Archbishop Sparks Sharia Law Row

[Hugh Jampton]

I agree with the above.

I feel so sorry for the country of England now, it is getting less and less English with each decade.

 

In Sunday's Telegraph it claimed plans to give benefits to families with more than one wife. Each wife would be entitled to claim their benefit if due.

This is despite bigamy being illegal in the UK and in Christianity

 

I'm glad I'm not a UK taxpayer

[Dodger]

I agree with the above.

I feel so sorry for the country of England now, it is getting less and less English with each decade.

 

In Sunday's Telegraph it claimed plans to give benefits to families with more than one wife. Each wife would be entitled to claim their benefit if due.

This is despite bigamy being illegal in the UK and in Christianity

 

I'm glad I'm not a UK taxpayer

 

Maybe that should be paid for from the muslim council of Britain? Rather than the taxpayer as they prefer to have their own rules rather than use ours, or doesn't that apply where they benefit from the system?

[The Voice of Reason]

I agree with the above.

In Sunday's Telegraph it claimed plans to give benefits to families with more than one wife. Each wife would be entitled to claim their benefit if due.

 

Is this not similar to benefits, if due, being paid to single mothers. Is there a problem with that?.

[mollag]

Wheras i think bigamy is a crime, polygamy isnt, so you can have more than one "wife" but you may not marry them.

 

Just as well or half the Saudi Royal family would be in English jails for bringing multiple, legal in their country, wives with them.

 

I am a total athiest but i cant help liking this Guy, he talks straight, he talks sense and i have no problem with what he is saying----it may be----- that some apects-----etc

 

What he isnt saying is that we should scrap our system and replace it with sharia, thats just the rabble [nearly put Rabbi]

 

who would you prefer to influence social policy in the UK, the Bish of Cant or the Sun asswipe? I really do abhore that rag

[localyokel]

There has been lots of stuff online today about similar proposals in Ontario, Canada a few years back

 

Sharia law in canada

 

Basically white liberals thought it was a great idea to allow Sharia Courts (as similar courts had emerged for Jews and Catholics under Ontario's Arbitration Act in 1991). Strangely though it got quashed by Muslim womens groups who knew basically that it was the first stage of a process that would allow them to be treated like shit and the government actually repealed the laws enabling it to happen.

 

As the link says:-

 

"Such was the political feeling that the province's premier, Dalton McGuinty, eventually dismissed the recommendations. He was also forced to ban other religions which had been using faith-based tribunals."

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Therefore we do not want this law to take hold in a democratic society, these people want to come to the UK and the IOM, they therefore should follow the law of the country that they reside in and not try to impose their ways onto others.

 

But there is no and will be no imposition of these laws on the rest of the populace, so there should not be a problem.

 

The only laws that should not be allowed in Britain are those which are based around oppressive and discriminating beliefs. Whether or not they are part of another culture or society they should not be allowed.

[Freggyragh]

Two months ago we had 'Mohammed the Teddy'. I think last month it was some non-Moslem group saying 'The Three Little Pigs' should be banned that provided the English tabloids with the excuse for pages and pages of Moslem bashing. This month they have the perfect excuse for an extensive diatribe aganst Sharia. Every few weeks the English media whip everyone up into a frenzy, meanwhile, British moslems seem to be just trying to get on with their lives. Goebbels could hardly do it better. Be fair, Moslems are a small minority and they do not have much influence in society, even in England. If they were seriously foisting their bonkers religion on others then that would be the appropriate time to get annoyed. Anyway acceptance of restricting the rights of the individual concerning marriage because of their relgion or ethnic background is primitive and bad for society - it should be stopped, and I include the bonkers C of E acceptance of that in relation to who may or may not be head of state as well.

[Skeddan]

If [Muslims] were seriously foisting their bonkers religion on others ....

I include the bonkers C of E acceptance of that in relation to who may or may not be head of state as well.

do you mean that the C of E is a bonkers religion or that C of E is bonkers for accepting restrictions?

 

From what I've read of the Quran there is nothing at all bonkers in Islam - in fact it is quite refreshing and far more rational than orthodox Christianity. What is bonkers are the various quasi-Islamic sects that contra to Quran read all sorts of things into it which aren't there and which provide spurious religious justification for bigotry and primitive tribal customs. Admittedly I only read it in translation, but it seems the 'fundamentalist' Muslim view is not really to do with what the Quran says.

 

If you think so, could you explain why you think it bonkers to have a requirement that the head of state (or even Prime Minister) should not belong to a religion that requires obedience to a religious head outside the country and puts them at risk of undue influence. It seems quite sensible to me . I'd also disqualify Moonies as well (and probably Realians and Bagwan Bagwash followers and a few others as well just for the hell of it). If nothing else this presents a security threat (the monarch is also in the loop on very sensitive info).

[Hermes]

...From what I've read of the Quran there is nothing at all bonkers in Islam - in fact it is quite refreshing and far more rational than orthodox Christianity...

 

That rationality is a cornerstone of fundamentalism is often overlooked. The Qu'ran does in fact have passages that are disturbing and condone abuse and murder of non-believers, or heretics. In this it is fairly explicit - read either in classical arabic or translated to english. That these verses are couched amongst some rational, enlightened and fair guidance for a system of living is still no excuse for tolerating these contentious elements.

The point is that Islam itself is not the Qu'ran (a book allegedly received and promulgated by Mohammed from god), and not the Haditha (aphorisms and recollections written about the deeds and sayings of Mohammed by his contempories). Islam is heavily influenced by these, though - particularly the Qu'ran, for obvious reasons.

Most muslims are sensible enough to know where to get off as regards how they live their lives in relation to Islamic dogma. For the same reason most jews do not go round stoning adulterers. People are people first and religion is an affectation on top of this.

 

The reason our societies and governments in the British Isles have gone to seculalrism is because of the need to conquer the problems caused by religion, and by the problems caused on attempting to reform religion. Changing British laws to accomodate some minority prejudices is a slap in the face to those who have died and suffered to bring about this balanced secular state. We must remember that historically, the totality of the suffering to acheive this goal far far outweighs that of an inconvenienced minority in the current time period.