|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Should we be against Sharia Law?
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I think we probably should be. Its rather clear sexism and anti-women bias would seem to be enough. It also seems to be violent and intolerant. The chopping off of heads and hands as punishment, the consideration of children being the property of men with limited or no rights for women in divorce. I have heard defences of it which seem to be apologetics for extreme versions such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, but do we really want even a milder version of this coming into our countries? What do you think?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
[D]o we really want even a milder version of this coming into our countries? What do you think?
I think arguments premised the idea that Western nations are on the verge of adopting Sharia law are alarmist and question begging.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
Thanks for the thread, this has inspired me to actually get reading on this and explore the issues behind the headlines.
However, my gut instinct pre all this is that Sharia appears to be fundamentally opposed to equality, plurality and diversity in the way that Western Societies have come to accept and understand. This makes me wary of it. I don't really want it adopted any more than I'd want a return to medieval law codes in England.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
I'm not qualified to do so, but I'd appreciate someone knowledgeable to offer a definition of Sharia.
I suggest this, because the similar questions:
Ought we be opposed to Jihad?
and
Ought we be opposed to Taliban?
make me wonder about the possible impulsive answers.
For I know a boy named Jihad and I know a boy named Talib and I love them both.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
I womder if I could ask fo some clarification in terminology here. As an illustration of the ambiguiuty...
quote:
I have heard defences of it which seem to be apologetics for extreme versions such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, but do we really want even a milder version of this coming into our countries?
Saudi Arabia is a hardcore Sunni state, Iran a hardcore Shiite one. So, I'm gonna guess that the two versions of Sharia Law practiced in those places are pretty divergent on some matters.
Which brings me back to my broader point about what exactly we mean by Sharia Law. Is it any legal system purportedly based in Islamic theology, be it Sunni, Shiite, Ahmadiyya, whatever?
Personally, from everything I've heard in most discussions about what is called Sharia Law, it doesn't sound like something I'd want incoprorated into any legal system to which I am subject.
That said, there are some grey areas, eg. allowing Islamic family-law mediation in places where Christians are already allowed the same, and any decision handed down must confotm to secular human-rights legislation. I could maybe get behind a version of that, with the stated caveats.
EDIT: Somewhat redundant with the Acolyte.
[ 21. June 2014, 05:11: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
AIUI, there are several different versions of Sharia, and there can be quite heated disputes among Muslims who have different interpretations.
Regardless, I would not care to live in a society in which Sharia was incorporated into the civil law--and I would feel exactly the same way about Mosaic law, or RCC canon law, or any other religious code.
Allowing it to be used in family mediation (divorce, child custody, etc.), where it is voluntary and clearly subordinate to secular law, is another matter.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Allowing it to be used in family mediation (divorce, child custody, etc.), where it is voluntary and clearly subordinate to secular law, is another matter.
In Ontario a few years back, there was a push to get Sharia-based mediation recognized by family courts. Proponents pointed out that Jewish and Catholic tribunals already had such recognition.
The Liberal government decided against extending recognition to Sharia tribunals, AND also eliminated the Catholic and Jewish bodies. The latter was widely regarded as a fig-leaf, in order for the government to claim that they were upholding secularism, not targetting Islam.
Problem was, they couldn't really explain why they only started to care about secularism when Muslims came knocking on the door.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
In February 2008 Archbishop Williams caused quite a stir by suggesting elements of sharia law should be incorporated into British life. The local TV news used Dewsbury as an example of how sharia law worked within the muslim community.
Yes that is the same Dewsbury that Mohammad Sidique Khan, came from. One of the suicide bombers who had devastated the London transport system only seven months previously.
This led to conversations with a colleague (Muslim and from Pakistani origins). He was against it. He had moved from Dewsbury to Huddersfield because he felt that the way the South Asian community were applying sharia law in Dewsbury was too restrictive.
Not even all British Muslims are in favour.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Not even all British Muslims are in favour.
This, I think, is a massive understatement.
