The end of a free Britannia?

[Melidan]

Wow.. I really cant believe what im reading. The birthplace of the Magna Carta..

Equal justice under law.. Except for if your Muslim..?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

Remember everyone.. Slippery slope. You give someone an inch, they'll take a mile. Sharia for criminal cases is next, just wait.

[michaeru]

Britannia falls first, the rest of the continent soon follows.

[Gelvenator]

Well, religous freedom was why the Pilgrims traveled to the New World. Of course, it was a whole different kind of persecution...:Apocp90:

[Pimptastic]

I think I might visit my mp again, I really think stuff like this doesnt help anyone as it will cause 2 different lifestyles and cultures in the same space and could even bring on a religious partide like situation over time, that is extreme but then we seem to be in a situation where the extreme and extremely retarded are running our country by putting threw poorly planned laws and stuff.

[Penguin Man]

I dont get whats happening (mainly because i didnt read the whole thing and thought it was boring but since it mentioned islam i think its pretty important :D)

really??

[Hubb]

This is completely unacceptable. Way to go, UK. I don't know who the hell thinks this division will be anything other than hurtful and call British authority into question.

Don't need to worry about holding the Gates of Vienna anymore. Slippery slopes.

[James Davis]

Europe's being overrun by an invasion that was allowed by their own political correctness.

[leninrocks244]

So they're adopting muslim law? It's not the end of the world (I'm sure most of you would disagree since most of you are paranoid about those damn ay-rabs).

[Penguin Man]

Hey im muslim. No need for discrimination :D

[heilesabre]

I actually see no problem with this. Assuming I'm reading this correctly, the rulings of a sharia court are binding only if both parties agree to give it the power on their case. If two Muslims want to settle a dispute their own way, why deny them that right?

[Melidan]

I actually see no problem with this. Assuming I'm reading this correctly, the rulings of a sharia court are binding only if both parties agree to give it the power on their case. If two Muslims want to settle a dispute their own way, why deny them that right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

In debate or rhetoric, the slippery slope is one of the classical informal fallacies. It suggests that an action will initiate a chain of events culminating in an undesirable event later without establishing or quantifying the relevant contingencies.

[IronsightSniper]

Heh yeah.
America has always been Europe's bigger brother.

[The Arbiter]

Heh yeah.
America has always been Europe's bigger brother.
I'd like you to think about the statement you just made.

[IronsightSniper]

I did :D

[The Arbiter]

When we were 13 colonies we were Europe's big brother?

[heilesabre]

In debate or rhetoric, the slippery slope is one of the classical informal fallacies. It suggests that an action will initiate a chain of events culminating in an undesirable event later without establishing or quantifying the relevant contingencies.

Uh, you do know what a fallacy is, right?
In any case I don't see why you think a slippery slope argument applies. Quite frankly it is impossible to extend this system to criminal law for example. One side of a criminal court is the prosecution (the Crown), and it would be downright unfair (and improbable) for them to give special treatment to Muslims in a criminal case.

You can also think of this another way: two Muslims could submit their case to an arbitration panel (as could any two citizens). What this law does is simply make it easier to find their desired panel (which is a sharia court).

[Melidan]

Check back in 20 years when Muslims aren't a minority in the UK anymore.

[tom the pit leader]

Western culture. Like it, or as the internet says, GTFO of my country. I'm sorry, but what if the jews or christians tired something like this? Unacceptable.

[IronsightSniper]

When we were 13 colonies we were Europe's big brother?

We were bigger because we always had a will to fight on, how did you think we turned those 13 colonies into 50?

By the way, I'm guessing you thought I meant, Older brother, but I didn't :P

[Plutarch]

So they're adopting muslim law? It's not the end of the world (I'm sure most of you would disagree since most of you are paranoid about those damn ay-rabs).

Maybe you guys don't understand legal precedents. This is a really bad one to begin adopting systems that supersede Common Law for a particular group of citizens. Law has never worked like this, not in the Continent, England or the US. The only thing I could think of that is like this is the Canon Law of the Church, but that is really an administrative rule book for the clergy more than laws dealing with the transfer of property, etc. The only thing that the Canon Law deals with that might concern non-clergy is the marriage laws, but that is administered in agreement with Common Law.

In addition, this sounds like a dangerous mix of Church and State, with a religion that appears to be more willing to impose itself on others than the Church of England is these days (because otherwise, why would they have bothered to set up Sharia courts in England?)

On another note: It should be known that there are several different branches of Islamic jurisprudence. It is not one monolithic thing; there are numerous interpretations and rule sets. It is not clear exactly what branch of Islamic jurisprudence this is. As I said before, the Law is all about precedence in our system, not only on statutory proscriptions (although the legislature does have a role in the law system, as is obvious).

Western culture. Like it, or as the internet says, GTFO of my country. I'm sorry, but what if the jews or christians tired something like this? Unacceptable.

