Muslims do NOT care if we burn the Koran! They care about THIS!

reply to post by ollncasino

The civil judgements by the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal may not contravene English criminal law but its civil rulings are clearly not compatible and within UK civil law

That is correct. Sharia law is not compatible or within UK civil law.

Sadly however, it is being enforced by the High Court within the English legal framework.

A sad day for England.

Originally posted by ollncasino
reply to post by maybereal11

 

Originally posted by maybereal11
The Religion of Peace site is a scam...

Really?

Then that would mean that all of those terrorist attacks that he lists didn't happen!

Well now you are just retreating to playing stupid. Really that logic works for you? Either/or? The site is not a scam OR "all of the terror attacks on the list didn't happen"?

Hmmm...Either everything that President George Bush has ever said is the truth ...or he has lied about everything. It's false logic...but I understand your paniced use of such false logic in your retort upon realizing that your "favorite site" for hate literature and supporting data is in fact a scam.

I see you didn't bother to research it as I suggested?

The site is a mix of accurate data and false claims. From that muddy collection of BS and accurate data the site author spins a psuedo-intellectual tale to appeal to hate mongers.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by joewalker
You see olln, first of all you need to back up your assertion,made some time and pages ago, that decisions made by the MAT are contrary to E&W law and further, that the courts of E&W are enforcing unlawful Judgements.

I made no such statement.

If I did, then it should be a simple matter to provide a quote from myself (in context please) proving your assertion.

Thanks very much.

edit on 7-10-2010 by ollncasino because: typing

See above

Edit: or the last post on page 20 of this thread.

Originally posted by ollncasino
reply to post by ollncasino

 

The civil judgements by the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal may not contravene English criminal law but its civil rulings are clearly not compatible and within UK civil law

That is correct. Sharia law is not compatible or within UK civil law.

Sadly however, it is being enforced by the High Court within the English legal framework.

A sad day for England.

Wow...still playing dumb.

The UK courts only enforce UK law....any hypothetical ruling by a religious arbitrator is only enforcable if it is supported by secular UK law. This goes for cannon law, judiac law etc.

There is no sharia law being enforced by UK courts...The company microsoft can create a legal contract with a vendor stating anything it likes, but once in US court...only those components of the agreement that overlap with US Law will be considered valid and enforcable...by your logic, you would claim that Microsoft has it's own system of law and the US courts are enforcing it.

Just inane and desperate logic...do you need to hate so badly as to abandon principle and honesty in your arguments?

I hope you find a better calling in life. Though you pretend ignorance often, you certainly aren't.
What an utter waste of intelligence, dedicated to regurgitating and spinning hate rhetoric. Sad.

Originally posted by maybereal11
Just inane and desperate logic...do you need to hate so badly as to abandon principle and honesty in your arguments?

The fact that you feel the need to insult me suggests that you lack confidence in your own postion.

Originally posted by maybereal11
There is no sharia law being enforced by UK courts...The company microsoft can create a legal contract with a vendor stating anything it likes, but once in US court...only those components of the agreement that overlap with US Law will be considered valid and enforcable...by your logic, you would claim that Microsoft has it's own system of law and the US courts are enforcing it.

If 2 US companies in the UK chose to use a Tribunal using US law, then the law being applied by the tribunal would be...drum roll...

US law.

Such tribunals applying foreign law exist all over the world.

Why is that so hard to grasp?

The UK court would then apply the judgement unless it was illegal or contrary to public policy.

But why believe me?

Why not read Muslim Arbitration Tribunal’s website?

The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT) was established in 2007 to provide a viable alternative for the Muslim community seeking to resolve disputes in accordance with Islamic Sacred Law and without having to resort to costly and time consuming litigation.

The establishment of MAT is an important and significant step towards providing the Muslim community with a real opportunity to self determine disputes in accordance with Islamic Sacred Law.

MAT will operate within the legal framework of England and Wales thereby ensuring that any determination reached by MAT can be enforced through existing means of enforcement open to normal litigants.

Although MAT must operate within the legal framework of England and Wales, this does not prevent or impede MAT from ensuring that all determinations reached by it are in accordance with one of the recognised Schools of Islamic Sacred Law.

MAT will therefore, for the first time, offer the Muslim community a real and true opportunity to settle disputes in accordance with Islamic Sacred Law with the knowledge that the outcome as determined by MAT will be binding and enforceable.

www.matribunal.com...

Note it says it operates "within the legal framework of England and Wales", not that it applies law "in accordance with English civil law". In fact, it expressly states "all determinations reached by it are in accordance with one of the recognised Schools of Islamic Sacred Law".

Originally posted by maybereal11
I hope you find a better calling in life. Though you pretend ignorance often, you certainly aren't.
What an utter waste of intelligence, dedicated to regurgitating and spinning hate rhetoric. Sad.

I admire you. I really do.

Not the name calling part.

I admire the fact that you have the conviction to come back on this board again and again, defending intolerance in the name of tolerance.

You are an inspiration.

I not so keen on the fact that you try to make excuses for Islamic radicals though. That's a bit off.

Originally posted by maybereal11
The site is a mix of accurate data and false claims.

Yet you have provided no examples of this false data.

Its a big site.

www.thereligionofpeace.com...

Surely the webmaster must have made a mistake somewhere that you can jump on and falsely cry victory (while ignoring the other 99.9% of the site that is error free)?

I have proved that the reports of Islamic terrorist attacks are reliable (I provided news links elsewhere on the web proving the attacks took place, just as the site listed).

The rest of the site links to articles which are critical of Islamic terrorists and radical Muslims around the world.

Is that what you don't like?


For instance,

I will just list the first few links


Forced marriage leads to minor girl's suicide

nation.ittefaq.com...

Muslim Preacher Beats Child Porn Rap on Technicality...

www.theglobeandmail.com...

London Tube Driver Planned Terror Mission 'for Allah'...

undhimmi.com...

Academic Schemes with CAIR to Inflate his Book Sales

www.familysecuritymatters.org...

'Asian' Rapist Hunts British Women...

menmedia.co.uk...

Saudis Arrest Three Christians for Sharing Faith...

in.reuters.com...

Imam Beats Mosque Janitor with Iron Rod...

www.arabtimesonline.com...


Or do you hate the website because it documents the fact that Islamic extremists have carried out 16,166 deadly terror attacks (that's not murders, terror attacks) since 9/11.

Or the fact that the website documents that Islamic terrrorists carried out 172 Jihad attacks in September, in 23 countries, murdering 703 people and injuring 1,454?

That's only just under 24 people a day, murdered, every day, by Muslim extremists, in September.

Why are you so quick to defend Islamic murderers?

Do you support them?

reply to post by maybereal11


Italy to become next European country to ban burka after government report recommends forbidding it in public

www.dailymail.co.uk...

reply to post by ollncasino

Not so fast my blue beaked chum, from wherever did you get the idea that UK law followed some sort of logic?

All we've done so far is establish, in answer to a question from you, that private citizens can opt to resolve disputes OUTSIDE of the Civil court, before an Arbitrator and to rules of thier own making; hence the Scottish example.

Remember, in order to be given transfer by leave of the court, the tribunals awards have to comply with..?

If Scots civil law being applied in a London based Tribunal doesn't need to worry about the English civil law concept of consideration (and of course it doesn't) then by analogy, the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal applying Sharia law also doesn’t need to worry about English civil law concepts such as consideration.

Did I say Scots law was enforceable? I said that it was permissible to use it as a basis for a tribunal in London.
But the MAT would like its decisions to be upheld and enforceable with the leave of the court. MAT states:

MAT will operate within the legal framework of England and Wales

In order to achieve 'legally binding' status the MAT and other religious tribunals must adhere religiously ( ) to the '96 act and other relevant legislation, like for example, the Human Rights Act 1998.

The MAT accepts the Jurisdiction of the E&W courts.

You suggest that any civil decision made by MAT is incompatible within the jurisdiction that it sits.

My question still stands: Please prove your earlier assertion that the courts of E&W's are enforcing unlawful judgements.

Betchya carnt.

reply to post by joewalker

Originally posted by joewalker
In order to achieve 'legally binding' status the MAT and other religious tribunals must adhere religiously (

) to the '96 act and other relevant legislation, like for example, the Human Rights Act 1998.

As you have kindly pointed out, the application of Sharia law by the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal may not contravene the Human Rights Act 1998.

Constitutional law over-rides the application of Sharia civil law in the same way as it over-rides English civil law.

Or does it?

