Sharia Law or Australian Law???

[Marcus Aurelius]

Jahil has stated he supports Sharia Law.

He has also stated Sharia Law is not incompatible with Common Law, such as Australian Common Law.

Apparently not, Jahil.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/06/14/man-sent-to-jail-for-whipping-muslim-in-australia-as-religious-punishment/?test=latestnews

Man sent to jail for whipping Muslim in Australia as religious punishment

Wasim Fayad, 45, was convicted earlier this year of the 2011 attack on Christian Martinez. Sydney Central Local Court Magistrate Brian Maloney sentenced Fayad, who had been Martinez's spiritual mentor, to a maximum of two years in jail for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.




The attack happened after Martinez called Fayad to admit he'd spent a night out drinking and doing drugs. Islamic Sharia laws prohibit alcohol and recommend whipping as a punishment for several offenses.

Fayad showed up at Martinez's Sydney home and whipped him 40 times with an electric cord while three other men held him down on his bed. Martinez said he cried and begged for them to stop, and was in pain for about a week after the attack.


So, while Jahil says Sharia Law and Common Law are perfectly compatible, the Australian courts say differently.

Who to believe... Australian courts... or Jahil?

[fj1200]

He has also stated Sharia Law is not incompatible with Common Law, such as Australian Common Law.

I'm not sure that's inconsistent. From the State's perspective I would presume subjecting yourself to Sharia would be a voluntary action, except for contract provisions, and the victim wasn't a voluntary participant in the punishment.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Jahil has stated he supports Sharia Law.

He has also stated Sharia Law is not incompatible with Common Law, such as Australian Common Law.

Apparently not, Jahil.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/06/14/man-sent-to-jail-for-whipping-muslim-in-australia-as-religious-punishment/?test=latestnews

Man sent to jail for whipping Muslim in Australia as religious punishment




So, while Jahil says Sharia Law and Common Law are perfectly compatible, the Australian courts say differently.

Who to believe... Australian courts... or Jahil? Guy has such a teacher needs to have his azz whipped. Better to learn early on by way of ass whipping than much later by way of wearing a bomb vest to slaughter innocent people.

[jimnyc]

Islam over country, Sharia over local/state law. And then someone would ask "Don't you want them to integrate into your society" - I would answer YES, but that doesn't jive with Islam over country and Sharia taking precedent.

[fj1200]

... Sharia over local/state law.

It doesn't sound like Sharia trumps common law in Australia.

[jimnyc]

It doesn't sound like Sharia trumps common law in Australia.

Oh, I'm not saying that Sharia is in fact legally used instead of local laws - but rather that SO many Muslims would like it that way, and have publicly been pushing for Sharia in various countries. Places already hold non-Muslims to Sharia law, or sentence them via Sharia, whether they even live within the jurisdiction or not.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It doesn't sound like Sharia trumps common law in Australia. Why, because one case went to court? Ask yourself how many thousands of cases yearly are never taken into court there. And then consider the coming retribution on the victim for this case being brought into court there. Guy is likely to lose his head some future day..

[fj1200]

Oh, I'm not saying that Sharia is in fact legally used instead of local laws - but rather that SO many Muslims would like it that way, and have publicly been pushing for Sharia in various countries. Places already hold non-Muslims to Sharia law, or sentence them via Sharia, whether they even live within the jurisdiction or not.

I'm just saying it doesn't sound like the example proves the premise. If a Muslim wants to subject themselves to Sharia I'm not sure I have a problem with that as long as it doesn't involve non-Muslims and our common law tradition and is subservient to common law.


Why, because one case went to court? Ask yourself how many thousands of cases yearly are never taken into court there. And then consider the coming retribution on the victim for this case being brought into court there. Guy is likely to lose his head some future day..

I'm just commenting on the example provided; if you have more then that would be nice. And how long his head is attached to his body is not really of issue here but if the OP is any indication there would be legal retribution for it.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Keep in mind that the point of this thread was to show our resident Jihadist that Sharia law and Common law are NOT complimentary nor compatible, regardless of how often he claims they are.

[fj1200]

Keep in mind that the point of this thread was to show our resident Jihadist that Sharia law and Common law are NOT complimentary nor compatible, regardless of how often he claims they are.

Understood but it seems common law overruled Sharia here. Wouldn't that be the preference?

[Drummond]

I think that FJ is missing a fundamental point (... he does it so well, after all ...).

Many Muslims place obedience to Sharia Law OVER any perceived requirement to obey 'local' laws, such as State law in places like Australia, or for that matter, Britain. Some do so out of conviction. Others - as a recent BBC documentary explained to be true of parts of the UK - feel they HAVE to put Sharia Law first, because their communities insist upon following rulings handed down by Sharia courts.

As that documentary explained, there are victims of Islam who feel such pressures to conform to Sharia rulings that they dare not disobey them.

Then again, there are even certain Muslim women who are too ignorant - and made that way - of local laws and their predominance, that they literally have no idea that Sharia courts go so far as to issue unlawful judgments.

Now, I'm sure Australian law is extremely similar to British law in all sorts of ways, and parallels are fair to draw. That Australian law legally trumps Sharia Court pronouncements may be true, but there are pressures exerted to make people obey Sharia, whether lawful OR NOT.

For FJ to go on about 'preference' is therefore nearly pointless, and so very often far removed from the reality involved.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=646703#post646703)
Keep in mind that the point of this thread was to show our resident Jihadist that Sharia law and Common law are NOT complimentary nor compatible, regardless of how often he claims they are.



Understood but it seems common law overruled Sharia here. Wouldn't that be the preference?

Absolutely it's the preference. The fact it was over ridden simply proves my point, that contrary to Jahil, they are not compatible.

[fj1200]

Absolutely it's the preference. The fact it was over ridden simply proves my point, that contrary to Jahil, they are not compatible.

I guess I don't see that they are completely incompatible but that common law took precedence when there was conflict; as it should be. If the victim was OK with his "punishment" would that show that they are compatible?


I think that FJ is missing a fundamental point (... he does it so well, after all ...).

Many Muslims place obedience to Sharia Law OVER any perceived requirement to obey 'local' laws, such as State law in places like Australia, or for that matter, Britain. Some do so out of conviction. Others - as a recent BBC documentary explained to be true of parts of the UK - feel they HAVE to put Sharia Law first, because their communities insist upon following rulings handed down by Sharia courts.

As that documentary explained, there are victims of Islam who feel such pressures to conform to Sharia rulings that they dare not disobey them.

Then again, there are even certain Muslim women who are too ignorant - and made that way - of local laws and their predominance, that they literally have no idea that Sharia courts go so far as to issue unlawful judgments.

Now, I'm sure Australian law is extremely similar to British law in all sorts of ways, and parallels are fair to draw. That Australian law legally trumps Sharia Court pronouncements may be true, but there are pressures exerted to make people obey Sharia, whether lawful OR NOT.

For FJ to go on about 'preference' is therefore nearly pointless, and so very often far removed from the reality involved.

I see that you're still not very good at ignoring, it goes well with your other shortcomings. Nevertheless their perceptions better understand that common law takes precedence.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=646736#post646736) Absolutely it's the preference. The fact it was over ridden simply proves my point, that contrary to Jahil, they are not compatible.
I guess I don't see that they are completely incompatible but that common law took precedence when there was conflict; as it should be. If the victim was OK with his "punishment" would that show that they are compatible?



Punishment for drinking alcohol in common law: none, if you're of legal age
Punishment for drinking alcohol in Sharia law: 40 lashes with an electrical cord (in this case)

For the two systems to be compatible, they punishments have to be.

And no, even if they man beaten was okay with it, that does not make the systems compatible.

[fj1200]

For the two systems to be compatible, they punishments have to be.

And no, even if they man beaten was okay with it, that does not make the systems compatible.

I don't think that's true. Religious beliefs can easily lead to punishment (in many forms) that are not punishable by the State.

[jimnyc]

I'm just saying it doesn't sound like the example proves the premise. If a Muslim wants to subject themselves to Sharia I'm not sure I have a problem with that as long as it doesn't involve non-Muslims and our common law tradition and is subservient to common law.

If speaking of the USA, I don't think any law should be in existence other than American laws. I honestly can't answer for others, but my belief is that this should apply to other countries as well. If you're in a country where Sharia IS the law, that's different. But a Muslim shouldn't be able to go to another country and implement their own law in addition to local laws. And most certainly shouldn't apply to non-Muslims, which is my main point. Many Muslims worldwide want Sharia implemented for everyone. They already will punish non-Muslims under Sharia in some of the shitty areas, and even places like Egypt will sentence non-Muslims under Sharia.

If in the USA, and a Muslim whips/canes/beats another, and claims it is punishment under Sharia and is normal - they should then themselves be charged with assault, or more, for what would be a crime under our laws.

This started to worry me back with the rioting and protesting where they started with the insult crap, and want to end freedom of speech. They think Americans should be punished for insulting Islam too. Even Jafar stated here awhile back that he felt there should be punishment for insults, although his idea of punishment was more along the lines of a fine. Nonetheless, this is a huge change to our law, and the 1st amendment, and any idea of Muslims wanting to change us and/or our constitution is nauseating.

[fj1200]

If speaking of the USA, I don't think any law should be in existence other than American laws.

I don't disagree with that. I guess what I'm saying is that if certain believers desire to be "judged" on a religious basis then why should we stop them as long as common law is supreme and Sharia can be appealed. An interesting bit here:

Why Islamic law is official in Israel (http://website.thejc.com/printartform.aspx?Aid=58075)


Not only is sharia law officially recognised by the justice system in Israel in everything regarding the personal status of Muslims, but the judges of the sharia courts are officially appointed by a joint ministerial-parliamentary committee and their salaries paid for by the state. Ironically, this arrangement originates from the days when Britain was the Mandate power in Palestine.
...

[jimnyc]

I don't disagree with that. I guess what I'm saying is that if certain believers desire to be "judged" on a religious basis then why should we stop them as long as common law is supreme and Sharia can be appealed. An interesting bit here:

Why Islamic law is official in Israel (http://website.thejc.com/printartform.aspx?Aid=58075)

So you think here in America, if a Muslim is guilty of theft, that in addition to whatever sentence they may receive under US law, that it's OK for them to be further punished under Sharia law? Even if it means that person being "assaulted" as per US law? So long as it is able to be appealed? And appealed to who, Muslim "courts" or an American court?

[Drummond]

I see that you're still not very good at ignoring, it goes well with your other shortcomings. Nevertheless their perceptions better understand that common law takes precedence.

Thanks for the barb. I believe I can honestly say that it does you justice.

As for your ... er'm, 'main point' .. well, I referred, did I not, to a BBC programme about Sharia ?

Watch the following video clip. Maybe it'll convince you that this is not as simple and as straightforward as you'd like to assert.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI4W1kgBx2A

You see, Sharia is an oppressive system. There are Muslims who are actually victims of it. And there are outspoken Muslims such as Anjem Choudary who insist that Sharia Law should transcend all other law .. everywhere.

Care to watch the programme in its entirety ? Even the first two minutes of it might persuade you of this (... or maybe not ...) ...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfgPcAhijac

[Marcus Aurelius]

I don't think that's true. Religious beliefs can easily lead to punishment (in many forms) that are not punishable by the State.

And if said religious punishment is not allowed by state law, such as whipping someone with an electrical cord, then the systems are not compatible.

[Gaffer]

There's one law of the land, not two. Anyone that wants sharia law should move to a muslim country. It's really just that simple.

[fj1200]

So you think here in America, if a Muslim is guilty of theft, that in addition to whatever sentence they may receive under US law, that it's OK for them to be further punished under Sharia law? Even if it means that person being "assaulted" as per US law? So long as it is able to be appealed? And appealed to who, Muslim "courts" or an American court?

You're right, I wouldn't put criminal activity would be under the purview of Sharia. It could easily be contrary to common law and Constitutional issues like cruel and unusual punishment and double jeopardy perhaps. But not everything is about punishment and not all Sharia is based on criminal activity.

Topics of Islamic law include (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Topics_of_Islamic_law):

Hygiene and purification laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_hygienical_jurisprudence), including the manner of cleansing, either wudhu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wudhu) or ghusl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghusl).
Economic laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_economic_jurisprudence), including Zakāt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zak%C4%81t), the annual almsgiving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almsgiving); Waqf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waqf), the religious endowment; the prohibition on interest or Riba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riba); as well as inheritance laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_inheritance_jurisprudence).
Dietary laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_dietary_laws) including Dhabihah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhabihah), or ritual slaughter.
Theological obligations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_theological_jurisprudence), including the Hajj (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajj) or pilgrimage, with its rituals such as Tawaf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawaf), Sa'yee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%27yee) and the Stoning of the Devil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning_of_the_Devil); Salah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salah), formal worship; Salat al-Janazah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salat_al-Janazah), the funeral prayer; and celebrating Eid al-Adha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eid_al-Adha).
Marital jurisprudence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_marital_jurisprudence), including Nikah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah), the marriage contract; and divorce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_(Islamic)), known as Khula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khula) if initiated by a woman.
Criminal jurisprudence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_criminal_jurisprudence), including Hudud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudud), fixed punishments; Tazir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tazir), discretionary punishment; Qisas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qisas) or retaliation; Diyya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diyya) or blood money; and apostasy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam).
Military jurisprudence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_military_jurisprudence), including Jihad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad), offensive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_jihad) and defensive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_jihad); Hudna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudna) or truce; and rules regarding prisoners of war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_war_in_Islam).
Dress code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_clothing), including hijab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab).
Other topics include customs and behaviour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_etiquettical_jurisprudence), slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery) and the status of non-Muslims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi).



Appealing to a US court btw, like a divorce according to Sharia may not pass a common law test and need to go through Family Court. Also, if two parties want to create a Sharia based mortgage then I don't see any reason why they can't as long as it meets the requirements of a contract.


And if said religious punishment is not allowed by state law, such as whipping someone with an electrical cord, then the systems are not compatible.

By your definition they are not compatible. If they can exist side-by-side then there is compatibility but I don't expect 100% compatibility though especially for criminal jurisprudence as above.

[fj1200]

Thanks for the barb. I believe I can honestly say that it does you justice.

What's good for the goose amirite? Besides, I should congratulate you for actually posting to me and not around me.


As for your ... er'm, 'main point' .. well, I referred, did I not, to a BBC programme about Sharia ?

Watch the following video clip. Maybe it'll convince you that this is not as simple and as straightforward as you'd like to assert.

I don't assert that any legal or religious based system is straightforward but I also don't discount what individuals may want to participate in. I also don't judge the whole on the basis on criminality and punishment as you do. Any comment on Sharia in Israel?


You see, Sharia is an oppressive system. There are Muslims who are actually victims of it. And there are outspoken Muslims such as Anjem Choudary who insist that Sharia Law should transcend all other law .. everywhere.

Clearly I would disagree with that. You do understand that right or will you continue under some delusion?


Care to watch the programme in its entirety ? Even the first two minutes of it might persuade you of this (... or maybe not ...) ...

I might. Does it encompass all or just the bad stuff?

[fj1200]

There's one law of the land, not two. Anyone that wants sharia law should move to a muslim country. It's really just that simple.

Are you opposed to kosher and halal?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Are you opposed to kosher and halal?

You cannot compare dietary restrictions with Sharia Law. Apples and oranges.

[jafar00]

Fayed was not authorised to carry out such a punishment nor is he a judge, Sheikh or anyone else with authority, but he did it anyway.


In his judgment, Magistrate Maloney referred to a statement from the imam of the Omar mosque in Auburn, Sheik Omar El Banna, who said the whipping was not sanctioned by the community or any imams or religious leaders.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/four-men-found-guilty-of-sharia-law-whipping/story-e6frg6nf-1226587645779

This was nothing to do with Sharia since Sharia was not applied.

[fj1200]

You cannot compare dietary restrictions with Sharia Law. Apples and oranges.


Ḥalāl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halal) (Arabic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language): حلال‎ ḥalāl, 'permissible') is a term designating any object or an action which is permissible to use or engage in, according to Islamic law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia). The term is used to designate food seen as permissible according to Islamic law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia). The opposite of this word is haraam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haraam).

Sounds more like comparing Golden Delicious with Braeburn.

[Gaffer]

Are you opposed to kosher and halal?

I am if it's made into law.

[fj1200]

I am if it's made into law.

As am I but the context was not either/or but both; for some anyway.

[jimnyc]

I don't know, I have an issue with ANY law being integrated into a society other than what local law calls for. I suppose if it's non-binding and not against current law, not a big deal though. But if it in any way, shape or form goes against local - then it shouldn't be allowed. Here's the examples you placed out there, FJ:


Topics of Islamic law include (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Topics_of_Islamic_law):


Hygiene and purification laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_hygienical_jurisprudence), including the manner of cleansing, either wudhu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wudhu) or ghusl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghusl).
Economic laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_economic_jurisprudence), including Zakāt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zak%C4%81t), the annual almsgiving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almsgiving); Waqf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waqf), the religious endowment; the prohibition on interest or Riba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riba); as well as inheritance laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_inheritance_jurisprudence).
Dietary laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_dietary_laws) including Dhabihah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhabihah), or ritual slaughter.
Theological obligations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_theological_jurisprudence), including the Hajj (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajj) or pilgrimage, with its rituals such as Tawaf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawaf), Sa'yee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%27yee) and the Stoning of the Devil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning_of_the_Devil); Salah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salah), formal worship; Salat al-Janazah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salat_al-Janazah), the funeral prayer; and celebrating Eid al-Adha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eid_al-Adha).
Marital jurisprudence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_marital_jurisprudence), including Nikah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah), the marriage contract; and divorce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_%28Islamic%29), known as Khula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khula) if initiated by a woman.
Criminal jurisprudence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_criminal_jurisprudence), including Hudud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudud), fixed punishments; Tazir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tazir), discretionary punishment; Qisas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qisas) or retaliation; Diyya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diyya) or blood money; and apostasy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam).
Military jurisprudence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_military_jurisprudence), including Jihad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad), offensive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_jihad) and defensive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_jihad); Hudna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudna) or truce; and rules regarding prisoners of war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_war_in_Islam).
Dress code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_clothing), including hijab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab).
Other topics include customs and behaviour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_etiquettical_jurisprudence), slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery) and the status of non-Muslims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi).



