British Muslims Want Sharia Law

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Should you keep your clothes on when having sex?

<font size="6"><center>Seminal questions </font size>
<font size="4">As scholars question the place of nudity in marriage,
Islamic clerics are hotly debating exactly what sexual
practices are acceptable</font size></center>


brides192.jpg

Veiled Muslim brides wait for the start of their mass wedding.
Photograph: Ali Jarkekji/Reuters

The Guardian
Brian Whitaker
Tuesday January 17, 2006

A curious religious debate is raging in Egypt. The question is: should you keep your clothes on when having sex?

It began when Dr Rashad Khalil, an expert on Islamic law from al-Azhar university in Cairo warned that being completely naked during intercourse invalidates a marriage. His ruling was promptly dismissed by other scholars, including one who argued that "anything that can bring spouses closer to each other" should be permitted.

Another religious scholar suggested it was OK for married couples to see each other naked as long as they don't look at the genitals. To avoid problems in that area, he recommended having sex under a blanket.

It's not entirely clear whether Dr Khalil has considered the full implications of his edict. Doesn't the prospect of all those virile baton-wielding Egyptian riot policemen (for example) doing it in their boots and black uniforms sound just a little bit kinky? But we'll let that pass.

Unlike Christianity, which tends to be squeamish about sex, Islam has a long tradition of talking about it openly. Up to a point, this is much more healthy. While Catholic priests are enjoined to remain celibate, Muslim clerics are expected to marry and indulge heartily with their wives in the pleasures of the flesh. In many parts of the Muslim world, especially where folk are poor and uneducated, the local imam is the person many turn to for guidance on matters relating to sex and marriage.

Over the last few years, hundreds of Islamic "fatwa" websites have also sprung up on which clerics - often with uncertain qualifications - answer all manner of questions that have been sent to them by email, including questions about sex. Some of their answers about what "good Muslims" should or shouldn't do in bed are very explicit, so readers under 18 should stop here. While some of the advice is sensible, a lot of it is completely daft, so remaining readers over the age of 18 may wish to get a second opinion before putting it into practice.

Actually, it had never occurred to me that Muslims might be required to keep their clothes on during their most intimate moments until a few months ago when I was browsing through IslamOnline, the website supervised by the prominent (and controversial) Qatari cleric, Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

Delivering a fatwa on oral sex, 79-year-old Dr Qaradawi describes it as a disgusting western practice, resulting from westerners' habit of "stripping naked during sexual intercourse". But he continues: "Muslim jurists are of the opinion that it is lawful for the husband to perform cunnilingus on his wife, or a wife to perform the similar act for her husband (fellatio) and there is no wrong in doing so. But if sucking leads to releasing semen, then it is makruh (blameworthy), but there is no decisive evidence (to forbid it) ... especially if the wife agrees with it or achieves orgasm by practising it."

On this issue, Dr Qaradawi's views are more permissive than those of several other clerics on the internet. One states that <u>oral sex is definitely forbidden</u>, adding that "<u>this hideous practice will draw the anger of Allah</u>". Another, asked if oral sex is permitted, replies: "I don't know what is oral sex, please define it."

<u>Masturbation</u> is generally frowned upon by Islamic scholars, though they disagree about how sinful it is. The Inter-Islam website describes it as an indecent practice that has "crept into the youngsters of today". Masturbation has become prevalent, the website says, because of the modern tendency for young people to marry later (contrary to the advice of the Prophet). As a result, they feel a need "to fulfil their carnal desires but ... cannot do so in the normal way, ie sexual intercourse". Islamic Voice describes masturbation as an "abominable and wicked act" which is forbidden in Islam. "Its harms are great and it has disastrous consequences as established by doctors."

The "proven" medical effects of masturbation - which, of course, include damage to the eyesight
- were once listed by Abd al-Aziz bin Baz, the late Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, and his list is reproduced on numerous Islamic websites. According to bin Baz, masturbation causes disruption of the digestive system, inflammation of the testicles, damage to the spine ("the place from which sperm originates"), and "trembling and instability in some parts of the body like the feet". In addition, there is a weakening of the "cerebral glands" leading to decreased intellect and even "mental disorders and insanity". Furthermore, "due to constant ejaculation, the sperm no more remains thick and dense as it normally occurs in males". This results in sperm which is not "mighty enough" to make a woman pregnant or produces children who are "more prone to disease and illness".

