AND SO IT BEGINS? SHARIA LAW IN BRITAIN?

I believe it behooves people to live in the present. Right now there are less Christians, world-wide, that have antagonisms to the United States than Muslims, I believe. In the way of analogy, there are less Christians, world-wide, that have antagonisms to Jews, than Muslims, I believe. So, Israel has trade with Germany, they disregarding the Nazi era, and does not have trade with many Muslim nations. It is all about "now" apprarently, as I understand the world.

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

I believe it behooves people to live in the present. Right now there are less Christians, world-wide, that have antagonisms to the United States than Muslims, I believe. In the way of analogy, there are less Christians, world-wide, that have antagonisms to Jews, than Muslims, I believe. So, Israel has trade with Germany, they disregarding the Nazi era, and does not have trade with many Muslim nations. It is all about "now" apprarently, as I understand the world.

Acknowledging Setanta's post which is debating something entirely different that what I have been and am discussing, so I won't address it further, Christians continue to be the world's biggest group overall, though the margin is shrinking as Islam is the fastest growing group at this time. I am, however, agreeing with you however that the focus of this thread is here and now.

Quote:

Number of Muslims in the world:
Estimates of the total number of Muslims in the world vary greatly:

0.700 billion or more, Barnes & Noble Encyclopedia 1993
0.817 billion, The Universal Almanac (1996)
0.951 billion, The Cambridge Factfinder (1993)
1.100 billion, The World Almanac (1997)
1.200 billion, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic relations)

At a level of 1.2 billion, they represent about 22% of the world's population. They are the second largest religion in the world. Only Christianity is larger, with 33% of the world's inhabitants.

Islam is growing about 2.9% per year. This is faster than the total world population which increases about 2.3% annually. It is thus attracting a progressively larger percentage of the world's population.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_numb.htm

My point with the history was only to show examples of how cultures do change when new cultures are introduced. Nor is this the thread to discuss historical violence committed by anybody. I would like to focus on current implications (good and bad) of changing cultures for the nations where this could be happening.

I think Jews and Muslims pretty much trade with the same people as other folks they live amongst trade. I can't imagine that business policies of American or British or any other Jews or Muslims around the world are much different than the general population of the countries they live in. There is no official quarrel between any Western nation and Israel (or Jews) at this time so trade happens and probably Israel does a lot of trade with many Asian and African nations as well.

(As you noted, Israel, which is the only predominantly Jewish nation, of course does not do much trade with predominantly Islamic countries who have pledged to destroy Israel or drive the Jews out of the Middle East, nor is anybody in such countries clamoring to do trade with Israel.)

But when you compare the government of Israel and the prosperity and human rights afforded to the citizens, both Jewish and Islamic Arab, in Israel, as well as the prosperity and human rights inherent in most Western democracies and various other places around the world, can any predominantly Islamic nation claim anything comparable? I don't believe any can. I believe in most, abject poverty outside the small minority ruling class is obvious, and even in the most prosperous countries such as Kuwait, human rights and freedoms are severely restricted.

So does Christianity flourish only because the nations are prosperous? You couldn't say so in Mexico or many South American nations where Christianity is the dominant religion. Does modern Christianity contribute to prosperity and human freedoms? Looking at the general track record of most nations where Christianity is the majority religion, it would seem so.

Does modern Islam? Looking at nations where Muslims are the largest religious group, it would seem not.

But regardless, if a Muslim majority develops in Britain or anywhere that there is not currently a Muslim majority, would the Muslims retain the existing government and human rights? Or would all the nation more likely lose much of that/those?

0 Replies

I think it behooves people to look at reality, to deal with facts. This does not, however, seem to recommend itself to Foofie or Fox, both of whom present distorted views of contemporary reality, and of history. (Hilariously crackpot views when it comes to history.)

I pointed out that in the single incident at Srebrenica, where Orthodox Christian Serbs slaughtered 8,000 Muslim men and boys, precisely because they were Muslims, you have one of the most horrendous acts of terrorism, and in this case, state-sponsored terrorism, of contemporary times. Fox has slid right past that, she wants to pretend that Christians have all now made nice, and don't do bad things any longer. She wants to claim that Muslim terrorists are the most dangerous ones in the world, simply by virtue of being Muslim.

The prosperity of any nation in the world is the result of a successful culture. The Chinese, both of the Chinese diaspora and the Chinese in China, are very successful. They have not historically been a majority Christian group, nor or they contemporarily a majority Christian group. Their success is a product of hard work and slick mercantile practice, as it has been literally for thousands of years. The success enjoyed by Europeans over the last 1000 years (since they began to contemplate taking baths on a regular basis and eating with forks, and the implausible to them then idea that literacy might be useful) has been a product of exactly the same characteristics--hard work and slick practice.

