Comments on: Britain Adopts Shari’a http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2008/09/16/britain-adopts-sharia/ Your home for traditional conservatism. Thu, 24 May 2012 08:19:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Cum multiculturalismul distruge Europa: adoptarea legii Sharia in Marea Britanie « Atitudini fara platitudini http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2008/09/16/britain-adopts-sharia/comment-page-2/#comment-179742 Cum multiculturalismul distruge Europa: adoptarea legii Sharia in Marea Britanie « Atitudini fara platitudini Sun, 05 Oct 2008 21:18:36 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=731#comment-179742 [...] Shari’a courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire, with two more courts planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh. A visibly pleased Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, explains that he had taken advantage of a clause in the British Arbitration Act of 1996, which classifies sharia courts as “arbitration tribunals” whose rulings are binding in law once both parties in a dispute agree to accept its authority.  It goes without saying that battered Muslim wives and disinherited Muslim daughters will “freely choose” the authority of shari’a courts rather than face various unpleasant and potentially fatal consequences of not conforming to the “community’s” rules and preferences.” Citeste restul studiului “Britain Adopts Sharia’s” de Srdja Trifkovic. [...] [...] Shari’a courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire, with two more courts planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh. A visibly pleased Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, explains that he had taken advantage of a clause in the British Arbitration Act of 1996, which classifies sharia courts as “arbitration tribunals” whose rulings are binding in law once both parties in a dispute agree to accept its authority.  It goes without saying that battered Muslim wives and disinherited Muslim daughters will “freely choose” the authority of shari’a courts rather than face various unpleasant and potentially fatal consequences of not conforming to the “community’s” rules and preferences.” Citeste restul studiului “Britain Adopts Sharia’s” de Srdja Trifkovic. [...]

]]> By: gargi http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2008/09/16/britain-adopts-sharia/comment-page-2/#comment-179622 gargi Wed, 01 Oct 2008 18:27:32 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=731#comment-179622 P.S. I apologize to everyone for not editing my comments --I wrote fast and submitted what I wrote without rereading making them a pain to read.... I recently read an article by Dr. Trifkovic about Islam in India--he seems to understand what happened there under Islam. People in the West do not understand the level of destruction brought about in India by Islam--it is a wonder that the original survives at all considering the devastation. When you mention it you are labeled a Hindu fundamentalist. Hindus are still recovering and have been messed up under Isalmic rule for centuries. The nobel laureate V. S. Naipaul said he saw a great deal of healing in India in this respect. One can only hope that the culture will heal itself and the original creative culture will reassert itself--but the problems there are massive..... P.S. I apologize to everyone for not editing my comments --I wrote fast and submitted what I wrote without rereading making them a pain to read....
I recently read an article by Dr. Trifkovic about Islam in India--he seems to understand what happened there under Islam. People in the West do not understand the level of destruction brought about in India by Islam--it is a wonder that the original survives at all considering the devastation. When you mention it you are labeled a Hindu fundamentalist. Hindus are still recovering and have been messed up under Isalmic rule for centuries. The nobel laureate V. S. Naipaul said he saw a great deal of healing in India in this respect. One can only hope that the culture will heal itself and the original creative culture will reassert itself--but the problems there are massive.....

