|
Post by kronks on Oct 30, 2016 22:43:59 GMT -5
kronks wrote """"fed a biased and distorted agenda by people with a political axe to grind and oil to steal"""" I have no political axe to grind nor oil to steal nor fed a diet of bias and distortion.. I prefer to learn history and custom and practiser.. stark facts do not have an agenda stark facts past and present have no political stance or opinion facts from muslim documentations.. eye witnesses..muslim historians. and scholars..non muslim historians and Islamic scholars...Islamic chroniclers [employed by Caliphs..Emirs..Mullah..and even clerics...... [in the 20th century the Topaki palace where the amounts of information was over whelming] and that was without all the other places of information known and unknown Islamic history is readily available Yea it is and is show Islamic countries some of the most peaceful, especially when the west is not interfering. Can you name the last time a Muslim country invaded a non-Muslim country? The USA has invaded loads in recent history, mainly Muslim ones. Those are the facts are they not?
|
|
Chelonian
xr
For she shall judge you...!
Posts: 356
|
Post by Chelonian on Oct 30, 2016 23:37:24 GMT -5
Lmao, kronks, you so funny.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Oct 31, 2016 3:48:48 GMT -5
kronks wrote """"c I have no political axe to grind nor oil to steal nor fed a diet of bias and distortion.. I prefer to learn history and custom and practiser.. stark facts do not have an agenda stark facts past and present have no political stance or opinion facts from muslim documentations.. eye witnesses..muslim historians. and scholars..non muslim historians and Islamic scholars...Islamic chroniclers [employed by Caliphs..Emirs..Mullah..and even clerics...... [in the 20th century the Topaki palace where the amounts of information was over whelming] and that was without all the other places of information known and unknown Islamic history is readily available Yea it is and is show Islamic countries some of the most peaceful, especially when the west is not interfering. Can you name the last time a Muslim country invaded a non-Muslim country? The USA has invaded loads in recent history, mainly Muslim ones. Those are the facts are they not? the last time was in 1967 ..I think I have the date correct when actually a non muslim country was invaded by 4 or more muslim countries...and guess what....the muslim countries got their ass well and truly whupped in front of the entire world ...and they will never forgive the humiliation the trouble is kronks..loads of information is given to you and you neither learn from it or answer questions ... they are not invading non muslim countries in a traditional way...because they are too concerned with fighting each other as the present war fare indicates remember why Gulf 1 was started ...nothing to do with America or the UK...until we were ASKED for help from TWO Arab states because Hussain HAD INVADED IRAKS NEIGHBOUR you see you and others are so busy trying to alter history you forget or ignore ALL the relevant FACTS if you wish to be seriously then you really do need to know what your arguing about ..rather than just THINKING you know you alledged I and others were """fed a biased and distorted agenda by people with a political axe to grind and oil to steal"""" yet when told where our information comes from..you ignore the reply and come out with another load of fluff
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Oct 31, 2016 3:57:36 GMT -5
Lmao, kronks, you so funny. yes its laughable in one way...but in another way its mindbendlingly worrying that grown people can come out with such wrong information while actually believing they know what they are talking about.....
|
|
|
Post by kronks on Nov 1, 2016 0:49:38 GMT -5
Sharia law is as just as any law, if we had it in the UK the would be quite a few bankers minus a few limbs, and less people suffering and dying because of their crimes. That is why many countries prefer it. But again you have been fed a biased and distorted agenda by people with a political axe to grind and oil to steal. this is fortuitous...so who are you going to believe kronks ???the women who are on the receiving end or some pro sharia propaganda ...the Southall Black Sisters group could harly be described as anti muslim or being islaophobic ..whats it to be...truth or fiction ? British sharia court 'protects wife-beating suspects by sabotaging criminal proceedings against them' women's rights group claims Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (Mat) is one of 80 Islamic 'councils' in Britain Southall Black Sisters says it protects men accused of domestic violence Mat 'uses position of power' to persuade the CPS to drop charges brought Women's rights group has submitted evidence to sharia courts inquiry Sharia courts have been dispensing Islamic justice in UK since 1982 The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal has been accused of persuading the CPS to drop domestic violence charges and encourage women to return to abusive partners The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal has been accused of persuading the CPS to drop domestic violence charges and encourage women to return to abusive partners A top sharia court has been accused of using its position to 'sabotage' criminal charges brought against men accused of domestic violence Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3886812/Top-sharia-court-protects-wife-beating-suspects-sabotaging-criminal-proceedings-against-women-s-rights-group-claims.html#ixzz4OZK7FAk8 Follow us: @mailonline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook Every legal system has it's faults and failings as I understand it the women in question would have agreed to the MAT help resolve the issue. Is seems some outside groups don't like the woman choice, but it is her choice if she want the MAT to help resolve the issue and really it is none of their business. It seem some militant woman group wants to remove her freedom to choose how the matter is resolved. The Daily Mail does not have much of a reputation for accurate reporting it is more interested in printing click bait.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Nov 1, 2016 3:47:55 GMT -5
