Sharia Law UK.

[Fafnir]

I like it, but how does it work for the woman?

They beat her to death for allowing the man to get a divorce?

 

[Chronictank]

Define "better bits" including the laws as they are written.

Like i mentioend above, sentancing done by the victim rather than a judge. While in cases where victims want vengence there is likely to be the maximum sentence (which isnt a bad thing seeing as they did the crime), crimes by accident such as when that dog killed their grandkid the victim has the choice to be leniant and forgive them rather than automatically being given the minimum sentance
Their pentalty structure is broken down into 3 parts:
1. Hadd [plural Hudud] Crimes (most serious).
They have automatic sentancing for
-Murder;
-Theft
-Adultery
-Defamation

Alcohol-drinking and Apostasy of Islam used to be in the list, but in most variations it isnt regarded as a serious crime anymore.
The punishments are given according to that in the qu'ran, this was translated in more most modern countries such as Egypt and Pakistan into a formal penal system (rather than the literal system in mommon law, which is increasingly dissapearing in favour of the more 'westernised' version)

It is mirrored in the US lawset where if you commit a certain crime the punishment is set, e.g. murder = life

2. Tazir Crimes (least serious).
These are defined as any crimes which 'harm societal or public interest', the concept that a greater evil will be prevented if the lesser crime is punished.
There is alot of flexibility in this and covers things like bribery, selling stolen goods, treason, pronography (varies from country to country), consumption of alcohol (varies from country to country, demotion from the above) etc etc
This is where the judge is free to give the punishment he/she see's fit, usually with the aim to rehabilitate the offender. So things like fines, censorship (house arrest), family restrictions (e.g cant buy property), seizure of assets, flogging, public spectacle (flogging for example).

3. Qesas Crimes (revenge crimes restitution).
These are the ones where the familt or victim can decide the punishment;
the situations include
-Murder (premeditated and non-premeditated).
-Premeditated offences against human life, short of murder.
-Murder by error.
-Offences by error against humanity, short of murder.
Where the 'eye for an eye' or forgivness concept is used.
This nowdays also includes drug dealing and such crimes where the victim is not known but the judge places a sentence of equal value to the damage done

However i believe this law needs refining, as the examples which are often quoted like a woman cheating on a guy also fall under this law. The result being the now well publicised stoning of women being one of the options they have

but the concept i believe is still sound tho imo

 

[Guest]

i was going to have a brooky rant about how fucked up this topic is but whats the point.....


surely its time to


GET THE FUCK OUT OF THIS STINKING PUSS FILLED MAGGOT OF A COUNTRY AS FAST AS WE CAN


at least before it all goes britney on us

 

[Binky the Bomb]

Like i mentioend above, sentancing done by the victim rather than a judge. While in cases where victims want vengence there is likely to be the maximum sentence (which isnt a bad thing seeing as they did the crime), crimes by accident such as when that dog killed their grandkid the victim has the choice to be leniant and forgive them rather than automatically being given the minimum sentance
Their pentalty structure is broken down into 3 parts:
1. Hadd [plural Hudud] Crimes (most serious).
They have automatic sentancing for
-Murder;
-Theft
-Adultery
-Defamation

Alcohol-drinking and Apostasy of Islam used to be in the list, but in most variations it isnt regarded as a serious crime anymore.
The punishments are given according to that in the qu'ran, this was translated in more most modern countries such as Egypt and Pakistan into a formal penal system (rather than the literal system in mommon law, which is increasingly dissapearing in favour of the more 'westernised' version)

It is mirrored in the US lawset where if you commit a certain crime the punishment is set, e.g. murder = life

2. Tazir Crimes (least serious).
These are defined as any crimes which 'harm societal or public interest', the concept that a greater evil will be prevented if the lesser crime is punished.
There is alot of flexibility in this and covers things like bribery, selling stolen goods, treason, pronography (varies from country to country), consumption of alcohol (varies from country to country, demotion from the above) etc etc
This is where the judge is free to give the punishment he/she see's fit, usually with the aim to rehabilitate the offender. So things like fines, censorship (house arrest), family restrictions (e.g cant buy property), seizure of assets, flogging, public spectacle (flogging for example).

3. Qesas Crimes (revenge crimes restitution).
These are the ones where the familt or victim can decide the punishment;
the situations include
-Murder (premeditated and non-premeditated).
-Premeditated offences against human life, short of murder.
-Murder by error.
-Offences by error against humanity, short of murder.
Where the 'eye for an eye' or forgivness concept is used.
This nowdays also includes drug dealing and such crimes where the victim is not known but the judge places a sentence of equal value to the damage done

However i believe this law needs refining, as the examples which are often quoted like a woman cheating on a guy also fall under this law. The result being the now well publicised stoning of women being one of the options they have

but the concept i believe is still sound tho imo

Nope, all good points, as long s they apply to both women and men equally. Thats my main gripe.