I don't think economic laws should apply, as here in the States we have law that would handle the majority of that. Any marriage "contract" needs to be legal under local law. The fixed punishments sound suspect, and likely wouldn't be allowed. Odd that your example has "apostasy" under there for Muslim law, as Jafar told us that there is no punishment EVER under Islamic law for apostasy. But no way in hell should people ever be punished if they leave any faith. And jihad? Not under the circumstances as provided lately, where inciting a war and demanding others live up to their Muslim obligation and go off and fight/kill the enemy. The hijab is an iffy one. What if a woman refuses to wear it? Its not against our local laws, so she certainly shouldn't be able to be punished in any way.

[jimnyc]

Oh, and definitely no blood money, nor retaliation. I would say the majority of the Islamic law examples are incompatible with American law.

[Voted4Reagan]

Oh, and definitely no blood money, nor retaliation. I would say the majority of the Islamic law examples are incompatible with American law.

Sharia can never be implemented in America..

It is theologically based and a violation of establishing a State Religion.

Sharia Supporters will never get it through.

at best the will be like the Orthodox Jews... they will review Divorce cases and minor civil issues...but even those will never stand up in a United States Court. They will be over ruled and decided by the rule of Law... Not the Law of Islam.

[fj1200]

I don't know, I have an issue with ANY law being integrated into a society other than what local law calls for. I suppose if it's non-binding and not against current law, not a big deal though. But if it in any way, shape or form goes against local - then it shouldn't be allowed. Here's the examples you placed out there, FJ:

I don't disagree with any of that but I think the disconnect is "law." Laws apply to all, Sharia would apply to those who choose to abide by it.


I don't think economic laws should apply, as here in the States we have law that would handle the majority of that. Any marriage "contract" needs to be legal under local law. The fixed punishments sound suspect, and likely wouldn't be allowed. Odd that your example has "apostasy" under there for Muslim law, as Jafar told us that there is no punishment EVER under Islamic law for apostasy. But no way in hell should people ever be punished if they leave any faith. And jihad? Not under the circumstances as provided lately, where inciting a war and demanding others live up to their Muslim obligation and go off and fight/kill the enemy. The hijab is an iffy one. What if a woman refuses to wear it? Its not against our local laws, so she certainly shouldn't be able to be punished in any way.

Setting the issue of punishment aside for the moment, don't you think that any good Muslim is going to be following Sharia regardless of State penalties? I certainly don't know all of the punishments involved in Sharia but if Jafar is correct that there is no punishment for apostasy and one of my links said there was no punishment for not wearing the hijab; then I don't see an issue with them following Sharia. And many of the other aspects of Sharia aren't necessarily in conflict with our laws.

[jimnyc]

I don't disagree with any of that but I think the disconnect is "law." Laws apply to all, Sharia would apply to those who choose to abide by it.



Setting the issue of punishment aside for the moment, don't you think that any good Muslim is going to be following Sharia regardless of State penalties? I certainly don't know all of the punishments involved in Sharia but if Jafar is correct that there is no punishment for apostasy and one of my links said there was no punishment for not wearing the hijab; then I don't see an issue with them following Sharia. And many of the other aspects of Sharia aren't necessarily in conflict with our laws.

Sure, I have no issue with following it either. But they call it Islamic "law" for a reason. Without implementation AND punishments that go along with them, there's little point in having it, unless it's for show and based on an honor system. I have no issue with that either. They can 'recommend' that hijabs be worn, or that apostasy is no good and all the other things, they just can't have any punishment for Muslims who choose not to follow these recommendations, at least none contrary to local law. So yeah, they can all choose to abide by Sharia, but those in charge can't hand down punishments and/or enforce them. But if they want guidelines for a Muslim community for example, I have no issue with that. They can be like any other religion, where things are frowned upon if against what the religion expects, but local laws ALWAYS trump any religious law. In fact, I wouldn't even call them "laws", as they couldn't be, there shouldn't be any laws implemented. Simply call them Sharia, or guidelines.

There may not be punishment for apostasy within the Quran, but it sure is within Sharia law, at least in many areas - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#Punishment_for_apostasy

This is why you can never have any religious laws like that implemented, as it also varies depending on who you talk to. Same as with the hijab. Try having a Saudi Arabian woman defy wearing a hijab and see if she gets punished. The Quran calls for dress codes, and the Sunni in particular outright call for everything to be covered on a woman but her face and hands. They can still call for this in the USA, but no way should any punishment be allowed.

Jafar makes lots of claims about no punishments for apostasy, hijab wearing and also blasphemy. I can post links all day long, from many countries, showing punishments being levied for all 3. And it's not just small amounts here and there - but VERY often. And yes, these places state it is based on Sharia. I've posted these many, many times. Blasphemy and apostasy ARE listed within Sharia.


Slander, gossip, and backbiting, or "ghiba" is regarded as a major sin in the Sharia law.

Aka - blasphemy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

[fj1200]

Sure, I have no issue with following it either. But they call it Islamic "law" for a reason. Without implementation AND punishments that go along with them, there's little point in having it, unless it's for show and based on an honor system. I have no issue with that either.

I believe Sharia law is redundant but nevertheless to claim that Sharia is completely incompatible is wrong IMO not to say that our system of common law shouldn't be supreme. And of course there is no question that extremist regimes that implement Sharia will be completely incompatible with our system.

[Drummond]

What's good for the goose amirite?

They make geese out of this 'amirite' stuff you keep going on about ?

What's its metallurgical composition, anyway ?


Besides, I should congratulate you for actually posting to me and not around me.

... eh ??

I post as I please. When I please. How I please .. subject to forum rules, of course. I require no statement of 'approval' from you.


I don't assert that any legal or religious based system is straightforward but I also don't discount what individuals may want to participate in.

What does this have to do with what I posted ?

I have supplied you with proof that applications of Sharia Law aren't necessarily based on choice, option, free will, call it what you wish .. but, very often, on coercion, ignorance of any alternatives available, social pressures heaped on those victimised by it.

Perhaps Sharia Law is chosen by some. It is FORCED on many others. And - this being the real point - it's forced in such a way that the victim cannot be free of the chance EVEN of appeal to the State-based laws which supposedly carry overriding authority over it.


I also don't judge the whole on the basis on criminality and punishment as you do.

I am entitled, if I so wish, to speak out against any evil I see to be such. Sharia is brutal, it is oppressive, it is FORCED on many, it is deeply prejudicial.


Any comment on Sharia in Israel?

... to say that the civil laws in Israel aren't as all-encompassing as they would be in countries such as yours or mine. The issue of legal competitiveness isn't nearly as relevant in the example you cite. Therefore, why discuss it in this thread ?


Clearly I would disagree with that. You do understand that right or will you continue under some delusion?

You aren't being clear. Disagree with what ? That people are forced to obey Sharia Law, or, that Anjem Choudary's stance on workdwide Sharia is a proper one to take ?

As for your reference to my 'delusion' ... if you mean what I think you mean, then you must label both the clips I posted as likewise 'delusional'.

.... Which would be thoroughly unjust .. and just plain false.


I might. Does it encompass all or just the bad stuff?

It TELLS THE TRUTH.

However, it's a truth which challenges you. So, I'm guessing that you will not watch either video.

Prove me wrong.

[fj1200]

They make geese out of this 'amirite' stuff you keep going on about ?

What's its metallurgical composition, anyway ?

When you find out let me know amirite? ;)


... eh ??

I post as I please. When I please. How I please .. subject to forum rules, of course. I require no statement of 'approval' from you.

What this again? Nobody really gives a rip how you post, but I am also within my rights to offer congratulations when you avoid the passive-aggressive posting style that typifies you and the knucklehead crew.


What does this have to do with what I posted ?

It's a response to your post. :dunno:


I have supplied you with proof that applications of Sharia Law aren't necessarily based on choice, option, free will, call it what you wish .. but, very often, on coercion, ignorance of any alternatives available, social pressures heaped on those victimised by it.

Perhaps Sharia Law is chosen by some. It is FORCED on many others. And - this being the real point - it's forced in such a way that the victim cannot be free of the chance EVEN of appeal to the State-based laws which supposedly carry overriding authority over it.

Many things are forced on the poor and ignorant and I've already stated that it shouldn't be used as punishment for criminality. There are probably some others in that category as well.


I am entitled, if I so wish, to speak out against any evil I see to be such. Sharia is brutal, it is oppressive, it is FORCED on many, it is deeply prejudicial.