Other scholars argue that masturbation is basically forbidden but may be permitted if the person is unmarried or masturbates in order to avoid a more serious sin such as adultery, or if the masturbation is to release "sexual tension" rather than to fulfil "sexual desire". In a fatwa for IslamOnline, Sheikh Mustafa al-Zarqa says: "I conclude that the general principles of sharia [Islamic law] go against this habit, because it is not the normal way of fulfilling sexual desire ... it is a deviation - and that is enough to condemn it, even though this act does not fall under the category of absolute prohibition."

There is generallymore consensus among scholars on the question of kissing. Males and females should not kiss unless they are related by blood or marriage. Same-sex kissing, on the other hand, is allowed as long as it is done without "lust" and avoids the person's mouth. Hands and cheeks are the preferred places to kiss. The forehead is also good because the Prophet reportedly once gave a man a smacker between the eyes.

In this context, the ethics of kiss-of-life resuscitation [Mouth to Mouth Resuscitation] are considered by IslamOnline. The website quotes Dr Ahmad Muhammad Kan'an, head of the infectious diseases department at the Primary Medical Care Administration in the eastern region of Saudi Arabia: "The kiss of life is legally permissible because it is a means of resuscitation, if Allah wills. Yet, it goes without saying that it is impermissible unless necessary. So, if it is certain that the victim has already died, mouth-to-mouth resuscitation becomes impermissible, for there is no necessity in such a case." While administering the kiss of life, IslamOnline adds, rescuers should be careful to do it with "neither lust nor pleasure".

There is much disagreement on Islamic websites about anal sex between men and women. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the highest-ranking Shia cleric in Iraq, says it is "strongly undesirable", but permissible if the wife agrees. This seems to be quite a common view, though many Sunni clerics maintain that consent is irrelevant. "Anal sex is a grave sin and is completely forbidden, regardless of whether the wife agrees to it or not," one says.

The most common religious objection to anal sex is that it frustrates the main purpose of marriage - to produce children - and the same objection is applied to masturbation. "Islam strictly forbids the waste of seminal fluid," one website says.

It is precisely to avoid having too many children that some Muslims practice anal sex. One man, writing to the Islamic Q&A website, says that his wife doesn't have any problem with it. "I think this is the best way of family planning instead of using condoms," the man writes, though he adds that many of his friends have told him otherwise. "People are confusing me so please tell me what to do." Mufti Ebrahim Desai replies: "The futile excuse of it being better than a contraceptive doesn't carry any weight. If you are justified in using a contraceptive, then there are many different options on the market which could be adopted, instead of this hideous practice."

Although Muslim scholars regard pregnancy as the primary goal of sex and marriage, they are generally more pragmatic than the Roman Catholic church about family planning. Contraception is allowed, though the rules can be rather complicated.

Shia clerics often seem to be more flexible in sexual matters than Sunnis. For example, "temporary marriage" is a Shia tradition which in effect legalises prostitution. Sunni clerics, especially those influenced by Saudi Wahhabism, like to assert their authority by forbidding anything that might be remotely pleasurable.

Much of the discussion is sadly reminiscent of the old Christian debate about the number of angels that can dance on a pinhead, but sex is only one part of the problem. The current fashion for online fatwas has created an amazingly legalistic approach to Islam as scholars - some of whom have only a tenuous grip on reality - seek to regulate all aspects of life according to their own interpretation of the scriptures. It is much harder to find any discussion on Muslim websites of matters that some would say form the basic substance of religion, such as the nature of love and spiritual experiences.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,,1688285,00.html
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Should you keep your clothes on when having sex?

<u>Masturbation</u> is generally frowned upon by Islamic scholars, though they disagree about how sinful it is. The Inter-Islam website describes it as an indecent practice that has "crept into the youngsters of today". Masturbation has become prevalent, the website says, because of the modern tendency for young people to marry later (contrary to the advice of the Prophet). As a result, they feel a need "to fulfil their carnal desires but ... cannot do so in the normal way, ie sexual intercourse". Islamic Voice describes masturbation as an "abominable and wicked act" which is forbidden in Islam. "Its harms are great and it has disastrous consequences as established by doctors."

