Thread: Should we be against Sharia Law? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027418
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
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?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
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.
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
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.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
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.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
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.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
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.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
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.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
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.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
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.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Morgan (# 15372) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
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.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
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 ]
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
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.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
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.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I think I'd quite like to deposit my money in a sharia compliant way - it sounds like the original Trustee Savings Bank.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
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.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
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.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
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.
Posted by OddJob (# 17591) on
:
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.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
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.
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
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 ]
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
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.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
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.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Only if they can find a bank that does it. And sharia compliance is easy to spot.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
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.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
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.
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
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.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
In February 2008 Archbishop Williams caused quite a stir by suggesting elements of sharia law should be incorporated into British life.
That is what he is said to have said. What he actually said was this quote:
The Archbishop made no proposals for sharia in either the lecture or the interview, and certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law.
Instead, in the interview, rather than proposing a parallel system of law, he observed that "as a matter of fact certain provisions of sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law" . When the question was put to him that: "the application of sharia in certain circumstances - if we want to achieve this cohesion and take seriously peoples' religion - seems unavoidable?", he indicated his assent.
The full text of the lecture which sparked that particular furore can be found on a page on the Rowan Williams Archbishop of Canterbury web site which begins with a helpful summary of his argument.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
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.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
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".
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
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 ]
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
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.
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
Somehow the question I put after that got lost - and it has already been answered several times above. Apologies.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Isn't canon law part of the law of England yet is a religious law.
If we can't have sharia law, maybe we should get rid of canon law too.
And rabbinical courts.
Then people of all religions would be equal under the law.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by leo quote:
Isn't canon law part of the law of England yet is a religious law.
No, not the case.
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
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 ?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
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
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
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.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
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 ...
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
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.
Posted by Arminian (# 16607) on
:
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).
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
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?
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
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
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Agreed; I find the whole prospect rather threatening to our western liberal values that have been hard won particularly over the last century.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
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.
There's a fairly succinct statement of the position on the Church of England's website. Canon Law - the legal system by which the Church orders its own affairs is legislation requiring Royal Assent, thus it is 'law of the land' (as are Measures passed by General Synod).
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
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.
This statement is a bit muddly. The English common law courts now have jurisdiction over many areas which were once the responsibility of the Ecclesiastical Courts these areas (not quite the same as Canon Law) included disputes relating to marriage, divorce, wills, and defamation. In these areas, English law still reflects in some respects the principles and practices of the Ecclesiastical Courts which operated under a civil law system (as is common in Europe) rather than the more usual English common law system.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to reflect on Evangeline's post on the previous page.
English Law already allows religious courts to operate within its jurisdiction as this BBC news story indicates. In English legal terms the parties are entering into a binding civil (i.e. outside the court system) arbitration. It doesn't, however, override the law of the land, and in some circumstances is open to review by the English courts. This seems also to be the case in Australia.
It is already possible for elements of Sharia law to operate in the same way.
In the case of the Beth Din, the fairly well-known problem is where a couple get a divorce in the English courts, but where in order for it to be recognised within their community they need a judgment from the Beth Din, and the man (usually) is obstructive about that process. Thus the law treats the parties as divorced, but the community will not do so, and a Jewish marriage is then unavailable to someone wanting to remarry. (There are analogous issues for Roman Catholics, of course.)
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
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.
These are against the teachings of the Qur'an and the hadith and so are misinterpretations of sharia.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to reflect on Evangeline's post on the previous page.
English Law already allows religious courts to operate within its jurisdiction as this BBC news story indicates. In English legal terms the parties are entering into a binding civil (i.e. outside the court system) arbitration. It doesn't, however, override the law of the land, and in some circumstances is open to review by the English courts. This seems also to be the case in Australia.
It is already possible for elements of Sharia law to operate in the same way.
In the case of the Beth Din, the fairly well-known problem is where a couple get a divorce in the English courts, but where in order for it to be recognised within their community they need a judgment from the Beth Din, and the man (usually) is obstructive about that process. Thus the law treats the parties as divorced, but the community will not do so, and a Jewish marriage is then unavailable to someone wanting to remarry. (There are analogous issues for Roman Catholics, of course.)
Yes I'm aware of the "limping marriage" and also the operation of Sharia law within Australia, that's what the report I quoted was looking into-how Sharia was being applied in Victoria. I remain vehemently opposed to its operation anywhere.
Posted by Arminian (# 16607) on
:
"These are against the teachings of the Qur'an and the hadith and so are misinterpretations of sharia."
Well this is always the defense isn't it. However I'm struggling to see any country where Muslims are in the majority where Sharia law doesn't discriminate in some way against non Muslims. Try naming one.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
And here's another example of Sharia in action.
Thanks, but no.
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
... I'm struggling to see any country where Muslims are in the majority where Sharia law doesn't discriminate in some way against non Muslims. Try naming one.
You couldn't find a Muslim majority country were "Sharia law" doesn't "discriminate ... against non Muslims"? You wrote that you were "struggling to find" such a country - what, specifically, did you do to find one? I used a popular search engine. It took less than a minute to find the first example.
