Nice moral equivalence twisting. Ramadan and his ilk want to stone women NOW, not 200 years ago.
sharia law in UK??
- Thread starter lucifers angel
- Start date
Nice moral equivalence twisting. Ramadan and his ilk want to stone women NOW, not 200 years ago.
Is that what he said? Do you think telling people not to do something is sufficient to convince them? e.g. if a holier-than-thou had stood at Madame Guillotine and espoused human rights would the decapitation have stopped?
I find it incredulous that you think merely telling people "bad, bad, bad" is sufficient to overturn a system. At a time when there is global discussion on waterboarding as torture. tsk.
When you're occupying a different country, supporting dictators and kings and using death squads as a SOP, its rather comical to talk about equal justice
No. It takes FORCE to stop things like that. Like Wellington telling Hindus who defended the practice of suttee as their tradition: "You can continue with your tradition of burning widows on their husbands' funeral pyres. We will continue with our tradition of hanging men who burn women alive."
Telling the seventh century barbarians currently infiltrating Britain (and much of Europe) that they are "bad" won't change a thing. Aggressively enforcing Britain's own laws -- including meaningful protection to all women who have radical desire to dress in Western clothes and marry who they want, -- will do so.
Archbishop Williams' spineless surrender certainly is not going to help.
And did sati stop? Nope, it was still going on, I remember there was a case even in the 1980s. Female infanticide is so profilic that the government has banned doctors from revealing the sex of the child. Widow remarriage is still shunned in rural areas. Change happens with education not force.
As for telling women they can't dress in this or that, second and third generation Britons have picked up the hijab while Pakistanis are shedding it.
You've taken an impossible stance on this one. You're actually defending the guy who hemmed and hawed and refused to outright condemn the stoning of women accused of infidelity. This is why I laugh at you. You're so intent on arguing, you wind up arguing something you couldn't possibly defend. Ridiculous. You should know better.
So Sarkozy is the bad guy here, because of what happened 200 years ago in France...
SAM, don't ever quit your day job, no matter how boring it might be.
What Tariq Ramadan said is relevant. If you don't want sati to become widow abandonment or dowry deaths or take some other form of oppression or go underground where it is not visible, its not enough to say, Sati is bad!
Its like the constant debate on FGM; everyone makes it about Islam, it became loud enough that al Azhar University, the premier abode of Islamic scholars, obliged with a fatwa against it, terming it unIslamic. And yet, it goes on. Why? Because the women perpetuate it. Its the little bit of power they have and they refused to be told by men what they should do about it. Such a simple balance of power that is completely overlooked by all those who make it a religious issue and miss the forest for the trees. Result? You have FGM but its conducted in unhygienic places by untrained women.
Just like the women adopting the hijab in the UK, don't be surprised if efforts to block the use of sharia make people turn even more to its older elements, the kind that emulate the life and times of William Wallace.
Well, Europeans had not been very good at educating people they let into their country, had they? Unlike US, they made no effort to assimilate immigrants and here is the result. And how exactly are you going to educate someone who is more afraid of local imam's enforcers than of "legitimate" law and police? Europeans may have dug the hole for themselves, but now force is the only way to get out of it. As long as British (French, etc.) Muslims believe they are safer obeying radical nutcases than cooperating with police and courts, the power of radical nutcases will grow. And so far, obeying radical nutcases HAS in fact been safer course of action.
I think British response to Archibishop's nonsense this week is a very good sign that at the least they know the game and they are a bit tired of playing. French and Germans elected more conservative governments not because they suddenly fell in love with Bush but because they see the problem and the voters are trying to change things. If they are late to change them it means they will probably "overreact" a bit -- and the way the world has gone lately I will give them the benefit of the doubt when compared against Jenin fake massacres and such.
When it's over Europe will probably feel the same deep shame the Germans feel now, but it was there own good intentions and fantasy view of the world that led them into current path, so I won't feel bad.
Do you really believe it will be that simple?
You can't compare what happened in Germany with what will happen if the UK makes it about Islam. It would be the single most foolish step in the world.
Its not surprising the Archbishop has more sense than the so called secularists.
Not really.
Muslim use sharia to decide how many times they pray, at what time, what kind of prayer, how they marry, divorce, decide custody, give child support, calculate charity, divide inheritance, etc. Then it depends on whether you're Hanafi, Shafi, Jariri, etc since different madhabs have different sharia laws, then Shias have a whole another set.
These are unnecessary laws for non Muslims. Criminal laws should be the same.
