Home Politics & Debate
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 ✨

Islamic and Jewish law courts

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6190080.stm

"Aydarus Yusuf has lived in the UK for the past 15 years, but he feels more bound by the traditional law of his country of birth - Somalia - than he does by the law of England and Wales."

Erm .. then go back to Somalia? :confused:

Isn't the fact that what makes us a 'special' country for outsiders to seek refuge here is that our laws are not bogged down by religious dogma?
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Go back to Somalia then, UK resident, UK law.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What's this got to do with sex ? :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    RubberSkin wrote:
    What's this got to do with sex ? :)
    I thought that ;o.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Doh!!! :banghead:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If all parties involved in a civil dispute unanimously agree to settling a dispute through some third party I have no objections.

    However, the demands of some 40% of Muslims for the introduction of Sharia law in predominately Muslim areas is completely unacceptable. (I have heard of no orthodox Jews demanding Halakha in Golders Green but that would be similarly unacceptable)

    And the calls of some of Britain's Islamic scholars for Sharia law to be applied in British courts on areas such as family and inheritance is unacceptable. If Muslims want to live in a country with a national legal system that incorporates Islamic law they should move to an Islamic state.

    Any move towards a situation where British courts can apply different laws depending on religion must be rejected.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In a lot of Muslim countries the perperator of a crime (or their family) will pay off a victim rather than have a court case.

    Several cases here in the UK have collapsed because of people being paid off in this way.

    As long as English law overrides anything else, I can't see that it really matters. Although with lenient sentences I can understand why people want to take things into their own hands. And there is a danger of communities becoming closed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    PussyKatty wrote:
    In a lot of Muslim countries the perperator of a crime (or their family) will pay off a victim rather than have a court case.

    Several cases here in the UK have collapsed because of people being paid off in this way.

    Isn`t that an improvement ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't know, in a way.

    I was involved in a case like that and I personally feel it worked out better than if the guy had been sent to prison. But in some cases, for example if a man raped a child and he paid off the victim's family that would be very wrong.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    PussyKatty wrote:
    But in some cases, for example if a man raped a child and he paid off the victim's family that would be very wrong.

    Why ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    Why ?

    Because it would allow rich people to commit terrible crimes knowing that they could just pay off the family and get away with it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote:
    Because it would allow rich people to commit terrible crimes knowing that they could just pay off the family and get away with it.

    :yes: And most people probably think that victims and their families wouldn't get justice.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    and because if you don't deal with the person who did it they're likely to carry on doing it.

    Of course none of the above matters to seeker, who seems to operate on an extreme version of "I'm alright, Jack"
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Would women and homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexual men in these courts?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Would women and homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexual men in these courts?


    I doubt it ... a step backwards in my opinion.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Would women and homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexual men in these courts?

    No idea about Islamic courts but the Beth Din (used by Orthodox Jews) doesn't really cover any issues where someone would have different rights because they're gay or female. The Beth Din covers stuff like conversion/adoption/Jewish status - and civil disputes if agreed by all parties involved. It also covers gets which enact a divorce under Jewish law - but that is something which would normally be done in addition to a civil divorce.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote:
    Because it would allow rich people to commit terrible crimes knowing that they could just pay off the family and get away with it.
    Sofie wrote:
    :yes: And most people probably think that victims and their families wouldn't get justice.
    and because if you don't deal with the person who did it they're likely to carry on doing it.

    Of course none of the above matters to seeker, who seems to operate on an extreme version of "I'm alright, Jack"


    Interesting.

    So you have a victim who has been "wronged".

    Let`s call him Jack.

    I would say that the person who matters MOST is Jack.

    It could be argued that the ONLY one who matters is Jack.

    PussyKatty made a point that in some cases the VICTIM is paid off.

    Presumably the victim has agreed to that pay off in whatever form it takes.

    I suggested that is an improvement (for Jack,) on a system of ermmm "justice" which appears to benefit every Tom Dick and Harry who decides to get involved, but often neglects Jack (remember him ?)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:


    Presumably the victim has agreed to that pay off in whatever form it takes.

    But you can't presume that. If the victim is from a poor family the family may pressure them to take the money. What about vulnerable victims such as children and the mentally ill?

    Taking the example given before, a man who rapes a child from a poor family. The family may be keen to take money to pay them off, leaving the man to rape again and 'pay' off his crimes. That could never be described as being right.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    PussyKatty wrote:
    Taking the example given before, a man who rapes a child from a poor family. The family may be keen to take money to pay them off, leaving the man to rape again and 'pay' off his crimes. That could never be described as being right.

    I see your point but what is "right" (especially for the victim) in your example ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    I see your point but what is "right" (especially for the victim) in your example ?