From the conversations I've had - not just with Muslims, but with people of a wide variety of backgrounds and ethnicities - one of the things, if not the thing they value most about British society is the permissive code of law, that is, more or less, equally applied and upheld.
So for Muslims, even conservative ones, that they are free to practice their religion, conduct their business and educate their children free of external religious edicts is a huge bonus, and one that most of them value very highly. They would be the people who would have most to lose if elements of Sharia were allowed in law - which would disproportionately affect them. As a minority within the UK, they should be protected from it.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
I don't think we should have any laws that are based solely on what some fuckwits claim their god told them.
Whether the fuckwits in question are Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh or Pastafarian is immaterial.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Moving on from Marvin's point, I instinctively mistrust any law based on a code. In addition to codes derived from various scriptures the Romans and Napoleon did it, and look how much they cared for the people!
I'd far rather use common and case law, which judges and juries can look after, than anything of a statutory nature, especially for civil cases, as this is all often is proposed, drafted and enacted hurriedly by politicians as a knee-jerk response to a very few horrifying incidents and a stack of "Something must be done" headlines in the popular press.
It might be less convenient for the PTB, but that's no reason to adopt any code.
[ 21. June 2014, 09:06: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Morgan
Shipmate
# 15372
|
Posted
What is any law worth if everyone has the right to decide whether or not it should apply to them, and then to act accordingly?
Why should people from countries where they drive on the right (or the left) have to conform when they visit countries where people do the opposite, even though it looks wrong, feels wrong, and I just don't want to do it?
If you don't like a law, you can remove the circumstances it governs from your particular lifestyle if that is possible (e.g. don't drive in countries where they obviously and wantonly do it wrongly), or you can campaign to change it.
Posts: 111 | From: Canberra | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The rules on ethical investment and not charging people interest are a damn good idea. I've heard that in this country, at least, there are some investment funds that were set up to comply with sharia law which attract a lot of non-Muslim investors who like having a clear idea of where there money is going.
It's not ALL sexism and hand-chopping, you know.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
We should be for the law of inclusion, pluralism, tolerance, freedom, liberalism, equity, fairness, charity, submission, egalitarianism, justice, transparency, accountability, empowerment, restitution, protection, liberation. Love.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't think we should have any laws that are based solely on what some fuckwits claim their god told them.
Whether the fuckwits in question are Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh or Pastafarian is immaterial. [/QUOTE]I might have stated it a little more gently than you, but admire the inclusion of Pastafarianism, which of the group, is the One I would agree to be included.
I suppose, without thinking about it, my original question also has to do with church, or rather mosque-state separation. However, my thought is that there are serious deficiencies of fairness and equality within Sharia law. And it conflicts with many of our ideas of fairness and justice. Religion being subordinate to the law for westerners rather than the other way round.
<<edit: magically, the post I quoted was doubled and there were 2. Or am I about to be smitten by the FSM and its noodly appendage?>>
[ 21. June 2014, 13:38: Message edited by: no prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
EXACTLY what Martin said! We can't tell people what to do in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, though there we've been trying to for more than a decade. But we can categorically state that such medieval crap has no place in Western democratic societies, and is fundamentally opposed to everything our democracies have fought to achieve for more than two hundred years.
While I accept multiculturalism in the sense of letting people do their own thing in terms of their beliefs and traditions, where those traditions negatively impact on our tolerant, democratic principles, I would have no hesitation in banning them.
Unfortunately the present situation in Iraq and Syria reinforces my view that Islam, as it's practiced in much of the world today, is totally incompatible with our Western values that we've spent a long time building, and that we will not allow those extreme Islamic values to be imported into our countries.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I would say that we should be against ANY form of explicitly-religious law system that does not allow for those who don't adhere to that faith.
Experience has shown that religious authorities abuse their power in temporal situations, without the checks and balances that a secular government has to maintain to claim any "consent-to-be-governed" from those who are governed.
Historically, governments worked on the basis of "we have always done it this way, and our Holy Book/scriptures/traditions (as interpreted by me) says so." This has been proved to be disastrous for those who so much as questioned the tenets of those laws and lawmakers.
