Sharia courts operating in Britain

Post Reply New Topic

Such a system should be destroyed at all costs.

I might have agreed with you a few years ago. But do the native people of Britain actually have any obligation to let in hundreds of thousands of genetically and culturally distant people every year, be they “moderate” Muslims, Christian Africans, Buddhist Chinese etc? Why do we do it and then agonize over how to “integrate” them? What will the end result of all this be for the native people of Britain, and who benefits?

One good thing about Muslim ghettoisation: it will make humane repatriation easier when the time comes. Well, in theory anyway.

But it’s all very confusing seeing cultural aliens taking over large parts of our towns and cities. I mean, I thought we went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan to “preserve our way of life”. Anyone would think our political leaders were liars.

The last people to tell you the truth are your political leaders.

You can't create anything good by destroying, unless you're God.. but we are not God. . We must be neutral and we must be wise enough to not give in to our temptations.. that's all you can do to fight the system. The system uses your greed, and desires, and pleasures against you. They profit from your imperfections as a person.

I don't mean any offense here, but in a way the Brits are getting comeuppance.

The British tried to impose their laws on the Native Americans, Africans, Middle Easterners, Indians and Chinese.

If the Chinese didn't agree to whatever unfair and one-sided trade deals the British had in mind, then the Chinese would find Her Majesty ships on the harbors sinking junks and dumping opium on Chinese ports and sending British troops and Indian sepoys to occupy Qing cities.

It's fair to say the British government, not the Brit's.. the British government is just as bad as the American Government.

This is why I think secular laws are way too silly.

So, killing rapists & murderers, amputating theives, lashes for adultery, giving slightly more inheritance to men, etc...that's all barbaric, but 6 months for refusing to pay $3.80 & spilling soda is not?

I give up. Arguing about which law is greater is pointless.

yes, people should generally abide by the laws of countries they move to, or not go there - if you visits Saudi Arabia, don't get drunk.




Blatant lie - nobody in the UK is forcing secularism on Muslims or anybody else. The state does not usually coerce Muslims to live according to Sharia (these courts are, in effect, coercion of Sharia), but it doesn't force anyone to give it up. For example, divorce can be settled to any settlement that both parties agree to (including in accordance to Sharia) - but (well, at least until recently) nobody was forced to settle according to religious law. If you don't wish to live a secular lifestyle here, you are perfectly free to do so - you can freely choose not to eat pork, drink alcohol, eat halal, etc. No equivalent freedoms are available to non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia.



The BNP would say that many want all Muslims deported, and why not let them have it? As I said, you can live according to Sharia in Britain if you willingly choose to, in effect these courts are a move to force the unwilling (like moderate Muslims) to live according to it (if they were all willing, there would obviously be no point in state coercion - the very fact that coercion is sought in areas in which they could voluntarily abide by it proves that not all 'demand' it - I know Muslims that would leave Britain if it fully enforced sharia). In effect those that 'demand' it demand that others be forced to abide by it, they're not asking to be allowed to live by it if they so choose because that is already possible.




I would say not only in regard to Islam, but more generally.




Or they were rising against their Ottoman colonial masters, with whom Britain was at war. And in fact it was Muslims that abolished the caliphate, for their own reasons - not entirely unlike the abolition of Christian fundamentalism by Christians in some countries.

Of course we have some ridiculous laws, and they aren't always applied perfectly as in the case you linked to. That isn't the issue.

I can't speak for the Brits, but in the US, we were founded on the idea of religious freedom - we decided that it is not the government's job to enforce religious laws. If a religious group wants to expel or shun a member who was seen drinking alcohol, ok. But the government should only regulate alcohol to the degree that an obvious universal/secular purpose is served - for instance, arresting people for drunk driving as that threatens the common good.

UK enforced secular laws over traditional laws in their colonies, specifically here in South Asia. The traditional schooling system was destroyed due to their policies. The panchayat system was revived, resulting in a peculiar situation, and clashes between secular and traditional laws.
Non-Muslims can purchase pork & alcohol in Saudi Arabia, in special stores. The same applies in Pakistan (where alcohol is effectively illegal for non-Muslims), but not Iran. Non-Muslims are exempt from wearing the abayya in the KSA, but are advised to dress modestly. Yes, I agree, freedom of religion is one problem (which blatantly goes against the Quran...freedom of religion is compulsory, according to the Quran), however, the monarchy and the Vatican are holding plans of building a church in Riyadh. I doubt, however, that Hindu temples will be seen for another decade or two.



Yes, willingly is the key, right? Isn't that what the government of UK is doing? The laws relate only to inheritance, marriage, divorce, etc...all civil disputes. Murderers & rapists will have to continue to go to secular court where they'll get short paroles of 12 & 4 years respectively.

Thing is, they are citizens of the UK. The KSA doesn't allow non-Muslims to be naturalised. Until recently, naturalisation was not even possible. It's still extremely difficult in all the Gulf countries. As they're guests living in the country, the compromises these countries have made for them is remarkable. The UAE abolished the death penalty! The KSA rarely carries out executions now, Texas has many more executions carried out.



Actually, most Muslims didn't want the Caliphate to be abolished. Most of Turkey's population was sentimentally attached to the Caliphate, and Mustafa Kemal dared not to abolish it without a reason. After the Khilafat movement in India, Kemal used it as an excuse to abolish the Caliphate, and the brainwashing of Turkey's population is the end result. The crazy fellow even tried to force all his citizens to stop wearing their traditional clothing in favour of western clothing, lol. It wasn't the Muslims who abolished the Caliphate, it was Kemal's revolutionaries. But yes, I agree, the Ottomans were looked upon as colonial masters, however, little did the rebels realise that the UK would stab them in the back and establish Israel.



I am against prohibition. I believe it aggravates a situation. I believe that prohibition should come within. The prophet of Allah (saw) didn't enforce prohibition by force. When the verses regarding alcohol were revealed, the ummah (Muslim community) threw away all their alcohol by choice. There are a few hadith regarding this. For example:



As you can see, he did not punish anyone for drinking.

Absolutely. Such savage tribal customs should have no place of any kind in my country.


Magliabechi.

Magliabechi, you are learned, yet misinformed. Please read my previous posts regarding human rights in Islam.

I have to agree with everyone who is upset about this (about islamic law in britain), and Khan, it is by no means due to misinformation or ignorance.

There are many points to be argued, but the most significant I will venture is that women are simply not considered as equals in any court of sharia law (as exists in the world today)

In western societies, at least, equality for women under the law is perhaps one of the most important principles that we have (even though it might not be truly universally present yet) and just as important as principles of freedom of speech and/or religion.

Speaking of freedom of speech and religion, I need merely cite the mohammed cartoon "scandal" of recent past, as well as many restrictions in islamic countries on converting from islam to another religion. In each case it is clear that people's interpretation of islamic law is attempting to impose restrictions on non-muslim's rights.

Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equality of women. These are the principles on which we can claim to call our civilization advanced, and our human race evolved. Now see why some call sharia "barbaric"?

removed, sorry I am tired.. this was meant to be posted somewhere else

Well, in English law, white males are often not considered as equals, these days. But be that as it may, Sharia law belongs in Muslim countries, and not ours here in Britain.

Last edited by ascan on 21 Sep 2008, 1:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

For maximum fairness, you really need to have just one court system, and it needs to be secular. If the Muslim or any other community wants to do it's own thing within their community, that's fine, but it can't carry the force of law, that needs to be reserved for the legitimate courts.