Muslim law reaches Britain

So says the Daily Express, who must have been kicking themselves that they got the story a full day after the Telegraph. No matter, they still put it on their front page.

Islamic law does indeed exist in many forms in this country. I'm married under it, have a bank account arranged under its principles, and I eat meat slaughtered according to it. Panic stations everybody. Now.

The Express speaks of local religious 'courts' sitting and giving rulings on civil matters (the reports mention a Somali court ruling on a criminal matter, but it sounded like it had no relationship with shariah). When people go through other forms of arbitration rather than take legal action, it's called settling out of court. When Muslims do it, it's called a two-tier legal system that is threatening the very fabric of our society.

I have to say that I've never actually heard of such courts sitting in the official form that these reports indicate. I have though heard of imams being called in to deal with family disputes, divorces etc and giving an opinion which is then taken on board. If both parties are happy with that, then I can't see what the problem is.

The newspaper articles stemmed from a BBC Radio Four's Law in Action programme. That episode also mentioned Jewish law courts. Astoundingly, the Express and Telegraph omitted to mention that, concentrating on the Muslim angle - anyone still think they don't have an agenda? The Telegraph piece was written by Joshua Rozenberg, not exactly someone unfamiliar with Judaism to pass over any mention of it so easily. His wife, Melanie Phillips, would have to write another book, Londonrael.

Comments

[Abu Sinan]

Osama,

Joe says he is not being allowed to post, it is giving him some sort of an error, like he is a spammer or something.

Can you see if you can address it?

Shukran ya akhee.

[Martin]

Ainelivia,

My apologies if my remarks upset you.

One saw links to Glasgow Celtic and Crossmaglen Rangers on Abu Sinan's blog, and 2+2 became 5.

Connection to Ireland - 99.5% ethnic Irish (name something of a dead giveaway)...and Irish missus of 11 years standing...

[Osama]

Abu Sinan, Joe - I've asked Typepad for an explanation, so hopefully the problem will get resolved.

[DrM]

Von Munchausen?! Oh God. Joe, you're killing me mate! Abu Sinan had some equally great lines. I must thank Marty though....I haven't laughed this hard since my last tango with him. I have to run and finish reinforcing the door lest the phony solicitor and the policy academy show up. LOL!

[ainelivia]

Abu Sinan Wrote: Aine,

Why not be honest? I didnt bring Ireland into this, Martin did. Please read the above comments.

He is the one who mentioned Crossmaglen, he is the one who tried to call me an Ulsterman.

I only responded to his nonsense.

If someone calls you a tart and you respond, should I then attack you for your response?

I didnt think so."

and on the second occasion: Abu Sinan wrote:

"Once again Aine, you act as if my self-defense is somehow wrong. Please again look above and see who brought Ireland into the issue.

It was not me, I was simply responding to an attack. If you cannot see that then I dont know what else to say. Once again, if someone called YOU tart, would your response make you equals?"

In the first instance of the word tart being used, I presume that you are insinuating something about my sexuality that is really none of your business. In the second instance of the word tart being used, would that be apple, rhubarb, or blueberry? (Read what you have written and you will see that you did not make the distinction clear enough for me to know what you intended??)

If someone, well you have, you have done it twice with malice and intent, and therefore I choose to ignore you.

One, you are the one whinging that you are not responsible for this, Martin is, and yet you used passive aggression, (which you are attempting to use on the "tart" level also to provoke, so when you provoke with insults, you get your just rewards.) For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. However it does not have to be the opposite you hoped for.

Martin apologised for any offence he may have caused. You sit there going, will not be blamed for something I didn't do. Total denial, cannot see that whatever, you engaged in it, and that is the same as perpetuating it.

[ainelivia]

Osama with regards to the above comment from Abu Sinan. "Osama, Joe says he is not being allowed to post, it is giving him some sort of an error, like he is a spammer or something.

Can you see if you can address it?
Shukran ya akhee."

This is a function of Typepad. If a certain number of comments are made by the same person in a certain period of time, the system assumes spamming and will not allow the commenter to comment again for a period of time.

So if Joe90 made, say 6 comments within a certain period of time, the spamming defence comes into play. What he needs to do is to actually type in the password/number shown and then his comment will appear.

[ainelivia]

Martin, thank you, I appreciate it.

