Call for sharia law in UK

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:59 pm

THE Sunday Telegraph today tells of demands by senior Muslims that sharia law be given legal authority in the UK.

Dr Hasan is a judge in a sharia court - in east London. It sits, innocuously, at the end of a row of terrace houses in Leyton: a converted corner shop, with blinds on the windows, office- style partitions and a makeshift reception area.

It is one of dozens of sharia courts - also known as councils - that have been set up in mosques, Islamic centres and even schools across Britain.

The number of British Muslims using the courts is increasing.

The judgments of the courts have no basis in British law, and are therefore technically illegitimate - they are binding only in that those involved agree to comply.

"Even though cutting off the hands and feet, or flogging the drunkard and fornicator, seem to be very abhorrent, once they are implemented, they become a deterrent for the whole society," Hasan told the paper.

Jeeez may aswell just give them our bloody country...feels like everyone who wasnt born here has a right except us!

Post by **spot** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:09 pm

The Sunday Telegraph is far more of a threat to British society than Dr Hasan.

theia · Post by **theia** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:21 pm

spot;760751 wrote: The Sunday Telegraph is far more of a threat to British society than Dr Hasan.

In what respect, Spot?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:26 pm

Chezzie;760740 wrote: THE Sunday Telegraph today tells of demands by senior Muslims that sharia law be given legal authority in the UK.

Dr Hasan is a judge in a sharia court - in east London. It sits, innocuously, at the end of a row of terrace houses in Leyton: a converted corner shop, with blinds on the windows, office- style partitions and a makeshift reception area.

It is one of dozens of sharia courts - also known as councils - that have been set up in mosques, Islamic centres and even schools across Britain.

The number of British Muslims using the courts is increasing.

The judgments of the courts have no basis in British law, and are therefore technically illegitimate - they are binding only in that those involved agree to comply.

"Even though cutting off the hands and feet, or flogging the drunkard and fornicator, seem to be very abhorrent, once they are implemented, they become a deterrent for the whole society," Hasan told the paper.

Jeeez may aswell just give them our bloody country...feels like everyone who wasnt born here has a right except us!

I'd have to question how "senior" a Muslim he is. Given the damage this will do to the Muslim cause in the UK it's unlikely he's more than a jumped up nobody trying to make a name for himself.

ETA - the article mentions senior Muslims - does it name anyone else or is he legion?

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:32 pm

Bryn Mawr;760760 wrote: I'd have to question how "senior" a Muslim he is. Given the damage this will do to the Muslim cause in the UK it's unlikely he's more than a jumped up nobody trying to make a name for himself.

ETA - the article mentions senior Muslims - does it name anyone else or is he legion?

Here is the article in more depth Bryn

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... tviewedbox

Post by **spot** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:33 pm

theia;760758 wrote: In what respect, Spot?

In giving the oxygen of publicity to fringe nutters like Dr Hasan who imagine that UK law might one day permit the cutting off hands and feet, or flogging the drunkard and fornicator, as legally imposed penalties rather than acts subject to prosecution. In providing the publicity for their own bigoted inflammatory reasons rather than to generate constructive debate. The Sunday Telegraph is far more powerful than Dr Hasan and way more disgusting. Its continued publication at least keeps the frothing nutters visible above society's parapet (and I don't mean Dr Hasan by that), I'd hate to see them go out of business.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:41 pm

Chezzie;760764 wrote: Here is the article in more depth Bryn

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... tviewedbox

The example quoted there is no different from the Catholic Church denying remarriage to divorced people (a little more liberal maybe - follow the rules and it will be recognised rather than appeal to the Pope for an annulment).

If the lady wished to do so she could go to the registry office and remarry as long as she is prepared for it to not be recognised by her Church. The main difference is in the amount of acceptance she would receive from her peers.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:45 am

Don't worry. the european court of human rights will never let it happen.

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:08 am

gmc;760963 wrote: Don't worry. the european court of human rights will never let it happen.

