UK patition to stop sharia law in UK

[MindOverMatter]

I may not be British but for those who are should take a look at the patition for yourself.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Moriarty]

Petitions? Meh. Since when has popular opinion had anything to do with the course of a democratic society's future?

But seriously to our UK members: how prevalent is this issue, and do you personally consider it a problem in your society?

[TheLastMohican]

I find this a bit disturbing. The U.K. is slowly being taken over by "tolerance" (which is approaching reverse intolerance), even more so than Christian influence in the U.S. Should tolerance for a culture override basic human rights within in a country? I see this heading towards segmentation of the country into parts controlled by normal law and Sharia law, to the point of secession/border establishments.

[psilocybophile]

Petitions? Meh. Since when has popular opinion had anything to do with the course of a democratic society's future?

But seriously to our UK members: how prevalent is this issue, and do you personally consider it a problem in your society?

Funny, that - I just emailed 8 of our MEP's (Members of European Parliament) on the Climate and Energy package, asking them to vote against the proposed 'permits to pollute' that are being pushed by industry lobbyists. While writing the email, I found myself repeatedly coming back to the same point - our government bombards us with guilt-trips on how we should be doing our bit for the environment, they're even talking about bringing in fines for people who throw out too much rubbish. And for my part, I try to do as much as I can to minimise my carbon footprint, not that their persuasions have had much to do with that. But then they turn round and announce that they are going to give the go-ahead for new coal-fired power stations to be built in the UK, and now this ridiculous 'permit to pollute' scheme, which basically immunises big businesses and corporations from their responsibility to clean up their act. It's a culture of 'do as I say, but not as I do', and as a UK citizen, I am really starting to have trouble believing that anything I have to say is of any consequence to them. Democracy hasn't seemed to be working for a long time in this country. I certainly don't feel like I have a voice.

But returning to the point in question - Shariah Law - I honestly don't know what, if any, general information you guys have on the social climate of the UK population. As I don't feel like I have much an idea of what goes on in the US, I may be safe in assuming you don't get to hear much of what goes on here. The concept of Islamic integration (or lack thereof) is a HUGE issue over here. In fact, the concept of Islam and Muslims is a huge issue, never mind integration. There are regular documentaries broadcast, exposing the questionable, and sometimes apparently dangerous, methods of those with power and influence in the British Muslim community. I've linked to one here:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I find this a bit disturbing. The U.K. is slowly being taken over by "tolerance" (which is approaching reverse intolerance), even more so than Christian influence in the U.S. Should tolerance for a culture override basic human rights within in a country? I see this heading towards segmentation of the country into parts controlled by normal law and Sharia law, to the point of secession/border establishments.

A very good question. Please bear in mind that not only am I an atheist, I am also very much against any form of organised religion. So if what I say in this post seems biased and judgmental, that's because when it comes to religion, I am.

Our government has bent over backwards to make Muslims in this country feel welcome and safe, and that they have a place in our society. I personally would never have had a problem with them - I don't generally have a problem with people of any other faith - but the Muslim community has time and time again proved itself ungrateful for their welcome, unwilling to integrate, and in some cases unwilling to accept that the country they (who have immigrated) have decided to live in is the way it is. Here are a couple of examples, covered in the UK media over the last couple of years:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I sometimes wonder ‘am I being weak and allowing the media to influence my beliefs in a negative way?’, but then I remember that, actually, I have first-hand experience of this. One of my ex-boyfriends was a Muslim, born and bred here in the UK. Worked in a bank, wore western clothes, drove a BMW, had some black and white (male) friends, and generally acted like what we’ve been told by our government is a ‘moderate British Muslim’. During our relationship, he hid me from his friends and family (he made me duck down in the car whenever we drove past anywhere someone he might know may be walking, and promptly separated from me entirely if we were walking along and he saw someone he knew). He prevented me from leaving my student halls without him (I was 18 and incredibly naïve and impressionable). He even started hitting me towards the end. And when the war in Iraq began, I remember him saying that he’d really love to go over to number 10 Downing Street and blow Tony Blair up. No joke.

There was a live debate on Channel 4 a while ago, about whether Islam endangers the western concept of freedom of speech. During the debate, they brought up the story of a cartoon in a Danish newspaper depicting the prophet Mohammed, which sparked (yes, you guessed it) outrage, death threats and much burning of national emblems by the resident Muslim community. The presenter said that the producers of the debate had planned to show the cartoon as evidence. Then he said that the powers that be at Channel 4 had deemed it ‘inappropriate’ to do so. I think that about sums it up.

