How liberals argue
- Thread starter LDB
- Start date
WanderngFool
Active Expediter
You must be bored.
I followed along and had a laugh or two until 47 seconds into the video when the clown on the right said something ridiculous about Europe coming under sharia law.
Application of sharia law by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
When people of a particular political persuasion have to resort to the deliberate spreading of misinformation it speaks badly about their future. I really wish conservatives would get their acts together.
You need to be better informed. This is not a deliberate spreading of misinformation. Sharia law is beginning to spread throughout Europe. It hasn't taken hold over large areas, yet, and that's why it's not on that Wiki page, but there is a movement to get it going.You must be bored.
I followed along and had a laugh or two until 47 seconds into the video when the clown on the right said something ridiculous about Europe coming under sharia law.
Application of sharia law by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
When people of a particular political persuasion have to resort to the deliberate spreading of misinformation it speaks badly about their future. I really wish conservatives would get their acts together.
Sharia law entered Europe after World War II when the weakened European nations withdrew from their colonies, bringing to Europe their former colonial subjects as refugees and cheap labor from such Muslim nations as Pakistan (UK), Turkey (Germany) and Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia (France). Initially, Sharia law was applied discretely within the small Muslim enclaves of Europe. But after two generations of high birth rate and immigration into Europe, those enclaves have grown to where the Sharia law now often challenges the Judeo-Christian foundations of their host European nations.
In the former pro-Hitler nations, where lingering guilt over the Jewish holocaust now protects sharia, sharia seen as the law of another religious minority. Sharia courts presided by Muslim "judges" now dot Germany, where even non-Muslim German judges in German courts cite Sharia law and quote from the Quran when judging cases involving Muslims. In Denmark, Muslims are calling for areas with large Muslim populations, like Copenhagen's Tingbjerg, to become Sharia law zones patrolled by Muslim religious police modeled after the Saudi mutaween to catch and punish all Sharia law violators. Such Muslim police already exists in parts of Spain. Recently, a Muslim woman accused of adultery was sentenced to death by a Spanish Sharia court and escaped it by seeking refuge in a police station. In the four largest cities of Holland, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, Utrecht, Mohammed is the now the most common name for boys born in those cities, and sharia courts are becoming more and more common. In 2008 the UK government officially sanctioned sharia courts for legal disputes. There are now more than 100 sharia courts in England.
Here a video of an RT news story on this very topic.
letzrockexpress
Veteran Expediter
It's not just Europe. It is evolving worldwide. Only a matter of time til we begin to deal with it here. There are far more of them than there are of us. The Philippines is in the process of changing their constitution to accomodate the growing muslim population there.
Christian Communities Fall Under Sharia Law in Philippines Peace Deal « Persecution News
Christian Communities Fall Under Sharia Law in Philippines Peace Deal « Persecution News
WanderngFool
Active Expediter
You guys watch too much TV. If these so called sharia courts try to carry out sentences that violate the laws of the country they're in they'll be rounded up like common criminals. eg If they stone a woman they'll find themselves in a real court for murder.
Like the woman around 2/3 of the way through the video says, it's a political tactic designed to create the perception of hate and drive moderate Muslims into the arms of the extremists. Which is precisely why we should give ourselves a lot of credit for not falling into the hate trap throughout this "war".
Like the woman around 2/3 of the way through the video says, it's a political tactic designed to create the perception of hate and drive moderate Muslims into the arms of the extremists. Which is precisely why we should give ourselves a lot of credit for not falling into the hate trap throughout this "war".
Like I said, you need to be better informed. Those types of extreme sentences are almost never given out in any sharia court in a country where Islam isn't the state government and all of the civil and criminal laws rely on Islamic law (the ones in purple on your map). There have been a few exceptions, though. It's not the extreme punishments contained in sharia law that allows sharia law to creep into the civil courts, though, it's the more mundane that can creep into them. In Europe, if a Muslim steals from another Muslim, in an Islamic neighborhood, it will more and more likely be tried in a sharia court rather than a civil court. If the accused is found guilty (and the burden of proof is not even close to that of English Common Law) the sentence itself often violates the laws of civil sentencing, particularly those sentences are mandated by law.
What's happening initially is that parallel courts are set up to handle sharia law. It's mostly civil and family law, but the decisions, and the proceedings, often conflict with a nation's civil laws. For example, laws expressly forbidding forced marriage. Belgium has such a law, and in Antwerp the sharia court ignores that law and allows for and adjudicates forced marriages. The self-appointed Muslim judges running the court are applying Islamic law, rather than the secular Belgian Family Law system, to resolve disagreements involving questions of marriage and divorce, child custody and child support, as well as all inheritance-related matters.
