ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.
- Thread starter RoboCod
- Start date
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Any names for those "leaders"?
I don't know. How long are we going to allow members only clubs such as golf clubs etc decide on their own rules and handle their own disciplinary procedures?
Last edited by a moderator:
There is only one law and that is the english legal system. Anything else isn't actually a legally recognised system.
Extremely poor comparison and you know it. I don't know any golf clubs that tells a woman to divorce her husband, have sex with another man and wait three menstrual cycles to validate marriage
Last edited:
No difference to the Jewish "courts" that have been around for decades. Not that anyone bothers to mention them.
Yes.
Do you think that there's a Secret Conspiracy which is actually running IS and the publically declared leadership is just a front? Is it the Illuminati again? The alien lizards in disguise?
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
So what are their names?
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
You're not joining the right clubs obviously!
This may get me on an ISIS death list,
but I believe they are called Tinky Winky, Dipsy, Laa-Laa and Po
I ignorantly never even knew they existed.
Quite.
It's extremely difficult to draft laws that allow for binding arbitration according to the preferences of the parties involved but does not allow for Sharia courts and quite impossible to remove Sharia influence all together.
Aye, people tend to forget that these "Sharia" courts are either operating illegally, or under the same rules as any other court of arbitration in the UK, including the likes of the Jewish ones and even ACAS from memory.
IIRC we've hard the likes of the "Jewish courts" and other similar services in the UK for at least 100 years.
Arbitration doesn't supersede the UK law, but can allow for decisions to be made based on protocols agreed by the various involved parties, often at a lower cost and in less intimidating circumstances than going through the UK courts.
Doesn't even make sense..probably daily mail inaccurate reporting
Except the Jewish "court" doesn't operate in the same way as a Sharia court.
Jewish ones are informal rulings, anything binding is according to British law, although you can sign something that confirms a ruling as legal.
Sharia courts intimidate and discriminate against women in multiple ways, and the people who run then consider them divinely ordained and therefore above man's law.
I googled islam remarriage, top link
So if she is still married to the first guy then her marriage to the 2nd guy is not valid.
so they could have just divorced her from the first guy and then she marries the 2nd guy.
if the marriage to the 2nd guy is valid then she does not need to divorce him.
why would a 3rd guy need to come into it ?
thats why i said it doesnt make sense.
I think they whole point that it's also mis interpreted.
Stating that the woman must perform sexual acts in any form is not legal. It's akin to sex slavery and illegal.
Stating that a religious text states that a woman must perform sexual acts is informational.
Committing mental abuse is illegal so forcing people to adhere to statements or be seen to be outside of the religion as a mental abuse is therefore illegal.
If someone is outside of the religion then they're consider slaves and can be treated as they like (sex or the whatever).
So logically - if they abide then they are in the religion as sex slaves, if they don't abide they are outside the religion and therefore sex slaves.
However stepping outside the bubble and looking at it holistically I think those that are responsible are the leaders and practitioners - again organised religion really demonstrates why it's bad.
Saudi hosting anti-terrorism for islamic coalition: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35099318
A positive step if it assists the stabilisation. However if penetrated by terrorist groups it could also act as a hub for coordination across all the coalition states and beyond.
The good side of it is it is effectively a statement by the religious leaders in normalising the approach and interpretation of islam. The negative side is if that approach drives for fundamentalism and cold shoulders moderates.
A positive step if it assists the stabilisation. However if penetrated by terrorist groups it could also act as a hub for coordination across all the coalition states and beyond.
The good side of it is it is effectively a statement by the religious leaders in normalising the approach and interpretation of islam. The negative side is if that approach drives for fundamentalism and cold shoulders moderates.
I did, but they operate within the UK law rather than Sharia courts which routinely discriminate against women and non-Muslims. Last time I checked this was illegal but no-one is prepared to enforce it.