Sharia courts operating in Britain

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Bicnarok
This is worrying, the tip of the iceberg maybe.

Sharia courts have been operating in Britain to rule on disputes between Muslims for more than a year, it has emerged.

Five sharia courts have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester and Nuneaton, Warwickshire. The government has quietly sanctioned that their rulings are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court. Previously, the rulings were not binding and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

Lawyers have issued grave warnings about the dangers of a dual legal system and the disclosure drew criticism from Opposition leaders.

News Link

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

inimalist
lol

as if there is an official "sharia law"

this can only be negative, and I wouldn't be surprised to find the hand of the Saudis involved

Outbound
They had a bit of a debate over here whether to introduce them or not, government said GTFO.

inimalist
same with Canada, iirc

Robtard
What the U.K. gets for appeasing their Muslim population.

I am curious, which system gets the final say if the outcome of a ruling is in conflict between the UK judicial system and the Sharia judicial system?

Quiero Mota
So Pat Condell was right, this is what you guys get for kissing the asses of those nutjobs under the banner of being "culturally sensitive".

chillmeistergen
Given this fact, I don't really see it as much of a problem. If these silly people want to be held accountable for their actions under stupid religious law, then so be it - I'll stick to normal UK law.

jaden101
yep...have to agree this is what happens when a goverment fails to act when cultural attributes of an inwardly migrating population fails to integrate with the laws of the country they're are coming to.

it's an absolute disgrace...

Bardock42
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Given this fact, I don't really see it as much of a problem. If these silly people want to be held accountable for their actions under stupid religious law, then so be it - I'll stick to normal UK law. I don't think the resources of the UK law system should be wasted on that whether both parties agreed or not.

I think it's quite alright as a private court system though...as long as everyone is still protected by the actual laws.

Ushgarak
Yeah, this is just a use of agreed legal arbitration. It's no big deal, there is no official recognition being given to any other legal system or mode of belief here, nor is any such belief being given any form of extra power.

So this is nothing to do with appeasement or anything like it. It woud however, be the most staggering discrimination if it was outlawed. As that article noted, many communities have been using their beliefs for such arbiotration for a long time.

Nothing has changed.

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Robtard
What the U.K. gets for appeasing their Muslim population.

I am curious, which system gets the final say if the outcome of a ruling is in conflict between the UK judicial system and the Sharia judicial system?

There is no Sharia judicial system being used, merely an agreed set of beliefs used in certain cases of arbitration.

So UK law is utterly supreme.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Given this fact, I don't really see it as much of a problem. If these silly people want to be held accountable for their actions under stupid religious law, then so be it - I'll stick to normal UK law.

Why should two extremely different styles of law be able to coexist in the same country? You know they want Sharia to apply to you too, right?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why should two extremely different styles of law be able to coexist in the same country? You know they want Sharia to apply to you too, right? They probably want to, but as long as they are within the laws I don't see a reason why they should be stopped.

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why should two extremely different styles of law be able to coexist in the same country? You know they want Sharia to apply to you too, right?

Please acquaint yourself with the facts of this matter properly before making such comment. What you suggest there is not happening in any way and hence is irrelevant to what he said.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Please acquaint yourself with the facts of this matter properly before making such comment. What you suggest there is not happening in any way and hence is irrelevant to what he said.

Proponents of Sharia want it to be the only law on the planet.

Ushgarak
That as maybe but that has bugger all to do with this thread. It's not the law in the UK nor has anything altered to make it more so than before.

chillmeistergen
There tends to be this hysterical knee jerk reaction by most people, I find it quite odd - it's quite clear that these people are volunteering to be judged under this system, so who cares?

Complaining about wasted tax money is all well and good, but they are inhabitants of this country, too; I think we're stepping into dangerous territory when we allow certain religious practices, organisations etc tax money, then restrict others.

Bardock42
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
There tends to be this hysterical knee jerk reaction by most people, I find it quite odd - it's quite clear that these people are volunteering to be judged under this system, so who cares?

Complaining about wasted tax money is all well and good, but they are inhabitants of this country, too; I think we're stepping into dangerous territory when we allow certain religious practices, organisations etc tax money, then restrict others.

Yeah, I don't really think any religious practices should be awarded any money.

It doesn't seem like this costs the taxpayer more than another approach, so how they negotiate their desputes shouldn't really be anyone's concern, as long as it is within the countries laws.

chillmeistergen
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, I don't really think any religious practices should be awarded any money.