]]> By: gargi http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2008/09/16/britain-adopts-sharia/comment-page-2/#comment-179602 gargi Wed, 01 Oct 2008 05:54:12 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=731#comment-179602 NGPM I have left some things unanswered: "And Islam was a “graft” onto most Turkish tribes, as well, yet they have become enthusiastic and at times fanatical Muslims." There is a big difference. The Turks were fierce tribes in Central Asia and when they adopted a religion like Islam, they only became more violent. Indeed, the Turks attained glory only after they converted to Islam and most later Islamic dynasties were of Turkish origin. The Gaznavids of Khorasan (eastern Iran) went into India and heaved unparaled destruction and bloodshed (unparaled in history for the degree of bloodshed and violence). Northern India was mostly devastated. You see the effects even today--the North remains backward from the South which was ravaged much less....and there is hardly any architecture left unlike in the South...The Seljuks conquered Anatolia and were in turn conquered by Mongols -- Byzantine had become so corrupt that it was easy for the Muslims to conquer--one just has to read the excellent biography of Bellisarius( among the world's greatest generals who never lost a battle) by Lord Mahon (written when he was only 25 when the British aristocracy was still impressive) to see the corruption and how easy it must have been for the Muslims to conquer. Most people probably were converted by force and converted out of necessity because they had to pay high taxes for being non-Muslims (this was the case everywhere under Islam). And then the ethnic minorities who were non-Muslims such as Armenians were cleansed in the early 20 century. Moreover, the Ottoman empire was the bastion of the Islamic empire in the 17, 18 and 19 century--so the former trace of Byzantine is superseded by Islamic culture there. I find the case different for Christianity. It arose from the mid-East but civilized people of the ancient world became Christians such as Greeks and Romans, so I believe Christianity grew in a different fashion. Although it hindered Greek science for a few hundred years, science grew again and religion was subject to checks and controls, and critiques.....So I mean a graft in that sense but the graft was molded by the culture.... "To clarify: Christianity in its orthodox form does not teach that all men are equal, but only that 1. there is a common humanity derived from the Image of God, and 2. that the standards of God in valuing human life are not always the same as our standards, and as His standards are not always comprehensible to us, we are to “Do unto others” as we “would have them do unto” ourselves." When I said that Christianity says all men are created equal it was in the sense that you state: namely man is made in the image of God, and not in the sense of the American constitution. This was a revolution for the ancient world, since for the aristocratic culture of the Greeks, the slave did not matter, he was inferior as he had no political power, although he might often be educated as slaves were often conquered folk. To the Romans, turning the other cheek would be ludicrous. Christianity offered something for the poor, the downtrodden, those shipwrecked in life. And it was not surprising that you find many women, widows and such among famous early Christians... I find a bit of bitterness in it towards the rich and powerful (just a personal opinion)...I do not find any bitterness in Buddhism (500 B.C.) I guess because it was founded by a Prince turned beggar...Two great religions arising from different cultural conditions... NGPM

I have left some things unanswered:

"And Islam was a “graft” onto most Turkish tribes, as well, yet they have become enthusiastic and at times fanatical Muslims."

There is a big difference. The Turks were fierce tribes in Central Asia and when they adopted a religion like Islam, they only became more violent. Indeed, the Turks attained glory only after they converted to Islam and most later Islamic dynasties were of Turkish origin. The Gaznavids of Khorasan (eastern Iran) went into India and heaved unparaled destruction and bloodshed (unparaled in history for the degree of bloodshed and violence). Northern India was mostly devastated. You see the effects even today--the North remains backward from the South which was ravaged much less....and there is hardly any architecture left unlike in the South...The Seljuks conquered Anatolia and were in turn conquered by Mongols -- Byzantine had become so corrupt that it was easy for the Muslims to conquer--one just has to read the excellent biography of Bellisarius( among the world's greatest generals who never lost a battle) by Lord Mahon (written when he was only 25 when the British aristocracy was still impressive) to see the corruption and how easy it must have been for the Muslims to conquer. Most people probably were converted by force and converted out of necessity because they had to pay high taxes for being non-Muslims (this was the case everywhere under Islam). And then the ethnic minorities who were non-Muslims such as Armenians were cleansed in the early 20 century. Moreover, the Ottoman empire was the bastion of the Islamic empire in the 17, 18 and 19 century--so the former trace of Byzantine is superseded by Islamic culture there.
I find the case different for Christianity. It arose from the mid-East but civilized people of the ancient world became Christians such as Greeks and Romans, so I believe Christianity grew in a different fashion. Although it hindered Greek science for a few hundred years, science grew again and religion was subject to checks and controls, and critiques.....So I mean a graft in that sense but the graft was molded by the culture....

"To clarify: Christianity in its orthodox form does not teach that all men are equal, but only that 1. there is a common humanity derived from the Image of God, and 2. that the standards of God in valuing human life are not always the same as our standards, and as His standards are not always comprehensible to us, we are to “Do unto others” as we “would have them do unto” ourselves."

