Islamic Lobby proposes Sharia law in Aus

[Miroslav I]

Those are birth rates of serbian in Serbia. When they come toi the west, Serbians tend to multiply like rabbit for some weird reason (to profit maybe from the social benefit of the West as some fachist would say here). This rate is by the way the same of that of a Muslim country like Tunisia, so the "they have a birth rate 10 times bigger" is also a pure product of your fertile imagination, unless you show us some proof, because us poor rational human need to see before believing

And I am still waiting for the statistics about birth rates within muslims immigrants in the West.

Wait a minute, if you look at your previous posts you will find that you are the first one who wrote those statement of "they have a birth rate 10 times bigger" you later labeled as "also a pure product of your fertile imagination".
About birthrate in Tunisia from the same document made by UN the birth rate in Tunisia is also less than 2 children. Same like for France or Switzerland. Or UN produce false documents or you haven't done any research on that field because something can't be ten times of itself as you stated before.

Can't you make your own research? Start from this link (for example):

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

Look at the table that gives the average number of children according to the place of birth of women. Those from other Europe (but not west because those countries are listed one by one) has birth rate of 1.68 in France while in countries where they were born it is 1.41. For Tunisia it is 2.90/2.73 so if somebody is guilty for your baby boom it cant be Serbs.

Also look at the :

http://www.english.rfi.fr/france/20110118-france-outperforms-neighbours-having-babies

...and if you like put some reply on the comment (not mine). Look also at :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seine-Saint-Denis
http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/more.php?id=617_0_4_0
http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/france-immigration.html

...so if France has 65 million population with 9% of Muslim population could in the same time be true statements of politicians that in France there are 3 million Muslims?

Lets search a little more.

http://www.understandfrance.org/French/Issues.html
http://dspace.nitle.org/handle/10090/15190
(this file is named:"A Study of the Politics of Muslim Immigration in France Using Max Weber's Methodology, with Special Reference to Strasbourg" but is restricted), try to gain access if you want, I don't care.

There are also denies that Muslims are problem:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/demographics.asp

...in which is confirmed that Muslim population in EU is 52 million (of about 500 million overall EU population) what makes more than 10% and is rising.
And in :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union#Religion
..are claims that "the EU had an estimated Muslim population of 13 million" so something is wrong there?
Who are wrong : bare statistics or official statements given by government politicians?
Not on me to give that answer. You search by yourself. Don't ask me to search for you no more. It is on you to demand on your government to give you a view on a your country demography. I can only search on net and find contradictory in statements and numbers.

About Serbs in France:

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

...so you are so afraid of less than 100 000 Serbs with birth rate of 1.41 in France but no afraid of millions of Muslims at all, right?

Miroslav

 

[Cashie]

So, back on topic... I don't have any real problem with Sharia Law being carried out for family law, if all parties consent.

As far as a legal divorce not being valid in a religious sense: have a cleric/imam present at legal proceedings to make sure everything goes the way they want it.

Ideally, you would have niche law firms run by Muslims for Muslim families, so that they are able to satisfy local law and religious law in the best possible sense. I'd be surprised if there weren't a few of these already in Western countries

 

[Tee Kay]

...so you are so afraid of less than 100 000 Serbs with birth rate of 1.41 in France but no afraid of millions of Muslims at all, right?

Why be afraid at all.

"We've nothing to fear but fear itself"

 

[Arakhor]

Miroslav, you just linked to the Snopes page dismissing the last few pages of groundless speculation that "the Muslims" will overwhelm the world with their prodigious birthrates. Do you admit that you were scaremongering, now?

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

I was convinced at the start of this thread that the answer was crystal clear " of course there is no place in Australia for Sharia Law , you can throw leftie arguments at me all you like , but no way "

But the argument that it is simply an arbitration system between willing participants ( like the numerous other versions of this we have ) , I have to admit is pretty reasonable .

I'm not convinced that's for sure , but it's always good to have ones pre-conceptions challenged by you clever people .