As regards the Irish connection, it's the blood that counts, not the missus, as always. Said in the best of humour and no offence to your missus my fellow Irishwoman.

[ainelivia]

Abu Sinan wrote: "It was not me, I was simply responding to an attack."

Ah yes, now how many times, in how many places, in how many centuries, ad infinitum has that rationale been used as justification for a counter-attack?

As if you could not have responded with more clarity, making it clear that you found the Irish stuff inappropriate.

[Abu Sinan]

Aine,

Again you miss the point! My point being that one should be allowed to respond to a personal attack and should not be held to be the same as the person who originated the attack.

Self defense is not the same as the person who launches the attack. Get it now?

The tart reference went right over your head, so lets try something else. Say if someone physically attacks you and you fight them off. Should you be held and charged for assault? Is the person who defends themselves to be held guilty in the same manner as the person who attacks them?

That is exactly what you are doing. You are holding me guilty for bringing in Ireland into the discussion even though I didnt bring it up, I was only defending myself from the ignorant comments of Martin.

If you should be made at anyone it should be Martin for his stereotyping of Irish people.

[ainelivia]

If your defence, uses as it's strategy, the same methods, as the person, you perceive yourself attacked by, then yes, you do share the responsibility.

It is you, who chose your own method of self-defence. No one chose it for you. However you suggest that you chose that because of someone else's actions, and continue to pass the responsibility of "your choices" to another.

I notice that you use the words "attack" and "defence" quite liberally. "You" have been attacked, "You" are defending yourself. Is your core ego so fragile that you have to perceive all disagreement as "attack", and your counter-attacks as merely "self-defence". A wonderful method of abdicating all sense of personal responsibility.

You begin to sound like Bush and his hawks.

I'm not missing anything. There is always a point at which any attempt to defend, in a verbal or physical sense crosses over the line and becomes aggression. To suggest otherwise is to be unable, or unwilling, to take responsibility for one's choices.

So whilst I understand that you perceived yourself to be provoked, the choice to respond as you did, was, in the final analysis, yours, and only yours.

[RandomGuy]

Hmmm, methinks that the discussion has veered way off course here, what with all your childish tit-for-tat petty squabbles.

Sabr and wisdom - as in when an argument/debate is worth taking part in - need to be exercised here IMO. Soooooo,

What a surprise to see an article like this in the Express. Almost as much of a surprise as seeing our Home Secretary warning of terror attacks this xmas just 24 hours before admitting that 2 terror suspects are at large having breached control orders...hmmmm.

Oh dear, I just realised that this is just more flamebait. Fire away (or not, I would prefer)....

[Abu Sinan]

Aine,

Again, you dont get it. Martin used Ireland and racist Irish stereotypes to attack me. You say I returned the attack in the same way.

Care to show me how I used racial stereotypes to attack Martin? Care to show me how I brought up or brought in Ireland into the picture?

I didnt think so.....

It is clear you defend Martin with your cheesy attempts because you do not like the people aligned, as it were, against him.

That, my dear, is very reactionary.

[joe90]

Forget it Abu Sinan mate,
victims are guilty if they try to defend themselves,
best just take the punishment and hope you survive,
if you don't, well that's just the breaks.

What could be worse,
being accused of having successfully and perfectly legally defended yourself against uprovoked attacks,
or being violated and not having done anything about it when you had the means to hand?

After all,
if people chose to go around illegally attacking others, and discovered their targets were going to do nothing to defend themselves, that would only encourage criminals, and such like, in their behaviour.

It's hard to imaginge a world like that!

Of course, this is what Christians are supposed to practice, ie turn the other cheek etc - but those who claim to be christians lsuch as Bush, Blair and Yankee fundamentalist jihadi christians never do.

[Abu Sinan]

Sounds like Israel. Occupy a people illegally, violate numerous human rights and international law, and then brand those who resist you terrorists. Doesnt matter whether it is suicide bomber or a rock thrower, they are all terrorists to the occupying Israelis, hence all subject to the death penalty.

Like the old Irish song goes "you dare to call me a terrorist whilst you down at me from the barrel of your gun."

[ainelivia]

Abu Sinan wrote - "Sounds like Israel. Occupy a people illegally, violate numerous human rights and international law, and then brand those who resist you terrorists. Doesnt matter whether it is suicide bomber or a rock thrower, they are all terrorists to the occupying Israelis, hence all subject to the death penalty."