Men and women are not afforded equal protection under sharia law, so many of the decisions automatically conflict with the notions of a fair trial. Often the sentences handed down are much more harsh than they would be in a state civil court, and much more in line with that we think of as justice.
The woman, and you and whoever else can call it what they like, but it is, nevertheless, taking place.
People hear "sharia law" and "sharia court" and they freak out, thinking all they are about is stoning and amputation of hands and beheadings and honor killings, but they're about far more than that. In many ways they are no different than the other religious courts that have been operating in the country since before it was a country. The Catholic church alone has more than 200 diocesan tribunals that handle a variety of cases. They handle 15,000 to 20,000 marriage annulments each year. Orthodox Jews use rabbinical courts to obtain religious divorces, resolve business conflicts and settle other disputes with fellow Jews. Similarly, many Muslims appeal to Islamic clerics to resolve marital disputes and other disagreements with fellow Muslims. Unlike Catholics and Orthodox Jews, however, once a sharia court is set up, Muslims tend to want to apply sharia law to non-Muslims and Muslims alike.
Disputes over the laws of various religious traditions have occasionally made their way into U.S. civil courts, but the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that judges and other government officials may not interpret religious doctrine or rule on theological matters. In such cases, civil courts must either defer to the decisions of religious bodies or adjudicate religious disputes based on neutral principles in secular law. Therefor, Muslims aren't trying to impose Islamic law on American, European or other civil courts, instead they want to set up parallel courts which bypass the civil court altogether. As long as those religious courts stay within religious and minor civil disputes, it's not a problem. It's when they move into criminal law and into adjudications which violate civil law that it becomes an issue.
In Britain a group by the name of "Muslims Against The Crusades" has launched an initiative to turn several neighborhoods and cities into autonomous Islamic areas, ruled on the basis of Sharia. The "Islamic Emirates Project" predicts that Sharia will eventually rule in 12 British cities, among them Birmingham, Leeds and Liverpool. Already in areas like the Tower Hamlets in East London (known also as The Islamic Republic of Tower Hamlets) Muslim preachers issue death threats against unveiled women and a visitor is greeted by posters declaring: "You are entering a Sharia controlled zone: Islamic rules enforced." This isn't made up.
Sure, the things happening in Antwerp and in Britain are extreme examples, and these are extreme groups with (as yet) a minimal impact on society and only have a small following of Muslims, but it wasn't all that long ago that they weren't there at all. Experimentation with Sharia law courts are underway in France, Spain, Bulgaria, Germany and the UK, in some cases with the official blessings or tacit agreement of state authorities. It bears watching, especially because in some countries, such as the UK and Germany, Sharia law has been insinuating itself into the civil legal system. So much so that various concerned groups are beginning to take notice. It's much more than merely a political tactic designed to create the perception of hate and drive moderate Muslims into the arms of the extremists. It's a way of life, a changing of he hearts and minds.
You can pretend it's not happening, though.
They are already there. You don't hear a word from the moderate Muslims when the extremists do something stupid. And it is no secret they are trying to get parts of Sharia law accepted by the courts. They had to pass a law recently in Oklahoma to stop the introduction of any of it.
Remember, this has all moved forward since 9/11.
Just the fact that it is being discussed here should tell you something.
Last edited:
WanderngFool
Active Expediter
All that may be true Turtle, and I don't doubt that it is but like you pretty much said, ruling on petty things or helping to resolve a marital dispute is one thing and sentencing someone for a serious crime is quite another. If they kill someone they'll have to answer for murder and if they try to imprison someone they'll have to answer for kidnapping.
It's one of those situations where either you're on the bus, or you're off the bus. There's no in between. When sharia courts have taken the rights of real courts onto themselves, then I'll take this kind of talk more seriously.
Like everything else, we can be fearful and outraged or we can play chess.
It's one of those situations where either you're on the bus, or you're off the bus. There's no in between. When sharia courts have taken the rights of real courts onto themselves, then I'll take this kind of talk more seriously.
Like everything else, we can be fearful and outraged or we can play chess.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
Wow! I'm not sure if I should cry or laugh about that comment you just made.
WanderngFool
Active Expediter
You've got a nice little false dichotomy going on there. The fact is there is a whole lot of in between.
There are countless examples of where sharia courts have "taken the rights of real courts onto themselves" simply by not affording women the same legal rights as men. Sharia law is based on the Quran, Sunnah and Ijma, all of which give men far more legal rights and legal power than women.
Click here and read it. Be forewarned, you won't like it. Especially the part about, "But the United Kingdom is a different story, indeed there close to 40 percent of young Muslims are in favor of Sharia law being implemented in Britain. The idea seems to be also making headway among non-Muslims. So, last year [2008], Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, gave his support for the [sharia] courts in Britain, saying that the legal recognition of them "seems unavoidable." He added, the United Kingdom has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system."
