Geert Wilders in Denmark: Deporting millions of Muslims may be necessary

[The Lone Gunman]

There should not be any Sharia in the West at all. Labour have bent over backwards to accommodate these people when it is OUR country and they should abide by our laws, not theirs. You simply cannot run a country with two sets of laws for different religions and with women being second-class as muslims and equal as Christians.
We allow polygamous marriages for muslims but if we Christians did it we would be locked up for bigamy.

Do you ever check you know what you are talking about?
There are not two sets of laws, only one, the law of the land.
The only thing that a Sharia "court" does is to allow Muslims to make a binding agreement under Sharia law, but it must not break UK law. Women, who may be devout Muslims, then have the choice to live according to their faith instead of being forced into a system that they find wrong.
Muslims are not allowed to enter into polygamous marriages in the UK but the UK recognises those that already exist, what else can we do?

This is just more rabid ill informed propaganda.

[Cyberman]

Do you ever check you know what you are talking about?
There are not two sets of laws, only one, the law of the land.
The only thing that a Sharia "court" does is to allow Muslims to make a binding agreement under Sharia law, but it must not break UK law. Women, who may be devout Muslims, then have the choice to live according to their faith instead of being forced into a system that they find wrong.
Muslims are not allowed to enter into polygamous marriages in the UK but the UK recognises those that already exist, what else can we do?

This is just more rabid ill informed propaganda.

Polygamous marriages are going on in secrecy in the UK. I saw a documentary on it last year, and husbands are claiming benefits for multiple wives and their huge numbers of kids.

Sharia courts do exist in the UK for family matters such as divorce, so your take on the subject is ill-informed.

[xoggoth]

Gordon Bennet! what a thread this has become. From a brief glance there seem to be some odd attitudes.

Some seem not to appreciate that Islam is not simply a religion but a political creed that seeks to set society's laws in the here and now, not just for Muslims but for all who live in it. Yes, other religions seek to do that but none do in the formal way and to the extent that Islam does. The only theist states in the world, ie those that base the constitution on religious principles, are Islamic. Only Israel comes close.

It seems very strange that some use liberalism to defend a creed that is so profoundly illiberal on major issues, on women's rights, on homosexuality, on animal rights, on freedom to choose one's own religion (including leaving Islam), on criminality, on custody of children, on freedom of speech. Tolerance of thse who tolerate others is a fine thing, tolerance of those who do not (I say again, look at the realities of the Islamic world) is stupidity.

Were we discussing socialism or Scientology, would Le Rosbif be getting the same flack? I doubt it. This seems to be the inverted racism we see so much of whereby any viewpoint held by mostly non white people can never be criticised. Actually many of the beliefs, practices and attitudes from the third world are bloody awful, they are the ones we have spent centuries pulling our society out of. In today's inverted racism society Africans can starve or beat kids to drive out devils and the only ones blamed are our welfare workers.

One of the very worst ideas we should be glad to be shot off is the idea that laws should be based on religious belief. In the last few decades at least most Christians in Europe have started to accept that, Islam does not. We need a major Islamic presence in our society like a hole in the head.

[Cyberman]

Gordon Bennet! what a thread this has become. From a brief glance there seem to be some odd attitudes.

Some seem not to appreciate that Islam is not simply a religion but a political creed that seeks to set society's laws in the here and now, not just for Muslims but for all who live in it. Yes, other religions seek to do that but none do in the formal way and to the extent that Islam does. The only theist states in the world, ie those that base the constitution on religious principles, are Islamic. Only Israel comes close.

It seems very strange that some use liberalism to defend a creed that is so profoundly illiberal on major issues, on women's rights, on homosexuality, on animal rights, on freedom to choose one's own religion (including leaving Islam), on criminality, on custody of children, on freedom of speech. Tolerance of thse who tolerate others is a fine thing, tolerance of those who do not (I say again, look at the realities of the Islamic world) is stupidity.

Were we discussing socialism or Scientology, would Le Rosbif be getting the same flack? I doubt it. This seems to be the inverted racism we see so much of whereby any viewpoint held by mostly non white people can never be criticised. Actually many of the beliefs, practices and attitudes from the third world are bloody awful, they are the ones we have spent centuries pulling our society out of. In today's inverted racism society Africans can starve or beat kids to drive out devils and the only ones blamed are our welfare workers.