Yeah, I agree. However, while they are, such a thing should be absolute.

inimalist
so nobody is concerned with the extra-judicial patriarchy in Muslim communities?

we all agree that letting immigrant groups become more insular is going to encourage an end to, say, forced marriage, honor killings and female circumcision?

chillmeistergen
Originally posted by inimalist
so nobody is concerned with the extra-judicial patriarchy in Muslim communities?

we all agree that letting immigrant groups become more insular is going to encourage an end to, say, forced marriage, honor killings and female circumcision?

I think to say that it would encourage such things would be going a bit far. I think the fact we have to remember is that this doesn't change or alter any current laws, at all - so to not allow it would be actively discriminating against a religious group.

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I think to say that it would encourage such things would be going a bit far.

You sure about that?

chillmeistergen
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
You sure about that?

The actual system itself, yes. If it is abused and such things happen, then it becomes a case of infringing on the actual law.

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
The actual system itself, yes. If it is abused and such things happen, then it becomes a case of infringing on the actual law.

Maybe, but im wondering were it will end im sure some people can still twist things around even if it does infringe on actual law.

Ushgarak
Originally posted by inimalist
so nobody is concerned with the extra-judicial patriarchy in Muslim communities?

we all agree that letting immigrant groups become more insular is going to encourage an end to, say, forced marriage, honor killings and female circumcision?

But to deliberately EXCLUDE immigrant groups from a right everyone else enjoys is going to bring about such insularism much more quickly.

Everyone in this country has the right to bring certain matters to arbitration by a third party so long as those involved all agree the decision is binding, and so long as the arbitration panel follows UK law. Christians, Jews, Hindus, Atheists and for that matter gnome worshippers all have the right to such arbittation handled by a third party who believes in their values, if one can be found. Who the hell are we to specifically deny that right to Muslims?

Calling this a 'sharia court' is the thing that brings over the top responses. All it actually is is certain arbitration matters being decided on commonly agreed values amongst those concerned which happens to be those that conform to a certain Muslim belief. You cannot condemn that and not condemn any other form of arbitration.

Bardock42
Originally posted by inimalist
so nobody is concerned with the extra-judicial patriarchy in Muslim communities?

we all agree that letting immigrant groups become more insular is going to encourage an end to, say, forced marriage, honor killings and female circumcision?

Well, I at least agree that if they want to make their own private arbitration. I don't really believe in forcing people to adopt values.

inimalist
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I think to say that it would encourage such things would be going a bit far.

unfortunately, these acts do not need to be encouraged

even with regard to something like castes (obviously not an Islamic thing, but the idea holds), some Hindu from the "untouchable" castes find that they face more social isolation and discrimination in the UK after immigration than before.

social problems and repression in the Muslim community are not going to be addressed by a system run by the same elders who enforce the patriarchy outside of the courts. Its not that these rates would rise (though it could be argued) just that, people being affected are going to have less and less power to speak out against it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
But to deliberately EXCLUDE immigrant groups from a right everyone else enjoys is going to bring about such insularism much more quickly.

I think you missed my point. This system will further entrench the power of the patriarchy within the communities.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have the right, I think everyone is missing a bigger picture. Women and girls in immigrant communities have enough trouble as it is reaching out for help, there are countless stories of honor killings and female circumcision from all Western countries, everyone knows stories of forced marriage. Women in these communities already face problems from lack of language skills and not being financially independent. I'm saying an effect of the law, not anything to do with the law itself, has the potential of removing what might have been one of the only available outlets for fighting back against these forces. Not that they can't still go to the british courts, but that they may be devout muslims (re: they want to settle things according to Sharia, even if it means a culture of oppression) or they may be seen as "their" courts, and not courts for Muslims.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I at least agree that if they want to make their own private arbitration. I don't really believe in forcing people to adopt values.

certainly not. I don't remember saying that people should be allowed to arbitrate.

The problem is that there are Muslim community leaders who force harmful values onto their communities. Values that those within the community beg for the rest of society to pay attention to. Muslim groups all across America are just waiting for people to start paying attention to their message of reform. Yet, most people just want to see radicals talk about blowing up America and burning Israeli flags.

Taking away the civil courts, even if indirectly (or even just making them look less "Islamic", a good propaganda tool), makes it that much harder for these groups to be heard in all the other noise that seems to sell media much better

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't think the resources of the UK law system should be wasted on that whether both parties agreed or not.

