Sharia law in Great Britain

[Arcesious]

I'm an American, but I consider this a highly important thing to know is happening. I would advise all British citizens to vote for the petition against this travesty of justice.

 

Edit: I removed the video link since I have been convinced that this video has a bad argument...

[Jae Onasi]

I'm an American, but I consider this a highly important thing to know is happening. I would advise all British citizens to vote for the petition against this travesty of justice.

 

 

 

Pat Condell - Welcome to Saudi Britain

 

But what if I'm Muslim and want to be governed by Sharia law? There are Jewish courts in the UK, after all.

[Astor]

All I see in that video is scaremongering and racism.

 

Don't get me wrong, I disagree with the use of Sharia Law in this country, but this man, who clearly wishes to be seen as some sort of anti-hero, or moral vigilante, isn't exactly doing any favours for the case against it.

 

All he does for most of that video is insult Saudi Arabia and moan about Islam. It's not doing British-Islamic relations any favours.

 

It's no wonder YouTube tried to take down the video if he goes out to buy alcohol to offend Islam, and insult it's people.

[JediMaster12]

I think it is wise to remember that Saudi Arabia is one of the more ultra conservative in Islamic principles. Some generalizations are that women are required to wear the abayah and hijab and they cannot drive a car. US miltary women are require to adhere to this rules as well when they are off the base though they do not have to wear hijab.

 

Correct me if I am wrong but Sharia law is what has been called Muslim law but often is called family law as well. The Sharia law was supposedly developed from the hadith and the teachings of the Prophet.

 

Yes there are aspects of Sharia law that are distasteful to us Westerners however if you look at it from the religious aspect, other religions have their law as well. As Jae pointed out there is Jewish law or Talmud. Catholicism has a law but it's not like Talmud. In generalization, Sharia is an extension of the rules Islam plays by just like the rules for a ritual of Catholicism are played by Catholics. I also recall that Sharia law is not totally biased against women. Even in the hadiths I think the Prophet commented that in terms of inheritance, the daughters get a share of the estate but it is less than the sons. This is because the daughter's husband is to provide for her.

 

Religion in general is a set of symbols and ideas, similar to the definition of culture. However this youtube video is a blatant protest and scaremongering. As Astor Kaine pointed out it is nothing more than bad mouthing Saudis and Islam in general. I find it rather hateful considering that I have met a few Saudis and have Muslim friends and they are among the nicest people I have yet to meet.

 

I think Britain is trying to play fair in terms of religious freedom. They are trying to accommodate a group of people who obviously want something that pertains to their belief systems. I am all for fair play and it makes me ticked when there are people who want to deny the laws of Nature and of Nature's God intentions.

[GarfieldJL]

All I see in that video is scaremongering and racism.

 

Don't get me wrong, I disagree with the use of Sharia Law in this country, but this man, who clearly wishes to be seen as some sort of anti-hero, or moral vigilante, isn't exactly doing any favours for the case against it.

 

All he does for most of that video is insult Saudi Arabia and moan about Islam. It's not doing British-Islamic relations any favours.

 

It's no wonder YouTube tried to take down the video if he goes out to buy alcohol to offend Islam, and insult it's people.

 

Actually, I don't care what Saudi Arabia thinks, last I checked Saudi Arabia doesn't rule the UK. In other words they don't have Jurisdiction.

[Corinthian]

When was the last time Talmud or Catholic Law had any jurisdiction in a secular state?

[SW01]

This topic has irked me and many of my classmates since it was announced. I, for one, believe that everyone in a nation should be subject to the same law - criminal, civil, public and private. Anything else creates a tiered system. It is a fundamental truth of the matter that there are differences between British family law and Sharia family law, otherwise the discussion would be irrelevant.

 

No person, or group of people, should without legal cause be subject to different restrictions or freedoms in law than any other person. What if part of Sharia law permits something forbidden under British law? Then we have a two tiered system.

 

It astounded me that Lord Phillips supported this. I seriously hope that this does not pass. Law defined solely by religion has no place in a modern legal system.

