Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > islamization of london england      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 101
islamization of london englandPage 5 of 15    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)


Just like Beth Din arbitration



I wouldn't say Sharia and Beth Din are at all the same in England. Sharia is much more disadvantageous, if not completely discriminatory to women whereas Beth Din courts have realized this potential within their own laws and have amended them accordingly. No such luck for muslim women.

I see... So we are going to dictate peoples' religious conscience to them n0w based on your opinion of their religion...

Suggesting Sharia court rulings are voluntary for women is equally inaccurate because it is important for muslim women to be divorced religiously. They essentially have no choice but to go through Sharia law.

I see... So they have "no choice" in a pluralistic society without religious compulsion... No choice because they believe in their religion...

An interesting take on it...

Religious courts do not have to abide by British law but their rulings do have to be "reasonable" according to the British Arbitration Act.

I see... and I suppose that this little fact was simply overlooked when this was established...

The above Sharia "codes" are in no way reasonable and thus can't be included in any kind of British legal enforcement.

In your opinion... So far, British law seems to have a different opinion on it...

Aside: Are you stalking me...? It seems as though you have some compulsion to respond wherever I comment... Are you that desperate to "score a point" against me...?

Here, I'll throw you a bone...

You are right... Islamic and Judaic religious law ARE different in many ways... And labour arbitration DOES function on a different set of principles than religious arbitration... I guess the fact that they are ALL legal arbitration forums is utterly irrelevant to the comparison...
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 102
view profile
History
islamization of london england
Posted: 2/14/2011 6:01:46 AM

I see... So we are going to dictate peoples' religious conscience to them n0w based on your opinion of their religion


No, not at all or in any way. I'm just looking at reality. Sharia law is obviously unfair to women. It's not an opinion at all. It's a fact. Beth Din courts had similar mandates towards women but have since changed the religious context based on "no law that is unfair is a Jewish law". Islamic laws haven't figured this out yet. The judgments handed down in Sharia courts rarely comply with existing British law. Here's only one of hundreds of examples...


There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.

Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.

The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.


What's even more scary is that in reality, Sharia courts are NOT limited to civil arbitration. They are ruling ineffectively on criminal matters as well. What criminal matter could that be? Domestic violence. What a shock!


In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.


Sound fair to you? Secular courts issue restraining orders, arrest offenders, put them in jail for mandatory two year sentences for assault etc. You know, stuff that protects women and children and their rights to not get the crap beat out of them. As I said, many many many examples of unfair judgments exist and I'll happily display them all if you need.


I see... So they have "no choice" in a pluralistic society without religious compulsion... No choice because they believe in their religion


Well they don't at all live in a pluralistic society. At all. Muslim women who agree to Sharia tribunal hearings live in and among other muslims in a muslim society within a western country. See David Cameron's speech in Feb 8th for clarification. Why on earth would any woman agree to go to Sharia court for a divorce when the cards are stacked so heavily against her? Plus, you didn't read the part about Beth Din courts giving you a religious divorce based on your civil divorce. Sharia law doesn't do that. If you're muslim and want to be divorced in the eyes of God, you must abide by a Sharia court ruling which obviously does not favour women. But, don't take my meaningless word for it...


In reality, women are often pressured by their families into going to these courts and adhering to unfair decisions and may lack knowledge of their rights under British law. Moreover, refusal to settle a dispute in a sharia court could lead to to threats, intimidation or isolation.


If muslim society in the UK were pluralistic, no woman would ever agree to the nonsense mandated in Sharia courts.


In your opinion... So far, British law seems to have a different opinion on it


That's not true at all. British law is directly contrary to much of Sharia law codes. Sharia rulings are in no way automatically approved by British courts even if both parties have agreed. If there is a dispute, British law must approve the ruling based on its own precedents. You may also note that only five Sharia courts are recognized under the Arbitration Act yet there are 85 courts in operation. So 80 courts are operating without approval or review by the British legal system. Oh here, just read this...


Mr MacEoin said: 'Among the rulings we find some that advise illegal actions and others that transgress human rights standards as applied by British courts.'
Examples set out in his study include a ruling that no Muslim woman may marry a non-Muslim man unless he converts to Islam and that any children of a woman who does should be taken from her until she marries a Muslim.
Further rulings, according to the report, approve polygamous marriage and enforce a woman's duty to have sex with her husband on his demand.
The report added: 'The fact that so many sharia rulings in Britain relate to cases concerning divorce and custody of children is of particular concern, as women are not equal in sharia law, and sharia contains no specific commitment to the best interests of the child that is fundamental to family law in the UK.
'Under sharia, a male child belongs to the father after the age of seven, regardless of circumstances.'
It said: 'Sharia courts operating in Britain may be handing down rulings that are inappropriate to this country because they are linked to elements in Islamic law that are seriously out of step with trends in Western legislation.'
The study pointed out that the House of Lords ruled in a child custody case last year that the sharia rules on the matter were 'arbitrary and discriminatory'.

