Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 8910 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 192
  1. #121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Morthor View Post
    I will declare jihad? I dont have a clue what you are talking about Largion
    Was a joke about you getting angry and declare jihad when they walked over you'r line on diversed culture.

    Me naked

    Quote Originally Posted by fhrafnsson View Post
    You don't always have to run faster than the ganker. Running faster than your friend is often good enough.

  2. #122
    3000+
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    3,233

    Default

    It seems I failed this thread..


  3. #123
    3000+
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    On a High Horse
    Posts
    3,394

    Default

    Its perfectly logical tbh.

    Should two muslims agree to be tried under muslim law, it is their right.

    Now the british courts should have overruling authority on the shariah courts in case it deems punishments passed on are not severe enough, or in breach of human rights conventions.

    Im curious however, how will they deal with rape for example.

    Under sharia, a female must have FOUR males witness to the rape in order for there to be a case at all. Failing that, she has no case. And, even if the offenders are found guilty, she will receive a flogging sentence for being a slut.

    Also another thing is, Males = 2x Females in any and all court cases. The testimonial of a female is worth half that of a male. 1 male has the right of inheritance of 2 females.


    Muslim marriage is in fact, a contract, which is explicitly called "Akd Nikah" or in english " Fucking contract" . What the bride and groom sign is just that. And as any contract, there is a cancellation clause. This means, a man can say "should we wish to divorce, i pay you 1£ and you are out of my life".

    If they get married with that in the contract, and they divorce, all she gets from the divorce is her birthday suit and 1£. Women of pure muslim upbringing are broken from the start and their place is in the house, barefoot and pregnant, never saying "No" to the husband. Sad but true. Oh she gets company too, 3 other women to share her husband lol.

    So as it was said, women can be coerced into agreeing to shariah just to get screwed in a divorce case.


    Now i know from experience, there are cases where it is actually BETTER to be tried under sharia law than common law.

    One example was here in the emirates, a woman;s husband died and the insurance company wanted to give her the 100,000$ life insurance payout.

    She said no, and went to the shariah courts. She was christian, but all she had to do is say "I swear there is no god but the one god, and mohammed is the prophet of god" (Rough translation) in front of a sheikh, and bam, she just became muslim, and can take the insurance company to court under sharia.

    The court ruled that the insurance company owed her the price of 100 camels, of both sexes, of varying age and stature.

    This meant young camels worth a lot, old camels worth... a lot, race camels, etc. The total price tag of the 100 camels amounted to 2.3 million USD, and that is what the court ruled in her favor.


    Now seeing as how both partiies have to agree to be subject to sharia, the last example wont work in england.



    I raelly dont know, sharia law has some extreme and medieval punishments that do not even fly here in the emirates, let alone england. I see no real benefit from it to any muslim that has been in england long enough to evolve past the restrictions imposed on them by religion, one of which is being subject to the curious phenomenon that is sharia courts.
    Last edited by Pcheez; 09-15-2008 at 14:10. Reason: I corrected 1 typo, there are a few more but you dont deserve me correcting them
    The Original Guybrush Threepwood
    EU 1
    Jump quitting and ctrlaltdelendprocessing since 97.

  4. #124
    Banned Ziegler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lethn View Post

    Yes I know there are a few examples out there but I'm talking generally, hell here's an example two police officers came walking by when they heard us training with weaponry and asked what was going on, guy in charge explained that we were just training for re-enactment and had already obtained permission from the land owners, they just smiled and nodded then walked off again, pretty damn sure if it'd had been america or somewhere else they'd have drawn guns on us and told us to ge on the ground.
    Nah..well, at least not in my neck of the woods....the police probably wouldnt investigate unless someone reported it, and that isnt likely outside of city limits.
    Quote Originally Posted by Durindana View Post


    Wake me up when Judaism and Jewish law acquire anything close to the well-deserved reputation that Islamic states have for barbaric, unacceptable treatment of women and "infidels."

    Or for a quicker lesson for you: try violating a few minor criminal laws in Israel.

    Now try doing the same things in Saudi Arabia.

    From one, you'll come out alive and you may even be treated justly.

    From the other, you won't get either.
    If you managed to come out alive, you would be lucky.
    What about divorce..civil matter, but dont they still believe in killing adulterous wives? Doesnt that mean they would have the validation of the British government?



    Quote Originally Posted by Exidium View Post
    something needs to be done about this. This is abuse of the system and allowing muslims to beat their wives plain and simple. They have their own rules on spouse abuse, that as long as it is below the shoulders and above the waist? they can beat their wives open handed or with belts (things that sting but do not break bones).