 

[Miroslav I]

So, back on topic... I don't have any real problem with Sharia Law being carried out for family law, if all parties consent.

As far as a legal divorce not being valid in a religious sense: have a cleric/imam present at legal proceedings to make sure everything goes the way they want it.

Ideally, you would have niche law firms run by Muslims for Muslim families, so that they are able to satisfy local law and religious law in the best possible sense. I'd be surprised if there weren't a few of these already in Western countries

"If all parties consent" than there is no need to put Sharia Law in that country law system at all. Special "family law" for particular religions is in contradictory with equality of all before the law. People should settle their relations with their own religion without interfering state into religion nor religion into state. Religion of every individual is his own choice. Religion and state should be separated. But if let any religion motivated law to get inside law system of one secular state than it means undermining the secular state and starting the process of transforming secular state into one based on religion.

 

[Arwon]

But if let any religion motivated law to get inside law system of one secular state than it means undermining the secular state and starting the process of transforming secular state into one based on religion.

No, it doesn't. Because it hasn't. You're missing the part where this already occurs within Western legal systems such as Australia's. We cater to Orthodox Jews, we cater to Catholics, we cater to indigenous cultures. Even with Islam, we cater to Islamic finance and halal food within the framework of the law.

 

[Miroslav I]

Miroslav, you just linked to the Snopes page dismissing the last few pages of groundless speculation that "the Muslims" will overwhelm the world with their prodigious birthrates. Do you admit that you were scaremongering, now?

Read whole text, please.

It is critic view on Muslim demographics that labeled as mostly false claims that Islam will overwhelm Christendom by its "prodigious" birth rate unless Christians begin reproducing again.

It is an attempt to disprove such claims step by step using method of analyzing one statement after another and trying to give most accurate answer.

Were they successful is not on me to decide.

Why you do not made your own research and try to do the same?

I won't consider that effort scaremongering, definitely.

But do not ask me (and nobody more please) to search into these issue with intention to find some "groundless speculation" or something that maybe could look scaremongering.

The whole question of Sharia Law could be consider scaremongering if you search inside the whole doctrine and especially today practicing in countries where Sharia Law is the only law system. It is not on me to start here question about human rights in those countries. I know it is scary to see videos of practicing Sharia Law and won't post it here.

The question here is: is it ok or not to accept low level of Sharia Law in your own country in order to appease Muslim minority and thus on a small door let them infiltrate their religion into law of your state. That is the very core of this issue.

And everyone is allowed to give his own answer, right or wrong, but based on his own conscience.

 

[Miroslav I]

No, it doesn't. Because it hasn't. You're missing the part where this already occurs within Western legal systems such as Australia's. We cater to Orthodox Jews, we cater to Catholics, we cater to indigenous cultures. Even with Islam, we cater to Islamic finance and halal food within the framework of the law.

Hasn't yet. And it's not on me to answer when it will. But the process is at beginning. And the things won't be always perfect as it looks now to someone.

 

[El_Machinae]

Arwon's post (and the post of yours that he's quoting) seems to nail the misunderstanding.
The establishment of the Sharia 'courts' is merely a way of 'all parties consenting'. You were correct when you wrote "there is no need to put Sharia Law in that country law system at all". The Sharia is not being put into the law. This whole mess is mostly a misunderstanding.

In fact, Australian law will continue to protect the people who agree to Sharia law, because people who 'consent' to Sharia adjudication cannot consent away their Australian rights.

 

[Cashie]

"If all parties consent" than there is no need to put Sharia Law in that country law system at all. Special "family law" for particular religions is in contradictory with equality of all before the law. People should settle their relations with their own religion without interfering state into religion nor religion into state. Religion of every individual is his own choice. Religion and state should be separated. But if let any religion motivated law to get inside law system of one secular state than it means undermining the secular state and starting the process of transforming secular state into one based on religion.

Go back and read the article from The Australian, that Masada posted.

When the Australian is giving a better treatment to the issue than the ABC you know there's something wrong...