And a 2003 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg said it was 'difficult to declare one's respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverges from Convention values.


It's a slam dunk fact that Sharia courts offer rulings and judgments that don't jive with British and western legal philosophy. If you want to argue that I have no right to an opinion on someone else's religion...fine. Good. Screw women. I don't care. But facts are still facts. When earthpuppy says that Sharia law is just hunky dory, I'm not certain he has all the facts.


Aside: Are you stalking me...? It seems as though you have some compulsion to respond wherever I comment... Are you that desperate to "score a point" against me...?


No, just when you're painfully wrong and sometimes when you're mean to other posters.

Aside: I'm just curious, shouldn't someone be shouting "islamophobe" by now?
 4rumninja
Joined: 11/30/2009
Msg: 103
islamization of london england
Posted: 2/14/2011 7:25:22 AM
Arbitration usually doesn't deviate from the law of the Land....Sharia Law is inconsistent with the Laws of Britain...I can understand Canadians supporting the Sharia Courts as they have a similar system to Britain...
Citing Beth-Din arbitration as support for you position is disingenuous at least...Beth-Din arbitration recognizes the law of the land and rules in such a way that the rulings can be upheld by secular Courts...unlike Sharia-Arbitration...
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 104
view profile
History
islamization of london england
Posted: 2/14/2011 8:54:31 AM
a very interesting article on the bbc website

http;//bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12416394

murdered by her father for becoming a western woman.

the awful murder itself apart, the revealing thing is that argentina, ecuador and syria are named as having partial or complete defence of these atrocities.

" We continue to underestimate the problem, because these ethnic groups live their own lives with little integration, especially for women”

End Quote Souad Sbai Association of Moroccan Women in Italy


vlad dracul
 FrankNStein902
Joined: 12/26/2009
Msg: 105
islamization of london england
Posted: 2/14/2011 9:59:33 AM
" We continue to underestimate the problem, because these ethnic groups live their own lives with little integration, especially for women”

That should read more like:

"We continue to use these isolated incidences that happened outside of the UK, because we know that will further the misinformation while we fail to recognize that these things happen to some degree in all cultures and have no impact on anyone other than the parties involved."
 4rumninja
Joined: 11/30/2009
Msg: 106
islamization of london england
Posted: 2/14/2011 10:20:54 AM

and have no impact on anyone other than the parties involved."
That may be true initially, but after a while the mistreatment of women will be noticed by those who are outside of the Sharia Courts...being that the Laws in England and most other industrialized Countries treat women equally and afford them all of the protection given to every man the women involved with Sharia Courts and those on the outside will question the implementation of such blatantly discriminatory judgments.Which are contrary to the Laws of the Land...

It is interesting to see people who seem on the surface to be Liberal advocate for Sharia Courts even though those courts are blatantly sexist and render unfair judgments to Women.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 107
islamization of london england
Posted: 2/14/2011 2:08:34 PM


In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.

Sound fair to you? Secular courts issue restraining orders, arrest offenders, put them in jail for mandatory two year sentences for assault etc.

Fair...? Yeah, as the same thing would happen in Canada if a husband and wife were to opt for mediation/arbitration as an alternative to court... You see, arbitrators are NOT ALLOWED to sentence people to jail or probation or issue restraining orders... And they CAN opt for mediation/arbitration if they so decide... whether charges are dropped by police afterwards is up to the crown (and they usually are dropped after a mediated/arbitrated resolution)... YOU don't have to like that outcome, only the people who agree to take it to mediation/arbitration as an alternative to court so, really, what you or I see as 'fair' is irrelevant...

...The judgments handed down in Sharia courts rarely comply with existing British law....

I don't think you understand just what "comply with British law" means in these matters... See above for the answer...

Well they don't at all live in a pluralistic society. At all. Muslim women who agree to Sharia tribunal hearings live in and among other muslims in a muslim society within a western country.


That has got to be one of the most ridiculous stretches I have ever seen... Are you ACTUALLY interested in reality over your own invented "definitions"...?

Why on earth would any woman agree to go to Sharia court for a divorce when the cards are stacked so heavily against her?