this is fortuitous...so who are you going to believe kronks ???the women who are on the receiving end or some pro sharia propaganda ...the Southall Black Sisters group could harly be described as anti muslim or being islaophobic ..whats it to be...truth or fiction ? British sharia court 'protects wife-beating suspects by sabotaging criminal proceedings against them' women's rights group claims Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (Mat) is one of 80 Islamic 'councils' in Britain Southall Black Sisters says it protects men accused of domestic violence Mat 'uses position of power' to persuade the CPS to drop charges brought Women's rights group has submitted evidence to sharia courts inquiry Sharia courts have been dispensing Islamic justice in UK since 1982 The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal has been accused of persuading the CPS to drop domestic violence charges and encourage women to return to abusive partners The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal has been accused of persuading the CPS to drop domestic violence charges and encourage women to return to abusive partners A top sharia court has been accused of using its position to 'sabotage' criminal charges brought against men accused of domestic violence Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3886812/Top-sharia-court-protects-wife-beating-suspects-sabotaging-criminal-proceedings-against-women-s-rights-group-claims.html#ixzz4OZK7FAk8 Follow us: @mailonline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook Every legal system has it's faults and failings as I understand it the women in question would have agreed to the MAT help resolve the issue. Is seems some outside groups don't like the woman choice, but it is her choice if she want the MAT to help resolve the issue and really it is none of their business. It seem some militant woman group wants to remove her freedom to choose how the matter is resolved. The Daily Mail does not have much of a reputation for accurate reporting it is more interested in printing click bait. I might have guessed you would decry because it was in the mail.....so if its in the mail it cannot possibly be true...pathetic and I might have know you would know better about sharia than any group of women muslim or not muslim and would certainly say that actually sharia is alright but just gets it wrong because every system has its faults and failings...sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Nov 1, 2016 3:51:19 GMT -5
Yea it is and is show Islamic countries some of the most peaceful, especially when the west is not interfering. Can you name the last time a Muslim country invaded a non-Muslim country? The USA has invaded loads in recent history, mainly Muslim ones. Those are the facts are they not? the last time was in 1967 ..I think I have the date correct when actually a non muslim country was invaded by 4 or more muslim countries...and guess what....the muslim countries got their ass well and truly whupped in front of the entire world ...and they will never forgive the humiliation the trouble is kronks..loads of information is given to you and you neither learn from it or answer questions ... they are not invading non muslim countries in a traditional way...because they are too concerned with fighting each other as the present war fare indicates remember why Gulf 1 was started ...nothing to do with America or the UK...until we were ASKED for help from TWO Arab states because Hussain HAD INVADED IRAKS NEIGHBOUR you see you and others are so busy trying to alter history you forget or ignore ALL the relevant FACTS if you wish to be seriously then you really do need to know what your arguing about ..rather than just THINKING you know you alledged I and others were """fed a biased and distorted agenda by people with a political axe to grind and oil to steal"""" yet when told where our information comes from..you ignore the reply and come out with another load of fluff you didn't answer this where you stated that I and others were """"fed a biased and distorted agenda by people with a political axe to grind and oil to steal"""" and when given answers to allegations you ignore those answers
|
|
|
Post by kronks on Nov 1, 2016 13:37:45 GMT -5
Every legal system has it's faults and failings as I understand it the women in question would have agreed to the MAT help resolve the issue. Is seems some outside groups don't like the woman choice, but it is her choice if she want the MAT to help resolve the issue and really it is none of their business. It seem some militant woman group wants to remove her freedom to choose how the matter is resolved. The Daily Mail does not have much of a reputation for accurate reporting it is more interested in printing click bait. I might have guessed you would decry because it was in the mail.....so if its in the mail it cannot possibly be true...pathetic and I might have know you would know better about sharia than any group of women muslim or not muslim and would certainly say that actually sharia is alright but just gets it wrong because every system has its faults and failings...sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh Sharia is preferred in many countries, Afghanistan to name but one becasuse the Sharia court delivers justice where are the government courts deliver corruption. and of course UK courts regularly get it massively wrong, that the case of the the bakers fined for refusing to support gay marriage, that was a corrupt and perverse judgement, one a Sharia court would never have made. So the message is sort out your own legal system before you start poking the finger at other, often better legal systems.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Nov 1, 2016 16:50:43 GMT -5
I might have guessed you would decry because it was in the mail.....so if its in the mail it cannot possibly be true...pathetic and I might have know you would know better about sharia than any group of women muslim or not muslim and would certainly say that actually sharia is alright but just gets it wrong because every system has its faults and failings...sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh Sharia is preferred in many countries, Afghanistan to name but one becasuse the Sharia court delivers justice where are the government courts deliver corruption. and of course UK courts regularly get it massively wrong, that the case of the the bakers fined for refusing to support gay marriage, that was a corrupt and perverse judgement, one a Sharia court would never have made. So the message is sort out your own legal system before you start poking the finger at other, often better legal systems. Sharia is preferred in many countries, Afghanistan to name but one becasuse the Sharia court delivers justice where are the government courts deliver corruption.Government courts? That explains it, in liberal democracies the judiciary is separate from parliament and the executive.
