Sharia taking hold in the UK

RIGHT! And those muslim women should never be required to submit to a Sharia proceeding. Find a single post by anyone, here, saying that they should.

BUT those women do not speak for all Muslim women, or even for all Canadian Muslim women. They may purport to; they may want to; they may have other Muslim women's best interests at heart; but they lack the authority, just as you lack the authority to speak for all Christian women, or even all the other women in your congregation.

Assuming all that you say regarding Sharia's discrimination against women is true (and I won't claim independent knowledge). If I had a (female) client asking my opinion whether she should stipulate to such a proceeding (assuming that I did family law: ugh! :cringe:), I'd recommend against it, strongly, but at the end of the day, I recognize that it is her choice, not mine.


Again, you are ignoring the compelling reason why this must not be an option. She has no choice because she is told that she is a 'bad' Muslim if she doesn't believe Sharia is the perfect law of the land. Muslims cannot reject Sharia, it is not an option for them. They will be ostracized from the community if they do so. It must not be offered or they will be forced to take it.

Sharia is INTRINSICALLY sexist, which means it does not belong in a society that has a constitution that declares it illegal to discriminate based upon sex.

Furthermore, there are plenty of situations where the concerns you express would never come up. It is as if you assume that all legal proceedings were only divorce/family law proceedings. Two men have the right to settle the dispute between them by any legal method they choose, and selecting an arbitrator to apply Sharia law would certainly qualify, right here in the U.S.; the same is true for two women; etc.

K: You want people to get alarmed about a phenomenon that just isn't alarming, and in many respects is probably even beneficial: participants in any sort of dispute resolution are much more likely to abide by the decision when they agree with and believe in the process followed. The only concern you have identified - the coercion of women (or anyone) - is not unique to Sharia courts and is a risk in any proceeding.

It s extremely foolish to allow Sharia law into Western civilization. It is totally outrageous against women. There is no other religion that forces it's social rules upon people in this way.

Women have NO choice. Either they are 'good Muslims' and allow SEXIST rules to apply to them, or they are 'bad Muslims' and they enjoy the sanctuary that Western civilization has afforded them. It is an abomination to take that sanctuary away.
 
What kind of idiocy would explain accepting a rule in a court that is inimically biased against women?

A person cannot be a "good Muslim" if they do not accept Sharia. Islam is a social system as well as a religion. To hold this against a woman is sexist.

This is the concern of the woman in the second article.

It is Sharia that a woman cannot claim rape unless there are four eyewitnesses.

It is Sharia that a woman must accept up to three additional wives... and those may be "misyar" or temporary marriages.. one night stands we call them. Children from these unions have absolutely no claim to the father.

It is Sharia that a woman is stoned for adultery.

It is Sharia that a homosexual is stoned.

And people want to OK this in their society? That is just amazing!

That any citizen thinks it OK that an assault goes unpunished by society... I am just floored. Criminals should get punished, not their elders 'shamed'.

Do you wonder why young men are out of control in Egypt, in Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, in all these places where Sharia exists? Women cannot walk the streets, and you can read it in their own papers.

The justice systems in each of these are based upon the Sharia sense of 'honor', of shame, not punishment. And you don't mind importing this system to your own shores? God have mercy!

Where are the feminists? Suddenly it is OK if women are discriminated against, gays are discriminated against? Are the gay lobbies too busy trying to get money out of welfare system via gay marriage - that they shut their eyes to this? Wow!

Where are people's reason?

Okay, what the HELL are you on about?
You're ranting about criminal matters when the article was talking about the civil solution (they're on BAIL right now).
Regardless of whether Sharia says a wife can be cheated on, we have (in British Law) "no fault divorce". Either party can get divorced if they want. So, the husband can cheat, knowing that he can be dumped. Alimony has been separated from fault, too.
If people want to apply Sharia to their private lives, that's their choice. As soon as they seek legal redress, the law kicks in and treats all parties equally.

OF COURSE we don't want Sharia law, no one's saying we do. People can live it, though, if they want to - unless they break a law, or the civil system treats them unfairly (then regular courts take over)

Muslims cannot reject Sharia, it is not an option for them.
Sigh. Yes they can. For the same reason that a Christian woman can be a pastor.
 