Bangladesh has its problems but their "constitution and other laws and policies protect religious freedom and, in practice, the government generally respected religious freedom... ". They're reportedly 90% Muslim. In Burkina Faso "The constitution and other laws and policies protect religious freedom and, in practice, the government generally respected religious freedom." They're 59% Muslim. Mali isn't perfect either (but do countries with large Christian populations always have terrific human rights records?) but at least "The constitution and other laws and policies protect religious freedom and, in practice, the government generally respected religious freedom in the regions over which it retained control. "
[ 25. June 2014, 12:08: Message edited by: Alwyn ]
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
... I'm struggling to see any country where Muslims are in the majority where Sharia law doesn't discriminate in some way against non Muslims. Try naming one.
You couldn't find a Muslim majority country were "Sharia law" doesn't "discriminate ... against non Muslims"? You wrote that you were "struggling to find" such a country - what, specifically, did you do to find one? I used a popular search engine. It took less than a minute to find the first example.
Bangladesh has its problems but their "constitution and other laws and policies protect religious freedom and, in practice, the government generally respected religious freedom... ". They're reportedly 90% Muslim. In Burkina Faso "The constitution and other laws and policies protect religious freedom and, in practice, the government generally respected religious freedom." They're 59% Muslim. Mali isn't perfect either (but do countries with large Christian populations always have terrific human rights records?) but at least "The constitution and other laws and policies protect religious freedom and, in practice, the government generally respected religious freedom in the regions over which it retained control. "
Pfffttt, religious freedom doesn't mean an absence of legal discrimination against non-Muslims.
quote:
The Constitution of Bangladesh originally envisaged the State as a secular polity where politics was to be completely immune of religion.6 However, the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution declared “Islam” as the state religion effectively creating a class distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims. Even though the 15th Amendment to the Constitution in 2011 restored secularism as a ’fundamental principles of State policy’, its retention of Islam as the state religion is antithetical to the achievement of secularism and serves to entrench discrimination between Muslim and non-Muslim citizens of Bangladesh. Discrimination against religious minorities by the State has also occurred through the medium of abusive laws aimed at depriving religious minorities of their land, most specifically the Vested Property Act.7 Religious minorities have also faced discrimination in access to protection from the state in cases of communal violence. Reports from international human rights organisations recorded this disturbing trend in the past with respect to the Ahmadiyya community, sporadic attacks on Buddhist temples in the CHT and more recently, in case of attacks against Buddhists in Ramu.8
[B][/B]
I challenge you to find an example of the operation of Sharia law anywhere in the world where women have the same legal rights as men.
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on
:
You seem to think that I want to defend Sharia law. Actually, I'm with Marvin the Martian. I'm against the implementation of Sharia law (in particular, in its authoritarian form with violent punishments) in the UK in the same way that I am against a UK government made up of members of the Lord's Resistance Army - or a group of Daleks and Cybermen.
Asking 'should we be against Sharia Law' (in the sense that many people mean) is about as meaningful as asking 'should we be against a government of Daleks and Cybermen'.
Bluntly, a lot of this debate seems like an excuse for some Christians to talk about Muslims as if the most violent and extreme Muslims were the norm. As Doc Tor pointed out, it isn't like that. Some Christians seem determined to act like the Pharisee in Luke 18: 'God, I thank you that I am not like others, like those Muslims...'
For me, a lot of this debate comes across as an excuse for Christians to be nasty about Muslims in a way that Christians would be rightly outraged about, if Muslims did the same thing to us. (Before someone posts a link to an example of that, I refer you to the word 'rightly' in the previous sentence.) With exceptions (such as people who point out that Sharia law isn't always what some people think it is), when I read this thread, I'm ashamed to call myself a Christian.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
"These are against the teachings of the Qur'an and the hadith and so are misinterpretations of sharia."
Well this is always the defense isn't it. However I'm struggling to see any country where Muslims are in the majority where Sharia law doesn't discriminate in some way against non Muslims. Try naming one.
Since the break up of the Ottoman Empire, Islamic scholarship has disintegrated and is largely in the pay of dictators and corrupt leaders who use Islam to further their causes.
It is no different that the way Christians defend bad actions by saying 'they aren't proper Christians'.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
Bluntly, a lot of this debate seems like an excuse for some Christians to talk about Muslims as if the most violent and extreme Muslims were the norm. As Doc Tor pointed out, it isn't like that. Some Christians seem determined to act like the Pharisee in Luke 18: 'God, I thank you that I am not like others, like those Muslims...'
For me, a lot of this debate comes across as an excuse for Christians to be nasty about Muslims in a way that Christians would be rightly outraged about, if Muslims did the same thing to us. (Before someone posts a link to an example of that, I refer you to the word 'rightly' in the previous sentence.) With exceptions (such as people who point out that Sharia law isn't always what some people think it is), when I read this thread, I'm ashamed to call myself a Christian.
I haven't seen that; I have seen people rightly concerned about human rights, particularly the rights of women, rather than 'Muslim-bashing' on this thread.
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
There's a fairly important distinction between 'Muslims' and 'Sharia Law'. Saying you don't think English Law ought to uphold the outcome of Sharia tribunals where they aren't in conformity with Common and Statute Law and the ECHR is no more anti-Muslim than it is anti-Anglican to object to the Test and Corporation Acts.
