singho

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

LMAO

Wow, impressive...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ywmfs4dcpIY

MLOL

If you have a personal problem with me then take it over PMs rather than trolling your own 'sikh' fantasy forum, because I doubt readers here are interested in your pathetic attempts to sling mud or call me names. However, for the avoidance of any doubt, readers of this forum should note the following fact:

I don't know this shaheediyan and have never met him. Neither does he know me. This is how the brave internet 'sikh' talks to complete strangers.

I rest my case about UKPHA and its terrorist training camps at various locations around the UK. The officers of this organisation break the law on a daily basis and carry an arsenal of ILLEGAL offensive weapons wherever they train their sikh militant 'warrior' types. These weapons include:

1) A variety of swords;

2) An assortment of knives and daggers;

3) Fistload/punching accessories;

4) bagh nakh;

5) concealed blades in kamarkassa.

Who cares what this shaheediyan says? Everyone who's been to these training camps knows it's the truth. It's self-evident when you go there, and the vicious array of weapons are laid out for the kuffars to prostrate to. The weapons he and his minions have carried there in breach of the Offensive Weapons Act, out on the streets.

I rest my case about these training camps funded by central government and the National Lottery. FOLLOW THE MONEY and you will know the truth. Check YouTube for the khalistani 'Shere Punjab' and Google for 'boar's tooth and sikh'.

I'm no fan of Niddar's,

Sure, whatever.

but I do know there are some muslims who attend his classes. Have you been to a class, or is golestan's word now gospel?

As I mentioned, the classes are funded by a charity, which receives practically all its money from National Lottery fund and government grants. Have you checked these accounts? They are open to inspection.

The same golestani advertised the classes on shiachat.com some time ago - check for yourself.

A little bit of research is all it takes to change someone's mind about this UK government front organisation. Why is the UK government funding martial arts training and anti-Muslim indoctrination for sikhs? Whatever the reason, it is distinctly unsavoury and highly questionable when these people turn up having formed criminal gangs and violently anti-Muslim and pro-Khalistan gangs such as Shere Punjab in the areas where the classes take place.

Furthermore it's interesting the way that whenever someone raises a question about these so-called 'classes' on any internet forum, someone who recently signed up comes in and says:

1) he's no fan of Niddar's (bringing personalities into the debate); and

2) has the questioner ever been to any such classes?

So tell me does this fellow advertise the accounts of his sponsor and his UK government controller to his students at his classes?

Do you have ANY proof of all the pakwas you're barking on about?

Of course. This stuff is not secret despite that you probably wish it was. There is one organisation that trains sikhs around the UK once a week in how to stab, maim, hate Muslims, rape Muslim women with a boar's tooth and crap like that. We both know the organisation I'm referring to here. It is funded through a single organisation which is registered as a charity through the Charity Commission (for taxation purposes).

All charity accounts are open meaning open books which any member of the public can check, and it just so happens that this malignant little cancer of a 'charity' is to all extents and purposes ENTIRELY funded by way of National Lottery and government grants.

The other organisation which indoctrinates little khalistanis I mentioned almost by name in my post and is familiar to most UK sikhs. Again, a registered charity with open accounts visible by members of the public.

In both cases, you or any other UK-based individual is capable of checking the "charity's" accounts.

Why do you choose to stay in the UK and subject yourself to British law when you could live in Iran?

Mind your own business.

"What point? The fact that you are an almost completely government- and National Lottery-funded fraudulent astroturfing bandwagon in the UK is not negated in any way by the fact that other organisations professing to represent any other religion also take blood-oil-money from the same sources. It does NOTHING to add to your credibility."

The point was, stop mouthing off and insulting other communities when your own sect is just as guilty of accepting 'haraam'.

No I shall not stop with this little campaign of mine, rest assured.

I will bring to light the true nature of your hypocrisy. You claim to be a 'community' of 32 million, and yet you're split into a myriad little cults each one of which is at the others' throats, not even accepting them as 'sikh' (whatever that is). Your mysteriously invisible 'community' has only 3 or 4 popular web forums, on which you happen to be a frequent contributor.

