Shariah Rule in Britain?

Post Reply New Topic

I don't think it would be a good idea to name names.

Eh, if I was a ruler of a country I wouldn't want immigrants to keep their backwards culture and force it upon my people. Assimilate or face deportation I say.

[citation needed]

Wow, that's a pretty damn racist thing to say. "Act like us or get out." Hmm...Don't many NT's always tell us to assimilate or shut up basically the same thing to an extent? Not too mention the fact that most Muslims aren't nutjobs, and fit in reasonably well. In fact, in the US, we have a MUCH bigger problem with Dominionists trying to overthrow the Constitution and create a Theocracy. Muslims can fit in a country. The only problem the influence of Saudis, promoting Wahabism and Salafism. Not to mention Qutbism being promoted by the Muslim Brotherhood and a few other groups. Most Muslim ideologies are fine.

Yes to the second, no to the first. As a trekkie, I try to hold to the Prime Directive. It's their choice to keep whatever culture they want, and we have no right to interfere, unless they interfere with us.

where do you locate Malcolm X???

The reason why the USA should be less fussy about migration of other cultures to their land is because the USA was a melting pot from the beginning (after having exterminated 80% of the natives of course. So, yes people swear an oath to the Bible and say that they embrace the American culture, blah blah, but in their hearts they will still hold on to their own beliefs. You have Africans, Sikhs, Tibetans, Thailands largest second city after Bangkok is San Francisco, the boat people from Vietnam and Laos, and recently you even adopted hundreds of Hmong refugees from Thailand and Laos..the list is long, while Europe has not been en never was open to an influx of aliens...

And what makes you think that Sharia is enforced over everyone in Britain? Only 5 courts are employing Sharia in the UK. All of the laws relate to domestic issues - marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc. This dual system has existed in India for over 60 years, without a single conflict. In fact, while most of India's common law is derived from British common law, this is one aspect from which the British have taken a leaf out of India's book.

Stop overreacting.

We can debate where Nation of Islam is within the realm of Muslim beliefs, or if it is even in it.

A basic tenet of national sovereignty is a functional legal system. In Western countries, we have legal systems that, at their best, ensure equitable outcomes and justice; obviously they are far from perfect in practice. Setting up a sort of shadow legal system, based on religious law and authorizing things like stoning for adultery, directly undermines the secular legal system and provides abhorrent outcomes (again, the stoning for adultery example). We also know how easily people can be coerced into giving their "consent" to have the cases settled under sharia law.

yep

Yes, their "consent."

Many of you seem to be against Sharia Law. I would suggest if you don't want radical setting up a "shadow" law, you start fighting the radical ideologies. Really this is very simple. Many radicals do not seem to have a good understanding of Islam (many in the Taliban, for example, learned about Islam from barely literate preachers), just as fundamentalist Christians in the US do not have a good understanding of Christianity. Find a moderate Muslim, or talk to one you know and learn about moderate and liberal islam. Learn about the Quran. Then, when you see a nutjob, tear down his arguements with his own holy book. This strategy works very well with Fundamentalist Christians in the US, and it should work well against radical Muslims.

Persons own fault if he lets himself be put under pressure to accept the case under sharia law. If we go think this far and think that of course anyone accepting the sharia trial was put under pressure, then the discussion has no point because this sort of arguments make no sense really. They are no excuse to drop the idea, because the person who accepts the trial under sharia is responsible for his decision, regardless if he really supports his own decision or not. If I sign a contract against my own will but under pressure of my family, this is still my own signature and my own responsability. "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice", if you get what I mean.

Other than that, stoning, beheading etc (which, apart from Iran and Saudi and some Nigerian regions, is rarely applied in the islamic world) go against British law and thus could not be applied. The sharia would basically be usable only to decide matters such as divorce, family law, etc but without corporal and capital punishment as these are contrary to what UK law is allowing.

Some people here look very far just to bash Islam, as if this is a way to protect their own religion. If your christian faith is so fragile that you need to provocate people believing other faiths, then maybe there is something you need to question in your own believes. Otherwise I dont understand why someone would feel the need to provocate Muslims.

PS and to avoid misunderstandings: by the latter I do not out any disrespect to christianity, I however notice a few people here (emphasisis on "a few") have a tribalist undertone, as if it is "my religion versus their religion". Bit of tolerance from both sides of the spectrum and the world would be a safer place.

Amen to THAT.

QFT ^^



He became a Sunni Muslim one year before his assasination. He had left the Nation of Islam.

The Nation of Islam has a racist ideology which is against the anti-racist teachings of the Qur'an and prophet Muhammed (S). The first man to recite the adhan (call to prayer), was Bilal, a freed African slave.

The Nation of Islam has a belief that God was incarnated on Earth as W. Fard Muhammad, again, human incarnations of God are impossible, and such belief is absolutely forbidden in Islam. The only other "Islamic" sect to share this belief is the Druze. The Alawites also have an almost divine-like place for Ali. Both sects, unlike the NOI, are extremely secretive.

Mainstream Islam teaches that Muhammad was the last of the messengers that Allah has sent to mankind--there would be no more, and the one for all to follow. The Nation of Islam believes that Elijah Muhammad was also a messenger and was taught by God Himself. Again, incompatible with mainstream Islam.

As far as Muslims are concerned (Sunni, Shi'a, and Ibadi), the NOI is a heretical sect, along with the Druze, Alevis, and Alawites.