1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Innocent until proven Muslim

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by zoomee, Oct 8, 2012.

  1. Maccapacca

    Don

    Joined: Apr 13, 2010

    Posts: 16,454

    Location: Sunny Sussex

    BOTW 3 anyone? Some of you may not like the silt that is GD or not join us in La Cuisine but new competition with prizes starts soon
     
  2. PanchoVilla

    Hitman

    Joined: Mar 11, 2004

    Posts: 602

    Generally speaking, it's very easy to provoke sensitive issues. You don't know islamic law (nor do I). However, I do know that you are dwelling on non-issues. In times of medieval war, huge male fatalities resulted in wives losing husbands, children losing fathers, sisters losing brothers. These woman became what you term 'right hand posseses' and they were not granted on a whim.

    Those men who intended to take slave women also had the responsibility of their upkeep etc. and the women were assigned by the leader (khalif?) personally.

    To distinguish them from 'official' wives meant different inheritance laws etc. But it also meant that they had a place in society and not just be prisoners.

    Similarly, another sensitive issue about the cutting off of the hand for stealing. This is for a thief who is convicted without doubt of stealing unnecessarily e.g. a phone. The punishment does not apply if he/she stole food due to hunger, or another necessity. AND, the punishment only applies on the third offence.

    Similarly, with stoning for adultery. This is too large a subject and I don't know much about it. However, I do know that it ONLY applies to a society where the sanctity and modesty of women and man is preserved. AND, the punishment ONLY applies if FOUR people actually witness penetration. What is the likelyhood of that? That should tell you that the punishment is meant as a deterrant.

    Granted, there are some poor examples around the world of shariah, but it's ludicrous the amount of 'expert' non-muslims out there who insist on knowing the subject.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2013
  3. PanchoVilla

    Hitman

    Joined: Mar 11, 2004

    Posts: 602

    Also, it's a farce how the laws etc, described in the Koran are so readily interpreted by those who've, often, never studied law.

    It's interesting that the eminent former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales Lord Woolf, did not dismiss the Koran:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/desert-island-discs/castaway/ad4438bb#b00bvbzm

    ...and another castaway who chose the Koran, the death row lawyer Clive Stafford Smith:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/desert-island-discs/castaway/c96b8b69#p009369h

    (I've yet to listen this one, but I'll submit that both the above have a superior insight into any kind of Law than myself).
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2013
  4. PanchoVilla

    Hitman

    Joined: Mar 11, 2004

    Posts: 602

    So ridiculous. My neighbour imposes ground rules for their children - does that mean I'm forced to adopt them also?

    These sharia courts are for muslims who want an islamic ruling for their own circumstances. They still have to follow the Law of the Land, and no one is forced to go through the sharia courts.
     
  5. Tefal

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 30, 2007

    Posts: 66,559

    Location: Wales

    i imagine a lot of people especially women would be forced by their family/community tbh.
     
  6. PanchoVilla

    Hitman

    Joined: Mar 11, 2004

    Posts: 602

    With respect Tefal, it is exactly that, your 'imagination'. Just like how one could imagine how the various aspects of Judaism, or Shintoism, or Hinduism etc. might be.

    Again, there is no use of 'force'. In Islam, in the case of divorce settlements, it is the husbands right to issue a divorce. The wife can issue the divorce if the husband forfeits his right. Or the wife can get the divorce issued by the imam if the circumstance warrants it and the husband refuses to give a divorce. Either way, her 'court marriage' takes precedence in the Law of the Land.

    But the court is there for other issues as well e.g. inheritance laws etc.

    So, yes, a woman may feel 'compelled' to go through the sharia court if no other avenues remain open to her. But 99% of the time, it will be the families that sort this out, like they've done for decades in this country.

    'Force' implies coercion, and a woman is not forced in this way.

    Edit:

    Also, and I don't know all the details here, but in Islam, woman do not automatically get 50% in cases of divorce. Therefore, it is not uncommon (if not more common) for woman to disregard the islamic ruling and enforce distribution via the legal courts where often, the husband will have to forfeit a greater share. This is not to say the islamic ruling is unfair - it is different. If you read up on the history of these laws, you'd get a better understanding of these laws which came at an age where womans rights were mostly denied accross most of the globe.
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2013
  7. RDM

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 1, 2007

    Posts: 20,211

    I think you may be underestimating how powerful societal pressures are if you seriously believe their is no pressure exerted to use religious courts.
    Your point about Sharia law being historically more equitable towards women may have had some merit if we were living in medieval Europe, however we aren't, we are living in 21st century Europe where even enlightened 6th century laws are archaic and unfair. Especially when "interpreted" by men coming from deeply sexist cultures.
     
  8. zoomee

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 15, 2004

    Posts: 5,773

    Location: Hudds, UK

    And I think your overestimating societal pressures in this day and age ;)

    There's no denying it happens unfortunately - but it happens in ALL societies not just muslim ones that you are alluding to - but not to the extent you are making out either. I have yet to come across ANY muslim I personally know that has used a 'sharia court' for dispute resolution or been under pressure from 'society' in the past 10 years or so- people these days in the UK do as and what they please, especially the females as its very easy to point the finger at 'the oppressive male' thanks to the 'zero tolerance' amongst others policies.

