If I may move slightly away from the imagined future as per the projected 'ifs' that are being voiced all over the place, I find it far more disturbing that one facet of our present law is to be changed according to this item: [url]click here[/url].
Now I don't know how reliable this information is but for 'ministers to decide that Muslim men who have multiple wives are entitled to multiple benefit' in other words, to recognise polygamy, seems to be infinitely more disturbing that the pronouncement of the Archbishop. this is no possible future: this is happening now. And it's not right IMHO.
I found this article because I was googling to try and find out if Muslim divorce is recognised here or not. It seems there are loopholes in our law in this regard.
Crystal rose says
if someone has become a british citezen then they are not a guest they have taken on our country and i would hope with that they would take on board our laws if they dont do that then how can they be a citezen of this country
But I repeat that it is simply not a case of people 'becoming british citizens', they are born here and are thus born British citizens. :rolleyes:
Anyway, there are, it seems to me, lots of different levels to all this. I must be getting paranoid; I'm sniffing out conspiracies again. I shall have to go and lie down!:(
xxxx
Inflammatory or an inconvenient truth ?
I was alarmed to read the above though Prashna. I feel that these statements are inflammatory and biased. I didn't know that it was against the law to have children ?? .
Dear Happy Girl,
I was disturbed to read your assertion that
I was alarmed to read the above though Prashna. I feel that these statements are inflammatory and biased.
I think your comments are most unfair and amount to an attempt to suppress rational debate. Free speech is an essential element of a free democracy and this is what I believe you are trying to suppress.
Please re-consider your post and esp. the following:
- I didn't know that it was against the law to have children ??
Where have I even implied that? This is a most offensive innuendo on your part and one I would like you to re-consider as a matter of urgency.
I mentioned nothing about children or families, you did.
All I referred to was the total numbers of Muslims and Jews in UK and their relative growth rate in the recent past. Nothing about having children!
- Both kosher meat and Halal meat are killed similarly - so if one is cruel so must the other be as well. They also abide by the laws of this country when killing an animal.
Where have I stated otherwise?
So whats the problem?
All I said was that British law had to be changed to accommodate Islamic ritual slaughter. If that is the problem, please see:
[DLMURL="http://www.halalfoodauthority.co.uk/define.html"] http://www.halalfoodauthority.co.uk/define.html [/DLMURL]
Excerpt:
First we had Slaughterhouse Act 1974 that is now replaced by Welfare of Animals Slaughter or Killing Regulation 1995. Halal Food Authority have been a privileged member of the Group which deliberated on behalf of the Muslim community to encapsulate the Muslim requirements to be read and included in the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 (statutory instrument (SI) no. 1995/731 as amended by SI no. 1999/400). This statute law has to be followed now,
And
Definition of Halal: The Halal food Authority rules for halal are based on Islamic Shari'ah
So what I have said is the truth, isnt it?
So whats your problem with the truth?
- not many Muslims would serve halal meat in their restaurants
Where have I stated otherwise?
So whats the problem?
My comment was based on the total numbers of Muslims and Jews in UK and their relative growth rate in the recent past.
And the assumption that the proportion adhering to their religious dietary requirements are similar.
Are you suggesting otherwise?
If so please provide some evidence in support.
Regards.
Prashna
I think your comments are most unfair and amount to an attempt to suppress rational debate. Free speech is an essential element of a free democracy and this is what I believe you are trying to suppress.
She's only expressing an opinion, Prashna.
Prashna, you ask happygirl:
- not many Muslims would serve halal meat in their restaurants
Where have I stated otherwise?
But in your post #43 you say:
The number of Muslim Restaurants in UK exceed Jewish ones quite significantly and they mostly if not always serve halal meat.
May I suggest that you not take such personal umbrage when we are just pinging opinions back and forth. Otherwise we can't have a discussion. Many thanks.
xxx
She's only expressing an opinion, Prashna.
Prashna, you ask happygirl:
But in your post #43 you say:
May I suggest that you not take such personal umbrage when we are just pinging opinions back and forth. Otherwise we can't have a discussion. Many thanks.
xxx
Hi Sunanda,
So HappyGirl expressed an opinion. So did I.
So what's the problem?
You wrote "May I suggest that you not take such personal umbrage..."
I thank you for your suggestion but ask you how is it possible not to take HG's post personally, when she addresses me directly by username?
I only answered her query, nothing more!
Are you suggesting that I have no right of reply?
Yes my statement was based on the fact that Muslim Restaurants are far more common than Jewish ones and all the ones I have seen proclaim that they serve halal food.
Is that not a fact?
I believed it was.
Just like happygirl, I was merely expressing an opinion to the best of my knowledge and belief. If happygirl is entitled to do so, why am I not?
Regards.
Prashna
eres my two pence worth.
Firstly, I hate the name -of this law. I always read it as "Shakira law" and get "whenever, wherever" or "Objection (tango)" stuck in my head
secondly. I agree with the "when in rome do as the romans do" approach some of you are saying, but I also think, if we can get a bit closer to designing a "fair universal law" it'll make us a step closer to world peace.
I think your comments are most unfair and amount to an attempt to suppress rational debate. Free speech is an essential element of a free democracy and this is what I believe you are trying to suppress.
What you have stated above is so derogatory and offensive that really it doesn't deserve an answer. I more than anyone has championed free speech and debates - however what I don't like is people peddling half truths in order to score points against the Muslim community and trying to smear my name. What started out as good point by beckboop has now degenerated into a slanging match.
I think you find me annoying because :
a) I challenge the mis-information that you write on this forum
b). I have a reasonable knowledge of the muslim community and that irks you somewhat
c). you believe that your view is the only one
In both this thread and previous ones you take one instance of something and spread it around as the "norm" for the Muslim community. I do the accounts for 3 Muslim restaurants and in the city where I live we have over 70 Muslim restaurants and takeways yet only 2 sell Halal meat as the norm. These 2 have only Muslims as customers. The vast majority don't as most of their customers are non Muslim and it would cut too far into their profit margins. This would be similar for most cities across the UK.
Quite frankly i simply don't have the time to answer most of the the things you state - so in this respect you are lucky. I have to log on here for 5 or 10 minutes a day. The trouble is that some peeps here may not have much knowledge of the muslim community and therefore rely on stuff they read here and in the media. I therefore urge them to find out information from Muslim sources (friends, work colleagues, neighbours) - not just simply read the guff in the media. Yes - there are problems in the muslim community as well but this goes for every community in the UK.
I have never ranted against you (although you have annoyed me with biased posts)and have tried to keep this to a rational debate along with some others. I don't want to fully express my anger here but I am profoundly saddened by it all.
I don't want to get involved in a slanging match either but I think Happygirl's posts have been excellent on this thread: informative and balanced. That's all I'm going to say.
xxx
Interesting topic! Can I suggest that a little love might help here, clear logic is essential in a discussion, but love supersedes it.
I'm not a legal expert, but these are my views on this:
1. Animals
Judeo-Islamic laws are similar, and to understand them one should go back to the times of Abraham, Jacob and their communities. Jesus, remember, was Jewish, and lived as per Jewish Law. They lived with animals, animals were very important to them, essential for their lifestyles, and were treated almost like family members. In Halal/Kosher 'killing' a prayer is recited presumably telling the animal that he is being sacrificed for food for the family, in accordance with Gods will.
If an animal dies without this ritual, his/her flesh may not be consumed - it is not Kosher, not halal, and the animal must be buried and not eaten.
My family in kashmir live in the same way today, as do 'primitive' people all over the world. We (village people) would often cry when someones cow, buffalo or goat died, and similarly would make visits to see a new birth. Community life revolved around animals, as would many disputes - "your cow roamed in my field, eat my grass, what were YOU doing" are very common!
