well i guess that one could make the argument that the "regular" court systems in both the US & UK are realy Christian courts, innit?
indeed...but the Jews have a few thousand more years of "experience" under their belts, don't they?
Sharia Law now a reality in Britain.
- Thread starter Wolveryeti
- Start date
well i guess that one could make the argument that the "regular" court systems in both the US & UK are realy Christian courts, innit?
harpo
Listening to Radio Jackie
Er, no. They are based on habeus corpus.
then why do they take the oath on the Bible? "I promise to tell the truth and nothing but the truth so help me God"
it doesn't matter what they are based on or whatever. sharia law is the only law to my knowledge that says women should be killed with rocks for wearing skirts or whatever. I don't care if the law is based on fucking star trek, as long as people are allowed to pursue their own happiness without fear of being executed i really don't give a fuck.
Dhimmi
Half Man Half HobNob
It's a core aim of the Jihadi. The Taliban are a good example; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7070640.stm
BTW did you notice that Sharia law isn't just being used for civil cases?
yea i guess it would work in a majority islamic environment but thats about it.
if they're going to start stoning birds for wearing mini skirts and having casual sex then i am definitely out....
Arguable.
Even if they were, more fundamentally than that they're based on precedent.
Which, come to think of it, is a pretty damn Catholic concept, akin to Apostolic Succession.
Contrast the Jewish system of Book + Rabbi of your choice, or Islam's Book + read it yourself + Imam of your choice - both much closer to civil (Napoleonic) law.
Do you know, I completely missed the bits of the articles linked to from here that say that these Sharia courts will have the legal power to sentence women to death for wearing skirts. Would you mind pointing me in the right direction or are you going to stop acting like a hysterical numpty?
It's certainly true that Sharia law, as it stands, is deeply patriarchical but the fact remains that these religious courts are nothing new. They've existed since the year dot and nothing is going to change just because they're in the papers now.
harpo
Listening to Radio Jackie
No doubt there are many comparisons to be made, but the British court system is not based deliberately and systematically on christianity.
yea thats what i was talking about....thanks for the details
I don't think most islamic people are into it either, certainly not over here. plenty of people i knew where i lived in newcastle were muslims but they were just normal people with the same outlook as anyone else they didn't eat bacon or drink but that was the only thing that was wrong with them
you also completely missed what i was saying
go and have a lie down, then in about 20 minutes come back and read it again
Or you could just explain just how you think the stoning of women in the Middle East is relevant to a discussion of Sharia arbitration in the UK.
Dhimmi
Half Man Half HobNob
Things will change, especially Muslim women's rights in this country, and the rights of oppressed minorities abroad. It's already started.
The UN Human Rights Council is not allowed to judge religions, according to president Doru Romulus Costea of Romania. Criticism of Sharia law or fatwas is now forbidden.
This ruling follows attempts by the Egyptian and Pakistani delegates at the Council to silence criticism of human rights abuse in the Islamic world.
The representative of the Association for World Education, in a joint statement with the International Humanist and Ethical Union, had denounced the stoning to death of women accused of adultery and of girls being married at the age of nine years old in countries where Sharia law applies.
The speaker, David Littman, was interrupted by no fewer than 16 points of order and the proceedings of the Council were suspended for forty minutes when the Egyptian delegate said that “Islam will not be crucified in this Council” and attempted to force a vote on whether the speaker should be allowed to continue.
On giving his ruling after the break Council President Costea said that the Council "is not prepared to discuss religious questions and we don’t have to do so". "Declarations must avoid judgments or evaluation about religion. … I promise that next time a speaker judges a religion or a religious law or document, I will interrupt him and pass on to the next speaker".
Litmann, who is also a representative for the World Union of Progressive Judaism, had been threatened before following a statement he made in January in which he had criticized the Hamas rocket attacks on Israel, a matter deemed irrelevant by the Council in the debate condemning Israeli incursions into Gaza. When stopped, Litmann had opined that “there is something rotten in the state of this Council”. For this, the WUPJ had been threatened with expulsion form the UN and its president summoned to appear before the NGO Committee in New York and forced to apologise.
In commenting on Monday’s events at a press conference on Wednesday 18 June, outgoing UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, said: "It is very concerning in a Council which should be... the guardian of freedom of expression, to see constraints or taboos,
or subjects that become taboo for discussion.” She did not refer specifically to the incident in the Council on Monday but she pointed to treatment of homosexuals in many countries -- prosecuted as criminals in a number of Islamic and some other states -- as "fundamental" to debate on sexual discrimination around the world. "It is difficult for me to accept that a Council that is the guardian of legality, prevents the presentation of serious analysis or discussion on questions of the evolution of the concept of non-discrimination,"
from: http://www.iheu.org/node/3193
N_igma
Epistemic nuisance
What about the use of Sharia Law in Nigeria? It seems to work hand in hand with the normal judicial system of that country and afaik there are no stonings or requirement of women to wear a burqa.
yes because sharia law is completely arbitrary and there is fuck all we can do about it lol
Obviously there's a connection, in the sense that the two are both derived from Islam, the point is that while Sharia courts in some countries in the Middle East do have the power to sentence people to death for any number of things, the Sharia courts being discussed on this thread do not and never will. It's an irrelevance.
is nigeria not famous for 'circumcising' women with jagged rocks cos they love allah so much?
harpo
Listening to Radio Jackie
N_igma
Epistemic nuisance
Again, it's a cultural thing. I don't think female circumcision happens in the Middle East though correct me if I'm wrong.
The island of Britain has a long and lengthy legal history going back to the Magna Carta. There are certain values, customs and norms unique to Britain; allowing Sharia Laws in certain civil matters concerning Muslims won't change that for the rest of us. There'd be a revolution if it was tried.
the point is it's a fucking horrible medieval set of laws
harpo
Listening to Radio Jackie
Yes women are circumcised in the middle east, and in a worse way that the typicial practises of west African muslim countries. Instead of 'just' removal of the clitoris, girls are sewn up to ensure extra purity guarantees for hubby. Nice. That's, of couse, if they have't died from blood poisoning.
Egypt - yes.
Sudan - yes.
Somalia - some parts.
Ethiopia - some parts.
Palestine - no.
Iraq - not areas of majority Arab heritage, only Kurdistan, reportedly.
Syria, Lebanon, Jordan - no.
Turkey - no.
In Ethiopia, I'm pretty sure it's Christians doing it. Which rather neatly makes the point that it's a pre-Islamic regional thing - yes - according to the US State Department Ethiopian Jews do it, as well as Christians doing the most appalling form.
but that's their right, they should be allowed to do permanent damage to women over here if that's their culture. we don't want to be seen as racist after all
The US system is pretty fucking mediaeval. And it's a "common-law" system, just like the UK is a "common-law" system. And the UK is different.
Got it yet?
See the results of my quick search for actual data, above. Sudan and Somalia are not in the Middle East.
Similar threads