When I said that Christianity says all men are created equal it was in the sense that you state: namely man is made in the image of God, and not in the sense of the American constitution. This was a revolution for the ancient world, since for the aristocratic culture of the Greeks, the slave did not matter, he was inferior as he had no political power, although he might often be educated as slaves were often conquered folk. To the Romans, turning the other cheek would be ludicrous. Christianity offered something for the poor, the downtrodden, those shipwrecked in life. And it was not surprising that you find many women, widows and such among famous early Christians... I find a bit of bitterness in it towards the rich and powerful (just a personal opinion)...I do not find any bitterness in Buddhism (500 B.C.) I guess because it was founded by a Prince turned beggar...Two great religions arising from different cultural conditions...

]]> By: gargi http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2008/09/16/britain-adopts-sharia/comment-page-2/#comment-179573 gargi Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:33:26 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=731#comment-179573 One last thing as I have occupied too much space already. Someone mentioned Sati--this is typical. There has only been one recorded case of Sati in the last one hundred years. Moreover, it occurred mostly among the Brahmin and Kshatriyas. Many Rajput princesses would just jump into the fire than be violated by invading barbaric Turko-Afghan hordes. It was in medieval India that this became widespread during Muslim invasions because honor meant a lot to people. I am not saying that I condone this, but it is understandable that many Rajput women would rather jump into the fire than be violated by invading muslims. One last thing as I have occupied too much space already. Someone mentioned Sati--this is typical. There has only been one recorded case of Sati in the last one hundred years. Moreover, it occurred mostly among the Brahmin and Kshatriyas. Many Rajput princesses would just jump into the fire than be violated by invading barbaric Turko-Afghan hordes. It was in medieval India that this became widespread during Muslim invasions because honor meant a lot to people. I am not saying that I condone this, but it is understandable that many Rajput women would rather jump into the fire than be violated by invading muslims.

]]> By: gargi http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2008/09/16/britain-adopts-sharia/comment-page-2/#comment-179569 gargi Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:56:34 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=731#comment-179569 Also I noticed a great dislike of "multiculturalism" on this website. What passes for "multiculturalism" here is often not really multiculturalism. Passing off garbae for literature is not multicultrualism, nor the attitude that anything goes in the name of multicultrualism. Believe me, Western new age hacks who become Buddhists without even understanding what it is is, are just as annoying to us as those here try to do away with any standards. So I understand when you say standards have to be kept. I also get depressed when I see the loss of family, all kinds of perverted values being learned in the East from this culture--that is the bad stuff of Western culture. But a lot of good things are also learned like science, technology and such. Multicultrualism is when all the great things produced by men are appreciated wherever they might come from. And often it takes greatness to appreciate greatness. In ancient Greece, cultural relativism produced Socrates and the dialogues of Plato. Perhaps the world is on the verge of something. Culture can exist only in isolation--with rapid globalization no part of the world can hide from the rest and everything is open to all. If we will all not self-destruct from climate change and our excessive abuse of our natural environment and senseless wars over religion, perhaps the future can hold something better. One can but be optimistic. It is clear that the world is in expectation of something. Also I noticed a great dislike of "multiculturalism" on this website. What passes for "multiculturalism" here is often not really multiculturalism. Passing off garbae for literature is not multicultrualism, nor the attitude that anything goes in the name of multicultrualism. Believe me, Western new age hacks who become Buddhists without even understanding what it is is, are just as annoying to us as those here try to do away with any standards. So I understand when you say standards have to be kept. I also get depressed when I see the loss of family, all kinds of perverted values being learned in the East from this culture--that is the bad stuff of Western culture. But a lot of good things are also learned like science, technology and such. Multicultrualism is when all the great things produced by men are appreciated wherever they might come from. And often it takes greatness to appreciate greatness.
In ancient Greece, cultural relativism produced Socrates and the dialogues of Plato. Perhaps the world is on the verge of something. Culture can exist only in isolation--with rapid globalization no part of the world can hide from the rest and everything is open to all. If we will all not self-destruct from climate change and our excessive abuse of our natural environment and senseless wars over religion, perhaps the future can hold something better. One can but be optimistic. It is clear that the world is in expectation of something.

