It's Islamofascist rear end kissing season in Canterbury ....

SeanW

From the BBC

Williams 'shocked' at Sharia row

The Archbishop of Canterbury is said to be overwhelmed by the "hostility of the response" after his call for parts of Sharia law to be recognised in the UK. Friends of Dr Rowan Williams say he is in a state of shock and cannot believe the criticism from his own Church.
All the main political parties, secular groups and some senior Muslims have expressed dismay at his comments.
However, the Bishop of Hulme, the Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, criticised the "disgraceful" treatment of Dr Williams.
The BBC understands from sources who work on Christian-Muslim interfaith issues that Dr Williams has faced a barrage of criticism from within the Church and has been genuinely taken aback by how his words were received.
Resignation call

Islamic Sharia law is a legal and social code designed to help Muslims live their daily lives, but it has proved controversial in the West for the extreme nature of some of its punishments.
Culture Secretary Andy Burnham said moves such as those suggested by the archbishop would create "social chaos".
The Reverend Rod Thomas, chairman of evangelical Church group Reform, said the archbishop's comments were unhelpful.
"The Church at the moment, and the country, needs a clear lead. The country is itself in a debate about its own sense of identity," he said.


"The moral values that we pursue are ones that we need to know are clearly grounded, and it would be most helpful for the leader of the Church to be able to explain to people how the values we cherish stem from our Christian tradition."
UKIP MEP Gerard Batten said it would be the "thin end of the wedge" and called on the archbishop to resign.

He said: "I think he's shown he is totally unfit for the role he undertakes. He's not fit to be Archbishop of Canterbury, he doesn't seem to know what his own business is, and he's not fit to sit in the House of Lords. I think he should go."

'Hysterical misrepresentations'
However, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said it was grateful for the archbishop's "thoughtful intervention".
The organisation added that it was saddened by the "hysterical misrepresentations" of his speech, which would only "drive a wedge between British people".

Muhammed Abdul Bari, Secretary-General of the MCB, said: "The archbishop is not advocating implementation of the Islamic penal system in Britain.
"His recommendation is confined to the civil system of Sharia law, and only in accordance with English law and agreeable to established notions of human rights."
Bishop Lowe said the archbishop had been "ridiculed" and "lampooned" by some people.
"We have probably one of the greatest and the brightest Archbishops of Canterbury we have had for many a long day," he said.
Catherine Heseltine, from the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, said some people might be getting the wrong end of the stick.
"I'm concerned this debate is getting out of control because people hear the word Sharia and instantly scary images of beheadings," she said.
"But this is not what British Muslims want and it's not what British Muslims are asking for in any way."
'British values'
She added: "Sharia in our everyday lives means things like certification of halal meat, in the same way as Jewish religious bodies will certify kosher meat. No-one's forced to eat it but it's a choice if consumers want to buy it."

Dr Williams told BBC Radio 4 on Thursday that he believed the adoption of some Sharia law in the UK seemed "unavoidable".
In an interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, Dr Williams said Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".
Gordon Brown's spokesman said the prime minister "believes that British laws should be based on British values", but that the archbishop was perfectly entitled to express his views.
Home Office Minister Tony McNulty said to fundamentally change the rule of law and adopt Sharia law would be "fundamentally wrong."
Shaista Gohir, a government advisor on Muslim women, said the majority of British Muslims did not want Sharia courts.

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said he did not agree with the archbishop him on the issue.
Under English law, people may devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed third party as long as both sides agree to the process.
Muslim Sharia courts and Orthodox Jewish courts which already exist in the UK come into this category.

All I can say is WHAT THE F@#%?

This is the part that got me going the most:

Archbishop of Canterbury wrote:

Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty"

Why the hell not? Noone's forcing them to be here - someone who doesn't like secular Western laws and traditions can always f*** off back to whatever Dark Ages hole they or their ancestors came from, where Sharia will most certainly be enshrined in the national constitution, with all the backward, savage barbarianism that this entails.

pretty*monster

My understanding of the Archbishop's comments is that Muslims should be entitled to use Sharia courts as a sort of arbitration committee for civil matters. Such rights have long been granted to the Beth Din, the Jewish rabbinical courts, not to mention that many forms of non-religious arbitration committees are common in the west and do not undermine the rule of law since English law already states that a third party can be agreed by two sides to arbitrate in a dispute.

Relevant article about the Beth Din: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7233040.stm

Passent.Habek

SeanW wrote: »

This is the part that got me going the most:
[/SIZE]Why the hell not? Noone's forcing them to be here - someone who doesn't like secular Western laws and traditions can always f*** off back to whatever Dark Ages hole they or their ancestors came from, where Sharia will most certainly be enshrined in the national constitution, with all the backward, savage barbarianism that this entails.

Grow up would you? Do you live in the UK? Do you know many muslim people? Do you know the first thing about Sharia law apart from the sensationalist crap you see on sky news and read in the Tabloids?

Sharia is a very complex legal system that applied in a variety of different ways depending on the country you are in. Some of it was way ahead of its time and some is a product of its time. Pick up a book and read before you start shouting at people to **** off back to the Dark Ages.

The situation we have here is more than ridiculous .. You have an Anglican Bishop saying something controversial and the media uses it as an excuse to demonize mulims. What the hell did the Muslims do in all this to warrant people telling them to **** off back to the dark ages? The majority of muslims are perfectly happy living in the Uk under Uk law and the vast majority of them in the Uk and the Muslim world dont want to see any stonings, beheadings etc take place fullstop.