Yes. :rolleyes:


... to say that the civil laws in Israel aren't as all-encompassing as they would be in countries such as yours or mine. The issue of legal competitiveness isn't nearly as relevant in the example you cite. Therefore, why discuss it in this thread ?

Because it's relevant. Sharia exists in the very same country that is most at risk of Islamic extremism.


You aren't being clear. Disagree with what ? That people are forced to obey Sharia Law, or, that Anjem Choudary's stance on workdwide Sharia is a proper one to take .

As for your reference to my 'delusion' ... if you mean what I think you mean, then you must label both the clips I posted as likewise 'delusional'.

.... Which would be thoroughly unjust .. and just plain false.

Is your reading comprehension really that low? And your "delusion" has no bearing on the clips.


It TELLS THE TRUTH.

However, it's a truth which challenges you. So, I'm guessing that you will not watch either video.

Prove me wrong.

Yes, I know what your TRUTH consists of. Are you opposed to a Sharia based mortgage? Halal? the hijab?

[Marcus Aurelius]

I believe Sharia law is redundant but nevertheless to claim that Sharia is completely incompatible is wrong IMO not to say that our system of common law shouldn't be supreme. And of course there is no question that extremist regimes that implement Sharia will be completely incompatible with our system.

Okay... so, Sharia Law is not completely incompatible with Common Law... unless a specific group implements those same exact laws (Sharia Law), in which case they are completely incompatible after all?

[fj1200]

Okay... so, Sharia Law is not completely incompatible with Common Law... unless a specific group implements those same exact laws (Sharia Law), in which case they are completely incompatible after all?

I'm not sure I understand your question. But I'll pose this to you as well.


Are you opposed to a Sharia based mortgage? Halal? the hijab?

Keep in mind that I already agreed that Sharia shouldn't be used as punishment for criminal behavior.

[Gaffer]

I'm not sure I understand your question. But I'll pose this to you as well.



Keep in mind that I already agreed that Sharia shouldn't be used as punishment for criminal behavior.

It shouldn't be used for anything. Using it for some things opens the gates for other things. You know how that works. Don't give em that inch.

[fj1200]

It shouldn't be used for anything. Using it for some things opens the gates for other things. You know how that works. Don't give em that inch.

Halal, the hijab, and even Sharia compliant mortgages are available in the US. It's not a matter of creating laws for them, which I'm not for btw, but can Sharia be compatible? some yes, some no. Anything that violates the rights of an individual, violates common law, the Constitution, etc. No. I imagine there are some aspects of Sharia that our current law is just silent on.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I believe Sharia law is redundant but nevertheless to claim that Sharia is completely incompatible is wrong IMO not to say that our system of common law shouldn't be supreme. And of course there is no question that extremist regimes that implement Sharia will be completely incompatible with our system. Pure freaking poppycock dude. Not a damn thing about Sharia law is compatible with our Constitution or our freedom loving culture. Sell your damn all inclusive pipe dream to the fools gullible enough to swallow such tripe. Neither I nor any other true red blooded American patriot agrees with such damn utter rubbish. Sharia is completely incompatible because it commands and backs up by dire, brutal and deadly punishment that no other system co-exist with it. It also commands that no freedom of choice be given women or even men in most subjects it covers. Its far more brutally repressive than anything the damn Nazi's ever dreamed up! Good God , this one takes the cake in insanity. Hell, said you were a shill now I know it for sure. How much does CAIR pay you? Read this Pedro.. Tis' how a true patriot feels.. http://www.debatepolicy.com/clear.gif Reply With Quote (http://www.debatepolicy.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=578547)
09-13-2012, 09:26 PM #84 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?36912-I-take-my-stand-you&p=578548#post578548)
http://www.debatepolicy.com/image.php?u=2275&dateline=1344800665 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?2275-Tyr-Ziu-Saxnot)Tyr-Ziu Saxnot (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?2275-Tyr-Ziu-Saxnot)

View Profile (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?2275-Tyr-Ziu-Saxnot)
View Forum Posts (http://www.debatepolicy.com/search.php?do=finduser&userid=2275&contenttype=vBForum_Post&showposts=1)
Private Message (http://www.debatepolicy.com/private.php?do=newpm&u=2275)


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/statusicon/user-online.png I've just begun to fight! http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.png http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.png http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.png http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.png http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.png http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.png http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.png http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.png http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.png http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.png http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.png


<dl class="userstats"><dt> </dt></dl>


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/icons/icon1.png

My feelings on Islam and its plan to destroy USA.

Of what good is peace if it is bought at the cost of sacrificing all that we hold dear? There is a great failure in our country today and that is the failure to understand total submission. What total submission is and how it could lead to our demise. The greatest example of total submission today is Islam. Yes, Islam is the essence of total submission and it demands that not only from its followers but also from all that it confronts.
Surely we that place such great value on justice and freedom can see that there can be absolutely no peace with Islam, with those so dedicated to destroying freedom and justice as we know it. Destroying it as our founders intended and created a governing magnificent document to guide.

Should we fail to unite and arrive at that conclusion, create a proper plan of action and pursue it with determination we shall meet our destruction. For abandoning our integrity, honor and justice we shall pay a heavy price. One that few will dare admit because such tragedy is always the fate of others and we console ourselves with that old line of comforting thinking. Should we fail to act such tragedy may possibly be a just fate for a peoples that have betrayed the sacrifice of millions that gave us the most precious of blessings: Independence, Freedom, Rule of law and Constitution.! Such a combination that was not only unique in the world but has since failed to be duplicated !

Should we abandon common sense, Rule of Law to follow the easier path of appeasement our choice made to avoid confronting our fears and our enemy shall almost certainly bring destruction for having renounced the gift that has been dearly bought with the blood, tears and treasure of countless Americans that have lived and died fighting the true fight. The good fight of justice over injustice , of good over evil and the happiness of having created and passed on a blessing beyond compare to future generations..

Rather than yield to complacency, indifference and shallow lusts of the times it may be wise to learn again how to fall to bended knee and asked for strength of mind , pureness of heart and justice defended by righteous blade and keen intellect! If you have no “blade” sell your costly toys to buy the best money can buy. For what good be such if in maintaining one looses their head? Ask not mercy and gifts from enemies with no honor but instead stand firm, defend your life, your family and your country! For life often demands great sacrifice, think not and life will take that and more. The more being that which few can or will dare imagine but life cares not about our fears and failures. It is we that should care more about life!

Care enough to stand against those that would murder our parents, enslave our children and exstinguish our freedom and justice forever. Islam, shall not subjugate this great nation. Shall not if we face it without fear and with determination birthed from defending that which is good and right about our nation. This nation created to be the guiding light to the world. A Christian nation blessed by God and occupied by those brave enough to spill blood , blood of others as well as their own!--Tyr

Second draft.. decided not to add in the long post previously cut before my posting the first addressing -lack of patriotism from the Dem party and its dire effects upon this nation and our military . Perhaps worthy of another thread at a later time. More fodder for my critics!!!:laugh:

[fj1200]

Pure freaking poppycock dude. ...

Reading comprehension issues methinks. I'll pose this to you as well.


Are you opposed to a Sharia based mortgage? Halal? the hijab?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Reading comprehension issues methinks. I'll pose this to you as well. Reading comprehension problem is yours not mine . Sharia law is completely incompatible with this culture and our freedoms in this great nation. Unless you advocate stoning those that are guilty of adultery, cutting off body parts for stealing and death penalty for being gay, almost zero rights for women. There is more but why list them? If that is not enough you need serious help. As to your attempt to put forth some of the benign parts of Sharia I ask why accept or embrace any part of such a brutal and savage system? That's a little bit like deliberately eating only a single spoonful of a plate of poisoned food. Why allow any of it?

[fj1200]

Reading comprehension problem is yours not mine . Sharia law is completely incompatible with this culture and our freedoms in this great nation. Unless you advocate stoning those that are guilty of adultery, cutting off body parts for stealing and death penalty for being gay, almost zero rights for women. There is more but why list them? If that is not enough you need serious help.

If that were true then you would have read and been able to comprehend this:

Anything that violates the rights of an individual, violates common law, the Constitution, etc. No.
The rest of what you mention completely ignores my statement on the subject.


As to your attempt to put forth some of the benign parts of Sharia I ask why accept or embrace any part of such a brutal and savage system? That's a little bit like deliberately eating only a single spoonful of a plate of poisoned food. Why allow any of it?

If any of it is poison aren't we already in trouble?


Halal, the hijab, and even Sharia compliant mortgages are available in the US. It's not a matter of creating laws for them, which I'm not for btw, but can Sharia be compatible? some yes, some no. ... I imagine there are some aspects of Sharia that our current law is just silent on.

Should we now outlaw halal, the hijab, and Sharia mortgages? Maybe you'll care to peruse the list of previously posted Islamic Code and decide which others should be specifically outlawed.

[Drummond]

FJ, one of the things about being patronised is that it removes the incentive to really make me want to bother with your posts. Normally, with someone involved in honest debate, I'd feel it important to put effort into supplying a response worthy of the flow of discussion. But .. ego trips are something else.

