Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
RoofGardener

The Fall of France

39 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

RoofGardener

Unbelievable. But - I fear - just the first voice of many.

A French academic has suggested that a civil war in France is inevitable unless France creates special "dual track" judiciary, wherein Muslims can elect to observe Sharia law, and reporting to Sharia courts, and everyone else continues to use the French legal system.

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/238236

In principle, this means that a Muslim would be LEGALLY allowed to murder any French person who is an apostate (one who converts from Islam to another religion... or to none), and the French polygamy laws would be overturned... but only to those who profess to me Muslims. In an Islamic court, the evidence of a woman would be worth half of that of a man. So the Equal Rights laws would have to be overturned. And so on.. and so forth.

Utter madness.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney

and they thought it was bad during the Mahdi uprising............

 

 

edit- Mahdi

Edited by Piney
typo- need coffee
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stevewinn
2 hours ago, Setton said:

I think you need to read the articles before you post them. If you did, you'd see that disputes between Muslims and non Muslims would still be handled by regular courts. 

You could make plenty of coherent arguments against this but you undermine all of them when you jump to exaggeration and hyperbole without reading the evidence. 

regardless if taken at face value sets a dangerous precedent, a slippery slope.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hetrodoxly
4 hours ago, Setton said:

I think you need to read the articles before you post them. If you did, you'd see that disputes between Muslims and non Muslims would still be handled by regular courts. 

You could make plenty of coherent arguments against this but you undermine all of them when you jump to exaggeration and hyperbole without reading the evidence. 

This is a minor detail a small issue compared to the enormity of what's been proposed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
5 hours ago, Setton said:

I think you need to read the articles before you post them. If you did, you'd see that disputes between Muslims and non Muslims would still be handled by regular courts. 

You could make plenty of coherent arguments against this but you undermine all of them when you jump to exaggeration and hyperbole without reading the evidence. 

Good observation Setton, and thanks for the correction. 

I note you make no comment on the substantive issue that a suggestion has been made by an academic to have a dual judicial system. The idea should be the source of outrage and alarm. Curiously though, you don't seem to care ? 

Well, you're in good company. No major newspaper or media outlet (at time of posting) has covered this story. 

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
5 hours ago, stevewinn said:

regardless if taken at face value sets a dangerous precedent, a slippery slope.

Agreed, which is why it's important not to take sensationalist headlines at face value. 

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

Good observation Setton, and thanks for the correction. 

I note you make no comment on the substantive issue that a suggestion has been made by an academic to have a dual judicial system. The idea should be the source of outrage and alarm. Curiously though, you don't seem to care ? 

Well, you're in good company. No major newspaper or media outlet (at time of posting) has covered this story. 

I gave the academics proposal exactly the consideration it deserves - none. This is just somebody wanting to be radical and get noticed. Don't help him with that. 

My concern here isn't with the (clearly ridiculous) proposal but that people misrepresenting it, especially when it's so easy to argue against, actually increases the chances of it happening. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245

Stupid idea. Period.

Better would be placing demotivatorish banners near mosques, kinda, "Wanna Myanmar in France? You will get it!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grey Area

Crock of s***t if you ask me, bad journalism.  Couldn’t find a single link to the source of these quotations and searching for the guys name just brings up various fringe news sites all linking the site of the op as their source.

It was equally difficult trying to find out who this professor is and what his discipline is.  After a bit of searching I found a French site listing him as a professor of mathematics.

I guess the world of maths must be slow at the moment and he decided to dip into the Social Sciences.  Whatever, this is just one lay persons opinion and the journalist responsible decided to reinforce it with terms like ‘academic’.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gingitsune

I don't see anything about this story in the French media. Probably an obscure academic which has no echo in the politics whatsoever, but which theories were appealing to the Israel public. That or they just maid it up entirely. :huh:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

If two people agree to resolve their issues in an Islamic Court, bully do them. One fewer cases for the judiciary. NO different to tribal councils or whatever. 

But both parties must agree to the tribunal.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
7 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

If two people agree to resolve their issues in an Islamic Court, bully do them. One fewer cases for the judiciary. NO different to tribal councils or whatever. 

But both parties must agree to the tribunal.

"Agree" before or after one gets his hand chopped off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
12 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

"Agree" before or after one gets his hand chopped off?

