Muslims rebuffed over sharia courts

[Uthman]

Hi barney,

Thanks for the post.

Then they should fill their boots, if you acknowlage the expression. But the decison should not be recognised in English Law. It should hold the same weight as two neighbours who have a chat over a cup of tea with a mutual freind and their freind decideds what they should do.

I dont want to start waxing large about womens rights and injustices because I'm certain I can use all that blather for another thread. Simply put, special interest groups should have no say in actual enforcable law. Otherwise My religion says I can rob banks with Impunity and i'm going to be tried by the high preist. The high preist is my Dad and the jury is my pet dog. Dont diss it. Its my religion.

As far as I'm aware, the decisions that are reached via the Sharia courts should in no way contradict or go against English law. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, are you aware of the advantages of having these types of things recognised by English law? Mainly, the civil courts not being as clogged up.

Regards

 

[Uthman]

Hi wth1257,

I certianly understand why some Muslims may wish to do that and I think it's perfectly fair, but why not simply use abrogation?

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Care to explain?

Thanks.

 

[Malaikah]

I thought that he was saying that at first, but on closer inspection, I think what he means is that people might force the women to 'agree' to using the Sharia courts, so it wouldn't really be her 'free choice'. Get me? I don't think he was saying that Sharia is discriminatory in and of itself

No, that isn't the impression I got at all. Even if it is, why should he point out only Muslim women being forced? What about MEN? Women aren't the only ones who are forced to do things they don't want to do!

And as a Muslim his primary concern would be that people - men or women - would choose man made law over Islamic law- a serious sin!

 

[doorster]

No, that isn't the impression I got at all. Even if it is, why should he point out only Muslim women being forced? What about MEN? Women aren't the only ones who are forced to do things they don't want to do!

And as a Muslim his primary concern would be that people - men or women - would choose man made law over Islamic law- a serious sin!

wa alaikum salam sister

I think he is right, we really are not advanced enough as a group, even those who claim to be educated, and (self-appointed) leaders of Muslims, have no clue, as a rule we are a collection of different ill-educated groups driven not by Islam but other things

just read posts on this forum (best of its type) or at yanabi or shiachat, by British Muslims to see their ideas of what Islam is (these are the people who can actually read and write) out there in real life Britain, they are even unable to manage their Mosques without weekly pitched battles (I've seen them doing that in 3 different English cities) God forbid someone made them in-charge of doling out justice (when a huge majority of them cant tell what the word daraba means).

one Birmingham Imam whose tapes, videos are every where on internet, married a second wife (in secret [secret marriages are NOT allowed in Islam]) the secret wife then embarked on an affair with another man, which in turn caused a battle between followers of Imam and followers of his secretary (the boyfriend of his wife) resulting in death of one man (followed later by one more) and arrest of many.

It will take at least another generation or 2 before we achieve the same level of sophistication as the Jewish people of UK.

 

[barney]

Hi barney,

Thanks for the post.



As far as I'm aware, the decisions that are reached via the Sharia courts should in no way contradict or go against English law. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, are you aware of the advantages of having these types of things recognised by English law? Mainly, the civil courts not being as clogged up.

Regards

I'd rather have the civil courts clog up than special interest groups be treated in any way shape or form different from any other citizen.
Especially a special interest group that was convinced that it had been told what to do by God.
I would be confident that current rulings do not contradict English law, that would mean hammering in the thick end of the wedge.

English law is designed so that every person coming under it can be treated equally regardless of sex, orientation, race, colour ,religion or age.
There are parts of Sharia that discriminate.

I would accept Sharia lawbeing implemented if it was voted in democratically.
Then I would leave the country.

 

[Uthman]

Hi barney,

Let's say that Sharia is a discriminatory system (obviously I would disagree). If somebody chooses to use it, then they would clearly want to be discriminated against. Why should we stop them?

Also, why should it bother you so much when it doesn't really affect you. Or does it?

Regards

 

[barney]

We might all want to be treated differently. I for one would like my next speeding offence to be punished with having to eat a fudge ice cream.

That dosnt make it right.
The other factor I allude to is this is the thin end of the wedge. If shaira law is implemented, then by its nature (its gods law and god> man) then it has to be above mans law (and im not suggessting SL is anything else...just a particularly old manmade law set)

We are a democracy and not a theocracy yet. Anything religiously based cannot be allowed to have legal weight.
I disagree with swearing on the bible, the blasphemy laws etc etc.

 

[Uthman]

Greetings,

We might all want to be treated differently. I for one would like my next speeding offence to be punished with having to eat a fudge ice cream.

That dosnt make it right.

That's why these courts are restricted to business/family matters only and NOT criminal law which was made clear from the outset. Or is that beside your point?

The other factor I allude to is this is the thin end of the wedge. If shaira law is implemented, then by its nature (its gods law and god> man) then it has to be above mans law (and im not suggessting SL is anything else...just a particularly old manmade law set)

We are a democracy and not a theocracy yet. Anything religiously based cannot be allowed to have legal weight.
I disagree with swearing on the bible, the blasphemy laws etc etc.

Fair enough. Your views are pretty clear on the issue.

Regards