SeanW

Looks like I got the wrong end of the stick

If all that is being proposed is private, voluntary, dispute arbitration boards, then that should be debated on its own merit.

What the hell did the Muslims do in all this to warrant people telling them to **** off back to the dark ages?

All I'm saying is that if a muslim feels that his/her values are fundamentally incompatible with the laws, customs and values of the Western nation in which he or she resides, s/he might consider moving to a Middle Eastern/North African/Central Asian country which has more strict legal codes and repressive culture.

The majority of muslims are perfectly happy living in the Uk under Uk law and the vast majority of them in the Uk and the Muslim world dont want to see any stonings, beheadings etc take place fullstop.

I must admit to a certain ignorance of these kinds of things, so if true this certainly comes as welcome news.

However, I do read in the news about some of the stuff that goes on in more Islamic countries, like Internet censorship - and worse (there was a thread here recently about how a journalism student in Afghanistan was about to be executed for the crime of reading about women's rights on the Internet), homosexuality being punishable by death. etc. etc.

I consider the goings on in some of these places to be nothing less than barbaric - I make no apologies for this - and it makes me very wary of things like Sharia law. In this case though, I might have jumped to the wrong conclusions.

fly_agaric

Passent.Habek wrote: »

You have an Anglican Bishop saying something controversial and the media uses it as an excuse to demonize mulims.

It seems to be the archbishop they are demonising here.

It's sort of like if a UK minister or bigwig had said publically in the 70s or 80s, well, you know, maybe those IRA fellows actually have a point in the between the bombs somewhere...very foolish of the archbishop IMO.

Passent.Habek

fly_agaric wrote: »

It seems to be the archbishop they are demonising here.

It's sort of like if a UK minister or bigwig had said publically in the 70s or 80s, well, you know, maybe those IRA fellows actually have a point in the between the bombs somewhere...very foolish of the archbishop IMO.

No. All the same tired examples of muslim extremism are splashed across every tv channel and newspaper reinforcing this idea that all Muslims want to live in countries where people are flogged, beheaded, stoned and have their hands chopped off .. and it ends with people such as Sean here telling them to **** off back to these countries where this goes on. Fact is there are many muslims born and bred British .. fact is that routine stonings, beheadings etc are not the reality of most normal Muslims lives. The media picks and chooses negative examples from a community of nearly 2 Billion people and tries to make us belive that this is the norm. Muslims are just regular people like everyone else .. there good ones and bad ones but the majority are decent people. Every time this topic comes up the media uses it to try and divide communities by portraying a negative stereotype. If people would just take the time to get to know a few muslims they would soon be wondering what all the fuss was about.

Húrin

Although I would be of the view that the same laws should apply to all people in a country, I think that Rowan Williams should be listened to more. If only because he comes across as being the least ideologically-driven person in this debate.

damnyanks

So I've noticed numerous asian communities in the uk stick to their own area and practice their religious laws without involving the uk police.

You get
people who dont really follow the religion

people who follow the religion for their parents only but when out and about quickly forget about the beliefs they should follow (Drinking alcohol, eating pork and so on).

who are still very religious and enforce laws which we find terrible and so forth.

(Just like Ireland and catholicsim)

The problem which arises is that things such as honour killings may take place in these communities and the person commiting the crime feels they are justified because of their religion. Frankly the UK is just screwed up when it comes to these types of ghetto's. No intergration amongst different communities and so on. I had 20 students come visit me in work 4 of them didnt speak english and they were doing their GCSE's (Junior cert). These communities just feel aliented by british law because they never bothered their backside to get involved in the uk.

Sesshoumaru

There should only be one law for all people. Once Sharia law is introduced for civil matters a precedent will be set. Muslims will start demanding Sharia law in others areas. Then you'll have other religious groups demanding to be governed by their own retarded "holy book". The current secular system has served us well so far. I see no reason to entertain these stupid ideas.

Passent.Habek

damnyanks wrote: »

So I've noticed numerous asian communities in the uk stick to their own area and practice their religious laws without involving the uk police.

You get
people who dont really follow the religion

people who follow the religion for their parents only but when out and about quickly forget about the beliefs they should follow (Drinking alcohol, eating pork and so on).

who are still very religious and enforce laws which we find terrible and so forth.

(Just like Ireland and catholicsim)

The problem which arises is that things such as honour killings may take place in these communities and the person commiting the crime feels they are justified because of their religion. Frankly the UK is just screwed up when it comes to these types of ghetto's. No intergration amongst different communities and so on. I had 20 students come visit me in work 4 of them didnt speak english and they were doing their GCSE's (Junior cert). These communities just feel aliented by british law because they never bothered their backside to get involved in the uk.

Exactly where does the Quran justify Honor Killings? Dont get confused between culture and religion

Passent.Habek

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

There should only be one law for all people. Once Sharia law is introduced for civil matters a precedent will be set. Muslims will start demanding Sharia law in others areas. Then you'll have other religious groups demanding to be governed by their own retarded "holy book". The current secular system has served us well so far. I see no reason to entertain these stupid ideas.

As long as people dont contravene British law and agree to the arbritation then what is the problem? Who is it hurting? Do people tell you how to live your life outside of the law?

No one is trying to introduce anything extreme here and no one is trying to bypass the British legal system.

Sand

As long as people dont contravene British law and agree to the arbritation then what is the problem? Who is it hurting? Do people tell you how to live your life outside of the law?

No one is trying to introduce anything extreme here and no one is trying to bypass the British legal system.

