Islam - What's your view on it?

[Imari]

"Man on facebook is idiot, thinks rape is okay". Sadly that's not really news any more.

I'm not sure that was ever news.

 

[GTboyz]

Edit : screw it.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Nutt-all is to call for a ban on Sharia law in the UK.

Well, he can bog off. I wish to remain free to enter any private contract that I wish to, to continue to have legal redress against being forced into any contract against my will, to wear what I like and to for my fellow citizens to continue to enjoy those same freedoms.

 

[Dotini]

Nutt-all is to call for a ban on Sharia law in the UK.

Well, he can bog off. I wish to remain free to enter any private contract that I wish to, to continue to have legal redress against being forced into any contract against my will, to wear what I like and to for my fellow citizens to continue to enjoy those same freedoms.

It would be amusing to see Ten-Ate-Anyone walk into a bank wearing a balaclava.

 

[Carbonox]

Nutt-all is to call for a ban on Sharia law in the UK.

Well, he can bog off. I wish to remain free to enter any private contract that I wish to, to continue to have legal redress against being forced into any contract against my will, to wear what I like and to for my fellow citizens to continue to enjoy those same freedoms.

I thought you'd be a bit more opposed than this to religious laws?

 

[UKMikey]

I thought you'd be a bit more opposed than this to religious laws?

It seems to be very selective targeting if the reasons for the ban were purely religious. They mention Beth Din right there in the article.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I thought you'd be a bit more opposed than this to religious laws?

Sharia doesn't have legal precedence in any country where it's practised - that's one of the basic tenets of Sharia. Anyone choosing to live by Sharia and to enter into agreements according to its principles has the right to redress from a Sharia ruling body (or court) just like any other private individual who has entered into any other legally recognised contract. It's none of my business whether that contract is defined by a religious organisation or a hillwalker's fee secretary, it's all the same principle of freedom.

It's no big deal in a modern Western country and, arguably, in countries that don't benefit from a less corrupt/tribal legal system Sharia is the very least of the populace's worries.

 

[Carbonox]

Sharia doesn't have legal precedence in any country where it's practised - that's one of the basic tenets of Sharia. Anyone choosing to live by Sharia and to enter into agreements according to its principles has the right to redress from a Sharia ruling body (or court) just like any other private individual who has entered into any other legally recognised contract. It's none of my business whether that contract is defined by a religious organisation or a hillwalker's fee secretary, it's all the same principle of freedom.

It's no big deal in a modern Western country and, arguably, in countries that don't benefit from a less corrupt/tribal legal system Sharia is the very least of the populace's worries.

How so? Why not just have the same rules and laws for everyone? At least, I thought that was how things were supposed to go in a secular country.

Following the archaic rules of your religion at home is one thing, but I'll strictly draw the line at settling bigger matters in a religiously biased courtroom. Particularly with "crimes" that aren't even crimes in the modern society around them, such as adultery.

 

[Sage Ages]

Well, go ahead. What's your view on it?

Sounds a lot like that whole Christianity thing.

 

[TenEightyOne]

How so? Why not just have the same rules and laws for everyone? At least, I thought that was how things were supposed to go in a secular country.

I bet the terms of my mobile phone contract are different from those for my neighbour. He's engaged in a different contract to me. For all I know he has a Sharia bank account with different contractual conditions from mine.

Our contract providers can't make us agree to anything that's illegal in England or Wales so what's the problem? Why would his contracts be my business or mine his?

 

[Carbonox]

I bet the terms of my mobile phone contract are different from those for my neighbour. He's engaged in a different contract to me. For all I know he has a Sharia bank account with different contractual conditions from mine.

Our contract providers can't make us agree to anything that's illegal in England or Wales so what's the problem? Why would his contracts be my business or mine his?

I'm not sure what your phone contract example has to do with the matter of one group imposing their values on themselves as law. Seems like a bad case of unsustainable cultural split to me.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'm not sure what your phone contract example has to do with the matter of one group imposing their values on themselves as law. Seems like a bad case of unsustainable cultural split to me.

It's an identical comparison - I've entered a contract into which I agree to a particular method of arbitration in the event of a disagreement over terms/services. The culture of any of the people involved is utterly irrelevant.

It would be amusing to see Ten-Ate-Anyone walk into a bank wearing a balaclava.

That would make me an idiot but I guess you're trying to say I'd be able to walk into a bank in burkha?

Some banks don't allow people in full veils to enter and Muslims are very unlikely to use usuring banks, I'm not sure your comparison works.

 

[BobK]

I'm not sure what your phone contract example has to do with the matter of one group imposing their values on themselves as law. Seems like a bad case of unsustainable cultural split to me.

I believe the point you're missing is that those subject to Sharia law are doing so voluntarily (hence the comparison to contracts) and they're still also subject to secular law.

Now if Sharia is being imposed on people against their will, that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.

 

[W3H5]

I have to take off my motorcycle helmet when entering any building in the UK so that my face can be identified by CCTV should I happen to commit a crime. I think any facial covering (niqāb/ burqa) should have to be removed in fairness. Who can honestly say that there is any difference in the inability to recognise a person's face with either piece of headgear?

