Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
Islamic courts reject dhimmy evidence (Read 4540 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 34870
At my desk.
Islamic courts reject dhimmy evidence
Sep 28th, 2011 at 10:09pm
 
Abu has been busy lately denying that Islamic courts discriminate against non-Muslims by automatically discrediting their evidence on the grounds that they are untrustworthy.

Here is an example where he complains about my 'never ending folly' in asking him about it and goes to great lengths to justify not giving straight answers:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1316600915/15#15

Yet here are some other words from Abu that directly contradict his recent claims:

freediver wrote on Oct 13th, 2008 at 2:40pm:
Is it true that non-Muslims are considered by Islamic law to be inferior witnesses by default when testifying in court?


abu_rashid wrote on Oct 13th, 2008 at 4:09pm:
Yes.


abu_rashid wrote on Oct 13th, 2008 at 4:16pm:
Probably the same rationale it was 1400 years ago. A non-believer isn't even honest to himself, by denying his maker, and therefore can't be trusted to render reliable reports.


And here is Abu politeley declining to answer questions about whether his perception of being at war with westerners justifies decieving them at every opportunity:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315699128/54#54
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 34870
At my desk.
Re: Islamic courts reject dhimmy evidence
Reply #1 - Oct 29th, 2011 at 1:15pm
 
Seeing as Abu couldn't bring himself to post it here:

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 29th, 2011 at 12:41pm:
fd,

Obviously in the first example you bring, I was not aware of the actual Islamic ruling on this. And I merely stated yes, without knowing.

Simple. Nothing to do with taqiyya and all the other rot that constantly flows from your orifices.

Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Lestat
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1403
Re: Islamic courts reject dhimmy evidence
Reply #2 - Oct 31st, 2011 at 8:27am
 
So where exactly does Abu say that Islamic courts 'reject' dhimmy evidence??

'Inferior witness' is different to 'rejecting'...or doesn't your pea sized brain comprehend such a different.

Or are you once again doing what you do best? Spreading lies.

FD...you truly are a clown.....

Though you are entertaining...I'll give you that...but after a while I feel a bit guilty laughing at one with such 'limited inteligence'.

Oh...and having a discussion with yourself. lol...it this what you have become? Cheesy:D:D
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 34870
At my desk.
Re: Islamic courts reject dhimmy evidence
Reply #3 - Oct 31st, 2011 at 9:15am
 
So Islamic courts consider the testimony of non-Muslims to be inferior without actually 'rejecting' it? That is a pretty subtle distinction to make.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Lestat
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1403
Re: Islamic courts reject dhimmy evidence
Reply #4 - Nov 2nd, 2011 at 8:12am
 
freediver wrote on Oct 31st, 2011 at 9:15am:
So Islamic courts consider the testimony of non-Muslims to be inferior without actually 'rejecting' it? That is a pretty subtle distinction to make.


Is it?

Perhaps for one that is as simple as your good self.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 34870
At my desk.
Re: Islamic courts reject dhimmy evidence
Reply #5 - Nov 2nd, 2011 at 6:56pm
 
So what is your take on it Les? Or are you too busy insulting all of Islam's critics to actually clarify anything?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
chicken_lipsforme
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 7090
Townsville NQ
Gender: male
Re: Islamic courts reject dhimmy evidence
Reply #6 - Nov 11th, 2011 at 12:35pm
 
freediver wrote on Nov 2nd, 2011 at 6:56pm:
So what is your take on it Les? Or are you too busy insulting all of Islam's critics to actually clarify anything?


Yes, he's a very busy little bee.
Back to top
 

"Another boat, another policy failure from the Howard government"

Julia Gillard
Shadow Health Minister
2003.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 34870
At my desk.
Re: Islamic courts reject dhimmy evidence
Reply #7 - Jan 4th, 2012 at 9:46am
 
Thanks Annie.

Abu and Les can you explain the differences of opinion? Is my wiki correct?

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 9:41am:
The testimony of a non-Muslim is not accepted in a Shariah court because the most important guarantee of integrity and honesty is fear of Allah. This is not to say that non-Muslims do not have integrity or are dishonest, but that in the case where a person is on trial, then the fear of Allah is important (particularly considering some of the punishments involved).

This is the truth, no going back. I called my local Imam to be sure and they are his words, more or less.


This is the case for criminal matters, not sure on civil matters.



Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 34870
At my desk.
Re: Islamic courts reject dhimmy evidence
Reply #8 - Feb 16th, 2012 at 11:04pm
 
abu_rashid wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 5:24am:
freediver wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 10:44pm:
Ask Abu about the 'protection' offered to Christians and Jews under Islamic law. A fair person would call it second class citizenship. For example, any testimony by a non-Muslim against a Muslim in court is automatically discredited. How is that for justice?


fd, this has been dealt with in the common misconceptions thread as well as you having raised it several times, and having been corrected on it.

Please stop lying.


Abu can you explain these contradictions?

Your article is full of deliberate strawman arguments. The dhimmy evidence one is a good example. I am not saying that Dhimmys are forbidden from giving evidence. Surely you have figured this out by now?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
abu_rashid
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Aussie Muslim

Posts: 8353
Re: Islamic courts reject dhimmy evidence
Reply #9 - Feb 17th, 2012 at 5:45am
 
The title of this thread suggests otherwise.