I'll only answer what I feel like answering.

So to my post, below ...


.... I am also within my rights to offer congratulations when you avoid the passive-aggressive posting style that typifies you and the knucklehead crew.

Judgmental in the extreme, eh ? I'd much rather welcome honest expressions of thoughts and feelings from decent posters here. And not smugly denigrate.


Sharia exists in the very same country that is most at risk of Islamic extremism.

Purely as it stands, this is a fair observation. CONTEXT is nonetheless important, and as I've already tried to point out, the same nature and extent of judicial disparities just don't crop up, because in Israel, legal latitudes exist to permit them.

I personally think Israel is unwise to permit it. However, when all's said and done, this is their business. If they are OK with the status quo and feel they can make it work, fair enough.

And if they can't, they should have the drive and commitment to remedy the situation, no matter WHO, as Israel's opposition, feels like stopping them.


Are you opposed to a Sharia based mortgage? Halal? the hijab?

I actually can't see the point of NOT opposing this sort of thing. If the law of the land doesn't recognise practices such as these, then why go out on a limb to defer to them ? It's surely a nonsense.

But even that isn't properly the point. The REAL point is that these things are incursions .. they are such in real terms, and they are INTENDED to be, by those introducing them into Societies which otherwise would never have had any cultural or philosophical inclination to accept them.

Take, as particularly good examples, the twin issues of Sharia marriage and Sharia divorce. Now .. I'm taking it that American law and English law are the same on this ? In the UK, neither Sharia marriage nor Sharia divorce is legally recognised. Sharia marriage isn't considered marriage, and if entered into by Muslims here, earns no legal rights or recognition.

Now -- here's the thing. Muslim communities expect their marriages to conform to Sharia. Indeed, they absolutely DEMAND it. So, so far as they are concerned, Muslims marry under that Law. Each party to the marriage is 'bound' by it, and those communities act as though the marriage is 'real' ... because they insist that it is.

So when Sharia divorces happen, they cannot be recognised, because if the marriage isn't recognised, the divorce is meaningless. Ah, but try telling the Muslim communities that !! The brutality of Sharia being what it is, all too often the woman fares FAR worse under Sharia edicts ... in fact, and as the video I posted amply proves, women trying to 'divorce' suffer hardships PURELY and SIMPLY because their communities insist upon inflicting them.

[It's Anjem Choudary all over again, a figure derided as being 'properly Muslim', yet he's proven to be accurate about Islam's demands. Its practitioners want nothing less than Islamic dominance over all other systems - which is proven on a daily basis.]

Muslims in the UK should have recourse to English law. They - and ILLEGALLY - are effectively denied it because of the insufferable arrogance of self-important despots who insist that, legal or not, THEIR ways must win out.

This is not 'cultural harmony', nor is it less than light years distant from it. It is the grafting of a culture BY FORCE on a Society that has every right to reject any and all such incursions.

You mention the Hijab. Well, what's France's answer ?

And why shouldn't they consider they have every right to apply strictures which oppose its wearing ?

Have you viewed the videos I posted ? I bet you haven't .....

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

If any of it is poison aren't we already in trouble?

Exactly my point we are already in trouble. Simply because we are willing to accept any of it because the cry for inclusiveness is trumpeted by the leftist/socialist/ lib/Dems.. Now , can you cite any examples where Sharia law was changed to accommodate our views and ideas of freedom. You can not because Sharia accommodates no other system. NONE! Not where the power exists to force its supremacy as the only authorized law of the land.. And that is the ultimate goal of Islam . A goal they never abandon.. -Tyr

[fj1200]

Exactly my point we are already in trouble. Simply because we are willing to accept any of it because the cry for inclusiveness is trumpeted by the leftist/socialist/ lib/Dems.. Now , can you cite any examples where Sharia law was changed to accommodate our views and ideas of freedom. You can not because Sharia accommodates no other system. NONE! Not where the power exists to force its supremacy as the only authorized law of the land.. And that is the ultimate goal of Islam . A goal they never abandon.. -Tyr

I see that you have ignored the rest of my post. Pretty convenient to do so when it harms your position I suppose. Can you show me where a Sharia based mortgage is an illegal contract? Where the wearing of a hijab has impinged on your freedoms? Where halal has caused you harm? Shall kosher also be done away with? I understand how you can only focus on the chopping off of hands and other body parts and bodily harm because it is the entire basis for which you judge. However have you done any investigating into the other aspects of Sharia which are not illegal or otherwise.

Any comment on Israel allowing Sharia? Are you also as outspoken in eliminating beth din from the US?


A beth din is sometimes used within the Orthodox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Judaism) Jewish community to resolve civil disputes, with the Shulkhan Arukh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shulkhan_Arukh)[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beth_din#cite_note-3) calling for civil cases being resolved by religious instead of secular courts (arka'oth). Modern Western societies increasingly permit civil disputes to be resolved by private arbitration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration), enabling religious Jews to enter into agreements providing for arbitration by a particular beth din in the event of a dispute. By this device, the rules, procedures, and judgment of thebeth din are accepted and can be enforced by secular courts in the same manner as those of a secular arbitration association. However, the decisions of religious courts cannot be binding without the prior agreement of both parties, and will otherwise act only as mediation.[citation needed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beth_din#Present_situation

[fj1200]

FJ, one of the things about being patronised is that it removes the incentive to really make me want to bother with your posts. Normally, with someone involved in honest debate, I'd feel it important to put effort into supplying a response worthy of the flow of discussion. But .. ego trips are something else.

I'll only answer what I feel like answering.

So to my post, below ...

I feel the same way. How 'bout them apples?


Judgmental in the extreme, eh ? I'd much rather welcome honest expressions of thoughts and feelings from decent posters here. And not smugly denigrate.

Judgmental? No. Pointing out the obvious. But you do know smug amirite? ;)


Purely as it stands, this is a fair observation. CONTEXT is nonetheless important, and as I've already tried to point out, the same nature and extent of judicial disparities just don't crop up, because in Israel, legal latitudes exist to permit them.

I personally think Israel is unwise to permit it. However, when all's said and done, this is their business. If they are OK with the status quo and feel they can make it work, fair enough.

And if they can't, they should have the drive and commitment to remedy the situation, no matter WHO, as Israel's opposition, feels like stopping them.

You are aware that arbitration and mediation are acceptable methods of dispute resolution aren't you? Is a Sharia mortgage an illegal contract? Your premise is flawed.


I actually can't see the point of NOT opposing this sort of thing. If the law of the land doesn't recognise practices such as these, then why go out on a limb to defer to them ? It's surely a nonsense.

But even that isn't properly the point. The REAL point is that these things are incursions .. they are such in real terms, and they are INTENDED to be, by those introducing them into Societies which otherwise would never have had any cultural or philosophical inclination to accept them.

Take, as particularly good examples, the twin issues of Sharia marriage and Sharia divorce. Now .. I'm taking it that American law and English law are the same on this ? In the UK, neither Sharia marriage nor Sharia divorce is legally recognised. Sharia marriage isn't considered marriage, and if entered into by Muslims here, earns no legal rights or recognition.

Now -- here's the thing. Muslim communities expect their marriages to conform to Sharia. Indeed, they absolutely DEMAND it. So, so far as they are concerned, Muslims marry under that Law. Each party to the marriage is 'bound' by it, and those communities act as though the marriage is 'real' ... because they insist that it is.

So when Sharia divorces happen, they cannot be recognised, because if the marriage isn't recognised, the divorce is meaningless. Ah, but try telling the Muslim communities that !! The brutality of Sharia being what it is, all too often the woman fares FAR worse under Sharia edicts ... in fact, and as the video I posted amply proves, women trying to 'divorce' suffer hardships PURELY and SIMPLY because their communities insist upon inflicting them.

[It's Anjem Choudary all over again, a figure derided as being 'properly Muslim', yet he's proven to be accurate about Islam's demands. Its practitioners want nothing less than Islamic dominance over all other systems - which is proven on a daily basis.]

Muslims in the UK should have recourse to English law. They - and ILLEGALLY - are effectively denied it because of the insufferable arrogance of self-important despots who insist that, legal or not, THEIR ways must win out.

This is not 'cultural harmony', nor is it less than light years distant from it. It is the grafting of a culture BY FORCE on a Society that has every right to reject any and all such incursions.

I think I see the problem. How about the UK government remove itself from deciding what is legally recognized and allow the light of transparency be shined on all marriages? I suppose that is in line with your advocating big government recognize what you desire it to recognize.


You mention the Hijab. Well, what's France's answer ?

And why shouldn't they consider they have every right to apply strictures which oppose its wearing ?

Have you viewed the videos I posted ? I bet you haven't .....

I don't know, I'm not in France. Are they afforded freedom of religion?