I thought we’d assured a permanent secular state with the deline of Christianity in the UK. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have a problem with people practicing their faith as they see fit. But to affect those who have a different faith, or no faith at all, with religiously centered political policies, laws or otherwise is wrong.

There are plenty of perfectly intelligent people who will argue that the introduction of Shariah Law in the UK will have no effect on non-Muslim British citizens, as it would only be adhered to when requested by Muslims, and would in no way replace or override the course of British justice. To that argument, I would retort:

Firstly, if anyone thinks that this measure to enable Muslims to settle certain disputes in a Shariah court would satisfy them, they are severely misguided. It is the nature of Islam to convert all non-believers, often by force in countries less developed than our own. If we give them an inch, they will take a mile, and they won’t stop until Britain is a Muslim state.

Secondly, even if my first point proved to be untrue, I would have to agree with thelastmohican’s point above. When our government goes on and on about segregation, and the need for integration and tolerance, and then considers allowing the Muslim community to separate themselves from other British citizens in as fundamental an issue of law, something is going very wrong. Whenever ‘tolerance’ is discussed, it always seems to be from the angle that non-Muslim British citizens need to be more tolerant to Muslims and their faith. What about our right to tolerance? When living in Manchester, in a predominantly Muslim area, I would walk down the street in knee-highs and a mini-skirt, and without fail I would be glared at by Muslim men and women passing me. They didn’t seem to want me to exercise my freedom of choice to wear whatever the fuck I wanted. I personally find it extremely difficult to cope with seeing hundreds of women in the street, who I can’t see the face of because they’ve got it covered up with a veil. How can you begin to trust someone if you can’t see their face? But, of course, their right to wear whatever they want is respected.

They already segregate themselves geographically. There are whole suburbs of my city now where you’re lucky to even see a non-Muslim. Passing by these areas, I see every pub has been boarded up, and the windows have been smashed in. There used to be white people living there, but they've gradually been forced out of their own community. Muslims are building their own mini-Pakistans and mini-Bangladeshes in our British cities. And they wonder why so many people don’t trust them?

The average tabloid-reading, working class Brit will tell you that if Muslims dislike it here so much that they want to change the way we do things, then they can fuck off back where they came from. I’m afraid I’m inclined to agree.

Wow, I’ve just noticed how long this post is. Sorry. As you can probably tell, this is a subject I could go on about for HOURS. Thanks for bringing it up, mindovermatter, and I will definitely be signing that petition, even if it doesn’t mean jack shit!

[zippikay]

i certainly hope that this case wouldn't come to US, if UK allow sharia law to be established, to what point would this law be valid? If sharia law would dictate stoning, would the law approved it?

I'm curious

[psilocybophile]

i certainly hope that this case wouldn't come to US, if UK allow sharia law to be established, to what point would this law be valid? If sharia law would dictate stoning, would the law approved it?

I'm curious

No, what they're suggesting is that a Shariah court of law could be requested as a preference by Muslims wanting to settle marital, family and property disputes and such-like. When Shariah law either prevents the established course of justice from taking place, or dictates that an unlawful solution to an issue should be engaged, the secular Law of the country would always prevail.

The most worrying thing I can see with it in that form is that it could so easily be used to further discriminate against, and overpower, Muslim women. Aposticism is considered one of the highest crimes for a Muslim (and many UK Muslims actually admit that they believe it should be punishable by death). So for a Muslim woman to object to any dispute concerning her legal rights being brought before a Shariah court, instead of a normal court of law, would I imagine be tantamount to aposticism. And since women's legal right are not exactly as generous in Shariah law as they are in normal law, that would mean that thousands of Muslim women would not only be treated with inequality in their everyday lives, but their legal rights would also be affected.

[ame]

I find this a bit disturbing. The U.K. is slowly being taken over by "tolerance" (which is approaching reverse intolerance), even more so than Christian influence in the U.S. Should tolerance for a culture override basic human rights within in a country? I see this heading towards segmentation of the country into parts controlled by normal law and Sharia law, to the point of secession/border establishments.
I thought that.
If it is allowed to happen the next push would be towards shariah laws on punishment for crime. These things once off the ground can keep going.
There should be one set of laws in a country everyone abides by.
It would also make it harder for girls in muslim families to make a choice about their lifestyle. Making it harder to leave their families if they know the government backs it up. Some girls in these families don't want to go against their families for fear of abandonment or even violence so quietly rely on the laws protecting them that their British peers enjoy.