Right on.

Plus, Common Law is the best. It is sad to see our friends who developed the Common Law system are beginning to lose it in the name of Political Correctness.

[The Arbiter]

We were bigger because we always had a will to fight on, how did you think we turned those 13 colonies into 50?

By the way, I'm guessing you thought I meant, Older brother, but I didn't :P
No, I knew you meant big brother. And England was our big brother for hundreds of years.

[James Davis]

Maybe you guys don't understand legal precedents. This is a really bad one to begin adopting systems that supersede Common Law for a particular group of citizens. Law has never worked like this, not in the Continent, England or the US. The only thing I could think of that is like this is the Canon Law of the Church, but that is really an administrative rule book for the clergy more than laws dealing with the transfer of property, etc. The only thing that the Canon Law deals with that might concern non-clergy is the marriage laws, but that is administered in agreement with Common Law.

In addition, this sounds like a dangerous mix of Church and State, with a religion that appears to be more willing to impose itself on others than the Church of England is these days (because otherwise, why would they have bothered to set up Sharia courts in England?)

On another note: It should be known that there are several different branches of Islamic jurisprudence. It is not one monolithic thing; there are numerous interpretations and rule sets. It is not clear exactly what branch of Islamic jurisprudence this is. As I said before, the Law is all about precedence in our system, not only on statutory proscriptions (although the legislature does have a role in the law system, as is obvious).

Right on.

Plus, Common Law is the best. It is sad to see our friends who developed the Common Law system are beginning to lose it in the name of Political Correctness.

Very, VERY well said.

[The Arbiter]

Maybe you guys don't understand legal precedents. This is a really bad one to begin adopting systems that supersede Common Law for a particular group of citizens. Law has never worked like this, not in the Continent, England or the US. The only thing I could think of that is like this is the Canon Law of the Church, but that is really an administrative rule book for the clergy more than laws dealing with the transfer of property, etc. The only thing that the Canon Law deals with that might concern non-clergy is the marriage laws, but that is administered in agreement with Common Law.

In addition, this sounds like a dangerous mix of Church and State, with a religion that appears to be more willing to impose itself on others than the Church of England is these days (because otherwise, why would they have bothered to set up Sharia courts in England?)

On another note: It should be known that there are several different branches of Islamic jurisprudence. It is not one monolithic thing; there are numerous interpretations and rule sets. It is not clear exactly what branch of Islamic jurisprudence this is. As I said before, the Law is all about precedence in our system, not only on statutory proscriptions (although the legislature does have a role in the law system, as is obvious).



Right on.

Plus, Common Law is the best. It is sad to see our friends who developed the Common Law system are beginning to lose it in the name of Political Correctness.
Someone give this guy a medal.

[Plutarch]

Seriously? Ah. I'm flattered.

[heilesabre]

Check back in 20 years when Muslims aren't a minority in the UK anymore.

This is just paranoia. Since when has anyone in, say South Korea, been afraid of an impending Christian majority? You need something to beef up your claims that Muslims would try to overwhelm the system through numbers.

Maybe you guys don't understand legal precedents. This is a really bad one to begin adopting systems that supersede Common Law for a particular group of citizens. Law has never worked like this, not in the Continent, England or the US. The only thing I could think of that is like this is the Canon Law of the Church, but that is really an administrative rule book for the clergy more than laws dealing with the transfer of property, etc. The only thing that the Canon Law deals with that might concern non-clergy is the marriage laws, but that is administered in agreement with Common Law.

Since when is Common Law being superceded? Like I said many times, the role of the sharia court is simply that of an arbitration panel, which already has a role under Common Law. People have a legal right to seek the arbitration they choose, this law only makes it simpler to do so. The sharia courts do not supercede the current system; on the contrary, they work under one of its provisions.

On another note: It should be known that there are several different branches of Islamic jurisprudence. It is not one monolithic thing; there are numerous interpretations and rule sets. It is not clear exactly what branch of Islamic jurisprudence this is. As I said before, the Law is all about precedence in our system, not only on statutory proscriptions (although the legislature does have a role in the law system, as is obvious.)

I don't see how this matters, since the two sides can presumably choose which sharia court they go to (but they have to agree on the same one, as in any arbitration attempt).

[Plutarch]

This is just paranoia. Since when has anyone in, say South Korea, been afraid of an impending Christian majority? You need something to beef up your claims that Muslims would try to overwhelm the system through numbers.



Since when is Common Law being superceded? Like I said many times, the role of the sharia court is simply that of an arbitration panel, which already has a role under Common Law. People have a legal right to seek the arbitration they choose, this law only makes it simpler to do so. The sharia courts do not supercede the current system; on the contrary, they work under one of its provisions.



I don't see how this matters, since the two sides can presumably choose which sharia court they go to (but they have to agree on the same one, as in any arbitration attempt).

