Will Europe eventually have to embrace sharia law?

[Majin]

Originally Posted by The stig

I've never heard any leaders of the UK say that, ever!

I hear these kinds of things.

Sniffer dogs to wear ‘Muslim’ bootees - Times Online

Sure seems like bending over backwards to accomodate Islamic beliefs.

It's really quite humorous, lol.

[The stig]

That article is bullshit.

No policeman is going to do that, they'll kick the door down and get in, they will not take the time to put "booties" on their damn dogs

[Gambler]

Originally Posted by Majin

I hear these kinds of things.

Sniffer dogs to wear ‘Muslim’ bootees - Times Online

Sure seems like bending over backwards to accomodate Islamic beliefs.

It's really quite humorous, lol.

Lol, like I said, expect nothing less from the PC capital of the world.

[The stig]

PC capital of the world?

[Gambler]

Originally Posted by The stig

PC capital of the world?

Politically correct...

[The stig]

@gambler: You know, i was getting ready to defend my home then, but it's true, we are indeed the PC capital of the world

[pschy_leprae]

Originally Posted by AnarchoElk

define minority. This is talking about a majority of Muslims forcing a change.


This is why both fascism and democracy are fatally flawed systems which promote tyranny.

This is why the anarchist model of maximizing freedoms, only placing restrictions on actions when the freedoms they remove by allowing them outweigh the freedoms given by allowing them.

Marxism is a epic fail ,it doesn't see the importance of positive reinforcement . A system where doctor is paid as much as ...sorry ,, as little as a street cleaner is doomed . And anarchy is an impossible system , everything needs order , without a proper guidance people WILL fall back into even worse crime and depravity then they are now . All things are good in moderation .

[krozar]

Originally Posted by AnarchoElk

define minority. This is talking about a majority of Muslims forcing a change.


This is why both fascism and democracy are fatally flawed systems which promote tyranny.

This is why the anarchist model of maximizing freedoms, only placing restrictions on actions when the freedoms they remove by allowing them outweigh the freedoms given by allowing them.

Elk, you're always reliable. But I know such a system would never exist. The human condition would never allow it to work.

[waqo]

The fact is that even Muslim countries do not enforce 'Sharia Law' if they did a lot of their problems would perhaps not exist today for example idiots going around killing each other in the name of religion. So thinking that European countries shall adopt sharia law is a far cry.

I would like to point out a difference between Sharia Law being the law and Sharia Law being an acceptable means of settling matters outside the realm of criminal law for domestic and financial concerns. For instance, an Islamic loan or mortgage that isn't interest-based may be judged based on Sharia conditions or say on matters of polygamy. There is already a fundamental understanding in the UK judicial system of such practices and it's only fair imo to judge these matters keeping those sharia conditions in mind.

I did find one or two statements made in this thread particularly insensitive, for instance referring to muslims living in 'slums'. I have seen enough of Britain in the past 5 years to know that isn't the case it is wrong to insinuate that based on grounds of anger/bias or whatever. A lot of immigrants that live under poor conditions here are from European countries or asylum seekers from war-ravaged countries etc. Most people that are settled here even on state-benefits can afford to lead a respectable lifestyle outside what you refer to as 'slums'.

Also before I forget, a lot of these 'useless' immigrants form a sizeable chunk of your country's health service (that would surely have collapsed by now without them) and are a major source of IT and engineering professionals.

On the other hand, I do find that some people love abusing the political correctness attitude and others prey on reverse racism so very often. It is people like these that make it harder for others of their creed to live a regular life doing what they do best and trying to fit in. Having been subject to a bit of negative treatment because of the colour of my skin I can tell you it is not pleasant, but at the same time I don't want anyone to do me any favours. I'd rather prove my worth as a human being just like anyone else. I don't need sharia law to live in the UK I can impose it on myself if I want anyway that is my choice, by doing so I am not in any way breaking the existing laws so why the need to create a huge fuss and disrupt a system that is working fine for the most part.