If muslim society in the UK were pluralistic, no woman would ever agree to the nonsense mandated in Sharia courts.

Ah, I see... because YOU can't envision YOURSELF doing it, because YOU don't understand their motivation, then it must be impossible for ANY person to do such a thing... Now THAT'S "sterling silver" logic...

Mr MacEoin said...

MacEoin... would this be the same MacEoin who is an editor for one of the single worst, most bigotted anti-islam groups on the planet, Middle East Forum...? You know, that one run by unrepentant bigot and American jingoist Daniel Pipes...? Is this why you didn't provide a link...? Or is it because you took this from a BNP (the party of choice for unrepentant British bigots and white supremacists) blog written by Sean Witheridge (also an unrepentant bigot)...
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 108
islamization of london england
Posted: 2/14/2011 2:20:28 PM

It is interesting to see people who seem on the surface to be Liberal advocate for Sharia Courts even though those courts are blatantly sexist and render unfair judgments to Women.

Ummm... It's about free will... Any woman in Britain, muslim or otherwise, could refuse arbitration in favor of court and the law of Britain would fully support her... These are not mandatory courts which all muslims a compelled by law to use... A women has the right to choose this, as sexist as it is, just as American women are free to enter into Christian Domestic Discipline marriages (equally as sexist)...

Are you suggesting that no woman has the right to choose sexism and that which you see as unfair...? Are you suggesting that we MUST legally compell women to eschew anything that may be considered by some to be sexist or unfair...? And here I thought you were opposed to governments dictating peoples private lives... imagine my surprise to find YOU advocating government interference in private personal choices
 gardenias2
Joined: 1/13/2011
Msg: 109
islamization of london england
Posted: 2/14/2011 3:52:14 PM
^^^free will you say? you obviously have no comprehension of the dynamics involved in domestic violence.....especially that of a repressed muslim woman. she has been so disempowered and programmed by her culture that she fears for her and her childrens lives. hahaha you think she has free will......talk about male priviledge. grow up.

this is why a woman cannot change her mind after calling the police in the usa or the neighbors calling the police. if the officers observe her as a victim of domestic violence the court will proceed and she cannot retract or choose not to testify(in the case of a 3rd party reporting the abuse) and will be supoenaed as a witness for the prosecution.

this is one of the wonderful reasons we have laws and a judicial system.....to seek justice and protection for victims and witnesses when they are so abused and disempowered they cannot stand up for themselves. allowing sharia arbitration is quite counter-productive.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 110
islamization of london england
Posted: 2/14/2011 4:45:03 PM
this is why a woman cannot change her mind after calling the police in the usa or the neighbors calling the police. if the officers observe her as a victim of domestic violence the court will proceed and she cannot retract or choose not to testify(in the case of a 3rd party reporting the abuse) and will be supoenaed as a witness for the prosecution.

Well... Given the qualifier which I highlighted, I would suspect that the inability to "change her mind" does not apply in every case, even where you live... What if the police didn't see it and have no witnesses...? Does it then proceed if the woman drops charges or refuses to testify...

I can assure you that this inability to "change her mind" is not the situation in every case in every jurisdiction... As I highlighted above, in Canada (Ontario particularly), arbitration CAN be used as an alternative to court, even in domestic assault cases... a woman CAN refuse to testify... a woman CAN withdraw charges... AND, by this little quote from the anti-islam forces, the inability to "change her mind" does not apply in every case in the UK either... From this, apparently a women CAN "change her mind"...

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.

You don't have to like it but, your not liking it doesn't make this...

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

...contrary to British law... and this...

...the police stopped their investigations.

... makes it doubly obvious...
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 111
view profile
History
islamization of london england
Posted: 2/14/2011 6:54:26 PM
There have been entirely too many women, family, friends and acquaintences, neighbors, and others in my Christian life, who have suffered under the same systems of misogyny within this culture that so many lament about "foreign" cultures. My mom hated living under dark Lutheranism farm wife expectations, hated more the Amish model of misogyny that surrounded her, and expected more of this country than it delivered in her life.

