Dr Williams wants some aspects of Sharia law with in the UK legal system.

[sandy]

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.

[Vega]

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.

[S.A.M.]

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?

[Myles]

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.

[sandy]

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

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

[Myles]

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.

[Myles]

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

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.

[Myles]

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.

[S.A.M.]

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.

[(Q)]

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.

[S.A.M.]

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?

[(Q)]

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.

[Myles]

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

[S.A.M.]

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.

[(Q)]

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.

[S.A.M.]

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.

[Myles]

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 ?

[S.A.M.]

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.

[(Q)]

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.

[S.A.M.]

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.