[Closed] Cause for concern?

Have I missed anything? 🙄

Assuming of course that criticism of Denis MacEoin is a slur as opposed to a fact. If you read through the thread I think you will find that his veracity as an expert is generally accepted as being dubious given a) His self professed relationship with Israel, distaste for Islam, and alongside that the fact that he is strongly suspected of forging research.

Given that and the fact that each of these assertions are easily checked is it reasonable to accept the research, and or word of this individual, or a report commissioned by the Policy Exchange of which he was the author, as being anything other than slanted in a particular way?

I put it to you that it is not.

TS: Nah not really

Have I missed anything?

Not really. G is coming across all needy and arguing with himself because after ignoring peoples arguments and calling people names nobody will join in.

G is coming across all needy and arguing with himself because after ignoring peoples arguments and calling people names nobody will join in.

I dont have time to follow this interesting thread much today

Bit of pot calling the kettle something there Surfer if you don't mind me saying so

Anyway, up I was responding to acracers point regarding ad hom. I would understand if you thought that was talking to myself, but honestly it wasn't.

Regarding calling people names, I don't think I did to be fair, that would be saying things like Knob Jockey, Big Girls Blouse, Tossy Toss Pot and the like, and although sometimes I'll admit that the temptation overwhelms me I try hard not to do that.

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-big-question-how-do-britains-sharia-courts-work-and-are-they-a-good-thing-1724486.html ]The Independent View[/url]

This is the Independents take on the subject complete with references to the reports original author.

The point here is that in a western democracy religion and law courts are seen as a toxic combination - a view I fully endorse. I keep repeating myself - apologies old age etc - but this two tier approach to society leads to and deepens divisions. By creating a separate 'legal' entity we already acknowledge that it's 'us and them' 'protestant and catholic' 'Muslim and Christian' - this will further fan the flames of division within the country.

You can all be as contrite as you like about the situation but realise this that it only takes a couple of hot heads on each side to cock things up for everyone.

Anyone for a pork sandwich and a balaclava?

I suggest you do a bit of research on what an ad-hom is, G. Doesn't matter whether what somebody says is wrong, if you say it has to be wrong simply because of who's saying it.

On International Women's Day, in March, there was a huge demonstration in London, backed by feminists, supporters of gay rights and others – [b]including a substantial number of Muslims[/b] – who marched under a banner saying: "No sharia and faith-based laws – one law for all." They claimed that the supposedly voluntary nature of the courts is a sham, because many Muslim women are pressured into accepting their rulings, and that sharia courts dispense cheap injustice.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-big-question-how-do-britains-sharia-courts-work-and-are-they-a-good-thing-1724486.html

Racists.

Ah but the Independent printed an incorrect answer to its crossword in 2004! We have to dismiss it as a source of information.

acracer, thats not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that because of those issues, most of which are accepted on here you should discount what has been written, that is not the same as saying its wrong, what it is saying is that at the very least you should acknowledge a bias, and at worst ignore what is said, as its not possible to fathom out the right from the wrong, especially as the guy has fabricated supporting evidence in the past.

My defintion of Ad Hominem is an argument where an author or similars views are rejected in an argument by some irrelevant fact being introduced to undermine the veracity of that individual. I do not think that these are irrelevant, in fact they are at the very core of what has been written, so to quote myself earlier in the thread .... Ad Hom, My Arse!! 😉

LOL

grumm - Member

On International Women's Day, in March, there was a huge demonstration in London, backed by feminists, supporters of gay rights and others – including a substantial number of Muslims – who marched under a banner saying: "No sharia and faith-based laws – one law for all." They claimed that the supposedly voluntary nature of the courts is a sham, because many Muslim women are pressured into accepting their rulings, and that sharia courts dispense cheap injustice.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-big-question-how-do-britains-sharia-courts-work-and-are-they-a-good-thing-1724486.html

Racists.

