Europe submits voluntarily

[DrZoidberg]

Ie volontary. Both sides in the conflict have to first volontarily agree to the arbitration. And may, if the arbitration wasn't to their liking, simply ignore the ruling. They have no power to enforce anything.

Don't they? I was under the impression that if you agree to an arbitration procedure, the outcome is legally binding unless they did something to break the law. For instance, if a ruling gives a parents' estate 2/3rds to the son and 1/3 to the daughter because Baby Mohammed cries if a man doesn't get twice as much as a woman then that violates gender discrimination laws and isn't valid. If, however, it gives him 2/3rds because he took care of them in his house for ten years while they were invalids and she only visited twice during that period, then she's stuck with the lesser amount because that's within the arbitrator's judgement call.

It's only minor stuff. Good luck getting a Sharia custody case arbitration legally binding. If you didn't like the divorce settlement, appeal to a proper court. There's loads of ways to go around it.

It's only in financial matters that the Sharia arbitration court can make any real legally binding rulings, in a way that matters. Stuff like how to split a restaurant fairly when two owners are selling it or something. And for stuff like that I think it's fine.

Sweden has a similar arbitration act. So we have the same legal opening that would allow Sharia courts to be set up in Sweden. It's just that nobody has yet. All arbitration really means is that two people who trust a third person asks him to arbitrate between them. That's how the Swedish arbitration act is used. It's resolving village disputes or disputes between hunting lodges. I have no problem with people volontarily turning to a religious institution and asking them to arbitrate in conflicts. It's way less messy and expensive than going the proper judicial route.

This is my understanding of these rules.

 

[Bomb#20]

Your claim was that the existence or absence of Sharia courts is a triviality, which is <expletive deleted>, for the very obvious reason that one scenario grants legal authority, and the other does not. You can have people illegally victimizing others and citing Islam as their justification, but the mere suggestion that this is somehow equivalent to a court imposing Sharia on non-Muslims, and having legal apparatuses to force people to comply with it, is <expletive deleted>

But that's not the suggestion I made.

Yeah it was. You responded to Zoidberg's correct assertion that fear of Sharia courts is irrational with an outlandish hypothetical scenario in which thugs are freely enforcing Sharia law anyway, ending with the revelation that " The court is an irrelevance; the enforcement is what matters."

You're reversing cause and effect. DZ only brought up fear of Sharia courts when he was responding to my having already been talking about the hypothetical scenario which you claim is outlandish (and which DZ has now implicitly admitted is entirely realistic.) DZ had written:

The debate is about culture. Ie, how threatened should we feel about kebab consumption skyrocketing and that new mosques are being built.​

and I had responded:

Do you sincerely believe that anybody who objects to skyrocketing immigration objects because he feels threatened by kebab consumption skyrocketing? ... Do you think someone will say to himself, "My god, I thought I was afraid that they'd scare away most of the Christians and atheists in my town and then impose shariah on us who are left behind; but Dr. Zoidberg has opened my eyes to the fact that I'm actually afraid of shish kebabs."​

As you can see, I hadn't said anything about a court. DZ introduced that. I called the court "an irrelevance" not because illegal victimization is "equivalent" to having legal apparatus, but because I hadn't been talking about Islamic legal procedures in the first place. DZ was changing the subject. I was talking about the fear of being forced to follow sharia rules, and he changed the subject to the fear of being forced by a court to follow sharia rules. That's where you got your "legal apparatuses to force people to comply with it" from -- you got it from DZ's red herring. The degree to which it is irrational to fear legal sharia courts is irrelevant to the subject of whether it's irrational to fear a local Muslim majority imposing its will on the non-Muslims who are unable to move out of the neighborhood.

So you are completely in the wrong. You put words in my mouth because you guessed wrong about what it was I had argued the court was irrelevant to, because you took what you read out of context, because you couldn't be bothered to read the whole exchange before butting in. And when I told you you'd gotten it wrong, instead of fact-checking, instead of going back and reading the whole exchange, you just tried to put the same words back into my mouth again. Classy.

