# Islamic law adopted in Britain



## AllieBaba

Revealed: UK&rsquo;s first official sharia courts - Times Online

"The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence."

This should prove interesting.


----------



## dilloduck

AllieBaba said:


> Revealed: UK&rsquo;s first official sharia courts - Times Online
> 
> "The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence."
> 
> This should prove interesting.



oh goody---I hope Mikey likes it !


----------



## MIRCS

AllieBaba said:


> "The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence."
> 
> This should prove interesting.




The power of liberalism..........I mean socialism


----------



## AllieBaba

Inbreeding and anemia have finally taken their toll on the Brits.


----------



## Diuretic

It seems to me that what the Brits have done is to allow Sharia courts to be arbiters in disputes between Muslims.  Sharia isn't privileged above secular English law.  And I would think that any decision by these tribunals wouldn't be able to breach English secular law.  

Are you aware that in Britain Jews have recourse to their own courts for religious and cultural matters?  The Beth Din can only be resorted to if all parties in a dispute or a matter are Jews.  The Beth Din also operate as an arbitrator in disputes between Jews, much like the Sharia tribunals mentioned in this story.  

And I reckon there's nothing at all wrong with allowing Muslims and Jews to have recourse to their own religious arbitrators.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Diuretic said:


> It seems to me that what the Brits have done is to allow Sharia courts to be arbiters in disputes between Muslims.  Sharia isn't privileged above secular English law.  And I would think that any decision by these tribunals wouldn't be able to breach English secular law.
> 
> Are you aware that in Britain Jews have recourse to their own courts for religious and cultural matters?  The Beth Din can only be resorted to if all parties in a dispute or a matter are Jews.  The Beth Din also operate as an arbitrator in disputes between Jews, much like the Sharia tribunals mentioned in this story.
> 
> And I reckon there's nothing at all wrong with allowing Muslims and Jews to have recourse to their own religious arbitrators.



we'll see what happens when sharia practices fall outside British law. you know stoning, marrying off a daughter without her consent,etc.


----------



## Diuretic

Skull Pilot said:


> we'll see what happens when sharia practices fall outside British law. you know stoning, marrying off a daughter without her consent,etc.



I agree, that would be the test.  But there have been prosecutions already for crimes committed against English law by people claiming to be following ethnic customs or religious dictates and they have introduced to the concept of "here's your cell, we'll tell you when you can be let out for some exercise and for meals".  And that's how it should be.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Yup, of course Jews have been demanding that according to their religion Government must be religious right? This is foolish in the extreme. it tells Muslims one thing, that the west is weak. 

It encourages them to push for more and it tells them they will get what they want. But you spin it anyway you want. Remind us again how Christian religion is bad but Muslims should have their own laws.


----------



## Diuretic

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yup, of course Jews have been demanding that according to their religion Government must be religious right? This is foolish in the extreme. it tells Muslims one thing, that the west is weak.
> 
> It encourages them to push for more and it tells them they will get what they want. But you spin it anyway you want. Remind us again how Christian religion is bad but Muslims should have their own laws.



No Rock.  Jews haven't been doing that in Britain.  The Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, is a very influential person in Britain.  He is influential by dint of his intellect and his ability to explain to Britons just exactly what Judaism in Britain is about and how British Jews relate to British society.  I listened to some of his lectures on radio a couple of years ago and I was extremely impressed with his knowledge and his humanity.  He is a man to be admired.

Jews quietly negotiated the Beth Din.  And guess what?  Britain ticked along nicely as the Beth Din was organised.  In London there are large areas of the city that are acknowledged as Jewish communities and have been for many, many years, Jews have conducted their affairs with one another and with the larger community with nary a spark of concern (except where Jews were victimised of course).  These are peaceful communities.  The differences within the Jewish community stayed within the Jewish community and were sorted out there.  The Beth Din at least gave some sort of authority to agreements hammered out by disputants.  Halakah applies to Jews, it doesn't apply to gentiles.  

Same thing for this quiet shift to using Sharia arbitration panels.  It's for Muslims only, it doesn't affect non-Muslims.  It's a simple accommodation of the wishes of the Muslim community and it doesn't, nor does Halakah, conflict with the secular laws of the country.

And Christians in England have had for hundreds of years their own law - Canon Law.  Only recently in legal history has it been subsumed to secular law.  But it is still a powerful part of English law albeit restricted somewhat.  It drives the Church of England and secular law won't interfere with it unless secular law is broken.  Just like Halakah and Sharia.

Why do you think English judges wear those coloured robes Rock?  They harken back to the time when the courts of England were run by the clergy.  Yes, once upon a time English common law courts were run by clergy-judges.  It took a long time for the secular law to rip authority away from the clergy but they did it.  I don't think the Brits will return to that mediaeval circumstance any time soon.


----------



## jla1178

Jews have always been more inclined to try and blend in to the local culture whereas Muslims consider all things nonIslamic sinful.


----------



## WillowTree

this sends women back a thousand years in Britain. They are no better off now than when they lived in the Holy Land. Talks about a stacked judge and jury.


----------



## Diuretic

jla1178 said:


> Jews have always been more inclined to try and blend in to the local culture whereas Muslims consider all things nonIslamic sinful.



Well Jews weren't that successful in England it seems. They were all thrown out at one time, not sure of name of the King who did it but I think it was about 12th or 13th century.  The lore is that Jews came over with Guillaume when he invaded in 1066 but there's some evidence of Jews being in Britain before the Norman invasion.  They were very influential.  In the City of London (the old Roman city, the square mile that is the financial hub) there is an are called Old Jewry that used to the the Jewish ghetto before the major expulsion.  That area is actually the headquarters of the City of London Police (not to be confused with the Metropolitan Police).

Yes, it seems that Jews are more inclined to blend in (as much as anti-Judaism will allow of course) and that has a lot to do with the Jewish teachings I believe (I'm not Jewish nor am I tutored in Jewish culture).  That's probably about survival though.  In Christian countries it seems historically Jews have been reviled and tolerated in a sort of swirling set of policies (remember Shakespeare's adaptation of earlier idea in his "_Shylock:The Merchant of Venice_" and the shifting into everyday English of the idea of a "shylock" being someone you need to be wary of in a busines deal).

But there is absolutely no indication that this recognition of Sharia to help sort out internal disputes in the Muslim communities in Britain is going to spread to the non-Muslim community. I think that's scare-mongering.


----------



## Diuretic

WillowTree said:


> this sends women back a thousand years in Britain. They are no better off now than when they lived in the Holy Land. Talks about a stacked judge and jury.



It doesn't transcend secular law.


----------



## 007

Diuretic said:


> It seems to me that what the Brits have done is to allow Sharia courts to be arbiters in disputes between Muslims.  *Sharia isn't privileged above secular English law. * And I would think that any decision by these tribunals wouldn't be able to breach English secular law.
> 
> Are you aware that in Britain Jews have recourse to their own courts for religious and cultural matters?  The Beth Din can only be resorted to if all parties in a dispute or a matter are Jews.  The Beth Din also operate as an arbitrator in disputes between Jews, much like the Sharia tribunals mentioned in this story.
> 
> And I reckon there's nothing at all wrong with allowing Muslims and Jews to have recourse to their own religious arbitrators.



Yeah well... we'll see how long that lasts. The muslims are taking over the UK, plain and simple. They're just taking little bites at a time.


----------



## WillowTree

Diuretic said:


> It doesn't transcend secular law.






tiny steps, tiny steps, it's just a matter of time.


----------



## Diuretic

That assumes that the British legislature is completely stupid.  This decision gives the lie to that assumption.  In allowing Sharia in arbitration tribunals similar to the Jewish use of arbitration tribunals in Beth Din it's giving the Muslim community a model.  Beth Din has worked for years and worked very successfully.  Yes, mainly Orthodox Jews have resorted to it for disputation settlement but it's been a success.  It's admirable.  There's the model.  Beth Din works.  So, come on you Muslim folks, there's a model you can follow that works well.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Diuretic said:


> That assumes that the British legislature is completely stupid.  This decision gives the lie to that assumption.  In allowing Sharia in arbitration tribunals similar to the Jewish use of arbitration tribunals in Beth Din it's giving the Muslim community a model.  Beth Din has worked for years and worked very successfully.  Yes, mainly Orthodox Jews have resorted to it for disputation settlement but it's been a success.  It's admirable.  There's the model.  Beth Din works.  So, come on you Muslim folks, there's a model you can follow that works well.



So when a Muslim woman wants a divorce she has to go before a Muslim tribunal? When her husband beats her, steals her property and treats her like a slave, she must resort to a Muslim Tribunal? Yup sure sounds like enlightenment to me.


----------



## MichaelCollins

Let me explain something to retarded jesus freak americans.

The UK...and every other European country...laugh at ALL religions.

Islam, christianity, Hinduism... they are all exactly the same.

If anyone in public office admits to being religious...they are laughed out of town.

It is alot more embarassing than admitting to being a transvestite.

So there is ZERO chance of islam or any other religion ever taking any power in the UK//

Do you understand that jesus freak americans?


