Europe: "You Are Entering a Sharia Controlled Zone"

reply to post by arollingstone

Burden of proof is on you, you're the one using it to make claims. Prove it isn't biased - provide some of the sampling methods they used.

Here is the source, methodology is described on page 19 as weighted to represent the demography.

dvmx.com...

It's not on me at all. By your logic I can cite a survey that says 'Most Christians are greedy' and you'd be the one that has to disprove it. Nonsense.

Yes, thats how it is supposed to be, isnt it?

I've already posted LOTS of these sorts of sources before. As have other members. All you have to do is type 'Muslim condemn violence', or something along those lines, into google.

But I have not mentioned violence, so why are you bringing that up? I have mentioned support for shariah, killing apostates, making homosexuality illegal and women as a second-class citizens.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by CountDrac

 

You might not wanna get your "information" from blogs

This whole thing is impossible given that Sharia cannot ever overrule common law in Europe...

You clearly are misinformed about the concept of "common law" if you think that sweeping demographic change won't have an impact on it.

Those very laws prevent a replacement by Sharia. I take it you never studied law?

They don't support wholesale replacement all at once. They could support piece-meal replacement to create precendence.

It isn't the common law that is the detriment to its enactment, but the constituational law that is.

reply to post by Aeons


And the constitutional law prevents it as well

Take Britain for example. There's Sharia courts, yet the rulings passed there can't overrule English law...and participation is voluntary.

But who cares about facts if religious paranoia is so much easier, right?

PS: I hope you realize Sharia business laws for example aren't bad...they're just different. And the bad elements of regular Sharia law are in direct opposition to Western law and would therefore never pass.

reply to post by MrXYZ


I notice that you didn't touch my point with a ten foot pole. The inherent value of common law is that it is changeable over time based on the creation of precedent. Islamic law can and has been argued to have precedent, and several common law countries have been considering the use of international legal standards in their precedent setting rulings. Including using Islamic Law as an international standard to which pin precedence.

You can't argue this point, so you will now dance off about something else.

Participation can be forced, and those who refuse to acknowledge the environment in which the stakeholders exist are being intentionally obtuse to promote an agenda.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Take Britain for example. There's Sharia courts, yet the rulings passed there can't overrule English law...and participation is voluntary.

That is indeed true....however, I was surprised to read that The Guardian of all newspapers has reported that these Sharia courts are actually passing judgements which are illegal and contrary to British Law.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Whether you like it or not the Sharia courts are acting illegally and no-one is doing anything about it.

I had been convinced that properly regulated these Sharia courts were not a bad thing, seems like I was wrong.
Give an inch and they take a mile.

One law, just and fair for all!

reply to post by Maslo

Here is the source, methodology is described on page 19 as weighted to represent the demography.

They don't explain or justify how the survey specifically did that. They just said they did it.

Yes, thats how it is supposed to be, isnt it?

No.

But I have not mentioned violence, so why are you bringing that up? I have mentioned support for shariah, killing apostates, making homosexuality illegal and women as a second-class citizens.

That's why I said 'or something along those lines' - it was an example.

Very clever use of sarcasm. +50 exp points, Level up!

Your stereotypical women as second-class citizens comment is extremely intelligent too.

reply to post by Aeons

70% of the Muslim population on the planet are NOT moderate.

Oh yeah? Have you met 70% of the Muslim population on the planet?

When they vote if they have voting systems, they consistently vote for extreme Islamists with coalitions tending to the extreme.

For example? And do NOT say Hamas.

The "moderate" party in Tunisia has a key member who used to be in exile in Britain and was quite adamant about wanting to hang women's rights activists in Tunisia from light poles.

Well then they're clearly not 'moderate'.

Can't actual argue what I said huh?

Islam has a problem, and its more modern members are trying to fix it by pretending that people noticing it are big meanies.

reply to post by arollingstone

That's why I said 'or something along those lines' - it was an example.

Feel free to post your examples, then, because I have yet to find any that are in conflict with my sources. And I would be glad to be proven wrong about the extent of Islamic extremism.

Oh yeah? Have you met 70% of the Muslim population on the planet?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c68b6847a3f9.jpg[/atsimg]





www.pewglobal.org...

reply to post by Freeborn


I agree...and that's why those courts require voluntary participation...kinda like a play court. Like, if you get sentenced to whatever punishment, no one can force you to do it...but you may do so to please your family or friends. When kids act up, some parents make them do certain chores...which is fine, but legally, they wouldn't be able to FORCE the children. The kids comply out of a lack of knowledge, and/or out of respect...and the same goes for those Sharia laws.

But they DON'T stand above Western law, and that won't change. That's why starting some "Sharia's coming" paranoia law is so ridiculous. It just shows a lack of knowledge about the subject matter

reply to post by Maslo


Pot meets kettle

reply to post by MrXYZ


Oh, they are play courts that exist because people can be forced to participate based on their indoctrination or being withheld knowledge of their inherent rights of citizenship.

Thank you for your acknowledgement of the point.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Maslo

 

Pot meets kettle

Are you trying to equate stoning of apostates and adulterers with relatively humane death penalty for the most serious of crimes? Its not comparable, and I am saying it as someone opposed to death penalty.

reply to post by Maslo


Define "painful"

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Maslo

 

Define "painful"

The whole point of execution by injection is to be humane. Whether it is actually humane is not relevant for our debate as long as the people in the poll believe it is.

Again, are you trying to equate stoning of apostates and adulterers with relatively humane death penalty for the most serious of crimes?

I swear to nonexistent god that if christians were burning witches today*, we would have pseudoatheist apologetics polluting threads on ATS about how the US executes worst murderers by injection, so it is really okay..

*extremists in Africa do

reply to post by MrXYZ


But how many people who agree to use these Sharia courts, particularly women, are forced to do so due to family and peer pressure?

Examples are given where judgements have been passed and enforced which are against some basic principles of British law and nothing is being done about it.

No-one dare say anything or take any action for fear of being branded racist.

Before long they will claim precedence and say it has been accepted practice for some time now and then try to enforce even more extreme Sharia judgements.

It is part of the very essence of Islam that it's followers must try to pursue it's advancement whenever possible using any means.

This creeping Islamification is a clear example of how the extremists are trying to spread their influence bit by bit.

Originally posted by Maslo

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Maslo

 

Define "painful"

The whole point of execution by injection is to be humane. Whether it is actually humane is not relevant for our debate as long as the people in the poll believe it is.

Again, are you trying to equate stoning of apostates and adulterers with relatively humane death penalty for the most serious of crimes?

Wait...let me get this right:

First you claim it's not important whether or not execution by lethal injection is painful or not...and then you ask me whether I believe painful stoning is the same as "relatively painless" (or whatever...you're not even willing to find out if it's painful or not) lethal injection?

In the end, the result is the same, and you can bet pain is always involved as the article I linked explains. But not attacking a way to execute people, while not even examining the other way you seem ok with is ridiculous and beyond ignorant

reply to post by MrXYZ


Wow. What dishonest illogical argumentation.

You realize that you're type are actually fuelling the fire don't you?

reply to post by Freeborn


Again, those Sharia rulings aren't legally binding...and if someone follows them anyway he/she does it out of a lack of knowledge or simply because they want to. Now in either case, the accused could seek legal help, and that's something available to anyone. All you have to do is walk into a police station or seek legal advice. Does a minority fundamentalist group try to suppress their wives? Of course, and it should be and is illegal if they break any laws. But there's tons of examples with rulings that don't go against Western law.

And if you ever spent time in the Middle East, you'd realize that the young generation isn't all that different from us.