Saying that nations have succeeded because of Christianity, besides ignoring China, Japan, Thailand, Indonesia, India and Israel, is a case of confusing coincidence with correlation. By virtue of that kind of thinking, one can look at the preponderance of men in leadership positions in business, government, the military and even in organized religion and come to the conclusion that women aren't up to the tasks required of leadership in those areas.

Good thinking, Fox, you've penetrated to the essence of the matter yet again.

0 Replies

If this was a discussion of the merits of Christianity or lack thereof, your post might be pertinent, Setanta. But I'm hoping you won't be able to drag the thread off course in that direction.

I have not nor would I say that prosperity and/or human rights exist only in predominantly Christian countries, nor have I or would I say that activities or policies of those calling themselves Christian have always been exemplary. Anybody who has read my posts on that subject on any thread knows that and would represent me honestly.

But this is NOT about Christianity.

The subject is:

First: Are there any predominantly Muslim nations that offer the same degree of prosperity to the majority of their citizens AND implement human rights as do those other nations, Christian or otherwise, that produce a high degree of prosperity AND grant human rights to their citizens?

Second: Should a nation, such as Great Britain, become predominantly Muslim, would it likely retain its current form of government AND afford the same degree of human rights to the citizens?

If you would address THAT, it would be appreciated.

0 Replies

Coming back to the original question: the UK's PM said that Sharia Law had no jurisdiction in England and Wales, and the Government had no intention on changing this position.

(I suppose, the same will be for Scotland and Northern Ireland [those British countries have nearly similar (Northern Ireland) to different (Scotland) laws/jurisdictions.)

Actually, Lord Philipps only phrased slightly different what Archibishop Rowan Williams said earlier this year.

And since the English and Welsh legal system already accepts Jewish religious law and Canon law - why should it exclude Sharia law?

0 Replies

Goddamn, Fox, you lie like a rug:

Foxfyre wrote:

Does modern Christianity contribute to prosperity and human freedoms? Looking at the general track record of most nations where Christianity is the majority religion, it would seem so.

0 Replies

I also referenced Israel as a nation that affords both prosperity and human rights to its citizens and nobody would EVER confuse Israel as being a Christian nation. My reference to Christianity was addressed to Foofie and in direct response to her post. It was not intended to say, nor did it say, that ONLY Christian nations offer prosperity and human rights to their citizens.

So will you address the actual topic, Setanta? Or do you intend to continue to play 'gotcha' with your non sequitors to divert from the topic?

0 Replies

Chile under Augusto Pinochet, is that a good example of human rights and prosperity guaranteed to the people? Nicaragua under the Somosas, was that an example of human rights and prosperity guaranteed to the people? The Philippines under Marcos, was that an example of human rights and prosperity guaranteed to the people? Greece under the military junta, was that an example of human rights and prosperity guaranteed to the people? Spain under Franco, was that an example of human rights and prosperity guaranteed to the people?

You bullshit thesis suffers from an assumption that christians can do no wrong, and that everything is hunky-dory in any nation which is confessionally predominantly christian.

And that's why i keep bringing it up.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Coming back to the original question: the UK's PM said that Sharia Law had no jurisdiction in England and Wales, and the Government had no intention on changing this position.

(I suppose, the same will be for Scotland and Northern Ireland [those British countries have nearly similar (Northern Ireland) to different (Scotland) laws/jurisdictions.)

Actually, Lord Philipps only phrased slightly different what Archibishop Rowan Williams said earlier this year.

And since the English and Welsh legal system already accepts Jewish religious law and Canon law - why should it exclude Sharia law?

I don't know that it should. That's what the thread was started to discuss.

But neither Jewish law nor Canon law intrude on freedom to pursue prosperity or interfere with basic human rights. Even in Israel, Jewish law is not required of non Jews nor in Britain is Canon Law (Catholic or Anglican) forced on non Christians in these modern times.

In most, perhaps all, predominantly Islamic countries, however, all citizens, Muslim or not, are required to observe some or all of Sharia law. Would that be the case also in the UK should the Muslims become the majority demographic there?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

In most, perhaps all, predominantly Islamic countries, however, all citizens, Muslim or not, are required to observe some or all of Sharia law. Would that be the case also in the UK should the Muslim become the majority demographic there?

Lord Philipps only spoke - and only can speak as Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales - for his jurisdiction, not for the UK.
But he was only referring to Sharia (like Archbishop Williams) as a provision for mediation by a third party in English civil law.
Sharia law provisions would only cover those who chose to use its courts; it would only cover civil matters - English and Welsh law trumps any other type of law, as Lord Philipps (and the PM) said.
And that will be the case whatever religious majority there is.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But neither Jewish law nor Canon law intrude on freedom to pursue prosperity or interfere with basic human rights. Even in Israel, Jewish law is not required of non Jews nor in Britain is Canon Law (Catholic or Anglican) forced on non Christians in these modern times.