Virtually no-one with an IQ in triple figures objects, I assume, to two Muslims asking an Imam to resolve a private dispute. Everyone, I hope, thinks that nicking a tin of beans from Sainsburys ought not to result in having one's hand chopped off, (which I don't think anyone grown-up in the west thinks is seriously likely). The contentious bit, really, is to what extent sharia might allow for informal tribunals which judge family cases by standards that we would be unhappy with if our own daughters well being was at stake; and to what extent vigilantism might be preferred by Muslim communities to calling in the Old Bill.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
It's about being sure that the parties to the kind of alternative dispute resolution (which, BTW, I'm all in favour of as I'm not a litigator ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
) presented by sharia are totally free to make that choice to submit to this form of ADR. There's quite a bit of evidence to suggest, for example, that if you don't possess a willy, you might not be as free to do so as someone who does have said appendage.
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I haven't seen that; I have seen people rightly concerned about human rights, particularly the rights of women, rather than 'Muslim-bashing' on this thread.
I see you as a fair-minded person. You may well be right that people's comments are genuinely motivated by a desire to protect human rights, especially women's human rights. A great Christian wouldn't have accused people of Muslim-bashing. A good Christian would probably apologise and withdraw the accusation. Unfortunately, I'm a bad (and suspicious-minded) Christian.
Many people who took part in the paranoia and persecution in the period of McCarthyism may have been genuinely motivated by a desire to protect liberty and prevent Communist oppression. Some members of the House Un-American Activities Committee may have wanted to protect Americans from persecution, not persecute Americans themselves. However, I doubt that such genuine intentions meant much to innocent Americans whose lives were damaged. As I see it, countries like Australia, Britain and the United States are about as likely to be taken over by people who want to impose Sharia as America was likely to be taken over from within by Communist sympathisers at the height of McCarthyist paranoia.
As I see it, it's possible to act from the best intentions while bashing suspected Communists or Muslims at the same time. Crœsos's point was a good one: 'arguments premised on the idea that Western nations are on the verge of adopting Sharia law are alarmist and question begging'. This debate reminds me of a student debate years ago. The motion was something like 'This House believes that lesbian and gay people make a contribution to society' (?!). One student stood up to argue that, while, people may have set up the debate from the best of motivations, putting the debate in those terms was unhelpful - it implied that there was a real argument to be had. Don't get me wrong - I'm for free speech and people should be able to debate whatever question they want - my point is that debate topics are more alarmist and question-begging than others.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
The Constitution of Bangladesh originally envisaged the State as a secular polity where politics was to be completely immune of religion.6 However, the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution declared “Islam” as the state religion effectively creating a class distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims.
Does the adoption of the C of E as the state religion in England effectively create a class distinction between Anglicans and non-Anglicans?
I realise that many atheists get annoyed by it, but most Muslims in England say they don't think so.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
You seem to think that I want to defend Sharia law. Actually, I'm with Marvin the Martian. I'm against the implementation of Sharia law (in particular, in its authoritarian form with violent punishments) in the UK in the same way that I am against a UK government made up of members of the Lord's Resistance Army - or a group of Daleks and Cybermen.
Asking 'should we be against Sharia Law' (in the sense that many people mean) is about as meaningful as asking 'should we be against a government of Daleks and Cybermen'.
Bluntly, a lot of this debate seems like an excuse for some Christians to talk about Muslims as if the most violent and extreme Muslims were the norm. As Doc Tor pointed out, it isn't like that. Some Christians seem determined to act like the Pharisee in Luke 18: 'God, I thank you that I am not like others, like those Muslims...'
For me, a lot of this debate comes across as an excuse for Christians to be nasty about Muslims in a way that Christians would be rightly outraged about, if Muslims did the same thing to us. (Before someone posts a link to an example of that, I refer you to the word 'rightly' in the previous sentence.) With exceptions (such as people who point out that Sharia law isn't always what some people think it is), when I read this thread, I'm ashamed to call myself a Christian.
This is a nasty, accusatory and baseless attack.
1.A number of people, including me, have given examples of the operation of Sharia law in the UK and Australia so it's not meaningless to talk about its operation. The study I quoted objecting to the application of Sharia law was conducted by the Islamic Women's Welfare Council, so it's not some hysterical made up nonsense about something that doesn't exist.
2 You make the bold claim that "a lot of this debate is an excuse for Christians to be nasty about Muslims..." so back this up please, examples, that add up to "a lot" please. Otherwise we'll wait for your apology.
3 I laugh at your accusation of people on this thread being Pharisaical. There are some Christians who are so eager to point the finger at others for being intolerant that they turn a blind eye to the legalised subjegation of women, abuse of girls and mistreatment of LGBT people and make nasty accusations about those who won't turn a blind eye. I'm ashamed to be a Christian when I'm accused of being intolerant of mistreatment, like it's a bad thing.
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
This is a nasty, accusatory and baseless attack.
You're right, I'm attacking. I'm attacking the idea that it's meaningful to debate whether we should be against Sharia law, as if that was a real question. Of course we should be against Sharia law! Of course we're against discrimination and human rights violations. What sort of debate were you expecting to have?
You're right, I'm accusing. I'm accusing people of Muslim-bashing. I notice that you paid no regard whatsoever to my acceptance of Matt Black's point that people are genuinely motivated to protect human rights. When I pointed to positive things that Islamic majority governments are doing to promote religious tolerance, you dismissed that out of hand.