A: I don't see anywhere in the snippet you quoted or in the original article where Somalis are demanding changes in British law; instead, they are using a system of "courts" agreed to among themselves to settle their disputes, instead of proceeding through the judicial system.


They are actually demanding that society refrain from extending it's arm of law enforcement into their community.

That is unacceptable. This was a crime of violence. It should be punished. The law must be fairly applied to all, not some. A crime of violence (a kniving) is also a crime against society.

B: In most democracies (maybe your Britain is an exception :rolleyes:), citizens have every right to "demand" a change in the laws, and if they get the right legislators elected or ballot issues passed, they do get the laws changed! :goodjob:

C: I don't know about you, but if I were in Somalia or Saudi Arabia, I'd sure feel a lot more comfortable in an American (U.S.) judicial proceeding than one of theirs, so I can conceive how they might feel the same, if the situation was reversed.


What are you talking about? They specifically said that they would NOT obey the law of England, they they would only obey their own cultural rules. This has nothing to do with the U.S. first of all, and second of all, they have shown CONTEMPT for the law of the land. Sheesh! If they do that, they should get sent back to their homeland, without a doubt! They do now in Denmark with the new rules.
 
Okay, what the HELL are you on about?
You're ranting about criminal matters when the article was talking about the civil solution (they're on BAIL right now).
Regardless of whether Sharia says a wife can be cheated on, we have (in British Law) "no fault divorce". Either party can get divorced if they want. So, the husband can cheat, knowing that he can be dumped. Alimony has been separated from fault, too.
If people want to apply Sharia to their private lives, that's their choice. As soon as they seek legal redress, the law kicks in and treats all parties equally.

OF COURSE we don't want Sharia law, no one's saying we do. People can live it, though, if they want to - unless they break a law, or the civil system treats them unfairly (then regular courts take over)


Sigh. Yes they can. For the same reason that a Christian woman can be a pastor.

Again, women are 'coerced' into accepting Sharia. And no one knows about how the Sharia court is administered until someone complains, which a woman doesn't dare to do, lest she be called a "bad" Muslim.

Why don't you go to the website for the Council of Canadian Muslim Women and read it? I am not just making stuff up. This is THEIR opinion.

They know that women are coerced - they know that "the civil system treats them unfairly" so why start it? Why not let "regular courts take over" from the beginning? Thus guaranteeing women the rights they have fought to have for generations?

Sharia is not some quaint little custom, like some people would condenscendingly think of it. It is a disaster in countries where it exists. It is the reason why these people are leaving these countries is droves.
 
A: I don't see anywhere in the snippet you quoted or in the original article where Somalis are demanding changes in British law; instead, they are using a system of "courts" agreed to among themselves to settle their disputes, instead of proceeding through the judicial system.


Thin end of the wedge.

First they request recognition and plenty of Islamic preachers demand that, then they will want enforcement, then they will want replacement.


B: In most democracies (maybe your Britain is an exception :rolleyes:), citizens have every right to "demand" a change in the laws, and if they get the right legislators elected or ballot issues passed, they do get the laws changed! :goodjob:

The Islamics don't care about democracy and falsify voting in England already.

And it is not an improvement change to UK law they want, but its replacement with an inferior medieval system.


C: I don't know about you, but if I were in Somalia or Saudi Arabia, I'd sure feel a lot more comfortable in an American (U.S.) judicial proceeding than one of theirs, so I can conceive how they might feel the same, if the situation was reversed.

If they don't understand English, I am happy for the UK state to provide a translator, albeit a bit more concerned about open checks for lawyers.
 
Again, women are 'coerced' into accepting Sharia. And no one knows about how the Sharia court is administered until someone complains, which a woman doesn't dare to do, lest she be called a "bad" Muslim.

Why don't you go to the website for the Council of Canadian Muslim Women and read it? I am not just making stuff up. This is THEIR opinion.

They know that women are coerced - they know that "the civil system treats them unfairly" so why start it? Why not let "regular courts take over" from the beginning? Thus guaranteeing women the rights they have fought to have for generations?