I'm not against head scarves or hoods but if I can't wear my skid lid into the Tesco fuel station for 2 minutes while I pay for some dino juice and get a snickers then nobody else should be able cover their face (for whatever Abrahamic fantasy story they believe in) either, in the name of equality. Just "because religion" is a bollocks reason that makes non-religious people subject to rules which religious folk are exempt or excused from which, by definition, is discrimination.
And if I walk down the street with a balaclava on you can bet somebody will get spooked and if the police happen by I'll be told to take it off, which is something that my cousin has experienced several times in east London.

 

[polysmut]

And if I walk down the street with a balaclava on you can bet somebody will get spooked and if the police happen by I'll be told to take it off, which is something that my cousin has experienced several times in east London.

I'm pretty sure you don't have to remove a face covering in a public place in the UK unless you're a suspect to a specific crime. The police might ask people to remove them but can't force it.
I think.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I have to take off my motorcycle helmet when entering any building in the UK so that my face can be identified by CCTV should I happen to commit a crime.

That's not true. I know because I don't have to remove mine in every building.

I think any facial covering (niqāb/ burqa) should have to be removed in fairness.

Where exactly is the fairness if that was the case in every building? I suspect you're talking about publicly accessible places of business rather than every structure.

Who can honestly say that there is any difference in the inability to recognise a person's face with either piece of headgear?

Nobody, I imagine.

I'm not against head scarves or hoods but if I can't wear my skid lid into the Tesco fuel station for 2 minutes while I pay for some dino juice and get a snickers then nobody else should be able cover their face (for whatever Abrahamic fantasy story they believe in) either, in the name of equality.

Who says they can? Your presumption is that all petrol stations will serve people in Burkha. They won't - you can't see the customer's face, for a start.

Just "because religion" is a bollocks reason that makes non-religious people subject to rules which religious folk are exempt or excused from which, by definition, is discrimination.

Absolutely. Imo you've fallen short of demonstrating that here though.

And if I walk down the street with a balaclava on you can bet somebody will get spooked and if the police happen by I'll be told to take it off, which is something that my cousin has experienced several times in east London.

And if they tell you to take it off then refuse in a way that's not likely to cause alarm or distress.

Before the police make that inquiry you should be aware that the number of crimes committed in balaclavas far far outweighs the number of crimes committed in burkhas. You might be told that you're giving the police a "reasonable suspicion" (and, essentially, a jury too) that you might be going equipped. You should stand your ground though and insist that they can only change your dress once you've had grounds for arrest explained and you've had your notification of rights.

 

[W3H5]

I'm pretty sure you don't have to remove a face covering in a public place in the UK unless you're a suspect to a specific crime. The police might ask people to remove them but can't force it.
I think.

In places of business (banks, etc) they're signs on the door with a "no helmet" graphic. Also, Tesco blocked the entry of a Jedi for wearing a hood so shouldn't they prohibit all head coverings from hijabs to old ladies with floral head scarves if they'll prohibit a Jedi from wearing a hood, however much of a minority (and oddity) he might be? No, of course not, because what kind of backlash will they get from discriminating against somebody with weird, fantasy beli....oh, hang on a minute...

Absolutely. Imo you've fallen short of demonstrating that here though.

If I'm honest I rushed through posting here because I'm busy at work and don't have the time or energy neither here or at home to get into a tit-for-tat conversation on a matter that will no doubt spiral into a wider debate which would require more posting in a section of the site that I mostly stay out of because it becomes so time consuming.

I just wanted to post my opinion and have a say on the way I see things from experience and if I'm not taking the effort to get into the full, on going argument it's because, like I said above, I don't have the time to let it consume my days (unfortunately).

 

[polysmut]

In places of business (banks, etc) they're signs on the door with a "no helmet" graphic. Also, Tesco blocked the entry of a Jedi for wearing a hood so shouldn't they prohibit all head coverings from hijabs to old ladies with floral head scarves if they'll prohibit a Jedi from wearing a hood, however much of a minority (and oddity) he might be? No, of course not, because what kind of backlash will they get from discriminating against somebody with weird, fantasy beli....oh, hang on a minute...

Those places of business can set their own rules on their private property. Your cousin in the public streets of London can say no to the police when they ask for removal of the balaclava.

 

[BobK]

Those places of business can set their own rules on their private property. Your cousin in the public streets of London can say no to the police when they ask for removal of the balaclava.

Not necessarily. If they had a sign saying, for example "No blacks allowed" can't they be legally forced to remove it?

 

[polysmut]

Not necessarily. If they had a sign saying, for example "No blacks allowed" can't they be legally forced to remove it?

If whom has the sign? Do you mean if the sign is printed on a balaclava?
I was talking about face coverings rather than "No blacks allowed" signs.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Those places of business can set their own rules on their private property. Your cousin in the public streets of London can say no to the police when they ask for removal of the balaclava.

You can only set rules that don't otherwise violate the law. A "no blacks allowed" would be an example of a rule you can't make on your business property.