And your video; is it going to show that there are bad Muslims? Because I haven't disputed that.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I see that you have ignored the rest of my post. Pretty convenient to do so when it harms your position I suppose. Can you show me where a Sharia based mortgage is an illegal contract? Where the wearing of a hijab has impinged on your freedoms? Where halal has caused you harm? Shall kosher also be done away with? I understand how you can only focus on the chopping off of hands and other body parts and bodily harm because it is the entire basis for which you judge. However have you done any investigating into the other aspects of Sharia which are not illegal or otherwise.

Any comment on Israel allowing Sharia? Are you also as outspoken in eliminating beth din from the US?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beth_din#Present_situation Are you completely daft? Why should Sharia laws on such trivial crap matter when its major evils are so great? Damn its a complete package and its major parts you want to ignore to discuss a few of its less offensive parts. Good God are you really that damn dense? FFing killing people for adultery and blasphemy not enough to repel your infatuation? HOW ABOUT KILLING GAYS FOR BEING GAY? How about enslaving its women and treating them like property or cattle? -Tyr

[fj1200]

Are you completely daft? Why should Sharia laws on such trivial crap matter when its major evils are so great? Damn its a complete package and its major parts you want to ignore to discuss a few of its less offensive parts. Good God are you really that damn dense? FFing killing people for adultery and blasphemy not enough to repel your infatuation? HOW ABOUT KILLING GAYS FOR BEING GAY? How about enslaving its women and treating them like property or cattle? -Tyr

Are you equating halal with stoning for adultery? Shall I type some more stuff or will you just ignore it anyway and continue on with your delusions?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Are you equating halal with stoning for adultery? Shall I type some more stuff or will you just ignore it anyway and continue on with your delusions? Are you denying the penalties I listed as being correct about Sharia law? Sure its damn convenient to just ignore those great evils while you discuss lesser trivial matters. Don't work that way Hoss. Either prove I'm wrong on the charges that I made or else admit you are wrong to try to limit it to discussing trivial unimportant matters. Your call but know this, I doubt anybody here other than Jafar and Gabby are agreeing with you right now!--Tyr

[fj1200]

Are you denying the penalties I listed as being correct about Sharia law? Sure its damn convenient to just ignore those great evils while you discuss lesser trivial matters. Don't work that way Hoss. Either prove I'm wrong on the charges that I made or else admit you are wrong to try to limit it to discussing trivial unimportant matters. Your call but know this, I doubt anybody here other than Jafar and Gabby are agreeing with you right now!--Tyr

I'm unconcerned with who agrees with me, I'm going for logic and reason. I also dispute your assertion that it's all or nothing. Were you equating halal with stoning?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm unconcerned with who agrees with me, I'm going for logic and reason. I also dispute your assertion that it's all or nothing. Were you equating halal with stoning? You are discussing meaningless and trivial matters as if they are important. Does it matter that the guy about to chop off your head have clean hands and clean fingernails? Logic and reason both clearly reveal Islam and Sharia law are a very dangerous threat to this nation . Why do you ignore that?

[jimnyc]

Can you show me where a Sharia based mortgage is an illegal contract? Where the wearing of a hijab has impinged on your freedoms? Where halal has caused you harm? Shall kosher also be done away with?

Would these be LAWS or would they be guidelines for the Muslim community? Just as we can't have laws that are contrary to our own laws, surely we can't have citizens punished for things that wouldn't apply to the rest of the population. Contractually speaking, yes, but not laws. Only the government/legislation should be able to make any laws anyway. So long as they are only guidelines for their community and no punishment for going outside of them, then I don't see an issue.

[gabosaurus]

This thread has gone totally off course.

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/t3M3hkWpkHw" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

[jimnyc]

This thread has gone totally off course.

I disagree. It started as Sharia law Vs. Australian law, but has remained as Shariah law implemented here, or anywhere, versus local law.

[fj1200]

Would these be LAWS or would they be guidelines for the Muslim community? Just as we can't have laws that are contrary to our own laws, surely we can't have citizens punished for things that wouldn't apply to the rest of the population. Contractually speaking, yes, but not laws. Only the government/legislation should be able to make any laws anyway. So long as they are only guidelines for their community and no punishment for going outside of them, then I don't see an issue.


It's not a matter of creating laws for them, which I'm not for btw...

Seems to me that they are already following Sharia as any good Muslim would do I suppose. Do you see a difference between someone following Jewish Law, Halakha, and someone following Sharia?

[jimnyc]

Seems to me that they are already following Sharia as any good Muslim would do I suppose. Do you see a difference between someone following Jewish Law, Halakha, and someone following Sharia?

Here in the States? Yes, the only LAWS that are followed are American laws, and the Jewish folks follow guidelines. Do they face civil or criminal penalties if they don't follow "Jewish Law"? Of course they call it "law", but legally speaking, these are not laws as we know them.

While I did reply earlier about Muslim mortgages and similar contracts, 'clothing' & their dietary guidelines, I also want to answer again about the loans and such. If any portion of these "banks" are getting government loans or backing, then whatever is offered there should be offered to all. They shouldn't be able to discriminate and offer tax free loans for example, but ONLY offer them to Muslims. Now if they have a private bank and privately funded only for that community, then I suppose they are free to make their own contracts, so long as the contract falls within American law.

[fj1200]

You are discussing meaningless and trivial matters as if they are important. Does it matter that the guy about to chop off your head have clean hands and clean fingernails? Logic and reason both clearly reveal Islam and Sharia law are a very dangerous threat to this nation . Why do you ignore that?

Was there an answer in there or do you reference your hate sites to get a good boil going before replying to my post? Nevertheless, the question raised in this thread was the compatibility of Sharia with (Australian) common law. The three examples provided indicate that there is at least some compatibility.

[Drummond]

You are aware that arbitration and mediation are acceptable methods of dispute resolution aren't you? Is a Sharia mortgage an illegal contract? Your premise is flawed.

I am definitely NOT aware that they are AUTOMATICALLY acceptable. Arbitration, mediation .. on what basis ? On a basis which is in accordance with the law of the land, or, in opposition to it ?

It's evident that you've not looked at the video links I posted before (or, if you have, you're ignoring what they show). You would've seen evidence of Sharia courts offering arbitration in marriage disputes, and ones where divorces were asked for, which defy principles upon which British law operated. You would've also seen the evidence of the misery being caused by the courts' judgments.

You have picked on Sharia mortgages, and I wonder if that's because they have less room for contention than other Sharia practices ? Presumably being granted a Sharia mortgage is less harmful than having a limb hacked off .. ??

To answer you, so far as I know, Sharia mortgages are legally permissible.


I think I see the problem. How about the UK government remove itself from deciding what is legally recognized and allow the light of transparency be shined on all marriages? I suppose that is in line with your advocating big government recognize what you desire it to recognize.

I, too, think I see the problem. You've just let your Leftieness separate you from basic sense.

You say 'How about the UK government remove itself from deciding what is legally recognized' ... which is total and utter nonsense. By what right does any Government hold itself above the laws which IT CREATED, AND WHICH IT EXPECTS SOCIETY TO ADHERE TO ??

So what are you saying ? Our Government should ignore laws it doesn't like, or find convenient ? And why ... because YOU would prefer it if they did, in the furtherance of a form of worldview you happen to advocate ?

No thanks. We've already got people who have the contempt for British society which permits such an approach. They're called MUSLIMS ...

I ask you this. British citizens are expected to obey the law. When they fail to, they're answerable TO that law. But .. somehow, you think that marriages, which by the way are legally definable, should be exempted ??

How far would you take that ? Because if the bedrock of marriage is warped without legal constraint, I fail to see how other associated practices could fail to be. How about bigamy ... is that suddenly OK ? Where do you draw the line ?


I don't know, I'm not in France. Are they afforded freedom of religion?

Freedoms in line with respect for the Society in question, I'd say. Not the freedom to ride roughshod over it.


And your video; is it going to show that there are bad Muslims? Because I haven't disputed that.

Don't you KNOW ?

Watch it and see. You will find it most instructive.

[fj1200]

I am definitely NOT aware that they are AUTOMATICALLY acceptable. Arbitration, mediation .. on what basis ? On a basis which is in accordance with the law of the land, or, in opposition to it ?

It's evident that you've not looked at the video links I posted before (or, if you have, you're ignoring what they show). You would've seen evidence of Sharia courts offering arbitration in marriage disputes, and ones where divorces were asked for, which defy principles upon which British law operated. You would've also seen the evidence of the misery being caused by the courts' judgments.

You have picked on Sharia mortgages, and I wonder if that's because they have less room for contention than other Sharia practices ? Presumably being granted a Sharia mortgage is less harmful than having a limb hacked off .. ??

To answer you, so far as I know, Sharia mortgages are legally permissible.

First, I didn't say anything about automatic and I don't claim to know British law on the subject and frankly it's not my point. Second, in any case such as divorce any arbitration should be subject to common law and appeal. There also seems to be some error in how British law operates on the subject as pointed out, and attempted to remedy, by one particular legislator (didn't catch her name) but seems to have stalled under the current? government.