Those that need to blame Islam for being somehow worse than our own hypocrisy, fail to admit that we have a long row to hoe to get to an honest place in our own ability to fair, honest, and equal. It appears to me, that those with the strongest condemnations of other systems,and religious beliefs, tend to be the same ones who wish to control women, their decisions, and destinations, in this culture. Our christian Taliban, seems equal to the task of those we seek to condemn elsewhere.
 gardenias2
Joined: 1/13/2011
Msg: 112
islamization of london england
Posted: 2/15/2011 1:22:33 AM

What if the police didn't see it and have no witnesses...? Does it then proceed if the woman drops charges or refuses to testify...


for an officer to observe a victim of domestic violence, for example in the case of a 3rd party call to police, the officer does not need to see the actual violence take place....just the remnants of a fight.

what exactly is your point? in the usa, it's law. i'm pretty sure its a federal law. once the officers feel there is a possible case for domestic violence the victim cannot recant without facing charges her/himself.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 113
islamization of london england
Posted: 2/15/2011 4:37:05 AM
what exactly is your point? in the usa, it's law.

My point is: US law isn't British law... US law has no bearing on the UK and it's alleged "muslim problem"...
 4rumninja
Joined: 11/30/2009
Msg: 114
islamization of london england
Posted: 2/15/2011 5:15:02 AM

tend to be the same ones who wish to control women, their decisions{/quote] Are you referring to a woman's "Choice" to murder her baby? That is the only example I can think of that might fit into your description...It is not about the "Woman" in that case it is about the "Rights" of the tiny Human living inside the Women in question. In every other case I believe Women should have and deserve every right and opportunity given to anyone else in our society.

After all, if a woman decides to have a baby and later changes her mind and decides she no longer wants the child, it would be illegal for her to "Choose" to terminate the Life of that Child.

Can you offer any other example of how women are not protected by our Laws?
There are many laws and policies in place that are designed specifically to insure that Women in our Society are treated equally and given every protection and opportunity that is available to men.
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 115
view profile
History
islamization of london england
Posted: 2/15/2011 10:48:53 AM
the story that i linked to from the bbc site was not so much about domestic violence it was more about how a culture is incompatible with our life in 'the west'

when a father cuts his daughters throat 28 times because she wanted to live her life like the other young girls she has seen as she grew up, then that is an obscenity.

he stated from his jail cell that he 'did not want her to be free'.

well im ****in sorry but i do want our women to be free. if you dont like our ways **** off.

how many 'honour' killings happen outside of islam? the united nations put a figure of 5,000 in muslim culture. per year.

5000 young girls murdered because their family live in a society that is alien to them.


if they cannot accept our laws why are they here?

you can mention abortion all you like but these are young girls who wanted to make a lifestyle choice, their freedom to do so, a society that lets them. then murdered by adherants of a religion based in the 14th century.

where are the holy men of the religion of peace? why are they doing plums? where are the letters in the press from outraged muslim women?

why no demos on the streets about 'honour' killings?

why have none of my critics mentioned that argentina and ecuador make 'allowances' for honour killings?

oh and in cananda the trial is underway. three teenage sisters and an older woman. 'honour killing anyone?

type honour killings in the west into google. where is your outrage intlibs? to uncomfortable for you is it?

keep your heads in the sand.

anytime the figure 5,000 is mentioned just think of the 5,000 women murdered by rodents who are helped by the other rodents in the family.

they sleep and you sleep. only difference is you wake up next day. they never wake again


vlad dracul
 FrankNStein902
Joined: 12/26/2009
Msg: 116
islamization of london england
Posted: 2/15/2011 11:22:44 AM

if they cannot accept our laws why are they here?

Now this maybe hard for you to understand but not all Muslims practice honor killings.

So maybe if you really want to know, go ask someone who is Muslim and while you are at it, ask your ancestors why they came to your country as well, because at one point they where immigrants to.




you can mention abortion all you like but these are young girls who wanted to make a lifestyle choice, their freedom to do so, a society that lets them. then murdered by adherants of a religion based in the 14th century.

If society lets them do it, then why is that guy in jail?




where are the holy men of the religion of peace? why are they doing plums? where are the letters in the press from outraged muslim women?

why no demos on the streets about 'honour' killings?

Where is the catholic church at, when all these boys are getting raped and abused?

Why are they not out on the streets protesting and yelling at the top of their lungs?




oh and in cananda the trial is underway. three teenage sisters and an older woman. 'honour killing anyone?

Yes and they are on trial for it, so once again you fail to make a point.


People kill people for many reason and some for no reasons, the fact you want to restrict where people can live based on a few nutters from someones religion sees to me like you are the one with your head in the sand that is using irrational arguments to justify your hatred and intolerance of others.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 117
islamization of london england
Posted: 2/15/2011 1:39:33 PM
why have none of my critics mentioned that argentina and ecuador make 'allowances' for honour killings?

WTF does this have to do with Islam or Muslims...?