[krozar]

This is very true. Sharia can legally exist as arbitration almost anywhere because both parties must agree to it and it must remain constitutional. Arbitration should never be confused with the judicial system.

[Majin]

Originally Posted by waqo

The fact is that even Muslim countries do not enforce 'Sharia Law' if they did a lot of their problems would perhaps not exist today for example idiots going around killing each other in the name of religion. So thinking that European countries shall adopt sharia law is a far cry.

Err the muslim countries where they kill each other is due to people trying to enforce Islam on a population that has been somewhat westernized (pakistan etc).

Countries where there is no killing amongst Muslims against each other and Sharia law is quite prominent would be Saudi Arabia and Iran.

And their problems are even greater, mostly human rights issues which affect everyone.

Originally Posted by waqo

I would like to point out a difference between Sharia Law being the law and Sharia Law being an acceptable means of settling matters outside the realm of criminal law for domestic and financial concerns. For instance, an Islamic loan or mortgage that isn't interest-based may be judged based on Sharia conditions or say on matters of polygamy. There is already a fundamental understanding in the UK judicial system of such practices and it's only fair imo to judge these matters keeping those sharia conditions in mind.

I don't believe practicing a practice in which its fundamental rationale is (for polygamy) gender inequality etc, will produce positive results.

There is also the fundemantel problem of an impossibility of policing, once you allow Sharia as a method of solving problems, how do you police which and which sharia? like for instance, what happens if a Muslim couple brings their gay child to the Ummah in the community? i'm pretty sure it won't go down well.

Originally Posted by waqo

Also before I forget, a lot of these 'useless' immigrants form a sizeable chunk of your country's health service (that would surely have collapsed by now without them) and are a major source of IT and engineering professionals.

That some of these people pay money does not excuse their problems.

Originally Posted by waqo

On the other hand, I do find that some people love abusing the political correctness attitude and others prey on reverse racism so very often. It is people like these that make it harder for others of their creed to live a regular life doing what they do best and trying to fit in. Having been subject to a bit of negative treatment because of the colour of my skin I can tell you it is not pleasant, but at the same time I don't want anyone to do me any favours. I'd rather prove my worth as a human being just like anyone else. I don't need sharia law to live in the UK I can impose it on myself if I want anyway that is my choice, by doing so I am not in any way breaking the existing laws so why the need to create a huge fuss and disrupt a system that is working fine for the most part.

The problem is that Islam is being taught to children, i have a problem indoctrinating children into dangerous bullshit, like for instance,some people deserve hell based on belief.

[sadated_peon]

Originally Posted by Majin

So you have a situation where the politicians are not in tune with the populaces mood, thats part of the problem, i believe the whole anger towards Muslims could be solved if politicians said no to pandering to outdated rituals/practices of Islam (aka Sharia).

The return of the tories.
*plays scary music*

[waqo]

Countries where there is no killing amongst Muslims against each other and Sharia law is quite prominent would be Saudi Arabia and Iran. And their problems are even greater, mostly human rights issues which affect everyone.

Although there is a lot of sharia law practised in Iran and Saudi Arabia, the human rights violations come from a fundamental lack of understanding of what the sharia way of life entails. I do not want this to become a religious debate so I won't go into specifics but needless to say that things like public beheadings are more a way of monarchical reinforcement than following the sharia.

I don't believe practicing a practice in which its fundamental rationale is (for polygamy) gender inequality etc, will produce positive results.

I just mentioned polygamy because it is quite possible that there is no judicial equivalent in resolving such matters when it comes to inheritance, wills, etc. I am not here to attack or defend the practices but as I already mentioned in cases where arbitration is required and as krozar mentioned if both parties are willing for those conditions to be used there is no legal problem as long as it is constitutional.