Sharia is not some quaint little custom, like some people would condenscendingly think of it. It is a disaster in countries where it exists. It is the reason why these people are leaving these countries is droves.

We know women are coerced. We see this all the time. It's not just Sharia. There are a huge number of cases where they're not receiving the proper divorce settlement, child support, etc. because of not using the legal system.

Nothing can be done about that, of course, except making the legal system accessible. If you're trying to convince people that Sharia is barbaric when fully applied, then you're wasting your time - we already know that. But the legal protections are already in place.
 
What kind of idiocy would explain accepting a rule in a court that is inimically biased against women?

A person cannot be a "good Muslim" if they do not accept Sharia. Islam is a social system as well as a religion. To hold this against a woman is sexist.
Perhaps you're being rhetorical, since you answered your own question? Maybe she believes Allah will reward her in the next life for her obedience and sufferance here. Again, you and I may disagree with her choice, but it is hers to make.

It is Sharia that a woman cannot claim rape unless there are four eyewitnesses.

It is Sharia that a woman must accept up to three additional wives... and those may be "misyar" or temporary marriages.. one night stands we call them. Children from these unions have absolutely no claim to the father.

It is Sharia that a woman is stoned for adultery.

It is Sharia that a homosexual is stoned.
So what? No one in the original article you posted is proposing the implementation of those aspects of Sharia, just as the vast majority of Christians and Jews do not endorse these practices, despite our living in a "Christian Nation" and explicit biblical endorsements of these same practices.

That any citizen thinks it OK that an assault goes unpunished by society... I am just floored. Criminals should get punished, not their elders 'shamed'.
You're the one missing the point, here: the criminals mentioned in your article (a bunch of teenagers, wasn't it?) were punished. IMHO, because it was in a proceeding that involved not only them but their extended family, neighbors, community, etc., it was probably far more effective than the judicial system would have been.

Do you wonder why young men are out of control in Egypt, in Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, in all these places where Sharia exists? Women cannot walk the streets, and you can read it in their own papers.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion as to the causes. :rolleyes: IMHO, it is simplistic and, in at least one case (Somalia), appears to be out right wrong: Somalia has been torn apart by warlords for well over a decade, but now the Islamic Courts Union is imposing order. Recent Time article The ICU may well be, or become, the Taliban of Somalia (wouldn't surprise me in the least), but it is presently very clear a force of order, not chaos, even if you or I may not like that order.

The justice systems in each of these are based upon the Sharia sense of 'honor', of shame, not punishment. And you don't mind importing this system to your own shores? God have mercy!
You need some of the background I got in my first-year Criminal Law course, if you think our own heritage is so very different. The term "penitentiary" comes from "penance." The convicted's sentence was intended to be a time of reflection and remorse for the wrong he or she had done. IMHO, I want a criminal to be ashamed of himself: too many of them aren't. Maybe if he has a sense of shame, he won't do it again.

Where are the feminists? Suddenly it is OK if women are discriminated against, gays are discriminated against? Are the gay lobbies too busy trying to get money out of welfare system via gay marriage - that they shut their eyes to this? Wow!
Rants like these will just discredit your opinions, generally. I strongly suspect most feminists are totally on your side on the Sharia issue. You don't think the Council of Canadian Muslim Women has its share of feminists? :crazyeye:

You won't here from [m]any of them here because most of us are guys. ;)
That doesn't mean we don't care about women's issues, but they certainly won't resonate for us like they do for a woman. (And when you throw your hands up like that: it's exactly what my wife does in your situation. If you have a husband who never makes you do that, you have a rare gem, and you should take good care of him. :goodjob: )

Now, to see how many cross-posts have occurred while I was writing this . . .
 
Yes Kathryn, Sharia Law is to put it mildly, crap.

But this topic was started by you with the title that Sharia Law is taking hold in the UK. It isn't. So I don't know what you are ranting about ;)
 
Yes Kathryn, Sharia Law is to put it mildly, crap.

But this topic was started by you with the title that Sharia Law is taking hold in the UK. It isn't. So I don't know what you are ranting about ;)

It's actually Ironic to think that when the laws of the Koran which mention women are actually looked at they actually give women the right to be free, the right to own wealth and property without a man being involved, and rights to prosecute men who bring false claims against them. Although men are the ultimate overseers of women in marriage, Believe it or not this sort of law was actually quite progressive for it's time, and women had more rights under Islam than under any other religion in the region, including Judaism and Christianity.