Posted 9 minutes ago # Report-Post
surfer - Member
Ah but the Independent printed an incorrect answer to its crossword in 2004! We have to dismiss it as a source of information

Now these are ad hom.... couldn't have timed it better myself, thanks lads. 😆

Grumm, supporting human rights should be about upholding certain principles universally, not picking and choosing when to apply them.

If you have a look at the European Convention of Human Rights, it enshrines people's freedom to worship in the way that they choose, both in practice and observance, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the law. I can't see anything about the way that Sharia courts are used in the UK which is inconsistent with this.

People being pressured or unduly influenced is a problem with almost every aspect of the legal system in the UK and there are mechanisms in place to guard against it. You might as well say that criminal trials are rubbish because witness intimidation happens.

Keep the funnies coming by the way, they're really making today fly by. 🙄

Well done G for making up your own definition of Ad Hom, then ignoring the fact that there are seemingly a substantial number of muslims who share others concerns about sharia law.

Of course they are all brainwashed by the Daily Mail.

Mr Agreeable maybe you should ask the muslim women who marched against it?

I find it amazing that to you it seems that everything is fine up until the point when a criminal prosecution can be brought.

Again well put Mr A.

I think the problem is that they are not grasping what Sharia law means in reality, as opposed to in Daily Fail Terrorvision. The excellent article posted by Tanky says it quite well, but again they only pick out bits out of context

Interesting how Grumm for instance failed to select all of this above :-

[i]On International Women's Day, in March, there was a huge demonstration in London, backed by feminists, supporters of gay rights and others – including a substantial number of Muslims – who marched under a banner saying: "No sharia and faith-based laws – one law for all." They claimed that the supposedly voluntary nature of the courts is a sham, because many Muslim women are pressured into accepting their rulings, and that sharia courts dispense cheap injustice. [u]Denis MacEoin, author of the Civitas report, argues: "Women are not equal in sharia law, and sharia contains no specific commitment to the best interests of the child that is fundamental to family law in the UK. Under sharia, a male child belongs to the father after the age of seven, regardless of circumstances." The Muslim Council of Britain says that this talk is "scaremongering"[/u][/i]

Presumably becuase that last sentence from the extremely moderate Muslim Council does rather support what I've been saying all along.

My defintion of Ad Hominem

Is that from the same place as your definition of racism?

Think we should stick to accepted definitions as oppose to making up our own.

If you have a look at the European Convention of Human Rights, it enshrines people's freedom to worship in the way that they choose, both in practice and observance, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the law. I can't see anything about the way that Sharia courts are used in the UK which is inconsistent with this.

Of course not. One is talking about religious belief the rest is about law. They are seperate why are you combining them?

People being pressured or unduly influenced is a problem with almost every aspect of the legal system in the UK and there are mechanisms in place to guard against it. You might as well say that criminal trials are rubbish because witness intimidation happens.

Whats your point?

Do you lot actually work? FFS.

That's not an argument, and doesn't prove anything.

Was Denis MacEoin one of the Muslims who marched on International Women's Day? Are the those Muslims scaremongering about Islam? Why would they do that?

Grumm, maybe the existence of Fathers4Justice means that we should get rid of the family courts and CAFCASS?

As I've said before, can you name one instance where a UK court has upheld an unjust or discriminatory ruling by a Sharia court? What would be the result if Sharia courts were abolished? Would injustice towards women by the Muslim community disappear?

Grumm: To be totally fair I didn't, wasn't 100% sure so I took it from checking it against 3 online dictionairies. Where did you get yours from?

then ignoring the fact that there are seemingly a substantial number of muslims who share others concerns about sharia law.

So what precisely does that mean???

Please try reading a little bit about Sharia from an unbiased source, include in that the meaning of the words Islam, Fatwa and Sharia and then ask yourself if you can see the flaws in your position. A clue is that you should not base a view of 1 - 1.8 billion people on the actions of a very small number of extremists.

Surfer you seem to be completely ignoring the fact that people have the right to a religious belief. That means they can get married, divorced and conduct their lives in accordance with their religion. I agree that it's a shame that they're not all brainy atheists like you, but you need to understand that as long as they don't breach any of the UK's laws in the process, that is their human right.