Law is ALL ABOUT precedent. The flood gates have now opened for the blending of Church and State (or rather Mosque and State). It is not said what particular branch of Islamic jurisprudence (hereafter IJ) is being used; it may be presumed from the article that either the five different places practice different sorts of Sharia or that they are simply different physical courts that use the same rules. I am unaware of any precedent that allows for arbitration that could have different results depending upon what court I go to.

Finally, as stated above; it is not the traditional legal system in England; in Law, tradition is King; thus, sadly for all you progressives out there, this sort of legal "innovation" (more like a return to Medieval Arabia) is most unwelcome.

[James Davis]

This is just paranoia. Since when has anyone in, say South Korea, been afraid of an impending Christian majority? You need something to beef up your claims that Muslims would try to overwhelm the system through numbers.
I'm not saying that Muslims are trying to overwhelm the system, it's just happening. Islam, like Christianity, is a very aggressive religion, and will continue to make strides toward a more and more powerful Muslim presence in Europe.

Since when is Common Law being superceded? Like I said many times, the role of the sharia court is simply that of an arbitration panel, which already has a role under Common Law. People have a legal right to seek the arbitration they choose, this law only makes it simpler to do so. The sharia courts do not supercede the current system; on the contrary, they work under one of its provisions.

The fact that any such court exists in the UK at all shows just how influential Islam has become in the area. Imagine the outrage if Christian courts were established in the United States, a far more Christian nation than the UK is Islamic. I would oppose it and I'm a conservative Christian. This is ludicrous, and the advance will not stop here.

I don't see how this matters, since the two sides can presumably choose which sharia court they go to (but they have to agree on the same one, as in any arbitration attempt).

This matters completely because it totally undermines the idea of the separation of church and state, as well as the idea of equal treatment for all citizens under the law.

If the Muslims want a body for mediation, let them create one within their own Mosque system, just keep it the hell out of the public sphere.

[Plutarch]

I'm not saying that Muslims are trying to overwhelm the system, it's just happening. Islam, like Christianity, is a very aggressive religion, and will continue to make strides toward a more and more powerful Muslim presence in Europe.


The fact that any such court exists in the UK at all shows just how influential Islam has become in the area. Imagine the outrage if Christian courts were established in the United States, a far more Christian nation than the UK is Islamic. I would oppose it and I'm a conservative Christian. This is ludicrous, and the advance will not stop here.



This matters completely because it totally undermines the idea of the separation of church and state, as well as the idea of equal treatment for all citizens under the law.

If the Muslims want a body for mediation, let them create one within their own Mosque system, just keep it the hell out of the public sphere.

Again, like the Catholic Canon Law system that exists today.

[heilesabre]

Law is ALL ABOUT precedent. The flood gates have now opened for the blending of Church and State (or rather Mosque and State). It is not said what particular branch of Islamic jurisprudence (hereafter IJ) is being used; it may be presumed from the article that either the five different places practice different sorts of Sharia or that they are simply different physical courts that use the same rules. I am unaware of any precedent that allows for arbitration that could have different results depending upon what court I go to.

Finally, as stated above; it is not the traditional legal system in England; in Law, tradition is King; thus, sadly for all you progressives out there, this sort of legal "innovation" (more like a return to Medieval Arabia) is most unwelcome.

I would like you to tell me exactly what precedent is being set here. Arbitration will of course have different results depending on which arbitration panel you go to. (The legal standing of a sharia court is that of an arbitration panel, not of a court with full powers.) The point is that both sides agree to get a different result in this case. Besides, no one ever gave me a good reason to deny two willing people to seek arbitration from their desired panel.

Here's the deal. Two Muslims can go to a sharia court for arbitration if they wish. If one Muslim wants to go but the other doesn't, they will have to go to a regular court (or some other arbitration panel) instead.

I'm not saying that Muslims are trying to overwhelm the system, it's just happening.

Looks like a self-contradicting sentence to me. (I'm not saying that A is the case, but A is the case.)

The fact that any such court exists in the UK at all shows just how influential Islam has become in the area. Imagine the outrage if Christian courts were established in the United States, a far more Christian nation than the UK is Islamic. I would oppose it and I'm a conservative Christian. This is ludicrous, and the advance will not stop here.

This is simply your personal opinion (which I disagree with), and is not a direct answer to my reasoning.

By the way, I am not opposed to Christian courts being set up in the US -- as long as it is not legally binding unless both sides agree to make it so.

[IronsightSniper]

No, I knew you meant big brother. And England was our big brother for hundreds of years.

Things changed, and if you haven't noticed, we are the Bigger brother now.
I guess we just did a bunch of push ups over the summer now didn't we.