[Astor]

This topic has irked me and many of my classmates since it was announced. I, for one, believe that everyone in a nation should be subject to the same law - criminal, civil, public and private. Anything else creates a tiered system. It is a fundamental truth of the matter that there are differences between British family law and Sharia family law, otherwise the discussion would be irrelevant.

 

No person, or group of people, should without legal cause be subject to different restrictions or freedoms in law than any other person. What if part of Sharia law permits something forbidden under British law? Then we have a two tiered system.

 

It astounded me that Lord Phillips supported this. I seriously hope that this does not pass. Law defined solely by religion has no place in a modern legal system.

 

I completely agree with you. But Pat Condell is clearly going about this in the wrong way, denigrating not only Sharia Law, but followers of Islam in general.

 

Actually, I don't care what Saudi Arabia thinks, last I checked Saudi Arabia doesn't rule the UK. In other words they don't have Jurisdiction.

 

If you'd read what I said, I disagree with the use of Sharia Law. But I don't have to agree with idiotic bigots like the man in that video to disagree with it.

 

So, because they don't have jurisdiction that makes racism okay?

[Arcesious]

scaremongering and racism.

 

Racism and scaremongering? Do you know just what islam promotes? I've said it before, I'll say it again- violations of women's rights, child abuse, and unneeded violence. And as for the 'there are moderate muslims' argument, I bet there are quite a lot of them. Problem is, the voices of the Muslim moderates are being kept mostly silent by the radicals. When religious laws get passed in a country such a Great Britain, that is pure injustice. No offense, but have even you tried thinking empathatically towards that man's situation, to understand exactly why he's so mad about it?

 

For one, there's censorship there now. Secondly, this new law promotes violations of womens rights, and intimidation of typical british citizens. Three, this opens up opportunity for Islamic radicals to take advantage of the 'legal' system.

 

Let's see here, if Sharia law was passed in the country you live in, and there became rediculous laws inforced, how would you feel?

 

Now I agree that Pat Condell was rash in purchasing the alcohol just to insult muslims, but he makes a good point in what happened when he did.

His video got censored by youtube due to the censorship by this stupid islamic law. There's a big one- violation of freedom of speech. It political correctness gone mad. If your right to freedom of speech (and freedom of expression overall) was violated, would you yourself be mad too? He went out to make a point to those people- that he was not happy about it, and that he, among other British citizens, would not put up with such a violation of justice.

 

 

Edit: Sorry for whatever sniping I've made in this post...

[mur'phon]

Does anyone feel like giving a link to a (preferably picture-less) site describing the situation?

 

Problem is, the voices of the Muslim moderates are being kept mostly silent by the radicals.

 

Or maybe we keep them silent by listening to the guys who go boom, rather than those extending a hand.

[Arcesious]

Does anyone feel like giving a link to a (preferably picture-less) site describing the situation?

 

 

 

Or maybe we keep them silent by listening to the guys who go boom, rather than those extending a hand.

 

Good point...

[GarfieldJL]

The point is that this doesn't help improve relations with moderate Muslims, it just gives radical extremists more freedom to carry out their agenda.

 

This is why a written Constitution and written Bill of Rights is better than a nonwritten one.

[Astor]

Racism and scaremongering? Do you know just what islam promotes?[/Quote]

 

I am well aware of what Islam promotes, thank you.

 

I've said it before, I'll say it again- violations of women's rights, child abuse, and unneeded violence.

 

As you say yourself, these are radical views. I don't remember any of the Muslims i've known promoting violence, abusing children or violating the rights of women.

 

When religious laws get passed in a country such a Great Britain, that is pure injustice. [/Quote]

 

And I agree with you on that point. I merely feel that Mr. Condell is going about protesting this in the wrong way.

 

No offense, but have even you tried thinking empathatically towards that man's situation, to understand exactly why he's so mad about it?

 

Yes, I have, and I still feel that many of his comments are unneeded for him to get his point across.

 

For one, there's censorship there now. Secondly, this new law promotes violations of womens rights, and intimidation of typical british citizens.[/Quote]

 

This limited test with the Sharia Courts is for Muslims only. And I certainly haven't been intimidated walking down my high street.

