No, I am not tarring all Muslims with the same brush.
Beth Din is entierly different, for a start there isn't a cultural problem within the Jewish faith over the rights of women which is present in large sections of the Islamic community. Beth Din deos genuinley operate as a mediation service, Sharia Courts will not and they are intended as an alternative to UK Law. You know it, I know it and so does everyone else, its just not PC to say so.

And no, I won't celebrate and support what is good in all cultures and societies. I have no need or desire to do so. I believe that some cultures are simply to different, we have different wants and ideals. I don't see fit to judge anyone elses ideals but nor do I feel obliged to embrace them either. This is where the big bone of contenetion comes along, multi-culturism and dversity dictates that I welcome these cultural changes. Sadly I'm not very conformist and feel no obligation to comply with that.
Like it or not, opinions like mine are pretty common. Why should I accept or embrace cultural changes in my own country that I do not wish to have? As it happens I am as anti Christianity as I am Islam before anybody acuses me of religious biggotry.

It really does boil down to one simple thing, if somebody wishes to live in the UK then they must adapt and intergrate to the UK. It is not for the UK to have to adapt to them. If there are aspects of life in the UK that do not appeal to incomers then they know where the door is.

Originally Posted by milsum

Originally Posted by rampant

are all my fellow Scots whiney nasal-voiced buckie swilling neds

Yes.

[b]Are yoou starin a t mah pint hen

Originally Posted by rampant

Are all farmers from Devon & Somerset.

Only the good ones.

They're 'nae as guid as us 'deenshire tcheucters.

Originally Posted by rampant

We too ofetn forget that Islam was one of the most open, tolerant and sophisticated civilisations the world has ever known,... Mate you are tarring all Muslims with the same brush.

You tool. Do you realise you're making an argument for the other side? Your example of Scottish Law is perfect. The distinction is that it is a legally recognised and 'lawful' in the UK. The crux of the issue is that Sharia courts are unregulated, opaque, unanswerable and unaccountable, not to mention discriminatory.

One brush is all that is needed if there is even a chance that one party may be subjugated against their will by this process.

I can merrily accept the existance of a Sharia Court here in the UK, as long as it's operated and regulated like the Beth Din, wherein the priamcy of the UKs legal codes stand true.

I totally agree with your last point, which is why I am arguing for better training and education for own Imams, not some guy from the mountains who is still bound by cultural-specific traditions that have no relation to the modern world.

Rather putting a lot of faith in people - bit like putting cats in charge of mice and hoping they'll make sure the interest of the mouse are served.

And of course you can 'merrily accept Sharia Courts in the UK'. I'm guessing you're not a pregnant teenage muslim girl wedded off to settle a debt between your great uncle and his mate in Pakistan by your loving parents who barely speaks English with so little education you didn't know any different

There have been a number of contributions to this debate on U Tube, some of it quite heated!

Suppose my friend Steve and I are having an argument- who owns that tenner found on the floor? I saw it first, but Steve picked it up.
Our friend Jeff might have the holy book of our religion, and he might have it open on the page about who owns tenners found on the ground.
UK law might say (errr I have no actual idea here) that Steve gets it because he picked it up. But Jeff says the Holy Book says I get it because I saw it first. Steve is a devout pastafarian, so he then sees it as his holy duty to carry out the law and gives me the tenner.

So these sharia courts could be a really great way of muslims living by the laws they want to, without getting all wound up in our legal system- as long as no UK laws are breached, then there is no problem.

It does seem a bit worrying to me though that the decisions of these courts can be binding; why should they have any proper legal status, when it's not our law that is being enforced?

I reckon this sort of thing should be kept casual, as in the example above. Otherwise, it's only a matter of time until people begin to abuse the system, people are forced into these courts who don't want to be there, people end up breaking UK law as a result of these courts decisions.

Originally Posted by milsum

Rather putting a lot of faith in people - bit like putting cats in charge of mice and hoping they'll make sure the interest of the mouse are served.

And of course you can 'merrily accept Sharia Courts in the UK'. I'm guessing you're not a pregnant teenage muslim girl wedded off to settle a debt between your great uncle and his mate in Pakistan by your loving parents who barely speaks English with so little education you didn't know any different

An excellent point; however in this situation its is the primacy of UK law that comes into play. The sharia courts should not be able to enforce laws that run contradictorally to our own, and ceratinly not the example you give.