----------



## WillowTree

MichaelCollins said:


> Let me explain something to retarded jesus freak americans.
> 
> The UK...and every other European country...laugh at ALL religions.
> 
> Islam, christianity, Hinduism... they are all exactly the same.
> 
> If anyone in public office admits to being religious...they are laughed out of town.
> 
> It is alot more embarassing than admitting to being a transvestite.
> 
> So there is ZERO chance of islam or any other religion ever taking any power in the UK//
> 
> Do you understand that jesus freak americans?






Just shows what dumbass bigots you are growing over there!! Ahhh sweet tolerance!


----------



## Ravi

MichaelCollins said:


> Let me explain something to retarded jesus freak americans.
> 
> The UK...and every other European country...laugh at ALL religions.
> 
> Islam, christianity, Hinduism... they are all exactly the same.
> 
> If anyone in public office admits to being religious...they are laughed out of town.
> 
> It is alot more embarassing than admitting to being a transvestite.
> 
> So there is ZERO chance of islam or any other religion ever taking any power in the UK//
> 
> Do you understand that jesus freak americans?


Listen, RGS might be a complete and utter moron, but there's no call to talk to him like that. Why don't you quit harassing Americans and work on your own country's faults?


----------



## Diuretic

RetiredGySgt said:


> So when a Muslim woman wants a divorce she has to go before a Muslim tribunal? When her husband beats her, steals her property and treats her like a slave, she must resort to a Muslim Tribunal? Yup sure sounds like enlightenment to me.



No.


----------



## jillian

RetiredGySgt said:


> So when a Muslim woman wants a divorce she has to go before a Muslim tribunal? When her husband beats her, steals her property and treats her like a slave, she must resort to a Muslim Tribunal? Yup sure sounds like enlightenment to me.



Ummmmm... no moreso than when a Catholic goes to his/her church for a religious divorce or a Jew goes to a Beit Din... 

I'm not quite sure why the hysteria over this. Religious people of many stripes go to the state for civil remedies but to their religious tribunals for relief that will be recognized by their religion. A case dealing with the issue of how far those religious tribunals can go was actually just decided by the NYS Court of Appeals.


----------



## 007

MichaelCollins said:


> Let me explain something to retarded jesus freak americans.
> 
> The UK...and every other European country...laugh at ALL religions.
> 
> Islam, christianity, Hinduism... they are all exactly the same.
> 
> If anyone in public office admits to being religious...they are laughed out of town.
> 
> It is alot more embarassing than admitting to being a transvestite.
> 
> *So there is ZERO chance of islam or any other religion ever taking any power in the UK//*
> 
> Do you understand that jesus freak americans?



On top of being a total fucking jerk off, YOU are a LIAR.

Heeeeeerrree's your picture...


----------



## ErikViking

Article said:
			
		

> Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.



*I* don't like this. A good society, I think, should be very keen on protecting its weakest members. There is a clear risk that this kind of legislation makes it impossible for some people to get a fair treatment.

One law, equal to everyone - that feels better to me. Muslim, Jew or Christian should be of no importance. and a person shouldn't be even able to decline the protection from the justice system. 

But hey, then again I'm a socialist dog!


----------



## roomy

There is as much chance of Muslims taking over Britain as there is America having a Black President


----------



## Bootneck

Come now people! This story is typical British media hype and sensationalism. It is entirely misleading! 

Firstly, these so called courts have existed for some time in one form or another. They exist in most muslim communities. They always have and they always will. In effect, they are not really courts as we know them. They are courts of arbitration, essentially assemblies of community leaders whose prime concern is Muslim propriety rather than criminal law.

The 'courts' can only deal with arbitration to do with family matters such as family disputes, disputes on debt, inheritance disputes, mosque disputes. *They have no jurisdiction to deal with criminal offences*. 

Secondly, It is entirely misleading to say that these courts have suddenly been given the force of law. The UK Arbitration Act of 1996 permits disputes to be resolved using alternatives to courts of law such as tribunals. This is a method known as 'alternative dispute resolution'. Under the Act, the rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, *provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case*. The rulings of the sharia courts, have been enforceable through the law courts since this Act was introduced in 1996, *as is dispute resolution for ALL*. It is only now that muslims realised they could also benefit from it.

There is nothing sinister or threatening here. It is a storm in a teacup being brewed up by a less than honest media.

For those who want to know more:

Muslim Arbitration Tribunal


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

retiredgysgt said:


> yup, Of Course Jews Have Been Demanding That According To Their Religion Government Must Be Religious Right? This Is Foolish In The Extreme. It Tells Muslims One Thing, That The West Is Weak.
> 
> It Encourages Them To Push For More And It Tells Them They Will Get What They Want. But You Spin It Anyway You Want. Remind Us Again How Christian Religion Is Bad But Muslims Should Have Their Own Laws.



Bingo!


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Bootneck said:


> Come now people! This story is typical British media hype and sensationalism. It is entirely misleading!
> 
> Firstly, these so called courts have existed for some time in one form or another. They exist in most muslim communities. They always have and they always will. In effect, they are not really courts as we know them. They are courts of arbitration, essentially assemblies of community leaders whose prime concern is Muslim propriety rather than criminal law.
> 
> The 'courts' can only deal with arbitration to do with family matters such as family disputes, disputes on debt, inheritance disputes, mosque disputes. *They have no jurisdiction to deal with criminal offences*.
> 
> Secondly, It is entirely misleading to say that these courts have suddenly been given the force of law. The UK Arbitration Act of 1996 permits disputes to be resolved using alternatives to courts of law such as tribunals. This is a method known as 'alternative dispute resolution'. Under the Act, the rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, *provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case*. The rulings of the sharia courts, have been enforceable through the law courts since this Act was introduced in 1996, *as is dispute resolution for ALL*. It is only now that muslims realised they could also benefit from it.
> 
> There is nothing sinister or threatening here. It is a storm in a teacup being brewed up by a less than honest media.
> 
> For those who want to know more:
> 
> Muslim Arbitration Tribunal




Yeah... Clearly this is _no big deal_.  Just as it was no big deal when British Law oulawed the right of the individual subject to defend themselves...  "PEACE IN OUR TIME!"  (Translated from PC -hink this simply means: "We don't want no trouble.  Let the Government and the Social Scientists worry about it, _they know best."_


----------



## plt42

MichaelCollins said:


> Let me explain something to retarded jesus freak americans.
> 
> The UK...and every other European country...laugh at ALL religions.
> 
> Islam, christianity, Hinduism... they are all exactly the same.
> 
> If anyone in public office admits to being religious...they are laughed out of town.
> 
> It is alot more embarassing than admitting to being a transvestite.
> 
> So there is ZERO chance of islam or any other religion ever taking any power in the UK//
> 
> Do you understand that jesus freak americans?



Mikey... I'd like to recommend two books that might help your credibility here.

1) How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie
2) The Art of the Deal by Donald J. Trump

You do read, don't you?


----------



## WillowTree

PubliusInfinitu said:


> Yeah... Clearly this is _no big deal_.  Just as it was no big deal when British Law oulawed the right of the individual subject to defend themselves...  "PEACE IN OUR TIME!"  (Translated from PC -hink this simply means: "We don't want no trouble.  Let the Government and the Social Scientists worry about it, _they know best."_





exactly, make one wonder why, if British law was a just law fair and equitable, there is a need for a seperate law at all. Says the people immigrating to British soil do not want to assimilate. And, for sure, given and inch they will want a mile and it shall be done. Just like the Brits don't teach the holocaust anymore, or the crusades. Why is that?


----------



## MichaelCollins

WillowTree said:


> exactly, make one wonder why, if British law was a just law fair and equitable, there is a need for a seperate law at all. Says the people immigrating to British soil do not want to assimilate. And, for sure, given and inch they will want a mile and it shall be done. Just like the Brits don't teach the holocaust anymore, or the crusades. Why is that?



Is there any other response...but pity?

Hardly surprising ..that BUSHTEAM thought they could control the minds of these peasants with fear and hatred ...

You just couldnt make this gullibility up.


----------



## Shogun

regarding British law, well, I dont have a dog in that race.


But I would vehemently opposed anything like this applied to the US.


----------



## WillowTree

Shogun said:


> regarding British law, well, I dont have a dog in that race.
> 
> 
> But I would vehemently opposed anything like this applied to the US.



What do you know? You are a religious American Jesus freak.


michael collins says so...


----------



## Shogun

WillowTree said:


> What do you know? You are a religious American Jesus freak.
> 
> 
> michael collins says so...




not at all.  Im just even handed in my refusal to allow any form of dogma junkie bullshit into my government.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

ErikViking said:


> *I* don't like this. A good society, I think, should be very keen on protecting its weakest members. There is a clear risk that this kind of legislation makes it impossible for some people to get a fair treatment.
> 
> One law, equal to everyone - that feels better to me. Muslim, Jew or Christian should be of no importance. and a person shouldn't be even able to decline the protection from the justice system.
> 
> But hey, then again I'm a socialist dog!