 

Let's see here, if Sharia law was passed in the country you live in, and there became rediculous laws inforced, how would you feel?[/Quote]

 

That would depend on a great number of things, and something not likely to happen in Britain without a massive shake-up.

 

His video got censored by youtube due to the censorship by this stupid islamic law.[/Quote]

 

Censored, or removed for hate speech?

 

There's a big one- violation of freedom of speech. It political correctness gone mad. If your right to freedom of speech (and freedom of expression overall) was violated, would you yourself be mad too?[/Quote]

 

There's a fine line between freedom of speech and racism, Arc.

 

He went out to make a point to those people- that he was not happy about it, and that he, among other British citizens, would not put up with such a violation of justice.[/Quote]

 

Youtube is hardly the place for expressing grievance with the Law. If he is something other than a tinpot dictator with a large soapbox, i'd suggest he writes to his Member of Parliament as opposed to screaming 'injustice' across the internet.

 

That's a much better of getting something done, as i've written to mine many times.

[El Sitherino]

This thread is made of racism and religio-fail.

 

Not a single mention since Jae about the Jewish Law courts established in the UK, but everyone is opposed to Muslim courts.

[Astor]

Not a single mention since Jae about the Jewish Law courts established in the UK, but everyone is opposed to Muslim courts.

 

I didn't actually see that. It's an interesting point - the Jewish have their own courts, yet the Muslims can't for some reason. But, of course, that might be because there's not much mention of Jewish Extremism in the papers.

 

I think the problems are that Muslims are still viewed as outsiders here. The perception of a lot of British is that they don't integrate, and that they should, and that because they don't they somehow hate our country.

 

The tabloid press is all over this, of course - Muslims hate us, and they want to destroy us. There's very rarely a mention of Muslims actually doing good (and there a lot of them) - the problem is that the extremists can shout twice as loud as the majority of them.

 

That's the problem - the only time the average British Citizen hears about Islam is when something bad, or wrong happens. Muslim Schools are wrong, too are they? Ban the Catholic ones, and the Jewish ones.

 

There's something that I can't explain that seems to light a fire in a British person when you mention 'Muslim'.

 

And it's something that sickens me, to be honest.

[Web Rider]

here you are: see the "present time" section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_courts

 

I'm pretty sure that these "Beth Din" courts don't include the same sort of archaic punitive measures that Sharia law, and henve it's courts, includes.

[El Sitherino]

here you are: see the "present time" section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_courts

 

I'm pretty sure that these "Beth Din" courts don't include the same sort of archaic punitive measures that Sharia law, and henve it's courts, includes.

 

Regardless these people enter the court systems voluntarily, from my understanding. Then again things may have changed since I read about this last month.

[Astor]

Regardless these people enter the court systems voluntarily, from my understanding. Then again things may have changed since I read about this last month.

 

That's what i've heard as well on my local radio station - it said it was open to Muslims who wished to have their disputes handled by a Muslim court - and it was optional - no mention at all of forcing British people to face Sharia courts, which has been suggested.

[Jae Onasi]

The only thing that concerns me is if _women_ are entering those courts willingly, or are being told by their male family members that they _must_ and not given a choice (or given the choice of 'agree to go to the Muslim court, or I'll beat the crap out of you when we get home for disobeying me'. Other issues like inheritance rights, wills, and such, I have no issue with. However, I'm not entirely convinced that a religion that has a systemic blatantly pro-male bias can be trusted to handle cases of domestic violence against women with the same fairness as a standard UK court.

[El Sitherino]

The only thing that concerns me is if _women_ are entering those courts willingly, or are being told by their male family members that they _must_ and not given a choice (or given the choice of 'agree to go to the Muslim court, or I'll beat the crap out of you when we get home for disobeying me'. Other issues like inheritance rights, wills, and such, I have no issue with. However, I'm not entirely convinced that a religion that has a systemic blatantly pro-male bias can be trusted to handle cases of domestic violence against women with the same fairness as a standard UK court.

 

I agree with that, and I think there should be efforts made to keep domestic cases within the British standard court system as opposed to allowing Sharia to make a ruling over a domestic violence case. On top of that I believe British rights should enforce that women are subject only to Muslim law upon entering the Sharia court itself, as opposed to deciding to enter the court.

