View Full Version : Sharia Law and the Archbishop
The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm
I find this absolutely baffling. The archbishop has suggested that parts of Sharia Law should be brought in to the UK. He claims that "An approach to law which simply said - there's one law for everybody - I think that's a bit of a danger" - so does this suggest that different laws should apply to different people? One law for one and one for another? Surely this will only create further divides amongst different cultures if they are all obseving different laws. By the same method should we allow Scots law to apply to Scottish people in England??
I am of the opinion that this is the UK and in the UK the Law of the United Kingdom should apply :- When in Rome ....
The man is a complete buffoon.
j4bberw0ck
07-Feb-08, 17:27
I agree with Scotsboy. He's so set on being "liberal" he can't conceive of any principle he wouldn't override to avoid any possibility of upsetting anyone. I'd like to think there's a difficult ministry requiring his urgent personal attention, in Helmand, maybe, or Baghdad. Perhaps he could persuade the mullahs that in the interests of equity and reasonableness they should adopt some of the principles of Christian, Buddhist, Sikh and Shinto law into Sharia principles.
percy toboggan
07-Feb-08, 18:34
The man is a dangerous idiot. Once upon a time people like him making such utterances would have been dragged from their ivory tower and burnt.
However, a simple sacking would satisy me in this instance.
I have always thought the man a clown and an embarrassment.
No wonder the Anglican church is fast becoming marginalised & a complete irrelevance when such a
man is at its helm.
If his suggestions do not arouse the wrath of an outraged publ;ic then I really will believe British people have surrendered...I have already e.mailed his website with my views - I urge all who feel as strongly to do the same.
If his suggestions do not arouse the wrath of an outraged publ;ic then I really will believe British people have surrendered...I have already e.mailed his website with my views - I urge all who feel as strongly to do the same.
I agree. What is happening to us, we seem to be surrendering bit by bit to every radical, off the wall ideal that is put in our way. Are we British frightened of up setting others so much that we would rather roll over an play dead than stand up and say this isn't who we are, it isn't what we want .
I will visit the website now and leave my two pennyworth
Makes me laugh can you imagine how many people out there will start claiming disability benefit for having one hand lol. Will cost us a fortune probably have to raise taxes lol.
I didn't hear the full interview today but of course have heard all the references since and thought - oh dear, here we go again. A church leader not considering the reaction to his words. So I looked at his website and read the full transcription http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1573#top . He is neither an idiot nor a buffoon, this is a thoughtful interview simply proposing that consideration should be given to Sharia law being treated in the same way as Christian and Jewish law.
The trouble is the media picks up sensational headlines, as they always do (it's something scientists complain about all the time, like the bird 'flu scare which was media generated) and everyone starts getting excited. Also, the word Sharia immediately conjures up violence, women being stoned, men having their hands cut off etc. No-one is suggesting anything like this.
percy toboggan
07-Feb-08, 20:09
Badger: this is Britain. We have a long established legal system It is arcane , and often the domain of the privilieged. Poorer people are sometimes excluded from it - in other words it is far from perfect. However, it is OURS.
I would be prepared to fight defending even bad British institutions in the face of foisted imports from medieval meddlers who , if they like their version of the law should get back to where they can put it into effect.
Whitewater
07-Feb-08, 20:12
He lacks common sense. He is sopposed to be a preacher, he should study Jesus a bit more, Jesus did not please everybody nor did he try to.
I've been resident in many countries (for short times) and have lived by the old adage "When in Rome do as the Romans do" and I can assure that some of the places I've resided in would have no hesitation in shooting you if you didn't.
He is trying to please everybody which just can't be done, and probably seeking cheap publicity as well.
Yoda the flump
07-Feb-08, 20:47
I think we are being a bit harsh on him.
I have not read the full transcript, but what I believe he was trying to say was that if two people are happy to abide by Sharia law in a dispute then as long as it DID NOT BREAK British law then they should be able to.
What is wrong with that? He is not saying that we should all abide by Sharia law and that it will have more force that the British law.
And to be honest, he is probably stating what does happen in some parts of the country.
Load of nonsense if you ask me, the press getting all excited about nothing.
I think we are being a bit harsh on him.
I have not read the full transcript, but what I believe he was trying to say was that if two people are happy to abide by Sharia law in a dispute then as long as it DID NOT BREAK British law then they should be able to.
What is wrong with that? He is not saying that we should all abide by Sharia law and that it will have more force that the British law.
And to be honest, he is probably stating what does happen in some parts of the country.
Load of nonsense if you ask me, the press getting all excited about nothing.
Exactly, yoda...the mention of muslim and some people see red(s under the bed).
He also said "There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law."
And what that means is that Judaism already has the ability to provide binding arbitration in civil matters. We have no problem with that state of affairs for Jews who wish to use the facility.......why do we have a problem with allowing Muslims the same facility?
It is some years now since the Church of Scotland ministers were able to command the presence of members of their congregation in church to answer charges of having broken "religious law".
I can think of no valid reason for the UK to voluntarily regress to a situation when a religious figurehead can call the population of this country to account and pronounce a punishment for alleged transgressions, especially a figurehead who is not of a (yet) majority UK religion.
The above is not the case at the moment.
The utterances of the Archbishop is lending credence to the arguments of the "moderate" Muslims to have aspects of Sharia Law introduced into the UK, which will be the thin end of a wedge.
Jewish and other religious law is currently allowable in the UK within the confines of British Civil Law and, we are being told this is all that the Muslims want for Sharia Law.
However, given the declared aim of the Muslim religion to convert the world population to their religion, I suspect that as with the teachings of Islam, the fundamentalists will eventually take over with a view to spreading the influence of Sharia Law under their interpretation.
I think that we appease these people at our peril.
Would a UK citizen who had decided to live in a Muslim country be allowed to have a civil matter decided under English or Scottish law there? I think not. Those Orgers who work in such countries could advise us if the employing companies still advise their employees that they are in a Muslim country and must abide by the dictats of the Immams so as not to offend their religious beliefs.
I would suggest that sauce for the goose.....
Badger: this is Britain. We have a long established legal system It is arcane , and often the domain of the privilieged. Poorer people are sometimes excluded from it - in other words it is far from perfect. However, it is OURS.
I would be prepared to fight defending even bad British institutions in the face of foisted imports from medieval meddlers who , if they like their version of the law should get back to where they can put it into effect.
If you read what he said, rather than the hysterical reaction of the media and certain politicians who should know better, he is simply suggesting Muslims should have the same rights of conscience as other religions. This interview was a preliminary to a discussion. It would be good if we could discuss it reasonably instead of leaping to conclusions.
He is neither an idiot nor a buffoon, this is a thoughtful interview simply proposing that consideration should be given to Sharia law being treated in the same way as Christian and Jewish law.
The trouble is the media picks up sensational headlines, as they always do
The news report I saw WAS sensational, there were images of a man with a missing hand, public flogging and a man about to be executed by shooting. There is a world of difference between allowing some aspects of Sharia law and giving the go ahead for a free for all. However, I have to question whether we should adapt our laws to suit all and sundry. If we are to do that for some belief systems, others would surely demand the same? Also, I firmly believe that, if we concede on some areas, then more and more will be put in front of us for change. The old "give em an inch and they will take a mile" comes to hand. I don't see any of the Countries where Sharia law is in place bending their laws to accommodate our beliefs. When you see UK citizens fall foul of foreign legal systems, it normally results in Diplomatic grovelling by Embassy officials and/or MP's to avert potential disaster. Unless anyone is being held in the UK against their will, I believe they should put up with the law as it is and has been.
As for the Archbishop, I recall him being trumpeted in as one of the Country's greatest minds. Idiot? No, Buffoon? No, Tit? Probably.
And what that means is that Judaism already has the ability to provide binding arbitration in civil matters. We have no problem with that state of affairs for Jews who wish to use the facility.......why do we have a problem with allowing Muslims the same facility?
The Jewish Beth Din are as you say arbiters and as I understand it, any decisions they make must be ratified by a UK court.
If a Jewish couple wish to divorce, the Get (which declares they are free to marry again under Jewish religious law) does not become effective until the award of a Decree Absolute by a UK court.
Any arbitration made by the Beth Din has to be ratified by a UK court.
I cannot know but I would suspect that given an inch, the Muslims would then wish to take a mile.
I for one would rather not take the chance, irrespective of what colour the entities under the bed were.
Whoever wishes to settle in the British Isles will live by our laws and our laws alone, if they don't then they can go back to the country they came from!
Why should we bend over backwards to accommodate any foreign nationals beliefs or the laws they were under in their own homeland.
Anyone in Britain should live under British law. However if these articles can be believed from The Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=512043&in_page_id=1770) and The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/03/nbenefit103.xml) the government is already starting to go down the path of having two sets of laws. It seems a bit hypocritical to me for them to complain about the archbishop while they seem to going down the path he is suggesting [disgust].
Laws are fluid and we need to be tolerant of all people but IMHO laws should be based on underlying British values.
Anyone in Britain should live under British law. However if these articles can be believed from The Daily Mail (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=512043&in_page_id=1770) and The Telegraph (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/03/nbenefit103.xml) the government is already starting to go down the path of having two sets of laws. It seems a bit hypocritical to me for them to complain about the archbishop while they seem to going down the path he is suggesting [disgust].
Laws are fluid and we need to be tolerant of all people but IMHO laws should be based on underlying British values.
It's a good way of saving money, imo.....because it will be cheaper in the long run than giving benefits to one couple and up to three single people. The amount payable for each additional spouse is presently £33.65......which is less than Jobseekers or Income support and saves three extra sets of Council Tax and Housing Benefit.
Nobody is even hinting that polygamous marriage should become part of British law.
Nobody is saying bigamous marriages should be allowed in this country
j4bberw0ck
08-Feb-08, 14:37
We have no problem with that state of affairs for Jews who wish to use the facility.......why do we have a problem with allowing Muslims the same facility?
Hadn't noticed Jews doing the following - not an exhaustive list by any means:
>murdering their daughters for not cooperating with arranged marriages;
>passing death sentences on women for adultery merely for being in the company of a man not their husband;
>passing death sentences on women who download womens' rights material off the web;
>kidnapping people of other religions and beheading them for no better reason than their religion being "other than Islamic";
>stoning to death women who've been raped;
>counting the testimony of a woman as being worth half the value of a man's;
>calling for the abolition of democracy as anti-Islamic
>calling for worldwide jihad and the forced conversion of non-Islamics to Islam - or their death
>calling for the immediate and total destruction of countries inhabited by Muslims because they're an affront to Judaism
>forbidding women from driving cars
Now, I grant you that not every Muslim believes everything on that list. But the fact is that Judaism and Christianity share very, very similar origins and you couldn't drive a knife blade between them on things like individual rights in the framework of law.