A government that functions in allowing for a pluralistic society can at least attempt to allow for variations from the norm. Religious gov'ts. simply cannot do so without diluting their ability to speak for God (and those in power, who were obviously anointed by God - "By God, we say so")
Religious views can be allowed to inform laws, and, indeed, the theory of many religious views offers sound advice which could be helpful. Where differing sets of religious information agree, there would be a valid base for discussion.
But the experience of history is that one set of religious laws cannot be allowed to function unchecked.
I include political parties in the "religious belief" section, by the way: the rationale for believing a given political party is no more rational or safe for non-believers than is religious doctrine.
No self-defined group should have too much power, if "the rest" are to be safe.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I think I'd quite like to deposit my money in a sharia compliant way - it sounds like the original Trustee Savings Bank.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Experience has shown that religious authorities abuse their power in temporal situations, without the checks and balances that a secular government has to maintain to claim any "consent-to-be-governed" from those who are governed.
A secular state does not have to maintain any checks and balance to claim consent. See Hobbes' Leviathan. For that matter, the Rousseau-ite tradition has tended to identify the consent of the people with the general will, making checks and balances in the name of individuals contrary to the consent of the people.
History is no kinder to secular governments than it is to religious governments.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
But we can categorically state that such medieval crap has no place in Western democratic societies, and is fundamentally opposed to everything our democracies have fought to achieve for more than two hundred years.
The principle of habeas corpus is medieval. Presumably it too has no place in Western democratic societies?
What have our democracies fought to achieve over the past two hundred years? There's the British Empire. There's free trade in opium with China. There's genocide against native american populations. There's ready access to oil. Our democracies have done a lot of fighting to achieve ready access to oil. That appears to require keeping the Saudis in power, despite the fact that the Saudis are funding most of these extremist Islamic groups. I'm not seeing much conflict between repressive interpretations and what our democracies have fought to achieve there.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The rules on ethical investment and not charging people interest are a damn good idea.
....
It's not ALL sexism and hand-chopping, you know.
I agree. It would be useful to separate civil and criminal law. In civil cases Sharia law has things to recommend it from what I've seen.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
OddJob
Shipmate
# 17591
|
Posted
Let the debate run its course, I say, as do many of us old enough to have seen the rise and fall of Marxism and New Age, each seen in their day as a threat to Christianity and to British values.
Who knows - if Sharia gained further support then we may see a return of civilised, philosophical discussion in pubs and workplaces, in a way not seen since the Thatcher versus Benn and Foot era.
Surely that would create more chances to discuss Christianity than the current comfortable homogeneity, lacking any interest in discussion.
Posts: 97 | From: West Midlands | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
It is my understanding that 'sharia' as a term is comparable to 'Roman' or 'common'. France and Spain I believe both have legal systems based on Roman law, but that doesn't mean that they have the same laws. Although all sharia law has fundamental principles in common, the application of sharia may not necessitate require any specific laws. When Rowan Williams talked about this, he talked about the varieties of sharia jurisprudence, some of which are compatible with political liberal egalitarianism and pluralism. It's not a monolithic thing.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
I am actually more concerned about the laws around apostasy and treatment of infidels or righteous unbelievers. I'm not going to support a law that advocates killing people if they leave or enslaving them if they don't join.
Now, I think that some Muslim scholars are coming around to the idea that if apostasy is evil then the punishment for it should be left to God, but we do have a highly publicised news story about the woman sentenced to death for marrying her Christian Husband.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Unfortunately the present situation in Iraq and Syria reinforces my view that Islam, as it's practiced in much of the world today, is totally incompatible with our Western values that we've spent a long time building, and that we will not allow those extreme Islamic values to be imported into our countries.
