Atheistforums.com

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfiel ... haria-law/ (http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/majority-of-netherlands-favors-ban-on-sharia-law/)

QuotePolls don't mean that much unless there are political parties and leaders willing to implement them. The Netherlands may represent the first time that the counterjihad stars have aligned in a single country. Wilders' popularity is rising and tolerance for Islamic terror is declining.

More than three quarters of the Dutch (77 percent) believe that Islam is no enrichment for our country. More than two-thirds – 68 percent – say that there is enough Islam in the Netherlands. It is striking that a majority of voters from all political parties (from PVV to VVD, CDA, D66, PvdA, SP and 50plus) share this view.

PvdA is the Netherlands Labour Party. SP is the Socialist Party.

A poll conducted by the research bureau of Maurice de Hond (the Dutch equivalent of Gallup), commissioned by the PVV, among a representative sample of over 1,900 people also shows other striking results:

A majority of 55 percent favors stopping immigration from Islamic countries.

63 percent say: no new mosques.

72 percent favor a constitutional ban on Sharia law in the Netherlands.

64 percent say that the arrival of immigrants from Islamic countries has not been beneficial to the Netherlands.

Nearly three-quarters – 73 percent – of all Dutch see a relationship between Islam and the recent terror acts in Boston, London and Paris.

PVV leader Geert Wilders: "The results are very clear. The Netherlands has had enough of Islam. The majority do not want new immigrants from Islamic countries, nor any new mosques. They think that Islam is no enrichment for the Netherlands and say: Enough is enough. I will confront the Dutch government with these findings and demand that we finally stop the Islamisation of the Netherlands. For a long time is has been claimed that anti-Islamic opinions are extremist. It is clear now that a majority of our people supports them!"

Maybe the new gates aren't in Vienna after all.

Good. Now if the government acts politically to stop the influx of immigrants and works to limit or remove Sharia Law, we're getting somewhere.

QuoteA majority of 55 percent favors stopping immigration from Islamic countries.

I do not like this number. Just because you are from an Islamic country does not make you an Islamist, anymore than me being from America makes me a redneck, gay hating, gun totting, arrogant psychopath.

Reduce immigration numbers? Fine. Screen people who come in? Fine. But an outright ban on immigration crosses the line imo. So many of them come to get an education, and denying them that opportunity will help neither your country nor theirs.

Quote63 percent say: no new mosques.

I don't know the number of mosques in the Netherlands, so I cant say anything about them having too many already or whatever. But again I think what would be more effective is screen the imams and the congregation before allowing a mosque to be built; if it is a group of Muslims who are willing to integrate into society (as so many are), then let them have it. Unless churches or synagogues also not suppose to be built, in which case don't let them have it. And if you screen people coming into the country to keep those who won't integrate out, this becomes even less of a problem.

Quote72 percent favor a constitutional ban on Sharia law in the Netherlands.

No argument here.

Quote64 percent say that the arrival of immigrants from Islamic countries has not been beneficial to the Netherlands.

Perhaps its coming from two high immigrant states, but to me this again sounds bad. Conservatives here say the same thing... "Mexican immigrants are destroying our nation!". Yes, there are Mexicans that commit violent crime or are related to the drug cartels; but there are also a shitload who do jobs that your average American wouldn't or who go on to be professional workers.

Otherwise I agree with them for the most part; I just don't think the answer is ban all Muslims.

This is obviously a highly conservative slant. somebody like Gerard might weigh in on a more liberal view, I don't know. But if the polls are correct, it would appear the levels of liberal tolerance are declining. Remains to be seen how other European countries react as well.

I am rather suspicious of polls being commissioned by the primary "anti-Islam" party in the Netherlands, the same one that's full of people who never come up with any solutions but do blame everything on Islam and are good at shouting and getting a following from the botom of dutch society, and then having that poll align perfectly with what they've been saying. I'd rather have seen the poll being commissioned by a more objective source.

That said, count me in the alleged 72% that's for a constitutional ban on sharia law, that shit belongs in the middle ages, not western europe in the 21st century. And overall, not an awful lot of good has come from islamic immigrants, but that doesn't mean we should hold the shit a lot of them do against the ones that don't.

Fuck the polls. Who cares what humans want? Allah didn't create them to enjoy life.

Quran 51:56  And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me.

Now get down in the dirt and grovel to me.

Well... why not?

Its not as if there has ever been much of an attempt by Europe`s Muslim population to be accepting or open minded themselves. I figured something like this was inevitable in that part of the world.

I think that any imposing culture, law, what have you, that doesn't jive with the countries already established laws should be circumspect. Seeing as Sharia Law is so brutish, I have a hard time seeing any extent of Sharia being imposed with the already preceding laws.

In the US, some idiot lawmakers have proposed and passed bans on Sharia law. What a waste of time and money. How is anyone going to "impose" Sharia in a country that already has rule of law? Stupid.

Honestly, I think the way the Dutch feel is understandable.

No one can be expected to willingly invite a specific group of people into their country when all too often this group of people have sought to undermine the countries they have already been welcomed into.

I'd like a ban on 'bible law' as well. Christians don't assimilate well either. Look how long it's taken to assimilate with the founding principles of the separation of church and state here in the US..  

Oh wait.. they haven't..

Yeah. The Netherlands is finally considering to let shops open on sunday whenever they feel like it instead of making all sorts of rules about who can and cannot be open. I'm willing to bet the rule stayed on the books as long as it did mostly because of the religious folks.

Quote from: "Plu"Yeah. The Netherlands is finally considering to let shops open on sunday whenever they feel like it instead of making all sorts of rules about who can and cannot be open. I'm willing to bet the rule stayed on the books as long as it did mostly because of the religious folks.

They finally did away with most 'blue laws' here although some are still in effect. I suspect it was so commerce didn't grind to a halt one day a week because even Texas repealed most of theirs. God is NOT pleased and keeps killing people there with tornadoes.

Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"

Quote from: "Plu"Yeah. The Netherlands is finally considering to let shops open on sunday whenever they feel like it instead of making all sorts of rules about who can and cannot be open. I'm willing to bet the rule stayed on the books as long as it did mostly because of the religious folks.

They finally did away with most 'blue laws' here although some are still in effect. I suspect it was so commerce didn't grind to a halt one day a week because even Texas repealed most of theirs. God is NOT pleased and keeps killing people there with tornadoes.

I think you've got Oklahoma on your mind, kid.

Many counties in Minnesota still don't allow liquor stores to be open on Sunday.

Quote from: "Jmpty"Many counties in Minnesota still don't allow liquor stores to be open on Sunday.

Those goddamned rednecks.

Texas gets hit by tornadoes regularly as well. Oklahoma just gets the headlines because of their many fags bringing gods wrath.

Quote from: "Jmpty"In the US, some idiot lawmakers have proposed and passed bans on Sharia law. What a waste of time and money. How is anyone going to "impose" Sharia in a country that already has rule of law? Stupid.

We thought that in the UK, and hey-ho, we have sharia courts now.

The problem is that while their rulings are not legally binding, they are often fully accepted within the conservative muslim community. They do things like rule that women are not allowed to divorce their husbands, and apply massive, huge social pressure on them not to go to a UK court to file a divorce (where they might actually be treated like a human being), flouting the rulings of a sharia court could lead to being disowned by the community/your family and thinking that you're going to hell, people are also sometimes subjected to threats of physical harm or even death for disobeying sharia court rulings. Often the rulings given by sharia courts are behind closed doors, ignore basic UK/EU human rights and sometimes they even advise illegal behaviour.

So, sharia law and sharia courts can absolutely get out of hand if they are not legislated against and they are able to be scrutinised properly by the authorities, which is what has happened in the UK. They are a law unto themselves in many cases.

You think it cannot be imposed because the percentage of the US's population that identifies as muslim is a tiny fraction.

Quote from: "SilentFutility"

Quote from: "Jmpty"In the US, some idiot lawmakers have proposed and passed bans on Sharia law. What a waste of time and money. How is anyone going to "impose" Sharia in a country that already has rule of law? Stupid.

We thought that in the UK, and hey-ho, we have sharia courts now.

The problem is that while their rulings are not legally binding, they are often fully accepted within the conservative muslim community. They do things like rule that women are not allowed to divorce their husbands, and apply massive, huge social pressure on them not to go to a UK court to file a divorce (where they might actually be treated like a human being), flouting the rulings of a sharia court could lead to being disowned by the community/your family and thinking that you're going to hell, people are also sometimes subjected to threats of physical harm or even death for disobeying sharia court rulings. Often the rulings given by sharia courts are behind closed doors, ignore basic UK/EU human rights and sometimes they even advise illegal behaviour.

So, sharia law and sharia courts can absolutely get out of hand if they are not legislated against and they are able to be scrutinised properly by the authorities, which is what has happened in the UK. They are a law unto themselves in many cases.

You think it cannot be imposed because the percentage of the US's population that identifies as muslim is a tiny fraction.

Sounds just like the Catholic church, or the Mormons, or Scientology, or..........

Quote from: "SilentFutility"

Quote from: "Jmpty"In the US, some idiot lawmakers have proposed and passed bans on Sharia law. What a waste of time and money. How is anyone going to "impose" Sharia in a country that already has rule of law? Stupid.

We thought that in the UK, and hey-ho, we have sharia courts now.

The problem is that while their rulings are not legally binding, they are often fully accepted within the conservative muslim community. They do things like rule that women are not allowed to divorce their husbands, and apply massive, huge social pressure on them not to go to a UK court to file a divorce (where they might actually be treated like a human being), flouting the rulings of a sharia court could lead to being disowned by the community/your family and thinking that you're going to hell, people are also sometimes subjected to threats of physical harm or even death for disobeying sharia court rulings. Often the rulings given by sharia courts are behind closed doors, ignore basic UK/EU human rights and sometimes they even advise illegal behaviour.

And you think that by passing laws that make this sort of thing illegal, not just legally ignored, Sharia courts will stop existing, and women won't be shunned by their families for seeking divorces?

That's a naive viewpoint, at best.  It will take a few generations of no Sharia court before some people will even start thinking that women have the right to divorce their husbands.  There are still Christians in Western society who don't accept that concept, and Christianity hasn't been the law in centuries.

Quote from: "Jmpty"How is anyone going to "impose" Sharia in a country that already has rule of law? Stupid.

Quote from: "Jmpty"Sounds just like the Catholic church, or the Mormons, or Scientology, or..........

Okay.

You asked how, I explained how.

Quote from: "Colanth"And you think that by passing laws that make this sort of thing illegal, not just legally ignored, Sharia courts will stop existing, and women won't be shunned by their families for seeking divorces?

That's a naive viewpoint, at best.  It will take a few generations of no Sharia court before some people will even start thinking that women have the right to divorce their husbands.  There are still Christians in Western society who don't accept that concept, and Christianity hasn't been the law in centuries.