You have to understand that the British population is now a stark majority of Secular Humanist PC morons...

Now "Cultural Diversity" is a mainstay tenet of Political Correctness...  It's been preached from the High Pulpit of Secular Humanism for decades and is largely responsible for the decline of western civilization.  It foists upon a given culture the absurdity that all cultures are equal... as a result of this, the long time immigration tradition of assimilation has been set aside.  Immigrants into various cultures no longer seek to assimilate into the host culture, maintaining their native language, traditions and practices.

Britain is now rife with Muslims... Muslims are, in just the last 7 years demanding exponentially more rights and priviledges specific to their faith... and as the idiot Michael Collins points out, while Britains are moving away from a faith based population and as the British birth rate falls, the birth rates of Muslims is increasing and Muslims in the UK are taking more and more rights and priviledges.  Britains are now looking at a very politically mobile segment of their culture coming to power; it will not be long before we see Muslims coming to the British Legislature, where at some point they will find themselves with a majority of votes...  These are highly devout believers, who are very patient and willing to sacrifice to accomplish long term goals and when they have accumulated power; I_slam will become the law of the  land_ the UK and the common Brit will be powerless to do a damn thing about it.  

Let us not forget that British subjects are disarmed.  In a few years the right to self defense will have gone without government protections in the UK for three generations...  and those secularist who find themselves facing Sharia Law will be helpless but to convert to Islam or accept their execution for denying the existance of God...

Frankly, I find it hard to wish against; as they will have brought it upon themselves, in the face of more than sufficient evidence to warn a reasonably intelligent person.


----------



## WillowTree

Shogun said:


> not at all.  Im just even handed in my refusal to allow any form of dogma junkie bullshit into my government.





I said that tongue in cheek. But I applaud you. And totally agree with you. You see people like MC have to scream obscenities at Americans. They have lost what we have. They have lost their country.


----------



## Bootneck

WillowTree said:


> exactly, make one wonder why, if British law was a just law fair and equitable, there is a need for a seperate law at all. Says the people immigrating to British soil do not want to assimilate. And, for sure, given and inch they will want a mile and it shall be done.



If you don't know what you're talking about, it's better to keep your mouth shut and appear foolish, rather than opening it and proving it beyond doubt!

Read my frigging post again!!! Then perhaps it may dawn on you that there is no law specifically for muslims. They are making use of a clause in the Arbitration Act, made law in 1996, that allows *ANYONE* of *ANY RACE, COLOUR or RELIGION* to set up an arbitration tribunal to rule on family disputes. The rulings of which are enforceable in a legal court.



> Just like the Brits don't teach the holocaust anymore, or the crusades. Why is that?



It's compulsory under the national curriculum, ignoramus!!!:

_The Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (Ed Balls): More than 1,500 students have now had the opportunity to visit the concentration camps at Auschwitz-Birkenau as a result of the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust and to build on the learning that they have received through the national curriculum about the horrors of the holocaust and the lessons that we should learn from it. I can announce today that we will allocate £4.65 million for the next three years to ensure that that work can continue. I can also reassure my hon. Friend that a proper evaluation of the funding on those trips, as well as of their impact on young peoples citizenship and their understanding of the world, will be built into the HETs work as part of that three-year funding._

House of Commons Hansard Debates for 04 Feb 2008 (pt 0002)


If you want to take a pop at my country MAKE SURE YOU HAVE YOUR FUCKING facts right!!!!!!!


----------



## Bootneck

PubliusInfinitu said:


> You have to understand that the British population is now a stark majority of Secular Humanist PC morons...
> 
> Now "Cultural Diversity" is a mainstay tenet of Political Correctness...  It's been preached from the High Pulpit of Secular Humanism for decades and is largely responsible for the decline of western civilization.  It foists upon a given culture the absurdity that all cultures are equal... as a result of this, the long time immigration tradition of assimilation has been set aside.  Immigrants into various cultures no longer seek to assimilate into the host culture, maintaining their native language, traditions and practices.
> 
> Britain is now rife with Muslims... Muslims are, in just the last 7 years demanding exponentially more rights and priviledges specific to their faith... and as the idiot Michael Collins points out, while Britains are moving away from a faith based population and as the British birth rate falls, the birth rates of Muslims is increasing and Muslims in the UK are taking more and more rights and priviledges.  Britains are now looking at a very politically mobile segment of their culture coming to power; it will not be long before we see Muslims coming to the British Legislature, where at some point they will find themselves with a majority of votes...  These are highly devout believers, who are very patient and willing to sacrifice to accomplish long term goals and when they have accumulated power; I_slam will become the law of the  land_ the UK and the common Brit will be powerless to do a damn thing about it.
> 
> Let us not forget that British subjects are disarmed.  In a few years the right to self defense will have gone without government protections in the UK for three generations...  and those secularist who find themselves facing Sharia Law will be helpless but to convert to Islam or accept their execution for denying the existance of God...
> 
> Frankly, I find it hard to wish against; as they will have brought it upon themselves, in the face of more than sufficient evidence to warn a reasonably intelligent person.



 Welcome to the US version of Michael Collins


----------



## WillowTree

Bootneck said:


> If you don't know what you're talking about, it's better to keep your mouth shut and appear foolish, rather than opening it and proving it beyond doubt!
> 
> Read my frigging post again!!! Then perhaps it may dawn on you that there is no law specifically for muslims. They are making use of a clause in the Arbitration Act, made law in 1996, that allows *ANYONE* of *ANY RACE, COLOUR or RELIGION* to set up an arbitration tribunal to rule on family disputes. The rulings of which are enforceable in a legal court.
> 
> 
> 
> It's compulsory under the national curriculum, ignoramus!!!:
> 
> _The Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (Ed Balls): More than 1,500 students have now had the opportunity to visit the concentration camps at Auschwitz-Birkenau as a result of the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust and to build on the learning that they have received through the national curriculum about the horrors of the holocaust and the lessons that we should learn from it. I can announce today that we will allocate £4.65 million for the next three years to ensure that that work can continue. I can also reassure my hon. Friend that a proper evaluation of the funding on those trips, as well as of their impact on young peoples citizenship and their understanding of the world, will be built into the HETs work as part of that three-year funding._
> 
> House of Commons Hansard Debates for 04 Feb 2008 (pt 0002)
> 
> 
> If you want to take a pop at my country MAKE SURE YOU HAVE YOUR FUCKING facts right!!!!!!!






call me foolish, but why do you need a seperate arbitration for Muslims???? English law not fair and equitable??????


----------



## WillowTree

If you want to take a pop at my country MAKE SURE YOU HAVE YOUR FUCKING facts right!!!!!!!





Hee heee, kinda like you guys popping off about the USA.


----------



## JimH52

> Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.



Doesn't this say that BOTH parites have to agree to give it the power to rule?  So the parties have a choice.

If one party does not agree, the case goes to the British court system.


----------



## Bootneck

WillowTree said:


> If you want to take a pop at my country MAKE SURE YOU HAVE YOUR FUCKING facts right!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hee heee, kinda like you guys popping off about the USA.



Find ONE post of mine that has a go at the usa. I don't come her to do that!!!!

Furthermore, Collins isn't British!!!!

You really are proving to be rather more dense than I gave you credit for.


----------



## JimH52

jillian said:


> Ummmmm... no moreso than when a Catholic goes to his/her church for a religious divorce or a Jew goes to a Beit Din...
> 
> I'm not quite sure why the hysteria over this. Religious people of many stripes go to the state for civil remedies but to their religious tribunals for relief that will be recognized by their religion. A case dealing with the issue of how far those religious tribunals can go was actually just decided by the NYS Court of Appeals.



This is a good point.  I just don't see what the hysteria.  No one *HAS TO* go to this religious tribunal.  The British courts are always an option.


----------



## Bootneck

WillowTree said:


> call me foolish, but why do you need a seperate arbitration for Muslims???? English law not fair and equitable??????



READ MY LIPS! it is not a law that provides seperate arbitration just for muslims. If you haven't got it yet, you never will.


----------



## Bootneck

JimH52 said:


> Doesn't this say that BOTH parites have to agree to give it the power to rule?  So the parties have a choice.
> 
> If one party does not agree, the case goes to the British court system.



Exactly! Both parties have to be in agreement to accept a ruling from the court of arbitration. Except that it doesn't necessarily have to go to the law courts, since the matters dealt with are not criminal cases. They may just agree to disagree, so to speak. But yes, one or the other of the parties in dispute could take it to a civil court. Then it could cost big money.


----------



## AllieBaba

MichaelCollins said:


> Let me explain something to retarded jesus freak americans.
> 
> The UK...and every other European country...laugh at ALL religions.
> 
> Islam, christianity, Hinduism... they are all exactly the same.
> 
> If anyone in public office admits to being religious...they are laughed out of town.
> 
> It is alot more embarassing than admitting to being a transvestite.
> 
> So there is ZERO chance of islam or any other religion ever taking any power in the UK//
> 
> Do you understand that jesus freak americans?



And that proves how stupid the English are. Religion is nothing to laugh at. Your failure to take it seriously (and your failure in the past to take it seriously) will (and has) land you in some very, very deep water.