The "proven" medical effects of masturbation - which, of course, include damage to the eyesight
- were once listed by Abd al-Aziz bin Baz, the late Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, and his list is reproduced on numerous Islamic websites. According to bin Baz, masturbation causes disruption of the digestive system, inflammation of the testicles, damage to the spine ("the place from which sperm originates"), and "trembling and instability in some parts of the body like the feet". In addition, there is a weakening of the "cerebral glands" leading to decreased intellect and even "mental disorders and insanity". Furthermore, "due to constant ejaculation, the sperm no more remains thick and dense as it normally occurs in males". This results in sperm which is not "mighty enough" to make a woman pregnant or produces children who are "more prone to disease and illness".
<font size="3">Then most mofos on BGOL must be blind, suffering from indigestion, have inflammed nuts, crooked spines, shake a like a mofo and are dumb as fuck. LHOH !</font size>

QueEx
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>If you want sharia law,
you should go and live in Saudi</font size>

<font size="4">Shahid Malik, the Labour MP, explains why
he told fellow Muslims that if they don’t like Britain
they should pack their bags </font size></center>


The Sunday Times - London
By Shahid Malik, Labour Member Parliament
August 20, 2006

Scotland Yard described it as a plot “to commit mass murder on an unimaginable scale”. John Reid concurred: “The terror threat to the public was unprecedented, the biggest that Britain had ever faced.”
As it transpired, there was nothing melodramatic about these descriptions. It was to be a “terror spectacular” beyond our worst nightmares, involving blowing up a dozen aeroplanes in mid-air over the Atlantic Ocean, with the wilful massacre of more than 1,000 innocent men, women and children.

Last Tuesday, after a 90-minute meeting with John Prescott, the deputy prime minister, to discuss the challenges of extremism and foreign policy, I emerged and was immediately asked by the media whether I agreed that what British Muslims needed were Islamic holidays and sharia (Islamic law). I thought I had walked into some parallel universe.

Sadly this was not a joke. These issues had apparently formed part of the discussion the day before between Prescott, Ruth Kelly, the communities minister, and a selection of “Muslim leaders”. I realised then that it wasn’t me and the media who were living in a parallel universe — although certain “Muslim leaders” might well be.

Maybe some of these “leaders” believed that cabinet ministers were being alarmist, that the terror threat posed by British extremists was exaggerated. Maybe they thought that the entire plot and threat were the “mother of all smokescreens”, a bid to divert our attention from the killing fields of Lebanon. Or maybe it was another symptom of that epidemic that is afflicting far too many Muslims: denial. Out of touch with reality, frightened to propose any real solutions for fear of “selling out”, but always keen to exact a concession — a sad but too often true caricature of some so-called Muslim leaders.

Other members of the Muslim community I am sure would have cringed as I did when listening to Dr Syed Aziz Pasha, secretary-general of the Union of Muslim Organisations of the UK and Ireland, who explained his demand for sharia and more holidays: “If you give us religious rights we will be in a better position to convince young people that they are being treated equally along with other citizens.” He has done much good work over the years but this is clearly not one of his better moments.

Who speaks for Muslims? The government has a near impossible task but I’m sure even it realises that we need to look beyond some of the usual suspects and, crucially, to find mechanisms directly to engage with young people, where many of our challenges lie. To me the plot seemed all too real: I flew back from the United States that very week; my sister, her husband and their two kids live in New York so we all regularly shuttle to and fro. If the alleged plot had been realised we could all have been “statistics”.

As I have repeatedly said, in this world of indiscriminate terrorist bombings, where Muslims are just as likely to be the victims of terrorism as other British and US citizens, we Muslims have an equal stake in fighting extremism. Hundreds of Muslims died on 9/11 and 7/7. But more importantly, given that these acts are carried out in the name of our religion — Islam — we have a greater responsibility not merely to condemn but to confront the extremists. In addition to being the targets of terrorism, Muslims will inevitably be the targets of any backlash.

Given this context, most Muslims will perhaps feel disappointed at some of the comments of those “leaders” who went in to bat on their behalf. Of course self- indulgent bad timing is not the sole preserve of Muslim leaders: David Cameron’s gross misjudgment of the national mood in his criticisms of how the government had failed to keep us safe and secure were just as crass. Cameron’s stance, in undermining the unity required from our leaders on such occasions of national unease,played into the extremists’ hands.

So too, unfortunately, did the comments of some of the “Muslim leaders” who demanded sharia for British Muslims rather than the existing legal system. The call for special public holidays for Muslims was unnecessary, impracticable and divisive. Most employers already allow their staff to take such days out of their annual leave. And what about special holidays for Sikhs, Hindus, Jews? If we amended our laws to accommodate all such requests, then all the king’s horses and all the king’s men wouldn’t be able to put our workplaces and communities back together again.