You DO know that 'honor' killings, as had/have been practiced in South America, were a result of South American Catholic machismo, don't you...?

You DO know that the practice had absolutely NOTHING to do with Islam, don't you...?

You do know that, right...?

So... perhaps you can explain what this has to do with your bigotted screeds against Islam...
 gardenias2
Joined: 1/13/2011
Msg: 118
islamization of london england
Posted: 2/15/2011 1:48:24 PM
the stats speak for themselves and you can google search them yourself. the muslim religion is a world wide threat, to men and woman alike. sorry for the analogy but it is in the league of the hitler regime. too many people are blindly following a very warped religion nazi style.....it slowly and manipulatively unfolds into increasing tragedies.

and now you can't say you were never warned. and unfortunately i will not be enjoying the last laugh.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 119
view profile
History
islamization of london england
Posted: 2/15/2011 3:00:18 PM
Hitler was motivated by religion. Pretty well documented. The Family, C Street gang, is likewise is motivated by religion, promoting the homosexual holocaust in Uganda. Both are far right Christian movements.
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 120
view profile
History
islamization of london england
Posted: 2/15/2011 5:36:06 PM

Yeah, as the same thing would happen in Canada if a husband and wife were to opt for mediation/arbitration as an alternative to court... You see, arbitrators are NOT ALLOWED to sentence people to jail or probation or issue restraining orders... And they CAN opt for mediation/arbitration if they so decide


So what you're saying then is that Sharia courts are the same as Canadian arbitration hearings? I thought it was bad when you said Sharia courts are just like Beth Din courts. But this is even crazier. They're nothing at all alike. You're totally wrong. In Canada, participants in family arbitration must have independent legal advice before arbitration can begin...you know, so people know and understand all of their legal rights. You can't even go to arbitration without seeing a lawyer first. Also, in domestic violence cases the victim must have counsel present to, you know, further protect their rights. And if the suspected violence involves children, the arbitrator must notify the police. And finally, if any judgments are made, those judgments are only enforceable if they are made according to Canadian law. No religious judgments allowed. This creates a problem when dealing with violence because most violence cases would result in criminal convictions and sentences. For this reason, arbitration for domestic violence in Canada is not recommended and rarely occurs. There is an inherent power imbalance. From the Canadian law society web site...


Cases not suitable for mediation-arbitration

Experience shows that the following cases are likely not appropriate for mediation-arbitration:
•Domestic violence or power imbalances exist that cannot be remedied by the presence of counsel;


Read that again...


Domestic violence or power imbalances exist that cannot be remedied by the presence of counsel;


That's like the exact opposite of sharia courts where power imbalances are inherent.

This really should be enough for you to understand why sharia arbitration isn't fair in domestic violence cases. However, here's some specifics about Sharia arbitration. In Sharia courts in the UK you must sign an agreement to abide by their judgments before you begin. The imams that rule are appointed and are not monitored or controlled. There is no public record of their judgements. You can't investigate previous rulings or gain any knowledge of where you might stand in sharia law. And most of all, once you sign the binding agreement, you have no right to appeal.

Even more though is that fundamental to Sharia law is that men are considered superior to women. In all Sharia codes, women's testimony is worth half that of men's. Women must undergo multiple legal proceedings to get a divorce whereas men can get one instantly. Child custody goes to men all the time and under all circustances, inheritance goes more than twice to men. It's simply not fair. If women consent to this type of arbitration, how can you possibly think it's a fair deal. Needless to say, it's not at all like Canada.


Ummm... It's about free will... Any woman in Britain, muslim or otherwise, could refuse arbitration in favor of court and the law of Britain would fully support her


You're completely wrong about that too. Muslim women can't get secular divorces. Jewish women can. Catholics can. But muslims can't. The only way they can get a religious divorce is to go through Sharia courts.


civil divorces in England are not accepted as religiously legitimate. Muslim divorces must be conducted according to proceedings of Sharia law.


Aside from that, it's a matter of opinion, but from what I've read, it seems there is a great deal of influence from muslim communities to handle problems in traditional muslim courts. It seems obvious that there would be some societal influence involved as well. Which brings me back to a great question...what would anyone agree to binding arbitration when you're beginning at a disadvantage? Please offer some kind of answer to this.

What is even more of a concern are the 80 + sharia courts that operate outside of official recognition. There are many different examples of "attrocities" commitetd by these courts in the UK but it's all unsubstantiated and hearsay so I'll leave that one. But they do hinder any attempt made to legitimize what official sharia courts could become.