[James Davis]

Looks like a self-contradicting sentence to me. (I'm not saying that A is the case, but A is the case.)
What I mean is that Muslims in Europe are trying to flourish and they are succeeding. What I am not saying is that they have some sort of diabolical plan in place to take over Europe, although I believe it will happen naturally over time.



This is simply your personal opinion (which I disagree with), and is not a direct answer to my reasoning.

By the way, I am not opposed to Christian courts being set up in the US -- as long as it is not legally binding unless both sides agree to make it so.

The separation of church and state must be protected. As I have said before, I have no problem with a kind of mediation council as a part of the Islamic organization, but for the love of God, no pun intended, don't give them, or any other religion a place in the public sphere like this.

[heilesabre]

The separation of church and state must be protected. As I have said before, I have no problem with a kind of mediation council as a part of the Islamic organization, but for the love of God, no pun intended, don't give them, or any other religion a place in the public sphere like this.

Separation of church and state is not true in England, which has a national church that holds (although might not exercise) a significant amount of political power. Plus the ecclestial courts have the right to settle marriage disputes (although I'm guessing they need the two sides' consent to be legally binding). Do you agree that such courts should be removed?

Even if you do agree, I still say that people should be given the right to choose what kind of arbitration they want. Rest assured that no unwilling Briton will be forced to go a sharia court in the near, and probably far, future.

[James Davis]

Separation of church and state is not true in England, which has a national church that holds (although might not exercise) a significant amount of political power. Plus the ecclestial courts have the right to settle marriage disputes (although I'm guessing they need the two sides' consent to be legally binding). Do you agree that such courts should be removed?

Even if you do agree, I still say that people should be given the right to choose what kind of arbitration they want. Rest assured that no unwilling Briton will be forced to go a sharia court in the near, and probably far, future.

I've never been a fan of state-sponsored religion, for one thing I think it killed Christianity in Europe. I would have no problem with seeing those courts removed at all.

My only question is why do these courts get to be a part of the English judiciary? There is a place for religious mediation, and it's not in the public sphere.

[heilesabre]

My only question is why do these courts get to be a part of the English judiciary? There is a place for religious mediation, and it's not in the public sphere.

Ah well, I guess it settles down to a matter of personal opinion then. I understand your point, but I believe the right for people to choose their desired kind of arbitration is more important. On the other hand, if sharia crossed into criminal law, for example, that would be completely unacceptable to me.

[James Davis]

Ah well, I guess it settles down to a matter of personal opinion then. I understand your point, but I believe the right for people to choose their desired kind of arbitration is more important. On the other hand, if sharia crossed into criminal law, for example, that would be completely unacceptable to me.

We certainly have common ground there. I guess my fear is that it could end up there someday, which would be unacceptable. Until then, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the other stuff. :P

[Pimptastic]

Reading this makes me want to state one simple fact and it is this. The law is the law as you dont have a choice. Oh snap, once you can decide to ignore or side step or bypass any law its no longer law or worse its only law for a certain group of people.

[Legionnaire]

Once a seed is planted, it grows; provided the soil is fertile. It seems England is very fertile for a certain religion right now.

[Hymenbreach]

Just to put some water on the much rising panic. We already have religious courts for nonchristians. (The Orthodox Jews) and these Sharia courts have no ties to the criminal law, but would be a sidebar of civil law (UK law is split into criminal and civil jurisdiction).

Because of this there will be no 'law creep' into accepting Sharia law for criminal or even most civil cases. Sharia law will be an option (and only an option) for Muslim vs Muslim small money claims/family disputes/divorce law, etc.

It is a credit to Britain that we are willing to bend like the reed in the wind of change. Only trees break in the wind.

[tom the pit leader]

Reading this makes me want to state one simple fact and it is this. The law is the law as you dont have a choice. Oh snap, once you can decide to ignore or side step or bypass any law its no longer law or worse its only law for a certain group of people.

Exactly. I'm not trying to be a bigot here, but Islam doesn't have a good reputation when it comes to things like divorce and other internal family issues. In the democratic republics of the world, when you don't like a law, you appeal or take it to a referendum. You don't simply create sidebar leagal systems. I hope the Cristians and other religions in England create their own courts so that they can hammer these Islamic courts on the double standard which would emerge.

[leninrocks244]

Hey im muslim. No need for discrimination :D

Arbitard is going to keep a close eye on you.....

[The Arbiter]

Arbitard is going to keep a close eye on you..... you terrorist bastard...
Okay?

[leninrocks244]

Maybe you guys don't understand legal precedents. This is a really bad one to begin adopting systems that supersede Common Law for a particular group of citizens. Law has never worked like this, not in the Continent, England or the US. The only thing I could think of that is like this is the Canon Law of the Church, but that is really an administrative rule book for the clergy more than laws dealing with the transfer of property, etc. The only thing that the Canon Law deals with that might concern non-clergy is the marriage laws, but that is administered in agreement with Common Law.