Sincerely hope your right Gmc.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 4:27 am

Another one of these stories. Its amazing how self-defeating some of these provocative calls by some British Muslim's are to the current position of tolerance that Islam has in the UK. Though also like Spot I would question the role of papers like the Telegraph in giving such people any sort of platform and perhaps assigning more importance to what they are saying than is justified, though its also important not to ignore what is going on in British society right now. Unfortunately I know from the experience of my own country that when issues of religion, nation, and identity become a problem its usually the most intolerant and divisive voices that end up setting the agenda.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:50 am

gmc;760963 wrote: Don't worry. the european court of human rights will never let it happen.

gmc ---------------- don't bank on that !

Spot, I agree that giving these 'people' publicity in whatever form is all that they are seeking, at the moment. ------------------ all publicity (good or bad) is good so long as they get the name spelt correctly. But your ordinary 'Joe' in the street needs to be made aware of this growing canker ------- have you noticed how many muslims are now councillors (a major step towards becoming an MP !).

I personally feel that we are being over-run, and it is happening quite quickly !

It is all very well and good waving the 'pc' flag, but I'm afraid this country's government and other authorities have literally gone OTT and have become the laughing stock of the rest of the world.

If you think that sharia law could never happen in the UK, then think again !!

There are already muslims in parliament ------ think on.

We are British, our faith is basically christian, and that governs our standards and laws. Do we really want the standards and laws of sharia ???

FOR EVIL TO PREVAIL NEEDS ONLY FOR THE GOOD MAN TO DO NOTHING.

This is how I feel about this, and I am not alone in my anxiety.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:22 am

Were I asked to guess, Gill, I'd say there was a higher proportion of readers of the Sunday Telegraph who'd want Willie Whitelaw's short sharp shock floggings re-introduced into your Christian England than there are British Muslims who'd vote for it alongside them. The same goes for re-introducing hanging police-killers (remember Derek Bentley?), or hanging Gary Glitter, or hanging Michael Jackson if he ever lands at Heathrow come to that.

Your Torygraph Christian isn't one to favour rehabilitation, he's more your flog'em or hang'em git who cheered when the malingering Ernest Saunders played his get out of jail free card and then became the first person on the planet to recover from pre-senile dementia. They are, in short, a partisan bunch of bigots. Fortunately they're incapable any longer of governing by consent and their wretched army's too supine to force them into power at gunpoint.

I'd much rather see more Muslim councillors and MPs than this rather novel concept of an actively Christian Britain you're advocating. Britain never was, whatever date you look at it. We were nominally Christian for a long while during which time we burned women at the stake, hanged people convicted of stealing goods valued above £2, legally crushed to death anyone who refused to enter a plea in court and sanctioned rape within marriage. That's what you get when you allow basic Christianity to govern our standards and laws. Oh, and fox-hunting, I don't think your average Muslim's in favour of egging a pack of dogs onto wild animals either.

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:15 pm

spot;761227 wrote: Britain never was, whatever date you look at it.

Spot, I thought better of you. You're conflating Britain and England.

spot;761227 wrote: We were nominally Christian for a long while during which time we burned women at the stake, hanged people convicted of stealing goods valued above £2, legally crushed to death anyone who refused to enter a plea in court and sanctioned rape within marriage.

You think thats' bad? We did worse.............................. We banished people to (gulp) England.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:28 pm

Chookie;761355 wrote: Spot, I thought better of you. You're conflating Britain and England.I do try but "English Muslim" means something different to "British Muslim". There aren't any English passports. I agree with you that conjoined with "whatever date you look at it" the use of Britain in the context of law is impossible, it was an unfortunate lapse.