You enjoy massive government grants in exchange for complete acceptance of government policy from war in the Middle East to the treatment of homosexuals. When someone shows you up for the fraudulent QUANGO you are, you have the gall to consider yourself their master and shout them down, saying 'how dare you call yourself singho' and generally engaging in a viciously personalised smear campaign.

Let's see....

In any case, you stupid little rants re lottery funded Gurdwarai are pathetic, if you have so much free time on your hand, try spending it looking into how the nearly all Gurdwarai in the Uk were built before the onset of the lottery and generous Govt cultural/diversity grants.

Most of the gurdwaras in the UK are dependant on government grants and National Lottery. You take their money and you push your fake agenda under the cover of 'religion'.

However, it doesn't stop there, does it?? Don't you also have your little training camps and organisations that preach hatred, violence and the acceptance of rape of Muslim women, 'teaching' this sick doctrine free of charge? FREE because it's funded by the blood-oil-money of the British government.

Not just this, but 'Raj' organisations indoctrinating your youth in the ways of creating a viable sikh government, again funded by you-know-you in support of the Foreign Office's long-term campaign to destabilise the Punjab region and undermine the integrity of India.

Stop generalising, it's getting boring.

Stop creating terrorists and I'll stop showing up the holes in your boat.

"Hmmm... So you resort to making up lies to support your hollow clamour. It's not convincing. Neither myself nor golestan have given any fatwas anywhere whether it's about homosexuals or anyone else anywhere. Al-Qu'ran contains the truth and is the last word on all such matters."

What lies? Stop making yourself look ridiculous. The point is simply that you are hypocrites, whats so difficult to understand.

1 - Wish and believe all homosexuals should be stoned to death;

2 - Happpy to work alongside them and treat them as equals to earn money.

OK, so if you're not a liar then you tell me where did golestan or myself criticise the homosexuals?

Pathetic.

<Yawn>

"While we're on the subject, what does sikh say on the subject of homosexuality? Does it take any position whatsoever or is it a case of British government policy above all else (as usual)? What is the sikh law on what is to be done with homosexuals? If a Conservative government is voted in next time around, will you all harden your stance or will you still be quite gay about it?""

Thank you imbecile. You prove my point perfectly. Sikhs do live under British Law, without problems on the very large part, the joke is on you, who rants and raves about sharia, and yet chooses to live somewhere where it doesn't and can't operate.

You know vey well Sikhs do not have their own 'man made' legal system that governs every last part of their life (ahhh), we integrate perfectly fine where ever we choose to live, including Islamic countries. It's you who is the looser, who also lives and operates under British law and treates gays as equals, yet still thinks he is better than us with his divine laws which hold absolutely no power in the UK.

1) Sharia law applies to all mankind and who does not accept is in defiance.

2) You're simply affirming my point that 'sikh' is really just an umbrella term used by the British government to mean someone who is docile and compliant to all policies of their white British imperial masters and at the same time like a faithful kuttah barking at the Muslim trying to explain the many deficiencies in your creed.

Bahadur Ali wrote:

"1. How is the use of haram money by Khojas, Pakistani Shi'a and Sunnis a slap for me? I fail to see the point."

So now Khojas(Ismaili Shias), non Irani Shias are not Shias?

He didn't say that.

The fact that some other Shias of diverse non-Irani origins accept some National Lottery funding doesn't make your own position as a wholly-owned subsidiary of UK plc any stronger.

Who cares what mohammed or the quran say? This isn't an islamic forum. You repeatedly insult Guru Ji and still people reply to your trash with courtesy. Try that on an islamic forum.

YOUR guru, and anyway I don't 'insult' I 'refute'. Does your guru need your sikh empty macho posturing?

You want to talk jurisprudence? Come meet me at the Inns Court near Chancery Lane and we'll talk.

Which of the Inns of Court and is there any particular reason for this location apart from your delusional fantasies? If you have something to say then discuss it here.

Do you get gratification from insulting others?

None of your business. Stick to the topic or clear off with your fake doctrines and good luck to you.

What's the matter, your parents cousins or something?

Did you want me to pass this on to the Bar Council?

People like you are the reason for 'islamophobia'. I'd like to see you say the same things face to face rather than from behind a computer screen.

