Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Dr Rowan Williams

Dr Williams says Muslims should have a choice in legal disputes
The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of Islamic Sharia law in the UK seems "unavoidable".

Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

Dr Williams argues that adopting some aspects of Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.

For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.

He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".


An approach to law which simply said - there's one law for everybody - I think that's a bit of a danger
Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury

In an exclusive interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, ahead of a lecture to lawyers in London later on Monday, Dr Williams argues this relies on Sharia law being better understood. At the moment, he says "sensational reporting of opinion polls" clouds the issue.

He stresses that "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well".

But Dr Williams says the argument that "there's one law for everybody... I think that's a bit of a danger".

"There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law."

Dr Williams adds: "What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people's religious consciences."

"We don't either want a situation where, because there's no way of legally monitoring what communities do... people do what they like in private in such a way that that becomes another way of intensifying oppression inside a community."

Multiculturalism 'divisive'

His comments are likely to fuel the debate over multiculturalism in the UK.

Last month, one of Dr William's colleagues, the Bishop of Rochester, said that non-Muslims may find it hard to live or work in some areas of the UK.

The Right Reverend Dr Michael Nazir-Ali said there was "hostility" in some areas and described the government's multicultural policies as divisive.

He said there had been a worldwide resurgence of Islamic extremism, leading to young people growing up alienated from the country they lived in.

He has since received death threats and has been placed under police protection.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm



I cannot believe this shit, this man is not even pushing his own religion on this issue. The UK is secular!!!!! And we should be moving to heighten this not weaken it.

If aspects of Sharia Law have value then by all means look at incorporating it as a 'normal' law. But to have a Sharia court or any law what-so-ever that is formulated on any religious belief what-so-ever, is fucked up!

What happens when one party involved in a dispute wants the matter settled by a standard UK court and the other by a Sharia court?

And can we set up our own religion with our own legal system?

I think that to qualify to use the Sharia court you have to have at least basic plans to blow up an underground station.

Is this the new "Peace in our time"?

What happens when one party involved in a dispute wants the matter settled by a standard UK court and the other by a Sharia court?



I suppose they can flip a coin.

From what I know of sharia law there is no place for it in a moral society despite the claim that people who criticise it are just acting on bad publicity it receives in the media without understanding it.
There was an attempt to make it law here in Ontario but the public outcry from womens groups and others squashed it...for now.

Rowan Williams constantly talks through his arse. It's impossible to find out what he believes.

I'm against any form of sharia in the UK. From divorce, it's only a hop, step and a leap to lashing and stoning. Am I exaggerating ? I don't think so. The argument will be that's it's Muslims stoning Muslims and that somehow makes it ok. Freedom of belief and so on.

For those who favour sharia, there are plenty of places they can move to which will gives them what they want. As long as they choose to remain here they must learn to fit in.

As to the UK being a secular society. Rowan Williams is addressing 2% of the population, most of whom are elderly. They are not being replaced as they die.

All Muslims follow sharia law in some form or other. Of course, since most people are unaware what sharia law is they don't have a clue when Muslims are following it. :p

I suppose they can flip a coin.

From what I know of sharia law there is no place for it in a moral society despite the claim that people who criticise it are just acting on bad publicity it receives in the media without understanding it.
There was an attempt to make it law here in Ontario but the public outcry from womens groups and others squashed it...for now.

I agree with your assessment. Sharia is barbaric by our standards, I have spent some time in Saudi and seen it in action. You can see the religious police patrolling the streets, carrying long sticks to hit women who are not properly dressed accrding to the law.

A friend of mine was dragged from a car and manhandled when he stopped at traffic lights in Riyadh. His offence ? Smoking during Ramadan.

Now I know a lot of Muslims will try to explain that Saudi is extreme in it's interpretation of sharia. But there is nothing in sharia which cannot be found in the Quran. Don't let them tell you otherwise. Given half a chance, they would drag us back into the Middle Ages which is their current state of development.

All Muslims follow sharia law in some form or other. Of course, since most people are unaware what sharia law is they don't have a clue when Muslims are following it. :p

I bought a book on sharia during a stay in Saudi. All the barbaric acts such as stoning and lashing, wife-beating and so on are mentioned in there. So, don't tell me I'm unaware of sharia.

Are you denying that the testimony of two women is required to counter that of one man ? The reason ? Women are prone to gossip. which makes their testimony less credible than that of a man. How about the rules regarding divorce ? Need I go on ?

Are you denying that the testimony of two women is required to counter that of one man ?Is this before or after they've changed their minds for the umpteenth time?

I bought a book on sharia during a stay in Saudi. All the barbaric acts such as stoning and lashing, wife-beating and so on are mentioned in there. So, don't tell me I'm unaware of sharia.

Are you denying that the testimony of two women is required to counter that of one man ? The reason ? Women are prone to gossip. which makes their testimony less credible than that of a man. How about the rules regarding divorce ? Need I go on ?

I'm glad you studied it in the right place. What better place than a bookstore to get legal and/or religious knowledge? Especially in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, that bastion of free information? :shrug:

I think the danger in this is that some muslims believe the UK and every other country should be a muslim state and this would be a step in that direction.

In the currently climate I think this is one of the most stupid comments I have ever heard. I strongly believe this man should be sacked!!

I'm glad you studied it in the right place. What better place than a bookstore to get legal and/or religious knowledge? Especially in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, that bastion of free information? :shrug:

I anticipated your reply, so it came as no surprise to find you in denial.

First, I did not get knowledge in a bookstore alone, whatever you may think. I discussed it with some Palestinians who agree that it represented the teachings of Islam. I also declined invitations to a flogging and a beheading neare the Friday Mosque. So you assume too much. I notice you have not denied anything I have said. I take it that you get no knowledge from books, particularly those sold in a bookstore.

You are playing the usual cards. When someone objects to barbarities carried out in the name of Islaam, they are citing a special case. So, you regard Saudi as a bastion of free information and , on these grounds alone, you attempt to refute what I have said. Well, it won't wash.

I imagine Iran is not a true Muslim nation either. As I write , there are seven people awaiting execution for adultery. The method of stoning is carefully prescribed. A stone must be big enough to cause injury but not so big as to cause death. Eyewitness accounts have it that the execution takes about two hours. But, of course, that is not true Islaam, you will say.

I'm not too familiar with what goes on in Pakistan, but it appears to be much of a muchness with other Islamic states.

Such atrocities do not happen in Palestine, for reasons which are obvious.

Next look at what your religion of peace has been up to in Africa. But they, of course, are not true Muslims.

The bottom line is that it is impossible to find a "true Muslim" anywhere.

I think the danger in this is that some muslims believe the UK and every other country should be a muslim state and this would be a step in that direction.

In the currently climate I think this is one of the most stupid comments I have ever heard. I strongly believe this man should be sacked!!

Don't sack him. Convert him to Islam and send him to an Islamic state where he can be declared an apostate. that will see the back of him.

Sam will probably deny it, but the punishment for apostacy is death. It is written.

* lots of irrelevant information *

So what is sharia?

So what is sharia?

No, that won't work. You tell me why what I have said is wrong and indicate where I can find the information that supports your view. Don't play games. I have made some unequivocal statements about sharia, so the ball is in your ( sharia ) court if you disagree.

It is just another version of the No True Scotsman fallacy, just as with Sandy and her contention that "born again" Christians do not commit acts of terrorism.

I find myself haunted by a challenge that was offered on the BBC by a Muslim activist named Anjem Choudary: a man who has praised the 9/11 murders as "magnificent" and proclaimed that "Britain belongs to Allah." When asked if he might prefer to move to a country which practices Shari'a, he replied: "Who says you own Britain anyway?" A question that will have to be answered one way or another.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/06/hitchens200706?currentPage=3

SAM why are you bothered about someone having to stated what Sharia law is? As with anything of a religious nature it is highly subjective and therefore dangerous. Surely, that is all a rational person with respect for science needs to know?

There is no way that the UK will introduce a 2 tier law system; the idea is just too ludicrous.

From an article publised by Guardian UK (dated 2002)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

What is sharia?
The word sharia means "the path to a watering hole". It denotes an Islamic way of life that is more than a system of criminal justice. Sharia is a religious code for living, in the same way that the Bible offers a moral system for Christians.

It is adopted by most Muslims to a greater or lesser degree as a matter of personal conscience, but it can also be formally instituted as law by certain states and enforced by the courts. Many Islamic countries have adopted elements of sharia law, governing areas such as inheritance, banking and contract law.

What does sharia decree?