Muslim use sharia to decide how many times they pray, at what time, what kind of prayer, how they marry, divorce, decide custody, give child support, calculate charity, divide inheritance, etc. Then it depends on whether you're Hanafi, Shafi, Jariri, etc since different madhabs have different sharia laws, then Shias have a whole another set.
These are unnecessary laws for non Muslims. Criminal laws should be the same.
Many of the things you stated are rules and customs that i dont think anyone is trying to stop. The problem is here:
"how they marry, divorce, decide custody, give child support,"
So basically what you are saying is that anyone who moves to another country should have the option of using the laws from the country they left.
"how they marry, divorce, decide custody, give child support,"
So basically what you are saying is that anyone who moves to another country should have the option of using the laws from the country they left.
I think all religious groups have the option to marry, divorce etc according to their religion. And as women stand to gain more from custody and child support laws under sharia (since they automatically get both for children under 18), its the men who'll be knocking on British courts. Perhaps an integration at this point would be beneficial, ie more options under British sharia for men, age of marriage, consent for marriage, (ie forbid forced marriages, which is anyway unislamic), how much child support etc.
Its not an immutable system and may actually benefit from seeing the light of day.
Surely you can see that the British laws regarding marriage and divorce etc. are not based on religion. To get married you go to some official building and sign a piece of paper. How is htat such a problem? No country in the world AFAIK does what you would expect Britian to do, for example can i become a citizen of India and use U.S laws?
You can go to church in India and get married as a Christian, you can also go to court and get married as a Hindu, a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew, an Arya Samaji or an atheist. There is a Hindu Marriage Act for Hindus since they are the majority, and a Special Marriage Act for other religions that takes their customs under purview. Is that such a big deal?
DwayneD.L.Rabon
Registered Senior Member
Well first off i know nothing about sharia laws, But it sounds like Family law from what i have been able to gather from the topic posts.
I would say that the govement should have nothing to do with family laws, They should not decide who children are whos, or the conditions of marriage other than a record of marriage, or keeping a record of divorce/marriage seperation. The behavior that exist within the marriage is soly left to those that are in the marriage. divorce should be granted at the will of either party for divorce. issues regading children of a marriage should be handled and decided by the parents and not the goverment.
I would recommend this to any govement as the proper means of govement invovlement, limiting goveenment invovlement in such social domestic behavior is best regardless of country or what relgion dominates the region.
Cleary often a domisteic population is unhappy with the govement laws over domestic life for the region, as different beliefs form just from different sets of circumstance and exsperinces in domestic life, the complextiy of domestic differences can get complecated as ther are so many the govememnt can not possibly hope to judicate, leagly hear all of them and settle corretly, the average is more likly that most would be incorrect eventaully leading to other domestic problems causing more govement involvement and judication ect...the best way to serve the issue is for govement to let domestic life govern its self, while protecting individuals, and provdiing social services that solidify a good stature of life regardless of domestic differences for male and female.
DwayneD.L.Rabon
I would say that the govement should have nothing to do with family laws, They should not decide who children are whos, or the conditions of marriage other than a record of marriage, or keeping a record of divorce/marriage seperation. The behavior that exist within the marriage is soly left to those that are in the marriage. divorce should be granted at the will of either party for divorce. issues regading children of a marriage should be handled and decided by the parents and not the goverment.
I would recommend this to any govement as the proper means of govement invovlement, limiting goveenment invovlement in such social domestic behavior is best regardless of country or what relgion dominates the region.
Cleary often a domisteic population is unhappy with the govement laws over domestic life for the region, as different beliefs form just from different sets of circumstance and exsperinces in domestic life, the complextiy of domestic differences can get complecated as ther are so many the govememnt can not possibly hope to judicate, leagly hear all of them and settle corretly, the average is more likly that most would be incorrect eventaully leading to other domestic problems causing more govement involvement and judication ect...the best way to serve the issue is for govement to let domestic life govern its self, while protecting individuals, and provdiing social services that solidify a good stature of life regardless of domestic differences for male and female.
DwayneD.L.Rabon
I actually thought about this post on the drive home, and it still just stuns me.
Have you even read what you posted, and thought about what you're trying to say here?
You're comparing the practices of modern day Islam to the French Revolution (1789), and you really think you've got a point?
You do realize, once again, you're defending the side that would sooner see you dead than defend your right to defend them, right? How does that make you feel?
Robert Frost said "A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel." Throw out 2008 descriptions of liberals and conservatives, and just think about it for a minute. That's you, SAM. You suffer from permanent Stockholm Syndrome.