Before, if both parties say “yes, we’ll hash this out in a community court” then fine.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
odas
13 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

"Agree" before or after one gets his hand chopped off?

Depends on which hand I would guess.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
odas
34 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Before, if both parties say “yes, we’ll hash this out in a community court” then fine.

Jokes byside but, if this would be alowed, which I doubt it will and I also doubt the news, it would be a disaster.

There is a country, there is a law. Same just or unjust for everyone. Obay or move. Easy as that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
26 minutes ago, odas said:

Depends on which hand I would guess.

The one he picks his nose with.  That'll teach him.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Before, if both parties say “yes, we’ll hash this out in a community court” then fine.

Makes perfect sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likely Guy
59 minutes ago, odas said:

Jokes byside but, if this would be alowed, which I doubt it will and I also doubt the news, it would be a disaster.

There is a country, there is a law. Same just or unjust for everyone. Obay or move. Easy as that.

Odas, you live in Canada now where we have tribunals. Native sentencing circles.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
odas
8 minutes ago, Likely Guy said:

Odas, you live in Canada now where we have tribunals. Native sentencing circles.

I know. That is a good point. Now, we can look at this particular issue from various points.

WE live on THEIR land. They had their laws way before we came. The least we can do is to accomodate their laws to practise inbetween the native people. However we also know that largscale trials are done according to Canadian law or Provincial law.

That has nothing to do with a religious law by a party regardless of what religion it is.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likely Guy

And within accepted tribunal laws, I can;t see how sharia laws can't be accepted. Yes, barring large scale laws and issues.

It's simply accepted mediation.

Edited by Likely Guy
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
odas
3 minutes ago, Likely Guy said:

And within accepted tribunal laws, I can;t see how sharia laws can't be accepted. Yes, barring large scale laws and issues.

It's simply accepted mediation.

Well, for those who are not aware, some aspects of the sharia law we already have in our modern laws. Alemony comes to my mind believe it or not.

I am a muslim as you are aware of it. I do understand a few things regarding Sharia ( which simply means Law in Arabic ) but I am far from being an expert. I also understand that in Islam those who are not muslims can use their own religious law to solve conflicts.

But. Those are religious laws of one particular tribe, nation within many other tribes, nations. This will bring so much confusion in the legal system.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likely Guy

And as you're aware no one in Canada would have their hand chopped off or be stoned to death, though that is what some would believe (the old slippery slope argument).

We have arbitration without courts now. Hell, they have arbitration by television (Judge Judy).

As long as both parties accept the terms of arbitration, and the key part here is; "Have the right to appeal to a higher court", I don't have a problem with that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
5 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

The one he picks his nose with.  That'll teach him.

What sort of barbarian are you?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
odas
16 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

And as you're aware no one in Canada would have their hand chopped off or be stoned to death, though that is what some would believe (the old slippery slope argument).

We have arbitration without courts now. Hell, they have arbitration by television (Judge Judy).

As long as both parties accept the terms of arbitration, and the key part here is; "Have the right to appeal to a higher court", I don't have a problem with that.

This is deeper then just having a tribal court. How many of sharia courts would we have to have, just in let's say Toronto? One for the Saudi-Canadians, one for the Iranian-Canidians..Bosnians, Syrians, Jordanians.....every group has their own view and interpretation of sharia. Just like if you would have a christian law. Catholics, orthodox, protestants...and then divide it by the various backround in regards to nationality.....

Can of worms buddy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likely Guy
24 minutes ago, odas said:

This is deeper then just having a tribal court. How many of sharia courts would we have to have, just in let's say Toronto? One for the Saudi-Canadians, one for the Iranian-Canidians..Bosnians, Syrians, Jordanians.....every group has their own view and interpretation of sharia. Just like if you would have a christian law. Catholics, orthodox, protestants...and then divide it by the various backround in regards to nationality.....

Can of worms buddy.

Well, I don;t know, There are 98 separate First Nations in Canada and they seem to manage, That and surely Bosnian, Syrian, Jordanian, etc. Muslims don't all go to separate mosques. I realize that there are different sects and language groups to consider but I don't see how it would be unmanageable. Like I said, I don't know.

Edited by Likely Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.