Iran

[rikberry31]

You should be able to cite your claim or clarify it regarding Sharia law before continuing to mentally operate under that narrative, because it's probsbly not what you think it is.

It's an optional implementation in very few areas that generally handles internal church matters and in no way replaces laws of the state.

It's more akin to how the Mormon church tends to operate than anything else, and I assume you don't take issue with that.

Muslims are increasingly turning to Britain’s sharia courts, which are not part of UK law and operate as informal bodies issuing religious rulings on marriage

Britain has become the “western capital” for sharia courts with men able to end their marriages by saying “divorce” three times.

An investigation by The Times also discovered that polygamy is so normalised that an app for Muslims in England and Wales to create Islamic wills has a drop-down menu for men to say how many wives they have (between one and four). The app, approved by a sharia court, gives daughters half as much inheritance as sons.

The number of sharia courts, also known as councils, in Britain has grown to 85 since the first began operating in the country in 1982.

Muslims from across Europe and North America are increasingly turning to Britain’s sharia courts, which operate as informal bodies issuing religious rulings on marriage and family life.

About 100,000 Islamic marriages are believed to have been conducted in Britain, many of which are not officially registered with the civil authorities.

Sharia was defined, in an official review by Professor Mona Siddiqui, a theologian, as jurisprudence based on the opinions of jurists during the classical period of Islam — regarded as being from the time of Mohammed in the 7th century until the 13th.

Many aspects of sharia have been modified in most Muslim countries but in marriage and divorce the classical rulings are often observed.

Sharia courts, consisting of a panel of Islamic scholars who are almost always male, have the religious authority to end these marriages at the request of a wife if her husband is unwilling to grant a divorce.

One of the most prominent of such courts was founded by the radical preacher Haitham al-Haddad, whose teachings were branded misogynistic by Dame Sara Khan when she was counter-extremism tsar. Haddad was among the British scholars who visited the Taliban after they recaptured Afghanistan.

He said, in online lectures about why marriages fail in 2009: “A man should not be questioned why he hit his wife because this is something between them. Leave them alone. They can sort out their matters among themselves.”

Haddad told The Times he was not teaching that men should not be questioned about smacking wives, saying he was explaining the importance of preserving marriages.

Women described how men exploit religious texts to exert control over them. Hadiths, the sayings of the Prophet Mohammed, are quoted to insist wives must agree to have sex with their husbands and to claim that women’s minds are deficient.

One woman was distressed when an elder suggested she should enter into a religiously sanctioned “pleasure marriage” which allows couples to have sex, then part.

Baroness Cox, a former nurse and academic and cross-bench member of the House of Lords, has tried to get a private members’ bill passed protecting women from religiously sanctioned discrimination under what she called the “rapidly developing alternative quasi-legal system” of sharia.

Theresa May as home secretary commissioned an independent review, chaired by Siddiqui, which suggested a government regulator so the councils could have a code of practice. The Conservative government refused, saying sharia law had no jurisdiction and that regulation might present the councils as an alternative to British law.

Nick Timothy, a Tory MP who as May’s chief of staff suggested the sharia review, called on the Equality and Human Rights Commission to investigate the councils. Sharia marriages “should be criminalised if they are conducted without the protections of an accompanying civil marriage”, he said.

The Muslim Women’s Network charity is taking the initiative to improve standards at Britain’s sharia councils after past efforts by politicians and the councils ran out of steam.

In 2025 the network will propose a code of conduct based on research by Rajnaara Akhtar, an associate professor at the University of Warwick. Women will be guided to councils applying the standards.

Akhtar said organisations would need to respect the Equality Act, be transparent about who made decisions and the principles applied, and to make known their costs and time frames. “Obviously it would be up to those bodies to sign up to it, it would be up to them to have a discussion about it,” she said.

Stephen Evans, chief executive of the National Secular Society, said: “Our concern is the slide towards privatised justice and parallel legal systems in the UK undermining the principle of one law for all — and the negative impact this has on the rights of women and children.

“It should be remembered that sharia councils only exist because Muslim women need them to obtain a religious divorce. Muslim men do not need them because they can unilaterally divorce their wife.