It undermines society by having one system of law for non-muslims and another system of law [optional though it may be] for muslims. It undermines the social cohesion which rests upon everyone being equal in the eyes of the secular state. Its bad enough as it is with existing throwbacks to medieval times [official religions etc etc] without introducing more.

So long as there is no state recognition, or the decisions reached have no more force of law than the result of a game of golf to settle a difference, then theres no more or less of a problem than any agreement people come to without calling for lawyers. But if the state starts recognising other legal codes within its territory, then they will pay the price in a divided, mutually suspicious, segregated society.

Passent.Habek

Sand wrote: »

It undermines society by having one system of law for non-muslims and another system of law [optional though it may be] for muslims. It undermines the social cohesion which rests upon everyone being equal in the eyes of the secular state. Its bad enough as it is with existing throwbacks to medieval times [official religions etc etc] without introducing more.

So long as there is no state recognition, or the decisions reached have no more force of law than the result of a game of golf to settle a difference, then theres no more or less of a problem than any agreement people come to without calling for lawyers. But if the state starts recognising other legal codes within its territory, then they will pay the price in a divided, mutually suspicious, segregated society.

Absolute BS. It's already in practice with the Jewish community in the UK and there are no such problems. How come there was no outcry about this concerning the Jewish community? Scaremongering and racism is what this is about. The arbritation has to be agreed by both parties and they have the right to appeal to the secular legal system if they arent happy with anything. All this would do is relieve some of the pressure on the British legal system. No judgement of these arbritation courts can contravene other British law .. so people can relax .. everybody's heads and hands will be staying put.

eoin5

If its already legal then what exactly is he calling for? Is he encouraging them or what?

Sand

So long as there is no state recognition, or the decisions reached have no more force of law than the result of a game of golf to settle a difference, then theres no more or less of a problem than any agreement people come to without calling for lawyers. But if the state starts recognising other legal codes within its territory, then they will pay the price in a divided, mutually suspicious, segregated society.

Absolute BS. It's already in practice with the Jewish community in the UK and there are no such problems. How come there was no outcry about this concerning the Jewish community? Scaremongering and racism is what this is about. The arbritation has to be agreed by both parties and they have the right to appeal to the secular legal system if they arent happy with anything. All this would do is relieve some of the pressure on the British legal system. No judgement of these arbritation courts can contravene other British law .. so people can relax .. everybody's heads and hands will be staying put.

See above. Bolded part. Ive no issue with people settling their differences in anyway they see fit so long as its given no recognition or force of law.

FTA69

SeanW wrote: »

This is the part that got me going the most:
[/SIZE]Why the hell not? Noone's forcing them to be here - someone who doesn't like secular Western laws and traditions can always f*** off back to whatever Dark Ages hole they or their ancestors came from, where Sharia will most certainly be enshrined in the national constitution, with all the backward, savage barbarianism that this entails.

That's sh*t talk, and during the actual Dark Ages in Europe it was Muslims who were making the most advances. Think before type.

As someone said, Sharia is complex, aspects of it are indeed barbaric, other aspects are actually more progressive than parts of western law. Still though, England is not a Muslim country, end of story.

I know plenty of Muslims (mostly from the Balkans) and believe it or not they are normal people, they aren't loonies running around with Kalashs. That having been said, like all religions Islam often stifles and suffocates the individual. I oppose Islamic domination as much as I do the stagnation that church control brought upon Ireland.

Religion is stupid, arguing about it is even more stupid.

Sesshoumaru

Passent.Habek wrote: »

Absolute BS. It's already in practice with the Jewish community in the UK and there are no such problems. How come there was no outcry about this concerning the Jewish community? Scaremongering and racism is what this is about. The arbritation has to be agreed by both parties and they have the right to appeal to the secular legal system if they arent happy with anything. All this would do is relieve some of the pressure on the British legal system. No judgement of these arbritation courts can contravene other British law .. so people can relax .. everybody's heads and hands will be staying put.

Racism? are you for real? Last time I checked Islam was a religion/legal system/political system and has nothing to do with race.

If systems already exist for Jews then these privileges should be rescinded. The Jews obviously got that one in under the radar as their community is much smaller and less vocal than the Muslim one.

fly_agaric

Passent.Habek wrote: »

All the same tired examples of muslim extremism are splashed across every tv channel and newspaper reinforcing this idea that all Muslims want to live in countries where people are flogged, beheaded, stoned and have their hands chopped off and it ends with people such as Sean here telling them to **** off back to these countries where this goes on. Fact is there are many muslims born and bred British .. fact is that routine stonings, beheadings etc are not the reality of most normal Muslims lives. The media picks and chooses negative examples from a community of nearly 2 Billion people and tries to make us belive that this is the norm. Muslims are just regular people like everyone else .. there good ones and bad ones but the majority are decent people. Every time this topic comes up the media uses it to try and divide communities by portraying a negative stereotype. If people would just take the time to get to know a few muslims they would soon be wondering what all the fuss was about.

Look, many of the worlds' muslims do live in such countries whether they wish to or not (a much larger proportion than live in the UK). The autocrats and/or religious freaks running such countries claim they base their laws directly on "Islam" and "the Koran" which is probably an aid to shoring up their power. So...

And like it or not violent Islamic extremists also do actually exist :eek:, and they do call for introduction of what they also call "Sharia Law" for all [even if their version is alot less cuddly and more widely applicable than what the archbishop might have in mind].

I think these facts are what causes alot of the fuss irresppective of the wholesome nature of the average joe muslim/christian/atheist (something I doubt too, I bet lots of people in the UK would love to throw rocks at a few murders, rapists and paedophiles if a "guilt-free" opportunity to do so arose, or would gather at tyburn tree to watch them be hung...).