But even now these incidents occur, and more often than not from extremely conservative families that carry over tribal customs that are not necessarily islamic stricture.

A Sharia Court in the UK should be a compliment not a contradiction.

Originally Posted by rampant

Originally Posted by milsum

Rather putting a lot of faith in people - bit like putting cats in charge of mice and hoping they'll make sure the interest of the mouse are served.

And of course you can 'merrily accept Sharia Courts in the UK'. I'm guessing you're not a pregnant teenage muslim girl wedded off to settle a debt between your great uncle and his mate in Pakistan by your loving parents who barely speaks English with so little education you didn't know any different

An excellent point; however in this situation its is the primacy of UK law that comes into play. The sharia courts should not be able to enforce laws that run contradictorally to our own, and ceratinly not the example you give.

But even now these incidents occur, and more often than not from extremely conservative families that carry over tribal customs that are not necessarily islamic stricture.

A Sharia Court in the UK should be a compliment not a contradiction.

And ther's the rub! We don't NEED this sh1t! Seventh Century desert law should stay where it is currently located. If anybody feels a great need for it - visit it and stay there.

Originally Posted by milsum

Don't get caught up in semantics and distort the arguement. For UK common law I think jagman refers to UK statute and case law, which also includes common law.

And I refer to Beth Din, which has been operating in Britain since the very early 1700s. Despite this there has been no upstaging of common, statute or case law, no sign of the UK becoming a Jewish state.

There are no difference in Sharia courts. There is no primacy, the decisions are not LEGALLY binding and it is not a shortcut to a Sharia state. After all, I remind everyone that Mohammed did tell his followers to obey the laws of the land they live in (even if a few extremists tend to forget this).

Originally Posted by rickshaw-major

Originally Posted by rampant

Originally Posted by milsum

Rather putting a lot of faith in people - bit like putting cats in charge of mice and hoping they'll make sure the interest of the mouse are served.

And of course you can 'merrily accept Sharia Courts in the UK'. I'm guessing you're not a pregnant teenage muslim girl wedded off to settle a debt between your great uncle and his mate in Pakistan by your loving parents who barely speaks English with so little education you didn't know any different

An excellent point; however in this situation its is the primacy of UK law that comes into play. The sharia courts should not be able to enforce laws that run contradictorally to our own, and ceratinly not the example you give.

But even now these incidents occur, and more often than not from extremely conservative families that carry over tribal customs that are not necessarily islamic stricture.

A Sharia Court in the UK should be a compliment not a contradiction.

And ther's the rub! We don't NEED this sh1t! Seventh Century desert law should stay where it is currently located. If anybody feels a great need for it - visit it and stay there.

We've had this sh1t since the 1700s RM - have you ever noticed it?

Originally Posted by Whet

Originally Posted by milsum

Don't get caught up in semantics and distort the arguement. For UK common law I think jagman refers to UK statute and case law, which also includes common law.

And I refer to Beth Din, which has been operating in Britain since the very early 1700s. Despite this there has been no upstaging of common, statute or case law, no sign of the UK becoming a Jewish state.

There are no difference in Sharia courts. There is no primacy, the decisions are not LEGALLY binding and it is not a shortcut to a Sharia state. After all, I remind everyone that Mohammed did tell his followers to obey the laws of the land they live in (even if a few extremists tend to forget this).

We are all aware of the function of Beth Din, it works because it simply functions as a mediation service.
Even you are not deluded to believe that Sharia Courts are intended to function the same way, you know full well that the intention is to creat a parallel legal sysytem under Isalmic control.
You know this.
More to the point, there is a huge problem in this country with the Islamic honour code and the islamic view on law and justice. It is festering just below the surface and yet you are still determine to argue that its only a small irrelevant portion of Muslims in this country that partake in such activities? Yet around a dozen young people a year are mudered in this country under that same honour code.
There is a link further back in this thread that goes to a BBC article giving a vague idea of the depth of this problem.

Sharia Law is not in the interests of most westernised Muslims, never mind in the interests of this country. More to the point and I shall repeat myself again, we have a justice system and a foreign religious based legal system has no place here.
What is so difficult to understand with this one Sven? If some people prefer to live under Sharia Law then there are plenty of countries in the world who do so and they are free to go there and live under that law.
If these same people do not wish to absorb and live in our (British) culture then why are they here anyway?