Only if the Human Rights Act 1998 was enacted after the English civil law in question. That’s the problem with the UK having an uncodified constitution. Any subsequent legislation by parliament over–rides earlier legislation. Entrenching legislation is a problem.

Tell me, and this isn’t a trick question , does the UK Supreme Court serve a similar function, in practice, as the US supreme court?

I don't think it does, does it. It has no power to strike down legislation that contravenes say the Human Rights Act 1998?

Anyway, thank you for bringing up the Human Rights Act 1998. You have made an interesting point.

Sharia law applied by the Muslim arbitration Tribunal must be applied, in principle, in accordance with English constitutional law (which includes the 1998 Act).

Which is why the website of MAT states

"Although MAT must operate within the legal framework of England and Wales, this does not prevent or impede MAT from ensuring that all determinations reached by it are in accordance with one of the recognised Schools of Islamic Sacred Law."

www.matribunal.com...

Originally posted by joewalker
My question still stands: Please prove your earlier assertion that the courts of E&W's are enforcing unlawful judgements.

To be fair here,I can see how you are reading it.

The civil judgements by the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal may not contravene English criminal law but its civil rulings are clearly not compatible and within UK civil law.

I could have phrased my statement better - Sharia law, while it must be consistant with English constituional law (hence the must operate within the legal framework of England and Wales), Sharia law is no more compatibale and within UK civil law than say German law or even Chinese civil law is.

So Sharia law is being applied by the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal and enforced by the High Court.

So we are back to where we started.

I object to Sharia law being apllied at all in the UK.

reply to post by joewalker


Why do I object to Sharia law being applied in the UK?

Let's quote Suhaib Hasan, the Secretary General of the Islamic Sharia Council

“If Sharia law is implemented, then you can turn this country into a haven of peace because once a thief’s hand is cut off nobody is going to steal.

“Once, just only once, if an adulterer is stoned nobody is going to commit this crime at all.

“We want to offer it to the British society. If they accept it, it is for their good and if they don’t accept it they’ll need more and more prisons.”

Divorce, Sharia Style, Channel 4, February 2008: video.google.c...# and We want to offer Sharia law,

The Telegraph, 20 January 2008: www.telegraph.co.uk...

reply to post by maybereal11


Suicide bombers kill seven and wound 65 in Pakistan as tensions mount between Washington and Islamabad

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Look at those pictures of Muslims blown up by Islamic terrorists.

Blown up by Islamic terrorists that Maybereal11 is falling over himself to defend.

Its disgusting.

Originally posted by joewalker
In order to achieve 'legally binding' status the MAT and other religious tribunals must adhere religiously (

) to the '96 act and other relevant legislation, like for example, the Human Rights Act 1998.

Sharia courts should not be recognised under Britain's 1996 Arbitration Act, according to a new report from independent think-tank Civitas.

According to Denis MacEoin, author of Sharia Law or 'One Law For All'?, sharia courts operating in Britain may be handing down rulings that are inappropriate to this country because they are linked to elements in Islamic law that are seriously out of step with trends in Western legislation that derive from the values of the Enlightenment and are inherent in modern codes of human rights.

Sharia rulings contain great potential for controversy and may involve acts contrary to UK legal norms and human rights legislation

The fact that so many sharia rulings in Britain relate to cases concerning divorce and custody of children is of particular concern, as women are not equal in sharia law, and sharia contains no specific commitment to the best interests of the child that is fundamental to family law in the UK. Under sharia, a male child belongs to the father after the age of seven, regardless of circumstances.

Thus, in October 2008 the House of Lords ruled that sharia was incompatible with human rights when a Lebanese woman sought asylum in the UK because, if she had been sent back to Lebanon, she would have been ordered to hand over her son to a violently abusive husband (p.47).

www.civitas.org.uk...

www.civitas.org.uk...

reply to post by ollncasino

Only if the Human Rights Act 1998 was enacted before the English civil law in question. That’s the problem with the UK having an uncodified constitution. Any subsequent legislation by parliament over–rides earlier legislation. Entrenching legislation is a problem

Are you sure about his statement olln?

Does the incorporation of the '99 Act place any requirements upon the Juidicary and therefore case law?

I could have phrased my statement better - Sharia law, while it must be consistant with English constituional law (hence the must operate within the legal framework of England and Wales), Sharia law is no more compatibale and within UK civil law than say German law or even Chinese civil law is.