Most recent in the news was a teacher giving detention to a primary school kid for not participating in muslim prayer.
This was a average British secular school but the teacher was religious. Of course the kids went home and told their parents, who understandably went berserk.
I'm a pretty relaxed liberal about things but I think it's beginning to overstep the mark at this point.

[zibber]

I can see how muslims would want sharia to be applicable to "internal" disputes, but we must question the nature of the word "internal". Should "the muslim community" be treated as a sort of bubble kingdom, with special laws? I certainly don't think so, based on my conviction (or suspicion, if you want it to sound less dogmatic) that not every "muslim" has actually chosen to be in that religious community (whether they realise or not), and that some (or many, depending on how many are afraid to publish it) actively wish to escape it. The possibility that these people will be subjected to anything other than secular, "rational", "objective" law is absolutely unbearable.

(It seems to be that the main argument for the partial introduction of sharia law is that people entering into a truly consensual "contract" (such as islamic marriage) should be deemed responsible enough to choose for themselves which laws will govern their contract, so I think my point is fundamentally relevant.)

Now for something different, though. If anyone thinks my following comments in any way condone or try to defend any aspect of islam, they are mistaken.


I sometimes wonder ‘am I being weak and allowing the media to influence my beliefs in a negative way?’, but then I remember that, actually, I have first-hand experience of this. One of my ex-boyfriends was a Muslim, born and bred here in the UK. Worked in a bank, wore western clothes, drove a BMW, had some black and white (male) friends, and generally acted like what we’ve been told by our government is a ‘moderate British Muslim’. During our relationship, he hid me from his friends and family (he made me duck down in the car whenever we drove past anywhere someone he might know may be walking, and promptly separated from me entirely if we were walking along and he saw someone he knew). He prevented me from leaving my student halls without him (I was 18 and incredibly naïve and impressionable). He even started hitting me towards the end. And when the war in Iraq began, I remember him saying that he’d really love to go over to number 10 Downing Street and blow Tony Blair up. No joke.

This anecdote proves nothing.

He hid you because in some cultures, it is frowned upon to involve yourself romantically with someone of different ethnicity. This is cultural and it is only natural (no matter how ignorant and backwards) that he would feel the urge to hide you from his family. I can tell you that you would not have been welcomed with open arms.

The comment about him hitting you is sad and he was most indubitably wrong in doing so, but in the context of this paragraph it is a DIRE non sequitur. He even started hitting you? If you logically connect this to his hiding you from his family, I strongly believe you are mistaken.

As for the final bit: It is actually very natural for young western muslims to feel resentment towards the west! Lately a trend seems to have emerged where the west ((neoconservative) American spin doctors, specifically) keeps demonising islam, and young muslims become more and more radicalised in a search for their true identity. This matter needs to be adressed. Nonmuslim westerners generalise and fear islam because of a small group of radicals, which in turn creates a climate where young western muslims feel forced to choose between the different aspects of their "identity" (one on hand the western part of them, having been raised in the west and having adopted many western characteristics, and on the other hand the muslim part of them, having been raised with the religion of their parents and general family, a religion also strongly associated with their ethnicity).

[ame]

I can see how muslims would want sharia to be applicable to "internal" disputes, but we must question the nature of the word "internal". Should "the muslim community" be treated as a sort of bubble kingdom, with special laws? I certainly don't think so, based on my conviction (or suspicion, if you want it to sound less dogmatic) that not every "muslim" has actually chosen to be in that religious community (whether they realise or not), and that some (or many, depending on how many are afraid to publish it) actively wish to escape it. The possibility that these people will be subjected to anything other than secular, "rational", "objective" law is absolutely unbearable.

(It seems to be that the main argument for the partial introduction of sharia law is that people entering into a truly consensual "contract" (such as islamic marriage) should be deemed responsible enough to choose for themselves which laws will govern their contract, so I think my point is fundamentally relevant.)
"Bubble kingdom with special laws" is the main objection people have to this. I happen to agree with them. There is also fear of speaking up because people want to be on the right side of the liberal line, whatever that is.
I think pc-ness has gone so far it's like another kind of thought police.
If someone outrightly told me they think fox hunting is barbaric and I accused them back of being racist a person could quite rightly think I was jumping the gun a fair bit. I could just simply say it's my culture, you have no right to criticise, you're a bigot for saying it. Argument over.

