Britain as an Islamic State?

[CassinoChips]

Examples, please?

"I can provide evidence but, really, it's just not necessary."

I'm sorry, do the ten commandments speak of reducing a woman to nothing but a slave? Besides, this, I'm pretty sure we're not discussing Christianity. It's Islam we're discussing. That's really besides the point. How about we go speak about how the ten commandments strip a person of their rights in a thread specifically for that discussion instead of derailing this one?

Compleeeeetely missed the point. I was not comparing Christianity to Islam. I was comparing an adherent of Christianity's desire to be beholden to their religion's laws to an adherent of Islam's desire to be beholden to their religion's laws. Just like a woman who has been brought up in a predominantly Christian area would more readily accept a Christianity-centered law, a woman who has been brought up in a predominantly Muslim area would more readily accept an Islam-centered law. I am passing no judgment on either count. It's simply an analogy.

I'm terribly sorry there TTT, but that is entirely incorrect. Shari'ah Law has no "variations"

Factually incorrect.

nor does there exist a part of it that supplies any good for a gender other than male or any good for any other religion.

Factually incorrect.

What you mean to say is,

I said what I meant, and I meant what I said.

some countries hold "some" of the bad things out, but that doesn't mean it doesn't slip in and hurt and oppress women.

Like how in the U.S., women continue to make 80 cents to every dollar a man makes?

An example of such a situation would be looking at England. A slave-woman was recently smuggled in and the man used her as a house slave promising money to her, but when they arrived, he kept her captive, beat her and didn't give her pay and he got caught, because those worst parts, were kept on a leash.

Human trafficking occurs everywhere, and is not exclusive to adherents of Sharia.

To simply say so is absurd and incorrect. Turkey's law holds most of the Shari'ah back, that doesn't make it any less "Shari'ah". I could provide examples, but I doubt anyone would want to hear...

You're right. It doesn't make it less Sharia. It makes it a different interpretation of Sharia, like I said previously.

"there is little difference secularly between a woman living in a Sharia state, and a woman living in a non-Sharia state."

Again, I'm sorry to state so, but that is also incorrect. The last time I checked, I wasn't being forced to wear a Burqa/clothes of a religion, so there are major differences, specifically freedom...

You must be watching Faux News, because taking quotes out of context is one of their hallmarks.

In some interpretations of Christianity, women are not allowed to wear "split-legged trousers" in public. They may only wear skirts/dresses. In Hassidic Judaism, there are the little curly things guys have to keep. Amish men and women can only wear certain forms of dress.

To say there is "little difference" is spitting in the face of the women suffering under Shari'ah Law everyday. It is mocking them and their pain and oppression and it is very wrong.

Lol. If some of those women saw some of the things you've written here about their religion, they'd say you were spitting in their face and mocking them as well. So settle down with the high and mighty act there. And again, context. I said that in many versions of Sharia, women do not "suffer," so there is no difference between the two. The premise is that they're not suffering. So how can I be mocking their suffering.

Funny one can say that but the actually evidence shows its not true. Women under Shari'ah Law and Islam, can't even drive a car alone and in most places, can't even drive because their hands will show.

Shown to be factually incorrect by Sultan.

That's not only it, but they cannot divorce without three to two trustworthy Muslim men to back up their statement (see England for cases about it). A female Muslim must ask her husband for consent to divorce and must pay back the downy that has been paid,

Factually incorrect. According to Sharia law, women always keep their dowry.

but the man may divorce whenever he wants to and the woman has to stay for three months -- regardless of her stay.

Factually incorrect. The woman can seek a divorce any time a part of the marriage contract is violated. It's called Khula. And there are differing opinions on the Iddah, the waiting period you mentioned. However, I don't know what you mean by "stay for three months." In the three-month interpretation of Iddah, she doesn't have to "stay" anywhere, she just can't remarry for three months.