Nasty? You are right. I was nasty and I am sorry.
I was very angry when I wrote my first posts on this thread. I was angry because I've seen too many sweeping, one-sided statements by some Christians about Muslims on the Ship. Statements that I would never hear Muslim friends make about Christians. Do you want to know my motivation for intervening? I get angry when my friends are the subject of sweeping, one-sided attacks by Christians. Wouldn't you?
Too many people have said things (on this thread and others before it) along the lines of "Islam has been from the start a religion which aims at a Muslim state, Sharia law, etc. Even sensible Islam is therefore basically repressive, persecutory, and warlike", or "Islam could orchestrate mass demos, flag burning and letters to the press over some cartons". Notice the sweeping statements - 'Islam', not 'some Muslims'.
Too many people have said things along the lines of "Islam [not some interpretations of Islam] is incompatible with our values, or that "Islamic states [not some Islamic states] show visceral hatred towards Jews, or that "Muslims" (not some Muslims) want to punish with death people who leave Islam (to be fair to L'organist, you acknowledged that 'smaller sects' in Islam act differently - but even there you seemed to say that this is the exception not the norm in Islam). These kind of posts go on and on.
How hard is it to say 'some interpretations of Islam' or 'some Muslims'? When people like orfeo step in and point out that "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.", do people on your side of the debate show any acknowledgement of that? To be fair, a few fair-minded people probably do - but I don't see any changes in the sweeping statements that some people make about 'Islam' and 'Muslims'.
When fletcher christian observed (of the death penalty for converting from Islam) was "this not to do with modern interpretation of Sharia by the more hard line and fundamentalist groupings?", did you accept that fletcher christian had a point? When Doc Tor pointed out that British Muslims are normally against imposing Sharia law, did you show any acknowledgement of that? When orfeo talked about ethical investment and said "It's not ALL sexism and hand-chopping, you know.", did you show any acknowledgement of orfeo's point? No - you dismissed it.
When I gave examples of efforts by governments in Muslim-majority countries to defend religious freedom, did you acknowledge anything good about Muslim-majority countries? Your response was "Pfffttt". When Matt Black rightly stepped in to correct my angry post, I acknowledged that he was probably right about the good motivations of people on your side of the debate. I see no such ackowledgement from you.
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
1.A number of people, including me, have given examples of the operation of Sharia law in the UK and Australia so it's not meaningless to talk about its operation. The study I quoted objecting to the application of Sharia law was conducted by the Islamic Women's Welfare Council, so it's not some hysterical made up nonsense about something that doesn't exist.
You missed the point of my analogy with McCarthyism. There were Soviet spies and Communist sympathisers in the United States at that time - they weren't worried about "something that [didn't] exist". Of course I'm against imposing Sharia law in the UK, of course I realise that some Muslims do terrible things and of course I'm against them. The fact that there was a real Communist threat didn't make McCarthyist paranoia a good thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
2 You make the bold claim that "a lot of this debate is an excuse for Christians to be nasty about Muslims..." so back this up please, examples, that add up to "a lot" please. Otherwise we'll wait for your apology.
I had already indicated that, as I see it, debating whether we should be against Sharia law is as meaningful as debating whether lesbian and gay people make a contribution to society. The whole set-up of this debate seems dodgy. I've given examples from this thread and elsewhere. If I'm going to make a second apology, it will be for not saying 'debates on the Ship about Islam' rather than 'this debate' - as I was responding in anger to the totality of many things that I've read on recent Ship threads about 'Muslims' and 'Islam', not just comments on this thread. If you want an apology for that, then I am sorry.
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
3 I laugh at your accusation of people on this thread being Pharisaical. There are some Christians who are so eager to point the finger at others for being intolerant that they turn a blind eye to the legalised subjegation of women, abuse of girls and mistreatment of LGBT people and make nasty accusations about those who won't turn a blind eye. I'm ashamed to be a Christian when I'm accused of being intolerant of mistreatment, like it's a bad thing.
Yes, I've noticed that you laugh at people who disagree with you in this thread. Laughter can be a very effective way of appealing to a crowd and winding up your opponent in a debate, but it's not a great way to claim moral high ground.
Of course, I'm against human rights violations. If your work involves opposing mistreatment, then what you're doing deserves the highest praise and respect. I'm also against sweeping, one-sided statements about Muslims - is it too much to ask Christians to be against both human rights violations and making sweeping, judgemental statements about 'Islam' and 'Muslims'?
[ 26. June 2014, 06:35: Message edited by: Alwyn ]
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
Alwyn perhaps if you wound back your 'righteous' anger you would engage with and comprehend what people are saying and not with what you think they're saying.
I did not miss your irrelevant point about McCarthyism. You totally missed my objection to Sharia law. Understand that I have never said that Sharia law is a threat to me personally or to Australian society in general. If you bothered to read what I said:
quote:
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.
That's got nothing to do with McCarthyism and everything to do with protecting real Australian Islamic women from documented injustices being
currently meted out by some of the Immans and attested to by Islamic women. To claim that this has any parallel with McCarthyism is just nonsensical and leads me to believe you don't understand that Sharia law is being applied within certain communities. Australian and UK citizens are being subjected to SHaria law it's not a threat either perceived or real from outside it's actually happening here and now. I don't want any fellow-citizens subject to injustice.
