Geeklawyer doesn’t buy into the tabloid hysteria about all things Islamic, but one repellent aspect of Islam is Shariah law with it’s barbaric primitive and cretinous belief that cutting off the hands of thieves, stoning adulterers and coercing women into servility is good.
So he was somewhat horrified that it should gain any measure, even the merest toehold, of recognition by UK law as proposed by the Muslim community. Their pitch starts of promisingly: “radical Islam is a myth: we only want personal law dealt with under Sharia, not penal or worship law“. It then proceeds at a rapid pace downhill by asserting that by cutting off hands we could be a crime free society like Saudi Arabia.
Call him fussy but Geeklawyer will take the odd burglary or mugging rather than live in a despotic totalitarian hell-hole presided over by degenerate racist oligarchs who oppress their citizens’ civil liberties in order to maintain their own wealth and power.
If he wanted all of that he’d vote New Labour.
LOL
The one reason I’ve always been afraid to go to Middle East etc. is because I’m terrified of somehow violating Sharia law; definitely wouldn’t want to deal with the consequences of that happening.
Btw, have put a link on my blog to yours. I trust that’s ok with you; please let me know if you’d like me to remove it.
What are you guys on about? its obvious you have no real substantive knowledge of the Shariah. The person who wrote the original blog states…
‘Their pitch starts of promisingly: “radical Islam is a myth: we only want personal law dealt with under Sharia, not penal or worship law“. It then proceeds at a rapid pace downhill by asserting that by cutting off hands we could be a crime free society like Saudi Arabia.’
Didnt ‘their pitch’ say that they did not want Shariah in the penal (i.e. criminal) system? They’re only asking it to apply to Family law, and for their own communities. They’re not looking to impose it on anyone. Furthermore, I have said this to millions and I shall say this again, just because Saudi Arabia is a muslim country does not mean it is following the Shariah as it should. Many of their laws have no Islamic basis; for example, a woman in Saudi is not allowed to drive, where is the Shariah here? Women during the time of the Prophet Muhammad and after him used to be warriors on horseback, so how are they now not allowed to drive cars? There is no Islamic footing. But you’ll have people, like yourselves, who say ‘this is what ISLAM does to women’, no, this is what Saudi does to women. By the way adulterers under Islamic law do not get stoned, they get wiped, both men and women. Rapists get stoned, in order to have the painful death they deserve. I see you must be all fans of the good old common law system…. I suggest you read the following article:
Makdisi, John A. (June 1999), “The Islamic Origins of the Common Law”, North Carolina Law Review 77 (5): 1635-1739
Furthermore, does it come to you as a suprise that Shariah law has been used for quite some time now in England and the U.S. in the fields of Finance? Islamic Shariah compliant finance facilities are offered by all banks, including HSBC Amanah, Barclays, Lloyds, etc. Furthermore, in England we have quite a well developed trusts law….would you like to know its origins? Islamic. As the crusaders were exposed to Shariah law, they look alot of its ideas back with them to England to assist them in areas where there was no solution in the law. If you want to read more on this topic, see:
Gaudiosi, Monica M. (April 1988), “The Influence of the Islamic Law of Waqf on the Development of the Trust in England: The Case of Merton College”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review 136 (4): 1231-1261
Great minds, GL, great minds.
I liked your more substantive post.
One of your best GL…
Sharia law is a system that both disturbs and repulses me - your description of it as ‘barbaric, primitive and cretinous’ is pretty close in my book - and I can only fervently hope that this idea is given the short shrift it deserves by the government (and everyone else, really).
This has nothing to do with anti-Islamism per se - but we’ve already got a legal system; the law of England and Wales. We don’t need another set of morons trying to add more and more criminal offences and laws to the already bulging statute books; New Labour (with their endearingly Old Tory [circa 1850] scattergun approach to criminal legislation) do a pretty good job of that already.
Surely this can’t be too difficult an idea to digest? If they want to live in Britain, they’re subject to British law; if they don’t like it, they can piss off to Saudi Arabia. Too much to ask?
I broadly agree. Some of the justification in the article was that some aspect of Judaism (? no idea what the name is for Judaic law is) was recognised by UK law. I don’t know anything about this but if true that concerns me too - though it depends on what and how much.
If Sharia were confined to an entirely subordinate role I might be less hostile. My concern is that whereas Jews are well integrated into English society, Muslims still have something of a ghetto mentality and a sense of both insecurity and rivalry. This may be partly our fault but nonetheless there is a sense in which fear of Anglo-Saxon values leads to an apartheid mentality and a desire for separation. Not only unworkable but deeply undesirable.
I think the Ghetto mentality within the Muslim community is as much the Muslim communities fault as it is the ‘native’ populations.
Still when you see the ex-pats abroad I don’t think we as a nation integrate very well either
This proposal is rubbish toss put out by a minority of patriarchal Muslim men who have been elevated to the position of community representatives by new labors policy of multiculturalism.
No doubt with this law they could further isolate their women from the ‘evil’ western society.
I am a Brit and I am a Muslim. Born and raised in England. Are you trying to say im not part of the native population? England no longer is a white country; you gave that up when you decided to go around the world and make an empire- countries like England, Italy, France…surely you didnt think everything would be dandy. Our football clubs, even national teams, are full of foreigners; look at France, best player ever was Algeria (Zidan). Anyway, what im trying to say is we are British and the mentality you hold only fuels alienation of a communuity, and it it this that gives rise to extremism.
See,you generously let them have halal meat and then they want to cut people’s hands off. I suppose appeasement is always the danger in terms of the current political environment in Britain, but seriously do you think it would get beyond the ghetto it exists in now which is largely confined to a few heavy mosqued (a new word) areas.
(Curly girly is also of Middle East origins and knows it well. Not Muslim but one of those discerning Christains who broke off during the Crusades.)
You are under a misapprehension if you believe that sharia law is something imposed on Muslims by oppressive,undemocratic regimes. It is something imposed by religious believers, who sadly, have increased in number and influence. If there were democratic elections in Saudi Arabia, the result would be a more theocratic state.
This unfortunate situation has come about because the pro-Western, undemocratic regimes in many Islamic countries, are widely disliked because they are clients of the US.
Their only significant political opposition comes from religious organizations, which have for many years been allowed much greater freedom than secular opposition parties.
exactly - democracy is only good for people who will elect a government we like. for the rest we will bomb the buggers into the stoneage. particularly as they are violent barbarians who invade their neighbours.
err wait a minute? is that us or them? i seem to have lost the plot here… which are the good guys again?
and for the benefit of samir: i consider you a brit because you were born here; i am also happy to consider anyone who wasn’t born here a brit if they wish to live here and call themselves a brit. we are all bound by the same laws AND we all have the same rights to debate those laws and suggest ways in which we would like them changed. or we could suggest that all opponents of 42 days go back to saudi … if they don’t like our law etc - bit like the sharia debate isn’t it?
like human rights applying to the people we don’t like as well.