The average Iraqi or Syrian would say that that kind of Islam is totally incompatible with Iraqi and/or Syrian values, and would not wish those extreme Islamic values to be asserted in THEIR countries.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
I might be waaaay off the mark here, but I was told that Sharia Law (and my understanding of it from a little bit of reading, although not an awful lot) is that it is a secular-religious interface. So in the western world it would preserve the right of religious groupings (whatever they may be) to be consulted and have full say in relation to governance, the making of law, the development of society etc, etc. Now you could say that democracy does this - which it does here - but in some places the role of religious groupings and faiths are deliberately excluded in favour of an entirely secular system. Presumably, Sharia law would enshrine a protectionism on the right to engage in the political world and to work towards recognition of the needs of religious groupings and a preservation of rights. I'm not talking about a codified law, that as I understand it, is a modern (isn) development in the Islamic world that has all sorts of controversies surrounding it and is fraught with difficulty, especially because it has been adopted in a very narrow frame by Islamic pressure groups and fundamentalists.
Essentially, to my understanding of it anyway, it is a bit of a clash of civilisations. It is bringing an eastern way of thinking to the western world, which is always going to be difficult (because the thinking is different, even though that may seem to state the obvious). I think we will probably have to deal with that clash of ways of thinking sooner or later, but it would be interesting to see it at work in the western world (with its history and the protection of current law, etc) where it could end up as a good example of best practice to all those places where Sharia Law is used as a means of control and political domination.
[ 22. June 2014, 09:18: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Slightly off, Fletcher, since the respect (or lack) accorded to any religion other than Islam in Sharia is finite and is, in any case, fluidly reinterpreted within many Islamic cultures to take into account modern political givens from an Islamic point of view.
In particular, there is the dangerous viewpoint that there is no possibility of someone born to moslem parents being anything other than a moslem: any deviation is seen as apostasy which is punishable by death.
And although in theory Islam is respectful of the other two religions 'of The Book' (Christianity and Judaism) in practice most Islamic states show precious little tolerance towards either and, in particular, frequently express visceral hatred towards Judaism and Jews.
It has tended to be the smaller sects within Islam - Alawism and Ismaili - that seem prepared to give some protection or respect to other faiths.
It is not correct to call Saudi Arabia a Sunni state, rather the strand of Islam practised in SA is Wahabbism, which is particularly hardline towards issues to do with sexual morality and control of females.
As for Sharia being applied to matters of family law in European states, this is a recipe for disaster. Yes, there are parts of the Koran and Haddith that supposedly preach of women having rights in divorce but one has to look at how Sharia is applied, rather than the theory: the bald fact is that women suffer.
Where we in parts of the West have confused the issue is in our thinking that for moslems their religion has the same status vis-a-vis law and application of civil morality as Christianity or Judaism has in societies whose legal framework could broadly be described as being Judeo-Christian in origin. For devout moslems there is no interpretation or leeway: Sharia as laid out is to be observed to the letter and civil law and rights are trumped by it every time.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Maybe what we are arguing against is not Sharia law but Sharia punishment which is what gets us all upset - it's the beheadings, stonings and hand-choppings we don't like.
Plus there is the added issue of a nation having one law for all its citizens. It's one thing having customs, but surely in the UK there is only one law - and Sharia law must never have a different rule to that which is over us all. If there is a contradiction between English law and Sharia law then English law must be uppermost at all times.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The rules on ethical investment and not charging people interest are a damn good idea. I've heard that in this country, at least, there are some investment funds that were set up to comply with sharia law which attract a lot of non-Muslim investors who like having a clear idea of where there money is going.
It's not ALL sexism and hand-chopping, you know.
People are free to invest in such a way already, we don't need Sharia law for that.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Only if they can find a bank that does it. And sharia compliance is easy to spot.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
What have our democracies fought to achieve over the past two hundred years? There's the British Empire. There's free trade in opium with China. There's genocide against native american populations.
Before you go through the litany of errors of the Britiah Empire, let me say that I'm aware that British and European history are far from glorious at times. But we have, along with the other countries we generally refer to as the West, built up domocratic principles over the last two centuries. Much of Europe went through the scourge of fascism before arriving at that point, but they are there now. An American 60's espionage program on TV called Slattery's People used to begin with the words, "Democracy is a very bad form of government, but please remember this: all the others are so much worse." I would endorse that.