And neither is Sharia Law in Britain. In fact, it is not even forced on Muslims. Rather, just like Jews are allowed to resort to a Beth Din to resolve disputes or Catholics are allowed to resort to a Canon Law court to resolve disputes, Muslims are allowed to resort to Sharia Law - as long as all parties agree upon doing so, and as long as any kind of decision complies with British laws.

Nothing is forced on anybody.

Foxfyre wrote:

In most, perhaps all, predominantly Islamic countries, however, all citizens, Muslim or not, are required to observe some or all of Sharia law. Would that be the case also in the UK should the Muslims become the majority demographic there?

"In most, perhaps all, predominantly Islamic countries, however, all citizens, Muslim or not, are required to observe some or all of Sharia law"?

Makes me wonder whether you are really so clueless, or whether you're just making this up as you go along, just because it suits your argument. Google is your friend.

You can also start here with the first country: Turkey is 99.8% Muslim. Here's a bit about their constitution:

Quote:

The Constitution asserts that Turkey is a secular and democratic republic that derives its sovereignty from the people. The sovereignty rests with the Turkish Nation, who delegates its exercise to an elected unicameral parliament, the Turkish Grand National Assembly.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

And neither is Sharia Law in Britain. In fact, it is not even forced on Muslims. Rather, just like Jews are allowed to resort to a Beth Din to resolve disputes or Catholics are allowed to resort to a Canon Law court to resolve disputes, Muslims are allowed to resort to Sharia Law - as long as all parties agree upon doing so, and as long as any kind of decision complies with British laws.

From the official UK's government website

Quote:

Most civil disputes do not go to court at all, and most of those which do, do not reach a trial. Many are dealt with through statutory or voluntary complaints procedures, or through mediation and negotiation.

(NB: there is no "British law" or "UK law". :wink: )

0 Replies

When you're done reading up on Turkey, you could maybe continue with Indonesia. Indonesia has a population of over 237 million people - 86.1% out of those are Muslim.

The nation is based on belief in God, but the state guarantees religious freedom for all (Chapter XI of the Indonesian Constitution).

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

old europe wrote:
And neither is Sharia Law in Britain. In fact, it is not even forced on Muslims. Rather, just like Jews are allowed to resort to a Beth Din to resolve disputes or Catholics are allowed to resort to a Canon Law court to resolve disputes, Muslims are allowed to resort to Sharia Law - as long as all parties agree upon doing so, and as long as any kind of decision complies with British laws.

From the official UK's government website

Quote:
Most civil disputes do not go to court at all, and most of those which do, do not reach a trial. Many are dealt with through statutory or voluntary complaints procedures, or through mediation and negotiation.

(NB: there is no "British law" or "UK law". :wink: )

Argh.

(Thanks.)

0 Replies

Quote:

Turkey: Constitutional Court Ruling Upholds Headscarf Ban
Religion and Expression Rights Denied, Broader Reform Agenda Endangered
The decision by Turkey''s Constitutional Court to cancel constitutional amendments that would have opened the way for women to wear a headscarf in universities is a blow to freedom of religion and other fundamental rights, Human Rights Watch said today. The court ruled on June 5 that the Turkish parliament had violated the constitutionally enshrined principle of secularism when it passed amendments to lift the headscarf ban on university campuses. The amendments were adopted by an overwhelming majority of parliament.

Quote:

Turkey: Court Shows Bias, Dissolves Lambda Istanbul
Human Rights Group Ordered Closed on Procedural Grounds
A Turkish court''s decision to disband a human rights organization defending lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people shows that official repression poses a serious threat to democratic rights and freedom of association, Human Rights Watch said today.

Quote:

Turkey: Government Amendments Will Not Protect Free Speech
Article 301 Should Be Abolished
The government''s proposed revision to the infamous Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, which has been used to investigate and prosecute hundreds of people for peacefully expressing themselves, will not remove the article''s restrictions on free speech, Human Rights Watch said today. The government''s draft revision of the article is likely to be considered by the Turkish parliament in the coming days.

Quote:

Letter to Turkish Government concerning Harassment of Lambda Istanbul
Human Rights Watch writes to express concern regarding the recent incursion by Istanbul city police into the headquarters of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) human rights organization Lambda Istanbul. We urge the Turkish government to respect the right to freedom of expression and association, and to halt harassment of legitimate human rights organizations.