As a matter of interest and by the way it is forbidden for a woman to reveal her hair in Christian law as well at the times check out the New Testament if you don't believe me.

The problem of course with most theological law, a thousand three hundred years or so later it is obsolete. Try to understand that Sharia and legal law though after the Koran were well divided by many states which would mediate over unnecessarily harsh sharia law in many cases, and it's only in fairly recent times that such laws have began to be merged in a more widespread manner as they were under the Koran, the difference is in the Koran they were as I said more progressive, but in modern times they are backward, and frankly there isn't any real logic to reimplementing such law over legal law, one should be of theological and dogmatical matters the other should cover the much more complicated civil matters.

I think everyone covered the actual topic pretty well though, Sharia in England over civil law, not bloody likely.:)
 
Perhaps you're being rhetorical, since you answered your own question? Maybe she believes Allah will reward her in the next life for her obedience and sufferance here. Again, you and I may disagree with her choice, but it is hers to make.

This is quite a bizarre notion! The 'social contract' of society has a basic idea that authority in the hands of a government must create a just and noble legal system, that is the purpose of government, to protect it's citizens, to give them equal treatment. Sharia, as a social system is in direct conflict with this idea.

So what? No one in the original article you posted is proposing the implementation of those aspects of Sharia, just as the vast majority of Christians and Jews do not endorse these practices, despite our living in a "Christian Nation" and explicit biblical endorsements of these same practices.

You are quite mistaken. Our government in America was not based upon a "Christian Nation". The Christians of the time, who were highly influential in government circles are the ones who demanded separation of church and state. We do not espouse putting anything 'biblical' into our government.

And yes, they do want to implement UNFAIR DIVORCE practices upon the Muslim women of their communities. For starters, that is.

You're the one missing the point, here: the criminals mentioned in your article (a bunch of teenagers, wasn't it?) were punished. IMHO, because it was in a proceeding that involved not only them but their extended family, neighbors, community, etc., it was probably far more effective than the judicial system would have been.

Anyone using an instrument like a knife in an assault is automatically a criminal, and it is the responsibility of Law Enforcement to see that this criminal is behind bars. They were NOT punished. The "shame" or "honor" system does not work in the Arab countries, so why would it work here?

You're certainly entitled to your opinion as to the causes. :rolleyes: IMHO, it is simplistic and, in at least one case (Somalia), appears to be out right wrong: Somalia has been torn apart by warlords for well over a decade, but now the Islamic Courts Union is imposing order. Recent Time article The ICU may well be, or become, the Taliban of Somalia (wouldn't surprise me in the least), but it is presently very clear a force of order, not chaos, even if you or I may not like that order.
Oh, so, you think it OK for people to be killed for watching a soccer game? Because that is the kind of 'order' that this Somalia regime is giving the people. They are already the Taliban, wrecking havoc among their neighbors as well, like Ethiopia.

You need some of the background I got in my first-year Criminal Law course, if you think our own heritage is so very different. The term "penitentiary" comes from "penance." The convicted's sentence was intended to be a time of reflection and remorse for the wrong he or she had done. IMHO, I want a criminal to be ashamed of himself: too many of them aren't. Maybe if he has a sense of shame, he won't do it again.

Rants like these will just discredit your opinions, generally. I strongly suspect most feminists are totally on your side on the Sharia issue. You don't think the Council of Canadian Muslim Women has its share of feminists? :crazyeye:

I don't hear anyone on the side of the Muslim women in England, only the MALE clerics, who want to dominate their women, obviously. They are allowed to do so in their religion, so why wouldn't they want it the law of the land?

You won't here from [m]any of them here because most of us are guys. ;)
That doesn't mean we don't care about women's issues, but they certainly won't resonate for us like they do for a woman. (And when you throw your hands up like that: it's exactly what my wife does in your situation. If you have a husband who never makes you do that, you have a rare gem, and you should take good care of him. :goodjob: )

Now, to see how many cross-posts have occurred while I was writing this . . .

