Seems fair enough. Alot of Laws we already have are based heavily on what you'll find in the bible (haven't had to read it in ages (like since I was seven or eight) but I'm pretty sure that's true)
Sharia (Islamic Law) in Great Britain
- Thread starter werepossum
- Start date
Aye. Its a very worrying development.Rooster Cogburn post=18.71605.730698 said:
But to eliminate this loophole you'd really need to get rid of all religious fairness laws, something almost impossible to do what with all the religious peoples about.
Welp, considering I'd have to AGREE to the rule change before it held any power whatsoever, I'd be inclined to let him have his 30 minutes of crazy.Amnestic post=18.71605.730710 said:
1. It's only MuslimsAmnestic post=18.71605.730710 said:
2. Criminal law isn't being changed.
3. It's entirely optional.
You aren't effected.
And if the prospect of some minority doing something different then you in their personal matters is considered an INVASION....well then we haven't progressed very far as a society have we?
Hence the thing about curtains.Amnestic post=18.71605.730710 said:
The examples given in the article included wife beating. Presumably the wives felt they were being beaten beyond that allowed by Sharia or without justification under Sharia, since both parties have to agree to arbitration. Or they might be cases of remorse - many women who file abuse complaints later withdraw them. Also, it's not clear from what I read that these particular women ever filed criminal charges; they might look at this as any other clerical marital counseling, only legally binding.TheBadass post=18.71605.730618 said:
You can give up some rights if you agree to arbitration, but not nearly all your rights, at least in the USA, and our legal system is based mostly on English common law. If the local authorities thought the domestic abuse in question was a minor squabble, they might agree to an arbitration hearing under Sharia. If they instead thought the woman was being seriously abused or in danger, there's no reason they would have to agree to Sharia arbitration. Presumably there is no right to arbitration on criminal charges in Great Britain, but the authorities in the USA sometimes allow minor criminal complaints such as contractual fraud to go to arbitration to avoid tying up the court system, on the grounds I suppose that the complaint should have been a civil complaint rather than a criminal complaint. Similarly, domestic violence/spousal abuse cases may be put on hold if both parties agree to attend marriage counseling. I am assuming that these Sharia courts would be similar; that even though the verdicts are binding legally, a woman would retain her right to divorce or to file criminal complaints in the future. (I don't know that, but it seems reasonable.)
EDIT: Again, this is Sharia law as an accepted form of arbitration; no criminal cases can be tried there unless both parties agree AND the authorities agree, at least to my understanding.
shit, you'd have a point if I hadn't said "go get the rules changed at a higher power".
So far. It's called "precedent" I'd rather not see a separate courts for Christians, Muslims, Jews, Jedi, Satanists and every other 'religion' under the sun. They're in the country of, in this case, England, they should be tried in English courts. Giving sharia muslims special treatment is needless pandering to an outspoken few.
To put it more bluntly, your point was stupid because I'd have to agree for this analogy to hold any bearing. Hence the "30 minutes of crazy" part.Amnestic post=18.71605.730785 said:
Uh, no, it's called obeying the law.Amnestic post=18.71605.730785 said:
You people are all racists!!.. Sorry about that, my government programming took over there, I think I have it under control now.
This is an outrage. This may not affect me directly but human rights can and will be breached because of our failure to maintain separation of church and state. Assuming that Sharia law enforces all of the Quran's teachings, this is very bad indeed for Muslim women. I think that I would be correct in saying that there were far fewer Muslim women pushing for Sharia to be enforced than male.
I agree that there are going to be a load of Muslim women's human rights being breached here. I am in a very bad mood after reading this. I can't believe that I live in a country ran by complete idiots!
I've chosen a few quotes from the Quran for your reading pleasure:
- "Women have rights that are similar to men, but men are 'a degree above them'."
- "All married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess."
-"You can't have sex with married women, unless they are slaves obtained in war (with whom you may rape or do whatever you like)."
I wonder if this means that if a Muslim males kidnaps and rapes a Muslim woman, he is tried separately , in a Sharia court, for the rape.