What is happening with Isis in Syria and Iraq, and with the Taliban in Afghanistan is medieval barbarism at its worst. Only part of it is Sharia law. But would I oppose Sharia being imported into the UK? I most certainly would. Our democracy, as well as opposing evils like FGM, should also oppose stonings, limb amputations and the enforcement of any form of militant Islamic law on our streets. It's an alien concept which has no place within our albeit imperfect democratic institutions.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by L'organist:
quote:
Slightly off, Fletcher, since the respect (or lack) accorded to any religion other than Islam in Sharia is finite........In particular, there is the dangerous viewpoint that there is no possibility of someone born to moslem parents being anything other than a moslem: any deviation is seen as apostasy which is punishable by death.
But is this not to do with modern interpretation of Sharia by the more hard line and fundamentalist groupings? It would be like picking a fundamentalist sect of Christianity and saying it represents the whole and they way it interprets scripture is how the vast majority of Christians do it. To suggest such a thing would idiotic.
quote:
For devout moslems there is no interpretation or leeway: Sharia as laid out is to be observed to the letter and civil law and rights are trumped by it every time.
Maybe I've been very lucky, but I have never met any of these fundamentalist Muslims that you call 'devout'. I've met conservative ones - just as I have met conservative Christians - and none of them were out to get me, hang me as an infidel, oppress my women friends or change all law that applied to me. Most of them I would have described as 'devout' or very 'dedicated', but I wouldn't have confused that with fundamentalist or extreme.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by PaulTH:
quote:
What is happening with Isis in Syria and Iraq, and with the Taliban in Afghanistan is medieval barbarism at its worst. Only part of it is Sharia law. But would I oppose Sharia being imported into the UK? I most certainly would. Our democracy, as well as opposing evils like FGM, should also oppose stonings, limb amputations and the enforcement of any form of militant Islamic law on our streets. It's an alien concept which has no place within our albeit imperfect democratic institutions.
It would be impossible to introduce that sort of Sharia into the UK at present because, as signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights, we have an explicit treaty commitment to eschew that sort of thing. It's an irony that those UK politicians who purport to be most concerned about creeping Sharia are also those who are most hostile to the European Convention.
My own view is that Sharia, or any other religious jurisdiction is acceptable on those terms. Your hotline to the Almighty does not give you a veto over my human rights.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Only if they can find a bank that does it. And sharia compliance is easy to spot.
Places with names like Arab Bank are pretty easy to spot.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The rules on ethical investment and not charging people interest are a damn good idea. I've heard that in this country, at least, there are some investment funds that were set up to comply with sharia law which attract a lot of non-Muslim investors who like having a clear idea of where there money is going.
It's not ALL sexism and hand-chopping, you know.
But in practice, much Sharia-compliant finance is compliant only because the arrangements are intentionally evaluated on legal form rather than substance. This then creates tension when the arrangements have to be accounted for, since IFRS accounting (and most regional GAAPs) look at substance over form. There's a lot of head-scratching now as to whether there should be accounting rules for Sharia finance that allow accounting for legal form, or even expressed intention, rather than substance. My view is that there should not be different rules. If something is, in substance, a finance charge or finance income, it should be accounted for as such, even if the legal form of the arrangement is that there is "no interest".
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Only if they can find a bank that does it. And sharia compliance is easy to spot.
Places with names like Arab Bank are pretty easy to spot.
But not necessarily where one happens to be.
It's not absence of interest that interests me, but the direct involvement with investing in someone's business in the old fashioned way before trading in such a way that the work of the business is not benefitted by the money became the norm. If that makes sense.
[ 23. June 2014, 13:46: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
[D]o we really want even a milder version of this coming into our countries? What do you think?
I think arguments premised the idea that Western nations are on the verge of adopting Sharia law are alarmist and question begging.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Somehow the question I put after that got lost - and it has already been answered several times above. Apologies.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by leo quote:
Isn't canon law part of the law of England yet is a religious law.
No, not the case.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
Yes it is a religpus law of Islam . Thus in western countries it would be oppossed to toleration , the rights of women. One wonders how they would feel if a "Christian" law system was impossed in the mid east ?