Having a separate court of law for another group is a dangerous thing to do as it separates, the most scary thought if put another way being different people are subject to different laws. That's not what civil rights leaders have been fighting for... for so long.
If anyone remembers anything about them and looks at it objectively moves like this are leaps backwards away from what they were pushing for.

People and the decisions made in that court will answer to a small group of people who would need to be regulated. But who will regulate it? Another religious individual or an atheist, how about a christian or Jewish? If they say no to Jewish is that discrimination?
Sounds like a possible catch 22 there, someone who'd agree too much or one who'd disagree too much. How much of the religious text would a person have to agree on to be considered impartial and fair, representing set boundaries of the British law heretofore deemed insufficient for one group of people?
As much as we might believe we live in a perfect world, our very imperfect human nature should not be taken for granted "this is our problem, let us deal with him/her in our way" would inevitably happen and a push to expand the courts duties over their community.
Laws should not be divisive in any way esp not religiously in a country.
Laws should be applicable to every human being not determined by religious beliefs.
Put simply Law and religion should be completely separate.
The difference between religion and culture can sometimes be blurred, that should be respected and given natural free rein in daily life providing it's not harmful. Objecting to segregational laws being imposed on a community is very different to expressing yourself and your identity ie culture and should not be apologised for.
If people from a community feel that the ideas they have about aspects of their lives needs inclusion legally, change it via the legal system. Britain is a very democratic place, which allowed this idea such a fair hearing but admitting people need different laws implies the ones we have are inadequate to accomodate the nation as a whole, is also dangerous.

I thought people were reaching the point where swearing on the bible in court was being thought of as outdated! Why feel differently for another group?

[tp6626]

My view is that the UK has its own laws, and if you want to live in the country, you should abide by those laws.

The UK is a mongrel race. A mish-mash of many different cultures, that's one of the things that makes us pretty unique or distinguishable in the world, and so successful for such a small Island. The views / opinions / needs of all these different cultures interact to influence the overall method of government.

The issue with Sharia law, is that some areas (e.g. Bradford, areas of Leeds, Birmingham, London) have been allowed to become inhabited almost exclusively by Muslims. In fact, in some areas the denomination 'White - British' is now the ethnic minority.

The people of these areas begin using religious reasons to give themselves a disproportionate political voice, which in my view as an atheist shouldn't be allowed. Religion and politics are separate issues.

The problem is not helped by extreme-liberals / human rights people, who promote 'tolerance' on Muslims' behalf. I see nothing wrong with tolerating Muslims', but it is a two-way relationship. They must tolerate our culture, and live by it as best they can.

If it conflicts with their religious beliefs, then maybe they should have gone to another country that is aligned with their beliefs more readily.

We have bent over backwards to welcome immigrants, and this fact alone has caused a lot of bad feeling with many Britons. It would be adding fuel to the fire, to begin changing laws to accommodate these people.

So, in my opinion, it should be made clear that in Britain laws and politics are very separate from religion, and that immigrants must live by British Law.

[zippikay]

I agree with the notion that tolerance is two way street; being tolerated, muslims should tolerate--if not grateful--those who tolerate them too.

by having sharia law, it can complicate things if should come dispute over certain religious touchy matters, what happen if muslim have dispute with another muslim and that muslim would convert to another religion? which law apply?

I am not sure about UK's muslim population, but here in US muslims would gather in their congregation and they would listen to doctrine of several few of muslims who would be deemed knowledge-able in islam.

what would concern me is that, how this sharia law would form? would it be based on their koran with strict quidance, or based on rules from their religious leaders' conclusion of their own interpretation?

how does the muslim society in UK gather? will they have their own religious organization similar to catholic vatican?

[Astra]

Here's an article about it from the Times:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

All the parties have to agree to have the case heard in this way - it's a form of alternative dispute resolution. The same provisions enable Jewish law to be enforced in the UK by the Beth Din.

I'm British and I totally can't get excited over this. I don't have any problem with Muslims at all and nor does anyone I know (a pretty middle-class bunch, admittedly).

[ame]

I'm not English. One of the second generation crowd from somewhere else who doesn't have a problem with Muslims either, just degrading secular rule.