SHARIA LAW.

1. 55

   costa-rhymerposted 14 years ago

   Lord Phillips the most senior judge;
   in both England and Wales,
   Has said Sharia law could play a part
   if our legal system fails.
   -------------------------------------
   My faith in the English judiciary has
   been turned over, it's almost dead,
   Has the old become an Imam,orjust gone
   completely soft in his aged head ?
   --------------------------------------
   Sharia law is absolute and de rigeur in 
   all of the islamic lands,
   But subject to extreme interpretions
   by some subversive firebrands.
   ---------------------------------------
   In England if moslem pratice islam they
   have an absolute freedom of choice,
   However written into our British laws
   would not be a cause to rejoice.
   ---------------------------------------
   England has already lost many of it's
   original traditional democratic rights,
   Such remarks from the most senior in
   the judiciary; public outcry ignites.
   ---------------------------------------

   replyreport
2. 60

   Rehma Jamshedposted 14 years ago

   I never found any harm in adopting something from someone else if it can do you good.
   
   But then again, thats only my opinion!

   replyreport
3. 60

   UPStarposted 14 years ago

   Does Sharia law do anyone good? I really think people need to read these ten parts of Sharia law before just saying "oh, if its good for them than great..."
   http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/ … ia_is.html

   replyreport
4. 0

   sneakorocksolidposted 14 years ago

   Look prior to islam the arab and persian people were some of the only greatest contributers to human knowledge. After islam came to be they became locked into the middle ages and still wallow in antiquated beliefs and customs. islam ruined them and I doubt they will ever recover.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      egivposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      ...then how do you explain the Muslim-ruled, extremely successful and long-lasting Ottoman Empire?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         It's fine . . . if you're a guy

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Ghost32posted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Maybe...but I'm a guy, and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't make me one bit happy!

            replyreport
            1. 60

               debugsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               I am not a guy but like Pat Condell, I like my beer too much.

               replyreport
            2. 0

               Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               That's cuz you're a real guy - not some whiney little boy who has to strut his stuff over women to feel like he's a man

               replyreport
      2. 0

         sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I don't think contributed anything like advances in upper level math that came out of the middle ages. I'm referring to advances in technology and learning.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Sufidreamerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            There were great centres of learning all over the Middle East. The entire Renaissance was built upon the knowledge of Islamic scholars - maths, philosophy, medicine, physics, geography - it was a Golden Age for knowledge, whilst Europe was still stuck in superstition and fear. Wikipedia has a reasonable entry about this:
            
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age
            
            I will happily concede that things went a little downhill after 1500 - the Taliban are not exactly known for their contribution to world knowledge!
            
            To the OP - you are over-reacting a little. The suggestion was in issues of marriage and mediation. English and Welsh law would still take precedence over Sharia. Everybody is welcome to use laws pertaining to their particular religion, but they do not override the laws of the land.
            
            EDIT: Sorry, Madame X - you beat me to the second part of the reply!

            replyreport
   2. 88

      livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Oh, the irony.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         sneakorocksolidposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Do you ever have anything constructive to contribute to any conversation?

         replyreport
         1. 88

            livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Absolutely. The fact that you don't think so doesn't surprise me.

            replyreport
   3. 60

      debugsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I agree. You see, this is the 21st century and any outmoded law that a group of misguided fanatics which to FORCE upon a perfectly democratic and modern system is what I call insanity. It's like inviting the Inquisition rules back or the Puritan laws back - this is crazy. Whether we like it or not, this is the 21st century. Let's get REAL. Let's make a better world if we can without having to contrain or FORCE the "medieval" laws... please!

      replyreport
5. 61

   kephriraposted 14 years ago

   people defend Sharia courts operating in Britain by saying that they are only used by people who choose to go to them and can't enforce anything on people who don't choose to go to them. But the problem is that many muslim women will feel a great deal of social pressure to use these Sharia courts and to opt out of British law, even though they know that as women these courts will discriminate against them.
   
   As Sharia courts are open about the fact that they discriminate in favour of men, and as sexual discrimination is against the law in Britain, I can't see how you can defend a system which effectively makes breaking the law a legal requirement.

   replyreport
6. 0

   Madame Xposted 14 years ago

   It all comes down to jurisdiction - again. Sharia law could never take precedence in the UK if the UK didn't let it.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      kephriraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Indeed, and I don't like the fact that the UK is currently letting it take precendence in family law cases where all of the parties involved has agreed to accept this. I would like to see this practice stopped.

      replyreport
7. 81

   Uninvited Writerposted 14 years ago

   I guess a lot of it is similar to the Catholic Churches stand on not allowing female priests. Many Christian denominations view women as less than men.
   