Surfer you seem to be completely ignoring the fact that people have the right to a religious belief. That means they can get married, divorced and conduct their lives in accordance with their religion. I agree that it's a shame that they're not all brainy atheists like you, but you need to understand that as long as they don't breach any of the UK's laws in the process, that is their human right.

Your totally missing the point. Religious observers in the UK abide by laws which are derived (not wholly) from outside of their faith. Muslims can also do these things and they have nothing to do with the upholding of criminal law.
I am not ignoring or overlooking peoples rights to these things that is not in question.

Hasn't this thread got boring yet?

Surfer, that didn't make sense at all, but I'm going to reply anyway: unless the parties agree to it, how does Sharia law take precedence over UK law?

Is that from the same place as your definition of racism?

Did you ever answer the question I put specifically for you regarding anti-semitism?... No? thought not

Think we should stick to accepted definitions as oppose to making up our own.

So there you go thats me answering you, so how about you reciprocating occasionally??

By way of light relief, anybody see this article when it came out? Some of the comments are class:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

Islam has been in conflict with christianity since way back in the 11th century ? and were fought to keep them out of western society, The foolish politicians, let them take root here, and now the Gov / Church Hierarchy, are allowing them to drive another wedge into our society, Disgraceful !!

frank mchugh, falkirk,

It's too late people. Read the demographics and statistics. the muslims have already out bred you. Spain, Russia, the UK, Germany and France are all at a point of no return. The majority poulation will be Muslim and Sharia law will rule the Earth. What can you do about it? Receive Jesus Christ

Simon, Los Angeles, USA

Our country, our laws. Come to Briatin expect to adopt the civil practice in place. If i went to Saudi Arabia would I get one off my hands cut off for stealing. Probz.

Micahel, Livingston,

not read the entire thread, so forgive me if I missed this in an earlier post.

But Sharia Courts have some legal status in arbitration if I remember correctly. They do this is the same manner as other faith based arbitration services such as the Jewish Beth Din courts.

We have had Beth Din courts in the UK for hundreds of years and they are definitely recognised as arbitration services under the 1996 Arbitration Act.

As with the Sharia requiriring participants to be Muslim, each party in the dispute brought before a Beth Din court has to be a Jew (Orthodox IIRC) and both must agree to the court hearing by the case.

I am sure that other faiths provide mediation and arbitration in a formal and informal manner.

I would venture to suggest that a precedent has been set.

Jesus is coming - Look Busy!

PMSL at tanky...

Actually just read down the comments on that Times article, and there it is encapsulated, all the predjudice, all the knee jerks, all the lack of knowledge demonstrated there in spades.

We had Kangaroo Courts at home - totally acceptable IMHO

I'm in favour of bike thieves having their testicles removed. Is that Sharia law ? If so, I'm all for it.

Sharia win.

tyger - Member

ernie_lynch, brant

Well hello and "thanks" for your comments!

As a loving father of my two children and someone that always carries the value of family very highly I take issue with being labeled a Paedophile even in jest and feel maybe it's you who owe me an apology for that.

For a start I think [i]you owe me[/i] an apology. I didn't label you paedophile - not even in jest. So get your facts right. 😕

What I [i]did[/i] label you though, was a 'christian fundamentalist'.

A perfectly valid comment and my opinion - which I based on your previous posts.

Now if for whatever reasons you have a problem with that, then by all means challenge me.

.

I'm not anti anyone or pro anyone.

Well you obviously are. You are most definitely pro-Israeli/zionist. Why deny it - if you think it is the correct stance to take ?

I am perfectly happy to 'admit' where [b]I[/b] stand. IE, I am anti-israeli and anti-zionist. I support the establishment of a democractic secular Palestine. Where [i]all[/i] Palestinians, including christians, muslims, jews, and atheists, can live. But [i]not[/i] necessarily Russians, Americans and Brits.