 

[tris-]

Find me one example of people being let off with breaking a law because they are a muslim, or any faith for that matter, or is this just empty rhetoric because you just like hating on people because of their religious background? (this isnt the first thread you have posted such drivvel).

its the guy on the news that said muslims have no choice but to opt out of the system. opting out of the system is breaking the law. i never said anyone get let off. im saying opting out = breaking the law.

what im hating on is changing a system 100s of years old just because muslims are flavour of the month.

 

[Raven]

Cut thieves hands off, behead murderers, whats not to like? You can guarantee it would be safer to walk down the street at night.

 

[tierk]

lol why is it i am not surprised at some of the posts on here. Nice discussion by some, esp the guys coming with the stock in trade of fuck off back to where you come from. Even funnier that the people commenting, have not got the first clue about Islamic law or how it works but the moment you mention Islam and Britian and its the standard retarded remarks and comments.

I understand that Sharia law, in its fullest form - as practised in places like Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi - sound scarey and rightly do not have a place in the UK (public stoning for example). However, it has many aspects within it that would actauly fit right into the needs of modern Britain. Personally i like the way the Islam deals with murder, rape and peadophilia amongest other things.

For those firing off the "fuck off back to where they came from." Where exactly that you would like the two million odd Muslims that have been born and grew up in the UK to fuck off back to?

 

[tierk]

Cut thieves hands off, behead murderers, whats not to like? You can guarantee it would be safer to walk down the street at night.

My thoughts exactly and add to this the treatment of pedo's and rapists, sems all good to me at least.

 

[angrymoon]

I would rather have an instituion that breaks the spirit of 'hardcore offenders' crushing their spirit, and demoralising them to the point were re-offending would be such a taboo.

For example: I would rather see a serial wife beater stripped of all his spirit, his dignity crushed and his will ground down to the dirt, then see him released after 2 years just so he can go batter another woman again. I'd want him contemplating suicide rather than touch another woman.

Oh yes, thats great, at what sacrifice? How about equal rights? How about all the woman who protested and died fighting for the vote?

Yes lets oppress woman again! Hazah! Get in that kitchen and make me some pancakes bitch!

 

[tris-]

My thoughts exactly and add to this the treatment of pedo's and rapists, sems all good to me at least.

punishing mental health issues (peadophiles) with death?

lets kill all the schizos too, and epileptics. thats legally classed as a disease of the mind aka they must be psychos too.

 

[Raven]

being a peado isn't a disease. Thats like saying gays are sick in the head.

 

[tierk]

punishing mental health issues (peadophiles) with death?

lets kill all the schizos too, and epileptics. thats legally classed as a disease of the mind aka they must be psychos too.

L o L You're an idiot.

 

[Binky the Bomb]

Oh yes, thats great, at what sacrifice? How about equal rights? How about all the woman who protested and died fighting for the vote?

Yes lets oppress woman again! Hazah! Get in that kitchen and make me some pancakes bitch!

So, you condon wife beating eh?

 

[tris-]

L o L You're an idiot.

L o L you're an idiot.

pedophilia is a psychological issue.

 

[noblok]

Why is it up to us to change for them? When that teacher was prosecuted over the teddybear thing people said "when in rome...", why shouldnt this hold true in reverse?

The archbishop did not say this. I quote from the lecture (link):

Such societies [Pakistan e.a.] while not compromising or weakening the possibility of unqualified belief in the authority and universality of sharia, or even the privileged status of Islam in a nation, recognise that there can be no guarantee that the state is religiously homogeneous and that the relationships in which the individual stands and which define him or her are not exclusively with other Muslims. There has therefore to be some concept of common good that is not prescribed solely in terms of revealed Law, however provisional or imperfect such a situation is thought to be

So the second objection to an increased legal recognition of communal religious identities can be met if we are prepared to think about the basic ground rules that might organise the relationship between jurisdictions, making sure that we do not collude with unexamined systems that have oppressive effect or allow shared public liberties to be decisively taken away by a supplementary jurisdiction. Once again, there are no blank cheques.

I'm sorry... come again? "Opt out of the mainstream legal system"? what?! Surely that should read "the only option open to them is to emigrate" ?