When it comes to sharia, Muhammad ibn Adam, the respected Islamic scholar, says: “It is necessary by sharia to abide by the laws of the country one lives in, regardless of the nature of the law, as long as the law doesn’t demand something that is against Islam.” It is narrated in the Koran that the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “It is necessary upon a Muslim to listen to and obey the ruler, as long as one is not ordered to carry out a sin.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no 2796 & Sunan Tirmidhi).

In Britain there are no laws that force Muslims to do something against sharia and Muslims enjoy the freedom to worship and follow their religion, as do all other faiths. Compare Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, a sharia regime where women are forbidden to drive; or Turkey, a secular country where women are forbidden to wear the hijab; or Tunisia, where civil servants are forbidden to wear a beard.

I believe that as a Muslim there is no better place to live than Britain. That doesn’t mean that all in the garden is rosy; often Islamophobia is palpable. But my message is: whether you are white, Asian, black, Muslim, Christian or Jew, if you don’t like where you’re living you have two choices: either you live elsewhere, or you engage in the political process, attempt to create change and ultimately respect the will of the majority.

When Lord Ahmed, the Muslim Labour peer, heard my comments — I said essentially that if Muslims wanted sharia they should go and live somewhere where they have it — he accused me of doing the BNP’s work. He is entitled to his opinion. However, a little honesty, like mine, in this whole debate might just restore trust in politicians and ease the population’s anxieties.

Since I made my remarks my office has been overwhelmed with support. I also know that some Muslims feel uncomfortable, not necessarily because they disagree but because they feel targeted. But what I want to say to my fellow British Muslims is that in this country we enjoy freedoms, rights and privileges of which Muslims elsewhere can only dream. We should appreciate that fact and have the confidence to fulfil the obligations and responsibilities as part of our contract with our country and as dictated by sharia law.



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2320096,00.html
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>Across Europe, Worries on Islam Spread to Center</font size></center>

New York Times
By DAN BILEFSKY and IAN FISHER
Published: October 11, 2006

BRUSSELS, Oct. 10 — Europe appears to be crossing an invisible line regarding its Muslim minorities: more people in the political mainstream are arguing that Islam cannot be reconciled with European values.

“You saw what happened with the pope,” said Patrick Gonman, 43, the owner of Raga, a funky wine bar in downtown Antwerp, 25 miles from here. “He said Islam is an aggressive religion. And the next day they kill a nun somewhere and make his point.

“Rationality is gone.”

Mr. Gonman is hardly an extremist. In fact, he organized a protest last week in which 20 bars and restaurants closed on the night when a far-right party with an anti-Muslim message held a rally nearby.

His worry is shared by centrists across Europe angry at terror attacks in the name of religion on a continent that has largely abandoned it, and disturbed that any criticism of Islam or Muslim immigration provokes threats of violence.

For years those who raised their voices were mostly on the far right. Now those normally seen as moderates — ordinary people as well as politicians — are asking whether once unquestioned values of tolerance and multiculturalism should have limits.

Former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw of Britain, a prominent Labor politician, seemed to sum up the moment when he wrote last week that he felt uncomfortable addressing women whose faces were covered with a veil. The veil, he wrote, is a “visible statement of separation and difference.”

When Pope Benedict XVI made the speech last month that included a quotation calling aspects of Islam “evil and inhuman,” it seemed to unleash such feelings. Muslims berated him for stigmatizing their culture, while non-Muslims applauded him for bravely speaking a hard truth.

The line between open criticism of another group or religion and bigotry can be a thin one, and many Muslims worry that it is being crossed more and more.

Whatever the motivations, “the reality is that views on both sides are becoming more extreme,” said Imam Wahid Pedersen, a prominent Dane who is a convert to Islam. “It has become politically correct to attack Islam, and this is making it hard for moderates on both sides to remain reasonable.” Mr. Pedersen fears that onetime moderates are baiting Muslims, the very people they say should integrate into Europe.

The worries about extremism are real. The Belgian far-right party, Vlaams Belang, took 20.5 percent of the vote in city elections last Sunday, five percentage points higher than in 2000. In Antwerp, its base, though, its performance improved barely, suggesting to some experts that its power might be peaking.

In Austria this month, right-wing parties also polled well, on a campaign promise that had rarely been made openly: that Austria should start to deport its immigrants. Vlaams Belang, too, has suggested “repatriation” for immigrants who do not made greater efforts to integrate.

The idea is unthinkable to mainstream leaders, but many Muslims still fear that the day — or at least a debate on the topic — may be a terror attack away.