Unfortunately, you are no longer the power that you were when you were laughing at the Hindus, and the Muslims, and the Jews, in the past. Now when you laugh at a religion and it bites you in the ass, we'll have to bail you out, yet again.


----------



## Navy1960

Bootneck said:


> READ MY LIPS! it is not a law that provides seperate arbitration just for muslims. If you haven't got it yet, you never will.



Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act. 

Revealed: UK&rsquo;s first official sharia courts - Times Online

Thought this might go to the heart of the matter Boot, love the quote btw.


----------



## Anguille

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yup, of course Jews have been demanding that according to their religion Government must be religious right? This is foolish in the extreme. it tells Muslims one thing, that the west is weak.
> 
> It encourages them to push for more and it tells them they will get what they want. But you spin it anyway you want. Remind us again how Christian religion is bad but Muslims should have their own laws.



How is this any different from when people agree not to pursue a lawsuit in the courts in exchange for appearing on Judge Judy and agreeing to abide by her judgement?


----------



## dilloduck

Anguille said:


> How is this any different from when people agree not to pursue a lawsuit in the courts in exchange for appearing on Judge Judy and agreeing to abide by her judgement?



Awesome idea----Muslims on Judge Judy !!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Bootneck

Navy1960 said:


> Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.
> 
> Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.
> 
> Thought this might go to the heart of the matter Boot, love the quote btw.



Hi Navy! You got it in one pal!

As for the quote, can't claim that one. It's borrowed from one of your great countrymen, Samuel Langhorne Clemens, aka Mark Twain.


----------



## Shogun

JimH52 said:


> This is a good point.  I just don't see what the hysteria.  No one *HAS TO* go to this religious tribunal.  The British courts are always an option.



yea.. but.. were this to happen in the US i'd say my rebuttal would be that there should BE NO religious option that is an alternate to state law reflecting the federal constitution.  


Thank the flying spaghetti monster for the first amendment.


oh, and for the brits in this thread.. Was it not Brittain's saturation of dogma in public law that causes people to flee to THIS continent?  just checking.


----------



## WillowTree

Bootneck said:


> READ MY LIPS! it is not a law that provides seperate arbitration just for muslims. If you haven't got it yet, you never will.





oh well, pardon my ignorance. I didn't know anyone but Muslims followed Sharia law. Educate me.


----------



## WillowTree

Anguille said:


> How is this any different from when people agree not to pursue a lawsuit in the courts in exchange for appearing on Judge Judy and agreeing to abide by her judgement?







Oh well, of course, and any muslim lady who defies her husband and says she is not going to abide by Sharia ruling is well maybe in a little danger. We have had honor killings here in the United States. Any in UK???


----------



## jillian

JimH52 said:


> This is a good point.  I just don't see what the hysteria.  No one *HAS TO* go to this religious tribunal.  The British courts are always an option.



And it only applies to issues within the muslim community. It has NOTHING to do with our laws. It doesn't change them. It doesn't somehow diminish them.

When Catholics get an anulment from their Church, no one says word one.

So, I'm confused about the animosity here.


----------



## jillian

WillowTree said:


> Oh well, of course, and any muslim lady who defies her husband and says she is not going to abide by Sharia ruling is well maybe in a little danger. We have had honor killings here in the United States. Any in UK???



We've had honor killings in the U.S.???

If anyone were to be killed, that would fall under the purview of the appropriate law enforcement agency.


----------



## Bootneck

WillowTree said:


> oh well, pardon my ignorance. I didn't know anyone but Muslims followed Sharia law. Educate me.



Wow, now you're becoming boringly predictable. Never mind, you'll grow out of it.

Found any posts to support your accusation that I've been popping at the USA yet? Or does your silence on that denote that you were talking out of your arse.


----------



## Bootneck

jillian said:


> We've had honor killings in the U.S.???
> 
> If anyone were to be killed, that would fall under the purview of the appropriate law enforcement agency.



Forget it Jillian. He obviously doesn't understand the difference between family dispute arbitration and criminal law.


----------



## Anguille

Shogun said:


> yea.. but.. were this to happen in the US i'd say my rebuttal would be that there should BE NO religious option that is an alternate to state law reflecting the federal constitution.
> 
> 
> Thank the flying spaghetti monster for the first amendment.
> 
> 
> oh, and for the brits in this thread.. Was it not Brittain's saturation of dogma in public law that causes people to flee to THIS continent?  just checking.



Soggs, I'm just as rabidly anti clerical as you, but I can see no reason how allowing alternate arbitration interferes with seperation of church and state. No one is obliged to use the Jewish or Muslim arbitrators. The only thing that doesn't seem fair to me is that only Jews or Muslims can use them. I can't see why a non Jew or non Muslim would want to use them but everyone should be allowed the option.


----------



## Anguille

jillian said:


> And it only applies to issues within the muslim community. It has NOTHING to do with our laws. It doesn't change them. It doesn't somehow diminish them.
> 
> When Catholics get an anulment from their Church, no one says word one.
> 
> So, I'm confused about the animosity here.



It's all about fear of Muslims, that's all.


----------



## WillowTree

Bootneck said:


> Forget it Jillian. He obviously doesn't understand the difference between family dispute arbitration and criminal law.






first off I"m a she, not a he. Secondly, I have been known to talk out of my arse. And when I say you guys, I mean in general people from other countries popping off about the USA. Do you deny that? Yes, I imagine you do. and thirdly, i know the difference. My point is Muslim women are not afforded free will when it comes to settling disputes.


----------



## Anguille

WillowTree said:


> Oh well, of course, and any muslim lady who defies her husband and says she is not going to abide by Sharia ruling is well maybe in a little danger. We have had honor killings here in the United States. Any in UK???



Any woman of any religion who takes out a restraining order is also at risk. You can't let the legal system be taken hostage by fear of a few maniacs.


----------



## WillowTree

jillian said:


> We've had honor killings in the U.S.???
> 
> If anyone were to be killed, that would fall under the purview of the appropriate law enforcement agency.






Women: Violence: Honor Killing of Women in America and Abroad



Texas cab driver kills both his daughters because they were becoming "westernized" ring any bells. Google is your friend.


----------



## WillowTree

Anguille said:


> Any woman of any religion who takes out a restraining order is also at risk. You can't let the legal system be taken hostage by fear of a few maniacs.





the difference is of course that Sharia law and religion are one and the same. No seperation fo church and state.


----------



## Anguille

WillowTree said:


> My point is Muslim women are not afforded free will when it comes to settling disputes.


 

huh?


----------



## Anguille

WillowTree said:


> Women: Violence: Honor Killing of Women in America and Abroad
> 
> 
> 
> Texas cab driver kills both his daughters because they were becoming "westernized" ring any bells. Google is your friend.



If this was because he was obliged to do that because of his religion, then there would be hardly any Muslim women left in the world.


----------



## WillowTree

Anguille said:


> If this was because he was obliged to do that because of his religion, then there would be hardly any Muslim women left in the world.







I think you have that "head up your arse" syndrome, and are quite happy that way. No need to go any furthur.


----------



## Anguille

WillowTree said:


> I think you have that "head up your arse" syndrome, and are quite happy that way. No need to go any furthur.



Did you even read the article you linked too?  It explains better than I can that honor killing has nothing to do with Islam or any other religion. It's symptom of a sick mind. Do you know that crimes of passion were until recently rarely punished in Italy, just about the most Catholic country there is.

You anti Muslim fruitcakes remind me of the Nazi sympathizers of pre war Germany.


----------



## jillian

WillowTree said:


> Women: Violence: Honor Killing of Women in America and Abroad
> 
> 
> 
> Texas cab driver kills both his daughters because they were becoming "westernized" ring any bells. Google is your friend.



so one guy loses his mind and that somehow should prohibit people from resolving internal disputes in a way they wish?

google may be my friend, but one anecdote isn't dispositive of anything.

I've raised the example of catholicism a number of times... no one's responded to that. Do you think Catholics should be prohibited from getting religious anulments?


----------



## Anguille

jillian said:


> so one guy loses his mind and that somehow should prohibit people from resolving internal disputes in a way they wish?
> 
> google may be my friend, but one anecdote isn't dispositive of anything.
> 
> I've raised the example of catholicism a number of times... no one's responded to that. Do you think Catholics should be prohibited from getting religious anulments?



Those annulments are a joke! How does the Vatican expect anyone to take them seriously with loopholes to the anti divorce decrees like that? 

But if that's what floats their boats, who cares? Who has time to care what any religious group does as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone's civil rights or abuse the principal of seperation of church and state.


----------



## jillian

Anguille said:


> Those annulments are a joke! How does the Vatican expect anyone to take them seriously with loopholes to the anti divorce decrees like that?
> 
> But if that's what floats their boats, who cares? Who has time to care what any religious group does as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone's civil rights or abuse the principal of seperation of church and state.



I figure my religion has enough stuff that's weird to other people that I don't really think about what other people do.....

until it affects others.

And I agree about whatever floats their boat. I mean, who cares?