One of the very worst ideas we should be glad to be shot off is the idea that laws should be based on religious belief. In the last few decades at least most Christians in Europe have started to accept that, Islam does not. We need a major Islamic presence in our society like a hole in the head.

A great post. I agree with every word !!

[The Lone Gunman]

Polygamous marriages are going on in secrecy in the UK. I saw a documentary on it last year, and husbands are claiming benefits for multiple wives and their huge numbers of kids.

Sharia courts do exist in the UK for family matters such as divorce, so your take on the subject is ill-informed.

secret marriages may go on, but they hold no legal position, just the same as if you did it. There are ules on the benefits claims too.
I have explained the Sharia courts a number of times but you seem incapable of understanding this. They certainly exist, but they do not supercede British law and they are entirely voluntary and both parties have to agree to use one. They are not a court in the sense that a magistrates court is they are an arbitration service.
ANYBODY can go to an arbitration service for family matters, some are legally binding others are just gentlemens agreements. Many many people come to divorce settlements without going to law. Many Muslims want to use a Sharia judgement because it is in line with their faith.

Please explain where I have misinterpreted or misrepresented this. If you cant then do us all a favour please shut the **** up.

[xoggoth]

Cyberman is correct. In a closed and separate society where women are obliged by family to enter into unsatisfactory arrangements on marriage or inheritance the fact that UK law overridea it is something of a technicality. Such arrangements need to be discouraged.

No problem with Shariah law on business contracts, legal disputes and the like but there should be no official recognition of any sort for its use in family matters when the basis is so at odds with the principles of our own society.

Ps Re last post, there is voluntary and "voluntary". Faced with overwhelming pressure, the possibility of being disowned by their own family, the guilt of going against all they have been taught, I suppose many Muslim women may well "volunteer" to go through Shariah courts.

[Cyberman]

secret marriages may go on, but they hold no legal position, just the same as if you did it. There are ules on the benefits claims too.
I have explained the Sharia courts a number of times but you seem incapable of understanding this. They certainly exist, but they do not supercede British law and they are entirely voluntary and both parties have to agree to use one. They are not a court in the sense that a magistrates court is they are an arbitration service.
ANYBODY can go to an arbitration service for family matters, some are legally binding others are just gentlemens agreements. Many many people come to divorce settlements without going to law. Many Muslims want to use a Sharia judgement because it is in line with their faith.

Please explain where I have misinterpreted or misrepresented this. If you cant then do us all a favour please shut the **** up.

The authorities turn a blind eye to polygamous marriages but would not to a bigamous Christian marriage, so therefore we have prejudice here against Christians.

The Sharia court is indeed voluntary, but muslim women are treated as second class citizens under Islam and therefore can suffer undue pressure to comply and thus the males get a better deal than they would through British courts. I reiterate that Sharia courts should be banned, not least to ensure equality of treatment for males and females !!

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Does this help?

[Peoplesoft bloke]

CyberTory is correct. .

Now there's a phrase you don't see very often.

[The Lone Gunman]

Cyberman is correct. In a closed and separate society where women are obliged by family to enter into unsatisfactory arrangements on marriage or inheritance the fact that UK law overridea it is something of a technicality. Such arrangements need to be discouraged.

No problem with Shariah law on business contracts, legal disputes and the like but there should be no official recognition of any sort for its use in family matters when the basis is so at odds with the principles of our own society.

I pretty much agree with you on this one (the whole thread not just this post) apart from you agreeing with those two tossers. Their inflamatory misinformation detracts from any sensible arguments any of us may have.
As I said in an earlier post, I do have issues with the possibility of Muslims being bullied into a Sharia court rather than a British one. I think that both parties should be required to visit a solicitor alone before being allwoed to go to the Sharia service.
Muslims have been taking Sharia rulings for many years but they have had no legal ground and for many years the men have agreed to a ruling and then walked away from their obligations. The new system makes the agreement legaly binding and can be enforced in a court of law.
This is one area of Islam where I have no problem. It is not unusual, it just gets a lot of press because it is Muslims.