Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 09:27 AM
link   
As I stated in my first post on this thread I really don't want to continually repeat the same posts so.....

The thread itself
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Knowing me I'll probably still post, just hope someone can offer something different to the usual rhetoric that I and the majority of others tend to provide in these type of threads.

[Edit to delete link, to see my posts go to my profile, posts and then thread, that will then display all posts in highlighted thread, hope that makes sense]

[edit on 7-2-2008 by Freeborn]




posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Animal Out of curiosity then, are you in fact from Australia? I am aware with the different titles given to these groups but thanks for sharing.

Nope, I'm an avocational (read amateur) archeologist, and one of the things I've learned is to try to stay on the culturally sensitive side of things...as you seem to do yourself. Life is friendlier that way.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


That is your prerogative and it is mine to call people out on any perceived bigotry that I see. I appologize from detracting from the issue at hand and I will humbly bow out of discussing my point further in this thread.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


And I agree with you, I will never dream of changing your views my friend.

Now, if Sharia Law is allowed in the UK (personally I thing it will never happen) will the new law been passed for tax payer to pay for Muslim men additional spouses perhaps have something to do with this?

I find this interesting, we just have a long thread discussing this issue, and then we have now this comments by such an important religious figure head, it does sounds highly interesting.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 09:48 AM
link   
These issues need to be addressed, IMO. We cannot ignore the clash that is a fact of life when different cultures find themselves living in close proximity.

I personally think that when a group moves into an existing system, then the burden is on them to adapt to the laws of the nation they are moving into. If I come over to live with you in your home, then I need to behave in the manner that you ask all the members of your home to do.

A religious belief is not a handicap that should be given a special status. It isn't a matter ethnic bigotry to demand that recent additions to a society observe the same rules as those of longer standing.

As a side note, and speaking as a moderator now, I am impressed with the fact that this thread has not gotten heated to the point where warnings and other moderator actions have become needed. We can discuss even sensitive subjects without outbursts of childish venom, and this thread has so far been a good example of that. Thank you all for the effort.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


The current Archbishop Of Cantebury is a complete old duffer and has no perception of how everyday British people think and what is important to them.

Church Of England service attendances are falling due to the detached attitude of the clergy towards real people.

The only areas the C of E has any influence is in the idyllic middle england that so very few of us live in and is fast becoming a thing of the past.

Muslims account for 4% of the British population but have a voice and influence that far outstrips this, on the face of things.
There representation in parliament is about equal to this.

Britain will never, ever, allow Sharia Law.
To suggest that we are on the verge of this could not be further from the truth.
The British Muslim Council occassionally passes judgement on marital and divorce issues but this has NO legal recognition within British Judicial Law and it has never been proposed with any seriousness.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 09:57 AM
link   



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   
If Muslims want to work under Muslim law, then by golly, let 'em. So long as they recognize that British Law still trumps Sharia law, and that not all Muslims want to live by Sharia law.

In other words, it'll be a voluntary exercise, decisions can be appealed, and in any dispute between the laws, the law of the land wins, period.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Well, that seems like a whole lotta common sense, why has no-one else thought of that.
Oh, probably because those that want to live by Sharia Law know that it's teachings demand that all Muslims must actively strive to convert the rest of the world to Islam, by whatever means deemed necessary, and as such could not accept such limitations.

Still, as I said before, makes sense to me.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
If Muslims want to work under Muslim law, then by golly, let 'em. So long as they recognize that British Law still trumps Sharia law, and that not all Muslims want to live by Sharia law.

In other words, it'll be a voluntary exercise, decisions can be appealed, and in any dispute between the laws, the law of the land wins, period.


What came out during the debate here, though, was that many Muslims...women in particular...lived in a fairly insulated family environment, and would not necessarily have the opportunity to exercise such free will. Quite frankly, though, this discussion overlapped into the affairs of a number of fundamentalist religious groups, so in the end quite a few people were offended. However, at day's end, British Common Law, (the basis for our judicial system) took the field.

[edit on 7-2-2008 by JohnnyCanuck]



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
Damn right! I'll beat the ABoC to *SNIP* with a copy of the Magna Carta, for todays work.


well you would have to ask the co-founder of the carlyle group, david rubenstein, if you can borrow/hire it then (he bought the magna carter at auction last year). he is the only private owner of a copy.

[edit on 7-2-2008 by NGC2736]



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by lunchboxjunkie
Man that sucks that the UK is even considering this BS. If they try it here in the USA, I hope the Muslim aholes put the turbins on tight because we have alot of red neck guns armed and ready. *SNIP*!!


It just amazes me that the response to this has to drop down to the level of bigotry, hate, and violence. It is a sad testament to the simplicity of human narture.

[edit on 7-2-2008 by Animal]

[edit on 7-2-2008 by NGC2736]



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
Well, that seems like a whole lotta common sense, why has no-one else thought of that.
Oh, probably because those that want to live by Sharia Law know that it's teachings demand that all Muslims must actively strive to convert the rest of the world to Islam, by whatever means deemed necessary, and as such could not accept such limitations.