On the plus side, I presume you're talking about Rabbinical courts which are restricted to ruling from a religious perspective on matters which aren't governed by UK law. Rabbinical court rulings are not binding legally in the UK; don't know about their binding effect in say, Israel.
There's a fundamental difference between Rabbis, Bishops and Mullahs. Mullahs have authority to set binding law based on their interpretation of the Koran. That's like letting the raving lunatic idiot who's obviously taken over the Archbish in the dead of night, issue binding legal rulings based on the Bible.
Submission on any point of domestic law to a Stone Age superstition like Islam, which is the clearest possible example of why and how religion and politics are one and the same thing, would be a huge step along the path to the disappearance of the UK as all of us here have known it.
j4bberw0ck
08-Feb-08, 14:51
I cannot know but I would suspect that given an inch, the Muslims would then wish to take a mile.
An excellent point, neatly made. It's certainly their track record. Shame you've switched off rep points, Dusty. :cool:
In a 2006 poll, 81 percent of Muslims surveyed in Britain said they considered themselves Muslims first and Britons second. If they feel that way and can't identify with the country they wish to make their home then they are welcome to go back whence they came.
In a 2006 poll, 81 percent of Muslims surveyed in Britain said they considered themselves Muslims first and Britons second. If they feel that way and can't identify with the country they wish to make their home then they are welcome to go back whence they came.
Sorry TBH, I disagree, I have met a few British born Muslim's who are British first and Muslim's second. And I do know some who although they worship in a Mosque on a regular basis, have no time for the Sharia Law.
I don't condemn any man for his way of worship, or who he worships, how can I? I profess to being an Agnostic.
Just a little issue TBH, not all British Muslims are from Arabic countries or the Indian Sub-Continent descendent's, one or two I know decided to become Muslim, even though they had been christened in the Church of Scotland.
So where do you send them back to?
In a 2006 poll, 81 percent of Muslims surveyed in Britain said they considered themselves Muslims first and Britons second. If they feel that way and can't identify with the country they wish to make their home then they are welcome to go back whence they came.
"Muslim" is not a nationality, it's a religion. "Briton" is a nationality, not a religion. If I lived abroad I would still be Christian first, British second and then owe loyalty to the country I was living in if I was there long enough. The problem comes with the laws of the country you live in, for instance if you went to live in Iran - would you agree with their laws? You might obey them for fear of the consequences but I doubt if you'd do it willingly.
The Arch Bish just goes to prove that being old does not always guarantee wisdom...
Sorry TBH, I disagree, I have met a few British born Muslim's who are British first and Muslim's second. And I do know some who although they worship in a Mosque on a regular basis, have no time for the Sharia Law.
I don't condemn any man for his way of worship, or who he worships, how can I? I profess to being an Agnostic.
Just a little issue TBH, not all British Muslims are from Arabic countries or the Indian Sub-Continent descendent's, one or two I know decided to become Muslim, even though they had been christened in the Church of Scotland.
So where do you send them back to?Sorry Golach, I should have explained better. I do realise that all Muslims are not arab and that there are a lot of converts to Islam. As you will know, in the 60s there was an influx of very Hard working people from Pakistan. Although they found it difficult to integrate through language barriers and belief systems they never the less were happy to settle in Britain and make a good life for themselves here whether escaping oppression or poverty. The problem lies with some of the younger generation who feel more of an affinity with the struggles of muslims in other countries to the extent of acts of extremism, violence and hatred against the country of their birth. Yes Golach, they were born here but there is nothing to stop us expelling them to the country of their choice. We have enough problems without an enemy within.
Sorry Golach, I should have explained better. I do realise that all Muslims are not arab and that there are a lot of converts to Islam. As you will know, in the 60s there was an influx of very Hard working people from Pakistan. Although they found it difficult to integrate through language barriers and belief systems they never the less were happy to settle in Britain and make a good life for themselves here whether escaping oppression or poverty. The problem lies with some of the younger generation who feel more of an affinity with the struggles of muslims in other countries to the extent of acts of extremism, violence and hatred against the country of their birth. Yes Golach, they were born here but there is nothing to stop us expelling them to the country of their choice. We have enough problems without an enemy within.
Where do you suggest we expell the Arch Bish. to then? As IMHO, his statement has caused more damage than good.
percy toboggan
08-Feb-08, 16:48
Nobody is saying bigamous marriages should be allowed in this country
Bigamous marriages are allowed under the sharia code. Males can free themselves of wives quite simply and are free to re-marry, whilst women cannot.
Of course none of these marriages are recognised under British law, but for life inside the muslim 'communities' they carry equal weight to conventional unions.
We should have ONE community, and continmue living under one system of law. Preferably not one where women are treated as second class citizens.
The problem comes with the laws of the country you live in, for instance if you went to live in Iran - would you agree with their laws? You might obey them for fear of the consequences but I doubt if you'd do it willingly.
Surely ALL laws are obeyed through fear of the consequences? I would imagine that MANY more people would break the laws of the UK, IF there were no consequences.
It is precisely the same for Muslim people living in the UK. They probably do not accept our laws willingly. That is tough luck for them if they don't. Why should the rules be bent to suit some, ahead of others? What chance is there of Iran modifying THEIR system to accommodate people from the UK?
Bigamous marriages are allowed under the sharia code. Males can free themselves of wives quite simply and are free to re-marry, whilst women cannot.
Of course none of these marriages are recognised under British law, but for life inside the muslim 'communities' they carry equal weight to conventional unions.
We should have ONE community, and continmue living under one system of law. Preferably not one where women are treated as second class citizens.
There was a program on TV just last week about this. The couple involved had three children but the Husband decided to take off and marry another woman in Pakistan. He expected to be able to flit back and forth between the two wives as he saw fit. The first wife, understandably, thought this unacceptable and wanted him to divorce the other wife. Her husband refused and the wife had to take the matter to the Sharia court. Under their system, a woman has to prove her Husbands misconduct, whereas a man only has to ask his wife three times for a divorce and it is granted. The woman put her case, but the "Court" refused to grant a divorce, simply advising the husband to talk with his second wife about it. The husband responded by taking off to the second wife in Pakistan, and at the time of the program he had left his wife and three children abandoned for seven months.
For me, it's a crazy system that treats women like dirt.
Sorry TBH, I disagree, I have met a few British born Muslim's who are British first and Muslim's second.
Err? Which is higher? 81% of Muslims surveyed? Or a few Muslims YOU have met?
Unless the survey sample was tiny, you are in a poor position to disagree about the way MOST Muslims see themselves.
oldchemist
08-Feb-08, 17:36
Madness! The thin end of a very large wedge. If people want to live in the UK then they live by UK laws (not religious laws of any description).
It's a good way of saving money, imo.....because it will be cheaper in the long run than giving benefits to one couple and up to three single people. The amount payable for each additional spouse is presently £33.65......which is less than Jobseekers or Income support and saves three extra sets of Council Tax and Housing Benefit.
Nobody is even hinting that polygamous marriage should become part of British law.
Nobody is saying bigamous marriages should be allowed in this country
It may make financial sense but it does not make moral sense to support the idea of polygamous marriages being supported by us through our taxes.
Payments to go to support polygamous marriages are now part of the British tax system which may not be a "law" but is a close as to make little difference.
Big hughie
08-Feb-08, 19:54
Madness! The thin end of a very large wedge. If people want to live in the UK then they live by UK laws (not religious laws of any description).
http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/quote.gif (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=336423)
I totally agree with you as a firm supporter of a secular state ,,this Archbishop seems to however seems to have made comments blown up up out of all relation to his importance The Church of England nowadays has little influence in England and a lot less than that in Caithness despite the fact there are 26 Lords Spiritual (all C of E clergy) in the House of Lords and the Queen being the figurehead
I dont think our law makers would ever countenance an amalgam of Scots law with Sharia Law (or any other) and long may it be so
Beeg Hugheeeeeeeeeeee
"Muslim" is not a nationality, it's a religion. "Briton" is a nationality, not a religion. If I lived abroad I would still be Christian first, British second and then owe loyalty to the country I was living in if I was there long enough. The problem comes with the laws of the country you live in, for instance if you went to live in Iran - would you agree with their laws? You might obey them for fear of the consequences but I doubt if you'd do it willingly.I shouldn't really be having this discussion if I didn't know the difference between a religion and a nationality. It matters not one bit whether I agreed with the laws of another country or not. If I decided to make my home in another country then I would most certainly abide by their laws. If on the other hand I did not agree with their laws and would not abide with them then I would not live there, simple. Tell me Badger, why should Britain change it's law statutes to appease anybody? I would like to be able to trust my country men not to be spouting hatred against me, wanting to kill me and eradicate my kind from the face of Britain.
Yoda the flump
08-Feb-08, 23:09
I shouldn't really be having this discussion if I didn't know the difference between a religion and a nationality. It matters not one bit whether I agreed with the laws of another country or not. If I decided to make my home in another country then I would most certainly abide by their laws. If on the other hand I did not agree with their laws and would not abide with them then I would not live there, simple. Tell me Badger, why should Britain change it's law statutes to appease anybody? I would like to be able to trust my country men not to be spouting hatred against me, wanting to kill me and eradicate my kind from the face of Britain.
But who is calling for a change in the law of the land? If an individual decides that they want to live by Sharia law as long as they are also abiding by the law of Scotland or England and Wales or whichever country they are in they why should they not.
This does not mean a change to the present law and nobody is proposing that we have bigamous marriages, homosexuals stoned and women treated as second class citizens.
j4bberw0ck
08-Feb-08, 23:23
It's quite impossible. Sharia Law is completely opposed to some of the most basic tenets of British Law (where's Boozeburglar when you need him?)
Sharia Law doesn't for instance include any stipulation that all people are to be treated identically under the law irrespective of gender, belief or anything else.
UK Law does. Anyone who thinks Sharia can co-exist has their head buried deeply in the part of their anatomy they should be sitting on.
Sharia is the law of the terminally incompetent, terminally oppressive, misogynist. It's accepted only by the most ignorant and least educated of the population, and promulgated by self-seeking individuals who want to rig everything to run their own way.
A bit like Catholicism, really.
But who is calling for a change in the law of the land? If an individual decides that they want to live by Sharia law as long as they are also abiding by the law of Scotland or England and Wales or whichever country they are in they why should they not.
This does not mean a change to the present law and nobody is proposing that we have bigamous marriages, homosexuals stoned and women treated as second class citizens.I fully understand that it is not a change to the current laws of Britain but rather existing parallel and within existing British law. One country, one set of laws for all, what is wrong with that in your mind?