LINK TURKEY EXCERPTS DATED 2008

Quote:

Indonesia: (Should) Reverse Ban on Ahmadiyah Sect
Government Should Protect Religious Minority, Not Threaten Prison for Beliefs
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono should reverse a decree that would permit criminal prosecutions of the Ahmadiyah community for their religious beliefs, Human Rights Watch said today.

Quote:

Indonesia: Scrap Proposed Religion Ban
Government Should Protect Ahmadis, not Persecute Them
The Indonesian government should reject proposals to ban the minority Ahmadiyah faith and not align itself with the extremists who have fomented violence against them, Human Rights Watch said today

Quote:

Universal Periodic Review of Indonesia
Human Rights Watch 's Submission to the Human Rights Council
In 2006 Indonesia succeeded in securing membership of both the UN Human Rights Council and the UN Security Council. Indonesia also acceded to the ICCPR and the ICESCR. These are signs that Indonesia wants to be accepted as a rights-respecting member of the international community. However, the human rights situation in Papua and West Papua has shown there a clear gap between Indonesia''s international commitments and its rhetoric, and the reality on the ground. The remote Papua province is a region closed to outside observers.

Quote:

Indonesia: Free Peaceful Protesters in Papua
Activists Face Charges for Nonviolent Expression
The Indonesian government should order the immediate release of nine Papua activists arrested for displaying the Papuan Morning Star flag, Human Rights Watch said today. All charges against them should be dropped.

Quote:

Indonesia: Suharto''s Death a Chance for Victims to Find Justice
Government Should Investigate Crimes of Former Dictator''s Regime
The death of former president Suharto at age 86 provides an opportunity to commemorate the many victims of his oppressive regime, Human Rights Watch said today. Human Rights Watch said the Indonesian government should make a serious commitment to hold accountable the perpetrators of human rights abuses during his rule.

LINK FOR INDONESIA EXCERPTS DATED 2008

0 Replies

Oh, and after comparing the reality of human rights granted to the citizenry of Indonesia and Turkey as compared to that enjoyed by the USA or the UK or other western nations, perhaps you would like to make a case that the wealth/opportunities/prosperity of the average Indonesian or Turk is comparable to the average citizen of the USA or the UK or other western nations?

0 Replies

And THEN you might enjoy actually addressing the topic? Would a Muslim majority likely change the government and/or economic and human rights freedoms/accomplishments in the UK? Why or why not?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Would a Muslim majority likely change the government and/or economic and human rights freedoms/accomplishments in the UK? Why or why not?

The UK is a parliamentary democracy with a sovereign parliament.

Since nothing really is impossible that might be changed after an election which is based more on religious facts than on politics ... if one religion gets the majority in all constituencies.

If the UK leaves the EU, certainly their economics and the human rights as well as freedoms could by minimised and/or changed as well (but only, after they had abandoned their statute laws, case laws made by judges, and international treaties.

0 Replies

Did you actually read what you posted?

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:
Turkey: Constitutional Court Ruling Upholds Headscarf Ban
Religion and Expression Rights Denied, Broader Reform Agenda Endangered
The decision by Turkey''s Constitutional Court to cancel constitutional amendments that would have opened the way for women to wear a headscarf in universities is a blow to freedom of religion and other fundamental rights, Human Rights Watch said today. The court ruled on June 5 that the Turkish parliament had violated the constitutionally enshrined principle of secularism when it passed amendments to lift the headscarf ban on university campuses. The amendments were adopted by an overwhelming majority of parliament.

Universities are state run. Turkey's Constitution establishes a secular government. Therefore, headscarves (as religious symbols) are banned in public buildings. This includes universities, court buildings, parliament, etc. etc.

I will grant you that you will be able to find all kinds of cases in Muslim countries that have to do with Islam. Some states base their constitutions on God, but are largely secular. Others have parallel systems of religious courts and secular courts, with religious courts regulating areas such as marriage and inheritance.

Other countries rely almost entirely on Sharia law. It's a wide spectrum.

I have no problem acknowledging that. You, on the other hand, seem to have a problem with the idea that there are all kinds of models to be found - from strictly secular Muslim countries to countries that have implemented Sharia law for almost all aspects of life.

In fact, if you insist that your earlier statement here

Foxfyre wrote:

In most, perhaps all, predominantly Islamic countries, however, all citizens, Muslim or not, are required to observe some or all of Sharia law.

was not based on ignorance, then it would simply appear to be a flat out lie.

0 Replies

Some of the illustrations posted above, however, show how a nation's constitution and/or official policy can be trumped by demands of Islamic fundamentalists if such fundamentalists have sufficient clout. Certainly the laws of a country controlled by Islamic fundamentals are far more likely to lack accommodation for human rights than do the laws of the UK and most other developed western countries.

0 Replies

AND SO IT BEGINS? SHARIA LAW IN BRITAIN?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know