I think it's quite alright as a private court system though...as long as everyone is still protected by the actual laws.

The only problem I see is that the full power of the UK legal system is enforcing the rulings of a different legal system. Which seems wasteful and potentially very counterproductive.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The only problem I see is that the full power of the UK legal system is enforcing the rulings of a different legal system. Which seems wasteful and potentially very counterproductive.

Yeah, that's what I thought first, but I don't believe that's the case.

chillmeistergen
Probably because that's most definitely not the case.

Ushgarak
Originally posted by inimalist
I think you missed my point.

No, though I do think you missed mine.

If you do not llike community empowerment, fine, but you cannot expect all communities to have the same views as you on arbitrating matters such as divorce and inheritance.

By all means provide education so that people don't want to accept outmoded beliefs and hence would reject arbitrators that want to use such beliefs. Arbitration has to be fully agreed by all parties involved.

But banning the people the right to use those beliefs will simply cause the alienation and insular nature you worry about. You cannot simply try and legilslate away the way people feel, and you cannot selectively apply which beliefs do or do not count when it comes to people selecting an arbitrator. So long as the arbitration process follows UK law then it is absurd to deny it to a particular community section.

You have a possibly justified worry that some people might get trapped in a community and unable to advocate for themselves. Banning the rights of some to apply their beliefs to arbitration is NOT the answer to that issue; it would be a greater sin.

lil bitchiness
It is not a problem now, since it marely solves marriage disputes.

The problem will arise if and when Muslims adherents start asking for Sharia to be their court for all matters, criminal and civil.

That then means stoning to death for a murder and chopping of hands for theft. And this WILL clash with the laws of United Kingdom.

If its operating on the level it is operating now, I don't see why people who use the Sharia courts would not eventually want criminal and other disputes solved this way.

Once every minority starts demanding the same, the superiroty of UK law will soon become invalid.

One law for everyone. No exceptions.

chillmeistergen
They may want it, but they won't get it.

What with your increasingly hysterical and biased view of...everything, you ought to think about a career in journalism, writing for The Sun.

lord xyz
ermm

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/starfox/images/6/60/Falco.jpg

chillmeistergen
Originally posted by lord xyz
ermm

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/starfox/images/6/60/Falco.jpg

Please explain, I don't get it.

inimalist
Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, though I do think you missed mine.

If you do not llike community empowerment, fine, but you cannot expect all communities to have the same views as you on arbitrating matters such as divorce and inheritance.

By all means provide education so that people don't want to accept outmoded beliefs and hence would reject arbitrators that want to use such beliefs. Arbitration has to be fully agreed by all parties involved.

But banning the people the right to use those beliefs will simply cause the alienation and insular nature you worry about. You cannot simply try and legilslate away the way people feel, and you cannot selectively apply which beliefs do or do not count when it comes to people selecting an arbitrator. So long as the arbitration process follows UK law then it is absurd to deny it to a particular community section.

You have a possibly justified worry that some people might get trapped in a community and unable to advocate for themselves. Banning the rights of some to apply their beliefs to arbitration is NOT the answer to that issue; it would be a greater sin.

no, I totally get that, and generally agree. I'd say that the best idea might be to institutionalize the reformers and moderate voices, rather than entrench the already existing patriarchal establishment, but I certainly agree that a specific banning of something for Muslims only would cause more, if different, animosity toward mainstream UK society.

I dont know much about arbitration law, other than to say I don't think any law should be religious. So the UK Jews who have a similar court, I would be against, unless of course you and I could make up whatever rules we wanted and be arbitrated under those? I really don't know, needless to say, I'm not promoting banning anything, especially something as it specifically applies to Muslims.

I'm saying that letting sharia law, as defined by community elders and leaders in immigrant communities, be a dispute settling mechanism sort of cements a certain interpretation of Islam and insulates a community. I thought it was a little odd how much of a freedom and pluralistic wank fest this thread was, considering we would all agree that the most fundamental interpretations of Islam (the one given the most power in this system) is not something that ensures freedom.

inimalist
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
They may want it, but they won't get it.

Saudi Arabia spends billions of dollars investing in Western and other nations around the world, with the intent of making this happen.

