Sharia law approved in Britain

[Don Penguinoini]

What didn't you understand, hon? I can't clarify if I don't know where to start.

The out of court arbitration bit, Storm.

As for my status on this whole thing,

 

[Storm]

The out of court arbitration bit, Storm.

Well, people are allowed to choose an arbiter to create a legally binding out of court settlement. Brit muslims are just choosing arbiters based on Sharia.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Well, people are allowed to choose an arbiter to create a legally binding out of court settlement. Brit muslims are just choosing arbiters based on Sharia.

Ok, now im embaressed, arbiter?

 

[Storm]

ar⋅bi⋅ter
1. a person empowered to decide matters at issue; judge; umpire.
2. a person who has the sole or absolute power of judging or determining.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Well, people are allowed to choose an arbiter to create a legally binding out of court settlement. Brit muslims are just choosing arbiters based on Sharia.

OK now that i understand...

I suppose its not that bad, but this means they should have out of court arbiters for all races/religions, right?

 

[Storm]

OK now that i understand...

I suppose its not that bad, but this means they should have out of court arbiters for all races/religions, right?

I'm not familiar with the minutia of Brit law, but I think it's an issue of supply and demand. IOW, like 9-10ths Penguin has been saying, everyone can already pick their arbiters according to whatever standards they please. Which makes this whole stink over Muslims picking them based on Shari'a kinda a non-issue. There's already a similar court based on Jewish law. I don't understand all the hullaballoo, myself.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok, now im embaressed, arbiter?

Say you're involved in a court case. Maybe you're suing someone, or someone's suing you, or you're going through a divorce. In lots of places, the UK included, people in those sorts of civil (i.e. non-criminal) cases are allowed to decide between themselves to not take their case to court and instead use arbitration to settle their dispute.

The rules for arbitration are a lot less rigid than a traditional court case; the arbitor (i.e. the person who oversees the arbitration and decides the outcome of the case) has a lot more freedom to do things the way he or she wants... as long as it's agreed to by the people involved.

A lot of the time, people will go to arbitration because it tends to be cheaper than a full court case. Other times, people agree to arbitration because they want the case to be decided based on rules or principles that are important to them. This might happen when two Jews have a contract dispute, when one Hindu sues another for negligence, or when two Muslims divorce. Now... just because you're a Jew, Hindu or Muslim doesn't mean you must accept "Jewish", "Hindu" or "Muslim arbitration; you still have the option of choosing a secular arbiter, and if nobody can agree what to do, the case goes through the courts like normal.

Basically, the law in Britain says that if you're in a civil case and can get everyone to agree, you can decide to not go through a courtroom trial and instead have your case heard by someone you choose, who has a lot more freedom when it comes to procedure than a judge would, but is still basing his decision on the same laws. People of all religions, including Muslims, have used this as an option when they decide, for whatever reason, that it's preferable to a traditional courtroom trial in front of a judge.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Say you're involved in a court case. Maybe you're suing someone, or someone's suing you, or you're going through a divorce. In lots of places, the UK included, people in those sorts of civil (i.e. non-criminal) cases are allowed to decide between themselves to not take their case to court and instead use arbitration to settle their dispute.

The rules for arbitration are a lot less rigid than a traditional court case; the arbitor (i.e. the person who oversees the arbitration and decides the outcome of the case) has a lot more freedom to do things the way he or she wants... as long as it's agreed to by the people involved.

A lot of the time, people will go to arbitration because it tends to be cheaper than a full court case. Other times, people agree to arbitration because they want the case to be decided based on rules or principles that are important to them. This might happen when two Jews have a contract dispute, when one Hindu sues another for negligence, or when two Muslims divorce. Now... just because you're a Jew, Hindu or Muslim doesn't mean you must accept "Jewish", "Hindu" or "Muslim arbitration; you still have the option of choosing a secular arbiter, and if nobody can agree what to do, the case goes through the courts like normal.

Basically, the law in Britain says that if you're in a civil case and can get everyone to agree, you can decide to not go through a courtroom trial and instead have your case heard by someone you choose, who has a lot more freedom when it comes to procedure than a judge would, but is still basing his decision on the same laws. People of all religions, including Muslims, have used this as an option when they decide, for whatever reason, that it's preferable to a traditional courtroom trial in front of a judge.

So actually there is no such thing as SHaria Law being approved, really is there?

 

[Storm]

Pretty much.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

OK now that i understand...

I suppose its not that bad, but this means they should have out of court arbiters for all races/religions, right?

Arbiters aren't provided by the government. They're private business people. Usually, they charge a fee for their services, which is shared among the people involved in the case that the arbiter is hearing.

If there's enough demand for arbitration that caters to a particular race, religion or specialty, then someone will probably set it up. If not, it doesn't happen.

 

[kai]

So actually there is no such thing as SHaria Law being approved, really is there?

exactly!, at long last its taken "the don" to grasp the idea that has eluded most people in this thread.

well done Don! frubals to you, now maybe the others can get it also

 

[Don Penguinoini]

exactly!, at long last its taken "the don" to grasp the idea that has eluded most people in this thread.

well done Don! frubals to you, now maybe the others can get it also

It seems simple enough, but it isn't.:no:

 

[Muffled]

Dear Darkendless
You forgot a very important economical formula if there was no demand there wouldnt be any supply. I have told you before that the White Elite used to purchase them as slaves to work in their farms and stuff. if some omani dudes did what you said why is the black movement against white Christians and not agaisnt Omanis or muslims, if we did to them so bad they should hate us but they dont on the contrary they hate the white christians,please expain this point. my friend try to do a research on how the british saliors kept alot of slaves on a ship and how thier women were treated by the educated civilialised Whites, thier condition of how they sleept, no matter what suit you wear or how your hairstyle look or what year it is, in reality the real white image is KKK.

