Verbal

Ditto

http://www.murreebrewery.com/

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?31547-Dishing-out-revenge

I guess that makes sense to you. To me it reads like yet another couple of barely sober ex-pats having a repulsive rant. You still don't get it, do you? Sharia law in a Wahhabi country especially is going to encompass criminal and civil law. That's because, in the rather ugly place from which you profit, it is a pretty fundamentalist Muslim country, with Sharia written into the penal code. Sharia courts in the UK, like Beth Din courts (you STILL haven't addressed this point), operate in the space provided by English law for consensual settlement of civil disputes - NOT criminal cases. If you're so convinced that I'm wrong about this, find one case where a sharia court in the UK has encroached from civil to the criminal. Just one. Besides all this, most Muslims here, as evidenced by the small number of cases these courts hear, want nothing to do with them thank you very much. You're just participating in another apoplectic yell at British Muslims - all part, I'd suggest, of your classic ex-pat resentment at your home country and all its perceived ills. That is, I'm sorry to say, to the extent that you make any sense at all.

You're wrong if you think that I would stand for or in any way defend fundamentalist crap from Islamists. I've seen the consequences of it too graphically, and personally speaking, I loathe them. The word 'intolerance' barely begins to describe their brutal suppression of the human spirit. And yet they are also spectacular hypocrites. There's an interesting article in the New Yorker this week. Link here: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/08/110808fa_fact_schmidle It's an insider's account of the raid that killed bin Laden. What caught my eye was an aside by one of the CIA operatives examining the hard drives taken from OBL's house. It was full of pornography - something, he said, they commonly found on computers taken from Islamist hardliners. So, no - I'm not defending those lunatics, least of all the deliberately offensive Chaudhray. His objective is to so incense pub lic opinion that it reacts violently against ordinary Muslims, as the EDL already do. This, in turn (his theory goes), will force Muslims to fight back - and there starts his stupid little revolution. What I'm saying is that Chaudhray knows how to play this game. Was his little ginger friend putting up stickers filmed covertly by the Mail? No - it was a set-piece publicity stunt. The stickers mean nothing and are not visible to any but the camera. This is how it works - and so many fall for it. You can put the miserable little f u c k's nose out of joint by NOT reacting to his childish antics. The issue of sharia courts, such as it is, really is different. But it is no different to that to do with Beth Din courts, used by orthodox Jews in London. It's actually an example of one of the unusually good qualities of English law - that it supports conflict resolution in civil matters by whatever means two parties may accept, and yet stands ready in the background should the whole thing go pear-shaped. In no case that I'm aware of has a Beth Din court or a sharia court EVER tried to claim jurisdiction in a criminal case, and so have no contact with the police - and certainly do not involve themselves in criminal investigations. It's worth emphasising that anyone having a problem with sharia courts is not bound by them - and the MAJORITY of Muslims have absolutely nothing to do with them. There is this dumbass equation often made (see Phil's posted links above) between sharia courts and the birth rate in the Muslim population. It's nonsense.

Almost there delldays. But I think we've established that zones only exist in your and Choudhray's heads. Strange bedfellows you keep.

Bingo, pap.

Heavens above Phil, what an ignorant mess you've got yourself into - and you're supposed to be a sympatico ex-pat, making a living off these ignorant, malignant fools. Firstly, you're confusing a useless publicity stunt by Choudhary with reality. Buying into his hopeless little wind up does not reflect well on you. No one but Choudhary has talked about 'zones' - and in any case they would have absolutely no validity in law. Not that any sensible person would want such a bizarre thing. In what sense exactly is 'UK law not accepted' where sharia courts are agreed upon and used? Precisely the OPPOSITE is true. English law enshrines the rights of people to resort to third parties provided they both agree to it, and to be bound by the outcomes. They can then, of course, appeal, and have their appeal heard in any UK court. You're also way off base with your guff about the police. The police don't get involved. Once again, sharia courts in this country only have jurisdiction over people who agree that it does - and then only in civil cases. Nor is this remotely about 'two legal systems'. UK law is still the ultimate arbiter - and in fact, as I've said before, it's ancient UK law which permits these kinds of arrangements, just as they have with Beth Din (No answer from you on that one - odd). You must have an interesting life as an ex-pat living among and profiting from all those nasty, ugly Arabs.

I think you should try and untangle your rage from your argument a little. Railing against straw men is pretty pointless - literally. A waste of your time writing it and ours having to wade through it. Of course women are second-class citizens in most if not all nominally Muslim countries. They're hardly first-class here, of course - but at least quite a bit better off. A good friend of mine had the temerity and extraordinary courage to direct a performance of The Va gin a Monologues in Islamabad. She was under siege for some time afterwards. she is quite clear and outspoken in saying that the worst thing that happened to her was to born a woman in Pakistan. Unfortunately, in your haste or ignorance, you slide into issues of criminal law, which sharia courts in the UK have no jurisdiction over. If a woman is raped in the UK, her chance of getting justice are hardly great - in fact, they're pretty miniscule. But at least there is and can be no attempt to impose other than UK criminal law to her case. So given that sharia laws, like Beth Din courts among orthodox Jews in the UK, do NOT adjudicate on these issues but merely on civil disputes IF both parties accede to it, what exactly justifies your 'dirty.barbaric, violent' apoplexy? I detect the old racist line, also, in your 'we're all going to be overrun' by brown people with Islam-itis - against any evidence that this is even remotely true. As for you being long gone - goodbye!

You haven't really got the hang of posting on topic have you. Try again. Go on - you can do it. What do you think of the fact that English law enshrines the right of people to submit civil cases to sharia courts?

Now, back to where we left off... Phil? Any thoughts on that ticklish problem with English law?

You're missing out. I had a doozy of a judgement for you.

So THAT's your sensible contribution. Well done. It's not as good as I expected, even by the low standards you've set for yourself. Go away now and imagine all the violence you can dream up on your female 'friends'.

No, you got yourself. Your attitudes to women mark you out as a disgrace. If you want to contribute sensibly here, or have the ability to do so, please go ahead.

You're too easy. Now why not get back to a sensible discussion of the thread.

Bit of a constant theme with you, isn't it - daydreaming about all the violence you can wreak on women.

Hmm. Incoherence AND anger management issues. Never mind - I can adjudicate this one for you.

Beth din and sharia courts here settle civil matters, not criminal ones, among parties who consent to their jurisdiction. But don't let that get in the way of your neatly formed prejudice.

So again, Phil, are you advocating the banning of Beth Din courts among the orthodox Jewish community? And are you also calling for a fundamental change in English law? Like sharia courts in the UK, once someone accepts the jurisdiction of a Beth Din court, they are bound by English Law. This is because, under English Law, and by centuries of precedent, people may devise their own ways to settle a dispute before a third party.

So just to be clear, you'd also advocate the banning of Beth Din courts in London - which have been established there for decades.

So out of interest, why are .mac accounts blocked? They are certainly not free.

I recall my main account was rejected - ...@mac.com. I suppose it's done to exclude people without jobs so that the riff-raff are kept out. Not sure that's worked so well.

r.i.p.

Where does this happen exactly? And where is there a single example of sharia law being applied unwillingly to a non-Muslim, or even unwillingly to a Muslim?

Mustn't grumble.