And FWIW, I haven't picked on anything; just pointed out that Sharia can operate without endangering limbs. I also mentioned halal and the hijab. BOO!!! it's Sharia.


I, too, think I see the problem. You've just let your Leftieness separate you from basic sense.

Oh man... you were so close. Just had to go to your leftie crutch didn't you? So sad.


You say 'How about the UK government remove itself from deciding what is legally recognized' ... which is total and utter nonsense. By what right does any Government hold itself above the laws which IT CREATED, AND WHICH IT EXPECTS SOCIETY TO ADHERE TO ??

So what are you saying ? Our Government should ignore laws it doesn't like, or find convenient ? And why ... because YOU would prefer it if they did, in the furtherance of a form of worldview you happen to advocate ?

No thanks. We've already got people who have the contempt for British society which permits such an approach. They're called MUSLIMS ...

I ask you this. British citizens are expected to obey the law. When they fail to, they're answerable TO that law. But .. somehow, you think that marriages, which by the way are legally definable, should be exempted ??

How far would you take that ? Because if the bedrock of marriage is warped without legal constraint, I fail to see how other associated practices could fail to be. How about bigamy ... is that suddenly OK ? Where do you draw the line ?

I didn't expect that you would understand. I have maintained for some time that government should not be in the place favoring interpersonal relationships and a marriage under Sharia would certainly qualify, or Jewish marriage, or, or, or. That's not to say of course that government won't get involved in spousal abuse, a crime, and contract disputes, a necessary function of government.

There are copious other threads where we can discuss marriage and the State's role but I'm not suggesting that anyone ignore the law. Everyone should be subject to them no matter.


vFreedoms in line with respect for the Society in question, I'd say. Not the freedom to ride roughshod over it.

Not quite sure what you're trying to say here but it sounds along the lines of your big government feelings that you'd prefer that they perpetuate what you favor.


Don't you KNOW ?

Watch it and see. You will find it most instructive.

I've seen it. Spousal abuse is horrible and strictures that perpetuate it are arguably worse. However I did notice that the subjects of the piece, those subjected to the abuse, stated that they did not see harm in Sharia itself but rather in how it works in England.


Be held accountable, be investigated, be made aware of what they're doing... Not do with Sharia, it's the way the system is run... They were violating the codes of Islam...

Perhaps your legal environment should be changed to bring abuses into the light.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Was there an answer in there or do you reference your hate sites to get a good boil going before replying to my post? Nevertheless, the question raised in this thread was the compatibility of Sharia with (Australian) common law. The three examples provided indicate that there is at least some compatibility. Did I list any site in my reply? Have I ever listed a hate site? If so cite the offending listing , otherwise you are just blowing smoke to cover for your weak argument trying to defend Islam by way of defending Sharia law. Attempts at character assassination score you nothing. They do not even lift that sunken boat you are trying to float an inch .. Tyr

[Drummond]

First, I didn't say anything about automatic

Not in so many words. However, your wording gave no evidence of qualification, either, as though you thought there weren't exceptions.


and I don't claim to know British law on the subject and frankly it's not my point.

Fair enough.


Second, in any case such as divorce any arbitration should be subject to common law and appeal.

Agreed. However, as you'll have seen, Muslims who've placed themselves in positions of comparative power in their communities don't begin to agree. The video posted surely shows you their determination to ignore what passes for legally acceptable, and just do what they choose to do, instead.

That's a very major part of the problem ... Muslim arrogance. Choudary points out, and many other Muslims prove it to be true, that - to them - Islam trumps all laws outside of Sharia.


There also seems to be some error in how British law operates on the subject as pointed out, and attempted to remedy, by one particular legislator (didn't catch her name) but seems to have stalled under the current? government.

It could be improved. But there's quite enough existing law, law which is clear and supposedly enforceable, which should be making Sharia courts accountable. The problem, built up over years by the Labour Government, has been the establishment of a deference culture. Challenge the ways of minorities ... and you're deemable as 'racist' if you try.


And FWIW, I haven't picked on anything; just pointed out that Sharia can operate without endangering limbs.

So could the Third Reich. Didn't make it any less than evil, though.


I also mentioned halal and the hijab. BOO!!! it's Sharia.

I think I'll let that one just stand on its own merits !

Fact is that indigenous cultures should have the right to BE what they WANT TO BE, and not have incursions into them shoved down peoples' throats on a daily basis.


Oh man... you were so close. Just had to go to your leftie crutch didn't you? So sad.

Argue like a Leftie, and I'll highlight the fact. Your remedy is not to do so.


I didn't expect that you would understand. I have maintained for some time that government should not be in the place favoring interpersonal relationships and a marriage under Sharia would certainly qualify, or Jewish marriage, or, or, or.

Whether or not that's truly your position, your words were clear. You wanted law shunted to one side, and both ridiculously and unworkably.


That's not to say of course that government won't get involved in spousal abuse, a crime, and contract disputes, a necessary function of government.

Your choice of words seems to infer an intention to dictate. That is not the point. Laws are framed over years and decades, they become representative of the nature of the culture they're created to serve .. and the issue here is whether, under the guise of 'Sharia Law', Muslims have the 'right' to defy that State law, and the representative culture.

The point is that they have NO such right, but will try their luck at it, regardless.


There are copious other threads where we can discuss marriage and the State's role but I'm not suggesting that anyone ignore the law. Everyone should be subject to them no matter.

Well said ! The reversal of your previous position is duly noted.


I've seen it.

Good.


Spousal abuse is horrible and strictures that perpetuate it are arguably worse. However I did notice that the subjects of the piece, those subjected to the abuse, stated that they did not see harm in Sharia itself but rather in how it works in England.

But I wonder WHY. Said under duress, a fear of being caught saying something else ? Or ... perhaps the Muslims in 'power' here have come up with a particularly power-crazed version of it ?

Regardless ... in the name of Sharia Law, such liberties are taken, and they should NOT be. Sharia Law is proven to have massive capacity for harm.


Perhaps your legal environment should be changed to bring abuses into the light.

What, and have a gang of Lefties chanting 'RACIST !!' at the top of their lungs ??

It took time for all these Sharia Courts to be set up. Time which our Lefties allowed them.

I'm sure that if attempts are made to further tighten the law, it'll be chiefly our Lefties who'll move heaven and earth to put a spanner in the works.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Not in so many words. However, your wording gave no evidence of qualification, either, as though you thought there weren't exceptions.



Fair enough.



Agreed. However, as you'll have seen, Muslims who've placed themselves in positions of comparative power in their communities don't begin to agree. The video posted surely shows you their determination to ignore what passes for legally acceptable, and just do what they choose to do, instead.

That's a very major part of the problem ... Muslim arrogance. Choudary points out, and many other Muslims prove it to be true, that - to them - Islam trumps all laws outside of Sharia.



It could be improved. But there's quite enough existing law, law which is clear and supposedly enforceable, which should be making Sharia courts accountable. The problem, built up over years by the Labour Government, has been the establishment of a deference culture. Challenge the ways of minorities ... and you're deemable as 'racist' if you try.



So could the Third Reich. Didn't make it any less than evil, though.



I think I'll let that one just stand on its own merits !

Fact is that indigenous cultures should have the right to BE what they WANT TO BE, and not have incursions into them shoved down peoples' throats on a daily basis.



Argue like a Leftie, and I'll highlight the fact. Your remedy is not to do so.



Whether or not that's truly your position, your words were clear. You wanted law shunted to one side, and both ridiculously and unworkably.



Your choice of words seems to infer an intention to dictate. That is not the point. Laws are framed over years and decades, they become representative of the nature of the culture they're created to serve .. and the issue here is whether, under the guise of 'Sharia Law', Muslims have the 'right' to defy that State law, and the representative culture.

The point is that they have NO such right, but will try their luck at it, regardless.



Well said ! The reversal of your previous position is duly noted.



Good.



But I wonder WHY. Said under duress, a fear of being caught saying something else ? Or ... perhaps the Muslims in 'power' here have come up with a particularly power-crazed version of it ?

Regardless ... in the name of Sharia Law, such liberties are taken, and they should NOT be. Sharia Law is proven to have massive capacity for harm.



What, and have a gang of Lefties chanting 'RACIST !!' at the top of their lungs ??

It took time for all these Sharia Courts to be set up. Time which our Lefties allowed them.