No, I don't, but at the very least it leaves people open to proecution for their crimes rather than allowing it.
Making theft illegal doesn't stop it either, this doesn't mean that lawmakers are naive for making it illegal.
Also, just because I think something should be accounted for in legislation, doesn't mean that I think that's all that should be done about it.

I don't feel that taking a step towards a solution is naive just because it doesn't immediately and completely solve what is a significant social problem spanning generations. If everyone took that attitude to domestic policy making then no long-term problems would ever get solved. I'm not saying that that is your attitude, but it is food for thought. Obviously problems like this won't go away overnight, so what steps can we take to solve them? One step forwards is better than none.

All of this was a response to "how can sharia courts impose sharia law on a country where there is rule of law?" anyway. The UK has rule of law, sharia courts are causing problems there. I gave an example that answers the question.

The recent BBC Panorama investigation on sharia councils raised important questions about fairness and openness in Britain's sharia councils, but was intended more as an exposé than a balanced account. Such is their prerogative, but quite a different picture emerges from the several academic studies of the councils and their clients: imperfect institutions responding to a demand for a religious (not a legal) service.

Firstly, let's recognise that we have so many media accounts of sharia councils because they have opened their doors widely to the press. In sessions I attend in the largest council – based in Leyton and featured in the Panorama programme – and in the Birmingham central mosque council, I sit alongside film crews and journalists from UK, US, and French media. Let's consider the charges often made against them.

Are they "parallel legal systems"? They provide a religious divorce that has no civil-law effect, as do councils serving other UK religious communities, of which the Beth Din is the best known. Indeed, the two councils I study require that couples who have a civil marriage begin civil divorce proceedings before they take up the case. They do not rule on child residence or assets, knowing full well that only courts can issue enforceable orders. But do UK courts ever "rubber-stamp" a sharia council opinion on children or assets, as if often claimed by the media? I have looked for such cases, asking family law barristers and judges, and have come up dry: judges will look out for the best interests of the child and a fair division of assets in all cases that come to their courts.

Do the councils discriminate against women? Well, the major monotheisms do discriminate against women, each in its own way. Muslim men and women have unequal divorce powers: a man can divorce his wife without her consent, whereas a woman needs to either persuade him to do so or to ask a judge or, in lands without Islamic judges, a sharia council, to end the marriage. That is why the councils exist (in India, the US and elsewhere, as well as in the UK) and why women are their major clients. We might deplore this inequality in Islam, and also deplore inequality in orthodox Judaism – where women are more dependent on men to release them from marriage than are their Muslim sisters – and in the different strains of Christianity. But the sharia councils did not create this particular divorce inequality; they are a response to it.

Do they charge women higher fees than men? Yes, generally twice as much, because for men they simply issue a certificate, whereas granting a woman a divorce is a more lengthy procedure, involving multiple letters to notify the husband and the chance for him to present his case, regardless of his country of residence. Is it too long? Sometimes: I found that for the busiest and therefore slowest council (Leyton), about 45% of cases were decided in six to eight months, 45% in 10-19 months, and 10% took much longer, either because the petitioner asked the council to wait, or because the council simply failed to act in an efficient manner. They could do better, but so could the courts.

Do they encourage violence toward women? No: as the Leyton council member said, even in the highly edited Panorama report, "this is not allowed". Councils do urge couples to reconcile (although they rarely do) and to attend joint meetings, but most often these meetings do not occur, and phone interviews are conducted with the absent party.

Do some councils seem out of touch with gender roles in the UK? I think so. Learned in religious matters, some councillors are less so in navigating the British social world. As a new generation, including more women, takes on these roles, the tone of council sessions will change as well. Indeed, it is already happening in some newer councils. Balanced media criticism, based on objectively gathered evidence, could remind them how important these changes will be.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ls-balance (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2013/apr/26/panorama-expose-sharia-councils-balance)

This sort of thing will only end when religion ends.

Quote from: "Jmpty"This sort of thing will only end when religion ends.

Maybe so, but we can stop the symptoms of extreme religious belief being a problem by coming up with sensible solutions towards dealing with them.

I'm not necessarily even saying that sharia courts should be banned. I'm saying that if problems like this are left undealt with they get worse, and that they do need to be dealt with. There are many possible solutions but fundamentally, making people accountable to the laws of the land they have immigrated to, or their ancestors have immigrated to should be a priority. Nobody should be immune from justice.

Quote from: "SilentFutility"

Quote from: "Jmpty"How is anyone going to "impose" Sharia in a country that already has rule of law? Stupid.

Quote from: "Jmpty"Sounds just like the Catholic church, or the Mormons, or Scientology, or..........

Okay.

You asked how, I explained how.

Quote from: "Colanth"And you think that by passing laws that make this sort of thing illegal, not just legally ignored, Sharia courts will stop existing, and women won't be shunned by their families for seeking divorces?

That's a naive viewpoint, at best.  It will take a few generations of no Sharia court before some people will even start thinking that women have the right to divorce their husbands.  There are still Christians in Western society who don't accept that concept, and Christianity hasn't been the law in centuries.

No, I don't, but at the very least it leaves people open to proecution for their crimes rather than allowing it.
Making theft illegal doesn't stop it either, this doesn't mean that lawmakers are naive for making it illegal.
Also, just because I think something should be accounted for in legislation, doesn't mean that I think that's all that should be done about it.

I don't feel that taking a step towards a solution is naive just because it doesn't immediately and completely solve what is a significant social problem spanning generations.

It's naive to think that taking away the solutions that people have come up with to solve their problems (even though they're not good solutions) will solve the initial problems.

Doing away with Sharia law won't keep a man from refusing to divorce his wife.  Or keep her family from shunning her if she gets divorced.  Only educating the entire population will do that - and that takes generations.

QuoteOne step forwards is better than none.

But removing a woman's option isn't a step forward, it's a step back.

QuoteAll of this was a response to "how can sharia courts impose sharia law on a country where there is rule of law?" anyway. The UK has rule of law, sharia courts are causing problems there.

The desire of the people to have Sharia law imposed (and imposing it on an informal basis - which no law will prevent) is what's causing the problem.

Muslims are free, in the UK, to avail themselves of the UK justice system.  Many of them won't, whether you allow Sharia courts or not.  That's the problem.  They want to live in the UK, but under the laws of the country they came from.  They refuse to assimilate.

Quote from: "Colanth"Muslims are free, in the UK, to avail themselves of the UK justice system.  Many of them won't, whether you allow Sharia courts or not.  That's the problem.  They want to live in the UK, but under the laws of the country they came from.  They refuse to assimilate.

They haven't assimilated anywhere, and they won't. This is true even in the US, although there are such a minority that they are almost invisible, accounting for about 1% of the population.

QuoteDoing away with Sharia law won't keep a man from refusing to divorce his wife.

Since when does the man's opinion have anything to do with whether or not his wife can divorce him? The family shunning her is one thing (it should teach her that they are fucking idiots and she should probably never deal with them again; but she probably won't, but at least it's her own fault) but the court should still be able to divorce her even if her husband doesn't want to.

To be honest, if she refuses to leave because she is scared of life and being alone, I consider that to be her own problem.

The goal is to give options. They have the option. The rest is up to them.

Quote from: "Colanth"It's naive to think that taking away the solutions that people have come up with to solve their problems (even though they're not good solutions) will solve the initial problems.

Sharia courts are solutions to nothing. If you have a money dispute, you go to small claims court. If you want a divorce, you file for divorce, etc. By deliberately allowing for sharia courts in law and going out of our way to accommodate them, we are not only passively allowing them to happen, we are actively sending out the message that people can circumvent UK law and aren't accountable to it. If I set up my own court and gave out my rulings I'd likely be shut down at the very least, or worse face charges. Why does someone else get the right to flout the UK court system and set up their own? I'll tell you why, it's because everyone is scared to criticise islam for fear of being labelled a bigot, or more commonly a "racist" in England, despite islam not being a race, but I digress.

Quote from: "Colanth"Doing away with Sharia law won't keep a man from refusing to divorce his wife.  Or keep her family from shunning her if she gets divorced.  Only educating the entire population will do that - and that takes generations.

If a woman goes to a UK court and files for divorce and the man refuses, then the dispute can be settled fairly and legally, and if the woman has valid reasons for divorce then she can. If I wanted to leave my wife but thought I'd get fucked over by the UK court system, I wouldn't have the option of going to a special court that I know will rule in my favour.

I didn't say removing the courts would stop all problems withing the muslim community. They are a problem in themselves, and they need to be dealt with. Just because there are other problems doesn't mean this one shouldn't be solved.

Quote from: "Colanth"

QuoteOne step forwards is better than none.

But removing a woman's option isn't a step forward, it's a step back.

The option to circumvent the UK court system should not exist just because you believe in a magic man in the sky. Other UK citizens of other creeds are not granted this right.

Quote from: "Colanth"The desire of the people to have Sharia law imposed (and imposing it on an informal basis - which no law will prevent) is what's causing the problem.

Exactly, so why not stop bending over backwards to allow illegitimate courts pass judgement, whilst simultaneously sending out the message that imposing sharia is a-okay?

Quote from: "Colanth"It's naive to think that taking away the solutions that people have come up with to solve their problems (even though they're not good solutions) will solve the initial problems.

Sharia courts are solutions to nothing. If you have a money dispute, you go to small claims court. If you want a divorce, you file for divorce, etc. By deliberately allowing for sharia courts in law and going out of our way to accommodate them, we are not only passively allowing them to happen, we are actively sending out the message that people can circumvent UK law and aren't accountable to it. If I set up my own court and gave out my rulings I'd likely be shut down at the very least, or worse face charges.

Quote from: "Colanth"Doing away with Sharia law won't keep a man from refusing to divorce his wife.  Or keep her family from shunning her if she gets divorced.  Only educating the entire population will do that - and that takes generations.

If a woman goes to a UK court and files for divorce and the man refuses, then the dispute can be settled fairly and legally, and if the woman has valid reasons for divorce then she can.

I didn't say removing the courts would stop all problems withing the muslim community. They are a problem in themselves.

Quote from: "Colanth"

QuoteOne step forwards is better than none.

But removing a woman's option isn't a step forward, it's a step back.

The option to circumvent the UK court system should not exist just because you believe in a magic man in the sky. Other UK citizens of other creeds are not granted this right.

Quote from: "Colanth"The desire of the people to have Sharia law imposed (and imposing it on an informal basis - which no law will prevent) is what's causing the problem.

Exactly, so why not stop bending over backwards to allow illegitimate courts pass judgement, whilst simultaneously sending out the message that imposing sharia is a-okay?

Quote from: "Colanth"Muslims are free, in the UK, to avail themselves of the UK justice system.  Many of them won't, whether you allow Sharia courts or not.

Being subject to UK courts isn't a choice. If you have a matter that you would like settled with legal finality and you choose not to make use of the universal, fair court system that was good enough to be emulated, then that's your problem. You don't get to set up a special one with different rules. If they come and live here and don't take advantage of fair treatment and taxpayer-provided services, then it's their fault for not benefitting from them.