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Bootneck said:


> Welcome to the US version of Michael Collins



Ahh, yet another would-be "Royal Marine" coming up short...

In this case, we're treated to yet another Brit that wants to disagree but she can't specify on that which she's disagreeing...

Now it might be that she wants to contest that the British subject maintains government protections for the human right to self defense.  But to do so she'll have to explain how it is that British subjects are no longer allowed to arm themselves for personal protections; she'll need to explain why British subjects are being prosecuted for actions they've taken in defense of their lives...  

It may be that she's arguing that the British culture is not succumbing to left-think... but then she'll have to explain the litanny of leftwing policies being advanced by the British legislature...

But of course it's unlikely that we'll ever know, as her intellectual prowess makes British dental hygeine look like the cutting edge...  When it's all said and done, the one thing on which you can count with regard to a "Royal Marine" is that they'll come up short...

But hey... who knows?  I say, BRING IT ON!


----------



## WillowTree

jillian said:


> so one guy loses his mind and that somehow should prohibit people from resolving internal disputes in a way they wish?
> 
> google may be my friend, but one anecdote isn't dispositive of anything.
> 
> I've raised the example of catholicism a number of times... no one's responded to that. Do you think Catholics should be prohibited from getting religious anulments?






if they kill their women and children yes! does that help?


----------



## WillowTree

Anguille said:


> Did you even read the article you linked too?  It explains better than I can that honor killing has nothing to do with Islam or any other religion. It's symptom of a sick mind. Do you know that crimes of passion were until recently rarely punished in Italy, just about the most Catholic country there is.
> 
> You anti Muslim fruitcakes remind me of the Nazi sympathizers of pre war Germany.







so what other religion or culture can you point out to me that does "honor killing"


----------



## WillowTree

oh and btw, labeling me anti-muslim does your cause no good. I am anti-honor killing. I don't care who you are. Okay, go back to watching where the moon don't shine.


----------



## Bootneck

PubliusInfinitu said:


> Ahh, yet another would-be "Royal Marine" coming up short...
> 
> In this case, we're treated to yet another Brit that wants to disagree but she can't specify on that which she's disagreeing...
> 
> Now it might be that she wants to contest that the British subject maintains government protections for the human right to self defense.  But to do so she'll have to explain how it is that British subjects are no longer allowed to arm themselves for personal protections; she'll need to explain why British subjects are being prosecuted for actions they've taken in defense of their lives...
> 
> It may be that she's arguing that the British culture is not succumbing to left-think... but then she'll have to explain the litanny of leftwing policies being advanced by the British legislature...
> 
> But of course it's unlikely that we'll ever know, as her intellectual prowess makes British dental hygeine look like the cutting edge...  When it's all said and done, the one thing on which you can count with regard to a "Royal Marine" is that they'll come up short...
> 
> But hey... who knows?  I say, BRING IT ON!



Hey! You piece of pavement pizza! Firstly, as I'm sure you really know I ain't a female. Secondly, I would never, ever consider insulting or demeaning your service as a US Marine (although I'll not hesitate to insult you personally), so kindly don't fuckingwell attempt to demean my service as a Royal Marine!!!!

As for the rest of your post, what the fuck does it have to do with the op or courts of arbitration????

As I said before, youy're no better than that arsehole collins.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Bootneck said:


> Hey! You piece of pavement pizza! Firstly, as I'm sure you really know I ain't a female.



Well you're a Brit and there's so little difference between a British male and a female...  Oh sure, there's the whole biologicla thing, but you girls are so thoroughly feminized that I prefer to speak to the voice you project...




> Secondly, I would never, ever consider insulting or demeaning your service as a US Marine (although I'll not hesitate to insult you personally), so kindly don't fuckingwell attempt to demean my service as a Royal Marine!!!!



Then you should probably keep your dick smoker shut...



> As for the rest of your post, what the fuck does it have to do with the op or courts of arbitration????



I spoke to the British Law which has provided Islam with the means to put its nose under the tent of British jurisprudence...  Now looks sis...  The fact is that if it is, as you assert, 'just a matter of arbitration', then pray tell what IS THE BASIS FOR THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT TO AUTHORIZE SUCH.

Reason suggests that ANY group can arbitrate within the scope of their organization...  I'm a Southern Baptists, our church arbitrates problems between members as a matter of routine.  There has been no recognition by the US Government that the Baptists are arbitrating problems between members...  Same with the Kiwanis Club and any number of private organizations.  

So reason again suggests that what you're facing here is a MUCH more significant issue and one you've allowed to be established by the most aggressive religion on earth. 

You're entitled to your opinion sis, but Britain is done for.  Your culture has embraced secular humanism, which rests on nothing but one principle-less dogmatic cliche after another... as noted above in the post you sought to disrespect, the Muslims are coming for control of Europe and you idiots are too busy being understanding oftheir culture to recognize that their erasing yours.

Frankly I don't give a damn... We'll kill all of you if that is what it takes.  _Now I would prefer_ that you idiots get to work fighting them _first,_ before you come beggin' us to sacrifice men and treasure to save you from the problems your feminized culture brought onto yourselves... AGAIN!



> As I said before, youy're no better than that arsehole collins.



Yeah I saw that the first time...  I dismissed it out of hand as yet another  impotent thrust resting on a flaccid little retort...  We're all entitled to our opinions _Mate;_  your problem is that your opinions are weak and baseless and there isn't much value to be found in those...

But, you're doin' the very BEST you can, God bless ya.


----------



## jillian

Hey Ravi, LOOK!!! He's calling a man he disagrees with a woman again... 

I guess being female is up there with "liberal" as his top insults... 

lol...


----------



## Ravi

jillian said:


> Hey Ravi, LOOK!!! He's calling a man he disagrees with a woman again...
> 
> I guess being female is up there with "liberal" as his top insults...
> 
> lol...


I guess there is some truth in the idea that you demonize what you fear the most. In his case, it seems to be women.


----------



## jillian

Ravi said:


> I guess there is some truth in the idea that you demonize what you fear the most. In his case, it seems to be women.



seems to be... lol...


----------



## dilloduck

Ravi said:


> I guess there is some truth in the idea that you demonize what you fear the most.



Do you believe this to be an across the board truism or something that only applies when spoken by liberals ?


----------



## Ravi

dilloduck said:


> Do you believe this to be an across the board truism or something that only applies when spoken by liberals ?


Across the board. Why would you even feel the need to ask that question?


----------



## jillian

Ravi said:


> Across the board. Why would you even feel the need to ask that question?



Because heckling is what he does....


----------



## Ravi

jillian said:


> Because heckling is what he does....


I guess he fears liberals.


----------



## dilloduck

Ravi said:


> Across the board. Why would you even feel the need to ask that question?



It's just trying to get some clarification. If what you hate is really what you fear than there are a hell of a lot of scaredy cats here..


----------



## Ravi

dilloduck said:


> It's just trying to get some clarification. If what you hate is really what you fear than there are a hell of a lot of scaredy cats here..


Pardon?


----------



## dilloduck

Ravi said:


> Pardon?



there are a lot of haters here Ravi in case you didnt notice.


----------



## Anguille

Bootneck said:


> Hey! You piece of pavement pizza! Firstly, as I'm sure you really know I ain't a female. Secondly, I would never, ever consider insulting or demeaning your service as a US Marine (although I'll not hesitate to insult you personally), so kindly don't fuckingwell attempt to demean my service as a Royal Marine!!!!
> 
> As for the rest of your post, what the fuck does it have to do with the op or courts of arbitration????
> 
> As I said before, youy're no better than that arsehole collins.



Bootneck, your posts are informative and interesting. You are clearly smarter than the average bear. It never crossed my mind that you might be a woman but all the same, you are articulate and don't suffer fools gladly so I if you _were_ a woman, I would be very proud to have you as a member of my sex


----------



## Anguille

WillowTree said:


> so what other religion or culture can you point out to me that does "honor killing"



I just did in the post you quote.
As far as I know, honor killing is not part of _any_ mainstream religion.


----------



## Anguille

WillowTree said:


> oh and btw, labeling me anti-muslim does your cause no good. I am anti-honor killing. I don't care who you are. Okay, go back to watching where the moon don't shine.



You're not very bright , are you.


----------



## Shogun

Anguille said:


> Soggs, I'm just as rabidly anti clerical as you, but I can see no reason how allowing alternate arbitration interferes with seperation of church and state. No one is obliged to use the Jewish or Muslim arbitrators. The only thing that doesn't seem fair to me is that only Jews or Muslims can use them. I can't see why a non Jew or non Muslim would want to use them but everyone should be allowed the option.



WE have a common law that applies to each of us equally.  When we start making amends for specific groups then this common law cannot be equally enforced.  Obligated or not, it should not even be an option.  You hit on it yourself, what are non-dogma junkies to think about a state concession of an establishment of religious criteria?  an atheists make shit up now too?  Can pastafarianism balance out the influence of other dogmas?