This is my personal favourite:
-"Menstruation is a sickness. Don't have sex with menstruating women."
My source: Skeptics annotated bible [http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/women/long.html]
This is an outrage. This may not affect me directly but human rights can and will be breached because of our failure to maintain separation of church and state. Assuming that Sharia law enforces all of the Quran's teachings, this is very bad indeed for Muslim women. I think that I would be correct in saying that there were far fewer Muslim women pushing for Sharia to be enforced than male.
I agree that there are going to be a load of Muslim women's human rights being breached here. I am in a very bad mood after reading this. I can't believe that I live in a country ran by complete idiots!
I've chosen a few quotes from the Quran for your reading pleasure:
- "Women have rights that are similar to men, but men are 'a degree above them'."
- "All married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess."
-"You can't have sex with married women, unless they are slaves obtained in war (with whom you may rape or do whatever you like)."
I wonder if this means that if a Muslim males kidnaps and rapes a Muslim woman, he is tried separately , in a Sharia court, for the rape.
This is my personal favourite:
-"Menstruation is a sickness. Don't have sex with menstruating women."
My source: Skeptics annotated bible [http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/women/long.html]
Human rights include religious rights Bardseed. And obeying Sharia in non-criminal matters would appear to fall under that heading.
It's not something I'm happy about, but it's far more complex an issue then people have been making out.
Not the least of which is the "Fuck you, you're British first or GTFO" reaction which is likely to force the Muslim community to become more insular, creating an even greater burden on women to obey these rulings.
It's not something I'm happy about, but it's far more complex an issue then people have been making out.
Not the least of which is the "Fuck you, you're British first or GTFO" reaction which is likely to force the Muslim community to become more insular, creating an even greater burden on women to obey these rulings.
Oh FUCK NO.
Thinking you are special DOES NOT make you special!
No dig to you, I'm just so angry about this.
Thinking you are special DOES NOT make you special!
Really? I don't think so. Besides marriage, what in law is defined by biblical terms and not by basic, fucking common sense.The Iron Ninja post=18.71605.730719 said:
No dig to you, I'm just so angry about this.
Oh look it's yet more scaremongering from the Times. Religion has always been the basis for laws, murder,monogamy,theft all the laws regarding them are based on the ten commandments. Islam is an amazingly complex and intricate faith which has served in some part to from the basis for western Banking the western taxation system and some of the more esoteric medical procedures.
Because some people act like dicks doesnt mean we should all turn into sun readers at the mere mention of Sharia law. Sun readers who believe peadophilles should be stoned and thieving bastards should have their fu@~ing hands cut off.
Let them have there fun, it wont effect me my family or anyone else.
The British government can tax us into the ground, put us under twenty four hour watch, shoot innocent people on the tube and bring in expensive pointless ID cards! All of these things seem to be of less relevence than a minority religion bringing in two laws which dont effect anyone.
Perspective is whats needed, that and the question what the hell have the government done today which warrants this as a mechanism to bury it?
Because some people act like dicks doesnt mean we should all turn into sun readers at the mere mention of Sharia law. Sun readers who believe peadophilles should be stoned and thieving bastards should have their fu@~ing hands cut off.
Let them have there fun, it wont effect me my family or anyone else.
The British government can tax us into the ground, put us under twenty four hour watch, shoot innocent people on the tube and bring in expensive pointless ID cards! All of these things seem to be of less relevence than a minority religion bringing in two laws which dont effect anyone.
Perspective is whats needed, that and the question what the hell have the government done today which warrants this as a mechanism to bury it?
So the right to religious beliefs cancels out the right to not be beaten or raped?
I forgot to mention that I think things like this fuel racism. We need to maintain a separation between church and state and we also need to be tolerant, that does not mean changing our ways to fit others. Tolerance means putting up with other people. We should tolerate the Muslim belief, we should not embrace it as a form of law.
