What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
527 Comments
- vroom101, on 09/14/2008, -14/+137This MUST NOT be allowed to happen in the United States of America -- for ANY religion! NEVER, EVER!
- vick3ii, on 09/14/2008, -8/+112FTA: 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.
- inactive, on 09/14/2008, -30/+124***** religion
- DCMacHead, on 09/14/2008, -64/+145So sad to see what's become of that country as a result of unchecked immigration. They bend over backwards to accommodate everyone instead of integrating them--consider it a lesson learned and be thankful that most immigrants to the U.S. are Christian.
- inactive, on 09/14/2008, -33/+109The real battle against Islam, the real war to guanantee the survival of liberal western societies is taking place in Europe. Muslim immigrants are NOT assimilating and they are breeding three times faster than Europeans.
Now England is turning its back on tradition and law by taking the first steps towards the Islamization of GB.
Very Bad Move.
We are doing everything completely backwards. We should not be in the Mid East so as not to aggravate the Muslims and we should make damn certain that people of a faith who's primary tenet is world domination not be allowed to immigrate. Instead we piss off the Muslims in the Mid East and let devout Muslims live in England France Denmar and Holland.
The war against Islam is being lost - rebrad, on 09/14/2008, -12/+85I can't believe the British are allowing this. The freedoms enjoyed by the British and Europeans are being eroded daily by a misguided elite that are guilt ridden and ashamed of their heritage. Pray that the British wake up and put an end to this travesty.
- inactive, on 09/14/2008, -5/+76And when it all goes wrong they will call you racist..
- inactive, on 09/14/2008, -19/+80Sharia law is based on the opportunist circumstances of Mohammad and his stooge ridden crew. If something happened to one of them then a law was created to cover their ass. Plain and simple. So now we have a set of laws that would cover a bunch of greedy, selfish, nasty men and their relationship with reality.
- Bagos1, on 09/14/2008, -22/+80Oh geez.....don't let California see this. They'll want the new PC laws as soon as possible.
- jayrok, on 09/14/2008, -4/+58Division of religion and state? How about sanity and insanity?
It's horrifying that in the 21st century any kind of religious backgrounds can be used in a court of law, considering that laws SHOULD deal with fairness, logic and equality. - patnsmith, on 09/14/2008, -24/+68Brightlight4 says read the Sharia law, I just did and after two seconds read "In accordance with Hadith, stoning to death is the penalty for married men and women who commit adultery.". ***** Islam, ***** Mohammed, ***** Muslims. All I ever heard my Muslim friends talk about was how they wanted to kill all of the Jews. They would always play the race card in any situation, and even if you pointed out they wanted to kill all of the Jews they'd say it was different. They bang on about the Qur'an yet they break every rule that isn't convenient to them. Muslims aren't a ***** race, so don't play the ***** race card on me. You can choose not to believe in a psychotic god with the emotional intelligence of a 3 year old and paedophile prophet.
- MacBookForMe, on 09/14/2008, -13/+54Political correctness gone mad!
Labour Tony Blair-Gordon Brown politics are just a plain time bomb! (God help us!) - MacBookForMe, on 09/14/2008, -3/+42We've already got some secret 'honored killings' of girls in Britain, as well! Totally crazy!
- LucasVB, on 09/14/2008, -7/+46We need to fight against the carte blanche culture we have towards religions. We cannot give special rights to religious groups because this directly violates the rights of everyone else. When will people see this? When they're finally under the control of these groups?
WAKE UP! We need to fight in order to keep and enforce our most precious religious right: freedom FROM religion. - inactive, on 09/14/2008, -11/+44I despair. I'm going to spoil your fun. So you won't like me for it.
Pre-WW2 the UK was the ONLY country in the world that increased places for fleeing Jews from the coming expected catastrophe. America could have taken EVERYONE with only the Zionist against this. The consequence of you closing your borders then is the 60years of war in the Middle East.
Growing up in Ireland as a youth, we had our religious Taliban, the Catholic Church. Like in Israel today where the Orthodox control aspect of democratic government, then our government had to check first with the local vicar on earth as to government policy. One government fell for disobeying. Well all is change, changed utterly.
American Catholics are commanded not to use contraception. Do they obey? If we could leave aside those disillusioned that believe the bible is a historical book as against a moral code in progression, you will find most religious use an informed conscience to practice their faith in a mature way. Of the little that I know of the relatively large number of Muslims in Ireland, my understanding is that they are much the same. I like that there is a Catholic pope who holds up a standard to which many might aim. I expect it's the same for the local Imam.
Sharia courts and law are no different than the multitude of religions courts and laws for the Jews. If you are Protestant, does Catholic laws and courts effect you? The REAL laws that effect you will not change. Unless you have some notion of returning to the WASP days, then why are you so frightened? Return to the days of lynching Blacks? How many US Muslim citizens have committed terrorist acts that were tried in a real US court of law? How many Christian US citizens have committed terrorist acts that were tried in a court of law?