Having the English to despise is good for the Scots, it allows them to be more liberal in their other interactions. I think the English should go back to just loathing the French the way we were brought up to, if we invite our second-generation immigrant communities to link arms and do the same they'll be far harder to ostracise.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:42 pm

spot;761374 wrote: I do try but "English Muslim" means something different to "British Muslim". There aren't any English passports. I agree with you that conjoined with "whatever date you look at it" the use of Britain in the context of law is impossible, it was an unfortunate lapse.

Having the English to despise is good for the Scots, it allows them to be more liberal in their other interactions. I think the English should go back to just loathing the French the way we were brought up to, if we invite our second-generation immigrant communities to link arms and do the same they'll be far harder to ostracise.

Spot I hate to break this to you but as far as I can see the English still despise the French, and the Germans, they are not that fond of the Italians either, and the Spanish are not particularly popular, they think that the Scots are a bunch of ungrateful whelps, while the Irish are third-world plucky drunks but are now reasonably harmless and have a few quid, while the Welsh are fun loving animal worriers, the Poles are OK though as they will work for food. :wah:

Post by **spot** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 4:08 pm

... and those mincing Italians with their curious views about our women!

Am I allowed the shocking liberty of quoting Michael Flanders & Donald Swan at length?The rottenest bits of these islands of ours

We've left in the hands of three unfriendly powers

Examine the Irishman, Welshman or Scot

You'll find he's a stinker, as likely as not.

Och aye, awa' wi' yon Edinburgh Festival:

The Scotsman is mean, as we're all well aware

And bony and blotchy and covered with hair

He eats salty porridge, he works all the day

And he hasn't got bishops to show him the way!

The English, the English, the English are best

I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest.

Ah hit me old mother over the head with a shillelagh:

The Irishman now our contempt is beneath

He sleeps in his boots and he lies through his teeth

He blows up policemen, or so I have heard

And blames it on Cromwell and William the Third!

The English are noble, the English are nice,

And worth any other at double the price

Ah, iechyd da:

The Welshman's dishonest and cheats when he can

And little and dark, more like monkey than man

He works underground with a lamp in his hat

And he sings far too loud, far too often, and flat!

The English, the English, the English are best

So up with the English and down with the rest.

And crossing the Channel, one cannot say much

Of French and the Spanish, the Danish or Dutch

The Germans are German, the Russians are red,

And the Greeks and Italians eat garlic in bed!

The English are moral, the English are good

And clever and modest and misunderstood.

And all the world over, each nation's the same

They've simply no notion of playing the game

They argue with umpires, they cheer when they've won

And they practice beforehand which ruins the fun!

The English, the English, the English are best

So up with the English and down with the rest.

It's not that they're wicked or naturally bad

It's knowing they're foreign that makes them so mad!

For the English are all that a nation should be,

And the flower of the English are Donald and Me!

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 4:28 pm

spot;761401 wrote: ... and those mincing Italians with their curious views about our women!

Am I allowed the shocking liberty of quoting Michael Flanders & Donald Swan at length?The rottenest bits of these islands of ours

We've left in the hands of three unfriendly powers

Examine the Irishman, Welshman or Scot

You'll find he's a stinker, as likely as not.

Och aye, awa' wi' yon Edinburgh Festival:

The Scotsman is mean, as we're all well aware

And bony and blotchy and covered with hair

He eats salty porridge, he works all the day

And he hasn't got bishops to show him the way!

The English, the English, the English are best

I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest.

Ah hit me old mother over the head with a shillelagh:

The Irishman now out contempt is beneath

He sleeps in his boots and he lies through his teeth

He blows up policemen, or so I have heard

And blames it on Cromwell and William the Third!

The English are noble, the English are nice,

And worth any other at double the price

Ah, iechyd da:

The Welshman's dishonest and cheats when he can

And little and dark, more like monkey than man

He works underground with a lamp in his hat

And he sings far too loud, far too often, and flat!

The English, the English, the English are best

So up with the English and down with the rest.

And crossing the Channel, one cannot say much

Of French and the Spanish, the Danish or Dutch

The Germans are German, the Russians are red,

And the Greeks and Italians eat garlic in bed!