There's also, following the Qur'ān, the rule of Shari'ah Law that states women cannot marry men unless they convert to Islam but men may marry women of The of Book or anyone else. Doesn't matter for them, but it does for women.

It does matter. It's considered a responsibility of Muslim men to marry a Muslim woman, unless he is in an area where there are no, or few, Muslim women. But you're right, in some versions of Sharia, this does exist. But then, I'm right, and in some versions of Sharia, it does not exist.

That's just some of the stuff against women. There is also, for both genders but happens more to women, the penalty of adultery, which is stonings. For unmarried women and men, its 100 lashes, according to the Qur'ān, of course....The punishment for stealing is multiplied by how many times you steal. Like amputation of your leg or arm....

No disagreement.

You are right about Shari'ah law being different for different Islamic countries, but not in the sense in which you think. For the Ahlus Sunnah Muslim, a man can simply utter the word Talaq to instantly divorce his wife, leaving her nothing. In Shīʻah Muslim, men can use the Triple Talaq and can even do so through text messages, letters, other people...as long as its clear, of course. But that one is barely allowed under most big Islamic States, but only a few.

Only one, actually. Malaysia.

And according to Pakistani law, which is Sharia-heavy, "A wife who unluckily could not find herself to be in a peaceful wedlock with her husband and is desirous of getting a divorce has a statutory right to get divorce as the law does not believe in hateful unions "

Now, having cultural access and support to acquire a divorce may be another issue, but the law does support her seeking a Khula.

I'm sorry TTT, but it does automatically mean subjugation for women.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't.

For one to claim its nearly the same is very wrong. The Ten Commandments are entirely different and offer justice, freedom and safety, as opposed to complete opposite, the Shari'ah Law.

See above. I'm not saying the two are the same.

Many support the full Shari'ah Law. Look at Egypt (82% percent believe in stoning people, cutting arms off for theft, 73% for killing non-Muslims...). Look at Iran. Look at Pakistan (there are a few cities were this doesn't occur, but that's only 2-3 cities..). Look at North Africa. Look at Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Iraq... or look at Saudi Arabia where women are literally stopped by police and told to wear more clothing (tourists don't have to though).

"Look at Pakistan (there are a few cities were this doesn't occur, but that's only 2-3 cities..). "

Explain to me how this sentence doesn't prove my entire point. Why doesn't it occur in those 2-3 cities? Possibly because they have a different interpretation of Sharia law?

===========

To wrap this up in an on-topic bow, I don't see Britain becoming an Islamic state any time soon. However, if it were to become so, it wouldn't necessarily become a so-called "Sharia" state. But even if it were to go that far, it wouldn't necessarily become an oppressive state. The non-Muslim Brits would never stand for it, and, simply put, it doesn't automatically equate to subjugation of any particular group.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Wha? Sharia laws in Britain- will never happen, unless some incredible stuff happens. Immigration alone isn't enough.
Muslims may very well be in the billions, but there are billions more people in countries with established gov't and law. That is Sharia law only reaches less
fortunate countries.

I mean, technically speaking, the Judaic religion speaks of stoning people to death, casting ill people from society, etc. but you don't see Jews doing that.
Most Muslims do not adhere to Sharia law just as Jews do not adhere to God's original laws. The same can go for Christians. We live in the 'new world'- or something like that.
It's the wild, wild east out there

 

[Ilyena]

Just a heads up guys, this thread is not about analyzing Sharia law but what people think about Britain becoming an Islamic State. Let's not stray far from the original topic. Thanks.

I'm just going to reiterate this as people still seem to be diverging from the original topic.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

I'm just going to reiterate this as people still seem to be diverging from the original topic.

I don't understand.. An Islamic state opts to obey Muslim law, including the dark corners of it if taken abroad.