In addition, this sounds like a dangerous mix of Church and State, with a religion that appears to be more willing to impose itself on others than the Church of England is these days (because otherwise, why would they have bothered to set up Sharia courts in England?)

On another note: It should be known that there are several different branches of Islamic jurisprudence. It is not one monolithic thing; there are numerous interpretations and rule sets. It is not clear exactly what branch of Islamic jurisprudence this is. As I said before, the Law is all about precedence in our system, not only on statutory proscriptions (although the legislature does have a role in the law system, as is obvious).





True, you have a point there.

[Imperial]

According to the article, both parties have to consent so if you want to dive into a sharia court, its your own call. If women know that Islamic law is skewed to favor men, then don't consent to it. But I do agree that the Arbitration Clause should be closed as Church & State need to be kept separate, for all religions.

[leninrocks244]

Okay?

Honestly, I'm surprised you two haven't had a huge flame war yet. You being the ignorant conservative who's intolerant of Islam and he being the token muslim here. It's bound to happen.

[James Davis]

Honestly, I'm surprised you two haven't had a huge flame war yet. You being the ignorant conservative who's intolerant of Islam and he being the token muslim here. It's bound to happen.

Perhaps it would be good to not provoke one?

[leninrocks244]

Perhaps it would be good to not provoke one?

Just stating the facts...

[The Corporal]

Western culture. Like it, or as the internet says, GTFO of my country. I'm sorry, but what if the jews or christians tired something like this? Unacceptable.
Buried in one of the paragraphs is the revelation that a Jewish court has existed in Britain for over 100 years. Of course, Jewish women actually have rights in their own legal system.

I don't see how this matters, since the two sides can presumably choose which sharia court they go to (but they have to agree on the same one, as in any arbitration attempt).
Let's use an example, a case between a man and a woman. The woman has very few rights, all major decisions are made by male family members. The woman will likely have no say in whether she wants to go to the Sharia court or not. That is in direct contravention with principles of freedom that have existed in Jolly Olde England for nearly 1000 years. Why travel back to the Dark Ages?

I would like you to tell me exactly what precedent is being set here. Arbitration will of course have different results depending on which arbitration panel you go to. (The legal standing of a sharia court is that of an arbitration panel, not of a court with full powers.) The point is that both sides agree to get a different result in this case. Besides, no one ever gave me a good reason to deny two willing people to seek arbitration from their desired panel.
The precedent is set that a religious court has equal power as a state court and that the state can enforce the decisions laid down by the religious court. The next step would be for the Sharia court to include Muslim-Muslim criminal cases. The step after that would be to include all civil cases (assuming a Muslim majority in the country) and lastly to replace the existing state court with a Muslim-dominated court system where every citizen, including non-Muslims, would be subject to Sharia law. This could be 50 or more years down the road, but it is a terrifying thought nonetheless. And before anyone brings up the (mostly) peaceful coexistence of Muslims, Christians, and Jews in Moorish Spain, remember that not all Muslims in today's world are interested in peaceful coexistence.

Even if you do agree, I still say that people should be given the right to choose what kind of arbitration they want. Rest assured that no unwilling Briton will be forced to go a sharia court in the near, and probably far, future.
If I was a British subject, the bolded part would scare the crap out of me. Imagine here in the U.S. that you are a Buddhist or Jew or Hindu and you are forced into a Christian court. Need I say more?

According to the article, both parties have to consent so if you want to dive into a sharia court, its your own call. If women know that Islamic law is skewed to favor men, then don't consent to it. But I do agree that the Arbitration Clause should be closed as Church & State need to be kept separate, for all religions.
I actually think I covered the first part near the top of the post and I wholeheartedly agree with the separation of church and state. Why make the Sharia courts part of the legal system when the cases they look at and decisions they make could just as easily be kept in the mosque?

[The Arbiter]

Honestly, I'm surprised you two haven't had a huge flame war yet. You being the ignorant conservative who's intolerant of Islam and he being the token muslim here. It's bound to happen.
Conservative, yes. Ignorant, no. Intolerant of Islam, no. Intolerant of Islam extremists, yes.

[Hymenbreach]

* Hymenbreach continues to wave flag of reasonableness and beingignoredess.

[James Davis]

* Hymenbreach continues to wave flag of reasonableness and beingignoredess.

Get out, OUT I say! Reason and rational thought have no place in the debate forums!!!

[Villalba]

Lol you guys are the perfect proof that the rules of this world are sustained by bubblegum.

What i think is that if this people are in Brittain they should ablidge by the rule of the British. But it comes completely different when their laws are based on their own religious beliefs. Which account for the separation of church and state and all that crap.