----------



## dilloduck

Shogun said:


> WE have a common law that applies to each of us equally.  When we start making amends for specific groups then this common law cannot be equally enforced.  Obligated or not, it should not even be an option.  You hit on it yourself, what are non-dogma junkies to think about a state concession of an establishment of religious criteria?  an atheists make shit up now too?  Can pastafarianism balance out the influence of other dogmas?



seriously--is the law of the land going to yield to any little sub culture who has their own little system of justice ?


----------



## Diuretic

Anguille said:


> Bootneck, your posts are informative and interesting. You are clearly smarter than the average bear. It never crossed my mind that you might be a woman but all the same, you are articulate and don't suffer fools gladly so I if you _were_ a woman, I would be very proud to have you as a member of my sex



Check the avatar Anguille - RM Commando.  Nick "Bootneck" (Brit slang for RM Commando).  A bloke I went through recruit training with had a father who was a former RM Commando, very nice man and as tough as a bag of nails.


----------



## Diuretic

Shogun said:


> WE have a common law that applies to each of us equally.  When we start making amends for specific groups then this common law cannot be equally enforced.  Obligated or not, it should not even be an option.  You hit on it yourself, what are non-dogma junkies to think about a state concession of an establishment of religious criteria?  an atheists make shit up now too?  Can pastafarianism balance out the influence of other dogmas?



In the English example that's the subject of the thread the point has been made that this tribunal is an arbitration tribunal, making use of the secular law concerning the use of arbitration tribunals to sort out private disputes.  That's all it is, nothing more than that.


----------



## Shogun

so should I be able to use the hippie tribunal?  The Metalhead tribunal?  Im not interested in rationalization.  Im interested in the common application of law.  But, since this is happening in England I really dont care.


----------



## Diuretic

Shogun said:


> so should I be able to use the hippie tribunal?  The Metalhead tribunal?  Im not interested in rationalization.  Im interested in the common application of law.  But, since this is happening in England I really dont care.



Then relax, the main thing is that the Chicken Littles calm down because Britain is not allowing Sharia to be part of its secular legal system.


----------



## MichaelCollins

Diuretic said:


> Then relax, the main thing is that the Chicken Littles calm down because Britain is not allowing Sharia to be part of its secular legal system.



They cant calm down... they have been so deeply brainwashed.. that they will fall for any muslim hating stories.

BUSHTEAM did a good job on these extremely gullibile jesus freaks.


----------



## jla1178

MichaelCollins said:


> They cant calm down... they have been so deeply brainwashed.. that they will fall for any muslim hating stories.
> 
> BUSHTEAM did a good job on these extremely gullibile jesus freaks.


----------



## Shogun

MichaelCollins said:


> They cant calm down... they have been so deeply brainwashed.. that they will fall for any muslim hating stories.
> 
> BUSHTEAM did a good job on these extremely gullibile jesus freaks.



You probably need to stick a around and read a few more threads before assuming that anyone who is against the application of a religious dogma into legal precedence is merely against muslims.  If you think IM a bush fan then it speaks to your own laughable ignorance.


----------



## Anguille

Diuretic said:


> Then relax, the main thing is that the Chicken Littles calm down because Britain is not allowing Sharia to be part of its secular legal system.



I think that is something these paranoid people are overlooking. This is not about making laws, it is about arbitrating civil disputes. The courts are costly to maintain and this type of alternative arbitration will save money for the taxpayers. It even provides religious organizations with an opportunity to actually do something useful for the community. No one is forced to use these kinds of arbitration if they don't want to. As was pointed out earlier in the the thread, the same type of procedure has been available to British Jews for 30 years or so and has not been shown to be a problem.


----------



## Shogun

Anguille said:


> I think that is something these paranoid people are overlooking. This is not about making laws, it is about arbitrating civil disputes. The courts are costly to maintain and this type of alternative arbitration will save money for the taxpayers. It even provides religious organizations with an opportunity to actually do something useful for the community. No one is forced to use these kinds of arbitration if they don't want to. As was pointed out earlier in the the thread, the same type of procedure has been available to British Jews for 30 years or so and has not been shown to be a problem.



arbitrating civil disputes as observed by legal precedence.  If you want to privately take your conflicting party to church and hash it out then so be it.  Having the GOV validate this process is over the line.  We should have a common application of legal precedence and stop pretending that any sample of the population gets special consideration.  Saving money at the cost of the first amendment?  sorry.  Religious organizations can do good for the community without the gov RESPECTING THEIR ESTABLISHMENT.  And, thankfully, this is a British problem and not one that has festered here.  I don't approve of any dogma based affiliation with our laws be they muslim, jewish, christian or buddhist.


----------



## Anguille

Shogun said:


> arbitrating civil disputes as observed by legal precedence.  If you want to privately take your conflicting party to church and hash it out then so be it.  Having the GOV validate this process is over the line.  We should have a common application of legal precedence and stop pretending that any sample of the population gets special consideration.  Saving money at the cost of the first amendment?  sorry.  Religious organizations can do good for the community without the gov RESPECTING THEIR ESTABLISHMENT.  And, thankfully, this is a British problem and not one that has festered here.  I don't approve of any dogma based affiliation with our laws be they muslim, jewish, christian or buddhist.



I don't see how this would compromise the First Amendment if it were instituted here. No one is forced to seek alternate arbitration. A person always has recourse to government arbitrators. If arbitration fails, it goes to court. It seems to me that this is an experiment that is, so far, showing good results. 
Except in your case, the uproar seems to be because Muslims are involved. No one, beside you, is objecting to Jews or anyone else having the same prerogative. I would hope proper supervision of these alternate abitrators is going on. I don't deny there aren't possibilities for abuse, as in any legal procedure.
Like I said earlier, this is essentially no different than what Judge Judy does.


----------



## Shogun

Anguille said:


> I don't see how this would compromise the First Amendment if it were instituted here. No one is forced to seek alternate arbitration. A person always has recourse to government arbitrators. If arbitration fails, it goes to court. It seems to me that this is an experiment that is, so far, showing good results.
> Except in your case, the uproar seems to be because Muslims are involved. No one, beside you, is objecting to Jews or anyone else having the same prerogative. I would hope proper supervision of these alternate abitrators is going on. I don't deny there aren't possibilities for abuse, as in any legal procedure.
> Like I said earlier, this is essentially no different than what Judge Judy does.



It's the establishment of religion as a legal precedence, ang.  forced to participate or not we don't let a segment of the population abide by their own rules despite a common legal standard.  If an Amish dude kills then an Amish dude still gets put into prison.  good results is a matter of opinion.  I'd say that anything that erodes the first amendment is not a good result.

and no, it's not merely because muslims are involved.  for christs fucking sake I'm one of the loudest defenders of muslims versus jews and christians on this board.  BUT, their dogma does not apply to OUR legal standard.  none of them do. 

Judge Judy abides by a non-dogma infused legal standard.  What she does doesn't directly conflict with our first amendment.  You need to read it for yourself real quick?


----------



## roomy

Shogun said:


> arbitrating civil disputes as observed by legal precedence.  If you want to privately take your conflicting party to church and hash it out then so be it.  Having the GOV validate this process is over the line.  We should have a common application of legal precedence and stop pretending that any sample of the population gets special consideration.  Saving money at the cost of the first amendment?  sorry.  Religious organizations can do good for the community without the gov RESPECTING THEIR ESTABLISHMENT.  And, thankfully, this is a British problem and not one that has festered here.  I don't approve of any dogma based affiliation with our laws be they muslim, jewish, christian or buddhist.




It is not a problem to/for us at all.The muslims are an ignorant bunch of morons that need to be led by the hand.We are allowing them to arbitrate among themselves usually in neighbour and family disputes.If they can agree about who owns the most glass beads and whose side of the garden the fence is on without clogging up our courts I am all for it.It makes the idiots feel important and it saves the country money and manpower.


----------



## AllieBaba

Bootneck said:


> If you don't know what you're talking about, it's better to keep your mouth shut and appear foolish, rather than opening it and proving it beyond doubt!
> 
> Read my frigging post again!!! Then perhaps it may dawn on you that there is no law specifically for muslims. They are making use of a clause in the Arbitration Act, made law in 1996, that allows *ANYONE* of *ANY RACE, COLOUR or RELIGION* to set up an arbitration tribunal to rule on family disputes. The rulings of which are enforceable in a legal court.
> 
> 
> 
> It's compulsory under the national curriculum, ignoramus!!!:
> 
> _The Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (Ed Balls): More than 1,500 students have now had the opportunity to visit the concentration camps at Auschwitz-Birkenau as a result of the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust and to build on the learning that they have received through the national curriculum about the horrors of the holocaust and the lessons that we should learn from it. I can announce today that we will allocate £4.65 million for the next three years to ensure that that work can continue. I can also reassure my hon. Friend that a proper evaluation of the funding on those trips, as well as of their impact on young peoples citizenship and their understanding of the world, will be built into the HETs work as part of that three-year funding._
> 
> House of Commons Hansard Debates for 04 Feb 2008 (pt 0002)
> 
> 
> If you want to take a pop at my country MAKE SURE YOU HAVE YOUR FUCKING facts right!!!!!!!