Quote from: "Colanth"That's the problem.  They want to live in the UK, but under the laws of the country they came from.  They refuse to assimilate.

Yeah, and our government bends over backwards to allow them to distance themselves further and to give them special treatment. If they won't assimilate, then fine, but if they refuse to participate in society we shouldn't be giving them extra rights that nobody else gets.

Immigrants not wanting to participate in society is a big problem.
Rewarding them for not doing so is not helping one little bit.

Quote from: "SilentFutility"

Quote from: "Colanth"It's naive to think that taking away the solutions that people have come up with to solve their problems (even though they're not good solutions) will solve the initial problems.

Sharia courts are solutions to nothing. If you have a money dispute, you go to small claims court. If you want a divorce, you file for divorce, etc.

If you want a divorce that will be recognized by the society you're living in (a Muslim society in this case) you go to a religious court.  The British courts can't grant divorces that are recognized by the Muslim community.  Yet.  If and when the Muslim community decides to become part of British society, that will change.

QuoteBy deliberately allowing for sharia courts in law and going out of our way to accommodate them, we are not only passively allowing them to happen, we are actively sending out the message that people can circumvent UK law and aren't accountable to it.

In this case it's not circumventing any law.  The woman can still go to the British court and get a divorce, but to be recognized as a divorced woman by Muslim society, she has to get a religious divorce.

QuoteIf I set up my own court and gave out my rulings I'd likely be shut down at the very least, or worse face charges.

If you grant "marriage" to couples, and claim (to them) to be the only authority able to dissolve those "marriages", no one is going to say anything.  If they want your kind of marriage they have to go to you.  If they want a legally binding marriage they have to go to the state.  That's the situation here - these women don't care whether the British government recognizes their marriage or divorce, all they care is whether their society, Muslim society, recognizes them.

QuoteWhy does someone else get the right to flout the UK court system and set up their own?

How is it flouting anything?  A woman divorced in a Sharia court is still legally married according to the law - unless she's obtained a legal divorce.  A Sharia divorce in England has as much legal weight as 2 5 year olds declaring themselves "married" when they play house.  But to them it matters.

QuoteI didn't say removing the courts would stop all problems withing the muslim community. They are a problem in themselves, and they need to be dealt with.

You deal with them by education, not by making laws that will just be ignored.

QuoteJust because there are other problems doesn't mean this one shouldn't be solved.

Which one?  Women being able to be divorced in the eyes of their community?  Something that has nothing to do with the law?  How is that a problem?

The problem is people being attacked or killed for not being Muslim but coming into Muslim neighborhoods - and that has nothing to do with Sharia courts.  That should be dealt with the same way everything else in this world should be dealt with - by totally ignoring the religious aspect.  Assault and murder are illegal.  It makes no difference whether you assault someone for the hell of it, because you don't like him or because he's an infidel in a Muslim neighborhood - you go to prison for assault.

Religious freedom means the freedom to believe what you want, not the freedom to do what you want.  If your religion requires you to do something that's illegal, your religion can't be practiced where that act is illegal.  (At least, not that part of your religion.)

Or is England about to allow Thuggees the freedom to send sacrifices to Kali?

Quote

Quote from: "Colanth"

QuoteOne step forwards is better than none.

But removing a woman's option isn't a step forward, it's a step back.

The option to circumvent the UK court system should not exist just because you believe in a magic man in the sky. Other UK citizens of other creeds are not granted this right.

How is it circumventing anything?  To be legally divorced, a Muslim woman has to go to a British court (or however divorce is done there).  To get a religious divorce - the State has no business telling Islam what constitutes an Islamic divorce.

Quote

Quote from: "Colanth"The desire of the people to have Sharia law imposed (and imposing it on an informal basis - which no law will prevent) is what's causing the problem.

Exactly, so why not stop bending over backwards to allow illegitimate courts pass judgement, whilst simultaneously sending out the message that imposing sharia is a-okay?

Because you're conflating two totally unconnected things.

The British legal system has no business telling Islam what constitutes an Islamic marriage or an Islamic divorce.

That has nothing to do with people not being prosecuted for violating British law.

Getting "married" in some sham religious mumbo-jumbo isn't a violation of the law, it's play time.  If you want a legally recognized marriage you still have to get one the way the government says you have to.  (Which is a completely different thread - should the government be involved in marriage at all?)  If a Muslim woman goes to the courts and obtains a divorce, she's legally divorced.  Whether the Sharia court recognizes that fact or not is irrelevant - she's divorced.  But only legally, not according to the rules of Islam.  If that matters to her (and here's where religious freedom enters), she has to apply to a Sharia court for a divorce.  The government should not be able to grant religious divorces.

Quote

Quote from: "Colanth"It's naive to think that taking away the solutions that people have come up with to solve their problems (even though they're not good solutions) will solve the initial problems.

Sharia courts are solutions to nothing. If you have a money dispute, you go to small claims court. If you want a divorce, you file for divorce, etc.

Again - if you want a divorce recognized by the Muslim community, you get one from a Sharia court.  That has absolutely nothing to do with British law.  If you haven't obtained a British divorce you're still legally married.  But the Islamic divorce is important to those who believe it is.  (And the last time I looked, Britain guarantees freedom of belief.)  It does nothing legally, but it's important to the person getting it.  Like the color of her nails or the style of her shoes.

QuoteBy deliberately allowing for sharia courts in law

No one said "in law" - other than "in Islamic law".  Break a British law and you face trial in a British court.  You want a legal right, you apply to the British government.

But if you want to make believe that you're "married" in the eyes of Allah, or that you're divorced in his eyes, you go to a Sharia court.  I'm not advocating writing Sharia into the legal system, just letting people who want to play in that sandbox the right to play there.  They still go to time out if they hit their friends.

Quote

Quote from: "Colanth"Doing away with Sharia law won't keep a man from refusing to divorce his wife.  Or keep her family from shunning her if she gets divorced.  Only educating the entire population will do that - and that takes generations.

If a woman goes to a UK court and files for divorce and the man refuses, then the dispute can be settled fairly and legally, and if the woman has valid reasons for divorce then she can.

Regardless, if the court grants her the divorce, but she hasn't gotten one from a Sharia court, her society, her friends and family, will have nothing to do with her.  She's a non-person to them.  If the Sharia court grants her a divorce it's a different situation for her.

Quote

Quote from: "Colanth"

QuoteOne step forwards is better than none.

But removing a woman's option isn't a step forward, it's a step back.

The option to circumvent the UK court system

No one said anything about circumventing anything.

Quote

Quote from: "Colanth"The desire of the people to have Sharia law imposed (and imposing it on an informal basis - which no law will prevent) is what's causing the problem.

Exactly, so why not stop bending over backwards to allow illegitimate courts pass judgement, whilst simultaneously sending out the message that imposing sharia is a-okay?

No one (here, at my desk) is advocating the imposition of Sharia law.  You're advocating closing down all Sharia courts.  Why?  They don't hurt anything.  They're play-acting, alongside the real legal system.

The problem is the British legal system, which refuses to tell the people that, regardless of what a Sharia court finds, the law of the country, the secular law, will be upheld.  They can play in Sharia courts all they like, but they can't harass people for being on the wrong street.  They can't force a woman to not seek a LEGAL divorce if she wants one.  And an "honor killing" will be treated as just what it is - premeditated murder with no justification.  The only alternative to that is to plead that, as a Muslim, one isn't responsible for his actions.  And I think the Imams would make short shrift of that claim (and of the claimant).

Quote

Quote from: "Colanth"Muslims are free, in the UK, to avail themselves of the UK justice system.  Many of them won't, whether you allow Sharia courts or not.

Being subject to UK courts isn't a choice.

I didn't say "subject to", I said "avail themselves of".  MANY Muslim women will not seek a divorce in a British court, they want a divorce in a Sharia court.  The British court is available to them, but no one can force them to use it.

QuoteIf you have a matter that you would like settled with legal finality

Sharia courts settle matters with Islamic legal finality, not British legal finality.  And that's as it should be.  Whether you're accepted as a member of the Muslim community shouldn't be subject to British courts, but to Sharia courts.

Please stop putting words into my mouth and please stop conflating "allowing" with "forcing".

Long quote wall that causes Colin Powell to seethe with furious anger (for those who remember our popular meme).

[spoil:1y1w9esv]

Quote from: "Colanth"

Quote from: "SilentFutility"

Quote from: "Colanth"It's naive to think that taking away the solutions that people have come up with to solve their problems (even though they're not good solutions) will solve the initial problems.

Sharia courts are solutions to nothing. If you have a money dispute, you go to small claims court. If you want a divorce, you file for divorce, etc.

If you want a divorce that will be recognized by the society you're living in (a Muslim society in this case) you go to a religious court.  The British courts can't grant divorces that are recognized by the Muslim community.  Yet.  If and when the Muslim community decides to become part of British society, that will change.

QuoteBy deliberately allowing for sharia courts in law and going out of our way to accommodate them, we are not only passively allowing them to happen, we are actively sending out the message that people can circumvent UK law and aren't accountable to it.

In this case it's not circumventing any law.  The woman can still go to the British court and get a divorce, but to be recognized as a divorced woman by Muslim society, she has to get a religious divorce.

QuoteIf I set up my own court and gave out my rulings I'd likely be shut down at the very least, or worse face charges.

If you grant "marriage" to couples, and claim (to them) to be the only authority able to dissolve those "marriages", no one is going to say anything.  If they want your kind of marriage they have to go to you.  If they want a legally binding marriage they have to go to the state.  That's the situation here - these women don't care whether the British government recognizes their marriage or divorce, all they care is whether their society, Muslim society, recognizes them.

QuoteWhy does someone else get the right to flout the UK court system and set up their own?

How is it flouting anything?  A woman divorced in a Sharia court is still legally married according to the law - unless she's obtained a legal divorce.  A Sharia divorce in England has as much legal weight as 2 5 year olds declaring themselves "married" when they play house.  But to them it matters.

QuoteI didn't say removing the courts would stop all problems withing the muslim community. They are a problem in themselves, and they need to be dealt with.

You deal with them by education, not by making laws that will just be ignored.

QuoteJust because there are other problems doesn't mean this one shouldn't be solved.

Which one?  Women being able to be divorced in the eyes of their community?  Something that has nothing to do with the law?  How is that a problem?

The problem is people being attacked or killed for not being Muslim but coming into Muslim neighborhoods - and that has nothing to do with Sharia courts.  That should be dealt with the same way everything else in this world should be dealt with - by totally ignoring the religious aspect.  Assault and murder are illegal.  It makes no difference whether you assault someone for the hell of it, because you don't like him or because he's an infidel in a Muslim neighborhood - you go to prison for assault.