    An appropriate sentence for a crime isn't solely about the victim. It should also be about keeping the public safe and rehabilitating the offender.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Seeker, do you believe that patterns of behaviour exist? And do you believe that people can use these patterns of behaviour to accurately predict someone's future behaviour? And if so, do you believe that preventative measures can be taken to protect yourself against such behaviour if it would harm you?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    PussyKatty wrote:
    An appropriate sentence for a crime isn't solely about the victim.

    In my experience it is rarely, if ever, about the victim.

    That was the first and, for me, most important thing I learned when studying the "UK legal system" many,many, many years ago.

    (I also believe that information wasn`t intended to be conveyed to the student;) )
    PussyKatty wrote:
    It should also be about keeping the public safe and rehabilitating the offender.

    And those have little,if anything, to do with the victim.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Seeker, do you believe that patterns of behaviour exist?

    I believe that behaviour exists.

    I`m unclear by what you mean by "patterns".
    And do you believe that people can use these patterns of behaviour to accurately predict someone's future behaviour?

    I don`t believe that the future can be predicted.
    And if so, do you believe that preventative measures can be taken to protect yourself against such behaviour if it would harm you?

    Personally, I note the behaviour of others most of the time. I make guesses on that observed behaviour and act accordingly.


    I`d be interested as to why you asked those questions :chin:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    British laws allow for the victim of a crime to refuse to press charges. In such cases the police often drop the charges.

    If two families are solving a dispute in which one person has been beaten or stabbed and the victim decides to sort it out their own way rather than going through a court of law, then it is their right not to press charges and to sort things in a different way. Obviously the alternative "court" in question should only mediate and "judge" over any compensation money that might change hands as part of a settlement. They shouldn't and musn't have authority to punish or imprison anyone.

    And naturally, if the victim of the crime in question has been killed or left in a vegetative state (i.e. unable to state they wish to drop charges) then the police and proper Courts should get fully involved and the alternative "court" has no say or authority in the matter whatsoever.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Seeker, do you believe that patterns of behaviour exist? And do you believe that people can use these patterns of behaviour to accurately predict someone's future behaviour? And if so, do you believe that preventative measures can be taken to protect yourself against such behaviour if it would harm you?

    I'm sure most of the rest of us do, in which case I suggest we put the concept to good use on seeker using the preventative measure of ignoring him in order to avoid his entirely predictable pattern of behaviour. ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    If two families are solving a dispute in which one person has been beaten or stabbed and the victim decides to sort it out their own way rather than going through a court of law, then it is their right not to press charges and to sort things in a different way. Obviously the alternative "court" in question should only mediate and "judge" over any compensation money that might change hands as part of a settlement. They shouldn't and musn't have authority to punish or imprison anyone.
    How far does that apply though? If someone is accused of doing something which would result in them being deemed a dangerous criminal, would they be allowed to pay off the victim of whatever they did and not take it to trial? Even if they're not Michael Jackson? :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    In my experience it is rarely, if ever, about the victim.

    Under the system you seem to be suggesting though you don't seem to be trying to offer anything in terms of preventing the "creation" of other victims. It's kind of difficult therefore for you to ever argue that you have the victims interests in mind when actually you aren't interested in their welfare until after the event. Bit fucking late then IMHO.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How far does that apply though? If someone is accused of doing something which would result in them being deemed a dangerous criminal, would they be allowed to pay off the victim of whatever they did and not take it to trial? Even if they're not Michael Jackson? :p
    It should be up to the CPS to decide whether to bring charges forward even if the vicitm doesn't want to. It all depends on the nature of the crime.

    There should always be a police investigation though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote:
    I'm sure most of the rest of us do, in which case I suggest we put the concept to good use on seeker using the preventative measure of ignoring him in order to avoid his entirely predictable pattern of behaviour. ;)

    So that`s the reason you have thus far ignored the question in the slavery thread.

    I was forming the impression that maybe you were feeling guilty about your own behaviour.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Under the system you seem to be suggesting though you don't seem to be trying to offer anything in terms of preventing the "creation" of other victims. It's kind of difficult therefore for you to ever argue that you have the victims interests in mind when actually you aren't interested in their welfare until after the event. Bit fucking late then IMHO.

    I wasn`t aware that I had suggested a "system".

    It seems the problem with words is their misunderstanding.

    I`d say by definition a "victim" is in the past tense, and as such it is only possible to have a victim`s interest in mind after the event.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    I wasn`t aware that I had suggested a "system".

    Which is why I typed "seem to be"...
    It seems the problem with words is their misunderstanding.

    I understand the meaning of irony ;)
    I`d say by definition a "victim" is in the past tense, and as such it is only possible to have a victim`s interest in mind after the event.

    Indeed, point taken, which again is why I chose the words I used, mentioning the "creation" of victims and the fact that you only seem to be interested in those individuals after they have become victims, rather than the prevention of that...
Sign In or Register to comment.