    Sexist cultures? - Our western culture is regularly using women to sell products - sexualised advertisements everywhere is your proof. Women's bodies are used constantly for commercial gain and you think our culture isn't sexist? bah........

    Also you might want to read Panchovilla's posts properly because he has some excellent points - you in particular referenced quotes from the qu'ran referring to a period of history when war was uncivilised yet still gave women rights in Islam and now you try to compare this to modern europe? - stop mixing up the past with the present and as he has pointed out bringing up non-issues.
     
  9. PanchoVilla

    Hitman

    Joined: Mar 11, 2004

    Posts: 602


    With respect RDM, unless you are embedded in muslim society, I think you are woefully under-qualified to estimate 'societal pressures' applied to use religious courts.

    I was desperately searching on information I stumbled across many years ago from a western barrister/judge/lawyer which ascribed great merit on shariah law with regards to settlements/inheritance. However, I cannot find reference to it. Instead, I will leave this short article here for thought:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatima_al-Fihri

    ...and this was before our great universities!

    Examples of women being suppressed are largely cultural and do not come out of islamic teachings. A recent example of women not allowed to drive in the middle east - well, this comes from the ages where in that region women did not lead caravans. And this tradition is being translated to driving cars. Of course, I don't know the full history, but I do know that women are not being banned from driving for religious reasons. I learnt this from a saudi during a documentary .... I think with Kate Humble.

    Like zoomee, I have yet to come across ANY muslim that has used a religious court.
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2013
  10. RDM

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 1, 2007

    Posts: 20,211

    An alternative view is that, by being embedded in muslim society you are unable to objectively look at what pressure may be being applied?

    http://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/jul/05/sharia-law-religious-courts
    (went left wing rather than Daily Mail).

    Struggling with the relevance here, what has a medieval university got to do with modern law? 1200 years ago Islam was ahead of it's time for women's rights. Unfortunately it hasn't changed a whole lot in that 1200 years and is now behind the times as far as women's rights go.

    Again struggling with the relevance, I have already said that it seems Islamic law is being "interpreted" largely by men from those cultures. Though the law itself is inherently misogynistic due to being based on a 1400 year old religion that is inherently misogynistic.

    From the telegraph (for balance)

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9975937/Inside-Britains-Sharia-courts.html

    But if you don't know any muslims that have used one and don't see them as all that important then surely there would be no problem if they were banned?
     
  11. PanchoVilla

    Hitman

    Joined: Mar 11, 2004

    Posts: 602

    RDM, what I'm struggling with is trying to understand why everyone is hung up on religous courts. There are over 1 billion muslims in the world, who largely choose to follow it's rulings. The Law of the Land takes precedence. All media concerns regarding these 'court' arbitrations are hysterical.

    You can cite any article where a call for sharia is being made to REPLACE our judicial system, and I will discount it as a farce and misdirection.

    I will have to re-iterate, ___The Law of the Land Takes Precedance___.

    These religous courts are not 'courts' - they have no judicial power. After arbitration, the parties can still act contrary to any decisions.

    They cannot replace our system. I can only see some aspects being recognised by our system, in fact only one aspect: the recognition of an islamic wedding as an official marriage. But even for this to happen, it requires so much red tape and organisation, that I feel it is unlikely.

    I really hope people can see past all the media hysteria, although I know it's unlikely for some who are inclined to believe what suits their narrative.

    EDIT:

    To pick up on your suggestion to ban the courts - I'm curious as to why it should bother you one way or the other?

    Are you really saying, muslims should not consider religious rulings that affect them personally? or calling on them to give up their beliefs?
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2013
  12. PanchoVilla

    Hitman

    Joined: Mar 11, 2004

    Posts: 602

    Again, I'm struggling to understand why you are so hung up on islamic rulings that affect muslims and not non-muslims. Are you also campaigning for Catholics to use condoms? Or for Jews to use light switches on the sabbath? Or to force-feed strict Hindus meat so that they might get their vitamin B12? Or for scientologists to accept vaccinations?

    How/why/when do these islamic arbitrations affect you?

    (I won't use 'court' anymore since they have no legal jurisdiction).

    Are you really only buttressing the OP's thread title 'Innocent until proven Muslim'?
     
  13. sports_brah

    Thug

    Joined: Jan 4, 2013

    Posts: 3,784

    The reason is because historically (and as mandated by your book) Islam has shown itself to be intolerant towards others who do not buy into your belief system. Thus the encroaching nature of church/state which inevitably follows large groups of muslims, is of a large concern for a western country who's values are completely removed.
     
  14. zoomee

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 15, 2004

    Posts: 5,773

    Location: Hudds, UK

    Bearing in mind Beth Din Jewish arbitration courts have been around allot longer and are far more oppressive towards Jewish females here in the UK - I'd say RDM's posts fit in well with the thread title. ;) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7233040.stm

    Where's your proof?

    Historically - Islam was the only religion to tolerate other religions - you might want to actually read the qu'ran (especially the bits about 'The people of the Book' - i.e. Christians and Jews) than spreading un-educated lies, and also might want to take a look at the time of the original four caliphs and how these so called 'intolerated people' used to run to them for justice.

    Granted other countries have had their issues but does that mean that you are willing as a secular state to quash the rights of religious groups? Fair enough - but if you want to do it, it should be equal across the board - i.e. ALL RELIGIONS, as they have all been intolerant in one way or another towards other groups - otherwise it is a form of racism and intolerance on your part. See my comments above about Beth Din for example.....
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2013
  15. sports_brah

    Thug

    Joined: Jan 4, 2013

    Posts: 3,784

    Who said I was excusing the Jew courts? I'm just as much against them as I'm sure RDM is. However, I'd say that your religion of a billion people is far more a concern.

    Islam "tolerates" other religions. Yes, if they agree to a whole load of rules and regulations. Pray tell, what is your religions stance for example on non muslims marrying muslims....

    And using the racism card just makes you look bloody retarded, seeing as I don't have a clue what colour you are, and muslims come in every shade.........as do everyone of every religion.
     
  16. zoomee

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 15, 2004

    Posts: 5,773

    Location: Hudds, UK

  17. PanchoVilla

    Hitman

    Joined: Mar 11, 2004

    Posts: 602

    This is what our media want us to believe.

    As an example, do you know that historically, when Jews were expelled lock stock and barrel from european countries (over a hundred times since the birth of Christianity) they took refuge in muslim lands. These included Iran, Iraq, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt etc. It was only after WW2 that they left these lands to populate Israel prior to which Jews, Christians and Muslims lived peacefully side-by-side.

    And what about the peaceful existence of all in Spain during the 800 or so years of islamic rule? Which was shattered by the spanish inquisition.

    And what do you mean 'mandated by your book' - how can you possibly be qualified to say this? Have you studied islamic theology? One cannot selectively take a sentence or two and form your own jurisprudence. That's precisely what we are saying these rogue islamist militants are doing.

    Also, what is this 'encroaching nature' that you speak of?

    There is no 'encroaching nature' removing western values - it is largely western values voluntarily being eroded away.

    Just because muslims are being more observant in their belief, whilst our (mainly Christian) counterparts are voluntarily disregarding their own - does that make muslims bad and thus have an 'encroaching nature'? Take wedlock for example, just because it's a struggling tradition in the west in comparison to the islamic community - are muslims encroaching or is the west letting go of their own traditions?

    I came to this thread late, but it's getting cloudy - I initially thought to elucidate somewhat, which may have helped some see the truth amidst the bull**t. I'll stick around a little longer if I can make any contribution at all.

    No offence to anyone...peace.
     
  18. PanchoVilla

    Hitman

    Joined: Mar 11, 2004

    Posts: 602

    ...rules and regulations in the same way muslims are subject to here. I think it is the taxation system you may be referring to - and again, I'm astounded that you feel qualified to comment on these 'regulations'.

    Muslims may marry 'People of the Book' which mean Jews and Christians who were gifted a scripture from God (the Bible and Torah).

    I can't bear to think what answer you are looking for here - as I'm sure it's of no consequence to you either way. I know a korean who won't marry a non-korean - why would I care?????????? Why would you care?????

    Jews and Christians are of the Abrahamic faiths and we have great respect for them (as for all other religions (as instructed in Islamic teaching)).

    We have great reverence for Jesus, Moses, Mary (Peace be upon them) who we believe in also.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2013
  19. Yas786

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 46,690

    Location: All over the world...

    If you really want to know then go and read up on it, no excuse for being ignorant. Fact is people will interpret it in a different ways..heres a prime example for you...my middle brother married a hindhu girl. Religion wise its not permitted but they got married, they werent stoned or ostracised by our family etc...in fact her parents more or less disowned her. She hasnt converted and neither did we force her to. Same thing with my youngest brothers first wife, she was asian christian and he married...sadly it didnt work out but again she wasnt forced or compelled.

    At the end of the day its how the Quran/Hadiths are interpreted, some will interpret certain things for their ends and agenda's and thats where the issues arise and we get the extremists using the Quran and Hadiths for their own ends and needs.
     
  20. sports_brah

    Thug

    Joined: Jan 4, 2013

    Posts: 3,784

    See here is the point. I genuinely believe (not just lip service) that whole swathes of muslims just want to live their lives. That's fine. My point is that I do not believe that when there is a large group of muslims together that it can and will happen.

    Common consensus is that there are restrictions on who a muslim WOMAN can marry ie only a muslim (and not on blokes who can marry 4 people of varying religions).

    And it hasn't been plain sailing throughout history, there are numerous cases where islam has tried to impose it's will.

    The only reason they were in Spain is because they invaded it. ;)