There’s been a scandal in the UK recently about the comments of an archbishop who suggested that Sharia Law should be implemented. Of course, that’s about as far as a great part of the media takes it, with that period after that sentiment. Apart from the headline grabbing nature of the statement, it is easy to see the point he was trying to make; the muslims in this country often resort to personal vendettas and ‘homemade courts’. So much for the ‘dont try this at home’ warning. These affairs often get pretty messy, and the bishop’s comment was preceded by a number of stories of ‘fatwas’ and ‘family dishonor’ stories where, for example, the daughter marries a non-Indian/Pakistani and she ends up being hunted and basically imprisoned by her fundamentalist family…in England.
What the bishop was suggesting was that with the legalization of a sharia system in England, sharia courts for muslims alongside the traditional ones, these messy stories would be lessened and the sentiments would instead be channeled through a government regulated exclusively muslim system.
What I am curious about, however, is to ask, could this be the beginning of a government within a government? Has cultural sensitivism gone too far? It is often rightly argued that a Christian in a muslim society is subject to the same laws (i.e. the woman must still cover herself up, she can not open a liquor store even strictly for christians), but then again, Christians also don’t form a significant part of any of these societies. I personally am biased towards the anti religious sentiments, as I think these people have very clear means of returning to the cultures that reflect their own behavior and have no reason to stay in a culture/nation whose values are contrary to theirs; but they don’t, they like the personal liberalism regardless of their own behavior.
So, is the setting up of a sharia law system strictly for muslims (and not all muslims are practicing muslims) parallel to the traditional secular western system justifiable?
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, certainly created a firestorm with his comments. It seems that the majority of British society does not want to go down that road, of incorporating aspects of sharia law into British Civil law. I like what Lord Carey, the form Archbishop, said: “There can be no exception to the laws of our land, which have been so painfully honed by the struggle for democracy and human rightsâ€.
Sharia law doesn’t make secular sense, the secular sense democracy depends on and Britain thrives on.
Having said that, I am sure there are aspects of sharia law that could and do help in mediating domestic disputes. Some of these aspects may be very familiar to those who practices mediating domestic disputes and are already recognized and used by those who straddle disputes within and without the Muslim community.
I’m not familiar with the UKs legal system enough to say.
An example from the [my countries] past would be the Christian Temperance movement which gave us the lovely idea of the prohibition of alcohol. Pretty sure that’s in perfect alignment with Shari’ah Law as well.
I dunno, maybe we could even blame on teh jooz and Mosaic Law.
If I support a “right to life,” it will not be from “God’s laws” via Moses’ chisel.
I am also an American and no expert with the UK legal system either.
I agree with you on the alcohol prohibition laws. I would also add that our drug prohibition laws are a continuation of that prohibition era. I invite anyone to study the prohibition literature from the late 19th and early 20th century. Groups like the Methodist Episcopal “Board of Temperence, Prohibition, and Public Morals” were against the “liquor traffic”. Narcotics, opium, etc. trailed behind. When alcohol prohibition failed they just shifted over to narcotics. Also, the “wets”, many of them Christians, began demonizing opium in order to make their “alcohol” look more respectable.
Many of the Protestant prohibitionist’s, the “dry’s”, put liquor and opium in the same moral camp. I say opium and not cannabis because I’m borrowing their terms.
I wouldn’t blame prohibition on the Jews or the bible, though. The bible limits, but does not prohibit intoxicants.
Stop the messy parts? With the fragmented knowledge I have would that not mean they could legally condemn a woman or others to stonings, whippings and such? How does that end the mess? Civil law is for all and there should not be a cultural seperation of laws. Seems to me that it would make it a whole lot messier.
As I said, the comment was in response to a series of ‘islamic horror stories’ where the families of the girls do a variety of things to the girls they disown, including murder, but that’s not even the worst of it. The comment as I interpret it was meant to say, regulate this behavior through some legal controlled channel. Of course, this will never sit with a non-islamic society, and I’m glad for that, but the comment was strictly directed towards the muslim society (and then again, there are a number of non-practicing muslims or those who’ve secretly renounced their faith). I personally think any person of a certain culture that enters another culture should be willing to submit to it. These people from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia that come here and still practice that same behavior and express disgust/hatred for western culture, or even the ones that don’t but whose values are obviously contrary to western ones, have no reason to be here. In my uni, there’s a number of women with moustaches, full covering and no-hair-showing head scarfs, and there’s even quite a number of women with full face covering burqas! This is despicable; these women don’t need the freedom to not indulge in freedom. They can find it in Saudi Arabia, freely. Coming from a country that has had islamic law forced upon it, and whose people visibly suffer as a result, seeing this stirs the most negative sentiments but I don’t know, I am perhaps right wing in these matters.
