• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

sharia law in britain inevitable

Dr. Rowan Williams is out of his mind to want even 1 sharia law.

The point is that no religion should have their laws implemented, the law of the land should apply too all.
 

jolakoturinn

Panem angelorum
It's not legally possible to adopt sharia law lock-stock-and-barrel. It's simply impossible, due to our existing legal systems, which date back millennia.

Now the private use of sharia law as civil arbitration is a completely different matter, one that Jewish Beth Din have already demonstrated to be possible. It seems the Archbishop was arguing for this, but no-one listening to that anymore.
 

Smoke

Done here.
In fact, parallel systems do exist in several countries. In some, Sharia exists as an alternative system, and in others it has been incorporated into the existing legal code. We examined different cases to see how it can work in practice.

They are Nigeria, Aceh in Indonesia, India and Egypt.
caused a bit of a furore he has, people are calling for his resignation.
Good. Maybe Rowan should resign and move to Nigeria, instead of trying to help bring Nigeria to Britain.
 

tomspug

Absorbant
So, the Jewish courts are for settling religious disputes, right? Like they had during the Roman Government? It doesn't sound like this is what a Sharia court is. It sounds like a MUSLIM court, that has its own laws and punishments.
 

fullyveiled muslimah

Evil incarnate!
Over here in America the only thing I think could fit in the pre-existing system for muslim is divorce court. I think the muslims need to set up between themselves these laws and follow them. FOr instance in Islam when a couple divorces it is incumbent upon the ex-husband to maintain the ex-wife for a three month term before he no longer has a responsibity to her. This allows that the woman can have time to get herself together and find means to support herself in the abscence of a husband. Since we are here in America, that is not American law. The law here has some semblance of that but its not the same, and consequently, since there is no authority established to make sure that happens as it should, many problems have arisen socially between us. I think we can incorporate a small court to handle those situations, or at minimum give the scholars of islam some governmental authority to implement and enforce that law and similar ones.


At the same time though, Islamic shariah is so vastly different from the system that non-muslim, secular governments have, that it would be quite impossible to incorporate them both. Islam covers wide gamuts of social and political interaction that one part is integral to the other, and so the implementation of some of shariah and the ignoring of other parts has always and will continue to be a failure.



I would like to draw the attention of those who oppose shariah law being passed in britain to the fact that this is the same thing that's been happening in ME countries for years. They have had to endure the putting in place of a system that was completely foreign to them. Unlike British citizens though, these people never had a chance to oppose it to any real effect. The same way you feel about the imposition of a foreign system of government and lifestyle ruling over you, is the same way the muslims feel about certain aspects of life they are not used to. It's the same thing, but people can't see that because they feel that western civilization is correct and better than most all other forms of government and ways of life, so therefore it is acceptable to impose this system on other even if it means toppling a whole government, and instead of allowing the people of the country to decide what kind of leader they would like, one is forcibly chosen for them. Imagine what it would be like if let's say Saudi decided to firstly invade britain, kill its leaders, kill its detractors, and then install a shariah government that you either must accept or leave the country. This is the same thing going on in muslim countries and it's why they are always upset.
 

kai

ragamuffin
Over here in America the only thing I think could fit in the pre-existing system for muslim is divorce court. I think the muslims need to set up between themselves these laws and follow them. FOr instance in Islam when a couple divorces it is incumbent upon the ex-husband to maintain the ex-wife for a three month term before he no longer has a responsibity to her. This allows that the woman can have time to get herself together and find means to support herself in the abscence of a husband. Since we are here in America, that is not American law. The law here has some semblance of that but its not the same, and consequently, since there is no authority established to make sure that happens as it should, many problems have arisen socially between us. I think we can incorporate a small court to handle those situations, or at minimum give the scholars of islam some governmental authority to implement and enforce that law and similar ones.


At the same time though, Islamic shariah is so vastly different from the system that non-muslim, secular governments have, that it would be quite impossible to incorporate them both. Islam covers wide gamuts of social and political interaction that one part is integral to the other, and so the implementation of some of shariah and the ignoring of other parts has always and will continue to be a failure.



I would like to draw the attention of those who oppose shariah law being passed in britain to the fact that this is the same thing that's been happening in ME countries for years. They have had to endure the putting in place of a system that was completely foreign to them. Unlike British citizens though, these people never had a chance to oppose it to any real effect. The same way you feel about the imposition of a foreign system of government and lifestyle ruling over you, is the same way the muslims feel about certain aspects of life they are not used to. It's the same thing, but people can't see that because they feel that western civilization is correct and better than most all other forms of government and ways of life, so therefore it is acceptable to impose this system on other even if it means toppling a whole government, and instead of allowing the people of the country to decide what kind of leader they would like, one is forcibly chosen for them. Imagine what it would be like if let's say Saudi decided to firstly invade britain, kill its leaders, kill its detractors, and then install a shariah government that you either must accept or leave the country. This is the same thing going on in muslim countries and it's why they are always upset.

In Britain we have our own divorce laws , in which country in the middle east have we invaded killed the leader, kiled its detractors and set up our own laws?
what utter nonsence why do you have to play the victim all the time.
 

fullyveiled muslimah

Evil incarnate!
In Britain we have our own divorce laws , in which country in the middle east have we invaded killed the leader, kiled its detractors and set up our own laws?
what utter nonsence why do you have to play the victim all the time.

Firstly, you took what I said the wrong way. I never accused britain of doing anything. I was merely pointing out that no one likes to be taken over by something else that they are unfamiliar with. Each country should be left to decide what is best for them and what works for them even if other countries disapprove, except where egregious crimes are being perpetrated of course. Calm down dude, I didn't say Britains were doing anything. I was only pointing out the two sides of the same coin and drawing similarity between the two situations. I am not playing the victim either. When did I post anything of that nature on my previous posts? So before you go out of your way to call what I say nonsense, make sure you understood what I said. If you've been reading, you'd see that I basically don't jive with the idea of implementing shariah over the whole populace of britain citizenry. Shariah should be practiced among the muslim community there and everywhere else.