The English are moral, the English are good

And clever and modest and misunderstood.

And all the world over, each nation's the same

They've simply no notion of playing the game

They argue with umpires, they cheer when they've won

And they practice beforehand which ruins the fun!

The English, the English, the English are best

So up with the English and down with the rest.

It's not that they're wicked or naturally bad

It's knowing they're foreign that makes them so mad!

For the English are all that a nation should be,

And the flower of the English are Donald and Me!

Yes yes, most amusing, though of course as a Celt I know that these Islands actually belong to us, the Scots and the Welsh (or Britons as they were once called) and the English are just Germans on an extended holiday. :wah:

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:35 am

The English, the English, the English are best

So up with the English and down with the rest.

poor dears. You can't blame them for trying to convince themselves can you?

posted by G#GILL

Quote:

Originally Posted by gmc View Post

Don't worry. the european court of human rights will never let it happen.

gmc ---------------- don't bank on that !

I was being facetious. Like many such as daily telegraph readers you seem to be under the impression that ordinary people have no say in the matter. ( they're all unemployed you know or the feckless idle rich-who else has time to read the broadsheets) It's no more likely than fundamentalist Christians getting their way.

posted by G#GILL

If you think that sharia law could never happen in the UK, then think again !!

There are already muslims in parliament ------ think on.

We are British, our faith is basically christian, and that governs our standards and laws. Do we really want the standards and laws of sharia ???

But which kind of christian?

Good grief the place started going when they allowed catholic MP's. before you know it we will be ruled from rome. Look at Tony Blair for the last ten years he has been ruling at the behest of the priest in rome- they have sleeper cells all over the place you know. He was appointing church of England bishops for god's sake (or was it for Rome?

)

(the reaction if he had converted while in office might have been entertaining, daily telegraph readers would be spluttering their tea all over the paper)

Course as a Presbyterian (free church of course not like those other nancy boys ) I know the Church of England is an idolatrous Roman catholic clone anyway.

There you are another religious conspiracy theory for you to worry about. Given our history maybe a more genuine worry?:sneaky::-3

No doubt there are orangemen around that see the Muslims as their natural allies against the catholic and catholics that see the muslims as natural allies against the orangemen which could explain the muslim MP in Glasgow.

I'm not worried about muslim extremists our hoodies will get them if we can keep them sober for long enough.

Raven · Post by **Raven** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:30 am

God Save the Queen!:yh_rotfl

Richard Bell · Post by **Richard Bell** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:51 am

About two years ago, a few boneheaded, opportunistic politicians here in Ontario proposed Sharia law be valid for civil cases in this province.

This was nothing more than an embarrassingly transparent gesture to court the Muslim vote in the Toronto region.

Since most Muslims in Canada are recent immigrants, the cries of outrage came mostly from Muslim women, many of which recently fled nations that subscribe to such dogma. One of the reasons many of them came to Canada was to live in a just and free society.

The matter was quickly dropped when the politicians realised it would blow up in their faces

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 1:48 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_C ... man_Rights

In 2003 and 2004, the (european) court ruled that "that sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy" (13/02/2003) .[10], because the sharia rules on inheritance, women's rights and religious freedom violate human rights as established in the European Convention on Human Rights.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 3:38 pm

spot;761227 wrote: Were I asked to guess, Gill, I'd say there was a higher proportion of readers of the Sunday Telegraph who'd want Willie Whitelaw's short sharp shock floggings re-introduced into your Christian England than there are British Muslims who'd vote for it alongside them. The same goes for re-introducing hanging police-killers (remember Derek Bentley?), or hanging Gary Glitter, or hanging Michael Jackson if he ever lands at Heathrow come to that.

Your Torygraph Christian isn't one to favour rehabilitation, he's more your flog'em or hang'em git who cheered when the malingering Ernest Saunders played his get out of jail free card and then became the first person on the planet to recover from pre-senile dementia. They are, in short, a partisan bunch of bigots. Fortunately they're incapable any longer of governing by consent and their wretched army's too supine to force them into power at gunpoint.