Plus, Melidan what does this forum means by the end of a free Brittania? As i remember American court system is based on the 10 commandments, and just because they set up those kinds of courts means that they have more tolerance is as simple as that. You are putting muslims as a negative influence in law and order even when they have more morality and family values, which differ to America when there are so many teens getting their asses pregnant, and not even bothering with the child, and getting abortions, so before pointing the bullets to Muslims, think about the common grounds your Republican buddies have with that group.

[Megamind]

And here goes the rest of Europe

Muslims living in EU countries will in the future be able to divorce according to sharia law.
From some page!


Anyways thank God my country is outside the juridical unity :P


Anyways as long as no one is getting their hands chopped off I don't have a problem with it...

[James Davis]

Plus, Melidan what does this forum means by the end of a free Brittania? As i remember American court system is based on the 10 commandments, and just because they set up those kinds of courts means that they have more tolerance is as simple as that. You are putting muslims as a negative influence in law and order even when they have more morality and family values, which differ to America when there are so many teens getting their asses pregnant, and not even bothering with the child, and getting abortions, so before pointing the bullets to Muslims, think about the common grounds your Republican buddies have with that group.

I think that Melidan was referring to the prospect of Sharia spreading across Britain and displacing the current legal system. Considering how people, especially non-Muslims are treated under Sharia, I think he has a valid point.

[leninrocks244]

Conservative, yes. Ignorant, no. Intolerant of Islam, no. Intolerant of Islam extremists, yes.

Did you not say that you're tolerant of every religion except for Islam? I'm pretty sure you said that.

[The Corporal]

Did you not say that you're tolerant of every religion except for Islam? I'm pretty sure you said that.

His exact quote states that he is tolerant of Islam, just not the extremists. I feel the same way, but extend the sentiment to extremists of every religion. Religious extremism is major problem all over the world today. Israel, the rest of the Middle East, Chechnya, Northern Ireland, everywhere.

[Melidan]

I think that Melidan was referring to the prospect of Sharia spreading across Britain and displacing the current legal system. Considering how people, especially non-Muslims are treated under Sharia, I think he has a valid point.

Yes, thank you.

[leninrocks244]

His exact quote states that he is tolerant of Islam, just not the extremists. I feel the same way, but extend the sentiment to extremists of every religion. Religious extremism is major problem all over the world today. Israel, the rest of the Middle East, Chechnya, Northern Ireland, everywhere.

Are you talking about the quote he made in here? And religion in general is a problem all over the world today.

[The Arbiter]

Are you talking about the quote he made in here? And religion in general is a problem all over the world today.
Religion isn't the problem, it is the answer.

[Pimptastic]

See the problem for me isnt the court itself its the social pressures it puts on the muslim community(more so women) ok say you have your middle of the road muslim family like the middle of the road any religion family they go to a place of worship once or twice a week and are fairly open to change so your 'non extremist' but they have extremist parents or family or friends that support them somehow so the case comes up where the middle of the road people have a choice and now they cant say 'we follow the laws of the land so cant go by sharia' and so get forced into it by pressure from others. So I think its going to cause more arguments than it stops and give less rights to the ones who really need them or even moved here just to gain them.

It works for any religion my family has alot of devout roman catholics and my god mother is a nun so if word got about of catholic courts im sure some of the more crazy family i have would be all for it.

[The Corporal]

Are you talking about the quote he made in here? And religion in general is a problem all over the world today.
Yes, the one I've quoted below. And I think I'm with you on this one, I believe that religion has caused more problems than it has solved. Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, the Inquisition, the problems in northern Ireland, the Catholic Church's indifference to the Holocaust, the Crusades, atrocious human rights records in Middle Eastern countries, the list goes on.

Conservative, yes. Ignorant, no. Intolerant of Islam, no. Intolerant of Islam extremists, yes.

[James Davis]

Yes, the one I've quoted below. And I think I'm with you on this one, I believe that religion has caused more problems than it has solved. Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, the Inquisition, the problems in northern Ireland, the Catholic Church's indifference to the Holocaust, the Crusades, atrocious human rights records in Middle Eastern countries, the list goes on.

I'll disagree with you a bit here. Certainly, yes people have done some awful things in the name of their god. However, particularly in contemporary Christianity, people are doing far more good than bad.

For example, it was widely reported that volunteers from independent Christian organizations provided more relief after Katrina than FEMA did (yes, I can already see the anti-FEMA remarks coming in, and deservedly so, but its still remarkable that they outperformed the government). Charity donations are significantly higher among Christians than other demographics. In Texas, a joint Christian-Muslim organization helped rebuild a town after it was hit by a tornado. Religious people are doing a ton of good every day in this country.

Oh and one minor historical correction. Pope Pius XII, the WWII Pope was actually almost removed from his seat by Hitler because he ordered Catholic churches, monastaries, and convents to shelter Jews from the Nazis. The idea that he was "Hitler's Pope" is a myth.

[tom the pit leader]

Religion isn't the problem, it is the answer.

I would have to disagree with you there, but that's a fight for another thread.