Well the acceptance of Sharia in any Western community is a disaster. If you don't know that, then you need to do some reading.

You can start here:

Wondrous Treatment Of Women In Islam
T he purpose of this article is to show how the barbaric nature of Islam manifests itself in the cruel treatment of women.

1. Lets start with the "great" Mohammed himself, the founder of this "fabulous" faith. Mohammed was married to Khadija Bibi, his employer and 15 years his senior. At that time Mohammed was 25 years old. He was Khadija Bibi's third husband. Khadija Bibi was a widow when she married Mohammed. For the first time in his life, Mohammed enjoyed a luxurious life.

This shows the parasitic nature of Mohammed who married his employer so that he can live a rich life without putting in a single day's work.

2. Khadija Bibi died when Mohammed was 49 years old. Between the ages of 49 and 63 the "great prophet" married at least 11 times.

This shows how he treated the institution of marriage. For him, women were nothing but objects for sexual fulfillment. Marrying at least 11 women in 14 years throws light on his insatiable sexual appetite.
Read on about the "greatness" of this prophet.

3. Mohammed's favourite wife was Ayesha Bibi who was 6 years old when she was married to him.

Marrying a 6 year old baby clearly shows that Mohammed was not only a womanizer but also a child molester.

4. Mohammed's adopted son Zayed was married to Zainab, daughter of Jahsh. But one day the prophet "beheld in a loose undress, the beauty of Zainab, and burst forth into an ejaculation of devotion and desire. The servile, or greatful, freeman (Zayed) understood the hint and yielded without hesitation to the love of the benefactor."

Mohammed was not satisfied with his own overflowing harem and had to marry his son's wife. His son being a devoted follower of the "great" prophet was more than happy to divorce his wife. What a great father-in-law Mohammed was, a model for all Islamic father-in-laws!


Mohammed preached what he practised. This is supported by the following verses from Quran and Hadiths.

Quotes from the "Holy" Quran on Women


II/223: Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate). So go to your tilth as ye will...

Here you can clearly see how highly Islam treats women. Women in Islam are referred to as fields that are to be cultivated by man. What an honour for a Muslim woman!

IV/34: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other.. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them.

First point to notice here is that Quran clearly states that Men are superior to women. Secondly, Islam instructs that a man should control his women through brutal violence and fear.

IV/15: (For women) If any one of your women is guilty of lewdness ...confine them until death claims them.

IV/16: (For Men) If two men among you commit indecency (sodomy) punish them both. If they repent and mend their ways, let them be. Allah is forgiving and merciful.

As you can see, for women any sort of sexual exploration is punishable by death. Whereas for a man, any form of perversion is pardoned by the all merciful Allah.

XXIV/6-7: As for those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses except themselves , let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies...

Here we see, that a husband can easily accuse his wife (or wives) and eventually sentence her to death by merely declaring four times that the accusation is true. On the other hand, women have no such right in Islam.


Quotes from Hadith TIRMZI AND OTHERS
If a woman's conduct is mischievous or immodest, the husband has the right to beat her up but must not break her bones. She must not allow anybody to enter the house if her husband does not like him. She has the right to expect sustenance of her husband. (TR. P 439)

It is forbidden for a woman to be seen by any man except her husband when she is made up or well-dressed. (TR. P 430)

A woman is not a believer if she undertakes a journey which may last three days or longer, unless she is accompanied by her husband, son, father

A woman must veil herself even in the presence of her husband's father, brother and other male relations. (TR. P 432)

She is forbidden to spend any money without the permission of her husband, and it includes giving food to the needy or feast to friends. (TR. P 265)

A wife is forbidden to perform extra prayers (NAFAL) or observe fasting (other than RAMADAN) without the permission of her husband. (TR. P 300)

If prostration were a legitimate act other than to God, woman should have prostrated to her husband. (TR. P 428)

If a man is in a mood to have sexual intercourse the woman must come immediately even if she is baking bread at a communal oven. (TR. P 428)

The marriage of a woman to her man is not substantive. It is precarious. For example if the father of the husband orders his son to divorce his wife, he must do so. (TR. P 440)

A woman who seeks KHULA i.e. divorce from her man, without a just cause, shall not enter paradise. (TR. P 440)
On the contrary, a husband can divorce his wife at will.