There is also the fundemantel problem of an impossibility of policing, once you allow Sharia as a method of solving problems, how do you police which and which sharia? like for instance, what happens if a Muslim couple brings their gay child to the Ummah in the community? i'm pretty sure it won't go down well.

There are already instances of gay people living amongst the Muslim community born in Muslim households but doing their own thing without suffering any persecution (I know one such person in the very town that I live in). If they are gay they obviously do not adhere to Islamic teachings so the point of arbitration is moot. Any action taken by their parents can be seen as criminal if it brings them harm under their local judicial system.

Policing follows the regular law, the Sharia is only a method of resolving non-criminal disputes.

That some of these people pay money does not excuse their problems.

Reread what I wrote. It's not about paying money it is about Muslims being an active part of the society, when I said health service, I meant that they are doctors and nurses in the health service. They are contributing to the economy and the community through their professions and practices, just because Muslims are constantly being given negative press due to radicals doesn't mean that the majority don't want to get on with their lives in relative harmony.

The problem is that Islam is being taught to children, i have a problem indoctrinating children into dangerous bullshit, like for instance,some people deserve hell based on belief.

Indoctrination, a good word that may even describe the source of negative bias you have for Muslims. If you were really against indoctrination you would treat them as individuals or smaller subsections. It is very easy to provide a skewed view of a situation as an example. Islam also says that humans aren't judges and that everyone shall be judged on their own merit. So whether Islamic beliefs say that certain types of people are hell-bound or not it is not any Muslim's duty to enforce that. Again I really don't want to go at length trying to debate religion as that is not the purpose of this debate.

[Majin]

Originally Posted by waqo

Although there is a lot of sharia law practised in Iran and Saudi Arabia, the human rights violations come from a fundamental lack of understanding of what the sharia way of life entails. I do not want this to become a religious debate so I won't go into specifics but needless to say that things like public beheadings are more a way of monarchical reinforcement than following the sharia.

Many human rights abuses stem from sharia, not some 'fundamental lack of misunderstanding' e.g. the killing of ex-Muslims under Sharia is from.

Narrated Ikrima:

Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "
-http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.260

Originally Posted by waqo

I just mentioned polygamy because it is quite possible that there is no judicial equivalent in resolving such matters when it comes to inheritance, wills, etc. I am not here to attack or defend the practices but as I already mentioned in cases where arbitration is required and as krozar mentioned if both parties are willing for those conditions to be used there is no legal problem as long as it is constitutional.

Except women in Islam very often say 'yes' because they fear for their lives.

'Consent' is not valid when there are factors of fear and coercion.

Originally Posted by waqo

There are already instances of gay people living amongst the Muslim community born in Muslim households but doing their own thing without suffering any persecution (I know one such person in the very town that I live in). If they are gay they obviously do not adhere to Islamic teachings so the point of arbitration is moot. Any action taken by their parents can be seen as criminal if it brings them harm under their local judicial system.

Policing follows the regular law, the Sharia is only a method of resolving non-criminal disputes.

And what about the beliefs that give rise to said practices? for instances, the worth of a female witness is half of a man in resolving disputes in Islam, because it is believed women are flawed mentally.

What about the effects these beliefs have on muslims idea of women?

Originally Posted by waqo

Reread what I wrote. It's not about paying money it is about Muslims being an active part of the society, when I said health service, I meant that they are doctors and nurses in the health service. They are contributing to the economy and the community through their professions and practices, just because Muslims are constantly being given negative press due to radicals doesn't mean that the majority don't want to get on with their lives in relative harmony.

I did read what you wrote, your trying to say these people contribute to society in some fashion as some type of argument against the 'negative press' on their community.

That they contribute to society does not excuse their problems.