Still, as I said before, makes sense to me.



No it doesn't. I know we have some Muslim members here who could blow that out of the water easily enough, but as they seem to not be showing up, I'll have to give it a shot.

Islam wants converts, but it does not demand that Muslims actively seek to convert people. That's Christianity. The Koran tells Muslims who want to convert someone to do so in the same way the Bible suggest - living a good and righteous life and showing the rightness of your religion that way, and educating those who come to see how you live so well.

There is a method of wartime conversion, however. First, it's important to note that the Koran (and thus Sharia law!) absolutely forbids Muslims from fighting anything but a defensive war. When in such a position, however, the Muslims are to ask the people they're facing on the field of battle to accept Islam. No different than any other armed conflict where one side asks the other to put down their weapons and go the hell away.


originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
What came out during the debate here, though, was that many Muslims...women in particular...lived in a fairly insulated family environment, and would not necessarily have the opportunity to exercise such free will. Quite frankly, though, this discussion overlapped into the affairs of a number of fundamentalist religious groups, so in the end quite a few people were offended. However, at day's end, British Common Law, (the basis for our judicial system) took the field.


Sharia law or common law, this is a problem either way, and is found in many communities outside Muslim ones, even without the addition of religion. Battered wife syndrome is not limited to one religion or set of laws, and isolation of hte vulnerable happens regardless.

[edit on 7-2-2008 by TheWalkingFox]



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by lunchboxjunkie
 


No consideration has been given to this at all.
There isn't a chance in hell of this happening in the near future.

It is the ramblings of a man who is detached from the everyday doings and concerns of British life.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 10:49 AM
link   
It's funny how this thread comes in the same week as two others concerning members of the royal family (the Duke of York and Prince Charles) giving their opinions when asked, and being pilloried for it by our membership. The logical conclusion would seem to be that unless your position is currently (as opposed to historically) extremely powerful, you shouldn't give an opinion on anything, ever. Surely that's not the way we want things to go, here of all places??

More specifically on this point, I don't think the Archbishop should be so unwisely dismissed. He is an extremely intelligent man, part of whose job is to make a specific study of these sort of issues and offer such spiritual counsel as he can in response. His view, quite accurately, is that there are elements of British law that do not engage with Muslim citizens.

What he's advocating is only brave in the sense that it's him saying it from his position as head of the Church of England - to any "normal" person his suggestions ought not to seem so outlandish. The reality is that the effects would be largely superficial. He takes care to point out that he does not advocate rolling out extreme elements of shariah law across the board. These are specific cases in divorce courts and similar where existing legislation is simply too antiquated to cope.

The reality is that status quo does not work, and something needs to give. I don't believe anything in the Archbishop's argument merits his being labelled an "idiot", as he has been above. One may not have much respect for his faith or his office, but his opinion is a perfectly sensible one, even if you disagree with it.

LW



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Animal ---


Apologies if you feel i have offended you.

I to have some good muslims friends -

Who also inform me if there elders/clerics told them to fight for Jihad then they would have to kill me - Some friends ay !

I do take you point onboard - I never use to feel that way -
So what has changed in the last 5 years to make me feel this way

1 more point to note:

I have never in England seen the muslim community stand up and denouce terrorism never ever once - just can we have this, we should have that you can't go swimming at this time because ---
If we are condemnded to a world governed by religion then we are all doomed because as ATS say Deny ignorace right

Then show me your proof I live on this planet as well and have as much right as the next man -
So where is all the proof in any religion let alone muslims.

Again i am sorry if i have offended anyone - It wasn't my intension.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


That depends on the interpretation of The Koran that the believer wishes to believe in.
That is one of the beauty's of The Koran, it is all down to interpretation and who the interpreter is.
As The Koran is written in Arabic and the vast majority of Muslims can not speak Arabic, (even if they can recite passages by rote) it is open to massive manipulation.

There seems to be interpretations of Sharia Law too, that practiced in Malaysia is quite different to that practiced in Saudi Arabia which is different again to that practiced in Iran.

As stared before, The British Muslim Council do practice elements of a version of Sharia Law but this has no recognition within the British Judicial system, and never will.

I agree it's a shame that Beachcoma, Phoenix, Zyon Cryme et al haven't contributed as of yet, I am certain they would be able to add a lot of constructive balance to the arguements.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by LoneWeasel
 


The Archbishop Of Cantebury is not the head of The Church Of England, Queen Elizabeth 11 is.

The dear old Archbishop is a puddled old man with little or no influence and is a relic of a bygone era whose attempts to appear relevant today just further alienate him and all that he stands for from the majority of British people.
He would be better off finding out what the cares and concerns of the British people really are.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


You're kind of contradicting the statement of your previous post - at least it looks that way. It seems that in the post I replied to, you were saying that Sharia law says this and is immutable and anyone who wants Sharia law will accept no diversions from that single approach. With this post though, you're making the very valid point that different places have different takes on the law.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join