And of course, that's <expletive deleted>, since the scale and nature of the enforcement is so vastly different in each scenario as to render any comparison between them null and void. So no, I didn't misread at all. You're just following your usual MO of misdirecting with long-winded <expletive deleted> that dodges the <expletive deleted> point.

If you feel it will help your cause, by all means go right on ranting against claims no one made.

Also, the fact that you have the balls to chastise someone else for butting into discussions is pretty damned hysterical.

As usual, you swing and you miss. I didn't chastise you for butting into a discussion; I chastised you for not coming up to speed before you butted in. Yes, I butt into discussions all the time. Is there any discussion in particular that you feel I butted into without coming up to speed on?

I asked you a question. Here it is again:

Supposing, hypothetically, that there were such areas, how do you think we would know?​

Did you not understand the question or are you refusing to answer it?

Why should I answer the question?

So that's a "refusing to answer". What a surprise.

It's <expletive deleted> dumb, the answer is obvious to any honest reader,

If the answer is obvious then you should have no difficulty answering it.

and you clearly posed it as an attempt to divert discussion away from the fact that you don't possess any real evidence of no-go zones,

Divert what discussion? Quote me claiming there are no-go zones.

You're the one who brought them up; you're the one using an unfalsifiability engine to protect your faith in their nonexistence; and you're the one using bluster to divert discussion away from the fact that you're unwilling to be cross-examined.

There are two reasons you might be refusing to answer. Either (a) there is no hypothetical observation that you would accept as evidence in favor of the existence of no-go zones, or (b) you intend to deny that such zones exist regardless of evidence and you're afraid of being caught moving the goal posts.

Incidentally, Mr. "He who makes assertions, backs them up, using credible sources.", you asserted that "The latter is never going to happen in Europe". Unlike the make-believe claims you keep putting in my mouth, that one's a real, grade-A, USDA-certified assertion. You haven't backed that up using credible sources. Are you going to?

Yeah, right after I get done assembling some sources to prove to you that the Earth indeed revolves around the sun, and that the laws of gravity will continue to stay in effect indefinitely.

I didn't think you were.

If you don't back up your assertion then you are exposing yourself as a hypocrite -- you'll be showing that what you really meant was "He who makes assertions I disagree with, backs them up, using credible sources."

What's different about the sides of your analogy is that, supposing you were ever able to get over feeling offended that anyone had the gall to challenge you to practice what you preach, you would be able to produce observational evidence that the Earth indeed revolves around the sun. And, while you couldn't show the laws of gravity will continue to stay in effect indefinitely, you would be able to do the next best thing: you'd be able to show that their current rate of change is too close to zero for us to distinguish it from zero. So if you were to make those assertions, you'd be able to back them up. In contrast, you are not able to back up your assertion that "The latter is never going to happen in Europe", not even in the limited way you can back up a claim about the future of gravity. European countries are democracies, and public support for legal apparatuses to force non-Muslims to comply with Sharia is increasing, at a rate measurably greater than zero.

Nothing can be predicted with 100% certainty, but that observation is practically meaningless.

Then why did you make such a meaningless observation? I didn't challenge you to back up what you said with 100% certainty; I challenged you to back it up. Preponderance of the evidence will do. 51%. Are you going to back up your claim at all, or are you a hypocrite?

It's theoretically possible that a group of scimitar-wielding Moslems will break into my apartment and behead me as I type this, but there's no reason to think that will happen, nor has anyone presented any sound logic to support the notion. Ditto Sharia and jizya.

"Nobody has presented any sound logic to support the notion?" That's your back-up, Mr. "He who makes assertions, backs them up, using credible sources."?!? You're reversing your own rule for who has burden of proof.

... put up or shut up. Give us your objective criterion for determining whether a source is credible.