I can’t advocate a system where the legal value of two women equals that of one man, or one where one’s hands are cut off for theft, but I would like someone to specifically expose some positive points, as I don’t believe there is such a thing as a wholly faulty system.
As I have heard, the courts in Britain allow for the use of Jewish law in mediating domestic disputes like divorce and the raising of childern. Sharia law may be applied in the same way. It could also be used, as I already think it is, in a de-facto manner, to resolve business disputes between partners and other disgruntled parties.
I see, I think that was perhaps the bishop’s motive for saying it. Although it seems that most people and even himself are now confused about what he was “really” saying. I found this article, which I think takes a fairly unbiased view on the matter: nytimes.com/2008/02/17/weeki … ?ref=world
The most notable part of it I think is the following:
[That notion has met resistance where Islam is involved. After the authorities in Ontario raised the possibility that arbitrators might use Shariah to settle family disputes, formal recognition of all religious arbitrations there, including existing Catholic and Jewish ones, was withdrawn.
“There will be one law for all Ontarians,†Dalton McGuinty, the province’s premier, said in 2005.
Almost no one suggests that criminal law should take into account the defendant’s religion in meting out punishment. At the other extreme, few people object to allowing purely commercial disputes between sophisticated businesspeople to be adjudicated through private arbitrations. The hard questions, as the archbishop learned, arise in the area of family law, where the agreement to arbitrate may be uninformed or obtained by duress. State courts have occasionally refused to enforce separation agreements reached through bet din arbitrations on the ground that the woman involved had been pressured into participating.
Once consent is given, moreover, questions arise about whether and when it may be withdrawn. “People have a right in Western systems to change religions,†said Douglas Laycock, a law professor at the University of Michigan. “Can they opt out after the dispute arises or after the judgment is given?â€]
I think it is a great debate the archbishop started. Perhaps some Islamic scholars are also listening to it, that it isn’t just one sided, just ‘preaching to the choir’. Perhaps it will add to the reformation that is long over due in Islam, to separate its religion and politics. The debate can also be meaningful to the rest of us in that it highlights the fact that we Christians should also be cautious about mixing our religion and politics.
I don’t think it can be justified. If you were to come to a Western nation you should have to integrate with the rest of the culture. We shouldn’t have to change our ways. Our ways aren’t that hard to follow…
Islam was put together during a time where you had to have militaristic ways in able to survive. It was either you did and had a chance or you didn’t and your tribe died off. If you practice Islam i’m sorry your living in the wrong time period. You could change it so it could mesh with this time period. I however don’t see that happening since mohammod’s revelations were supposed to be absolute. Honestly though the religion was built around THAT time period!
Christianity was built to last throughout the ages. Despite the 50+ millions of people dead because of it by the vatican…
I guess what i’m saying is if you come to a western nation intergrate with the culture. If you don’t whats the point of migrating to that land if you’ll be doing the same thing you were trying to get away from…? Our courts work if we tried to make them work, even though they’re not really courts anymore. All “peoples” courts ceased to exist in the 1930’s as did all western nations. Sharia law should stay with the Arabic countries.
You have taken on the name Fox. And according to a philosophical axiom a fox knows many things. That means a fox understands a complex world and its many variables. But with your argument above you don’t seem to follow that axion, about the fox knowing many things. On the contrary, it is a very narrow and simplistic view.
That is why i’m still learning never said I knew everything. I’m not for globalization but if you are then welcome sharia law to England humbly as thats where all this is leading to. That doesn’t mean my mind won’t change i’m open minded thats just how I feel now…
You do realize that stoning is also allowed in Christianity? Just an example. “Islam was put together during a time where you had to have militaristic ways in able to survive.” in return, Christianity was put together during a time where you had to have an idol in order to convert people, hence Jesus’ transformation into God. The view that islam was built for a specific time period whereas Christianity is eternal is immeasurably biased and uninformed. Modern christianity is for the most part, at least here, softened christianity due to the separation of politics from religion and the strength of the secular movement. Where’d you get the 50million people figure? And over what time period is that supposed to be? The above is more of a reactionary argument than a personal analysis of the legal situation of devout muslims in non-muslim countries. I don’t like sharia law, and I don’t believe anyone here does either, but to think that Christianity is infallible as a result is illogical, or that there are no positive aspects of the sharia system. What exactly are ‘peoples courts’ and how did they and western nations cease to exist in the 1930s, or is that a grammatical error?
I’m not christian first and foremost. Christianity was supposed to be a loving religion while Islam was built to be more militaristic (although that can be debatable I suppose) Both religions are infallible obviously since their religions. The 50 million is an estimated number and it’s for the middle/dark ages. (I’m not going to say thats 100% accurate though) Peoples courts in my definiton are courts where you have a jury of peers not random jury. Most Western Nations ceased to exist when we declared bankruptcy.