As always, I wonder why thin-skinned brits feel compelled to criticize our country and engage in our politics, while at the same time declaring their own off-limits.


----------



## Bootneck

AllieBaba said:


> As always, I wonder why thin-skinned brits feel compelled to criticize our country and engage in our politics, while at the same time declaring their own off-limits.



Well AB, this Brit is not thin skinned, *and you'll not find one post of mine that criticises your country*. You'll also find that I don't involve myself in your politics!! Take a look before opening that cakehole of yours!

This particular thread is about MY country and it is some of you that are criticizing IT.

Don't associate me with that dickhead Collins who is not British anyway.

I come here for some escapism, a bit of banter and a different perspective. OK honey!


----------



## Bootneck

Anguille said:


> Bootneck, your posts are informative and interesting. You are clearly smarter than the average bear. It never crossed my mind that you might be a woman but all the same, you are articulate and don't suffer fools gladly so I if you _were_ a woman, I would be very proud to have you as a member of my sex



Anguille, thank you for that....and flattery will get you everywhere!


----------



## Anguille

Shogun said:


> It's the establishment of religion as a legal precedence, ang.  forced to participate or not we don't let a segment of the population abide by their own rules despite a common legal standard.  If an Amish dude kills then an Amish dude still gets put into prison.  good results is a matter of opinion.  I'd say that anything that erodes the first amendment is not a good result.
> 
> and no, it's not merely because muslims are involved.  for christs fucking sake I'm one of the loudest defenders of muslims versus jews and christians on this board.  BUT, their dogma does not apply to OUR legal standard.  none of them do.
> 
> Judge Judy abides by a non-dogma infused legal standard.  What she does doesn't directly conflict with our first amendment.  You need to read it for yourself real quick?



Shogun, This isn't about rules and some segment of the population abiding by their own rules. This is about A-R-B-I-T-R-A-T-I-O-N. No laws are being changed. England is not adopting Sharia or Jewish law. Murder and other criminal cases don't go to arbitration, doofus!

Citizens are free to arbitrate their civil disputes before  bringing a civil case before a judge. If both parties agree to use a certain arbitrator in hopes of reaching an agreement satisfactory to both and therefore avoiding a costly and timeconsuming lawsuit, how does this harm anyone or jeopardize seperation of church and state?

The only thing that might be in conflict is if the arbitrators provided by the religious organizations are allowed to conduct arbitration on government property or are paid by the government. That would be a violation of the First Amendment, IMO.


----------



## Bootneck

Diuretic said:


> Check the avatar Anguille - RM Commando.  Nick "Bootneck" (Brit slang for RM Commando).  A bloke I went through recruit training with had a father who was a former RM Commando, very nice man and as tough as a bag of nails.



Yep, the term bootneck goes way back to the days of sail. It comes from the leather stock worn around the neck. Sailors used to suggest that Marines cut a strip from around the top of a sea boot to serve the purpose.


----------



## Shogun

Anguille said:


> Shogun, This isn't about rules and some segment of the population abiding by their own rules. This is about A-R-B-I-T-R-A-T-I-O-N. No laws are being changed. England is not adopting Sharia or Jewish law. Murder and other criminal cases don't go to arbitration, doofus!
> 
> Citizens are free to arbitrate their civil disputes before  bringing a civil case before a judge. If both parties agree to use a certain arbitrator in hopes of reaching an agreement satisfactory to both and therefore avoiding a costly and timeconsuming lawsuit, how does this harm anyone or jeopardize seperation of church and state?
> 
> The only thing that might be in conflict is if the arbitrators provided by the religious organizations are allowed to conduct arbitration on government property or are paid by the government. That would be a violation of the First Amendment, IMO.



arbitration still requires a LEGAL PRECEDENT in order to have any validity to a legal outcome.  In my opinion, this would conflict with the first amendment.  By validating such religious input we declare a precedence that our dogma junkies would hone in on.  It's not like there is no record of thumpers insisting that there is, or should be, christian input where there should not be (according to the constitution.


You disagree.  fair enough.  I can live with that.


----------



## Diuretic

Bootneck said:


> Yep, the term bootneck goes way back to the days of sail. It comes from the leather stock worn around the neck. Sailors used to suggest that Marines cut a strip from around the top of a sea boot to serve the purpose.



I didn't know the origin of the nickname, that's interesting, thanks for the info.


----------



## Diuretic

I don't know if arbitration needs a legal precedent, particularly if it's voluntary.  If an arbitration process requires a formal ruling that binds the party and is imposed by the arbitrator, yes, I think it does require a legal precedent.  As I understand the British arbitration tribunals they're voluntary.  If no agreement can be reached or someone breaks the agreement then I think the next stop is the courts.  But if the agreement is reached and holds then there's no need for a formal court order.


----------



## Anguille

Shogun said:


> arbitration still requires a LEGAL PRECEDENT in order to have any validity to a legal outcome.  In my opinion, this would conflict with the first amendment.  By validating such religious input we declare a precedence that our dogma junkies would hone in on.  It's not like there is no record of thumpers insisting that there is, or should be, christian input where there should not be (according to the constitution.
> 
> 
> You disagree.  fair enough.  I can live with that.



Could you really call it a _legal_ precedent? Seeing as it's a separate  alternative to the court process? Anyway, I am just as concerned as you are about religious dogma infecting our legal system and compromising our constitutional rights.   

I just don't see how the legal system could in anyway be tainted by permitting this, not the way requiring jurors to swear to god is still done in some US courtrooms.


----------



## Anguille

roomy said:


> It is not a problem to/for us at all.The muslims are an ignorant bunch of morons that need to be led by the hand.We are allowing them to arbitrate among themselves usually in neighbour and family disputes.If they can agree about who owns the most glass beads and whose side of the garden the fence is on without clogging up our courts I am all for it.It makes the idiots feel important and it saves the country money and manpower.


 While I'd hardly put it in those words, there is some truth to what you say. The justice system is overloaded in the US and no doubt is also in the UK. 
  I think this is also a harmless and cost free way in which to placate some of the religious fruitcakes who think that a secular government means their rights are being infringed on.


----------



## CactusCarlos

MichaelCollins said:


> Let me explain something to retarded jesus freak americans....
> 
> It is alot more embarassing than admitting to being a transvestite.
> 
> ....
> 
> Do you understand that jesus freak americans?



Maybe you're grumpy because your corset it too tight?


----------



## KittenKoder

Somehow my linker went to the wrong thread.


----------



## GEORGE ORWELL

*WHAT IS BEST: CHRISTIAN CENSORSHIP? JEWISH CENSORSHIP? ISLAMIC CENSORSHIP?   What's so strange about adopting Islamic laws? As kids to make us Kosher Christians we were forced into Sunday School to make good kids out of us. There we learned that Moses tolerated no opposition and killed all those who did. If anyone of us objected we were punished. All our Censorship laws stem from the Jewish Bible. Whole of Europe has them. All of Europe has Limited Censorship. We are told all of them love it. In fact, we are reminded it is the best Europe got. And then there is that American Censorship you read about above if you can read German. Germany gives you 5 years prison for doubting. Two years prison if you say someone's grandmother picked her nose in Church and here offspring objects. These laws were introduced by the Jewish lobby. And we are told no one objects. They all love it. So maybe they will love Islamic laws just as much. Perhaps even more?*


----------



## Charles Stucker

What I want to know is what happens when someone is executed for apostasy because they converted away from Islam?
That is another of the dirty little truths about Sharia that Islamists like to hide - they murder anyone born to Islam who tries to convert to a different religion.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Shogun said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a good point.  I just don't see what the hysteria.  No one *HAS TO* go to this religious tribunal.  The British courts are always an option.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yea.. but.. were this to happen in the US i'd say my rebuttal would be that there should BE NO religious option that is an alternate to state law reflecting the federal constitution.
> 
> 
> Thank the flying spaghetti monster for the first amendment.
> 
> 
> oh, and for the brits in this thread.. Was it not Brittain's saturation of dogma in public law that causes people to flee to THIS continent?  just checking.
Click to expand...


You know there already is, right? Beth Din courts have existed in Brooklyn for a very long time.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Charles Stucker said:


> What I want to know is what happens when someone is executed for apostasy because they converted away from Islam?
> That is another of the dirty little truths about Sharia that Islamists like to hide - they murder anyone born to Islam who tries to convert to a different religion.



And Charles wins the "I forgot to read the thread before I posted in it" award. These courts do not supersede British law. If someone is put to death for Apostasy, they will be prosecuted by the British Legal System.


----------



## Charles Stucker

theDoctorisIn said:


> Charles Stucker said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I want to know is what happens when someone is executed for apostasy because they converted away from Islam?
> That is another of the dirty little truths about Sharia that Islamists like to hide - they murder anyone born to Islam who tries to convert to a different religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Charles wins the "I forgot to read the thread before I posted in it" award. These courts do not supersede British law. If someone is put to death for Apostasy, they will be prosecuted by the British Legal System.
Click to expand...