Sharia offers a code for living governing all elements of life, from prayers to fasting to donations to the poor. It decrees that men and women should dress modestly, which in some countries is interpreted as women taking the veil and the sexes being segregated.

"Sharia governs the lives of people in ways which are not governed by the law," says Lynn Welchman, director of the Centre for Islamic and Middle Eastern Law. "Over 50 countries are members of the Organisation of Islamic Conference, and you can expect there will be some form of compliance with sharia - either in people's personal lives or enforced through the courts by the state. A lot of states in the Middle East are taking more elements of sharia into their state laws."

What are Hadd offences?

Within sharia law, there is a specific set of offences known as the Hadd offences. These are crimes punished by specific penalties, such as stoning, lashes or the severing of a hand. The penalties for Hadd offences are not universally adopted as law in Islamic countries.

Some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, claim to live under pure sharia law and enforce the penalties for Hadd offences. In others, such as Pakistan, the penalties have not been enforced. The majority of Middle Eastern countries, including Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria, have not adopted Hadd offences as part of their state laws.

Hadd offences carry specific penalties, set by the Koran and by the prophet Mohammed. These include unlawful sexual intercourse (outside marriage); false accusation of unlawful intercourse; the drinking of alcohol; theft; and highway robbery. Sexual offences carry a penalty of stoning to death or flogging while theft is punished with cutting off a hand.

"This is a system of criminal law which has become a potent symbol of Islamisicing the law," says Dr Welchman. "But there is the question of whether it's actually applied in the countries which have adopted it. There is supposed to be a very high burden of proof, but that clearly often doesn't happen in practice."

Many Islamic countries will have adultery and the drinking of alcohol defined as criminal offences in law, but they are not defined as Hadd offences because they do not carry the Hadd penalty. They are often punishable by a prison term instead.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr Williams says ........arse cheeks part and mumble issues forth

This guy is an embicile. A) This will lead to separating society not bringing it toegtehr. B) More and more countries will want less and less to do with Muslims if they see this sort of thing happening - they'll simply think "F*ck that, best they don't come here" C) There may come a day when shit hits the fan - if Muslims are seen as outsiders, well, don't think history doesn't repeat itself nor that we have somehow evolved past the animals we are...

In summary - stupid stupid idea for all those involved, or ..... very heinous and clever.

The bottom line is that it is impossible to find a "true Muslim" anywhere.So true so true....

Oh god you people have GOT to be kidding. Firstly there are already Jewish courts in the UK (and aparently in Australia acording to the lecture on shari law who was on ABC radio this morning). Secondly they are talking about FAMILY law and buiness law NOT criminal law. Cant any of you tell the difference??????????

Criminal law is the smallest fraction of what the law IS. Most of it is family law, tax law, commertial law, torts law, adminstrive law, consitutional law (although im not sure if the UK actually has a formal consitution) ect

There is nothing wrong with family law being arbitated by different courts as long as there is a right to apeal and a free choice. After all MOST family law is delt with in an informal way ANYWAY

Well then, I don't think there should be Jewish courts either.... What next Scientology courts? Wiccan courts? New Age courts? pleeeeeeaaassseeee......

There is no particular reason Muslims need the power of the English state backing their law, is there ?

Why would a solid religion need the guns ?

you live in a country, you implicitly agree that you'll abide by the laws of the land
anyone remembers what happens to westerners who name a teddy bear "mohammed" in Sudan ?

Oh god you people have GOT to be kidding. Firstly there are already Jewish courts in the UK (and aparently in Australia acording to the lecture on shari law who was on ABC radio this morning). Secondly they are talking about FAMILY law and buiness law NOT criminal law. Cant any of you tell the difference??????????

Criminal law is the smallest fraction of what the law IS. Most of it is family law, tax law, commertial law, torts law, adminstrive law, consitutional law (although im not sure if the UK actually has a formal consitution) ect

There is nothing wrong with family law being arbitated by different courts as long as there is a right to apeal and a free choice. After all MOST family law is delt with in an informal way ANYWAY

I cannot agree with you on this one because I believe we are looking at the thin end of a wedge. I don't give a damn what people belive or what their colour is , but I do object when they seek priveliges based on a belief system that is alien to that of society at large.

Let me give you a few examples of what goes on in the UK.

Jews and Muslims are allowed to slaughter animals in an inhumane way which it would be unlawful for others to do.

Evryone who rides a motorcycle is legally required to wear a crash helmet. An exception is made for Sikhs who, for religious reasons. can wear turbans.

Bus conductors wear a uniform, part of which is a cap, but Sikhs....you've guessed it

We recently had a case of a woman who applied for and was given a job as a teacher. On her first day at school she turned up covered from head to toe, with only her eyes showing through a slit. When it was pointed out that this was unacceptable, she sought exemption on the ground of her religious belief. She would not accept that she would be unable to communicate with children if they could not see her facial expressions.

Now while all the above may, in some sense, be considered as no more than silliness, it shows how religious groups keep pushing for more and more and I can see no reason why they should draw the line until they have created a society within a society. And that must be resisted. In the UK everyone is equal under the law and there should be no exceptions. We do not want an Orwellian society where some are more equal than others.

Lastly, may I point out that there are no such problems with Indians, Africans or other ethnic groups.

We have a number of idiotic racists who, like rednecks everywhere, want to get rid of all non-whites. Fortunately, they have very lttle support. The danger is that Muslims who do not want to conform to the norms of our society are giving ammunition to these idiots.

does this mean that we has westerners can have our hands chopped of if we're caught stealing? does it mean that i can be beheaded for not following certain laws?

i will carry a gun if this is bought into british law, there will be war on the streets, and blood will flow, and rightfully so aswell.

muslims come to britain to live in britain and they should have the same laws has you or I!!

this is actually disgusting,

The muslims goal is to take over Britain. Be careful.

The muslims goal is to take over Britain. Be careful.

i have just ahs this conversation with my husband, and he says the same thing.

Oh god you people have GOT to be kidding. Firstly there are already Jewish courts in the UK (and aparently in Australia acording to the lecture on shari law who was on ABC radio this morning). Secondly they are talking about FAMILY law and buiness law NOT criminal law. Cant any of you tell the difference??????????

Criminal law is the smallest fraction of what the law IS. Most of it is family law, tax law, commertial law, torts law, adminstrive law, consitutional law (although im not sure if the UK actually has a formal consitution) ect

There is nothing wrong with family law being arbitated by different courts as long as there is a right to apeal and a free choice. After all MOST family law is delt with in an informal way ANYWAY


Finally, some common sense.

Good post.

Well then, I don't think there should be Jewish courts either.... What next Scientology courts? Wiccan courts? New Age courts? pleeeeeeaaassseeee......


You don't think there should be Jewish courts, or x courts?

Who cares what you think?

The muslims goal is to take over Britain. Be careful.

It's a race between them and the Christians who try to pervert our legal system

You don't think there should be Jewish courts, or x courts?

Who cares what you think?

People who value the right to think what the please and to do as they wish without breaking the law.

You don't seem to think at all so ,whatever the outcome , you will not be affected

does this mean that we has westerners can have our hands chopped of if we're caught stealing? does it mean that i can be beheaded for not following certain laws?


You do not understand what the Archbishop has said and you do not undertstand Shariah law.

i will carry a gun if this is bought into british law, there will be war on the streets, and blood will flow, and rightfully so aswell.


Why will you carry a gun? There will be a war? why? against who?

muslims come to britain to live in britain and they should have the same laws has you or I!!


Have Muslims even been involved in this debate? The Archbishop made a statement, no one told him to say what he said, no Muslims where involved then, no Muslims are calling for Shariah law to be forced on to the UK. Muslims have done next to nothing yet are they are being attacked.

The muslims goal is to take over Britain. Be careful.


Shhhhhh...

http://www.ymessengerblog.com/images/emoticon_shh.jpg

Oh god you people have GOT to be kidding. Firstly there are already Jewish courts in the UK (and aparently in Australia acording to the lecture on shari law who was on ABC radio this morning). Secondly they are talking about FAMILY law and buiness law NOT criminal law. Cant any of you tell the difference??????????


Most of us can but the question remains...will sharia family and business law be unbiased as far as disputes between men and women..from what I know of sharia..I doubt it!

I have no strong opinion on this, but I would point out that many nations (including Britain) make allowances for dual court systems, religious and civil.

In fact Israel itself has two legal systems, in the same manner as I think is being proposed. Israel has Sharia courts (and rabbinical courts, Christian Courts and Druze courts) on the one hand and civil courts on the other. The civil courts apply the Knesset approved laws and the religious courts apply the doctrines of their respective faiths.