Now I imagine that the Israeli's believe that they are defending their country and their lives from attack.

Abu Sinan wrote "It is clear you defend Martin with your cheesy attempts because you do not like the people aligned, as it were, against him."

That is where you my dear Abu Sinan, miss the point. I am "defending" my right to find your words offensive. And "defending" the right of all of us to voice our opinions. I am not aware that you are "aligned" to anyone. However, if there are those here who will defend you, just because you feel you are on the same "side", and not actually look at what is being said, then you are "aligned" with those who will support you unconditionally, and without question, and that my dear is dangerous and naive.

I on the other hand don't need to agree with anyone in order to defend their rights. I might actually vehemently disagree with some of Martin's actions or views; but then you didn't ask the question, you assumed the purpose. And you are in error.

[ainelivia]

Abu Sinan wrote: - "Ulsterman? Not bloody likely!"

Why such a vehement denial? Would "No, I'm not an Ulsterman", not have sufficed? Why would you react so aggressively to being called an Ulsterman, when you are not? What's wrong with Ulster people? Obviously something in your mental construct, or you wouldn't have added the "not bloody likely".

The question here is why do you define yourself by what you are not? Why not stick to what you are?

[RandomGuy]

No, I think the question is: Why persist in a pointless semantic arguments when there are far more pertinent issues at hand???

[joe90]

Now I imagine that the Israeli's believe that they are defending their country and their lives from attack.
- Hitler also had the German people imagining the same things about Polish terrorists attacking Germany - as well as Jewish Bolsheviks and Jewish Capitalists up to the same thing.

If memory serves me correctly,
Tony Bush and George Blair also had people 'imagining' that Saddam Hussein and his 'imaginary' WMD were a threat to the very existence of western civilisation as we know it.

Now that this 'imaginary' Iraqi threat to our existence has turned out to be imaginary in reality, and has therefore outlived its usefulness ,
Bush-Blair need a new 'imaginary' threat to our existence to replace the old one - the only one they have come up with so far is called 'Irananian Uranium Enrichment' (don't try to say this if you have food in your mouth or are slightly squiffy with the xmas spirit)
or 'Iranian WMD'.

However, this sounds too much like the previous scare-crow used by Bush-Blair to try to frighten the wits out of the general public, thus giving the game away
ie they aren't interested in defending western democracy from outside threats by Saddam and his Ally Cheada cohorts

I am "defending" my right to find your words offensive. And "defending" the right of all of us to voice our opinions.
- is that conditionally offensive or unconditionally offensive ?
- and what about aligning with the unsubstantiated and unproven claims of Israeli propaganda, is that conditional or unconditional?

I didn't know people were being denied their right to air their point of view, although you accuse Abu Sinan of this crime. As well as the crime of unconditionally supporting the views of others and blindly aligning himself with them. I don't see any proof against Abu Sinan that these accusations are true, so could you quote me, or show me the truth to these absurd allegations, or am I just being naive?

Show me where anyone has said that others don't have a right to their opinions ?
I think you'll find the only one saying that is yourself, in your bizarre mixed-up illogical world, bad reasoning and scatological approach to using trivial and or completely pointless and irrelevent facts.

But, apparantly expressing an opinion and defending it is
A wonderful method of abdicating all sense of personal responsibility.

- does that include yourself, as you indulge in this self-same anti-democratic activity as well, of defending your own opinions (for want of a better word)

- and isn't that proof of a fragile ego and of aggression, and of denying other people their own point of view by denying they should have the right to defend their views?

Is this an attack, a provocation, an opinion - how do you decide, I wonder?

This is just an debating-intellectual exercise for me -
- I don't take anything you have to say seriously because there is no attempt at serious intellectual contenet in any of your trivial illogical randomly placed statements, whose only connections to each other are by purely grammatical elements alone, in order to make up, what look like sentences and paragraphs.

[Sadat]

Incase you are unaware, access to this blog is denied in IDEA network of public libraries.

The Telegraph is exaggerating. Pig eaters are still not barred from Muslim boroughs.

[ainelivia]

"No, I think the question is: Why persist in a pointless semantic arguments when there are far more pertinent issues at hand???"

Of course there is the other type of argument that prevails here. And that appears to be that "two wrongs do make it right".