Passent.Habek

fly_agaric wrote: »

Look, many of the worlds' muslims do live in such countries whether they wish to or not (a much larger proportion than live in the UK). The autocrats and/or religious freaks running such countries claim they base their laws directly on "Islam" and "the Koran" which is probably an aid to shoring up their power. So...

And like it or not violent Islamic extremists also do actually exist :eek:, and they do call for introduction of what they also call "Sharia Law" for all [even if their version is alot less cuddly and more widely applicable than what the archbishop might have in mind].

I think these facts are what causes alot of the fuss irresppective of the wholesome nature of the average joe muslim/christian/atheist (something I doubt too, I bet lots of people in the UK would love to throw rocks at a few murders, rapists and paedophiles if a "guilt-free" opportunity to do so arose, or would gather at tyburn tree to watch them be hung...).

Look violent extremists exist everywhere in every religion, christianity included .. just go speak to some people in the bible belt. The fact is .. that Sharia Law and Islam in general is so misrepresented in the media that it is verging on racism or religious discrimination. The Burkha is a cultural phenomenon that existed before Mohamed. The Quran says nothing about women having to wear a Burka only that men and women should dress modestly. Yet the morning after these comments were made you see a woman in a Burkha splashed accross the front page of the Sun with similar misrepresentations in the other newpapers and Sky news etc. Stonings whatever you might think are not the norm in any Islamic society and they are usually performed by ignorant poverty stricken communities. Some extreme forms of Sharia do exist in countries such as Saudia Arabia but Saudi dors not represent the 1.8 billion people in the Islamic world.

There are 5 main schools of interpretation in Islam upon which Sharia is based and each country draws from one of these schools. Saudi draw there influence from the most extreme school of thought. There are also what can be considered very liberal schools of thought which mainly developed in the early days of Islam but they are still in use today.

If more people would just pick up a book on Sharia if they were that interested in commenting on it then they would understand how ridiculous all this media coverage is. Unfortunately the average joe only knows what the media tells him so i actually would not blame most people for the misguided opinions they have. But I wish people before they jump on a hate filled bandwagon please take time to study the facts

Passent.Habek

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Racism? are you for real? Last time I checked Islam was a religion/legal system/political system and has nothing to do with race.

If systems already exist for Jews then these privileges should be rescinded. The Jews obviously got that one in under the radar as their community is much smaller and less vocal than the Muslim one.

Racism or religious discrimination but you know what i mean so lets not waste time on semantics.

Do you live in the Uk or are you a British citizen? Who cares about your uniformed opinion on what should or shouldnt be rescinded in another country? The system works fine here and there is no reason to change it. The world cant be exactly as you want it to be you know and everybody has the right to live the way they want to as long as they respect the laws of the country they live in.

Sesshoumaru

Passent.Habek wrote: »

Racism or religious discrimination but you know what i mean so lets not waste time on semantics.

Sorry I can't read your mind, so I don't know what you mean. It just slipped your mind Islam wasn't a race? or is it just convenient for to shout "RASCIST" as loud as you can to silence any opposition?

Passent.Habek wrote:

Do you live in the Uk or are you a British citizen? Who cares about your uniformed opinion on what should or shouldnt be rescinded in another country? The system works fine here and there is no reason to change it. The world cant be exactly as you want it to be you know and everybody has the right to live the way they want to as long as they respect the laws of the country they live in.

Why should I care about the opinion of people who believe in supernatural beings? They can't be very informed! You don't need to be a genius to figure out that religious laws damage a secular democracy. We shouldn't be encouraging people to believe in kids fairytale stories, like santa claus and god.

Hobbes

SeanW wrote: »

Noone's forcing them to be here

Define them? If the person was born in the UK, lived their all their lives as did all their generations yet are Muslim shouldn't they be allowed equal rights to voice what they want?

Muslim is not a country.

This discussion is going on in Islam forum as well. To quote PDN.

The Church of England has ecclesiastical courts and Judaism has rabbinical councils. To deny Muslims equal opportunities and powers is a clear case of discrimination.

...

just convenient for to shout "RASCIST" as loud as you can to silence any opposition?

Actually racism can be defined on race or religion (depending on what dictionary you read). Even so it is better to attack the argument then word.

Hobbes

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Sharia law is introduced for civil matters a precedent will be set.

You do know there are legal Sharia lawyers in UK? As for precedent, it is already in the UK for other religions. Or does it only matter when it is Muslims?

There is already one rule of law. How it works is Sharia law can't supercede the law of the lands, however a sharia judge may be better suited to rule in one way or another in relation to the religion that a normal judge would not.

Sesshoumaru

Hobbes wrote: »

You do know there are legal Sharia lawyers in UK? As for precedent, it is already in the UK for other religions. Or does it only matter when it is Muslims?

There is already one rule of law. How it works is Sharia law can't supercede the law of the lands, however a sharia judge may be better suited to rule in one way or another in relation to the religion that a normal judge would not.

Go back and read what I've posted. I'm fairly consistently against all religions having any official capacity in a secular democracy. So no it's not only when its Muslims. Don't be so sensitive

Sesshoumaru

Hobbes wrote: »

Define them? If the person was born in the UK, lived their all their lives as did all their generations yet are Muslim shouldn't they be allowed equal rights to voice what they want?

Muslim is not a country.

Some countries have stricter citizenship laws. Even if you are born there you are not necessarily a citizen. But I would agree that as long as they are a citizen in the eyes of the law, then they should be afforded the same rights and privileges as everyone else. There is no point telling a second generation immigrant to "go back home". His/her home is the country they were born in. At least thats the way they should feel about their country.