Money can buy a lot of things...

chillmeistergen
Originally posted by inimalist
Saudi Arabia spends billions of dollars investing in Western and other nations around the world, with the intent of making this happen.

Money can buy a lot of things...

So, you honestly think that it's a real possibility that stonings and hands being cut off could suddenly be enforced by law in the UK?

inimalist
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
So, you honestly think that it's a real possibility that stonings and hands being cut off could suddenly be enforced by law in the UK?

suddenly being the operative word?

no

however I see, in most Western nations, a general, at very least, trepidation, in enforcing their core values and freedoms in the face of Islam.

Do you think its impossible that certain communities might end up with women not being able to go out alone? Even if its not a legal mandate, oppression is oppression.

chillmeistergen
Originally posted by inimalist
Do you think its impossible that certain communities might end up with women not being able to go out alone? Even if its not a legal mandate, oppression is oppression.

I think it's very possible and is probably already happening.

I agree, it's completely oppressive and out of order, but the fact seems to be - it will happen regardless. It's completely beyond me how this could be solved, but I have to echo Ush's earlier statement on the matter - that not allowing such a fundamental freedom would only cause more tension.

inimalist
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I think it's very possible and is probably already happening.

I agree, it's completely oppressive and out of order, but the fact seems to be - it will happen regardless. It's completely beyond me how this could be solved, but I have to echo Ush's earlier statement on the matter - that not allowing such a fundamental freedom would only cause more tension.

I actually echo that sentiment

like I said, there are already people in the Muslim community screaming as loudly as they can to try and make these reforms themselves. Instead of going to the Mosque to find people to be the community leaders and the ones who get to interpret Sharia, why not give power to people in these groups? I understand that people don't want to enforce their beliefs on people, but the government has no right in deciding what the interpretation of the Sharia is, and by keeping the power in the established patriarchy, that is what they are doing.

lord xyz
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Please explain, I don't get it. An attempt at humour.

I was a bit drunk.

Bardock42
Originally posted by lord xyz
An attempt at humour.

I was a bit drunk. Couldn't tell the difference.

lord xyz
Can you like, leave me alone?

Bardock42
Originally posted by lord xyz
Can you like, leave me alone? You mean, can I not reply to your posts on this public forum anymore? Well, obviously I can, the question is will I?


The answer is "no".

lord xyz
Why are you doing this, what is the ultimate goal here?

Bardock42
Originally posted by lord xyz
Why are you doing this, what is the ultimate goal here?

Well, the first was, because I found it funny (kinda how you find it funny to post cocks in a suit)..the second was because you replied to me, asked me something and I found it funny...same why I reply this time.

lord xyz
No, I was asking why you're making bad jokes involving the contents of my posts.

It's not something I'd want to do in 6 years.

Bardock42
Originally posted by lord xyz
No, I was asking why you're making bad jokes involving the contents of my posts.

It's not something I'd want to do in 6 years.

I feel like my last post did kinda explain it very well. Not sure why you ask again...oh and it's very fulfilling. Quite a purpose.

Ushgarak
The thing is this isn't a matter of 'allowing Sharia law' (which is a complete misnomer because there is a lot ACTUAL Sharia law would demand that is simply not compatible with this system or UK law in general).

It is a matter of allowing ANY logic at all from an arbitrator, so long as both parties concerned agree to use that arbitrator.

That's why it is absurd to see this as something we should specifcally do somwething about- which would involve having to say "An arbitrator can decide using any criteria he wishes so long as he works inside the UK legal system. Oh, yeah, and so long as his views have nothing to do with a certain Muslim belief."

Like I say, people have been usintg this syetm with any philosophical attitude they like- atheist, Christian, Jewish, humanist... whatever! I find it very odd that suddenly people are objecting to the concept because Muslims are taking that same right.

Bicnarok

Ushgarak
The phenomenon described in this thread has absolutely nothing to do with such a worry.

inimalist
Originally posted by Ushgarak
The thing is this isn't a matter of 'allowing Sharia law' (which is a complete misnomer because there is a lot ACTUAL Sharia law would demand that is simply not compatible with this system or UK law in general).

It is a matter of allowing ANY logic at all from an arbitrator, so long as both parties concerned agree to use that arbitrator.

I'm not sure what the rules would look like, but for the sake of argument, say Bardock wrongs me and I want to take him into arbitration based on anarchist principles, is this ok?

what about if it is on principles based on a new cult religion we formed?

