Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts

[floppybootstomp]

I cry when I see how the 1001 different versions of God and all their man-made bye-laws force some human beings to kill other human beings.

All religion is a crock of crap.

There is no God, Jesus lived, he was a self-styled prophet, there were also a lot of other so-called Prophets.

Religion is mankind's worst affliction, appeals to the primitive and is more dangerous than AIDS & Cancer combined.

[Robscure]

I cry when I see how the 1001 different versions of God and all their man-made bye-laws force some human beings to kill other human beings.

All religion is a crock of crap.

There is no God, Jesus lived, he was a self-styled prophet, there were also a lot of other so-called Prophets.

Religion is mankind's worst affliction, appeals to the primitive and is more dangerous than AIDS & Cancer combined.

While I don't share your zeal, I do agree that it's very sad when any life has to suffer. I'm a vegetarian and I don't like to hurt even little insects, let alone a human.

I like people to believe whatever they want, under one major rule, it doesn't hurt themselves or others in any way.

Unfortunately, that is obviously impossible. They're making it difficult for themselves by allowing corrupt leaders to control the ignorant masses.

Just like the crusades... morons.

[TeePee]

There is no God, Jesus lived.

Based on the evidence, probably not.

[Robscure]

Based on the evidence, probably not.

Who knows? I don't like to make absolute statements that cannot be proven, but I do say that it's possible either way, and I think it's entirely irrelevant whether someone believes in something or not.

For example: if you're in University and your professor gives you material to study, you can say, "But I don't believe in you" all you want, but you'll still have to do an exam to pass it, and you are going to do it just like everyone else, and the professor doesn't care what you believe, only what you scored on the exam.

Life is pretty simple, live and let live to sum it up. Try to be the best person you can be, live a good life, don't hurt yourself or others, be rational and try to act in the most logical and moral way you can, as long as you are doing your personal best, that's as good as you can do and nobody can blame you for that, not even god, unless god is some sort of unfair sadistic.. thing... which gives you a test without letting you study, for example, or simply throws you into a fire because he doesn't like the way he created you??? lol life and all of this is very logical, live and let live

Peace

[Joe5]

I'm all for world peace, tolerance, and freedom, but I don't think a country should change its fundamental laws just to suit the needs of foreigners.

Well they aren't really foreigners anymore, many Muslims have lived in Britain all their lives.

I don't think this is really anything worth getting excited about. This only counts in civil cases and only when both parties agree to do it under this law.

So it's a bit like binding arbitration. It is also much cheaper because you don't hire a solicitor for this, you just show up and make your case.

My only question is when ruling from different courts are in opposition to each other. What happens then, do you take it to a higher court?

[Robscure]

Well they aren't really foreigners anymore, many Muslims have lived in Britain all their lives.

I don't think this is really anything worth getting excited about. This only counts in civil cases and only when both parties agree to do it under this law.

So it's a bit like binding arbitration. It is also much cheaper because you don't hire a solicitor for this, you just show up and make your case.

My only question is when ruling from different courts are in opposition to each other. What happens then, do you take it to a higher court?

Yeah it's not worth getting excited about by itself... and I agree they've lived here, and that's fine, they should, as long as they aren't trying to change the way the country is run.

I happen to know a lot about Islam, having studied it in-depth, and that is why I "get excited" about things like this. A fundamental aspect of the theology says that they shall take over the world and be the only religion, and it is something they do slowly slowly... I'm not talking about extremists, I'm talking about "regular" people who are trying to obey god by converting people and trying to impose their beliefs on the country at hand...

I hope nobody takes this the wrong way, I have nothing against any religion, I just wish all people to live in peace. But, as I mentioned, it's sad to see the world become the same, and that will happen if countries allow their customs to be demolished.

[Agent]

I don't think this is really anything worth getting excited about. This only counts in civil cases and only when both parties agree to do it under this law.

And how many people are going to be forcefully told to "agree" that they go along with these courts?

The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

Do you honestly not see how easy it would be for family's to bully others into taking this route against their wishes?

[TeePee]

They live here, most of them were born here, and they absolutely should try to change the way the country is run, should they wish to.

