What the … !!!, Do not mangle other posters quotes.
[ /Moderating ]
Sure I did, then I looked past your weasel words and discovered your claim that
I have never argued that Sharia should be implemented in Western society, but you are simply engaged in empty “moooslims is bad” rhetoric.
There are variations of Sharia to which I would object in any context in the U.S. (I’ll let other countries deal with their own laws.) Certainly, as practiced in Saudi Arabia, I would object to any form of it being employed in the U.S. On the other hand, I would have no problem if variations that were not misogynistic, (and there are a few), were permitted in marriage and property resolutions in the way that Catholic tribunals, Jewish Bet Din, and Tribal Courts have been employed in a limited manner to augment the existing state and local courts in the U.S.
I would want any court so employed to be vetted for consistency with the U.S. Constitution as well as general acceptance by the Muslim population before it was granted any authority, but I would not simply reject it out of hand because I came in with an a priori declaration that it was “bullshit.”
Thank-you for your tempered warning. When I clicked QUOTE I didn’t get all of the detail. I had to add to it for it to make any sense. In doing so I inserted my own editorial opinion.
Nonsense. You did no such things. You stuck your head in your ass, skipped the reading and jumped to the conclusion you wanted. Another time it would probably be more profitable if you let me present my views. Then I’ll let you present your own. If you are uncertain of what I write you are most welcome to ask for details. That way you don’t have to bother with inventing your own interpretation. But since I’m equally opposed to Christian, Jewish, and pagan law being integrated into state law, and priests or Jewish-what-ever-they-have playing judges you can accuse me of Christophobia and anti-Semitism as well, in addition to the “moooslims is bad”-thingy. It’s not like a give a shit about the opinion from someone who knee jerks forum posts.
Right.
So someone else posted the following?
If that is not what you meant, then you should have posted something different.
You are also free to be hostile to all other religious legal systems. That, however, is not what you posted.
We should probably reign in this hijack at some point, but…
Are we talking at cross purposes? I’m saying that a NATO without the US would have involved substantially higher military spending by Europe, as a share of their GDP, even if they in aggregate spent less than NATO did. You can see this from the Kosovo War, where Germany had markedly less advanced weapon systems, i.e. less accurate bombs.
As for “the [net] economic damage done to the rest of the world”, cite? You can claim stuff like that all you want, but substantiating it is an entirely different matter.
Mexico nationalized the US oil industry in the 1930s and Roosevelt did nada. And they held their own fine against the US afterwards. NAFTA wasn’t exactly imposed on them: it was something they asked for after liberalizing. I won’t comment on Mexico before 1930.
Thanks to its US built canal, Panama has a per person GDP of $13,600, favorable relative to Belize ($8,300) and even Costa Rica ($11,500). True they lost 800 according to the UN (though I see now there are higher estimates), but that did end a (US backed) tyranny.
Complete and utter nonsense. The UK NEVER came close to becoming communist. Argument supported by non-crazy cites please.
Not as much as “Honour Killings”, or women unable to leave home without a chaperone, or women who’ve been raped being adjudged the guilty party and punished, or being forced to wear bhurkas.
Or murderers being kept from the law of the land and paying “blood money” to the victims family as a penalty
Yes damn those hysterical people who complain about it, no doubt they’re all racists.
Banana republic policies are older than Soviet agression and subversion.
Cite for any of these things happening even just the once in the UK (nevermind routinely), please ?
Its not unusual have a look for yourself .
Sorry I should have said, not unusual to Sharia law, the point being that we don’t want Sharia law in the West.
Unless Sharia law varies from country to country, which as you well know it doesn’t, it is completely irrelevant whether its practiced in Bradford or Bangla Desh
The example of the unlawful killing being solved by Blood money was in South London as I recall, after a street fight between Somalis and an Asian group.
I suppose if I must I could trawl through stuff to retrieve it, though it isn’t particulary relevant.
I’ll see how I feel.
Sharia" Law" is S.L., how ever you look at it and wherever it is practiced.
Nice diversionary tactic, but no cigar
Of course it’s relevant. Here, I’ll walk you through the reasoning:
- You say these things routinely happen in countries where Sharia Law is practised
- Sharia Law is practised in the UK when both parties agree to it
- Therefore, these things should routinely happen among Muslims in the UK
If they don’t, what does that tell you about Sharia Law ?
Spoiler: That its application varies from country to country, culture to culture, ethnic group to ethnic group.
Honour attack numbers in the UK
The UK has, for the first time in a long time, a small but significant immigrant community from the rural sub-continent that is both resistant to assimilation and possessed of an ‘unsophisticated’ view of religion and culture.
There are cases all the time.
This is recognised as a problem by successive governments and some muslim organisations. One response has been to try and stop communities importing iman’s from the same rural background that will reinforce prejudice.
A Muslim Social Worker organisation some time back issued a report highlighting the frightening level of domestic violence against women. I’ve cited it before but it’s eluding my google skills now.