|
|
|
Post by kronks on Nov 2, 2016 0:38:00 GMT -5
Sharia is preferred in many countries, Afghanistan to name but one becasuse the Sharia court delivers justice where are the government courts deliver corruption. and of course UK courts regularly get it massively wrong, that the case of the the bakers fined for refusing to support gay marriage, that was a corrupt and perverse judgement, one a Sharia court would never have made. So the message is sort out your own legal system before you start poking the finger at other, often better legal systems. Sharia is preferred in many countries, Afghanistan to name but one becasuse the Sharia court delivers justice where are the government courts deliver corruption.Government courts? That explains it, in liberal democracies the judiciary is separate from parliament and the executive. I think you will find it was in Afghanistan as well too, but they were still as corrupt as hell. www.voanews.com/a/corruption-encourages-parallel-judiciary-afghanistan/3142316.html
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Nov 2, 2016 3:59:36 GMT -5
I might have guessed you would decry because it was in the mail.....so if its in the mail it cannot possibly be true...pathetic and I might have know you would know better about sharia than any group of women muslim or not muslim and would certainly say that actually sharia is alright but just gets it wrong because every system has its faults and failings...sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh Sharia is preferred in many countries, Afghanistan to name but one becasuse the Sharia court delivers justice where are the government courts deliver corruption. and of course UK courts regularly get it massively wrong, that the case of the the bakers fined for refusing to support gay marriage, that was a corrupt and perverse judgement, one a Sharia court would never have made. So the message is sort out your own legal system before you start poking the finger at other, often better legal systems. all law will get it wrong at times.....regardless of which law system is in situ..that is a given fact right across the planet ..so it becomes a matter of secular laws v religious laws sharia laws are religious laws and are also variable according to interpretation by those interpretating relious thinking of giving judgement the only countries which will prefer sharia are muslim countries ..sharia is anti women and anti disbeliever the bakers were NOT fined for refusing to support gay marriage...they were fined for discrimination..which is an entirely different issue ..please get your facts right I also think the bakers were within their rights to refuse to ice the cake...but can we really alow discrimination to come in through the back door..is that really what any of us want ...and rememeber the bakers were set up to test the law given that sharia is once more raising its head in the UK we have an absolute right to question and poke at what is an inferior law system..predudiced and uninclusive how do you feel about murder ? do you think a murderer should be able to escape punishment by buying his or her way out of trouble ? how do you feel about stoning ? amputation....and as a Christian how would you feel about being crucified for your faith..or being imprisoned for owning a bible yet again kronks learn the reality before spouting off how wonderful Islamic religious law is
|
|
|
Post by kronks on Nov 2, 2016 17:05:31 GMT -5
Sharia is preferred in many countries, Afghanistan to name but one becasuse the Sharia court delivers justice where are the government courts deliver corruption. and of course UK courts regularly get it massively wrong, that the case of the the bakers fined for refusing to support gay marriage, that was a corrupt and perverse judgement, one a Sharia court would never have made. So the message is sort out your own legal system before you start poking the finger at other, often better legal systems. all law will get it wrong at times.....regardless of which law system is in situ..that is a given fact right across the planet ..so it becomes a matter of secular laws v religious laws sharia laws are religious laws and are also variable according to interpretation by those interpretating relious thinking of giving judgement the only countries which will prefer sharia are muslim countries ..sharia is anti women and anti disbeliever the bakers were NOT fined for refusing to support gay marriage...they were fined for discrimination..which is an entirely different issue ..please get your facts right I also think the bakers were within their rights to refuse to ice the cake...but can we really alow discrimination to come in through the back door..is that really what any of us want ...and rememeber the bakers were set up to test the law given that sharia is once more raising its head in the UK we have an absolute right to question and poke at what is an inferior law system..predudiced and uninclusive how do you feel about murder ? do you think a murderer should be able to escape punishment by buying his or her way out of trouble ? how do you feel about stoning ? amputation....and as a Christian how would you feel about being crucified for your faith..or being imprisoned for owning a bible yet again kronks learn the reality before spouting off how wonderful Islamic religious law is They discriminated against a political belief not against people, a straight couple would have been refuse the same cake. I think the victims family are the best to decide how justice should be delivered, that is pretty reasonable. The example you give are rare, there are rare examples in other legal systems too, plus you are putting your own spin on things, spin which may not be an accurate representation. In the UK Sharia is optional, what is your problem with choice for the victim?
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Nov 3, 2016 3:10:54 GMT -5
you haven't answered the questions....again
|
|
|
Post by kronks on Nov 5, 2016 23:57:32 GMT -5
you haven't answered the questions....again yes i have
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Nov 6, 2016 4:25:10 GMT -5
you haven't answered the questions....again yes i have oh no you haven't """how do you feel about murder ? do you think a murderer should be able to escape punishment by buying his or her way out of trouble ? how do you feel about stoning ? amputation....and as a Christian how would you feel about being crucified for your faith..or being imprisoned for owning a bible"""
|
|