Perhaps you need to clarify your position.
Back to top
 
abu_rashid  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 34870
At my desk.
Re: Islamic courts reject dhimmy evidence
Reply #10 - Feb 17th, 2012 at 7:33am
 
My position is basically what you told me - quoted in the opening post.

Non-Muslims are considered by Islamic law to be inferior witnesses by default when testifying in court.

To me it makes no difference whether they are prevented from testifying or ignored when they do. The outcome is the same.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Yadda
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 14704
A cat with a view
Re: Islamic courts reject dhimmy evidence
Reply #11 - Feb 17th, 2012 at 12:03pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 11:04pm:
abu_rashid wrote on Feb 16th, 2012 at 5:24am:
freediver wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 10:44pm:
Ask Abu about the 'protection' offered to Christians and Jews under Islamic law. A fair person would call it second class citizenship. For example, any testimony by a non-Muslim against a Muslim in court is automatically discredited. How is that for justice?


fd, this has been dealt with in the common misconceptions thread as well as you having raised it several times, and having been corrected on it.

Please stop lying.


Abu can you explain these contradictions?

Your article is full of deliberate strawman arguments. The dhimmy evidence one is a good example.


I am not saying that Dhimmys are forbidden from giving evidence.



Surely you have figured this out by now?




My understanding is that non-moslems are not permitted to present evidence in a Sharia court, if that evidence is against [condemns] a moslem.


Non-moslems are guilty people [.....because they reject ISLAM].

Moslems are innocent people, before Allah.

Always.


Back to top
 

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Luke 16:31
 
IP Logged
 
falah
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3162
Re: Islamic courts reject dhimmy evidence
Reply #12 - Feb 17th, 2012 at 6:00pm
 
Non-Muslims turning to sharia 'courts' in Britain to resolve disputes, claim


Up to five per cent of cases heard by the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT) involve people who do not follow the Islamic faith, it has been estimated.

The body operates court-like arbitration hearings in London, Bradford, Birmingham, Coventry and Manchester, mainly dealing with disputes between business partners and mosques.

Those who use the service agree voluntarily to submit to its adjudication but its rulings are considered to be legally binding and can be enforced in county courts under the 1996 Arbitration Act.

A separate body, the Islamic Sharia Council, has been operating for several years, hearing divorce cases with a panel of seven "judges" based in London...

The MAT said that the greater weight attached to oral agreements in its hearings than the courts was making its service attractive to non-Muslims in Britain, who it estimates are now involved in one in 20 of its cases.

“We put weight on oral agreements, whereas the British courts do not,” Freed Chedie, a spokesman, told The Times.

He cited a recent case in which a non-Muslim man took his Muslim business partner to arbitrate in a dispute over the profits in their car fleet company.

“The non-Muslim claimed that there had been an oral agreement between the pair,” he said.

“The tribunal found that because of certain things the Muslim man did, that agreement had existed. The non-Muslim was awarded £48,000.”


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5876577/Non-Muslims-turning-to-sharia-courts-in-Britain-to-resolve-disputes-claim.html
Back to top
 

Nothing is worthy of worship except God Almighty - our Creator!
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Islamic courts reject dhimmy evidence
Reply #13 - Feb 17th, 2012 at 6:19pm
 
falah wrote on Feb 17th, 2012 at 6:00pm:
Non-Muslims turning to sharia 'courts' in Britain to resolve disputes, claim


Up to five per cent of cases heard by the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT) involve people who do not follow the Islamic faith, it has been estimated.

The body operates court-like arbitration hearings in London, Bradford, Birmingham, Coventry and Manchester, mainly dealing with disputes between business partners and mosques.

Those who use the service agree voluntarily to submit to its adjudication but its rulings are considered to be legally binding and can be enforced in county courts under the 1996 Arbitration Act.

A separate body, the Islamic Sharia Council, has been operating for several years, hearing divorce cases with a panel of seven "judges" based in London...

The MAT said that the greater weight attached to oral agreements in its hearings than the courts was making its service attractive to non-Muslims in Britain, who it estimates are now involved in one in 20 of its cases.

“We put weight on oral agreements, whereas the British courts do not,” Freed Chedie, a spokesman, told The Times.

He cited a recent case in which a non-Muslim man took his Muslim business partner to arbitrate in a dispute over the profits in their car fleet company.

“The non-Muslim claimed that there had been an oral agreement between the pair,” he said.

“The tribunal found that because of certain things the Muslim man did, that agreement had existed. The non-Muslim was awarded £48,000.”


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5876577/Non-Muslims-turning-to-sharia-courts-in-Britain-to-resolve-disputes-claim.html



That headline should read:
Non-Muslims turning to sharia 'courts' in Britain to resolve disputes with Muslims

Back to top
 

No one has the right not to be offended.
 
IP Logged
 
falah
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3162
Re: Islamic courts reject dhimmy evidence
Reply #14 - Feb 17th, 2012 at 7:11pm
 
The non-Muslim was awarded £48,000.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5876577/Non-Muslims-turning-to-sharia-courts-in-Britain-to-resolve-disputes-claim.html [/quote]
Back to top
 

Nothing is worthy of worship except God Almighty - our Creator!
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print