Erdogan wrote:

The political rally by Germany's biggest ethnic minority upset German politicians, who objected to a major public event on German soil being advertised on posters in Turkish only.

Erdogan indirectly addressed those concerns, saying it was right for Turkish immigrants to learn German and other languages so they could integrate, but wrong to abandon their Turkish heritage and assimilate.

"Assimilation is a crime against humanity," he told the crowd. Many Turks had travelled from France, Belgium and the Netherlands to hear his hour-long address in the shiny venue, the Koelnarena.

"I can well understand that you are against assimilation," he said. "It is important to learn German, but your Turkish language should not be neglected."

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/184878,erdogan-cheered-by-16000-turks-in-cologne.html

However stuff like this doesn't help. I know it's a different country! I'm only using this as an example of how sometimes people don't want to integrate into a new country. This is why it's so important to confidently assert our own Western culture in our own countries. Which includes keeping our countries completely secular. People have mentioned Jewish courts etc If I'm against Muslims getting their Sharia courts, then I'm also Jews getting their religious courts.

Playboy

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Go back and read what I've posted. I'm fairly consistently against all religions having any official capacity in a secular democracy. So no it's not only when its Muslims. Don't be so sensitive

I'm happy that you are an atheist but the vast majority of people dont share your persuasion and they have the right to be accomodated within the law. I really dont see how this affects you? You neither live in the Uk or are familiar with the this case itself. You have not listened to the lecture and you are unaware that these types of courts already exist without a problem. Just like in the thread about Israel you seem to be prepared to shout about what you dont know about. How about going away and talking to some Muslims and doing a bit of reading before jumping on media bandwagons :rolleyes:

Playboy

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/184878,erdogan-cheered-by-16000-turks-in-cologne.html

However stuff like this doesn't help. I know it's a different country! I'm only using this as an example of how sometimes people don't want to integrate into a new country. This is why it's so important to confidently assert our own Western culture in our own countries. Which includes keeping our countries completely secular. People have mentioned Jewish courts etc If I'm against Muslims getting their Sharia courts, then I'm also Jews getting their religious courts.

How much do you know about Germany and their immigration policy in regards to the Turks? I cant see what is wrong with that article .. Britain and many other countries sailed around the world for generations imposing their culture on other countries including ours but now that Immigrant populations want to maintain a certain amount of their culture is now a bad thing. So should Irish Americans be banned from speaking Irish, Irish Dancing, playing Gaelic Sports, drinking in and opening Irish pubs etc etc. Should they also be banned from voting for people who have the interests of their community at heart? Are you a facist by any chance?

Rock Climber

Hobbes wrote:

The Church of England has ecclesiastical courts and Judaism has rabbinical councils. To deny Muslims equal opportunities and powers is a clear case of discrimination.

With respect,I've two points to make:
(1)Both examples are where both parties are consenting.
(2)Neither have jurisdiction in criminal proceedings.
Ergo those aspects of sharia are as available to muslims in the UK,the same as if I set up a church and make a church law that everyone wears a pink dress between two and three in the afternoon.

It's a totally different story where,a sharia "court" decides on a religious law being broken and decides to cut off someones hand.
The civil court can and rightly can kick the Sharia judges ass from here to kingdom come for breaking the civil laws in that case.
Civil laws apply to everybody and over rule private agreements where one party decides to test them etc.


Incidently I think the archbishop was probably way misinterpreted here or chose his wordings badly.
He probably was refering to consentual sharia judgements which as I said are as valid as the punishments I'll be doling out for anyone in my church that forgets to wear the pink dress between 2 and 3 pm.
Those blasphemers will be punished ( via a simple excommunication of course,we wouldn't want to break the law of the land)

Sesshoumaru

Playboy wrote: »

I'm happy that you are an atheist but the vast majority of people dont share your persuasion and they have the right to be accomodated within the law. I really dont see how this affects you? You neither live in the Uk or are familiar with the this case itself. You have not listened to the lecture and you are unaware that these types of courts already exist without a problem. Just like in the thread about Israel you seem to be prepared to shout about what you dont know about. How about going away and talking to some Muslims and doing a bit of reading before jumping on media bandwagons :rolleyes:

Ireland was one of the first countries within the EU to introduce a smoking ban. Now several years later other EU countries are starting to follow our lead. What happens in one country within the EU can happen in another. Especially when the religious amongst us see it functioning in another country.

Sesshoumaru

Playboy wrote: »

How much do you know about Germany and their immigration policy in regards to the Turks? I cant see what is wrong with that article .. Britain and many other countries sailed around the world for generations imposing their culture on other countries including ours but now that Immigrant populations want to maintain a certain amount of their culture is now a bad thing. So should Irish Americans be banned from speaking Irish, Irish Dancing, playing Gaelic Sports, drinking in and opening Irish pubs etc etc. Should they also be banned from voting for people who have the interests of their community at heart? Are you a facist by any chance?

So we imposed our culture on others? But you use different language when it others imposing their culture on us? I certainly see it as imposing one culture on another when they talk about resisting assimilation into the West. I would also call it "bad" when the other culture is inferior.

You're Irish American example is stupid. American culture allows for a person to be an American first and foremost and Irish/Mexican/whatever second.

Your fascist comment is just plain wrong. I have no time for Nazis/Fascists/White power groups etc.

oscarBravo

Playboy wrote: »

Are you a facist by any chance?

Let's not get personal.

Note to all participants: keep it civil, ta.