Is there really no limit?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
That's why it is absurd to see this as something we should specifcally do somwething about- which would involve having to say "An arbitrator can decide using any criteria he wishes so long as he works inside the UK legal system. Oh, yeah, and so long as his views have nothing to do with a certain Muslim belief."

1) total strawman, nobody has mentioned banning the arbitration. unless I missed something, I'm the only person arguing for caution, and I've expressed at least twice that I have no interest in banning things.

2) There is nothing "we" should do anything about. Muslim communities, and specifically the individuals who comprise those communities, should be allowed to decide their own fate. In my mind, this means both without government or local patriarchy. More voices in the Muslim community need to be heard, rather than the same patriarchal ones that a) oppress people within their communities and prevent/inhibit social rights organizations and b) in many ways promote divisive messages of Islam that do much to polarize the outside population against Muslims. My point is about cutting of voices of change in the community.

3) In a civil society, if it comes to empowering people and fighting oppression, certain interpretations of anything can be said to be subversive and negative. The government has a right to break down oppressive patriarchies.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Like I say, people have been usintg this syetm with any philosophical attitude they like- atheist, Christian, Jewish, humanist... whatever! I find it very odd that suddenly people are objecting to the concept because Muslims are taking that same right.

again, as I feel I'm the only one raising objection in any way in this thread, it is a total mischaracterization of my position.

idealistically, I don't like religion being able to make legally binding decisions anyways, regardless of the religion or the philosophy.

Muslims taking their rights also has nothing to do with it. I'm talking about problems within the muslim communities, especially the immigrants, which will not be addressed by this problem.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The phenomenon described in this thread has absolutely nothing to do with such a worry.

The Saudis might disagree with that. They send LOTS of money to the UK for that very reason.

Like my first post alluded, I would not be surprised to find Saudi money all over the lobbying for this

Ushgarak
Rather feeble, inimalist.

To your first point- if you and bardock both agreed to have an anarchist arbitrate for you, then yes, that would be fine, as it would also be fine if you both agreed to be arbitreated by some new religious representative. Why wouldn't that be fine? This really is a very simple thing. The process of arbitration involves choosing someone to arbitrate for you, and his view is always going to come from some belief system or another.

Secondly. read the gist of the argument. To complain about this is to say it should not be allowed, which has been the effective thrust of things. There is not the slightest strawmanning at all- and, incidentally, 'showing concern' is something I would equally criticise on exactly the same logic as I have already presented.

Your point really has nothing to do with hearing voices in the community at all, that si a total aside you have made up. Like I say, if you want to engage in community re-structure, educaiton, change, whatevertm, that's just fine. But that's irrelevant to this current argument, where all must have the same right of access to either being an arbitrator or to arbitration. If you want to make a thread on the threat you think is coming from Muslim community thinking then fine- but that's not this thread.

Hence your point about having the right to break things down is completely irrelevant as well.

It is NOT religion that is making decisions. It is PEOPLE. People make decisions based on the logic that forms the way they view the world. That may be religion or it many not, but that, again, is irreelvant; at base there is no difference in principle in the process. People have different value systems, religious or otherwise. When you choose an arbitrator, it is because you have appreciation of the value system you think that arbitrator uses.

Now, you may not like the value systems some people would use to make decisions on. But you might also dislike the value systems used by someone who is not religious at all. In fact, if we polled 100 mmebers of this forum about a typical divorce case I reckon we would probably get at least fifty different viewpoints. The fact that someone's views on such matters may be religious in nature is, pretty much, irrelevant to the matter.

In these cases, some people make decisions based on their interpretation of Muslim values. Some other people are desirous of having their problems settled by such a person. That is their right, and to question that right is of FAR more concern to me than any concern about spreading sharia law.

And once more, your thing about the Saudis putting money into anyhting... doesn't make a damn difference.

I really do feel you are talking about a completely different subject. The fact that Muslims are using their right to be arbitrators is not really interesting news. And what lobbying? Your use of the word 'lobbying' again makes me think you aere talking about something completely different and do not understand this subject at all. There hasn't been any lobbying, just the use of an already existing right. So again, this thread had nothing to do with such a worry.