Personally, I can't see why
That is why there is a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law as we already do with some kinds of aspects of other religious law.
has produced so many irrational responses.
I fully understand that it is not a change to the current laws of Britain but rather existing parallel and within existing British law. One country, one set of laws for all, what is wrong with that in your mind?
Ask the Jews what is wrong with that.
If the text of the Archbishop's words are read in full, rather than having bits cherry picked to suit islamophobic media agendas, you would see that he isn't recommending anything more than any other religion already has.
Personally, I can't see why
That is why there is a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law as we already do with some kinds of aspects of other religious law.
has produced so many irrational responses.
Not just here or amongst non muslims but also muslims have expressed concerns at the Arch Bish's foolishness. And even his own fellow clergy are wondering just what was he smoking....
Where do you suggest we expell the Arch Bish. to then? As IMHO, his statement has caused more damage than good.He should be removed from his position forthwith.
Ask the Jews what is wrong with that.
If the text of the Archbishop's words are read in full, rather than having bits cherry picked to suit islamophobic media agendas, you would see that he isn't recommending anything more than any other religion already has.Absolute rubbish, I am in no way Islamophobic and have never been so.
Absolute rubbish, I am in no way Islamophobic and have never been so.
You are the media, then? :confused
You are the media, then? :confusedVery sharp oddquine. No I am not the media but I see you as accusing me of guilt by default because I have agreed in principal with a newspaper story. I am well able to separate the wheat from the chaff without taking everything I read as gospel.
Not just here or amongst non muslims but also muslims have expressed concerns at the Arch Bish's foolishness. And even his own fellow clergy are wondering just what was he smoking....
Then some muslims are no better at reading English than many of the rest of us, are they.......because I can't see anything in the text which would justify the panic.
Very sharp oddquine. No I am not the media but I see you as accusing me of guilt by default because I have agreed in principal with a newspaper story. I am well able to separate the wheat from the chaff without taking everything I read as gospel.
If you think you fit the cap, then wear it....you are welcome.
In my opinion, having read the text of the lecture, the media story which started this furore is mischief making.
If you think you fit the cap, then wear it....you are welcome.
In my opinion, having read the text of the lecture, the media story which started this furore is mischief making.No Oddquine the cap does not fit, enough with the clichés. The archbishops interview has been manna to every disassociated wannabe terrorist in Britain. He should resign his position.
Then some muslims are no better at reading English than many of the rest of us, are they.......because I can't see anything in the text which would justify the panic.
I said "but also muslims have expressed concerns" - didn't use the word panic.
You can express concern without panicking...
Hadn't noticed Jews doing the following - not an exhaustive list by any means:
>murdering their daughters for not cooperating with arranged marriages;
>passing death sentences on women for adultery merely for being in the company of a man not their husband;
>passing death sentences on women who download womens' rights material off the web;
>kidnapping people of other religions and beheading them for no better reason than their religion being "other than Islamic";
>stoning to death women who've been raped;
>counting the testimony of a woman as being worth half the value of a man's;
>calling for the abolition of democracy as anti-Islamic
>calling for worldwide jihad and the forced conversion of non-Islamics to Islam - or their death
>calling for the immediate and total destruction of countries inhabited by Muslims because they're an affront to Judaism
>forbidding women from driving cars
Now, I grant you that not every Muslim believes everything on that list. But the fact is that Judaism and Christianity share very, very similar origins and you couldn't drive a knife blade between them on things like individual rights in the framework of law.
On the plus side, I presume you're talking about Rabbinical courts which are restricted to ruling from a religious perspective on matters which aren't governed by UK law. Rabbinical court rulings are not binding legally in the UK; don't know about their binding effect in say, Israel.
There's a fundamental difference between Rabbis, Bishops and Mullahs. Mullahs have authority to set binding law based on their interpretation of the Koran. That's like letting the raving lunatic idiot who's obviously taken over the Archbish in the dead of night, issue binding legal rulings based on the Bible.
Submission on any point of domestic law to a Stone Age superstition like Islam, which is the clearest possible example of why and how religion and politics are one and the same thing, would be a huge step along the path to the disappearance of the UK as all of us here have known it.I'm surprised no-one has picked up the ravings of this poster. Constructive criticism of the Islamic faith is one thing but I've never before seen anyone use such an argument to equate religion and politics. :confused
It's quite impossible. Sharia Law is completely opposed to some of the most basic tenets of British Law (where's Boozeburglar when you need him?)
Sharia Law doesn't for instance include any stipulation that all people are to be treated identically under the law irrespective of gender, belief or anything else.
UK Law does. Anyone who thinks Sharia can co-exist has their head buried deeply in the part of their anatomy they should be sitting on.
Sharia is the law of the terminally incompetent, terminally oppressive, misogynist. It's accepted only by the most ignorant and least educated of the population, and promulgated by self-seeking individuals who want to rig everything to run their own way.
A bit like Catholicism, really.Here he goes again. Another post that's rude towards Muslims with a throwaway insult to Catholicism.
Boozeburglar
09-Feb-08, 04:12
I have been too ill to really follow the debate, and have not read the Observer yet, where I will get the full story.
Gut instinct and fuzzy head both say NO to more adoption of Sharia other than is deemed necessary by mutual agreement to allow the free expression of the religious and cultural aspects of Islam, were these genuinely under threat. (Sikhs don't have to wear crash helmets, there are likely some things like that.)
These limited 'acknowledgements' would have to sit beneath our law, and would only be facilitations. There would be no legal means for the imposition of any Sharia, and strict regulation to prevent such.
We cannot have any other law system holding power, token or not, in a country we call a democracy. To that end, the fool has spoken very foolishly indeed, because the same rules equally applied to all is a basic requirement for justice.
matelot79
09-Feb-08, 04:21
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
Boozeburglar
09-Feb-08, 04:43
Seem to be a lot of individuals selling lots of books promoting it...
:)
j4bberw0ck
09-Feb-08, 10:26
I've never before seen anyone use such an argument to equate religion and politics.
"Ravings" is of course a subjective term. The items I listed are common enough occurrences under Islamic law, or are publicly stated beliefs. If you think that makes them "ravings" then your Rave-O-Meter needs re-calibrating.
I grant you that my Inner Troll might have popped out from under the bridge for moment or two in search of a juicy goat...... perhaps I found one? Good morning, Moi :lol: .
The assertion that religion and politics are one and the same is pretty easy to back up. It shouldn't take much critical faculty to see the similarities of hierarchy, privileges, reward for service, and ruthless suppression from time to time of those who aren't of the same mind. Oh, and the pomp and ceremony and regalia to impress the proles ;)
"Ravings" is of course a subjective term. The items I listed are common enough occurrences under Islamic law, or are publicly stated beliefs. If you think that makes them "ravings" then your Rave-O-Meter needs re-calibrating.
Nope..............there are distinct cultural variations over the very large area Islam covers so the interpretation of Islamic law has as much to do with the culture of the society using it as the Koran itself. There is a difference between the interpretation by the Saudis and the countries influenced by them and and by those mainly populated by the various Sunni and Shia sects for example.
After all where on earth did the Koran forbid anyone from driving cars?
Publicly stated beliefs mean nothing.........if they did, we'd have flogging and capital punishment here under UK law! :roll:
.
No Oddquine the cap does not fit, enough with the clichés. The archbishops interview has been manna to every disassociated wannabe terrorist in Britain. He should resign his position.
How on earth can you equate the proposition to give Islamic Courts the same status as Beth Din as manna to wannabe terrorists?
Please elucidate.
I disagree with Rowan William's comments purely on cultural diversity grounds. People came to this country knowing that their lives would be changed by the system. It would be a very sad day when all countries were the same all over.
j4bberw0ck
09-Feb-08, 18:38
After all where on earth did the Koran forbid anyone from driving cars?
Errrrr - Saudi Arabia. Not as a result of what the Koran says, but as a result of the repressive regime which, under the guise of Islamic law, forbids women from driving cars. It's the Wahhabis, Oddquine. Those Saudis of a particular caste / tribe / belief system who sponsor terrorism and extremism. This is not speculation on my part.
Publicly stated beliefs mean nothing.........if they did, we'd have flogging and capital punishment here under UK lawWhen the President of a Muslim country gets up on his hind legs and says it's his holy duty to erase the state of Israel from the map by any means possible, one has to wonder. By contrast, having j4bberw0ck say something in favour of capital punishment (which actually, I'm by no means decided on and posted against in a recent thread) or Oddquine saying something in favour of Scottish Nationalism, is just a private citizen expressing a view. And one which, under a Muslim administration, she'd have to be damn careful over. Being female, and all :lol: .
Interesting also that there's a court case going on right now in which the Government is being sued for breach of contract by a UKIP MP and former Labour member. And Gordon Brown's barrister stood up last week and said (and I paraphrase only slightly) "political manifesto promises do not mean that politicians have to carry them out".
So there you have the government's view on manifestos. What price idle chit-chat on forums about capital punishment or floggings,compared with declarations by Muslim heads of state??
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article=106499&d=5&m=2&y=2008&pix=kingdom.jpg&category=Kingdom
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=17§ion=21&d=8&m=2&y=2008&mode=dynamic§ionlist=no&pix=interact.jpg&category=Interact
The Archbishop's fault was to take part in a radio broadcast without realising that the vast majority of listeners would not listen to what he was saying, that the media would immediately pick up the word Sharia, ignore the rest and decide to have a field day with misleading headlines and articles. I cannot believe that even with the opportunity to read online exactly what he did say, people are still peddling all this nonsense about him wanting Sharia law in this country. Sadly he is a scholar and a good man but not media savvy and these days that is an unforgiveable crime. He should have been better advised and stuck to just giving the lecture.
I am shocked by the hatred and bile spilling out here - as if we were perfect. We have a good system of law but it certainly isn't equal for everyone - those with the most money can afford the best barristers. People often cannot afford to go to Court for fear of losing and being left with crippling costs. Family courts have been criticised for being held in secret with all kinds of injustices following. Many immigrants cling to their own customs because they see what freedom has done to this country - teenage pregnancy, binge drinking, unwillingness to work hard, poor education standards - do I need to go on?
Extremists of any religion are pretty unpleasant, including many who call themselves Christians, but they're the ones we hear about. The silent majority of Muslims are like the silent majority of Jews, Christians, atheists and anything else you are to mention - reasonable people going about their daily lives.
And in response to an earlier post - it's pretty cynical to say that people obey the law in this country for fear of the consequences. Some do, particularly criminals, but hopefully most do it because they can see it's the sensible and right thing to do for the good of all.