Religious freedom means the freedom to believe what you want, not the freedom to do what you want.  If your religion requires you to do something that's illegal, your religion can't be practiced where that act is illegal.  (At least, not that part of your religion.)

Or is England about to allow Thuggees the freedom to send sacrifices to Kali?

Quote

Quote from: "Colanth"

QuoteOne step forwards is better than none.

But removing a woman's option isn't a step forward, it's a step back.

The option to circumvent the UK court system should not exist just because you believe in a magic man in the sky. Other UK citizens of other creeds are not granted this right.

How is it circumventing anything?  To be legally divorced, a Muslim woman has to go to a British court (or however divorce is done there).  To get a religious divorce - the State has no business telling Islam what constitutes an Islamic divorce.

Quote

Quote from: "Colanth"The desire of the people to have Sharia law imposed (and imposing it on an informal basis - which no law will prevent) is what's causing the problem.

Exactly, so why not stop bending over backwards to allow illegitimate courts pass judgement, whilst simultaneously sending out the message that imposing sharia is a-okay?

Because you're conflating two totally unconnected things.

The British legal system has no business telling Islam what constitutes an Islamic marriage or an Islamic divorce.

That has nothing to do with people not being prosecuted for violating British law.

Getting "married" in some sham religious mumbo-jumbo isn't a violation of the law, it's play time.  If you want a legally recognized marriage you still have to get one the way the government says you have to.  (Which is a completely different thread - should the government be involved in marriage at all?)  If a Muslim woman goes to the courts and obtains a divorce, she's legally divorced.  Whether the Sharia court recognizes that fact or not is irrelevant - she's divorced.  But only legally, not according to the rules of Islam.  If that matters to her (and here's where religious freedom enters), she has to apply to a Sharia court for a divorce.  The government should not be able to grant religious divorces.

Quote

Quote from: "Colanth"It's naive to think that taking away the solutions that people have come up with to solve their problems (even though they're not good solutions) will solve the initial problems.

Sharia courts are solutions to nothing. If you have a money dispute, you go to small claims court. If you want a divorce, you file for divorce, etc.

Again - if you want a divorce recognized by the Muslim community, you get one from a Sharia court.  That has absolutely nothing to do with British law.  If you haven't obtained a British divorce you're still legally married.  But the Islamic divorce is important to those who believe it is.  (And the last time I looked, Britain guarantees freedom of belief.)  It does nothing legally, but it's important to the person getting it.  Like the color of her nails or the style of her shoes.

QuoteBy deliberately allowing for sharia courts in law

No one said "in law" - other than "in Islamic law".  Break a British law and you face trial in a British court.  You want a legal right, you apply to the British government.

But if you want to make believe that you're "married" in the eyes of Allah, or that you're divorced in his eyes, you go to a Sharia court.  I'm not advocating writing Sharia into the legal system, just letting people who want to play in that sandbox the right to play there.  They still go to time out if they hit their friends.

Quote

Quote from: "Colanth"Doing away with Sharia law won't keep a man from refusing to divorce his wife.  Or keep her family from shunning her if she gets divorced.  Only educating the entire population will do that - and that takes generations.

If a woman goes to a UK court and files for divorce and the man refuses, then the dispute can be settled fairly and legally, and if the woman has valid reasons for divorce then she can.

Regardless, if the court grants her the divorce, but she hasn't gotten one from a Sharia court, her society, her friends and family, will have nothing to do with her.  She's a non-person to them.  If the Sharia court grants her a divorce it's a different situation for her.

Quote

Quote from: "Colanth"

QuoteOne step forwards is better than none.

But removing a woman's option isn't a step forward, it's a step back.

The option to circumvent the UK court system

No one said anything about circumventing anything.

Quote

Quote from: "Colanth"The desire of the people to have Sharia law imposed (and imposing it on an informal basis - which no law will prevent) is what's causing the problem.

Exactly, so why not stop bending over backwards to allow illegitimate courts pass judgement, whilst simultaneously sending out the message that imposing sharia is a-okay?

No one (here, at my desk) is advocating the imposition of Sharia law.  You're advocating closing down all Sharia courts.  Why?  They don't hurt anything.  They're play-acting, alongside the real legal system.

The problem is the British legal system, which refuses to tell the people that, regardless of what a Sharia court finds, the law of the country, the secular law, will be upheld.  They can play in Sharia courts all they like, but they can't harass people for being on the wrong street.  They can't force a woman to not seek a LEGAL divorce if she wants one.  And an "honor killing" will be treated as just what it is - premeditated murder with no justification.  The only alternative to that is to plead that, as a Muslim, one isn't responsible for his actions.  And I think the Imams would make short shrift of that claim (and of the claimant).

Quote

Quote from: "Colanth"Muslims are free, in the UK, to avail themselves of the UK justice system.  Many of them won't, whether you allow Sharia courts or not.

Being subject to UK courts isn't a choice.

I didn't say "subject to", I said "avail themselves of".  MANY Muslim women will not seek a divorce in a British court, they want a divorce in a Sharia court.  The British court is available to them, but no one can force them to use it.

QuoteIf you have a matter that you would like settled with legal finality

Sharia courts settle matters with Islamic legal finality, not British legal finality.  And that's as it should be.  Whether you're accepted as a member of the Muslim community shouldn't be subject to British courts, but to Sharia courts.

Please stop putting words into my mouth and please stop conflating "allowing" with "forcing".[/quote][/spoil:1y1w9esv]

This entire conversation is basically irrelevant.  This is not about some individual Muslim woman's rights within the law.  What it is about, in its plainest and simplest terms, is a loud pronouncement "Fuck you, Abdul.  This is (your country here), and in this country we abide by THESE rules and laws, thank you very much."  It is a stripping of the legitimacy of Sharia that legality gives it.  By operating Sharia courts, how can a country ever expect all its citizens to be bound under a uniform set of laws?  So while Muslims may still attach social stigma to whatever they wish because, you know, Muslims are totally head-fucked, they cannot attach legal stigma to things that go against the established laws of (your country here).  THAT is the message...not the individual Muslim housewife.

Quote from: "Colanth"If you want a divorce that will be recognized by the society you're living in (a Muslim society in this case) you go to a religious court.  The British courts can't grant divorces that are recognized by the Muslim community.  Yet.  If and when the Muslim community decides to become part of British society, that will change

A failure of the muslim community to recognise british law should not be responded to with allowing them to dictate their own.

Quote from: "Colanth"In this case it's not circumventing any law.  The woman can still go to the British court and get a divorce, but to be recognized as a divorced woman by Muslim society, she has to get a religious divorce.

I am familiar with the concept. They still shouldn't have their own religious courts because as a society they fail to recognise the legitimacy of british courts. I understand that their community doesn't always recognise the legitimacy of british courts, and allowing them to have an alternative is making it worse.

Quote from: "Colanth"If you grant "marriage" to couples, and claim (to them) to be the only authority able to dissolve those "marriages", no one is going to say anything.  If they want your kind of marriage they have to go to you.  If they want a legally binding marriage they have to go to the state.  That's the situation here - these women don't care whether the British government recognizes their marriage or divorce, all they care is whether their society, Muslim society, recognizes them.

Exactly, they don't care about what a british court might have to say on the matter. If we continue to give them another option, they will continue to not care about THE court system.
Granting marriages was a poor example, but sharia courts do not just give advice, they actively press people to follow the rulings given out, and are even reported to use violence and intimidation to achieve this. They settle monetary disputes, family feuds etc. If we continue to actively provide an avenue for doing all of this outside of the british legal system they're going to continue to be used to doing so.

If the british legal system was the only avenue through which to pursue these matters, then they'd have to live with it.

Quote from: "Colanth"How is it flouting anything?  A woman divorced in a Sharia court is still legally married according to the law - unless she's obtained a legal divorce.  A Sharia divorce in England has as much legal weight as 2 5 year olds declaring themselves "married" when they play house.  But to them it matters.

Sharia courts don't just decide whether or not a woman can or can't divorce in the eyes of god though. They also decide what to do about other crimes reported to them, such as assaults resulting from a family feud, monetary disputes etc. etc. People have even been advised to break UK law by judges in sharia courts. Sharia law is in itself opposed to the UK legal system AND basic European Human Rights.

Quote from: "Colanth"You deal with them by education, not by making laws that will just be ignored.

When laws are ignored people are punished. That's how laws work.
I agree that this isn't going to make the muslim community integrate, this is about not giving them special treatment and allowing them to get away with things nobody should be doing.

What specific system of education would you propose?

Quote from: "Colanth"Which one?  Women being able to be divorced in the eyes of their community?  Something that has nothing to do with the law?  How is that a problem?

Intimidation, violence, oppression of women, sharia courts ignoring physical abuse of female victims and actively discouraging them from going to the UK authorities, and many other reported cases of inhumane treatment, predominantly towards women.

Quote from: "Colanth"The problem is people being attacked or killed for not being Muslim but coming into Muslim neighborhoods - and that has nothing to do with Sharia courts.

That's just another problem, not *the* problem.  

Quote from: "Colanth"That should be dealt with the same way everything else in this world should be dealt with - by totally ignoring the religious aspect.  Assault and murder are illegal.  It makes no difference whether you assault someone for the hell of it, because you don't like him or because he's an infidel in a Muslim neighborhood - you go to prison for assault.

Actually UK law makes a distinction for racially and religiously motivated assaults and homicides, but anyway, these things are illegal, agreed.

Quote from: "Colanth"Religious freedom means the freedom to believe what you want, not the freedom to do what you want.  If your religion requires you to do something that's illegal, your religion can't be practiced where that act is illegal.  (At least, not that part of your religion.)

Theoretically, sure. However, we all know that simply making bad things illegal doesn't stop people doing them, especially not when people are allowed safe havens in which to partake in illegal behaviour, such as intimidating people who want to report assaults to the police etc.

Quote from: "Colanth"Or is England about to allow Thuggees the freedom to send sacrifices to Kali?

Hopefully not.

Quote from: "Colanth"How is it circumventing anything?  To be legally divorced, a Muslim woman has to go to a British court (or however divorce is done there).  To get a religious divorce - the State has no business telling Islam what constitutes an Islamic divorce.

No, it doesn't, correct. However, the state can reasonably expected not to legitimise another legal system and allow other courts to pass judgement on things. No, their rulings don't have legal finality, but for women who speak no english who go there and are forced to sit there with their husbands who are abusing them, where the judge is actively trying to keep them together and stop it from becoming a legal matter, aren't exactly being given much of an option to free themselves from a bad situation.

Quote from: "Colanth"Because you're conflating two totally unconnected things.

The British legal system has no business telling Islam what constitutes an Islamic marriage or an Islamic divorce.

Quote from: "Colanth"That has nothing to do with people not being prosecuted for violating British law.