[leninrocks244]

Yes, the one I've quoted below. And I think I'm with you on this one, I believe that religion has caused more problems than it has solved. Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, the Inquisition, the problems in northern Ireland, the Catholic Church's indifference to the Holocaust, the Crusades, atrocious human rights records in Middle Eastern countries, the list goes on.

No, he said he was intolerant of Islam in another thread.

[leninrocks244]

Religion isn't the problem, it is the answer.

So you support religious wars over nothing?

[Wootmeister]

Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.


I am so tired of anything involving Muslims being treated like "ZOMG they are coming for us, the end of freedom is near," give it a rest. This is a long way from criminal tribunals, and as I can see it there is no actual opening in the law for that to become a reality.

To clarify my point: Anyone in Britain can go to an arbitration tribunal for a civil case, the Muslims just have these sharia courts for muslims to settle their civil cases in exactly the same way. The only way they can do this is if both parties agree to it. This slop is so un-slippery its practically adhesive.

[The Arbiter]

So you support religious wars over nothing?
Way to put words in my mouth. I said religion is the answer and you somehow connect that with me approving religious wars... lol... Think before you post, will you? Anyway, the 10 Commandments came from religion and those were the earliest form of law and they were the base of all law of ancient and modern societies. The Catholic Church maintained stability in Europe during the Dark Ages, too. Religion teaches virtues of life and helps to promote peace (unless you are an extremist). So, I really don't see what your problem is. I mean your religion, Atheism, is no better than any other.

[Megamind]

Way to put words in my mouth. I said religion is the answer and you somehow connect that with me approving religious wars... lol... Think before you post, will you?

Someone should sig that...

Anyway, the 10 Commandments came from religion and those were the earliest form of law and they were the base of all law of ancient and modern societies.

Really the earliest? ...me no think so

The Catholic Church maintained stability in Europe during the Dark Ages, too.

You did not just say that did you?

Religion teaches virtues of life and helps to promote peace (unless you are an extremist).

Crusades, witch hunts, forced conversions in America...yeah I get your point...religion promotes peace...

So, I really don't see what your problem is. I mean your religion, Atheism, is no better than any other.

I wouldn't personally describe Atheism as a religion...but hey if you want to...

[leninrocks244]

Way to put words in my mouth. I said religion is the answer and you somehow connect that with me approving religious wars... lol... Think before you post, will you? Anyway, the 10 Commandments came from religion and those were the earliest form of law and they were the base of all law of ancient and modern societies. The Catholic Church maintained stability in Europe during the Dark Ages, too. Religion teaches virtues of life and helps to promote peace (unless you are an extremist). So, I really don't see what your problem is. I mean your religion, Atheism, is no better than any other.

Religion creates bigotry and intolerance. They both lead to war. So I'll ask again. Do you support religious wars?

[Plutarch]

Religion creates bigotry and intolerance. They both lead to war. So I'll ask again. Do you support religious wars?

No. No one supports religious wars. However, if religion by its nature, if it necessarily causes religious wars (why even qualify it with "religious"? A war is a war) then I would venture to say that people are going to wage wars given any excuse. Religion just happens to be one of them. If you are going to say this sort of thing, one could easily say that any difference of opinion between two or more people can (perhaps necessarily) cause war.

Socialism causes wars. Different tastes in arts cause wars. Differences in general cause conflict. Everything causes war. Life is war. Living causes war; dying causes war; war never ends and never will end. [/Warhammer 40K]

[Plutarch]

"Criminal Sharia Judgments"

We knew that sharia courts were operating in Britain even before Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury gave the lecture in February which caused such a stir.

It was said that these courts arbitrated on marriages, as Jewish courts or Catholic marriage tribunals do. Everything was to be done with the consent of both parties.

Now we learn that sharia judges have awarded inheritance to male heirs in a proportion double to that of female heirs.

More surprisingly, it seems that sharia courts are giving judgment in criminal cases. In six cases of domestic violence, according to Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

Can you imagine what kind of consent wives involved in such cases have given to the sharia court's jurisdiction?

Often, Muslim women marry in an Islamic ceremony without the ratification of a marriage in English law. This gives them no rights under the law of the land in the case of divorce. Nor would they have any claim to inherit under English law.

So we see the growth of sharia as a parallel jurisdiction to the law of the land, imposed on a sector of society that cannot resist it.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/christopher_howse/blog/2008/09/14/criminal_sharia_judgments

Here you all are, for your reading pleasure. This is exactly what we were talking about.

[Melidan]

I am so tired of anything involving Muslims being treated like "ZOMG they are coming for us, the end of freedom is near,"

You ever read 'America Alone'? Do that and get back to me ;)

[Wootmeister]

You ever read 'America Alone'? Do that and get back to me ;)

Just because something manages to get published doesn't make it truth. Would you like me to come up with a list of books with exactly the opposite point of view?