I guess,, this will suffice?:

I feel that many Western countries are jumping at the sight of Islamic growth. I think this is unnecessary. The U.S. is a melting pot with all religions. Catholicism is one of the big ones, especially with Latin immigration. Yet, in every part of the country, Catholic churches are somewhat rare in relevance to the free Christian churches that riddle every county/city of every state within.
If Britain becomes an Islamic state, that's bad news for the free world

 

[Harlequin]

To wrap this up in an on-topic bow, I don't see Britain becoming an Islamic state any time soon. However, if it were to become so, it wouldn't necessarily become a so-called "Sharia" state. But even if it were to go that far, it wouldn't necessarily become an oppressive state. The non-Muslim Brits would never stand for it, and, simply put, it doesn't automatically equate to subjugation of any particular group.

Well it might not necessarily equate to subjugation, but when are things ever as simple as might not so will not? Not that I believe there is no way religion and government could mix, but we're talking about a code of laws which could easily be misconstrued to oppress all accept muslims. For example I could be wrong seeing as I'm not fully learned in this, but there's a concept called Dhimmi which I believe is a part of Sharia law which makes second class citizens out of those who aren't muslim, essentially limiting their civil rights. It's stated explicitly that they aren't legally as important as muslims, that is in it's very literal form, inequality. Where there is inequality, oppression inevitably follows, we've had numerous examples of this particular dynamic throughout history and it always repeats itself.

You say the non muslim Brits wouldn't stand for it, but currently the only groups who openly - and vehemently so - oppose the transition are the EDL and the BNP, both of whom are considered narrow minded and racist by the majority of the population, whether true or not. You might think the Brits wouldn't stand for it, but you live in a country that is particularly patriotic, one with a strong national identity. We don't have that in Britain, the British roll over these days.

Wha? Sharia laws in Britain- will never happen, unless some incredible stuff happens. Immigration alone isn't enough.

Immigration isn't the only contribution to the muslim population in Britain. I believe conversions and child indoctrination play a far larger part in the boom of Islam in Britian.

I mean, technically speaking, the Judaic religion speaks of stoning people to death, casting ill people from society, etc. but you don't see Jews doing that.
Most Muslims do not adhere to Sharia law just as Jews do not adhere to God's original laws. The same can go for Christians. We live in the 'new world'- or something like that.

As much as I disagree with this, especially how general you're being with you estimations, I'm not inclined to comment further on these issues because the comparisons and other religions are largely off topic.

 

[blakstang98]

That depends. What law system are you speaking of?
We all know what the origins of Sharia are and why they want it. The question is, do you understand what Sharia law is? What it does to you and I as women? What it does to nonbelievers?
What it will do to Britain(or anywhere else for that matter) if Sharia law was fully established in those countries?
It is, though. Since, what we’re discussing revolves around Sharia law. So… burden of proof is in your hands.
You seemed to have missed my point. The difference from both religions wanting their “laws” to be implemented country-wise is that, Sharia is dangerous and sexist, not to mention racist while others don’t nearly hold a quarter of what dangers Sharia holds towards not only women, but nonbelievers of any God, such as yourself.

Again, we're getting off topic. This thread is about Britain becoming an Islamic state, not Sharia law. If you want to use Sharia law to define your arguement about Britain and it's growth in Islam, then by all means, but this isn't a debate about how it affects women or races or other countries for that matter. So lets get on topic please.

Isn't an Islamic state the same as Sahria Law? They go hand in hand.

Again, how does this relate to Britain? This is where I'm going with this. We can yammer on about Sharia law, but that's not what this thread is about. And also, please don't spam post.

 

[Harlequin]

And as a woman, my posts on what Sharia does to women is in line with my opinion on its implementation on Britain or anywhere else for that matter.

In all fairness her emphasis on Sharia is explained here. I feel it's fully within the topic to discuss one's opinion on it's implementation in our western society, especially when taking into consideration the widespread view that women get the shorter end of the stick when Sharia is implemented as a theocracy. Of course, whilst the title says Britian, I did point out that this wasn't an issue solely faced by the UK but in fact Europe and indeed beyond.

 

[Ilyena]

Fair enough everyone. Now let's carry on before we derail the entire thread.