That said, everyone gets a vote, and everyone should be subject to the same laws, and courts. Agent makes the important point.

[Robscure]

They live here, most of them were born here, and they absolutely should try to change the way the country is run, should they wish to.

That said, everyone gets a vote, and everyone should be subject to the same laws, and courts. Agent makes the important point.

Your post seems relatively paradoxical, to me at least...

Unless you meant, they should *try* to change the country, should they wish to... BUT, to no avail because we don't want to lose our culture and history similar to how Iran did, for example.

[Salazaar]

So it's a bit like binding arbitration.

I think that's the key point. Both parties have to agree to accept this form of arbitration which goes hand in hand with agreeing to accept the result.

It's just a way of getting people to settle arguments based on a different culture than (most of) our own. So long as our civil and criminal courts maintain independance and priority I don't see the problem.

[TooNice]

But, if I were to go to Spain to live, then I should first learn how to speak Spanish.

You may do that, and while I see it as a good thing, you will find that many do not. Look at the British community in Hong Kong (and other places). The people who first moved there tend to cluster together and many do not speak Mandarin/Cantonese (though their children may).

I am not singling out the British though, Chinese communities do that, African communities do that and so on. I actually share your view on this, but in practice, not every immigrants will 'integrate' with the natives. It's just something we all have to accept, unless you think that it is feasible to introduce laws regarding how immigrants must interact with the locals and somehow find a way of enforcing that.

I don't think that's practical though. I won't praise people going to another country, and make absolutely no attempt to integrate, or otherwise get along with the locals. However, I would expect that someone going to another country is allowed to keep their identity if they choose to. People are allowed to have their own house rules (so long as it doesn't break the law), so I don't see what's wrong with communities wanting their own rules (religious or otherwise - again, so long as it doesn't break actual laws).

A fundamental aspect of the theology says that they shall take over the world and be the only religion, and it is something they do slowly slowly...

I've yet to have met a Muslim who has tried to 'convert' me. I've definitely ran into more missionaries of various Christianity groups so far. Let's just say that I doubt that Islam is the only religion in this country that is seeking significant influence over the population.

[...]as long as they aren't trying to change the way the country is run /
This is especially sad because countries lose their identity, their culture, and then the world becomes monotone and dull... .

This is where I disagree. You call it demolition, I call it evolution (or perhaps mutation, given that many here would argue that going from one religious root to another is not much of an evolution - I won't get into this - but I guess we are seeing the same seeing, but putting different spin into it).

I don't have a problem if countries change from their roots. This will happens naturally as society change. Globalisation may change the direction of the change in unexpected change, but most countries have willingly gave up some of their cultures as time went on albeit at different pace. I actually believe that immigration brings diversity to a country - and it is this diversity I particularly like about London. But I believe that the UK today would still be different from what it was 500, 1000 years ago even without any outside influences. We can only guess whether it would've been better or worst off without outside influences. Either way, once a person is accepted as being 'British' (or whatever nationality in another country), s/he should, in my opinion, have the same right as anyone else to influence and change the way the country is run, as long as the means used are legal.

You are entitled to disagree with their views of course. Actually, it's not even that I agree with Sharia law, but I can't deny their existence in fairness of the existence of other religious arbitration system (using BNP analogy, I disagree with their policies, but not their existence as a legitimate party). We are free to debates and criticise the merits of whatever change a group of people proposes, but I believe that there should be only one class of citizens, all with with the same right - even influence the way the country is run/change (so long as it is done lawfully). And to be honest, while I do think that there are valid concerns regarding Sharia laws (already expressed by others in the other thread, and the most important point repeated by Agent above), I do not see how 'demolishing' the British culture comes into play anyway.

[Agent]

It's just a way of getting people to settle arguments based on a different culture than (most of) our own. So long as our civil and criminal courts maintain independance and priority I don't see the problem.

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

Wife beating is hardly an "argument". AFAIK, in most situations it's a criminal offence (although please correct that if needed).
They should not be passing any 'judgement' on these cases.

Any form of violence should be ruled upon by one legal system.

[Stewart]

it's not that simple. It's not about writing the scripture directly into law, but how the scripture informs one's worldview, and the general mores of society, which in turns makes laws.

can't make laws devoid of religious influence, since people make the laws, and people have religious influences. most western law has a Christian basis, after all.