Majority of women would go to hell. (Muslim P 1431)

If a woman refuses to come to bed when invited by her husband, she becomes the target of the curses of angles. Exactly the same happens if she deserts her husband's bed. (Bokhari P 93)

Women who are ungrateful to their men are the denizens of hell; it is an act of ingratitude for a woman to say: "I have never seen any good from you." (Bokhari P 96)

A woman in many ways is deprived of the possession of her own body. Even her milk belongs to her husband. (Bokhari P 27) She is not allowed to practise birth control either.

Quotes From Sahih Muslim Hadith
Chapter 540.The prophet said that he saw a woman coming and going in the shape of a devil and she fascinated him. So he came to his wife, Zainab, as she was tanning leather and had sexual intercourse with her. That drove out what he felt in his heart.

Chapter 558. The prophet said: "When a man calls his wife to bed and she does not come, the husband spends the night being angry with her, and the angels curse her until morning. The one who is in heaven is displeased with her until the husband is pleased with her.

Chpater 576. The prophet said :"Woman has been created from a rib, and will in no way be straightened for you."

Anwar Shaikh , the author of Islam: An Arab National Movement says:
"It shows the basic doctrine of Islam about womanhood, that is, she is basically crooked, and man has the right to keep her under his constant vigil; she must never be left alone."

In fact, another hadith expresses woman's position bluntly:

"I have not left any calamity more
hurtful to man than woman."
Chapter 619: Selling a cat, selling a dog (unless it is a working dog), and earning of prostitutes(unless they are non-muslims),... are all forbidden.

This verse encourages the Muslim invaders to convert women of other faith into prostitutes for their own enjoyment as prostitution by non-muslims is NOT forbidden. We can see plenty of examples of this throughout history, especially Indian history.

Chapter 1140: The prophet said : "The majority of those who entered the fire of Hell were women."

So Islam considers most of the women are evil in nature and they end up in hell.

Malik 362:1221 Ibn Fahd said "I have some slave girls who are better than my wives, but I do not desire that they should all become pregnant. Shall I do azl(withdrawal) with them?" Hajjaj said "They are your fields of cultivation. If you wish to irrigate them do so, if not keep them dry."

The next three verses are related to each other.

Malik 364:1234 If a woman suckles a baby, she becomes its foster mother and her husband a foster father. If a man has two wives, and one suckles a boy the other a girl, the boy can not marry the girl as the foster father of each is the same.

The next verse contradicts the previous one.

Malik 364:1239 The rule pertaining to foster relationship only applies to children under 2 years. Thus (Malik 365:1243) a grown up man fed with the milk of a woman does not entail fostership.

Read the next verse carefully.

Malik 365:1245 A man said, "My wife has willfully given my slavegirl with whom I used to cohabit her own milk to drink. What is my relationship to the slave girl ?" Omar said "Punish your wife and go into your slave girl".

What more can I say about these golden verses from the "Holy" Quran and the enlightening Hadiths-- guidelines for every true Muslim!

Gazzali, the renowned Islamic thinker summed up the 18 pains that had been visited on Muslim women as a punishment for Eve's transgression in paradise. The list eloquently shows the position of women in Islam and how the social customs were backed up by Islam. Here Islam goes to the extent of saying that even pregnancy and childbirth are punishments from God. Such is the nature of the all merciful Allah!!!

The 18 punishments are:

Menstruation
Childbirth
Separation from father and mother and marriage to a stranger
Pregnancy
Not having control over her own person
A lesser share in inheritance.
Her liability to be divorced and inability to divorce.
It being lawful for man to have 4 wives but for a woman to have only 1 husband.
The fact that she must stay secluded in the house
The fact that she must keep her head covered inside the house.
The fact that 2 women's testimonies have to be set against the testimony of one man.
The fact that she must not go out of the house unless accompanied by a near relative.
The fact that men take part in Friday and feast day funerals while women do not.
Disqualification for rulership and judgeship.
The fact that merit has 100 components, only one of which is attributable to women while 999 are attributed to men.
The fact that if women are profligate they will be given only half as much torment as the rest of the community at the ressurection day.
The fact that if their husbands die they must observe a waiting period of 4 months and 10 days before they remarry.
The fact that if their husbands divorce them , they must observe a waiting period of 3 months or 3 menstrual periods before remarrying.
To enlighten the people who are ignorant about "Sati" Pratha in India, this custom was a result of Muslim oppression and brutality. The Hindu women of India, in order to save their honour, used to jump into the fire after their husbands were brutally murdered by Muslim invaders. The question that arises from this is why did they jump into the fire and kill themselves? Why didn't they just poison themselves? The reason for this is that the lecherous necrophiliac muslim invaders did not even leave the dead bodies alone. Yes, they had sex even with the dead bodies! How disappointing it must have been for them to find nothing, but ashes.

This is only a handful of facts that states the true nature of Islam.

Note: Works of A. Ghosh, Robert E. Burns, and Anwar Shaikh have been used to compose this article.

But then you already said you didn't care about the plight of Muslim women, didn't you? Gee, amazing you have an opinion, then on how they are treated by their men!
 
See, I Don't understand these threads. They always start with some ludicrous claim that is quickly disproved by anyone with an iota of common sense, and then it degenerates into linking of numerous articles and muslim bashing, while cleverly ignoring the subject originally raised ~ I mean, what is the point? Clearly you have a strong opinion about Islam but its not really going anywhere, this isn't a discussion its just a thinly veiled excuse to go on a rant about Islam.
 
I'm having too much fun: I can't stop myself. May the Mods wack me if I step over the line!:please::whipped:
Thin end of the wedge.

First they request recognition and plenty of Islamic preachers demand that, then they will want enforcement, then they will want replacement.
Only those sneaky Somali Muslims could have contrived such a nefarious strategy! ;) I'm glad that gay marriage lobby, abortion lobby, anti-abortion lobby, environmentalists, industrialists, Republicans, Democrats (and Tories and Labor) haven't thought of it, yet . . . :lol:

The [Republicans] don't care about democracy and falsify voting in [the U.S.] already.
Oops! I mistakenly quoted some of our Democratic bloggers here in the U.S., complaining about the electronic voting machines (the vast majority manufactured by a company with strong Republican ties) before our recent elections.

Okay, they certainly don't come from a democratic tradition: granted. You'll need to source your claim of falsified voting before I'll give that much weight, but that happens in well-established democracies like mine, by people with very strong democratic traditions, too. In Nietszchean terms, its all will to power: everyone wants it, and some folks aren't too particular about their methods for getting it.:shifty:

And it is not an improvement change to UK law they want, but its replacement with an inferior medieval system.
One man's progress is another's regress, just ask the two sides of the gay marriage debate, the abortion debate, the social welfare debate, the [fill-in-the-blank] debate. (Oh, and that common law system, the one we Yanks borrowed from you, wholesale, originated in medieval times.)

If they don't understand English, I am happy for the UK state to provide a translator, albeit a bit more concerned about open checks for lawyers.
If the UK has open checks for lawyers, I really should jump the pond! :goodjob: At least here in the US, public defenders are paid a pittance. They really aren't in it for the money. (Hey, I went to lawschool in Berkeley: folks like these were a substantial portion of my classmates. ;) )

The real issue, however, isn't understanding the language, but agreeing with the process. I tried a case recently, and lost it. :sad: I believe my client really, really should have prevailed, but the judge didn't see it that way. But I know my client got a fair hearing, and he knows it. For that reason, he'll honor the result, although its a serious financial burden to him. It's because we both believe in the process; we grew up with it; we understand it, because it infuses so much of what we do and see and hear.