You forgot to add that you want them to be "free" as long as they prescribe to YOUR idea of freedom.... as long as they don't choose to arbitrate through Sharia law, wear a burkha or submit to her husband of her own free will. Right?


For anything to be a choice, there has to be an alternative.

I completely support religious courts like Beth Din. I think there should absolutely be a legally binding Sharia court in every country. But they have to stick to civil matters and they have to have fair laws. Simple.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 121
islamization of london england
Posted: 2/15/2011 7:49:06 PM

Ummm... It's about free will... Any woman in Britain, muslim or otherwise, could refuse arbitration in favor of court and the law of Britain would fully support her

You're completely wrong about that too. Muslim women can't get secular divorces.

Are you honestly trying to say that a muslim woman can't get a secular divorce in a western country such as the UK (or Canada or such)...?

And, pray tell, which law passed by the British parliament forbids Muslims from obtaining a civil divorce or which law declares a civil divorce granted to a muslim woman as non-binding...

The only way they can get a religious divorce is to go through Sharia courts.

But THIS isn't a secular divorce... Its a RELIGIOUS divorce (which can't be obtained from the civil courts for any religion)...

civil divorces in England are not accepted as religiously legitimate. Muslim divorces must be conducted according to proceedings of Sharia law.

So now we're taking quotes from papers by junior undergrad students as though it was "expert opinion"...?!?

And what's more... you've pulled it completely out of context...

An Unjust Doctrine of Civil Arbitration:
Sharia Courts in Canada and England

By Arsani William

...In Islamic countries, religiously condoned and
recognized marriages are granted automatic legal status.
However, these statuses cannot be claimed in countries
like Canada and England, where marriage and divorce
laws differ. Vice-versa, civil divorces in England are
not accepted as religiously legitimate. Muslim divorces
must be conducted according to proceedings of Sharia
law.
Hence, Muslims feel legally disadvantaged in the
absence of Sharia courts....

Arsani William is a current undergraduate junior at
Stanford majoring in Biology (w/ Honors) and Political
Science.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjir/pdf/Sharia_11.2.pdf

Now THAT is desperate...


Yeah, as the same thing would happen in Canada if a husband and wife were to opt for mediation/arbitration as an alternative to court... You see, arbitrators are NOT ALLOWED to sentence people to jail or probation or issue restraining orders... And they CAN opt for mediation/arbitration if they so decide

So what you're saying then is that Sharia courts are the same as Canadian arbitration hearings?

Ummm... No... that is not what I said... I said the same outcome as this:

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.

...would happen (and, in fact, it would)... but I am not surprised that you have taken my words and assigned your own unique meaning to them so that you can pretend to rebut a point (that wasn't actually made)... It seems to be the only way you can make a point against them...

However, here's some specifics about Sharia arbitration...

OK, let's just see...

In Sharia courts in the UK you must sign an agreement to abide by their judgments before you begin.

You must make this agreement before entering into ANY legal arbitration... Arbitration wouldn't be very effective if people could renege after the ruling...

The imams that rule are appointed and are not monitored or controlled.

Wrong... they are subject to the rules of arbitration as laid out in the UK's Arbitration Act... Any monitoring or controll required in that Act also apply to them...

There is no public record of their judgements.You can't investigate previous rulings or gain any knowledge of where you might stand in sharia law.

If the Act the tribunal operates under requires such records then there are records... if it doesn't, then there is no legal compulsion to maintain such records... It is hardly a failing of Islam or the tribunal if the Act doesn't require it and if the Act does then show us where it has been proven to be violated...

And of course, if there is no record then where could the article posted by the anti-muslim forces have come up with this line...?

In fact, Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours.

It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.

and last...

And most of all, once you sign the binding agreement, you have no right to appeal.

Utter, unadulterated, ignorant bullsh*t... Under the UK Arbitration Act 1996, the civil courts still retain jurisdiction over many aspects... Civil courts can remove an arbitrator in response to complaint by any party to the arbitration... Arbitral rulings are subject to review by civil courts on application of either party...

For anything to be a choice, there has to be an alternative.

And there is... Proceed through court or proceed through arbitration... That sounds an awful lot like a choice to me...
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 122
view profile
History
islamization of london england
Posted: 2/15/2011 9:46:41 PM

Are you honestly trying to say that a muslim woman can't get a secular divorce in a western country such as the UK (or Canada or such)...?