Getting "married" in some sham religious mumbo-jumbo isn't a violation of the law, it's play time.  If you want a legally recognized marriage you still have to get one the way the government says you have to.  (Which is a completely different thread - should the government be involved in marriage at all?)  If a Muslim woman goes to the courts and obtains a divorce, she's legally divorced.  Whether the Sharia court recognizes that fact or not is irrelevant - she's divorced.  But only legally, not according to the rules of Islam.  If that matters to her (and here's where religious freedom enters), she has to apply to a Sharia court for a divorce.  The government should not be able to grant religious divorces.

I'm not saying that having a religious ceremony is violating the law. I'm saying that calling yourself a court and doing many of the other morally questionable things that sharia courts are known to do should be violating the law.

Quote from: "Colanth"Again - if you want a divorce recognized by the Muslim community, you get one from a Sharia court.  That has absolutely nothing to do with British law.  If you haven't obtained a British divorce you're still legally married.  But the Islamic divorce is important to those who believe it is.  (And the last time I looked, Britain guarantees freedom of belief.)  It does nothing legally, but it's important to the person getting it.  Like the color of her nails or the style of her shoes.

Yes, but sharia courts are known to not be operated as plain religious ceremonies.
People are free to believe what they want.
People are free to preach what they want in the UK- unless they are inciting violence or encouraging other illegal behaviour, such as physical abuse of women, and intimidating victims of crime so that they don't go to the police.

Quote from: "Colanth"No one said "in law" - other than "in Islamic law".  Break a British law and you face trial in a British court.  You want a legal right, you apply to the British government.

"Why should any British court recognise a fatwa?

In 1996, Parliament passed the Arbitration Act setting out rules under which parties in a dispute have the right to go to an impartial tribunal to get justice without expensive litigation. Muslims lawyers interpreted this as meaning that sharia courts could act as arbitration panels under the Act, they began in 2007, and their decisions are legally binding."
source (//http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-big-question-how-do-britains-sharia-courts-work-and-are-they-a-good-thing-1724486.html).
Under some interpretations of the law, fatwas issued by sharia courts are legally recognised.

Secondly, women are actively intimidated into going through these courts instead of UK ones.

Quote from: "Colanth"But if you want to make believe that you're "married" in the eyes of Allah, or that you're divorced in his eyes, you go to a Sharia court.  I'm not advocating writing Sharia into the legal system, just letting people who want to play in that sandbox the right to play there.  They still go to time out if they hit their friends.

Except that they don't go to time out if they hit their friends, because sharia courts often do their utmost to keep matters out of the UK court system, even ones that should be there such as physical abuse.

Quote from: "Colanth"Regardless, if the court grants her the divorce, but she hasn't gotten one from a Sharia court, her society, her friends and family, will have nothing to do with her.  She's a non-person to them.  If the Sharia court grants her a divorce it's a different situation for her.

That's a reason why muslims want them, not a reason why we should allow them to have them.

Quote from: "Colanth"No one said anything about circumventing anything.

They do though. Read up on what actually goes on in them.

Quote from: "Colanth"No one (here, at my desk) is advocating the imposition of Sharia law.  You're advocating closing down all Sharia courts.  Why?  They don't hurt anything.

They don't hurt anything?!
I think not:
//http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9975937/Inside-Britains-Sharia-courts.html

They may be play-acting, but it is with real consequences.

Quote from: "Colanth"The problem is the British legal system, which refuses to tell the people that, regardless of what a Sharia court finds, the law of the country, the secular law, will be upheld.  They can play in Sharia courts all they like, but they can't harass people for being on the wrong street.  They can't force a woman to not seek a LEGAL divorce if she wants one.  And an "honor killing" will be treated as just what it is - premeditated murder with no justification.  The only alternative to that is to plead that, as a Muslim, one isn't responsible for his actions.  And I think the Imams would make short shrift of that claim (and of the claimant).

Read the link I posted about the Arbitration Act and the legal framework within which sharia courts claim to operate.

Quote from: "Colanth"I didn't say "subject to", I said "avail themselves of".  MANY Muslim women will not seek a divorce in a British court, they want a divorce in a Sharia court.  The British court is available to them, but no one can force them to use it.

That doesn't mean they should be given the other option.

Quote from: "Colanth"Sharia courts settle matters with Islamic legal finality, not British legal finality.  And that's as it should be.  Whether you're accepted as a member of the Muslim community shouldn't be subject to British courts, but to Sharia courts.

Again, Arbitration Act, they are claiming to pass legal judgement, and they could probably defend their position as being able to do so currently.

Quote from: "Colanth"Please stop putting words into my mouth and please stop conflating "allowing" with "forcing"

I'm not putting words into your mouth.
Secondly, while you still fundamentally disagree with what I'm trying to say, you are misunderstanding.

Quote from: "SilentFutility"

Quote from: "Colanth"If you want a divorce that will be recognized by the society you're living in (a Muslim society in this case) you go to a religious court.  The British courts can't grant divorces that are recognized by the Muslim community.  Yet.  If and when the Muslim community decides to become part of British society, that will change

A failure of the muslim community to recognise british law should not be responded to with allowing them to dictate their own.

It's no more a failure to recognize British law than is a Roman Catholic British couple's refusal to get a legal divorce, even though British law allows divorce.  Government should never get involved in religion.  If a religion allows or forbids certain things to its followers, the government should leave that strictly alone unless something in it violates the law.  Thuggees can't murder, even though their religion says they should.  A religion that requires you to use heroin can't supersede the law that says you can't.  But a religious law that says that you can't go out in public without a man accompanying you?  If you want to go along with that, who cares?

I don't see what the big fuss is about - as long as religion is totally ignored when it comes to enforcing actual laws.  Whether that's harassing someone for coming into your neighborhood or throwing a baby on a fire makes no difference.  If the reason is a religious one, it's legally irrelevant.  You committed the act and if your only defense is religious, you're guilty.

QuoteIf a religion allows or forbids certain things to its followers, the government should leave that strictly alone unless something in it violates the law.

The problem arises when what it does is violating the law, but the system itself covers that up by illegaly intimidating the people coming there into not going to the actual authorities, so that it can be dealt with.

Generally speaking when you have an organisation like that, the whole organisation is put on trial in the real court system. I'd say they have more than enough evidence of illegal activity within the sharia courts to declare them a criminal organisation.

Quote from: "Plu"

QuoteIf a religion allows or forbids certain things to its followers, the government should leave that strictly alone unless something in it violates the law.

The problem arises when what it does is violating the law, but the system itself covers that up by illegaly intimidating the people coming there into not going to the actual authorities, so that it can be dealt with.

Generally speaking when you have an organisation like that, the whole organisation is put on trial in the real court system. I'd say they have more than enough evidence of illegal activity within the sharia courts to declare them a criminal organisation.

It's a glorified semi-legal version of what criminal immigrant groups do in the United States.  In the early 1900's Italian and Chinese citizens rarely sought the protection of the courts, "preferring" to either pay protection to the mob or simply remain silent for fear of reprisal.  You still see it today with Eastern European groups.  This is the same thing under the guise of "cultural courts".  The Muslim leaders who want to establish such courts are nothing more than dressed up Prohibition-Era gangsters terrorizing their own communities for their personal gain, only with the approval of the state.

Top ten reasons why sharia is bad for all societies
By James Arlandson

 
 

Traditional Muslims who understand the Quran and the hadith believe that sharia (Islamic law) expresses the highest and best goals for all societies. It is the will of Allah.

But is Islam just in its laws that Muhammad himself practiced and invented?

This article says no for ten verifiable reasons.

Here are four points you must read, before reading this article:

First, sometimes these ten points quote the Quran or omit it; sometimes they quote the hadith (reports of Muhammad's words and actions outside of the Quran) or omit it. This is done only to keep down the length of the article. No one should be fooled into believing that these harsh and excessive laws were invented in the fevered imagination of extremists who came long after Muhammad. These harsh and excessive laws come directly from the founder of Islam in his Quran and in his example in the hadith.

Second, each of these ten reasons has a back—up article (or more) that is long and well documented with quotations and references to the Quran, the hadith, and classical legal opinions. The supporting articles also examine the historical and literary context of each Quranic verse. If the readers, especially critics, wish to challenge one or all of these ten reasons, or if they simply doubt them, they should click on the supporting articles. They will see that Muhammad himself actually laid down these excessive punishments and policies.

Third, it must be pointed out that these harsh laws are not (or should not be) imposed outside of an Islamic court of law. Careful legal hurdles must be passed before the punishments are carried out. However, even in that case, it will become clear to anyone who thinks clearly that these punishments and policies are excessive by their very nature, and excess is never just, as Aristotle taught us in his Nicomachean Ethics.

Fourth, in each of the lengthy supporting article (or articles), a Biblical view on these infractions of moral law (or sometimes civil law or personal injuries) is presented. One of the reasons we all sense that these Islamic punishments are harsh and excessive is that Christianity has also filled the globe. Even if one is not a Christian or is only a nominal Christian, he or she has breathed deeply of Christianity by virtue of laws and customs or even driving by churches. New Testament Christianity, when properly understood and followed, offers humanity dignity.

'Islam' in this article stands for Muhammad, the earliest Muslims, and classical legal scholars.

Here are the top ten reasons why sharia or Islamic law is bad for all societies.

10. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.

In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging not only for illicit sex (see reason no. nine), but also for drinking alcohol.

In 2005, in Nigeria a sharia court ordered that a drinker should be caned eighty strokes.

In 2005, in the Indonesian province of Aceh, fifteen men were caned in front of a mosque for gambling. This was done publicly so all could see and fear. Eleven others are scheduled to undergo the same penalty for gambling.

After going through two previous confusing stages before coming down hard on drinkers and gamblers, the Quran finally prohibits alcohol and gambling in Sura 5:90—91; they do not prescribe the punishment of flogging, but the hadith does. A poor 'criminal' was brought to Muhammad who became angry:


The Prophet felt it hard (was angry) and ordered all those who were present in the house, to beat him [the drinker dragged into Muhammad's presence]. (Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6774—6775)

Thus, we see no offer of help for the alcoholic when he is dragged before Muhammad and his followers. Why does Muhammad not offer rehabilitation? Why does he immediately go to corporal punishment?

The later classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith, so we do not need to examine them here.

It is sometimes argued that Islamic countries are pure, whereas the West is decadent. No one can argue with this latter claim, but are Islamic countries pure? The Supplemental Material, below, demonstrates that Islamic countries still have drinking and gambling in them.

Here is the article  that supports this tenth point and that analyzes the confusing Quranic verses on drinking and gambling. It analyzes the hadith and later legal rulings.

9. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.

In 2004, Rania al—Baz, who had been beaten by her husband, made her ordeal public to raise awareness about violence suffered by women in the home in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi television aired a talk show that discussed this issue. Scrolling three—fourths of the way down the link, the readers can see an Islamic scholar holding up sample rods that husbands may use to hit their wives.