I'd much rather see more Muslim councillors and MPs than this rather novel concept of an actively Christian Britain you're advocating. Britain never was, whatever date you look at it. We were nominally Christian for a long while during which time we burned women at the stake, hanged people convicted of stealing goods valued above £2, legally crushed to death anyone who refused to enter a plea in court and sanctioned rape within marriage. That's what you get when you allow basic Christianity to govern our standards and laws. Oh, and fox-hunting, I don't think your average Muslim's in favour of egging a pack of dogs onto wild animals either.

Oh for goodness sake, Spot, we're now in the 21 st Century. What was done in the past is in the past. Things have become a bit more civilised in the UK. Can you say the same for Sharia Law????

freetobeme · Post by **freetobeme** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 6:16 am

G#Gill;761024 wrote: gmc ---------------- don't bank on that !

We are British, our faith is basically christian, and that governs our standards and laws. Do we really want the standards and laws of sharia ???

FOR EVIL TO PREVAIL NEEDS ONLY FOR THE GOOD MAN TO DO NOTHING.

This is how I feel about this, and I am not alone in my anxiety.
Of course we don't... this was tried in Ontario where it took some time before the Premier finally said NO... In itself as another person said, isn't all that bad, but this would only be the first step, as one feature of Sharia is accepted, then others will be introduced - a foot in the door so to speak.

There is no doubt that the more radical Muslims would like to see Sharia Law, in fact, back in 2006 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... aria19.xml

40% of Muslims want it.

As the numbers increase, so will more demands for Sharia law - it's a matter of time really.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:12 am

freetobeme;768446 wrote: Of course we don't... this was tried in Ontario where it took some time before the Premier finally said NO... In itself as another person said, isn't all that bad, but this would only be the first step, as one feature of Sharia is accepted, then others will be introduced - a foot in the door so to speak.

There is no doubt that the more radical Muslims would like to see Sharia Law, in fact, back in 2006 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... aria19.xml

40% of Muslims want it.

As the numbers increase, so will more demands for Sharia law - it's a matter of time really.

And how do you see a move being made for Sharia law to be applied to non-Muslims or for the criminal aspects of Sharia law (as opposed to the religious aspects) to supersede national law? How would this be brought in?

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:25 am

That Ontario story annoys me to no end. Muslims did not try to replace Canadian law with Sharia law. They wanted permission to govern their own Muslim affairs under Sharia and were mostly concerned about family law such as divorce settlements.

To bring some reason to the matter, "Ontario has allowed Catholic and Jewish faith-based tribunals to settle family law matters on a voluntary basis since 1991, but the practice got little attention until Muslim leaders demanded the same rights."

source

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:42 am

koan;768633 wrote: That Ontario story annoys me to no end. Muslims did not try to replace Canadian law with Sharia law. They wanted permission to govern their own Muslim affairs under Sharia and were mostly concerned about family law such as divorce settlements.

To bring some reason to the matter, "Ontario has allowed Catholic and Jewish faith-based tribunals to settle family law matters on a voluntary basis since 1991, but the practice got little attention until Muslim leaders demanded the same rights."

source

Which is exactly what the article in the OP was proposing

joesoap · Post by **joesoap** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:01 pm

I cross ocean, poor and broke. Take bus, see employment folk.

Nice man treat me good in there. Say I need to see welfare.

Welfare say, "You come no more, we send cash right to your door."

Welfare cheques - they make you wealthy! NHS - it keep you healthy!

By and by, I got plenty money. Thanks to you, British dummy!

Write to friends in motherland. Tell them "come fast as you can."

They come in turbans and Ford trucks. I buy big house with welfare bucks!

They come here, we live together. More welfare cheques, it gets better!

Fourteen families, they moving in, but neighbour's patience wearing thin.