You forget that this option is already institutionalised in (at least) one case: a doctor cannot be forced to assist in an abortion. What the archbishop is asking is for this - within reasonable limits - to be extended to other things. He is asking for the law to take serious people's (religious) convictions. I'll admit he was pretty vague on what this implies, but that's because his lecture was more an abstract philosophical one than a political one, as you'll probably notice if you read it.

British law is built up around christianity, which is the mainstream religion here. Why should it have to change to suit another religion that isnt native to the country?

And guess what: the proposal is from a very important Christian figure, which would imply that it's in line with Christian thought, not opposed to it.

 

[Dukat]

The archbishop did not say this. I quote from the lecture (link):

You forget that this option is already institutionalised in (at least) one case: a doctor cannot be forced to assist in an abortion. What the archbishop is asking is for this - within reasonable limits - to be extended to other things. He is asking for the law to take serious people's (religious) convictions. I'll admit he was pretty vague on what this implies, but that's because his lecture was more an abstract philosophical one than a political one, as you'll probably notice if you read it.

And guess what: the proposal is from a very important Christian figure, which would imply that it's in line with Christian thought, not opposed to it.

What you say makes sense. It looks as if the article I read has blown the whole thing out of proportion, I guess I should be used to that by now.

Like I said though:

I'm sorry, I feel like I sound like a spokesperson for the BNP. Thats not what I want at all, I just think that the idea of having our laws changed like this is appalling.
..
I dont know the details of this plan, I guess if its done right it might not even be noticable and could do some good, however I just feel like this is us compromising our own culture so that immigrants who arent willing to adapt can feel at home. This to me is wrong.

Its more about the principle than anything. If it really is the way you say it is then there is nothing to worry about and if the shithead media had any journalistic responsibility at all this wouldnt have been blown up to the size that it has.

I get annoyed at gandalf the fucking grey because it sounds to me like hes talking out of his arse with this statement, the plan may well be sound but the way the archbishop is talking about it its as if we're going to impose the full thing on people in the UK. This is what I mean by "it feels like we're compromising our own culture".

If it had of been posed as an integration of the better parts of laws from elsewhere then I doubt you'd find half the people in this thread, or elsewhere in the country, up in arms about it.

Its like the media's trying to stir things up by ramming stuff like this down our throat day in day out. This could, and should, have been handled more responsibly than it has been.

 

[Nate]

I guess this kind of relates, see how Muslims treat people who convert to Christianity clicky it's sickening to think the way these people are treated because of there faith, I'm not a religious person but seriously what kind of country does this to there own people it reminds me of the Jews in the wars. Even the Government are acting against them.

On Topic.

I don't ever want to see Islamic law in our country, honour killings lawful? FUCK THAT! What a fucking stupid idea.(maybe I'm being ignorant here, but I associate Islamic Law with honour killings..am I mistaken?)

 

[tris-]

yes. muslims just stone women to death.

 

[tierk]

What you say makes sense. It looks as if the article I read has blown the whole thing out of proportion, I guess I should be used to that by now........

Its not the article that is the problem but the readers. The article seemed pretty clear to me but as i have said before you mention Islam and Britain in the same news story and everyone is

up in arms about it......

Doesnt anyone find it strange that in a country that is free and democratic its not possible to have a debate about a subject that will be effecting the single largest minority group without the usual.......

. they can fuck off to where it is they come from...

.........

simple... they can go fuck of to an islamic country if that is what they want.

...............

Fuck this 'one law for us, one law for you'... one law for all, you don't like it, fuck off somewhere else......

 

[tierk]

BTW

....pedophilia is a psychological issue.

Like i or probably anyone else for that matter, gives a shit.

This just reinforces the fact that you're a idiot.

 

[kivik]

Agree with tierk.

Incredible how you tools go 'FUCK YOU, FUCK OFF' when you read 'sharia/muslim' and 'britain' in the same post.

 

[Raven]

Its been blown all out of proportion really, nothing he can say can effect our laws anyway. he said it to raise debate. besides the fact that sadly capital punishment will not be making an appearance in the UK ever again, no sharia law would overwrite UK law.

A countries laws should reflect its populous and its needs as the Muslim population grows so will the need to reflect this in our laws.

Does it really effect you what they get up to in some shitty estate in Birmingham?


Though I do agree that if people don't like the way this country is going, they should leave. Most of this isn't second/third generation Muslims, most of them couldn't give a shit. If you move to a country you should respect its laws.

 

[noblok]

I don't ever want to see Islamic law in our country, honour killings lawful? FUCK THAT! What a fucking stupid idea.(maybe I'm being ignorant here, but I associate Islamic Law with honour killings..am I mistaken?)