The Quran says:


4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (MAS Abdel Haleem, the Qur'an, Oxford UP, 2004)

The hadith says that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering from domestic violence in the context of confusing marriage laws:


Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az—Zubair Al—Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" (Bukhari)

This hadith shows Muhammad hitting his girl—bride, Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr: Muslim no. 2127:


'He [Muhammad] struck me [Aisha] on the chest which caused me pain.'

It is claimed that Islamic societies have fewer incidents of fornication and adultery because of strict laws or customs, for example, women wearing veils over their faces or keeping separate from men in social settings. But these results of fewer incidents of sexual 'crimes' may have unanticipated negative effects in other areas, such as the oppression of women. Generally, sharia restricts women's social mobility and rights, the more closely sharia is followed. For example, in conservative Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive cars.  In Iran, the law oppresses women. For example, women's testimony counts half that of men, and far more women than men are stoned to death for adultery.

Here is the supporting article for the ninth point. It has a long list of different translations of Sura 4:34, in order to resolve confusion over this verse, circulating around the web. This longer article has many links that demonstrate the oppression of women under Islamic law (scroll down to 'Further discussion').

8. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye.

In 2003, in Saudi Arabia a man had two teeth extracted under the law of retaliation.

In 2003, a court in Pakistan sentenced a man to be blinded by acid after he carried out a similar attack on his fianc?e.

In 2005, an Iranian court orders a man's eye to be removed for throwing acid on another man and blinding him in both eyes.

The Quran says:


5:45 And We ordained therein for them: Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth and wounds equal for equal. But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the Zalimun (polytheists and  wrongdoers . . .). (Hilali and Khan, The Noble Qur'an, Riyadh: Darussalam, 1996)

This passage allows for an indemnity or compensation instead of imposing the literal punishment of eye for an eye. No one should have a quarrel with this option. According to the hadith, the plaintiff also has the option to forgive, and this is legitimate, provided a judge oversees the process. The problem is the literal law of retaliation.

The hadith and later legal rulings demonstrate that this excessive option was actually carried out, as do the three modern examples linked above.

Please go here for the supporting article that cites the hadith and later legal rulings.

Islamic law calls all of humanity to march backwards 1,400 years BC and to re—impose the old law of retaliation—literally, and the evidence suggest that the Torah never intended the law to be carried out literally, as the supporting article demonstrates.

7. Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off.

Warning! This short article has photos of severed hands. The reader should never lose sight of the fact that this punishment is prescribed in the Quran, the eternal word of Allah. It does not exist only in the fevered imagination of a violent and sick radical regime like the Taliban, which once ruled in Afghanistan.

A Saudi cleric justifies chopping off hands here.  

The Quran says:


5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done—a deterrent from God: God is almighty and wise. 39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)

At first glance, verse 39 seems to accept repentance before the thief's hand is cut off. But the hadith states emphatically that repentance is acceptable only after mutilation. Muhammad himself says that even if his own daughter, Fatima, were to steal and then intercede that her hand should not be cut off, he would still have to cut it off (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6788)

If the reader would like to see more hadith passages, modern defenses of this indefensible punishment (and a refutation of them), and the Biblical solution to theft, they should click on this long supporting article or this shorter one.  

6. Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated.

In September 2003, Scotsman Sandy Mitchell faced crucifixion in Saudi Arabia. He was beaten and tortured until he confessed to a crime he did not commit: a bomb plot masterminded by the British embassy. The article says of this punishment that it is the worst kind of execution and that two have been carried out in the last twenty years.

In 2002 Amnesty International reports that even though Saudi Arabia ratified the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture) in October 1997, amputation is prescribed under both Hudud (punishments) and Qisas (law of retaliation). AI has recorded thirty—three amputations and nine cross—amputations where the alternate hand or foot is mutilated.

The Quran says:


5:33 Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter, 34 unless they repent before you overpower them: in that case bear in mind that God is forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)

It may be difficult to accept, but the hadith says that Muhammad tortured these next people before he executed them. This scenario provides the historical context of Sura 5:33—34. The explanations in parentheses have been added by the translator:


Narrated Anas: Some people . . . came to the Prophet and embraced Islam . . . [T]hey turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away . . . The Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they died. (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6802)

The next hadith reports that the renegades died from bleeding to death because Muhammad refused to cauterize their amputated limbs. Then the hadith after that one reports that the renegades were not given water, so they died of thirst. They probably died of both causes: thirst and loss of blood.

See this short article for details on another example of Muhammad's use of torture.

Islamic law says that these punishments are imposed for highway robbery, and in some cases crucifixion does not need a murder before it is imposed.

For more information on Muhammad's brutality and the barbaric laws that flow out of it, go to the back—up article.  

5. Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed.

In February 1998, the Taliban, who once ruled in Afghanistan, ordered a stone wall to be pushed over three men convicted of sodomy. Their lives were to be spared if they survived for 30 minutes and were still alive when the stones were removed.

In its 1991 Constitution, in Articles 108—113, Iran adopted the punishment of execution for sodomy.

In April 2005, a Kuwaiti cleric says homosexuals should be thrown off a mountain or stoned to death.

On April 7, 2005, it was reported that Saudi Arabia sentenced more than 100 men to prison or flogging for 'gay conduct.'

These homosexuals were lucky. Early Islam would have executed them, as these hadith demonstrate.

Ibn Abbas, Muhammad's cousin and highly reliable transmitter of hadith, reports the following about early Islam and Muhammad's punishment of homosexuals: . . .


'If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done' (Abu Dawud no. 4447).

This hadith passage says that homosexuals should be burned alive or have wall pushed on them:


Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira reported God's messenger as saying, 'Accursed is he who does what Lot's people did.' In a version . . . on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that Ali [Muhammad's cousin and son—in—law] had two people burned and that Abu Bakr [Muhammad's chief companion] had a wall thrown down on them. (Mishkat, vol. 1, p. 765, Prescribed Punishments)

Though this punishment of a wall being toppled on them is extreme, the Taliban were merely following the origins of their religion.

If the reader would like to see the confusion in the Quran on the matter of homosexuality, the severity in the hadith, and excessive rulings of classical fiqh, they should see the supporting article. This longer one has links to many discussions on Islamic punishments of homosexuals (scroll down to 'Supplemental material').

4. Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.

Fornication:

In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging for illicit sex.

The Quran says:


24:2 The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. [This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime (illegal sex), but if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah's law]. (Hilali and Khan).

The additions in the brackets, though not original to the Arabic, have the support of the hadith. These command flogging only of unmarried fornicators: Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6831 and 6833.

The classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do not need to analyze them here.

According to this report, in Iran a teenage boy broke his Ramadan fast, so a judge sentenced him to be lashed with eighty—five stripes. He died from the punishment. Though his sad case does not deal with fornication, it is cited here because it shows that lashing can be fatal.

Adultery:

In December 2004, Amnesty International reports:


An Iranian woman charged with adultery faces death by stoning in the next five days after her death sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court last month. Her unnamed co—defendant is at risk of imminent execution by hanging. Amnesty International members are now writing urgent appeals to the Iranian authorities, calling for the execution to be stopped.
 
She is to be buried up to her chest and stoned to death.

This gruesome hadith passage reports that a woman was buried up to her chest and stoned to death:


And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al—Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her . . . (Muslim no. 4206)

The Prophet prayed over her dead body and then buried her. Truthfully, though, how effective was the prayer when Muhammad and his community murdered her in cold blood? The rest of the hadith says that Muhammad told Khalid not to be too harsh, but the Prophet's words drip with irony. Perhaps Muhammad meant that Khalid should not have cursed her. However, if they really did not want to be harsh, they should have forgiven her and let her go to raise her child.

Later Islamic legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do not need to analyze them here.

Here is the back—up article that supports this fourth reason.

3. Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non—Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself.

In 1989, Iran's Supreme Leader issued a fatwa (legal decree) to assassinate Salman Rushdie, a novelist, who wrote Satanic Verses, which includes questions about the angel Gabriel's role in inspiring the Quran. Now the extremists in the highest levels in Iran have recently renewed  the fatwa.

In 2005, The Muslim Council of Victoria, Australia, brought a lawsuit against two pastors for holding a conference and posting articles critiquing Islam. Three Muslims attended the conference and felt offended. The two pastors have been convicted based on Australia's vilification law. While on trial, one of them wanted to read from the Quran on domestic violence (see 9, above), but the lawyer representing the Council would not allow it. The pastors are appealing their conviction.

In 2005, British Muslims have been campaigning to pass a religious hate speech law in England's parliament. They have succeeded. Their ability to propagandize has not been curtailed. Opponents of the law say that it stifles free speech that may criticize Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam.

Here are the classical legal rulings.

First, the Muslim deserves death for doing any of the following (Reliance of the Traveler pp. 597—98, o8.7):


(1) Reviling Allah or his Messenger; (2) being sarcastic about 'Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat'; (3) denying any verse of the Quran or 'anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it'; (4) holding that 'any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent'; (5) reviling the religion of Islam; (6) being sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law; (7) denying that Allah intended 'the Prophet's message . . . to be the religion followed by the entire world.'

It is no wonder that critical investigation of the truth claims of Islam can never prevail in Islamic lands when the sword of Muhammad hangs over the scholars' head.

The non—Muslims living under Islamic rule are not allowed to do the following (p. 609, o11.10(1)—(5)):

(1) Commit adultery with a Muslim woman or marry her; (2) conceal spies of hostile forces; (3) lead a Muslim away from Islam; (4) mention something impermissible  about Allah, the Prophet . . . or Islam.

According to the discretion of the caliph or his representative, the punishments for violating these rules are as follows: (1) death, (2) enslavement, (3) release without paying anything, and (4) ransoming in exchange for money. These punishments also execute free speech—even repulsive speech—and freedom of religion or conscience.

Ultimately, censorship testifies to a lack of confidence in one's position and message. If the message of Islam were truly superior, one could trust in the power of truth. As it stands, sharia with its prescribed punishments for questioning Muhammad, the Quran, and sharia itself testifies to their weakness since sharia threatens those who dare to differ.

How confident was Muhammad (and today's Muslims) in his message that he had to rely on violence and force to protect his message, besides reason and persuasive argumentation?

For the supporting article that analyzes the Quran and the hadith, both of which orders death to critics, click here.

2. Islam orders apostates to be killed.

In Iran an academic was condemned to death for criticizing clerical rule in Iran. The rulers assert that he was insulting Muhammad and Shi'ite laws. He was charged with apostasy.

This analysis  tracks the application of apostasy laws around the world, citing many examples.

Apostates are those who leave Islam, like Salman Rushdie (see the linked article in no. three, above), whether they become atheists or convert to another religion. They are supposed to be killed according to the Quran, the hadith, and later legal rulings.

See the previous point no. three for acts that entail leaving Islam according to Islamic law.

Here are the articles that support reason no. two.

This is a short, but full article on apostasy, citing Quranic verses and hadith passages.