Finally, white guy moves away. Now I buy his house, then I say,

"Find more aliens for house to rent." And in the yard I put a tent.

Everything is very good, and soon we own the neighbourhood.

We have hobby, it's called breeding. Welfare pay for baby feeding.

Kids need dentist? Wife need pills? We get free! We got no bills!

Britain crazy! They pay all year, to keep welfare running here.

We think UK darn good place. Too darn good for the white man race!

If they no like us, they can scram. Got lots of room in Pakistan!

I cross ocean, poor and broke. Take bus, see employment folk.

Nice man treat me good in there. Say I need to see welfare.

Welfare say, "You come no more, we send cash right to your door."

Welfare cheques - they make you wealthy! NHS - it keep you healthy!

By and by, I got plenty money. Thanks to you, British dummy!

Write to friends in motherland. Tell them "come fast as you can."

They come in turbans and Ford trucks. I buy big house with welfare bucks!

They come here, we live together. More welfare cheques, it gets better!

Fourteen families, they moving in, but neighbour's patience wearing thin.

Finally, white guy moves away. Now I buy his house,then I say,

"Find more aliens for house to rent." And in the yard I put a tent.

Everything is very good, and soon we own the neighbourhood.

We have hobby, it's called breeding. Welfare pay for baby feeding.

Kids need dentist? Wife need pills? We get free! We got no bills!

Britain crazy! They pay all year, to keep welfare running here.

We think UK darn good place. Too darn good for the white man race!

If they no like us, they can scram. Got lots of room in Pakistan!

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 4:18 pm

The only problem you saw after you posted that was a spelling error?

I've heard that before. I guess humour comes in all forms.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:24 am

posted by joesoap

They come in turbans and Ford trucks.

If they no like us, they can scram. Got lots of room in Pakistan!

So is it sikhs or muslims you dislike the most? What do you think about too many east european immigrants-too many catholics or is it just race that bothers you?

joesoap · Post by **joesoap** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:25 am

gmc;769226 wrote: posted by joesoap

So is it sikhs or muslims you dislike the most? What do you think about too many east european immigrants-too many catholics or is it just race that bothers you?

Non of the above; I am a mongrel myself! My post was intended to draw attention to what others (not including me), in this country think

This alleged poem and much worse can be found everywhere; And until the mindset of people changes, its bad. Here we are in the 21st century and technology races ahead but humanity is still stuck somewhere in Victorian times!

Paul.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:43 am

joesoap;769280 wrote: Non of the above; I am a mongrel myself! My post was intended to draw attention to what others (not including me), in this country think

This alleged poem and much worse can be found everywhere; And until the mindset of people changes, its bad. Here we are in the 21st century and technology races ahead but humanity is still stuck somewhere in Victorian times!

Paul.

Not everybody fortunately.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:16 pm

I was an immigrant to the UK and they print on your passport visa that you have no recourse to public funds. I'm confused as to how people think that immigrants are given auto welfare.

joesoap · Post by **joesoap** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:35 pm

It would be grand if they just printed on everyones documents "citizen of planet Earth".

At least then we would see who the "real", Aliens", are:eek:

Paul.

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:32 pm

I dont mind ANYONE from anywhere coming to the UK to live.........The more the merrier as long as they can provide for themselves and not come here purely to live off the state...I welcome all nationalities with open arms....

joesoap · Post by **joesoap** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 4:06 pm

Look Who Just moved in next door;

Oops their go's the neighborhood

Attached files

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 4:36 pm

Chezzie;769415 wrote: I dont mind ANYONE from anywhere coming to the UK to live.........The more the merrier as long as they can provide for themselves and not come here purely to live off the state...I welcome all nationalities with open arms....

You're in luck. They can't collect state funds until they have been paying into the system for a number of years. Shall we look up how many?