Question everything and don't assume. For I've seen many arguments here based on moral right of one "side" or another, when in reality, neither side has any moral right, and indeed no moral right to take that stance. They are all killing each other and using various semantic "moral justifications" for that purpose.

Joe90: - Anyone having the temerity to state that Israel or Israelis might have the right to defend themselves against attack seems to bring you to apopletic fury.

You have constantly demanded that others defend their opinions, as you appear to see yourself as standing on some moral high ground.

Joe90 wrote: "I don't take anything you have to say seriously because there is no attempt at serious intellectual contenet in any of your trivial illogical randomly placed statements, whose only connections to each other are by purely grammatical elements alone, in order to make up, what look like sentences and paragraphs".

Ditto Joe.

[joe90]

Anyone having the temerity to state that Israel or Israelis might have the right to defend themselves against attack seems to bring you to apopletic fury.

- I didn't say Israelis don't have a right to defend themselves, where do I say that?

I am talking about actual reality, something you are bit divorced from.

I am saying no-one is attacking Israel, or has ever attacked Israel, ever!

So what Israel is doing, or has ever done, and will keep on doing until they are stopped is attack ALL their defenceless innocent neighbours

What Israel is doing isn't 'self-defence'. What Israel is doing is attacking defencless innocent victims and illegally occupying their victims land. Such victims have a perfect legal right to defend their land from its illegal occupiers, this is properly known as 'self-defence'.

You are the one who is saying people don't have the right to defend themselves, remember - or was that too many scatalogical nonsense sentences ago for you to be able to recall. First you say people shouldn't defend themselves (as if this is a serious proposition) but then you say Israelis are allowed to defend themselves, despite the fact they aren't being attacked by anyone but are, in fact, the aggressors!

Blame the victims!

Having a discussion is just that, and if anyone thinks there is anything wrong with my own or some else's arguments then they are perfectly entitled to point these out. I see nothing 'moral high ground' about this age old principle. You just introduced this scatalogical charge as a smear.

If anything is wrong or faulty with my arguments please point them out or is that to apoplectic and furious a request to understand. Where is all this furious apolexy of mine anyway, I'm curious to know?

Or is this just one of these random scatalogical charges you throw at others for no other reason than they don't exist, because you provide no evidence, mainly because, there is none.

And I always love it when people just repeat what I say - your 'ditto' thing doesn't stand up to reality (sorry to drag that back into your tabloid-ese world) but if there is one thing you do do it's address most of your comments to me - try some empirical evidence and go back over your own comments, how many are addressed to me, even though I haven't addressed you or taking part in whatever it is you are.

If this is just an academic exercise to you, as you claim by just repeating me, then why accuse me of moral hypocrisy?

Even your use of 'ditto' doesn't make sense either!

Your criteria for your moral judgement is a bit suspect to, apart from the fact you've already stated Israel is defending itself, therefore, it must be in some way justified in murdering Palestinians who are attacking them, although self-defence is no excuse either, again according to you, or something.

There are an enourmous number of instances where people were just killing each other but no-one would ever dream of equating Hitler with the Red Army and the Allies - or Pol Pot versus Vietnamese forces who invaded Cambodia on a mission of mercy to stop this US-created (and supported) genocidal lunatic - or Palestinians with their lunatic racist ethnic cleansing occupiers of Israel.

No morality here - both sides are as bad as each other, or not, or whatever, eh?!

[johnmellor77]

Joe,
I do not think scatalogical means what you think it means.

[ainelivia]

Ah John, you shouldn't have let on....

[ainelivia]

Joe90 wrote: "Blame the victims!" And its only those not supported by the US, who have the right to claim victimhood, Eh Joe, as Jimi Hendrix used to say.

[ainelivia]

Way back, Joe90 wrote:

"Of course, this is what Christians are supposed to practice, ie turn the other cheek etc"

When I read this Joe, what came to mind was Tom Hurndall. He practised this "christian" principle. He actually practised it. Gave his life for it.

While you and those who "side" with you, sit somewhere safe in Scotland, running off at the mouth.

What you fail to understand is that while you continue to shout at people, and try to overwhelm them with the emotional argument, they have probably by that time cut off. They do not hear.

The problem with our country, is that no one paid any attention to Tom and his fellow protesters, (certainly not the media) until he died.

I don't recall that any religious leaders in this country, nay not even those politicians who sometimes speak out, not one, protesting the death of a young man who had principles and lived by them.