I don't need to explain to you what does or does not qualify as a credible source and I'm not going to. If you don't know already, then what the <expletive deleted> are you doing here in the first place?

So you'll neither put up nor shut up. What a surprise. But that's okay -- actually, it turns out you already revealed your criterion:

What next? You gonna start repeating the right-wing canard about "no-go zones?"

Why, should I?

Not if you value your credibility.

Your words. You regard the mere fact that somebody says there are no-go zones as demonstrating that he or she is not a credible source. And then you challenge me to provide a credible source for the existence of no-go zones. Thus what you are demanding to be produced as evidence is a source that both does and does not say there are no-go zones. That's an unfalsifiability engine. That's you taking the nonexistence of no-go zones as an article of faith.

If you actually had any credible sources to present, you'd have done so.

Not sure why I'm supposed to have gone looking for credible sources for a so-far purely hypothetical claim. And even if I were to make the claim, not sure what you think the point would be for me to post sources when you've already defined them as non-credible merely for saying there are no-go zones.

But, we both know that these credible sources don't exist, for any of your claims, and that that's why you keep trying to redirect and weasel your way out of coughing them up.

"Weasel out", says the guy who's trying to redirect attention away from his unsourced actual claims onto hypothetical claims I might potentially make in the future. We both know that if "any of my claims" had included no-go zones, and if I had found credible sources for them, and if I had posted them, then you would simply declare the bar for credibility to be higher than whatever I'd found. So you go first. Tell our readers how high the bar is.

And in the second place, DZ and I weren't arguing about whether there would be a court with legal apparatuses to force non-Muslims to comply with Sharia; we were arguing about DZ's claim that a person being afraid of Sharia rules getting imposed on people in Europe implies that that person is a racist. DZ very much has burden of proof on that claim. It's an extraordinary claim and any logical person would think it requires extraordinary evidence.

Except that's not what he said.

I can't follow you. If somebody says they're against Muslim immigration because they're worried we'll get Sharia courts in Europe then it's an irrational fear. We can analyse how likely that is to happen. Which is zero percent likelihood. At least without being invaded by Azerbaijan or Indonesia. Then we can put it in the box labelled "xenophobia". And go through all objections in that manner one by one. If all objections are in the xenophobia box then it can be dismissed as an irrational fear of the different, ie racism/Islamophobia.

Yeah. The "Which is zero percent likelihood" part is an extraordinary claim. The "then we can put it in the box labelled xenophobia" part is also an extraordinary claim. The "ie racism/Islamophobia" part is also an extraordinary claim -- "ie" is an inference, and there are no logical grounds for that inference. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

He didn't say anyone who is afraid of Sharia is a racist. He said it's an irrational and xenophobic fear, and that when irrational and xenophobic fears comprise the entirety of a person's objections to Muslim immigration, it's racist.
Not the same thing.

So you are arguing, in effect, that what DZ meant was that a person afraid only of Sharia is a racist but a person afraid of Sharia might be a nonracist provided he's also afraid of a drop in demand for his pork products? That would be a rather stupid thing for DZ to have meant; but even if he meant that, it's still an extraordinary claim.

So your theory is what, that when extortionists threaten to hurt people if they won't pay up or if they tell the police, the victims who are intimidated enough to pay up aren't also too intimidated to tell the police? The threats you hear about are necessarily going to be the ones that failed to be sufficiently intimidating. When you assume your failure to hear about a threat that succeeded is reason to believe none of them succeeded, that's your unfalsifiability bubble doing its job for you.

My theory? I don't need a <expletive deleted> theory.

So you are unwilling to reason from observed failed extortion attempts to the probable existence of concealed successful extortion. I take it if you see an iceberg and someone says there's probably more ice under the surface, you'll deny that the ice you see is evidence and say you don't need a theory for what's holding it up. Please yourself.

You claimed Muslims have imposed jizya on Christians, you were asked for evidence, and you came up with a poorly sourced, highly sketchy word document.

