CDZ Islamification of The West

[Coyote]

The truth about Sharia courts in the UK

So...you think Muslim courts in England are using English Law?

These aren't official courts law but Sharia Councils. If they are like the US, and I think they are - they entered into voluntarily and for civil matters only - marriage, divorce, sharia compliant contracts. We have the same thing with Jewish law, where Jews seek to remedy civil matters with Jewish law. If folks are going to have a hissy fit about Muslims, then they need to look at the whole picture of voluntary religious courts. They can not act on criminal matters, and they don't over-rule the law of the land. Those details get missed in the whole Sharia scare.

Shall we put an end to the ability of all people to seek religious remedies for disputes or contracts? If so - then say so up front, or say it only applies to Islam.

 

[pillars]

The truth about Sharia courts in the UK

So...you think Muslim courts in England are using English Law?

No offense, but I lived in Utah for 10 years, and if you wanted to remain in good standing with the LDS church if you got a divorce, you had to follow the church's process. Same with the catholic hierarchy. I agree that some of what is described here is abusive, but the same things happen in other religious hierarchies. See example: Ex Mormon: A Mormon Woman and Spousal Abuse

Woman asks LDS religious hierarchy to help her change her husband's abusive behavior, the religious leader tells her to go home and make him a cherry pie.

I don't see that this is different from those other systems. If you are a religious person, and you want your specific religious community to approve your divorce or annulment, you have to follow their protocols. These people aren't making rulings in civil cases, they are making rulings in religious ones, and the participants have opted to pursue these actions in the religious court in lieu of the civil one. It's a matter of personal choice. And thus, it's a whole different story.

The issue is that immigrants want to maintain good standing in their religious community, because it is their support system and worldview, and so they submit to rulings from the religious community that are pretty non-progressive and don't protect their civil rights. But, those people have every right to seek civil justice. They choose not to because they will lose the support of their religious community. And with immigrants, that may be the only social support they have.

Not sure how you change this without trampling all over people's religious liberties, for all religious faiths.

How is this different in your view from trying to pursue a divorce as a catholic?

 

[saveliberty]

The truth about Sharia courts in the UK

So...you think Muslim courts in England are using English Law?

These aren't official courts law but Sharia Councils. If they are like the US, and I think they are - they entered into voluntarily and for civil matters only - marriage, divorce, sharia compliant contracts. We have the same thing with Jewish law, where Jews seek to remedy civil matters with Jewish law. If folks are going to have a hissy fit about Muslims, then they need to look at the whole picture of voluntary religious courts. They can not act on criminal matters, and they don't over-rule the law of the land. Those details get missed in the whole Sharia scare.

Shall we put an end to the ability of all people to seek religious remedies for disputes or contracts? If so - then say so up front, or say it only applies to Islam.

Well, since it was suggested Islam is not trying to change the West, your admission they are is enough at this point.

 

[Coyote]

The truth about Sharia courts in the UK

So...you think Muslim courts in England are using English Law?

These aren't official courts law but Sharia Councils. If they are like the US, and I think they are - they entered into voluntarily and for civil matters only - marriage, divorce, sharia compliant contracts. We have the same thing with Jewish law, where Jews seek to remedy civil matters with Jewish law. If folks are going to have a hissy fit about Muslims, then they need to look at the whole picture of voluntary religious courts. They can not act on criminal matters, and they don't over-rule the law of the land. Those details get missed in the whole Sharia scare.

Shall we put an end to the ability of all people to seek religious remedies for disputes or contracts? If so - then say so up front, or say it only applies to Islam.

Well, since it was suggested Islam is not trying to change the West, your admission they are is enough at this point.

They aren't trying to change anything. It's voluntary, applies only to Muslims who choose to use it (or Jews in the case the Beth Din courts) and is very limited. It's also nothing new and until recently - no one cared.

 

[saveliberty]

The truth about Sharia courts in the UK

So...you think Muslim courts in England are using English Law?

No offense, but I lived in Utah for 10 years, and if you wanted to remain in good standing with the LDS church if you got a divorce, you had to follow the church's process. Same with the catholic hierarchy. I agree that some of what is described here is abusive, but the same things happen in other religious hierarchies. See example: Ex Mormon: A Mormon Woman and Spousal Abuse

Woman asks LDS religious hierarchy to help her change her husband's abusive behavior, the religious leader tells her to go home and make him a cherry pie.