The religious courts only have jurisdiction in civil (not criminal) matters submitted to them that are subject to the their own religious laws and as otherwise limited by the laws of the relevant legislature. In Israel, (Jewish) husbands always bring divorce actions in rabbinical courts rather than civil courts, because Jewish law is pro-husband. Wives tend to file in civil courts, which are more equiatble to women. Those courts are not unbiased as between men and women in cases brought before them, and I am sure the sharia courts are not (and would not be if recognized in the U.K.) as well.

There's no major confusion, any more than there is having 51+ different federal and state court systems and codes of law in the U.S. (with parties often filing lawsuits in particular courts because they believe the law of that court favors them).

In England, the Church of England has its own courts (the consistory courts) though they are more circumscribed in their power than religious courts in Israel or, say, Malaysia or Indonesia.

You do not understand what the Archbishop has said and you do not undertstand Shariah law.




Why will you carry a gun? There will be a war? why? against who?




Have Muslims even been involved in this debate? The Archbishop made a statement, no one told him to say what he said, no Muslims where involved then, no Muslims are calling for Shariah law to be forced on to the UK. Muslims have done next to nothing yet are they are being attacked.

i understand enough to know that if we are caught stealing then they can be able to demand our hands be cuut of!

You do not understand what the Archbishop has said and you do not undertstand Shariah law.




Why will you carry a gun? There will be a war? why? against who?




Have Muslims even been involved in this debate? The Archbishop made a statement, no one told him to say what he said, no Muslims where involved then, no Muslims are calling for Shariah law to be forced on to the UK. Muslims have done next to nothing yet are they are being attacked.

some muslims do want shariah law in the Uk, personally it shouldnt happen, we should NOT ne made to change our laws and our way of life!

Poll reveals 40pc of Muslims want sharia law in UK
By Patrick Hennessy and Melissa Kite
Last Updated: 12:14am GMT 20/02/2006



Four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced into parts of the country, a survey reveals today.

The ICM opinion poll also indicates that a fifth have sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July 7, killing 52 people, although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity.


50pc said interracial relations were worsening
Overall, the findings depict a Muslim community becoming more radical and feeling more alienated from mainstream society, even though 91 per cent still say they feel loyal to Britain.

The results of the poll, conducted for the Sunday Telegraph, came as thousands of Muslims staged a fresh protest in London yesterday against the publication of cartoons of Mohammed. In Libya, at least 10 people died in protests linked to the caricatures.

And in Pakistan, a cleric was reported to have put a $1 million (£575,000) bounty on the head of the Danish cartoonist who drew the original pictures.

Last night, Sadiq Khan, the Labour MP involved with the official task force set up after the July attacks, said the findings were "alarming". He added: "Vast numbers of Muslims feel disengaged and alienated from mainstream British society." Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "This poll confirms the widespread opposition among British Muslims to the so-called war on terror."

The most startling finding is the high level of support for applying sharia law in "predominantly Muslim" areas of Britain.


Sadiq Khan: 'Alarming'
Islamic law is used in large parts of the Middle East, including Iran and Saudi Arabia, and is enforced by religious police. Special courts can hand down harsh punishments which can include stoning and amputation.

Forty per cent of the British Muslims surveyed said they backed introducing sharia in parts of Britain, while 41 per cent opposed it. Twenty per cent felt sympathy with the July 7 bombers' motives, and 75 per cent did not. One per cent felt the attacks were "right".

Nearly two thirds thought the video images shown last week of British troops beating Iraqi youths were symptomatic of a wider problem in Iraq. Half did not think the soldiers would be "appropriately punished".

Half of the 500 people surveyed said relations between white Britons and Muslims were getting worse. Only just over half thought the conviction of the cleric Abu Hamza for incitement to murder and race hatred was fair.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/20/nsharia_120.xml

britan=british=british law

In the british their defense theirs pretty much no religion in their court system so making a difference between muslims and others would be like making a difference between black and white or male and female

i understand enough to know that if we are caught stealing then they can be able to demand our hands be cuut of!


Not exactly. I believe that if the stolen good/s is above a certain value the person's hand can be cut off, to that I say - good. Criminals deserve that. Shariah law targets the real criminals and punishes them, ordinary people are protected and have nothing to fear - unlike the current climate we find ourselves in. Shariah law protects the weak, if a person is going hungry and as ends up stealing food, no harm can reach him, just like the person that steals medicine in desperation.

I also believe the person that has been wronged (had goods stolen from him/her) can forgive the criminal and that’s the end of it.

some muslims do want shariah law in the Uk, personally it shouldnt happen, we should NOT ne made to change our laws and our way of life!


Some Muslims? what does that mean? And 'Shariah law' means lots of different things to different people. It’s a meaningless statement.

And no one said the UK has to change its laws, no one is forcing their way of life on anyone. I doubt any person in the UK has had to change their way of life because of Muslims or any other religious group.

Not exactly. I believe that if the stolen good/s is above a certain value the person's hand can be cut off, to that I say - good.

Thank you for immediately establishing your credibility.

Thank you for immediately establishing your credibility.


Besides the point, look at the bigger picture.

Not exactly. I believe that if the stolen good/s is above a certain value the person's hand can be cut off, to that I say - good. Criminals deserve that. Shariah law targets the real criminals and punishes them, ordinary people are protected and have nothing to fear - unlike the current climate we find ourselves in. Shariah law protects the weak, if a person is going hungry and as ends up stealing food, no harm can reach him, just like the person that steals medicine in desperation.

I also believe the person that has been wronged (had goods stolen from him/her) can forgive the criminal and that’s the end of it.




Some Muslims? what does that mean? And 'Shariah law' means lots of different things to different people. It’s a meaningless statement.

And no one said the UK has to change its laws, no one is forcing their way of life on anyone. I doubt any person in the UK has had to change their way of life because of Muslims or any other religious group.

You may be in favour of barbarism; we have outgrown it. You agree that if a thief steals goods above a certain value his hand should be amputated. Do you think the stolen goods should be valued at their ex-factory price, their wholsele price or their retail value. Should we allow for flutuations in our currency when working out the value of imported goods ?

And now you are playing that worn out card of the religious. The sharia means lots of things to different people. Can you explain why that is so? And at the same time , who you think is right and who wrong and for what reasons. With differing interpretations, they can't all be right, can they ?

Ghost, re your advice to Repo.

Yes , he overlooked floggings, public beheadings, and stoning. It always pays to look at the bigger picture.

If Muslims or anyone else chooses to undergo some form of mediation by a third party, I don't think there is anything wrong with that, as long as it doesn't contradict the law of the land. Christians sometimes get an "anullment" through the church, it's no different than settling out of court.

If Muslims or anyone else chooses to undergo some form of mediation by a third party, I don't think there is anything wrong with that, as long as it doesn't contradict the law of the land. Christians sometimes get an "anullment" through the church, it's no different than settling out of court.

I agree there is nothing wrong with that. But will it stop there. Something tells me that once we have a precedent we may be on a slippery slope.

That's up for the lawmakers to decide. I doubt the US or the UK are ever going to adopt sharia into their code. A judge could say, "look, we can use the court's time to decide this, but wouldn't it be better if you just agree to use an informal religious board instead?".

britan=british=british law

In the british their defense theirs pretty much no religion in their court system so making a difference between muslims and others would be like making a difference between black and white or male and female

Or state vs federal...or state vs a different state or contractual arbitration (private law in a private court) vs state or federal courts? Having different overlapping jurisdictions and different sets of laws that might apply to the same issue is not really that big a deal in a civil context. Canon law, rabbinical and ecclesiastical courts have existed along side governmental courts for a long time, and we have conflicting court and legal systems here.

Besides, as the Archbishop noted, there already are separate religious courts in Britain, just not for Muslims. See for example, this article about British rabbinical courts, applying Jewish law:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7233040.stm

Should Britain shut down the rabbinical courts?

That is fair because no one is forced to have their case tried according to an alternative system. It's a choice.

Or state vs federal...or state vs a different state or contractual arbitration (private law in a private court) vs state or federal courts? Having different overlapping jurisdictions and different sets of laws that might apply to the same issue is not really that big a deal in a civil context. Canon law, rabbinical and ecclesiastical courts have existed along side governmental courts for a long time, and we have conflicting court and legal systems here.

Besides, as the Archbishop noted, there already are separate religious courts in Britain, just not for Muslims. See for example, this article about British rabbinical courts, applying Jewish law:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7233040.stm

Should Britain shut down the rabbinical courts?

Rabbinical courts are informal, meaning there is no obligation on jews to use them. This would not be so if sharia were introduced.