“I think the time will come,” said Amir Shafe, 34, a Pakistani who earns a good living selling clothes at a market in Antwerp. He deplores terrorism and said he himself did not sense hostility in Belgium. But he said, “We are now thinking of going back to our country, before that time comes.”

Many experts note that there is a deep and troubled history between Islam and Europe, with the Crusaders and the Ottoman Empire jostling each other for centuries and bloodily defining the boundaries of Christianity and Islam. A sense of guilt over Europe’s colonial past and then World War II, when intolerance exploded into mass murder, allowed a large migration to occur without any uncomfortable debates over the real differences between migrant and host.

Then the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, jolted Europe into new awareness and worry.

The subsequent bombings in Madrid and London, and the murder of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh by a Dutch-born Moroccan stand as examples of the extreme. But many Europeans — even those who generally support immigration — have begun talking more bluntly about cultural differences, specifically about Muslims’ deep religious beliefs and social values, which are far more conservative than those of most Europeans on issues like women’s rights and homosexuality.

“A lot of people, progressive ones — we are not talking about nationalists or the extreme right — are saying, ‘Now we have this religion, it plays a role and it challenges our assumptions about what we learned in the 60’s and 70’s,’ ” said Joost Lagendik, a Dutch member of the European Parliament for the Green Left Party, who is active on Muslim issues.

“So there is this fear,” he said, “that we are being transported back in a time machine where we have to explain to our immigrants that there is equality between men and women, and gays should be treated properly. Now there is the idea we have to do it again.”

Now Europeans are discussing the limits of tolerance, the right with increasing stridency and the left with trepidation.

Austrians in their recent election complained about public schools in Vienna being nearly full with Muslim students and blamed the successive governments that allowed it to happen.

Some Dutch Muslims have expressed support for insurgents in Iraq over Dutch peacekeepers there, on the theory that their prime loyalty is to a Muslim country under invasion.

So strong is the fear that Dutch values of tolerance are under siege that the government last winter introduced a primer on those values for prospective newcomers to Dutch life: a DVD briefly showing topless women and two men kissing. The film does not explicitly mention Muslims, but its target audience is as clear as its message: embrace our culture or leave.

Perhaps most wrenching has been the issue of free speech and expression, and the growing fear that any criticism of Islam could provoke violence.

In France last month, a high school teacher went into hiding after receiving death threats for writing an article calling the Prophet Muhammad “a merciless warlord, a looter, a mass murderer of Jews and a polygamist.” In Germany a Mozart opera with a scene of Muhammad’s severed head was canceled because of security fears.

With each incident, mainstream leaders are speaking more plainly. “Self-censorship does not help us against people who want to practice violence in the name of Islam,” Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany said in criticizing the opera’s cancellation. “It makes no sense to retreat.”

The backlash is revealing itself in other ways. Last month the British home secretary, John Reid, called on Muslim parents to keep a close watch on their children. “There’s no nice way of saying this,” he told a Muslim group in East London. “These fanatics are looking to groom and brainwash children, including your children, for suicide bombing, grooming them to kill themselves to murder others.”

Many Muslims say this new mood is suddenly imposing expectations that never existed before that Muslims be exactly like their European hosts.

Dyab Abou Jahjah, a Lebanese-born activist here in Belgium, said that for years Europeans had emphasized “citizenship and human rights,” the notion that Muslim immigrants had the responsibility to obey the law but could otherwise live with their traditions.

“Then someone comes and says it’s different than that,” said Mr. Jahjah, who opposes assimilation. “You have to dump your culture and religion. It’s a different deal now.”

Lianne Duinberke, 34, who works at a market in the racially mixed northern section of Antwerp, said: “Before I was very eager to tell people I was married to a Muslim. Now I hesitate.” She has been with her husband, a Tunisian, for 12 years, and they have three children.

Many Europeans, she said, have not been accepting of Muslims, especially since 9/11. On the other hand, she said, Muslims truly are different culturally: No amount of explanation about free speech could convince her husband that the publication of cartoons lampooning Muhammad in a Danish newspaper was in any way justified.

When asked if she was optimistic or pessimistic about the future of Muslim immigration in Europe , she found it hard to answer. She finally gave a defeated smile. “I am trying to be optimistic,” she said. “But if you see the global problems before the people, then you really can’t be.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/w...ea467f4d354&hp&ex=1160539200&partner=homepage
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>Tolerate sharia, yes, but never respect it</font size></center>

The Sunday Times
Minette Marrin
July 6, 2008

One of life’s many mysteries is the question of why the lord chief justice Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the most senior judge in England, was moved to speak out in public about sharia.