In the 'advanced, modern' world we have factory farming, which is an abomination, whether its kosher or not. With Kosher, with the priest's involvement in each death, a semblance of humanity exists - so, in my view, it was better that the UK adopted these laws for people that wanted them.
I think that in an enlightened world factory farming would be stopped, people would take a direct interest and involvement with their food - planting, growth and consumption. Children should live with and have access to animals - it's vital for correct development.
2. Monogamous or Polygamous relationships?
I'm afraid I happen to dislike monogamy - I reckon its contrary to man's (male and female) natural instincts, responsible for countless problems, heart aches and psychosis. The restrictions are usually viewed from a male perspective, but apply equally to females - many women if honest would say that they feel trapped by this idiotic system.
The monogamy contract says something like "I will love you forever, so long as you don't don't love anyone else. I won't love anyone else either. If you have sex with anyone else, I'll come down on you like a ton of bricks with the full weight of the courts behind me - you can't get out of it".
What kind of stupidity is this? Who would agree to such a business contract?
So far as i can gather this is a modern development - throughout the ancient times societies were polygamous, as the are in Islamic cultures today. These tend to be 1 male to x females, because the male is the one who works.
So from this perspective, if more people in the UK had polygamous relationships it would be better for everyone.
3. Crime and Punishment
As mentioned, British Law does not cater for the victim, it is concerned with punishing the perpetrator. This is why we have over full prisons, and crime victims often scared for life with no compensation.
How does sending people to prison help anyone? The criminal remains a criminal, or becomes a worse criminal by association with his inmates, an the victim still has his loss.
Islamic law is primarily concerned with the victim, that is the wronged person is righted by the force of society - the perpetrator pays not by going to jail but by compensating the person or his family that he wronged.
This is much more sensible in my view.
So in all these cases, an improved form of 'Sharia' might not be such a bad thing for Britain.
Ooh you're a brave man, james! 🙂
Couldn't agree more with you that what we need is love. And lots of it. Unconditional love. Not just for some, but for everyone.
xxxx
Hi, Just a quickie...
Although HappyGirl has already qualified this point from her experience in reply to one of the many 'knee-jerk' & inflamatory "truth" [sic] statements...
Most 'Indian' restaurants (as I've stated before) are in fact run by Muslims, they don't on the whole serve Halal meat to their buying public (unless they actually state it) however they do eat it themselves, but what they serve and what they cook for themselves are usually not the same food
...and from my experience actually tastes far better:)
1. what I don't like is people ...and trying to smear my name.
2. What started out as good point by beckboop has now degenerated into a slanging match.
3. I think you find me annoying because :
a) I challenge the mis-information that you write on this forum
b). I have a reasonable knowledge of the muslim community and that irks you somewhat
c). you believe that your view is the only one4. only 2 sell Halal meat as the norm. These 2 have only Muslims as customers.
5. I have never ranted against you (although you have annoyed me with biased posts).
Happygirl,
I very much regret having to reply to your post. Like you I have very little time to spare. But your post leaves me little choice.
I wish that instead of fudging the issue and making wild accusations, you would actually address the points I have made. Here are my responses to your points:
1. Nor do I ... like people who attempt to smear my name. For the record, I have not attempted to smear your name, merely challenged your points.
This is a public debating forum and you have to accept that most arguments have counter-arguments. Someone making a counter-argument is not smearing your name.
I suggest you take the excellent advice Sunanda offered me in post 48:
"May I suggest that you not take such personal umbrage when we are just pinging opinions back and forth. Otherwise we can't have a discussion. "
You wrote that you do not have much time. I sympathise with you but fail to see what that has got to do with debates on this forum.
Are you suggesting that just because you are short of time, others should not challenge your views even if they believe them to be wrong?
