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:


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


abu_rashid wrote on Oct 13^th, 2008 at 4:16pm:


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

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

freediver wrote on Oct 31^st, 2011 at 9:15am:


Is it?

Perhaps for one that is as simple as your good self.

freediver wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2011 at 6:56pm:


Yes, he's a very busy little bee.

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 16^th, 2012 at 5:24am:


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 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.

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

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