I am not responsible for your irrational 'phobia' of Islam. If you're suffering from such fear then perhaps you need to look at the gaping lacuna that is sikh jurisprudence and think again. I am not your enemy - your ignorance of Islam is. It is causing you to resort to foolish actions for want of reasonable arguments.

"Last year money from the national lottery was paid for a march through many northern cities celebrating the birth of the prophet.

National lottery money was used by the shias in another parade to remember Imam Hussain.

The Naziris and ismailis used national lottery funds for schools and mosques in the midlands."

MLOL. Thanks for pointing this out Kam Ji and delivering a nice square slap on both sides of Bahadurs and his bandwagon collegue's face. Although I am sure their concrete ego will not allow them to concede to even this minor and insiginificant point.

What point? The fact that you are an almost completely government- and National Lottery-funded fraudulent astroturfing bandwagon in the UK is not negated in any way by the fact that other organisations professing to represent any other religion also take blood-oil-money from the same sources. It does NOTHING to add to your credibility.

Singho, your full of excuses and justifications. My point was simply to show your hypocrisy - where as adultry and homosexuality are the most henious crimes punishable by death, which you wholly advocate, I wonder what your work colleagues would think if they knew your views, it just makes me laugh, that someone like you, who could easily end up working for or alongside a homosexual, would be wishing death on the poor chap (chappess) on inside, and smiling politely, shaking hands and interacting in all sorts of civilised/tolerant ways on the outside.

Hmmm... So you resort to making up lies to support your hollow clamour. It's not convincing. Neither myself nor golestan have given any fatwas anywhere whether it's about homosexuals or anyone else anywhere. Al-Qu'ran contains the truth and is the last word on all such matters.

While we're on the subject, what does sikh say on the subject of homosexuality? Does it take any position whatsoever or is it a case of British government policy above all else (as usual)? What is the sikh law on what is to be done with homosexuals? If a Conservative government is voted in next time around, will you all harden your stance or will you still be quite gay about it?

I believe God exists in all. Yet sharia treats women as if God is only 1/4 present in them. That is not at all divine.

Important points:

1) YOU are not the arbiter of what is divine or what is not.

2) Islam affords women rights and clearly recognises the different roles played by men and women in society, unlike your religion which apparently just takes the latest guidelines from equality quangos as its guide to what 'equality' is.

e.g. what are the current demographic statistics relating to male and female births in the Punjab, or outside Punjab in the sikh diaspora. The figures reveal the disgusting truth about the way you treat your women. You're having them aborted, killed in their infancy and now you are using gender clinics to weed them out.

Does your 'religion' give women the right to divorce their husbands? Islam does.

Does your 'religion' protect women from false accusations of infidelity? Islam does.

Does your 'religion' afford any property rights whatsoever to women? Islam does.

Let's look at this in a bit more detail, why not? What is a 'sikh wedding' and when and by whom was this ritual invented? Thanks in advance.

Not all the groups you mention believe in Guru Granth Sahib, hence not all are sikhs. You yourself have made such arguments before...

Oh yes and I've been reading this kind of stuff on 'sikh' forums for years. X,Y,Z are not true sikhs, A,B,C are true sikhs. Who knows and more importantly who cares? Do you think the followers of these bizarre sects have any qualms about people on the internet deeming them not to be 'sikh'?

. DDT and nirmala teach the same thing. Nihangs agree on almost all things save some minor details.

What tripe.

double post

And those that live outside of India, follow the legal system of country they inhabit. Muslims living outside of Muslim countries have to follow the law of that land. So why would these Muslims, like yourselves, choose to live in a country, where DIVINE justice cannot be sought?

Money, freedom, equality, opportunity, safety, family, luxury....?

Are all these things not available in great countries like Iran?

If so, then why choose to risk living in a country, where the 2 hypothetical questions I have posed, you consistently ignored, may become a reality and you would not be able to see divine justice?

The fact that a person happens to live under a particular regime does not imply approval of all of his government's policies, and it never did. You seem to be advocating a sort of British totalitarianism of the mind, or to put it more succintly, a fascist system in Britain under which if you don't agree with the ruling class then you have to self-exile or be exiled. I'm sure it would suit most of you guys, as the traditional turbanned stooges of the British and heavily dependent on National Lottery and government grants. But it doesn't work for me.