Yet another error in argument from you was to attempt to refute a claim that majority Muslim states always discriminate against non-Muslims by countering with examples of some states who allow religious freedom. Religious freedom and discrimination against non-Muslims are 2 quite separate issues. So of course I dismissed your argument out of hand because you were not arguing the point Arminian had made but a completely different one.
It is ridiculous that you would expect me to acknowledge quote:
anything good about Muslim majority countries
when the debate wasn't about whether they were good or bad, it was simply whether or not there were examples of ones in which the legal system did not discriminate against non-Muslims. Of course there are good things about Muslim majority countries, but what's that got to do with the discussion of whether we should be against Sharia law?
I acknowledged Orfeo's point about finance, I responded to him by saying that people were already free to invest in such a way without accepting Sharia law within their state. When Penny, I think it was said something about these investment products being hard to find I suggested Arab Bank which offers such products in my country. So yet another false accusation from you.
I haven't acknowledged every argument made on this thread but big deal, who does? I never claimed that every Muslim wanted Sharia law nor made any claims about capital or corporal punishment so why would I acknowledge those points Indeed, if you bothered to read what I said I claimed only that Sharia law was not in favour or freedom of speech, equal rights for women or the right to engage in homosexual acts. Did you acknowledge this point?
You've also failed to prove that "a lot of this thread is an excuse for CHristians to be nasty about Muslims" , I think you provided one example and then a whole lot of unsubstantiated claims about what has, supposedly been said elsewhere on the ship. Just a reminder you said specifically "this thread" so examples from elsewhere are irrelevant.
I am sorry that you feel upset by perceived slights against Islam and/or Muslims but that doesn't justify you arguing on this thread against things that were never said.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I haven't seen that; I have seen people rightly concerned about human rights, particularly the rights of women, rather than 'Muslim-bashing' on this thread.
I see you as a fair-minded person. You may well be right that people's comments are genuinely motivated by a desire to protect human rights, especially women's human rights. A great Christian wouldn't have accused people of Muslim-bashing. A good Christian would probably apologise and withdraw the accusation. Unfortunately, I'm a bad (and suspicious-minded) Christian.
Thanks for thinking of me as fair-minded, a sentiment which I am pleased to reciprocate.
quote:
Many people who took part in the paranoia and persecution in the period of McCarthyism may have been genuinely motivated by a desire to protect liberty and prevent Communist oppression. Some members of the House Un-American Activities Committee may have wanted to protect Americans from persecution, not persecute Americans themselves. However, I doubt that such genuine intentions meant much to innocent Americans whose lives were damaged. As I see it, countries like Australia, Britain and the United States are about as likely to be taken over by people who want to impose Sharia as America was likely to be taken over from within by Communist sympathisers at the height of McCarthyist paranoia.
As I see it, it's possible to act from the best intentions while bashing suspected Communists or Muslims at the same time. Crœsos's point was a good one: 'arguments premised on the idea that Western nations are on the verge of adopting Sharia law are alarmist and question begging'. This debate reminds me of a student debate years ago. The motion was something like 'This House believes that lesbian and gay people make a contribution to society' (?!). One student stood up to argue that, while, people may have set up the debate from the best of motivations, putting the debate in those terms was unhelpful - it implied that there was a real argument to be had. Don't get me wrong - I'm for free speech and people should be able to debate whatever question they want - my point is that debate topics are more alarmist and question-begging than others.
Except that neither of the two examples you've given are quite on all fours with examples of (the abuse of*) Sharia Law in action: in the late 1940s and early 1950s, for example, with the possible exception of Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs (which were to do with the leaking of state secrets rather than direct communist subversion), you'd be hard-pressed to find a genuine example of communist oppression and threat to Americans (different story if you lived east of the Elbe of course, but that's not what the House Committee hearings were concerned with). In contrast, you can find numerous examples of violence, persecution, and abuse of human rights carried out in the name of Sharia. Thus, while McCarthyism may have been motivated by paranoia and hysteria, I think you have to allow that concern about Sharia may be more fact-based (that doesn't mean that there isn't fear, loathing and paranoia in the mix, particularly on a dog-whistle, red-top populist level, just that I haven't seen evidence of it on this thread).
*I'm quite happy to accept that at least some of the horror stories stem from the abuse rather than strict adherence to Sharia, but that still to my mind lends more than an air of discrediting to the concept as a whole; a parallel there might be to say that the antics of Westboro Baptist may result from an abuse of a fundamentalist approach to Biblical interpretation of certain Scriptures from eg: Leviticus, but if the fundamentalist homophobic interpretation wasn't there in the first place, Westboro wouldn't have had anything 'Christian' on which to hang their stance.
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
... I think you provided one example ...
Several examples of things said on this thread, actually.
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
... and then a whole lot of unsubstantiated claims about what has, supposedly been said elsewhere on the ship. Just a reminder you said specifically "this thread" so examples from elsewhere are irrelevant.