 

[polysmut]

You can only set rules that don't otherwise violate the law. A "no blacks allowed" would be an example of a rule you can't make on your business property.

Indeed it would.

 

[BobK]

If whom has the sign? Do you mean if the sign is printed on a balaclava?
I was talking about face coverings rather than "No blacks allowed" signs.

If a bank which had a "no helmets allowed" sign as referred to by @Shem also had a "No blacks allowed" sign (or instead of).

 

[polysmut]

If a bank which had a "no helmets allowed" sign as referred to by @Shem also had a "No blacks allowed" sign (or instead of).

That would be discrimination based on race. When I said they could set their own rules on their private property, I was referring to dress code.
Of course it's possible that dress code rules could be seen as religious discrimination but my post was in response to @W3HS's post which talked about being asked to remove a balaclava. I referred only to dress code, discrimination wasn't mentioned in @W3HS's post.

 

[FoRiZon]

I have to take off my motorcycle helmet when entering any building in the UK so that my face can be identified by CCTV should I happen to commit a crime. I think any facial covering (niqāb/ burqa) should have to be removed in fairness. Who can honestly say that there is any difference in the inability to recognise a person's face with either piece of headgear?

I'm not against head scarves or hoods but if I can't wear my skid lid into the Tesco fuel station for 2 minutes while I pay for some dino juice and get a snickers then nobody else should be able cover their face (for whatever Abrahamic fantasy story they believe in) either, in the name of equality. Just "because religion" is a bollocks reason that makes non-religious people subject to rules which religious folk are exempt or excused from which, by definition, is discrimination.
And if I walk down the street with a balaclava on you can bet somebody will get spooked and if the police happen by I'll be told to take it off, which is something that my cousin has experienced several times in east London.

Agreed, which is why Hijab (without any of those face cluttering thing) exists.


On the other hand....

Spoiler

I stop supporting this. I dont really like its culture it grown and the people are just too conservative to move on. I bet they keep like this for centuries ahead, I bet.

No offense but when most of people now against this..... Im just give up completely. Good luck.

 

[Dotini]

Agreed, which is why Hijab (without any of those face cluttering thing) exists.


On the other hand....

Spoiler

I stop supporting this. I dont really like its culture it grown and the people are just too conservative to move on. I bet they keep like this for centuries ahead, I bet.

No offense but when most of people now against this..... Im just give up completely. Good luck.

In world which had no Jews, Christians, or any other religions at all except Islam, would nuclear weapons have been invented and used in war? In other words, if we all converted to Islam, is it conceivable that the world would be a better, safer, more orderly and pleasant place? Is it in any way possible or defensible to say "yes"?

 

[Johnnypenso]

In world which had no Jews, Christians, or any other religions at all except Islam, would nuclear weapons have been invented and used in war? In other words, if we all converted to Islam, is it conceivable that the world would be a better, safer, more orderly and pleasant place? Is it in any way possible or defensible to say "yes"?

Based on the technological progress in Islamic countries in recent history, I'd say we'd be lucky to still have gunpowder in 50 years, let alone nuclear weapons. Whether we'd make it that far is another question.

 

[W3H5]

In world which had no Jews, Christians, or any other religions at all except Islam, would nuclear weapons have been invented and used in war? In other words, if we all converted to Islam, is it conceivable that the world would be a better, safer, more orderly and pleasant place? Is it in any way possible or defensible to say "yes"?

How about if the world had no religion at all? Surely that's a better answer than everyone on earth following the rules of yet another ancient pile of crap to become servile sheeple.

And no, people would still fight over borders, wealth, resources and other stuff even if every one was Muslim. You only need to look at the Sunni - Shia rivalry and bloodshed to answer your own question. Islam is at war with itself as much as it is with the west.

 

[Dotini]

How about if the world had no religion at all? Surely that's a better answer than everyone on earth following the rules of yet another ancient pile of crap to become servile sheeple.

And no, people would still fight over borders, wealth, resources and other stuff even if every one was Muslim. You only need to look at the Sunni - Shia rivalry and bloodshed to answer your own question. Islam is at war with itself as much as it is with the west.

For you, two remarks.
1) A world close to 80% Islam is possible. I world totally without religion, however desirable, is an absurd, impossible concept.
2) In an Islamic world, there would some conflict, yes. But my question was would it be better?

 

[W3H5]

For you, two remarks.
1) A world close to 80% Islam is possible. I world totally without religion, however desirable, is an absurd, impossible concept.
2) In an Islamic world, there would some conflict, yes. But my question was would it be better?

1. I don't see it as impossible but extremely unlikely, yes. Still, since it's a hypothetical scenario then why not embrace a completely religion free world in the same way as a completely Islamic world?

2. Better conflict? Not such a thing makes sense. Entirely too difficult to say. What's to say that super conservative muslims and liberal muslims don't slip into two earring factions that consume the globe in WW3? Because people's opinions will always differ (unless we all get doped or mind controlled) there will always be conflict. If total communism can't truely exist then neither can total widespread religion, because of things like human greed and extra Y chromosomes.

Interesting talking point though.