Adolph Hitler was appeased in the 1930s with respect to his breaking the terms of the Versailles Treaty, the annexation of the Sudetenland and Austria and the invasion of Czehcoslovakia.
This did not work because Hitler had a hidden adgenda.
All the talk of him just wanting back what had once been Germany's possessions culminated in him feeling empowered enough to embark on a war which touched the majority of the world.
The Muslims today may be looked at similarly. At the moment, they say they only want some minor aspects of Sharia Law to be introduced to the UK in certain areas similar to what is enjoyed by other religions.
The Muslims who are currently serving in local government or in the legal or medical professions will eventually put themselves forward for election to Parliament as the "moderate" face of Islam and when sufficient in strength there, will set about changing UK law to allow Sharia Law to be applied across the board. This is their adgenda, and it's not hidden to those who want to look.
Make no mistake about it, they are all Muslim first and will pursue their aim (as stated in the Koran) of making Islam the dominant world religion.
The benign countenance of Muslims like Lord Ahmed, Baroness Warsi, MP Sidiqu Khan, the Muslim Council of Great Britain and others should not blind us to the true purpose of Muslims abroad. The two doctors who ran a Jeep into Glasgow Airport Terminal building probably looked benign enough prior to that incident.
Note the rise of the Danish Peoples Party in response to the threat felt by ethnic Danes. Do we want to end up with the BNP in charge of the country because they were the only party willing to take action to stem the rise of Muslim powers in the UK? I sincerely hope it doesn't get that far.
We are being constantly tested by Muslims with challenges in the courts to school dress codes, whether or not the women should remove their veils for security checks or not and in most cases, we allow them to assert their rights to the detriment of our own.
The comments from the Archbishop have given an apparent credence to the attempts of the Muslims in Britain to start the ball rolling in imposing Sharia Law in the UK.
Wake up and smell the coffee before caffeine is dissallowed in the UK under Sharia law.
Many immigrants cling to their own customs because they see what freedom has done to this country - teenage pregnancy, binge drinking, unwillingness to work hard, poor education standards - do I need to go on?
The silent majority of Muslims are like the silent majority of Jews, Christians, atheists and anything else you are to mention - reasonable people going about their daily lives.
If this country is so decadent, why then do they come here?
I don't think they are, they are adherants to a religion which advocates converting the world to the true path and killing those who do not take up their offer to convert.
How on earth can you equate the proposition to give Islamic Courts the same status as Beth Din as manna to wannabe terrorists?
Please elucidate.Exactly the same way that most right thinking people do. These extremists are ecstatic at the thought of our resolve being eroded by our own religious leaders. Do you want your Country to be divided up into sectors for minority races, religions? There are parts of Britain that are already no go areas for non-muslims, does that make you happy?
Sapphire2803
10-Feb-08, 02:38
Sharia is the law of the terminally incompetent, terminally oppressive, misogynist. It's accepted only by the most ignorant and least educated of the population, and promulgated by self-seeking individuals who want to rig everything to run their own way.
A bit like Catholicism, really.
Excuse me!... Having been raised a catholic, I'll have you know that... um... oh yeah... good point ;)
Errrrr - Saudi Arabia. Not as a result of what the Koran says, but as a result of the repressive regime which, under the guise of Islamic law, forbids women from driving cars. It's the Wahhabis, Oddquine. Those Saudis of a particular caste / tribe / belief system who sponsor terrorism and extremism. This is not speculation on my part.
Exactly...nothing to do with the Koran.........everything to do with the mindset of a ruler who encourages a repressive regime.
When the President of a Muslim country gets up on his hind legs and says it's his holy duty to erase the state of Israel from the map by any means possible, one has to wonder. By contrast, having j4bberw0ck say something in favour of capital punishment (which actually, I'm by no means decided on and posted against in a recent thread) or Oddquine saying something in favour of Scottish Nationalism, is just a private citizen expressing a view. And one which, under a Muslim administration, she'd have to be damn careful over. Being female, and all :lol: .
I'm of the opinion that people can posture as much as they like.........after all, Arab nations have been posturing about removing Israel for as long as I can remember......the ones to worry about are those like GWB who actually think that posturing is a promise rather than wishful thinking.
Interesting also that there's a court case going on right now in which the Government is being sued for breach of contract by a UKIP MP and former Labour member. And Gordon Brown's barrister stood up last week and said (and I paraphrase only slightly) "political manifesto promises do not mean that politicians have to carry them out".
So there you have the government's view on manifestos. What price idle chit-chat on forums about capital punishment or floggings,compared with declarations by Muslim heads of state??
I'd say the Muslim heads of state mean just as much of what they say as UK ones. political manifesto promises do not mean that politicians have to carry them out applies to most politicians in any country anywhere. They are very good at appearing to go with the flow.
Sorry, scotsboy.....not getting anything appertaining to this thread from there. In fact, getting nothing at all on the second link.
Exactly the same way that most right thinking people do. These extremists are ecstatic at the thought of our resolve being eroded by our own religious leaders. Do you want your Country to be divided up into sectors for minority races, religions? There are parts of Britain that are already no go areas for non-muslims, does that make you happy?
Would you..or anybody...... explain why it is OK to have paid arbitration in civil matters in the UK for anybody who wants it, Beth Din arbitration in the UK for any Jew who wants it.....but not the arbitration of an Islamic council for any Muslims who want to go that route?
I hear a lot of reasons why Sharia criminal law should not be brought into the mainstream of UK law..which has never actually been proposed......but no cogent reasons as to why Muslims should not be able to choose to deal with civil problems through their own style of arbitration...just as we and the Jews do.
Sorry, scotsboy.....not getting anything appertaining to this thread from there. In fact, getting nothing at all on the second link.
I'll check the links later - they both come form the Arab News (the server response does appear very slow, so maybe it will appear). The first is about a Saudi business woman who was removed from Starbucks for having a cup of coffee with a non-family member, it was her business partner. The second was the letter page response to the debate of Sharia Law pertaining to this "crime" - thought it my have been of interest in the fact that there is both a hard-line response and one which indicates no crime was committed.
Would you..or anybody...... explain why it is OK to have paid arbitration in civil matters in the UK for anybody who wants it, Beth Din arbitration in the UK for any Jew who wants it.....but not the arbitration of an Islamic council for any Muslims who want to go that route?
I hear a lot of reasons why Sharia criminal law should not be brought into the mainstream of UK law..which has never actually been proposed......but no cogent reasons as to why Muslims should not be able to choose to deal with civil problems through their own style of arbitration...just as we and the Jews do.
They already can Oddquine.
UK law allows for any two parties in a civil dispute to engage the services of a third party as an arbiter provided both parties agree on who or what body the arbiter is and whether or not they will abide by the arbiter's decision. But the whole issue is still subject ratification by the UK courts.
Party A might well claim that Party B deserves to have a hand amputated for some alleged act and an arbiter may well agree. However, that sentence is not allowable under UK law and the courts would overturn the arbiter's decision.
The question has to be why do the Muslim comunity (or those who inform them of the Koran's position on any given subject) feel the need to extend that right?
As I have previously stated, what is currently being proposed by Muslims in respect of Sharia Law in the UK is most probably not their ultimate aim.
Camel Spider
10-Feb-08, 13:39
Would you..or anybody...... explain why it is OK to have paid arbitration in civil matters in the UK for anybody who wants it, Beth Din arbitration in the UK for any Jew who wants it.....but not the arbitration of an Islamic council for any Muslims who want to go that route?
I hear a lot of reasons why Sharia criminal law should not be brought into the mainstream of UK law..which has never actually been proposed......but no cogent reasons as to why Muslims should not be able to choose to deal with civil problems through their own style of arbitration...just as we and the Jews do.
I disagree with anyone sorting out any kind of legal argument outside of the UK Legal system.
The bottom line is that the UK is a Christian country and the laws have developed and evolved over centuries. If you feel that you do not want to abide by them find somewehere else to live that is more to your liking.
In a Muslim country you do as you are told with no questions, it simply isnt up for discussion, therefore we should apply the same rules to Muslims in the UK that they apply to Christians in their countries.
The Archbishop should have kept his yapper firmly shut on an issue that does not concern him, laws are made by parliament, not the Church of England. Maybe if he took a look around the world at the problems that religion has caused and is still causing he might find a worthwhile cause to fight.
I disagree with anyone sorting out any kind of legal argument outside of the UK Legal system.
So you would ban Beth Din?
The bottom line is that the UK is a Christian country and the laws have developed and evolved over centuries. If you feel that you do not want to abide by them find somewehere else to live that is more to your liking.
I assume this applies to Orthodox Jews?
In a Muslim country you do as you are told with no questions, it simply isnt up for discussion, therefore we should apply the same rules to Muslims in the UK that they apply to Christians in their countries.
But don't we think we are better than them...so why adopt their restrictive practices?
The Archbishop should have kept his yapper firmly shut on an issue that does not concern him, laws are made by parliament, not the Church of England. Maybe if he took a look around the world at the problems that religion has caused and is still causing he might find a worthwhile cause to fight.
He is as entitled to his opinion as anyone else......nd, as he was talking to a group of lawyers...why on earth wouldn't he be talking about religion and the law.
Personally, I do not think that the law should make any concessions to religions at all.........and that includes all religions.........Christianity, Sikhism, Judaism, Islam etc.
So you would ban Beth Din?
I assume this applies to Orthodox Jews?
But don't we think we are better than them...so why adopt their restrictive practices?
He is as entitled to his opinion as anyone else......nd, as he was talking to a group of lawyers...why on earth wouldn't he be talking about religion and the law.
Personally, I do not think that the law should make any concessions to religions at all.........and that includes all religions.........Christianity, Sikhism, Judaism, Islam etc.
Yes
Yes
Our practices are not restrictive to a particular religion, it applies to all equally.
Of course he is entitled to his opinion, he gave it, and the majority of people in the UK appear to disagree with it.
Agree, which is the way it is at the moment.So better to stick with the status quo.
Camel Spider
10-Feb-08, 16:20
Yes .. Definetly
Yes .. It applies to all
Having read a lot of the Koran and visited Muslim countries the impression I get is that Islam does think it is above everyone elses law and I think its about time they were brought down to earth with a bump. I am sick and tired of Muslims in the UK constantly being "outraged" about something. The law of the land is the law of the land and applicable for everyone. Dont like it and want to live under Sharia Law or any other system ?? .. feel free to leave and dont let the door hit your backside on the way out.
Yes the Archbishop is entitled to his opinion, Im sure he breaks wind too but I consider hearing that as being as relevant as his opinion on the law of the land. If he had engaged his brain before opening his mouth would we be having this discussion and indeed controversy. All he has done is give the hard line Muslims in the UK who do want Sharia Law implemented a stick to beat the Goverment with.