2. Not by me. I have raised serious issues. You have ignored them.
3. On the contrary, I think you find me annoying because :
a) I challenge the mis-information that you write on this forum
b). I have a reasonable knowledge of objective facts and can cite them to support my case
c). you believe that your view is the only one
4. My argument was not, repeat not based primarily on what meat restaurants serve. You have picked just that to divert attention from the fact I have cited. Which is:
that the Muslim population in UK exceeds the Jewish one by a significant margin, about 6:1.
5. I have never ranted against you nor do I intend to.
I wish you well.
Regards.
Prashna
i thought this forum was open to rational discussion but it does seem that people cannot challege any other person's opinion. i have read through these posts and feel that some people are actually reading things that have not been written ie; against the law to have children where in prashna's post does it say that. my post about "when in rome" still stands we should live by the countrys law when we are living there surely this is not too much to ask for.when we travel abroad we have to obey their laws. i thought this forum was for free speech but seeming not
This has become an interesting thread!
when we travel abroad we have to obey their laws.
'Their' laws? I just want to say again that 'they' are 'us' i.e. citizens of Britain (or the United Kingdom of Wales, Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and the Associated Islands [does it matter which order they come? I think Wales should be first.]).
The problem with this whole topic is the mindset that only wants to see 'them' and 'us'.
I think some excellent points have been made here, but only by the people that agree with me. 🙂
i thought this forum was for free speech but seeming not
Yes it is, but you have to be thick skinned.:)
I was listening to the radio today and they were discussing Sharia law
Two points seemed to be prevalent
- If you live in Britain you should abide by British law.
- If you are a British Muslim you should be British first.
One listener said that we should accept Sharia law as it would stop the yobos getting away with what they do.
Another said well they are only trying to counsel their flock.
So perhaps we should allow them to be Sharia Counsellors or Sharia Moderators or teachers, but without any legal standing. From a purely layman's perspective I believe that that is being done already in their mosques and schools. So why not just leave it as it is.
This has become an interesting thread!
'Their' laws? I just want to say again that 'they' are 'us' i.e. citizens of Britain (or the United Kingdom of Wales, Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and the Associated Islands [does it matter which order they come? I think Wales should be first.]).
The problem with this whole topic is the mindset that only wants to see 'them' and 'us'.
I think some excellent points have been made here, but only by the people that agree with me. 🙂
Hi Barafundle,
Let's see where I agree with you or I differ or neither agree or differ but merely wish to clarify.
1. "interesting thread" - agree.
2. "some excellent points have been made here, but only by the people that agree with me" - agree.
3. "The problem with this whole topic is the mindset that only wants to see 'them' and 'us'. " - agree.
4. "'they' are 'us'" - agree.
5. "United Kingdom of Wales, Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and the Associated Islands " - clarification, AFAIK
"Great Britain" = England, Scotland and Wales in no particular order. Therefore
U.K. = G.B., N.I. and associated territories, really since I presume it includes Gibralter, which strictly speaking is not an island.
So we have complete agreement, it seems. Not quite.
Another clarification is required.
I could be mistaken, but you do not seem altogether happy with Crystal Rose's phrase "when we travel abroad we have to obey their laws."
Admittedly her punctuation could be improved, but then so can mine or most people's for that matter. Plus she has not had the benefit of a Vulcan education.
However, I see nothing wrong with what she has written.
When we travel abroad, we have to obey their laws.
The implication is quite clear and axiomatic.
I agree with you entirely in rejecting the notion that Muslim UK citizens are travellers. Of course, they are not.
But that does not mean they have the right to devise their own laws and live by them.
This is a democratic country and there are democratic processes in place.
If Muslims wish to have Sharia Courts operating in this country, the proper way IMO is to lobby their MP or indeed launch a political party with that agenda. Then it would be up to the UK Parliament to pass the requisite laws to enable this.
What should not happen is the creation of Sharia Courts by the back door.
Hope that clarifies.
Regards.
Prashna