11-29-2006, 02:48 AM | #1 |
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New Jersey, USA!
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Sharia Law Spreads in the UK?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../nsharia29.xml
I thought this was big news. What the hell is going on in the UK? |
|
11-29-2006, 03:38 AM | #2 |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
I don't see what's so shocking. It's unofficial. It's not mandatory. It's not required. If you don't press charges, and if the crime doesn't require it, you don't have to go to court. But if you wish, you may follow Sharia law.
"common for the police not to proceed with assault cases if the victims decided not to press charges. . . . there is an 'alternative parallel unofficial legal system' that operates in the Muslim community on a voluntary basis." |
|
11-29-2006, 09:00 AM | #3 |
A Very Sound Guy!
Fortress Forever Staff
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts Rated Helpful 15 Times
|
although i never realised this was going on, i dont mind that sort of thing happening, as long as they dont impose sharia laws non muslims. its a great idea for settling disputes informally within an islamic community.
|
|
11-29-2006, 11:04 AM | #4 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Europe, Front Yard
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Although you have to keep in mind that members of these community may be forced to follow a sharia trial as using official means of law enforcing may get them banned or ostracized from their community.
I don't see this too keenly, it's a further dilution of the power of the state (just preemptively : and no any kind of state power isn't necessarily "fascist" or inherently evil). |
|
11-29-2006, 02:13 PM | #5 |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
And they may not be at the same time (hence the word voluntary). Your point is moot.
|
|
11-29-2006, 02:34 PM | #6 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Europe, Front Yard
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
No, because of course it's not a 100% thing, some people are forced, and some others aren't. Can you guarantee with absolute certainty that an equal to zero number of people (in my opinion probably a good majority) have to face such a choice ?
It is argueable that laws are the basis of a community and ultimately a state, and the existence of such parallel systems is an indicator of a deep and major division between people. This particular case smells strongly of people being treated differently according to their relative ethnic background, just that it's a community deciding that for themselves instead of someone inflicting it on them. Sure, it's legal to do what they do but in my opinion it is a very perverse effect/exploit of the liberty to prosecute someone. V my point in fewer words V Last edited by o_ivaqual; 11-29-2006 at 02:42 PM. |
|
11-29-2006, 02:36 PM | #7 |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
bullshit, if they live here they live by the laws, this is a joke
|
|
11-29-2006, 02:52 PM | #8 |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
They haven't broken any laws though...
|
|
11-29-2006, 02:59 PM | #9 | |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
|
|
|
11-29-2006, 03:42 PM | #10 | |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
|
|
|
11-29-2006, 03:45 PM | #11 | |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Midtown Express
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
|
|
|
11-29-2006, 04:01 PM | #12 | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Europe, Front Yard
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
To develop on what I was saying, the implications of having a parallel set of law system and enforcement are far-reaching, as it essentially means people are living in different and distinct states. Now, you may not agree with me, but I think that trying to have people in the same country follow the same laws and be in the same state is a prerogative that needs to be followed lest more and more distance is created between communities that have already enough tensions between them as it is. What of the english nationality do they have anymore at this point ? In my conception the most important thing to "be" of a nationality is to embrace or at least follow its general principles, implying having to respect the beliefs, laws, language, etc.. At this point one has to wonder the legitimacy of these people living there in the first place. Is it that they enjoy the greater possibilities of work, or the better welfare (I'm voluntarily omitting more obscure reasons such as warfare in any shape or form) ? That's fine by me, but rights also imply rules. |
|
|
11-29-2006, 04:04 PM | #13 |
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
the news story brings up some valid points...
the somali courts are not as 'awesome' as british, are much less expensive, are more expedient, and much more lenient on evidence... it cites stories of allowing a divorce that would otherwise be tangled up in the legal system for years. it seems for now they are voluntary and effective....we run into problems if the court tries to supersede the law of the land theyre now on... I'm not sure murder or some other stuff will fly even if the victim's relatives dont press charges. What *I* worry about in this situation is religious connontations of herecy, or eating pork, or blapheming against the prophet or cheating on a spouse. If the somali court does something drastic, especialy considering their loose evidenciary laws, then they might get themselves banned. |
|
11-29-2006, 04:28 PM | #14 | |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
The Sharia law, from what I have interpreted, is not binding. That is, they defendants do not have to physically oblige to the Sharia courts, because it is all voluntary. I believe, and from my interpretation of the article, that these perpetrators go to the courts so as not to bring shame on to their families or themselves. |
|
|
11-29-2006, 04:34 PM | #15 | ||
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Bristol UK
Posts Rated Helpful 1 Times
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
11-29-2006, 04:50 PM | #16 |
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada eh?
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
From the quote thread:
"Virtually all reasonable laws are obeyed, not because they are the law, but because reasonable people would do that anyway. If you obey a law simply because it is the law, that's a pretty likely sign that it shouldn't be a law." – Unknown If they obey it, they obviously beleive it should be law anyhow. Unless you think they are unreasonable... |
|
11-29-2006, 05:18 PM | #17 |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Well, that's according to your quote. First, it's limited by the word "virtually." Second there are laws I could probably think of a few laws people follow, simply because they're law (yet they are not unreasonable laws).
Needless to say, I don't disagree with you completely. But using a quote from an unknown source as fact won't necessarily lead to a smooth foregoing. [Edit: Proof in post below] I like Plato's quote though, also from the quote thread: "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." |
|
11-29-2006, 05:19 PM | #18 | ||
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Europe, Front Yard
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
Quote:
Yes, B had the choice - but had he really ? Furthermore, something as grave as a stabbing (I don't know about you but it ranks not that far off from murder which is supposed to "not let be flown" !) seems to be considered completely differently : good game, since A could have known that B would follow the Sharia and that the reprimand would likely be more lenient than what the official law system would have given him. People could, in certain cases, choose to do something they would have not done otherwise as the eventual "comeback" would have been too strong. At any rate, all this is but secondary and relative to the main problem, which is two different state of rights "coexisting" in the same country, read above posts for more about that. |
||
|
11-29-2006, 05:25 PM | #19 | |
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
|
|
|
11-29-2006, 05:26 PM | #20 |
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada eh?
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Either way, if it's not infringing on the rights of non-Muslims (or even Muslims outside these sects), then let them live the way they want. The government doesn't have to intervene at every point.
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|