I'll take my own experiences and first hand knowledge (which has more fact in it than the drivel Mark Steyn has to offer) over what anyone else has to say any day. I have several close Muslim friends, and I have done a great deal of research in this area. If you don't know the tenants of Islam, you don't deserve to be commenting on it as a threat.

(Oppressive Islamic laws in theocratic countries is another issue besides this one, for the record)

[Melidan]

Just because something manages to get published doesn't make it truth. Would you like me to come up with a list of books with exactly the opposite point of view?

I'll take my own experiences and first hand knowledge (which has more fact in it than the drivel Mark Steyn has to offer) over what anyone else has to say any day. I have several close Muslim friends, and I have done a great deal of research in this area. If you don't know the tenants of Islam, you don't deserve to be commenting on it as a threat.

(Oppressive Islamic laws in theocratic countries is another issue besides this one, for the record)

Please, dont get me started on the "tenants" of Islam..

KORAN [9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.


KORAN [5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

HADITH Sahih Bukhari [4:52:176] Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
Allah's Apostle said, "You will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will saying, 'O 'Abdullah! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' "

[The Corporal]

Yep:

http://www.combatkaare.com/images/islam-religion-of-peace.jpg

[Wootmeister]

Should I make similar quotes from the Bible? You are pulling things out of context, or from corrupted versions of the Koran.

[leninrocks244]

Please, dont get me started on the "tenants" of Islam..

And somehow Christians are better than Muslims? Please.... You're contradicting yourself.

[leninrocks244]

Yep:

http://www.combatkaare.com/images/islam-religion-of-peace.jpg

Christianity isn't that different. The Bible tells us to stone non-believers and gays to death. And somehow that classifies as a religion of peace?

[The Corporal]

Christianity isn't that different. The Bible tells us to stone non-believers and gays to death. And somehow that classifies as a religion of peace?

I don't claim Christianity to be peaceful, but those passages are outdated to 99% of modern Christians. The picture I posted doesn't seem to be very old. In any case, I'm with you on the highly violent history of many world religions. I'm just saying that Muslims claim outright that their religion is based on peaceful tones, whereas that picture clearly refutes those claims. I don't think any Christian with a brain in their head could defend Christianity as a peaceful religion, we all know about the Crusades and the Inquisition.

[leninrocks244]

I don't claim Christianity to be peaceful, but those passages are outdated to 99% of modern Christians. The picture I posted doesn't seem to be very old. In any case, I'm with you on the highly violent history of many world religions. I'm just saying that Muslims claim outright that their religion is based on peaceful tones, whereas that picture clearly refutes those claims. I don't think any Christian with a brain in their head could defend Christianity as a peaceful religion, we all know about the Crusades and the Inquisition.

I wouldn't say 99% of all modern Christians. If you get logical with them, they will become intolerant and show their true colors. But yeah, I don't know whether or not most people would know about the Crusades or the Inquisition.... or even the Salem witch trials.

[Pimptastic]

* Clockwise throws down Templar Knights just to mess with the topic...

They invented capitalism and the cheque dont you know.

[tom the pit leader]

Should I make similar quotes from the Bible? You are pulling things out of context, or from corrupted versions of the Koran.

You don't need to do that for me, and I would bet that most other people on this fourm know that Chrisitanity doesn't have a clean record. However, the difference I see is that few, not all, but few Chritians would really argue that every Chrisitan who did a bad thing was following a perverted Bible. On the other hand, Musilims it seems almost unfailingly argue that no real Muslim would do a bad thing. This means really there are no real Muslims, or that that statement is false.

Evolution works wonders in the world, even with ideas. Ideas that can change live, those that are set in stone, ultimately die out. This is something that all religions need to take note of.

[leninrocks244]

* Clockwise throws down Templar Knights just to mess with the topic...

They invented capitalism and the cheque dont you know.

I thought Adam Smith thought of capitalism?

[Wootmeister]

You don't need to do that for me, and I would bet that most other people on this fourm know that Chrisitanity doesn't have a clean record. However, the difference I see is that few, not all, but few Chritians would really argue that every Chrisitan who did a bad thing was following a perverted Bible. On the other hand, Musilims it seems almost unfailingly argue that no real Muslim would do a bad thing. This means really there are no real Muslims, or that that statement is false.

Evolution works wonders in the world, even with ideas. Ideas that can change live, those that are set in stone, ultimately die out. This is something that all religions need to take note of.

I'm not saying no legitimate Muslim would do a bad thing, I am saying legitimate Korans do not have anything about killing unbeliever's etc.. There are versions of Islam that do have those teachings, just as there are strange versions/sects of Christianity.

I have long thought that is was impossible to inform misinformed people of what the truth was, here's why:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080924-does-ideology-trump-facts-studies-say-it-often-does.html