Seriously: I agree with you that (a) I wouldn't want Sharia applied to me; (b) I'd vote against it at the ballot box; (c) I'd recommend against someone stipulating to it for dispute resolution (unless I knew that the rules favored him/her in the relevant situation). But I also feel that way on any number of other issues, and the arguments I am seeing are the generic partisan arguments that one side of an issue always seems to be lobbing at the other. For we non-partisans, it's like this:
:aargh::ar15: :coffee: :run::aargh:
 
See, I Don't understand these threads. They always start with some ludicrous claim that is quickly disproved by anyone with an iota of common sense, and then it degenerates into linking of numerous articles and muslim bashing, while cleverly ignoring the subject originally raised ~ I mean, what is the point? Clearly you have a strong opinion about Islam but its not really going anywhere, this isn't a discussion its just a thinly veiled excuse to go on a rant about Islam.
You're right. This was over a long time ago. Let's knock off and hit the pub: I'll buy.
:band: :cheers:
 
You're right. This was over a long time ago. Let's knock off and hit the pub: I'll buy.
:band: :cheers:

:cheers:

I'll have a pint of lager, anyone want any peanuts?:)
 
@ETK: As always, hats off to one who is able to - and does - substantiate his claims! :hatsoff:

I will now happily concede that two LD councillors have been convicted of falsifying 167 proxy votes. This was my favorite quote:
The court heard Mr Ali [one of the defendants] was declared the winner by 369 votes, and that the rigged votes had not made a difference to his victory.

Judge Andrew Gilbart QC said it was "ironic" that many of the voters who were duped said they would have voted Lib Dem anyway.
:lol:

I don't see where these two are Somali, per se, but with last names Ali and Hussain, I'd be pushing things to say they didn't come from a Muslim background. I'll grant that.

But you are generalizing from these two to the Muslim community as a whole? That's a bit of a stretch. (Unless this is one of only a number of incidents you are referring to. I'm not trying to send you back for ever more sources; just leaving the door open, in case I've missed something here.)

At this point, why don't you join Oblivion and me at the pub? I really think this thread is thoroughly cooked.
:cheers:

EDIT:
Sidhe said:
I'll have a pint of lager, anyone want any peanuts?
I'll have the pretzels, and a soft drink. (Mormons: always good for the designated driver, pick one up today.)
 
Anyone using an instrument like a knife in an assault is automatically a criminal, and it is the responsibility of Law Enforcement to see that this criminal is behind bars. They were NOT punished. The "shame" or "honor" system does not work in the Arab countries, so why would it work here?

Firstly, they're on bail. The matter might be dropped if the complainant wants to.

Secondly, they're teenagers. Despite your wish to see them in jail, the likelihood is low that teenagers will be jailed. The criminal law is geered towards rehabilitating young offenders, not punishing them. A major component of this involves working with the victim.

You're assuming the secular system will do what? impose a harsher penalty? It's unlikely.

The problem you're having with your argument is that you're being frantic. I don't know what the term is, really, but "Chicken Little" springs to mind. When it comes to criminal justice involving youth, the law is more malleable and less predictable - the judge will do his best to see that the youths realise they've committed a crime and that it's unacceptable.

"Sharia" may be a package deal in your mind, but it is not. For the same reason why "Christian mandates" is a package in some people's minds, but not in yours.
 
What this all comes down to for me: I trust the British legal system; I don't trust the Muslim leaders' system. The moment they do something illegal is the moment they get banned in this country.
 
Stegyre

There are other instances of Islamic vote rigging in the UK,
but like you say I don't have the time to find URLs for them.

It seems to me that many Islamics are like Communists and Fascists
in that they regard winning power as more important than democracy.

Now I don't think that many (other Atheists), Buddhists, Christians, Jews
etc. are like that. They'd prefer to lose an election rather than cheat.


And what amazes me is that on one recent occasion when the Islamics
seem to have conducted a relatively fairish election e.g. in Palestine;
the Western democracies decide they should be financially punished
for voting for the wrong party Hamas.

Forgetting that they voted, hardly encourages democracy in Islam.


..off to bed..
 
See, I Don't understand these threads. They always start with some ludicrous claim that is quickly disproved by anyone with an iota of common sense, and then it degenerates into linking of numerous articles and muslim bashing, while cleverly ignoring the subject originally raised ~ I mean, what is the point? Clearly you have a strong opinion about Islam but its not really going anywhere, this isn't a discussion its just a thinly veiled excuse to go on a rant about Islam.

Katheryn's threads are usually like that. Pages and pages of quoted text, lots of ranting, and very little direction.
 
Back
Top Bottom