They already can Oddquine.
UK law allows for any two parties in a civil dispute to engage the services of a third party as an arbiter provided both parties agree on who or what body the arbiter is and whether or not they will abide by the arbiter's decision. But the whole issue is still subject ratification by the UK courts.
Yes and no, Dusty. Beth Din are formalised and recognised, Islamic courts are not............for example the Jewish get, or Orthodox divorce, has been incorporated into the law of this country in the sense that if a husband refused to grant his wife a get so that she could remarry in a synagogue, she could deny him a decree absolute.
Party A might well claim that Party B deserves to have a hand amputated for some alleged act and an arbiter may well agree. However, that sentence is not allowable under UK law and the courts would overturn the arbiter's decision.
That is ridiculous..........we are talking civil, not criminal, here.
The question has to be why do the Muslim comunity (or those who inform them of the Koran's position on any given subject) feel the need to extend that right?
They won't be extending anything..just having what already exists formalised and recognised.
As I have previously stated, what is currently being proposed by Muslims in respect of Sharia Law in the UK is most probably not their ultimate aim.
As none of us on here would ever live to see such an unlikely event, why worry about it?
Possible problems far in the future is no reason not to do the fair and equitable thing now.
Agree, which is the way it is at the moment.So better to stick with the status quo.
But that is not the way it is at the moment. There are numerous concessions to various religious practices enshrined in law..but some have more concessions than others.
I am sick and tired of Muslims in the UK constantly being "outraged" about something. The law of the land is the law of the land and applicable for everyone. Dont like it and want to live under Sharia Law or any other system ?? .. feel free to leave and dont let the door hit your backside on the way out.Totally agree that there is no room for a set of religious courts of law running parallel to state law. Beth Din courts should be abolished as soon as possible and a return to one law system for everyone and as you suggest if they don't like it they should move to a country more suitable to their mindset. Why do people stay here or move here if they disagree with our laws. Why come to Britain in the first place if all they want to do is change it to suit themselves, they want to have their cake and eat it. On the point about enraged Muslims, It is the politically correct non-muslims that are enraged on the muslims behalf that worry me more.
Nowt to do with politically correct...there should be the same rules for all, or different ones for none.
At the moment, there are neither.
But that is not the way it is at the moment. There are numerous concessions to various religious practices enshrined in law..but some have more concessions than others.
And those concessions are ensnshrined is whose law? That is the difference, the law is there for everyone - if concessions are required then so be it. That is certainly significantly different form the use or adoption of another legal code by a proportion of the population.
And in response to an earlier post - it's pretty cynical to say that people obey the law in this country for fear of the consequences. Some do
That was my post. It only took you two words into the next sentence to contradict yourself.
And those concessions are ensnshrined is whose law? That is the difference, the law is there for everyone - if concessions are required then so be it. That is certainly significantly different form the use or adoption of another legal code by a proportion of the population.
If the Jews are allowed to do it......why on earth are the Muslims not?
They already do it unofficially in some areas...so why not recognise those muslims who wish to use Islamic Courts as we recognise Jews who wish to use Beth Din in civil matters?
Nobody is talking about introducing Sharia law for all...........any more than Beth Din meant Talmudic law for all. :roll:
I am not familiar with Beth Din, but am aware that there are huge variations in interpretation associated with Sharia - so much so that a huge overhaul is in process in the Middle East. Which was what I was trying to convey the links I attempted to post earlier. Possibly the difference is that there are clear and definate criteria asociated with Beth Din - but I don't know.
I coud be wrong but I thought I saw a report relating to persons with more than one wife being able to claim benefits for ach wife/family, thus basically legsalising bygamy............that appears to be a concession that Christians, Jews, Hindus and Sikhs wont be principle users off.............I am not sure if they in fact would be discriminated against in that particular instance.
He is neither an idiot nor a buffoon, this is a thoughtful interview simply proposing that consideration should be given to Sharia law being treated in the same way as Christian and Jewish law.
The internal rules ( or laws, if you will) of any particular religion, club or association is their own perogative and they are entitled to them, as long as the rules ( or laws) are not illegal where they are established. Fine. But what happens when those rules ( laws) are impinged on people that do not want to abide by them? Let me guess: they can just leave "the club"? Can they? If a person is in an abusive situation they often find it impossible to leave. There is no Sharia law here yet, but even so young British nationals are being forced into marriages or suffering "honor killings".
If this interview had been thoughtful, thought would have been given to the Anglican communities living under the shackles of violent sharia law in other countries of the world (eg Nigeria). Places where they are fighting to be entitrled to the normal rule of law. Places where rape victims are stoned, human rights are for men and women have no say in their lives. They say charity begins at home. This man's home is not his Church, because he had not a second thought for it before going into the intellectual excercise of how sharia law in Britain might appease muslims here and all over the world.
As a female, I cannot consider even "the good bits" of laws that are used to mistreat people. It's a potato struck with blight. Even if you cut out the rotten, the rest is tainted.
No-one is suggesting that Sharia law should be introduced into this country alongside our own laws. The fact is that many believers in different religions do obey the laws of those religions but are still subject to the law of the land. Surely it is better to discuss how individuals' beliefs can be accommodated than to ignore the fact that it happens and keep it underground. The Archbishop was naive to assume that suggesting this as a topic for consideration by intelligent people wasn't going to go completely pear-shaped because he used the word Sharia.
It isn't even relevant to keep referring to people moving to this country. Many Muslims are English converts.
I think we have allowed far too many immigrants into Britain (and still do but it seems we can't stop them from Europe). I think we have paid far too little attention to what goes on in some mosques. All religions should be subject to the same rules, for instance Anglicans take the Children Law very seriously and everyone in contact with vulnerable people, young and old, is subject to the CRB check - this should apply to all organisations. The law isn't foolproof but it's a big step in the right direction. Religious schools should be supervised, inspected and follow similar curricula to state schools. Everyone should be required to learn the English language - the government has a lot to answer for with the nonsense of providing interpreters instead of English lessons. This would release many women from the prisons of their homes. etc....
Scorrie - I think you misunderstood me. I said I thought you were being cynical saying that people in this country obey laws through fear. I didn't contradict myself, I was disagreeing with you. I don't believe everyone in this country obeys the law for fear of the consequences.
Yes and no, Dusty. Beth Din are formalised and recognised, Islamic courts are not............for example the Jewish get, or Orthodox divorce, has been incorporated into the law of this country in the sense that if a husband refused to grant his wife a get so that she could remarry in a synagogue, she could deny him a decree absolute.
That is ridiculous..........we are talking civil, not criminal, here.
They won't be extending anything..just having what already exists formalised and recognised.
As none of us on here would ever live to see such an unlikely event, why worry about it?
Possible problems far in the future is no reason not to do the fair and equitable thing now.
The Muslim religious courts are as formalised and recognised as any other arbitration system in the UK whether it's Beth Din or ACAS.
There is no way a party in a divorce action in the UK could prevent a Decree Absolute from being given and if they cited religious grounds for not wanting a divorce, a Judicial Separation would be issued which has the same effect as a divorce but spares the feelings of those religiously opposed to divorce. In any case, a Decree Absolute would be given automatically after the appropriate time span had passed.
My point in the hand removal scenario was to illustrate that the law of this country would be paramount, not any religious dictat. I didn't mention the alleged offence so I might well have been talking about a civil matter.
Formalised and recognised initially, then expanded and imposed!
I don't think that the event is all that unlikely, and head burying in the sand won't make the problem disappear.
As far as I am concerned, Muslims should be cut no slack in this matter in the UK and if they wish to be governed under a religious law then they should move to a country where it is already in effect and save themselves the effort of trying to introduce it here. Or perhaps they see it as a religious duty to enlighten the Infidel.
I am sick to the back teeth of being told I need to be more tolerant of other races and religions who are muscling in on our country at the behest of a bunch of left wing loonies who either cannot see or will not see the dangers involved.
The Muslim religious courts are as formalised and recognised as any other arbitration system in the UK whether it's Beth Din or ACAS.
There is no way a party in a divorce action in the UK could prevent a Decree Absolute from being given and if they cited religious grounds for not wanting a divorce, a Judicial Separation would be issued which has the same effect as a divorce but spares the feelings of those religiously opposed to divorce. In any case, a Decree Absolute would be given automatically after the appropriate time span had passed.
Read the Divorce(Religious Marriages) Act 2002, Dusty..then come back and repeat that.
My point in the hand removal scenario was to illustrate that the law of this country would be paramount, not any religious dictat. I didn't mention the alleged offence so I might well have been talking about a civil matter.
Can't think of a civil matter which would entail the chopping off of hands. Do you know any?
And of course any arbitration decision would be within UK law.
Formalised and recognised initially, then expanded and imposed!
I don't think that the event is all that unlikely, and head burying in the sand won't make the problem disappear.
It will not happen until Muslims are the majority in the UK...and not then until they can get a majority in Parliament....and frankly, I don't see the majority of Muslims wanting to live under Sharia criminal law.
As far as I am concerned, Muslims should be cut no slack in this matter in the UK and if they wish to be governed under a religious law then they should move to a country where it is already in effect and save themselves the effort of trying to introduce it here. Or perhaps they see it as a religious duty to enlighten the Infidel.
I am sick to the back teeth of being told I need to be more tolerant of other races and religions who are muscling in on our country at the behest of a bunch of left wing loonies who either cannot see or will not see the dangers involved.
But you are happy to have the Jews be governed in civil matters by Judaic Law if that is what they want?
If so, isn't that a little racist?
If Sharia law was to be instated and there was a dispute between a muslim and a non-muslim - who's court,law etc. would be used then?? One country one law you cant have concessions, add ons, or anyother variations for anyone regardless of faith.
No-one is suggesting that Sharia law should be introduced into this country alongside our own laws. The fact is that many believers in different religions do obey the laws of those religions but are still subject to the law of the land. Surely it is better to discuss how individuals' beliefs can be accommodated than to ignore the fact that it happens and keep it underground. The Archbishop was naive to assume that suggesting this as a topic for consideration by intelligent people wasn't going to go completely pear-shaped because he used the word Sharia.
It isn't even relevant to keep referring to people moving to this country. Many Muslims are English converts.
I think we have allowed far too many immigrants into Britain (and still do but it seems we can't stop them from Europe). I think we have paid far too little attention to what goes on in some mosques. All religions should be subject to the same rules, for instance Anglicans take the Children Law very seriously and everyone in contact with vulnerable people, young and old, is subject to the CRB check - this should apply to all organisations. The law isn't foolproof but it's a big step in the right direction. Religious schools should be supervised, inspected and follow similar curricula to state schools. Everyone should be required to learn the English language - the government has a lot to answer for with the nonsense of providing interpreters instead of English lessons. This would release many women from the prisons of their homes. etc....