    Basically they have legalized things that objective courts would punish for. The saddest part of all is democrats in America (primarily women) sympathize with muslims and argue that they aren't violent and blah blah blah. They will learn...

    Judaism on the other hand is a peaceful religion. I was apart of it for about 20 years (at least it is in the USA). I know that zionism is a different story. Your typical Jew is very liberal, very open minded and follows the golden rule because that is what is ingrained in Temple every Sunday. Tzedakah is very important which means doing something charitable for others. When muslims start doing shit like this and stop subjugating women I will stop thinking they are scum of the fucking earth.

    The point is this.
    Sharia is a religion based law.
    The british government has now given it validation.
    I suggest watching this video from this article

    And spare the fox news BS..the video was made for PBS who refused to run it.

  5. #125
    Normal User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    332

    Default

    I find it incredible how few of you actually bothered to read the article. All the information is there - all you need to do is read it, but no, ignorance and bigotry are seemingly infinitely more attractive.

    This "court" is nothing new - it has existed for over 100 years. It isn't even really a court - it is an arbitration procedure for civil disputes. Anyone can do it, irrespective of religion and it has nothing to do with religion unless the users make it so. It does not in any way make the users immune to the rulings of the normal UK courts.

    To all the US patriots decrying this, would you regard it a loss of US sovereignty if two Muslims in the US made a binding legal contract? Because that is in essence all this is.

  6. #126
    9000+
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dallas - 127.0.0.1
    Posts
    9,408

    Default

    Do you nimrods that have your panties in a bunch even understand what arbitration means in a legal sense?
    What is best in life?

    To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!

    -Conan

    Disclaimer: This post is not a bomb.

  7. #127
    Normal User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanth View Post
    I find it incredible how few of you actually bothered to read the article. All the information is there - all you need to do is read it, but no, ignorance and bigotry are seemingly infinitely more attractive.

    This "court" is nothing new - it has existed for over 100 years. It isn't even really a court - it is an arbitration procedure for civil disputes. Anyone can do it, irrespective of religion and it has nothing to do with religion unless the users make it so. It does not in any way make the users immune to the rulings of the normal UK courts.

    To all the US patriots decrying this, would you regard it a loss of US sovereignty if two Muslims in the US made a binding legal contract? Because that is in essence all this is.
    More like you're not getting it. Like people said earlier in the thread, not every muslim wants to take part in this. But they will most certainly be forced into it, or they will lose all connections to their family and the community. Giving it legal power like this makes it the de facto procedure in the muslim communities.

    If the women in those domestic violence cases would have demanded equal rights in an actual court, the husbands would have been held accountable, but the women would have been cast out of the family and community. So they just rather continue taking the beatings, abuse and ridiculous human rights violations than lose everyone they know. Though the women probably all got beaten half to death anyways for even bringing it up in the first place, no matter which court they took the case into.

    It's the same cult principle as Jehova's Witnesses for example, any attempt to leave or defy the religion will get you thrown out of the community and no one may speak to you again. Nobody wants to lose everyone they know and love over "small" things like that.

    This might still be a small step, let's not forget what they're allowed to do in actual Muslim states. Why would they settle for small things like legal arbitration forever, they will demand the full deal later on. Can someone say an actual reason why anything like this even in the smallest of form should be allowed into the legal system?
    Last edited by Kaitsuh; 09-15-2008 at 16:08.

  8. #128
    Banned Ziegler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,595

    Default

    While, yes this is only for arbitration, according to us infidels.


    But islam is about controlling the populace and killing the infidels. Now the Imams will tell the muslims to go to the infidels courts for any reason would be against allah's will. And this gives them the validity to say so. No it isnt supposed to be that far reaching, but they will make it so over the course of time. The idea being, once they get all muslims to use this court, then they will start pressuring any case involved with muslims be ajudicated through muslim courts. Same as money dealings and they are requiring international banks to meet sharia laws now.

    Islam is a theocracy...a religion to rule the people, one of those steps is to take over the ajudication of the laws. Feel free to think it is nothing to worry about.

  9. #129
    Normal User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziegler View Post
    While, yes this is only for arbitration, according to us infidels.


    But islam is about controlling the populace and killing the infidels. Now the Imams will tell the muslims to go to the infidels courts for any reason would be against allah's will. And this gives them the validity to say so. No it isnt supposed to be that far reaching, but they will make it so over the course of time. The idea being, once they get all muslims to use this court, then they will start pressuring any case involved with muslims be ajudicated through muslim courts. Same as money dealings and they are requiring international banks to meet sharia laws now.