[Arcesious]

And I agree with you on that point. I merely feel that Mr. Condell is going about protesting this in the wrong way.

 

I see your point on that now. I have to agree with you.

 

This limited test with the Sharia Courts is for Muslims only. And I certainly haven't been intimidated walking down my high street.

 

Problem is that this could be problem for women and children in muslim families. Fundamental civil rights could very easily be violated by a legal system enforced by muslim men due to this.

 

Censored, or removed for hate speech?

 

There are tons of people on youtube who have made videos like that, and they don't usually get removed unless if someone gets mad and flags them. It was removed because youtube has to comply with regional laws in various countries it is available in.

 

Youtube is hardly the place for expressing grievance with the Law. If he is something other than a tinpot dictator with a large soapbox, i'd suggest he writes to his Member of Parliament as opposed to screaming 'injustice' across the internet.

True, but having as many subscribers as he has, the video can still have at least a minor effect among british youtubers.

[SW01]

I don't believe any religion-centred law has a place in a modern British court - Jewish, Muslim, or any other. Our laws are not passed in the name of God, so I see no real reason to permit other religious group to obey their own set of laws. Saudi law can stay in Saudi Arabia. Jewish law can stay in Israel. In a court under British jurisdiction, the only law that should be referenced is the law passed by the British Parliament (which includes EU law).

 

Xenophobia, racism and hate mongering badly weaken the opposition to the change - and it will eventually be claimed that these are the only reasons for our opposition. Perhaps people with such resources should make videos explaining reasonable opposition?

 

I agree that the various long-standing prejudices inherent in the Sharia legal doctrine is another problem. It can be hard enough to convince a court of the validity of a new interpretation of modern law, let alone an ancient and revered understanding.

 

And, an issue that annoys me but not necessarily others, is the issue of supremacy. Normally, the highest British court (the House of Lords) has the final say in all legal matters, but that is being eroded as it is. To me, it is bad enough that our highest court has to defer to the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, but at least the UK has a say in the laws upheld by those bodies. Sharia courts will undoubtedly be under the duty to follow the precedents of an utterly foreign court, the doctrines of which the House of Lords will probably have little control over.

 

EDIT: Here is a Times article on the first of the Sharia courts - seems they are merely alternative tribunals for the time being that require the backing of the County Court and High Court, but at one point the issue is raised that more Muslims will go to the Sharia court. Personally, I think we should be trying to persuade all sections of the community to approach the British courts, rather than cement divisions between those distinct parts of the community.

[Corinthian]

Looking at the setup for Beth Din, if that's all the Muslim courts consist of, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Beth Din doesn't do anything of note, I think their biggest thing is putting labels on Kosher Meals. Or possibly dealing with Divorces. It looks to me like everything they do is making sure that all the rituals are done properly and such. If that's all that the Muslims want, go ahead, and good luck with that.

[Arcesious]

If that's what the muslims want, then fien with me. But there is still the issue of censorship being enacted due to this additional legal system.

[JediMaster12]

When religious laws get passed in a country such a Great Britain, that is pure injustice. [/Quote]

And how is this 'religious law' worded? If it says the allowing of Sharia Law to exist then it is really not a religious law. The term implies that it was passed based on religion, sort of like the kerfuffle here in California with Prop 8. If you have the exact wording of the ammendment to allow Sharia law to exist, could you please share?

 

For one, there's censorship there now. Secondly, this new law promotes violations of womens rights, and intimidation of typical british citizens. Three, this opens up opportunity for Islamic radicals to take advantage of the 'legal' system.[/Quote]

It has been pointed out that this is promoted by the radicals. Most of the interpretations that we get are misconstruations of the hadiths. Common one is the hijab.

 

Now I agree that Pat Condell was rash in purchasing the alcohol just to insult muslims, but he makes a good point in what happened when he did.

Does he even know that there are some who are Muslim but not practicing Muslims? Same question could be posed for Jews, Catholics, Christians, etc. Just because someone is a particular religion doesn't mean that they are practicing their religion.