Application of sharia law by country"

[oggbashan]

See, most of the time Ogg is a sensible kind of bloke. Then he goes and says something completely dumb like this. ^^^

Unfortunately the only R-winger here appears to be stupid.

 

[Aella_]

Why would he?

Because you're all so fucking weird. So emotionally involved and starting to get cut-throat whenever someone dares to criticize some of Islam's approach to women. (parts of the religion and Not the people).

And it's only dudes who are doing it. Unless you're secretly yearning for the good old patriarchial society .

I'm done. This is going nowwhere.


/////

 

[Sean]

Unfortunately the only R-winger here appears to be stupid.

Loth as I am to plot a curve from one point...

 

[anchoredinocean]

Because you're all so fucking weird. So emotionally involved and starting to get cut-throat whenever someone dares to criticize some of Islam's approach to women. (parts of the religion and Not the people).

And it's only dudes who are doing it. Unless you're secretly yearning for the good old patriarchial society .

I'm done. This is going nowwhere.


/////

Ahahahahahahaha.

If I had a hundredth of a cent for every time you've said that....

 

[Emerson40]

You are the one that needs help.

Is your understanding that limited?

My good man, you have stated the glaringly obvious, and then posed a rhetorical question, both of which is lost on the poster you are replying to.

This thread was created to garner more attention and stir-up shit, and has no bearing on the very informative replies and logic you provided in the original thread. You're a good sport for playing along, for as long as you did.

 

[Emerson40]

I'm done. This is going nowwhere.


/////

http://i.imgur.com/YYQmiUw.gif

 

[Liar]

Because you're all so fucking weird. So emotionally involved and starting to get cut-throat whenever someone dares to criticize some of Islam's approach to women. (parts of the religion and Not the people).

Yeah, that's not what's been happening here.

 

[Sanjeet]

You are the one that needs help.

Is your understanding that limited?

Damn, you know you are a dumb son of a bitch when Ogg questions your intelligence (Or so I have heard). This is what happens when 3rd world people start using 1st world technology (computers etal) My village was burned to the ground when we got our Apple II computer last week, everybody thought we were being invaded by lolcats.

Sanjeet

 

[Aella_]

Sharia courts in Britain are locking women into “marital captivity” and doing nothing to officially report domestic violence, according to an academic who gained unprecedented access to Islamic divorce hearings.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...to-marital-captivity-study-says-a6761141.html

"The findings will reignite the debate about the rise of sharia in the UK. Sharia courts – or councils as they are known – cannot overrule regular courts, but are responsible for issuing Islamic divorce certificates and giving advice on other aspects of religious law.

Men do not need to initiate divorce hearings, because under sharia they can assert a divorce verbally, without outside affirmation.

Most of the “informal tribunals” at sharia councils deal with Muslim women asking for a religious divorce.

Although sharia divorce courts are acknowledged as mediation and arbitration bodies under the 1996 Arbitration Act, Ms Zee claims they generally act for one party rather than solving disputes. The judges are “not a neutral third party” but are “always in favour of the man, and set out to frustrate women whose husbands do not want them to leave", she writes.

She says she was told of instances of children being awarded to the father, contrary to rules against custody judgments.

She was shocked by some of the cases she witnessed in London, where she claims women faced discriminatory treatment. She says she saw women who were shackled by their husbands’ debts being asked for “large sums of money” for their divorce requests ."

 

[phrodeau]

How's the fishing today?

 

[Emerson40]

It is clear that the thread starter struggles with reading comprehension and logic, and responds poorly to coherent replies.

Moving forward, in the compassionate spirit of helping s l o w Hashtag keep up with the pace, please consider using crayons, wee finger puppets, and simple diagrams when responding.

 

[Jennifer]

I think that one hour and fifty minutes is a record.

 

[Aella_]

Interesting to see the typical progressive tactics at work again: distort what the messenger was previously arguing about, attack and ridicule the messenger.

And regarding you Ogg. and Liar:
My initial post here might have been poorly worded and confusing for some - but not to you.You know damn well, from our previous discussion, what I was trying to get at.
You just sidetracked the matter and focused on a side thing, in order to make me look foolish and to to secure you another win. You're too competitive sometimes.

I think that one hour and fifty minutes is a record.

Are you nuts, Jennifer? Joining them in their attempt to attack and ridicule the messenger?
With an av. like yours, do you know what might happen if you marry one of those radical Islam practitioners that they're so kumbaia about ?

 

[Aella_]

I think that the entire "Sharia business" (or whatever one might call it) that's happening in England and Germany shouldn't be allowed to happen in a Western country.

Among so many arguments, at least for the mere fact that it might set up a precedent and backfire in the future. Given that certain disturbing mentalities and practices still exist in a few muslim countries where sharia law still plays a role in the judicial system.