I don't see that this is different from those other systems. If you are a religious person, and you want your specific religious community to approve your divorce or annulment, you have to follow their protocols. These people aren't making rulings in civil cases, they are making rulings in religious ones, and the participants have opted to pursue these actions in the religious court in lieu of the civil one. It's a matter of personal choice. And thus, it's a whole different story.

The issue is that immigrants want to maintain good standing in their religious community, because it is their support system and worldview, and so they submit to rulings from the religious community that are pretty non-progressive and don't protect their civil rights. But, those people have every right to seek civil justice. They choose not to because they will lose the support of their religious community.

Not sure how you change this without trampling all over people's religious liberties, for all denominations.

I think female liberties are not likely to be upheld, so it is doubtful both parties are supportive or willing. Again, the point was Islam is NOT changing the West by those opposing the OP. Repeatedly the opposition has conceded Islam has a growing influence.

 

[saveliberty]

They aren't trying to change anything. It's voluntary, applies only to Muslims who choose to use it (or Jews in the case the Beth Din courts) and is very limited. It's also nothing new and until recently - no one cared.

You honestly think Muslim females are going to prefer a Sharia Court over a British court concerning their divorce?

 

[pillars]

Well, since it was suggested Islam is not trying to change the West, your admission they are is enough at this point.

Actually, these sharia courts aren't focused on non-muslims. The only people who would consent to have these religious leaders rule over their personal lives are muslims. Thus, that's the only place where they have any real power, and they only have the power that they are granted by the followers of their faith.

 

[pillars]

You honestly think Muslim females are going to prefer a Sharia Court over a British court concerning their divorce?

Absolutely, if they want to remain muslim and remarry someone who is muslim. If they don't go through that religious process, they will be seen as an immoral woman within their chosen faith community.

Same with the catholic faith...mormon faith...jewish orthodox faith.

 

[pillars]

I think female liberties are not likely to be upheld, so it is doubtful both parties are supportive or willing.

Women choose to go through the religious process even though the civil process is freely available to them, because they honor their particular religious faith, and cede power to their religious leaders as a result of that.

Again, how is this different from the mormon scenario I provided? Or trying to get a catholic divorce?

 

[saveliberty]

Well, since it was suggested Islam is not trying to change the West, your admission they are is enough at this point.

Actually, these sharia courts aren't focused on non-muslims. The only people who would consent to have these religious leaders rule over their personal lives are muslims. Thus, that's the only place where they have any real power, and they only have the power that they are granted by the followers of their faith.

It would seem England is allowing inequality for Muslim women. Very surprising you would support that.

 

[Coyote]

They aren't trying to change anything. It's voluntary, applies only to Muslims who choose to use it (or Jews in the case the Beth Din courts) and is very limited. It's also nothing new and until recently - no one cared.

You honestly think Muslim females are going to prefer a Sharia Court over a British court concerning their divorce?

Apparently SOME do. Just like some women don't mind if they aren't allowed to ride in the same bus as men, or must cover their hair, or are not allowed to work outside of the home, or are religiously forbidden from using birth control - there's a lot of stuff in religion (not just Islam) that is crappy for women but many choose it, and choose to follow those rules as an expression of their faith. That's where the religious freedom part come in, just as I have the freedom to reject it.

 

[pillars]

Well, since it was suggested Islam is not trying to change the West, your admission they are is enough at this point.

Actually, these sharia courts aren't focused on non-muslims. The only people who would consent to have these religious leaders rule over their personal lives are muslims. Thus, that's the only place where they have any real power, and they only have the power that they are granted by the followers of their faith.

It would seem England is allowing inequality for Muslim women. Very surprising you would support that.

No. England is allowing muslim women to choose to pursue a religious divorce through religious systems. Sometimes those systems are not equitable, but that's the individual's choice to submit to those religious proceedings.

The same happens with the LDS (Mormon) Church. If you want to be a member in good standing, and participate in LDS temple rituals, you have to get the church's approval on your divorce, and that means participating in an endless amount of counseling with religious leaders who offer battered wives helpful advice like, "let him feel like he is in charge" or "make him a pie occasionally."

People go through the process because they want to remain a member in good standing of their faith community. Same is true with women in these sharia courts. I wouldn't want to do it, and I wouldn't choose it for myself, but for women within those belief systems, it is important to them to comply with their faith's rules.