Namely that sharia isnt being enforced by UK courts anymore than talmudic law is.

Jeeze that took some getting to.

reply to post by ollncasino

If Sharia law is implemented, then you can turn this country into a haven of peace because once a thief’s hand is cut off nobody is going to steal.

Such a sanction would be a breach of Article 3 of the HRA and the European Convention on Human Rights and therefore unenforceable within a UK court.

Can you guess what comes next?

reply to post by ollncasino

Apologies for the (possible) triple post.

The claims made in the civitas think tank report and associated reporting were discussed by Rozenberg in the article I linked in a previous post.
MacEoin fails, imho, to distinguish between 'mediation' and 'arbitration' services offered by MAT and other religious tribunals. The Authors use of the word 'may' is a bit of a giveaway.

As I posted earlier olln, anyone who can provide proof of such claims is likey to be the recipiant of a lot of money and thanks, and thats just from me (the thanks not the money ).

Thus, in October 2008 the House of Lords ruled that sharia was incompatible with human rights when a Lebanese woman sought asylum in the UK because, if she had been sent back to Lebanon, she would have been ordered to hand over her son to a violently abusive husband

Further adding to case law and the body of precedent that the lower courts, such as the Family Div, use as a basis for judgement.

Namely, that some aspects of spiritual and religious law are incompatable with UK law.

It is up to the religious tribunal to find a precedent within its own beliefs that would fulfil the requirements of the Jurisdiction in which it sits.
The enforcement of sanctions still rests with the primary Jurisdiction.

In my humble opinion and in no way should my comments be taken as legal advice (If in doubt see a solicitor of the legal kind), obviously.

reply to post by RizeorDie

my respects go to all those open minded people who see beyond the media dis-info hogwash.

nicely put, totally agree

Originally posted by ollncasino

Look at those pictures of Muslims blown up by Islamic terrorists.

Blown up by Islamic terrorists that Maybereal11 is falling over himself to defend.

Its disgusting.

Logical fallacy of the undistributed middle..

Men are human
Mary is Human
Therefore Mary is a Man

Islamic Terrorists follow the Islamic Faith
Muslims follow the Islamic Faith
Therefore all Muslims are Islamic Terrorists

That's what you bring to the discussion? Baiting? Selective evidence? Logical fallacies that a school child could disprove?

Apparently I have to spell it out for you....

I have never defended terrorists...nor, for example have I ever defended the thousands of pedophiles that the Catholic church employs, but I will defend both Muslims and Catholics, despite myself being neither. I have defended my fellow American's natural and constitutional right to practice whatever faith they choose.

Please carry on with your hate-mongering...Your rhetoric serves as a pointed and neccessary reminder to Americans that the past repeats itself when we fail to be vigiliant against your type.

Lest we forget that your idealogical ancestors murdered Catholics in the streets in the 19th century…

Anti-Catholic animus in the United States reached a peak in the nineteenth century when the Protestant population became alarmed by the influx of Catholic immigrants. Some American Protestants, having an increased interest in prophecies regarding the end of time, claimed that the Catholic Church was the Whore of Babylon in the Book of Revelation. The resulting "nativist" movement, which achieved prominence in the 1840s, was whipped into a frenzy of anti-Catholicism that led to mob violence, the burning of Catholic property, and the killing of Catholics.This violence was fed by claims that Catholics were destroying the culture of the United States.

en.wikipedia.org...

And employed the same fear mongering to combat the progressive candidacy of John F. Kennedy …

The issue persisted throughout the campaign. As in 1928, bigots and extremists on the right continued to issue warnings that the Pope would be governing America if Kennedy were elected. Anti-Catholic tracts were distributed to millions of homes, along with radio and TV attacks and countless mailings. Kennedy won by the barest of margins…

books.google.com...=onepage&q=catholic%20discrimi nation%20kennedy&f=false

And opposed desegregation in the south...Women's property rights...Burned heretics at the stake...

Fear and intolerance...Your posts in summary are just one great irony...your xenophic zealotry is identical to those extremists of every flavor. There are "recruiters" just like yourselves working with AL-Qaida right now, they don't strap bombs to themselves, but rather convince lost souls to murder for them.

You aren't even interesting to me any longer...I will not be responding to your nonsense again.

Okay here is where i stand on Islam and Sharia law.