I do not recognise the right of a racist zionist state to exist in the Middle-East, any more than I recognised the right of a racist apartheid state to exist in South Africa.

You are also [i]clearly[/i] anti-Islam. If you are ashamed to admit it, then I suggest that you change your views - no one should have views which they are ashamed of.

I am not anti-Islam. Because quite frankly, I couldn't give a toss what religion other people choice to follow.

Hi Ernie, having re-read the threads you're right I do owe you an apology as it was Hora who raised the paedophile tag not you - very sorry, please forgive me!

As for the labels well I'm still not anti Islam or Palestinians. I'm not sure about Hamas as I think they're not wanting any kind of peaceful outcome and I genuinely don't understand why you are anti-Israeli but that's your prerogative. I respect the Jewish people because I've known many and lived in Jerusalem but equally I've known and worked alongside many Arabs and respected them also. I'm not a "Christian Fundamentalist pro-Israeli/Zionist" or whatever label you want to add. I'm just a regular British bloke who loves his family, his country, playing guitar, biking and goes to church on Sundays helping out as a Youth Leader. I'm currently looking for work as I've just recently been made redundant and also lost my Dad at around the same time.

I mentioned before that I'm concerned about the intolerance and aggression that appears to be interwoven in some strains of Islam and yet have no problem with Muslims per ce.

Okay, I've prattled on enough. 🙂

Oh yeah, and I'm also having a great day because some kind person anonymously posted a free ticket for me through my door today for the Goodwood Festival of Speed 🙂

please forgive me

Well.................[i]alright[/i]

You are forgiven my child. But [i]only[/i] because the christian message of mercy and forgiveness is central to my core beliefs 8)

.

So you're not a 'Christian fundamentalist' eh ?

Why's that ? Are you saying there is something wrong with Christ's fundamental teachings - something [i]fundamentally[/i] wrong ? 😯

.

BTW, why do you keep rabbiting on about loving your family, your guitar, and your bike ? It's all very nice I'm sure, but what has all that stuff gotta do with this thread ? 😕

Do you play your guitar in church : happy-clappy style ?

Just trying to let you know a little of whom you're labeling 🙂

BTW since you asked, I do play guitar in church but it's an electric guitar and the style is not far removed from U2 - Happy-Clappy that's very 80's matey LOL!

My belief is in a loving God and a Devil who wants your destruction at all costs. I respect the Bible as a historic book and also as "God's word" but that doesn't mean that it's an easy book in many ways. The Old Testament can be attributed as God's law however the New Testament is very much God's grace. Nothing to fault with Christ's teaching as recorded in the Bible but I'm not someone who will force their beliefs on others (hopefully). Being a Christian to me is not just about a ticket to Heaven but rather about knowing that you're loved and forgiven (faults and all) by a loving God.

I don't want Sharia Law being practised in my country.
I don't want Sharia Law influencing law in my country.

I'm happy with the way things are now.

[i]Oh yeah, and I'm also having a great day because some kind person anonymously posted a free ticket for me through my door today for the Goodwood Festival of Speed [/i]

Was it God? He works in mysterious ways tha knows...

Actually I don't know but I'll thank him anyway 🙂

I'll thank him anyway

I reckon that you should give your free Goodwood Festival of Speed ticket to charity tyger - as penance for your sins.

You are clearly a wretched sinner............. you have sinned several times on this thread for a start.

Yeh, playing guitar in church! FFS

LOL! ernie, if you want it it's yours. Let me know your address.

No tyger - don't give it to me .......... you need to give it to a Muslim.

You know message behind the parable of the good Samaritan was 'love thy enemy'. The Samaritans were hated and despised by the Jews - that's what made the parable so powerful.

Give your ticket to a Muslim............ you [i][b]must[/b][/i] give your ticket to a Muslim.

😯 ...... oh heck! tygers a god botherer and Ernies turned down free stuff WTF?

Ernie, how many more times must I say this? Muslim's are not my enemy.