I could now come to my main point but I doubt if many got past my first paragraph so unless something indicates that there is any point to continuing, I'll pause for breath here. OK? - Quactaur, on 09/14/2008, -3/+35Read the article. British law allows for indivudals in a civil case to agree to a 3rd party as arbiter. This can be any body or group, so long as both sides in the dispute agree to it. There is no special law allowing muslims to do this, they are just consenting to a sharia court to preside over a case, and be bound by its decisions. A similar case for Orthodox Jewish law has existed too.
Having said that, some of the worst excesses of sharia law seem almost completely incompatable with core British values (e.g. women being worth less than men) and i think the law must be ammended to protect the vulnerable from being abused by such lop-sided arbiters of "justice" - Raian, on 09/14/2008, -4/+32I can't agree more-- under the guise of political correctness, the government is going to allow this to happen... the clerics who will run these courts don't answer to anyone but their misguided ways. I am thankful to live in Ontario (Canada) where the same idea was put forward and shot down very fast. Shariah law is really, really rotten when you get down to it--
for example: Women fare far worse in divorce, child custody and inheritance matters under Shariah law. For instance, a woman can only inherit half as much as a man can. If a divorced woman remarries, custody of the children from her previous marriage may revert to the children's father. - JohnP, on 09/14/2008, -9/+33"Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act. "
You guys are xenophobic morons. - inactive, on 09/14/2008, -14/+37Neither Saddam Hussein, nor Nasser, nor Assad, nor Qaddafi, nor Attaturk would even think of tolerating sharia courts. Yet England allows this? Wake up Britons!
- juliandunbar11, on 09/14/2008, -2/+24Richard Dawkins is gonna be pissed.
- Synova, on 09/14/2008, -3/+25They are injecting god into the law and the first person you scream for is...god?
- medfreak, on 09/14/2008, -10/+32You people do realize that:
1. Both parties seeking the court will have to willingly agree to solve their dispute under that court, or the ruling will be invalid.
2. That it is only for civil / family disputes
3. That it is only for Muslims... right? - BillE3, on 09/14/2008, -0/+22And here in the U.S. as well. They do not need to go to court to kill a female family member.
- EatingPie, on 09/14/2008, -10/+32DC, you are only half correct. Bending over backward to the point of eliminating *integration* is the problem. NOT that they are Muslim -- or any other faith, culture or creed for that matter. Consider what the US has to say about this:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me."
brightlight4: Christ would not turn his back on these people -- or anyone. Christianity is unique in the world in that it makes no limitation based on behavior. Everyone, gay or straight (yeah, I'm serious), drug addict, prostitutes, murders, molesters, perverts, weirdos, ALL are welcome.
-Pie - Tanktunker, on 09/14/2008, -12/+33***** ALL religion, Christianity too.
- 1longtime, on 09/14/2008, -5/+26You guys truly are stupid. You're overreacting without understanding anything:
"Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case. "
This is ARBITRATION. It's ALL VOLUNTARY when parties wish to resolve a dispute. - Newzworth, on 09/14/2008, -6/+27 "They bend over backwards to accommodate everyone instead of integrating them"
hmm. very good point DC. I think this video will only elaborate on your point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZprtPat1Vk
Lets not turn "THEY" into "WE" - inactive, on 09/14/2008, -15/+35For ***** sake, read the ***** article, you dumb, blind, ignorant *****.
1. Both parties have to agree first.
2. There is nothing here which can take precedence over normal UK law. Nothing.
3. This counts for ANY religious courts, including Jewish (Beth Din), yet this only gets one sentence buried in the depths of an incredibly bigoted article.
The whole article has been written specifically to pander to the fears of the ignorant masses.
And look...
...the masses respond just as expected.
I despair. I truly do. - ShootTheCore, on 09/14/2008, -4/+23A lot of your laws (and ours in Britain) are almost entirely based on Christian principles. Stuff like gay marriage being illegal is entirely down to religious citizens.
- xxrealmsxx, on 09/14/2008, -1/+19I don't think they do.
- kazz67, on 09/14/2008, -0/+16May I also suggest you read the article under discussion.
We're talking about Civil law here, not criminal law. And we're talking about a system that's operated for British Jews for about a century.
My initial reaction to this headline was to vent my venom, but taking a moment to calm down and read the article put pay to that.
This is not some sinister take-over of the British Judicial system, it's merely a legal and long standing use of it to settle civil disputes ONLY when both parties agree to be bound by the arbitrators decisions. - VegasDan, on 09/14/2008, -3/+19They have stopped teaching the Holocaust? Really? As an Englishman, I think you will need to provide me some proof of that statement? Did you not read the article? Jewish law is also allowed under the same provision. And to call Britain, Great Britain and sissy liberal socialist country that wont stand by its own principals? Have you even ever left the country? Your State or even your city? You Shedoblyde, are a moron.
BTW, I'm Jewish. - inactive, on 09/14/2008, -5/+21Wait until the first gentile guy sleeps with a muslim woman or vice versa.
This is what happens when a complacent people let government run things. - housewarmer, on 09/14/2008, -6/+21Right, because you know they'd never, ever support anything like Christian based legislation. Yeah - I'm pretty sure if you're truly worried about separation of church and state McCain is not the man you want.