'Unsubstantiated' claims to what has 'supposedly' been said elsewhere? You want links, you can have links:
"Islam has been from the start a religion which aims at a Muslim state, Sharia law, etc. Even sensible Islam is therefore basically repressive, persecutory, and warlike" Link 1
"Islam could orchestrate mass demos, flag burning and letters to the press over some cartons". Link 2
Yes, I said 'this thread'. I also said that, looking back, I was responding to the totality of what I see as Muslim-bashing on this and other threads. You continue to ignore or dismiss anything that is inconvenient for your argument. Everyone is entitled to their own views, but not their own facts.
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I claimed only that Sharia law was not in favour or freedom of speech, equal rights for women or the right to engage in homosexual acts. Did you acknowledge this point?
There you go again. You asked for examples. When I provided them, you dismissed them. You seem to keep trying to push me into defending Sharia law. I've told you that I'm against Sharia law; you seem to want to ignore that. The debate you seem to want to have is one in which you can attack someone for defending human rights violations. I'm not going to be the 'straw bogeyman' that you seem to want to debate with. I suggest that you get down from your (metaphorical) 'high horse' and step away from the self-righteous bluster.
Thank you, Matt Black, for your kind comment.
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
"you'd be hard-pressed to find a genuine example of communist oppression and threat to Americans (different story if you lived east of the Elbe of course, but that's not what the House Committee hearings were concerned with). In contrast, you can find numerous examples of violence, persecution, and abuse of human rights carried out in the name of Sharia
That's a good point. It sounds like you know more about McCarthyism than I do. It is far from a perfect analogy. I think my analogy works a bit, in a limited way. As you said, human rights violations did happen in Communist countries. In my analogy, I see extremist, violent Muslims today as the equivalent of the Soviet agents and Communist sympathisers in that era. The many Muslims who don't fit that description and who are being tarred by sweeping statements about 'Islam' and Muslims' are, as I see it, the equivalent of ordinary left-wing Americans whose lives were affected when people caught up in McCarthyism stopped seeing a distinction between 'Communist agent' and 'ordinary left-wing person'.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Alwyn
I'm against the implementation of Sharia law (in particular, in its authoritarian form with violent punishments) in the UK in the same way that I am against a UK government made up of members of the Lord's Resistance Army - or a group of Daleks and Cybermen.
Asking 'should we be against Sharia Law' (in the sense that many people mean) is about as meaningful as asking 'should we be against a government of Daleks and Cybermen'.
Ok, so you're against Sharia law but you are asserting that it is as fanciful to discuss the operation of Sharia in the UK, as it would be to discuss the UK government being comprised of fictional characters.
Gildas and Matt Black and I point out that nobody is claiming the government is going to be overthrown and replaced with Sharia law but that Sharia law does operate to varying degrees within the UK and Australian Muslim communities.
quote:
Gildas Virtually no-one with an IQ in triple figures objects, I assume, to two Muslims asking an Imam to resolve a private dispute. Everyone, I hope, thinks that nicking a tin of beans from Sainsburys ought not to result in having one's hand chopped off, (which I don't think anyone grown-up in the west thinks is seriously likely). The contentious bit, really, is to what extent sharia might allow for informal tribunals which judge family cases by standards that we would be unhappy with if our own daughters well being was at stake; and to what extent vigilantism might be preferred by Muslim communities to calling in the Old Bill.
quote:
Matt Black
It's about being sure that the parties to the kind of alternative dispute resolution (which, BTW, I'm all in favour of as I'm not a litigator ) presented by sharia are totally free to make that choice to submit to this form of ADR. There's quite a bit of evidence to suggest, for example, that if you don't possess a willy, you might not be as free to do so as someone who does have said appendage.
quote:
Evangeline 1.A number of people, including me, have given examples of the operation of Sharia law in the UK and Australia so it's not meaningless to talk about its operation. The study I quoted objecting to the application of Sharia law was conducted by the Islamic Women's Welfare Council, so it's not some hysterical made up nonsense about something that doesn't exist.
You totally ignore this and soldier on with your straw man that to discuss whether or not Sharia Law is a good thing is to be paranoid that your entire nation is to over turn its legal system in favour of Sharia and/or is Muslim bashing.
quote:
Alwyn
As I see it, countries like Australia, Britain and the United States are about as likely to be taken over by people who want to impose Sharia as America was likely to be taken over from within by Communist sympathisers at the height of McCarthyist paranoia.
Yes, we've already pointed out nobody is talking about Australia, Britain or the US being taken over but you choose to ignore this.
The strawman goes on, you know, repeating your misunderstanding of the debate doesn't make your misunderstanding correct.
quote:
ALwyn
I had already indicated that, as I see it, debating whether we should be against Sharia law is as meaningful as debating whether lesbian and gay people make a contribution to society. The whole set-up of this debate seems dodgy.
and yet again
quote:
Alwyn
You seem to keep trying to push me into defending Sharia law. I've told you that I'm against Sharia law; you seem to want to ignore that. The debate you seem to want to have is one in which you can attack someone for defending human rights violations.
No I'm not pushing you into defending sharia law, I'm asking you to acknowledge that Sharia Law does operate in the UK and Australia and that it is neither fanciful, paranoid or bigoted to discuss the operation of Sharia law and whether or not this is a good thing.