Last week he gave a speech to a large audience at an east London mosque about the place of sharia in resolving disputes. He must have known, from the experiences of the Archbishop of Canterbury, that no matter what he said, his speech would be inflammatory; as Usama Hasan, an imam and an adviser to the Islamic Sharia Council here said at the time, it is very difficult to have a sensible discussion about sharia here because the subject is “like a red rag” to the public mind.

So, if such an important Establishment figure as Phillips takes it upon himself to stir up this nest of hornets, he must surely have something extremely important to say or to recommend. Yet – and this is the mystery – he appeared to be saying nothing new at all.

The headlines following his speech sounded predictably alarming: “British Muslims should be allowed to live by sharia law”, “Law chief backs the use of sharia law to solve disputes in UK”, “Sharia law could have UK role” and so on. No one quite said “sharia to be let in through back door shock”, but that was the general impression.

However, what Phillips said, and he made himself very much clearer than poor Rowan “Unclarity” Williams, was an articulation of the status quo. “There is no reason,” he said, “why principles of sharia law, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or any other forms of alternative dispute resolution. It must be recognised that any sanctions for failure to comply with the agreed terms of the mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales.”

In other words, English law is trumps here, which is as it should be.

There’s nothing new about this. As Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain said at the time: “English common law already allows us to go to mediation to whichever third party we wish.” It is perfectly simple, as a senior legal figure pointed out to me: a civil contract can, if the parties agree, be governed by any legal or religious code of their choice, even that of Azerbaijan, provided that, in case of dispute, no decisions go against English law or public policy. Criminal cases can, of course, be dealt with only under English law and only in English courts of law.

Sharia councils, which some might perhaps see as courts, already exist in this country to deal with civil disputes, almost all of them matrimonial, but can do so only within the law. They have no separate jurisdiction. All well informed British Muslims are quite aware of this.

While I personally think that a woman would be likely to get more equal treatment by other means, while I would not recommend my daughter to go before a sharia council and while I suspect that Muslim women before such councils might well get the fuzzy end of the lollipop, I strongly believe that British men and women of all descriptions should be free to resolve their differences as they choose, so long as their decisions comply with the law of the land. If a Muslim woman willingly accepts what others might consider unequal treatment in a divorce, that is surely her right.

To acknowledge that is hardly to give a ringing endorsement to sharia or to welcome it into the warp and woof of English law. Given that Phillips must have been well aware that anything he said on sharia would be misunderstood and inflammatory and given that he didn’t say anything very much, apart from pressing a few hyper-sensitive public buttons and making friendly noises about Muslims, one wonders why he spoke at all. That was the question put to Lord Lester, the Liberal Democrat peer, on Radio 4’s Today programme on Friday.

“Well,” said Lester, “he was speaking to a large Muslim audience and what the lecture was about was equality before the law in a secular society which respects religious diversity.” Perhaps he meant that Phillips was trying to be nice to Muslims. That is without a doubt a good thing, but I do draw the line at respect, as in respecting religious diversity.

There are some aspects of sharia, or Muslim practice, or whatever combination of the two is in operation – such as making girls wear veils or have less value as witnesses, to say nothing about the sharia attitude to apostasy – which I do not respect at all. But while it does not disrupt any British customs and traditions, I think it should be tolerated.

One of the greatest things about this country is its dedication to tolerance, personally, socially and above all in law. Tolerance, however, is not the same as respect. Owing to this great and unusual tradition of tolerance, contracts in this country can be made under the rules of gypsy bonfire jumping, or wiccan incantations or the secret covenants of the ferret fancy, and that is and should be tolerated within the law. But respected?

I feel that this constant demand for respect makes a great many people privately very resentful. Why should respect be extracted from us, for any and every religion, or any and every culture? It amounts to a statutory requirement of hypocrisy.

Besides, we know that from respect it is only a short step to encouragement, to inclusion, accommodation and adaptation – to unwanted change from within. We’ve seen this happening in various ways; to give just one instance, some Muslim men with multiple wives under sharia are being paid welfare benefits for all of them, as wives, in accordance with specific guidelines from the Department for Work and Pensions, even though polygamy is against the law in this country.

What’s astonishing is the way that so many useful idiots in the mainstream culture are so quick to make unnecessary and often unwanted accommodations – allowances that most Muslims would not want or expect – to what they falsely imagine are Muslim sensibilities, as with dropping Nativity plays and children’s stories about pigs.

