Posted: Jul 15, 2015 2:25 pm
by Spearthrower
Peter Brown wrote:well that is also supporting my point, Sharia isn't a great system to live under.

but it doesn't stop that being demanded for in non Muslim nations does it? This group wasn't set up because every Muslim in the UK loves British laws. It was set up because a large number of Muslims demanded that to them Sharia trumped British law and the funding that they got from abroad funded political change so Sharia courts were allowed. They have now a non binding comprimise, the fear is the demands for Sharia will end up as legally binding in the UK nd screw all the people who left that sort of imprisonment.

You prove to me that won't happen if you demand proof this isn't the way of Islam, the way of the theocrate

This is all a red herring.

But to engage the red herring regardless.

If British Muslims (as one voice, which they're not) truly wanted an official status for a religious law interpreter to pronounce whether milkshake is haraam or fard, I wholly support them in their endeavour.

Firstly, why on earth would I even care about that? If Muslims want to tell themselves stupid things, it's none of my business.

Secondly, there are no existing laws pertaining to the acceptability of milkshakes to take precedence.

Thirdly, if they want to waste money on that, better than the general tax payer having to if they tried to use secular courts to decide for them.

Fourthly, even after condescending rhetoric from you about how we're the ignorant ones, you really don't have even the slightest glimmering of knowledge about Sharia, do you? All received wisdom on your part, but no recognition of the quality of the sources.

As with Islam, Sharia is not a single entity. Sharia law has many branches: ... slamic_law

If British Muslims want to get some certified Imam to pronounce what hygiene or dietary codes they should follow: be my guest. Why on earth would I want to stop them? It's not like there are corresponding British laws being undermined.

But of course, wherever there is an existing British law, that takes precedent.

An imam can't pronounce death on someone in Britain because it's already illegal to incite violence, aid and abet terrorism, or to plot to murder someone.

But if Muslims want to have official courts to ensure that inter-Muslim cases which have no relevance in British law are still judged, then why would we stop them? Should we pay for it instead by admitting such cases into British law? Or would you prefer it's done down back alleys where there's no possibility of anyone ever having to be held responsible for any decrees?

If we're going to be 'safe' from Teh Mooslims, it seems to me that we need both sides to learn to extend core freedoms to each other, not curtail their liberties and make them second class citizens.