Christians believe that a book which contains a talking snake is factually correct. This alone should be enough to prohibit any Christian influence on the law of the land, which requires an absolute separation from this infantile, outdated nonsense, that has not been relevant since the Middle Ages.

[Robscure]

You may do that, and while I see it as a good thing, you will find that many do not. Look at the British community in Hong Kong (and other places). The people who first moved there tend to cluster together and many do not speak Mandarin/Cantonese (though their children may).

I am not singling out the British though, Chinese communities do that, African communities do that and so on. I actually share your view on this, but in practice, not every immigrants will 'integrate' with the natives. It's just something we all have to accept, unless you think that it is feasible to introduce laws regarding how immigrants must interact with the locals and somehow find a way of enforcing that.

I don't think that's practical though. I won't praise people going to another country, and make absolutely no attempt to integrate, or otherwise get along with the locals. However, I would expect that someone going to another country is allowed to keep their identity if they choose to. People are allowed to have their own house rules (so long as it doesn't break the law), so I don't see what's wrong with communities wanting their own rules (religious or otherwise - again, so long as it doesn't break actual laws).


I've yet to have met a Muslim who has tried to 'convert' me. I've definitely ran into more missionaries of various Christianity groups so far. Let's just say that I doubt that Islam is the only religion in this country that is seeking significant influence over the population.


This is where I disagree. You call it demolition, I call it evolution (or perhaps mutation, given that many here would argue that going from one religious root to another is not much of an evolution - I won't get into this - but I guess we are seeing the same seeing, but putting different spin into it).

I don't have a problem if countries change from their roots. This will happens naturally as society change. Globalisation may change the direction of the change in unexpected change, but most countries have willingly gave up some of their cultures as time went on albeit at different pace. I actually believe that immigration brings diversity to a country - and it is this diversity I particularly like about London. But I believe that the UK today would still be different from what it was 500, 1000 years ago even without any outside influences. We can only guess whether it would've been better or worst off without outside influences. Either way, once a person is accepted as being 'British' (or whatever nationality in another country), s/he should, in my opinion, have the same right as anyone else to influence and change the way the country is run, as long as the means used are legal.

You are entitled to disagree with their views of course. Actually, it's not even that I agree with Sharia law, but I can't deny their existence in fairness of the existence of other religious arbitration system. We are free to debates and criticise the merits of the change of various proposals, but I believe that there should be only one class of citizens, all with with the same right - even influence the way the country is run/change (so long as it is done lawfully). And while I do think that there are valid concerns regarding Sharia laws (already expressed by others in the other thread, and the most important point repeated by Agent above), I do not see how 'demolishing' the British culture comes into play.

Well said, intellectually and appropriately, thanks for that. I agree with you on most of your points. Of course I know that Islam doesn't have a monopoly on conversions, it is not their tactic to knock on your door, but to infiltrate your countries' politics slowly slowly... There was a good video on this... I'm going to PM it to you... For anyone else who wants to see this news coverage then check this video http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ocU5x_03MDM It touches on the reason why I think allowing religion to take over a country is a bad idea. Sure, the Christians knocking on your door are annoying as hell, but what's worse is if they have their own neighborhoods and you aren't allowed to live there, and the police are not allowed to enter... Except, the Christians don't have this... but the Muslims do have this. And I disagree with that. If the Christians have this, I would be just as opposed.

[Salazaar]

Wife beating is hardly an "argument". AFAIK, in most situations it's a criminal offence (although please correct that if needed).
They should not be passing any 'judgement' on these cases.

Any form of violence should be ruled upon by one legal system.

It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.

I'd tend to agree with you but domestic violence is far more complex than you're making out. All it takes is for the abused partner to refuse to testify/press charges (for whatever reason) and the case is pretty much screwed. I presume the police would have pressed for criminal charges if they could have. At least this way some punishment is handed out, and it may even improve the situation if these people believe that they've been treated fairly.

[shadowmaster]

coverage then check this video http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ocU5x_03MDM It touches on .

CBN? Christian Broadcasting Network, no doubt a very unbiased source