And, pray tell, which law passed by the British parliament forbids Muslims from obtaining a civil divorce or which law declares a civil divorce granted to a muslim woman as non-binding


Sorry. Here's clarity for you. Whereas jewish couples can get divorced in a secular court and then (if they agree) take that ruling and immediately and without any further review get a Beth Din court to approve their divorce, muslim couples must go through a Sharia court and their system of arbitration to get a divorce. Hence muslim women can't avoid the unfair, misogynistic system and are suubject to financial penalties, unreasonable burdens of proof and general abuse. As well, whereas jewish and catholic religious marriages are recognized in British civil courts, muslim religious marriages are not. They have no standing in British law so there's no law at all that governs them. Kind of hard to get divorced if you're not married. But it is easier to have multiple wives. Mosques could just fill out the correct paper work to change this....but strangely the male dominated clergy hasn't done this yet. Weird. That, pray tell, answers you question.


So now we're taking quotes from papers by junior undergrad students as though it was "expert opinion"...?!?


Okay mungojoe. Here's a few more of several zillion other sources for your finicky palate...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jul/05/sharia-law-religious-courts

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/world/europe/19shariah.html

http://politicsreligion.eu/issues-we-work-on/secularism-and-sharia-law/

Better yet...get your own.

Just for fun...this is from the Sharia Council web site, a site about sharia in England. There's a q & a section..."ask an immam" kind of thing. This one woman asked about her responsibilities towards sex with her husband. She had been abused as a child and wasn't comfortable being intimate with her husband because he was agressive with her. Here's what the immam has to say...


Marriage in Islam is intended to protect the chastity of men and women alike, therefore it is the woman's duty to respond to her husband's requests for conjugal relations. She should not give silly excuses and try to avoid it.


Here's his conclusion...


Conclusion:
After this advice, if your wife should persist upon not responding to your sexual needs then you should divorce her. This is because a woman who can not have conjugal relationship should not be married in the first place.


If I were a woman, I'd not be so anxious to have my case heard by that guy. Does that not make you ill?


would happen (and, in fact, it would)... but I am not surprised that you have taken my words and assigned your own unique meaning to them so that you can pretend to rebut a point (that wasn't actually made)... It seems to be the only way you can make a point against them


You said the outcome would be the same. That in itself is very unlikely as domestic violence arbitration in Canada rarely occurs and I'm wondering if you have an example of one that mandated anger managemnt courses. But the bigger point is that the process is patently different. You can't suggest the outcome is the same without implying the process is the same.


Wrong... they are subject to the rules of arbitration as laid out in the UK's Arbitration Act... Any monitoring or controll required in that Act also apply to them


Wrong. 80 of the 85 courts operate outside of all jurisdiction. So they don't give a #$#% about the Arbitration Act. But even of the five remaining courts, would you not suggest that the Arbitration Act takes a few things for granted? For example, that the people involved start off as equals?


Dr David Green, the Director of the Civitas think tank, said: "I think there are a number of problems with regards to Sharia law. These Sharia councils are supposed to operate under the Arbitration Act which allows citizens in a free society to settle their disputes on a voluntary basis if they so wish. But that legislation assumes that both parts are regarded as being equal. I think the problem is with tribunals like these you can't always be sure that women would be treated equally.


One of many problems. Assuming that these courts are governed by the Arbitration Act is surprisingly naive for you.


And most of all, once you sign the binding agreement, you have no right to appeal.



Utter, unadulterated, ignorant bullsh*t... Under the UK Arbitration Act 1996, the civil courts still retain jurisdiction over many aspects... Civil courts can remove an arbitrator in response to complaint by any party to the arbitration... Arbitral rulings are subject to review by civil courts on application of either party


You get so mad mungojoe! I know it's frustrating. But Sharia courts don't follow the Arbitration Act. Their rulings are not open for appeal in Sharia courts. Sharia is sacred law and must not be challenged or questioned. If you don't believe Sharia courts operate outside the Arbitration Act, just check out the Sharia Council web site and read some of the fatwas and tell me how many of them comply with "reasonable" British law. How many of them would hold up in British courts? I know you're suggesting muslims can apply to civil courts and have their cases judged there. But it's not that easy. If you're muslim, there's pressure, if not obligation, to observe muslim laws. Simple as that.

Again, I think we should all have Sharia courts. They just have to lose the crazy and operate under the laws of the country they're in. Saves court time.