]]> By: gargi http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2008/09/16/britain-adopts-sharia/comment-page-2/#comment-179567 gargi Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:27:30 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=731#comment-179567 Christianity is the heritage of the West. There is no doubt about that. When you take this away from many Christian countries, there is nothing to replace it. For most Christians, the choice is to believe or not to believe. But I see a lot of very educated people in the West dissatisfied with this religion. It has nothing to do with the fact they are leftists or liberals. Many of my educated friends who are physicists and mathematicians call themselves atheist. This is also an extreme attitude. Considering the loss of values in West such as that of family etc. , I believe that it is appropriate for children to have some exposure to religion in their youth than none. Many American children miss out on not receiving any religious instruction in the family whatsoever. Regardless, I respect Christians as long as they do not engage in forced conversions and try to lure poor people to the religion through money as I have amply seen. But when pious Christians practice their faith in peace that is benign. Anyway, I am glad I do not belong to a revealed religion, and that choice for us is not between belief (in a revealed text) and atheism. There are other approaches to religion and spirituality. I respect all genuine expressions of the spiritual in man. I also respect the religious heritage of the West--whether one agrees with it or not, it is the heritage of the West and one has to respect it as such. These are my comments. I stumbles upon this site and it interested me becasue militant Islam is growing in our regions. Christianity is the heritage of the West. There is no doubt about that. When you take this away from many Christian countries, there is nothing to replace it. For most Christians, the choice is to believe or not to believe. But I see a lot of very educated people in the West dissatisfied with this religion. It has nothing to do with the fact they are leftists or liberals. Many of my educated friends who are physicists and mathematicians call themselves atheist. This is also an extreme attitude. Considering the loss of values in West such as that of family etc. , I believe that it is appropriate for children to have some exposure to religion in their youth than none. Many American children miss out on not receiving any religious instruction in the family whatsoever. Regardless, I respect Christians as long as they do not engage in forced conversions and try to lure poor people to the religion through money as I have amply seen. But when pious Christians practice their faith in peace that is benign.
Anyway, I am glad I do not belong to a revealed religion, and that choice for us is not between belief (in a revealed text) and atheism. There are other approaches to religion and spirituality. I respect all genuine expressions of the spiritual in man. I also respect the religious heritage of the West--whether one agrees with it or not, it is the heritage of the West and one has to respect it as such.
These are my comments. I stumbles upon this site and it interested me becasue militant Islam is growing in our regions.

]]> By: NGPM http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2008/09/16/britain-adopts-sharia/comment-page-2/#comment-179561 NGPM Tue, 30 Sep 2008 03:50:02 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=731#comment-179561 Gargi-- I was going to let that be my last word, but I feel I must, at least apologise for mistaking your sex, and say that I have appreciated the discussion. Your writing is too prolific to respond to in full, but just some closing thoughts: 1. I do not think your comments particularly abrasive. I'm not--and I don't think most Christians would be--personally offended that you choose not to believe in Christianity and that you state as much. Christians do believe that there are truthful insights to be found in other religions, but there is only one religion expressing the fullness of Revealed Truth. 2. You can call me narrow-minded for believing that some religious statements are true and some are false, but then what is the point of being open minded if one could not consider the possibility of absolute truth? "All truth is empirical" is a metaphysical statement. "All truth is relative" is an absolute statement. 3. Christianity is what it is, and it would not be what it is without its whole--and this includes its belief in Revealed Truth. Many Christians do not act in a manner becoming of their faith. Violent, forced conversions are one example, and these are repeatedly condemned by Church authorities, but contrary to what is often supposed they are by far the exception and not the norm. 4. I apologise if I seemed to call you a leftist; I mistakenly lumped all forms of religious non-absolutism in with that ephitaph. What I meant to say was that since one particular conviction underlies the principle of religious relativism, there would be no more diversity of thought in a world where everyone was truly and deeply convinced of the truth of all religions than in a world where everyone was convinced of the truth of Christianity (and perhaps a great deal less). Gargi--

I was going to let that be my last word, but I feel I must, at least apologise for mistaking your sex, and say that I have appreciated the discussion. Your writing is too prolific to respond to in full, but just some closing thoughts:

1. I do not think your comments particularly abrasive. I'm not--and I don't think most Christians would be--personally offended that you choose not to believe in Christianity and that you state as much. Christians do believe that there are truthful insights to be found in other religions, but there is only one religion expressing the fullness of Revealed Truth.

2. You can call me narrow-minded for believing that some religious statements are true and some are false, but then what is the point of being open minded if one could not consider the possibility of absolute truth? "All truth is empirical" is a metaphysical statement. "All truth is relative" is an absolute statement.