I have zero desire to be a fundamentalist polygamist, but I respect the right of other women to choose differently. However, I expect that those communities will follow the law as it exists, and that we will continue as a society to provide protections for women who are abused within religious systems.

But, I cannot tell someone else not to follow the dictates of their own conscience in matters of faith.

Why do you think you should?

 

[Coyote]

Well, since it was suggested Islam is not trying to change the West, your admission they are is enough at this point.

Actually, these sharia courts aren't focused on non-muslims. The only people who would consent to have these religious leaders rule over their personal lives are muslims. Thus, that's the only place where they have any real power, and they only have the power that they are granted by the followers of their faith.

It would seem England is allowing inequality for Muslim women. Very surprising you would support that.

England is allowing them to freedom to choose. What would the alternative be? Infringe on their religious freedom by making it illegal for them to pursue religious counseling in certain civil matters where they feel their religion applies? What about the religious "courts" of the other faiths that go unmentioned? Can them too because they are allowing for inequality for Jewish/Catholic/Morman....etc women?

 

[Decus]

Women are not afforded the same rights as men in many Middle Eastern countries and can be subject to mistreatment and violence for which they have little recourse. These practices are increasingly found in immigrant communities in countries like the UK and US. Sadly it is a subject that is difficult to talk about as it predominantly affects Muslim communities. The problem is largely under-reported as this article points out:

"The figures revealed 11,744 incidences of these crimes between 2010 and 2014, consisting of data from 39 out of 52 police forces in the UK. They included forced marriage and female genital mutilation (FGM)."
.....
"Diana Nammi, director of the Iranian and Kurdish Women's Rights Organisation - a charity that provides support to Middle Eastern women living in the UK who are facing "honour" violence - said the figures suggested incidence of the crime remained "consistently high" in the UK and that the issue was "not going away"."

"She said: "Unfortunately they [the figures] do not show the real extent of the problem. So many crimes are unreported because the perpetrators are often the victim's own family."

'Honour crime': 11,000 UK cases recorded in five years - BBC News

.

 

[pillars]

I agree, it is difficult, but what is the alternative? Disallow people to seek out religious rulings on issues like marriage, which conservatives have assured us are religious in nature?

 

[Tilly]

On the whole, Muslims in the US seem to be much better integrated than they are in many European countries. The reasons are debatable, and may not be appropriate to discuss here, but I think it makes it difficult for many of the US posters to relate to the issues we in Europe battle with daily.
Anyway, regardless of the (anecdotal) experience of European posters here, there are countless polls that indicate that Muslims in Europe not only do not integrate well, but that they also hold views that are anti west, anti democracy, pro Islamist, and even pro terrorism - with a tendency to not report to the authorities terrorist plots that they know of.
There is a reason The UK was once labelled an exporter of Islamic terrorism, for example. Anyway, IMHO, there really seems little point in a European discussing issues related to Islam in Europe on this board. That's not to say there aren't Americans who understand these issues, there are, it's just clear that the vast majority do not understand and have no direct experience, and therefore have a penchant for assuming racism, bigotry etc are the impetus for the discussions in the first place.
In my time here, I've realised to discuss this issue as it pertains to Europe is basically an exercise in futility, even here in the CDZ, because there are too many posters who cannot get beyond their own assumptions even though they have little or no experience of how these issues express themselves in Europe first hand. So, great OP, hopeless venue, IMHO.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

On the whole, Muslims in the US seem to be much better integrated than they are in many European countries. The reasons are debatable, and may not be appropriate to discuss here, but I think it makes it difficult for many of the US posters to relate to the issues we in Europe battle with daily.
Anyway, regardless of the (anecdotal) experience of European posters here, there are countless polls that indicate that Muslims in Europe not only do not integrate well, but that they also hold views that are anti west, anti democracy, pro Islamist, and even pro terrorism - with a tendency to not report to the authorities terrorist plots that they know of.
There is a reason The UK was once labelled an exporter of Islamic terrorism, for example. Anyway, IMHO, there really seems little point in a European discussing issues related to Islam in Europe on this board. That's not to say there aren't Americans who understand these issues, there are, it's just clear that the vast majority do not understand and have no direct experience, and therefore have a penchant for assuming racism, bigotry etc are the impetus for the discussions in the first place.
In my time here, I've realised to discuss this issue as it pertains to Europe is basically an exercise in futility, even here in the CDZ, because there are too many posters who cannot get beyond their own assumptions even though they have little or no experience of how these issues express themselves in Europe first hand. So, great OP, hopeless venue, IMHO.