The Brirish legal system has gradually broken the stranglehold which religion haed on it. It has moved to a point wher it is almost completely secular. It would be a retrograde step to allow religion to exert any influence today.

All are equal under UK law. Under sharia, women are regarded as inferior. You may not be aware that limited sharia was introduced in Canada but was soon abolished because of an outcry from Muslim women.

I am not bothered whether rabbinical courts stay or go. As I have said above they are informal. Sharia would be binding on Muslims and would be a retrograde step as far as hard-won womens' rights is concerned

Sharia courts could be just as informal.

the big question is : is sharia law an all-or-nothing affair (my suspicion is that this is the case) + how much of sharia law is compliant with the british legal system ? i suspect that the fit is only partial and that the bits that don't fit will in the end cause a major headache if you ever tried to apply both

That is fair because no one is forced to have their case tried according to an alternative system. It's a choice.

In Israel, though, it's not a choice. Who ever files first chooses the venue (subject to the jurisdictional rules of the court itself). Husbands therefore tend to choose rabbinical courts (because Jewish law is generally favorable to husbands) and women tend to file in civil court. Women do not have the right to "remove" the case to civil courts, if it was duly filed in rabbinical court before she filed her petition in civil court. (In fact, civil courts are prohibited by statues from entertaining such a case in those circumstances.)

Similarly in the U.S. if I file a lawsuit in Texas (because I think the law favors me there), the defendant has no choice in the matter (even if the defendant lives in, say, Louisiana or outside the U.S.) so long as the Texas court's rules give them jurisdiction and the forum is not so inconvenient as to trigger "forum non conveniens" rules. If a defendant lives in Louisiana but works in Texas, I can easily choose to sue him in either State, without his consenting to it, even though the two states have substantively different laws. (Every two states have fundamentally different laws, but Lousiana law is based on the French civil law tradition rather than the English common law tradition. Texas law is based in common law.)

Consent may certainly make it "fair", but a lack of consent doesn't necessarily render the forum "unfair."

Well, I would not be in favor of that kind of system. But an informal alternative might be acceptable.

why not just stipulate that both parties must agree to the case being herd in the religious courts or it will be transfered to civil court???

that would fix your problem there and then and if they get no work well who cares????

Sharia courts could be just as informal.

And treat women as equals just as they are treated under British lawe ? I think not. Tht's why Muslim women fought against the introdction of sharia in Canada. Do you not think it possible that they had good reason to do so ?

That's a good point. There could be peer pressure and cultural pressure to participate in a court that ignores women's rights.

Oh, this was a choice of whether to operate under sharia law. Right, In that case, I'm all for it. As long as its optional.

I don't see what's stopping the Muslims in England from setting up a sharia court now, with voluntary submission to its rulings by all believers in civil dispute. The only thing missing would be the coercion of the state, and that's not the point -

or so I am to understand.

Oh, this was a choice of whether to operate under sharia law. Right, In that case, I'm all for it. As long as its optional.

You are being naive. Imagine you are living in a Muslim community, known to one and all, as is the case, and ask yourself whether a woman would or could insist on English law as opposed to sharia.

The point everyone seems to miss is that, in the case of marital problems for example, pople can seek advice from religious leaders . The advice does not have the force of law. "Advice" would become a ruling and legally binding under sharia.

if they so chose myles so what??? IF they have that choice great if they think its unfair and CHOSE not to use it and it goes out of buiness then whats the harm?????

I don't see what's stopping the Muslims in England from setting up a sharia court now, with voluntary submission to its rulings by all believers in civil dispute. The only thing missing would be the coercion of the state, and that's not the point -

or so I am to understand.

The sharia court would, for instance, have the power to grant divorce on grounds that might not be recognized under British law. As to its being voluntary, see my remarks above.

I don't see what's stopping the Muslims in England from setting up a sharia court now, with voluntary submission to its rulings by all believers in civil dispute. The only thing missing would be the coercion of the state, and that's not the point -

or so I am to understand.

I agree.
Do Brits not have the option of mediation for civil matters?

if they so chose myles so what??? IF they have that choice great if they think its unfair and CHOSE not to use it and it goes out of buiness then whats the harm?????

See my response above

The sharia court would, for instance, have the power to grant divorce on grounds that might not be recognized under British law.

They would use mediation to come to a decision, and the decision made by the mediation board would be brought to the court systems as an amicable divorce agreement by both parties.

Seems fairly simple to me, and I don't see how it harms anyone.

I agree.
Do Brits not have the option of mediation for civil matters?

You misunderstand the situation. Can you imagine a woman living in a tightly knit Muslim community insisting on British Law as opposed to sharia.

Everyone can choose to visit marriage guidance counsellors as often as they wish, in an attempt to reconcile their differences. Some choose to do so, others do not. But if one partner insists on a divorce, the matter will then have to be settled under British law WHICH IS BUILT ON THE FOUNDATION THAT EVERYONE IS EQUAL UNDER THE LAW. The same is not true of sharia.

I honestly don't know how I feel about this.
I can see it from both sides.

I honestly don't know how I feel about this.
I can see it from both sides.

To put it in a nutshell. Mediation is available to all in one form or another and there is no problem with that. Having a binding legal system within the law of the land is wrong. Sharia would not be optional as people tend to believe; I would have no objection if it were. But the facts are that Muslims live in tightly knit communities, women are not treated as equals under sharia and no woman could possibly insist on a case being heard under British law given her circumstances.

If I may use an analogy. When the supermarkets were seeking a change in the lawto allow sunday trading, some were against iot on religious grounds.I was against it on humanitarian grounds. The supermarkets boldly proclaimed that no one would be forced to work on sundays; it would be purely optional.

I suggested that in light of peer pressure, and possible career advancement no one would want to stand out from the crowd as being unwilling to work on sunday. And that is what happened. I took the opportunity of chatting with checkout operators in three major supermarkets and got the same response; eight out of twelve sad they would prefer not to work on sundays.

And I look at it with another analogy.
I see nothing at all wrong with polygamy.
In Utah, however, where many practice it, they do so hidden from the eyes of authority, because they have to hide.
This opens it up to many abuses.
When your husband mistreats you, you are afraid to go to the cops, because you are involved in something illegal and are shunned.
You don't go to the cops when you drug dealer rips you off.

One of my favorite expressions is "Sunlight is the best disinfectant".

And I look at it with another analogy.
I see nothing at all wrong with polygamy.
In Utah, however, where many practice it, they do so hidden from the eyes of authority, because they have to hide.
This opens it up to many abuses.
When your husband mistreats you, you are afraid to go to the cops, because you are involved in something illegal and are shunned.
You don't go to the cops when you drug dealer rips you off.

One of my favorite expressions is "Sunlight is the best disinfectant".

I like you motto.

The muslims goal is to take over Britain. Be careful.

I cant understand why they would want Sharia when so many people leave their homelands to get away from it and everything else- like the laws and the government. But then i can see how people can forget, the reasons are many but i will not get into them.

Edit: Well i read the article in the link. It's just weird.

The issue here is the fact that some may feel pressured into applying to a Sharia court when they may prefer to seek justice in the traditional British legal system. Or you could also have situations where a Judge in the British system referring a case to a Sharia court without the consent of both parties.

Personally, I think it is a bad idea. Each country should have their own legal system and all residents of that country should abide by that one system.

You are being naive. Imagine you are living in a Muslim community, known to one and all, as is the case, and ask yourself whether a woman would or could insist on English law as opposed to sharia.

The point everyone seems to miss is that, in the case of marital problems for example, pople can seek advice from religious leaders . The advice does not have the force of law. "Advice" would become a ruling and legally binding under sharia.

If, I'm in a muslim community and intelligent, I would know that my choosing english law would make me ostracized and divide the community. Again, I'm for it if both parties agree.

there are orthodox Jewish courts there, why not muslim ?

It's a race between them and the Christians who try to pervert our legal system

You don't see Christians sawing innocent people's heads off. You don't see them blowing themselves up. You don't see them blowing up innocent people. You don't see them stoning women. You don't see them hanging homosexuals. You don't see them abusing their daughters. You don't see them making women dress like circus freaks. You don't see them using women and children as terrorists.... There is NO comparison between Christians and muslims.:(

Williams says its time to bring Sharia law to Britain. I can't imagine anyone objecting besides Hindus, Christians, Jews, atheists, artists, homosexuals, drinkers, intellectuals, women, etc... :rolleyes:

If, I'm in a muslim community and intelligent, I would know that my choosing english law would make me ostracized and divide the community. Again, I'm for it if both parties agree.

there are orthodox Jewish courts there, why not muslim ?

So you would know that you would be otracized. That's my point exactly. There is not a Muslim woman who would seek redress under British law, if her husband opted fopr sharia. Can you not understand that ? Women are not treated as equals under sharia; they are under British law.

I am not a jew; I'm an atheist, so I have no axe to grind. As I have already said Jewish courts are INFORMAL AND CARRY NO LEGAL WEIGHT. If it comes down to a divorce, then it must be done under British law. That would not be so under sharia.

You don't see Christians sawing innocent people's heads off. You don't see them blowing themselves up. You don't see them blowing up innocent people. You don't see them stoning women. You don't see them hanging homosexuals. You don't see them abusing their daughters. You don't see them making women dress like circus freaks. You don't see them using women and children as terrorists.... There is NO comparison between Christians and muslims.:(

Williams says its time to bring Sharia law to Britain. I can't imagine anyone objecting besides Hindus, Christians, Jews, atheists, artists, homosexuals, drinkers, intellectuals, women, etc... :rolleyes:

I don't want to prolong this. Jut let me say that Catholics are threating to close homes for children because the law will no longer allow such agencies to specify that a child can only be adopted by a Catholic family. The only exception is that the wishes of parents will be respected.

We also have other Christian pressure groups attempting to change the law on issues such as abortion and stem cell research. Fortunately the are ignored by the majority.

The Catholics are a private group. They should be able to have their own rules/regs for their adoption agencies.

Christians are just trying to prevent innocent babies from being ripped from their mother's wombs/and used as useless science experiments.

This is the most monumentally stupid thing I have ever heard an Archbishop of Canterbury say, and I’ve heard a few. In fact, it’s more than stupid: it’s disgusting.

The idea that “one law for everyone” is “a bit of a danger”, as Williams argues, goes against every tradition of English law and culture that the Primate of All England is supposed to uphold.

I don’t have time to comment in more detail now: just as well, probably. If he has been reported accurately, then Williams is lending his support to the establishment of a non-Christian theocracy in Britain.

The Church of England must think seriously about his suitability for the ancient office he occupies. And then get rid of him.

If it comes down to a divorce, then it must be done under British law. That would not be so under sharia.



How do the Muslims in UK get divorced now?

The Catholics are a private group. They should be able to have their own rules/regs for their adoption agencies.

Christians are just trying to prevent innocent babies from being ripped from their mother's wombs/and used as useless science experiments.

An adoption agency should be secular. What right has anyone to take an innocent child and insist that it must be brought up in a religious hoesehold. The usual criteria are sufficient.

You talk of innocent babies being ripped from their mothers' wombs. That is typical of the emotive and hysterical language used by opponents of abortion.
The Catholic Church opposes abortion even in cases where a woman has been raped and seeks a termination long before the embryo has become viable. Face the fact that there is no baby to be torn from her womb !

My experience of Christian attitudes is that compassion is often sacrificed on the altar of dogma.

My experience of anyone supporting baby-killing is that they don't understand that knives, scalpals and suction devices ALL rip babies from their mother's wombs. There is no way to sugar-coat that fact. But this is not the thread to discuss that.

Sharia law....happening in TX as we speak :eek:

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/191148.php

:(

How do the Muslims in UK get divorced now?

I wondered where you got to when I asked you to tell me where I was wrong on sharia. All I got from you was that I could wallow in my own ignorance. I am tempted to pay you back in kind now, but I shan't.

If Muslims, like anyone else want a legal divorce, they must do it under the law of the land. Any couple can live together and split up without asking anyone's permission but there are usually ramifications as to who contributes to the welfare of children and similar issues. The law will look after the interests of children who, as is normally the case, are vulnerable.

As far as I know legal divorce among Muslims is rare to non-extistent. Imagine you are living in a tightly knit community of Muslims living close to a mosque. Imagine that, as a woman, your freedom is restricted such that you cannot make friends with non-muslims. Knowing how a divorced woman is regarded by Muslims, for example, there is no question of her marrying again, would you seek a divorce and, in so doing, become an outcast.

My experience of anyone supporting baby-killing is that they don't understand that knives, scalpals and suction devices ALL rip babies from their mother's wombs. There is no way to sugar-coat that fact. But this is not the thread to discuss that.

Sharia law....happening in TX as we speak :eek:

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/191148.php

:(

I will leave you with the thought that, despite what you may think, you are confusing a baby with a non-viable embryo. Many medical practitioners are in favour of abortion, if they feel the circumstances warrant. I assume they know better than you do what is involved.

This is the most monumentally stupid thing I have ever heard an Archbishop of Canterbury say, and I’ve heard a few. In fact, it’s more than stupid: it’s disgusting.

The idea that “one law for everyone” is “a bit of a danger”, as Williams argues, goes against every tradition of English law and culture that the Primate of All England is supposed to uphold.

I don’t have time to comment in more detail now: just as well, probably. If he has been reported accurately, then Williams is lending his support to the establishment of a non-Christian theocracy in Britain.

The Church of England must think seriously about his suitability for the ancient office he occupies. And then get rid of him.


There has been a country-wide outcry against Williams and some clergy have called for his resignation. The man is an oaf, and there is no way the government will support him.

I wondered where you got to when I asked you to tell me where I was wrong on sharia. All I got from you was that I could wallow in my own ignorance. I am tempted to pay you back in kind now, but I shan't.

If Muslims, like anyone else want a legal divorce, they must do it under the law of the land. Any couple can live together and split up without asking anyone's permission but there are usually ramifications as to who contributes to the welfare of children and similar issues. The law will look after the interests of children who, as is normally the case, are vulnerable.

As far as I know legal divorce among Muslims is rare to non-extistent. Imagine you are living in a tightly knit community of Muslims living close to a mosque. Imagine that, as a woman, your freedom is restricted such that you cannot make friends with non-muslims. Knowing how a divorced woman is regarded by Muslims, for example, there is no question of her marrying again, would you seek a divorce and, in so doing, become an outcast.



I see you persist in your fantasies. Divorce and remarriage is permitted easily under sharia, a woman can get remarried after a period of iddat which is 40 days, for both widows and divorcees. The stigma attached to divorce is unIslamic and is adopted from other societies. Also under sharia, a man is responsible for the welfare of a woman who bears his children, even after divorce unless she gets remarried. He is responsible for his children until they reach maturity and later, regardless of the mothers marital status.

What the problem is that most women are unaware of their rights, hence forfeit them. However, having a court rather than a qadi would make such forfeiture of rights minimised. Since most Muslims prefer to use their own laws to maintain validity of their marriages etc, it would be preferable to legitimise it to prevent abuse.

So what is sharia?

Sharia deals with many aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, banking, business, contracts, family, sexuality, hygiene, and social issues. There is no strictly static codified set of laws of sharia. Sharia is more of a system of how law ought to serve humanity, a consensus of the unified spirit, based on the Qur'an, hadith, ijma, qiyas and centuries of debate, interpretation and precedent. Sharia has been thoroughly confused in legal and common literature by many Muslims.

Sharia deals with many aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, banking, business, contracts, family, sexuality, hygiene, and social issues. There is no strictly static codified set of laws of sharia. Sharia is more of a system of how law ought to serve humanity, a consensus of the unified spirit, based on the Qur'an, hadith, ijma, qiyas and centuries of debate, interpretation and precedent. Sharia has been thoroughly confused in legal and common literature by many Muslims.

So what determines what part of sharia is codified as law?

So what determines what part of sharia is codified as law?

That depends entirely on your viewpoint, whether you are a Secularist, Traditionalist, Reformer or Salafis. Then, you have to determine whether or not you will accept divinity or not within the laws.

I see you persist in your fantasies. Divorce and remarriage is permitted easily under sharia, a woman can get remarried after a period of iddat which is 40 days, for both widows and divorcees. The stigma attached to divorce is unIslamic and is adopted from other societies. Also under sharia, a man is responsible for the welfare of a woman who bears his children, even after divorce unless she gets remarried. He is responsible for his children until they reach maturity and later, regardless of the mothers marital status.

What the problem is that most women are unaware of their rights, hence forfeit them. However, having a court rather than a qadi would make such forfeiture of rights minimised. Since most Muslims prefer to use their own laws to maintain validity of their marriages etc, it would be preferable to legitimise it to prevent abuse.

Here we go again. The stigma attached to divorce is unislamic. Tell that to all the women and young girls who are abused. We have safe havens for young Muslim girls who want to escape an enforced ( not to be confused with arranged ) marriages. Its's all unislamic; it just happens to be practised by Muslims.