Wrong, I did read the thread. But the British have allowed so many radical Islamists into their country they may need to purge them all or risk such a future. This is another step toward Islam taking over Britain and forcibly converting the entire population to their beliefs. Anyone who cannot see that is wearing blinders


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Charles Stucker said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Stucker said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I want to know is what happens when someone is executed for apostasy because they converted away from Islam?
> That is another of the dirty little truths about Sharia that Islamists like to hide - they murder anyone born to Islam who tries to convert to a different religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Charles wins the "I forgot to read the thread before I posted in it" award. These courts do not supersede British law. If someone is put to death for Apostasy, they will be prosecuted by the British Legal System.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, I did read the thread. But the British have allowed so many radical Islamists into their country they may need to purge them all or risk such a future. This is another step toward Islam taking over Britain and forcibly converting the entire population to their beliefs. Anyone who cannot see that is wearing blinders
Click to expand...


This is your opinion, which you are entitled to, no matter how ignorant it is.


----------



## Charles Stucker

theDoctorisIn said:


> This is your opinion, which you are entitled to, no matter how ignorant it is.


Which is exactly how I perceived your opinion.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Charles Stucker said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is your opinion, which you are entitled to, no matter how ignorant it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly how I perceived your opinion.
Click to expand...


Except I didn't give an opinion. I have no opinion on the matter, actually. I'm not British. 

Facts and opinions are not the same thing - something that people on this board seem to have a hard time figuring out.


----------



## Colin

Charles Stucker said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Stucker said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I want to know is what happens when someone is executed for apostasy because they converted away from Islam?
> That is another of the dirty little truths about Sharia that Islamists like to hide - they murder anyone born to Islam who tries to convert to a different religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Charles wins the "I forgot to read the thread before I posted in it" award. These courts do not supersede British law. If someone is put to death for Apostasy, they will be prosecuted by the British Legal System.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, I did read the thread. But the British have allowed so many radical Islamists into their country they may need to purge them all or risk such a future. This is another step toward Islam taking over Britain and forcibly converting the entire population to their beliefs. Anyone who cannot see that is wearing blinders
Click to expand...


Charles, you must stop smoking that stuff!


----------



## Charles Stucker

theDoctorisIn said:


> These courts do not supersede British law. If someone is put to death for Apostasy, they will be prosecuted by the British Legal System.


Your opinion is that if someone is put to death then they will be prosecuted.
I did not even ding you for suggesting the British Legal System would prosecute someone murdered by the Sharia courts.


----------



## California Girl

Charles Stucker said:


> What I want to know is what happens when someone is executed for apostasy because they converted away from Islam?
> That is another of the dirty little truths about Sharia that Islamists like to hide - they murder anyone born to Islam who tries to convert to a different religion.



That is not how it works. It is the same way as other faiths use their own religious laws to rule on certain civil matters. It doesn't supercede or replace UK laws, it supplements it.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Charles Stucker said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> These courts do not supersede British law. If someone is put to death for Apostasy, they will be prosecuted by the British Legal System.
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion is that if someone is put to death then they will be prosecuted.
> I did not even ding you for suggesting the British Legal System would prosecute someone murdered by the Sharia courts.
Click to expand...


It's not an opinion, it's the Law. It's against the law to kill people in Britain.

The fact that you believe the law will not be followed is your opinion, and has no basis in fact.

See? 
_
*That's the difference between fact and opinion.*_

What you're calling "Sharia" courts are civil arbitrators. Like Beth Din courts, or corporate mediation. Not a separate legal system. Which you would have known if you'd have bothered to read the thread. If anyone was "put to death" by the Sharia courts, they would be breaking the law - just like if a mediator hired by a company to settle a labor dispute decided to kill the CEO.


----------



## Charles Stucker

theDoctorisIn said:


> Charles Stucker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> These courts do not supersede British law. If someone is put to death for Apostasy, they will be prosecuted by the British Legal System.
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion is that if someone is put to death then they will be prosecuted.
> I did not even ding you for suggesting the British Legal System would prosecute someone murdered by the Sharia courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not an opinion, it's the Law. It's against the law to kill people in Britain.
> 
> The fact that you believe the law will not be followed is your opinion, and has no basis in fact.
> 
> See?
> _
> *That's the difference between fact and opinion.*_
Click to expand...

So it is a *FACT* that someone murdered by the Sharia will be prosecuted by the British legal system?
I find that hard to accept.
If you had stated that if the Sharia court executed someone, then the members of the court would be prosecuted then I might agree, but dead people are seldom prosecuted for anything.  
Though your opinion, stated now as a fact, is otherwise, according to what you wrote.


----------



## Kalam

Charles Stucker said:


> Wrong, I did read the thread. But the British have allowed so many radical Islamists into their country they may need to purge them all or risk such a future.



Wir müssen die Muslime ausrotten!


----------



## Colin

Kalam said:


> Charles Stucker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, I did read the thread. But the British have allowed so many radical Islamists into their country they may need to purge them all or risk such a future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wir müssen die Muslime ausrotten!
Click to expand...


I think your brothers are already making a good job of doing that!


----------



## Kalam

Colin said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Stucker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, I did read the thread. But the British have allowed so many radical Islamists into their country they may need to purge them all or risk such a future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wir müssen die Muslime ausrotten!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think your brothers are already making a good job of doing that!
Click to expand...

They're no brothers of mine. Whatever they are, many of your brothers seem eager to assist them.


----------



## Charles Stucker

Kalam said:


> Charles Stucker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, I did read the thread. But the British have allowed so many radical Islamists into their country they may need to purge them all or risk such a future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wir müssen die Muslime ausrotten!
Click to expand...


I was thinking more along the lines of shipping them back home, but if you would rather they were burned, far be it from me to complain.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Charles Stucker said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Stucker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion is that if someone is put to death then they will be prosecuted.
> I did not even ding you for suggesting the British Legal System would prosecute someone murdered by the Sharia courts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not an opinion, it's the Law. It's against the law to kill people in Britain.
> 
> The fact that you believe the law will not be followed is your opinion, and has no basis in fact.
> 
> See?
> _
> *That's the difference between fact and opinion.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it is a *FACT* that someone murdered by the Sharia will be prosecuted by the British legal system?
> I find that hard to accept.
> If you had stated that if the Sharia court executed someone, then the members of the court would be prosecuted then I might agree, but dead people are seldom prosecuted for anything.
> Though your opinion, stated now as a fact, is otherwise, according to what you wrote.
Click to expand...


Your inability to understand that I was referring to the courts and not the executed is not my problem. Now, do you have a real response, or just more nonsense?


----------



## Charles Stucker

theDoctorisIn said:


> Your inability to understand that I was referring to the courts and not the executed is not my problem.


I did understand what you intended, I just was of the *OPINION* that you might want to know how juvenile your sentence structure appeared.
But the *FACT* is you don't care.
Not too surprising for someone who thinks that some Sharia court won't take this British idiocy as a license to execute the apostates.


----------



## Kalam

Charles Stucker said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Stucker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, I did read the thread. But the British have allowed so many radical Islamists into their country they may need to purge them all or risk such a future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wir müssen die Muslime ausrotten!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was thinking more along the lines of shipping them back home, but if you would rather they were burned, far be it from me to complain.
Click to expand...




What if you just concentrated the population into, say, camps?


----------



## Charles Stucker

Kalam said:


> Charles Stucker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wir müssen die Muslime ausrotten!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking more along the lines of shipping them back home, but if you would rather they were burned, far be it from me to complain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if you just concentrated the population into, say, camps?
Click to expand...

Nah, too expensive, the Brits won't use slave labor so those would just be giant money sinks. A single ticket home would be the ticket.


----------



## Kalam

Charles Stucker said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Stucker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking more along the lines of shipping them back home, but if you would rather they were burned, far be it from me to complain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if you just concentrated the population into, say, camps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, too expensive, the Brits won't use slave labor so those would just be giant money sinks. A single ticket home would be the ticket.
Click to expand...


I don't know, that doesn't sound like "purging" to me. Share your _real_ final solution with us, Herr Stucker.


----------



## Charles Stucker

Kalam said:


> I don't know, that doesn't sound like "purging" to me. Share your _real_ final solution with us, Herr Stucker.


The final solution for Islam is China; once China and Islam come to blows, Islam will be shattered remnants. The remainder will fade into obscurity until, after a few generations, they are little settlements akin to the Amish.


----------



## Kalam

Charles Stucker said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, that doesn't sound like "purging" to me. Share your _real_ final solution with us, Herr Stucker.
> 
> 
> 
> The final solution for Islam is China; once China and Islam come to blows, Islam will be shattered remnants. The remainder will fade into obscurity until, after a few generations, they are little settlements akin to the Amish.
Click to expand...



China can't even seem to quell Buddhist unrest in Tibet. I invite them to continue with their attempts to oppress East Turkestan; any serious military escalation in the region will turn it into what the North Caucasus is to Russia. As in the Caucasus, thousands of eager volunteers will come from all corners of the Ummah to defend Islam, and as in the Caucasus, the thug nation oppressing Muslims will ultimately fail.


----------