This documentary (from a reputable source) speaks for itself. Two and a half years olf indeed, but the issues are ongoing :

Secrets Of Britain's Sharia Councils BBC Documentary
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-7TjzSSZUvg

 

[Aella_]

Double post.

 

[digitalia]

Back in the 1950s many women wore headscarves. They didn't frighten us.

A hijab is a piece of cloth. Why should a piece of cloth frighten you?

It's too bad you're not really interested in expounding on your asininely amateur relativity here, else you could share with the thread how many millions of women are literally threatened with dire physical harm and prosecution if they don't wear what you're trying to pimp as just an innocent "piece of cloth", the hijab.

Go ahead: tell us how many Muslim women are truly frightened to figurative death to not wear the hijab like they're tyrannically commanded to.

 

[Aella_]

Why are some of you GB libs. such hard cases and are so quick to villify or 'stupify' anyone who dares to challenge your kumbaya rethoric of Islam?

We' re not talking about villifying any of those who practice it in a discerning manner, or about trying to eliminate Islam. Far from it.

But Islam used to view women as being lesser than men .
- So did other religions in the past, but Christianity Has undergone a more successful process of reform when it comes to important matters.
- On the other hand: Even if some muslim countries have undergone the process of reform, there still are muslim countries Now, in the 21st century, who still practice some of it's archaic misogynistic elements.
Unfortunately, the latter's view can be easily accessed or promoted online, and that radical mentality still persists in a % of the muslim economical migrants to Europe. Which explains the need for a more cautious approach with regards to certain matters.

When it comes to the existing occasional clash between multiculturalism and feminism (m. women's rights) in Europe, it seems to me as if you guys go for an "either or" scenario and choose the first. Even if it means turning a semi-blind eye to the latter.
But why not try to balance both?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

And Church of England Ecclesiastical Courts as well. So what is new and different about the voluntary Sharia mediation?

I know… But it's like an OCD thing, it's still on my mind. I didn't like seeing that map.
I was hoping that AJ or someone who's more on a par with you in terms of knowledge in these matters, would be more able to support the 'cause'.

It is part and parcel with the proclivity to not want to assimilate into the new culture that has welcomed them in with open arms in order to prove how open, tolerant and worldly they are. Yes, it is true that Sharia never trumps the laws of the nation that has taken in the Islamic horde for whatever reason, but the truth is that they simply ignore local law, more and custom establishing small enclaves of their home culture pretty much granting themselves autonomous control of the territory they have occupied. While you are in the majority, it is easy to dismiss any warnings and ignore the signs, but the truth is as the West has gained in affluence and immersed itself into the Socialist cult of selflessness, they have stopped producing children whereas Islam has not. Islam is also, as Christianity used to be, very adept and gaining converts from the dumb masses (say those two words really fast) with hands out for handouts who find it very easy, and convenient to blame their own culture for their short-comings.

In short, the libs have a great point. All of this talk about the danger of Islam is nothing but fear mongering because it hasn't happened yet...



... of course, the Jews felt very smug and confident in Germany in 1938 knowing that the NAZIs were just employing the red-meat rhetoric that kept their base fired up and politically active.

It's in the writings and the life of he who cannot be depicted.

When weak, be nice, loving and tolerant.
When you get a little stronger, start asking for special privileges.
When you get them and are a little more numerous, demand them and threaten violence.
Once you are in the majority, everyone else must convert, submit, pay a tax and be invisible, or simply be killed.

How hard can it be for people to not get Islam? Take the Jews of Medina, in Saudi Arabia, for example, first they sheltered he who can not be depicted, and now they can't even board a Delta flight...
A_J, the Atheist




And now, a new workday commences.

 

[oggbashan]

It's too bad you're not really interested in expounding on your asininely amateur relativity here, else you could share with the thread how many millions of women are literally threatened with dire physical harm and prosecution if they don't wear what you're trying to pimp as just an innocent "piece of cloth", the hijab.

Go ahead: tell us how many Muslim women are truly frightened to figurative death to not wear the hijab like they're tyrannically commanded to.

What the OP TWICE suggested was that the Daesh version of Sharia exists in whole countries across Europe. You are not addressing that issue

Of course Muslim and other women in the UK can be threatened by patriachical customs that are a survival from their original countries. That's why I suggested that women should NOT agree to use a Sharia court for mediation.

In the UK women have rights that they do not have in Saudi Arabia, or rural Pakistan, or parts of Africe. The problem is that some communities in the UK are reluctant to recognise that their women HAVE those rights.