Of course you're absolutely correct, the Americans cannot understand, because they've not experienced it first hand, nor have they witnessed the sort of scenes we've had to witness.

For instance, they haven't experienced the so-called "Migrant Crisis", hundreds of thousands of Muslims, mainly young men of military age, shouting and being aggressive charging across our borders in chaotic and angry fashion DEMANDING to stay in Europa OR ELSE and DEMANDING to give them free stuff.

I think if Americans would have experienced and witnessed the outrageous scenes that our Continent has had to witness, then many Americans perhaps would at least pause for thought.

 

[pillars]

On the whole, Muslims in the US seem to be much better integrated than they are in many European countries. The reasons are debatable, and may not be appropriate to discuss here, but I think it makes it difficult for many of the US posters to relate to the issues we in Europe battle with daily.
Anyway, regardless of the (anecdotal) experience of European posters here, there are countless polls that indicate that Muslims in Europe not only do not integrate well, but that they also hold views that are anti west, anti democracy, pro Islamist, and even pro terrorism - with a tendency to not report to the authorities terrorist plots that they know of.
There is a reason The UK was once labelled an exporter of Islamic terrorism, for example. Anyway, IMHO, there really seems little point in a European discussing issues related to Islam in Europe on this board. That's not to say there aren't Americans who understand these issues, there are, it's just clear that the vast majority do not understand and have no direct experience, and therefore have a penchant for assuming racism, bigotry etc are the impetus for the discussions in the first place.
In my time here, I've realised to discuss this issue as it pertains to Europe is basically an exercise in futility, even here in the CDZ, because there are too many posters who cannot get beyond their own assumptions even though they have little or no experience of how these issues express themselves in Europe first hand. So, great OP, hopeless venue, IMHO.

Of course you're absolutely correct, the Americans cannot understand, because they've not experienced it first hand, nor have they witnessed the sort of scenes we've had to witness.

For instance, they haven't experienced the so-called "Migrant Crisis", hundreds of thousands of Muslims, mainly young men of military age, shouting and being aggressive charging across our borders in chaotic and angry fashion DEMANDING to stay in Europa OR ELSE and DEMANDING to give them free stuff.

I think if Americans would have experienced and witnessed the outrageous scenes that our Continent has had to witness, then many Americans perhaps would at least pause for thought.

We somehow managed to absorb over a million Cuban refugees during the period between 1973 and 1980. During about a six month period in 1980, around 125,000 Cuban refugees reached the Florida coast, primarily between Miami and the Keys, on rafts and boats. Somehow, we managed to resettle them and assimilate them, and those Cuban refugees have become some of the most patriotic Americans.

From 1975-1980, we also took in around 763,000 refugees from Southeast Asia (about half of the total refugees from this region). Somehow, we managed to assimilate those folks, as well.

In the past 20 years, we've accepted around 1.6 million refugees from around the world, from places like Somalia, Nigeria, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. We've managed to resettle and assimilate those folks, too.

In addition to those refugees, The U.S. currently has 11.1 million illegal immigrants residing on our soil, the overwhelming majority of whom are from third world countries who cannot speak our language, and there have been many protests by these illegal immigrants who want U.S. rights.

Here's a May Day immigration march in Los Angeles by Latinos:

For comparison's sake, there were over 100,000 people at this protest in 2006.

In other words, we had more Mexican nationals protesting on a single day than you have been invaded by during in this "crisis."

But you are correct, we know nothing about trying to assimilate people who don't speak our language, have a different culture, and demand rights.


Europeans are so delightfully amusing.

Maybe the issue with Europe assimilating immigrants has more to do with Europeans than it does the immigrants. America is more diverse, and has a longer history of tolerating diversity than most European countries do. We are a nation of immigrants.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

The truth about Sharia courts in the UK

So...you think Muslim courts in England are using English Law?

Sounds like England's problem to me.

 

[Tilly]

The truth about Sharia courts in the UK

So...you think Muslim courts in England are using English Law?

Sounds like England's problem to me.

At least your honest. Thanks.