“That’s why any regulation or accommodation of such a body would legitimise this inherently discriminatory outlook on divorce and gender relations.”

A government spokesman said: “Sharia law does not form any part of the law in England and Wales. And it is absolutely right that couples should marry into legally recognised marriages because that provides them with protections, security and support which they should have in the United Kingdom.

“Our manifesto set out that we will strengthen these rights for couples who live together but are not married.”

 

[Carl Pickens]

I was against intervention to begin with. That said, now that we're in, I really do hope we win and bring positive change. Unfortunately, the longer this goes on, the less and less likely that happens. Also, it is extremely rare for US regime change to result in something good. The ambiguity in what we're actually trying to accomplish also raises alarms bells in my mind.

I’m not sure regime change is their ultimate goal. I think it’s more about decimating the bastards and their military, along with their ability to fund their terrorist proxies and create chaos all over the Middle East. Regime change is just icing on the cake

 

[hog88]

I’m not sure regime change is their ultimate goal. I think it’s more about decimating the bastards and their military, along with their ability to fund their terrorist proxies and create chaos all over the Middle East. Regime change is just icing on the cake

@85SugarVol

 

[DinkinFlicka]

@rikberry31

So it's basically for marriages and in no way supplants state law for anything that matters, as I said.

 

[rikberry31]

@rikberry31

So it's basically for marriages and in no way supplants state law for anything that matters, as I said.

Domestic violence is most likely a crime, even in England.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Domestic violence is most likely a crime, even in England.

Yes, it is.

You didn't cite anything that legally sanctioned hitting a wife.

 

[rikberry31]

Yes, it is.

You didn't cite anything that legally sanctioned hitting a wife.

"He said, in online lectures about why marriages fail in 2009: “A man should not be questioned why he hit his wife because this is something between them. Leave them alone. They can sort out their matters among themselves.”

 

[BeardedVol]

@rikberry31 are you as afraid of halacha, as much as you are sharia?

About - Beth Din of America

The Beth Din of America is a rabbinical court that arbitrates and mediates commercial, communal and family disputes, arranges Jewish divorces, resolves contested Get and agunah cases, and issues halachic personal status determinations (including certifications of Jewish status). Since its...

bethdin.org

 

[DinkinFlicka]

"He said, in online lectures about why marriages fail in 2009: “A man should not be questioned why he hit his wife because this is something between them. Leave them alone. They can sort out their matters among themselves.”

So are we wanting to sanction opinions now? I guess I'm confused as to what your issue is here.

 

[Rickyvol77]

So are we wanting to sanction opinions now? I guess I'm confused as to what your issue is here.

I think that England and other European countries have a bigger issue of the death of free speech and putting people in prison for tweets and FB posts where no threats exist

 

[rikberry31]

@rikberry31 are you as afraid of halacha, as much as you are sharia?

About - Beth Din of America

The Beth Din of America is a rabbinical court that arbitrates and mediates commercial, communal and family disputes, arranges Jewish divorces, resolves contested Get and agunah cases, and issues halachic personal status determinations (including certifications of Jewish status). Since its...

bethdin.org

I haven't heard of any Jewish suicide bombers. Our laws are based on western Judeo-Christian principles not eastern Muhammadism. I have never heard of any Jewish honor killings or acid face baths.

 

[BeardedVol]

I haven't heard of any Jewish suicide bombers. Our laws are based on western Judeo-Christian principles not eastern Muhammadism.

Lol so it's suicide bombers you are actually afraid of, and not sharia?

Jewish terrorism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[rikberry31]

"He said, in online lectures about why marriages fail in 2009: “A man should not be questioned why he hit his wife because this is something between them. Leave them alone. They can sort out their matters among themselves.”

Buddy, the dude is the judge of the court. Those views and belief are incompatible with western Judeo Christian principles which our laws are based on and should not be tolerated. Polygamy is illegal for everyone but them? If they want to live here they need to abide by our laws. There is proposal in NYC to ban keeping dogs as pets because it is an abomination to the Muslims, forget that. Assimilate or get out.

 

[EasternVol]

While the Muslims may not be a majority, the governments of those countries are held hostage by them.