 

[Miroslav I]

Arwon's post (and the post of yours that he's quoting) seems to nail the misunderstanding.
The establishment of the Sharia 'courts' is merely a way of 'all parties consenting'. You were correct when you wrote "there is no need to put Sharia Law in that country law system at all". The Sharia is not being put into the law. This whole mess is mostly a misunderstanding.

In fact, Australian law will continue to protect the people who agree to Sharia law, because people who 'consent' to Sharia adjudication cannot consent away their Australian rights.

Are those courts called "Sharia court" recognized and accepted by Australian Law System?
If they are than Sharia is being put into law. Clear and simple.

Divorce problems? Is that problem that cannot consent by Australian Law? And reason to bring Sharia Law into law system.

Put it this way : man and woman married, and they are Muslims. They could married in common law and all is ok. Then they could divorce and all is ok and by the law. Common Law system makes no problem there. Where problems came from? They want to marry and/or divorce by Muslim custom in Islam tradition (by their Sharia Laws). When they want to marry its ok. When someone (99,99 % it is a woman) wants to divorce than the same Islam tradition makes a problem by favor to the will of the man over the will of the woman. And than they insist that law system of that country (one that doesn't make any problem at all) adopt into itself "Sharia court" that will "help" people to find solution (for problem made by Sharia) by their consent (and they cant consent without Sharia tells them how, right?). The best and easiest solution is to let people consent by themselves and with no need of Sharia. Clear and simple.

No need to complicate things to put Sharia Law into some Law System of one country.

 

[El_Machinae]

I am 99% sure that there's nothing the "sharia courts" can do to prevent a Muslim woman from properly divorcing her husband (according to the Australian law) and getting alimony (if it's deserved). This would be true even if the sharia courts came into existence.

They're an arbitration system, and only that.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

But that would mean my outrage is all dressed up and has nowhere to go

 

[Miroslav I]

I am 99% sure that there's nothing the "sharia courts" can do to prevent a Muslim woman from properly divorcing her husband (according to the Australian law) and getting alimony (if it's deserved). This would be true even if the sharia courts came into existence.

They're an arbitration system, and only that.

For now.
Will it be only that later?

It was already told me here that it looks too silly even to think that some "western" country could be overtaken by Islam. If something like that ever happen what do you think would Law System still be secular. And on what would than Sharia Law in such that country base its legitimacy (its legal lawfulness)? On the very moment when was accepted by Law System of that country, no matter was that only an arbitration system in the beginning. Right?

 

[Arakhor]

So, now you're back to scaremongering to justify your extreme reactions towards "the Muslims".

Moderator Action: Please address the topic rather than the poster. Focus on the arguments, not what you consider the motives or style of posting.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Miroslav I]

So, now you're back to scaremongering to justify your extreme reactions towards "the Muslims".

I used word "overtaken" what also could be done peacefully, and even in Civ sequels if you have played enough (it was possible even in Civ1) it may happen that the city of another civ leave its tribe and join yours. Please, just do not tell me that you are an so scared Civ player that word "overtaken" makes you shaking. Or you are so scared because of point I made on legitimacy in an Law System. That point is something to make your comment.

 

[Arakhor]

Not everyone lives in the Balkans, where national borders change like the weather and there are multiple, competing ideologies at any one time. Your views expressed in this thread are alarmist and distinctly paranoid.

 

[Miroslav I]

Not everyone lives in the Balkans, where national borders change like the weather and there are multiple, competing ideologies at any one time. Your views expressed in this thread are alarmist and distinctly paranoid.

Please, do not tell me that this is one leisure and untroubled world what is something what I just can not see. Would you be so careless to live in my country? Reality is something complete different. So, put your comment on the point I made, please. Well, if you want to make your point about this world as one jolly and careless place, you are welcome. I'm only not convinced that Sharia Law (looking at the very core of that doctrine) is something that will bring happiness to this world.

 

[Ajidica]

I haven't been paying attention to this thread, but what exactly are you arguing about? It seems to vary between 'Muslim birthrate' myth which has been completely debunked before and a rather amorphous 'sharia law' system.