Dr Williams wants some aspects of Sharia law with in the UK legal system.

[iceaura]

Shariah Law is harsh on crime, hence the crime rate being low in countries practising it.

In the first place, that isn't true - the crime rate in sharia countries is often fairly high, and the relative crime rate - the rate of deeds which would be crimes in most places, but are not counted as such in those countries - even higher.

In the second place, I'd rather have the crime than harsh theocratic laws.

 

[James R]

Further, crime rates are only the reported and published statistics. Crimes that are not reported are not counted.

 

[Arsalan]

I dont think they are higher than anywhere else in the world. Thieves, murderers all know what to expect if they commit the crime.

And yes its very easy to say youd rather have the crime than the punishment dealt out to the criminals when your sitting relaxed at home without suffering any major crime. Fact of the matter is that most people nowadays want harsher punishments for crime. Just because you dont want to doesnt mean its flawed. To each their own but whats best for society is best for society.

Also, James, that would mean there are also crimes in non Sharia countries that are unreported. Now are you going to tell me those arent as high as those in sharia countries?

 

[Repo Man]

And yes its very easy to say youd rather have the crime than the punishment dealt out to the criminals when your sitting relaxed at home without suffering any major crime.

I'm doing that in a country that doesn't have severe punitive punishments for crime.

Fact of the matter is that most people nowadays want harsher punishments for crime. Just because you dont want to doesnt mean its flawed. To each their own but whats best for society is best for society.

And scientists who study human behavior in general, and crime in specific, have repeatedly shown that there is no evidence for severe punishments having a significant effect on reducing crime. But politicians and theologians everywhere know that appealing to the human urge to punish other humans is a sure fire winner for political popularity. People enjoy the idea of punishing those who transgress, and are quick to listen to any theories that legitimize this urge, and slow to listen to any theories that undermine it. It was a widespread belief that beating children was the best way to make them behave. The fact that misbehaving children seemed to need to be beaten so often seemed to just act as evidence that prior beatings had not been severe enough. No one with any credibility believes that corporal punishment is either necessary or justified any longer.

 

[Arsalan]

And scientists who study human behavior in general, and crime in specific, have repeatedly shown that there is no evidence for severe punishments having a significant effect on reducing crime. But politicians and theologians everywhere know that appealing to the human urge to punish other humans is a sure fire winner for political popularity. People enjoy the idea of punishing those who transgress, and are quick to listen to any theories that legitimize this urge, and slow to listen to any theories that undermine it. It was a widespread belief that beating children was the best way to make them behave. The fact that misbehaving children seemed to need to be beaten so often seemed to just act as evidence that prior beatings had not been severe enough. No one with any credibility believes that corporal punishment is either necessary or justified any longer.

First of all, I do believe that kids need a good smack once in a while if they misbehave and this was a general consensu in my class as well during most of my time at college when we were doing Sociology. Ive had that and ive turned out fine.

Fact of the matter is that some people need to be punished. Therefore the harshest punishments are for those who inflict pain on othes or hurt them or are committing actions which are detrimental to the cohesion and harmony of the society. Some people may not learn from punishments, but that doesnt mean they shouldnt be punished.

But we digress, Dr WIlliams has been misquoted and his words twisted by the media to mean that soon Muslim wil impose Sharia law, including the burtal unislamic practices of the Saudiland regime, in the uk. That is not the case. Sharia courts have been active, legally, in the UK for over 30 years. Not any different than for example the FA or Premier League having their own tribunals.

 

[S.A.M.]

And scientists who study human behavior in general, and crime in specific, have repeatedly shown that there is no evidence for severe punishments having a significant effect on reducing crime.

And yet, these same scientists use electric shocks as negative reinforcement (like electric shocks) in studying behaviour. Even on flies, rats and mice. How does that work out?

 

[Ghost_007]

I vote and that`s that. Looks like for the most part people agree with me.

You’re not in a position to say that.

A few Liberal acedemics visiting from Britian (these are the people who usually support this sort of thing) were talking openly about how enough is enough. Their assertion was that Muslims are becoming a problem group in society. Not Africans, not Chinese, not Indians, not Buddhists, not Wiccan, not New Age, not even Xians! just this "Muslim" group.

Who are these 'liberal academics'? (names please) Why are they so important?

Why do you attach so much weight and importance to their views?

Their assertion was that Muslims are becoming a problem group in society. Not Africans, not Chinese, not Indians, not Buddhists, not Wiccan, not New Age, not even Xians! just this "Muslim" group.

That doesn't make sense. There is alot of overlap in the groups you have mentioned. There are many African Muslims in the UK, there are also many Indian Muslims. I always think those that say stuff like 'Muslims are becoming a problem group' are just deluded and clueless or intentionally trying to stir up hatred. There are lots of problems with British society but to throw everything on Muslims (Pakistanis, Bengalis, Indians, Somalians, Turks, Arabs, other Black and White Muslims) is insane, it simply doesn’t make sense.

Muslims make up about 2% of the UK population, they are dispersed around the UK’s major towns and cities (along with other immigrants), I think less then 10% of the UK is non-White.

Anyway, the UK has real problems to deal with, problems that actually affect the lives of others e.g. the NHS, knife and gun crime, policing, yobs, unemployment, university fees – everyday problems.

Watch for the backlash in Europe.

There will be no ‘backlash’ in Europe. After 9/11 some White supremacists gathered in order to attack Muslims however it wasn’t a major battle between Non-Muslims and Muslims, it was mindless violence - something youngsters love. Everyone hates White supremacists, all Asians, Blacks even other Whites. So when White supremacists want a fight, everyone wants a piece, you’ll have people driving half way down the country in order to get involved. In reality, Asians fight against eachother e.g. Pakistanis against Indians (Sikhs), Sikhs against Sikhs, Muslims against Muslims, Asians (both Muslims and Sikhs) fight against Blacks, Blacks fight against Blacks and so on. Most of the guys that get involved in this mindless violence are uneducated people with no jobs and nothing to lose. When these guys reach a certain age, get married and start working they move on, it’s a cycle though. Many people living out of the UK completely misunderstand these riots. When there is rioting and whatnot, it doesn’t have a major impact on the country. Half my mates are Non-Muslim, when there is trouble it has no effect whatsoever on our friendship. That’s what its like with most normal people.

I don’t see any major backlash, I’m not worried one bit. Muslims (Pakistanis, Bengalis, Indians, Arabs, Turks, Somalians etc.) are far too entrenched in British society. Britain needs the political, economical support of these communities.

 

[Ghost_007]

You make sharia law sound like the Mafia code.

Really? I must be doing something wrong or you simply do not understand what I’ve been saying.

I’m not talking about random people being punished for a crime they did not commit. People would only sent to prison or whatever if they were convicted of committing a crime – there would be an actual process in place, evidence would be required, proper investigations would have to be undertaken.

I thought the Russians brought better order to Afghanistan, and no less stability, than the Taliban.

The Soviets were the invaders, no Muslim can just sit around while their country has been invaded, it is a duty to fight back. Once the Soviets were sent packing, civil war ensued in Afghanistan, the Taliban came and put an end to all of that - their rise was phenomenal.

Is it your contention that the Russians should have brought more fear ?

What has that got to do with anything?

 

[Ghost_007]

In the second place, I'd rather have the crime than harsh theocratic laws.

I find that very hard to believe.