Sharia Law taking precedence in the UK? Fact or Fiction.

[carmonk]

Countdown said:

Because you seem to be particularly vitriolic about Islam. I've yet to see you be as offensive to Christianity.

carmonk said:

But I'm not comparing the three books. Why are you desperate to change the subject to Christianity? If you want to discuss Christianity then start a thread and I'll be happy to post my views, which aren't greatly dissimilar to my views on Islam.

Because you have repeated referred to the Koran and how (in your opinion) it discriminates against Women. We can put this one to bed straight away; do you accept that overall the Koran is no better or worse than the Bible or the Torah?

Difficult to say and a largely pointless comparison. If you include the Old Testament then yes, they are comparable. I don't see why it's of benefit to discuss that, though. You seem desperate to find an ideology that's worse than Islam so you can divert attention from the real issue.

Countdown said:

And, in general, it doesn't. It certainly doesn't have the huge negative influence on muslim women that you seem to think it does. Again I think the problem stems from a lack of practical knowledge (e.g. speaking to muslim women). I'll accept that there are some people who believe that the woman's place is in the home, there's no point in educating them etc etc but that isn't far removed from Western society of 20/30 years ago. It's a purely cultural attitude, nothing to do with religion.

How can it possibly be nothing to do with religion when Muslims, who believe God's word is paramount, are told this very thing? As for Western society 20 or 30 years ago, the clue is in the timescale. We're past that, civilised people have moved on.

Countdown said:

As I said you took ONE quote from the Koran as evidence that Islam discriminates against women. The quote is very specific in the circumstances to which it applies. If that's the only evidence that you have that Islam discriminates against women then you're struggling

Heaven help us, what's with repeating the same incorrect assertion again and again?

Countdown said:

carmonk said:

Countdown said:

I'm not sure you've read that properly. Under that situation the Court finds in favour of the woman. Please don't wilfully misinterpret things because they don't fit with your point of view. Thanks.

I've read it properly, far better than you read my post. Where did I say that the court did not find in favour of the woman in this case?

Here you go -

carmonk said:

And as an aside, I love the bit about 'unchastity'. It's like something a five year old might come up with. This is what Islam considers to be fair and logical adjudication.

This_Is_Islamic_Law said:

If a man accuses his wife of unchastity, he is required by the Quran to solemnly swear five times as evidence of the wife's guilt. If the wife denies and swears similarly five times, she is not considered guilty

"You did it! You did it! You did it! You did it! You did it!"
"I didn't! I didn't! I didn't! I didn't! I didn't!"
"On reviewing the evidence I hereby find in favour of the plaintiff. Praise be to Allah."

So the man's the plaintiff, the court should find in favour of the woman, but according to you it finds in favour of the man

Jesus Jumping Crazylegs Christ, are you in some sort of loop of illogicality or something? What did I just say? I posted it as an illustration of the ridiculously illogical nature of adjudication under Sharia, nothing to do with who was favoured by the court.

Countdown said:

Carmonk said:

Countdown said:

You're twisting things again. This was an example where Islam discriminates in favour of women, in response to your numerous use of the same quote to decry islam as an oppressor of women.

No it wasn't, it was about the man receiving more inheritance!

Please stop. It explains WHY the man receives more inheritance. So you (as the wife) are entitled to YOUR inheritance PLUS half of your husband's inheritance whereas he's only entitled to his half, and you're the one that's discriminated against??? Think about it.

I literally have no idea what you're talking about now. Are you talking about inheritance or divorce? From the article below, maybe you can explain how this favours the woman -

"Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons. The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia."

Countdown said:

Carmonk said:

Countdown said:

It isn't an "Either/Or" - as has already been noted Sharia "courts" already exist and operate in this country, alongside UK courts. And if people choose to use them, they are free to do so. It's still a democracy.

There is no provision in UK law for a person to opt out, I don't know where you get that from.

Lots of sources - try this one.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/art...

As far as I know it's not an opt out as nothing can be enforced legally. This leaves the door wide open for Muslim communities to enforce their 'laws' and Sharia-based decisions, being that they cannot be enforced through normal legal channels. A key element of democracy is equality in law, and if we have one law for everyone and another just for Muslims that is anti-democratic in itself.

Countdown said:

Carmonk said:

And who says everybody concerned chooses to use Sharia? There are instances of Sharia law ruling on domestic violence cases against women. Are you saying no pressure is applied to the woman to 'settle it in within the community'. Pull the other one.

That's right, yes. Muslim women are oppressed, they don't have a mind of their own, and they are going to be forced to use a Court system which potentially disadvantages them Do you actually have any evidence of this?