MUSLIM inmates in some of Britain’s top security prisons are forcing non-Muslims to pay a “protection tax” if they do not follow Islam, a government-appointed team investigating extremism in jails has been told.

The tax, called jizya, is being imposed by gangs of Islamist extremists at Belmarsh, Long Lartin, Woodhill and Whitemoor prisons, according to evidence supplied to the team.​

(Source)

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Don't they? I was under the impression that if you agree to an arbitration procedure, the outcome is legally binding unless they did something to break the law. For instance, if a ruling gives a parents' estate 2/3rds to the son and 1/3 to the daughter because Baby Mohammed cries if a man doesn't get twice as much as a woman then that violates gender discrimination laws and isn't valid. If, however, it gives him 2/3rds because he took care of them in his house for ten years while they were invalids and she only visited twice during that period, then she's stuck with the lesser amount because that's within the arbitrator's judgement call.

It's only minor stuff. Good luck getting a Sharia custody case arbitration legally binding. If you didn't like the divorce settlement, appeal to a proper court. There's loads of ways to go around it.

It's only in financial matters that the Sharia arbitration court can make any real legally binding rulings, in a way that matters. Stuff like how to split a restaurant fairly when two owners are selling it or something. And for stuff like that I think it's fine.

Sweden has a similar arbitration act. So we have the same legal opening that would allow Sharia courts to be set up in Sweden. It's just that nobody has yet. All arbitration really means is that two people who trust a third person asks him to arbitrate between them. That's how the Swedish arbitration act is used. It's resolving village disputes or disputes between hunting lodges. I have no problem with people volontarily turning to a religious institution and asking them to arbitrate in conflicts. It's way less messy and expensive than going the proper judicial route.

This is my understanding of these rules.

Here in Canada (European countries may have set things up differently, but I don't see why they would have), arbitration rules are binding for divorce, custody and everything else that they're used for unless it can be shown that the arbitrator did not follow the law. They're meant to be an alternative system to ease the burden on the court system. That doesn't work if one party can just decide that he didn't get everything that he wanted, so he's going to try again. If all parties agree in advance that they want their priest or imam to make their decisions (and that guy is a licensed arbitrator) then that's how things are decided. An appeals process needs to show misconduct or that the decisions were in violation of Canadian or provincial laws.

If you don't have that sort of framework around the process, then going to a "sharia court" is no different than "asking our dogwalker what we should do". If you both want to let the dogwalker decide things, then fine, but it's not like it's really a thing.

 

[Warpoet]

You're reversing cause and effect. DZ only brought up fear of Sharia courts when he was responding to my having already been talking about the hypothetical scenario which you claim is outlandish (and which DZ has now implicitly admitted is entirely realistic.) DZ had written:

The debate is about culture. Ie, how threatened should we feel about kebab consumption skyrocketing and that new mosques are being built.​

and I had responded:

Do you sincerely believe that anybody who objects to skyrocketing immigration objects because he feels threatened by kebab consumption skyrocketing? ... Do you think someone will say to himself, "My god, I thought I was afraid that they'd scare away most of the Christians and atheists in my town and then impose shariah on us who are left behind; but Dr. Zoidberg has opened my eyes to the fact that I'm actually afraid of shish kebabs."​

As you can see, I hadn't said anything about a court. DZ introduced that. I called the court "an irrelevance" not because illegal victimization is "equivalent" to having legal apparatus, but because I hadn't been talking about Islamic legal procedures in the first place. DZ was changing the subject. I was talking about the fear of being forced to follow sharia rules, and he changed the subject to the fear of being forced by a court to follow sharia rules. That's where you got your "legal apparatuses to force people to comply with it" from -- you got it from DZ's red herring. The degree to which it is irrational to fear legal sharia courts is irrelevant to the subject of whether it's irrational to fear a local Muslim majority imposing its will on the non-Muslims who are unable to move out of the neighborhood.