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 4:49 pm

Don't see any indication of NRPF (no recourse to public funds) actually being removed from an immigrant passport... here's a group that started up to help destitute people with NRPF ...such as abused women, who arrive and can't leave their violent homes without recourse to welfare or subsidized housing. It seems that some people actually feel sorry for those sorry sods.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Feb 02, 2008 3:44 am

Jester;769481 wrote: My only problem with this in theory is that family members who fall under a system like this can be forced to endure it, when as citizens they actually arent required to. How is that fair? If Sharia law is so great then why immigrate away form it?

That kind of goes to the nub of the matter. There's nothing stopping people voluntarily obeying sharia law if they want to just as there is nothing stopping anyone voluntarily obeying the laws of a fundamentalist christian group if they choose to do so.

The issue is the same whether it's a christian or a muslim making the same demand that god's law be respected and applied. They want the right to force people to obey and follow their ridiculous beliefs. Fundamentalists of any religion are basically insane. I can criticise any political philosophy in any way I like calling it a load of rubbish etc etc and no one bats an eye. yet with religion you are supposed to respect someone's religious belief and be nice in case you give offence. Luckily in the UK you can make fun of religion but now you wonder what the reaction to the life of brian would be. Even when it came out it was controversial and people tried to ban it but the masses were laughing in the aisles. Maybe one day someone will make a film about the life of hassim and poke fun at the same kind of people in islam that the life of brian did in cristianity. When that happens the middle east will have moved on from the middle ages.

Sharia law is no more likely to happen in the UK than a return to catholicism and us all obeying the pope or attending the church of england or some demented puritan group holding sway and banning christmas like they did before.

Fundamentalist muslims want to stir up hatred just as our nutty right wingers want to stir it up and for the same reason. In the chaos they get power and mindless followers to do their bidding.

They don't like liberal secular societies because they need someone to hate and despise. Being tolerant and respecting other points of view is actually a lot harder to achieve.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:15 pm

I think that this debate is enlightening, and I think that what is becoming more apparent across Europe (and it should have been recognized from history in the first place, but when do we ever listen to the lessons of history?) is that all major civilizations have a basic religious idea at their centre. Its a way by which humans separate themselves from one another that is just as deep as race or ethnicity, economic outlook, social hierarchy, or any other human idea of organization.

In fact I would argue religion is far stronger, and therefore far more potentially divisive than any of these human ideas or facts except maybe race and ethnicity. You can't really control ideas like religion, unless your one of the clever people who can manipulate religion to further your own ends. So for secular government, managing the realities of human nature are the only chance you have for stability. Of course in the modern world nationalism has been a hugely important idea by which people have organized themselves and also fought other people, but it is a quite new idea, whereas religion is as old as the hills.

Western civilization and its values are directly based on Christianity (even in its absence in a secular society), not Islam, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, and any attempt to bring in a society based on different sets of basic cultural values and laws will fail utterly and lead eventually to anarchy or war. Some civilizations seem to interact better than others on a ground level, but its always problematic once the numbers of people's of differing religions, civilizations, and world views within a society become significant in a country or region.

What has also been a fundamental historical truth is that Western Civilization and particularly Islamic civilization have been very hostile and antagonistic to each other (for whatever reason) since the first Arab expansion in the 7th century. There has been very few examples in history where Christians and Muslims have lived peacefully together in a society with roughly equal numbers. Which is why it has been extremely unwise to allow very large numbers of non-European Muslims into European societies for the long term stability of those societies, maybe that sounds un-PC to say, but it is true.

Of course its not to say that people of totally different world views can get one very well personally, or even you know, fall in love or whatever way people interact on a personal or family level, but humans operate both as individuals and also en masse. And on the bigger scale its impossible to create stable societies from people with completely different views of how they should live. Thats why I think multi-culturalism is a bad idea, in fact its a disastrously stupid idea, and has been a complete failure.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:27 pm

posted by jester

If fundamentalist christians stir up hatred by their laws then they should be sanctioned, same as for any religious or philosophical group, muslim, or athiest, whatever, the essential function is that the common person who may be trapped in one of these religious or philisophical groups has a legal means of escape.