And it is a problem for allowing sharia in some areas, even with consent of all parties, if there is a cultural gender power imbalance.
It is alarmist to talk of being ‘swamped’ by immigration and it is borderline insane to act as if Muslims are some sort of invading extra-terrestril able to shoot Sharia-Rays out their eyes or something.
But it is not alarmist to note that a growing immigrant community that is fiercely resiting assimilation and successfully imposing religious/cultural attitudes derived from rural Pakistan and Bangladesh represents a new challenge.
If it were up to me no religion would be involved in any aspect of the law or education.
To add:
This includes 6% of male respondents saying ‘killing is okay’.
IMHO, this is a very well-balanced view of the topic.
Thanks.
I think it’s important to know this is not a left/right liberal/conservative thing in the UK. There is a growing, shared realisation that ‘multi-culturalism’ as a policy is not longer working.
It was fine with the wave of west indian immigration in the fifties but (especially after attitudes noticable hardened after 9/11) now there is a community (or several communities) who both take their religion (which they see as under attack, specifically post-9/11 but generally from the godless morality of secular western culture) seriously (a shock to Anglican England) and see it as a primary component of identity.
And it is constantly reinforced by the social practice of arranged marriage bringing in more men and women from the extended family back on the Sub-Continent.
Back in the more hopeful 80’s we kind of imagined multi-culturalism as being the odd ‘ethnic’ festival where the minority community would go back to being increasingly ‘British’ when the bunting came down. Like The Notting Hill Carnival.
As i’ve said in these threads before - I’ve been through Birmingham train station with an Asian friend who had to run away from her family and go into hiding and she was petrified that someone connected to her family would see her.
Her brothers would, she was absolutely clear on this, kill me.
Only 6 percent? That’s not much at all. When you get to percentages that low you you can find support for virtually anything. I wouldn’t be surprised if you could find at least as high a percentage of *non-*Muslims who wanted to kill all Muslims, or all homosexuals, or all blacks, or whatever.
Why are we discussing honor killings in a discussion of Sharia?
They are seperate issues.
There are very legitimate reasons to be concerned about Sharia Law, but people aren’t giving good examples.
Moreover Sharia law does not condone honor killings.
For example, in many of the tribal areas of Iran(honor killings has more to do with tribalism than Islam) honor killings are more frequent then they should be, but that doesn’t make them legal.
The hysteria over implementation of “Sharia law” derives from a single source, aside from xenophobia: widespread misunderstanding of how arbitration and other forms of ADR works.
There is a legitimate debate about the proper role of ADR of any stripe in (say) family law cases. But it is hard to engage in this, when people are freaking out over the allegation that somehow Sharia law is getting into courtrooms via some sort of backroom conspiracy.
Just as an example, it would be perfectly possible in some jurisdictions to create a system of arbitration based on Klingon law. That would not mean that the litigants could cut off each other’s heads in battle, unfortunately … 
All it means is that you can, by mutual agreement, choose how to manage your disputes, whether by Sharia, Klingon, or the arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association - but not in such a way as to offend existing public policy, as contracts that offend public policy are void and unenforceable.
The link doesn’t say these attacks are sanctioned (or ordered) by the Sharia courts though. Which was sort of my point.
You’ll find barbaric attitudes like these in pretty much all societies, in one form or another. Sometimes it’s as “civilized” as casting a son out of the family for marrying a woman from another ethnicity or religion, sometimes it’s honour killings.
Hell, we have our own honour killings of a sort, the so-called crimes of passion. Not too long ago, if a man stumbled upon his woman balling some young buck and killed them both, well, it was understandable and if the husband was even convicted, he’d receive a lighter sentence than if he’d committed a “real” murder. And by not too long ago I mean the specific laws protecting these sorts of things were stricken from the books as late as the 70s around here, and some judges still show some measure of lenience for them to this day. Well, to “real” French people of course - if they’re brown it becomes one of them dreadful honour killings, don’t it ?
So that’s one thing. But it’s another to say that this is the result or end-game of Sharia arbitration.
That seems sensible.
No doubt, but you’ll find domestic violence wherever there’s macho culture as well. And again, I doubt you can link it to Sharia courts, or that Sharia judges order wife beatings. Because they’re kind of against the regular law.
Agreed. But that was where I was coming from asking these cites in the first place - rabid islamophobia is rampant these days, is very much tolerated and it’s fucking unseemly.
Again, agreed. But if we are to allow one strain no matter how much harm it demonstrably results in then we can’t turn around and say theirs is no good, can we ?
snort Cry me a river. In my country, ~15% of the people vote for overt fascists and a good proportion of them would be A-ok with harsh, state backed discrimination against blacks, arabs, Jews and gays. Now that’s a sizeable, credible threat to society and democracy. As Der Trihs says, you can find 5% of people who’ll agree with anything.
Besides, the question is loaded/leading to begin with, isn’t it ? What’s the alternative, being OK with living according to dishonour ? 
Personally, I’m very much down with living according to honour - it’s just that my conception of it differs from theirs.