I think it's high time you came here on a visit and explained you views to MUslim clerics. Knowing how they regard women, I am sure you will get a fair hearing. Better bring a like-minded companion, otherwise you will not get a hearing at all.

Your argument that since Muslims prefer to use their own laws....it would be preferable to legitimize it...is nonsense. First, how do you believe it would prevent abuse ? Second, when we have British law under which all are regarded as equal, why introduce something alien ? By your own token, abuse is unislamic, so why would people who are not Muslims be interested in sharia.

In the final analysis if some people, whatever their race or creed, cannot accept British law, they can vote with their feet

That depends entirely on your viewpoint, whether you are a Secularist, Traditionalist, Reformer or Salafis. Then, you have to determine whether or not you will accept divinity or not within the laws.

Awesome! You've been reading up on it. Thanks.:)

A majority of people are not aware that most of sharia has no basis in the Quran and is in fact based on pre-existing legal systems of the Jews, Arabs, pagans and other societies that the Muslims came into contact with during the time period when the discourses on legal jurisprudence were written. This fact is nicely exploited by those in power by claiming that this is the "right way" to administer justice. Since many of these societies have so far been isolated from the rest of the world and have known only one way of life, a fact changing superfast with the advent of cable, there is at the moment, a phenomenal change taking place in these societies.

I think and believe that offering alternative civil jurisprudence to Muslims in modern societies like the UK can have a dramatic effect on how Muslims view their legal systems and bring such issues to the forefront of discussion, leading to change in a way that will impact Muslim societies around the world.

In places where there is education provided such change is seen immediately, the king of Jordan for example has recreated his Oxford experience by opening a co-educational Oxford-like institution in Jordan.

A majority of people are not aware that most of sharia has no basis in the Quran

Whoa! Hang on. The primary sources of Sharia Law ARE from the Quran and the Sunnah.

Whoa! Hang on. The primary sources of Sharia Law ARE from the Quran and the Sunnah.

uh-uh, that is what most people think, except those who actually look into it.

Only core principles are derived from the Quran and Hadith

What is written down as sharia is based on usul al fiqh, or the rules of jurisprudence

Uṣūl al-fiqh (Arabic: أصول الفقه) is a term which literally translates to the roots of the law and refers to the study of the origins, sources, and practice of Islamic jurisprudence. In the narrow sense, it simply refers to the question of what are the sources of Islamic law. In an extended sense, it includes the study of the philosophical rationale of the law and the procedures by which the law applicable to particular cases is derived from the sources.

Sharia is often referred to as Islamic law, but this is wrong, as only a small part is irrefutably based upon the core Islamic text, the Quran. A correct designation is "Muslim Law" (i.e. the law system of the Muslims), or "Islam-inspired", "Islam-derived," or even "the law system of Muslims."

One sees traces of many non-Muslim juridical systems in the Sharia, such as Old Arab Bedouin law, commercial law from Mecca, agrarian law from Madina, law from the conquered countries, Roman law and Jewish law.

Fiqh is the science of Sharia, and is sometimes used as synonymous with it. Fiqh is collected in a number of books which are studied by students and used by the ulama. These books are studied and interpreted according to rules found in school, madhhab, the student or learned man belongs to.

But most people belonging to the ulama cannot interpret freely the fiqh- books, this is a right reserved for the mufti, who can issue fatwas, 'legal opinions'.

According to the Usul al-fiqh (Principles of Jurisprudence), the fatwa must meet the following conditions in order to be valid:

1. The fatwa is in line with relevant legal proofs, deduced from Qur'anic verses and hadiths;
2. It is issued by a person (or a board) having due knowledge and sincerity of heart;
3. It is free from individual opportunism, and not depending on political servitude;
4. It is adequate with the needs of the contemporary world.

wiki.

Awesome! You've been reading up on it. Thanks.:)

A majority of people are not aware that most of sharia has no basis in the Quran and is in fact based on pre-existing legal systems of the Jews, Arabs, pagans and other societies that the Muslims came into contact with during the time period when the discourses on legal jurisprudence were written. This fact is nicely exploited by those in power by claiming that this is the "right way" to administer justice. Since many of these societies have so far been isolated from the rest of the world and have known only one way of life, a fact changing superfast with the advent of cable, there is at the moment, a phenomenal change taking place in these societies.

I think and believe that offering alternative civil jurisprudence to Muslims in modern societies like the UK can have a dramatic effect on how Muslims view their legal systems and bring such issues to the forefront of discussion, leading to change in a way that will impact Muslim societies around the world.

In places where there is education provided such change is seen immediately, the king of Jordan for example has recreated his Oxford experience by opening a co-educational Oxford-like institution in Jordan.

Now there's a surprise. When did Jordan inroduce saria ? Or is it the absence of sharia that accounts for the progress you refer to ?

Now there's a surprise. When did Jordan inroduce saria ? Or is it the absence of sharia that accounts for the progress you refer to ?

Umm Jordan is an Islamic country. They have a sharia court. :confused:

uh-uh, that is what most people think, except those who actually look into it.

No SAM, it is primarily the various sects of Muslims who confuse Sharia Law, not the infidels.

No SAM, it is primarily the various sects of Muslims who confuse Sharia Law, not the infidels.

I did not make the distinction, dear (Q).

Astonishing as it may seem, many Muslims are also clueless about the religion they follow. If you read my earlier post more carefully, you would realise, it is the awareness among Muslims I was addressing. ;)

Astonishing as it may seem, many Muslims are also clueless about the religion they follow.

No way!

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Everyone is a critic

/grumbles

Umm Jordan is an Islamic country. They have a sharia court. :confused:

Mu understanding is that the King has the last word and that the law is essentially the same as in most Western countries. Jordan looks to the West which makes sense if you look at where their rulers were educated. There may be some sharia influence but, if there is ,I cannot imaginre it would promote the equality of women.

Mu understanding is that the King has the last word and that the law is essentially the same as in most Western countries. Jordan looks to the West which makes sense if you look at where their rulers were educated.

Which should tell you just exactly what sharia is, ie whatever it is determined to be in any Islamic society by the ruler/government

So what determines what part of sharia is codified as law?

I couldn't care less as long as it is confined to Muslim countries, where it belongs. Any attempt tyo introduce it into a country which has fought tooth and nail to rid itself of the shackles of superstition is an affront to our society.

Muslims decided to come here and have children here. That is not a problem as we are a tolerant society. But wanting to introduce an alien system of jurisprudence is an entirtely a different matter.

I couldn't care less as long as it is confined to Muslim countries, where it belongs. Any attempt tyo introduce it into a country which has fought tooth and nail to rid itself of the shackles of superstition is an affront to our society.

Muslims decided to come here and have children here. That is not a problem as we are a tolerant society. But wanting to introduce an alien system of jurisprudence is an entirtely a different matter.

It doesn't matter what you think. You have the choice of fly by night imams abusing their privileges or a legal system open to scrutiny. The fact that Muslims in the UK are adopting the hijab while those in Jordan are shedding it should be an indication of which is better.

uh-uh, that is what most people think, except those who actually look into it.

Only core principles are derived from the Quran and Hadith

What is written down as sharia is based on usul al fiqh, or the rules of jurisprudence



Sharia is often referred to as Islamic law, but this is wrong, as only a small part is irrefutably based upon the core Islamic text, the Quran. A correct designation is "Muslim Law" (i.e. the law system of the Muslims), or "Islam-inspired", "Islam-derived," or even "the law system of Muslims."

One sees traces of many non-Muslim juridical systems in the Sharia, such as Old Arab Bedouin law, commercial law from Mecca, agrarian law from Madina, law from the conquered countries, Roman law and Jewish law.

Fiqh is the science of Sharia, and is sometimes used as synonymous with it. Fiqh is collected in a number of books which are studied by students and used by the ulama. These books are studied and interpreted according to rules found in school, madhhab, the student or learned man belongs to.

But most people belonging to the ulama cannot interpret freely the fiqh- books, this is a right reserved for the mufti, who can issue fatwas, 'legal opinions'.

According to the Usul al-fiqh (Principles of Jurisprudence), the fatwa must meet the following conditions in order to be valid:

1. The fatwa is in line with relevant legal proofs, deduced from Qur'anic verses and hadiths;
2. It is issued by a person (or a board) having due knowledge and sincerity of heart;
3. It is free from individual opportunism, and not depending on political servitude;
4. It is adequate with the needs of the contemporary world.

wiki.

That all sounds fine and dandy but can you explain why the penalty for apostacy, the right to think for onself, is death. And how about adultery and homosexuality ?