Jester;769822 wrote: I must take exception at the terms you use. I would consider myself a fundamentalist Christian yet I am law abiding citizen and believe in the separation of state sanctioned religion from government. Although I am conservative and I vote, albeit it radically to some, I operate within the letter and spirit of the law. My Christianity makes me a better citizen, not a lawless thug in search of a victim to kill in the name of my cause.

I think basically we agree with each other.

I am using the term fundamentalist in the same way I use it for fundamentalist muslim as someone who wants to adhere to the strict and literal interpretation of the Bible. or Koran and the strict application of ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion or ideology. But in this context those who also want to force everybody to follow their doctrine and will use any means to do so. those who call for sharia law are no different for those christian groups that try to get laws changed and impose their religious scruples on those who don't share them. For instance those who call for the teaching of evolutionary theory to be banned or equal credence be given to the creation myth.

I'm not attacking your religion any more than I would be attacking a muslim for his faith. It's the extremists I object to that can't respect the fact that other don't share their beliefs. I feel the same way about political extremists, revolutionary socialists for instance or the national front.

Post by **spot** » Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:05 am

Jester;769481 wrote: My only problem with this in theory is that family members who fall under a system like this can be forced to endure it, when as citizens they actually arent required to. How is that fair? If Sharia law is so great then why immigrate away form it?
Where I've seen it proposed it's been on the basis of similar existing community courts, all parties have to agree to abide by the court's decision before the court will deal with them otherwise they fall back on the law of the land (which isn't consensual at all - that's where "forced to endure it" comes into play).

Where have you an example of a proposed Shari'a court in a Western democracy that's binding without prior agreement between the parties that the court can handle their case? I've looked, I can find none. Community courts aren't like what you seem to think they are.

I don't think people emigrate to get away from it either, I think economic arguments predominate. You'd need an opinion survey with a tick-box headed "I left mainly to get away from the legal system".

double helix · Post by **double helix** » Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:06 am

:yh_rotflgmc;760963 wrote: Don't worry. the european court of human rights will never let it happen. The UK has the highest rate of fundamental Islamic immigration. I believe they now make up more than 38% of your country, sort of like the Mexicans in mine. We, the pale skins, make up the minority in some places in the U.S., just as you, the home boys of the UK, make up the minority in your own country. You really think, as Islamics become absorbed into your offices, businesses and legal benches that they won't incorporate their "laws" into your legal system?:rolleyes: Oookay.

Post by **spot** » Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:48 am

double helix;770109 wrote: :yh_rotfl The UK has the highest rate of fundamental Islamic immigration. I believe they now make up more than 38% of your country, sort of like the Mexicans in mine.You really think so? Gosh. We don't even have a political party with that magnitude of support. I expect those 38% will form our next government, don't you?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:50 am

double helix;770109 wrote: :yh_rotfl The UK has the highest rate of fundamental Islamic immigration. I believe they now make up more than 38% of your country, sort of like the Mexicans in mine. We, the pale skins, make up the minority in some places in the U.S., just as you, the home boys of the UK, make up the minority in your own country. You really think, as Islamics become absorbed into your offices, businesses and legal benches that they won't incorporate their "laws" into your legal system?:rolleyes: Oookay.

So when will the US adopt Catholicism in the same way? After all all these catholics coming in to the country are bound to have more influence in the future as they become absorbed in to your offices, businesses and legal benches then they will soon be incorporating their "laws" into your legal system?

The actual percentage of muslims in the UK is 2.7%. They tend to be concentrated in the cities.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/UK/religion.html

Actually one of tony blairs legacies is the creation of more faith schools based on the mistaken assumption that the better results is due to the faith aspect rather than the selection of pupils. They're probably the most divisive institutions in the UK, perpetuating sectarianism and prejudice.