I forgot to mention that I think things like this fuel racism. We need to maintain a separation between church and state and we also need to be tolerant, that does not mean changing our ways to fit others. Tolerance means putting up with other people. We should tolerate the Muslim belief, we should not embrace it as a form of law.
I don't care, if you want to enforce you back-ass-wards law on your own people when there's a perfectly nice legal system that you already fund, be my guest. I'm not a Muslim, so until they try to force Sharia law on non-believers, I've no problem with it.
I'm just saying that alot of laws have have their basis in Religion. The first code of laws were in a religious text (The Code of Hamurabi or something)Danny Ocean post=18.71605.730845 said:
They make you put your hand on the bible in courtrooms.
For the record I'm an atheist.
If the beaten and raped agree to the canceling out, it's hard to argue otherwise.BardSeed post=18.71605.730848 said:
We aren't. They are.BardSeed post=18.71605.730848 said:
We do it for Aboriginals already.Khell_Sennet post=18.71605.730876 said:
If she keeps deciding to stay with an abusive husband, the law can only be there when she decides she's had enough.Khell_Sennet post=18.71605.730876 said:
This situation is the same, only the pressure to conform is now communal rather then spousal.
They all have a legal right to.Khell_Sennet post=18.71605.730876 said:
That's the thing. These laws are already on the books, and even a half-way decent lawyer could get those extensions.
If you don't like them, vote to change them. But as it stands now I see nothing that can be objected to.
It's all just terribly unfortunate.
And so long as they want to, it's hard to keep the two rights balanced.
I take offense at being named a reader of The Sun.electric discordian post=18.71605.730847 said:
It doesn't affect you or your family and it also doesn't affect me or my family directly. Because it doesn't affect us does that mean that we shouldn't care about the people who are going to be beaten or raped because of our government failing to separate church and state? Do you not care about your fellow man/woman at all?
It is not a minority religion and just because we actively disagree with this does not mean that are fine with everything else our sham of a government does. I am most definitely against national ID cards and find our government a complete joke.
It's fine to enforce some laws that religion encourages because, and this may shock you, it does get some things right. Excusing rape and violence should not be a part of the law. The law should protect it's people from things like this and, for the most part, does it's job.
I want a law for my religion, granted. I'll have to create it first.
It will have unfair advantages for being...me, and a few other people that are like me, and it will discriminate everything else.
The commandment of my divine....what's a good word here? mhm, imma go with "mistress", I feel there's an overweight of male gods in today's pantheon. Anyhow;
The commandment of my divine mistress is thus: thou shalt do anything doth desire, as long as it does not affect Hawgh or anyone like him in any way they would not approve of.
Prime line of my new religion: I'm better than you, hahaha. You can't touch this, Dum-da-da-da can't touch this.
How many signatures do I need to make this an approved religion?
and could someone make another one? I need someone to kill, rape & pillage under the weak guise of doing my goddess' work.
It's Sensible!
It will have unfair advantages for being...me, and a few other people that are like me, and it will discriminate everything else.
The commandment of my divine....what's a good word here? mhm, imma go with "mistress", I feel there's an overweight of male gods in today's pantheon. Anyhow;
The commandment of my divine mistress is thus: thou shalt do anything doth desire, as long as it does not affect Hawgh or anyone like him in any way they would not approve of.
Prime line of my new religion: I'm better than you, hahaha. You can't touch this, Dum-da-da-da can't touch this.
How many signatures do I need to make this an approved religion?
and could someone make another one? I need someone to kill, rape & pillage under the weak guise of doing my goddess' work.
It's Sensible!
(I realise the futility of arguing with Khell Sennet but here goes)Khell_Sennet post=18.71605.730876 said:
Wouldn't the best thing to do be accepting their alternative views, and going the opposite way to what happens in many other countries. Wouldn't that make us morally superior and therefore awesome? Just because we don't kill someone doesn't make us right.
they not legal binding if they violate UK laws, and both sides have to agree to it, orthodox jews have had something similar in place for over a century, and the state funds religious schools that teach religious orthodoxy why should the legal system be any different?