Without a doubt the notion of sharia law being implemented in Europe and in the US on any wide scale in such a manner that supersedes civil courts, or in any imminent fashion is wildly overblown by the wackos. By the same token, it has crept in and is creeping far more than those with their head in the sand are aware.
Thanks for staying on topic, as usual, and not trying to make it about the individual.
Tim Burton's Civil War Thingy? Are you talking about Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter?You've got it backwards. I don't watch "News"/opinion TV. Last night I watched part 1 of Tim Burton's Civil War thingy. I thought it was very good and I'll watch part 2 tonight.
Where does your brainwashing come from? You seem to be addicted to outrage so I'm guessing Fox "News".
Or have you confused Beetlejuice, Frakenweenie or Mars Attacks! with the Civil War?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you watch something and don't even know what you watched, or you can confuse Tim Burton with Ken Burns, you may be missing out on some of the important facts of current events around you, too. You might not even know what those facts are at all.
WanderngFool
Active Expediter
I'm glad to hear it. Someone else that tries to avoid the insanity!
Turtle - for me it probably boils down to this. Muslims are here to stay. Most of them aren't much different than most other people: upwards of 90% are good people, 1% are dangerous people, and the remaining 9% we'd all be better off without but no one is giving us the option.
So what options does a country like Britain have? They can try to out-maneuver the extremists and convince the 90% that their allegiance should be with them or they can come down hard on the extremists which will probably be a propaganda bonanza for the very people they're coming down hard on.
And if they do come down hard, who are the winners and who are the losers? Btw, keep in mind that chemical weapons haven't gone away, they're in storage. Oh and we've been phenomenally lucky when it comes to nucs. Dirty bombs and worse are coming, and probably soon.
The 90% provide valuable information about the evils the 1% are planning. I'd rather have them for us than agin us.
WanderngFool
Active Expediter
Tim Burton's Civil War Thingy? Are you talking about Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter?
Or have you confused Beetlejuice, Frakenweenie or Mars Attacks! with the Civil War?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you watch something and don't even know what you watched, or you can confuse Tim Burton with Ken Burns, you may be missing out on some of the important facts of current events around you, too. You might not even know what those facts are at all.
Yup, Ken Burns. I don't follow popular culture enough to know the difference. Sue me.
Edit: Please tell me there wasn't really a movie called Frakenweenie.
Edit2: Is there a name for this debate tactic? I mistook one hollywood guy for another and you're trying to use it to cast doubt on arguments I've made in this thread?
Last edited:
The 90% figure may not be far off. England is a little different, and are a few other countries, but most Muslims that came to the US came here specifically to get way from Islamic-controlled countries and the sharia law that controls it. The overwhelming majority of Muslims are not-hard line extremists, but are quire moderate, same as most Christians, Jews, etc. Some of the wackos will find it hard to believe, but there are Muslim women who actually drive cars around Dearborn, MI. In non-Muslim countries, like France, Spain, German, when a hard-line Muslim cleric renders a verdict and hands down a sentence that is clearly in conflict with the civil laws in that country, the majority of Muslims in that country, and elsewhere, don't like it. If they wanted to live by sharia law, they'd move to Saudi Arabia or Iran or someplace.
You'll receive a summons from the court forthwith.Yup, Ken Burns. I don't follow popular culture enough to know the difference. Sue me.
87% Certified Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, and a 6.9/10 on IMDb. Roger Ebert gave the film three out of four stars, while regarding the film as "not one of Burton's best, but it has zealous energy" and that "the charm of a boy and his dog retains its appeal." Dog Sparky dies after being splattered by a car, and little Victor Frankenstein, using techniques he learned while running electrical current though a dead frog, digs up Sparky, sews him back together, and in classic Young Frankenstein fashion reanimates the little weenie. He tries to hide his home-sewn creation, but when Sparky gets out, Victor's fellow students, teachers and the entire town all learn that getting a new "leash on life" can be monstrous. Yikes!
Yes, there is, but it's not a logical fallacy. It's a tactic of paying attention.
Of course, I'm not serious. It's not like you've lied on the stand in court, which would call into question every other piece of your testimony.
I mistake one thing for another all the time. We all do. I just thought it was funny that Ken Burns somehow became Tim Burton, even though I can see how that can happen. Burrrns, Burrrton. In a post here on EO, I kept calling a turbocharger a throttle. It happens.
On a completely tangential note, does anyone other than me think Tim Lincecom looks like a character out of a Tim Burton movie?