3. Christianity is what it is, and it would not be what it is without its whole--and this includes its belief in Revealed Truth. Many Christians do not act in a manner becoming of their faith. Violent, forced conversions are one example, and these are repeatedly condemned by Church authorities, but contrary to what is often supposed they are by far the exception and not the norm.

4. I apologise if I seemed to call you a leftist; I mistakenly lumped all forms of religious non-absolutism in with that ephitaph. What I meant to say was that since one particular conviction underlies the principle of religious relativism, there would be no more diversity of thought in a world where everyone was truly and deeply convinced of the truth of all religions than in a world where everyone was convinced of the truth of Christianity (and perhaps a great deal less).

]]> By: gargi http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2008/09/16/britain-adopts-sharia/comment-page-2/#comment-179559 gargi Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:40:14 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=731#comment-179559 One last point that I forgot: the belief in absolute Truth is part and parcel of the greatness of Western Civilisation: the quest to understand the infinite but knowable Mystery and the Creation. The quest for understanding of the infinite is the part and parcel of all aristocratic cultures that have been creative in history-- Don't equate me with being a liberal or a leftist because I do not agree with you-- I am neither a liberal nor a leftist nor do I agree with you. One last point that I forgot: the belief in absolute Truth is part and parcel of the greatness of Western Civilisation: the quest to understand the infinite but knowable Mystery and the Creation.

The quest for understanding of the infinite is the part and parcel of all aristocratic cultures that have been creative in history--

Don't equate me with being a liberal or a leftist because I do not agree with you-- I am neither a liberal nor a leftist nor do I agree with you.

]]> By: gargi http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2008/09/16/britain-adopts-sharia/comment-page-2/#comment-179558 gargi Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:20:52 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=731#comment-179558 "Christians cannot allow for the truth of conflicting religions without destroying our own." The Christians can believe in whatever they want, but this statement just shows the narrowness of your point of view. "Christians cannot allow for the truth of conflicting religions without destroying our own."

The Christians can believe in whatever they want, but this statement just shows the narrowness of your point of view.

]]> By: gargi http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2008/09/16/britain-adopts-sharia/comment-page-2/#comment-179557 gargi Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:44:21 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=731#comment-179557 Also I find it futile to argue with many narrow minded Christians over religion--you cannot have a discussion with someone who does not understand any other religion apart from their own. I have done my homework--I have read my Greek and Latin for ten years, two years of Hebrew and six years of French and German. I cannot explain a different point of view to people who do not read anything but the bible. I have read the bible, but unless the Christians have read my religious texts of which there are many, I cannot expect them to understand another religion. We do not have a single book like the Christians . If Christians believe what they do who complains? Provided that religion is not used as a tool of violence or brain washing. But when people impose their beliefs on others by force like militant Islam does the problem starts. The real problems of the world it seems to me are unbridled materialism and hedonism, disrespect for life which causes cows to be fed to cows and chickens to chickens (the epitome of cruelty to animals), the rampant greed which has resulted in our food being contaminated, water being contaminated, the wanton destruction of nature and life everywhere--the thinking that the world's resources are unlimited--now people in the East are learning about this attitude towards life and if the Indians and Chinese follow the current pattern of growth and development, surely they will strip the world bare like locusts. Also I find it futile to argue with many narrow minded Christians over religion--you cannot have a discussion with someone who does not understand any other religion apart from their own. I have done my homework--I have read my Greek and Latin for ten years, two years of Hebrew and six years of French and German. I cannot explain a different point of view to people who do not read anything but the bible. I have read the bible, but unless the Christians have read my religious texts of which there are many, I cannot expect them to understand another religion. We do not have a single book like the Christians . If Christians believe what they do who complains? Provided that religion is not used as a tool of violence or brain washing. But when people impose their beliefs on others by force like militant Islam does the problem starts.
The real problems of the world it seems to me are unbridled materialism and hedonism, disrespect for life which causes cows to be fed to cows and chickens to chickens (the epitome of cruelty to animals), the rampant greed which has resulted in our food being contaminated, water being contaminated, the wanton destruction of nature and life everywhere--the thinking that the world's resources are unlimited--now people in the East are learning about this attitude towards life and if the Indians and Chinese follow the current pattern of growth and development, surely they will strip the world bare like locusts.

]]>