So you are completely in the wrong. You put words in my mouth because you guessed wrong about what it was I had argued the court was irrelevant to, because you took what you read out of context, because you couldn't be bothered to read the whole exchange before butting in.

I didn't take anything out of context. You are trying to retroactively ascribe a different meaning to what you wrote than what any rational reader would take from it. It doesn't matter who introduced courts to the discussion; you still said what you said. Anyone who cares to (which is no one) can go back and read that, and the preceding context, for themselves. And they'll likely arrive at the same conclusion I did: that you think the courts don't matter because thugs can enforce Sharia freely in either scenario (which you haven't demonstrated, despite countless opportunities). Your initial reply bears this out, and did not contain any of the above caterwauling about supposed strawmen:

If you tell a victim of street thugs that the force that the people who beat him and robbed him backed up their demands with was illegitimate, do you think that will make him feel better about having been subjected to it? Do you think if he was afraid something like that would happen to him, the fact that what happened was illegitimate makes his fear paranoid?

That would be lovely if police protection were a dependable way to keep people in high-crime areas from being victimized. But when the police investigate a crime and all the witnesses refuse to testify because either they're intimidated by the gangs or they see the police as the enemy, who's going to apply the lawful sanction against the street thugs?

It was only after you were pressed for evidence to substantiate the plausibility of this scenario - and you realized you didn't have any - that you started whining about how your views were being misrepresented.

As I said before, and as anyone familiar with your posting style is aware, this sort of misdirection and bloviation is the primary tool in your arsenal. In particular, you seem fond of accusing others of misrepresenting your views when they haven't, and then writing novellas about how awful it is that anyone would do such a thing to poor, poor you.

You're the one who brought them up; you're the one using an unfalsifiability engine to protect your faith in their nonexistence; and you're the one using bluster to divert discussion away from the fact that you're unwilling to be cross-examined.

There are two reasons you might be refusing to answer. Either (a) there is no hypothetical observation that you would accept as evidence in favor of the existence of no-go zones, or (b) you intend to deny that such zones exist regardless of evidence and you're afraid of being caught moving the goal posts.

I already told you why I won't answer: the question is fucking dumb and not worth the time it takes to read, far less answer. Intelligent people don't need an explanation as to why autonomous Muslim enclaves in the middle of Western cities would be known to the outside world. The only explanations as to why they wouldn't be are tinfoil conspiracy theory bullshit on par with 9/11 truthism and FEMA camp nuttery.

you'll be showing that what you really meant was "He who makes assertions I disagree with, backs them up, using credible sources."

What's different about the sides of your analogy is that, supposing you were ever able to get over feeling offended that anyone had the gall to challenge you to practice what you preach, you would be able to produce observational evidence that the Earth indeed revolves around the sun. And, while you couldn't show the laws of gravity will continue to stay in effect indefinitely, you would be able to do the next best thing: you'd be able to show that their current rate of change is too close to zero for us to distinguish it from zero. So if you were to make those assertions, you'd be able to back them up.

The point is that it would be a waste of my time to do so, and my time is precious enough as it is. The same is true of the idea that Muslims will legally impose Sharia on non-Muslim Europeans. It is an outlandish claim and the burden rests on those making it, not on anyone else to prove that it won't happen. Barring said evidence, statements like "it won't happen," though not literally verifiable, are perfectly reasonable and don't require evidence. Intelligent and honest interlocutors understand these things, even if you don't.

In contrast, you are not able to back up your assertion that "The latter is never going to happen in Europe", not even in the limited way you can back up a claim about the future of gravity. European countries are democracies, and public support for legal apparatuses to force non-Muslims to comply with Sharia is increasing, at a rate measurably greater than zero.

Present a plausible scenario in which Muslims force Sharia on non-Muslims via said legal apparatuses, with data to back it up.

Your words. You regard the mere fact that somebody says there are no-go zones as demonstrating that he or she is not a credible source.