I can't do this again. I've responded to this very question so many times, both in response to you and others in threads you have been in. For some reason you think that ignoring my answers then asking exactly the same thing in another thread will make your point of view more valid. Here are just some of the quotes from the Koran I have posted and you have read and ignored in the past

koran said:

"Men are a degree above [women] in status"

"Your women are your fields, so go into your fields whichever way you like"

"If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them of [God's word] and ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them."

"Menstruation ... is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed. And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah hath enjoined upon you"

"And if two men be not at hand, then a man and two women [to bear witness]"

"women who are guilty of lewdness... confine them to the houses until death"

"All married women [are forbidden unto you] save those captives whom your right hands possess"

...and so it goes on. Tell you what, I'll maybe try and take your advice and have a word with the Muslim woman down the road. It's tricky, because whilst her husband is always out and about wearing his tee-shirt and tracky bottoms and trainers I've only ever seen his wife twice, both times in full-on ninja letterbox mode and being swiftly bundled across the road into the car.

Countdown said:

Feel free to re-read what you wrote. You cannot simultaneously imprison someone AND deport them. I'm happy to take lessons from anybody, as long as they're qualified to do so

I am qualified to do so and I am correct, but I'm not going to help divert the thread towards points of grammar.

[Countdown]

Pointless debating with you. I've got a picture of a bloke with his fingers in both ears "can't hear you can't hear you"

[Countdown]

To try and get back on thread

A minority of muslims who are themselves a minority of the population would be happy under sharia law.

Based on this I refuse to wet my knickers over the "threat" of it's imposition.

[Asterix]

Countdown said:

To try and get back on thread

A minority of muslims who are themselves a minority of the population would be happy under sharia law.

Based on this I refuse to wet my knickers over the "threat" of it's imposition.

But... the majority don't seem to say much against so perhaps they'll all be sheep and do as they're told?

Not my opinion but a scenario perhaps.

[Countdown]

Asterix said:

But... the majority don't seem to say much against so perhaps they'll all be sheep and do as they're told?

Not my opinion but a scenario perhaps.

The thing is - assuming we continue to be a democracy - I can't see how it can be "imposed" on us. There are lots of countries where Muslims are in the majority but not many where Sharia law is applied.

[Babu 01]

Countdown said:

Pointless debating with you. I've got a picture of a bloke with his fingers in both ears "can't hear you can't hear you"

It does appear to be akin to building a house but using cats for bricks.

As the saying goes, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Edited by Babu 01 on Sunday 31st July 21:46

[s1962a]

Babu 01 said:

Countdown said:

Pointless debating with you. I've got a picture of a bloke with his fingers in both ears "can't hear you can't hear you"

It does appear to be akin to building a house but using cats for bricks.

As the saying goes, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Not everyone on PH is like that - unfortunately threads to seem to get hijacked a lot.

[Victor McDade]

Mermaid said:

A country is not a piece of ground for newcomers to occupy on their terms - Sunday Times today.

Bit difficult to change something which has gone on for centuries. Many prosperous nations today would not be so had 'newcomers' not come in and dictated terms to the locals.

Newcomers to britain have a right to ask for whatever change they want, just as the majority have the right to tell them to fk off.

[TheGroover]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/western...

[carmonk]

Babu 01 said:

Countdown said:

Pointless debating with you. I've got a picture of a bloke with his fingers in both ears "can't hear you can't hear you"

It does appear to be akin to building a house but using cats for bricks.

As the saying goes, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

I love the irony, made especially rich by the fact you can't see it.

s1962a said:

Babu 01 said:

Countdown said:

Pointless debating with you. I've got a picture of a bloke with his fingers in both ears "can't hear you can't hear you"

It does appear to be akin to building a house but using cats for bricks.

As the saying goes, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Not everyone on PH is like that - unfortunately threads to seem to get hijacked a lot.

I must say it was outrageous of me to start discussing Sharia law and its implications in a thread about Sharia law. I don't know what came over me, I can only apologise and in the future try and post some every-so-funny one-liners and a few lines whining about everybody else whilst contributing nothing. If I get stuck I'll just check the post history of the religious apologists in this thread.

[Mermaid]

Victor McDade said:

Mermaid said:

A country is not a piece of ground for newcomers to occupy on their terms - Sunday Times today.

Bit difficult to change something which has gone on for centuries. Many prosperous nations today would not be so had 'newcomers' not come in and dictated terms to the locals.

Newcomers to britain have a right to ask for whatever change they want, just as the majority have the right to tell them to fk off.

But do they?

[Countdown]

Mermaid said:

Victor McDade said:

Mermaid said:

A country is not a piece of ground for newcomers to occupy on their terms - Sunday Times today.

Bit difficult to change something which has gone on for centuries. Many prosperous nations today would not be so had 'newcomers' not come in and dictated terms to the locals.