That brings me to my other thought on this. Why try to impose shariah on a country full of non-muslims anyway? Why not go to these muslim countries, replace the systems of kufr there that run rough-shod all over the place and put shariah where the general populace of people won't mind it?
 

yossarian22

Resident Schizophrenic
From my understanding of it, the new laws were meant to simply apply to certain people along side the other laws. In other words, a specific group of people would have a different law system which they would go to.
To my knowledge, that has never happened in the Middle East, or in any other places since the early 1900s. Well, maybe one or two totalitarian states.
 

kai

ragamuffin
Ive nothing to calm down about i am merely typing, if you come to Britain and become a British citizen hold a British passport then you are trying to be British which is fine but then you must follow British law , our government has not tried to assimilate immigrants but has for many years followed the multi cultural system so now we find ourselves with enclaves of little Bangladesh here little Pakistan there who wish to govern themselves. they don't want to impose sharia on the whole of British citizenry but only in there communities which further alienates them from the Britain the wish to remain in.
i repeat the question , what utter nonsense which country have we invaded killed the leader, killed its detractors and set up our own laws if you didn't mean it literally then why bring it into the discussion it is nonsense ,

and now which Muslim countries have systems of Kufr that run rough shod all over the place ?

i am trying to see your point of view but you are just bringing in arguments that don't exist
 

fullyveiled muslimah

Evil incarnate!
Ive nothing to calm down about i am merely typing, if you come to Britain and become a British citizen hold a British passport then you are trying to be British which is fine but then you must follow British law , our government has not tried to assimilate immigrants but has for many years followed the multi cultural system so now we find ourselves with enclaves of little Bangladesh here little Pakistan there who wish to govern themselves. they don't want to impose sharia on the whole of British citizenry but only in there communities which further alienates them from the Britain the wish to remain in.
i repeat the question , what utter nonsense which country have we invaded killed the leader, killed its detractors and set up our own laws if you didn't mean it literally then why bring it into the discussion it is nonsense ,

and now which Muslim countries have systems of Kufr that run rough shod all over the place ?

i am trying to see your point of view but you are just bringing in arguments that don't exist




You don't read do you? I never said the British did anything. Also I didn't bring it up for a debae point it just struck me that it was a similar situation to what people in muslim countries go through only to a much higher degree. I didn't say you did it to them, I said it happens. Now if you don't like my point fine but don't attempt to pick a meaningless argument with me. I didn't address it to you specifically so why do you take such umbrage to what I said?

Also if Britain has a history of not assimlilating a group of people, then I can only assume that other groups, not only muslims, tend to stick to their own cultures and practices where it does not break British law right? I'm asking. Cuz if that's true then was it any wonder that muslims would also follow the trend? Are the muslims declaring that they will not also follow the laws of the land in conjunction with Islamic law?
 

kai

ragamuffin
You don't read do you? I never said the British did anything. Also I didn't bring it up for a debae point it just struck me that it was a similar situation to what people in muslim countries go through only to a much higher degree. I didn't say you did it to them, I said it happens. Now if you don't like my point fine but don't attempt to pick a meaningless argument with me. I didn't address it to you specifically so why do you take such umbrage to what I said?
what on earth are you on about,? i didnt say you said the british did anything .are we on the right thread? it happens where? similar to what? i am not picking an argument why are you making these statements and avoiding my questions?
Also if Britain has a history of not assimlilating a group of people, then I can only assume that other groups, not only muslims, tend to stick to their own cultures and practices where it does not break British law right? I'm asking. Cuz if that's true then was it any wonder that muslims would also follow the trend? Are the muslims declaring that they will not also follow the laws of the land in conjunction with Islamic law?
no there are no other groups that have any kind of thing even similar to sharia.
british law is british law its not for muslims to demand a set of laws to run in conjunction with british law. who would administer it sharia police .

now shall we move on .
 

Marzipan

New Member
in which country in the middle east have we invaded killed the leader, kiled its detractors and set up our own laws?

Kai, did you somehow fail to notice what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan? *boggle*
 

Marzipan

New Member
well you obviously have :confused:

Care to elaborate? I'm very curious to hear how you perceive the British invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, the execution of Saddam Hussein, the whole country of Iraq still being bound to the whimsical legal mandates implemented by Paul Bremer, the parceling off of Afghanistan to the same brutal warlords who controlled it before the taliban in exchange for their cooperation during the war... Please share your impression of Britain's actions, motives and accomplishments in the middle east so I can get a better idea of what I've missed.
 

kai

ragamuffin
Care to elaborate? I'm very curious to hear how you perceive the British invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, the execution of Saddam Hussein, the whole country of Iraq still being bound to the whimsical legal mandates implemented by Paul Bremer, the parceling off of Afghanistan to the same brutal warlords who controlled it before the taliban in exchange for their cooperation during the war... Please share your impression of Britain's actions, motives and accomplishments in the middle east so I can get a better idea of what I've missed.

I perceive the British involvement in Afghanistan as legitimate after the attack on its ally America and the failure of the Taliban regime to answer president bush's ultimatum in giving up Bin laden.

i also consider British involvement in Iraq to have been legitimate in the removal of Saddam and have always considered the wmd issue secondary to regime change.

the British had no part in the execution of Saddam Hussein

the second part of your post is i consider to be your opinion on warlords, Paul bremer etc etc

the last part i believe Britain wants as a political goal a democratic Iraq in fact a democratic world if possible , and a lasting peace the Levant with a two state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem
 
Top