PDA

View Full Version : Sharia law in Britain (soon for USA too?)



Rum_Pirate
02-08-2008, 10:35 AM
Archbishop of Canterbury calls for Sharia (Islam/Muslim) law in Britain

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=512876&in_page_id=1770&ct=5#StartComments


You may like to give your opposition:
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.o...d=102&formid=10

Andrew Craig-Bennett
02-08-2008, 10:53 AM
Let us not get too excited.

English law, like US law, has provision for dispute resolution by alternative means. This has been the case for many centuries, with the piepowder courts and courts merchant in the Middle Ages and the Arbitration Acts today.

Orthodox Jews have a separate Court. This does not oust the jurisdiction of the regular courts - an Orthodox couple who divorce must divorce twice - once in the lay County Court and once in the religious court, the Beth Din.

The Beth Din may, by consent of the parties, settle other disputes over, for instance, inheritance, or matrimonial property, just like any other submission to arbitration, and, just like any other submission to arbitration, its judgement will be enforced.

What Dr Williams was proposing was the possibility of something similar for Moslems.

I am not expecting to acquire another three wives, or to be beheaded, any time soon!

PS - don't read the Daily Mail - it will rot your brain. Stick to the Financial Times and the Economist.

Rum_Pirate
02-08-2008, 11:00 AM
Let us not get too excited.

English law, like US law, has provision for dispute resolution by alternative means. This has been the case for many centuries, with the piepowder courts and courts merchant in the Middle Ages and the Arbitration Acts today.

Orthodox Jews have a separate Court. This does not oust the jurisdiction of the regular courts - an Orthodox couple who divorce must divorce twice - once in the lay County Court and once in the religious court, the Beth Din.

The Beth Din may, by consent of the parties, settle other disputes over, for instance, inheritance, or matrimonial property, just like any other submission to arbitration, and, just like any other submission to arbitration, its judgement will be enforced.

PS. Don't read the Daily Mail - it rots your brain!

Stick to the Financial Times and the Economist.
What Dr Williams was proposing was the possibility of something similar for Moslems.

I am not expecting to acquire another three wives, or to be beheaded, any time soon! If Sharia law happens do you agree that muslims with three or more wives should get Supplementary benefits etc for the additional wives while christian Britions are restricted to one wife under British law?

If so then the law would (IMHO) be descrimatory!

If they want Sharia law why not move to a country with such laws?

Are Christians accorded the same consideration in Sharia law countries IE Ability to drink, females to wear what they like etc etc???????

Ian McColgin
02-08-2008, 11:29 AM
The question has nothing to do with whether certain Islamic nations are as pluralistic as ours. This is not a matter of treaties, but a matter of how we choose to live within our borders.

I see nothing remarkable in the idea of looking at rhelms where, with the consent of all parties, disputes might be resolved by alternative legal authorities. We already have that to a great extent in examples of how Roman Catholics may obtain a civil divorce that is not recognized by their church. Intra-Amish economic activity happens without reference to state commercial codes and is probably the better for that.

We also have a history of not permitting certain practices that are sanctioned by religions within our borders. Remember LDS polygamy?

It's a sign of our respect for other cultures that they can maintain their own laws and customs to the extent that they don't infring on citizens' rights.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
02-08-2008, 11:37 AM
If Sharia law happens do you agree that muslims with three or more wives should get Supplementary benefits etc for the additional wives while christian Britions are restricted to one wife under British law?

If so then the law would (IMHO) be descrimatory!

If they want Sharia law why not move to a country with such laws?

Are Christians accorded the same consideration in Sharia law countries IE Ability to drink, females to wear what they like etc etc???????

Well, taking these in order:

1. No, nor has there been any suggestion that polygamy should be legal in Britain.

2. Depends on your "Sharia law" country. In most of them, the answers would be "yes". Take a holiday in Bali some time...

Cuyahoga Chuck
02-08-2008, 11:42 AM
I think it's good idea. The Joint Terrorism Analysis Center will have an easier time surveilling Islamic crack-pots if they bunch up.

Sam F
02-08-2008, 12:06 PM
One of the most appallingly awful ideas to come down the pike in many a long year:

From Melanie Phillips in the Spectator...
His [Williams] argument was quite extraordinarily muddled, absurd and wrong. The European Court of Human Rights has said that sharia law is not compatible with democracy. Dr Williams himself accepts its principles are pre-modern and oppressive. Yet, arguing disingenuously that
There is no single code that can be identified as ‘the’ sharia
but ignoring what inevitably follows — that one cannot therefore tell whether one will end up with the death-to-apostates code or one that is relatively benign (whatever that might mean in this context) — he nevertheless argued that the British state should recognise sharia law as of equal status to English law. On World at One, he said:

"An approach to law which simply said - there's one law for everybody - I think that's a bit of a danger."

The implications of this are simply staggering. One law for all is the very basis of legal and social justice and is the glue that binds a society together. Law is the expression of a society’s cultural identity. If there is no one law, there is no one national identity and therefore no society but instead a set of warring fiefdoms with their own separate jurisdictions. To enable people to chop and choose between two jurisdictions would destroy the unitary nature of British society and fragment the country. But does Dr Williams even understand what he himself has said? For after his lecture, he insisted that he was

"not talking about parallel systems but how the law accommodates Muslim practice."

Yet he had specifically said people should be able to choose which system they wanted. Hello? Maybe Dr Williams himself gets lost in the impenetrable thicket of his own verbiage.