I'm sure that if attempts are made to further tighten the law, it'll be chiefly our Lefties who'll move heaven and earth to put a spanner in the works. Drummond, FJ is as clueless about Islam, its evil and its takeover in Britain as a fish is about mountain climbing. Yet FJ has and will continue to defend Islam/Sharia law regardless of how much evidence is presented to show it is pure evil and always has been. That it has murdered well over 200 million innocent people since it was first dreamed up by that damn child molesting perverted bastard that they worship as a God while ignorantly shouting no good but Allah. Then they would kill anybody for blasphemy against the child molester Mohammad. FFFED up people following a totally ffed up murdering cult. I know what they are and I am not fearful of saying so because I can only die or be killed once. I was once warned that all my words here are being stored as evidence to be used against me someday when they take over! My reply was , so what ? F-THEM, I'LL TAKE A DAMN BUNCH OF THEM WITH ME AS I GO AND CONSIDER IT A BLESSING THAT I WAS ALLOWED TO LIVE LONG ENOUGH TO DO SO. YOU SEE UNLIKE SO MANY MILLIONS , I SWORE AN OATH ON 911 AND THIS MAN NEVER BACKS DOWN OR BREAKS AN OATH. THEY MADE AN ENEMY THAT DAY THAT NEVER FORGETS AND NEVER FORGIVES SUCH MURDERING SCUM. THEY SHOULD FEAR ME BECAUSE I REPRESENT TRUTH AND WILL NEVER BACK DOWN.... FACT.--Tyr

[fj1200]

Did I list any site in my reply? Have I ever listed a hate site? If so cite the offending listing , otherwise you are just blowing smoke to cover for your weak argument trying to defend Islam by way of defending Sharia law. Attempts at character assassination score you nothing. They do not even lift that sunken boat you are trying to float an inch .. Tyr

Still no answer I see. And I'm pretty sure you know what I'm talking about.


Drummond, FJ is as clueless about Islam, its evil and its takeover in Britain as a fish is about mountain climbing. Yet FJ has and will continue to defend Islam/Sharia law regardless of how much evidence is presented to show it is pure evil and always has been. That it has murdered well over 200 million innocent people since it was first dreamed up by that damn child molesting perverted bastard that they worship as a God while ignorantly shouting no good but Allah. Then they would kill anybody for blasphemy against the child molester Mohammad. FFFED up people following a totally ffed up murdering cult. I know what they are and I am not fearful of saying so because I can only die or be killed once. I was once warned that all my words here are being stored as evidence to be used against me someday when they take over! My reply was , so what ? F-THEM, I'LL TAKE A DAMN BUNCH OF THEM WITH ME AS I GO AND CONSIDER IT A BLESSING THAT I WAS ALLOWED TO LIVE LONG ENOUGH TO DO SO. YOU SEE UNLIKE SO MANY MILLIONS , I SWORE AN OATH ON 911 AND THIS MAN NEVER BACKS DOWN OR BREAKS AN OATH. THEY MADE AN ENEMY THAT DAY THAT NEVER FORGETS AND NEVER FORGIVES SUCH MURDERING SCUM. THEY SHOULD FEAR ME BECAUSE I REPRESENT TRUTH AND WILL NEVER BACK DOWN.... FACT.--Tyr

Blah, blah, blah... Weak argument indeed. :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

Not in so many words. However, your wording gave no evidence of qualification, either, as though you thought there weren't exceptions.

Your ignorant inferences are your problem.


Fair enough.

:roundandround:


Agreed. However, as you'll have seen, Muslims who've placed themselves in positions of comparative power in their communities don't begin to agree. The video posted surely shows you their determination to ignore what passes for legally acceptable, and just do what they choose to do, instead.

That's a very major part of the problem ... Muslim arrogance. Choudary points out, and many other Muslims prove it to be true, that - to them - Islam trumps all laws outside of Sharia.

Great. Educate your populace.


It could be improved. But there's quite enough existing law, law which is clear and supposedly enforceable, which should be making Sharia courts accountable. The problem, built up over years by the Labour Government, has been the establishment of a deference culture. Challenge the ways of minorities ... and you're deemable as 'racist' if you try.

Great. Improve it.


So could the Third Reich. Didn't make it any less than evil, though.

I'm sure it filled potholes in an evil manner as well.


I think I'll let that one just stand on its own merits !

Fact is that indigenous cultures should have the right to BE what they WANT TO BE, and not have incursions into them shoved down peoples' throats on a daily basis.

Halal is "shoved down your throat"? Someone wearing a hijab is infringing on your freedoms? Let it stand because you have no counter I suppose; a bit of Sharia which doesn't impinge on your rights.


Argue like a Leftie, and I'll highlight the fact. Your remedy is not to do so.

:facepalm99:


Whether or not that's truly your position, your words were clear. You wanted law shunted to one side, and both ridiculously and unworkably.

As I said before, your ignorant inference is on you as are your big government desires.


Your choice of words seems to infer an intention to dictate. That is not the point. Laws are framed over years and decades, they become representative of the nature of the culture they're created to serve .. and the issue here is whether, under the guise of 'Sharia Law', Muslims have the 'right' to defy that State law, and the representative culture.

The point is that they have NO such right, but will try their luck at it, regardless.

I see another manifestation of your big government desires to keep things as you want them to be. The question should be what is the State's interest in this law, not that this law is desired because that is the way it's always been.


Well said ! The reversal of your previous position is duly noted.

:rolleyes: I haven't reversed anything but I do see your attempt to claim a win. I think you've decried that as some sort of "leftie" tactic before.


Good.

And in bold too. I'm going to print this and frame it.


But I wonder WHY. Said under duress, a fear of being caught saying something else ? Or ... perhaps the Muslims in 'power' here have come up with a particularly power-crazed version of it ?

Regardless ... in the name of Sharia Law, such liberties are taken, and they should NOT be. Sharia Law is proven to have massive capacity for harm.

You wonder why huh? Perhaps because they believe it.


What, and have a gang of Lefties chanting 'RACIST !!' at the top of their lungs ??

It took time for all these Sharia Courts to be set up. Time which our Lefties allowed them.

I'm sure that if attempts are made to further tighten the law, it'll be chiefly our Lefties who'll move heaven and earth to put a spanner in the works.

Your problems are your problem.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Still no answer I see. And I'm pretty sure you know what I'm talking about.



Blah, blah, blah... Weak argument indeed. :rolleyes: List the damn hate site or STFU about it. You made the accusation against me so put up or shut up on that issue. I don't answer vague or silly queries amigo . You will soon find out that I'll not be led down stumbling, bumbling little nonsensical paths you are so fond of taking when attempting the boost your weak arguments. I deal in direct and forthright words not this crap you so often spew forth. Iam not as kind and generous with you as is my friend Drummond. He has a kind heart and gentle disposition but myself I'm of the old school. If it barks like a mean dog doesn't impress me unless it bites like a mean dog! Even then not unless it bites really, really damn hard..... You bark a lot but no bite Pedro.. :laugh:-Tyr

[fj1200]

List the damn hate site or STFU about it. You made the accusation against me so put up or shut up on that issue. I don't answer vague or silly queries amigo . You will soon find out that I'll not be led down stumbling, bumbling little nonsensical paths you are so fond of taking when attempting the boost your weak arguments. I deal in direct and forthright words not this crap you so often spew forth. Iam not as kind and generous with you as is my friend Drummond. He has a kind heart and gentle disposition but myself I'm of the old school. If it barks like a mean dog doesn't impress me unless it bites like a mean dog! Even then not unless it bites really, really damn hard..... You bark a lot but no bite Pedro.. :laugh:-Tyr

Blah, blab, blah... I've heard this story a million times. Rational discussion escapes you.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Blah, blab, blah... I've heard this story a million times. Rational discussion escapes you. here you are

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR4FV4eI7m-MHCOZ_W233hXiovgK3vVjuCnplF1I8XbGI4TIfJM http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQS3GahkxhRQ8xblX4KEaSYW8-W9-beaEClc1CXrzgbZv8Hi3wXLQ http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSL1ZRDqSGntjYEw0jJ5s6IYRcgpo5sS 94DBzT5a7P9KT4lr52g--Tyr http://www.google.com/search?q=cartoon+barking+dog&lr=&as_qdr=all&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=a2TEUdWyH5TYyQG6zICoBQ&ved=0CDEQsAQ&biw=922&bih=579

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTBcgajKbsG9r7aE-IOomp0l4attxsvqEL2lXJeLhGgQZSYbxq3jA----:beer: :laugh: - or this ----Tyr http://www.google.com/search? (http://www.google.com/search?q=cartoon+barking+dog&lr=&as_qdr=all&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=a2TEUdWyH5TYyQG6zICoBQ&ved=0CDEQsAQ&biw=922&bih=579)http://sierravoices.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Winston_Churchill_on_Barking_Dogs.jpg (http://www.debatepolicy.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=pZExrgKroPw3aM&tbnid=F91DgwOkVDECyM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsierravoices.com%2Fcategory%2Fhum or%2F&ei=fm3EUdKmBajLyQGO3IC4Aw&bvm=bv.48293060,d.aWc&psig=AFQjCNH05X0ech2ugbglE3dhmO0yk4zZGA&ust=1371911665264014)q=cartoon+barking+dog&lr=&as_qdr=all&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=a2TEUdWyH5TYyQG6zICoBQ&ved=0CDEQsAQ&biw=922&bih=579 (http://www.google.com/search?q=cartoon+barking+dog&lr=&as_qdr=all&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=a2TEUdWyH5TYyQG6zICoBQ&ved=0CDEQsAQ&biw=922&bih=579)

[fj1200]

here you are


Blah, blab, blah... I've heard this story a million times. Rational discussion escapes you.

True another day I suppose.