- inactive, on 09/14/2008, -2/+17@ CosmicJustice
Christians, Jews and Muslims all worship the same God of Abraham. It's what happens after the Old Testament they disagree on. Jews believe the events of the Old Testament occurred, then nothing else. Christians believe that the events of the New Testament happened next, and Muslims believe the Qur'ân. - HappyScrappy, on 09/14/2008, -2/+17I do realize this, and thus it isn't nearly as big a deal as people on here are making it out to be. However, I am concerned that people (especially women) in Muslim families will be pressured into accepting Sharia arbitration as a cultural thing. And don't say it's not impossible, there are a few Muslims in the UK who think honor killings are okay.
But I'm not into the "the sky is falling" stuff that people on here are going for. - 15charmaxwtf, on 09/14/2008, -2/+17I guess I first heard about this when the archbiship said about it a while back, and I thought it was nuts. But, I've had a change of mind since, I've "underlined" the key phrase in the following:
"Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, _provided that both parties in the dispute agree_ to give it the power to rule on their case."
As long as both sides consent then I really don't see how it is anyone elses' business. Last I heard there is a thriving business for dispute settlements in America, I guess there probably is in the UK too with that "Arbitration Act" being passed.
If anything it gives a bit of competion for the main courts. - Murdats, on 09/14/2008, -4/+19@quactaur
read the article? but then how would they manage to do their uninformed political parading? - rob3, on 09/14/2008, -15/+29Why is everyone here against Sharia law? The article clearly states that it can easily and completely be overruled by British law and it has no way under law to hand out capital punishment so really all it is doing it letting consenting people be judged in the way that they see fair. Allowing this for Jews for 100 years and denying this to Muslims is incredibly racist and in my opinion, being British, this is a good step forwards. This isn't a bad thing at all, it's just a load of over-cooked right-wing nonsense from the Times (almost as bad as the mail, but not quite).
Grow up, Islamic countries function perfectly well in the world - it's only when countries like Britain and America intefere that problems occur - stop mindlessly accepting the propaganda given to you by your useless 'Free Media' and start thinking things through for yourself. That article had absolutely no balance, so obviously can't show an accurate representation. - thecosmicpope, on 09/14/2008, -5/+19The FCC decided that radio and TV are not covered by the free speach amendment to the constitution because the Christians complained. Whilst your hoping that it isn't happening in America, it already has.
- feliks2, on 09/14/2008, -2/+15"Why do you associate God with Islam? The two aren't related"
lol? lololol - Rotzooi, on 09/14/2008, -4/+17Dugg you for hilarity. No one is stupid enough to mean that seriously.
- sunrise98, on 09/14/2008, -2/+15including Catholic? *raises eyebrow*
- Stavrosian, on 09/14/2008, -0/+13FTA: "The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case. "
Nobody is having anything forced upon them. The UK already has similar systems set up for Jews and Sikhs, and these courts deal with purely civil matters when all parties involved agree that they want the case to be heard under their appropriate religious doctrine. They are still subject to common law, and must operate within its boundaries.
That is to say that nobody is going to be getting their hands cut off or stoned in the streets, despite the inevitable hysteria that ignorant fools on the internet who don't even bother to read the things they are getting indignant about will doubtless propagate.
Anybody dumb enough to want to be tried in a religious court deserves whatever they get, in my opinion. If muslim communities wish to resolve petty disputes amongst themselves, I couldn't possibly care less. If it genuinely were to become an authority in criminal cases then that would be worrisome. - medfreak, on 09/14/2008, -2/+151. Islamic laws do not allow for honor killings. If so Hindus are Muslims too, since honor killings are so rampant in their tribal areas. A killed recieves a death penalty in Islam regardless of the circumstances. It is a common practice amongst tribal regions including hundreds of millions in India and hindus.
2. Rape victims are also not punished under Islamic law. Reciting baseless ***** does not make it true.
3. Unless 1.5 billion Muslims rallied to kill the cartoonist, that does not make the Muslims responsible for it. I doubt 1.5 billion Muslims rallied to kill a cartoonist, and failed. - kazz67, on 09/14/2008, -4/+17The government has pushed this trough "quietly" because it knows exactly what the average Brit would think of it.
Muslims in this country (in my own city of Liverpool at least) are constantly asking not to be singled out like this, asking that they be treated like every other British citizen. As news of this gets out so inter-community divisions will become wider than ever.
This government is f**ked up in so many ways now it's hard to count!
Quietly seething here!
That said - "Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act", It seems this is nothing new! - patnsmith, on 09/14/2008, -3/+16I know about Sharia law, and I know Hadd offences would not be punishable by stoning, lashes, etcetera in this country. My point is that any legal system that promotes corporal and capital punishment is wrong. Any legal system that favours someone because of their religion or sex is wrong. Any legal system that was established by a murdering, misogynist, paedophile who came up with it while having fits is WRONG. So take your Sharia law and shove it up Mohammed's ass, because the people of Britain don't ***** want it and you're paving the way for the BNP to come into power.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 550 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is