I think we can all agree that peace is great and world peace would be fantastic, however i feel that if Islam is in this world then world peace is unachievable, i believe this because of the shear amount of radical Muslims who fight and have fought for Allah and Mohammed because of what is written in the Qu'ran and i'm sure that hundreds of thousands if not millions of Muslims can all misinterpret a book in exactly the same way, of world dominance.

And i don't want Sharia law because it is totally barbaric and outdated, we live in a modern world, not one with public stonings and other violence to enforce the law. Truthtube.tv (graphic site) should shed more light as to why i HATE Islam, however this is not to be mixed up with me hating Muslims as this is not the case, i should know i have met plenty.

You practice Taqiyya well, and soon America will wake up to that fact. My Jyzia will never be paid except with my blood. For anyone whom might just care about the truth and the real agenda look up creeping Shariah in America and always remember America and Israel Akbar.

www.acts17.net...

The Major Prophecies
In his note on verse 7:157, commentator Yusuf Ali offers the following evidence for the claim that Muhammad is mentioned in “the Law and the Gospel”:
In this verse is a prefiguring, to Moses, of the Arabian Messenger, the last and greatest of the Messengers of Allah. Prophecies about him will be found in the Tawrah and the Injil [Gospel]. In the reflex of the Tawrah as now accepted by the Jews, Moses says: “The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me” (Deut. 18:15): the only Prophet who brought a Shari’ah [Law] like that of Moses was Muhammad al Mustafa, and he came of the house of Isma’il, the brother of Isaac, the father of Israel. In the reflex of the Gospel as now accepted by Christians, Christ promised another Comforter, (John 14:16): the Greek word Paraclete which the Christians interpret as referring to the Holy Spirit is by our Doctors taken to be Periclyte, which would be the Greek form of Ahmad. [8]
Hence, to defend the validity of the Qur’an, Ali offers a single prophecy from the Old Testament and another from the New Testament. Together, these two prophecies form the “one-two punch” of the Islamic argument for biblical predictions about Muhammad. Yet Muslims have to tear both prophecies out of context in order to make them conform to the Islamic interpretation. (This is why Islamic books and pamphlets rarely quote entire passages; to do so would expose the context and would refute the argument.) A careful analysis reveals the truth about these passages.
The first of the Major Prophecies comes from Deuteronomy, where Moses predicts the rise of another prophet:
The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; according to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. [9]
Muslims argue that this prophecy could only have been fulfilled by Muhammad, who, like Moses, was a lawgiver, a prophet, and a military leader. Further, the Prophet was to come from the brethren of the Israelites, which must be a reference to the Ishmaelites (Muhammad’s ancestors) for Ishmael was the brother of Isaac, the father of Israel. These facts, along with other similarities between Muhammad and Moses, support the identification of “the Prophet” with Muhammad.
If we were to take Deuteronomy 18:15 by itself, completely ignoring the rest of the book, we might agree with the Muslim apologists. However, even a cursory examination of the context of this prophecy demonstrates the flaws in the Islamic position.
First, the passage says that God will raise up a prophet like Moses, because the Israelites didn’t want to speak directly with God. The Israelites said, “Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God . . . that I die not,” and God replied, “They have well spoken that which they have spoken.” Hence, when verse 18:15 is taken in context, we see that the Jews were asking for an intercessor, someone to stand between them and God just as Moses did. While Muhammad could certainly be viewed as an intercessor, the passage seems to fit more comfortably if the Prophet is Jesus. Muhammad was an intercessor between Gabriel and man, whereas Jesus was an intercessor directly between God and man: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” [10]
Next, Moses says that God will raise up a prophet “from the midst of thee.” He is talking to Israelites, so it sounds as if God is telling them that he will raise up a prophet from the midst of Israel. In any case, Muhammad surely wasn’t raised up from the midst of Jews. Jesus, on the other hand, was born and raised in Israel, and so the context again fits more comfortably if Moses is referring to Jesus. read the whole truth.

Oh and I love the whole you cant understand it because it can not be translated, well let me tell you the truth, less than 1 percent of all Muslim nations can read the original text and that consist of the university professors mainly, so I say to them since they cant read the original text themselves then 99 percent of them have no clue what the Koran says. But it they can read the translation into common Arabic then we also can read and understand the translation of the Koran in English as well as any other language.