    Islam is a theocracy...a religion to rule the people, one of those steps is to take over the ajudication of the laws. Feel free to think it is nothing to worry about.
    I suppose Christians wouldn't be so bold as to want their views to be legislated.......... oh wait.

  10. #130
    9000+
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dallas - 127.0.0.1
    Posts
    9,408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziegler View Post
    While, yes this is only for arbitration, according to us infidels.
    Actually its according to people who understand how the western legal systems works.

    But islam is about controlling the populace and killing the infidels. Now the Imams will tell the muslims to go to the infidels courts for any reason would be against allah's will. And this gives them the validity to say so.
    They have always had validity in saying so. Also, you can use, and have always been able to use any arbitration service you want to resolve civil issue without going to a court if both parties agree to it. That said, no ruling from any arbitration service can ever break any criminal law statutes, if it does the ruling is null and void.

    Islam is a theocracy...a religion to rule the people, one of those steps is to take over the ajudication of the laws. Feel free to think it is nothing to worry about.
    I was going to say feel free to be completely clueless about how law works, but its clear you already do.
    What is best in life?

    To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!

    -Conan

    Disclaimer: This post is not a bomb.

  11. #131
    Normal User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    291

    Default

    This is disgraceful, British law for hundreds of years has had the principle that there is one legal system that is applicable to everyone.

    People who move to the UK know this and should respect it.

    I would not emigrate to Pakistan and think that I can set up my own legal system.

    I do not blame Muslims in the UK for this, I blame the misguided and dangerous left wing element in the UK's political parties and civil service.

    The people who sanctioned this should have their heads put on sticks outside the Tower of London like we used to do to traitors.
    Last edited by Blodpls; 09-15-2008 at 16:54.

  12. #132
    Banned Ziegler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Youknowho View Post
    I suppose Christians wouldn't be so bold as to want their views to be legislated.......... oh wait.
    hmm..let's see....what is that mantra I hear all the time to tear down christian beliefs in the states? Seperation of chruch and state.....oh now I recall, that only applies when tearing down christianity...it doesnt apply to any other religions.

    Jezrith: You have no clue obviously, this isnt about the actual laws or what arbitration is. It's about giving a religion that wants to destroy western civlization, a voice in the courts as an authority..no matter how small it is, it is a foot in the door.

  13. #133
    9000+
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dallas - 127.0.0.1
    Posts
    9,408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziegler View Post
    Jezrith: You have no clue obviously,
    Considering I understand the difference between criminal law, civil law, and contract law, I'd say I'm about the only one in this thread that does have a fucking clue. You are obviously are not equipped with any of this knowledge, and therefore are the last person who should be calling anyone clueless.

    this isnt about the actual laws or what arbitration is.
    BWAHAHA! A.K.A. - "Its not about you know 'real' things like the actual law, or what is actually happening. Its about this made up version of things I have in my head because I know nothing about how the legal system works.

    It's about giving a religion that wants to destroy western civlization, a voice in the courts as an authority..no matter how small it is, it is a foot in the door.
    Lol! What voice do you think they actually have now, and in what courts do they have this "voice"? Do you even understand the difference between different court types?
    What is best in life?

    To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!

    -Conan

    Disclaimer: This post is not a bomb.

  14. #134
    Normal User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    730

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jezrith View Post
    Do you nimrods that have your panties in a bunch even understand what arbitration means in a legal sense?
    lol

    [☠][☠][☠][☠][☠][☠][☠][☠][☠][☠][☠][☠][☠][☠][☠][☠][☠][☠][☠][☠][☠][☠][☠][☠]
    Quote Originally Posted by Hitom View Post
    If I didnt have forumfall to let out my negativity, I would have had cancer by now. Fuck you, you fucking fuck for wanting me to get cancer. Im'a report your ass.

  15. #135
    Normal User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jezrith View Post
    Considering I understand the difference between criminal law, civil law, and contract law, I'd say I'm about the only one in this thread that does have a fucking clue. You are obviously are not equipped with any of this knowledge, and therefore are the last person who should be calling anyone clueless.
    Then why did six domestic abuse cases get brought before these courts, surely domestic abuse is a criminal matter? I have no issue with them as an arbitration court for civil matters, but I just cannot comprehend how they got within 100 miles of a domestic abuse case.
    Why Creationists cannot code:
    Creation c = new Creation();
    while (c.NeedsCreator()) c = c.GetCreator();

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •