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 13^th, 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 13^th, 2008 at 4:09pm:

Yes.

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 13^th, 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

Seeing as Abu couldn't bring himself to post it here:


abu_rashid wrote on Oct 29^th, 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.

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? :D:D:D

So Islamic courts consider the testimony of non-Muslims to be inferior without actually 'rejecting' it? That is a pretty subtle distinction to make.

freediver wrote on Oct 31^st, 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.

So what is your take on it Les? Or are you too busy insulting all of Islam's critics to actually clarify anything?

freediver wrote on Nov 2^nd, 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.

Thanks Annie.

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


Annie Anthrax wrote on Jan 4^th, 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.

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 16^th, 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?

The title of this thread suggests otherwise.

Perhaps you need to clarify your position.

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.

freediver wrote on Feb 16^th, 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.

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

falah wrote on Feb 17^th, 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

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]

falah wrote on Feb 17^th, 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]

Couldn't happen where muslims are a majority. £48,000 is a small price to advertise sharia courts as cuddly and reasonable.

Once they are in, say goodbye to your limbs.

Chop, chop.

Falah do you consider these tribunals to be proper Islamic courts?

Do proper islamic courts reject evidence from Dhimmys?

freediver wrote on Feb 17^th, 2012 at 10:06pm:

Falah do you consider these tribunals to be proper Islamic courts?

The courts are resticted in the scope of their jursidiction. They only look at a small number of areas such as contracts, marriage and inheritance. A proper Islamic court would have a jurisdiction over all areas of law, and would have the power to enorce them. However, these limitations do not mean that the judgements are wrong in the cases that are looked at by the court.




freediver wrote on Feb 17^th, 2012 at 10:06pm:

Do proper islamic courts reject evidence from Dhimmys?

No.

Is it true that non-Muslims are considered by Islamic law to be inferior witnesses by default when testifying in court?