Newcomers to britain have a right to ask for whatever change they want, just as the majority have the right to tell them to fk off.

But do they?

Pretty sure that's how it works. Off the top of my head I can't think of any policies that have been changed at the behest of immigrants against the wishes of the indigenous community.

[roachcoach]

Countdown said:

Mermaid said:

Victor McDade said:

Mermaid said:

A country is not a piece of ground for newcomers to occupy on their terms - Sunday Times today.

Bit difficult to change something which has gone on for centuries. Many prosperous nations today would not be so had 'newcomers' not come in and dictated terms to the locals.

Newcomers to britain have a right to ask for whatever change they want, just as the majority have the right to tell them to fk off.

But do they?

Pretty sure that's how it works. Off the top of my head I can't think of any policies that have been changed at the behest of immigrants against the wishes of the indigenous community.

Based on my wifes line of work, I can think of a few and the neat trick used in those cases to avoid upsetting/going against the wishes of the majority was to simply not ask them and do it anyway.

Edited by roachcoach on Monday 1st August 13:13

[powerstroke]

Countdown said:

Pretty sure that's how it works. Off the top of my head I can't think of any policies that have been changed at the behest of immigrants against the wishes of the indigenous community.

Oh please !!!!! what's at the root of a lot of the PC rubish??? these hand wringing white
middle class leftys that infest the public sector are the worst ofenders for apeasing the extremeists and indulging the religious islamic biggots, my simple question is ... why do so many people come here from muslim countrys... to better themselves or is to take over.... we need to work out this out and soon, no other ethnic group has expected so much and done as little to fit in.....

[Apache]

powerstroke said:

Countdown said:

Pretty sure that's how it works. Off the top of my head I can't think of any policies that have been changed at the behest of immigrants against the wishes of the indigenous community.

Oh please !!!!! what's at the root of a lot of the PC rubish??? these hand wringing white
middle class leftys that infest the public sector are the worst ofenders for apeasing the extremeists and indulging the religious islamic biggots, my simple question is ... why do so many people come here from muslim countrys... to better themselves or is to take over.... we need to work out this out and soon, no other ethnic group has expected so much and done as little to fit in.....

Don't hold back there PS, let it all out

[Countdown]

powerstroke said:

Oh please !!!!! what's at the root of a lot of the PC rubish??? these hand wringing white middle class leftys that infest the public sector are the worst ofenders for apeasing the extremeists and indulging the religious islamic biggots,

if you could give an example of indulging or appeasement I'd be happy to discuss. As I mentioned earlier I'm not aware of rules/policies/whatever being changed at the behest of immigrants against the wishes of a majority of the indigenous community.

powerstroke said:

my simple question is ... why do so many people come here from muslim countrys... to better themselves or is to take over.... we need to work out this out and soon, no other ethnic group has expected so much and done as little to fit in.....

Most immigration (AFAIK) is for financial reasons. Not sure what you mean about "taking over", "Expected so much" etc etc. Immigrants may have different cultures but they have the same rights as the indigenous people to follow those cultures.

[Countdown]

roachcoach said:

Based on my wifes line of work, I can think of a few and the neat trick used in those cases to avoid upsetting/going against the wishes of the majority was to simply not ask them and do it anyway.

Edited by roachcoach on Monday 1st August 13:13

RC - without knowing what your wife does its hard to discuss. I guess the question I'd be asking is "was whatever they did legal" ?

[roachcoach]

Countdown said:

roachcoach said:

Based on my wifes line of work, I can think of a few and the neat trick used in those cases to avoid upsetting/going against the wishes of the majority was to simply not ask them and do it anyway.

Edited by roachcoach on Monday 1st August 13:13

RC - without knowing what your wife does its hard to discuss. I guess the question I'd be asking is "was whatever they did legal" ?

Legal, yes because the government made the changes.

Against all grains of common sense? Also yes.


She even got a letter from the First Minister as she kicked up that much fuss about it



Unsurprisingly, got nowhere though.



ETA: One major one in mind is not a 'racial'/'religious' change, a different minority - my point was more around how to sidestep annoying people/causing unnecessary noise whilst taking steps to placate a vocal minority.

[Apache]

Countdown said:

if you could give an example of indulging or appeasement I'd be happy to discuss. As I mentioned earlier I'm not aware of rules/policies/whatever being changed at the behest of immigrants against the wishes of a majority of the indigenous community.

I think you're looking at it in a black and white sense CD, in my opinion he's describing more of a creeping awareness of change such as streets full of immigrant shops with foreign signs, Mosques springing up, official documents in a variety of languages, the hijab. That sort of thing

[mrmr96]

Congrats to Carmonk and Countdown - that truly was a masterclass in using the quotes system. Well done to both players.