I think that creeping adaptation to something unwanted, driven by old-fashioned liberal guilt, is what people of the mainstream culture fear. That, I think, is the direction in which the Archbishop of Canterbury was indeed stumbling with his clumsy recommendations and it’s an anxiety that Phillips should have known he would excite, regardless of what precisely he said and most especially since he spoke in defence of the archbishop.

The tragedy is that although Islamophobia is clearly what both men are anxious to prevent, they have unintentionally and unwisely managed to promote it. And as appointed pillars of our society they have made us feel anxious about its foundations.

minette.marrin@sunday-times.co.uk

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article4276471.ece
 

keysersoze

Star
Registered
ok yall lost me with the no ORAL sex part....

*Sticking with the cross*

That's not true - oral sex is permissible according to many Islamic Scholars.

One thing you have to understand about Islam is that everything that is not explicitly mentioned in the Quran and the Prophets traditions is open to analysis by a scholar.

For instance, the only thing that is clearly prohibited between husband and wife is anal sex.

The issue of oral sex is something that was never mentioned during the initial Islamic revelation and Prophetic period - hence it is a matter that is open to debate on its permissibility. Each side brings its proof of why it should be prohibited or should not - BUT the result of their analysis on its legality or illegality is not definitive.

Islamic law has a very complex method of jurisprudential analysis that yields in its results of a fatwa (Islamic ruling).

The same goes for masturbation. It is something that may be looked down upon or frowned but the since the Quran or the prophet never directly spoke on the matter - the degree of it being a sin is debated.
 

keysersoze

Star
Registered
That's why I am glad I don't follow any religion.:D:yes:

One does not need to follow a religion in order to worship something, (i.e. money).

Chris Rock: The number one reason people hate America: the number one reason is because of our religion. Americans worship money, we worship money. Separate God from school, separate God from work, separate God from government, but on your money it says in God we trust. All my life I've been looking for God, and He's right in my pocket. Americans worship money, and we all go to the same church, the church of ATM. Everywhere you look there's a new branch popping up … remind you about how much money you got and how much money you don't got. And if you got less than twenty dollars, the machine won't even talk to you. The machine is like, "You better go see a teller." You ever go to a teller and try to take out eight dollars and fifty cents? Oh, it's disgusting … oh man, you gotta wait on that long ass line, people doing real transactions in front of you, you get on to the fucking front, you fill out your form, eight fifty. The fucking teller looks at it, she look at you, she looks at the check, she don't even take the money out of the drawer, she take it out of her pocket, "Here you go, get outta here." And here's something, man. Drugs are illegal, but ATM machines are open twenty-four hours a day. Twenty-four hours a day. For who? Who the fuck is it open for? Have you ever taken out three hundred dollars at four o'clock in the morning for something positive? Shit, when you press that machine at four o'clock in the morning, I think a psychiatrist should pop up on the screen and go, "Come on, man, save your money, man. Don't buy drugs, buy some rims. They spinning, ******, they spinning, they spinning, ******, they spinning." Americans worship money. Shit, you know why banks are closed on Sunday? 'Cause if they wasn't, church would be empty.
 

actinanass

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
That's not true - oral sex is permissible according to many Islamic Scholars.

One thing you have to understand about Islam is that everything that is not explicitly mentioned in the Quran and the Prophets traditions is open to analysis by a scholar.

For instance, the only thing that is clearly prohibited between husband and wife is anal sex.

The issue of oral sex is something that was never mentioned during the initial Islamic revelation and Prophetic period - hence it is a matter that is open to debate on its permissibility. Each side brings its proof of why it should be prohibited or should not - BUT the result of their analysis on its legality or illegality is not definitive.

Islamic law has a very complex method of jurisprudential analysis that yields in its results of a fatwa (Islamic ruling).

The same goes for masturbation. It is something that may be looked down upon or frowned but the since the Quran or the prophet never directly spoke on the matter - the degree of it being a sin is debated.

dude I really don't care...
 

Shadow

The Dark Lord
BGOL Investor
For instance, the only thing that is clearly prohibited between husband and wife is anal sex.

An Iraqi Army Officer once told me he was fine with his daughter getting fucked in the ass as long as she doesn't have vaginal sex before marriage.

I told that story on this board once before.

That religion is just a twisted out of control as christianity is.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
UPDATE



<font size="6"><center>Surrender!</font size><font size="4">
England's Top Judge Bows to Sharia Law </font size></center>

RealClearPolitics
By Cal Thomas
July 08, 2008

So this is how it ends: not with a bang, but a whimper.