That all sounds fine and dandy but can you explain why the penalty for apostacy, the right to think for onself, is death. And how about adultery and homosexuality ?

Again, more adaptations from other cultures. Zina requires four witnesses which makes it practically unprosecutable except as solicitation.

Death for apsotacy is based on laws created under certain political regimes and has nothing to do with religion, homosexuality is from rejecting the Jewish interpretation of the story of Lot and adopting the Christian one. Also from Arabs being demonised as sodomites, which made them fall to the other end of the extreme.

edit:

Classical Hanafi doctrine holds that the capital punishment of the apostate serves mainly political aims. I quote two famous Hanafi jurists from Central Asia on this matter. The first is the eleventh-century Transoxanian jurist Sarakhsi, one of the major authorities of the Hanafi school. He says:

The change of religion and the original form of unbelief
belong to the most abominable of crimes. But [their judgment]
is a matter between God and his servant and the punishment
[of this crime] is postponed until the hereafter.
The measures advanced in this base world [and which thus
precede God's judgment] are matters of political expediency
[siyasat mashru'a] ordained by the law in order to protect
human interests" (Sarakhsi, n.d., vol. 10: 110).

In the same vein, the twelfth-century Hanafi jurist Marghinani, whose book al-Hidaya exerted a lasting influence on the Hanafi jurists of the Near East, states his position with the following words:

In principle, punishments are postponed to the hereafter
and the fact that they are advanced [so that they precede
the hereafter] violates the sense of probation [as the sense
of human life in this world]. One deviates from this principle
in order to defy a present evil and that is warfare
[against the Muslims] ('Ayni, vol. VI: 702-703). (2)

Both authors argue that the apostate's punishment is not clue to his belief but to the military and political danger that this belief may cause.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2267/is_3_70/ai_110737774/pg_4

Again, more adaptations from other cultures. Zina requires four witnesses which makes it practically unprosecutable except as solicitation.

Death for apsotacy is based on laws created under certain political regimes and has nothing to do with religion, homosexuality is from rejecting the Jewish interpretation of the story of Lot and adopting the Christian one. Also from Arabs being demonised as sodomites, which made them fall to the other end of the extreme.

edit:

A couple of nights ago I saw two Egyptian being in terviewed in a tv documentary, They had decided to become Christian , as a result of which they were subjected to all sorts of threats, including death. From what you say, this has nothing to do with religion. How do you explain the prevalence of such despicable behaviour in MUslim countries. The bottom line seems to be that Muslims are not Muslims wherever one finds them,

A couple of nights ago I saw two Egyptian being in terviewed in a tv documentary, They had decided to become Christian , as a result of which they were subjected to all sorts of threats, including death. From what you say, this has nothing to do with religion. How do you explain the prevalence of such despicable behaviour in MUslim countries. The bottom line seems to be that Muslims are not Muslims wherever one finds them,

You'll probably find the same behaviour in any place where education is not a priority. Try going to redneck USA and becoming an atheist.

You may be in favour of barbarism; we have outgrown it. You agree that if a thief steals goods above a certain value his hand should be amputated. Do you think the stolen goods should be valued at their ex-factory price, their wholsele price or their retail value. Should we allow for flutuations in our currency when working out the value of imported goods ?


I’ll tell you what is barbaric: protecting murderers, terrorists, professional criminals, drug traffickers, paedophiles and punishing innocent people. The whole legal system favours the criminal, victims do not have a voice, the whole system ignores their fears and worries, I think that is pretty sick and barbaric. Seriously, this is probably the best time in history to be a criminal – this is the criminal’s paradise! Do you actually think criminals have any fear of the law here? I know people that have lived a life crime both here (the West) and in countries out of Europe, which do you think they prefer?

And now you are playing that worn out card of the religious. The sharia means lots of things to different people. Can you explain why that is so? And at the same time , who you think is right and who wrong and for what reasons. With differing interpretations, they can't all be right, can they ?


Yes, Shariah law means lots of different things to different people. There are those that immediately think of beheadings and floggings when Shariah law is mentioned, this is often just a prejudiced or misleading position held by those with very little understanding of Shariah law.

Yes, Shariah law is harsh against criminals and yes it can deliver harsh penalties to convicted criminals but I believe that is what is best for society.

Shariah law brought order, stability and peace to Afghanistan during the reign of the Taliban, compare Afghanistan during the time it was ‘controlled’ by warlords and to when the Taliban took over. The Islamic Courts in Somalia brought order and stability through the introduction of Shariah law. When you introduce Shariah law, the innocent are emboldened, murderers, thieves, gangsters, drug traffickers etc. pay attention, they know fear! That is what every society requires.

Sorry for veering off topic.

Can you explain why that is so? And at the same time , who you think is right and who wrong and for what reasons. With differing interpretations, they can't all be right, can they ?


There are different opinions amongst scholars, however I cannot say who is right and wrong. Islam is not black and white, there could be many different scholars Worldwide with traditional scholarships however they could have slightly different opinions, views (individual differences) etc. there is nothing wrong with that, Islam embraces these differences.

You'll probably find the same behaviour in any place where education is not a priority. Try going to redneck USA and becoming an atheist.

That's beside the point. I think rednecks are uneducated disgusting people. I believe there are such types everywhere. Here in the UK we have racists who have their little parades, shouting about England for the English. Fortunately most people see them for what they are; ignorant bigots . Also, its an offence to incite others to racial hatred, so they have to be very circumspect or they find themselves in court.

None of that excuses what was happening in Egypt. I was very surprised as I regarded Egypt as leaning towards secularity because of womens' casual dress, nightclubs and so on.

You don't think there should be Jewish courts, or x courts?

Who cares what you think?I vote and that`s that. Looks like for the most part people agree with me.

A few Liberal acedemics visiting from Britian (these are the people who usually support this sort of thing) were talking openly about how enough is enough. Their assertion was that Muslims are becoming a problem group in society. Not Africans, not Chinese, not Indians, not Buddhists, not Wiccan, not New Age, not even Xians! just this "Muslim" group.


Watch for the backlash in Europe.

50pc said interracial relations were worsening interracial ??? Muslim is not a race.

This will not be too bad. If you feel you would be treated better in Sharia court then all you have to do is convert.

Yes, Shariah law is harsh against criminals and yes it can deliver harsh penalties to convicted criminals but I believe that is what is best for society. I don't, and I note that societies adopting this version of "best" seem to bear out my negative judgment.
Shariah law brought order, stability and peace to Afghanistan during the reign of the Taliban, compare Afghanistan during the time it was ‘controlled’ by warlords and to when the Taliban took over. The Islamic Courts in Somalia brought order and stability through the introduction of Shariah law. When you introduce Shariah law, the innocent are emboldened, murderers, thieves, gangsters, drug traffickers etc. pay attention, they know fear! That is what every society requires. You make sharia law sound like the Mafia code.

I thought the Russians brought better order to Afghanistan, and no less stability, than the Taliban.

Is it your contention that the Russians should have brought more fear ?

I like the interpretation of Shariah by the Salafis, even if it isn't perfect.

I will add that most people don't know what the hell Shariah even is, meaning it isn't ready to be established as a complete source of law.

[QUOTE=Ghost_007;1745314]I’ll tell you what is barbaric: protecting murderers, terrorists, professional criminals, drug traffickers, paedophiles and punishing innocent people. The whole legal system favours the criminal, victims do not have a voice, the whole system ignores their fears and worries, I think that is pretty sick and barbaric. Seriously, this is probably the best time in history to be a criminal – this is the criminal’s paradise! Do you actually think criminals have any fear of the law here? I know people that have lived a life crime both here (the West) and in countries out of Europe, which do you think they prefer?




Yes, Shariah law means lots of different things to different people. There are those that immediately think of beheadings and floggings when Shariah law is mentioned, this is often just a prejudiced or misleading position held by those with very little understanding of Shariah law.

Yes, Shariah law is harsh against criminals and yes it can deliver harsh penalties to convicted criminals but I believe that is what is best for society.

Shariah law brought order, stability and peace to Afghanistan during the reign of the Taliban, compare Afghanistan during the time it was ‘controlled’ by warlords and to when the Taliban took over. The Islamic Courts in Somalia brought order and stability through the introduction of Shariah law. When you introduce Shariah law, the innocent are emboldened, murderers, thieves, gangsters, drug traffickers etc. pay attention, they know fear! That is what every society requires.

Sorry for veering off topic.




There are different opinions amongst scholars, however I cannot say who is right and wrong. Islam is not black and white, there could be many different scholars Worldwide with traditional scholarships however they could have slightly different opinions, views (individual differences) etc. there is nothing wrong with that, Islam embraces these differences.