Scorrie - I think you misunderstood me. I said I thought you were being cynical saying that people in this country obey laws through fear. I didn't contradict myself, I was disagreeing with you. I don't believe everyone in this country obeys the law for fear of the consequences.
I have not misunderstood you. I never said EVERYONE in this country obeys the law through fear of the consequences. I said MANY more people would break the law if there were no consequences. That is not cynical, it is logical. It was your original statement about UK people not agreeing with laws overseas through fear of consequences that I wanted to demonstrate was no different to people obeying OUR laws for the same reason. The big difference is how desperate those consequences may be overseas, when compared to what is available as punishment in the UK. I know which punishments I would rather face!!
You never got round to answering my question as to whether you expected that Iran would adapt its laws to accommodate UK people? It does not really matter, as I suspect we all know what the actuality would be.
You say the Archbishop is naive. I would have thought that a man of his intelligence would have been clever enough to consult with people who ARE media savvy BEFORE lobbing a live grenade into a debate. Perhaps arrogance, rather than naivety, was the problem.
We could spend an awful lot of time, and an awful lot of money trying to accommodate every single permutation from every nationality resident in the UK. I would, however, ask if we could ever possibly culminate in satisfaction from all parties concerned or whether we should even try to appease all.
People have come here or been born here. If they wish to stay here, they surely have to respect the law as it stands, or move to where the rules ARE the way they want them to be. Instead of getting everyone round a table to to see how they can be best accommodated, it would be better to explain to them that the rules are NOT up for adjustment.
I have no problem with peoples beliefs as long as they keep it to themselves and it does not impact on our society. Here in the far North of SCotland we have little or no experience of the reality of the racial tension that exists in other parts of the country. In a way, it is easy for us to preach tolerance of all races. I am very mindful that the situation can be very different for people who live in a totally different situation to ourselves and it is much too easy to throw the "racist" tag around without knowing what another may have experienced in areas where race is much more diverse than it is here.
If Sharia law was to be instated and there was a dispute between a muslim and a non-muslim - who's court,law etc. would be used then?? One country one law you cant have concessions, add ons, or anyother variations for anyone regardless of faith.
The ability to go to an Islamic court is only possible when all parties are Muslim, and only when all parties consent.
There has never been any intention to impose Sharia Law on the British public..whatever some of the media, and posters on forums, would have you think.
The ability to go to an Islamic court is only possible when all parties are Muslim, and only when all parties consent.
How often do Muslim women who would be in position that they HAD to go to Islamic court would have any choice in consent?
So what is then being proposed is that we should give one section of the population the power to go and form their own court of law? Surely that is hardly contributing to an inclusive British society??
So what is then being proposed is that we should give one section of the population the power to go and form their own court of law? Surely that is hardly contributing to an inclusive British society??
The Jews already have that right.............and I haven't noticed the sky falling in...have you? :confused
How often do Muslim women who would be in position that they HAD to go to Islamic court would have any choice in consent?
Nobody HAS to go to a Muslim Court............they will always have the option to use civil law.
I can't see that anyone taking a kicking and screaming female into an Islamic Court would have a leg to stand on when the female contested any decision in a UK court.
The Jews already have that right.............and I haven't noticed the sky falling in...have you? :confused
I am perfectly aware that the Jews have this right and they should not have it.
If I were to be in a dispute in a country which had Sharia law and were to turn and say sorry my religion doesnt follow that law so Im not using it Id prefer we used another law, i dont think it would be accepted by that country!
And im not quite sure what the jews have got to do with the sky.:eek:
Nobody HAS to go to a Muslim Court............they will always have the option to use civil law.
I can't see that anyone taking a kicking and screaming female into an Islamic Court would have a leg to stand on when the female contested any decision in a UK court.
In the UK nobody should have the right to tell anybody who they should marry and nobody should feel coerced into marrying anyone they shouldn't. But it still goes on in Islamic circles in the UK because those people have not fully integrated themselves into the British way of life. Giving any more quarter to those that want to detract from British values will only serve to send out the wrong message.
In the UK nobody should have the right to tell anybody who they should marry and nobody should feel coerced into marrying anyone they shouldn't. But it still goes on in Islamic circles in the UK because those people have not fully integrated themselves into the British way of life. Giving any more quarter to those that want to detract from British values will only serve to send out the wrong message.
Nope, Rheghead...that is a cultural thing not a Sharia thing....like the hijab and honour killings.
Forced marriage and the like is against UK law....and wouldn't be countenanced in a properly set up Sharia court. The problem is that attitudes like those on here won't allow the setting up of properly constructed Sharia courts....so we will always just have the various cultures, like the Somali one, setting up their own version.
I'd have thought, as we won't get rid of them unless we forbid all religious concessions, we'd be as well to make sure they are run properly.
Boozeburglar
11-Feb-08, 01:13
Here in the far North of SCotland we have little or no experience of the reality of the racial tension that exists in other parts of the country. In a way, it is easy for us to preach tolerance of all races. I am very mindful that the situation can be very different for people who live in a totally different situation to ourselves and it is much too easy to throw the "racist" tag around without knowing what another may have experienced in areas where race is much more diverse than it is here.
Here in the far North of Scotland we have little or not experience of the reality of the racial harmony that exists in many parts of the country. In a way, it is easy for us to remain locked in irrational fear, intolerant of diversity and prejudicial to those of different cultural backgrounds. I am very mindful that the situation can be very different for people who live in a totally different situation to ourselves and it is much too easy to throw the 'liberal' or 'politically correct' tag around without knowing what another may have experienced in areas where attitudes are much more positive and experiences of diversity replace fear of the unknown.
Racism is racism.
Racists are racists.
Doesn't matter where you come from, where you move to.
Funny how it seems to be suggested that liberal views on diversity are somehow merely 'received' political correctness, whereas bigots are supposedly cast in the mould of dysfunctional society rather than the dysfunctional psyche.
If you encounter a racist view in the 'far North' folks, don't excuse it as though it matters not up here. They think they can talk like that here because they assume they are amongst a sympathetic audience, presumable basing this on the number of faces staring back at them in the same shade of pink.
I am perfectly aware that the Jews have this right and they should not have it.
If I were to be in a dispute in a country which had Sharia law and were to turn and say sorry my religion doesnt follow that law so Im not using it Id prefer we used another law, i dont think it would be accepted by that country!
And im not quite sure what the jews have got to do with the sky.:eek:
I agree, but having set a precedence, it is only fair to allow others to have the same rights.
I meant that nothing terrible has happened because the Jews have Beth Din.........in fact, I'll bet most of us were never aware it existed until now....so why would you expect an Islamic court on the same lines to have any more impact.
What other countries do has nothing to do with it.....other countries allow all religions the same rights..or allow them none. They don't pick and choose as we appear to do.
No-one is suggesting that Sharia law should be introduced into this country alongside our own laws. The fact is that many believers in different religions do obey the laws of those religions but are still subject to the law of the land. Surely it is better to discuss how individuals' beliefs can be accommodated than to ignore the fact that it happens and keep it underground. The Archbishop was naive to assume that suggesting this as a topic for consideration by intelligent people wasn't going to go completely pear-shaped because he used the word Sharia.No one is suggesting sharia law should be introduced alongside our own laws? Oh yes they are. There is room for individual beliefs in this country but there is absolutely no room for religious laws having any place in this society. If they don't like it then they are welcome to leave.
It isn't even relevant to keep referring to people moving to this country. Many Muslims are English converts. Whether they have moved to this country, were born here under the muslim faith of their families or have converted to Islam doesn't really matter. What does matter is being unwilling to accept that this is a predominately Christian country and their religious laws have no place here. If they don't like it they are welcome to leave.
I think we have allowed far too many immigrants into Britain (and still do but it seems we can't stop them from Europe). I think we have paid far too little attention to what goes on in some mosques.Definitely too many immigrants who are happy to take the money and reasonably good way of life on offer in this country and spout anti-western feelings at the drop of a hat. Lets pay some close attention to what goes on in Mosques, Abu Hamza Al Masri anyone?
All religions should be subject to the same rules, for instance Anglicans take the Children Law very seriously and everyone in contact with vulnerable people, young and old, is subject to the CRB check - this should apply to all organisations. The law isn't foolproof but it's a big step in the right direction. Religious schools should be supervised, inspected and follow similar curricula to state schools. Everyone should be required to learn the English language - the government has a lot to answer for with the nonsense of providing interpreters instead of English lessons. This would release many women from the prisons of their homes. etc....There is no room for any religious laws in this country, only state law. If they don't like it then they are welcome to leave.
You never got round to answering my question as to whether you expected that Iran would adapt its laws to accommodate UK people? It does not really matter, as I suspect we all know what the actuality would be.
No I wouldn't expect Iran to adapt its laws - but I hope Britain is a more tolerant society.
You say the Archbishop is naive. I would have thought that a man of his intelligence would have been clever enough to consult with people who ARE media savvy BEFORE lobbing a live grenade into a debate. Perhaps arrogance, rather than naivety, was the problem.
No I don't think he could ever be accused of arrogance. He is a scholar and from what I have heard (I don't know him personally) a truly loving and much loved and respected man. That does not mean he is immune from mistakes and I think in this instance either he, or his advisors, should have realised the difference between a BBC interview and a lecture to a group of intelligent people. The BBC seem to me to be keeping the story against him going by continually quoting his critics rather than the many who have defended him. But there is much about BBC reporting that is sensation seeking these days
I have no problem with peoples beliefs as long as they keep it to themselves and it does not impact on our society. Here in the far North of SCotland we have little or no experience of the reality of the racial tension that exists in other parts of the country. In a way, it is easy for us to preach tolerance of all races. I am very mindful that the situation can be very different for people who live in a totally different situation to ourselves and it is much too easy to throw the "racist" tag around without knowing what another may have experienced in areas where race is much more diverse than it is here.
Having lived most of my life in London I hope you're not including me in this. I know exactly what it's like to be surrounded by people of other races and feeling very much in a minority. That's why I think we have allowed too much immigration and we need to protect our own customs. Having said that, some parts of London that have become completely foreign are very exciting and interesting. When I moved up here it did not occur to me that I was moving to a foreign country, it was just another part of Britain. That may change and I, like many others, will be on the receiving end.
Read the Divorce(Religious Marriages) Act 2002, Dusty..then come back and repeat that.
Can't think of a civil matter which would entail the chopping off of hands. Do you know any?
And of course any arbitration decision would be within UK law.