Sayyid Maududi, a respected Islamic scholar, in this booklet argues that Sura 9:11—12 refers to apostates and that they should be put to death (scroll down to 'The Proof in the Quran for the Commandment to Execute Apostates').

This Muslim website has an overview of Islam on apostates. They should be given time to repent, but if they refuse, they must be killed.

And the number one reason why sharia is bad for all societies . . .

1. Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad.

Muhammad is foundational to Islam, and he set the genetic code for Islam, waging war. In the ten years that he lived in Medina from his Hijrah (Emigration) from Mecca in AD 622 to his death of a fever in AD 632, he either sent out or went out on seventy—four raids, expeditions, or full—scale wars. They range from small assassination hit squads to kill anyone who insulted him, to the Tabuk Crusades in late AD 630 against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a rumor that an army was mobilizing to invade Arabia, but the rumor was false, so his 30,000 jihadists returned home, but not before imposing a jizya tax on northern Christians and Jews.

Money flowed into the Islamic treasury. So why would Muhammad get a revelation to dry up this money flow?

What are some of the legalized rules of jihad found in the Quran, hadith, and classical legal opinions?

(1) Women and children are enslaved. They can either be sold, or the Muslims may 'marry' the women, since their marriages are automatically annulled upon their capture. (2) Jihadists may have sex with slave women. Ali, Muhammad's cousin and son—in—law, did this. (3) Women and children must not be killed during war, unless this happens in a nighttime raid when visibility was low. (4) Old men and monks could be killed. (5) A captured enemy of war could be killed, enslaved, ransomed for money or an exchange, freely released, or beaten. One time Muhammad even tortured a citizen of the city of Khaybar in order to extract information about where the wealth of the city was hidden. (6) Enemy men who converted could keep their property and small children. This law is so excessive that it amounts to forced conversion. Only the strongest of the strong could resist this coercion and remain a non—Muslim. (7) Civilian property may be confiscated. (8) Civilian homes may be destroyed. (9) Civilian fruit trees may be destroyed. (10) Pagan Arabs had to convert or die. This does not allow for the freedom of religion or conscience. (11) People of the Book (Jews and Christians) had three options (Sura 9:29): fight and die; convert and pay a forced 'charity' or zakat tax; or keep their Biblical faith and pay a jizya or poll tax. The last two options mean that money flows into the Islamic treasury, so why would Muhammad receive a revelation to dry up this money flow?

Thus, jihad is aggressive, coercive, and excessive, and Allah never revealed to Muhammad to stop these practices.

For an analysis of the Christian Crusades and the Islamic Crusades, click here.  

For the supporting article of reason no. one, please go here.  It also has a segment on the differences between jihad in Islam and the wars in the Old Testament. Another article on that topic can be read here.   There are vast differences between Islam and Judaism on this topic.

Therefore, Islam is violent—unjustly and aggressively.

Conclusion

The nightmare must end. Sharia oppresses the citizens of Islamic countries. Islam must reform, but the legal hierarchy in Islamic nations will not do this because the judges and legal scholars understand the cost: many passages in the Quran and the hadith must be rejected, and this they cannot do. After all, the Quran came down directly from Allah through Gabriel, so says traditional theology. So how can Islam reform? But reform it must. It can start by rewriting classical fiqh (interpretations of law). Again, though, that would mean leaving behind the Quran and Muhammad's example. How can the legal hierarchy in Islamic nations do this?

In contrast, the West has undergone the Enlightenment or the Age of Reason (c. 1600—1800+), so western law has been injected with a heavy dose of reason. Also, the New Testament tempers excessive punishments. At least when Christianity reformed (c. 1400—1600), the reformers went back to the New Testament, which preaches peace and love. So religion and reason in the West permit justice to be found more readily—the Medieval Church is not foundational to Christianity; only Jesus and the New Testament are.

Can Islamic countries benefit from an Enlightenment that may deny the Quran and the hadith? This seems impossible. Islamic law threatens Muslims with death if they criticize Muhammad and the Quran, not to mention denying them.

Since Islamic law cannot be reformed without doing serious damage to original and authentic Islam—the one taught by Muhammad—then a second plan must be played out. Sharia must never spread around the world. At least that much is clear and achievable. The hard evidence in this article demonstrates beyond doubt that sharia does not benefit any society, for it contains too many harsh rules and punishments.

One of the most tragic and under—reported occurrences in the West in recent years is the existence of a sharia court in Canada.  Muslims are pushing for a sharia divorce courting Australia  as well. Having a court of arbitration if it is based on western law and legal theory is legitimate, but sharia does not hold to this standard. Whether sharia is imposed gradually or rapidly, Canada should promptly shut down any sharia court, and Australia should never allow one. Such a court should never be permitted in the US, the rest of the West, or anywhere else in the world that is battling Islam.

It is true that the Enlightenment teaches tolerance, but it also teaches critical thinking and reasoning. Sharia cannot stand up under scrutiny. It is intolerant and excessive, and Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics teaches the West that excess is never just.

Thankfully, the province of Quebec, Canada, has forbidden sharia. This is the right initiative.

Sharia ultimately degrades society and diminishes freedom.

James M. Arlandson may be reached at jamesmarlandson@hotmail.com

Supplemental material:

In private emails to me or on websites, Muslim apologists (defenders) claim that the Islamic way of dealing with vices is superior to the western way, even in Islam's punishments like flogging and stoning. It is true that the West is filled with decadence, but are Islamic countries pure and pristine through and through, as these Muslim apologists imply? To anyone whose mind has not been clouded by a lifetime of devotion to Islam, the answer to this rhetorical question is obvious. Alcohol and other intoxicants and gambling serve as test cases.

This article says that Bahrain, an island and independent sate that is connected to Saudi Arabia by a causeway, provides a 'breathing lung' for Saudis because this Islamic island allows the free flow of alcohol and a night life. The words 'breathing lung' in Bahrain mean that Saudi Arabia suffocates people. On the weekends an average of 40,000 cars line up to cross the bridge.

This article discusses the smuggling of alcohol in Saudi Arabia and says:


"Western analysts note that alcohol smuggling of the magnitude underway in Saudi Arabia —— perhaps tens of millions of dollars' worth of illegal merchandise annually —— would likely involve the complicity of Saudi customs agents and perhaps a higher—level patron."

This article reveals how Iranians get around the official ban on alcohol, like beer and vodka and other intoxicants, like opium. A black market has sprung up—just like the one in America during Prohibition.

This article says that even though the Taliban, the tyrants who formerly ruled Afghanistan, outlawed the growth of poppies, which are the source of opium, the leaders of the Taliban may have profited from the drug trade. The new and democratic government has a hard time keeping this drug under control.

This article says that authorities in Turkey threaten to imprison online gamblers, and this page links to a report (scroll to the second one) that discusses how Turkey must deal with the problem of monetary interest, alcohol, and gambling. It is revealing to see how Muslim religious leaders try to squirm out of Quranic laws against interest, in order to help Islamic financial institutions make money.

The purpose of these links is not to condemn Islamic countries or to assert that the West is better than they are. Facts say that the West has many problems. Rather, the purpose is to demonstrate that Islamic countries have their share of problems as well. This means that Islamic countries are also decadent. This means that Islamic punishments do not work entirely (except by scare tactics), but they can drive the sin or crime underground.


When I was in Turkey many years ago, I witnessed a girl of royalty and her common man stoned to death for loving each other which was forbidden at the time under Sharia Law. I also witnessed a man get his head lopped off three feet in front of me for stealing a military rifle. Sharia Law is as Draconian as it gets.      :evil:    :cry:    Bill

Quote from: "FlatEarth1024"

Quote from: "Plu"

QuoteIf a religion allows or forbids certain things to its followers, the government should leave that strictly alone unless something in it violates the law.

The problem arises when what it does is violating the law, but the system itself covers that up by illegaly intimidating the people coming there into not going to the actual authorities, so that it can be dealt with.

Generally speaking when you have an organisation like that, the whole organisation is put on trial in the real court system. I'd say they have more than enough evidence of illegal activity within the sharia courts to declare them a criminal organisation.

It's a glorified semi-legal version of what criminal immigrant groups do in the United States.  In the early 1900's Italian and Chinese citizens rarely sought the protection of the courts, "preferring" to either pay protection to the mob or simply remain silent for fear of reprisal.  You still see it today with Eastern European groups.  This is the same thing under the guise of "cultural courts".  The Muslim leaders who want to establish such courts are nothing more than dressed up Prohibition-Era gangsters terrorizing their own communities for their personal gain, only with the approval of the state.

The Muslims are trying to do it one more step than the Italians or Chinese, they're trying to get their Sharia law accept by the host country. And that's dangerous. I would hope that the Europeans are not going to fall for that poison.

All of this, basically, but adding the point that the UK has an act that recognises two parties' right to go to an alternate tribunal to the courts to settle some disputes. This was intended to prevent people having to always go to court and pay expensive court costs, but it gives religious courts legitimacy and allows them to claim their rulings on disputes as legal rulings under the arbitration act. It wouldn't hold any weight if was superceded by a proper court, but still. They're not just play-acting, and we're recognising them as legal, alternative tirbunals.

You are correct!  :oops: Sorry about that! The Princess and her boyfriend happen in Saudi Arabia, but the soldier getting his head loped off was in Turkey under military law at the time. This was in the late 50's or early 60's. Getting old is a bitch. Don't do it.  :Hangman:  Solitary

Thanks! The guy in the army, from what we could understand, stole a military rifle. I thought they would just take off his hand. I worked in an emergency ward before this and thought I has seen everything---but this was the first time I threw up, the second was when I found out my best friend killed his wife in Florida and was looking for me in Illinois . He actually got away with murder because the Detectives and courts in Florida are stupid. He told them she was having an affair. Not me---honest.  [-(   Solitary

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"See, this is a very disoriented sense of history and also a very disoriented vision of present. First of all Ottoman empire and Republic of Turkiye two different states. I also wonder what do you guys get from the word 'Turk'. Do you have any idea how many Turkish nations, tribes out there? How many Turkish states are there in the history?

I'll just give you something to think about, Shoe (along these same lines).  First, most Americans have no idea what Homer's Iliad is about.  Most of those who have some idea think it's about the Trojan war (which it is).  But ... ask most of them where it took place and they'll tell you it was in Greece.  Most Americans don't have a very good knowledge of geography.

Quote from: "Colanth"

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"See, this is a very disoriented sense of history and also a very disoriented vision of present. First of all Ottoman empire and Republic of Turkiye two different states. I also wonder what do you guys get from the word 'Turk'. Do you have any idea how many Turkish nations, tribes out there? How many Turkish states are there in the history?

I'll just give you something to think about, Shoe (along these same lines).  First, most Americans have no idea what Homer's Iliad is about.  Most of those who have some idea think it's about the Trojan war (which it is).  But ... ask most of them where it took place and they'll tell you it was in Greece.  Most Americans don't have a very good knowledge of geography.