There is a lot wrong with it if you are on the receiving end of a subjective judgement made by a so-called scholar. Who would not prefer a law which is codified and under which everyone is equal. Shari cannot stand comparison with this as it is largely a matter of interpretation.

Which should tell you just exactly what sharia is, ie whatever it is determined to be in any Islamic society by the ruler/government

Yes but it cannot claim to be other than a series of rules or guidelines open to subjective interpretation. I have no quarrel with that as long as it is not referred to as law.

Its time like these that peoples ignorance shows its ugly face again. You do know that Sharia courts have been active, legally, in the UK for over 30 years right? You also know that law in the UK, where I am studying it, is not as clear cut as you want to paint it right? There are various degrees of interpretations on various cases and rulings handed out by variuos judges in the courts and House of Lords. Saying that Sharia does not stand in comparison because it is down to interpretation is very wrong. Rape was not defined in a marriage until the case of R v R in 91 iirc. And so there are many where the various interpretations of the judges presiding over the cases vary.

Shariah law as practiced in some instances in Saudiland is unislamic and is only given the cover of Shariah Law while it in fact just a brutal dictatorial regime oppressing any dissidents. Shariah Law is harsh on crime, hence the crime rate being low in countries practising it. Most people forget that the core of Sharia is the Quran. Anything against the Quranic teachings is automatically unislamic and not allowed in Sharia. But then again, torture is illegal according to US law and guess what happens to "terrorist suspects" :rolleyes:

Shariah Law is harsh on crime, hence the crime rate being low in countries practising it. In the first place, that isn't true - the crime rate in sharia countries is often fairly high, and the relative crime rate - the rate of deeds which would be crimes in most places, but are not counted as such in those countries - even higher.

In the second place, I'd rather have the crime than harsh theocratic laws.

Further, crime rates are only the reported and published statistics. Crimes that are not reported are not counted.

I dont think they are higher than anywhere else in the world. Thieves, murderers all know what to expect if they commit the crime.

And yes its very easy to say youd rather have the crime than the punishment dealt out to the criminals when your sitting relaxed at home without suffering any major crime. Fact of the matter is that most people nowadays want harsher punishments for crime. Just because you dont want to doesnt mean its flawed. To each their own but whats best for society is best for society.

Also, James, that would mean there are also crimes in non Sharia countries that are unreported. Now are you going to tell me those arent as high as those in sharia countries? :rolleyes:

And yes its very easy to say youd rather have the crime than the punishment dealt out to the criminals when your sitting relaxed at home without suffering any major crime.
I'm doing that in a country that doesn't have severe punitive punishments for crime.
Fact of the matter is that most people nowadays want harsher punishments for crime. Just because you dont want to doesnt mean its flawed. To each their own but whats best for society is best for society.

And scientists who study human behavior in general, and crime in specific, have repeatedly shown that there is no evidence for severe punishments having a significant effect on reducing crime. But politicians and theologians everywhere know that appealing to the human urge to punish other humans is a sure fire winner for political popularity. People enjoy the idea of punishing those who transgress, and are quick to listen to any theories that legitimize this urge, and slow to listen to any theories that undermine it. It was a widespread belief that beating children was the best way to make them behave. The fact that misbehaving children seemed to need to be beaten so often seemed to just act as evidence that prior beatings had not been severe enough. No one with any credibility believes that corporal punishment is either necessary or justified any longer.

And scientists who study human behavior in general, and crime in specific, have repeatedly shown that there is no evidence for severe punishments having a significant effect on reducing crime. But politicians and theologians everywhere know that appealing to the human urge to punish other humans is a sure fire winner for political popularity. People enjoy the idea of punishing those who transgress, and are quick to listen to any theories that legitimize this urge, and slow to listen to any theories that undermine it. It was a widespread belief that beating children was the best way to make them behave. The fact that misbehaving children seemed to need to be beaten so often seemed to just act as evidence that prior beatings had not been severe enough. No one with any credibility believes that corporal punishment is either necessary or justified any longer.

First of all, I do believe that kids need a good smack once in a while if they misbehave and this was a general consensu in my class as well during most of my time at college when we were doing Sociology. Ive had that and ive turned out fine.

Fact of the matter is that some people need to be punished. Therefore the harshest punishments are for those who inflict pain on othes or hurt them or are committing actions which are detrimental to the cohesion and harmony of the society. Some people may not learn from punishments, but that doesnt mean they shouldnt be punished.

But we digress, Dr WIlliams has been misquoted and his words twisted by the media to mean that soon Muslim wil impose Sharia law, including the burtal unislamic practices of the Saudiland regime, in the uk. That is not the case. Sharia courts have been active, legally, in the UK for over 30 years. Not any different than for example the FA or Premier League having their own tribunals.

And scientists who study human behavior in general, and crime in specific, have repeatedly shown that there is no evidence for severe punishments having a significant effect on reducing crime.

And yet, these same scientists use electric shocks as negative reinforcement (like electric shocks) in studying behaviour. Even on flies, rats and mice. How does that work out?

I vote and that`s that. Looks like for the most part people agree with me.


You’re not in a position to say that.

A few Liberal acedemics visiting from Britian (these are the people who usually support this sort of thing) were talking openly about how enough is enough. Their assertion was that Muslims are becoming a problem group in society. Not Africans, not Chinese, not Indians, not Buddhists, not Wiccan, not New Age, not even Xians! just this "Muslim" group.


Who are these 'liberal academics'? (names please) Why are they so important?

Why do you attach so much weight and importance to their views?

Their assertion was that Muslims are becoming a problem group in society. Not Africans, not Chinese, not Indians, not Buddhists, not Wiccan, not New Age, not even Xians! just this "Muslim" group.


That doesn't make sense. There is alot of overlap in the groups you have mentioned. There are many African Muslims in the UK, there are also many Indian Muslims. I always think those that say stuff like 'Muslims are becoming a problem group' are just deluded and clueless or intentionally trying to stir up hatred. There are lots of problems with British society but to throw everything on Muslims (Pakistanis, Bengalis, Indians, Somalians, Turks, Arabs, other Black and White Muslims) is insane, it simply doesn’t make sense.

Muslims make up about 2% of the UK population, they are dispersed around the UK’s major towns and cities (along with other immigrants), I think less then 10% of the UK is non-White.

Anyway, the UK has real problems to deal with, problems that actually affect the lives of others e.g. the NHS, knife and gun crime, policing, yobs, unemployment, university fees – everyday problems.

Watch for the backlash in Europe.


There will be no ‘backlash’ in Europe. After 9/11 some White supremacists gathered in order to attack Muslims however it wasn’t a major battle between Non-Muslims and Muslims, it was mindless violence - something youngsters love. Everyone hates White supremacists, all Asians, Blacks even other Whites. So when White supremacists want a fight, everyone wants a piece, you’ll have people driving half way down the country in order to get involved. In reality, Asians fight against eachother e.g. Pakistanis against Indians (Sikhs), Sikhs against Sikhs, Muslims against Muslims, Asians (both Muslims and Sikhs) fight against Blacks, Blacks fight against Blacks and so on. Most of the guys that get involved in this mindless violence are uneducated people with no jobs and nothing to lose. When these guys reach a certain age, get married and start working they move on, it’s a cycle though. Many people living out of the UK completely misunderstand these riots. When there is rioting and whatnot, it doesn’t have a major impact on the country. Half my mates are Non-Muslim, when there is trouble it has no effect whatsoever on our friendship. That’s what its like with most normal people.

I don’t see any major backlash, I’m not worried one bit. Muslims (Pakistanis, Bengalis, Indians, Arabs, Turks, Somalians etc.) are far too entrenched in British society. Britain needs the political, economical support of these communities.

You make sharia law sound like the Mafia code.


Really? I must be doing something wrong or you simply do not understand what I’ve been saying.

I’m not talking about random people being punished for a crime they did not commit. People would only sent to prison or whatever if they were convicted of committing a crime – there would be an actual process in place, evidence would be required, proper investigations would have to be undertaken.

I thought the Russians brought better order to Afghanistan, and no less stability, than the Taliban.


The Soviets were the invaders, no Muslim can just sit around while their country has been invaded, it is a duty to fight back. Once the Soviets were sent packing, civil war ensued in Afghanistan, the Taliban came and put an end to all of that - their rise was phenomenal.

Is it your contention that the Russians should have brought more fear ?


What has that got to do with anything?

In the second place, I'd rather have the crime than harsh theocratic laws.


I find that very hard to believe.