It will not happen until Muslims are the majority in the UK...and not then until they can get a majority in Parliament....and frankly, I don't see the majority of Muslims wanting to live under Sharia criminal law.
But you are happy to have the Jews be governed in civil matters by Judaic Law if that is what they want?
If so, isn't that a little racist?
Oddquine, the act you refer to allows the UK Courts the latitude to withold a Decree Absolute if they deem it appropriate. The decisions of a religious court have no bearing on the matter. The act has been challenged under human rights legislation so its use may be currently shied away from.
So my point that the parties to a divorce cannot themselves withold a Decree Absolute stays.
There are no civil matters where the chopping off of a hand is appropriate......Not yet anyway!
The majority of Muslims may not want to live under Sharia law but my point is that unless action is taken to prevent the creeping establishment of that law then there may be no choice in the matter for the majority of Muslims or eventually the indiginous population of the UK.
The Jews are as subject to UK law as everyone else domiciled here and the Muslims have the Islamic Sharia Council. I can see no conflict there so why would the Muslims wish to expand upon what they already have in a foreign country?
It should be remembered when comparing Jewish and Muslim religious law, that Rabbis are among other things teachers and interpreters of their religious law while the Immams tend to take on the role of legislators who make the laws under the guise of "that is what the Koran says".
It is rather obvious that you will not be swayed in your view that the Muslims only want the same as what everyone else has, so I think the time has come for me to withdraw from the discussion. This is not only because of the futility of pursuing it, but if we have descended to taunts of racist, I'm calling a halt.
Here in the far North of Scotland we have little or not experience of the reality of the racial harmony that exists in many parts of the country. In a way, it is easy for us to remain locked in irrational fear, intolerant of diversity and prejudicial to those of different cultural backgrounds. I am very mindful that the situation can be very different for people who live in a totally different situation to ourselves and it is much too easy to throw the 'liberal' or 'politically correct' tag around without knowing what another may have experienced in areas where attitudes are much more positive and experiences of diversity replace fear of the unknown.
Racism is racism.
Racists are racists.
Doesn't matter where you come from, where you move to.
Funny how it seems to be suggested that liberal views on diversity are somehow merely 'received' political correctness, whereas bigots are supposedly cast in the mould of dysfunctional society rather than the dysfunctional psyche.
If you encounter a racist view in the 'far North' folks, don't excuse it as though it matters not up here. They think they can talk like that here because they assume they are amongst a sympathetic audience, presumable basing this on the number of faces staring back at them in the same shade of pink.
Can you name one part of the country where there is total harmony amongst all races?
I think you have picked my point up in the wrong way. I am not talking about excusing racist views because we live in the Far North. I am talking about how easy it is for people to preach tolerance when they live many miles away from an area where they have matters to be tolerant of.
"Racism is racism", "Racists are racists"
Very enlightening. You have to define what constitutes Racism first and that is the point I am making. You get the feeling that, unless you roll over and let everyone do everything they want to, then you are Racist.
There is a huge difference between the perceived mutual tolerance on our streets and what has been shown to be spouted in certain Mosques of this country. It is easy to label Abu Hamza or others as extremists but are these people preaching to an empty building, or is there an audience for their views?
Working towards harmony has to be a two-way deal. By and large, we have done our bit by allowing so many races to settle here. Most of them can go about their daily lives without interference. It would be nice to think that they could also play their part by accepting the laws of the country as they stand and not expect the very fabric of what has held our society together for many years to be torn up and stitched together to better suit others.
No I wouldn't expect Iran to adapt its laws - but I hope Britain is a more tolerant society.
No I don't think he could ever be accused of arrogance. He is a scholar and from what I have heard (I don't know him personally) a truly loving and much loved and respected man. That does not mean he is immune from mistakes and I think in this instance either he, or his advisors, should have realised the difference between a BBC interview and a lecture to a group of intelligent people. The BBC seem to me to be keeping the story against him going by continually quoting his critics rather than the many who have defended him. But there is much about BBC reporting that is sensation seeking these days
Having lived most of my life in London I hope you're not including me in this. I know exactly what it's like to be surrounded by people of other races and feeling very much in a minority. That's why I think we have allowed too much immigration and we need to protect our own customs. Having said that, some parts of London that have become completely foreign are very exciting and interesting. When I moved up here it did not occur to me that I was moving to a foreign country, it was just another part of Britain. That may change and I, like many others, will be on the receiving end.
A tolerant society needs to have tolerance from both sides. There is a limit to how tolerant any society can become, otherwise a free-for-all will ensue.
I think you are a bit hard on the BBC. There is a limit to how much depth they can go into in a news bulletin and it is obvious that they will focus on contentious issues. I thought that today's lunchtime news was very fair in its mix of criticism and support for the Archbishop. By the sound of it, you seem to be saying that intelligent people will have had no problem in interpreting the Archbishop correctly. Sadly, it seems that many of us unintelligent people see a potential problem if we are to allow any aspects of Sharia law to be accepted.
You say that we need to protect our own customs. That is precisely why we should be concerned about letting ever increasing numbers do "Their own thing". That will lead to separation of different ethic groups, rather than the supposed integration and harmony that some seem to believe that it will result in.
Unfortunately I wasn't paying attention properly but I believe the Archbishop's speech to Synod is to be broadcast live on News 24 at 3.30. Think it said News 24, there's no confirmation on the website although masses of other stuff about it.
Nope, Rheghead...that is a cultural thing not a Sharia thing.
I don't think you can separate the two since Sharia law would be culturally incompatible with British culture and British law is incompatible with Islamic life.
Tolerance only applies when people have the right to worship, the law has no tolerance.
I don't think you can separate the two since Sharia law would be culturally incompatible with British culture and British law is incompatible with Islamic life.
Tolerance only applies when people have the right to worship, the law has no tolerance.
Goodness me, for sweeping generalisations that just about takes the cake. As does your earlier comment about people being coerced into marriage. The latter has always happened, and still does, in every culture. Until recently we even had forced marriage, e.g. if a man got a woman pregnant he was expected to make an honest woman of her whether either of them liked it or not.
As for the bit about law and culture - British law can frequently be an ass and I suspect neither you nor or know enough about Sharia law to justify your statement about it being culturally incompatible. Even Muslims agree there is no such thing as Sharia law - just various interpretations by various cultures. We have definite laws written in statute books - there is no Sharia equivalent. British culture - I'm not sure it's anything to be proud of these days.
If anyone is interested in clarification of all the misunderstandings, it's here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7239409.stm . Whatever you think of him, and whether or not you agree, this is from the horse's mouth with no hysterical media headlines.
I asked a few people at work what the legal system in Saudi was today (I am in Saudi by the way) and they all told me it was Shari'a law.
I suppose if adopted in the UK it may save the courts time, as a man can divorce his wife by simply saying "I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee"! In fact the latest debate is over whether this can be done by email!!
I suppose if adopted in the UK it may save the courts time, as a man can divorce his wife by simply saying "I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee"! In fact the latest debate is over whether this can be done by email!!
And ofcourse a woman cannot. Goes without saying, but I thought I'd point it out.
Yes Ju, sorry forgot that!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/feb/11/sharia.religion
Divorce under Sharia.
Goodness me, for sweeping generalisations that just about takes the cake. .
Sorry but my post wasn't a generalisation, the Law doesn't generally apply to everyone, it does apply to everyone. And British society doesn't generally tolerate the freedom to worship any religion, it does tolerate the freedom to worship any religion.
British culture - I'm not sure it's anything to be proud of these days.
Now that is what I call a generalisation....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/feb/11/sharia.religion
Divorce under Sharia.
Sorry, but what is your point here?
It is one of my pet hates to see a link put in without due comment about why the link has been put there. It does not make for a good forum if we are simply to post link and counter link.
Boozeburglar
11-Feb-08, 21:24
Can you name one part of the country where there is total harmony amongst all races?
Let me set aside the fact I never suggested such a part of the country exists. There are parts of London & Manchester I have resided in where there is much more harmony than anything else, and the divisions that occur are not racial in origin.
I think you have picked my point up in the wrong way. I am not talking about excusing racist views because we live in the Far North. I am talking about how easy it is for people to preach tolerance when they live many miles away from an area where they have matters to be tolerant of.
I think I 'got you' just fine. I just don't agree with you. It does not matter where you have lived, how close to the edge you have been, racism is never justifiable. It is never hard to express genuine tolerance.
"Racism is racism", "Racists are racists"
Very enlightening. You have to define what constitutes Racism first and that is the point I am making.
If you feel your understanding of what racism is is lacking, read something. I have no need to define it, and never gave a definition you could argue with.
You get the feeling that, unless you roll over and let everyone do everything they want to, then you are Racist.
Do you? See a counsellor. Maybe you are racist, if feeling out of control of other people you have no responsibility to control makes you prejudicial towards them.
There is a huge difference between the perceived mutual tolerance on our streets and what has been shown to be spouted in certain Mosques of this country. It is easy to label Abu Hamza or others as extremists but are these people preaching to an empty building, or is there an audience for their views?
They are extremists, audience or not.
Do you think Nick Griffin is not an extremist because his BNP rallies attract an audience? Do you suggest non-British people in this land look to Nick Griffin for an example of how the British all really think?
Working towards harmony has to be a two-way deal. By and large, we have done our bit by allowing so many races to settle here.
Oh really? Let me see, how many years of empire did the rest of the world endure? Why were most of the immigrants in the past welcomed here? Oh yes, to do the jobs Brits did not want. Even so, they suffered constant abuse, getting turned away from accommodation and victimised left right and centre, all because they were not the average shade of pink.
Most of them can go about their daily lives without interference. It would be nice to think that they could also play their part by accepting the laws of the country as they stand and not expect the very fabric of what has held our society together for many years to be torn up and stitched together to better suit others.
Even now, having the wrong shade of skin means you get interference all the time, from the police, from teachers, from employers.
If you are talking about the minority of people who are acting in ways that may damage the society they were born into or became part of, talk about that minority. Let us not have the generalisations that alienate and slur the majority of immigrants and their descendants.
Racism is racism.
Racists are racists.
I think I 'got you' just fine. I just don't agree with you.
Racism is racism.
Racists are racists.
No, you didn't get me. Otherwise you would not have been waffling about not tolerating racist views in the Far North, when there was nothing in my post that could possibly have taken you there. It was clear that I was saying that it was much easier for us to be tolerant in the Far North, because of remoteness from racial tension.
It is clear that you have little to offer in the way of reasoned debate other than the mantra "Racism is racism" and "Racists are racists"
Whenever I see a post taken apart into little quote by quote tennis matches, and receive advice to consult dictionaries and councellors, I know that I have hit the "irate" button and further discourse is pointless.