Ultimately, any objection to this process is simple discrimination against Muslim beliefs. No-one is FORCED to accept arbitration. If you do want your matter arbitrated, it is your own business who you turn to to do that. So long as both parties agree, and so long as the process stays within UK law, frankly no-one else has any business in the matter.

lord xyz
Inimalist has stated he isn't an anarchist in another thread.

inimalist
Originally posted by lord xyz
Inimalist has stated he isn't an anarchist in another thread.

no I haven't

xmarksthespot
The response to this, if it is just application of existing rights to arbitration, seems rather overblown...

I don't think any religious doctrine should be used to arbitrate disputes; but then that's just my personal opining. If other people want to then I don't really care.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bicnarok
The government has quietly sanctioned that their rulings are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

That would seem to be more than just the right to choose an arbiter.

chillmeistergen
Although, it doesn't say any such thing in any source materiel provided.

inimalist
also, this is the establishment of official Sharia courts.

I'm doing some half assed research in an attempt to look less feeble next time, but one thing that is for sure, is that this is a parallel legal establishment, and not simply the right to arbitrate. It is certainly versed in those terms, and is technically legal, as Jews have a similar system in the UK.

Not in Canada though. And I'd like to point out how this news report shows empirical evidence that one can be against all religious based arbitration and not be anti-Muslim!

http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/soundoff/story.html?id=997485b8-bf66-41a1-bd58-8b8e1e434193

inimalist
oh, also, the courts have ruled on cases of domestic abuse, which is criminal in the UK.

There is also mention of them ruling on a stabbing, but I am looking for more corroboration of that...

chillmeistergen
Originally posted by inimalist
oh, also, the courts have ruled on cases of domestic abuse, which is criminal in the UK.

There is also mention of them ruling on a stabbing, but I am looking for more corroboration of that...

The sad fact is that Muslim women will almost always drop charges on men in domestic abuse cases. Obviously, some cases get taken to court anyway and that will not change.

inimalist
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
The sad fact is that Muslim women will almost always drop charges on men in domestic abuse cases. Obviously, some cases get taken to court anyway and that will not change.

indeed

the articles I have read seem to insinuate that the men in the cases being forced to take anger management and counseling from the elders is not punishment enough, I wonder if they know how much of a slap on the wrist men get through normal civil courts...

what you described is not something found just in muslim women, but in many women in general. Police have the hardest time getting women to give evidence against their lovers, even in the cases of the harshest conditions.

chillmeistergen
Originally posted by inimalist
what you described is not something found just in muslim women, but in many women in general. Police have the hardest time getting women to give evidence against their lovers, even in the cases of the harshest conditions.

Yeah, that's undeniable. The big question is whether such occurrences are more prevalent within muslim communities - a question we'll probably never know the answer to.

inimalist
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Yeah, that's undeniable. The big question is whether such occurrences are more prevalent within muslim communities - a question we'll probably never know the answer to.

unfortunately the stats exist sad

immigrant women face linguistic, cultural and financial isolation, dependence on their husband, and social ostracism if they try to go to Women's groups.

Most goes unreported (Mainly talking about North American South Asian immigrants, I assume the same thing, and much that I have seen suggests similar things, are the case in the UK). I'm more concerned that the 6 cases of domestic abuse covered in the sharia courts have done more to prevent women from going to the police in the future than that the men in the cases were unfairly punished. The criminal cases were dropped. Women now might see the Sharia courts as being their only option as Muslims.

There is the fact that Sharia does have some strong positive provisions for women, and harsh punishments for things everyone would agree deserve it. Divorce, for instance, is, at least for the time it was written, fairly pro woman in sharia. However, they are still very much second class citizens in their society.

occultdestroyer
I don't see anything wrong if there were Sharia courts in Britain.
The minority Muslims deserve equal treatment, even if they were overseas or citizens

WrathfulDwarf
-1 for Youtube. They should not censor this man's opinon.

http://www.patcondell.net/

Whether you agree or disagree. Youtube is playing idiotic bias again. Pity.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
-1 for Youtube. They should not censor this man's opinon.

http://www.patcondell.net/

Whether you agree or disagree. Youtube is playing idiotic bias again. Pity.

Despite his disclaimers, that guy really really REALLY hates Islam.

WrathfulDwarf
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Despite his disclaimers, that guy really really REALLY hates Islam.

I would agree QM...but Pat is a comedian.

So if comedians are haters...then Bill Bill Maher hates america.

wink

chillmeistergen
Did that sound clever in your head?

WrathfulDwarf
You don't want to know what's in my head child.

chillmeistergen
You're right, I really don't.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.