Either way, his proposal would also mean that Britain would simply abandon its female Muslim citizens whose parlous position in respect of forced marriages, honour killings and all the other horrors that follow from their second-class religious status would be institutionalised by giving sharia law official recognition. Dr Williams says such women should still retain the right of appeal to the English courts if their human rights were breached under sharia. What absurdity is this? It is the cultural assumptions which flow from sharia which lead to the oppression of Muslim women. How is the right of appeal to human rights law going to help women who are beaten and killed by men who do it in the name of religion? In order to protect our female Muslim citizens, we need to remove from them the yoke of sharia law, not institutionalise it with the seal of official approval.

The rest is at:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/492106/the-archbishops-speech.thtml

Andrew Craig-Bennett
02-08-2008, 12:34 PM
Good article.

I do of course agree that Rowan Williams is spectacularly off base; where I differed from Rum Pirate was in his assertion that we in Britain would accept this nonsense - I have not heard a single Bishop actually supporting the Archbishop of Canterbury on this one, and I bet a pound to a penny that Michael Nazir-Ali, who is of course Rowan Williams' nearest episcopal neighbour, is wrestling with his conscience as to just how fervently he may disagree yet remain on the Bench of Bishops!

I think I know where Rowan Williams is coming from, though.

He is almost pleading for "benefit of clergy" - separate treatment of religious minorities - and he is led in that direction because of a running controversy over "faith schools".

To recap briefly, the Catholic church torpedoed a move by the Anglican church to weaken faith schools by proposing that 25% of admissions should be non-denominational. The C of E in proposing this was actually trying to water down Islamic schools, but anyway the idea was shot down. Rowan Williams has strayed over the border between education and the law, by failing to realise the fundamental difference - the law of the land can never be a matter of personal choice.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
02-08-2008, 12:45 PM
Has anyone seen the actual text, or the detail of the context?

Predictably the FT has a reasonable summary of the stramash http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/01702bcc-d5b5-11dc-8b56-0000779fd2ac.html

Keith Wilson
02-08-2008, 01:03 PM
Two nations separated by a common language, Friday edition:

Stramash: chiefly Scottish, disturbance, racket, crash, smashup

Milo Christensen
02-08-2008, 01:18 PM
Perhaps we American members of the Anglican Communion should redouble our prayers for Rowan, Archbishop of Canterbury.

I have from time to time thought of the man as a touch feeble, turns out he's two years younger than I am.

Keith Wilson
02-08-2008, 01:31 PM
Does anyone know what the fellow really said, rather than someone else's interpretation of it?

Consider - if British Muslims wanted to set up voluntary "courts" where parties could come by mutual consent to resolve disputes (just like binding arbitration), according to the principles of Sharia that do not conflict with British law - then can we reasonably stop them?

Kaa
02-08-2008, 02:21 PM
Does anyone know what the fellow really said, rather than someone else's interpretation of it?

This -- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm -- seems to be useful. There's a link to an audio interview with him.

Kaa

Rum_Pirate
02-08-2008, 02:24 PM
Well, taking these in order:
1. No, nor has there been any suggestion that polygamy should be legal in Britain. I understand taht the UK Civil service authorities have just agreed that muslims that have more than one wife should be allowed to claim Supplementary benefits for the additional wives.
Which IMHO I think is outrageous, especially as polygamy is illegal in Britain.

Kaa
02-08-2008, 02:26 PM
Yo, Brits, you're way behind the Canadians, eh?

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/02/08/pf-4834833.html



Hundreds of GTA Muslim men in polygamous marriages -- some with a harem of wives -- are receiving welfare and social benefits for each of their spouses, thanks to the city and province, Muslim leaders say.
Mumtaz Ali, president of the Canadian Society of Muslims, said wives in polygamous marriages are recognized as spouses under the Ontario Family Law Act, providing they were legally married under Muslim laws abroad.
"Polygamy is a regular part of life for many Muslims," Ali said yesterday. "Ontario recognizes religious marriages for Muslims and others."Kaa

ishmael
02-08-2008, 08:58 PM
I don't know, precisely, what Mr. Rowan was promoting. Insofar as civil disturbance is handled inside religious sanctuaries, with further resort to the legally established courts of the nation of Britain, I don't have a problem. But is that what is really going on?

Frankly, I think not. I think that Britain, and much of Europe, is in a crisis of identity around its Christian heritage, and Islamic folks, some of them radical, are stealing in, and will take what you folks don't protect.

Given the nihilism of Europe since WWI it isn't any surprise. You are a ripe fruit, my friends.

I know it sounds radical, and reactionary, but that's the way I see it.

And Kaa is correct. British social services has instituted benefits to polygamous marriages. Do you not see what is happening to your own country?

Osborne Russell
02-08-2008, 10:22 PM
"Voluntary court" is an oxymoron.

Law is made, and disputes adjudicated, as an exercise of sovereignty.

Nowadays we restrict sovereignty by concepts of individual rights but the sovereign is still sovereign.

What happens when a guy buys a jet ski, goes to Islamic Voluntary Court, gets a divorce, and tells the jet ski vendor that the note for the jet ski was assigned to the ex-wife, so he's keeping the jet ski?

IOW there's nothing voluntary about it when the rights of third parties are involved. Even as between the parties, the "orders" of these so-called courts are not orders but contracts, because the power of the so-called courts to enforce them is zero. Why call them courts at all?

Pierce Nichols
02-08-2008, 10:28 PM
In my house, that paper is known as 'The Daily Fail'.

ishmael
02-08-2008, 11:07 PM
So, you're denying that British social services recently decreed that benefits shall be distributed to polygamous Muslim families?

You leftist multi-culturalists will get what you are aiming at. I suspect you won't like it much.