Duh. Obviously it happened in 'Murica, cause that's the only place interesting things happened.

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"PS My geography is not very good either. But I am not sure what you meant by 'very good' though.

You're aware that Troy was in Turkey, right?  It was a port, just south of the Dardanelles in northwest Anatolia.

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"

Quote from: "Colanth"

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"PS My geography is not very good either. But I am not sure what you meant by 'very good' though.

You're aware that Troy was in Turkey, right?  It was a port, just south of the Dardanelles in northwest Anatolia.

I didn't mean it that way. Just by obligation related to my field, I don't think I am a good example in this context. But for the record, I had to read Homer in high school as a part of the general curriculum in the beginning of 90s. (My parents generations had more) I don't know if it is mandatory right now. We also had to study the whole subject in univ in art history department as a student which is totally useless as hard knowledge, but just as interpretation which you cannot get without studying the whole thing.

That's called "getting educated" - something many Americans spend 4 years in college NOT doing.  In fact, at the secondary education level here, it's a badge of honor in some segments of our society, to not learn anything.  Functional illiteracy is seen as a good thing.

It's why even though we're one of the countries with a good opportunity for education, we regularly score WAY down on international comparisons.

Quoteif children -or adults doesn't matter- hear about it just BECAUSE of a Hollywood movie, I cannot blame those Americans -or any other people- for thinking that Troya is in Greece or even in Europe.

I blame them for not having received an education when one was offered to them.  The Iliad is one of the basic pieces of Western literature.

QuoteAn extra example. After Turkiye was founded there has been a strong heavy Dressing Revolution in 25th of October 1925. Fes has not been used since. 85 years? I can show you movies showing scenes from the region showing people wearing fes. While it is funny from an angle, I really would not like to write about the specific questions I had to answer in my 36 years of life about camels -there are no camels in Anatolia-climate here, why we dress like 'normal people', that my father has one wife but no concubines, we don't eat sheep except special dishes after I being accused of 'lying'.

That could all be due to the fact that modern Turkish society is pretty much European.  (I'm cheating - I actually know quite a few Turks in person.  Most Americans, from what I've seen, wouldn't be "bothered" to get to know any - Turks are all Muslim terrorists, aren't they?)

QuoteNow you are going to say that this is trivial because we are talking about fiction, just movies and cable.

Not I.  If a country's foreign policy is based on the knowledge the people running the government got from fiction (and fiction that's not even close to reality), it's not trivial.

QuoteSo it is not simple geography knowledge or where was an ancient city located.

But if one doesn't even know that, it points to a larger problem.

QuoteYou can't find nothing but humiliation of non Western cultures of the world in American culture. I would use the world 'popular' to specify, but I am not sure if there is another left from where I stand.

It's not only humiliation, it's denigration.  Tell most Americans about some of the inventions that came from other societies and they'll call you a liar.  (Okay, most Americans will accept that our numerals are from Arab civilization, but are they aware that the Arabs got the idea from India?)

QuoteDoes American culture only do that to 'foreigners'. NO. It treats its own the same way. I assure you, there isn't that much of a label, classification of peoples and others in any other culture. We could jump from here to the bullying issue in high schools. I know that you are completely convinced that this issue must be far worse at this side of the world

Actually, I don't think I've heard of school bullying being a problem in most other countries.

QuoteThink about the general level of ignorance you guys complain about your people here rightfully and this created identity come together in a created domestic/international paranoia, a created conspiracy culture without an end for a moment please Colanth and hand him a weapon. (By 'weapon', I mean every kind of weaponry from army scale to the individual scale 'protection'.) And pump this EGO constantly with 'you are the best, right and true', you are the 'freedom fighter, world police' bullshit nationalism with a 'you are in the best place ever in this world' bullshit from every channel available, provide them with huge 'rights' and countless choices to buy-have-live on everything, huge houses to live in and huge cars to drive.

Now, please be sincere and tell me what you have.

I'll tell you by repeating a comment I heard many times in 2003, when people were reminded that we invaded another sovereign nation - "What good is being an American if you can't invade wherever you want?"  Gunboat diplomacy was supposed to be over by WWI - evidently "gunboat thinking" hasn't ended yet.

Quote from: "Colanth"I'll tell you by repeating a comment I heard many times in 2003, when people were reminded that we invaded another sovereign nation - "What good is being an American if you can't invade wherever you want?"  Gunboat diplomacy was supposed to be over by WWI - evidently "gunboat thinking" hasn't ended yet.

May I intrude on the bash-Americafest this thread has turned into to ask you for a few citations for this quote?  Not yokels on the street either, please.  If you are going to refer to quotes such as these as some semi-official "diplomacy", please cite some exact quotations from the makers of foreign policy please.

Quote from: "FlatEarth1024"

Quote from: "Colanth"I'll tell you by repeating a comment I heard many times in 2003, when people were reminded that we invaded another sovereign nation - "What good is being an American if you can't invade wherever you want?"  Gunboat diplomacy was supposed to be over by WWI - evidently "gunboat thinking" hasn't ended yet.

May I intrude on the bash-Americafest this thread has turned into to ask you for a few citations for this quote?  Not yokels on the street either, please.  If you are going to refer to quotes such as these as some semi-official "diplomacy", please cite some exact quotations from the makers of foreign policy please.

Read what I wrote - "a comment I heard many times".  Nowhere did I even allude to a hint that this is any kind of policy - it's the opinion of too many "yokels on the street".

And I'm not some foreign "American basher" - I was born here and lived here my entire life, except for some of the time spent in the armed forces.

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"

Quote from: "Colanth"That's called "getting educated" - something many Americans spend 4 years in college NOT doing.  In fact, at the secondary education level here, it's a badge of honor in some segments of our society, to not learn anything.  Functional illiteracy is seen as a good thing.

I didn't get this. Why would they think such a thing? Is this some sort of an outcome occurring as an indirect result of various things we are talking here, or this is a deliberate understanding in principle? Please say no.

Why do they think that education is a bad thing?  The children of the uneducated frequently have that opinion.  If your parents tell you that doing well in school is a waste of your time, because you're never going to get anywhere even if you get an education, you believe it.  

QuoteBut I wish we had studied other different literatures around the world. Thanks to my parents, I had two personal source to correct that.

See?  Your parents believe in being educated.  That's why you can't understand an attitude of "learning is a bad thing".

Quoteit turns into a very embarrassing position when people approach a 'normal looking white' person. The situations you get embarrassed in behalf of other you are having the conversation. "You "cannot be" Turkish" "Excuse me?" "You are white and your eyes are coloured." "What do you mean by your eyes are coloured? People do not have irises where you live?" "You know what I mean, you don't 'look like' Turkish" "How do Turkish people look like?" Westerner counts some colours between black and brown, but the conversation is so fucking dumb you stop saying anything or snap like  "We are actually purple, you are colour blind" I've actually said the latter several times.

I'm pretty familiar with that.  Many Westerners think that Turks, like Arabs (which they think Turks are), wear burnooses and keffiyehs and own a string of camels.  A Turkish man in a suit?  A Turkish woman in jeans?  Never.

QuoteMy sister also got asked a lot if one of her parents is foreigner because she has bright blue eyes.

I have a Turkish friend who has blue eyes, blonde hair and fair skin.  No one believes that she's "ethnically" Turkish (whatever that means).

Quote

QuoteI'll tell you by repeating a comment I heard many times in 2003, when people were reminded that we invaded another sovereign nation - "What good is being an American if you can't invade wherever you want?"  Gunboat diplomacy was supposed to be over by WWI - evidently "gunboat thinking" hasn't ended yet.

That's unbelievably hostile. I have nothing to say but, "Why?!"

I have no answer, other than "that's how some people are".  My response, when I heard it the first time, was "did you hear what you just said?" He thought for a moment, then said "Yeah, so?"  I said, "If other countries thought that way, we'd be overrun in days."  He responded, "But they're not the US, we are."  I often wonder if all the "people" here are actually human.  Some of them don't seem to be as intelligent as my tomato plants.

Quote from: "drunkenshoe"

Quote from: "FlatEarth1024"May I intrude on the bash-Americafest this thread has turned into to ask you for a few citations for this quote?  Not yokels on the street either, please.  If you are going to refer to quotes such as these as some semi-official "diplomacy", please cite some exact quotations from the makers of foreign policy please.

See, this is what I am talking about. "...bash america-fest..." Aww really?

Just after 9/11, when the yokels on the street in the ME expressed happiness, USA channels aired those videos repeatedly in headlines and build a precious solid domestic policy on it to gain support for their unjustified invasion which continues to this day by different mediums and different styles.

Your way of defining criticism as 'bashing' is pretty dumb. He doesn't need to cite any exact quotations form anywhere sweety. We have been all poked in the eye with the culture we are criticising here since we were kids from every media channel. We don't need anything extra from foreign policy makers. Nobody is stupid or blind.

Sweety?  Okay sugar-drawers...
He was the one who used the word "diplomacy".  That implied the opinion and viewpoint of those people who make or influence policy.  He should have used another term if he meant losers on the street.  By intentionally using the loaded word diplomacy, he was hoping to subtly convey the impression of official government policy without getting called on it.  So I called on it, getting the "Well...what I meant was" reply that I totally expected.  Don't hang pinatas if you don't want them whacked.

As for 9/11, it is totally stupid to use the immediate, knee-jerk reaction to such a tragedy to gauge the true feelings of an entire population.  For six months after 9/11, I myself would have loved to see the entire middle east bombed to shit.  That feeling passed and intelligence and lucidity returned, as it did for most other people in this country who realize that the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan were not responsible for the attacks.  

So Americans are not perfect and could use some fixing.  That's no scoop, you could say the same about a dozen other so-called advanced nations without fear of contradiction.  But this circle-jerk of criticizing the intelligence, education and basic moral fiber of an entire country based on the immediate aftermath of unimaginable tragedy or "Well...I know a few guys who were all like...", is simply exercising every ounce of intellectual laziness you've spent the past four pages of a hijacked thread droning on about.

Quote from: "FlatEarth1024"He was the one who used the word "diplomacy".

I said "gunboat diplomacy".  That has very little to do with diplomacy.

Quote from: "Colanth"

Quote from: "FlatEarth1024"He was the one who used the word "diplomacy".

I said "gunboat diplomacy".  That has very little to do with diplomacy.

Yes, it is: diplomacy + gunboat. Might not be your favorite type, but... :P

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"

Quote from: "Colanth"

Quote from: "FlatEarth1024"He was the one who used the word "diplomacy".

I said "gunboat diplomacy".  That has very little to do with diplomacy.

Yes, it is: diplomacy + gunboat. Might not be your favorite type, but... :P

Diplomacy is the art of dealing with people, meant in a sensitive way.

Gunboat diplomacy is putting a gun to the figurative head of a city or nation and forcing it to do your bidding.

They're similar in the way that lovemaking and rape are similar.