The most senior judge in England has declared that Islamic legal principles in Sharia law may be used within Muslim communities in Britain to settle marital arguments and regulate finance. Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said, "Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law."

In his speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips said Muslims in Britain could use Islamic legal principles as long as punishments -- and divorce rulings -- comply with English law. Sharia law does not comply with English law. It is a law unto itself.

And so the English who gave us the Magna Carta in 1215, William Blackstone and the foundation of American law are slowly succumbing to the dictates of intolerant Islam and sowing seeds of their own destruction.

The Iranian and Kurdish Women's Rights Organization (IKWRO), an umbrella group of activists who work in Muslim countries to liberate women from the dark side of this oppressive force, according to Womensphere.wordpress.com, identifies Sharia family law as the fundamental basis for discrimination against women in the Muslim world, including communities in the United Kingdom.

Here are just some of the "benefits" British Muslim women can look forward to if Sharia law replaces English law: The Muslim woman cannot marry without parental approval, worsening the problem of forced marriage; marriages can be conducted without the presence of a bride, as long as the guardian consents, creating a climate for underage and early marriage; Muslim women may only marry Muslim men.

It gets worse. A Muslim man can divorce his wife by repudiating her; they have no obligation to support a former wife, or her children after the divorce; women are prohibited from divorcing husbands without his consent; abuse is not grounds for a woman to end a marriage; in matters of inheritance, sons are entitled to twice as much of an estate as daughters.

Divorced women must remain single. If they remarry they can lose custody of their children. There is no similar requirement for a man. Child custody often reverts to the father at a preset age, even if the father has been abusive.

It is impossible to reconcile this antiquated "law" with English law, so what could Lord Phillips mean when he says that Sharia law can be used in Muslim communities as long as such laws comply with English law? This will mean English law must become subordinate to Sharia law. This is Dhimmitude, an Islamic system of religious apartheid begun in the 7th century that forces all other religions and cultures to accept an inferior status once Muslims become the majority.

Maryland's Court of Appeals recently denied a Sharia divorce to a Pakistani man. The man's wife of 20 years had filed for divorce. To circumvent having to share their $2 million estate and other marital assets, he went to the Pakistani embassy and applied for an Islamic divorce. The man wanted to invoke what is known as talaq, in which the husband says, "I divorce you" three times and it's done.

The Maryland court said, "If we were to affirm the use of talaq, controlled as it is by the husband, a wife, a resident of this state, would never be able to consummate a divorce action filed by her in which she seeks a division of marital property" and the talaq "directly deprives the wife of the due process she is entitled to when she initiates divorce litigation. The lack and deprivation of due process is itself contrary to (Maryland's) public policy."

British Muslims who wish to live under Sharia law might have stayed in the countries from which they came -- or return to them. But their objective appears to be domination of England, not assimilation. This also seems to be the goal for Muslims in other countries with large and growing Muslim populations.

There is no due process under Sharia law. Lord Phillips has signed the death warrant for his nation if his opinion becomes the law of England. It's one thing to fight a war and lose it. It's quite another to willingly surrender without a struggle.

CalThomas@tribune.com
Copyright 2008, Tribune Media Services Inc.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/surrender.html
 

keysersoze

Star
Registered
^^ I don' understand that big deal about these things. Sure there are unfavorable outcomes that can result from the application of Islamic law such as father gaining custody of the children after their preset age even if he is abusive but there are other safeguards in Islamic law in place to preven that outcome.

Bottom line, in arbitration, you can estalish the rules of the conflict.

Likewise, contract law grants freedom to negotiate the principles of the contract, given that both parties understand the terms and that none of them are unconsciousable.
 

keysersoze

Star
Registered
An Iraqi Army Officer once told me he was fine with his daughter getting fucked in the ass as long as she doesn't have vaginal sex before marriage.

I told that story on this board once before.

That religion is just a twisted out of control as christianity is.

I know about that too - some Muslim girls are willing to give up anal sex because they believe they are still "virgins" since there has been no vaginal intercourse... Look the bottom line is that people will find ways to manipulate things to make themselves feel as if they are within their religious views.

Every heard of the Hasidic Jews - well, married jewish women have to cover their hair by their religious law but instead their Jewish Scholars have said that the women should wear wigs over their natural hair ... and some of them even shave their hair & wear head kerchiefs, or wigs over their shaven head - all with the notion that they are in compliance with religious law.

Many times, religious laws are clear but people manipulate it for their own ends.
 
Top