Dear Muffled
What you said about the Jordanian, werent praticing shariah, and regarding the vietnamese that will keep his husband away from infidelity isnt that a good thing.

Dear Dream Angel
I am a full british citizen, we have not applied british passports ok, like most of the normal indians or pakistanis who you know. A certificate of nationalisation with the sign of Viceroy Lord MountBatten, given to my grand father in 1920 so, plus i dont live in UK, honestly i dont like living in UK, i had completed my studies and i thank God the day i flied from Heathrow. moreover none of my direct family is living in the UK, yeah we might go for a week and come back but not staying deffinatly. Now you said that the immigrant muslims should not demand so much so i am asking you what about the White Muslims like Cat Stevens (Yusuf Islam) and Yvonne Ridely what would you suggest the UK government to settle about them. previously Islam was a brown religion fro you guys but now with the help of your media more Whites are becoming Muslims. 3 mosques in Southampton used to be chruches, what would you suggest the White muslims to do.

Chances are they were practicing vengeance which is more of a cultural phenomenon (and what is most often behind the Palestinian problem). It was enough of a problem for God to say "vengeance is mine" in the Bible and to set up cities of refuge. The woman in question did seek shelter for a while but then returned to her husband. I don't think she was expecting the attack to come from his brothers and thought she was safe with her husband.I don't see infidelity as a capital offense and the law in the US would not do more than grant a divorce.

 

[England my lionheart]

Dear Dream Angel
I am a full british citizen, we have not applied british passports ok, like most of the normal indians or pakistanis who you know. A certificate of nationalisation with the sign of Viceroy Lord MountBatten, given to my grand father in 1920 so, plus i dont live in UK, honestly i dont like living in UK, i had completed my studies and i thank God the day i flied from Heathrow. moreover none of my direct family is living in the UK, yeah we might go for a week and come back but not staying deffinatly. Now you said that the immigrant muslims should not demand so much so i am asking you what about the White Muslims like Cat Stevens (Yusuf Islam) and Yvonne Ridely what would you suggest the UK government to settle about them. previously Islam was a brown religion fro you guys but now with the help of your media more Whites are becoming Muslims. 3 mosques in Southampton used to be chruches, what would you suggest the White muslims to do.

Good i'm glad you do not want to live here,if only more would follow your lead,if you want sharia law a good place that serves it up best is Saudi Arabia,directions on request

 

[nawab]

i know my directions better than you, i am not asking the directions towards the nearest pub, so keep your directions to yourself.

Now for the people staying over there the british colonised India and naturally it has to pay the price,

 

[kai]

i know my directions better than you, i am not asking the directions towards the nearest pub, so keep your directions to yourself.

Now for the people staying over there the british colonised India and naturally it has to pay the price,

Nawab anyone who comes to stay in britain from the commonwealth or Europe is very welcome the problems come when there is no integration, no attempt at becoming a "british" citizen, In this country of ours you have complete religious freedom , but it seems its not enough and some people preach of hatred for the British way of life mostly while claiming benefits from the government. and we dont really have a problem with Indians.

 

[England my lionheart]

i know my directions better than you, i am not asking the directions towards the nearest pub, so keep your directions to yourself.

Now for the people staying over there the british colonised India and naturally it has to pay the price,

I have Indian freinds and have no problem with people of any ethnic origin and i could'nt give a toss what or who they worship but i have no time for people who come here and like Kai said preach hatred and will not integrate.
India and Indian people have given great service to this country especially in the past,Pakistan however has done far worse to India and are still doing and when the aftermath of the Mumbai terrorists is over i'm sure it will emerge that Pakistanis were behind it.
As for the Pub why would i give you directions to any Pub surely Muslims don't drink.

 

[nawab]

When i meant India, i meant Pak-o-Hind, undivided india, i dont think the muslims are demanding a right to preach hatred if not i would be against that too, but as far as i know they are just demanding a way to sort our their own family disputes which any family regardless of being muslims or anything should be allowed. Pakistan has not done anything worse to india there is war going on between these two countries for kashmir, plus those terrorist were indians not pakitanis, if the policies in India were being fair to everyone these problems would not arise

 

[darkendless]

When i meant India, i meant Pak-o-Hind, undivided india, i dont think the muslims are demanding a right to preach hatred if not i would be against that too, but as far as i know they are just demanding a way to sort our their own family disputes which any family regardless of being muslims or anything should be allowed. Pakistan has not done anything worse to india there is war going on between these two countries for kashmir, plus those terrorist were indians not pakitanis, if the policies in India were being fair to everyone these problems would not arise

Because Islamic extremists are always disadvantaged aren't they

Perhaps if they wanted equal rights killing westerners wasn't the right way to go about it. All they're doing is giving the world an excuse to hurl abuse at Islam and screwing India's economy, who will go on a holiday there now?

 

[England my lionheart]

When i meant India, i meant Pak-o-Hind, undivided india, i dont think the muslims are demanding a right to preach hatred if not i would be against that too, but as far as i know they are just demanding a way to sort our their own family disputes which any family regardless of being muslims or anything should be allowed. Pakistan has not done anything worse to india there is war going on between these two countries for kashmir, plus those terrorist were indians not pakitanis, if the policies in India were being fair to everyone these problems would not arise

I don't honestly think you know what you are talking about,the people who carried out the attack in Mumbai were Pakistani Islamic terrorists and to my discust some are said to be from Britain.
We do not need Sharia law in this country because we already have Civil law and we are a secular country so its not required.
As for Pakistan its a terrorist holiday spot and being an Islamic state by its nature it supports these terrorists and these problems arise because of Islamic terrorists.