers. 5:45

Most unbelievers are ignorant. 6:111

Disbelief is the greatest evil. 7:37

Disbelievers are liars. 7:66

Those who deny Muhammad's revelations are like dogs. 7:176

Those who deny Muhammad's revelation are evil. 7:177

When you fight with disbelievers, do not retreat. Those who do will go to hell. 8:15-16

Fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. 8:39

Exhort the believers to fight. They will win easily, because disbelievers are without intelligence. 8:65

Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. 9:5

Those who submit and convert to Islam will be treated well. (Those who don't submit will be killed. See previous verse.) 9:6

Don't make treaties with non-Muslims. They are all evildoers and should not be trusted. 9:7-9

Treat converts to Islam well. (Kill those who refuse to convert. See 9:5) 9:11

And evidently the Islam and Nazis share a similar view of Jews


I encourage you to read the Quran with annotations here

To begin with, the bible holds some pretty stupid stuff as well if you take it literally.

Secondly, freedom of religion does not mean that you are free to do anything because your religion tells you to. It means that you can hold and exercise your religion freely as long as you follow actual law.

So, for example, the "Don't obey disbelievers" part is 100% meaningless. You either have to ignore this part if you're a muslim or you have to move to an islamic country.

 Sigvatr wrote:
To begin with, the bible holds some pretty stupid stuff as well if you take it literally.

I agree. Unfortunately that doesn't stop devout, but stupid, people.

Also, most of the crazy stuff in the Bible is old testament, and not part of the covenant of the new testament, which is what modern Christians are suppossed to be following, or at least that is what I've been told when I point out crazy stuff from the old testament.

Evidently the teachings of Jesus are a lot more warm and fuzzy than the old school teachings

Secondly, freedom of religion does not mean that you are free to do anything because your religion tells you to. It means that you can hold and exercise your religion freely as long as you follow actual law.

And their counter argument is that the laws of man are not as important as divine law.

The US still has arguments and legal battles about Gay Marriage, Abortion, and Birth Control becuase of religious objections to things that are, or should be, legal otherwise.

So, for example, the "Don't obey disbelievers" part is 100% meaningless. You either have to ignore this part if you're a muslim or you have to move to an islamic country.

It's only meaningless to you. To the Devout, it's a divine commandment.

Also, Islam wants to convert your country to an islamic country.

Unless you are creating a mordernized interpretation of the Quran, which is actually listed specifically as a sin in the Quran, it's Muslims against everyone else, everyone else is wrong and evil, and it's your duty to wage war against them until you kill them or they convert.

Do I think that is a logical, or feasable belief system ? No.

Is that what impoverished people who live in a war torn country are being taught what it means to be devout muslims ? Yes

I know a lot of people who have immigrated here who have been able to do incredible things, and have managed things genuinely worthy of my respect. We have had a lot of people arrive here that have been truly amazing people. I like that they have come here.

I am not in favor of people who have come here and provided a net drain on everyone else who is already here. We have enough of those people.

Or you follow taqiure (spl) which lets you lie to any non muslim to advance globel islam.

 adamsouza wrote:


And their counter argument is that the laws of man are not as important as divine law.

That's a full stop for me. That's not a counter-argument. What they say is worth nothing, literally, nothing. The law is above all. What they want is irrelevant. You break the law because your religions says otherwise? You broke the law. You get punished for it. That's how any reasonable state is to react to any issue. Law and human rights are above anything.

Just to make sure: I don't want to disrespect you by shortening your well thought-out post to this quote, I just think that it portrays my point pretty well.

If a, for example, a muslim decides to beat or kill a Christian because any "Sharia happening" decided to such a verdict, then first of all, let him take his koran into jail and then get the Sharia guys into jail as well for inciting a crime. That's how the law MUST work. Justice is blind.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:


And their counter argument is that the laws of man are not as important as divine law.

That's a full stop for me. That's not a counter-argument. What they say is worth nothing, literally, nothing. The law is above all. What they want is irrelevant. You break the law because your religions says otherwise? You broke the law. You get punished for it. That's how any reasonable state is to react to any issue. Law and human rights are above anything.

Just to make sure: I don't want to disrespect you by shortening your well thought-out post to this quote, I just think that it portrays my point pretty well.

If a, for example, muslim decides to beat or kill a Christian because any "Sharia happening" decided to such a verdict, then first of all, let him take his koran into jail and then get the Sharia guys into jail as well for inciting a crime. That's how the law MUST work. Justice is blind.

No offense taken.

Let me assure you, that I agree with your line of thinking.