Yes, just as I would holocaust deniers, 9/11 truthers and the like. They're all rooted in the same sort of batshit wingnut thinking, and can be dismissed out of hand until credible evidence is found to bear them out. As I said, you can call this an "unfalsifiability engine" if it makes you feel better. I don't really give a shit.

"Weasel out", says the guy who's trying to redirect attention away from his unsourced actual claims onto hypothetical claims I might potentially make in the future. We both know that if "any of my claims" had included no-go zones, and if I had found credible sources for them, and if I had posted them, then you would simply declare the bar for credibility to be higher than whatever I'd found. So you go first. Tell our readers how high the bar is.

"Our readers," if there are any, understand that this is a forum for reasoned debate, which means no one should be making claims here that require evidence they can't produce, that they shouldn't be here unless they know what constitutes a legitimate source, and are prepared to defend said sources from scrutiny.

I don't need to explain to you what is or isn't a credible source, just like I don't need to disprove batshit wingnut conspiracy theories. So you can keep asking if you like; my answer won't change.

So you are arguing, in effect, that what DZ meant was that a person afraid only of Sharia is a racist but a person afraid of Sharia might be a nonracist provided he's also afraid of a drop in demand for his pork products? That would be a rather stupid thing for DZ to have meant; but even if he meant that, it's still an extraordinary claim.

And this just confirms that you will deliberately misinterpret things and muddy the waters when it suits you - in this case, to avoid owning up to the fact that you obviously put words in DZ's mouth. Even though you, you know, just got done writing 50 pages bitching about how I supposedly did that to you, when I didn't.

So you are unwilling to reason from observed failed extortion attempts to the probable existence of concealed successful extortion. I take it if you see an iceberg and someone says there's probably more ice under the surface, you'll deny that the ice you see is evidence and say you don't need a theory for what's holding it up. Please yourself.

Please myself? I don't have to please anyone; you were the one who claimed that said extortion has occurred, full stop. And this doesn't come within a mile of bearing that out, for the reasons already given.

So, do you actually have any evidence to back up your claim? And if not, do you have the intellectual honesty to admit that you can't substantiate it?

MUSLIM inmates in some of Britain’s top security prisons are forcing non-Muslims to pay a “protection tax” if they do not follow Islam, a government-appointed team investigating extremism in jails has been told.

The tax, called jizya, is being imposed by gangs of Islamist extremists at Belmarsh, Long Lartin, Woodhill and Whitemoor prisons, according to evidence supplied to the team.​

(Source)

It took you like four days to respond, and this is the best you can come up with?

Your link is paywalled, and thus incomplete, but it doesn't matter; your claim was that "People in European ghettos have already been forced to pay for being Christian," not that prison inmates have. Wholly separate things.

So, do you actually have any evidence to back up your claim? And if not, do you have the intellectual honesty to admit that you can't substantiate it?

 

[DrZoidberg]

You claimed Muslims have imposed jizya on Christians, you were asked for evidence, and you came up with a poorly sourced, highly sketchy word document.

MUSLIM inmates in some of Britain’s top security prisons are forcing non-Muslims to pay a “protection tax” if they do not follow Islam, a government-appointed team investigating extremism in jails has been told.

The tax, called jizya, is being imposed by gangs of Islamist extremists at Belmarsh, Long Lartin, Woodhill and Whitemoor prisons, according to evidence supplied to the team.​

(Source)

Lol. prison society might as well be on a different planet. This has got nothing to do with Islam. Prisons are a complex web of allegiances. The people who aren't under protection somehow are fair game. You want to be under some groups protection, or things can get rough. The Nazi skinheads do the same kind of shit. Hell's Angels do to. They just don't call it the Sharia. They do call it tax. I also doubt it has got anything to do with Muslim extremists. These people are criminals. They're not pillars of the community. I'm convinced that the Muslim extremists not in jail would be about as comfortable around these guys as you would be around a guy with a swastika tattooed on his forehead.

Don't ask how I know this. I've had the opportunity to learn.