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Yes, there is much of canon law in English law - hence it is different to the legal system in Europe, which is based on Roman law.
The way that we 'do' law in the country however is based on democrtic legislation, equity, case law and precedent
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by leo quote:
Isn't canon law part of the law of England yet is a religious law.
No, not the case.
Evidence?
I am sure you are wrong - all of Canon law is part of English law - Pete173 made a long case for this some time ago when we were discussing the seal of the confessional and whether canon law trumped any other law.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
Now, I think that some Muslim scholars are coming around to the idea that if apostasy is evil then the punishment for it should be left to God, but we do have a highly publicised news story about the woman sentenced to death for marrying her Christian Husband.
My understanding is that the majority of schools of sharia are of the opinion that, although apostasy is indeed punishable by death, the offender should have their whole lifespan in which to repent. Which is a near-Jesuitical means of rendering the sentence unenforceable.
My source for this is a book by the Barnabas Trust, who don't exactly have a repuation for being liberal apologists for Islam ...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I most certainly would. Our democracy, as well as opposing evils like FGM, should also oppose stonings, limb amputations and the enforcement of any form of militant Islamic law on our streets. It's an alien concept which has no place within our albeit imperfect democratic institutions.
My main concern here is the strong undertow of them and us - 'our democracy' 'over the past two hundred years we have built up democratic principles'. Our democracy belongs to all of us citizens, including those of us who are far right lunatics and those of us who are militant Islamicists.
Also, as I understand it, sharia does not necessarily entail limb amputation; that depends upon the school of jurisprudence adhered to.
Finally, it's simply scaremongering to consider limb amputation as a practical possibility. Where sharia is being countenanced in the UK is that AIUI our law allows civil legal disputes to be settled by any mutually agreeable arbitration method. It's clearly discrimination to say that the law should allow any mutually agreeable arbitration method as long as it's not religious.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arminian
Shipmate
# 16607
|
Posted
How about we adjust our legal system to allow anyone to rape a Muslim woman and then put her in jail for adultery if she complains. Or anyone who leaves the C of E and becomes a Muslim to be put to death. Or make the testimony of anyone in the C of E greater than that of a Muslim so its practically impossible for a Muslim to get justice.
If anyone complains about it, we'll accuse them of being Church-o-phobic and threaten them whilst simultaneously claiming we are tolerant.
(I'm being sarcastic - clearly many implementations of sharia law are a bigoted attempt to spread Islam by fear and discrimination, or even violence in some states. Our legal system is far from perfect, but streets ahead of what is on offer for many suffering under this medieval and barbaric system).
Posts: 157 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
I think anyone who is opposed to
Equal treatment regardless of gender or faith.
Freedom for consenting adults to engage in homosexual acts
Freedom of speech
Economic and social rights for women
should be "for" Sharia law If you are not opposed to these things, how could you possibly endorse Sharia Law?
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
Sorry for the double post but this research conducted by the Islamic Women's Welfare Council in Victoria is why I am vehmently opposed to ANY acceptance of Sharia law for anyone and I'll go to the wall to protect any Australian citizen from this sort of injustice.
quote:
From the Age
"The report says some imams apply Sharia (Islamic law) when it benefits men but not when it benefits women, and that they hinder police from pursuing domestic violence charges.
Women seeking divorces have also been told by imams that they must leave "with only the clothes on their back" and not seek support or a share of property because they can get welfare payments.
And the report says some imams knowingly perform polygamous marriages, also knowing that the second wife, a de facto under Australian law, can claim Centrelink payments.
The report is based on a study commissioned and funded by the former Howard government and conducted by the Islamic Women's Welfare Council of Victoria.
It was presented yesterday at a National Centre for Excellence in Islamic Studies conference at Melbourne University.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/local-muslim-clerics-accused-20081120-6ctp.html#ixzz35WanOYKT
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Agreed; I find the whole prospect rather threatening to our western liberal values that have been hard won particularly over the last century.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
