Huh? Sharia Courts.... ?

Dolph said:
I personally agree with you, and would recommend to anyone who came to me for advice that they don't follow this path to try and get it resolved. However, just because I disagree with their choice because I disagree with their outcome, I will not interfere with their right to make that choice in the first place. Freedom of choice has to include the freedom to make bad choices, otherwise there's no freedom at all.
Click to expand...

The issue being discussed is not one of freedom of choice - the issue is whether the state should censure the a law system rooted in misogynism.
 
If one party disagrees about the Sharia it goes to a UK court, it doesn't matter if anyone refuses to goto a UK court, I believe the case would still go ahead in their absence and they'll still have to abide by the findings of the UK court whether they were there or not.
 
codec said:
so what woman (with knowledge of how the sharia system works) would choose a biased judiciary over an equal one?
Click to expand...

Sharia law is heavily biased in favour of women in many ways. It would be in a woman's best interests, in many cases, to pick Sharia law over standard civil law.
 
They have been doing it since the 60's, their decisions are also not bound by law unless judged by a magistrate.

Way to make a story out of nothing.
 
Atpbx you're wrong. You're talking about sharia courts just deciding stuff and well whatever. This news story, though slightly sensationalist, is talking about at least one sharia court having received arbitration status. Decisions made by arbitration tribunals are legally binding through contract law.
 
You mean just like in British law if one party wants a divorce they can have it whether the other party wants it or not?
 
codec said:
[..]
The problem here is I want to know how many women asked for this sharia court to be set up. Would I be wrong to assume it was a majority of men?

and where did they find the judges for that? any women judges in that area? some minor figures I would like to know.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you won't be surprised to find that women cannot be judges in a sharia court.
 
Is there a Muslim here who will openly state that it is wrong to torture people, perhaps to death, for adultery?

Any Muslim who does so is going directly against their own religion, because the most liberal interpretation possible is a punishment whipping of 100 lashes for adultery. That is savage torture that might well kill the victim. The skin is ripped off after about a dozen lashes, so the remaining 85-90 lashes are directly into raw flesh. The victim can die from shock and blood loss. The victim can be crippled.

Bear in mind that this is the most liberal interpretation possible, relying on a very selective interpretation of the Qu'ran and completely ignoring the hadith. A more moderate interpretation would have the above possibly fatal torture as the penalty for all sex outside marriage, and even that's ignoring the hadith. The hadith calls for stoning.

Note that I'm not talking about extremists here.

For example, Islam Online is described in this way:
IslamOnline.net (IOL) is a web-portal that informs about Islam, its sciences, its civilization, and its nation. It presents a moderate Islamic perspective.
Click to expand...

It very clearly supports punishment whipping and stoning.

I used to think it was a position held only by raving extremists, but a couple of months ago a Muslim who would generally be regarded as extremely moderate stated that she "absolutely advocated" whipping and stoning for sex outside marriage. So I looked into it more and found that far from being the province of raving extremists, a punishment whipping of 100 lashes is the very least required by Islam as an unequivocal and direct command from God.
 
women CAN be judges, they can even be imams.

and fini, if the women do that same thing, it does not count.

Angilion, just because the western society deems it in appropriate doesnt not mean its wrong.

just as if a tribe deems cannibalism, or incest as normal, then to them it is right, not wrong.

Islam is not oppressive, it is just strict on punishments. If here chavs were told that they would have their hands cut off im sure we would see less ASBOs around.

adultry causes so much unrest, if the punishment is there, and serveer, it will happen A LOT less, and cause a lot less turmoil within families.

and how can us muslims ignore the hadith, when the prophet is the reason we are muslim. if the hadith is any word uttered, and any action done by the prophet then the quran is the best of hadiths.
 
Last edited:
On the subject of being loose with people/adultry, something frowned upon no doubt in Islam. There was a prog on C4 about cross breast feeding the other day, and most women thought it was not ok. The same women did think it was ok to sleep with more than 10 guys. Maybe we are not the best judges on humanity, Islam seems to be a half way point :)
 
shaffaaf27 said:
and fini, if the women do that same thing, it does not count.
Click to expand...
True, but that's not to say that, just like under British law, both parties can, at their choosing, get a divorce. This is so far from the main issue though. Why shouldn't an reasonably organised person be able to create an arbitration tribunal? Why is it anyone's business, but the people choosing to partake in it?
 
fini said:
True, but that's not to say that, just like under British law, both parties can, at their choosing, get a divorce. This is so far from the main issue though. Why shouldn't an reasonably organised person be able to create an arbitration tribunal? Why is it anyone's business, but the people choosing to partake in it?
Click to expand...

because its in the UK? because there is plenty of extremists here already that are trying to turn this country into a sharia law controlled country? Because whether those in sharia law believe it or not - plenty of its laws are simply wrong? Do you need more reasons?

Having a reasonably organised person is one thing - having a religion that discriminates is another. and Im not just talking about sharia.
 
codec said:
Because whether those in sharia law believe it or not - plenty of its laws are simply wrong?
Click to expand...

Do you tell furries that they can't be furries? Surely what someone chooses to do, as long as it's not against the law and entered in to consensually, should be none of your business?

codec said:
Having a reasonably organised person is one thing - having a religion that discriminates is another. and Im not just talking about sharia.
Click to expand...

Are you saying sharia courts aren't reasonably organised? As long as both parties choosing to use that form of ADR know what they're entering in to what right do you have to tell them that they're choice is 'wrong' when it neither hurts nor effects you?
 
The whole equality thing is a joke anyway tbh. People get treated differently based on looks race etc (example if there's a fit girl you're more likely to talk to her than a fat minger). Another example socially adept smart people get the best jobs but it could be argued that the interviewers are discriminating against the stupid or socially retarded.

(If that makes any sense whatsover to anyone here)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom