b’shalom

bananabrain

The Muslim religious courts were re-established by legislation in 1961. These courts have exclusive jurisdiction in matters of personal status over all Muslims, including foreign nationals who are subject to the jurisdiction of Shari’a courts under their national law. In fact, the scope of powers of the Shari’a courts is broader than all other religious courts in Israel, a vestige from the Ottoman and Mandatory periods. As organs of the State, the Muslim courts are funded through the Ministry for Religious Affairs; its judges (kadi) are State employees, appointed by the President of the State upon the nomination of a nine-member committee which parallels the selection committee for judges in the rabbinical and civil courts. The terms of office for kadi mirror those of judges in the other court systems, and are similarly aimed at ensuring judicial independence.

Israel is a formally multicultural society, one where different communities have different legal standings. That’s not that uncommon – other examples are Lebanon and Malaysia. Of countries with such laws, Israel is probably the most democratic and ‘liberal’.

My point was solely that wanting that kind of legally binding multiculturalism, while not something I would remotely agree with, is not the same as getting into a ‘who can be most mindlessly literal’ competition with Saudi Arabia.

b’shalom

bananabrain

b’shalom

bananabrain

It’s like allowing the hijab as part of the school uniform – it affects no one.

*cough* motorcycle helmet law *cough*

“This finger pointing and manufacture of grievance seems to me really artificial and unhealthy”

one could say the same about your own attitude towards Muslims. Seems to be a lot of grievance and sulking from you. Very unhealthy

It seems to me that Muslims pick and choose how they want to be treated in order to suit their own agenda as much as non Muslims do.

If you are going to be fair, either strip the Jews and Sikhs of their current status, or extend it to all.

First of all, those religions are not ‘protected’. Sikhs and Jews are defined by case law as comprising identifiable ethnic groups. We most certainly should not ‘extend it to all’. None of the theological tenets of Judaism or Sikhism are protected – but I am equally perplexed as to why laws should be repealed or stripped away simply to assuage the grievance of the Muslim lobby. There is no mechanism for parliament to ’strip’ those groups of anything – these are precedents set by the English court system in the case of the Sikhs.

This is more of an anomaly than a case of ‘double standards’. If and when a legal case a legal point of order arises in which the issue is contended it is up to the courts to consider the situation. If and when that happens I hope the matter can be resolved but it should certainly not be carried out to merely to satisfy the Muslim lobby’s grief and displeasure over this anomaly.

All things should happen on the basis of due legal process, not on the basis of Muslim grievance culture and sulking.

This finger pointing and manufacture of grievance seems to me really artificial and unhealthy. The anomaly is something that does not impact on the welfare of Muslims in the UK at all, other than to point their finger give the victimhood dealers something to feel aggrieved by.

As far as the racial legistlation act goes, I don’t see why some religions should be given protection and not others. If you are going to be fair, either strip the Jews and Sikhs of their current status, or extend it to all.

Eh??

Because they’re fishing for another sensationalist story as opposed to proper undercover reporting. As sunny said, why don’t they go undercover to groups which NEED to be exposed? What’s with all the spying on universities?

It’s not as though they were tipped off to secret underground terrorist activites – they’re just spying on people for the sake of it.

I think spying on the police and BNP was probably more to do with the fact that a lot of people thought something was there anyways and just needed proof.

But I still wonder at the demands that this grievance arises from and the pain in the soul of Muslims comes about because of this ‘double standard’ which is more of an anomaly than a double standard. And the foot stomping that accompanies it.

Read my posts in reference to the thread that raz picked up and you become a little the wiser. If not, I dont think I can help you with your wiser-ness.

in fact Jews and Sikhs should not be classed as a race anyway”

That’s the problem – they are. It’s time this double standard was addressed one way or another.

===========

raz seems to be saying that this ‘double standard’ needs to be addressed in order to assuage the grief caused by this double standard amongst Muslims one way or another. Either by amending the case law that has recognised Jews and Sikhs as distinct ethnic groups or extending it to the coverage of Muslims. Then, the grief and pain that this causes Muslims will come to an end.

Right?

You seem to be nudging at some other issue which you haven’t verbalised yet and that is how Muslims in the UK or the west regard themselves as being of the same “community”. But even that does not stand up to examination as there is little cultutral cohesion in Muslim communities.

Scroll up – I was responding to raz’s comment and if you read them properly you will know what I mean.