No, they're not.

They are terrified to confront the that threat.

No, they're not.

They have portions of their countries ruled under Sharia law.

No, they don't, not for criminal cases.

You younguns are so foolish.

If you say so.
Did you by chance watch the 700 Club a lot?

 

[rikberry31]

Lol so it's suicide bombers you are actually afraid of, and not sharia?

View attachment 820792

Jewish terrorism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There are nut jobs and evil people in all sectors, but a nation and religion should not be based on it. Yeah I have a problem with that.
But you have convinced me, I am going to hate America and Jewish people now too.

 

[utvolpj]

Buddy, the dude is the judge of the court. Those views and belief are incompatible with western Judeo Christian principles which our laws are based on and should not be tolerated. Polygamy is illegal for everyone but them? If they want to live here they need to abide by our laws. There is proposal in NYC to ban keeping dogs as pets because it is an abomination to the Muslims, forget that. Assimilate or get out.

This is really a whole lot of wrong. Our laws are based on many things and not just what you suggest. Why is the govt in the marriage business at all? Why is assimilation now required when most of our ancestors didn't do it for generations?

Also unsure how a proposal in NYC really affects your daily life but keep worrying about it. Should help things immensely

 

[rikberry31]

Did you by chance watch the 700 Club a lot?

No, I didn't but y'all have convinced me. I am now going to hate America, Jewish people, and Jesus too.

 

[BeardedVol]

There are nut jobs and evil people in all sectors, but a nation and religion should not be based on it. Yeah I have a problem with that.
But you have convinced me, I am going to hate America and Jewish people now too.

It's almost like...anyone can twist their own religious beliefs to justify their actions, isn't it?

 

[utvolpj]

@rikberry31

So it's basically for marriages and in no way supplants state law for anything that matters, as I said.

And seems to utilize the idea of independent arbitration which is common in this country. As long as the parties enter under their own free will I have a hard time worrying about it

 

[EasternVol]

I said that our current and recent problems have been with an ideology not a physical country.

You said "The truth is Afghanistan as a nation was not a threat, their governing regime was the threat."

If you find yourself siding with the terrorist head choppers you are a fool, they would lop your head off in a heartbeat.

Thanks for the heads up. I don't side with terrorist head choppers, terrorist land thieves, terrorist civilian bombers or any other terrorists.

If you look at the people you are agreeing with and they are evil bad people, your probably on the wrong side.

That's good advice for anyone.

 

[rikberry31]

It's almost like...anyone can twist their own religious beliefs to justify their actions, isn't it?

I am not a religious man. I believe what is in the Book and if it ain't in there I don't believe it. Religious rules and traditions that aren't in the Book are largely a construct of man. It's about relationship not religion.

 

[EasternVol]

I haven't heard of any Jewish suicide bombers. Our laws are based on western Judeo-Christian principles not eastern Muhammadism. I have never heard of any Jewish honor killings or acid face baths.

There's been plenty of Jewish terrorism, Christian terrorism, Hindu terrorism, etc.
You are aware that Judaism, Christianity and Islam arose in the same neighborhood, right?

 

[DinkinFlicka]

I am not a religious man. I believe what is in the Book and if it ain't in there I don't believe it. Religious rules and traditions that aren't in the Book are largely a construct of man. It's about relationship not religion.

I guess actual definitions of words like "religious" aren't covered in the book?

 

[Rickyvol77]

There's been plenty of Jewish terrorism, Christian terrorism, Hindu terrorism, etc.
You are aware that Judaism, Christianity and Islam arose in the same neighborhood, right?

 

[rikberry31]

This is really a whole lot of wrong. Our laws are based on many things and not just what you suggest. Why is the govt in the marriage business at all? Why is assimilation now required when most of our ancestors didn't do it for generations?

Also unsure how a proposal in NYC really affects your daily life but keep worrying about it. Should help things immensely

Have you ever heard of the term "Melting Pot?" I know it is not popular these days and that is a problem. People can have different traditions and belief but as far as citizenship is concerned they have to put that aside and get along. Just like the the people fleeing California and other terrible places and then try to change the good places in the where they came from.