Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

EDL Leaders quit


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
66 replies to this topic

#41 Bedford Roughyed

Bedford Roughyed
  • Moderator
  • 5,126 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 04:03 PM

In cases where arbitration is used (family cases, divorce?) you can opt to use Sharia arbitration.  That’s the only Sharia law (officially) used in the UK.


With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

#42 Martyn Sadler

Martyn Sadler

    League Publications Ltd

  • Moderator
  • 2,733 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 04:28 PM

In cases where arbitration is used (family cases, divorce?) you can opt to use Sharia arbitration.  That’s the only Sharia law (officially) used in the UK.

Do Sharia arbitration decisions carry legal force?

 

And do all parties to a dispute have to agree to it being referred to Sharia arbitration?

 

Given the way that Sharia gives less weight to the evidence of women (although some people on here may be able to contradict this) I would have thought that women would be better served by English courts and tribunals in disputes rather than Sharia courts.



#43 Martyn Sadler

Martyn Sadler

    League Publications Ltd

  • Moderator
  • 2,733 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 04:31 PM

Sharia law is as alien to the law of any democracy as bishops sitting in a legislative house by virtue of their position within their sect.

The question of who should sit in the House of Lords is rather different to the issue of whether religious bodies should be able to establish their own courts that overrule what would otherwise be English legal precedent.



#44 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 16,960 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 04:31 PM

 

 

I always understood that Sharia Law, according to Islamic teaching, should be applied in an Islamic state, but only in that context.

Islamic teaching until recently said that Muslims should live in Islamic states and not move to the lands of the infidels. Hence you are right. Now the scholars have decided that you can move to the lands of the infidels but you should continue to live an Islamic life and thus demand sharia in your new home.



#45 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,599 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 04:36 PM

Do Sharia arbitration decisions carry legal force?

And do all parties to a dispute have to agree to it being referred to Sharia arbitration?

Given the way that Sharia gives less weight to the evidence of women (although some people on here may be able to contradict this) I would have thought that women would be better served by English courts and tribunals in disputes rather than Sharia courts.

Yes, as do Jewish versions. They are legally arbitration bodies and carry the full force of law if both parties agree to be bound.

It's always surprised me that people get so upset about Muslim courts of arbitration but don't mind Jewish versions. Neither has power over you unless you specifically agree to be bound by their decision when you seek arbitration.

Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#46 WearyRhino

WearyRhino
  • Coach
  • 3,089 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 04:42 PM

Why?


Because Muslims find it offensive. Transliterated into Arabic it means one who commits injustice. Accurate language is really quite important - ask a London taxi driver to take you to "Merton" when you really want to go to Morden and you'll end up in the wrong place.

LUNEW.jpg


#47 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 04:42 PM

The question of who should sit in the House of Lords is rather different to the issue of whether religious bodies should be able to establish their own courts that overrule what would otherwise be English legal precedent.


Two sides I the same coin Martyn. Complete lunacy to for these people to be involved in any law making whatsoever, except the laws which govern their own fantasy led organisations.

#48 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 05:42 PM

Because Muslims find it offensive. Transliterated into Arabic it means one who commits injustice. Accurate language is really quite important - ask a London taxi driver to take you to "Merton" when you really want to go to Morden and you'll end up in the wrong place.

 

 

Hmm.  I aimed the question at Wolford6, but thanks for your input.  I'm sure that if you could back this up with some evidence then Wolford6 would cease immediately.  I was merely asking why he followed this odd convention when nobody else here seems to.

 

It's not like he posts about the evils of Islam and Muslims all the time or anything, so I'm sure it's just an oversight.



#49 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 28,879 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 05:50 PM

The question of who should sit in the House of Lords is rather different to the issue of whether religious bodies should be able to establish their own courts that overrule what would otherwise be English legal precedent.

 

No, it's the same question.  Why should the religious have special privilege to set the laws for the rest of us?


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#50 Phil

Phil
  • Coach
  • 1,879 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 06:09 PM

Add in the the blind left wing so called anti fascists like UAF.

 

 

That's like saying rat poison is as bad as the rat


"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality" - Mikhail Bakunin

#51 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 06:26 PM

That's like saying rat poison is as bad as the rat


Yes, I mean who could possibly wish to unite against fascism?

#52 808tone

808tone
  • Coach
  • 746 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 06:37 PM

That's like saying rat poison is as bad as the rat

###### you have no clue and it's funny but UAF are mostly all white middle class lefty student types who think racism is a white working/lower class thing...it's funny but it was the white middle class ######s who looked down and tried to stamp out the white working class in Rugby before 1895.



#53 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 06:39 PM

###### you have no clue and it's funny but UAF are mostly all white middle class lefty student types who think racism is a white working/lower class thing...it's funny but it was the white middle class ######s who looked down and tried to stamp out the white working class in Rugby before 1895.


Goodbye.

#54 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 16,960 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 06:40 PM

That's like saying rat poison is as bad as the rat

Potentially it's worse. A rat won't kill you. Poison might.

 

Saying the UAF are okay because the EDL are bad is like saying that the EDL are okay because Islamic extremism is bad.



#55 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 28,879 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 06:42 PM

Yes, I mean who could possibly wish to unite against fascism?

 

Like it.  Sadler-esque.


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#56 Phil

Phil
  • Coach
  • 1,879 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 06:42 PM

###### you have no clue and it's funny but UAF are mostly all white middle class lefty student types who think racism is a white working/lower class thing...it's funny but it was the white middle class ######s who looked down and tried to stamp out the white working class in Rugby before 1895.

 

 

You don't know me or anything about me, so to claim I have "no clue" is a little rich. And they are either "mostly" or "all" they can't be "mostly all".


Edited by Phil, 09 October 2013 - 06:45 PM.

"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality" - Mikhail Bakunin

#57 808tone

808tone
  • Coach
  • 746 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 06:46 PM

Goodbye.

Oh another forum bully who can not think outside his square.



#58 808tone

808tone
  • Coach
  • 746 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 06:48 PM

Racism is on all sides and fool to you if you think different.



#59 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,282 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 06:49 PM

###### you have no clue and it's funny but UAF are mostly all white middle class lefty student types who think racism is a white working/lower class thing...it's funny but it was the white middle class ######s who looked down and tried to stamp out the white working class in Rugby before 1895.

mostly all? surely it's mostly or all it can't be both. At least the issue regarding your disingenuousness of your earlier 'questions' is now answered. How do you arrive at your conclusion regarding the attitudes of UAF?

 

you also display a complete ignorance of the history of the northern clubs(founded by and run by wealthy public school educated businessmen) that rvrntually formed the NRU as well as the union clubs in the South West, Midlands and Wales which had a great deal in common with the NRU clubs yet which  stayed in the fold.


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#60 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 06:56 PM

Like it.  Sadler-esque.

 

I'd report this post, but I'll leave the honour to beardy.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users