Quote me original law from the Holy Quran.

Why? Don't waste my time and the bandwidth of this forum with such pointless requests. The forum is slow enough as it is and hardly works because of all the posting and editing on this thread.

Are you saying the hadiths came about during the Prohet's time.

See above.

Do you know the sources of Shia law?

Yes.

You're digging yourself deeper and deeper. Can you respond to Xylitol's post above with fact, not opinion?

1) I'm quaking in my boots LOL

2) If you hadn't been wasting my time by posting your pointless message you would have been able to see that I had responded to Xylitol's post a couple of minutes after he posted it.

3) If you persist with such time- and bandwidth-wasting irrelevent questions (e.g. do I know what date it is) I will simply ignore all your posts in the future and keep referring to this one, so you will need to create a new account to ask me anything. Capiche?

[glow=red:9ea7f96966]This is the point you guys consistently ignore. It's been mentioned at least 3 times in this post, yet you keep ignoring it b/c you find yourselves unable to come up with an appropriate response.

[/glow:9ea7f96966]

------>"If you read the works of Ayatullah Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr and all other top scholars, it is crystal clear that Sharia developed in response to the needs of a community that found themselves (took) control of the land and needed a system of jurisprudence. It developed over centuries, helped by far-sighted leaders who founded universities for the subject. It is not a revealed system. Guidance is taken from the Holy Quran, but it is very much a man-made system based on the interpretation of fallible men that came about AFTER they took control of the land."

Honestly, how do you expect to convince people if you can't defend your basic assertion?

Kindly indicate what I'm supposed to defend here. Al-Qu'ran is not manmade, and according to the passage you have quoted it is not manmade. It is always the supreme authority in Islamic jurisprudence. It is unquestionable that the knowledgable persons charged with interpreting this codex would have built up a system of precedents over time, but essentially the core of all sharia systems is the divine law as revealed in the Holy Qu'ran.

Are you alleging that I implied that lawyers have some kind of divine status? If a scholar decides to interpret the Holy Qu'ran to determine how internet fraud should be dealt with, that doesn't mean he's inventing a manmade law from his own conception. He is using the faculties of an ordinary man to interpret divine law and apply it to a situation.

Now kindly address my questions about sikh law, because I am keen to know the answers. Thanks a lot.

Would Mohammed not have done the same thing? HE DIDN'T. It has been proven that Sharia came about centuries later.

At least read the previous posts before digging a deeper grave for yourself.

You are indirectly blaspheming against the Prophet by holding him responsible for man-made law.

I'm going to keep this simple enough for you to understand. You have no idea about the law.

Any law that is written down has to be interpreted in order to be applied. The laws of sharia are derived from the spirit and the letter of the laws that were set down by the Holy Prophet (pbuh). The original law is from al-Quran and the ahadith, and interpretations are extrapolated from these original sources by people with knowledge.

You claim not to be able to chack the facts about Sharia. If you don't have a clue then keep silent until you do.

Where did I claim this?

I said you are the one with no means to check the law. You don't even know what law is (i.e. where it comes from, and the need for any law manmade or otherwise to be interpreted in its application).

Ayatollah Baqir Al Sadr and other eminently qualified scholars do not hide the facts about Sharia unlike you.

I am hiding nothing.

Wow. I come back to this thread only one day after suggesting that sikh has no form of judicial system or jurisprudence whatsoever, and what do I see? A lot of noise.

I shall simply ignore the pointless and rather idiotic unreferenced assertions made about 'Sharia law' as if it were one single entity (it isn't), the 'I heard this about Ayatollah so-and-so', the 'are you blaspheming?' and 'how dare you call yourself singho' childish posts, and make this as simple as possible:

It appears to me that sikh has NO system of civil laws of either the common law or codified type, and equally NO criminal justice system of code of criminal laws. Am I right to say so?

Let us suppose for a moment that the gurus intended to invent a religion that was supposed to repudiate any form of established sharia law in the tradition of the great faith of Islam, as suggested by some of the less educated (in law) on this forum. Would they not have established their own system of jurisprudence, and some form of judicial system and a system of laws IN RIVALRY to the Islamic-based sharia law that YOU say they intended to decry?

If you want to say that the gurus were opposed to sharia (which is a secular subject relating to 'temporal' authority and the dispensation of temporal justice), then why are you referring to the 'spiritual' works of the gurus, which (unsurprisingly, because they are spiritual works and make no pretensions about establishing any laws) SILENT on matters of law?

If sikh has temporal and spiritual authority, then where is this system of sikh law? Where can I refer to the sikh law on theft, for example? Can someone provide a reference to the sikh law on theft? What about the framework i.e. the system within which this law to be administered? Where are the sikh courts of justice and where is the courts procedure described?

Are we to believe that a gang of 5 people (we say people but mean 'men', right?) with total and ARBITRARY power is considered sufficient to take the place of a complete legal system the like of which any country in the world today will possess? Judicial systems exist as a protection against ARBITRARINESS. Where is the sikh protection against ARBITRARINESS?

The bottom line is you have none, zero, nothing, nada.

What's more, you actually have the temerity to sit here representing the sikh world on this little forum, and do nothing but make uninformed, unresearched, unacademic assertions on the subject of 'sharia law' (a non-existent single entity in your terms) - a subject which not one of you is qualified to discuss.

So if you're hiding a precious sikh book describing a legal system and code of laws, now's the time to bring it out otherwise 'case closed'.

The gurus never denied the authority of sharia - only you nonentities do.

[double post]

[double post]

'Singho' one law we do have is how to deal with nindaks of Guru Sahib. Your responses clearly show you know nothing of Guru granth Sahib Ji let alone Dasam and Sarbloh Granths.

So are you saying that any of these variously-attributed texts contain a system of laws?

Haven't you got the picture yet? You don't have any system of law in your religion. You have less than nothing by way of laws or a judicial system in those books. And yes, I have a reasonable knowledge (the standard of an average Sikh perhaps) of the content of those books.

Why did Mohammed need a new judicial system? was he setting himself up to be ruler of a new country?

Think what you like. There's a place for blasphemers who insult the Holy Prophet (pbuh) like you.

No doubt I will get the answer that most of Sharia was developed much after his death and even today there are 4 different schools of thought. If it was such a clear, black & white revelation of jurisprudence then why are there now 4 different schools? (These are the approaches of al-Shâfi`î, Abû Hanifâh, Mâlik, and Ahmad b. Hanbal.)

If you really wish to know the answer to this question you will have to research it yourself. I'm not in the business of anonymous unqualified opinion-making.

What about Ja'fari jurisprudence - the creation of the 6th Imam. Why did it take so long?

It was present from the beginning, but revealed only during the time of Imam Jafar As-Sadiq (a.s.). I could explain further, but not to one who blasphemes against the Holy Prophet (pbuh).

Singho (a misnomer if there ever was one),

Thank you kindly for this compliment.

you are vigorously defending Sharia, yet in your own words " have no way to check the facts."

Actually I do, by reference to others who are learned and well versed in the subject.

Religion to people like you is about everything BUT Allah! Like Bhagat Kabeer Ji says " Numskulls! you have totally lost the point!"

LOL. You are great comedy material. Maybe you should start a dera and start spreading these ideas of yours. Would you like an initiation ritual to go with that? Why not use the Shia futuwwad orders' initiation rituals of the Safavid period as 'inspiration'?

There is a very good reason why I asked for the fatawah by the Ayatollah. If some of those laws are 'divine' then pray, what is evil?

I have no hate for Islam, but I do dislike arrogance and so does Allah.

You have no authority to speak for Islam or Allah, and are equally unqualified when discussing jurisprudence of any kind, whether secular or Islamic. For pointing out this fact, I am called arrogant by you. So be it.

Sigho quick thing just being anal.

Internet Fraud is not covered by the theft act 1968 but is covered by the Fraud act which came out a few years ago!

Sure that has got nothing to do with this thread as all but i was bored

Ah well, OK but this goes to show the transitory nature of imperfect man-made laws.

Further, my point still stands because in the case of there not being any specific provision under sharia law dealing with 'internet fraud' specifically, then it would be dealt with under fraud provisions as it was with all fraud under English law until 15 January 2007 when the 2006 Act came into force.

Bahadur knows what I'm on about.....

This is a public discussion forum where people make statements. I am not interested in personalities but the issues. You tried to pose a hypothetical question, and I highlighted why it was false.

Who's talking about English law?

You are the one saying that sharia law doesn't deal with X,Y,Z, while secular law does.. I'm trying to help you understand that there is not one system of sharia law, and that you have no idea about the scope of secular laws. You quoted legal issues such as 'racism' and 'pornography' with all the legal awareness of a reader of The Sun. Your statements, which you held to be justification for your criticisms, were so non-specific and off-base that you revealed a conspicuous deficit of awareness about the society you yourself live in.

You don't seem to know about the Tankah system and how it has been used during Guru Ji's time and the Sikh Raj.

On what basis do you make this claim?

How much Gurbani do you know? Please get your facts right.

I know enough of Gurbani to be aware of the extent of what passes for the corpus of something that's supposed to be a coherent Sikh liturgy but which has been shown many times on this forum to be not much more than a collection of hearsay. None of this, shall we say, 'archive', contains anything remotely resembling a judicial system.

What are the sources of Sharia law and when did they come about? Please tell us.......

Again, I claim knowledge of the law of England and Wales but am not an ulema. If you want me to indulge your semi-literate Wikipedia-like fantasies by presenting a summary here on this forum, on no proper authority and with no way to check the facts, for your benefit then I will have to disappoint you.

While you're at it, list all the Fatawah issued by Ayatollah Khomeini as an example of divine law.

Here we go again, see? You have given yourself your little promotion as enemy of Islam a little too soon.

Bahadur, let's say, hypothetically, you're living in Europe and someone does something wrong to you. Will you go to the police or to the local Imam? Be honest.

1) There are many types of 'wrong'. If it's a matter of tortious liability you wouldn't go to the police.

2) The police have nothing to do with 'justice' or the 'judiciary' or the 'judicial system'. They are an arm of the executive.

3) The police are under NO legal obligation to help, say, a victim of a violent crime, in European countries such as the United Kingdom.

4) What do you mean by 'the local imam'? Which type of islam and system of shariah are you referring to here? It's important.

What does Shariah say about racism, internet fraud, pornography, car accidents, copyright etc?

What does, say, English law say about racism?

It is an aggravating factor compounding the seriousness of another offence. It's not an offence in itself.

What does, say, English law say about internet fraud?

Fraud is a type of theft covered by the Theft Act 1968. Don't you think every school of Islamic jurisprudence covers this type of theft?

What does English law say about pornography?

It is silent on the subject, meaning that there's no law dealing with it. Did you mean OBSCENITY? English common law (case law) struggled with this concept quite recently. Islamic law of every type would cover this.

What does English law say about car accidents?

Quite a lot. But so what? Are you saying that under the implementation of any flavour of sharia law, the Caliph would be disallowed from enacting rules governing the conduct of persons who make use of his highways? Somehow I doubt that.

What does English law say about copyright?

That it is automatically invested in the originator, and is transferable. It's not a difficult concept, and I fail to see how you could say that any system of sharia law would fail to protect intellectual property rights.

More to the point, you should ask a qualified ulema about what sharia says about a subject before drawing conclusions.

It may have been suitable when Mohammed formulated it but it certainly isn't applicable today.

In YOUR opinion.

A 'divine law' would surely have foreseen every type of crime possible until the end of the world.

Yes, and so it does.

What's the difference between a Tankah and any other punishment?

1) It applies only to members of your club, and if a person (say, someone who murdered his daughter) refuses to submit then you expel him. Expulsion is no punishment at all.

2) It is unjust because it is not based on a judicial system. This makes it inconsistent and inherently unfair. One gang of 5 hard-cases might decide to whip a man 100 times for adultery, and another might give a murderer just 5 lashes.

3) The members of the 5 'beloved' may or may not have a sense of justice, or be trained in law or morality or ethics, and may not even be mentally sound and capable. There is no criteria for assessing your 'judge dreads'.

In fact, as you say, it is superior because it rehabilitates the criminal. (A Tankah can be quite severe - including lashes and imprisonment). How exactly does Shariah provide justice to the victim? Can it unrape or bring back to life?