Playboy

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Ireland was one of the first countries within the EU to introduce a smoking ban. Now several years later other EU countries are starting to follow our lead. What happens in one country within the EU can happen in another. Especially when the religious amongst us see it functioning in another country.

Scaremongering. Are you really afraid that Sharia Law is going take over in europe and damage your rights? Do you have that little faith in the powers that be?

Playboy

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

So we imposed our culture on others? But you use different language when it others imposing their culture on us? I certainly see it as imposing one culture on another when they talk about resisting assimilation into the West. I would also call it "bad" when the other culture is inferior.

You're Irish American example is stupid. American culture allows for a person to be an American first and foremost and Irish/Mexican/whatever second.

Your fascist comment is just plain wrong. I have no time for Nazis/Fascists/White power groups etc.

Lets just put the rhetoric aside shall we? There is nothing wrong with maintaining and enjoying your own culture in another country. Problems occur when there is a lack of respect on both sides for their respective cultures. We live in a free society and people should be allowed to live whatever lives they like within the confines of the law. There is a large amount of fear and distrust generated by the media towards the muslim community which is unfair and unwarrented. The Irish suffered in similar circumstances in Britain when the IRA where operating. If people such as yourself would take the time to find out more about the muslim community by speaking to muslims you would see that there is very little to be afraid of. The media and the attitudes of people in western society are partially responsible for the radicalisation of muslims. Discrimination and hate breeds more of the same and its not going to get better till stop believing the crap they read in the sun or see on sky news.

RedPlanet

Why do some people presume Britian to be a Secular Democracy?
It's no such thing.
The Prime Minister makes appointments to the Church of England and Catholics are barred by law from holding certain positions.
That's NOT secularism.

Fratton Fred

RedPlanet wrote: »

Why do some people presume Britian to be a Secular Democracy?
It's no such thing.
The Prime Minister makes appointments to the Church of England and Catholics are barred by law from holding certain positions.
That's NOT secularism.

Name one position, with the exception of Monarch, that Catholics cannot hold?

Britain is not secular though and it makes no claim to be. It is however more secular than some secular countries and the Church has a lot less influence than certain other countries I can think of.

I don't really see what the problems are with what the Dr Williams has said, but there is a lot of anti Islamic feeling so it gets blown out of all proportion. That doesn't mean I support it, I don't think faith should have influence on, or be above any laws....Are you listening Cardinal??

LaVidaLoca

I would like to see all religion and the legal system as far apart from each other as possible.

Secondly, many people (particularly liberals like myself) like to ascribe to a beleif that what would be abbhorent in someone of our own culture, it's not so abhorrent when it's somebody from a different culture doing it.

Sharia Law has been ruled by the European Court of Human Rights as being incompatible with democracy (and for good reason).

Thirdly, re being Islamophobic. Whats wrong with being Islamophobic? I happen to be pretty anti-religious in many ways (precisely because I am more interested in human rights than in divine ones), but I recognise that all religions are not equally bad. Of the mainstream ones, Islam is far and away the most regressive, conservative, hateful of women, and generally prone to outbursts of violent irrationality.

The Tibetans have been treated like dirt by the Chinese for more than half a century. Seen any Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers?

Thought not.

djpbarry

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

Whats wrong with being Islamophobic?

Seriously? You don't think irrational fear and/or hatred of a large group of people is a bad thing?

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

I happen to be pretty anti-religious in many ways...

Big difference between being anti- something and having a phobia of something.

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

Of the mainstream ones, Islam is far and away the most regressive, conservative, hateful of women, and generally prone to outbursts of violent irrationality.

Based on what exactly? Sky News?

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

The Tibetans have been treated like dirt by the Chinese for more than half a century. Seen any Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers?

Thought not.

Pointless argument. The tactic of suicide bombing using concealed vests was actually pioneered by a predominantly Hindu organisation; The Tamil Tigers. Ironically, many of their victims were Muslim.

SeanW

RedPlanet wrote: »

Why do some people presume Britian to be a Secular Democracy?
It's no such thing.
The Prime Minister makes appointments to the Church of England and Catholics are barred by law from holding certain positions.
That's NOT secularism.

It's a hell of a lot more secular than 90% of Middle Eastern, North African or Central Asian countries.

And I'd like to make sure our countries stay that way.

Like Sand, I have no problem with two disputing parties resolving those disagreements in whatever way they see fit - but I have a serious problem when religious law is recognised as valid civil law over select sections of the population, for the reasons that it supports continued ghetto-isation of various immigrant communities and sets a precedent for other countries as well.

It really is quite simple in my book - either you support the universal civil code of the country you live in, or go somewhere else.

Lemming

Passent.Habek wrote: »

Some extreme forms of Sharia do exist in countries such as Saudia Arabia but Saudi dors not represent the 1.8 billion people in the Islamic world.

Wahhabism, whilst by no means a representative entity of so many Muslims around the world, is unfortunately also the one being most aggressively expanded and also the one gaining all of the bad press for Islamic society as a whole on account of some fairly extreme views that it supports.

The revenues generated from oil has allowed Wahhabism be exported on a much more aggressive scale than might have happened otherwise. Many maddrassa & clerics around the globe are funded from Saudi wealth. In a sense, it has become the "new face" (if you will pardon the term) that is being presented to non-muslims by way of incidents carried in its name that find their way into the news.

With that in mind, one can see where some of the phobia towards Islam currently stems from and why people might feel need for concern.

FTA69

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

Thirdly, re being Islamophobic. Whats wrong with being Islamophobic?

Disliking people because of their religion generally isn't nice.