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on
:
I already acknowledged and responded to that point when I said that: "You missed the point of my analogy with McCarthyism. There were Soviet spies and Communist sympathisers in the United States at that time - they weren't worried about "something that [didn't] exist". Of course I'm against imposing Sharia law in the UK, of course I realise that some Muslims do terrible things and of course I'm against them."
You are hearing but not listening. You dismiss or ignore every point I make. As I see it, this 'debate' is as meaningful as a debate about 'Should Christians be against the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib?'. If someone pointed out that such a debate was ridiculous, because it implied that there was an argument to be had, would you accuse them of pretending that the mistreatment of prisoners didn't happen?
I apologise to everyone for whom my posts have simply been a distraction (probably an annoying distraction) from the debate you wanted to have. Please continue.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
I am of the view that, far from being 'anti-Muslim', much of the concern expressed here about Sharia has been pro-Muslim, in that I (and others) have been far less bothered about whether Sharia is a threat to us Christians or not and rather more concerned about its operation against Muslims, particularly but not exclusively those of the female variety.
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
Should we be against Sharia Law?
No - at least no more than we should be against any system(s) of law based upon religion. We clearly should be revolted by some aspects of Sharia Law - as we should with parts of many other legal frameworks.
Should we be against the implementation of any religious based legal system simply because some people think it is divinely bestowed - yes - of course we should - always.
Don't forget that what some politicians like to think of as Christian Law is based upon a much amended Jewish Law which grew out of the Pharaohic legal system and the Code of Hammurabi - and who knows what before that
Some aspects of Sharia law (as with Christian Law, Jewish Law, Roman Law etc.) are not in conflict with humanistic legal systems and should not be abandoned because we don't like the mythology which is used to validate them. (Baby/bathwater)
Strictly – Sharia is a way of life and God’s infallible law – it is intended to address the whole life of the worshiper and is far wider ranging than legal situations (diet, prayer, hygiene etc. etc.). What we call Sharia Law is simply the consequence of Sharia being applied to situations which come within the legal part of life. Sharia Law is not a simple system of law, it is a multilayered system based on religious writings, discussion, interpretation and previous decisions – which leads to widely different practices..
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
[QB] I already acknowledged and responded to that point when I said that: "You missed the point of my analogy with McCarthyism. There were Soviet spies and Communist sympathisers in the United States at that time - they weren't worried about "something that [didn't] exist".]
I probably mishandled my initial response to your point about McCarthyism, but you haven't responded to my clarification that this analogy is flawed. Your point was
quote:
As I see it, countries like Australia, Britain and the United States are about as likely to be taken over by people who want to impose Sharia as America was likely to be taken over from within by Communist sympathisers rs at the height of McCarthyist paranoia.
emphasis mine
Again I make the point, nobody is arguing that Australia Britain or US are going to be taken over (this is the basis of your stated comparison), the objection to Sharia is not arising from that fear, it is arising from instances of injustice being seen against individuals who have been subject to Sharia law within Australia or the UK.
You are trying to make the claim that to speak out against Sharia Law is buying into paranoia that the whole country is going to be overtaken by Sharia. For the 10th time NO, it's about any of my fellow-citizens being treated unjustly and that is not paranoia it is speaking up for justice. The better analogy is that I object to the unjust treatment of accused Communist sympathisers under McCarthyism just as I object to the unjust treatment of Islamic women under the operation of Sharia Law.
quote:
Of course I'm against imposing Sharia law in the UK, of course I realise that some Muslims do terrible things and of course I'm against them."
I never said you weren't.
quote:
As I see it, this 'debate' is as meaningful as a debate about 'Should Christians be against the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib?'. If someone pointed out that such a debate was ridiculous, because it implied that there was an argument to be had, would you accuse them of pretending that the mistreatment of prisoners didn't happen?
As you also said Alwyn, everyone is entitled to their own views but not their own facts. That analogy as a comparison to your points and my response is so flawed it's hard to know where to begin but let's go back to your actual words, Your objection to the debate was:
quote:
Actually, I'm with Marvin the Martian. I'm against the implementation of Sharia law (in particular, in its authoritarian form with violent punishments) in the UK in the same way that I am against a UK government made up of members of the Lord's Resistance Army - or a group of Daleks and Cybermen.
Asking 'should we be against Sharia Law' (in the sense that many people mean) is about as meaningful as asking 'should we be against a government of Daleks and Cybermen'.
That's not saying it's a ridiculous question because every Christian would be opposed to Sharia Law, You are asserting it is fanciful to even discuss Sharia law because it doesn't exist and nor will it ever exist in the UK. It is pointed out that it does operate in the UK but you go merrily on arguing that to believe in Sharia is to be delusional
The true analogy is, somebody posing the question "Should people accused of terrorism offences be incarcerated?" and you saying "that's a ridiculous question, of course we shouldn't torture prisoners in abu Graihb. I stand against incarceration of accused terrorists in the same way I stand against incarceration of the Daleks.
Then your argument continues on another wild tangent
quote:
Bluntly, a lot of this debate seems like an excuse for some Christians to talk about Muslims as if the most violent and extreme Muslims were the norm. As Doc Tor pointed out, it isn't like that.
So in your analogy, you'd now be saying " this thread is just an excuse to be nasty about US Soldiers as though the most violent and extreme servicemen are the norm."