   A religious law should never replace a civil one.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Catholicism is centuries ahead of Islam in rights for women - but they are still losing followers for their stance on female priests. I don't think there is any real comparison of the two in today's society.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Uninvited Writerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I agree with that, but still, as I said, some Christian churches expect women to always give into the man. Islam does not have a lock on bad treatment of women... To me, Sharia law is what happens when you allow religions to dictate a country's laws.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            No, they don't have a lock on it - they're just the worst perpetrators of it.

            replyreport
            1. 79

               Sufidreamerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               It is a tough one - on the one hand you have Saudi Arabia, not my favourite country, and the Taliban. On the other, many of the Gulf States have made great strides in promoting gender equality, especially in education and employment. I think that much of it is a work in progress - many Islamic nations are very young proto-democracies and do need some time to grow and develop.
               
               Even 25 - 30 years ago, Greece was extremely chauvinistic - a woman's place is in the home and all that. The new generation is nothing like that, thankfully. I hope that the young generations in Islamic countries can follow the same path - even in Iran, they are agitating for change

               replyreport
   2. 79

      Sufidreamerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Agreed, although I would not like to see the Catholic Church 'forced' to accept women as priests (much as I personally do not agree).
      
      Such things are always a grey area

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         

         replyreport
8. 58

   foster parentposted 14 years ago

   DID YOU KNOW WHO INVENTED ( ALGABRA ) IT WAS GABER BEN HAYAN
   HE WAS A MOSLIM . WITHOUT IT WE WOULD HAVE NO COMPUTER TODAY
   DID YOU KNOW THAT EARLY MOSLIMS DEVELOPED THE THE SCIENCE OF PSYCHOLOGY WHILE  IN EUROPE PEOPLE WITH SUCH A PROBLEM WERE PUT JAIL . DID YOU KNOW THAT WHEN THE MONGHUL INVADED BAGDAD THEY TOOK ALL THE BOOKS IN THE BIGGEST  LIBRARY IN THE WORLD THEN , AND DUMP IT IN THE REIVER TO CROSS OVER IT ???

   replyreport
   1. 60

      debugsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      And tell me -- what has all these have to do with Sharia Law? A secular world is a sane world.

      replyreport
9. 61

   mikelongposted 14 years ago

   I think that it is ridiculous that Christian sects, sponsored by colony hungry elites in Europe, reached far and wide across the planet, permanently altering the course of cultures world wide, and then use fear to point the finger at Islam.....
   
   When Islam reached Armenia, where my family resided until the late 19th century, there was no push or prod, no sword or violence to force conversion to Islam. Following the model left by Cyrus of Persia, as a subject people the Armenians would have to pay tributes, but otherwise they were largely left to their own devices...
   
   The Ottomans did not try to alter the religious path of their Christian and Jewish subjects.....in fact, when Spain ejected its Jewish population in 1492, the Ottoman Empire was the only state to give them a place to migrate to.....
   
   As long as taxes were paid, and as long as there was no fuss against the state there was largely no problem....
   
   Catholic conquerors of Mexico toppled temples, killed priests, burned books, stole artifacts, and then erected churches on top of the ruins of the former indigenous religious structures...
   
   Americans set up schools like Carslile Indian School, compelling by physical and mental abuse their "students' conversion to Protestant Christianity and the giving up of their native languages....of course...at this point native Americans were placed on the first American welfare system...the reservation...and forced, through the withholding of rations amongst other things, them to give up their children..
   
   So then they could receive an "education."
   
   
   While the Ottomans are responsible for the Armenian Genocide, it is actually the subversive actions of American and European Christian missionaries within the boundaries of the Empire.
   
   My own family had to deal with these acts, and when looking at the larger political-economic dealing going on in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (focusing on the lands held by the Ottoman Empire)the installment of "Western" Christian sects and special rules to protect the wealth that would be generated would lead to the dissolution of the state....
   
   
   
   It is my hope that, at some point, the"identifying with the aggressor" mentality that many people perpetuate in their words and actions towards Muslims can back off, and buzzwords like "Islam" and "Sharia Law" can be more fully analyzed and comprehended.

   replyreport