Wearing a hijab in the UK is a matter of a woman's choice. She can wear it if she considers that it is a sign of her religion. If she is FORCED to wear it, that would be a breach of UK law.

In countries outside Europe, wearing a distinctive form of head covering can be enforced by law, or by religious police, or by a patriarchical society. But those practices are illegal in the UK.

But you and the OP don't want to know that. It doesn't fit your prejudices.

 

[Aella_]

Many thanks, AJ.

As I said both here and in the Political thread, my knowledge in such matters is limitted. So I started the thread with the hopes that I might read some interesting opinions from several points of view.

The other thread started well but ended just the way this thread was : a unilateral point of view and bashing the messenger (me).

Of course it's easy and one looks clever when mocking someone who has (and admits to having, as I did) limitted knowledge in such matters.
But it's riskier to spar with people like you and Ish and so on who are more educated in matters of religion and civic law.


((N.B.
I'm not trying to split the board. But as an immigrant from Europe who hasn't been home in ages, this interests me . Plus one can't approach these matters in an honest way in real life, because they're very charged, or people might take you the wrong way . Safer to do it anonymously, online, than in real life.))

 

[Aella_]

EDIT.

In a # line now: This thread produced some interesting points of view and was very informative so far.
I hope that more posters might engage in a debate. (Thanks to those who took time to contribute)

 

[anchoredinocean]

like you and Ish and so on who are more educated in matters of religion and civic law.

Bahahaha!

This is my favorite April Fools post of all time.

 

[Aella_]

Bahahaha!

This is my favorite April Fools post of all time.

Oh boy…

Let's see how You contribute, then.

 

[oggbashan]

Why are some of you GB libs. such hard cases and are so quick to villify or 'stupify' anyone who dares to challenge your kumbaya rethoric of Islam?

We' re not talking about villifying any of those who practice it in a discerning manner, or about trying to eliminate Islam. Far from it.

But Islam used to view women as being lesser than men .
- So did other religions in the past, but Christianity Has undergone a more successful process of reform when it comes to important matters.
- On the other hand: Even if some muslim countries have undergone the process of reform, there still are muslim countries Now, in the 21st century, who still practice some of it's archaic misogynistic elements.
Unfortunately, the latter's view can be easily accessed or promoted online, and that radical mentality still persists in a % of the muslim economical migrants to Europe. Which explains the need for a more cautious approach with regards to certain matters.

When it comes to the existing occasional clash between multiculturalism and feminism (m. women's rights) in Europe, it seems to me as if you guys go for an "either or" scenario and choose the first. Even if it means turning a semi-blind eye to the latter.
But why not try to balance both?

Wrong, again. Women's rights are national and European Law. Multiculturalism is NOT. There is no balance.

The law of the land trumps multiculturalism every time.

I'm not discussing the Kumbaya version of Islam. I am well aware of the horrors and evil of Sharia propagated by Daesh, Boko Haram and Al-Queda.

But you have repeatedly stated that the evil form of Sharia is taking over in Europe. It isn't even though a few nutcases among Muslims think it should.

Those who advocate it are the people who would suffer first if it was applied because many are young men who like drugs, sex and alcohol. Look at the police records of European suicide bombers - petty criminals and drug users. Under the medieval form of Sharia they would lose a hand for being thieves and their head for their other offences. BUT if they become a martyr for the Daesh cause, THEY ARE TOLD that all their sins are wiped out and they become heroes in heaven, rated above pious Muslims who led honest lives helping others. It's nonsense, as much nonsense as the virgins waiting for them.

You started the abuse. You asked for information. I gave it. You didn't like the answers you got so started another thread asking for confirmation of your biased views.

That makes you stupid. Live with it.

 

[anchoredinocean]

Oh boy…

Let's see how You contribute, then.

Why would I contribute when someone already stated the obvious?

You didn't like the answers you got so started another thread asking for confirmation of your biased views.

I can't believe I've gone this far in actually engaging you and am actually going to go a little further.....

I don't agree with Ogg just because he fits my political views. Take for instance Colonel Hogan. We are on opposite sides of the political aisle and I don't always agree with him, but when he debates someone on something, he doesn't engage in posting links to biased sites, nor does he try to be a cute type of smart like ole AJ does. He's also proven quite a few times that Ish isn't the legal mind he likes to think he is.

AJ thinks that saying a priori and a posteriori continually makes him look smart, as does his labeling people as Kantian blah blah blah. Any idiot who has taken a basic philosophy course could use the same words and spout the same bullshit without being able to back it up.

And let's be honest, you're an alt, and you chose your sides from the start, so your bias is in full swing.

P.S. Sean, I've been trying to think of the right wing guy of old that used to post here and you've brought up time and time again how you wish he still posted. I can't think of his name right now for the life of me.