No this isn't what we're saying and nobody said that at all............................ it's got nothing to do with villifying all US Soldiers and it's nasty and offensive to say such a thing. We're not saying incarceration is synonymous with torture just as nobody said Sharia is defined as the most violent or extreme form of Islam or even that its operation in western countries would involve capital or corporal punishment
"Oh so now you're saying I'm denying that mistreatment happened at Abu Ghraib" ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
WTF? NO we're not saying that and we never said you said that.
The arguments you make just don't have anything to do with what was being debated.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Currently, residents of this country can bind themselves to a civil arbitration according to the laws of other jurisdictions, or religions, or according to systematic rules of professional conduct. There are limits to the extent to which they can bind themselves to outcomes that would not be forthcoming in this jurisdiction, but broadly speaking the law respects their freedom to decide for themselves how they want their dispute arbitrated.
On the other hand it will step in if it feels that the parties are not freely entering such arbitrations because some undue suasion is being placed upon them, or if the arbitration does not abide by its own rules or is unfair in certain other respects. What the legal system finds hard to deal with is a situation where a party comes from a community which operates a certain code, and wishes the outcome to be recognised by that community, but is unable to obtain that outcome within the code the community operates.
The obvious example I am aware of is where a Jewish woman wants a divorce, and can freely obtain one under English law, but whose husband refuses to grant her a Get in the Beth Din. So in this example, the English courts cannot force the Orthodox Jewish community to recognise the legitimacy of the new marriage within Orthodox Judaism when a Get has not been granted. Or, equally, as I suggested above, the court cannot force the Catholic Church to recognise the legitimacy of a new union formed after a civil divorce so as to allow the remarried person to receive communion or to hold certain offices within the church. In both cases these socio-religious consequences may discourage people from seeking remedies to which they are entitled in English law.
On the whole, if other legal systems are to operate within English law, as they already do, I would rather that it was done properly and in a way which is open to scrutiny. I think that laws which might be framed so as to deal with socio-religious consequences (so as to force the Catholic church to admit divorced and remarried persons to communion, or Orthodox rabbis to regard children of those remarried without a Get divorce as religiously legitimate) might well prove to be thoroughly oppressive in other respects.
I would also be wary of too close and identification of Shariah with the codes of law which have arisen from it which may be shaped as much or more by historical cultural issues than by the principles of Shariah itself.
Posted by Arminian (# 16607) on
:
So please tell me which countries where Muslims are in the majority practice a fair implementation of sharia law ? Can you show me how Jews and Christians and gay people are treated without any discrimination ? Come on lets hear about these wonderful sharia systems that produce tolerance and fairness.
I'm guessing that it won't take long to google systematic abuse of minorities under most of these systems.
I do not believe there should be any sharia law in the UK. There is no way of knowing if social pressure has been put on those attending these courts, and given the culture of honor killings in some communities I don't believe sharia will ever be a fair system of justice in the UK or anywhere else. Our legal system isn't perfect, but its a damn sight better than sharia law.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
Our legal system isn't perfect, but its a damn sight better than sharia law.
And all I'm trying to say is that our legal system already allows the implementation of sharia law within certain well defined constraints.
[ 28. June 2014, 16:54: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
On the other hand it will step in if it feels that the parties are not freely entering such arbitrations because some undue suasion is being placed upon them, or if the arbitration does not abide by its own rules or is unfair in certain other respects. What the legal system finds hard to deal with is a situation where a party comes from a community which operates a certain code, and wishes the outcome to be recognised by that community, but is unable to obtain that outcome within the code the community operates.
The obvious example I am aware of is where a Jewish woman wants a divorce, and can freely obtain one under English law, but whose husband refuses to grant her a Get in the Beth Din. So in this example, the English courts cannot force the Orthodox Jewish community to recognise the legitimacy of the new marriage within Orthodox Judaism when a Get has not been granted.
Which is why the Family Court here will order that a husband grant his ex-wife a Get as a part of a divorce. If he does not, then he can be dealt with for contempt.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
Our legal system isn't perfect, but its a damn sight better than sharia law.
And all I'm trying to say is that our legal system already allows the implementation of sharia law within certain well defined constraints.
That's not disputed; the question of this thread though is whether we think this is a good thing or not.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Yes, that's fair enough. I guess I'm responding to people who are saying that we shouldn't allow sharia law to come to the UK, in a way that suggests it is not already permitted to operate here. In order to prevent it coming the UK we would need to change UK law in a way that would have other far-reaching impacts.
I don't know much about how sharia operates at all, but would speculate that in, e.g., commercial cases it might be a system we would be happy with in principle.
My guess is that within our own and other similar legal systems to ours the problem is not necessarily with the principles of how other systems are supposed to act within the wider legal system, but the extent to which social/ religious/ community pressure prevents people from seeking to exercise their rights under the generally applying legal system.
I am not sure whether the solution to this is banning other legal codes (at which point their administration may go underground, becoming more informal and potentially more open to injustice). Alternatively they could have their place explicitly within the wider legal system on the basis that they operate according to its requirements, such as equal value to evidence of men and women, and ensuring that those who come within the jurisdiction do so of genuinely free choice.
Because they are openly and explicitly operating within the general legal system, they are also more open to its scrutiny, and conscious of the need (in order to retain their freedom to act) to operate within the mores of that system.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0