If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Minority courts?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Just read a Danish interview with Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammad, one of the founders of some Muslim organisations, including the world-wide Hizb-Ut-Tahrir. He openly told about his goal to reform the western civilisation into a Muslim civilisation. He explained that he divides the world into three ideologies: the communistic, the capitalisic and the Islamic ideology, and that he sees the communism as dead, the capitalism as dying, with only Islam left.
He want to reform the “man made laws, into gods (Allah’s) laws”. So lets say he one day will get through, then he will for example ban homosexuality and punish it with death.
In Britain he is already one of the judges in the Shariah court. Obviously they judge according to the Koran, and he told that some weeks ago he had some young Muslim boys who had attacked an elder Muslim man, and broken his nose. For this they had to pay him 33 camels. And as Camels are estimated to be worth around 1200 pounds, they had to pay him 39000 pounds.
Should a group/minority be allowed to have their own court, with own sets of rules?
I think that it is OK that groups/minorities celebrate their own happy/sad occasions with their own traditions, but when it comes to punishments I don’t think that others than the national courts should be able to rule a judgement.
Also the facts that this man admires Al-Queada makes me worried, that people will believe his- what I see as- bullshit.
I mean as a western society we cross a line at a point that the Koran maybe doesn't agree with. So is it safe having these courts around?
He want to reform the “man made laws, into gods (Allah’s) laws”. So lets say he one day will get through, then he will for example ban homosexuality and punish it with death.
In Britain he is already one of the judges in the Shariah court. Obviously they judge according to the Koran, and he told that some weeks ago he had some young Muslim boys who had attacked an elder Muslim man, and broken his nose. For this they had to pay him 33 camels. And as Camels are estimated to be worth around 1200 pounds, they had to pay him 39000 pounds.
Should a group/minority be allowed to have their own court, with own sets of rules?
I think that it is OK that groups/minorities celebrate their own happy/sad occasions with their own traditions, but when it comes to punishments I don’t think that others than the national courts should be able to rule a judgement.
Also the facts that this man admires Al-Queada makes me worried, that people will believe his- what I see as- bullshit.
I mean as a western society we cross a line at a point that the Koran maybe doesn't agree with. So is it safe having these courts around?
0
Comments
I dont give a fuck if they wanna wank around with camels just so long as they respect and obey the laws of this country.
Its when they start seeing their religious laws as more important than common law that we get problems. Unfortunately they already see things this way and in this bullshit politically correct country we arent allowed to criticise.
Do they hijack safari parks to get the camels?
Jacqueline, on the point of Omar Bakri Mohammed, you should remember that it is only one man speaking. Claiming his view as representing all Islam is like claiming that the KKK represents all Christianity. He is allowed to admire al-Qaeda; pluralistic thought and freedom of speech are inherent factors in our claim to be free democratic states. And keep in mind that any number of British judges, Lords and MPs, as well as US Supreme Court Justices and Congressmen, would happily ban homosexuality. Thankfully, we do not allow them to.
Some would even go as far in infringing civil liberties as banning entire religious and cultural groups from their freedom to associate and judge each other on mutually subscribed to laws. Oh yeah.
What if a Muslim decided he didn't want to accept the Islamic court's ruling?
As far as I'm aware they can't MAKE someone accept their decision and sentence?
What if they catch a homesexual muslim? Do the execute him?
What if the Muslim decided he wanted to appeal to the high court? Would they uphold a decision to fine him £39000 for breaking a man's nose.... of course not.
The whole thing should never have been allowed. The only laws in Britain should be made by the MAJORITY, not the minority. Muslims should be made to follow British law, not Islamic law.
Of course they can't. That's why I said it's fine is the law breaker has agreed to subscribe to the system of laws.
If they did, then they would be breaking British law and would be liable to prosecution under it, the higher authority. I assume this is why they do not sentence executions, or other illegal punishments.
It is not the High Court's field, as it is not British law. He cannot, however, be forced to pay. If he does not want to, then he can simply say no; he does not have to go to a higher court. The Islamic court cannot do anything illegal to make him pay, but he may be ostracised by other practising Muslims, something which, the last time I checked, was not illegal.
Then what on Earth is the point? Why do they need to keep their cultural identity? Last time I checked it said "British" on their passport.
The whole idea of an Islamic court in Britain, not only undermines our own courts, but also undermines our own culture. We accept people to this country if they are willing to integrate into our society.
By creating their own court they are distancing themselves, something most people are quite keen to do once they arrive here. They get all the best bits of being British, freedom of speech, freedom of expression. But they decide to keep the best bits of their own country.
In my humble opinion if you move to Britain to become a British citizen, or to any other country for that matter, then you should willingly submit yourself to the laws and culture of the recieving nation.
This works both ways for me, I think its terrible when people move to America, or Spain from here and open "British pubs" over there. Or when they decide to fly the union jack all over the place in France. We should respect and submit to the dominant culture in one society. People coming here should do the same.
So one of the best bits of being British is freedom of expression, but you've decided that you're going to limit theirs'? Rather an interesting contradiction.
[Edited to move apostrophe - grammar freak <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">]
[ 22-04-2002: Message edited by: Vox populi, vox Dei ]
A Muslim (or Christian, Jew etc.) cleric could make believers subscribe to this court with threats of ex-communication (or whatever) this makes these individuals very dangerous. This power could obviously be used in a bad way. If they think they are guilty of a crime they can go through the proper system.....
They can't. The gloabal Islamic community -- umma -- holds their ultimate allegiance. Shortly after September 11, there was a discussion programme on which one Muslim quite clearly stated (paraphrased):
"We are not 'British Muslims': we are Muslims who happen to live in Britain."
I think that was the same programme as the one in which the audience made the US Ambassador cry.