I happen to be pretty anti-religious in many ways (precisely because I am more interested in human rights than in divine ones), but I recognise that all religions are not equally bad. Of the mainstream ones, Islam is far and away the most regressive, conservative, hateful of women, and generally prone to outbursts of violent irrationality.

Really? Because Christianity and Catholicism especially simply love gays and were never trying to keep women chained to the kitchen sink... :rolleyes:

The Tibetans have been treated like dirt by the Chinese for more than half a century. Seen any Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers?

No. You just saw a peasantry having their backs broke to support some stupid auld fella claiming he was a reincarnation of another auld fella. Buddhism is b*llocks, along with all other religions.

RedPlanet

SeanW wrote: »

It's a hell of a lot more secular than 90% of Middle Eastern, North African or Central Asian countries.

What the hell does that have to do with the current discussion?
Aren't we talking about some Church of Englanders public comments about Britain's laws?

LordSutch

Time for Rowan Williams to step down (or be sacked) me thinks.

Playboy

ArthurF wrote: »

Time for Rowan Williams to step down (or be sacked) me thinks.

Why? Are people not allowed to speak their minds in a free society without having to resign or be sacked?

Dinter

Passent.Habek wrote: »

Grow up would you? Do you live in the UK? Do you know many muslim people? Do you know the first thing about Sharia law apart from the sensationalist crap you see on sky news and read in the Tabloids?

Being qualified,as you see it, to join in a debate is not a prerequisite to joining a debate especially on this website.

The whole point of making a sweeping statement here is that someone who is better informed will correct it and thus one can learn.

On topic, people go to civil arbitration regularly to seek redress. Whether or not that arbitration is taking place in an ashram or under a wickan standing stone it lessens the strain on the secular civil courts.

This is a move I would welcome.

irishconvert

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

There should only be one law for all people. Once Sharia law is introduced for civil matters a precedent will be set. Muslims will start demanding Sharia law in others areas. Then you'll have other religious groups demanding to be governed by their own retarded "holy book". The current secular system has served us well so far. I see no reason to entertain these stupid ideas.

Would you be against pre-nuptial agreements as well?

SeanW

Pre-nup agreements are backed by civil law, AFAIK. So no.

LaVidaLoca

"Quote:
Originally Posted by LaVidaLoca
Whats wrong with being Islamophobic?

Seriously? You don't think irrational fear and/or hatred of a large group of people is a bad thing?"

Who said anything about it being irrational? and who said anything about me hating people? I dont like Islam. At all. (Im not fond of Christianity either). That doesnt mean I hate the people that beleive in it.

I think it is hypocritical to be a liberal (as I am) and then pretend that you think Islam is a 'religion of peace', when it quite patently is not. Just because it's unkind to say this does not mean it isnt true. I dont like people who treat women badly, whatever culture or religion they come from.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaVidaLoca
I happen to be pretty anti-religious in many ways...

Big difference between being anti- something and having a phobia of something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaVidaLoca
Of the mainstream ones, Islam is far and away the most regressive, conservative, hateful of women, and generally prone to outbursts of violent irrationality.

Based on what exactly? Sky News?

Oh based on , um, reading, thinking, travelling and talking to people. everything. Saudi Arabia, Iran, the Taliban, The Janjaweed, Somalia, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Hamas, c'mon, you dont really need somebody to tell you this. There has been a colossal regression into medievalism in the Islamic World in the past 40 odd years. I dont think its for the good of anybody to simply deny it. Its a question of what are they/we going to do about it?

One of the major centres of world civilisation (a **** lot more advanced than us a few hundred years ago) has gone screaming headlong back into the dark ages. And people like you dont want to acknowledge this, cause it's impolite.

"Quote:
Originally Posted by LaVidaLoca
The Tibetans have been treated like dirt by the Chinese for more than half a century. Seen any Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers?

Thought not.

Pointless argument. The tactic of suicide bombing using concealed vests was actually pioneered by a predominantly Hindu organisation; The Tamil Tigers. Ironically, many of their victims were Muslim."

Yes Im aware of that.

However it illustrates the point that it is not merely poverty and oppression that turns people into suicide bombers is it? Otherwise the Tibetans would have been blowing themselves up daily.

We need to be unafraid to ask why the Islamic world is in the state it's in, not just pretending that all is A-OK.

irish_bob

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

"Quote:
Originally Posted by LaVidaLoca
Whats wrong with being Islamophobic?

Seriously? You don't think irrational fear and/or hatred of a large group of people is a bad thing?"

Who said anything about it being irrational? and who said anything about me hating people? I dont like Islam. At all. (Im not fond of Christianity either). That doesnt mean I hate the people that beleive in it.

I think it is hypocritical to be a liberal (as I am) and then pretend that you think Islam is a 'religion of peace', when it quite patently is not. Just because it's unkind to say this does not mean it isnt true. I dont like people who treat women badly, whatever culture or religion they come from.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaVidaLoca
I happen to be pretty anti-religious in many ways...

Big difference between being anti- something and having a phobia of something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaVidaLoca
Of the mainstream ones, Islam is far and away the most regressive, conservative, hateful of women, and generally prone to outbursts of violent irrationality.

Based on what exactly? Sky News?

Oh based on , um, reading, thinking, travelling and talking to people. everything. Saudi Arabia, Iran, the Taliban, The Janjaweed, Somalia, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Hamas, c'mon, you dont really need somebody to tell you this. There has been a colossal regression into medievalism in the Islamic World in the past 40 odd years. I dont think its for the good of anybody to simply deny it. Its a question of what are they/we going to do about it?