Let me take your first sentence of this latest post:-
"Let me set aside the fact I never suggested such a part of the country exists"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us now compare that to what you said earlier:-
"the reality of the racial harmony that exists in many parts of the country"
OK, which is it then?
If anyone's understanding of what constitutes real racism is lacking, I suspect it is yours. I can feel you just itching to throw that tag down on as many as possible from high upon Ivory Towers.
Sorry, but what is your point here?
It is one of my pet hates to see a link put in without due comment about why the link has been put there. It does not make for a good forum if we are simply to post link and counter link.
Sorry...it was meant to be a reply to scotsboy, but I was slow in posting and didn't notice I had been intercepted.
Let me set aside the fact I never suggested such a part of the country exists. There are parts of London & Manchester I have resided in where there is much more harmony than anything else, and the divisions that occur are not racial in origin.
I think I 'got you' just fine. I just don't agree with you. It does not matter where you have lived, how close to the edge you have been, racism is never justifiable. It is never hard to express genuine tolerance.
If you feel your understanding of what racism is is lacking, read something. I have no need to define it, and never gave a definition you could argue with.
Do you? See a counsellor. Maybe you are racist, if feeling out of control of other people you have no responsibility to control makes you prejudicial towards them.
They are extremists, audience or not.
Do you think Nick Griffin is not an extremist because his BNP rallies attract an audience? Do you suggest non-British people in this land look to Nick Griffin for an example of how the British all really think?
Oh really? Let me see, how many years of empire did the rest of the world endure? Why were most of the immigrants in the past welcomed here? Oh yes, to do the jobs Brits did not want. Even so, they suffered constant abuse, getting turned away from accommodation and victimised left right and centre, all because they were not the average shade of pink.
Even now, having the wrong shade of skin means you get interference all the time, from the police, from teachers, from employers.
If you are talking about the minority of people who are acting in ways that may damage the society they were born into or became part of, talk about that minority. Let us not have the generalisations that alienate and slur the majority of immigrants and their descendants.
Racism is racism.
Racists are racists.
Great post, Boozeburglar.
No, you didn't get me. Otherwise you would not have been waffling about not tolerating racist views in the Far North, when there was nothing in my post that could possibly have taken you there. It was clear that I was saying that it was much easier for us to be tolerant in the Far North, because of remoteness from racial tension.
It is clear that you have little to offer in the way of reasoned debate other than the mantra "Racism is racism" and "Racists are racists"
Whenever I see a post taken apart into little quote by quote tennis matches, and receive advice to consult dictionaries and councellors, I know that I have hit the "irate" button and further discourse is pointless.
Let me take your first sentence of this latest post:-
"Let me set aside the fact I never suggested such a part of the country exists"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us now compare that to what you said earlier:-
"the reality of the racial harmony that exists in many parts of the country"
OK, which is it then?
If anyone's understanding of what constitutes real racism is lacking, I suspect it is yours. I can feel you just itching to throw that tag down on as many as possible from high upon Ivory Towers.
And whenever I see just one part of a long detailed post quoted and commented on, I know that the reply is ignoring what it can neither justify or deny.
Boozeburglar
12-Feb-08, 03:06
Let me take your first sentence of this latest post:-
"Let me set aside the fact I never suggested such a part of the country exists"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us now compare that to what you said earlier:-
"the reality of the racial harmony that exists in many parts of the country"
OK, which is it then?
Both.
"Let me set aside the fact I never suggested such a part of the country exists"
Was written in response to...
“Can you name one part of the country where there is total harmony amongst all races?”
I never suggested there was such a place, so of course I began my response by setting that straight.
I had said, “Here in the far North of Scotland we have little or no experience of the reality of the racial harmony that exists in many parts of the country.”
Had I meant, “Here in the far North of Scotland we have little or no experience of the total harmony amongst all races that exists in many parts of the country,” that is PRECISELY what I would have written.
Boozeburglar
12-Feb-08, 03:20
Maybe you are racist, if feeling out of control of other people you have no responsibility to control makes you prejudicial towards them.
Just want to point out that when using 'you' I am referring to anyone, not Scorrie.
I am not accusing anyone of racism here!
Both.
"Let me set aside the fact I never suggested such a part of the country exists"
Was written in response to...
“Can you name one part of the country where there is total harmony amongst all races?”
I never suggested there was such a place, so of course I began my response by setting that straight.
I had said, “Here in the far North of Scotland we have little or no experience of the reality of the racial harmony that exists in many parts of the country.”
Had I meant, “Here in the far North of Scotland we have little or no experience of the total harmony amongst all races that exists in many parts of the country,” that is PRECISELY what I would have written.
Here are a few synonyms for the word "Harmony":-
Concord, unity, peace, amity, friendship.
Combining the word "Total" does not change the essential meaning very much.
If we are to be pedantic about it, you stated "the reality of the racial harmony that exists in many parts of the country". Now, I would love to know where these "many" places are and how you can demonstrate that "racial harmony" exists within these places?
Many is many.
Exists is exists.
For those who would like an insight into divorce settlements Saudi style, please take a look at the following:
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article=106709&d=12&m=2&y=2008
And whenever I see just one part of a long detailed post quoted and commented on, I know that the reply is ignoring what it can neither justify or deny.
I understand what you are saying here, however you are incorrect in your diagnosis of the situation.
The original thrust of my post was that it is easier for people who live in remote areas, where there is a small representation of other races, to extol the virtues of tolerance. Boozeburglar took my post and turned it round to being about racism and somehow managed to suggest that I was saying that racism should be tolerated in the far north because there are less people about who would be offended and, perhaps a greater audience of white supporters exists.
My original statement was:-
"I have no problem with peoples beliefs as long as they keep it to themselves and it does not impact on our society. Here in the far North of SCotland we have little or no experience of the reality of the racial tension that exists in other parts of the country. In a way, it is easy for us to preach tolerance of all races. I am very mindful that the situation can be very different for people who live in a totally different situation to ourselves and it is much too easy to throw the "racist" tag around without knowing what another may have experienced in areas where race is much more diverse than it is here."
I don't see where that led to the response Boozeburglar made, and both the style and content of her/his later reply made it clear that no concession was being given for the fact that I might have been misunderstood. In those circumstances there is little point arguing further. This is my last post on this thread. If anyone thinks I cannot justify ANYTHING I have said, and wants to discuss the matter further. Please feel free to PM me. I reply to ALL PM's
For those who would like an insight into divorce settlements Saudi style, please take a look at the following:
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article=106709&d=12&m=2&y=2008 (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article=106709&d=12&m=2&y=2008)
But that is Saudi style...what does that have to do with a divorce in an Islamic Court here?
In the UK, there is always the option of using UK law.....so I doubt that that kind of carry on would be a result from any Islamic court here as it would just be contested.
Islamic courts would not be compulsory but voluntary, after all.
I see the Sharia law (Civil or otherwise) proposed for the UK will give equal rights to women will it?..........why the need/requirement to adopt it then?
You seem to be lost in amongst a few clove hitches oddquine.
I see the Sharia law (Civil or otherwise) proposed for the UK will give equal rights to women will it?..........why the need/requirement to adopt it then?
You seem to be lost in amongst a few clove hitches oddquine.
I don't suppose it will, but if Muslim women choose to use an Islamic Court then they aren't as worried about getting equal rights.....but more worried about doing in civil matters as their religion requires...as those using Beth Din do.
If they don't want what passes for UK equal(ish) rights why force it on them?
I don't suppose it will, but if Muslim women choose to use an Islamic Court then they aren't as worried about getting equal rights.....but more worried about doing in civil matters as their religion requires...as those using Beth Din do.
If they don't want what passes for UK equal(ish) rights why force it on them?
So the rest of us don't get a choice? Why should what passes for UK equal (ish) rights be forced on the rest of us? Two clove hitches and a sheepshank now.
So the rest of us don't get a choice? Why should what passes for UK equal (ish) rights be forced on the rest of us? Two clove hitches and a sheepshank now.
But our laws are made by a Christian country for Christian mores.
Jews have found that our ideas of right and wrong in civil matters don't fit with their religion requirements..so they have their own courts to deal with civil matters and divorce.
I really can't understand why, in this land of "equal" rights, the same facility cannot be afforded any other religion ...or alternatively the facility removed from the Jews.
I don't mind which, myself..............but I must say that if the UK hadn't already set a precedent with Beth Din, I'd be against any opt in to religious law and would leave it to UK law to work around some problematic areas...like Sikhs and motorbike helmets, Halal slaughter and one set of stamp duty only with a Muslim mortgage.
But there has been a precedence set.....and I see no reason why any religion within the UK should be refused access to the same rights........I'm arguing for fairness and against preference...not for or against any specific religion.
Just noticed this little bit of news from Saudi Arabia, so much for Islamic law [disgust]
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iLerLxwJJ5C0FPTniAHBL9dm_jcQD8UQ2MU80
Sharia law is seems to be back in the middle ages, the last time we did anything similar was back in 1727, but if the Arch Bishop gets his way, who knows our Wiccan Orgers might have to go into hiding [lol]
http://www.historylinks.org.uk/Dornoch18.htm
And what difference would that make if Muslims had a court dealing with civil law according to their religion.
You can't compare Sharia Law as applied in Saudi to Sharia Law as practised anywhere else, anyway...and certainly can't use it is a reason to refuse Muslims the same rights as Jews.
And what difference would that make if Muslims had a court dealing with civil law according to their religion.
You can't compare Sharia Law as applied in Saudi to Sharia Law as practised anywhere else, anyway...and certainly can't use it is a reason to refuse Muslims the same rights as Jews.Yes we can.
Yes of course we can, in the same way we would deny cannibals the opportunity to settle their differences by eating their enemies after a trial by cannibalistic law, or lore. :D
Well, I suppose if you want to take the view that a recognised Islamic Court dealing in civil law will be in any position in this country to sentence people to death, cut off hands etc, and do anything else which is illegal in English or Scots law, then I guess your minds are made up and all the logic in the world isn't going to penetrate your closed minds.
May I suggest that taking a hissy fit when disagreeing with someone's point of view is not a good starting point to embark on a discourse on closed minds and logic?
What hissy fit?
I am commenting on a conclusion I have reached having taken part in a discussion in which all aspects of Sharia Law as practised in a country run by an extreme sect have been put forward as reasons to refuse a recognised civil Islamic Court to Muslims in the UK.
To me that means you cannot, or have no wish to differentiate between criminal and civil law, therefore minds are closed and my participation in this discussion is over.
Oddquine, you seem to be under the impression that there is a civil side to Sharia law and a criminal side. I am not aware of any sure boundary or distinction.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.