I refer you to my previous post, more precisely this quote from the lecture:

So the second objection to an increased legal recognition of communal religious identities can be met if we are prepared to think about the basic ground rules that might organise the relationship between jurisdictions, making sure that we do not collude with unexamined systems that have oppressive effect or allow shared public liberties to be decisively taken away by a supplementary jurisdiction. Once again, there are no blank cheques.

 

[Dukat]

Doesnt anyone find it strange that in a country that is free and democratic its not possible to have a debate about a subject that will be effecting the single largest minority group without the usual...............................

I did state my perceived reasons for the strong reactions seen in this thread and the general public in my post I thought, its because of the way it has been stanced as "The adoption of Sharia law in the uk".

Alot of us dont understand what is being proposed but are quite unsettled by the fact that someone who is supposed to be an important christian in the UK is reported to have said we need muslim laws in our country.

The fact that the country is free should mean that people should beable to state thier opinions on a matter, the idea of sharia law to the normal, uninformed member of the british public is not one of freedom, the perception that someone might take away from our freedom at a time like this is bound to cause a violent reaction.

To be fair, this is a strong reaction from the british public, but atleast we're being civil about it, the majority of the "strong reaction" group are calling for the bishop to be sacked, rather than killed as they might if there were a different, less democractic country.

I dont see the general reaction as that suprising at all. I dont know if I agree with it, but the Bishop was courting ruin when he opened his mouth on this matter, he has the right to voice his opinion as everyone else does, but that means if his opinion is shit, the rest of us have a right to tell him.

Like someone said in another thread, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from responsibility.

 

[tierk]

I did state my perceived reasons for the strong reactions seen in this thread and the general public in my post I thought, its because of the way it has been stanced as "The adoption of Sharia law in the uk"........

I dont live in the UK anymore for me to be able to see if the usual media bias is at work on this issue. The article i have linked for you though is pretty clear tbh and if one reads the article in question it shold be pretty clear that it isnt the way that some of the people on here are making out.

.....Alot of us dont understand what is being proposed.......

Why not actually find out what is being discussed. I am just curious to know where exactly you have read up on this matter as your quote above.

."The adoption of Sharia law in the uk"...

seems so far removed from what is being posted on all the normal news pages.

.....but are quite unsettled by the fact that someone who is supposed to be an important christian in the UK is reported to have said we need muslim laws in our country......

I dont understand what the problem is in bringing a few things that will, in all seriousness, not have any effect on the way that you, or anyone else that cares, for that matter. Who cares where the law is from so long as it is applied in a sensible way and improves the quality of life for people.

.....the perception that someone might take away from our freedom at a time like this is bound to cause a violent reaction.......

How is any of this going to have any effect on anything that in anway relates to a loss of freedom for anyone? Its a debate the man is trying to start, a debate in a country that is supposed to be fair and free. Not fair, free and Christian.

I dont know if you are aware of this or not but the UK population is currently running between 2-3 million muslims.

.....I dont see the general reaction as that suprising at all.....

Quite frankly neither did i, infact i would go as far as to say that i was 99.99% certain that a large segment of the OT community and the nation at lasrge would react in the same way as you (amongest others) did.

.....I dont know if I agree with it......

How can you agree or diagree about a subject when you quite clearly didnt even know what the guy was saying?

.....he has the right to voice his opinion as everyone else does, but that means if his opinion is shit, the rest of us have a right to tell him.......

Well considering that you didnt even take the time to find out what the mans opinion is how on earth can you tell if his opinion is shit?

.....Like someone said in another thread, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from responsibility.

Yes you are abso-fucking-lootly right. I just wish people posting crap like this

.........they can fuck off to where it is they come from.......

would be able to understand that exact point. Seeing as the vaste majority of the people that it is aimed at would probably have to head off to Bradford or Birmngham.

 

[tris-]

BTW


Like i or probably anyone else for that matter, gives a shit.

This just reinforces the fact that you're a idiot.

so you think people with mental health issues should be killed then?

welcome back to medieval britain, enjoy your stay bitches!

 

[tierk]

so you think people with mental health issues should be killed then?

welcome back to medieval britain, enjoy your stay bitches!

Nope just the peadophiles.

 

[tris-]

but a mental illness is a mental illness.

 

[tierk]

but a mental illness is a mental illness.

Errrr sorry and?

 

[tris-]

so why should each be treated differently?

you say only peadophiles should be killed.
if a schizophrenic goes out and rapes a kid and kills her because he believes if he doesnt, the earth will explode, should he be killed? he isnt a peadophile after all.