 

[Bar-Jesus]

Interesting times indeed. After 1,200 years or so of battling islamic aggression, christendom has surrendered in the most unimaginable way. Well played to mullahs, they have played a blinder.

It's the decadence of liberalism and affluence, just like the aristocrats of ancient Greece, overrun by their neighbours/slaves.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Wasn't that nice:

http://mic.com/articles/128998/geor...has-a-problem-with-syrian-refugees#.Alg2ult3u

RR Martin <3

 

[repoman]

Emma Lazarus was a Jew, right?

Then put the Statue of Liberty in Israel, please.

 

[untermensche]

Interesting times indeed. After 1,200 years or so of battling islamic aggression, christendom has surrendered in the most unimaginable way. Well played to mullahs, they have played a blinder.

It's the decadence of liberalism and affluence, just like the aristocrats of ancient Greece, overrun by their neighbours/slaves.

Too many comic books.

It has been 1,200 years of endless Christian aggression. In Europe and the Middle East. In North and South America. In Africa. In the Orient.

And the start of this was a massive act of aggression ordered by a man who said he did it because his Christian god told him to.

 

[whichphilosophy]

In the UK Sharia Courts are legal providing they follow the 1996 Arbitration Act. (Im sure there are some who do not)

Ie volontary. Both sides in the conflict have to first volontarily agree to the arbitration. And may, if the arbitration wasn't to their liking, simply ignore the ruling. They have no power to enforce anything.

Not exactly but there is flexibility to dispute any findings.



http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/23

103 Refusal of recognition or enforcement.
.

(1)

Recognition or enforcement of a New York Convention award shall not be refused except in the following cases.
.
(2)

Recognition or enforcement of the award may be refused if the person against whom it is invoked proves—
.
(a) that a party to the arbitration agreement was (under the law applicable to him) under some incapacity;

(b) that the arbitration agreement was not valid under the law to which the parties subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law of the country where the award was made;

(c) that he was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case;

(d) that the award deals with a difference not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration (but see subsection (4));

(e) that the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties or, failing such agreement, with the law of the country in which the arbitration took place;

(f) that the award has not yet become binding on the parties, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, it was made.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Wasn't that nice:

http://mic.com/articles/128998/geor...has-a-problem-with-syrian-refugees#.Alg2ult3u

RR Martin <3

The US should take some responsibility as it is the prime cause of this current catastrophe.

 

[TSwizzle]

It's only minor stuff.

Sharia courts in the UK have come under heavy criticism due to them denying women their UK legal rights.

 

[angelo]

It's only minor stuff.

Sharia courts in the UK have come under heavy criticism due to them denying women their UK legal rights.

Has the stoning of adulteress [females] started yet? What about female genital mutilation?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Sharia courts in the UK have come under heavy criticism due to them denying women their UK legal rights.

Has the stoning of adulteress [females] started yet? What about female genital mutilation?

Female genital mutilation isn't an Islamic thing btw. It goes way back to earlier times than either Islam or Christianity. Yes, Christians do it to. Not all of them of course. Today nearly all genital mutilation is concentrated in Africa. Specifically west Africa.

 

[Bar-Jesus]

It's the decadence of liberalism and affluence, just like the aristocrats of ancient Greece, overrun by their neighbours/slaves.

Too many comic books.

It has been 1,200 years of endless Christian aggression. In Europe and the Middle East. In North and South America. In Africa. In the Orient.

And the start of this was a massive act of aggression ordered by a man who said he did it because his Christian god told him to.

So you're blaming Jesus? Wtf, no, it's the liberals fault for being to soft and scared of being called racist

 

[angelo]

Has the stoning of adulteress [females] started yet? What about female genital mutilation?

Female genital mutilation isn't an Islamic thing btw. It goes way back to earlier times than either Islam or Christianity. Yes, Christians do it to. Not all of them of course. Today nearly all genital mutilation is concentrated in Africa. Specifically west Africa.