Originally Posted by waqo

Indoctrination, a good word that may even describe the source of negative bias you have for Muslims. If you were really against indoctrination you would treat them as individuals or smaller subsections. It is very easy to provide a skewed view of a situation as an example. Islam also says that humans aren't judges and that everyone shall be judged on their own merit. So whether Islamic beliefs say that certain types of people are hell-bound or not it is not any Muslim's duty to enforce that. Again I really don't want to go at length trying to debate religion as that is not the purpose of this debate.

The problem is you don't fundamentally understand that sharia law stems from beliefs in Islam.

To support the practice of any sharia law is to support these beliefs, and these beliefs can be harmful or immoral, irrespective of how irrelevant you believe sharia practices are.

I have a problem with muslim children being taught to wear the full-veil, because in Islam, female sexuality is demonized to the point of it being considered tools of the devil, and that it places the burden on women rather then men, to control men's sexual urges.

[waqo]

^ you are adamant to debate religion so I shall just have to ignore your comments. One final point, your debating style could do with a bit of alteration, in my opinion. If you start debating EVERYTHING all in this one thread you'll get nowhere. Its best to focus on the topic of debate which is Sharia law and its implementation in Europe. I am not really interested in your criticisms of Islamic practices and precedents. Actions of muslims do not represent the sharia decrees and what they would be from a judicial perspective.

Originally Posted by Majin

The problem is you don't fundamentally understand that sharia law stems from beliefs in Islam.

To support the practice of any sharia law is to support these beliefs, and these beliefs can be harmful or immoral, irrespective of how irrelevant you believe sharia practices are.

Your claim is baseless. Belief has little to do with the rulings of the sharia themselves. Most existing laws and system have evolved from some sort of organised faith system of justice. The source of sharia law is the Quran and Hadith but is not limited to them either. As times have evolved sharia rulings have been changed and are generally subject to change based on existing norms. Rulings in this situation are an extension of the same 'philosophy' and keeping with Islamic values but tying in beliefs is fallacy.

[Majin]

Originally Posted by waqo

^ you are adamant to debate religion so I shall just have to ignore your comments. One final point, your debating style could do with a bit of alteration, in my opinion. If you start debating EVERYTHING all in this one thread you'll get nowhere. Its best to focus on the topic of debate which is Sharia law and its implementation in Europe. I am not really interested in your criticisms of Islamic practices and precedents. Actions of muslims do not represent the sharia decrees and what they would be from a judicial perspective.

Yes i debate religion, because shariah law stems from Islam, which is a religion.

Didn't you know that?

I'm amused when you say 'I am not really interested in your criticisms of Islamic practices and precedents' because shariah law is basically Islamic practices that have been made law.

And all 'implementations' of a religions law always entails the spread of the beliefs which those practices are based on, or didn't you know that many Churches don't employ women priests because they believe their religion sanctions only male priests?

[Archon]

Such an intolerant and Male biased system should never be allowed in a position of power. It is a horrendous system for women and minorities.

[AnarchoElk]

Originally Posted by krozar

Elk, you're always reliable. But I know such a system would never exist. The human condition would never allow it to work.

My issue with this statement is exactly what I'm talking about HAS existed successfully many times on small-medium scales.

On VERY small scales, EVERYONE has this type of relationship with others, a group of friends living together get shit done without needing enforcible laws, even if one of the roommates is a lazy bastard.

Many families, usually once children are of a certain age stop enforcing rules and let common sense guide the family, with the different members doing what they want while (most of the time) considering other family members as well.

On smaller-medium sized levels, there are plenty of anarchist, and libertarian communes out there, ranging from family sized to small community sized.

I hate having to repeat myself, but Spain in the late thirties lasted quite a while, and was handled wonderfully, the error that brought it down had nothing to do with the ideology, they were more productive, and without concentrated attack from authoritarian communists and fascists they could have continued that way. Any system will fall when subjected to repeated attacks from a large enough group.

And Israel's Kibbutzim (I think thats how it is spelled) lasted quite awhile before it was corrupted into the capitalist structure it has become.

There is a wide history of anarchist movements, small a