You need to consult a qualified sharia lawyer about what the sharia law in any particular system is, but at least sharia in all its forms offers the possibility of recompense in the case of murder to the victim's family should they accept it, out of the criminal's pocket. What other system of law gives you that?

Maharaj Ji gave authority to 5 true Sikhs - " Khalsa Mera Roop Hai Khas" - I would say that 5 Singhs, well versed in Gurbani would be far fairer than any other system.

No that's completely risible and absurd. Gurbani contains no advice whatsoever on criminal or civil justice, and '5 true Sikhs' is no qualification at all. Rather a disqualification.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770

A despicable act. Sickening and typical. It's not the first case of so-called 'honour killing' among people who have no honour, and it won't be the last given the pathetic and inappropriate leniency of the punishment.

The English secular criminal justice system obviously isn't working because of the proliferation of such 'honour killings' in the Sikh community. Islamic justice would, I am sure, punish the guilty more appropriately, and send the right signal to the community that keeps believing itself free to commit such crimes.

The question is, what is the Sikh method of dealing with the crime of kurimaar? What is the traditional punishment, under Sikh law?

Does such a Sikh law even exist???

I'm in law school. Laypersons are qualified to criticise the law if they inform themselves of what it is that they are criticising, as is the case with some board members here.

Qualified in whose eyes though? Without the provenance (such as the certificate you're working towards) and the proper forum to hear, it's just pissing in the wind. As a law student you must surely realise how stupid it looks when laypeople clamour for changes in the law without understanding the principles affected by the proposed changes or the scope of the new provisions. Dangerous Dogs Act, anyone?

Let's not foster an attitude here, where some Islamophobe with a deep spiritual malaise against Islam in all its manifestations thinks that Wikipedia and his local council library give him all the ammunition he needs to make full-on assertions about matters he has no idea about nor even the faintest idea HOW to research. Depending on where you are in your study of law, you may be aware that the research resources used by the professionals are themselves a matter of expert knowledge (assessed on both the LPC and BVC here in the UK) and are substantially different from the resources used in the academic institutions. So how could Joe Bloggs find an up-to-date perspective on the law on any particular point right now, unless he has had the training enabling him to know where to look and how to search?

Comparing something so simple as basketball with something as complex as Islam is the most ridiculous analogy you can give. A better analogy would be the religion of Islam with a law of a nation. Now if a nation has such laws which are outdated, violate basic human rights, double standards, hypocritical then it doesn’t take a lawyer or a law professor to question that law. It just takes some common sense. Now if Islam like a nation’s law has some Usuls which violate human rights, have double standards, are hypocritical rules then it just takes common sense to question it. In other words, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to have common sense. Just use your Aql if you have any.

Let's just consider the laws of a nation. Where do you think your ideas of 'basic human rights' are derived from? Your own self-righteous sense of what's right and wrong for others in the world?

In jurisprudence, laws flow from a concept of 'natural law', 'natural justice' (Thomas Aquinas, Hobbes, Locke). This is the foundation of justice in basic jurisprudence - an elementary stage in the education of any lawyer. It is not something that's left to an uneducated mob-handed buffoon's 'common sense'.

In addition, if you want to question a law, it doesn't matter WHO you are. It matters that you specify the law you are questioning, specify your grounds for why the law is bad (the list of grounds is limited and does not include your commoner's touch) and cite references in support of your arguments, before an authority that is competent to change the law or the way it is interpreted. Let's take the House of Lords as the highest court in England and Wales as an example. If you want to involve yourself in a 'test case' to effect a change in the law by presenting a reasoned case, you have to be a qualified barrister yourself, or you have to hire one. If you can't manage either of those, then get lost bozo. The law is not an amateur's game.

Alternatively, you can petition the legislative arm of government, or get yourself elected to office instead, and use whatever cleverness you can wield to change the law. As you can see, the chances of you succeeding in this way (politically) are limited.

So, just regarding it from the perspective of 'the law', I hope you can appreciate that a lawyer is someone with years of education and training, with expert skills and the requisite knowledge making them competent to discuss points of law before competent authorities. Everybody else needs their advice on matters of law. Only a fool has himself for a lawyer.

So now take this analogy and apply it to whichever branch of usul of whichever branch of Islam you thought you were referring to (if any).