And there is... Proceed through court or proceed through arbitration... That sounds an awful lot like a choice to me


It is if you're a well educated white guy in Canada. Not so much if you're a muslim woman trying to get a divorce.
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 123
view profile
History
islamization of london england
Posted: 2/16/2011 8:13:49 AM
mungojoe

my bigotted screeds against islam? im not an educated man. im thick as two planks.

but i know i feel its wrong when i read of a young lassie being slaughtered by her family because she wants what other lassies have.

i know i feel its wrong when i see a woman wearing a blanket with a letterbox to see out of.

i do not live in a muslim country, they can do what they like in their own countrys. live how they like. but my country has laws. have had them for 100's of years. we dont need a new raft of laws that are for one section of society.

our craven gutless rodents in parliament are petrified to do anything incase they 'offend'.

too bad the masses keep voting for them. i might have bigotted views? so what? throw any insult or smear name you want. they have been used so much they mean nothing at all.

there are millions in the uk think like me but are cowed into keeping quiet by 'big brother' style bullying and smearing.

we are being geared up for a war with iran, big brother hilary waffling like a dafty getting us geared up. i want no war with iran, i couldnt give a flying toss about the place. let them slaughter each other and let their god sort it out.

in the meantime bring our troops home, that way your dafty muslims who go to heaven and get jiggy with a load of virgins can piss off and leave our shores.

in the meantime though

islam is incompatible with the west. just an observation and something i believe.

toodle pip in a godless style

vlad dracul
 slimchance2010
Joined: 9/26/2010
Msg: 124
view profile
History
islamization of london england
Posted: 2/16/2011 8:58:23 AM
Hell, I find it surprising that anyone bothers with religion at all in this day in age in the first place.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 125
islamization of london england
Posted: 2/16/2011 2:04:11 PM
As well, whereas jewish and catholic religious marriages are recognized in British civil courts, muslim religious marriages are not. They have no standing in British law so there's no law at all that governs them.

And you're blaming this on Islam...?!? This sounds more like legalized discrimination to me, making it a failing of the UK government rather than a failing of Islam...And let's not forget that this same legal disability applies to many other religions, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism, Shintoism, Jainism, Sikhism, and on and on... By your assertion, especially the part quoted below, none of the people of these religions are legally married either...

Kind of hard to get divorced if you're not married. But it is easier to have multiple wives. Mosques could just fill out the correct paper work to change this....but strangely the male dominated clergy hasn't done this yet.

Are you seriously trying to assert that there are NO Muslims in the UK with civilly sanctioned marriages or even a significant number...? Really...? Prove it...

And while we're at it... Are you honestly suggesting that polygamy in the UK involves anything more that the barest and statistically insignificant number of "marriages"...? Let's just see what the numbers are actually like...

1,000 men living legally with multiple wives despite fears over exploitation
Dominic Kennedy
....
“It is estimated that there are fewer than 1,000 valid polygamous marriages in the UK, few of whom are claiming a state benefit,” the Department for Work and Pensions said
....
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article1848488.ece

Even if every one of those are muslim, there are how many muslims in the UK (2008 Labour Force Survey says 2.4 million)...? Even if a mere 10% of the Muslim population of the UK were married that number would still represent a fraction of 1%... Even more to the point, if your implication regarding Muslim marriages quoted above is true then their actions would not be illegal would they (you can't be charged with bigamy/polygamy if you don't have any legally sanctioned marriages)... And the article cited above seems to confirm that contention...

Kind of hard to get divorced if you're not married.

Which renders the entire question moot... If they are not legally married then there is no requirement for their 'non-divorce' to conform to UK divorce law... You're painting yourself into a corner here...

You said the outcome would be the same. That in itself is very unlikely as domestic violence arbitration in Canada rarely occurs...

Well, according to the source posted by the anti-islam forces:

In fact, Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007....

It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.

6 cases in over 3 years... hmm, in order for that to be anything other than "rarely" we would have to acknowledge that 6 cases constituted a significant percentage of all instances of domestic violence among Muslims... Are you prepared to acknowledge that spousal abuse among Muslims is THAT much lower than among, say, Christians...? Because, if not, "rarely" becomes the only remaining option...

You can't suggest the outcome is the same without implying the process is the same.


What utter and complete horse hockey... Do you just make this sh*t up as you go along...? There is NOTHING on God's green earth, no law of physics or any other such thing, that dictates dissimilar processes cannot return the same outcome... Similarity of outcome DOES NOT dictate or require similarity of process... Did you fail to take any courses in philosophy and logic or did you just fail them...?

Seriously dude, get over this obsession that seems to leads you to make ridiculous claims such as this just to try to score a point...

If I were a woman, I'd not be so anxious to have my case heard by that guy.

Yes but, this isn't about what YOU would do... You've already made it clear previously, through your application of "logic", that you do not believe any woman would do something you would not do...
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > islamization of london england