Do xtian laws specify that women wear tents with just a slit for their eyes as well?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Female genital mutilation isn't an Islamic thing btw. It goes way back to earlier times than either Islam or Christianity. Yes, Christians do it to. Not all of them of course. Today nearly all genital mutilation is concentrated in Africa. Specifically west Africa.

Do xtian laws specify that women wear tents with just a slit for their eyes as well?

Well.. having burkhas is actually a Christian tradition that Muslims started with after the fall of Constantinople. Because Constantinipolites/Byzantinians were well educated they got prominent positions in the Ottoman administration. So having a wife in a burkha became associated with having influence and power (in spite of their carriers being Christian). So it caught on (among the affluent). When they converted to Islam they kept their Christian tradition of having burkhas. The practice spread further, and even out into the provinces. No, it's not in the Bible either. It came to Christianity from Paganism. It was a Roman pagan tradition among upper class women, who were too fancy for the eyes of mere lowly commoners. That's where the tradition comes from. When they converted to Christianity they kept this tradition, as it signalled that they were upper-class, affluent, fancy and all that.

It wasn't all that wide-spread in Islamic countries prior to 1830. It was mostly a Muslim upper- and middle-class thing. It wasn't until the Muslim brotherhood got going in Egypt that full "Islamic" covering became an Islamic thing. It became about pride. It was essentially a competition of who's women was the most honourable, and the more skin that was covered the more honour. This was a wholly novel and new concept. But they modelled their dress on the Ottoman tradition, which I explained above was inherited from Christianity.

This is actually a pretty common theme with both Christianity and Islam. When a region converts they mostly just convert superficially. Almost all the rituals and traditions are kept from whatever they had before. There's hilarious descriptions of Mansa Musa the Malinese king who went on a Hajj to Mecka. He had apparently "misunderstood" Islam fundamentally which caused much consternation. He was the world's richest man at that point so they were in no hurry to set him straight or turn him away. He went home to Mali none the wiser. But all his lavish gifts of gold completely crashed the market for gold radically devaluing it. Lol.

Not to be confused with Islamic desert-dwelling nomads who are covered from head to toe in black robes for purely practical reasons. Also a tradition that goes way to before recorded history. Nor to be confused with the Zoroastrian tradition (today's Iran) who also had this practice for... reasons I've forgotten. But when they converted to Islam they kept the tradition of having Burkhas as well. This explains all the different varieties of Muslim coverings and head-scarves. One note though. The religious demand for women to cover their heads is pretty universal for any religion. Historically, extremely common. Was the norm in the west up until just a hundred years ago.

So basically... if there's an Islamic tradition somewhere to do something it probably was a tradition there to do it, way before Islam came to the village.

 

[untermensche]

Too many comic books.

It has been 1,200 years of endless Christian aggression. In Europe and the Middle East. In North and South America. In Africa. In the Orient.

And the start of this was a massive act of aggression ordered by a man who said he did it because his Christian god told him to.

So you're blaming Jesus? Wtf, no, it's the liberals fault for being to soft and scared of being called racist

That was the cause of Christian slavery, the Christian Crusades, Christian imperialism and colonialism?

And of course the main cause of our current problems. An attack by a president who said he did it because his Christian god told him to.

It seems to me Christianity has been a much bigger problem in this world than Islam.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It's only minor stuff.

Sharia courts in the UK have come under heavy criticism due to them denying women their UK legal rights.

Where this happens they are not following the requirements of the 1996 Arbitration Act.

 

[TSwizzle]

Sharia courts in the UK have come under heavy criticism due to them denying women their UK legal rights.

Has the stoning of adulteress [females] started yet? What about female genital mutilation?

I'm not sure about the stoning of adulterers, that may come later. However, the custom of honor killing disobedient daughters is thriving in the UK. In addition, FGM is still common despite the UK governments wagging finger. I don't know if any of this passes through the sharia courts.