One of the major centres of world civilisation (a **** lot more advanced than us a few hundred years ago) has gone screaming headlong back into the dark ages. And people like you dont want to acknowledge this, cause it's impolite.

"Quote:
Originally Posted by LaVidaLoca
The Tibetans have been treated like dirt by the Chinese for more than half a century. Seen any Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers?

Thought not.

Pointless argument. The tactic of suicide bombing using concealed vests was actually pioneered by a predominantly Hindu organisation; The Tamil Tigers. Ironically, many of their victims were Muslim."

Yes Im aware of that.

However it illustrates the point that it is not merely poverty and oppression that turns people into suicide bombers is it? Otherwise the Tibetans would have been blowing themselves up daily.

We need to be unafraid to ask why the Islamic world is in the state it's in, not just pretending that all is A-OK.

islam and everything associated with it is a liberal sacred cow, therefore you wont get away with any kind of criticism towards it on the likes of BOARDS

its that simple really

djpbarry

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

Who said anything about it being irrational? and who said anything about me hating people?

I didn't say YOU did, but you asked what was wrong with Islamophobia, which is, by definition, the irrational fear and/or hatred of Muslims.

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

I think it is hypocritical to be a liberal (as I am) and then pretend that you think Islam is a 'religion of peace', when it quite patently is not.

With respect, your views do not appear to be terribly liberal.

I'm not sure what you mean "religion of peace"; it's a religion. And, just like Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. it's not going anywhere any time soon. With that in mind, I think tolerance is a much better policy than phobia.

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

I dont like people who treat women badly, whatever culture or religion they come from.

I don't like people who treat ANYONE badly, but this is hardly something that is either exclusive to Islamic cultures, or, something that is the norm in ALL Islamic cultures.

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

Saudi Arabia, Iran, the Taliban, The Janjaweed, Somalia, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Hamas, c'mon, you dont really need somebody to tell you this. There has been a colossal regression into medievalism in the Islamic World in the past 40 odd years.

There exist some medieval-style regimes in certain Islamic countries (such as Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia), yes. But that does not mean that ALL Muslims support these regimes.

You cannot tar every Islamic culture with the same brush. For example, there is a world of difference between Saudi Arabia and Turkey, or between Afghanistan and Indonesia.

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

One of the major centres of world civilisation (a **** lot more advanced than us a few hundred years ago) has gone screaming headlong back into the dark ages.

Iraq?

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

However it illustrates the point that it is not merely poverty and oppression that turns people into suicide bombers is it?

It's not just Islam either.

LaVidaLoca

others. But none are liberal in any sense that we would recognise.

"With respect, your views do not appear to be terribly liberal."

Why not? They're more liberal than saying that an ultra-conservative way of viewing the world is A-Ok.

Im am a classic left of centre liberal. I beleive in women's rights, gay rights, universal health care, social welfare, the equality of all human beings/ethnic groups before the law, Im suspicious of untrammled free-market capitalism, and religiously Im an atheist and very anti-church. I opposed the Iraq war and I hate George Bush. All your classic Guardian-reader stuff. I am a bearded lefty and proud of it.

It is precisely because of this that I dont think it's OK to watch the Islamic world dissappear into a retrogressive netherworld.

In the words of Hassaan Ali (the Somali Ex-muslim women who made the film "Submission" with the murdered Theo Van Gogh):

"To recognise that radical Islam is going to undermine the rule of law, especially for liberals it is very important, to stay far away from theories like multiculturalism that say that all cultures are alike, all religions are alike, because that leads to the creation of ethnic and religious enclaves and it's there that radical Islam thrives."

We have to understand that it is not "liberal" or "progressive" to say that everything is A-OK with Islam at the moment. Its not. And its not just a couple of loonies in caves in Afghanistan either.

I simply apply the same criteria to foreign cultures that I do to my own. I dont like Legion of Mary idiots in Ireland either, so Im not gonna start saying that kind of pious ****wittery is OK when its wearing different clothes and speaking a different language.

djpbarry

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

But none are liberal in any sense that we would recognise.

Well, that depends on what you define as a liberal culture. Some Muslim cultures are more conservative than others, in the same way that some Christian cultures are more conservative than others.

You, however, are comparing Muslim countries with "the West", which is not really a fair comparison, as most Muslim countries are in the developing world. Ireland may be more liberal than, say, Pakistan, but Ireland is also more liberal than India or China. Remember that Ireland was a far more conservative, religious country prior to the Celtic Tiger.

There are of course despotic regimes in Islamic countries, Saudi Arabia probably being the most infamous. But would the House of Saud be exerting the same control over the population without the income it receives from the West for its oil? Remember, we are all helping to keep that regime in power through our dependence on their oil.

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

They're more liberal than saying that an ultra-conservative way of viewing the world is A-Ok.

But only a minority of Muslims (or a minority of Christians) could be described as "ultra-conservative".

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

It is precisely because of this that I dont think it's OK to watch the Islamic world dissappear into a retrogressive netherworld.

There you go again - "The Islamic World". As if it was one large homogenous nation.

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

We have to understand that it is not "liberal" or "progressive" to say that everything is A-OK with Islam at the moment.

Neither is it correct to say that all Muslims and all Muslim countries are backward. How about we just judge people based on who they are and their own personal views, rather than judging them on what religion they happen to be?

If someone wants to be a Muslim or Christian or whatever, that's fine with me - it's none of my business really. If, however, that same person decides that homosexuals are evil and they become quite vocal about it, well that's a different story and I'm not going to want to spend too much time around that person, regardless of their religion.